Damage Rolls with a Minus Modifier: Minimum 0 or 1?

[flankspeed]

Weapons such as the Cutlass do 2D-2 damage, and bare hands can conceivably do 1D-2 damage or less. When such modifiers reduce the damage rolled to 0 or less, does the attack do a minimum of 1 Hit, or can the modifier actually make a damage roll do 0 Hits before armor is taken into consideration?

I looked in the Damage Roll sections of Melee and Advanced Melee, but could not find a ruling on this. GURPS seems to distinguish blunt and edged/pointed damage rolls as being different, but TFT makes no such distinction.

Does anyone know what the rules-as-written intend? If not, then how have you ruled on this?

[luguvalium]

My house rule was that a fighter with advanced training always did at least one point of damage.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by flankspeed

... Does anyone know what the rules-as-written intend? If not, then how have you ruled on this?

Hi Flankspeed,
In the rules as written weapons can do zero damage. There is no distinction between piercing and cutting damage.

In my campaign, weapons that do deep punctures, do damage like 3d-6 and those that do cuts or big trauma do damage like 1d+2. No new rules, but piercing weapons do a wider range of damage and tend to be more 'swingier'.

Warm regards, Rick.

[The Wyzard]

If you wanted to rule that any successful hit did at least one damage (perhaps before applying warrior/veteran/armor reduction), it wouldn't actually break anything.

[Anomylous]

I think it would be reasonable to say it depends on the weapon type. Maybe any sharp or pointy weapon will do at least 1 point of damage if it hits, but a bare-handed attack or simple club can roll a 0 for damage.

[Jim Kane]

We play it that attacks against an unarmored figure do a minimum of 1 pip of damage; so that way - especially bare-handed - it does not take all night to beat the typical tavern scum into unconsciousness. Also, with a 1 pip of damage minimum, it allows you to generally not kill typical tavern scum... unintentionally.

JK

[Skarg]

(Note that the Taking Prisoners rule in AM already says that you can do full-damage bare handed attacks that won't take anyone to 0 unless you are trying to kill them.)

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by flankspeed

Weapons such as the Cutlass do 2D-2 damage, and bare hands can conceivably do 1D-2 damage or less. When such modifiers reduce the damage rolled to 0 or less, does the attack do a minimum of 1 Hit, or can the modifier actually make a damage roll do 0 Hits before armor is taken into consideration?

I looked in the Damage Roll sections of Melee and Advanced Melee, but could not find a ruling on this. GURPS seems to distinguish blunt and edged/pointed damage rolls as being different, but TFT makes no such distinction.

Does anyone know what the rules-as-written intend? If not, then how have you ruled on this?

I play that a Cutlass 2d-2 capability (or similar weapon) that results in a 0, is a hit that doesn't hurt the person: A thin scar on the face, a sliced boot, an arrow impaling the bible in his pocket and bruising his chest, being hit by the flat part of the blade, could be some examples.

Perhaps a way to include the damage concept, but not making it permanent, is to make it a Fatigue damage.

• Joe hits Sam with his cutlass, rolls a 3 and 1 point of damage goes into Sam.
  
• Joe hits Sam with his cutlass, rolls a 2 and 0 points of damage goes into Sam. Convert that 0 damage to 1 point of fatigue.

This rare instance of a 0 damage roll now has some effect, a bruise perhaps or just being winded, and the fatigue contributes to the risk of dying. It can't be healed away, but its not permanent either.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

I play that a Cutlass 2d-2 capability (or similar weapon) that results in a 0, is a hit that doesn't hurt the person: A thin scar on the face, a sliced boot, an arrow impaling the bible in his pocket and bruising his chest, being hit by the flat part of the blade, could be some examples.

Perhaps a way to include the damage concept, but not making it permanent, is to make it a Fatigue damage.

• Joe hits Sam with his cutlass, rolls a 3 and 1 point of damage goes into Sam.
  
• Joe hits Sam with his cutlass, rolls a 2 and 0 points of damage goes into Sam. Convert that 0 damage to 1 point of fatigue.

This rare instance of a 0 damage roll now has some effect, a bruise perhaps or just being winded, and the fatigue contributes to the risk of dying. It can't be healed away, but its not permanent either.

I've toyed with the idea of a minimum of 1 point of damage for damage rolls that have a negative component but have simply left it at a minimum of 0 points damage. The Magic Fist spell specifically states minimum damage equal to the ST put into the spell. So, unless otherwise stated, minimum damage of 0. If a GM wanted to put a minimum of 1 point damage on such rolls, I wouldn't call that as being wrong-headed on it. We experimented with minimum damage of 1 point in our Classic TFT days and it didn't disrupt the balance of the universe. However, we tended to stick with the minimum of 0 unless otherwise stated approach. The thought was that there are times that even a hit would yield 0 points of damage for a variety of reasons such as the ones that you mentioned.

Your idea of a 0 point hit causing 1 point of fatigue is very interesting -- I never looked at it from that angle. It does have the same general effect in combat as a minimum damage of 1 and becomes another point of accounting that the GM and players must take on. So, it is up for a GM rule so far as what they are willing to do.

[TippetsTX]

I'm OK with idea that certain weapons have the potential for ZERO damage on a successful hit, but I've always thought it was a mistake to put weapons like the cutlass/saber, javelins and the short bow in that category.