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

[flankspeed]

I find it very fascinating how we all have different takes on so many of the rules.

Since TFT makes no distinction between damage types, and I see no reason to single out weapons such as the cutlass to possibly do zero damage, I have thought that the minimum damage on any damage roll is one, even for bare hands.

I’m not claiming this is the “only” or “best” or “correct” way to rule on this. I just don’t see TFT making any distinction on damage types, so if I don’t want a cutlass to do zero damage, then I feel a need to have bare hands also do a minimum of one damage.

[Skarg]

Yeah, it is interesting. What I actually don't like is the opposite: weapons that always do at least 1 damage, or worse, that do a high minimum damage. Having hit things with axe and sword and just bumped the target with the side of the blade or scratched the surface or something, I like the possibility of light effects, and don't like people always being able to count on doing a certain amount of damage. Though, I don't usually play with house rules to achieve that, except in computer versions.

[Jim Kane]

Like so many things, it all depends on what kind of game you want.

I have found that most folks tweak the RAW in some manner or other, to make the game perform the way they want it to perform for them.

Kind of like when the recipe is: "Seasoned to Taste"; which someone expressed so well earlier today.

JK

[JLV]

I agree with Skarg on this -- it seems to me the intent of the rule is pretty self-evident, and I wouldn't want to tamper with it.

Having said that, I really like Rick's idea for differing damage amounts and modifiers based on the weapon type (with wildly varying damages possible for a specific category of weapons ("impaling" versus "bludgeoning").

I have previously requested he post his revised weapons table here to show us what he means in detail, but so far he hasn't done so. Maybe if one of you asks him?

[flankspeed]

GURPS has concussive, slashing, and piercing damage types. If I wanted that level of detail in TFT, I would simply play GURPS instead. I prefer to keep TFT simple. However, I will support anyone else adding this detail to their game if it makes them happy.

I have been thinking about a master table that shows the relationship of ST to bare-hand damage, HTH damage, Unarmed Combat damage, one-hand weapon damage, and two-hand weapon damage. You would be able to look at the table to see how much damage you could do, and it wouldn’t matter whether the weapon was a sword or an axe.

It would not need to become part of the rules, but it could be helpful. It might also be of use in the thread about bare-hand attacks and the ST-based damage table. If I can get it together, I would post it.

[JLV]

I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to explain someone else's idea here, but the reason I like the idea behind Rick's Weapons table (and this assumes here that I understood his original explanation of it), is because the ONLY thing it changes is the nature of the damage inflicted by the various weapons, and it does so by changing the number of potential damage points inflicted by a given weapon. So, instead of Broadsword being 2d, it becomes 3d-6 -- because it's a "stabby" weapon instead of a "beaty" one. In effect, piercing weapons have the potential to do much greater (or much less) damage as they strive to penetrate vital organs and either hit or miss them, while crushing weapons do lower levels of overall damage, but are much more consistent in their results (because they're going to crush something, no matter where they hit).

This seems like an elegant solution to the issue of differing types of damage that requires precisely zero additional rules. All it does is change the number of dice rolled on the weapons table. Not a single other rule needs to change.

Again, this presupposes that I'm describing his weapons table accurately; but we have to remember I'm going off one brief explanation, his recent example here above, and no actual readings of his table. If I'm correct in my interpretation, however, then this would actually be a potentially brilliant solution to a situation that GURPS requires several pages of rules to describe...

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by JLV

...
I have previously requested he post his revised weapons table here to show us what he means in detail, but so far he hasn't done so. Maybe if one of you asks him?

Hi JLV, everyone.
Thanks for the kind words JLV.

I didn't post my weapon's table because it is too big and complicated for the new TFT, I can not imagine that Steve would consider it. I've tried hard not to clutter up this forum with impossible suggestions.

If I were to suggest two changes to the TFT weapon table they would be:

1) Bows do one less damage across the board. Being able to project damage is huge, and bows are pretty easy to get to shoot twice per turn, DOUBLING their damage compared to regular weapons. I've lowered their damage and they still get used.. a lot.

2) Two handed weapons do an extra point of damage. Giving up a shield is a big deal (especially since I think Steve has said he will give a talent to beef up shields), and having two hands for leverage should do more damage.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by JLV

... the idea behind Rick's Weapons table (and this assumes here that I understood his original explanation of it), is because the ONLY thing it changes is the nature of the damage inflicted by the various weapons, and it does so by changing the number of potential damage points inflicted by a given weapon. ...

Hi JLV,
Yes you are correct. Steve Jackson wrote long ago that a rapier could do more damage than a broad sword, but he was going to ignore that and keep TFT simple. But WHY could a rapier do more damage? Well if it pierced a vital organ or major artery you would die fast. Of course most pokes would not hit anything critical and the small hole does less tissue trauma than a large cut.

I decided that 'piercing' weapons tended to do either a lot or a little damage.

So I went thru my weapon table and made piercing weapons do damage like 3d-6. So the range of possible damage goes up a lot. Quite often they do little or no damage, but once in a while they do a LOT of damage.

Where as blunt impact weapons and cutting weapons do damage like 1d+3. Much more predictable.

I like this. NO new rules at all. But the weapon table has more variety and some weapons are more 'swingy' than others.

***
Post Script.

JLV, if you wanted to look at my weapon's list for your own interest, rather than suggesting I submit it to the forum for consideration, you can find it here on the Brainiac site.

https://tft.brainiac.com/RicksTFT/We...loadableFiles/

(Since that was posted, I've revised the table again. More daggers, and I've beefed up pole weapons a bit. Gunpowder weapons have been moved into a 12 page supplement. I need to put the updated rules on the page some time.)

Warm regards, Rick

[Chris Rice]

I'm happy that some Weapons can do zero damage in the RAW, never had a problem with that, its more about the maximum and average damage of a weapon. So a broadsword is Max 12 Average 7. A Cutlass is Max 10 Average 5. The fact that a cutlass may occasionally do zero damage doesn't bother me.

I've added all sorts of flavour and details to the weapons rules over the years but anything along these lines should be kept out of the base rules and reserved for Advanced options because they won't suit everyone.

[flankspeed]

I like Steve's "keep it simple" approach even though the wargamer in me cries out for more detail. I even made up a table of ST-based damage for bare hands, daggers, clubs, etc., so I could satisfy myself that it was balanced, but it is too big to fit in the comment window. Maybe with some reformatting I could condense it enough to fit since I was pretty generous with my spacing.

Anyway, I could see the value in changing how damage is inflicted or calculated, but if any weapon can do zero damage, then I would like all weapons to have a chance of doing zero damage.

It all depends on perspective and how much detail is added. I would say that a blunt weapon can actually do zero damage too, because if it just barely grazes the surface of the skin, it might not even leave much of a bruise.

But a sharp blade can barely nick the jugular vein or some major artery and cause potentially lethal bleeding without doing massive damage to tissue or bone.

I think my only point is that Steve ought to leave things simple in the rules because we can always house-rule the game to our heart's content.