Minimal Damage by Weapons or Spells

[JohnPaulB]

From https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=193088

Originally Posted by Drakenbow

Yes, I noted this was discussed in at least two different threads over five years, but I wish to beat the 'dead horse' about it.

In the Legacy core rules, p.18 & p.24, and again mentioned on p.135, the Magic Fist and Fireball spells do a minimum damage equal to the amount of ST up to three ST for a minimum of 3 damage. This however is not mentioned on p.108 for rolling for damage (not really an issue since it is clearly mentioned in three other places at least).

In the weapons chart p.109-110 has various weapons with a minus to the dice.

Note that the Rapier will one die damage for a minimum of 1 point of damage, while the Saber does 2-2. This is a range of 0 to 10. Sure the Saber does more topside, but why would hitting with what is meant to be a superior weapon doing less?

Look at the Bastard Sword. One-handed it does 2+1 for a minimum of 3 points. Yet using it two-handed it now does less with 3-2 dice, for 1 point minimum?

I find this disjointed for weapon damage progression that some end up being potentially inferior on the minimum when a hit was scored. To me and pulling from under Armor and Shields on p.108, that isn't being successful.

The way I am extrapolating from the Missile Spells would be that the number of dice rolled is the minimum a weapon hit.

This definitely increases the serious nature of multiple shakens against an unarmored foe. The damage range would be 1 to 4, average of 2 points if one considers the minimum of 1 damage (rolling 1 to 6 would be 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, and 4).

The Bastard Sword would one-handed do 3 to 13, and two-handed would do 3 (no back slide) to 16. Progression puts the twohanded sword at 3 to 17.

When I think hit, I think some kind of damage. The mitagating factor ends up being armor which goes a long way when that high DX character throws six shaken your way.

I noted a few people thinking 1 minimal damage on a hit, others stick with a zero is a zero. When contemplating the Missile Spells minimum damage rules, does anyone feel different about weapon minimum damage?

Thanks

I moved this to House Rules, to discuss this further.

Originally Posted by Drakenbow

In the weapons chart p.109-110 has various weapons with a minus to the dice.

Note that the Rapier will one die damage for a minimum of 1 point of damage, while the Saber does 2-2. This is a range of 0 to 10.

OK, for those who are frustrated that after doing the subtractions, a weapon that HIT might do no damage before armor. You might feel that it should do something.

So perhaps any 0 point DAMAGE could become 1 point Fatigue damage. Consider it hitting with the flat of the blade. You know, a big bruise. It's not healable, and it disappears after a 15 minute rest. And any armor can stop it.

This way you get something that is not a permanent damage, but still can consider you actually did something.

[Steve Plambeck]

Ah goodie! A place to suggest actual changes...

To avoid 0 or even negative damage results entirely, every damage roll formula would have to have a minus amount no greater than the number of dice less one. That would tend to scale up damages at the low end. 1d6 could have no minus component, 2d6 could have -1, 3d6 could start as low as -2, etc. All to assure every roll does a minimum damage of 1.

Then the progression of damages in the Weapons Table would look like:

ST < 8: 1d6
ST 09: 1+1
ST 10: 1+2
ST 11: 2-1
ST 12: 2
ST 13: 2+1
ST 14: 2+2
ST 15: 3-2
ST 16: 3-1
ST 17: 3
ST 18: 3+1
ST 19: 3+2
ST 20: 3+3
ST 21: 4-3
ST 22: 4-2
etc

But is something like that what we really want? The progression above the middle needs some tampering so the average damage always goes up with ST, which it doesn't here. Correct for that by swapping a few of those around, but then maximum damage sometimes goes down with a step up in ST. These are the vagaries of a d6 system.

[phiwum]

Sorry, where do you think the average damage steps down as ST increases? I didn't think that was the case.

Ah, never mind. I missed that you're stepping from 2d+2 to 3d-2. The former has an average of 9, while the latter 8.5.

In RAW, we have a step from 2d+1 to 3d-2 (one-handed bastard sword to two-handed) and from 2d+2 to 3d (Great Hammer to Battle Axe). We never see a step from 2d+2 to 3d-2.

You could, of course, just go from 2d+2 to 3d-1 or 2d+1 to 3d-2 to miss this troublesome spot. I haven't thought about whether it might appear at even higher values.

[Drakenbow]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Ah, never mind. I missed that you're stepping from 2d+2 to 3d-2. The former has an average of 9, while the latter 8.5.

In RAW, we have a step from 2d+1 to 3d-2 (one-handed bastard sword to two-handed) and from 2d+2 to 3d (Great Hammer to Battle Axe). We never see a step from 2d+2 to 3d-2.

However, what he does seem to be missing appears to be the transition from one-handed weapons to two-handed weapons. That's why the high end damage of the 2H Bastard Sword is higher (3-2 => 16 vs 2+1 => 13). As one-handed weapons ST 14 should be ST 17 for the Two-handed Swords and Great Hammers, right? ref p. 15.

and using a Battle Ax one-handed is at ST 18, while using a Great Sword one-handed happens at ST 19.

[Drakenbow]

For One-Handed Swords and Maces/Axes the progression when looking at the ST chart for bare handed is like this. Bare handed damage being the base while the weapon damage and what modifier applied to get it. Last time I tried doing a chart the formating didn't hold so I used some ".." to help keep some formating. The "xxx" is when no one handed weapon is found for that ST.

The weapon is essentially a modifier to the ST damage.

ST...BH....Swd...Mod......M/Ax...Mod
<8..1-4....1-1...0+3......1-1...0+3 (dagger & club)
09..1-3....1+0...0+3......1+0...0+3 (Rapier & Hachet)
10..1-3....2-2...1+1......1+1...0+4 (Saber & Hammer)
11..1-2....2-1...1+1......2-1...1+1 (Short Sword & Mace)
11..1-2....xxx...xxx......1+2...0+4 (& Small Ax)
12..1-2....2+0...1+2......2+0...1+2
13..1-1....2+1...1+2......2+1...1+2
14..1-1....xxx...xxx.......xxx...xxx
15..1+0....xxx...xxx.......xxx...xxx
16..1+0....3-2...2-2.......xxx...xxx (Bastard Sword from 2h use to 1h)
17..1+1....3-1...2-2......2+2...1+1 (2handed Sword & Great Hammer*)
18..1+1....xxx...xxx......3+0---2-1 (Battle Axe one handed)
19..1+1...3+1...2+0......xxx...xxx (great sword one handed)

*The Great Hammer is one which IMO does follow the progression of the damage.

The flow goes up roughly +1 for every two ST (odd ST) for bare handed attacks, and the modifier goes up roughly +1 every two ST (even ST) but alternates with the bare handed damage chart. This is UP TO the ST of 17. As you all can note, the ST chart for bare handed attacks changes the steps of progression at 17, at 25, and again at 30.

Hopefully, y'all can follow my thoughts.

[Axly Suregrip]

I like simple, so here is a simple solution. BTW, I don't mind the 0 damage but I like this solution enough I am considering it.

- All weapons: minimum damage of 1. (regardless of number of dice)

- Fists and natural weapons: minimum damage of 0.


That is it. I said it is simple.

It does affect the low end weapons a lot: sha-ken stars, sling, thrown rock, spike shield and net. It is probably good that slings become more viable as it should historically speaking. Lower ST character will benefit the most.

A couple of the weapons that benefit seemed like they were intended to sometime miss in damage or become unbalanced with a minimum of 1. Spike shield, thrown rock and net to me seem like they should remain at 0 but I prefer a simple rule and these do not come up often. Sha-ken throwing stars are the biggest concern. With each star doing a minimum of 1, unarmored targets can now get torn apart. Maybe.

Keeping the 0 on animal attacks keeps the balance on envenomation and small animals remaining a nuisance.


The affect on players may add to importance of armor. Even more characters will want at least Cloth Armor. Armor your wizards or anyone that can throw stones will chip away at his spell casting through wounds.

It also makes punishments like 40 lashes with a whip or stoning (everyone gets to throw a stone) much deadlier.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

I like simple, so here is a simple solution. BTW, I don't mind the 0 damage but I like this solution enough I am considering it.

- All weapons: minimum damage of 1. (regardless of number of dice)

- Fists and natural weapons: minimum damage of 0.


That is it. I said it is simple.

It does affect the low end weapons a lot: sha-ken stars, sling, thrown rock, spike shield and net. It is probably good that slings become more viable as it should historically speaking. Lower ST character will benefit the most.

A couple of the weapons that benefit seemed like they were intended to sometime miss in damage or become unbalanced with a minimum of 1. Spike shield, thrown rock and net to me seem like they should remain at 0 but I prefer a simple rule and these do not come up often. Sha-ken throwing stars are the biggest concern. With each star doing a minimum of 1, unarmored targets can now get torn apart. Maybe.

Keeping the 0 on animal attacks keeps the balance on envenomation and small animals remaining a nuisance.


The affect on players may add to importance of armor. Even more characters will want at least Cloth Armor. Armor your wizards or anyone that can throw stones will chip away at his spell casting through wounds.

It also makes punishments like 40 lashes with a whip or stoning (everyone gets to throw a stone) much deadlier.

I concur. You don't need complicated solutions to mitigate the possibility of 0 damage rolls. As you say, it will help the lower ST characters. However, I don't see a huge functional difference. In my game, most PCs and active NPCs tend to have, at least, one armor point via cloth armor, shield, or toughness. Only completely unarmored characters would affected by your simple and, in my opinion, desirable solution.

I will probably still allow the 0 damage possibilities per ITL. If I were to start imposing a minimum of 1 point damage, I would do it as you suggest except, I probably would not make any distinctions for more natural weapons. It would be a minimum of 1 point across the board. If your going to take the simple approach, that would be the most simple way to do it.

Most of the time, unless there are really extreme things happening, I prefer smallest changes to RAW that achieves a goal for a house rule. If you have many pages of house rules, I have to ask the question, "Are you still playing TFT?"

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

If you have many pages of house rules, I have to ask the question, "Are you still playing TFT?"

LOL! Hard to argue with that.

[TippetsTX]

I think it might also be interesting if there was more to a 'hit' than just ST damage.

For example...

• Sha-ken hits that serve as a distraction (apply a temporary DX penalty)
• Club strike that leaves you dazed (temporary IQ penalty or loss of action)
• Something else that causes the target to stumble (temporary MA penalty)

I've also been thinking about where it might make sense to apply rules for spell disruption, but I wouldn't want that to be too onerous.

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

If you have many pages of house rules, I have to ask the question, "Are you still playing TFT?"

Yes I am.
;P

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

If you have many pages of house rules, I have to ask the question, "Are you still playing TFT?"

Haha! Now that's a question for my old 70s~90s game group. We had over 100 pages of TFT house rules -- a royal pain in the butt too. I know because I'd volunteered to be editor and keep it all neatly typed up and copied for everyone in the group. And this was all still done on a typewriter!

But in our defense, we were early to the game and came up with most of that when only Wizard and Melee were in print. So climbing, jumping, swimming, riding, etc, etc were all things we needed rules for before ITL and the Advanced rules were available. When those books did come out, we cherry-picked between rules we'd been using and the new RAW. So many of our house rules foreshadowed what was in ITL and Advanced Melee, I'd say we were effectively playing TFT, but others might not.