is there a minimum damage? how...

[Chris Rice]

It never even occurred to me that anyone would think there was "minimum damage" so I don't know where this idea came from.

The rules are clear. 2d6-2 (for example) has a range from 0-10; you roll 2 dice and take 2 from the result. That's it. Simple.

With Wizardry, I can see the argument for minimum damage, as the Wizard has had to expend their own ST to cause the damage. It wasn't in the original rules, so I don't really care for it, but I can live with it if needs be. I may just ignore it.

[JLV]

I fully concur with Chris on this -- the very idea of minimum damage is odd to me, and frankly, it's odd on the Wizardry side of things too. Sometimes you just blow your skill roll and waste the time and energy/effort you put into trying to do something. Spells are no different. You somehow muffed the casting and them's the breaks.

[hcobb]

When does minimum damage take effect?

Goblin fires a fine arrow (+1 damage) that is poisoned and branded from a small bow (nominally 1d-1) and rolls a 1 on the damage die against cloth armor. Roll for poison damage or not?

Note that the arrow itself costs $10 (fine) + $60 (branded) + $200 (weapon poison) so use the highest DX archer.

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by hcobb

When does minimum damage take effect?

Goblin fires a fine arrow (+1 damage) that is poisoned and branded from a small bow (nominally 1d-1) and rolls a 1 on the damage die against cloth armor. Roll for poison damage or not?

Note that the arrow itself costs $10 (fine) + $60 (branded) + $200 (weapon poison) so use the highest DX archer.

Not sure what you're talking about. All damage modifiers are added together at the same time. So (1d6 -1, +1) is just 1d6 as the modifiers cancel each other out. In the example you quoted the die roll is 1, the modifiers cancel each other out, so the damage stays at 1. Cloth armour stops 1 hit, so the armour fails to penetrate and the poison has no effect.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Not sure what you're talking about. All damage modifiers are added together at the same time. So (1d6 -1, +1) is just 1d6 as the modifiers cancel each other out. In the example you quoted the die roll is 1, the modifiers cancel each other out, so the damage stays at 1. Cloth armour stops 1 hit, so the armour fails to penetrate and the poison has no effect.

The fire damage adds a point so the poison takes effect, right?

[gpoehlein]

Originally Posted by hcobb

The fire damage adds a point so the poison takes effect, right?

As a GM, going strictly by the rules, I would rule that the arrow’s tip did not penetrate the target’s armor, so the character is not poisoned. The fire damage would take effect and cause the target one point of fire damage. With a system such as TFT, the GM has to apply a bit of logic to interpret things. It’s not just about “playing the numbers”.

[guymc]

Originally Posted by gpoehlein

As a GM, going strictly by the rules, I would rule that the arrow’s tip did not penetrate the target’s armor, so the character is not poisoned. The fire damage would take effect and cause the target one point of fire damage. With a system such as TFT, the GM has to apply a bit of logic to interpret things. It’s not just about “playing the numbers”.

I’m with Greg on this one. Further, I would rule that a fire arrow would burn off any poison in the first place.

Don’t minmax and play the numbers in my campaigns. I encourage clever play, but not clever rule tweaking. :-)

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by hcobb

The fire damage adds a point so the poison takes effect, right?

Fire damage? Where did that come from? You said it was a "fine" arrow, not a "fire" arrow. Did you mean fire arrow.?

In any case, if you roll a 1 on d6 (which is what you said) you then take off 1 for the modifier and add 1 for the fine (or fire) arrow. That's a total of 1 which is stopped by the cloth, so the poison doesn't act.

If you meant that you derived 1 from 1d-1 (that means by rolling a 2 on the dice and modifying by -1), then the additional +1 from the special arrow gives a total of 2 damage which is enough to penetrate the cloth. Therefore the poison will take effect.

Which exactly did you mean?

[hcobb]

Working through all of the references here.

Note that the arrow itself costs $10 (fine) + $60 (branded) + $200 (weapon poison) so use the highest DX archer.

By ITL72: "Arrows may be enchanted or poisoned."

By ITL147: "Weapon Poison: May be used on any edged weapon"

Ergo arrows are edged weapons and so

ITL123: "A cutting weapon can also be made of such good metal that it does either 1 or 2 extra hits of damage."

Are edged weapons the same as cutting weapons? Assuming as much.

Therefore a +1 damage arrow is $10, unless it's also silver.

ITL158: "The Brand enchantment, cast on an arrow, creates a reliable flaming arrow which will remain burning for a minute after it is fired."

The damage from a branded arrow isn't given here so we apply:

ITL162: "A missile weapon may be enchanted so the arrows from it will flame. The flame adds 1 point to the damage from an ordinary bow, and 2 points to that done by a crossbow."

So for $270 have a poisoned fine arrowhead attached to a flaming shaft, right?

Of course Goblins would harvest natural poison (for "free" ITL125, only 1d damage) and would have a Goblin Sorceress who casts Brand (for "free"?), and her production rate should be about the same as the quiver of +1 damage arrows their Master Armourer makes each week. (as per ITL123)

[Skarg]

I think gpoehlein and Guy gave great logical answers, which I'd much rather use than care about all the possible readings of the various rule entries.

If the literal reading of a rule doesn't make much sense, I'd rather use a sensible ruling.