is there a minimum damage? how...

[Axly Suregrip]

With different groups I have seen this done different ways. I wanted to see if there is a consensus for how the rules intended this to be done.

If you have a Saber (2-2) and roll 2, is the damage:
0: since 2 minus 2 is zero
1: since some believe their is a minimum damage (I cannot find it in the rules)
2: some believe each die has a minimum of 1 (ditto)

Similarly, I do see that missile spells now have a minimum of damage equal to the ST put into the spell. But is that per die or after summing it all up?

-kind regards
-Alan

[TippetsTX]

I have ruled in other games that a successful hit always deals at least 1 point of damage even when there is a die-modifier that allows '0' as a possible result.

[Skarg]

RAW there is no minimum damage unless specified (which at the moment I'm not thinking of anything that does).

(In GURPS there is - cutting and impaling type weapons hitting someone without armor will do a minimum of 1 in that game.)

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I have ruled in other games that a successful hit always deals at least 1 point of damage even when there is a die-modifier that allows '0' as a possible result.

I have always played it that Cutlass 2-2 that rolled "2" and became 0 meant that no damage was done.

The idea of giving minimum point of damage seems to me to be giving these types of weapons a bonus in the rare situations when it computes to 0 or below.

So if I were to use the 'minimum' damage, instead of 1 point of damage, I would make it 1 point of fatigue. Kind of like a bruise that is tender for a period of time and when you rest it out, it goes away.

[flankspeed]

I think I am forced to admit that the original rules intended a minimum of zero damage, but I have read somewhere in the forums that spells like Magic Fist and Fireball now do at least one point of damage per ST-point used in the spell. If this was later revised before publication, I would be curious to know.

The Fantasy Trip is clearly not intended to have the same level of detail as GURPS, but I did create my own house rule to treat a character's ST attribute as giving an identical total of Hit Points (HP) and Fatigue Points (FP). This allows wizards to cast spells without committing suicide by normally only causing them to risk unconsciousness when FP=0 rather than death at HP=0.

This also allows unarmed brawling to normally inflict only non-lethal FP damage unless the intent to kill is clearly stated, for figures to strike to subdue and inflict only FP damage when desiring to capture someone, and for FPs to be used in exerting extraordinary effort while undertaking certain actions.

But as for playing by the rules as written, I now think the Keep-It-Simple-Steve principle requires most damage rolls to have a minimum of zero damage when the modifier is negative. If I want more detail, there's always GURPS!

[JLV]

Yep, I'd say you're right on, on both counts. TFT is supposed to be simple and fast playing; GURPS is supposed to be more complex and detail oriented (but still, actually, pretty fast playing compared to some other systems out there).

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

Similarly, I do see that missile spells now have a minimum of damage equal to the ST put into the spell. But is that per die or after summing it all up?

Always been final sum to me. Magic Fist would be much more effective if per-die.

[Axly Suregrip]

Okay, now this makes sense. If you have a GURPS back ground you see 1 as the minimum and if you do not, you see 0 as the minimum.

I will go along with the GM. And then make the call when I am GM.

thank you all for your replies.
-Alan

[flankspeed]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

Okay, now this makes sense. If you have a GURPS back ground you see 1 as the minimum and if you do not, you see 0 as the minimum....

I hope this thread is not too old to reply to, and I apologize if it is. I just thought you might be interested in the ideas discussed when I raised this same topic back in August of last year. It's interesting how differently people can look at the same topic:

Damage Rolls with a Minus Modifier: Minimum 0 or 1?
http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=158885

Personally, I don't like penalizing weapons such as the dagger or cutlass to do zero damage, so I typically see the minimum damage as being one point no matter what the minus is. I mean, if the cutlass can occasionally strike with the flat of the blade to do no effective damage, so could any other sword.

However, to account for the fact that typical unarmed attacks should not be as instantly lethal as most weapon-based or magical attacks, I would rule that attacks without a weapon have a minimum damage of zero while attacks with weapons or magic have a minimum damage of one.

Best wishes to find whatever works for you and your gaming group!

[hcobb]

Minimum damage for weapons would make kids with thrown rocks killers.