minimal damage by weapons and spells

[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

[Steve Plambeck]

If you have or are designing a low damage weapon or a creature with a low damage bite or claw, I can see the advantage to keeping damage rolls with a minus-something in them to have fine control of that damage.

For example, a nuisance creature that does an average of 1 hit damage, but you don't want it to always be only 1, you want some variability. To get that you set the damage as 1-1. The six possible rolls adjusted for the -1 become: 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, which results in that average result being 1 hit while permitting it to go as high as 3 hits on a small number of occasions.

So a blanket rule to ignore all results of 0 in all damage rolls takes away that level of fine-tuned control, and I don't think I'd favor that. TBH, some of the stated damages for some of the melee hand weapons in the official Weapons Table could do with a bit of a tweak on a case by case basis. The Bastard Sword example Drakenbow gives is a fine case in point. Rather than changing game rules though, I'd just change the particular weapon's damage where needed. The Bastard Sword damage could change from 2+1/3-2 to being 2+1/2+2 or even 2+1/2+3 just to make the two-handed damage never worse than the one-handed damage.

[Drakenbow]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

The Bastard Sword example Drakenbow gives is a fine case in point. Rather than changing game rules though, I'd just change the particular weapon's damage where needed. The Bastard Sword damage could change from 2+1/3-2 to being 2+1/2+2 or even 2+1/2+3 just to make the two-handed damage never worse than the one-handed damage.

Thanks for agreeing it's a good point. In part the problem I see is that damage progression isn't smooth. Low damage for swords vs high damage progressiong.

ST Low High
.9.....1.....6
10....0.....10
11....1.....11
12....2.....12
13....3.....13
13T...1.....16
14T...2.....17
15 -- -- (A slot for the three-handed sword, Munchkin?)
16T...4.....19

ST Low High - using the same process as Missile Spells
.9....1.....6
10...2.....10
11...2.....11
12...2.....12
13...3.....13
13T..3.....16
14T..3.....17
15 -- -- (A slot for the three-handed sword, Munchkin?)
16T..4.....19

.... dang, formating doesn't stay when posted. What's the markup tags for that?

[DeadParrot]

One danger of adding some variability to the nuisance creature damage rolls is it might roll a 3. Now something that would normally do 3 pts on a critical success now can do some real damage. This might be a bit more excitement then you want.

[timm meyers]

Originally Posted by Drakenbow

Thanks for agreeing it's a good point. In part the problem I see is that damage progression isn't smooth. Low damage for swords vs high damage progressiong.

ST Low High
.9.....1.....6
10....0.....10
11....1.....11
12....2.....12
13....3.....13
13T...1.....16
14T...2.....17
15 -- -- (A slot for the three-handed sword, Munchkin?)
16T...4.....19

ST Low High - using the same process as Missile Spells
.9....1.....6
10...2.....10
11...2.....11
12...2.....12
13...3.....13
13T..3.....16
14T..3.....17
15 -- -- (A slot for the three-handed sword, Munchkin?)
16T..4.....19

.... dang, formating doesn't stay when posted. What's the markup tags for that?

Thanks for listing the damages.
Looking at it this way really shows a much cleaner and dare I say realistic result when using the missile spell application. I like this idea, and I think characters would benefit on the roleplaying side also by not feeling so compelled to find the sword vendor every time they increased their ST.
The potential high-end damage of just 1 pip per ST between cutlass, S. sword, and broadsword seems less of a detriment than the 0 and 1 hit minimums. Plus, the probabilities of getting such low-end results are already increased because of the -1 or -2 modifiers.

[Axly Suregrip]

By adding to the minimum damage you are making the saber, mace, short sword and 2-handed sword an even better choice over the hammer, small axe and great hammer.

[Drakenbow]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

By adding to the minimum damage you are making the saber, mace, short sword and 2-handed sword an even better choice over the hammer, small axe and great hammer.

hmmm... IMO not really. The Hammer has a liner progression of damage vs the bell curve progression of the two dice of the Saber. Similarly with the Great Hammer with 2+2 has lower bell curve of probably to the min/max than the 2H Sword has with the three dice. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I suspect the average is shifted only a little bit for the Saber, Mace, Short Sword, and 2H Sword.

For example, the Saber it affects only 3 of the 36 possilbe 2d6 combinations. The bigger effect is only when rolling a double or triple damage that it moves a "zero times two or three" to "two points times two or three".

[TippetsTX]

I agree with the OP that this topic is a bit of a 'dead horse'... the game rules say that ZERO damage on a hit is a very real possibility with certain weapons or attacks. I don't have a problem with that basic premise. I do have objections with where some of those occurances exist on the weapons table, however. The saber is the most obvious anomaly, but there are other examples of historically effective weapons that deal inferior in-game damage. I'm also not a fan of the missile spell exception granting minimum damage.

Solutions to these perceived issues should be addressed in the house-rules forum IMO.

[Drakenbow]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

the game rules say that ZERO damage on a hit is a very real possibility with certain weapons or attacks.

It says (assumption meaning before armor, shield, and other protections)?

This is one of the main reasons I ask as that I don't remember reading this.

thanks

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I agree with the OP that this topic is a bit of a 'dead horse'... the game rules say that ZERO damage on a hit is a very real possibility with certain weapons or attacks. I don't have a problem with that basic premise. I do have objections with where some of those occurances exist on the weapons table, however. The saber is the most obvious anomaly, but there are other examples of historically effective weapons that deal inferior in-game damage. I'm also not a fan of the missile spell exception granting minimum damage.

Solutions to these perceived issues should be addressed in the house-rules forum IMO.

Originally Posted by Drakenbow

It says (assumption meaning before armor, shield, and other protections)?

This is one of the main reasons I ask as that I don't remember reading this.

thanks

I'm OK with the missile spells doing a minimum amount of damage. I can accept zero damage even for things as written on the weapons table even though I'm not a fan of it. The saber example stands out. I can't tell you how many times I rolled a 1 for zero damage with a small bow. I've had spectacular hits that did 0 damage.