Does the one-point minimum damage per hit apply ...

[Christian]

Seer, I'm strongly inclined to apply enhancement & other point-bonuses to the total prior to applying the one-point minimum. Because (a) where will it all end?, and (b) those bonuses are also multiplied by critical hits, and that's the rule Aggeman cited to exclude bonus damage dice from that process.

Bonus damage points and bonus damage dice work a lot differently, which is what inspired me to ask the question in the first place. I wouldn't extend this any farther than that.

 

[AGGEMAM]

Should it work the same way for enhancement bonuses? If that halfling were using a +2 shortsword, would the modifiers cancel, leaving him with a flat 1d6? Or would he roll 1d6-2, modify to a minimum of 1, and then add two more? And why?

Ok, basically or just simply put it is, by the rules, like this:

Normal damage (minimum 1) = (die roll(s) + bonuses - penalties) x (crit multiplier, note you actully have to roll the dice(s) this many times applying bonuses and penalties each time)

Actual damage = normal damage + bonus damage

The sword may be sharper, but with less force to put into the swing the damage is lower.

EDIT: Many mistakes corrected now.

 

[Dog Faced God]

Good points all the way around. However, let's think about what we're trying to model. The original question referred to sneak attack damage. Sneak attack damage (in this case) is going to be caused by the weapon. I would still tend to say that you should roll sneak attack damage and then apply the minimum damage rule.

Two different scenarios:

Let's consider the weakest Rog 1 (STR 3, -4 modifier; roughly as strong as a rat or weasel) with a mundane shortsword. Let's say he jumps out of the shadows, and shoves his shortsword toward your face and hits. Damage would be 1d6 (weapon) + 1d6 (sneak attack, but still caused by the weapon) - 4 (STR), with a minimum of one. At best you'll do 8 hit points, 2 on average, and 1 minimum. This seems fairly realistic, given the concept behind sneak attack damage (striking vital areas). With a Strength of 3, you're not going to hurt anyone very badly regardless of where you hit them.

The weakest Rog 1, with a Flaming Shortsword (+1d6 fire damage). Let's say he leaps from the shadows and shoves the Flaming Shortsword toward your face and hits. Damage would be 1d6(weapon) + 1d6(sneak attack, but still caused by the weapon) + 1d6 (FIRE!) - 4 (STR), with a minimum of one. At best you'll do 12 hit points, 5 on average, and a minimum of 1. However, fire is fire, and it's going to hurt regardless of how hard you're hit with it. So in this case, I would apply the 1d6 fire damage after applying the minimum damage rule

Does this make sense?

 

[AGGEMAM]

Good points all the way around. However, let's think about what we're trying to model. The original question referred to sneak attack damage. Sneak attack damage (in this case) is going to be caused by the weapon. I would still tend to say that you should roll sneak attack damage and then apply the minimum damage rule.


Does this make sense?

No, sneak attack damage is bonus damage.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

By the rules, it would be one point per hit, regardless of the way damage is dealt. Maybe the blow from a flaming sword was so weak, it was the equivelent of having a hot ash dropped on you, as I belive that torches would have minimum damage applied to them as well.

It is hard to reconcile something like this, though.

Rouge with -2 STR hits with a shortsword for 1 point, he does 1 point.

Rouge with a -2 STR hits with a 1+ short sword for 1 point, he does 1 point.

It would make a lot of sense that minimum damage is one + enhancement bonus, with sneak attack and elemental or special damage handled seperately. Or even a 1 point min for each dice you roll. A great swords min damage should be higher than a long swords. Even a light cut to your throght (sneak attack), is going to be more dangerous than the same cut to your arm.

The one point minimum is there to insure that if you hit, you do SOMETHING. It can also be used to reflect a glancing blow, just enough to draw blood. I would go by that interpretation simply because it would be far simpler.

 

[hong]

Easy solution to this problem: never play anyone with 9 Str or less.

 

[Astlin]

Easy solution to this problem: never play anyone with 9 Str or less.

I try not to, but I have a str of 10 and my DM keeps hitting me with temp str damage.


Astlin

 

[AGGEMAM]

I try not to, but I have a str of 10 and my DM keeps hitting me with temp str damage.

There is an easy solution to that as well.

Cut out the middle man, play without a DM ...