Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Goblyns Hoard" data-source="post: 1860235" data-attributes="member: 19970">Because neither of the clauses actual state anything about the amount of damage - just about the type of damage.  Nothing here states nor refutes the fact that a certain minimum amount of damage is produced.Basically I'm saying the same as Patryn... the fact is that the unarmed strike always does a minimum of one point of damage, but that information is found in a different bit of the rules.  The rules you have provided only discuss the type of damage that is done and the options for whether or not the damage is lethal or non lethal.  On the basis of the information presented we have no evidence for an unarmed strike causing a minimum amount of damage - so on a purely semantic argument (sorry too many debating classes back in school) we can not conclude anything about the amount of damage done on the basis of the information you have provided.You need the additional bit from the rules that says "All successful strikes in combat cause a minimum of 1 point of damage" in order to fully support your point.So put me down as another +1 on the 3rd choice... I agree an unarmed strike always does at least one point of damage, but I disagree that the statement you have provided proves that point.If as Henrix is postulating the argument is that the alternative to "usually deals non-lethal damage" is "doesn't deal any damage" then I would suggest you require whoever you're discussing it with to provide some evidence that there are successful attacks (of which an unarmed attack is a sube-type) that cause less than 1 point of damage (prior to DR of course)</blockquote>

Verification