Came up in the playtest, characters got so enfeebled they were rolling less than 0 damage. What happens? Do they default to 1 nonlethal (the PF1 default)? Does damage stop at 0 HP? Doe they heal the target by accident?
I've been wondering this as well as there are some monsters which have 1d4-1 for damage rolls.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure the answer to the first question is "No".
There is no way to hit somebody with a sword and "accidentally heal" that target (unless you have a magical sword named Woundhealer, in which case it's the magic that heals, not the metal sword). If there were, I'd pay some weakling villager to come with us and let us keep him enfeebled so that he can heal us between combats without anybody needing to invest in Medicine. He'd just hit us repeatedly with a dagger and accidentally heal us to full HP.
Previous editions did in fact have a minimum of 1 non-lethal HP but that is not included in this edition as far as I can tell, so I assume, as DerNils, that 0 is a valid damage amount and also that negative values are not valid (no accidental healing).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like an oversight. It should be a minimum of 1 dmg following 1E rules. At least that is how I would rule it.
In fact in many cases where information is missing I simply fall back to P1E and use that as a guide. It makes my playing far smoother.
It could equally have been left out on purpose.
Are there any 'cat versus peasant'-type situations in 2E where house-ruling in the 1E rule makes things more/less sensible?
DM_Blake, I owe you a dozen more upvotes for that Book of Swords reference. :)
Also general agreement this should be addressed, since atm it's certainly not clear what the intent is. Kinda like how drained really needs to specify what happens if your max hp reaches 0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It'd make sense that you would be able to deal 0 damage especially since enhancements require you to deal at least 1 damage. So if you are too weak to deal 1 damage with a poisoned dagger you don't inflict the poison on your enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This came up in my game and I ruled a minimum of 1 damage. Otherwise things like monsters that deal 1d4-1 damage don't make sense.
Sure they do. We already accept the idea of hitting but failing to dead damage against creatures with damage reduction, so why not allow it for low damage rolls by weak creatures? At least in your example the possibility of dealing damage remains open.
Now a damage of 1d2-5 would be another matter, as in that case there would be no chance of doing damage unless the base stats got altered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It'd make sense that you would be able to deal 0 damage especially since enhancements require you to deal at least 1 damage. So if you are too weak to deal 1 damage with a poisoned dagger you don't inflict the poison on your enemy.
This is how I read it as well.
LOL I vote for hel your enemy! ;P
I've been assuming 0 as the minimum due to stuff like this:
An injury poison activates when applied to a weapon, and it affects the target of the first Strike made using the
poisoned weapon. If that Strike is a success or a critical
success and deals piercing or slashing damage, the target
must attempt a saving throw against the poison. If the Strike is a failure or a critical failure, or if it fails to deal slashing or piercing damage for some other reason, the poison is spent but the target is unaffected.
That said, this isn't clear in the slightest and it would be good to clear it up. I'd hardly be surprised if 1 is supposed to be the minimum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They made this same omission in 5th Ed, and no minimum hp value for levelling. So, if ability scores and hit points are rolled randomly (the default), it's possible to die upon reaching level 2. The designers even went along with it and said it could emulate dying later in life from a disease...that's just marvellous...
Couldn't Wizards in 3.0 die during character creation if their Con was low enough? XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another suggestion we had at the table was that if you were so weak as to do -5 damage you instead do 5 negative damage, so it would still hurt some enemies (but would heal the enemies that had us so enfeebled).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They made this same omission in 5th Ed, and no minimum hp value for levelling. So, if ability scores and hit points are rolled randomly (the default), it's possible to die upon reaching level 2. The designers even went along with it and said it could emulate dying later in life from a disease...that's just marvellous...Couldn't Wizards in 3.0 die during character creation if their Con was low enough? XD
* Pulls out D&D 3.5 rulebook to check *
Hmm... Both Wizard and Sorcerer got a d4 for their hit die. So with RAW character ability creation rules of rolling 3d6 or even the common houserule of 4d6 take highest 3, it is possible to have a 3 in CON. Which would give a modifier of -4.
Since you always got maximum HP from your first level's hit die, you could end up with a HP total of 0.
Which technically isn't dead or even dying. Just permanently staggered until you gain a level.
Just permanently staggered until you gain a level.
At which point, if you don't multiclass into something with more HP, you fall into a permanent negative-HP coma.
Just permanently staggered until you gain a level.At which point, if you don't multiclass into something with more HP, you fall into a permanent negative-HP coma.
...Getting closer and closer to dead with every level you gain, if you somehow manage to keep gaining experience. XD