My friend and I just got into a rather heated discussion on this issue and need assistance.
He was looking at getting an alchemical silver longsword. We have both read the description on the -1 penalty to damage and have interpreted it in completely opposite ways.
His interpretation is that the -1 penalty to damage (with a minimum of 1 point of damage) is applied to the damage ROLL, not the total damage. Therefore, if a fighter with 10 Strength swings that silver longsword and rolls a 1 for damage, he deals a minimum 1 damage. If a fighter with an 18 Strength rolls a 1 on the die, he still does that minimum 1 point of damage, plus 4 points for his strength, for a total of 5 damage.
My interpretation is that the -1 penalty to damage is added to the TOTAL result of the damage roll. So if the fighter with 10 Strength rolls a 1 on the damage, he deals the minimum one point of damage. If the fighter with an 18 Strength rolls a 1 on the damage die, he deals that, plus 4 damage from his strength, THEN a -1 penalty from the silver, for a total of 4 damage.
While we acknowledge that this is a minor, minor issue, it is a point that bears arguing as to what point penalties are applied. Is the penalty applied to the roll? Or to the total?
Thank you for any assistance.
Youre both technically correct.
It applies to the damage roll, but a successful hit can never do less than 1 damage before damage reductions.
However, the damage roll can go to 0 or even negatives.
So, if you roll a 1, the damage roll goes to 0, and if you have no or a negative strength bonus, becomes 1 by default. If you strength bonus is positive, it is added on and calculated normally.
Your friend is misunderstanding the rule that you can only do a minimum of 1 damage as the damage roll for the weapon must be a minimum of 1. Its actually that you can do a minimum of 1 after all modifiers, including the potentially 0 or negative weapon damage roll
TL:DR: it technically goes to the roll, but for practical purposes can be counted against the total, to a minimum of 1
Total. There's nothing that indicates that it applies only to the number rolled (with a minimum of 1), so it defaults to the standard rules of how penalties to damage go, which is added in with everything else.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The -1 modifier is applied to the 1d8 longsword weapon damage roll, with a minimum of one point of damage.
So any 1d8 slashing or piercing weapon will do the following damage;
on a 1 = 1 point
on a 2 = 1 point
on a 3 = 2 points
on a 4 = 3 points
on a 5 = 4 points
on a 6 = 5 points
on a 7 = 6 points
on a 8 = 7 points
Baval wrote: Youre both technically correct.
It applies to the damage roll, but a successful hit can never do less than 1 damage before damage reductions.
However, the damage roll can go to 0 or even negatives.
So, if you roll a 1, the damage roll goes to 0, and if you have no or a negative strength bonus, becomes 1 by default. If you strength bonus is positive, it is added on and calculated normally.
Your friend is misunderstanding the rule that you can only do a minimum of 1 damage as the damage roll for the weapon must be a minimum of 1. Its actually that you can do a minimum of 1 after all modifiers, including the potentially 0 or negative weapon damage roll
TL:DR: it technically goes to the roll, but for practical purposes can be counted against the total, to a minimum of 1
Actually, this has made me question my previous opinion a bit. You CAN do less than 1 damage in Pathfinder if there are enough negatives to your roll, in which case it becomes 1 nonlethal damage instead. So I change my vote from "after everything" to "specifically to the damage roll itself" (although I can't really think of when that would make a difference), otherwise the math could get weird with the minimum 1 bit.
The relevant rule:
Quote: Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage. It just says "penalties". It doesn't matter what kind of penalties - if any penalty at all reduces the damage below 1, the attack still deals 1 nonlethal damage.
Also note the bolded word - result. Not roll. It applies to the entire amount of damage you do, not just the dice rolled.
So Baval and Moragan, you've given me two different answers. Baval, you seem to be on my side that the penalty applies to the total, but Moragan seems to be agreeing with my friend.
So let's say I had a character that deals 1d8+10 with an alchemical silver longsword, is his minimum damage 10 or 11? I say that the -1 penalty applies to the total, so that the math would (generally) be like this:
Roll 1 damage on the d8 + 10 damage - 1 silver penalty = 10 damage total
My friend says it applies to the roll, so for him the math would be:
Roll 1 damage on the d8 (-1 penalty, but with minimum 1 damage) + 10 damage = 11 damage total
Again, we're discussing a minor point and one whole point of damage, but now it's getting to be an issue as to when the penalty is applied. Thanks again everyone.
Your question is actually less about when the penalty from silver is applied (which makes no difference really) and more about when the "minimum 1 damage" rule is applied.
And the answer to that is the total, not the roll, as I said and as Jeraa quoted above.
So the minimum would be 10
Yep, we're still arguing it. I'm trying to lump the damage penalty in with all other modifiers, he's trying to make it an exception to the general rule and apply it directly to the die roll.
I don't think we'll get a resolution until an official replies. Thanks for the help though, everyone.
I think this is an instance of the Pathfinder devs not really thinking through a rules change they made. In 3.5 you couldn't do less than 1 point of damage with an attack, and the Alchemical Silver stats were just a reminder of that. In Pathfinder they changed it to a minimum of 1 point of nonlethal damage (which isn't the same a minimum of 1 point of damage), and the only change they made to Alchemical Silver was to remove the reference to "usual".
If the minimum is applied last, then there are instances in Pathfinder where it will raise the amount of damage you're doing:
Roll of 1 (-1 from alchemical silver, minimum 1) with strength mod of -2 = 1 nonlethal damage.
Roll of 1 -1 from alchemical silver with a strength mod of -2 (minimum 1 last) = 1 lethal damage.
Jeff, I'm not sure I follow your two examples. Your first one would result in a total damage of -1, which would result in minimum 1 nonlethal. Your second example would result in a total damage of -2, which would still be 1 nonlethal according to the rules.
Granted, we normally ignore the nonlethal part and just apply it as damage, but that's not part of our issue.
MikeRPG wrote: Yep, we're still arguing it. I'm trying to lump the damage penalty in with all other modifiers, he's trying to make it an exception to the general rule and apply it directly to the die roll.
I don't think we'll get a resolution until an official replies. Thanks for the help though, everyone.
no, you already have an official ruling, and youre still arguing over the wrong part.
Jeraa wrote: The relevant rule:
Quote: Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage.
As Jeraa said, this is the important part, and clearly says that the minimum applies to the damage result, not the damage roll. Theres no room for interpretation here.
You don't figure and apply damage in steps - it happens all at once. An 18 strength character wielding a longsword doesn't deal 1d8 damage, then +4 damage (From strength). He deals 1d8+4 damage.
Likewise, when wielding a silver longsword, he doesn't do 1d8 damage, then +4 damage (Strength), then -1 damage (silver). Nor does he do 1d8-1 damage, then +4 (from strength). He does 1d8+4-1, or 1d8+3.
All of the static modifiers combine into a single formula. Then you solve the formula.
Quote: If the minimum is applied last, then there are instances in Pathfinder where it will raise the amount of damage you're doing:
Roll of 1 (-1 from alchemical silver, minimum 1) with strength mod of -2 = 1 nonlethal damage.
Roll of 1 -1 from alchemical silver with a strength mod of -2 (minimum 1 last) = 1 lethal damage.
The first one is wrong as you are applying the minimum twice, both to the amount rolled and to the final result. The actual answer would be 1 (-1, min 1) -2 = -1 damage. Which isn't possible, as by the rules damage reduces your hit points, not improves them.
The second one is wrong because it would be nonlethal damage. 1-1-2 = -2, which become a minimum 1 nonlethal damage.
Applying the minimum damage rule at any point other than at the very end results in times where you would end up doing negative damage, which just isn't possible. Applying the minimum rule at the very end means you will always do some amount of positive damage (even if it is just 1 point of nonlethal damage).
Jeraa wrote: You don't figure anf apply damage in steps - it happens all at once. An 18 strength character wielding a longsword doesn't deal 1d8 damage, then +4 damage (From strength). He deals 1d8+4 damage.
Likewise, when wielding a silver longsword, he doesn't do 1d8 damage, then +4 damage (Strength), then -1 damage (silver). Nor does he do 1d8-1 damage, then + from strength). He does 1d8+4-1, or 1d8+3.
All of the static modifiers combine into a single formula. Then you solve the formula.
and THEN if its less than 1 it becomes 1 nonlethal. Or 1 lethal if you want to ignore the nonlethal part.
Jeraa wrote: The first one is wrong as you are applying the minimum twice, both to the amount rolled and to the final result. The actual answer would be 1 (-1, min 1) -2 = -1 damage. Which isn't possible, as by the rules damage reduces your hit points, not improves them.
The second one is wrong because it would be nonlethal damage. 1-1-2 = -2, which become a minimum 1 nonlethal damage.
Applying the minimum damage rule at any point other than at the very end results in times where you would end up doing negative damage, which just isn't possible. Applying the minimum rule at the very end means you will always do some amount of positive damage (even if it is just 1 point of nonlethal damage).
The minimum damage rule listed normally is separate from the alchemical silver one, which is my point. They changed how minimum damage works, but didn't change how alchemical silver works (when they should have). The normal rule is "If less than 0, 1 nonlethal", the alchemical silver one is "Minimum 1". They are not equivalent, despite the fact that they should be.
Edit: I suppose I should clarify a bit more. Alchemical Silver is still written as though the minimum damage rules are the same as they were in 3.5. To be consistent with the rules changes they made in Pathfinder, it should say "Minimum 1 nonlethal damage", not "Minimum 1 damage".
Jeff Merola wrote: Jeraa wrote: The first one is wrong as you are applying the minimum twice, both to the amount rolled and to the final result. The actual answer would be 1 (-1, min 1) -2 = -1 damage. Which isn't possible, as by the rules damage reduces your hit points, not improves them.
The second one is wrong because it would be nonlethal damage. 1-1-2 = -2, which become a minimum 1 nonlethal damage.
Applying the minimum damage rule at any point other than at the very end results in times where you would end up doing negative damage, which just isn't possible. Applying the minimum rule at the very end means you will always do some amount of positive damage (even if it is just 1 point of nonlethal damage).
The minimum damage rule listed normally is separate from the alchemical silver one, which is my point. They changed how minimum damage works, but didn't change how alchemical silver works (when they should have). The normal rule is "If less than 0, 1 nonlethal", the alchemical silver one is "Minimum 1". They are not equivalent, despite the fact that they should be.
Edit: I suppose I should clarify a bit more. Alchemical Silver is still written as though the minimum damage rules are the same as they were in 3.5. To be consistent with the rules changes they made in Pathfinder, it should say "Minimum 1 nonlethal damage", not "Minimum 1 damage". Alchemical Silver wrote: "On a successful attack with a silvered slashing or piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll (with a minimum of 1 point of damage). The alchemical silvering process can't be applied to nonmetal items, and it doesn't work on rare metals such as adamantine, cold iron, and mithral." OK, yes i see the problem here now. You should have specified earlier that the Alchemical Silver had a minimum 1 rule as well and that you werent talking about the generic minimum 1 rule.
In this case, your friend is 100% correct, this modifier directly affects the weapon damage roll, and thus it cannot lower the roll to below 1, as per its rules. It is seperate from the normal "minimum 1 nonlethal" rule
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
MikeRPG wrote: My friend and I just got into a rather heated discussion on this issue and need assistance.
He was looking at getting an alchemical silver longsword. We have both read the description on the -1 penalty to damage and have interpreted it in completely opposite ways.
His interpretation is that the -1 penalty to damage (with a minimum of 1 point of damage) is applied to the damage ROLL, not the total damage. Therefore, if a fighter with 10 Strength swings that silver longsword and rolls a 1 for damage, he deals a minimum 1 damage. If a fighter with an 18 Strength rolls a 1 on the die, he still does that minimum 1 point of damage, plus 4 points for his strength, for a total of 5 damage.
My interpretation is that the -1 penalty to damage is added to the TOTAL result of the damage roll. So if the fighter with 10 Strength rolls a 1 on the damage, he deals the minimum one point of damage. If the fighter with an 18 Strength rolls a 1 on the damage die, he deals that, plus 4 damage from his strength, THEN a -1 penalty from the silver, for a total of 4 damage.
While we acknowledge that this is a minor, minor issue, it is a point that bears arguing as to what point penalties are applied. Is the penalty applied to the roll? Or to the total?
Thank you for any assistance.
Your interpretation is correct. The relevant rule is stacking in Getting Started.
Core Rulebook wrote: Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa. The last sentence is the one that applies. The "minimum 1 point of damage" is merely there to prevent a successful attack (for instance, from an alchemical silver arrow shot from a normal bow) from doing 0 damage.
BTW, the wording for Str:
Core Rulebook wrote: You apply your character's Strength modifier to:
•Melee attack rolls.
•Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling.
So they are both modifying the "damage roll." Therefore, stacking rules apply.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I agree with Baval: the specific rule for alchemical silver overrides the general rule for damage.
Basically alchemical silver reduces the max damage of a weapon by 1, but the minimum result the dice will generate is a 1. This is completely separate and distinct from the modified damage of 0 or less being 1 point of non-lethal.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
