Unarmed Strikes are 1+STR modifier (without martial arts or feats) so even if your modifier is 0 you still do 1 damage minimum.
If your modifier is 0 you do 1 damage but if your modifier is -1 you do zero damage. If your modifier is -2 RAW you start healing the opponent but everyone I know just says 0 damage. What I am not sure about is if the "1" should be treated as a 1 sided dice. I think a critical unarmed hit should be 2 + STR though it isn't strictly RAW.
If you have a -1 modifier it doesn't affect your base damage for unarmed strikes just as it wouldn't for a weapon.Nothing in the rules states there is a minimum damage of 1 on a hit however, but logically we can infer it would be awfully silly to achieve a hit, deal damage, then do...no damage (or somehow less damage than 0). You will still do the 1 damage unless there is text specifically stating that there is minimum damage for unarmed strikes cut to or below 0 (to which I have come across none) that correlates a negative STR score with damage. As it has stood within all campaigns I've run and been a part of, the STR modifier is just additional damage on top of the base damage, no different than if you were to hit with a sword with a negative modifier; the sword still has base damage it will deal (sparing variables) you just don't get additional damage bonuses or bonus to attack roll, or the base damage for the sword is slightly reduced because it has a number to subtract from (which should be a minimum of 1 on a successful hit).
EDIT: Put a Strikethrough in an area with an incomplete thought which I think I may have merged a partially deleted sentence while trying to convey an initially different message.
If you have a negative modifier, you subtract that from damage rolls. If you attack with a Longsword and have a Strength Mod of -1, you do 1d8-1 damage. If you roll an 8, you do 7 damage. If you somehow have a -4 strength modifier, and attack with a club, you do 0 damage no matter what you roll (1d4 - 4) unless you crit.
Same for unarmed strikes; if you have a negative Strength Modifier, you deal 0 damage.
If you have a negative modifier, you subtract that from damage rolls. If you attack with a Longsword and have a Strength Mod of -1, you do 1d8-1 damage. If you roll an 8, you do 7 damage. If you somehow have a -4 strength modifier, and attack with a club, you do 0 damage no matter what you roll (1d4 - 4) unless you crit.
Same for unarmed strikes; if you have a negative Strength Modifier, you deal 0 damage.
I edited that post.
Not sure what is confusing about it all to be completely honest because I thought it was pretty clear that if the minimum allowable damage is 1 and not 0, then you're going to deal a damage because you had a successful attack roll. You can't deal negative damage, you just wouldn't deal damage at that point which is the same as not having a successful attack roll?
Successful Attack Roll - Deal Damage - Damage 0 (or a negative) = Silly from a logical standpoint and mechanically doesn't seem right either. But there are now RAW to suggest this isn't possible.
Successful Attack Roll - Deal Damage - Damage 1 = Seems much more logical and mechanically makes way more sense. Also does not have RAW to support minimum damage is 1 and not 0
The base damage is 1, and thus can be considered minimum damage dealt allowable? RAW I couldn't find anything here or there about it that says it is a 1 or 0 for minimum damage even factoring in negative modifiers. That part was pretty clear.
The modifier damage for a weapon (this is the part I think was incomplete and partially deleted) is higher than 1 and can be subtracted from until it reaches 1, then you will deal minimum damage if the minimum damage is in fact 1 and not 0.
Weapons and Unarmed Strikes borrow from the same rules for damage, but weapons have a higher base damage to subtract from.
I was confused about what you fixed. Nevertheless, it is absolutely possible to deal 0 damage. You hit them, it just doesn't do anything. Similar to having damage immunity.
Honestly, if you have a strength of 8 or lower, and get into a fistfight, it probably won't matter whether you're doing 0 or 1 damage on a hit. You're just not winning this one, and should look for another way to solve this problem.
But really, these cases will never be relevant, and that's probably the actual reason why the book doesn't bother giving rules for this.
I'm not fond of saying that an attack should automatically deal 1 damage though. We could imagine a rogue with 8 str escaping from jail, and finding a mace on the way. His attacks now deal 1d6-1. And I feel like a 1 on the d6 should definitely translate to dealing no damage, the player did decide to put an 8 in strength after all, and there should be consequences to choices.
The base damage is 1, and thus can be considered minimum damage dealt allowable? RAW I couldn't find anything here or there about it that says it is a 1 or 0 for minimum damage even factoring in negative modifiers. That part was pretty clear.
The modifier damage for a weapon (this is the part I think was incomplete and partially deleted) is higher than 1 and can be subtracted from until it reaches 1, then you will deal minimum damage if the minimum damage is in fact 1 and not 0.
From the PHB, Chapter 9: Combat -> Damage and Healing -> Damage Rolls, 2nd paragraph.
With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.
The base damage is 1, and thus can be considered minimum damage dealt allowable? RAW I couldn't find anything here or there about it that says it is a 1 or 0 for minimum damage even factoring in negative modifiers. That part was pretty clear.
The modifier damage for a weapon (this is the part I think was incomplete and partially deleted) is higher than 1 and can be subtracted from until it reaches 1, then you will deal minimum damage if the minimum damage is in fact 1 and not 0.
From the PHB, Chapter 9: Combat -> Damage and Healing -> Damage Rolls, 2nd paragraph.
With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.
Holy crap, thank you! I swear on my life I've read that chapter repeatedly and never saw that xD
I concede then. I am going to bookmark that specific entry in the PHB so I don't make this mistake again.
If you have a -1 modifier it doesn't affect your base damage for unarmed strikes
just as it wouldn't for a weapon.Nothing in the rules states there is a minimum damage of 1 on a hit however, but logically we can infer it would be awfully silly to achieve a hit, deal damage, then do...no damage (or somehow less damage than 0). You will still do the 1 damage unless there is text specifically stating that there is minimum damage for unarmed strikes cut to or below 0 (to which I have come across none) that correlates a negative STR score with damage. As it has stood within all campaigns I've run and been a part of, the STR modifier is just additional damage on top of the base damage, no different than if you were to hit with a sword with a negative modifier; the sword still has base damage it will deal (sparing variables) you just don't get additional damage bonuses or bonus to attack roll, or the base damage for the sword is slightly reduced because it has a number to subtract from (which should be a minimum of 1 on a successful hit).EDIT: Put a Strikethrough in an area with an incomplete thought which I think I may have merged a partially deleted sentence while trying to convey an initially different message.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
You're confusing me StylesStriker.
If you have a negative modifier, you subtract that from damage rolls. If you attack with a Longsword and have a Strength Mod of -1, you do 1d8-1 damage. If you roll an 8, you do 7 damage. If you somehow have a -4 strength modifier, and attack with a club, you do 0 damage no matter what you roll (1d4 - 4) unless you crit.
Same for unarmed strikes; if you have a negative Strength Modifier, you deal 0 damage.
I edited that post.
Not sure what is confusing about it all to be completely honest because I thought it was pretty clear that if the minimum allowable damage is 1 and not 0, then you're going to deal a damage because you had a successful attack roll. You can't deal negative damage, you just wouldn't deal damage at that point which is the same as not having a successful attack roll?
Successful Attack Roll - Deal Damage - Damage 0 (or a negative) = Silly from a logical standpoint and mechanically doesn't seem right either. But there are now RAW to suggest this isn't possible.
Successful Attack Roll - Deal Damage - Damage 1 = Seems much more logical and mechanically makes way more sense. Also does not have RAW to support minimum damage is 1 and not 0
The base damage is 1, and thus can be considered minimum damage dealt allowable? RAW I couldn't find anything here or there about it that says it is a 1 or 0 for minimum damage even factoring in negative modifiers. That part was pretty clear.
The modifier damage for a weapon (this is the part I think was incomplete and partially deleted) is higher than 1 and can be subtracted from until it reaches 1, then you will deal minimum damage if the minimum damage is in fact 1 and not 0.
Weapons and Unarmed Strikes borrow from the same rules for damage, but weapons have a higher base damage to subtract from.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!
I was confused about what you fixed. Nevertheless, it is absolutely possible to deal 0 damage. You hit them, it just doesn't do anything. Similar to having damage immunity.
Honestly, if you have a strength of 8 or lower, and get into a fistfight, it probably won't matter whether you're doing 0 or 1 damage on a hit. You're just not winning this one, and should look for another way to solve this problem.
But really, these cases will never be relevant, and that's probably the actual reason why the book doesn't bother giving rules for this.
I'm not fond of saying that an attack should automatically deal 1 damage though. We could imagine a rogue with 8 str escaping from jail, and finding a mace on the way. His attacks now deal 1d6-1. And I feel like a 1 on the d6 should definitely translate to dealing no damage, the player did decide to put an 8 in strength after all, and there should be consequences to choices.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
From the PHB, Chapter 9: Combat -> Damage and Healing -> Damage Rolls, 2nd paragraph.
Holy crap, thank you! I swear on my life I've read that chapter repeatedly and never saw that xD
I concede then. I am going to bookmark that specific entry in the PHB so I don't make this mistake again.
Loading...
Watch DnD Shorts on youtube.
Chief Innovationist, Acquisitions Inc. The Series 2
Successfully completed the Tomb of Horrors module (as part of playing Tomb of Annihilation) with no party deaths!