In reading the entry in PHB about unarmed strike, it says:
On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes. (PHB, pg. 195)
I have a character whose strength modifier is negative 1, so 1-1=0. What if their modifier was negative 3? Certainly they can't heal with their unarmed strikes as 1-3= -2 .. the -2 wouldn't be "added" to the target's HP.
As the DM, I'm prepared to make a table ruling to make all unarmed strikes cause a minimum of 1 pt dmg no matter the modifier, but I'm just curious if there is an official mechanic or rule that discusses this. I haven't been able to locate anything thus far.
The rule doesn't say "(minimum of 1 damage)", so rules as written, you can absolutely do 0 damage with an unarmed strike or any other weapon. As for "healing" with a negative modifier, that's definitely not allowed.
Making all unarmed strikes deal at least 1 damage seems perfectly reasonable to me, it's certainly not gamebreaking lol. Dealing 1 or 0 damage with an attack both have the opportunity for a hilarious moment for a character, so i say go ahead :D
From the PHB section on damage and healing: “With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.”
So, definitely the attack can do 0. Personally, I’d leave that in place. For one, why only make it unarmed attacks. They can roll a 1 for damage with a dagger (or almost any other weapon), and that would do 0, but punching someone always does at least 1 damage? Doesn’t make sense to me. For two, the player dumped str for their character, now there’s consequences. They should deal with them.
From the PHB section on damage and healing: “With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.”
So, definitely the attack can do 0. Personally, I’d leave that in place. For one, why only make it unarmed attacks. They can roll a 1 for damage with a dagger (or almost any other weapon), and that would do 0, but punching someone always does at least 1 damage? Doesn’t make sense to me. For two, the player dumped str for their character, now there’s consequences. They should deal with them.
You're exactly right, I like how you think! I think this is exactly the way I'm going to rule it and why. Thanks!
Let it be 0 if they try unarmed with a STR of 9 or less.
I mean, you're not wrong! The one character I am looking at is a halfling, so it is feasible that their punches would be no more than pesky pummelings coming from a halfling with a strength of 8.
The rule doesn't say "(minimum of 1 damage)", so rules as written, you can absolutely do 0 damage with an unarmed strike or any other weapon. As for "healing" with a negative modifier, that's definitely not allowed.
Making all unarmed strikes deal at least 1 damage seems perfectly reasonable to me, it's certainly not gamebreaking lol. Dealing 1 or 0 damage with an attack both have the opportunity for a hilarious moment for a character, so i say go ahead :D
Yes you're definitely right about the opportunity for a hilarious moment.. without those, the game wouldn't be nearly as fun!
Let it be 0 if they try unarmed with a STR of 9 or less.
I mean, you're not wrong! The one character I am looking at is a halfling, so it is feasible that their punches would be no more than pesky pummelings coming from a halfling with a strength of 8.
Consider that a commoner has 4 HP. Your average smack or jab that might hurt but not leave a mark would be 0 damage in D&D. 1 damage is the type of punch that bruises ribs, blackens eyes, and knocks out teeth (at least for commoners). Setting the minimum to 1 would be creating a world where a child's kicking and hitting tantrum sends people to the hospital.
Now you've got me imagining a boxing match between two people with negative strength bonuses. It would literally last forever despite the fact that the two boxers repeatedly made contact.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Frankly if someone has a setup that can create negative unarmed strikes it should heal the target because the prospect of being so weak it not only doesn't hurt but actually heals is really funny.
And it's not like it could heal that much, I don't think you can go too far into the negatives.
Let it be 0 if they try unarmed with a STR of 9 or less.
I mean, you're not wrong! The one character I am looking at is a halfling, so it is feasible that their punches would be no more than pesky pummelings coming from a halfling with a strength of 8.
Consider that a commoner has 4 HP. Your average smack or jab that might hurt but not leave a mark would be 0 damage in D&D. 1 damage is the type of punch that bruises ribs, blackens eyes, and knocks out teeth (at least for commoners). Setting the minimum to 1 would be creating a world where a child's kicking and hitting tantrum sends people to the hospital.
Edit: And for the record a toddler could theoretically put someone in the hospital by striking them. Toddlers typically have yet to figure out how to avoid putting their entire strength into swinging and kicking when they're upset and can theoretically do some damage if they strike a sensitive area. It doesn't happen often because in D&D terms they lack reach so their attacks have range 0 and they've got a terrible modifier on the attack roll but there are documented instances of people who've been kicked in the stomach or face by a toddler and ended up needing medical attention.
Frankly if someone has a setup that can create negative unarmed strikes it should heal the target because the prospect of being so weak it not only doesn't hurt but actually heals is really funny.
And it's not like it could heal that much, I don't think you can go too far into the negatives.
Might as well just have medicine checks revive unconscious characters at 1 HP and have all characters fully heal outside of combat at that point...
Now you've got me imagining a boxing match between two people with negative strength bonuses. It would literally last forever despite the fact that the two boxers repeatedly made contact.
Nah at some point Exhaustion would set in. So not hurt but too tired to take another swing. =D
Let it be 0 if they try unarmed with a STR of 9 or less.
I mean, you're not wrong! The one character I am looking at is a halfling, so it is feasible that their punches would be no more than pesky pummelings coming from a halfling with a strength of 8.
Consider that a commoner has 4 HP. Your average smack or jab that might hurt but not leave a mark would be 0 damage in D&D. 1 damage is the type of punch that bruises ribs, blackens eyes, and knocks out teeth (at least for commoners). Setting the minimum to 1 would be creating a world where a child's kicking and hitting tantrum sends people to the hospital.
Edit: And for the record a toddler could theoretically put someone in the hospital by striking them. Toddlers typically have yet to figure out how to avoid putting their entire strength into swinging and kicking when they're upset and can theoretically do some damage if they strike a sensitive area. It doesn't happen often because in D&D terms they lack reach so their attacks have range 0 and they've got a terrible modifier on the attack roll but there are documented instances of people who've been kicked in the stomach or face by a toddler and ended up needing medical attention.
I would maybe add a rule that if you crit with an unarmed strike but have a negative modifier, you could deal 1 damage.
Good one!! And maybe if you roll a 1 you, the attacker breaks his hand/wrist/arm/etc!
Frankly if someone has a setup that can create negative unarmed strikes it should heal the target because the prospect of being so weak it not only doesn't hurt but actually heals is really funny.
And it's not like it could heal that much, I don't think you can go too far into the negatives.
Might as well just have medicine checks revive unconscious characters at 1 HP and have all characters fully heal outside of combat at that point...
Frankly if someone has a setup that can create negative unarmed strikes it should heal the target because the prospect of being so weak it not only doesn't hurt but actually heals is really funny.
I would go about it the other way. Instead of healing your opponent, you hurt yourself;)
Seriously though, I would probably roll a dice and make some probability for when you do 0 or 1 damage… or possibly hurt yourself.
Frankly if someone has a setup that can create negative unarmed strikes it should heal the target because the prospect of being so weak it not only doesn't hurt but actually heals is really funny.
I just pictured a player saying, “well, the cleric is out of spell slots. I guess we’ll just have a tickle fight until everyone feels better.”
In reading the entry in PHB about unarmed strike, it says:
On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes. (PHB, pg. 195)
I have a character whose strength modifier is negative 1, so 1-1=0. What if their modifier was negative 3? Certainly they can't heal with their unarmed strikes as 1-3= -2 .. the -2 wouldn't be "added" to the target's HP.
As the DM, I'm prepared to make a table ruling to make all unarmed strikes cause a minimum of 1 pt dmg no matter the modifier, but I'm just curious if there is an official mechanic or rule that discusses this. I haven't been able to locate anything thus far.
The rule doesn't say "(minimum of 1 damage)", so rules as written, you can absolutely do 0 damage with an unarmed strike or any other weapon. As for "healing" with a negative modifier, that's definitely not allowed.
Making all unarmed strikes deal at least 1 damage seems perfectly reasonable to me, it's certainly not gamebreaking lol. Dealing 1 or 0 damage with an attack both have the opportunity for a hilarious moment for a character, so i say go ahead :D
:)
From the PHB section on damage and healing: “With a penalty, it is possible to deal 0 damage, but never negative damage.”
So, definitely the attack can do 0. Personally, I’d leave that in place. For one, why only make it unarmed attacks. They can roll a 1 for damage with a dagger (or almost any other weapon), and that would do 0, but punching someone always does at least 1 damage? Doesn’t make sense to me. For two, the player dumped str for their character, now there’s consequences. They should deal with them.
Puny Human!
Let it be 0 if they try unarmed with a STR of 9 or less.
You're exactly right, I like how you think! I think this is exactly the way I'm going to rule it and why. Thanks!
I mean, you're not wrong! The one character I am looking at is a halfling, so it is feasible that their punches would be no more than pesky pummelings coming from a halfling with a strength of 8.
Yes you're definitely right about the opportunity for a hilarious moment.. without those, the game wouldn't be nearly as fun!
Consider that a commoner has 4 HP. Your average smack or jab that might hurt but not leave a mark would be 0 damage in D&D. 1 damage is the type of punch that bruises ribs, blackens eyes, and knocks out teeth (at least for commoners). Setting the minimum to 1 would be creating a world where a child's kicking and hitting tantrum sends people to the hospital.
Now you've got me imagining a boxing match between two people with negative strength bonuses. It would literally last forever despite the fact that the two boxers repeatedly made contact.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Frankly if someone has a setup that can create negative unarmed strikes it should heal the target because the prospect of being so weak it not only doesn't hurt but actually heals is really funny.
And it's not like it could heal that much, I don't think you can go too far into the negatives.
A world where a peasant can be killed by a cat.
Edit: And for the record a toddler could theoretically put someone in the hospital by striking them. Toddlers typically have yet to figure out how to avoid putting their entire strength into swinging and kicking when they're upset and can theoretically do some damage if they strike a sensitive area. It doesn't happen often because in D&D terms they lack reach so their attacks have range 0 and they've got a terrible modifier on the attack roll but there are documented instances of people who've been kicked in the stomach or face by a toddler and ended up needing medical attention.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Might as well just have medicine checks revive unconscious characters at 1 HP and have all characters fully heal outside of combat at that point...
Nah at some point Exhaustion would set in. So not hurt but too tired to take another swing. =D
Oh no no, don't let the players punch each other for the effect.
Only enemies.
Good one!! And maybe if you roll a 1 you, the attacker breaks his hand/wrist/arm/etc!
That isn't how it works. Attacks can't tell if targets are enemies or not.
And I thought your point was to make a unique build worthwhile, not further discourage the use of their weakest attack option...
Oh it wasn't meant to be practical, I just found the idea of being so weak you actually reverse damage to be a funny concept.
I would go about it the other way. Instead of healing your opponent, you hurt yourself;)
Seriously though, I would probably roll a dice and make some probability for when you do 0 or 1 damage… or possibly hurt yourself.
I just pictured a player saying, “well, the cleric is out of spell slots. I guess we’ll just have a tickle fight until everyone feels better.”
Exactly, you get it.