I haven't seen anything to the contrary, and p. 196 PHB seems to indicate this, but can anyone say if there is a 1-hp minimum damage from a hit (resistance and immunities aside)?
For example, a low strength character (-1) hits and does 1d4-1 damage. A roll of 1 would be zero damage, right?
It is my understanding that in a circumstance as you've described, a minimum 1 point of damage would occur. There are many creatures (small beasts) that do one point of damage on a hit, like a dog, cat, snake, etc. Also, an unarmed attack does 1 point of damage. I think there are some specific instances where resistance or a class ability can reduce the damage to 0, but for the most part, a minimum of 1 point of damage can be an acceptable outcome.
There is no rule about minimum 1.
Or minimim 0.
Heh. I was just posting a new thread on this, then I saw you already addressed this, El.
My Post:
I occurred to me that I haven't actually seen anything in the PHB that indicates that there is a minimum damage for attacks. Now it seems to me that in just about every edition before this, 1 point of damage was the minimum a weapon could deliver. That said, I recently had someone argue that the rules this time around just say "add your ability modifier" to the damage roll and, thus, attacks that do no damage could be quite possible (in fact, attacks that do negative damage would theoretically be possible).
So is this a 5E oversight? Did I miss some passage in the PHB that clarifies this? Or are attacks that do less than 1 point of damage now possible in this edition?
-------
I suppose I am just going to fudge a little on weapon and other attacks where a stat might call for damages below 1. I don't think it's in the spirit of the game to have 0 or negative damage attacks.
It's less oversight and more "We left this ambiguous for the DM" I believe. Because I like minimum 1 damage from a low-strength punch or when you take 1 damage but have resistance (so you'd take 1, not 0). And I like to think that overcoming AC or Saves is the model to deal any damage at all, not the POSSIBILITY to deal damage. Other DMs prefer to have 0 damage be a thing, which is fine and makes sense, but I just prefer to not!
I just wish they said that...But maybe they say so in the DMG!
I would rule that resistance can reduce damage to 0 because you round down, but otherwise attacks do a minimum of 1 point of damage.
OoftaMeg wrote:
I don't agree. HP and AC are abstracted. Since I'm already stretching to see how a strike that reduces HP doesn't actually cause any physical damage, I don't find it problematic to have an attack have zero impact on HP.
onceMoreIntoBreech wrote:
In the example of 1d4-1 a crit would do 2d4-1 points of damage wouldn't it?
It is very subjective, though, isn't it? I know that if you handed a sharp blade to my daughter (who, even at 15, I know doesn't have a 10 STR), I am sure she'd pierce the skin if she stabbed me with it. Could a combat trained kobold that's experienced in using weapons and that managed to get through the defenses and armor/shield of a foe be too weak to actually deliver damage?
But, as mentioend earlier, HPs and AC are very ambiguous to begin with. So much room for interpretation.
I'll probably stick to the 1 point minimum at the tabletop and just not use negative modifiers over VTs that don't set a minimum. That's just a peresonal preference at this point, though. I'm giving the little guys a chance in my campaigns. 
Magistus71 wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
I think I will rule that any successful hit does a minimum 1 HP damage, unless:
- The target is Immune to the damage type, or
- The attacker has a negative Ability modifier and doesn't do enough damage to overcome that penalty (reflecting an instance when their STR just didn't serve them well enough to effectively use their weapon, or their DEX actually interfered with using their weapon).
NOTE: I'm assuming, for #2, that the character is limited to using their non-dominant Ability (STR/DEX) for some reason that would explain why they aren't using their dominant Ability; such as being a week Rogue that only has a non-finesse weapon available or a Fighter that only has access to a projectile Ranged Weapon (e.g.; Bow, Blowgun, Crossbow).
hitting is an abstract. There are multiple ways to model a realistic miss. One such way is when you mechanically roll a hit and deal low go damage to narrate it as a near hit that demoralizes the opponent or forces fatigue by the amount of effort he put into defending the attack.
ShadeRaven wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
I saw this post and looked in to this.... I'm now having difficulty finding where it states to "round fractions down," as it did in previous editions. If it states to round fractions down anywhere in this edition then I would vote for no minimum damage; but since I can't find it saying that anywhere, I'd go with the maths I learned in my skoolin and round fractions up, so there would be a minimum of 1 damage. Just my 2 cents. haha.
PHB p. 7 (and in the Basic Rules, somewhere, too, from memory...)
Although I feel this is a DM/playing group call I tend to go with the possibility that zero damage can be caused by a hit.
A hit may glance of armour, be deflected by a involuntary reaction from the defender, or be just out of range, just perhaps breaking the skin without really doing any real damage. Clothing may absorb the blow, or it srikes an object such as a backpack, belt pouch, book inside a pocket and so forth.
There are many ways to reason a zero damage hit.
If you have a weak strength character it is likely that you are very proficient in other areas in compensation. My current character is a warlock and has got to level three without using melee combat at all especially as my Strength is 8. Therefore doing 0 damage is a possibility. I have not yet asked the DM how he would rule. If he ruled zero damage rather than a minimum of 1 I would not complain, after all it's my character build from the standard array.
Bremner wrote:
Apparently there is an entry on Mike Mearls' Facebook page that there is a minimum of 1 hit point damage on a hit, but I haven't seen it yet - just passing on what I was told.
I'd go with minimum of 1 damage (resistance might reduce it to 0), because of the precedent of low-strength tiny creatures in the rules that have damage values of 1 point. Extrapolation would indicate that in some cases they would be doing 0 damage if their stat block didn't say otherwise. I'm not sure why they would automatically do 1 point of damage, but a weak character could end up with being incapable of doing any damage. Therefore, consistency moves me to use 1 point of damage in any situation other than resistance. On resistance, I don't care much one way or the other, so I could easily be convinced by a player who cared to raise it to a minimum of 1.
Personally, I like minimum of 1 damage being done.