| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Bullets deal both piercing and bludgeoning damage. As for whether it should, can't help you with that in Rules Questions.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Bullets deal both piercing and bludgeoning damage. As for whether it should, can't help you with that in Rules Questions.
However, the DR provided is DR 3/-, not DR 3/bludgeoning or slashing. And a bullet fired from a pistol does match the description of "small piercing weapon" it just also deals bludgeoning, in the same way that a Duelist can meet the requirements of class abilities to be wielding a "one-handed piercing weapon" by picking up a morningstar. If they had just said that it provides DR 3/ bludgeoning or slashing vs. ranged weapons, there wouldn't be a question. Is the ability needlessly complicated and providing the wrong DR type, or was it intentionally worded this way to be forward thinking and provide DR against weapons that might deal piercing and other damage types?
What perspective are you asking from? RAW and whether they make sense in this case, or why the RAW was written the way it is as relates to the real-world usage of quilted armor?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, that is badly worded--DR 3/-, but not really -?
In any case, weapons with multiple damage types (e.g., "B and P") usually act as the better of the two in DR situations, so I would say that the bludgeoning aspect of the damage bypasses the DR.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, that is badly worded--DR 3/-, but not really -?
In any case, weapons with multiple damage types (e.g., "B and P") usually act as the better of the two in DR situations, so I would say that the bludgeoning aspect of the damage bypasses the DR.
And if there actually were an aspect of the DR for the bludgeoning to overcome, I'd agree. But since they gave DR 3/- vs. ranged piercing weapons.... I'm feeling like the RAW says it applies against bullets (despite the fact that I actually joined this conversation in another forum possessed of an entirely different opinion).
The only way Bludgeoning would bypass the DR is if there was a typed DR to bypass, right? DR 3/- applies against everything that matches the attached (and kind of unnecessarily complicated) description, so unless there's a Paladin firing the gun... Quilted Cloth is like the best armor ever vs. firearms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except bullets are also a ranged bludgeoning weapon, which the DR doesn't apply to at all. As blahpers said, normally you use whichever damage type is most advantageous if the weapon has more than one.
Since the "DR 3/-" doesn't apply at all to ranged bludgeoning weapons, and bullets match that description, I don't see that the DR would apply.
You aren't "penetrating" the DR since it is /-, you are ignoring it completely since it is a bludgeoning attack.
Either way you cut it, I can't see how it's not obvious that bludgeoning damage effects are meant to bypass this DR.
Where RAI is concerned, I think it's fairly obvious that the designers don't want quilted armor to provide DR versus firearms. I would be shocked if the intent behind this armor is to function as something other than the historical gambeson/padded jack, which supposedly provided surprising protection against arrows.
|
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except bullets are also a ranged bludgeoning weapon, which the DR doesn't apply to at all. As blahpers said, normally you use whichever damage type is most advantageous if the weapon has more than one.
Since the "DR 3/-" doesn't apply at all to ranged bludgeoning weapons, and bullets match that description, I don't see that the DR would apply.
You aren't "penetrating" the DR since it is /-, you are ignoring it completely since it is a bludgeoning attack.
It applies DR 3/- to all ranged piercing weapons. Regardless of whether firearms are also ranged bludgeoning weapons, they meet that description. A Duelist can apply his combat bonuse contingent upon wielding a "one-handed piercing weapon" by wielding a morningstar. The fact that a morningstar is also a bludgeoning weapon does not mean it stops being a piercing weapon. The armor gives "DR 3/-". That little "-" at the end means that there isn't a way to bypass the listed DR. If they wanted the DR to only stop Piercing damage, it should have been "DR 3 / bludgeoning or slashing". There's scores of examples of DR formatting in the Bestiaries and other Core books that show this.
Since it's "DR 3/-" vs. all ranged piercing weapons, it doesn't matter that there's an extra damage type involved. That's not how damage reduction works. Damage reduction lists what can bypass it, and in this case it specifcially says that nothing does. If something meets the listed criteria " small ranged piercing weapon", than nothing bypasses that DR 3/-.
Except bullets are also a ranged bludgeoning weapon, which the DR doesn't apply to at all.
Completely incorrect. DR 3/- applies to all weapon damage, and is not bypassed by anything. The specifics of the armor state that that DR applies against any ranged piercing weapon. If the attack comes from a ranged piercing weapon (such as a bullet fired from a gun) additional damage types also dealt are irrelevant.
I'm not trying to be rude, but what is the intent of this thread? Is it to point out that the statistics for this armor are poorly written (a given), or is to pose the argument that - despite the qualifier they provided regarding the DR applying to small, ranged piercing weapons - the writers genuinely wanted this armor to provide protection against bullets?
|
Design Manager
|
I'm not trying to be rude, but what is the intent of this thread? Is it to point out that the statistics for this armor are poorly written (a given), or is to pose the argument that - despite the qualifier they provided regarding the DR applying to small, ranged piercing weapons - the writers genuinely wanted this armor to provide protection against bullets?
It was to try and get clarity as to whether they actually meant Quilted Cloth to stop bullets. Is it actually poorly written, or were they intentionally "leaving the door open" as it were, for this ability to stop a wider range of weapons than those specifically written, including, potentially, weapons with multiple damage types?
The difference between "DR 3/-" and "DR 3 / bludgeoning and slashing" is pretty well established, so was someone working late and getting "unnecessary creativity syndrome" or were they creating a potentially powerful and forward-thinking ability disguised as a shirt made by Charmin?
DR 3/- that only applies to piecing is obviously NOT DR 3/-, since something does bypass it. Things that aren't piercing.
Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.
So the bullets damage is 100% bludgeoning, ignoring the DR. The fact that it is also piercing doesn't matter because the DR doesn't apply to both.
You seem to have a pretty strong position already established, so I don't really see why you posted the question.
Where it's efficacy against bludgeoning effects is concerned, I think it's very telling that the quilted armor entry doesn't refer to a sling's bullets.
Should a Sweater protect you from gunfire that punches through plate?
Test it by stepping into a gang fight crossfire, and get back to me.
It gives you DR 3/- against piercing weapons. Firearms do bludgeoning and piercing damage. I'd say that this doesn't apply to firearms because of the bludgeoning damage.
|
Design Manager
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should a Sweater protect you from gunfire that punches through plate?
Test it by stepping into a gang fight crossfire, and get back to me.
Just as soon as you use a thimble of bat guano and the powers of your mind to throw an exploding orb of fire. Real world physics do not dictate in game rule effects.
It gives you DR 3/- against piercing weapons. Firearms do bludgeoning and piercing damage. I'd say that this doesn't apply to firearms because of the bludgeoning damage.
DR 3/- specifically means nothing overcomes it. What if, instead of firearms dealing bludgeoning and piercing damage, all firearms piercing and good-aligned damage? Would you say that the fact that it's also dealing good-aligned damage means it bypasses the DR 3/-? Because it's the same thing.
Again, I find it very telling that the designers specifically listed small, piercing ranged weapons but not any small, bludgeoning ranged weapons.
Where real world versus Pathfinder is concerned, the argument you're proposing strikes as just a little deliberately obtuse. I put it that way because it's obvious that you're an intelligent individual who is more than capable of framing and expressing their throught succinctly.
What I mean by this, then, is that you're willing to deliberately disregard real-world references and examples (quilted armor was made in such a way as to provide protection against even heavy arrows, etc., at certain distances; by contrast, no armor provided any meaningful protection versus firearms until the 20th century) when it suits a specific argument. On the flip side, however, you are more than willing to accept real-world references and examples by default where many other facets of the game are concerned. For example, I don't imagine you question the understood effects that things ranging from torches to hand-axes have in the game.
I hope you don't take this post as a personal attack. It ties in to the question I asked you earlier, which basically boils down to RAW versus RAI.
|
Design Manager
|
Again, I find it very telling that the designers specifically listed small, piercing ranged weapons but not any small, bludgeoning ranged weapons.
That's because at the time that book was written there were no ranged weapons that were both bludgeoning and piercing.
I think the one thing everyone can agree on is that this ability was written in an incredibly obtuse manner. Why did it vary so severely from the standard formula? Why offer DR that protects from piercing but isn't actually the appropriate DR to protect from piercing, but instead a type of DR that is all encompassing? What was the thought process in spending a paragraph to say something that should have been a sentence? Is there an explanation beyond either "it was meant to be all encompassing" or "whoops"?
I'm asking because these are all the same questions I've been cycling through since this came up when a frustrated GM discovered that this might create some very strange issues in his steampunk flavored PF campaign and wanted to know what on earth the text of the item was actually trying to say.
Sometimes the game does things that don't really make sense from an IRL perspective for balance reasons. Is this an instance where someone was looking ahead and specifically wanted this to apply to the upcoming firearms system or prospective ranged weapons that would vary from those currently in place as part of a balancing tool, or did a tired writer working long hours make a mistake?
I think the RAW pretty clearly favor the interpretation thatthe APG's Charmin Ultra-Soft armor deadens the impact of a musket ball. Was that intentional though? Were they trying to leave the ability open-ended so that it would interact with weapons that they maybe didn't have at the time or couldn't predict, and that's why we've got open-ended DR attached to a focused ability, or was it a goof?
That's because at the time that book was written there were no ranged weapons that were both bludgeoning and piercing.
Respecfully, I don't think that's either here or there.
The rule obviously deviates from the standard, but it just as obviously qualifies that the intent is for it to protect from small, ranged piercing weapons. Sure, it could have followed the standard formula and said DR 3/piercing, but then we'd be arguing whether it also protected from rapiers, spears, etc., used in melee combat. I'm not defending the writers, but I think it's clear enough that their obvious choices amounted to:
1. Write it up as they did.
2. Write it up as DR 3/light, ranged piercing
And my guess is that they didn't want to go with #2, since that might lead to them having to change the way they wrote all of the DRs.
I'm asking because these are all the same questions I've been cycling through since this came up when a frustrated GM discovered that this might create some very strange issues in his steampunk flavored PF campaign and wanted to know what on earth the text of the item was actually trying to say.
That's fair, but the GM is always the arbiter of the game. In this case, they have two things going for them:
1. An obvious qualifier for an otherwise oddly-written rule.
2. Common sense.
Best of luck! :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an extra piece of info...the Quilted Cloth was reprinted in Ultimate Equipment with exactly the same text - it was not updated or clarified. Somebody thought it was clear...
I would also say that there is a difference between DR3/- that only affects ranged piercing weapons and DR3/bludgeoning and slashing. In the RAW, there is no DR /ranged piercing weapons. However, the rule gives you the restriction. A handgun is both a small ranged piercing weapon AND a small ranged bludgeoning weapon. I would rule that it is not affected by the DR, since it has a way of doing damage the ability doesn't affect. YMMV.
From a fluff point of view, the description indicates that the armour protects you by catching the projectile. Even with medieval firearms, what are the chances of a thick piece of cloth slowing down a bullet enough to reduce the harm? Minimal, I would think.
Since the DR text genuinely seems to me to have two equally valid rules-as-written interpretations, I'd cast my vote for the one that's less stupid when I imagine it. Sadly, I don't get a vote! FAQ it if you don't feel confident that your interpretation is correct.
Seeing as how this is the first time I have ever seen this come up, and cannot find anything about it with the search function, I'd say it's pretty safe to say this does not qualify as a FAQ. Generally something is FAQ worthy if it Frequently comes up.
I know how I'd run it in my game, and I'm fairly certain that the vast majority will run it the same way. No FAQ needed IMO.
I think most would argue that the DR only applies to ranged piercing weapons and not those that have the bludgeoning descriptor as well because they imagine that cloth would only serve in that instance. I think it makes some sense for layered cloth to slow a projectile because that is exactly what actually happens with modern forms of projectile armor.
It was to try and get clarity as to whether they actually meant Quilted Cloth to stop bullets.
As for whether it should, can't help you with that in Rules Questions.
We can tell you how it works. We can't tell you what the intent was. Ask the writers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DR 3/- specifically means nothing overcomes it.
Except that since it only applies to small, ranged, piercing attacks, anything that is something else does overcome it.
What if, instead of firearms dealing bludgeoning and piercing damage, all firearms piercing and good-aligned damage? Would you say that the fact that it's also dealing good-aligned damage means it bypasses the DR 3/-? Because it's the same thing.
Its not the same thing. Alignment and weapon damage type are separate characteristics.
There is a rule for multiple damage type weapons.
Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.
The armor doesn't affect both types of damage, so it doesn't affect any of the damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quilted cloth armor is DR 3/-.
Small projectiles that deal bludgeoning damage include sling bullets, which it is reasonable for it to defend against.
I would suggest that given the DR comes from layers of fiber not entirely dissimilar to paper armor which has been shown to be effective against primitive firearms, I would suggest it would work as written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should a Sweater protect you from gunfire that punches through plate?
Test it by stepping into a gang fight crossfire, and get back to me.
Well actually... plate armor probably should protect against firearms of the same time period. It wasn't until later that rifles made it obsolete. So full-plate arguably should have DR that applies against firearms. Or at least the ability to apply some of it's armor bonus against firearm attacks. Though perhaps the fact that firearms only penetrate within a certain range is already enough to account for this property of plate armor.
The description of the armour is:
Quilted Cloth: This enhanced form of padded armor has internal layers specifically designed to trap arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, thrown daggers, and other small ranged piercing weapons. When these kinds of weapons strike you, they tend to become snagged in these layers and fail to harm you. You gain DR 3/— against attacks of this kind. The special layers of the armor have no effect on other kinds of weapons.
The key sentences are the last two (which I've emboldened).
Therefore, sling bullets would bypass the protection (not historically accurate but still...). If the thinking behind the armour is that doesn't work against sling bullets then I'd have to say that I would rule that it didn't work against firearms bullets either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that since it only applies to small, ranged, piercing attacks, anything that is something else does overcome it.
DR 3/- specifically means nothing overcomes it.
Thats not true. While i agree that bullets should bypass it your reasonig is flawed. Consider:
Rule X applies to entities with trait A (eg piercing weapon)Rule Y applies to entities without trait B (eg blunt weapon)
Now say an entity has both trait A and B.
Rule X checks: Does it have trait A? Yes, thus rule X applies.
Rule Y checks: Does it lack trait B? No, thus rule Y does not apply.
Thats how the rules work or you get very weird effects. Consider if Im a ranger with FE (outsider: evil) and a feat that gives me +2 AC vs my favored enemy.
The ruke X applies to any entity with trait A (outsider with evil subtype).
I encounter a devil. A devil have traits A and B (evil and lawful subtypes). Rule X should still apply - the existance of trait B doesnt remove trait A. The devils lawful naturedoes not allow it to bypass rules that affect evil creatures.
However, if my armor had an ability that gave me DR 10/lawful, the devil could bypass that.
Granted, the item is poorly worded and Im with you about how it should be run, but the argument that if rule X applies to entities with trait A it doesnt apply to those with A+B is flawed.
Also note how some oozes work, and the difference between weapons with "B and P" and those with "B or P".
In reference to "DR 3/- against small piercing weapons is different than DR 3/Slashing or Bludgeoning," how else were they supposed to write it?
The DR only applies against piercing weapons, but not even all of them. It only works against "small ranged piercing weapons". So it doesn't apply to any slashing weapon, any bludgeoning weapon, or even spears, picks, short swords or sianghams.
So, how could they reasonably write what the DR applies to...."DR 3/anything not a small piercing ranged weapon"...?
Instead they wrote DR 3/- that only applies to small ranged piercing weapons. Not the most elegant mechanic ever written, but not sure what the alternative would be.
Still, you can't say with a straight face that "nothing bypasses it, it is DR/-" when it only applies to a tiny subset of weapons to begin with.
This is really no different than, for ex., the Swarm trait that Tiny-creature Swarms take half damage from Piercing and Slashing weapons. If you used a Morning star (or bullet, for that matter) to attack, you don't half the damage. Similarly, if the DR only applies against Piercing, it doesn't apply to bullets which are also bludgeoning.
Fuel Drop, Dungeon Master Zack
But appeals to how real world items interact with guns aren't really relevant when discussing game mechanics.
A morningstar is blunt and piercing. It gets to use the most beneficial quality where it makes any difference. For example, against a skeleton it uses its blunt quality to overcome the DR.
A firearm bullet also has both piercing and blunt. It again uses the best quality for the situation. Against armour that stops small piercing weapons it will use its blunt quality and therefore bypass the DR.
Granted, the item is poorly worded and Im with you about how it should be run, but the argument that if rule X applies to entities with trait A it doesnt apply to those with A+B is flawed.
Except that is how the rule works, as I quoted from the CRB.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They could have written:
"DR 3/slashing or bludgeoning. This DR only applies against small ranged weapoms."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They could have written:
"DR 3/slashing or bludgeoning. This DR only applies against small ranged weapoms."
They could. IF they wanted it to not apply to bullets and other small ranged weapons that are piercing and something else.
On the other hand, if they wanted it to apply vs bullets, how should they have worded it better without increasing the word count by much?
The fact that there would have been a better way to write it for case A but not for case B could mean that case B is the one they wanted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I find it very telling that the designers specifically listed small, piercing ranged weapons but not any small, bludgeoning ranged weapons.
Where real world versus Pathfinder is concerned, the argument you're proposing strikes as just a little deliberately obtuse. I put it that way because it's obvious that you're an intelligent individual who is more than capable of framing and expressing their throught succinctly.
What I mean by this, then, is that you're willing to deliberately disregard real-world references and examples (quilted armor was made in such a way as to provide protection against even heavy arrows, etc., at certain distances; by contrast, no armor provided any meaningful protection versus firearms until the 20th century) when it suits a specific argument. On the flip side, however, you are more than willing to accept real-world references and examples by default where many other facets of the game are concerned. For example, I don't imagine you question the understood effects that things ranging from torches to hand-axes have in the game.
I hope you don't take this post as a personal attack. It ties in to the question I asked you earlier, which basically boils down to RAW versus RAI.
This is a common misconception about early body armor and early firearms but the 3 Ed paragraph above is in error.
Plate armor was VERY effective against early firearms.
One of the anachronistic elements of roleplaying games is the common inclusion of Full and Field Plate armor in worlds where firearms don't exist or haven't developed. In truth the Gothic Plate Armors were partially a result of attempting to overcome the efficacy of early firearms.
Also the distinctive central "ridge" on the breastplates of the Spanish Conquistadores was developed to aid in the deflection of bullets away from the vital organs.
Firearms didn't force armor into obsolescence; Economics did. As nations moved from feudal levies to standing professional armies, the cost of outfitting large numbers of troops in expensive armor became economically prohibitive.
To the OP:
I see your point, and your interpretation is not invalid. I do not believe however that Quilted Armor was intended to provide DR against bullets.
But,
I also believe that having firearms target Touch Ac was a bad choice and one that reinforces, and probably is rooted in the above misconception. So from that stand point adding the DR vs Bullets is actually more "realistic" than the Touch AC property of Pathfinder Firearms.
Umbranus: Yes, I thought that what was Samas wanted.
Samas: The "multiple damage type" rule you quoted might provide an exception, but the whole paragraph is quiteweirdly worded. Where is it from? It uses the term immunity, which is quite rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its from the Core Rule Book. pg 144, (Damage) Type, in the Weapon section (and the SRD, as I noted in the quotation).
I don't see how it's an exception, it is the general rule for weapons with multiple damage types.
I grant you, the use of the word "immunity" is a bit odd. It continues
In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation where the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon.
This is usually the case for things like double weapons, where each end does a different type, and is noted as (S or P) like a Halbred rather than (B and P) like a musket, for example
But, though the rule could be better worded, basically everyone knows what it means and uses it.
When you attack a skeleton with a Morning Star, you don't apply the DR because while the damage is piercing it is also bludgeoning.
If you attack a Tiny Swarm with Morning Star, you don't half the damage because while the damage is piercing it is also bludgeoning.
Similarly, the armor only grants DR against piercing attacks, but since it is also bludgeoning I don't see how it would apply.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its from the Core Rule Book. pg 144, (Damage) Type, in the Weapon section (and the SRD, as I noted in the quotation).
In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation where the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon.This is usually the case for things like double weapons, where each end does a different type, and is noted as (S or P) like a Halbred rather than (B and P) like a musket, for example
This is a bit apples and oranges-y. The "either of two types" implies an exclusive disjunction of damage dealt with an attack. The morningstar does both simultaneously. It doesn't bypass skeleton DR because it's not doing piercing damage but because it /is/ doing bludgeoning. Vice versa with the swarm. You can't choose not to deal either type of damage. You can't choose to shoot a bullet that only does bludgeoning damage, and the fact that it does bludgeoning does not bypass DR/-. (Ranged^Piercing) -> DR applies. (Ranged^Piercing^Bludgeoning) -> DR applies follows.
Let's say a guy gets pulled over for drunk driving. He can't defend himself by saying he was also speeding and that his trial should proceed on that charge alone. He'll be strung up for both. If you model conditional effects as implications from a predicate to an effect, i.e. P_i(x) -> E_i(x), then each E_i whose P_i holds for an attack x will be applied, with normal stacking rules to sort out overlap.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incorrect on the skeleton example .. .the morningstar DOES bypass the DR5/Bludgeoning.
Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; rather, all damage caused is considered to be of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.
As firearms fall into the same category, quilted cloth armor DR is overcome as the DR 3/- applies ONLY to small, ranged, piercing weapons ... since the damage is treated as BOTH types and the DR only applies to ONE type, the DR would be overcome.
Incorrect on the skeleton example .. .the morningstar DOES bypass the DR5/Bludgeoning.
I don't believe anyone has said that it doesn't.
Plate armor was VERY effective against early firearms.
Against the very earliest firearms. And even then, at that point plate remained viable mostly because - at least at first - those weapons were notoriously difficult to aim and ponderously slow to reload.
By the time shot-and-pike formations had become viable (and we're still talking about comparatively primitive firearms), plate armor was well on its way out.
Firearms didn't force armor into obsolescence; Economics did. As nations moved from feudal levies to standing professional armies, the cost of outfitting large numbers of troops in expensive armor became economically prohibitive.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Before firearms became effective enough for tacticians to make them a prominent part of their maneuver forces (see Spanish Tercio, etc.) more combatants than ever - including commoners - were outfitted in either partial plate or even (more-or-less) full plate. To be sure, there was a a great deal of qualitative difference between mass-produced "munition" armor (which tended to be "half-armor" or "three-quarters armor") and the full harnesses of plate that aristocrats and their retainers wore, but it was still plate and it was still virtually impervious to traditional slashing and piercing weapons.
One of the anachronistic elements of roleplaying games is the common inclusion of Full and Field Plate armor in worlds where firearms don't exist or haven't developed. In truth the Gothic Plate Armors were partially a result of attempting to overcome the efficacy of early firearms.
Gothic plate armor precedes the early arquebuses, which, at any rate, could only defeat plate at close range.
Any way you cut it, there is a direct corrolation between early firearms becoming fielded en-masse and increasing in reliability and plate armor shrinking in terms of body coverage and eventually being abandoned altogether.
The description seems very poorly worded in that it provides DR 3/- vs. small piercing weapons.... Why wouldn't it provide DR 3/Bludgeoning or Slashing?
It is DR 3/- only against small piercing weapons (as that is what is written DR 3/- vs small piercing weapons). It does not provide its DR against anything else because of that particular clarification, which is vs small piercing weapons. What the DR 3/- provides is that if you get hit by a +5 adamantine axiomatic unholy small piercing weapon (or any small piercing weapon including one that is made of a special material and/or magical), you apply the DR. And thats it. Everything else bypasses this, because the clarifier is small piercing weapons.
The real world question was not implied by the op, it was just the DR situation.
Armour never went away, it just changed. There has been body armour worn by infantry from earliest time to the present day. Never has there been an era where some sort of armour wasn't worn. Cuirassiers still wore full plate armour through to the late C17th, and firearms had been a common feature of armies for a couple of centuries by that stage. Even after this time, they still commonly wore breastplates. Armour was usually 'proofed' by firing pistols and muskets at it. During the Napoleonic Wars, the armour worn by cuirassiers could stop pistol balls and even muskets at longer range, and deflect glancing shots even at close range.
What changed it was a combination of cost (larger armies = larger cost to equip) and an increased need for mobility.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The description seems very poorly worded in that it provides DR 3/- vs. small piercing weapons.... Why wouldn't it provide DR 3/Bludgeoning or Slashing?
It is DR 3/- only against small piercing weapons (as that is what is written DR 3/- vs small piercing weapons). It does not provide its DR against anything else because of that particular clarification, which is vs small piercing weapons. What the DR 3/- provides is that if you get hit by a +5 adamantine axiomatic unholy small piercing weapon (or any small piercing weapon including one that is made of a special material and/or magical), you apply the DR. And thats it. Everything else bypasses this, because the clarifier is small piercing weapons.
The real world question was not implied by the op, it was just the DR situation.
Which a firearm is. It doesn't stop being a piercing weapon just because it's a bludgeoning weapon also. Damage Reduction such stops Piercing damage only is DR */bludgeoning or slashing. This type of DR is overcome by a morningstar, because a morning star deals both bludgeoning and piercing. DR */- is overcome by nothing. The fact that the weapon deals bludgeoning also is irrelevant, because the DR is not overcome by bludgeoning.
Okay, so dagger thing means bullets are effected.