Does Quilted Cloth armor provide its DR against bullets?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Daggers can deal piercing damage. If they only dealt slashing, I could see the case for bullets being effected. They don't.

Sovereign Court

Daggers are specifically called out in the description for the armor. Specific trumps general.


galahad2112 wrote:

You all know that the Quilted Cloth armor specifically calls out that it works against daggers right? You know, daggers, the small, piercing, SLASHING weapons commonly wielded by everyone ever.

If it stops a slashing weapon that is also a small piercing weapon, why wouldn't it do the same for a bludgeoning weapon that is also a small piercing weapon?

There's a difference though; daggers are slashing OR piercing, while bullets are blunt AND piercing.

I'm leaning towards RAW the DR working against bullets, but it's still very weirdly worded and I don't think daggers prove anything about bullets.

Dark Archive

Something else to think about...firearms are ranged touch (at least within their range increment), and damage reduction does not negate touch attacks.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Damage-Reductio n


how i would Rule it, the DR from the quilted cloth would apply to bullets for the same Reason a Duelist can use a Morningstar. because there is no exception listed for bludgeoning or slashing weapons. just because a morningstar is also a bludgeoning weapon, doesn't change the fact it is a piercing weapon, and there is no entry stating the DR is bypassed by slashing or bludgeoning weapons, just that it applies to ranged piercing weapons, which bullets are. and well, we need something to keep Dual Wielding Pistoleros in line at the low levels.


In general, the rule seems to be that if a weapon has multiple types, it uses whichever type favors the wielder. That said, there is a pretty good argument that the wording they chose is... not a good way to communicate this.


Tristan Sinns wrote:

Something else to think about...firearms are ranged touch (at least within their range increment), and damage reduction does not negate touch attacks.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Damage-Reductio n

Pg 136 of the Ultimate Combat: When firing an early/advanced firearm, the attack resoles against the target's touch AC when the target is within the first/first five (advanced) range increment(s), but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purpose of feats or abilities...


strongblade wrote:
Tristan Sinns wrote:

Something else to think about...firearms are ranged touch (at least within their range increment), and damage reduction does not negate touch attacks.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Damage-Reductio n

Pg 136 of the Ultimate Combat: When firing an early/advanced firearm, the attack resoles against the target's touch AC when the target is within the first/first five (advanced) range increment(s), but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purpose of feats or abilities...

Quilted Cloth is neither a feat nor an ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Ipslore the Red

DR is an ability.

So, if I throw a dagger that I call out as doing slashing damage for this attack, it still does not bypass the DR. Whereas you are saying that the bullets, which do 100% piercing damage (in addition to the 100% bludgeoning damage), will bypass the DR. Is this accurate? If so, there's some faulty logic at play.

Grand Lodge

No, there is no Faulty Logic. The armor, SPECIFICALLY calls out THROWN DAGGERS. The case with a Duelist using a morningstar is perfectly understandable when you recall: a weapon that deals BOTH types, uses the more advantageous type. AKA, since it does both B and P, the Duelist uses the more advantageous type ( P ) for his abilities.

By SOME peoples logic, when a morningstar hits a skeleton, the DR would apply because "It doesn't stop being a piercing weapon just because it's a bludgeoning weapon also." But as the rules state, the more advantageous descriptor applies, thus the B would apply VS skeleton.

The same thing happens with Quilted Armor. The more advantageous descriptor applies. Thus the bludgeoning factor would come into effect, bypassing the DR. Also, quilted armor does not DEADEN impact. It TRAPS small ranged weapons. It says nothing about deadening impact.

It does not call out Thrown hammers, or thrown axes. It doesnt deaden impact. If it cant stop a thrown hammer, what makes you think it would help VS the IMPACT of a bullet going over 100 times faster? Piercing weapons rely on a sharp point to penetrate. Early Bullets are ACTUALLY a crushing impact, that has so much velocity behind it, it tears through. You CAN cut grass with a dull, blunt edge, if it moves fast enough.

EDIT: Also, before anyone argues it, its what is more advantageous to the WIELDER OF THE WEAPON. Not what is more advantageous to the armor wearer, as armors dont have damage types.

Grand Lodge

to bring some real word comparisons into this regarding what could be trapped: arrows travel, on average, NO HIGHER than 200-250 fps ( thats even on the high side ). Early muskets (unrifled) were in the range of just under 1000 fps. That was out of the barrel. The quickly lost velocity, due to no spin, soft metal ( lead ) deforming and causing drag, etc... Which is why they implemented that its only a TOUCH ATTACK at certain ranges. Anything beyond those rnages, the projectile would have lost too much velocity to penetrate easily.

Armor DID have effect on firearms, but only from a distance. A pistol shot from up close, unless deflected by an angled surface of heavy plate, would punch through most armors, because it still had a high muzzle velocity at that range.

Dark Archive

Ipslore the Red wrote:
strongblade wrote:
Tristan Sinns wrote:

Something else to think about...firearms are ranged touch (at least within their range increment), and damage reduction does not negate touch attacks.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Damage-Reductio n

Pg 136 of the Ultimate Combat: When firing an early/advanced firearm, the attack resoles against the target's touch AC when the target is within the first/first five (advanced) range increment(s), but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purpose of feats or abilities...
Quilted Cloth is neither a feat nor an ability.

I'm actually going to buy it. If this is true - then firearms bypass *all* DR, no matter what (within the range increment, of course). Doesn't that seem extreme?

Though - if that is actually the intent - I'd love to know for sure. My level 2 gunslinger would be very interested in that decision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quilted Cloth may not be a feat or an ability, but it grants an ability. DR 3/- (versus small ranged piercing weapons) the fact that the armor is granting the ability is not important since the DR itself is the ability. I cannot say if I think that the quilted cloth applies to bullets or not because I can see good points with both sides of the discussion.


Samasboy1 wrote:

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.

It should be when magic is not involved in any way shape or form.


Dungeon Master Zack wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:
But appeals to how real world items interact with guns aren't really relevant when discussing game mechanics.
It should be when magic is not involved in any way shape or form.

I strongly disagree. The rules are an abstracted system that ignore all kinds of real world physics. If as a GM you want to discard existing rules in favor of greater realism, you're welcome to do so, but it can very easily break the game.

In the case of quilted armor, however, it's not exactly game breaking either way. A GM is of course free to rule however they wish.

People saying a morning star does full damage to swarms of tiny creatures - is there a specific ruling somewhere someone could link that says that? I'm just curious because, depending on how it's worded, I think it could be relevant here. The same line of thinking that says a bullet suffers the DR from quilted armor would also suggest that a morning star does half damage to tiny creature swarms since nowhere in the description does it say swarms of such creatures take full damage from bludgeoning attacks - it just says such a swarm "takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons." Morning stars would be included in the piercing weapon category..

Grand Lodge

Zathyr wrote:

I strongly disagree. The rules are an abstracted system that ignore all kinds of real world physics. If as a GM you want to discard existing rules in favor of greater realism, you're welcome to do so, but it can very easily break the game.

In the case of quilted armor, however, it's not exactly game breaking either way. A GM is of course free to rule however they wish.

People saying a morning star does full damage to swarms of tiny creatures - is there a specific ruling somewhere someone could link that says that? I'm just curious because, depending on how it's worded, I think it could be relevant here. The same line of thinking that says a bullet suffers the DR from quilted armor would also suggest that a morning star does half damage to tiny creature swarms since nowhere in the description does it say swarms of such creatures take full damage from bludgeoning attacks - it just says such a swarm "takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons." Morning stars would be included in the piercing weapon category..

Its a very simple concept. You use whichever type is more beneficial to you as the wielder of the weapon. Morningstar does B AND P. Piercing does half damage to tiny swarms, Bludgeoning does full damage. Thus, the more beneficial is Bludgeoning, and you do full damage to the tiny swarm.


I understand the concept, and I understand why many people use that guideline, but I don't know where that's actually written. The rules for weapon type do say "In a situation where the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon." but from the context that seems to be specific to or weapons and not applicable to the and ones.

Grand Lodge

Quoted straight from the SRD:

Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of 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. 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.

Note RESISTANT OR IMMUNE. It then goes on to state all damaged caused is of BOTH TYPES, and has to be immune to both ( or if you go back in the statement, you could infer resistant to both types).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But that's not quite the same as "use whichever type is more beneficial to you." In the case of quilted cloth armor, it's DR 3/- which does apply to both types, but the DR is conditional on the weapon falling into a particular category (piercing), which a bullet is (even though it's also bludgeoning). Nowhere in that paragraph does it say you can ignore the fact that it does a certain type of damage - quite the contrary.

Is a bullet a small ranged piercing weapon? Yes.
Therefor apply DR 3/-
Does that DR reduce both piercing and bludgeoning damage? Yes.

I can see the reasoning that would suggest a "needs to be resistant to both types" rule would prevent the conditional DR/- from kicking in in the first place, but I still don't see anything specific that says that's how it should be.

It's why I brought up swarms looking for something more specific since it's also worded somewhat vaguely. I can see someone reading it and reasoning that the half damage applies to bludgeoning as well as long as the weapon is also doing piercing or slashing damage. Doesn't mean I agree with that reasoning - just saying I can see it.

Grand Lodge

Okay, the basic premise would then, based on logic and reasoning: that if any condition would pass the DR criteria, ALL of the damage passes the DR criteria. Morningstar and skeleton as the primary example.

In cases of DR requiring multiple types,(Like DR/Silver and Good) all established criteria must be met for the Dr to pass. Just because a weapon happens to be a Silver, Holy, Lawful weapon doesnt mean that suddenly, it fails to pass the DR, BECAUSE ITS LAWFUL!!!

Otherwise, having a weapon of multiple damage types would then become a HINDRANCE, instead of the boon it was meant to be. Bites, as doing B, P, AND S, would be the WORST weapon , as they would always be reduced by conditional DR based on type.


Not sure how relevant this is to the discussion. I was looking at bullet proof vests on wikipedia the other day for a game in the 1920s.

Anyhow it looks like the more modern bullet proof vest models started in the 19th century when someone in the us noticed silk helped stop bullets. The reasons sounded similar to why the quilted armor works or I should say why the armor uses by the mongols workes.

I think if using the rl model Quilted armour made with silk woukd work.

The caveat being it isn't made from silk and there isn't any reason to add silk.

As far as raw goes I don't think it should. I think the reason the dagger is included is when ypu throw them they are basically piercing (I realize it doednt work that way in mechanics)

Grand Lodge

The reason Silk helped stop arrows is because it was layered in multiple layers, and silk itself is an EXTREMELY tight weave. The multiple layers cause the arrow to slow and bleed out kinetic energy upon impact with each layer. With the loss of Kinetic energy, the sharp edges can no longer push through to pierce. Same principle of how lacquered paper can be made VERY hard, by layering it in MANY MANY layers, and with the lacquer, it becomes extremely hard to penetrate.

CLOTH on the other hand, is usually a very loose weave. Quilted Cloth armor is designed upon the same principles, but only calls out small ranged piercing weapons. It couldnt be written any other way, really. DR/Slashing or Bludgeoning would apply to ANYTHING, even ballista bolts and rapiers. Normal DR is written as what BYPASSES the DR. This is written as what it prevents ( its backwards from normal format). So they wrote it as DR 3/- with a criteria for activation of the DR to come into effect. ( that the weapon is small, and is a piercing weapon, and is ranged) and also call out thrown daggers specifically. They would have to write DR 3/ (every other possible combination of damage that isnt a small piercing ranged weapon)to follow the standard format, and for space considerations ( along with potential splatbook items down the road in other products) it just wasnt feasible.

Bullets have a portion of their damage that FAILS to meet the criteria, and ALL of the damage is of that type: Bludgeoning. Thus bullets are not reduced by quilted cloth armor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
hungry gnome wrote:

It couldnt be written any other way, really. DR/Slashing or Bludgeoning would apply to ANYTHING, even ballista bolts and rapiers. Normal DR is written as what BYPASSES the DR. This is written as what it prevents ( its backwards from normal format). So they wrote it as DR 3/- with a criteria for activation of the DR to come into effect. ( that the weapon is small, and is a piercing weapon, and is ranged) and also call out thrown daggers specifically. They would have to write DR 3/ (every other possible combination of damage that isnt a small piercing ranged weapon)to follow the standard format, and for space considerations ( along with potential splatbook items down the road in other products) it just wasnt feasible.

Bullets have a portion of their damage that FAILS to meet the criteria, and ALL of the damage is of that type: Bludgeoning. Thus bullets are not reduced by quilted cloth armor.

This is incorrect. The DR isn't DR/bludgeoning or slashing, it's DR 3/- but only applies to weapons of certain types.

See my reasoning on the page before this.

In addition, they could very well have worded it differently. This is the current wording:

Quote:

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.

Benefit: You gain DR 3/— against attacks of this kind (small piercing weapons). The special layers of the armor have no effect on other kinds of weapons.

If they wanted it to only apply to weapons which did not deal B+P like bullets for example, they could have worded it like this:

Quote:

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.

Benefit: You gain DR 3/bludgeoning or slashing against attacks of this kind (small ranged weapons). The special layers of the armor have no effect on other kinds of weapons.

The word count increased by 3 words, and also cleared up an inconsistency within the parentheses (if this clearing isn't considered needed, the word "ranged" can be removed and word count would only increase by 2).

However, if they wanted it to affect any weapon that dealt piercing damage, regardless of what other weapon types, they could either have the approach they have now (which is a bit unclear) or if they wanted it to be clearer it would have to be something like this:

Quote:

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.

Benefit: You gain DR 3/— against attacks of small ranged weapons that deal piercing damage, regardless of what other damage types they also deal. The special layers of the armor have no effect on other kinds of weapons.

This would increase word count by eleven.

Note that the DR of quilted cloth doesn't apply to piercing damage, it applies to damage dealt by a small piercing ranged weapon. This is an important difference.

It's kind of like the difference between resistance to fire damage, and resistance to damage dealt by creatures with the fire subtype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaberlunzie wrote:

Note that the DR of quilted cloth doesn't apply to piercing damage, it applies to damage dealt by a small piercing ranged weapon. This is an important difference.

It's kind of like the difference between resistance to fire damage, and resistance to damage dealt by creatures with the fire subtype.

This.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The weird wording, as far as I can tell, exists for the explicit purpose of ensuring the DR still applied in this specific sort of corner case.


LazarX wrote:
Firearms were generally used against infantry troops, which generally were NOT bedecked in the extremely expensive plate armor which was already on it's way out by the time the arquebus was brought into the field.

Sorry about the late reply!

Two things:

1. Yes, firearms were "generally" used against infantry troops, but it's just as accurate to say that armies were "generally" comprised of infantry troops.
2. Infantry did not wear the best sort of plate armor, that is true. Again, though, by the time firearms were starting to become truly viable more infantry were wearing munition-grade plate armor (half-armor or three-quarters armor) than ever before. In fact, it's fair to say that, for most of western, northern, and southern Europe (the Balkans and Greece excepted), even those troops who only wore partial armor (such as pavise crossbowmen, skirmishers, etc.) used plate armor for protection. Chainmail was mostly done with. If you couldn't afford a cuireass, you wore a gambeson or a jack-of-plates/brigandine.

Quote:
Plate Armor however had already met it's demise in the development of Pike infantry. as was majorly demonstrated in the Battle of Agincourt.

Also, I think it's bizarre that Samasboy1 posted the rule that ends the OP's question back on page one... but was seemingly ignored and the debate went on.

Are you sure that's the battle you're thinking of? Agincourt occurred right as full suits of plate were becoming commponplace. Use of plate armor would only increase in the years to follow, and wouldn't start decreasing until more than a century later. And besides, the Welsh longbow is the weapon synonymous with Agincourt - not the pike. The heavily armored men-at-arms on either side of that battke would have used polearms as tall or shorter than their owner, or one-handed weapons and shields.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Samasboys quote did not end the discussion. See umbranus latest post. Also notat the quote talks about immunity, not DR.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A "piercing weapon" has no definition other than a weapon that does piercing damage.

For that matter, DR always refers to the weapon used, the notation is just specifying the type of weapons.

SRD, Damage Reduction wrote:
The entry indicates the amount of damage ignored (usually 5 to 15 points) and the type of weapon that negates the ability.

Thus DR/slashing is just short hand for saying a "slashing weapon" not "slashing damage."

So the argument that this DR is different because it applies to a weapon, not damage, is spurious.

Further, I don't see how the rule I have quoted several times hasn't put this to bed by now either. Yes, it isn't written very well, but people have no trouble applying it in all the most common scenarios it comes up in (e.g Skeleton DR, Swarms, Rakshasa DR). So why there is such push back on this situation I don't understand.

In order for damage to be resisted, you must resist both types of damage because it is 100% both types. Your Quilted Cloth armor is shot by a musket. It would resist the damage as a piercing weapon, but it can't resist the damage of a bludgeoning weapon. Since 100% of the damage is bludgeoning, it can't resist any of the damage.

But hey, people disagree. Since this has gone on for some time with no new arguments being made, I'll just chalk this up in the "not going to be resolved in thread" column.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samasboy1 wrote:


But hey, people disagree. Since this has gone on for some time with no new arguments being made, I'll just chalk this up in the "not going to be resolved in thread" column.

This, at least, is something we can agree on.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
hungry gnome wrote:


Its a very simple concept. You use whichever type is more beneficial to you as the wielder of the weapon. Morningstar does B AND P. Piercing does half damage to tiny swarms, Bludgeoning does full damage. Thus, the more beneficial is Bludgeoning, and you do full damage to the tiny swarm.

This is a made up rule extrapolated from the actual rule.

A weapon deals both types of damage, equally. So if a skeleton has DR 5/bludgeoning, and I hit it with a morningstar, the DR is bypassed because I dealt bludgeoning damage. I didn't choose one type over the other, nor was there an order of precedence, nor did my morningstar stop being a piercing weapon at any point.

The DR provided by Quilted Cloth is DR 3/-. That little dash at the end means nothing bypasses it. There is no "well it dealt bludgeoning damage so it doesn't count as piercing". The weapon is, absolutely, a piercing weapon. It never stops being that. And the DR provided is not specific to piercing damage. It is a type of DR that specifically applies to all physical damage types. When a damage reduction entry has a dash (—) after the slash, no weapon negates the damage reduction.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
Samasboys quote did not end the discussion. See umbranus latest post. Also notat the quote talks about immunity, not DR.

Not to be rude, but you're kind of confusing me at this point. Your last post seemed to focus on wording this rule differently. And even then, it struck me more as a case of personal preference.

But if you maintain that quilted armor can protect against bullets, Samasboy1's quote is directly taken from the rule about damage resistance and specifically references the type of damage done by weapons. Hence why I stated that it should end the debate. Where "immunity" is concerned, you can't ignore the rule as a whole for the sake of a single word - one that, in fact, doesn't even invalidate the rest of the text.

I just don't see how between text that:
1. ... states this armor prevents only against a specific damage type from a specific range of thrown/missile weapons, and ...
2. ... states your armor has to protect against BOTH types of damage caused by a weapon, ...

... you could argue that quilted armor provides DR 3 against a type of weapon that it categorically cannot protect against.

Am I missing something? Did I completely misunderstand your position? If so, I'm sorry for having wasted your time!

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
Gaberlunzie wrote:
Samasboys quote did not end the discussion. See umbranus latest post. Also notat the quote talks about immunity, not DR.

Not to be rude, but you're kind of confusing me at this point. Your last post seemed to focus on wording this rule differently. And even then, it struck me more as a case of personal preference.

But if you maintain that quilted armor can protect against bullets, Samasboy1's quote is directly taken from the rule about damage resistance and specifically references the type of damage done by weapons. Hence why I stated that it should end the debate. Where "immunity" is concerned, you can't ignore the rule as a whole for the sake of a single word - one that, in fact, doesn't even invalidate the rest of the text.

I just don't see how between text that:
1. ... states this armor prevents only against a specific damage type from a specific range of thrown/missile weapons, and ...
2. ... states your armor has to protect against BOTH types of damage caused by a weapon, ...

... you could argue that quilted armor provides DR 3 against a type of weapon that it categorically cannot protect against.

Am I missing something? Did I completely misunderstand your position? If so, I'm sorry for having wasted your time!

Look up one post. Read the rules for Damage Reduction and what that little "-" actually means. Read Quilted Armor again. If it is a small, ranged piercing weapon, than Quilted Armor grants DR 3/-. Is a firearm a small ranged piercing weapon? Yes. Is the type of Damage Reduction the ability grants overcome by bludgeoning damage? No. Categorically, no. It is a type of DR that specifically is not negated by any weapon. As Googleshng noted a few posts back, the weird wording seems to exist almost explicitly for the sake of corner cases like this, just to make sure that the DR does apply, even to new weapons that deal different combinations of damage than might have existed during its initial release.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The distinction is: The words, as written, do not say that this protects only against "piercing damage", but that it protects against all damage from weapons which have the piercing quality.

This is very similar to the distinction between "resistance to fire damage" and "resistance to any damage dealt by a creature with the fire subtype". If you have fire resist 10, and something hits you with a spell which does 15 fire-and-electrical damage, you take 15 points. But if you have some special custom-written power, not using the standard property language, which says "you resist 10 points of damage, whether energy or physical, from all attacks from any creature with the fire subtype", then you would take 15 points of damage from any creature without the fire subtype, but only 5 from a creature with the fire subtype. And that would stay true even if it were cold damage.

I think it's pretty clear that the intent was to duplicate the meaning of "DR 3/bludgeoning or slashing", but with the additional requirement that the damage come from a light ranged weapon. However, the words actually written specify DR/- against any (light, ranged) weapon which has the piercing quality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seriously, look at the dagger example. It does SLASHING damage (when I so choose, which is always for the sake of this argument) and is still subject to DR, as it is a small piercing weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Look up one post. Read the rules for Damage Reduction and what that little "-" actually means. Read Quilted Armor again. If it is a small, ranged piercing weapon, than Quilted Armor grants DR 3/-.

I have looked it up. :)

I would, in turn, offer to you that you can't just focus on the DR type without mentioning the qualifier.

Quote:
Is a firearm a small ranged piercing weapon? Yes.

It's not just a piercing weapon, though. See below.

Quote:
Is the type of Damage Reduction the ability grants overcome by bludgeoning damage? No. Categorically, no.

Yes. Categorically, yes. Why? Because the text governing weapon damage type (Core Rulebook, pg 144, in case anyone is still curious) specifically states that, when a weapon does two types of damage, damage resistance or immunity has to protect against both those types, or it doesn't protect at all.

You're trying to argue that, because a weapon does two types of damage, DR against one of those types will defend against both types, but that goes explicitly against what the Core Rulebook states. In fact, it's the direct opposite of what is explicitly stated.

It's really as simple as copying and pasting the text from the Core Rulebook, but replacing instances of "weapons" with "bullet", as needed:

Quote:

Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons.

[Bullets] deal damage of multiple types. If a [bullet] causes two types of damage (inject: which it does), 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 [a bullet].

And what does quilted cloth say again?

Quote:
This enhanced form of padded armor has internal layers specifically designed to trap ... small ranged piercing weapons. ... Wearing quilted cloth armor gives you DR 3/— against attacks of this kind. The special layers of the armor have no effect on other kinds of weapons.

Bullets inflict bludgeoning and piercing damage. Quilted cloth only protects against piercing damage from small, ranged piercing weapons. Quilted cloth thus protects only against one of the two types of damage. Ergo, by the RAW, quilted cloth does not protect against bullets because it doesn't protect against both of its damage types.

Quote:
It is a type of DR that specifically is not negated by any weapon.

In fact, it is a type of DR that specifically works against only a limited range of weapons.

Quote:
As Googleshng noted a few posts back, the weird wording seems to exist almost explicitly for the sake of corner cases like this, just to make sure that the DR does apply, even to new weapons that deal different combinations of damage than might have existed during its initial release

The only new weapons this would apply to would be "small ranged piercing weapons". If a weapon had damage types other than piercing, that weapon would work, since, again quilted cloth only protects against one weapon damage type done by a specific range of weapons, and armor needs to protect against ALL weapon damage types in order to provide resistance or immunity to it.

Sovereign Court

Thank you Phoebus from keeping me from typing up a similar response on an iPad. :)


galahad2112 wrote:
Seriously, look at the dagger example. It does SLASHING damage (when I so choose, which is always for the sake of this argument) and is still subject to DR, as it is a small piercing weapon.

This is where you, as the GM, can apply your interpretation of RAI. A dagger can indeed inflict one of two types of damage, depending on the wielder's choice. Its inclusion in the list of weapons that quilted cloth provides protection against stands in contradiction to the explicitly stated rule regarding multiple damage types.

You can choose to argue that the thrown dagger is included because a dagger is always used as a piercing weapon in that capacity. Or, you can choose to argue that a character can, in fact, throw a dagger in such a way that it damages with its edge (much like a hand axe), however preposterous that might sound to some. The obvious counter to those who would object would be, "But magic!"

Either way, however, the dagger is the exception to the rule. The rule is that resistance or immunity against a weapon with more than one damage type only applies when said resistance works against both types of damage.

That's explicitly stated.

If a FAQ were necessary in this situation, it shouldn't have anything to do with how damage resistance works, or how weapons with more than one type of damage work. It should be about why a thrown dagger, which affords its wielder to choose between two types of damage, is included in the list of single-damage type weapons that quilted cloth protects against.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wouldn't you think that this is a specific example that runs counter to the general DR rules? Why else would you write it the way its written?

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Phoebus Alexandros

The DR applies to all damage types. That's specifically what the little "-" means. That's why I linked in the rules for it.
DR that only protects against piercing is expressed "DR 3 / bludgeoning or slashing". As others have pointed, there is at least 1 example specifically listed (the dagger) that deals both piercing and slashing but is still affected by the Quilted Armor ability.

The DR applies to all damage types, provided that the damage comes from a weapon that meets the qualifications "small ranged piercing". It is not specific to piercing damage. That's not what that "-" means. That "-" means, and I'm quoting the CRB again here, "When a damage reduction entry has a dash (—) after the slash, no weapon negates the damage reduction".


Again, the "-" categorically applies only to small ranged piercing weapons. If you ignore that qualifier, then you must accept that quilted cloth in fact provides DR 3/- to ALL WEAPONS.

Let's break down the armor's entry, again:

Quote:
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. Wearing quilted cloth armor gives you DR 3/— against attacks of this kind. The special layers of the armor have no effect on other kinds of weapons.

What kind of DR does quilted cloth offer you? "DR 3/- against attacks of this kind." (emphasis mine)

What does "attacks of this kind" refer to? "Small ranged piercing weapons." (emphasis mine)

Are bullets "small ranged piercing weapons"? They are small ranged piercing AND bludgeoning weapons.

Can armor provide resistance or immunity against a weapon that causes two types of damage? Only if it provides resistance or immunity against both types of damage.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phoebus Alexandros wrote:


If a FAQ were necessary in this situation, it shouldn't have anything to do with how damage resistance works, or how weapons with more than one type of damage work. It should be about why a thrown dagger, which affords its wielder to choose between two types of damage, is included in the list of single-damage type weapons that quilted cloth protects against.

I would disagree, especially given the number of posters in this thread alone who don't know that the "-" in a DR entry means the provided DR applies to all damage types.

Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
Can armor provide resistance or immunity against a weapon that causes two types of damage? Only if it provides resistance or immunity against both types of damage.

Which it does. That's what the "-" means. The "and bludgeoning" has no bearing, because the DR blocks bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. If the weapon meets the qualifier "small ranged piercing" than Quilted Armor provides a type of DR that specifically blocks all damage types.


Also, see Damage Reduction, page 561 of the Core Rulebook:

Quote:

Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.

The numerical part of a creature's damage reduction (or DR) is the amount of damage the creature ignores from normal attacks. Usually, a certain type of weapon can overcome this reduction (see Overcoming DR). This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. For example, DR 5/magic means that a creature takes 5 less points of damage from all weapons that are not magic. If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.

Key part of the above paragraph: the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.

Because quilted cloth explicitly only affects attacks by small ranged piercing weapons, weapons that are not small ranged piercing weapons ignore the DR in question. Bullets are small ranged piercing and bludgeoning weapons, and by the rules in order for DR to apply against them need to protect against both their types of damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If that were correct, though, then it wouldn't work against a dagger, because a dagger is a piercing and slashing weapon. But the dagger is given specifically as an example of something this does protect against.

And, again: "DR 3/- against piercing weapons" is not the same as "DR 3/slashing or bludgeoning". One is DR against only one type of damage. The other is DR against all types of damage, restricted to applying to a subset of weapons.

You are constantly hammering on a point that is not in dispute, while completely ignoring the actual point under dispute.

Everyone agrees that a thing which provides "DR 3/slashing or bludgeoning" would be bypassed by anything which had slashing or bludgeoning damage as an option, even if it also had piercing as an option. No one arguing that, RAW, this item appears to work on bullets, has any confusion or doubt or misunderstanding in that area. We fully comprehend that the standard rules work the way they always have since 3.0 first came out, and that an item which provides DR against piercing damage would indeed have that DR bypassed by any weapon, such as a bullet or dagger, which was doing damage of a type that bypasses it.

But that's spelled "DR 3/slashing or bludgeoning".

DR 3/- means "DR which cannot be bypassed by any damage type".

Piercing damage and a piercing weapon are not the same thing. A dagger remains a piercing weapon whether or not you are using it to deal piercing damage, which is why they specifically list a dagger as an example of a weapon which is subject to this armor's DR, even though the wielder of a dagger can choose to deal slashing damage.


Ssalarn wrote:
Which it does. That's what the "-" means.

... against small ranged piercing weapons. You can't ignore the qualifier. I'm sorry!

Quote:
The "and bludgeoning" has no bearing, because the DR blocks bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing.

It does not. You may not like how this armor entry is written, but it explicitly narrows the application of what was once seemingly universal to a specific range of weapons.

Quote:
If the weapon meets the qualifier "small ranged piercing" than Quilted Armor provides a type of DR that specifically blocks all damage types.

Except that Chapter Six: Equipment of the Core Rulebook and Chapter One: Arms and Armor of the Ultimate Equipment book both explicitly address non-magical equipment. ;)

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phoebus Alexandros wrote:


Because quilted cloth explicitly only affects attacks by small ranged piercing weapons, weapons that are not small ranged piercing weapons ignore the DR in question. Bullets are small ranged piercing and bludgeoning weapons, and by the rules in order for DR to apply against them need to protect against both their types of damage.

The DR provided applies to all damage types. Address what you think the "-" means if not that the provided DR specifically applies to all damage types. The DR ability is triggered if the weapon is a small ranged piercing weapon. The DR the ability provides does not protect against piercing only. It, by definition provided in the rules I've linked in and quoted half a dozen times, protects against all weapon types, and is specifically not overcome by any type of weapon.


Seebs, are you responding to me?


Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
Seebs, are you responding to me?

Yes, roughly.

I think you are mistaken about the distinction between "piercing damage" and "piercing weapons". A dagger deals either P or S damage, attacker's choice. However, regardless of the attacker's choice, a thrown dagger is subject to the DR provided by this item, because it is a weapon with the piercing quality. The DR is not to a type of damage, but to a class of weapons, and it is very clear that a dagger is a member of that class, whether or not the dagger is dealing piercing damage.

If "dagger" weren't in that list, or there were a clear statement in the rules that a thrown dagger can only deal P damage, not S, then I think you'd have a case. With dagger in the list, and the clear attacker's-choice rule on damage types, it seems pretty unambiguous that the armor protects against all damage types, but only when the damage is coming from a "small ranged piercing weapon".

A dagger remains a piercing weapon even when it deals slashing damage. If that isn't true, then the book's example is completely wrong. If it is true, then it appears this item should also protect against bullets, because they are also piercing weapons, even when they deal bludgeoning damage.


Ssalarn wrote:
The DR provided applies to all damage types. Address what you think the "-" means if not that the provided DR specifically applies to all damage types.

I already have. The armor entry specifically spells it out for you.

Quote:
The DR ability is triggered if the weapon is a small ranged piercing weapon. The DR the ability provides does not protect against piercing only.

That's exactly what the entry states: that it only applies to attacks by small ranged piercing weapons.

Quote:
It, by definition provided in the rules I've linke in and quoted half a dozen times, protects against all weapon types, and is specifically not overcome by any type of weapon.

It does not. It categorically applies to a limited range of weapons. It states nothing about other types of damage, and thus fails to protect against weapons with more than one such type.

Where the rules are concerned, please don't forget that we are both citing them. It's not as if I'm offering opinion rather than copying and pasting straight from the PRD. One of us, however, is ignoring explicitly stated parts of game statistics while the other is referencing the whole. I'll remind you that I've also cited the applicable Damage Reduction text from the Core Rulebook Appendices. You're holding on to the "-" as if it were the ultimate trump-card, but the Damage Reduction entry specifically states that it works against "any attack that does not ignore damage reduction."

What would ignore the damage reduction in this case? Weapons that are not of the type that quilted cloth explicitly states it can protect against.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You keep doing it! You keep conflating "piercing weapon" and "piercing damage". They are not the same thing.

Daggers are a weapon that can do slashing damage. And yet, even if you are doing slashing damage, if you throw a dagger this armor gives DR 3/- against it, negating 3 points of damage.

Also, I am pretty sure you're mistaken about the use of the word "ignore" in "ignore damage reduction". The term used when something can affect you despite DR because of its specific qualities, such as weapon damage type, is "overcome", not "ignore". A bludgeoning weapon overcomes DR 3/slashing or bludgeoning. It does not ignore that DR. (Interestingly, the obvious example, lantern archons, is actually phrased as "overcomes any type of DR". It is possible that this means they don't bypass DR/-.)


seebs wrote:
I think you are mistaken about the distinction between "piercing damage" and "piercing weapons".

Honestly, I think you are mistaken about there being a distinction at all.

Weapons can be broken down in a few categories. They can be magical or non-magical. They can be made of mundane or special materials. They can be Simple, Martial, or Exotic. From there, they can be broken down into a few additional sub-categories. They can be light, one-handed, two-handed, or ranged. And from there, each weapon in each category possesses certain Weapon Qualities - to include cost, weight, etc.

When the rules refer to a "piercing weapon", they specifically refer to a weapon that has the P damage type as a Weapon Quality. More below.

Quote:
A dagger remains a piercing weapon even when it deals slashing damage.

A dagger is a simple light melee weapon with two damage type weapon qualities. Per footnote 2 of the relevant table, a dagger can inflict either type of damage (wielder's choice), since its entry specifies “or” under Type. It cannot inflict both types of damage, since its entry does not specify “and” under Type. Thus, a dagger could be - depending on its user's choice - either a piercing weapon or a slashing weapon... but not both at the same time.

Quote:
If that isn't true, then the book's example is completely wrong.

Hence my previous post.

Quote:
If it is true, then it appears this item should also protect against bullets, because they are also piercing weapons, even when they deal bludgeoning damage.

No. That would require you to assume that the exception trumps the rule. The rule is that, if a weapon does two types of damage, the ability providing Damage Reduction must protect against both types of damage.

51 to 100 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does Quilted Cloth armor provide its DR against bullets? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.