You keep doing it! You keep conflating "piercing weapon" and "piercing damage". They are not the same thing.
Please relax. We're on a message board. Understand that our posts will not arrive with perfect timing. What you might consider obstinancy on my part is probably just the fact that I've only read ONE of your posts arguing against something - and not that I'm ignoring two or more.
Regardless, see my rebuttal regarding weapon types and damage types in my previous post.
Also, I am pretty sure you're mistaken about the use of the word "ignore" in "ignore damage reduction".
I don't see how. I'm copying and pasting from the relevant entry in the Core Rulebook's appendices. "Ignore" is the specific word used. The sentence I used it in copied and pasted from the Damage Reduction entry.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, see Damage Reduction, page 561 of the Core Rulebook:
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.
I am a mammal and I am a 100 kg organism. Not all mammals are 100 kg organisms, but some are. Not all 100 kg organisms are mammals, but some are. So it is with bludgeoning and piercing weapons. The two qualifiers are independent and non-contradictory.
All mammals have hair. Am I not a mammal because I am a mammal and a 100 kg lifeform? Do I not have hair because I am also a 100 kg organism? No, I still do. All 100 kg organisms weigh more than 50 kg. Do I not weigh more than a 50 kg organism because I happen to be a mammal and a 100 kg lifeform? No, I still do.
The fact that firearms deal bludgeoning damage do not preclude their being small piercing weapons. They are still subject to the DR 3/-- quilted cloth provides, and that DR 3/-- applies to whatever damage the weapon deals, whether piercing or otherwise, in the same way that I still conform to all mammalian traits despite also bearing other descriptors. If you argue that a firearm is not a P weapon because it is BP, by the same logic you can and must argue that you can enchant a morningstar with neither keen nor disruption, because keen applies only to piercing or slashing weapons, and BP does not imply P, apparently, and disruption can only be placed on bludgeoning weapons, and BP does not imply B by the same logic.
As for choosing which damage type is most advantageous as others have mentioned in-thread, that only applies when the damage dealt is an exclusive disjunction of types.
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. 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.
Second bolding added by me. The "such a weapon" phrase clearly identifies the ability to choose as applying only to weapons dealing either of two types of damage, i.e. P (x)or B, so you can't take that particular attacker's advantage in this case.
I am a mammal and I am a 100 kg organism. Not all mammals are 100 kg organisms, but some are. Not all 100 kg organisms are mammals, but some are. So it is with bludgeoning and piercing weapons. The two qualifiers are independent and non-contradictory.
I'd argue that your example boils down to apples and oranges. Bullets have the bludgeoning AND piercing weapon damage Type. They're not contradictory, you're right about that, but they are not independent. That is to say, the wielder does not get to choose whether a bullet is percing or bludgeining.
The fact that firearms deal bludgeoning damage do not preclude their being small piercing weapons.
Of course not.
They are still subject to the DR 3/-- quilted cloth provides, and that DR 3/-- applies to whatever damage the weapon deals, whether piercing or otherwise, ...
It does not, because its DR is qualified to small ranged piercing weapons, and, as specifically stated in the Type entry under Weapon Qualities, DR must protect against both damage types.
I appreciate and understand the point and distinctions that you're trying to make, but the fact remains that your approach takes the exact opposite tack of what is stated in that entry. You argue that, because one of the bullet's damage Types is covered by quilted cloth, that both of its damage Types are protected against. The relevant entry specifically states, however, that the DR must address both damage Types. In this case, it doesn't.
If you argue that a firearm is not a P weapon because it is BP, ...
That's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm pointing out that, precisely because a bullet is BP and quilted cloth only protects against small ranged P, quilted cloth cannot protect bullets. Why? Because per CH 6, Weapon Qualities, is has to protect against both B and P.
... by the same logic you can and must argue that you can enchant a morningstar with neither keen nor disruption, because keen applies only to piercing or slashing weapons, and BP does not imply P, apparently, and disruption can only be placed on bludgeoning weapons, and BP does not imply B by the same logic.
Neither of those two examples are correct. A BP weapon is more versatile because of its twin weapon damage Types - not less versatile. Its greater versatility is precisely why it ignores the DR of quilted cloth, which only protects against small ranged P weapons.
Second bolding added by me. The "such a weapon" phrase clearly identifies the ability to choose as applying only to weapons dealing either of two types of damage, i.e. P (x)or B, so you can't take that particular attacker's advantage in this case.
I'm not sure how we're in disagreement here. The text you quoted refers to an instance where there is a choice. "Either" is the key word here. "Either" refers to when a weapon is P or S. It's the wielder's choice, per footnote 2 in the weapons tables. When a weapons is PS, it inflicts both types of damage, every time it successfuly strikes.
Ssalarn, I have addressed it time and time again. I have:
1. Pointed out that quilted cloth specifically qualifies what range of weapons its DR applies to, and ...
2. ... pointed out that, "if a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction."
Can an attack ignore damage reduction 3/-? Yes. What does in this case? Weapons that are not "arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, thrown daggers, and other small ranged piercing weapons."
Are bullets "small ranged piercing weapons"? They are small ranged piercing and bludgeoning weapons.
Does quilted cloth armor protect against both piercing and bludgeoning damage? It does not. Ergo, it does not protect against bullets.
Feel free to disagree with me. This is a friendly forum for, among other things, friendly debate and discussion. Please don't tell me that I'm not addressing any of your points, though. That is not true. I have addressed them, several times, and have done so by citing the relevant text from the official publications that specifically contradicts your position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IIt does not, because its DR is qualified to small ranged piercing weapons, and, as specifically stated in the Type entry under Weapon Qualities, DR must protect against both damage types.
I appreciate and understand the point and distinctions that you're trying to make, but the fact remains that your approach takes the exact opposite tack of what is stated in that entry. You argue that, because one of the bullet's damage Types is covered by quilted cloth, that both of its damage Types are protected against. The relevant entry specifically states, however, that the DR must address both damage Types. In this case, it doesn't.
I argue the bullet is subject to the DR per its classification as a piercing ranged weapon. The DR incurred mitigates both piercing and bludgeoning (and, yes, slashing damage).
A non-piercing ranged weapon doesn't bypass the DR. It's just never subject to it.
Why else would it not be written as DR 3/Bludgeoning or Slashing against ranged attacks? There's a similar precedent in Protection From Arrows' DR 10/Magic against arrows.
Does quilted cloth armor protect against both piercing and bludgeoning damage? It does not. Ergo, it does not protect against bullets.
It doesn't protect against piercing damage either. It protects against ranged piercing weapons. If you could somehow deal piercing damage with a sling, the DR still wouldn't apply.
I argue the bullet is subject to the DR per its classification as a piercing ranged weapon. The DR incurred mitigates both piercing and bludgeoning (and, yes, slashing damage).
It does not. It specifically protects against "arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, thrown daggers, and other small ranged piercing weapons." Bullets possess two weapon damage Types. Per the relevant Weapon Quality entry, quilted armor either provides protection against both Types or not at all.
A non-piercing ranged weapon doesn't bypass the DR. It's just never subject to it.
Correct.
Why else would it not be written as DR 3/Bludgeoning or Slashing against ranged attacks?
Feel free to ask the game's designers. Absent their feedback, though, the rules are clear.
There's a similar precedent in Protection From Arrows' DR 10/Magic against arrows.
I'm not sure what correlation you're inferring from that spell. Is it more to the point about what it does than quilted cloth armor? Sure. That in no way means that the limitation imposed on quilted cloth's armor DR is less than clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a similar precedent in Protection From Arrows' DR 10/Magic against arrows.I'm not sure what correlation you're inferring from that spell. Is it more to the point about what it does than quilted cloth armor? Sure. That in no way means that the limitation imposed on quilted cloth's armor DR is less than clear.
In hindsight the inference is unclear. I mean there's precedent for using DR (Amount)/(Bypasser) against (Target damage source). If the designers had wanted bludgeoning or slashing to bypass the cloth's DR, they could have written "DR/Bludgeoning or Slashing against ranged attacks."
Per the relevant Weapon Quality entry, quilted armor either provides protection against both Types or not at all.
Both. DR/- has everything covered.
A non-piercing ranged weapon doesn't bypass the DR. It's just never subject to it.Correct.
Then the bullet, as a piercing weapon, is subject to DR 3/-, which it cannot bypass.
Feel free to ask the game's designers. Absent their feedback, though, the rules are clear.
Apparently not.
That wasn't a "rebuttal", it was a bald assertion, and it flies in the face of how the rules are normally understood.
Please be more specific and less hostile. A bald assertion? Everything I stated is specifically drawn from the Core Rulebook and Ultimate Equipment. In most cases, I have copied and pasted the specific text. When I haven't, it's because I'm not prepared to figure out how to insert entire tables.
When a specific rule is trumping a general rule, it normally indicates in some way that it is making a new ruling; it doesn't just give a list of examples of things that the writers obviously assumed were consistent with the existing rules.
Again, please be more specific with your point.
I guess what it comes down to is:
I think it's pretty clear that there is a distinction between "fire damage" and "damage dealt by a creature with the fire subtype", ...
Is there? I'll defer to greater experience, but a quick look at the Fire Elemental entry only indicates a "burn" entry by their "slam" attack. Said "burn" entry simply states that "A creature with the burn special attack deals fire damage in addition to damage dealt on a successful hit in melee." Fire Giants similarly just add fire damage to the rocks they hurl.
... and that there appears to be a distinction between "piercing damage" and "damage dealt by a weapon which has the piercing quality". In particular, a dagger can deal slashing damage, but it's still damage dealt by a weapon which has the piercing quality.
I disagree, and I suspect this comes down to the fact that you believe there is a distinction between the two terms.
All weapons have certain Weapon Qualities. "Type", that is, damage type, is one of those weapon qualities. The "[damage] Type" weapon quality indicates what kind of damage the weapon in question will do. As such, "piercing damage" and "a weapon [that] has the piercing quality", as you put it, are effectively synonymous.
More to the point, the dagger's Type is P OR S. The wielder much choose which damage Type he will employ his dagger with. If he chooses P, the weapon deals piercing damage. If he chooses S, the weapon deals slashing damage. BP, by contrast, means the wielder doesn't have to make that choice. He inflicts both types of damage every time.
Your argument, that a dagger maintains its "piercing quality" even when its wielder chooses to utilize its slashing Type of damage infringes on precisely what makes a bullet (in this case) better.
My complaint is mostly that your tone and writing have consistently created the strong impression that you were completely unaware that other people were inferring the existence of a distinction you don't believe in, and you kept writing these long posts with an insulting tone which strongly suggested that you thought everyone here but you is a newbie who's never dealt with the DR rules before.
I feel that my posts have been neutral and calm in tone. If you feel that my tone is insulting, I assure you that is not the case. If it will make a difference, allow me to apologize.
As for what I'm unwaware of... I honestly don't understand what you're getting at. Of course I'm aware that you're infering the existence of a distinction I don't believe in. You've offered your points. I agree with some of what you have to say, disagree with other parts, and ultimately am at odds with your conclusion.
Where my posting style and citations are concerned, I don't assume anyone here is inexperienced, etc. We're having a debate - at worst, an argument. That means we're at odds, and what we're at odds over are the rules in question. I'm sincere when I say I'm not trying to be rude, but here goes: what exactly should I be citing if not the text that is relevant to the rules that we are at odds over?
There is a principle in debate called the "principle of charity" which is that you should, whenever possible, respond to the best argument someone might be making, rather than the worst.
Seebs, I'm genuinely at a loss here.
If, for instance, you and I were debating different economic schools of thought as they relate to the damage or good they could do to the most vulnerable members of society, then I would of course approach our discussion with the principle of charity in mind. It's patently bad form to assume a capitalist's argument will, for instance, boil down to ignoring the plight of the poor because their lack of marketable skills means they deserve their plight. Similarly, it's just as bad to assume that a socialist's argument boils down to robbing those who earned what they have by dint of hard work to give it away to those who have done nothing to deserve it.
When Ssalarn states that quilted cloth armor provides DR 3/- against bullets, however, what exactly is the "best" argument and the "worst" argument I should assume he's making? Isn't he, ultimately, simply saying that the armor provides DR against bullets? What else do you want me to assume? I don't think his position is due to him being mentally inferior to me, or on account that he doesn't know the game's rules. I assume precisely what I imagine he's assumed about me: that is, that he's read the rules and come to an incorrect conclusion. Hence why I have consistently cited the rules and pointed at the correlation between them and the text of quilted cloth armor.
You've done precisely the opposite, repeatedly completely disregarding clear and explicit statements as to what someone's claim was to argue with a claim that most rules questions forum-goers wouldn't have made past their first week with the game.
First, how have I disregarded anyone's claim? Again, I'm honestly not trying to be rude here, but at what point does "disagreed with" become "disregarded" in your eyes?
Second, what part of my claim do you think "most ... forum-goers wouldn't have made past their first week with the game"? Have I been incorrect in pointing out that daggers aren't simultaneously piercing and slashing weapons? Have I been incorrect in pointing out that the [damage] Type quality entry states that, when a weapon inflicts two types of damage, DR has to address both those types of damage in order to work? Or am I incorrect when I posit that quilted cloth armor's DR only applies to the range of weapons its entry explicitly qualifies?
I've been using the d20 DR rules for nearly fifteen years now. This ain't my first rodeo.
And at no point did I assert this was the case.
I am aware of the interpretation you're using, and frankly before I saw this item's wording and examples, I probably would have used the same interpretation. However, once I was confronted with an item which used "DR 3/- against ... piercing weapons", and which gave daggers as an example, I found that model unsustainable. Given that wording, the cleanest reconciliation available is to distinguish between piercing damage and damage coming from a weapon which has the piercing quality.
And we simply disagree on this matter. How else do you want me to frame my position, though, if not by citing the rules that I believe spell out a much simpler and more plausible alternative?
Your position boils down to "If something is proof against P, then it's also proof against B, because it's both B and P." Am I wrong about this? My position boils down to "Just because something is proof against P doesn't mean that it's proof against B." When a rule specifically states that a creature being proof against P doesn't make it proof against B AND P, what would you expect me to do other than cite it?
Reviewing it, it seems that we have previous rules discussions establishing a general agreement that the attacker's choice rule does indeed permit the use of a thrown dagger as a slashing weapon, ...
I think that's the moist plausible answer as well. Absent text that states a thrown dagger always uses Type P weapon damage, I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise, RAW-wise (RAI is a different matter, of course).
... and I think the choice was made to adopt language which would cause the quilted cloth armor to protect against thrown daggers anyway.
And my stated rebuttal to that was that this would constitute an exception to the rule. Now, we could all admittedly said to one another, "Very well, let's agree to disagree." For whatever reason, though, three different parties (myself included) have felt strongly enough that we had the rules as written - and not just opinion - on our side, and have opted to continue this debate.
That this also appears to imply that it has the same effect against bullets can be neither intentional nor unintentional, since bullets weren't added to the game until a year later.
Respectfully, I think it's more to the point that Ultimate Equipment was first released a year and a month after Ultimate Combat. This informs my opinion (separate from my reading of the rule) that quilted cloth armor isn't meant to provide protection against bullets. Firearms having been a part of the game for some time by that point (longer, where the game designers are concerned), I doubt that bullets are intended to be a part of list of weapons they were not listed in.
But honestly, given how kevlar and similar materials work, and given the list of examples, I think the overall evidence is that the intent is probably that this item does provide its typeless DR against bullets.
You'll excuse me if I don't engage on this part of the debate. I would rather avoid something as complex as a discussion about real world armor versus real world firearms. :)
In hindsight the inference is unclear. I mean there's precedent for using DR (Amount)/(Bypasser) against (Target damage source). If the designers had wanted bludgeoning or slashing to bypass the cloth's DR, they could have written "DR/Bludgeoning or Slashing against ranged attacks."
Ah, I should have gotten that. You're absolutely right. They could have written it that way. I have no problem conceding that quilted cloth armor's verbage could have been more elegant. That having been said, I can't ignore the fact that it nonetheless provides a qualifier to its DR.
Both. DR/- has everything covered.
And again, that's one of our major bones of contention: whether the stated list of weapons that the armor works against mitigated the "-" part of the DR.
Then the bullet, as a piercing weapon, is subject to DR 3/-, which it cannot bypass.
Again, another one of our major bones of contention: is a bullet a piercing weapon? No, it's a piercing and bludgeoning weapon, all at once. You'll forgive me if I don't recycle the [damage] Type weapon quality entry again. :)
Apparently not.
Touche.
Again, and we've been over this: If it worked the way Our Hero keeps insisting it does, ...
Seebs, let me say this. You assumed I was being rude to you on the basis of the perceived tone of my posts. This, despite the fact that, at worst, I'm guilty of maintaining a neutral mien and citing rules.
On the flip side, though, you have now qualified your impatience with what you thought was me ignoring your points (ironically, while ignoring the limitations of a message board and how it might lead to delayed acknowledgements), and now you're being at the very least sarcastic when refering to me. I mention this only because - in my humble opinion - tit-for-perceived-tat is not exactly solid moral ground.
... then daggers wouldn't be subject to it either, ...
Where forum limitations are concerned, this is where I could be expressing displeasure because it might seem as if you're ignoring what I had to say about daggers X posts ago. ;)
This is very similar to the Protection from Arrows DR 10/magic which applies only against arrows. Non-arrows don't have to be magic to bypass the DR, arrows have to be magic to bypass it.
Out of curiosity, is there a FAQ that changes the wording of this spell? The spell's name references arrows... but the spell's text does not:
The warded creature gains resistance to ranged weapons. The subject gains damage reduction 10/magic against ranged weapons. This spell doesn't grant you the ability to damage creatures with similar damage reduction. Once the spell has prevented a total of 10 points of damage per caster level (maximum 100 points), it is discharged.
For quilted cloth, non-piercing things don't have any DR to bypass, but anything which is piercing faces DR 3/-, which it cannot overcome, even if it is also other types.
I guess this brings us back full circle. How do you reconcile your above statement with what the [damage] Type weapon quality entry has to say?
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.
Bullets are not an "either" sort of weapon, like a dagger. They are a "both" type.
Either way, though, I suspect we find ourselves arguing whether the inclusion of the dagger (whose [damage] Type weapon quality should exclude it from the list of weapons quilted cloth armor works against) is a mistake/aberration or if it's meant to disqualify a rule that hasn't changed since the first printing of the Core Rulebook (two types of damage, etc.).
|
OK, so here are a few points that (I hope) every one can agree on.
1) Specific trumps general: That is a specific example always trumps a general rule.
2) DR/- would indicate DR that has no means of bypass.
3) when a condition is given with a list of specific qualifiers, those qualifiers are what what is keyed to that condition.
Is everyone in agreement with these points? I am specifically looking for response from Phoebus, seebs, Ssalarn and Jamesui, but welcome all who care to agree with or refute these initial three points.
I would simply posit that, technically, the entry for Damage Reduction implies that there are attacks that ignore DR / -.
Other than that, yes, I agree with the above three points.
Also, thank you for stepping in to be a moderator, zylphryx. :)
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?
That has been brought up several times and has been ignored by the ones wanting projectile weapons to ignore this kind of armor.
@ zylphryx: I agree with your three points.
OK, so here are a few points that (I hope) every one can agree on.
3) when a condition is given with a list of specific qualifiers, those qualifiers are what what is keyed to that condition.
Is everyone in agreement with these points?
I think I disagree with point 3, although it's hard to tell because the wording is a little vague.
The condition is independent of the qualifiers that state when it applies.
Consider a hypothetical monster that has the cold subtype, and hence vulnerability to fire, when in direct sunlight.
It is not vulnerable to sunlight, it's vulnerable to fire. But that vulnerability only exists when the creature is in sunlight.
So the condition is "vulnerable to fire," and the qualifier is "in sunlight."
There's no necessary link, even in theory, between the condition and the qualifier. The qualifier could just as easily be "when shapeshifted," "when on consecrated ground," "when on its native plane,"."when grappled"... and the condition could easily be "immune to acid," "treated as one size larger," "covered in bugs",....
In this case, the condition seems to be "DR/-" and the qualifier is "when attacked with a specific type of weapon."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I thought only I had a problem with the wording because of foreign language issues.
So the rules as written say.
"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."
The description of the item calls out "arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, thrown daggers, and other small ranged piercing weapons."
Now my questions is what exactly is a small ranged piercing weapon? As defined in the rules.
|
OK, so here are a few points that (I hope) every one can agree on.
1) Specific trumps general: That is a specific example always trumps a general rule.
2) DR/- would indicate DR that has no means of bypass.
3) when a condition is given with a list of specific qualifiers, those qualifiers are what what is keyed to that condition.
Is everyone in agreement with these points? I am specifically looking for response from Phoebus, seebs, Ssalarn and Jamesui, but welcome all who care to agree with or refute these initial three points.
Yessir, those three things are all generally true, though point 3 could use a little clarification.
I think I disagree with point 3, although it's hard to tell because the wording is a little vague.
The condition is independent of the qualifiers that state when it applies.
Consider a hypothetical monster that has the cold subtype, and hence vulnerability to fire, when in direct sunlight.
It is not vulnerable to sunlight, it's vulnerable to fire. But that vulnerability only exists when the creature is in sunlight.
So the condition is "vulnerable to fire," and the qualifier is "in sunlight."
There's no necessary link, even in theory, between the condition and the qualifier. The qualifier could just as easily be "when shapeshifted," "when on consecrated ground," "when on its native plane,"."when grappled"... and the condition could easily be "immune to acid," "treated as one size larger," "covered in bugs",....
In this case, the condition seems to be "DR/-" and the qualifier is "when attacked with a specific type of weapon."
This is also true, though I don't know that it necessarily disagrees with point 3, but instead expounds upon it. If this was what you were trying to convey with the third item, then yeah, I agree.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So for this debate, there are several elements to consider. Alot of this is rehashed from earlier in the thread, so bear with me. And yes, this will be long post. I ask you read it and dismiss it out of hand for looking at the entire debate rather than a single issue.
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.
Looking at this description and taking the three points above, we get the following:
1) Specific trumps general.
Since specific weapons are called out, these will trump any other rule (as they are specific examples). This means regardless of any other rule to the contrary, the specifically named weapons (arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, and thrown daggers) are included with "small ranged piercing weapons" for the purposes of the effects of the armor.
2) DR/- cannot be bypassed.
Indeed this is true. If it is listed on it's own.
3) Qualifiers attached to conditions or properties.
In the first sentence of the description we have a group of weapons. In the second sentence we have a description of the effect the armor has on the group of weapons. The third sentence gives the condition or property (DR/-) and the qualifier (against attacks of this kind). The final sentence is an additional qualifier (no effect on other kinds of weapons).
This means that the DR/- is effective only against arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, and thrown daggers (as they are specifically listed) and small ranged piercing weapons. Your PC gets hit by a mace or sling stone or ballista bolt, you do not get the benefit of the DR as these items are not of the affected weapon group.
Now this brings us to those weapons which have either the choice of two damage types or inflicting two damage types simultaneously.
First, a clarification. The argument that seemed to pop up about a difference between a damage type and a weapon type is nonsense (sorry to sound a bit harsh, but really it is a bit on the silly side). The weapon type dictates the damage type ... for all intents and purposes they are synonymous. A piercing weapon inflicts piercing damage. A bludgeoning and piercing weapon deals both bludgeoning and piercing damages. A bludgeoning or piercing weapon deals either bludgeoning or piercing damage.
TYPE: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing.
There is, as always, an exception. If you use a piercing weapon as an improvised weapon to deal bludgeoning damage, you will not get past DR X/piercing. But this is not really an exception in the true sense, as the piercing weapon actually becomes an improvised bludgeoning weapon in this case, but I wanted to call it out to keep it from popping up later.
As to the weapons with multiple damage types, the following is listed in Ultimate Equipment:
TYPE: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.
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. For example, the damage caused by a dagger depends on whether the wielder is thrusting to deal piercing damage or slicing to deal slashing damage.
So for those weapons which deal either piercing or bludgeoning damage, they can be counted as either weapon/damage type at the determination of the wielder.
But what about daggers with their P or S damage? Well, since they were specifically called out as being affected by the armor, and specific trumps general, thrown daggers are affected by the armor regardless of their weapon type.
For those weapons which deal both types of damage, a creature (which, say, a hobgoblin wearing quilted cloth armor would qualify as) needs to be immune to both types of damage to ignore ANY of the damage caused by such a weapon. The damage dealt is of both types
The armor only gives DR/- vs. arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, thrown daggers and small ranged piercing weapons. Firearms deal B and P ... you may want to qualify them as piercing weapons, but they are really bludgeoning and piercing weapons and there is a mechanical difference between the two. To argue that it gets qualified as one and not the other is erroneous (it is both ... it is described as both ... it is mechanically treated as both). As it is treated as both, it is not a small, ranged piercing weapon but is a small, ranged piercing AND bludgeoning weapon mechanically speaking and as such would not meet the requirement to be affected by the DR.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it is not a small, ranged piercing weapon but is a small, ranged piercing AND bludgeoning weapon mechanically speaking and as such would not meet the requirement to be affected by the DR.
So your argument is that a small, ranged piercing AND bludgeoning weapon is not a small, ranged, piercing weapon?
Because if we accept that firearms are piercing weapons, then they do not bypass DR 3/- (since nothing bypasses DR 3/-).
I disagree. I believe that a small, ranged piercing and bludgeoning weapon is a small, ranged piercing and a small, ranged bludgeoning weapon as well. Since it's a small, ranged, piercing weapon, the conditions are satisfied, and therefore the DR is not bypassed.
|
|
Now my questions is what exactly is a small ranged piercing weapon? As defined in the rules.
Hmm good point ... one could argue that a medium firearm would not qualify for the classification of "small ranged piercing weapon" based solely off the weapon size. Keep in mind it does specify weapon and not ammunition. ;)
Poor poor halfling and gnome gunslingers. ;)
EDIT: it also means that a pixie gunslinger would not be affected by the armor as it is tiny, not small. ;)
Now my questions is what exactly is a small ranged piercing weapon? As defined in the rules.Hmm good point ... one could argue that a medium firearm would not qualify for the classification of "small ranged piercing weapon" based solely off the weapon size. Keep in mind it does specify weapon and not ammunition. ;)
Poor poor halfling and gnome gunslingers. ;)
Yes, but a Medium dagger would also fail to qualify as "small"; I think this interpretation is obviously wrong.
|
|
Now my questions is what exactly is a small ranged piercing weapon? As defined in the rules.Hmm good point ... one could argue that a medium firearm would not qualify for the classification of "small ranged piercing weapon" based solely off the weapon size. Keep in mind it does specify weapon and not ammunition. ;)
Poor poor halfling and gnome gunslingers. ;)
Yes, but a Medium dagger would also fail to qualify as "small"; I think this interpretation is obviously wrong.
Except that daggers are specifically called out. Specific trumps general, remember.
|
|
it is not a small, ranged piercing weapon but is a small, ranged piercing AND bludgeoning weapon mechanically speaking and as such would not meet the requirement to be affected by the DR.So your argument is that a small, ranged piercing AND bludgeoning weapon is not a small, ranged, piercing weapon?
Because if we accept that firearms are piercing weapons, then they do not bypass DR 3/- (since nothing bypasses DR 3/-).
I disagree. I believe that a small, ranged piercing and bludgeoning weapon is a small, ranged piercing and a small, ranged bludgeoning weapon as well. Since it's a small, ranged, piercing weapon, the conditions are satisfied, and therefore the DR is not bypassed.
Except there is a mechanical difference between a piercing weapon and a bludgeoning and piercing weapon. This also falls into specific vs general in that there is a specific rule for weapons which have deal two types of damage.
|
|
Dude, quilted cloth was introduced in the advanced player's guide, a year before Ultimate Combat. Ultimate equipment was just reprinting it unchanged.
and that has any bearing because of ... what?
I just happen to have a pdf copy of UE on this machine but not the APG.
If they are indeed identical, then it makes no difference from where I quote, correct?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, so here are a few points that (I hope) every one can agree on.
1) Specific trumps general: That is a specific example always trumps a general rule.
Not quite.
A specific rule trumps a general rule.
A specific example indicates that the writer thought that the rule already worked that way.
An example does not create a ruling, it gives examples of how the ruling already works. That's the entire point of calling it an example.
Contrast two hypothetical bits of text (made up to illustrate the point):
1. "Creatures named Joe are immune to this attack, and do not take the penalties."
2. "Creatures immune to this attack (such as those named Joe) do not take the penalties."The first creates a specific ruling: If you are named Joe, you are immune to this attack. The second presumes that creatures named Joe are immune to this attack, but it is not intending to create a new rule, rather, it implies that the writer believed this rule already existed.
I do agree with you on this one, but for the example of Quilted Cloth Armor:
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.
The armor calls out a list of weapons that are affected by it in sentence one. In sentence two "when these kinds of weapons strike you" refers back to the list established in sentence one. And sentences three and four outline the rule for the armor stating "gives you DR 3/— against attacks of this kind" referring to the previous established listing of weapons and "have no effect on other kinds of weapons".
This is not a case of example. This is a case of rule. Granted it is a rule to this specific type of armor ...
|
|
Sorry, the thread had moved on without me. I was responding to another poster who claimed that, since UE came out after UC, the omission of bullets in the list was clearly intentional. But the list predates UC, and bullets didn't exist.Dude, quilted cloth was introduced in the advanced player's guide, a year before Ultimate Combat. Ultimate equipment was just reprinting it unchanged.and that has any bearing because of ... what?
I just happen to have a pdf copy of UE on this machine but not the APG.
If they are indeed identical, then it makes no difference from where I quote, correct?
no harm, no foul.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This also falls into specific vs general in that there is a specific rule for weapons which have deal two types of damage.
There is, but (IMHO) you're misapplying the rule. The rule is simply that a weapon which does two types of damage does both types of damage simultaneously. But since neither bludgeoning nor piercing will bypass DR 3/-, it doesn't matter.
I see no support for any conclusion that a firearm is not a piercing weapon. Just as a simple example, the "keen" property, by rule, can only be placed on a piercing or slashing weapon, and "disruption" can only be placed on a bludgeoning weapon. This means that I can't have a keen morningstar or a morningstar of disruption, by your suggested interpretation, since a morningstar is "bludgeoning AND piercing."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except there is a mechanical difference between a piercing weapon and a bludgeoning and piercing weapon. This also falls into specific vs general in that there is a specific rule for weapons which have deal two types of damage.This feels like a significant stretch of the "specific vs. general" terminology. These are both general rules, neither is a specific exception.
Not really. The general rule is:
TYPE: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing.
The rules dealing with multiple damage types then become the specific rule for weapons of those types.
I guess there's two questions here that are interesting.First: If the list of weapons had not been included in the armor's description, would people generally conclude that it did, or did not, apply to daggers? Would they conclude that it applied to daggers only when those daggers were being used as piercing weapons?
This would fall into the category of folks specifying they are doing Slashing instead of Piercing to ignore the DR.
Second: Does the distinction between "A and B" and "A or B" matter? If we were told that bullets were "piercing or bludgeoning", would people think that the armor provided DR if and only if the attacker had chosen piercing?
By RAW, yeah.
But RAW also has different rules for "A and B" vs. "A or B", so yes, the distinction does matter.
My inclination is to think that the list of weapons was offered purely as an example of how the writer understood the rules to operate. I don't think the intent was to create additional rules, merely to illustrate how the writer believed the category of "small, ranged, piercing weapons" applied.
Answered in a different post. :)
|
|
I think we are all in agreement that this one will ultimately end up with table variation as it currently is written. I can see where the other viewpoints are coming from, but I don't expect there is going to be mass conversion of viewpoints one way or the other.
@Orfamay - those two enchantments can also be placed onto an amulet of mighty fists, which is not a weapon, let alone P and/or B, but I get your point. The question then becomes which takes precedence, the classification as a piercing weapon or the rule about both being immune to both damage types being required to avoid any of the damage from a weapon inflicting two types of damage.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A firearm does 100% of its damage as piercing, and 100% of its damage as bludgeoning. This is clearly spelled out in the rules, and has been quoted several times.
The only definition of a "ranged piercing weapon" is "a ranged weapon which deals piercing damage". A firearm is eminently this. At no point does it stop being this.
Quilted cloth provides DR 3/- against attacks from small ranged piercing weapons.
The "-" in the DR entry indicates that the DR is not overcome by any type of weapon. That is what it means, that it applies equally to all damage types.
Does a firearm meet the description "small ranged piercing weapon"? AS much as anything else listed does, yes.
Does DR 3/- apply equally to all damage types? Sure does, that is the very definition of what the "-" in the entry means.
Lets look at it from a different angle.
We know that there are types of DR that are overcome by alignment. I have a new weapon, the angellic emee, which launches a spike that deals piercing and good damage. Should the quilted cloth's ability apply?
Lets bring it in closer. I have a +1 unholy longbow. My arrows are all treated as evil for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction. Does quilted cloth armor's DR apply?
There is no mechanical difference between a weapon which deals piercing and evil damage and a weapon which deals piercing and bludgeoning. The additional descriptors do not ever cause the item to stop being the first descriptor. Just because the weapon also matches the description "small ranged bludgeoning weapon" does not mean it does not also match the description "small ranged piercing weapon".
The rules for the armor state that if the weapon matches the given description (which it does) than it gains a type of DR that applies to all forms of weapon damage. This also satisfies the DR requirement that the DR must apply to all of the weapons damage forms. It specifically does, that what the "-" means.
Here's another. Half-orcs and Half-elves count as both humans and orcs/elves. The fact that they count as humans for effects does not allow them to ignore effects which affect orcs, and vice versa.
The one does not exclude the other, and if something requires one the existence of the other does not negate the first (and vice versa).
The question then becomes which takes precedence, the classification as a piercing weapon or the rule about both being immune to both damage types being required to avoid any of the damage from a weapon inflicting two types of damage.
There is no matter of precedence here. The "-" means the DR provided applies to all damage types.
The question then becomes which takes precedence, the classification as a piercing weapon or the rule about both being immune to both damage types being required to avoid any of the damage from a weapon inflicting two types of damage.
Well, I still disagree. The rule about being immune to both damage types refers, specifically, to bypassing DR. DR 3/- cannot be bypassed by any damage type, so this rule doesn't apply. No issue of precedence is involved.
As I said before, "the condition is independent of the qualifiers that state when it applies."
The condition is DR that cannot be bypassed, by any damage type whatsoever. The condition is not DR/piercing, which could be bypassed by a weapon that did other-than-piercing.
The qualifiers are "when attacked with a ... piercing weapon."
If a firearm is a piercing weapon, then the qualifier is met and the condition holds, ergo the DR is not bypassed.
If a firearm is not a piercing weapon, the qualifier is not met and the DR does not exist to be bypassed.
And my opinion is that because a firearm does piercing damage, it is a piercing weapon.
|
|
I would consider the "A and B" or "A or B" rules to still be fairly broad rules. Perhaps more importantly, I don't think those rules really tell us whether a weapon's type is changed if something changes the type of damage you're using it to deal.
they are still broad, but they are more specific than the overarching rule. The "A or B" rule certainly does tell us that the weapon's type changes (as the wielder gets to choose the damage type). The real question becomes, does the "A and B" rule differentiate the weapon from an "A" type weapon and from a "B" type weapon.
|
|
Well, I still disagree. The rule about being immune to both damage types refers, specifically, to bypassing DR. DR 3/- cannot be bypassed by any damage type, so this rule doesn't apply. No issue of precedence is involved.
Quite the contrary. The precedence is relatively important. In effect, the DR for the armor is DR 3/anything other than the weapons listed (but DR 3/- against attacks of this kind takes fewer words). The question of whether the firearms are considered piercing, therefore affected or whether the DR is not applied because of firearms dealing two damage types and not being considered solely piercing is what the stumbling block is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I still disagree. The rule about being immune to both damage types refers, specifically, to bypassing DR. DR 3/- cannot be bypassed by any damage type, so this rule doesn't apply. No issue of precedence is involved.Quite the contrary. The precedence is relatively important.
In effect, the DR for the armor is DR 3/anything other than the weapons listed
NO.
DR 3/- is, in effect, DR 3/-. It's not "DR 3/- unless the person is wearing a hat" or any other qualification on the DR. The condition is independent of the qualifier.
Neither bludgeoning nor piercing damage will penetrate DR/-.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quite the contrary. The precedence is relatively important. In effect, the DR for the armor is DR 3/anything other than the weapons listed (but DR 3/- against attacks of this kind takes fewer words). The question of whether the firearms are considered piercing, therefore affected or whether the DR is not applied because of firearms dealing two damage types and not being considered solely piercing is what the stumbling block is.
No. The ability kicks in vs. all attacks of the indicated type, which includes a list of examples. The ability then gives you DR 3/-. That dash does not mean "anything other than the weapons listed", it means (and this is an actual rules quote) "the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction".
As has been mentioned multiple times, DR that would be overcome by a firearm would have been listed as "DR 3 / bludgeoning (and slashing, potentially) vs. ranged weapons", which actually would have been easier for them to write out.