What I'm seeing is that the game never defines any firearm as 'a small piercing ranged weapon' unless of course it is a small sized firearm. So by Raw a medium pistol is getting past that DR.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
right, but the point is in meeting the qualifier (and truly the qualifier makes the DR 3/an extensive list of things that are not part of the qualifying group ... if the qualifier is not met, there is no DR). In this case the DR 3/- is controlled by the qualifier of the weapon group. The issue of precedence comes into play for the final bit of that qualifying group: small ranged piercing weapons.
Firearms:
ranged? definitely.
small? this one could be a point of contention that was not brought up until earlier this page ... it could very well refer to the weapon size
piercing? yes AND no ... which one takes precedence? The yes or the no?
This is the point the debate boils down to.
|
What I'm seeing is that the game never defines any firearm as 'a small piercing ranged weapon' unless of course it is a small sized firearm. So by Raw a medium pistol is getting past that DR.
The ability defines by example.
"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..."It states that arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, and thrown daggers all meet the description "small ranged piercing weapons". It, in effect, defines its own category, which bullets (and firearms) fit into. It's not using "Small" as in the size category, just small as in a general descriptor of things that are not big, otherwise Quilted Cloth is just a big middle finger to halflings and gnomes and doesn't apply to anyone else (who isn't Small). That reading of the rules would also mean that none of the listed weapons are affected unless they are also small.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
piercing? yes AND no ... which one takes precedence? The yes or the no?This is the point the debate boils down to.
And that one is handled by the multiple damage types rule. The "yes" takes precedence. 100% of the damage is piercing.
|
|
No, it does not state that those are "small ranged piercing weapons". It gives specific weapons AND THEN states "AND small ranged piercing weapons". Two completely different things. If it were being inclusive to the specific weapons being listed as "small ranged piercing weapons", it would have been listed as "and OTHER small ranged piercing weapons." The wording calls out "small ranged piercing weapons" as their own group to meet the qualifier.
|
|
And that one is handled by the multiple damage types rule. The "yes" takes precedence. 100% of the damage is piercing.
piercing? yes AND no ... which one takes precedence? The yes or the no?This is the point the debate boils down to.
AND 100% is bludgeoning.
Again, which takes precedence when determining if the qualifier is met?
This is why I say we're probably not going to be able to convince folks either way in this debate and to expect table variation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it does not state that those are "small ranged piercing weapons". It gives specific weapons AND THEN states "AND small ranged piercing weapons". Two completely different things. If it were being inclusive to the specific weapons being listed as "small ranged piercing weapons", it would have been listed as "and OTHER small ranged piercing weapons." The wording calls out "small ranged piercing weapons" as their own group to meet the qualifier....
Uh.
"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."
Emphasis is mine, but the word "other" is there in the original text.
In plain English, this sentence unambiguously communicates to you that the writer believes a thrown dagger to be a "small ranged piercing weapon". In fact, since daggers are the last item in the list, this is true without the usual ambiguity of whether you think the "other" refers just to the nearest item or to the whole list.
Correct ... quick reply post bites me in the ass. :)
|
|
I don't think this is true at all, though. Think again about DR 10/magic against arrows. That's not DR 10/magic-or-non-arrows. It's DR 10/magic, but only against arrows.This becomes an issue if you have a thing which is both an arrow and a non-arrow, and is not magical.
Such as a non magical arrow being used as an improvised weapon? Is it an arrow or an improvised weapon? Does the DR apply?
Quilted Cloth was made before the firearm was introduced. It was never updated to include rules about firearms.
The armor describes arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, and thrown daggers. 4 of the 5 are treated as ammunition. The equivalent being a bullet, which only deals piercing when fired from a gun. The armor does not say bows, crossbows, blowguns, shuriken and thrown daggers, it specifically cites the ammo and lists them as small piercing ranged weapons.
Honestly I'd say it boils down to three options.
1: The DR Works
2: The DR does not Work.
3: The DR works when the fun dies not resolve against touch ac.
By RAW either option 1 or 2 would be a correct interpretation at this time.
"which only deals piercing when fired from a gun" <-- what?
If I throw bullets at you as an improvised weapon do the small metal balls or pellets deal piercing as well as bludgeoning damage?
|
|
No, it does not state that those are "small ranged piercing weapons". It gives specific weapons AND THEN states "and small ranged piercing weapons".
Fixed that for you. The "other" in the sentence indicates that the things listed beforehand are part of the same category.
Such as a non magical arrow being used as an improvised weapon? Is it an arrow or an improvised weapon? Does the DR apply?
I don't think this is true at all, though. Think again about DR 10/magic against arrows. That's not DR 10/magic-or-non-arrows. It's DR 10/magic, but only against arrows.This becomes an issue if you have a thing which is both an arrow and a non-arrow, and is not magical.
Hmm.
Arrows: An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (–4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier ×2). Arrows come in a leather quiver that holds 20 arrows.It is "treated as" a light improvised weapon that deals damage as a dagger. On the other hand, it's still an arrow. I think right now, I would give you the DR 10/magic against it.
I am more conflicted on the quilted cloth, because I think the intent (again, thanks to "other") is clearly that they are subject to that DR only because they are ranged weapons, and that if they're not ranged, they cease to qualify as a member of the class of "small piercing ranged weapons". But I am pretty unsure on how to resolve the words as written, because I think they're just plain contradictory at that point.
Note that in the discussed case the DR from the Quilted cloth would not apply. The QC's ability kicks in vs. ranged weapons, and the text for the arrows says "An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon". Since you're not using it as a ranged weapon it no longer meets the qualifications to trigger the ability.
|
|
Fixed that for you. The "other" in the sentence indicates that the things listed beforehand are part of the same category.
Already acknowledged the error on my part, thanks anyway. ;)
Note that in the discussed case the DR from the Quilted cloth would not apply. The QC's ability kicks in vs. ranged weapons, and the text for the arrows says "An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon". Since you're not using it as a ranged weapon it no longer meets the qualifications to trigger the ability.
And if it is thrown using the Throw anything feat (though this is specifically for the DR 10/Magic against arrows analogy ... the QCA would block a thrown arrow I would expect ... as long as it was still considered a small ranged piercing weapon).
Let's just face it: The item is horribly badly written. The usage of the word "small", in a generic sense in a game that is so heavily based on keywords, is proof of that.
We won't get anywhere by debating this; the item needs a) a GM ruling at the table or b) a proper rewrite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the use of "other" ties it up for me, as far as RAW goes. It means that the person writing this item was acting under the assumption that thrown daggers are always small, ranged, piercing weapons. Which means that handguns are always small, ranged, piercing weapons.
However, I am also 90% sure that whoever wrote this armor was not a rules lawyer, and that their thought process went "well, obviously thrown daggers do piercing damage, doing slashing damage with a thrown dagger is just silly". Trying to say that daggers being on that list means that the designers intended for guns to be affected is giving a bit too much credit to the amount of thought put into designing the armor.
You have to remember that the designers of this armor probably didn't cross reference half as many rules half as intensely as the people in this thread have; they just wrote the item in a way that they thought worked, based on their available knowledge of the rules.
So I guess my personal stance is that RAW: The DR applies against bullets. RAI: Who knows? House rule: Haha, no, you are not stopping bullets with your Charmin armor.
Oh, and for your debating pleasure: Does this DR apply against blunt arrows (bludgeoning damage) fired from a longbow (piercing damage)?
Now THAT is a question I couldn't answer. :)
I'm sorry about the long reply. Time in which to catch up was limited today! :(
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.
My question then is, what is the point of having weapons that inflict two different damage types (at once; not like a weapon that is P OR S, like the dagger)? What is the point of having text in Chapter Six of the Core Rulebook that specifically states that, in the case of a weapon dealing two types of damage, a creature has to be resistant or immune to both?
Saying that a weapon's bludgeoning damage doesn't come into play because said weapon is ALSO small, ranged, and piercing goes against the weapon quality entry in question.
Dude, quilted cloth was introduced in the advanced player's guide, a year before Ultimate Combat. Ultimate equipment was just reprinting it unchanged.
Good point! That's what I get for just focusing on two books!
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?
Going by RAW, I'd be forced to accept that quilted cloth armor erroneously includes daggers - since they can deal P or S damage (wielder's choice) and there is no text that specifically states a thrown dagger HAS to use the P [damage] Type.
My RAI ruling would be that (absent any relevant Extraordinary or Supernatural ability) a dagger is meant to deal P damage when thrown, and that this is why it is included in the list of weapons that quilted cloth armor provides DR 3/- against.
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?
Yes. In fact, that is the central point of my argument. "A and B" weapons do both types of damage every time. "A or B" weapons do one or the other, depending on the wielder's choice (as reflected in the footnotes of the weapons tables). If there is no distinction between the two, then there is no point in the [damage] Type weapon quality entry stating that you have to have DR against both types of damage being inflicted, is there?
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
This is (in my humble opinion) the second major part of this debate.
Can you please explain why you feel that DR 3/- that protects against attacks by a specific type of weapons cannot be bypassed (or ignored, or overcome, however you like) by weapons that don't belong to that type (bludgeoning or non-ranged piercing weapons)?
I see no support for any conclusion that a firearm is not a piercing weapon.
It is. But it's not JUST a piercing weapon. As I offered above, I'm interested in understanding how you reconcile the above statement with the [damage]Type weapon quality entry in Chapter Six. If something that provides DR against only one type of damage can protect against a weapon that inflicts two types of damage, then there is no point in the Core Rulebook making a distinction between weapons that do two types of damage at once and weapons that force their wielder to choose between two types of damage.
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.
Help me out, seebs. Maybe I'm being too focused on my rule-reading and I'm missing something completely obvious.
To me, weapon type and damage type - in the context I think you're using them - are synonymous. A weapon only has so many qualities, each of which is identified in Chapter Six. One of those qualities is [damage] Type. To my knowledge, that is the only quality that has anything to do with the damage a weapon can deal. The only other use of "type" that I can think of, as relates to a weapon, is when we categorize them as Simple, Martial, Exotic, Light Melee, One-Handed Melee, Two-Handed Melee, or Ranged.
Again, if I'm missing something completely obvious as relates to changing a weapon's "type", I'd appreciate your help.
As of right now, though, those rules "A and B" or "A or B" seem very specific to me. One deals "damage of multiple types". The other "can deal either of two types of damage". The former of the two specifically requires a creature to be resistant or immune to both its types of damage to ignore any of said damage.
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.
Indeed. By both sides.
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.
Just as importantly, however, it never stops doing two different types of damage. Any creature that hopes to ignore any damage that a bullet inflicts must, by RAW, be able to ignore both of its types of damage.
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.
Obviously this is where we are in disagreemnt. The "-" is preceded by a specific qualifier as to what types of attacks it applies to. It does not apply equally to all damage types; it applies to small ranged weapons with the P [damage] Type.
Bullets, however, don't have a P [damage] Type. They have a BP [damage] Type. For a creature to ignore damage caused by BP damage, it had to be able to resist or provide immunity to B AND P damage.
There is no mechanical difference between a weapon which deals piercing and evil damage and a weapon which deals piercing and bludgeoning.
Actually, there is.
Unholy is a magical special ability that overcomes alignment-based DR and deals extra damage to creatures of good alignment. All extra damage, however, is of the same type as the weapon that has been made unholy. An unholy shortspear, for instance, still only has the P [damage] Type. Against a non-good creature that has DR/piercing, it brings nothing special to the table. A bullet, on the other hand, has the BP [damage] Type. The creature in question doesn't have DR/piercing AND bludgeoning, there fore it's affected.
I understand your point regarding DR 3/- versus DR 3/piercing, but that "-" is against a specific range of weapons. Even if a weapon ALSO has a Type that falls in that range (in this case, P [damage] Type), it doesn't mean that it ONLY has that Type.
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".
I guess I would ask you the same question I asked seebs, then. Do you think there is a mechanical difference between a "piercing weapon" and a weapon that has the P [damage] Type? I don't think there is. I think a dagger is a "piercing weapon" when its wielder decides he will use the P [damage] Type instead of the S [damage] Type. That's what distinguishes it from a bullet, which always uses the BP [damage] Type and requires a creature to be resistant or immune to both B AND P in order to ignore any of the damage dealt by it.
The condition is DR that cannot be bypassed, by any damage type whatsoever.
I'd like to point out that this is technically not correct:
If a dash follows the slash, then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.
And my opinion is that because a firearm does piercing damage, it is a piercing weapon.
See my above question, re: BP versus B or P.
I would say it differentiates some, but that it's both, not neither.
So a firearm is always a piercing weapon AND always a bludgeoning weapon.
Exactly! So, unless there is a mechanical distinction between being a weapon that is "always piercing and always bludgeoning" and a weapon that has the BP [damage] Type, would it not be true to say that a creature hoping to resist or ignore a bullet's damage needs to be able to resist or ignore both B AND P damage?
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/-.
What, then, is the point of saying that it only works against against small ranged piercing weapons?
And that one is handled by the multiple damage types rule.
Exactly! And that rule specifically differentiates between weapons that do two types of damage at once (bullets) and weapons that force their wielder to choose the type of damage they do (daggers). Where the former is concerned, DR against one [damage] Type (in this case, P) does NOT provide protection against a [damage] Type that involves TWO types of damage (in this case, BP).
A dagger is a piercing weapon, even when it deals slashing damage.
Again, I'm just not sure about that. Maybe I'm missing something too obvious. Maybe I'm focusing too much on the Weapons Tables in the various books. Are there defined categories beyond the ones I listed in my previous post to you?
Again, apologies for the length post!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry about the long reply. Time in which to catch up was limited today! :(
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.My question then is, what is the point of having weapons that inflict two different damage types (at once; not like a weapon that is P OR S, like the dagger)? What is the point of having text in Chapter Six of the Core Rulebook that specifically states that, in the case of a weapon dealing two types of damage, a creature has to be resistant or immune to both?
The point is that they cover different situations.
The "normal" rules (as far as I know, there is only one item that has DR/- against all weapons of a certain type) are as you state. That would, of course, be expressed not as DR 3/- but as DR 3/piercing.
This is unusual in that it is DR 3/- against piercing weapons.
The difference is quite simple. The first is bypassed by any weapon that does non-piercing damage. The second is not bypassed by any weapon that has piercing damage.
In fact, it's the very difference that we're talking about -- it's not bypassed by a BP weapon, where DR/piercing would be.
I invite you to find a way using only the standard DR notation to describe resistance that is bypassed by B, S, or BS, but not by P or anything containing P such as BP. You'll find that you can't do it; the notation doesn't work that way.
What, then, is the point of saying that it only works against against small ranged piercing weapons?
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/-.
The point is to establish that it works against any and all such weapons, including (because DR/- encompasses everything) weapons that are piercing-and-something-else.
Again, I challenge you:
DR 3/X -- where X is intended to include (be bypassed by) B, S, and BP, but NOT P, BP, SP, or BSP.
What can you write as that "X" that will encompass exactly those weapons?
DR/B won't do it, as BP would penetrate it. DR/B and S won't do it, as B alone won't do it. DR/B or S won't do it, because BP would still penetrate it.
You can't write an X in this case. Which is why they used this unusual phrasing to encompass the idea that no small ranged weapon whose damage type includes piercing will bypass this particular DR.
The point is that they cover different situations.
With respect, I don't think that this answers my question. The point that I'm getting at is that, if something that provides resistance against P but not B nonetheless provides resistance against something that does BP damage, then the BP weapon loses the benefit that the [damage] Type weapon quality entry bestows to it. The BP weapon gains no benefit for ALSO doing B damage and the stated requirement for the thing providing resistance to resist against both B AND P never comes into play. What is the point of that requirement if it isn't to ensure that both of the damage types are addressed? There is no point to having a BP [damage] Type if not to overcome (or ignore, or bypass, as you like) something that provides DR to B or P. If BP only works against creatures with no DR or that are only immune to slashing weapons, there is no point in having BP. Weapons should only be "B or P".
In fact, it's the very difference that we're talking about -- it's not bypassed by a BP weapon, where DR/piercing would be.
I don't understand why this is the case. A weapon with the [damage] Type of BP does both bludgeoning and piercing damage at the same time. The entry for [damage] Type weapon quality specifically states that a creature must be resistant or immune to both B and P in order for its DR to work against BP.
I invite you to find a way using only the standard DR notation to describe resistance that is bypassed by B, S, or BS, but not by P or anything containing P such as BP. You'll find that you can't do it; the notation doesn't work that way.
That's a bit of a trick question, though, as we're all in agreement that part of the problem here revolves around the non-standard DR notation.
To make sure we're on the same page, though, allow me to use your format to describe what I think quilted cloth armor strives to do: it provides resistance that is bypassed by B, S, melee P, and BS. Put a different way, it only provides an awkwardly termed resistance against P that is also ranged.
The point is to establish that it works against any and all such weapons, including (because DR/- encompasses everything) weapons that are piercing-and-something-else.
And that brings us right back to the top of this post.
DR 3/X -- where X is intended to include (be bypassed by) B, S, and BP, but NOT P, BP, SP, or BSP.
As offered above, I think the formula is actually DR 3/X -- where X is intended to be bypassed by B, S, melee P, BP, BS, SP, or BSP. Why? Because the small ranged piercing weapons is not that broad a category. It doesn't include most weapons out there, and it only addresses a single [damage] Type. Anything that deals damage other than P, or that deals P in melee, or that deals more than one [damage] Type (regardless of the combination) gets through.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that they cover different situations.With respect, I don't think that this answers my question.
Yes, it does.
The point that I'm getting at is that, if something that provides resistance against P but not B nonetheless provides resistance against something that does BP damage, then the BP weapon loses the benefit that the [damage] Type weapon quality entry bestows to it.
Yes.
Damage types are descriptive, and there's no reason that BP should always be superior to P.
he BP weapon gains no benefit for ALSO doing B damage
That's right. That's because doing bludgeoning damage need not always be beneficial.
I could easily create a monster with a special quality "If this monster takes damage from a weapon that does piercing damage, with or without another type of damage such as slashing, the wielder of the weapon dies (Fort save 40 DC to resist)." Doing piercing damage to such a monster is not an advantage and not beneficial.
What is the point of that requirement if it isn't to ensure that both of the damage types are addressed?
Asked and answered. Its to provide that any weapon that includes piercing damage is partially negated.
There is no point to having a BP [damage] Type if not to overcome (or ignore, or bypass, as you like) something that provides DR to B or P.
And it does that very well. But quilted cloth armor is not one of those somethings. Which is why it's not DR/B or P, but DR/-.
In fact, it's the very difference that we're talking about -- it's not bypassed by a BP weapon, where DR/piercing would be.I don't understand why this is the case.
Because the designers wanted to reflect a situation where armor was designed specifically that a particular type of damage was nerfed irrespective of whether or not it had riders.
A weapon with the [damage] Type of BP does both bludgeoning and piercing damage at the same time. The entry for [damage] Type weapon quality specifically states that a creature must be resistant or immune to both B and P in order for its DR to work against BP.
Which, fortunately, it is. It's resistant to everything, because it has DR 3/-.
To make sure we're on the same page, though, allow me to use your format to describe what I think quilted cloth armor strives to do: it provides resistance that is bypassed by B, S, melee P, and BS.
Yes. And notice that -- as I have been arguing -- it is therefore NOT bypassed by BP, SP, or BSP.
So your (small, ranged) BP weapon would not bypass it.
Put a different way, it only provides an awkwardly termed resistance against P that is also ranged.
No. Because BP would bypass "P that is also ranged," but not "bypassed by B, S, melee P, and BS but no other combinations."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To make sure we're on the same page, though, allow me to use your format to describe what I think quilted cloth armor strives to do: it provides resistance that is bypassed by B, S, melee P, and BS. Put a different way, it only provides an awkwardly termed resistance against P that is also ranged.
[...]
As offered above, I think the formula is actually DR 3/X -- where X is intended to be bypassed by B, S, melee P, BP, BS, SP, or BSP.
You do realize the two formulas that you say "you think" it does are quite different. BSP bypasses the second, but not the first.
And that's the central core of the argument. Quilted cloth armor is supposed to do the first -- it provides an awkwardly termed resistance against (ranged) P, BP, SP, and BSP.
If it were intended to do the second, it would simply be "DR 3/BS against small ranged weapons." The fact that they could have chosen that phrasing and didn't means that's not what they wanted.
If quilted armor was intended to protect against things such as bullets, this would be one of the best ways to write it and other wordibgs would have taken more space.
If it was intended to be bypassed by BP this would be an absolutely horridway ofwriting it and other wordings are available at no extra word count.
This is diregarding the ba use of the word small.
So, either the writer both didbt know the standard method of DR/B or S, AND they wherevery clumsy in writing it, or they where just a bit clumsy and overvalued their ability to be clear.
I think a little clumsy is more probable than ignorant of basic rules and very clumsy.
Yes, it does.
Not to my satisfaction. That goes both ways, though, I'm sure. ;)
Damage types are descriptive, and there's no reason that BP should always be superior to P.
That's right. That's because doing bludgeoning damage need not always be beneficial.
Meaning no disrespect, but that's generalized to the point that it ignores what the rules themselves say about a very specific situation:
Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, ... 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.
That's precisely when BP is better than P. Two fighters come up against a Skeleton. One has a shortspear, the other has a pistol. Because a [pistol] causes two types of damage (B and P), ... all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, [the Skeleton] would have to be immune to both [B and P damage] to ignore any of the damage caused by [the pistol].
Again, I mean no disrespect, but I can't understand how that rule can be read in a different way. I have literally simply substituted "weapon" with the specific weapon in question, the two types of damage with the pistol's two types of damage, and "creature" with a creature whose DR specifically provides protection only against P, and not against B.
Per arguments stated many times above, the fact that one of the pistol's two types of damage is piercing damage precludes it from bypassing the Skeleton's DR. Per the rule as written, above, the fact that the pistol's other type of damage is bludgeoning means it absolutely does bypass the Skeleton's DR.
Asked and answered. Its to provide that any weapon that includes piercing damage is partially negated.
That is not stated anywhere in the RAW. Actually, it directly contradicts what the RAW explicitly states. Again, per RAW, "a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon." You're changing that to read, "if a creature is immune to one of the two types of damage, it ignores the damage caused by such a weapon partially."
And it does that very well. But quilted cloth armor is not one of those somethings. Which is why it's not DR/B or P, but DR/-.
DR/- against a specific range of weapons. Which takes us right back to the fact that the [damage] Type of a pistol is BP, and not just P. And, at the risk of sounding like a jerk:
"Because a [pistol] causes two types of damage (B and P), ... all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, [the Skeleton] would have to be immune to both [B and P damage] to ignore any of the damage caused by [the pistol]."
Feel free to substitute Skeleton with quilted cloth armor:
"Because a [pistol] causes two types of damage (B and P), ... all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, [quilted cloth armor] would have to [provide DR] against both [B and P damage] to ignore any of the damage caused by [the pistol]."
Does quilted cloth armor provide DR against both B and P damage? No. It provides DR/- against small ranged piercing weapons. A pistol is not just a piercing weapon. It does not just have the P [damage] Type. It has the BP [damage] Type, which requires any creature, item, etc., to be resistant or immune to both B and P damage in order to ignore any of the damage caused by the pistol.
Because the designers wanted to reflect a situation where armor was designed specifically that a particular type of damage was nerfed irrespective of whether or not it had riders.
If you ignore the riders, how can you limit the nerfing of damage to the range of weapons the riders specifically reference?
Yes. And notice that -- as I have been arguing -- it is therefore NOT bypassed by BP, SP, or BSP.
Ironically, I didn't list the correct ranges! But I suspect you knew that already. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would simply posit that, technically, the entry for Damage Reduction implies that there are attacks that ignore DR / -.
This is one of the stranger straws you've been grasping at but bypassing DR is not some weird hypothetical. There are in fact things which specifically mention they bypass DR. For instance:
"Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess."
If the wording of quilted armor said something like "Attacks which deal bludeoning damage bypass this DR" then yeah, bullets would do full damage, because they count as bludgeoning, and that's what the rule was asking about. However, bludgeoning is not mentioned anywhere at all in the rules text for quilted armor. Piercing is mentioned. Bullets deal piercing damage, therefore, the DR is activated. The DR doesn't mention piercing, OR bludgeoning. It's just /- which means it applies to all physical damage regardless of type.
Another thing you keep insisting is that attacks which deal damage of multiple types count as whichever is most beneficial, which is untrue. They count as both at once. If anything calls out a type for any reason (as quilted armor does) anything it has to say about either applies. Usually, this works to your benefit, because most types a damage type is called out, it's in a beneficial fashion. DR for instance. If you have DR/Bludgeoning, all that matters is whether or not I'm dealing bludgeoning damage. Whether I'm also doing slashing or piercing damage doesn't enter into it. We aren't asking about that.
However, there are times when it doesn't work to your advantage. If you are fighting an ochre jelly for instance, bite attacks and firearms will always cause it to split.
Daggers, which do slashing OR piercing can get around things like that (although not in the ochre jelly case), because they only do one type of damage for a given attack, not both like a firearm.
A barbarian archetype has DR/- vs nonlethal damage (that is higher than the regular DR).
If you have DR 10/- vs nonlethal damage, would that mean a Sap overrides it since ot dowsnt deal "nonlethal damage " but "nonlethal bludgeoning damage"?
I think the game is very, very, clear that you are incorrect on this.
Ponder the dagger.
The dagger itself is a "P or S" weapon. You can deal piercing damage with it, or you can deal slashing damage with it. But the dagger itself is never a weapon of type P, and it is never a weapon of type S. It is always a weapon of type "P or S".
The weapon's type must be distinct from the damage it deals for "or" weapons to be capable of existing. Because the weapon type is a fixed quality, printed on a page, which does not change, but the damage it deals can change based on wielder intent.
I don't see how anything you have said above is exclusive from anything I have said. What I mean, if I did a poor job of expressing myself, is that there is no difference between a "piercing weapon", a weapon that does "piercing damage", the "piercing quality" (which was mentioned earlier, I think), etc. To me, all those aforementioned terms are determined by a single statistic owned by each weapon: the [damage] Type weapon quality.
That's why I was curious about the "distinction" you referenced, between a "piercing weapon" and "piercing damage". There is no meaningful difference. A dagger, to use your example, is a [damage] Type P or S weapon. That is synonymous with saying a dagger is a piercing or slashing weapon, or that a dagger does piercing or slashing damage.
The key thing about a dagger, where this topic is concerned, is that a dagger is, as you mentioned, a piercing OR slashing weapon. A pistol is a bludgeoning AND piercing weapon.
It can't be bypassed by them because it doesn't exist in the first place for such weapons. If the weapon doesn't meet the criteria to cause the DR to come into being, then there is no DR, and there is nothing to bypass.
Please bear with me. It might be too late over here, or I might simply be misinterpreting what you're saying.
I asked you, perhaps using terminology that you don't agree with ("bypass"), why you think DR 3/- against small ranged piercing weapons should apply against weapons that don't belong in that range. By now, I imagine it's obvious that I don't think they belong in that range since I believe Type BP weapons are distinct from Type P weapons - and thus obviously distinct from small, ranged, Type P weapons.
So, to use your own words (but not in a sarcastic way, I promise), the DR 3/- that quilted cloth armor provides against small ranged P weapons doesn't exist for a pistol, which is a BP weapon. Since the pistol doesn't meet the criteria to cause the DR to come into being, then there is no DR, and there is nothing to bypass.
The problem is your assumption that a bludgeoning weapon necessarily does not belong to that type. A bludgeoning-and-piercing weapon absolutely does belong to the piercing type. And the bludgeoning type. Just as a half-orc is both an orc and a human for purposes of game rules.
Correct. I believe BP and P are two different types. They are listed different (B and P or BP; not B or P), and they are treated differently in the Type weapon quality entry. A weapon that deals two different types of damage at once is only affected by DR that protects against both types of damage. That is specifically stated.
But DR 3/- means "resists all typed physical damage that does not specifically state that it ignores all DR". So something that has DR 3/- can indeed resist or ignore both B and P damage.
And there we are again. It's not just DR 3/-; it's DR 3/- against a specific range of weapons. That specific range of weapons is not B, it's not S, it's not melee P, it's not BP, it's not BS, etc. It's specifically small, ranged P. Per the definition in Type, I just don't see how something that is keyed to one type of damage can protect against two.
And the fact that the designers referred to "arrows, bolts, ..., thrown daggers, and other small ranged piercing weapons" tells you that the designers believe that a dagger is in and of itself a piercing weapon, inherently, without regard to which of its two damage types you have chosen to do.
You have my thoughts on the dagger already. It's obviously an RAI issue. My further thoughts on this are informed by the weapons that have multiple damage types.
The dagger, the halberd, the scythe, the gnome hooked hammer, and the dwarves urgrosh are the only weapons listed in the Core Rulebook with X or Y damage. I think that it's fairly obvious that each offers a second type of damage that the wielder can choose instead of the first, which comes into play when the weapon is used in a "different way". E.g., the halberd's axe-head as opposed to its point, the scythe's point as opposed to its edge.
The morningstar is the only weapon that does X and Y damage. Why? Presumably because you don't do anything different with it. You hit someone with it, and they suffer piercing damage until the spikes go all the way in, at which point you suffer bludgeoning damage.
But I'll grant you that this is all personal opinion/intepretation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Guys, Argument A!"
"Nuh-uh, Argument B!"
"No, Argument A!"
"No, Argument B!"
"No, Argument B!"
"No, Argument A!"
"No, Argument B!"
"No, Argument A!"
"No, Argument B!"
"No, Argument A!"
"No, Argument B!"
"No, Argument A!"
"No, Argument B!"
"No, Argument A!"
"No, Argument B!"
"No, Argument A!"
"No, Argument B!"
"No, Argument A!"
"No, Argument B!"
"F@$@ you."
"No, f+*@ you!"
There. I finished the argument. Let's all go get ice cream—I found Heathansson's wallet in the trash this morning, so it's my treat!
But seriously, guys. You've been saying the exact same things for four pages. Just accept that the only possible way to achieve consensus is for a mod to post, and that's not gonna happen, because it's a silly issue that will never come up in an actual game.
Go back to arguing paladin threads. At least those are kind of exciting thanks to all the escalating comparisons. This is just...really, really boring. I'm not even exaggerating—the same arguments have just been going back and forth the whole time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding my two bits here. Kobold's got the right of it. Let's see if there is a official ruling on the thing, if so great, if not, great and use your own interpretation at your table. Some of the logic here is really weird. Using a morning star as a duelist? *Runs away to get icecream with the Cleaver*
I would like to suggest an experiment.
Phoebus, I have a challenge for you: Present the argument for the other side in your own words.
At this point, everything I've seen from you suggests that you can't do this well enough that the people you've been arguing with would agree that you are fairly or decently presenting their positions. In particular, you repeatedly quote people saying something, then post what appears to be a rebuttal to something entirely different. So quite simply, I don't think that you could argue my side of this well enough that I, or anyone else who's been arguing this side, would think you were presenting our views. And that makes the whole exercise pointless, because if you don't actually understand the positions you're arguing against, you're not arguing against them at all.
Seebs,
I believe the argument of the "other side" hinges on two key points:
1. While all damage caused by a weapon with [damage] type B and P is of both types, it doesn't cease being a piercing weapon by virtue of the fact that it is a B and P weapon. Because of this, it falls within the range of the weapons quilted cloth armor protects against: small, ranged, piercing weapons.
2. Quilted cloth armor provides DR 3/- against small, ranged, piercing weapons. Because the damage involves a "-", however, the DR becomes something greater. Since "-" protects against any attack (not just piercing, but bludgeoning as well), it has to be treated differently than a DR that would simply protect against "small, ranged, piercing" weapons. That translates to the "-" extending to the other half of [damage] Types that include multiple modes of damage. Thus, quilted cloth armor should protect against a pistol because the B portion of its [damage] Type can't overcome DR with a "-" after it.
You'll notice I didn't use "my own words", as you requested, and focused more on using the game mechanics terms as much as possible. Don't take it personally. Why did I do so? Because I genuinely believe that, if one follows the rules and the game mechanics as they are addressed in a fairly linear fashion, they are rather clear (with one neat wrinkle, I'll admit). Another reason would be because I don't want to add even more opinion and unnecessary language-driven complexity to a debate that - by default - already suffers from a "My Opinion versus Your Opinion" issue.
Before I try to restate my case, would you confirm for me if I have accurately sum up the position that you, Ssalarn, and a couple of other posters have tried to make?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're pretty close, but not quite there.
It's an "If X, then Y" ability.
"If the attacking weapon is a small ranged piercing weapon, then you gain DR 3/-".
The DR never changes from DR vs. piercing weapons to something greater.
You were attacked by a ranged piercing weapon.
Quilted Armor gives you DR 3/- against attacks made by small piercing weapons.
"Quilted Cloth: This enhanced form of padded armor has internal layers specifically designed to trap [inclusive examples of affected items]arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, thrown daggers, and other small ranged piercing weapons. [Trigger]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. The special layers of the armor have no effect on other kinds of weapons."
So, if you are attacked by a weapon that matches the descriptor "small ranged piercing weapon", the ability granted by the armor states that you gain DR 3/-, which applies to all damage types, and would be inclusive of weapons like the firearm, the lungchuan tamo, the sibat, the dagger, and the kyoketsu shoge which have the ability to deal multiple damage types but still meet the descriptor "small ranged piercing weapon".
This is not the argument being advanced. You can tell, because we keep using daggers as an example, and a dagger is "P or S". But a dagger is unambiguously "a piercing weapon" according to the quilted cloth rules.
Seebs, I have specifically addressed the dagger argument a number of times, above. Beyond that, though, I am specifically using the firearm in a way that mirrors the dagger argument. Just as quilted cloth armor ignores the fact that a dagger does Piercing OR Slashing damage, I'm offering that quilted cloth armor ignores the fact that a pistol does Piercing AND Bludgeoning damage.
The key thing here is that the armor - per the argument I've seen advanced several times - keys in on the fact that P damage is being done.
Why did I use the pistol instead of the dagger? Because, again, we have all agreed that the dagger is some kind of aberration. I think both sides have indicated that nothing per RAW precludes a dagger from being used as a thrown slashing weapon, but the armor nonetheless includes it in its list. Hence my earlier offer, that the designers probably thought of it as a weapon where the wielder HAD to use the P Type when throwing it.
This also is not an accurate summation. The entire point is that DR types protect against damage types, not weapon types.
I'm going to ask you once more, then, to cite the relevant rule that distinguishes weapon type from damage type. I will gladly try to state your argument within the confines of the rules as I know them. If I am unaware of a rule that states there is a difference between weapon types and damage types, then I would ask you to inform me of it. I will gladly re-frame my argument then. If there is no such rule, though, you can't expect me to manufacture a position based on the opinion that there is such a distinction.
If there is no such rule, though, and this is a distinction that is informed by your opinion, then you can't act as if I'm ignoring your argument when, in fact, I'm simply pointing out what I feel to be blatantly obvious. That is, the fact that a "small ranged piercing weapon" is simply a weapon that is ranged and - absent other qualifiers - does P damage only; and that a pistol is not just a ranged piercing weapon, but a weapon that does two types of damage concurrently - and thus can only be countered by DR that provides resistance or immunity to both its types of damage.
I hope these last two paragraphs will better address the points you seek to make against me in your own closing paragraphs.
Too much extrapolation to get to a desired end and circumvent RAW.
|
|
Too much extrapolation to get to a desired end and circumvent RAW.
The desired end being preventing Quilted Cloth from affecting bullets? Because as I pointed out just a couple posts up (and a bunch of other times) RAW is that Quilted Cloth does apply. Whether it should is another matter entirely.
"Quilted Cloth: This enhanced form of padded armor has internal layers specifically designed to trap [inclusive examples of affected items]arrows, bolts, darts, shuriken, thrown daggers, and other small ranged piercing weapons. [Trigger]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. The special layers of the armor have no effect on other kinds of weapons."
So, if you are attacked by a weapon that matches the descriptor "small ranged piercing weapon", the ability granted by the armor states that you gain DR 3/-, which applies to all damage types, and would be inclusive of weapons like the firearm, the lungchuan tamo, the sibat, the dagger, and the kyoketsu shoge which have the ability to deal multiple damage types but still meet the descriptor "small ranged piercing weapon".