Does Quilted Cloth armor provide its DR against bullets?


Rules Questions

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

Seebs,

Back off from the larger disagreement we're having for just a second.

Quote:
My argument is that [quilted cloth armor] is nonsensical unless there is ... a distinction [between damage type and weapon type], and that there are strong hints in the rules that such a distinction can be talked about.

Have I accurately paraphrased what you stated in your own post?

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

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

Seebs,

Back off from the larger disagreement we're having for just a second.

Quote:
My argument is that [quilted cloth armor] is nonsensical unless there is ... a distinction [between damage type and weapon type], and that there are strong hints in the rules that such a distinction can be talked about.
Have I accurately paraphrased what you stated in your own post?

@Seebs

Admiral Ackbar has some advice on this one man. You've made your case and you're directing your arguments at a demographic that is picking and choosing what they want to acknowledge and respond to in order to try and "win" at the internet. It's not worth the stress of continuing this particular dialogue. I say this because I can tell that you and I are both the kind of person who gets convinced that if you just state your case eloquently enough, or use the right combination of words, you'll get it across. Sometimes that just isn't the case.
Trust me, I know how hard it is to just accept that you're not going to convince someone, even if you laid out a perfect diagram as to why your position holds. Go read a mounted combat thread sometime and watch me pound my head on a cement wall laying out something that I know is airtight over and over again to people who obviously just aren't responding (or possibly reading in the first place) to what I'm actually saying.

I've only very recently started (and not very well) to learn that sometimes you just need to walk away.


Ssalarn,

You're misrepresenting my position and intent. I don't think you're doing so purposefully, but there it is.


Gaberlunzie wrote:

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 it doesnt deal "nonlethal damage" but "nonlethal bludgeoning damage"?

Now that I'm not on a phone, I can clarify this a bit. A 10th level invulnerable rager has DR 5/-, and DR 5/- against nonlethal damage.

Would a sap deal 1d6-5 or 1d6-10 damage to an invulnerable rager?

If it deals 1d6-10, why? A sap isn't _just_ a non-lethal weapon, it is also a bludgeoning weapon.


Seebs,

On the off chance you don't ignore me:

Quote:
And that means that we are absolutely not talking about the type of damage being dealt. Which you have been told not less than ten times. And you keep saying you get that, and then you turn around and say that the key point in our argument is that piercing damage is being done.
Quote:
My argument is that [quilted cloth armor] is nonsensical unless there is ... a distinction [between damage type and weapon type], and that there are strong hints in the rules that such a distinction can be talked about.
Quote:
And if you disagree, then the only thing that makes sense is to stop there.

I would posit that there is one more sensible option before we stop right there: we could have discussed whether or not there is such a distinction to begin with.

I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk right now, but we actually did have that discussion going for a while. Our last couple of posts, back in page 2 of this topic, kicked off said conversation. You thought that I was ...

Quote:
... mistaken about the distinction between "piercing damage" and "piercing weapons".

You qualified your position with your example about the dagger.

I responded:

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

I qualified my position, in turn, by citing the categories of weapons as they are listed in the Core Rulebook.

You then responded by offering that ...

Quote:
... it's pretty clear that there is a distinction between "fire damage" and "damage dealt by a creature with the fire subtype", 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.

My reply to that was:

Quote:
Is there [a distinction]? 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 where the latter part of your last point (re: dagger dealing slashing damage but still having the piercing quality), I offered this:

Quote:
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.

I didn't receive a direct response to that. Your last words on this subject were:

Quote:
... there are strong hints in the rules that such a distinction can be talked about.

This, in turn, ties in to your main point, stated earlier in your last post:

Quote:
The entire point is that we are arguing that this piece of equipment is written in a way which indicates that the writer distinguishes between "has piercing type" and "is currently dealing piercing damage". And you may think that shouldn't exist in the rules, and I would absolutely endorse that view. It is a dumb thing for the rules to contain.

You are correct. I don't think that this distinction should exist in the rules. More to the point, I don't see how this distinction is in the rules. The Type weapon quality entry states:

Quote:
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.

If there is something in the Core Rulebook (or any other book) that specifically expands on what seems to me to be a clear equivalency between weapon type and type of damage, I will happily acknowledge it. At the end of the day, though, this is the only rule that I know of that pertains to a weapon's "type" and the "type of damage" it deals, as relates to the context of your quoted text, above.

Meaning, I don't know of any rule that says "a dagger has the piercing quality even when it does slashing damage". I don't know of any rule that addresses a "piercing quality". As above, there is only a "Type" quality, which is a specific weapon quality, and that quality directly relates to the type of damage a weapon deals.

The only thing I've seen that even implies that "a dagger has the piercing quality even when it does slashing damage" is a non-magical item that we all agree is poorly written. Is the item poorly written to the point that more than one weapon should fall under the trap of rules that cannot (in my humble opinion) be reconciled with RAW? I don't believe so.

Even more to the point, though, if this post accomplishes only one thing, I hope that it shows you that I have not tried to ignore your arguments, or that I've tried to dismiss their premise out of hand. It certainly has not been my intent to be rude to you. The fact that this premise - the distinction in question - is important to you is why I attempted to engage you in the above conversation to begin with. I don't know why said conversation went unfinished. I suspect we all got distracted. For what it's worth, I'll accept my share of the blame for that.

I'm not here to "win the internet", as Ssalarn believes. If you don't respond to this, so be it. I think we all understand that no one is changing anyone else's mind at this point. I'm simply trying to prevent hostility or resentment from coloring our future interactions.


Gaberlunzie wrote:

Now that I'm not on a phone, I can clarify this a bit. A 10th level invulnerable rager has DR 5/-, and DR 5/- against nonlethal damage.

Would a sap deal 1d6-5 or 1d6-10 damage to an invulnerable rager?

If it deals 1d6-10, why? A sap isn't _just_ a non-lethal weapon, it is also a bludgeoning weapon.

It doesn't, though, does it?

Quote:
If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.

Where that situation compares to the topic, though, you cited a weapon that only has one [damage] Type, and whose damage and effects are both countered by a single DR source. What I mean by that is, DR 5/- without any "riders" can protect against any [damage] Type, no matter how many different types of damage it involves. Someone like me, though, who sees no distinction between a "piercing weapon" and the P [damage] Type weapon quality will continue to argue that DR 3/- against small ranged piercing weapons doesn't address weapons whose [damage] Type involves two concurrent types of damage.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

<sigh> I told myself I was done with this thread. Oh well. ;)

@Gaberlunzie - Nonlethal is not a damage type as far as weapons are concerned. The DR 5/- vs. nonlethal is not dependant on a specific weapon type / damage type, so it blocks nonlethal bludgeoning, nonlethal slashing, nonlethal piercing and any combination therein.

@ seebs as to the weapon type != damage type, I still have to disagree, based solely off the following excerpts:

Ultimate Equipment wrote:
TYPE: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing.

As to the oft touted dagger example, it is an "S or P" weapon.

Ultimate Equipment wrote:
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.

Since a weapon is classified by the damage it does, a dagger can be either a Slashing weapon or a Piercing weapon; it is not a piercing weapon when it deals slashing damage nor a slashing weapon when it deals piercing damage. It is one OR the other.

As to the whole QCA debate, I am pretty much through with it at this point.

The armor was poorly designed; aside from the poor wording, there is the implementation of DR where no other mundane armor grants it. Indeed the only other way to get DR from armor is to have it enchanted as either defiant (which grants DR 2/- and and extra +2 enhancement against a specific creature type along the lines of bane) or invulnerability (which grants DR 5/magic) ... for the price of either a +1 or +3 enhancement ... which translates to an extra 3000gp or 15000gp (as you need a base +1 enhancement on the armor to get the special ability enhancement).

EDIT: You could run with the alternate armor as DR Rules as well, I suppose, but you should not have to.

Compare those to gaining DR 3/- against, if one point of view is followed, an entire group of weapons regardless of what type of creature uses the weapon and whether or not it is magical. All for the low price of 100gp.

BAD. DESIGN.

The wording, as has been stated numerous times, is not clear, as the fact this debate has gone on for far longer than it should have.

Technically, if you really want to be a stickler for RAW, the term small in the description would mean that when the ranged weapon used is sized for a Medium of larger creature OR a tiny or smaller creature, the DR is not present.

Ultimate Equipment wrote:

DMG: These columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit. The column labeled “Dmg (S)” is for Small weapons. The column labeled “Dmg (M)” is for Medium weapons. If two damage ranges are given in the same column, then the weapon is a double weapon. Use the second damage figure given for the double weapon’s extra

attack. Table 1–8: Tiny and Large Weapon Damage gives weapon damage values for Tiny and Large weapons.

So a "small range piercing weapon" would be, by RAW, a weapon built for Small creatures ONLY. For all the other "but this is in the rules" arguments thrown out, this one pretty much got glossed over, but it is as valid as any of the others and cannot simply be dismissed.

Silly? Yes. And why is it silly?

BAD. DESIGN.

The use of terminology which, by RAW, has specific meaning, and then trying to use it for other purposes is ...

BAD. DESIGN.

Now, I could see this armor granting a +4 untyped armor bonus vs. the subset of weapons ... it makes the armor slightly better vs. most ranged weapon attacks than a chain shirt (a +4 Armor bonus for the same price point). That would be reasonable.

I could see the condition be "against either ammunition from ranged weapons CAPABLE OF INFLICTING PIERCING DAMAGE or thrown light weapons CAPABLE OF INFLICTING PIERCING DAMAGE." That would be far more clear.

Bottom line is as long as the entry remains as written, there will be table variation. I can accept it. I recommend you do as well.

Most importantly, if this is for a home game, what gets posted in these forums really doesn't matter. It's your game, so play it as you will and don't get bent out of shape about someone "playing the game wrong" at some other table at which you are not a player. There is no "playing it wrong" in a home game, play how you want to play. The only place where this will really have any bearing whatsoever is in Society play (and there will be table variation).

OK, I'm done. Have fun, roll dice. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, see. The thing you're missing here, Phoebus, is that it is still absolutely necessary to, when trying to understand an argument, work with it as though its premises were correct. Even if you don't accept the premises, any time you simply assume them to be incorrect and reinterpret the argument in terms of different premises, you have completely ceased to participate in the discussion. You're no longer responding to anything other people are saying, only to what they would have been saying if they'd agreed with you on the point under dispute.

zylphryx: I would argue that the claim about weapons having a type that reflects the damage they deal is completely consistent with my interpretation. I think.

The two key quotes are:

Quote:
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.

and

Quote:
TYPE: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing.

Now, there's a problem already, which is not all weapons are classified according to the type, singular, of damage they deal. Rather, some weapons have a classification like "P or S", which means they can either "deal P" or "deal S", with the wielder choosing which for each attack. But the weapon's classification is the entry in the table, which is "P or S". And a morning star's classification is "P and B".

So I'm saying that the classification is the thing in the table, and the damage dealt is of a type which has to be compatible with that classification, but isn't necessarily of the same type. But the weapon itself always retains its classification.

Okay, thought experiment:

Quote:
A vorpal weapon must be a slashing melee weapon. If you roll this special ability randomly for an inappropriate weapon, reroll.

Can you place a vorpal enchant on a dagger? If so, does it continue to work even if you're doing piercing damage with it? I would say, yes, you can place the enchant on the dagger because the dagger itself has a classification which includes slashing. Even if you are stabbing to do piercing damage, the dagger itself continues to have the classification "P or S".

... And either way, I would totally agree: This item's design is poor and fits poorly with the rest of the rules.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:

Now, there's a problem already, which is not all weapons are classified according to the type, singular, of damage they deal. Rather, some weapons have a classification like "P or S", which means they can either "deal P" or "deal S", with the wielder choosing which for each attack. But the weapon's classification is the entry in the table, which is "P or S". And a morning star's classification is "P and B".

So I'm saying that the classification is the thing in the table, and the damage dealt is of a type which has to be compatible with that classification, but isn't necessarily of the same type. But the weapon itself always retains its classification.

For single typed weapons it is not an issue, so we can ignore those, which just leaves us the X OR Y weapons and the X AND Y weapons.

The X OR Y weapons become either X weapons OR Y weapons depending on the damage dealt. So if the weapon deals X damage it is an X weapon. The OR statement makes the type singular. It can be one or the other, but it cannot be both (at least not at the same time).

The X AND Y weapons are both X weapons AND Y weapons. Which is the point where the original debate hinged. Does the DR activate because it is X regardless of the fact is it also Y and the interpretations of the conditions spelled out in the double weapon type entry? This is the main point of the original debate and I am not going to delve into any further. As I said before I am basically done with the debate over a poorly designed armor entry.

As to the vorpal experiment, sure enchant the dagger with vorpal. As long as it is used as a slashing weapon, the vorpal quality (that is being able to cut off your target's head, which is why it required the slashing weapon type) would function. If you are using it as a piercing weapon, it would not (RAW reason it is not a slashing weapon at that point ... common sense reason, how are you going to cut off an ogre's head by just poking it in the neck?)

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

zylphryx wrote:


For single typed weapons it is not an issue, so we can ignore those, which just leaves us the X OR Y weapons and the X AND Y weapons.

The X OR Y weapons become either X weapons OR Y weapons depending on the damage dealt.

This is a major point of contention. I do not believe there is any rules support for saying that a dagger stops being a piercing weapon just because I'm currently dealing slashing damage with it. A dagger is always a piercing weapon. Just because I'm using the edge at the moment doesn't mean the point magically disappears.

zylphryx wrote:

The X AND Y weapons are both X weapons AND Y weapons. Which is the point where the original debate hinged. Does the DR activate because it is X regardless of the fact is it also Y and the interpretations of the conditions spelled out in the double weapon type entry?

Yes. The ability is activated against attacks by piercing weapons. The fact that it is also a bludgeoning weapon does not cause it, at any point, to cease being a piercing weapon.

Sovereign Court

Ssalarn wrote:
zylphryx wrote:
The X AND Y weapons are both X weapons AND Y weapons. Which is the point where the original debate hinged. Does the DR activate because it is X regardless of the fact is it also Y and the interpretations of the conditions spelled out in the double weapon type entry?
Yes. The ability is activated against attacks by piercing weapons. The fact that it is also a bludgeoning weapon does not cause it, at any point, to cease being a piercing weapon.

Let's finish my quote, shall we?

zylphryx wrote:
This is the main point of the original debate and I am not going to delve into any further. As I said before I am basically done with the debate over a poorly designed armor entry.

Thanks for playing. Have fun, roll dice. ;)


zylphryx wrote:
seebs wrote:

Now, there's a problem already, which is not all weapons are classified according to the type, singular, of damage they deal. Rather, some weapons have a classification like "P or S", which means they can either "deal P" or "deal S", with the wielder choosing which for each attack. But the weapon's classification is the entry in the table, which is "P or S". And a morning star's classification is "P and B".

So I'm saying that the classification is the thing in the table, and the damage dealt is of a type which has to be compatible with that classification, but isn't necessarily of the same type. But the weapon itself always retains its classification.

For single typed weapons it is not an issue, so we can ignore those, which just leaves us the X OR Y weapons and the X AND Y weapons.

The X OR Y weapons become either X weapons OR Y weapons depending on the damage dealt. So if the weapon deals X damage it is an X weapon. The OR statement makes the type singular. It can be one or the other, but it cannot be both (at least not at the same time).

See, I don't think I accept this view. I think the weapon's classification and the damage dealt are distinct. The dagger is always an S or P weapon, even though at any given point it is only doing one kind of damage.

In short, I think the initial sentence saying they are classified by the type (singular) of damage they deal is probably a "general", which is trumped by the "specific" of "some weapons have a classification that covers multiple types of damage".

Come to think of it:

PRD wrote:
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.

This seems to me to be distinguishing, again, between the type of the damage and the type of the weapon. The type, singular, it deals is not half one and half the other; rather, all damage caused is considered to be of both types, plural.

The weapon's type is "B or P". The damage is of types "B" and "P". The weapon type tells you about the type or types of damage, but they aren't quite interchangeable. I don't think the weapon has a type which changes over time, I just think the type of damage done changes.

I note that natural weapons are always "and", and that claws give us the B-and-S example we were missing, while bites and "other" are B/S/P.

Quote:
As to the vorpal experiment, sure enchant the dagger with vorpal. As long as it is used as a slashing weapon, the vorpal quality (that is being able to cut off your target's head, which is why it required the slashing weapon type) would function. If you are using it as a piercing weapon, it would not (RAW reason it is not a slashing weapon at that point ... common sense reason, how are you going to cut off an ogre's head by just poking it in the neck?)

I am not sure about that "RAW" part. Nothing says the vorpal enchant won't work when a weapon deals piercing damage, or bludgeoning damage, only that it can't be placed on a non-slashing weapon. Once it is placed on a weapon, nothing in the description says it works only when the weapon is dealing slashing damage.

I would say that either you can only place it on weapons that always do slashing damage, or that once it's on a weapon, it works regardless of damage type, unless there's errata or a FAQ or something on this.

... Although I'm now starting to wonder.

Because I re-read the rules again, just in case. And Ultimate Equipment adds a few words, but not much. But! I noticed a footnote:

PRD wrote:
2 A weapon with two types is both types if the entry specifies “and,” or either type (wielder's choice) if the entry specifies “or.”

This, it seems to me, strongly suggests that the people who did that table believed that the weapon is the type of damage it's doing right now.

So now that I've noticed there's wording changes going on, I went and checked the SRD, and that had "either type (player’s choice at time of attack)" for the type column.

And if we accept that table footnote as determining the interpretation, then the dagger does not inherently have a type, it has an option of choosing between two types of weapon it can be (somewhat similar to how the dagger can be a ranged or melee weapon). In which case, the "other small ranged piercing weapons" wording is just plain wrong, as a thrown dagger doesn't necessarily belong on that list.

... Either way, I am convinced that this item cannot be reconciled with the rules without significant effort to fix up loose references.


seebs wrote:
See, I don't think I accept this view. I think the weapon's classification and the damage dealt are distinct.

At the risk of sounding hostile, how is the above in any way different from what you accused me of doing to you, seebs? How are you working with zylphryx's argument as though its premises were correct?

I don't think there's a distinction between weapon classification and the damage dealt. You think there is such a distinction. I've qualified why I don't think there is a distinction, and I even tried to engage in a discussion as to why it's not. I went as far as to remind you of it, and the examples we both brought up to support our respective assertions. At the end of it all, though, you claim the fact that I disagree with some of your premises prevents me from correctly interpreting your claims.

Your evidence that I'm not correctly interpreting your claim is the fact that I keep arguing that there is no distinction between weapon type and damage dealt. You expressed as much in your second to last post and third to last post on page 4 of this topic. That's not me ignoring your argument or misrepresenting it, though. That's simply me disagreeing with you, which I'm entitled to do. More to the point, that's me disagreeing with you in a way that is no different than the way you disagree with zylphryx, above.

You simply don't agreee with each other's premise regarding a distinction (or lack thereof) between weapon type and damage dealt... and there's nothing wrong with that.


seebs wrote:

... Although I'm now starting to wonder.

Because I re-read the rules again, just in case. And Ultimate Equipment adds a few words, but not much. But! I noticed a footnote:

Quote:

PRD wrote:

2 A weapon with two types is both types if the entry specifies “and,” or either type (wielder's choice) if the entry specifies “or.”

This, it seems to me, strongly suggests that the people who did that table believed that the weapon is the type of damage it's doing right now.

So now that I've noticed there's wording changes going on, I went and checked the SRD, and that had "either type (player’s choice at time of attack)" for the type column.

And if we accept that table footnote as determining the interpretation, then the dagger does not inherently have a type, it has an option of choosing between two types of weapon it can be (somewhat similar to how the dagger can be a ranged or melee weapon). In which case, the "other small ranged piercing weapons" wording is just plain wrong, as a thrown dagger doesn't necessarily belong on that list.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I did try to point this out, a couple of pages back:

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

Admittedly, my phrasing here is more awkwardly worded than my subsequent citations of the Type quality. For whatever reason, we passed each other like two ships in the night in this case.

Such is life.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As a humorous aside, and since talk has been about weapon types, at one point I had to deal with a player who took the stance that if he took the martial weapon proficiency feat, he could choose "one type of weapon", so he chose to be proficient with slashing weapons. ;)


Yessss! :D


But Phoebus. The entire central point was that I was referring to the apparent (in some of the rules) distinction being made between "damage it deals" and "the weapon's innate qualities". A distinction without which the quilted cloth is just plain written wrong.

There has been no point in the last thirteen and a half years at which I could not, woken from a sound sleep, have told you off the top of my head that a dagger can deal piercing or slashing damage, but that it deals only one at a time. What's missing is the clear citation to a rule suggesting that the weapon's type is not the entry in the "Type" column in the table, but rather, an instantaneous snapshot of what the weapon is doing right now.

Even if the rules don't have that distinction, it is linguistically possible to make the distinction, and the thing where you keep completely failing to perceive the difference between two sets of words which are actually different words is actually sort of scary. (I say "scary" because the last time I had a problem like this, it turned out to be early onset of schizophrenia in the person who was simply unable to retain the information that two sets of words were different.)

So, when you said that the dagger can inflict either type of damage, that did not add any information at all. What would have been relevant and/or persuasive would be citing to the footnote (oddly, removed in the Ultimate Equipment version of the table):

PRD wrote:
2 A weapon with two types is both types if the entry specifies “and,” or either type (wielder's choice) if the entry specifies “or.”

The key here is that we already know that the weapon can deal either type of damage with an "or", or does deal both types with an "and". What's been previously missing is an unambiguous statement that the weapon is of both types (or either type).

... And actually, interestingly, that footnote seals the deal anyway.

The bullet is both types. Therefore it is piercing. It is not a special distinct type that is piercing-and-bludgeoning, but rather, it is of two types. Therefore it is a small ranged piercing weapon. It is also a small ranged bludgeoning weapon. But there's no rule in the quilted cloth armor saying it doesn't provide DR against other weapon types, only that it only does against the specified weapon types.

If a weapon is "small" (whatever that means), ranged, and piercing, then quilted cloth provides DR 3/- against it. No weapon damage type or combination of types bypasses DR 3/-. It does, however, seem to be an error to include daggers in the list, given that.


Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
seebs wrote:
See, I don't think I accept this view. I think the weapon's classification and the damage dealt are distinct.
At the risk of sounding hostile, how is the above in any way different from what you accused me of doing to you, seebs? How are you working with zylphryx's argument as though its premises were correct?

Very simple:

I'm responding to the thing he actually said, and showing how my interpretation works differently from his. But I'm not arguing with what his words would have meant if he'd meant something totally different by them, because that would be pointless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, guys, I found a way to contribute!

As you can see in the above thoughtful dissertation, I do my best to be balanced by picking one side, then playing Devil's Advocate. I continue the argument until I feel the issue's been completely resolved.

In addition, I think I've found some solid evidence that should end this argument once and for all.

Sovereign Court

seebs wrote:
But there's no rule in the quilted cloth armor saying it doesn't provide DR against other weapon types, only that it only does against the specified weapon types.
Ultimate Equipment wrote:
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.

KC, please forgive me. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I am forced to concede: I thought I had found a ruling which, although ugly, at least managed to reconcile the item's wording with the other rules about weapons and damage types.

I now realize that there does not exist any valid interpretation of this item. No matter how you interpret the rest of the weapon type rules, I am pretty sure that "no effect on other kinds of weapons" cannot be reconciled with the inclusion of daggers in the list. Either it has effect on at least one slashing weapon (and perhaps on arrows and bolts when used as melee weapons), and the "no effect" line is false, or it has no effect on other types of weapons, and the inclusion of daggers in the list is wrong.

I can't even resolve it with specific-vs-general, because this is all specific rules for this item.

I give up. I can't make this one make sense. If I am ever called upon to rule on this item, my answer is going to be "hand me your character sheet, I have a shredder. Now go."

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

Want to post a reply? Sign in.