Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Which is why we have 'Injury Tolerance: Damage Reduction', correct?
|
And the alternative would have been to call it "Injury Tolerance: Injury Reduction," which would have prompted
far more of an outcry about the stupid name. In GURPS, it's important to read the
effects of a trait, not to just look at its name. Some things are named a certain way because a literal naming would just sound silly.
Quote:
|
I don't think 'damage' and 'injury' are as clearly delimited as you think.
|
The Basic Set separates them, and explains the difference, on pp. B377-379 (Damage and Injury). If anything there is unclear, please let me know and I'll do my best to clarify it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobmuller
And that's why, Rev Kitty, I'm confused.
If Wolverine falls off a tower-block and lands on his skull he's uninjured.
If he is wearing a helmet, he suffers a Blunt Trauma injury...
|
No. That's not correct. Reread my original post.
If you have enough rigid DR to stop an incoming attack, then you never suffer blunt trauma. For example, say you're wearing DR 10F cloth armor over DR 10 rigid armor and you're hit for 10 points of damage. Do you take blunt trauma? No, because your rigid armor stops it. Now reverse the armors. Does anything change? No, because your rigid armor stops it. You're never
penalized (with respect to injury) for having extra armor.
Quote:
|
I'd rather just read Blunt Trauma is Crushing Damage, then Rigid Armour, unless Innate, counts as Flexible for Falls.
|
If that would make GURPS' blunt trauma rules easier for you to use, then feel free, of course. I'm all for house rules.
Quote:
|
Perhaps where I'm going wrong is that Wolverine's armoured skull is not innate?
|
Sure it is.