Blunt Trauma for "No Wounding" Attacks

[Joel]

I've always assumed attacks with "no wounding" but not "no blunt trauma" always do some trauma unless the target has enough hard DR to stop the attack completely. Re-reading the rules, it seems like RAW it only does blunt trauma injury if the target has enough flexible DR to stop the attack, leaving characters with lower flexible DR or un-armoured targets without a scratch. Which means you'd paradoxically take more damage for having more DR.

As an example, say 3 characters (A, B, & C) are hit with 50 points of Crushing Damage (No Wounding, -50%). A has 60 DR with no modifier, B has 60 DR (Though Skin, -40%), and C has no DR at all. Obviously A is fine no matter what and B takes 10 injury from blunt trauma but what about C, does C get away with no injury?

[Anthony]

Wouldn't "No Wounding" attacks never do blunt trauma, since that does wounding?

[Refplace]

No wounding specifically says it may inflict blunt trauma.
Basic, under No Wounding, p111

As for doing more damage to people in hard shells then flexible armor the shell guys cant roll with the blow so take it more forcefully rather

[Joel]

Originally Posted by Refplace

As for doing more damage to people in hard shells then flexible armor the shell guys cant roll with the blow so take it more forcefully rather

?

People in hard shells are fine, the what I was asking was if people without any armour take less damage (actually no damage) than people with flexible armour. Blunt trauma is written as only happening if the damage is completely stopped by flexible DR, so if the attack is no-wounding it seems like you'd take no damage at all with no armour but take blunt trauma injury if you have flexible armour (like Though Skin DR).

It just seems weird to me that you could be in a situation where an attack hits two guys (for this example, lets say a UT Force Beam set to non-lethal which does no-wounding crushing damage but is noted as still doing blunt trauma), one naked and unarmoured and one with subdermal armour, bioplastic skin, and a bioplas suit, the guy who is completely DR-less would get away with no injury but the flexible-armoured guy wouldn't. I had originally thought they would both take the blunt trauma injury but the description of blunt trauma in campaigns (which says it only comes from damaged stopped by flexible DR) seems to contradict this.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Joel

?

I had originally thought they would both take the blunt trauma injury but the description of blunt trauma in campaigns (which says it only comes from damaged stopped by flexible DR) seems to contradict this.

Ah I see where your coming from now.
Yeah I will agree that is an odd case.

[benz72]

submit it as a Murphy's Rule?

[zoncxs]

Originally Posted by Joel

?

People in hard shells are fine, the what I was asking was if people without any armour take less damage (actually no damage) than people with flexible armour. Blunt trauma is written as only happening if the damage is completely stopped by flexible DR, so if the attack is no-wounding it seems like you'd take no damage at all with no armour but take blunt trauma injury if you have flexible armour (like Though Skin DR).

It just seems weird to me that you could be in a situation where an attack hits two guys (for this example, lets say a UT Force Beam set to non-lethal which does no-wounding crushing damage but is noted as still doing blunt trauma), one naked and unarmoured and one with subdermal armour, bioplastic skin, and a bioplas suit, the guy who is completely DR-less would get away with no injury but the flexible-armoured guy wouldn't. I had originally thought they would both take the blunt trauma injury but the description of blunt trauma in campaigns (which says it only comes from damaged stopped by flexible DR) seems to contradict this.

to me, It is because the armor is hitting the wearer. (ever held an umbrella in front of yourself and got hit by it because the wind was fast? same thing.)

[Ulzgoroth]

No wounding is going to be a bit wacky regardless of how you take it, since you can have situations which logically imply the attack punched through a barrier, without doing any damage to the barrier.

[Tinman]

I'd say it's an exception to the regular armor rules.
Always treat no armor as flexible if the attack has no wounding.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Tinman

I'd say it's an exception to the regular armor rules.
Always treat no armor as flexible if the attack has no wounding.

So "No Wounding" always does 1 point of crushing for every five points of rolled damage, unless the target is wearing rigid armor? I'm not sure that makes any more sense.