Destructive abrasion; what damage type? (and Corrosion arguments)

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

So what happens when you step in a puddle that does 1 point of Corrosion?

It's dubious whether that's actually a Corrosion attack, most chemical attacks should be resolved as Burning (No Incendiary Effect). Of course, since Corrosive damage has no special effects unless it does 5+, doesn't really matter in the 1 point damage case.

Reality is, burning, crushing, cutting, impaling, and piercing attacks should all damage DR -- just in a small to very small area. The distinctive thing about Corrosive attacks is that they damage armor over an area sufficient to allow followup attacks at no penalty.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Corrosion damage reduces DR. It does not specify that it only reduces DR over a specific portion of the target, nor does it mention any penalty to hit the location with reduced DR, and therefore it must damage DR over the entire target, or a large enough portion to be functionally equivalent to the entire target.

Relying on what is doesn't say in order to infer it must mean something is a bit of logical stretch, especially as you're using it to give corrosive attacks that in all other ways work as normal attacks the ability to effect the entire body.

And you get such odd situations like an acid spitting attack to your shield making your boots melt off.

Not sure what you mean by not mentioning a penalty to hit locations with reduced DR. Why would there be one, the penalty (for the target) is the reduced DR on that location. The penalty to hit the location will be the same as usual, but a weakened DR would have no effect on that.

There is maybe an issue that different locations are of different sizes, but to me the over all effect of that is balanced by different negative effect that come with the small locations

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It's dubious whether that's actually a Corrosion attack, most chemical attacks should be resolved as Burning (No Incendiary Effect). Of course, since Corrosive damage has no special effects unless it does 5+, doesn't really matter in the 1 point damage case.

Reality is, burning, crushing, cutting, impaling, and piercing attacks should all damage DR -- just in a small to very small area. The distinctive thing about Corrosive attacks is that they damage armor over an area sufficient to allow followup attacks at no penalty.

True, however I'm not sure that distinction itself justifies applying that effect to the entire body.

I do agree that there is a lot of crossover between 'burning' and 'corrosive'.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

True, however I'm not sure that distinction itself justifies applying that effect to the entire body.

The game mechanics are that you don't have a penalty to hit the damaged region. That means, at a minimum, it's hitting an area large enough for a +0 hit modifier.

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The game mechanics are that you don't have a penalty to hit the damaged region. That means, at a minimum, it's hitting an area large enough for a +0 hit modifier.

No, it's no additional penalty to hit the damaged region. If you hit somebody's left leg with a corrosive attack, only that leg has lost DR value, and the standard hit location penalty still applies to attack that leg.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

No, it's no additional penalty to hit the damaged region.

And you can target a region with a to hit penalty of 0.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I specified sublocations for a reason.

Even using hit locations is an optional rule, technically...

[Varyon]

... You are aware that Corrosion damage is an abstraction, right? It reduces DR by 1 point for every 5 points of damage. This is an abstraction to represent its ability to weaken and pit armor - with holes in the armor, it's not going to protect as well. Technically you could work out having the ability to target the deeper holes for a greater reduction to DR, and at lesser amounts of damage would probably have to target the holes specifically to make use of the DR reduction, but that was probably seen as a needless complication.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The game mechanics are that you don't have a penalty to hit the damaged region. That means, at a minimum, it's hitting an area large enough for a +0 hit modifier.

Originally Posted by Anthony

And you can target a region with a to hit penalty of 0.

I don't have my books with me, but I'm pretty sure the implication is that you don't have specific penalty for targeting the holes or weak spots in the DR left by the corrosive attack. i.e specific (in this case areas damaged by corrosive attacks) trumps general (areas as hit locations)

This is not only an interpretation that makes general sense (IMO), but your interpretation leads to some very strange outcomes.

for example I could use your argument to justify removing the penalty to hit a SM-3 target, by targeting a region that 'has to hit penalty of 0'?

In the other direction if I'm aiming at a SM+2 target, will I only effect a SM0 area of it, again because I'm targeting a region that 'has to hit penalty of 0'?

You seem to be in effect arguing for a SM0 sized area attack.

If the corrosive attack had say completely eaten through the DR or HP of an location I could see may be it going to to attack adjacent locations spreading until there was no DR or HP left on any of them. It would obviously be doing damage to the underlying target at the same time. Only I would have this as a gradual process and a cyclical attack with some call made about the progression, but not something that effected everywhere all at once.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Varyon

... You are aware that Corrosion damage is an abstraction, right? It reduces DR by 1 point for every 5 points of damage. This is an abstraction to represent its ability to weaken and pit armor - with holes in the armor, it's not going to protect as well. Technically you could work out having the ability to target the deeper holes for a greater reduction to DR, and at lesser amounts of damage would probably have to target the holes specifically to make use of the DR reduction, but that was probably seen as a needless complication.

Yeah, pretty much. There are things in GURPS that are intended simply as gamable approximations, and taking them as literal physical realities is a mistake.

That said, the big difference in a Corrosion attack is that it reduces the value of armor. I don't know if I see that for an abrasive surface. After all, we don't treat Spines as producing Corrosion. What you're getting is an attack that damages the skin and subcutaneous layers, but isn't especially good at chopping things off (Cutting) or poking deep holes (Impaling or Piercing). That's just extra damage on Crushing. It's like what you get from a knobby or spiky mace. "Tenderize" is a subtype of "crush" in GURPS.

Bill Stoddard