[LT] Armor and cutting damage concerns

[Icelander]

I have some concerns to do with armour and the cut damage type. One of them might be called a request for clarification (or several linked requests), another is more properly a house-rule, but one which I would welcome the opinions of armour experts among the forumites. Especially, of course, Dan's.

First, if I have armour which has a bonus to DR vs. cut, such as Silk or Reinforced armour, how does this interact with the Edge Protection rule? Do I add the bonus from Reinforced or Silk before I double the DR that needs to be penetrated? That seems to be the most logical method, fitting the rest of the GURPS model, but I'd like to be sure that it was what was intended.

And while that is relatively unproblematic, how about armour that is DR 0 and only receives a bonus to DR vs. cut? Do furs provide no protection at all from blunt attacks or impaling ones, but require 3 points of cutting damage before they are penetrated? Again, it would seem reasonable enough for this to be the case. Certainly cutting through thick clothing can be tough. I'm just making sure that this isn't supposed to be treated as a special case, such as perhaps that the Edge Protection rules aren't meant to apply in the cases of clothing that just gives DR against cut.

Also, I'm wondering what falls under 'cut' damage for these purposes, particularly as relates to hazards that rarely specify damage type. As me and Dan discussed once, the abrasion damage that forms a part of the damage you expect for falling from moving vehicles ought probable fall under there, as armour that protects from knife cuts will also serve very well to prevent such superficial skin abrasions.

More generally, it would seem that all the clothing that gives DR exclusively against cut share in common that they are regarded as protective clothing, if minimal, against other things in the real world than just knives and light swords. While full-force impaling and blunt attacks might indeed not be meaningfully impeded by light motorcycle leathers, several layers of outdoors clothing or a fur coat, there are other hazards that these outfits might realistically offer DR 1 against.

Tiny droplets of molten steel might do 1 point less against someone in heavy furs and flying embers might be stopped by a leather jacket, even a thin one. Even winter clothing is a major improvement over nudity or even just ordinary clothes against flying gravel, probably worth DR 1. Even deliberate attacks with light projectiles can effectively be stopped by thick clothing, even if not actual armour and supposedly offering no DR. BB gun projectiles can be stopped by furs or leather, despite being pi- and not cut at all.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if even some weapons of war were at least slowed by furs. Sling stones, arrows and blowgun darts, for all that they may be lethal to unarmoured folk, are usually robbed of much of their effectiveness even by armour that couldn't stop much else. Indeed, the Arrow Curtain in LT provides an example of very light material granting +1 DR against 'light projectiles'.

Would it be realistic to note that all armour noted as granting +1 DR against 'cutting' in fact received this bonus against all 'cutting-like' attacks (such as abrasion) and also against light projectiles?

[mlangsdorf]

I generally treat the "DR1 against cutting only" armors as also providing protection against Burning and Corrosion damage (and the rare Toxic or Fatigue damage that is stopped by DR). The alternative, that a leather blacksmith's apron doesn't protect against 1st degree burns or mild acids, doesn't make much sense to me.

I'd really rather treat those armors as "DR1, -1 vs cr and im". It makes them slightly more useful.

[zoncxs]

with things that are DR0 and have +1DR against cutting, and using the edge protection rules, remember that the damage converts to crushing.

so a mace that does 2pts of damage inflicts 2pts of crushing injury.

a sword that does 2pts of damage inflicts 1pts of crushing injury too since it was not enough to penetrate the DR of silk (should clarify that we are using silk which has DR1 against cutting attacks and DR0 against everything else).

fixed

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by zoncxs

a sword that does 2pts of damage inflicts 2pts of crushing injury too since it was not enough to penetrate the DR of silk (should clarify that we are using silk which has DR1 against cutting attacks and DR0 against everything else).

That's not right. It does 1 crushing. You don't recalculate the DR as if for crushing if a edged weapon fails to penetrate.

[zoncxs]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

That's not right. It does 1 crushing. You don't recalculate the DR as if for crushing if a edged weapon fails to penetrate.

ah, you are right. I fixed it.

[Figleaf23]

GURPS damage and wounding method needs an wideranging overhaul to make sense.

Take two boards of equal weight, one cylidrical and the other ensiform but not sharp. Which one would you prefer to get hit by?

[Railstar]

On the main topic, I would say applying the cutting DR against lots of loosely similar hazards in which the gear would logically protect seems a good idea.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

GURPS damage and wounding method needs an wideranging overhaul to make sense.

Take two boards of equal weight, one cylidrical and the other ensiform but not sharp. Which one would you prefer to get hit by?

I would treat the ensiform board as having flanges from the Low Tech Companion (+1 damage).

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Railstar

.. .

I would treat the ensiform board as having flanges from the Low Tech Companion (+1 damage).

That's logical within the structure of the rules, but the problem I was trying to point out is that in reality an edge is a superior CRUSHING weapon than a blunter object with the same force behind each. The rules fail to take this into account.

[Pagan]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

That's logical within the structure of the rules, but the problem I was trying to point out is that in reality an edge is a superior CRUSHING weapon than a blunter object with the same force behind each. The rules fail to take this into account.

Getting hit in the head by a rounded pipe instead of a squared pipe isn't so structurally different that a +1 damage (from flanges) doesn't cover for game purposes.

[Ji ji]

There's nothing in rules telling that, if my cutting attack is considered crushing cause it doesn't pass over DRcut*2, I had to use DRcut.
It makes much more sense using DRcr.