DR and Blunt Trauma..?

[lostrobertsandwich]

"For every full 10 points of cutting, impaling, or piercing damage or 5 points of crushing damage stopped by your DR, you suffer 1 HP of injury due to blunt trauma...

If even one point of damage penetrates your flexible DR, however, you do not suffer blunt trauma."

I don't get this. Let's assume a humongous bullet of 100 damage is coming towards you. You're wearing a flexible vest made of "non-Newtonian golden spider silk" that has 100 DR. So the vest barely stops the bullet but you lose 10 hp due to trauma. Fine.
Now a (nearly) identical bullet comes but deals 101 damage, vs. your DR of 100. You take a single point of penetrating damage, nothing else, no blunt trauma, according to RAW. Why?
Is this addressed in any book? Has someone house-ruled it?
Should I just address it as maybe (for this example) 10 points of blunt trauma, and 1 point of normal piercing damage?

[Brandy]

You're interpreting the rule correctly. Here's an old discussion on the topic.

At DR 100 it does look a little odd, but the rule doesn't break down at DR levels appropriate to modern-day flexible armors.

[Psychotime]

If I've heard it correctly, a bullet proof vest may save your life, but it'll still really hurt regardless.

[vierasmarius]

One thing to keep in mind is that, if you're using some of the harsher realism wounding options, piercing damage that penetrates armor can be more threatening than a statistically larger crushing injury. A target is very unlikely to suffer bleeding or infection from blunt trauma... but it's entirely possible to bleed out from just a couple points of piercing.

[Bruno]

Or get a dangerous infection (gut shot anyone?). Or hit the vitals for a robust damage multiplier (1/6 chance after hitting the torso in some of the optional rules or of course you can aim for it).

[Athanbeli]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

One thing to keep in mind is that, if you're using some of the harsher realism wounding options, piercing damage that penetrates armor can be more threatening than a statistically larger crushing injury. A target is very unlikely to suffer bleeding or infection from blunt trauma... but it's entirely possible to bleed out from just a couple points of piercing.

And what about a 100 (or 101) damage wrecking ball?

[Crakkerjakk]

Yeah, I'd probably say BFT always applies, even if the attack penetrates, myself.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Yeah, I'd probably say BFT always applies, even if the attack penetrates, myself.

Or that the attack will inflict a minimum of BFT damage. So the 100 damage gunshot would inflict 10 points blunt trauma, while the 101 point shot would inflict 1 piercing (with all the associated risks for bleeding, infection, etc) plus 9 blunt trauma. A little more complicated, but only for fringe cases - most attacks will still either be blocked completely, or penetrate in excess of what BT would have inflicted.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Athanbeli

And what about a 100 (or 101) damage wrecking ball?

Not piercing. It's the very example of a high MV to KE ratio, and is crushing damage, or perhaps even collision damage if the rules for such make flexible DR 100 armor of less value vs. each type. Certainly that 100/101 points of damage will have that 12 yard knockback!

[Athanbeli]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Not piercing. It's the very example of a high MV to KE ratio, and is crushing damage, or perhaps even collision damage if the rules for such make flexible DR 100 armor of less value vs. each type. Certainly that 100/101 points of damage will have that 12 yard knockback!

Yes, I was saying that to point out an even more discordant example: 20 blunt trauma damage points (100 basic damage points) vs. 1 penetrating damage (101 damage).