Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-07-2010, 02:20 PM   #21
vitruvian
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy View Post
Ah. Never noticed that innate DR isn't counted as flexible for blunt trauma rules. I wonder why not?
Because it's not Flexible unless you bought it that way, with the limitation. Worn armor is a different deal.
vitruvian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 02:26 PM   #22
vitruvian
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts_ View Post
Flexible is only a -20%. If you buy 20% additional non-flexible DR to make up for the flexible limitation against cr damage, this comes out to exactly 0 gain. You have a slight 10% discounst against non-cr attacks, though, if your DM approves ... Not really game-breaking, I would say.

Of course, against no-blunt-trauma attacks like laser weapons, flexible is even a free -20%, and no one seems to complain that much about it ...

Ts
I was thinking it would even out, too, except then I realized you actually end up with 20% additional total DR in addition to not actually taking blunt trauma injury. Compare:

DR 50 [250]

DR 50 (Flexible, -20%) [200] plus DR 10 [50]

Both cost 250 CP, but with the second option (if you're allowed to layer your rigid DR under your flexible DR) you actually have a total DR of 60 for preventing penetration and dealing with wounding modifiers, plus you never actually take any blunt trauma even from Crushing attacks, unless maybe an attack that is Crushing and has Double Blunt Trauma. This is definitely what's known as a point crock. Ergo, I'd always apply the regular, rigid DR first, even if conceptually it's under the flexible layer, when dealing with this sort of mix.
vitruvian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 02:42 PM   #23
Langy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
Default Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls

Quote:
Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
Because it's not Flexible unless you bought it that way, with the limitation. Worn armor is a different deal.
Yeah, but worn armor isn't flexible at all unless it's specified as being flexible.

One of the problems is that non-flexible armor doesn't protect completely against blunt trauma in real life, so it shouldn't provide complete protection in GURPS. A further problem is that innate, non-flexible DR also wouldn't provide any greater blunt-trauma protection against falls than non-innate non-flexible DR in real life. That's because the 'blunt trauma' damage from a fall is caused by your squishy insides being all jostled around, and a hard plate of armor would not protect against that at all, since it'd be the same as just falling flat on hard pavement.
Langy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 02:45 PM   #24
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls

Isn't CCoI supposed to have some new blunt trauma rules?
sir_pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 02:51 PM   #25
Ts_
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Default Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls

Quote:
Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
DR 50 [250]
vs
DR 50 (Flexible, -20%) [200] plus DR 10 [50]
You're right, sorry. I think the RAW is weird there, because blunt trauma just stops being an issue if the DR is penetrated. One more good argument for my version, where this is less of a point crook.

But also look at Flexible's pricing: A -20% for a not so often +5% or maybe +10% increase in damage (and reduced wounding modifiers)? Hmm. I see the counter arguments (going from invulnerable to small attacks to being vulnerable, and maybe shock penalties), but it seems cheap just looking at the numbers.

On the other hand, it could make sense with real armor to layer it like this.(Historians: Do you wear chain over plate or the other way round?) So why shouldn't it be an effective combo, if your character supports that. Innate DR should have DM approval anyway, I guess.

And falling damge is really a weird case ...

Ts
Ts_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 02:55 PM   #26
vitruvian
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy View Post
Yeah, but worn armor isn't flexible at all unless it's specified as being flexible.

One of the problems is that non-flexible armor doesn't protect completely against blunt trauma in real life, so it shouldn't provide complete protection in GURPS. A further problem is that innate, non-flexible DR also wouldn't provide any greater blunt-trauma protection against falls than non-innate non-flexible DR in real life. That's because the 'blunt trauma' damage from a fall is caused by your squishy insides being all jostled around, and a hard plate of armor would not protect against that at all, since it'd be the same as just falling flat on hard pavement.
Plenty of innate DR could best be defined as your whole body being tougher, though, not just your skin. Once you get into levels of innate DR high enough for blunt trauma to even matter (i.e., DR 5+), you're not talking armadillo plates or rhino hide or even turtle shells any longer, you're talking about dragons, or golems made of stone or metal, or supers like Luke Cage and Superman, who are tough through and through. Shoot, if it was just a matter of preventing penetration, it wouldn't help against Crushing at all, and would just prevent wounding modifiers from other damage types, rather than actually subtracting from damage.

Bottom line, though, the Damage Resistance Advantage, when bought by a character, is just not defined as flexible to anything unless it actually takes the Flexible limitation. Just as important to character creation as only getting what you pay for is getting everything that you pay for.

Armor that you buy with $ and wear can have it's stats defined more realistically without impacting this principle, since it's not actually a part of the character (unless bought as Sig Gear, and even then the cost is based on $ price rather than utility).
vitruvian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 02:59 PM   #27
Kuroshima
MIB
Pyramid Contributor
Mad Spaniard Rules Lawyer
 
Kuroshima's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The ASS of the world, mainly Valencia, Spain (Europe)
Default Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls

Let's see, the first problem is that If you have, for example, 100 DR (rigid) and 20 DR (flexible) over it, and get hit for 20 damage, a literal reading of the rules would make you suffer blunt trauma, even if the rigid DR could have stopped the damage. This is nonsensical, at no point should adding extra DR cause you to suffer more damage.

The alternatives are making right DR absorb the blunt trauma damage, not allowing flexible DR over rigid DR (problematic, the skull is rigid, and can be under a mail coif, for example), or allowing upi tp "reorder" the DR to make it better suit the situation.
__________________
Antoni Ten
MIB3119
My GURPs character sheet
My stuff on e23
Kuroshima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 03:01 PM   #28
vitruvian
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ts_ View Post
You're right, sorry. I think the RAW is weird there, because blunt trauma just stops being an issue if the DR is penetrated. One more good argument for my version, where this is less of a point crook.

But also look at Flexible's pricing: A -20% for a not so often +5% or maybe +10% increase in damage (and reduced wounding modifiers)? Hmm. I see the counter arguments (going from invulnerable to small attacks to being vulnerable, and maybe shock penalties), but it seems cheap just looking at the numbers.

On the other hand, it could make sense with real armor to layer it like this.(Historians: Do you wear chain over plate or the other way round?) So why shouldn't it be an effective combo, if your character supports that. Innate DR should have DM approval anyway, I guess.

And falling damge is really a weird case ...

Ts
I think combining the two is fine so long as you take account of the rigid DR first. It can make sense, even if the flexible DR is physically layered over the rigid DR, since in many cases of blunt trauma you're taking damage from bouncing around against the inside of your rigid protective DR - especially when that means your brain hitting the inside of your skull, which is a pretty good description of how many concussions happen.
vitruvian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 03:04 PM   #29
vitruvian
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroshima View Post
Let's see, the first problem is that If you have, for example, 100 DR (rigid) and 20 DR (flexible) over it, and get hit for 20 damage, a literal reading of the rules would make you suffer blunt trauma, even if the rigid DR could have stopped the damage. This is nonsensical, at no point should adding extra DR cause you to suffer more damage.

The alternatives are making right DR absorb the blunt trauma damage, not allowing flexible DR over rigid DR (problematic, the skull is rigid, and can be under a mail coif, for example), or allowing upi tp "reorder" the DR to make it better suit the situation.
Just count the rigid DR first, regardless of how the two sets of DR are actually layered. Letting the flexible DR count first, and then having the resulting blunt trauma either ignore the rigid DR or get bounced by it if it's at least 1/5 the value of the flexible, are both nonstarters. The first option, as you say, makes you less protected by more DR because some of it is limited; the second option makes the Flexible limitation meaningless and therefore not actually worth points.
vitruvian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 03:34 PM   #30
Ts_
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Default Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls

As asked earlier in this thread:
What if your only rigid DR is ablative innate DR, below some heavy chainshirt? With the "rigid first" rule, it prevents the blunt trauma damage, but doesn't really stop the damage because it's the last line of defense and players would cry if you reduce their ablative DR "because of the blunt trauma rules".

Also mentioned earlier:
Rigid DR 1 tin can over or under the DR 5 chainshirt ... Should those really behave the same way when hit with a sling shot (5 cr) that can be stopped by the chainshirt causing 1 blunt trauma in principle? The "rigid first" rule says that there is 0.8 blunt trauma (which of course, due to the scale, is rounded to 0 injury). The layered approach makes that exactly 0.

I dunno. I can take the easy "rigid first" solutions and it won't come up with ablative DR in any of my games most likely, but it bothers me. If in the end, flexible is too cheap, then one could just fix that ... -10% would still seem appropriate.

And I don't buy into the "bouncing within your rigid shell" idea. It describes concussions quite well. But then one should also take blunt trauma, if one has DR 5 on the skull and none of it is flexible, which is simply not the case in GURPS.

Ts
Ts_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
blunt trauma, falling, hit location, injury

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.