09-07-2010, 02:20 PM | #21 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls
|
09-07-2010, 02:26 PM | #22 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls
Quote:
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. |
|
09-07-2010, 02:42 PM | #23 | |
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
|
Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls
Quote:
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. |
|
09-07-2010, 02:45 PM | #24 |
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls
Isn't CCoI supposed to have some new blunt trauma rules?
|
09-07-2010, 02:51 PM | #25 |
Join Date: Oct 2009
|
Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls
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 |
09-07-2010, 02:55 PM | #26 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls
Quote:
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). |
|
09-07-2010, 02:59 PM | #27 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The ASS of the world, mainly Valencia, Spain (Europe)
|
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. |
09-07-2010, 03:01 PM | #28 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls
Quote:
|
|
09-07-2010, 03:04 PM | #29 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Blunt Trauma and Skulls
Quote:
|
|
09-07-2010, 03:34 PM | #30 |
Join Date: Oct 2009
|
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 |
Tags |
blunt trauma, falling, falls and armor, flexible armor, hit location, injury |
|
|