Question about split durability.

The sword breaks. Tanking that amount of energy and force is way too much for piercing to be debatable.

Unless the character has an explicit weakness or vulnerability to sharp-edged weapons such as Wonder Woman or Rulk, then the sword breaks rather casually on impact.

Depends on if they are Wonder Woman/MCU Thor or not.

Yes, who Will win

a very common fictional trope

or idiots on the internet applying irl science to fiction using a very high end to try and argue their point

Being a somewhat common trope in a few universes doesn't mean you can blindly apply it to all of fiction.

or idiots on the internet applying irl science to fiction using a very high end to try and argue their point

What would you suggest then?

Using headcanon over actual physics because ''durr fiction doesn't always make sense, so I get to make up new rules for how feats and physics work''

Sorry didn't follow your conversation just skimmed it so I might be off topic of it. Just wanted to say I while I don't follow battleforum feat logic or whatever you're calling it I also have a problem with the way many fictional writers do. Especially comic writers. It's why feats are too inconsistent. Great writers have a clear what can and can't be done by a character or in the universe. It's not just whatever fits the current story I want to tell at the moment. It's a poor writer who has no rules for the world they're working within. It makes the world building meaningless which makes the story mean less by losing a key element.

@eredin12 Also, I'm curious to know your thoughts on this topic.

@eredin12: So at what point can you consider something to be knife/bullet proof, without needing piercing feats to show for it?

Why is the line drawn specifically at (this level) instead of the various other levels you'll find characters at in fiction? (The levels where they will logically be bullet proof without needing piercing feats)

What would be wrong with saying;

''but with Nuke/City busting type attacks we get in mid tier comic hero range where it can be assumed that you are bulleptroof based on that''

Since you are choosing not to follow IRL physics, what's the basis for universe level being a valid cut off for whether or not split durability should apply instead of... say city level.. or planet level?

@eredin12:

Simply because those are abstract levels, difirnet kind of rules apply for those characters

So again, why do these ''rules'' suddenly become different at abstract level instead of any other level in fiction that would logically grant piercing durability?

i dont think any writer would think that some entity on that level is not bulleptroof unless he is some glass canon

The same thing could be said for a character that's city level, or country level.

Also, I would think using IRL physics is better than trying to blindly guess what a writer is thinking, no?

while we have many examples of them thinking city/ planet ones are not, that is really why

So tell me, how many 'examples' are needed to justify applying split durability too all characters across all of fiction in a certain tier?

What basis are you using to decide this number too? Is 1 enough? 2 maybe? a dozen? two hundred? and why is that number more valid than the others?

It sure seems like you're using arbitrary guesses to justify using a headcanon version of physics over the real life version when it comes to these discussions.

@eredin12:

I explained it bellow

Not very well.

No? Wonder Woman say high and she is far above those 2 levels

Irrelevant, knifes and bullets are one of her listed weakness, which cannot be applied to other characters in her tier or below it.

Also, that's one character against many many more that don't have it.

By using IRL physics Spiderman is bulleptroof and so is somone like Cap or Deathstroke, yet that is not true by feats

A few cherrypicked examples of IRL physics not being followed is not enough to justify treating the other 99% of fictional characters that way.

How many examples we have of characters not being even like knife proof,? Too much to count, lets start from many street tiers ranging from Cap, Slade, Spiderman, many other street tiers, some mid-tiers like Samurai Jack, Kratos, to high tiers like Wonder Woman and more

''Too many to count'' is not a valid number, and not one that can be used to justify your headcanon of piercing durability overruling IRL physics. You could even name a thousand, and that would still be a drop in the bucket when looking at how many characters exist, that don't have weaknesses like that.

Your examples also don't take into account of the possibility of inconsistency either, which is a more likely scenario then some twisted version of physics all authors secretly use over the IRL version for no apparent reason.

@eredin12:

1.Its, not her kryptonite reason why its her weaknesses is that her pricing durabiltiy sucks, because its difirnet from blunt one and i said this

No, writers go out of their way to state that she is weak to those things, just like Kryptonite and Superman.

Most writers don't say such things for other characters that you claim have a piercing weakness, which is your headcanon at work.

What you said is clearly false since as we see many writers do consider many charcters on that level and above not bulleptroof

Do you have any proof that a bunch of writers think this way and it not just being a case of inconsistency?

Can you show me any evidence of a large group of writers agreeing to one another and outright saying ''hey, we should make all characters that are logically bullet proof, not bullet proof'' because that's what would be needed to prove your point.

Also, what constitutes ''a bunch of writers''? seems like another arbitrary number being used to justify headcanon.

Its not a few cherry-picked examples, there are countless examples of it almost evrey good street tier really

In order to prove this, you would have to demonstrate why it isn't just a case of inconsistency.

Also, countless would also imply there's too many to be counted... if there's really that many examples, would you care to name 500? I'm going to assume you can count that high, which is far lower than the ''countless'' ceiling you are presenting me with.

Valid number? What do you expect me to count them all and write a novel here? I mean really

I'm asking you to pick a number and explain why it overrules all the other finite numbers in terms of validity.

Sure there are many characters without it i know but that just means they have good pricing durabiltiy thanks to their pricing durabiltiy feats not that it is a result of their blunt force durability

No, it just mean's they were written to abide by proper physics, which is the default assumption used for universes that don't say otherwise.

Agian no? Those characters are consistently not bulletproof, you probably cannot find single writer that considers them as such while we have many consistent great blunt force durabiltiy feats, so no inconsistency there

While ignoring the fact they have shitty blunt force durability feats to balance out the high ends, and characters like Spiderman surviving hits from the Hulk aren't examples of ''great blunt durability'', its straight up pure inconsistency. Plain and simple.

@eredin12:

Yeah she is weak but the reason beucae of it is that her pricing durability sucks, just that

No, its because she has a magical weakness to blades and bullets, and her writers even go out of their way to explain this, because it doesn't make sense from an IRL physics standpoint, which is what is normally followed in fiction.

That is irelvnat, that is just stating obvious, her pricing durability sucks so she is weak to them, obviously, and that is not my" headcanon" since those other characters were consistently shown to be weak to pricing attacks

If something this grand was so ''obvious'', then why don't we have more writers outright saying their characters have split durability? Surely if it were so common, it would still be brought up here and there, but it isn't, because split durability isn't real for most fictional characters.

yeah all those countless characters that have good blunt force durability feats but bad pricing feats as i explained bellow, there is no inconsistency there

That's you either cherrypicking or selectively using high ends and low ends as you see fit. (or both)

First of all, i am pretty sure i never used the worth " a bunch of writers" second no i cannot, that never happend but that does not matter, it was shown in their story, they just dont think that blunt force durabiltiy counts as pricing as well

Where's the fucking proof of this? There's literally no evidence for that.

I explained it bellow, they are consistently not bulletproof, they dont have even one bulleptroof feat and countless anti feats, and they constantly have good blunt force durability feats

Already addressed.

if i wanted yes, given time, but i dont have any intention of writing a novel here lol

Or perhaps you know what would happen if you dared picked a number?

No, it does not, it just menas that they have good pricing durabiltiy feats so are bulletproof, that in no way shape or form means its result of RL physics which is not, just that with these characters writes wanted them to be bulleptroof

So you're suggesting, instead of said character's simply following simple physics, they are actually following a very sophisticated headcanon version of physics with no real basis whatsoever?

yeah I wonder which it is.

And those shitty ones are inconsistent, PIS which is normal, they have far more good consitnest feats

Or, they are simply consistent with street tiers being sub-bullet level on average (like Spiderman) while having a couple extreme high ends that would normally splatter a bullet level character?

I know i never said otherwise but he has many other good consistent blunt force durability feats that make snese for his iter

Your words are falling apart, write it again.

split durability is stupid. Piercing and blunt force aren't different except for the fact that the former has a smaller surface area so more pressure. If you've tanked a nuke, bullets are noting

@darkthunder: ''but.. but- fiction doesn't follow IRL physics in highly specific instances, so we should assume it never does for the majority of cases and use my made up version of physics for battle discussions instead''

@eredin12 remind me to respond tomorrow

The only difference between a piercing or blunt attack is whether or not it pierces. If you slash someone with a sword and it doesn't pierce, it's a blunt attack. If you hit someone with a baseball bat and it cleaves them in half, it's piercing.

You literally cannot tank any attack without having sufficient durability against both.

The sword breaks in half

Case by case basis.

The sword explodes,duh.

<p> Logically they wouldn&rsquo;t be pierced but fictional writers live in their own universe with its own rules and laws.</p>

You have two options:

Use physics and apply it to these characters to try and determine what'll happen from an objective standpoint.

or

F!ck logic and use a arbitrary made-up rule set that's completely subjective and has no basis in anything.

Pretty much the gist of the split durability vs non split durability groups.

^^^

Lmfao. Combat speed =/= travel speed and split durability are probably two of the most braindead arguments, if you try and use them you shouldn't even take someone who tries to use them seriously because it's just a sad attempt to grasp at straws.

Not really. Cause they are different.

9 times out of 10 unless specifically shown otherwise Combat speed scales to and is above travel speed.

What makes you come to that conclusion?

Realistically, what do you need to know in order to gauge a character's combat speed, or what even is combat speed quantifiable with?

Combat speed is basically:

1. The ability to move your body at a certain speed

2. The ability to be able to perceive things while moving at that speed, or perceive things moving at said speed

3. The ability to react at that speed.

Travel speed feats indefinitely covers at least one of these in all situations (the ability to move at a certain speed), and can usually cover the ability to perceive things and react at said speed depending on the situation, sometimes it only covers one, but regardless it sets a good baseline for where a character's quantifiable combat speed could stand (if your running around the Earth at FTL speeds, you obviously need to able to perceive your surroundings and react, to prevent crashing into all sorts of obstacles, right?)

@takenstew22: Are you talking about the speed thing or the split thing?

If its the split thing, then they're right. If its the other thing, idrc.

Yes but travel speed feats don't always have stuff that you can bump into. Most travel feats (especially in space) have him/her going a straight path and is much easier than reacting to attacks or quickly dishing out your own. Plus you can make much bigger speed boosts in travel.

I can barley read your english...

Yeah, if a character has a good enough level of durability of any sort (blunt, energy etc) they're going to be bullet proof. That's why a big bang level character doesn't need piercing feats against a sword, or a nuke level character against a normal gun.

INB4 ''Ha, well explain what's going on with this random character then!''

Both.

@takenstew22: soo..

Use physics and apply it to these characters to try and determine what'll happen from an objective standpoint.

or

F!ck logic and use a arbitrary made-up rule set that's completely subjective and has no real basis in anything.

Why do you pick the latter?

That wasn't really my logic. I agree that if a character has shown stuff like tanking planetary strikes or explosions then they should automatically be atleast bulletproof unless it's consistently shown their piercing durability sucks.

I'm just saying that they are in fact different. Blunt force and energy are much closer to each other than piercing though.