A Question About the Mechanics of Adamantine

[Flashkannon]

The fact that adamantine can treat hardness levels of less than 20 as if they were 0 allows for a lot of mischief. But what exactly are the limits to that? It's fairly well-accepted that an adamantine weapon can just cut through stone, but what about flesh? What's to stop players from marching up to an enemy and (assuming the enemy can't/doesn't dodge) simply beheading them? Such an action seems to be within the bounds of the RAW as far as I can ascertain, but it seems rather contrary to D&D's normal combat system.

[dascarletm]

If their neck is an appropriate target to sunder, then it is within the rules.

(It's not)

[Extra Anchovies]

What's to stop players from marching up to an enemy and (assuming the enemy can't/doesn't dodge) simply beheading them?

That's called a coup de grace, it exists in the RAW, and is very good at killing people :smallbiggrin: The issue is that in most cases the enemy will be dodging.

[Jeraa]

Adamantine and steel have the exact same effects on flesh. Flesh does not have hardness for adamantine to ignore.

[Flashkannon]

That's called a coup de grace, it exists in the RAW, and is very good at killing people :smallbiggrin: The issue is that in most cases the enemy will be dodging.

I'm aware of the Coup de Grace mechanic. The difference between that and what I'm proposing here is that a Coup de Grace requires the subject to be Helpless, whereas this would not.


Adamantine and steel have the exact same effects on flesh. Flesh does not have hardness for adamantine to ignore.

Then what would be the point of hit points if steel can so effortlessly cleave through flesh? Wouldn't a single reasonably successful sword swing be able to kill the vast majority of enemies?

[Jeraa]

Then what would be the point of hit points if steel can so effortlessly cleave through flesh? Wouldn't a single reasonably successful sword swing be able to kill the vast majority of enemies?

Steel can not effortlessly cleave through flesh. Neither can adamantine. Adamantine can not effortlessly cut through stone either.

[dascarletm]

I'm aware of the Coup de Grace mechanic. The difference between that and what I'm proposing here is that a Coup de Grace requires the subject to be Helpless, whereas this would not.



Then what would be the point of hit points if steel can so effortlessly cleave through flesh? Wouldn't a single reasonably successful sword swing be able to kill the vast majority of enemies?

That's just not how the game mechanics work.

If you want to rationalize it, imagine hit points as a pool of luck that causes creatures/players to narrowly avoid being seriously injured.

[Extra Anchovies]

Then what would be the point of hit points if steel can so effortlessly cleave through flesh? Wouldn't a single reasonably successful sword swing be able to kill the vast majority of enemies?

It should, yes. But that makes for a boring game. Hit points exist as an abstraction of stamina, bodily fortitude, and pain tolerance to let characters be more heroic.

Also, the point was not that adamantine and steel both cut through flesh like butter. It's that they're equally effective against flesh. The hardness of a material doesn't really change how effective a blade it makes after a certain point; a diamond-edged knife wouldn't cut too much better than a pure steel blade, at least not enough to be noticeable on living targets.

ETA: At level 1, a reasonably successful sword swing is enough to kill the vast majority of (equal-CR) enemies.

[Red Fel]

It's not a question of adamantine being able to cut through stone because it's sharp. That would justify it cutting through flesh with greater ease. The fact is, adamantine defeats other substances because it's stronger. As Sancho Panza once observed, "Whether the stone hits the pitcher, or the pitcher hits the stone, it's going to be bad for the pitcher." Adamantine is not, in fact, substantially sharper or better able to cut than most other metals; its impact on flesh is the same as that of any other.

I won't go into the fact that a stronger, less brittle metal should actually be duller, because that's tangential to this issue.

The point, then, is that wielding an adamantine weapon, you are better able to smash objects, not cut people.

Now, if you're saying that you should be able to sunder a person's armor to get at their fleshy bits, I say go for it. You're in the right. But if you're saying, "No, I think I should get a free coup de grace every time I hit someone with this," I say there's nothing in the rules to support that logic. In fact, several things suggest that adamantine shouldn't have that property: There are coup de grace rules. They say nothing about adamantine or relative hardness. There are rules on what adamantine can do. They say nothing about coup de grace or other instant-death effects. There is a vorpal enhancement. On a confirmed natural 20, it severs the target's head, generally killing it. This is a +5 bonus. Letting adamantine-wielders instantly behead enemies would grant a special material that same benefit to all attacks. Not for a +5 cost. Not restricted to natural 20s. Not remotely resembling balanced. There is nothing else in the rules which would support granting insta-kill powers to adamantine weapons.
Bottom line, adamantine does not have magical killing powers, any more than any other metal does.

[Flashkannon]

That's just not how the game mechanics work.

If you want to rationalize it, imagine hit points as a pool of luck that causes creatures/players to narrowly avoid being seriously injured.

That makes sense I suppose.


It's not a question of adamantine being able to cut through stone because it's sharp. That would justify it cutting through flesh with greater ease. The fact is, adamantine defeats other substances because it's stronger. As Sancho Panza once observed, "Whether the stone hits the pitcher, or the pitcher hits the stone, it's going to be bad for the pitcher." Adamantine is not, in fact, substantially sharper or better able to cut than most other metals; its impact on flesh is the same as that of any other.

I won't go into the fact that a stronger, less brittle metal should actually be duller, because that's tangential to this issue.

The point, then, is that wielding an adamantine weapon, you are better able to smash objects, not cut people.

Now, if you're saying that you should be able to sunder a person's armor to get at their fleshy bits, I say go for it. You're in the right. But if you're saying, "No, I think I should get a free coup de grace every time I hit someone with this," I say there's nothing in the rules to support that logic. In fact, several things suggest that adamantine shouldn't have that property: There are coup de grace rules. They say nothing about adamantine or relative hardness. There are rules on what adamantine can do. They say nothing about coup de grace or other instant-death effects. There is a vorpal enhancement. On a confirmed natural 20, it severs the target's head, generally killing it. This is a +5 bonus. Letting adamantine-wielders instantly behead enemies would grant a special material that same benefit to all attacks. Not for a +5 cost. Not restricted to natural 20s. Not remotely resembling balanced. There is nothing else in the rules which would support granting insta-kill powers to adamantine weapons.
Bottom line, adamantine does not have magical killing powers, any more than any other metal does.

Honestly, after seeing sheer scale of the nonsensical mechanics involved in obtaining adamantine items, I was expecting adamantine's combat mechanics to be just as strange, seeing as they aren't really explored in-depth. Speaking of which, what you just said implies that adamantine should be able to bypass the armor bonus to AC as long as the armor has a hardness of less than 20.

[Fax Celestis]

Please stop killing catgirls.

[Extra Anchovies]

Please stop killing catgirls.

As an aside: are they dying because we're discussing real physics in relation to D&D? I've been under the impression that it is so, but I've never been entirely sure.

Anyways, back to the topic. What's the hardness of a catgirl? Maybe adamantine is better at killing them than most other materials are. Judging by this thread, it seems to be so :smallbiggrin:

[Fax Celestis]

As an aside: are they dying because we're discussing real physics in relation to D&D? I've been under the impression that it is so, but I've never been entirely sure.

Anyways, back to the topic. What's the hardness of a catgirl? Maybe adamantine is better at killing them than most other materials are. Judging by this thread, it seems to be so :smallbiggrin:


"Every time you bring up physics in a fantasy discussion, god kills a catgirl. Please, think of the catgirls."

Not the original quote, but the only one I could find.

[Brookshw]

Not the original quote, but the only one I could find.

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?32447-That-Catgirl-Thingy) might help explain the origins. If you look for it you'll find it going back quite a ways (2006 was the oldest I saw, not really worth delving too deeply imo).

[Necroticplague]

The fact that adamantine can treat hardness levels of less than 20 as if they were 0 allows for a lot of mischief. But what exactly are the limits to that? It's fairly well-accepted that an adamantine weapon can just cut through stone, but what about flesh? What's to stop players from marching up to an enemy and (assuming the enemy can't/doesn't dodge) simply beheading them? Such an action seems to be within the bounds of the RAW as far as I can ascertain, but it seems rather contrary to D&D's normal combat system.

The limits are that it has no effect on things without hardness, or things with a hardness of greater than 20.

The things that stops them is that the rules don't allow it. The way DnD rules work is that you can't do anything unless the rules specifically say so. So the rules don't explicitly allow you to decapitate someone like that, you can't.

Now, on a more related point: creatures don't have hardness (with a tiny handful of exceptions). Adamantine lets you ignore hardness. Ergo, adamantine weapons aren't any more useful against creatures than normal weapons. The main exception i can think of is Animated Objects.

Now, their are some creatures made of such tough substances that the ability of adamantine to rend through tough substances is actually relevant (like Mineral Warriors, who are hard to cut through due to being made of stone). This is represented by having dr/adamantine.

Your ability to take a hit is, at least partially, represented by your hit points. If an adamantine weapon hits you, you have a chance for it to miss (assuming its not a CDG), because your AC can't go under 5, which would indicate it somehow did no damage, and then how badly it hurts is represented by the chunk of HP it lowers.

[Flashkannon]

The limits are that it has no effect on things without hardness, or things with a hardness of greater than 20.

The things that stops them is that the rules don't allow it. The way DnD rules work is that you can't do anything unless the rules specifically say so. So the rules don't explicitly allow you to decapitate someone like that, you can't.

Now, on a more related point: creatures don't have hardness (with a tiny handful of exceptions).

I was unaware that creatures did not have hardness. Although, this brings up the question of whether that was intentional or merely oversight.

[Red Fel]

I was unaware that creatures did not have hardness. Although, this brings up the question of whether that was intentional or merely oversight.

Creatures don't need hardness; they have (or lack) DR. Hardness is simply DR for objects.

[Vhaidara]

I was unaware that creatures did not have hardness. Although, this brings up the question of whether that was intentional or merely oversight.

This was almost certainly intentional, to prevent things like "I sunder his neck" and "I shoot him in the eye". These are the purview of critical hits (and the Vorpal enhancement, specifically), not something you just get to do.

[weckar]

Some creatures have a KIND of ability akin to hardness. Damage reduction.

[Extra Anchovies]

This was almost certainly intentional, to prevent things like "I sunder his neck" and "I shoot him in the eye". These are the purview of critical hits (and the Vorpal enhancement, specifically), not something you just get to do.

Also, if they provided one creature's hardness, they'd have to provide hardness for every creature to maintain consistency. It'd become part of a statblock like HD or Face/Reach. And that would be tedious, and the toughness of a creature's flesh/exterior is already defined by natural armor bonuses.

[Necroticplague]

Also, if they provided one creature's hardness, they'd have to provide hardness for every creature to maintain consistency. It'd become part of a statblock like HD or Face/Reach. And that would be tedious, and the toughness of a creature's flesh/exterior is already defined by natural armor bonuses.

Actually, Animated Objects do have hardness. However, its a special ability of them (EX, specifically), not simply a trait. But yeah, there are already enough ways to represent a creature being made of tough stuff (DR, CON score, natural armor bonus), that adding yet another way for every creature that is almost mechanically identical to another one (hardness is only differing from DR in that it stops energy damage as well) would be unnecessary.

Meanwhile, the fact the hardness is specifically noted as a Special Quality makes the intent that this is not something every creature have very obvious.

[weckar]

Does hardness exist with exceptions to damage types, the way DR does?

[Jeraa]

Does hardness exist with exceptions to damage types, the way DR does?

No. Hardness can't be overcome by anything (unless something specifically says so, like with adamantine). Hardness applies to all damage types, even energy damage (fire, cold, electricity, sonic, and acid).

[Svata]

Acid bypasses hardness.

[Extra Anchovies]

Acid bypasses hardness.

I thought that sonic did as well. AFB, though, so not sure.

[Troacctid]

Sure, here's the citation.

Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit.

[Red Fel]

Sure, here's the citation.

Don't forget the rest: electricity and fire deal half damage, and cold deals one-quarter. And both of those are before applying hardness.

So, yeah. Hardness is in some ways superior to DR.

[Zanos]

Actually, Animated Objects do have hardness. However, its a special ability of them (EX, specifically), not simply a trait. But yeah, there are already enough ways to represent a creature being made of tough stuff (DR, CON score, natural armor bonus), that adding yet another way for every creature that is almost mechanically identical to another one (hardness is only differing from DR in that it stops energy damage as well) would be unnecessary.

Meanwhile, the fact the hardness is specifically noted as a Special Quality makes the intent that this is not something every creature have very obvious.
There are also spells you can cast to give a creature hardness. Statue, as I recall, gives Hardness 8.

[weckar]

Don't forget the rest: electricity and fire deal half damage, and cold deals one-quarter. And both of those are before applying hardness.

So, yeah. Hardness is in some ways superior to DR.

Does this mean that acid and sonic do NOT deal with hardness? It is only mentioned in the entries for the other energy types. Also: Force Damage?

[Red Fel]

Does this mean that acid and sonic do NOT deal with hardness? It is only mentioned in the entries for the other energy types. Also: Force Damage?

See the passage Troacctid cited: acid and sonic damage bypass hardness. (Said differently: Treat hardness as DR/acid or sonic.)

Force is not a damage type. Acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic are. Force simply indicates an ability to hit incorporeal targets.

[weckar]

Magic Missile would disagree with you, it seems.

[Max Caysey]

IF you shoot i 100g pellet of diamond and a 100g lead pellet at a human with The speed og 200 mph, the diamond pellet will not deal any more damage to you. Inertia and kinetic energy and The application of force as in joule Are The damaging factors. So The weapon you swing The hardest Will do The most damage!

[Bronk]

Sure, here's the citation.

However, there's more to the citation:


Hardness
Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object’s hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points; Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points; and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).

***

Energy Attacks
Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.

Read together, the second bit just means that acid and sonic attacks don't get divided before applying hardness, but it's still applied.

[Troacctid]

What do you mean? In "roll damage and apply it normally," the "it" refers to damage, not hardness.

[Fax Celestis]

Many animated objects have hardness scores. What affect, if any, will an animated object’s hardness have on spells used against the animated object? For example, an animated wooden table would have hardness 5, right? How would that hardness affect spells such as fireball, lightning bolt, Melf’s acid arrow, ray of frost, and magic missile?

If the spell in question has an energy descriptor, hardness affects the attack as noted in the rules for damaging inanimate objects (see page 165 in the PH); here’s a summary:

Hardness applies to acid and sonic attacks. These attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to objects, and thus would deal normal damage to an animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a Melf’s acid arrow spell deals to the animated table in your example.
Hardness applies to electricity and fire attacks. These attacks deal half damage to inanimate objects, but animated objects are creatures and they take full damage (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a fireball or lightning bolt spell deals to the animated table in your example. Reduce the damage for a successful saving throw before you apply hardness.
Hardness also applies to cold damage. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to inanimate objects, but again, an animated object takes full damage less the effect of the hardness. You would subtract 5 points of damage for hardness from whatever damage a ray of frost spell deals to the animated table in your example. Since ray of frost deals only 1d3 points of damage, it will prove ineffective against the animated table unless you somehow increase the damage the spell deals.
Hardness applies to force attacks. These attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to objects (when applicable), and thus would deal normal damage to an animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a magic missile spell deals to the animated table in your example. A magic missile spell normally cannot be aimed at an object. Because an animated object is a creature, however, it can affect the animated table in the example.



While stone golems are immune to magic and have DR 10/adamantine, would an alchemical substance such as stonebreaker acid (AE) have an effect on it? The acid affects only stone and deals 3d10 points of damage on the first round and 2d10 points of damage on the second round.

A stone golem would suffer the normal damage from stonebreaker acid. Damage reduction doesn’t reduce acid damage (the way hardness does). A stone golem is immune to spells or spell-like abilities that allow spell resistance, but stonebreaker acid is neither.


Is there any limit on the number of chains a kyton can control during a single day with its dancing chains ability? The monster description says the kyton can control only four chains at once, but what happens if a controlled chain is destroyed or dragged out of range? Controlling chains is a standard action, but does the number of chains the kyton controls affect that at all? Is controlling four chains still a standard action? Do the chains have face to worry about (by which I mean, do they require a certain amount of space to fight) like a Tiny animated object would? Or could four animated chains all fit in a 5-foot square? How do the chains make saving throws? Are they unattended nonmagical objects (assuming the chains were nonmagical before being animated)? Are they attended nonmagical objects or attended magical objects? Are they creatures? What happens when an energy effect, such as fire, hits the chains? Does their hardness reduce the fire’s damage?

Using the dancing chains ability to control chains is always a standard action for a kyton, no matter how many it already controls, what it decides to make them do that round, or how long the kyton has controlled them previously. For example, controlling four chains so that they attack four different foes is a standard action for a kyton. The following round, the kyton can use another standard action to control those four chains (or
any other four chains in range) again. There’s no limit to the number of different chains the kyton can control in a day, but it can’t control more than four at once.

Treat a kyton’s dancing chains like a spell effect. They have a location on the battlefield, but they don’t take up any space. Dancing chains can attack anything within 15 feet of their location. They attack only when the kyton uses a standard action to make them attack and do not make attacks of opportunity.

Dancing chains make saving throws as unattended magical objects. Use the kyton’s caster level to determine their save bonus; the standard kyton from the MM has a caster level of 8 (because it has 8 Hit Dice), so its dancing chains have a saving throw bonus of +6 (2 + 1/2 caster level).

Hardness applies to all types of damage unless specifically stated otherwise by the effect. (Page 165 in the PH is sometimes misinterpreted to suggest that hardness doesn’t apply to acid and sonic damage; in fact, the phrase “apply [damage] normally after a successful hit” simply means that the damage isn’t halved or quartered, as other energy damage is.)

Although they are not creatures, the dancing chains take damage from spells as though they were (in much the same way that Evard’s black tentacles or the various Bigby’s hands do). So, the dancing chains take normal damage from cold attacks (not quarter damage as inanimate objects do) and they’re subject to damage from magic missile spells. Spells that don’t deal damage generally won’t harm the chains unless they
also affect objects.
From the FAQ.

[JKTrickster]

See the passage Troacctid cited: acid and sonic damage bypass hardness. (Said differently: Treat hardness as DR/acid or sonic.)

Force is not a damage type. Acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic are. Force simply indicates an ability to hit incorporeal targets.

Whoa. Did not know that. Force isn't a damage type? :smallconfused:

[Necroticplague]

See the passage Troacctid cited: acid and sonic damage bypass hardness. (Said differently: Treat hardness as DR/acid or sonic.)

Force is not a damage type. Acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic are. Force simply indicates an ability to hit incorporeal targets.

The glossary entry (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_forcedamage&alpha=) would like to disagree with your last assumption about force.

[Curmudgeon]

Whoa. Did not know that. Force isn't a damage type? :smallconfused:
No, force is a damage type. It is not, however, an energy type.

[dascarletm]

IF you shoot i 100g pellet of diamond and a 100g lead pellet at a human with The speed og 200 mph, the diamond pellet will not deal any more damage to you. Inertia and kinetic energy and The application of force as in joule Are The damaging factors. So The weapon you swing The hardest Will do The most damage!

Kinetic energy isn't the only factor in how much something will injure you. In fact consider a very sharp knife being slowly stabbed at you

300g, .5m/s (0.5 x m x v^2)= 37.5J

take that versus getting hit by a baseball thrown at around 67 mph (why 67? well that's just about 30 m/s so that's easy, and it is a really slow pitch by professional standards.)

145g at 30m/s that's roughly 65 thousand joules.


I'd rather take the slow-pitch baseball than be stabbed.

[Max Caysey]

Kinetic energy isn't the only factor in how much something will injure you. In fact consider a very sharp knife being slowly stabbed at you

300g, .5m/s (0.5 x m x v^2)= 37.5J

take that versus getting hit by a baseball thrown at around 67 mph (why 67? well that's just about 30 m/s so that's easy, and it is a really slow pitch by professional standards.)

145g at 30m/s that's roughly 65 thousand joules.


I'd rather take the slow-pitch baseball than be stabbed.

But the question was the materiel. If the led pellet was shaped like this (https://www.google.dk/search?q=crazy+hunting+bullets&biw=1920&bih=955&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=s9c2VJWnLMTVygPRn4LwBg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=crazy+splitting+hunting+bullets&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=y9q7Se6AeLbnpM%253A%3BMu1ANPLm0ZFQrM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fi.dailymail.co.uk%252Fi%252Fpix%252F 2014%252F01%252F29%252Farticle-2547765-1B0A4EB800000578-811_634x368.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.dailymail .co.uk%252Fnews%252Farticle-2547765%252FNew-devastating-hollow-R-I-P-bullet-dubbed-round-need-released-single-women-protect-homes.html%3B634%3B368) that would do more damage than something shaped like a very thin needle. Not accounting where on the body it hits.

My point being that water sprayed with enough pressure will do more damage than a piece of tungsten carbamite, if that piece of tungsten is only thrown by a small kid. Thus the hardness is not something that really matters, comparred to weight and speed. The delivery of energy.

[Red Fel]

No, force is a damage type. It is not, however, an energy type.

Thank you. Yes, this is what I meant.

[dascarletm]

But the question was the materiel. If the led pellet was shaped like this (https://www.google.dk/search?q=crazy+hunting+bullets&biw=1920&bih=955&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=s9c2VJWnLMTVygPRn4LwBg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=crazy+splitting+hunting+bullets&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=y9q7Se6AeLbnpM%253A%3BMu1ANPLm0ZFQrM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fi.dailymail.co.uk%252Fi%252Fpix%252F 2014%252F01%252F29%252Farticle-2547765-1B0A4EB800000578-811_634x368.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.dailymail .co.uk%252Fnews%252Farticle-2547765%252FNew-devastating-hollow-R-I-P-bullet-dubbed-round-need-released-single-women-protect-homes.html%3B634%3B368) that would do more damage than something shaped like a very thin needle. Not accounting where on the body it hits.

My point being that water sprayed with enough pressure will do more damage than a piece of tungsten carbamite, if that piece of tungsten is only thrown by a small kid. Thus the hardness is not something that really matters, comparred to weight and speed. The delivery of energy.

In your example, yes it wouldn't matter. Though it does matter if you hold some of these values constant such as velocity. Hitting someone with a water balloon vs a rock at similar velocities, mass and shape will result in different outcomes. Hardness does matter.

[Max Caysey]

In your example, yes it wouldn't matter. Though it does matter if you hold some of these values constant such as velocity. Hitting someone with a water balloon vs a rock at similar velocities, mass and shape will result in different outcomes. Hardness does matter.

It depends on the veloity. And weight of the object. Falling into watter at terminal velocity does as much damage as fallng onto concrete.

Ussually the hardness does not matter. A diamond bullet and a led bullet. The diamond bullet would not take off someones head while the led not. Hardness has a miniscule effect.

[Fax Celestis]

what did I say about killing catgirls, guys

[dascarletm]

Bless me father for I am about to sin. 40 catgirls will die for this post.


It occurred to me that you were saying this in the vein of the OP's example. Once something does have a certain "hardness" required to "beat" the original object it no longer matters in effect how much harder it actually is.



It depends on the veloity. And weight of the object. Falling into watter at terminal velocity does as much damage as fallng onto concrete.


Like i said in extreme cases it can be similar in effect. Falling 20ft onto concrete vs 20ft into water is vastly different.

If hardness does not matter, then why not make stage cushions out of solid lead.




Ussually the hardness does not matter. A diamond bullet and a led bullet. The diamond bullet would not take off someones head while the led not. Hardness has a miniscule effect.

Usually hardness doesn't matter? No. You are objectively wrong. Only in extreme examples does hardness cease to matter. Bullet composition will make a difference. Armor piercing rounds, for example will make a difference versus Kevlar wearing individuals.

The kinetic energy isn't the only factor in this. You may disagree, but this is all I'll say on it. Impact energy is different then kinetic energy. Also, can you honestly not think of many scenarios where material composition matters in this way?

Pillowfight vs swordfight
brassknuckles vs barefist
diving into a pool vs into the ground.
slipping and falling onto concrete vs jumping onto the bed.
etc.



what did I say about killing catgirls, guys
I'm deeply sorry. or am I?

[Jeff the Green]

what did I say about killing catgirls, guys

Catgirls killed my family, then ate them.

Calculate on, guys.

[atemu1234]

It can cut through things as steel can, but through more different things than steel can. If that makes sense.