- 17,887
- 15,375
In this previous thread a long discussion was had about the current Invulnerability page, and how it leads to a lot of bad applications of the power. I have finalized a proposal for a complete rewrite of the page, which you can view here. There's some notable changes from what I last proposed but I think they are the best way to handle the power going forward. There is also the issue of the page's name, which I will address afterwards, but first let me get into everything else that's new with the page.
I'd use Ainz Ooal Gown as the example: a character with the ability to negate all incoming non-magical attacks, as well as piercing attacks and attacks coming from a character below 60th level. It's never explained as lawhax or anything else that'd allow the power to apply to any level of AP, so it's a NLF to say this guy could take a 3-B non-magical punch... but it's obviously an ability, and a fairly common one too. Not only is it worthy of indexing, but if we didn't have a page for it a lot of people would mistakenly list it as the other type of Invulnerability which we want to avoid.
So, I propose the addition of "Type 1: Limited Damage Negation" (or Limited Invulnerability if the name change is rejected), a power that still requires proof of some ability that can't be easily indexed as just high durability or something else, effectively negating some types of incoming attacks, but lacks a "mechanism" that evidences how it might function against attacks of any power. VS-match wise it should usually basically act as conditional durability. An 8-C character that's immune to all X attacks when in their verse X gets up to 6-C can tank anything up to that level, but they can't be argued to be able to take a much more powerful X from another character.
Onto the other type, the more literal Invulnerability, it is what was discussed in the other thread: a power that is clearly outlined to negate all harm, or at least all harm of a certain kind. It needs to explicitly have a mechanism that allows it to do so with no real limits, bypassing AP entirely. Something like physics manipulation, law manipulation or so on. Based on Agnaa's original proposal I have added an explicit distinction between a source and a mechanism, reasoning that otherwise people may try to suggest that a character's powers simply being based on something that could potentially fuel the ability (such as a magic system based on reality warping) should be evidence for this ability, which it isn't.
I propose Damage Negation as the new name. It describes what the ability does pretty well and it shouldn't be too misleading to anyone unfamiliar with it. Given this is a direct continuation of the discussion from the last thread I will list the disagreement/agreement votes from it. If anyone here has changed their minds please let me know.
The New Page
My intent with this, following the discussion in the last thread, was to more clearly make Invulnerability into a power that requires a strong justification to add to a profile. The ability has often been added based on what are in reality durability feats or otherwise insufficient evidence and given its power that is something we want to avoid. I'll note I'm not really making the standards stricter per se and more so just specifying how it should actually work.Summary
This part is mostly the same, though rewarded and expanded a little bit, stressing that the power is separate from durability. I guess "complete rewrite" was a bit of a lie but eh.Types
This is the biggest change compared to what I was proposing in the last thread, that being essentially the inclusion of only what is now Type 2. The reason for this change is that I went and looked through every profile in the Invulnerability category up to those that started with A, a total of over 120 profiles. Most of them used it improperly, some did it right, but a few more fell in a weird grey area where they clearly had an ability that made them immune to a specific kind of damage, just not in a way that'd qualify them for "proper" Invulnerability.I'd use Ainz Ooal Gown as the example: a character with the ability to negate all incoming non-magical attacks, as well as piercing attacks and attacks coming from a character below 60th level. It's never explained as lawhax or anything else that'd allow the power to apply to any level of AP, so it's a NLF to say this guy could take a 3-B non-magical punch... but it's obviously an ability, and a fairly common one too. Not only is it worthy of indexing, but if we didn't have a page for it a lot of people would mistakenly list it as the other type of Invulnerability which we want to avoid.
So, I propose the addition of "Type 1: Limited Damage Negation" (or Limited Invulnerability if the name change is rejected), a power that still requires proof of some ability that can't be easily indexed as just high durability or something else, effectively negating some types of incoming attacks, but lacks a "mechanism" that evidences how it might function against attacks of any power. VS-match wise it should usually basically act as conditional durability. An 8-C character that's immune to all X attacks when in their verse X gets up to 6-C can tank anything up to that level, but they can't be argued to be able to take a much more powerful X from another character.
Onto the other type, the more literal Invulnerability, it is what was discussed in the other thread: a power that is clearly outlined to negate all harm, or at least all harm of a certain kind. It needs to explicitly have a mechanism that allows it to do so with no real limits, bypassing AP entirely. Something like physics manipulation, law manipulation or so on. Based on Agnaa's original proposal I have added an explicit distinction between a source and a mechanism, reasoning that otherwise people may try to suggest that a character's powers simply being based on something that could potentially fuel the ability (such as a magic system based on reality warping) should be evidence for this ability, which it isn't.
Explanation
A quick closing section that addresses a few common misconceptions about the ability: pointing that Type 2 should never be overpowered by sheer AP and that a character doing so is usually an anti-feat, stating that invulnerability negation =/= duraneg, which may seem random but is currently treated as true on some pages and definitely shouldn't be, and explaining that gameplay invulnerability, high durability and statements of invincibility all aren't evidence for the power.Other
As you might've noticed I removed the page image (it was added without a CRT and the character may or may not even qualify for the ability). I'm open to suggestions regarding that. I'm also in need of suggestions for page examples of characters that qualify for the two proposed types, right now I've got one and two respectively but I'd really like to have at least three each.- Agree: Myself, Random-Helper323, Planck69, AbaddonTheDisappointment, Mr._Propeller_Hat, SomebodyData, Antvasima
- Disagree: DontTalkDT
- Neutral:
Changing The Name
This is a discussion that began in the other thread but Invulnerability's current name is actively misleading. It's used very consistently as a shorthand for extreme durability by fiction - I would point to how both Marvel and DC Comics have very commonly used it to describe characters whose endurance to harm absolutely has shown limits, but there's many examples. As a result of this discrepancy many users mistakenly apply the power to characters who are stated to be invulnerable or become mechanically immune to damage in videogames. Obviously the new power page already explains that this isn't correct but that doesn't change the fact that the name is actively leading people astray and we should make indexing as streamlined as possible. A new user working on their first profile may not read every single ability page thoroughly and simply take the name at face value, which is almost always fine, just not here.I propose Damage Negation as the new name. It describes what the ability does pretty well and it shouldn't be too misleading to anyone unfamiliar with it. Given this is a direct continuation of the discussion from the last thread I will list the disagreement/agreement votes from it. If anyone here has changed their minds please let me know.
- Agree: Myself, DarkDragonMedeus, Agnaa (mildly), FinePoint, Random-Helper323, Qawsedf234, Antvasima
- Disagree: Theglassman12, Vietthai96, DontTalkDT, AbaddonTheDisappointment, Mr._Propeller_Hat,
- Neutral: SomebodyData, Planck69
Last edited:
