Clarifying Durability Negation and Atomisation

[Agnaa]

In a recent thread, both @KLOL506 and @DarkDragonMedeus staked out claims that atomisation is both an AP feat and a feat of durability negation. I think this highlights a tension in the system as-is.

Since that idea's largely irrelevant to that thread, and deserves its own handling, I've made this.

We know from past calculations that atomising a human skull lands in 9-B, at 3.661e6 joules, or 0.88 kg of TNT.

Thus, every character who can focus such energies into a head-sized area can atomize that portion of the human body, and negate durability.

However, every character who can withstand such energies to a head-sized area can resist durability negation.

So, how do we resolve this?

1. Give almost all characters at that energy value or greater Durability Negation and Resistance to it?
2. Remove Durability Negation, and Resistance to it, from all feats that simply involve high levels of destruction like this?
3. Recontextualise those cases of Durability Negation to only be of a limited degree, like attacking organs, such that it would naturally fail to effect characters with durability beyond ~1 kg of TNT without feats?
4. Draft up rules for when Durability Negation can be given for statements of atomisation; keeping it in some cases, and not allowing it in others?
5. Some other idea that I haven't thought of?

 

[KLOL506]

This was more so @DontTalkDT's idea when he said cutting/piercing/slicing feats down to the molecular level and smaller would constitute as durability negation so it'd be better to ask him instead.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Atomization feats of rocks and water and stuff are obviously calculatable.

However, on the other hand, the whole idea of scaling the durability of a character as a whole to the durability of its atoms is kind of absurd if you think about it. Like, sure, theoretically a human tanking a nuke needs super molecular bonds and super atoms. Those atoms need super-bonded nuclei and the protons in those nuclei need super-bonded quarks. This basically means that we conclude that being with such durability can not be made out of regular matter, but must be made from entirely exotic particles that don't exist in real-life. They may as well operate on altered physics. But... that's just clearly not how pretty much any fiction actually thinks that works. Most characters are supposed to be made from regular matter, as little sense as that makes with their durability.

So we end up with a somewhat paradoxical situation, where a character's macroscopic durability is way higher than its microscopic one. Fictions also frequently see it like that, with things like molecular cutting and atomic disintegration powers being seen as hax. So, ultimately, we just need to accept this as it is.

Furthermore, I will say that I don't entertain thought experiments like "He should be able to focus x energy into a small area and hence atomize something". Not just with atomization, but even with vaporization or melting. In fiction, a nuke-level punch can just shatter things. Sure, in reality that thing should outright ignite nuclear fusion in the air, but in practice, we see that fiction doesn't work that way. We don't grant attacks the ability to do such things just because they theoretically should do those things. We just have them do what we actually see them do. I.e. Atomization needs feats.


So, in summary, atomization can be calculated, atom-scale attacks do negate durability and not every strong attack is atomic-scale.

The one thing I would leave up for debate is if we count "energy beam so strong that it atomizes rock" as durability negation. One could argue that, contrary to a character that telekinetically rips you apart atom by atom or a blade that is so sharp that it severs atomic bonds, that may still be more of an issue of macroscopic durability, as it is just hitting hard, lacking the finesse of other atomization techniques.

 

[Agnaa]

Atomization feats of rocks and water and stuff are obviously calculatable.

However, on the other hand, the whole idea of scaling the durability of a character as a whole to the durability of its atoms is kind of absurd if you think about it. Like, sure, theoretically a human tanking a nuke needs super molecular bonds and super atoms. Those atoms need super-bonded nuclei and the protons in those nuclei need super-bonded quarks. This basically means that we conclude that being with such durability can not be made out of regular matter, but must be made from entirely exotic particles that don't exist in real-life. They may as well operate on altered physics. But... that's just clearly not how pretty much any fiction actually thinks that works. Most characters are supposed to be made from regular matter, as little sense as that makes with their durability.

So we end up with a somewhat paradoxical situation, where a character's macroscopic durability is way higher than its microscopic one. Fictions also frequently see it like that, with things like molecular cutting and atomic disintegration powers being seen as hax. So, ultimately, we just need to accept this as it is.

Furthermore, I will say that I don't entertain thought experiments like "He should be able to focus x energy into a small area and hence atomize something". Not just with atomization, but even with vaporization or melting. In fiction, a nuke-level punch can just shatter things. Sure, in reality that thing should outright ignite nuclear fusion in the air, but in practice, we see that fiction doesn't work that way. We don't grant attacks the ability to do such things just because they theoretically should do those things. We just have them do what we actually see them do. I.e. Atomization needs feats.


So, in summary, atomization can be calculated, atom-scale attacks do negate durability and not every strong attack is atomic-scale.

The one thing I would leave up for debate is if we count "energy beam so strong that it atomizes rock" as durability negation. One could argue that, contrary to a character that telekinetically rips you apart atom by atom or a blade that is so sharp that it severs atomic bonds, that may still be more of an issue of macroscopic durability, as it is just hitting hard, lacking the finesse of other atomization techniques.

I get that as a case-by-case thing, but not so much as a generalisation. Why should the character from this calc be able to blow Goku's head off? Her being able to atomize someone's skull isn't really portrayed as something that negates durability.

Plus, this selection of what additional effects we allow to occur seems wholly arbitrary. We decided not to separate force and heat durability, despite fiction not really equivocating them, in part because of the obscure effect that a small portion of a physical attack's energy would get transformed into heat. We don't let such heat resistance come from speed feats, but we let it come from surviving punches....

My concern with those being that you don't seem to have a principled position like "We should, by default, assume that fictional attacks just dispatch the amount of energy they've shown; we shouldn't try to reason extra features into them." You're sometimes okay with it and sometimes not, implying that your actual justification is something else. To provide an example to the contrary, Dargoo consistently reasoned with "Assume the series operates according to physics unless it shows otherwise", and that informed his decisions for things like this, when relevant.

 

[Agnaa]

Bout to go to bed, and I can see DT's already read my latest post, so I'll doublepost instead of editing, for visibility.

If we are going a route more in line with "Assume that fiction generally thinks that superhumans still have weak atoms/molecules", some ideas I think are worthy of consideration are:

1. Separate cases where "atomisation" or something similar is used to describe the sheer power being output into a small area, and cases where such things are used to explain why telekinesis/a sharp weapon is able to harm extremely durable things.
2. Consider giving series with supernatural, more resilient materials, resistance to durability negation of that kind, on the relevant scale (i.e. if they've got armour made of a new element, tougher than anything that actually exists, it would by default resist molecular durability negation, without needing direct showings/statements).

 

[DontTalkDT]

I get that as a case-by-case thing, but not so much as a generalisation. Why should the character from this calc be able to blow Goku's head off? Her being able to atomize someone's skull isn't really portrayed as something that negates durability.

I can't read the scan in that blog. If she does it via brute force, see the last paragraph of my prior response.

Plus, this selection of what additional effects we allow to occur seems wholly arbitrary. We decided not to separate force and heat durability, despite fiction not really equivocating them, in part because of the obscure effect that a small portion of a physical attack's energy would get transformed into heat. We don't let such heat resistance come from speed feats, but we let it come from surviving punches....

The heat damage debate is technically unsettled to this day, I believe. But, in any case, heat-based damage has a much different portrayal. Contrary to atomic scale attacks, heat-based attacks are really more often portrayed as not negating durability (or only doing so to a limited extent like piercing damage) than they are shown to do so. Every RPG just sees it as another type of elemental damage, no different from water or earth. Every isekai with a stat system does the same. And many shonens just view fire as flashy attack #53. Meanwhile, many cases of it technically happening are super fire or authors just have no sense of how temperature relates to damage. Like, it's really rare to have a fiction say "sure I can tank a 50 megaton punch, but please don't hit me with the torch as the burns will kill me". Meanwhile, that's basically exactly what we see with atom scale attacks. Characters that can't be hurt until someone pulls out the atom cutting sword that then cuts through them like butter.
Heat is a bit like guns basically and we wouldn't consider those negation either.
To that comes that heat is typically not viewed as interacting with the microscopic, but more as macroscopic attacks.

Basically, all the things that for atomic scale attacks make us say that it's better to ignore how physics technically should work don't really apply to heat.

My concern with those being that you don't seem to have a principled position like "We should, by default, assume that fictional attacks just dispatch the amount of energy they've shown; we shouldn't try to reason extra features into them." You're sometimes okay with it and sometimes not, implying that your actual justification is something else. To provide an example to the contrary, Dargoo consistently reasoned with "Assume the series operates according to physics unless it shows otherwise", and that informed his decisions for things like this, when relevant.

My position is to assume physics applies until shown otherwise. With two exceptions. One is fiction typically ignoring something, which is why we have standards for lightning and light. The other is if applying "physics" ends up in actually deducing new laws of nature or new kinds of matter, as that is just inventing headcanons.

Every time a city level punch is thrown and doesn't produce a nuclear fireball that is a case of fiction showing us that physics does not apply to kinds of damage. Each single instance of that is evidence towards fiction ignoring that technically lots of energy in a small space should cause atomization. So there is overwhelming evidence against the assumption that any character that hits hard atomizes.
That goes into the category of "things we ignore because fiction nigh-universally ignores it" right together with super-anchoring.

Bout to go to bed, and I can see DT's already read my latest post, so I'll doublepost instead of editing, for visibility.

If we are going a route more in line with "Assume that fiction generally thinks that superhumans still have weak atoms/molecules", some ideas I think are worthy of consideration are:

1. Separate cases where "atomisation" or something similar is used to describe the sheer power being output into a small area, and cases where such things are used to explain why telekinesis/a sharp weapon is able to harm extremely durable things.
2. Consider giving series with supernatural, more resilient materials, resistance to durability negation of that kind, on the relevant scale (i.e. if they've got armour made of a new element, tougher than anything that actually exists, it would by default resist molecular durability negation, without needing direct showings/statements).

I'm fine with saying brute force atomisation does not negate durability, while things like atomic cutting and stuff does.
For the material idea I would limit it to those that have clear statement of stronger atomic bonds or stuff, instead of just any kind of super-steel.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with DontTalkDT. I only argued for one direction; that atomization feats have a minimum amount energy required to perform the feat that is also AP; I never proposed the opposite as simply having/using raw power and knowing how to control it all with such great precision are two widely different things. But I also suppose something like an atom bomb may not quite be durability negation as opposed it just being AP, but splitting atoms with a sword strike or karate chop is most definately durability negation.

 

[Agnaa]

I can't read the scan in that blog. If she does it via brute force, see the last paragraph of my prior response.

Ah, I didn't realise. Yeah, in the middle of a monologue she says "If I'd wanted, that punch would have killed you. Atomized your skull."

The heat damage debate is technically unsettled to this day, I believe. But, in any case, heat-based damage has a much different portrayal. Contrary to atomic scale attacks, heat-based attacks are really more often portrayed as not negating durability (or only doing so to a limited extent like piercing damage) than they are shown to do so. Every RPG just sees it as another type of elemental damage, no different from water or earth. Every isekai with a stat system does the same. And many shonens just view fire as flashy attack #53. Meanwhile, many cases of it technically happening are super fire or authors just have no sense of how temperature relates to damage. Like, it's really rare to have a fiction say "sure I can tank a 50 megaton punch, but please don't hit me with the torch as the burns will kill me". Meanwhile, that's basically exactly what we see with atom scale attacks. Characters that can't be hurt until someone pulls out the atom cutting sword that then cuts through them like butter.
Heat is a bit like guns basically and we wouldn't consider those negation either.
To that comes that heat is typically not viewed as interacting with the microscopic, but more as macroscopic attacks.

Basically, all the things that for atomic scale attacks make us say that it's better to ignore how physics technically should work don't really apply to heat.

My position is to assume physics applies until shown otherwise. With two exceptions. One is fiction typically ignoring something, which is why we have standards for lightning and light. The other is if applying "physics" ends up in actually deducing new laws of nature or new kinds of matter, as that is just inventing headcanons.

Every time a city level punch is thrown and doesn't produce a nuclear fireball that is a case of fiction showing us that physics does not apply to kinds of damage. Each single instance of that is evidence towards fiction ignoring that technically lots of energy in a small space should cause atomization. So there is overwhelming evidence against the assumption that any character that hits hard atomizes.
That goes into the category of "things we ignore because fiction nigh-universally ignores it" right together with super-anchoring.

I'm fine with saying brute force atomisation does not negate durability, while things like atomic cutting and stuff does.
For the material idea I would limit it to those that have clear statement of stronger atomic bonds or stuff, instead of just any kind of super-steel.

Fair enough I guess.

Maybe we could add something like this to the Durability Negation page?

• Attacking on (sub-)molecular levels - Fiction sometimes establishes weapons, attacks, and abilities as bypassing durability by causing damage on a molecular, atomic, or subatomic level. Care should be taken to distinguish cases where such explanations are used to justify why something can negate durability, and cases where those terms are simply used to describe the sheer power of an attack. Since this works based off of the principle that even strong characters don't have comparably stronger atomic bonds, characters established to have such improved bonds would have Resistance to this type of durability negation.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That seems fine.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

Maybe we could add something like this to the Durability Negation page?

This addition seems reasonable to me.

 

[Damage3245]

Doesn't the section on Matter Manipulation on the Durability Negation page cover that? I'm fine with it being expanded upon though.

 

[Agnaa]

Doesn't the section on Matter Manipulation on the Durability Negation page cover that? I'm fine with it being expanded upon though.

That seems more about manipulating matter, i.e. changing its properties. I think these sorts of attacks are a bit different.

 

[KLOL506]

Bump.

Have the proposed edits been applied yet? It's been well over grace period.

 

[Agnaa]

I kinda wanted more than 1 admin+ approval on a site standard change like this.

 

[KLOL506]

@Elizhaa @Maverick_Zero_X @Qawsedf234 @Damage3245 @Sir_Ovens @Ultima_Reality @Firestorm808 @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @ByAsura What do you think of Agnaa's draft?

 

[Qawsedf234]

I don't see a problem with the draft.

 

[KLOL506]

@Antvasima What are your thoughts on Agnaa's draft?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I think the draft is good.

 

[Damage3245]

I'm fine with it.

 

[Agnaa]

I've added it.

 

[KLOL506]

Aite, anything else left to do here, or can we close this thread?

 

[Agnaa]

Doubt it. If someone needs this re-opened for any reason, DM me, or ask another discussion mod/admin anywhere.