Creation's differentiation from AP.

[FloweryAlex]

No, this is not about "why is creation applied to AP". That was already finished.

This is about creation that definitely doesn't scale to any destructive capability being implemented into AP regardless. The main argument I saw is that it's like environmental damage... except, you know, there not being any damage at all.

I think such instances should be removed, because by how our current profiles go:

• AP is the destructive capability of a character, or their ability to harm others with such levels of durability.
• Environmental Damage is a characters ability to cause damage on a certain level, but being unable to harm people on that level (making a storm will not even phase a tier 7, for example).
• Creation fits neither of these, as there is no destruction, harming or otherwise damage going on. A person makes things, that's it.

If, for some reason, people decide that creation should be added to Attack Potency, then it's page needs to be changed so that it's description doesn't disqualify it by default.

 

[Agnaa]

I made a thread similar to this before since I found it weird that it was being included like that. But this thread only asked whether it was combat applicable or not (it was decided it wasn't).

Kal and Dargoo said it's like Environmental Destruction but with creation powers. Dargoo was going to change the Creation page based on this, but his CRT ended up focusing on other topics instead.

I'm fine either way with keeping non-combat-applicable creation feats in AP or not (leaning slightly towards not keeping them in AP, it seems to cause too much confusion), but if it is kept in AP the Creation page should be changed to mention this, like Dargoo's suggestion in the earlier thread:

Creation feats are treated as feats of Attack Potency on this wiki. This is because, near-universally in reality, creating an object from separate, smaller objects or energy often takes just as much, if not more energy than destroying said object. Note that this only applies to the character's capacity to harm other characters if their Creation is connected to their other abilities; for example, it can be reasoned that a mage who can conjure a city with little mana can destroy one with the same amount of mana, however a character who can create objects without other ways of harming their opponents wouldn't be able to harness that power to hurt another character, and would fall under a light form of Environmental Destruction.

 

[FloweryAlex]

That makes no sense tough. Not with out definition of Environmental Destruction.

Both the name, and it's description (a character's capability to damage and destroy an area around themselves) is not applicable to it.

And there is no real reason to include that in Attack Potency, to begin with.

 

[DMB_1]

What Agnaa said. I agree that whether Creation should scale to AP or not, it has to be determined by how the character's abilities work though.

Also, our current Creation page is terrible, I'll give you that.

 

[Agnaa]

It's not traditional Environmental Destruction, but it's a form of it. If you think of Environmental Destruction as "Energy that can only be applied over a large area and not into a single attack" then it would fall under.

Restricting Environmental Destruction to literal damage when we consider both damage and creation for AP seems like a definition not in the spirit of the term to specifically exclude creation.

 

[FloweryAlex]

It's not traditional Environmental Destruction, but it's a form of it. If you think of Environmental Destruction as "Energy that can only be applied over a large area and not into a single attack" then it would fall under.

That is not what Environmental Destruction is defined as. I quoted the accepted definition, and that's not it.


Restricting Environmental Destruction to literal damage when we consider both damage and creation for AP seems like a definition not in the spirit of the term to specifically exclude creation.

I'm... not the one that made the profile. And that's what is being disagreed with. Creation should neither be Environmental Destruction nor AP.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, the page can always be expanded to include creation.

 

[FloweryAlex]

If, for some reason, people decide that creation should be added to Attack Potency, then it's page needs to be changed so that it's description doesn't disqualify it by default.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

So...

I see no reason to apply Creation to AP or Environmental Destruction if it is strictly incapable of being applied to any form of destruction.

Say, a normal guy with the ability to create a 10 meter plushie at will should not be 9-B for the amount of matter they created.

 

[Agnaa]

For reference, there's at least four pages that have Creation that doesn't scale to attacks in AP: Spooky, The Narrator (The Stanley Parable), Ougi Oshino, and SCP-3930 (This one may have it removed for other reasons). And there's at least one page that doesn't include this sort of creation in AP: Han Jee-Ha

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

The narrator may have a case for something like "he narrates that the strongest attack possible hits the enemy, so the enemy gets hit with at least as much energy as it showed to be able to create", but that's a different discussion.

 

[Agnaa]

He's never done anything remotely close to that (narrating to create attacks) in-game. He can detonate a nuke but that wouldn't be 8-B or Low 7-B.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Another discussion to be had if this gets accepted, but I do disagree with that being enough on it's own to not scale.

 

[Agnaa]

Right, it seems best to save that.

 

[Andytrenom]

I feel in those pages, the creation feats were in fact intended to apply to attacking power. If someone just has a tier that isn't specified to be through atypical methods like ED or hax, that is the message it sends and people are usually aware of this

 

[Agnaa]

I feel in those pages, the creation feats were in fact intended to apply to attacking power. If someone just has a tier that isn't specified to be through atypical methods like ED or hax, that is the message it sends and people are usually aware of this

I'm intimately familiar with all of the verses, and none of the pages have any way to apply those creation feats to attacking power.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

What Andy is saying is that them putting it there still implies that.

Spooky was assumed to have that much plain AP at some point IIRC.

 

[Agnaa]

Ahh, yeah.

That's why I asked about it in the old thread, and suggested adding a note to those profiles specifying that they can't use it for AP.

 

[Andytrenom]

You should probably just need to specify "x tier via creation" in these cases. I don't think there's much more to be done

 

[Dzhindzholia]

Magic based creation shouldn't scale to normal AP unless proven otherwise.Simply "Creation also requires energy" isn't enough IMO.

 

[Agnaa]

You should probably just need to specify "x tier via creation" in these cases. I don't think there's much more to be done

So they'd need to be changed to something like Ougi Oshino's page?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Can we argue about why it would be noted in AP at all, please?

 

[Andytrenom]

Yeah, if it's known that creation doesn't scale to attack potency in these cases

 

[Agnaa]

Magic based creation shouldn't scale to normal AP unless proven otherwise.Simply "Creation also requires energy" isn't enough IMO.

That's a discussion for another thread, sorry.

 

[InfiniteSped]

I'm not even sure how creating something from nothing can be quantified. Isn't it physically impossible?

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not even sure how creating something from nothing can be quantified. Isn't it physically impossible?

Matter can be created from energy. This usually requires ludicrous levels of energy, so we lowball it to the energy needed to destroy something.

But this is another conversation that's outside of the topic of this thread. Please try to keep it to the OP's question and not creation feats in general.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

It is, but it leads to absurd outliers.

We just eyeball something similiar.


But again, not this threads porpuse.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Sped It's assumed to take at least as much power as destroying the object in question, since creation is considered to take more effort than destruction

 

[FloweryAlex]