Is adding Layers on top of Resistance Negation Redundant?

[Ikelaggan]

^

 

[Magicomethkuon]

I don't think so.

Character A resists being negged by basic RN, in comes character B and gets the job done.

Like this, there could be purpose to a layer in this ability.

 

[Everything12]

Resistance to Resistance Negation is a seemingly paradoxical but very real thing, and which case the layers of your abilities come into focus when bypassing any resistances they have.

 

[Ikelaggan]

Resistance to Resistance Negation is a seemingly paradoxical but very real thing, and which case the layers of your abilities come into focus when bypassing any resistances they have.

So hypothetically if you have a hax that negates a resistance that normally has 100% immunity you can add layers on that. like a death hax with 200% chance of death bypassing that immunity.

 

[Everything12]

Whether a Death Manipulation that has a 200% of working bypasses a 100% resistance to Death Manipulation is entirely dependent on the rules of the verse.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

So hypothetically if you have a hax that negates a resistance that normally has 100% immunity you can add layers on that. like a death hax with 200% chance of death bypassing that immunity.

Kinda heavy into game mechanic territory so would need a case-by-case analysis.
normally your example tho is just potency not layers

 

[Ikelaggan]

Kinda heavy into game mechanic territory so would need a case-by-case analysis.
normally your example tho is just potency not layers

Understandable, but what about examples of quantitative layers from negating multiple beings with immunity all at once.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

quantity is still under potency

there's currently no definitive guidelines in regards to potency by strength and potency by numbers
unless this potency by number can be concentrated into 1 individual then it can be equated to potency by strength or even layers accordingly

 

[Ikelaggan]

Apparently due to recent revisions layering becomes irrelevant to resistance negation.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Apparently due to recent revisions layering becomes irrelevant to resistance negation.

I'm not so sure. For one it feels like one of those standards that later people collect a variety of feats and disprove. Or that are given an initial version but deeper elaborations come with time.

Finally, there's also that DT was not entirely on board with that line of thinking. His draft of a new version would also mean that not any kind of resistance negation would qualify to the point of making layering irrelevant by default. Rather, the observed effectiveness would rely on the additional mechanism that the ability holder uses.

 

[Everything12]

Resistance Negation has always ignored layers, that's the whole point of Resistance Negation. Completely ignoring any resistance that isn't resistance to Resistance Negation, it negates resistances.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Resistance Negation has always ignored layers, that's the whole point of Resistance Negation. Completely ignoring any resistance that isn't resistance to Resistance Negation, it negates resistances.

I think that line of logic would sail too close to treating Resistance Negation as without limits by default, which is why I'd agree more with DT's take on that thread and that it would depend more on the mechanism that it's working with. And feats of each character.

Second, since it's a common misconception, I would use the fact that we explain layering to then add a more explicit note in spirit of what Note 2 already explains: There are different kinds of potency aside from layers and they are equally valid. Something without layers could overcome layered resistance if it has high enough potency otherwise and vise versa. The exact comparison is heavily case-by-case and in general not possible, though.

I don't believe that any resistance negation would by default be said to overcome layered resistances. But I agree that a character featless against Resistance Negation or at least a close equivalent like Power Nullification to show that they aren't as easily negated would be helpless against it, depending on the usual mechanism and showings.

 

[Planck69]

Seconding what Everything12 said. The entire concept of resistance Negation is that it nullifies or strips resistances away outright.

 

[Planck69]

Also, I dunno why Resistance Negation ignoring layers is close to an NLF. We obviously don't let it ignore resistance to hax above its existential level and it can be resisted, rare as it is. The power is just strong.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Also, I dunno why Resistance Negation ignoring layers is close to an NLF. We obviously don't let it ignore resistance to hax above its existential level and it can be resisted, rare as it is. The power is just strong.

It's because assuming that it by default denies any and every layer, regardless of feat comparison from an individual pair of characters may be jumping the gun. Also, as DT said,

Layered resistance can be overcome by things more potent than them, but judging whether potency that does not come from layers is above or below the potency of it is usually difficult and case-by-case. We don't default to either stance.
That's what was in fact decided in the thread you linked and what is written on the page as a result.

I am in agreements with this line of thinking because I believe it's jumping the gun to say that, no matter what, resistance negation would be inherently superior to any amount of layered feats. That would render the need to compare the nature (mechanism) behind each power, if they can relate or be compared in a logical way, unnecessary.

I don't think we should preemptively conclude or set a standard that, no matter what, RN > Layer Feats without first analyzing how each works in any given franchise.

 

[Planck69]

DT isn't a monolith here so there's no need to repeatedly quote him. I agree with him that there are other forms of potency besides layers. I do not agree that Resistance Negation would arbitrarily be limited by some layers when fundamentally it nullifies that.

The power has more than enough default limitations for it to work. It just sounds wrong because people get testy about their googol layered characters being affected by it.

 

[Georredannea15]

Resistance negation is already kind of similar to durability negation.

If you have no resistance to resistance negation, no matter how many layers of resistance you have, they are all ignored, just like in durability negation.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

DT isn't a monolith here so there's no need to repeatedly quote him. I agree with him that there are other forms of potency besides layers. I do not agree that Resistance Negation would arbitrarily be limited by some layers when fundamentally it nullifies that.

The power has more than enough default limitations for it to work. It just sounds wrong because people get testy about their googol layered characters being affected by it.

His is the point of view that I agree with, so quoting some of his thoughts as a source is relevant to my argument. Not sure what's the point of making a statement like me doing that is something that I shouldn't be doing, when here the takes of staff are the ones given the most weight. Finally, I don't think that whether or not some person is upset about layers being bypassed should take precedence over avoiding generalization.

Resistance negation is already kind of similar to durability negation.

If you have no resistance to resistance negation, no matter how many layers of resistance you have, they are all ignored, just like in durability negation.

We'll just agree to disagree there. Assigning a default value of resistance negation as inherently above any layers regardless of mechanism (as resistance negation could, absolutely, have a comparable mechanism to layered powers) is a shortcut that I don't see eye to eye with.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

When DT explained resistance negation he specifically mentioned powernull in comparison.

We assume powernull can negate things it has shown to negate but not things above it

Higher dimensional, conceptual etc etc.

What that ultimately means is that if someone has resistance negation but isn't shown to extend beyond conventional ones and has no feat of also affecting fundamental stuff then it shouldn't be assume to be capable of.

To exemplify
We cant assume you can negate resistances of concept, info etc when the best feat you are shown to negate resistance is paralysis or petrification etc.

Resistance negation often times covers majority of resistance within verse so this barely becomes an issue but yes we must be vigilant to not somehow assume someone who negates fire resistance can somehow negate Info type 2, resistance or EE resistance unless shown or implied.

But in terms of layer if someone is shown to negate resistance of soul hax then they can negate it on their level regardless of layers the same way we assume that powernull can powernull abilities on their level no matter how strong unless it has no resistance to powernull (powernull on abilities with layered potency etc)