- 403
- 821
Well, I am not sure whether this is truly an issue with the standard itself or mainly a wording problem, but I think that section of the page may need either clearer phrasing or an additional explanation.
My concern is about the Durability Negation page, specifically the last section:
My issue with this last part is mainly about the physics and NLF side of the reasoning. As written, it seems to imply that attacks affecting atoms or separating atomic bonds can generally bypass durability regardless, and then only afterward adds:
My problem is that this should not need to be treated as a special exception in the first place. The textbook definition of raw physical durability is, effectively, an increase in how resistant a body’s structure is to being deformed, broken, or torn apart. At the microscopic level, this would necessarily mean that the atoms, bonds, and overall internal structure making up the body are far more resistant to separation, disruption, or collapse than those of a normal human.
If a character is surviving purely through physical durability, without force fields, magic, or any other external/supernatural mechanism, then the ONLY physical explanation is that the matter composing their body is held together far more strongly than normal. In other words, their internal bonding/structural cohesion must already be vastly stronger.
So if a character can physically tank something as extreme as a supernova with no external protection, just an example, that already means their bodily structure is durable enough to resist that level of force. It should not require an extra statement saying “their atomic bonds are stronger,” because that is already implicit in the feat itself. Requiring that kind of explicit statement would be like requiring to separately state that a character can survive a supernova after they were already shown surviving one on-screen.
To be clear, I am not arguing that durability negation through molecular, atomic, or subatomic means should be removed. My point is that it should be limited by demonstrated scale.
For example, if a wall-level character has a weapon or ability that bypasses durability by targeting atoms or atomic bonds, and that weapon is only ever shown working on characters up to, say, planet level, then that should be the limit assumed on the profile unless stronger showings exist.
Why? Because a solar-system-level or galaxy-level character with purely physical durability would necessarily have matter that is incomparably more resistant to destruction.
Their internal structure, including whatever atomic or molecular cohesion is allowing that durability, would have to be vastly beyond that of much weaker characters.
So an ability or weapon designed to destroy the atomic bonds should not automatically be assumed to work on vastly stronger characters unless the series actually proves that it can.
Because such a process requires ENERGY, especially in the case of weapons and abilities, it should not be treated as though it can automatically do anything it wants with limitless output just because it is stated to target or separate atoms. That is ultimately just a description of the mechanism; it still requires enough energy to overcome the target’s bonds, and stronger characters would necessarily have much stronger internal bonds and structural cohesion.
So my main issue is not with the existence of this form of durability negation, but with treating it too universally. It should scale to what it has actually been shown to affect, rather than being treated as something that automatically bypasses all raw durability regardless of the enormous difference in the target’s physical resilience.
My proposal is to apply a limit based on what these abilities have actually been shown to affect. Characters with this type of durability negation should only be assumed able to affect targets within the demonstrated range of their feats, unless they have shown the ability working on those much stronger characters, or unless it is explicitly stated that the ability works on anyone regardless of durability ALWAYS. That is the key point that needs to be specified, it should not be the other way around that someone need to be stated to have stronger atomic-bonds, because merely stating that an ability targets atoms or cell or separates them is not, by itself, sufficient at all, for the reasons explained above.
The Issue:
My concern is about the Durability Negation page, specifically the last section:
- “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.”
My issue with this last part is mainly about the physics and NLF side of the reasoning. As written, it seems to imply that attacks affecting atoms or separating atomic bonds can generally bypass durability regardless, and then only afterward adds:
- “Since this works based off of the principle that even strong characters don't have comparably stronger atomic bonds”
My problem is that this should not need to be treated as a special exception in the first place. The textbook definition of raw physical durability is, effectively, an increase in how resistant a body’s structure is to being deformed, broken, or torn apart. At the microscopic level, this would necessarily mean that the atoms, bonds, and overall internal structure making up the body are far more resistant to separation, disruption, or collapse than those of a normal human.
If a character is surviving purely through physical durability, without force fields, magic, or any other external/supernatural mechanism, then the ONLY physical explanation is that the matter composing their body is held together far more strongly than normal. In other words, their internal bonding/structural cohesion must already be vastly stronger.
Why it should change:
So if a character can physically tank something as extreme as a supernova with no external protection, just an example, that already means their bodily structure is durable enough to resist that level of force. It should not require an extra statement saying “their atomic bonds are stronger,” because that is already implicit in the feat itself. Requiring that kind of explicit statement would be like requiring to separately state that a character can survive a supernova after they were already shown surviving one on-screen.
To be clear, I am not arguing that durability negation through molecular, atomic, or subatomic means should be removed. My point is that it should be limited by demonstrated scale.
For example, if a wall-level character has a weapon or ability that bypasses durability by targeting atoms or atomic bonds, and that weapon is only ever shown working on characters up to, say, planet level, then that should be the limit assumed on the profile unless stronger showings exist.
Why? Because a solar-system-level or galaxy-level character with purely physical durability would necessarily have matter that is incomparably more resistant to destruction.
Their internal structure, including whatever atomic or molecular cohesion is allowing that durability, would have to be vastly beyond that of much weaker characters.
So an ability or weapon designed to destroy the atomic bonds should not automatically be assumed to work on vastly stronger characters unless the series actually proves that it can.
Because such a process requires ENERGY, especially in the case of weapons and abilities, it should not be treated as though it can automatically do anything it wants with limitless output just because it is stated to target or separate atoms. That is ultimately just a description of the mechanism; it still requires enough energy to overcome the target’s bonds, and stronger characters would necessarily have much stronger internal bonds and structural cohesion.
So my main issue is not with the existence of this form of durability negation, but with treating it too universally. It should scale to what it has actually been shown to affect, rather than being treated as something that automatically bypasses all raw durability regardless of the enormous difference in the target’s physical resilience.
Solution:
My proposal is to apply a limit based on what these abilities have actually been shown to affect. Characters with this type of durability negation should only be assumed able to affect targets within the demonstrated range of their feats, unless they have shown the ability working on those much stronger characters, or unless it is explicitly stated that the ability works on anyone regardless of durability ALWAYS. That is the key point that needs to be specified, it should not be the other way around that someone need to be stated to have stronger atomic-bonds, because merely stating that an ability targets atoms or cell or separates them is not, by itself, sufficient at all, for the reasons explained above.
