Minor Frieren Revisions

[BadSystems]

Good morning. First real CRT I've made.
I'm going to suggest removing Frieren's magic amplified key, and instead list her durability (and that of other mages) as "10-B, varies up to Low 7-C with Mana, Low 7-C with defensive magic."

In a future CRT, I will aim for changing Limited Reality Warping on the Magic page into Subjective Reality.
Why remove it?
There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, this scan is used to justify Frieren being able to physically harm demons. In this scene, Frieren is just blasting the demon with magic. She does it at long range, first, then hits him with it at close range, which we see from the little blast effect. The anime also supports this.

Additionally, Frieren has never been unharmed by magical attacks that hit her, even if they can't penetrate her defenses. Some examples:

• Solitar's swords. A whole barrage of them can't get past defensive magic, but one blade which grazed her dealt damage, albeit minor.
• Lernen's laser. Pierces defensive magic (multiple layers, in fact) and rips up her shoulder.
• Solitar's mana strike. Also tears straight through defensive magic. Frieren admits that it could be an instant kill depending on where it lands. I forgot to add this, but it's more of mana strike ripping Frieren up by grazing her. Keep note of Solitar saying "Enemies with great mana are truly robust", it's important for the next point. Here's one more Frieren getting ragdolled case.
• Clone Frieren gets shredded by Fern's Zoltraak barrage.

Her current page seems to imply that Frieren was blocking an attack from Macht here, but that doesn't really make sense. This is the scene directly prior. Macht slices Frieren's shoulder, and then we switch to her staff pointing at his face, but her body facing the other way, where she was directly facing him before. I think what likely happened here is that when Macht cut her, she sorta sidestepped and rotated her body such that she avoided the sword, and was able to take aim, but I may be wrong.

Why should Mage durability be "10-B, varies up to [AP] with Mana, Low 7-C with defensive magic"?
Remember this? Let me post three scans from the first phase of the 1st Class Mage exam, rq.

• Richter gets blasted by water. This attack splinters his barriers, and hits him head-on, but he doesn't explode into a bloody mist. He is left without mana.
• Denken gets hit by a Zoltraak point blank. Frieren was holding back not to kill him, but he didn't explode into a bloody mist either, and there was an explosion that knocked apart some trees and a small crater. He also runs out of mana.
• Ehre takes an explosion from a barrage of Zoltraaks, sent by Fern (although she was holding back as to not kill her). Here, there also was an explosion, a crater, and she ran out of mana.

What am I getting at? Basically, mages expend mana while focusing on defense to withstand attacks to some degree. That's it.

Some might say that it should be "Low 7-C with Mana" or something like that for durability, but I disagree, because mages are still pretty squishy to magical attacks and just regular physical attacks, with Frieren saying that mages "are more fragile than you could imagine" on the front line, without a warrior to fend off enemies that get too close. Another possibility is that the Mana protecting only applies against magic spells, although I don't really see a case for that? Though, it's up for debate in the thread.
Edit: With @Chariot190’s suggestions, I have amended the thread.
The contents of this thread may change as people point mistakes or oversights out.

Agree: @TheGreatJedi13 ("wholeheartedly"), @Zabazab, @Shadow_x007x, @BlackDarkness679, @Chariot190, @Dalesean027 , @Shiraito983, @Epyriel, @Gonzalo, @BoastJr, @DarkDragonMedeus, @Shadow-Ragna, @Duedate8898
Disagree:
Neutral:

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I agree wholeheartedly

 

[Zabazab]

Cooked.

 

[BadSystems]

I will put that down as agree to everything

 

[Shadow_x007x]

Agreed. Moreover, I calculated Fern's physical durability to be 9-B. It would look good if we said that the mage's physical strength is 9-B and then increases with mana consumption.
(But this calculation has not been mathematically verified.)

 

[BadSystems]

I just realized that my dumbass wrote 9-B.... I meant 10-B.

Agreed. Moreover, I calculated Fern's physical durability to be 9-B. It would look good if we said that the mage's physical strength is 9-B and then increases with mana consumption.
(But this calculation has not been mathematically verified.)

But, if you can get a CGM to look at this it would be good. I could cover for my mistake.

 

[BlackDarkness679]

Checks out, agree as well

 

[Chariot190]

Looks good in concept, though I would word it more like
"10-B, varies up to [thing] with Mana, Low 7-C with defensive magic."
Varies due to it being dependent on how much mana was used to amp, something that demonstrably isn't always at a constant state.

"higher" is usually denoted for same lv of shit, "This should be used to denote a character's weapons, techniques, or attributes that are much stronger than their base level, but still within the same tier. For example, a character that is Solar System level but has an attack that multiplies their power by 100 times. In this instance it should be written as “Solar System level, higher with that ability or technique”.

Needless to say, that a mage without mana is 10-B, with it they're literal magnitudes above their innate durability so higher doesn't actually work.

We have two options, we can go "up to [highest dura feat they have]", or "up to [offense AP]", with the caveat that this shit kind of drains them, they need to manually amp to that degree, and so on.
Personally, I'd go with 1 but that would require calcing over a dozen feats, so 2 could work as a placeholder as we chip away at calcs.

 

[BadSystems]

Looks good in concept, though I would word it more like
"10-B, varies up to [thing] with Mana, Low 7-C with defensive magic."
Varies due to it being dependent on how much mana was used to amp, something that demonstrably isn't always at a constant state.

"higher" is usually denoted for same lv of shit, "This should be used to denote a character's weapons, techniques, or attributes that are much stronger than their base level, but still within the same tier. For example, a character that is Solar System level but has an attack that multiplies their power by 100 times. In this instance it should be written as “Solar System level, higher with that ability or technique”.

Needless to say, that a mage without mana is 10-B, with it they're literal magnitudes above their innate durability so higher doesn't actually work.

We have two options, we can go "up to [highest dura feat they have]", or "up to [offense AP]", with the caveat that this shit kind of drains them, they need to manually amp to that degree, and so on.
Personally, I'd go with 1 but that would require calcing over a dozen feats, so 2 could work as a placeholder as we chip away at calcs.

Thanks for the feedback, your idea makes sense. I'll add it to the OP, should it be "varies up to Low 7-C" for Frieren and similar? That's currently the AP we've got them at.

 

[Chariot190]

For now that should be good. Ill work on doing some calcs to get more fleshed out ratings for the future.

 

[BoastJr]

Squishy mages FRA

 

[Dalesean027]

Proposals are fine. Agreed on what chariot said too

 

[Shadow_x007x]

9-A for Physical

Frieren - Fern's Durability

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Chariot190]

Pretty good enhanced senses feat that doesn't seem to rely on mana sensing this ch.

 

[Shiraito983]

agree

 

[BadSystems]

I’ve made the suggested changes, now we just gotta wait for evaluating staff

 

[BadSystems]

9-A for Physical

Frieren - Fern's Durability

vsbattles.fandom.com

Before we take this into account, do we consider this to be Mana amped durability or just raw durability? Idk if it can be considered to be just base dura.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Before we take this into account, do we consider this to be Mana amped durability or just raw durability? Idk if it can be considered to be just base dura.

Fern is in battle so she might be slightly protecting herself so it could be mana amped

but then again she also didn't perceive the attack so you could also say it is raw durability

 

[Dalesean027]

Fern is in battle so she might be slightly protecting herself so it could be mana amped

but then again she also didn't perceive the attack so you could also say it is raw durability

She was still on guard regardless though so no need to really say she dropped her defenses since it wasn't 100% over yet

 

[Dalesean027]

Fern is in battle so she might be slightly protecting herself so it could be mana amped

but then again she also didn't perceive the attack so you could also say it is raw durability

She was still on guard regardless though so no need to really say she dropped her defenses since it wasn't 100% over yet

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

She was still on guard regardless though so no need to really say she dropped her defenses since it wasn't 100% over yet

i agree to this being a more reasonable conclusion

 

[Epyriel]

Looks good

 

[BadSystems]

Bump

 

[BadSystems]

Bump

 

[Gonzalo]

I agree

 

[BadSystems]

bump

 

[Dalesean027]

Why don't you just dm staff in their walls

bump

 

[BadSystems]

Why don't you just dm staff in their walls

Which staff member should I DM?

 

[Dalesean027]

Which staff member should I DM?

Any

 

[Chariot190]

I'd say she was on guard, still also because we know pretty safely Fern is like 10-B/A without any mana at all

Pretty good enhanced senses feat that doesn't seem to rely on mana sensing this ch.

Wait this isnt the discussion thread

If CGM's had human rights, this CRT would have ended like 2 weeks ago....

 

[BadSystems]

nearly let my CRT die whoops

 

[Chariot190]

I forgor, what were we doing?
all i remember is wanting to calc a stark ls feat but keep getting distracted

 

[Dalesean027]

Pretty sure ops proposal for tier 7 magic amped durability was rejected

We just need actually staff to comment

 

[BadSystems]

Pretty sure ops proposal for tier 7 magic amped durability was rejected

We just need actually staff to comment

I'm pretty sure we went with "varies up to" but I'm not rereading the entire thread ngl I'll just spam some staff walls

 

[Dalesean027]

I'm pretty sure we went with "varies up to" but I'm not rereading the entire thread ngl I'll just spam some staff walls

Okay yeah I see now it was varies.

10-B, varies up to [thing] with Mana, Low 7-C with defensive magic."

We have two options, we can go "up to [highest dura feat they have]", or "up to [offense AP]", with the caveat that this shit kind of drains them, they need to manually amp to that degree, and so on.
Personally, I'd go with 1 but that would require calcing over a dozen feats, so 2 could work as a placeholder as we chip away at calcs.

So it'd be 10-B varies up to 9-A since we were able to get that calculated

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I'd assume the "Defensive Magic" includes any kind of durability amplification to materials like Hair, Cloak, Clothe, armor etc which afaik they don't seem to be capable of doing so with their body hence still vulnerable

 

[Dalesean027]

I'd assume the "Defensive Magic" includes any kind of durability amplification to materials like Hair, Cloak, Clothe, armor etc which afaik they don't seem to be capable of doing so with their body hence still vulnerable

Ferns 9-A body dura is with magic enhancements if anything is listed as ranging up to low 7-C then like we already established ya should also note how stuff that strong like instantly destroys the barriers and makes them moot

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks good in concept, though I would word it more like
"10-B, varies up to [thing] with Mana, Low 7-C with defensive magic."
Varies due to it being dependent on how much mana was used to amp, something that demonstrably isn't always at a constant state.

"higher" is usually denoted for same lv of shit, "This should be used to denote a character's weapons, techniques, or attributes that are much stronger than their base level, but still within the same tier. For example, a character that is Solar System level but has an attack that multiplies their power by 100 times. In this instance it should be written as “Solar System level, higher with that ability or technique”.

Needless to say, that a mage without mana is 10-B, with it they're literal magnitudes above their innate durability so higher doesn't actually work.

We have two options, we can go "up to [highest dura feat they have]", or "up to [offense AP]", with the caveat that this shit kind of drains them, they need to manually amp to that degree, and so on.
Personally, I'd go with 1 but that would require calcing over a dozen feats, so 2 could work as a placeholder as we chip away at calcs.

This makes sense to me.

 

[BadSystems]

Ferns 9-A body dura is with magic enhancements if anything is listed as ranging up to low 7-C then like we already established ya should also note how stuff that strong like instantly destroys the barriers and makes them moot

It should probably be “At most Low 7-C” for those that do scale with a note that says that they can usually only take a few attacks of this magnitude before running out of Mana.

This makes sense to me.

Thanks.

 

[Shadow-Ragna]

Subarashī I agree with this.