One Hit Kill and Invulnerability

[Wokistan]

The powers of Invulnerability and One Hit Kill should not be powers. They are better described as physical stats, or in the case of one hit kill, some other form of durability negation. Firstly, let's start with Invulnerability.

Invulnerability is the power of being immune to damage. However, due to not wanting to use the No Limits Fallacy, we restrict it to just what the character has shown to be capable of doing. If we are to do this, what is the point of maintaining it as a power? Why not just consider it durability? All you gotta do in the durability section is write "Undamaged by X attack". We do not need a power just for what can be covered in the physical stats, we even already have the Stone Walls category to cover cases like these. If its some sort of power up that grants this, just classify it as Statistics Amplification acting on increasing durability.

One Shot Kill is the power to kill opponents in one hit. This is extremely broad (everyone with swords and guns has OSK when?) and the power itself serves no purpose given that due to wanting to avoid NLF, it is indistinguishable from AP. If someone one shots via some form of durability negation, classify it as the appropriate technique. If someone one shots for no explained reason, there are a multitude of possible reasons. Here are some I could think of off the top of my head:

• That attack is just stronger than the character's normal output
• That attack is distributed over a smaller surface area allowing it to penetrate and damage more vulnerable areas of the body more directly (Lances, daggers, etc)
• That character is just a lot stronger than their victim
• That character attacked a weaker part of the body, like the neck
• The opponent was already worn down from previous fighting, allowing the assailant to finish them off with a decisive blow
• Plain and simple Plot-Induced Stupidity

In its current state, OSK would logically go to anyone who kills fodder or has durability negation, and due to being this broad it really doesn't need to exist.

 

[DMUA]

this seems good

 

[Ogbunabali]

I agree. Invulnerability is just having higher durability than the weapon, or punch or whatever, used on you. And One Hit Kill is usually just durability negation/very high AP. They are pretty unnecessary .

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

I agree 100% with this.

 

[Genericstickman]

I agree

 

[Elizhaa]

I agree with the OP.

I do remember that Matt wanted to delete OHK once. I guess it will happen.

I think we can classify Invulnerability under resistance and I have seen profile doing the same already and most of the time, the Invulnerability feat is super high resistance.

I don't think we should put it in Durability in this case.

 

[Wokistan]

What would it be resistance to though? You don't really resist AP, that's just being durable.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

I agree.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

To my knowledge, Invulnerability and OHK are meant/should be used in the following manner:

-Gaining a temporary increase in durability to the point where you are immune to attacks that would hurt you otherwise.

-Capacity or special move that allows you to one-shot stuff above your normal AP

I don't really feel strongly above keeping either though.

 

[Agnaa]

I disagree, I'm working on some profiles where this would be helpful.

Some characters have limited Invulnerability. I'm making a profile for a character that is invulnerable every 5th second. Is this going to just be represented by a stat amp every 5th second then a stat reduction 1 second later?

The character in question also has OHKs which don't fall under those categories. With an upgrade in the game, every second the character shoots they have a 10% chance of instantly killing the enemy. This doesn't really make that much sense under any other reason.

 

[Elizhaa]

What would it be resistance to though? You don't really resist AP, that's just being durable.

Most of the Time, i see Invulnerability, it is usually Resistance something like magic or physical attack.

 

[Schnee_One]

Resistance to strength really isn't a thing

Also, I agree

 

[Wokistan]

Some characters have limited Invulnerability. I'm making a profile for a character that is invulnerable every 5th second. Is this going to just be represented by a stat amp every 5th second then a stat reduction 1 second later?

The character in question also has OHKs which don't fall under those categories. With an upgrade in the game, every second the character shoots they have a 10% chance of instantly killing the enemy. This doesn't really make that much sense under any other reason.

If the character's durability does fluctuate like that, then yeah, I guess. Just note that in the durability section, since that's really weird as is and is probably gonna be annoying as hell in matches.

This is similar to the Eclipse ability that The Black Knight (Fire Emblem) has, where he can just arbitrarily do 5 times his normal damage and obliterate whatever he hits. Just classify it similar to that.

 

[Elizhaa]

I disagree, I'm working on some profiles where this would be helpful.
Some characters have limited Invulnerability. I'm making a profile for a character that is invulnerable every 5th second. Is this going to just be represented by a stat amp every 5th second then a stat reduction 1 second later?

The character in question also has OHKs which don't fall under those categories. With an upgrade in the game, every second the character shoots they have a 10% chance of instantly killing the enemy. This doesn't really make that much sense under any other reason.

One Hit Kill is basically Durability Negation, Agnaa. besides, it also could be done with a multitude of abilities as a link on the page

• Death Manipulation
• Void Manipulation
• Absolute Zero

The page is redundant. I think the example you just listed could be classified as limited Probability Manipulation, also

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I agree with Invulnerability. It should simply be a form of stat amping or simply higher durability. There are characters who are stated to be invulnerable from attack on the same level. This would imho would just make them a stone wall characters. Characters like Magnamo would fit here.

As for OHK, I absolutely agree. I also think the things like Pokemon's OHK moves should be examined seperately so that we can figure out how to rate them. (Like Sheer Cold being a OHK via being Absolute Zero).

So basically, I agree with the OP.

 

[Agnaa]

So would that go as a "Temporarily far higher" in the durability section, then?

So just durability negation? Alright then.

I'm not too fussed about deleting the pages.

 

[Warren_Valion]

I agree.

Stone Walls are a thing in fiction, just like Glass Canon's are. It just means that durability is >>> than AP.


And OHKO usually just falls under other abilities anyway. Either through superior AP or through other means of durability negation.

For example, Suì-Fēng from Bleach has an ability that allows her to kill anyone in two strikes through the release and activation of the deadly poison.


OHKO (or two in this case) is the thing that's killing the opponent - it's the poison, it just takes two hits to fully use the ability.

 

[SomebodyData]

I don't have an issue with deleting OHK but am a bit neutral on invulnerability.

 

[Wokistan]

When writing the durability section, you should probably just explain that every 5 seconds their durability spikes up to a degree that nothing else can hurt them momentarily.

Eclipse actually has dura negation for different reasons, but in general all the OHK stuff should be able to fall under either some form of durability negation or strength amp. Eclipse is both.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Agree with deleting OHKO

Heavily disagree with deleting Invulnerability. This has been gone over several times before and it has always been kept. There are certain times when the person can take damage far above their normal durability simply because it falls under a certain classification, and this is not just stat boosting against those certain types.

 

[Wokistan]

Mind linking the old discussions for invulnerability then? I'm unaware of any sort of background surrounding this.

 

[Agnaa]

Here's one

 

[CrimsonStarFallen]

Agreed.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Here

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2227805

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/1432540

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/316360

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/981566

There are times when a person can't be hurt by something extremely powerful because it falls under a criteria for their invulnerability, while still getting hurt by things that do not fall under the criteria for their invulnerability. That kinda makes it obvious its not just a matter of durability

 

[Wokistan]

Why not classify the things that do not fall under their criteria, such as the recurrent theme of holy weapons, as weaknesses?

 

[First_Witch]

I mean, isnt One hit Killing just a fancy and RPG like term for Death Hax? I agree with getting rid of OHK, especially considering the term itself sounding really unprofessional.

As for Invulnerability, im torn on that. Just calling it higher durability dosnt sit right with me, even with its NLF potential. This would hit many RPGs who clearly dosnt treat it as a higher dura.

 

[Warren_Valion]

There are times when a person can't be hurt by something extremely powerful because it falls under a criteria for their invulnerability, while still getting hurt by things that do not fall under the criteria for their invulnerability. That kinda makes it obvious its not just a matter of durability

Doesn't that qualify as a weakness of the durability?

Like Superman to magic, or Ganondorf to Holy/Light weapons and abilities?

 

[Reppuzan]

I don't remind removing One-Hit KO.

I'm less certain about removing invulnerability. On one hand, you have characters like Superman who are described as invulnerable when they're actually just really durable. But calling it stat amping feels off, considering that there's no way to quantify just how much more durable they become.

 

[Elizhaa]

I think the problem is that some still used Invulnerability incorrectly.

I think these texts are good alternative solutions

I think these texts should be Bolded to limit confusion

• Many works of fiction consider extremely durable characters invulnerable, but this ability is only to be added onto a page if it is made clear that it is more than simply high durability and is not contradicted. In addition, the nature and specifics of the character's invulnerability must be mentioned to provide context and avoid the No Limits Fallacy.

Also, I think Superman should be added as an example of what is not Invulnerability

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I'm personally OK with getting rid of OHK, but like everyone else, I'm not okay with getting rid of invulnerability when it's actually a power.

 

[Wokistan]

I don't really get this issue of "it isn't quantifiable" though, considering that A: It isn't any more quantifiable as a power than it would be as durability and B: All you gotta do is say "undamaged by attacks on this level" and link to a character or calc.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I'm fine with removing both of them.

 

[Dark649]

Sorry Howard. I'm fine with removing them mainly including Invulnerability as i will explain:

- Char. is stated to be invulnerable but is just boosting / arrogance and/or will he/she harmed later on.

- Gameplay only mechanic boost where anything can't harm the char. or dura increase that allows you to tank attacks or project an aura that easily defeats those around the char.

- No one is truly invulnerable / invincible as a much higher tier or tier 1 attack will defeat him/her. [For a char. stated to invulnerable to all or a certain type of attack/element will have it negated by a higher tier version of the same type / attack, especially tier 1].

 

[Kaltias]

Removing OHK is fine. Not sure about invulnerability

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Fine with removing OHK. Neutral on Imvulnerability.

 

[C2_of_Omegon]

OHK is fine as far as removing.

Invulerability however, is a little different. Characters like Superman shouldn't even have it. He's just extremely durable. It's not really an ability for him, just Superhuman Physical Characteristics at work. Yet, some one like Rider of Red (Achilles) is actually invulnerable to damage unless certain conditions are met. His is actual hax.

Therefore, we need to redefine what Invulerability is, not get rid of it.

 

[The_Calaca]

I think that what C2 says makes sense.

 

[Warren_Valion]

OHK is fine as far as removing.
Invulerability however, is a little different. Characters like Superman shouldn't even have it. He's just extremely durable. It's not really an ability for him, just Superhuman Physical Characteristics at work. Yet, some one like Rider of Red (Achilles) is actually invulnerable to damage unless certain conditions are met. His is actual hax.

Therefore, we need to redefine what Invulerability is, not get rid of it.

But isn't that just a weakness for the character instead of a "hax" ability?

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

It's not a weakness like what you're saying, because it's not like his durability decreases against divine attacks.

 

[Warren_Valion]

It's not a weakness like what you're saying, because it's not like his durability decreases against divine attacks.

Isn't the point of Achilles that his heel is his only weakness because it was the only part of himself not bathed in the River Styx - thus not making it as durable as the rest of his body that was bathed in the River.


Aren't giant weakness called "Achilles' Heel" for that reason?