- 16,095
- 12,584
- Thread starter
- #121
They lack any actual 9-B feat, their musculature is too weird to accurately assess stuff from size and if you give me a knife I'll give a sperm whale scars too.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I mean, I could probably eat a baby dinosaur too (assuming mommy is very far away), and "likely heavily muscled" doesn't have a lot of weight, 10-B is already enough of an assumption.I understand. Though I feel that downgrading Troodon to just 10-B feels a bit too low considering that they were likely heavily muscled for their size and likely ate juvenile dinosaurs.
But it's also true that a bullet with much less kinetic energy than a fist would dent steel, while said fist would instead shatter itself while doing no damage to the steel. I didn't mean to imply that they actually had durability negation, just that in real life durability matters a LOT less when dealing with sharp objects, so, I suppose yes durability "reduction" is more fitting. Not something to put on the profiles either way, just something to consider heavily in scaling and tiering.Bullets and needles still don't "Negate" the durability of solid steel though.
Yes, but that is exactly my point. Pressure plays a dramatically larger role in real life than it tends to in fiction.True, but that just means the bullet has more precision; Joules/cc or more PSI.
Yes, you are correct. It would likely be a too big revision for too limited gain at this point.I mean, that would extend to basically everyone with a sword, spear, teeth, spikes, bullets, or anything similar in fiction (and reality), so that'd be a massive thing for the wiki- I'm not against it, but consider how this would affect stuff like powerscaling. Though, perhaps it'd be appropriate to treat it like the 7.5x one-shot thing, used solely for VS Debating and not scaling. We basically already do this for bullets, it's just an unwritten rule.
Yes. Agreed.Also, I'm removing weapon mastery from the prehistoric human pages- They definitely had their sort of skill with spears, but I doubt it was even remotely comparable to formal training and armed martial arts we developed.
I think it could be worth doing specifically as a debating thing, not a P&A page. Just like how we note that the one-shot gap is around 7x, we could point out that piercing damage is able to damage stronger enemies greatly, but stress that it shouldn't be used for scaling.Yes, you are correct. It would likely be a too big revision for too limited gain at this point.
I'm of the opinion it should just be noted for scaling purposes, that cutting something with a sharp object, even if that sharp object is part of you, in no way means you are stronger than that thing or its durability, not that it's an actual "ability".Maybe we should start a "Durability Reduction" powers and abilities page for characters that wield extremely sharp objects?
I think that we may have mentioned that in either the Durability or Attack Potency page, or maybe somewhere else, but if not, we should preferably mention it in some policy page, yes. Information and suggestions are welcome.I'm of the opinion it should just be noted for scaling purposes, that cutting something with a sharp object, even if that sharp object is part of you, in no way means you are stronger than that thing or its durability, not that it's an actual "ability".
I don't see mention of sharp objects on either of those pages.I think that we may have mentioned that in either the Durability or Attack Potency page, or maybe somewhere else, but if not, we should preferably mention it in some policy page, yes. Information and suggestions are welcome.
This is a good idea. "Higher via piercing damage" is a common rating on character pages, but I don't think everyone really understands the purpose of that, and when it's okay to scale using cutting feats, and when it's probably better to look for a more kinetic or blunt feat.I suppose so.
I can create one in our staff forum if the rest of you are fine with it.
Been a while, and I know you said you agreed with monke more or less, but what about deletion? Would like to hear your opinion on it before going through with it (or rather, asking someone with the ability to)I am back. I'll respond to Armourchompy in this comment, then crack into monke and deletion.