Unconventional Power Bestowal Question

[Astral_Trinity439]

Hello everyone, hope y'all are doing well

So this is a really, really weird question because it's not a case you see often (in fact, to my knowledge it's the only one of its kind), and I've been trying to find an answer but I always end up at a point where it's either YES or NO, and I can't see any standards we have for this.

So, we have character A, he has a power bestowal ability that allows him to bestow an ability he himself has to another target, it can be his ally or his enemy, doesn't matter. When he grants a power to someone else, it becomes as if that power is the character's own ability.

But this can be used offensively, such as giving someone an ability that has a downside. Characters cannot resist it in-verse has he's not "modifying" or "nullifying" their abilities but simply giving them another one (well, I don't think many have resistance to power bestowal even if we count all existing profiles on vsbw rn, in comparison to characters who don't have this resistance)

Now, let's put this into a cross-verse battle situation of Character A vs B

Let's say character A has Law Manip, Causality Manip, a “barrier“ skill etc. along with this Power Bestowal, whereas character B has better hax like mathematics Manip, plot manip etc. Character A doesn't have resistance to plot and math hax while character B doesn't have self-power modification nor resistance to PB.

The barrier here is special. It has the nature to nullify any and all attacks regardless of nature or magnitude (obv NLF would apply here), examples of it are nullifying CM1, NEP based and similar attacks (basically it's shown to nullify all existing abilities in-verse without exception, NLF obviously applies again)

But it has a downside. That is, the barrier is automatic and holds authority over the user's own actions. That is, if character A and B have a sword fight and character B makes a move, even if character A tried to block it with his own sword, the barrier will automatically activate and stop the user himself from moving, so while it tanks character B's strike, character A can't do a thing. This applies to not just physical fights but also emission type attacks and even attacks that simply activate at the target or user's own will in both ways, like for example character B has conceptual manipulation and he tries to erase the target A, the barrier will block even that despite the fact that you can't perceive this attack, it's not an actual attack but an effect)

Now let's say character A bestows this barrier on character B. It becomes character B's own power and activates whenever character A tries to attack him... Yes, some of you might have gotten the gist of it. That is, CAN the barrier, now completely the character B's own power, nullify his own attacks? Like if character B tries to use plot manip to erase character A, but character A attacks and the barrier activates, will we:

1. Assume that since it's character B's own power now, completely, it can cancel his own attacks.
2. Assume that because the barrier hasn't shown to nullify the plot manip in-verse (becuase no character has plot manip there), it cannot cancel character B's usage of plot manip?

The problem here is that 1 would be somewhat of an NLF (?) that can ONLY be resisted by having resistance to power bestowal or having something like interaction Nullification hax like Aca5 or Nonduality). The problem with option 2, however, is that since the barrier is now the character's own power, his own power should work on himself and thus not be considered an NLF (?) because it's his own power now?


My apologies if this makes you brainstorm too much to the point of having a headache ༎ຶ⁠‿⁠༎ຶ

For the sake of fairness, I'll assume both sides and ask questions regardless of which option you choose, always taking the opposite assumtions! Thanks for reading (and answering too if you did) ^⁠_⁠^

 

[MrTayman616]

I don't see the question :d

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

I don't see the question :dl

Updated :d
I mistakenly pressed the post button before I finished (editing on desktop site mode while on a phone is a pain in the slime TwT)

 

[MrTayman616]

1. Assume that since it's character B's own power now, completely, it can cancel his own attacks.
2. Assume that because the barrier hasn't shown to nullify the plot manip in-verse (becuase no character has plot manip there), it cannot cancel character B's usage of plot manip?

I think this depends on the situations and how Character B's ability works.

For example, if the barrier is shown to stop the user from making thought based attacks and Character B's ability also works like that, it would be able to stop that.

It also depends on the abilities the barrier is shown to be able to stop or known to be capable of stopping.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

For the sake of taking opposition

I think this depends on the situations and how Character B's ability works.

For example, if the barrier is shown to stop the user from making thought based attacks and Character B's ability also works like that, it would be able to stop that.

It also depends on the abilities the barrier is shown to be able to stop or known to be capable of stopping.

Wouldn't both of these not matter once the ability becomes character B's own? After that, in theory, because it's the character's own power, it would just become his own weakness and always work?

Like let's say I have an ability but that ability had a downside. That downside should apply to all of my attacks as I can't "resist" that downside, it's not something another enemy does to me but my own power...

This is the kind of question where under reality equalization, this thing becomes an absolute (unless B has PB resistance) wincon/income or an an absolute paradox :d

Even if, let's say we take the first part of your reply as true, the second one still seems like it could be something else

 

[MrTayman616]

Wouldn't both of these not matter once the ability becomes character B's own? After that, in theory, because it's the character's own power, it would just become his own weakness and always work?

Like let's say I have an ability but that ability had a downside. That downside should apply to all of my attacks as I can't "resist" that downside, it's not something another enemy does to me but my own power...

That only works under the assumption that the barrier is capable of recognizing ANY type of ability of his as an attack and is capable of stopping ALL of the attacks, which would be NLF.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

That only works under the assumption that the barrier is capable of recognizing ANY type of ability of his as an attack and is capable of stopping ALL of the attacks, which would be NLF.

True if we assume the barrier was blocking those attacks from the outside

But here it's the character's own power
It's kind of like
Auto verse equalization hax ig? (Not sure if this is even a thing)

NLF should, in theory, only apply if it's blocking attacks from an enemy, not acting as a downside of yourself/your own weakness :d

 

[MrTayman616]

True if we assume the barrier was blocking those attacks from the outside

But here it's the character's own power
It's kind of like
Auto verse equalization hax ig? (Not sure if this is even a thing)

NLF should, in theory, only apply if it's blocking attacks from an enemy, not acting as a downside of yourself/your own weakness :d

"Character's own power" itself is NLF in this case because this assumes the barrier is capable of recognizing any/every type of ability of his as an attack.

For example, let's say Character A's verse doesn't have thought-based attacks of any kind, absolutely nonexistent. Then you can't claim the barrier could stop Character B's thought based ability based on "it stops the character's own power".

Of course, the method is also important. Imagine the barrier is shown/known to be able to stop the user from controlling Ki/Magic, then in this case, Character B couldn't use thought based ability that relies on Ki/Magic manipulation.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

"Character's own power" itself is NLF in this case because this assumes the barrier is capable of recognizing any/every type of ability of his as an attack.

For example, let's say Character A's verse doesn't have thought-based attacks of any kind, absolutely nonexistent. Then you can't claim the barrier could stop Character B's thought based ability based on "it stops the character's own power".

Of course, the method is also important. Imagine the barrier is shown/known to be able to stop the user from controlling Ki/Magic, then in this case, Character B couldn't use thought based ability that relies on controlling Ki/Magic.

Your example is true, but let's say the verse has all types of attacks popular in ficiton, passive, unconsciously activating abilities, physical attacks, will/thought-based attack, and many others that don't come to mind rn

I think the main question here would be; Can, in that case, it stop character B from activating his plot manip if said plot manip is, let's say, passive or thought based?

I would say yes, because it's not nullifying the power itself once it's activated, it's interfering with that activation itself, and because it becomes a weakness of the character himself, it should theoretically block plot based hax or hax it's not shown to block in-verse, as long as the “activation” type falls under its scope.

What do you think? ^⁠_⁠^

 

[MrTayman616]

I think the main question here would be; Can, in that case, it stop character B from activating his plot manip if said plot manip is, let's say, passive or thought based?

I would say yes, because it's not nullifying the power itself once it's activated, it's interfering with that activation itself, and because it becomes a weakness of the character himself, it should theoretically block plot based hax or hax it's not shown to block in-verse, as long as the “activation” type falls under its scope.

What do you think? ^⁠_⁠^

If the "activation" method of Character B also exists in Character A's verse, it'd be able to stop that. For example, if it's shown/known to be able to stop the user from using Ki/Magic manipulation, then it would work against magic based plot manipulation of Character B since the "activation" is the same.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Alright!
I'll wait for others to see what they think as well (⁠^⁠^⁠)

 

[Agnaa]

This question seems a bit fundamentally flawed. From the description itself, it sounds like the barrier blocks incoming attacks and abilities. But your question is asking about whether it would block an outgoing ability. So fundamentally, I'd say it won't block it for that reason.

And if the barrier does block outgoing abilities, then the fact that it doesn't block Power Bestowal from being able to move this barrier onto someone else shows that it does have some holes in what it effects.

But even with that aside, my answer to "Does a barrier that blocked all of a character's abilities receive the same generosity over what it affects if it's moved onto a different character?" is a bit nuanced. It depends on whether it blocks those abilities by simply having some innate durability/resistance, which could fail in certain areas, or whether it applies power nullification to things that attempt to cross it. Things which affect powers themselves can sometimes ignore what kind of power it is, as long as they can function on the original power system at play, while things which affect the effect have to be able to interact with that effect.

Still, out of the options of 1 and 2, I'd say that 2 is more correct. Transferring a power does not also transfer its ability to "bypass NLF". But I'd also add that even the original wielder doesn't have it "bypass NLF" in the match itself; only in the source material, and we'd simply use the limits provided there in the case of a fight.

For example, let's say that if a character gets too upset their mind unconsciously surrounds them with a cocoon that they're too weak to break. This has it scale to the 8-A feat of one of their spells. If that character was then, during a match, obtained a 7-B gun, we wouldn't upgrade the cocoon's durability to 7-B, we would simply say that they can actually break out of it now.

 

[AlexSamDen]

This question seems a bit fundamentally flawed. From the description itself, it sounds like the barrier blocks incoming attacks and abilities. But your question is asking about whether it would block an outgoing ability. So fundamentally, I'd say it won't block it for that reason.

And if the barrier does block outgoing abilities, then the fact that it doesn't block Power Bestowal from being able to move this barrier onto someone else shows that it does have some holes in what it effects.

But even with that aside, my answer to "Does a barrier that blocked all of a character's abilities receive the same generosity over what it affects if it's moved onto a different character?" is a bit nuanced. It depends on whether it blocks those abilities by simply having some innate durability/resistance, which could fail in certain areas, or whether it applies power nullification to things that attempt to cross it. Things which affect powers themselves can sometimes ignore what kind of power it is, as long as they can function on the original power system at play, while things which affect the effect have to be able to interact with that effect.

Still, out of the options of 1 and 2, I'd say that 2 is more correct. Transferring a power does not also transfer its ability to "bypass NLF". But I'd also add that even the original wielder doesn't have it "bypass NLF" in the match itself; only in the source material, and we'd simply use the limits provided there in the case of a fight.

For example, let's say that if a character gets too upset their mind unconsciously surrounds them with a cocoon that they're too weak to break. This has it scale to the 8-A feat of one of their spells. If that character was then, during a match, obtained a 7-B gun, we wouldn't upgrade the cocoon's durability to 7-B, we would simply say that they can actually break out of it now.

I believe there is a slight misunderstanding: the barrier doesn't really "block outgoing abilities", it's simply the nature of the barrier that "while it is active, you cannot use attacks yourself". It doesn't nullify anything, it's just things that usually active your abilities (thoughts for example), don't activate them anymore. Kinda similar to a brain dysfunction? Idk

I'll leave the rest to OP

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

This question seems a bit fundamentally flawed. From the description itself, it sounds like the barrier blocks incoming attacks and abilities. But your question is asking about whether it would block an outgoing ability. So fundamentally, I'd say it won't block it for that reason.

Well, not exactly "outgoing" insofar as "the character moves his sword to block but the barrier gets in the way", no.

It's more of a "the character moves his sword to block, but while he was moving, he's forced to come to an absolute halt when the barrier automatic activates", becuase the barrier's downside is that the user itself cannot do anything while it's active. It interferes with the activation of some ability itself (even passives) by stopping the user from activating them at all rather than blocking them after they activate by clashing with them physically.

And if the barrier does block outgoing abilities, then the fact that it doesn't block Power Bestowal from being able to move this barrier onto someone else shows that it does have some holes in what it effects.

This is insofar as that the original user has self power modification, such that they can modify the barrier to, for instance, not automatically activate.

It can also be exploited if, let's say, the enemy did not attack, so it won't activate to defend anything. Thus why character A would be able to bestow this ability to the enemy.

Aa I said, it doesn't "block the attack physically both ways (inside out)" but nullifies its activation mechanism by, well, making the user not able to activate their ability.

For example, the user tries to use his plot manip to erase the enemy, but the condition is that he has to think. Now if the enemy attacked while the user was thinking, the barrier would auto activate and block the enemy, while simultaneously nullifying the user's own power by locking the condition, like "thinking doesn't not activate your ability anymore".

But it's not limited to just that either, it can also lock the condition in passives, abilities used without being conscious (instinctive reaction type), and many more categories of activation sequence.

So the theory is; it doesn't stop the ability directly, and it does not matter which ability is trying to be activated, if that activation condition itself is locked or doesn't work, the ability is prevented from working by not activating to begin with.

But even with that aside, my answer to "Does a barrier that blocked all of a character's abilities receive the same generosity over what it affects if it's moved onto a different character?" is a bit nuanced. It depends on whether it blocks those abilities by simply having innate durability/resistance, which could fail in certain areas, or whether it applies power nullification to things that attempt to cross it.

It's neither of them, essentially speaking. While it does block the enemy attacks in one of the ways you said (that is, attacks coming from whatever is not the user), we're talking about the exploit of this ability by character A on character B who now has this ability.

Things which affect powers themselves can sometimes ignore what kind of power it is, as long as they can function on the original power system at play, while things which affect the effect have to be able to interact with that effect.

It could fall under the earlier category in this case, though the nuance is still a bit complicated, as I described a bit above.

Well, I'll give an in-verse example.

Character C (original user of this ability) had this, and he was mind controlling other characters via thought/will. Now when character A attacked him, the barrier automatically activated to block it from reaching character C, but as a result, it nullified character C's own power activition system by "making the activation condition not work anymore", thus unilaterally lifting the mind hax from others that character C was controlling.

(If you ponder on, then, how character C lost to character A in-verse, it's because character C died from his own other weaknesses, like his lifespan being over and his body breaking down, not the result of an enemy attack but due to his natural condition)

Still, out of the options of 1 and 2, I'd say that 2 is more correct. Transferring a power does not also transfer its ability to "bypass NLF". But I'd also add that even the original wielder doesn't have it "bypass NLF" in the match itself; only in the source material, and we'd simply use the limits provided there in the case of a fight.

Well, it's not that it doesn't have limits. It does, and it has exploits, but both of those are, let's say, VERY rare to come by. Like how many characters on this wiki have resistance to Power Bestowal, something that's not exactly supposed to be an offensive power? How many can modify their own power

So while yes the limitations are evident, they're just super rare to come by. The question then comes in, outside those given limitations, how far can we exploit this ability on the user of the ability itself?

 

[Vietthai96]

Let's me guess this is another weird LN/WN ability

Anyway, Option 2 it is, just because the "barrier" was registered as your power doesn't mean it is equal to you using your power to block your own power, the barrier fundamentally isn't from you at all, so the barrier will only block what it was show

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Let's me guess this is another weird LN/WN ability

Anyway, Option 2 it is, just because the "barrier" was registered as your power doesn't mean it is equal to you using your power to block your own power, the barrier fundamentally isn't from you at all, so the barrier will only block what it was show

What about this

This is insofar as that the original user has self power modification, such that they can modify the barrier to, for instance, not automatically activate.

It can also be exploited if, let's say, the enemy did not attack, so it won't activate to defend anything. Thus why character A would be able to bestow this ability to the enemy.

Aa I said, it doesn't "block the attack physically both ways (inside out)" but nullifies its activation mechanism by, well, making the user not able to activate their ability.

For example, the user tries to use his plot manip to erase the enemy, but the condition is that he has to think. Now if the enemy attacked while the user was thinking, the barrier would auto activate and block the enemy, while simultaneously nullifying the user's own power by locking the condition, like "thinking doesn't not activate your ability anymore".

But it's not limited to just that either, it can also lock the condition in passives, abilities used without being conscious (instinctive reaction type), and many more categories of activation sequence.

So the theory is; it doesn't stop the ability directly, and it does not matter which ability is trying to be activated, if that activation condition itself is locked or doesn't work, the ability is prevented from working by not activating to begin with.
It's neither of them, essentially speaking. While it does block the enemy attacks in one of the ways you said (that is, attacks coming from whatever is not the user), we're talking about the exploit of this ability by character A on character B who now has this ability.
It could fall under the earlier category in this case, though the nuance is still a bit complicated, as I described a bit above.

Well, I'll give an in-verse example.

Character C (original user of this ability) had this, and he was mind controlling other characters via thought/will. Now when character A attacked him, the barrier automatically activated to block it from reaching character C, but as a result, it nullified character C's own power activition system by "making the activation condition not work anymore", thus unilaterally lifting the mind hax from others that character C was controlling.

(If you ponder on, then, how character C lost to character A in-verse, it's because character C died from his own other weaknesses, like his lifespan being over and his body breaking down, not the result of an enemy attack but due to his natural condition)

Summary: If it locks the activation condition itself or makes said condition not work, it should in theory be able to nullify abilities not present in-verse, like plot manipulation, as long as the activation mechanism is the same, no?

The only way to resist this would thus be to either be ND3/Aca5 (interaction impossible as a result so power bestowal doesn't work) or be resistant to power bestowal, or be resistant to this very specific type of power null.

 

[Vietthai96]

Summary: If it locks the activation condition itself or makes said condition not work, it should in theory be able to nullify abilities not present in-verse, like plot manipulation, as long as the activation mechanism is the same, no?

No, a better question, tell me how can you lock the activation of something you don't even know?

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

No, a better question, tell me how can you lock the activation of something you don't even know?

Thr activation remains the same, "activate by thought". Regardless of what is being activated, if you can make the activation condition useless, you can nullify the power as well, effectively.


Welp, Agnaa told me he'll give his response here in a few hours on discord (already saw it there but here is better), so imma wait for that (so saying just in case, please don't close this thread)

 

[Vietthai96]

Thr activation remains the same, "activate by thought". Regardless of what is being activated, if you can make the activation condition useless, you can nullify the power as well, effectively.

If you want to prevent someone active their ability via thought, you nees to stop the thinking process of your opponent, not the ability activation sequence which is alien to you. From what you describe the barrier, it doesn't seems that way

Welp, Agnaa told me he'll give his response here in a few hours on discord (already saw it there but here is better), so imma wait for that (so saying just in case, please don't close this thread)

I never close any thread premature, i only close thread when OP or majority of people want to close. I dislike blocking people from voicing their opinion, of course with the condition that the opinion isn't report worthy

 

[Agnaa]

A lot of extra stuff was said, but I'm gonna just focus on the core.

I believe there is a slight misunderstanding: the barrier doesn't really "block outgoing abilities", it's simply the nature of the barrier that "while it is active, you cannot use attacks yourself". It doesn't nullify anything, it's just things that usually active your abilities (thoughts for example), don't activate them anymore. Kinda similar to a brain dysfunction? Idk

I'll leave the rest to OP

Since the barrier prevents the user from doing things as long as it’s active, anyone else who gets that ability would face that same drawback. They wouldn’t, by default, be able to bypass it by using an ability the barrier hasn’t suppressed before. However, they would be able to bypass it by having resistance to whatever mechanism is suspected for the barrier suppressing abilities. And they would need to have resistance in this regard bypassing the original character’s.

We might say it happens through mind manipulation, body control, paralysis inducement, power nullification, etc. The character given the barrier ability would need to have their resistances contend with that. Or if it's unclear what method it has, any resistance that seems plausible should work.

Really, it just becomes a largely ordinary case of resistances at that point. The only difference between that and other forms of blocking abilities, in terms of how we treat it, is that the defending character would also have the opportunity to resist the ability being applied, and to self-modify it if they can do that. (And that it'd presumably have feats of bypassing the original character's resistances)

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

A lot of extra stuff was said, but I'm gonna just focus on the core.

Since the barrier prevents the user from doing things as long as it’s active, anyone else who gets that ability would face that same drawback. They wouldn’t, by default, be able to bypass it by using an ability the barrier hasn’t suppressed before. However, they would be able to bypass it by having resistance to whatever mechanism is suspected for the barrier suppressing abilities. And they would need to have resistance in this regard bypassing the original character’s.

We might say it happens through mind manipulation, body control, paralysis inducement, power nullification, etc. The character given the barrier ability would need to have their resistances contend with that. Or if it's unclear what method it has, any resistance that seems plausible should work.

Really, it just becomes a largely ordinary case of resistances at that point. The only difference between that and other forms of blocking abilities, in terms of how we treat it, is that the defending character would also have the opportunity to resist the ability being applied, and to self-modify it if they can do that. (And that it'd presumably have feats of bypassing the original character's resistances)

So, in theory, if the character B has plot manipulation or mathematics Manip but using it requires him to think, can the barrier nullify those because of its mechanism?
Like locking the condition "thinking" needed for activitated, thus preventing those abilities from being activated

 

[Agnaa]

So, in theory, if the character B has plot manipulation or mathematics Manip but using it requires him to think, can the barrier nullify those because of its mechanism?
Like locking the condition "thinking" needed for activitated, thus preventing those abilities from being activated

It is theoretically possible for an author to write a story where an ability operates that way, and if it did, we would treat it in battles that way.