- 11,063
- 13,762
Currently the verse equalization note says:
I think this wording is prone to misinterpretation in that people may think that strictly a statement is required to establish a weakness or limitation of any ability. While writers don't always rely on direct statements and rather focus on showing how it works through its use. Feats > statements also mean that we prioritize what is shown to us over what is stated, and the latter works best when we haven't seen the ability in use.
I think the following wording with a slight change will be better to make things clear:
It is also important to note that characters won't lose or gain any abilities or resistances which they do or do not inherently possess. However, if an ability has a weakness, condition, caveat, or limitation, stated by at least a valid and uncontradicted statement, then it should be applicable after the equalization.
Equalization works highly on a case-by-case basis, so many relevant cases should be discussed in the versus thread itself.
I think this wording is prone to misinterpretation in that people may think that strictly a statement is required to establish a weakness or limitation of any ability. While writers don't always rely on direct statements and rather focus on showing how it works through its use. Feats > statements also mean that we prioritize what is shown to us over what is stated, and the latter works best when we haven't seen the ability in use.
I think the following wording with a slight change will be better to make things clear:
It is also important to note that characters won't lose or gain any abilities or resistances which they do or do not inherently possess. However, if an ability has a weakness, condition, caveat, or limitation, shown throughout its use or stated by a valid and uncontradicted statement, then it should be applicable after the equalization.
Equalization works highly on a case-by-case basis, so many relevant cases should be discussed in the versus thread itself.