- 19,172
- 6,459
Agree with Kep.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Why does Creation count as an AP feat? (Staff only)
- Thread starter RashFaustinho
- Start date
-
- Tags
- attack potency creation
- Status
- 15,332
- 7,563
@AKM
Going by the same logic you're using, maintaining a universe or a planet with the energy passively released by your body isn't Universal. Despite the fact it means your mere presence releases enough energy to counter-act the collapse of a universe, there is no "proof" you can put it into attacks, even though it's your mere casual presence doing the feat and logic dictates anything remotely serious should be higher.
Going by the same logic you're using, maintaining a universe or a planet with the energy passively released by your body isn't Universal. Despite the fact it means your mere presence releases enough energy to counter-act the collapse of a universe, there is no "proof" you can put it into attacks, even though it's your mere casual presence doing the feat and logic dictates anything remotely serious should be higher.
- 10,758
- 6,491
I mean, burden of proof is on the person saying "X exists" so if someone says "A relationship exists which makes creation feats automatically scalable to destrucive ability" then that's obviously who the burden of proof is on
The person against it doesn't have to say "it's this specific reason that makes creation feats unusable for the user's destructive ability" just an absence of proof for the aforementioned relationship is enough for them to not accept such a conclusion
The person against it doesn't have to say "it's this specific reason that makes creation feats unusable for the user's destructive ability" just an absence of proof for the aforementioned relationship is enough for them to not accept such a conclusion
- 1,526
- 229
What about the creation of pocket dimensions? In a lot of cases it's hax which allows the character to "control" his pocket dimension, both creating and destroying it, without any actual AP feats of a similar level.
- 2,519
- 1,364
So someone has to prove that they can use that same energy for destruction that they use for creation?Andytrenom said:
How would this even be done except for actually showing proof of that destruction, which in turn would make the creation feat pointless
- 15,332
- 7,563
@Captain Torch
We usually tend to ignore pocket dimensions if the verse is consistently, say, a low-fantasy medieval setting with Tier 8 feats, but a specific hax spell is used to create a country or earth-sized dimension. In that case, not only is it an outlier, but it is implied to not scale to the rest.
If I recall correctly, Han Jee Han from the Gamer has a specific skill that creates pocket dimensions/dungeons, so he'd be an example.
But something like a God character creating their own universe? That definitely counts for AP.
We usually tend to ignore pocket dimensions if the verse is consistently, say, a low-fantasy medieval setting with Tier 8 feats, but a specific hax spell is used to create a country or earth-sized dimension. In that case, not only is it an outlier, but it is implied to not scale to the rest.
If I recall correctly, Han Jee Han from the Gamer has a specific skill that creates pocket dimensions/dungeons, so he'd be an example.
But something like a God character creating their own universe? That definitely counts for AP.
- 16,960
- 4,860
>then what stops me from saying that the character can create a galaxy if he is able to destroy a galaxy.
Because Creation is a much harder action to accomplish than destruction is? Think of it like this. If im able to now walk after being a baby who crawls around, would you say I can now walk but not crawl?
Creation is a feat that isnt just about using energy. You have to pull together matter and energy (if not creating from nothing) and then mold said matter and energy into [insert here] creation. Manipulating it to become what you want it to become. Meanwhile, destruction doesnt require anything like this whatsoever as when you destroy something, your only releasing that energy and letting it do its thing by destroying what you want.
This is a one way deal, not a two way. Creating means you can also destroy, but destroying doesnt mean you can create. The former does more with energy than the latter requires you to and if you can do more, then less is within your capabilities.
EDIT: Sorry I forgot this was staff-only. If im not allowed to comment, you can delete this.
Because Creation is a much harder action to accomplish than destruction is? Think of it like this. If im able to now walk after being a baby who crawls around, would you say I can now walk but not crawl?
Creation is a feat that isnt just about using energy. You have to pull together matter and energy (if not creating from nothing) and then mold said matter and energy into [insert here] creation. Manipulating it to become what you want it to become. Meanwhile, destruction doesnt require anything like this whatsoever as when you destroy something, your only releasing that energy and letting it do its thing by destroying what you want.
This is a one way deal, not a two way. Creating means you can also destroy, but destroying doesnt mean you can create. The former does more with energy than the latter requires you to and if you can do more, then less is within your capabilities.
EDIT: Sorry I forgot this was staff-only. If im not allowed to comment, you can delete this.
- 10,758
- 6,491
@Tata Someone using a creation feat as a demonstration of his power or you know, being stated or implied to have such a relationship between his different abilities would be enough for me. There are probably other ways too
- 2,519
- 1,364
I think the issue is here that most of the time we don't know how things are created, it's usually by unknown means using unknown methods
On the other hand if we have a character using energy we know can be used for attacks, like Kep said, using that energy to create should be fine to assume they can use it for their attacks too
On the other hand if we have a character using energy we know can be used for attacks, like Kep said, using that energy to create should be fine to assume they can use it for their attacks too
- 10,786
- 1,635
Plenty of characters can use more energy than they can withstand, just look at Raphtalia, almost any reality warper (e.g. Franklin Richards, Monika) or even psychics like Shigeo Kageyama.Calaca Vs said:
- 2,743
- 850
I do believe there should be standards put in place for what type of creation is classed as an ap feat. Whether that would be requiring creation to be shown as an ap feat, having all creation listed as ap unless shown otherwise or whatever else.
However, please note that if creation is no longer accepted as an ap feat unless directly treat as such, this will likely affect many things such as storm feats and likely external manipulation of whatever else would normally qualify as ap down the line. And downgrade a hell of a lot of verses. Like... nearly all of them.
However, please note that if creation is no longer accepted as an ap feat unless directly treat as such, this will likely affect many things such as storm feats and likely external manipulation of whatever else would normally qualify as ap down the line. And downgrade a hell of a lot of verses. Like... nearly all of them.
- 10,786
- 1,635
Mass downgrades are fun.
- 33,408
- 8,430
I am in agreement with Kep here.
- 15,637
- 5,392
I honestly think our creation standards should be much more stringent for stuff that's below the level of celestial bodies; where fiction far more often doesn't treat them as really much of a "feat" and more of just an exotic ability. Verses like PMMM, Fate, and Senran Kagura all have pocket reality creation, which is ignored in the latter two and
(EDIT) This is not relevent to the thread or my argument. Please ignore it. I'll leave it here for reference so the following comments make sense.
used to jack stats in the former for no reason other than the claim that the feats are 'consistent', which is laughable because there's no feats outside of the pocket reality creation anywhere near their tiering barring final/ultimate attacks and a stupid amount of anti-feats passed of as PIS.
I of course have much more to say on the topic but am busy with a flooring project.
(EDIT) This is not relevent to the thread or my argument. Please ignore it. I'll leave it here for reference so the following comments make sense.
I of course have much more to say on the topic but am busy with a flooring project.
- 14,195
- 2,574
"and used to jack stats in the former for no reason other than the claim that the feats are 'consistent', which is laughable because there's no feats outside of the pocket reality creation anywhere near their tiering barring final/ultimate attacks and a stupid amount of anti-feats passed of as PIS."
Still waiting for you to prove that, actually.
Still waiting for you to prove that, actually.
- 15,637
- 5,392
On the contrary, I was in active discussion of that with you and Agnaa before both went silent for months.SomebodyData said:
- 33,408
- 8,430
@Dargoo
Let's not start bringing to PMMM stuff here. That's more likely to cause turmoil and distract from the actual point seeing as at this point your basically attacking the series' ratings when we are trying to deal with a more general problem. Basically, this isn't a PMMM revision.
Let's not start bringing to PMMM stuff here. That's more likely to cause turmoil and distract from the actual point seeing as at this point your basically attacking the series' ratings when we are trying to deal with a more general problem. Basically, this isn't a PMMM revision.
- 15,637
- 5,392
I was making an example to show how our standards being so loose have allowed the same exact feats in different verses to be treated under different unwritten standards.Dragonmasterxyz said:
Hence why we should discuss more stringent standards here for the lower-end creation feats. So yes, I'm pointing out a more general problem.
- 33,408
- 8,430
Sounded more like
"I disagree with this verse's ratings and so we should be stricter" instead of making a point on the general topic as you failed to detail the comparison other than saying "they are the same". Basically, you could have made your point a lot better than putting PMMM on blast without truly explaining anything just to point out you find the reasonings they came up with to be in your own words "laughable".
"I disagree with this verse's ratings and so we should be stricter" instead of making a point on the general topic as you failed to detail the comparison other than saying "they are the same". Basically, you could have made your point a lot better than putting PMMM on blast without truly explaining anything just to point out you find the reasonings they came up with to be in your own words "laughable".
- 15,637
- 5,392
I honestly don't think we should even allow for creation feats below celestial bodies with specific exceptions for verses that make a clear connection between the creation/pocket realities and the strength of direct attacks. The verses that actually treat them as feats are far outnumbered by verses where there's no significant connection.
Once celestial bodies come into play, we have more reliable methods for looking and quantifying them; and they're often treated as 'feats' in the verses themselves.
I gave the verse some flack, sure. But to say my post was just spiting PMMM's ratings is about a blatant of a strawman as you can get.
Once celestial bodies come into play, we have more reliable methods for looking and quantifying them; and they're often treated as 'feats' in the verses themselves.
Way to isolate a single example and ignore the rest of my argument.Dragonmasterxyz said:
I gave the verse some flack, sure. But to say my post was just spiting PMMM's ratings is about a blatant of a strawman as you can get.
- 33,408
- 8,430
What exactly do you mean, below celestial bodies?
- 15,637
- 5,392
Smaller than what we would typically use Gravitational Binding Energy to quantify.Dragonmasterxyz said:
- 33,408
- 8,430
"Way to isolate a single example and ignore the rest of my argument. I gave the verse some flack, sure. But to say my post was just spiting PMMM's ratings is about a blatant of a stawman as you can get."
Most of your post was you giving PMMM flack. I am not straw manning when I am not attempting to argue you post but instead say that you bashing PMMM ratings was not necessary. Your argument was that we need to be stricter, yet you fail to go in depth with your examples. You list them, and then proceed to go after PMMM while giving no context. Matter of fact, I'd argue you have not even made an argument as your post explained literally nothing. So no I am not isolating examples, I am evaluating the content of your entire post. You give not context to your points and just go on about what you don't like about PMMM ratings.
Most of your post was you giving PMMM flack. I am not straw manning when I am not attempting to argue you post but instead say that you bashing PMMM ratings was not necessary. Your argument was that we need to be stricter, yet you fail to go in depth with your examples. You list them, and then proceed to go after PMMM while giving no context. Matter of fact, I'd argue you have not even made an argument as your post explained literally nothing. So no I am not isolating examples, I am evaluating the content of your entire post. You give not context to your points and just go on about what you don't like about PMMM ratings.
- 15,637
- 5,392
My point:Dragonmasterxyz said:
Expanded reasoning behind my point:Dargoo Faust said:
I clearly outlined this in two different posts. What do you want me to "go in depth" on again?Dargoo Faust said:
I've made my argument; let's cut the discussion on an aside that's being hyper-focused on and ultimately sidetracking the debate.
- 33,408
- 8,430
"where fiction far more often doesn't treat them as really much of a "feat" and more of just an exotic ability."
Except the examples you use to prove this, you do not go into detail with. Basically, a listen and believe scenario. Then you go on a PMMM tirade which is what I noted to have an issue with that was overall pointless as your previous points are never expanded upon. How are SK and Fate's feats handled?. What exactly makes them NOT AP based? How are PMMM's feats similar to them? How do these examples make you point a rule and not a simple generalization or exception? None of that is explored in your initial comment, which mind you is the comment I had issues with. Your second comment is irrelevant to the initial issues I addressed with your comment..
Except the examples you use to prove this, you do not go into detail with. Basically, a listen and believe scenario. Then you go on a PMMM tirade which is what I noted to have an issue with that was overall pointless as your previous points are never expanded upon. How are SK and Fate's feats handled?. What exactly makes them NOT AP based? How are PMMM's feats similar to them? How do these examples make you point a rule and not a simple generalization or exception? None of that is explored in your initial comment, which mind you is the comment I had issues with. Your second comment is irrelevant to the initial issues I addressed with your comment..
- 14,195
- 2,574
He's talking about the PMMM point being undetailed, not the GBE one.
But to head to your GBE point:
How many verses don't treat creation as a feat like destruction?
Why does celestial body feats get the exception of "being treated as actual feats" whereas below ones don't? While we have actual methods for calcing the celestial bodies, for authors they wouldn't even know that. So how are you to determine author's intent?
TL;DR It sounds like you're assuming celestial body feats = author sees as ap and non celestial body feats = authors sees as unrelated, both fallacies appealing to intent, both unknowable to begin with without context.
But to head to your GBE point:
How many verses don't treat creation as a feat like destruction?
Why does celestial body feats get the exception of "being treated as actual feats" whereas below ones don't? While we have actual methods for calcing the celestial bodies, for authors they wouldn't even know that. So how are you to determine author's intent?
TL;DR It sounds like you're assuming celestial body feats = author sees as ap and non celestial body feats = authors sees as unrelated, both fallacies appealing to intent, both unknowable to begin with without context.
- 15,332
- 7,563
99% of the whole "creation isn't treated as AP" arguments are pretty much "because I said so!".
Unless this is explicitly stated somewhere, how the hell do you know? If the creation feat is much higher than other feats, then it's an outlier, not "creation not being treated as AP". Going by the exact same logic, we could take a Tier 3 outlier destructive feat in a Tier 5 verse and say something like "the verse doesn't treat Universe-level destructive energy as effective against living beings, only against inanimate matter."
Unless this is explicitly stated somewhere, how the hell do you know? If the creation feat is much higher than other feats, then it's an outlier, not "creation not being treated as AP". Going by the exact same logic, we could take a Tier 3 outlier destructive feat in a Tier 5 verse and say something like "the verse doesn't treat Universe-level destructive energy as effective against living beings, only against inanimate matter."
- 15,637
- 5,392
And we proceed to go on the tangent about my PMMM example. It was an aside, and the only point I was trying to prove with it is that we don't have a consistent standard as it stands; which is honestly self-evident.Dragonmasterxyz said:
You're falsely attaching completely separate points I made on general trends to my specific examples, which is probably why I can't make much sense of this argument.
Why am I being asked to prove a negative? What makes them AP based in the verses that have them?
I've already said this discussion on an aside to ratings I don't agree with is pointless and that we should discuss the more general arguments, something you two immediatly threw at me when I made that post but apparently aren't taking to heart yourselves.
Too general of a question. You ignore the possibility of a singular use of creation being a feat and another not being a feat within the same medium.
Because they're more often treated as feats at that level instead of an exotic ability. You're asking questions I've already answered.
I'm not even sure what you're going off about on the last couple of sentences, I spoke nothing of authorial intent, just on the treatments of feats in verses in question.
It sounds like you're making up points I never touched on. Again, you're pulling this "authorial intent" point I supposedly made out of thin air and I'm not entirely sure why.SomebodyData said:
I'd bring up the stawman fallacy again, since you're keen on talking about fallacies.
Are you grouping my points in this "99%"? If you are, I... honestly don't think you're reading any of the more recent discussions; unless this is just more of a joke. Not everyone here is arguing "creations is or isn't treated as AP", including myself.Kepekley23 said:
- 14,195
- 2,574
"I've already said this discussion on an aside to ratings I don't agree with is pointless and that we should discuss the more general arguments, something you two immediatly threw at me when I made that post but apparently aren't taking to heart yourselves."
You're the one arguing it as a point
"I was making an example to show how our standards being so loose have allowed the same exact feats in different verses to be treated under different unwritten standards.
Hence why we should discuss more stringent standards here for the lower-end creation feats. So yes, I'm pointing out a more general problem."
We're just pointing out its really not a good one, even if you ignore the fact that its showing some pretty apparent flack.
"Too general of a question. You ignore the possibility of a singular use of creation being a feat and another not being a feat within the same medium."
If that is too general of a question, then how is "most verses treat it as an exotic ability" not just as general? I'm trying to point out your overgeneralization of verses on something you haven't even shown evidence for.
"I spoke nothing of authorial intent, just on the treatments of feats in verses in question."
As far as I'm aware, most verses don't say "Oh, this pocket reality doesn't count as a power feat" so the "treatment of feats in the verses" is just just you assuming the author didn't intend to treat it as an AP feat.
"It sounds like you're making up points I never touched on. Again, you're pulling this "authorial intent" point I supposedly made out of thin air and I'm not entirely sure why.
I'd bring up the stawman fallacy again, since you're keen on talking about fallacies."
"where fiction far more often doesn't treat them as really much of a "feat" and more of just an exotic ability."" < You, Regarding non-celestial feats.
"they're often treated as 'feats' in the verses themselves." < You, Regarding Celestial Feats
You're the one arguing it as a point
"I was making an example to show how our standards being so loose have allowed the same exact feats in different verses to be treated under different unwritten standards.
Hence why we should discuss more stringent standards here for the lower-end creation feats. So yes, I'm pointing out a more general problem."
We're just pointing out its really not a good one, even if you ignore the fact that its showing some pretty apparent flack.
"Too general of a question. You ignore the possibility of a singular use of creation being a feat and another not being a feat within the same medium."
If that is too general of a question, then how is "most verses treat it as an exotic ability" not just as general? I'm trying to point out your overgeneralization of verses on something you haven't even shown evidence for.
"I spoke nothing of authorial intent, just on the treatments of feats in verses in question."
As far as I'm aware, most verses don't say "Oh, this pocket reality doesn't count as a power feat" so the "treatment of feats in the verses" is just just you assuming the author didn't intend to treat it as an AP feat.
"It sounds like you're making up points I never touched on. Again, you're pulling this "authorial intent" point I supposedly made out of thin air and I'm not entirely sure why.
I'd bring up the stawman fallacy again, since you're keen on talking about fallacies."
"where fiction far more often doesn't treat them as really much of a "feat" and more of just an exotic ability."" < You, Regarding non-celestial feats.
"they're often treated as 'feats' in the verses themselves." < You, Regarding Celestial Feats
- 33,408
- 8,430
That was one hell of an aside when most of you initial comment was about that. But no, it's just an aside. Let's ignore the rest of your comment had no context and was mostly a "because I said so" matter. You csn't understand my argument because you choose not to. I can't falsly attach anything when I am literally going by your comment. But nope, I am falsely attaching stuff.
- 14,195
- 2,574
Not to put words in Kep's mouth, but I think when he was talking about "creation isn't treated as AP" arguments he was including "Most (Pocket) creations aren't treated as AP".
- 15,637
- 5,392
Text length has nothing to do with significance to an argument. This is why many philosophical discussions 'cut away' fluff like that to isolate claims and evidence.Dragonmasterxyz said:
I'm understanding your argument; it's just not even related to the point I was making, which I provided for you to respond to. Instead, you continued to go off about my comments on PMMM despite me repeatedly saying it wasn't relevant. Heck, you were the first to tell me they weren't relevent to the discussion.
And now you're claiming I'm choosing not to understand your argument. You have no basis to make claims about what I'm thinking. If I'm misunderstanding something, clarify instead of telling me I have my hands in my ears.
@Somebody
To start, can you just use quotes or do the bolding differently? It's annoying to read, sorry.
Except I'm not? PMMM's individual ratings is unrelated to my point.SomebodyData said:
I think you guys are mistaking it as contingent to my main point; when I was only really using it to demonstrate how we don't have a consistent standard on the site for the feats. Which "the PMMM ratings being correct or incorrect" has no relevence to, just that they differ from verses with similar feats.
You're doing a poor job, mainly because you're trying to relate the example to another point I was making.SomebodyData said:
Sure, it's not a good example for that other point, because it wasn't a part of that point to begin with.
Putting more words in my mouth. I didn't say most verses treat it as an exotic ability, I said that was the case for stuff below celestial bodies.SomebodyData said:
You're pointing an "overgeneralization" I never even made.
They... don't. And I didn't say they did? I'm talking about context from in the verse, not statements from the author.SomebodyData said:
I'll use big bold letters this time: I'm not discussing authorial intent.
Ah, because 'fiction' is equivalent to 'author'.SomebodyData said:
I'm talking about stuff in the verse itself, not comments from the author. This discussion is meaningless.
Still looking for when I mentioned Authorial Intent. Perhaps it's hiding behind the quote that makes no mention of it you gave me?SomebodyData said:
- 33,408
- 8,430
"Text length has nothing to do with significance to an argument. This is why many philosophical discussions 'cut away' fluff like that to isolate claims and evidence"
So what was the point of around half your initial post being about PMMM (which I had an issue with. Except the rest of your point also was to be supported by what you brought up which I addressed. Your post was not significant as you failed to even explain your point but decided to go on a PMMM tirade.
"I'm understanding your argument; it's just not even related to the point I was making, which I provided for you to respond to. Instead, you continued to go off about my comments on PMMM despite me repeatedly saying it wasn't relevant. Heck, you were the first to tell me they weren't relevent to the discussion"
You literally said you could not make sense of my argument Dargoo. I have explained to you clesrly my issues with your post. Yes I was. But you continued on acting as if they were. Your intial reply to me had me under the assumption you PMMM point was relevant to the geberal discussion which is what I disagree with. This addresses the last comment of your as well as the entire argument against you was that your PMMM comment was not relevant to the discussion and did not need to be there. Hence a likely error in translation so to speak.
So what was the point of around half your initial post being about PMMM (which I had an issue with. Except the rest of your point also was to be supported by what you brought up which I addressed. Your post was not significant as you failed to even explain your point but decided to go on a PMMM tirade.
"I'm understanding your argument; it's just not even related to the point I was making, which I provided for you to respond to. Instead, you continued to go off about my comments on PMMM despite me repeatedly saying it wasn't relevant. Heck, you were the first to tell me they weren't relevent to the discussion"
You literally said you could not make sense of my argument Dargoo. I have explained to you clesrly my issues with your post. Yes I was. But you continued on acting as if they were. Your intial reply to me had me under the assumption you PMMM point was relevant to the geberal discussion which is what I disagree with. This addresses the last comment of your as well as the entire argument against you was that your PMMM comment was not relevant to the discussion and did not need to be there. Hence a likely error in translation so to speak.
- 63,529
- 8,506
Guys.
Chill. Out.
Seriously, all this shit about "Putting words in my mouth" or "Strawman" needs to stop.
Chill. Out.
Seriously, all this shit about "Putting words in my mouth" or "Strawman" needs to stop.
- 15,637
- 5,392
I've already explained my point though; I'm not even going to bother an requote myself a second time and just say go to comment #65.Dragonmasterxyz said:
By "could not make sense" I meant in the logical sense, as in, your claim doesn't follow any premise since you were arguing something based on claims I didn't make.Dragonmasterxyz said:
I didn't have trouble reading and putting together the words.
Okay. Can you either quote your response to my general arguments or write out arguments that aren't based on my PMMM comment? Perhaps I missed something, feel free to correct me.Dragonmasterxyz said:
I agree. Hence why we should cease talking about the PMMM comment, and just speak of the general discussion/point I made.Schnee One said:
- 14,195
- 2,574
If you don't mind, Imma just put numbers for each response since my experience with quoteing repeatedly in the same post is kinda flimsy.
1 I'm... not talking about the ratings. I'm talking about the fact that you're treating it as an example of loose standards and thus, talking about it as so. If you wanna drop it, sure, but you're being inconsistent here.
2 You're the one who said it as an explanation of why you talked about it though: "I was making an example to show how our standards being so loose have allowed the same exact feats in different verses to be treated under different unwritten standards." Like the first response, you wanna drop it, okay then.
3 That's literally changes nothing, its still an overgeneralization. All you did was seperate the tier 5 - 3 feats from tier 6 - 9 from the overgeneralization.
4 - 6 Swap out author's intent with "verse treatment" then. Nothing changes in my argument. You're making massive broad assumptions and are clearly showing bias against pocket feats below celestial bodies level. You haven't brought any examples so the idea that you know that most verses with feats below or above celestial body level doesn't or does treat it as AP is absurd here.
Like Kep said, "Unless this is explicitly stated somewhere, how the hell do you know?" Worse case scenerio, it becomes a case-by-case with a starting position towards scaling.
1 I'm... not talking about the ratings. I'm talking about the fact that you're treating it as an example of loose standards and thus, talking about it as so. If you wanna drop it, sure, but you're being inconsistent here.
2 You're the one who said it as an explanation of why you talked about it though: "I was making an example to show how our standards being so loose have allowed the same exact feats in different verses to be treated under different unwritten standards." Like the first response, you wanna drop it, okay then.
3 That's literally changes nothing, its still an overgeneralization. All you did was seperate the tier 5 - 3 feats from tier 6 - 9 from the overgeneralization.
4 - 6 Swap out author's intent with "verse treatment" then. Nothing changes in my argument. You're making massive broad assumptions and are clearly showing bias against pocket feats below celestial bodies level. You haven't brought any examples so the idea that you know that most verses with feats below or above celestial body level doesn't or does treat it as AP is absurd here.
Like Kep said, "Unless this is explicitly stated somewhere, how the hell do you know?" Worse case scenerio, it becomes a case-by-case with a starting position towards scaling.
- Status
