Why does Creation count as an AP feat? (Staff only)

[Dargoo_Faust]

Till the OP replies you can't really decide how satisfactory the answers have been in their place

Kind of hard for them to do when we marked the thread as staff-only with the OP not being staff; although I assume we'd just make an exception.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Dargoo Yeah, an exception should be made plus it's not like anyone actually takes "Staff only" seriously

Btw about this topic, I think a thought experiment would be good here, suppose there's an athletic human character and he gains superpowers. He can now conjure up a pistol to attack his enemies, would him creating that pistol be treated as an AP feat? now imagine another similar character is able to create a semi truck to aid him in travels, would he be considered to have pulled off a 9-B/9-A feat?

I think this is where a dilemna would begin, if you consider these to be valid AP feats then everything is fine but if you don't then that begs the question, at what scale or with what kind of object does creation begin to be actual AP feats?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Hence why I argue we disregard it for lower tiers, where, in the examples you provided, it's treated as an exotic ability and not a display of strength.

Oh well.

 

[Andytrenom]

Don't oh well just yet, I kinda want to see what the response is of others to my hypthetical

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Don't oh well just yet, I kinda want to see what the response is of others is to my hypthetical

Considering the thread's being treated like it's all well and over, and it's being discussed that we implement discussion rules to prevent this kind of discussion in the future? I'd be glad to talk off-thread but I don't like beating a dead horse.

So, since this suggestion seems to be rejected, should we close this thread?

@Dargoo, I see; it's just that was what it seemed to come out as after reading the posts. But it doesn't really change our main final point too much.

I believe we won't be changing our standards from what they are now anytime soo. As I too agree that creation feats are still generally valid.

 

[Andytrenom]

Yeah I don't like this pessimism sir, so I would like for you to take it to someplace away from me kind sir (But for real tho, I just want more clarity here, the discussion being suggested but not asserted to be over doesn't worry me much)

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am not going to force a discussion rule if you disagree.

 

[Antvasima]

In addition, I am also uncertain where to draw the line for cases in which creation feats are treated as separate from attack potency.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

How about when the character has been shown using abilities other than creation, that seem/are stated to come from the same source?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

As long as the creations aren't illusions and they actually created stuff, it really should qualify as Attack Potency. Of course illusions or simply teleporting people aren't AP feats.

 

[TataHakai]

In addition, I am also uncertain where to draw the line for cases in which creation feats are treated as separate from attack potency.

As much as i disagree that we should automatically disqualify all Creation feats to scale to AP

I do think there should be a line in place

There should be certain features of a creation feat that allow it to scale to AP

Edit: An example could be, if the character uses the same energy source for both creation and destruction then we could scale it to their AP

But if it's by an unknown method then it may be harder to scale it

 

[Antvasima]

TataHakai makes a good point.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

So basically the same principle of Environmental Destruction, but applied to creation feats. It would still count of AP, but it wouldn't be a combat applicable AP in a sense.

I can agree with that. Especially for lower tiered creation feats.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I honestly still agree with Kep here and think things should just stay as they are personally.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree and DragonMasterxyz, and tbh; while I don't disagree with Environmental Destruction being case by case. I do feel like and agree with what Matt has been saying about some standards regarding it got over board here and there. Pocket Reality feats already have case by case being taken into account, but for the most part, they are generally agreed to apply as Attack Potency feats.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I honestly still agree with Kep here and think things should just stay as they are personally.

I'm not very satisfied with the status quo, as it stands.

The fact of the matter is that we don't have solid rules and discussions on this, which is why the topic of small-scale creation is so much of a mess to deal with.

It honestly seems like we're just shelfing the issue instead of trying to solve it.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

To expand on my beliefs, I agree with things that don't involve celestial bodies mind you. However, personally once we get to celestial bodies I believe we should keep using them as we have been. However, simple realms stated to be town-sized with like no substance aside from like a few floating rocks here and there, I am not too keen on scaling to AP. Although, I thought this was assumed to be the case.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I do need to point out that there are Dragon Quest characters who are High 6-A via sealing a Pangea sized Continent in their own pocket reality.

 

[Wokistan]

I think PMMM gets some ratings in tier 7 based on small pocket dimensions

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I actually agree with you there; and it's one of the issues with using something like a fireball to calculate the feats when we should only really be judging them on what is created as opposed to the volume of what is created. I'm happy you assumed it to be the case, but we obviously need it to be in stone as it doesn't seem like many others did.

Like, there's realms that are literally thin air that are used to extrapolate feats on the site right at this moment. It's clearly not the case, sadly.

The only reason we use volume for higher end celestial/pocket reality feats is... well... there is no reason. We just arbitrarily decided on it to satisfy our tiering system. I dislike this greatly but was voted out and had to compromise.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I think PMMM gets some ratings in tier 7 based on small pocket dimensions

Persona does as well, although they dip into celestial bodies later.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If there's multiple stars, I'm pretty sure it would still be well into Tier 4. Earth to Sun distance still seems fine for High 4-C given a possible Supernova would be that high. Although, using Inverse square law via Sun being at the edge to get 4-B I would say is a jacked example. And if there's thousands of stars with reasonable distance, I believe would be 4-A. For Pocket realities smaller than celestial bodies, I think what it contains is reasonable; a pocket reality containing numerous mountains could be mountain level at least. Or containing a Town could be Town level even if baselinish. But a Town sized Pocket reality that's just thin air would probably be iffy.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yeah, if it's mostly empty space the feat shouldn't be counted for much; we even agreed that for stuff like a galaxy pocket dimension, if it was just two stars with a galaxy's distance between them we wouldn't use Square-Inverse.

Even then creating a bunch of buildings probably isn't equatable to "giant fireball that occupies the space the buildings do" in energy terms.

 

[Elizhaa]

Well, I agre with @Kepekley23's point our current system. Besides, our system is already rated on case by case basis so I see no point of changing it,

 

[Schnee_One]

I think PMMM gets some ratings in tier 7 based on small pocket dimensions

EDIT: Patricia and H.N. Elly

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Kepekley23 in lack of better options to handle this, but think that we should probably rate creation feats separate from attack potency in certain cases, when the fiction in question explicitly treats them this way, such as for Kaguya in Naruto or in Castlevaia.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Matt said the Castlevania feats are fine where they are and that the 4-A feats are legit. It's just the 2-C stuff he said are too much. But anyway, I'm sure most of the staff still agree with Kep here.

 

[Antvasima]

I thought that he said that the Castlevania characters should be tier 8 or 7?

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Kepekley23 in lack of better options to handle this, but think that we should probably rate creation feats separate from attack potency in certain cases, when the fiction in question explicitly treats them this way.

What do the rest of the staff think about this?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

That sounds like something one of Mikoto's socks said not him. And Matt also sometimes jokes about that when she's not around.

 

[Antvasima]

No, I remember that I saw him mention in this wiki that he had accidentally exaggerated the statistics for Castlevania, and now regretted it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Oh yeah, I looked at that thread and he said the Early/Mid Game bosses would be around Tier 8. And for the Tier 7, he was specifically referring to the Netflix version of Dracula. He wasn't talking about the Belmont clan or Count Dracula from the games, who are fine at least 4-A, possibly Low 2-C. And it was upgrading the cast to 2-C is what he said was exaggerated in the past.

 

[Antvasima]

Aha. Sorry about the misunderstanding then.

 

[SomebodyData]

Eh, I don't have an issue with that suggestion, do we have any examples though for an explanation in the pocket reality page?

Though, what will we do about galaxy - universe creation feats? Technically by this suggestion since most of the universe is empty space...

 

[Andytrenom]

One can honestly make a case for non Low 2-C universe creation being tier 4 since the process of creation shouldn't really have reason to abide by the same laws as an explosion and be affected by the inverse square law. But making such a assessment is no small thing and will have have drastic consequences for multiple verses.

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

Universe creation should stay 3-A, everything else is just semantics.

 

[Andytrenom]

What exactly do you mean by semantics?

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

What exactly do you mean by semantics?

That was in reference to this part of SD's reply:

>Though, what will we do about galaxy - universe creation feats? Technically by this suggestion since most of the universe is empty space...

 

[Andytrenom]

Still not sure how that's semantics

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

Still not sure how that's semantics

I mean, if you wanna argue that creating a universe isn't actually Universe level, be my guest. But that's just bullshit imo