• 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.

When should invulnerability be given as ability?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DontTalk

2,512
261
The question came up in a discussion.

Basically except for questionable omnipotents no character is really invulnerable, so differentiating it from durability by being absolute doesn't work.

I have given it for temporary durability increases, which in the verse are at least not contested to be absolute, in the past, but should it be used like that and when else?

What is the clear border between just a high durability and invulnerability as ability?

And on that topic, what is the difference between a resistance against something and invulnerability against something, like for example resistance against cuts and invulnerability against cuts. If we don't talk about intangibility a strong enough cut would likely still work on both, I would think.
 
Interesting topic. Invulnerability can be misused to extraordinary degree without standard. We should categorize different types of invulnerability to prevent confusion. However changing profile would require wiki wide revision.
 
I agree with what Faisal said about this kind of ability. Invulnerablity can be misused to possibly extreme degree's. But though i like the idea of categorizing different types of this ability to prevent confusion, it would definitely require a wiki wide revision like what happened during the AP changes...
 
I also agree with DontTalk, that no characters should be defined as invulnerable, except for tier 0s. However, it might require a revision project.
 
Ok, so it should preferably not be added anymore?

As said it came up in a discussion in which the question was if the character should get it.
 
Yes. It should probably preferably be called superhuman durability, or something similar instead.
 
I think it can be used if a character has it as a specific power, but it should be clear it doesn't mean "absolute defense against everything".

For instance, Lord English is repeatedly stated in his canon to be invulnerable, and have invulnerability as an actual power. Does this mean he's completely and utterly invincible? No. It just means attacking him head-on will do nothing, and the way to damage him is through explicit glitches and loopholes in the fabric of reality.

Obviously, almost all characters with invulnerability can have it overwritten by something infinitely more powerful than they are.
 
I suppose that you have a point. The Invulnerability page already defines that it is simply a common term, and does not usually mean being absolutely indestructible.
 
However, if somebody has ideas for how to improve the definition page, feel free to mention them here.
 
Hmm... Ok, so where is the exact border between just high durability and invulnerability set?

Edit: And should a character with believable invulnerability statements get 3-A durability (if he is not tier 2,1,0 of course) ?
 
Invulnerability

Vs Battles Wiki Definitio: absolutely impervious to harm via one or more direct sources, one way or another. Requires a solid explanation behind the logistics of it or an exceptional feat or character statement (a 2-C character claiming so, for example) to be proven as anything more than an NLF.

A warlock who takes an axe to the face like it was a feather duster is not invulnerable.

A warlock who does so because he explicitly has a spell that redirects kinetic energy around himself which he has on all the time counts as impact absorption and therefore a form of invulnerability.

A warlock who tanks a collapsing dimension also gets the invulnerability thumbs-up.
 
This question came up as I was discussing how to rate Fräulein Kreutune's Durability with DontTalk here. I understand that we don't take Invulnerability claims as the character being outright immune to everything. For example, I added Invulnerability to R├í and Jack Elva's pages since their powers are described as such in the story. While R├ín's net is a generic "no attack can harm the soul inside", Jack's is especifically noted to be "no life form, object or phenomena can harm him except for mistletoe" because it's myth Baldr's invulnerability.

Then there are "conditional" invulnerabilities that only work with certain attacks, like an immunity/invulnerability to fire/ice/whatever. For example, Kihara Kagu's magic that nullifies all fatal attacks. The supernatural creatures in two other Kamachi series are especifically stated several times to be immune to conventional weapons and attacks simply based on the laws of physics. Problem is that since this is common knowledge in-universe, nobody bothers to try and fight them with conventional methods anymore, so not a lot of feats to support it.

I think a statement or explanation of the character/s invulnerability should be required to list it as Invulnerability, not just simply them being unharmed by a powerful attack, which would count as a Durability feat. Durability of the invulnerable character should be rated by the strongest feat of invulnerability, with a "likely higher + explanation of their form of invulnerability" included so that people can judge if it applies or not in a match.
 
Hmm. After rereading our invulnerability page, it seems like it does in fact not sufficiently define that it is simply a common term within fiction. It needs a rewrite. We cannot use a NLF as wiki praxis.
 
Maybe we can have it with levels of invulnerability. It's because there are characters with certain types of invulnerability or invulnerability to certain sources.

E.g. Herakles (FSN) was stated to not be able to die from the same way he did previously, as is Doomsday iirc.

Natsu Dragneel inhales fire so methinks he can be invulnerable to it.

Also, there is Saber's Avalon.

Maybe leave a note on the invulnerability page that says type or source for it be stated in the profile bearing this power.
 
Yes, it would. Maybe the whole invulnerability page is redundant, and we should add this as a small revision project after all.
 
Would it be under durability if a character is explicitly stated to be immune to fire? Just an example.

Ok maybe drop the levels of invul, just invul from a specific source?
 
It is a bit redundant for practicle proposes.

But as said, I actually like the proposal of LazyHunter.

In other words if the invulnerability is explained and well sourced it can be added to the page together with an explanation, but doesn't influence the durability statistic. Like that we can give credit to characters for which invulnerability is an important aspect of their abilities without going into the realms of NLFs.

On the invulnerability page itself we would then add something like "Since invulnerbaility can only be proven in the realms of the power which the character actually took, invulnerability does not change the durability statistic beyond what is demonstrated. More powerful attacks than demonstrated might harm the characters like usual."
 
@DontTalk That seems reasonable.
 
Perhaps we should also write the types of invulnerability that exists? Such as invulnerability to physical attacks, or mind based attacks etc
 
You know, the invulnernability article happens to be needed. Otherwise, it would differentiate of what is superhuman durabilty (just more durable to certain attacks), to invulnernable (most forms of attack cannot even scratch or destroy them, even their clothes or items on them are unscathed).
 
The invulnerability article already includes types of invulnerability, so we could always add the type in brackets after each "invulnerability" listing on character pages, similar to what is done with Regenerationn and immortality.
 
Exactly, Azathoth. Apparently, Azathoth is far from the "Abyssal Idiot" and is actually "Idiot" in name only as always.
 
I think what Azathoth said is alright and good enough to go by. I didn't notice that we already had different types of invulnerability.

Then again, i didn't even knew we had that page (though that could be my lack of not remembering it much, tbh).
 
All right. Are there anyone from Dragon Ball (Goku's reality) or any other anime and manga that has invulnerability, not simply superhuman durability? If so, then we need to edit accordingly.
 
Yes, we should. If I recall, some of them have just be been so powerful, that not just any level would do. So, shouldn't anyone who isn't a Super Saiyan Blue or above the original level of that should be able to harm this target? Didn't Beerus claim to be absolutely immune to normal ki-based attacks in the original events before Dragon Ball Super?
 
But let's make sure this is not simple baseless speculation or superfluous exaggeration. We have to see who actually has invulnerability and how can it be confirmed or verified.

Like actual examples: Beerus was hit by normal ki-based attacks, yet they neither scratched him in anyway (body or attire), nor even burn him, nor made him bleed. He didn't pretend to not be hurt by them, he was outright unaffected by them.
 
Hmm, but the techniques that normally required blocking, dodging, absorbing the energy was just taken head-on without needing any reason to dodge. It was indeed changed to never claiming this.
 
Of course. Remember, these aren't beings with higher-dimensional powers. They're neither unaware nor lazy in knowing they can be beings beyond all dimensions as well. As in, they're truly invulnerable and beyond the concepts all others who are infinitely below them have been susceptible to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Makai641001
Invulnerability negation for 4kota
Replies
12
Views
716
Damage3245
Damage3245
Maverick_Zero_X
  • Locked
Shadow Queen Invulnerability removal
Replies
6
Views
531
ZespeonGalaxy
ZespeonGalaxy
Rikimarox2
How would mind control that affects a lot of people with range be treated?
Replies
1
Views
357
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Invulnerability: Let's talk about it.
2 3
Replies
94
Views
7K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Just_Butchering
Invulnerability in The Boys
Replies
27
Views
2K
Just_Butchering
Just_Butchering
Back
Top