DeBuff

[Reece]

No, it's not supposed to be a weakness, if anything it's more like a strength.

Not quite. If it was optional, then it would be a strength. Drawbacks make things more powerful, in the Omniverse. Since inability to be used against certain targets cannot be taken as a legitimate drawback, any moves whose owners choose to remain faithful to the original functionality of, must be weaker than they otherwise could have been, if targeting restrictions were allowed.

Bulbasaur uses razor leaf against Squirtle, although the background canon says that it's more effective against water, it's not in the case of the Omniverse.

In other words, against water-based enemies, its effect has been weakened. That's not a strength, it's a weakness.

Now, overall, it does make moves more viable... but in order to do this, their power-level must be reduced. For example, Rikuo Nura, from the anime Nura: Rise of the Yokai Clan, possesses an exorcist's sword called Nenekirimaru, which can only cut yokai (demons), but is far, far more harmful to them than an ordinary sword. In the Omniverse, however, there would be no difference between that blade and a regular katana (unless other drawbacks such as charge-times for each swing or energy costs were added).

In other words; in order to make something powerful affect everyone equally, it must be weakened.

I'm not saying that this was in any way a poor decision on Omni's part, don't get me wrong; all I'm saying is that it is a weakness.

[Minato Namikaze]

Okay, you have a fair point there, but you totally disregarded the part about water gun, which clearly shows it as a strength. And when we use what you just said as a basis, it's significantly boosting the power of a move that should be weaker.

In some cases it would be a weakness, but in other cases it'd be a strength. I also think that more often than not, it's a strength. Because not all moves are offensive, and most characters here don't have moves that are supposed to be more or less effective against certain types of opponents/ move sets.

But you also missed what I was saying, it's was never MEANT to be a weakness. Yes, for some characters it is a weakness, but it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to balance the Omniverse.

[Reece]

you totally disregarded the part about water gun, which clearly shows it as a strength. And when we use what you just said as a basis, it's significantly boosting the power of a move that should be weaker.

Against Bulbasaur, yeah, it might be weaker, but what if Squirtle was fighting a Charmander? And what if that Squirtle was a racist with an intense hatred of all fire pokemon... would it consider being able to deal slightly more damage to grass-type pokemon a worthy trade for losing its effectiveness against its targets of choice?

In some cases it would be a weakness, but in other cases it'd be a strength.

Yes, that's true... however if it's only a strength against people whom you have no intention of using the move on, then how much is that really worth? Overall, in my opinion, at least, the strength of a move is defined as how well it does what you want it to do, not how well it performs in every possible situation in which it could be used.

To reuse the example from my previous post; what is the use of a sword which can cut humans to someone who never intends to harm a human?
There is none, clearly, and therefore that "strength" is utterly worthless to that particular character.

But you also missed what I was saying, it's was never MEANT to be a weakness. Yes, for some characters it is a weakness, but it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to balance the Omniverse.

I know that it was supposed to balance things. I've never denied that. It's just that the method by which it balances things is through generalisation; meaning that moves designed with a specific target in mind are less effective at combating their target... even if they are better against other targets, that isn't enough to make up for it - hence, it's more a weakness than a strength.

A sensible weakness to force upon someone (from a mechanical point of view, at least) but a weakness nonetheless.

That said; there are ways around this, so I don't really consider it that big a deal. For example, Tartaros' Witchfire Pot could have been written in a way which allowed him to choose which of his foes in its AoE were weakened by its effect (presumably costing more energy to use, depending on the number), then all he'd need to have done was select the people with magical abilities.
It would have cost an extra 300 OM, of course, due to being a variable move, but it could still have been done.

[Thaal Sinestro]

The point is moot. We don't have a metric with which to measure whether it is a weakness or a strength, because we don't know if the attack is doing "maximum" damage to ALL targets or "minimal" damage to all targets. We don't, and can't, know whether or not it's a weakness or a strength because we have no data to measure it against. If I have a fire move that does 10 damage to a grass type pokemon in the game,s and then I come here and it does 10 damage to EVERYTHING, it isn't weakened, it's strengthened. If I have a fire move that does 10 damage to grass types and then does 5 damage to EVERYTHING, it's weakened. The problem with that analogy is that we don't have a defining metric for whether or not the move is stronger or weaker due to a specialization.

The point, and literally the only thing that matters in this case, is that powers cannot be particularly or especially strong against certain types of characters, allowing you EXCEED your ATK. Additionally, you can OPTIONALLY say that you move doesn't work as well on anything EXCEPT grass types. You can always make something weaker than what is written, you just can't say that it's especially more powerful. That means that so long as you never EXCEED your ATK, it's fine.

[Sasuke Uchiha]

If the Debuff simply allows for you to describe effects in your writing, why do we need it as a power? If with SP and a super move you can't do actual debuffing, what is the point? I already can write a story in which one of my attack causes you too move slower just from having taken damage, that is just writing fodder. =/

For instance, I don't see a problem in spending an sp point in order to debuff someones 1 sp cost transform. Why not? I could just as easily spend an sp on a transformation to even out the playing field, so why not spend the sp to knock them out of theirs? It is effectively the same thing, using sp to balance.

I dunno if this makes sense, but I feel like we are limiting a power so much it isn't even really a power any more.

[Thaal Sinestro]

If the Debuff simply allows for you to describe effects in your writing, why do we need it as a power? If with SP and a super move you can't do actual debuffing, what is the point? I already can write a story in which one of my attack causes you too move slower just from having taken damage, that is just writing fodder. =/

For instance, I don't see a problem in spending an sp point in order to debuff someones 1 sp cost transform. Why not? I could just as easily spend an sp on a transformation to even out the playing field, so why not spend the sp to knock them out of theirs? It is effectively the same thing, using sp to balance.

I dunno if this makes sense, but I feel like we are limiting a power so much it isn't even really a power any more.

If you hit somebody in the leg, and they move slower, that's not a Debuff. Debuff is any time something negatively effects OTHER THAN PHYSICAL DAMAGE. If you had an attack that was SPECIFICALLY designed to hurt somebody in a way to slow them down, like caltrops or something, that would be a different story, but just hurting somebody and them moving slower does not require Debuff.

[Omni]

Well, a slowing debuff could actually lower someone's SPD stat.

Or something that lowers HP over a period of time.

Right, but the stat card doesn't change. There's a hard line where you jsut don't bother screwing with that. It's a Move that slows, and that's jsut the way it's written. And "Lowering HP over time" is jsut straight up damage. There's nothing that PCs can do to other PC's stat cards, other than through the Narrative, through the story. It's effectively the same thing as "lowering their SPD" stat, but it's just the story that goes along with the action.

Debuff doesn't mess with the stat card, period. That's it. That's the whole discussion up to this point on the site as of now.

You actually can, I just think that most people are better off using wording rather than stats, because if we're getting into actual, numbers-based debuffs, I'm probably going to have to step in and balance it myself because it needs to be exactly on-point balanced for obvious reasons. There are some moves that would be appropriate but honestly, we are a writing site and there is so much more people can glean from and use with effective descriptors like "numbs and stiffens your limbs like they have been caked in snow" than "halves your SPD or lowers it by 2 points, whichever is least damaging".

Just thought I'd step in and say that it's not technically against the rules, just inadvisable for a few reasons.

[Thaal Sinestro]

Well, a slowing debuff could actually lower someone's SPD stat.

Or something that lowers HP over a period of time.

Right, but the stat card doesn't change. There's a hard line where you jsut don't bother screwing with that. It's a Move that slows, and that's jsut the way it's written. And "Lowering HP over time" is jsut straight up damage. There's nothing that PCs can do to other PC's stat cards, other than through the Narrative, through the story. It's effectively the same thing as "lowering their SPD" stat, but it's just the story that goes along with the action.

Debuff doesn't mess with the stat card, period. That's it. That's the whole discussion up to this point on the site as of now.

You actually can, I just think that most people are better off using wording rather than stats, because if we're getting into actual, numbers-based debuffs, I'm probably going to have to step in and balance it myself because it needs to be exactly on-point balanced for obvious reasons. There are some moves that would be appropriate but honestly, we are a writing site and there is so much more people can glean from and use with effective descriptors like "numbs and stiffens your limbs like they have been caked in snow" than "halves your SPD or lowers it by 2 points, whichever is least damaging".

Just thought I'd step in and say that it's not technically against the rules, just inadvisable for a few reasons.

Ah, thank you!

[Deadpool]

Thanks for your input, Omni.

Also, any Debuff move I try to make that counteracts somethings would cost the same amount of SP or whatever as the move I'm trying to counter.