Comparing different powers

DarthAnt66 wrote:Good thread. To throw an idea out there: 

D6 roleplaying sourcebooks generally have charts to cross-reference the difficulty of certain feats. That might be the closest we can get besides eyeballing it.

ILS wrote:Best to look for examples in the lore if you want to set a precedent. It seems flimsy but typically if you just read the story itself it will tell you which feats are impressive based on what the characters are freaking out about. Also if a sourcebook makes explicit mention of a feat or explains why a character is powerful because of x feat that's also a good indicator.

It's important not to base your conclusions about apples on the nature of oranges unless the oranges reveal something true about their relationship to apples. I don't think the Force is quite a science so it's a hard thing to do.

Just thought of another thing. Setting aside raw power for a moment, it's also important to look at which abilities are actually used in 1v1 and against what kind of enemies, versus abilities used for some other end. If an ability isn't well suited to fighting one strong opponent using feats for it tend not to inform us of much useful other than that the character is in some sense powerful.

LOTL wrote:Mainly on telepathy, speaking from a scientific/logical perspective:

Thoughts in the brain are basically just electric signals transmitted through neurons via a neural network. Changing the signals changes everything, sight, sound, even smell, and obviously the thoughts associated with them. The basic premise of telepathy hence is by inference:

The ability to influence electric signals in the brain to a certain value or direction that the force user has to take to. Obviously only electric signals are being influenced, the force user isn't changing the structure of the brain itself( this is obvious) by his connection to the force. Hence to change the thoughts of a person to what they want, they simply influence n number of signals in another variable number of neurons to change the perception of the person.

The question then becomes the resistance to telepathy, how normal people do it. Basically, everyone has control over their own thoughts and can influence them. Every single being has a limited control over the electric signals in their brain and can control them. Thus if the control over the electric signals in the brain is higher than even the force user's strength, i.e. the person has immense willpower, then the person can resist the force user's influence.

This is why influencing a being with knowledge that he is being influenced, then is far, far more impressive than influencing beings that have no knowledge that they are being influenced. This is because, in the latter case, the force user simply has to control the electric signals in the brain, but faces no resistance or opposing force whatsoever. The problem is reduced to, the force user's ability to concentrate on and manipulate minute electric forces in the brain.

The former case, is much more difficult because the force user faces the direct opposing force from the being. In addition to the power involved in manipulating electric signals in the brain.

The above analysis is necessary to understand the main intricacies of telepathy. Comparing telepathy to telekinesis is like comparing apples to oranges truly. Telekinesis involves basic raw power, the ability to influence bigger and better objects being the main criteria in the superiority of the feat. But telepathy simply involves incredible precision on the part of the force user, the ability to influence or project forces on a cellular level. The power involved is very less

To give an example, the power consumed by the brain in one day is 20 W. You can get exactly the same value by lifting 2 kg by one meter in one second by simple physics calculation. This makes it obvious that the sheer power involved in telepathy is very less compared to telekinesis, especially considering that the above value is for the entire brain, but you have only a point fraction of that involved to change specific thoughts( this also has to take into account the extent of telepathic influence) in the brain. You do have the force user using power to perceive at that scale, only one cannot quantify the extent of the connection to the force this requires but you can look into sourcebooks and such to get that estimate. My guess is just as force sense requires infinitely lesser power than actually performing feats at that scale( you have Kenobi or Jacen being loosely galaxy level if that is not the case), this too is similar since this too is a variant of sense

My guess is that telepathy really doesn't involve raw power, rather it demonstrates mastery by being able to influence minute forces by the force user, unless he/she is influencing thousands using telepathy

Best to look for examples in the lore if you want to set a precedent. It seems flimsy but typically if you just read the story itself it will tell you which feats are impressive based on what the characters are freaking out about. Also if a sourcebook makes explicit mention of a feat or explains why a character is powerful because of x feat that's also a good indicator.

It's important not to base your conclusions about apples on the nature of oranges unless the oranges reveal something true about their relationship to apples. I don't think the Force is quite a science so it's a hard thing to do.

Just thought of another thing. Setting aside raw power for a moment, it's also important to look at which abilities are actually used in 1v1 and against what kind of enemies, versus abilities used for some other end. If an ability isn't well suited to fighting one strong opponent using feats for it tend not to inform us of much useful other than that the character is in some sense powerful.

1. the context
   
2. the Force potential of the user
   
3. the practice that the user has of this power (first time that he used it or a extremely train practionner)
   
4. his inherent natural facility with this power (a prodigy or a not)
   

1. the number of people who die
   
2. the state of the body after the death
   
3. the weight lift
   
4. the environnemental impact
   
5. ....
   

ILS wrote:Best to look for examples in the lore if you want to set a precedent. It seems flimsy but typically if you just read the story itself it will tell you which feats are impressive based on what the characters are freaking out about. Also if a sourcebook makes explicit mention of a feat or explains why a character is powerful because of x feat that's also a good indicator.

It's important not to base your conclusions about apples on the nature of oranges unless the oranges reveal something true about their relationship to apples. I don't think the Force is quite a science so it's a hard thing to do.

Just thought of another thing. Setting aside raw power for a moment, it's also important to look at which abilities are actually used in 1v1 and against what kind of enemies, versus abilities used for some other end. If an ability isn't well suited to fighting one strong opponent using feats for it tend not to inform us of much useful other than that the character is in some sense powerful.

Azronger wrote:

ILS wrote:Best to look for examples in the lore if you want to set a precedent. It seems flimsy but typically if you just read the story itself it will tell you which feats are impressive based on what the characters are freaking out about. Also if a sourcebook makes explicit mention of a feat or explains why a character is powerful because of x feat that's also a good indicator.

This doesn't really address the OP. I can think of a number of ways to conclude which feats are impressive in a vacuum. The issue arises when the task is to compare disparate feats (e.g. telepathy vs. telekinesis), sometimes from different media and time period (e.g. TOR vs. PT), and construct a hierarchical order of magnitude. I don't see how one can do that without a common reference point, which we often lack.

It's important not to base your conclusions about apples on the nature of oranges unless the oranges reveal something true about their relationship to apples. I don't think the Force is quite a science so it's a hard thing to do.

I agree, which is why I made this thread. How do we objectively weigh two feats of a completely different nature up against each other to deem which one is the greater of the two?

Just thought of another thing. Setting aside raw power for a moment, it's also important to look at which abilities are actually used in 1v1 and against what kind of enemies, versus abilities used for some other end. If an ability isn't well suited to fighting one strong opponent using feats for it tend not to inform us of much useful other than that the character is in some sense powerful.

Again, not really relevant to the OP, but just to address this: no, some feats aren't combat-applicable in the form they are used in the story, but if they require fantastical levels of power to execute regardless, they still inform the character's overall power level, which is relevant in combat when manifested through other abilities like lightning and telekinesis.

SithArchaeologist wrote:To me, this tends to come up in "sorcerer vs. warrior" types of debates. For example, how do we compare Nadd's army-busting waves of power to the Empire's Wrath fighting through hundreds of Republic troops on Balmorra? Or how do we compare Plagueis' presence altering the weather on Naboo vs Dooku's saber accolades and fights with Yoda?

Azronger wrote:

SithArchaeologist wrote:To me, this tends to come up in "sorcerer vs. warrior" types of debates. For example, how do we compare Nadd's army-busting waves of power to the Empire's Wrath fighting through hundreds of Republic troops on Balmorra? Or how do we compare Plagueis' presence altering the weather on Naboo vs Dooku's saber accolades and fights with Yoda?

Do you have any ideas?