Subj: Just don't limit yourself to 100 tons and just treat it as a scale, you should be fine.Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 04:03:20 pm EST (Viewed 4 times)
| Reply Subj: Class 100, is it a poor way to rank strenght? Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 09:56:16 am EST (Viewed 40 times) |
Class 100, is it a poor way to rank strenght? · thorfan · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 09:56:16 am EST
The adjective rankings from the role playing game was much better. (no text) · Anima Spiritia · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:00:59 am EST
On a Scale of Potential or Limitless Strength, the numbers should be used as percentiles not tons.... · THUNDERER! · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:52:57 am EST
It used to be OK, but not in terms of actual tonnage... · Braugi · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:25:52 am EST It's a ridiculous system... · Would be Watcher · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:25:57 am EST
Yes & No...and yes · Fifthchild · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:30:03 am EST I've always liked using... · fearcalypse · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 04:21:25 pm EST
Just don't limit yourself to 100 tons and just treat it as a scale, you should be fine. (no text) · Thor_The_Mighty · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 04:03:20 pm EST but 100 is a good place to stop counting (no text) · Incriptus · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 02:03:52 pm EST Re: Class 100, is it a poor way to rank strenght? · Toe Rag · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 12:46:17 pm EST
I've always liked the "Incalculable" rating for the mega-heavyweight strongmen... (no text) · Sir PoetTree · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 12:21:06 pm EST
Re: Class 100, is it a poor way to rank strenght? · bd2999 · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 12:00:13 pm EST Considering how Thor and Hulk, casually toss about a hundred or so tons like nothing, I'd say so... · THUNDERER! · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 10:02:53 am EST
|