Subj: Re: any conceivable weight is below limitless, 100% means being capable or strong to be considered that strong....Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:10:06 am CST (Viewed 55 times)
| Reply Subj: any conceivable weight is below limitless, 100% means being capable or strong to be considered that strong....
Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:01:21 pm CST (Viewed 11 times) |
 Class 100, is it a poor way to rank strenght? · thorfan · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 08:56:16 am CST
- The adjective rankings from the role playing game was much better. (no text) · Anima Spiritia · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:00:59 am CST
- On a Scale of Potential or Limitless Strength, the numbers should be used as percentiles not tons.... · THUNDERER! · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:52:57 am CST
- It used to be OK, but not in terms of actual tonnage... · Braugi · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 08:25:52 am CST
- It's a ridiculous system... · Would be Watcher · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:25:57 am CST
- Yes & No...and yes · Fifthchild · Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:30:03 am CST
- I've always liked using... · fearcalypse
 · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 03:21:25 pm CST
- 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 03:03:20 pm CST
- but 100 is a good place to stop counting (no text) · Incriptus · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 01:03:52 pm CST
- Re: Class 100, is it a poor way to rank strenght? · Toe Rag · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 11:46:17 am CST
- I've always liked the "Incalculable" rating for the mega-heavyweight strongmen... (no text) · Sir PoetTree · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 11:21:06 am CST
- Re: Class 100, is it a poor way to rank strenght? · bd2999 · Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 11:00:13 am CST
- 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 09:02:53 am CST
|
