Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8373065" data-attributes="member: 6801228">So, a few mistakes here. Easily made, but still mistakes. Humans get a +1 strength, so Goliaths actually only get a +1 over humans. I'm not talking about their ability, only their strength. Note that that ability blew the scale out of the water, compared to just having the bonus. I mean, it isn't even a question who is stronger if you look at at these two scales. (8 - 36) vs (16 - 72)But this set up is, like I said, way more head scratching (8 - 36) vs (9 - 37) Even if I say that the human is floating so the goliath should be (10 - 37) it is still.. basically nothing. And in fact, it is more noticeable as a raising of the floor than a cap of the top. And the thing is... narratively, that doesn't matter.See, here is the problem with your "fact". It isn't a fact, it is a tautology. Goliaths are stronger than humans because they have a +2 strength, and they have a +2 strength because they are stronger than humans, and because they are stronger than humans they have a +2 strength. It just circles and fulfills itself. So, you can't rely on "it is a fact" because the thing we are arguing is the core identity of that fact. Does DnD really make it seem like Goliaths are stronger than humans? Through the ability Powerful Build? Most certainly. Through that +1 strength over what a human can get, before the human takes a half feat to get a total of +2 strength at character creation? No. No they aren't. They are actually, identically strong to humans. Or, if you insist on the base human to prevent that feat... they have a +1 over humans.Weird. Seems fixed. The things that weren't working before are working now. IT seems more like it just... you don't like it and that is also a subjective opinion.So, with no knowledge of her family history, or even if she trained, you want to argue that it was a fact that she trained better than him? If you want to argue facts, go do some research into her training methods. But my point was fairly simple. In the 1920's no one thought a woman could outlift the strongest man in the world, it was impossible. She did it anyways. Today, no one things a woman can outlift the strongest man in the world.... but does that mean it is actually impossible? Or just incredibly unlikely? Of course it would be incredibly difficult, maybe it borders on impossible, but that doesn't mean it actually is impossible.</blockquote>

Verification