Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HoboGod" data-source="post: 5263983" data-attributes="member: 90920">I'm going to stop arguing many of these points as I feel we're drifting  further from a point of agreement. By your standards, I'll concede that  the build is not broken. However, I'll hold to my opinion.Alright, let me rephrase that, even with binoculars, I couldn't tell the difference between two dogs of similar size. I'm reasonable sure if I was up close and could inspect the dog from many angles, I'd possibly have a good chance of picking which dog was stronger. Even then, I might be surprised. I didn't question you on experience, I questioned you on knowledge. That's exactly the kind of information that a knowledge nature check would give you. A monster would need to roll an equivalent knowledge check on humans to make the kind of rationality that pinpoints a wizard.And so what then tells you a pit bull isn't a house pet? Very few humanoids are bred to be wizards. An elf could easily be a fighter or a ranger, a halfling could easily be a rogue or a cleric. Perhaps by the weapons they carry one could distinguish a wizard, but that too requires a knowledge check of humanoid weaponry. A martial weapon in the hands of an ogre, I imagine, looks far more sinister than what a lawful good dwarf would carry.You talk of ability scores like a few points will make muscles bulge and rip from their shirt. I'm a big guy, but I look way more intimidating that I truly am. Plenty of short, skinny guys who look like nothing but a bag of bones have proved themselves stronger and better fighters than I think I might be.EDIT: Hang on, we seem to be posting at the same time, I posted based on something you corrected.</blockquote>

Verification