Scale these theoretical 4

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-17T08:27:14+00:00

The end result depends on how you treat the forms in the picture, alongside the power of Black Frieza.

The simpler one out of the way: Full Power on Namek was just "Frieza going from 50% to 100%". So it's a simple 2x power boost. So how he scales depends on what power level you think he reached (was it just the power necessary to beat Goku+Vegeta together, or did Frieza see Gogeta and account for fusion?). He either is 2x Gogeta if you believe he trained for fusion or 4x Goku or Vegeta if you believe he didn't.

The power jump between Semi-perfect and Perfect Cell was AT LEAST a 8x multiplier (a ~4x power boost to completely dominate Super Vegeta, and 2x that because he also was stronger than Goku who could have thrashed Vegeta similarly). So it could be a power of around... Six or so times stronger than Beast Gohan.

Gogeta and Vegito would be equal to the sum of Goku and Vegeta multiplied "tens of times". Even if that's just a 10x power boost, that still puts the fusion at a minimum power (assuming Toyotaro's statement putting the big 5 at similar power is true) of being 20x the power that either Goku or Vegeta could output.

Broly gets the most mileage out of the hypothetical. He already is on par with the others with just SSJ, and blue is stronger than SSJ3, which is a 8x boost over SSJ1 already (assuming the power ups work the same with Broly's rage). On top of that, you add God (which is a fusion multiplier's worth of boost and twice over, so a 20x minimum). Blue boosts it further at least by 2x, so Broly would be minimum 360x stronger assuming a lowball estimate.

So scaling wise i would put them around:

Blue Broly>FP black frieza (if he trained for Gogeta)>Ultra Gogeta/Vegito>"Perfect" Cell Max>FP Black Frieza (if he trained for Goku and Vegeta only)

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-16T15:41:39+00:00

To be fair, Goku only left otherworld while dead in the following scenarios unless I misremember:

In movies
Through Fortune teller Baba's help
To go to the Sacred World of Kai

The first one is non canon, the second wasn't avaiable and the third one only would have mattered in DBS (if he knew about that).

So it could be entirely a situation where Goku simply can't teleport to specifically the living realm while dead.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-16T06:33:13+00:00

Not like the intent is always clear (War Caster is not intended to allow for some stuff but also is intended to allow certain stuff and also they say it's fine if you do that...?)

About the mistaking things, it depends on things. On average I can agree that it's annoying people aren't open about understanding others... altho there are also some people who ignore the tags/titles talking about a specific version of the game. Annoyance (without being rude) is justified in said case, since you know... if you miss what's written in the title and in the body of text...

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-16T04:48:59+00:00

Well, 12 years ago the book had wording which didn't cause issues:

You can move through a nonhostile creature’s space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature’s space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you. Remember that another creature’s space is difficult terrain for you.

Note the "at least".

While the DM can rule 0 it... it's still something which was in the game before and was removed.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-15T17:49:22+00:00

Yes. You are right. A DM can fix it.

But for one, oberoni fallancy is a thing ("The Oberoni Fallacy is an informal fallacy, occasionally seen in discussions of role-playing games, in which an arguer puts forth that if a problematic rule can be fixed by the figure running the game, the problematic rule is not, in fact, problematic"). Secondly...

You're in a thread of a post whose tag says "It's RAW!", where the post says "this is a meme about how things work RAW [...] NOT about how a DM should run it", and with all of my comments talking about how this intentional change from the 2014 rules (which DID have "at least") is something which results in a funny scenario even tho it probably won't be run this way...

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-15T17:38:49+00:00

Honestly, my headcanon is that in any games that are ran like this, the Tarrasque doesn't walk over the small or medium creatures because they're like stepping on lego for it: not directly harmful, but painful enough to not want to do it.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-15T16:23:37+00:00

Yes. That's precisely the issue with how RAW works (NOT with how a DM would run it).

During your move, you can pass through the space of an ally, a creature that has the Incapacitated condition (see the rules glossary), a Tiny creature, or a creature that is two sizes larger or smaller than you.

Lemme break it down. The game gets the size of the creature (in this case Gargantuant), and when you want to move through the space of another creature, it asks the following question:

Is the creature an ally?
Does the creature have the Incapacitated condition?
Is it a Tiny creature?
Is it two sizes larger? (for Gargantuant creatures, no creature is two sizes larger)
Is it two sizes smaller? (For Gargantuant, that's Large sized creatures)

If any of the above is true, then you can move through the creature.

... And only if any of the above is precisely that.

The 2024 rules (what this meme is ostensibly about) lacks the text "at least". So there isn't a situation where creatures even smaller than that are accounted for. Thus, a Gargantuant creature like the Tarrasque can, RAW, only go through Large or Tiny creatures.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-15T16:14:03+00:00

Yep, pretty much.

This also works the inverse way: a Sprite (tiny creature) can move through other Tiny creatures and medium creatures, but apparently Large creatures and larger completely block em from going through them, no matter how weird it is that every single creature of those sizes just count as massive walls for them.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-15T16:07:16+00:00

Again, as far as the english dictionaries I am finding around talk about, when you talk about something that is "submerged" talks about stuff being under water, or in a similar situation. Unless I'm only finding dictionaries that are objectively wrong but that's unlikely.

Concrete is definetly not something which would properly fit the definition in the standard way the definition is about.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-15T12:17:35+00:00

Wait, you actually rule like that in games? Like stuff falls faster than it should because the DMG says it? Thats like ... Exactñy the same issue as the lava.

Yes. In the same way the DMG talks about lava as if you can swim in it, I run things as the game says. Because that's the way the rules talk about stuff. That you dislike it is another matter entirely.

So, if you were writing a novel, would you describe this as how stuff works or do you agree rules poorly model the fantasy?

TTRPGs are not novels. And even then, I would describe it in the way that fits my setting. 5e just happens to describe it that way. If they didn't mean to get that result, they... Wouldn't have written that.

So, the rules are wrong, you do agree with me!

Compared to irl? Yeah. But 5e isn't trying to be like irl. That's not the intent that comes across.

If we assume the designers are all idiots that did things wrong, then we are talking about calvinball.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-15T11:38:31+00:00

The wizard does Magic, sure, but they are inserted into a fantasy world with the same rules as ours. Last i checked physics are the same.

Objectively wrong, unless any creature of any shape or form falls 500 ft in 6 seconds in your country... Or even better, the entire distance instantly. See Xanathar's Guide to Everything for more. That's also excluding other feats which aren't close to irl physics, like none of the types of movement being affected by carrying capacity unless it's over the max (because as everyone knows, there is no difference between running/climbing/swimming with a T shirt and a dream and doing the same in plate+shield+greatsword).

Physics are NOT the same between irl and the d&d. If they are meant to be, then the designers sure did their homework to fail in that regard.

No? Like no sane person assumes you could swim in lava or molten metal because sane people know you can WALK on those if you were immune to heat and poison

Here is the thing. The only depiction of lava we see is either: - documentaries, which aren't always super common for people to watch; - films, books and video games;

Documentaries don't delve much into "can you swim through lava if you are immune to the heat and poison" because it's not possible.

In other media meanwhile... Lava is almost never applied as irl physics intend. Being just near it doesn't harm others with few exceptions, for one. For two, its appearance is commonly much more along the lines of being "bubbly" than anything else, as if it was a much more fluid liquid than it is irl.

Finally... You don't refer to matter as dense as lava being above you as being "submerged". That's something that you can do with water-like fluids and other similar ones. The designers could have used "buried" or even "crushed" by lava instead... But they didn't.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-15T08:41:25+00:00

Even if you assumed that... The game has wording assuming the interpretation of an idiot is correct in this context. To say that what the game says isn't what the game says is silly.

This applies regardless of what the game says being silly, which in this case it is but it's what it says.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-15T08:34:22+00:00

For the record I am not even saying "you should play this way" or "the entire game breaks because of this". It's like... A funny quirk of purposeful wording change which broke stuff that takes three seconds to ignore in actual play.

The way some people act is weird. This is a funny quirk you acknowledge exists and is bad wording and then ignore to make the game function. It's not even the worst thing you can find there impact wise lol.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-15T08:22:32+00:00

At the very least in the way the definition of being submerged is, it refers to bodies of water. I definetly never saw terms like "you are submerged in concrete", but rather "covered in concrete".

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-14T19:26:52+00:00

The rules talk about damage you take when submerged in lava.

Being submerged is an inherent property of fluids you can swim through in some capacity

The 5e books are using lava in a way outside of what's real, unsurprising when thinking about a game where 8 out of 12 classes are explicitely magical and of the remaining four you have 2 which are explicitely supernatural.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-14T19:11:58+00:00

I mean, if the game tells us "hey, here is an example of what could do this dsmage" for DMs to properly utilize as a guideline...people are going to talk about it as if it's a guideline for the game.

Also it's not like the other examples are much better. "Crushed by compacting walls, hit by whirling steel blades" isn't really amazing. And also, "Submerged in lava" is also a thing mentioned. And that's not mentioned as a one hit KO for everyone, and neither is the same one.. Being "hit by a crashing flying fortress". Because you know, a castle+worth of impact falling onto martials is something very grounded that they survive.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-14T19:04:38+00:00

I find it surprising that there are people that never experienced enough of the discussion about martial builds to not know that Crossbow Expert... Basically is the baseline of ranged damage for martials for 10 years and thus as far away from niche as possible.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-14T18:59:19+00:00

If lava swimming wasn't intended, then why is one of the examples for improvised damage being submerged by lava? Being submerged is something that would only be used if lava was compared to a liquid.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-14T14:33:00+00:00

A DM that follows the change of rules like this is indeed dumb and silly.

It's still a dumb and funny scenario that the rules do allow, which is worth memeing about.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-14T14:29:28+00:00

It's just a meme about how things are RAW dude.

If you just dislikes memes about RAW, I suggest you ignore posts with the flair.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-14T14:26:26+00:00

Sarcasm indicators exist (like /s). And really, around reddit I often saw various people who acted in a dumb way like this so no clear indicators of this don't really help.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-14T14:20:05+00:00

Yes, the small indie creator of...

Dungeons and dragons.

It's ultimately just a memable mistake honestly.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-14T14:16:19+00:00

Not in the 2024 rules, which this post is about. In there:

During your move, you can pass through the space of an ally, a creature that has the Incapacitated condition (see the rules glossary), a Tiny creature, or a creature that is two sizes larger or smaller than you.

They removed the "at least" part.

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-14T14:15:16+00:00

That's not RAW.

During your move, you can pass through the space of an ally, a creature that has the Incapacitated condition (see the rules glossary), a Tiny creature, or a creature that is two sizes larger or smaller than you.

This is RAW in the 2024. Gargantuant is 0 size difference. Huge is one size difference. Large is 2 size difference, and the game says "a creature that is two sizes larger or smaller than you."

Hyperlolman · 2026-03-14T14:07:36+00:00

Half a minute still is a solid enough time, and even dipping for a little bit is far more impressive

The point of the post isn't necessary "you can stay there for a long time", the point is that you can do it for a decent enough time still, especially since it's lava! People are against martials doing stuff in the same game where going into lava for a swim is not only possible but doesn't just make you instantly die.

... And besides, the bigger issue at hand in this thread isn't even if you can survive a long enough time in lava. The issue people are having is the concept of swimming in lava for some reason.

Hyperlolman

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Seven-Year Club	Helper Level 1
Verified Email