I suppose an approach that takes the general intention of your design but is a bit omre mechanically rigorous could be to separate out subclass levels? You level up in one class as always, and every few levels the thing you get on levelling up is a subclass level. Subclasses then only get four or so levels, so you could be a warlock 11 (archfey 1 / fiend 2)
Also any class that gets their subclass at level 1 or 2.
To be fair those are also troublesome for regular multiclassing, or at least they are if you're not using the 2024 "definitely not 5.5E" classes. The paladin with one level in warlock or sorcerer is a perennial favourite for a reason.
I wonder what the best way to go about it would be? It can't just work the same way as regular multiclassing since you'd effectively get no base class features for your second subclass
They would, but they also did. They were herbivores
To be clear I do not actually think that they were as stocky as that pic. Point is that for land animals, though, eating plants actually is often the way to being huge
There was no distinction between V and U when W first started being used. They were considered the same letter, with V just being the style for writing it at the start of words (like that long S that looks like an f). So you would write "have" as haue and "upon" as vpon.
When it was representing a consonant in classical Latin, it sounded like a modern English W. So the famous veni vidi vici - I came, I saw, I conquered - was pronounced more like wenee weedee weekee.
Eventually the V sound started to emerge in some places where Latin and its descendants had used that W sound before, and people started treating the two forms as different letters. By this point the W was already in widespread use, though, so whatever people already called it had a good chance of sticking
The entire breakdown of my electricity bill in the UK is a rate for energy use, a standing charge that is independent of usage, and VAT. Strictly speaking I've got two different usage rates because my heating is on a separate meter, but that's an unusual situation
The post was clearly written sometime in the 14th century when the UU digraph had become widespread but the U-V distinction had not. No wonder it is so yellowed, I'd say it's actually in great condition for its age
I don't think it matters too much because what the family looks like isn't important, but I agree that it seems intended to imply that that is a photo of the family
It is pretty funny that they chose the most stock-photo-looking stock photo ever taken though
That's fine, that just means the ethical question is now "is accessing it in one of those ways worth the consequences of doing so?" You might well say yes or, as others in these comments have, argue that the consequences are negligible. You might say no. It's still a relevant debate in the topic OP is asking about even if we completely accept your position about which ways of getting access are ethical
I think the question includes a discussion of whether or not that access is worth sending money to the author, right? Like, even if OP completely agrees with your position about the author deserving money for access and also wants access, they may want to both avoid sending money to the author and to avoid stealing it more. Of course you mentioned the possibility of finding it in a library and someone else in the thread suggested finding it second hand, which are probably both preferable solutions here if they are practical
I don't think people expect that you have to agree with everyone you give money to, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to try to avoid sending money to a Holocaust denier specifically for his Holocaust denial
While I was joking, of course, France's economy actually was quite a lot more bigger and more powerful than the UK's up until the industrial revolution and the about a century of everything going very badly for France. France was the most populous country in Europe by a wide margin, and back then that basically was the whole economy. It has quite a lot more land than the UK, and that land is a lot more productive too; the north of Wales and most of Scotland do not make for good farmland. Unlike Germany and Italy it united and centralised quite early, and it just outweighed Spain and the Low Countries the same way it did the UK, so for a long time France had the edge over all of its neighbours.
During the Napoleonic wars, France managed to raise forces that matched the UK, Prussia, Austria, and Spain combined in number. Some of that was due to other factors like how he organised it, but you've still got to have the people available somewhere if you want to match four major powers at once
I mean if you take it seriously we do have plenty of good and interesting food, both in traditional and modern cuisine. Hot spice isn't often a part of it, but there's lots of usage of herbs and milder spices. Laverbread, black pudding, haggis (yes, seriously), Worcestershire sauce, and Cornish herby pasty are all solid examples of very traditional foods that are pretty seasoning-forward without even touching the enormous amount of stuff we picked up from other cultures (like the curries)
That's not to say that we don't frequently earn our terrible culinary reputation. We do. Next to our neighbours like France, Spain, and Italy we just do not have the same level of widespread passion for food, and our habits reflect this. A general lack of adventurousness plagues our palates on a national level
I suppose an approach that takes the general intention of your design but is a bit omre mechanically rigorous could be to separate out subclass levels? You level up in one class as always, and every few levels the thing you get on levelling up is a subclass level. Subclasses then only get four or so levels, so you could be a warlock 11 (archfey 1 / fiend 2)