southsamurai @ southsamurai @sh.itjust.works

Posts

12

Comments

4,217

Joined

2 yr. ago

I mean, take the stupid hat off, it might help

I wouldn't know much about 5e in general, and I genuinely appreciate that information.

I've only ever run a few games, and played 5e twice. 3.5 is/was a bit more "punchy" with illusions from what I've read (and that's what the post asked about).

It's a matter of opinion, honestly.

3.5 illusion spells are kinda unbalanced compared to other schools. There's some really good ones, with some really bad ones, and not much in between.

Or, that's what some people think.

Others see illusion as a very versatile school that takes skill as a player to make optimum use of, but when that's the case it can be the most potent school.

With that in mind, a gnome illusionist in early game is going to have a nice edge from the racial fe at. If they stack more spell focus, even if it's just 1 more, a +2 to DC can be a major benefit even in the high teen levels.

I've had a player run a gnome illusionist, and it can be a fun class/race combo. A lot of layered fakery, distractions, controls. You use the class right, and you can control a battlefield with almost no risk. Since the will save on most illusion spells is opposed by wizards and clerics rather well, a point or two to the DC can be enough to dominate combat. If you can befuddle the ones most likely to see right through your efforts, the rest have way less chance.

But, you'd only benefit if you went that route. Illusion as a school has other aspects, and the trickery side of things might not be what you want, so taking Gnome only because if the free spell focus wouldn't do much

Ahhhh, gotcha.

Yeah, unless you're talking about transmissions pulled out and leaking fluid allll over the pavement like a dirty, dirty power transfer whore, tranny isn't an ideal word choice nowadays. Which, if you're using some of that sexy, slippery fluid to pleasure yourself while flipping through c/hotmopartrannies, carry on.

It was never exactly a good word to use, though it wasn't as widely known that it was predominantly used in a derogatory manner back in the eighties and early nineties when it got more common in usage.

But nowadays, the only people that use it regularly are bigots, so if you aren't one, and you use it, chances are that people will assume the worst, what with the worst often being the case.

But, you know, if you've got any pics of a Muncie m20 just sitting around, you know, maybe don't Bogart that shit

Well, I would give you the answer, but since I snapped back as soon as I read the post, I'm now responding what has been 650 years later for me, and I'm too fucking old for this shit a second time. I bypassed getting snapped back this time by just not reading the post and coming straight in to comment.

Now, what will happen if I read the

There's a reason they're called the gICEtapo

See, to all you doubters, you didn't pay enough attention to the Hulk

See, what happens is that the pizza gets hit with the exact dose of gamma needed to kick start the transformation into Pizzulk. Then, the bottomless rage of pineapple haters fills it up, and cooks it from the inside out

Allergies.

I'm allergic to bee venom, so I developed a phobia of them after my second sting at about 5 years old.

It took me until my thirties to start working on the phobia.

I reached a point where I was able to encounter bees, wasps, and hornets without fleeing or freaking out. I even caught a bumblebee that got into the house a few weeks ago and released it. Well, me and my kid did, it got into a weird corner and it took both of us to get it captured without hurting it.

But, back in my early twenties, I once ran away from a bumblebee that was doing absolutely nothing, leaving my patient standing there confused.

Those two events encapsulate my bee experience perfectly lol.

As it stands, as long as a nest of hornets or wasps isn't in my yard, I'm okay with them. In my yard, if there's nobody willing to relocate them, they ded.

Other bees and bee like critters are all good, though I would call the beekeeper that I know if a hive set up shop in the yard because he has promised he'd do so. And I know him because he was a total bro when I randomly called him and explained I was working through a phobia, and could he help with a few things. Dude went so far above and beeyond it was crazy.

Not only did he bring out single bees for visits in those little queen boxes, he did so with it taking a half hour each way, and turned turn gas money. Then, once I was chill with holding the box, he bought a freaking suit that would fit my sasquatch ass, just so I could visit his hives. Said that since he had started lifting, it was an investment in his success in getting beefed up, but dude is all of 5'7, and even though he does lift regularly is still way smaller than me, and always will be.

Anyway, point is that it eventually got to the point that I could visit his hives without the suit, though not up close. way closer than I ever thought possible, because it was close enough that bees were in the air around us. And I had my epipen in hand. But still.

That's tangential to what you actually asked, but I do view flying, stinging insects with a different emotion than anything else. Bumblers are as close to zero reaction as it gets because they're just so chill. As long as I see them instead of them buzzing me before I can track them, I can sit and watch them.

Honey bees, it's number based. Once there's more than a few, I can't track them all, so I tend to get nervous and exit the vicinity calmly.

Wasps and hornets, I do not fuck with. That clenching in my guts when they're nearby is not ever going away, I don't think. But, I don't run screaming like a child any more.

But other than that, my likes and dislikes are fairly broad. Like, I don't even hate roaches and mosquitoes, I just don't want them around because of health risks. I can see the beauty in them, I can appreciate them without an "ugh" factor. Compare that to seeing up close pictures of hornets where, as much as I recognize their beauty, it's a horrifying beauty.

Now, how much I like something is pretty damn arbitrary. I love tigers, but lions are just cool. Why? No fucking idea. I like reptiles, but it's not an emotional thing. It's "oh, cool, a snake. So, what were we talking about?"

Dogs and cats, I don't even factor into this kind of thing because we've coevolved with both for so long that they're part of us.

But, chickens. Fucking chickens! We have some now, and I love the things. Growing up, the chickens I knew were all food production. Small scale, a dozen or so layers that could be used as meat in a pinch, plus some being raised for meat. So they weren't exactly socialized with humans. If you weren't bringing them food, and weren't bothering them, they DNGAF about you.

But, our first one was taken in young, as a sorta rescue. So he got socialized part way. Then we got a hen that was hand raised, and very young, and she very much enjoys being with her people, so she's much more personable with humans in general. And even the half feral hen that has joined us is a delight in her own way, despite not wanting contact directly. They're all dumber than dammit, and messy and loud, but that's part of what's great about them too.

Two years ago, at this point in 2023, if you told me that the best part of my evenings would be cuddling on my couch with a chicken, I would have assumed you were tripping balls. And if you told me I'd be willing to die for a chicken, I'd have told you you were an idiot. But here I am, perfectly willing to run into the yard and take off after a coyote because it was fucking with my rooster. Which, I forgot the damn shotgun as far as that goes, which is also a good indicator of exactly how upset I was. Ran right past the thing, broke a hinge on the door and was as close to running as I get. Had to spend two days in bed recovering from screwing up my back during it, but I'd still do it again.

I fucking love my chickens, and that love has spread to other chickens. The one feral rooster that runs around used to annoy the shit out of me, but now I look forward to him, my rooster, and the little bantam rooster at another house serenading everyone. When the ferals pay a visit, or the flock from the other nearby house that keeps birds get loose and show up, I'm watching and smiling, even if I don't go join them.

Ahhh, I made the error of forgetting to note that it does vary by location. Thank you :)

Aight, you seem to want to ignore the legal benefits, so I won't mention that beyond saying that it is a hell of a lot easier to get married than to figure out all the paperwork needed to duplicate it, and not even have the exact same outcomes, just the majority. The tax thing, for example, you can't file jointly if you aren't married, no matter what else you set up (edit: in places where things like common law marriage aren't recognized)

The biggest thing is the experience, imo. The memory.

Now, me and my wife went to the JoP, with our kid and required witnesses (my best friend and his husband).

No fancy reception, no major party, just went home and said to my dad "we're back, no problems." He said congratulations, and went back to watching TV.

Total spent was about a hundred bucks, including gas. And the memories of it are wonderful, we cherish it all, and we're happy as hell we didn't do anything else.

Wedding ceremonies, however, are expensive once you go beyond that bare minimum. That's a cultural/sociological thing where the needs of the individual and the culture mesh into not only believing it necessary, but beneficial.

And, for the people that want it, it is beneficial. Ceremonies, rites, rituals, they serve a purpose beyond the legal or official status that comes with them. Weddings are as much about community as they are the couple. It's the union being both recognized and celebrated at the same time, even when it's a secular ceremony rather than religious.

Don't get me wrong, the money spent on empty bullshit surrounding weddings is absurd. But the actual wedding, where the community stands around the couple is incredibly powerful in terms of validation, even when it's the license that really matters legally. You can have ceremonies without the license; I performed several of them back before same sex marriage became legal. Those events were important, and doubly so because they had no legal standing.

I think that's what you're missing, that there's a massive difference between two people shacking up and marriage. When the people involved swear an oath, and/or exchange symbols of union it means something, even if there's no witnesses, not even someone to perform a ceremony. But as you move into witnesses and an officiant, it feels different because it is a public commitment. You can still divorce or whatever, but it happened, and you can never deny that. That moment, the vows, they exist in a way they don't if you swear only to each other.

Yeah, two people can be just as committed, and honor their commitment perfectly without anything else. But it feels different.

Now, again, I'd argue that once you start shelling out for crazy dresses and cake and niche receptions, you hit diminishing returns very quick. That's to satisfy other things, not the union itself. It may well make people happy, but it doesn't add anything to the underlying point of there being a ceremony in the first place. That of saying to the world "where once there were two, now there are one".

Not that anyone has to share the valuation, but it's what underlies the whole thing, and it has value

Id say it's the mindset of the experienced linux user that matters.

If you're willing to tell a person, "if you run into trouble, call me", and then follow up when they do, half the fight is over.

Most people, they try it and it's fine, as long as the basics are there. You show them where the browser and email are, set up desktop shortcuts to important stuff, and answer questions, and they'll eventually not even think about the fact that it isn't windows.

But the first time they run into trouble, and you can't give them an answer in a reasonable amount of time, they blame Linux, because they forgot how long it took them to figure out windows originally, and aren't willing to look things up even if that's what they did when they ran into a Windows problem.

So, you gotta play tech support for a while if you're the one introducing them.

You aren't going to change mindsets inside someone else in any realistic timeframe.

Copy pasta incoming!

Sunfish

From u/tea_and_biology

Zoologist here; the majority of this is so inaccurate the guy is basically angry at a figment of his own imagination, paha. I mean there's hyperbole, and then there's hyperbole. Yikes!

They are so completely useless that scientists even debate about how they move. They have little control other than some minor wiggling. So they don't have swim bladders. You know, the one thing that every fish has to make sure it doesn't just sink to the bottom of the ocean when they stop moving and can stay the right side up. This creature. That can barely move to begin with. Can never stop its continuous tour of idiocy across the ocean or it'll fucking sink.

Sunfish are, in fact, well understood and, though clumsy when idly basking, are reasonably accomplished swimmers when diving. They stroke their dorsal and anal fins laterally and in a synchronous manner to generate a lift-based thrust that enables 'em to cruise at speeds of 2-3mph (source), comparable to a whale shark and the perfect speed for suction feeding; ploughing straight into smacks of jellyfish and gobbling 'em all up.

Where they excel amongst fish is their ability to undergo substantial vertical movement in the water column. They possess large deposits of low-density, subcutaneous, gelatinous tissue which, unlike a swim bladder (which would otherwise change volume with hydrostatic pressure), is incompressible, enabling rapid depth changes and keeping them neutrally and stably buoyant independent of surrounding water pressure.

So, yeah, their unusual bodies are basically one big paddle, capable of putting some force behind their swimming to move over considerable distances, descending very deep, very fast.

They mostly only eat jellyfish because of course they do, they could only eat something that has no brain and a possibility of drifting into their mouths I guess. Everything they do eat has almost zero nutritional value and because it's so stupidly fucking big, it has to eat a ton of the almost no nutritional value stuff to stay alive.

Dumb. Also incorrect. Jellyfish and other Cnidarians comprise only around 15% of their diet; they mostly eat young fish (including conger eelets) and crustaceans (pelagic crab, krill, copepods etc.), alongside squid, bivalves and other assorted zooplankton. They're generalist predators, not jellyfish specialists like sea turtles (source).

They have a particularly rapid growth rate amongst bony fish, owing much to their unique genetics (source).

Some scientists have speculated that when they do that, they are absorbing energy from the sun because no one fucking knows how they manage to get any real energy to begin with. So they need the sun I guess.

They spend the majority of their time actively hunting in the very cold deep (usually at ~200m, but up to 600m) and, being ectotherms, therefore regulate their temperature by basking in the sun, before pursuing another dive. Think of marine iguanas basking on hot rocks between nibble trips.

And this concludes why I hate the fuck out of this complete failure of evolution, the Ocean Sunfish. If I ever see one, I will throw rocks at it.

Sunfish have been kicking about in temperate and tropical waters worldwide for around 50 million years and, until humans arrived on the scene, were overwhelmingly successful in their ecological niche. Sadly they're under threat by human activity and human activity alone - frequently caught as by-catch; having little commercial value, like sharks, their fins are cut off before they're dumped, often still alive, back into the sea to die. If one is to start throwing rocks at terrible creatures, perhaps one should look at us humans first.

Or, there's The visual rebuttal, credit to u/iamnotburgerking

Ehhhh, I think you screwed up by over explaining. The point you're endlessly actually asking about makes sense, and it's a valid discussion to have, but it's buried when you're trying to ask something. There's a limit in the human brain to how much information you can track in a question before you start losing parts. There's one for raw information as well, but it's bigger and easier to bypass. I hope, because this is going to be a long response.

The reason that "super straight" is offensive is because it implies that attraction to a trans person isn't heterosexual when the expressed gender would make the attraction hetero. By the very fact that "super" is used as the modifier, it implies better as well. And that's just bullshit, which I think you pretty much said despite it being buried.

If you have some need to draw a distinction between heterosexuality that includes trans partners, it's inherently trans exclusionary. There's nothing wrong with not being attracted to trans people, it's when the implication is that there's a difference between heterosexuals that do and haven't experienced that attraction that you run into the wall.

However, for the purposes of discussing the matter, I think either cis-exclusive hetero or trans-exclusionary hetero would be the most effective terms cis-exclusive would mean that your attraction is limited to cis people, with no rejection of transness in that you would be expressing it as attraction first. Trans,exclusionary would be for those that reject transness ideologically or for reasons other than raw attraction.

Now, I think it important to note that a lack of attraction by itself doesn't mean anything else. It isn't some kind of glaring proof of bigotry. The way humans form attraction leads to the unfamiliar having a greater weight in what base attractions factor in. As an example, not being attracted to white people doesn't mean you're a bigot, it just means that the collective set of characteristics of white people doesn't match your inner "template".

Now, that template may well have been formed because of bigotry, be it internal or external, but it isn't the proof of the pudding. Just by virtue of growing up with little or no exposure to other physical traits than your own ethnicity can cause your template to be limited to those that look most like what you're used to. The unfamiliar is, on a primitive level, a questionable source for mates.

It's how people handle their templates that matters, not that they have them. If I say "white women are ugly", that's shitty, and a form of bigotry. If I say "I've never met a white woman that I've been attracted to", that's a statement of fact (well, not for me personally, this is an example, not a statement of my own preferences). Now, I could be saying it politely and still be a bigot, but saying it isn't proof of bigotry.

This applies to trans people too. Acknowledging that you've never felt attraction to a trans person is a statement. Saying that they're ugly is shitty, and is probably bigotry, depending on the reasoning. Saying they aren't women/men is bigotry.

So, the why matters more than actual terminology, which means that more options in terminology are helpful when discussing the matter in general. The two I suggested are already what I use in my head when thinking about the subject of attraction as a whole, and how transness factors into the individual "templates".

Now, as a personal example, I don't have many limits in terms of what kind of women I feel attraction to. Race has never factored in at all. The range of physical features I feel attraction to is very broad, and tends to be more about details than categories (like noses; size doesn't factor in, proportions do). As such, I can't ever say I wouldn't be attracted to a trans woman. I can, however, say that I would never be attracted to a trans man because I've never been attracted to a man. Tbh, I've never experienced attraction to anyone that strongly presented as male, even when I knew they were women. My inner template has an edge in the androgynous range of features and traits, and once it crosses into a perception of a person being a man/male, attraction goes away.

I included that as a comparison, because what/who I personally feel attraction to isn't the same as examples used. For the same reason, I specifically have experienced attraction to trans women, but never in a circumstance where it mattered. Thus, I don't fit either the cis-exclusive or trans-exclusionary labels, to the best of my self awareness.

Now, I get it. Trans identity is only fairly recently in general awareness. It's been in my lifetime that it went from being something even most bigots didn't really know existed (and they look for people to hate because that's their fetish, hate) to being something that's a topic of common discussion. So there's going to be people that just don't know enough to matter still talking about the subject. Ignorance isn't the same as hate, though they sometimes wear the same hat. That's where some if the things you talked about (l.e. "secretly gay") come from. They just don't get it.

That's why I agree that the term "super" straight/gay is bullshit and needs to go away. But there is room for terminology to indicate the layers of attraction in conversation, as long as people aren't being dicks about it

Yup, que

Doesn't have to be all at once, or even immediate. It's a process. Reunions, alumni activities, that kind of thing are going to give you the start. You run into someone that knows someone, you ask if they'll help you make contact.

Nah, to be a large nose, it has to be out of proportion to the rest of the head, and his isn't.

Well, whether or not it makes you a bad person now is up to you.

Regret, shame, they're a great start, but they're not enough to make you a good person.

Number one is taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. Yeah, some of that is fixed by getting older and developing more. But not all of it. The proclivity to follow others alone is something you have to root out of yourself.

But a big factor is what you do with what already happened. Have you tried to make amends? Not everyone will want to deal with you again, and even those that will give you a chance might not accept any apologies. And you have to accept that, because an apology to make yourself feel better isn't an apology, it's a continuation of your abuse to others.

You fucked with people, now you gotta make it right.

I love the typo because it covers so many things at once

Queue as in they're lining up to do it; cue, as in that's their cue to be stupid; and que (spanish for what) as in what the fuck are they thinking?

With a face like that, he doesn't even have to try