u ever think about how ur skeleton is always wet

person: “what instrument do you play” this guy: “i play the chair”

Bottle rocket under ice

Have you ever seen such audacity?

Neighborhood feud. My wife and I have a United Federation of Planets flag hanging on our house. My neighbors just hung a Klingon flag on theirs.

schrodinger's chekhov's gun. a detail in a story that looks like it should have some big payoff but it's too early to tell if that's relevant or if the author just has a passion for lovingly describing guns.

reddit but in the pokemon universe, part 4 [1, 2, 3]

Is joining the church right for me?

I mean, I don’t know you, anonymous friend, and I have no point of reference for what would be right for you. This should be a matter of prayer between you and God, both of whom will deliver a much wiser consultation on the question than I can.

I’m sad to say that I can’t offer my unalloyed endorsement to join with the Latter-day Saints, that our conduct as an institution and the conduct of our members means there are many asterisks involved. It would be easier to recommend if we, as a people, had nurtured any talent for repentance—but we are still in an adolescent phase of asserting our infallibility and sticking our fingers in our ears when approached with the problems we have created for ourselves (or, at least, this is the official line from corporate). We are still at a place where we hurt too many of God’s children too easily. If your local congregation is more kind, more tolerant, more given to reconciliation, and more pragmatic than average—in short, more saintly—then joining with them could be a great choice for you. I think having the insights of converts improves LDS wards as a rule and makes them at least a little better and more curious than they would otherwise be, so it would be splendid for them to have you, I think—but your question is if this is right for you.  And any answer there is dependent on details that I simply do not have.

5e Mechanic Variant

I'll admit I don't have every book, nor have I played a ton of systems (6 in total), so I might've just reinvented something that exists. I haven't heard of it though, and its been successful in the sessions I tried it in. It's a variant on 5e's group skill checks. When the group is trying to do something together, instead of a DC 15 four times, you'd do a DC 15 times four, so DC 60. The players add their results together and see if they can beat the DC. What this does is let the players who specialized in a skill help the others out, instead of rolling a 25 and it being functionally the same as a 15. In my opinion there are two primary types of skill checks that can benefit from this. The first is "everyone succeeds or we fail" For instance stealth, the paladin clanking behind might not get YOU caught but it will kill the stealth section. Doesn't matter if you got double the DC, you can either go it alone (killing session pacing and abandoning the party) or you can end stealth. Plus everyone is actively looking for you now, so you might suddenly get found anyway. Now the rogue is showing them the proper path or making small distractions to cover the barbarian's stumble. You don't have party members who feel like they failed everyone, and it gives benefit for specializing because you can help the party. The second is in team checks. Lets say the barbarian wants to topple a stone pillar or push a giant boulder down a hill. He could get advantage from the help action 10 times over, it's not going to make him able to move 4000 lbs of stone. This lets you say "It's like a DC 80, this thing's huge. Then the party gets together and keeps trying (I set a limit on times you can try a strength check before exhaustion) before finally getting that 26+18+14+22 and succeeding. It also lets them know something's technically possible without letting it be within easy reach, giving them a sort of puzzle on how to reach that goal (getting help, using pulleys for advantage, etc) The closest thing I know of this in 5e is "If half the people make it everyone does", but I find this works better. The basic reason is "You work together and overcome the DC 80 skill check" sounds impressive and feels like everyone contributed to a difficult goal nobody could accomplish on their own. "ok cool, the two specialists passed so we'll just call it a win" makes me feel like you shouldn't have bothered asking everyone to roll, just make it a single person check if my roll is just meaningless.

The more complicated reason- it gives the specialized players a reason to continue their specialization. Think of the Rogue, for an easy example. They chose the sneak class to be good at sneaking, right? well now they're level 11, and they don't get to play anymore. They can't roll lower than a 10 and even a CR 30 can't find them without proficiency in perception. The fun minigame they built a character around becomes "I'd like to-" "Don't bother, you're in the next room now, moving on." Future stealth bonuses don't functionally do much. Also your ranger's still angry because they have high stealth too but don't get to use it. With this model, keep buffing your stealth, disguise, whatever, it still helps! It lets you lower the effective DC for your friends. And other people who are proud of their score but don't get to use it because you're better? Well they're really useful now too! Use a group deception to infiltrate, the bard patching holes in the fighter's story. Group acrobatics to make that leap, the others benefitting from having a perfect example to copy and someone to correct their form. Sure, in some cases it's not that functionally different from base rule, but it just feels better to me. I recommend at least trying out something like this. It has worked great for me so far.

thechromaticmusicteacher