MAN, do I miss Smiling Jack. He stole the show.
Anonymous asked:
What do you think wotc's biggest failing with 5e is, even if you like it?
The shift from a focus on expanding content that anyone can use as much or as little as they want to full-fledged (if you want to call it that) published adventures.
I loved 3.5 because there was SO MUCH. Yeah, not all of it was 100% balanced well, but they made it. And it was FUN. Prestige classes? GREAT. It made many characters feel unique. It gave people a direction and a flavor for their characters from early levels and let them build for niche circumstances that could be very campaign specific. The GRAY GUARD? Be still my heart. The necromancy options. Lovely.
They put out FIVE monster manuals. FIVE. They built entire systems of spellcasting that were entirely optional. I know they were a little controversial, but I LOVED the stuff in Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, and the PSIONICS. Psionics were controversial but SHIT I loved psionics.
3.5 focused on giving people tons of options, and letting you pick what you wanted. Plus, it gave players an incentive to actually buy books. (Hey Wizards, if you want them to buy books, go back to this model lmao)
5e simply doesn't trust people to make their own fun.
My favorite mermaid art is the one of a family photo with a mermaid mother and old sailor father and their sons are both reverse merfolk (human legs with fish heads).
This is the one!
It's by Jessica Warrick.
ive literally just given up on using eyeshadow on my upper lid because my big droopy eyebrows keep covering them so any time i actually use makeup this happens the second i switch to a neutral expression
i pogchamp and you are immediately flashbanged by my hyper reflective ultra highlight glitter gel eyeshadow and liner combo attack
Op with this knowledge
The way Ryoko Kui draws women, yes, absolutely, I completely agree, phenomenal, but can we talk about the way she drew the winged lion.
Like. Like
Little victories every day
Kind of a random hill to die on rn but "You'd eat this thing you hate if you got hungry enough" does not set a reasonable expectation of what "hungry enough" means for people with food problems.
Like, are we talking "stomach grumbling" hungry enough, or "can't stand up" hungry enough? Cause personally, I can make myself eat a bit of a pork chop if I'm barfy and shaking and can't see straight anymore, but if it's down to "black out for three days and wake up angry and confused" or "willingly swallow prosciutto", I'm having sleep for dinner. And I know this from experience.
People without food problems don't seem to understand this and it drives me insane. "Hungry enough" is for shit like chewing drywall because the alternative is death or cannibalism.
If I say I can't eat something, It means I can't eat it. It Is Not Edible To Me. It's not even appetizing. It literally does not register as food. You might as well hand me a rubber duck.
And it's frustrating!! Trust me, I wish I wasn't like this, too!! This isn't a choice!! I know it can be rude!! It's embarassing!! It's complicated and annoying and irrational!! That doesn't fix the problem!!
I just wish people didn't treat this sort of thing as "being picky" or lacking willpower or basic manners or something. I can't make myself eat certain foods the way you probably couldn't cut your own fingers off. Does that make sense? It's not just food. Fuck
birdcageheart
“Whut deh fuhk? Is he using duh bät room?”
“Yeh, he’s üsing teh bätroom”
*man in the video opens stall only to find that the monster is, in fact, using the bathroom*