Rater's Ridiculously Rambunctious Random Ranter #229

[The Fury]

Heeey, I feel like I've been a little scarce around here. If you liked me better less active, you're welcome. And also, I'm sorry, since I'm going to try to interact with folks a bit more.

I feel like I've been growing more distant with people in my life. I mean... it's not anyone's fault, it does seem like people I live with don't really have time to deal with me. I shouldn't take it so personally, yet sometimes I feel like I do. They're not shutting me out exactly, but it feel like they are sometimes, and it's making me feel like garbage. This is pretty clearly just nostalgia talking, but I wish we could talk like we used to.

This is getting too whiny and venty... Here's some cute cartoon boys making a heart hand gesture as a palate cleanser.

Spoiler: Cuuute!

Show

[Rater202]

If we're talking D&D, I'm gonna be honest, I've been gravitating more and more towards freeform for gaming, but I admit that recently I've been tempted to see how well I can pull off a Conan or Sonja style "proud Warrior person with flawless skin and rippling muscles who doesn't need armor and flaunts their perfect body honed by years of adventuring" type character. Just to see if that archetype can be pulled off.

Looking at fifth edition, it seems like a Monk is the best best(Technically, Conan and Sonja are barbarians, but Conan's use of Rage is much more situational than Barnabarian Standard) and a female drow culturally might work: I don't know about fifth ed by 3.5 Drow of the Underdark makes a point that Drow dress to protect themselves or cover up flaws in their body that they feel insecure about... Which has led to drow who are personally or politically very powerful to wear outfits that show off a lot of skin when they don't need to cover up for practical reasons.

It mentions, for example, a Drow in a social occasion on the Surface dressing in an outfit that scandalized surface nobles and just... Not getting what the problem is as a roleplaying suggestion, so... It's not hard to go from that to " Loincloth and Boots for male, Leather/Fur/chainmail bikini for female" in the case of warriors who fight best unarmored and are really, really good at it.

And it would need a mature table to avoid the "stripper elf" jokes.

[LaZodiac]

Heeey, I feel like I've been a little scarce around here. If you liked me better less active, you're welcome. And also, I'm sorry, since I'm going to try to interact with folks a bit more.

I feel like I've been growing more distant with people in my life. I mean... it's not anyone's fault, it does seem like people I live with don't really have time to deal with me. I shouldn't take it so personally, yet sometimes I feel like I do. They're not shutting me out exactly, but it feel like they are sometimes, and it's making me feel like garbage. This is pretty clearly just nostalgia talking, but I wish we could talk like we used to.

This is getting too whiny and venty... Here's some cute cartoon boys making a heart hand gesture as a palate cleanser.

Spoiler: Cuuute!

Show

Your friends care about you and things are just different now that you've moved into an apartment. Things will be fine.

That's a very cute piece of art!

If we're talking D&D, I'm gonna be honest, I've been gravitating more and more towards freeform for gaming, but I admit that recently I've been tempted to see how well I can pull off a Conan or Sonja style "proud Warrior person with flawless skin and rippling muscles who doesn't need armor and flaunts their perfect body honed by years of adventuring" type character. Just to see if that archetype can be pulled off.

Looking at fifth edition, it seems like a Monk is the best best(Technically, Conan and Sonja are barbarians, but Conan's use of Rage is much more situational than Barnabarian Standard) and a female drow culturally might work: I don't know about fifth ed by 3.5 Drow of the Underdark makes a point that Drow dress to protect themselves or cover up flaws in their body that they feel insecure about... Which has led to drow who are personally or politically very powerful to wear outfits that show off a lot of skin when they don't need to cover up for practical reasons.

It mentions, for example, a Drow in a social occasion on the Surface dressing in an outfit that scandalized surface nobles and just... Not getting what the problem is as a roleplaying suggestion, so... It's not hard to go from that to " Loincloth and Boots for male, Leather/Fur/chainmail bikini for female" in the case of warriors who fight best unarmored and are really, really good at it.

And it would need a mature table to avoid the "stripper elf" jokes.

Drow are still sexualized and weird in 5e but the general trend is getting away from "we wear basically no clothing and dominate people with whips and webs" because people realized that inflicting Gary Gygax's sexual fetishes on others without consent was weird.

[The Fury]

If we're talking D&D, I'm gonna be honest, I've been gravitating more and more towards freeform for gaming, but I admit that recently I've been tempted to see how well I can pull off a Conan or Sonja style "proud Warrior person with flawless skin and rippling muscles who doesn't need armor and flaunts their perfect body honed by years of adventuring" type character. Just to see if that archetype can be pulled off.

Looking at fifth edition, it seems like a Monk is the best best(Technically, Conan and Sonja are barbarians, but Conan's use of Rage is much more situational than Barnabarian Standard) and a female drow culturally might work: I don't know about fifth ed by 3.5 Drow of the Underdark makes a point that Drow dress to protect themselves or cover up flaws in their body that they feel insecure about... Which has led to drow who are personally or politically very powerful to wear outfits that show off a lot of skin when they don't need to cover up for practical reasons.

It mentions, for example, a Drow in a social occasion on the Surface dressing in an outfit that scandalized surface nobles and just... Not getting what the problem is as a roleplaying suggestion, so... It's not hard to go from that to " Loincloth and Boots for male, Leather/Fur/chainmail bikini for female" in the case of warriors who fight best unarmored and are really, really good at it.

And it would need a mature table to avoid the "stripper elf" jokes.

In theory couldn't you make glamered armor look like some other outfit? I mean... what's the limit here? Can a suit of full plate be made to look like a battle bikini? Oh! Or you could go the shirtless man that wears armor on his arms and legs but not his torso look!

[Anonymouswizard]

Drow are still sexualized and weird in 5e but the general trend is getting away from "we wear basically no clothing and dominate people with whips and webs" because people realized that inflicting Gary Gygax's sexual fetishes on others without consent was weird.

Yeah, which can only be a good thing. While I've never used them, I'd most likely have drow as pale grey skinned in red and black robes.


Sadly 5e doesn't seem to have a way to look through your familiar's eyes passively, which ruins my plans for a Cishaurim Warlock (maybe I could swing a homebrew Pact of the Chain based Invocation). I was going to go for Cleric for the build, but blinding yourself for mystical power feels very much like a Warlock thing.

EDIT: of course now I check the PhB and find the invocation right there. Priest of the Snakred Fire is a workable concept once again!

Yes, I am developing a thing for fantasy characters missing body parts, particularly eyes.

[Rater202]

In theory couldn't you make glamered armor look like some other outfit? I mean... what's the limit here? Can a suit of full plate be made to look like a battle bikini? Oh! Or you could go the shirtless man that wears armor on his arms and legs but not his torso look!

In practice, yes, but that's kind of cheating.

The Barbarian and the Monk, in 5th addition, both get bonuses to Armor Class in 5th edition if they aren't wearing armor.

And I'm leaning towards Monk becuase, despite being Barbarians, Pulp Heroes like Conan or Sanja don't really fight the way Barbarians in the D&D sense do. I want to say that Conan would be a Kensei but he's a master of multiple weapons instead of just some specific ones.

Though a "Forged Heart" path Way of the Living Weapon Monk(Technically Homebrew, but it's Keith Baker making it for the Ebberon setting so...) could easily be refluffed as having the preternatural strength and toughness that a lot of pulp sword and sorcery action heroes demonstrate.

[Peelee]

Heeey, I feel like I've been a little scarce around here. If you liked me better less active, you're welcome. And also, I'm sorry, since I'm going to try to interact with folks a bit more.

I feel like I've been growing more distant with people in my life. I mean... it's not anyone's fault, it does seem like people I live with don't really have time to deal with me. I shouldn't take it so personally, yet sometimes I feel like I do. They're not shutting me out exactly, but it feel like they are sometimes, and it's making me feel like garbage. This is pretty clearly just nostalgia talking, but I wish we could talk like we used to.

This is getting too whiny and venty... Here's some cute cartoon boys making a heart hand gesture as a palate cleanser.

Spoiler: Cuuute!

Show

I met my best friend in cub scouts. In college, he got a new girlfriend. After I met her, we were talking via IM client and he asked me what I thought about her. As I was a very different (and pretty terrible) person at the time, I said a great many unkind things. She was sitting behind him looking at the screen. They eventually married and moved to Huntsville, 100 miles away. By all rights, he should have dumped me as a friend and she should have never liked me.

We are still best friends, and am very good friends with his wife (who is awesome).

You never know what the future holds, even if something seems like a foregone conclusion. I'm optimistic for your relationships. Maybe it's just a period of change and things will eventually settle into a new and comfortable position, even if it's different from how it used to be. And even if things are bad, maybe just being patient and kind will pay off later.

Also that drawing is indeed super cute.

[LaZodiac]

Yeah, which can only be a good thing. While I've never used them, I'd most likely have drow as pale grey skinned in red and black robes.


Sadly 5e doesn't seem to have a way to look through your familiar's eyes passively, which ruins my plans for a Cishaurim Warlock (maybe I could swing a homebrew Pact of the Chain based Invocation). I was going to go for Cleric for the build, but blinding yourself for mystical power feels very much like a Warlock thing.

EDIT: of course now I check the PhB and find the invocation right there. Priest of the Snakred Fire is a workable concept once again!

Yes, I am developing a thing for fantasy characters missing body parts, particularly eyes.

As a DM if you wanted to play a blind character who sees through his familiar I'd just let that be a free action.

[Sermil]

Yes, I am developing a thing for fantasy characters missing body parts, particularly eyes.

I once had a concept for an Ars Magica magus who was congenitally blind. Since she was of House Verditius, her master had 'fixed' this by giving her an amulet with a permanent Intéllego Imáginem spell to let her see images as long as she wore it. Gave her some real problems if she was trying to move fast since she always needed one hand to keep the amulet from flying around, plus no depth perception.

Never did get to play her :(

[The Fury]

In practice, yes, but that's kind of cheating.

The Barbarian and the Monk, in 5th addition, both get bonuses to Armor Class in 5th edition if they aren't wearing armor.

And I'm leaning towards Monk becuase, despite being Barbarians, Pulp Heroes like Conan or Sanja don't really fight the way Barbarians in the D&D sense do. I want to say that Conan would be a Kensei but he's a master of multiple weapons instead of just some specific ones.

Though a "Forged Heart" path Way of the Living Weapon Monk(Technically Homebrew, but it's Keith Baker making it for the Ebberon setting so...) could easily be refluffed as having the preternatural strength and toughness that a lot of pulp sword and sorcery action heroes demonstrate.

Hm. If it's cheating, then the rules shouldn't allow me to do it.

I admit that I have a serious blindspot for 5e. Ever since I got invited to a group on the condition that I both 1.) DM and 2.) Learn 5e, that edition sort of makes me feel intimidated. Which is really unfortunate, because it seems like it's pretty cool.

I met my best friend in cub scouts. In college, he got a new girlfriend. After I met her, we were talking via IM client and he asked me what I thought about her. As I was a very different (and pretty terrible) person at the time, I said a great many unkind things. She was sitting behind him looking at the screen. They eventually married and moved to Huntsville, 100 miles away. By all rights, he should have dumped me as a friend and she should have never liked me.

We are still best friends, and am very good friends with his wife (who is awesome).

You never know what the future holds, even if something seems like a foregone conclusion. I'm optimistic for your relationships. Maybe it's just a period of change and things will eventually settle into a new and comfortable position, even if it's different from how it used to be. And even if things are bad, maybe just being patient and kind will pay off later.

Also that drawing is indeed super cute.

I mean... I can see what's happening. Back when I played Pathfinder at V's house occasionally one of her housemates would show up, say hello and leave without comment. It feels like I'm getting moved into a similar role, based on how they've been with me for the last couple weeks. I'm not used to it yet, and I'm a little salty about it. But given time, I'm sure that I can adjust and get used to it.

I'm glad things ended up good for you though.

[Rater202]

Hm. If it's cheating, then the rules shouldn't allow me to do it.

I admit that I have a serious blindspot for 5e. Ever since I got invited to a group on the condition that I both 1.) DM and 2.) Learn 5e, that edition sort of makes me feel intimidated. Which is really unfortunate, because it seems like it's pretty cool.

Being able to disguise armor as normal clothing with glaors is good for, say, a rogue or bard. Ora warrior who needs to not draw attention to himself.

But using illusions to cover up your armor doesn't work so much when your thing is not wearing armor.

[The Fury]

Being able to disguise armor as normal clothing with glaors is good for, say, a rogue or bard. Ora warrior who needs to not draw attention to himself.

But using illusions to cover up your armor doesn't work so much when your thing is not wearing armor.

What if your thing isn't so much not wearing armor but looking fanservice-y? Gotta show off them abs.

[factotum]

What if your thing isn't so much not wearing armor but looking fanservice-y? Gotta show off them abs.

But if you're using a glamour or illusion you're not showing off your abs, you're showing off your ability to magically pretend to have them. Sure, you might actually have the real thing under the armour and the illusion, but someone looking at you with a True Sight spell active is just going to think you're majorly faking it.

[BisectedBrioche]

I've finally gotten word of my mixer!

The bad news is that I need to pay another £15 on top of what I've already paid, for spare parts. And they still don't know when it'll be fixed.

[Anonymouswizard]

As a DM if you wanted to play a blind character who sees through his familiar I'd just let that be a free action.

Sure, most people would, until I try to abuse it.

I've finally gotten word of my mixer!

The bad news is that I need to pay another £15 on top of what I've already paid, for spare parts. And they still don't know when it'll be fixed.

Ouch.


I'm in an annoying situation at the moment. My bank won't let me party to fix my phone unless I type in a code that's sent... to my phone. Which I sent off for repair because it won't charge.

[LaZodiac]

Sure, most people would, until I try to abuse it.


I'm in an annoying situation at the moment. My bank won't let me party to fix my phone unless I type in a code that's sent... to my phone. Which I sent off for repair because it won't charge.

And how exactly would you abuse it?

That's VERY stupid. Banks are dumb as hell.

[The Fury]

But if you're using a glamour or illusion you're not showing off your abs, you're showing off your ability to magically pretend to have them. Sure, you might actually have the real thing under the armour and the illusion, but someone looking at you with a True Sight spell active is just going to think you're majorly faking it.

...I'm failing to see the downside here. In my mind it's all about the look.

[Mystic Muse]

And how exactly would you abuse it?

That's VERY stupid. Banks are dumb as hell.

"Let's charge somebody with no money $34 for not having money in their account!"-Banks.

[Anonymouswizard]

And how exactly would you abuse it?

I'm trying to remember the range limit on sense sharing for nonmagical familiars, but unless you have to be literally right by them I'm not she how being able to see through the eyes of an animal isn't good for scouting.

.... There's an incredibly harsh range limit isn't there? Like 5-10 feet.

Eh, still turns or to be doable completely RAW with three levels of Warlock.

That's VERY stupid. Banks are dumb as hell.

I'm not 100% sure if it's my bank or the service provider my phone company picked to deal with transactions. The first is terminally stupid* but understandable, the second downright exploitative.

* At least not allowing an alternative form of sending the code, like email or post.

[LaZodiac]

I'm trying to remember the range limit on sense sharing for nonmagical familiars, but unless you have to be literally right by them I'm not she how being able to see through the eyes of an animal isn't good for scouting.

.... There's an incredibly harsh range limit isn't there? Like 5-10 feet.

Eh, still turns or to be doable completely RAW with three levels of Warlock.

I'm not 100% sure if it's my bank or the service provider my phone company picked to deal with transactions. The first is terminally stupid* but understandable, the second downright exploitative.

* At least not allowing an alternative form of sending the code, like email or post.

The range limit is 100 feet and I mean yeah it's kind of abusable I Suppose but, blind or not, Find Familiar says that as an action you can do this. So this is always an option for anyone with a familiar. I'm just saying "you don't have to use an action to do it because you need this to see" which is literally irrelevant to balance.

[Peelee]

"Let's charge somebody with no money $34 for not having money in their account!"-Banks.

Imean, what are those people gonna do? Not be poor?

[Anonymouswizard]

I've found that the easiest way to deal with these things is to go in to a physical branch of the bank and talk to a human being. All that security stuff is to stop hackers who might have stolen various parts of your personal info, but you can skip a lot of that if you are standing in an office where an actual human can compare your actual photo ID with your actual face.

Yes, unfortunately I'm not free to do so until Saturday.


What annoys me is that, when given three ways to pay to fix my phone, two give a 404 error and one asks me for a code sent to my phone. I know it's to stop hackers, but this feels like the one situation where 'I can't do that, I don't have a phone' should be a common problem.

I mean, I could theoretically solve it by getting a dumb phone to have the message sent to, but it annoys me on principle.

[The Fury]

I got time off from work so I could visit family on the other side of the state. It ended up not happening on account of a plumbing leak getting discovered in my building.

I ended up being home a lot more often than usual and... I think I really need to be at work more often. I kind of already knew that I'm someone best in smaller doses. On the plus side, the plumbing's fixed. We just need new bathroom flooring.

[tomandtish]

Banks are open on Saturday where you live? Must be nice.

In other news, basically everyone for several counties around me has no electricity because of Hurricane Zeta. A lot of roads were blocked by trees this morning, but since I live in a community where basically every male (and a large percentage of females as well) owns a chainsaw, that was a very temporary problem.

In the US most banks seem to have at least some branches that are open on Saturday for limited hours. Mine is normally open 7-5, but does 9-2 on Saturday (and loan services aren't available on Sat. Since you're talking about Zeta I suspect you live in Louisiana? Bank of Louisiana has some branches open on Sat, as does B1. Are you extremely rural?

[tomandtish]

And how exactly would you abuse it?

That's VERY stupid. Banks are dumb as hell.

Imean, what are those people gonna do? Not be poor?

I'm not 100% sure if it's my bank or the service provider my phone company picked to deal with transactions. The first is terminally stupid* but understandable, the second downright exploitative.

* At least not allowing an alternative form of sending the code, like email or post.

Unfortunately, when talking banks it's not at all stupid (from their perspective). Banks make money in two ways: by charging fees and penalties on your accounts/loans,/etc., and by charging interest on money they loan. An empty account is not making them money in interest, so it makes money in fees. And if your a person who regularly has an empty or nearly empty account, the bank doesn't particularly want you. Fees are their way of either getting money from you or getting rid of you.

From a cost to consumer basis, credit unions are much better.

**Sorry for double post. Site was being irritation and wouldn't let me edit the original.

[LaZodiac]

Unfortunately, when talking banks it's not at all stupid (from their perspective). Banks make money in two ways: by charging fees and penalties on your accounts/loans,/etc., and by charging interest on money they loan. An empty account is not making them money in interest, so it makes money in fees. And if your a person who regularly has an empty or nearly empty account, the bank doesn't particularly want you. Fees are their way of either getting money from you or getting rid of you.

From a cost to consumer basis, credit unions are much better.

**Sorry for double post. Site was being irritation and wouldn't let me edit the original.

You say all of that as if it isn't incredibly stupid.

If I'm being paid to hold onto things for you, and I currently have zero things of yours, I'm not charging you.

[tomandtish]

You say all of that as if it isn't incredibly stupid.

If I'm being paid to hold onto things for you, and I currently have zero things of yours, I'm not charging you.

Except you're looking at it backwards. They aren't being paid for holding things for you. YOU are paying for the privilege of letting them invest your money and earn interest on it, while granting you some basic accesses to it. If your account is empty, you aren't paying them.

it a system ripe for corruption and abuses, but it's how banks have made money for decades, so it obviously works FOR THEM. The trap to avoid is thinking that any of this is set up with the intent of benefiting you substantially.

In short, the system isn't stupid, because it does what they intend. WE may be stupid for participating, since the only way the system changes is if enough people choose not to engage with it.

[Tvtyrant]

Except you're looking at it backwards. They aren't being paid for holding things for you. YOU are paying for the privilege of letting them invest your money and earn interest on it, while granting you some basic accesses to it. If your account is empty, you aren't paying them.

it a system ripe for corruption and abuses, but it's how banks have made money for decades, so it obviously works FOR THEM. The trap to avoid is thinking that any of this is set up with the intent of benefiting you substantially.

In short, the system isn't stupid, because it does what they intend. WE may be stupid for participating, since the only way the system changes is if enough people choose not to engage with it.

Exactly. If you don't want fees, join a credit union where there is no interest but no fees (they keep all the interest.)

[tomandtish]

Exactly. If you don't want fees, join a credit union where there is no interest but no fees (they keep all the interest.)

Technically there is interest at most credit unions, but it's so low as to be irrelevant. Think I made $4 and change on $10k in a savings account last year.

[Anonymouswizard]

Unfortunately, when talking banks it's not at all stupid (from their perspective). Banks make money in two ways: by charging fees and penalties on your accounts/loans,/etc., and by charging interest on money they loan. An empty account is not making them money in interest, so it makes money in fees. And if your a person who regularly has an empty or nearly empty account, the bank doesn't particularly want you. Fees are their way of either getting money from you or getting rid of you.

From a cost to consumer basis, credit unions are much better.

**Sorry for double post. Site was being irritation and wouldn't let me edit the original.

Here's the thing, the stupid in my situation comes from the bank now requiring me to spend money with somebody else so I can get the ability to spend the money I'm trying to spend. If they're going to make it impossible to spend the money I might as well just not give them the money in the first place.

I get that my bank makes money by taking (a substantial portion of) the money in my account, investing it, and then taking a portion of the profit when the investment comes back (a rather large portion as I understand, but I wouldn't exactly invest it wisely myself). Now in my case it doesn't particularly matter, I've not got much money in the grand scheme of things (although I haven't been in debt for years, discounting student loans), but this is a situation that could easily happen to somebody a bank does want to keep, it feels insane not to have a workaround in case of emergencies.