DonnieDarkmode

Yeah from what I know it's one of the more commonly banned spells. Personally I just don’t like the idea of banning published content. Making an effort to keep things mysterious until the spell is actually taking effect is a bit cleaner of a solution, and I do like the teamwork aspect of a RAW spell identification + counterspell

Yeah I’m not against using it as a means of tweaking balance in encounters, like if a particular character is trivializing or dominating every encounter with certain spells

Oh now that’s an interesting house rule. That actually gives me an idea for situations where you upcast counterspell but it still requires a check RAW: adding a bonus for the level of the upcast. So if a 6th level spell is cast, and a 5th level counterspell comes out in response, the counterspell caster can add another +2 to their D20 + spellcasting ability check

Yeah this would potentially be a nice solution; I do think it’s fair that if you see someone casting a spell you yourself can cast, you’ll recognize what it is. The one drawback I can see is that it requires me to have everyone’s spell list memorized, which increases the chances I miss one of the matches.

The more I think about the arcana check, the more I’m interested in it; initially I was worried adding additional checks every time somebody casts a spell could slow combat down too much, but maybe I’m overthinking that.

Yeah waiving the reaction cost for that could be a good solution. Did it not affect the flow of combat too much in your experience?

Check out the “Leviathan” album by Mastodon. A good number of bangers on there, one after another

So I recently listened to an episode of the Data over Dogma podcast specifically regarding angels and demons. It’s hosted by Dan Beecher (an atheist podcaster) and Dr. Dan McClellan (a Bible scholar), and they discuss how angels and demons are actually depicted/described in the Bible, compared to the extra-biblical descriptions of both that we’ve gotten over the millennia. It’s about an hour but should serve as a nice little primer on the subject, with some recommendations for further study.

Sure, it’s conventional explosive with radioactive markers to test the detection capabilities of their equipment. I was being polite with my earlier comment, in case I had missed something in the article, but I guess I didn’t.

The Wikipedia page on Explosives gives some reading on the differences between the two. Suffice it to say, chemical and nuclear explosions are fundamentally different things; breaking/reforming of molecular bonds to produce heat and energy, compared to splitting or fusing atoms themselves, which releases FAR more energy than those molecular reactions since the bonds holding atomic nuclei together are so much stronger. If we say that a nuclear explosion is literally any explosion + radioisotopes, then you could buy some uranium online, tape it to a brick of plastic explosive, and say you’ve got yourself a nuke. Maybe someone should tell Iran they don’t need to waste all that money on centrifuges.

You’re half right though, in that this probably is a response to Russia, but demonstrating your ability to detect underground nuclear tests is not at all the same thing as actually conducting one.

Where are you seeing that the US conducted a nuclear test? The article only mentions a chemical explosion

I believe those are total numbers, so that includes both operational warheads (ready to launch) and stored warheads. The article here is specifically referring to the number of operational warheads China has, which is still much lower than that of Russia and the US, but the gap isn’t quite as wide as 500-6,000

Yeah where are those descriptions coming from? Also mentions “the strike workers’ strike” and repeats “politics” twice

Ah ok got it. It definitely trips me up all the time as well haha.

I actually don’t mind the difference for barbarian and rogue because I see it as an additional attack and not an extra attack. So like I think treating the +1 attack from the extra attack feature differently than the use of a resource (reaction) to make an additional attack is fine mechanically. I feel like I could sit down with a player who didn’t like that ruling and give a proper reason for it besides “I’m just following the words on the page”.