yeah, technically the CGA palette is 16 colors, with only 4 being able to be used at any one time. Many systems only had 4 sets of 4 colors allowed; the white-cyan-pink-black, yellow-green-red-black, and a darker version of those 2.
CGA could have looked much better, but its the nature of all these systems that compatibility of the colorschemes was poor, so a lot of CGA just fell into the ‘lowest common denominator’ of the default palette, the one I used.
Short answer: read Jack Vance’s ‘tales of a dying earth’. It’s the reason dnd magic is called ‘vancian’.
Longer answer: in that series, magic works by just remembering words, and then saying them. But these magic words are powerful things, weighty in the mind, hard to carry. And, when said, they tear themselves out of your mind, causing you to forget them.
So, not ‘spell slots’ per se, but the idea is you’re prepping spells almost as a ‘potion’, something you carry in your mind, and consume to cast out a spell.
It really depends.
I’m thinking about 3.5 in particular, where an optimized wizard will be able to do the job of the rest of the party (assuming they’re built to be fine, but not power-gaming), better than them.
There’s no real in-world way to balance that. Either the DM Fiats the power-gamer weaker, the DM tells the power gamer “no”, or the rest of the party power games to. Its just too unbalanced.
If we’re talking 5e, that’s all out the window then. If 3.5’s power runs from 0-10, the strongest 5e build is like a 6, and the weakest is like a 3. Its still extra work for the DM to balance, but can be done all in-world without needing to rely on metagame fiat.
And, of course, there’s lots of other systems out there, where the above can be more true or less true depending on what kind of game it is, though 3.5’s power ceiling is probably higher than 95% of the systems out there.
Eh, disagree. Unless everyone is power gaming to the same degree (which can be fun!), an OP character being adequately challenged will probably result in all the other players feeling irrelevant.
I’ve read all of cosmere, and I don’t care for Hoid in general, though there’s a lot about his books I do love. But I tried a few of his YA books (the chalk one, and reckoners) and didn’t especially care for them.
I actually really hated the book, which was a big surprise to me, since I love Princess Bride and most of Sanderson. But man, the narrator was way more grating and unfunny to me than Princess Bride’s.
Sanderson usually isn’t funny for me, which is usually fine, but Tress relied on humor too much imo
I think it should just crib notes from PF2e; make it a bonus action, and also a 1st level spell. Though, they should also rewrite the confusing ‘no slotted bonus action spell with non-bonus action slotted spell’ bandaid too.
Where’s ‘turning the music off and driving in silence’?
I miss 3.5’s cloistered cleric. I’m glad PF2e included it as a core option, and I wish Onednd’s holy order subclass choice separated it out further, making ‘robed scholar’ clerics a central option, instead of just an objectively worse choice than wearing the heaviest armor you’re proficient in (usually medium).
Yeah. It was worse in 3.5 ironically; despite casters having more downsides than 5e, spells were overall stronger. It did leave this narrow window at levels 1 and 2 where martials were basically strictly better, but caster quickly skyrocketted in power, especially if you were playing with prestige classes.
Spell power was reigned in for 5e, and pretty sharply at that (most notably from adding Concentration). But, they also washed away caster downsides, by making cantrips at will, casters not quite so fragile, and by softening Vancian casting. 5e is still absolutely more balanced than 3.5, but that’s not saying a lot; 3.5’s power level was all over the place.
Still, I feel like 5e’s levels 1-5 are pretty balanced, and the martial/caster imbalance doesn’t really become painful until like, level 12.
I think the more important balancing is just ‘making battlemaster maneuvers resourceless and available to all classes’.
But I’m not against ‘limit break’ as a short rest ‘charge’ available to most martials.
TBH, the above is basically the way PF2e handles martials; at least half of their class feats are more or less ‘resourceless maneuvers’, and many martials have access to ‘focus spells’, which are basically just short rest charges for exclusive class features, that just happen to mechanically be considered spells (though, notably, PF2e doesn’t give fighter focus spells, making them nearly 100% at-will).
Personally, I think the most important fix to the martial-caster imbalance is to nerf casters, who just are too strong, but A) that’s basically what PF2e already did, and its largely complained about (though I love it). And B) Its not strictly necessary, if you buff Martials by a large margin (though, imo, that starts to get into like, demigod territory that I don’t love).
In the older editions, like the ones you’re talking about, casters had serious downsides. Between being very fragile, spells being interrupteable, and sometimes having different XP amounts, casters were kinda ‘glass cannons’, and needed a martial frontline.
In 3.5 and 5e, casters have had these harsh downsides decreased or removed, while not otherwise losing power. They are more or less strictly better than martials, in the sense they can do 90%+ of what martials can do better than they can do it, while also doing several other things. And the few things martials do do better, it’s by slight degrees.
It’s not just that casters are powerful, it’s that they’re powerful and flexible, able to be top tier in several different roles at the same time, and can change what roles they cover by resting and swapping spells.
Whereas martials can sometimes build to be top tier in one role, but they’re largely locked into that one role, or can build to be okay in several roles (and be outclassed by casters in all of them).
You are, of course, correct.
But even so, costs are costs. It doesn’t matter if you’ve achieved communism, and are in a moneyless, stateless existance, you need labor and materials to build nuclear, and labor and materials to maintain it (along with other infrastructure).
And, I’m not anti-nuclear; it does make sense to use sometimes, in some amounts. Its just very very costly for what it provides.
But frankly, even only accounting for current tech, wide spread nuclear just doesn’t make that much sense compared to renewables + storage and large grids interconnects.
Sockeye salmon are reddish pink. That’s always what I thought the association was.
Its almost entirely made from plants
And like, even if it was dinosaurs, Dirt is also (partially) made from decayed animals. And, oversimplifying, that dirt becomes plants.
And that’s all fine for vegans, because it doesn’t involve exploitation of animals. Like, if you needed to raise and kill animals to use their corpses to grow plants, that’d be animal exploitation.
You want the one and only environmental problem in our food industry, that is it.
I’m genuinely sorry if that’s the takeaway from my message, as that was not my intent. That was, actually, the vibe I’ve gotten from you; that the primary issue in food production is locality. I think there are dozens and dozens of issues in our global food supply chain, and maybe a third of them are tied to meat production.
But I don’t think all of humanity must give up meat or anything. My main opinion is that meat is over-represented in our diets, especially American diets, and that huge demand for meat has economically incentivized meat production in areas and ways that aren’t sustainable. But I do think meat can be sustainable. The primary issue isn’t meat existing, its meat being over produced.
Much of what you say in your reply is correct, at least in part, so your not wrong that meat could be produced more sustainably. But, also as you say, it mostly isn’t. So, I choose to not eat meat. But I’m not asking you to not, but rather saying that your proposal, of eating exclusively local, isn’t practical for 90% of humans.
But yeah, you’re right, “it’s a sad fact that many states export so much local food, meat, only to import crops from the other side of the country.” That’s 100% correct, and a problem.
But your soy point isn’t really correct. https://ourworldindata.org/soy. While yes, most of animal feeds is soy meal, a byproduct of soy oil production, if you compare the amount of soybean directly consumed by us, its slightly less that then 7% whole soybeans fed directly to animals. So, animals are eating more straight whole soybeans than humans are eating tofu, tempeh, soymilk, etc.
And, on top of that, Soy meal is human edible. Yes, it often does require further refining, but it already is used to make things like Textured Vegetable Protein and Soymilk, since neither need the oil. And, we lose somewhere between 2-5x the energy using that soymeal to feed chickens, and somewhere between 6-25x that energy feeding it to cows.
And to reiterate, I’m not saying to burn down all animal agriculture and make everyone everywhere vegan. I’m saying that I agree with a lot of what you say, about reworking global logistics and agriculture to make all farming more local and more sustainable. And, as a consequence of that, meat production will have to drop. Factory farming is horrible on so many fronts, but it is efficient at pumping out loads of meat. To dismantle that, like you’re proposing, will result in lower global meat production, even if some localities might actually see a rise. Small scale operations are less efficient in terms of total meat production, even if they’re more efficient by most other metrics (all those pesky ‘market externalities’).
Okay, but what if nut allergy :(
Its hard out here, being a vegan allergic to nuts.
Sticky tofu is hands down my favorite. Something like this: https://veganonboard.com/sticky-lemon-tofu/
Soy Curls is honestly my favorite ‘meat replacement’ (though, I’m not too hot on ‘replacing meat’). They work for doing things like mongolian beef, or just lightly frying after marinading for ‘chicken strips’ to top salads or sandwiches. https://thevietvegan.com/vegan-mongolian-beef/
Soups are of course, pretty easy. I like Lentil Chilli, heavy on the seasonings and beans aside from lentils. Minestrone or lemon orzo are both also great. Thai curry or pho are both more work imo, but amazing (though, both broth bases can often have chicken or shrimp in them).
Burgers, and while impossible meat et. al. are fine I guess, they’re a bit pricey. I honestly prefer a good chipotle black bean burger over them 9/10 times. They’re pretty cheap to buy, but also not very hard to make, with most of the ingredients being cheap.
I personally like seitan, but I know quite a few other vegetarians don’t, so it might be divisive. BUT, in terms of cheap protein, its damn near rock bottom in price. It is some work to make stuff out of it from scratch, but ‘indian mock duck’ is usually seitan, and can be bought from indian stores if you just want to try it. But seitan works to replace burgers, chicken tenders, steaks, sausage, etc. Tons of recipes out there.
The problem with eating locally, is that it isn’t a viable way to feed humanity. Like, yeah, the more local the better, you aren’t wrong. We all should buy local foods as far as is possible. But the nature of humans living in cities, and many cities being near good trade areas rather than good agriculture areas, means that it just isn’t viable.
If everyone was like you, and bought local near-exclusively, the price of food in most cities and many regions would skyrocket, and unless people stopped, many would starve.
Not to say its a binary; we do ‘overship’ foods, and certainly could (and should!) eat more local foods.
Add to that, that demand for meat (especially beef) means that a lot of animal agriculture requires the shipping of plant feed for that meat; see how the majority of soybean farming (77%) is for animal feed. And, similar to the point above, ‘grass fed’ beef just isn’t possible to do while meeting demand. If we want grass fed animal meat only, a lot of people are going to have to give up meat, or dramatically cut down on meat consumption.
Yes! Probably my favorite forage item, lucky enough tonhave it grow fairly frequently in the woods behind my parents house