That’s fair. Neither is the Tarrasque.

How do they manage an average of 679 damage?

First Aerial bombardment rules would probably give the Tarrasque a DC 15 Reflex save for half damage for each. Assuming it was a surprise at first the Tarrasque probably doesn’t get this so I’ll ignore it.

Second, a Giant owl’s likely only weigh like 140lbs by loose calculation, being a little over 4x the height of a snowy owl (so assuming 4 times equivalent weight and then cubed is 64kg which approximately equals 141lbs. It could be a little higher but its not breaking 200lbs) and requiring falling at least 20ft before they even start ranking damage by the srd 3.5 rules for items falling on players (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm). Assuming you meant 40ft over the Tarrasque, and allowing for 1d6 damage every 10ft past the point instead of the 20ft that’s implied to be required, the owls would deal 2d6 damage each at that height, requiring 20ft of falling to start incurring damage. Even without it that’s not 679 damage.

That’s pretty much 0 damage too, because 2d6 per owl - subtract the DR 15 of the tarrasque from each instance of damage - is 0 damage. Iirc there was a min 1 damage even for negative strength modifiers but DR superseded that. Even if I’m wrong that’s 1 damage per owl max.

Even if you went the 220ft up above the Tarrasque you’d need to hit maximum fall speed under the more polite 1d6/10ft rules, after falling 20ft, you’d end up with 20d6 each, the cap for fall damage. Which after DR is 440 damage.560 damage without DR.

Which actually isn’t that high up. I thought the Tarrasque was taller than 50ft, but its still a hell of a timed shot tbh. It assumes the Tarrasque doesn’t move for like 6 or 7 rounds, or moves in a straight line into the falling birds.

That doesn’t’ fix the weakness of a Tarrasque to some form of high impact drop damage, necessarily, just means that I’m suspicious the birds can pull it off.

deleted by creator

Drow freed from Lolth, in isolation of another way being convincingly presented to - likely forced on - them, have had how many thousands of years of abusive culture hammered & manipulated into them. More likely than not they’ll still develop an evil culture, though the structure of their society would likely shift due to power gaps. Given how they work either a single powerful demagogue or some sort of council system of the great houses.

Drow even under Lolth aren’t necessarily evil but she set them up for biological rewards for evil whenever she can (there’s little detail on this but I think that’s concept’s the source of the terrible “mother’s ecstasy at womb murders” thing - good idea, bad example/implementation), on top of enforcing an ongoing culture of brutality and wickedness. Its how most of the evil deities still allow for Free-will to empower their Faith. They combine physiological reward hijacking, adding aspects that encourage easier exclusion from others (isolation is good for limiting options), and rigorous and brutal cultural and societal reinforcement. It doesn’t prevent good, but it gives far higher hurdles for an evil race to overcome.

My players shall curse you for the fun you’ll have given me on their next trek out of the city. I’m think Yeth hound stats but I’m flexible atm. Maybe a shadow.

Have him stab the mayor who’s evil because he’s greedy and selfish and borderline abusive in trade-deals with neighboring regions but is otherwise beloved (and has rewards heaped on him) because he’s so good at actually keeping order in the town and keeping their goodwill (although probably at least a little bit through some passive-aggressive blackmail). That’s always fun.

No argument save that all of that shouldn’t make you exemplary or unique in the way the rules present. It makes you motivated. Frankly even class levels shouldn’t make you special because everyone should have them. (The NPC classes of 3.5 fell into this trap to for the Warrior and Adept, imo.)*

Johnny Haysee who had some training in the town guard only to lose his family when his village was murdered by a sudden zombie incursion, who then goes on a vengeance fueled life of adventure to gain the power to fight the necromancer that created them isn’t any less of a Johnny Hayseed who signed up for basic training, washed out, and then decided to go adventuring. Either can fight but no better than any other guard at lvl 1, because all lvl 1 guards should be fighters (or some other class, not to go too deep down the rabbit hole of “what classes should have what skills in what jobs”). What makes the Adventurer special is their motivation, but their motivation shouldn’t start them with super-powers. It should deliver those to them as they explore the world, themselves, and their abilities.

(*) I guess you could define class levels as adventurer only, but even then at lvl 1 I’m not sure you’re “better” enough to qualify as meaningful, and in 5e at least its irrelevant because the divorced system between opponents - even npcs - and players means its all nonsensical to justify anyway because the town guard there isn’t a Fighter lvl 5 by the rules its a Monster labeled Fighter and will be stated according to what would be a challenge for the DM’s needs. Which demands a lot of world based hand waving but that’s not what the conversation was on.

Or a one note one. But, while I like monstrous races as options, I dislike the trend of 5e to make our characters “special”, unique, or noteworthy before the adventuring even begins. (If this is duplicated for some reason, I’m sorry. It tried editing and that didnt’ seem to take, then I tried deleting my original message and reposting. Not sure what’s up.)

deleted by creator

I need to watch that, I’ve heard good things but have never seen it.

Ah, the good ol’ “I’m not, but actually am, but not enough that I should get a raise, but I really would like one and less work hours, but I really need to stay longer because I’m so slow at everything I do and am terrible at focusing so I should really be working harder to give you your money’s worth, but you’re probably not paying me as much as you should be for that work in hindsight” theoretical with yourself and your imagined boss.

I can’t think of any media that explores its magic at any level where that isn’t true though, tbh.

Unless there’s a bug. Then it is my code and I have to fix it. Immediately. No, I don’t want to discuss my thought process for “why I made that decision” I want to fix it. Why are we having a chat about milk pouring technique while it is dripping off the fucking table. Prod is burning and you want to fiddle! (Meanwhile this is a minor bug that nobody has ever actually complained about but just the knowledge that it was my fault…)

100% approve. Would strongly consider rolling something like a d4 to determine how the demon reacted (modified by species, because a palrethees isn’t likely to attack). So for a palrethees it’d be like:

1 - Furious, bitter anger. Every deal it makes for the next d12 weeks is entirely centered on ruining the fighter in the most humiliating and harmful ways possible. Leaving dead innocents (like children or loose acquaintances) in their rooms to frame them, assaulting loved ones repeatedly whenever they think they’re safe to cause them suffering, slandering them ahead of their travels, or even just trying to assassinate them.

2 - Cold respect and a reward for the fighter’s cleverness. Maybe money or even a magic item, that comes with huge strings. (It was stolen, its cursed, someone very dangerous wants it, etc)

3 - Indifference and pulsing its fear creating affect just to be spiteful and drive away the fighter

4 - Actual amusement and a decision to follow the fighter around. Their new “friend” would probably amuse themselves in the same way any demon would, so atrocities would follow the fighter indirectly, the demon would get to make deals with those the fighter wronged/conflicted with for their souls, and maybe the demon even “helps” the fighter on occasion. As seen through the guise of a demon’s idea of helpful of course. It might also just wander away after a week or so after it got bored.

Dirty litter boxes increase the chance of urinary tract infection and can speed up their death if the infection reaches their kidneys, literally one of the weakest parts of cats as they age. So no, not “ok whatever”. You took responsibility for the life of something. Time to own up to the gross part of that. (Like changing a baby’s diaper)

Also, paying close attention to your cat’s feces and urine can warn you about internal issues like kidney stones by the shape of the pee or the appearance of the stool. (Seriously, once a day for cleanout isn’t remotely enough, no wonder its so gross you don’t want to touch it)

I’d say scoop it out, or at least check, every time you see it and dump it out when it gets too stinky, scrub it, dry it, and put in new litter. Even a functional electric one, which according to my brother does work, will need some kind of cleaning at some point so the responsibility is never completely escapable. Seriously though, my brother swears by the electric box he got after his own cat was constantly at the vets from UTIs due to him being the only person ever cleaning her box.

As for the anxiety? This seems like an extreme reaction for a litterbox in comparison to all the other never-ending chores we have to do on the day to day. The litterbox is comparatively easy to work, commute, balancing our bank accounts, or taxes. Are you okay?

I mean, are you miserable? Or are you just using the wrong expectation for being happy? Because overly unrealistic expectations can make any ever-present annoyance, like the day to day dealings of entropy and decay, an inescapable hell.

A joke that keeps being told with slight variation.

I wouldn’t want Fallout 4’s incongruous fps shooting or the terrible “perk” system tainting FNV, tbh. Frankly I’d be pleased with the arrangement that Bethesda never touches FNV or anything related to it again, but blue sky thinking’s just that.

Save we’re discussing mechanics for a game that’s job is to simulate a real life (albeit not this one) to the best of its abilities, because that’s what role-playing is. Living through a character, another person, in a world. The entire structure of the game’s supposed to support that conceit. And counting arrows is part of that because your character would have to count and track their arrows. I guess you can break it if the entire table wants to but if that keeps happening I venture to guess the table’s not actually playing the right system. I censor myself from harsher critique because I am old and bitter, but I really don’t like the concept that “less tedious is more fun” since the tedious stuff is normally the investment that leads to the moments of fun. That last tense shot, the drama of dwindling supply, and the excitement at looting the enemy and finding what you neat. But I also think a lot of the modern convenience items for spell-casters are what helped to destabilize the game and would like to see the “tedium” of them come back.

Assuming its not hunger or bathroom related, in my experience its because the cat’s bored. He enjoys the walks and has fun, and the walk probably fulfills a need to “patrol” his territory which he finds rewarding, but he can’t go on the walk often enough - or long enough - for his tastes. So he figures if he yells you’ll let him go patrol some more. I’d say redirect him . Play with him in the house for 10-15 minutes, then wrap it up with a kitty treat and he should go take a nap for a bit. You could also hide his food around the house come feeding time to encourage him to patrol his home instead of being focused on doing it outside.

I have no idea if any of that would work, every cat’s different. I can distract mine from wanting in rooms (he refused to wear a leash and so cannot go outside so he’s vocal at closed doors) just by playing with him or giving him attention usually. But its also temporary and he’ll do it again. Alternatively you could do the earplug-ignore thing when he cries at the door/harness but invest additional time to engage him when he’s quiet, that way you aren’t encouraging the behavior if you don’t want to be.