ScottishFox

I recently ran a Pillars of Eternity inspired campaign and we used spell casting times to allow for spell interruption and some selectivity when picking spells at each "level".
 
Spells with a cast time of 3 segments or 4 segments were more powerful, but left you vulnerable to getting interrupted.  Quicker spells (1/2 phase) could not be interrupted unless someone had a held action ready to deal with you.  Sounded great, turned out to be a time tracking hassle in actual game play.  The idea that you could go later in a segment or on a different segment than someone channeling a powerful long cast spell and interrupt them with a quick cast spell played out pretty well.
 
I suppose one simple option would be to allow Dispel to be used with an Aborted action.
 
If you can find a simple enough implementation it is a great thematically appropriate option.  It feels right in a fantasy setting to try to interrupt a priest or wizard before they can finish their spell.
 
Aragorn- "Do not let him speak, he will put a spell on us... We must be quick."
 
 

The STR required for STR Minimum is used to meet that requirement.  Only STR in excess of the STR Min adds to damage, so he does 9d6 swinging the club two-handed.  Essentially, the first 15 STR powers the club's base damage of 6d6.

To be honest, I would just add back Find Weakness and Lack of Weakness as they are. I really like the feel of it, which IMHO well reflects someone with a skill at locating an object's or opponent's vulnerable spots. And it would just be an addition to the 6E rule set, changing nothing else.
 
However, to remain completely book-legal under 6E, Astromath, I would consider your first construct the closest in spirit to the original.

See, those kinds of sweeping generalizations are what lead to fatalism and despair that's self-defeating and paralyzing. If life is nothing but conflict, how are we ever supposed to achieve peace? If life is only pain, what's the point of ever trying to be happy? All of those things exist in life, and in their contrast they serve a purpose. Conflict makes us cherish peace. Happiness gives us the hope and motivation to overcome pain.
 
Those generalizations can also lead us to treat life as though it was the "reality show" Survivor, an artificial construct in which participants are rewarded for deceit and treachery. In real survival situations everyone has to work together, or no one survives. Our current pandemic has made that clearer than ever.

But any conflicts over an issue are supposed to be resolved by all involved parties casting their votes, and respecting the decision of the majority (or whatever supermajority or other balancing mechanism has been established). That second part is what's so often lost in the current partisan strife. Democracy is supposed to be a cooperative, consensual form of government, in which the people or their representatives develop a compromise position which the majority can support; not where one party driven in lock-step uses a majority to browbeat or punish another party. That's what we're seeing in America today, but for the majority of my lifetime that's not how it was done.

It'd be nice if Trump pardoned himself.
1) That requires Trump to admit guilt, unlike a commutation. I'd feel nice if he admitted a few things.
2) I don't want Democrats to keep pursuing him after he leaves office. If we don't, the lock-her-uppers win. Republicans will never stop pursuing charges against Democrats, even after they leave office.
Here, poke through this reddit post.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askaconservative/comments/hp0kmr/how_do_you_feel_about_trump_commuting_roger/
 
Remember, Democracy is a highly restrained war. We topple governments and foment revolutions with wars and votes because we trust the other side will restrict themselves to that standard. If they THINK Democrats are flouting the law, they will feel no shame in following suit. If they can be persuaded that there is a détente, in which bad faith persecution of politicians will stop when the politician leaves office, then they MAY not break that détente. They MAY not escalate.
 
If they PERCIEVE Democrats as breaking the détente, they will never slow.
 
As it stands, Republicans believe they are owed some lawbreaking because of  "Hillary's Emails". The fact that she was never punished means only that
Hillary was just that good a crook the investigative agencies are complicit (deep state) Republicans were simply too merciful. If Democrats are not so merciful, well...  Seriously, spend a little time on every news item to look at Conservative reporting, opinion pieces, and internet forums. Find out how they perceive the issues, and especially how they perceive the conflict. Remember that there can't ever be an end to the conflict; conflict is what democracy IS. All that remains to Liberals is to manage how Liberal actions are perceived.

It sure is.  In some states there are broader laws against abusing the 911 call line (like Texas).
 
My wife used to be a 911 operator and has some stories to tell.  One of them involved a guy calling 911 over and over because he had called the police and didn't like the police that showed up and wanted DIFFERENT cops to come.  When he got told "no" he kept calling until they told him he was about to get charged with 911 abuse.  Because alcohol is very helpful in decision making he kept calling again and again and ended up going to jail.
 
PSA:  Don't get stupid drunk and then call the cops over some triviality and then verbally abuse the 911 operators and the police you called to your own damn house.

Police in America have gotten away with too much for too long. The black community in general is unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I don't think this is going to derail anything. Overwhelming evidence of police abusing their authority, and being protected by the system, has come to light and been given a very high profile. Those who refuse to let their anger be assuaged by evidence in specific instances, and those who would use those instances as a justification for their abuses, are playing to zealots on each side, whose positions were already set in stone. The broader public has been forcefully apprised of the situation now, and that genie isn't going back in the bottle.

It sure is.  In some states there are broader laws against abusing the 911 call line (like Texas).
 
My wife used to be a 911 operator and has some stories to tell.  One of them involved a guy calling 911 over and over because he had called the police and didn't like the police that showed up and wanted DIFFERENT cops to come.  When he got told "no" he kept calling until they told him he was about to get charged with 911 abuse.  Because alcohol is very helpful in decision making he kept calling again and again and ended up going to jail.
 
PSA:  Don't get stupid drunk and then call the cops over some triviality and then verbally abuse the 911 operators and the police you called to your own damn house.

It's a people trap set by a mouse.

Welp, still going as of this morning. Sleep schedule sucks and appetite is really off but the fever seems to be a little less and shorter each day.

Well, apparently you can test positive and have a fever of 101.3 and not be sick enough for inpatient care. i got sent home from the hospital after a couple 4-5 hours of tests and since my bloodwork was good, oxygen was normal and lungs are clear, I just have to hydrate,  double up on vitamins and swallow Tylenol like candy. They did say come back if I developed any breathing issues.Apparently this is the least sick you can be without being totally asymptomatic.

Thank you so much, Gnome BODY and Ninja-Bear

One thing I really like about this SCOTUS decision is that it applies no modifiers based on who violated the treaties, whether the Native American parties had authority to consent, or if the American government ever actually intended to honor them. It simply asserts that these treaties were lawfully negotiated and signed by the American government, and therefore their terms have the force of law.

Great article - thanks.  We'll see how it pans out in the long run.  I suspect both sides of the aisle will be hyperbolic until we see how it all shakes out.  One side wails, "Disaster and ruin!"  The other says, "No big deal at all." and the truth will probably end up somewhere in the middle.
 
It's possible that Oklahoma just lost about 1/2 of it's state and local tax base with this decision.  As a potential precedent this could be very messy for whichever party wins the 2020 elections.
 
How many other states failed to properly terminate their many poorly worded treaties (which both sides violated on a regular basis).
 
One book I cannot recommend enough for a (in my opinion) really well balanced and historically contextualized look at the struggles between Native Americans and the growing country of America is Empire of the Summer Moon.
 
They cover the treaties in pretty good detail here and there and my takeaway was that both sides violated the treaties whenever they felt like it.  Often the treaties were agreed to by chieftains that didn't even have authority over the groups they were representing while signing the treaties.
 
The cultural differences and incompatible value systems are really something in that book.  Both sides have their heroes and their villains.  And I've just talked myself into a second listening. 
 
https://www.amazon.com/Empire-of-Summer-Moon-audiobook/dp/B01KBD4IOE/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=summer+of+the+autumn+moon&qid=1594559593&sr=8-1
 
 

Supreme Court Oklahoma Decision Explained

They go a whole five seconds before falling down and pretending they're hurt?

But I've noticed contemporary evangelicals seem to have more of an affinity for the "smiting" and "eye for an eye" parts of the Bible, than the "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" parts.

I admit a failing of mine is to defer to eye for an eye over turn the other cheek.
 
Edit: mother and me have had many discussions over that. Right or wrong, I am not really wired to let wrongs go unanswered, especially after high school experience.

And Robert's. Though unlike the others who  I believe legitimately vote on belief. I think he votes for the side that intimidates him more at any given moment. The man disgust me quite frankly.  I actually respect the other 8 though.
 
At least agree or disagree the only way I have been able to interpret his arguments.

And, in the 2020 is Year of Endless Chaos category, The Supreme Court just gave half of Oklahoma back to the Muskogee nation.  That includes Tulsa and a very large part of Oklahoma.  Nearly two thousand convicted criminals will potentially be released as they were illegally (now) convicted by the State of Oklahoma on land they did not have jurisdiction on.
 
Everything in Orange goes bye-bye and is no longer Oklahoma because the treaty wasn't terminated properly.  Gorsuch was in favor of the 5-4 ruling.  Another proof he's going by  what he believes the law says and not what Trump wants.
 

 
 

No, but you might be interested in this documentary series:
 

A patron that is morally flexible can cause some angst and drama for the heroes.
 
Get some slam dunk heroes vs. evil missions out of the way and then start to drive them into morally dicey endeavors.  Something along the lines of secure funding for the orphanage by planting contraband on a political rival to make sure the patron's paying customers wins their election.