DonnieDarkmode

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”.

So you actually can cast 2 leveled spells per round, even RAW, because that reaction spell would be on somebody else’s turn. Interestingly the “per turn” distinction also permits the use of sneak attack more than once per round. The limit on it is once per turn, and it’s possible to make a reaction attack that fits the requirements for sneak attack on somebody else’s turn. I was surprised when I read this in the Sage Advice compendium, but it’s because I misremembered sneak attack as being once per round.

Yeah it does make quickened spell way more powerful, and there’s not much love for sorcerer amongst the people I DM for, so I haven’t really seen it in combat.

True, although I feel like requiring proper resource management would encourage the same sort of creativity. Maybe you want to keep that 3rd level spell slot available in case you need a counterspell, or to cast Fly for exploration later on

Yeah I’ve traditionally waived it myself, and both as a player and DM haven’t ever noticed any issues with that. As it stands I see no real reason to enforce it, but I always try to really understand the reason for a rule before I decide to ignore it