Skua @ Skua @kbin.earth Posts 21Comments 2,099Joined 1 yr. ago
I suppose an approach that takes the general intention of your design but is a bit omre mechanically rigorous could be to separate out subclass levels? You level up in one class as always, and every few levels the thing you get on levelling up is a subclass level. Subclasses then only get four or so levels, so you could be a warlock 11 (archfey 1 / fiend 2)
Also any class that gets their subclass at level 1 or 2.
To be fair those are also troublesome for regular multiclassing, or at least they are if you're not using the 2024 "definitely not 5.5E" classes. The paladin with one level in warlock or sorcerer is a perennial favourite for a reason.
It is. You caught the ending correctly, and the ban part is from bean (not pronounced like English bean, of course), meaning wife or woman. Still, I would say that the banshee specifically has a fair bit more cultural recognition than most things from Gaelic myth. Like I'd expect a lot more people to recognise "banshee" than, say "each-uisge"
(Assuming D&D 5E here)
I wonder what the best way to go about it would be? It can't just work the same way as regular multiclassing since you'd effectively get no base class features for your second subclass
They would, but they also did. They were herbivores
To be clear I do not actually think that they were as stocky as that pic. Point is that for land animals, though, eating plants actually is often the way to being huge
This was never intended as a flag
"The barcode has been featured in a number of prominent European newspapers, mistakenly touting it as the new European flag to replace the current twelve gold stars. This, however, was certainly not the idea behind its conception. The barcode was merely a suggestion for an extra symbol, parallel to the existing EU symbols, to bring Europe in a new way to new audiences."
The Shining is a Jack's film
There was no distinction between V and U when W first started being used. They were considered the same letter, with V just being the style for writing it at the start of words (like that long S that looks like an f). So you would write "have" as haue and "upon" as vpon.
When it was representing a consonant in classical Latin, it sounded like a modern English W. So the famous veni vidi vici - I came, I saw, I conquered - was pronounced more like wenee weedee weekee.
Eventually the V sound started to emerge in some places where Latin and its descendants had used that W sound before, and people started treating the two forms as different letters. By this point the W was already in widespread use, though, so whatever people already called it had a good chance of sticking
The entire breakdown of my electricity bill in the UK is a rate for energy use, a standing charge that is independent of usage, and VAT. Strictly speaking I've got two different usage rates because my heating is on a separate meter, but that's an unusual situation
If anything on this Earth should look like a Jurassic Park dinosaur it's hippos
Hippos and rhinos get pretty big on that diet! If anything plants are a better diet for something really chunky because plants cannot run away
The post was clearly written sometime in the 14th century when the UU digraph had become widespread but the U-V distinction had not. No wonder it is so yellowed, I'd say it's actually in great condition for its age
Well Romania is only called Romania because Romans lived there. They still speak a Romance language today
So this is basically a 2balkan4you post is what I'm really saying
Permanently Deleted
I don't think it matters too much because what the family looks like isn't important, but I agree that it seems intended to imply that that is a photo of the family
It is pretty funny that they chose the most stock-photo-looking stock photo ever taken though
I think it's just an issue with the cars not working on this track. The Monaco Formula E race a few weeks ago looked great
I used to live near an ice cream shop that switched over to doing doughnuts and cookies in the winter
That's fine, that just means the ethical question is now "is accessing it in one of those ways worth the consequences of doing so?" You might well say yes or, as others in these comments have, argue that the consequences are negligible. You might say no. It's still a relevant debate in the topic OP is asking about even if we completely accept your position about which ways of getting access are ethical