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 Iirc there was a min 1 damage even for negative strength modifiers but DR superseded that.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…)

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.

Nah, I loved changing out those disks. Core memory nostalgia material right there. Waste of time for sure, but one I remember fondly in hindsight.

I wonder how long it takes for some of those people to transfer to a more embittered relationship with Bethesda over it? Assuming any of them have that “I’m staring at a title screen realizing I haven’t actually had fun playing the game in weeks but the dopamine loop of the ‘loot, kill, craft’ system had me deluded into thinking I was enjoying myself. Like a social media doom-scroller or something” moment.

Thank you, I think that helps parse out where I was unclear. There’s specifics in the language at play. It makes me wonder how often bad actors prevention of even small distinctions being discussed has made it muddier and harder for everyone else.

I guess my question’s always been that since gender is (to my incomplete understanding) a social construct and can change, and transgender people seek to change to a gender that feels more appropriate, how did you (a) know what felt right, (b) that what felt right wasn’t completely appropriate for your gender and the active definition of gender needed to change, and © where does chemical and surgical transition factor in for a gender based thing when attempting to find for comfortable self? Because that seems like a sex (in the clinical terminology) thing as much as a gender one (which of course there’s probably a connection, I guess I’m just not clear where the line really breaks.)

To be clear, I think my questions are entirely too “rationalizing a deep emotional and person thing” so I don’t really expect an answer, I’ve just never been invited to address the question to anyone before.

I mean, your argument is “we can’t ever be perfect so we should never even aspire to be good”, which is sortof putting the cart before the horse. That we can even recognize the distinction of not being special already places in a position where we can try and do a little better. What is better, how much, or how? What even is good or morality? All of those questions are at necessity to even define good, let alone become it. Before even glancing at perfect. Sure it might be an eternal inane treadmill, but just as fish have gills to breathe, we by chance of fate have the organs necessary to think. And that’s just as much in our nature. The fish doesn’t consider how long it has to swim, it just does it towards a target it can see/sense. By the same mechanism that means we aren’t special, why shouldn’t, why wouldn’t, we do the same thing? Just because what we can see/sense may be artificial, imagined, or drempt?

I hadn’t heard the Wolf’s wife part, but I’d always heard said that it was a “Fox’s wedding”. Which is pretty similar. I’ve heard sunshower and that “The Devil’s beating his wife” but the fox one was more fun so it stuck with me.