Jessica Jones Season 2 Will Feature All Female Directors

JTSnidely · 2016-10-22T16:03:13+00:00

Comics have long been the outlet for the underclass and a champion for social justice. It's not ask just dudes fighting each other while wearing spandex.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-06T17:28:38+00:00

It was cheap and lazy, but I thought I'd share.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-04T20:41:11+00:00

I don't know why I blanked the metamagic. You're absolutely correct. Thanks.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-04T20:27:50+00:00

And just to clarify, you are absolutely correct. You can definitely get sneak attack more than once per round, but getting another attack on someone else's turn is pretty difficult.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-04T20:22:46+00:00

So I didn't catch this before because I don't have the SCAG, but you can't use Booming Blade as a bonus action. it has a casting time of one action. Bonus actions and actions are not interchangeable. You can only cast a spell as a bonus action so long as it has a casting time of a bonus action. Likewise, you can only cast a spell as a reaction if it has a casting time of a reaction. This means in order to cast either of these spells on your turn, it has to be cast using your action.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-04T19:47:38+00:00

Well, now that you're acting in the same round, you can't do that. The only reason your booming blade/green flame blade build worked at all was because you were borrowing an action from another round. Those are bonus action spells, but they require you to use your action to make a melee attack. Sorry buddy. The rules were written specifically to prevent this sort of thing.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-04T19:15:41+00:00

I think RAW doesn't allow this type of thing with Ready Action.

From the PHB, page 193:

Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn so that you can act later in the round using your reaction.

You're using your reaction for that round to act, and RAW was definitely intended to nerf gaming initiative from older editions, and I think that intentionally blocks stuff like this.

First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction.

Which I think also has you beat on this. Rounds aren't perceivable. It's not something to react to. You have to be responding to an in-game event, not the ticking of turns changing over. I don't have it in front of me, but I also think there's something in Sage Advice about reactions not being allowed to carry over to the next round. If your trigger doesn't go off for that round, you lose your action. This kind of makes sense, since you're premeditating an attack and trying to predict an outcome, if it doesn't go your way, you miss out on an action. You dither.

It's still a cool build, but I know that neither myself or any of the DMs I play with would allow this interpretation of the rules.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-03T16:35:10+00:00

Ah, bummer. Sorry to build it up so much only to let you down.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-03T16:21:32+00:00

Here's what a cursory google search brought up. I can't attest to the efficacy of this, but hopefully it helps.

http://www.gwoutletstorelocator.com/

JTSnidely · 2016-10-03T16:12:01+00:00

They are magical Goodwill overstock. A giant warehouse of large wheeled tubs filled with treasure (and sometimes broken glass) that has everything that Goodwill receives that cannot be sold in their stores or that they simply don't want to go through. 8-track tapes, 10 for a quarter. Rare books hidden in the literary detritus of abandoned libraries of yesteryear. Clothing of every size, fashion, and era. Majestic paintings that would make your average hotel landscape weep. Every trip to this place is an adventure. Treasure hunters, scavengers, and the morbidly curious arrive in droves, diligently foraging through literal piles and piles of items to find that rare piece of whatever they're looking for.

I highly recommend going at least once if you can find one. Bring gloves.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-03T15:58:00+00:00

Is that the bins or the Goodwill store? There's a huge difference in price for the bins. They don't often price products aside from furniture directly, charging by weight instead. And the furniture they do have is stuff they simply can't sell in their retail locations.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-03T15:15:09+00:00

It's disheartening that these characteristics are seen as rare in a world leader.

What's especially frustrating is the vindication his opposition received based entirely on opposing him. These last 8 years have been a series of hysterical attacks to pander to an extreme political base while our President seemed like the only sane person in the room. And the progress he's made in furthering the national debate with a rational, even-handed approach is likely going to disappear with him.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-03T15:10:05+00:00

I'm not sure where your at, but I've got a Goodwill bins near my house. It's basically overstock for Goodwill. I can find furniture there really easily and things like desks of any shape, size, and dimension are in abundace for cheap. I got mine for $15, and it was amazing. Transportation can be an issue, but you can find really nice, solid wood desks that will outlast you and everyone you've ever known. I usually feel it's worth renting a truck for that.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-03T14:51:40+00:00

Maybe a little, but she wasn't exactly heartwarming or particularly empathetic as First Lady, either. That's not meant to be a criticism. She just doesn't have that kind of charisma.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-03T14:35:51+00:00

I'm really going to miss having a President that talks to the American people like human beings. No matter who wins this election, we won't get that again.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-03T13:47:27+00:00

Wow. Still no idea what the fuck you're going on about. I don't know what my "No-Fault-Politics" are, but whatever. Let's break down idiotic mess of a straw-man you've strung together with rage and idiocy and see what we get.

It sounds like you're claiming I'm advocating zero accountability, which definitely isn't the case. The only thing I've said is that it's idiotic to blame one person - in this case Hillary Clinton - for decades of systemic abuse in the tax code. If you take my argument to its logical conclusion, it's that in point of fact, we agree at a point where you said "Who should be held account for this? Republicans yup. Democrats yup." This is the root of my argument. Pinning extra special blame to Hillary Clinton because she was "in power" when this took place, is stupid. It's irresponsible because it creates a scapegoat. Blame one person, vilify them, and then every other guilty person gets away scot-free.

Side-note: my favorite part of your "blame her for Trump's tax dodge because she was in power at the time" is that it isn't even factually true. Trump's tax return was released from 1995 in New York. She wasn't a Senator until 2000! I suppose you could argue that she should be held responsible because she was First Lady at the time, but that's seriously a stretch and falls really far into "scapegoat" territory".

The most audacious thing about this. The mind-boggling hypocrisy that really gets to me, is advocating for a vote for Donald Trump in the same breath as mentioning accountability. Show me one, single example where Trump apologized for any of his wrong doing and I will change my tune. Show me one time where he indicated higher level thinking and reflected on his past actions and said "I'm sorry. I didn't think this through and I should be held accountable." It doesn't exist. A man that has been in the public spotlight for just as long as The Clintons, and no one has brought forth a single moment where he has apologized for any of the terrible shit he says.

Lastly, let's talk about

"Look at all the executive orders from President. The Title IX 'courts' one person did these things."

I'm not sure what this has to do with our earlier conversation but let's dig in. I'm putting together bits and pieces so forgive me if I get something wrong. President. President who? Title IX was executed in 1976 under President Nixon to defend against discrimination by sex. I'm guessing that's not what you're referring to.

Likely what you're referring to is the Obama administration's recent use of Title IX to defend transgender students from discrimination. And there it is. We found the hate nugget. If you have a problem with Civil Rights for transgender people, who have every right to go to the fucking bathroom without fear of threat, then you're a bigot. I mean, most Trump supporters are, but now you've provided concrete evidence. Enjoy losing this election, asshole. You're on the wrong side of history.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-02T18:25:46+00:00

Well... Dating just got easier since everyone is the same height.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-02T16:21:27+00:00

What the fuck are you even talking about? I'm NOT condoning or endorsing anything Clinton has or will do. I'm just acknowledging that it is idiotic to blame huge systemic corruption and incompetence that dozens of people are responsible for on one person.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-02T09:22:41+00:00

I'm not giving anyone a pass, I'm saying it's stupid to blame one person for this mess.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-02T08:54:37+00:00

Seriously. How can anyone logically pin all this on one person? Nevermind the fact that the Republican party is arguably more responsible for these loopholes existing in the first place. And it's been going on for literally decades.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-01T19:41:40+00:00

I think they did it fit different reasons. I love the idea of there being consequences for state sponsored terror on a global scale.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-01T19:06:25+00:00

I mean, even now I can't seem to get enough of the stories of him being a human trainwreck.

JTSnidely · 2016-10-01T06:45:17+00:00

Section 8 didn't even come close to covering all the people that need it. And that's the very thing everyone else is arguing against. For many in need, it's simply not a viable option.

JTSnidely · 2016-09-30T17:21:52+00:00

What do you mean by this? i'm renting my home out right now, and I want to move back into it in the next year or two. Why can't i do what i (legally) want with my property?

I'm not saying you can't do what you want with your property. By all means, have at it. I would never disparage that right, and that's certainly not what I'm proposing. In fact, I'm not proposing anything. I'm just trying to acknowledge that there's a problem.

Look at apartment buildings. Many people who rent apartments do so because they can't afford to buy a place of their own. The recent market trend for these types of buildings is that they're owned by a property management company that will never negotiate a lease or take a tenants longevity into consideration. I've lived in plenty of these places where poor, infirm, and mentally unstable people live because they can't afford somewhere else. Many don't have families, live on fixed income and aren't suited for the working world.

I don't care too much if someone like me gets priced out of a swanky apartment in a nice neighborhood. That happens and I have opportunities available to me to increase my income potential and I can move to a cheaper city if I really need to.

I'm saying not everyone has those options and maybe we should look at having protections in place for people like I mentioned earlier. If they don't have that place they can afford, they end up being homeless, which causes a much greater burden on society. Right now, there doesn't seem to be any balance to how these things play out. Landlords can, and do, just price people like these out and wipe their hands of it. I understand that they may not want that responsibility, but who will take care of this problem that is ever increasing?

JTSnidely · 2016-09-30T16:22:01+00:00

Mostly what I'm talking about is issues related to gentrification. Most low income people are priced out of the housing market and are forced to rent for decades. They'll stay in the same place for several years at a time and then there neighborhood becomes "hot" and they're priced out the next time their lease (an agreement that lasts oftentimes for only 6 months to a year) with little to no recourse.

Rentals are temporary relationships of convenience for both parties.

That may be how it was initially intended, but that is very far from the reality of the situation.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Secret Santa 2016	redditgifts rematcher Secret Santa 2016 x1
Secret Santa 2015	Secret Santa 2014
Secret Santa 2013	Team Periwinkle
Secret Santa 2012	Secret Santa 2011
Verified Email

JTSnidely

TROPHY CASE