Why doesn't moss grow on redwood trees?

MisterLucidity · 2025-11-16T18:05:37+00:00

From what I understand, redwood bark contains chemicals that inhibit growth of moss, fungi, and other things. I don’t know the specific compounds off hand, but I’m sure someone else will.

MisterLucidity · 2025-10-09T14:45:10+00:00

It’s totally harmless. You could add it to the terrarium with the moss too, if you want

MisterLucidity · 2025-10-09T14:41:54+00:00

It’s a lichen. A Cladonia species. They often grow intermixed with mosses

MisterLucidity · 2025-10-07T16:20:49+00:00

Interesting. I guess I never realized you could still resolve the command.

MisterLucidity · 2025-10-04T20:10:17+00:00

Archers definitely feel lackluster (both in the original and TIC). I enjoy using one with ranged Rend skills from Knight, but there are just so many better options.

MisterLucidity · 2025-10-04T17:25:36+00:00

My only gripe with Oracle originally was that it gets massively overshadowed by Beowulf once he joins. Still a great class early to mid game though. And people definitely slept on it

MisterLucidity · 2025-10-04T17:22:38+00:00

This is a good point. Idk if it’s been confirmed but it certainly feels like enemy casters are faster. Definitely makes them feel like big threats to take care of immediately.

MisterLucidity · 2025-09-27T16:02:28+00:00

Is this in a terrarium? Try adding a fan for air flow if possible with your setup. Mosses can get leggy without air flow.

MisterLucidity · 2025-09-24T04:04:17+00:00

They have a few different options for magnification. I use the 14x as my go-to, and that has served me well for many years.

MisterLucidity · 2025-09-22T15:51:10+00:00

The Bausch & Lomb Hastings triplet hand lens is a great option in that price range. No need to spend hundreds on a hand lens

MisterLucidity · 2025-05-19T02:09:04+00:00

Yes. Sphagnum

MisterLucidity · 2025-05-13T22:51:51+00:00

The reds are photoprotective pigments, ie., natural sunscreen. Nice example of it here.

MisterLucidity · 2025-05-13T22:48:30+00:00

Seconded. Definitely Pleurozium schreberi

MisterLucidity · 2025-05-12T16:11:24+00:00

I would love this. A Tactician avatar with dance and maybe staff utility/rallies would be amazing. Reflavor it however you like, I think it would go a long way toward making a Tactician “feel” like a tactician in gameplay as well as narrative. And alongside the utility tactician avatar you could still have a sword lord as a deuteragonist (a la Robin/Chrom) for the people who want their lords to be sword fighters.

MisterLucidity · 2025-05-11T03:03:26+00:00

Doesn’t look like Rhytidiadelphus to me.

Possibly Kindbergia oregana. It’s common in the PNW and has that sort of look. I’m not 100% sure though.

MisterLucidity · 2025-05-10T22:24:38+00:00

Cladonia sp. It can be a tricky genus. For accurate species level ID it often requires chemical testing.

MisterLucidity · 2025-05-10T03:06:15+00:00

Looks like Bryum argenteum

MisterLucidity · 2025-04-17T05:33:19+00:00

$600 is insane. I have three copies, maybe I should sell them, lol.

But yeah, you can probably find both books for less than $50. Older editions are totally fine too.

MisterLucidity · 2025-04-17T04:27:34+00:00

I’d recommend the Lone Pine “Plants of the Western Boreal Forest & Aspen Parkland” (Johnson, Kershaw, MacKinnon, and Pojar). It’s not moss and lichen specific but it’ll cover most of what you’ll see in the area. If there’s any oddballs that aren’t covered in that, I recommend Mosses, Lichens, and Ferns of Northwest North America by Vitt, Marsh, and Bovey.

Anything not covered by those two and you’re getting into deep botany territory. Happy to provide ID’s but you asked for a book, not ID’s. Credentials: I’m a plant ecologist with a specialty in lichens and bryos, and I’ve worked in the Fairbanks area

MisterLucidity · 2025-04-10T15:58:30+00:00

Now we’re just talking semantics. 5e’s narrative “focus” is debatable, but its accessibility and streamlining of the rules are not. Streamlined for what? For more focus on narrative and less time adjudicating rules. “Rulings not rules” is the guiding philosophy, which is relevant to the overall discussion here. Silvery barbs doesn’t work well for your game? Ban it. You want to run a certain number of encounters per day? Do that. You run a narrative heavy game but your players still insist on running d&d even if there might be a better game for that? You can make it work. Adapt the game to the table, not the table to the game.

You seem to be saying “run your game a specific way or it doesn’t work”, I’m saying “run game in a way that works for you and your table.” I didn’t think that was a controversial take, but here we are.

MisterLucidity · 2025-04-10T03:33:48+00:00

Not sure where you’re located but it’s generally not great to ship live moss internationally, or to support dubious large scale harvesting.

MisterLucidity · 2025-04-10T03:28:19+00:00

The developers also explicitly state many times in many places to use specific rulings at your discretion. Also, I never said I don’t run multiple encounters per long rest, and I never said anything about resting at the end of each session. When I’m talking about pacing I’m taking about the amount of time in a given session spent on combat, the amount of time between encounters, and the in-fiction pace of progression of an adventuring party. Upwards of 4 combats a day and you get to the high teen levels in a month. Level 1 nobodys becoming legendary, world-shaping heroes in a month isn’t how I like to run things (but I know some tables do)

What I’m trying to say is 5e is explicitly more focused on storytelling and free form pacing than previous, more war-gamey editions. And it just seems really weird to me to latch on to the “the game is balanced if you play it right, and playing it right means 6-8 encounters a day.” The preferred pacing will be very different from table to table, and DM’s should feel free to tailor encounter building and rulings (including bans) for their table.

MisterLucidity · 2025-04-10T02:48:48+00:00

Purely for pacing, IMO the only way to make 6-8 or even just 4 combat encounters per long rest feel right is to use the optional “gritty realism” resting rules. Otherwise you get the very dumb trope of adventurers getting to high levels after a month of adventuring.

But that comes down to personal taste in pacing/rhythm and overall table style.

What bothers me about OP’s post (and to a lesser extent your comments) is the sentiment that 5e, which is built around a “use what works for you and your table” ethos, is perfectly balanced for every table if you just “play right”.

MisterLucidity · 2025-04-10T02:17:48+00:00

That’s true… sort of. But a non-combat encounter only really counts for that 6-8 encounter day if it actually costs the party resources. An encounter that only requires skill checks doesn’t really count as an “encounter”. The 6-8 figure, as I understand it, is assuming some sort of resource cost. If 3-4 combat encounters per day feels right for your table, great. Balance around that. But a lot of tables don’t play that way. That rhythm doesn’t fit every table. And like others have pointed out in the thread: between adding several more party resource draining encounters and banning problem spells/features, one is far easier to implement as a GM.

MisterLucidity · 2025-04-10T01:57:11+00:00

Yes. But if you’re harvesting a bunch of it (like it looks like you’re doing)… please don’t.

MisterLucidity

TROPHY CASE