ryven

Jesus this is like half what I'm paying at my local supermarket.

Pokémon Infinite Fusion is really great! It's Pokémon but you can fuse two monsters together to make a new one. A lot of the fusions have custom art! (The other ones are like that old Pokémon fusion creator that pastes one monster's face over the other one, lol.)

Look for their Discord if you want to download it. All websites that profess to have download links are unofficial and may be malicious.

They use a modified version of the AGPL that includes a requirement to use their logo.

They also, in a separate subsection, note that no permission is granted to use their trademarks.

As far as I can tell, the goal is to create a catch-22 that prevents you from forking the project: if you don't include the logo, they complain that you didn't include it, and if you include the logo they complain that you're infringing their trademark.

Edit: Or more specifically, OnlyOffice's position is that the logo requirement is not a modification because they think it's an attribution requirement allowed under section 7(b).

BIRDBRAIN feat. Kasane Teto, by Jaime Page and OK Glass

Sounds like my kind of software! The thing I always hated most about Discord was that other people use it and I have to interact with them.

Isn't that his other brother? That's Louis Prevost who lives in Florida. The brother who lives in Illinois must be John.

The Culture seems like the obvious choice. You can be whoever you want, do whatever you want (or not do much of anything, if you prefer), live as long (or as short) as you want... There are no downsides, really, unless you object to living in a society where the Minds are so vastly more intelligent than humans that you're functionally their pet. I can see how some people might find that unsettling.

Maybe. It's because "weapon attack" is the verbiage they settled on for hitting somebody with something that isn't a spell (spells make "spell attacks"). They could call them "weapon or unarmed attacks" but that seems unnecessarily verbose when 95% of them are going to be made with a weapon. You might think that for hand-to-hand combat you could simply refer to "melee attacks," but "melee" is a specifier that can be applied to spell attacks too, so it's out.

So the current situation is this: a rule can simply refer to all "attacks," or it can refer to "melee" or "ranged" attacks, or it can refer to "weapon" or "spell" attacks, or it can use both specifiers (as in "ranged weapon attack").

So if you want to fix it, you need a word to replace "weapon" that could include unarmed combat but excludes all spells. "Physical" might be good, but has some edge case problems: if I have a psychic "blade" that attacks your mind, it makes "physical attacks" despite being a non-physical object. If I have a spell that physically throws a boulder at you, it's pretty easy for me to remember that I should make a spell attack roll, but if you have a feature that defends against "physical attacks" you might think it should apply against the boulder when it doesn't. "Martial attack" might be getting at the right thing, but it sounds strange, and for new players who might be new to RPGs "martial" and "melee" are both uncommon words that kind of sound similar, and that might cause confusion. (Also "martial melee attack" sounds more natural than "melee martial attack," but then it has the opposite word order from "melee spell attack" and that's weird.)

There may be a perfect word out there, but in the end they decided "weapon" was the least confusing, despite requiring the caveat that attacking unarmed is a "weapon attack." And so everywhere that the rules say "attack with a weapon" instead, it is to specifically exclude unarmed attacks, although I admit that it's not always obvious why they want to do that.

The ones that say "when you hit a creature with an attack using a weapon"? Your DM is following the intended rules. In 5e, your empty hand can make "melee weapon attacks," but that attack is not an "attack with a melee weapon" or an "attack using a weapon." Unless that changed in the recent update, I haven't read the 5.5 books.

the obligation to retain the original product logo (Section 7(b));

the denial of any rights to use the copyright holder’s trademarks (Section 7(e)).

Uhhh is it just me or is it impossible to follow the first requirement without violating the second one? The logo requirement seems engineered to make sure that you can't actually fork the project: if you include the original logo, they can hit you for trademark violation, and if you don't include the logo they can say you violated their license terms.

I wash graphic tees and other printed clothing inside out because I was told it does less damage to the image. No idea if it actually helps.