I would probably not rule this as an attack. Lighting a creature on fire? Sure. But lighting oil, which happens to catch a creature on fire? Nah. IMO, aggressive actions aren’t attacks unless they make contact with or directly (not indirectly) affect an enemy. At least, that’s how I’d rule.

That being said, keep in mind that invisible creatures aren’t undetectable , just unseen. Someone dumps out a flask of oil? As soon as that oil leaves the flask (so it’s not being worn or carried), it’s visible, and leaving a trail for any enemy to follow. Attacks against targets you can’t see are made with disadvantage, but can still be made. A bunch of goblins swinging axes at the air are eventually gonna hit something. Are you having invisible characters make stealth checks? They’d get advantage, but if they make noise (e.g., strike a tinderbox), every enemy in the area should get a chance to roll a Perception check against Stealth, not just use passive Perception.

All that being said, if your players come up with a cool idea, roll with it. I actually really like the idea of an invisible PC lighting a fire on their enemies. But (most) enemies aren’t dumb, and they’re not going to sit around doing nothing if a clumsy, noisy invisible thing dumps out oil all around them and then lights it on fire. Plus, sometimes a half-executed idea is more fun than a perfectly-executed one (oh shit, remember when we lit the thieves den on fire but then had to run away because they were so furious and nearly killed Gary?!?)

Don’t be afraid to change or define the rules as necessary. It’s your game. If every single time they infiltrate, they’re turning invisible and setting fire, then say, “it’s going to be an attack from now on, and you’ll lose invisibility.” FORCE them to be creative. Lastly, let the players know that they can always ask. A PC casting invisibility would know if an action is going to cancel it. So they can check with you in the moment, you make a ruling, and then they can decide what to do. If later you decide you were wrong, tell them that next time it’ll be different.

Hope that helps!

Damn that FDA and their suppression of…*checks list…sunshine?

Was the solar eclipse an inside job?!?

Yes, there’s a bit of a myth around Bernoulli’s principle (faster moving fluids have lower pressure) and how much it matters for lift in plane wings. It came up in the conversation because I was trying to describe what air pressure is in general, and made an analogy to a pan flute (he plays flute in band).

Disclaimer: I’m an aerospace engineer, but I do not claim to be an expert on topic.

But for plane wings, the myth is really that the air above the wing moves faster because the curved surface is longer. That’s pretty much dead wrong, but is still in tons of textbooks. The air above the wing does move faster, but it’s because of a bunch of complicated physics that to be honest, I don’t really understand any more. I may have even been taught wrongly in college. But the result is that there is a velocity difference on a cambered wing even when it’s flat, and thus Bernoulli’s principle does apply, and there is a pressure difference giving you lift.

But that speed difference is mostly important at cruising altitude, when the wings aren’t angled, and it’s positively correlated with airspeed, so the thrust matters way more. When you’re climbing, the angle matters more. The camber (curvature) of the wing, the airspeed, and the angle of attack all lead to that pressure difference, along with a few other things like circulation, which is also caused by a sharp edge at the back of the wing. But everything kind of works together to generate that pressure difference and hence the lift that can combat gravity. It’s actually pretty hard to try and dumb it down without saying things that aren’t wrong.

I recently taught my 11-year-old nephew “how planes fly.” A bit oversimplified, of course, but words like camber and lift and circulation were tossed around along with Bernoulli’s principle.

It’s just an homage to Trump, who is famous for not paying bills!

Because people are rarely single issue voters. There are a few here and there, but given the dominance of the US’s two-party system, you often have to make a choice. If I imagine 2 candidates: one who is strongly pro-choice but overtly anti-gay, and another who is strongly pro-life but also pro-LGBTQ issues, that would actually be a pretty tough decision for me.

As much as I want to hate Trump supporters, I can still sympathize with them. A lot are lifelong Republicans who are choosing between someone who will probably try to enact 90% of their personal beliefs but is an authoritarian crazy person, and someone who seems sane but disagrees with them on 90% of issues and will do everything to stymie the things they believe to be right. It’s not a simple choice.

I’m ignoring third-parties here as a caveat, so apologies if that’s the crux of your question. But my opinion is that you should push for and vote for a new system while accepting that the rules are what they are now, and you have to strategize with the current situation.

Oh wow, deep cut! I had that buried somewhere in the back of my brain.

Do not pay a lot of attention to single polls. Poll aggregators (even with flaws like RealClearPolitics) are so much better, and a predictive model (Nate Silver or the new 538) is even better. Great pollsters don’t herd and are not afraid of publishing outliers.

If we see the overall aggregate start to tend more toward Harris, that’s significant and this poll was an early sign. If it doesn’t, then this poll was just an outlier.

Don McLean has definitely substituted the chorus from The Saga Begins when he’s doing live shows

We could avoid this entirely, but the idiot Congress LIKES it. I don’t think any other country has a debt ceiling like the US. Why? Well, because when another country’s government (legislature, dictator, voodoo shaman) authorizes spending on something, they also authorize paying for it.

But in the US, Congress says (to the executive branch) you can only collect 50 bajillion in taxes, no more, no less. Also, you have to spend 55 bajillion on these programs, no more, no less. Then the president says, “uh, okay, but I’ll need to borrow 5 bajillion to do that because of math.” In reply, Congress stamps its collective foot like a toddler and says “NO NO NO YOU HAVE TO ASK US FIRST! Why are you drowning this poor country in debt you spendthrift!”

Did they? This was probably after the Tobias almost kills himself out of depression but then accepts his hawk body arc, so I can’t imagine why they thought it was okay to try and traumatize him again.

Oh yeah, it was a mix of body horror, the brutalities of war, the unconscionable weight of leadership, and happy fun time seagull antics.

The time limit was 2 hours or you got stuck. And that happened in the first book to emphasize “kids, this is real.”

Oh god I think this is from the Animorphs book where they have to fight another human, not their typical alien enemies. They gave David morphing powers, but he turned/was evil, and so Rachel has to trap him as a rat and leave him out onto some abandoned island or some shit. Those books were brutal.

I dropped my Netflix subscription and just spend hours a day on OnlyHonk. Don’t judge!

What about Gojira?

Nah, it can’t be a gorilla. Reliable sources told me the sun is a deadly lazer

Find porn sounds and mute the tab. Now not sure where porn music is coming from.

Anyone else hate that the Gadsden flag has been appropriated by ultra-libertarian jingoists? It’s an awesome-looking flag with a cool history and symbolism, but I feel like I couldn’t fly it without looking like a twat.