Maybe not surprising, but still disappointing. I liked IH videos, but knowing that a lot of it is stolen, puts a stain on it. But at least it explains why his videos tend to disappear from his channel.
Edit: The IH part starts at around 1:25:00 and lasts 20 minutes.
guy covers historical event doesn’t rewrite history, instead takes what someone else has written about event doesn’t use own fotos, uses someone elses foto instead makes mistakes
I am not saying this is a big nothing burger, but his only real mistakes was not to list his sources.
Yeah, no. He almost entirely verbatim copied the text and wording on the original article and shuffled some words around to try and make it less obvious (and failed). It is blatant plagiarism, there is no other way to call it. This was no innocent mistake of forgetting to list a source. Watch the hbomberguy video segment about it, it paints a very clear picture.
yes, and a solution could have been to cite sources.
This was no innocent mistake of forgetting to list a source
I don’t think, that not-citing-sources is an innocent mistake.
Watch the hbomberguy video segment about it, it paints a very clear picture
I did. I does paint a very colorful picture. Full of opinion and sarcasm and rhethoric.
Here is a rule-of-thumb to decide if an argument was convincing because it had good content, or because it was well written: If the content was good, it will be easy for you explain to a 3rd party. If only the presentation was good, then you will have a hard time convincing others.
It became annoyingly fingerpointy for me personally.
If the content was good, it will be easy for you explain to a 3rd party. If only the presentation was good, then you will have a hard time convincing others.
Articles can be written perfectly, but that doesn’t mean I’ll read them. Give me someone narrating the whole thing with entertaining animations in the background and you’ve created something interesting and engaging to me.
The one thing about that which I find worth defending, is how much his video made the story entertaining. I wouldn’t have read the article but his video kept me engaged . Even if the writing was copied, he still added a lot to it.
That’s the most baffling thing. His video was transformative. Had he just credited the writing he’d probably be fine but he just decided not to, for some reason.
The bottle is filled with a flammable liquid usually something thick like motor oil or diesel, and stoppered with a cork or cap, then a rag is tied around the neck of the bottle, not stuffed into it. Then the rag is lit, and the bottle thrown. When it hits, it’ll break and the lit rag ignites the fuel in the bottle.
This is of course purely talking about the historical use of these devices. I definitely don’t condone anyone saving their wine bottles and corks for future reuse.
You should take your own advice, your players who play martials will have a lot more fun if they aren’t dealing damage to themselves one in every twenty hits
Sure, but the question was “how you you as a DM rule this?” Unless you’re running a game where the players are all commoners, it’s safe to assume there’s a less than 1 in 20 chance of hitting yourself with a thrown weapon
Alchemist’s Fire is basically the Molotov Cocktail of 5e, so I’d just use that.
1d4 Fire damage per round unless they take an action to put the fire out seems pretty reasonable to me. Puts it on par with a shortsword at the very least.
Fireball’s damage is insane (the designers intentionally made it deal more damage than spells of the same level “because it’s an iconic spell”), so I wouldn’t really use it as a baseline for balancing anything, personally.
Alchemist’s Fire also exists in 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5. I dunno about WoW with dice 4th edition, or 1st edition. My parents had both the red and blue boxes, but we read the rules and immediately went for AD&D cause that was more flexible when we started the family game in Dragonlance.
slrpnk.net
Oldest