The most absurd part of this is their inability to dox someone for a month. Give a handful of bored nerds any motivation and they’d have it figured out in a day or two.

Taken internally

What people often fail to remember is that CRT displays rendered pixels differently than most screens today. Images didn’t look as rigid because those older displays tended to blend pixels together a bit. It was analog aliasing, and it made sense.

Nobody liked or wanted blocky text back in the 80s or 90s, but we used the technology we had at the time.

Buco seems to be having a good time. 9/10, unsure how Eaton feels.

Just cleaned mine up a bit recently!

PC on the left, RPi for simple stuff and an Odroid HC4 as my media and backup server.

Not pictured: another RPi dedicated to HomeAssistant, a magic mirror, and networking stuff.

Also not pictured: my workbench tools on the upper shelves, which have not been tidied recently.

You’re doing it wrong. Replace the cake with beans and keep the filling, and we’ll talk.

There are some aspects of the discipline that are hard to grasp–in my experience, it was differential equations and advanced control systems. But those are a pretty small part of the curriculum. The number of people who graduated without demonstrating even basic understanding of rudimentary concepts is alarming, but it explains a large amount of the shitty engineering that exists in the world.

Open the fuckin’ strait?

Depends on the place, I guess. In the US and Canada, it’s pretty common. I’ve attended four different institutions and taught at one, and they’ve all been pretty money-focused.

WordWavr #41 2/6 🌊
🟢 97%
🟢 100%
https://wordwavr.app/

It’s worth noting that college degrees are often not hard to get, assuming you have ample finances. Colleges are businesses, and they care more about cashflow than education.

I have a bachelor of science in electrical engineering. Of my graduating class, probably only about a quarter of us actually understood anything. And now working in the industry, it seems like that’s a pretty reasonable average for other institutions in my field (there are exceptions, a few colleges have higher standards).

There are three things in the rules that I’m aware of that talk about fighting with two weapons:

1. There is a subsection in the basic rules called Two-Weapon Fighting. These are the base rules for anyone using two weapons (BA attack without ability modifier, must use light weapons)
2. There is also a fighting style called Two-Weapon Fighting available to fighters and a couple of specific subclasses (Swashbuckler has that option, I think). This fighting style allows you to add your ability modifier to the off-hand attack.
3. There is a feat called Dual Wielding (Player’s Handbook) that grants additional bonuses: the weapons don’t have to be light, a +1 AC bonus, and you’re able to draw or stow both weapons at once.

To be fair, the official D&D rules call it “Two-Weapon Fighting”. Not sure if it’s to avoid this confusion.

Identical weapons are what I typically picture in that scenario, but it makes sense mechanically to allow different types (especially with a rapier/dagger combo being a thing in a lot of fantasy, and probably historically? I dunno).

Yes, I’m aware what the rules say. And those rules specify that an unarmed attack is one option when doing a melee attack. And there are other rules that specify when you can make a melee attack. OPs post was noting the weirdness of D&D, in that there are some things that aren’t explicitly specified in the rules. Specifically, whether using two fists counts as dual-wielding (RAW, it doesn’t).

According to the rules, characters can make a melee attack when performing the Attack action (plus in a number of other cases). Most of the time, the Attack action involves one or more attacks with a weapon (martial classes get more than one starting at level 5).

So any weapon attack can be substituted as an unarmed attack. A character wielding a greataxe who can normally make two attacks with the Attack action could substitute one or both of those attacks with kicks, elbows, or for flavor, releasing the weapon with one hand and bitchslapping their opponent.

The question isn’t whether someone wielding other weapons can make an unarmed attack, it’s a question of when. More specifically, when can a character use a bonus action to make an unarmed attack.

The rules also contain information about dual-wielding weapons:

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

OP’s post calls out that fighting bare-fisted would not qualify as two-weapon fighting, and thus RAW a character fighting unarmed could not use a Bonus Action to make an additional attack (despite “wielding” two fists).

My point was that, as a GM, I would rule that fighting unarmed, or fighting with a single one-handed weapon and not having a shield, would qualify as being able to make an additional attack with a bonus action per the two weapon fighting rules.

But per the rules, landing an unarmed attack in this scenario would result in a maximum of one (1) point of damage, as the Str modifier would not be added to the damage (unless the character had some other benefit that improved it, such as a class feature or feat). So there’s no reason to not allow it, as it’s a pretty weak option.

Look, if you want to get into a gluten foot kink, just go for it. You don’t need to justify it to us.

No, look closely. One of those eevees is actually a typhlosion.

As far as I remember the rules, unarmed strike damage is 1 + Str modifier (i.e., a 1d1 damage die). And anyone untrained in unarmed strikes (not monk, not having the Tavern Brawler feat or similar) couldn’t add their prof bonus to the attack roll. This makes it significantly weaker than a proper dual wielding build or something like PAM, where the attacker typically gets a proper damage die and prof bonus. Which is why it doesn’t seem like a big deal to allow it.

Unarmed strikes can be done for flavor with kicks, elbows, etc. But mechanically I’d allow it as a proper bonus action if the character were wielding a single weapon without a shield. Anyone can describe anything however they want for flavor, I’m just talking about balancing the action economy.

Idiocracy was a plot by big dumb to sell more crocs

In BG3, you have to multiclass into rogue for the off-hand attack. But yeah, I think it would let you “dual wield” with a single light weapon.

I can’t imagine too many scenarios where allowing someone who is wielding a one-handed (or versatile) weapon and nothing in the off hand to have a bonus action unarmed strike to be game-breaking. Seems like an easy call to me.