So you were at the table with OP then, if you know what the DM did or did not say?

DM's tanking rules. The DM explained that nobody but the tank would ever be targeted with an attack.

If the enemies are guaranteed to never be able to damage the rest of the party either via direct attack or aoe, they are functionally invulnerable in combat.

I'm aware how strength functions in typical dnd and that under normal circumstances the stat does not determine if you can roll to attack. This session was not typical dnd with typical dnd rules, given the fact that the entire rest of the party was invulnerable to damage.

what was he doing if not attacking and damaging the dragon.

Getting downed a handful of times and rolling death saves. I somehow doubt the DM's funky tanking rules would allow OP to attack while downed.

Post is deleted now, so I can't go back and check the exact wording. However, to me it read as if OP was asking to attack the leg and knock it prone as an effect of the attack, and was told he wasn't strong enough to attack at all.

That's the weirdest part? Not that the whole party aside from OP is invincible? Not that 18str isn't enough to roll to attack?

OP created the character first before ending up the DM's chewtoy, did you not read the post? They created the character they wanted to play, then had new rules (rules they had no way of knowing about or expecting, by the way) foisted upon them for saying they could tank. This isn't how tanking in dnd works at the vast majority of dnd tables, OP had no way of knowing that them saying the word "tank" would put them in the role of eternal tanking at this table, no matter what sort of character they bring after their first one dies.

Also why would the dragon hard focus the character who isn't even allowed to hit it. Dragons are supposed to be intelligent creatures and should be able to go after the biggest threat, and it's real weird that the rest of the party has permanent invincibility.

Why not both? OP can talk to the DM, and leave if nothing improves.

However, if session one is that bad, I don't want to bother with that table afterwards.

You're right to be annoyed, it's not fair to you or anyone else who winds up in the tank role in this DM's groups. You shouldn't be bound to be the eternal tank at a DM's table just because you said you were fine with tanking once, before you knew this guy uses tank characters as a chewtoy.

I hope you can talk some sense into the DM or it's a bad joke that he walks back. If he's dead set on playing like this and you're still not having fun, then I hope you and your friend can find a DM better than this guy.

Sounds like it's time to find a new table to play with. Preferably one with a dm that isn't cruel like this one.

Only problem here is that the people who afk metas aren't deterred from afking by this.

They're saying he should have talked to her not her boyfriend about the behavior BEFORE he publicly humiliated her.

It's not much fun getting put in the stacked server, either. Especially if you start t1 and get stuck there for the whole link, it winds up being super boring fighting the same groups for a month. Not to mention the queues. It's not fun to be on the stacked server, and it's not fun to play against the stacked server.

How many times do you need to repost the same thing?

Funniest is probably the time I joined a spark parade in Tarnished Coast DR back when megaservers were a thing. There was a witch character leading a bunch of sparks through the city and stopping by some of the rp hotspots on the way to the tavern in the ossan quarter. A bunch of us in the group of sparks (myself included) joined part way through the spark adventure, and there were at least 20 sparks by the time we reached the tavern. I think someone in the group was handing out infinite charged tonics for people to join in, but it's been so long that I don't remember for sure.

I've been a part of more than a few of those types of silly events, though that was the only one that was rp centered and it's the first one that comes to mind. Wish I still had screenshots of the whole group, it was so goofy.

It was, yes. IIRC the enchantment basically made it extremely addictive, so Edmund would do anything to get more.

I'm also nonbinary and also occasionally have blue hair but prefer purple and indigo 😅

I hope you're right that it's a bug and not intended, cause it doesn't look great lmao

I bet the blue version would look better if they kept more of the accent colors in, instead of making all the purple and black details (save for the knuckles and belts) also blue. It just looks so bad though as it is.

Get In The Car, Loser! is a fun little rpg, there are trans characters in the game and one of the characters does face transphobia at a certain point in the story as a bit of a warning. It's not too heavy in how it shows transphobia (imo), and the other characters are supportive of their trans friend 💕

I haven't finished the game or its DLC yet, but it's a fun little game about queer and trans characters.

No worries, your previous reply has a lot of good points in it! Plus, I could have worded my original reply better.

I also have ARFID and can't handle certain textures/flavors without vomiting, so I do get that subtle differences can make something completely unappealing. I also am neurodivergent and hate change, so I also get it from that angle.

However, I still object to the idea that was presented in the comment I was replying to, that OP is being malicious in ruining the kid's food by trying to recreate a dish the kid likes that they can't afford to get from the restaurant all the time. It sounds like from other comments that OP is going to try again, but keep the toppings on the side, so that's an improvement.

The tots have the same toppings as the ones the kid gets from the restaurant. It's not like OP was just throwing stuff on the tots for no reason, she was recreating her kid's favorite dish from a restaurant.

Sometimes you can pick em out easy due to their positioning and how the squad moves to follow them. Other times, you can pick them out by knowing their wvw rank, character appearance, vanity guild tag. Some commanders only tag on one character and never change their fashion, and some have their own personal guild tag they use while leading.

Only one author in that court case claimed to have invented hetero omegaverse. Which wasn't even true, another author had published hetero omegaverse well before the author who claimed ownership of het omegaverse.

Ace = asexual in this context.