Been a while since I was in school, but high school went from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm. The bus arrived at my house at 7:30 and dropped me off at 3:30.
The school day consisted of four 1.5 hour classes, we had three 10 min breaks between classes and a 30 min lunch.
Yeah except that Dwarf Fortress was a complete game for years and free. Under the hood it's the same game, it only costs money now if you're getting the better graphics and music added.
In my mind Early Access is for games that are so close to completion that they can ask for money and withstand criticism.
It should go:
If your game suffers in Early Access then it likely means your game wasn't ready for Early Access. Too often a game that should still be in Closed Alpha or Closed Beta is thrown up on Steam as Early Access. If you're gonna do that then you have to take the criticism as well.
I don't know if 5e has starting age tables? 3e and Pathfinder do, it's an optional character creation thing that helps show the general age of most things. It starts off with the starting age of a given race and then has a table with different classes and dice. So for a human the starting age is 15, Barbarian/Rogue/Sorcerer is 1d4, Bard/Fighter/Paladin/Ranger is 1d6, and Cleric/Wizard/Monk/Druid is 2d6.
So a typical cleric starting age would be 16-27. At that point they are a level 1 Cleric and have a grand total of one level 1 spell per day. 5e is more generous and gives them two level 1 spells per day.
That spell should do a lot, and in a small village would be amazingly effective, but at a certain point there just aren't enough spells per day for everyone. It should actually be hard for adventurers to get healing because the local cleric should probably have spent all his healing for the day by the time they get to him, he can probably squeeze them in tomorrow when he's recovered spells.
Except that it's exceptionally expensive. 5e is probably the most forgiving with its currency, a Raise Dead spell costs only 500 GP (assuming no extra fees) and while it's hard to approximate wealth in the game I found an old Reddit post that approximated it to ~1 GP = ~$1,000. So $500,000 minimum for a Raise Dead.
While there are probably people in your life that would sell everything to bring you back, would you really want them to? How many times could your family and friends pull together $500,000 to raise someone in the group?
If you're so obscenely wealthy that you could afford multiple Raise Dead in your lifespan you'd have other, more political problems. For example you'd have people lined up down the street asking you to raise [insert tragic story].
Speaking of Political problems, you have to find someone willing to raise you and someone willing to finance it. If the king dies and the Prince takes over what are the odds that he's going to raise his dad and give up that power? If he's a bad king it might be hard to find a cleric willing to do so and even if he's a good king a benevolent cleric might not have 500 GP to finance it himself. You could leave the money with a cleric you trust, but he could always just keep the money. If the Prince isn't willing to Raise the king he'd also probably go out of his way to hide, protect, or destroy the body to make a Raise Dead by an outside source more difficult.
In setting I think you're right, a good person, who is exceptionally wealthy, can probably ignore death. Someone like Lord Nasher from Neverwinter probably doesn't have to worry about a simple stabbing, someone will Raise him in 10 min and probably be rewarded 100 fold. However, if you're able and willing to attempt that sort of assassination you'd also know how limited the effect would be and probably wouldn't even try something so simple.
Nah, even if they did their NATO % contribution the amount would be pitifully small. When you look at most of the articles that talk about "10 Best Places to Live" it's mostly super small population, low immigration, countries with virtually no military.
Most NATO countries are between 1-2.5% of their GDP, but that's only ~$300 billion. The US does ~3.5% which amounts to ~$811 billion.
The other NATO countries wouldn't just need to meet their NATO 2%, they'd need to more than triple it. Even just for the US to come down to 2% would cause a ~$348 billion decrease (more than the rest of NATO combined).
If I were a European country free riding in NATO the last thing I'd be pushing is the US to reduce military spending.
Barak replied "It's already been known for many years that they have a bunker that originally was built by Israeli constructors underneath Shifa," which was used as a "command post" for Hamas and as a "junction of several tunnels"
"I don't know to say to what extent it is a 'major.' It's probably not the only...command post. Several others are under hospitals or in other sensitive places."
...
Barak, who was Israel's prime minister from 1999 to 2001, responded, "decades ago, we were running the place, so we helped them." The Gaza Strip has been controlled by Hamas since 2007.
"It was many decades ago...that we helped them build these bunkers in order to enable more space for the operation of the hospital within the very limited size of these compounds."
But Is he a good boss and is he a good person?
No not really
What do you mean by that?
Which millions exactly? There were only ~600,000 Native Americans in what is now the USA in 1800, Europeans had killed all the others through various wars and disease.
If you actually look at the casualties from the 1800's Indian wars the grand total is <40,000. Some died of starvation or poor conditions, but the vast majority died from incidental exposure to small pox and measles just like when the Europeans exposed the natives when they arrived.
In this case you may be right, but region protected products can be quite ridiculous. For example Bourbon:
(Source Wikipedia)
That's pretty fucking generic except for the made in USA portion. If I'm not mistaken Champagne has similarly silly restrictions with no significant difference.