No not at all - it’s just fun to. A nat one on attacks always misses though. Some DMs say if you nat one your attack you might hit a teammate or do something else disadvantageous, but it’s all contextual.
Sort of since what the DM says ultimately goes, but no - a crit fail means your effort just fails no matter what. Now, it may also mean that your acrobatics check ends in you slipping on a banana peel and breaking your back, but it doesn’t have to be dramatic.
So, crit fail means that no matter how skilled you are, you have a 5% chance of failing anything you attempt (without advantage, lucky, etc. anyway)
Very much depends on the modifier, though. Like in Baldur’s Gate 3 they do crit fails/successes which is what made me think of this. But say my character is a level 20 wizard with an essentially superhuman mastery of Arcana. So a bonus of +12 to arcana and is presented with a rune that needs to be identified:
Under the crit fail/success system, this genius Archmagus with a knowledge of Arcana in the same ballpark as Mystra herself has a 5% chance of not knowing what the fuck that rune does instead of whatever small percentage rolling a minimum of 13 would get you on that particular skill challenege. If this dude rolled the lowest he can roll, it is and should still be treated as pretty damn good.
And it’s ultimately up to the DM, of course, but RAW matters too
In the dim lighting, the potroast, burnt, appeared to be an “urban”, African American Male, young twenties, medium build and height. The gravy boat, a Glock 19 held sideways in a “gangster” style. All on my kitchen table. In my own home. I acted decisively, as any trained officer of the law would. I attempted to eliminate the potroast. There were unfortunate civilian casualties; but, in my judgment, swift action was necessary to uphold the law.
There’s just more nuance to it than the way you and others on both sides in these comments are presenting it. There is an 16% gender pay gap, true, but it’s actually a complex issue and just presenting that one fact in isolation leads others to believe “… and it is fully attributable to discrimination”, which isn’t the case.
Some of that is explained by “job choice” and choice of university degree, meaning women are self-selecting into certain lower paying jobs and fields of study. Like how women are underrepresented in STEM. This isn’t to say women are bad at STEM. There are just societal barriers that prevent them from pursuing those career choices. Everything from the pervasive notion that women “don’t like math” to harassment in male-dominated fields to our society enforcing the idea that women’s role in society is to care for others - and the “caring professions” are not high-paying.
The gap is not wholly explained by these factors, and we should try to mitigate them while continuing to decrease gender discrimination. But don’t pretend like these factors aren’t also at issue. Meanwhile, the gap is closing due to women becoming more represented both in universities (outnumbering men in the US), various old-fashioned notions going away, etc.
There are plenty of studies that support this, I saw several both from Harvard (some of which I was familiar with) and many more from other reputable universities and institutions. Also some from irreputable, conservative think tanks - it’s easy to see how this issue can be weaponized by them, but ignoring that job choice and other factors play a role is not helpful to closing the gender pay gap. This is from a US perspective, I can’t guarantee it holds true in all “Western” countries - but I know it’s the case in US and Canada
The US government has found that: "Specifically, differences in the industries and occupations where men and women work explain 42.0% of their variance in earnings. ": dol.gov/…/WB_issuebrief-undstg-wage-gap-v1.pdf (source on the chart in page 2 of the writeup, comes from 2020 study by the US Census Bureau). This is a sizeable effect and we should not ignore it.
It is objectively true that women are overrepresented in lower paying jobs. This is due to a variety of reasons, including societal and social factors thay discourage women from going into higher paying, traditionally male fields. The gap is narrowing especially now that, at least in the US, there are more women attending university than men and we have robust laws to prevent/punish discrimination based on sex.
Here’s a good summary/explanation by Pew Research Center in a writeup of a survey of theirs on the Gender Pay Gap:
“Much of the gender pay gap has been explained by measurable factors such as educational attainment, occupational segregation and work experience. The narrowing of the gap over the long term is attributable in large part to gains women have made in each of these dimensions.
Even though women have increased their presence in higher-paying jobs traditionally dominated by men, such as professional and managerial positions, women as a whole continue to be overrepresented in lower-paying occupations relative to their share of the workforce. This may contribute to gender differences in pay.”
They go on to say that a gap still exists, even accounting for these factors, but it’s smaller than the commonly cited 84% figure (though 84% is correct if you don’taccount for other factors).
The US government has found that "Specifically, differences in the industries and occupations where men and women work explain 42.0% of their variance in earnings. ": dol.gov/…/WB_issuebrief-undstg-wage-gap-v1.pdf (source on the chart in page 2 of the writeup, comes from 2020 study by the US Census Bureau)
Basically, there is a pay gap, some of it is explained by factors other than gender, but we should work to try to eliminate those factors by removing barriers for women to enter certain fields as well as gender discrimination.
As a 10+ year reddit user who has switched 98% to Lemmy, only checking reddit on my computer every couple days: Lemmy is completely fine, and I have seamlessly transitioned from Reddit.
Its userbase is more technical than Reddit’s, and there’s not as much content. But it is a perfectly good Reddit alternative. I find it isn’t as addictive as reddit, which is awesome. I just wish there were more educational communities akin to AskHistorians, AskScience, etc.
The limits on 401k contributions are federally regulated and are set as a nominal amount.
Employers often have employees select a percentage of their income to contribute, and for very high income earners, 15% might be over the federal limit. Also, employers can match employee 401k contributions. That is usually a percentage match of annual salary up to a given limit (e.g. 2% of salary up to $3000).