Lesser restoration doesn't cure permanent blindness, deafness, or paralysis. And it doesn't work on all forms of poison.

Lesser restoration specifically ends one condition that can be blindness, deafness, paralysis, or poisoned. Permanent traits of your character aren't conditions, and not every poison inflicts the poisoned condition.

No, the test itself is definitely the problem. Regardless of whether you believe a personality type test can be effective, the MBTI is particularly and provably ineffective in just about every measurable way:

It's not reliable. It has terrible test-retest reliability. If I'm X personality type, I shouldn't test as X type one time, and Y type the next, and Z 6 months laters.

It's not predictive. If a personality test accurately judges someone, it should mean you now know something about someone's behaviours, and can extrapolate that forwards and predict behavioural trends. MBTI does not.

It fundamentally doesn't match the data. MBTI relies upon the idea that people fall neatly into binary buckets (introverted vs extroverted, thinking vs feeling, etc). But the majority of people don't, and test with MBTI scores close to the line the test draws, following a normal distribution. So the line separating two sides of a bell curve ends up being arbitrary.

And finally, it's pushed very hard by the Myers-Briggs foundation, and not at all by independent scientific bodies. copying straight from wikipedia:

Most of the research supporting the MBTI's validity has been produced by the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, an organization run by the Myers–Briggs Foundation, and published in the center's own journal, the Journal of Psychological Type (JPT),

The point of the distinction in that situation is that no one thinks your car is actually alive and capable of lying to you. The language distinction when describing an obviously inanimate object isn't important because there is no chance for confusion.

That's only true for movement. For areas of effect, there are templates for each size for square grids that are roughly shaped like real circles.

Huh, I wonder why people holding that opinion would be on Lemmy...

In the US (which I'm assuming you're referring to, since the meme mentions the GOP), There is absolutely not a background check performed for every firearm purchase. That's one of many restrictions people reasonably want placed on guns. Only 17 states have a universal requirement for gun sales. The federal law "requiring" background checks only applies to federally licensed sales. Private sales, gun shows, etc. allow for sale of guns with no background check, and often bypass age restrictions as well.

It's not a shame, Notch completely detached himself from reality.

You don't really lower a target's AC, it usually stays constant. The AC is just the number you have to roll against to hit.

Ie, you roll a 10 on a d20. You have a bonus of +8 to hit. That means you'll hit the enemy as long as it's AC is 18 or lower.

Saving throws are the reverse. The enemy who's getting targeted by a spell gets to roll and add their save bonus to try and beat your spell DC, which is usually somewhere from 15-20 ish.

You don't really need to know the maths going on, it's all represented by the % chance that pops up when you go to target something. If a hit says 95% chance, that means you'll hit as long as you don't roll a 1 on a d20.

As for Karlach's AC, that's just a barbarian thing. Barbarians are usually unarmored, but they get to add their Con stat to their AC as well as their Dex. They have a lot more HP to make up for getting hit more often, and they resist all physical damage while raging so they're still quite tanky despite having a lower AC.

If you're on keyboard (I'm sure controller has it but idk the button) the T key will let you hover over keywords to get more information. Ie, if a spell says it paralyzed the enemy, hitting T will let you mouse over "paralyzed" and read how it prevents the enemies from acting, and makes all melee attacks against them crits.

I broke my own haste concentration at least twice a play session and I've been DMing 5e for 6 years at this point. Would have saved me a few wipes on tactician

This video shortly and succinctly shows this a few times: https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo?si=rCJA_3-QaANHSQX9

Controlling 4 digital 5e characters in rapid succession feels very different from controlling 1 character in a tabletop setting. Idk if it's better or worse this way, but (to me) they're pretty distinct experiences so it's worth at least trying