|
Who was it who posted a recipe for buffalo chicken that was just "dredge the chicken breast in ranch dressing mix; stick in the slow cooker, cover with Frank's red hot; cook on low for seven hours?" Because that person deserves some kind of prize.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
drunkencarp posted:Who was it who posted a recipe for buffalo chicken that was just "dredge the chicken breast in ranch dressing mix; stick in the slow cooker, cover with Frank's red hot; cook on low for seven hours?" Because that person deserves some kind of prize. Yeah, that was fantastic. Way way better than any commercial 'buffalo' recipe I've tried.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:Yeah, that was fantastic. Way way better than any commercial 'buffalo' recipe I've tried. That was the first time i've ever had buffalo chicken and it was pretty amazing. Please post more slow cooker recipes!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
kingcom posted:That was the first time i've ever had buffalo chicken and it was pretty amazing. Please post more slow cooker recipes! Oh I was just agreeing, it was I AM THE MOON who posted it I think. One of my favorite simple slow cooker chicken recipes though is this: Coat chicken in season and oregano mix, about equal quantities. Brown in a bunch of butter, put in slow cooker. Chop a bunch of garlic, put in the pan and let it saute in the leftover butter for a little bit before adding as much chicken broth as you think would be good for the sauce (the original recipe called for like half a cup or something? I usually use two cups) as well as bunch of lemon juice. Bring to boil, then pour over chicken and slow cook, eight hours on low. I actually like to serve with minute rice using the lemon/garlic/oregano/seasonsalt broth instead of water to cook the rice. But I'm lazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Roasted Carnitas This is what I made today for supper. It's pretty simple. Mojo Criollo: 1 1/2 cups orange juice 2/3 cups lime juice A goodly amount of garlic; a dozen peeled and crushed cloves or equivalent in garlic powder 2 tsps cumin 2 tbsps oregano Salt to taste 1/2 to 1 cup water Carnitas: Preheat oven to 350. Take pork shoulder and cut it into shapeless lumps of meat, about two inches on a side. Line the bottom of a baking dish with the meat lumps, spaced so that they do not touch one another. Pour mojo criollo into the dish so that it evenly fills the bottom of the dish with a thin layer of liquid. Keep some Mojo Criollo in reserve. Seal tightly with tin foil. Bake covered at 350 for 1 hour. Increase heat to 450 and uncover the baking dish. Bake uncovered for 20-30 minutes, or until the mojo criollo bakes away and the pork fat renders. Turn the pork chunks over, dosing them with some of the remaining mojo criollo to keep them coated, and bake uncovered another ten to twenty minutes as needed. When the tips of the pork lumps turn crispy, you are done. Pull prok lumps apart into smaller lumps and serve. Tip: For a side dish, take 1/3rd cup of mojo criollo and add it to a can of black beans; simmer the hell out of them while the pork cooks, then serve them over yellow rice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
I never buy salad dressing in a bottle: Creamy Ranch Dressing 1 cup buttermilk 1 cup mayonnaise 1 teaspoon white vinegar 1 teaspoon garlic powder 1 teaspoon onion powder 1/2 teaspoon kosher salt 1/2 teaspoon fresh ground pepper 2 Tablespoons fresh chopped dill 1/4 cup flatleaf parsley Whisk ingredients together in a bowl until well integrated. Chill for two hours before serving. Champagne Vinaigrette 1/2 cup champagne vinegar 1/2 cup extra virgin olive oil Juice of 1 lemon 2 Table Spoons dijon mustard 1 clove garlic, crushed 1/2 shallot minced 2 tablespoons fresh chopped tarragon 1/2 teaspoon kosher salt 1/2 teaspoon fresh ground pepper Finely mince shallot into bowl and coat with fresh squeezed lemon juice, let stand for 10 minutes. Add crushed garlic, then whisk in champagne vinegar and dijon mustard, along with herbs and spices until incorporated. Drizzle in olive oil while whisking until the desired consistency is reached. Makes about 4 servings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
drunkencarp posted:Who was it who posted a recipe for buffalo chicken that was just "dredge the chicken breast in ranch dressing mix; stick in the slow cooker, cover with Frank's red hot; cook on low for seven hours?" Because that person deserves some kind of prize. Me
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
I posted a really good Slow Cooker Ragout like last week I'd link to the post, but i am on my phone...
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
By all means enjoy the 2013 Drunkencarp Prize for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Improving Drunkencarp's Life Through Slow Cookery or D&D Game Design. (Past winners include the authors of the 4e Dark Sun books and of course Monte Cook).
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
I have been really digging a simple recipe I came up with for an easy, healthy supper: 1 can of smoked oysters, drained 1/2 tbsp mayo or olive oil some green onion, chopped fine pinch of sea salt pinch of cayenne Mash everything together and spread on toast. If you want to get fancy you can grate some Parmesan or other cheese on top and stick under the broiler for a minute or two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
drunkencarp posted:By all means enjoy the 2013 Drunkencarp Prize for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Improving Drunkencarp's Life Through Slow Cookery or D&D Game Design. (Past winners include the authors of the 4e Dark Sun books and of course Monte Cook). You just gave him the award you don't have to remind us in parentheses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Mexican Deathgasm posted:healthy supper: Are smoked oysters healthy? I honestly don't know and I've never checked. I like them a lot, so I've never really considered them from a health perspective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Are smoked oysters healthy? I honestly don't know and I've never checked. I like them a lot, so I've never really considered them from a health perspective. Most canned stuff is gratuitously high in sodium but otherwise they are probably pretty all right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
What exactly is the nutritional value of salty snot anyway?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:What exactly is the nutritional value of salty snot anyway? A High 7.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:What exactly is the nutritional value of salty snot anyway? They're oysters packed in oil, it is pretty much pure protein and fat. Oysters, like kangaroos, have few if any carbs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:What exactly is the nutritional value of salty snot anyway?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
So I was trying to discover ways to improve my egg drop soup and decided to look into not using corn starch in the broth. But while I was googling, I found a bizarre suggestion. Put the corn starch in the egg mix (and also sesame oil.) I gave it a try and instead of turning into strips of egg, the egg mix explodes into a billion particles and makes the soup thick and heavy with egg. This is amazing. Some BadWrongCook explain why this explodes into glory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Speaking of bizarre suggestions. If you're browning onions, you can add a tiny pinch of baking soda to make it go much faster. quote:The onions that were browned with the baking soda and salt mixture (1:1) had the best flavor, probably due to the enhanced savory taste from the salt combined with the rich caramel sweetness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:So I was trying to discover ways to improve my egg drop soup and decided to look into not using corn starch in the broth. But while I was googling, I found a bizarre suggestion. My initial idea is that the corn starch might inhibit the egg protein from bonding together into ribbons, so they coagulate into tinier egg dots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Probably the corn starch bonds unravel outward, preventing egg protein chains. The oil may also act as a surfactant, forming little egg micelles that hang out on their own.
Dr. Lunchables fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Anywhere I can get the latest copy of the playtest packet? I have copy 091913 but my pdfs were corrupted  edit: nevermind, I did some googling and found a random zip ;D opulent fountain fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Buying the Dreams of the Red Wizards packet also includes playtest materials. It's like 18 bucks
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
But what about the Super Secret Betamath Team packets? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:But what about the Super Secret Betamath Team packets? Why, they contain everything you can possibly imagine!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
My God, it's full of math!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Those playtest packets are woven from the finest rules, and are so light and beautiful as to dazzle anyone who sees them. Of course, those of us who are worthy cool guys have already received these rules, and are all playing the best RPG ever made. You've checked your spam folder, right? I'd hate to think you were a boorish fool who couldn't see them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Actual content! Article on the sorcerer is up!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
quote:Although that concept was popular, our playtest feedback showed that it strayed too far from the class's basic concept for most players. It's actually kind of refreshing that Mearls is comfortable enough to say "This was a popular idea with potential. But grognards."
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:It's actually kind of refreshing that Mearls is comfortable enough to say "This was a popular idea with potential. But grognards." Also still pretty sad that he has to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Yes it is pretty sad that something that seemed to test positively had to be dropped because the one single subclass we saw was too capable in melee combat. Would have been nice to see some other subclases for that version of the Sorcerer before it was dropped so that maybe people could have seen if it was just that Dragon Sorcerers are gishes or if the whole class was going to be like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
I don't understand. Grognards are awful, I know that. Even grognards must know the original incarnation of the sorcerer was pretty poo poo. I don't know of anybody who looked at the sorcerer and thought, "oh man that poo poo is so cash, Charisma casting so unique can't way to play that." Instead it was a nice little way to play a diplomat/wizard and approach casting in a slightly simplified way. They were wizards with daily spells instead of memorized spells. Whee. There's nothing there to defend, they're basically just Charisma-Wizards. We don't need Charisma-Wizards. Also I don't think fighter/wizard accurately replicates a melee spellcaster. A fighter/wizard splits resources between casting and melee, which means he's about 50% effective at both. It's a really thematically cool combination that ends up being sort of watered down in practice. You either end up being a Fighter gimmick that spams the same loving spell all day or you're a Wizard who straps on a sword and board to get through the first couple of levels without turning into a pile of red goop with a spellbook floating in it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
It doesn't. And under the current rules a Mage multiclassing with a non spellcaster loses a lot, while a Mage multiclassed with a full caster misses little as their spell slots still go up. Now maybe a subclass will fix this, but I would have to see it to believe it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I don't understand. Honestly I remember a fair amount of angst when 3E first came out over the Sorcerer, how they could cast so many spells and what the gently caress WotC, what is this broken bullshit for noobs? Sort of like how you got a bunch of people talking about how OP Monks were, i.e. gut feelings and a toilet-read as opposed to actual play. But the thing about stuff like this is that the dumb bullshit for babies of 13 years ago gets filtered through faulty, rose-colored memories to become the venerable traditions and cornerstones of True D&D Feel today. So the Sorcerer, in this particular case, has gone from that thing that violated the sacred covenant of true Vancian casting to that class you take if you don't want to get up to quite as much caster bullshit but still be a caster to the way things have always been, which is where we are now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:So the Sorcerer, in this particular case, has gone from that thing that violated the sacred covenant of true Vancian casting to that class you take if you don't want to get up to quite as much caster bullshit but still be a caster to the way things have always been, which is where we are now. Yay. So we'll be due for non-lovely fighters and dragon-mans being sacrosanct in 2019?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
More like 2021, maybe 2023 at the outside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
The Sorcerer is actually objectively worse than just a "Charisma Wizard", it would be just that if otherwise it had the exact same deal as a wizard, but it doesn't. First of Spontaneous Casting combined with Metamagic gets an increased casting time because being able to decide on the spot you wanted to empower your fireball would just be TOO GOOD. This is not a big deal at the low end but towards the high end of levels makes the wizard very clearly superior. Second Charisma and Intelligence are not remotely equal in use. The wizard is going to drown in skillpoints, the sorcerer is probably going to be able to keep 3 skills at a decent level. And I hope you wanted your Charisma wizard to use Bluff and not Diplomacy, because that is the only social skill on the Charisma Wizards list. Oh and even though at this point the wizard is mechanically way ahead of the sorcerer the wizard also gets scribe scroll and 4 bonus feats, because I guess... just because. Now of course this complaint falls a little flat because it comes down to "Technically the Sorcerer is not as good as the best class in the game." but it always annoyed me because there is just so little reason to play a sorcerer over a wizard if you want an arcane caster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
Tzarnal posted:The Sorcerer is actually objectively worse than just a "Charisma Wizard", it would be just that if otherwise it had the exact same deal as a wizard, but it doesn't. First of Spontaneous Casting combined with Metamagic gets an increased casting time because being able to decide on the spot you wanted to empower your fireball would just be TOO GOOD. This is not a big deal at the low end but towards the high end of levels makes the wizard very clearly superior. Reminded me of a post I made last year: OneThousandMonkeys posted:-Wizards got higher-level spells sooner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Reminded me of a post I made last year: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
Zereth posted:You forgot the magic items that gave wizards (and wizards specifically) more spell slots, letting them catch up to the only thing sorcerors had over them! Yes, once you get into item optimization it totally falls apart.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 11:13
|
|