I think the only capstones really worth it are from Cleric, Paladin and maybe Barbarian or Artificer. Fighter is cool, but also a bit lackluster.

This rule has been in the book ever since the PHB first released. If this was something you didn’t use, you either missed it or played a different edition.

I think people overestimate what hiding can do for you. Hiding does not immediately shield you from harm. You can’t hide if there’s nothing to hide behind. If an enemy walks around your cover, even the best stealth roll in the whole world won’t keep you hidden.

How did the DM react to your new strategy?

I actually don’t like the “magic exist so fuck simulatiounism” reasoning, since it implies the as soon as magic exists, any rational explanations are off the table. I generally prefer to establish what can and can’t be done, so we have as baseline for what’s possible. Otherwise you quickly loose consistency. Martials should be able to do more than regular people in our world, but there should be guidelines on what they can do.

Yes the game is not a simulation. But I prefer using examples aside from magic. Magic is not simplification for game purposes, magic is part of the setting. Things like HP, the turn order and armor class vs. saving throws generally work better as comparisons.

This as well. Because while a more diverse set of abilities would be cool, if you make it too diverse, everyone suddenly becomes a jack of all trades, master of many and that feels boring.

Very much this. It even feels very “rogueish” to employ that strategy and it’s far from broken, so I don’t see why you would ban it.

Get’s transported to a time where all Sphinxes have died.

Did the DM just not like Rogues or were they new to DnD?

I’d say it gets you the exhaustion, but as long as you do not actively mess up the wording the spell will work, since it’s specifically said that the spell can be used to do that so it should be able to do so consistently.

Not in my presence at least. I’m moreso mocking the meme format, as people keep using it whenever someone brings up that their build only works with thing x. I’ve seen it with free feats, smites, 1 level dips, specific feats, magic items, …

Some of those takes were reasonable. Some were not. And while the format was made to criticise overreliance on one thing, I feel like it’s sometimes used too easily. Relying on an abilities is not bad in itself. Some builds only work because of abilities. And while it’s fair to bring up that it’s a bit one dimensional, that doesn’t invalidate the build.

I’m afraid I never played the module. What’s down there?

Pretty much, yes. I also think it’s not necessary for characters not to become better in all abilities even as the game goes on, but I generally like that characters typically continue to have weaknesses as they level up. Th unfortunate part is that those weaknesses are a lot less punishing for some classes then for other.

Yes. And RAI means „rules as intended“. The technical interpretation of those words seems very much unintended.

How did it come to that?

I really like this approach. I’d say few dungeons are really places of inner conflict though, since that usually either resolves itself quickly by one side winning or fleeing, because few people like to have a potential rival as a direct neighbor. But of course, there are exceptions and even dungeons belonging to a single faction should feel like the monsters are actually alive.

Oh shoot you’re right. Guess you only need to get to level 17 then, but that’s barely a challenge, right?

Yes. That’s the point. But you don’t need rule of cool for this. You just need to use at least a single braincell to apply RAI.

Definetly. Though some role-players might find it annoying that it creates the impression that your character just eventually becomes decent at everything.

Ouch. That kind of word picking should be illegal.

I think I don’t get the “plausible deniability” thing.

Great comic by the way. I just read up some things about Durnan and was really happy to see him here.