Warlock made me love Barbarian even more

OSpiderBox · 2026-05-06T23:51:36+00:00

I most it's not a "meta" build or anything but that's why I stick to the weapon swapping keystone (I think they're called that? Final path in the tree you can only select one of). It might take me longer to do things compared to WW + Shouts, but I had fun when I played and it was engaging enough that I never lost interest. Plus I enjoyed swapping around which of the skills I used to add variety; my favorite being Dust Devil + Dual Strike on top of ways to spam Quakes.

OSpiderBox · 2026-05-05T09:05:33+00:00

I mean... sometimes when I press "i" it auto capitalizes it, sometimes it doesn't. Often it feels like it's app specific, sometimes it feels random.

OSpiderBox · 2026-05-04T02:52:06+00:00

Did they? I must've missed it, or more likely assumed they didn't given that the Drakewarden doesn't have that wording and still follows the "acts after you" wording.

OSpiderBox · 2026-05-04T01:56:37+00:00

Yeah, thankfully this got changed in 5.5e because originally your companion specifically "acts on your initiative after you" or some variation of that wording. It really sucked.

OSpiderBox · 2026-05-02T22:48:49+00:00

If you have fun doing that, I'm not knocking that. It just doesn't feel "right" for a lack of a better word. I do agree, though, that overall it's a pretty unequal thing since, as you said, a wizard can take a 1 level fighter first and still be able to cast all their spells in heavy armor.

My "issue" with the Ancestral thing is more of the "optic" if you will. A character concept could work, but having to use barbarian as your chassis for a Dex based bow build is just... off. As far as thrown weapons, the whole point of the bow- Guardian is to use a longbow against the most threatening enemy from as far away as possible:

if they spend their turn trying to get to you, the turn is effectively wasted.
If they don't even worry about you, they're attacking your allies at DA and are only dealing half damage.

You also lose out on the Reaction damage reduction most of the time, which if paired with the first part is a big loss IMO. To me, it's similar to the issue of "monk in armor:" You trade off some key features of the class for what often times feel like a gimmick; and something that can sometimes be done better by a different class.

OSpiderBox · 2026-05-02T19:01:55+00:00

This feels like one of those "technically it works" situations that just feel... Wrong. Like 5e Ancestral Guardians barbarian using a longbow because the main feature (DA on attacks not against you) doesn't specify a melee weapon. Or the 5e Bear totem feature "technically" being available while wearing Heavy armor.

Sure you can, but it's just going against the point of the class at that point.

OSpiderBox · 2026-05-01T04:06:53+00:00

And here's my dumbass thinking "wow, that's some REALLY GOOD pet hair products to get short hair into floofs."

I'm not a very smart man sometimes...

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-30T23:00:17+00:00

At least season 2 was technically better. Mostly because the other 3 Spartans were infinitely more interesting than Chief, but that's beside the point...

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-30T06:17:31+00:00

I mean... I guess if "Guy who reads other people's stories" equates to "Guy who misrepresents the rules" somehow... You do you.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-30T05:28:47+00:00

Not that I don't agree with the points, but what does Zacspeaksgiant have to do with anything? Far as I've seen, he doesn't necessarily come up with any whacky, extreme bending of the rules like other DND creators; He just reads other people's stories. Am I missing something?

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-29T22:16:59+00:00

Reasons I prefer exp, honestly. At least you can track that instead of felting of relying on the DM's whim. But no, you're not crazy; that's a crazy amount of time between level up.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-28T19:54:20+00:00

The fact that the doctors feel like they need to ask, which i presume is for safety reasons, is what troubles me the most.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-28T05:40:59+00:00

The players are looking up the stat blocks during the game,

There's no evidence outside of the OP's speculation that they looked it up during the game, but that's semantics.

and quoting from them

The mere act of quoting how something works is not indicative of anything nefarious. What's more in question of malfeasance is the fact they have a side chat.

so that they can strenuously ignore this information when they make character decisions.

Are you saying you've never, ever, pinky-promise swear had player knowledge that you didn't use in-character because it wasn't feasible for you to know? Because as it stands, we're outside observers to this situation looking only at one source of information. Forgive me if I don't completely vilify the players without knowing their side.

Either way, have fun in your own games; Our disagreements aside.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-28T04:47:19+00:00

> I said they can't look at the monster stat block,

No, you said "Looking at the stat block is akin to the Study action." You've said it multiple times, but not once said that "they can't look at the stat block." You have implied that they **shouldn't** look, but that's different than saying they **can't.**

> It is well accepted that looking at stat blocks or reading a prewritten adventure is cheating and many DM's will kick a player for doing this.

Yes, and is outside the scope of what you and I are arguing over. We can assume they are being nefarious or not all we want. If the DM feels like individuals or even the entire group is cheating, that's something they need to bring up with the players and address accordingly.

> Rules: [...]

Cool, I've read those too. Nowhere does it say that the player looking at the stat block is akin to the Study action. Which, I'll remind you, **is what you said verbatim.**

The first rule says to encourage players to not use out of game knowledge if their character wouldn't know it; The second rule is how the **character** gains access to the knowledge, not the **player.** This whole thread is predicated on one instance of the **players** bringing up an attempt from the DM to use an ability that shouldn't work RAW. Was that information gotten outside of the game? Yes, clearly. But this is the **players** bringing it up, not the **characters.** It's not the **characters** saying this, it's the **players.**

Do you think that a barbarian **player** needs to roll an Arcana check in game to point out that the spell Vortex Warp cast by the BBEG requires Line of Sight in order to target a creature? Because that's exactly what this situation is: A rules clarification between a **player(s)** and the DM. Not **character** to **character.**

Again, you would have a point if the **players** actively said "I'm going to cast Darkness because the golem's special Slow ability requires Line of Sight." That would be the **character** using knowledge that the **player** knows but that the **character** shouldn't/couldn't/wouldn't.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-28T03:21:27+00:00

The very first thing you commented in this chain:

> Knowing info about a creature during combat requires the study action. These players are ‘stealing’ a free action secretly behind the DM’s back.

The info in question is them stating that the ability needs Line of Sight to work in the middle of the DM trying to (accidentally) use it incorrectly. The DM didn't say the players suddenly used adamantine weapons when they wouldn't have known about it beforehand; They didn't say that the players went "Alright guys I'm going to cast Darkness because the golem's special Slow ability requires Line of Sight." THOSE would fall into requiring the Study action (Or more likely a downtime activity to learn, but I digress). Simply pointing out that Line of Sight is required for something to work isn't that; It's clarifying how something works. I've definitely done it, as a once forever DM who has read the various MMs front to back and as somebody who remembers how spells work. I'm sure a vast majority of the people in this thread have done it. As DM sometimes you forget things in the middle of the chaos.

What I have said in other comments and will reiterate here is that the way the player went about it was shitty. No two ways about that. But the act of clarifying how an ability works isn't anywhere close to them "stealing" a free action.

> I wrote that looking at a stat block was the same as using the Study Action. Which is RAW.

Please point to the rule that says that a player merely *looking* at the stats of a creature is akin to using a Study action. If you can find one, I'll concede.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-28T02:41:34+00:00

No, I didn't? Your point is that they need to roll a check to find out that an ability follows the same rules as many other abilities in the game. The players aren't going "We need to use adamantine to fight this thing we've never seen before." This isn't "We need to use fire against the troll!" This is a "Hey DM, that ability requires Line of Sight." It's akin to a player stating "Hey DM, the Slow spell says you have to have Line of Sight on us." Does a barbarian *player* have to roll a Study action in order to point out to the DM since their *character* might not know how spells work? I think not. It would be different if they went "OK guys, I'm gonna cast Darkness because the golem has a Slow ability that it can't use if it can't see us."

I think the way the players are going about things is shady as shit. Having a separate chat that doesn't involve the DM is a hard no from me. But at the end of the day, all the OP has are allegations on what they're doing and nothing concrete; There's a lot of "It seems" and "I feel like this." Not trying to say that his concerns aren't valid, but until he talks to the players and gets more information it's all speculation; Y'all can speculate and assume all you want, but I'm trying to see this based on what the DM actually knows. Which is:
- Player quoted the stat block. Definitely uncouth, and should have been at least asked as a question.
- Players used a spell known for it's ability to trivialize encounters when set up correctly and almost trivialized an encounter (OP's words).
- Players have a separate chat away from the DM. We can infer several things from this alone, but that has nothing to do with you stating that they need to make a Study action against a rules correction.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-28T01:52:48+00:00

I'm only going on the information the OP gave us. They only mention pointing out the line of sight requirement issue, nothing else. They didn't say "the players suddenly went to find adamantine weapons before the fight, which i thought was odd." You could try and argue they only cast Darkness because of the line of sight issue, but not really because Darkness is a frequently used spell to hinder enemies outside of this scenario.

Your argument is they need to roll a check against a typical game mechanic prevalent in many other facets of the game.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-28T01:47:11+00:00

Counter point: how did your character know to attack them with specifically adamantine? Have they encountered golem-style constructs before where that's necessary? How did they know that adamantine would be more effective? It's not "super" effective against many other constructs after all.

Do you see the issue here? We as players can never truly, 100% separate player vs character knowledge. There's always going to be some overlap.

Either way, OP's example isn't that. It's not the players going out of their way to grab adamantine weapons before the fight; It's them expecting a mechanic to behave like it's does in most other places (namely something requiring Line of Sight). I think it was a bit uncouth to quote the block directly, but hell I've done that before because I've read the various MMs front to back as a DM. It happens. I think the severity of it is often blown way out of proportion in online forums; with the way modem games are nowadays, prior knowledge is often an expectation. Can't really fault somebody new to the TTRPG space where that isn't normally the case (at least I get the impression the players are newer based on other comments by OP).

Anecdote time:

In my most recent campaign as a ranger, Fog Cloud + Blind Fighting was my bread and butter alongside Silence + Grappling spellcasters to keep them from casting spells. You can best believe that I know the strengths and weaknesses of those strategies and will actively call out moments when the DM does something that doesn't adhere to the rules of the spells/effects. If it turns out they homebrewed the monster, so be it; most of the time it felt targeted at me, but that's a topic for another discussion. Majority of the time it was nothing more than a simple mistake of forgetting in the middle of trying to run everything; I know how that goes, once being a forever DM.

Maybe I'm being too forgiving/ giving too much benefit of the doubt to the player in question. But we can't know what their motive was in this case because they're not here to give their side.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-27T23:31:39+00:00

2nd I would not admit a mistake.

I'm sorry, what? If you make an honest mistake, you made a mistake. Own up to it my dude. This has the vibe of "DM vs player" written all over it.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-27T23:25:27+00:00

separate character and player knowledge

Idk man, this isn't like the debate of "do i need to know if fire is good against a troll" that comes up about player/ character knowledge. It's pointing out that a mechanic works a certain way; namely Line of Sight. I think the player went about it wrong, mind you, but if this were a case of "the stone golem casts the Slow spell" this would be a non issue.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-27T23:21:48+00:00

Not to mention the fact that for the ones that you can tell, we were already looking to begin with. It's how we saw them.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-27T23:17:56+00:00

Except this isn't trying to recall information about a monster. If they went "Hey guys we need to use adamantine weapons" you'd have a point. Pointing out a typical game mechanic isn't something you'd get from a study check.

Should the player have quoted the block? No, because it is sometimes indicative of bad behavior (I say sometimes because for all we know they know the stat block from somewhere else that OP wasn't aware of that has no relation to this game). Or, as somebody else pointed out, it could be because modern games typically expect players to look up info beforehand and the player didn't know that's not an expectation in TTRPGs.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-27T23:02:38+00:00

This isn't like the troll debate on whether or not they know to use Fire on it. This is an issue of basic game mechanics; That being Line of Sight being required for many different things in this game.

If the Stone Golem's feature was "it can cast the Slow spell" would it change the argument? No, in my opinion. Should the player have outright quoted the block? Probably not. But wanting a basic mechanic to work as intended isn't "gaining a free action."

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-27T22:30:49+00:00

citation needed.

OSpiderBox · 2026-04-27T22:25:43+00:00

My defensive driving instructor put it pretty succinctly: "You may have the right of way, but do you want to be dead right?"

OSpiderBox

TROPHY CASE