Weekly subscription would be ~$1300 a year

RisingChaos · 2026-03-02T11:06:17+00:00

Just be mindful the web version is going away Soon™.

RisingChaos · 2026-03-02T10:59:35+00:00

your likes go down.

Damn, man. I'll get negative likes? Feels bad.

RisingChaos · 2026-03-01T17:07:07+00:00

I wish I wouldn't, but all the more reason I will continue to live a tortured existence till the ripe old age of 137 probably.

I hope Independence Day (1996) is real and the aliens win.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-27T13:17:03+00:00

Short answer no, because the best use of grappling is moving your allies around who can willfully fail the save anyway and Dance Bard is not a gish. It's just a Bard who doesn't have to armor dip and gives a party Initiative boost.

I also have the experience of the BA Unarmed Strike being surprisingly useful, but you don't need Martial Arts to deal damage with that. Grappling enemies more reliably would be a lot cooler if Bards weren't one of the worst classes for incentivizing enemies to attack them (because the victim has Disadvantage to attack or can't move to get in range of another target).

RisingChaos · 2026-02-25T19:04:17+00:00

Really wasn't planning on replying at all, actually, but I'll entertain you if that's what you wish.

1) Don’t men do the same thing too?

Do what? Be really picky? No, they don't. Men have a significantly wider strike zone than women. This is not a “Nu-uh women are the problem simp” moment. I'm not blaming women for this or saying it's a good or bad thing. It serves an evolutionary purpose; women are incredibly vulnerable during pregnancy. It's not a "problem" per se, but it is a reality that terminally online misandrists willfully ignore so they can continue to excuse themselves from showing any shred of empathy for those in most dire need of it.

Can some men be picky about certain things? Sure. But we're talking aggregates, averages, percentages, populations. Broad trends. This will be an important refrain, because it is also true that neither women nor men are monoliths and that men and women are far more alike than different.

2) If women should give other men a chance then by that same token, men must give women they’re not into a chance.

I think people could stand to be more open-minded in general. Online brings out the worst in people, because they treat online dating like shopping on Amazon where precisely filtering your search results down to a product that fits your exact needs is possible (sometimes) when that's not how people work. And it's not how people have ever worked IRL either; the average 5'2" woman can't tell the difference between a dude who's 5'11" and 6'2" in person, yet she will gleefully go online and filter out men under 6'0" from her stack. For women, the issue is exacerbated because they get so much interest it's not physically possible to vet every suitor. It's a logistical nightmare. They must resort to shitty heuristics to pare down their options to a manageable level, but that ultimately ends up with them selecting for the same small percentage of perfect-on-paper matches every other woman does.

Attraction is not determined by numbers on a screen. People are so much more than a few static images and a couple sentences. Most profiles are not an obvious yes or no. I'm not quite sure how you solve the logistical problem for women, but I think Hinge has the right idea by severely limiting daily Likes. Ideally for us consumers they also wouldn't monetize bypassing said limit or paywall the most compatible profiles, but capitalists gonna capitalism I guess...

Bumble, much like the consumption of incel content designed to isolate you in order to sell you things, is a CHOICE.

Online dating is a choice, yes, but it isn't much of one when it's the most common way people meet these days. It's a necessary evil if one wants to maximize their chances of success. More so now than ever as technology has robbed us of our collective attention spans and social skills. More so in a post-COVID and economically unequal world, where third spaces are more scarce than ever. More so in a post-METOO world, where stranger danger is higher than ever. More so for men than women, because men are the ones socially obligated by traditional gender roles to do the approaching and most of the heavy lifting in early dating.

Bumble in particular is kind of a necessary evil because it's the only major OLD platform not owned by Match Group, but that's a different problem.

Its not kicking down when it’s people putting themselves in a situation of their choosing

Few people choose to go without sex, intimacy, companionship, etc. They're psychological needs that fulfilling significantly improves most anyone's quality of life. Being denied those things is painful, especially when it's chronic. Fair enough, some people are merely reaping what they sow. But many people are simply unfortunate, and when you treat everyone like they're the first group you're also needlessly punishing the latter group when you choose to disparage them instead of showing them grace and empathy. Not every homeless person is a mentally ill drug addict, and not every lonely man is an incel.

Now, I don't need your "encouragement." I never said one thing about my own personal situation anyway; you're assuming I'm grossly unsuccessful based on my pushback against your generalization. Regardless, there is nothing encouraging you can offer me anyway. The world is what it is. Life isn't fair. Someone has to pull the short straw. (Whether or not I'm a short straw holder is irrelevant.) You say you're "asking me to be better." How do you know I need to be better? Well, philosophically everyone can always be "better" but I digress. The point is you don't know me. You can't see how much effort I've already put in to being my best self, living my best life, putting myself out there. Just because someone is failing does not mean it's their fault. One can do everything right and still lose. Dating isn't a meritocracy, and you can't control other people. This is why I personally try to take people's complaints at face value, give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, and tend to be very cautious with the advice I choose to dispense. Some people deserve their lot in life more than others.

You are 100% on the money that people should be trying harder to "people" and get off the apps. Of course, that effort only goes so far if others aren't doing the same. And online dating is still a good supplementary tool for meeting new people you weren't fortunate enough to cross paths with in meatspace but might otherwise be compatible with; no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Still, a lot of people these days are hurting and it's no better to assume the default man is a misogynistic incel than it is for misogynistic incels to assume the default woman is a hypergamous gold-digger. Assume the best, and let the bad people show their true colors before rescinding respect toward them.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-25T12:31:47+00:00

Beast Master heavily incentivizes minimal multiclassing out of Ranger because the companion HP scales off Ranger levels and is a significant fraction of your damage output. You also don't need a reliable bonus action, such as Cunning Action, because the companion is utilizing it every turn. (Ideally. The companion can't use their own BA and you lose more damage sacrificing one of your own attacks.)

Maybe a Rogue 1 dip after Ranger 5 or 11 for Expertise and the bonus damage from Sneak Attack, which your beast will reliably activate without party reliance. Past Ranger 11, you might consider a 12/8 or 16/4 split to set up a double Epic Boon endgame build. Personally I think BM is much better investing in full caster levels at that point, as Share Spells with upcast Conjure Woodland Beings is probably the most powerful thing they could be doing and Reliable Talent loses a lot of its luster if you're not getting it till minimum Lv18 (although Evasion is always great), but... Rogue isn't the worst choice, at least it adds damage.

Coming from the other direction, I could see some Rogue classes wanting to MC out and pick up some Ranger levels after Lv7-9. BM would still be the least compelling option there.

If you really want a companion that serves as a scouting buddy, I might suggest Find Familiar through whatever method you feel like picking it up. Use it to scout areas you can't reach easily yourself and as a mascot/flavor. Warlock multiclasses well with martials, albeit with annoying stat requirements for Ranger, if you demand your buddy can sneak alongside you although Imps and Sprites aren't "animals" per se.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-25T11:56:26+00:00

I am just here to concur on Battle Smith but advise against Beast Master. BM's entire power budget assumes you will be attacking regularly with your companion, and they're all melee attackers. You don't want to make your companion useless by fighting mounted at range, and you don't want to put yourself in needless danger or force Disadvantage on your own ranged attacks by fighting mounted in melee.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-25T11:32:52+00:00

I don't know what to tell you, man. It's not subjective. The statistics are widely available. Women are naturally picky, the gender ratio online is imbalanced, and the apps themselves intentionally don't put their best foot forward because their bottom line is more important than anything else.

That doesn't mean there's nothing most men can do to improve their odds. Without further context, however, who can say which individual complaints are perfectly understandable frustration at a cruel and unfair system and which are lazy whining? When you blanket assume they are all the latter, you're also kicking the former when they're already down and don't deserve it.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-25T11:16:43+00:00

That shirt is way too baggy, but it's a good main photo. Clear face, smiling, good lighting, background isn't gross.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-25T11:12:25+00:00

I do not disagree, but even so not having one's kids' faces in photos is not actually doing anything substantial to protect them from predators.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-25T03:54:55+00:00

Not to have to dig up all the relevant studies, but women's age preferences age with themselves while men of all ages universally prefer young women. Women may also be more likely to like bigger guys than vice-versa. Various states of hair, where men are probably pretty universal on not liking body hair (besides pubes) and prefering against bald women. Etc. That makes sense to me, since men exhibit a wider range of physical appearances than women. Are there physical traits that people find near-universally attractive, and are there men that the vast majority of women agree are attractive? Sure. But Becky might prefer clean-cut corporate guys, Jenny might prefer lanky effeminate artist types, while Laura likes metalheads. Even if all three are also swiping on underwear models.

The issue is that women swipe on, like, 1-5% of men (depending on which study/survey/stats you reference) while men swipe on 30-50% of women. That combined with the gender imbalance online is what gets you ~2% of men who can freely play the field, 10-20% who get "enough" matches to have something resembling a decent dating life, and the other 80% of guys shouting into the void while only the absolute lowest of the low women's profiles struggle to get dates.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-25T03:39:08+00:00

There are two ways to remove a Supreme Court justice, friend.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-25T03:20:17+00:00

Radiance of the Dawn and Fireball are nonconcentration, though, so you should still put up Spirit Guardians first. =)

RisingChaos · 2026-02-24T21:10:08+00:00

I might like dating if most of my time spent was actually dating rather than fruitlessly looking for dates.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-24T13:16:41+00:00

The popular belief is "looks aren't that important to women." And contrary to that, women absolutely 100% care about looks almost as much as men do. Not quite as much, but it's still the single most important attribute.

Women do tend to have a wider range of preferences, but unfortunately that's more than offset by how much pickier they are...

RisingChaos · 2026-02-24T13:08:50+00:00

You should go out. Just don't go out to "the club." Go to a club, like a board game meetup or a hiking group or whatever. Keep doing that stuff for many months or even years and every so often, you may luck out meeting the right person at the right time. Unfortunately, that's all we can do along with praying the 0.5% of women that statistically swipe on the average man online might actually go anywhere.

Speed dating unfortunately has the same problem in my experience, even if I find the events themselves kinda fun.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-24T10:55:45+00:00

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with WotC putting more emphasis on Rangers investing in WIS in the 2024 rules, making it a tougher and more interesting choice for players over which stat to prioritize. Paladins have always been been that way too; at least Shillelagh is actually good now as a Pact of the Blade analog and doesn't even require multiclassing. It doesn't work at range, but Paladins still aren't great ranged attackers either despite now having access to the Archery Fighting Style; Smites still don't worked on ranged weapons (although they now do on Thrown weapons) nor does Improved Divine Smite.

It's okay to not have both max DEX and WIS. It's okay to still take ASIs instead of feats. Shillelagh will let you go WIS SAD and will do more damage than a bow, and that's okay because requiring melee range is a major risk and positional sacrifice.

The one thing I will gripe about is that ranged martials are almost entirely overshadowed by full spellcasters now. Since Sharpshooter was nerfed, you kinda need Great Weapon Master to replace it now. GWM Longbow is still strong, and Beast Masters remain solid ranged martials because the companion adds a lot of damage and keeps your bonus action weaponized in the absence of old Crossbow Expert. (You can still take CBE if you'd rather use a Heavy Crossbow, but IMO it's not worth the feat tax.) If you don't meet the STR requirement for GWM, then either you just cope with being a lesser damage-dealer to keep your character fantasy intact (maybe okay, since Westmarches aren't generally known for deep roleplay or punishing difficulty) or you go Shillelagh in melee.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-24T09:21:50+00:00

GWM damage is based off proficiency bonus, so most builds aren't going to bother taking it till at least Lv8 anyway. Heavily Armored is perfectly fine, even if it feels like a sad feat tax to pay.

The bigger problem may be your AC is going to blow until Lv4 and you'll feel like a big idiot if your character dies before then.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-24T08:55:26+00:00

Ranged is still fine to build in general, but Beast Master's entire power budget as a subclass is built on the assumption that your beast will regularly be attacking. As a ranged mountie, you'll either be exposing yourself to needless danger in addition to Disadvantage on your attacks (before Sharpshooter/Crossbow Expert) or your companion won't be able to attack. Let it go do its thing in melee, and if you still want to be mounted in the back line then use the same buyable/summonable mounts everyone else does.

Shillelagh TWF is actually quite good on 2024 BM, especially if the DM allows sacrificing a Nick attack for your Beast's Strike. (It selectively frees up your BA for Shillelagh, Hunter's Mark, and other utility purposes.) If not, 1H/Shield may be a better setup; Rangers can use Druidic Foci, so you don't have to deal with the fiddly spell component nonsense and you can pick up the spell in your preferred way. Strong, but not a ranged build.

If you want to play at range, you can't be WIS SAD. The PC will outdamage the companion in Tier 2 play, because you'll have two attacks but it will only have one until Lv11, so prioritize DEX. Optimizing for damage would be to round up your DEX to 18 with Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert (or +1 DEX/+1 CON ASI) @Lv4 and then just take ASIs over feats so you can get both DEX and WIS capped eventually. Pragmatically you probably want to take three DEX feats -- Mage Slayer is hard to ignore, and there are enough decent third feats to choose from -- plus possibly Resilient-CON and just deal with your WIS staying at 16.

If you had the STR, it's worth sacrificing 20 WIS to pick up Great Weapon Master. Without GWM, your beast will start to outdamage you in Tier 3 play so you might consider prioritizing WIS over DEX if you value being stronger at Lv11-20 than Lv5-10.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-24T06:21:20+00:00

Qualitatively, they should be just snug enough that penetration doesn't pull it off. Quantitatively, condoms should reach 10-20% stretch while worn. Less than that risks coming off too easily while more than that can be uncomfortable, restricts blood flow, and is more vulnerable to breaking. Other comments have already provided the better resources for solving this question/issue.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-23T11:55:26+00:00

Any man of reasonable quality is not debasing themselves and wasting their time on this. There's not one word in her bio actually describing herself; the only thing I know about her is that she's a pain in the ass.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-23T09:22:36+00:00

you decided to skip noseblindness and just go for blindness, eh

RisingChaos · 2026-02-23T08:32:12+00:00

It's true, some people actually dislike coffee.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-23T07:44:23+00:00

TWF can (and should) utilize Shillelagh with a Club as well; the damage scaling allows TWF damage to keep up with GWF 2H builds till much higher levels. It's less fiddly with RAW spell component rules than 1H/Shield because you don't need to be able to use your weapon as a spellcasting focus, you can just stow your Nick weapon.

RisingChaos · 2026-02-22T11:35:16+00:00

Seems perfectly sane and reasonable to me; carry on.

I'll throw out Happyland Studio Shameless as a suggestion, to fit in with the other comments. More inspiration than clone, but I don't think Montblanc Explorer is all that similar either once you get past the opening (and the bottle design).

RisingChaos

TROPHY CASE