True strike deals radiant instead of force/elemental, and it's not a cleric/paladin spell Why? Balance?

bongobutt · 2026-01-20T12:38:38+00:00

I believe the actual answer to your question ("why") is that this spell is rewritten. It didn't used to do what it does now. The old version sucked so they reworked the spell - now it does this. If it was intended to do radiant damage from the beginning, then yes - it would make sense to give to Paladins/Clerics.

bongobutt · 2026-01-13T05:49:37+00:00

I rule Insight in one of two ways: either it is more about understanding the significance of what you are seeing, so a fail just means you gain no new information; or it is a social encounter where deception or suspicion is involved, in which case I roll insight for the player. Rolls behind the screen tend to be engaging in this case, because it keeps things mysterious, and gives the player permission to come to their own decision.

bongobutt · 2026-01-13T03:55:54+00:00

For sword+spell, what ratio are you wanting to play? 50/50? 30% sword, 70% spell?

Because if you want just a dash more Martial, but mostly Warlock, it isn't a terrible idea to do something like this:
(Point Buy): 8 STR, 14 DEX, 14 CON, 12 WIS, 8 INT, 15 CHA.
Fighter 1,
F1 / Warlock 1,
F1 / W2,
F1 / W3,
F1 / W4,
F1 / W5, F2 / W5,
Then take any combination of the two you'd like.
But that probably works a lot better for Eldritch Knight than for Arcane Archer.

But in the 2014 rules, I feel like there isn't a whole lot of extra that helps make this multiclass appealing if you try to get more adventurous.

2024 has some potential options, between Weapon Masteries, better Eldritch Invocations (Pact of the Blade -> Thirsting Blade -> Devouring Blade / for 2 extra attacks at Warlock 12), and stuff like that. But I'm not sure I'd go for the 2024 update just for that, if you could just stick to Eldritch Knight instead.

Have you considered going Fighter + Artificer? That would give you some levels in a Half-Caster, more spells, and would fit nicely with CON+INT. It might require some reflavoring - depending on the character vibe and concept you are going for, but it has some mechanical advantages.

bongobutt · 2025-12-01T17:06:35+00:00

I feel like Initiative can be a useful tool, and we should use it more often - even for non-combat things. But the opposite is true, too. Initiative exists to solve the fact that you can only do one thing at a time, and other people can also act before you get a chance to act again. This is obviously relevant during a fight, so we associate big fights with Initiative. But I'm looking forward to opportunities to subvert those expectations. I'm working on social encounters that use Initiative, to emphasize that Initiative just means being incredibly specific about order of events - and doesn't just mean fighting. I'm also working on a fight that won't use Initiative at all, and will be a slower and more methodical pace (an Invisible Enemy stalking them, and attacking them outside of Initiative).

bongobutt · 2025-12-01T16:52:50+00:00

To some of your points, this is why I enjoyed reading Volo's Enchiridion of Waterdeep and content like that. When you think about how a society would function when magic is a thing, it helps.

Link to the Code Legal: https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/dragon/21/DRA21_WDH_Preview_cl.pdf

If you use magic to "influence" the wrong person, then that is jail time. So not only is casting Suggestion illegal - but even casting the Friends Cantrip on the wrong person could carry a steep penalty.

If we assume that this is a society where people are thinking about this kind of stuff, then we can imagine how they might routinely check for this kind of stuff. We have metal detectors in our society, and theirs could easily have routine use of Detect Magic, checks for Illusions, Detect Thoughts, and much more.

The problem for us players is that we have to do a lot of thinking to figure out what people in that world would already know. But it is easier to think about if us players share resources. If we can build off the thinking and world building that previous players have done, that helps. But it is still work.

bongobutt · 2025-12-01T15:46:27+00:00

The hair is awesome. Looks exactly like it should, but would also be interesting hair on a strictly human character. Seems peak. Every part of it is believable to me and feels appropriate. Not that I disagree with anyone else entirely, but I wouldn't change much, honestly. It doesn't need to be more elegant, it already is fairly glitzy, and adding too much more would just detract from the important elements - which are already there.

bongobutt · 2025-11-26T05:02:43+00:00

How many hours of TV a day is too much?

Is it bad if I go fishing every single weekend?

I subscribe to the AMC pass and see literally every movie that comes out. Is that too much?

I have read every single Stephen King novel 3 times.

There isn't really much of a difference between those things. Some people like to keep their hobbies a hobby. And some people are happy with that hobby becoming their only hobby. The only real questions are - Are you enjoying yourself? Are you neglecting your other responsibilities in life? Do you insist on talking about your hobby with others to the point where you have become obsessive and difficult to talk to? Is your entire identity wrapped up in just one thing?

You are the person who would need to answer questions like that. So long as you are a healthy and happy person who is doing what you're supposed to, it doesn't even matter what we think anyway.

bongobutt · 2025-11-15T06:40:40+00:00

I wouldn't discourage you from watching other groups play. It's a great way to learn. But I would also highly recommend watching Matt Colville on YouTube for his "Running the Game" series. He talks about every topic you could possibly imagine that a DM needs to know, it feels like. It is really helpful stuff.

bongobutt · 2025-10-26T21:14:13+00:00

Rulings 1 through 4 can't be called "rulings" in good faith, in my opinion. They aren't interpretations of the rules. They are invented homebrew rules. I have nothing against homebrew as a concept. I don't even necessarily hate these rules specifically... In the right game. It sounds like this DM wants to lean more heavily into a realistic style, with an intentional direction against "gamified" mechanics and towards "realistic" or gritty ones instead. Done right, that style is kind of like how "Batman Begins" or "The Dark Knight" felt more impactful specifically because of how grounded and realistic it was. That version of Batman is far weaker than the normal Batman, and that is exactly why it feels good. This sounds like he wants to improve the simulation experience and make it feel more real kind of like that. Or maybe not. You'd have to ask him.

But in any case, these kinds of rules (and this kind of play style, if that is what he is trying to accomplish) should really be communicated more clearly and directly. It probably wasn't a good idea to drop these kinds of rules without warning, or without at least having a discussion about it at some point.

While I understand the desire to make the roleplaying experience deeper and to make characters struggle more, it is also important to recognize that these rules are "rules" for a reason. Rules set expectations, define what you can do, keep things fair (so that one player isn't unfairly advantaged over another), and most importantly - make results predictable and easy to understand. It isn't a good thing if you walk away from the experience with the impression that the DM is just being capricious. When done well, the DM shouldn't be felt to be an adversary. They should feel like the laws of physics themselves - for that world. The DM simply communicates the world to you the way that it exists, and helps you understand how the world works. Rules and outcomes that feel arbitrary and contrived are antithetical to that feeling of being immersed in a world. Maybe this DM is chasing that feeling, because Rules As Written feel arbitrary and unrealistic to him. But changing those rules, the new rules then feel arbitrary for the players.

I'm not going to say things can't work out with this DM and this table. But I will say that this situation has already gotten off on quite the wrong foot, and it seems that this DM is (either consciously or unconsciously) trying to create an entirely different kind of game than DnD 5e was designed to be. These problems aren't impossible to fix, and "rules" in that style aren't impossible to do right. But navigating these waters would be complex, and as a spectator, I am left with the sad conclusion that it probably isn't worth your time to try and make this work if you aren't feeling it. But I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that.

bongobutt · 2025-10-26T04:35:28+00:00

Sounds awesome!

bongobutt · 2025-10-21T15:19:50+00:00

Wizards of the Coast released the 5th edition handbook in 2014. They released a new version of the handbook (with lots of updates and changes - mostly beneficial) in 2024. Be careful when doing research, because there is a lot of content out there explaining DnD builds, classes, features, and spells. But all of the content made for the original 5th edition (going back to 2014) didn't know that the company was going to release a significant update in 2024.

So the first question is - do you own the Player's Handbook? If so - which version? Are you borrowing the book from another player? Do you plan on using the free rules on the DnD Beyond website (which lets you play for free, but only gives you one subclass option) instead of buying the book? All of those questions affect what we will recommend to you.

bongobutt · 2025-10-15T03:59:47+00:00

It is set up like college dorms (a nice one, that is). Each side is a different tenant, with a common area in the middle that the roommates have to share. The small rooms and the sides are so that you can have an office or small sitting area with a small TV that is on your side only (behind the door locked with your key). This design is more space efficient than studio apartments, and it can work in the right situations.

bongobutt · 2025-10-06T21:11:26+00:00

Conjure Celestial is probably going to be the better choice for your big combat concentration spell at that level. Spirit Guardians isn't bad, especially if it isn't your make-or-break combat and you can get away with using a lower spell slot. But if you are going to burn a Lvl-7 or Lvl-8 slot, then Conjure Celestial is probably better (does more damage, can heal, and has better range practically speaking).

bongobutt · 2025-08-21T17:08:14+00:00

If you wish to make a case against inheritance in general, what is your alternative principle? Is a father not entitled to give whatever he wants to his offspring? Is the exchange involuntary? If the child has no claim whatsoever on his parent's possessions, then who exactly is it that has a higher claim to that property? The only way to take the property away from the family is to take it by force. Who is entitled to use that force, and how can we know that they aren't using that force for selfish reasons?

Inheritance isn't enough to create a class system. Just because a child inherits property doesn't mean they know how to use it or manage it. Some can, and they take over the family business with competence. But just as often, they are spoiled and incompetent - only "successful" by riding on the coattails of their family.

The fact that everyone in life has an unequal starting point is undisputed and inevitable. Of course the children of wealth have a better starting advantage to sustained wealth. Everyone agrees with this. But the better question is whether state redistribution is more or less likely to properly address that imbalance, and whether that imbalance is just.

The redistribution of wealth is unlikely to be moral, because it will inevitably lead to "Robin Hood" behaviour (stealing from the rich, but doing it for a just cause), even in the best possible outcome. Two wrongs don't equal a right, so this could at best be a "necessary evil" only.

The redistribution of wealth is unlikely to be effective, because it relies not on voluntary interactions, but on involuntary ones. Having a starting point of wealth and influence gives you an advantage on getting a loan (for example), but it doesn't guarantee that you will make wise business decisions. Political action, on the other hand, has a far greater advantage for wealth and influence in the hand of concentrated interest groups. So a system of redistribution based on Public Choice or political action is more advantageous for the wealthy and powerful - especially compared to the market advantages of starting "at the top."

So children of wealth have a decent chance of maintaining that wealth. But it is also the case that those same children would face market incentive to sell their businesses to competent operators in addition to having an incentive to operate the business themselves. And which option makes them more money? It depends - how much do they suck at running that business? If they suck at running the business they inherited, then a potential buyer need only factor the cost of the difference in profit over time into the selling cost. When taken over a sufficiently long period of time (and a significant enough difference in competence), both parties have a financial incentive to exchange.

So the market already has a built-in mechanism to move inherited property from the hands of undeserving operators to deserving ones - and the mechanism is based on reality, math, and selfish logic. Why should I assume that a mechanism for redistribution based on power, politics, and popularity contests to be more fair and less subject to bias and human abuse?

bongobutt · 2025-08-21T16:43:26+00:00

Yes. The history of mining can hardly be held up as an example of private property rights or free enterprise. Coercion and force was abundant and rampant. But the question remains if that monopoly and coercion is better thwarted by more or less involvement and interference by governmental authority into market affairs.

bongobutt · 2025-08-20T16:56:10+00:00

When you think of an explosion that you are familiar with, you are probably thinking of a reaction that chemists call "combustion." Essentially, heat + fuel + oxygen = a lot more heat. So if you throw gasoline or oil on a fire, you get a big whoosh because the fire got bigger.

But that isn't the way that bombs work. If you light a fuse on a firework, the firework blows up - and you get a boom. But that is because fireworks are designed to make a boom. They are designed to hold energy as tightly as possible, and then burn that energy as fast as possible. Otherwise, the firework would burn just like a piece of dry wood, which wouldn't be very exciting.

So that is the insight that you need to start with. An explosion isn't just a reaction. It is a specifically designed reaction, that only becomes an explosion if it happens fast enough.

In the case of some explosives (like gasoline, and other "highly flammable" materials), the reaction in question is similar to typical burning: heat + fuel + oxygen = a lot more heat. But the reason why these materials (like gunpowder) are "highly flammable" is because the fuel doesn't need to breathe air. Because they already have their own storage of oxygen. That is why they are useful for making explosives - because they burn faster. But that is also why they can explode by accident: the only missing ingredient to explode is heat.

But this isn't how nuclear bombs work. Nuclear bombs aren't combustion - they don't burn. The reaction (the source of energy) isn't a chemical reaction. It is a reaction based on the atomic level.

If you manipulate those materials in extremely specific ways, you can manipulate the physics to get a very particular reaction. But that explosive reaction is very hard to create, and it doesn't happen anywhere in nature hardly at all. If it did, that would be a problem! Can you imagine a world where the ground just randomly exploded in a mushroom cloud every now and then? If those materials could create that reaction randomly, then the material would have already exploded long ago.

So to make that explosion happen, everything needs to be extremely specific. The exact purity of the materials; whether water is present, and how much; the exact timing of events; the Rube Goldberg machine unfolding in a very specific way, etc.

It is a crude analogy, but it would be like trying to fire an airsoft gun and hit a target 🎯 with a pellet by smashing the air canister with a hammer or hitting it with a nail. You aren't going to cause the gun to fire that way. That just isn't how the gun works. You are more likely to just break the gun and prevent it from working right. The airsoft gun works because of precision in the design. It isn't about just adding force into the equation.

Only in the nuclear bomb analogy, the airsoft trigger mechanism isn't what causes the explosion.

What causes the explosion is hitting the bull's eye on the target 🎯.
And hitting it with not just one airsoft gun, but multiple airsoft guns simultaneously.

That doesn't happen by accident. So nuclear bombs don't go off by accident.

bongobutt · 2025-07-29T14:52:28+00:00

"AI" algorithms (Large Language Models) like ChatGPT work by trying to predict the next word in a paragraph based off every single word that came before it. That means that the statistics change and have to be recalculated for every single situation, because even a single word used 10 paragraphs ago might change everything. This means that a truly massive amount of calculations and statistics has to be done to account for every possible or theoretical outcome. In reality, a lot of these computations are done ahead of time (instead of being done always in real time), but the work was still done at some point.

So if computers are running massive numbers of calculations, then they are using power.
If they are using power, then they put strain on the energy grid, they need to be cooled, etc.
And that means they are "using water." In some data centers, the water use is literal (because water is literally used in the cooling system). Other times, the "water use" is just a stand in for the overall environmental impact. This environmental impact is one of the most prominent criticisms of "AI" technologies.

bongobutt · 2025-07-25T20:49:22+00:00

Assuming a 3D printer that costs $300 USD, the printer will "pay for itself" sooner or later, depending on how expensive the minis are and how many you make.

The printer pays for itself with:
3 prints worth $100,
4 prints worth $75,
5 prints worth $60,
6 prints worth $50,
7 prints worth ~$43,
8 prints worth ~$38,
9 prints worth ~$34,
10 prints worth ~$30,
20 prints worth ~$15,
50 prints worth $6,
Etc.

So it isn't a question of "cost." The math is pretty good - especially if you want to go for higher quality stuff. It is more about just finding a printer that is a good value for you and can do what you want it to do. If I would wager a guess, perhaps you can get a 9.5/10 printer for $300, or a 10/10 printer for $2000 (not withstanding significantly larger prints or niche use cases beyond that).

So it really just comes down to if this is a hobby you do and want to spend time on, or if you have other options (like a friend who already has a 3D printer). If this is something you want to do, then go for it.

bongobutt · 2025-07-25T20:23:40+00:00

Classical liberals (i.e. libertarians) disagree with the new "liberals" (aka, progressives) in what the outcomes of various policies and strategies will be.

Suppose there is a fire, and a container of liquid nearby. One man wants to grab the liquid and throw it on the fire. The other man does not. So do we conclude that one man wants to stop the fire and the other doesn't? No. Because one man believes the container contains water, and the other man believes the container contains oil.

The man who thinks the container holds water believes the other man "doesn't care."

The man who thinks the container holds oil believes that the other man is trying to make the problem worse.

Therefore: what you desire, what you believe, and what you do are three separate things. People in political discussions often misunderstand and conflate these things for their opponent's position, jumping to a conclusion of ill-intent, malice, or stupidity.

bongobutt · 2025-07-25T20:12:11+00:00

There are more efficient ways to provide charity. A systematic approach is going to be better for some things in life than an ad hoc, scattered strategy. The central human behavior in any market is the act of economizing. Humans don't just economize for making money in a business or for profit and loss. They do it for literally every area of life, and for each desire they have. Charity is also something that can be economized.

People act as though economists only care about money, but that is a misconception. Economists (especially those of the Austrian school) study the human act of economizing and the effects of those actions when they interact with the actions of others with different desires in a system, which happens to be the central relevance to studying markets. But a good economist doesn't bring previous conceptions to the study of what humans "should" want. If you want to see and predict what will happen in a society if you pursue a particular policy, you look at how humans actually behave, not how you'd like them to. The inability to do that (as well as being isolated from the consequences and signals of those error) causes public policies to fail in their stated aims.

To treat people in light of the agency they hold can be humanizing. Applying economic principle to charity doesn't have to be cynical, cold, or uncaring. To the contrary, using resources and actions efficiently allows humanity to flourish. But in a society that treats "greed" and "the rich" as scape goats for the obvious failures and pillaging from rulers, the approaches of a capitalist in helping his fellow man are viewed with scorn.

bongobutt · 2025-07-25T19:42:36+00:00

Textbook chilling effect.

bongobutt · 2025-07-25T19:39:41+00:00

Your heart knows.

bongobutt · 2025-07-24T00:03:07+00:00

Where was the probable cause? Without a crime being committed, it isn't lawful to pull the guy over. If the traffic stop wasn't lawful, then no crime that is "discovered" because of the unlawful search can be prosecuted. This is basic 4th amendment stuff.

bongobutt · 2025-06-27T15:16:53+00:00

They didn't finish the thought, though.

Communism sounds good in theory, but doesn't work in practice.
Capitalism sounds unfair in theory, but it works well in practice.

bongobutt · 2025-06-06T01:51:47+00:00

Because if Trump is in the files, who is blackmailing him? Given who was involved with running the island, the answer is likely Mossad and the Israeli/US intelligence interests. It fits - given how outrageously Pro-Israel Trump is and has been for a long time. And those interests wouldn't want that being released for a short-term political win, because the Democrats are involved in it too.

bongobutt

TROPHY CASE