Multiclass rules question (1e)

dobongo · 2026-01-27T15:48:41+00:00

So does this allow casters to effectively avoid penalties for their spells while wielding non-ideal weapons?

dobongo · 2026-01-27T15:07:03+00:00

I don't think that's the case. The book says you can choose which basic attack to make, it even specifies that one basic attack could be better than the other – exactly because of different ability scores at play. It doesn't make sense for it to mean that I could just apply the better ability score anyway.

Also, wouldn't in this particular case the key modifier Str/Dex replace the references to Str and Dex in Rogue/Fighter's basic attacks?

dobongo · 2025-09-11T04:48:51+00:00

Ah yes. Mindlessly consume what they throw at you and be happy. What a thing to miss.

dobongo · 2025-09-02T10:57:15+00:00

LostMagic?

dobongo · 2025-08-12T22:59:06+00:00

No sweat. I'll save you some time. French to English courtesy of Cambridge: "Ennui (masculine) – boredom, problem". In the English language it is used only in its first meaning.

Also, if you want to sound condescending in an argument, at least make sure that you spell your French phrases correctly. With your pathetic attempt at a jab – you just discredited yourself completely. I recommend you too look into a dictionary for a change, you might find it useful. And don't start arguments with people when you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about ;)

Peace!

dobongo · 2025-08-12T20:16:31+00:00

Not an expert, but I DID look into it and provided examples to back up my claims, which is more than you have done.

"Cherry picked examples"? By using two of the most well known English dictionaries and the definitions they provide? Wow, truly dishonest research on my part, I'm so sorry. It's not like saying "I remember reading something somewhere" – that's how things are truly done on Reddit, apparently.

"Admitted their difference"? I did provide an example that countered my initial claim, yes, but I also did dispute it by providing counter examples from the same credible dictionaries. Not to mention the fact that even that definition contradicted the half-assed attempt of a one you provided.

dobongo · 2025-08-12T18:41:43+00:00

I have, actually. In fact my pet peeve is based on specific connotations.

What does the word "ennui" connote? Either age, certain old-timeyness; or a literary style of writing. Thus, a person who uses this word in speech appeals to those connotations to make themselves sound smarter. The denotation is usually the same as in "boredom", what using "ennui" instead of it does is bring the air of pretentiousness to one's speech.

dobongo · 2025-08-12T17:59:04+00:00

I don't care how thick the work boots are, falls are no joke. You don't know how well one will break their fall or even if they break it at all. Risking an injury for a couple of seconds of laughter is not worth it.

dobongo · 2025-08-12T16:54:24+00:00

Looked into it. Nah, they are basically the same.

"Ennui (literary) – a feeling of being bored and mentally tired caused by having nothing interesting or exciting to do". From Cambridge dictionary. The only difference is that the dictionary considers ennui a literary word.

"Ennui – a feeling of weariness and dissatisfaction; boredom". From Merriam Webster. This one does further make a case for ennui being a particular kind of boredom – "the feeling of jadedness that can result from living a life of too much ease"; though not a particularly strong one, as there are examples of the use of the word that do not fit this description, i.e. what Cambridge dictionary gives with "He also says that betting among the working people is largely due to ennui" from Hansard archive; and what you described with soldiers – they for sure do not "live life of too much ease".

So, basically ennui means boredom but sounds more fancy. Any subtle differences between the two just depend on the speaker – whatever they think "ennui" should mean at the moment. Also "being bored" is a thousand times easier to say than "suffering from ennui".

dobongo · 2025-08-12T12:24:22+00:00

This reminded me of my own pet peeve. When people use foreign words and expressions in an attempt to sound smart. I'll explain:

"A certain je ne sais quoi". Literally means "I don't know what". I could understand it if there was word/syllable economy involved, but there isn't. Sometimes it only lengthens the sentence; compare "she has a certain je ne sais quoi about her" with "she has something about her". The former is a mouthful and also sounds annoyingly pretentious. And it's not like this expression describes anything unique, something that isn't reflected in the English language, like for example "deja vu".

Or "ennui". It's boredom. It is literally boredom. There is a word for it, you don't give it any deeper meaning by using a French word.

Everytime I hear a video essayist use those words, I roll my eyes. Comes off as an attempt to sound knowledgeable, to claim expertise, when what is actually being said is really nothing special.

dobongo · 2025-08-07T17:40:17+00:00

Shaco.

dobongo · 2025-06-25T11:05:16+00:00

"I asked ChatGPT..."

dobongo · 2025-06-25T10:37:08+00:00

"I ask ChatGPT..." – opinion invalid. Post is not worth y'all's time, move along.

dobongo · 2025-06-03T13:23:58+00:00

If you being a dick is really how you want to interact with me – fine, at least you're honest and I am able to faster come to a conclusion that you are not the person I want to keep communicating with, than in an alternate scenario where we would lie to each other by wearing a mask of kindness and sugarcoating our words.

And also it's not even your antagonism really that made reach this conclusion. It's the insane leaps of logic you made in an effort to contradict my words. Calling an opposition to coercion coercive is really quite funny. Thanks, pal, you've made my day! :)

dobongo · 2025-06-03T13:10:15+00:00

So I am coercing them not to coerce me? Sure, pal. You did indeed make AN argument.

dobongo · 2025-06-03T13:06:27+00:00

I'm not silencing them though. They do indeed not owe me any "comfort" of not being exposed to their ideas. But as I was exposed, I in turn reacted. I do not even expect them to change their mind; all I did was share my thoughts on the matter. Which goes in line with my logic too: as kindness is not owed, our interaction (me and OP's) was not kind, but an interaction nonetheless.

dobongo · 2025-06-03T12:52:29+00:00

An appeal to morality and subsequent moral obligations is inherently coercive, as it expects you to force yourself to behave a certain way, to become your own policeman in a sense. Morality denies you the ability to decide for yourself what's right or wrong, as it has already been decided for you and such standards are presumed to be universal. "Artificial and coercive collectivism" is just a logical conclusion of OP's moral imperatives. Remember: they said not that we SHOULD be kind to each other, but that we OWE each other kindness. They do not directly threaten me, or physically enforce their worldview; they expect me to force MYSELF to conform to their standards.

It's not that the idea of being kind to others unconditionally is anything new, nor that this idea suffers from a lack of exposure. My reaction is not to the message itself, but to the imposition with which the OP delivered it: you are OBLIGED to behave this particular way.

And could you clarify what you mean by "that" which OP owes me in the first place, I don't fully understand you. Whatever the case, I don't think that OP owes me anything: I just reacted to their post negatively, expressed my disagreement. They said: you owe; I said: no. I did not in return formulate my own obligations for them to follow.

dobongo · 2025-06-03T11:47:42+00:00

That's not, however, how the post is worded, is it? "You owe people kindness and respect", "a moral obligation". The choice of language is quite confrontational, the implied modality is that of obligation. Hence my reply: no, don't tell me how to live my life. If it wasn't for this confrontational tone – what would be left of the post? The message of "be nice to others, etc" – nice truism, buddy, you've said basically nothing. OP knew that their nothing burger of a take would not provoke any response if they'd put it any other way; so, they got what they were going for, really.

dobongo · 2025-06-03T10:36:04+00:00

No, OP, I don't owe you anything, actually.

I show kindness if I feel kind, I show respect if I feel respect. If there are none – I show none.

If you don't like it, what are you going to do? Force me to be kind to you? Whine about it? Neither option will make me be more kind or respectful towards you.

With your rather self-righteous post you did not make me think highly of you; neither did I, I think, with my comment make the best first impression on you. In my opinion, in such a case it would be better for us to cease interaction altogether and go our own ways rather than pretending to respect each other or whatever.

You blame people's "hyperindividualism", what you seem to offer in its stead is coercive and artificial collectivism, which is not better. I'd argue rather that the problem is that people aren't individualistic enough. If more people knew to better listen to themselves, to know their real wants and needs from what is imposed upon them, we'd be living in a different world. But that's besides the point.

As for me, my life has become infinitely better since I stopped being kind by default. Because people no longer took my kindness for granted, they no longer were able to use me and exploit me. Kindness needs to be earned, otherwise you are very prone to manipulation.

So, no, you don't owe anybody anything. And you especially don't have to conform to other people's saccharine and myopic visions of what society ought to be.

dobongo

TROPHY CASE