Probably. But some things just don’t make sense no matter how hard you try.

I think you overestimate how many people are gonna care about that kind of things when their lives are at stake. Rats are not that rare or unusual.

I am somehow very happy that you actually mentioned that you’ve never played DnD. The honesty just feels very refreshing somehow.

While that is correct, it’s not like your allies are indestructible cover, so I’d say it’s fair. But I don’t really have to tell you I guess.

So when he realised that your last build would have been more balanced then the current one, he just decided to do what he could have done from the start by adding more enemies?

What template was he using before?

I meant consistently as in “has no chance of failure”. Wish is already powerful enough and is likely intended as the “brute force solution” anyway.

A fair method. I sometimes wish DnD was designed around it a bit more.

I know you did. Not saying you didn’t. I just wanted to mention it.

And generally I think you’re right.

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 that 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.

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.

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