I DM’d a group that tried to optimize every situation, and every turn off combat. That’s okay as long as it stays fun, but once they start spinning their wheels, or one player turns combat into a slog, then I take measures.

In my experience (and from what I’ve heard of other groups) optimisers are rarely the cause of this problem, usually it’s the more casual or inexperienced players.

How much damage did she take from the poison?

made the poison, then promptly drank it to sacrifice it

That sounds, uh, inadvisable.

like is there a single thing she hasn’t already done and excelled at

Having self-confidence

Talking to Razira without turning into a flustered mess

Saying rude words

is bardlock a mix of bard and warlock?

Yes

why is everything a warlock in dnd?

It multiclasses well, two levels for agonising repelling blast, plus a subclass feature, and then you can pick any charisma caster.

I once unleashed an ancient evil on the world in a failed attempt to open an unlocked door.

If it’s this dangerous there’s sure to be great loot at the end.

Impeccable logic

They’ve got accusations coming out the wazoo

This reminds me of a comic I saw a while ago where the BBEG was gloating that he could only be killed by the sword next to him that couldn’t be pulled from the stone. The barbarian picks up the BBEG and swings him at the sword.

I cannot comprehend how this guy is favoured 52-48 to win.

I’m sure other people have brought up rich people taking a huge share of it already, but there’s also the sheer number of people determined to work in the arts. If there’s, say, ten billion dollars to go around, it sounds like a lot, but if it’s split between a couple of million artists it doesn’t go very far.

Also, she’s immune to all poisons.

How did she get that?

❤️

SUBSCRIBE

Azula-coded

The classic “Buy a reputable brand, cut costs and coast along on the reputation until you can sell off all your shares and move on to another company”. Bonus points for using legalised embezzlement share buyback.

People talk a lot about the genericisation of brand names, but the branding of generic terms like this really annoys me.

I’ll use the example I first noticed. A few years ago, the Conservative government was under criticism for the minimum wage being well under a living wage. In response, they brought in the National Living Wage, which was an increase to the minimum wage, but still under the actual living wage. However, because of the branding, it makes criticising it for not meeting the actual living wage more difficult, as you have to explain the difference between the two, and as the saying goes, “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”.

I only ever read one, and all I remember of that was some kids being chased into a church by some demons, who then burn it down to get to them. The kids are put on trial for “forcing” the demons to burn the church, and they have to convince their lawyer not to throw the case because he’ll be executed if he wins.

Not a danger in the UK.