Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 8225991" data-attributes="member: 86653">It's an edge case, but it's RAW, and it only requires a focus on the rules rather than common sense. Nothing requires you take a long rest, except common sense. As a lock you regain spell slots from a short rest. As a sorcerer you can convert spell slots into sorcery points and create spell slots from sorcery points. Your sorcery points and sorcerer spell slots reset after a long rest. So you convert your spell points into sorcerer spell slots, convert your warlock spell slots into sorcery points, convert your sorcery points into sorcerer spell slots, take a short rest regaining your warlock spell slots...lather, rinse, repeat...until you have infinite spell slots.It works because there's no RAW requirement to take a long rest and there's no RAW limit on the number of short rests you can take in a day, besides the time limit of 24 hours in a day and short rests taking 1 hour. The flaws are: your sorcery points are limited by level. The exchange rate is not good. And you never regain hit dice as you never take a long rest, so you're a spell-sink for healing. This is typically mitigated by going Divine Soul sorcerer which gives you access to healing spells...and with infinite spell slots...well, no problem. As low as 3rd level (sor2/lock1) you can generate 16 1st-level spell slots in a day (3 sorc, base 2 spell points = one 1st-level slot, 24 short rests generating 1 spell point each = 12 1st-level slots). As you level your spell point cap goes up as do the spell slots you get from both sorc and lock. It's dumb as hell, but it's RAW.It's a tag-team between two characters for an essentially unkillable party, not a single character multiclassing into two different subclasses of the same class. To tune combat to this combo you basically end up making it so that either the party perfectly executes this one plan every single combat or you wipe them out if they ever flub it.Right. Now have the players who have PCs who are good at combat relentlessly focus on combat and push away from anything that's not combat. So your ranger may be great at exploration, but you have two players forcing combats all the time so you never get a chance to shine.I try to run a rough balance between combat, roleplaying, and exploration. Two of my players don't care about the roleplaying or exploration, only the combat.No. I hate frustrated novelist DMs. I generally run sandbox games with hooks and seeds for the PCs to follow at their choice. Five of my players want to engage with the world and roleplay and explore. The two optimizers only care about combat. Unless there's initiative and monsters to bash, they don't care. It's still weird to me that a good chunk of the advice presented here is basic "here's how you DM a game of D&D" advice. Yeah, I got it. Been doing it a good long while.So to accommodate two egregious optimizers I should stop enjoying playing the game the way I do and start enjoying playing the game the way they do. That's amazing. Like literally everyone and everything is the problem except the optimizers themselves. This is just silly.</blockquote>

Verification