My understanding (not necessarily RAW) is that Wealth By Level is meant to represent a character's *resources* at that level. All of them.
Therefore the value of what's available to them should be at that level. Even if they have some trick for getting free stuff.
Otherwise, if the king rewards me with 10,000 gold, why does that count toward my WBL? I got it "for free", right?
I can't help but notice how many of the spells cited by theorycrafters who maintain that it's "totally possible RAW" to have infinite power come from softcover sources.
It really does reinforce me and my friends' policy of "Core Rulebook, APG and the Ultimates, anything else requires specific GM approval".
Well if we're being quite honest I HAVE never met a man who knits so that bit stuck out as odd to me. Sewing, yes, but never knitting.
Hah, yes. It jarred for me a bit as well, but I figured changing it would be way worse than just leaving it as is. To be fair, I'm a guy and we were all taught to knit in primary school.
I'm kind of curious as to how the OP would read gender-flipped. Let's give it a try. Honestly, is your impression of the player different?
Original post, with pronouns changed wrote:
Reading this over, I actually do get a different impression of the "male" player than I did of the female one. Which is probably just due to my own stereotypes. But it's interesting. Thoughts?
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
Thanks. That was bugging me, but I wasn't sure if calling it out was worth the fallout.
When my players are... I no longer feel bad for DMs who hate on whiny players, also i have results about the entire party of wizards thing
Vod Canockers wrote:
Why would a GM have to advise spell casters they needed to get their spells back? Should also tell an Archer that he needs to buy arrows?
Because the players haven't spent the last seven years mastering magic? Their characters have, sure, but it's actually quite possible (particularly with an inexperienced player) for there to be vital bits of information that the player just wouldn't think of.
The same way, if a player of mine was playing an experienced fighter I'd be chipping in pieces of tactical information any time I described a battle scene to them: "You see a small overhang to the left - good spot for archers to fire from - and a gully that might let a small squad sneak up undetected." And if they were an archer then I'd describe distances according to bow range.
Player is not character. Particularly in a situation where mental stats or experience is completely different.
I get that your first reaction is "Aagh, they broke my plot." But can you work with this instead?
I mean, I see a fascinating rescue scenario on the cards, where they can get extremely limited inside info (very slowly) from their captured friend and try to break them out based on that.
Also, it's usually best to reward cleverness.
Have you a large problem with your players metagaming?
For my barbarian, it's normally:
Me: Okay, that's *rolls* 25 damage. Does it have spells or SLAs?
Yes, it might be easier on you as a GM if you can just tell the player "Yep, add the Witch Hunter damage for this one." Why not?
Have your players not encountered the concept of OOC versus IC knowledge before?
No, in-character it's not an infallible detector. As has been said, something about the barbarian's attacks just hurts spellcasters more. You can fluff that lots of ways. My barbarian, for example, cuts the threads of magic apart with his strikes.
The issue of GMs reflexively banning things they don't like also gets me hot under the collar, because frankly it's easy to fluff things based on the mechanics. Doing it the other way ends badly.
As I understand it, what actually happens is that you can use Acrobatics on your turn to move through his threatened area without provoking an AoO. You then end up beside him, possibly with a standard action left. On his turn, unless he somehow threatens the square right in front of him, he needs to step back and full attack you. Which he probably will. Take Step Up?
I don't think you can use Acrobatics as a readied way to dodge an attack. That's what total defence is for.
#2 - I'm pretty sure spellcasting is right out, unless you've an ability (like from the Rage Prophet) that lets you use it. The actual casting time doesn't seem relevant.
#4 - By RAW there's no reason you can't. Heal is Wisdom-based. GMs might argue that it takes patience to do this, but it's only three seconds.
#5 - By RAW no. Dex-based skill. Which is really harsh on the grappled barbarian who's just been hit with liberating command by an ally.
Ring of Feather Fall.
I got one many levels ago. Then once the party realised how useful it was, we suddenly ended up with an entire party with them. Plus the bard's pet squirrel (she got one made as a collar).
Apart from that:
Ring of Counterspells
1) Generally people do what you suggest, and activate the ability when nearer the ground. Only a jerk GM will put massive pressure on you about it. If your character has the ability, presumably they know how to use it effectively.
2) Activate it after the 20ft. Once active the spell slows you down, causing no damage - the momentum isn't "saved up" for later - so it negates that 20ft, and then prevents the remaining 60ft from hurting you.
Both of these are the standard way to play it, as I understand it. Has your GM implied that this might be an issue?
I see no problem with it.
It doesn't seem cheesy to me either. Is it cheesy if I take it with my immune to fatigue Barbarian/Oracle?
It locks down your immediate action every round for a moderate benefit. And to "exploit" the immunity to fatigue you have to actually get immunity to fatigue, which is nontrivial to do permanently. That's fine.
I'd never bar a player taking certain levels for their character, as long as it was within the rules.
I'd like them to be able to explain how their character grows and changes over time. This also applies to single-classed characters. In general, it's nice to have an idea of why/how a character's powers are increasing and expanding.
Generally, I like the idea that characters can answer questions like "What did it feel like the first time you cast a spell?" and "That was amazing! How did you manage that move, where you jumped past the guy and backstabbed him?!" in-character.
Realism isn't a problem. But a degree of verisimilitude is nice.
If a player is going "meh" to any in-character interaction, that's a bigger problem than multiclassing.
voodoo chili wrote:
It can be IC very useful to have a language you're almost certain nobody else can speak. I mean, I'd keep my journal and spell notes in Druidic, and the command words of any item I made for myself (or contingent spell) would be in Druidic.
It's nice fluff also, but there are mechanical uses to it.
Yeah, I was just about to post this. They can't plane shift in without a focus that'll get them there.
I personally wouldn't allow adding class levels to your outsider (or at least, you wouldn't get to decide what those levels were...), but that's more a reflexive dislike of the idea. Generally outsiders are what they are. That's sort of their thing.
Though a planetar is just fine, if you take the ability at 15th level.
On the topic of making gaming environments more friendly to women, here are some things I've learned about writing one-shot scenarios for convention games.
- Unless there's a valid story reason not to, have a reasonable distribution of male and female characters.
- Don't have one token female character.
- If you do have one token female character, do not automatically give it to the one female player at your table. Seriously. The amount of female gamers who've told me they were resigned to automatically getting "the female character" in these games is ridiculous.
- A lot of men are very resistant to playing female characters. This makes the problem worse, in some ways.
The best solution I've seen is to either write characters that are effectively genderless and have the players decide what gender their character is (provide at least two names if you need to name the characters beforehand), or to distribute characters randomly, and let the players know that you're fine with them changing a character's gender if they prefer to play them as male/female.
Also, be careful of gender-stereotyping. If you're writing a historically accurate-ish Dark Ages game where two characters are the lady of the castle and her maid, fine (though be sure the players are confortable in such restricted roles). If it's a Pathfinder scenario, there's no reason to have all-male melee fighters and all-female casters.
Skeletal Steve wrote:
So could the White Male club send me one of those cards? Please?
White Male Privilege Card
This card entitles Skeletal Steve to the following, modifiable by intersectionality with other factors:
- Better treatment by law enforcement (white)
If that's not enough, let us know! There's plenty we couldn't fit on the card!
Okay, sarcasm over. The point I'm trying to make is just because you're disadvantaged by income/education/class/circumstances/whatever, it doesn't remove the fact that you do benefit from being white and male. You just don't notice.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Technically, this is not true. While it is rare, a man can be violated in this way (... by another man).
Not that rare. But it doesn't change the fact that, for example, a man can't be impregnated by their rapist. However, yes, rape is rape and is awful regardless of gender. The literal circumstances can differ, though.
This is more of a statement that that's how allegedly are than an argument that they are that way. I think there are a huge list of differences between how men and women are treated in society and that living as a male can't simply be dismissed as "easy mode" because there are too many incomparables between the two. You can compare a +1 weapon with a +2 weapon. You can't compare dimension door and phantasamal killer. How do you put a number value on encouraging sports/science achievements vs a greater ability to ask for/get help from society?
Because it's not about quantifiability. That would imply that there's a "scale" of privilege. Thinking about it that way is missing the point. Yes, the term "easy mode" is simplistic and doesn't get across everything; that's what simplifications do. They express the basic idea of something. You're picking holes in the simple explanations people are using to describe a very complex problem, on the ground that they're not complex enough.
Of course they're not complex enough. They're simplifications.
Now, just because being male is a net positive in some areas, it doesn't mean that it's not a negative in others. You're right about that. I suffered a lot from the "boys don't cry" stereotype, for example, and I had non-gender-normative interests. But that doesn't mean being male didn't make my life easier in many areas. And honestly it was overall still "easier" being male - I suspect I still had more net benefit - than being female would have been.
Saying "men have it hard, too" is missing the point. First of all, gender bias hurts everyone in different ways. Second of all, honestly, things are, objectively, more difficult for women, across more areas.
Some of what you're referencing is described by intersectionality. Personal anecdote time. I'm male, white, and upper-middle-class. That's made my life a lot easier in certain areas. Without question. I've gotten jobs because of my accent or because friends of my parents hired me. I've been treated better by police, etc, because of my accent, I can walk alone at night without being too worried (most of the time). I'm also gay. That's made my life more difficult in some other areas. But being gay doesn't make my privilege in those other fields just go away. It doesn't change the fact that my parents could afford private tuition which helped me get into my university course, which is privilege I have over people who were poorer, for example.
This got longer than I thought. A summary:
- Everyone has some type of privilege.
A sidenote on the concept of dealing with rape in games: I have played in games that dealt with rape, but only when everyone in the (mixed) party, plus the GM, was okay with it and had discussed it and how it would be handled OOC beforehand. This was also a very experienced set of roleplayers, in a modern-day psychological horror game. I also ask players about triggers before running any potentially triggering material in my own games: at least three of my gamer circles are rape survivors, and I know of two of those are because the topic arose in conversations they were part of (not during a game). Sometimes accidentally upsetting people whose triggers you don't know is unavoidable. Sometimes it's not your fault. The important thing is to be aware of the possibility, and make an effort to be aware of and to accommodate other gamers' (and other people's, more generally) boundaries and comfort levels.
This "Extra Cantrips/Orisons" feat, how would that apply to a Wizard or Cleric, who already know these spells, they just have limited slots for 0 level?
A wizard would get to scribe them into their spellbook. Waste of a feat.
A cleric would get no benefit at all. REAL waste of a feat.
Here's my interpretation, which I believe is correct.
Remember that Bardic Performance is the collective name for a whole set of abilities that unlock at various bard levels (or effective bard levels).
Taking Archivist just means that you get certain Bardic Performaces replaced with others. So, where you would get Suggestion, instead you get Lamentable Belaborment.
Pathfinder Chronicler advances your Bardic Performance effective level as you've described.
As a Bard, you get Bardic Performance.
The actual answer: Yes, you get Lamentable Belaborment.
Among other things, you can't be a Bard (Archivist) / Bard (regular). Being an Archivist does a replace on certain standard Bard abilities that kick in at various levels. All Pathfinder Chronicler does is get you to those effective Bard levels anyway - at no point does it change what those levels mean to your character.
Based on the rounding rules above, it would seem that the 1-1/2 times the Strength bonus advantage would come into play only with modifiers above +2. In other words, Strength 13 with a +1 modifier, multiplied by 1.5 would yield 1.5, which you would then round down to +1 to damage. Strength 14, with a modifier +2, would yield a total of +3 to damage. Is this correct?
That's right; modifiers of +2 and above. It works out fine in the long run.
Could someone give me an example of what it means to "...double the damage twice, the end result is three times the normal damage."? I simply don't understand this at all, hopefully it's not ridiculously obvious.
It's worded badly. Say you roll 15 for your damage, and two separate effects double the damage you're to do.
What you DON'T do is double twice: 15 x 2 = 30, 30 x 2 = 60
Instead you TRIPLE the original number instead: 15 doubled twice instead becomes 15 x 3 = 45 damage
It's to stop doubles and triples and so on from getting stacked to ridiculous levels: they're additive, not multiplicative. This also means that the order in which you apply them doesn't need to matter.
That is also not a sure thing for low level Wizards, although not every GM enforces that after 'spell shopping'.
To be fair, if it's a "college of wizards" situation, and it happens in downtime, there's no reason the character can't "shop around" till he finds someone whose notes are easy to read.
Our bard and wizard are both good for utility spells, and even the barbarian can pull a few low-level utilities in an emergency (ghost sound, mage hand, unseen servant and dancing lights are amusing).
For stealth we send the ranger; everyone else falls down on it. Sometimes literally, particularly for the inquisitor (dwarf, plate armour, no ranks in Stealth). He, however, manages to handle diplomacy along with the bard.
Will be passing all this along; thanks for everything so far. :)
This reminds me of the time a party member turned evil and got repeatedly Baleful Polymorphed by the party witch every time he tried to backstab the group. He ended up as ... a tortoise with the mind of a rabbit, I think, due to some interesting Will save successes and failures. Turns out a rabbit gets a Will save to keep its rabbit-mind rather than get a tortoise-mind.
Re the HP: I understand. I suspect it was to minimise PC death at lower levels, but it is harsh on evokers (who don't need harshness) and overly kind to the barbarian.
To be fair, we mangle through an enemy's HP remarkably quickly.
Oh, also. I haven't been reading the spoilers, obviously (thank you all for posting them), but if those willing to suggest encounters wouldn't mind including a line or two on the best way to run the monster/s, I know our GM would find it massively helpful.