Dorothy Lindman's page

Lately, I've seen a lot of "if you beat the DC, I'll tell you the name of the critter and maybe its type, anything beyond that requires +5 and questions". When I compare that to the breakouts in the scenarios for gather information, knowledge history, etc., it seems really stingy.

There's also the problem of "how much do I know about monster types"--are characters assumed to know what "undead traits" are already, or does that need to be one of the questions? A lot of players don't know, especially new players, so we can't count on metagame knowledge for this. (Heck, I have all the traits on my GM screen.) And since a lot of the monsters are imports from other mythologies, we've ended up with players having incorrect metagame knowledge.

It would be really nice to see a breakout for PFS of what monsters are common, what general traits any pathfinder should know, what types are common in different regions. For example, someone from Cheliax should know some general information about devils--it's the state religion. But if a monster shows up in a lot of PFS scenarios, it should be considered more common than it would be outside of PFS.

There is a table of DCs for damaging objects in the core rulebook. It's linked online here:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalRules.html#_breaking-and-enter ing

There should be something close to what you need there.

My wife is an awesome DM! She has a MUCH better grasp on proper storytelling than I EVER will. In fact I wish she would do more.

Just curious: Have you asked her why she doesn't do more?

There's another factor in the "why don't more females do X?" discussions that is very often overlooked: time crunch.

In the US, the average woman spends 2-3 times as many hours on "second shift" duties as her male partner: child care, housekeeping, laundry, shopping, cooking, etc. This still holds true when both partners work the same number of hours and even when the woman works longer hours than her partner. And even if you decide to let it go undone, you still end up with the stress of knowing it was your responsibility and you slacked off. (And OMG, never, ever read any women's magazines or "Lifestyle" sections of the newspaper: they are all about how everything you do is wrong and your kids will turn out horrible and it's all your fault!)

I would have never considered GMing before my husband was able to work part time and take over all the second shift work. I'm still adjusting to the amount of stress that was causing me, when I didn't even know it was there.

I think this is also a factor in why you see males playing RPGs without their partners but almost never see a female playing without her partner. Women in my generation were taught that taking care of their partners (and families) is their primary purpose in life. So it's OK to accompany your husband to a game, but if he's not there, you should be doing what he's doing and/or spending your time catching up on all the unfinished crap at home.

Gradually, these gender role attitudes are getting phased out of our society, but there's a big backlash going on, so I'm afraid it's going to take another generation.

Except that while Mounted you can wield it as though it were a one-handed weapon.

Technically, it says "While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand", which doesn't change its category to "one-handed weapon".

Compare that wording to Bastard Sword, which says "You can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon." The text specifically changes the weapon category.

Sawtooth Sabre is a better example:
"You may use a sawtooth sabre as a Martial Weapon (in which case it functions identically to a longsword). If you have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (sawtooth sabre) feat, for the purpose of two-weapon fighting you can treat it as a light melee weapon; for all other purposes it is one-handed melee weapon."

So I would say that, even while mounted, a lance still doesn't count as a "one-handed weapon" for the purposes of TWF. (At least not for use in the off hand.)

Dual-wield lances is not the most effective weapon choice, anyway: You can't attack anyone who gets inside your 10 feet reach, and maneuvering a lance to side or behind you is really, really hard. There's a reason knights always point the lance straight up unless they are actually charging with them. And a reason they drop the lance after the initial charge and switch to a regular melee weapon.

Rangers are great jacks of all trades. They have tons of class skills, lots of skill ranks, spell casting ability, full BAB, excellent bonus feats, ability to ignore feat prerequisites, etc.

In a long running campaign, rangers can choose their favored enemies and/or terrains to suit the campaign. At higher levels, they can assist party members against their favored enemies or in their favored terrains.

Depending on which books you're using, they also have archetypes that let them choose a single foe in combat to be their favored enemy instead of always having a specific group/subtype. The freebooter archetype in the Pirates of the Inner Sea also can boost the party's attack and damage against their chosen enemy. That also gives them a first level party buff ability comparable to a bard's inspire courage.

So the general response to what's a ranger to do is "what do you want them to do?"

(An example: the next time I build a two-weapon fighter, I'm going with a half-elf ranger with two-weapon combat style. With Lead blades and sawtooth sabres, a 4th-level ranger does 2d6 with each hand. And has tons of skill points and class skills and other spell casting...)

You might also check to see where the closest Venture Captain and/or Venture Lieutenant are. They probably have some really useful advice and might be able to get you more resources.