|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey. Lumiere. Something you seem to have overlooked.
The PRD said:
Untrained: Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.
...according to the CRB.
Also...
Profession
(Wis; Trained Only)
Hey. Lumiere. Something you seem to have overlooked.
The PRD said:
Untrained: Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.
...according to the CRB.
Also...
Profession
(Wis; Trained Only)
Y'know, I didn't even think to check THAT part; good catch.
And finally >he said, hammering in another nail on the coffin-lid< taking 10 is only possible when one isn't stressed-out by the possibility of penalties for failure... I should THINK that the grim prospect of not being able to eat or losing your comfy bed would qualify. So, really, taking 10 to meet your cost of living should be out.
Hey. Lumiere. Something you seem to have overlooked.
The PRD said:
Untrained: Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.
...according to the CRB.
Check
You can earn half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession's daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems. You can also answer questions about your Profession. Basic questions are DC 10, while more complex questions are DC 15 or higher.
if untrained laborers only earned a silver piece per day. they wouldn't even be able to afford the cheapest of lifestyles. the check session supersedes the untrained error.
untained means average skill. the guy with the rank is an expert that made a career out of it. i doubt in a world where your average commmoners living expenses are 10 gold pieces per month, that people really live on a silver piece a day. it's an economical inconsistency that serves as an oversight in the rules.
if untrained laborers only earned a silver piece per day. they wouldn't even be able to afford the cheapest of lifestyles. the check session supersedes the untrained error.
untained means average skill. the guy with the rank is an expert that made a career out of it. i doubt in a world where your average commmoners living expenses are 10 gold pieces per month, that people really live on a silver piece a day. it's an economical inconsistency that serves as an oversight in the rules.
A silver a day for 30 days? Looks a lot like the 3gp/mo for a poor standard to me. And destitute is an even cheaper lifestyle.
Hey. Lumiere. Something you seem to have overlooked.
The PRD said:
Untrained: Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.
...according to the CRB.
Also...
Profession
(Wis; Trained Only)Y'know, I didn't even think to check THAT part; good catch.
And finally >he said, hammering in another nail on the coffin-lid< taking 10 is only possible when one isn't stressed-out by the possibility of penalties for failure... I should THINK that the grim prospect of not being able to eat or losing your comfy bed would qualify. So, really, taking 10 to meet your cost of living should be out.
This misconception will probably never disappear.
Failure has nothing to do with being able to take 10 or not. You can't take 10 when distracted, with combat being the bar for what counts as a distraction.
A silver a day for 30 days? Looks a lot like the 3gp/mo for a poor standard to me. And destitute is an even cheaper lifestyle.if untrained laborers only earned a silver piece per day. they wouldn't even be able to afford the cheapest of lifestyles. the check session supersedes the untrained error.
untained means average skill. the guy with the rank is an expert that made a career out of it. i doubt in a world where your average commmoners living expenses are 10 gold pieces per month, that people really live on a silver piece a day. it's an economical inconsistency that serves as an oversight in the rules.
your average untrained farmer makes 5 gold pieces a week due to their purely average ability. they aren't useless enough for a silver piece a day. the least you can make taking 10 (requiring a wisdom of 1) is 2 gold and 5 silver a week. still enough for an average lifestyle with nothing else.
the expert farmer with a 13 wis, 1 rank, and a +3 class skill bonus, is making (taking 10) 7 gold and 5 silver per week.
if untrained laborers only made a silver piece a day and all lived poor or destitute lifestyles, the nobles of the region wouldn't even be able to afford their extravagant lifestyles.
extravagant, is 1,000 GP a month and the standard of nobles.
if we assumed the untrained laborer with the average lifestyle (5gp a week) payed 10gp in lifestyle expenses and half were taxes, it would take 200 people to support one noble. if a the people were poor and made 3gp a month, and 1 of it were taxes, it takes 1,000 people. pathfinder settlements just don't have that many people until you reach metropolis territory.
|
|
Failure has nothing to do with being able to take 10 or not. You can't take 10 when distracted, with combat being the bar for what counts as a distraction.
One can face serious distraction many ways outside of combat... And that failure can most definitely mean death...
If you fail to build that posh merchant's house in the city within the required time given you, your boss might simply fire you. You fail to build that cabin in that wilderness that you're stuck in before winter; and oh look, it's already beginning to snow... Well, you have some serious distraction now...
I actually kind of agree with DE here. If the stakes on a specific job are high enough, I think taking ten should be impossible.
Failure has nothing to do with being able to take 10 or not. You can't take 10 when distracted, with combat being the bar for what counts as a distraction.One can face serious distraction many ways outside of combat... And that failure can most definitely mean death...
If you fail to build that posh merchant's house in the city within the required time given you, your boss might simply fire you. You fail to build that cabin in that wilderness that you're stuck in before winter; and oh look, it's already beginning to snow... Well, you have some serious distraction now...
but there is only a finite number of people you can reliably choose from to hire, and sometimes you have to make due with a less gifted employee based on a variety of factors, such as desperately needing workers to sustain the business, the more skilled/experienced applicants may possibly want a bigger salary than you are willing to offer, or it may be a region of relatively lousy education.
I know we all have differing play styles (and that's cool, to each their own I guess), but this is just SO foreign a concept. I'm sorry, but I just cannot wrap my head around playing like this...
I know people who treat RPGs like strategic combat games. Sort of like a small-scale miniature wargame (possibly without the miniatures). I could totally see some of those treating their characters this way.
Completely alien concept for me.
(But that's not to say that I couldn't see trying something different if your character died off. I have hundreds of potential character ideas roaming around in my head, sometimes death is just the excuse you need to try one of them. Also, our campaign world doesn't have easy access to resurrection.)
Edit to add: Usually, those guys eventually realize that video games actually does the whole strategic combat thing much better than an RPG ever could, and never look back. Hence actually playing with them is blissfully rare. :)
your average untrained farmer makes 5 gold pieces a week due to their purely average ability. they aren't useless enough for a silver piece a day. the least you can make taking 10 (requiring a wisdom of 1) is 2 gold and 5 silver a week. still enough for an average lifestyle with nothing else.the expert farmer with a 13 wis, 1 rank, and a +3 class skill bonus, is making (taking 10) 7 gold and 5 silver per week.
if untrained laborers only made a silver piece a day and all lived poor or destitute lifestyles, the nobles of the region wouldn't even be able to afford their extravagant lifestyles.
extravagant, is 1,000 GP a month and the standard of nobles.
if we assumed the untrained laborer with the average lifestyle (5gp a week) payed 10gp in lifestyle expenses and half were taxes, it would take 200 people to support one noble. if a the people were poor and made 3gp a month, and 1 of it were taxes, it takes 1,000 people. pathfinder settlements just don't have that many people until you reach metropolis territory.
Your average untrained farmer isn't making 5 gp a week because he only makes a silver. But then, the average farmer has at least 1 rank in farming. One rank doesn't make the farmer an expert, nor does he have to be an expert to have one rank in farming. I consider the single rank to be the equivalent of a journeyman level of education, about the training a person would have coming of age in their profession, not some special expert ability.
So I think your estimation of the support a noble requires, or even he lifestyle he leads, falls apart. He isn't depending on just untrained laborers, but on farmers and other professionals with reasonable ability. Plus, if he did rely on a couple hundred untrained laborers, he shouldn't be able to afford an extravagant lifestyle. There are poor nobles out there and their lifestyle levels should reflect their resources..
I don't know where you're getting the idea that you only get 1000 people until you start getting to metropolis territory. That's small town size in the GMG. And that's a lot fewer people than a 25,000 person metropolis.
I know we all have differing play styles (and that's cool, to each their own I guess), but this is just SO foreign a concept. I'm sorry, but I just cannot wrap my head around playing like this...I know people who treat RPGs like strategic combat games. Sort of like a small-scale miniature wargame (possibly without the miniatures). I could totally see some of those treating their characters this way.
Completely alien concept for me.
(But that's not to say that I couldn't see trying something different if your character died off. I have hundreds of potential character ideas roaming around in my head, sometimes death is just the excuse you need to try one of them. Also, our campaign world doesn't have easy access to resurrection.)
((neither does mine))
I actually kind of agree with DE here. If the stakes on a specific job are high enough, I think taking ten should be impossible.
I don't know about that. I think the intent is for the distraction to be more immediate, more proximate, than fairly long term repercussions of failing to deliver on time. I would certainly consider things other than combat, but probably not threats that won't be carried out in weeks.
your average untrained farmer makes 5 gold pieces a week due to their purely average ability. they aren't useless enough for a silver piece a day. the least you can make taking 10 (requiring a wisdom of 1) is 2 gold and 5 silver a week. still enough for an average lifestyle with nothing else.the expert farmer with a 13 wis, 1 rank, and a +3 class skill bonus, is making (taking 10) 7 gold and 5 silver per week.
if untrained laborers only made a silver piece a day and all lived poor or destitute lifestyles, the nobles of the region wouldn't even be able to afford their extravagant lifestyles.
extravagant, is 1,000 GP a month and the standard of nobles.
if we assumed the untrained laborer with the average lifestyle (5gp a week) payed 10gp in lifestyle expenses and half were taxes, it would take 200 people to support one noble. if a the people were poor and made 3gp a month, and 1 of it were taxes, it takes 1,000 people. pathfinder settlements just don't have that many people until you reach metropolis territory.
Your average untrained farmer isn't making 5 gp a week because he only makes a silver. But then, the average farmer has at least 1 rank in farming. One rank doesn't make the farmer an expert, nor does he have to be an expert to have one rank in farming. I consider the single rank to be the equivalent of a journeyman level of education, about the training a person would have coming of age in their profession, not some special expert ability.
So I think your estimation of the support a noble requires, or even he lifestyle he leads, falls apart. He isn't depending on just untrained laborers, but on farmers and other professionals with reasonable ability. Plus, if he did rely on a couple hundred untrained laborers, he shouldn't be able to afford an extravagant lifestyle. There are poor nobles out there and their lifestyle levels should reflect their resources..
you are talking about a setting where education was uncommon. if 1 rank meant journeyman farmer, that you think should be from the point of coming of age, then your farmer went from making a silver piece a day to 7 gold pieces a week, just because he turned 16.
the half your result in gold pieces, (5GP a week for untrained) represents more than raw cash, it also represents other resources that contribute to survival, such as (for a farmer) the successful raising and trade of resources such as crops and livestock, (trade goods), the wise deals on mundane expenses, and your skill in preserving food. you may have 1 silver piece a day in cash. but you have 5 gold pieces a week in farming related trade goods (including the silver)
If you don't like the penalties for death, play it smart and safe. Adventuring is a hazardous profession.
And if your DM is determined to kill you?
you are talking about a setting where education was uncommon. if 1 rank meant journeyman farmer, that you think should be from the point of coming of age, then your farmer went from making a silver piece a day to 7 gold pieces a week, just because he turned 16.
No, I'm talking about a place where formal schooling might be uncommon, but that's not the only way to gain an education, particularly in a profession where apprenticeships or family training would be the norm. And he doesn't have a rank because he's 16, rather he has it because he's got training in that profession at a level consistent with the base level of independant competence, someone out of their apprenticeship but not of master skill. And that fits about the time of the character's coming of age.
If you don't like the penalties for death, play it smart and safe. Adventuring is a hazardous profession.And if your DM is determined to kill you?
If he is determined to kill you in the next week or so, you can Take Ten. Otherwise, you'll have to roll and hope for the best. ;D
Failure has nothing to do with being able to take 10 or not. You can't take 10 when distracted, with combat being the bar for what counts as a distraction.One can face serious distraction many ways outside of combat... And that failure can most definitely mean death...
If you fail to build that posh merchant's house in the city within the required time given you, your boss might simply fire you. You fail to build that cabin in that wilderness that you're stuck in before winter; and oh look, it's already beginning to snow... Well, you have some serious distraction now...
You're stretching it, severely. The bar is combat. The danger of losing your liferight now, not 5 months from now. You can twist and contort, you can house rule it differently if you like, but that isn't RAW or RAI per designer comments on taking 10. Your interpretation is to basically exclude the take 10 rule. Since as adventurers, they could always die tomorrow, they can never take 10.
Failure has nothing to do with take 10. Only major distractions, with the minimum bar being someone trying to cut your head off with a sword.
It doesn't matter that failure will displease the merchant. You can still take 10, because the failure is irrelevant. The only reason you wouldn't take 10 is if the DC is higher than you can achieve with a 10. Or if you're doing crafting and want to go faster. Or if he demands that you build it while someone swings a sword at you.
You can even take 10 when the threat of death is immediate, such as when climbing. I would however adjudicate that something like a thunder storm would be a sufficient distraction as to disallow the take 10 rule.
Just curious, if you've sundered and stolen all of a characters equipment, say at level 10, would you expect them to be able to handle the same level of challenges?
|
Lumiere said:
"once you have drank a potion or burned out a wand, it shouldn't count towards WBL anymore because it is no longer useable. WBL is a measure of immediately usable adventuring wealth. in other words, permanent bonus providing equipment.
at the same time, diamonds wasted on a Resurrection are no longer usable wealth either. and thus should no longer count."
* * * *
Uh, no. WBL is a guideline about how much wealth an adventuring character ought to have accumulated in the course of their career, allowing higher-than-1st-level PCs to be built.
If someone spent their wealth on a tower and walled estate, rather than adventuring gear, they have just as much wealth as a character who went down to the magic mart and geared out for dragon-hunting.
It is not "a measure of immediately-usable adventuring wealth." I promise you you misread that.
some items shouldn't count toward WBL because there is no real way to milk an adventuring related bonus out of them. such as mansions and titles.
i merely read WBL not as written, but how i think it was intended by the writers. in other words, immediately useable adventuring wealth. it doesn't matter how many millions you have within the vaults of your estate when you cannot even access it to aquire goods.
WBL is AFTER spending gold on consumables, selling items for half price, replacing sundered goods, ETC. or else, the treasure per encounter would if calculated, far exceed the wealth by level charts. and some groups exceed the charts anyway.
WBL doesn't care whether you bought the item, stole it, nor found it in a horde, though crafting feats give a discount on starting gear and future gear because of the investment of feats. which may lead to being allowed to slightly exceed the guidelines.
a PC isn't magically born at 1st level or any level when someone dies. a higher level PC might be a more experienced former adventurer who joined at APL, or...
You aren't meant to be walking around at all times with a certain amount of wealth. The WBL is a guide that represents what wealth PC'S have accumulated during their career depending on their level. If you buy nothing but consumables and you use them all then you are SOL.
Just curious, if you've sundered and stolen all of a characters equipment, say at level 10, would you expect them to be able to handle the same level of challenges?Why would I immediately send them off to the next CR equivalent challenge?
Because that's apparently what people here expect the DM to do.
Ignore the fact that half (or 80%) of their gear is destroyed and just send the same CR monsters at them again.
It's not like they have an immense penalty in that encounter and will most likely die, costing even more resources and weakening them further.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious, if you've sundered and stolen all of a characters equipment, say at level 10, would you expect them to be able to handle the same level of challenges?Why would I immediately send them off to the next CR equivalent challenge?
Well, if you're not giving them back the wealth over the next 2-4 levels, when are you sending them after the next challenge?
Magic items are part of the parties resources and power. The loss of lots of items would represent a reduction in the parties overall power. Would you expect them to be able to deal with the same difficulties as they could before if you removed all their gear?
|
|
Just curious, if you've sundered and stolen all of a characters equipment, say at level 10, would you expect them to be able to handle the same level of challenges?Why would I immediately send them off to the next CR equivalent challenge?Because that's apparently what people here expect the DM to do.
Ignore the fact that half (or 80%) of their gear is destroyed and just send the same CR monsters at them again.
It's not like they have an immense penalty in that encounter and will most likely die, costing even more resources and weakening them further.
If you have spellcasters in the party then nine times out of ten they could more than likely give you enough buffs to help you with the next encounter if need be.
|
|
It doesn't matter that failure will displease the merchant. You can still take 10, because the failure is irrelevant.
No, no... You misunderstood that part of my example. The part concerning the posh merchant's house was meant to illustrate no real threat; failure in that instance would be the boss may just fire you (so no real big deal, take 10, it doesn't matter), but failure to build shelter for yourself where death is a real threat should (IMO) be a big enough distraction to warrant not being able to take 10...
So no, I am not advocating that adventures cannot ever take ten because they could die tomorrow (Talk about stretching things severely... LOL)
If you have spellcasters in the party then nine times out of ten they could more than likely give you enough buffs to help you with the next encounter if need be.Just curious, if you've sundered and stolen all of a characters equipment, say at level 10, would you expect them to be able to handle the same level of challenges?Why would I immediately send them off to the next CR equivalent challenge?Because that's apparently what people here expect the DM to do.
Ignore the fact that half (or 80%) of their gear is destroyed and just send the same CR monsters at them again.
It's not like they have an immense penalty in that encounter and will most likely die, costing even more resources and weakening them further.
Their buffs won't fix the fact that you're swinging with improvised weapons, without armor, and are probably being rended to death by a Troll or pounced to death by a Dire Tiger. Sure, the buffs might help in surviving (or running away if it's Haste or Expeditious Retreat), but you will probably never win in that situation when you're up against creatures of a fitting CR while you're at such a disadvantage, which is very possible after an encounter with a Rust Monster or a sunder-happy bunch of humanoid foes.
Cute, but rather underwhelming strawman argument.
Please reread my post before you try twisting it like that.
|
|
Their buffs won't fix the fact that you're swinging with improvised weapons, without armor, and are probably being rended to death by a Troll or pounced to death by a Dire Tiger. Sure, the buffs might help in surviving, but victory won't be assured in that situation when you're up against creatures of a fitting CR when you're at such a disadvantage, which is very possible after an encounter with a Rust Monster or a sunder-happy bunch of humanoid foes.If you have spellcasters in the party then nine times out of ten they could more than likely give you enough buffs to help you with the next encounter if need be.Just curious, if you've sundered and stolen all of a characters equipment, say at level 10, would you expect them to be able to handle the same level of challenges?Why would I immediately send them off to the next CR equivalent challenge?Because that's apparently what people here expect the DM to do.
Ignore the fact that half (or 80%) of their gear is destroyed and just send the same CR monsters at them again.
It's not like they have an immense penalty in that encounter and will most likely die, costing even more resources and weakening them further.
Oh really?
GMW on a club, Haste, Barkskin, back up set of armor with Magical Vestment cast on it, and various other spells that spellcasters possess. I don't have my books in front of me at the moment.
Their buffs won't fix the fact that you're swinging with improvised weapons, without armor, and are probably being rended to death by a Troll or pounced to death by a Dire Tiger. Sure, the buffs might help in surviving, but victory won't be assured in that situation when you're up against creatures of a fitting CR when you're at such a disadvantage, which is very possible after an encounter with a Rust Monster or a sunder-happy bunch of humanoid foes.If you have spellcasters in the party then nine times out of ten they could more than likely give you enough buffs to help you with the next encounter if need be.Just curious, if you've sundered and stolen all of a characters equipment, say at level 10, would you expect them to be able to handle the same level of challenges?Why would I immediately send them off to the next CR equivalent challenge?Because that's apparently what people here expect the DM to do.
Ignore the fact that half (or 80%) of their gear is destroyed and just send the same CR monsters at them again.
It's not like they have an immense penalty in that encounter and will most likely die, costing even more resources and weakening them further.
Oh really?
GMW on a club, Haste, Barkskin, back up set of armor with Magical Vestment cast on it, and various other spells that spellcasters possess. I don't have my books in front of me at the moment.
Do tell me, how many rounds does it take to get all that up?
Oh right, far too many to really make a difference in that situation.
Also, I think Barkskin was self only, and who the hell carries back-up armor?
Cute, but rather underwhelming strawman argument.Not a strawman...
No matter what toys and magical doo-dads a character may have, there should always be a chance of failure...
Still twisting my words, still a strawman argument.
Again, read my previous posts more carefully before replying.
The dice always ensure a chance of failure, so there are no absolutes.
|
|
Their buffs won't fix the fact that you're swinging with improvised weapons, without armor, and are probably being rended to death by a Troll or pounced to death by a Dire Tiger. Sure, the buffs might help in surviving, but victory won't be assured in that situation when you're up against creatures of a fitting CR when you're at such a disadvantage, which is very possible after an encounter with a Rust Monster or a sunder-happy bunch of humanoid foes.If you have spellcasters in the party then nine times out of ten they could more than likely give you enough buffs to help you with the next encounter if need be.Just curious, if you've sundered and stolen all of a characters equipment, say at level 10, would you expect them to be able to handle the same level of challenges?Why would I immediately send them off to the next CR equivalent challenge?Because that's apparently what people here expect the DM to do.
Ignore the fact that half (or 80%) of their gear is destroyed and just send the same CR monsters at them again.
It's not like they have an immense penalty in that encounter and will most likely die, costing even more resources and weakening them further.
Oh really?
GMW on a club, Haste, Barkskin, back up set of armor with Magical Vestment cast on it, and various other spells that spellcasters possess. I don't have my books in front of me at the moment.
Do tell me, how many rounds does it take to get all that up?
Oh right, far too many to really make a difference in that situation.
Also, I think Barkskin was self only, and who the hell carries back-up armor?
Seeing how those three can come from three different casters then they could be up in a round, god forbid if you have to wait a round to fight.
If not then the smart thing to do is sit down with the casters, find buffs that last a long time and cast those first, then wait until battle to have the short term ones cast on you.
And with that I agree, but even the developers have said that it's the default to tip the scales slightly in the players' favor.
There are people who do the opposite, but it's usually assumed the players are okay with such a playstyle, so there's also that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still twisting my words, still a strawman argument.
Again, read my previous posts more carefully before replying.
The dice always ensure a chance of failure, so there are no absolutes.
I deleted the post you just quoted, but before you changed your post, you said the word assured, which by definition (in the context in which you used it) means guaranteed...
So no, I did not twist anything. I used your exact words...
And why such a confrontational tone??
Their buffs won't fix the fact that you're swinging with improvised weapons, without armor, and are probably being rended to death by a Troll or pounced to death by a Dire Tiger. Sure, the buffs might help in surviving, but victory won't be assured in that situation when you're up against creatures of a fitting CR when you're at such a disadvantage, which is very possible after an encounter with a Rust Monster or a sunder-happy bunch of humanoid foes.If you have spellcasters in the party then nine times out of ten they could more than likely give you enough buffs to help you with the next encounter if need be.Just curious, if you've sundered and stolen all of a characters equipment, say at level 10, would you expect them to be able to handle the same level of challenges?Why would I immediately send them off to the next CR equivalent challenge?Because that's apparently what people here expect the DM to do.
Ignore the fact that half (or 80%) of their gear is destroyed and just send the same CR monsters at them again.
It's not like they have an immense penalty in that encounter and will most likely die, costing even more resources and weakening them further.
Oh really?
GMW on a club, Haste, Barkskin, back up set of armor with Magical Vestment cast on it, and various other spells that spellcasters possess. I don't have my books in front of me at the moment.
Do tell me, how many rounds does it take to get all that up?
Oh right, far too many to really make a difference in that situation.
Also, I think Barkskin was self only, and who the hell carries back-up armor?
Seeing how those three can come from three different casters then they could be up in a round, god forbid if you have to wait a round to fight.
If not then the smart thing to do is sit down with the...
Not every party has three casters, especially if it's a default 4-man party.
And who said the DM will let you sit down and prepare? You're just waiting to be ambushed.
If a DM is cruel enough to apply Sunder that viciously, it would not surprise me if he did that as well.
|
|
Their buffs won't fix the fact that you're swinging with improvised weapons, without armor, and are probably being rended to death by a Troll or pounced to death by a Dire Tiger. Sure, the buffs might help in surviving, but victory won't be assured in that situation when you're up against creatures of a fitting CR when you're at such a disadvantage, which is very possible after an encounter with a Rust Monster or a sunder-happy bunch of humanoid foes.If you have spellcasters in the party then nine times out of ten they could more than likely give you enough buffs to help you with the next encounter if need be.Just curious, if you've sundered and stolen all of a characters equipment, say at level 10, would you expect them to be able to handle the same level of challenges?Why would I immediately send them off to the next CR equivalent challenge?Because that's apparently what people here expect the DM to do.
Ignore the fact that half (or 80%) of their gear is destroyed and just send the same CR monsters at them again.
It's not like they have an immense penalty in that encounter and will most likely die, costing even more resources and weakening them further.
Oh really?
GMW on a club, Haste, Barkskin, back up set of armor with Magical Vestment cast on it, and various other spells that spellcasters possess. I don't have my books in front of me at the moment.
Do tell me, how many rounds does it take to get all that up?
Oh right, far too many to really make a difference in that situation.
Also, I think Barkskin was self only, and who the hell carries back-up armor?
...Cute, but rather underwhelming strawman argument.Not a strawman...
No matter what toys and magical doo-dads a character may have, there should always be a chance of
Also, what's wrong with going this route anyway? If you succeed then awesome, if you fail then you die and you get to make another character, or is it more about the gear than the actual character?
Stuff...
What would Arthur be without Excalibur?
The hero's gear is a part of his legend, you know.
|
|
...Their buffs won't fix the fact that you're swinging with improvised weapons, without armor, and are probably being rended to death by a Troll or pounced to death by a Dire Tiger. Sure, the buffs might help in surviving, but victory won't be assured in that situation when you're up against creatures of a fitting CR when you're at such a disadvantage, which is very possible after an encounter with a Rust Monster or a sunder-happy bunch of humanoid foes.If you have spellcasters in the party then nine times out of ten they could more than likely give you enough buffs to help you with the next encounter if need be.Just curious, if you've sundered and stolen all of a characters equipment, say at level 10, would you expect them to be able to handle the same level of challenges?Why would I immediately send them off to the next CR equivalent challenge?Because that's apparently what people here expect the DM to do.
Ignore the fact that half (or 80%) of their gear is destroyed and just send the same CR monsters at them again.
It's not like they have an immense penalty in that encounter and will most likely die, costing even more resources and weakening them further.
Oh really?
GMW on a club, Haste, Barkskin, back up set of armor with Magical Vestment cast on it, and various other spells that spellcasters possess. I don't have my books in front of me at the moment.
Do tell me, how many rounds does it take to get all that up?
Oh right, far too many to really make a difference in that situation.
Also, I think Barkskin was self only, and who the hell carries back-up armor?
Seeing how those three can come from three different casters then they could be up in a round, god forbid if you have to wait a round to fight.
If not then the smart thing to
Then you go with the second option that I presented.
Honest question. How long have you been playing overall D&D?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How long I've played has nothing to do with this argument.
Now would you please try and keep this civil instead of being elitist?
King of Camelot along with his knights.Stuff...What would Arthur be without Excalibur?
The hero's gear is a part of his legend, you know.
With their sundered armour, because fighters shouldn't be allowed nice things. They should be a liability, that requires 3 Casters to buff into any kind of competency ;P
Seriously: No-one is saying that you shouldn't Sunder, just that players should be warned.
It doesn't matter that failure will displease the merchant. You can still take 10, because the failure is irrelevant.No, no... You misunderstood that part of my example. The part concerning the posh merchant's house was meant to illustrate no real threat; failure in that instance would be the boss may just fire you (so no real big deal, take 10, it doesn't matter), but failure to build shelter for yourself where death is a real threat should (IMO) be a big enough distraction to warrant not being able to take 10...
So no, I am not advocating that adventures cannot ever take ten because they could die tomorrow (Talk about stretching things severely... LOL)
You can take 10 when jumping over a chasm, even if you have 10 HP and the chasm is 200' deep. So no, your example is wrong, the threat of death months in the future is not relevant.
Taking 10 has NOTHING to do with failure. It only has to do with the conditions in which you are operating. It must be a condition where focusing on what you're doing could cause you harm. Like not paying attention to the guy swinging a sword at your head. The threat of failure itself is not a distraction, otherwise the take 10 rule would be pointless.
Take 20 is affected by failure, not take 10.
If you have spellcasters in the party then nine times out of ten they could more than likely give you enough buffs to help you with the next encounter if need be.Just curious, if you've sundered and stolen all of a characters equipment, say at level 10, would you expect them to be able to handle the same level of challenges?Why would I immediately send them off to the next CR equivalent challenge?Because that's apparently what people here expect the DM to do.
Ignore the fact that half (or 80%) of their gear is destroyed and just send the same CR monsters at them again.
It's not like they have an immense penalty in that encounter and will most likely die, costing even more resources and weakening them further.
So your response to my original question is no. You would consider characters with no gear to have the same resources and therefore capable of handling the same challenges.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you would be sitting out of that campaign.i'd rather include the compensation loot within the next 2-4 hauls than have the barbarian complain.I'd just get rid of the barbarian.
That's amusing considering I was the DM in the example you are referring to.
Sure, if the whole group agrees with the barbarian's player, I'll roll with it. But if it's just him? Sorry, outvoted.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
If you don't like the penalties for death, play it smart and safe. Adventuring is a hazardous profession.And if your DM is determined to kill you?
Then it's probably time to find a different game. I dislike GMs that take out petty personal grudges on characters.
Considering that WBL is in the core rulebook as a measure of the magically enhanced equipment that one has, and any destroyed irreplacable weapons or...I disagree on the "wealth penalty" thing. Your character's in-game wealth is a finite resource. Things are going to happen in-game that are going to make your character spend that resource on staying alive; potions, curse removals, food, etc. Repairing broken equipment is pretty standard fare for any profession, and when your profession involves hitting things as hard as you can with your "tools," sometimes you have to spend a little gold to keep things working.
Honestly? The whole "wealth penalty" idea reeks of entitlement. As if from day 1, your character's wealth can and will ONLY be spent on better stuff and never to shore up weaknesses and keep equipment viable. I call shenanigans.
Is spending gold in town to get a Restoration spell cast on you a "Wealth penalty" as well? Are CLW potions a "wealth penalty?" How about food?
As a DM, I don't even like the idea of sundering a PC's gear, but it's a legal, viable combat option and it can come up whenever the DM damn well feels like it. A polite DM warns players ahead of time that tactics like this exist in the setting, but there's no contract anywhere or any rule that says "The DM must not do anything that might affect anything on a PC."
Gonna stop ya right there. You can repair broken magical weapons. i.e.; not irreplaceable. Unless the weapon was somehow completely exiled from existence, you can repair it.
And WBL is "Wealth By Level,", not "Gear By Level." Part of having any significant wealth is spending necessary expenditures to ensure your gear and tools are repaired and in working order, which might possibly include getting a broken magical weapon repaired.
Then it's probably time to find a different game. I dislike GMs that take out petty personal grudges on characters.If you don't like the penalties for death, play it smart and safe. Adventuring is a hazardous profession.And if your DM is determined to kill you?
Most of us do, but some complain that a DM who doesn't do that is being too soft on the players.