Can you take a Squire at 3rd level?

According to the prerequisites of the Squire Feat you can take the feat at level 3, but you cannot have a squire more than 3 levels lower than you. The Leadership Feat does not provide rules for attracting cohorts lower than level 1 (which would be pretty much useless anyway, but I digress).

My question is whether you can gain any mechanical benefits (acquire a squire) with a level 3 character who has the Squire feat?

Evidence to consider:

  • The Feat was errata’d from prereq of level 4 to prereq of level 3. This could be taken two ways. Either they intended level 3 characters to be able to take the feat and gain the advantage of it, or they intended level 4 characters to be able to have squires (which would have been impossible with a level 4 prereq, as the feat is not a combat feat and there is no progression that gets you a new feat at 4th level)
  • The source of the 3rd-level errata Patrick Renie claims that he would homerule it to be effective at 3rd level

Is it better to take the array and be Joe Average, or to roll for the odds of getting on average better scores?

I am new to D&D. I was looking at character creation for D&D 5th edition. There were a few ways one could generate ability scores. I assumed the optional method of taking the numbers 15,14,13,12,10,8 would be at least as good as the default chance method (roll 4d6, drop lowest die), and more likely, just a bit better than chance.

However, with the above method, the summed ability scores is 72, which is just a bit shy of the summed average one would obtain by rolling dice: the average ability score generated by dice should be 12.2446, which means the sum of the average ability scores is 73.4676.

What the 15,14,13,12,10,8 method accomplishes is to give some moderately high scores, but no exceptional ones, without giving any terrible scores (dice rolling typically gives at least one score of seven or less). To my mind that suggests that the rationale is that many players may find that “joe just-below-average” across the board is better than Achilles, who is amazing in some ways, but has that crazy heel weakness. He is also maybe better than “Joe Exactly-average” who has no high scores and no low ones?

Are those rationales good, i.e. is it actually better to have Joe Just-below-average-with-some-bright-spots than Joe Completely-average or Achilles?

Correction: The odds of rolling all ability scores at 8 or above are 70%, so I misspoke when I said usually one will roll one score below an 8. In fact, usually one does not, but not in a strong sense. It is no more unlikely to get a score below 8 than two coin flips coming up tails. It happens.

I provide a quick chart at the end, which makes the statistics easy to generate. As I generated the numbers quickly, I confess the possibility of error. For the 1296 possible rolls of four dice here are the number of ways you can obtain each value as the sum of the best three.

Sum of best three | Number of possible rolls that give that sum of best 3 --------------------------------------------   3                     1   4                     4   5                    10   6                    21   7                    38   8                    62   9                    91   10                  122   11                  148   12                  167   13                  172   14                  160   15                  131   16                   94   17                   54   18                   21 

Looking to take a hotspot that is shared and create my own hotspot that can be firewalled

What is the best way to take a wireless hotspot that is owned by someone else, create my own hotspot or VLAN to be able to Firewall / Not allow my devices to view the other individuals’ devices?

I am already using a VPN, but I want to be able to create my own hotspot from another hotspot and firewall it or create another VLAN. Is this recommended? What do you recommend? Is a VPN enough? Attempting to accomplish this is redundant? Or could it be an extra layer of security?

Lash Out Verbally from Take a Powerful Blow. Rules?

The Player’s Observation

One of the choices for Take A Powerful Blow is (Basic Moves sheets/book p71):

• you lash out verbally: provoke a teammate to foolhardy action or take advantage of your Influence to inflict a condition

The book text then explains that if you choose this “lashing out verbally” option, then only the doing of one of those two “actions” satisfies its requirements. The example play (bottom p72) cuts off just as the Doomed player chooses Provoke.

But both Provoke… and Take Advantage of your Influence are, if you will, “big m” Moves in their own right! They have their own rules and procedures. There are even modifiers added here, stipulations for each, presumably to keep the sometimes-varying results instead firmly negative: your Provoke… must be “to foolhardy action”, and your Take Advantage… must be “to inflict a condition”.

I’ll include it as a fake quote (don’t go looking for it). A player noted that the bullet point could read…

• you lash out verbally at a teammate: criticize them until they mark a condition, or instigate conflict until they do something foolish that they would not have done otherwise

…but it doesn’t. It instead uses specific language from rules we know. So I think it’s pretty clear this OOC choice does trigger a full-fledged Provoke Someone or Take Advantage Move.

Should we follow through with the full rules of the encompassed Moves when a player chooses to lash out verbally?

Here are just some of the implications if you choose Lash Out Verbally and its parts are full Moves:

  • Provoke Someone
    • tell the GM what you’re trying to get them to do; here it must qualify as “foolhardy action”
    • requires you to roll, which could be a miss; so they wouldn’t do it, plus the GM may move
    • even if you roll a hit, against a PC it allows for “if they don’t do it.” Have you really “provoked them to foolhardy action” if they don’t do it?
    • if they choose to do it, or if we assume the foolhardy action is instead compulsory:
      • “if they do it” adds Team to the pool
      • the target PC could… what… reject your weak provocation until it’s sufficient?
      • if they can’t reject it, you have carte blanche for the foolhardy action, stripping the target player’s agency and autonomy
  • Take Advantage of your Influence
    • it’s a Peripheral Move so there’s no second roll, but you must choose the “inflict a condition on them” option
    • you must “surrender the Influence you hold over them”
    • this invokes your Influence, so it makes your move a candidate for the target PC’s Reject Someone’s Influence
      • if that Reject… roll was a miss, they’d mark your inflicted Condition, and for the Reject… miss the GM would shift their labels, and they would mark a second Condition

House Rules

Encountering it, and then exploring the concept, we found much of the above to be quite problematic in practice and theory. I feel these are not “house rules” from whole cloth, but perhaps our “house handling” to interpret the ambiguity:

  • No additional rolls or choices, just pick Provoke… and the foolhardy action, or Take Advantage and the Condition, trying with each to comply with the spirit of that Move.
  • On a hit, Take a Powerful Blow is a negative move. Bad things are supposed to happen.
  • If you inflict a Condition, you do give up your Influence.
  • Your target is indeed compelled to a foolhardy action you choose, but it must be utterly in line with both established fiction and target PC personality.
  • Despite being mandatory, “they do it” and earn a Team for the pool.
  • “Be a fan” of your teammate. Don’t be a jerk with the foolhardy action. Don’t metagame your choice of which Condition to inflict.
  • Conversely, it’s a forced negative move against a team member, so you may be inclined to lob a dud of a foolhardy action at them; don’t or the GM will intervene.

Does that seem appropriate? Have we misinterpreted something pretty clear to be muddy? Are we missing any example-play transcripts that spell out any of these details? Other thoughts or takes on the matter?

For the Conjure Animals spells, how “smart” are the summoned fey spirits that take the form of animals?

Currently I’m running Conjure Animals fairly restrictively. The player says they are casting the spell and designates the locations that they will appear (I then label them, as they are designated) and then I roll which animals take form from a table that was designed to fit the overall campaign. However, this has now bitten me in the butt a few times as animals conjured from the campaign table often don’t fit the rubber-meets-the-road encounter. I’ve gotten War Horses on top of sloped and slippery houses, Vultures in dark, dank basements, and a Rhinoceros in a narrow hallway. While this was often humorous, I’m wondering if I should re-roll animals that are clearly malfitted to the encounter location, owing to the intelligence/pragmatism of a fey spirit?

[ Insurance ] Open Question : If parents take out whole life insurance on their kids, then die first, shouldn’t someone get some cash back for the years of payments made?

The cover page says each child was insured for $ 5K, ‘whole life paid up at age 65’ with number of years payable at 54 (for the child that was 11 when the policy started) with annual premiums of $ 53.30. Isn’t the purpose of ‘whole life’ policies that it’s like an investment? Parents are most likely to die first, so of course their payments would stop before the kids ever reach 65. Is the policy worthless when payments stop? This seems like a bad, ill-advised deal if no one gets money back.   It doesn’t make sense to me that any LONG TERM policy should cancel just because a person was unable to make payments for a temporary period of time, like after getting laid off from work, disabled, death of a spouse, etc. It would be no wonder insurance companies make so much money if they get to keep all the money they taken in for many years from people who will never file a claim before they stop making payments for whatever reason.  

How to take input like “push 10” in C from user for stack implementation?

I am taking part in a contest which is basically stack implementation in C and I have written down the complete code (function definitions) and it’s working fine except for the drive program. Problem is that the input from user is going to be like this:

push 10 push 100 push 200 get_top pop 

I’ll be running a for loop for user specified time and that many times the user is going to operate on stack.

The only problem is that I don’t know how to take input in the format given above. How do I check what function to call when users inputs something like this?

I am coding in C and only allowed to use stdio.h

Please help me

What is the lowest level that an adventuring party can safely make enough money to take care of a city-state?

Lets say that a party has recently decided to retire from adventuring to focus their efforts in caring for a city-state in need of benefactors. I want to know what the lowest level a party can be and still safely make enough money to provide the required financial support to care for a city-state’s population, without their risking life or limb adventuring.

This isn’t an easy question since the economy of 3.5 is so screwed up that it’s difficult to determine how much a gold piece is worth, much less how many it takes to equal a nations GDP. So Let’s be a bit more exact on what I mean. Let’s say the party is in charge of a City-State the size of Rome, with a population of 35,000. They want to generously provide for it’s citizens by ensuring that each and every person can live a wealthy lifestyle, which costs 50gp/week/person. That means they need to provide 1,750,000 gp/week.

The adventuring party consists of 5 members, all at or below the party level you chose for your answer, of whatever classes you deem appropriate. The party can work any ‘safe’ job necessary to help earn the income required. At the time of their retirement they have at their disposal an amount of money expected for a party of their level, based off of wealth/level guidelines, to spend on purchasing items or equipment which would assist in providing for the City State.

If necessary the party can take up to a month’s worth of time, starting at the moment of retirement, to prepare for providing for the city. This could be spent building equipment, training underlings, or saving up money for a large purchase; whatever will help them to best provide for their city.

The lucky members of the city are being cared for without being required to earn the support, meaning they can not be utilized as part of the parties money making scheme. However, the party can employ any underlings or hirelings they would otherwise have access to.

Any solution must be sustainable long term, at least until the original party grows too old to continue providing for the city. Bonus points for minimizing cheese factor (though I’m open to answers with some low degree cheese) or for not requiring every member of the party to be equal to the total party level