NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Calion" data-source="post: 7165972" data-attributes="member: 73976">False. Wretched: "Violence…follows you wherever you go." Squalid: "you have few legal protections." Once you have legal protections, it isn't mentioned past that, as all the levels above that are presumed to have them too. So, obviously, someone Comfortable has all the legal protections a Poor person has, if not more. Yes, exactly. Of course it is. These are all about social standing. It's not just what you can afford to buy, it's about your social standing in the community. The Comfortable level mentions the sorts of people you're likely to associate with. The "Lifestyle Expenses" description says "Your lifestyle choice can have consequences. Maintaining a wealthy lifestyle might help you make contacts with the rich and powerful, though you run the risk of attracting thieves. Likewise, living frugally might help you avoid criminals, but you are unlikely to make powerful connections." Social standing is intimately involved with these rules, and are an inherent part of the definitions. I haven't failed to comment; I've said that that doesn't make sense to me. It seems more like Poor for the first two weeks, and then Modest.Tell me this: Have you, by yourself, using only simple tools like axes and knives, made a weatherproof cabin, solid furniture such as tables and chairs, multiple sets of clothing, candles, and various utensils like cups, bowls, forks and spoons in two weeks, while also hunting and foraging for your food using no firearms or other modern equipment?If so, I concede the point; an adventurer could get to at least near Comfortable in two weeks. If not, I think my point stands. Then I think we can agree that an outdoorsman cannot make "nicer clothing," merely the sort of clothing a soldier or laborer might wear. Functional and comfortable, but not something you'd appear in at a party for wealthy people.But you're asking the wrong questions. Of course an established nomadic tribe of tens of members can reliably find food—most of the time. That says nothing about whether a single individual, in a new area, could find enough food for three good meals a day, every day. That seems extremely unlikely to me. So we don't know. I certainly don't have a sense that a particular person is more likely to experience a fire in town than in the wild.I didn't bring up fires. Legal protection is obviously presumed for all levels above Poor. They figured it was too obvious to bother mentioning. Apparently they were wrong. And it's not specified in RAW that there are bandits and monsters in the woods? There are no wilderness encounter tables in 5e?2 weeks for comfortable? You haven't read the Comfortable section closely enough, and thought about what it actually implies.I do find it surprising that you never missed a meal, in any season, in new or fairly new areas, with no more advanced equipment than a bow and arrow and knife. Is that what you're saying? What definitions? Would you care to describe this Comfortable woodland lifestyle, and show how it's equivalent to a room in a nice inn? Why construct the choices so that they balance toward Survival and away from other skills?And the RAW says "away from civilization, sustaining themselves in the wild by hunting, foraging, and repairing their own gear." Obviously trading isn't part of that. That wouldn't be "self-sufficient" by any reasonable definition.You keep trying to stretch words to fit your conception of what's going on, rather than accept the clear meanings of what's written. Why is that?</blockquote>

Verification