Money & Starting Characters

[Nyarlathotep]

So here's something that came up in my first game during character creation last night.

From what I understand, starting characters begin with 100 silver in their stake, which I'm assuming is used to buy equipment. Then characters receive silver based on their panache at the beginning of the adventure.

100 silver is not a lot of cash, on average my group spent 37 silver each getting miscellaneous equipment (rations, backpacks etc.) This does not leave a whole lot left for other equipment. Am I missing something, or is the assumption that characters have really, really basic gear at the start?

[Wolverine]

I think the easiest way around this would be to have your players purchase their important equipment (weapons, armour, kits) first, then worry about the smaller things. If you're feeling generous you could just hand wave the small stuff, or have them 'acquire' it early in their first adventure.

[Agent 333]

Getting the best bang for your buck really is an NP-Complete problem (meaning the best solution is difficult if not impossible to find), but I suggest starting with armor, then go to weapons, and working your way from there. Don't go too crazy on the upgrades and you should be fine. You can have some pretty snazzy stuff at level 1 starting gear, but things like food and whatnot may have to be bought with your Panache income at the beginning of the adventure.

[Nyarlathotep]

Even ignoring the basic adventuring gear, it seems difficult to make an iconic sword and board fighter at 1st level.

Longsword: 60s
Shield (hide): 10s (20s if it's a metal shield)

Leaves ~ 30s for armor, which allows.... leather or padded armor.


It's easy enough to increase starting cash, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything regarding how much PCs have to buy equipment.

[Agent 333]

Consider the Crude Materials "Upgrade". This should cut costs quite a bit, if giving the starting character some generally weak stuff.

[Darkmeer]

Even ignoring the basic adventuring gear, it seems difficult to make an iconic sword and board fighter at 1st level.

Longsword: 60s
Shield (hide): 10s (20s if it's a metal shield)

Leaves ~ 30s for armor, which allows.... leather or padded armor.


It's easy enough to increase starting cash, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything regarding how much PCs have to buy equipment.

Actually (pulling out the DMG from 2e, referencing page 148 as I type this), I disagree here.  Some of the iconic Sword and Board style fighters were unarmored, especially at the lower levels, which is where I envision PC's on their first adventure.  Level 1 characters are like rookie NFL/NHL players.  They're good and have been through a bit, but they are about to get a rude awakening as part of their job.
The examples I see listed here include the following:
Viking Berserkers started with only a sword or axe and a shield, Scottish Highlanders were very similar (although they ran around naked in battle), and as they got more trained, they got more armor. 
Spanish Sword and buckler men wore only leathers, Byzantine Soldiers didn't fare much better, having Padded armor, and Hindu Payaks were essentially the same as the Vikings and Highlanders. 

What everyone thinks of as a sword and board fighter, traditionally, is considered "heavy infantry," whereas everything above would be light infantry, irregulars, or conscripts.  Most characters do not start out with the funds to be heavy infantry, they're lucky to be light infantry at best.

Now, given that you have this as a concern, I don't see any reason why increasing the starting Silvers to 150s would be all that game-breaking.  This allows you to do everything that you're asking, and then have a few coins left for the stake, as that would be where leftover money would be to me.  Agent 333's idea holds quite a bit of water as well, although may be less desireable than the results you want (given the concerns presented). 

Good luck, and improvise often 
/d

[Ferdinand Von Plat]

Darkmeer, while I agree with some of your points it seems to me there are still mechanical concerns raised by the prices.

If you spend your starting 100 silver on weapons/armor and leave your normal adventure starting silver for your provisions, you can buy a suit of moderate leather with light fittings which will provide 3 DR at the cost of 1 Defense. This option leaves you very tight on money but you have a number of 1h weapons available to you. You probably won't have much left over for ranged weapons, however.

On the other hand, you could buy your choice of melee weapons and a tower shield, which will give you +3 to your defense. You could then either buy a ranged weapon or buy a suit of armor that trades 1 of your defense for 1 damage reduction.

Assuming you have 10 Defense and no Dex bonus (just for the sake of simplicity) you would have 9 Defense and 3 DR if you went with armor or 12 defense and 1 DR. If a hypothetical enemy has no attack bonus and hits for 5 damage per attack every time, your character that went for a better suit of armor instead of a shield would get hit 55% of the time for 2 damage while the character with 12 defense and 1 DR will get hit 40% of the time for 4 damage. Over 1000 attacks the character who went for the most damage reduction would only take 1100 damage over 550 hits while the character who went for defense would take 1600 damage over 400 hits. Mathematically, it's just better to go for the Damage Reduction. Especially when damage totals will be lower.

Of course things like being able to play a Dwarf will skew the results since it would have both DR and higher defense.

[Darkmeer]

I'll not argue the math.  It's pretty well spelled out, but I tend to go for theme over mechanics, myself.  And I was merely positing the thematic character types that I had on hand.  To me, both ways are right, and I was merely positing a listing of non-armor wearing (or light-armor-wearing character archetypes).  FantasyCraft seems to be built to help both of us achieve our goals, and I'm happy with that.

One idea, however, is to lower the costs to be competitive with the D20 SRD costs.  The closest I can come to this is dropping the Partial armor costs by 50% (before the Crude "upgrade"), and using the base partial costs as the full armor costs.  Do I like this idea? Not really, but it helps you get where you want to go (or at least get closer).  I'd apply a 33% discount on the fittings' costs (making them 30s and 50s, respectively).  This is still more expensive than the normal d20 versions, but it may help you make costs work for you.

/d

[Aragathor]

Even ignoring the basic adventuring gear, it seems difficult to make an iconic sword and board fighter at 1st level.

Longsword: 60s
Shield (hide): 10s (20s if it's a metal shield)

Leaves ~ 30s for armor, which allows.... leather or padded armor.


It's easy enough to increase starting cash, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything regarding how much PCs have to buy equipment.

Actually (pulling out the DMG from 2e, referencing page 148 as I type this), I disagree here.  Some of the iconic Sword and Board style fighters were unarmored, especially at the lower levels, which is where I envision PC's on their first adventure.  Level 1 characters are like rookie NFL/NHL players.  They're good and have been through a bit, but they are about to get a rude awakening as part of their job.
The examples I see listed here include the following:
Viking Berserkers started with only a sword or axe and a shield, Scottish Highlanders were very similar (although they ran around naked in battle), and as they got more trained, they got more armor.  
Spanish Sword and buckler men wore only leathers, Byzantine Soldiers didn't fare much better, having Padded armor, and Hindu Payaks were essentially the same as the Vikings and Highlanders.

What everyone thinks of as a sword and board fighter, traditionally, is considered "heavy infantry," whereas everything above would be light infantry, irregulars, or conscripts.  Most characters do not start out with the funds to be heavy infantry, they're lucky to be light infantry at best.

Now, given that you have this as a concern, I don't see any reason why increasing the starting Silvers to 150s would be all that game-breaking.  This allows you to do everything that you're asking, and then have a few coins left for the stake, as that would be where leftover money would be to me.  Agent 333's idea holds quite a bit of water as well, although may be less desireable than the results you want (given the concerns presented).  

Good luck, and improvise often  
/d

I don't want to be a stickler for accuracy, but:

Viking Berserkers? My professor hammered this out of our minds early on, there were no berserkers IRL, only in legendary sagas.
Most viking infantry used spears, swords and shields at the same time.  

Highlanders or better said gaels of the western isles, did not run around naked. The picts did that and the celts in the times before the gaels and picts emerged from them. During the medieval period the armies of Scotland followed traditions of western europe and most soldiers were wearing some armor.

Spanish sword and buckler men used padded armor or in the case of the conquistadores metal breastplates or brigandines (which were later discarded due to heat). But they are of the renaissance period, during which as we know armor started to get scarce on the battlefield.

Which type of the byzantine infantry do you refer to? Ther was a myriad of troops in the armies of byzantium which were labeled as infantry. Most wore chain or lamellar when they could afford to.

Don't take it personal, I do this for a living.


From my skewed perspective a starting character in FC should be able to afford a sword, a spear, a shield and some armor better than padded (but not a chain hauberk).
I think that raising the amount of silver for characters is the way to go, it shouldn't imbalance the game.

[Mister Andersen]

What's the average starting GP for 1st level D&D characters?

[Aragathor]

Depending on class between 150 and 50 gold pieces.

And that's the problem, figthers get 150 but they live and die by their equipment in D&D, whereas sorcerors who get 75 can be naked and deadly.

[Ferdinand Von Plat]

I'll not argue the math.  It's pretty well spelled out, but I tend to go for theme over mechanics, myself.  And I was merely positing the thematic character types that I had on hand.  To me, both ways are right, and I was merely positing a listing of non-armor wearing (or light-armor-wearing character archetypes).  FantasyCraft seems to be built to help both of us achieve our goals, and I'm happy with that.

I agree that thematics are very important, at least equally important to mechanics. I just wish that the mechanics made it so that the theme of a character were equally viable.

Although, now that I look at some of the melee weapons, you could afford a boar spear, tower shield, and partial leather armor for exactly your starting gold. This would give you 1 more Defense, which lowers your chance to be hit to 35% in my hypothetical situation. That lowers you down to being hit 350 times in 1000, although you're still taking 1400 damage from those hits. This also doesn't account for you being able to both parry and block if you choose to (now that I remember those tricks exist) or you being a Dwarf, both of which would make things more favorable.

Being a Dwarf, for instance, drops the damage taken in 1000 hits to a paltry 800 and saves you 20s on armor.

[mach1.9pants]

Depending on class between 150 and 50 gold pieces.

And that's the problem, figthers get 150 but they live and die by their equipment in D&D, whereas sorcerors who get 75 can be naked and deadly.

Great mental image!

If the full on armoured warrior is what you are after, give him the game stats of what he can afford but call it chain or plate or obsidian! It doesn't matter as long as the mechanics are the same, and as he can afford more it can be thematically the same armour, just better quality.

[NezMaster]

My intpretation would lead me to add the income once at the start of the game, giving characters who want to be equipped, a reason to start with a higher panache., plus the fact that since they are going to get that money at the start anyway, it may save time in the first game.

So if you count the first round of panache as starting income, then 150 becomes a bit more plausible as high end starting cash. Without the drastic randomness that often rears it's head in dnd.

[spinningdice]

Not played yet, but in D&D at least, most groups I've been in have been happy to use their cash on other players when gearing up.