Starting Post 1st Level?

[Aldus Vertten]

With that said, the "adventuring bundle" concept comes from many years as an experienced hiker and camper... "Be Prepared".

I'm also an experienced hiker/camper/former Boy Scout, so I know exactly where you're coming from, Khaalis.

I'm not too experienced myself, but have done the Camino de Santiago Pilgrimage a couple of times and one of the things you learn quite quickly is that sharing the weight is much better in the long run.

[Crafty_Alex]

On a related note, to those who replied on Rations... Where do you get that this is a multi-use item? As per what I find in the book...

Rations * Feeds 1 character for 1 day / 5s
*: These items spoil slowly enough that tracking when they go bad is pointless. They remain with the character until consumed or discarded.
Rations: Jerky, biscuits, and other trail foods are the perfect way to stay fed away from the comforts of civilization.

Look at table 4.11, page 165. Rations have a Use of 7 (thus, 7 days).

[Krensky]

With that said, the "adventuring bundle" concept comes from many years as an experienced hiker and camper... "Be Prepared". If 5 people go trecking off into the wilds, you don't leave it to one person to be the sole source of the materials you need. What if they become separated? What if the item gets lost or destroyed or used up? This is also why you have 50 men in a military unit, all identically geared with basics.

Boy Scout for 15 years. Eagle Scout, taught camping, hiking, etc merit badges. The problem here is you're attaching modern sensibilities and conditions to a pre-industrial world. The waterskin would be unsual for most of the 'period' that we think of for fantasy gaming. People generally drank from streams or springs. The backpack and blanket in the game are more then just a backpack and a piece of woolen cloth, they're high end versions of them.

Also, in the case of rope... "Rope" is a 50' length of rope. What about those times when you need 100'+, or if you need multiple rope leads between members of the party? Ever done mountain climbing, spelunking or repelling? One 50' length of rope isn't generally going to get you very far with a group of 4+ people.

All of those are modern techniques that would be completely alien to someone before the eighteenth or nineteenth century. Also, most people wouldn't have bothered with the cliff. You couldn't get you pack animals up or down it safely.

As to the no backpack argument... sorry I don't buy that argument. Again, from many years as an experienced camper. Where are you going to put that 50' length of rope, those 5 torches, etc. without a backpack? Ever used a torch? They're very bulky. You aren't going to string 5 together and carry them on twine from your belt. Ever tried to wrap 50' of hemp rope around you? Might as well count as your armor. A backpack is essential when carrying this type of gear.

Yes, but the backpack on that list is not a standard run of the mill bag. It's 10s and provided a benefit to carrying. It's not a daypack or sack with shoulder straps, it's the a frame pack. That being realized, a price equivalent to 10 days of food makes sense. If you want a basic frameless back, call that a large sack.

As for torches, each only lasts for 1 hour. If you are going to be going anywhere where you NEED torches, you are likely going to need many hours worth, and you will need more than 1 per hour (again, redundancy - you don't generally use a single torch for a whole group of people). Now granted you might not want the mage or sage lugging around this kind of stuff, but its definitely going to be more than just one party member.

Most people didn't buy torches, they made them. Also, most miners used candles, not torches.

[Desertpuma]

I understand Krensky's point and agree. Unless you are going on a long expedition of some sort, most individuals would buy only the bare necessities they needed to survive. A dungeon expedition is exactly that, an expedition. It requires more money than the single person might have and may even require sponsorship or patronage to accomplish the task at hand, with the  sponsor or patron getting a substantial part of the treasure on hand.

Why do you think Columbus or Magellan or other explorers always went to royalty to get funding for their trips? ... Only later after their name is established and maybe having some money of their own could they afford to set out with all that gear. Even Ernest Shackleford had to sell the wealthy on funding his trip and he started at least 6 months in advance too.

[Khaalis]

Look at table 4.11, page 165. Rations have a Use of 7 (thus, 7 days).

Ok I get it now. 7 Uses of food that feeds you for 1 full day per use.

Yes, but the backpack on that list is not a standard run of the mill bag. It's 10s and provided a benefit to carrying. It's not a daypack or sack with shoulder straps, it's the a frame pack. That being realized, a price equivalent to 10 days of food makes sense. If you want a basic frameless back, call that a large sack.

So basically this falls under the "all items have mechanical benefits" rule I've seen before? I f you want a "common" no bonus version of said item, lower the cost as a house rule?

Ok, so by my understand that the RAW indicate a poor campaign setting akin more to something like Conan or say Dark Sun than a typical High Fantasy or Sword & Sorcery. This is exactly the information I've been looking for to help me understand the intended/implied world behind the RAW, so thank you.

[Krensky]

Yes, but the backpack on that list is not a standard run of the mill bag. It's 10s and provided a benefit to carrying. It's not a daypack or sack with shoulder straps, it's the a frame pack. That being realized, a price equivalent to 10 days of food makes sense. If you want a basic frameless back, call that a large sack.

So basically this falls under the "all items have mechanical benefits" rule I've seen before? I f you want a "common" no bonus version of said item, lower the cost as a house rule?

No. Stuff that has no effect (mechanical or otherwise) can be handwaved. It's not important. If it effected the game, it would effect the game.

Ok, so by my understand that the RAW indicate a poor campaign setting akin more to something like Conan or say Dark Sun than a typical High Fantasy or Sword & Sorcery. This is exactly the information I've been looking for to help me understand the intended/implied world behind the RAW, so thank you.

Nothing of the sort. There relly is no implied setting, but if there was it would be one were the GM doesn't sweat this stuff because it's boring. Aragorn doesn't have any of that stuff, neither does Conan or any of the S&S heroes I've read. Also, first level heros are just starting out, fresh from the farm or whatever.

[knight.errant]

A dungeon expedition is exactly that, an expedition. It requires more money than the single person might have and may even require sponsorship or patronage to accomplish the task at hand, with the  sponsor or patron getting a substantial part of the treasure on hand.

Why do you think Columbus or Magellan or other explorers always went to royalty to get funding for their trips?

Nothing of the sort. There relly is no implied setting, but if there was it would be one were the GM doesn't sweat this stuff because it's boring. Aragorn doesn't have any of that stuff, neither does Conan or any of the S&S heroes I've read. Also, first level heros are just starting out, fresh from the farm or whatever.

I think these are two excellent points and illustrate another difference in the mindset of FC compared to other games, like D&D. Personally, I've never enjoyed the tedium of tracking details like this--it's hard to be "heroic," when you can't cross the river because "nobody bothered to buy the rope."

Now, if the party plans to go hiking off into the wilderness to cart back the treasure in a dungeon they found previously without buying gear suitable for that task, then I'd concern myself with the minutia of who has what and how many of them.
Then again, one of the things I like about FC is that you could use a Favor to hire a whole bunch of laborers to do it for you...

[Antilles]

Don't forget the narrative control perk, 'I have one of those!' If they're standing at the river and nobody brought rope, then one of them can spend some action dice (in this case two, up to 5 complexity per die and rope is minimum 7) and go "Hey, good thing I bought that length of rope from that traveling vendor we passed on the road back there, huh?"

[Morgenstern]

Redundancy is the point.

Frugality is also a point. Especially if the third flint steel prevented you from buying something that might have addressed more imediate dangers .

In each case I didn't say bring 1. Backpacks for everyone makes perfect sense. But some items I'd think 2 might be fine if you are on a budget. 3 if it's good stuff like rope. 4-5 when you are claiming to have other pressing needs is probably excessive. Starting coin IS a limitation and  challenge. find a solution, rather than beg off the problem. How do you spend 400-500s to equip a group that has a variety of needs?

This is also why you have 50 men in a military unit, all identically geared with basics.

This is also why military units backed by the financial might of an entire government tend to be better supplied that mercenaries. Especially mercenaries just starting out .

[Daedalus]

No. Stuff that has no effect (mechanical or otherwise) can be handwaved. It's not important. If it effected the game, it would effect the game.

Right.  Carrying Capacity for a 10 Strength character sans equipment is 50 lbs. for a light load.  It's assumed you have some method of carrying it besides in your hands (Cords, belts, bags, pockets, etc.)  Otherwise you'd be stuck carrying those things in your hands all of the time.  The mechanical effect of the backpack adds carrying capacity because it's designed to distribute the weight more evenly, and the sacks are there in case you want to have things in sacks for a particular reason. (deception, security, etc.) I love the items in this system precisely because they have effects. 

Purses are used to transfer money between characters more easily.  Although it seems the weight of coin is not mentioned elsewhere?  I imagine that the weight of coin would be reduced by a Purse as well if someone could find that...otherwise individual coins are still easier to steal than a Purse, due to their difference in size.  "Come back here, pickpocket!"

EDIT: Fun fact: Small-sized characters can't conceal their theft of purses since it's only one size smaller than them. More info on p. 79 and p. 159.  Looks like they'll have to mug you and hope the lawmen don't crit them.

[Dhampire]

EDIT: Fun fact: Small-sized characters can't conceal their theft of purses since it's only one size smaller than them. More info on p. 79 and p. 159.  Looks like they'll have to mug you and hope the lawmen don't crit them.

Is that why a lot of Tasslehoff's group eventually saw him with what he'd taken, er borrowed?

[Daedalus]

Arise, thread.  Thread, arise.

So I was looking at the Keeper earlier today and I noticed an issue that is particularly troubling for them with regards to starting resources.  In addition to what was mentioned earlier for all characters and the scaling of wealth growing insufficient as time goes on, the effect on Keepers is actually more dramatic for a couple of reasons:

1. Keepers are the only class that has both high Lifestyle/Legend which doesn't go into calculations for starting Wealth.  This eats up near half of their table progression, as the other progressions don't differ over time, but a "naturally grown" post-1st Keeper would have a ton more resources than a "test tube" post-1st Keeper.

2. Keepers' wealth is a huge part of their contribution to a party, unless they're playing a rare "Total Panache" build, and spend all of their reputation on Prizes which they throw over the side of vehicles and bridges as a hobby.  Contacts, Holdings and Prizes are a huge part of being a Keeper, especially since they don't have a lot of dynamic class features that allow them to contribute mid-session.

I suggest a new progression, which involves a little more arithmetic but ultimately might allow a post-1st Keeper to acquire more appeal:

"A new character starts with a stake of 100 silver × his Career Level," becomes "A new character starts with (100 + Money Earned from Prudence) x his Career level."

"A new character’s Reputation points are equal to his Career Level × 10."  becomes "A new character's Reputation points are equal to his Career Level X 10 + the sum of his class(es) Legend column(s) excluding his most recent level."

This handles the scaling problem for Silver and Reputation sufficiently for a while, until characters end up taking more than one adventure to level, since Legend would be added multiple times.  The added silver to the stake adds a most of (75% x 2000 =) 1500s at level 20 assuming maximum Prudence, which isn't a game-breaking quantity at that level, since it doesn't even allow the character to buy most of the big-ticket items in the book.

[Khaalis]

What I currently using for starting coin is a table with a choice for the GM to set the level of starting coin.

Poor = 100s x Career Level + Income
Moderate = 150s x Career Level + Income
Wealthy = 200s x Career Level + Income

**Note: You may still only save as much money from your starting coin as your Prudence allows. For example if you begin with 500s and have a Prudence of 3, then you may only save 150s of your starting coin.

I do see however, how this doesn't truly reflect the ability for Prudence to scale your saved cash. Perhaps simply give them their percentage of Prudence as a bonus? Thus for example if you begin with 500s and have a Prudence of 3, then you start with 500s Starting Cash AND have 150s as saved cash?


What I have for starting Reputation is also set to allow the GM to choose the level of reputation they want to give out as starting Reputation when starting post 1st level.

The table runs from level 2-20, and has 4 "levels" for the GM to choose from.
Low Rep = Career Level x5
Average Rep = Career Level x7.5
High Rep = = Career Level x10  <--- Baseline
Heroic Rep = Career Level x12.5

The character then adds their "Legend Multiplier" which is the character's Legend Score x Legend Multiplier. I based the Legend Multiplier on the Average Number of Adventures Completed information in FC (levels 2-5 @ 1 adventure/level, levels 6-11 @ 2 adventure/level etc.).


Example:

Level 2 | Low = 10 Rep     | Ave = 15 Rep    | High = 20 Rep   | Hero = 25 Rep   | Legend Mult. = 1 
Level 6 | Low = 50 Rep     | Ave = 75 Rep    | High = 140 Rep  | Hero = 175 Rep | Legend Mult. = 5
Level 10 | Low = 130 Rep  | Ave = 195 Rep  | High = 260 Rep  | Hero = 325 Rep | Legend Mult. = 13

So for example, if starting at 6th level, you would add your Legend bonus x5 (1 each for the 5 adventures for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th levels). Thus if you had a Legend of 2 you would add +10 Reputation.

If starting at 10th level, you would add your Legend bonus x13 (1 each for the 5 adventures for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th levels and 1 each for the 8 adventures (2 per level) for 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th levels). Thus if you had a Legend of 2 you would add +26 Reputation.

I think this covers Reputation well and allows for flexibility for the GM.

[Daedalus]

I do see however, how this doesn't truly reflect the ability for Prudence to scale your saved cash. Perhaps simply give them their percentage of Prudence as a bonus? Thus for example if you begin with 500s and have a Prudence of 3, then you start with 500s Starting Cash AND have 150s as saved cash?

That's what I did in the previous formula (100 + Savings percentage[whole]) x Level.  I put it in incorrectly the first time...  It's not entirely accurate because it uses current Prudence, but it still decently simulates the effects of having a high prudence as a character was leveling up.

Not to seem too much like a hypocrite, I only am using current Prudence to represent that characters in play are likely to receive more cash over their careers than the test-tube characters that come out much higher level.

What I have for starting Reputation is also set to allow the GM to choose the level of reputation they want to give out as starting Reputation when starting post 1st level.

The table runs from level 2-20, and has 4 "levels" for the GM to choose from.
Low Rep = Career Level x5
Average Rep = Career Level x7.5
High Rep = = Career Level x10  <--- Baseline
Heroic Rep = Career Level x12.5

The character then adds their "Legend Multiplier" which is the character's Legend Score x Legend Multiplier. I based the Legend Multiplier on the Average Number of Adventures Completed information in FC (levels 2-5 @ 1 adventure/level, levels 6-11 @ 2 adventure/level etc.).


Example:

Level 2 | Low = 10 Rep     | Ave = 15 Rep    | High = 20 Rep   | Hero = 25 Rep   | Legend Mult. = 1 
Level 6 | Low = 50 Rep     | Ave = 75 Rep    | High = 140 Rep  | Hero = 175 Rep | Legend Mult. = 5
Level 10 | Low = 130 Rep  | Ave = 195 Rep  | High = 260 Rep  | Hero = 325 Rep | Legend Mult. = 13

So for example, if starting at 6th level, you would add your Legend bonus x5 (1 each for the 5 adventures for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th levels). Thus if you had a Legend of 2 you would add +10 Reputation.

If starting at 10th level, you would add your Legend bonus x13 (1 each for the 5 adventures for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th levels and 1 each for the 8 adventures (2 per level) for 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th levels). Thus if you had a Legend of 2 you would add +26 Reputation.

I think this covers Reputation well and allows for flexibility for the GM.

This is a little more in-depth than what I was proposing, but a little more robust for measuring the effects of multiple adventures on a character's reputation.  The issue with using current Legend as opposed to adding Legend from previous levels together is that a character had lower Legend when they were lower level.  This effect is most dramatic when comparing the richest Class (Keeper) with the poorest Class. (Scout)  The advantage of using current Legend is that it's a fast and easy calculation, similar to using Prudence at the current value.  One must remember that extra Reputation is more valuable than extra silver, however.  A naturally-grown character might have received more Rep from instant rewards and critical objectives, but perhaps they deserve a larger discrepancy here than our test-tube characters.

If a level 10 Keeper has 10 Legend (8 from levels + 2 from Artisan) by your average formula he has 75 from levels, and 130(10x13) added from the Legend multiplier, total 205, if I'm reading it correctly.  A level 10 Scout would receive 75 from levels, and then 30(10x3) added from the Legend multiplier, total 105.

By my formula based on the original starting formula for 10, a Keeper with Artisan would gain 100(base) + 55(3+4+5+5+6+7+8+8+9) = 155, and a Scout would receive 100(baseline) + 12(0+1+1+1+1+2+2+2+2) = 112.  This takes longer, but you'll see the gap isn't quite as wide between the richest and poorest.

I don't think there's much wrong with your formula, but it would cause a larger discrepancy between starting Wealth. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on how dramatic the effects are supposed to be.  A Keeper gains a lot of his fun and play from his resources, whereas a Scout has a great set of combat advancements and is still better off than he would have been, with either formula.  That said, I'd still rather have the latter in the woods than the former for any number of reasons, regardless of how many toys the Keeper has.