D&D 5E Starting Equipment

[GlassJaw]

I have no problem with the default kits, and neither do my players. That said, I freely let a player to customize. To be completely honest, I'd let a player create their own kit along the lines of: main weapon, a backup weapon or 3, armor (within reason), equipment pack, necessary items for their class, something else, etc, etc.

No biggie.

 

[Ath-kethin]

It's so not a problem I'm surprised to hear that somebody thinks it's a problem. Every player I've had in 5e just went with the class/background options, with an occasional sub out for a slightly different item.

What a strange thing to find fault with. But I guess anything's a problem if you want it to be.

 

[X13Phantom]

I have always let the players have both. Since I have never had a problem with them having some stuff and a few gold to start with. Although if the two options were 1. quick option to begin playing now get less or 2. more money more choices I would rethink my stance.

 

[Henry]

Honestly, I never noticed a wealth discrepancy - just never paid attention. Does anyone know how much of a difference it is, on average?

Does it bother me? No, because I like equipping myself, my way. That option is both for people who don't like to fiddle, and for new players who have no idea what to purchase in-game. I'm fine with it. At worst, if we have an idea of how different it is, we can always add a few gold to the random roll.

 

[CapnZapp]

Poorer, but with your choice of what you spend your money on, which may or may not matter, much (most choices being pretty obvious). So that's a minor reason. Mostly, though, the random option is there because that's how it was back in the day. Like rolling for stats.

Sure, I get why it's there.

Why it's poorer I don't understand.

And more specifically, why there's no *mention* of the disparity. As if the two choices were equal, when one let's you pick relatively expensive armor that you might not even be able to afford using the other?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

It's so not a problem I'm surprised to hear that somebody thinks it's a problem. Every player I've had in 5e just went with the class/background options, with an occasional sub out for a slightly different item.

What a strange thing to find fault with. But I guess anything's a problem if you want it to be.

A fault is still a fault even if it's a minor fault!

By that I mean to answer everyone by saying that, no, this is far from a deal-breaker. After all, after looting your first goblin the entire issue is moot.

That still doesn't explain why there was so little care applied to equalizing the two options...

...or more realistically, labeling the random money option as the "gritty" cash-poor start option?

Regards

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[S'mon]

I think it works well, I prefer the standard option (#1), but roll and buy works for players who want that. They get a freer choice in return for less cash, which seems well balanced to me. I like the Frazetta unarmoured barbarian.

 

[Azurewraith]

You know until I read this thread I didn't even know there was a discrepancy between the two. Is it an issue not really but as [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] says perhaps they should be labeled different in the PHB. Can't say I have ever felt the need to not take the standard gear.

 

[Li Shenron]

Do you feel this to be a problem?

If so, what to do about it?

Not a problem as such, but I don't find either option fully satisfactory.

First of all it should be noted that (a) weaponry and (b) accessories are very different things! Weaponry choices are obviously tied to your PC's combat capabilities, and is more important than anything else in equipment, as it determines your fighting style and effectiveness. Accessories are mostly for the exploration pillar of the game; they are the kind of things that are easy to overlook, and later regret when you wish you had a longer rope, more torches, or other tools...

Rolling wealth and then pick equipment manually is IMHO one of the most boring things in the whole game... not because of the weaponry but because of the accessories. If you use this as a default, IMXP the players spend too much time reading the whole equipment table and descriptions, and find too many little inexpensive tools that "could be useful, eventually". It really slows down the first session, and since I always have more first sessions than second sessions, I really appreciate the various "packs" in 5e as well as the background's packages.

OTOH fixed weapons and armors aren't good, even if you get multiple options. They are still more complicated than needed with no sensible balancing factor, and still forbid some combinations that might be essential for a character. And it's all pointless because after the first treasure, they can fix these deficiencies.

I'd rather base the starting weaponry on a PC's proficiencies. For example:

- You get three weapons you're proficient at
- You get one shield IF you're proficient in shields
- You get one armor you're proficient in, or none if you're not
- You get each tool you are proficient in, if any

Three weapons is enough to cover melee+range and 2WF.

Optionally, you can still set individual cost limits (e.g. armor max 100gp) or total limits (e.g. total max 200gp), if you're worried.

- In addition, you still get the other class-based equipment (e.g. spellcasting tools, packs) normally, as well as the background equipment.

 

[CapnZapp]

You know until I read this thread I didn't even know there was a discrepancy between the two. Is it an issue not really but as [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] says perhaps they should be labeled different in the PHB. Can't say I have ever felt the need to not take the standard gear.

Exactly. Thanks

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app