Rules on Character creation(Item buying)

[dragonis111]

My friend and I are starting an adventure(I'm the DM), at level 10, we will each have 56,700 starting gold, I was wondering what some good spending rules should be, as I don't want him spending it all on one item. Also the setting is in a winterland type setting, using the book frostburn, so I am also wondering if certain items should cost more or have their availability restricted. Any input is welcome.

 

[Kerrick]

I use the "1/4 wealth" rule - the PC can't spend more than 1/4 of his starting wealth on any one item. Can't say anything about Frostburn, though - sorry.

 

[dragonis111]

Thanks, I think I will do what you said about the 1/4 rule, sounds pretty reasonable.

 

[Hawken]

1/4th rule is garbage. Its a cheap trick that no player likes and is only used by GMs that are too lazy to get actively involved with their players.

Afraid they will choose an item that's too powerful? Not likely since the wealth listed for their level indicates the amount of purchasing power they will need to overcome the challenges they will face at their levels. A +5 sword will allow a fighter to dominate in combat, but how is that going to help him against a wraith or against a troll or a death knight?

You asked for suggestions, so here are a few:
1) Make sure the character has the right weapons for at least half the monsters they are going to face? By right weapons, I mean weapons that are capable of affecting the monster; ghost touch for ghosts, a frost weapon to use against fire salamanders, arrows of seeking for the enemy rogues that like striking from the shadows. That sort of thing.

2) Does the character have appropriate defenses? At 10th level, most monsters will have a BAB around +10, meaning they hit AC 20 about 50% of the time. Is the character's AC at least 20? Or even 25-30 if he is going to be the tank? If not, suggest items to boost AC.

Same thing with saves. Average save DC at 10th level is about 17, and baseline good saves are +7, while poor are +3. So a fighter's reflex and will, not counting Dex or Wis, will require a roll of 14 or better to save against an enemy Cone of Cold or Suggestion. Suggest items that boost overall saves or one save in particular.

3) Recovery. Does the character have any healing items or items that can heal the group's healer if they become incapacitated? If not, that could be a smart investment.

Another solution that I've used and my players like very much is to give the player 60% of their wealth to spend as they see fit while you (the DM) spend the remaining 40% of their wealth on things you know that will help them. This alleviates the worry of them picking a too powerful item while giving them the satisfaction of being able to spend their money the way they see fit.

 

[garrowolf]

basically what I do is that I start with what social class are you coming from? You get the clothes and normal trappings of that class. Are you a noble? Then you get a horse and saddle and stuff (if you have riding).

You get a tool kit or the equivalent for each craft skill you have. You get one major melee weapon, one ranged weapon if you have the training, and a utility knife.

Other then that you start with a house and stuff or where ever you live when you start. No magic items except for an heirloom or two that I pick.

 

[Hawken]

Why would only nobles get horses? What about woodsmen? Bandits? Farmers? Merchants? What would stop every one of your players from being nobles? Why wouldn't someone want to come in as a noble instead of a peasant? And how are you going to make it equitable if you're going to force some players to be peasants while others are nobles or merchants or thieves?

Tools for craft skills? What about other skills? Heal? Character's don't get a Healer's Kit? How are they going to make Heal checks then? What about perform? Are you going to give them drums, a flute, or a book to orate from? Appraise--are you going to give them a jeweler's monacle? A compass and bear trap for someone with Survival? And what if someone doesn't take a skill that requires tools? How are you going to make it equitable compared to characters that have some or many skills that require tools?

Why only two weapons and a knife? What's the justification for this and what is to stop a character from getting the weapons they want or need by the time the game starts, especially if they are coming in at higher than 1st level?

And if you start off with a house and "stuff", what exactly kind of 'stuff' is the stuff you get? Is one person's stuff going to be equal to another's? What about houses? If characters are peasants, their house is going to be a one room shack. But then that noble character is going to have an estate or castle. Why exactly would those peasants adventure with the noble when they could instead just kill him and move into his house? They wouldn't need to go adventuring.

And the last part about picking the one or two 'heirlooms' that characters get, well, no player likes that. "Hey, I've got a +5 vorpal sword. What do you have?" "Me? Oh, I just have an heirloom. Belonged to my grandma...."

I'd serious reconsider your rules for equiping your players. What you're doing doesn't sound creative, interesting or even remotely fun. Players want to create their characters and that creative process includes outfitting them.

 

[garrowolf]

Why would only nobles get horses? What about woodsmen? Bandits? Farmers? Merchants? What would stop every one of your players from being nobles? Why wouldn't someone want to come in as a noble instead of a peasant? And how are you going to make it equitable if you're going to force some players to be peasants while others are nobles or merchants or thieves?

One of the things that has always bothered me about fantasy games set in early ages is that they don't even bother with any kind of reality. They say, "It's fantasy!" and have the most ridiculous settings. If that is what you want then don't bother with any kind of limits.

However if you want to have a game at all based in some kind of ancient culture - even if it is a generic western medieval culture then you should have a difference between peasants and nobility. That is one of the most important aspects of ancient cultures.

Nobility would be the one with horses most of the time. They would have a LOT more money to start with. Merchant class would have some money and MAY have a horse. A bandit would have a horse because they stole it. A city thief wouldn't have one. Most people attached to a city wouldn't have a horse.

Tools for craft skills? What about other skills? Heal? Character's don't get a Healer's Kit? How are they going to make Heal checks then? What about perform? Are you going to give them drums, a flute, or a book to orate from? Appraise--are you going to give them a jeweler's monacle? A compass and bear trap for someone with Survival? And what if someone doesn't take a skill that requires tools? How are you going to make it equitable compared to characters that have some or many skills that require tools?

Sure you have the basic tools to use your skills. Simple as that. A person who has developed a skill would have spend some time acquiring those tools. He may not have a workshop full but he would have the basics on him or in a pack. The trade off is that they already start with alot more to lug around. If they don't want to have it then don't worry about it.

As for making it equitable? Why does ever one have to have the same amount of stuff? They don't have to drag around as much stuff all the time as the skill heavy character.

Why only two weapons and a knife? What's the justification for this and what is to stop a character from getting the weapons they want or need by the time the game starts, especially if they are coming in at higher than 1st level?

Well if it makes sense for the character then talk it over with the GM. If you want a character with 5 knives hidden all over their body then go for it! That is role play.

And if you start off with a house and "stuff", what exactly kind of 'stuff' is the stuff you get? Is one person's stuff going to be equal to another's? What about houses? If characters are peasants, their house is going to be a one room shack. But then that noble character is going to have an estate or castle. Why exactly would those peasants adventure with the noble when they could instead just kill him and move into his house? They wouldn't need to go adventuring.

Sorry - peasants don't adventure. That's just silly. If you have a group of thieves then maybe but you seem to want to force some Modern American fairness and equity on a fantasy game about ancient cultures. They didn't think that way back then. A peasant wouldn't have the resources to go adventuring. Most of the time they were working to keep extended family alive. The clothes on their back even belong to the family.

The only people that would "adventure" would be lower nobles and merchants and they would be second or third sons mostly that are not going to inherit anything.

If you want to make it connected with the system more then have a set of feats relating to social class. That could determine your starting money.

And the last part about picking the one or two 'heirlooms' that characters get, well, no player likes that. "Hey, I've got a +5 vorpal sword. What do you have?" "Me? Oh, I just have an heirloom. Belonged to my grandma...."

It sounds like you are trying to make the game system do all the work for you. The GM should be the one deciding on the heirlooms and work it into the PCs back story. Don't tell them what they have. If you want to use the same gold cost behind the scenes for those heirlooms then go ahead. If the player has a great idea for an heirloom that doesn't imbalance things then go ahead.

I'd serious reconsider your rules for equiping your players. What you're doing doesn't sound creative, interesting or even remotely fun. Players want to create their characters and that creative process includes outfitting them.

Every player I've had loved what I did with that and tended to hate the shopping stuff when they did it in other games. None of their stuff means anything to them if they don't have a reason to have it. It becomes a junk list that they can't even remember what they have on it.

Talk out equipping your PCs. Have them explain what they want and why. Then grant them the things that make sense with their back story. They will enjoy it more then just being given a bunch of gold and told anything below this level in the list.
Try it out.

 

[Hawken]

If that is what you want then don't bother with any kind of limits.

This isn't about me. It's about me questioning your ideas.

As for making it equitable? Why does ever one have to have the same amount of stuff?

Equitable isn't about everyone having the same stuff but having the same value. The lack of equitability is not that you're not giving everyone the same things, its that you're not compensating everyone else for what you give a certain player. If you give one player something (for nothing), that player then becomes more powerful than every other player because that one now has more resources, and thus options and choices, to draw upon than other characters that aren't given something of a similar value.

If you give a skill monkey all kinds of tools for free, then you should give the less skilled something to balance that out. Same with weapons, armor, or any other gear or loot. No one wants to play the runt and forcing players to do so typically causes resentment toward the DM (you) and toward the DM's pet, which instantly turns the game into a punishment or a chore rather than a fun game.

Well if it makes sense for the character then talk it over with the GM.

Then what's the point of your rule if a player can just talk you out of it? Why have that rule in the first place? Do you think players like their DMs to limit their options? Or perhaps you like making players feel like a kid begging a parent for some candy they see in a store?

Sorry - peasants don't adventure. That's just silly.

Wow! That's the most retarded thing I've read here (in a while, anyway!). The boy in the Eragorn(?) books started out as a peasant. The hobbits in the Lord of the Rings were weed smokin peasants. More than a few 'heroes' in Dragonlance or the Forgotten Realms started out as peasants. And there have been plenty of movies to provide examples also. What's silly is you making a statement like that.

you seem to want to force some Modern American fairness and equity on a fantasy game about ancient cultures. They didn't think that way back then.

Never said anything about fairness. Equal opportunity may be a better term. That's the reason there is a list in the DMG of wealth by level. After 1st level, you can have any number of characters of a given level but those characters--being of the same level--are going to have the same monetary value of resources available to them. A fighter may spend a disproportionate amount of that value on weapons and armor, while a wizard would spend much of it on scrolls, wands and such, but they would all have roughly the same amount of resources. You're wanting to arbitrarily limit certain players based on your idea of who has what. That does nothing to increase the enjoyment of the game for ALL players, only those that are lucky enough to be in your favor.

And if peasants don't adventure, neither do thieves, because they're in jail for months or years for crimes they commit, if they are not just executed. And those thieves likely wouldn't survive for long on prison rations, unsanitary conditions of medieval prisons or be in any condition to go adventuring. Warriors would be pressed into service by local law enforcement or military and those that refused would be branded as criminals and face the same punishment as rogues. So that covers barbarians, bards, fighters, monks, rangers and rogues. Druids would be hunted down by clerics and forced to convert their faith or be killed and clerics would be too busy to adventure because they were converting the unfaithful, holding mass, or molesting altar boys. Sorcerers would be hunted down and burned at the stake, or just executed by clerics for practicing witchcraft and wizards would likely be non-existent in a medieval society because the clerics would not allow sorcery to be taught in any school.

That leaves only paladins to go around adventuring. And they didn't adventure so much as they went out and murdered whatever they found that didn't agree with their sense of morals or mesh or acquiesce to their religious beliefs.

So, if peasants didn't adventure, then what class would? Noble isn't a class and they are too busy learning etiquette and how to run businesses or kingdoms to go off on adventures. And those second and third sons weren't going to get away from their duties while their eldest brother was being groomed to take over.

And if there aren't any classes to go adventuring, let me further reduce your options by stating that women DEFINITELY didn't go adventuring. They stayed at home making babies, they were traded off to husbands by greedy fathers, they took vows and lived in a convent, they were barmaids whoring themselves out for extra coin, they were hookers selling themselves and catching every disease they could to keep from starving or they were murdered when they were born for not being a boy.

And, for the record, 'modern American fairness' is what has made America the biggest and best country in the world. Over here we give everyone the same chance for success or failure, independent of any background or trait that anyone could discriminate against. Whether they succeed or fail is up to that person, but the chance is to be had here by all who come here or are born here.

Talk out equipping your PCs. Have them explain what they want and why. Then grant them the things that make sense with their back story. They will enjoy it more then just being given a bunch of gold and told anything below this level in the list.
Try it out.

Ah, but that's not at all what you posted before. You pick the equipment, you pick the 'heirlooms', players were limited to one weapon, etc. Not only did you not address most of the points I made (despite your quotes), you attempted to deflect onto some perceived, ill-defined notion of fairness that you think I possess, and now you're changing things so that the players just run things by you. Totally different from your post that I commented on.

 

[garrowolf]

Umm I did answer all of your points, nearly paragraph by paragraph.

The hobbits didn't go adventuring. Gandalf recruited them to do something that they would never do on their own. They hated the idea of leaving the shire. Besides Biblo was wealthy by that point. He wasn't a peasant who's family would starve if he left.

Eragorn got pulled into it because he found a dragon's egg. Not for any actual adventuring on his own. His family was killed and he was on the run for a while.

I'm not saying that you can't get a peasant involved in an adventure. I'm saying that they will not go adventuring on their own most of the time. That is the kind of thing that a person of some luxury would do.

I'm still not understanding why anyone would care if the craftsman or healer would have some tools! If they don't then they can't do their jobs. So why would anyone pitch a fit over one person getting some tools and someone else not? Can you give me an example of someone in your group pitching a fit over this? Maybe that would help. I'm pretty sure I made it clear that I'm not talking about giving one person a bunch of magic items and another person a candle.

I don't know - maybe your games are more about gathering stuff then my games. People tend to loose everything and barely survive sometimes in my games. They go back to nothing and start over occationally. People around them die, sometimes their favorite NPCs. PCs die relatively often in my games. But when they make it through - they are extremely proud of themselves! They know I didn't pamper them or try and make sure things were fair. A high level character can die from a knife wound from a low level character. My games tend to be lethal as hell but it makes my players work for their victories. They don't get into fights lightly but they still enjoy them when they do.

I'm not saying I'm a perfect GM but my players and I enjoy ourselves so thats what counts for me.