Why isnt Wealth a Knight option?

[Kromm]

It isn't that weird to add Wealth to a knight's options if you wish . . . there are points enough (60 points), goodness knows! As has been pointed out, this will make the knight a "face" in town, just like the bard (the polite social beast) and the thief (the black marketeer). Whether or not this is a problem is largely a function of whether any player has chosen one of those niches.

The usual use for money for knights, however, is to buy armor and weapons. If that's all that matters to you, then trading points for money makes more sense.

Doubtless one could invent more traits that cover such things. Those who love math could go to Exploits, p. 98, and read "Size" as "points" and make cash yielded by trading in points equal to $200 times "Linear Measurement." That is:

Money

Money [1]: +$600
Money [2]: +$1,000 (equivalent to money from Comfortable [10])
Money [3]: +$1,400
Money [4]: +$2,000
Money [5]: +$3,000 (maximum possible with quirk points)
Money [6]: +$4,000 (equivalent to money from Wealthy [20])
Money [7]: +$6,000
Money [8]: +$10,000
Money [9]: +$14,000
Money [10]: +$20,000 (slightly better than money from Very Wealthy [30], which is +$19,000)

Money isn't actually a trait that shows up on character sheets – it works just like trading points for cash. That is, it's "gone" once bought and doesn't raise your point total.

Subtract the Money level above from the Wealth levels mentioned in parentheses to find your level of Connections for selling:

Connections

Connections (Bourgeois) [8]: Sell at 60%.
Connections (Genteel) [14]: Sell at 80%.
Connections (Noble) [20]: Sell at 100%.

Thus Wealth ends up being this:

Wealth

Wealth (Comfortable) = Money 2 [2] + Connections (Bourgeois) [8]
Wealth (Wealthy) = Money 6 [6] + Connections (Genteel) [14]
Wealth (Very Wealthy) = Money 10 [10] + Connections (Noble) [20]

Working backwards, anybody can have Money 1-5. You need at least Connections (Bourgeois) to have Money 6-9, and Connections (Genteel) to have Money 10. If the GM chooses to allow Money 11+ (Money 11 for +$30,000 and so on), perhaps Genteel covers 10-12 and Connections (Noble) is needed for 13-14.

[evileeyore]

That's rather elegant.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Kromm

It isn't that weird to add Wealth to a knight's options if you wish . . . there are points enough (60 points), goodness knows! As has been pointed out, this will make the knight a "face" in town, just like the bard (the polite social beast) and the thief (the black marketer). Whether or not this is a problem is largely a function of whether any player has chosen one of those niches.

The usual use for money for knights, however, is to buy armor and weapons. If that's all that matters to you, then trading points for money makes more sense.

Doubtless one could invent more traits that cover such things. Those who love math could go to Exploits, p. 98, and read "Size" as "points" and make cash yielded by trading in points equal to $200 times "Linear Measurement." That is:

Money

Money [1]: +$600
Money [2]: +$1,000 (equivalent to money from Comfortable [10])
Money [3]: +$1,400
Money [4]: +$2,000
Money [5]: +$3,000 (maximum possible with quirk points)
Money [6]: +$4,000 (equivalent to money from Wealthy [20])
Money [7]: +$6,000
Money [8]: +$10,000
Money [9]: +$14,000
Money [10]: +$20,000 (slightly better than money from Very Wealthy [30], which is +$19,000)

Money isn't actually a trait that shows up on character sheets – it works just like trading points for cash. That is, it's "gone" once bought and doesn't raise your point total.

Subtract the Money level above from the Wealth levels mentioned in parentheses to find your level of Connections for selling:

Connections

Connections (Bourgeois) [8]: Sell at 60%.
Connections (Genteel) [14]: Sell at 80%.
Connections (Noble) [20]: Sell at 100%.

Thus Wealth ends up being this:

Wealth

Wealth (Comfortable) = Money 2 [2] + Connections (Bourgeois) [8]
Wealth (Wealthy) = Money 6 [6] + Connections (Genteel) [14]
Wealth (Very Wealthy) = Money 10 [10] + Connections (Noble) [20]

Working backwards, anybody can have Money 1-5. You need at least Connections (Bourgeois) to have Money 6-9, and Connections (Genteel) to have Money 10. If the GM chooses to allow Money 11+ (Money 11 for +$30,000 and so on), perhaps Genteel covers 10-12 and Connections (Noble) is needed for 13-14.

Not just armor and weapons. A knight has to buy luxuries. Not just because he wants them or likes them or it does him any good but because his social group says he has to have them. Like a college student has to have textbooks and just the textbooks he is told to have. And has to buy them himself.

[Apollonian]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Not just armor and weapons. A knight has to buy luxuries. Not just because he wants them or likes them or it does him any good but because his social group says he has to have them. Like a college student has to have textbooks and just the textbooks he is told to have. And has to buy them himself.

It's Dungeon Fantasy, not Courtly Social Climbing Fantasy. (IMO, the Knight should have been called Man-At-Arms to cut some of the social baggage with the term... and also had Extra Arms as a template option.)

I really like the Money/Connections split. Might adapt that for some of my GURPS modern day games as Cash/Credit Rating or some such, as the default Wealth attribute has always annoyed me.

[Kromm]

Just so. In the DFRPG, there's no society in the usual sense – just the vestiges relevant to killing and looting. Which is to say, the connections needed to get weapons and armor and such, and those necessary to liquidate plunder. Gamers who desire a robust social system would be better off starting with GURPS, which is off-topic for this forum.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Apollonian

It's Dungeon Fantasy, not Courtly Social Climbing Fantasy. (IMO, the Knight should have been called Man-At-Arms to cut some of the social baggage with the term... and also had Extra Arms as a template option.)

I agree that, at first glance, "Knight" sounds a tad too specific.

No harm, though. The profession's write-up makes clear that the "knight" may simply be a "fighter" or "thug" who (understandably) wants to present a more respectable business card.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by tbone

I agree that, at first glance, "Knight" sounds a tad too specific.

No harm, though. The profession's write-up makes clear that the "knight" may simply be a "fighter" or "thug" who (understandably) wants to present a more respectable business card.

Really, all the profession names are just that: names. Don't read too much into them . . . go by whatever job title you prefer.

• Barbarian: Racist term for "low-tech warrior" – that's what Social Stigma (Minority Group) actually means. This fighter might well be a jarl back home . . . or at least a bona fide knight.
  
• Bard: Nothing to do with the actual Celtic bard. More accurately a sword-swinging magic-user with a sideline in poetry. Setting that aside: a "face," mouthpiece, con artist, or flimflam man. But "bard" sounds nicer.
  
• Cleric: "Mortals have decided to respect the fact that the gods have blessed me with cool powers." An itinerant medic who beats bad guys down with blunt instruments isn't much like any kind of realistic priest.
  
• Druid: Nothing to do with Celtic druids (judges, teachers, political advisors, etc.). See Cleric, above, but pick gods that snobby city-folk regard as "primitive." In many ways closer to some sort of shaman.
  
• Holy Warrior: Violent religious zealot, but doesn't "holy" sound better? Needn't belong to any respectable order. The only professional qualifications are "has cool powers" and "claims the gods said to kill stuff."
  
• Knight: Generic fighting man or man-at-arms. Might be a knight . . . but more likely a mercenary, watchman, or just an overblown bouncer from the local pub.
  
• Martial Artist: Generic fighting man who subscribes to weird mystic stuff that – in a fantasy world – actually works. There's no need for a formal fighting style; just nom protein shakes and do enough reps every day.
  
• Scout: "Fighter who goes around shooting things with a bow." May or may not be any good at moving ahead of an army and reporting back with intelligence. Smart money is on "may not."
  
• Swashbuckler: Okay, this is pretty accurate. Unless you decide to put all your points into ST and whack things with a club. Then you're just Lucky the Agile Goon.
  
• Thief: Insulting term for somebody who might be a bodyguard, spy, detective, or other person who lives by her wits. If the only thing you steal is treasure from monsters, how do you stand out from the others on this list?
  
• Wizard: Not necessarily wise. The only job requirement is casting spells that aren't obviously religious. You might be a wise-woman, shaman, or low-tech scientist – or a nerdy kid with access to dangerous textbooks.

[Colarmel]

Originally Posted by Kromm

[*]Swashbuckler: Okay, this is pretty accurate. Unless you decide to put all your points into ST and whack things with a club. Then you're just Lucky the Agile Goon.

I kinda want to write up Lucky the Agile Goon.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I've never had anything "just reduce character point totals". It's always marked on their sheet, a part of their permanent record.

Points For Cash, Impulse buys, Bought Off Disads, Lost Ads, etc. All of it is permanently recorded on the sheet, all of it shows how 'powerful' the character has become over the years.



Points For Cash is already worth the points.

As far as I know in DFRPG if you spend points for cash you reduce the points value of the character.

[demonsbane]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Gamers who desire a robust social system would be better off starting with GURPS, which is off-topic for this forum.

There's also starting with the DFRPG, taking it as baseline, and expanding things or adding the desired level of detail with GURPS options.