Spear vs Knights... am I missing something?

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

You guys did see this line in the OP, right? "And with this I've considered two fighters of 58 points each(excluding what else they spent points on)." So you who are oh-noing over the lack of Status and whatnot are sort of missing the point. Though that does make it odd to include Wealth in that writeup.

I certainly saw those words. I took them to mean that when I read the word "knight," there would be lots of points elsewhere on knightly stuff like social traits.

Then again, I'm famously not a literalist, but an interpretive reader between the lines . . . I give a lot of credence to offhand remarks like that one, and fill in the blanks with what makes sense to me even when it isn't spelled out. I suppose that's why my writing habit of using "e.g." and "etc." a lot drives some GURPS fans crazy: They think my lists are exhaustive when they're very definitely intended as examples. Be warned! I always take it as given that my readers can interpret me and, as a reader, that other writers are similarly extending me the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, I suspect Wealth was included because some gamers deem gear to be part of the character, and gear is bought with Wealth. It's an attempt to assign a point value to gear. Of course, that's rather iffy given that effective gear is often ugly but cheap, while elaborate gear is often ornate but useless . . . and given that in actual play, PCs rapidly accumulate all kinds of stuff that has nothing to do with their Wealth level. Probably for the purpose of this kind of thread, it would be easier to assign an arbitrary point cost to each $X of useful combat gear. Certainly, if gladiatorial pit matches are your thing, you ought prohibit Wealth and ornate gear, and just assign a point-value-equivalent to all weapons and armor.