Wealth in DF

[RobKamm]

Just to wander back in the general direction of Wealth in DF. Is there a reason that neither the Holy Warrior nor the Knight have Wealth listed in their Templates? I would think that both of them (but especially the knight) would have a need for it to cover the costs of their professional gear. Seeing as it (and the presence of Savior-Faire (High Society) ) are the short-hand for status in DF, Wealth would seem to fit either template as well.

[Rupert]

The recommendation in the templates is to buy extra gear for them using Signature Gear or 'points for cash', IIRC.

[PK]

Originally Posted by RobKamm

Just to wander back in the general direction of Wealth in DF. Is there a reason that neither the Holy Warrior nor the Knight have Wealth listed in their Templates? I would think that both of them (but especially the knight) would have a need for it to cover the costs of their professional gear. Seeing as it (and the presence of Savior-Faire (High Society) ) are the short-hand for status in DF, Wealth would seem to fit either template as well.

Bear in mind that the Knight is just what d20 would call a Fighter, not an actual knight/cavalier/etc. So there's no need for him to have status/wealth, though I agree that it would make a fine addition to the list, when building an actual "knight" Knight.

[Kromm]

Nothing says you can't scrounge up points and buy Wealth for anyone, really. But as far as the templates go, it's only given to the roguish social engineers (bard and thief) because I was looking strictly at the buy/sell angle. In dungeon hacks -- as opposed to in semi-historical fantasy -- making deals is the job of roguish types. Knights are indeed just fighters with the name changed to avoid hard feelings; even knightly knights are essentially knights errant, ronin, etc., and probably stuck with the gear on their back.

I guess I'll admit that I was taking a moderately hard line on niche protection, doing things like leaving Survival off "urban" templates and only giving Wealth to "rogue" templates. As SJ himself pointed out, "Really, a party only needs one guy with Wealth, the way these rules work." Exactly. And that guy ought to be the main reseller, who will likely be the bard or thief. If the knight could do as well, he'd steal the spotlight from these other guys even in town, when he's already going to be dominating 3/4 of the action in the dungeon by hacking things to death. I wanted the weaselly town-dwellers to have some edge!

I think that a genuine knight, with social backing, horse, armor, etc., would be an interesting template -- call him "landed knight" or "knight of the realm" or something -- quite different from the generic one. I'm not certain that it would be the most useful template on a dungeon hack, but who knows? The 11 templates in Adventurers represent a considerably pared-down list. Had I infinite space, I'd have included other concepts from my original hardback outline: an artificer, an assassin distinct from the scout and thief, a beastmaster distinct from the barbarian and druid, and a scholar distinct from the cleric and wizard. Also, I wouldn't have merged what my notes called the knight and the swordsman. The former was closer to a real knight; the latter, to the classic fighter. I chose "knight" over "swordsman" (probably better called "man at arms" or something) to name the template because "swordsman" could easily be mistaken for "swashbuckler" (and "man at arms" lost for being too long).

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Maybe in your games. I usually bring in new characters (whether for new players or old ones) into a game at a level determined by averaging everyone's points and the starting power level. So if Joe is 280 points, Mary is 295 points, Tim is 300 points, and the campaign began at 250 points, a new character comes in at (280+295+300+250)/4 points, or 281 points.

So the goal is that with each death the party becomes much weaker and their enemies proportionatly more powerful.

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Seez who? I know a number of GMs who require new PCs to start at the same point value as the original PCs started at, or at the current PC average less some number of points.

So in other games it doesn't matter if they are now 10th level you make the new guy start at first.

Cool he gets to make new characters for every game.

[RobKamm]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Had I infinite space, I'd have included other concepts from my original hardback outline: an artificer, an assassin distinct from the scout and thief, a beastmaster distinct from the barbarian and druid, and a scholar distinct from the cleric and wizard.

I hear Pyramid likes to do Designer Notes articles with outtakes...

Also, I wouldn't have merged what my notes called the knight and the swordsman. The former was closer to a real knight; the latter, to the classic fighter. I chose "knight" over "swordsman" (probably better called "man at arms" or something) to name the template because "swordsman" could easily be mistaken for "swashbuckler" (and "man at arms" lost for being too long).

Wow, I wondered about the thought process that generated that name. I figured it would have been too cheeky to ask. Thank you.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The 11 templates in Adventurers represent a considerably pared-down list. Had I infinite space, I'd have included other concepts from my original hardback outline: an artificer, an assassin distinct from the scout and thief, a beastmaster distinct from the barbarian and druid, and a scholar distinct from the cleric and wizard.

One of my players is busily hacking togeather a "beast fighter", the initial idea being a martial artist, but his "chi" powers have the druidic power modifier, not the Chi one. Possibly also access to the regular druidic powers, sort of like the druidic version of a Holy Warrior.

[alaph]

Originally Posted by blacksmith

So the goal is that with each death the party becomes much weaker and their enemies proportionatly more powerful.

A good GM tailors the encounters to the party and doesn't just keep uping the power without regard to group dynamic.

The point here is to provide a deterrent to death so that players don't just kill their characters off when they want to play something new.

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by alaph

A good GM tailors the encounters to the party and doesn't just keep uping the power without regard to group dynamic.

The point here is to provide a deterrent to death so that players don't just kill their characters off when they want to play something new.

So the good GM reconfigures an established Enemies abilities to conform to current party configuration?