[HR] Starting equipment limitation

[Falenthal]

I'm posting this idea for the sake of discussion. I doubt I myself will ever use it, but it could be a guidance in some instances (like Wild Hobbit characters wanting to start the game with a Chain Hauberk).

In other threads about slings and quarterstaves has always come up the factor that one benefit of those weapons over others is their low to no cost. While that is extremely so, in TOR that isn't a valid (from the game's mechanic) advantatge: a Frugal character can start the game with a Long Sword as long as he has 1 skill point in it or (Swords).

My proposition, without having studied the numbers too deeply, is that only for the starting equipment, the characters have "Aquisition Points" (Name still in development ) that are spent considering the Encumbrance of the War Gear wanted.

This AP are not Treasure points or coins or such. Is a representation of what the given Standard of Living can supply, and -I repeat- are only used during character generation.

My first approach would be that every Standard of Living has a rating of 6 (the magical TOR number!) AP higher than the lower one:
Poor has 6 AP.
Frugal has 12 AP.
Martial has 18 AP.
Prosperous has 24 AP.
Rich has 30 AP.

And the cost of every piece of War Gear (not musical instruments or other stuff) is equal to its Encumbrance.

A Frugal character, with 12 APs, can start the game with a Mail-shirt (Enc.12), and a Dagger (Enc. 0). That's probably a bad starting choice. Here's where having a Quarterstaff and/or Sling with 0 Encumbrance comes handy.
A much better choice would be, for example, Leather Corselet (Enc. 8), Cap or Iron and Leather (Enc. 2), Spear (Enc. 2), a Dagger (Enc. 0) and a Sling (if you House Rule that it has Enc.0).
For a Frugal character, that seems ok. Or avoid the Cap of Iron and Leather and buy a second Spear for throwing at Opening Volleys.

A Rich character (Dwarves), with 30 APs, can buy a Mail Hauberk (Enc. 20), a Helm (Enc. 6), A Mattock (Enc. 3) and a Short Sword (Enc. 1). Just like the common soldiers from the Iron Hills. Or a Coat of Mail instead of a Hauberk (Enc. 16), but add a Shield (Enc. 3) to the War Gear. The Dagger comes as a bonus.
In this last case, for instance, if a house-ruled Sling is added to the game, with two versions: Stone bullets (Enc. 0) and Lead bullets (Enc. 1), the first dwarf with the Mail Hauberk won't be able to choose the Lead bulleted sling. The second one will.

This rule would probably lead to weird starting configurations, and as it's only valid for the starting War Gear, as soon as the first Adventure phase starts the players will be able to "go to the market place and buy the Long Sword I've always dreamed of", making all this rule unnecessary.

A following idea would be that a character can't maintain more War Gear than his Standard of Living Adquisition Points. I'd have to think about it, but that could lead to making more interesting the Raise Standard of Living Undertaking. But that's another idea.

Any thoughts?

[Terisonen]

That's a really interesting way to resolve starting equipment which is always a point arising in the beginning of a campaign.

You can resolve this by many ways. First, I would consider cultural issue: Longsword are cultural weapon and at least in the beginning, just Dunadan Ranger, Dalemen or High Elves should have one (if they want so).

Metal armor should not been available to Poor and Frugal culturs as I consider them expensive.

[Corvo]

Hi Falenthal!

Missed your thread, apparently. A bit late, but I'll give my 2c.

I got the same doubts as you, so in my campaign/s I used a simple houserule.
There are 5 level of Standard of living, and up to 5 dices of armour:
A rich PC can start the game with up to 5 die of armour, a prosperous PC with 4, a martial with 3, etc.
Everything above your standard of living must be bought (and I added a yearly cost for maintenance).

It's more simple (simplicistic) than your rule, but I feel the cost of armour outweighs by a lot that of weapons, so I don't bother with weapons.
By the way, I got houserules about armour absorbing damage, so heavy armours are more desiderable.

[Falenthal]

I got the same doubts as you, so in my campaign/s I used a simple houserule.
There are 5 level of Standard of living, and up to 5 dices of armour:
A rich PC can start the game with up to 5 die of armour, a prosperous PC with 4, a martial with 3, etc.
Everything above your standard of living must be bought (and I added a yearly cost for maintenance).

It's more simple (simplicistic) than your rule, but I feel the cost of armour outweighs by a lot that of weapons, so I don't bother with weapons.

Yeah, I use more or less the same rule.
In fact, I don't use it as a "rule", more as a guidance of what armours/weapons could be normal in a certain culture. If a Woodman wants to start the game with a chainmail, I might not say outright "You can't do that", but instead "Come up with a good story about how a Woodman came into possession of such an item". I woudn't ask the same of a Barding or a Dwarf of Erebor.

Thanks for your comment, Corvo!

[Scrollreader]

In general, most of the core cultures have a SoL that ties into their beneficial armor well, with the occasional exception. But with Rohirrim who can stay mounted, and the new dwarves this is less true. I also use the 1d / Standard of Living as a rule of thumb, but as noted, a decent story behind the item is good enough for me. Perhaps the woodsman was a mountain folk apprentice, the grey dwarf made his own gear, or the dunlending robbed a barrow. I can sort of see the point here, but I don't really think it is the sort of thing that requires a hard rule. It doesn't really come up often enough for the extra complexity to be worth it, IMO. For what it is worth, I also let people trade off starting weapons, so if the elf wants a greatspear and a throwing spear, rather than a sword, I don't mind.