Treasure

[Stormcrow]

Technically, none of the available Heroic Cultures have a Poor standard of living. However, under RAW, if there was one then the rules I quoted would apply.

But there are none, and that is by design. When they wrote the "all heroes can replace their war gear in a friendly setting" rule, they knew this.

Or let's put it another way. The rule is that all heroes can replace their war gear. Let's suppose a Poor hero exists. What war gear does he have? None. So what can he replace? Nothing. The rule is not "fill up on war gear in a friendly place."

[Stormcrow]

OK... So it sounds like I've been making this way harder than I needed to. War gear basically gets hand waived. Lose a sword? No problem. Break your shield? No worries. Want to stay at a nice inn? Well, then you better check your SoL , or have friends with a good SoL or someone needs treasure to raise your SoL. t


Does that sound right?

It sounds exactly right.

[DavetheLost]

I read the rules as equipping our hypothetical Poor hero with arms and armor, albeit of wretched quality.

But in any case, yes, wargear is assumed to be replaced automatically.

[Otaku-sempai]

Or let's put it another way. The rule is that all heroes can replace their war gear. Let's suppose a Poor hero exists. What war gear does he have? None.

That is exactly the opposite of what the rules state. The Poor hero gets exactly the same amount of war gear as anyone else. He also gets travelling gear. It is only under Additional Gear, beyond travelling gear and war gear that the hero's Standard of Living comes into play in character creation. Again:

"All heroes start their adventuring career fully equipped with all the personal items and gear they consider best suited to a life on the road. For the sake of simplicity, the game presents such possessions as a character's travelling gear and war gear.

"A starting player-hero is assumed to carry one weapon for each of the Weapon skills he has a rating for.

"Heroes with Cultural weapon skills may choose one specific weapon among a wider selection as part of his hero's possessions."

So what can he replace? Nothing. The rule is not "fill up on war gear in a friendly place."

No one said "fill up." But, yes, war gear can be replaced. Lost or destroyed travelling gear might need to be purchased or traded for, that might be a problem for a Poor character. One more time:

"As seen in the Hero Creation chapter..., at the beginning of the game players may equip their characters with any weapon their heroes have the ability to use, and any shield and suit of armour they choose to carry or wear. If a hero loses or breaks any of these items, they can be replaced automatically, at the next friendly settlement they reach or other appropriate moment in the narrative. At most, a small favour may be demanded if the settlement is not of their own culture, such as the performance of a task, or simply a song or tale."

Zedturtle has it right.

[Rich H]

"All heroes start their adventuring career fully equipped with all the personal items and gear they consider best suited to a life on the road. For the sake of simplicity, the game presents such possessions as a character's travelling gear and war gear.

There's definitely a grey area here as the rules then state under the Poor standard of living:

"They struggle every day to find what they need ... beyond the bare necessities, let alone equip themselves for adventure"

So I totally get what Stormcrow is saying; the idea of automatically replacing Adventuring Gear (ie, war gear and travelling gear) is available to player cultures but as no player culture exists in the rules (yet/ever) with a Poor standard of living then this does not apply to the Poor standard of living as per the line in the above I quoted which effectively contracdicts the rules. Except it doesn't contradict the rules as no player Cultures exist with a Poor standard of living.

However... I'd defintely go with Stormcrow's interpretation on this as I think it makes the most sense as per the RAW and also there are a few situations where I could see such a limitation being interesting to draw out within a campaign - eg, something happens reducing a PC to this state or encountering others in the same predicament.

[Otaku-sempai]

...I'd defintely go with Stormcrow's interpretation on this as I think it makes the most sense as per the RAW and also there are a few situations where I could see such a limitation being interesting to draw out within a campaign - eg, something happens reducing a PC to this state or encountering others in the same predicament.

Rich, I'll admit that I'm disappointed in your conclusion here; I somewhat understand where you and Stormcrow are coming from, but I still disagree--the rules seem quite clear to me. I will agree that the backstory explaining how such a would-be adventurer scraped together gear in the first place could be interesting in its own right.

Let's forget about the problem of acquiring starting equipment for a moment. Assuming that our hypothetical Poor hero did manage to scrape together starting gear to begin with, what are your thoughts about his being able to replace lost or damaged war gear at his original Standard of Living? That's the question that kicked off this discussion/argument in the first place.

[Rich H]

Let's forget about the problem of acquiring starting equipment for a moment. Assuming that our hypothetical Poor hero did manage to scrape together starting gear to begin with, what are your thoughts about his being able to replace lost or damaged war gear at his original Standard of Living? That's the question that kicked off this discussion/argument in the first place.

Poor is a temporary state for a player character and and we're also assuming a character can fall to such a level. So if the character in question still remains Poor and is making no effort to deal with this extraordinary situation then I'd say whether he could automatically replace lost war gear or travelling gear would depend on the conditions and location he finds himself in as that's part of what I find interesting with regards to this exceptional standard of living. However if the player character raised their living standard to Frugal (or higher) then I'd apply the rules around replacing any lost/damaged equipment.

To provide a bit more detail on the above... Something like this happened in my campaign to Thogrim the Dwarf. In an adventure he was captured by orcs (and specifically the one that killed his father at tBo5A) and stripped of his possessions, basically down to his undergarments. So far away from home, I decided that this meant he had a Poor living standard. Later in the game he was reunited with his friends but still without any possessions. At Mountain Hall, and because he was on friendly terms with the folk there, he spent the Fellowship Phase acquiring new armour/weapons/equipment from the materials and goods at hand and so I allowed him to raise his living standard to Martial (I actually have the folk of Mountain Hall at that level). It will not be until he returns to his home (Erebor) that it will increase to Rich after spending a year end Fellowship Phase there. If he hadn't have done all this then he'd have stayed Poor and losses of equipment wouldn't have been replaced automatically; although to be fair, Thogrim does have a good reputation among the Beornings and Woodmen so he would have been able to get hold of replacements, assuming they could be sourced in such cultures (this is affectively what happened at Mountain Hall; Thogrim was in good standing with the folk there and was able to source material to craft new gear and also to acquire equipment that was available within that location). However if he found himself in lands where he had no reputation then he would be deemed Poor and unable to acquire adventuring-related gear.

[Otaku-sempai]

Okay, but according to RAW, replacing lost or damaged weapons and armor is not dependent on a hero's Standard of Living and can normally be accomplished during the Adventuring phase. Even if a character's Standard of Living as dropped to Poor, there should be no financial cost to replacing war gear (other supplies and equipment being another matter). The only reasonable complications I can see are: 1) when it is thematically inappropriate for a given settlement to have a particular item available at all, such as a Woodmen community being able to furnish heavy armor; or 2) the Adventuring phase is essentially already over so that the hero simply has no opportunity to replace war gear until the commencement of the Fellowship phase. Standing might affect any conditions placed on the acquisition such as if the hero is tasked at all.

Simply put, if no hero is expected to bear a financial burden to replace lost or damaged war gear then a character's Standard of Living never comes into play for that purpose. It doesn't matter whether the hero is impoverished or fabulously rich.

I can see how individual Loremasters might not care for the rule as written and might opt to handle the matter differently at their own tables. My point is over how the rule is actually written, not about how it may be house-ruled.

[Rich H]

Okay, but according to RAW, replacing lost or damaged weapons and armor is not dependent on a hero's Standard of Living and can normally be accomplished during the Adventuring phase.

... Because there's no such thing within the RAW as a PC with a Poor living standard so there's no need within the RAW to state it in such a way.

Even if a character's Standard of Living as dropped to Poor, there should be no financial cost to replacing war gear (other supplies and equipment being another matter).

And that's your interpretation of the RAW. Mine (and Stormcrow's as I'm assuming we're on the same page, but don't want to speak on his behalf) is also valid as we're looking at the RAW and seeing the statement for Poor standard of living individuals which state they don't have the personal (or cultural) resources to fund adventuring equipment - eg, weapons, armour, travelling gear. As there's no such thing as an adventuring culture with a Poor standard of living the rules around replacing war gear do not apply. The situation is effectively not covered by the rules and (cleverly, like many other elements of the TOR rules) allows for each LM to make their on ruling on the matter. This is what's happened here, except some people seem to have a tireless need to convince others that don't agree with their view that they are objectively wrong as the RAW is explicit. I'm sorry, but the RAW is *not* explicit in this matter and deliberately so.

The only reasonable complication I can see is when it is thematically inappropriate for a given settlement to have a particular item available at all, such as a Woodmen community being able to furnish heavy armor.

Yes, this is another good ruling that a LM could adopt (and I do) but it doesn't say anything about that in the rules. Taking an explicit reading of the rules would mean a Woodman could pick heavy armour at chargen and then replace it when he lost it. As a LM I'd make a ruling (like you) that this wouldn't always be possible; in fact I'd go one further and not allow a Woodman to pick such armour at chargen as it isn't culturally applicable - although a good enough reason in their background would make it okay.

[Otaku-sempai]

... Because there's no such thing within the RAW as a PC with a Poor living standard.

Except that individual Standards of Living can rise and fall, as you yourself pointed out, so that a particular PC might find himself temporarily rendered Poor.

As there's no such thing as an adventuring culture with a Poor standard of living the rules around replacing war gear do not apply.

Arguably not on a Cultural level (if only because no Poor cultures have been presented); however, an adventurer might still be personally reduced to the status of Poor. I do readily admit that my view on potential Heroic Cultures with a Poor standard of living is colored by the revised SoL descriptions provided for AiMe.

The situation is effectively not covered by the rules and (cleverly, like many other elements of the TOR rules) allows for each LM to make their on ruling on the matter. This is what's happened here, except some people seem to have a tireless need to convince others that don't agree with their view that they are objectively wrong as the RAW is explicit. I'm sorry, but the RAW is *not* explicit in this matter and deliberately so.

Well, I'm not trying to make any trouble. I do feel strongly about a new Loremaster asking a question and getting advice that seems very wrong to me. I do not wish to offend, and I had no intention of engaging in such a prolonged discussion on this subject.