This is of course taken from the new 5e D&D Basic Rules.
Make them all different (1e) or make them all the same (0e) (my preference), but why make some the same and some different but only by a really teeny amount? What is the purpose of it in terms of player choice, play balance, the aesthetic of the rules, realism, getting players more immersed in the fantasy world or, well, just making things fun?
Contrast:
Everyone begins with 30-180 gold pieces to seek his or her fortune.
with
We mean to comprehensively and accurately describe this alternate fantasy world for you. It's important for us to get it right, and it's important for you to get it right. The average amount of funds that different character classes start out with is similar but not precisely so (due to how the economics of the fantasy world work out, or whatever). The average amount is the same for Clerics and Fighters and the same for Rogues and Wizards, but Clerics and Fighters have slightly higher averages than Rogues and Wizards. In practice of course this doesn't make a huge amount of difference, but still it's important for us to get it right, and it's important for you to get it right. Here is a chart that explains it.
Unfair perhaps, but that's how it appears to me.
I have no idea whether the table was lifted from 4e or 3.5 or not and I don't really care to check. But it's just another example of ill-thought out (or overly thought out) clunkiness.
1st edition AD&D had silly starting funds varying by PC class as well.
ReplyDeleteYes, but the point is not that variable starting monies are a bad idea (though my preference is for a uniform roll). It's that in the above table the variance is so small as to make the fact that there is a variance-and thus a table-seem, well, pointless.
DeleteYeah, it's a waste of space, especially when one notes it is an option because equipment options are given in the class and background selections. 3d6 gp over those would have worked fine.
DeleteThis table is puzzling. Why do rogues not have more money? Aren't they supposed to always be stealing money and things like that? And why are clerics rich? Aren't they all about vows of poverty and such? Is there any explanation to go with the chart?
ReplyDeleteDon't know where this disappeared to the first time I typed it but:
ReplyDeleteFighters and Clerics need heavier armor, which is more expensive. Usually these tables in various editions were more designed to make sure each class had about the right amount of wealth to buy a basic equipment set with maybe an extra or two than be "realistic". To that end, 10-40gp is not a trivial amount for a starting character, allowing the next tier of armor, or a few one-shot items.
The question really is: "What harm would there really be if after buying a basic loadout, wizards and rogues had an extra (on average) 25gp to play with? What would they buy that would be so unbalancing? A mule? Backup daggers? An extra healing potion? a few tanglefoot bags? Who cares?
I will say that I'm glad that they started moving from fewer to more dice. Nothing sucked more in 1e and basic than getting stuck with 30gp to outfit your fighter and ending up with leather armor and a club.
I don't know. It depends too on whether the characters are starting out together. In my experience, if someone got a really bad roll, they would be "loaned" money from other players. After all, it's to their advantage to insure that no one is too pathetic.
DeleteBut the table does have points! A pointless table probably would not have any numbers in it, for one thing.
ReplyDeleteThe table makes more sense with the publication of the Player's Handbook. When you see all twelve character classes they have starting gold ranging from 2d4 x10 to 5d4 x10 (with the monk as a special low end case at 5d4 with no multiplier). The table only seems weird and pointless because the core rules only has 4 middle-of-the-road classes.
ReplyDelete