Variant: Starting Wealth by Background

[slachance6]

I thought that both the methods for starting equipment were a bit odd. I didn't really like the idea of choosing from those limited options that you get from the class, and the other option doesn't make a lot of sense. An Urchin fighter starts with way more gold than a Noble sorcerer? If you start as an Urchin, you would realistically have to resort to padded armor and a dagger or two, and if you're a Noble, you might start with a warhorse at level one. So I made a variant rule where backgrounds determine starting wealth instead of classes. Obviously there might be some exceptions to this, like maybe the boss of a thieves' guild would start with more gold than an ordinary criminal.

Acolyte: 3d4*10 gp, or 75 gp
Charlatan: 3d4*10 gp, or 75 gp
Criminal: 2d4*10 gp, or 50 gp
Entertainer: 5d4*10 gp, or 125 gp
Folk Hero: 3d4*10 gp, or 75 gp
Guild Artisan: 4d4*10 gp, or 100 gp
Hermit: 6d4 gp, or 15 gp
Noble: 2d4*100 gp, or 500 gp (possibly less for a Knight)
Outlander: 2d4*10 gp, or 50 gp
Sage: 5d4*10 gp, or 125 gp
Sailor: 3d4*10 gp, or 75 gp
Soldier: 3d4*10 gp, or 75 gp
Urchin: 5d4 gp, or 12 gp

Tell me what you guys think.

[Shadow]

An Urchin fighter starts with way more gold than a Noble sorcerer?

Tell me what you guys think.

Backgrounds represent where you came from and what you did *before* learning your trade. They represent knowledge and skills learned prior to taking up another mantle.
So someone may have been an urchin, living off the streets, but then joined a militia and learned to fight. The training in that trade comes with gear appropriate to the trade. So the urchin, after learning to fight, now has weapons and armor.

I'll be leaving it as is, or no one will ever choose urchin over criminal (as an example).
Plus, the backgrounds in the book are merely examples. Players and DMs are free to create their own. What happens when none of the ones listed fits the character's theme and they need something different?

[MaxWilson]

You do realize that the equipment option and the gold option are mutually exclusive? Under your system, an urchin fighter will start with no armor and maybe not even a good weapon.

Coming up with a reason for an urchin to own a longsword and shield and chain mail is supposed to be part of the background, whether "I inherited it from my dead mother" or "I looted it of a corpse yesterday and that is when I decided to become an adventurer."

As an aside, I hate the term "adventurer."

[pwykersotz]

As an aside, I hate the term "adventurer."

What do you use instead?


To the point, It's not a bad idea. It fixes some problems and creates others, but overall I see where it helps your verisimilitude.

[bloodshed343]

I prefer the term "Dungeoneer". Sounds more professional.

As an aside: Most nobles who would likely become dungeoneers are "land rich, money poor". They shouldn't start with that much more than an artisan.

[GiantOctopodes]

I prefer the term "Dungeoneer". Sounds more professional.

As an aside: Most nobles who would likely become dungeoneers are "land rich, money poor". They shouldn't start with that much more than an artisan.

Personally I prefer the term "Hero". Even when it's not accurate, build up enough of a reputation as one, and it's a lot easier to get away with the city guard stumbling upon the aftermath of a fight. If you're a dungeoneer or adventurer or explorer or mercenary (likely the most apt term for the way I typically play), saying "what? They had the gem they stole from that Wizard who hired us, and they were guilty of a crime, so it's totally justifiable us slaying all of them in the street like dogs" might not get you too far, but if you're known around those parts as a hero, you just say "They were bad guys" and suddenly everything is ok :smallbiggrin:

[bloodshed343]

Personally I prefer the term "Hero". Even when it's not accurate, build up enough of a reputation as one, and it's a lot easier to get away with the city guard stumbling upon the aftermath of a fight. If you're a dungeoneer or adventurer or explorer or mercenary (likely the most apt term for the way I typically play), saying "what? They had the gem they stole from that Wizard who hired us, and they were guilty of a crime, so it's totally justifiable us slaying all of them in the street like dogs" might not get you too far, but if you're known around those parts as a hero, you just say "They were bad guys" and suddenly everything is ok :smallbiggrin:

"Sometimes we're heroes, sometimes we shoot people right in their face for money."

[JoeJ]

[QUOTE=bloodshed343;18497341]I prefer the term "Dungeoneer". Sounds more professional./QUOTE]

Expert Treasure-hunter.

[Starsinger]

Expert Treasure-hunter.

Treasure-hunter or you'll rip their lungs out?

[pwykersotz]

Treasure-hunter or you'll rip their lungs out?

I love it when people quote Locke. :smallbiggrin:

[Justin Sane]

I'm partial to "Troubleshooter", myself.

[MaxWilson]

What do you use instead?

It depends on what they are. The reason I hate "adventurer" is because it has implications of someone who wanders around looking for "adventure."

You could be a troubleshooter for the king, in which case you would be an "emissary" or an "agent," or you could be a mercenary who guards caravans, in which case you would be a "soldier" or "mercenary", or you could be a researcher/archaeologist like Indiana Jones, in which case you would be a "professor" or an "adventurer" depending on which hat you were wearing (in this case "adventurer" is actually apt), or you could be something else. It depends on what the campaign is about.

[Sindeloke]

You do realize that the equipment option and the gold option are mutually exclusive? Under your system, an urchin fighter will start with no armor and maybe not even a good weapon.

Well, I mean, a fighter who grew up on the streets because a warlord killed her family, who had nothing to her name but a broken piece of doorframe with a nail stuck through it, who learned to fight in back alleys against thugs using her stick as a makeshift weapon, who goes out into the world and someday beats that warlord to death with that very stick, is a pretty cool character concept IMO, and happily totally supportable in the "magic items aren't needed" 5e setup.

Might work better with a barb or open hand monk, admittedly, but you'd have to alter the fluff a lot.

[archaeo]

It depends on what they are. The reason I hate "adventurer" is because it has implications of someone who wanders around looking for "adventure."

You could be a troubleshooter for the king, in which case you would be an "emissary" or an "agent," or you could be a mercenary who guards caravans, in which case you would be a "soldier" or "mercenary", or you could be a researcher/archaeologist like Indiana Jones, in which case you would be a "professor" or an "adventurer" depending on which hat you were wearing (in this case "adventurer" is actually apt), or you could be something else. It depends on what the campaign is about.

I agree. "Adventurer" tends to work well for what 5e (and maybe D&D generally) regards as the "default setting," wherein ancient civilizations and an uncharted wilderness require hardy people to go out and explore and settle and discover.

The danger of "adventurer" as a meme is that it tends to really drive the perception of narratives D&D can cover. Luckily, the DMG does a pretty good job of exploring all the different kinds of narratives one can model in 5e, as well as the changes one might make to the system to facilitate non-adventuresome adventures.

[Slipperychicken]

Personally I prefer the term "Hero". Even when it's not accurate, build up enough of a reputation as one

Back in the old days, a "Hero" just meant a really strong mythological dude. Their actions often bore little resemblance to our ideals of heroism, and their motivations were hardly impeccable.

I'm talking about guys like Samson, who did things like flip out and kill 30 random people after losing a game of riddles, then burn a bunch of crops and murder ~10,000 people when his girlfriend's dad wouldn't let him marry her (in response to hearing about Samson's rampage). Or Hercules, a full-grown adult and father of six, who was so annoyed at his mom (Hera) that he flipped out and killed his whole family.

In that context, I would say that dnd murderhobos are often just as "heroic", if not more so than their historical counterparts.

[Joe the Rat]

If you are the quick-start gear selections, it would be simple to tweak the starting pocket change (backgrounds provide the pocket change), and make some notes on gear appearance and quality. Your armor may be piece-meal piece-mail, scraped together from fallen enemies, or a finely crafted suit custom-fit for your gallant knight. Both have a decent AC. Your backpack may be old and patched, or fresh-made with expensive tooling in the leather. Both hold gear.

For the rolled gold, simplify this by grouping the backgrounds by their starting lifestyles, and have each come with a percent of the maximum (30%, 60%, 100%, 120%), or roll with a some dice fixed at minimum or maximum (a poorer background fighter has (3d4+2)*10gp, a richer background gives (3d4+8)*10gp). As others have noted, this may produce fewer zero-to-heroes, and more Gentleman Adventurers. You may need to add some sort of incentive to starting further down the socioeconomic ladder.


Backgrounds represent where you came from and what you did *before* learning your trade. They represent knowledge and skills learned prior to taking up another mantle.
So someone may have been an urchin, living off the streets, but then joined a militia and learned to fight. The training in that trade comes with gear appropriate to the trade. So the urchin, after learning to fight, now has weapons and armor.

For what they did before becoming a "Freelance Acquisition Contractors," certainly. But most backgrounds can also be used to describe how the character previously used their class training. A Cleric Soldier could as easily be a retired sergeant that took up the cloth, and then called to adventure, or a "field cleric" in the army deciding to skip the war and go after the gold behind enemy lines. Is that fledgling wizard a thief-turned apprentice, or was did he use magic to make B&E a bit easier?