Forum

I make several characters for most games I plan on running. This helps me look at how each race/class works. The one thing I dis like was how starting equipment was distributed. Unless your playing a fighter you have very little in the way of starting equipment. On the other hand the fighter starts with a lot of gear. I have a few suggestions on starting gear. I also have a few suggestions on some of the weapon features.

The starting gear for a fighter should limit them to leather or studded leather. Just from the stand point they are the only class that starts with armor of any kind. That or increase the number of professions that start with armor.

At minimum most characters should start with a weapon with the parry feature. As it stands now only the fighter can parry when they start the game. By picking a weapon with the parrying feature or taking a shield. Changing the starting weapon form dagger to short sword can solve this. Not being able to parry for a starting character of any kind.  Can be a big issue if a fight brakes out. .
Note the Hunter/Ranger only starts with a range weapon. And no melee weapon at all. Even a dagger would be very useful as a last resort weapon. Starting is when range attackers are at there most variable. 

There weapons I feel should have the parrying feature are from practical use of them. Staff, Short Spear, and Halberd. All of them are used in combat training to parry as well as attack with. They lack the parrying feature. This would go along way to improving survivability of the Druid, and Spellweaver.

At the same time their are weapons that in practical use are hard to parry with. Morningstar, and Warhammer. That have the parrying feature but in use are very hard to parry with.

This is just my suggestions. I don't mind killing players. But I do want them to have a fighting chance. Yes not every thing is combat. However when combat dose happen they need to have something they can do. With out an almost dying because they can't parry any attacks at them.
Note the one profession that I did not look at was the Rider. As his most important gear the horse. I don't have access to yet.

I agree that the starting equipment lists look a bit sparse, but I suspect there is a setting reason for this and actually don't really mind it. It will give the game a more low-fantasy vibe, and I'm down with that.

I do disagree, however, that most starting characters should have a parrying weapon. The non-combatant professions can still dodge out of the way if they need to. If someone really wants a parrying weapon, they can spend their starting silver on either a mace (3 silver) or a short sword (6 silver), assuming they rolled well on their d6/d10/d12 silver roll.

As for weapons with the parrying trait, I also agree this is a bit off. I'd also like to see the short spear (and possibly the quarterstaff) gain the parrying trait, but you mention the halberd, and I don't think that it should be a parrying weapon. Halberds were designed to give infantry a fighting chance against cavalry, not for use in a melee on the ground.

The quarterstaff is THE parrying weapon - a must!

Why not just give characters a equal set (or randomised 4d6 silver) amount of currency. They can then just spend it on thier starting gear and then give them a small amount (1d6) extra after that? This could be altered by age/race or profession.

Maybe we need a new thread for weapon qualities?

Why not just give characters a equal set (or randomised 4d6 silver) amount of currency. They can then just spend it on thier starting gear and then give them a small amount (1d6) extra after that?

Sure, but that's not needed in the rules, though. Any GM can simply give his players more starting silver to buy better starting gear without needing to change anything in the book.

Bear in mind this will significantly change the feel of the game, though. PCs will appreciate their loot a lot more if they start off with very little and have the feeling they come from humble beginnings.

Why not just give characters a equal set (or randomised 4d6 silver) amount of currency. They can then just spend it on thier starting gear and then give them a small amount (1d6) extra after that?

Sure, but that's not needed in the rules, though. Any GM can simply give his players more starting silver to buy better starting gear without needing to change anything in the book.

Bear in mind this will significantly change the feel of the game, though. PCs will appreciate their loot a lot more if they start off with very little and have the feeling they come from humble beginnings.

I was thinking if the issue is about what each character starts with in comparison to other characters, then it's easier to let players choose this within certain limits. The currency amount could literally be 6 silver or they have saved up 1 GP and that's it (4d6 silver is probably too high but I don't have the equipment list to hand) so the choice of starting gear would be limited for all professions.

Yes they can dodge out of the way and be on the ground for the next round of combat. That dose not help their ability to participate in combat. Yes their none combat professions. Their is a very old saying about that. It's better to be a warrior in a garden, Then a Gardner in a war. So as we know their will be combat as a given. Having a survivable weapon is a must. That or every party must start with a Fighter. As with out one their is no real way to survive the first battle. That is the problem really it makes the fighter the one profession you must have. Personally i think gear should be detached from profession. Set starting equipment at 15 silver, or 4D6 silver (Avg. 14). That way every one starts off the same. Gear is still very important as you can't buy much. It however is enough to start with a weapon, and some protection (Shield, or Armor). This brings down the fighter closer to every one else, along with bring every one else closer to where the fighter is now. When i start most of my D&D, or Pathfinder games. I start every one with around the same amount of gold. 50,  they might talk me up to 75. It's not that i don't get you want to make gear important for starting characters. I want them to survive the first few battles so they can continue the game. 

As for being deadly and equipment important. That is my point. The fighter starts with so much more gear then any other profession. He could sell his starting gear, and end up out fitting the party. Just starting with a chainmail is a huge advantage. Then on top of that he can chose any two handed weapon, or one handed weapon and shield. 

When i start most of my D&D, or Pathfinder games

You're coming at this from a D&D perspective, but this game should not be played like D&D / PF.  There is no pool of HP for starters, so even if your non-combatant PCs have a sword, their piddling 2 or 3 Strength (and probably no decent defensive combat talents) means they could easily be broken in the first swing from an average foe.  If they decide to melee attack, I doubt many of them will be rolling more than 3 or 4 dice in their pool, not a great start.

This game is built off of MY0, and when I GMed my first one-shot of that game with my D&D group, we had 2 deaths (out of 5 PCs) on the recommended starting adventure, against a smallish size of average, but competent foes.  That's because 2 non-combatant PCs (who happened to have decent weapons) went rushing in to the melee when they should have been hanging back or running for their lives.

In Forbidden Lands, like many other lethal, non-heroic fantasy RPGs available today, running away is often a wiser course than fighting.  In other words, giving everyone a "decent" weapon is not really going to help if all your PCs run into the fracas.

Let the non-combat professions support without weapons, and if a foe closes with them, advise them to run for it, preferably screaming for help.

That said, here's my take on the combat versatility of the professions with the vanilla rules:

• Druid: really should not be getting his / her hands dirty in combat at all at lower experience levels
• Fighter: obviously your melee fighter
• Minstrel: two of the available paths provide good combat support at the first tier
• Peddler: should run away like a coward
• Ranger: obviously good ranged fighter
• Rider: arguably the second best melee profession, thanks to Melee being a profession skill, a decent weapon, and some good talent options
• Rogue: Melee as a profession skill, plus sneak attacks and poison talent options could make this a good "glass cannon" in a fight
• Spellbinder: some pretty cool spell options in their stack, making this a potentially good ranged combat profession

So all said and done, there are only 2 professions out of 8 which aren't that useful in combat.  I'm OK with that.

When i start most of my D&D, or Pathfinder games

You're coming at this from a D&D perspective, but this game should not be played like D&D / PF.  There is no pool of HP for starters, so even if your non-combatant PCs have a sword, their piddling 2 or 3 Strength (and probably no decent defensive combat talents) means they could easily be broken in the first swing from an average foe.  If they decide to melee attack, I doubt many of them will be rolling more than 3 or 4 dice in their pool, not a great start.
This game is built off of MY0, and when I GMed my first one-shot of that game with my D&D group, we had 2 deaths (out of 5 PCs) on the recommended starting adventure, against a smallish size of average, but competent foes.  That's because 2 non-combatant PCs went rushing in to the melee when they should have been hanging back or running for their lives.
In Forbidden Lands, like many other lethal, non-heroic fantasy RPGs available today, running away is often a wiser course than fighting.  In other words, giving everyone a "decent" weapon is not really going to help if all your PCs run into the fracas.
Let the non-combat professions support without weapons, and if a foe closes with them, advise them to run for it, preferably screaming for help.
That said, here's my take on the combat versatility of the professions with the vanilla rules:

• Druid: really should not be getting his / her hands dirty in combat at all at lower experience levels
• Fighter: obviously your melee fighter
• Minstrel: two of the available paths provide good combat support at the first tier
• Peddler: should run away like a coward
• Ranger: obviously good ranged fighter
• Rider: arguably the second best melee profession, thanks to Melee being a profession skill, a decent weapon, and some good talent options
• Rogue: Melee as a profession skill, plus sneak attacks and poison talent options could make this a good "glass cannon" in a fight
• Spellbinder: some pretty cool spell options in their stack, making this a potentially good ranged combat profession

So all said and done, there are only 2 professions out of 8 which aren't that useful in combat.  I'm OK with that.

+1 to the above, but also worth mentioning is that not all RPGs focus on combat. The best ones certainly don't, if you ask me. It's about storytelling, exploration and puzzle solving as well. Combat is just a small part of it. Besides, combat in FbL is not just about hitting each other with big sticks, you can take your opponent down by stressing him out, confusing him or even making him doubt himself. There are many ways to skin a dragon.

+1 to the above, but also worth mentioning is that not all RPGs focus on combat. The best ones certainly don't, if you ask me. It's about storytelling, exploration and puzzle solving as well. Combat is just a small part of it. Besides, combat in FbL is not just about hitting each other with big sticks, you can take your opponent down by stressing him out, confusing him or even making him doubt himself. There are many ways to skin a dragon.

Absolutely right, I kind of neglected to mention that in my previous post, as I was solely addressing what would happen if you treated it like a combat-centred game (for example D&D).