<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=209069.msg10280127#msg10280127">Quote from: Dirigible on 20-07-2014, 14:53:23</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Three to start with, but you can gain them when I award myself action dice to spend on NPCs (beyond the pool I start with,<br/><br/> ...<br/><br/>But iconic and less quantifiable stuff, like magic items, property, contacts and renown are bought with reputation, which comes from completing adventures and is modified by Legend, a stat based on your class and level. In all honesty, I have a hard time grasping what Legend is meant to represent in-game; there's no rhyme or reason I can find as to which classes have high, medium or low progression in it. Legend is not affected by Charisma.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>I could make some guesses, but<em>all</em>they are is guesses. For example, looking at 'Lancer' vs 'Beastmaster' one might imagine (especially given the emphasis in the writeup on social skills) that this is meant to reflect a noble knight-type, who thereby has a certain standard of living, while the 'Beastmaster' has moved away from that and is a strange wilderness-tamer archetype...Not renowned for being well off/courtly. Now this is totally me fantasizing about 'what were they thinking?' and it ignores some of their own suggestions for alternate interpretations of the class (in certain settings 'rancher' might be the wealthiest guy in town!). But that's all I can even vaguely come up with. I dunno!<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=209069.msg10280127#msg10280127">Quote from: Dirigible on 20-07-2014, 14:53:23</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">It's cumulative in the same way as BAB and base save bonuses. You add up the Lifestyle bonus of your current level in each class you have. So Lancer 4 / Beastmaster 1 would have +4, yes.<br/>Entirely reasonable. The campaign qualities reinforce that - the Wastrel Heroes quality means that, by default, you keep 0% of what you acquire during an adventure over the long run (just like how Conan never seemed to be able to hang on to any of those jewels he pilfered from one story to the next). So you could invest in Prudence if you wanted to have your character start to build a small nest-egg / rainy day fund, but Panache in general seems like a more characterful trait for the swords'n'sorcery genre, and I chose the rules to reflect that.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>Got it, so I more-or-less had it right.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=209069.msg10280127#msg10280127">Quote from: Dirigible on 20-07-2014, 14:53:23</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">I'm not a veteran of the system, but my sense of it seems to be this: DR is generally low (the best possible armour, dwarven articulated plate with all the trimmings is DR 9, and a red-dragon-equivalent's scales are about 7); armour piercing weapons tend to be able to ignore a fair bit of it; dealing damage is slightly weighted towards getting more attacks than boosting the damage of each hit; and vitality points can rise high enough in higher level characters that hacking through them becomes less optimal than, say, inflicting subdual damage to render foes fatigued or stress damage to break them psychologically.<br/><br/>So I don't rightly know whether damage reduction or defence is the best route to hide-preservation in FC. I suspect a blend of both would see you right - especially achievable, since the house rules mean that you can get DR from your Appearance instead of your armour.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>Okay, that helps. I've had real trouble finding many 'sample characters' via google, and those I have found, well, the characters are so customizable that they're more showcases for how customizable things are than necessarily letting me know if I'm going in a feasible/infeasible direction. It sounds like I'm doing the former, perhaps even a little too rigidly.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=209069.msg10280127#msg10280127">Quote from: Dirigible on 20-07-2014, 14:53:23</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">I really dig it. Ghost Eaters is a deliciously evocative name. I liked the touch about her being culturally/legally designated a male - reminds me of a culture I read about in anthro class, where women were sometimes permitted or required to marry inanimate objects like tentpoles, in order to be considered honourary men (a dubious honour  :P ). I can definitely work with it. I take it she's lesbian or bi with a gynophile preference, as per your O/Os?</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>I can't take credit for it, 'ghost-eater' is a rough Anglicization of a kind of Malay/Sumatran witch-doctor type who gets his power from 'eating' bad spirits as part of a curative process. Pretty badass sort of social manipulation in a way, one step above 'I am the guy who understands the supernatural and will drive away the bad things and protect you from them' to 'Yeah, I eat these things for breakfast, literally. Nom.' But it's an amazing idea, so it has stuck with me since I first read about it. And there are many, many cultures out there where for thousands of years 'man' and 'woman' as we understand them in the modern West are just two possible options out of many for the sex/gender/social roles someone can have. In this case I picture the Sun-People as being a bit more strictly two-gendered...And since she's not fitting the role of one gender, they perforce put her into the other one. Preference-wise, let's just stick with 'bi-' for the moment, but yeah, more-or-less.<br/><br/>She definitely prefers being on top, though. ;)<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=209069.msg10280152#msg10280152">Quote from: Dirigible on 20-07-2014, 15:06:01</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Looking back, I realise that in a lot of cases my answers were just rephrasing things which I see you'd already grasped. Sorry about that.  :-)</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>Yeah, but since I was asking 'do I understand this correctly?' that's perfectly fine, and in fact it's exactly the sort of response I needed. 'Yes you are on the right track and here is perhaps another element/way of looking at it that may help.' Nope, that's perfect, no need to apologize at all!