Edymnion’s article on commoners was insightful and edifying, and he reached the same conclusion that I have long held, but it was a trifle simplistic for my taste, so I will offer a similar scenario with more variables. Edy, please don't think I'm stealing your bit, I mean no offense by this. It is meant more as a tribute to you.
I will also use a family of farmers, but the results can be applied to most Commoners.
John Commoner is a Level 2 Human Commoner thus he has fifteen total skill points to spend. He has Five ranks in Profession (Farmer), Five ranks in Craft (Woodworking) and Five ranks in Knowledge (Nature). John's DM is kind and allows his five ranks in Knowledge Nature to grant a circumstance bonus to his Profession (Farmer) checks – since John is intimately familiar with the soil, plant and animal life of his land. John two feats: Skill Focus (Farmer) and Endurance.
Mary, John's wife is a Level 1 Human Commoner, she has twelve skill points. Mary has two ranks in Heal, four ranks in Profession (Midwife), Mary's grandfather taught her to speak Elven (2 points), and to read (2 points). Mary has two feats, Skill Focus (Midwife) and Skill Focus (Heal)
John and Mary have five children. The eldest has a family of her own and does not factor into this exercise.
Adam and June are nearly adult. Both are level one commoners with four ranks in Profession (Farmer) and Skill Focus (Farmer).
Maria is 13 – she is an unstated Human and has two skill points and one feat. She has two ranks in Profession (Midwife) and one feat Skill Focus (Midwife)
Jason is 10 – he is an unstated Human, he has two skill points. He has no real ranks or feats yet but he helps out at the village temple, and will be a Cleric one day.
The family live on a few acres of land as tenants of Barron Nice. Barron Nice demands 30% of their Gross income yearly, just after harvest time, as well as the occasional service in his campaigns. In return, Baron Nice keeps the peace, protects his tenants, and once a year, his old Adventuring friend , the Druid Gotafax casts Plant Growth spells over Barron Nice's lands.
Things work out like this:
John makes a Profession (Farmer) check and takes ten, totaling 20 (five ranks +3 feat bonus +2 Synergy). Adam and June Aid another, we will assume that only one succeeds on their check, for a total farming score of 22. Thus every week, John can hope to generate 11gp of gross productivity. Gotafax's Druidic magic increases that by 1/3 to 14gp 6sp and 6cp gross.
But, there is a problem this year, Gotafix's grove is in trouble, hobgoblins are cutting down the forest to expand their camp. Barron Nice agrees to help his old friend. John, Adam and June (women are subject to service in an equal society) are called to serve. Mary is excused since someone must look after Maria and Jason – also, Mary serves a vital role as Midwife to her community.
Since John Adam and June are away from the farm for three months, the gross productivity falls to 8gp 2sp 5cp + 1/3 = 11gp again. Worse yet, Adam is killed during the fighting, thus his contribution is lost, not just for three months, but for the rest of the year. So for the year as a whole, the farm totals 10gp and 5sp gross. Barron Nice takes 1/3 of that leaving 7gp net productivity.
Mary is the village's Midwife, Healer and general wise-woman. Since she can read she sometimes makes a copper or two reading or writing letters for people, but this is rare and can be ignored, and proceeds from this just means a mug of ale or perhaps a little tobacco – a nice treat but not anything important. Mary takes ten on her profession check and Maria aids her, for a total result of 19. Again, the Barron asks a third of this. So Mary and Maria bring in 6gp 3sp and 3cp per week. The total weekly income is 13gp 3sp and 3cp.
Like Edymnion, I will assume that the elders eat two poor meals and one good meal a day, and the children eat two poor meals a day. That gives a total cost of 1gp and 2sp per day, since the family grows its own food. That is 8gp and 4sp per week, leaving 4gp 9sp and 3cp surplus. Over the year, that is a grand total of 256gp 3sp and 6cp.
Much of this will go on clothing and tools which the family cannot make themselves, and on a few luxuries. But Mary and John are careful to squirrel away a little just in case. They could earn more if they sent Jason to work in the fields, or elsewhere, but by sending him into the church, they hope that he will do better than they, and perhaps support them in their dotage. It is likely that the family as a whole could save maybe fifty gold pieces a year. Most of that will not be in the form of actual gold (except Mary's ring) though.
However, there is more to it than that. There are three first level Commoners in the family, and one second level Commoner. According to the NPC wealth by levels table, the family should have possessions worth about 4'700gp! On the face of it, it looks as though this family is well worth the time an Adventurer might take to rob them. Alas, not.
Firstly, Adam (when he was still alive) and June have both only just achieved their first level, so will have only gear equivalent to a total of 5d4gp, or about 10gp. As more experienced Commoners, Mary and John have more wealth, let's say they have the maximum 900gp and 2'000gp respectively.
First, they own a house which they and their families built. It is a Simple House, and worth about 1'000gp on the open market. It is valuable, but hardly fungible. The same goes for their land – they do not own the land, but they do hold the right to farm it, and theoretically, could sublet. This land therefore also counts against their total wealth, say another 500gp (probably generous, but the land is good, and Druid powered, and their landlord is Nice, as landlords go, so it is an attractive spot).
That leaves 900gp to be accounted for. At any given time, the family will have about 500gp worth of crops in their fields – though obviously this fluctuates over time. As well as this, they own a donkey and some tack, a hand plough, sundry clothes and housewares and the crossbow John 'forgot' to give back after he returned from service a few years back. The single most valuable and fungible item is the gold ring Mary wares. John took the gold from a Hobgoblin and had it made into a ring for his wife. Mary only wears it on special occasions though. These things account for the wealth by levels chart fairly well, though the chart itself is of course only an approximate guide.
Since this is just an elaboration of Edymnion's article, I'll elaborate on a response I made there: You can put all of the accuracy you want into calculations determining that commoners could actually feed themselves in the D&D world, but this will not make the world feel more real because the monetary system is fundamentally flawed. Think about what you are saying in this article--an average family of farmers has a surplus of over 256 GOLD pieces per year. Based on the modern price of gold, which is a great deal lower in relative value than it would have been 500 years ago, this means that your average family has $153,600 to spend as they wish each year. These aren't commoners, they're oil barons!!
My point is, you're wasting your time doing these calculations because all they do is draw attention to the fact that this is a fantasy game with a fantasy economy. If you want to spend your time role-playing farmers, then you should make gold pieces as rare as +5 vorpal swords.
Cheers!
Think about what you are saying in this article--an average family of farmers has a surplus of over 256 GOLD pieces per year. Based on the modern price of gold, which is a great deal lower in relative value than it would have been 500 years ago, this means that your average family has $153,600 to spend as they wish each year. These aren't commoners, they're oil barons!!
And I will respond the same way as the other thread, which nobody seems to pay attention to when I say it there:
1) COMMONERS DO NOT HAVE 265 GOLD PIECES PER YEAR!
They have the equivalent to that much in trade goods. They are still going to be lucky to have a few spare coppers to spend, and can never see a gold coin for most of their lives, and still have enough goods to barter with in the system. They might have 5 gp total in coin in silver and coppers all year long, and all the rest of that net gain is tied up in bags of wheat, barrels of cloves, sacks of dried carrots, etc.
2) REAL WORLD GOLD PRICES ARE MEANINGLESS!
It does not matter how much gold is worth in the real world. Let me say that again, it does not matter if gold in the real world is worth 5 cents a ton, or a million dollars an ounce. D&D has it's own value for a "gold piece", which does not necessarily even have to be made of pure gold anymore than the real world nickel is actually made of nickel. Again, the real world value of gold is not important. Look at what a gold piece buys in the setting, and compare it to the equivalent goods in the real world. I'll probably have to do an article here on Regdar's for this, but the closest equivalent in prices is that 1 sp = $1 US. So no, this family isn't making the equivalent of $150k in spending money a year, they're making the equivalent of $2,560 in spending money a year. That means they have, on average, about $50 a week that they can spend on things other than food and rent. I know suburban kids that get more than that in allowance every week, and these commoners are doing everything they can for it just to get by.
Honestly, I can't say this enough. The real world price of gold has nothing to do with the value of gold in D&D. Any attempt to claim that the D&D economy is broken based on this is meaningless. They could just as easily have said that D&D characters use Florlax Pieces as money, because the name is not important.
It is my belief that gold (and other precious metals) is more common in a vanilla D&D setting than it is on Earth by more than one order of magnitude. The Dwarves are fairly industrious in digging it up, to be sure, but there must be more of the stuff to start with.
Now, in D&D Gold has practical applications beyond decoration, which will certainly increase its value (since there is a greater demand), but the same applies on Earth. Whether it is used in circuit boards or magic spells, is hardly material.
That said, I do not believe that my family of farmers actually has 250gp sitting on the table at the end of each year. You recall I said that the family has around 50gp net profit left at the end of the year? I got this figure thusly: A first level commoner should have around 900gp worth of 'wealth.' John and Mary have four dependant children. If each child is to have 900gp of wealth, they must average in increase of 50gp for 18 years. This seems not unreasonable.
Right now June owns about 10gp worth of wealth to call her own. She has some clothing, maybe a string of wooden or glass beads, probably a pewter spoon and a knife. In a few years, she will marry and set up her own home. Her parents will gift to her as dowry some wealth, and they will help her and her husband (or wife, whatever floats her boat) build a house, and petition the Barron for a plot of land. Almost overnight, June's wealth will jump from 10gp to 900gp, or thereabouts. This 'wealth' has to come from somewhere. To make the celestial ledger even, for the last eighteen years, Mary and John have actually been running at a virtual -50gp. They have not missed it, because they never had it. For the next 18 years, June and her politically correct non-specific life partner will run at a virtual -50gp per offspring.
The wealth system in D&D is based on the idea that all things balance out, given long enough. For an adventurer in the City of the Spider Queen, it takes two months, for a farmer in the field, it takes two decades. For my part, I do realise that the wealth system is an abstraction and is hardly built with commoners in mind, but I agree with certain parties who suggest that it could stand an overhaul.
Admittedly, in the past the difference between the wealthy and the poor was truly vast. Back in the day a lunch which cost thrice the yearly income of a skilled craftsman (which is what I suppose I equate to) was far more common. However, I think the gap probably should be closed slightly in our game. Were I tasked with modifying the economy for a hypothetical future edition (and honestly, WotC could choose a worse candidate) I would certainly decrease the cost of high level items, and the wealth per levels table accordingly.
for the "common" people.I'm glad you have taken the time to work this out for us. It truly is important to know that normal people can survive in a fantasy game.
Since this is just an elaboration of Edymnion's article, I'll elaborate on a response I made there: You can put all of the accuracy you want into calculations determining that commoners could actually feed themselves in the D&D world, but this will not make the world feel more real because the monetary system is fundamentally flawed. Think about what you are saying in this article--an average family of farmers has a surplus of over 256 GOLD pieces per year. Based on the modern price of gold, which is a great deal lower in relative value than it would have been 500 years ago, this means that your average family has $153,600 to spend as they wish each year. These aren't commoners, they're oil barons!!
My point is, you're wasting your time doing these calculations because all they do is draw attention to the fact that this is a fantasy game with a fantasy economy. If you want to spend your time role-playing farmers, then you should make gold pieces as rare as +5 vorpal swords.
Just like within Edy's article, you fail to realize not only that real world currency has absolutely no bearing on the D&D economy, but also that a commoner most likely will never deal in any actual coin. Most likely, whatever profit he has made from his profession check is in trade goods, flour, potatoes, grain, beans, radishes, and whatnot.
I'm glad you have taken the time to work this out for us. It truly is important to know that normal people can survive in a fantasy game.
Since this is just an elaboration of Edymnion's article, I'll elaborate on a response I made there: You can put all of the accuracy you want into calculations determining that commoners could actually feed themselves in the D&D world, but this will not make the world feel more real because the monetary system is fundamentally flawed. Think about what you are saying in this article--an average family of farmers has a surplus of over 256 GOLD pieces per year. Based on the modern price of gold, which is a great deal lower in relative value than it would have been 500 years ago, this means that your average family has $153,600 to spend as they wish each year. These aren't commoners, they're oil barons!!
My point is, you're wasting your time doing these calculations because all they do is draw attention to the fact that this is a fantasy game with a fantasy economy. If you want to spend your time role-playing farmers, then you should make gold pieces as rare as +5 vorpal swords.
I had fun reading it. Therefore, the time is not wasted. Perhaps, if I'm the only person that appreciates it, and if the OP didn't like writing it, it wasn't the best use of his time, but I enjoyed reading it, and therefore the time wasn't wasted.
Also, your grasp of economics is weak at best. Sure, they have 153k, if you want to look at it that way. This is in a world where a bell- just a normal, little, bell, made of brass- costs 600 bucks, by your conversions. A backpack costs more then the computer you're sitting at does. An ounce of ink? Almost 5,000 dollars.
Clearly, gold is more common in DnD than in our world, and, clearly, your logic is flawed. If you found a gold ring on the floor in Waterdeep or Karrnath, you'd pick it up and quickly decide it was worth a round of drinks, at best. Gems are a good find. Magic things are a good find. Gold isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
By your standards, I believe you might consider your time wasted.
By your standards, I believe you might consider your time wasted.
Buuuuuurn! Anyway, I was going to respond in kind to that poster, but I think he gets the idea. I mean, he berates the OP for comparing real life to a fantasy game, and then uses real-life gold values to determine the worth of the commoners?
Funny fact: apparently there is more uranium in Earth's crust than gold. Good times.
As I said on the other thread, I always figured the commoners were more like level 3 and 4. Has there ever been any literature to support what the average commoner level might be? Would it be in the city demographics part of the DMG or what?
As I said on the other thread, I always figured the commoners were more like level 3 and 4. Has there ever been any literature to support what the average commoner level might be? Would it be in the city demographics part of the DMG or what?
I use the Eberron mindset. NPCs use the NPC classes, and are the lowest level possible.
Your average commoner should not be level 3-4, as they would likely be able to take down a lvl 1 Fighter in hand to hand combat. A commoner that has hoed fields his entire life should not be able to best a trained warrior in hand to hand combat as a routine matter.
*For settlements near rivers, lakes or seas use the columns for plains and hills.
The table above gives the minimum and maximum ages of human commoners and the corresponding class levels. These figures do not take into account Commoners of venerable age, since by that time they should -with rare exceptions- not be able to earn that much experience anymore, as to reach a new level.The numbers differ in environments, since it should be much harder to carve out a living in certain areas.
There are some rare 'high level' Commoners who are one or two levels above the given maximum levels, but most of the time a Commoner would have to multiclass, to reach such heights.
For my part, I am satisfied that the wealth system is consistent with the basic commoner's needs. I never claimed that a commoner would have hundreds of gold coins knocking about his shack. Quite the reverse; almost all of his wealth is tied up in fairly un-fungible things, such as his right to farm a given plot, his home and his crops.
As for Demographics, the DMG and the DMG II contain guidelines, though each campaign setting differs to some degree from these.
275 gold a year surplus doesn't sound too much, considering this family is actually quite rich by many standards, owning much land and with a specialized focus, though i feel they will have frittered at least half that on other goods. Such people are likely to be the sponsors of very low level adventures, a 100-400gp reward, making the gold that PCs receive much more feasible.
Of course, that means that even lesser nobles will be making several thousand gold a year profit, and greater nobles and burghers making hundreds of thousands, a match for many high level PCs. Still, I worry about the unskilled laborers that make 1sp a day (less than a decent meal). I think we should increase this average wage a bit (maybe assume an untrained check? that'll be 10.5-4 (yep) to get 6.5, half that, making 3.25/week). This'll allow laborers to actually get drunk (rather than just eating once a day, 3/day if they make it themselves).
Ignoring environmental concerns entirely, such as urban/rural, the economics become much more understandable.
I was confused about the fact that D&D is a fantasy game. I'm glad I have such brilliant friends to inform me that D&D is not, in fact, real life. Wow! What a difference this makes in the way I perceive reality. Actually, I started to notice a crack in my worldview when I asked for 256gp for my yearly salary at work. My boss gave me a funny look. I certainly won't make that mistake again!
Seriously though, I think everyone missed the point of my post--that is the only explanation for why you all defend the current system so vehemently. The whole effort of the OP was to show that the D&D system is SIMILAR TO REAL LIFE because commoners doing the exact same things that they did in real life would live the exact same way they did in real life. My point is simply that, in your search for realism you are missing the most FANTASY aspect of the economy: the value of gold.
If you want the economy to feel realistic, the value of gold should be a little closer to real life. I know that this is extremely controversial and I'll probably get BUUUUURNED for suggesting it.
Just to clear things up, I was not suggesting that this family would have 256gp sitting on their table at the end of the year any more than I will have $30,000 sitting in my bank account at the end of the year. They receive much of their pay in food and other essentials, whereas I am forced to trade currency for those things. The value is the same regardless.
If you want the economy to feel realistic, the value of gold should be a little closer to real life.
Why? That doesn't make any sense at all. Gold is simply used as a form of currency. Would it make you feel better if we called it something else in D&D, so as not to confuse you?
See, everybody is satisfied now.
Just my two stips :D
The whole effort of the OP was to show that the D&D system is SIMILAR TO REAL LIFE
False. Azezel's was engaging in a mathematical and theoretical exercise inspired by Edy's work. Edy the Unpronounceable, meanwhile:
If you have been on these boards long enough, you have seen (if not made) posts that decry the D&D economy as being "broken" because the poor, poor commoners could never afford anything because they only make 1 silver a day, and everything is just so terribly expensive, etc etc etc, right? The only problem is that it just isn't true. The commoners make more than enough money to get by on, and even make enough money to save it for expensive purchases. The following article will focus on the misconceptions of how the rules work, and will show an example of a "standard" commoner family, how much money said family makes in a week, and how much money they use in a week.
Her/his post is also flavored as a theoretical exercise, like Azezel's, but "the whole effort", if you want to try to boil it down to a single thing, is aimed at people who think that the commoners of the world are living on 1 sp/day. While "realistic" is mentioned in the conclusion of the article, that is only because it is a term often bandied about by people who want to overhaul the economic system. The thesis sentence of the article (I assume it to be the usual last sentence of paragraph 1) only states that the article will focus on misconceptions regarding the rules, not on proving that the rules are realistic.
Your posts have consistently puzzled and annoyed people because you are missing the point of the article(s), interjecting your own barely-related pet peeve regarding the value of gold in a fantasy setting, and now beginning to do both in a "vehement" manner.
Show
If you feel that your issue is more important than Edy's, I suggest you submit your own article to Regdar's. However, it has no bearing on whether or not commoners can support themselves according to RAW, nor on whether or not they toil the earth for only 1 sp/day.
Note the single, passing, and probably semi-sarcastic use of "realistic" in Edy's post, and compare it to your repeated references to realism, real life, and present-day economy. You may find Sims 11: Sitting Around for Salary more to your liking than D&D.
Your analysis is good, but doesn't cover the issue that really makes the D&D economy feel wrong: the price of gold. Today, gold is trading for over $600 an ounce (the amount of gold in a standard D&D coin). Applying your model to today's reality, this family would be taking in over $6000 a week for an annual income of $312,000!!!! That is definitely not commoner pay, as the average American family makes more like $60,000 in a year (This number is an educated guess so don't flame me if I'm off). Considering the fact that gold was much rarer in the medieval period, it stands to reason that it would have been much more valuable. I just can't see a farmer making over a gold piece a day. Historically, said farmer would have been very lucky if he EVER owned a single gold piece in his life. Basically, making gold and silver much more valuable would make the D&D economy seem more realistic.
If you feel that your issue is more important than Edy's, I suggest you submit your own article to Regdar's. However, it has no bearing on whether or not commoners can support themselves according to RAW, nor on whether or not they toil the earth for only 1 sp/day.
It warms my heart to see all of your responses to my post. I certainly feel “Buuuuuurrned” as Optimator so eloquently put it.
I was confused about the fact that D&D is a fantasy game. I'm glad I have such brilliant friends to inform me that D&D is not, in fact, real life. Wow! What a difference this makes in the way I perceive reality. Actually, I started to notice a crack in my worldview when I asked for 256gp for my yearly salary at work. My boss gave me a funny look. I certainly won't make that mistake again!
Seriously though, I think everyone missed the point of my post--that is the only explanation for why you all defend the current system so vehemently. The whole effort of the OP was to show that the D&D system is SIMILAR TO REAL LIFE because commoners doing the exact same things that they did in real life would live the exact same way they did in real life. My point is simply that, in your search for realism you are missing the most FANTASY aspect of the economy: the value of gold.
If you want the economy to feel realistic, the value of gold should be a little closer to real life. I know that this is extremely controversial and I'll probably get BUUUUURNED for suggesting it.
Just to clear things up, I was not suggesting that this family would have 256gp sitting on their table at the end of the year any more than I will have $30,000 sitting in my bank account at the end of the year. They receive much of their pay in food and other essentials, whereas I am forced to trade currency for those things. The value is the same regardless.
Note the single, passing, and probably semi-sarcastic use of "realistic" in Edy's post, and compare it to your repeated references to realism, real life, and present-day economy. You may find Sims 11: Sitting Around for Salary more to your liking than D&D.
The D&D economic system has faults, but on the whole it is remarkably rebust and self consistant.
From these calculations, it looks like Barron Nice gets 312gp per year in taxes. Not bad, especially when you take into account that he also got John, Adam, and June, as soldiers for three months. If he had done a better job of diplomacy with those hobgoblins, he might have gotten an extra 73gp out of them!
With, say, 20 peasant families to lord over, he can afford:
A new Heavy Warhorse for after Chieftain Snaggletooth killed Old Bessy out from under Barron Nice in the hobgoblin invasion.
A new suit of Full Plate after Duke Mean illegally brought kippers to the tournament and stole Barron Nice's.
Two new sets or robes and cloaks for presiding over his court (noble's outfit)
And enough meals to feed himself, his wife Eleanor, his son Richard, and his daughter Sarah, three good meals a day.
Plus, he's got about 2000gp left over to throw parties, expand on his castle, ransom himself or his son back, or just save for a rainy (besieged) day.
And I will respond the same way as the other thread, which nobody seems to pay attention to when I say it there:
1) COMMONERS DO NOT HAVE 265 GOLD PIECES PER YEAR!
They have the equivalent to that much in trade goods. They are still going to be lucky to have a few spare coppers to spend, and can never see a gold coin for most of their lives, and still have enough goods to barter with in the system. They might have 5 gp total in coin in silver and coppers all year long, and all the rest of that net gain is tied up in bags of wheat, barrels of cloves, sacks of dried carrots, etc.
2) REAL WORLD GOLD PRICES ARE MEANINGLESS!
It does not matter how much gold is worth in the real world. Let me say that again, it does not matter if gold in the real world is worth 5 cents a ton, or a million dollars an ounce. D&D has it's own value for a "gold piece", which does not necessarily even have to be made of pure gold anymore than the real world nickel is actually made of nickel. Again, the real world value of gold is not important. Look at what a gold piece buys in the setting, and compare it to the equivalent goods in the real world. I'll probably have to do an article here on Regdar's for this, but the closest equivalent in prices is that 1 sp = $1 US. So no, this family isn't making the equivalent of $150k in spending money a year, they're making the equivalent of $2,560 in spending money a year. That means they have, on average, about $50 a week that they can spend on things other than food and rent. I know suburban kids that get more than that in allowance every week, and these commoners are doing everything they can for it just to get by.
Honestly, I can't say this enough. The real world price of gold has nothing to do with the value of gold in D&D. Any attempt to claim that the D&D economy is broken based on this is meaningless. They could just as easily have said that D&D characters use Florlax Pieces as money, because the name is not important.
Well met!
[anectdote]
Recently, while trying to explain the D&D economy* to a new player, I used your same evaluation of a Silver Piece equaling $1.00. Another player spoke up to state that, according to the gold content of a Gold Piece, that gold pieces are worth approximately $146.00. I repeated that Gold pieces are only equal to $10.00, and proceeded to give him that same lecture you just gave to Ruslanchik: Gold is either more common or less valued in the D&D game, and thus it is just a term for money, and could in fact be dried dung, were it a good measuring stick for money. He still thinks his character should be a whole lot wealthier, however.
[/anectdote]
*The D&D economy is rather broken, however, in its exchange rates and values. Maybe it is just the way it is stated in the books. Anyways, expect to see an article (submitted by yours truly) within the next few days on it, containing a variant economic and monetary system.
To avoid dying of starvation and thirst, he needs to consume 1 lb of food and a gallon of liquid a day.
A jug that he can fill with a gallon of water from any pump/well/stream/river will cost him 3cp initial outlay and no more (if he keeps the jug).
For 4cp, he can buy 2 loaves of bread weighing a total of 1lb, which will keep him alive to work tomorrow.
This leaves him with 6cp/day to spend elsewhere.
With this he could buy:
- a mug of ale every day (4cp) or
- 1/4 pound of cheese (5cp) or
- a chicken and the firewood to cook it over (3cp) or
- a hot meal at the inn every other day (5cp)
and still be able to save 1-3cp/day towards anything else he wants.
Since this is just an elaboration of Edymnion's article, I'll elaborate on a response I made there: You can put all of the accuracy you want into calculations determining that commoners could actually feed themselves in the D&D world, but this will not make the world feel more real because the monetary system is fundamentally flawed.
I have read a lot of critics about D&D economy (well the AD&D economy was also heavily criticized in it's time). I also believe that the model is slightly flawed and while playing D&D it doesn't have the minimal needed realism to it. But what I would really like to see is that someone would offer an alternative - working model based on medieval economic examples, taking into account the magic (both spells and items) and how it changes the world.
The working mechanic describing usual pay rates for common jobs and general earnings from farms and workshops, cost of weapons, armors, animals and real estate, and would base the treasure tables on these would be much appreciated.
Best Regards,
Mandras
Many of these things that we spend money on are largely valueless after we have used them enough, and must be replaced—candles, newspapers, balloons, old shoes, children's clothing, to name a few examples.
There are plenty of places besides the essentials and taxes for us to spend our money; we can only expect the same for commoners, and since many of these things will not retain their value, they will not equate to wealth.
I also am hesitant to apply wealth guidelines to commoners. That would imply that a 2nd-level commoner has approximately the same wealth as a 2nd-level aristocrat. I don't think this represents a breakdown in the economy of D&D so much as it does a breakdown (maybe just a hiccup, really) in the class system.
I am looking into getting a solidly based system for yearly income for minor nobles.
From these calculations, it looks like Barron Nice gets 312gp per year in taxes. Not bad, especially when you take into account that he also got John, Adam, and June, as soldiers for three months. If he had done a better job of diplomacy with those hobgoblins, he might have gotten an extra 73gp out of them!
With, say, 20 peasant families to lord over, he can afford:
A new Heavy Warhorse for after Chieftain Snaggletooth killed Old Bessy out from under Barron Nice in the hobgoblin invasion.
A new suit of Full Plate after Duke Mean illegally brought kippers to the tournament and stole Barron Nice's.
Two new sets or robes and cloaks for presiding over his court (noble's outfit)
And enough meals to feed himself, his wife Eleanor, his son Richard, and his daughter Sarah, three good meals a day.
Plus, he's got about 2000gp left over to throw parties, expand on his castle, ransom himself or his son back, or just save for a rainy (besieged) day.
While I can agree that the Baron stands to make a tidy profit, I think that your math on how much he makes leaves quite a few things out of consideration. While I realize Azezel did say that
Barron Nice demands 30% of their Gross income yearly, just after harvest time, as well as the occasional service in his campaigns. In return, Baron Nice keeps the peace, protects his tenants, and once a year, his old Adventuring friend , the Druid Gotafax casts Plant Growth spells over Barron Nice's lands.
I have to make the point that the Baron is responsible for far more than just that, but I will try to keep this from looking like the budgets of my home town (which even my parents (both CPAs) can't make heads or tails of). Even in a fantasy world such as D&D, there exists infrastructure in the various kingdoms which needs to be maintained. Two situations are likely to in this case: First, Barron Nice may be responsible to a higher ruler than himself (the king, or whoever), and Second, that the Barron has to maintain some sort of infrastructure within his own area of control. Both or either of these things will require the Barron to expend quite a bit of the cash you are attributing to him.
Assuming your calculations of 312 gp a year per family to the Baron, and 20 families in his domain, we have the Baron being in receipt of 6,240 gp a year in tax revenue.
In most fuedal arrangements, the Baron would be responsible for maintaing a small force of his own guards who keep the peace in his area of responsibility. If we assume that he has 10 people on this force (figure he is responsible for at least 120 people, and that he would want to keep half of the guards at his manor as personal protection at any one time). These guards, even if payed at only Trained Hireling rates (3 sp/day), will run him at least (3 sp/day x 365 days/year x 10 guards) 1,095 gp a year. If we further assume that in the kingdom the Baron lives in these must be mounted soldiers (usually the requirements were X number of mounted soldiers and Y numbers of foot soldiers had to be maintained. The Baron cheats and just conscripts peasents whenever he is called on for foot though), then the Baron also has to pay to keep their horses fed (11 horses X 5 cp/day/horse x 365 days/year), another 200 gp, 7 sp, and 5 cp a year, and stabled (5sp/day/horse x 11 horses x 365 days/year), another 2,007 gp (and 5 sp). The 11th horse, for those wondering, is the Baron's own mount.
Those numbers assume the Baron has no one else in his household that he needs to take care of.
Also, we will assume there are two major trade roads coming into the Baron's town. He must keep these roads in decent repair during the trading seasons (I'll assume the trading season is about 2 months long if all lumped together, although different crops and goods have different times of the year they would be traded at). We'll say that repairing these roads costs him roughly 160 man hours of work a year. That means that 10 people all working could fix the roads in two eight hour workdays. Not counting supplies to do it (we'll say the roads are packed dirt and just need labor), the Baron still has to pay back the people who work for him. That's going to run him only 2 gp total (10 sp a day). These numbers seem low to me, but we aren't talking the center of a kingdom here, either. Remember this implies the town a) has no walls, b) has no community buildings the Baron supports, and c) has no community water source.
And last but not least, let's remember the Plant Growth spell that he gets cast each year. Plant growth has an effect of 1/2 mile radius. We'll assume the baron is responsible for more than that small of an area... we'll say Gotafax has to cast the spell three times to cover all the Baron's lands. Since Gotafax has to be at least 5th level to cast the spell, it's going to cost the Baron 450 gp a year for Gotafax to do this (150 gp/casting).
So, the Baron's yearly projected expenses are going to look something like this (placed in quotes to stick out):
Projected Income +6,240.00 gp
Expenses
Paying Guards -1,095.00 gp
Maintaining Army (horses) -2,208.25 gp
Maintaining Infrastructure - 2.00 gp
Plant growth - 450.00 gp
Expenses Subtotal -3,755.25 gp
Remaining Money +2484.75 gp
All this is assuming that he doesn't have to pay taxes of his own to some higher up, and that nothing unforeseen happens. Unforeseen events or taxes the Baron has to pay would cause this number to skyrocket drastically.
For example, if we look at the year of this small war, we will see that the Baron recruited approximately 60 people to join his army/militia for a period of three months. If we assume the Baron arms his soldiers in standard conscription method, we can expect them all to have spears and leather armor, running the Baron a bill of (60 people x 12 gp/person) ~720 gp. Further, he must feed his army for those three months without over-foraging (for fear of damaging either a) the grove or b) his own countryside). We will assume that he is able to forge somewhat, and say that while each person receives three meals of common quality a day, it only costs the Baron the equivalent of 3 meals of poor quality. This ends up costing (90 days x 60 people x 3 meals/dayperson x 1 sp/meal) a not all that small (16200sp/10) 1,620gp. So, the Baron has just spent in this very small war, 2,340gp. These numbers are simply round figures for the two most pressing concerns when conscripting an army: arming and feeding it. They don't take into account the idea of supply trains, or the thought that the Baron probably pays something to the widows/remaining family of the approximately 1/3 of the farmers who died in battle for him. Thus, in this year, the Baron is going to have a very hard time making ends meet. The ~150 gp he has left doesn't even begin to consider the cost of feeding himself (and any family he might have).
Now, the Baron probably has at least some money put aside for a rainy day. After all, he was making about 2,500 gp a year, and knowing how much of an effect even a short (three month long) war could have on things, it would be logical for the Baron to keep a good bit of money aside, in case he had need of it (for instance, what if that war had taken 4 months? or 6?). So, while I these numbers point to the Baron (and other minor nobles) living fairly frugal lives (which makes sense, if you're only lord over 120 people), it wouldn't be surprising if they always kept a reserve treasury of at least 5,000 gp on hand, incase something happened to go horribly wrong.
Of course, the cost of conscripting that peasent army, now that I've done the math out, explains something I had always simply accepted and never thought about, which is why a minor noble would be far more interested in hiring a group of adventurer's to deal with infestations of problematic beings (ie goblins and orcs), instead of simply getting an army together and going out to crush said infestations themselves.
Your average commoner should not be level 3-4, as they would likely be able to take down a lvl 1 Fighter in hand to hand combat. A commoner that has hoed fields his entire life should not be able to best a trained warrior in hand to hand combat as a routine matter.
Well if the average peasant is level 3-4, wouldn't the fighter be the same?
I subscribe to the 'average peasant is about level 3' school of thought myself. When I DM games, the starting level is usually 2, because my players tend to set their characters' ages to the minimum.
IMC, the only level 1 commoners are children and apprentices, and maybe the town drunk who never made anything of himself.
So your family will make (assuming a season is 1/2 year)
14gp 6sp 6cp per week during season = 7gp 3sp 3cp per week during year
Add Mary and Maria's 6gp 3sp and 3cp per week
Add John Adam and June as non skilled workers at 1 gp 4 sp per week
So this comes to 15gp 6cp per week
Take 1/3 as taxes (seem a little low, as an alternative to higher taxes, during non growing seasons the farmers could be called away to fight or do hard work but I'll just assume 1/3 is good)
That leaves 10gp 4cp per week
You say food costs 8gp 4sp per week
So this leaves 1gp 6sp 4cp per week
This is a surplus of 85gp 2sp 8cp per year assuming no disasters or problems. A cold year, a drought, a blight, or similar problem would be devastating.
I'm glad you have taken the time to work this out for us. It truly is important to know that normal people can survive in a fantasy game.
Since this is just an elaboration of Edymnion's article, I'll elaborate on a response I made there: You can put all of the accuracy you want into calculations determining that commoners could actually feed themselves in the D&D world, but this will not make the world feel more real because the monetary system is fundamentally flawed. Think about what you are saying in this article--an average family of farmers has a surplus of over 256 GOLD pieces per year. Based on the modern price of gold, which is a great deal lower in relative value than it would have been 500 years ago, this means that your average family has $153,600 to spend as they wish each year. These aren't commoners, they're oil barons!!
My point is, you're wasting your time doing these calculations because all they do is draw attention to the fact that this is a fantasy game with a fantasy economy. If you want to spend your time role-playing farmers, then you should make gold pieces as rare as +5 vorpal swords.
So according to your calculations, a low quality sword costs over $830 . A high quality sword costs over $17,430. This is for standard steel weapons. A high quality staff would cost $16,600. Its not that they are making obscene amounts of money, its that gold isn't worth anything.
I'm glad you have taken the time to work this out for us. It truly is important to know that normal people can survive in a fantasy game.
Since this is just an elaboration of Edymnion's article, I'll elaborate on a response I made there: You can put all of the accuracy you want into calculations determining that commoners could actually feed themselves in the D&D world, but this will not make the world feel more real because the monetary system is fundamentally flawed. Think about what you are saying in this article--an average family of farmers has a surplus of over 256 GOLD pieces per year. Based on the modern price of gold, which is a great deal lower in relative value than it would have been 500 years ago, this means that your average family has $153,600 to spend as they wish each year. These aren't commoners, they're oil barons!!
My point is, you're wasting your time doing these calculations because all they do is draw attention to the fact that this is a fantasy game with a fantasy economy. If you want to spend your time role-playing farmers, then you should make gold pieces as rare as +5 vorpal swords.
Never in history has there been as little gold per capita as there is in modern times, and never has it been as valuable as it is in modern times.
If you want to convert the "gold piece" you should simply call it a "dollar".
1 GP/Dollar = 10 SP/Dimes = 100 CP/pennies
So from that perspective, sure, the commoners are making 256 GP a year.
So what?
Maybe they could save up for 10 years and buy a +1 sword. Wow game-breaking stuff there.
In a world where wizards can summon Efreet who wish for a million GP, I doubt very much whether John and Mary Commoner have a couple hundred GP squirreled away that it will change anything.
Plus I think we know John and Mary are going to die in the first wave of the goblin/orc/hobgoblin/undead invasion.
(Not only that the pound is just a piece of paper, you can't get a pound of sterling silver for it. (And that is what it is named for after all.))
By the way, my own worth calculations came to 15$ per gold piece.
But that value has the problem, that some prices in DnD seem to be quite randomly picked.
I felt the irresistible need to point out, as others have, that there is no point in doing a real world cash comparison to D&D gold.
I agree that there's no sense in trying to compare modern gold values to historical values for gold. On the other hand, it also seems unrealistic to me to assume that commoners (aka "the peasants") are able to save as much as Edymnion suggests. His calculations are not wrong in a mechnical sense, but they do seem to make every commoner comfortably "middle class."
The Profession skill mechanics simply were not invented to mirror reality for the average commoner, because the game itself is not focussed on the lives of commoners.
It seems to me that the weakness of the D&D "economy" shows its ugly head again in these calculations. If every peasant family could expect an annual budget surplus as high as 200+ gold, then what "should" likely happen is that price levels should increase—i.e. you'd get inflationary pressures. (You'd might get greedy nobles who realize the sizable increases in taxes such surpluses could support, assuming these commoners where allowed to on property (and money) in the first place.)
There being no supply or demand in D&D, just "prices," there's no inflation, but that's unrealistic.
It seems to me that DMs are free to do what they want with peasant wealth. One might have "unrealistically" wealthy peasants and serfs, and that's fine. One might also ignore the Profession rules and base commoner wealth on a pessimistic model of 1 sp per day, which largely has them living hand to mouth. One might also rely on a more historically accurate model and have most peasant families living hand to mouth, but with a significant variance. The variance in the positive direction suggests a happy and wealthy peasant family. A negative variance suggests a family forced to abandon children to starvation in the woods or on city streets. Abandoning children was a very common occurrence in the middle ages (especially the late middle ages), so much so that leaving children to starve or to the mercy of the elements wasn't considered a crime. I recommend John Boswell's Kindness of Strangers on this point. The treatment of the starving Hansel and Gretel by their mother and father wasn't far off the mark, save that there were no houses made of bread waiting for them in those woods.
For those seeking "realism," the life of the common man should be generally harsh. For those who simply want to play the game, pretty much anything goes. While I agree that the Profession rules suggest a oddly rich-looking peasantry, I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea that that the wildly unrealistic view of medieval life is somehow "RAW" while the grittier, realistic view is a houserule to be maligned.
That's going to run him only 2 gp total (10 sp a day).
Um, Yusari, That is actually incorrect. While the rules may talk about hired labour, that work wouldn't be done by labourers, it would be done by the serfs of said Baron. It was generally the case that all major roads within 10 miles of a given territory were to be looked after by the Lord of the territory, and he would accomplish this by the corvee, forced labour that the serfs had to go through for a certain number of days a year.
In RL, this ranged from 5 days a year in the territory arround Carthage in the 300s ce, to 3 days a week in the European Middle Ages. This work was generally crap work, like a day guarding the Lord's manor(so he wouldn't pay soldiers, they, the foot ones I mean, would just be his serfs, and it was fairly uncommon for a lord to not use his serfs in such a way... And most /were/ serfs), a day working the Lord's fields, and so on.
It was only toward the end of feudalism that such bonds of labour were being broken, and then only so that the Lord could get $$$ off the serfs, as his costs of living were risin and he didn't improve the land...
(You'd might get greedy nobles who realize the sizable increases in taxes such surpluses could support, assuming these commoners where allowed to on property (and money) in the first place.)
As long as this inflation was one off, I agree with you, but as with all inflation, it wouldn't change the amount of wealth, but rather how much coin it takes to represent it.
I use the Eberron mindset. NPCs use the NPC classes, and are the lowest level possible.
Your average commoner should not be level 3-4, as they would likely be able to take down a lvl 1 Fighter in hand to hand combat. A commoner that has hoed fields his entire life should not be able to best a trained warrior in hand to hand combat as a routine matter.
I gotta say, I disagree with that. I don't see any problems with higher level Commoners. What's the point of creating NPC classes which can level if there aren't higher level NPC's? For that they may as well bring back the 0-Level characters.
As for a 4th-level Commoner beating a 1st-Level Fighter, not likely. Yeah, a 4th-Level Commoner has a +2 BAB while a 1st-Level Fighter has a +1 BAB bonus, but the Commoner's stats are garbage in comparison. 15 point buy in comparison to 25, 28, or 32 point buy. So to compare...
4th-Level Commoner (Including the 4th-Level stat increase)
STR 11, DEX, 11, CON, 12, INT, 10, WIS 10, CHA 10
1st-Level Fighter
STR 15, DEX 13, CON 14, INT 10, WIS 12, CHA 8
So the Commoner gets +2 to hit while the Fighter gets +3 to hit.
When it comes to Hit Points, the Commoner will have about 15, while the Fighter will have 12. Three more, sure, but how about AC? The Commoner likely won't have armor. Padded or Hide Armor at the most. The Fighter, on the other hand, will have at least Scale Mail. Maybe even Chain Mail to start with, along with a Heavy Shield. So the Commoner will have AC 11 or 13 while the Fighter has AC 17 or 18.
And when it comes to weapons, well, what will the Commoner have? He likely won't have any. And if he has something, it'll be a Sickle or Club. The Fighter, on the other hand, will have a Longsword, Battleaxe, Warhammer, or similar. So the Commoner will either be doing 1d3 damage unarmed strikes which incur Attacks of Opportunity, or 1d6 damage attacks with his club or sickle. The Fighter, on the other hand, will be doing 1d8+2 damage. The Commoner will Crit on a 20 for x2 damage while the Fighter will Crit on a 19-20 for x2 damage, or on a 20 for x3 damage.
And then there're Feats. What kind of Feats will the Commoner have? Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus? Hardly. Most likely the Commoner will have Feats like Skill Focus (Profession) and the like. The Fighter, however, will likely have Weapon Focus, or Power Attack. Maybe Exotic Weapon Proficiency to be able to take a more damaging weapon.
Add it all up, and a 1st-Level Fighter can easily annihilate a 4th-Level Commoner, and maybe even one or two of his buddies at the same time, too. Give him 28 Point Buy stats, or 32, and he can deal with even higher level Commoners. Point is, a 4th-Level Commoner CANNOT beat 1st-Level Fighters "as a routine matter". They don't even have a 50/50 chance of winning. Barring one-sided die rolls in favor of the Commoner, the Commoner is dead meat. The only routine part about that match-up is the Fighter routinely beating up on Commoners three levels higher than him. God help that poor sap of a Commoner when that Fighter hits 2nd level!
The commoners still make about a SP a day (if they are relatively skilled and/or hardworking). But the PCs are no longer as wealthy as kings, just because they have two or three good magic items.
Its not a perfect solution, but it keeps the tone of the campaign a little grittier. I have tried to find ideas for phasing out the 'magic item economy' in favor of having only one or two magic items that level as the PC does, but thats another story.
But they don't.
There are orcs, kobolds and goblins raids.
There are evil druids and clerics who spread plagues and sickness.
There are greedy lords who will demand an heavy protection tax of around 80% of all incoming.
There is the ocasional dragon who burns an kills everything on sight.
How do you think the BBEG pays for his minion and equipment? He either pillages and plunders some place or takes over the country and forces them to work for him.
A commoner being able to work all year whitout disruption and nobody trying to take the gold from him, that yes, is unrealistic.
I believe that the main gist of both of these threads is this: commoners are valuable people. They should be treated as such.
I agree with you! Now I have a reason to destroy the countryside and even have an average figure of how much I will get from it!
Can you guys write an article about specialists?I would really like to know how much money the fat trademaster is sitting on before killing him.;)
Pretty much the first thing I do when I start a new campaign is introduce my players to 'The Silver Standard'. Its something that was put forth in an article in Dragon Magazine about 15 or 20 years ago (I'm old as dirt). The short version is that all prices for mundane goods are adjusted to about half the listed price. All magical prices are adjusted to about 1/5 the listed price. And all monetary rewards are scaled down by a factor of ten.
The commoners still make about a SP a day (if they are relatively skilled and/or hardworking). But the PCs are no longer as wealthy as kings, just because they have two or three good magic items.
Could You perhaps say the number of this Dragon Magazine?
Best Regards,
Mandras
I believe that the main gist of both of these threads is this: commoners are valuable people. They should be treated as such.
Or, the gist of these threads could be that the DnD world is completely unlike any pre-Modern RW economy. It is reasonably consistent internally, but nowhere in history before the Industrial Revolution will you find a peasantry as wealthy as these calculations indicate. The DnD economy is probably most comparable to late 19th century America, just before agriculture began to be mechanized, but after the wealth-building effects of mechanization had penetrated most other industries. I suppose that magic takes the place of mechanization as the wealth-building engine of the DnD economy.
There is nothing wrong with that - it's a more pleasant place to adventure than a world in which the adventurers are tripping over the carcasses of famine-starved peasants every day.
Whatever your farmer raises, there's going to be some way of preserving it for long term storage and value. Honey becomes mead. Grapes become wine. Grain becomes beer and ale. Congratulations, you've defeated the evil monks, here's their treasure: giant casks of sherry. It's valuable, but unless you've got Daern's Instant Winecellar, good luck taking it with you.
The cash a farm family will have will amount to a few handfuls of copper, literal "pin money" to buy small specialty trade goods, such as needles, from wandering peddlers who come by occasionally and are obviously unwilling and unable to take payment in the form of a cask of wine or a huge smoked ham.
In the D&D world, the high ticket items are magic items and those are bought and traded for other magic items and the various trade goods which mages need to create more magic items. It's not as if all the wealth exists in the form of cash.
In the game I'm running, the characters just got to Cathay and accidentally reappeared from the Underwold in the middle of the dragonboat races which they won. The official prize? A nice magic ring which doubles as the Imperial Favor and lunch with one of the Emperor's many princelings. The real prize? Succeeding is enough Listen checks and Diplomacy rolls to realize that not only was their win unorthodox, but it also qualified as the extreme outside longshot bet that the assorted bookies had been using for centuries to fleece the peasants out of their carefully hoarded coppers and the spoiled children of rich merchants out of their pocketchange. And then the pawnbrokers were going frantic because thousands of peasants and frivolous children were showing up with markers, payable in cash, and no, the peasants were not going to take magic items like some of the merchant's kids. In short, a run on the bank. And this made it so that the usual "Merchant pays you 50% of the GP value of a magic item you want to sell" formula got turned on its head.
After a little brokering with the bard while the artificer turns the gold and electrum bars from the last adventure's haul into coinage via a Fabricate, the party gives the pawnbrokers all their cash in exchange for triple its value in random magic items, with the DM cherry-picking to remove most of the truly useful things, because this was mostly the high ticket grot in the back of the pawnbrokers' shops which hadn't moved, mixed with a few useful and valuable items, like a Warlock's Scepter, which no one in the party could use, it having no Warlocks.
Perhaps a bit Monty Haul, but now the party is having to deal with all the assassins hired by the losers of the dragonboat race and the curse of the pawnbrokers (and while none of the items is cursed per se, they were in the back of a pawn shop, and wait until they have to deal with the dissolute warlock who pawned his family heirloom to pay off his gambling debts, and no, he didn't win the bet this time either).
And when it comes to weapons, well, what will the Commoner have? He likely won't have any. And if he has something, it'll be a Sickle or Club. The Fighter, on the other hand, will have a Longsword, Battleaxe, Warhammer, or similar. So the Commoner will either be doing 1d3 damage unarmed strikes which incur Attacks of Opportunity, or 1d6 damage attacks with his club or sickle. The Fighter, on the other hand, will be doing 1d8+2 damage. The Commoner will Crit on a 20 for x2 damage while the Fighter will Crit on a 19-20 for x2 damage, or on a 20 for x3 damage.
Do you realice a level 4 commoner has 3300 gold in gear? He can have a full plate+1 and a masterwork greatsword.
Strangely, Bob Commoner has the same gold in gear that his lord, the Baron Richard Noble, 4th level aristocrat, and that the village champion, Sir Joe Good, 4th level paladin.
In D&D level determines how much wealth NPCs have, not class, not social station, no race.
Which makes absolutely no sense at all, and makes me unable to take D&D economy too seriously. :D
Pretty much the first thing I do when I start a new campaign is introduce my players to 'The Silver Standard'. Its something that was put forth in an article in Dragon Magazine about 15 or 20 years ago (I'm old as dirt). The short version is that all prices for mundane goods are adjusted to about half the listed price. All magical prices are adjusted to about 1/5 the listed price. And all monetary rewards are scaled down by a factor of ten.
The commoners still make about a SP a day (if they are relatively skilled and/or hardworking). But the PCs are no longer as wealthy as kings, just because they have two or three good magic items.
Its not a perfect solution, but it keeps the tone of the campaign a little grittier. I have tried to find ideas for phasing out the 'magic item economy' in favor of having only one or two magic items that level as the PC does, but thats another story.
Is there an online article like this?
Of course, the cost of conscripting that peasent army, now that I've done the math out, explains something I had always simply accepted and never thought about, which is why a minor noble would be far more interested in hiring a group of adventurer's to deal with infestations of problematic beings (ie goblins and orcs), instead of simply getting an army together and going out to crush said infestations themselves.
Plus, say take out only 3/4 of the creatures before they finally die and you have to take out the rest yourself;
1) they're dead and dont need to be paid
2) you only need a fraction of the people to destroy the infestation
3) you get to keep their masterwork, maybe even magical gear and sell it actually making a profit off of the war
First, Knowledge skill for commoners ? That's cross-class. Hence, at level 2 the maximum rank is 2 1/2. Not enough for a synergy. That's 1gp less every week - 50gp a year. I take the druidic help and lordly taxes to cancel each other for simplicity's sake.
Then, Skill Focus. Off course, those peasants don't do anything else than farming crops - or do they ? Are they really specialists of some kind ? Do every would-be farmer have Skill Focus (farmer) feat ? IMO it's a really very specialized family than that one, where every single member has taken the Skill Focus feat. For ordinary commoners, I'm allways more ready to award Toughness rather than any other feat : a life of hardship makes one harder to kill with a spoon. Dang, that's 2gp less per week (husband & wife, I cancel the "help" on Aid Another checks - the effect is too low), or another 100gp less every year.
For example, should John need to repair the roof of his house, he has to reach it. Without any ability modifier nor skill ranks, even a DC 10 check is challenging : there's a one-in-two failure risk - a one-in-five failure by more than 5 risk, which counts for a serious failure. A fall from even 10ft would make 1d6 damage - John only has 4+1d4 hp, or between 5 and 8. Without toughness, he's at a risk of dropping to negatives. Should his wife not arrive in a minute, he'll be dead.
Right now, we're at a mere 100gp surplus every year.
However, there're other expenses to face, of which Azezel only hints at without putting numbers.
First, the upkeep of the house is taking 10gp a year (1% of the value eacy year, as in Stronghold Builder). Add 5 gp for the fields, for 15 gp total.
That's if it's 1% per year and not 1% per month - in the latter case, it's 120 gp per year for the house alone, which is more than the whole surplus.
Then, clothings have to be purchased, for only D&D considers objects to be impervious to normal use degradation : not to bore the players with it is good, but when you need to ponder on the economy of the world you have to take that into view.
Due to Mary's specialization in midwifeship and healing, this leaves her only four skill points assuming she's human, and Azezel hasn't specified that she's taken Craft (weaving) so I assumed she hasn't. Thus, every damaged cloth has to be bought.
Clothing, indeed, but not only. The same goes for every damaged tool that needs replacement. The Profession (farmer) skill may help fix some damages, but it won't keep tools in working order forever, and replacements will be needed. A hammer ? 5 sp. Spade and sledge ? 3 gp for both. Hempen rope ? 1 gp. Bucket ? 5 sp. I'm not even counting how much costs a plough (I don't think it's written anywhere). It'd quickly add up, although those won't all need yearly replacements. Say it takes 3 gp and 5 sp for an average.
Speaking about the plough, doesn't he need a horse to pull it ? Dang, a heavy horse costs 200 gp - and has to be replaced every twenty years at most, probably earlier. This divides in a yearly 10 gp at least - not counting feed : a 365*5 cp = an additional 18gp 2sp 5cp. However, an ox could be used in its stead, as it costs only 15 gp, but I'd say you need two of them in most cases. So, 30 gp, or 1.5 gp per year. At least.
So, tools & clothing replacements and oxens cost 5 gp a year. Plus 15 gp for the upkeep of house and fields, for a total of 20 gp.
Finally, about the overnight increase in wealth due to marriage and settlement : it doesn't happen. Yes, the community as a whole helps build the house - 1.000gp of free labor. Yes, the land lord may have a plot of land free of laborer, and awards the new couple the grant - 500gp of value. That's 1500 gp. The couple of two first level commoners has a wealth of 1800gp according to the rules : that leaves 150 gp from each unaccounted for. Where do they come ? From savings of their families. Remember too that D&D assumes you start your adult life at age 16 - this leaves fifteen years for the parents to amass a little bag for each child, at 10 gp per year. They have five children, so 50 gp have to be saved each year.
This last expense alone eats half of their yearly surplus. And - oh, surprise, it's also approximately the value of a starting PC's equipment ; so the difference between a 1st level PC and a farmer NPC is really the value of a half-house and a half-field. (the starting equipment of a PC is presented as being family gifts or the savings of early life)
All in all, they'll have a mere 30 gp surplus yearly, which is then in line with NPC's wealth : 30gp every year for over 30 years make for the 1100 gp of difference between a lvl 1 (John at his beginnings, or any young farmer) and a lvl 2 (John now, a mature, experienced and alive farmer) NPC.
Just my two coppers.;)
The biggest problem here is that while the descriptions about how the family could actually make money are pretty reasonable, it's still an explanation about a fantasy economy about a fantasy game. When the game is made for each new edition (and even for the first), do you really think they sat down and focussed on every random mook in each village the adventurers go through? Probably not. Now the explanations of how the family makes it money throughout the year does make sense but the "surplus of 256 gold" really isn't there. I'm sure a lot of it goes into grain for the next growing season, food during the winter, supplies for the winter, and it gets down to an estimated (by me and me only) 20-30 "gold" that they keep for a wedding or whatever. I do agree that it's not actual gold but more than likely a lot of silver and/or copper that they have somewhere they think is safe.
The one other thing I will comment on is that yes it's pointless to compare gold during the middle ages to gold today, that really is a pointless argument that doesn't serve any purpose that I can see.
Just remember, it's called Dungeons and Dragons as opposed to Dirt and Dungheaps for a reason.
This conversation is just about as useful as thinking whether the average land-bound wild animal (Wis 12, no ranks in Survival) will survive in the wild. Failing two consecutive checks means dehydration and death. Now add a few cubs/pups/whatever. I guess D&D designers don't believe in Darwin's teachings.
Now you might say that animals tend to stay close to water sources and feed on a carcass for several days, thus being able to survive longer periods without successful Survival checks. But the rules do not support this. For example, D&D carcasses do not provide nutrition. The Survival check is an abstraction, and it does not explain how the food and water is obtained, simply because it is not necessary or important.
Within the context of D&D, this is a non-issue.
These little things, or even very personal and important things like the PCs peeing, pooing, having sex, taking care of one's personal hygiene, are assumed to happen behind the scenes. The skills related to earning a living exist solely to provide characters with a little flavor and a means to earn some cash during downtime, not to represent a functional economy.
I understand that some players question D&D economy and other things within the rules, and that some DMs feel the need to defend the rules so that the game won't turn into a joke. And with some assumptions and gerrymandering, it's possible to create a scenario where things work similarly as in its real-world equivalent.
It's not worth it to try to prove that D&D is realistic at every turn, because it's not. "It's a game, kid, live with it." If your players are not mature enough to appreciate this fact, don't play with them.
It seems to me that the weakness of the D&D "economy" shows its ugly head again in these calculations. If every peasant family could expect an annual budget surplus as high as 200+ gold, then what "should" likely happen is that price levels should increase—i.e. you'd get inflationary pressures. (You'd might get greedy nobles who realize the sizable increases in taxes such surpluses could support, assuming these commoners where allowed to on property (and money) in the first place.)
There being no supply or demand in D&D, just "prices," there's no inflation, but that's unrealistic.
I've said it once and I'll say it again...
A peasant wouldn't make any actual money off his profession check. That check result would and only display his/her crop haul's value. If a commoner makes 7gp's that week, it's not actually 7 pieces of gold that he's farmed from the ground, it's turnips, carrots and potatoes from his garden, a dozen bushels of wheat or barley, it's his goat birthing a kid that week...
It's not an actual monetary gain, it's actual goods used in that peasants survival.
So now, when you look at that, you've got a peasant with a surplus of grain, or an additional rank to his herd of sheep, a nice incentive for a wandering monster or roaming orc army to attack a village. Plus, when a commoner goes to sell off his surplus stock he's only going to get half value for it anyway (that rule holds true for trade goods as well, right?). Also, if you look at the commoner's surplus as something organic or perishable, you see that with the commoner's increased wealth value come increased expenses he must now accommodate (increased feed bills for additional livestock, getting the local adept or druid to preserve and fend off vermin from his gain holds).
All of this is indeed a fair bit complex and more book keeping would be in order if one wished to track all this stuff. But I simply offer it to display as a way of explaining this commoner's "surplus" and an alternate way of showing how a commoner's profession check need not been see as something as so two-dimensional or simple minded as a farmer goes out with his plow, whacks a patch of dirt for eight hours, and a few gold coins leap out and into the commoner's pocket.
Once again, I'd like to thank Edyminion and the OP for going through all the trouble of working out a reasonable table in which to base the average wealth, of, well, the average Joe.
Do you realize a level 4 commoner has 3300 gold in gear? He can have a full plate+1 and a masterwork greatsword.
Strangely, Bob Commoner has the same gold in gear that his lord, the Baron Richard Noble, 4th level aristocrat, and that the village champion, Sir Joe Good, 4th level paladin.
In D&D level determines how much wealth NPCs have, not class, not social station, no race.
Which makes absolutely no sense at all, and makes me unable to take D&D economy too seriously. :D
Not really, seeing how that is a total value of personal belongings and property values. So, that Commoner has a nice shanty or tiny cottage, a beast of burden (Ox, mule, horse), a plow, maybe a wagon or cart, some livestock, a few coins for seed, fabrics and tools, etc. It all adds up in the end. I pity the commoner that was swindled by a smooth talking merchant, selling everything he had for a glowing sword he cannot properly wield and some bulky armor he cannot even properly wear, strap up and move in...
You have to remember these are not heroes, they are commoners. Why would they have to roll a climb check to get up a ladder? Unless they are getting shot at by goblins or trying to get on their roof during a wind storm, they should be taking 10: automatic success.
For a commoner, toughness should not be automatic, unless maybe they are out on the edge of civilization. Skill focus makes a whole bunch of sense for the net gain on income. It is similar to the difference between someone who graduates high school and someone who graduates college. You get more money out of college than Mr. minimum wage. Just like how someone who specializes in their occupation will get increased profits. It is true that every farmer does not do this; however, there is no point to stack everything against the peasant in the example and say: "See there is no way the economy could possibly work like this!"
Hardly Oil Barons.
One minor assumption in the article. Baron Nice really is NICE, and the commoners are under a rather hefty bit of free magic. Normally, that would carry a cost. The average taxation rates in feudal societies and monarchies is 50%, typically, and that's the nice ones. 70% was not unheard of. After all, it's my land, you're just working it.
The magic plant growth, whilst quite logically explained, would not represent the average commoner's access. Further, this shows the family at a fairly established stage.
How about when the eldest two kids around 6 years old, and daddy's likely level 1? The income will be lower, and, with typically higher taxes, the available money will be lower.
Nice article, but you're highballing the peasantry's wealth a bit.
Seriously though, it is foolish to assume that every commoner out there is good with their money, and never squanders away any of it. Look no further than your own communities, and you will see failed business ventures that have devoured some poor sap's life savings, honest, hard-working people who default on a second mortgage because they tried to live beyond their means. Never mind the super-massive corporate liquidations that we all know happen. To assume that this same thing doesn't happen in a fantasy world is kind of like being a one-armed man in an archery contest- good luck drawing the bow. 
Not really, seeing how that is a total value of personal belongings and property values. So, that Commoner has a nice shanty or tiny cottage, a beast of burden (Ox, mule, horse), a plow, maybe a wagon or cart, some livestock, a few coins for seed, fabrics and tools, etc. It all adds up in the end. I pity the commoner that was swindled by a smooth talking merchant, selling everything he had for a glowing sword he cannot properly wield and some bulky armor he cannot even properly wear, strap up and move in...
Well, the problem that I see, and that I suppose troubles Argaud too, is not that a lvl 4 commoner has 3300 gp worth of miscellaneous goods & assets, but that he has as much as the lvl 4 aristocrat or paladin. Aristocrat which probably needs a grander house, if not a small keep ; you can't hope that every landlord has the Landlord feat (giving some "free cash" to build the castle) from Stronghold's Builders Handbook, as it requires level 9, if my memories don't fail me.
The point is that every NPC, whatever his class, has the same wealth as every other NPC from his level. This would be a problem only if D&D classes give the "station" of an NPC according to the choice of class... and that's what they do.
So, the system needs some tweaking to represent the wealth of the nobles and other rich people (which isn't necessarily the same) : maybe not counting the value of their family-inherited house ; a multiplier based on their feudal or social influence ; a kind of "Windfall" feat that would increase the non-adventuring gear wealth ; pooling most of the wealth of their close retainers (all those living in their dwelling, be they lowly maids, knights in shiny armor or herald), which is all the wealth that doesn't serve to reasonably equip them (a scullery maid doesn't need 900 gp to buy her clothes & few belongings, and a spearman only needs a leather armor, a spear and a few pieces of equipment - IRL, they didn't have anything besides what they got their hands on) ; adding a part of the wealth of every serf living on their land (the 1000gp house and 500gp field that is worked by a serf doesn't truly belong to that serf - the value of its "rent" or the taxes he pays "increase" the wealth of his lord) ; etc. This tweaking could even apply to every NPC who happens to be important and have retainers, be it the high marshal of a knightly order or an affluent pawnbroker.
So, the system isn't necessarily broken for the lack of difference according to station, if you're willing to tweak the particulars. Remember : the wealth per NPC is only an average - much like the treasure per encounter, not every NPC needs to exactly have the average.
Lawkeeper-
You have to remember these are not heroes, they are commoners. Why would they have to roll a climb check to get up a ladder? Unless they are getting shot at by goblins or trying to get on their roof during a wind storm, they should be taking 10: automatic success.
For a commoner, toughness should not be automatic, unless maybe they are out on the edge of civilization. Skill focus makes a whole bunch of sense for the net gain on income. It is similar to the difference between someone who graduates high school and someone who graduates college. You get more money out of college than Mr. minimum wage. Just like how someone who specializes in their occupation will get increased profits. It is true that every farmer does not do this; however, there is no point to stack everything against the peasant in the example and say: "See there is no way the economy could possibly work like this!"
First, hear me well : I do not say this doesn't work. I only say the surplus isn't as big as first computed. If you've wholly read my post, you'll have noted I end up with a surplus of 30gp per year, which added up in over thirty years to bring John's wealth level from lvl 1 to lvl 2. With the original surplus of 250gp, even accounting for the same 70gp of costs that I fixed, it'd make him achieve the same in less than ten years. Unless he'd throw money (or the equivalent in goods) through the windows, he'd have a much larger "wealth equivalent" than his level would point. Which would be fine if that shows his actual progression in level : he's more successfull than his brethren, so he's leveling up, and he's the future lvl16 commoner from the village - achieving lvl2 by his mid- to late-thirties is already a big success. But not every peasant is going to be that high in level, we have to look at the "ordinary commoner" who'll be lucky if he ever reaches level 2 (which is approximately one-in-ten to one-in-twenty commoners in a typical settlement - either the best or the oldest ones).
And I did not even "stack everything" against them, as I didn't even take into account things like crop diseases, unavailability of the druid, raiders on the crops, disease of John, or anything else of the like, which would be fairly common. I did not even count a house-rule (no need to do that, as it's a house-rule and so only matters for my games) of mine according to which commoners don't have the automatic feat at first level (they're not heroes, and feats are, well, remarkable abilities - as such, only human NPCs can always have a feat at first level).
Off course, John commoner would take 10 if need be. And checks would not be needed every time he takes a measure of risk.
However, taking 10 requires no distraction, and I'd rule that actually working on the roof is a distraction in itself. After all, people fall from ladder or roof all the time, even professionals who can be assured to have the in-game equivalent of several ranks in climb and weren't careless at the moment of the fall. That's what is called an accident, and it happens every day. If we were to closely follow the rules about taking 10, people would never die of accident or common disease. Taking 10 is good for mundane tasks accomplished when it's not important to consider failure or success, when nobody cares. It would be highly unheroic for a PC to fall from the ladder while repairing the roof of a cottage - but for the ordinary person, it's a real risk.
PS: my games being full of house-rules, I also enforce the following : by default, no rank in a skill equates to no "take 10" or "take 20". If you're not trained/proficient at something, it can't be considered a routine task.
Like Edymnion, I will assume that the elders eat two poor meals and one good meal a day, and the children eat two poor meals a day. That gives a total cost of 1gp and 2sp per day, since the family grows its own food. That is 8gp and 4sp per week, leaving 4gp 9sp and 3cp surplus. Over the year, that is a grand total of 256gp 3sp and 6cp.
I just noticed another problem here : according to the equipment list, the cost for meals is per day, not per meal. So, if you count common meals (representing part good, part poor) for the elders and poor meals for the children, this makes a cost of only 11 sp, or half of which since they eat what they grow : 5 sp & 5 cp. Comparing to the cost you used, it's 6 sp 5 cp less per day, equaling 237 gp 2 sp 5 cp more per year, over the 256 gp 3 sp 6cp you computed.
Even by reducing the original surplus to the 30 gp or so I reached in my previous post, this leaves nearly 270 gp of surplus. Even with good meals for everyone, they'd still be left with 56 gp 1 sp 6 cp per year as a surplus, before taking into account usual expenses.
Or else, tax them even more.:D A peasant that can give opulent meals to his family every day is a peasant who's not taxed heavily enough. After all, IRL peasants and most other ordinary folks were limited to no more than what "poor meals" represents - even a stew wasn't common. "Good meals" were in fact affordable only by the finest, not the ordinary peasant.
My 2 cp:
Someone mentioned that they live middle class, i would not call it exactly middle class, perhaps working class would be more accurate. Everyone has to note that their total family wealth, or even their net profit, is all tied up in what the OP described as less "fungible" items. These items are the crops in the fields, the various tools and implements, the house they have, the land, grains stored away, beasts of burden, etc. Also remember that even, after looking at the operating cash they need from year 1 to fund supplies for year 2, they may have money to buy another plow or another beast of burden. This is hardly, in d&d standards, middle class.
Think of what today's middle class can afford (a first world country's middle class). We've got television, electricity in our houses, cable, computers, internet for those computers, electronic gadgets, middle priced cars, perhaps stocks in a few choice companies. So what would this translate to in a d&d world? Well probably something like potions, or maybe some eternal flames to light the house, a carriage, maybe a few people to help around the house, proper education for their children (maybe at the local temple or mage guild), some gp earning interest in the city bank. They'd probably be from a merchant class, have family in many different professions, they'd probably know a noble or two, and be related to a spellcaster or alchemist. I think the important thing to remember is that the commoners look comfortable in the sense that they can live and even have a non-horrible life, but they don't have the expendable income to get non-essential items. One of the defining characteristics, I think, of middle class life is that a middle class has enough money to buy nonessential items, but not enough to survive without working. Of course that gets complicated in that I'm lumping a wide variety of jobs together, but I'm making a distinction between the poor, the super rich, and the people inbetween.
I've said it once and I'll say it again...
A peasant wouldn't make any actual money off his profession check. That check result would and only display his/her crop haul's value. If a commoner makes 7gp's that week, it's not actually 7 pieces of gold that he's farmed from the ground, it's turnips, carrots and potatoes from his garden, a dozen bushels of wheat or barley, it's his goat birthing a kid that week...
It's not an actual monetary gain, it's actual goods used in that peasants survival.
So now, when you look at that, you've got a peasant with a surplus of grain, or an additional rank to his herd of sheep, a nice incentive for a wandering monster or roaming orc army to attack a village. Plus, when a commoner goes to sell off his surplus stock he's only going to get half value for it anyway (that rule holds true for trade goods as well, right?). Also, if you look at the commoner's surplus as something organic or perishable, you see that with the commoner's increased wealth value come increased expenses he must now accommodate (increased feed bills for additional livestock, getting the local adept or druid to preserve and fend off vermin from his gain holds).
A few minor points:
(1) The the surplus comes in the form of grain, milk, livestock or other trade goods doesn't completely negate the inflationary pressures faced by the economy. It's still "wealth" and everyone having a excess of wealth can tend to lead to inflation under the right circumstances. In this case though, discussing the "inflation" in the D&D economy is like discussing the "fusion" at the core of the game-world's Sun. It's something that doesn't exist unless the DM says it exists.
(2) I agree that rich peasants should draw wandering monsters more often...just like they should draw the coveting eyes of the local lord and his taxmen (as Dog_as_a_Devil_Deified suggested). Wealth breeds covetousness of all sorts.
The real problem with this is that the profession rules may or may not account for it. Presumably, one might read those rules to say that the gp/week the rules say you earn are a net figure, after costs, taxes, depreciation, etc. Otherwise, you really need to start questioning what the rules mean at all...assuming the DM decided that number represented gross revenues, you could actually lose money each week depending on the costs the DM decides to impose.
Assuming that figure were gross rather than net, you undermine Edymnion's analysis completely. If that figure doesn't include all costs and offsets, then it's entirely up to the DM what the costs and offsets are net net, since the rules do not say. If the losses to thieves or tax men or due to a barn fire aren't counted in, for example, then why assume that the payments to suppliers or employees are included?
(3) Per the RAW, when you sell a trade good (like grain) you do not get half value for it. You get full value. It's expressly listed as an exception to the half price rule on page 112 of the PHB.
(4) The organic losses are interesting, but it runs into the same problem as (2). If those costs are included as an offset, the Edymnion's calculation is suspect, because there are, lots of costs you *might* include. Personally, I think the more natural reading is that these gp values listed are a measure of net profit.
Also, if organic losses were an issue the "full value for trade goods" rule from the PHB would be problematic. If I had 5 gold worth of grain and knew that it would depreciate, then I would sell it immediately for 5 gold worth of hard currency and let the next poor guy worry about that. (That is not economically realistic, but again, the economy of D&D is no more realistic than the solar fusion mechanics of D&D.)
I think it's perfectly fine for the DM to make whatever assumptions he or she wants about peasant wealth. That includes using the Profession/Crafting mechanics as per Edymnion's analysis to leave them well off, using them and assuming that "costs" are deducted from the earnings suggested by Edymnion's calculations, assuming those Profession mechanics are limited to PC's only (and only therefore used as a matter of convenience on rare occasion), or anything else.
The point is that every NPC, whatever his class, has the same wealth as every other NPC from his level. This would be a problem only if D&D classes give the "station" of an NPC according to the choice of class... and that's what they do.
So, the system needs some tweaking to represent the wealth of the nobles and other rich people
I haven't looked at these rules, but I always thought the best way to handle this would be through Organizations. Most of a king's wealth is not personal; it's the wealth of the kingdom. That kingdom is an organization. A kingdom has wealth from its taxes, just like a guild collects dues.
The king's personal wealth (the stuff he would get to keep if he were to abdicate) might be in line with the NPC wealth charts, but when he goes into battle, he is girded in all the gear his kingdom has accumulated over the centuries.
All nobles would belong to an Organization of some sort, like a noble house. This, in my opinion, would be the proper game mechanic for determining noble wealth, as well as the added wealth of merchants (whose Organizations are corporate in form).
I haven't looked at these rules, but I always thought the best way to handle this would be through Organizations. Most of a king's wealth is not personal; it's the wealth of the kingdom. That kingdom is an organization. A kingdom has wealth from its taxes, just like a guild collects dues.
The king's personal wealth (the stuff he would get to keep if he were to abdicate) might be in line with the NPC wealth charts, but when he goes into battle, he is girded in all the gear his kingdom has accumulated over the centuries.
All nobles would belong to an Organization of some sort, like a noble house. This, in my opinion, would be the proper game mechanic for determining noble wealth, as well as the added wealth of merchants (whose Organizations are corporate in form).
That's an interesting idea. Granting people a heightened income based on the organization rules is a somewhat limited mechanic (or, at least, if one of the benefits your organization provides is a monthly income—100 gp/month or 200 for business affiliations—then that takes up a "slot" that the organization could have used to confer some other benefit).
I would note though that even serfs belonged to an "organization" under those rules. Serfs lived in communities and shared much of what they needed to scratch out a living communally (especially oxen for plowing, which no individual serf could afford to own and care for....save under the ahistorically generous/* "Profession" rules). It seems to me the arrangement whereby one received arable strips of land in the community fields, used community oxen to plow those strips and could borrow oxen or use community labor to help build one's hut really are themselves similar to the "organization benefits" discussed in the PHB2.
----------
/* Generous to peasant farmers, at least. The rules might well be stingy for for more affluent professionals afaik, though my impression is that the Profession/Crafting rules are approximately on track for the wealthier medieval non-aristocracy. It is strange as a matter of historical realism that the Profession rules (and the organizational benefits, for that matter) are so terribly uniform, no matter what your social standing and/or bloodline.
----------
There is a fair bit of talk in the other thread about "homesteading" farmers (which I take to mean "squatters" who take "unowned" land by some analogy to the U.S. Homestead Act). In medieval Europe, I have a suspicion that a peasant who established such a "homestead" would have found himself put to death once caught, since every acre of arable land in Europe belonged to someone, if only "the crown" by default. In any event, you need a solid system of trade to support that lifestyle (in the U.S., railroads served as the backbone of the trade system that allowed for the independent homesteader lifestyle post-Homestead Act), or you have to bind together into something approaching a self-sufficient community. In a world with monsters roaming about, I can easily see how such a community might come under the thrall of a militarily competent "lord" offering his protection.
For a long time I've been yearning to actually play out an NPC game just to test things. Years would pass fairly quickly. A series of rolls passes days faster than combat rounds.
An industrious commoner can live comfortably, even starting from scratch. If he, for some reason, can't make it in the big time (aka a big empty field), he can go hire on as a warrior for the nearest militia (which has a set salary in the DMG, more detailed salaries in Arms and Equipment if said warrior has a particular style (Boccob forbid he should learn to fight on horseback and make substantially more daily).
I actually might just do it now, since there still seem to be a lot of people who are stubbornly insisting that NPCs are all doomed to have the DM assign them fake lives.
You know, I don't remember seeing anywhere in the thread about the characters having ranks in Profession(Accountant).
But see, they are technically capable of living a comfortable life, they simply are too stupid to choose it and instead try to live above their means, and quickly find themselves in the gutter.
Just because you can get by comfortably on your income doesn't mean you necessarily have enough common sense to do so.
So, based on that, the existing economic system is all out of whack. On the other hand, it is mostly designed to keep PCs from financially taking over the world.
As others have noted: this IS a fantasy world-type situation we are talking about, and, other than L.E. Modesitt, Jr., no fantasy authors seem to have much of a grasp of the fundamentals of economics anyway. So: flawed fantasy-RPG economic system merely reflects the state of the source literature anyway.
Money is a funny thing.
Admittedly, in the past the difference between the wealthy and the poor was truly vast. Back in the day a lunch which cost thrice the yearly income of a skilled craftsman (which is what I suppose I equate to) was far more common. However, I think the gap probably should be closed slightly in our game. Were I tasked with modifying the economy for a hypothetical future edition (and honestly, WotC could choose a worse candidate) I would certainly decrease the cost of high level items, and the wealth per levels table accordingly.
Makes you do stuff. It has a "compulsive effect" eh?
I have always thought profession (as a universally available skill) could be elaborated into an entire economic "combat" system. Primarily for the allowance of Multiple Professional Actions like Multiple Attacks. Your "Pro" bonus could be modified by Wisdom and Charisma the way BAB is effected by Strength and Dexterity.
The tentative title is "Contest, Conflict, and Combat" Triple C. With timing and turns on three scales. Contest could be Commerce. Words. Conflict is for the Diplomacy and Intimidation skill action levels. Measured in hours instead of days. Each level could have a down shift. Similar to Craft being something you can do by day if need be, Commerce actions could be taken by the day. Conflict actions can be rushed and used in Combat.
Sort of an off the wall idea, but using a Combat action on the Conflict level timing could be considered Practicing and generate XP in a similar fashion to the way Craft and Profession generate GP value. Similarly with Diplomacy and Perform on a Commerce time level could generate more significant profits.
Lets look back to our Mid Evil Atomic Family.
For starters you forgot to factor in family heirlooms. Most families pass down the sword of Denth or the sacred jewelry. Some farms could have three elder brothers all level 3. Two to three sons each, but even the individual family ranch could be expected to have a heirlooms to either be sold in times of need or stolen by rogues. The animals themselves could be seen as part of the cash value .. add a craft skill to each member of the household, and perhaps perform as well. Supplementary incomes combine! And I think your "average" family farm could be seen to have that amount with the current system. Thats not to say I don't agree with you on the larger issues.
Its like the stings of the system are present but they're all tanglefied. I mean .. Craft and Profession both everybody untrained skills? That says something to me.
Outstanding read, Azezel! Perfect companion to Edymnion's article.
Recently, while trying to explain the D&D economy* to a new player, I used your same evaluation of a Silver Piece equaling $1.00. Another player spoke up to state that, according to the gold content of a Gold Piece, that gold pieces are worth approximately $146.00. I repeated that Gold pieces are only equal to $10.00, and proceeded to give him that same lecture you just gave to Ruslanchik: Gold is either more common or less valued in the D&D game, and thus it is just a term for money, and could in fact be dried dung, were it a good measuring stick for money. He still thinks his character should be a whole lot wealthier, however.
*The D&D economy is rather broken, however, in its exchange rates and values. Maybe it is just the way it is stated in the books. Anyways, expect to see an article (submitted by yours truly) within the next few days on it, containing a variant economic and monetary system.
Here is the way I have always seen it.
A common laborer earns 1 sp / day (DMG p 139) or 30 sp (3 gp) per month
The upkeep costs (DMG p 130) would leave this poor commoner spending 24 gp per year just to survive. That leaves 6 gp per year profit.
Assume a family of four laborers, they would gain 24 gp per year.
For this family to accrue 1000 gp value would take 40 years. And this assumes they don't have to pay for medicine or healers when one of the family gets sick or injured, or replace their only hen when she stops laying eggs, etc.
A skilled craftsman can make gp per week equal to 1/2 his skill check (PHB p 70)
A 1st level craftsman with skill focus and decent Int score can have get a +10 modifier on his skill check. Thus can make 10 gp per week. or 40 gp per month, 40 times that of a commoner. Craftsman will be more likely to have expensive tools, shops, as well as the means to protect those shops. These Expert class citizen are the small business owners of the D&D realm.
Since a craftsman probably has his own place in the town or city, his upkeep would not be as expensive as a Common upkeep (DMG p 130) since that implies living in taverns every day, But I could easily see 20 gp per month.
Leaving 20 gp per month profit. In only 4 years, this craftsman would net 1,000 gp of equipment and goods. Some of this might be an expensive trap in his shop.
NPCs simply don't have the same wealth levels as PCs
you can consult the community wealth rules (DMG p 137) for further ideas of how much money is available in a given city.
As far as devaluing gold (DMG p 140)
"Some economies have other forms of currency such as trade bars or letters of credit representing various amounts of gold... some economies use coins of different metals...In some lands, it's even permissible to cut a gold coin in half to make a separate unit of currency.."
So when a character has 25 gp, this could be a letter of credit worth 15 gp, a stamped iron coin worth 5 gp, 5 silver pieces, and 4 & a half gold coins.
The term gold piece is used as a standard of measure, and does not necessitate the presence of actual gold.
Lastly -
A poor meal cost 1 sp, common meal cost 3 sp, and good meal 5 sp (PHB 129)
Depending on your local enconomy these can mean different things, but if we look at 'fast food' franchise as a poor meal. I would say about $3.00 to $5.00
For ease of math we could assign $5.00 / sp
Which is what I have always done.
Sorry if I went on a bit of a rant there.
For this family to accrue 1000 gp value would take 40 years. And this assumes they don't have to pay for medicine or healers when one of the family gets sick or injured, or replace their only hen when she stops laying eggs, etc.
How is that any different than the real world? Go ask the guy behind the counter at McDonald's how long it would take him to buy a new house on minimum wage.
And remember, thats what the 1sp a day people are. Unskilled burger flippers. In another thread, I did up the numbers, and it comes out to a minimum wage employee having roughly $700 a month after taxes for all of their expenses. Including rent, car payments/gasoline, food, utilities, etc.
Even if they were homeless and never ate anything, at $700 a month, it would take them 85 years to save enough for a $60k house.
So no, thats not unrealistic at all for unskilled labor.
Lastly -
A poor meal cost 1 sp, common meal cost 3 sp, and good meal 5 sp (PHB 129)
Depending on your local economy these can mean different things, but if we look at 'fast food' franchise as a poor meal. I would say about $3.00 to $5.00
For ease of math we could assign $5.00 / sp
Nah, the poor meal would be getting a single hamburger off the dollar menu. "Common meal" would be getting one of the numbered meals, which would run you about $3. You get the biggest sandwich meal on the menu, yeah, $5-$6 is about right.
Yeah, real world food can cost a lot more than that, but so does D&D food. The inn prices are basically fast food, like you said.
"Now let's look at farm animals and equipment. A wagon costs 35 gp, a cart 15 gp. A heavy horse costs 200 gp, a light one 75 gp. A mule is a bargain at 8 gp. Bit and bridle are 2 gp. A spade or shovel is 2 gp. A miner's pick is 3 gp. I sure hope that Commoner doesn't need chain, because 10 feet of it will cost 30 gp (but he can buy a spiked chain for only 25 gp - go figure). That longbow that Billy owns cost 75 gp, and the quiver of 20 arrows is another 1 gp."
I had always assumed that the prices in the PH form items like those listed above were the equivalent of the Ebay "buy in now" feature. Adventurers tend to walk into town, pick a store that is convenient and buy what they need. I'm sure there is some price gouging going on. The D&D economy is hardly regulated like our modern economy so I'm sure that the locals either know where to buy stuff for good prices or that the price tags on all the items in the local shop fail to mention the type of currency, they just say "5" as opposed to "5gp." So adventurers assume they mean 5gp but the locals can all get the same item for 5sp.
This would be prevalent in a feudal economy since the local lord wants to ensure that his farmers can buy the equipment they need, but would not hesitate to squeeze out as much profit from adventurers.
In my game my players used diplomacy to negotiate better prices, in one situation they rolled a natural 20 and the poor merchant rolled a natural 1. They had him so confused that he broke and sold them all the goods they needed at the local price, sp instead of gp. They kept going there and it was a great deal for them, until one day they came to his shop to buy their cheep goods and found his body hanging from the rafters with a decree from the local lord explaining his unlawful behavior. Needless to say that my party removed the local lord from power. -- I mention this story because it points out how the economy can actually be a tool to create a story hook. It was the perfect way for me to get the party personally convicted against this local lord. The fact that he was an evil necromancer trying to summon demons was just icing on the cake of justification for my party. Doing good is one thing, but getting your party to revenge a personal slight is fantastic.
Kradlo made this comment on the previous commoner post and I feel it needs some attention here.
"Now let's look at farm animals and equipment. A wagon costs 35 gp, a cart 15 gp. A heavy horse costs 200 gp, a light one 75 gp. A mule is a bargain at 8 gp. Bit and bridle are 2 gp. A spade or shovel is 2 gp. A miner's pick is 3 gp. I sure hope that Commoner doesn't need chain, because 10 feet of it will cost 30 gp (but he can buy a spiked chain for only 25 gp - go figure). That longbow that Billy owns cost 75 gp, and the quiver of 20 arrows is another 1 gp."
I had always assumed that the prices in the PH form items like those listed above were the equivalent of the Ebay "buy in now" feature. Adventurers tend to walk into town, pick a store that is convenient and buy what they need. I'm sure there is some price gouging going on. The D&D economy is hardly regulated like our modern economy so I'm sure that the locals either know where to buy stuff for good prices or that the price tags on all the items in the local shop fail to mention the type of currency, they just say "5" as opposed to "5gp." So adventurers assume they mean 5gp but the locals can all get the same item for 5sp.
This would be prevalent in a feudal economy since the local lord wants to ensure that his farmers can buy the equipment they need, but would not hesitate to squeeze out as much profit from adventurers.
In my game my players used diplomacy to negotiate better prices, in one situation they rolled a natural 20 and the poor merchant rolled a natural 1. They had him so confused that he broke and sold them all the goods they needed at the local price, sp instead of gp. They kept going there and it was a great deal for them, until one day they came to his shop to buy their cheep goods and found his body hanging from the rafters with a decree from the local lord explaining his unlawful behavior. Needless to say that my party removed the local lord from power. -- I mention this story because it points out how the economy can actually be a tool to create a story hook. It was the perfect way for me to get the party personally convicted against this local lord. The fact that he was an evil necromancer trying to summon demons was just icing on the cake of justification for my party. Doing good is one thing, but getting your party to revenge a personal slight is fantastic.
Typically medieval farmers didn't own their own draught animals (horses or oxen, with oxen being a more common plow animal for most of the medieval period). They owned their animals in common with others in their village and shared them (which was easy as their allotted fields--which they also didn't own--were often in long strips running into other).
It usually took several oxen to pull a single heavy moldboard plow, which was well beyond the means of most farmers.
I'd think, in some cases, Baron Nice might be doing the 'people a favor' if he taxes higher and reduces the amount of surplus cash the common folk have left. As some have noted, 'leftover loot' can be a tempting target to the less nice aspects of society. Consider that in this case, all families are largely responsible for their own security. No banks to hold your cash and FDIC to insure it. Your house burns down and you may lose your savings that were hidden in the niche by the fireplace, etc.
Wealth as represented by possessions can help with this, as also noted. But i'd think to a lesser degree than we see in our real life society. In real life, I've got things like a computer, couple game consoles, flatscreen tv, etc as luxury items. Other things in my apartment that I know have a decent cash value: my bed, some of my furniture, my refrigerator, etc.
The family o' fantasy farmers would have less, possibly some cantrip-level trinkets that help things, like a reliable 'lighter' or light source, maybe a charm to prevent food spoilage, etc. It would be actually more important for them to have less petty cash lying around, as increasing the amount of ready/petty cash they're squirreling away comes with its own increased risk.
In real life, if you 'roll' a family in a sort of home invasion crime, on average you won't get too much, even before costs of fencing the loot. Unless you've picked a family with loot, but in that case, chances are they'll have better security or other protective circumstances.
Offhand I can think of two circumstances of large caches of money-type loot. Possibly at two different sides of the spectrum. Type 1: Stereotypical Rich dude, keeps a cool million in one of his safes in his mansion. Type 2: Stereotypical Meth Lab/Drug House. Both have potential phat lewt, both are protected, but in different ways. Type 1 is probably more traditional, alarm systems, hidden safes, etc. Type 2 is likely just as effective, but different: largely "Dudes with guns willing to kill you".
In our fantasy/semi-real setting, commoners have security in the way that antelope do. They largely protect themselves by hopefully being a big enough combined target that its not easy for them to get picked off. They have closer relationships with their neighbors, and likely try to congregate as close as possible to each other. This also limits the area the Baron would technically have to protect, if he had to send security/militia forces. Its easier to secure your 'farm town' than each individual farm. Farms on the fringes would have to fend for themselves.
Anyway, I apologize for the rambling. To recount my thoughts, the taxation rate will obviously have the biggest impact on the family. It may actually end up being a much higher percentage if considering the baron is taking taxes 'in kind' as opposed to 'in cash'. If he's taking bushels of rices, or whatever, it may end up representing a bigger cut of the farmer's production than if he were taking it in cash. Heck, there may be both, a 'in cash' tax, which is more likely when the Baron needs direct funds for war, protection, whatever. As well as a 'in kind' tax to support the Baron's needs for food/etc of his keep/property/forces.
Plus he's doing the people a favor (in a way) to prevent the amount of loose cash they have in their own homes, making them less of a target. Think again to Plot-line setups for campaigns, its usually the merchant caravans that get hit, or the nobles mansion, etc, its rarely the "Yeah the farmers are getting a series of home invasions". There are definitely reasons why the farmer family doesn't have alot of cash floating around, even if saving.
I use the Eberron mindset. NPCs use the NPC classes, and are the lowest level possible.
Your average commoner should not be level 3-4, as they would likely be able to take down a lvl 1 Fighter in hand to hand combat. A commoner that has hoed fields his entire life should not be able to best a trained warrior in hand to hand combat as a routine matter.
Depends on how you look at it.
I view a level 1 Fighter as a well trained, fresh recruit with a lot of potential. He has greater insights into combat than your average warrior, but he's still green. He's probably about 15-17 years old and while he excelled in basic training, he's yet to see any real fighting. He has 15 str, 13 dex, and 14 con. He isn't wearing any armor at the time, nor is he carrying a shield, though he is of course, proficient in both. His attack bonus is +3, his AC is 11, and his HP is 12. He also has a bonus feat fighter feat, and probably spent his first level and human feats on combat related things.
For whatever reason he gets into a fight with a level 4 commoner. The man is 39 years old. Having spent his whole life doing hard physical labor he's relatively strong, but is starting to show signs of age. His joints are starting to wear out and his diet isn't so good, but he's still quite hardy. He's been in numerous fights in his life, and had to break up numerous others. He's wrestled a cow to the ground with his bare hands, and used to participate in annual strongman competitions during the summer festivals when he was younger. He's got 13 str, 11 dex, 12 con, an attack bonus of +3 with his staff, sickle, or knife, 10 AC, and 11 HP. His two bonus feats are unrelated to combat.
The commoner is older and more experienced than the Fighter, but due to the Fighters natural ability and the fact he's been extensively trained in combat, he's a much better fighter than the commoner (remember the THREE combat feats the commoner doesn't have) despite the difference in experience. The Fighter is also younger, thus has better physical stats.
If the fighter was properly armed with a shield and armor it would be no contest. I see no reason why an older, more experienced commoner who's spent his life in hard physical labor should not put up a decent fight against a promising, unarmored recruit with a side arm.