But, before we get into that, the linch pin in the "it’s broken!" argument is that commoners only make 1 sp a day. In the majority of cases, I argue that this is not true. The 1 sp a day salary is for completely unskilled, clueless laborers. The ditch diggers or migrant day laborer types. This is not what the majority of commoners will be. Let’s look at the Commoner entry in the DMG, paying special attention to their skillpoints. They get 2 skillpoints per level, with the standard x4 at level 1. Now look at their class skills, and you'll notice that they have both Craft and Profession. On top of this, like any other class, they get a feat at first level. For the purposes of this article, the commoners in question will be assumed to have 8 skillpoints and 1 feat to spend. Obviously, humans will have 9 points and 2 feats, but I'm going to work it as a generic so that it applies to everyone. We can assume the humans spend their extra point and feat on personal things that don't contribute to their overall ability to survive day to day life (like a rank or two in Knowledge [Local]).
Now then, let us assume that the typical commoner family consists of 5 individuals; a mother, a father, a teenage son, a child daughter, and a baby.
Joe Commoner lives in a small village, and has a small farm out by the woods. He built the main house himself, with help from his father as a youth when he was old enough to move out on his own. They used wood harvested from the nearby forest, and did the work themselves, meaning the house was essentially free. Joe learned how to farm from his father, and has been a farmer for as long as he can remember. Mechanically, Joe is in his mid 30's, and is a 2nd level commoner. He's not as fit as he was in his younger days, but he's a little wiser. We will still assume that he has a +0 modifier to all of his stats though.
Jill Commoner is Joe's wife. She helps her husband with the farming by working in the fields part of the day, and also does the cooking, cleaning, and mending of clothes, as well as watching after the children. Mechanically, she is a first level commoner, also with +0 mods to all of her stats.
Billy Commoner is Joe's oldest child, a 15 year old boy that grew up much the same as Joe did, and will soon be old enough to start his own family, but for now is still helping dad around the family farm. Billy is a first level commoner with +0 stat mods.
Susy Commoner is the middle child, and helps her mother with the household chores. Susy is a 0th level commoner, and has only 2 skillpoints.
Baby Commoner is a baby, and gurgles a lot, but is too young to provide any meaningful contribution to the family's financial situation.
---
As a D&D character, Joe has maxxed out his ranks in Profession (Farmer), and has also taken Skill Focus (Farming), for a total of +8 to his skill checks. He also has 3 ranks in Craft (Woodworking), and 2 ranks in Knowledge (Local).
Jill Commoner has 2 ranks in Profession (Farmer), 2 ranks in Profession (Cook), 2 ranks in Craft (Clothing), and 2 ranks in Heal (for all the family's normal ailments).
Billy Commoner has 3 ranks in Profession (Farmer) that he learned from his father, Martial Weapon Proficiency (longbow), 2 ranks in Survival (he uses his bow to go hunting in the nearby woods), 2 ranks in Craft (woodworking), and 1 rank in Knowledge (Local).
Susy Commoner is too young to do much, but has 1 rank in both Profession (Cooking) and Craft (Clothing).
---
Joe Commoner takes 10 on his Profession (Farmer) check, for a total of 18. Jill and Billy both use Aid Other to help Joe with his check. Jill has a 60% chance of getting her Aid Other to succeed, while Billy has a 65% chance of succeeding. We'll be a bit conservative and say that, on average, one of them succeeds in giving Joe +2 to his checks, for a total of 20. Since you earn half your check in gold per week, this means the family has a weekly income of 10 gp, which is substantially better than the 21 sp (or 2.1 gp) they would have gotten as unskilled labor. The other skill ranks for the other family members do not factor into weekly income, and serve only to round them out and allow them to do things like carve their own wooden bowls, make their own clothes, etc.
---
We will assume that Joe, Jill, and Billy each eat the equivalent of 1 common meal and 2 poor meals per day (5 sp per day, each), and that Susy eats the equivalent of 2 poor meals per day (2 sp per day), and that the baby does not eat enough to be worth factoring into this.
That means they eat, on average, 1.7 gp of food per day, as a family, for a total of 11.9 gp worth of food per week. Whoops, that’s too much, as they only make 10 gp a week, right? Wrong, that’s the price for if you are buying your meals from someone else. Jill and Susy both have Profession (Cook) and make their own meals out of what they grow on the farm, plus whatever meat Billy brings home from when he goes hunting, meaning they are crafting their own meals, which means they pay half price, or 5.95 gp per week for food. Let’s also assume that once per week Joe heads down to the village tavern for a mug of ale with the neighbors for 4 coppers, which brings it up to 5.99 gp per week.
So, the Commoner family is making 10 gp per week, on average, consuming 6 gp a week in food. That leaves 4 gp per week that can be spent on things like raw cloth for sewing clothes out of, assorted metal tools and implements from the blacksmith, or just squirreled away for a rainy day.
We'll assume there are 50 weeks a year (with a total of two weeks off for holidays and the like), that means our Commoner family can save upwards of 200 gp per year for luxuries, or the gods forbid, healing potions for injuries or sicknesses that are too severe for Jill to handle with her Heal skill.
Even without Aid Other, Joe would have a Take 10 check of 18 with his farming, meaning they would only lose out on 1 gp per week, which would still let him feed his family the same food, provide the same living conditions, and still be able to put away upwards of 150 gp per year, probably more because that would free Billy up to go hunting and gathering in the forest more often, meaning the weekly food bill would go down as well.
And, with that much money available per year, it is not a stretch of the imagination in any way to think that Joe could hire some help to expand his farm, upgrade his house, buy better equipment, and potentially get the equivalent of masterwork farming tools for another +2 to his checks so he can make even more money.
---
Now, in closing, it should be said that the idea of them having this much money does not necessarily mean they actually ever see that much actual coin. Joe and his family are capable of outputting 10 gp worth of produce per week, and consuming 6 gp worth of goods per week. It is almost guaranteed that most of the food money is actually coming out of what they grow (so they grow 10 gp worth of food, then turn around and eat 6 gp worth of it every week), and that anything else they get from others in the village is in the form of barter (2 bags of potatoes for that new hoe, for example).
So, while this commoner family may not have much money, they are in no way destitute, and are quite capable of living very comfortable lives, without the need to overall the entire D&D economy just to make it more "realistic" for them.
I just want to mention one major expense for feudal commoners that you neglected to take into account: Taxes.
A peasant farmer could be expected to pay anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 his income in taxes to his protector, even if he wasn't paying rent on his land.
Good job overall.
There are items in the PHB, like horses, or wagons, that have relatively high gp prices, and that don't always seem reasonable on a commoner's salary. A good work horse, tackle, bit and bridle, and a plow might cost upwards of 100g, for example.
However, 100g (a nice round number) is not completely outside of commoner Joe's funding. It is a large portion of his yearly savings, but it is not unpayable. If farmer Joe decided to spend that money on a new horse and plow, or a new wagon, etc., he would be heavily invested in them, and would probably try and take very good care that they don't get damaged. If you look at the historical lifestyle of that type of farmer, they did indeed carefully guard such things. To lose your horse would have been a heavy financial problem.
Again, well done, and thanks for breaking down the numbers. I'd never actually questioned whether D&D farmers could survive (it just never came up), but it is good to know roughly how much income a commoner makes in a week (~5g).
The only thing I would like to see is perhaps the statistics for a family more along the lines of Jill, Billy, and Susy. The reason is from most of my gaming experiences we encounter a fair amount of widows (either from war, or monster attacks) and I’m not 100% that a family like that would be as well off.
‘Course that would get into a much larger discussion on supply and demand and I'm not sure the game warrants that.
Number one, very well thought out post. You've done some excellent calculations, using the skill system already in use. A human gets +4 starting skill points, not +1, by the way, so a human commoner with Int 10 would have 2 feats and 12 skill points.
Number two, do keep in mind that not every commoner is a farmer. That's merely one type of commoner, but with a generic set of Craft and Profession skills, each granting roughly the same income for the same level of skill (however unrealistic that may be), there are any number of commoner types that could be used. So, no problem there, though the numbers don't match up to the hireling prices in the DMG.
Number three, your model assumes that the land is freely owned by the farmer (like a homesteader), and that he has no taxes to pay. Neither are likely to be true. In a feudal system (which most D&D campaign worlds are), the land is owned by the lord, and the peasants work the land for him (ostensibly), taking enough for them to live (hopefully).
That means that the farm of Joe Commoner is on the land of Lord Landbaron, and Lord Landbaron wants his share first, before the Commoners gets squat. Lord Landbaron may take a third of the proceeds, possibly even more. Out of the 500 gp annual income that your model projected, that means that 167 gp would go to Lord Landbaron. That leaves the Commoner family with about 33 gp per year in "mad money," assuming there were no problems in that year that cost them more than food and normal supplies.
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.
Tools don't last forever. They need to be replaced periodically. Even using the Profession skill system for income as you've done, rather than the hireling rates from the DMG, this Commoner family is going to barely get by after taxes.
Seriously, good write up. Now we can see why goblins and other nasties might raid the village...the people actually do have a bit of coin.
For their mid-thirties, Joe and Jill have a very small family. More mouths to feed would be balanced by more "aid another" input, so we are still good. Taxes would eat into that "extra" income.
Beer and/or Ale is a lot cheaper to make than to buy at a pub.
The assumption seems to have been made that Joe and Jill have enough arable land to raise sufficient food for themselves and family. This is a fair assumption, and in historical European setting would be accurate (and allow for fair taxes).
I will stop at this point, as I am sure that others will have different takes on this.
Good job, Edymnion.
1) The DMG hireling prices are all wrong. Cooks -- at least those who know more about cooking than an untrained person -- should demand more than 1 sp/day, and mercenaries would be insane to work for 2 sp/day.
2) Is there any reason why they other members of the family aid another to add 1 gp to the family's weekly income rather than farming cooperatively but independently, adding something like 6 gp? Does aiding another take less work, allowing more time for sewing or something?
A third comment, although one that's rather controversial and only partially germane
Although NPC commoners can survive fine, I still think that the NPC classes are silly anyway, because they're just generally bad. There is no way in which the commoner is better than the ranger, at carpentry, farming, or anything else. I think that classes -- not just individuals -- should be good at what they do, even if it isn't adventuring. I realize that I'm in the minority on this issue, but I still think that generalized weakness should be represented by having a low ECL and/or low ability scores, not by having a bad class. This is not necessarily to say that a psion 3/wizard 3/sorcerer 3 should be balanced in combat or party utility against a cleric 9 -- the psion 3/wizard 3/sorcerer 3 is just generally screwed up from an optimization perspective. However, I think there should be ways in which a fighter 20 is better than a cleric 20, ways in which a wizard 1 is better than a barbarian 1, and ways in which a commoner 4 should be better than a ranger 4. That isn't to say that whatever class commoners use should be useful in adventures -- just that it should be more useful in non-adventure circumstances than other classes, rather than equal at best. Naturally, I have my own proposed replacement for the commoner.
But, yeah, the average D&D village is pretty storybook happy.
Let us look at the historical acre. It was roughly defined as the amount of land one man and one ox could plow in one day. Typically, it also meant the amount of land that would allow 1 person to exist at subsistence level. It is now defined as 43,560 sq ft. That works out to roughly 121’x 360’. For reference, the NCAA standard soccer field ‘optimum’ is 75 yards by 120 yards, or 225’x360’.
Taking the medieval assumption of 1 man day per acre, let us assume your family has a 20 acre spread. 9 acres for wheat production, 9 fallow acres for grazing, and 2 acres for a personal garden, barns, and a home. With 2 adults, 1 teen, and 1 child, this is probably maintained quite easily, with time for other chores- weaving, woodcutting, hunting, etc. They could get their entire wheat harvest plowed and planted within a week. With the garden, let us assume that the family consumes the proceeds from 4 of those acres for food, seed, and other personal uses. That leaves them 5 acres of wheat to sell at the end of the season.
Now, In England in the 1720s, the average yield for wheat was 19 bushels per acre. A bushel of wheat weighed roughly 60 pounds. That means your farm family was creating 1140 pounds of wheat per acre, or 5700 pounds on their 5 acre farm. Given the D&D trade value of 1 copper per pound of wheat, that means their entire crop, for an entire year, nets them 57gold.
Now, you have 9 acres for grazing. Good land management meant allowing your fertilizer factories aka cows, to graze on land recovering that year. Now, calculating the number of animals who can graze over the course of a year on a given acre can be quite challenging. See http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/livestock/418-012/418-012.html. But let’s assume the farmer has no concept of math, and just turns the animals loose on the 9 acres for the year. Following the math given in the link above, 9 acres is enough land for two 500# animals to graze on for a year. We could probably assume 1 bull, 1 cow, and 1 calf, and still make the math work. Assuming they sell the calf in the fall, that is another 10gp. We can assume that, with a baby, the milk production of the cow is being consumed by the family in butter, cheese, drink, etc.
So, for the year, our farm family makes 57 gold on their wheat, and 10 gold on the calf they raised. That is less than half of what you are assuming, based on skills.
The way the Profession skill is written up, I'm inclined to think that the income represents an average, after-taxes profit. After you own the farm and have paid off the mortgage and all the guild fees and all the taxes and averaged across all the seasons, at the end of the day, you end up with X more money in your pocket.
Given D&D's inclination and ability to be used as an economics simulator, I think that's a reasonable conclusion.
Cheers,
Roger
I also find it highly unlikely that in a world where there are things like Owlbears, no wizard has ever devised a better seed that produces more food.
If we assume that the TRADE GOODS costs are for trading, and the 'equipment' costs are for selling, then we could assume that the trade value of wheat is 1cp, but the sale value is twice that. The same should go for a cow.
That being the case, they could sell their wheat for 114 gold, and get 20 gold for the cow. That gets closer to your figures of a net 4 gp per week for 50 weeks, or 200gp.
As for what they grow, it isn't fair to just judge everything on a single crop. Livestock, dairy, and crops would all factor in. And its equally unfair to pick the single lowest priced item in the book to judge on. They could just as easily have a tobacco field that brings in 5 sp a pound, instead of 1 cp. Or they could grow cloves, which bring in 15 gp per pound, which means they would only need to grow about 33 pounds of the stuff all year to completely pay for everything they need.
The point is, though, that this level of detail isn't really important, as the game rules do not go into that level of detail for anyone, PC or NPC. The rules as written, which is what everybody claims are broken, is that you make your profession check and you get so much money out of it. If you houserule additional complications on top of that, of course you will make it harder to get by. However, when you get to that level, it becomes just as easy to use the oddball prices for things to your advantage.
Base rules are how I described them above, however. Anything else is purely added by the DM on the basis of personal preference, and hence are not valid for a general comparison.
And of course there is the fact that this is simply one example of how it could be done. You could just as easily be a blacksmith, a roof thatcher, or anything else you want to be, and the rules would be the same. The details on what exactly you do is little more than flavor text.
Number three, your model assumes that the land is freely owned by the farmer (like a homesteader), and that he has no taxes to pay. Neither are likely to be true. In a feudal system (which most D&D campaign worlds are), the land is owned by the lord, and the peasants work the land for him (ostensibly), taking enough for them to live (hopefully).
Tools don't last forever. They need to be replaced periodically. Even using the Profession skill system for income as you've done, rather than the hireling rates from the DMG, this Commoner family is going to barely get by after taxes.
Well, real peasants living under feudal landlords barely get by anyway, so they're still getting on fine (okay, not fine, but they can survive, and possibly go deeper and deeper and deeper into debt until they become serfs, or slaves, or something.) I think the point is just that commoner's aren't that much poorer than you would imagine in a generic campaign world.
And in a few years, when little Suzy picks up a "profession," they'll really be rakin' in the cash
By the time she hits that age, she'll likely have married off and be helping her new husband out instead of her old family. :p
Of course, they can only harvest their crop(s) during certain periods, and can grow nothing during the winter months. We are also assuming the commoners are Freemen and not serfs....
This is a very important point. A farmer can farm only about half a year, the rest of the year he needs to find other ways to earn some coppers, and he would be 'unskilled labor'.
Good land management meant allowing your fertilizer factories aka cows, to graze on land recovering that year.
Actually, as far as I am informed, back in the days they didn't know about land management and letting the land recover. They just farmed it all year after year (which obviously let to the soil becoming exhausted and giving less/worse crops).
So, if the farmer has a farm that he pays no rent or taxes on, and free stuff like longbows, farm implements, and animals, and a baby who never eats enough that it costs any money whatsoever, then yeah, his life will be pretty comfortable. But he will be paying taxes. He does have to pay for all the things he uses for farming, and even if he has some kind of credit that he used, he would have to pay it back. In this case all it takes is a single drought or especially rainy season to make his farming lousy and he will be pushed into being poor.
And that's all just real-world stuff. In the D&D world they have to contend with fantasy problems.
That doesn't make a lot of sense in its natural element so I personally like to explain it a little bit. Usually when I'm DMing and a skill allows something that isn't explainable I excuse it through luck. So in the case above I would say something like this "You plead with the merchant for a long time in an attempt to pacify his understandable hate. When finally he refuses to give up you mutter 'by the undertooth'. His eyes light up as he recognizes the catchphrase of the secret church group you both belong to, he looks at you without love, but without hate." and its over. Something impossible happened because the D20 says it did.
Finally to bring it back to the farmer, this makes it very understandable how it would work. A farmer's check result indicates 11 gp a week. All available farming information indicates 3 gp (or whatever number you'd like to use). Without DM cheese the money must be made (you'd never take that money from a player who rolled the skill check, would you?) somehow. How about something like this "In the course of your farming you find a set of plants that can be sold for much more than ordinary weeds growing among your wheat". Simple, and he gets his money. Here's another "The new farmer in town comes bye to get instructions in farming as you work, he pays you 7 gp a week." Another: "You are given a stipend by the lord for your excellent work in leading the community in farming work-ethic, its 7 gp a week." These are just a few I could go on all day.
Its really more important what the rules says happen (as in the original post) then whether it’s really possible.
~Rogue Newb
Your model assumes that the Commoner family owns their land free and clear and owes no rent, nor do they live within the jurisdiction of a tax-collector. Also, you assume that the family got free wood from the nearby forest to build their house. In most medieval societies, the forest belonged to the king, or to a local noble, and cutting trees was considered stealing, and exacted a harsh penalty. Peasants were allowed to gather fallen wood with which to make fire. Poaching on the king's land / noble's land was an act punishable by death.
You factor in the cost of the family's food, but fail to factor in the cost of feeding and caring for the livestock. A previous poster mentioned that the family might possibly own a bull, a cow, and a calf. Most farmers did not keep bulls. They were too unruly, ate a lot, and didn't contribute to the farm economy by birthing calves or producing milk. There might be just a few bulls kept in the district, and farmers would pay stud fees for their, umm, time. Many peasant farmers, in fact, would keep goats instead of cows, because they can graze on less desirable land.
Also, some things to consider: extended families, greater number of children and neighbors. We live in a modern world of the nuclear family (with 2.5 children) and many medieval families were extended and dwelling in or near the same household and sharing chores and work, with stories of seven children or more per wedded couple. I also remember stories where newlyweds would receive a house built for them by family and/or friends.
I also have some contention with the "meals" estimate. I would figure the adults and teenager would require 3 common meals per day (a regular diet of poor meals I would assume would lead to malnutrition for adults, but that is my opinion). I would figure the baby would require at least a poor meal a day otherwise what is the risk of not having enough money to keep the child fed?
It doesn't mean that the D&D economy makes total sense, of course. Who would really be interested in buying multi-thousand GP items except other adventurers, typically? Plus, there's always the effect of wizards with fabricate to consider.... mass production, anyone?
An enjoyable and insightful article in any case.
Joe Commoner takes 10 on his Profession (Farmer) check, for a total of 18. Jill and Billy both use Aid Other to help Joe with his check. Jill has a 60% chance of getting her Aid Other to succeed, while Billy has a 65% chance of succeeding. We'll be a bit conservative and say that, on average, one of them succeeds in giving Joe +2 to his checks, for a total of 20. Since you earn half your check in gold per week, this means the family has a weekly income of 10 gp, which is substantially better than the 21 sp (or 2.1 gp) they would have gotten as unskilled labor. The other skill ranks for the other family members do not factor into weekly income, and serve only to round them out and allow them to do things like carve their own wooden bowls, make their own clothes, etc.
Aid Another might not be the most efficient thing to do, here. Realistically, they might each be working on a separate profession skill. Joe tends to the crops and animals with Profession: Farming, Jill could sell baked goods with Profession: Cook or work as a seamstress with Craft: Clothes, Billy could use Profession: Hunting or Farming to assist, even little Susy could craft trinkets or bake cookies to sell.
If Joe, Jill, Billy, and Susy each make separate Profession Checks, all taking 10, then Joe gets 18, Billy 13, Jill 12, and Susy 11 - that's 9, 6, 6, and 5 gold, for a total of 26 GP a week.
Now if they work 50 weeks of the year they're producing a cool 1,300 GP per year. They could get 2 Common and 1 Good meal per day for ~15 GP and still have 550 GP left at the end of the year. If they live on Poor/Common meals as you suggest, and pay 1/3 of their gross income in taxes, they still have ~500 GP left at the end of the year for equipment.
That's enough for several Horses, a Dog, etc. A Cart/Wagon/Carriage, maybe new plow, not to mention some Masterwork Tools (each providing an extra 50 GP/Year). Investment in extra labor - even unskilled - should always pay for itself, making at least 5 GP a week at the cost of 7-21 SP. The real problem would be getting enough land to expand the farm onto.
Might I suggest that the prices listed in the PHB are what adventurers would pay for them? This could quite likely be a step up from what the townie would pay. Like with over-charging tourists. Our commoner could maybe bargain and get his hammer at a cheaper rate from his friend the blacksmith (those extra skill points could go towards diplomacy!). Also, the kinds of horses you buy for overland travel (while being chased by orcs) are different and probably more expensive than you'd pay for a creature to pull your plow. And most simple farming instruments (a shovel, a hoe) could be crafted easily to save money there. So I think the family is still able to survive, though they aren't exactly living the good life.
As for taxes... well super-high taxes would mean that yes, the peasants are starving. That's how the story works--the evil baron is overcharging the poor peasants. However the nice duke across the river takes a very reasonable sum so that the peasants can still get buy. So our peasants have very little spending money, but they should break even nicely, which is the point. And that's why such an economy would at least sustain itself, though not necessarily grow (if I understand things correctly).
I think that they probably made a large part of their cash by growing more valuable crops than wheat. Some garlic and onions at least. Some hops to sell to the innkeeper/brewer would be a good cash crop. Heck, it would be reasonable to say that there were poppies in one of their fields - because pretty flowers sell well to those rich aristocrats who are taxing them so heavily.
Also they would be planning ahead. They might be clearing more fields in the forest, so that their son can set himself up with his own homestead. That means logs that they could sell at the sawmill. That is a common winter occupation for farmers.
And it is more likely that the farmer would have an Ox or a Pony. Both are cheaper than a light or heavy horse. Heavy horses were developed for Knights in platemail. Thinking of heavy horses as work horses is I believe a relatively modern idea. The feudal world would have seen the heavy horse working only as a way of making the breed stock herd and spare animals of the knights pay their own way on a Lord's large estate where the large amount of work to be done made them useful.
The low maintenance pony of the farmer is a completely different animal. But before we discuss what animal's Joe owns we should ask, where are Joe's ranks in animal handling?
If Joe, Jill, and Billy all work on their own (presumably performing completely separate farming tasks or other jobs), they could each take 10, significantly increasing their profits. Working alone, Joe would still earn 9 gold per week, in addition to the 6 gold that both Jill and Billy earn, allowing them to bring in a weekly total of 22 gold pieces; more than double what they earn by working together.
I would like to address the people arguing against it, though. What you have to realise is that while it may not be historically accurate, that’s how it [i]has[i]to work in D&D. Remember that adventurers running around and slaying dragons isn't exactly historically accurate. How far off is it that in a world that has much more race/sex equality than ours did at an equivalent time period that there would actually be fair taxes that don't shaft the common man?
The vital thing about medieval farms was the grazing rights each household had on the common land. If Joe Commoner can pasture his animals on the common waste land between villages, then he can devote all his own land to growing crops etc.
Another thing that helped was the practice of holding 1 bull, 1 ram and 1 boar in common within each village.
Finally, each household owed three days of labour by one man to their overlord - for this purpose, Billy would count just as much as Joe without dropping the family income by much.
So (sticking as far as possible to D&D prices and round figures) Joe's yearly income might run something like this:
Joe Commoner, his wife and children live on a 20 acre farm, 2 acres of which contains the house, barns, garden etc. Of the remainder, half is sown with wheat and half is left as pasture. For livestock, they graze 1 cow and 10 sheep on the common land (which are brought in for milking) and keep 5 chickens and a pig closer to home. When he has time, Billy hunts rabbits in the nearby wood.
9 acres of wheat brings in around 85gp
The straw left after threshing - 40gp
Hay from the pasture - 40gp
From the sheep: wool - 2gp
On average 1 lamb each - 20gp
Cheese (from their milk) - around 176gp
From the chickens: chicks - 10gp
2 doz eggs/week - 1gp
From the cow: calf - 10gp
Milk - around 140gp
From the pig - piglets - 30gp
Rabbit skins (from hunting) - 1gp
TOTAL INCOME 550gp
Minus: Living Expenses - 330gp
Taxes - 120gp
DISPOSABLE INCOME 100gp /2gp per week
Using the math found above (Profession (whatever) 20/ 10 gp week) at a total of 4 weeks/month, we can say that the average monthly income would be approximately 40gp/month. (This is an abstract which would vary throughout the year, of course, but it is a useful average.)
Now, if we have a family of 5, the math would work out as follows. Assuming the "Self-Sufficient" lifestyle, the family of 5 would require 10gp a month to maintain itself. (2gp per person per month. 2x5=10gp/month)
Subtract this from the 40 "average income," and you have 30gp a month for "specific adventuring equipment," such as a mule, plow, tools, blankets, trade goods, lamps & oil, etc...
30gp x 12 months = 360gp to spend as necessary, which is not a bad total at all.
You could even move up to the "Meager" lifestyle at 5gp/month per person. Our family would be paying 25gp/month, leaving 15gp/month for "equipment." That leaves a total of 180gp/year for our family to spend on equipment.
Depending on their lifestyles, the average commoner family should be relatively comfortable, if not wealthy, for the majority of their lives.
I've noticed some people complaining about realism. If we wanted ultra realism, we could factor in diseases. Basically, it would effect the game as follows:
Dungeons & Dragons: Real diseases in fantasy ages
Character Creation:
When you are born, roll a d20. If you roll under a 5, you die. If you roll a 1, your mother dies giving birth. Hand your character concept over to the DM who is allowed to rip it up and ask you to start over again.
If you roll anything below an 14, you have some manner of physical deformity or condition; this ranges from allergies to asthma, to a blind eye or a bum leg. This is either from lack of food, genetic diseases, sanitary conditions, or living conditions from your family's inherent habitations. The DM gets to choose this and since you're a poor rock-farmer, you can never afford any manner of magical healing and will probably have a miserable, but thankfully short life.
If you roll 15 or over you are born free of deformities or diseases. If you roll a 20, you could pass as a noble-born person (or most present day humans in a first-world climate).
Living and surviving
For ever year that you live, roll a d20. If you roll lower than a 5, you have died; most likely from a disease.
If you roll lower than 19, you gain one of the following (DM's choice): crippling affliction, the plague, blindness, deafness, withered limb, horrid disease, terrible disease.
If you roll a 1, you are considered a witch and burned (no save).
If you roll a 20, congratulations, no diseases this year.
Repeat once per year, or whenever you are within 50' of water, animals or other people. If you ever eat food, roll this check as well.
Note: Women aren't allowed to be anything asides from wives or dead. Please consult with your DM about choosing an alternate sex.
I think my players might initially object, but think of the rich roleplaying opportunities this ultra-realistic system brings about.
My point of course is that if you find that commoners don't actually make enough based on the system to get by, then so what? I would much prefer that the creators spent time balancing the combat system then making sure that the npc wage chart was flawless and realistic to an extreme most players wouldn’t even bother to appreciate.
3rd edition is -not- the system you want if you have a need for complete realism at the expense of fun and lacking of excess rule baggage, the sooner people accept that and move on, the better for everyone involved.
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.
I think of it like this: the average commoner has a +5 in profession so makes DC 15 profession checks so makes about 7gp a week. We'll round that up to 10gp a week per household, as Endymion's model. This is about 40gp a month. Now I believe the poverty line for a family of 4 is about $18000US a year, or $1500 a month. So 40gp = $1500, or 1gp = $37.5.
And just look what happens when you consider that value: a mug of ale costs 4cp, which is about $1.5. Sounds pretty reasonable for what's basically a cup of soda, right? Also, this means that a masterwork weapon (300gp) costs $11250. So a masterwork weapon is about the same as a car might be. This makes sense to me intuitively--most families own a masterwork weapon, but it's a pretty heavy investment. Some affluent families may own two or three!
So if we consider the gold coin as worth about $30-40 (which is of course going to be a lot less than the price of gold IRL. After all, they're using them as currency!), then the system still kind of has a modern equivalency.
Basically these articles deal with the flaws of the DMG's system of town generation and how to fix them. In the course of this process such topics like racial family size and income of the commoner are touched and discussed.
I wonder if this thread could make something of it? A more streamlined population generation AND D&D economics would be something not only I seem to be interested in seeing.
This is a very important point. A farmer can farm only about half a year, the rest of the year he needs to find other ways to earn some coppers, and he would be 'unskilled labor'.
Again, while a logical conclusion, it is not one that is supported by the rules. There is nothing in there that says profession checks cannot be made during the "off season", so it is not covered by this article. It is also important to remember that farming was only the easiest to do example. The profession could also be blacksmithing, scribe work, or anything else that would not have to worry about off seasons.
Actually, as far as I am informed, back in the days they didn't know about land management and letting the land recover. They just farmed it all year after year (which obviously let to the soil becoming exhausted and giving less/worse crops).
However, seeing as D&D is not mundane medieval Europe, and the concept of soil exhaustion never comes up, it is again something that is outside the scope of this article. And for the record, the idea of crop rotation *WAS* around in that time period, only it wasn't being used by the Europeans. It’s just as easy to say that D&D commoners understand the concept of crop rotation, and hence this problem goes away. Given that the typical image of a commoner working the same land generation after generation, its safe to assume that this is the case.
Taxes and rent man. Every game I've played where the commoners are super-poor is because of overtaxation and/or rent. It's not because they are just commoners. Rent may not be a concern, but there's pretty much no way they are getting by without paying taxes.
And just what are the tax rates for a normal country in D&D? Anything we say here is completely arbitrary, and as such is not something that needs to be addressed for the sake of the article.
So, if the farmer has a farm that he pays no rent or taxes on, and free stuff like longbows, farm implements, and animals, and a baby who never eats enough that it costs any money whatsoever, then yeah, his life will be pretty comfortable. But he will be paying taxes. He does have to pay for all the things he uses for farming, and even if he has some kind of credit that he used, he would have to pay it back. In this case all it takes is a single drought or especially rainy season to make his farming lousy and he will be pushed into being poor.
Who said he got free longbows and farm implements? He would have paid for them just like anybody else. The entire point of the article is to show that they could easily save up enough money to buy these sorts of things. As for the baby, it could just as easily still be breast feeding, meaning no, it would not cost any money at all to feed it.
They make 150-200 gp per year, which is more than enough to be able to afford to buy things like new livestock, farming tools (the ones they can't craft themselves), and everything else they need to get by on.
And that's all just real-world stuff. In the D&D world they have to contend with fantasy problems.
And, as I find myself repeating, repeatedly, is that this is based entirely on the rules as written, which everyone complains are broken. The rules are not broken, if anything, it is people houseruling overly harsh expenses on the commoners that is ruining things.
Your analysis is good, but doesn't cover the issue that really makes the D&D economy feel wrong: the price of gold.
It doesn't need to.
1) Gold has a set value in the game. Its real world value never enters into the equation. It doesn't matter if real world gold is worth 3 cents a pound or 10 million dollars a pound, it does not affect the value of the metal in the game in any way.
2) Your common D&D setting has got gold coins coming out of its ears. Dragons that live in caves in the middle of nowhere have hundreds of thousands of gold coins that it just lays on top of. There are generally considered to be hundreds or thousands, or even tens of thousands of years of habitation and civilization that also used gold coins as currency, meaning there is plenty of backstock of coin out there.
Essentially, any attempt to compare the value of a D&D gold coin to a real world exchange rate based on the current value of gold is inherently flawed to the point that it is unusable.
Another good example, the current US penny actually contains more than 1 cent worth of copper in it, meaning it's face value is less than it's intrinsic value. The exact same thing could be happening in D&D, where the value of a gold coin is worth less than the value of the gold in it. However, this is almost certainly not the case, as a pure gold bar costs the same by weight as an equal weight of gold coins.
If you insist on trying to find a real world value for D&D currency, you can't use a direct metal value comparison, you need to look at what the currency can buy, and work from there to see how much the relative value of gold is. I've done those calculations in the past (and I may do an article on it for Regdar’s here soon), but the best exchange rate that I've found is that 1 sp = $1 US, making the value of gold ($10 for a gold coin) drastically less than it is in the real world. Although, given the simple fact that the value of gold in the real world is artificially inflated to begin with (they intentionally don't mine as much gold as they could, and continue to advertise it as some great thing simply to keep the price up), its not that much of a surprise that the peoples in D&D would value it less than we do currently.
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.
This is a totally separate discussion, but:
1) D&D is not medieval Europe. The rarity/scarcity of any given object or substance cannot fairly be judged by using real world values.
2) I already addressed in the article itself that the "gold" values for much of this is not in actual coin, but in barter/trade goods. No, the farmer isn't getting a big stack of shiny gold coins every year, and he's not paying gold to other people for what he needs. He's trading a sack of wheat, or a bag of dried carrots for what he needs.
As for Ruslanchik's post, the average income in the U.S. and A (in 2003) is $40,688. Actually, that's for a man. Women make $30,724 a year on average. But that is probably Expert range, not Commoner. I dunno. It's hard to compare. Minimum wage makes something like $11,000 a year or so, and that would be the unskilled ditch-digging. Full-time. That is a good base in which to compare. I don't know where I was going with that, but I thought it was interesting and relevant.
Census.
As for RogerC's comment, I think how you interpreted the description makes sense. I guess it's technically one of those "It doesn't say you can't" arguments, but it does say that you make X amount. I usually interpreted similarly (or didn't care).
There are also other methods of keeping the soil fertile, one of them being the use of fertilizers. Bovine and other animal excrement would do. It's also possible that D&D farmers know about compost.
There are also other methods of keeping the soil fertile, one of them being the use of fertilizers. Bovine and other animal excrement would do. It's also possible that D&D farmers know about compost.
And medieval farmers *DID* know about fertilizers. They would routinely put manure on their fields. Its one reason why English food still tends to be bland today, because of a long history of having to boil everything for hours precisely because their food was covered in
.xpochian's 25% annual death rate is a bit silly -- it indicates that 99% of people don't make it to age 16, which clearly would have lead to extinction.
By the way -- the real world value of gold (i.e., about $600/troy oz) is largely based on speculation, not the normal mechanics of supply and demand. In the year 2000, six years ago, for instance, gold cost "only" about $275 an ounce. While gold is very cheap and abundant in D&D by normal standards, gold in the real world is also rather expensive at the moment. (I'm no financial consultant, so please don't trust all of your money to my advice, but I'd hazard a guess that gold will be cheaper in 2010 than it is now.)
And in a few years, when little Suzy picks up a "profession," they'll really be rakin' in the cash, eh ;)
Seriously, good write up. Now we can see why goblins and other nasties might raid the village...the people actually do have a bit of coin.
Are you trying to suggest that Suzy finds work as a prostitute? I think that is marvelous.
Gold value: There were also a LOT less people back then, which would lower the value of gold. Regardless, the rules allow for the peasant to survive (even if a yearly savings of 4lbs. of solid gold sounds weird). As it happens my DM uses the "silver standard": sp replaces gp, cp replaces sp, bp (bronze) replaces cp.
***
First off why a level 2 commoner?
Joe has spent the last 30 some odd years focused on farming. He listens to rumors, talks to others, jacks his price up when adventurers come to town, haggles, and spends time in a church. He continues to improve in his life, the experience continues to improve as well.
***
Winter.
During the winter Joe cuts wood for his heat and to sell, he might milk his cows, spend time carving out crude chairs, smelting his own tools to reforge them. Arrows do not cost 1gp to a commoner. They find a stick, whittle it, bash a rock until its sharp, pluck a feather or two from a chicken. It does not fly as good as ones intended to be sold to others. But it works. They get things for free because you cannot buy raw resources from land you own.
Money does not grow on trees, it grows in them. You can chop a tree up and sell it and no cost other than physical labor to you.
***
Crop rotation.
People in D&D explore other worlds and planes. The found their gods and some even shake their hands. They found out how to create helpful things from nothing but a word. How to heal ANY disease, and bring people back to life.
We are still stuck on earth. We still argue about gods. We create stuff that slowly kills us. We cure one disease and 2 more are found and kill us, If your heart stops we can try to restart it. If your blown to bits we mourn you.
Who’s more advanced? I would think they know about crop rotation...
***
Taxes?
I have seen many people point out taxes. but not a one pointed out that fact clerics and paladins tithe to their church, and that very church helps out commoners in need.
***
Our lives.
No matter what points are said, keep in mind D&D is not real life.
Think of how different it could be if a wizard could summon iron, or a druid makes every corp grow bigger, maybe make crops grow in the winter. And how long can a family live off a adult dragon's corpse give?
D&D uses its own system of costs, do not apply real life values to it.
***
First post.
Well made, and possess great insight.
Yes, I do tend to bring in some 'historical' aspects to D&D. But the average commoner's life as portrayed in the game does not seem so different from the 'historical' commoner. So I think we can use it as a base. For example, [HTML]http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Agricult.htm[/HTML] provides some excellent information about agriculture in various eras.
In my first reply, for example, I tried to use historical data to divide up the land a farmer might have to try to separate the family 'needs' from the excess. Of course, many other's posts are correct as well- there is ample opportunity for our sample family to make extra pocket money.
And, of course, there are other factors- taxes, the influence of the clergy on the abundance of the crops, and the trade-vs-sale value of goods.
Each character of a given level will have the same level of skill because they maxed ranks (if they didn't, they're dumb). Now, here's an interesting concept: what if maximizing ranks isn't a conscious choice of the character? PCs do it, but that's because their players choose to (as is their right!). But commoners probably don't have that option.
Also, why are all craft skills and all profession skills valued equally? Granted, if we go by what I said in point 1 in that any 1st level commoner has 4 ranks in their respective field, then all craft and profession skills are acquired just as easily, so the supply curves for each should be roughly identical, which admittedly would make sense on that end. But the DEMAND for different products would not be the same (we could say that the costs of Profession and Craft are bare minimums though). Of course, the assumption we make here is that 4 ranks in craft doesn't represent the same level of skill as 4 ranks in another craft.
Ultimately, what we know is that not everyone can be there to supervise. And that's what the profession skill represents. The majority of labor IS unskilled, because if everyone was skilled, the value of skilled labor would just plummet. Most of the guys on a sailing vessel don't have ranks in Profession (Sailor), which is why the one guy does have it, and why he gets GP instead of SP on a regular basis.
In short: NPCs don't necessarily have optimum skill results.
But here's another thing. The cost of a cow or a wagon is based on the cost of production of said cow/wagon (supply) and the value of said cow/wagon (demand). So when you buy a wagon, you are competing against a commoner who can use that wagon. When you buy a cow, you are competing against a commoner that can use said cow. Presumably, cows are worth more to wealthy aristocrats that like beef than they are to commoners (except that the commoner then sells the cow, but we're talking about cows as an input not a finished product). Therefore, the price of the cow probably represents the higher class. However, a wagon is probably more useful to a commoner than to an aristocrat. That doesn't mean the wagon represents its worth to a commoner though, because the commoner may want it more, but he can afford it less. So in short, we have a situation where the inputs probably aren't going in the most optimum direction.
Where was I going with this again? Oh, right.
The cost of a wagon or cow isn't the cost to a commoner. It's the cost to an adventurer who wants to buy it. And he's competing against EVERYONE who wants it, not against commoners. So why do commoners get their things cheaper? Because they make them themselves. Or maybe they're subsidized and the duke doesn't allow adventurers to buy cows directly from a peasent. And if they sold it directly, the duke would just take their gold from them.
I totally lost myself on this one, as I was arguing with a disenfranchised player over something entirely different. Overall, D&D's economy is BS, but it's not really that much the fault of the commoner. Personally I think the craft and profession skills in general are probably a bit off as well...
First off why a level 2 commoner?
Because I'm an Eberron player, not a Faerun player. NPCs don't run around being level 15 commoners, most are lucky to ever be anything more than a level 1 commoner/expert/adept.
I fully subscribe to the idea that NPCs use NPC classes if at all possible, and that they are the absolute lowest level possible to get the job done.
Regarding the "Aid Another" discussion for the farmer. It would be more efficient for each to make their own checks--but that implies that they are each farming the biggest plot they can manage. If cleared land is not free for the taking, and barns and the like have to be built, then you don't have the space for each to farm their own plot. With a shortage of land, "Aid Another" gets the most silver per acre.
Yup. Each one making their own checks means each one has to have their own farm, their own set of tools, their own everything. If two people are using the same equipment in the same area for the same goal, then one is using Aid Other on the other.
A Tax Collector (1st-level Aristocrat)
A Constable (2nd-level Warrior)
A Wise-woman (1st-level Adept)
For take-home salaries, these folks will draw 4sp (Clerk wage), 6sp (Mercenary Leader wage) and 1gp (Alchemist wage, as a representation of the sorts of things that an Adept does in a community) per day. Now, 2gp/day doesn't seem like that much for having these folks in town, but it doesn't take into account the standard of living to which they have become accustomed - that has to be paid for in addition to their take-home wage.
The Tax Collector expects a Good upkeep, for 100gp/month. The Constable, being less of a snob, will settle for Common, still requiring 45gp/month; while the Wise-woman only asks for what amounts to a poor upkeep, at 12gp/month. So, we've gone from 60gp/month to 217gp/month, to be split evenly (no progressive taxation in D&D, remember) among the other residents.
According to the scenario we've had drawn up for us, the standard commoner organisation is the 4-person household (following Rome, I am not regarding infants as persons). Each of the 14 other households of the community will then have a tax burden of 15gp/month assigned to it, just to pay for the local authorities. We can also assume that the Tax Collector's boss would like to see some coin coming from the Thorpians; if the Tax Collector is in fact the Supreme Executive Authority, then he'll have to pocket more change in order to more regularly hire mercenaries/adventurers to deal with problems that a feudal army might otherwise put down.
A Magical Medieval Society has a very interesting PDF on Manors and quite a few pages devoted to the commoners and what they are doing each month of the year with a labor calendar. Half own 10 or fewer acres, one third own 12-16 acres and the poorest have little or no land. Plant growth grants that production bonus.
Nice commoner farmer article. I'd consider reducing annual income to income to 2/3 to 3/4 annually because of winter and being unable to grow crops from December to February and devoting the time to performing the repairing and rebuilding.
Again:
- The point of the article is that they can survive quite nicely using the rules as written. Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to take entire months off from work due to the weather.
- Also as I have already pointed out, farming is just one example of the commoner life. I could have just as easily have made this a blacksmith family, a thatcher family, or any number of other profession choices that would not be bothered by winter. I simply chose farmer because it is the most "common" commoner job.
- The idea of dropping the income also rests on the (incorrect) assumption that farming involves nothing but plants. They would also have livestock such as goats, chickens, etc that they could rely on for income when the season changes. They could also be selling off stocks of grain or whatnot that they didn't sell as soon as they produced it. Its a faulty assumption to think that farm life just totally shuts down in the winter time.
But, we've already covered all of this on this thread already, right?
General costs:
Alms 1-5%, Maintenance Consumption 5 - 30 % of income. Scutage 10% of income, Tax 20% of income, Maintenance and Repair 1 - 8% of income. Special Mishap (25% chance 10 - 40%), Normal (50%), Good year (25% No maintenance cost to +20% or +1,000 GP).
Steward Chamberlain 300 GP, Household and Kitchen 5% of income, laborers 4% of income, managerial staff 3% of income. Personal Staff:360 GP + 10% per additional manor, Barber 300 GP, Doctor 300 GP, Falconer 300 GP, Huntsmen 300 GP, Keeper of the Wardrobe 300 GP, Tailor 200 GP other servants 50 - 200 GP.
You mentioned the standard of living of the three to be on top of their take home pay. Shouldn't they be responsible for their standard of living out of their expense like everyone else in world?
The section on Hirelings in the DMG notes that the wages do not reflect the cost of "materials, tools or weapons" required for the job. While the cost of living isn't going to precisely reflect that, it seems like a reasonable way of estimating what these officials might claim, in addition to the extra expenses that they run up in the line of duty (such as hiring adventurers).
Now, in closing, it should be said that the idea of them having this much money does not necessarily mean they actually ever see that much actual coin. Joe and his family are capable of outputting 10 gp worth of produce per week, and consuming 6 gp worth of goods per week. It is almost guaranteed that most of the food money is actually coming out of what they grow (so they grow 10 gp worth of food, then turn around and eat 6 gp worth of it every week), and that anything else they get from others in the village is in the form of barter (2 bags of potatoes for that new hoe, for example).
However, much of the food that they produce might be in the form of cash crops, with only a small garden on the side; you also have to keep in mind droughts and market stresses that these farmers must prepare for. Plus... you need to keep overhead costs in mind, such as bribes, taxes, sharecropping, and other forms of 'revenue farming' that higher-ups do to the lessers; no matter what sort of medieval-style socio-economic system you look at, there are class inequalities that tend to seriously strain commoners... usually as far as the nobles/landlords/merchants/etc can push them without getting rebellions in payment.
So, while this commoner family may not have much money, they are in no way destitute, and are quite capable of living very comfortable lives, without the need to overall the entire D&D economy just to make it more "realistic" for them.
Your examination as per the mechanics was quite astute, but I feel that you may have simply exposed more problems with the mechanics... or more accurately, you've raised pertinent questions about how DMs and players should frame class-issues in-game.
Logically, the women shouldn't bother with farming, they should take Profession: Cook, up to the maximum and use their rolls to both feed the family and turn a tidy profit. This practically eliminates the living expenses of the family.
Thus the family sells the farm and moves closer to town and builds an inn and tavern. Why? Because most farms are in Rural Areas, with few travelers and nearby roads. Every family in the area will also be attempting to lure what few rare travelers there are in the area to their houses to reap the rewards of excess good food. Granted every overworked house wife slaving over a hot fire will want time off and go over to the nearest homestead and spend some of the hard earned "excess" money so she doesn't have to cook as much.
Logically, the women shouldn't bother with farming...QUOTE]
Oh if only my Feminist Theories prof could read this ;)
Or maybe the men should not bother with farming and max out their ranks in cooking
I've been trying to figure out how commoners made ends meet for an urban setting, but this puts it more clearly in perspective, as the principle holds true.
Thanks, Edymnion!
Thus the family sells the farm and moves closer to town and builds an inn and tavern. Why? Because most farms are in Rural Areas, with few travelers and nearby roads. Every family in the area will also be attempting to lure what few rare travelers there are in the area to their houses to reap the rewards of excess good food. Granted every overworked house wife slaving over a hot fire will want time off and go over to the nearest homestead and spend some of the hard earned "excess" money so she doesn't have to cook as much.
Ah, but that doesn't matter. Remember this is a purely RAW discussion, and nowhere does it say that the money you make using your Profession or Craft skills are affected by any kind of environmental situation. You make your Skill Check/2 Gold Pieces a week, every week.
Heck for that matter there's no real reason for these farmers to bother farming, they could pick far easier professions and make just as much money.
I'm not sure if someone's mentioned it just yet, but I believe the PHB or DMG's reference to commoners earning 1 silver a week is mirrored by the craft or profession skilled: an "unskilled" laborer earns 1 silver a week. The example family of commoners are far from unskilled.
That's the thing though. In D&D, according to RAW, there is no such thing as an "unskilled" labourer. Everybody gets skill points, pretty much everybody gets Profession or Craft as a class skill, so there's never any reason for anybody to be on 1sp a day.
Furthermore, there is no unemployment in D&D, your ability to make money is based purely on your skill roll.
According to RAW.
I think the issue should come back to the world you want to create and interpreting the rules in a way that allows you to do it. For example: If you’re a fan of Robin Hood than the commoners SHOULD be dirt poor, and unjustly so. That way the good aligned characters will feel compelled to help.
If you like magic to be a substitute for technology than the commoners should be better off - spell like create water and plant growth as well as magically enhanced farm implements would allow farming at modern industrial levels. Bear in mind that such a campaign wouldn't feel medieval though.
In a medieval flavoured campaign the commoners lot should be about getting by. Maybe they do have to maintain elderly relatives (as was usually the case). Maybe grandma has leveled up and learned craft (bowmaker) which explains the bow, (or maybe she just has low ranks, enough to keep the families precious longbow in good nick but not enough to craft a new one).
The Joe Commoner farmer family would face a lot of dangers - a hard winter, disasters such as gales, earthquakes, snowstorms, droughts, epidemics, bandits and wild animals (not just man-eaters, but animals which threaten livestock) in addition to fantasy perils. If they survive then I guess they should gain XP. So if Joe and Jill Commoner manage to keep everyone in the family alive through a tough winter they may may well gain a level: a few more points in profession (farmer, feats such as great fortitude and endurance could both be essential.
In Tolstoy’s novels the noble characters often describe how the Russian peasants are incredibly tough so Great Fortitude (protects from privation, dodgy foods, disease and cold) and Endurance (lets you work for longer) feats should be common.
Also remember that good aligned clerics should help people. In baseline D&D Pelor is the most popular deity probably because his clerics heal and help the commoners. Yes the cleric may charge adventurers laden with gold (or rather, expect a donation), but they probably wouldn't (and definitely shouldn't) charge for healing the poor (the donations from the wealthy are probably what enables them to work for the commoners for free).
Taxation and the DMG:
Second, while several people have mentioned taxation and the like, I don't recall seeing anyone raise the point I'm about to (though if I missed it, forgive me for the oversight). From the DMG, pg 140:
"Taxes paid the queen, the emperor, or the local baroness might consume as much as one-fifth of a character's wealth (although these expenses vary considerably from land to land). Representatives of the government usually collect taxes yearly, biannually, or quarterly. Of course, as travelers, adventurers might avoid most collection periods (and so you can ignore taxes for the PCs if you want). Those who own land or a residence may find themselves assessed and taxed, however."
As such, it seems rather clear that any NPC resident/farmer/etc. within an area is likely to incur some taxation. While it is certainly arguable as to what might be an appropriate "average" consideration (for a discussion such as this one), we can at least figure that more oppressive societies tax 1/5th of NPC income, scaling down from there toward more lenient, poorly run or simply generous and benevolent societies.
Religion and NPC tithes/donations:
If I might allow the DMG to interject a small bit further, from the same page:
"Tithes are paid to the church by those who are faithful participants in a religion. Tithes often amount to as much as one-tenth of a character's adventuring earnings, but collection is voluntary except in strict, oppressive religions that have their own tithe collectors. Such onerous religious taxation requires the support of the government."
While not a mandatory expense (except as noted), it isn't difficult to think that most commoners are adherents of one sort or another, and probably tithe at least a small additional amount each year for religious purposes. I also think it would be reasonable to view this outside of merely tithing to an organization and consider it also as costs incurred by commoners who make offerings to a deity they seek to gain favor or protection from.
In our example family from the original post, it shouldn't be unexpected for them to spend 5%+ or more of their income in some combination of tithes and offerings to, say, Chauntea (or some similar agriculture related deity). Not to mention that some portion of that likely would be given by the family to the institutions (and clergy) of a deity like that in return for blessings over their fields, or similar activities in the hope of gaining some increased degree of certainty that their crops will come through well, in a world with lots of uncertainty at hand.
This might include donations to clergy and offerings to deities they don't even worship, but instead fear. Our hunter boy might make some costly annual offerings to Malar, in the hopes of placating the god's anger with the hope of avoiding dangerous animals, or even to grant them greater success in future hunts over the coming year. This despite the fact that the boy generally is (or consider himself to be) faithful to Chauntea, as with the rest of the family.
Scale of Economy:
Also, while not remarked upon here (not that it is wholly relevant ... or wholly irrelevant) is the consideration of the economy on a greater and localized scale.
What I mean is that a community will only maintain enough economic power to support some [x] number of members within the community. Beyond that, the economy falters in so far as providing actual gold income to members who are least able to compete.
By way of example, the DMG describes that a Thorp has GP limit of 40gp -- you simply can't find items of a value beyond that within the scope of that Thorp and it's economy. This gives a hint as to the strength (or weakness) of a localized economy, but what it really does is provide an indication as to the number of skilled workers that economy can both support and demand. Workers who effectively produce goods which exceed a 40gp limit will find no buyers, aside from the very occasional adventurer who might need their product. The result is that those more highly skilled workers will move to a location with a stronger economy.
The wagon maker, as one example, will find it unsustainable to setup shop in something smaller than, say, a village (at a minimum). The degree of competition found in wagon makers within a village is also therefore limited -- before one person is either pushed out or simply moves to an even larger economic center where his or her skill can reap a greater reward.
As a result, we find something along the lines of more highly skilled NPC commoners and experts (i.e., professionals) congregating in larger population centers, with the converse as you inspect toward the smaller locales like a Hamlet or Thorp. I do find the "highest level locals" system the DMG recommends to be a bit out of whack, for this reason -- you can end up with significantly high level commoners in a thorp, for example.
As a generalized rule, it might be wise to apply the "max GP value" of a good that can be purchased in a locale to also represent the maximum amount of gold an NPC (or even a family) can earn in a year from that economy. That is, even a highly skilled commoner in a thorp will find that they simply can't squeeze more than 40 gold of income from the local economy, no matter how fabulous they can craft or guide or farm. Some adventurer who comes in and buys that max-40gp item has really made someone’s year, perhaps even given the economy a strange bump alongside. But that is beyond the norm. 40 gold is the max, not an average or typical purchase being made.
For some professions (such as a farmer) who produce a product of some kind, travel alleviates the dilemma to some degree (so long as they can reasonably transport the goods to a place that both has the economic demand and wealth to purchase those goods). If we exclude farmer from the rule, it actually provides an impetus for the economy to become more agrarian as you move toward smaller communities, and more professional skill based as you move toward larger population centers.
It also provides an explanation (or motivation) for traffic between locations, as some profession types ply their wares and skills in places that can actually afford them -- take hunters and even guides as an example, who generate their product or offer their service by going into remote locales but earn the most gold for their efforts in more populated ones.
For other professions who provide a skill, this simply isn't true. That sort of skilled professional is selling their labor, not a good. A 20th level expert (sailor) will find it exceptionally hard to make any money if they are 200 miles inland, living in an all but forgotten hamlet. It simply has to be tough to earn money as a sea captain if you are utterly land-locked.
Again, I'd suggest that the community max GP value lend itself to the issue -- that expert sailor obviously has some very strong skills even when not at sea, and though he is a "fish-out-of-water", so to speak, he could still earn at least 40 gold even in the worst of locations. Maybe, I dunno, assisting a local cartographer, or managing field hands (hey, they can manage a ship full of scurvy men, you'd think they could handle a field of laborers).
While a strong motivation for the expert or professional to leave for a brighter place, it does create some interesting story hooks for highly skilled NPCs in places that they are woefully underpaid, or simply out of context. The first thing I would ask, as a player, is who is that 20th level expert sailor hiding from?
I have a question about the levels of the commoners used in example. I've read on other forums that commoners and other NPCs in their 30s should be about 3rd to 5th level. I tend to agree with this; only their very young adults should be 1st level IMHO.
Would this increase in level significantly increase the earning potential of NPCs? Do you disagree about NPCs and increased levels?
I would, however, like to add that most families would be a great deal larger than 5 people. Off times, in a feudal society and less specifically pre-industrial societies, families were very large. You would have upwards of 5 children, typically more. Add to that the older grandparents, whom could not support themselves, and the high possibility that when sons and daughters come of age they live very near, if not with their parents, even after marriage. The same house could be shared by 3 generations of people, simply being passed down to the eldest son, if such records would even be kept.
So in effect the median income of the house would increase but due to extra dependencies the weekly and yearly income of the family would probably mirror or at the very least be in the ball park of your estimate.
The factor(s) I believe you are missing are the taxes. Now granted this statistic would vary from country to country, world to world so there is no reliable median. The only solution would be to say that typically 1/3 of the family income (for a commoner family) would be required in taxes per week (for simplicities sake, we’ll stick to per week rather than per month, as would more of a realistic tax period), depending on the country, if the economy is not feudal; or 1/3 of the harvested crops due weekly if the economy is feudal.
Sounds reasonable, more or less; in that case a family, living in a non-feudal economic area, would be taxed 3.3gp a week, leaving the family with a mere 6.7gp per week. Now it is reasonable to assume that a lord/government may only tax what the family actually sells at market, which according to your estimates would be roughly 4gp per week. So 1/3 of 4 would be 1.32gp spent in taxes per week, thus leaving the family with 2.68gp left over per week.
In a feudal society the lord would not be as forgiving and he would demand his share, which in this case would be 1/3 of the harvested crops per week. Now if Joe's family is able to harvest 10gp worth of Crops per week then the Lord would take 3.3gp away, thus leaving the family with 6.7gp a week. In this case the family would only have .7gp per week left over; now that's quite a bit less than the originally estimated 4gp per week in sheer profits.
In the case of the feudal society it is assumed the commoner are in fact surfs, not free men, and in that case it would be more acceptable to believe they would be closer to destitution and thus possess less money overall. Of course this concept fails to account for the fact that a family of surfs would more than likely not eat any ‘good meals’ and would eat perhaps only 2 meals a day (or ration the food out so you eat the quantity of 2 meals over three servings). Further the family would rely even more on the Son’s ability to hunt, if hunting would be allowed in the area.
Anyways, I just want to say that the article was really well written and very thought provoking in so far as I have never given any consideration to how close (or far) from destitution commoner families were and merely assumed they existed near enough not to garner the wealth required to acquire expensive items.
To all others that criticize his math/ideas/whatever. . . Come on people, he made nice sense of the rules. Now, understand, every DM interprets the rules the way they want (and makes his own assumptions). So, what ever you say doesn't make his article more or less valid. It is his way of thinking. Heck, I even included supply and demand schemes in my game. Technology varies from different eras and there's even a banking/stock system. Those are my rules, who's to say that I am wrong?
So, please, if you really want to say something, go do some research, and post your own series of equations, showing the way you think it should be done. This is a fantasy game, where the rules can be changed and bent at the DMs will. If you've got nothing nice to say, don't say it at all. (And, definitely, don't repeat what other people have said, it's redundant and takes more time than really needed to read a good thread.)
The X
For example: If you’re a fan of Robin Hood than the commoners SHOULD be dirt poor, and unjustly so. That way the good aligned characters will feel compelled to help.
In Robin Hood, the commoners were actually in one of the worst situations imaginable. First, it was war (far away, in the Holy Land, but anyway) and taxes always rise during wartime. And then there were tyrants (LE?) ruling the land, which is also never good for the population. It was bad enough to create active resistance, after all.
While it's okay to create such a situation so the PCs can slip into the Robin-Hood-role, it shouldn't be assumed "standard".
That's the thing though. In D&D, according to RAW, there is no such thing as an "unskilled" labourer.
Not true, at any time you are working on a chore in which you have no skill ranks to back it up is unskilled labor. You could have max ranks in Craft (tea cozies), but if you're working out in a field, then you're working as unskilled labor. Ask any college grad working at McDonald's.
I think the issue should come back to the world you want to create and interpreting the rules in a way that allows you to do it. For example: If you’re a fan of Robin Hood than the commoners SHOULD be dirt poor, and unjustly so. That way the good aligned characters will feel compelled to help.
Ah yes, but this would be a factor of how heavy the taxation is, not of how much the commoners actually produce.
I have a question about the levels of the commoners used in example. I've read on other forums that commoners and other NPCs in their 30s should be about 3rd to 5th level. I tend to agree with this; only their very young adults should be 1st level IMHO.
Would this increase in level significantly increase the earning potential of NPCs? Do you disagree about NPCs and increased levels?
I did the example with two ideals in mind for the levels of the commoners.
1) I'm an Eberron player, not Faerun. In Eberron, it is very rare to find anybody with more than one or two levels in an NPC class. By lvl 5, you've racked up quite a bit of fame, actually. This is explained by saying that there is a major difference between how common people and PCs gain xp, and that even though an NPC may be a war hardened vet with years of front line experience, he would still only be a lvl 1 or 2 Warrior, because he just doesn't "have what it takes" to level up like a PC. Since Eberron is my setting of choice, this is how I tend to view the game. No NPC is above lvl 2-3 unless they are absolutely required to be for some reason.
2) I wanted to keep it simple. At level 1-2, the commoners are going to have minimal skill ranks, and almost no feats. This makes the baseline argument much easier to construct and demonstrate, as it removes a great deal of variables from the equation that would only muddy the water.
I know that the source of what you are talking about stems from an article written by Sean K. Reynolds, which you can likely find on his website easily enough. And in general, if you want the NPCs to gain xp, his system there is a very good way to go about doing it, and makes a lot of sense.
It also means that your average commoner is actually going to be a higher level than discussed in this article, which means they will have a higher check and possibly additional helpful feats, which will only raise the amount of money they can make per year. If you want to go that way, then you can treat this article as showing how a brand new starting family can still make ends meet, and that older more established families are capable of producing even more.
Oh, and nice post there Dereliction.
Nowhere in the rules does it say that you have to take entire months off from work due to the weather.
No where in the rules does it say that a dead man can't dance a jig too, that doesn't mean that he can.
Whenever you play a RPG, the rules as written can only cover so many real life situations. This is not a farming simulator. When trying to figure out what the average commoners yearly budget, you don't have to factor in all the possible scenarios. The question is can the rules simulate the economics of a commoner? I think the answer is clear, yes, they can. I think Edymnion did a great job of proving that. It is the same argument with the combat mechanics. D&D combat cannot possibly cover every single Real World combat situation. And RL is not turn based! So we get arguments from people like, “it should be possible to hit someone 6 times in around by Level 3-5. any average martial artist could easily do that....." The question isn't whether or not all the possible details are ironed out, but whether the rules hold up as a simulator of the activity they are governing.
I am still unconvinced whether the craft skill works in this manner, but the profession skill and the commoner class do. (How do the blacksmiths make the armor and weapons that requires so much gold and time to make?) I think someone already wrote that the problem with D&D economics is not the rules, it is the players/DMs that add on all sort of additional unnecessary expenses or add too many NPC class levels and so either end with "super rich" peasants or working "beggar" class. Remember, PCs who use the profession class do not need to pay taxes on their wages or subtract expenses. Not according to the rules. If this was true, they would've included it in their description of the skill. Just because you want to add all your "real world" or "historically" conditions doesn't mean the rules don't work as written. And that's all I have to say about that.
1. Assume that the weekly income is "average." In the good months, they make more, in the bad months they make less, but over the year it evens out.
2. Just because it's winter, it doesn't mean you don't have to sell anything. In autumn, right after the harvest, prices for food are certainly going down, so you don't want to sell everything anyway. So you keep some, preserve it when necessary, and sell it in the cold months when the prices are rising again.
3. Don't forget livestock.
Also, we are assuming that the farmer gets the full best use of his fields for the whole period. Maybe he only produces 75% of the maximum crop due to a sever weather change just after planting. (Yes, I live in Canada and we've had a really weird winter this year.)
As for what he spends his money on, a mule would be acceptable but I don't see every peasant owning a horse. They cost more to acquire and to maintain, correct? And maybe he borrows a plough horse from his neighbor in return for sharing the eggs from his chickens? He also may have to pay someone for milling his grain, pressing his cider, etc...
Soon his "savings" dwindle to practically nothing and, while not necessarily living a hard life, it's not putting away 200 gold pieces but maybe 10, which he spends on the family at the spring Planting Festival, or saves towards an extra sow or some sheep. Or maybe he's got his eye on that small plot of land from that abandoned farm left behind when Erik decided to go off and be an adventurer?
As long as the story works and the mechanics make sense in the context of the campaign, wouldn't that work? (Just to add some more views into the mix.)
No where in the rules does it say that a dead man can't dance a jig too, that doesn't mean that he can.
So tell that to the blacksmith, who uses the exact same rules. Why he can't walk over to his forge and get to work just because it got cold outside?
Or the manuscript maker that can't transcribe texts because it’s raining outside.
Or the accountant that can't do the local lords’ books because it’s hot outside.
Let me say this one more time. Farming is just the easiest to use example. As I said in the original post, it applies to *ANY* profession skill. It is not meant to be 100% realistic and true to life, it is intended to refute people who say that the D&D economy cannot function as written. As written, the economy functions just fine.
Actually, as far as I am informed, back in the days they didn't know about land management and letting the land recover. They just farmed it all year after year (which obviously let to the soil becoming exhausted and giving less/worse crops).
Correct. That's why everyone in Medieval Europe starved to death, and white people are extinct.
Not true, at any time you are working on a chore in which you have no skill ranks to back it up is unskilled labor. You could have max ranks in Craft (tea cozies), but if you're working out in a field, then you're working as unskilled labor. Ask any college grad working at McDonald's.
A college grad is a bit of a poor example in this case, since those Knowledge skills get you nothing in D&D.
But the point is that if you have max ranks in Craft (tea cozies) then you can make Your-Skill-Check/2 GP a week selling tea cozies. Always. This is not limited by anything at all. Even if the bottom fell out of the tea-cozy market. Even if the King passes a law making the manufacture of tea-cozies illegal, you still make the same amount of money. It's the rules.
This is a great discussion! What about the figuring out how much of the "food budget" is offset by the son hunting? The survival skill says you can feed X people for every Y points your check is above 10 (I believe).
If the son is hunting, in many historical settings--and some fantasy ones--he'll be hanging around doing nothing. (or being an anti-bard—decomposing.) Lords were very jealous of their hunting privileges, and would hang anyone who presumed to hunt on the lord's land.
If this is not the case, then he still needs wilderness to hunt or forage in--and that is far between in farm country, and will be hunted out in a hurry.
Now, a frontier farm might just be able to stretch the provisions that way--if the son has survival, and doesn't get eaten. (The local animals and monsters are making their survival roles, and he might well count as "provisions...")
If the son is hunting, in many historical settings--and some fantasy ones--he'll be hanging around doing nothing. (or being an anti-bard—decomposing.) Lords were very jealous of their hunting privileges, and would hang anyone who presumed to hunt on the lord's land.
If this is not the case, then he still needs wilderness to hunt or forage in--and that is far between in farm country, and will be hunted out in a hurry.
Now, a frontier farm might just be able to stretch the provisions that way--if the son has survival, and doesn't get eaten. (The local animals and monsters are making their survival roles, and he might well count as "provisions...")
True. But I was thinking more along the lines of small game (rabbits, squirrels, pond snakes, small rodents, maybe even up to foxes and beavers). I think these would be things he could supplement the family diet with that might be found close to home. If I were a farm boy, I certainly wouldn’t want to go into the deep dark woods that seem to swallow adventurers that wander in there ... never to be seen again. (I like your "provisions" line.
)And I see him using a shortbow or sling as opposed to a longbow. If I were the farmer, then no son of mine would be a lay-about and waste his time slacking off ... at least, not more than once ;)
Edymnion, I liked you post. It was very insightful.
To all others that criticize his math/ideas/whatever. . . Come on people, he made nice sense of the rules. Now, understand, every DM interprets the rules the way they want (and makes his own assumptions). So, what ever you say doesn't make his article more or less valid. It is his way of thinking. Heck, I even included supply and demand schemes in my game. Technology varies from different eras and there's even a banking/stock system. Those are my rules, who's to say that I am wrong?
So, please, if you really want to say something, go do some research, and post your own series of equations, showing the way you think it should be done. This is a fantasy game, where the rules can be changed and bent at the DMs will. If you've got nothing nice to say, don't say it at all. (And, definitely, don't repeat what other people have said, it's redundant and takes more time than really needed to read a good thread.)
The X
I would like to see this banking/stock (market?) system of which you speak...
This is an intriguing discussion. I have always envisioned running a campaign with a (software program?) system more or less running in the background running a world wide economic/stock market/banking/supply and demand simulation such that when the PC's ask questions in the tavern like "Where can we buy supplies?" or "We found this moldy sword out adventuring. Where can we sell it and for how much?" or even "We are going out to the Tomb of Instant and Painful Death tomorrow. Is there any place where we can buy some Life Insurance? You know a policy that if needed gets raise dead cast for us?" and that uses honest-to-g0d actuary tables (well fantasy tables anyways!).
Adventurer: Yes I'm interested in some adventuring insurance.
Insurance Agent: Hmmm, well you know that adventuring insurance is quite expensive right?
Adventurer: *sigh* Yes I know.
Insurance Agent: Well ok let me see. You are a level 4 fighter with Power Attack and 3 Action Points. Hmmmmm. Good news! You qualify for our top of the line policy, the "If you take a Licking, We get you back Kicking" policy. This policy guarantees one raise dead casting upon presentation of your properly identified remains at one of our local Healing Huts. The price if very reasonable at only coppers a day!
Also what about all that TREASURE the PCs accumulate? Wouldn't someone somewhere wanna sell them some stock in a company? I mean come on...
Stock Broker: Yeah man, I was schmoozing with one of the owners at the Romanesque Bacchanalia the other day and he told me that his mining company was fixing to hit big. Do you wanna know what that's gonna do to the stock price? Do you?!
Adventurer: Well ummm, ok! I'm in for 1000 shares!
Stock Broker: OK at 3 gp a share that's 3000 gp plus my 10% commission comes to a total of 3300gp. Here are your stock certificates and you are now the proud owner of 1000 shares of the Pyrite Delve Mining Company.
In a society like they describe, even a "skilled" worker is paid just enough to get by. In our modern, post industrial revolution society, goods that require the work of a craftsman are more expensive because that craftsman works slow and expensively compared to a machine. But in a pre-industrial society, that kind of work is the norm, and less valuable because of it: nobody's willing to pay extra for "hand-made" chairs. Something that would take a craftsman a week to make should be priced at roughly one week's food (for the craftsman) plus materials. This is not always true of the Official price lists, though.
And it should never be possible to break an item down into its components and sell it at a profit, nor should versions with extra work (and thus extra cost) cost less. Thus, a 10 foot pole (2sp) should not cost less than a 10 foot ladder (5cp), or someone will set up a shop where he buys ladders and breaks them in half and sells the sides as "poles".
And a Spiked chain with a 10 foot reach weighs 7 1/2 times as much as a 10 foot chain, yet costs 5 GP less. So, the only people buying regular chain are people who care a lot about the weight. And with all those Spiked Chains lying around (used to fasten animals to their stakes and stuff), I'd guess proficiency with it would be fairly common, too, so I don't really see it being an "Exotic" weapon in a world where it is that common (cheaper than chain).The best repair of the D&D pricelist (and what it says about the economy) I've encountered was this: those aren't the real prices. Those are the "He looks like a wealthy adventurer, so let's see how much I can gouge him" prices. Commoners don't pay those prices, and neither do PCs who haggle.
And it should never be possible to break an item down into its components and sell it at a profit, nor should versions with extra work (and thus extra cost) cost less. Thus, a 10 foot pole (2sp) should not cost less than a 10 foot ladder (5cp), or someone will set up a shop where he buys ladders and breaks them in half and sells the sides as "poles".
I agree. Someone screwed up on that pricing.
a Spiked chain with a 10 foot reach weighs 7 1/2 times as much as a 10 foot chain, yet costs 5 GP less.
Except a spiked chain's 10' reach depends on it being wielded by a Small or Medium creature with a 5' reach. Thus, the spiked chain really only has 5' of chain.
5' of chain would, theoretically, cost 15 gp, 10 gp less than buying the spiked chain weapon. So I think that one actually makes sense.
Another price anomaly is that an iron pot is 10 lbs. and costs 5 sp., but 1 lb. of raw iron is only 1 sp. You can buy an iron pot, melt it into a brick and resell it for a 100% profit!
To me, the answer is that raw iron should cost 5 cp/lb., iron pots should cost 1 gp, and wooden 10' ladders should cost 5 sp. In my opinion, this should immediately go in the next errata!
A couple comments from someone whose grandparents actually ran a farm:
You would get your Profession (farmer) income all year long (I'm noting this not for the original author but for some of the later posters). In reality it comes in one or two big spikes during the year, but Profession abstracts that. To spread out income, farmers have winter crops, preserve and pickle produce for later sale, sell milk year round, sell chopped wood, etc. And remember in a medieval setting, people can't go to the grocery for food, so they're willing to pay more in, say, February for some grain than they are in October.
Taxes do take a big hit, and yes, it takes a long time to save up for hard goods/farm equipment. It's a rough life. There's plenty of whole historical villages that have just plain died out because of it.
Why doesn't everyone be a farmer, or skilled craftsman, instead of working those laborer or merc jobs? A couple reasons. One is that in most medieval examples, someone else owned land. Just because you decided to "have a farm" didn't mean you could, and moving out to homestead in an area not protected by a lord was quite dangerous. Similarly, there were regulations and/or guilds that said who could do what - you couldn't brew beer unless you were licensed; couldn't grind grain unless you were licensed; couldn't be a tailor or blacksmith unless you had apprenticed up and were in the guild, etc. It's quite possible to be stuck without an outlet for a legit Profession or Craft skill and have to do day labor or go "join the military" as a mercenary. Pay was low as a merc/soldier but the ability to loot/steal stuff was a big plus.
Adventurers are the ultimate in that continuum - willing to accept a grotesquely short lifespan for potentially huge rewards.
The reason for the pricelist anomalies are, of course, that they're for game balance. The cost of an item in D&D has nothing to do with how it's made, and everything to do with how useful it is in a dungeon.
I'm not sure how game balance is affected by increasing the price of ladders?
Edymnion... we disagree on a lot of stuff and this is not one of them. Fabulous article. I will be using this as a guide in my games. My players are already starting to talk about taking the profession skill so they can make money in down time. MY players! It's nothing short of a freaking miracle.
Good god... what have I done?!? ;)
Actually, I've been known to give out a free skillpoint at level 1 on the caveat that it has to be spent on a profession skill. I mean, unless you started adventuring when you were 12, you had to have *SOME* exposure to something resembling a job.
I'm not sure how game balance is affected by increasing the price of ladders?
It’s not so much that, as it is the other way around. A 10' pole costs more than a ladder because the 10' pole is easier to manage and has more potential uses for an adventurer. Items in the PHB are priced so that things that are more useful to an adventurer cost more than things that are less useful. This is because, more so than level, character wealth is the real defining power gauge for a character. A level 10 character with the character wealth of a lvl 2 character is by no means a CR 10 opponent, and as a PC would get his butt handed to him repeatedly by monsters that should be an easy fight, if he was properly equipped. The same way a lvl 1 character decked out in +5 everything is going to tear encounters 5 CRs above him to pieces.
So, the problem arises when NPCs have to deal with PC prices. Luckily, the answer is also in the rules, as the Profession skills were also made to be PC ready, and are still accessible by NPCs. So, while they may have to pay artificially inflated prices, they are also able to make (potentially) artificially inflated wages, so it balances out.
Looking at just the RAW, any NPC that actually sets his mind to working, and working hard, is going to be able to make enough money (either in coin, in barter goods, or a combination of the two) to survive on, and have enough left over for savings. NPCs with less focus that drift around aimlessly (aka, they spend their skillpoints in many different areas, but never more than one or two points per skill) do not work as hard, and do not make as much money, and may have problems making ends meet. Just like real life. The guy floating around from one burger joint to the other that never applies himself is going to have to live with a half dozen roommates just to make rent, while the guy that went to college, worked hard to build up his skills, and then got a good job will make much more money.
In mechanical terms, the burger flipper is unskilled labor, and is only making a silver per day. He'll never be able to afford a house by himself on minimum wage. The college grad has poured his skillpoints into a single skill, possibly having taken Skill Focus in that skill, and hence is a skilled laborer, who gets a better job with more money.
Will the guy with a good job ever be able to afford private jets and high end sports cars? Most likely not, but he won't be living off ramen noodles either. But, if he really dedicated himself to it, and saved diligently for a decade or two, yeah, he could afford that Ferrari. Which is basically the same as saying Joe Commoner here could save up his money to buy that really nifty magical item.
Circumstance bonuses should be plentiful--a tavern right next to the guard barracks has more potential than one at a deserted crossroads. Perhaps even add some sort of "investment bonus" or penalty for the facility he's using to make his money. The shop on the corner of a busy street costs more, but will bring in more money.
And last, many urban commoners aren’t entrepreneurs, but employees. I'm sure we all know that many employees don't make what they are really worth...
And last, many urban commoners aren’t entrepreneurs, but employees. I'm sure we all know that many employees don't make what they are really worth...
You could say the employee’s prof. role is the amount of revenue they GENERATE. Their boss then decides what to actually pay them.
And last, many urban commoners aren’t entrepreneurs, but employees. I'm sure we all know that many employees don't make what they are really worth...
They do in D&D. One skill roll = Gold in your pocket. Every week.
the amount of taxes paid would *NOT* be a third or half of everything the peasant produced.
Ah... Most peasants were sharecroppers. The lord owned the land, and collected 1/2 of what was grown as rent.
You're still half-right; the bushels of wheat from the fields was only part of the value produced by a peasant family. The women did weaving, the men cut firewood, they had vegetable patches, etc.
The taxes went mainly towards supporting the lord and his family, meaning that once their food needs were met, and he got enough coin to keep his affairs in order, the people kept everything else.
Erm... on which planet? :D The French nobility bled their peasants to the point of rebellion time and time again. There were many, many French Revolutions. It's just that most of them failed.
My estimates are about 40 GP a year for the peasant family (which isn't as grim as it sounds, since they have the additional sources of value as above - but it's still grim), and 40 GP a year for the lord. So for 10,000 peasants, you have about 2,000 families, which yields about 80,000 GP a year to pay your army, repair your castle, feed your servants, pay taxes to your lord, etc. etc. etc.
We will assume that Joe, Jill, and Billy each eat the equivalent of 1 common meal and 2 poor meals per day (5 sp per day, each), and that Susy eats the equivalent of 2 poor meals per day (2 sp per day), and that the baby does not eat enough to be worth factoring into this.
Just my 2 cents - as I understand the DMG (both 3rd and 3,5 edition) define the price of meals per day not a single meal. That means that the costs to feed one person for one day are 1 sp if the person eats 3 poor meals, 3 sp if he eats 3 common meals and 5 sp if he eats 3 good meals.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Also - the point of being farmer (or a cook) is that you get your meals "free". Farmer grows it himself and cook, well we all know what the cook can do, working with food products all day long.
Granted, if a band of adventures swagger into town, bearing the hoard and magic of a dragon that's terrified the entire land, they suddenly become a valuable resource to exploit. Trying to force them to pay taxes on it might be impractical but offering them a choice might be more palatable.
Tax assessor: "Lady Elaine Stormweather, normally, I would be forced to assess you 20 percent of the treasure trove you have found. However, since His Majesty is desirous of increasing the flow of trade, he has authorized me to tell you that if you invest 25% of your take in the new trading venture, the tax will be waived."
That gives the party an incentive to pay rather than simply teleport away--and gives them a stake in the continued well being of the venture. They could just pay and check back in later for reports--or decide to make sure it's a success.
This would only be for people of vast power and wealth--not worth the trouble for a measly few thousand gold from people that couldn't effectively protest anyway.
(Keeping the low status people from sharing in big economic opportunities keeps them low status. And if they see some of them make it big, they may start thinking of themselves as the equal of merchants and bankers--or even worse, nobles. So the forces of oppression and order don't want them getting too much money.)
A homesteading farmer has a fair amount of disposable cash, but he's easy target for bandits, random monsters, etc.
If he pays about a third of his income to a lord, he loses most disposable cash (but has enough for equipment maintenance and the occasional big purchase, probably done with barter and on credit to make it more affordable rather than paying with "coin"...he trades half-price grain to the blacksmith for a half-price masterwork plow and both benefit).
The lord then takes care of chasing off bandits, killing dangerous monsters, so Joe Farmer doesn't die and Jill Farmer doesn't suddenly have to support a family with most of the income gone. And yes, being a widow (or widower) is a significant hardship, as it puts you into barely surviving range instead of "with disposable income for maintenance and occasional purchases).
It's not that different from modern working poor - with two incomes and any job that isn't minimum wage, you can afford to have a normal dwelling, a car and medical insurance. With only one income you can make the rent, but the car goes without maintenance and discretionary purchases are out, and if anything bad happens you're eating macaroni and cheese or top ramen or lentils (depending on cultural preference).
This model is plausible. In a society where the peasants weren't serfs, they did pretty well during good times, and really really suffered when they could not work (war, famine, insufficient protection from predators - humans in our world, etc). In D&Dland, you can virtually assure decent harvest if there is somebody to work the land and accidental death is less common (coming up with cost of a cure disease to save Joe or Jill Commoner's life is worth years and years of debt in the long run).
Farmers make all of their money around harvest time, and need to be actively working during harvest and planting time, but have some disposable time during summer and winter to do other things. I'd assume profession (farmer) would include making good use of that time (maintaining fences, weeding, hunting animals such as rabbits and deer that are eating crops and eating THEM, brewing ale, repairing the roof, etc). I've never heard of a subsistence farmer that ever had any real free time, so while the crops only come in twice a year, keeping his "profession" skill running smoothly takes work all year around. In an economy with money lending, you'd get the modern farmer who takes out loans for seed/equipment at the start and pays it off at harvest time. In a more traditional fantasy economy where money lending is only for the rich, the farmer has to stay ahead of the game and is in deep trouble if he has to eat the seed corn in a bad winter.
This does mean that a village can in fact come up with 50gp or so to hire an adventurer, or a few hundred for several, if the threat is sufficient to risk losing able-bodied villagers or their livelihood....permanent solutions mean steady money in the future. If the adventurers fail though, they're likely hosed, so they won't usually hire adventurers unless the alternative is pretty certainly worse than losing their disposable cash for no gain.
A first level human commoner has 12 skill points, not 9. Remember that the bonus human skill points are multiplied by x4 at first level.
That is all.
Cheers,
Save vs DM
The history of taxes are based on taxes that could be claimed at that time. IOW it would be like taking all of the taxable possibilities of the state of Iowa with all the taxable possibilities of the state of New Jersey and then saying that every person in the state of Oregon paid these PLUS the taxes in Oregon. Just sometimes take what is a good post and let it be a good post!
Sorry for coming into this late. If someone has discussed this then by all means ignore. Great post first off. Gives some great fluff with a little crunch. My main concern was not the post but some of the replies. Contrary to what is taught today the peasants had a fairly decent life and it wasn't such "Robin Hood". Not every Lord took whatever he wanted or even at times what was owed. After all, peasants unable to continue on the land didn't put coin in pocket and allowed not so much a peasant rebellion as a neighboring Lord to come in and smack down the Lord who wasn't able to manage his land.
The history of taxes are based on taxes that could be claimed at that time. IOW it would be like taking all of the taxable possibilities of the state of Iowa with all the taxable possibilities of the state of New Jersey and then saying that every person in the state of Oregon paid these PLUS the taxes in Oregon. Just sometimes take what is a good post and let it be a good post!
The peasants' lot varied form period to period, ruler to ruler, nation to nation and there were also famines, droughts, floods and disease, evil rulers and just plain incompetent rulers who miscalculated what people needed to live on.
Generalising "Peasants had a fairly decent lot" or "Peasants were always starving" is wrong.
Anyway using the rules one thing no-one's said what skill rolls actually mean - I'd say the farmer is always the same farmer. Low rolls mean bad weather, crop blights, diseased cows or whatever, high rolls good weather and other favourable conditions. With no savings a peasant family is going to occasionally suffer some considerable hardship just from low rolls. That seems realistic to me.
Anyway using the rules one thing no-one's said what skill rolls actually mean - I'd say the farmer is always the same farmer. Low rolls mean bad weather, crop blights, diseased cows or whatever, high rolls good weather and other favourable conditions. With no savings a peasant family is going to occasionally suffer some considerable hardship just from low rolls. That seems realistic to me.
Yup. It can also mean things like broken tools that need to be replaced, taxes being paid, and everything else. Remember, the amount you make from these checks is the profit. Low rolls mean low profits, which can just as easily represent higher than normal expenses just as easily as it can represent lower than normal income.
Also forage can help a lot for the family’s economics. In the firefox series of books, I was amazed to find out just how much folks in Appalachia do living with out large farms.
Here’s my starting assumptions:
1. Using the Craft, Perform, and Profession skills
2. No feats to add to rolls or stats
3. Take 10 (or same for average) on skill checks
4. 7days in a week, 4 weeks in a month
5. Using the equipment list costs in the PHB
6. Using the variant rule in the DMG for Character Expenses:
Self-Sufficient Standard of Living 2 gp per month
Meager Standard of Living 5 gp per month
Poor Standard of Living 12 gp per month
Common Standard of Living 45 gp per month
Good Standard of Living 100 gp per month
Extravagant Standard of Living 200 gp per month
Your average professions:
1st level Commoner, 4 ranks in Profession (Whatever), +1 Wisdom stat bonus = average skill check of 15 per week
Skill check 15 = 7.5 gp/week = 30 gp/month (just shy of a Common standard of living)
Your entertainers:
1st level Performer, 4 ranks in Perform (Whatever), +1 Charisma stat bonus = average skill check of 15 per performance
Average profit per performance = 5.5 gp
Performing 3 times per week = 16.5 gp/week = 66 gp/month (between Common and Good standards of living)
Your craftspeople:
1st level Commoner, 4 ranks in Craft (Whatever), +1 Int stat bonus = average skill check of 15 per week
Earns (on average) gp/month:
Alchemist = 55.91
Armoursmith = 29.75
Baker = 2.8*
Blacksmith = 23.5
Bowyer = 28.29
Brewer = 11.9
Carpenter = 21.7
Chandler = 25.9
Cooper = 24.85
Glazier = 28.77
Jeweler = 36.75
Leatherworker/Saddler = 31.5
Locksmith = 24.4
Papermaker = 24.87
Potter = 3.73*
Tailor = 26.15
Tinsmith/Tinker = 18.82
Vintner = 29.08
Wainwright = 21.67
Weaponsmith = 39.48**
Weaver = 16.65
* - unreasonably low in my mind
** - includes values for exotic weapons
Average Craftsperson profit per week = (approx.) 23-25 gp . . . between a Poor and Common standard of living.
Hirelings making 1 sp per day would make 3 gp per month and fall just over “Self-Sufficient”.
Experienced Hirelings that make 3 sp per day would make 9 gp per month and fall between “Meager” and “Poor”.
If we divide the “Expenses” in the assumption by half (these are only NPCs and not PCs rolling in gold and silver, after all) then the Common standard of living comes out to 22.5 gp per month. This would place the average commoner around the Common standard of living (professionals making more than a craftsperson, entertainers making a Good living without doing much).
Hirelings making 1 sp per day would make 3 gp per month and fall just over “Meager”.
Experienced Hirelings that make 3 sp per day would make 9 gp per month and fall a little over “Poor”.
Any thoughts?
A) pay to support a small number of dedicated fighting men, including equipment and food.
B) pass on a huge percentage of what he takes in to the king.
Well, do remember the local lord will have to:
A) pay to support a small number of dedicated fighting men, including equipment and food.
B) pass on a huge percentage of what he takes in to the king.
C) Buy powerful magic items to protect the barony from adventurers/monsters/mad sorcerers.
D) Stay up to date with court fashion and hold feasts and other examples of conspicuous consumption.
The local lord is incapable of supporting himself.
All of his food and labor come from those under him. The commoners accept having a lord over them exacting taxes because of the services the local lord *MUST* provide to them.
Please, if you think its just some fat noble sopping up taxes and not doing anything, throw that idea away and go read a few history books. It was an almost purely business relationship. The people support the lord, and the lord is required by the fuedal contract to provide for the defense and well being of those under him. If the peasants are starving, the local lord has broken the contract, and the peasants had every right to rise up against him, and it happened repeatedly.
The local lord provided military protection, they provided aid for public works, they provided education to their peasants, they often times even provided the houses and farmlands for the peasants.
How does a commoner afford his house under feudal rule? The local lord GIVES IT TO THEM. If you want to go the route of the local lord taking massive taxes, then you also have to remove most of the commoner's cost of living as well.
And medieval farmers *DID* know about fertilizers. They would routinely put manure on their fields. Its one reason why English food still tends to be bland today, because of a long history of having to boil everything for hours precisely because their food was covered in
Actually, I think it was because of the world wars, where the pressures of rationing meant that flavour was considered a lot less important than raw nutritious efficiency, and being an island nation, Britain came off rationing about 10 years after everyone else! So a whole generation grew up never having heard about the old Edwardian and Victorian food, except for the cheapest stuff. Welsh food didn't do so badly, as Welsh cooking had been about efficiency for hundreds of years, basically because they got oppressed frequently, but even so people don't seem to want to eat sheep's heads anymore. Strange.
Actually thats the biggest reason for boiling things; if you use big solid jars, then you can cook just about every piece of the meat, and get some goodness out of it. Its also great if you need a fire on anyway, as you can just stick the thing on top of it for 6 hours, without needing to put on any more firewood.
On the topic at hand though
If we divide the “Expenses” in the assumption by half (these are only NPCs and not PCs rolling in gold and silver, after all) then the Common standard of living comes out to 22.5 gp per month. This would place the average commoner around the Common standard of living (professionals making more than a craftsperson, entertainers making a Good living without doing much).
Hirelings making 1 sp per day would make 3 gp per month and fall just over “Meager”.
Experienced Hirelings that make 3 sp per day would make 9 gp per month and fall a little over “Poor”.
Any thoughts?
Very nice, any chance of putting the sheet up on the boards?
I've been struggling with making D&D more "realistic" for a bit, stuck between wanting mostly level 1-7 commoners with very few PC classes, and trying to imagine a raptorian community where the only people who actually manage to use their wings are basically retired from hunting! Actually though raptorians live so long that their nests would be about 10 level 9 people with a few younger ones, as by this you would think that everyone under 30 (level 5) would not be allowed back,which is strange but actually not that unreasonable when they live to 270.
Really what she should be doing though is working on her own, with Skill Focus in cooking and a Profession check she'd add 7.5gp a week to the family income. The rules reward her with more than 10 times as much cash if she isn't helping out around the farm.
Maybe she can't get her own job, that requires another set of tools we're told. Trouble is that just isn't in the rules. In the real world you need capital to produce lots of kinds of income, not so in D&D. Profession(Farming), which requires land, seed, and farm equipment produces exactly the same return as Profession(Tailor) which requires far less capital. If Jill takes a job translating books from Elven to Common, all she needs is a corner of the kitchen table and a stack of paper. Imagine an economy where capital expenses make no difference, it's going to go mad fast. Skill is the only input, capital isn't represented *anywhere* in the rule, that's crazy.
The Profession rules don't give out too little money, they give out too much. In your example family, Junior would be insane not to get his own job too. Even with a mere 1 rank in wagon repair, he's got a apprentice job paying 5.5gp a week. With Jill's extra 7.5gp a week and Junior's extra 5.5gp, the family is looking to squirrel away not 200gp a year, but 850gp a year. That's a lot of money.
The problem gets even worse when you throw in taxes, a fuedal lord who asked for 1/3 of income *after food expenses* is a very nice guy by historical standards, and he's netting 283gp per family per year. The local knight in charge of a rural village of 200 people is bringing in ~11,000gp a year? Even if he's passing two thirds of that up the feudal chain he should still be dripping in magic items. A guy who's been a village headman for a decade would be sitting on a pile of ~37k!
It's just too much money. If a single skill point takes you from earning 1 sp a week to earning 55 sp a week everyone will do it, especially because there are no start up costs. If everyone does it the average village is churning out vast amounts of wealth.
I don't see that it's necessary that they use aid another instead of separate skill checks. Yes, it's a farm but they could be growing different things on it.
He's out there on the fields of wheat etc, she spends half her day tending a vegetable garden. I would say she only works half a day, though, as she's tending house also.
I also think the longbow is out of line. His weapon is going to be something cheaper. It doesn't take much to knock off a rabbit or the like and the lord isn't going to permit him to hunt bigger game. A lot of what he's hunting will probably be varmints from the fields.
As for figuring that because they made it themselves it's free, I disagree. It takes up his time and thus reduces his income. There is an error, though--he should only pay 1/2 the raw materials cost as there's no markup when he sells it to himself.
Edymnion used the RAW to show that the average commoner in D&D is NOT starving to death. His explanation makes sense - maybe with a few minor modifications and/or additions - but we are talking about a simplified economy in a fantasy world, so things like "realistic" and "historical" are out the window.
Good job, Edymnion. We may disagree on some things, but in this case, we do agree.
Edymnion used the RAW to show that the average commoner in D&D is NOT starving to death. His explanation makes sense - maybe with a few minor modifications and/or additions - but we are talking about a simplified economy in a fantasy world, so things like "realistic" and "historical" are out the window.
In this context, "realism" and "historical" are out the window only if, and only to the extent, the DM says they are. The truth is that, while Edymnion's explanation for his unrealistically wealthy peasantry is perfectly rational under the RAW, the RAW also says:
The common laborer earns 1 sp a day. That's just enough to allow his family to survive, assuming that this income is supplemented with food his family grows to eat. homemade clothing, and a reliance on self-sufficiency for most tasks (personal grooming, health, animal tending, and so on).
Edymnion answers this (quite rationally) by saying that that is the common "unskilled" laborer, but it's hard to imagine that such a person would exist in any rational game world. At the very least those people who do not invest some skill points in a profession or crafting skill would be so rare that they would not be "common laborers;" they would be quite uncommon.
The truth is that the RAW thought so little about the economics of D&D that the RAW is of two minds on it. On the one hand, they seem to have imagined a roughly realistically impoverished base of common laborers doing most of the work in the world, outside of the spotlight. On the other hand, they also created (i) the Profession rules and (ii) the "Commoner" NPC class because they knew that some players and DMs would want to see them. Perhaps unfortunately, the two hands failed to coordinate. On the other hand, as the rules read now, there is ample room for both rich and poor common citizens to exist depending on which game world your DM prefers; perhaps that is really the best possible outcome.
In my opinion, both the Commoner class and the Profession rules are designed for the "in the spotlight" portion of the world. They are there for the rare occasions the PCs feel the need, for whatever reason, to interact deeply with a particular common man or in the day-to-day workings of the world. For the rest of the world, the game basically assumes the 1 sp a day rate of payment. Outside of the spotlight of the PC's direct attention, all commoners have no hit points, no AC and are armed with an indeterminate simple weapon with which they may or may not be proficient; they are trees in the forest, and if they should fall without a PC there to hear them, they make no sound. :D In the same way, whether I conceptualize them as rich or as poor, their wealth has no effect whatsoever on the economy of the game.
Why do some people just have to poke holes?
I thought it was a good analysis of a common situation. Why assume that all these negative things (taxes, bad farming, dragon raid) are happening. You could also assume that good things are happening (wife makes clothes in her spare time, adventurer sleeps in barn pays 100 gp). Why do people always see commoners as poor people eking out a meager existance. I think most people in medieval times were able to have a decent enough life so that they were able to have kids. Don't get me wrong it was a tough life. As well during winters farmers don't just sit indoors they usually craft things and use this time well.
"OH GOD"
Why do some people just have to poke holes?
I thought it was a good analysis of a common situation. Why assume that all these negative things (taxes, bad farming, dragon raid) are happening. You could also assume that good things are happening (wife makes clothes in her spare time, adventurer sleeps in barn pays 100 gp). Why do people always see commoners as poor people eking out a meager existence. I think most people in medieval times were able to have a decent enough life so that they were able to have kids. Don't get me wrong it was a tough life. As well during winters farmers don't just sit indoors they usually craft things and use this time well.
Best post ever. I too thought this was an awesome thread. People tend to forget this is a GAME, not a REAL LIFE. There is no need at all to be so damn technical about everything all the time. It's exactly that kind of ridiculous thinking that's turned an awesome game into a 3457398475937459387534598374957349857394573987453435 volume mess.
In accordance with the Craft-rules, we assume that, on average, each individual earns an annual sum of 384 gp (average Craft skill check result of 16 from an average die roll of 10.5, Craft ranks + feats and racial traits + tools + ability modifiers, aid another, etc. multiplied by 48 to determine annual income).
Since it was unavoidable to introduce taxes and tithes (from the local lord, the king, the local temple, etc.), we had to find a way to determine the total income, without the need to factor in such circumstances as bad farming, dragon raids, etc.
We assumed that, over the course of one year, all of those factors evened out, resulting in an average monthly income.
Thus, while there may be a bad season, a bandit raid, also. All of these will in the end have no influence on the average monthly income and can be ignored for this purpose.
I guess one can assume there are no "social classes" in D&D society or that they are not wealth based, but I just don't find that realistic or very satisfying. Not that I am a big fan of letting peasants starve (I prefer my peasants be more "quaint" than "pathetic"), but I do like the notion that the honest Mayor of a large city is making more money than Old Gerald the Dung Sweeper, despite the fact that they both have similar numbers of ranks in a (very different) Profession skill.
Max Ranks are for those who have trained hard at a given skill. That is, they actually strive to make themselves better.
The commoner, he doesn't. If he did, he would be an expert.
Now while RAW can result in some well off yeomen(and that doesn't take into account taxes... Would the yearly income be enough for the divine spells needed to make the land more fertile?), that doesn't mean that it should be used like that.
Now I do go RAW, however, that doesn't mean my serfs, bondsmen and peasants will have maxed ranks.
Now, looking at what happened in the standard serf and peasant household in real life will give us hints how to organize the family using RAW.
Joe(dad):craft(carpentry):1
Com2 kn(local):2
handle animal:3
ride:2
prof(farmer):3
and probably speak language:common(nor another useful local language)
Jill(wife):craft(tailoring):2
Com1 heal:1
handle animal:1
prof(farmer):1
search:1(come on, she is the one who has to look for things...)
and probably speak language:common(nor another useful local language)
Bill(Son)craft(carpentry):1
Com1 kn(local):1
craft(tools):2
handle animal:1
ride:1
prof(farmer):1
and probably speak language:common(nor another useful local language)
Com1
Susy(daughter):craft(tailoring):1
Com0 handle animal:1
I take this to be a typical peasant family, the father knows how to work with wood, to make the basic furniture the family has, the son has been apprenticed to the local blacksmith(so in time, he /will/ max out that skill), the woman makes the clothes, and the daughter helps her. No one is too skilled at anything, but they know enough to get by, to make the things they need.
Do the sums for that, then see if any taxes the lord could get off his peasantry could justify him giving divine benediction to the bondsman's crops.
Now, considering there were very few free peasants in Europe, or any feudal society for that matter, the lord must take his taxes, generally about 60%, the tithe, let us be nice and say it is just that, a tithe:10%.
That leaves us with 30% of the now lowered income... is he that well off?(and this isn't taking into account crop failures, bandits, dragons and extraodinary taxes.)
BTW, could someone actually do the math for that, I would like to know what it comes up with...
They're NPCs. They exist in whatever state the DM says they do for story purposes. Thus they also make whatever $ the DM wants them to...
And I don't know about the rest of you, but I've yet to see (in nearly 27 years in this hobby) ANY game where this has been any kind of factor. WHY? Because this is the equivalent of an action movie. And the players are the stars.
It's just not about the NPC commoner families and their daily economic situations.
I find this all very interesting, even though I know I'll never use any of it in-game. The fact is: if you use the RAW to build the economy from the ground up, then "peasants" or "commoners" or whatever we're calling them look like they are doing very well. If, on the other hand, you use RAW to build up the wealth of the rich and powerful from the ground up (like lawyers, royal retainers, vintners, drapers, goldsmiths, or other well-to-do medieval working types) you discover that they are exactly as well-off as the peasants, because they use the same rules. The obvious implication, in my opinion, is that the rules were designed to be "fast and loose" rules for wealth creation, rather than an accurate basis on which to analyze the D&D economy.
I guess one can assume there are no "social classes" in D&D society or that they are not wealth based, but I just don't find that realistic or very satisfying. Not that I am a big fan of letting peasants starve (I prefer my peasants be more "quaint" than "pathetic"), but I do like the notion that the honest Mayor of a large city is making more money than Old Gerald the Dung Sweeper, despite the fact that they both have similar numbers of ranks in a (very different) Profession skill.
There is 1 person in the city that can be mayor. He has the highest bonus of anyone in the city to his mayor checks. There are many, many people who are or could be dung sweepers. Here's an idea. Make profession work just like Craft. Brain surgery has a high DC, dung sweeping has a low DC. Only the very skilled get to make the mad high-DC moolah, and the unskilled must settle for the low-paying jobs.
I think most people in medieval times were able to have a decent enough life so that they were able to have kids.
I'd suggest that actually the very opposite is closer to the truth.
In the absence of a welfare state, social mobility, or indeed a cash economy, people had kids so that they could have a decent enough life. Your children served as your laborers, and they were the ones who would look after you in your old age.
In the twenty-first century, children are an expensive luxury. In the twelfth they were a shrewd investment.
All this thread has shown us that rich farmers have enough money to live a not too shabby life.
But fact is there are lots of people in such a world who don't own a farm. Their income has nothing to do with the amount their craft skill. As they use the tools of someone else to work on the material of someone else. For a meager payment.
The common laborer gets 1 sp per work day.
As even self sufficient upkeep requires 2 gold per month, he would need a normal 5 day week.
(But he would need to raise his own food, so that doesn't work out quite)
For a meager existence he would need 5 gp a month. Even with working 30 days a month, he could earn that much.
(A family group can survive, by mixing self sufficient and meager)
Now a smith or other trained people get a salary of whooping 4sp a day.
With 6 work days a week and 4.5 weeks a month they can get 10 gold and 8 silver a month, so they almost reach status of poor.
(Now someone who actually owns his tools will be part of the 10% that managed to have risen above those masses and they can actually have a nice life)
All this thread has shown us that rich farmers have enough money to live a not too shabby life.
No, it's shown that *ANY* commoner that has decided to learn a skill can get by just fine. It has nothing to do with being a "rich farmer", it has to do with the rules as written in the books. If you don't have land to farm, you spend those ranks in a skill that doesn't require large amounts of farmland and expensive tools. Heck, just plain Perform checks can get you more than 1 sp a day.
But fact is there are lots of people in such a world who don't own a farm. Their income has nothing to do with the amount their craft skill. As they use the tools of someone else to work on the material of someone else. For a meager payment.
This is not covered in the rules, which is the only thing this article covers.
The common laborer gets 1 sp per work day.
No, the common UNSKILLED laborer gets 1 sp per day of work. Unskilled, as in "too stupid to learn how to do anything else". These are ditch diggers, nothing more.
Firstly, there is one base idea going through this: Max Ranks.
Max Ranks are for those who have trained hard at a given skill. That is, they actually strive to make themselves better.
The commoner, he doesn't. If he did, he would be an expert.
Nothing in the rules suggests that Commoners can't have max ranks in something though...and they'd have to be a bit daft not to invest the maximum amount of skill points in the one thing that keeps them and their loved ones alive. Personally, while I don't like starving peasants, I dislike irrational peasants even more ardently.
If I were designing it, in light of this thread, I probably would have made both Craft and Profession skills cross-class for Commoners, that way at least the Experts would have a RAW-based income advantage over them, thereby explaining the differential in economic power between the Commoners and the Experts. As it stands, the advantage the Experts have is that they can have max ranks in more profession and craft skills than peasants (which isn't that useful in practice), plus invest in other related skills like Appraise, Bluff and Diplomacy or skills that grant useful synergy bonuses.
Taxes give the mayor a boost, and I would assume that the taxes help out people like lawyers, fixing the imbalance.
I was not imagining that the mayor (let alone random lawyers) would get to collect a share of local taxes revenues for their own pockets. I think that sounds like something a "corrupt" mayor would do. I was more making the point that a person with X ranks in Profession (street cleaner) or Profession (stablehand) should (ability scores being equal, which per the RAW they should roughly be for NPCs that are equally well optimized) get the same amount of money as someone with X ranks in Profession (lawyer), Profession (politician) or Craft (goldsmith). Specifically, each gets "half his check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work."
Part of the reason why Profession (farmer) looks so good, is that everyone does just as well regardless of the profession they choose. It's only when you add houserules that you start to see differences, but that is sort of contrary to the point of the original post. An honest politician who's not skimming tax revenues makes the same amount of cash as everyone else who's not supplementing their income through illegal means.
The DM is free to set DCs "for specialized tasks" under the RAW, but the determination of how much you earn doesn't seem to be one of those "specialized tasks," or to have a separate DC at all. The rule for how well a sailor ties a knot is up to the DM, the rule for how much the sailor earns that week seems to have a pretty clear rule spelled out in the Players Handbook.
A nice enough read, but in the end who really cares how much $ the commoners make??
They're NPCs. They exist in whatever state the DM says they do for story purposes. Thus they also make whatever $ the DM wants them to...
I was wondering that myself. I was wondering if it's a debate between "realists" and people who want the "realists" and their historically accurate starving peasantry to be "wrong" in some objective sense. Or perhaps it's an argument for how mere peasants might be able to afford low level magic items, thus keeping magic item shops in business. I'm not sure.
This seems to me that this is a debate that arises on the boards only, rather than one that is likely to have a practical effect on peoples' games. The only context I can readily imagine it coming up in-game is for low-level adventurers to determine how much they can fleece from "Old Farmer Brown" when he begs them to rescue his kidnapped daughter from the local bandits, or something along those lines. :D
The main point of interest for me is the thought of taking the numbers and building up a model for the economy from the ground up. Not that I would actually do that, but it seems like an interesting way to potentially build a game economy. In this context though, these are simplified rules for a simplified economy. If you scrutinize these rules too carefully or apply them too literally, their flaws become apparent. And I'm ignoring the even more obvious rule omissions like the fact that nothing in the RAW says that a fisherman in the desert (or a farmer without land, a miller without a mill, etc.) earns less money than a fisherman next to the ocean. It's obvious to me that these rules were never intended to be skills of serious importance to the game.
Hm, if you look at the town population charts, you find that there will be a lot more level 1 commoner than there a level 1 characters of any other class.
All this thread has shown us that rich farmers have enough money to live a not too shabby life.
But fact is there are lots of people in such a world who don't own a farm. Their income has nothing to do with the amount their craft skill. As they use the tools of someone else to work on the material of someone else. For a meager payment.
Except, game mechanically, that isn't true.
You roll your dice, you get your money. Real-world issues don't matter here. By RAW you could be locked in an air-tight room and still make 1D20 + Skill / 2 GP a week from a Craft or Profession skill.
The common laborer gets 1 sp per work day.
As even self sufficient upkeep requires 2 gold per month, he would need a normal 5 day week.
(But he would need to raise his own food, so that doesn't work out quite)
For a meager existence he would need 5 gp a month. Even with working 30 days a month, he could earn that much.
(A family group can survive, by mixing self sufficient and meager)
Now a smith or other trained people get a salary of whooping 4sp a day.
With 6 work days a week and 4.5 weeks a month they can get 10 gold and 8 silver a month, so they almost reach status of poor.
(Now someone who actually owns his tools will be part of the 10% that managed to have risen above those masses and they can actually have a nice life)
Which is almost certainly true, in the middle ages.
But by D&D rules as written, there is no unemployment, nobody needs tools to ply their trade, you don't need to find anybody to provide you with money. It just appears. The little GP count above your head racks up, just like when you cash in your magic items.
Normally, this would lead to massive, massive inflation, since everybody is making money, and nobody is spending money. Fortunately the rules also eliminate the possibility of inflation by giving everything a fixed cost.
But fact is there are lots of people in such a world who don't own a farm.
Actually, most people in such times were either serfs, [in which case they didn't own their property, they were tied to it... they were not allowed to leave], peasants, [in which case they did own their property], and that was just in the villages... and there were more people living in villages in the middle ages than there were in cities...
The majority of the people in the cities were artisans, that is, craftsmen... they belonged to a guild, owned the tools of their trade and whatnot... they were poor as hell but they still owned their tools...
A nice enough read, but in the end who really cares how much $ the commoners make??
They're NPCs. They exist in whatever state the DM says they do for story purposes. Thus they also make whatever $ the DM wants them to...
And I don't know about the rest of you, but I've yet to see (in nearly 27 years in this hobby) ANY game where this has been any kind of factor. WHY? Because this is the equivalent of an action movie. And the players are the stars.
It's just not about the NPC commoner families and their daily economic situations.
HEAR HEAR! Right there with you on this subject. If this is just an exercise in comparing the differences between D&D fantasy gaming and history, then I'd rather be a peasant in D&D than one in Europe after the fall of Rome! There's so much gold and silver being bandied about that you could make a fortune just picking up loose change or scraps form the coin smithies! ;)
The NPCs are there for background shots and flavor. As a joke I once had a PC who could become invisible AND inaudible discover that there was really only ONE town of people and they covertly followed the PC's around and used makeup and illusions to look like a different group when they went to a different town! The entire world was a huge "Trueman" setup.
Except, game mechanically, that isn't true.
You roll your dice, you get your money. Real-world issues don't matter here. By RAW you could be locked in an air-tight room and still make 1D20 + Skill / 2 GP a week from a Craft or Profession skill....
Well lets see out of the crafts description:
...All crafts require artisan’s tools to give the best chance of success. If improvised tools are used, the check is made with a -2 circumstance penalty. On the other hand, masterwork artisan’s tools provide a +2 circumstance bonus on the check.
So they need at least some sort of tools.
Also raw materials to make anything, and there is still the chance of a bad roll that destroys half the worth of the raw material.
So clearly craft skill is only of use if you have the money to start a trade.
The profession skill on the other hand would allow you to make money without any requirements.
But since we do have untrained laborers to hire, we have to assume that lots of commoners have a very low intelligence and/or wisdom, or wasted skill points on not money making skills, or have unspent skill points.
(And as the average human is pretty stupid and lazy I guess all skill points are tied up in stuff like Knowledge(fashion) or other stuff like that)
of course the DMG also tells us that a common live style costs 45gp a month (or 10 gold a week if you assume 4.5 weeks a month).
As you earn half your profession check in gold per week a skill of 10 in a profession seems to be common
Actually, I think it was because of the world wars
Like I said, it was one reason.
You forget that for vast portions of the year a farmer cannot farm yet they must still eat.
And you overlook where that has been covered multiple times in this thread that the rules do not cover this. You make a profession check, you get money. Period. People complain that commoners, by the rules, couldn't make enough money to survive. I show them that, by the RAW, they can make enough money to survive and prosper.
Then, they start making up reasons why the commoners shouldn't make enough money to survive. Honestly, if you people want your commoners to be starving to death, fine, its your game. Just never claim that a D&D commoner is in any way limited by the RAW from living a comfortable lifestyle. The RAW clearly says that they can have a fairly decent life, if they're willing to work for it.
I find this all very interesting, even though I know I'll never use any of it in-game. The fact is: if you use the RAW to build the economy from the ground up, then "peasants" or "commoners" or whatever we're calling them look like they are doing very well. If, on the other hand, you use RAW to build up the wealth of the rich and powerful from the ground up (like lawyers, royal retainers, vintners, drapers, goldsmiths, or other well-to-do medieval working types) you discover that they are exactly as well-off as the peasants, because they use the same rules.
Not true. You're confusing total wealth with liquid wealth. Under the D&D system, the commoner may "make" several hundred gold per year, but its almost entirely hand to mouth. They make enough to get by, and enough to be able to save up for special things every so often. The lawyers and the like may have the same overall wealth, but they don't have 90+% of it tied up in land, draft animals, etc, so they are free to use it on more "frivolous" things.
I do like the notion that the honest Mayor of a large city is making more money than Old Gerald the Dung Sweeper, despite the fact that they both have similar numbers of ranks in a (very different) Profession skill.
So, the Mayor took Skill Focus and maxxed out his ranks in Profession (Mayor). Are you honestly going to say that Old Gerald the Dung Sweeper has the equivalent of a college degree in Dung Sweeping? Thats not a case of the rules not working, thats a case of you giving someone an unrealistic amount of skill ranks. Somebody with that much of a focus would make a lot of money, they're likely the best stable cleaner in the land, capable of cleaning your stables so well you could eat out of them in only one day, that sort of thing.
Of course, cleaning stables is a better approximation of unskilled labor, at 1 sp a day, since you don't need special learning or skill to shovel
. Anybody can be shown how to muck a stable in a couple of minutes and do a competent job at it. No skill is required. The same cannot be said for farming (anybody that ever tells you farming is simple is an idiot, lying through his teeth, or both), blacksmithing, etc. You have to have a lot of specialized knowledge (aka skill ranks) to make it work.Good way to remember. If you can show somebody how to do something in under 5 minutes and they can then do an acceptable job at it, then its unskilled labor. If you have to spend weeks or months training them to do the job, then its skilled labor and that person has bought a rank in said skill by the end of the training period.
A nice enough read, but in the end who really cares how much $ the commoners make??
You haven't been on these boards long enough then. Or maybe that objection has just quieted down since I wrote this, I dunno, I haven't been keeping track of the right boards for that for a while now.
But "back in the day" when I wrote this, you couldn't go a freaking week without somebody making a "D&D economics are broken! Commoners can't possibly make enough money to survive, this is teh broken!!!!11!!11one1!". So, I wrote this article, because I was sick and tired of people spouting off things that they obviously knew nothing about. They just saw that 1 sp a day thing and then went off on tangents in their own little minds until they had built up this hate for D&D economics (which was never intended to be used for NPCs in the first place, because like you said, they make however much the DM needs them to make for the sake of the story).
They obviously never actually *LOOKED* at the rules they were bashing, they just skimmed and decided they knew it all, which just made matters worse. They were making themselves look like idiots to everyone that knew better, and they were stirring up other people that couldn't be bothered to look things up for themselves.
So, I wrote this. It uses minimum levels, and just the RAW as presented in the PHB with no alterations or DM judgment calls (aka taxes, crops only being harvested over a few weeks the entire year, etc) to prove, once and for all, even the lowliest commoner can make enough money to get by on, if they are willing to work for it.
If they refuse to try and learn essential survival skills for their times, then yes, they're going to be starving beggars, but the same is true with real life. Your starving peasant that can't make ends meet is the commoner that spread his skill points too thin, or put them in "worthless" skills, like Spot or Move Silently, and hence don't have ranks in a profession.
Again, I'm not saying every peasant is living the good life. I'm saying that there is *NOTHING* in the D&D mechanical rules that says they can't. On the contrary, a commoner that learns a trade, even if its just farming, and works hard at it can be quite comfortable, if not exactly swimming in cash. If you don't like that, then say the commoners in your game are too stupid to figure out "work hard = money", and you'll be fine.
I just got sick and tired of people saying the rules prevent commoners from making money. Just the opposite, the rules show they can make a good deal of money, its just that most people don't actually bother to READ the rules before they start bashing them.
Tools don't last forever. They need to be replaced periodically.
True they don't last forever, but your average commoner is going to have at least a rough idea of how to repair whatever it is that wears out. Probably doubling the length of time that they can use the tool.
Good show, Edymnion, good show.
You're confusing total wealth with liquid wealth. Under the D&D system, the commoner may "make" several hundred gold per year, but its almost entirely hand to mouth. They make enough to get by, and enough to be able to save up for special things every so often. The lawyers and the like may have the same overall wealth, but they don't have 90+% of it tied up in land, draft animals, etc, so they are free to use it on more "frivolous" things.
Except that's still not very realistic. Lawyers/Importers/Drapers/Jewelers and certain other professionals were actually wealthier than peasants, not merely the beneficiaries of greater liquidity. (As an aside, medieval peasants generally did not own the land they farmed. They either received a right to use the land from the local landowner in exchange for part of the crop or they simply leased the land. Even major tools and draft animals were typically held in common by the community, not owned by individuals.)
So, the Mayor took Skill Focus and maxxed out his ranks in Profession (Mayor). Are you honestly going to say that Old Gerald the Dung Sweeper has the equivalent of a college degree in Dung Sweeping? Thats not a case of the rules not working, thats a case of you giving someone an unrealistic amount of skill ranks.
The fault is not "an unrealistic amount of skill ranks" it's that Profession (street cleaner) and profession (politician) have exactly the same income potential.
If, in the name of realism, you add in guidelines (or houserules) that limit or usually limit the number of skill ranks one can hold in particular professions, you can certainly come up with a more realistic looking income curve. (And such a house rule makes *a lot* of sense from a realism perspective. Presumably, you come up with rules that allow for higher caps on skill ranks for the more historically lucrative medieval professions, Mercers, Grocers, Drapers, Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, Vintners, etc., with applicable local variations—for example, shipwrights do very well in island nations or in nations with relatively extensive fleets.) The problem is that, once those extra-RAW guidelines come into play, then the argument that peasant farmers made out very well comes into question. It then depends on what one subjectively believes is a reasonable cap on the income of the medieval farmer, which circles us back into the very question you tried to answer.
If I think it's "unrealistic" for mere peasants to have any ranks in any craft or profession skills, then per the RAW, they make an average of 1 sp/day. Given what I have read about the actual lives of peasants in medieval Europe, 1 sp/day per family member is not unrealistic. It’s impossible for either of us to gainsay the other’s perception of “unrealism.”
What is "unrealistic" is entirely subjective. If peasants or street cleaners are investing skill points in Profession (farmer/street cleaning), then why wouldn't they max that out? I can see the argument that they would, unless they were particularly unwise (which is always a possibility, but would apply only to part of the population). Given the RAW though, any profession or craft, no matter how limited the income one might imagine its income would realistically be, has the potential to be as lucrative as any other. That's just a fact of the way the skills are written.
Did no one else notice the quote from the DMG that said at most taxes take 1/5th of the income? Not half, not one third but a fifth, twenty percent, that's raw dog.
Seriously though, in an economics simulator about the everyman like this, it's pretty irresponsible of them to abstract the economy to make things easy. I mean seriously, commoners should be dirt poor starving or better yet, dead. God knows in the games I play in EVERY PC (except mine) tip about 3000% at least. Drink costs a silver? Pay him 20 gold and tell him to keep it full; Drink 3 sips and leave. Ferry across the river 3 silver? 5 gold it is! With this kind of thing going on it's obvious that all commoners should be filthy rich.
As for the labor distinction: When I think labor I think hauling stuff around, not people working their own farm or crafting furniture. Which to me is the difference between making 1sp a day and anything else. Otherwise a hireling mercenary whatever for 3sp a day is really a waste of 2sp since he's just wage labor.
Joe Wood 4 life.
So if Joe the level 3 commoner works 15 hours a day = 150 hours a tenday
He should be able to make 150/30 = 5 rolls at 1,5 (week vs tenday)
skill +5+1wis(middle aged)+6 feats+10 = 22 ~11gp*1,5 = 16gp
16*36 tendays = 480+96 = 580
Or a 580*5 = 2900 gp each for husband and wife each.
Working with feeding, slaughtering, cleaning etc cows, chickens, sheep, goats, pigs....
Milk, cheese, cream, wool..
Or in addition to farming the regular grain, and a veggie garden.. they also farm hemp and flax (clothes/sails/ropes).. tobacco even and sugar beets to name but a pitifully small amount.
And can stay very busy weaving ropes in the winter or making sweaters, rugs and such.
Kiddies will be working less, maybe just 9 hours a day = 3 chores at (4+10+3 = 17 ~12gp/tenday 430gp/year)
So the household comes down to:
5800+860 = 6660
-food 5cp*360*5 = 105gp/year (own produce)
Slaughterhouse with tools, masterwork farming tools.. easily a pletora of circumstance bonuses making the income MUCH higher.
I bet they will be getting a pair of farmers gloves+10 to profession farmer soon.. ;)
Soon after a item of fabricate at will to get seriously wealthy.
Thats a mere decade of savings, and oboy what kind of wealth it brings...
But then, these are the landed farmers. They are suppsed to be filthy rich.
Now have another look at the urban poor, now their situation really isnt anything to laugh at. Guess the best thing could do is to learn some forestcraft and run away from the urban hellhole.
But then, urban meals can often be had at 1cp.. McGruel kitchens operated by a teleporting simulcra lantern archon that has a crown of create food at will. More than one thread around to show how thats good business ;)
Thus one can service a large number of kitchens.
Like I said, it was one reason. + + + +
Hi there Edymnion; brilliant post and you have really helped settle a little argument i was having with a PC of mine. Your post was very factual, used quoted references and quoted rules - so easy to follow (although, for some of the other posters on this forum, i have tried to find (be it briefly) the Character Expenses section in the DMG and failed (maybe its cos im using a British 3.5 one? - if that even means anything?)
Anyway, very excellent post and i would like to ask you your thoughts on this - as i agree that the economics is fine in D&D.
Q: Do you think CP's and SP's are made obsolete very early in the game for PC?
ME: For me; CP and SP become pointless after the first magical items have been found and sold. I run a self made game using as close to the rules as possible and liberal use of Cityscape for some (as i dont think its that important) living expenses. I dont tax PC (although now im thinking i should); use the 1d4gp/month rent rules (Cityscape) and a custom rule for training - 300gp/new level for complete training (this is prob far too low) plus some guild membership costs - up to 10gp/month but it gives economic perks.
Even with being tight fisted on treasure (to make them earn their levels) i have found that 4cp for a pint of beer is worth less that the dust on their jackets.
A PC of mine was finding it difficult to visualise what a gp was worth (pints of beer now in the UK are about £2.50 (~$5) making a copper worth about 50p ($1) and thus a gp about £50 ($100). Ok not a prob; but this meant that a second level spell effect potion (Cats Grace say) at 300gp was worth, in Earth money, £15,000. Good god thats a fortune! And since there can be an abundance of wizards (look at DDO and the treasure in that - ok its inflated cos one can only sell for 10%) there would be a lot of potions going around.
In addition to this; i tried a barter system skill check (basically all things sell at base of 10% value; but make a Diplomacy check DC 10, and for each 1pt >10, you get a +5%. So Diplomacy check of 18 = 50% of total marked in book price.) instead of a standard second hand goods sold at 50% - allowing a high profit if check was good.
This caused problems in selling potions for a fraction of their "value".
The whole system seems quite geared towards gold as the main currency; sp and cp vanish after a while.
Any thoughts or advice to make my PCs respect money more??
This is a good topic, but really, can we say "You can only farm part of the year!" a few more times? I think it's only in here about 50% of the posts.
You know what? I'm going to step up to the plate here. One can only actively farm for part of the year, and it's unreasonable to apply this Profession skill to all year. Unless there are sufficient livestock to justify using Profession (Farmer) checks, they should be rolling as unskilled laborers for the off-season.
Now, before Edy jumps in with his refrain that nothing in the rules prevents this- I agree on that point. Nothing in the rules-as-written prevents someone from using Profession (Farmer) in the winter.
Similarly, nothing in the rules prevents someone from rolling Profession (Sailor) checks while standing naked in the desert or Profession (Miner) checks while on a ship on the high seas. Nothing, that is, except for the "obvious common sense" standard that anyone would apply to these scenarios. Seriously, now.