# How much money does the avarage commoner need?



## njorgard (Sep 18, 2002)

I know this might be covered in the core rules somewhere, but I was wondering how much money does the average commoner in a D&D fantasy type world handle in a year.  I know that during the Middle Ages commoners and their families had to be pretty much self sufficient and live off the land.  But then I started thinking about all those people who are neither farmers nor herders…the shopkeepers, the innkeepers, the clergy, cobblers, tanners, etc.  How much do these people need in gp terms to live?  How does this compare to the wealth adventurers carry around?  Are adventurers like the “rock stars” of the world?  Any comments or suggestions on this would be helpful.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Sep 18, 2002)

Well, I don't have my books with me, but I think the official amount a typical peasant (commoner) earns is one silver piece per day.

I've heard some valid arguments why this amount should be more like 1 gold piece per day, however; for example, how could a peasant possibly afford to buy a simple shortsword for home-defense (a real necessity in a typical D&D world) and support his family at the same time on 1 sp a day?


----------



## NLP (Sep 18, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> I've heard some valid arguments why this amount should be more like 1 gold piece per day, however; for example, how could a peasant possibly afford to buy a simple shortsword for home-defense (a real necessity in a typical D&D world) and support his family at the same time on 1 sp a day?



Most peasants would have a spear or bow in the house. They would also use things like pitchforks and other farming implements. A sword should be fairly rare and would only be found in the home of someone who served in the military in his youth or was part of the militia and thus supplied the weapon by the lord of the area.

I also think a great deal of a peasant's purchases would be handled through barter. I have 5 extra eggs you have an extra pale of milk. Let's trade. The same would be said about the general store. A farmer would bring in eggs, milk, etc to trade at the store for items they would need such as cloth or exotic items.

also keep in mind that peasants do not make money over the course of the year. All their money would come in after harvest time and the crops have been sold. It is then that a peasant would pay off accumulated bills at the general store and other people he owes money to. It is then that the peasant would payoff their required tax to the lord, either in money from the sale of crops, but more likely in grain or live animals. Any money left over from that would be put under the peasant’s bed to be saved for a rainy day or a bad crop season.

A peasant could live a normal life like this. There would not be too many extravagances, but under a good lord there would not be too many days of hunger either. Most peasants would seldom ever see a gold piece, but would have quite a few coppers and silvers tucked away in their shacks.


----------



## Valmur_Dwur (Sep 18, 2002)

It's a SP a day for a peasant-type.  

@Wolfen-priest Why does a peasant need a short-sword?  If its anything at all medieval like then don't we have a landowner of some type to protect us?  Besides a peasant wouldn't know how to use a martial weapon like a shortsword.  He could wield a club or something that he would use on a daily basis like an axe(although the PHB doesn't allow this for a commoner).  As to having a swortsword outside of that arguement try this.  The Blacksmith or Armor-maker in your campaign could make a shortsword for oh let's say a basket of apples and 2 chickens and perhaps a bottle of homemade hooch!  Use barter as a way that peasants are able to survive without money in hand.  This really applies to the craft makers as well.  When they get money from the pcs it really should make their day UNLESS they haven't had some delicacy in a while then they may do it for that instead!  Need more coffee I'm rambling


----------



## Sammael99 (Sep 18, 2002)

NLP said:
			
		

> *
> Most peasants would have a spear or bow in the house. They would also use things like pitchforks and other farming implements. A sword should be fairly rare and would only be found in the home of someone who served in the military in his youth or was part of the militia and thus supplied the weapon by the lord of the area.*




The issue I have with the whole "economic system" vaguely fleshed out in the DMG is that it's extremely low fantasy in a generally high fantasy setting. Things don't add-up.

There was a thread a while back and someone said he was aiming at redefining the D&D economy. I'd really love to see that happen...


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Sep 18, 2002)

NLP said:
			
		

> *
> Most peasants would have a spear or bow in the house. They would also use things like pitchforks and other farming implements. A sword should be fairly rare and would only be found in the home of someone who served in the military in his youth or was part of the militia and thus supplied the weapon by the lord of the area.
> 
> I also think a great deal of a peasant's purchases would be handled through barter. I have 5 extra eggs you have an extra pale of milk. Let's trade. The same would be said about the general store. A farmer would bring in eggs, milk, etc to trade at the store for items they would need such as cloth or exotic items.
> ...




These are all very good points, but I think they are reflective of a medieval economy rather than a 'typical' D&D economy.  Granted, using the standard ruleset a commoner cannot even use a shortsword, so that was a bad example.  

But what if the campaign is not based on a feudal economy at all?  Then, rather than talking about serf-like peasants laboring under a lord, we might be talking about a cobbler or tanner, working in a city as a member of a craft-guild.  In such a case, according to the rules at least, the person would indeed earn about a silver piece a day (not seasonal).  The question is, is this really enough money to support a family in a 'typical' D&D world?  I don't know how much a shortspear is (or some other common simple weapon) but bows are not cheap, IIRC.

An sp a day would barely be enough to feed and clothe a family of 5, let alone buy a home in a small town and pay for something as relatively simple as a bow.

So the question is, if there are hundreds of thousands of gold-pieces floating around in a given economy, would 1 sp/day really be the going rate for a typical 'normal person?'


----------



## njorgard (Sep 18, 2002)

Yes, I think Wolfen Priest has a very valid point.  a D&D type fantasy world would definately have different economic dynamics than a true medeival world.  The inclusion of guilds, spellcasters, miracle makers, and tons of big fat dungeons full of riches to plunder puts a different twist.


----------



## NLP (Sep 18, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *But what if the campaign is not based on a feudal economy at all?  Then, rather than talking about serf-like peasants laboring under a lord, we might be talking about a cobbler or tanner, working in a city as a member of a craft-guild.  In such a case, according to the rules at least, the person would indeed earn about a silver piece a day (not seasonal).  The question is, is this really enough money to support a family in a 'typical' D&D world?  I don't know how much a shortspear is (or some other common simple weapon) but bows are not cheap, IIRC.*



Well, the examples I was using were from 17th through early 20th century America. I just used the word "Lord" instead of Government. 

As far as bows, peasants who have them either made them or traded something they do have to someone who makes them. Once again this is a barter thing. "My wife makes great quilts, you make great long bows. How about 5 quilts, two pigs, and one week's free field work for a bow?"

The best way for you to come to grips with the money is to assign a real world value to the gold. If a mug of beer is 2 CP, and you know a beer costs $2.00 for a big mug where you live, then 1 CP = $1.00. Then just compute it up from there based on whatever dollar amount you currently have money being worth. So if you use 1 GP = 10 SP = 100 CP then 1 GP equals $100.00. 

In modern US society it is fairly difficult to live on less than $1000.00 per month, which is 10 GP. But that is the average US economy. In Mexico you can live VERY WELL on $1,000.00 per month. In the Dominican Replublic a person could live half the year on $1,000.00. There is no way to give a fixed answer to your question as it entirely depends on the society which you are trying to emulate.


----------



## Drawmack (Sep 18, 2002)

IMC the average commoner deals on the barter system. In the larger towns and cities an adventurer can spend their currency and turn their gems into currency but in a small town or village the merchants don't even want to hear about money. They have no where to spend money so it has no value to them as everything works on the barter system and the PHB has tables where things can easily be assigned equivolent values. It's really fun when the PCs come into town and need to trade something the own for lodging and food. I'll tell you though it leads to a well armed society. The fighter trades a short sword and two weeks of training to the local inn keep for three months lodging. The wizard trades some scrolls to the smith for armor repairs, so on and so forth. 

As far as what you're saying about 1sp per day. I use a slightly inflated pay rate where money is used. I use 1gp/week. This is more then enough for the average peasant. Take into account that this is an average so your fighter buys a suit of mitheral armor and not the smith buys a house for his family.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Sep 18, 2002)

NLP said:
			
		

> *The best way for you to come to grips with the money is to assign a real world value to the gold. If a mug of beer is 2 CP, and you know a beer costs $2.00 for a big mug where you live, then 1 CP = $1.00. Then just compute it up from there based on whatever dollar amount you currently have money being worth. So if you use 1 GP = 10 SP = 100 CP then 1 GP equals $100.00.
> *




So that would make a battle-axe cost $1500 by today's standards.  A sword would be $2000.  So let's make it more realistic and say that a firearm, (being a more modern and useful weapon), should then cost $2000.  Which they don't.

So, I really don't see any point in trying to assign modern values to a fantasy world's items.  Furthermore, I don't think that, even in the 'real' middle-ages, a farmer would have had to trade 5 quilts, 2 pigs, and a week's worth of field-labor for something as simple as a bow.

Plus, assuming most D&D settings have a fully functional economy, where trading is at a minimum and cash tender is commonly accepted form or payment, then either (a) the prices of common things need to go down (which could destroy some of the game-balance), or (b) commoners should earn more than 1 sp per day.

I keep thinking about the typical city-dwelling commoner.  He might be a craftsman of some sort.  In any case, these types make up the vast majority of people in most campaign worlds.  The 'average laborer' earns 2 gold pieces a month, or around that (assuming he works 5 days a week); yet, a typical 'house' is listed at (I believe) 500 gp.  So I really don't get how that works.


----------



## d20Gurus.com (Sep 18, 2002)

The "average" income of a commoner is one sp a day. I can see that, if you look at the term average by its definition.

Commoners are the peasants; farmers, landworkers, hunters, etc.... they would only see about a silver a day.

Everything else you are describing, such as blacksmiths, cobblers, etc... they are middle class, as long as they also have their own storefront or customer base. They can see far more than one silver a day, which is a good thing... as they generally do not have eggs, milk, or wheat to barter with to get the things they couldn't afford.

Just felt like adding my two cents


----------



## Kal Torak (Sep 18, 2002)

I find that a sliver for an un-skilled labourer (so NOT a crafsman!) is an good number, an un-skilled labourer could just amlost sort of keep him-self and his family fed and clothed, plus the wife does little thing here and there and from the age of 5 so do the children.

A craftsman could get quite a lot more than that, he could afford a house, especilly if he asks the guild to lend him money (a normal thing IMC) an un-skliied labourer rents a room or two in a tenemanet and is lucky to have enought money left at the end of the day to get drunk. 

As for the peasent and the bow, the bows in the PHB are high quality "war" bows, a farmer would use soemthing much less high quality, either making it himself or trading a few bushels of grain for one. A peasent would have very little money and have little use for it, you can't eat silver! As for a sword that is very un-likely, as has been alredy said.

Assining modern dollar (or euro or pound or whatever) valeus to gps is pointless, the idustrial revolution changed all that kind of thing, the second industrial revoultion changed them all agian and so on. It's just pointless.

Some of the common commdedties in the PHB are slightly to hligly priced but that can be easly modefied.

Also to end this post I will say that the more very poerfull people and dungeons full of gold there are the less richness there is for the people!


----------



## jmucchiello (Sep 18, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *So that would make a battle-axe cost $1500 by today's standards.  A sword would be $2000.  So let's make it more realistic and say that a firearm, (being a more modern and useful weapon), should then cost $2000.  Which they don't.*



You are forgetting that the weapon is handmade. No run off an assembly line. A handmade sword can cost you over a thousand dollar to two thousand dollars today.


----------



## Xeriar (Sep 18, 2002)

In fuedal Japan, the average commoner lived on about one gold piece per year ("Have you eaten rice today?").

Since gold has had a fairly stable value throughout history, it's certainly a better marker than real-world goods.

I'm working on a different economic system but it's slow, and you learn new things and rework stuff all the time... :-/


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 18, 2002)

> I know this might be covered in the core rules somewhere, but I was wondering how much money does the average commoner in a D&D fantasy type world handle in a year.




Seeing as how Commoners' have access to the Craft and Profession skills, I'd say they make money according to the rules for those skills. Going by Profession, you make half your check result in GP per week of work. So let's make a couple of assumptions. 

1. The average 1st-level Commoner stuck 4 ranks into Profession. 
2. They have the Skill Focus (Profession) Feat, giving them a +2 bonus. 

So assuming no stat bonuses, Commoners have a +6 bonus to their Profession roll. On average they'll roll a 10 for their D20 check. 10 + 6 = 16 / 2 = 8. So the average Commoner makes 8 GP a week. 52 weeks a year means the average Commoner makes 416 GP a year. So in D&D terms, that's what Commoners make, though I imagine the nobility sucks off a large portion of that through taxes.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 18, 2002)

1sp is a maid or unskilled labourer's day  wage in DMG - so I use 1sp/day, 3gp/month, as subsistence wage for a single adult - you can't maintain a family on that in anything short of destitution.  Rem until the 20th century most people in Europe (not USA) never married or had children!  About 1/3 of people married and averaged ca 6 children each, apparently.

So, for a farmer with a family of 5 total, he needs income equivalent to 5sp/day for them to subsist reasonably comfortably, ie a typical peasant farm produces about 15gp/month by value.

Obviously a farmer won't want or need a shortsword, a club is more useful and free.  I agree about bows - PHB bow prices are extremely high, but then PHB shortbows are extremely lethal, each arrow as deadly as a javelin or shortspear.  I'd guess the draw weight on a D&D bow is about 10lbs or so per point of maximum damage (eg 80lbs for standard longbow, 120 lbs for 1d8+4 mighty longbow), maybe a bit more.  So for a typical hunting bow, damage of around 1d3 or 1d4 seems more likely.


----------



## NLP (Sep 18, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> So that would make a battle-axe cost $1500 by today's standards.  A sword would be $2000.  So let's make it more realistic and say that a firearm, (being a more modern and useful weapon), should then cost $2000.  Which they don't.
> 
> So, I really don't see any point in trying to assign modern values to a fantasy world's items.  Furthermore, I don't think that, even in the 'real' middle-ages, a farmer would have had to trade 5 quilts, 2 pigs, and a week's worth of field-labor for something as simple as a bow.



Both of these statements show you complete lack of understanding in both modern production and rural economy.

Even today, a sword - and I mean one made by hand - can cost you several hundred to several thousands of dollars. Something that is made by hand is much more expensive than something coming off an assembly line. Just ask Henry Ford about that.

If you consider a bow to be valuable to you then you would not mind working a week or more to get one. I suggest you watch a movie along the lines of Sergeant York. The movie gives a good example of rural America pre WWI. You might just be surprised at how much work someone had to do just to make a few cents. I would suggest a book or two, but I know you will not read them, so why bother. 

Your entire argument is based on an idea that the items listed in the PHB are accurate ideas as to how much something really costs. They are not. In the real world a cowboy would shoot his horse and the carry his saddle hundreds of miles across the desert on his back until he got a new horse. The saddle cost more than 3-4 horses. In a fantasy world you can buy lots of saddles for what a good riding horse would cost. 

There is no way to give you an answer you will like. If you think peasants should make 1 GP a day, pay them that much. If you think it should be 1 SP, make it that. In "real world" history almost everything a non-city dwelling peasant did in his live involved barter, not coin. If a GP has no value in your game because all the players have thousands of them then give the peasants thousands too. Then the players have a reason to feel like they need more money.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 18, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So, I really don't see any point in trying to assign modern values to a fantasy world's items.  Furthermore, I don't think that, even in the 'real' middle-ages, a farmer would have had to trade 5 quilts, 2 pigs, and a week's worth of field-labor for something as simple as a bow.
> 
> ...




ok here's my responses to your paragraphs

1st paragraph.  Bows aren't simple.  the type of bow they are describing in the PH is a complex and difficult machine.

2nd paragraph. barter is often MORE useful than coin.  here's a historical example.  kings would often accept payments in kind for taxes rather than coin because then they have to count the coins, keep the coins safe, and then distribute the coins to the person they need goods from.  example.. peasant A gives me 10 sp as taxes.  i then count the sp, keep it safe, transport it and then give it to another peasant so i can buy his grain.  just simpliler to get the grain from peasant A in the first place.

3rd paragraph.  craftsman are outside the realm of commoner.  craftsmen "practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your check result in GOLD pieces per week of dedicated work." PH under CRAFT skill.  ditto for profession.


and overall, you are really just not understanding the crushing poverty that was common during the middle ages.  Visit a 3rd world country today and you'll understand why it does cost so much to purchase a bow.  People are lucky to be able to afford enough to feed themselves, let alone have the luxury of their own house.  about 20% of the population during the middle ages were destitute (without a home)... wage labourers, beggers, small vendors, etc.. that lived on the streets.  Again go to a 3rd world country and you'll still see the same thing.

I just went to india and whenever you have to catch an early train or bus you'll go though streets that are packed full of sleeping people, im not kidding, you'll see hundreds....  these people even run food stalls, peddle small trinkets.. etc.. and they STILL live on the streets.  People live, eat, deficate, and die on the streets.

joe b.


----------



## Kal Torak (Sep 18, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> how could a peasant possibly afford to buy a simple shortsword for home-defense (a real necessity in a typical D&D world)




how about getting a club, insted of a shortsword that has required a skilled craftsman at least a week to create and will require weeks of training just not to stab youself? There is no such thing as a simple shortsword, even the worst shortsword has still be toiled over for days!



> something as simple as a bow




I suggest you try making a "simple" long bow, made of yew, aged near a fire (but not too near) in the right position for over a year, and see what you end up with. Then tell me how simple it is. A long bow, like all weapons is a finly crafted pice of eqipment, a simple bow (that only requires days or weks to make and only fair skill) would inflict much less damage that a "normal" bow (1d3 I would gess.)

(editid to say that I only just noticed that someone had already done the bow bit!)


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Sep 18, 2002)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *1st paragraph.  Bows aren't simple.  the type of bow they are describing in the PH is a complex and difficult machine.*




Ok.  Point made.  So I guess it's completely unrealistic for any commoner to ever own a bow, which is fine for a grim and/or gritty campaign.



> *
> 2nd paragraph. barter is often MORE useful than coin.  here's a historical example.  kings would often accept payments in kind for taxes rather than coin because then they have to count the coins, keep the coins safe, and then distribute the coins to the person they need goods from.  example.. peasant A gives me 10 sp as taxes.  i then count the sp, keep it safe, transport it and then give it to another peasant so i can buy his grain.  just simpliler to get the grain from peasant A in the first place.*




Again, that's fine if you are playing in a realistic game.  But what about the 'typical' D&D game?



> *
> 3rd paragraph.  craftsman are outside the realm of commoner.  craftsmen "practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your check result in GOLD pieces per week of dedicated work." PH under CRAFT skill.  ditto for profession.
> *




As Green Knight pointed out, commoners have access to these skills, not only making the point moot, but also adding strength to the argument that 'commoners' do, in fact, earn more than 1 sp/day.



> *
> and overall, you are really just not understanding the crushing poverty that was common during the middle ages.  Visit a 3rd world country today and you'll understand why it does cost so much to purchase a bow.  People are lucky to be able to afford enough to feed themselves, let alone have the luxury of their own house.  about 20% of the population during the middle ages were destitute (without a home)... wage labourers, beggers, small vendors, etc.. that lived on the streets.  Again go to a 3rd world country and you'll still see the same thing.
> *




In fact, you are wrong in guaging my supposed ignorance; in fact, I am well aware of the crushing poverty that most people faced in the real-world middle-ages.  I'm suggesting that for most D&D campaigns, the majority of the people are not living in such utterly squalid conditions.  That would be a gritty setting, not typical for a 'normal' D&D setting, if you ask me.  For examples, look at most of the best-selling campaign settings out there.  Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms have never made bartering a common trade practice, to my knowledge.  Nor have they emphasized that all commoners live in squalid conditions, with barely enough money "to get drunk at the end of the day."

*



			I just went to india and whenever you have to catch an early train or bus you'll go though streets that are packed full of sleeping people, im not kidding, you'll see hundreds....  these people even run food stalls, peddle small trinkets.. etc.. and they STILL live on the streets.  People live, eat, deficate, and die on the streets.
		
Click to expand...


*
Yeah but I don't see that kind of lifestyle mentioned in WotC-produced modules or city-settings, do you?


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 18, 2002)

Let's not even get into how screwed up D&D economics are.  It's pathetic to even begin with D&D assumptions.  If you want realism, scrap the whole system and build one yourself rewritting every reference to coin, goods, and labor in the books.  Therefore, there is no reason to discuss real economics of Medieval or other primitive societies in D&D context unless we are talking about a rewrite.

If you want semi-realism, that is you only really care about some degree of balance...

The 1st edition rule that unskilled labor earns 1 s.p. per day is based on reality, not gaming convention, and therefore was broken even back in 1st edition, since it gave average players enormous abilitiy to leverage labor compared to the average size of the labor pool.  If the average wage of unskilled labor is 1 s.p., then PC's have about 10 times too much wealth at any point in thier carreer (and gems and so forth are at least 10 times too valuable), and items cost between 3 (for rare goods) & 5 times (for common goods) too much (except for trade goods and food which are usually reasonably well priced).  That simplification has been my standard rule of thumb for years now.

In third edition, the standard wage is implicitly about 1 g.p. per day, so the game designers would do well to explicitly state that wages are based on a gold standard not a silver standard.  The average commoner applies his profession or craft skill and that is what he earns - an average of 5-9 g.p. a week depending on skill and experience.
That actually works out fairly well except that because of the relatively minor difference in skill ability between the average peasant and the average skilled craftsmen (say a 3rd-5th level expert), the average peasant has too much buying power compared to the middle class.  However, like I said, forget realism.  We are talking about balance.


----------



## Conaill (Sep 18, 2002)

Could anyone repost a link to the thread from several months back discussing the D&D economy? You know, the one in which Col_Pladoh himself admitted the original D&D economics (and thereby all later editions) were very unrealistic?

I believe on of the conclusions from that thread was that all wages should be multiplied by about 5 or so. Otherewise that typical country inn that always seems to pop up so conveniently could only be frequented by nobles for example.


----------



## Bryan Vining (Sep 18, 2002)

*Economics*

Economics is a tricky thing, and you really have to decide on the technology level of your campaign before you decide on how the economy is set up .  Why?  Well, the first priority of a society is to get food and water.  Even before shelter and clothing.  So, you need to consider what the technology level of your world will permit in terms of non-agrarian workers.  For instance, in a late medieval setting, the farming technology was such that it took 9 farmers to produce enough excess food to feed 1 non-farmer.  If you step forward to Rennaisance-era technology you might get a 4:1 ratio of farmers to non-farmers.  And so on...

So, for most people, doing something other than working on a farm, producing just enough food each year so that you have a small excess to trade for clothes, meat, shoes, tools, etc, is just not an option until you have an Industrial Revolution.  Even then, you're still going to have a lot more farmers per capita than you do now.

So what does that have to do with economics?  Well, basically, figure that your average farmer is going to produce enough to feed his family, take care of other non-food needs, and buy a pint now and again.  Most laborers are going to be in the same boat.  They'll have a rent to pay, or they'll have built their own place, which they then have to maintain.  What's probably most imporatant is how much money do they have to spend.  And they won't have much, if you want your campaign to be believable.  

If you're interested in more, send me a PM.


----------



## Gizzard (Sep 18, 2002)

> Otherewise that typical country inn that always seems to pop up so conveniently could only be frequented by nobles for example.




Mmm, yes, I am running Freeport right now; the inn there costs 1GP per day (including meals).  My players are blowing through their allotment of cash since useful skills like Gather Info cost "a few gold pieces" also. 

Anyway, my point is that the Freeport economy seems more based on a GP standard.  Perhaps thats because its a 3E product or perhaps its because a city runs on a fundamentally different standard than a rural area.  Ideas?


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 18, 2002)

*well*

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd paragraph. barter is often MORE useful than coin. here's a historical example. kings would often accept payments in kind for taxes rather than coin because then they have to count the coins, keep the coins safe, and then distribute the coins to the person they need goods from. example.. peasant A gives me 10 sp as taxes. i then count the sp, keep it safe, transport it and then give it to another peasant so i can buy his grain. just simpliler to get the grain from peasant A in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Again, that's fine if you are playing in a realistic game. But what about the 'typical' D&D game?"


the typical D&D game will have the same.  It makes more sense, given the difficulties of transportation, record keeping, etc.. that a medieval society faces, even a D&D society.  It is a better decision to accept taxes in kind than in currancy.  It helps keep down the amount of currancy the king/ruler has to pump out into the market and allows an economy to surpass a flat out currancy system.  And it fits the general socity assumptions of D&D.

Also the typical D&D game has mostly to do with PC's running around accumulating wealth, magic and power in a "vacum packed" undefined relationship with food production 


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd paragraph. craftsman are outside the realm of commoner. craftsmen "practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your check result in GOLD pieces per week of dedicated work." PH under CRAFT skill. ditto for profession.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As Green Knight pointed out, commoners have access to these skills, not only making the point moot, but also adding strength to the argument that 'commoners' do, in fact, earn more than 1 sp/day."


Well, thats up for the DM. to decide.  just because a common has access to these skills doesn't mean they will have them.  Giving the commoner access to those skills was to provide for a multiplicity of commoners.  Most will just farm and know nothing of anything else.  Commoners DONT min/max like a PC does in skill selection.  The DM guide says 1/8 to 1/15 of the population lives on farms, it says the average wage is 1 sp a day, and it says the "commoner class should be reserved for everyone who does not qualify for any other class."  To create an assumption that directly contradicts the preponderance of the information just because you CAN use craft/profession for every commoner is not be best decision.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and overall, you are really just not understanding the crushing poverty that was common during the middle ages. Visit a 3rd world country today and you'll understand why it does cost so much to purchase a bow. People are lucky to be able to afford enough to feed themselves, let alone have the luxury of their own house. about 20% of the population during the middle ages were destitute (without a home)... wage labourers, beggers, small vendors, etc.. that lived on the streets. Again go to a 3rd world country and you'll still see the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In fact, you are wrong in guaging my supposed ignorance; in fact, I am well aware of the crushing poverty that most people faced in the real-world middle-ages. I'm suggesting that for most D&D campaigns, the majority of the people are not living in such utterly squalid conditions. That would be a gritty setting, not typical for a 'normal' D&D setting, if you ask me. For examples, look at most of the best-selling campaign settings out there. Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms have never made bartering a common trade practice, to my knowledge. Nor have they emphasized that all commoners live in squalid conditions, with barely enough money "to get drunk at the end of the day.""


sorry for any offense, didn't mean it.  honestly i've always assumed every D&D setting was "gritty."  there's no reason to assume it isn't.  As to why they dont address it?  Why should they... the point of the game is to have fun and its not fun to think about the realities of the situation.  The PC's move through the world of the wealthy, not through the world of the common.

I dont know much about FR... but bartering and squalidness for the commoners has been mentioned several times for greyhawk (gord the rogue books ).  The basic setting concept for both campaigns is a late medieval/early reanassance magical setting. To me, assuming the typical squalidness that went along with all the other assumptions.. (cobblers, castles.. etc) was not unreasonable.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just went to india and whenever you have to catch an early train or bus you'll go though streets that are packed full of sleeping people, im not kidding, you'll see hundreds.... these people even run food stalls, peddle small trinkets.. etc.. and they STILL live on the streets. People live, eat, deficate, and die on the streets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yeah but I don't see that kind of lifestyle mentioned in WotC-produced modules or city-settings, do you?"

What i do see is their mentioning all of the other aspects of a late medieval/early rennasance society.  I think its rational to assume the "unpleasant" aspects as well as the pleasant ones. 

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 18, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> Mmm, yes, I am running Freeport right now; the inn there costs 1GP per day (including meals).  My players are blowing through their allotment of cash since useful skills like Gather Info cost "a few gold pieces" also.
> 
> Anyway, my point is that the Freeport economy seems more based on a GP standard.  Perhaps thats because its a 3E product or perhaps its because a city runs on a fundamentally different standard than a rural area.  Ideas? *




Staying in an inn is a luxury.  Most poor people, when they travel, stay on the streets.  Those who stay at inns have money, are craftsmen or professionals.  from the PHB..  good inns are 2gp a day, common inns are 5 sp, and poor ones are 2sp.


joe b.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Sep 18, 2002)

I don't think that it's reasonable to assume that most commoners have maxed out their ranks and taken the skill focus feat. Many commoners, I would imagine do one or the other. However, I would expect commoners to also put ranks into a variety of things.

If the typical commoner is human and has a 10 or 11 int, I would expect to see the skill distribution more like this:
Profession 2 to 4 ranks
Craft 2 ranks
Craft 2 ranks
Diplomacy 2 ranks
Perform (dance, storytelling) 2 ranks
Wilderness lore 0 to 2 ranks

I don't know if those are all on the commoner's skill list but if they're not, they'd probably be purchased cross class. Perform, diplomacy, and one of the craft skills might be switched out for more wilderness lore, bluff, sense motive, run, jump, or swim ranks--maybe even for knowledge religion, literacy, or another language.

Typical feats would probably include: alertness, simple weapons, militia (FRCS), skill focus: (bluff, diplomacy, perform, sense motive, wilderness lore, craft, profession, handle animal), armor proficiency, dodge, martial weapon proficiency, endurance, run.

I actually think that skill focusses in bluff, diplomacy, and sense motive, wilderness lore, and perform would be more common than skill focus in their profession.

After all, their lord or landlord takes most of their yield from farming anyway so being a little bit better at it doesn't make a big difference to their lives. OTOH, being respected in the village as the fastest runner, best swimmer, or best storyteller would be something. So would being considered wise and persuasive and being on the town council (sense motive and diplomacy). Of course, being good with the ladies or able to wrap men around their fingers would be something that others might aspire to (bluff--it's not as if we're talking about an honest person with the interests of their lover at heart here).

So, I would think that a diligent farmer probably has 4 ranks in profession (farmer) and a very skilled farmer probably has max ranks in profession and skill focus but most peasants are neither unusually diligent nor skilled. They probably have two or three ranks in their profession and devote the rest of their attention to other pursuits.

In that case, we might have three different results:
Unskilled Laborer: 1 sp/day=36.5 gp per year
Lazy peasant: Skill check 11-12=286 to 312gp per year
Normal peasant: Skill check: 13=338gp per year
Skilled or diligent peasant: Skill check 14-15=352-390 gp per year
Skilled and diligent peasant: Skill check 16=416 gp per year

Clearly, the unskilled laborer lives a rather dismal existance compared to even a lazy dirt farmer. Assming that taxes take 50% of this, the difference between the skilled and diligent peasant and the normal peasant is about the cost of one riding horse every two years. Or a suit of studded leather armor, a large shield, and a morning star. So, if the normal peasant just gets by and would turn out for militia duty in an old blanket (padded armor) carrying his trusty club, the skilled and diligent peasant might show up with studded leather armor, a large shield, a morning star, and a light crossbow.



			
				Green Knight said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Seeing as how Commoners' have access to the Craft and Profession skills, I'd say they make money according to the rules for those skills. Going by Profession, you make half your check result in GP per week of work. So let's make a couple of assumptions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Green Knight (Sep 18, 2002)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> I don't think that it's reasonable to assume that most commoners have maxed out their ranks and taken the skill focus feat. Many commoners, I would imagine do one or the other. However, I would expect commoners to also put ranks into a variety of things.
> 
> If the typical commoner is human and has a 10 or 11 int, I would expect to see the skill distribution more like this:
> Profession 2 to 4 ranks
> ...




Well, this is the Commoner skill list: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Jump, Listen, Profession, Ride, Spot, Swim, and Use Rope. No Diplomacy, Perform, or Wilderness Lore. Besides, why would they need Diplomacy, anyway? And maybe some Commoners would have Perform cross-class, but the average Commoner? I very much doubt the average Commoner is a thespian, too. 

I disagree, though, that it's an unreasonable thing to assume, that they'd max out ranks in something like Craft or Profession. Hell, I think it's* unreasonable* to assume they WOULDN'T put max ranks into a skill like Profession or Craft. Their* livelihood* depends on how well they do their job, whatever that is. So why wouldn't they put 4 ranks into it? (They get 2 skill points per level, btw. 8 at first level) They've got very limited options for income, otherwise. Not like they go delving into dungeons searching for lost treasures, or anything. Those skills are pretty much the ONLY way they make any money. So why wouldn't they max it out? 



> Typical feats would probably include: alertness, simple weapons, militia (FRCS), skill focus: (bluff, diplomacy, perform, sense motive, wilderness lore, craft, profession, handle animal), armor proficiency, dodge, martial weapon proficiency, endurance, run.




If you're  a human, then you can take 2 feats. Skill Focus and something else. Besides, most of those feats are combat related. I hardly think the typical Commoner has Dodge (Prerequisite for that is Dex 13, and the average Commoner doesn't have a Dex 13), or Alertness (BTW: The Militia Feat from Forgotten Realms is only available in 4 regions, so even there it's hardly common. So I very much doubt that the typical Commoner even in the Realms has that Feat). 



> I actually think that skill focusses in bluff, diplomacy, and sense motive, wilderness lore, and perform would be more common than skill focus in their profession.




Again, their livelihood depends on their Profession. So of course, I disagree that Skill Focus would more likely be put towards any of the above over Skill Focus in Profession or Craft. For instance, Bluff. Why would the average Commoner need to be a practiced liar? Why would the average Commoner need to be able to negotiate peace treaties? Why does the average Commoner need to be a good musician? Not saying there aren't any. But I'm talking about* the average guy*. The rank and file Commoner. And when it comes to the average Commoner, they're most likely to use a Feat on something like Skill Focus (Profession/Craft) to improve their skills in their job which'll net them more money to feed and clothe their families with, rather than on something which won't have much of any impact on their lives (And the average Commoner doesn't need to have any talent in performance arts). 



> After all, their lord or landlord takes most of their yield from farming anyway so being a little bit better at it doesn't make a big difference to their lives.




I'd say it does make even more difference, as you need to make as much money as you can, so that after the Feudal Lord takes out his chunk of change, you got enough left to feed your family (BTW: The Profession skill isn't restricted to farming. Here's the list from the skill description: Apothecary, Boater, Bookkeeper, Brewer, Cook, Driver, Farmer, Fisher, Guide, Herbalist, Herdsman, Innkeeper, Lumberjack, Miller, Miner, Porter, Rancher, Sailor, Scribe, Siege Engineer, Stablehand, Tanner, Teamster, Woodcutter, etc). And speaking as someone who grew up in a household where every penny counted, trust me. When you're poor, and you have the opportunity to scratch out a little bit of extra cash, you take it. Even if it's only a miniscule amount. And you don't waste time on non-essentials when you've got other priorities. When things got tight when I was little my parents didn't decide to spend less on food, or conserve electricity or water to save money. What got cut were my guitar lessons, as they were an unnecessary luxury. 



> OTOH, being respected in the village as the fastest runner, best swimmer, or best storyteller would be something. So would being considered wise and persuasive and being on the town council (sense motive and diplomacy). Of course, being good with the ladies or able to wrap men around their fingers would be something that others might aspire to (bluff--it's not as if we're talking about an honest person with the interests of their lover at heart here).




Being respected around town or being good with the ladies doesn't put food on ones' table. Again, I'm not saying you WON'T find Commoners like that. Just that the majority wouldn't take stuff like that. And besides, in a town where everyone has Skill Focus (Swim), a particularly talented swimmer wouldn't really stick out all that much. Now put a guy with Skill Focus (Swim) in a town where the majority of the folk have Skill Focus (Profession) then he DOES stick out. 



> So, I would think that a diligent farmer probably has 4 ranks in profession (farmer) and a very skilled farmer probably has max ranks in profession and skill focus but most peasants are neither unusually diligent nor skilled. They probably have two or three ranks in their profession and devote the rest of their attention to other pursuits.




You get 8 skill points at 1st level. That leaves 4 skill points to put into whatever you like after you put 4 ranks into Craft/Profession. So I don't see why the average Commoner can't put 4 ranks into a Profession or Craft skill, when he's still got 4 skill points left over to stick into whatever else they like. 



> In that case, we might have three different results:
> Unskilled Laborer: 1 sp/day=36.5 gp per year
> Lazy peasant: Skill check 11-12=286 to 312gp per year
> Normal peasant: Skill check: 13=338gp per year
> ...




Here's a problem. Why's a Commoner wasting money on studded leather armor, large shield, or a morning star? Commoners aren't adventurers. The average Commoner won't be spending his money on weapons and armor (He gets one Simple Weapon Proficiency, so he'll probably buy one that's cheap, like the half-spear, or get the club which is free. But that's about it). He'll be spending it on getting a home of some sort. Buying the tools he needs to do his job. Supporting his wife and children, which may very well be many. Buying cattle or sheep rather than riding horses. Hell, he may even be saving up so that he can invest in a bigger business, later (Anyone ever read the book "The Good Earth"? Personally, I think the guy from that book, forget his name, would be a high-level Commoner in D&D terms). 

Again, as I said, I'm talking about the generic Commoner. There're probably Commoners who do take skills like Diplomacy (Probably someone who's considered a village leader) or Perform. But the AVERAGE guy has no use for skills like that. 

Note: My posts are strictly in the realm of D&D. I'm not talking about real-world economics, I'm not interested in talking about real-world economics. Just talking about what are the likelihoods in a D&D world.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 18, 2002)

I don't think the PHB Craft/Profession income rules make much sense as applied to farming; I use them for urban gemcutters and such 'middle class' town activities.  IMC a night in a private or double room at an Inn, with board, typically costs 1gp, whereas a labourer earns 1sp/day - but if a labourer stays at an Inn he'll be sleeping in the main room or stables for a couple of coppers, private rooms and clean sheets are a luxury for adventurers, not commoners!
You can run a D&D game where the economy resembles 20th century America and the common labourer earns 1gp/$100* a day - justifiable if high magic or other factors raise food production sufficiently that most commoners get to use those Craft skill points people keep going on about for something other than farming - but this does NOT appear to be the assumption of the Greyhawk or Realms settings; all the material given indicates they're only a bit 'nicer' wealthier/richier than the real middle ages.

*Working in an unskilled job as a 'domestic assistant' in an Edinburgh hospital a few years ago I earned about £3/hour, £20 or $30/day, after tax - about 3 sp/day in D&D terms. £100 or $150/week, 15 sp.  That's in a first-world country.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 18, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *
> So let's make it more realistic and say that a firearm, (being a more modern and useful weapon), should then cost $2000.  Which they don't. *





 "masterwork" firearms surely do


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Sep 18, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> * "masterwork" firearms surely do    *




I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but by the reasoning given, a 'masterwork' firearm would actually cost $32,000.  And I'm _quite_ sure that's not the case.  But really, it's neither here nor there to try to compare D&D prices with modern-day prices.

However, I personally don't like campaigns so gritty that travelling peasants have to sleep in filth-encrusted sewer-drains because they can't afford the 2sp to room in the giant, smelly greatroom of a beer-stained, foul and run-down inn.  The inns could be making money (better than none) simply by lowering the price.

If we are going to base the basic D&D campaign off of Tolkien's Middle-Earth, I don't think he would have it that way either.  

If the society were anything resembling capitalism, common laborers (assuming they make up the majority of all people, and include farmers) would earn more than 1 sp/day.  There would still be a huge disparity of wealth between the rich and the 'middle-class' just as there is in our own world; but how an innkeeper (of a "poor" or "squalid" inn no less) would be able to earn more money by charging 2-days wages than something more appropriate is beyond me.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 18, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but by the reasoning given, a 'masterwork' firearm would actually cost $32,000.  And I'm quite sure that's not the case.  But really, it's neither here nor there to try to compare D&D prices with modern-day prices.
> 
> ...




I agree that an Inn needs to be affordable by its clientele, but the 1sp/day labourer will be sleeping for free in his employer's kitchen or barn, not at an Inn.  An Inn will need to charge its common-room rate so that eg peddlers, drovers, mercenary caravan guards and so on can afford to sleep there, if that's who the potential clientele are.  If the Inn functions as a boarding-house (which isn't the DMG assumption) then prices for long-term residents will need to be less than wages, probably 2/3 the clientele's daily wage. 2sp/day doesn't seem unaffordable for a farmer & son driving their sheep to market, say.  In the real world, hotel prices are often higher than daily wages - $30 motels may still be common in parts of the USA but you'd be hard pressed to get a room for £20 in the UK.  £40 would be more likely - rather more than an unskilled worker's net daily wage.


----------



## Conaill (Sep 18, 2002)

AHA! I managed to dig up the old thread on D&D economics.

Here's some extracts:



			
				Col_Pladoh said:
			
		

> *It is really my fault...
> 
> The original systems in D&D and AD&D were developed for the PC adventurer, done without reference to the economics of the various societies.
> 
> ...






			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> *I used to be bothered by this quite a bit.
> 
> But, although there are some items which are out of line with my expectations of what costs should be, they are few and far between.
> 
> ...


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Sep 18, 2002)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Well, this is the Commoner skill list: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Jump, Listen, Profession, Ride, Spot, Swim, and Use Rope. No Diplomacy, Perform, or Wilderness Lore. Besides, why would they need Diplomacy, anyway? And maybe some Commoners would have Perform cross-class, but the average Commoner? I very much doubt the average Commoner is a thespian, too.




I would expect commoners to need diplomacy for the same reason that adventurers do: to make friends and influence people. There will certainly be many commoners who don't take ranks in diplomacy, but there will also be commoners who have learned that getting a good price at the market requires skillful negotiating and that getting the town fathers to enforce their ordinances sometimes requires rhetoric. I think that diplomacy would be quite a common skill among commoners--it touches them where they live their lives.

I would say the same thing for perform. The life of a commoner requires lots of work but when he's not working he will want to be able to do something. It's not as if commoners have televisions and most probably don't benefit from the presence of bards regularly. So, a lot will have a crossclass skill in perform (storytelling). That kind of thing is quite common in cultures that live primarily without the written word. If you want to have commoners who are like the hobbits in LotR, a fair number will probably have perform (dance) too. After all, what will villagers do on a fair day or a free day? Sing, dance, tell stories, etc.



> I disagree, though, that it's an unreasonable thing to assume, that they'd max out ranks in something like Craft or Profession. Hell, I think it's* unreasonable* to assume they WOULDN'T put max ranks into a skill like Profession or Craft. Their* livelihood* depends on how well they do their job, whatever that is. So why wouldn't they put 4 ranks into it? (They get 2 skill points per level, btw. 8 at first level) They've got very limited options for income, otherwise. Not like they go delving into dungeons searching for lost treasures, or anything. Those skills are pretty much the ONLY way they make any money. So why wouldn't they max it out?




You might think that of people in real life too, but many people if not most do well enough to get by but don't excel. If two ranks or profession is enough to survive, you'll have a large group of people with two ranks of profession. Many people--especially young people--prioritize their friends and hobbies above what they actually do for a living. Most people here, for instance, would probably spend the money to fly to Gen Con before they'd spend the same amount of money to fly to a professional seminar. Similarly, the majority of students don't spend all their time studying--in fact many if not most actually allow their leisure activities to interfere with their studies. I think this would be true of D&D commoners as well.



> If you're  a human, then you can take 2 feats. Skill Focus and something else. Besides, most of those feats are combat related. I hardly think the typical Commoner has Dodge (Prerequisite for that is Dex 13, and the average Commoner doesn't have a Dex 13), or Alertness (BTW: The Militia Feat from Forgotten Realms is only available in 4 regions, so even there it's hardly common. So I very much doubt that the typical Commoner even in the Realms has that Feat).




Well, first I'm not certain that the typical commoner can't expect to engage in combat at some point in his life. D&D takes place in pretty dangerous worlds. I would think alertness to be very helpful for a commoner whether it is used to notice a pickpocket before the pickpocket steals his meager market day money or to notice the orc tribe moving towards his farm. Endurance and run I can see being useful to represent the natural talent of certain individuals--I don't imagine those are feats they choose per se.

And while I don't think the typical commoner has dodge, simple weapon proficiency, or armor proficiencies, I can see significant numbers of commoners having these proficiencies. (Dex 13+ is achievable on 5 point buy and most commoners have something more like 15 point buy stats. I don't think it's uncommon for commoners to have a 13 in one stat and an 8 or 9 in another instead of straight 10s and 11s). The world they live in is dangerous. There are orcs, bandits, wolves, and wars as well as the fist fights and bar fights that are even now common in young peoples' lives. In many lands, I doubt that people would travel to a neighboring village without a weapon. (Note that even in Roman times, a sword was considered a common travel accessory for defense against bandits, etc and the Roman world was much more civilized than most D&D settings). And feats like dodge could help people earn acclaim in the village's quarterstaff duels at the fair. 

As for militia, I think that's an excellent feat and most male commoners in areas where it's available would probably have it. In non Forgotten Realms games, I think it's the kind of feat that ought to be available to commoners in any kind of rough or frontier nation.



> Again, their livelihood depends on their Profession. So of course, I disagree that Skill Focus would more likely be put towards any of the above over Skill Focus in Profession or Craft. For instance, Bluff. Why would the average Commoner need to be a practiced liar? Why would the average Commoner need to be able to negotiate peace treaties? Why does the average Commoner need to be a good musician? Not saying there aren't any. But I'm talking about* the average guy*. The rank and file Commoner. And when it comes to the average Commoner, they're most likely to use a Feat on something like Skill Focus (Profession/Craft) to improve their skills in their job which'll net them more money to feed and clothe their families with, rather than on something which won't have much of any impact on their lives (And the average Commoner doesn't need to have any talent in performance arts).




As for bluff, I imagine that the average commoner would start lying the moment his mother asked who took the cookies or which of a group of siblings started a fight. Some people would learn to be honest and others would learn to lie well. I'm sure that many commoners would find such skill useful (even at cross-class+skill focus levels) when the Lord's men came around collecting taxes. ("Yep, that's all I brought in this year. Bad harvest. . . .")

Diplomacy isn't necessarily about negotiating peace treaties either. If one poor Russian peasant wants to marry his daughter off to a rich butcher (like in Fiddler on the Roof), you can bet your bottom dollar he'll try to negotiate a good bride price. Similarly, you can expect that when the village elder wants to present the peoples' concerns to the king's magistrate, he'll want to be diplomatic about it too.

As for musicians, nobody's saying they're very good. Two ranks however might make the commoner a few silver in the village tavern that only sees a real bard once every year or so. Two ranks and skill focus might be enough for him to spend a while travelling, singing for his supper until he finds a place to settle down. Or those two ranks could be used to be good at dancing and impress the other villagers at the fair and to tell entertaining stories to children at their bedtime.

I guess the point I'm making is that there is no such thing as an average commoner. There are only many individual commoners who have some things in common (almost always two or more ranks in profession) but vary wildly in others. Some are honest craftsmen, some are skilled but lazy, some are womanizers, some are swindlers, some are smooth-talkers, some are leaders in the village militia, some mediate disputes between villagers, some are matchmakers, and some are dumb but diligent.



> I'd say it does make even more difference, as you need to make as much money as you can, so that after the Feudal Lord takes out his chunk of change, you got enough left to feed your family (BTW: The Profession skill isn't restricted to farming. Here's the list from the skill description: Apothecary, Boater, Bookkeeper, Brewer, Cook, Driver, Farmer, Fisher, Guide, Herbalist, Herdsman, Innkeeper, Lumberjack, Miller, Miner, Porter, Rancher, Sailor, Scribe, Siege Engineer, Stablehand, Tanner, Teamster, Woodcutter, etc). And speaking as someone who grew up in a household where every penny counted, trust me. When you're poor, and you have the opportunity to scratch out a little bit of extra cash, you take it. Even if it's only a miniscule amount. And you don't waste time on non-essentials when you've got other priorities. When things got tight when I was little my parents didn't decide to spend less on food, or conserve electricity or water to save money. What got cut were my guitar lessons, as they were an unnecessary luxury.




What I'm maintaining though is that commoners can get by with two or three ranks of profession. When things weren't tight, and there was enough money to take them, you *did* take guitar lessons (maybe enough for one rank, maybe not). You didn't get sent off to business school. Once people have their necessities taken care of, they tend to get things that they consider luxuries. So, if two ranks is usually enough to provide for necessities, many people will take two ranks for necessities and spend the others on luxuries.



> Being respected around town or being good with the ladies doesn't put food on ones' table. Again, I'm not saying you WON'T find Commoners like that. Just that the majority wouldn't take stuff like that. And besides, in a town where everyone has Skill Focus (Swim), a particularly talented swimmer wouldn't really stick out all that much. Now put a guy with Skill Focus (Swim) in a town where the majority of the folk have Skill Focus (Profession) then he DOES stick out.




He also stands out in a community where 50% of the people took skill focus profession, the village elder took skill focus (diplomacy and sense motive), Old Ned took skill focus (Animal Handling) ("Yeah, Ned can't grow cabbage to save his life but he's pretty good with the horses. If he'd just apply himself to farming a bit more, he could probably afford to buy his own horse instead of just helping out whenever mine needs shoeing"). The innkeeper's wife took skill focus: Heal ("Old Betty's the one to go to if your baby has the cholic"), the blacksmith's son is a layabout and doesn't apply himself to anything except that darn fiddle (skill focus: perform and one rank of craft blacksmith), Joseph is always smoothing out fights between the other boys (skill focus: diplomacy), little Bo-Peep manages to see the wolves coming before they get her sheep (alertness, skill focus:spot), Hans is the best cobbler for miles (max ranks craft: cobbler, skill focus Craft Cobbler) Rand is a pretty good shot with the bow (point blank shot, martial weapon:longbow, and two ranks of wilderness lore), and Farmer John always seems to come out ahead in any deal he makes (skill focus: diplomacy and bluff).



> You get 8 skill points at 1st level. That leaves 4 skill points to put into whatever you like after you put 4 ranks into Craft/Profession. So I don't see why the average Commoner can't put 4 ranks into a Profession or Craft skill, when he's still got 4 skill points left over to stick into whatever else they like.




Actually, if he's human, the commoner gets 12. It's still not enough to be good at everything but he can be OK at a lot of things. However, I don't think that it's necessary to assume that every commoner puts 4 ranks into thte relevant profession or craft skill. If you assume that a typical commoner puts three ranks in, you can simulate dedicated craftsmen (max ranks) and inherently skilled ones (skill focus) without increasing peoples' level or intelligence artificially. That way, the comments about Old Ned not paying enough attention to her crops or Betty's inability to sew actually have a game mechanical meaning. So does Hans's unusual dedication and skill.



> Here's a problem. Why's a Commoner wasting money on studded leather armor, large shield, or a morning star? Commoners aren't adventurers. The average Commoner won't be spending his money on weapons and armor (He gets one Simple Weapon Proficiency, so he'll probably buy one that's cheap, like the half-spear, or get the club which is free. But that's about it). He'll be spending it on getting a home of some sort. Buying the tools he needs to do his job. Supporting his wife and children, which may very well be many. Buying cattle or sheep rather than riding horses. Hell, he may even be saving up so that he can invest in a bigger business, later (Anyone ever read the book "The Good Earth"? Personally, I think the guy from that book, forget his name, would be a high-level Commoner in D&D terms).




I think that's probably true. In a frontier situation, every commoner would probably have weapons and armor. In most situations though, it would probably be something more like a half-spear. Wise and dedicated people would be likely to do all the things you mentioned as well. However, most people are neither wise nor dedicated. Many if not most commoners would probably spend the money on alcohol and prostitutes, gifts for women who didn't care about them, fancy clothes, or a trip to the city.



> Again, as I said, I'm talking about the generic Commoner. There're probably Commoners who do take skills like Diplomacy (Probably someone who's considered a village leader) or Perform. But the AVERAGE guy has no use for skills like that.
> 
> Note: My posts are strictly in the realm of D&D. I'm not talking about real-world economics, I'm not interested in talking about real-world economics. Just talking about what are the likelihoods in a D&D world.




Again, I might agree with you on the average commoner but I don't think there is such a thing. There are only individual commoners, many of whom will be wise (but may not be particularly skilled) and many of whom will be foolish. Many of them will be dedicated and many of them will be lazy. Many will accept their lot in life but some will dream of more (oblivious to the fact that they lack the skills or attributes to really make it as a bard, warrior, knight, etc). So, while many commoners will be as you describe, I don't think that the odds are better than 50% that any particular commoner would have the skill setup that you describe. I don't think that more than 20% would combine the high profession skill with skill focus.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 18, 2002)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, this is the Commoner skill list: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Jump, Listen, Profession, Ride, Spot, Swim, and Use Rope. No Diplomacy, Perform, or Wilderness Lore. Besides, why would they need Diplomacy, anyway? And maybe some Commoners would have Perform cross-class, but the average Commoner? I very much doubt the average Commoner is a thespian, too.
> 
> ...




To address a lot of various stuff you posted....

just because a skill is cross-classed doesn't mean commoners wont have it.  diplomacy, and bluff will come in very useful for barganing.. and as you said that is directly related to putting food on the table.  a penny saved is a penny earned and all that... 

music skills (perform) would also be prevalent.  music has always been a great relief to poor people.  every society has musicians and very few of them are paid enough to support themselves.

also, within the game only, the choices used for these skills (craft and profession) were again designed for PC use.  Anyone with 1 point and average stats would generate 10 gp a week on average.  This is of course assuming they spend a week digently working.  But how many bookbinders, butcher, basketweavers etc is needed in a community?

The basic assumption behind the revenue generative ability of these skills is that the society has a demand enough for an individual to perform a week of dedicated work.  In order for that assumption to hold true you need masses of those who barely survive.

Its a mechanic designed for PC use.  Not a mechanic designed for NPC use.

joe b.


----------



## Deedlit (Sep 18, 2002)

I think the 1 sp a day applies to human commoners and more hobbit-ish halflings, along with some half-elves.  Dwarves, as craftsman and skilled at hard labor, could make more then that easily.  Elves, with their many talents and 110 years of training, could easily get a job as a performer, mercenary, or if you use a lodoss variety of elf, town spellcaster in human lands, and in elven lands the magic of the elves living there makes it not difficult at all to support yourself.  Gnomes I have no clue about.  Half-Orcs make excellent mercenaries, as well as pretty good thugs.  Kenderish halflings make money the way any adventurer does.(And true kender need not support themselves, as food finds their way to the pouch, or the jailguards feed them.)  Meadow Sprite-ish halflings also travel a great deal, and can make good money as storytellers and performers, along with the occaisonal mage.


----------



## WelcomebackPotter (Sep 19, 2002)

*Economic malaise*

Boy oh boy. There's just a ton of things to talk about in this one, but I have to dash for work in mere minutes, meaning that this'll be painfully brief. Sad.

On the topic of salary, and the reading of a CP as a $1, and of the five-times salary, that works well ... if you want to represent the most prosperous nation in history, at the height of it's power, in a modern world where only 3 people in a hundred are needed to farm and technology has made most of society's ills null and void.

D&D isn't meant to be the painfully crushing days of the Black Plague, true, but a time period between the Plague and teh following Renaissance (Brought about by everyone being DEAD, a new appreciation for life, and monetary means being reallocated) is close to on the ball. So what was this time like?

The average teenager didn't hang out with his friends, get a nightly ale at a tavern, and get into fistfights. By fifteen, he'd had at least one child, and was given a section of the farm to run on his own, or started a brand new one not far away. He was an adult, one of a half dozen or more living siblings, all the boys of which worked on the farm, the girls doing minor house chores, sewing, cooking, cleaning, and so on. Each home was self-sustaining, and could sometimes manage a trip into town (On foot) for a rare slurge on things like fabric for a new dress or new nails, rather than having to pull out, restraighten, and reuse old ones. In areas that were larger, there would usually be a travelling store which visited once a month, with rare items like iron pots, sugar, or other goods which simply weren't made at the house. Cloth, again, was a big seller, as were spices, and plates, glasses, and other glasswares. 

At this economic stage, which is out of teh true crushing poverty times, one child could possibly be allowed to leave, once the grandchildren had turned two or three and were old enough to work six hour days, to go to the city and learn a craft or a trade. Cities looked impressive, but eight out of ten people were farmers, until technology took off. D&D seems to be closer to a six in ten ratio, which implies quite a lot of advancement in agriculture.

The topic of inns and travelling will be adressed when I get back. 

See yuo in a few hours!

-- Welcome back Potter


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 19, 2002)

Look, I know some of us have impressive understandings of history and medieval economics.   We are gamer geeks for crying out loud.  We've consumed 1000's of pages on the subject, and we probably could model manorial economies right down to the number of cords of wood that have to be cut per year per person given a certain average yearly temperature and the presence of iron plows.

But that would be entirely missing the point.  If we did that, we'd have to rewrite 30% of the game or better.  Not that you can't or shouldn't (I'm inclinced to), but you should start blithely tossing out that the average daily wage was in Burgundy in 1349, or how many bushels of seed could be yeilded per acre by a farmer with oxen and a broadcast method of planting UNLESS you state flatly that you are indeed rewriting 30% of the rules to take into account the more realistic economic system for the period technology you believe exist.

Because simply stating defacto that the average wage for unskilled laborers is 1 s.p. and that commoners don't have profession skills (never mind that the profession skill is broken as written, but that is a topic for another day) is going to get you into a world of gaming hurt if you don't arrange the whole rest of the economic system to account for it.

For example, lets say that you do believe that the average yearly buying power of a peasant is 18 g.p. per annum minus 6 g.p. of taxes (and effective taxes like corvey, fees, etc.) because you decide to use the much more realistic 1:20 gold to silver ratio that held through much of history.   Well, you are then going to have to figure out how the farmer gets by on the equivalent 'wages' (of grain and so forth) on 12 g.p. a year given the prices listed in every published product I've seen (Most of which were assigned according to utility not according to the ammount of labor required to craft them or other economic factors.  If it is useful, then it must be expensive *rolls eyes*).   And then, how is it that your economy is able to support the activities of your mage who has to spend hundreds and often 1000's of g.p. on a single magic item, and enormous ammounts on thier spell book?   The PC party is either going to be a walking source of hyperinflation or else you are going to have to get by with a low magic campaign (with the result of the PC's effective CR being lower than their level would indicate) or else you are going to have to rewrite the cost creating magic items and buying spells.   

And what about the supposed party wealth of a party of 10th level characters (merely mid level in 3rd edition).   Do you realize how much labor they can leverage with a few hundred thousand gold peices?  Thousands of peasants can be theres to hire for years.   And are we to assume that they are the only people with that kind of cash to throw around?  And if they are, why is labor so damn cheap, and how do there opponents afford such wonderful toys?

Finally, to those that say that commoners wouldn't put as many skill ranks into some means of livlihood as they could, obviously are used to the soft living of some first world country and haven't lived in the third world (or worked with for instance Mexican migrant farm workers).  In an improvished economy, you either work or starve.  I've seen third world people have a whole variaty of self defeating and self destructive cultural practices, but I don't think I've seen that many lazy ones.


----------



## tburdett (Sep 19, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So that would make a battle-axe cost $1500 by today's standards.  A sword would be $2000.  So let's make it more realistic and say that a firearm, (being a more modern and useful weapon), should then cost $2000.  Which they don't.
> 
> *




I have two rifles that cost more than $2000 each.  These are not collectors items.

Take a look at the M1A (it is basically a semi-automatic M-14) put out by Springfield Armory for one example of a high quality, high priced firearm.  Both pre- and post-ban models will accept the 30 round M-14 magazine.  Throw on a nice scope and you're good for at least 500 yards (the longest distance I've been able to target shoot around here) with the stainless match quality barrel.

There are many, many firearms that cost much more than even this amount.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Sep 19, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> *Finally, to those that say that commoners wouldn't put as many skill ranks into some means of livlihood as they could, obviously are used to the soft living of some first world country and haven't lived in the third world (or worked with for instance Mexican migrant farm workers).  In an improvished economy, you either work or starve.  I've seen third world people have a whole variaty of self defeating and self destructive cultural practices, but I don't think I've seen that many lazy ones. *




So would you attribute all differences in farming ability between peasant A and peasant B to differences in level and attributes? Would it be better to assume an equal amount of skill in all peasants and attribute any differences in success to soil, weather patterns, and personal qualities?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 19, 2002)

Some people want their campaign worlds' economies to resemble medieval Europe, some people want them to resemble 21st century USA, some people want them to resemble Diablo... I don't think there can be a meeting of minds between them, but I'm happy with my game world's economy, which vaguely resembles the 'wealthy medieval-renaissance Europe' model implied by the DMG hireling costs, rather than (say) the Diablo model of the DMG 'wealth by character level' table or the 'ready cash by community size' rules.  So I change the latter, where necessary to better fit the former.  Simple.  
Eg: IMC a 7th level character has ca 2500 gp in gear - equivalent to a wealthy medieval knight; he can buy Full Plate, at a stretch, but his followers will be wearing leather.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Sep 19, 2002)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So would you attribute all differences in farming ability between peasant A and peasant B to differences in level and attributes? Would it be better to assume an equal amount of skill in all peasants and attribute any differences in success to soil, weather patterns, and personal qualities? *




It could very well be skill.  I read of an Idaho potato farmer who went to Russia to teach modern farming methods.  He produced something like 50 times what the locals did on the same plot of land.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Sep 19, 2002)

tburdett said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I have two rifles that cost more than $2000 each.  These are not collectors items.
> 
> ...




I'm well-aware that many high-powered rifles can cost upwards of $2000.  But it's probably safe to assume that these are really not the modern-day equivalent of, say a simple longsword.  A longsword was an item of personal defense, something more like a pistol, probably.

The firearms to which you refer would probably qualify as masterwork weapons, seeing as, in your example of the M-14, the U.S. military developed it to be the forefront of battlefield personal weaponry.  

As I stated in a later post, the modern equivalent of a  masterwork sword would actually cost $32,000.  If there are rifles for sale at that price, they are certainly not mass-produced, and are almost certain to be antiques valued not for their accuracy or military prowess/functionality, but rather for some nastalgic value.


----------



## NLP (Sep 19, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *As I stated in a later post, the modern equivalent of a  masterwork sword would actually cost $32,000.  If there are rifles for sale at that price, they are certainly not mass-produced, and are almost certain to be antiques valued not for their accuracy or military prowess/functionality, but rather for some nastalgic value. *



Just for reference, in 14th Century England a common laborer made a maximum of 2 Pounds a year. It cost on average 5 Shillings a year to rent a cabin. A knight at this same time would make 2 Shillings a day. Barons generally made between 200-500 Pounds a year during this peroid.

A simple 17th Century flintlock would run 1 Pound, 8 Shilling. That was essentually the same as almost an entire years wages for a common laborer. A cheap peasant's sword would run about 5 Pence.


----------



## Bryan Vining (Sep 19, 2002)

*Use history*

Well, the obvious answer, really, is to pick an era whose economics fit your campaign and model them.  I like medieval economics for my campaigns, so most of the humans in my campaign world are farmers, and most of them are delighted to get a silver piece.  I mean, a chicken runs only 3-4 silver pieces (IMC), and a chicken produces eggs, a renewable food source.  Most of the people in my campaign world don't have much excess money.  I haven't declared an average laborer's wage for my campaigns (because there is no average laborer), but I'd say the average commoner earns the equivalent of a 2-3 cp a day.  Of course, most of them are too busy working on crops or homes or what-have-you to spend much money, anyway.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Sep 19, 2002)

NLP said:
			
		

> *
> Just for reference, in 14th Century England a common laborer made a maximum of 2 Pounds a year. It cost on average 5 Shillings a year to rent a cabin. A knight at this same time would make 2 Shillings a day. Barons generally made between 200-500 Pounds a year during this peroid.
> 
> A simple 17th Century flintlock would run 1 Pound, 8 Shilling. That was essentually the same as almost an entire years wages for a common laborer. A cheap peasant's sword would run about 5 Pence. *




Well, not to beat a dead horse (or in this case, a rotting and fully scavenged dead horse), but what do the wages of a 14th century commoner have to do with the price of a 17th century firearm?  We are talking about a 300 year difference here.

Plus, in the 17th century, a flintlock was a _really_ high-tech weapon, and definitely served more uses than any modern firearm does today.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 19, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *I keep thinking about the typical city-dwelling commoner.  He might be a craftsman of some sort.  In any case, these types make up the vast majority of people in most campaign worlds.  The 'average laborer' earns 2 gold pieces a month, or around that (assuming he works 5 days a week); yet, a typical 'house' is listed at (I believe) 500 gp.  So I really don't get how that works.   *




Most people don't own houses. How hard is that to grasp?


----------



## Trepelano (Sep 19, 2002)

Having discussed this topic before, I only want to comment on a few things that haven't been covered by others in this thread:

1)commoners WERE required by law to have a weapon  - as they might be conscripted at any time.  

2) the price list in the PHB doesn't jive with the 1 sp/day rule. A commoner would never be able to buy anything - because their entire income would be on food.

Most people play D&D based on a consumer-based economy.  WHich means that there are stores and craftsmen who sell wares to the public.  The  PHB price list reflects this.

THe wages listed in the DMG, however, seem to be historically derived from a fuedal soceity.  That's not a consumer-based economy.  Since few people had money or goods to barter, there were no consumers - therefor there were no shops.  

The 1sp/day rule means that every single craftsman and store owner will simply go out of businessdue to lack of customers and the PCs could never buy anything because it isn't available.  Commoners are forced to make their own things.  Craftsmen cannot make a living selling their wares, they must become employees of rich land owners.

While this is all historically accurate - it is a royal pain in the ass to play like this.  Its simplerr to retain the consumer-based economy model and increase wages to reflect that.

Here is what I have done.  I mulitply the wages by 5.  This is the 'cost' of a hireling.  4/5 of this cost is logding, food, and clothing (livery or whatever).  The remaining 1/5 (the ammount listed in the DMG) is the "cash payment".  If the employer doesn't want to provide for all the eployee's basic needs - then he has to pay the employee the whole 5X cost.

Also - the wages listed in the DMG are for hirelings who expect long-term and stable employement. If you just want to hire somebody for a week or a month - then first you have to find someone willing to take a "temp job" and he's going to cost about 10X the DMG price list - because he has to have extra to live on, when he goes back to being unemployeed.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Sep 19, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *Most people don't own houses. How hard is that to grasp? *




Ok, so who owns all the houses?

You're implying then that in a WotC-produced city like Greyhawk (or any city in the Forgotten Realms), every house (of which there must be thousands for a decent-sized city, is (a) owned by an "aristocrat," (b) owned by an "expert," or (c) owned by a large group of commoners, which, given the amount they earn (~26 gp annually), it would probably take about 20-30 working adults to actually afford a single house, assuming they actually have to eat and feed/clothe their children.


----------



## NLP (Sep 19, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *Well, not to beat a dead horse (or in this case, a rotting and fully scavenged dead horse), but what do the wages of a 14th century commoner have to do with the price of a 17th century firearm?  We are talking about a 300 year difference here.
> 
> Plus, in the 17th century, a flintlock was a really high-tech weapon, and definitely served more uses than any modern firearm does today. *



For the idiots who do not read their own posts, a "cutting edge" weapon was half a year to a full years income for a peasant. It did not have to be "masterworks" or anything special. Just trying to buy a regular, run of the mill, flintlock would set a peasant back a half a year. 

In the real world a peasant was happy for someone to give them a Shilling. It was 2-3 months rent a third of a week's wages or about the price of a lamb. It was also about the price of a yard of cloth to make a tunic. It was also about a 13th of the dowary for the average peasant bride.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Sep 19, 2002)

NLP said:
			
		

> *For the idiots who do not read their own posts, a "cutting edge" weapon was half a year to a full years income for a peasant. It did not have to be "masterworks" or anything special. Just trying to buy a regular, run of the mill, flintlock would set a peasant back a half a year. *




Except you are assuming a flintlock in the 17th century is at the same level of technology and/or same price scheme as a sword in a typical D&D world.  I'm not sure that's the case.  If you can give me the price of a typical sword in 14th century Europe, then at least we're comparing apples to apples (not that it's necessarily relevant to a D&D game anyway).



> *In the real world a peasant was happy for someone to give them a Shilling. It was 2-3 months rent a third of a week's wages or about the price of a lamb. It was also about the price of a yard of cloth to make a tunic. It was also about a 13th of the dowary for the average peasant bride. *




Ok, that's fine.  Let me ask you this then: in the real world, did armored fighters and powerful wizards run around slaying dragons and looting *huge* amounts of wealth from their hordes?  Were magic items and spellbooks available for sale (at exhorbitant prices) in most large cities?  Were there druids to help make sure the crop came in?  Were there clerics in temples who could heal any wound, even bring back the dead?  How many campaigns are set in the real world anyway?


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Sep 19, 2002)

I just can't help it.   



> _Originally posted by Col_Pladoh_
> *Just reading the most recent posts on the economics of D&D. Whew! What a lot og gyrations are needed to recncile all the problems. I feel guilty as I started the mess...although I didn't promulgate it to the point it is now. anyway...
> 
> What a far simpler, generic, sysyem the "$" one I use. Prices of some things need to be set for the game, of course, but all the worry about income, general prices of cmmon goods, etc. is easily covered. Sure makes running a campaign much easier
> ...


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 20, 2002)

"1) commoners WERE required by law to have a weapon - as they might be conscripted at any time."

That statement needs a bit of ammending, since the actual situation was complex.  Free commoners were required to have a weapon in some cultures.  Notably England encouraged all freemen (Yeomen) to own and practice with a longbow after.  If you had above a certain income (essentially if you were middle class) you were in some cultures required to provide more complete arms - for instance a spear, sword, and shield in ancient Athens, or mail and a spear in 12th century Europe.   However, weapons in general were restricted, and the ownership of weapons by serfs themselves was often frowned upon.  Swords in particular were either forbidden to the lower classes or else heavily taxed (the Sword Tax).  Some efforts were made to restrict access to crossbows (generally unsuccessfully).  Armor itself was generally a priviledge reserved to knights and thier immediate retainers.

On the question of the cost of purchasing a sword, a cheap sword cost between 7 and 20 days wages (actually, information on weapon prices is pretty scant especially in the medieval period ) for a common laborer in England in the period between the late middle ages and Elizabethian times, which works out to between $350 and $1000 dollars today - roughly what you would expect for a mass produced firearm or a hand crafted sword of medium quality today.  Assuming a 1 g.p. standard (laborers make about 1 g.p. a day), swords are not terribly priced in the PH, though the price list in general (like the weapon weights) reflects more Diablo style balance issues than actual reality.   A trained charger could cost 500-900 days wages, slightly hirer than in the DMG, but certainly closer to the correct price than if we assume a 1 s.p. wage standard.   We simply assume a relative abundance of gold in our campaign world, modify wages accordingly, fix the profession skill and viola.

Like I mentioned, actual information on weapon prices in the middle ages is scarce, but you could actually work out how much a knight's sword should cost from things we do know, like the wages of weaponsmiths, the time required to make the sword, and the amount of wood required to make the charcoal.  I don't remember the exact math but I do remember that it works out to be about 70 days wages.  We can assume a masterfully made weapon would be somewhat more expensive than that.

Before standardization and mass production techniques were introduced, every peice on a flintlock had to be individually crafted to fit all the other peices.  Thus, the relative price of a high quality firearm is certainly higher than the relative cost of a sword, and more akin to the price of armor (which also involved multiple hand crafted peices).


----------



## drnuncheon (Sep 20, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *But what if the campaign is not based on a feudal economy at all?  Then, rather than talking about serf-like peasants laboring under a lord, we might be talking about a cobbler or tanner, working in a city as a member of a craft-guild.  In such a case, according to the rules at least, the person would indeed earn about a silver piece a day (not seasonal).*




Not true.  The 1 sp/day is for unskilled labor, not for craftsmen of any kind.  Read that again: *unskilled*.  Like 'pick up this sack and put it on that wagon' kind of unskilled.  Or 'shovel out the garderobe' kindof unskilled.  The guy who has 2-4 ranks in Profession or Craft or Handle Animal or whatever is making more money and living considerably better.

Everyone seems to forget this - or in Wolfen's case, miss or ignore it, since it's been brought up a couple times before in this thread.

Green Knight brings up some interesting points, but look at what he's saying: "And when it comes to the average Commoner, they're most likely to use a Feat on something like Skill Focus (Profession/Craft) to improve their skills in their job which'll net them more money to feed and clothe their families with"

See, I don't think that every feat is something you /choose/, any more than you choose your stats.  Sure, some of them represent training, especially the Fighter feats.  But some of them are natural inclination, too, and you don't get to choose that.  

Someone might have Alertness because they're naturally keen of sight and hearing - or maybe they have a bit of elven blood somewhere along the line.  They may never have trained their senses - it's just a natural talent.  Someone with Skill Focus has a 'knack' for a certain skill - they're a "natural".  They didn't get to choose what would be the most advantageous feat to have, they took what they were born with.

There are several feats suitable for being "natural talent": Alertness, Ambidexterity, Combat Reflexes, Endurance, Great Fortitude, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Run, Skill Focus, Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, and Toughness from the PHB alone.  I think that to be realistic, most of the average person's feats should be randomly picked from that list, to represent their natural inclinations.  Very few people have the drive to force themselves to be "the best" at their job - which is what choosing Skill Focus would mean, by necessity.

And yeah, that means that somewhere out there, there are peasants with Spell Focus: Necromancy and Skill Focus: Scry.  They probably never find out about it.  Life is like that sometimes - you don't always get to make the best choices and you aren't always placed in the optimum position.

J


----------



## drnuncheon (Sep 20, 2002)

PHB, page 96: "A skilled (but not exceptional) artisan can make a gold piece per day."  Just thought I'd add that in, too, as it underscores the fact that the 1 sp/day is for Joe Heavy Lifter. (And not even Joe Skilled Heavy Lifter the longshoreman...)

J


----------



## NLP (Sep 20, 2002)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Like I mentioned, actual information on weapon prices in the middle ages is scarce, but you could actually work out how much a knight's sword should cost from things we do know, like the wages of weaponsmiths, the time required to make the sword, and the amount of wood required to make the charcoal.  I don't remember the exact math but I do remember that it works out to be about 70 days wages.  We can assume a masterfully made weapon would be somewhat more expensive than that.



Both of these books list prices of weapon and armor, as well as many other items and living standards, in the Middle Ages:

Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages, Christopher Dyer, Cambridge University Press, 1989 

English Weapons & Warfare, 449-1660, A. V. B. Norman and Don Pottinger, Barnes & Noble, 1992 (orig. 1966) 

I have found both of them to be quite useful.


----------

