economy of dnd

[Dandu]

a mercenary expected to go into dangerous situations makes less than a teamster

How does that not make sense?

 

[S'mon]

How does that not make sense?

I thought the mercenary rate was for hanging round the castle polishing his sword, for which the eg 6gp/month for heavy infantry looks about right. If going into combat he'd expect daily combat pay, and/or looting rights.

Edit: Mind you, 3e retains the 1e Gygaxian idea that castles are inhabited by hordes of pathetic zero-level or War-1 nobodies, which is pretty silly since the more men you have in the castle, the quicker supplies run out. It would make far more sense to take a tip from late-medieval real life and have Castle Guards be small numbers of elite men-at-arms, mostly plate-armoured Fighters with appropriate support. Likewise 'mercenaries' should be very expensive, very well equipped - more like the PCs themselves than the kind of 'WW1 conscript army' feel 1e-3e promote.

 

[S'mon]

While they can be useful for on-the-spot prices, they're not all that helpful overall. For one, while the prices given are for long-term contracts, they don't describe what the NPC does when not hired by the PCs. Sure a clerk (for instance) makes 4 sp per day when hired for a specific task, but what about his day job? Second, those rules are somewhat contradictory. Porters, laborers, and maids make 1sp/day, the stated wage for untrained laborers, which works fine; however, a cook (definitely not untrained) makes the same wage, a mercenary expected to go into dangerous situations makes less than a teamster, and so forth.

I just don't understand how you can think the one-size-fits all, PC-centric PHB Profession skill can possibly be a better guide to creating a D&D economy (since we both agree there is no existing D&D economy immanent within the ruleset) than the relatively detailed, specific and diverse NPC hireling costs table.

I would treat the 1sp/day for a cook as for an untrained cook, more accurately they have about the same experience of cooking as any random housewife, good enough to cook for your mercenaries (I'm reminded of the guy in our unit who cooked slop for us on field training weekends with the Territorial Army). A cordon bleu chef would cost more.

 

[Dandu]

Yes, but teamsters are a union/guild which has influenced politicians to grant them exceptional benefits in exchange for being lazy good-for-nothings. That's why they get paid more.

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

How does that not make sense?

Yes, but teamsters are a union/guild which has influenced politicians to grant them exceptional benefits in exchange for being lazy good-for-nothings. That's why they get paid more.

And mercenaries wouldn't charge more than that...why? Keep in mind that if anyone gets guild/union benefits, every skilled hireling (including mercenaries) should, so that cancels that out...also, this is what the PCs are paying for hirelings, and adventurers are notorious cheapskates who think nothing of throwing dozens of mercenaries at traps and other threats; "hazard pay" doesn't even begin to cover it.

I just don't understand how you can think the one-size-fits all, PC-centric PHB Profession skill can possibly be a better guide to creating a D&D economy (since we both agree there is no existing D&D economy immanent within the ruleset) than the relatively detailed, specific and diverse NPC hireling costs table.

I would treat the 1sp/day for a cook as for an untrained cook, more accurately they have about the same experience of cooking as any random housewife, good enough to cook for your mercenaries (I'm reminded of the guy in our unit who cooked slop for us on field training weekends with the Territorial Army). A cordon bleu chef would cost more.

1) It's not "relatively detailed, specific and diverse"--there are 20 professions on there, about 1/4 of which are untrained laborers.

2) A cook expected to prepare meals for "large groups" (probably 10+) definitely isn't "untrained" in the day laborer sense. Even if you do consider an untrained cook on par with a porter, why isn't the clerk on the table an "untrained" clerk who can only scribble down a few things and get paid 1 sp? Or the animal tender someone who just stands around and stables horses for 1 sp? The chart doesn't state its assumptions and isn't really detailed enough to draw conclusions.

3) Profession is better than extrapolating from a chart because it has a range of values and is mostly self-generating. By a range of values I mean, obviously, that you can have different Profession ranks, different Wis mods, and different miscellaneous mods to represent different amounts of skill, rather than arbitrarily declaring that all X make Y sp/day. By being self-generating I mean that if you stat out an NPC for different professions you can essentially determine their skill level from that. You wouldn't stat out a barrister as a commoner 1 with all 10s and 11s for stats and 0 ranks in Profession (Lawyer), any more than you would stat out a maid as an expert 3 with 16 Wis and 7 ranks in Profession (Cleaner); if you decide that someone is a good lawyer (someone perceptive, skilled, and professional) that translates into someone making good money for being a lawyer (high Wis, above level 1, with good ranks in Profession).

 

[Jimlock]

The problem with trying to figure out D&D economics is that everyone *says* it's a pseudomedieval setting, but most campaigns and default settings don't actually have much in common with medieval Europe. A typical setting has elements of the Roman Empire (especially the Common language), the Renaissance, and the modern world. Yeah, you'll come across knights, but feudalism isn't common. So it's not surprising there isn't a logical economy to the game as it stands.

I disagree that you have more elements of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance instead of purely medieval ones.

The dark ages and the mediaeval ages, are not so simplistic as one might think.
The Capitals and big cities at the time did not lack in complexity or trading plethora. Moreover, the church's forceful presence, can easily relate to the various churches in the various settings. Even though one might argue that the Roman/Greek polytheism is more close to D&D because of its many deities, the mediaeval christian church, accompanied by the inquisition and with its fearful aura, is much closer to the general theme of most churches/deities in D&D, to their influence on the population, and to their influence on economics.
Even though D&D incorporates many cultures and paradoxes that derive from magic and other historical periods, that does not change the fact that D&D is mainly based on the Mediaeval times.
Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, to name the most popular settings, are all based on medieval Times, not the Romans nor the Renaissance.

 

[jasper]

And none of splat books, stories, books etc, of the campaigns mention by Jimlock mention any major ecomonic forces. Or if they did they didn't make sense.

 

[lordxaviar]

In the Upkeep variant rules of the DMG, it says that one of the Upkeep levels is about the daily wage of a commoner. Also, this has some basics. Dungeonomicon (3.5e Sourcebook)/Economicon - Dungeons and Dragons Wiki

none of that is official is it...?

how many people combined to make?

 

[xigbar]

No, it's not official, but it's a great school of though on the flawed d&d economy.

 

[Dandu]

And mercenaries wouldn't charge more than that...why? Keep in mind that if anyone gets guild/union benefits, every skilled hireling (including mercenaries) should, so that cancels that out...also, this is what the PCs are paying for hirelings, and adventurers are notorious cheapskates who think nothing of throwing dozens of mercenaries at traps and other threats; "hazard pay" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Mercenaries never had Jimmy Hoffa.