D&D 5E Self sufficiency

[Calion]

The self-sufficiency rules in 5e seem exactly backwards to me. A person with a proficiency should be able to earn at least a modest lifestyle—in the Services table, such a person earns 2 gp/day! On the other hand, it seems ridiculous that someone using the Survival skill could provide a lifestyle equivalent to Comfortable. Even tribes of hunter-gatherers generally don't love that well. Is this a typo in the 0.3 Basic Rules (p. 54), or is there some design philosophy here that I'm not getting?

 

[Xeviat]

The self-sufficiency rules in 5e seem exactly backwards to me. A person with a proficiency should be able to earn at least a modest lifestyle—in the Services table, such a person earns 2 gp/day! On the other hand, it seems ridiculous that someone using the Survival skill could provide a lifestyle equivalent to Comfortable. Even tribes of hunter-gatherers generally don't love that well. Is this a typo in the 0.3 Basic Rules (p. 54), or is there some design philosophy here that I'm not getting?

Likely, it's because the game was balanced around adventurers, not the rest of the world, so small things slipped through the cracks. If you want it to be a world simulator, adjust anything you need to. Then package it together and release it on the DMsG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think your confusion is in the interpretation of "equivalent of".

Self-sufficiency rules (PHB 159) apply in contexts out of town, with no cash spending.
* If you are not proficient in survival, you live Poor.
* If you are proficient, then you are Comfortable. Some people actually like camping [citation needed], but you get none of the other benefits of being Comfortable in the city. You're still living on nuts and berries.

In town, you need to spend cash.
* Lifestyle costs (PHB 157-8) are separate from any money earned.
* There are ways to make money in a town (PHB 187):
- Any profession (from background) gives 1gp/day that covers Moderate expenses.
- Criminal, Guild Artisan, or Acolyte (backgrounds) can earn 2gp/day to cover comfortable expenses (other backgrounds might also provide such a connection).
- Performer (background) can earn 4gp/day that covers Wealthy expenses.
- Anyone proficient in artisan's tools with a place to work and appropriate tools can turn 2.5 gp of stuff into 5g of stuff (2.5gp profit a day with investment) through Crafting, that presumably can be sold.

That's what I see in the PHB, and represents the earnings possible uncontroversially (i.e. in most circumstances, without needing to tax the DM's imagination). You want to make more? Negotiate with the DM.

 

[schnee]

I kind of agree. Survivalists live well, but modestly, unless they're in really abundant surroundings. And those tend to get colonized quickly.

'Comfortable' seems like glamping to me. (Glamorous camping. Ugh.)

 

[Sacrosanct]

Likely, it's because the game was balanced around adventurers, not the rest of the world, so small things slipped through the cracks. If you want it to be a world simulator, adjust anything you need to. Then package it together and release it on the DMsG.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty much. D&D has always been a pretty poor "realistic" simulator when it comes to things like that, and continues to do so (like the rules around food and water). It's not really a focus of the game, so I wouldn't expect them to put much effort into that design phase.

I think your confusion is in the interpretation of "equivalent of".

Self-sufficiency rules (PHB 159) apply in contexts out of town, with no cash spending.
* If you are not proficient in survival, you live Poor.
* If you are proficient, then you are Comfortable. Some people actually like camping [citation needed], but you get none of the other benefits of being Comfortable in the city. You're still living on nuts and berries.

Citation provided One of my hobbies is bushcrafting. And there is a significant difference in quality of life from an everyday dude out in the woods and someone like me out in the woods. Provided you have resources available (which is what the roll is for), and you can do pretty well and be pretty comfortable if you know what you're doing.

 

[Al2O3]

Comfortable in context means easily maintaining your equipment, having nicer than average clothing and being able to associate with military officers etc. It seems reasonable to me when imagining a trapper or similar person.

Sent from my Huawei P10 plus

 

[Calion]

I think your confusion is in the interpretation of "equivalent of".

So how do we measure equivalency? At the very least, we can compare food quantity, quality and variety, right? And clothing quality and quantity, and housing quality. Right?

Self-sufficiency rules (PHB 159) apply in contexts out of town, with no cash spending.
* If you are not proficient in survival, you live Poor.

Which is not at all how the real world works. Someone trying to survive in the wilderness without survival skills will live at a Wretched level. Have you seen Survivorman? He lives at Wretched or Squalid half the time with proficiency in Survival.

* If you are proficient, then you are Comfortable. Some people actually like camping [citation needed], but you get none of the other benefits of being Comfortable in the city. You're still living on nuts and berries.

Which translates to Comfortable how? You're living in a teepee, hut, shack, lean-to, cave or igloo with essentially no furnishings. You have one or perhaps two sets of rough clothing. Your food source is insecure; some days you eat nothing except perhaps some dried meat. You have zero legal protections, and are at risk from wild animal or monster attack. You probably have lice and/or fleas. Nothing about that says Comfortable to me. I wouldn't even say that long-established hunter-gatherer tribes live at Comfortable.

In town, you need to spend cash.
* Lifestyle costs (PHB 157-8) are separate from any money earned.
* There are ways to make money in a town (PHB 187):
- Any profession (from background) gives 1gp/day that covers Moderate expenses.

Exactly. So why does someone with a profession live at Poor? 1 gp/day buys you Modest, not Poor.

And from a game-design aspect, do we want to encourage characters to stay in the woods and away from cities? Why?

 

[Kobold Stew]

So how do we measure equivalency? At the very least, we can compare food quantity, quality and variety, right? And clothing quality and quantity, and housing quality. Right?

Or we can talk about individual satisfaction, and the subjective understanding of comfort. Right?

There's a lot of slipping between real-world concerns and game concerns here, that I think should be disentangled.

Which is not at all how the real world works. Someone trying to survive in the wilderness without survival skills will live at a Wretched level. Have you seen Survivorman? He lives at Wretched or Squalid half the time with proficiency in Survival.

You are confusing being able to survive comfortably and being able to survive without any resources.

Which translates to Comfortable how? You're living in a teepee, hut, shack, lean-to, cave or igloo with essentially no furnishings. You have one or perhaps two sets of rough clothing. Your food source is insecure; some days you eat nothing except perhaps some dried meat. You have zero legal protections, and are at risk from wild animal or monster attack. You probably have lice and/or fleas. Nothing about that says Comfortable to me.

Nor to me, but I am not proficient in Survival. All of these things can be routinely avoided, as you know.

I wouldn't even say that long-established hunter-gatherer tribes live at Comfortable.

I'm not sure what you mean in terms of "long-established" in this case, but (for example) the Northwest Coast ethnographic pattern had large kinship groups, non-nomadic lifestyle, that allowed leisure time for art, social hierarchies, intercultural trade, the development of literature, etc., because they had access to a high-yield, highly predictable resource in the salmon; they were hunter-gatherers.

Are you sure you want to generalize about "long-established hunter-gather tribes"? The cultural expectations we possess in a world with antibiotics, industrialization, etc., have not been shared by humans for most of history.

Exactly. So why does someone with a profession live at Poor? 1 gp/day buys you Modest, not Poor.

And from a game-design aspect, do we want to encourage characters to stay in the woods and away from cities? Why?

Where is the person in the game with a profession that lives poor?
And who is encouraging characters to live in the woods? It's a sidebar, separate from the primary discussion about living in cities.

It appears you are here talking in terms of the game, but neither of these circumstances is clear to me.


I think you are making difficulties for yourself here. Do the rules cover every circumstance? No. Do they give a good benchmark so that most games can get by without worrying about this? yes.

Most people playing adventurers are not concerned with day-to-day non-adventuring salaries: these rules come up from time to time, but they are not what the game is about. If I roll up a sorcerer, I am not hoping he'll get a steady job in a bank, free from risk and with long-term job stability.

 

[Calion]

Or we can talk about individual satisfaction, and the subjective understanding of comfort. Right?

No, we can't. A woodsman living in town at what the PHB considers a Wealthy lifestyle could be miserable (see Crocodile Dundee). Does that mean he's actually Poor or Squalid? No. These are objective measurements, not gauges of personal happiness.

You are confusing being able to survive comfortably and being able to survive without any resources.

No, not at all. The difference between living in squalor and living in wealth is the amount of resources you consume. No one can survive without any resources.

Nor to me, but I am not proficient in Survival. All of these things can be routinely avoided, as you know.

My description was of the life of someone with proficiency in Survival. The life of someone without proficiency in Survival is far worse: Living in rags, with no shelter, and no food most days.

I'm not sure what you mean in terms of "long-established" in this case

Amazonian tribes, the San, Australian aborigines, etc.

, but (for example) the Northwest Coast ethnographic pattern had large kinship groups, non-nomadic lifestyle, that allowed leisure time for art, social hierarchies, intercultural trade, the development of literature, etc., because they had access to a high-yield, highly predictable resource in the salmon; they were hunter-gatherers.

They were effectively farming salmon. But you're right, they were technically hunter-gatherers, and managed to develop what might have been considered a Modest lifestyle in a medieval setting. Still probably not Comfortable (except perhaps for the chiefs).

Are you sure you want to generalize about "long-established hunter-gather tribes"? The cultural expectations we possess in a world with antibiotics, industrialization, etc., have not been shared by humans for most of history.

Those things aren't even under consideration. We're comparing things like number of calories consumed, quantity and quality of clothing, furnishings, etc. to what those with a Comfortable lifestyle (per the PHB) in a medieval town would have had.

Where is the person in the game with a profession that lives poor?

"If you spend your time between adventures practicing a profession, as described in chapter 8, you can eke out the equivalent of a poor lifestyle.

And who is encouraging characters to live in the woods? It's a sidebar, separate from the primary discussion about living in cities.

If you can live on the Survival proficiency at Comfortable, but other proficiencies at Poor, that's an encouragement for characters to avoid towns between adventures.

I think you are making difficulties for yourself here. Do the rules cover every circumstance? No. Do they give a good benchmark so that most games can get by without worrying about this? yes.

Fine, but the rules that do exist should make sense, shouldn't they?

Most people playing adventurers are not concerned with day-to-day non-adventuring salaries: these rules come up from time to time, but they are not what the game is about. If I roll up a sorcerer, I am not hoping he'll get a steady job in a bank, free from risk and with long-term job stability.

You're making a case for not having this rule at all, not for having the rule as it exists. I can certainly see my characters wanting to do this sort of thing occasionally.

 

[LordEntrails]

[MENTION=73976]Calion[/MENTION], Let me see if I get this right, you have no experience living or surviving in the wild and you take Survivorman (a psuedo-reality entertainment product) as your souce of truth?

One person with wilderness experience has said he has lived in the wilds at "Comfortable" living standard. I will add that have have spent upto 8 consecutive weeks living off my skills in the wilds. I was comfortable, never more hungry, hot or cold then when I live my comfortable life at home with my A/C and car. For someone proficient, it's not big deal.

More importantly, as has been stated, the down-time rules are there to make down-time quick and simple. It is not intended to be a reality simulator, nor are the intended to be detailed. It's not what the game is about.

In the end, if you don't think the rules fit your "reality" then change them when you DM.