D&D 5E Self sufficiency

[Calion]

For you it might be. But people lived comfortably "off the land" for millenia before we became civilized. In many cases they were healthier than people that lived in cities which were (depending on timeframe and city) filthy and disease ridden.

It's all going to depend on situation of course. It will be easier to live off the land in the Pacific Northwest than the Sahara desert.

Oh, certainly. I'd rather be an outdoorsman in a rich wilderness with a cabin and a fireplace, or even a cave, than a poor man in a city in medieval times. But I don't know that I'd say that it's less likely that an outdoorsman in that time would be lousy than a prosperous merchant or artisan.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The downtime rules are awful.

For starters there are two places that describe what happens when you practice a profession to handle your lifestyle: one says you get a poor lifestyle with a profession, and a comfortable lifestyle with survival. The other says that practicing a profession gets you a modest lifestyle, being in a guild gets you a comfortable lifestyle, and playing an instrument gets you a wealthy lifestyle. No mention of survival is made.

It's stupid that roughing it (ie - relying on survival skill) means that:
"you can afford nicer clothing and can easily maintain your equipment. You live in a small cottage in a middle-class neighborhood or in a private room at a fine inn. You associate with merchants, skilled tradespeople, and military officers"

While being a professional healer means that you're wandering around in ill maintained equipment, threadbare clothing, hang out with thieves and general scumbags etc. That's if it's poor. Modest seems more likely, but it's still worse off than the survival guy.

Finally - you're a no-name musician with a low charisma bonus? Guess what - you get to live like a highly successful merchant, with a nice house, servants, the whole shebang. Everyone who can pick up a lute is a rock star apparently.

Finally, most PCs can just cast 1 first level spell per day (or less, if you get a sucker willing to pay 50gp for it!) and live like aristocrats, tended by herds of servants and hobnobbing with the mayor and the like.

 

[Calion]

As I said in post 8: "You are confusing being able to survive comfortably and being able to survive without any resources."

And as I said, no one survives without any resources. That's not a thing that happens. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

Certainly one can "survive comfortably" in a rich wilderness, with a good axe, lots of skills, and plenty of time before the snows. But that does not mean that such a person is living at the standard of a prosperous artisan with multiple changes of nice clothing, hot, varied meals of various meats and vegetables, candles, books, police protection from thieves and brigands, and no risk of death by wild animal or wandering monster.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Certainly one can "survive comfortably" in a rich wilderness, with a good axe, lots of skills, and plenty of time before the snows. But that does not mean that such a person is living at the standard of a prosperous artisan with multiple changes of nice clothing, hot, varied meals of various meats and vegetables, candles, books, police protection from thieves and brigands, and no risk of death by wild animal or wandering monster.

A woodsman very much can have multiple changes of clothing, hot varied meals of various meats and vegetables, candles, and books just like your artisan. And they don't have police protection because they don't need it out in the woods because no one gets robbed or murdered there. And while the occasional wild animal is a risk, you're more likely to be hurt or killed by another human in a city than you are ever by a wild animal. Especially if you know how they behave. I am very confident that the cause of death by animals in rural areas is much lower than the cause of death by other people.

Seriously, I don't know why you think basic hot food is so scarce in rural areas. We can and store our own stuff you know. Between my garden and livestock, what I harvest/process during the summer lasts me all year long. And they are hot, varied meals. Even in January.

 

[Calion]

Some of it, some of it you take with you. It's not like a character walks naked into the woods with only a dagger.

No, he has his Explorer's Pack: A backpack, a bedroll, a mess kit, a tinderbox, 10 torches, 10 days of rations, a waterskin, and 50 feet of hempen rope. Plus the clothes on his back, that dagger, and probably a good axe. Maybe a bow and arrows, or maybe you make those. That's what you've got. You could, after quite some time (months or years) manage to set yourself up quite nicely, with a little cabin, several sets of buckskin clothing, and wooden furniture. Perhaps even candles. You could not have those things after a few weeks in the wild. There's just no way a man on his own could come close to having a "Comfortable" living in the wilderness in that period of time. Frankly I wouldn't consider him at that level of wealth even with that cabin, etc. Modest, maybe. "You don't go hungry or thirsty, and your living conditions are clean, if simple." That sounds like the pioneer life to me.

And yes, fleas and lice don't live in the woods. They live where people congregate. With their is refuse, rubbish and garbage. They are problems with "civilizations" not in the wilds.

Bears don't have fleas? I find that doubtful.

Once more, I will say, doesn't matter. This is a game. Just like most fantasy game maps don't have outhouses or toilets, why do you want to simulate lice?

I think I've found either a typo or an error. The book says that you can live off of your skills in the city and live in poverty, or in the woods as a well-off person. That seems just exactly backwards to me. Very few primitive tribes would be considered "well off" compared to a medieval artisan, in terms of material wealth.

For real life reference; with a hatchet, knife and twine, in one day, you should expect someone proficient to be able to build shelter, bed, a fire that burns 24 hours and water, without much challenge. They should also be able to set traps, probably catch some small game if they have a bow, fish if they have a hook and line, and forage for some roots and berries. Now, extreme environments like high altitude, winter, deserts, etc would change that, but again, that's not really shouldn't be the standard expectation for a game.

Yes, that's about right. Now look at the descriptions in the PHB and tell me which level of wealth that sounds most like. No permanent shelter, only the clothes on your back, undependable food supply (those snares and bow may or may not pay off, and while fish are a better bet, a fish-only diet, supplemented by berries and nuts (if they happen to be in season) does not sound like wealth to me.

Yes, this is not what they show on Survivorman or the other survival "reality" shows. That's because of 2 things; would not be worth a TV show, and often they have artificial objectives to achieve (i.e. find civilization, travel x miles, etc).

Right, that's true. Plus, unless you have the right materials, getting set up takes a couple of days. My point there was mainly that someone with no wilderness proficiency shouldn't even be at a Poor status.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No, he has his Explorer's Pack: A backpack, a bedroll, a mess kit, a tinderbox, 10 torches, 10 days of rations, a waterskin, and 50 feet of hempen rope. Plus the clothes on his back, that dagger, and probably a good axe. Maybe a bow and arrows, or maybe you make those. That's what you've got. You could, after quite some time (months or years) manage to set yourself up quite nicely, with a little cabin, several sets of buckskin clothing, and wooden furniture. Perhaps even candles. You could not have those things after a few weeks in the wild. There's just no way a man on his own could come close to having a "Comfortable" living in the wilderness in that period of time.

Yes they can. Because they have. In fact, it's imperative that you be able to build a nice home* in only a few weeks because other things are more important (like preparing for the leaner times). You seem intent on ignoring everything we're saying and doubling down on false assumptions. For the life of me, I have no idea why you're disagreeing with the people who have actually done what you're saying can't be done.

*Edit, by nice home, I mean something with plenty of space for one person with walls and a roof for security and to provide excellent shelter. For the stereotypical log cabin, it may take a year but only because the logs are better after seasoning. But with materials ready, you can make a nice log cabin in just a few weeks.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This thread is making Dick Proenneke roll over in his grave. Seriously Calion, before you continue, you should probably look him up. And he was in Alaska (pretty non hospitable to live in the wilds. I know, I lived there for 3 years myself).

 

[Calion]

Caloric intake is not part of D&D.

It is, actually, in just precisely the section under discussion.

Wretched. You live in inhumane conditions…Violence, disease, and hunger follow you wherever you go.
Squalid. You live…in places rife with disease, hunger, and misfortune.
Poor. A poor lifestyle means…simple food…
Modest. You don't go hungry or thirsty…

If that isn't a description of differences in caloric intake depending on living standards, I don't know what it is. You may not like that rule, or wish to use that rule, but you can't tell me that it doesn't exist.

We all have hobby-horses about the rules (I certainly have mine, and I make no secret of them), but I can make and play characters who avoid those issues so that it doesn't interfere with my enjoyment of the game. I hope you can too.

Sure, I could. But I like to expose my players to a variety of challenges, and being able to put them in a situation where they have to actually earn their livings might well be one of them. When a character with both the Survival and carpentry proficiencies can live a far better and healthier life in the woods than in town, why would he bother to try to earn money? It also invites the question: Why live in a city at all, when life is so much better outside it for anyone with Survival skills?

So, in answer to your original questions: No there is not a typo.

So you agree that it is the case that a PC artisan can both make 2 gp per day (Comfortable level) and can only eke out a living at a Poor level (2 sp per day)?

Yes, I feel there is something you are not getting. I would be very happy to see what changes you would propose to make sense.

Oh, that's easy. Simply reverse them. Someone with the Survival skill can live in the woods at the equivalent of a Poor level (though they might not notice or care), and a skilled character can practice his profession in a town or city and live at Comfortable. Of course, I can just house-rule just that. But I presume that the game designers know more than I do about game design, and when I see something that makes no sense on the face of it, I presume that it's either an error or there for some good reason that I don't understand. I am reluctant to make a change until I know which one it is.

 

[Calion]

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.

A trapper has nicer-than-average clothing? Clothing made of cotton, or even silk? And a woodsman can easily maintain his chain shirt? Where does he get the metal? The tools?

 

[Sacrosanct]

It is, actually, in just precisely the section under discussion.

Wretched. You live in inhumane conditions…Violence, disease, and hunger follow you wherever you go.
Squalid. You live…in places rife with disease, hunger, and misfortune.
Poor. A poor lifestyle means…simple food…
Modest. You don't go hungry or thirsty…

If that isn't a description of differences in caloric intake depending on living standards, I don't know what it is. You may not like that rule, or wish to use that rule, but you can't tell me that it doesn't exist.

calories =/= quality of food. That list is more about quality of food; variety, quality, etc. Just because you're eating potatoes and squirrel every day (basic food), doesn't mean you're not getting the same calories as a varied meal every day.

Sure, I could. But I like to expose my players to a variety of challenges, and being able to put them in a situation where they have to actually earn their livings might well be one of them. When a character with both the Survival and carpentry proficiencies can live a far better and healthier life in the woods than in town, why would he bother to try to earn money? It also invites the question: Why live in a city at all, when life is so much better outside it for anyone with Survival skills?.

Because living out in the woods is hard physical work. Which it seems most people are adverse to. And they are also skills that take some time to learn. Lots of people do leave the city and try to live out in the woods on a homestead. And many fail for those two reasons.