You're not even reading what I write at this point, so I don't see the point of responding. You are talking about something else than "comfortable" by D&D standards, so what you're saying is irrelevant.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Self sufficiency
- Thread starter Calion
- Start date
You're not even reading what I write at this point, so I don't see the point of responding. You are talking about something else than "comfortable" by D&D standards, so what you're saying is irrelevant.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sacrosanct
Legend
Sweet, sweet irony. Accusing me of not reading your posts when you obviously did not read mine, because what you just accused me of doing (talking outside of D&D standards), I totally just did in the post you quote. Here, let me repeat since I'm helpful that way:
it's you who continues to describe "comfortable" with things that do not exist at that level, even in the PHB itself. Nowhere under the description of "comfortable" does it say you have warm baths, or maid filling tubs, or bathrooms, or clothing considered rich at the time (silk, well made cotton, etc)
That sure seems to be in the context of D&D standards to me. I'm literally referencing the PHB's description there.
LordEntrails
Hero
Let's actually look at the definitions of these lifestyles from the PHB
Now let's compare those lifestyles with what we know for someone in the woods with survival proficiency.
Poor
"going without comforts" Not really, unless you are talking about wifi. But, arguable depending on how you define.
"simple food" sure, but not a lack of food, and no concern over food stability.
"threadbare clothing" Nope, furs are rich, worth tens or hundred of gold.
"unpredictable conditions" excluding weather (which effects those in town too), conditions are very predictable.
"unpleasant, experience" Not. And it seems Calion has even conceded this point.
The described accommodations describe noise, cleanliness and neighbors; none of which are appropriate for the survivalist.
Description of the people who live this way do not, to me, describe an adventurer and survivalist.
Modest
"maintain your equipment" Don't see how this would not apply to the survivalist. The argument about needing about needing metal to maintain your armor is... well, when has anyone ever said they carry 2 pounds of scrap metal so they can fix their armor every night?
Room description is pretty ... useless here. It's more about who you live near than what your living conditions are like.
"don't go hungry or thirsty" absolutely
"living conditions are clean" absolutely
Types of people, seems to fit.
Comfortable
"nicer clothing" Yep, furs qualify as that (IMO, so do buckskins)
"easily maintain" Yep, given that multiple survivalists can be counted as having made their own equipment, then they must have been able to easily maintain it.
"small cottage" Ok, this might take a couple of weeks to build.
People associated with, hard to say, but certainly feasible.
Notes
- Except for the poor, nothing about legal protections are mentioned. Besides, if the local authority claims sovereignty over the neighboring woods (which they do if they want to use the resources from it, and they always do), then their laws apply there just as well as in the town. Maybe their is not the watchman walking about, but if a crime is committed, then the laws still apply.
- Never is food stability mentioned, though again, the survivalist doesn't have this problem, despite what @Calion thinks.
Conclusions?
So, modest and comfortable (as defined by the PHB) both fit. Since the higher "quality" fits, it seems the more appropriate lifestyle. If one argues that the first two weeks a survivalist lived at a Modest lifestyle and then after that a Comfortable lifestyle I would not argue. But, once the cottage is built, you can always return to it after your next adventure.
Now let's compare those lifestyles with what we know for someone in the woods with survival proficiency.
Poor
"going without comforts" Not really, unless you are talking about wifi. But, arguable depending on how you define.
"simple food" sure, but not a lack of food, and no concern over food stability.
"threadbare clothing" Nope, furs are rich, worth tens or hundred of gold.
"unpredictable conditions" excluding weather (which effects those in town too), conditions are very predictable.
"unpleasant, experience" Not. And it seems Calion has even conceded this point.
The described accommodations describe noise, cleanliness and neighbors; none of which are appropriate for the survivalist.
Description of the people who live this way do not, to me, describe an adventurer and survivalist.
Modest
"maintain your equipment" Don't see how this would not apply to the survivalist. The argument about needing about needing metal to maintain your armor is... well, when has anyone ever said they carry 2 pounds of scrap metal so they can fix their armor every night?
Room description is pretty ... useless here. It's more about who you live near than what your living conditions are like.
"don't go hungry or thirsty" absolutely
"living conditions are clean" absolutely
Types of people, seems to fit.
Comfortable
"nicer clothing" Yep, furs qualify as that (IMO, so do buckskins)
"easily maintain" Yep, given that multiple survivalists can be counted as having made their own equipment, then they must have been able to easily maintain it.
"small cottage" Ok, this might take a couple of weeks to build.
People associated with, hard to say, but certainly feasible.
Notes
- Except for the poor, nothing about legal protections are mentioned. Besides, if the local authority claims sovereignty over the neighboring woods (which they do if they want to use the resources from it, and they always do), then their laws apply there just as well as in the town. Maybe their is not the watchman walking about, but if a crime is committed, then the laws still apply.
- Never is food stability mentioned, though again, the survivalist doesn't have this problem, despite what @Calion thinks.
Conclusions?
So, modest and comfortable (as defined by the PHB) both fit. Since the higher "quality" fits, it seems the more appropriate lifestyle. If one argues that the first two weeks a survivalist lived at a Modest lifestyle and then after that a Comfortable lifestyle I would not argue. But, once the cottage is built, you can always return to it after your next adventure.
Last edited:
Some of the materials, yes. The skills, time and tools to make nice clothing, no. It's called specialization and division of labor; one person on his own cannot be as wealthy, with the equivalent amount of work, as that same person in a community.
And yet the standard is "can easily maintain his equipment." Which means repairing his armor without trouble if it gets damaged (or was already damaged before he went into the woods). Whether he needs to is irrelevant to the standard for Comfortable.
Actually, the rule is "self-sufficiency." That strongly implies that you aren't trading for what you need, but making everything yourself. This rule should be able to apply to someone on the run from the authorities who does not dare contact others, or someone alone in the deep wilderness.
Who had a stable home base, a community that included craftsmen of various natures, and, obviously, blacksmiths and access to significant quantities of metal for fabricating swords and armor. That has nothing to do with the rule in question.
Aragorn himself was clearly trained in Survival. Can you show me an occasion in LOTR where he was surviving in the wilderness, alone or with others, at a Comfortable living standard, or anything remotely like it?
…you mean people living in a city including master craftsmen, trade with other cultures, and permanent homes? Who is "self-sufficient" in Lothlorien?
And in which of those stories did they make nicer-than-average clothing, could easily maintain their equipment, and lived in the equivalent of a professionally-built cottage?
As a developed culture with specialization and division of labor living in well-made, stoneworked caverns, with many craftsmen, imported metal goods, and imported wine[\i] for God's sake. Don't confuse a civilization that happens to be in the forest with a single person living off the land. The wood elves had a far higher standard of living than even a well-established hunter-gatherer tribe. I'll bet they even had bread.
Um…poor people buy things too. That in no way means that they associate with skilled tradespeople, as in are invited to dinner in their homes.
This is what is happening, over and over in this thread: A lot of stretching to justify the rules, instead of acknowledging that it makes no sense for a skilled craftsman to make 2 sp/day in a city, but someone trained in Survival to live in the woods as well if they spent 2 gp/day in the city.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited:
LordEntrails
Hero
Debatable. Care to cite a source for your opinion?
Since a survivalist can build their own tools and things, then they can maintain those same items.
Your definition of "self-sufficiency" differs from the one in my dictionary. It states "no assistance", not no contact, trade or barter.
And you are very frequently misquoting the rules and assigning definitions to things that are not how such things are defined. But, instead of insulting each other, go back to my last post and actually think about the rules and not all the FOD that has been brought up in this thread.
At least 3 people have now told you that they personally have lived in the woods "as well as if they spent 2 gp/day in a city".
You don't have to believe us. But it seems like you are worried that the survivalist is somehow making gold. They are not, nor are they spending it.
How about shelter from storms? A somewhat tight protection against the winter cold? Candles or oil lamps? Books? The ability to buy a meal and not prepare it yourself? Multiple changes of clothing? Clothing made of something other than leather and fur, and sewn together with needle and thread, not leather strips? A wide variety of meats and vegetables to eat?
You're kidding, right? Someone living off the land is always concerned with where his next meal will come from. His ability to store food is very limited, especially lacking a permanent shelter. Nuts and berries are not always in season. He may eat very well some weeks, and hardly at all in others.
Furs aren't always appropriate, but if you know how to tan hide and make clothing (which I wonder if that isn't a separate skill from Survival), you shouldn't be wearing threadbare clothing, I'll agree.
Well, when you exclude the most important parts, making your point is quite easy. The weather is a huge factor in the wilderness; you never know what your comfort level will be like day to day. You may be wet, cold and unable to sleep, or warm, dry and cozy. Even those in a flophouse have much more protection against the weather. And other conditions are unpredictable too. You may get your food stolen by wild animals while you are away hunting. You may run into bears, or wolves, or wandering monsters (hell, that's likely in a D&D setting). And as should be obvious, your food supply is unpredictable. You can't go buy it, so you have to depend on the bounty of Mother Nature, which varies by day and by season. Sometimes the fish are biting; sometimes they're not.
Well, that depends, doesn't it? I invoke Survivorman again. His first couple of days, especially in an area he's not well familiar with, are miserable (and then he goes home, so we don't get to see him actually thrive, which is why I don't watch the show much anymore). Someone on the move, or just coming into a new area where he hasn't learned where the good hunting grounds are, can indeed have an unpleasant experience. As time goes on and he settles in, starts building a semi-permanent shelter, and gets familiar with the area, and where the foragables and game are, his quality of life improves, to about a Modest level. But he never gets to Comfortable, unless perhaps after he spends many months or years building an actual cabin, carving furniture, making a fireplace, making candles, and carving various tools and utensils. But that length of time in one spot seems to go outside these self-sufficiency rules for what to do between adventures.
There's no noise in the woods? You get used to it after a couple of days, of course, but every wilderness has its disturbing sounds. And cleanliness is just as much of a problem in the wild as in town. When your only bathing spot is a cold mountain stream, you may not bathe too often. Plus, of course, you have to contend with mosquitos, ticks, and possibly other vermin. And your neighbors are bears, wolves and skunks. You can get along, of course, but you have to stay on your guard.
Modest
Right, exactly. No one does that. They go to the blacksmith or whoever to get the materials they need to maintain their equipment. Not possible in the wilds.
Not at all. The difference in comfort level between someone living in a furnished room, with a chest of drawers, candles, a nice mattress, a table, chairs, curtains in the windows, and possibly a book or two, and someone sleeping on the ground or on a hastily-constructed bed of branches and leaves, under a rock or a lean-to, sounds enormous. Now, as I've repeatedly said, an outdoorsman could very likely lift his standard of living to Modest after a very few weeks. But that's not how he spends his first several nights.
Really? Never? He catches game, or fish, or gathers a large quantity of foragables every day? Even when those foragables are out of season? I think you have a romanticized notion of how easy it is to survive in the wild. Sure, sometimes you eat very well. But sometimes the fish aren't biting, or the game never appears, and all of your snares fail, and now there's no time to gather berries or whatever. Life in the woods is inherently unpredictable. That's part of its charm.
Really? That depends on what you mean by "clean," I guess. What about ants crawling all over you and biting you in the night? Mosquitoes? Ticks? Possibly leeches, depending on where you have to travel? And you do get dirty, you know, working in the woods. It may be easy to take a bath and wash your clothes, and it may not. Again, once you have a chance to build a semi-permanent shelter that protects your supplies from wild animals, destroy all the anthills in the near vicinity, smoke enough meat and fish so that you have food on bad hunting days, and establish a consistent routine, I'd say that you were likely at Modest. But not before that.
Comfortable
I'm really not sure about this. Wearing the furry hide of an animal doesn't seem to be the same as wearing fur clothing that has been sewn together by a skilled seamstress with a steel needle and thread, neither of which you have. But I'm not really clear as to what constitutes "nicer clothing" in this context. Does that mean linen? Probably. Silk? Probably not, but maybe. But I'm not sure a buckskin suit inexpertly made with a wooden needle and leather straps qualifies as "nicer" in this context.
Note that we're talking about easily maintaining your adventuring equipment, meaning getting the nicks out of your sword, the dents out of your shield, and the rents out of your armor. And to that we have to give a clear No. Your survivalist adventurer has the capacity to do none of these things.
To the sturdiness and weatherproof-ness of a nice cottage in the city? No, certainly not. In a few months, perhaps. In a few weeks you can construct a perfectly serviceable semi-permanent shelter. Not a permanent cottage, not while you're also hunting and gathering and defending yourself from wandering monsters.
Why would such people associate with a woodland hermit? What parties is he getting invited to? Will his clothes fit in when he goes? (No, which is why "nicer clothing" doesn't work.) Etc. No, this doesn't make sense, certainly not as an expected thing.
Notes
Obviously, everyone above that level has those protections as well. And the outdoorsman has none of it. He has no city guards protecting him from wolves, bears, monsters, or brigands.
Usually if that's the case, people are prohibited from living in the woods, or require permission to do so. Which you can certainly do in-game, but that's hardly guaranteed to be granted.
Except in Wretched, and Squalid, and Poor, and Modest. It's assumed that what applies at Modest also applies at higher levels.
Baloney, for the reasons I've described above. Certainly sometimes he may have plentiful food. And at other times—not.
Repairing after an adventure is not maintaining, that is repairing. So not getting it in a worse condition should be ready.
The other parts I'll just admit that they were evidently not convincing. I probably won't have more to add, but I'll definitely stay for the insight, knowledge and inspiration provided by others in thread. So thank you Cailon for starting it. We probably won't agree, but I greatly enjoy the thread.
Sent from my Huawei P10 plus
Sacrosanct
Legend
I am positive this will fall on deaf ears since it's already been mentioned already and yet the same ol falsehoods are still being presented. But oh well, I am persistent and stubborn, so I'll try again 
Food:
People who live on homesteads and "out in the forests" gain their food in several ways: growing, gathering, hunting, and raising animals. Preserving and storing food is entirely possible without any electricity or even modern conveniences. We know this by looking at history and seeing how people have done this. I've done this. I still do this today. It's completely false to keep making a claim that someone living out in the woods will go hungry or not have a variety of meals to eat. Let's look at an example from just last week. Everything you see here? From my backyard. Literally everything (including the honey and thyme I used to saute the beets). That sure seems like a variety to me, and doesn't even include any meat or grains. This is just a salad. Add in all the various available meat sources and wild edibles, and I can make something to rival any meal in a city. Between smoking, salting, dehydrating, and root cellars, I am confident I will have food to eat well all year long (root crops like potatoes, beets, carrots, radishes, and fruits like apples will store for many months in a cool root cellar).
Clothing
Being out in the woods doesn't mean you don't have access to clothing. Tanning is the most common, and can result in extremely comfortable clothes (seriously, hold a real buckskin sometime). Additionally, just because you're out in the woods means you're limited to wooden needles and leather straps. seriously, that's just plain ignorance. Bone needles are just as good as metal ones, and thread from tendon is not only as thin as thread, but a lot stronger. It also completely ignores how things like rope are typically made from plant material anyway. Also, wool from raised sheep is available in addition to all of that (or wool from hunted sheep).
Comfort of city life
It is a fallacy to assume someone living in the city doesn't have to worry about things like decent clothing and good meals. If you're going to assume bad things may happen to the woodsman, you must keep the same standard to the other side as well. Take the city person and have them lose their job. OR get robbed. Or have their house burn down. Or get a serious disease--all things that a city person has a much higher risk of than a woodsman.
Fallacy of danger
This has been brought up a few times about how in the woods in D&D land it's extremely dangerous from beasts and monsters. I posit it's just as dangerous in the city, so that argument holds no water. Why? Because we have entire adventures that take place in cities in D&D that clearly show this. Not just the mundane robberies, murder, and disease, but the shopkeeper who's an agent for the Red Wizards. Or the merchant who is really a mind flayer in disguise. The city is just as dangerous as the woods would ever be in D&D world.
I gotta ask you Calion, how would you know what a skilled woodsman would face, food wise? Are you a skilled woodsman and have lived off the grid yourself? The bottom line is that you're making a ton of assumptions, and most of them are completely wrong. You have no idea on the topic you are talking about, and have had actual experienced people in said topic explain in great detail why and how you're wrong, and yet you are still sticking to it. I feel like I'm arguing with a flat earther at this point. Despite the clear evidence presented to you, you are digging down and refusing to admit you don't know much about the topic and have zero experience in it so you could be wrong.
Food:
People who live on homesteads and "out in the forests" gain their food in several ways: growing, gathering, hunting, and raising animals. Preserving and storing food is entirely possible without any electricity or even modern conveniences. We know this by looking at history and seeing how people have done this. I've done this. I still do this today. It's completely false to keep making a claim that someone living out in the woods will go hungry or not have a variety of meals to eat. Let's look at an example from just last week. Everything you see here? From my backyard. Literally everything (including the honey and thyme I used to saute the beets). That sure seems like a variety to me, and doesn't even include any meat or grains. This is just a salad. Add in all the various available meat sources and wild edibles, and I can make something to rival any meal in a city. Between smoking, salting, dehydrating, and root cellars, I am confident I will have food to eat well all year long (root crops like potatoes, beets, carrots, radishes, and fruits like apples will store for many months in a cool root cellar).
Clothing
Being out in the woods doesn't mean you don't have access to clothing. Tanning is the most common, and can result in extremely comfortable clothes (seriously, hold a real buckskin sometime). Additionally, just because you're out in the woods means you're limited to wooden needles and leather straps. seriously, that's just plain ignorance. Bone needles are just as good as metal ones, and thread from tendon is not only as thin as thread, but a lot stronger. It also completely ignores how things like rope are typically made from plant material anyway. Also, wool from raised sheep is available in addition to all of that (or wool from hunted sheep).
Comfort of city life
It is a fallacy to assume someone living in the city doesn't have to worry about things like decent clothing and good meals. If you're going to assume bad things may happen to the woodsman, you must keep the same standard to the other side as well. Take the city person and have them lose their job. OR get robbed. Or have their house burn down. Or get a serious disease--all things that a city person has a much higher risk of than a woodsman.
Fallacy of danger
This has been brought up a few times about how in the woods in D&D land it's extremely dangerous from beasts and monsters. I posit it's just as dangerous in the city, so that argument holds no water. Why? Because we have entire adventures that take place in cities in D&D that clearly show this. Not just the mundane robberies, murder, and disease, but the shopkeeper who's an agent for the Red Wizards. Or the merchant who is really a mind flayer in disguise. The city is just as dangerous as the woods would ever be in D&D world.
I gotta ask you Calion, how would you know what a skilled woodsman would face, food wise? Are you a skilled woodsman and have lived off the grid yourself? The bottom line is that you're making a ton of assumptions, and most of them are completely wrong. You have no idea on the topic you are talking about, and have had actual experienced people in said topic explain in great detail why and how you're wrong, and yet you are still sticking to it. I feel like I'm arguing with a flat earther at this point. Despite the clear evidence presented to you, you are digging down and refusing to admit you don't know much about the topic and have zero experience in it so you could be wrong.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Oh, and for the love of God, stop bring up Survivorman. That's a show for entertainment, and the whole point is to make him look as miserable as possible, and edited by the producers to make it look like that.
While I'm at it, also stop with this "but it takes a long time to get a nice cabin in the woods." Again, you're holding a double standard here. You're only looking at the very beginning of the woodsmans life in the woods, but counting the entire time a person living in the city and not if that person just arrived (won't have a home, rooms might not be available, etc). The implication is that they are talking about a lifestyle, which means the majority of their time in that environment, not just the first couple months.
While I'm at it, also stop with this "but it takes a long time to get a nice cabin in the woods." Again, you're holding a double standard here. You're only looking at the very beginning of the woodsmans life in the woods, but counting the entire time a person living in the city and not if that person just arrived (won't have a home, rooms might not be available, etc). The implication is that they are talking about a lifestyle, which means the majority of their time in that environment, not just the first couple months.
LordEntrails
Hero
@Calion,
I was going to go through and dispute your points. But then @Sacrosanct 's picture made me hungry and I'm not going to spend my time (because I'm hungry and you appear deaf to them anyway).
First, what is your experience as a woodsman/survivalist/outdoorsman? If you don't have any meaningful amount (like weeks or months) why are you bothering to argue your perceptions versus our experiences? That's just stupid.
Second, most of your rebuttals to my points you are making are completely based on your perception and not the rules (and certainly not real life experience). That's why I posted the rules. If it's not in the RAW for the lifestyle level, why do you keep putting what your perception or assumption is for that lifestyle level? That's just adding FOD to the discussion, and is either done because you have a perception you refuse dismiss or you are intentionally ignoring the rules to make your points.
Third, because you are going to respond, "yeah, but I can rent a room in an inn the same day I get into town (blah blah blah)" you've already been told adequate shelter can be done in a few hours. I've also conceded you could state that the first two week could be considered a Moderate lifestyle if you wanted.
Finally, what roleplaying benefit does it have to define a character's lifestyle as Moderate or Comfortable unless you are going to spend lots of time role playing what happens during downtime? If you are spending hours role playing your downtime activities, then the rules really aren't intended for that. Your doing some type of social role playing, not adventuring and you really need something like Birthright or Kingmaker.
I was going to go through and dispute your points. But then @Sacrosanct 's picture made me hungry and I'm not going to spend my time (because I'm hungry and you appear deaf to them anyway).
First, what is your experience as a woodsman/survivalist/outdoorsman? If you don't have any meaningful amount (like weeks or months) why are you bothering to argue your perceptions versus our experiences? That's just stupid.
Second, most of your rebuttals to my points you are making are completely based on your perception and not the rules (and certainly not real life experience). That's why I posted the rules. If it's not in the RAW for the lifestyle level, why do you keep putting what your perception or assumption is for that lifestyle level? That's just adding FOD to the discussion, and is either done because you have a perception you refuse dismiss or you are intentionally ignoring the rules to make your points.
Third, because you are going to respond, "yeah, but I can rent a room in an inn the same day I get into town (blah blah blah)" you've already been told adequate shelter can be done in a few hours. I've also conceded you could state that the first two week could be considered a Moderate lifestyle if you wanted.
Finally, what roleplaying benefit does it have to define a character's lifestyle as Moderate or Comfortable unless you are going to spend lots of time role playing what happens during downtime? If you are spending hours role playing your downtime activities, then the rules really aren't intended for that. Your doing some type of social role playing, not adventuring and you really need something like Birthright or Kingmaker.
Similar Threads
