D&D 5E Self sufficiency

[Calion]

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.

Ah, the irony of the irony. every single one of the rules-based claims you make is made off of a misreading or not-reading of my recent posts.

 

[Calion]

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.

That he creates himself? come on, you're devolving into a parody of yourself at this point.

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.

Right, because brigands and highwaymen never live in or travel through the woods. I think you're confusing outdoorsmanship in modern America, where you enjoy substantial legal protections, where bands of highwaymen do not exist, where game is abundant because there are almost no competing predators, where you are quite safe, except for the occasional snake, because all the wolves and most of the bears and panthers have been killed or driven off, and there are no fantasy monsters of any sort, (and possibly modern tools and equipment; I don't know what you use) with the D&D wilderness.

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.

In modern America, sure. In a D&D wilderness, that's not so sure. Especially if you know how they behave.

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.

rofl You really are stretching everything you can to make your point. What you describe isn't "living off the land": you're a farmer. You have a stable homestead that you have been improving for months or years, a garden (where did you get the seeds? The forest? No. Every single one of our food crops save nuts is a product of millennia of genetic engineering), and livestock. You're not even using the Survival skill anymore. And I have said, multiple times now, that someone with a permanent home could, after many months or some years of work, get himself to the point of living at something like a Comfortable level, although minus the profitable social contacts. But that's simply not relevant to the rule under consideration here.

 

[Calion]

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.

Okay, let me be clear on what you're saying here: You're saying that one person, working by themselves, with no more than a knife, an axe and some rope, can, without much risk of failure, in a few (4-6, say) weeks' time, construct a weatherproof shelter that will keep him warm and dry in a thunderstorm and somewhat warm in the winter, construct tables and chairs, a chest of drawers for his clothes, several sets of well-made clothing to put in them, a bed, candles, and various other useful utensils such as bowls and cups, all the while hunting and gathering all his food and firewood every day?

 

[Calion]

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.

Um…when "hunger follows you," you're not getting a sufficient quantity of food.

At Modest, you are getting enough food to not be hungry. At Comfortable, you are eating a variety of tasty food.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I suppose you can lead a horse to water, but you can't convince that horse it's water if it's certain it's rocks.

Calion, with every post you make, you are digging yourself deeper and making yourself look more foolish to all the people who know about these sorts of things. Even if you get past your double standard (does the artisan also make his own clothes, and his own books?), your lack of knowledge is truly profound.

Yes, at this current time I do a lot of farming. But there is a ton of overlap there with basic survivalism. Heck, "city" people call me a prepper when all I'm doing is the same thing my family has been doing for 200 years. To me it's not prepping. To me, it's just normal living. There are literally hundreds of wild edible plants out there that grow naturally, including some really great seasonings like sage. Prickly pear, kelp, dandelion, cattail, chickweed, mushrooms....the list goes on and on and I can make a really great meal without needing to go to my actual garden at all. Fish, birds (eggs), rodents, squirrel, deer, bear, bighorn, wild boar...a plethora of meat is also available without me having to have raised any of it myself as well. Christ, how do you think the first domestication of animals happened in the first place? Do you think some random dude decided to be a farmer one day and poof! Here's your cows and sheep and grain? Climate permitting, there is no reason why a woodsman wouldn't also grow a garden and try to raise his own animals. It's just way easier. That's still part of survival. At least to every survivalist I know. On TV shows that have a month long challenge or whatever you don't see it because it's not worth the time if all you have is a month. But someone who does this full time, every year, all year? Every survivalist would also do those things because every survivalist DOES do those things.

So stop digging your hole man. You are quite literally arguing from a position of ignorance to a couple of people with actual experience on the topic. It's not doing you any favors.

 

[Calion]

And what you're doing is comparing the most wealthy and privileged. On royalty levels. I seriously don't think you know what live was like in the middle ages in the cities, even for the the "upper class". If you open a history book, you will probably be a bit surprised. There were no bathrooms down the halls, and maids who filled your tub with hot water. Not unless you were royalty. I wasn't being snarky when I said you really should read up on London in the Renaissance (let alone in the middle ages). Life was nothing like you're assuming. Even the well to do had to walk through sewer, had massive infestations of lice, rat infestations, disease, etc.

Wait, an upscale inn did not have a bathroom, that is, a room with a bathtub in it??

And I don't know why you keep bringing up legal protection like it's a good thing. you don't need it in the woods. It's like saying car insurance is a good thing. Not if you're not around cars at all, then it's a BAD thing to have to pay for it. Yes, I said pay for it, because in the city, you have way more taxes than you do if you're all by yourself.

It doesn't matter if it's a good or bad thing. It's part of the description of the wealth level. The fact that a woodsman in the wilderness has no recourse if he is robbed or beaten has to be taken into account.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Okay, let me be clear on what you're saying here: You're saying that one person, working by themselves, with no more than a knife, an axe and some rope, can, without much risk of failure, in a few (4-6, say) weeks' time, construct a weatherproof shelter that will keep him warm and dry in a thunderstorm and somewhat warm in the winter, construct tables and chairs, a chest of drawers for his clothes, several sets of well-made clothing to put in them, a bed, candles, and various other useful utensils such as bowls and cups, all the while hunting and gathering all his food and firewood every day?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm actually taking it one step further. I'm saying one person can do that in a couple days. Because they have, and continue to do so. Trappers still do it in Alaska and the Yukon to this day, building shelters every 6-8 miles that protect them from everything you just listed. I think you seriously underestimate how much shelter these things provide. This shelter below is one made by two Swedish brothers in the 1800s. They did it in a couple of days. (admittedly the boards were already at hand, but switch them with logs and you get the basic thing). And it's way more extravagant than you really would need to protect you from the weather. You can make a chair or table in a couple hours. And why would you need a dresser to be comfortable? a clothes rack does the same thing.

Seriously, if one things if for certain, it's that you have a very odd notion on things.



And this shelter was built by one person in one day. And if you don't think that offers nice protection, then clearly you've never actually slept in one

 

[Sacrosanct]

Wait, an upscale inn did not have a bathroom, that is, a room with a bathtub in it??

Again, you're ascribing things from aristocrat or wealthy to the comfort category. Nowhere under comfort does it say you have a bathroom. And historically, only the very wealthy had access to bathrooms or bathtubs in inns (in the context of what you're describing them as).

It doesn't matter if it's a good or bad thing. It's part of the description of the wealth level. The fact that a woodsman in the wilderness has no recourse if he is robbed or beaten has to be taken into account.

Again with the fallacies. For one, your argument is only true if someone robbed or beaten in the city has protection. Well, we all know that's not true. Technically there is a police force of some sort in most cities, even back then, but people got beaten and robbed with impunity often. If you're going to deny that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Secondly, someone out in the woods on their own doesn't meet people to get robbed in the first place. I can't think of a single instance of a highway man robbing a woodsman. Even historically. They were all on roads or other populated areas where there are actual targets to rob. I'm not saying it's never happened, but it would be at such an infrequent level that it's hardly a benefit to claim "police protection" when a) good chance you won't get that protection in the city anyway, and b) the risk of being robbed is so low it's probably never going to happen. Certainly not a benefit when you consider that you have to pay for that protection in the first place. It would be like telling someone it's a benefit for them to pay car insurance when they don't ever drive or be around a car. Not exactly a selling point in your favor.

 

[Calion]

[Citation Required]

You have got to be kidding. That artisan had: Multiple changes of well-made, colorful clothing, food with various vegetables in it, food that is spiced, food that was cooked in metal pots (allowing for a wider variety of soups and sauces), metal forks and knives, the ability to buy good boots, the ability to buy all sorts of things he didn't make himself, often of much higher quality than anything the hunter-gatherer had ever seen, and dozens of other things representing far more material wealth than a hunter-gatherer tribe could even concieve of. That it is remotely in question that a medieval artisan had far more material wealth than a paleolithic man is exemplary of the ridiculous stretching that has been in evidence from the beginning in order to justify this silly rule.

Comfortable means "…that you can afford nicer clothing and can easily maintain your equipment." Someone proficient in Survival can meet that. You have surplus food, allowing you the time and energy to keep all your gear maintained. You have shelter from the elements, so you can keep clothing maintained. You are well-groomed enough to be able to get a table at a nice inn, or an appointment with a town official, or a job working for a well-off merchant.

Right. Almost none of that sounds like it applies to a medieval man living off the land.

You want a comfortable lifestyle? Pay 2GP per day.

Or go live in the woods, according to the PH. Does this make sense to you?

Wait, you have some craft or profession? Pay 1GP per day.

No, then you live at Poor, making only 2 sp/day.

 

[Calion]

Debatable. Care to cite a source for your opinion?

All of Economics. You can start with Wealth of Nations and go from there.

Since a survivalist can build their own tools and things, then they can maintain those same items.

Yes, but "equipment" in this context means adventuring gear: Swords, shields, armor, spellbooks, etc.

Your definition of "self-sufficiency" differs from the one in my dictionary. It states "no assistance", not no contact, trade or barter.

Um…what? If you are contracting, trading or bartering, you are receiving assistance. By your definiton, the blacksmith in town is self-sufficient because he pays for all his food.

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".

No they haven't. Neither by using those words in quotes nor in their descriptions—except when they're describing homesteads that certainly took many months or even years to develop, which I have repeatedly conceded could count as Comfortable, except for the social aspects. But that doesn't seem to be at all what the rule is talking about.