D&D 5E Self sufficiency

[Sacrosanct]

Well, nice to see we've reached this point

 

[Calion]

Repairing after an adventure is not maintaining, that is repairing. So not getting it in a worse condition should be ready.

What other maintenance does adventuring gear need? Are you saying that this part of the rule is meaningless?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Repairing after an adventure is not maintaining, that is repairing. So not getting it in a worse condition should be ready.

Yep. During my military time, if one thing is certain about the military, they are HUGE on maintenance. Well, that an acronyms. In the context of "maintenance", it's usually meant as "preventative maintenance". Every item, from your LBE to the helicopter itself, is constantly evaluated and inspected, and often parts are replaced before they're actually worn out. The goal is to make sure the item is working in top shape whenever you need it. So being proactive to ensure it's in great shape is important. In the context of survivalist items, it's making sure straps and buckles are all in working order. Blades are oiled. Patches are sewn on to bare or threadbare items, containers don't leak, handles aren't split, etc.

 

[Calion]

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).

Good Lord. You have literally gone off the rails here. You're talking about homesteading, not woodland survival. You're not "surviving" at all anymore. You are not in anything that might be called a "survival situation," so it would seem you're not even really using the Survival skill anymore. Instead, you're using the Farming skill. Great! But what does that have to do with the rule under discussion? Did you do all of this in 4-6 weeks, a reasonable time between adventures? No? Then why are you bringing it up?

I have said over and over and over again that someone in a permanent location, with time and tools to build a permanent homestead, could indeed, after many months or a few years, live at something close to Comfortable, except for the social aspects. But the rule here specifically limits you to "hunting [and] foraging." So I don't see how what you're talking about is relevant to the discussion.

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).

That is interesting, but I still question what exactly is meant by "nicer clothing." Would you show up to a nice party in it? No? Then it probably doesn't count. It seems about of the quality level of, say, a sailor's or soldier's uniform. Sturdy and comfortable, but not "nice" in the sense of fancy, which I think is what is meant here.

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.

No it isn't. If you're making 2 gp/day, there's no question about being able to find clothing and meals. Sure, you might lose your job or whatever, but that's equivalent to being kicked out of the woods by the King's Guard, not to not being able to find food today. The latter is just an inherent risk of survival in the wild.

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.

Really? Wildfires are less common than fires in a city? That seems unlikely.

The disease thing makes sense, but that's not really listed in the description. And either party could get robbed, but the city dweller has legal recourse, and no risk of being robbed by racoons or bears. It probably is a wash (remember, bandits live in the woods in this setting).

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.

Certainly the city can be dangerous. But "just as dangerous" seems like an exaggeration—for a somewhat wealthy person. You're conflating the experience of a poor person (or an adventurer looking for trouble) with that of a prosperous small businessman or artisan, for whom life is pretty safe and comfortable in the city.

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?

I've looked into it somewhat extensively, but no, I'm not a skilled woodsman. But I haven't really denied your experiences; usually I've just accepted them. The question is: 1) Do your experiences actually match up to what the rules define as Comfortable? and 2) if they do, how long does it take to get there? And the answer seems to be that you can indeed get pretty close to Comfortable in the woods—after many months or years, which doesn't seem to be the intent of the rules here. If you are only living off the land between adventures, with no permanent homestead, you are living at Modest at best.

 

[Calion]

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.

Are you saying that you would do much better than he seems to be doing if plopped down in an unfamilar terrain, with the equipment he has, in the time he's there (a couple of days, usually)?

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.

You know, you could just say, "I don't think the rules imply that you're only there for a few weeks, as you keep saying." You could even go so far as to say, "You're right that I couldn't develop a Comfortable lifestyle in only a couple of months." Which would mean that we disagree about almost nothing, and you've been ridiculing me for no purpose. Then we could discuss what the rules intended for "your time between adventures." I think that means a couple of months at most in most circumstances. Do you disagree?

 

[Calion]

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.

I'm not. I'm debating whether those experiences satisfy the rules description of "Comfortable." I'm taking your experiences for granted, though asking questions to nail things down like whether you literally never miss meals (which seems implausible to me).

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.

Shelter at a comfortable level? A character can walk into town with 2 gp in his pocket and live at Comfortable that day. Can you build a home with a fireplace, cooking utensils, stored food, furniture, candles, etc. in one day?

I've also conceded you could state that the first two week could be considered a Moderate lifestyle if you wanted.

It really seems to me that those first two weeks would be at Poor, and only after that at Modest. Comfortable couldn't be gotten for perhaps six months at a minimum.

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.

The question is, what choices are the players likely to make? Are they being pushed to one choice or another? When a character with one skill can live at Poor in the city, but (with a different skill) at the equivalent of Comfortable in the forest, that encourages every character to take Survival, and not to make their living in the city. Why do the rules encourage that?

 

[LordEntrails]

...
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.

Actually, it's only in the description of the Poor lifestyle. All of the other lifestyles don't say anything about legal protection. And really, this legal protection is about your social standing. Historically, social standing and perceived wealth are what dictate legal protections. You could argue that is no different today (many people make such arguments that are compelling). But again, this should not be part of the discussion because it is not part of the Comfortable or Moderate lifestyle DEFINITIONS in the PHB.

I have said over and over and over again that someone in a permanent location, with time and tools to build a permanent homestead, could indeed, after many months or a few years, live at something close to Comfortable, except for the social aspects.

And you have been repeatedly told and given examples that this level can be obtained in days, not weeks or months. And you have failed to comment on my suggestion to say the first two weeks are Moderate, after that it's comfortable.

That is interesting, but I still question what exactly is meant by "nicer clothing." Would you show up to a nice party in it? No? Then it probably doesn't count. It seems about of the quality level of, say, a sailor's or soldier's uniform. Sturdy and comfortable, but not "nice" in the sense of fancy, which I think is what is meant here.

Depends on the society. In Waterdeep? Probably not. In towns like those in the Dessarin Valley? Most likely.

No it isn't. If you're making 2 gp/day, there's no question about being able to find clothing and meals. Sure, you might lose your job or whatever, but that's equivalent to being kicked out of the woods by the King's Guard, not to not being able to find food today. The latter is just an inherent risk of survival in the wild.

Again, food and clothing really isn't the challenge you think it is. At least not in North America forests of today or the last thousand years (look at the historical record of the American Indian tribes such as the Navajo that were nomadic) And there are risks associated with residing in a city. The details of both are left of to the DM to determine for their setting.

Really? Wildfires are less common than fires in a city? That seems unlikely.

I could not find reliable statistics, but lots of supporting info, here are scholarly sources on fires in the middle ages;
- "Fire too was recognised as one of the greatest risks, not surprisingly given the use of flammable materials in construction and the close proximity of houses in medieval towns and cities."
- "Finally, as a fire presumably was the highest risk for the physical basis of urban settlements, and damages due to town fires were extremely costly to repair, the omnipresent hazard coming from the use of open fire. had to be handled in order to guarantee urban dwellers a minimum quality of life at least."
- See page 531, it also has an informative description of what living in a town was like. http://ihrrblog.org/2014/06/24/risk-society-in-the-middle-ages/
- Though this list is by no means comprehensive, you will see that the number of urban fires of note (obviously forest fires that were not significant to major populations are not recorded, though they would be important to a woodsman. But, so are all the fires that happens in cities everyday today that are not reported). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires

The disease thing makes sense, but that's not really listed in the description. And either party could get robbed, but the city dweller has legal recourse, and no risk of being robbed by racoons or bears. It probably is a wash (remember, bandits live in the woods in this setting).

Neither are fires, legal protection (except for poor) and many other things you bring up. All of these things are setting and DM specific. If a DM wants his woodlands to be full of bandits and his cities safe havens, then they are. But that not specified in RAW.

The question is: 1) Do your experiences actually match up to what the rules define as Comfortable? and 2) if they do, how long does it take to get there? And the answer seems to be that you can indeed get pretty close to Comfortable in the woods—after many months or years, which doesn't seem to be the intent of the rules here. If you are only living off the land between adventures, with no permanent homestead, you are living at Modest at best.

These are good question IMO. And I go back to the 2 week comment. And if you come back to the same town between adventures then it might only take a day or two (or less) to get back to the standard of living.

I'm not. I'm debating whether those experiences satisfy the rules description of "Comfortable." I'm taking your experiences for granted, though asking questions to nail things down like whether you literally never miss meals (which seems implausible to me).

I never missed a meal. And I know you find that surprising, as fiction and entertainment sources always say otherwise.

Shelter at a comfortable level? A character can walk into town with 2 gp in his pocket and live at Comfortable that day. Can you build a home with a fireplace, cooking utensils, stored food, furniture, candles, etc. in one day?

If you're not comfortable with us saying yes, then go with 2 weeks.

It really seems to me that those first two weeks would be at Poor, and only after that at Modest. Comfortable couldn't be gotten for perhaps six months at a minimum.

I disagree. Using the definitions I posted above and why.

The question is, what choices are the players likely to make? Are they being pushed to one choice or another? When a character with one skill can live at Poor in the city, but (with a different skill) at the equivalent of Comfortable in the forest, that encourages every character to take Survival, and not to make their living in the city. Why do the rules encourage that?

If their lifestyle during downtime is important to them, then yes they will take that skill. Who cares? It's like trying to push the rogue who tries to maximize his passive perception.

If it's a meaningful choice to the characters, then why take that choice away from them or otherwise disadvantage or minimize that choice?

Final thing of note, often you talk about living in the woods as if you are isolated. I imagine it more like you are 30-60 minutes out of town (by foot or horse). Sure, you live in the woods, but you can still go into town everyday to hang with your homies.

Also, self-sufficient has two definitions according to Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster;
One says take care of oneself without outside aid/assistance. That might infer, but does not require no outside trade or interaction. It usually is used this way when talking about a civilization being self-sufficient (i.e. does it require imports of food etc).
Two says having exteme confidence in one's own abilities.

 

[Caliban]

I'm confused. Are we talking about adventurers, or homesteaders here?

 

[LordEntrails]

I'm confused. Are we talking about adventurers, or homesteaders here?

*LOL*
That's why several times I have asked if the OP is trying to simulate a lifestyle game or an adventure RPG

 

[Sacrosanct]

*LOL*
That's why several times I have asked if the OP is trying to simulate a lifestyle game or an adventure RPG

In hindsight, I've totally allowed myself to get sucked into an argument about part of the game probably 99% of gamers really couldn't care less about. So....time to move on I guess If anyone is interested in inquiring about my personal history and expertise on how it might impact the daily life of a D&D woodsman on what they could and couldn't probably do, feel free to ask. Other than that, I think I'm beating my head against a wall here.