Search results

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...

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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...

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...

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

Okay, I guess I see what you're trying to say, but there's no way they actually meant to write that. There's no way the intent was for a character with a profession to be able to live as Poor in the woods, but a character without a profession…what? They starve, because they can't sell artworks...

Why does this happen whenever anyone questions a D&D rule? "This rule doesn't make sense to me. Could someone explain it?" "The rule makes perfect sense, there's no way any honest person could see a problem with it, and besides, you're an idiot for caring. This is a fantasy game, the rules...

No. That's what I thought. What you're describing is a Modest (or perhaps even Poor) lifestyle by the PHB, not a Comfortable one. (I'm not denying the stuff I deleted; I may have exaggerated somewhat, and you're right about the streets in any case.) You do not understand the standard here...

Fine, let's look more deeply at that article. Already, we have a character that has three proficiencies: Carpentry, woodworking and Survival. The standard is only Survival. Guess what: There's no Sears in Faerûn. And anyway, the standard here is self-sufficiency. No getting of external...

Now I'm certain you don't understand what's under discussion here. Do me a favor: Please define "comfortable" in this context.

Oh good Lord. He lived for 30 years in a cabin he built himself. Of course he lived well. Of course, he also had modern legal protections, no monsters to deal with (except brown bears, I guess), and probably access to various modern or semi-modern tools, like guns (and he had supplies flown in...

Read the post right above yours. You literally don't understand the terms here.

I believe this too. But it seems to me that that's roughly the total amount of time that an adventurer is likely to spend between adventures. So just when you're set up to live at a Modest (not Comfortable) standard of living, it's time to go adventure again.

Yes, exactly! That's what's confusing you. You're "comfortable" by your own standards in the woods, therefore you assume that that must mean that you are "comfortable" by D&D standards. However, there is an objective standard of wealth that must be met to be "Comfortable" by the PH, and it has...

If that's "nicer than average," why didn't the nobility wear it? (Well, they did wear furs, of course, as coats and such.)

Okay, I think I see the problem. You're comparing outdoor life with a poor life in the city, where you are regularly sleeping with other people, have little or no chance to bathe or wash your clothes (and your clothes would probably disintegrate if you did wash them), and have rats and mice...