D&D 5E 5E economics -The Peasants are revolting!

[Ancalagon]

You know, you can use the "income/day" as a "spherical cow" and go quite far with it. Of course it won't bear super close scrutiny, but you can make it work

Reasonable rewards

So, a town of 3000 people has a trouble with brigands. They offer a reward... how much should it be? What is reasonable? Can we "figure i...

slugsandsilver.blogspot.com

 

[Zardnaar]

the poor unwashed masses are revolting, thats historically accurate especially as they didnt like bathing or swimming. Even in modern times lots of people still have to contend with daily violence, crime, and disease and depend on welfare for their sufficiency. thats why lots of people are working 2 jobs, eating one meal a day and living in ghettos.

peasant revolts are great plot fodder especially for PC landlords. Its the reason why lords host festivals (bread and circuses) and why the Manor was often charged more for food than the regular market price. Keeping peasants suffiently distractedhappy is what good Lords and Ladys do.

No bathing thing is over exaggerated.

The in game PC economy is more for "tourists".

People made their own clothes and grew their own food.

City dwellers less options but then as now you got paid more.

Even know a lot of people look down on relocating to a cheaper smaller town or city even if a mild pay cut is involved despite their quality of life would improve financially.

 

[schm0]

In all seriousness, that's a fine way to go if that's how you want your world to function. IMO, the PHB rules are meant to be player facing, meaning they're intended to be the costs that your average itinerant adventurer will encounter.

This is the most accurate comment in the thread. It should be apparent to anyone reading the Lifestyle Expenses section of the Equipment chapter that the second person POV is meant the player character, not for NPCs.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The adventurers need a better item, because in their adventures this could be broken too easily if they are too cheap and poor quality.

Now I wonder about gnomes using illusory magic for gastronomy, for example selling no-alcoholic juices, or meat from forbidden species.

Or to save the cost of salt, more expensive than gold in the old times, magic could create refigerators or coldchest for food preservation.

If constructs are possible, why not magitek motors? For example to extract water from a well.

 

[the Jester]

I just have to say that any attempt to impose reason or logic on D&D economics just might be doomed. A pitcher of wine costs a day's wages for an unskilled laborer. Even a tinderbox costs two and a half days' wages.

 

[Tonguez]

I just have to say that any attempt to impose reason or logic on D&D economics just might be doomed. A pitcher of wine costs a day's wages for an unskilled laborer. Even a tinderbox costs two and a half days' wages.

In 2024 its easy to find a bottle of wine for $120 = a days wage for unskilled laborer

 

[Storyteller Hero]

"2 silvers for this rubbish? I thumb my nose at thee, foul detester of decency."

 

[kigmatzomat]

You keep equating the adventurer's economy with the commoners. If you allow that wall to be broken down, it will give you a much more flexible view.

...
But the economics of commoners is not. Again, separate the adventurer's economics from the rest of your world and you won't have these inconsistencies.

What you write sounds like excusing poorly thought out material on the basis that either "no one can do perfect economic models so none need to be consistent" or "because it makes no sense when applied to NPCs it must not apply to NPCs".

The PHB & DMG say that PC classes, Monsters, and NPCs use different rules. It says the specific beats the general. It says nothing about different costs for players vs NPCs.

It says GMs can change things as they see fit and that no rule can cover every circumstance. It doesn't say "any time the rules conflict with flavor text, assume it only applies to PCs".

All in all, it seems like an extreme amount of mental gymnastics to avoid saying "that doesn't make sense, the mechanics and flavor text are internally inconsistent."

This is far from the most critical flaw in 5e. If we cannot evaluate it without attempting to rationalize it with unwritten rules, how can we ever discuss anything that is important?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Other point is to use magic style "speak with animals" as help to train animals. Then these could learn more tricks and understand more complex orders.

Some evil kingdoms could use undead as slaves, but constructs as workers shouldn't be too expensive. You only should worry about these be "hacked" by enemy spellcaster to start a machine rebellion against the humans.

Other fact is even ordinary citizens could be richer thanks the impact of the magic in the economy, the noble houses wouldn't want the merchant class became a too dangerous rival. Let's imagine the face of the king if this realises the equivalent to Petyr Baelysh has payed a group of artificier to create an army of magitek mechas.

Teletransportation could be used to send expensive but light products, for example a bottle of the best wine.

If you could use magic to produce salt, then the trade wouldn't be so necessary.

The mining industry could change radically if mining-explotations in the elemental earth plane was possible.

 

[kigmatzomat]

You know, you can use the "income/day" as a "spherical cow" and go quite far with it. Of course it won't bear super close scrutiny, but you can make it work

Reasonable rewards

So, a town of 3000 people has a trouble with brigands. They offer a reward... how much should it be? What is reasonable? Can we "figure i...

slugsandsilver.blogspot.com

I think the reason it jumped out at me is breaks the spherical-ness of the cow. Skilled workers earn 2x their daily expenses. That lets you round off a lot of pointy bits. Family, illness, holidays, etc can be weathered except by spend-thrifts, who can be plot points.

If unskilled got, say, 3sp/day they would have a small surplus, enough to hand-waive those other concerns away while also making them less secure than the wealthy. (Whether the poor should be more insecure is a discussion of degrees, not absolutes) The cow would still be round, but have less cushion.

I deeply suspect that the draft was more like 3sp/day but someone who likes round numbers and hates odd numbers & remainders made it 2sp so it divided evenly into a GP without leaving "change". 4sp is only slightly better than 3sp from that stand point and 5sp would be too much pay.