Economics & Small Urban Settings

[taliesin15]

GP Limit, if I recall correctly, refers to the most expensive item in the books that a PC may be able to find in a thorpe. So your not going to find warhorses, plate mail, etc.. in a thorpe, but you may find clothing, tools, simpler weapons and armors, but nothing over 40 GP is likely, unless the DM decides otherwise.
So there is no direct relation between over all community wealth and "GP Limit".

The most expensive item for sale, and also relates to how much available coin there is in that community.

However, that question comes immediately to mind when calculating the wealth (in terms of "NPC Gear Value") of the entire community of this 44 adult person Thorp--41,100 gp worth of gear? Now, if not one item of the gear is worth more than 40 gp (irregardless of the question of whether or not items are for sale), that would imply that none of the 7 Rangers in the Thorp I created have LongBows, Chain Shirts or any kind of horse. All pretty common items amongst low level Rangers.

While that's absurd enough, the assumption that all items are of small value would imply the Thorp is full of worthless junk. And 900 gp worth of worthless junk per Commoner is practically a landfill's worth of useless junk. I'm not saying there should be no junkman/Fred Sanford types in a D&D milieu, but the idea that such a state is endemic to an entire community boggles the mind. Seems to me a balance is needed, and its another case where the DM has to set things right.

 

[taliesin15]

I guess I'd always thought of that NPC Wealth By Level table as only applying to adventuring NPC's.

right, well, that's what I used to assume, but I was looking closer at that section of the DMG and I don't see where such a distinction is made. Also, its just a few pages after the NPC Classes of Adept, Aristocrat, Expert, Commoner and Warrior is described. If they meant to do it differently, why didn't they do something along the lines of "Suggested Starting Gear" or "NPC Class Gear Value Per Level"? As it is, all one has to go by is in fact the table "NPC Gear Value." And, let's just say that for argument's sake (and reality's) that most 1st lvl Commoners are dirt poor (few having assets exceeding say 30-40 gp, and at most a dozen coppers and a few silvers on hand), still, there's enough wealth in most small urban communities to make them tempting targets, and the "GP Limit" thing needs to be addressed/clarified. I can't imagine nobody even in a Thorp having a horse, Long Bow or Armor worth more than 40gp.

 

[Treebore]

The most expensive item for sale, and also relates to how much available coin there is in that community.

However, that question comes immediately to mind when calculating the wealth (in terms of "NPC Gear Value") of the entire community of this 44 adult person Thorp--41,100 gp worth of gear? Now, if not one item of the gear is worth more than 40 gp (irregardless of the question of whether or not items are for sale), that would imply that none of the 7 Rangers in the Thorp I created have LongBows, Chain Shirts or any kind of horse. All pretty common items amongst low level Rangers.

While that's absurd enough, the assumption that all items are of small value would imply the Thorp is full of worthless junk. And 900 gp worth of worthless junk per Commoner is practically a landfill's worth of useless junk. I'm not saying there should be no junkman/Fred Sanford types in a D&D milieu, but the idea that such a state is endemic to an entire community boggles the mind. Seems to me a balance is needed, and its another case where the DM has to set things right.

The 40 GP is just a guideline where 40 GP items and below may be readily available. Plus like you posted in your prior post to this, what an adventurer would consider junk, is necessary for their livlihood to a farmer. So they may have a 150 GP wagon, but are they going to sell it? Probably not, especially if they need it to haul their harvest to the buyers in a week.

They may have a full suit of serviceable chainmail, but are they going to sell it rather than keep it for emergencies?

So this is an area that was still left pretty wide open for a DM to make some decisions beyond what the rules tell you.

Heck, I even bought Magical Medievel Society: Western Europe, Silk Road, and Gary Gygax World Builder books. They help me solidify a lot of ideas, helped me to build worlds, nations, cities, and even farms, and even work out a good bit of the economic questions, but even they didn't take care of everything, or help me create a completely realistic economic system in a world of magic where lead CAN be turned into gold.

Going with what makes sense will get you the closest. The biggest thing all those books did, other than give me a methodical structure with which to consider and design everything, was to give me a much better idea of what "sensible" would be.

Now to go back to your "looting 41,000 gold from a thorpe" scenario.

Why wouldn't they loot all of the 41,000 GP? It depends. If they have plenty of time, plenty of men, and plenty of wagons, yes, they could loot the whole 41,000 GP. Usually, they are worried about patrols of well armed and armored men coming along. Nor do they usually stick to the roads, so carrying stuff by wagon is out. Plus wagons are much slower than just riding a horse, so if pursuit is a concern wagons are still out.

So unless these thorpes are out in undefended, unpatrolled areas, where they would have plenty of time to gather up the 41,000 GP worth of loot, and take it by the wagon load, they are only going to "snatch and grap". Which means they go for the easiest to carry highest value items they can find.

So your scenario sounds like they are on borderlands, where there are no patrols, there is no law other than that of your sword. So yes, there would be people looting these thorpes and building up a sizeable fortune doing it.

 

[taliesin15]

The 40 GP is just a guideline where 40 GP items and below may be readily available. Plus like you posted in your prior post to this, what an adventurer would consider junk, is necessary for their livlihood to a farmer. So they may have a 150 GP wagon, but are they going to sell it? Probably not, especially if they need it to haul their harvest to the buyers in a week. They may have a full suit of serviceable chainmail, but are they going to sell it rather than keep it for emergencies?

Why wouldn't they loot all of the 41,000 GP? It depends. If they have plenty of time, plenty of men, and plenty of wagons, yes, they could loot the whole 41,000 GP. Usually, they are worried about patrols of well armed and armored men coming along. Nor do they usually stick to the roads, so carrying stuff by wagon is out. Plus wagons are much slower than just riding a horse, so if pursuit is a concern wagons are still out.

We have two questions here--one is the 40 gp limit--I think we're all agreed on that one pretty much--no items worth more than 40 gp is for sale, but it would not make sense that there are no items in a Thorp worth more than 40 gp ("state of the art" plows, carts, anvils, horses, chainmail, longbows, etc)--the other question I think you're side-stepping a bit here is the one of the 900 gp for 1st lvl NPCs--on that I think we do have a consensus that is doesn't make sense for 1st lvl Commoners, Monks, maybe Rogues, Paladins (on the one hand, they tend not to be avaricious, on the other, they have nice gear), probably not realistic for your average 1st lvl Adepts, Experts, Warriors and Barbarians as well.

As to whether an organized party can make this happen or not, what about a mid-level party, including a Cleric who can Animate Dead, a Rogue who can infiltrate the Thorp and insinuate herself with the highest lvl/strongest NPC in the area and slip poison in his drink while she seduces him, the Fighters in the party picks off the next strongest Warrior types a few at a time, and then the Wizard casts a few Sleep spells (those get their throats cut), and then the party slips away carrying the loot using enough Tenser's Floating Discs (memorized and put on scrolls), while the party Ranger covers the rear, erasing tracks as they quietly escape to a rendezvous point well away from prying eyes.

As to patrols, the evil party in question surely would have scouted for patrols in the area. Patrols surely can't be everywhere, and while hitting targets on the borderland sounds good, those tend to be more fortified--there are plenty of Thorps well inside most Kingdoms, and these are not so much on their guard, nor are patrols as worried about them. A smart party would try to mix up their targets. Selling the goods would be easy if they already have the ability (and bought skill points) to pass as a Merchant.

 

[gizmo33]

I think the best way of handling this is to try to use the tools that you already have for balancing challenge ratings and treasure awards. A thorpe full of commoners can really be thought of as a set of encounter areas, and the treasures value that PCs can get for taking them down can be the same as that for monsters of that same EL.

That's for portable treasure. For bulky property value, and plows and stuff, I'd estimate. Perhaps assign about 5 gp per farmer, 15 gp per craftsmen, and maybe up to 40 gp for millers and smiths. Assume 1/2 a cart load per 50 gp maybe - for example a smith might have sacks of charcoal, some iron blooms, hammers, files, and the anvil. Social history books might have this info - or you can just skip the details and say "40 gp worth of tools and materials".

5gp may not sound like alot, but iron is only 1 sp/lb and wood is cheaper - so I think 5 gp can get you alot of farmer tools. A number of peasant families in a thorpe can be said to share a plow and team of oxen between them (I believe that would be historical).

41,000 gp for a thorp sounds crazy to me. That's like a kobold in a dungeon having 41,000 gp. Something stronger would have come along and taken it. In civilized areas, count the EL for likely patrols when figuring the wealth of the thorpe. That way the overall treasure level for bandit PCs is going to be commensurate with the challenge - which is actually the simulationist logic for a dungeon treasure award anyway.

These are just average numbers. As a DM I always consider the possibility that there is perhaps an lightly guarded temple with a lot of treasure gained in a recent donation. PCs who wander about, attacking thorps at random will probably just get the average result. Some gather info might reveal which temple is the especially rich one. Then again, there is always the identity of the rich temple's patron to consider - so perhaps you really can't escape from the treasure=EL model.

 

[taliesin15]

gizmo writes:

the best way of handling this is to try to use the tools that you already have for balancing challenge ratings and treasure awards. A thorpe full of commoners can really be thought of as a set of encounter areas, and the treasures value that PCs can get for taking them down can be the same as that for monsters of that same EL.

This is one reason I thought the whole thing looked out of balance--especially in comparison with kobolds in a lair, or a goblin/orc/hobgoblin settlement--one thing, though, doesn't it seem kind of odd that on the one hand, most of the humanoids in their tribes/settlements will have some sort of arms and armor, whereas 91% of the people in human (or presumably demi-human) settlements are *unarmed* 1st lvl Commoners?!? Now does that make sense?

In a campaign last year, the 3rd lvl PC party had wreaked havoc in dungeon crawling with hobgoblins, then wrote graffiti boasting, saying who they were in the Common tongue. The remaining hobgoblin tribe soon attacked the nearest human settlement, a poorly armed farming hamlet (not where the adventurers were staying, mind you)--fortunately many of those in the hamlet made it to the ditch-surrounded hill fort in time, but not before many humans were killed, kidnapped, much of the livestock stoled, and many of their homes burned before the war beacons summoned the nearest of the King's patrol, some miles away.

5gp may not sound like alot, but iron is only 1 sp/lb and wood is cheaper - so I think 5 gp can get you alot of farmer tools. A number of peasant families in a thorpe can be said to share a plow and team of oxen between them (I believe that would be historical).

For perspective, how much is an ounce of gold in present times $600? An ounce of silver is somewhere around $10. I doubt very much that the average commoner farmer/rancher would have more than 5gp worth of silver and copper on hand, much less 900 gp. It does seem like a problem in the DMG. OTOH, if 91% of those in Thorps (and there are hundreds of them in most kingdoms--far too many for a patrol to always be close enough--maybe within 10 miles at best) are completely unarmed (little or no armor makes more sense), they would make for very easy targets. Seems to me most commoners would have at least a Sickle, Club and/or a Hand Axe. And Slings would be cheap and common enough too.

And despite my example of a hamlet with a small ditch ringed fort, it doesn't seem like most small settlements would have any kind of defense, other than say guard dogs/geese, or maybe bordering hedges. If these people are dirt poor, who's going to pay for fortifications?

41,000 gp for a thorp sounds crazy to me. That's like a kobold in a dungeon having 41,000 gp. Something stronger would have come along and taken it.

Absolutely agreed. However, in my sample Thorp, you still have 3 Experts, one 3rd level, the other 2 1st. One 3rd lvl Bard, 2 1st; one 1st lvl Cleric. One 4th lvl Ranger, 2 2nd, 4 1st lvl. One 2nd lvl Rogue, 2 1st lvl. Let's say its arguable that 1st lvl Experts have 900 gp worth of gear, and 3rd lvl Experts might not have 2500gp worth of gear. Can you really argue that much about the rest? That's still 16,100 gp worth of gear!

PCs who wander about, attacking thorps at random will probably just get the average result.

Well, PCs that go around attacking anything at random probably deserve what they get. I had an idea once of having the PCs discover a Goblin Gold mining operation, only to find out way too late that it was pyrite, or Fool's Gold...

 

[gizmo33]

whereas 91% of the people in human (or presumably demi-human) settlements are *unarmed* 1st lvl Commoners?!? Now does that make sense?

"Commoners" don't need to be unarmed. In fact, the "commoners" that I know IRL are certainly armed. I guess it depends on your campaign world. Commoners have plenty of reason to be involved in violence - fights between each other, protecting themselves from bandits (or doing a little light banditry themselves, etc.) What commoners are probably missing is some organization, leadership, and motivation - but those are present at times as well (during revolution, for example).

but not before many humans were killed, kidnapped, much of the livestock stoled, and many of their homes burned before the war beacons summoned the nearest of the King's patrol, some miles away.

The historical feudal system dispersed military power so that the "king's patrol" was not the first and last line in local defense. Again, it depends on how you want to organize your campaign world, but there are other options that I would think a realm would utilize if it were located in a violent borderland region. People aren't going to sit around and wait to get killed by orcs that they know live nearby. In fact, you could steal a page from history and design your region so that the richest commoners are *required* to own arms and armor and turn out for the common defense.

For perspective, how much is an ounce of gold in present times $600. An ounce of silver is somewhere around $10.

In DnD, the value of gold to silver is 10:1. The value of silver is that a silver piece is worth 1 day of labor from a "common laborer". The value of a pound of grain is 1 cp. If you really wanted to dig into real world prices, I'd look at historical values with the above figures in mind.

I doubt very much that the average commoner farmer/rancher would have more than 5gp worth of silver and copper on hand, much less 900 gp.

I think it's possible that they do have more than 5 gp - depends on your campaign world. A single cow is worth 10 gp. For the sake of game balance though, I'd stick with the "treasure=EL" model, and make all other wealth in the form of bulky, lower-valued items. I was just reading a historian who was saying that the picture of how much cash and medieval peasant had on hand is somewhat confused - court records and such seem to show peasants with an ability to generate surprising sums of cash in short periods of time. In any case, rather than get into the complexities of something historical, I think a balance between what the peasants have, and the goblins have (who got what they have possibly by stealing it from those same peasants) is achieved with the EL=treasure system.

It does seem like a problem in the DMG. OTOH, if 91% of those in Thorps (and there are hundreds of them in most kingdoms--far too many for a patrol to always be close enough--maybe within 10 miles at best) are completely unarmed (little or no armor makes more sense), they would make for very easy targets. Seems to me most commoners would have at least a Sickle, Club and/or a Hand Axe. And Slings would be cheap and common enough too.

A "patrol" dispatched by some centralized authority is not nearly the only source of protection that regions possibly have. There could be cloisters of warrior monks, groves of druids, citizen militias, veteran yeoman fighters, ranger companies, etc. People in violent areas would arm themselves as much as possible, just like in lawless real world areas. Anyone who wants to keep peasants unarmed is going to have to be armed and present themselves in order to enforce that.

And despite my example of a hamlet with a small ditch ringed fort, it doesn't seem like most small settlements would have any kind of defense, other than say guard dogs/geese, or maybe bordering hedges. If these people are dirt poor, who's going to pay for fortifications?

But why are the peasants dirt poor? If some overlord is taking all the surplus wealth from those people then it's going to be in his interest to make sure that they aren't all killed. In a violent borderland region, it's going to be in everyone's interest to not get killed, and someone will have the resources to mount an effective defense - something certainly commensurate with whatever the orcs have managed to do. I think that peasants have the resources to dig a ditch and build a pallisade around their village unless someone tells them not to.

 

[taliesin15]

Gizmo writes:

"Commoners" don't need to be unarmed.

D'accord. I was referring here to an earlier suggestion that Commoners don't generally have gear (like arms and armor) that adventurers could easily carry off and sell (or possibly use themselves); many would be like Fred Sanford the junkman (from the old 1970s tv show Sanford & Son for those of you younguns). I was arguing earlier that Commoners indeed would have at least some kind of arms, likely ones being Clubs, Staffs, Sickles, Slings, also probably Whips and Spears. In my milieu, Long and Short Bows are *very* common, and I houserule that they be regarded as Simple weapons, thus, many commoners would have bows. Further, it makes sense to me that a large number of even 1st lvl Commoners would have Leather, Padded or Hide Armor.

The most salient question here is what kind of wealth does a (mainly human) Commoner have? So since it seems absurd that most Humanoids in their lairs are armed and have armor, it seems entirely ridiculous that 91% of humans (and demi-humans) would be bereft of arms. Thus, logic dictates (in most campaigns I would suggest) that even 1st lvl Commoners should have some "NPC Gear Value," although maybe 900 gp worth might be a stretch.


Gizmo writes:

The historical feudal system dispersed military power so that the "king's patrol" was not the first and last line in local defense. Again, it depends on how you want to organize your campaign world, but there are other options that I would think a realm would utilize if it were located in a violent borderland region. QUOTE]

Certainly, settlements in known violent borderland areas are going to be fewer and better defended--FWIW, the large Kingdom I am fleshing out has one particularly dangerous border region, and all the settlements are close by major fortresses. The other border regions are reasonably peaceful, though a few border regions where the odd party of Gnolls or couple of hooligan Hill Giants might happen along.

I think though the point is that Patrols can't be everywhere, and as you can't make your home or apartment 100% safe today, not every settlement is totally secure. For one thing, there's quite a bit of trade throughout this Kingdom, thus there's a certain amount of openess. Many small settlements aren't within an hour's horse-ride to a castle, and not every thorp, hamlet and village is going to be on a raised elevation with ditches surrounding it--most, in fact, if you look back in history, developed organically, oh here's where there's good land for grazing or farming, and a water source nearby. Since there are thousands (or hundreds in smaller ones) of small settlement in most Kingdoms, wouldn't you say most of these would be modestly defended? For the most part, IMC, villagers and the like are worried about wolves stealing their sheep, and the main defense is natural alarm systems, i.e. dogs and geese posted nearby, and maybe rows of hedges.


gizmo writes:

In DnD, the value of gold to silver is 10:1. The value of silver is that a silver piece is worth 1 day of labor from a "common laborer". The value of a pound of grain is 1 cp. If you really wanted to dig into real world prices, I'd look at historical values with the above figures in mind.

Right, well, I was trying to give people a tangible real contemporary world perspective on the value of gold and silver--I think many people tend to think a silver piece would be worth a quarter rather than $10. A tenth of $10 is $1, and I would think that a dollar for a pound of grain (oats or barley) sounds about right. And, btw, historical values I think have little do with certain traditional D&D assumptions--has gold always been worth ten times the value of silver? Clearly not--their values have fluctuated wildly through history. More the point was how much silver and gold is worth today--thus, going back to my original argument that it seems a bit strange that 1st lvl Commoners have 900 gp worth of "NPC Gear Value".


gizmo writes:

I think it's possible that they do have more than 5 gp - depends on your campaign world. A single cow is worth 10 gp. For the sake of game balance though, I'd stick with the "treasure=EL" model, and make all other wealth in the form of bulky, lower-valued items.

I agree with you here--however, I would say that many 1st lvl Commoners would logically be dirt poor--in a large town I have where one of the major industries involves quarrying, there's a large number of porters and ditch diggers about, essentially unskilled laborers, who spend most of their hard earned cash getting drunk every night, thus they never save up very much. I think it is entirely realistic that any settlement is going to have a significant number of people like this.

On the other hand, I can easily see that there could be 1st lvl Commoners who indeed have 900 gp worth of "NPC Gear Value"--I would suggest the average is somewhere in between, probably in the 200-300 gp range. I would further suggest that at least 2/3 of their "Gear" is worth taking...


gizmo writes:

There could be cloisters of warrior monks, groves of druids, citizen militias, veteran yeoman fighters, ranger companies, etc. People in violent areas would arm themselves as much as possible, just like in lawless real world areas.

OK--here's you've set up a conundrum. In most Kingdoms, there's going to be thousands of small settlements. In smaller ones, hundreds. Things like cloisters of warrior monks, ranger companies, etc. need money, just as creating a simple fenced/raised hill fort with ditches surrounded it, just as patrols cost money. Who exactly is going to pay for it? Surely, no King is going to have enough cash to create hundreds of such enclaves of monks, druids, rangers, etc. to protect the thousands of small settlements spread out over hundreds & thousands of square miles? If the peasants in the small settlements are paying them, why wouldn't they arm themselves more robustly first, then maybe build defenses next, before calling in some mercenaries? Especially when most of the Kingdom is fairly peaceful? When most of the raids from the Slaver Kingdoms happen in the Far Eastern Marches which are robustly fortified and guarded?

That's part of the point I started with--most small settlements as described in the DMG are by their nature not that well-defended--also, by nature, they don't have that much money, but on the other hand, to suggest that 91% of the populace is unarmed, and has no defense whatsoever, seems wrong-headed.


gizmo writes:

But why are the peasants dirt poor?

I would say it is a pretty provable historical fact in most lands through history that majority of peasants were (and are) in fact dirt poor. As to why, this is a vastly complex question--but I'll sum it up pithily here. Usually it happens because an area becomes overpopulated, too many mouths to feed provides a strain on resources, often causing disease, famine, and violent strife.


gizmo writes:

I think that peasants have the resources to dig a ditch and build a pallisade around their village unless someone tells them not to.

Sure, many peasants do so, and there are many small settlements that will do this. However, many, many do not. I would suggest that most have no such defense at all, mainly because there's relatively little danger, and the road nearby might be a highway between larger settlements, thus a decent conduit for regional trade, and the hamlet or village or whatever makes a bit of money selling ale to travelers or putting them up at night. Many of these small settlements would be small clearings along a forest road, say, or a collection of farms and ranchers along a stream that feeds into a major river downstream. Nobody in most such settlements has seen an Orc in their lifetime, they are mainly worried about wolves and wildcats and the like. Their few local sheriffs are more worried about mischievous young boys throwing apples at carts passing through the Thorp or drunks fighting at the Tavern at night. All this makes most small settlements inviting targets.

 

[gizmo33]

Since there are thousands (or hundreds in smaller ones) of small settlement in most Kingdoms, wouldn't you say most of these would be modestly defended?

Yes, this could be a huge subject though. I'd point you in the direction of a book on social and economic history for Medieval Europe. The problem IMO with what people think they know about the Middle Ages is not always based on historical fact. Poverty, disease, famine, etc. certainly existed but the levels/severity and such, which would be pertinent to the discussion, are debateable. I tend to find actual historians of the picture describe a much more variable and nuanced situation than what popular culture presumes.

In terms of what sort of defensive infrastructure (arms, armor, and fortifications) a peasant community could generate - one could always do a "back of the envelope" calculation. There are actually a number of game systems - Pendragon, Harn, Chivalry and Sorcery - that purport to be somewhat based on researched fact that give some examples. Basically, as you design the society, AFAICT you can decide how much concentration of military power you want in the hands of a feudal aristocracy.

In a traditional feudal environment, a few hundred villagers would be expected to support a knight, his warhorse, a fortified manor house, the knight's heavy armor and weapons, a few other armed relatives/retainers, and some local yeoman very proficient with bows and owning quality horses. This gives a basic estimate for the surpluses available from the labor and agriculture goods of the peasants. You could assign a gp value to this surplus, and instead figure out how much of a ranger company or school of wizardry could be supported at the same level of effort.

I agree with your assessment of $10=1sp to be as good as anything, better than a quarter. Modern production methods, labor laws, and such make it difficult to do too many comparisons though. I'm not surprised that people who regularly play DnD would think a sp is equivalent to $.25 though, I wouldn't have much of a sense of modern economy from playing a game based on James Bond. (And, as I alluded to, a rigorous comparison would be complicated)

Historical records are available from peasants who had their goods confiscated by lords, and from those you can get a general idea of the kinds of goods that people owned at the time. Based on that, I'd say 200-300 gp per peasant household (and that's 5 peasants including women and children) would be a very high figure. It would probably be easiest to divide peasants into their historical classes, generalized as cottar, half-villein, villein, and farmer/yeoman and asssign weapons, armor, and wealth accordingly. Only the upper 10% would have anything beyond a club, spear, or cheap sword (equiv. to DnD spear) for armaments.

In a fantasy setting, there is also the possiblity of friendly monsters in the area. Foo lions, brownies, gold dragons in invisible castles, watchful ki-rin in the clouds, etc. are all possible defenders of peasant communities. This is especially appropriate if the villagers are subject to depradations by roving bands of evil high-level wizards. In fact, though I've concentrated mainly on historical generalizations, a DnD setting can (and probably should) go in some very interesting un-historical directions on this subject.

 

[Treebore]

I think looking at 900 GP as being "middle class" might work, because there are definitely a lot of people who are much poorer than that. Heck, first level adventurers start with a max of what? 250 gold?

So a farmer who owns his home and say 20 acres of land is the typical middle class commoner farmer.

Now what would a commoner have in a town or city?

Plus maybe taking into account that in the "old days" of our real world the middle class was a very small percentage of the population, and bout 80% were the lower class/poor.

So about 80% of your general population outside of cities are "poor" (middle class was a city phenomenon, not a countryside thing). Figure poor earn maybe 20 gold per year, per family. After all taxes and expenses before food, clothing, etc... 900 GP would be for the few small land owners, and then it would go up from there for the major land holders. Hugely go up according to Magical Medievel Societies: Western Europe. Since he read a lot of resources I'll accept the results of his work. I sure don't want to do all the research necessary to work up an even more realistic system. Besides, how can you when lead can be turned into gold?

Anyways, I think using these basic assumptions you may come up with something more satisfactory.

BTW, you do know that floating disks can carry only 100 pounds per caster level, are only 3 feet in diameter, and can only travel the mages "normal" speed per round? Plus I would say having more than one in effect would cause a lot of problems. Especially since they would want to maintain the exact same distance and location with respect to the caster unless they are concentrated upon.

So I don't see the disks carrying off huge piles of plows, furniture, tools, etc...

Plus you see why farmers have lots of dogs. I have 5 myself.