I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Yeah, but a wand doesn't have the same "I hide behind the hireling!" value....
Hiring NPCs
- Thread starter James McMurray
- Start date
James McMurray
First Post
what about equity?
Golden Eagle: The healing items don’t stand there with readied actions to help prevent your wife’s baby from dying in the womb, since you couldn’t talk her out of this particular endeavor. J I agree that 100gp is too little.
Tewligan: Are PCs the only people on the planet with a mercenary mindset? I find it hard to believe that no NPCs would be willing to risk themselves for pay. Your 1,000gp is a lot better than most people have suggested though.
candidus_cogitens: I do plan on having them negoatiate and use diplomacy. However, I’d like a baseline to start at. The bard has a +30 in diplomacy, so the odds are pretty good she’ll talk them down to half what they ask.
Agback: I agree that they’ll want at least what they can earn, but I think your estimates are a bit high. What are the odds that they would actually be able to cast their full allotment of spells for pay in a single day? I’d say slim to none. In fat, I would think that your average NPC caster gets maybe one spell per week for pay. Would you allow your party members to convert all of their spell slots to gold during downtime? What holds for party members must hold for NPCs. Consistency is one of the best parts of 3E.
Also, most 6-9th level clerics may not have even heard of True Resurrection, much less know to request it. I could see a raise dead being asked for, but a true Res? Do your PCs get to insist upon that when they hire on for a job? Again, there should be some parity between NPC wages and PC wages, otherwise noone would ever become a PC. Also, how does the NPC calculate how many xp he stands to lose when raised? For that matter, what the heck is an experience point or a level anyway? It isn’t as if the characters know what these things mean.
Do you allow your party members to demand a percentage of their personal wealth in pay as well. Insurance sounds fine and dandy, but it’s a bit silly to ask for don’t you think? Unless of course you plan to allow it for PCs later on. Anything these hirelings ask for that sounds good can be gauranteed to be asked for by the PCs later.
That isn’t calculated in with their spellcasting?
It only implies those incomes if you make the (faulty) assumption that people are clamoring at a spellcaster’s door allowing him to sell all of his slots every day.
Wouldn’t it be better to charge the party IF the scrolls and potion are used? I know I wouldn’t let a plumber come to my house and say, “Well, I may need to use up my screws and drano, so I’m going to go ahead and charge you 10% of what they’re worth. Would you?
---------
Kamikaze Midget: Do you allow your PCs to earn 1000gp per level when they get a job from the local KFQ? If not, how do you rationalize it? It would seem to me that the characters would realize they were getting shafted and begin to turn down the underpaid jobs. Which of course would mean your preparation is out the window, and could even sometimes result in no gaming that evening.
Buttercup: A wand is not useful is no one in the party can use it. The bard has several wands of her own to use if needbe, but if she is knocked unconcious, she can’t very well use it on herself. Also, any magic item does not have the ability to use itself, nor to ready an action.
Kamikaze Midget: The party is certainly not trying to “hide behind the hirelings” they just feel they don’t have enough muscle for this job. A bit more background:
It is one player on a side trek (my wife, who hasn’t been able to play regularly lately). Her Bard / True Artist and husband / cohort fighter have heard of a mine that needs help fending off a xorn. Of course, they don’t know it’s a xorn, but they have a description. She plans to go in with her husband and her 6th level warrior follower. However, she doesn’t want her follower to die, so she wants to hire a cleric to go with them. This cleric will preferably be a warrior type, capable of fighting and healing.
Her husband, knowing she is pregnant, but being unable to talk her out of it, also wants to hire a cleric. This cleric’s sole job will be to stand beside her and heal her if she gets hurt. They will both be hanging back towards the rear though, so the danger level should be comparably low.
The two charcters are being offered a choice between 20,000gp and a 5% share of the mine itself. If they take the 20 grand, a flat percentage fee for the hiring clerics will work great. However, if they take the 5%, it becomes a bit difficult to split easily and rapidly. Thus, I’m looking for ideas on how much to charge.
I’m leaning towards 400gp per level of the cleric, with that being negotiable down to 200gp / level with diplomacy.
Golden Eagle: The healing items don’t stand there with readied actions to help prevent your wife’s baby from dying in the womb, since you couldn’t talk her out of this particular endeavor. J I agree that 100gp is too little.
Tewligan: Are PCs the only people on the planet with a mercenary mindset? I find it hard to believe that no NPCs would be willing to risk themselves for pay. Your 1,000gp is a lot better than most people have suggested though.
candidus_cogitens: I do plan on having them negoatiate and use diplomacy. However, I’d like a baseline to start at. The bard has a +30 in diplomacy, so the odds are pretty good she’ll talk them down to half what they ask.
Agback: I agree that they’ll want at least what they can earn, but I think your estimates are a bit high. What are the odds that they would actually be able to cast their full allotment of spells for pay in a single day? I’d say slim to none. In fat, I would think that your average NPC caster gets maybe one spell per week for pay. Would you allow your party members to convert all of their spell slots to gold during downtime? What holds for party members must hold for NPCs. Consistency is one of the best parts of 3E.
Also, most 6-9th level clerics may not have even heard of True Resurrection, much less know to request it. I could see a raise dead being asked for, but a true Res? Do your PCs get to insist upon that when they hire on for a job? Again, there should be some parity between NPC wages and PC wages, otherwise noone would ever become a PC. Also, how does the NPC calculate how many xp he stands to lose when raised? For that matter, what the heck is an experience point or a level anyway? It isn’t as if the characters know what these things mean.
Do you allow your party members to demand a percentage of their personal wealth in pay as well. Insurance sounds fine and dandy, but it’s a bit silly to ask for don’t you think? Unless of course you plan to allow it for PCs later on. Anything these hirelings ask for that sounds good can be gauranteed to be asked for by the PCs later.
That isn’t calculated in with their spellcasting?
It only implies those incomes if you make the (faulty) assumption that people are clamoring at a spellcaster’s door allowing him to sell all of his slots every day.
Wouldn’t it be better to charge the party IF the scrolls and potion are used? I know I wouldn’t let a plumber come to my house and say, “Well, I may need to use up my screws and drano, so I’m going to go ahead and charge you 10% of what they’re worth. Would you?
---------
Kamikaze Midget: Do you allow your PCs to earn 1000gp per level when they get a job from the local KFQ? If not, how do you rationalize it? It would seem to me that the characters would realize they were getting shafted and begin to turn down the underpaid jobs. Which of course would mean your preparation is out the window, and could even sometimes result in no gaming that evening.
Buttercup: A wand is not useful is no one in the party can use it. The bard has several wands of her own to use if needbe, but if she is knocked unconcious, she can’t very well use it on herself. Also, any magic item does not have the ability to use itself, nor to ready an action.
Kamikaze Midget: The party is certainly not trying to “hide behind the hirelings” they just feel they don’t have enough muscle for this job. A bit more background:
It is one player on a side trek (my wife, who hasn’t been able to play regularly lately). Her Bard / True Artist and husband / cohort fighter have heard of a mine that needs help fending off a xorn. Of course, they don’t know it’s a xorn, but they have a description. She plans to go in with her husband and her 6th level warrior follower. However, she doesn’t want her follower to die, so she wants to hire a cleric to go with them. This cleric will preferably be a warrior type, capable of fighting and healing.
Her husband, knowing she is pregnant, but being unable to talk her out of it, also wants to hire a cleric. This cleric’s sole job will be to stand beside her and heal her if she gets hurt. They will both be hanging back towards the rear though, so the danger level should be comparably low.
The two charcters are being offered a choice between 20,000gp and a 5% share of the mine itself. If they take the 20 grand, a flat percentage fee for the hiring clerics will work great. However, if they take the 5%, it becomes a bit difficult to split easily and rapidly. Thus, I’m looking for ideas on how much to charge.
I’m leaning towards 400gp per level of the cleric, with that being negotiable down to 200gp / level with diplomacy.
candidus_cogitens
Explorer
I think you are right, McMurray, to remind us that there is a supply and demand effect to be considered. (We're assuming, of course, that there are no special conditions, such as a particularly generous cleric who doesnt care about making profit for his services--which is a possibility, but its a separate consideration.)
It is not realistic that a cleric who stays in town would be able to cast his full repertoire of spells every day, one spell at a time. If he were, then market forces would encourage other spellcasters to come in to snatch up a share of the market. In other words, there would be competition. The only reason there would NOT be competition would be if other suppliers found it more profitable to go adventuring as hirelings. But that would not be the case, because if it were so profitable to go out as a hireling, this would eventually drive up the price for buying spellcasting services in town as well. That is, the market would have to make it profitable for a cleric to cast spells in town, or else he would pack up and move off.
So normal market forces would probably make it equally profitable to stay in town and to go out as a hireling. In other words, if a cleric wants to be hired to accompany adventurers, it is because he is NOT able to earn his full potential if he stays in town selling his services one spell at a time.
The profitability of working as a hireling will be in direct correspondence to the profitability of adventuring with a hireling. In other words, adventurers will not hire hirelings unless it is going to turn out to be profitable for them to do so.
As a rule of thumb then, a hireling should generally be compensated in an amount reflecting a roughly equal portion of the net treasure that the party gains adventuring. If he wants to be paid at a flat rate, rather than by percentage, then as a DM I'd estimate how much you expect the party to gain, divide it by the total number of adventurers and hirelings, and use that quotient as your basic guideline, to be adjusted by circumstances such as his attitude toward the PCs, his attitude toward risk, etc.
It is not realistic that a cleric who stays in town would be able to cast his full repertoire of spells every day, one spell at a time. If he were, then market forces would encourage other spellcasters to come in to snatch up a share of the market. In other words, there would be competition. The only reason there would NOT be competition would be if other suppliers found it more profitable to go adventuring as hirelings. But that would not be the case, because if it were so profitable to go out as a hireling, this would eventually drive up the price for buying spellcasting services in town as well. That is, the market would have to make it profitable for a cleric to cast spells in town, or else he would pack up and move off.
So normal market forces would probably make it equally profitable to stay in town and to go out as a hireling. In other words, if a cleric wants to be hired to accompany adventurers, it is because he is NOT able to earn his full potential if he stays in town selling his services one spell at a time.
The profitability of working as a hireling will be in direct correspondence to the profitability of adventuring with a hireling. In other words, adventurers will not hire hirelings unless it is going to turn out to be profitable for them to do so.
As a rule of thumb then, a hireling should generally be compensated in an amount reflecting a roughly equal portion of the net treasure that the party gains adventuring. If he wants to be paid at a flat rate, rather than by percentage, then as a DM I'd estimate how much you expect the party to gain, divide it by the total number of adventurers and hirelings, and use that quotient as your basic guideline, to be adjusted by circumstances such as his attitude toward the PCs, his attitude toward risk, etc.
Last edited:
James McMurray
First Post
The problem with using the expected gains to generate a flat rate is that it entails giving the NPC information he does not have. Say for instance I decide taht the party will earn 20,000gp from their dealings with the mine. going by this, and the fact taht there are 5 people going in, each NPC would expect a 4,000gp share. Sounds well and good.
However, later on the party finds another job. I estimate that they can expect to earn 40,000gp this time. Do the people they went to previously suddenly double their asking price without an in-game reason?
What I am looking for is a rate per level where PCs can be expected to be able to hire on better than average support (i.e. PC-classe individuals). Is 2,000gp a valid amount of pay fora single adventure? 4,000?
With what I know about the mercenary business (all of it learned form Hollywood of course), very few hired hands actually get a full share of the profits. Grunts, medical personel, cannon fodder, etc. are generally paid based on their expertise in the field, not the expected value of the job. Of course, if they later find out that their pay is a drop in the bucket of the rewards, they may balk and request more.
How does the 400gp / level sound? What about a minimum of 200gp / level based on diplomacy? Note that this is for a single battle in a single day. If the party later wishes to hire people on for longer, they will need to pay more. I would probably double it if the hirelings were to be involved in an entire adventure. Also, does that rate sound good for all classes hired? What I'm looking for is a simple system that can be used for every hireling of every available level.
However, later on the party finds another job. I estimate that they can expect to earn 40,000gp this time. Do the people they went to previously suddenly double their asking price without an in-game reason?
What I am looking for is a rate per level where PCs can be expected to be able to hire on better than average support (i.e. PC-classe individuals). Is 2,000gp a valid amount of pay fora single adventure? 4,000?
With what I know about the mercenary business (all of it learned form Hollywood of course), very few hired hands actually get a full share of the profits. Grunts, medical personel, cannon fodder, etc. are generally paid based on their expertise in the field, not the expected value of the job. Of course, if they later find out that their pay is a drop in the bucket of the rewards, they may balk and request more.
How does the 400gp / level sound? What about a minimum of 200gp / level based on diplomacy? Note that this is for a single battle in a single day. If the party later wishes to hire people on for longer, they will need to pay more. I would probably double it if the hirelings were to be involved in an entire adventure. Also, does that rate sound good for all classes hired? What I'm looking for is a simple system that can be used for every hireling of every available level.
James McMurray
First Post
Because an equal share is not always the best way to handle these things. Granted, there are times when the share will be worth quite a bit, but there are also times when a flat fee will be better. There are most likely many adventurer types willing to sign on in both capacities, and I would like to figure out what that flat fee should be.
Think of it like lawyers: there are some who will work for a percentage of your winnings, and some that will work for an hourly rate. In many cases, the hourly workers make out better, because they are guaranteed a certain amount of pay. Those working on a percentage basis will most likely only take on cases they have a great chance of winning.
In this instance though, the winnings for the case are a percentage of a mine's profits. Unless the cleric being hired is interested in that sort of thing, and wants to take the risks involved in an unknown venture, he's more likely going to demand payment up front.
Think of it like lawyers: there are some who will work for a percentage of your winnings, and some that will work for an hourly rate. In many cases, the hourly workers make out better, because they are guaranteed a certain amount of pay. Those working on a percentage basis will most likely only take on cases they have a great chance of winning.
In this instance though, the winnings for the case are a percentage of a mine's profits. Unless the cleric being hired is interested in that sort of thing, and wants to take the risks involved in an unknown venture, he's more likely going to demand payment up front.
candidus_cogitens
Explorer
I see your reasoning, McMurray. I see now that my supply/demand analysis is only part of the picture. This is a quite complicated question. Among the other issues are: how are "adventurers" regarded in your story world? Is treasure something that people in the story world regard as fairly commonplace, or is it to be considered truly an exceptional boon attained only by great heros? In my (revised) opinion, it is reasonable to pay hirelings substantially less than an equal portion of the treasure, because treasure should be regarded as something highly unexpected by most NPCs. Players may come to view piles of gold and gems as commonplace, but this should not be the case for the ordinary inhabitants of the world.
Here's another issue to consider: how precious is magic? I just read the section in the DM Guide, and was startled to observe the discrepancy between the amount suggested for a days wages for a second level warrior (6 sp!!), and the amount suggested for the payment of spellcasters (10 gp for a single spell of first level, cast by a first-level cleric or wizard).
Magic is precious and muscle, cheap. Although its not just muscle that is so cheap ... brainpower can be bought for a mere two gp/day.
There is a certain logic to this, if you think about it. From a meta-gaming perspective, we tend to regard a third level fighter and a third level cleric as being roughly equal in their level of ability in their respective areas of expertise. But at the story level, depending on your campaign world, perhaps it is only a quite exceptional fighter or rogue that distinguishes himself from the dime-a-dozen mercenary or thief. Mages, on the other hand, perhaps are more unusual.
On the other hand, the DMG guidelines are probably not reliable. According to what it says for "merenary leader," you could hire a tenth-level warrior for a mere 30 sp per day. Ridiculous! Even if you want to go with the idea that magic is more precious than muscle, you would certainly want to adjust that wage rate significantly.
But let's say we're talking about truly elite fighters (like PCs, or close to it). They might be able to command a sum equal to that of a mage. So, this brings us back to McMurray's original question: what would be a good flat rate for really talented NPC hirelings?
I would say 400 gp per day is too much for low level hirelings, and too little for higher levels. 10 gp per day should be enough for even a pretty talented first-level NPC (with a PC class). But at higher levels, one might question whether an NPC would even be willing to hire on at a flat rate, since they have enough experience to know that you wouldn't be hiring them if you didn't have your eye on a pretty hefty sack of treasure. Here's a chart I would propose:
Level Daily Wage
1 . . . . . . . . 10
2 . . . . . . . . 40
3 . . . . . . . . 90
4 . . . . . . . . 160
5 . . . . . . . . 250+
6 . . . . . . . . 360+
7 . . . . unlikely to be available for hire at a flat rate
These numbers are somewhat based on the rate a spellcaster could demand for casting two or three of his most powerful spells (according to the DMG guidelines). But basically, its just an arbitrary proposal for what seems reasonable, IMHO. Also, keep in mind that extreme danger (or anything else that would make an NPC begin to feel that he wasnt being treated fairly) might warrant up to double these amounts.
Here's another issue to consider: how precious is magic? I just read the section in the DM Guide, and was startled to observe the discrepancy between the amount suggested for a days wages for a second level warrior (6 sp!!), and the amount suggested for the payment of spellcasters (10 gp for a single spell of first level, cast by a first-level cleric or wizard).
Magic is precious and muscle, cheap. Although its not just muscle that is so cheap ... brainpower can be bought for a mere two gp/day.
There is a certain logic to this, if you think about it. From a meta-gaming perspective, we tend to regard a third level fighter and a third level cleric as being roughly equal in their level of ability in their respective areas of expertise. But at the story level, depending on your campaign world, perhaps it is only a quite exceptional fighter or rogue that distinguishes himself from the dime-a-dozen mercenary or thief. Mages, on the other hand, perhaps are more unusual.
On the other hand, the DMG guidelines are probably not reliable. According to what it says for "merenary leader," you could hire a tenth-level warrior for a mere 30 sp per day. Ridiculous! Even if you want to go with the idea that magic is more precious than muscle, you would certainly want to adjust that wage rate significantly.
But let's say we're talking about truly elite fighters (like PCs, or close to it). They might be able to command a sum equal to that of a mage. So, this brings us back to McMurray's original question: what would be a good flat rate for really talented NPC hirelings?
I would say 400 gp per day is too much for low level hirelings, and too little for higher levels. 10 gp per day should be enough for even a pretty talented first-level NPC (with a PC class). But at higher levels, one might question whether an NPC would even be willing to hire on at a flat rate, since they have enough experience to know that you wouldn't be hiring them if you didn't have your eye on a pretty hefty sack of treasure. Here's a chart I would propose:
Level Daily Wage
1 . . . . . . . . 10
2 . . . . . . . . 40
3 . . . . . . . . 90
4 . . . . . . . . 160
5 . . . . . . . . 250+
6 . . . . . . . . 360+
7 . . . . unlikely to be available for hire at a flat rate
These numbers are somewhat based on the rate a spellcaster could demand for casting two or three of his most powerful spells (according to the DMG guidelines). But basically, its just an arbitrary proposal for what seems reasonable, IMHO. Also, keep in mind that extreme danger (or anything else that would make an NPC begin to feel that he wasnt being treated fairly) might warrant up to double these amounts.
James McMurray
First Post
I like your sliding scale idea, definitely better than my linear one. I think I will allow higher level characters to be hired (assuming they can be found). Perhaps at 7th is when the 400gp / level kicks in, up to 11th, where it jumps to 700gp / level? That means you could (theoreticaly) hire 20th level help for a very short excursion, but it would cost you 14,000gp. Not too shabby for a day's work.
Re: what about equity?
Okay, let's think this through. What do retailers do when their stock isn't shifting? They cut their mark-up. They hold clearance sales.
What is a spell-caster going to do when he finds that he is only selling a tiny proportion of the spells he has available? Won't he cut his price to compete for business? And won't his competitors match his price cut? And won't the number of spell-casting paid for increase as the price goes down?
What is the equilibrium? That depends on the number of spellcasters in the market. But if there is more than a handful, and unless there is a cartel, the equilibrium will come either at the point where any further price cut will eliminate all profit or where a further price cut cannot increase volume (ie. at the point where spellcasters sell off all their slots.)
Yes, provided that they undertake the efforts that are necessary to get in touch with their customers (which basically means keeping in contact with a broker). But you must be aware that I have completely re-worked the cost tables for my campaign, and that money is much, much scarcer in my worlds than in those consistent with the PHB and DMG.
I don't expect you to follow my lead, but be aware that by sticking with PHB prices you are implying a world with a grossly inconsistent economy.
That's why I considered the True Resurrection as a method of calculating the lower bound on danger money, but also calculated the higher value that you get from assuming the use of Raise Dead instead.
I agree, which is why I think there is a problem in the 3E rules for the cost of spellcasting services.
Presumably he does it the same way as when he is setting the price for casting a spell or creating an item that requires that he expend experience points.
If they provide their own equipment, they ought to get more pay than naked rivals. But in practice PCs in my campaigns rarely work for hire.
Not at all. NPCs are no more likely than PCs to engage for 'hire' in activities that will tend to cost more than they bring in.
When a plumber calls at my house he charges me a fee that covers his insurance costs, amortisation of his truck and tools etc., as well as his wages. It isn't itemised in the bill, but the price I pay covers insurance premiums, fuel, and amortisation as well as wages. If it didn't, plumbers would go broke. Now a plumber's insurance premiums include a component that is proportional to the value of his truck and tools, and I pay (through his service fee) a contribution proportional to that value and the probability that they will be lost, stolen, or damaged while he is working for me.
Nope. When you ask a cleric to go off on a day's adventuring you are asking him not only to cast off all his spells, but also to give up the opportunity to read, prepare sermons, preach bring comfort to the sick, carry out non-spell-based services, discharge duties, perform chores, and take part in any other use of his time. Clerics can do more in a day than just cast off their spells.
I don't agree that the assumption is faulty. It seems to me (and I am an economist by profession) as though the equilibrium in the market for spell effects must be that price that clears the market. The short-run supply curve for spell effects under D&D is a vertical line at the number of slots per day the spellcasters in the business get to discharge. (Ie. supply of spell effects is perfectly inelastic in the short run.) And the competitive equilibrium is the price at which the demand curve intersects that vertical line.
If you want to assert that the market doesn't clear, that a substantial proportion of the spell effects available are not used, you have to assume some sort of price restraint or output restraint, which is imposing a strong assumption on the world. By far the most usual thing we find is that an unregulated market will clear. It is not (IMPO) a faulty assumption to make that the market for spell effects is like any other.
If the cleric can trust the party not to get wiped out, not to be bankrupted, and not to cheat him, and if the party is less risk-averse than the cleric, yes. Otherwise count on paying up front.
That is effectively what I do whenever I buy an item with a warranty or free service. The price of the item includes the expected cost of parts and labour used in performing the scheduled services and any repairs under warranty. My car, fridge, dishwasher, cooktop, oven, TV, computer, VCR, stereo, lawnmower, mixing machine, food processor, and doubtless several other items came at prices that were set by people who figured "I may have to use components and pay labour servicing this puppy for the first year, or repairing it if it breaks down under warranty. I'd better make sure that my mark-up will cover the expected cost."
Regards,
Agback
James McMurray said:
Okay, let's think this through. What do retailers do when their stock isn't shifting? They cut their mark-up. They hold clearance sales.
What is a spell-caster going to do when he finds that he is only selling a tiny proportion of the spells he has available? Won't he cut his price to compete for business? And won't his competitors match his price cut? And won't the number of spell-casting paid for increase as the price goes down?
What is the equilibrium? That depends on the number of spellcasters in the market. But if there is more than a handful, and unless there is a cartel, the equilibrium will come either at the point where any further price cut will eliminate all profit or where a further price cut cannot increase volume (ie. at the point where spellcasters sell off all their slots.)
Yes, provided that they undertake the efforts that are necessary to get in touch with their customers (which basically means keeping in contact with a broker). But you must be aware that I have completely re-worked the cost tables for my campaign, and that money is much, much scarcer in my worlds than in those consistent with the PHB and DMG.
I don't expect you to follow my lead, but be aware that by sticking with PHB prices you are implying a world with a grossly inconsistent economy.
That's why I considered the True Resurrection as a method of calculating the lower bound on danger money, but also calculated the higher value that you get from assuming the use of Raise Dead instead.
I agree, which is why I think there is a problem in the 3E rules for the cost of spellcasting services.
Presumably he does it the same way as when he is setting the price for casting a spell or creating an item that requires that he expend experience points.
If they provide their own equipment, they ought to get more pay than naked rivals. But in practice PCs in my campaigns rarely work for hire.
Not at all. NPCs are no more likely than PCs to engage for 'hire' in activities that will tend to cost more than they bring in.
When a plumber calls at my house he charges me a fee that covers his insurance costs, amortisation of his truck and tools etc., as well as his wages. It isn't itemised in the bill, but the price I pay covers insurance premiums, fuel, and amortisation as well as wages. If it didn't, plumbers would go broke. Now a plumber's insurance premiums include a component that is proportional to the value of his truck and tools, and I pay (through his service fee) a contribution proportional to that value and the probability that they will be lost, stolen, or damaged while he is working for me.
Nope. When you ask a cleric to go off on a day's adventuring you are asking him not only to cast off all his spells, but also to give up the opportunity to read, prepare sermons, preach bring comfort to the sick, carry out non-spell-based services, discharge duties, perform chores, and take part in any other use of his time. Clerics can do more in a day than just cast off their spells.
I don't agree that the assumption is faulty. It seems to me (and I am an economist by profession) as though the equilibrium in the market for spell effects must be that price that clears the market. The short-run supply curve for spell effects under D&D is a vertical line at the number of slots per day the spellcasters in the business get to discharge. (Ie. supply of spell effects is perfectly inelastic in the short run.) And the competitive equilibrium is the price at which the demand curve intersects that vertical line.
If you want to assert that the market doesn't clear, that a substantial proportion of the spell effects available are not used, you have to assume some sort of price restraint or output restraint, which is imposing a strong assumption on the world. By far the most usual thing we find is that an unregulated market will clear. It is not (IMPO) a faulty assumption to make that the market for spell effects is like any other.
If the cleric can trust the party not to get wiped out, not to be bankrupted, and not to cheat him, and if the party is less risk-averse than the cleric, yes. Otherwise count on paying up front.
That is effectively what I do whenever I buy an item with a warranty or free service. The price of the item includes the expected cost of parts and labour used in performing the scheduled services and any repairs under warranty. My car, fridge, dishwasher, cooktop, oven, TV, computer, VCR, stereo, lawnmower, mixing machine, food processor, and doubtless several other items came at prices that were set by people who figured "I may have to use components and pay labour servicing this puppy for the first year, or repairing it if it breaks down under warranty. I'd better make sure that my mark-up will cover the expected cost."
Regards,
Agback
candidus_cogitens said:
If there is some other place with a glut of spellcasters, yes.
And then? One of the spellcasters would lower his price 5% and get all of the business. And the others would cut their prices to compete. And with the prices falling the number of spells sold would go up. And this would keep happening until the spellcasters could not sell any more spell effects. Then they'd stop cutting their prices. And that is the point where professional spellcasters would be selling virtually all of their daily slots.
You're talking about economic equilibrium. Do you think that occurs at the point where somebody's plant grinds out 24 widgets a day at a trivial cost, and he only sells one a week becasue his price is too high to shift more? In a monopoly maybe. Under any sort of competition, not a hope.
In a large town the highest-level cleric is typically 6th-7th level (DMG, p139). Say it's 6th. That suggests 1 6th, 1 5th, 1 4th, 2 3rd, 3 2nd, and 6 1st-level. They can cast a total of 53 orisons, 47 first-level spells, 17 2nd-level spells, and 7 3rd-level spells per day. That's 124 spells per day, or 868 spells per week between the fourteen of them.
Let's just look at the market for 1st-level spells, say Cure Light Wounds. (And I sincerely hope that there are more useful spells for clerics who act as curates rather than combatants than are listed in the PHB!) Let's start out supposeing that each of the fourteen clerics gets to sell a casting of this spell once per week, or in other words that the spell is cast for pay on average twice a day.
Under these assumptions the spell-casting income a a single 1st-level cleric is 10 gp per week. But if he cut his price for Cure Light Wounds to 9 gp instead of 10 everyone would come to him to save the considerable sum of 1 gp. He would cast the spell twice per day, and make 126 gp per week instead of 10 gp. Do you think he won't do it?
So now one of his rivals cuts her price from 10 gp to 8gp, and raises her income from 0 to 112 gp per week. Soon the price is 5 gp. And now that healing is cheaper poorer people buy it, and the demand is (perhaps) 28 castings per week (I am assuming unitary own-price elasticity of demand, but the argument works just as well for any positive, non-zero elasticity). Each cleric now casts it twice per week, and earns 10 gp per week. Still there is the incentive to chisel the price: a 1st-level cleric can sweep up all the business by cutting his price to 4 gp and raising his income to 112 gp. The price keeps falling until the people buy 47 Cure Light Wounds spells per day. At that point no cleric can increase his sales by cutting his price because he is selling all the spells he can cast. Perhaps the price is 4 sp.
But we are told that the price does not fall. Something keeps it at 100 sp instead of 4 sp. What could do that?
1) A cartel could do that. But is a cartel likely to include all the rival churches? Wouldn't one chisel the price to earn money and public goodwill?
2) Divine disapproval could do that. But what CG healing god is going to disapprove of cheap heaing for the masses? And the divine-disapproval argument doesn't cut the mustard in the market for arcane magic.
3) The fact that the market actually clears, that nearly all 47 1st-level spells per day are sold and cast at the stated price could do that.
So. You are free to ignore the problem. (I choose not to, because I am an economist and it bugs me, but if you aren't in the habit of analysing things economically it need not bug you). But if you do that, be aware that you will have problems finding a robust and settled answer to any question involving the incomes or wages of spellcasters, the commonness of magic, etc. That need not be serious, since you are free to ignore those problems too.
Otherwise, you can suppose that there is a powerful wizards' cartel that regulates the price of arcane magic and that for some strange reason the own-price elasticity of demand for all such magic is below unity; AND that all the gods for some or various reasons wish to either keep up the price or keep down the quantity used of divine magic.
Or you can suppose that the market actually clears at the stated price.
The first approach means inconsistency. The second forces an assumption that special features exist in the world. The third is the simplest, but it suggests collosal incomes for spellcasters.
Regards,
Agback
Last edited:
Similar Threads
