How much money does the avarage commoner need?

alsih2o said:
"masterwork" firearms surely do :D

I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but by the reasoning given, a 'masterwork' firearm would actually cost $32,000. And I'm quite sure that's not the case. But really, it's neither here nor there to try to compare D&D prices with modern-day prices.

However, I personally don't like campaigns so gritty that travelling peasants have to sleep in filth-encrusted sewer-drains because they can't afford the 2sp to room in the giant, smelly greatroom of a beer-stained, foul and run-down inn. The inns could be making money (better than none) simply by lowering the price.

If we are going to base the basic D&D campaign off of Tolkien's Middle-Earth, I don't think he would have it that way either.

If the society were anything resembling capitalism, common laborers (assuming they make up the majority of all people, and include farmers) would earn more than 1 sp/day. There would still be a huge disparity of wealth between the rich and the 'middle-class' just as there is in our own world; but how an innkeeper (of a "poor" or "squalid" inn no less) would be able to earn more money by charging 2-days wages than something more appropriate is beyond me.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wolfen Priest said:


I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but by the reasoning given, a 'masterwork' firearm would actually cost $32,000. And I'm quite sure that's not the case. But really, it's neither here nor there to try to compare D&D prices with modern-day prices.

However, I personally don't like campaigns so gritty that travelling peasants have to sleep in filth-encrusted sewer-drains because they can't afford the 2sp to room in the giant, smelly greatroom of a beer-stained, foul and run-down inn. The inns could be making money (better than none) simply by lowering the price.

If we are going to base the basic D&D campaign off of Tolkien's Middle-Earth, I don't think he would have it that way either.

If the society were anything resembling capitalism, common laborers (assuming they make up the majority of all people, and include farmers) would earn more than 1 sp/day. There would still be a huge disparity of wealth between the rich and the 'middle-class' just as there is in our own world; but how an innkeeper (of a "poor" or "squalid" inn no less) would be able to earn more money by charging 2-days wages than something more appropriate is beyond me.

I agree that an Inn needs to be affordable by its clientele, but the 1sp/day labourer will be sleeping for free in his employer's kitchen or barn, not at an Inn. An Inn will need to charge its common-room rate so that eg peddlers, drovers, mercenary caravan guards and so on can afford to sleep there, if that's who the potential clientele are. If the Inn functions as a boarding-house (which isn't the DMG assumption) then prices for long-term residents will need to be less than wages, probably 2/3 the clientele's daily wage. 2sp/day doesn't seem unaffordable for a farmer & son driving their sheep to market, say. In the real world, hotel prices are often higher than daily wages - $30 motels may still be common in parts of the USA but you'd be hard pressed to get a room for £20 in the UK. £40 would be more likely - rather more than an unskilled worker's net daily wage.
 
Last edited:

AHA! I managed to dig up the old thread on D&D economics.

Here's some extracts:

Col_Pladoh said:
It is really my fault...

The original systems in D&D and AD&D were developed for the PC adventurer, done without reference to the economics of the various societies.

Of course the chaps redesigning 2E should have picked that up and solved the problem--done rather easily.
[he then goes on to plug his own LA game system]

Cheerio,
Gary

KarinsDad said:
I used to be bothered by this quite a bit.

But, although there are some items which are out of line with my expectations of what costs should be, they are few and far between.

My real problem lies with the wages that various hirelings get. So, I multiplied all wages by 5 in my game.

I use a 1 CP = $1 ratio and compare costs to real world equivalents (i.e. a horse is not a horse, it's a car or motorcycle since it provides transportation).

When NPC wages get multiplied by 5, the 1 SP guy only gets paid $50 a day (with my ratio). But, $50 a day makes a lot more sense to me than $10 a day.

This guy only makes $10K a year, but he is at the bottom of the totem pole and had better have roommates. :)

The yearly equivalent wages then become:

$100,000 Alchemist
$15,000 Animal tender/groom
$50,000 Architect/engineer
$100,000 Barrister
$40,000 Clerk
$10,000 Cook
$40,000 Entertainer/performer
$10,000 Laborer
$60,000 Limner
$10,000 Maid
$30,000 Mason/craftsman
$20,000 Mercenary
$40,000 Mercenary horseman
$60,000 Mercenary Leader
$10,000 Porter
$200,000 Sage
$30,000 Scribe
$40,000 Smith
$30,000 Teamster
$20,000 Valet/lackey

Are these real accurate? Probably not. But, most of them are in the $20,000 to $40,000 wages that a lot of people make in the real world (in the U.S).

So, this makes sense for me and my players since all of us live in the U.S.

The day laborer is paid the worse, but at 5 SP per day, he can still go into a bar and afford an ale at 4 CP once or twice a day.

This has resolved most of my problems with it and at least made it such that your typical workers can afford to be seen in the tavern or inn without saying that item costs are 2 to 10 times greater for adventurers (i.e. they see the tourists coming syndrome where any smart adventurer would give a local a SP to go buy a backpack at 5 SP instead of the adventurer's 2 GP price). YMMV.
 
Last edited:

Green Knight said:
Well, this is the Commoner skill list: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Jump, Listen, Profession, Ride, Spot, Swim, and Use Rope. No Diplomacy, Perform, or Wilderness Lore. Besides, why would they need Diplomacy, anyway? And maybe some Commoners would have Perform cross-class, but the average Commoner? I very much doubt the average Commoner is a thespian, too.

I would expect commoners to need diplomacy for the same reason that adventurers do: to make friends and influence people. There will certainly be many commoners who don't take ranks in diplomacy, but there will also be commoners who have learned that getting a good price at the market requires skillful negotiating and that getting the town fathers to enforce their ordinances sometimes requires rhetoric. I think that diplomacy would be quite a common skill among commoners--it touches them where they live their lives.

I would say the same thing for perform. The life of a commoner requires lots of work but when he's not working he will want to be able to do something. It's not as if commoners have televisions and most probably don't benefit from the presence of bards regularly. So, a lot will have a crossclass skill in perform (storytelling). That kind of thing is quite common in cultures that live primarily without the written word. If you want to have commoners who are like the hobbits in LotR, a fair number will probably have perform (dance) too. After all, what will villagers do on a fair day or a free day? Sing, dance, tell stories, etc.

I disagree, though, that it's an unreasonable thing to assume, that they'd max out ranks in something like Craft or Profession. Hell, I think it's unreasonable to assume they WOULDN'T put max ranks into a skill like Profession or Craft. Their livelihood depends on how well they do their job, whatever that is. So why wouldn't they put 4 ranks into it? (They get 2 skill points per level, btw. 8 at first level) They've got very limited options for income, otherwise. Not like they go delving into dungeons searching for lost treasures, or anything. Those skills are pretty much the ONLY way they make any money. So why wouldn't they max it out?

You might think that of people in real life too, but many people if not most do well enough to get by but don't excel. If two ranks or profession is enough to survive, you'll have a large group of people with two ranks of profession. Many people--especially young people--prioritize their friends and hobbies above what they actually do for a living. Most people here, for instance, would probably spend the money to fly to Gen Con before they'd spend the same amount of money to fly to a professional seminar. Similarly, the majority of students don't spend all their time studying--in fact many if not most actually allow their leisure activities to interfere with their studies. I think this would be true of D&D commoners as well.

If you're a human, then you can take 2 feats. Skill Focus and something else. Besides, most of those feats are combat related. I hardly think the typical Commoner has Dodge (Prerequisite for that is Dex 13, and the average Commoner doesn't have a Dex 13), or Alertness (BTW: The Militia Feat from Forgotten Realms is only available in 4 regions, so even there it's hardly common. So I very much doubt that the typical Commoner even in the Realms has that Feat).

Well, first I'm not certain that the typical commoner can't expect to engage in combat at some point in his life. D&D takes place in pretty dangerous worlds. I would think alertness to be very helpful for a commoner whether it is used to notice a pickpocket before the pickpocket steals his meager market day money or to notice the orc tribe moving towards his farm. Endurance and run I can see being useful to represent the natural talent of certain individuals--I don't imagine those are feats they choose per se.

And while I don't think the typical commoner has dodge, simple weapon proficiency, or armor proficiencies, I can see significant numbers of commoners having these proficiencies. (Dex 13+ is achievable on 5 point buy and most commoners have something more like 15 point buy stats. I don't think it's uncommon for commoners to have a 13 in one stat and an 8 or 9 in another instead of straight 10s and 11s). The world they live in is dangerous. There are orcs, bandits, wolves, and wars as well as the fist fights and bar fights that are even now common in young peoples' lives. In many lands, I doubt that people would travel to a neighboring village without a weapon. (Note that even in Roman times, a sword was considered a common travel accessory for defense against bandits, etc and the Roman world was much more civilized than most D&D settings). And feats like dodge could help people earn acclaim in the village's quarterstaff duels at the fair.

As for militia, I think that's an excellent feat and most male commoners in areas where it's available would probably have it. In non Forgotten Realms games, I think it's the kind of feat that ought to be available to commoners in any kind of rough or frontier nation.

Again, their livelihood depends on their Profession. So of course, I disagree that Skill Focus would more likely be put towards any of the above over Skill Focus in Profession or Craft. For instance, Bluff. Why would the average Commoner need to be a practiced liar? Why would the average Commoner need to be able to negotiate peace treaties? Why does the average Commoner need to be a good musician? Not saying there aren't any. But I'm talking about the average guy. The rank and file Commoner. And when it comes to the average Commoner, they're most likely to use a Feat on something like Skill Focus (Profession/Craft) to improve their skills in their job which'll net them more money to feed and clothe their families with, rather than on something which won't have much of any impact on their lives (And the average Commoner doesn't need to have any talent in performance arts).

As for bluff, I imagine that the average commoner would start lying the moment his mother asked who took the cookies or which of a group of siblings started a fight. Some people would learn to be honest and others would learn to lie well. I'm sure that many commoners would find such skill useful (even at cross-class+skill focus levels) when the Lord's men came around collecting taxes. ("Yep, that's all I brought in this year. Bad harvest. . . .")

Diplomacy isn't necessarily about negotiating peace treaties either. If one poor Russian peasant wants to marry his daughter off to a rich butcher (like in Fiddler on the Roof), you can bet your bottom dollar he'll try to negotiate a good bride price. Similarly, you can expect that when the village elder wants to present the peoples' concerns to the king's magistrate, he'll want to be diplomatic about it too.

As for musicians, nobody's saying they're very good. Two ranks however might make the commoner a few silver in the village tavern that only sees a real bard once every year or so. Two ranks and skill focus might be enough for him to spend a while travelling, singing for his supper until he finds a place to settle down. Or those two ranks could be used to be good at dancing and impress the other villagers at the fair and to tell entertaining stories to children at their bedtime.

I guess the point I'm making is that there is no such thing as an average commoner. There are only many individual commoners who have some things in common (almost always two or more ranks in profession) but vary wildly in others. Some are honest craftsmen, some are skilled but lazy, some are womanizers, some are swindlers, some are smooth-talkers, some are leaders in the village militia, some mediate disputes between villagers, some are matchmakers, and some are dumb but diligent.

I'd say it does make even more difference, as you need to make as much money as you can, so that after the Feudal Lord takes out his chunk of change, you got enough left to feed your family (BTW: The Profession skill isn't restricted to farming. Here's the list from the skill description: Apothecary, Boater, Bookkeeper, Brewer, Cook, Driver, Farmer, Fisher, Guide, Herbalist, Herdsman, Innkeeper, Lumberjack, Miller, Miner, Porter, Rancher, Sailor, Scribe, Siege Engineer, Stablehand, Tanner, Teamster, Woodcutter, etc). And speaking as someone who grew up in a household where every penny counted, trust me. When you're poor, and you have the opportunity to scratch out a little bit of extra cash, you take it. Even if it's only a miniscule amount. And you don't waste time on non-essentials when you've got other priorities. When things got tight when I was little my parents didn't decide to spend less on food, or conserve electricity or water to save money. What got cut were my guitar lessons, as they were an unnecessary luxury.

What I'm maintaining though is that commoners can get by with two or three ranks of profession. When things weren't tight, and there was enough money to take them, you did take guitar lessons (maybe enough for one rank, maybe not). You didn't get sent off to business school. Once people have their necessities taken care of, they tend to get things that they consider luxuries. So, if two ranks is usually enough to provide for necessities, many people will take two ranks for necessities and spend the others on luxuries.

Being respected around town or being good with the ladies doesn't put food on ones' table. Again, I'm not saying you WON'T find Commoners like that. Just that the majority wouldn't take stuff like that. And besides, in a town where everyone has Skill Focus (Swim), a particularly talented swimmer wouldn't really stick out all that much. Now put a guy with Skill Focus (Swim) in a town where the majority of the folk have Skill Focus (Profession) then he DOES stick out.

He also stands out in a community where 50% of the people took skill focus profession, the village elder took skill focus (diplomacy and sense motive), Old Ned took skill focus (Animal Handling) ("Yeah, Ned can't grow cabbage to save his life but he's pretty good with the horses. If he'd just apply himself to farming a bit more, he could probably afford to buy his own horse instead of just helping out whenever mine needs shoeing"). The innkeeper's wife took skill focus: Heal ("Old Betty's the one to go to if your baby has the cholic"), the blacksmith's son is a layabout and doesn't apply himself to anything except that darn fiddle (skill focus: perform and one rank of craft blacksmith), Joseph is always smoothing out fights between the other boys (skill focus: diplomacy), little Bo-Peep manages to see the wolves coming before they get her sheep (alertness, skill focus:spot), Hans is the best cobbler for miles (max ranks craft: cobbler, skill focus Craft Cobbler) Rand is a pretty good shot with the bow (point blank shot, martial weapon:longbow, and two ranks of wilderness lore), and Farmer John always seems to come out ahead in any deal he makes (skill focus: diplomacy and bluff).

You get 8 skill points at 1st level. That leaves 4 skill points to put into whatever you like after you put 4 ranks into Craft/Profession. So I don't see why the average Commoner can't put 4 ranks into a Profession or Craft skill, when he's still got 4 skill points left over to stick into whatever else they like.

Actually, if he's human, the commoner gets 12. It's still not enough to be good at everything but he can be OK at a lot of things. However, I don't think that it's necessary to assume that every commoner puts 4 ranks into thte relevant profession or craft skill. If you assume that a typical commoner puts three ranks in, you can simulate dedicated craftsmen (max ranks) and inherently skilled ones (skill focus) without increasing peoples' level or intelligence artificially. That way, the comments about Old Ned not paying enough attention to her crops or Betty's inability to sew actually have a game mechanical meaning. So does Hans's unusual dedication and skill.

Here's a problem. Why's a Commoner wasting money on studded leather armor, large shield, or a morning star? Commoners aren't adventurers. The average Commoner won't be spending his money on weapons and armor (He gets one Simple Weapon Proficiency, so he'll probably buy one that's cheap, like the half-spear, or get the club which is free. But that's about it). He'll be spending it on getting a home of some sort. Buying the tools he needs to do his job. Supporting his wife and children, which may very well be many. Buying cattle or sheep rather than riding horses. Hell, he may even be saving up so that he can invest in a bigger business, later (Anyone ever read the book "The Good Earth"? Personally, I think the guy from that book, forget his name, would be a high-level Commoner in D&D terms).

I think that's probably true. In a frontier situation, every commoner would probably have weapons and armor. In most situations though, it would probably be something more like a half-spear. Wise and dedicated people would be likely to do all the things you mentioned as well. However, most people are neither wise nor dedicated. Many if not most commoners would probably spend the money on alcohol and prostitutes, gifts for women who didn't care about them, fancy clothes, or a trip to the city.

Again, as I said, I'm talking about the generic Commoner. There're probably Commoners who do take skills like Diplomacy (Probably someone who's considered a village leader) or Perform. But the AVERAGE guy has no use for skills like that.

Note: My posts are strictly in the realm of D&D. I'm not talking about real-world economics, I'm not interested in talking about real-world economics. Just talking about what are the likelihoods in a D&D world.

Again, I might agree with you on the average commoner but I don't think there is such a thing. There are only individual commoners, many of whom will be wise (but may not be particularly skilled) and many of whom will be foolish. Many of them will be dedicated and many of them will be lazy. Many will accept their lot in life but some will dream of more (oblivious to the fact that they lack the skills or attributes to really make it as a bard, warrior, knight, etc). So, while many commoners will be as you describe, I don't think that the odds are better than 50% that any particular commoner would have the skill setup that you describe. I don't think that more than 20% would combine the high profession skill with skill focus.
 
Last edited:

Green Knight said:


Well, this is the Commoner skill list: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Jump, Listen, Profession, Ride, Spot, Swim, and Use Rope. No Diplomacy, Perform, or Wilderness Lore. Besides, why would they need Diplomacy, anyway? And maybe some Commoners would have Perform cross-class, but the average Commoner? I very much doubt the average Commoner is a thespian, too.

I disagree, though, that it's an unreasonable thing to assume, that they'd max out ranks in something like Craft or Profession. Hell, I think it's unreasonable to assume they WOULDN'T put max ranks into a skill like Profession or Craft. Their livelihood depends on how well they do their job, whatever that is. So why wouldn't they put 4 ranks into it? (They get 2 skill points per level, btw. 8 at first level) They've got very limited options for income, otherwise. Not like they go delving into dungeons searching for lost treasures, or anything. Those skills are pretty much the ONLY way they make any money. So why wouldn't they max it out?

And when it comes to the average Commoner, they're most likely to use a Feat on something like Skill Focus (Profession/Craft) to improve their skills in their job which'll net them more money to feed and clothe their families with, rather than on something which won't have much of any impact on their lives (And the average Commoner doesn't need to have any talent in performance arts).

When things got tight when I was little my parents didn't decide to spend less on food, or conserve electricity or water to save money. What got cut were my guitar lessons, as they were an unnecessary luxury.

Being respected around town or being good with the ladies doesn't put food on ones' table. Again, I'm not saying you WON'T find Commoners like that. Just that the majority wouldn't take stuff like that. And besides, in a town where everyone has Skill Focus (Swim), a particularly talented swimmer wouldn't really stick out all that much. Now put a guy with Skill Focus (Swim) in a town where the majority of the folk have Skill Focus (Profession) then he DOES stick out.

You get 8 skill points at 1st level. That leaves 4 skill points to put into whatever you like after you put 4 ranks into Craft/Profession. So I don't see why the average Commoner can't put 4 ranks into a Profession or Craft skill, when he's still got 4 skill points left over to stick into whatever else they like.

Again, as I said, I'm talking about the generic Commoner. There're probably Commoners who do take skills like Diplomacy (Probably someone who's considered a village leader) or Perform. But the AVERAGE guy has no use for skills like that.

Note: My posts are strictly in the realm of D&D. I'm not talking about real-world economics, I'm not interested in talking about real-world economics. Just talking about what are the likelihoods in a D&D world.

To address a lot of various stuff you posted....

just because a skill is cross-classed doesn't mean commoners wont have it. diplomacy, and bluff will come in very useful for barganing.. and as you said that is directly related to putting food on the table. a penny saved is a penny earned and all that... :)

music skills (perform) would also be prevalent. music has always been a great relief to poor people. every society has musicians and very few of them are paid enough to support themselves.

also, within the game only, the choices used for these skills (craft and profession) were again designed for PC use. Anyone with 1 point and average stats would generate 10 gp a week on average. This is of course assuming they spend a week digently working. But how many bookbinders, butcher, basketweavers etc is needed in a community?

The basic assumption behind the revenue generative ability of these skills is that the society has a demand enough for an individual to perform a week of dedicated work. In order for that assumption to hold true you need masses of those who barely survive.

Its a mechanic designed for PC use. Not a mechanic designed for NPC use.

joe b.
 

I think the 1 sp a day applies to human commoners and more hobbit-ish halflings, along with some half-elves. Dwarves, as craftsman and skilled at hard labor, could make more then that easily. Elves, with their many talents and 110 years of training, could easily get a job as a performer, mercenary, or if you use a lodoss variety of elf, town spellcaster in human lands, and in elven lands the magic of the elves living there makes it not difficult at all to support yourself. Gnomes I have no clue about. Half-Orcs make excellent mercenaries, as well as pretty good thugs. Kenderish halflings make money the way any adventurer does.(And true kender need not support themselves, as food finds their way to the pouch, or the jailguards feed them.) Meadow Sprite-ish halflings also travel a great deal, and can make good money as storytellers and performers, along with the occaisonal mage.
 

Economic malaise

Boy oh boy. There's just a ton of things to talk about in this one, but I have to dash for work in mere minutes, meaning that this'll be painfully brief. Sad.

On the topic of salary, and the reading of a CP as a $1, and of the five-times salary, that works well ... if you want to represent the most prosperous nation in history, at the height of it's power, in a modern world where only 3 people in a hundred are needed to farm and technology has made most of society's ills null and void.

D&D isn't meant to be the painfully crushing days of the Black Plague, true, but a time period between the Plague and teh following Renaissance (Brought about by everyone being DEAD, a new appreciation for life, and monetary means being reallocated) is close to on the ball. So what was this time like?

The average teenager didn't hang out with his friends, get a nightly ale at a tavern, and get into fistfights. By fifteen, he'd had at least one child, and was given a section of the farm to run on his own, or started a brand new one not far away. He was an adult, one of a half dozen or more living siblings, all the boys of which worked on the farm, the girls doing minor house chores, sewing, cooking, cleaning, and so on. Each home was self-sustaining, and could sometimes manage a trip into town (On foot) for a rare slurge on things like fabric for a new dress or new nails, rather than having to pull out, restraighten, and reuse old ones. In areas that were larger, there would usually be a travelling store which visited once a month, with rare items like iron pots, sugar, or other goods which simply weren't made at the house. Cloth, again, was a big seller, as were spices, and plates, glasses, and other glasswares.

At this economic stage, which is out of teh true crushing poverty times, one child could possibly be allowed to leave, once the grandchildren had turned two or three and were old enough to work six hour days, to go to the city and learn a craft or a trade. Cities looked impressive, but eight out of ten people were farmers, until technology took off. D&D seems to be closer to a six in ten ratio, which implies quite a lot of advancement in agriculture.

The topic of inns and travelling will be adressed when I get back. :)

See yuo in a few hours!

-- Welcome back Potter
 

Look, I know some of us have impressive understandings of history and medieval economics. We are gamer geeks for crying out loud. We've consumed 1000's of pages on the subject, and we probably could model manorial economies right down to the number of cords of wood that have to be cut per year per person given a certain average yearly temperature and the presence of iron plows.

But that would be entirely missing the point. If we did that, we'd have to rewrite 30% of the game or better. Not that you can't or shouldn't (I'm inclinced to), but you should start blithely tossing out that the average daily wage was in Burgundy in 1349, or how many bushels of seed could be yeilded per acre by a farmer with oxen and a broadcast method of planting UNLESS you state flatly that you are indeed rewriting 30% of the rules to take into account the more realistic economic system for the period technology you believe exist.

Because simply stating defacto that the average wage for unskilled laborers is 1 s.p. and that commoners don't have profession skills (never mind that the profession skill is broken as written, but that is a topic for another day) is going to get you into a world of gaming hurt if you don't arrange the whole rest of the economic system to account for it.

For example, lets say that you do believe that the average yearly buying power of a peasant is 18 g.p. per annum minus 6 g.p. of taxes (and effective taxes like corvey, fees, etc.) because you decide to use the much more realistic 1:20 gold to silver ratio that held through much of history. Well, you are then going to have to figure out how the farmer gets by on the equivalent 'wages' (of grain and so forth) on 12 g.p. a year given the prices listed in every published product I've seen (Most of which were assigned according to utility not according to the ammount of labor required to craft them or other economic factors. If it is useful, then it must be expensive *rolls eyes*). And then, how is it that your economy is able to support the activities of your mage who has to spend hundreds and often 1000's of g.p. on a single magic item, and enormous ammounts on thier spell book? The PC party is either going to be a walking source of hyperinflation or else you are going to have to get by with a low magic campaign (with the result of the PC's effective CR being lower than their level would indicate) or else you are going to have to rewrite the cost creating magic items and buying spells.

And what about the supposed party wealth of a party of 10th level characters (merely mid level in 3rd edition). Do you realize how much labor they can leverage with a few hundred thousand gold peices? Thousands of peasants can be theres to hire for years. And are we to assume that they are the only people with that kind of cash to throw around? And if they are, why is labor so damn cheap, and how do there opponents afford such wonderful toys?

Finally, to those that say that commoners wouldn't put as many skill ranks into some means of livlihood as they could, obviously are used to the soft living of some first world country and haven't lived in the third world (or worked with for instance Mexican migrant farm workers). In an improvished economy, you either work or starve. I've seen third world people have a whole variaty of self defeating and self destructive cultural practices, but I don't think I've seen that many lazy ones.
 

Wolfen Priest said:


So that would make a battle-axe cost $1500 by today's standards. A sword would be $2000. So let's make it more realistic and say that a firearm, (being a more modern and useful weapon), should then cost $2000. Which they don't.


I have two rifles that cost more than $2000 each. These are not collectors items.

Take a look at the M1A (it is basically a semi-automatic M-14) put out by Springfield Armory for one example of a high quality, high priced firearm. Both pre- and post-ban models will accept the 30 round M-14 magazine. Throw on a nice scope and you're good for at least 500 yards (the longest distance I've been able to target shoot around here) with the stainless match quality barrel.

There are many, many firearms that cost much more than even this amount.
 

Celebrim said:
Finally, to those that say that commoners wouldn't put as many skill ranks into some means of livlihood as they could, obviously are used to the soft living of some first world country and haven't lived in the third world (or worked with for instance Mexican migrant farm workers). In an improvished economy, you either work or starve. I've seen third world people have a whole variaty of self defeating and self destructive cultural practices, but I don't think I've seen that many lazy ones.

So would you attribute all differences in farming ability between peasant A and peasant B to differences in level and attributes? Would it be better to assume an equal amount of skill in all peasants and attribute any differences in success to soil, weather patterns, and personal qualities?
 

Remove ads

Top