How much money does the avarage commoner need?

[S'mon]

Some people want their campaign worlds' economies to resemble medieval Europe, some people want them to resemble 21st century USA, some people want them to resemble Diablo... I don't think there can be a meeting of minds between them, but I'm happy with my game world's economy, which vaguely resembles the 'wealthy medieval-renaissance Europe' model implied by the DMG hireling costs, rather than (say) the Diablo model of the DMG 'wealth by character level' table or the 'ready cash by community size' rules. So I change the latter, where necessary to better fit the former. Simple.
Eg: IMC a 7th level character has ca 2500 gp in gear - equivalent to a wealthy medieval knight; he can buy Full Plate, at a stretch, but his followers will be wearing leather.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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?

It could very well be skill. I read of an Idaho potato farmer who went to Russia to teach modern farming methods. He produced something like 50 times what the locals did on the same plot of land.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

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.

I'm well-aware that many high-powered rifles can cost upwards of $2000. But it's probably safe to assume that these are really not the modern-day equivalent of, say a simple longsword. A longsword was an item of personal defense, something more like a pistol, probably.

The firearms to which you refer would probably qualify as masterwork weapons, seeing as, in your example of the M-14, the U.S. military developed it to be the forefront of battlefield personal weaponry.

As I stated in a later post, the modern equivalent of a masterwork sword would actually cost $32,000. If there are rifles for sale at that price, they are certainly not mass-produced, and are almost certain to be antiques valued not for their accuracy or military prowess/functionality, but rather for some nastalgic value.

 

[NLP]

As I stated in a later post, the modern equivalent of a masterwork sword would actually cost $32,000. If there are rifles for sale at that price, they are certainly not mass-produced, and are almost certain to be antiques valued not for their accuracy or military prowess/functionality, but rather for some nastalgic value.

Just for reference, in 14th Century England a common laborer made a maximum of 2 Pounds a year. It cost on average 5 Shillings a year to rent a cabin. A knight at this same time would make 2 Shillings a day. Barons generally made between 200-500 Pounds a year during this peroid.

A simple 17th Century flintlock would run 1 Pound, 8 Shilling. That was essentually the same as almost an entire years wages for a common laborer. A cheap peasant's sword would run about 5 Pence.

 

[Bryan Vining]

Use history

Well, the obvious answer, really, is to pick an era whose economics fit your campaign and model them. I like medieval economics for my campaigns, so most of the humans in my campaign world are farmers, and most of them are delighted to get a silver piece. I mean, a chicken runs only 3-4 silver pieces (IMC), and a chicken produces eggs, a renewable food source. Most of the people in my campaign world don't have much excess money. I haven't declared an average laborer's wage for my campaigns (because there is no average laborer), but I'd say the average commoner earns the equivalent of a 2-3 cp a day. Of course, most of them are too busy working on crops or homes or what-have-you to spend much money, anyway.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Just for reference, in 14th Century England a common laborer made a maximum of 2 Pounds a year. It cost on average 5 Shillings a year to rent a cabin. A knight at this same time would make 2 Shillings a day. Barons generally made between 200-500 Pounds a year during this peroid.

A simple 17th Century flintlock would run 1 Pound, 8 Shilling. That was essentually the same as almost an entire years wages for a common laborer. A cheap peasant's sword would run about 5 Pence.

Well, not to beat a dead horse (or in this case, a rotting and fully scavenged dead horse), but what do the wages of a 14th century commoner have to do with the price of a 17th century firearm? We are talking about a 300 year difference here.

Plus, in the 17th century, a flintlock was a really high-tech weapon, and definitely served more uses than any modern firearm does today.

 

[Storm Raven]

I keep thinking about the typical city-dwelling commoner. He might be a craftsman of some sort. In any case, these types make up the vast majority of people in most campaign worlds. The 'average laborer' earns 2 gold pieces a month, or around that (assuming he works 5 days a week); yet, a typical 'house' is listed at (I believe) 500 gp. So I really don't get how that works.

Most people don't own houses. How hard is that to grasp?

 

[Trepelano]

Having discussed this topic before, I only want to comment on a few things that haven't been covered by others in this thread:

1)commoners WERE required by law to have a weapon - as they might be conscripted at any time.

2) the price list in the PHB doesn't jive with the 1 sp/day rule. A commoner would never be able to buy anything - because their entire income would be on food.

Most people play D&D based on a consumer-based economy. WHich means that there are stores and craftsmen who sell wares to the public. The PHB price list reflects this.

THe wages listed in the DMG, however, seem to be historically derived from a fuedal soceity. That's not a consumer-based economy. Since few people had money or goods to barter, there were no consumers - therefor there were no shops.

The 1sp/day rule means that every single craftsman and store owner will simply go out of businessdue to lack of customers and the PCs could never buy anything because it isn't available. Commoners are forced to make their own things. Craftsmen cannot make a living selling their wares, they must become employees of rich land owners.

While this is all historically accurate - it is a royal pain in the ass to play like this. Its simplerr to retain the consumer-based economy model and increase wages to reflect that.

Here is what I have done. I mulitply the wages by 5. This is the 'cost' of a hireling. 4/5 of this cost is logding, food, and clothing (livery or whatever). The remaining 1/5 (the ammount listed in the DMG) is the "cash payment". If the employer doesn't want to provide for all the eployee's basic needs - then he has to pay the employee the whole 5X cost.

Also - the wages listed in the DMG are for hirelings who expect long-term and stable employement. If you just want to hire somebody for a week or a month - then first you have to find someone willing to take a "temp job" and he's going to cost about 10X the DMG price list - because he has to have extra to live on, when he goes back to being unemployeed.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Most people don't own houses. How hard is that to grasp?

Ok, so who owns all the houses?

You're implying then that in a WotC-produced city like Greyhawk (or any city in the Forgotten Realms), every house (of which there must be thousands for a decent-sized city, is (a) owned by an "aristocrat," (b) owned by an "expert," or (c) owned by a large group of commoners, which, given the amount they earn (~26 gp annually), it would probably take about 20-30 working adults to actually afford a single house, assuming they actually have to eat and feed/clothe their children.

 

[NLP]

Well, not to beat a dead horse (or in this case, a rotting and fully scavenged dead horse), but what do the wages of a 14th century commoner have to do with the price of a 17th century firearm? We are talking about a 300 year difference here.

Plus, in the 17th century, a flintlock was a really high-tech weapon, and definitely served more uses than any modern firearm does today.

For the idiots who do not read their own posts, a "cutting edge" weapon was half a year to a full years income for a peasant. It did not have to be "masterworks" or anything special. Just trying to buy a regular, run of the mill, flintlock would set a peasant back a half a year.

In the real world a peasant was happy for someone to give them a Shilling. It was 2-3 months rent a third of a week's wages or about the price of a lamb. It was also about the price of a yard of cloth to make a tunic. It was also about a 13th of the dowary for the average peasant bride.