How much money does the avarage commoner need?

[Celebrim]

Let's not even get into how screwed up D&D economics are. It's pathetic to even begin with D&D assumptions. If you want realism, scrap the whole system and build one yourself rewritting every reference to coin, goods, and labor in the books. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss real economics of Medieval or other primitive societies in D&D context unless we are talking about a rewrite.

If you want semi-realism, that is you only really care about some degree of balance...

The 1st edition rule that unskilled labor earns 1 s.p. per day is based on reality, not gaming convention, and therefore was broken even back in 1st edition, since it gave average players enormous abilitiy to leverage labor compared to the average size of the labor pool. If the average wage of unskilled labor is 1 s.p., then PC's have about 10 times too much wealth at any point in thier carreer (and gems and so forth are at least 10 times too valuable), and items cost between 3 (for rare goods) & 5 times (for common goods) too much (except for trade goods and food which are usually reasonably well priced). That simplification has been my standard rule of thumb for years now.

In third edition, the standard wage is implicitly about 1 g.p. per day, so the game designers would do well to explicitly state that wages are based on a gold standard not a silver standard. The average commoner applies his profession or craft skill and that is what he earns - an average of 5-9 g.p. a week depending on skill and experience.
That actually works out fairly well except that because of the relatively minor difference in skill ability between the average peasant and the average skilled craftsmen (say a 3rd-5th level expert), the average peasant has too much buying power compared to the middle class. However, like I said, forget realism. We are talking about balance.

 

[Conaill]

Could anyone repost a link to the thread from several months back discussing the D&D economy? You know, the one in which Col_Pladoh himself admitted the original D&D economics (and thereby all later editions) were very unrealistic?

I believe on of the conclusions from that thread was that all wages should be multiplied by about 5 or so. Otherewise that typical country inn that always seems to pop up so conveniently could only be frequented by nobles for example.

 

[Bryan Vining]

Economics

Economics is a tricky thing, and you really have to decide on the technology level of your campaign before you decide on how the economy is set up . Why? Well, the first priority of a society is to get food and water. Even before shelter and clothing. So, you need to consider what the technology level of your world will permit in terms of non-agrarian workers. For instance, in a late medieval setting, the farming technology was such that it took 9 farmers to produce enough excess food to feed 1 non-farmer. If you step forward to Rennaisance-era technology you might get a 4:1 ratio of farmers to non-farmers. And so on...

So, for most people, doing something other than working on a farm, producing just enough food each year so that you have a small excess to trade for clothes, meat, shoes, tools, etc, is just not an option until you have an Industrial Revolution. Even then, you're still going to have a lot more farmers per capita than you do now.

So what does that have to do with economics? Well, basically, figure that your average farmer is going to produce enough to feed his family, take care of other non-food needs, and buy a pint now and again. Most laborers are going to be in the same boat. They'll have a rent to pay, or they'll have built their own place, which they then have to maintain. What's probably most imporatant is how much money do they have to spend. And they won't have much, if you want your campaign to be believable.

If you're interested in more, send me a PM.

 

[Gizzard]

Otherewise that typical country inn that always seems to pop up so conveniently could only be frequented by nobles for example.

Mmm, yes, I am running Freeport right now; the inn there costs 1GP per day (including meals). My players are blowing through their allotment of cash since useful skills like Gather Info cost "a few gold pieces" also.

Anyway, my point is that the Freeport economy seems more based on a GP standard. Perhaps thats because its a 3E product or perhaps its because a city runs on a fundamentally different standard than a rural area. Ideas?

 

[jgbrowning]

well

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd paragraph. barter is often MORE useful than coin. here's a historical example. kings would often accept payments in kind for taxes rather than coin because then they have to count the coins, keep the coins safe, and then distribute the coins to the person they need goods from. example.. peasant A gives me 10 sp as taxes. i then count the sp, keep it safe, transport it and then give it to another peasant so i can buy his grain. just simpliler to get the grain from peasant A in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Again, that's fine if you are playing in a realistic game. But what about the 'typical' D&D game?"


the typical D&D game will have the same. It makes more sense, given the difficulties of transportation, record keeping, etc.. that a medieval society faces, even a D&D society. It is a better decision to accept taxes in kind than in currancy. It helps keep down the amount of currancy the king/ruler has to pump out into the market and allows an economy to surpass a flat out currancy system. And it fits the general socity assumptions of D&D.

Also the typical D&D game has mostly to do with PC's running around accumulating wealth, magic and power in a "vacum packed" undefined relationship with food production


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3rd paragraph. craftsman are outside the realm of commoner. craftsmen "practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your check result in GOLD pieces per week of dedicated work." PH under CRAFT skill. ditto for profession.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As Green Knight pointed out, commoners have access to these skills, not only making the point moot, but also adding strength to the argument that 'commoners' do, in fact, earn more than 1 sp/day."


Well, thats up for the DM. to decide. just because a common has access to these skills doesn't mean they will have them. Giving the commoner access to those skills was to provide for a multiplicity of commoners. Most will just farm and know nothing of anything else. Commoners DONT min/max like a PC does in skill selection. The DM guide says 1/8 to 1/15 of the population lives on farms, it says the average wage is 1 sp a day, and it says the "commoner class should be reserved for everyone who does not qualify for any other class." To create an assumption that directly contradicts the preponderance of the information just because you CAN use craft/profession for every commoner is not be best decision.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and overall, you are really just not understanding the crushing poverty that was common during the middle ages. Visit a 3rd world country today and you'll understand why it does cost so much to purchase a bow. People are lucky to be able to afford enough to feed themselves, let alone have the luxury of their own house. about 20% of the population during the middle ages were destitute (without a home)... wage labourers, beggers, small vendors, etc.. that lived on the streets. Again go to a 3rd world country and you'll still see the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In fact, you are wrong in guaging my supposed ignorance; in fact, I am well aware of the crushing poverty that most people faced in the real-world middle-ages. I'm suggesting that for most D&D campaigns, the majority of the people are not living in such utterly squalid conditions. That would be a gritty setting, not typical for a 'normal' D&D setting, if you ask me. For examples, look at most of the best-selling campaign settings out there. Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms have never made bartering a common trade practice, to my knowledge. Nor have they emphasized that all commoners live in squalid conditions, with barely enough money "to get drunk at the end of the day.""


sorry for any offense, didn't mean it. honestly i've always assumed every D&D setting was "gritty." there's no reason to assume it isn't. As to why they dont address it? Why should they... the point of the game is to have fun and its not fun to think about the realities of the situation. The PC's move through the world of the wealthy, not through the world of the common.

I dont know much about FR... but bartering and squalidness for the commoners has been mentioned several times for greyhawk (gord the rogue books ). The basic setting concept for both campaigns is a late medieval/early reanassance magical setting. To me, assuming the typical squalidness that went along with all the other assumptions.. (cobblers, castles.. etc) was not unreasonable.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just went to india and whenever you have to catch an early train or bus you'll go though streets that are packed full of sleeping people, im not kidding, you'll see hundreds.... these people even run food stalls, peddle small trinkets.. etc.. and they STILL live on the streets. People live, eat, deficate, and die on the streets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yeah but I don't see that kind of lifestyle mentioned in WotC-produced modules or city-settings, do you?"

What i do see is their mentioning all of the other aspects of a late medieval/early rennasance society. I think its rational to assume the "unpleasant" aspects as well as the pleasant ones.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Mmm, yes, I am running Freeport right now; the inn there costs 1GP per day (including meals). My players are blowing through their allotment of cash since useful skills like Gather Info cost "a few gold pieces" also.

Anyway, my point is that the Freeport economy seems more based on a GP standard. Perhaps thats because its a 3E product or perhaps its because a city runs on a fundamentally different standard than a rural area. Ideas?

Staying in an inn is a luxury. Most poor people, when they travel, stay on the streets. Those who stay at inns have money, are craftsmen or professionals. from the PHB.. good inns are 2gp a day, common inns are 5 sp, and poor ones are 2sp.


joe b.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't think that it's reasonable to assume that most commoners have maxed out their ranks and taken the skill focus feat. Many commoners, I would imagine do one or the other. However, I would expect commoners to also put ranks into a variety of things.

If the typical commoner is human and has a 10 or 11 int, I would expect to see the skill distribution more like this:
Profession 2 to 4 ranks
Craft 2 ranks
Craft 2 ranks
Diplomacy 2 ranks
Perform (dance, storytelling) 2 ranks
Wilderness lore 0 to 2 ranks

I don't know if those are all on the commoner's skill list but if they're not, they'd probably be purchased cross class. Perform, diplomacy, and one of the craft skills might be switched out for more wilderness lore, bluff, sense motive, run, jump, or swim ranks--maybe even for knowledge religion, literacy, or another language.

Typical feats would probably include: alertness, simple weapons, militia (FRCS), skill focus: (bluff, diplomacy, perform, sense motive, wilderness lore, craft, profession, handle animal), armor proficiency, dodge, martial weapon proficiency, endurance, run.

I actually think that skill focusses in bluff, diplomacy, and sense motive, wilderness lore, and perform would be more common than skill focus in their profession.

After all, their lord or landlord takes most of their yield from farming anyway so being a little bit better at it doesn't make a big difference to their lives. OTOH, being respected in the village as the fastest runner, best swimmer, or best storyteller would be something. So would being considered wise and persuasive and being on the town council (sense motive and diplomacy). Of course, being good with the ladies or able to wrap men around their fingers would be something that others might aspire to (bluff--it's not as if we're talking about an honest person with the interests of their lover at heart here).

So, I would think that a diligent farmer probably has 4 ranks in profession (farmer) and a very skilled farmer probably has max ranks in profession and skill focus but most peasants are neither unusually diligent nor skilled. They probably have two or three ranks in their profession and devote the rest of their attention to other pursuits.

In that case, we might have three different results:
Unskilled Laborer: 1 sp/day=36.5 gp per year
Lazy peasant: Skill check 11-12=286 to 312gp per year
Normal peasant: Skill check: 13=338gp per year
Skilled or diligent peasant: Skill check 14-15=352-390 gp per year
Skilled and diligent peasant: Skill check 16=416 gp per year

Clearly, the unskilled laborer lives a rather dismal existance compared to even a lazy dirt farmer. Assming that taxes take 50% of this, the difference between the skilled and diligent peasant and the normal peasant is about the cost of one riding horse every two years. Or a suit of studded leather armor, a large shield, and a morning star. So, if the normal peasant just gets by and would turn out for militia duty in an old blanket (padded armor) carrying his trusty club, the skilled and diligent peasant might show up with studded leather armor, a large shield, a morning star, and a light crossbow.

Seeing as how Commoners' have access to the Craft and Profession skills, I'd say they make money according to the rules for those skills. Going by Profession, you make half your check result in GP per week of work. So let's make a couple of assumptions.

1. The average 1st-level Commoner stuck 4 ranks into Profession.
2. They have the Skill Focus (Profession) Feat, giving them a +2 bonus.

So assuming no stat bonuses, Commoners have a +6 bonus to their Profession roll. On average they'll roll a 10 for their D20 check. 10 + 6 = 16 / 2 = 8. So the average Commoner makes 8 GP a week. 52 weeks a year means the average Commoner makes 416 GP a year. So in D&D terms, that's what Commoners make, though I imagine the nobility sucks off a large portion of that through taxes.

 

[Green Knight]

I don't think that it's reasonable to assume that most commoners have maxed out their ranks and taken the skill focus feat. Many commoners, I would imagine do one or the other. However, I would expect commoners to also put ranks into a variety of things.

If the typical commoner is human and has a 10 or 11 int, I would expect to see the skill distribution more like this:
Profession 2 to 4 ranks
Craft 2 ranks
Craft 2 ranks
Diplomacy 2 ranks
Perform (dance, storytelling) 2 ranks
Wilderness lore 0 to 2 ranks

I don't know if those are all on the commoner's skill list but if they're not, they'd probably be purchased cross class. Perform, diplomacy, and one of the craft skills might be switched out for more wilderness lore, bluff, sense motive, run, jump, or swim ranks--maybe even for knowledge religion, literacy, or another language.

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?

Typical feats would probably include: alertness, simple weapons, militia (FRCS), skill focus: (bluff, diplomacy, perform, sense motive, wilderness lore, craft, profession, handle animal), armor proficiency, dodge, martial weapon proficiency, endurance, run.

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).

I actually think that skill focusses in bluff, diplomacy, and sense motive, wilderness lore, and perform would be more common than skill focus in their profession.

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).

After all, their lord or landlord takes most of their yield from farming anyway so being a little bit better at it doesn't make a big difference to their lives.

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.

OTOH, being respected in the village as the fastest runner, best swimmer, or best storyteller would be something. So would being considered wise and persuasive and being on the town council (sense motive and diplomacy). Of course, being good with the ladies or able to wrap men around their fingers would be something that others might aspire to (bluff--it's not as if we're talking about an honest person with the interests of their lover at heart here).

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.

So, I would think that a diligent farmer probably has 4 ranks in profession (farmer) and a very skilled farmer probably has max ranks in profession and skill focus but most peasants are neither unusually diligent nor skilled. They probably have two or three ranks in their profession and devote the rest of their attention to other pursuits.

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.

In that case, we might have three different results:
Unskilled Laborer: 1 sp/day=36.5 gp per year
Lazy peasant: Skill check 11-12=286 to 312gp per year
Normal peasant: Skill check: 13=338gp per year
Skilled or diligent peasant: Skill check 14-15=352-390 gp per year
Skilled and diligent peasant: Skill check 16=416 gp per year

Clearly, the unskilled laborer lives a rather dismal existance compared to even a lazy dirt farmer. Assming that taxes take 50% of this, the difference between the skilled and diligent peasant and the normal peasant is about the cost of one riding horse every two years. Or a suit of studded leather armor, a large shield, and a morning star. So, if the normal peasant just gets by and would turn out for militia duty in an old blanket (padded armor) carrying his trusty club, the skilled and diligent peasant might show up with studded leather armor, a large shield, a morning star, and a light crossbow.

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).

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.

 

[S'mon]

I don't think the PHB Craft/Profession income rules make much sense as applied to farming; I use them for urban gemcutters and such 'middle class' town activities. IMC a night in a private or double room at an Inn, with board, typically costs 1gp, whereas a labourer earns 1sp/day - but if a labourer stays at an Inn he'll be sleeping in the main room or stables for a couple of coppers, private rooms and clean sheets are a luxury for adventurers, not commoners!
You can run a D&D game where the economy resembles 20th century America and the common labourer earns 1gp/$100* a day - justifiable if high magic or other factors raise food production sufficiently that most commoners get to use those Craft skill points people keep going on about for something other than farming - but this does NOT appear to be the assumption of the Greyhawk or Realms settings; all the material given indicates they're only a bit 'nicer' wealthier/richier than the real middle ages.

*Working in an unskilled job as a 'domestic assistant' in an Edinburgh hospital a few years ago I earned about £3/hour, £20 or $30/day, after tax - about 3 sp/day in D&D terms. £100 or $150/week, 15 sp. That's in a first-world country.

 

[alsih2o]

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.

"masterwork" firearms surely do