Actually, it's only in the description of the Poor lifestyle. All of the other lifestyles don't say anything about legal protection.
False. Wretched: "Violence…follows you wherever you go." Squalid: "you have few legal protections." Once you
have legal protections, it isn't mentioned past that, as all the levels above that are presumed to have them too. So, obviously, someone Comfortable has all the legal protections a Poor person has, if not more.
And really, this legal protection is about your social standing. Historically, social standing and perceived wealth are what dictate legal protections. You could argue that is no different today (many people make such arguments that are compelling).
Yes,
exactly.
But again, this should not be part of the discussion because it is not part of the Comfortable or Moderate lifestyle DEFINITIONS in the PHB.
Of course it is. These are all about social standing. It's not just what you can afford to buy, it's about your social standing in the community. The Comfortable level mentions the sorts of people you're likely to associate with. The "Lifestyle Expenses" description says "Your lifestyle choice can have consequences. Maintaining a wealthy lifestyle might help you make contacts with the rich and powerful, though you run the risk of attracting thieves. Likewise, living frugally might help you avoid criminals, but you are unlikely to make powerful connections." Social standing is intimately involved with these rules, and are an inherent part of the definitions.
And you have been repeatedly told and given examples that this level can be obtained in days, not weeks or months. And you have failed to comment on my suggestion to say the first two weeks are Moderate, after that it's comfortable.
I haven't failed to comment; I've said that that doesn't make sense to me. It seems more like Poor for the first two weeks, and then Modest.
Tell me this: Have you, by yourself, using only simple tools like axes and knives, made a weatherproof cabin, solid furniture such as tables and chairs, multiple sets of clothing, candles, and various utensils like cups, bowls, forks and spoons in two weeks, while also hunting and foraging for your food using no firearms or other modern equipment?
If so, I concede the point; an adventurer could get to at least near Comfortable in two weeks. If not, I think my point stands.
Depends on the society. In Waterdeep? Probably not. In towns like those in the Dessarin Valley? Most likely.
Then I think we can agree that an outdoorsman cannot make "nicer clothing," merely the sort of clothing a soldier or laborer might wear. Functional and comfortable, but not something you'd appear in at a party for wealthy people.
Again, food and clothing really isn't the challenge you think it is. At least not in North America forests of today or the last thousand years (look at the historical record of the American Indian tribes such as the Navajo that were nomadic) And there are risks associated with residing in a city. The details of both are left of to the DM to determine for their setting.
But you're asking the wrong questions. Of course an established nomadic tribe of tens of members can reliably find food—most of the time. That says
nothing about whether a single individual, in a new area, could find enough food for three good meals a day, every day. That seems extremely unlikely to me.
I could not find reliable statistics, but lots of supporting info, here are scholarly sources on fires in the middle ages;
So we don't know. I certainly don't have a sense that a particular person is more likely to experience a fire in town than in the wild.
Neither are fires, legal protection (except for poor) and many other things you bring up. All of these things are setting and DM specific. If a DM wants his woodlands to be full of bandits and his cities safe havens, then they are. But that not specified in RAW.
I didn't bring up fires. Legal protection is obviously presumed for all levels above Poor. They figured it was too obvious to bother mentioning. Apparently they were wrong. And it's not specified in RAW that there are bandits and monsters in the woods? There are no wilderness encounter tables in 5e?
These are good question IMO. And I go back to the 2 week comment. And if you come back to the same town between adventures then it might only take a day or two (or less) to get back to the standard of living.
2 weeks for
comfortable? You haven't read the Comfortable section closely enough, and thought about what it actually implies.
I never missed a meal. And I know you find that surprising, as fiction and entertainment sources always say otherwise.
I do find it surprising that you never missed a meal, in any season, in new or fairly new areas, with no more advanced equipment than a bow and arrow and knife. Is that what you're saying?
I disagree. Using the definitions I posted above and why.
What definitions? Would you care to describe this Comfortable woodland lifestyle, and show how it's equivalent to a room in a nice inn?
If their lifestyle during downtime is important to them, then yes they will take that skill. Who cares? It's like trying to push the rogue who tries to maximize his passive perception.
If it's a meaningful choice to the characters, then why take that choice away from them or otherwise disadvantage or minimize that choice?
Why construct the choices so that they balance toward Survival and away from other skills?
Also, self-sufficient has two definitions according to
Dictionary.com and
Merriam-Webster;
One says take care of oneself without outside aid/assistance. That might infer, but does not require no outside trade or interaction. It usually is used this way when talking about a civilization being self-sufficient (i.e. does it require imports of food etc).
Two says having exteme confidence in one's own abilities.
And the RAW says "away from civilization, sustaining themselves in the wild by hunting, foraging, and repairing their own gear." Obviously trading isn't part of that. That wouldn't be "self-sufficient" by any reasonable definition.
You keep trying to stretch words to fit your conception of what's going on, rather than accept the clear meanings of what's written. Why is that?
