PDA

View Full Version : Economic Incentives; Or: Sit at home and do nothing.



golentan
2009-09-09, 04:49 PM
EDIT: I asked this further down, repeating now = Okay, we've covered things that are wrong with the model. Yes. Yes. It is a flawed model. It's big advantage is that it is calculable. So if you have a solution for FIXING it, go ahead and post that. If you just want to complain about the model, go find something better to do please.

Okay, so if anyone remembers (maybe better stated "As if anyone remembers") in the Goblins thread, I pointed out even really weak wizards could amass frightening wealth sitting in a city. So I've been thinking for a while, and took my original calculations further. I'm going to make some assumptions here:

One: For the sake of argument, our primary casting stat will never go above 19. It just makes my bookkeeping so much simpler.

Two: All adventuring is profit motivated. I realize how hideously wrong this is, but I'm simply trying to figure out why in a kick in the door type of game a caster would adventure. Obviously other motivations will be available.

Three: It takes 13.5 encounters to level up. 1 encounter each day of adventuring (average) factoring in travel and dungeons overall. Every 2 days of dedicated practice and study will count as a single encounter (with roleplaying) for a wizard at home. There are no levels over 20.

Four: Our experiment is based out of a metropolis, and there is always someone willing to purchase a spell slot. Always.

Five: The wizard will make no magic items regardless of career path, nor cast spells with and XP component, nor join a guild or gain followers to pay dues to or extort money from. Food and housing are assumed to be taken care of.

Okay, so we take a typical specialist wizard at 1st level. He's just gotten his certificate of ability to rend the fabric of reality for his own amusement, and is wondering whether he should set up shop in his local city, "Wizard for hire" or join up with that irritating fighter fellow as a spellslinger. Being a profit minded individual, as well as an over the top egghead with a detail obsessed personality (not unlike my self), he decides to do some math and plot out his likely gains before factoring in the risk of death.

On the adventuring side: He will progress by Wealth By Level. Everyone can read the chart (and it's not OGL), the net worth of the character increments by one step every 13.5 days.
Day 27: Level 3 character wealth.
Day 54: Lvl 5 wealth
Day 81: Lvl 7 wealth.
Day 108: level 9 wealth.

On the home side: His wealth each day is equal to his CL * the slot cost * the number of slots, and he increments CL 27 days.
Day 27: He has made 1350.
Day 54: 4860.
Day 81: 14,985
Day 108: 48,060

Wealth stays VERY close until month 4, where it outpaces the adventurer. From there it continues to spiral out of proportion. So given the increased risk of death, and the knowledge your grandkids can live comfortably their whole lives off what you make in 5 months, it seems clear to me that sitting in a metropolis is almost always better for a wizard to sit at home. They can keep pace with the income (or exceed it) of an adventurer nearly twice their level, take no risks doing so, yada yada. Classes with more spell slots (like cleric, ) actually do BETTER by a significant margin. And while my assumptions for leveling up doing nothing are almost certainly off, how many times has your GM told the party "You travel for weeks" without encounters, skewing time to level while adventuring?

deuxhero
2009-09-09, 04:56 PM
{scrubbed}

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-09, 04:56 PM
Every 2 days of dedicated practice and study will count as a single encounter (with roleplaying) for a wizard at home.

And this is a wee little bit of massive inconsistency in the D&D system, in that NPCs (which your stay-at-home wizard will surely become) don't tend to level up at all.


Four: Our experiment is based out of a metropolis, and there is always someone willing to purchase a spell slot. Always.

That's an assumption I'd disagree with.


Given your premises, the conclusion you make is correct. It also demonstrates the inconsistent PC v. NPC dichotomy. But still, what's the point of this? Stereotypical fantasy, in my experience, does indeed have most wizards sitting at home and funding their experiments by selling theirselves spells.

Zergrusheddie
2009-09-09, 05:00 PM
I've noticed the same problem to, though in far less detail and I was thinking of the typical Fighter. By the time you get to something like WBL of 5, you have more gold than a Commoner could make in their entire working life. And by the time you get to level 8, you can be a King. Adding in Magic makes things sillier, as you so excellently pointed out.

The problem is that the Wizard won't be getting any stronger if he sits at home and does nothing but sell himself out for spell services. He will also have competition from some of the other Wizards in the city, because there is never just one Wizard or other tradesman in town. If that were the case, than the blacksmith who is crafting masterwork weapons and mundane weapons would also be extremely rich. Also remember that DnD Economics revolve around killing something and taking their crap. :smallwink:

Best of luck mate.
-Eddie

Curmudgeon
2009-09-09, 05:08 PM
Way too many assumptions for this to lead to any useful conclusion.

Wizards only can prepare a limited number of spells each day. How are they going to make sure the spells they prepare are the ones people want some hours later? It's not like a Cleric, who they can prepare a bunch of utility spells but still always whip out a Cure (whatever) Wounds to take care of any healing required. Wizards, unless they're grouped into a huge shop and run by a spell inventory control specialist (who'll take the bulk of the money, of course) are mostly going to prepare spells that aren't what people want that particular day. So figure only some fraction of their spellcasting potential will actually get accomplished. And while the D&D rules specify what the PCs pay for spellcasting services, there's no statement that the spellcasters get all that money. There's always overhead in any business venture.

JellyPooga
2009-09-09, 05:10 PM
Way too many assumptions for this to lead to any useful conclusion.

Wizards only can prepare a limited number of spells each day. How are they going to make sure the spells they prepare are the ones people want some hours later? It's not like a Cleric, who they can prepare a bunch of utility spells but still always whip out a Cure (whatever) Wounds to take care of any healing required. Wizards, unless they're grouped into a huge shop and run by a spell inventory control specialist (who'll take the bulk of the money, of course) are mostly going to prepare spells that aren't what people want that particular day. So figure only some fraction of their spellcasting potential will actually get accomplished. And while the D&D rules specify what the PCs pay for spellcasting services, there's no statement that the spellcasters get all that money. There's always overhead in any business venture.

A wizard can leave his spell slots open and prepare spells on the fly during the day, as and when it is needed...it just takes them something like 15 minutes per spell level. In an economy where there's always someone that wants your spell services, I'm sure they'd be willing to wait an hour or so for it.

golentan
2009-09-09, 05:20 PM
YouFailEconomicsForever

Because everyone buys use of the wizards spell slot each day?

Yes, because DnD is so economically accurate already. I'm using RAW with a few underlying assumptions. If you take away some of the slots to be sold, it changes things a little but not all that much (the turnover point on when you're surpassing adventurers twice your level goes up a couple levels). DnD ignores supply and demand, so why shouldn't I?

If we figure a person will need one spell in a given year on average. That's 70 spell slots a day in a metropolis minimum. Whether that's the constabulary needing divinations or some rich guy hoping to impress his guests I don't much care. And at higher levels you can teleport anywhere you're needed and back, charging 3 spell slots to their account.

And I said these were assumptions for ease of bookkeeping, which there are usually quite a few implicit in all the many economic models I've studied which aren't actually aimed at studying a given type of assumption. Given the number of courses I've passed in the field, I hope I don't fail it forever.:smallcool:

Yeah, I realize npcs are inconsistent. And I realize there are flaws in this. This is strictly boredom, half an hour's work, and a realization in another glaring flaw in the system. I've actually PC'd a character like this in an intrigue game, and was complaining to the DM I couldn't afford food on the table even though selling a cantrip would get me a sumptuous five course feast every night for a week. It's food for thought, not a rigorous model.

Edit: Oh, and for new posts. The prices in the goods and services (which is what I'm using) specifically state that the costs are for appointments later that week, and that same day can be significantly more expensive. So... yeah.

Curmudgeon
2009-09-09, 05:23 PM
A wizard can leave his spell slots open and prepare spells on the fly during the day, as and when it is needed...it just takes them something like 15 minutes per spell level. In an economy where there's always someone that wants your spell services, I'm sure they'd be willing to wait an hour or so for it.
So then we're at the limitation of spells known. Learning and recording every spell costs money.

Then there's the overhead of time and distance. So someone's shopping for a Knock spell -- but they need it for a door with a broken lock two towns over. Or there's a castle expecting to be besieged, and they'll need a Wind Wall against incoming arrows -- whenever the attacking horde actually arrives.

If you just sit around all day in one place, you're not going to be able to deliver the spells people need, so you're not going to make much money.

JellyPooga
2009-09-09, 05:42 PM
So then we're at the limitation of spells known. Learning and recording every spell costs money.

Then there's the overhead of time and distance. So someone's shopping for a Knock spell -- but they need it for a door with a broken lock two towns over. Or there's a castle expecting to be besieged, and they'll need a Wind Wall against incoming arrows -- whenever the attacking horde actually arrives.

If you just sit around all day in one place, you're not going to be able to deliver the spells people need, so you're not going to make much money.

Oh I'm not trying to defend the economic model...I just thought I'd point out that Wizards need not prepare their spells all at once at the beginning of the day. As you say, the chances of your A)having the requisite spell that someone wants B)being able to usefully apply that spell when and where it is needed and C)being able to do so at a price that is competetive with more mundane methods of achieving the same effect, are actually quite slim.

For example: The Knock spell might be a common spell that might be needed in the hustle and bustle of a busy metropolis (what with all those non-adventuring Rogues stealing your keys all day to make ends meet). As a 2nd Level spell, it will cost a potential "buyer" 20x(your Caster Level) GP to hire your services. Obviously as a shrewd magician and businessman, you'll add a 'roaming fee' on to that of maybe a couple of silver, but that's by-the-by and pocket change to you. Then your buyer has to wait half an hour for you to prepare the spell and another 20 minutes or so for you to actually get to your house and cast the spell. That's not even accounting for the time it took you to find "Mage-Hire Wizardly Enterprises" in the first place.

So now, your buyer is at least 60gp(+some silver) and over an hour out of pocket. That's a lot of money for Joe-Average. Instead of this, Joe could walk down to the local locksmiths guild (15-20 minutes), hire a locksmith (5-10 minutes) and have his front doors lock picked by an expert on the subject. The actual picking of the lock might take anything up to 20 minutes, but it'll get done. It'll also only cost him a maximum of 3 silver to do so. So what our enterprising Mage charges as 'roaming' is all you have to pay for a trained hireling (and by the book, you get to use the services of that hireling all day too).

Alternatively, you could just climb in through the bathroom window you left open, kick the door down or otherwise bypass your lock for free...but that wouldn't be fair on the enterprising mages that decided to stay at home instead of going off adventuring now would it?

Rixx
2009-09-09, 05:44 PM
You forget competition! With all this money to be made, surely you're not the only wizard in this city who had the same idea?

kc0bbq
2009-09-09, 05:51 PM
The problem I have with the 2 days == 1 encounter is that for just sitting around you reach the pinnacle of nonepic magic in about 16 months of study.

If this was the case the city would be crawling with wizards looking to sell spell slots. People would be spraying for them.

Curmudgeon
2009-09-09, 05:59 PM
If this was the case the city would be crawling with wizards looking to sell spell slots. People would be spraying for them.
Actually, I think people would set up a spay & neuter service to handle the Wizard population problem. :smallbiggrin:

Crow
2009-09-09, 06:31 PM
Original Post, a bunch of stuff, whatever.

No challenge, No XP.

Your wizard remains at level 1 and has a living wage. But he does not level up and get to earn more money by selling higher-level spell slots.

Severus
2009-09-09, 06:40 PM
The assumption that there is always somebody willing to buy a spell slot is silly.

Hence you reach a silly conclusion.

Fizban
2009-09-09, 06:40 PM
Two things for condieration. First, the spell prep time whenever you do it is always 1 hour * the fraction of your total spells that you prepare, minimum 15 minutes. So most of the time if you only prep one spell it will take 15 minutes, and with a few levels you can prep a few more in the same time.

Second, non-lethal leveling. Complete Warrior has an example tournament that includes a non-lethal duel, awarding 1/2 normal xp if you defeat your opponent in that challenge. There is no risk to your health (assuming both play fair, clerics are also on hand), but there is something to be gained (points towards winning the tournament). SilverClawShift used this method to train commoners in her horror campaign a while back to get an army ready for the end of the world. I'd suggest using the 1/2xp rule for your NPC, but the problem is that he has to have some sort of challenge for it to work, and if he's training he can't cast spells for money.

An encounter is somewhat defined by how many resources you're supposed to expend to defeat it: a normal encounter should cost 20-25% of your hp/spells/whatever, and a normal adventuring day should have 4 of them, so you end the day barely alive. We could then assume that the mysterious arcane tasks that NPC mages perform to reach their high levels without adventuring require them to blow all their slots each day and give xp equal to about 2 encounters of their level (1/2 of the 4 non-lethal encounters they "virtually" overcame). How's about that for some calculations? (Yes I'm fully aware this doesn't change much at all).

Ormur
2009-09-09, 06:45 PM
Of course the NPC/PC contrast is pretty strange but as I see the D&D world I think it's a pretty big stretch saying that you can level up every 27 days doing nothing but selling spell slots. Getting up to even the first wizard level for a NPC requires years of study. For humans the starting age ranges from 17 to 33 years and I'd assume NPC's had been groomed for it since childhood. After that you could probably advance a bit quicker if you continued intensive study and most wizards probably do very well financially compared to commoners like all well educated people did back in the old days. But since there are very few high level wizards, even according to the DMG guidelines it must require a bit more than businesses as usual to get to high levels (I don't use them since they still make the number of world breaking NPC's too high).

I tend to think that adventuring is the quick, high risk, high reward way to XP and money. Even so I'd expect that in most games the PC's would be exceptional even for adventures since they are often dealing with unique problems like the end of the world, toppling nations or this and that BBEG. You can't presume that any other NPC adventurer would be as (un)lucky as you in having the plot revolve around him but instead the rewards would be smaller for them and even smaller for non-adventuring NPC's.

Also I think that judging by the wizard's wealth they'd be a part of the aristocracy along with the costly lifestyle that entails. A 10th level NPC wizard that takes part in society should probably have a mansion, wear a different noble's outfit every day and have lots of servants. The other possibility is for him living in seclusion studying his magic but then selling spell slots every day would be a nuisance or perhaps there would be none to sell them to.

Those are of course all my ad hoc explanations for making the world make sense. Even with tweaks the D&D world must include a lot nonrational societal constraints or exempt the PC's from rules to stop it from becoming completely unrecognizable.

kjones
2009-09-09, 06:58 PM
Every 2 days of dedicated practice and study will count as a single encounter (with roleplaying) for a wizard at home. There are no levels over 20.

Can you explain to me how the wizard is earning experience points by sitting around "practicing" and "studying"? Neither I nor any other DM I've ever met would give XP for something like that.

More directly, in D&D, you give XP for overcoming challenges. Practice and study shouldn't count.

sebsmith
2009-09-09, 07:00 PM
You seem to be assuming one encounter a day, which is very low, and are assuming 13.5 encounters needed to level up, which I'm pretty sure is high. Also, where the hell did you get the idea sitting around not facing anything resembling a threat should count for experience?

golentan
2009-09-09, 07:45 PM
The sources of experience while sitting around are twofold: Roleplaying experience (from actually roleplaying out the events of the day, which is why a player would never do this), and arcane tournaments. I've already covered that I realize my experience mechanic is likely flawed, but in the absence of someone playtesting and finding balance I used it. It still doesn't address the radical difference between potential incomes at a given level. Or the cost of losing your own life. The DM Guide, page 40, covers noncombat encounters and RPing experience but leaves it largely to DM discretion.

You can also make a case that all a wizard does in a dungeon when things go remotely right is sit in the back casting spells. I fail to see why doing this NOT aimed at a sentient creature should be so radically less enlightening than doing it aimed at a sentient creature. If anything, you're more likely to be panicked and thus paying less attention to the minutiae of detail that contribute to what gives you a better spell effect.

Researching spells costs the same regardless of career choice, I felt no need to factor it in. You get what, two less free spells for each level of difference?

The assumption that someone will buy a spell slot isn't silly, it's intended to represent RAW (where supply and demand have no effect on anything) and make things easier to calculate then sitting around trying to work out a demand curve for x many 5th level slots a day...

And none of this changes that casting one first level spell will feed you most comfortably for the better part of a week, regardless of level.

Again, this is all "Hey, why do wizards venture out?" I mean... Honestly? Why? At low levels they can't afford resurrection, at moderate levels they bust the income curve sitting at home, and at high levels they can just create wealth with 15 minutes of prep time. This is all an easy, back of the envelope boredom induced thought exercise. I'm curious to get answers, so how about if instead of everyone ripping on the assumptions that I made so I could calculate everything during breaks in my lunch hour, if you have a problem with model you make up an alternate one. Knock out the assumptions by actually working up your own demand curves, for example. Everything I did I did because it made things actually calculable.

Otherwise, kindly let it stand and discuss the implications. At this point I don't think people are making new points.

Seb: Hi seb. No, 13.5 is about right. The DMG lists it as 13.3. I rounded. So: given 3 days of downtime looking for a plot hook, a week of travel (1 random encounter) and then however many encounters you can cram in in the dungeon... Easier bookkeeping. Why do you never call anymore? I miss you... :smallbiggrin:

Lamech
2009-09-09, 08:11 PM
The XP system does not work for NPC's end of story. If a PC comes to a challenge and it can be over come with violence, but he figures another way said PC still gains his XP. Lets apply this to NPC's. How often in your life do you have a challenge that could be overcome with violence? (Creates other problems and is ultimatly a horrible idea not the point.) Once a month? Assuming NPC classes and one person for your said problem each one will give about 15% of a level in XP, if your both level one. Soo... nearly two levels a year. Since not every elf is a uber-powerful hero we see that the XP system does not work for NPC's.

Also followes and cohorts and the fact wizards actually make magic items despite the fact an XP point is worth so much more than 12.5 (a little more if optimized), shows XP does not work for NPC's.

Nor do I believe there is a constant market for spell slots. A wizard could vastly increase his WBL if there was.

Basically I'm saying I don't like your assumptions.

P.S. Your not supposed to think about the DnD economy to hard anyway. They have those quantum stores that always have exactly what your looking for up to the GP limit.

LibraryOgre
2009-09-09, 08:38 PM
A few problems with your assumptions, here.


Three: It takes 13.5 encounters to level up. 1 encounter each day of adventuring (average) factoring in travel and dungeons overall. Every 2 days of dedicated practice and study will count as a single encounter (with roleplaying) for a wizard at home. There are no levels over 20.

A big problem here. You assume that studying has A) a linear increase in effectiveness and B) no cost.

First of all, it is likely that studying will not net you a linear increase in ability. It is more likely that one day would net you one encounter, two days would net you another, three more would net you a third, etc. Even if you assume that with each level the clock resets... so your first encounter with each level is one day, or that each encounter for your first level is one day, your second level is three days, etc., you're still looking at those who study slowing down considerably. Otherwise, you have to wonder why every wizard doesn't spend the first year out of apprenticeship simply studying... he'd leave one year later, sure, but he'd be 12th level. And it would be documented that things were that easy, because people with 19 intelligence would do the numbers. Studying will not happen quickly, and days studying will take away from your monetary growth... even if you assume he blows through all his spell slots by 10am, there will be days when he needs to practice the things he's been reading, and thus cut into his numbers.

Nor will it happen cheaply. In order to study, you need things. You need books, for one, especially as a wizard. If you don't have books, there's less you can study, and so things will be slowed. Even if your world assumes there are public libraries, there's going to be a limit to how many useful books will be in the library (unless you have a great library of Pandathaway, but that has its own issues).
You also need reagents... spell components and foci, etc. There are on-going expenses that adventures don't have, or aren't counted as part of WBL... things like food, rent and/or building maintenance, guild dues and the like that your formula do not account for.
Sure, an adventurer has many of these, but WBL is not how much will be made over the course of a given level... it's a character's net worth at a snapshot in time. If I am 2nd level, I can expect to have X worth of equipment and loose change, and if I am third level, I can expect to have Y. That does not mean, however, that all I will see between 2nd and 3rd level is Y-X in gold and equipment. I'll see much more, but a good portion of it will disappear into renting inn rooms, bribing officials, replacing armor destroyed by a hydralisk, ressurections, consumables that may get used, etc.
For your wizard, however, casting spells day after day, what he will see is that flat amount... and he will have to pay all his bills out of that amount. While the amount he can charge will go up with level, so will his expenses. You assume these costs into the thought experiment, but that's a flaw in your theoretical framework... those costs are part of what brings the ROI on sitting on your duff casting spells away from adventuring.

I think that, given the flaws in the theoretical framework, your conclusions can be dismissed prima facie.

kjones
2009-09-09, 09:04 PM
The DM Guide, page 40, covers noncombat encounters and RPing experience but leaves it largely to DM discretion.


Right, and no DM in their right mind would give experience to a wizard-for-hire carrying out his day-to-day tasks. Otherwise, the world would be crammed to the gills with wizards who level-grind in their studies all day.

I guess I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say that PC wizards would be better off staying home? (No sane DM would let them level through "studying" and RP experience alone.) Are you trying to say that NPC wizards should be making more money than adventurers? (Who would give their own NPCs "roleplaying experience"?) Or are you just trying to point out an idiosyncrasy of D&D? (The system isn't designed to deal with PCs who sit around and not go on adventures. This isn't a shortcoming.)

Yahzi
2009-09-09, 09:14 PM
The XP system does not work for NPC's end of story.
It doesn't work for PCs, either. At 4 encounters a day and 13.3 encounters per level, the PCs will go from "comic relief amateurs" to "world-shattering gods" in under 3 months.


Nor do I believe there is a constant market for spell slots. A wizard could vastly increase his WBL if there was.
Not for wizards, no. But for priests... yes.


Basically I'm saying I don't like your assumptions.
They aren't his assumptions. It is the DMG that states that every town has a wizard, and that it costs pounds of gold to get wizards to cast a single spell slot.


Your not supposed to think about the DnD economy to hard anyway.
Ya, that's true. But doesn't it bother you? I don't understand how you can run a compelling and interesting world without thinking about basic things like that. Plus, you can think about it and make it work.

I managed to make sense of D&D economics in my game materials (see my sig).

golentan
2009-09-09, 10:34 PM
I'm saying if we treat the traditional DnD campaign as:

1. Kick in the Door
2. Kill Things
3. Profit
4. ???
5. Repeat
Couldn't think of a way to reorder that...
With #3 being the motive and not dying as an incentive, I can see why PCs would want to be casters, but I can't see why a caster would want to be a PC without some kind of psychosis.

This whole thing is a thought experiment. The player comes in with a goal: Go on Adventures. The character usually has a more tangible and direct goal which serves as motive: given the high morbidity and mortality rates it's not likely that they're just looking to get some kicks. I'm doing a thought experiment as to the nature of PC motivations and profits, entirely for kicks.

As for the sublimated costs: Spell components cost nothing or are absorbed by a customer, by RAW. Availability of books and research have never bothered PC wizards for there 2 free spells at level up, my assumption was it was personal research that mattered more. Renting rooms cost at most 2 gold a day, which is easily sublimated as negligible. Unless you're throwing a royal banquet every single day 3 fine meals prepared by someone else costs 5 silver. Half the cost of a 1st level wizard's cantrip taken all together. Right around a thousand a year, well under the projected curve. And then there would be apprentices to farm things out to, and...

Again, this is simplified for bookkeeping. I copped to this in the first post, I highlighted the assumptions specifically because they were ASSUMPTIONS that made my life easy enough to do the thought experiment. Yahzi, I'm about to look at your work, thanks for linking.

Gralamin
2009-09-09, 11:29 PM
I'm going to point out how fundamentally flawed your argument is, according to RAW, because of being in a metropolis. A lot of the following is based on Page 139 of the DMG. I've left a lot of numbers as simply averages, but this works best if you generate your city statistics on your own.

According to RAW, A Metropolis has, on average, 4 level 14.5 Wizards, and thus, 8 level 7.25 Wizards, 16 Level 3.625 wizards, and 32 Level 1.8125 Wizards. They will have an approximentaly equal amount of Sorcerers, and they will have higher level Clerics / Druids / Bards (4 level 15.5 of each, 8 level 7.75, 16 of Level 3.875, 32 Level 1.9375). They will have even more Adepts (4 level 15.5, 8 level 7.75, 16 level 3.875, 32 level 1.9375, and at least 125 level 1s).

So, your business is going to have to compete with almost everyone of these. A Metropolis contains 25,001+ people, and of that, at least 425 of them will be spellcasters of some stripe. So 1.7% of your population, at least, is a spellcaster. Of The rest of the population: The majority will be commoners. You will have, on average, 4 level 22 commoners, 8 level 11 commoners, 16 level 5 commoners, 32 level 2 commoners, and 18,246 1st level commoners. These commoners, likely have no need for spells that are unique to wizards. They need blessings, cures of diseases, etc. Very few low level wizard spells are needed by the majority of the population. Keep in mind that commoners earn around 1 sp a day, so almost none of them that can afford your prices.

I'm going to leave out the warriors, aristocrats, experts, Fighters, Monks, etc. Essentially, you have already lost about 93% of the population. There are about 1404 people left to sell to, between yourself AND the Other 425 Spellcasters. So, You have around a 3 people to 1 spell caster ratio. Your unlikely to make very much money off such a small customer base, especially when you consider of the 3 people that you basically are able to serve, most of them won't need a spell everyday - A week between casting is at least expectable.

Darcand
2009-09-10, 12:01 AM
Can you explain to me how the wizard is earning experience points by sitting around "practicing" and "studying"? Neither I nor any other DM I've ever met would give XP for something like that.

More directly, in D&D, you give XP for overcoming challenges. Practice and study shouldn't count.

On your first day working at McDonalds you can barely flip a burger, lose the katsup, use too many pickles and leave sweaty and exhausted. You are a level 1 Burgermancer.

By your second month you can run the grill by yourself, handle multiple orders at once, and hang out with the girl who does drive thru on the weekends. You are a level 6 Burgermancer.

By month six you can handle the whole back alone and even help out at the register when it's slow. You can drop fries in the frier and run outside to suck down a cigarette in the exact amount of time it takes them to cook. You are a level 10 Burgermancer.

After two years at McDonalds nothing fazes you. You have developed an eerie kinship with the frozen paties and your coworkers both fear and respect you. Even the manager no longer tries to tell you what to do. You are now a level 20 Burgermancer.

The same holds true regardless of if you're a carpenter, cashier, chemical engineer, or clown. The longer you do a job the better you become at it. D&D reflects that by awarding levels.

As far as never using up all of your spell slots goes...if there really were a mending spell they couldn't mint enough money.

TheCountAlucard
2009-09-10, 12:16 AM
As far as never using up all of your spell slots goes...if there really were a mending spell they couldn't mint enough money.Considering the current cost of said mending, you could probably buy/make a hundred of whatever it is you broke before you could afford a single mending spell. It's kinda like how these days, whenever a computer part goes faulty, it's simpler and cheaper to just throw it away and buy a new one than have someone fix it for you.

golentan
2009-09-10, 12:33 AM
Gralamin: That negates the influence of trade and passerby in a metropolis, who are significantly more likely to require services and be able to pay for them. The need of other spellcasters for services can't be discounted (in many cases it's more cost effective for a higher level caster to pay a lower level one to cast a spell, and lower level casters have to hire their superiors for anything they can't cast). In addition there is the business of the many farming supply villages which are required to support any city of significance, and commoners can pool money for necessary spells. Also, because of the aforementioned combat orientation of the game, a large number of the spells in all sourcebooks are aimed at killing or incapacitating. It can safely be assumed that there are many spells that do other things at every conceivable level.

Good examples include:
Cantrips: Prestidigitation, Mending, Message.
1st: Alarm, Comprehend Languages, Detect Undead, Identify, Hypnotism, Charm Person, Silent Image, Cause Fear, Enlarge Person, Erase, Expeditious Retreat, Reduce Person.
2nd: Arcane Lock, Obscure Object, Detect Thoughts, Locate Object, Continual Flame, Darkness, Invisibility, Magic Mouth, Minor Image, Phantom Trap, Blindness/deafness, Scare, Darkvision, Knock, Levitate, Rope Trick, Spider Climb, and Whispering wind.

All the way up to
9th: Disjunction, Gate, Refuge, Teleportation Circle, Foresight, Dominate Monster, Astral Projection, Soul Bind, Etherealness, Shapechange, and Time Stop.

I can think of very good uses for all these things and more, most emphatically worth paying the price for for at least one faction in a city. Admittedly, many of them are of questionable legality, but that just makes the expertise and discretion all the more valuable.

Hallavast
2009-09-10, 02:00 AM
Gralamin: That negates the influence of trade and passerby in a metropolis, who are significantly more likely to require services and be able to pay for them. The need of other spellcasters for services can't be discounted (in many cases it's more cost effective for a higher level caster to pay a lower level one to cast a spell, and lower level casters have to hire their superiors for anything they can't cast). In addition there is the business of the many farming supply villages which are required to support any city of significance, and commoners can pool money for necessary spells. Also, because of the aforementioned combat orientation of the game, a large number of the spells in all sourcebooks are aimed at killing or incapacitating. It can safely be assumed that there are many spells that do other things at every conceivable level.

And how much would you say these considerations increase the market base? Considering that wealthy travellers and merchants that need spellcasting while they are in the city probably doesn't even represent more than 1% of the population on a weekly basis (If there is some kind of regional event like a festival or other celebration, then that's a different case and should be calculated separately). And in most campaigns I would think that farmer's groups and communities go a long way with little spellcasting (and in considering elements outside the city, you must consider the increase in competition from outside spellcasters as well). So these groups would hardly need a spell cast daily or even weekly one would imagine. More likely they'd only need a spell cast seasonally or monthly. Also, these groups would be reluctant, i think, to pay the exhorbitant prices for spells if they could find other (cheaper) mundane alternatives.



I can think of very good uses for all these things and more, most emphatically worth paying the price for for at least one faction in a city. Admittedly, many of them are of questionable legality, but that just makes the expertise and discretion all the more valuable.

The question is: are you actually calculating the estimates on their demand and mitigating the price based on competition, or did you just assume book prices for spells and make up the spells/day/caster/buyer demand off the top of your head? If the former, would you mind posting these calculations?

Also, consider the flaw in assuming people will pay full price for higher caster levels if they can find a lower level caster to meet their needs adequately.

Fizban
2009-09-10, 02:11 AM
Keep in mind that commoners earn around 1 sp a day, so almost none of them that can afford your prices.

Just pointing out that untrained laborers earn 1sp per day. Trained laborers, like farmers and any commoner that put points into profession or a craft skill, will make much more. Even taking 10 with 1 rank and a -1 penalty they're averaging 5gp per week. That said, they can only put enough money aside to manage a couple cantrips a year if they're desperate. Great breakdown of demographics by the way.


level 20 Burgermancer.
That was awesome. Does this mean I'm a Bagomancer 10/Recyclomancer 10, or am I gestalt?

Myrmex
2009-09-10, 02:27 AM
Way too many assumptions for this to lead to any useful conclusion.

Wizards only can prepare a limited number of spells each day. How are they going to make sure the spells they prepare are the ones people want some hours later? It's not like a Cleric, who they can prepare a bunch of utility spells but still always whip out a Cure (whatever) Wounds to take care of any healing required. Wizards, unless they're grouped into a huge shop and run by a spell inventory control specialist (who'll take the bulk of the money, of course) are mostly going to prepare spells that aren't what people want that particular day. So figure only some fraction of their spellcasting potential will actually get accomplished. And while the D&D rules specify what the PCs pay for spellcasting services, there's no statement that the spellcasters get all that money. There's always overhead in any business venture.

You know, even if your request to have reality broken requires a 24 hour waiting period, I'm fairly certain that demand will continue to remain high.



The assumption that there is always somebody willing to buy a spell slot is silly.

Hence you reach a silly conclusion.

Not really. With instantaneous travel in a multitude of infinite realities, demand is probably going to be pretty infinite, and at certain economies of scale (ie, at certain levels), transaction costs will be extraordinarily low.

The only way for a medieval, feudal, hit things with a stick and live in the mud shacks around the castle while monsters eat you scenario to play out in any meaningful way is being stuck on some backwater, worthless world.

Or worse- being on the world that's owned by a harvester fiend that uses the world's souls to fuel his side of the Blood War.


You seem to be assuming one encounter a day, which is very low, and are assuming 13.5 encounters needed to level up, which I'm pretty sure is high. Also, where the hell did you get the idea sitting around not facing anything resembling a threat should count for experience?

13.5 encounters to level up is in the DMG, and I think so is the way NPCs earn exp (doing the things they do).


You can also make a case that all a wizard does in a dungeon when things go remotely right is sit in the back casting spells. I fail to see why doing this NOT aimed at a sentient creature should be so radically less enlightening than doing it aimed at a sentient creature. If anything, you're more likely to be panicked and thus paying less attention to the minutiae of detail that contribute to what gives you a better spell effect.

The same way you could make the case that a marine is just sitting back and shooting at insurgents, I guess.

oxinabox
2009-09-10, 02:28 AM
By DMG:
You should have 3 CR appropriate encounters per day/
or 2 CR +1 encounters perday
or 1 CR+2 encounters perday
or 4 CR -1 encounters perday
or 7 or more CR-2 encounters perday

Thus your lvling equations are wrong.


vaguely off topic
Also We did the Maths in a thread somethere
and worked out that 1000 gp can feed a Large city for a year

Crow
2009-09-10, 02:32 AM
What page of the DMG are you getting that from? I have always wondered, because I see it alot.

Zen Master
2009-09-10, 02:48 AM
Way
Wizards only can prepare a limited number of spells each day. How are they going to make sure the spells they prepare are the ones people want some hours later?

Well clearly - to buy, you must order a day or two in advance. On the walls of the hedge wizards home are neat tables, detailing each of his spell slots, who has purchased, and what spell is to be memorized (this last bit in code - discretion is key).


Way There's always overhead in any business venture.

Actually, not quite ... there is most often overhead in any business venture. And most things you can do with no overhead are illegal (in the real world at least).

Zen Master
2009-09-10, 02:54 AM
So then we're at the limitation of spells known. Learning and recording every spell costs money.

Then there's the overhead of time and distance. So someone's shopping for a Knock spell -- but they need it for a door with a broken lock two towns over. Or there's a castle expecting to be besieged, and they'll need a Wind Wall against incoming arrows -- whenever the attacking horde actually arrives.

If you just sit around all day in one place, you're not going to be able to deliver the spells people need, so you're not going to make much money.

These two, specifically, are Travel Expenses - meaning to get the knock spell cast on a door two towns over, you need to compensate pur hedge wizard for any lost income, effectively buying all his slots for two days ... and insurance, meaning you pay to have wind wall available when you need it, even if it never comes up. You sort of lease a spell slot, paying a fixed amount each month - supply and demand will determine whether you get a discount, or actually have to pay more for this service.

golentan
2009-09-10, 03:23 AM
By DMG:
You should have 3 CR appropriate encounters per day/
or 2 CR +1 encounters perday
or 1 CR+2 encounters perday
or 4 CR -1 encounters perday
or 7 or more CR-2 encounters perday

Thus your lvling equations are wrong.


vaguely off topic
Also We did the Maths in a thread somethere
and worked out that 1000 gp can feed a Large city for a year

That is per day of combat. You have 0 CR appropriate encounters per day of downtime, and one random encounter in a journey regardless of length (as so aptly pointed out in OOTS, during the starmetal sidequest). I'm guesstimating the average based on personal experience. Your mileage may vary. It does work out to 13-14 encounters to level.

And yes, you can feed a city for that much. So pretty much any time you see someone starving, it's a result of greed on someone's part (whether the clerics witholding create food and water during a famine or the lord holding on to the money he gained from overtaxation).

...

Going back to our concerns with greedy wizards:

@Hallavast: Travellers may only make up 1% of the population on a week to week basis, but that's still 250 at a minimum for a metropolis. Week to week. Fresh blood, coming in with cash and problems. I think that can be worked out to the advantage of someone. Given that an earlier complaint was that only 7% of the population was a target demographic, and then not weekly (which I still don't agree to), I'll take a 14.2% bump in my demographic that is interested in weekly sales any day.

My assumption that people will pay full price for higher CL is based on variable CL effect spells. Rather than pay every two hours for a dedicated spell where a duration is based on it, pay a higher caster level once a day, for example. Since the price bump is linear, and the effect bump is (usually) linear, it works quite well. Then, non-variable (or less necessary) spell slots may be farmed out to beginners.

All of my work is based on RAW (prices lifted from PH whole, encounters to level from DMG, etc. etc.) except for the 5 assumptions, which are solely there to make the thing calculable. Like I said, I'm using the economic rules as written in all their nonsensical glory. Again, if you want to take the time to make a better model, go ahead.


The same way you could make the case that a marine is just sitting back and shooting at insurgents, I guess.

Yeah, but personally I've always found my marksmanship improves most practicing at the range, when I can think carefully about what I did that gave better or worse results and know that it was MY shot that hit.

@Crow: Which particular thing? We've mentioned a lot of stuff from the DMG...

Curmudgeon
2009-09-10, 03:24 AM
These two, specifically, are Travel Expenses - meaning to get the knock spell cast on a door two towns over, you need to compensate pur hedge wizard for any lost income, effectively buying all his slots for two days ... and insurance, meaning you pay to have wind wall available when you need it, even if it never comes up. You sort of lease a spell slot, paying a fixed amount each month - supply and demand will determine whether you get a discount, or actually have to pay more for this service.
Yeah, none of that's going to happen. You'll end up paying somebody with "locksmith" skills (Rogue levels) instead, because they're around and can do the job faster and better. And nobody would play a Wizard to just hang around, when Clerics can do the same job and also be so much more useful while they're waiting for the enemy to arrive.

Competition will knock the local Wizard's prices down pretty close to subsistence level. That's why adventuring works: it pays better.

golentan
2009-09-10, 03:40 AM
Yeah, none of that's going to happen. You'll end up paying somebody with "locksmith" skills (Rogue levels) instead, because they're around and can do the job faster and better. And nobody would play a Wizard to just hang around, when Clerics can do the same job and also be so much more useful while they're waiting for the enemy to arrive.

Competition will knock the local Wizard's prices down pretty close to subsistence level. That's why adventuring works: it pays better.

Hmm. I don't see that as necessarily so. You employ someone with Knock because they can open something at a distance almost regardless of countermeasures instantaneously. Whereas a rogue will take some time, and may set off traps on a botched roll.

This does mean your clientele is more limited (those looking to get into a trapped, locked, barred, enchanted, observed, or any combination of these things discreetly and quickly), but it also means that again, any situation where you are being employed they are willing to pay exceedingly well for the convenience.

And knock isn't the best example of a second level spell hiring. A better example would be Detect Thoughts (interrogations, philandering spouse, guild espionage... the uses are really endless). Locate object (divining water, precious metals, lost signet rings, yada yada). And continual flame. Every good metropolis needs lighting, and every vandal has to deface at least one of the public utilities, and Minor Image (holographic tactical displays for the general, party tricks for the nobles, snoring watchmen, really boost the circuses' performance...)

Hallavast
2009-09-10, 04:58 AM
Hmm. I don't see that as necessarily so. You employ someone with Knock because they can open something at a distance almost regardless of countermeasures instantaneously. Whereas a rogue will take some time, and may set off traps on a botched roll.

This does mean your clientele is more limited (those looking to get into a trapped, locked, barred, enchanted, observed, or any combination of these things discreetly and quickly), but it also means that again, any situation where you are being employed they are willing to pay exceedingly well for the convenience.

And knock isn't the best example of a second level spell hiring. A better example would be Detect Thoughts (interrogations, philandering spouse, guild espionage... the uses are really endless). Locate object (divining water, precious metals, lost signet rings, yada yada). And continual flame. Every good metropolis needs lighting, and every vandal has to deface at least one of the public utilities, and Minor Image (holographic tactical displays for the general, party tricks for the nobles, snoring watchmen, really boost the circuses' performance...)

Sounds like these wizards will more often than not be contracted for big, complex jobs by extensively wealthy people. THESE kinds of contracts don't come along every day nor for every wizard.

Further, municipal magic services (continual flame to light the city, locate object to find water etc.) will likely be sougt after exclusively by the city authorities. If I were the monarch or similar ruling body of said city, I would first try to find a wizard more loyal to my cause who would do the city a service at a discounted price.

You are discussing these conditions but not actually implimenting them into your model. And you have acknowledged that your model is not realistic. Since this is so, you've reasoned that the only kind of game the model applies to is the "boardgamesque", kick in the door, hack-slash-loot-repeat style of D&D. But when you think about this, how many of those games have well developed civilized areas that are more than just places to buy and sell loot and supplies? And how many of those players even give any thought about their character's motivations for adventuring in the first place?

Your endeavor is a very narrow and limited one in scope and potential use. What is the point?

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to create a model that applies to more games?

golentan
2009-09-10, 05:40 AM
Your endeavor is a very narrow and limited one in scope and potential use. What is the point?

Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to create a model that applies to more games?

Yes. What's your point?

The difficulty of modelling a complex system grows exponentially with the number of inputs, leading to experimental design and analysis features such as the nearly orthogonal latin hypercube.

Factoring in everything raised would give us a massive, unwieldy model that would need to be subjectively tuned if the underlying assumptions didn't match the game. I count at least a 7 dimensional problem space, with an appropriately massive polynomial to solve for optimization, and lots of variables to be tweaked. It's the sort of problem that the students I worked with would do their masters theses on, and after spending a year and a half on their model would still get torn to pieces by the professors, and told 500 things to fix before sending it down to the cluster to be computed over a few hundred to thousands of CPU hours. I like my model. It's a simple, two dimensional solution space. It has an easily graphed profit line, and can be broken into nice, easy, discreet periods for quick calculation. It's not very accurate, but it gives a quick, dirty cost benefit analysis without trying to claim to do anything more. So no. No I'm not going to take the time to fix it. Or to generalize it. So for the last time, either please stop ragging on it for things that were covered in the OP as model weaknesses (hint, that's what assumptions MEAN in this context), or build your own darn model. I spent half an hour on mine, and it gives me a platform to ask deeper, probing questions about the underlying universe it's modeling without having to recreate that universe over a few dozen months in equation form. If that is how you get your kicks, go ahead. I hear some guys up in canada got a grant for modeling a zombie apocalypse, maybe you can grab one for the economics of wizardry.

And now I am far too tired and will collapse. See you tomorrow.

Avilan the Grey
2009-09-10, 05:45 AM
I haven't really looked into this, but the thought have struck me.
Basically, if I was a wizard, I would require the expected profit to add another zero on my daily income, at least, so there is no need to prove that I earn MORE than an adventurer, just that I earn more than an adventurer/10.
The risk of dying stupidly, you know, outweighs gold, mostly.
Now if there was an artifact involved that I could not get another way, and REALLY wanted... But the DM do not produce them every adventure.

This is also why I prefer systems without character levels (It does not make sense that the king's guard are all lvl 5 warriors, that never levels up even when they defend against a siege, while my thief / fighter levels ten times on a sunday).

Zen Master
2009-09-10, 05:47 AM
Yeah, none of that's going to happen. You'll end up paying somebody with "locksmith" skills (Rogue levels) instead, because they're around and can do the job faster and better. And nobody would play a Wizard to just hang around, when Clerics can do the same job and also be so much more useful while they're waiting for the enemy to arrive.

Competition will knock the local Wizard's prices down pretty close to subsistence level. That's why adventuring works: it pays better.

That's really not my problem, is it? I used your examples. So if you think your own ideas are that bad, you should have come up with better ones, I guess.

Keep in mind too, that this exact sort of thing is very common in the real world. The question isn't 'do I get a mage or a rogue to open my lock for me' - it's whether or not there is a large middle class with enough to pay for the service, whom so ever provides it.

oxinabox
2009-09-10, 06:31 AM
What page of the DMG are you getting that from? I have always wondered, because I see it alot.

I can't recall of the top of my head (i know some dm's who can) but it's the sameone (or the one after) that says what the CR for multiple monsters in one encounter is.

kjones
2009-09-10, 07:49 AM
The same holds true regardless of if you're a carpenter, cashier, chemical engineer, or clown. The longer you do a job the better you become at it. D&D reflects that by awarding levels.

Actually, D&D doesn't reflect this at all. The changes you describe are more accurately described by an increase in ranks in a skill - increase in levels would also increase your BAB, saves, etc., and that doesn't make sense.

This is the nature of level-based (as opposed to skill-based) systems. This is why you can kill kobolds until you become better at opening locks. D&D does not have a mechanic that reflects training in some specific task - just ways to make you "stronger" overall. Again, this isn't really a shortcoming of the system.

Look at it this way - if you

But I stand by my previous point - if the OP is talking about an actual game, then nobody would ever give experience for what he describes. It seems that the OP is saying "Look, here's something about D&D that doesn't make sense" - but he's deliberately making it not make sense by way of his assumption that you'd level up by not going on adventures. Nobody does this.

Now, if you were to actually roleplay a businessman wizard selling spells, you could probably make a pretty penny. But you would only earn experience when the DM decided to make things "interesting" for you, and in this case "interesting" probably hurts your bottom line. It's nowhere near as much of a sure thing as the OP implies.

Consider the following - The DMG suggests that characters face several CR-appropriate encounters per day. Therefore, any Joe off the street is mere months away from achieving godlike power! All he has to do is pick up a sword. Why would anyone not do that?

Saph
2009-09-10, 08:13 AM
Every 2 days of dedicated practice and study will count as a single encounter (with roleplaying) for a wizard at home.

As already mentioned, this is a nonsensical assumption. You don't gain XP for sitting home and studying. If you did, every wizard, cleric, sorcerer, and druid in the world would be level 12 by the end of their freshman year and epic-level by the time they graduated.

And you can stop right there, because you've already made adventuring pointless. If everyone can attain godlike power with a couple of years of study, there's no reason to go adventuring. The rest of the discussion about GP earnings is meaningless. If you're an epic level wizard, you basically don't care about money anymore.

Set
2009-09-10, 08:15 AM
Second, non-lethal leveling. Complete Warrior has an example tournament that includes a non-lethal duel, awarding 1/2 normal xp if you defeat your opponent in that challenge. There is no risk to your health (assuming both play fair, clerics are also on hand), but there is something to be gained (points towards winning the tournament). SilverClawShift used this method to train commoners in her horror campaign a while back to get an army ready for the end of the world. I'd suggest using the 1/2xp rule for your NPC, but the problem is that he has to have some sort of challenge for it to work, and if he's training he can't cast spells for money.

Suddenly, Wizard's Duels have a purpose in the game! Neat.

Fishy
2009-09-10, 08:18 AM
I am now imagining a level 1 wizard selling off Prestidigitations, Mendings, and Unseen Servants, in a frilly maid costume.

Curmudgeon
2009-09-10, 11:31 AM
That's really not my problem, is it? I used your examples. So if you think your own ideas are that bad, you should have come up with better ones, I guess.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with hiring out to sell spellcasting services. I'm just saying that you're not going to be making nearly as much money as you think by doing so, because there are alternative ways to satisfy people's needs. So you can do fine selling Knock -- but you have to undercut the price of that Rogue with Open Lock skills.

golentan
2009-09-10, 12:50 PM
@Avilan: Yeah. A player and a DM can always come up with a plot motive for adventuring. This is entirely looking at whether a profit motive is even sensible, for you it is at a profit of 10 to 1? I'm letting everyone draw their own risk factor line where they will, I guess.

@Kjones: I'm not talking about an actual game, and I'm not trying to imply that it's as certain as the model decrees it to be. It is what it is: a MODEL for exploring an interesting phenomenon within the rules. Why you ask? Mostly just because I like to look at things and ask 'Why?' And I generally prefer to get a better answer than "As high as the steeple." It seems to me that the value in GP of being a wizard of Level X is strictly non-correllated to the value the DMG assigns to being a wizard of Level X. Even before factoring in item creation, or guild structures, or probably 500 other things all of which on paper increase the value of being a Level X wizard. Can everyone agree on this?

@Saph (and Kjones): AGAIN!!! The assumptions in the OP were entirely meant to make the model calculable. The XP suggestions lead adventurers to the height of their power in less than nine and a half in game months, and NPCs to the same in twice as long. Both are silly assumptions. A longer period for PCs to level favors the non-adventurer, a shorter period favors PCs.

@Everyone: Treat it as an OOTS type verse, we've got a PC divorced from a player. This PC is motivated by profit for profit's sake. This PC has available some means of advancing simply through study and practice (Just. Go with it). What is the optimum way to maximize profit. This quick, back of the envelope way seems to say they should adventure until they hit level 5, then immediately retire and begin selling spells. Assuming of course, that the risk factor is low enough. If they are ambivalent about the risk, the character should instead simply stay home, and outpace adventurers slightly more slowly. Even if they only sell a quarter of their available spells on average, their monthly income is still a quarter that of someone nearly twice their levels net worth in many cases. 5th level can gain their WBL again with a month of the easy life, as opposed to breaking their back and making that extra few GP. Their yearly income is 3 times the net worth of a 9th level adventurer, in this case. If they'd rather be making less money and risking death killing things to take their stuff, it implies to me a level of sociopathy and/or suicidal impulses usually only seen in rabid wombats, lemmings, and belkar.

@Fishy: Hehehehe...

I am bolding this because many people flat out ignored this several times, so if you missed it it should be highly visible. Now again, as I've now posted 4 or 5 times throughout this board: Quit whining about how the model is flawed. You aren't going to make me "fix it," because implementing a fix would take days for a simple one, weeks at a minimum for a truly fixed model. You aren't making new points. So, let me be clear: If you aren't willing to help fix it, you are never entitled to complain about it. This has been my policy on life in general, and I've found it works. As long as you are actively contributing to a perceived solution, you can say anything you please. When you're not, please sit down and let the rest of us get on with it. So if you have an algorithm I can plug in to remove one of the assumptions and still get to a calculable solution, by all means submit it. Or if you will build your own model, possibly highlighting the problem the other way, I will cheerfully discuss with you the implications of your own model. If not, don't complain about the assumptions, because until someone cares enough to do something other than complain, everything stays exactly as it is.

Crow
2009-09-10, 01:33 PM
After reading the section of the DMG which supposedly claims that adventurers should face 4 encounters per day which roughly come out to their EL (even if the individual encounters vary), I am convinved that a lot of people have missed the point.

That section of the DMG is giving guidelines as an example for the DM to help understand challenge rating, and how it relates to the EL of the party. It does say however that within an adventure, 5% of encounters should be overpowering, 10% easy, etc, etc...

That is for an adventure though, and not neccessarily a day of adventuring. An adventure could take months of time in-game (ours commonly take a few weeks at low levels). To assume that every group of adventurers is running into what amounts to 4 even EL encounters per day is a little off. Not to mention that I feel sorry for groups whose adventures are so predictable. I don't remember it every taking 13.5 encounters for my group to level, because encounters are intended to be varied, and due to the experience system, your experience gained will fluctuate wildly because of this.

Really, the Stay-at-Home AND Go-Adventure portions of the original post make a lot of assumptions which will more than likely not be the case.

Alejandro
2009-09-10, 02:45 PM
If I were the wizard in question, I would charge a basic rate to book my services for X hours/days/whatever. During that time, my spellcasting ability is at your disposal. You'd probably come out ahead over selling individual spellcastings.

Ormur
2009-09-10, 02:46 PM
Okay I get it now. If we accept the OP assumptions it becomes obvious that there is a flaw in wealth by level versus NPC spellcasting income. I have a 12th level wizard in one campaign his WBL is now supposed to be about 88.000 GP and if I level up in 13,5 days and maintain the WBL I will then have 110.000 GP at an average income of 1.630 GP a day. If however I decided to sell all my spellslots for the 10 x spell level x spellcasting level (even presuming I only get payed for the lowest level possible) I would make 2640+2250+1400+900+420+70+25= 7705 GP a day. If I sell everything this is the minimum I get not counting selling spells at a higher than necessary level and my ring of arcane power although it does include spellslot I get for my headband of intellect +4 (for int 22).

This doesn't work out since being an adventurer is supposed to be better but riskier than sitting at home. I think the flaw is in the formula for selling (or buying) spells.

Crow
2009-09-10, 02:54 PM
If I were the wizard in question, I would charge a basic rate to book my services for X hours/days/whatever. During that time, my spellcasting ability is at your disposal. You'd probably come out ahead over selling individual spellcastings.

I like this. I'm going to steal it for my campaign.

Saph
2009-09-10, 03:00 PM
@Saph (and Kjones): AGAIN!!! The assumptions in the OP were entirely meant to make the model calculable.

But your assumptions are freaking nuts! We can't take your reasoning seriously if you're basing it on such a crazy baseline. You've houseruled so heavily that you've basically got a completely different game from the one the rest of us are playing.

What you've produced is a classic example of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. If you aren't willing to accept criticism of the assumptions, then there's really no point talking about this in the first place.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-10, 03:11 PM
It doesn't matter how complicated the model is if it's not modelling the correct rules.

And the whole "fix it or shut up" isn't really relevant, since you're the one who brought up the "problem" in the first place.

Curmudgeon
2009-09-10, 03:46 PM
So if you have an algorithm I can plug in to remove one of the assumptions and still get to a calculable solution, by all means submit it. Or if you will build your own model, possibly highlighting the problem the other way, I will cheerfully discuss with you the implications of your own model.
I think you're missing the main thrust I and several other posters are taking: there isn't any point in trying to make such a model, because spells are services with worth that varies depending on supply and demand.

If there's a pack of archers about to let loose in your direction and you're the only spellcaster, you can probably get a good sum for casting Wind Wall. The rest of the time that spell is only worth a few coppers for entertainment value as you make the leaves scurry about. It's supply and demand.

Calculable is nice. But in this case, also pretty useless.

LibraryOgre
2009-09-10, 03:48 PM
But your assumptions are freaking nuts! We can't take your reasoning seriously if you're basing it on such a crazy baseline. You've houseruled so heavily that you've basically got a completely different game from the one the rest of us are playing.

What you've produced is a classic example of GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. If you aren't willing to accept criticism of the assumptions, then there's really no point talking about this in the first place.

Gotta agree with Saph, here. You've assumed that leveling due to study happens at a meteoric rate, that expenses will be negligible (and, if you're exclusively studying for level, there's bound to be costs of some sort), and have no real support for those assumptions. Based on these assumptions, you say "Why would anyone ever adventure when they could just stay home and gain 1 level a month, for free?" When asked "Why on earth would you assume that they'd get 1 level a month?", you get angry that the assumptions were questioned.

Sure, they make it more calculable, but they've got no real basis in reality.

Ormur
2009-09-10, 04:20 PM
To add to my previous post, I think that the 10 gp x spell level x caster level formula in the DMG in general is unworkable. It might work for individual spells that the PC's desperately need from the only guy that can provide them. But in a metropolis you'll have lots of spellcasters that can provide simple spells so the supply is much to great for a first level spell to cost 10 days worth of a 1st level PC class salary. Going by the rules it's much cheaper to hire a wizard for a few days than to get him to cast a single spell.

That must mean that either most spellcasters are unable or unwilling to sell their spellslots for supply to go down or that not enough people can afford to buy the overpriced spellslots for spellcasters to be able to sell more than a few every day. Ergo in a world ruled by supply and demand that goes roughly by the RAW you could make a lot more money as a spellcaster if you sold your spellslot way cheaper than for the list price but then you wouldn't make the obscene amounts of money the OP requires.

As I calculated in my last post my 12th level wizard would make 7705 gp a day if he could always sell all his spellslots for the list price. The amount of cash available in a metropolis according to the DMG is half the gp limit x 1/10 the population or 125 million gp. So it would take this single 12th level wizard 44 years without leveling up to buy the entire city. That may sound reasonable but he's an elf and there are supposed to be at least four higher level wizards in the city according to the DMG.

Yakk
2009-09-10, 05:18 PM
So suppose your city has a level 15 wizard.

It then has two level 13 wizards, 4 level 11, 8 level 9, 16 level 7, 32 level 5, 64 level 3, and 128 level 1 wizards, if I remember the rules right.

Let's suppose that wizards tend to become level 1 at age 30 or so, and practice for 40 years before they stop studying.

In that time, 3% of them die per year.

Next, lets assume that some wizards study harder than others.

There are ~255 wizards in town.

~70 are in their 30s
~50 are in their 40s
~40 are in their 50s
~30 are in their 60s
~70 are 70+

As it takes ~200 encounters to hit level 15, over the 40 years of practice the wizard only got 5 encounters/year -- and that was the most gifted one.

Even if you assume all of the high level wizards are 70+, that means there are level 3 wizards who are 70+ -- in practice, many of them will be level 1. Which means for some wizards, they get less than 1 encounter's worth of XP every 3 years.

A happy median is 2 encounters per year worth of XP -- so a wizard can reasonably expect to hit about level 6 or 7 before they retire from study over 40 years, if they are in a large city with lots of colleges.

None of this factors in the possibility of long-lived spellcasters, or those who continue studying past maturity.

In short: if you are going to model NPC advancement rates, examine the NPC distribution rules. If your NPC advancement rates are not even in the same ballpark as the NPC distribution rules, then your rates are not very consistent with RAW. :)

Another interesting fact is that by the time you hid mid-high levels, it does become more profitable to retire and sell your spells. In a world that presumes "adventurer" is a common profession, that would mean that many wizards in town are retired adventurers. This would reduce the expected rate of advancement among civilian wizards even more so, as it provides an alternative source of those high level wizards.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-10, 05:25 PM
Keep in mind that, as well known to OOTS fans, prices go up when adventurers come to town.

golentan
2009-09-10, 05:37 PM
The calculation:

On the adventurer's side the calculation is simple: Level at time == Value. RAW.

On the Homebody Side, the calculations are slightly more complicated. Value == Number of Days * Scaling factor (less than or equal to one, the portion of spells sold daily) * (Sum base value of spell slots) * Caster level. By. RAW. That was the model. That was all there ever was to the model, that and a simple relationship between time and level. I used a Scaling factor of 1 (which you can take as is, take as ridiculous the way everyone ripping on it seems to have, or take as an opportunity value rather than actual income) and assumed no other sources of income. Point to any two things in there that aren't RAW or variable. I employed the universe's laws and logic as it is written except where it varies based on group. I assumed that the homebody could gain experience from noncombat situations as listed in the DMG, and then used a rough guesstimate of the difference in time to level in the absence of a playtest. I chose 2 just as a guess. I chose a month vs. two weeks because longer times made the gap more blatantly obscene in favor of homebodies That time factor is the only thing I can think of that I didn't lift and calculate.

Yes, golentan. Quit making such wild, unfounded claims based on ridiculous houserules. Yes, please take your quick highlight of a glaring discrepancy in the logic of the universe, expand it, generalize it, make it more accurate, and make it embrace concepts from a universe that it is completely unconcerned with modeling and which are explicitly at odds with the universe being modeled simultaneously. And quit being an idiot.

The leveling criticism is a tough one, because time to level is entirely in the hands of the GM. So tweak the times if you like. Regardless of outcome, if an adventurer levels twice a month or less and begins within striking distance (level wise) of a caster who can sell any significant portion of their spells/day, the adventurer will make less money by RAW a long time and runs additional risks (like death). But the point was never supposed to be about leveling, I incorporated it to show the arrow of time and skill's effect on income. You can change the time between levels for either side, or tweak the scaling factor for the homebody.

I'm not questioning based on an xp incentive. I'm questioning the financial incentive. If we take leveling off the table for the stay at home, and give the adventurer a level twice a month, the "stay at home" still outpaces in income unless we radically hobble it. Half of the GI is straight RAW. Supply and demand doesn't matter because their is no supply and demand in the world being modeled, it has to be explicitly houseruled in order to work and I am trying to look at the system as it exists in core as closely as possible. My houserules are assumptions (as best as I can make them without playtesting) for a non-combatant pc advancement. Everything else is a nice RAW number lifted straight from core, or in the case of 1 encounter/day an AVERAGE which assumes implicit travel time to reach an appropriate encounter zone.

The reason I specified them as assumptions was because they were assumptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics#Criticism_of_assumptions). As in "things that we handwave so that we get results close to what we know actually happens." The PH tells me that spells cost X gold. The DMG tells me that a wizard with Y many spell slots each day who goes on adventures will make Z amount of gold. A quick calculation, like what I did, shows that in any reasonable time frame there is a massive dichotomy between the two values.

The reason I get angry when they are questioned is because the same points have been beaten to death before being blown up without any constructive advice. In fact, I defy you to find a single critical post that gives a single useful suggestion for fixing something rather than merely ripping on my statements or dismissing things out of hand. I was unable to find any, and given that I pointed them out as problem areas in my OP (or at least I thought I did), telling me that I am an idiot for assuming that I can get a useful highlight of a problem is something I find quite grating. And every time it starts to die a little and people actually talk about the implications, someone else jumps in with one of three posts worded a little differently and everyone climbs back on my back. So rather than talking about the implications, I spend all my time explaining that it doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.

I'm not trying to model a real world economy with spellcasting. I'm not trying to model DND as a real world economy. The model isn't complicated, it is based on the rules of the world, and my "Fix it or shut up" attitude is that if you don't have anything new to contribute in your complaints, and don't have anything positive to say, and don't have any actual advice rather than mere complaining, what on earth is the point of spending a few paragraphs saying it? On which note I don't think I'll be explaining again why I did the design features I did. Further complaints can be addressed to someone who cares, unless you have a new point to make. Any new points or concrete suggestions will be received, analyzed, and responded to deferentially.

Edit: For example, the new demographics post is a valuable post, and if you prefer the level scaling in it go ahead and use that as a factor (though the Mortality rates seem a bit high, as does average starting age...)

Maybe we set encounters at 4 per year, with 22 as the starting age for level 1?

Ormur
2009-09-10, 06:02 PM
Even if we eliminate any NPC progression for sitting at home from your model it still stands for mid to high level adventures. If we accept it it would make sense for an adventuring spellcaster of a certain level to stop adventuring and become a sellspell in a metropolis.

As a DM or a player I wouldn't like that and it seems to break the economy. There are many other ways of breaking the game by RAW, usually solved by houseruling or a gentleman's agreement so I'd tweak the rules to factor in supply and demand to reduce the price of spells or the willingness of spellcasters to sell spellslots. It's not a critique of your model it's a way to circumvent it.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-10, 06:08 PM
How many encounters does an NPC face? Running away from them doesn't earn xp, mind. Sure, palace guards, assassins, town guards, ranger types, they may actually face challenges in their daily duties, but a guy who sits in a tower and studies? He's lucky if he faces an actual dangerous opponent all year.

It may be better at a given level in terms of gold over time, but your adventuring pals will quickly outstrip you in power..which leads to not only more gold earning ability, but, well, sheer power. If that's not attractive to a wizard, I dunno what is.

golentan
2009-09-10, 06:16 PM
Even if we eliminate any NPC progression for sitting at home from your model it still stands for mid to high level adventures. If we accept it it would make sense for an adventuring spellcaster of a certain level to stop adventuring and become a sellspell in a metropolis.

As a DM or a player I wouldn't like that and it seems to break the economy. There are many other ways of breaking the game by RAW, usually solved by houseruling or a gentleman's agreement so I'd tweak the rules to factor in supply and demand to reduce the price of spells or the willingness of spellcasters to sell spellslots. It's not a critique of your model it's a way to circumvent it.

Yep. A PC will always be a PC while the player wants to play them. I'm just trying to figure out how on earth the economy functions for kicks, and because as written it doesn't seem to work. Like I said, I can see why a player would want to have a PC wizard, I can't see why a wizard would want to be a PC in a classic dungeoncrawl game. Most of the stuff can be circumvented by a normal player and or a sane GM. Just looking at the written rules and trying to extrapolate.

Xenogears
2009-09-10, 06:19 PM
How many encounters does an NPC face? Running away from them doesn't earn xp, mind. Sure, palace guards, assassins, town guards, ranger types, they may actually face challenges in their daily duties, but a guy who sits in a tower and studies? He's lucky if he faces an actual dangerous opponent all year.

It may be better at a given level in terms of gold over time, but your adventuring pals will quickly outstrip you in power..which leads to not only more gold earning ability, but, well, sheer power. If that's not attractive to a wizard, I dunno what is.

But overcoming any challenge is XP worthy. For instance in the tower confined wizard:

Negotiating successful business deals, gaining new allies, resisting a mafia-esque group trying to edge in, etc.

Also if there are guards trying to capture you and you successfully run from them (assuming they are chasing you AFTER you accomplished your goal) you should get some XP for them since you did defeat the encounter.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-10, 06:32 PM
If you aren't willing to help fix it, you are never entitled to complain about it.

You a politician? That's the most polite "Bugger off, ye bastards" I've ever seen.

Alejandro
2009-09-10, 07:04 PM
I like this. I'm going to steal it for my campaign.

No problem. I mean, really, many specialists in the real world work this way. You simply book their time, and the fee depends on the level of their skill. Retaining an accountant and hiring a wedding DJ are good examples, but one is going to cost a lot more because his services are (usually) more valuable.

I would have the fee per day go up, depending on the spellcaster's level. It would be commensurate with the costs for that caster if you have him casting most of his spells, every day. If you don't have him cast that many, you still pay up, so only hire an expensive wizard if you need serious work done (like retaining a personal accountant.)

Oh, and can I eat you?

Avilan the Grey
2009-09-11, 03:29 AM
How many encounters does an NPC face? Running away from them doesn't earn xp, mind. Sure, palace guards, assassins, town guards, ranger types, they may actually face challenges in their daily duties, but a guy who sits in a tower and studies? He's lucky if he faces an actual dangerous opponent all year.

This is, I feel, a misunderstanding of what Wizards do. Even when they are researching etc. To me, a Wizard not only read in dusty tomes. He has to face dangers there, too. Battling or subduing Enhanced books, conjuring and controlling elementals, demons, or whatever you summon to ask for advice or for errands...
This is not just a job where you sit in your chair and smoke the pipe.

Zen Master
2009-09-11, 03:38 AM
I'm just saying that you're not going to be making nearly as much money as you think by doing so

Wrong tree. I've said nothing - not one single word - about how profitable it may or may not be. I spoke simply of market mechanics.

Really, I think you might want to think about it the other way around. The books state that spells cost X. Like ... longswords, or rope. So when a rogue offers to pick locks, he will set his price according to market value of that sort of service - namely X.

Possibly our rogue will undercut the wizard somewhat - being the less refined, and often legally suspect, alternative.

Avilan the Grey
2009-09-11, 03:54 AM
Possibly our rogue will undercut the wizard somewhat - being the less refined, and often legally suspect, alternative.

...Except when he knows he is the only alternative (due to need of discretion, etc), then he will charge 10 times what the wizard would charge. But then that goes for everyone of course.