Unskilled Labourers

[Matthew]

So we got a bit off topic in this thread: (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46025) and I felt kind of guilty about derailing it, but I also think the subject is quite an interesting one. basically we were discussing D&D Economics, Profession and the Unskilled Labourer.


Profession (Wis; Trained Only)
Like Craft, Knowledge, and Perform, Profession is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Profession skills, each with its own ranks, each purchased as a separate skill. While a Craft skill represents ability in creating or making an item, a Profession skill represents an aptitude in a vocation requiring a broader range of less specific knowledge.

Check
You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems.

Action
Not applicable. A single check generally represents a week of work.

Try Again
Varies. An attempt to use a Profession skill to earn an income cannot be retried. You are stuck with whatever weekly wage your check result brought you. Another check may be made after a week to determine a new income for the next period of time. An attempt to accomplish some specific task can usually be retried.

Untrained
Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.

Now, to me, this last part (much like the Equipment List costs themselves) is just a recognisable hold over from (A)D&D where there was a lot of confusion about how X interacted with Y (The Common Laborer was rated at 1 SP per week and, for some reason, 1 GP per Month on Table 65 of the 2.x DMG, which was itself imported from the 1.x DMG Table concerning Hireling pay). On the one hand, the 2.x DMG admitted that PHB equipment prices were wildly inflated beyond what was appropriate, but on the other it didn't seem to worry them that you could hire a Shield Bearer for 5 SP a month.

This was never really a big deal, as pay did not include provisions or housing, which were an additional cost that Player Characters were expected to pay.

However, somebody was either not really paying attention when they put together the 3.x Profession Rules or they were just having a bit of a joke at our expense, because now we are stuck with the rather odd entry that implies that 7 SP a week is a fair wage for an Unskilled Labourer or Assistant, compared to what somebody with Profession (X) 1(1) can earn (55 SP), it is quite ridiculous.

Now, before we start worrying too much about why the D&D economy doesn't make sense (it doesn't for many reasons) or how 'it would totally work if we assume X and ignore Y, what I am actually interested in is how many of us have found this a useful game mechanic or else to have interfered in their game in some way.

Personally, I have never had it come up in 3.x, but I don't play lengthy campaigns under this system.

[barawn]

However, somebody was either not really paying attention when they put together the 3.x Profession Rules or they were just having a bit of a joke at our expense, because now we are stuck with the rather odd entry that implies that 7 SP a week is a fair wage for an Unskilled Labourer or Assistant, compared to what somebody with Profession (X) 1(1) can earn (55 SP), it is quite ridiculous.

Now, before we start worrying too much about why the D&D economy doesn't make sense (it doesn't for many reasons) or how 'it would totally work if we assume X and ignore Y, what I am actually interested in is how many of us have found this a useful game mechanic or else to have interfered in their game in some way.

Personally, I have never had it come up in 3.x, but I don't play lengthy campaigns under this system.

I've used it once, I think - when someone decided in downtime that he was going to try to work for some money, and I told him it would never be worth it. His response was "how do all the commoners survive?" and my response was "they're better at it than you would be."

I don't really see how it's ridiculous. No one works as an unskilled laborer very long.

[Matthew]

Well, to be clear, the length of time an NPC is an Unskilled Labourer is equivalent to the number of levels spent without putting any Skill Points into a Profession. According to the DMG, an average NPC Classed NPC can be expected to earn about three levels over the course of their life time, so I would expect that an NPC will remain an Unskilled Labourer for between ten and twenty years should he be so unlucky as to not be able to invest Skill Points into Profession at Level 1.

[Iron_Mouse]

You can also use the Craft skill to earn money. Unlike Profession, Craft can be used untrained.

[Matthew]

Hahah, that's hilariously true. Interestingly, that Skill also contains the 1 SP a Day Unskilled Labourer/Assistant assertion. Apparently, Unskilled Craftsmen employ and pay Unskilled Labourers...

[Tellah]

This is just another thing that drives me flippin' crazy about D&D: the inclusion of haphazard rules for things the game doesn't really support. The game simply doesn't support--and later statements made by Wizards confirm this--the modeling of economic activity. I'm fine with that, and if my players wanted to move away from our current Monty Haul dungeon crawl type of campaign, I'd love to use some custom rules I've come up with on the subject. It just bugs me that Wizards would include these extraordinarily clunky, counter-intuitive, unbalanced and unresearched mechanics for something they admit is not a part of their game.

A great and mighty intellect--maybe it was you, Matthew?--once posted that D&D is the modern world dressed up in Medieval drag. Things like wages and profit just have no place in a Medieval setting.

[barawn]

Well, to be clear, the length of time an NPC is an Unskilled Labourer is equivalent to the number of levels spent without putting any Skill Points into a Profession. According to the DMG, an average NPC Classed NPC can be expected to earn about three levels over the course of their life time, so I would expect that an NPC will remain an Unskilled Labourer for between ten and twenty years should he be so unlucky as to not be able to invest Skill Points into Profession at Level 1.

Exactly. From when they're born until they're 15 or so. After that point, the only people who work as an unskilled laborer are people in seriously dire straits, and if they do, they probably live with relatives who have more money until they become competent enough to earn more money in the field.

[Gwenfloor]

This is just another thing that drives me flippin' crazy about D&D: the inclusion of haphazard rules for things the game doesn't really support. The game simply doesn't support--and later statements made by Wizards confirm this--the modeling of economic activity. I'm fine with that, and if my players wanted to move away from our current Monty Haul dungeon crawl type of campaign, I'd love to use some custom rules I've come up with on the subject. It just bugs me that Wizards would include these extraordinarily clunky, counter-intuitive, unbalanced and unresearched mechanics for something they admit is not a part of their game.

A great and mighty intellect--maybe it was you, Matthew?--once posted that D&D is the modern world dressed up in Medieval drag. Things like wages and profit just have no place in a Medieval setting.

Seriously, someone should make a D&D Economic System that actually works.
With the system as is, even if I tell my players to suspend their disbelief, they still find ways to exploit the economic system, such as a 10-foot ladder being cheaper than a 10-foot pole.
We should make a homebrewed D&D Economy.

P.S. I'd like to see your custom rules, if you don't mind.

[Piccamo]

P.S. I'd like to see your custom rules, if you don't mind.
Seconded :smallcool:

[Matthew]

A great and mighty intellect--maybe it was you, Matthew?--once posted that D&D is the modern world dressed up in Medieval drag. Things like wages and profit just have no place in a Medieval setting.

Heh. I don't think that was me, though I do seem to remember reading something to that effect. Might have been Charity or Thomas.


Exactly. From when they're born until they're 15 or so. After that point, the only people who work as an unskilled laborer are people in seriously dire straits, and if they do, they probably live with relatives who have more money until they become competent enough to earn more money in the field.

Okay, Barawn, work with me here. Do you really consider NPC Classed Level 1 NPCs to be representative of children? Even Player Character Humans have to be at least 16 when they start play and have a range of anywhere from 16 to 28, not to mention the problems long lived Demi Human Unskilled Labourers would have...

Saying that, Player Characters are hardly the best guide to Level progression, since many seem to leap from Level 1 to level 20 in two or three years (or somesuch short period). But let's see what the 3.0 DMG has to say on the subject:

3.0 DMG, p. 37.


Most never reach more than 2nd or 3rd level in their whole lives.

Maybe it's different in 3.5? I guess all those Orc Warrior 1's are 15 and below...?

[Morgan_Scott82]

Seriously, someone should make a D&D Economic System that actually works.
With the system as is, even if I tell my players to suspend their disbelief, they still find ways to exploit the economic system, such as a 10-foot ladder being cheaper than a 10-foot pole.
We should make a homebrewed D&D Economy.

The problem with this is that real world, and therefore realistic, economies are incredibly dynamic, and influenced by a multitude of variables. Fixed prices, like those we see in the PHB, are a necessity for ongoing reasonably easy play, however in a genuine economic system anytime a price is fixed it invariably results in either surplus or shortage, depending on the relation between price and demand. Let alone the idea that two merchants should, Pelor forbid, engage in competitive pricing, and the 10ft pole might cost X with merchant Y, but costs N with merchant M, I could go on and on.

But now that I think about it, is any of what I just mentioned necessary? I think that what many gamers want when they say D&D economics are "wrong" or "way off" is not a system that models the intricacies of real economies, but rather a system that is internally consistant, and internal consistancy (a system that conforms and makes sense within itself) is far easier than external consistance (a system that confoms to some example).

So how does one go about creating an internally consistant model for D&D economics? I have some thoughts on the matter but they will have to wait until I can get home and post with my DMG in hand for reference, so in the mean time, I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.

[barawn]

Okay, Barawn, work with me here. Do you really consider NPC Classed Level 1 NPCs to be representative of children? Even Player Character Humans have to be at least 16 when they start play and have a range of anywhere from 16 to 28, not to mention the problems long lived Demi Human Unskilled Labourers would have...

No. They have no class levels, and no skill points. When they hit about 16 or so, they gain a class level in Commoner and have a slew of skill points to assign (typically 8, but at least 4). They either assign it in Profession or Craft. If they don't, yeah, they're in trouble. So what? What are they supposed to put it in? Use Rope?

Until they gain a level, though, they can still help their family by working as an untrained laborer for a craftsman, apprenticing to gain a level. They don't get paid a lot (1 sp/day) but that's how they gain levels. They help the craftsman because they can Aid Another on his Craft check, tacking on 1 gp/week on average, giving the craftsman a net profit of 3 sp/week for each untrained worker he picks up.

Untrained laborers/assistants are apprentices, not commoners.

[Matthew]

Oh really? Where does it say that, Barawn? I have never heard that stated before. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that isn't legislated for at all. Characters without Class levels still have Skill Points, it's part of having the Humanoid Type.

They can put their Skill Points into anything they like, Jump, Climb, Swim, Handle Animal, Ride, Observe and Listen all readily spring to mind.

[Edit] Actually, a quick peruse of the DMG Hireling section puts that idea rather quickly to bed. Unskilled Labourers are not children any more than any other NPC Hireling paid 1 SP per day. Does the 3.5 DMG say anything about feeding or housing such types? The 3.0 DMG certainly doesn't.

[Jasdoif]

The problem with this is that real world, and therefore realistic, economies are incredibly dynamic, and influenced by a multitude of variables. Fixed prices, like those we see in the PHB, are a necessity for ongoing reasonably easy play, however in a genuine economic system anytime a price is fixed it invariably results in either surplus or shortage, depending on the relation between price and demand. Let alone the idea that two merchants should, Pelor forbid, engage in competitive pricing, and the 10ft pole might cost X with merchant Y, but costs N with merchant M, I could go on and on.What I've come up with, is that it's the end result of (greater) teleport and plane shift. Wizards (and other casters) of sufficient level are capable of going anywhere in the multiverse at the cost of only a few spell slots. When people can literally go anywhere in the multiverse prices are low to buy, and then go wherever prices are higher to sell, prices are very likely to homogenize.

An area raising prices will result in mass selling there, which reduces prices as demand decreases; and an area dropping prices will result in mass purchasing, raising prices as supply decreases. The system is self-stabilizing in this regard.

[barawn]

What someone is before they are first level doesn't really matter to me. If they have skill points, great. Whatever. I'd imagine that most people gain first level at the end of their apprenticeship (their youth).


They can put their Skill Points into anything they like, Jump, Climb, Swim, Handle Animal, Ride, Observe and Listen all readily spring to mind.

Sure they can. But if they want to earn money as a laborer or craftsman, they'd better take ranks in Craft or Profession. Otherwise they'd better find a different way of making money, because trying to make a living as the random guy they hire off of the street isn't exactly easy.

It's still possible, mind you. You don't need to buy meals. If you've got an at least average wisdom, you can forage for food, sleep in the wild, and come into the village to work.

I don't get it - why do you think most commoners are untrained laborers/craftsmen? Those guys are the ones helping the commoners, and they'd be apprentices.

[barawn]

[Edit] Actually, a quick peruse of the DMG Hireling section puts that idea rather quickly to bed. Unskilled Labourers are not children any more than any other NPC Hireling paid 1 SP per day. Does the 3.5 DMG say anything about feeding or housing such types? The 3.0 DMG certainly doesn't.

Does it give any description about them whatsoever? An NPC hireling, accompanying you on his own, would likely request that you provide housing and food. Again - you still don't need to. They can always just use Survival and get by on their own, perfectly fine, sleeping outside the town/city.

The type of hireling you'd get wouldn't be your typical commoner, I'd imagine. A young child (10-15 years or so) I can definitely see (squire/page) - otherwise, it'd be some down-on-his-luck guy who needed a change of pace for a while. You wouldn't be hiring Joe Random to help feed his family.

[Matthew]

Let me be clear. I don't think most people are Labourers in D&D (or any other 1 SP per day profession, such as Cook, Maid or Porter, as listed in the DMG), any more than most are Warriors. It's going to be different from place to place and campaign to campaign. However, Labourers are not children or Unclassed NPCs:


Laborer: Anyone performing unskilled or relatively unskilled labor. Includes Ditch Diggers, Grave Diggers, Bloomers, Plowers, Quarriers and many other types.

What I find cause for entertainment is that inane rules like these exist at all. They have almost no context within which to be useful or even not useful, except for theoretical debates about how Unskilled Labourers make ends meet. They are, when it comes down to it, direct imports from previous editions that make no sense in the context of the Profession Rules at all. They exist without qualification and almost totally without context, except for one - when Player Characters want to hire them.

Mercenary Soldier? 2 SP a day... Should have taken Profession (Mercenary) my friend...
Cook? 1 SP per day... Should have taken Profession (Cook). What's that, you did you say? Tough luck, book list is 1 SP per Day.

Even moving from Classless Humanoid to NPC Classed has no rules to suggest what happens to the Hit Points you once had or the Skill Points that were assigned or even if it's possible.

In short, it's a very odd mess.

[barawn]

They exist without qualification and almost totally without context, except for one - when Player Characters want to hire them.

Everything exists without context until the DM gives it. That's the entire reason the DM exists.


Mercenary Soldier? 2 SP a day... Should have taken Profession (Mercenary) my friend...
Cook? 1 SP per day... Should have taken Profession (Cook). What's that, you did you say? Tough luck, book list is 1 SP per Day.

Well, it doesn't ever say how good the people you hire at those jobs are. It does say that for the trained professionals (which means the 1 sp cook is an untrained cook) it's a minimum wage.


In short, it's a very odd mess.

Well, definitely. But it's not untractable. You can hire people to do just about anything for minimum wage/day. That doesn't mean they'll be able to do it well.

[Matthew]

Hah, hah. Barawn, you might well be able to make a modest career as an Apologist for D&D economics...

Okay, context. There is often a context for default D&D, it's called Greyhawk and it's the default campaign world to which all of the rules in the Core Rulebooks are bound. Labourers are undefined NPCs whose daily payment does not suffice to do more than feed themselves. This, by itself, might be acceptable, except that we know that a a guy with Profession (Rat Catcher ) 1(1) [or whatever] can earn more than seven times that rate. Hell, potentially a guy with Profession (Labourer) 1(1) could do the very same thing, but we know they don't from the DMG.

The Mercenary for 2 SP per day is stated to be a 1st Level Warrior. The Cook is stated to be capable of preparing meals, often large ones. If these NPCs are simply the dregs of society drafted in, there is no indication of it, nor a sliding scale for hiring better quality staff. Nor is there any indication that these staff members will do their work poorly, quite the opposite in fact (they are quite clearly average prices for average people).

You can fix any system by assuming X and ignoring Y, but this stuff is nonesense. The profession rules themselves would work fine if it wasn't for the caveat about unskilled labourers and DMG Hireling List (hell, Circumstance Modifiers would even model bad harvesting seasons or other factors).

To be clear, there are two identifiable competing systems within the 3.x ruleset for dealing with what NPCs can earn. There is the fixed cost system that is inherited from (A)D&D, which would work if it used reasonable costs (aor at least reinstituted the rule for provisioning and housing your Hirelings) and the Profession system, which has introduced a sliding scale dependent on a Skill. Both can work, but used together they are not consistant.

Oh yeah, a word on taxes. The 3.0 DMG gives 1/5 as the default rate of taxation, so I guess we better reduce that 1 SP a day to 8 CP a day.

[Fizban]

After seeing the abysmal wages such as 2sp/day for a mercenary, I can only conclude that that is the price to keep them on staff. Specific jobs such as crafting an item or fighting in a planned battle would cost extra, depending on profession and other skills.

While the discussion here is about the unskilled laborer position, I still think this is a good article to read: DnD Commoners Make Plenty of Money (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=719384)

[barawn]

Okay, context. There is often a context for default D&D, it's called Greyhawk and it's the default campaign world to which all of the rules in the Core Rulebooks are bound.

Ah! So what you're really saying is, it's not the D&D economics (by the SRD) that's broken. It's Greyhawk's economics which are broken.

Makes a lot more sense considering I don't give a hoot about Greyhawk, since I never use it.

[Matthew]

After seeing the abysmal wages such as 2sp/day for a mercenary, I can only conclude that that is the price to keep them on staff. Specific jobs such as crafting an item or fighting in a planned battle would cost extra, depending on profession and other skills.
Yeah, apparently it's called Hazard Pay and it might be 'as high as double normal pay' (wow!). Used to be a lot more. Loot is the usual reward from a successful battle, all ancient and medieval soldiers expected it.


While the discussion here is about the unskilled laborer position, I still think this is a good article to read: DnD Commoners Make Plenty of Money (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=719384)
Yes, and a good article it is to, albeit with it's share of mistakes and misunderstandings. Unfortunately, it only addresses the Profession side of things and ignores the 'fixed rate' problem.


Ah! So what you're really saying is, it's not the D&D economics (by the SRD) that's broken. It's Greyhawk's economics which are broken.

Makes a lot more sense considering I don't give a hoot about Greyhawk, since I never use it.

Well, the SRD's view of Unskilled Labourers is still fairly silly, but since it fails to define them, it hardly matters. However, the SRD is not the same thing as Default D&D RAW, but Default D&D is synonymous with Greyhawk. Sounds like a very fine distinction, but it seems reasonable to say that the SRD contains less contradictions than the Core Rules.

[Tellah]

P.S. I'd like to see your custom rules, if you don't mind.

/blush

I've adapted this from the DMGII rules, which are needlessly complicated, assume an elite array for common working people, and maintain presentist assumptions behind hiring NPCs.
-------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of my houseruled system is to bring the costs of hiring someone to use a skill in line with the cost to overcome a specific challenge. Further, the system needs to include the concept of guilds and disregard the rather modern convention of paying wages. Thus, the PCs approach a guild with the intent to hire someone with the requisite skill to complete their task. For the purposes of this example, the PCs need a locksmith to open the door to a crypt. The locksmith will be in no danger.

The PCs will need some idea of how difficult the task will be in order to assess their hireling needs--a DC 15 Appraise check will suffice to know the Open Lock DC, which happens to be 25. They'll need a hireling capable of reaching a 25 by taking 20. A professional locksmith will be an Expert with a 12 in Dex, and he'll have the Skill Focus: Open Lock feat. This means that the PCs need only a level one guild member to perform the task. To determine the guild's charge for this service, consider the value to the PCs. The PCs, knowing the relative difficulty of the task, opt to hire an apprentice, and pay the guild 75 gold pieces.


Clever readers have by now noticed that Experts are assumed at first level to have only one feat related to their profession, rather than two. I like to have the human bonus feat, when applied to NPCs, used as a regional feat that reflects the variance of cultures among humans. Also, I'm too lazy to adjust this for every profession and every race in the game, and limiting it to one assumed feat lets me do that.


Pricing

Where did that number come from? Opening the door was valuable to the players--more than a meal at an inn, but less than completely defeating a combat encounter. I've settled on 1/4 the treasure value of an EL 1 encounter for that task, because I feel like that's about what a party would be willing to pay for the service. It's somewhere between "too low to matter" and "too high to consider," which in my estimation is just right. To extrapolate, a task requiring a level 3 hireling would cost 225 gp, and a task requiring a level 5 hireling would cost 400 gp.

Calculating Skill Modifiers

A typical guild member will have access to tools and training based on his standing in the guild.

At first level, he'll be given access to appropriate tools and won't suffer a -2 penalty for improvising. He'll have a +1 modifier in the relevant ability and 4 ranks in the skill, for a total bonus of +5. This is the Apprentice level. An apprentice works at a higher-level guild member's shop, and although he is provided room and board, he receives no wage. An apprentice may also be hired in conjunction with any other guild member to provide a +2 bonus.

At third level, he'll have access to masterwork tools (+2), will have the feat that provides +2 to two skills--Nimble Fingers, in the locksmith example-- and will have 6 ranks in the appropriate skill. His total modifier is +10, and he is a Journeyman. The guild allows a journeyman to ply his trade freely and to sell his products or services. If employed by the guild, he is rewarded with an annual stipend of 500 gold pieces.


Q: Where did the +1 ability modifier go?
A: A freak accident at the docks. Round numbers are superior.


At fifth level, he's reached the pinnacle of his trade. He has 8 ranks in his skill of choice, masterwork tools (+2), and +5 in feats. His total modifier is +15, and he is a Master of his trade. Likely he is the leader of his guild, and his services require both fair compensation and a friendly attitude on his part (whether through Diplomacy, Intimidate, or other means). Masters commonly take on apprentices and hire journeymen to conduct day-to-day business. A journeyman who wishes to become a master must demonstrate his skill to other masters; a craftsman produces a masterpiece, while a service-based guild my require a display of prowess. A master's skill alone determines his annual earnings, but most earn between 800 and 900 gold pieces.

Hazard Pay

Few guilds are willing to risk their members' well-being for any fee. All assignments which put a guild member into harm's way must be agreed upon through negotiation, requiring at least Friendly status for the services of an apprentice or journeyman, and Helpful status for a master's services. Additionally, the cost of such service is doubled.

{table="head"]Guild Rank |Skill Mod | Cost to Hire| Hazard Pay
Apprentice |+5 | 75 gp |150 gp
Journeyman | +10 |225 gp |450 gp
Master | +15 |400 gp |800 gp[/table]


Lord Iames Osari is much better at tables than I am and deserves a cupcake.


Getting an Estimate

If the PCs cannot independently determine the difficulty of the task, most guilds are happy to send an apprentice to examine the task and offer an estimate. For 10 gold pieces, the guild can determine if the task requires an apprentice, journeyman, or master to complete. If the task lies beyond the expertise of a master, but could be completed with the help of a few assistants, the estimate can also determine this. Some tasks may be insurmountable without magical assistance, and the guild may advise a customer in approaching a sell-spell to complete the task.
-------------------------------------------------------

What do you guys think? My players never get into this sort of depth in my campaigns, so I haven't play-tested it.

[Lord Iames Osari]

{table="head"]Guild Rank |Skill Mod | Cost to Hire| Hazard Pay
Apprentice |+5 | 75 gp |150 gp
Journeyman | +10 |225 gp |450 gp
Master | +15 |400 gp |800 gp[/table]

There you go. :smallsmile:

And I like them. I'm not sure I would get rid of the ability mod at the higher levels of expertise, but that's just me.

[I_Got_This_Name]

And I like them. I'm not sure I would get rid of the ability mod at the higher levels of expertise, but that's just me.

It doesn't really matter where the numbers come from; the point is that it's an increase of 5 each time.

Also, you're missing Synergy Bonuses, which the Journeyman should have.

Also, I'd add "Grandmaster" status for anyone higher than 5th level; these people have to be sought out individually, as most guilds wouldn't have any (the DMG town generator needs an overhaul, but we can assume that every Expert higher than 5th level is in a different guild; assigning them to guilds would then be part of town generation. Actually, no guild should have more than one master, either, but I suppose Masters could be assigned to guilds based on who the PCs need). Finding a Grandmaster would then involve going to other towns to look for one, and their bonuses would vary (DMG2 has a table for how good of a skill modifier one can expect from the best of the best at a certain level). They'd use the same charge table (1/4 of an average treasure of their level, more for hazard pay.)

I'd probably go for more than double for hazard pay, though, and scale it with the level of the person involved. An apprentice might only merit double pay for hazard pay, plus an equal amount left with the guild in case of injury (if he's injured/diseased, his healing comes out of that before the PCs get it back; if he's dead, the PCs never see it again); a journeyman, though, has more invested in him by the guild, and so is worth more, possibly meriting 4x hazard pay, and even bigger death benefits (more than an equivalent treasure). For a Master, I could see very significant hazard pay (possibly even two whole treasures), and death benefits sufficient to pay for a raise.

Actually, the healing deposit should be whatever the PCs can afford to deposit, but cannot afford to lose (or, at the very least, something that will leave them hurting if they lose it). For an apprentice, 150-300 GP might be enough; it'll certainly make the PCs more willing to invest their potions and wand charges in making sure the guy lives. A journeyman might take 2-5 thousand GP, while a Master might go as high as 10,000 GP (6,000 for the raise, 4,000 for the loss of status that comes with losing a level). The PCs get this back if the guy comes home completely intact, of course.

Alternately, journeyman/master hirelings in dangerous cases might be canny enough to demand warrior's pay (an equal share of the loot); they might have to negotiate away their life insurance for it (although they keep their share of the treasure even if they die).

[Dervag]

Sure they can. But if they want to earn money as a laborer or craftsman, they'd better take ranks in Craft or Profession. Otherwise they'd better find a different way of making money, because trying to make a living as the random guy they hire off of the street isn't exactly easy.Right.

All economies have had an 'unskilled labor' pool. Even in the middle ages, there were jobs that required a great deal of toil but not much in the way of skill. The pay has more or less always been abysmal.

A good example of a place that might employ people who, in D&D terms, are unskilled laborers would be a brickyard. Making bricks is important in any society that uses a lot of buildings, but many steps in the process aren't very skilled tasks. They are, however, unrewarding.

Most of what I know about preindustrial brickmaking comes from a presentation at colonial Williamsburg, where the guy in charge of the brickyard said one thing that stuck in my mind:

"If you were a grown adult working a brickyard, and you weren't a slave, you needed to seriously reconsider your career plan."

This kind of job was rock bottom for people in this era. No one would want to do it, and you only did it because you didn't have something better and more lucrative to do. If, for example, your homeland just lost a war and the army got disbanded and you're a soldier without a pension, what do you do? You go work in a brickyard. Or you go carry heavy things. Or you do something else that nobody would want to do for a salary no one would want to take, because you don't have a better job.

To avoid this, most commoners will take at least one rank in some profession at their first opportunity, so that they can avoid being someone else's lackey for the rest of their lives. Of course, there will be exceptions; commoners with very suboptimal builds or very low intelligence may not have any ranks in any Craft or Profession skill. And they're the ones who are sweating over a hot fire making bricks all day long.


To be clear, there are two identifiable competing systems within the 3.x ruleset for dealing with what NPCs can earn. There is the fixed cost system that is inherited from (A)D&D, which would work if it used reasonable costs (aor at least reinstituted the rule for provisioning and housing your Hirelings) and the Profession system, which has introduced a sliding scale dependent on a Skill. Both can work, but used together they are not consistant.Now that is a legitimate and real problem.

The solution to this is twofold. Part one is to rationalize the fixed-cost system so that the wages match up with the prices.

Part two is to rationalize the Skill system by coming up with some way of defining what is a skilled profession and what is not. Thus, Craft(metalworking) and Profession(chef) are skilled trades that you can make weekly checks with, but Craft(brick) and Profession(ratcatcher) are not, and no one, PC or NPC, can make weekly skill checks in those areas. If you plan to make bricks or catch rats for a living, you're going to be making the base rate of whatever unskilled laborers get. The only way to get more money than that at those trades is to be dramatically better at it than any normal person, such as by conjuring bricks out of thin air or by being six inches tall and able to follow the rats into their holes and kill them.

[goat]

I dunno, I think Profession(ratcatcher) on its own would be a bit odd really.

At first level, you might be Profession(ratcatcher), but even then, I'd expect you to be better at it than the average man, those ranks have to count for something after all. Knowledge of rat behaviour, effective traps, poisons maybe.

Once you get to second level though, I'd expect you to be more in the realms of Profession(Exterminator), capable of dealing with more than just rats. You'd not only be better at it than most people, you'd be faster and more efficient. People would be willing to pay more for your higher skills, AND you could take on more jobs due to completing them faster.

You might not earn the big money, but I can't see you being in the realms of unskilled labourers.

[Matthew]

Interesting stuff, Tellah. I like that approach. It's a pity you didn't post it up in the Homebrew Forum, as it probably deserves it's own Thread for discussion.

[Citizen Joe]

Hireling, Trained

The amount given is the typical daily wage for mercenary warriors, masons, craftsmen, scribes, teamsters, and other trained hirelings. This value {3 sp/day} represents a minimum wage; many such hirelings require significantly higher pay.

Hireling, Untrained

The amount shown {1 sp/day} is the typical daily wage for laborers, porters, cooks, maids, and other menial workers.


Note my emphasis.

[Murongo]

Yeah nothing in the D&D economy makes sense. To hire a 20th level mercenary takes like 20 gold and a silver. What? Random adventurers walk around with the combined wealth of a city and high level characters tote around enough gold to build a golden mt everest.

D&D money makes no sense. It's one of those situations which requires "gaming doublethink".

[Matthew]

Where is that from, Citizen Joe? The DMG says the same thing, but also that significantly higher means double. Besides which, how do you decide who will want minimum wage and who won't?

[Edit] Found it. I think the phrase 'typical wage' says it all. NPCs who want more pay are above average NPCs. Nice find, but it doesn't really solve anything.

[Ulzgoroth]

More than one person can survive on an SP per day, provided that one of them can cook edible meals. And don't pay any significant amount for housing. One chicken and 3 pounds of flour leaves 2 cp for later and probably feeds a smallish family (3 pounds flour means somewhat more than 3 pounds bread...). If you eat porridge, and thus buy unground grain (half as expensive as flour), it's substantially cheaper. Throw in a few edible roots and herbs gathered/gardened by the wife and you've even got something distantly resembling a balanced diet for the whole family with only one wage earner (and one person cooking and foraging). In fact, you've probably got more meat than a real peasant could expect with the chicken a day. 2 wage earners and one grown child or grandparent who can do the cooking, and you've potentially got a substantial margin for things other than food, depending on how many people you're feeding.

Also, a simple laborer who can't get any cooking done can still live, marginally, on inn meals. 1 sp for a day's cheap meals at an Inn will keep you alive, provided you don't wind up needing anything else, and don't pay any taxes. Very marginal, but buying cooked meals on that kind of wage is extravagant.

This really seems quite reasonable to me for the unskilled laborer. The twisty bit is that, on the surface, it looks as if anyone with half a brain would put just one rank into profession or craft, and even if they had a -4 ability penalty (making them more-or-less subhuman) they'd be making 5 times the laborer's wage. Absolutely anyone with a level in any class can do this, in theory. If we assume that gaining such ranks requires training that conventionally would be obtained through an apprenticeship, and is thus not available to people without some combination of aptitude, luck, money, and family connections, this is no longer a problem. I would be strongly inclined to assume that anyone with a penalty in the applicable ability wouldn't be able to get an apprenticeship under most circumstances, because they would be unable to Aid Another reliably until they obtained skill ranks.

[Matthew]

Hah, hah, hah; never noticed that before. Yeah, that Peasant should be buying up Chickens and selling them at 3 SP per 1/2 lb (see the Food and Lodging section). Looks like a Peasant can buy five chickens with one day's poorly paid labour. D&D economics make no sense.

[Edit] Looks like that Trade Goods list is another direct import from (A)D&D.

[Wehrkind]

Two things worth keeping in mind:

Medieval peasants ate meals far from balanced. Even up till the last 300 years or so lots of people got by on a staple or two, with some random things thrown in. Look up the Irish Potato famine for more info. Be that as it may, a chicken and some porridge is a feast for the family of an unskilled worker.

Taxes. There are many different sorts of taxes that were used in the past. In addition to percentages of production or crops, there were "flat" taxes owed annually, or any number of taxes on random items the tax farmers or lords thought they could get away with.
As a side note, this is a really good way to bleed gp out of players. Many locals would either tax "luxury" items or needs for travelers, since no one cares about rich foriegners (and they have money the poor locals don't), or make people pay for "pass ports" to travel in various lands. Alternately, a tax to be paid on everyone who carries weapons in a city could be quite high, and paid off by military service if not paid.

That would be a great plot hook to get the players off on a military campaign after their fortunes take a turn. Perhaps their enemies conspire to have them lose their money in some enterprise, hoping to kill them off while on campaign. Ship born goods are expensive to start, but pay off well. If a local shipping guild's beaurocrats were irked with the PCs (for breaking up his side line smuggling opperation) perhaps he approaches them with a "fail safe" way to double their money in just a few months by backing a "reliable" captain and ship's goods movement. He then makes up a story about how the ship sunk, keeping their money, just as that tax is due...

[Ulzgoroth]

Hah, hah, hah; never noticed that before. Yeah, that Peasant should be buying up Chickens and selling them at 3 SP per 1/2 lb (see the Food and Lodging section). Looks like a Peasant can buy five chickens with one day's poorly paid labour. D&D economics make no sense.
It isn't clearly stated one way or the other, but I infer that 'chunk of meat' to be cooked, mammalian meat. No surprise then that it costs you more than a chicken...even a goat comes to 10 silver. Nonetheless, poultry is coming up rather cheap.

There are some decidedly more screwy prices there, though. The 10-ft pole/ladder conundrum isn't quite as hopeless as sometimes claimed, but also the price of backpacks and belt pouches seems remarkable. And the 10 lb iron pot that costs as much as 5 lb of iron.


Medieval peasants ate meals far from balanced. Even up till the last 300 years or so lots of people got by on a staple or two, with some random things thrown in. Look up the Irish Potato famine for more info. Be that as it may, a chicken and some porridge is a feast for the family of an unskilled worker.
Well, only because of the chicken. According to my recent class on the subject, 1 pound grain product per person per day was the core of the peasant diet (look, 1 cp a day and all you have to do is boil water...feed the whole family on 5 cp. After taxes and other expenses, you may have to.). And in the later parts of the middle ages, porridge lost a lot of ground to bread in that role.

[Matthew]

It isn't clearly stated one way or the other, but I infer that 'chunk of meat' to be cooked, mammalian meat. No surprise then that it costs you more than a chicken...even a goat comes to 10 silver. Nonetheless, poultry is coming up rather cheap.
Well, we can infer whatever we like. Unfortunately, meat is left entirely undefined. It's a lost cause when they are using prices from 2.x mixed with new 3.x prices, not to mention a parallel between their 'fixed wage' and 'Profession wage' systems. As I have said before, by assuming X and ignoring Y we can achieve whatever we like, but it won't make sense from a strict reading of the RAW.


Well, only because of the chicken. According to my recent class on the subject, 1 pound grain product per person per day was the core of the peasant diet (look, 1 cp a day and all you have to do is boil water...feed the whole family on 5 cp. After taxes and other expenses, you may have to.). And in the later parts of the middle ages, porridge lost a lot of ground to bread in that role.

Indeed, but being able to feed your family for less than 1 SP per day just makes the Profession system look like an even bigger joke when an NPC with Profession (Farming) 1 can earn 55 SP per week.

There are varying accounts of what Peasants actually ate and what was available to them. Hard to say anything for sure because records are so poor. I would be willing to bet that more than 7/55ths of a Peasant's income went on his food. Two competing models within one Ruleset.

[Ulzgoroth]

Well, we can infer whatever we like. Unfortunately, meat is left entirely undefined. It's a lost cause when they are using prices from 2.x mixed with new 3.x prices, not to mention a parallel between their 'fixed wage' and 'Profession wage' systems. As I have said before, by assuming X and ignoring Y we can achieve whatever we like, but it won't make sense from a strict reading of the RAW.
You speak of myth, sir. "strict reading of the RAW" means either that some particular, not fully specified, sort of half-pound chunk of meat costs 3 sp, or every theoretically possible half-pound chunk of meat costs that (the table entry cannot be interpreted as specifying between these). In the latter case I'll be having a grasshopper steak...in one chunk, mind. With a Pelor-burger for seconds. I prefer to make the choice that isn't obviously both idiotic and unintended. This forces you to pick what sort of meat chunk qualifies.

Not strict RAW? I do believe I pointed that out myself...RAI though, I believe.



Indeed, but being able to feed your family for less than 1 SP per day just makes the Profession system look like an even bigger joke when an NPC with Profession (Farming) 1 can earn 55 SP per week.

There are varying accounts of what Peasants actually ate and what was available to them. Hard to say anything for sure because records are so poor. I would be willing to bet that more than 7/55ths of a Peasant's income went on his food. Two competing models within one Ruleset.
I agree, rereading the profession skill entry, that they broke it. Profession (farmer), Profession (herder), Profession (hunter) [survival, anyone?], profession (porter) [picking things up and moving them?], all explicitly referenced in the entry, are ridiculous when combined with the rest of this.

I said above what my view of the Profession skills was, and why the problem they pose isn't (or isn't as much...all professions having the same payscale is odd, of course). However, it does seem like the writers had a...different view of things. Well then, as far as RAW goes, Profession (farmer) for everyone! We won't actually produce any food, but watch the coins pop out of the ground! The patch of ground the size of a postage stamp, that is...you don't actually need any equipment for profession checks either.

Back in my world, the peasants can eat their logical gruel...

[Matthew]

Hah, hah. Of course it's a myth. Who plays like that? Nobody, of course.

However, there is an obvious correlation between buying a Chicken for 2 Cp and selling 1/2 lb. of Meat for 3 SP. We're not talking gourmet cooking here, we're talking +1400% Profit. Even if you imagine the Peasant going to some length or other to slaughter, treat and cook the meat, he's still going to be well ahead. Taking the RAW as a basis it's perfectly possible and plausible to interpret it to mean exactly this. Somebody inexperienced with RPGs would probably even allow it (I have heard of much worse loopholes).

There's no way I would ever allow the stupidily broken D&D economic system to ever enter a Campaign World I had lovingly crafted. That doesn't make it any less broken, of course, and identifying the problems is a necessary part of understanding why they don't work and what you can do about it.

[Ulzgoroth]

What I meant by a strict reading of RAW being a myth is not that it's unplayable and illogical (not that I deny it) but rather that there is no such thing as a 'strict reading' of "Meat, chunk of; 3 sp; 1/2 lb". It doesn't become a statement at all until you fill in a number of blanks, the filling of which is nowhere addressed in the rulebook.

By the filling in of those blanks I find most logical, contextually supported, and linguistically likely, I conclude that there isn't actually a direct relation between the price of poultry and the price of the half-pound chunk of meat. This interpretation makes the entire chapter of the book make substantially more sense...

You can elect to say that the chunk of meat can be chicken. But if you do, you're freely choosing a less-coherent view of the rules provided. They have enough coherency failures that are explicitly built in.

[Matthew]

Well, actually that rather depends on having a context in which to place such a view. Many starting gamers will simply follow the rules as written and make their decisions based on the most apparent meaning: Chicken = Meat. A *lot* of the mechanics of D&D require interpretation and contextualising, but their most ready meaning is always the strictest reading.