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

[golentan]

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]

{scrubbed}

[Foryn Gilnith]

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]

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.

Best of luck mate.
-Eddie

[Curmudgeon]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Crow]

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]

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

Hence you reach a silly conclusion.

[Fizban]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

[Lamech]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?