If LogicNinja is your last name then Specious is surely your first.
"The rules say this stupid thing, so it's totally intentional" is pretty bad reasoning. The 3.x rules used to say that you could drown someone at negative hit points to 0--that doesn't mean that it was a good idea. The combat rules say various things, but it'd still be stupid to use the combat rules to model a serial killer killing other NPCs in their homes.
The rules say that folks make money with their profession skill, so, uhm, yes, that is one of the ways folks are intended to make money.
I'm more willing to rely upon the Core Rulebook (which I paid about $50 for) than rely upon your haphazard reckoning of which rules were meant to do what per your personal opinion. This is the Rules forum, after all. Not the House Rules/Opinion forum.
Keep in mind, I'm saying that the Core Rules tell us one thing, and that's the way a lot of folks like to play. I am not judging the way you play; I am not telling you that the way you play is wrong.
You are telling me that you are right, and I am wrong, and that even though the book says one thing you're super confident it meant something else, and that anyone playing outside the boundaries of your cockamamied and arbitrary "rules" are violating the intention of the gaming system.
I put "rules" in quotes because you don't have rules for the profession skill. You just have your gut feeling about what it should be, and you force feed your subjective and unquantifiable results down people's throats.
Not that that's even relevant, because you haven't shown why those rules are intended to. Those rules are intended to address the question in a quick, abstract, and handwavey manner, not in a detailed manner that actually makes any sense. You can tell because the rules are quick, abstract, handwavey, and don't make any sense.
Of note, just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I refer you to the word dictionary. It has a lot of words for folks who don't understand things that other folks do.
Giving NPCs "free skill points" doesn't matter, because they're NPCs, and often giving them free skill points, breaking skill caps, etc makes more sense. It's eminently reasonable for the court vizier to have a huge Sense Motive score while still being low level.
So, yeah. I'm not interested in playing in any games you run. I'm sure you're not surprised by that.
What you're telling me here is that you cheat. If that works for you and your group, have at it. I prefer things to be on the up and up. I prefer that NPC's follow the same rules as player characters. I don't fudge dice rolls, and I don't ignore the rules of character creation. I think anyone who does thinks their players are stupider than they are . . . or worse, assumes that they are personally smarter than they are.
*Why*? How does it improve the game *in any way* if you give the NPC 3 more gold coins because he has more ranks in Profession or a higher WIS? Will anyone even know why he has 3 more gold coins?
Why have the profession skill at all? You obviously have no intention of quantifying any results.
I don't need a skill rank to let me imagine John the farmer is a farmer. I need a skill rank to let me know what to roll. My imagination works fine without numbers. Numbers allow me to run a fair and unbiased game.
You assume that your personal grasp of balance and drama is better than firm rules everyone can share and be on the same page with. I have every reason to doubt that.
In other words, you think architects and engineers should make more than butchers... but that this should be resolved by making them wiser and higher-level.
No. I have not commented on how much I think architects and engineers should make in comparison to butchers. I said that income variances should be setting specific.
But I have said that some professions make more than others. That being said, for the sake of argument, I will say, sure, architects and engineers make more than butchers.
That doesn't mean young, level one architects and engineers make more. It means that they have the potential to make more throughout their career. Heck, even doctors have to make peanuts while going through residency in modern times. Lawyers have to start as associates, and sometimes end up doing a lot of pro bono work.
But as they age (meaning level up) then they are capable of charging more and more, which is reflected inside the mechanics of the profession skill raising.
Meanwhile, the poor butcher is level ten, but still limited to one or two ranks in profession -- effectively capping his ultimate ability to make money. Because you don't have to raise his profession skill with every level.
I've already shown you that, say, the difference between Profession +4 and Profession +12, when taking 10, is (10+4)/2 vs (10+12)/2 = 7 vs 11 = 4 gp a week.
So, yes, the guy with Profession +12 will make more than the guy with Profession +4, but by 4 gold a week.
You think that 4 gp a week--1/3 of his salary--is the amount of a good architect or engineer should make more than a common laborer.
I don't think a common laborer should make that much, meaning I don't think they should have a profession skill at all, much less one with four ranks.
That would put the common laborer at something like a silver a day, as opposed to the big shot pulling in 11 gold a week; more if he bothers to take a skill focus, which high professionals should do if you want them making more.
You're arguing that I should make up appropriate income values, and *then* tweak NPCs until their Profession ranks. And that no professional NPC should have an income beyond what his. A lawyer that works for rich courtiers? Nope, he only makes 20 gp a week, which is only twice the 10 gp a week than what the freaking butcher makes.
Building your NPC's to do the things you want them to do via the rules is not unheard of, and I'm surprised the concept is receiving such a negative reaction.
In the case of a barrister working for a rich master, bear in mind you are always allowed as the GM to attach reasonable modifiers to skill rolls.
Libraries can help with knowledge rolls.
Profession rolls can be aided through contracts with wealthy lords.
Just know that the gp number difference doesn't have to be astronomically different from your modern perspective. A seemingly slight gap can be astronomical from the perspective of the characters.
This sentence was very difficult to read. We're not in a hurry here, take a little bit of time to preview first. It helps.
Why?
Why are you so attached to the idea that the Profession rules MUST determine how much an NPC makes? How do merchants exist in your world? How does trade exist? It literally doesn't matter what a merchant trades in or does, he still makes the same 1d20+1 to 10 gp a week!
I am not attached to the idea that anything must determine anything else. I am telling you what the rule is. You are free to run it however you like.
Merchants exist fine in my game. Trade exists as well.
I removed a post. That was unnecessary.
Meanwhile, the poor butcher is level ten, but still limited to one or two ranks in profession -- effectively capping his ultimate ability to make money. Because you don't have to raise his profession skill with every level.
You are correct, but if I did he would make relatively the same amount of money as any other professional with the same set of skill ranks, regardless of the profession. Which just doesn't make any sense.
That's where your logic keeps failing. If I give two professionals at the same level the same set of skill ranks in differing professions they will make (relatively again) the same amount of money. Please, if you can, explain how that makes any logical sense.
My understanding is that this is because the Profession skill is an arbitrary way to adjudicate within the mechanics a PC's (or NPC if you really want to do that) ability to make some cash while in town. Which is really more a result of a character concept than a reasonable economical mechanical system.
Meanwhile, the poor butcher is level ten, but still limited to one or two ranks in profession -- effectively capping his ultimate ability to make money. Because you don't have to raise his profession skill with every level.You are correct, but if I did he would make relatively the same amount of money as any other professional with the same set of skill ranks, regardless of the profession. Which just doesn't make any sense.
That's where your logic keeps failing. If I give two professionals at the same level the same set of skill ranks in differing professions they will make (relatively again) the same amount of money. Please, if you can, explain how that makes any logical sense.
My understanding is that this is because the Profession skill is an arbitrary way to adjudicate within the mechanics a PC's (or NPC if you really want to do that) ability to make some cash while in town. Which is really more a result of a character concept than a reasonable economical mechanical system.
Why would you?
One of your jobs as the GM of the game is to build NPC's to do what they should be able to do.
Not to build NPC's to create mechanic/engine/setting problems.
Why would you?One of your jobs as the GM of the game is to build NPC's to do what they should be able to do.
Not to build NPC's to create mechanic/engine/setting problems.
Why would I give an NPC maxed skill ranks in their profession? Because they're level X and they've worked as a professional for every level.
I love that your refutation of my argument is that I'm a bad GM because how dare I max out skill ranks for professionals of differing professions.
That's like a school yard argument where one kids says something perfectly viable and the other kids says "you're stupid."
Also, you realize, that as of yet, you have failed to actually provide any common-sensical or logical explanation for how two professionals, of vastly different professions, with the same set of Profession skill ranks (which is a perfectly viable and mechanically acceptable way to create NPCs) should make (relatively) the same amount.
At this point you're just arguing to argue, and saying things like: "Obviously you're doing it wrong because you are following the mechanical guidelines for creating NPCs and that is clearly not how the rules intend you to create them."
I removed a post. Don't do that.
I removed a post. Don't do that.
Do you ever feel like someone's parent or babysitter?
On topic, why wouldn't an NPC laborer maximize their profession ranks in their chosen profession? There isn't any reason not to. It's how they make their living.
I removed a post. Don't do that.Do you ever feel like someone's parent or babysitter?
On topic, why wouldn't an NPC laborer maximize their profession ranks in their chosen profession? There isn't any reason not to. It's how they make their living.
Thank you.
@Gorbacz-- Either of which is a perfectly acceptable way to use the rules to play the game. Which means that there can be no inherent flaw in the GM that maxes out skill ranks in NPCs. If maxing out skill ranks in NPCs causes
mechanic/engine/setting problems.
That's a fault of the rules not a fault of the person using them.
Why would I give an NPC maxed skill ranks in their profession? Because they're level X and they've worked as a professional for every level.
Because they've worked hard and deserve it? Sure, so the guy's worked as a professional every level so he deserves another point in his profession, but oh no, he sure doesn't deserve the money that comes with it! That's daft.
The profession skill is a mechanic in the game. You place it on the NPC to achieve the results of the mechanic. Do you understand what the profession skill does? Seriously. You don't want someone to get paid too much, but you're determined beyond reason to raise their profession skill? How does that even remotely make sense?
Example: Billy the thief has been sneaky every level so he deserves to have more points added to his stealth skill. But, you know, he shouldn't be hiding and stuff as well as the mechanic allows him to. What?
This is crazy.
I love that your refutation of my argument is that I'm a bad GM because how dare I max out skill ranks for professionals of differing professions.
Putting points into a skill, and patently ignoring the mechanic of the skill is not what I would call an example of good GMing.
That's like a school yard argument where one kids says something perfectly viable and the other kids says "you're stupid."
A. I've never called anyone stupid here.
B. I think your analogy would work better if you said something viable and I called you stupid. Unfortunately, neither is true. You've just said, hey, this rule isn't a rule and shouldn't be followed, and I've responded by saying, hey this rule is a rule, and people should (and can) follow it if they want to.Also, you realize, that as of yet, you have failed to actually provide any common-sensical or logical explanation for how two professionals, of vastly different professions, with the same set of Profession skill ranks (which is a perfectly viable and mechanically acceptable way to create NPCs) should make (relatively) the same amount.
The conditions you insist must be true are not. The GM is not, I repeat with a sigh, required to put the same ranks into the profession skill of NPCs with different professions.
At this point you're just arguing to argue, and saying things like: "Obviously you're doing it wrong because you are following the mechanical guidelines for creating NPCs and that is clearly not how the rules intend you to create them."
Everyone who disagrees with you is not doing so to argue. I do not enjoy arguing. But I will not pretend that you are making sense.
I am in no way saying that you are following the mechanical guidelines of the game. Quite the opposite actually. I am saying that the mechanics of the game include results based on skill rolls, and that you are ignoring them.
It is mechanically sound, for instance, to build John the farmer with the skill swim. It is daft to suggest that John the farmer can not swim afterwards. In other words it is daft to build John the farmer with the skill swim when you don't want him swimming.
It is equally viable mechanically to build John the farmer without the skill swim. Then he can't swim.
I really hope some of this is sinking in. I'm starting to think the whole world's gone mad.
These numbers are incredibly close together in terms of salary. Someone working an upper-class trade would be *orders of magnitude* wealthier than a porter--no matter how good the porter is.
Just to enter some reality into it.. if a porter was THAT good, he very well may be the head of the ABSALOM PORTER UNION. He is the union boss, and so yes, he makes more than the upper class merchant.
Its quite possible that the American Leader of the Teamsters is nothing but a porter. He makes approximately $370,000 a year. Plus what he makes as a porter.
I see what you are trying to do, if the Lawyer and Porter BOTH have the same wisdom, and same level + bonuses they will BOTH make the same salary.
If their wisdom grants +0 I would say the Lawyer makes as much as a porter because he is just not that good. If they are both +4 I would say the Porter has learned some tricks, networking and such to earn as much as the lawyer.
|
Excuse me? My view of money is based on things like supply and demand existing, which they apparently don't in your mind.
My desire to give someone 100 gp a week--or 1000 gp a week, for that matter--is based on the fact that people in some careers make orders of magnitude--not "1/3 more", not "double", but orders of magnitude--more than people in other careers, and that this was at least as true historically as it is today.
My view of money is based on the blatantly obvious fact that being good at a low-income job won't get you more money than someone being mediocre at a high-income job.Money is relative. It doesn't matter if 1 gp buys a horse or a meal--the point is, a merchant who's making a lot of money should have orders of magnitude more money than a porter or cooper or waiter who's good at his job.
But if you use the Profession rules, he won't be. He'll be making half again as much, maybe.
If you use the profession rules, the merchant is incapable of turning more than the tiniest of profits.
I added some bolding.
The nut of your problems seems to be the even income distribution. Supply and demand is a problem with the whole game because prices are fixed (as if by some Socialist Central Committee--maybe the gods are all crypto-communists). The rules as written have static prices. As a DM you can make them fluctuate to reflect what is going on in your game. The equipment section makes a lot of mentions of average and generally meaning that they are not fixed if you don't want them to be.
If you want to adjust the income of professions and specific NPCs to reflect supply & demand the game also allows you as DM. Think of them as templates. Why is the king rich? He has the rich king template. Why does the merchant do well? He has the prosperous merchant template.
Boom problem solved.
Though really it wasn't a problem because there is no purpose for these rules other than discussion and theory craft.
If LogicNinja is your last name then Specious is surely your first.
Geez, buddy. Relax!
Ohhh! I was looking at the Goods and Services part of the Equipment chapter for a chicken. I'm still new to Pathfinder and working of finding out all the details like that. :pAlso, most commoners in real world history (and I assume fantasy as well) supplemented their income by growing what food they could, making their own clothes, etc. They didn't buy meals at taverns every day, maybe they bought a few potatoes and a chicken and made their own meal (cheaper).
I know this was several pages ago, but just wanted to add a tidbit.
This was true of rural peasants, but not so much for city peasants. In the Roman Empire, even in the moderate sized cities, peasants bought a lot of pre-prepped food. Pompeii is estimated at about 20,000 residents (much smaller than Rome's nearly 1 million) had numerous take-away restaurants dotting the city. It's thought that these mostly catered to the working class, since the wealthy would have in-home staff to cook.
I removed some one-uppery.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stood the Master Builder upon the ground, and he saw that the ground was good, and clean. No grasses marred his path, nay, not a wisp of vilest weed did spoil his view.
Blessed is the saw that cuts the tree.
Blessed is the axe that hews the branch.
Praise be to Abadar, whose vault harbors civilization.
Praise be to Asmodeus, whose laws govern Cheliax.
May the mountains rise against you
May the forests block your path
May your axes chip and shatter
And know it is my Wrath
I would mount your heads on the bloody spears
Outside your palace gates
And watch as crows peck out your eyes
And your cities are laid to waste
Can't you see what you have wrought here?
A curse on you and all your kin
Bloody battles will be fought here
Await your doom at empire's end
May the wivers rush to drown you
May the earth swallow your hosts
May the winter's wolves surround you
And rip the life from your throats
Fittingly enough, they also have a song called "How Heavy this Axe".
Some thoughts...
Trees are objects, not creatures, because they have no charisma score (and thus no wisdom score).
From the discussion, it is obvious that woodcutters are high level. It is unrealistic that someone at level one and with no dedicated combat feats or abilities could chop firewood.
A hand axe is not a woodcutter axe. Weapons are not tools, mostly because trees do not hit you back very often.
Finally... Come on, people. This was a fun thread with a good idea.
|
Troll 1: Look, I break tree!
Troll 2: No, you not have good tool, it not broken.
Troll 1: I no need tool, I break good, it broken.
Troll 2: No, you not train, training break tree, tree not broken.
-pause-
Troll 1: Now I train, now I have tool, tree break now?
Troll 2: No, rules say no, tree not break.
Troll 1: I break rules, I break tree, I break you!
Last I checked most lumberjacks have a higher Str score than 8, I mean, look at those biceps!
Maybe you should find a new calling Jo? I'm sure you have a wonderful singing voice.
|
It seems that its unacceptable to some people that rules make short cuts for ease of play.
The woodcutter: As mentioned above, unless he crits, he's not going to do any damage. That simply represents he's going to take a long time to cut down the tree, which most people accept.
Profession Skills: These are a short cut. If I have profession Engineer, it doesn't give me knowledge Engineering. It means I can make a living as an engineer. In real terms this would be a number of related skills, but this isn't necessary for the game.
As a side note a Treant has DR 10/slashing, but no hardness. If it animated the tree the Woodcutter was trying to chop down, it too would be treated as a treant and the woodcutter could easily cut it down with his handaxe :)
The rules are a guide...
|
|
It seems that its unacceptable to some people that rules make short cuts for ease of play.
The woodcutter: As mentioned above, unless he crits, he's not going to do any damage. That simply represents he's going to take a long time to cut down the tree, which most people accept.
Profession Skills: These are a short cut. If I have profession Engineer, it doesn't give me knowledge Engineering. It means I can make a living as an engineer. In real terms this would be a number of related skills, but this isn't necessary for the game.
As a side note a Treant has DR 10/slashing, but no hardness. If it animated the tree the Woodcutter was trying to chop down, it too would be treated as a treant and the woodcutter could easily cut it down with his handaxe :)
The rules are a guide...
And I have no problem with that conclusion. But the hardness rules have an out. That is some weapons are more effective against some things and therefor get to ignore hardness and cause double damage. I submit that an axe is more effective against a tree (i.e. untreated wood) and gets the benefit of that. Using profession or craft is really unnecessary.
|
|
I agree. There are lots of ways around the issues raised in the thread.
I also like that some items are less effective,
"Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer"
I recall in 3.5 a fighter smashing through a stone roof with his battleaxe...
|
|
I am thinking that a weakling woodsman using a one handed axe meant for combat, rather than a two handed chopping axe, is meant to cleanse the gene pool the hard way. The idiot woman that married the weakling woodsman who goes about using the wrong weapons, also needs to be cleansed in the gene pool. If the weakling woodsman managed to reproduce then it is likely his spawn needs to be cleansed as well.
So I think the rules work just fine... :)
A lot of stuff that sounded like arguments but really didn't prove anything that contradicts what I've already said.
I'm still waiting for you to show me how if two professionals, of vastly different professions (that in real life would create disparate income levels), who have the same set of professional skill ranks (which is a perfectly acceptable way to stat up NPCs by the guidelines given in the books, which means they are mechanically perfectly acceptable) end up making different income levels.
It is my contention that the reason you keep arguing everything but this, and keep relying on the argument that a GM needs to create verisimilitude by only applying Profession ranks in a way that supports realistic income levels, is because there is no argument against it. NPC level 9 with 9 levels in Profession (butcher) makes (relatively) the same amount as NPC level 9 with 9 ranks in Profession (architect). It's not realistic. To keep arguing that it's not realistic because I'm the one making it not realistic just proves all the more that it's not realistic. If I have to manipulate something to make it realistic, it's not realistic to begin with.
Profession skill is not meant as a tool to create realistic economy. It's there to add fluff, and the ability for PCs to make a bit of money when in town, should they need it (which, btw, most adventurers won't once they get past about third level).
I don't mind that you enjoy the mental exercise of manipulating the skill ranks in varying NPCs to create a "realistic" market economy. Heck, everybody has to play the game their way. But to blindly continue to argue that the Profession skill is a system devoid of any shortcomings, and point at the GM as being the failure, is just a wholesale false dilemma.
At this point let's just agree to disagree. You keep using Profession and adding ranks to create your "realistic" economy, and I'll keep putting my players through sweet encounters that don't rely on how well I manipulate the numbers so that wages are fair.
|
|
A lot of stuff that sounded like arguments but really didn't prove anything that contradicts what I've already said.I'm still waiting for you to show me how if two professionals, of vastly different professions (that in real life would create disparate income levels), who have the same set of professional skill ranks (which is a perfectly acceptable way to stat up NPCs by the guidelines given in the books, which means they are mechanically perfectly acceptable) end up making different income levels.
It is my contention that the reason you keep arguing everything but this, and keep relying on the argument that a GM needs to create verisimilitude by only applying Profession ranks in a way that supports realistic income levels, is because there is no argument against it. NPC level 9 with 9 levels in Profession (butcher) makes (relatively) the same amount as NPC level 9 with 9 ranks in Profession (architect). It's not realistic. To keep arguing that it's not realistic because I'm the one making it not realistic just proves all the more that it's not realistic. If I have to manipulate something to make it realistic, it's not realistic to begin with.
Profession skill is not meant as a tool to create realistic economy. It's there to add fluff, and the ability for PCs to make a bit of money when in town, should they need it (which, btw, most adventurers won't once they get past about third level).
I don't mind that you enjoy the mental exercise of manipulating the skill ranks in varying NPCs to create a "realistic" market economy. Heck, everybody has to play the game their way. But to blindly continue to argue that the Profession skill is a system devoid of any shortcomings, and point at the GM as being the failure, is just a wholesale false dilemma.
At this point let's just agree to disagree. You keep using Profession and adding ranks to create your "realistic" economy, and I'll keep putting my players through sweet encounters that don't rely on how well I manipulate the...
The same way you make an NPC into a king. You give him a template.
Two NPCs both same stats, skills, equipment, profession. One rich and one poor. How? One has the rich merchant template and the other has the poor merchant template. You want all barristers to make profession x10 in gp. Great then give them the lucrative profession template which grants that.
This whole some professions should make more than others argument is silly. Skills are valued differently in different parts of the world (even golarian). Go try to be a barrister by the world wound and see how much money you make compared to people who sell useful stuff. That is why the hand of the DM is important in this. He determines who is wealthy and successful by applying bonuses or templates or whatever to make it fit the world he has created. As written the rules are neutral. That is as it should be so that you can more easily adjust them as desired.