|
Yet a Common Meal costs 3sp a day. *shrugs* Anywho! What book are those prices from? I don't see the in the Core book. Can't find anything on Hirelings either. : /I would like to point out that one pound of flour costs 2cp, so does a chicken. An untrained laborer could eat 3 chickens a day and still have 4 cp left over. Are they still poor? Yes. But people with no skills tend to be poor.
A peasant's outfit costs 1 sp. So they can still afford that too.
The cost of living is tough and unless they can stay with friends or relatives they are out on the street as 3gp a month will let you live a poor lifestyle.
The prices are from the core rule book. You should read it sometime. I kid.
Chicken and flour are listed at the top of the equipment section. The peasant clothing is in the clothing section.
On the contrary... I'm thoroughly enjoying watching as people dissect the various mechanics of the game to determine that "yes" an NPC can chop wood, and if they did in fact want to make money chopping wood, here's how much the rules say they would make.
My favorite part is the part where priests make better woodcutters than burly young men, and a woodcutter who has one foot in the grave from old age actually makes *more* money than a strapping, healthy young lad.
Anybody know what the wages look like in Pathfinder and what book that would be in?Pathfinder has significantly higher wages for the trained peasants, that is for someone with any ranks in a skill.
What a bunch of socialists!
:P
if this is purely focused on RAW, couldn't the farmer simply touch the tree and instantly turn it into quarterstaffs or clubs? I remember that was the case in 3.5 with the craft rules. No axe needed!
Pathfinder seems to have replaced "DC based on value" with "table of DCs", so a quarterstaff no longer has a DC of 0 to craft.
However, "making checks by the day" means that you can't craft more than one very simple item (e.g. a wooden spoon) per day.
|
On the contrary... I'm thoroughly enjoying watching as people dissect the various mechanics of the game to determine that "yes" an NPC can chop wood, and if they did in fact want to make money chopping wood, here's how much the rules say they would make. It's entertaining to watch people spend so much time figuring out something that will in no measurable way affect the PCs of a campaign. Unless they kill the woodcutter with the STR of 8 and then violently slaughter his whole family and have to be put on trial.
I never assumed the original post was anything more than an entertaining way to kick off a discussion about the nature of the rules, or at worst a troll.
Either way it's a fun thread, and while it is a wholly inappropriate track of discussion (or argument) at a game table during game time.. it doesn't mean it's inappropriate for discussion during one's 'surfing teh internets' time.
|
|
My favorite part is the part where priests make better woodcutters than burly young men, and a woodcutter who has one foot in the grave from old age actually makes *more* money than a strapping, healthy young lad.On the contrary... I'm thoroughly enjoying watching as people dissect the various mechanics of the game to determine that "yes" an NPC can chop wood, and if they did in fact want to make money chopping wood, here's how much the rules say they would make.
That's because the old man's profession check reflect the profit of his decades building up a business. But yeah you can have some quirky outcomes.
If your commoner with a 8 Strength, also has an average Wisdom of, oh...12, because commonfolk have more common sense than city folk (not that I'm maligning you city -slickers, but most of you don't know enough to stay out of the poison ivy), and takes a rank in Profession(Lumberjack), he can earn an average of 7gp a week, if he takes 10 on his Profesion check. If we assume he is working for himself and does not owe anything to 'the man', that means he's sold 700 days worth of firewood at 1cp/day of firewood, all for one weeks work. So even if he physically can't chop the trees down, he's got to be doing something right....and in one week can have enough firewood for his lovely wife and 13 kids to have fires burning in his modest cottage for almost 2 years.
So even though the rules prevent him from physically chopping down the trees....he still can gather enough wood in a week to keep his family warm for 2 years.
The prices are from the core rule book. You should read it sometime. I kid.
Chicken and flour are listed at the top of the equipment section. The peasant clothing is in the clothing section.
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. :p
That's because the old man's profession check reflect the profit of his decades building up a business.
No, it's because by the rules, you gain +3 INT/WIS/CHA (and lose 6 STR/DEX/CON) as you become "very old", and only your skill ranks and Wisdom stat have any impact whatsoever on how high your Profession check is, which is the only thing that has any impact whatsoever on how much money you make.
It's just like how being very old makes you better at seeing and hearing things, helps you recall facts better, and makes you more intimidating and more socially adept.It's not because "the old man's profession check reflect the profit of his decades building up a business". That's an attempt at rationalizing the results of the Profession skill, and not a particularly good one at that, which stems from using the rule in a way it was never intended to be used (in this case, to try to simulate how much money a woodcutter wood "really" make given X Y and Z).
You shouldn't feel the need to engage in these attempts at rationalization. It's OK for the Profession rules to not be an economy simulator. That's not what they're for, so it doesn't matter that they're terrible at it.
Either way it's a fun thread
In times like these I always try to remember that fun is a choice, not an activity.
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. :p
Also, 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).
That's because the old man's profession check reflect the profit of his decades building up a business.No, it's because by the rules, you gain +3 INT/WIS/CHA (and lose 6 STR/DEX/CON) as you become "very old", and only your skill ranks and Wisdom stat have any impact whatsoever on how high your Profession check is, which is the only thing that has any impact whatsoever on how much money you make.
Yes, because getting money as a lumberjack is more than just the physical act of chopping down the tree. That extra 5-10% is gained because he either gets better deals on his wood due to being experienced enough to find just the right pieces and knowing just who to sell what to (he chops down less giant pines and more choice birches that he can physically manage and that's higher quality), or because his employer give him a bonus since he uses his experience to help the younger lads with his knowledge.
Not seeing where the problem is. With a haf-way decent craft (weaponsmithing) check, anyone can walk up to a tree, touch it, and have it instantaneously turn into a pile of clubs.
You got your firewood with nary lifting a finger. :P
Yes, because getting money as a lumberjack is more than just the physical act of chopping down the tree. That extra 5-10% is gained because he either gets better deals on his wood due to being experienced enough to find just the right pieces and knowing just who to sell what to (he chops down less giant pines and more choice birches that he can physically manage and that's higher quality), or because his employer give him a bonus since he uses his experience to help the younger lads with his knowledge.
Except for the part where this applies even if he's self-employed and doesn't have anyone but him working there, even if he just started being a woodcutter a year ago.
This applies regardless of any factors other than WIS and skill ranks, because the Profession rules don't take into account any factors besides WIS or skill ranks.Because you're still trying to justify a rule that doesn't work as a detailed simulation, because it's not intended to be a detailed simulation. He gets more money because Profession is WIS based and you get WIS as you age. The same reason that he sees and hears better (Perception is WIS based) as he ages. That's it. Not "because he's more experienced, so he gets more money even though he can't cut a tree down." Not "because his employer gives him a bonus".
Once again: you don't need to invent justifications for why the Profession rules actually do simulate how a laborer receives wages, because that is not what the Profession rules are for. If you stop using the rules for something they were neither intended nor designed for, you will stop running into these problems.
The rule isn't there to figure out how much money a specific NPC woodcutter will make. It's there so that you can feel like your PC was "really" a woodcutter because you spent points on Profession(Woodcutter).
(Also, I like the part where he's so feeble he can barely walk (8 STR, -6 from age), but he still makes more money than the young woodcutters.)
Except for the part where this applies even if he's self-employed and doesn't have anyone but him working there, and literally regardless of any other circumstances whatsoever.
Yes, just like how a sailer can make his full wage in a desert or there's no penalty for an acrobat for lacking both legs. Those aren't the base assumptions though. The base assumptions of the profession skill is that it includes use of a lot of different skills and activities, including planning, haggling, and doing anything else related to it.
It is also assumed that you use your skill in the most effective way. A sailor doesn't use his profession roll to just say "argh matey", however good he is at that. If a player wants to just say argh matey they won't get money from that. When rolling profession (sailor) checks, you assume that the character does his best at earning as much money as possible. The same goes with lumberjack - if you're Str 5 but have a skill modifier of +8, your best bet at making money is educating people about it, or doing fine detail work, not going of just to chop down a tree, and then hope it'll magically transform into silver pieces.
EDIT: And I'm not trying to say it simulates it perfectly.
You seem to be saying (and I'm sorry if this is wrong, then please correct me - I'm not deliberately trying to misrepresent you) that it's unrealistic that you can get more money from it when you're old and wrinkly, but that it's okay since the skill isn't there for economic simulation of a society. I'm saying that I agree that the skill isn't there, but that it IS logical that an experienced craftsman earns more, and that the gains in wisdom, intelligence and charisma at old age are meant to represent that kind of "general" experience.
EDIT: And if he's got Str 2, thus having been born weak and being weak all his life, then apparently he's gotta be good at something since he DOES earn more money. If he's got a strength of two, perhaps he is a tutor in woodcutting. And I don't see why Str 2 wouldn't make you able to walk with a crutch or something - you can even carry stuff. :)
If you start with a strength of eight, perhaps you've always been more into the finer works of woodsmanship - I assume those other points went into SOMETHING, didn't they? If you've got a decent charisma, you probably were good at striking deals, if you've got a good intelligence, you probably know more about different kinds of trees and how to work with them and so on.
I think it is a simplification that does not fit perfectly. Also I have chopped wood to build a cage to put a prisoner in in character. The funny thing is I forgot I had a saw and wasn't looking at character sheet and was a play by post. Also saws are really cheap 4 cp I think almost anyone can afford that.
if this is purely focused on RAW, couldn't the farmer simply touch the tree and instantly turn it into quarterstaffs or clubs? I remember that was the case in 3.5 with the craft rules. No axe needed!Pathfinder seems to have replaced "DC based on value" with "table of DCs", so a quarterstaff no longer has a DC of 0 to craft.
However, "making checks by the day" means that you can't craft more than one very simple item (e.g. a wooden spoon) per day.
Don't make a spoon, make a tableware set.
Yes, just like how a sailer can make his full wage in a desert or there's no penalty for an acrobat for lacking both legs. Those aren't the base assumptions though. The base assumptions of the profession skill is that it includes use of a lot of different skills and activities, including planning, haggling, and doing anything else related to it.
The base assumption of the Profession skill is that you are not using it to simulate laborers engaging in labor.
It is also assumed that you use your skill in the most effective way. A sailor doesn't use his profession roll to just say "argh matey", however good he is at that. If a player wants to just say argh matey they won't get money from that. When rolling profession (sailor) checks, you assume that the character does his best at earning as much money as possible. The same goes with lumberjack - if you're Str 5 but have a skill modifier of +8, your best bet at making money is educating people about it, or doing fine detail work, not going of just to chop down a tree, and then hope it'll magically transform into silver pieces.
So our STR 2 old guy with Profession (woodcutter)... or Profession(rikshaw cart driver), or Profession(guy who carries heavy things for you)... is "educating people". Great.
What you're doing is taking what is essentially a purely arbitrary result--how much money this guy makes based on his Profession skill ranks + Wisdom score--and then trying to alter the narrative and make up justifications and handwave until the result somehow fits closely enough for you to accept.
Why are you doing that?
Why not just, I dunno, stop trying to use the Profession skill for things it was never intended for... like calculating how much money an elderly, enfeebled man who just took up woodcutting makes?
Using Profession to figure out how much an NPC makes doesn't make any more sense than using attack rolls and weapon damage to figure out how much he makes, because neither rule is intended or designed for this purpose. What you're doing gives you results no less arbitrary than, say, rolling a d20 and adding the guy's strength modifier to see how many sp he makes.
Yeah I wouldn't even try a hand axe. The one I used was a good two bladed wood axe, been ...ugh near 20 years but I am pretty sure the thing was at lest 8-12 pounds. Heavy, thick handled you could put alot of weight into.
Now while a wood axe might be 8 pounds because pathfinder really exaggerates the weights of the weapons, 8 pounds would be a splitting maul, not a wood axe.
http://www.baileysonline.com/itemdetail.asp?item=15870&catID=
this would be one of the heavier axes, it weighs in around 5 pounds.
Its the weight on the end and leverage that makes the axes FEEL that heavy. Well that and tired muscles...
EDIT: And I'm not trying to say it simulates it perfectly.
You seem to be saying (and I'm sorry if this is wrong, then please correct me - I'm not deliberately trying to misrepresent you) that it's unrealistic that you can get more money from it when you're old and wrinkly, but that it's okay since the skill isn't there for economic simulation of a society. I'm saying that I agree that the skill isn't there, but that it IS logical that an experienced craftsman earns more, and that the gains in wisdom, intelligence and charisma at old age are meant to represent that kind of "general" experience. Craft being based on INT (whether it's delicate goldsmithing that requires fine manual dexterity, writing plays, or doing something that requires a lot of strength like blacksmithing) doesn't make sense, either.
It doesn't make sense because the skill isn't actually simulating the process of making stuff, and people should stop treating it like it is.EDIT: And if he's got Str 2, thus having been born weak and being weak all his life, then apparently he's gotta be good at something since he DOES earn more money. If he's got a strength of two, perhaps he is a tutor in woodcutting. And I don't see...
It is absolutely not logical that how much money a craftsman earns is based on his wisdom. If two guys have the same skill ranks, and one has a high wisdom but is physically completely unfit for the job, he will make more money than the guy who is in superb physical shape.
This is the problem: "apparently he's gotta be good at something since he DOES make more money." You are accepting a nonsensical result and then inventing justifications for it. But why?
Why not just accept that this is not what the Profession skill is for, any more than this is what attack rolls and damage calculations are for, and not have to come up with ridiculous justifications?
Hello. My name is Jo. I'm a pretty average fellow. I have a strength of 8. Hey, don't judge. We're not all built to lop off the heads of a hydra, you know.
One day my demanding wife asks me to go out and cut down a tree. I grab my trusty hand ax and walk out to the field. I run my thumb across the edge of the ax. Boy, it sure is sharp. Taking my time, I line up my swing. The ax hits the tree dead on.
Hmmm. Not a scratch. Let me try that again.
Oh no. What gives?
***
Forgive me if what I'm saying here is persnickety, but for some reason I'm bothered by it.
My hand ax does 1d6 - 1.
The tree I'm trying to cut down is (for argument's sake) about 10 inches thick. That means it has about 100 hit points. Since it's wood it has a hardness of 5.
Clearly, I can not do enough damage to overcome the hardness of the tree. I can not cut it down. I can not chop firewood.
My family freezes that winter.
(I suppose I can work in the probability of factoring in critical hits, but I'm pretty sure that it's going to take way too long to hack through the tree even so.)
***
Or perhaps I'm a halfling, and I use a small sized hand ax. This creates the same problem.
***
So. My question is: am I missing something obvious here in the RAW? Can a guy with a strength of 8 actually chop wood? For instance, is there some rule that allows automatic criticals against items?
LOL. Coup de grace? Full round action. Line up the axe (you aren't threatened so why not) and coup de grace. Axes have a higher crit modifier too I believe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I started out looking to respond to each of MendedWall12's and LogicNinja's, but really, your arguments boil down to: "This is stupid and you should all feel bad for playing the game in a way that I don't care for and using rules, so I'll mock you." Allow me a rebuttal with an equal amount of logic: "No, and both of you should feel bad for telling people they are having bad/wrong fun."
More on topic: OP, via the profession, or the substance vulnerability rules, are you satisfied?
|
|
That's because the old man's profession check reflect the profit of his decades building up a business.No, it's because by the rules, you gain +3 INT/WIS/CHA (and lose 6 STR/DEX/CON) as you become "very old", and only your skill ranks and Wisdom stat have any impact whatsoever on how high your Profession check is, which is the only thing that has any impact whatsoever on how much money you make.
It's just like how being very old makes you better at seeing and hearing things, helps you recall facts better, and makes you more intimidating and more socially adept.It's not because "the old man's profession check reflect the profit of his decades building up a business". That's an attempt at rationalizing the results of the Profession skill, and not a particularly good one at that, which stems from using the rule in a way it was never intended to be used (in this case, to try to simulate how much money a woodcutter wood "really" make given X Y and Z).
You shouldn't feel the need to engage in these attempts at rationalization. It's OK for the Profession rules to not be an economy simulator. That's not what they're for, so it doesn't matter that they're terrible at it.
But they are not terrible at it. NPCs can make a living wage, the equipment costs make sense for the money NPCs can earn, even poor untrained characters can buy food and clothing. I don't care about NPCs making a living and hand wave it in my games. However, I enjoy discussions like these because I often find the rules are more robust than I thought they were.
As far as rationalization, that is what the whole game is about. Roll a bad stealth check? Well why did that happen? Maybe you were distracted because AM Barbarian called you weak. Maybe the floor is strewn with extra crunchy leaves.
Miss a to hit roll? How did that work for your character? The nimble goblin ducks under your massive blow, you can see the hair on his head move from the whoosh of your massive hammer.
Your argument basically boils down to asking everyone to make rolls and shut up about that roleplaying crap.
When building the npcs I try to put there weak stats in things that are not needed and their second highest in what I would consider the second most important stat for the character on waht the job is.
Try to make the economy work by giving the npcs the comparitive advantage in their jobs. MAybe the OP could be a cook or something else using a different skill than woodcutter. Design the ncps so they do not suck at their job.
The rules have a hard enough time working when used for their intended purpose.
Sorry, you just made me not want to read any of your other posts right there. Good job.
You know, I started out looking to respond to each of MendedWall12's and LogicNinja's, but really, your arguments boil down to: "This is stupid and you should all feel bad for playing the game in a way that I don't care for and using rules, so I'll mock you." Allow me a rebuttal with an equal amount of logic: "No, and both of you should feel bad for telling people they are having bad/wrong fun."
More on topic: OP, via the profession, or the substance vulnerability rules, are you satisfied?
Hello, I am the OP, and yes, I am satisfied. There have been a lot of great answers in this post.
But the answer I prefer is the one that highlights substance vulnerability. It's reasonable that a tree is vulnerable to an ax. My only concern with the substance vulnerability rule is that it might make cutting the tree down a little too easy, if you can believe that. (It gives Jo 5 points of damage on average per round, which means that he can cut the hypothetical tree down in roughly 20 rounds, or about two minutes. While that might make Jo's wife happy, it doesn't seem very likely.)
I prefer that rule to the profession rule because the example used concerned a husband trying to keep his family warm, not a businessman trying to profit financially as a woodcutter. (I would imagine that the survival skill would be more appropriate here than the profession skill.)
That being said, I am left with another question:
If the profession skill rules are not intended to tell us how much money folks make then, uhm, what are they intended for?
I am amazed at how many people have responded with actual mechanical ideas to solve this "problem."
At what point does: how much wood could a woodcutter cut, if a woodcutter could cut wood, in any way enhance a Pathfinder campaign for the PCs?
Is worrying about how and or why an NPC gather's their firewood an exercise in anything other than hypothetical fluff finding?
At what point in running a campaign, even a homebrew campaign, would the GM say "Hold on, I have to roll to see if this NPC can actually chop some wood to burn."?
It's more like an example of the kind of logic I would use while GMing if I suddenly needed to adjudicate this in a game. There's nothing wrong with that. To me, it seems relatively trivial to interpret these rules in a way that gives me a satisfying result, and it looks as the the OP is just trying to raise hackles by pointing out awkwardness in the rules rather than trying to adjudicate them.
I expect at least these types of people decided to respond in this thread:
- Those who like to create nonsense outcomes from seemingly reasonable rules situations
- Those who feel that the above is mean-spirited and want everyone to know the rules are not all inclusive
- Those who like the challenge of making the situation match the rules and vice-verse. These people are very likely to be GMs
- Anyone not covered by the above ;)
|
Why not just, I dunno, stop trying to use the Profession skill for things it was never intended for... like calculating how much money an elderly, enfeebled man who just took up woodcutting makes?
Using Profession to figure out how much an NPC makes doesn't make any more sense
profession Check
You can earn 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.
seems like they are using it EXACTLY for the purpose it was written
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I started out looking to respond to each of MendedWall12's and LogicNinja's, but really, your arguments boil down to: "This is stupid and you should all feel bad for playing the game in a way that I don't care for and using rules, so I'll mock you." Allow me a rebuttal with an equal amount of logic: "No, and both of you should feel bad for telling people they are having bad/wrong fun."
No, my arguments boil down to this is not what the profession (or attack/damage) rules are *for*, and using them for this does not confer any real advantage over making something up or making an arbitrary roll.
If what really makes the game fun for you is rolling to see how much the Profession skill says an NPC makes, then go ahead--I'm not going to tell you it's bad, wrong fun.
Fun is fun. It's the question, "how can anyone in the game world chop wood if the rules say they can't beat a tree's Hardness?", that's bad.
The rules have a hard enough time working when used for their intended purpose.Sorry, you just made me not want to read any of your other posts right there. Good job.
That's not a dig at PF, that's true of RPG rules in general. Any rules-heavy RPG has a ton of unforeseen rules interaction, abstractions that you have to work with, etc.
Even if it was a dig at PF, though, man, that'd be getting pretty huffy over a slight to your favorite pretend elfgame.
That being said, I am left with another question:
If the Profession skill rules are not intended to tell us how much money folks makes then, uhm, what are they intended for?
The Profession rules have two basic purposes.
One is to let players feel like their character is "really" a woodcutter, chef, etc. Yes, you could just write it down on the character sheet, but some players don't feel like it's "real" if they haven't spent any character points on it. (I personally find this view pretty limiting, but YMMV.)
These players can feel like their character is a chef because it says "Profession(Chef) - 10" on the sheet, they can say "I make money by being a chef!" when the PCs are in town, and there's a connection between the size of insignificant sum of money they make and how much they sunk into the skill, which makes them feel like putting ranks in the skill makes the character a "better" chef, even though Profession has nothing to do with how good you are at doing something, just how much money you make.
The other purpose is to provide an easy, handwaved answer when a player asks "I work as a chef while we're in town, how much money do I make?" You handwave the entire affair and get a number, instead of delving into detail. The purpose of the rule is to *skip over* the working-as-a-chef.
Note that I said "player" here. The rule is there to handwave a player action ("I make money as a chef") and to make the player feel like the character is "really" a chef.
The rule is *not* there to simulate an economy or tell you how good an NPC is at something. If it was, the rule would look pretty different.
I responded because I enjoyed considering my response in case a PC decides to chop down a tree. It's good to know. What on earth are people battling about?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But they are not terrible at it. NPCs can make a living wage, the equipment costs make sense for the money NPCs can earn, even poor untrained characters can buy food and clothing. I don't care about NPCs making a living and hand wave it in my games. However, I enjoy discussions like these because I often find the rules are more robust than I thought they were.
They are absolutely terrible at it. We are talking about a world where being a better blacksmith makes you much more dangerous and harder to kill, where wizards make better blacksmiths than warriors, where getting feeble and senile makes you better.
We are talking about rules that mean you make the same amount of money as a scribe, a goldsmith, a lawyer, a brick-layer, a woodcutter, and a waiter.
If we're using Profession rules for NPCs, every NPC of the same level makes about the same amount of money regardless of their status or profession. This is obviously ludicrous.
As far as rationalization, that is what the whole game is about. Roll a bad stealth check? Well why did that happen? Maybe you were distracted because AM Barbarian called you weak. Maybe the floor is strewn with extra crunchy leaves.
Miss a to hit roll? How did that work for your character? The nimble goblin ducks under your massive blow, you can see the hair on his head move from the whoosh of your massive hammer....
The purpose of game rules is, essentially, to restrict the narrative space. I certainly agree, a single attack roll or skill check is an abstraction. But in the case of attack rolls or stealth checks, you are getting something out of that rationalization--you're getting a narrative. Explaining why this guy makes X gp even though it doesn't make any sense is just an exercise in rationalization, it doesn't contribute to the narrative.
When a rule is giving you a weird narrative restriction, you have two options: bend the narrative to the rule, or bend the rule to the narrative. I don't know why you feel that bending the narrative to the rule is better in the case of Old STR 2 to 6 Guy Working As A Woodcutter/Blacksmith/Whatever.
profession Check
You can earn 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.
seems like they are using it EXACTLY for the purpose it was written
The rule is there so players can feel like their character is "really" a [profession], and as a quick way to handwave, in a highly abstract and non-simulationist way, how much money the PC gets for going "I work as [profession] when we're in town."
The rule is not there to tell you how much money an NPC performing trade X would really make.Unless, of course, you think that the game designers *wanted* to create a world where nothing matters as to how much money you make except what level you are and how wise you are, and where everyone makes roughly the same amount of money--lawyers, coopers, guardsmen, jewelers.
The rule is there so players can feel like their character is "really" a [profession], and as a quick way to handwave, in a highly abstract and non-simulationist way, how much money the PC gets for going "I work as [profession] when we're in town."
The rule is not there to tell you how much money an NPC performing trade X would really make.
You speak with such authority. Where did you come across this knowledge?
Or do you mean to say, "I use the rule for PC's, but not for NPC's."
Which is like saying something different.
*reads LogicNinja's next-to-last post*
Oh, okay, that makes sense, and I apologize for categorizing you. While I still disagree with you, and your earlier posts seemed rude and dismissive, it seems you have more considera-
*reads LogicNinja's last post*
... nevermind. See my post you've responded to once.
OP: the profession rules are used as all the rules are - as an abstraction and general guideline. While most PCs use them to get a cash-value in, well, cash for what they do, the majority of commoners and peasants in rural areas will instead probably be getting roughly that value with trade-goods, raised crops, and the stuff of life (clothes, tools, repairs, etc) and will not have actual coins for their efforts. That is, if you're interested in actually making a narrative with your rules instead of... I don't know, whatever is being argued for otherwise (super strict RAW or go home?).
Now, if anyone wants to use RAW, that's fine - they really will be getting gold for it. But in most game concepts that I've seen they use the preponderance of the "value" to various goods as a logical reason for the lack of gold.
You speak with such authority. Where did you come across this knowledge?
Or do you mean to say, "I use the rule for PC's, but not for NPC's."
Which is like saying something different.
I think it's pretty obvious that the designers never intended the rule to be used to simulate the economy.
Unless you think the designers either
(a) actually *wanted* to create a world where nothing matters as to how much money you make except what level you are and how wise you are, and where everyone makes roughly the same amount of money--lawyers, coopers, guardsmen, jewelers, whatever
or (b) wanted to create a rule that would actually give a reasonable number when you're figuring out how much money some NPC makes, but are so utterly bad at game design that they ended up with "everyone with a profession, makes the same small amount of money, being wise makes you make a little more".
The rule is so broad, general, and abstract that it's pretty clear that it's intended as a rough handwave rather than as a serious attempt to model something. And if you do apply it to NPCs, you get absolutely nonsensical results.
I guess you could argue "the rule is meant to actually tell you how much money every tradesman NPC makes, but is really poorly designed". I'd rather not think the designers are that incompetent. Certainly the rest of the game is better designed than that.
*reads LogicNinja's next-to-last post*
Oh, okay, that makes sense, and I apologize for categorizing you. While I still disagree with you, and your earlier posts seemed rude and dismissive, it seems you have more considera-
*reads LogicNinja's last post*
... nevermind. See my post you've responded to once.
I'm not sure what your problem is, exactly. I have a point to make, and I'm making it and supporting it. I'm not insulting anyone, or making snide comments about how "wow, you totally made me not want to read any of your other posts".
Do you have a problem with me pointing out exactly how nonsensical a world where NPC wages are calculated using the profession rules is? Would you like me to use more softening phrases like "IMO" and "seems like" and "but that's just my opinion do what you want"?
something like this popped up in LG (3.5 I think) once.
I had a character trapped in a dungeon (party of adventurers and the entrance "closed" with solid stone). I reached into my (oversized pack) and pulled out a miners pick and said, "We'll head out that way" pointing up "we'll just dig our way out".
Pick does 1d8 (Judge ruled it as a hvy pick), two handed with an 18 str for an average of 4.5+6 damage, against stone (hardness 8). so.... in the middle of digging one of the other characters hands my guy a Greatsword - which we discovered was the best mining tool ever! (rolls eyes - that's why all those dwarf miners use greatswords.).
Thus, in my home game an Ax bypasses at least half the hardness for wooden objects (doors/trees). Want to chop down a door? Use an ax not a sword. A miners pick bypasses AT LEAST half the hardness for stone. Etc.
I can't remember where it was from but I seem to recall there used to be something where weapon damage varied by damage type vs target. Like Slashing weapons would do better damage against one type of target but piercing would be more effective against another.
I can't remember where it was from but I seem to recall there used to be something where weapon damage varied by damage type vs target. Like Slashing weapons would do better damage against one type of target but piercing would be more effective against another.
In 3.x some monsters had damage reduction that could be overcome by slashing, bludgeoning, etc. Skeletons had DR 5/bludgeoning, IIRC, for example.
In early D&D, there was an optional matrix that gave certain weapons bonuses against certain armor, e.g. piercing weapons were better against chainmail.
As for mining, Power Attack and a big two-handed weapon lets fighter types cut through solid rock with a non-adamantine weapon pretty easily.
You've got two basic options when it comes to handling this:
(1) Just let them do it and say that badass warriors can carve through stone pretty decently. Certainly the mages have no problem using Stone Shape or whatever.
(2) Don't use the hardness/damage/HP rules to handle cutting through solid stone. There's really not much to commend using the rule besides "it's there"--it's pretty simple to come up with something that makes more sense, because even eyeballing it and going "Yeah, that would take about... ten hours" makes more sense.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The Profession rules have two basic purposes.
One is to let players feel like their character is "really" a woodcutter, chef, etc. Yes, you could just write it down on the character sheet, but some players don't feel like it's "real" if they haven't spent any character points on it. (I personally find this view pretty limiting, but YMMV.)
These players can feel like their character is a chef because it says "Profession(Chef) - 10" on the sheet, they can say "I make money by being a chef!" when the PCs are in town, and there's a connection between the size of insignificant sum of money they make and how much they sunk into the skill, which makes them feel like putting ranks in the skill makes the character a "better" chef, even though Profession has nothing to do with how good you are at doing something, just how much money you make.The other purpose is to provide an easy, handwaved answer when a player asks "I work as a chef while we're in town, how much money do I make?" You handwave the entire affair and get a number, instead of delving into detail. The purpose of the rule is to *skip over* the working-as-a-chef.
Note that I said "player" here. The rule is there to handwave a player action ("I make money as a chef") and to make the player feel like the character is "really" a chef.
The rule is *not* there to simulate an economy or tell you how good an NPC is at something. If it was, the rule would look pretty different.
Clearly you've never had a 17th level adventure come down to a dressmaking contest with the demon that holds your character's family's souls hostage.
I'd never before seen a group so excited that someone rolled a 51 on a Craft check.
Clearly you've never had a 17th level adventure come down to a dressmaking contest with the demon that holds your character's family's souls hostage.
No, I never have. That seems pretty weird, and it seems even weirder to settle a contest like that with a single craft roll, or a series of craft rolls.
I'm also not sure what this has to do with the purpose of the Profession rules.
I'd never before seen a group so excited that someone rolled a 51 on a Craft check.
Was it a contest to see who could make the dress faster? Because Craft doesn't actually tell you how *good* what you're making is (it's either Masterwork or it isn't), it just tells you how fast you make it. How nice a dress is isn't even objective, it's entirely a matter of taste! Some people love big froofy dresses and some people hate'em.
You can houserule that the higher your Craft roll, the more objectively high-quality your item is, I guess, but you could also just do that for an ability check or something (I'd make it a DEX check, since that makes way more sense than INT--being a genius won't help you make an awesome dress, being good with a needle and thread will).
I think it's pretty obvious that the designers never intended the rule to be used to simulate the economy.
So. You're guessing as to the intent of the design regarding the profession skill. The skill that tells us how much is made via dice rolls in the respective professions.
And the reasoning for your guess is that you don't like the way the skill functions as it violates your suspension of disbelief.
That's cool.
But you're sort of beating it to death. We get it. You don't like letting NPC's use the profession skill. Check. Got it. Moving on.
Just don't force feed your guesses as to intent down everyone's throat. Some folks believe the skill that references how to make money via professions is one that should come into play when designing NPC's.