Well a dirty little secret of mine is when I say 'shopkeepers' I met it in the form of 'a craftsman that keeps a shop and directly sells his product' instead of say a trade post.
But honestly having broken down the craft per week income levels and finding that it about matches the profession per week income levels I'm comfortable leaving it like it is -- at most it offers a small boost in net worth and yearly incomes or a means to explain the community as more self sustaining.
At the end of the day I'm good with abstraction here because it allows for more of an archetype feel to the proto-village meaning that we easily have room for multiple endgames: the village can easily simply be a producer and need finished product brought in, or it can be self sustaining with craftsmen in village producing what is needed, or it can be a mix of the two, or something else entirely.
By leaving it at the 'gold piece' level of abstraction we allow the village to cover more of the... fluff of the village mechanics without having to rebuild it for each sort of village possible.
Again the next point of curiosity for me is filling out the build up to larger settlements and inter-settlement trade as well as the service industries and if the economy as envisioned can sustain the spellcasting prices given in the rules.
I would suggest tracking:
Food, Metals, Wood, Cloth (generic so we can handle wool, hide, cotton and silk), and finished goods for each and after getting a sketch from that breaking it on down further.
As such we can have an idea of what food each village is producing and yet keep it on the abstract until we settle in more.
I would kind of like to do this through picking an area of Golarion specifically that has some information but not much and fleshing it out with what we have here.
I feel that at this point we really can't break down cost of living any more than we already have. I would argue that this isn't a bad thing because while we have the average costs of everything in some areas things could be much different -- food might cost more in a desert area while rent might be less giving the same general cost of living.
In my way of looking at it the only thing that we don't have drawn out currently are public projects and the aristocracy. I'm a bit interested to see if we can't shake these pieces out simply by continuing on the route we are now.
Remember when I pointed out that the average craftsman is going to see more income than the farmer? I'm a bit curious to see if we can't level that out some with guild dues and the like -- but I'm wanting to wait until we see just what population centers develop and what sort of wealth overflow we have.
I'm kind of taking a bottom up approach honestly - I don't think a top down could really account for some of the interactions that we see and would allow more errors to creep in.
Well have you decided on what area of Golarion to use yet since this is such and intresting thread it would be a shame to see all these ideas stop.
This got me thinking about how big each of the hexes is in kingmaker. It gives us a point of reference area wise.
There are 640 acres per square mile.
A hex 12 miles across has about 8 miles length for each side(2/3rd length of 12 miles) which gives us 166 square miles per hex.
So every hex has 106,240 acres to play with.
I would assume 10% would be unusable(rocks, streams roads, corps) for simplicities sake which gives us 150 square miles(or 150 slots if you want to keep the math from getting to crazy) that we could use to use for an area. The acres would be a little over what was discussed earlier but we can assume it includes fences, walls, farm house, barn, stables, ranch etc.
a farm would need 1 sm (640 acres) per crop? or is it assumed mixed use?
a cattle herder would need 2 sm (1280 acres)
a sheep herder would need 2 sm (1280 acres)does that sound about right?
Looking at farm size from an historical point. In the US, the average farm size has pretty much always been around 400 acres. I use this, because in the Kingmaker AP it is a similar situation of moving to "empty" land. Pre-modern fertilizers, and powered farming equipment, only 1/3 to 1/2 of the land would be farmed with a grain; wheat, corn, rye, barley, oats, etc. the rest of the land was left fallow or was planted with something that would replenish the soil. The farmers knew what worked, but not the why it worked. Most farms would have some livestock; chickens, goats, pigs, sheep or cows if they were wealthy. They would also have an extensive garden, fruit trees, berry patches, etc.
Land used for grazing is incredibly varied, depending upon the natural plant growth. Cattle needs anywhere from 1-2 acres per cow to 15-20 or more depending upon conditions.
Kingmaker has some serious problems, in that you can only do one thing per hex. That hex that you put a town in, is going to be surrounded by farms. Amd all those "farming" hexes are going to have towns of some sort in them,...
Having just been to Battle Abbey, I noted that the monks used to get most of their income from peasant farms that were 32 acres each. I don't know if this is typical, but I would imagine it is.
The annual income from each farm was 3 shillings. Don't know what that is, but I would go with a rule of thumb that pennies = coppers, Shillings = Silvers and Pounds = Gold. So that's 3 Silvers per farm. There would be a lot of farms in the 1.5 miles around battle abbey (the area they owned).
Don't know how this all ties in with the economics you are trying to put together, but thought it might be some use.
I've got 25 regular farmers and 3 veteran farmers -- the regular farmers have a total income of 396.6gp a year with a net income of 38.6gp per year giving 9,915gp gross and 965gp net a year. The veterans will have another level and possibly masterwork tools which will add another 2gp total for the 39 weeks they can work meaning 78gp extra a year for them both as gross and net income so that puts us up to 9,993gp gross and 1,043gp net.
Not quite - you added the 78gp Net and Gross for the Veterans but this is EXTRA, over and above the basic farmer net/gross income. Totals should be 14338.8 Gross and 1314.8 Net.
But otherwise sterling work. More! More! More!
As an aside, If I were theses farmers I would club together to have a druid of 5th level+ visit once a year (Just before planting would seem an auspicious time). For 150 gp (that's approx. 5gp, 4 sp each) he could cast Plant growth with the enrichment subspell, increasing yields by 1/3. Gross income would go up by 4779.3 - and so would Net income! For an outlay of 150gp, the whole village benefits to the tune of 4779.3gp, a very tidy profit.
It might even be that the Druids would do it for free, if they perceived it as supporting the balance (The village being a relatively Lawful enterprise in perhaps an otherwise chaotic region).
On a personal level, each farmer would get 132.2gp extra (both Gross and net) and each veteran would get 158.2gp extra (Gross and Net). I can see no farmer objecting to this (in fact as the local lord I might pay for it myself...Then up the taxes next year to take advantage of this windfall).
It would be interesting to give the pcs a village (a gift from the local lord?) and let them figure out what they could to improve it. There are any number of otherwise little-used spells that could improve things for our village.
Having just been to Battle Abbey, I noted that the monks used to get most of their income from peasant farms that were 32 acres each. I don't know if this is typical, but I would imagine it is.
The annual income from each farm was 3 shillings. Don't know what that is, but I would go with a rule of thumb that pennies = coppers, Shillings = Silvers and Pounds = Gold. So that's 3 Silvers per farm. There would be a lot of farms in the 1.5 miles around battle abbey (the area they owned).
Don't know how this all ties in with the economics you are trying to put together, but thought it might be some use.
1 Pound Sterling, was a troy pound of silver. 0.82286 normal pounds.
1 Shilling was 1/20 of a Pound, or .041143 of a normal pound. About half the weight of a Pathfinder SP.1 Pence was 1/12 of a Shilling.
So 3 Shillings would be about 6 SP.
Having just been to Battle Abbey, I noted that the monks used to get most of their income from peasant farms that were 32 acres each. I don't know if this is typical, but I would imagine it is.
The annual income from each farm was 3 shillings. Don't know what that is, but I would go with a rule of thumb that pennies = coppers, Shillings = Silvers and Pounds = Gold. So that's 3 Silvers per farm. There would be a lot of farms in the 1.5 miles around battle abbey (the area they owned).
Don't know how this all ties in with the economics you are trying to put together, but thought it might be some use.
1 Pound Sterling, was a troy pound of silver. 0.82286 normal pounds.
1 Shilling was 1/20 of a Pound, or .041143 of a normal pound. About half the weight of a Pathfinder SP.
1 Pence was 1/12 of a Shilling.So 3 Shillings would be about 6 SP.
If 1 shilling was about half a PF SP, then 3 Shillings would be about 1.5 SP.
It sounds too low to me, but 32 Acres is not very large; even accounting for unfarmed areas, you would be able to fit a lot of such farms in a 1.5 mile radius (I will leave it to others to work it out).
Also this income would be in addition to what the Abbey makes for itself, with the monks being largely self-sufficient, and it pays no taxes.
As an NPC moves up through age categories and gets age modifiers their craft modifier would increase so the amount of money they earn increases. Does that alter the distribution of the age categories with respect to wealth?
EDIT: I know NPCs use a stat block but they still get racials so does affect craft/profession modifiers? I've seen a few calculations using a +2 mod but if they got bonus or penalty surely that value would change. Does that mean that village's racial composition significantly influences gross output?
(Res Thread)
I wonder if Ultimate Campaign has any usfull info related to this subject.
Actually,
It seems to indicate that Joe the Farmer could be a commoner, or an expert, or even a fighter or a rogue if he wanted to be, since he could retrain. Given that the cost is easily affordable to retrain from commoner to, say, Rogue, and that Rogue get's more skill points (which translates to more options for Joe to make money when he's not farming in the winter) that it would be a no brainer for him to do so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think cost is the true barrier to retraining. Opportunity, inclination, tradition, expectation, complacency; all these would be a barrier to retraining. Your father was a commoner. Your grandfather was a commoner. All you ancestors as far back as anyone can remember were commoners - why would you be anything else? If it was good enough for them, why would it not be good enough for you? If you're doing all right, why retrain as something else?
only the most ambitious, opportunistic and/or intelligent would even think about retraining. This is not the modern world where children are not expected to follow their parents profession, this is a mediaeval world with a mediaeval mindset that thinks to remain in the same profession as your parents, with the same social status and the same way of life. Otherwise there would be no Commoners, Experts or Warriors.
While I agree with most of what Gavmania says in his post I disagree with it being a media eval world. I mean it's not like they have television and radio, so how are they going to evaluate them?
All jokes aside while it's certainly not modern it is significantly more so than 'dark ages' Europe. I don't think retraining would be very common, but having those rules fleshed out does help us understand youth in the pathfinder game system better than before.
Eventually I'll have to get the book.
1 -- was covered. Also if it takes you half an hour to cook each and every meal... um... you aren't really knowledgeable about cooking. Prepared foods are very common and consider 'peas porridge in the pot, nine days old' -- there's a reason the concept is so common. Bread held for a while too. I think you are vastly over complicating how hard it is to keep a continuous meal cycle going... speaking from experience.
1b -- um... yes and no. Generally only the very wealth got it on with teenagers (as it was noted that doing so was really bad for the female's health, and as such wasn't worth it). Typically families could stay together in the same lounging for quite a long time. The vikings didn't exactly spread out nearly as much for example (and that's just a quick culture -- plenty of others took their time too). Most youth didn't move out when they hit ages 8~15, and could regularly still be in their parents' house into their early twenties in some cultures.
2 -- I'm not even sure where to address this other than to say you have a confused idea on how the craft skill works. What you are doing in your garage is 'untrained' use of a skill... not the same as someone actually having ranks in it. I think a bit better understanding of how the craft skill works would be to your benefit (not an attack but honestly you don't seem to follow what the skill is very well). Maybe I'm just confused on what you are trying to say, but comparing a basic job to a masters is a big... off. It seems like you are suggesting people wouldn't buy normal everyday goods because not every craftsman was a master craftsman... which is funny since if they were then they wouldn't be master craftsman since that's the level everyone has.
3 -- It is certainly a possibility, however I doubt it honestly costs that much in upkeep, and even then the lifestyle cost actually covers that too. Consider that the skills tell us that the amounts I am giving are profit that greatly suggest that is net not gross income eh (since that's by definition what profit is)? Also please note that actually the standard is that things will get better slowly over time and lead to surplus. Anyone that doesn't understand this needs more study in economics as well as history. Until something either catastrophic happens, OR somehow someone else steps in and sets up a strangle hold the value of any person will continue to rise with sustained effort. This is part of why our current economic system in the USA is actually so off -- the median wage has been dropping for the past 5+ decades and so is off kilter for history as a whole. This sort of situation generally leads to problems and societal changes (as we can see in Rome on many occasions, the USA in the 1920~1950s, France on several occasions as well as several other places). If fact the idea of dirt poor sustenance farming is actually more better aligned with the USA than it is with medieval Europe.
4 -- Did you think that maybe that's why he's only getting half price?
But please proceed. Also if you are going into caves take a mule instead -- less likely to panic, more likely to defend itself and generally a more sure footed creature.
I don't think cost is the true barrier to retraining. Opportunity, inclination, tradition, expectation, complacency; all these would be a barrier to retraining. Your father was a commoner. Your grandfather was a commoner. All you ancestors as far back as anyone can remember were commoners - why would you be anything else? If it was good enough for them, why would it not be good enough for you? If you're doing all right, why retrain as something else?
only the most ambitious, opportunistic and/or intelligent would even think about retraining. This is not the modern world where children are not expected to follow their parents profession, this is a mediaeval world with a mediaeval mindset that thinks to remain in the same profession as your parents, with the same social status and the same way of life. Otherwise there would be no Commoners, Experts or Warriors.
Remember that in a Pathfinder/D&D world if 10's are average, and PCs are built on 15 or 20 points or more, there has to be 3 or 4 NPCs (or more) per PC that are built at -5 points.
In my world mind, a bit over 40% of the population is built on -5 points, around 35%+ at 0 points, 10% at 5 points and the remaining 10%+ built on 10 or more points. There is a tiny fraction of a percent that are well below -5 or above 20.
That puts 75% or more of the population built on 0 or fewer points. These people are the Commoners, Experts, Warriors, and other NPC classes. They are this because they lack the physical and mental prowess to be "adventurers." Most of the remaining 25% aren't adventurers either, but make up the non adventuring PC classed and elite of the NPC classed population.
If your stat block is 10,10,10,9,10,8 you are not going to be a very good adventurer, but you can be a perfectly acceptable farmer, etc. (I mean no disrespect to the farmers of the world.)
um... I think that's needless restraining and pessimistic but if it works for your world, have fun.
Also just because the 'average' is 10 doesn't exactly mean that there is equal proportions over and under that in pathfinder. Consider that the 'average' stat is 10... but really isn't. The average stat would probably be closer to 12 (possibly 13 if I was to hazard a guess without breaking out the mathematics) in actuality due to the fact that it is much easier to go over 10 than it is to go under it and much more room higher than lower.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
um... I think that's needless restraining and pessimistic but if it works for your world, have fun.
Also just because the 'average' is 10 doesn't exactly mean that there is equal proportions over and under that in pathfinder. Consider that the 'average' stat is 10... but really isn't. The average stat would probably be closer to 12 (possibly 13 if I was to hazard a guess without breaking out the mathematics) in actuality due to the fact that it is much easier to go over 10 than it is to go under it and much more room higher than lower.
Please note that the average stat is 10.
The average stat array is not 10,10,10,10,10,10.
The average NPC is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8.
So really the average is (13+12+11+10+9+8/6) = 63 = 10.5 (odd coinkydink no?).
So no, it is not that if someone is built on 10 points, someone has to be built on -5 points to counteract them. Each person is built on an average of 10.5, that results in the population average being 10.5.
Please note that the average stat is 10.The average stat array is not 10,10,10,10,10,10.
The average NPC is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8.
So really the average is (13+12+11+10+9+8/6) = 63 = 10.5 (odd coinkydink no?).
So no, it is not that if someone is built on 10 points, someone has to be built on -5 points to counteract them. Each person is built on an average of 10.5, that results in the population average being 10.5.
I should have said the unadjusted average is 10, although based upon the 13,12,11,10,9,8, it is (63-2)/6 which is 10.16667.
um... I think that's needless restraining and pessimistic but if it works for your world, have fun.
Also just because the 'average' is 10 doesn't exactly mean that there is equal proportions over and under that in pathfinder. Consider that the 'average' stat is 10... but really isn't. The average stat would probably be closer to 12 (possibly 13 if I was to hazard a guess without breaking out the mathematics) in actuality due to the fact that it is much easier to go over 10 than it is to go under it and much more room higher than lower.
Ability Scores
Each character has six ability scores that represent his character's most basic attributes. They are his raw talent and prowess. While a character rarely rolls a check using just an ability score, these scores, and the modifiers they create, affect nearly every aspect of a character's skills and abilities. Each ability score generally ranges from 3 to 18, although racial bonuses and penalties can alter this; an average ability score is 10.
I don't understand why you think that is restraining and pessimistic? The PCs are not restricted by this, and aren't going to run into 99.99% of the world population. If there is an average (whatever you want it to be) there has to be below average people and above average people, otherwise everyone has to have the same point build. I don't think I really want to play a character with a 1 point build which is what the 13,12,11,10,9,8 stat build is.
av·er·age
noun \ˈa-v(ə-)rij\: a number that is calculated by adding quantities together and then dividing the total by the number of quantities
: a level that is typical of a group, class, or series : a middle point between extremes
So yeah average means that for everyone above average, there has to be people below average to balance him out. For every Marilyn Monroe, there is a Phyllis Diller.
So yeah average means that for everyone above average, there has to be people below average to balance him out. For every Marilyn Monroe, there is a Phyllis Diller.
Hey now, let's be fair to the late Mrs Diller, shall we? How would Marilyn look when she's old and grey and wearing fright makeup?
um... I think that's needless restraining and pessimistic but if it works for your world, have fun.
Also just because the 'average' is 10 doesn't exactly mean that there is equal proportions over and under that in pathfinder. Consider that the 'average' stat is 10... but really isn't. The average stat would probably be closer to 12 (possibly 13 if I was to hazard a guess without breaking out the mathematics) in actuality due to the fact that it is much easier to go over 10 than it is to go under it and much more room higher than lower.
Please note that the average stat is 10.
The average stat array is not 10,10,10,10,10,10.
The average NPC is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8.
So really the average is (13+12+11+10+9+8/6) = 63 = 10.5 (odd coinkydink no?).
So no, it is not that if someone is built on 10 points, someone has to be built on -5 points to counteract them. Each person is built on an average of 10.5, that results in the population average being 10.5.
Racial adjustments. That gives us a net +2 meaning 65 so closer to 11.
But yeah what he said.
So yeah average means that for everyone above average, there has to be people below average to balance him out. For every Marilyn Monroe, there is a Phyllis Diller.Hey now, let's be fair to the late Mrs Diller, shall we? How would Marilyn look when she's old and grey and wearing fright makeup?
Also this is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics -- the mirror effect doesn't really hold up. Bell curve distribution is useful, but not the norm in all cases (or even most cases).
um... I think that's needless restraining and pessimistic but if it works for your world, have fun.
Also just because the 'average' is 10 doesn't exactly mean that there is equal proportions over and under that in pathfinder. Consider that the 'average' stat is 10... but really isn't. The average stat would probably be closer to 12 (possibly 13 if I was to hazard a guess without breaking out the mathematics) in actuality due to the fact that it is much easier to go over 10 than it is to go under it and much more room higher than lower.
Please note that the average stat is 10.
The average stat array is not 10,10,10,10,10,10.
The average NPC is 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8.
So really the average is (13+12+11+10+9+8/6) = 63 = 10.5 (odd coinkydink no?).
So no, it is not that if someone is built on 10 points, someone has to be built on -5 points to counteract them. Each person is built on an average of 10.5, that results in the population average being 10.5.
Racial adjustments. That gives us a net +2 meaning 65 so closer to 11.
But yeah what he said.
Those stats include the racial adjustments, so it is -2 giving us even closer to 10.
Those stats include the racial adjustments, so it is -2 giving us even closer to 10.
That would be true if you were right but you aren't:
Once the character's basic concept has been determined, its ability scores must be assigned. Apply the NPC's racial modifiers after the scores have been assigned. For every four levels the NPC has attained, increase one of its scores by 1. If the NPC possesses levels in a PC class, it is considered a heroic NPC and receives better ability scores. These scores can be assigned in any order.Basic NPCs: The ability scores for a basic NPC are: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8.
Heroic NPCs: The ability scores for a heroic NPC are: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.
Note that it specifically states to apply racial modifiers after the scores are assigned.
Interestingly this causes a contradiction as Ability Scores says:
Ability Scores
Each character has six ability scores that represent his character's most basic attributes. They are his raw talent and prowess. While a character rarely rolls a check using just an ability score, these scores, and the modifiers they create, affect nearly every aspect of a character's skills and abilities. Each ability score generally ranges from 3 to 18, although racial bonuses and penalties can alter this; an average ability score is 10.
So if an average ability is 10, then the NPCs are all above average.
or the copy pasta was not caught when the change over from 3.5 happened, or they meant something different than average when that came out, because across all ability scores from all sources 10 has not been the statistical average in quite a long time. especially if we take monsters and piazo npcs into account.
or the copy pasta was not caught when the change over from 3.5 happened, or they meant something different than average when that came out, because across all ability scores from all sources 10 has not been the statistical average in quite a long time. especially if we take monsters and piazo npcs into account.
Couldn't have been true copy/paste because the only reference in 3.X I found was "The average ability score for the typical commoner is 10 or 11, but your character is not typical."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they could mean that 10 is the mode or most common score. That wouldn't require that there be an equal number of above- and below-average scores. But it's a little deceptive since the default meaning for "average" is generally the mean.
I've always assumed that the distribution of ability scores in the general population in PF was supposed to be similar to 3E. Ability scores exist on a 3d6 distribution. PC stat generation methods are designed to skew towards the high end of that distribution, and you sometimes make assumptions like "commoners get all 10s" to simplify making stats for nonheroic NPCs, but in theory the world runs on 3d6.
As a result, I find the absence of below-average stats in the NPC codex to be a little disconcerting. I expect they're just following the guidelines for creating a basic NPC, which assume an "average" array, and that the lack of a "below average" counterpart for the heroic stat array is simply due to the fact that there's more call to stat out above-average than below-average NPCs.
I am perfectly happy to assume that below-average NPCs were simply left out of the Codex. However, this ambiguity in what scores exist causes problems when attempting to visualize what a low ability score means for a character. If ability scores of 3 or 4 theoretically exist in the world, an 8 is not exceptionally bad. If however an 8 is the lowest existing stat pre-racial modifiers, your Int 8 character is about as dumb as it gets.
Well left hand right hand -- obviously some attention wasn't paid to what they had later on (not the first time that has happened) or like I mentioned earlier (and weirdo mentioned again) they might have meant something different than what the general meaning of the word they used.
Well, they could mean that 10 is the mode or most common score. That wouldn't require that there be an equal number of above- and below-average scores. But it's a little deceptive since the default meaning for "average" is generally the mean.
I've always assumed that the distribution of ability scores in the general population in PF was supposed to be similar to 3E. Ability scores exist on a 3d6 distribution. PC stat generation methods are designed to skew towards the high end of that distribution, and you sometimes make assumptions like "commoners get all 10s" to simplify making stats for nonheroic NPCs, but in theory the world runs on 3d6.
As a result, I find the absence of below-average stats in the NPC codex to be a little disconcerting. I expect they're just following the guidelines for creating a basic NPC, which assume an "average" array, and that the lack of a "below average" counterpart for the heroic stat array is simply due to the fact that there's more call to stat out above-average than below-average NPCs.
I am perfectly happy to assume that below-average NPCs were simply left out of the Codex. However, this ambiguity in what scores exist causes problems when attempting to visualize what a low ability score means for a character. If ability scores of 3 or 4 theoretically exist in the world, an 8 is not exceptionally bad. If however an 8 is the lowest existing stat pre-racial modifiers, your Int 8 character is about as dumb as it gets.
I've played characters with stats below 8.
Same -- most back in advance and before though when stats didn't really change between 6~14 so I don't think those really count.
But since pathfinder has been out I've had characters with sub 10 scores all the time, and characters with all scores 10 and higher, and characters with stats that are simply 12~14 across the board (fighters and casters).
However I think we've explored the issue of stats pretty thoroughly for what is needed here.
Unless there are more issues?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello Again All,
So now we have ultimate campaign and its downtime rules as well as building and team rules. Great stuff, and I've just started playing with it.
So here is what buildings are in the village, and the capital costs of the village:
Spoilers are for what the buildings can provide each.
6 Houses
9 gp and 4 influence
or
7 influence and 6 gp
or
4 goods and 7 influence and 2 gp
32 Farms
33 gp 4 influence
or
30 goods 7 influence
or
30 Golds 7 influence
or
8 labor 22 goods 7 influence
3 Trade Shops
15 gp
or
2 gp and 13 goods or influence
1 Noble Villa
80gp 8 influence
or
76 influence 12 gp
or
33 goods 12 gp 43 influence
or
8 labor 25 goods 12 gp 43 influence
1 Caster's tower
51gp 4 influence
or
49 influence 6 gp
or
27 magic
22 influence
6 gp
1 Jail with 1 Barracks
48 gp
or
16 Labor 18 Influence 14 gp
or
26 Influence 23 gp
or
12 goods 16 labor 12 gp
1 Inn
22 Influence 24 gp
or
46 gp
or
17 Goods, 17 influence 12 gp
1 Temple
14 influence 2 gp
or
3 influence 13 gp
Costs:
2,451 Goods
96 Influence
2,301 Labor
14 Magic
99,320 gold
So on an average day the town buildings provide:
75 goods
36 influence
28 labor
3 magic
13 gp
To arrive at this number I typically took the most diverse of the above options for each building and applied them all together. The 'take 10' was applied to the magic to get it above 30 (specifically a 37) to give a 3 instead of a 2.
Of course doing it this way means each of the people need paid. So it is conceivable to me that if we treat the nobility as managers/owners and had them do a weeks worth of managing each month that would leave 40 weeks a year for the people to earn their own way and still leave the nobility with:
84 days of work:
6,300 goods
3,024 influence
2,352 labor
252 magic
1,092 gp
Buying a new village would take about a year if the run over capital was used to instead earn gold each year. Also this could account for magic item production too -- the nobles would have 252 magic points of capital which would convert to 25,200gp worth of magic. Taking that into account means the noble could afford some fun toys blow money and still put up a new village each year (in theory if not in people this would leave 238 magic points).
I think the farmer numbers are pretty close to historic reality but I would give them a little discount on lifestyle cost because they grow their own food. So that 20gp a year extra might be 40 or 50gp which is a little more of a cushion.
Got asked a question that I think deserves added to this thread as well as my answer:
Question for Spaldjng. With the noble, why are you using the downtime rules instead of the kingdom building rules for owning villages?Because the kingdom building rules do not allow for personal gain (at least not without risk of imploding your kingdom) from building your kingdom. This is the noble's income and as such wouldn't be represented by the kingdom building rules. Also the kingdom building rules doesn't really explain how much time is actually used ruling the kingdom -- each turn is 1 month but obviously you aren't spending 24 hours 7 days a week for 4.33 weeks a month. BP is much more of an abstraction and represents labor, raw materials, etc.
The downtime rules on the other hand tell us exactly how much time is needed, how many people are used, the resource allotment is better divided and has a more explicit exchange rate, and is more individualistic.
The kingdom building rules also require a higher level of ruler (king/ruler, consort and the like) and are a group effort. If we are talking about a minor noble (with only four villages that are his responsibility) the should he really be ruling his own kingdom? Not likely -- instead he's probably simply managing his own goods and making sure the king's edicts are carried out.
With that said, I can/could see an need for saying that a noble has to spend time on both, and there is certainly room for discussion on what sort of leadership the kingdom in question has and how that divides out for the lesser nobles. However unless the lesser nobles have complete control over their parts of the kingdom it seems odd to me to use the kingdom building rules for them.
assuming your average child is an unskilled 1st level NPC classed character with average scores in everything, they can make an untrained profession check, half the result they get in gold per week, or with no modifiers if they take 10, they get a result of 10 or 5 gold per week and well. 4 weeks a month, 52 weeks a year. and the child is likely helping their parent as an apprentice or something
so each nonprofessional child is racking up 520 Gold per year in trade goods by either helping their dad on the farm or helping their mom as a baker or something along those lines, 120 of which goes to expenses. leaving the child with 400 a year to contribute to the home. because children would not be sitting around as useless as they are in a modern society with even half of the same protections, plus they have to get their skill points somewhere.
1. 5 gold for 52 weeks is 260 gold a year.
2. Profession cannot be performed untrained. Which means no such check for you, meaning unskilled labor rates.
Really I covered this on the first page of this entire thesis.
ALSO:
I'm uncertain why you are doubling that for the year, and helping is covered under "aid other" -- which would just be 1 extra gold per check (+2 on the check).
Finally:
Again I assumed (as mentioned in earlier pages) that any such wealth being brought in by the children would be going to providing for their own "starting equipment" as it were -- the house, tools, and so on for their own family and life once they are an adult.
Also schooling isn't actually as odd or rare as a lot of people want to assume it was during most of history -- and schooling can easily eat up half or more of children's time.
Honestly the "kids labor all the time" was more of an effect of the debtor's prisons and industrial revolution and such than an actual historical norm of the human condition (really picked up in the mid/late 1800's to early 1900's when we started to get some start of sanity back). As that's actually fairly recent history it is of course something we assume has "always been the way history was" -- it's psychological hiccup in our nature.
Most apprenticeships started around 10 or 14 and continued from there, and yes children have had a part to play in labor, but it has usually been phased in -- not full blown work.
Have you taught a child to bake a cake? The first several (and I mean several) times it's going to take much longer than it normally would. After some time it might get back to your 'average' time before you taught the child. Eventually the help of the kid might help you save some time, but even then you are still going to need to keep an eye on everything they do because, well, kids will be kids.
Also as a parent, and young man of the 'modern' era I think you sell ourselves and our youth short.
But that's a subject for another thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Untrained craft checks work just as well. Also "adulthood" in PF is age 15 for humans. Likewise most adults worked in some way that would provide for their family, which again can be represented in craft or profession checks as needed. For example, while the children are doing the chores like sweeping, taking care of younger children, cooking dinner, etc, the parents are doing things like gardening, looming, hunting, etc.
Since Craft/Profession checks in D&D use an 8 hour workday, that leaves at least half a shift, if not a full shift, for people to just hang out and do whatever they want while still giving them 8 hours in the day for labor and 8 hours for a good night's sleep.
So again -- is there any reason my points on the first page about this doesn't work for you?
the unskilled labor rates of 1 silver piece per day make no sense when most professions are producing trade goods, not currency, the 5 gold per week in average unskilled labor can be seen as a measure of the value of trade goods made by a common unskilled or even ametuer individual with a bonus of +0. because skill ranks represent professional training. in other words, the crops grown by a farmer or the bread made by a baker. which are trade goods, not currency. they usually get payed a silver piece a day in spending money on top of producing 5 gold worth of goods.
I like it, plus if you consider things like barter/trade in kind and that not all 'income' is tangible coin there's enough of wiggle room to keep even isolated communities internally functional.
External trade will be largely where actual coin comes into play. Going back to the original farmer example, it highlights a good reason why it may be useful for the professional farmer to co-op with other professional farmers, maybe on the same plantation/property/whatever, a little more breathing room to crank out same relative profit but less individual work, or work hard to get more profit.
Sorry been a bit busy:
I agree that the "untrained" bit could probably go the way of the dodo at this point -- there really isn't much point to it and I think allowing profession to be untrained wouldn't be a bad idea.
Personally in my games I have reorganized the skills some and the entirety of the "craft, profession, appraise" skills are covered under the new skill of "Trade(type)" -- so if you have "Trade(blacksmith)" you can forge stuff, make a living doing so and can appraise goods that a blacksmith would deal with.
Actually I really like the new downtime rules with the crafting and trade goods because I agree that straight coin is probably not how most the world runs... but coin does move and isn't that strange of an item to see.