|
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.
That is also covered. Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. 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. It is found in the additional rules section. The 3.x rules had a similar entry.
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.
Ahem,
Professions example list for the profession skill out of the core rulebook:
The most common Profession skills are architect, baker, barrister, brewer, butcher, clerk, cook, courtesan, driver, engineer, farmer, fisherman, gambler, gardener, herbalist, innkeeper, librarian, merchant, midwife, miller, miner, porter, sailor, scribe, shepherd, stable master, soldier, tanner, trapper, and woodcutter.
I think you are wrong.
There's actually a wood chopping competition at the Rushlight Festival in the Kingmaker adventure path by the way.
I've been playing with some angles regarding that.
While I am amused by this thread, I did actually have a reason for expressing my curiosity on this matter.
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.
I think he was saying the rules suck at simulating an actual economy.
I think he was saying the rules suck at simulating an actual economy.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.
By the way: I'm really loving the fact I made this thread as it just seems to keep being so darn handy.
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.
Wait, so, you're telling me that you DO think that the designers *intended* ever tradesman NPC in the world to make the same amount of money? Why do you think this? Such a completely ridiculous (and, frankly, insulting to the designers) proposition needs support.
If you want to give an NPC some ranks in a profession because it makes you feel like the NPC is "really" a baker, that's an extension of the "the skill exists to help players feel their character is really a [professional]" purpose (although it's a pretty weird limitation for a GM).
The problems arise when you try to use it to actually calculate how much money they have--and those problems are definitely there.
That's what this is boiling down to. You're not saying "well, this is my arbitrary and irrational preference and I like it that way", which would be fine. We all have arbitrary and irrational preferences.
You're flat-out saying that you think that the designers *intended* every NPC in the game world to make the same amount of money. Why would the designers intend that?
If you really love rolling profession, go for it. Just don't pretend that's the original purpose of the skill, or that the skill is in any way good for figuring out how much tradesmen should make.
The base assumption of the Profession skill is that you are not using it to simulate laborers engaging in labor.
Ahem,
Professions example list for the profession skill out of the core rulebook:
The most common Profession skills are architect, baker, barrister, brewer, butcher, clerk, cook, courtesan, driver, engineer, farmer, fisherman, gambler, gardener, herbalist, innkeeper, librarian, merchant, midwife, miller, miner, porter, sailor, scribe, shepherd, stable master, soldier, tanner, trapper, and woodcutter.I think you are wrong.
What? No, that's just a list of common Professions. The purpose of the profession skill remains what I propose, i.e. to let players feel their character is *really* a merchant, gambler, gardener, whatever, and to handwave the actual merchanting, gambling, gardening, whatever to play it out.
Unless you, too, are telling me that the designers of Pathfinder *really do* think that engineers and butchers, clerks and shepherds, barristers and trappers, architects and tanners, make the same amount of money.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguing about if Pathfinder - or any edition of D&D - makes for a good "simulation" of a world explicitly via rules-as-physics is like arguing if a screwdriver makes for a good hammer. You can give it a try I guess, but it's not really made for that, and there's far better tools that do the job (like, say, a hammer)
LogicNinja it's fun how you are trying.
First off not everyone in the world will make the same amount of money:
Spell casters will make more as they can also sell spells which are (for them) a renewable resource.
Also some people will have better stats, or better tools or both.
Others won't have all the time needed each week to make the check.
Some people won't bother.
I actually went over a large part of this already because I had the time and it comes up so often.
The problem is -- you are expecting something other than what is actually modeled. If you look at what is modeled and not trying to expect it to be what you want you'll see the system works -- it's just not what you expected.
The base assumption of the Profession skill is that you are not using it to simulate laborers engaging in labor.
Ahem,
Professions example list for the profession skill out of the core rulebook:
The most common Profession skills are architect, baker, barrister, brewer, butcher, clerk, cook, courtesan, driver, engineer, farmer, fisherman, gambler, gardener, herbalist, innkeeper, librarian, merchant, midwife, miller, miner, porter, sailor, scribe, shepherd, stable master, soldier, tanner, trapper, and woodcutter.I think you are wrong.What? No, that's just a list of common Professions. The purpose of the profession skill remains what I propose, i.e. to let players feel their character is *really* a merchant, gambler, gardener, whatever, and to handwave the actual merchanting, gambling, gardening, whatever to play it out.
Unless you, too, are telling me that the designers of Pathfinder *really do* think that engineers and butchers, clerks and shepherds, barristers and trappers, architects and tanners, make the same amount of money.
It depends: What level, what skill rank, what feats, what tools, and what abilities do each of the people have?
Honestly there is a lot that plays into the skill check -- those that dedicate more to it will do better at it.
But hey if you want to only try to point out the extremes and call it the norm have fun -- but such doesn't actually hold up.
If you have someone with a 13 wisdom, 3 ranks (at level 5) that has it as a class skill, spent 3 feats in getting better at it and a trait along with masterwork tools of the trade he's going to do better than someone with just 3 ranks in the skill and a 13 wisdom.
If one of those happens to be an alcoholic I'm going to bet he's going to do worse too.
You act as if there is only one factor in play when there isn't.
LogicNinja,
To start, that is not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that we get that you don't like the profession skill already.
I'm saying that some folks like the profession skill, and use it accordingly.
I'm saying that every person doesn't make the same amount of money with the profession skill.
I'm saying that not every person is the same level.
I'm saying that not every person puts the same amount of ranks into their profession skill -- assuming they put any ranks at all, considering that untrained labor is available at a listed cost.
I'm saying that guesses, even when you feel like they are "obvious and educated" guesses, are best worded as opinions as opposed to firm facts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LogicNinja it's fun how you are trying.
First off not everyone in the world will make the same amount of money:
Spell casters will make more as they can also sell spells which are (for them) a renewable resource.
Great, spellcasters, a tiny minority of people, can make money selling spells. I'm not sure how this is relevant. Everyone who is *plying a trade* still makes pretty much the same amount of money.
Also some people will have better stats, or better tools or both.
A few points of wisdom and some masterwork tools are a handful of points. When you're rolling a d20, having a +3 or +6 bonus doesn't actually impact your wages all that much.
"You can earn half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work."
So someone rolling d20+5 (+1 stat, 1 rank, +3) gets an average of 16.5 gp a week, while someone rolling a whopping d20+11 (18 stat, 4 ranks, +3) gets an average of... 22.5 gp a week.
If a mediocre butcher (Mr. +5) is making 16.5 a week, don't you think a highly competent goldsmith (Mr. +11) should be making way, WAY more than 22.5 gp a week? And it's worse the other way around--what if the butcher is the one with the +11? Then he's actually making *more* money than the goldsmith! But if he rolls a 15 and the goldsmith rolls a 4, that's a week in which the mediocre butcher makes more money than the excellent goldsmith.
Who knew being a butcher was so lucrative?
Others won't have all the time needed each week to make the check.
Some people won't bother.
That's called "people who are not actually plying their trade". According to the rules, if you apply them to NPCs, a barrister and a butcher who are equally good at their trade make the same amount of money.
I actually went over a large part of this already because I had the time and it comes up so often.
The problem is -- you are expecting something other than what is actually modeled. If you look at what is modeled and not trying to expect it to be what you want you'll see the system works -- it's just not what you expected.
The Profession skill isn't modelling much at all beyond "you get some money for plying a trade". It's not intended to model that. If it was, then it would have, for example, distinctions for types of trades (so that high-paying, 'white-collar' jobs like jeweler, barrister, etc make more than menial labor jobs like 'farmer').
You've gone to great lengths to try to turn it into something that makes sense, but the same amount of effort could have created a neat little subsystem that makes far more sense.
The Profession skill literally models every single profession in the exact same way. It makes zero attempts to distinguish between them. If that doesn't tell you "high-level abstraction meant for handwaving things and influencing players, not used for any kind of detailed simulation", what *would* tell you that?
If you want a game that actually takes some amount of economics and such into account, I'm pretty sure GURPS has a splatbook for that. But the Profession skill does nothing of the sort, because the Profession skill isn't there to tell you how much each person in a village makes (the results will be nonsensical)--it's there so the player feels like their character is "really" a cook.
"The profession skill isn't about everything it's about!"
Sorry you lose at that point.
The profession skill is exactly that.
It's all it claims to be and it's the only example check given for it.
At this point you have used the logical fallacy of redefinition.
We really can't go anywhere until you admit that you are incorrect on this point.
Also you are confusing crafting with profession. The two are not the same.
Crafting examples:
The most common Craft skills are alchemy, armor, baskets, books, bows, calligraphy, carpentry, cloth, clothing, glass, jewelry, leather, locks, paintings, pottery, sculptures, ships, shoes, stonemasonry, traps, and weapons.
There is indeed a large possible amount of money to be had in crafting -- but that isn't the same as a profession.
It depends: What level, what skill rank, what feats, what tools, and what abilities do each of the people have?
Honestly there is a lot that plays into the skill check -- those that dedicate more to it will do better at it.
Yes, you're right--but this is the case regardless in their profession. Do you honestly think it makes sense for the best butcher in London to make more money than a mediocre jeweler, for a really good porter to make more money than a mediocre architect?
And the range is incredibly narrow.
Look, someone with 1 rank in a Profession and no bonuses is rolling d20+1 and making 2 to 21 gold a week, 11.5 average.
Now let's take a level 20 character. He has 20 ranks, +3, +6 from feats, +10 from maxing out his Wisdom. He even has a magic tool that gives him another +10, and let's throw in another +1. This guy has +50. He is better at his profession than anyone has ever, ever been. He is a living god of [profession].
He's rolling 1d20+50, and making 51 - 71 gold a week, 61.5 average
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.
The difference between "really bad" and "the best that there could ever possibly be in the world".
But hey if you want to only try to point out the extremes and call it the norm have fun -- but such doesn't actually hold up.
If you have someone with a 13 wisdom, 3 ranks (at level 5) that has it as a class skill, spent 3 feats in getting better at it and a trait along with masterwork tools of the trade he's going to do better than someone with just 3 ranks in the skill and a 13 wisdom.
You act as if there is only one factor in play when there isn't.
There's only one real factor that matters and that's the d20. The difference between d20+4 and d20+12 is pretty minor.
But that's not even the real problem.
The biggest problem is that it's only how good you are at your job that matters, not what your job *is*.
That's like saying that a mediocre corporate lawyer makes less money than a great Wal-Mart employee.
|
|
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.
First let me congratulate LogicNinja on keeping arguments going with so many people.
Being a better blacksmith does not make you harder to kill. Extra levels do. A 20th level blacksmith would be hard to kill but so would a 20th level anything. But for NPCs that is not needed. You can make most items at level 1 by taking 10. The equalization of income shows that this game was created by communists. But obviously some humans use that extra bonus feat to get traits to help with that.
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...
It has its purposes. Sometimes a DM wants to use the rules to determine how much certain hirelings must be paid. That old lawyer guy with tons of experience looks better than that new kid who just started. Hmmm, old guy is expensive, lets go with the young guy. Sometimes the restriction of the narrative space requires knowing what is going on with NPCs.
In general though discussions about NPCs who don't contribute to the narrative are like talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They generally don't add to the game as played but are fun to discuss. Sometimes new revelations about the game arise from trying to determine the answer. A lot of researchers often experiment with esoteric subjects that will not get grants but are fun to do and sometimes lead to something important.
You mentioned this before but I do think the designers of 3.x and Pathfinder intended the game to simulate the NPC world to a certain extent. But only in ways that the PCs could also use. An NPC can make a living & support a family using the game as written.
"The profession skill isn't about everything it's about!"
Sorry you lose at that point.
The profession skill is exactly that.
It's all it claims to be and it's the only example check given for it.
I don't think you actually understand what I'm saying.
When you have a player who took Profession(cook), and the party gets to a city, and the player declares, "I want to spend the week working as a chef," you have the player roll a Profession check and tell them how much money they make. If there's a question about cooking that needs to be answered, the player can roll against DC 10 or 15 to see if his character can answer it. This is the purpose of the skill--this, and to make the player feel that his character is "really" a cook.
This is what the Profession skill does as per the rules, and this is exactly what it's for.
When you--the DM--are creating a town for the players to get to, you do not create an NPC, then look at his Profession score to see how much money he makes. That is not what the skill is for, and it makes no sense for you to use the skill that way--the results will make no sense and you will derive no benefit from doing so; on the contrary, this *creates* work for you, as you have to make up reasons for the bizarre results that tell you that a beggar makes almost as much as a merchant. Remember: you, the DM, decide what happens in the world. You're not "breaking the rules" if you assign each townsperson an arbitrary income, or handwave it, any more than if you roll for them based on the profession skill you gave them, or if you roll on a homebrewed table.
If you *want* to figure out what each townsperson's Profession skill would be, because that is your own bizarre way of having fun, that's fine. But determining the incomes of NPCs isn't what the Profession skill is for.
Remember, the rules we're talking about are rules in a roleplaying game. They're in a book meant for players and DMs. They exist to serve the players and DMs.
There's only one real factor that matters and that's the d20. The difference between d20+4 and d20+12 is pretty minor.
Really?
Lets consider this because you are extremely wrong:
Statistically speaking the d20 is going to average 10.5 +4 would be 14.5 and +12 would be 22.5 which means 7.25gp a week or 11.25gp a week.
52 weeks to a year means 377gp a year for the +4 and 585 a year for the +12 that is 208gp difference a year.
That's a rather large difference.
You are confusing the random modifier for something of value, when statistically speaking it's over all effect is much less than the additive we already have.
This is why people get worried over sneak attack and completely ignore the raw damage output the fighter has (which is much higher than what any rogue is going to do) simply because 'there's more dice!'
First let me congratulate LogicNinja on keeping arguments going with so many people.
Thanks!
Being a better blacksmith does not make you harder to kill. Extra levels do. A 20th level blacksmith would be hard to kill but so would a 20th level anything. But for NPCs that is not needed. You can make most items at level 1 by taking 10.
If I'm a really "good" cook, I'm harder to kill than a mediocre cook--I have to be. I have a Profession score that can't really be achieved without class levels. If I'm level 6, I have waaaaay more hitpoints than that level 1 cook. I have a BAB of +3. I can probably take a level 1 soldier in a fight.
This problem, as you noted, arises from tying skill ranks to levels, which makes sense for adventuring skills but not trade skills.The equalization of income shows that this game was created by communists. But obviously some humans use that extra bonus feat to get traits to help with that.
I was actually considering making a "the PF devs are obviously commies" joke, so thanks for doing it for me.
(And yes, with their bonus feat, humans can take Skill Focus and be better at any profession than equivalent-level elves, despite how long the elves have been at it.)
It has its purposes. Sometimes a DM wants to use the rules to determine how much certain hirelings must be paid. That old lawyer guy with tons of experience looks better than that new kid who just started. Hmmm, old guy is expensive, lets go with the young guy. Sometimes the restriction of the narrative space requires knowing what is going on with NPCs.
Sure, but the Profession skill doesn't make much sense in these cirucmstances. The difference in cost between old guy and young guy will be trivial. I agree it would be fun to say "you guys can higher the Bright-Eyed Inexperienced Lawyer for [small amount of money], or the Canny Old Beardy Lawyer for [significantly larger amount of money], which do you wanna go with?" but the Profession skill isn't going to help you there--making up values that sound appropriate will do you far better.
In general though discussions about NPCs who don't contribute to the narrative are like talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They generally don't add to the game as played but are fun to discuss. Sometimes new revelations about the game arise from trying to determine the answer....
You mentioned this before but I do think the designers of 3.x and Pathfinder intended the game to simulate the NPC world to a certain extent. But only in ways that the PCs could also use. An NPC can make a living & support a family using the game as written.
I don't think talking about NPCs who don't contribute to the narrative can provide revelations about the game, since the game is focused on the PCs, and so are the game rules.
An NPC can make a living and support a family using the game as written, depending on how you look at it... with enough DM handwaving (you don't really have a game world where the price of everything never changes, regardless of region, supply, or demand, do you? Do the farmers have no trouble eating when there's a drought?) but that's pretty much a side effect, and if you start figuring things out for each NPC, you'll end up with a city where the butchers, the bakers, and the candlestick makers make as much (sometimes less, sometimes *more*) as the lawyers, the barristers, and the jewelers.
And everybody's wages will be tiny compared to how much gold adventurers inject into the economy so it doesn't matter anyway.
|
|
snip
And the range is incredibly narrow.Look, someone with 1 rank in a Profession and no bonuses is rolling d20+1 and making 2 to 21 gold a week, 11.5 average.
Now let's take a level 20 character. He has 20 ranks, +3, +6 from feats, +10 from maxing out his Wisdom. He even has a magic tool that gives him another +10, and let's throw in another +1. This guy has +50. He is better at his profession than anyone has ever, ever been. He is a living god of [profession].
He's rolling 1d20+50, and making 51 - 71 gold a week, 61.5 average
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.
more snip
The pay results are divided by two. So your rank 1 guy is making at most 11.5 gp a week. Taking a 10 he is making 5.5 gp a week. Your GoP is making up to 35 gp a week and making 30 a week by taking 10.
He is making about 5.5 times what the level 1 guy is making. If you look at income distribution in developed nations that seems about appropriate. But it goes to your point that to do that you need a profession god.
Really?
Lets consider this because you are extremely wrong:
Statistically speaking the d20 is going to average 10.5 +4 would be 14.5 and +12 would be 22.5 which means 7.25gp a week or 11.25gp a week.
52 weeks to a year means 377gp a year for the +4 and 585 a year for the +12 that is 208gp difference a year.
That's a rather large difference.
No, it's not--not really. The +12 guy isn't even making double what the +4 guy is.
I have a friend who's a programmer. He stopped being "entry-level" a few years ago. He's pretty fair at his job, but not super great or anything. He's making 90,000 a year.
I have another friend who works in a warehouse--packaging things, lifting things, and so on. He's actually really good at his job. He's the only one there who's been there for 4 years, everyone else who started when he did has been laid off. He's making 20k a year tops. That's a difference of *4.5* times.
Meanwhile, my father's social circle (that is, people well into their career) includes people making 300,000 a year. That's *15* times what the 20k guy makes.
And of course, all of this ignores the fact that how much you make has far more to do with what type of job you do than with how well you do it, barring extreme edge cases.
You are confusing the random modifier for something of value, when statistically speaking it's over all effect is much less than the additive we already have.
No, it's not. The d20 is worth about as much as a +11 modifier.
Look, in order for Bob to *consistently* make more than Joe--as in, no matter how well they roll, Bob's bonus has to be 21 higher than Joe's. (Imagine if your salary was 1d20 + 5 thousand dollars a year, BTW--some years you'd be OK, some years you'd be too poor to pay rent. d20 is a LOT of randomness when you're dealing with modifiers like "+5" or "+10".)
This is why people get worried over sneak attack and completely ignore the raw damage output the fighter has (which is much higher than what any rogue is going to do) simply because 'there's more dice!'
I agree that people who worry about Rogue sneak attack damage output are bad at analyzing the game.
The pay results are divided by two. So your rank 1 guy is making at most 11.5 gp a week. Taking a 10 he is making 5.5 gp a week. Your GoP is making up to 35 gp a week and making 30 a week by taking 10.He is making about 5.5 times what the level 1 guy is making. If you look at income distribution in developed nations that seems about appropriate. But it goes to your point that to do that you need a profession god.
You're right, I forgot to divide by 2--thanks.
So, yes, the Profession God is making 5.5 times what the level 1 guy is making.
Meanwhile, in the real world, my couple-of-years-out-of-college standard-issue programmer friend is making 5.5 times what my actor friend is.
And, in the real world, a "Profession God" (professional athlete at the highest level, let's say) is making many orders of magnitude more. "A-Rod" (the highest-paid baseball player, apparently) is making $32 million a year.
Compare that to Joe Retail, who's making $32 *thousand* as a manager somewhere. A-Rod is making literally a thousand times more than he is.
(And in, oh, say, the 1400s, the difference between someone working for the nobility (like a Master of Horse) and someone working for working people (like the cook at your typical inn), would've been *way* bigger than that between my programmer friend and my artist friend, for example.)
---
You know, I still can't believe that people are trying to pretend that your career having no effect on your salary doesn't actually matter and that Profession is perfectly verisimilitudinous/realistic/whatever.
We're talking about a system where the average porter gets paid just as much as the average jeweler, FFS.
|
|
If I'm a really "good" cook, I'm harder to kill than a mediocre cook--I have to be. I have a Profession score that can't really be achieved without class levels. If I'm level 6, I have waaaaay more hitpoints than that level 1 cook. I have a BAB of +3. I can probably take a level 1 soldier in a fight.
This problem, as you noted, arises from tying skill ranks to levels, which makes sense for adventuring skills but not trade skills.
That is true. The point I was trying to make is that to make the economy work npcs really don't need to be more than 1st level. Profession allows the cutting of lumber, farming of land, and such. Craft DCs are low enough that a 1st level NPC optimized for doing it can.
Lets look at craft again. A typical item, the example is iron pot, has a DC of 10. To avoid losing progress and materials a 1st level crafter needs a base skill bonus of +5. So 1 skill rank, 1 point from Wisdom (not too optimized), 3 points from skill focus=+5. You can always roll at least 1 resulting in 6. The taking 10 rule applies most of the time so that means he gets a check result of 16.
That lets him make high quality items like a bell with no problem. Now notice that people who make stuff are not on the profession list (gold & silver smiths, black smith, Jewelers). They will use the same rules but the items they sell will have much more value and make more absolute profit (since they only pay 1/3 of the cost to craft). A jeweler could make a simple or high quality item with no trouble.
Now complex and masterwork items can be a problem but are solvable. With MW tools for an additional +2 and an apprentice doing aid another for another +2 the craftsman can now craft complex items and MW items. This can all be done at 1st level.
The Alchemy stuff takes a little more but it might explain why gnomes do it. With their additional +2 they can consistently make even the most difficult Alchemical substances.
Really, that was all to demonstrate my point. That while the simulation is not perfect the game is designed to accommodate NPCs of first level doing all the things that other NPCs need--well things that aren't kill dragons.
We're talking about a system where the average porter gets paid just as much as the average jeweler, FFS.
But we're not.
What you're failing to understand is that you, as the GM, design and build the NPC's. If you want to build an NPC with a high profession skill you likely have a reason for doing that.
These NPC's don't come prepackaged with ranks in profession skills. It's your choice as the GM to place their skill ranks where you want and imagine them to be.
Just as it is your place to assign their levels.
You want a porter that makes a lot? Great. Give the porter a high level with a high skill rank. Want porters to make next to nothing? Great, don't give them a profession skill, or maybe limit that skill to one. You decide as the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello. My name is Jo.
Jo, why are you trying to cut down hardwood trees with a hand axe? Your problem is not your low strength, it is your abyssmal intelligence.
Use a two handed wood axe and chop a tree that is not hardwood class so that hardness is not a factor.
Or burn cow poop. Your strength should be able to handle gathering that and as a farmer I assume you have a lot of it.
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.
Um that is why the game has GM's? To alter and adjudicate sillyness so it then fits into the degree of 'realism' each individual game group wants in their game?
D&D/Pathfinder was never MEANT to be an accurate economic simulation. It was meant to be a balanced GAME with some semblance of economics to fit that purpose.
Really, that was all to demonstrate my point. That while the simulation is not perfect the game is designed to accommodate NPCs of first level doing all the things that other NPCs need--well things that aren't kill dragons.
Not really. The game is designed to accommodate *PCs* of 1st level doing these things. We've already gone over how the game breaks down.
For one thing, we're talking about a magical economy in which how much money other people have to spend has no effect on how much money other people make.
Meanwhile, a merchant who buys a +1 sword from a PC (who just got a +1 Flaming sword or w/e) for 1000 gp and re-sells it to a different group of adventurers for 1200 just made a 200 gp profit. (Let alone the 1000 gp profit he'd make from selling the +1 sword for the full 2000.) I guess he has a +190 Profession bonus. (+990?)
The point is, Profession is there as a quick handwavey answer to "how much do I make?" and to make players feel like their character is really a chef 'cause they paid SP to be a chef. It's not meant to simulate an economy and it doesn't.
The idea that Profession = low-income menial labor, Craft = skilled labor, isn't a bad one, but it's also a pure invention of yours--barristers and engineers, for example, are on the explicit list of professions, and they would have *vastly* higher income that scribes and such, much less freakin' porters and farmers.
But we're not.
What you're failing to understand is that you, as the GM, design and build the NPC's. If you want to build an NPC with a high profession skill you likely have a reason for doing that.
These NPC's don't come prepackaged with ranks in profession skills. It's your choice as the GM to place their skill ranks where you want and imagine them to be.
Just as it is your place to assign their levels.
You want a porter that makes a lot? Great. Give the porter a high level with a high skill rank. Want porters to make next to nothing? Great, don't give them a profession skill, or maybe limit that skill to one. You decide as the GM.
Christ.
Look, Jo, at this point, we're down to you arguing that characters who make more money should have higher profession bonuses as assigned by the DM, *because* they make more money. But that's not how it works. According to the rules, if you apply them to NPCs, a lawyer with Profession +6 makes the same amount of money as a butcher with Profession +6.
In other words, I *first* need to figure out how much money an NPC makes a week. Then, I need to figure out what their Profession modifier needs to be. *Then*, I have to figure out how they got that modifier (skill ranks, Wisdom, feats), and this might include making them level 6ish or 10ish if they make a lot of money (to get the required profession modifier).
Or... I could just figure out how much money the NPC makes a week... and *leave it at that*.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The skill just *wasn't designed* for this stuff. The skill exists for the exact situation I described--a player character wants to make money by plying his trade. That's it.
(Also, doing it your way, we end up in a world in which a lawyer or merchant or something making a very reasonable 100 gp/week has to be level, like, 40 (to get ~+90 Profession).)
The pay results are divided by two. So your rank 1 guy is making at most 11.5 gp a week. Taking a 10 he is making 5.5 gp a week. Your GoP is making up to 35 gp a week and making 30 a week by taking 10.He is making about 5.5 times what the level 1 guy is making. If you look at income distribution in developed nations that seems about appropriate. But it goes to your point that to do that you need a profession god.
You're right, I forgot to divide by 2--thanks.
So, yes, the Profession God is making 5.5 times what the level 1 guy is making.
Meanwhile, in the real world, my couple-of-years-out-of-college standard-issue programmer friend is making 5.5 times what my actor friend is.
And, in the real world, a "Profession God" (professional athlete at the highest level, let's say) is making many orders of magnitude more. "A-Rod" (the highest-paid baseball player, apparently) is making $32 million a year.
Compare that to Joe Retail, who's making $32 *thousand* as a manager somewhere. A-Rod is making literally a thousand times more than he is.(And in, oh, say, the 1400s, the difference between someone working for the nobility (like a Master of Horse) and someone working for working people (like the cook at your typical inn), would've been *way* bigger than that between my programmer friend and my artist friend, for example.)
---
You know, I still can't believe that people are trying to pretend that your career having no effect on your salary doesn't actually matter and that Profession is perfectly verisimilitudinous/realistic/whatever.
We're talking about a system where the average porter gets paid just as much as the average jeweler, FFS.
I think profession workers for the average farmer it is just teh wealthy that are the exception. Anyway are most wealthy npcs character wealthy other than GM fiat in how they were born. Also tax collector could be a profession check but the sum of the taxes collected to nobility does not pay for it. Yes nobility can also overpay for things and that is how these friends get rich.
Hello. My name is Jo.Jo, why are you trying to cut down hardwood trees with a hand axe? Your problem is not your low strength, it is your abyssmal intelligence.
Use a two handed wood axe and chop a tree that is not hardwood class so that hardness is not a factor.
Or burn cow poop. Your strength should be able to handle gathering that and as a farmer I assume you have a lot of it.
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.Um that is why the game has GM's? To alter and adjudicate sillyness so it then fits into the degree of 'realism' each individual game group wants in their game?
D&D/Pathfinder was never MEANT to be an accurate economic simulation. It was meant to be a balanced GAME with some semblance of economics to fit that purpose.
Why, because I only have a hand ax, of course.
And if you're telling me that hand axes can not chop wood (whether that wood be a standing tree, or a log for firewood) then I'm telling you that you're wrong.
Christ.
Look, Jo, at this point, we're down to you arguing that characters who make more money should have higher profession bonuses as assigned by the DM, *because* they make more money. But that's not how it works. According to the rules, if you apply them to NPCs, a lawyer with Profession +6 makes the same amount of money as a butcher with Profession +6.
In other words, I *first* need to figure out how much money an NPC makes a week. Then, I need to figure out what their Profession modifier needs to be. *Then*, I have to figure out how they got that modifier (skill ranks, Wisdom, feats), and this might include making them level 6ish or 10ish if they make a lot of money (to get the required profession modifier).
Or... I could just figure out how much money the NPC makes a week... and *leave it at that*.This is exactly what I'm talking about. The skill just *wasn't designed* for this stuff. The skill exists for the exact situation I described--a player character wants to make money by plying his trade. That's it.
(Also, doing it your way, we end up in a world in which a lawyer or merchant or something making a very reasonable 100 gp/week has to be level, like, 40 (to get ~+90 Profession).)
Geez, buddy. Relax.
If figuring out the math behind where to set the profession skill ranks in your game is too much for you then by all means ignore it.
You are certainly free to house rule your game however you like. No one's judging here.
But the profession skill does tell us how much money is made practicing a profession. If you need proof that what I just said is true I refer you to the profession skill. A good reading of it should bring you up to speed on what it does -- and what it does is tell you how much someone makes practicing a profession.
As far as 100 gp/week being reasonable . . . well, maybe in your house ruled universe. In mine, a guy would have to be like, what, level 40? That's ridiculous.
Why, because I only have a hand ax, of course.
And if you're telling me that hand axes can not chop wood (whether that wood be a standing tree, or a log for firewood) then I'm telling you that you're wrong.
Any farmer, blacksmith, tailor, stonemason, laborer, etc. will tell you 'right tool for the right job'.
You don't use a hand axe to chop down a tree. You use a Wood axe or saw. Hand axes can trim small branchs and chop twigs but is useless for chopping heavy lumber of any kind, let alone chopping down an entire tree.
And if your telling me that hand axes should be able to chop any wood, I am telling you YOUR wrong and the game rules, reality, common sense, lumberjacks, foresters, druids and rangers all support that.
Have you ever, in real life, personally cleared an acre of woodland? It will show you pretty damn fast what tools you use even for a simple 6 inch diameter tree and a hand axe NEVER comes into play to fell it.
It is, however, a great tool for taking off small branches and trimming thin wood (you know wood that is too thin to warrant a hardness rating) which oddly enough is what it is used for.
Course if you buy one made of Adamantine, it ignores hardness anyway so then it COULD be used. Wish we had adamantine in the real world.
|
Joe if you only have a handaxe you need to choose smaller trees. Wood has 10hp per inch if thickness, so smaller saplings and young trees should be your targets not the typical tree in a forest (AC 4, Hardness 5, hp 150).
However as stated before your handaxe is built to chop wood so it would at the very least do double damage and may ignore the hardness. IMC i'd ignore it on soft woods like pines and firs vs hardwoods like oak or elm...
Ironically balsa wood is a hardwood!
--Vrocky mountain pine
Without reading anything past first post: This is natural selection. Apply your skills in a way you're better suited to, Jo, and trade for firewood. Or freeze.
Or use a saw rather than an axe.
Why, because I only have a hand ax, of course.
And if you're telling me that hand axes can not chop wood (whether that wood be a standing tree, or a log for firewood) then I'm telling you that you're wrong.
Any farmer, blacksmith, tailor, stonemason, laborer, etc. will tell you 'right tool for the right job'.
You don't use a hand axe to chop down a tree. You use a Wood axe or saw. Hand axes can trim small branchs and chop twigs but is useless for chopping heavy lumber of any kind, let alone chopping down an entire tree.
And if your telling me that hand axes should be able to chop any wood, I am telling you YOUR wrong and the game rules, reality, common sense, lumberjacks, foresters, druids and rangers all support that.
Have you ever, in real life, personally cleared an acre of woodland? It will show you pretty damn fast what tools you use even for a simple 6 inch diameter tree and a hand axe NEVER comes into play to fell it.
It is, however, a great tool for taking off small branches and trimming thin wood (you know wood that is too thin to warrant a hardness rating) which oddly enough is what it is used for.
Course if you buy one made of Adamantine, it ignores hardness anyway so then it COULD be used. Wish we had adamantine in the real world.
I'm not trying to clear acres, friend. I'm trying to use an ax to cut down a tree. And, I assure you, folks have done that before. It's called "getting by with the equipment you have."
Will it be hard? You bet. Is it impossible? Heck no. Saying it is impossible is absurd.
Regardless, the game rules, as several someones mentioned in much earlier posts, do actually allow the hand ax to work. Specifically, there is a rule that allows certain weapons to ignore hardness, and do double damage if they are inherently damaging to the material in question. An ax, by my estimation, is inherently damaging to wood.
The only problem I'm left with, as I mentioned earlier, is that I feel the tree would come down too quickly. By those rules, it would only take about two minutes to cut down a tree with 100 hit points.
|
|
Really, that was all to demonstrate my point. That while the simulation is not perfect the game is designed to accommodate NPCs of first level doing all the things that other NPCs need--well things that aren't kill dragons.
Not really. The game is designed to accommodate *PCs* of 1st level doing these things. We've already gone over how the game breaks down.
For one thing, we're talking about a magical economy in which how much money other people have to spend has no effect on how much money other people make.
Meanwhile, a merchant who buys a +1 sword from a PC (who just got a +1 Flaming sword or w/e) for 1000 gp and re-sells it to a different group of adventurers for 1200 just made a 200 gp profit. (Let alone the 1000 gp profit he'd make from selling the +1 sword for the full 2000.) I guess he has a +190 Profession bonus. (+990?)
The point is, Profession is there as a quick handwavey answer to "how much do I make?" and to make players feel like their character is really a chef 'cause they paid SP to be a chef. It's not meant to simulate an economy and it doesn't.
The idea that Profession = low-income menial labor, Craft = skilled labor, isn't a bad one, but it's also a pure invention of yours--barristers and engineers, for example, are on the explicit list of professions, and they would have *vastly* higher income that scribes and such, much less freakin' porters and farmers.
I don't understand where your concept of only PCs comes from. When a PC makes a stealth check do NPCs get to roll perception to oppose or do they just stand there like morons because the game is only for PCs?
If crafting were designed only for PCs the DCs would be much higher to accommodate the higher levels PCs usually reach (similar to crafting magic items).
A merchant buying a sword falls outside the profession/crafting rules. You just need appraise or spellcraft and detect magic, or both. A merchant could do his profession roll and if he has the money buy magic swords to resell and supplement his income.
Regarding the professions, I hate to bring real world in but I want to talk about this. I think your concept of how these skills played out historically and in modern life is incorrect. Let us take barristers (lawyers) as an example. It is only now a days that lawyers started to really rake in the money. That was only possible due to bar associations allowing lawyers to advertise services starting in the 80's. Prior to that it was forbidden as was taking cases on a contingency basis. Even taking those lawyers in to account many lawyers made decidedly middle class incomes. They do traffic tickets or minor estate crap for middle class people who don't have an estate to speak of.
Lawyers in the roman empire complained of not making enough money and limits on income were common. Engineers even now only make low to high middle class incomes.
Also, I did not divide craft and profession into skilled vs unskilled. I merely pointed out that craftsmen could make a lot of money due to low material costs. Especially if they used valuable materials like gems and gold.
Very well said, Karkon. I believe LogicNinja has a rather provincial attitude about the whole affair.
I believe his insistence that the profession skill is only for PC's has no backing in the RAW whatsoever. I believe (know) that several official NPC's have been made with ranks in the profession skill.
But I am fine with him house ruling things his way in his personal game, of course. I just can't help but wonder why he is not fine with others running the game as it is written though.
Geez, buddy. Relax.
If figuring out the math behind where to set the profession skill ranks in your game is too much for you then by all means ignore it.
You are certainly free to house rule your game however you like. No one's judging here.
"You need to relax! Nobody's judging you. I'm just saying math is hard for you."
Seriously, what is this, RPGnet?
Geez, buddy. Relax.
If figuring out the math behind where to set the profession skill ranks in your game is too much for you then by all means ignore it.
You are certainly free to house rule your game however you like. No one's judging here.
"You need to relax! Nobody's judging you. I'm just saying math is hard for you."
Seriously, what is this, RPGnet?
By "too much" I meant too hands-on, too involved, too time consuming. While your interpretation is pretty humorous the intended tone was sincere.
If you have a problem with all crafts/professions making the same, simply houserule something. Make common/low-skilled jobs earn half the check result as normal, less common jobs requiring at least some skill pay the check result, while rarer/higher skilled jobs pay double the check. Now even with equal ranks in their skills, the harder professions earn more (everything else being equal, engineers now earn 4x what a baker earns).
1st level baker (1 rank, no ability modifier, class skill) earns 7gp/week.
1st level engineer (1 rank, no ability modifier, class skill) earns 28gp/week. (4x your average baker - engineers would probably have at least a +1 or +2 ability modifier however, raising this to 30-32gp/week)
20th level engineer (20 ranks, +5 ability modifier, class skill, +3 skill focus, +2 some other feat) earns 86 gp/week. (12x typical baker - would be even higher with magic items)
It helps. Still not a perfect solution though.
"The profession skill isn't about everything it's about!"
Sorry you lose at that point.
The profession skill is exactly that.
It's all it claims to be and it's the only example check given for it.
I don't think you actually understand what I'm saying.
When you have a player who took Profession(cook), and the party gets to a city, and the player declares, "I want to spend the week working as a chef," you have the player roll a Profession check and tell them how much money they make. If there's a question about cooking that needs to be answered, the player can roll against DC 10 or 15 to see if his character can answer it. This is the purpose of the skill--this, and to make the player feel that his character is "really" a cook.
This is what the Profession skill does as per the rules, and this is exactly what it's for.When you--the DM--are creating a town for the players to get to, you do not create an NPC, then look at his Profession score to see how much money he makes. That is not what the skill is for, and it makes no sense for you to use the skill that way--the results will make no sense and you will derive no benefit from doing so; on the contrary, this *creates* work for you, as you have to make up reasons for the bizarre results that tell you that a beggar makes almost as much as a merchant. Remember: you, the DM, decide what happens in the world. You're not "breaking the rules" if you assign each townsperson an arbitrary income, or handwave it, any more than if you roll for them based on the profession skill you gave them, or if you roll on a homebrewed table.
You are right -- I see absolutely no reason not to use the rules as they actually are. The rules as such work. They work for NPCs too.
Now you keep asking about craftmen but we've already pointed out that craftsmen do things differently.
The really funny thing is the people that focus more in their job tend to make about as much as other people that focus in just as much in their job.
The only part the game doesn't model well is taxes and how that is spread amongst society.
You're arguing to not use the rules as written and then claiming the rules as written are broken. Which is telling -- the rules are set up to work the same way regardless of if the PC or the NPC is using them.
It's not like the GM is supposed to go, "Well the monster is supposed to trip you so you are tripped," Or "Well the guy is supposed to be a natural leader so I'll give him a Charisma of 3 since it doesn't actually matter."
This is not fourth edition -- the NPCs are supposed to follow the rules. Doing so doesn't break the system: It continues to function when you do so. I have shown as much to the point of using said system to prove all the way up to the buying limits of a village.
You aren't providing any counter examples -- the best you offered is the thought that somehow some professions should be making more than others and then confusing crafting with professions.
Provide an actual counter example, prove your point.
I'm a tree and I find this topic very offensive.
As far as 100 gp/week being reasonable . . . well, maybe in your house ruled universe. In mine, a guy would have to be like, what, level 40? That's ridiculous.
Just because this actually sounds fun to set up lets see the maximum we can do:
Starting with a wisdom of 20 add in all appropriate level modifiers and equipment and we'll hit a 36. Take it to venerable age for an additional +3 puts wisdom up to a 39.
Now we'll go for a full 20 ranks, and human with heart of the fields.
For feats we'll want:
Skill Focus (+6)
Master Craftsman (+2)
Master of the Ledger (+2)
Racial Heritage(elf) (+0)
Breadth of Experience (+2)
And a Trait that gives +1 to the profession skill.
So we have +13 from feats and traits, +13 from wisdom +23 from ranks and class bonus with an extra +10 from the heart of the fields bonus for human for a total of +59, finally some magical tools for a +10 competence bonus would put us up to a +69 on your own.
Rolling a 1 would give a 70 or 35gp a week. Rolling a 20 would give a 89 or 44.5gp a week.
However we can actually make more easier: Instead of a professional we'll make a performer. I only want 10 levels for this, and start with a 14 charisma this time (16 after levels).
Feats:
Voice of the Sybil
Skill Focus(perform(oratory))
Equipment:
Circlet of Persuasion (head slot)
Headband of Charisma +2 (headband slot)
That's 13 from ranks and class bonus +4 from total Charisma, +9 from feats and +3 from the circlet for a total of +29. I roll a 1 I get a check of 30 which earns me 3d6 gp per day or an average of 10.5 gp a day or 73.5gp a week.
What this thread is teaching me is that RAW is kinda stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What this thread is teaching me is that RAW is kinda stupid.
Which is why GMs exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does this need to be resolved via the rules?
Why does this need to be resolved via the rules?
It's kind of like the test case law method.
First you (generically speaking) attack RAW by saying it doesn't work in case 'x'. The idea is to choose a case that is supposedly especially ridiculous, this of course makes the rules look ridiculous.
Afterward you proceed to use case 'x' whenever someone starts using RAW as a standpoint for a position for a transference fallacy (since case 'x' was ridiculous the RAW is ridiculous therefore any position that assumes RAW is ridiculous).
The funny thing is this only holds up if you don't actually look into case 'x' which is almost invariably a case of obfuscation, ignoring the rules and selective memory. Once you realize that RAW covers this with several different methods it becomes clear that 'oh wait it does work and isn't ridiculous at all' however most people don't want to put that much work or actual thinking into it.
Those that do will be seen as long winded, argumentative, and overly technical and all arguments used against them will be to make them look more so, not to actually continue an honest dialog about the case in question.
It's a fairly common political strategy that is used against any supposed 'expert' or 'elitist' that happens to think he actually knows something about the field he is in.
So, why does this need to be resolved via the rules?
Which is why GMs exist.What this thread is teaching me is that RAW is kinda stupid.
I'm pretty sure that's essentially what Logic Ninja is arguing - that RAW is kinda stupid so rather then lash yourself to the rules and demand "rules as physics" you handle it via GM fiat, because that's sorta why the GM is there.
Like I said, trying to argue rules-as-physics in Pathfinder is like arguing about how awesome your screwdriver is at hammering things. That's cool. I'll...stick to using a hammer. And I'll use my screwdriver as a screwdriver.
edit: Also laffo forever at LN being ANTI-INTELLECTUAL because he thinks a screwdriver doesn't make for the best hammer.
