So, why does this need to be resolved via the rules?
Why doesn't it? What about this situation is not solved with application of the rules? Why should it not be solved by the rules?
What is this I don't even
TOZ take deep breaths and just breath deeply.
Sweet dodge!
Seriously, why does this need to be resolved via the rules?
So, why does this need to be resolved via the rules?Why doesn't it? What about this situation is not solved with application of the rules? Why should it not be solved by the rules?
Do you sincerely play without a GM and thus require codification for every and any situation that could come up?
|
So, why does this need to be resolved via the rules?
I feel sorry for the GM who uses these rules to model an entire economy. In 99.999999999% of games NPC stuff like this will never come up. If a player wants to hire an NPC lawyer in the game then I just give him some names and costs off the top of my head.
On the boards I just like the discussion and back and forth. I like to try to work out IF something can be done within the rules and if it reasonably holds together.
AM Barbarian is another example of that, so was Pun Pun on the D&D boards. A theoretical exercise to see how far the rules could be taken.
Actually AM is an exercise in showing that one well built barbarian can handle any casty in his way.
|
|
Actually AM is an exercise in showing that one well built barbarian can handle any casty in his way.
That is the purpose of AM. But he is an extreme example specifically optimized to kill wizards in the first round before a wizard can see and target him. The long thread discussing him supports my point.
Actually AM is an exercise in showing that one well built barbarian can handle any casty in his way.
AM shows nothing nothing of the sort -- he shows that one character well built with leadership and a lot of freedom can in a vacuum look very mean.
I've still not actually seen him statted completely out and the only time I saw his actual levels he was oracle/barbarian/fighter/rage prophet/etc.
So again he's hardly 'barbarian' -- It would be like taking a build with 1 level in a spell casting class and 5 levels in a prestige class and calling it a 'caster'.
|
|
Actually AM is an exercise in showing that one well built barbarian can handle any casty in his way.AM shows nothing nothing of the sort -- he shows that one character well built with leadership and a lot of freedom can in a vacuum look very mean.
I've still not actually seen him statted completely out and the only time I saw his actual levels he was oracle/barbarian/fighter/rage prophet/etc.
So again he's hardly 'barbarian' -- It would be like taking a build with 1 level in a spell casting class and 5 levels in a prestige class and calling it a 'caster'.
True. The whole thread seems to be a troll as no build has actually been posted. The OP in the current thread claims that his build is 20 Barbarian...not that he has posted a build.
Use a hand saw, it's probably quicker and safer than an axe.
Do you sincerely play without a GM and thus require codification for every and any situation that could come up?So, why does this need to be resolved via the rules?Why doesn't it? What about this situation is not solved with application of the rules? Why should it not be solved by the rules?
Do I personally? No. Do you personally play where no one ever cares if a given situation is already covered by the rules and simply handwave away whatever is in the book?
I rather doubt it.
However this is already covered in the rules. Funny thing is it still works. Sure call it dumb or whatever -- that's subjective, but don't complain when someone comes up with a situation and thinks they've broken raw again and oops it turns out they didn't eat their Wheaties and were completely wrong.
People want to ask these sorts of questions about RAW and have it shown where RAW covers it, that's not my fault I simply help point them to the information sought.
Of course if you don't like that feel free to use the ignore function.
Wow...lots of responses
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is sometimes fun to adjudicate for adjudication's sake.
Good GM practice.
That's why it is "necessary" for this situation to be handled in the rules. Although "necessary" is disingenuous. It's more like "worthwhile for people who enjoy considering such things."
Furthermore the exact same effort can be put into making the rules appear not to work in this situation. As long as someone is trying to make them work, and someone is saying they don't work, we have both sides of a fight! Woot!
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.
Left the thread for a while. Came back and laughed.
There's a lot of arguments about adjudicating the RAW of chopping wood and making money doing it. If you go back and check the OP you'll see that at no point was the economy of the situation ever considered. Jo wanted to know if the combat rules by RAW prevent a really weak NPC from being able to chop wood. He did so by using an extremely bizarre scenario where an NPC that apparently was intelligent enough to live to adulthood, and resourceful enough to land himself a wife and kids,
My family freezes
one day decided to try and chop down the biggest tree in the forest with a hand axe.
I'm not sure where the mechanics of the economic system got brought in, but I'll say this, if you are using the game mechanics (which are designed to help create a fun world for PCs to interact with) to try and simulate a realistic economy by figuring out wages via profession checks, you are going to spend a lot of time dealing with rules and situational one-timers, that, in the end, will result in you having a lot of details for a fantasy world that the PCs are not going to care about at all. If you're doing it because you like to do that sort of thing, it floats your boat or whatever to see how the rules work, GO FOR IT.
However, trying to come up with some logical argument about trying to find out how much woodcutter (with STR 8 btw) could make cutting wood as a profession is silly, and pointless. (Yes Tacticslion, that's me saying someone else's way of doing it is bad/wrong; in my opinion using the combat rules to adjudicate an NPC's woodcutting ability is just plain silly.)
When you're creating an NPC you don't figure out how much money they have by realistically recreating their professional life via the profession skill. You look here:NPC Gear and assign their wealth as indicated. That's the RAW of figuring out how much wealth an NPC has, not recreating their professional life using the combat mechanics. From the beginning this thread has been about pointing out a shortcoming in the rules that doesn't exist. The designers never intended for you to try and figure out NPC real-life-feasibility, or wealth, by taking them out into the woods, using the combat mechanics, with a hand axe, (and STR 8 btw) and chopping wood and selling it.
If they wrote a woodcutting contest into an AP, I highly doubt they wrote into it an NPC (with STR 8 btw) taking a hand axe and trying to win the contest. Or if they did it was for humorous effect. Not so you could backlog how much money he could or could not have made selling the wood that he ineffectively chops. Or examining whether or not his family is going to freeze to death. Do the PCs care if one yokel farmer can't chop wood? Is that your adventure hook? Ridiculously inept farmers and their professions?
Argue all you want about using the rules to adjudicate this, or any other pointless and silly NPC rules adjudication, or realism of economy. Have fun and enjoy the exercise, but Pathfinder is a game that's designed to run PCs through encounters with monsters, hazards, traps, etc. I seriously doubt any player sitting at the gaming table is going to wait (or at least enjoy waiting) while you try and adjudicate farmer Jo's inability to chop down a tree. In fact they'll probably step in and one shot the F-enheiming tree for the guy, so they can get on with whatever ridiculously detailed scenario you have coming up next for them.
NPC gear covers 'adventuring wealth' much like PC WBL covers 'adventuring wealth' -- it is gear on you right that matters in the encounter, it is not a sum of all wealth possibly possessed.
Ironically there is an AP with a wood cutting contest.
NPC gear covers 'adventuring wealth' much like PC WBL covers 'adventuring wealth' -- it is gear on you right that matters in the encounter, it is not a sum of all wealth possibly possessed.
Ironically there is an AP with a wood cutting contest.
Which is all that's going to matter to the PCs. Unless they plan on "looting" and I use the term loosely here, the inept farmers freezing house for whatever "non-adventuring wealth" he might have lying around. Also, in the case that they had decided to do that, I wouldn't make everyone at the table wait whilst I went about recreating the farmer's professional existence using the Profession rules and rolling all the incidentals. I'd us a random treasure generator, set it for incidental, and move on.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am amazed at how many people have responded with actual mechanical ideas to solve this "problem."
At what point does: how much wood could a woodcutter cut, if a woodcutter could cut wood, in any way enhance a Pathfinder campaign for the PCs?
Because when it comes to nerds and rulebooks, everyone's an amateur scientist. It is not the validity of the question that causes them to begin experimenting, merely that someone asked it in the first place.
Otherwise, there would be no 500 page threads with titles like "Stat out Superman using Mouse Guard ruelz!!!" or "How many XP do I get for stealing Lilith's cookie recipe?"
Why, because I only have a hand ax, of course.
If you only have a hand axe, you should probably start with smaller trees and deadfall.
Once you sell enough wood to purchase a larger axe (something akin to a greataxe), you'll be more productive and earn even more money.
Or, better yet, go get a job from a rich adventurer who has to buy your equipment, then go chop down as many trees as needed. Personally, I would bill it out as "skilled labor" to prevent becoming a victim of widowmakers and critical fumble decks.
|
|
buncha crap because he obviously didn't bother to read the last page of comments
We really are not saying that it makes sense to use this stuff in a game. We are discussing what RAW supports not what makes sense in actual play.
Once in a while this stuff does come up, like in a certain AP that has a wood cutting contest. Sometimes players like for the DM to roll NPCs so they can feel like they really won (or lost) the contest--or what ever.
Which is all that's going to matter to the PCs. Unless they plan on "looting" and I use the term loosely here, the inept farmers freezing house for whatever "non-adventuring wealth" he might have lying around. Also, in the case that they had decided to do that, I wouldn't make everyone at the table wait whilst I went about recreating the farmer's professional existence using the Profession rules and rolling all the incidentals. I'd us a random treasure generator, set it for incidental, and move on.NPC gear covers 'adventuring wealth' much like PC WBL covers 'adventuring wealth' -- it is gear on you right that matters in the encounter, it is not a sum of all wealth possibly possessed.
Ironically there is an AP with a wood cutting contest.
Wait you think I'm doing this while at the table?
It's called mental exercise or mental bubblegum, not "OMG GOT TO HAVE IT NOW!"
It's honestly funny you think this is what the gaming table is for.
But let me put it this way: You defeat the woodsman -- you find his NPC gear on him Hooray. If you go to his house and decide to take it with you I'm not going to reduce his NPC gear because that house is part of his wealth -- which was exactly my point.
The guy misspoke on what the NPC gear stuff is -- I corrected him, partially because the other wealth doesn't matter and shouldn't be used against his NPC wealth.
buncha crap because he obviously didn't bother to read the last page of commentsWe really are not saying that it makes sense to use this stuff in a game. We are discussing what RAW supports not what makes sense in actual play.
Once in a while this stuff does come up, like in a certain AP that has a wood cutting contest. Sometimes players like for the DM to roll NPCs so they can feel like they really won (or lost) the contest--or what ever.
The players want you to roll up different NPCs than the carefully crafted ones that the designers put into the AP ahead of time (that is specifically designed to challenge a party of adventurers of a certain level btw)? Also, they want you to do this at the table? Also, they want you to realistically recreate their wealth by rolling combat checks against trees? Or by rolling profession checks? They are seriously patient players.
Edit: Also, RAW supports creating NPCs with very specific rules, and assigning treasure with equally specific rules. At no point does RAW say: "you should figure out how much wealth an NPC has by using combat rules to see how many tress they can fell, or rolling profession checks for their whole life and then subtracting their cost of living."
Which is all that's going to matter to the PCs. Unless they plan on "looting" and I use the term loosely here, the inept farmers freezing house for whatever "non-adventuring wealth" he might have lying around. Also, in the case that they had decided to do that, I wouldn't make everyone at the table wait whilst I went about recreating the farmer's professional existence using the Profession rules and rolling all the incidentals. I'd us a random treasure generator, set it for incidental, and move on.NPC gear covers 'adventuring wealth' much like PC WBL covers 'adventuring wealth' -- it is gear on you right that matters in the encounter, it is not a sum of all wealth possibly possessed.
Ironically there is an AP with a wood cutting contest.
Wait you think I'm doing this while at the table?
It's called mental exercise or mental bubblegum, not "OMG GOT TO HAVE IT NOW!"
It's honestly funny you think this is what the gaming table is for.
But let me put it this way: You defeat the woodsman -- you find his NPC gear on him Hooray. If you go to his house and decide to take it with you I'm not going to reduce his NPC gear because that house is part of his wealth -- which was exactly my point.
The guy misspoke on what the NPC gear stuff is -- I corrected him, partially because the other wealth doesn't matter and shouldn't be used against his NPC wealth.
Wait, what exactly was your point? That inept farmers with STR 8 whose GM uses combat rules to adjudicate tree felling for the purposes of winter survival have some money back at their place that's actually worth looting to a band of wandering adventurers?
Or that mental bubblegum done away from the table can use the rules wisely and effectively to figure out how much wealth inept farmers with a STR of 8 have at their house which is in addition to and should not be held against their 'adventuring gear' that is clearly delineated on a handy table set adjacent to the rules for creating NPCs and figuring their wealth?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuffs
Oh I'm sorry, I thought you weren't going to go all Republican debate mode. Tell me when you are done flailing.
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.
I've already explained to you, in great detail, exactly why these rules are intended for PCs and why it would be not only useless but actively counterproductive to try to apply them to figuring out how much NPCs make.
You wound up basically agreeing with me--you acknowledged that it's kind of dumb that a butcher can make more money than a lawyer--but then you suggested that instead of this being a problem with the Profession skill itself, or with applying it to NPCs, that the skill is perfect and instead the DM should first figure out and then peg the NPC's Profession skill to his income. Which, incidentally, means no one who has a Profession can even make 100 gp a week.
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.
Jo, you just told me that a merchant or lawyer (for example) making a lot of money is impossible, because the rules don't allow it.
This is a thing you literally just said.In your game world, MERCHANTS CAN'T MAKE MORE MONEY THAN THEIR PROFESSION CHECK ALLOWS. Trade just happens on its own, magically, without any merchant making even as much as 100 gp/week.
This can't honestly be what you actually believe, can it?
stuffsOh I'm sorry, I thought you weren't going to go all Republican debate mode. Tell me when you are done flailing.
Likewise, please let me know when you have a point that makes sense for the purposes of playing Pathfinder. Not figuring out how realistically I can create a market economy using the Profession rules.
|
|
buncha crap because he obviously didn't bother to read the last page of commentsWe really are not saying that it makes sense to use this stuff in a game. We are discussing what RAW supports not what makes sense in actual play.
Once in a while this stuff does come up, like in a certain AP that has a wood cutting contest. Sometimes players like for the DM to roll NPCs so they can feel like they really won (or lost) the contest--or what ever.
The players want you to roll up different NPCs than the carefully crafted ones that the designers put into the AP ahead of time (that is specifically designed to challenge a party of adventurers of a certain level btw)? Also, they want you to do this at the table? Also, they want you to realistically recreate their wealth by rolling combat checks against trees? Or by rolling profession checks? They are seriously patient players.
Edit: Also, RAW supports creating NPCs with very specific rules, and assigning treasure with equally specific rules. At no point does RAW say: "you should figure out how much wealth an NPC has by using combat rules to see how many tress they can fell, or rolling profession checks for their whole life and then subtracting their cost of living."
You have missed the point.
My first and most important point (this this the fourth time I am having to make it) is that this stuff is really not relevant to the game as played by nearly the entire population. It is fun for us to just discuss these corner cases. Just as it is apparently fun for you to be obtuse.
As far as the wood cutting contest, that spoke to the original post which the original poster mentioned was the reason for his post. We came up with several ways to handle it. Some said combat. I said use the hardness rules and say axes are good against trees and so can ignore hardness, some people said profession, some said craft.
Then someone spoke up about how a peasant can't afford food. I showed how even an unskilled laborer can feed and clothe himself. Then we got on about the general population--and believe me this comes up a lot on the forums. So we rehashed some of those discussions.
For the game that has the guy who thinks he can stump the DM with stupid discussions like this then this stuff can be useful. For any other game...it is not even remotely important.
For the game that has the guy who thinks he can stump the DM with stupid discussions like this then this stuff can be useful. For any other game...it is not even remotely important.
[Channeling Ed McMahon]Yessir, you are correct sir. Ha ha ha[/Ed McMahon]
Also, I said it once before in this same thread. Fun is a choice, not an activity.
So its news that a fairly weak person can't chop down a full size tree with a hatchet? Color me shocked..lol
I must have the last word! (ok last time for that I swear.)
I usurp your last word, and place in place of it my own last word.
WORD!
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...
The Profession list includes people who can command an exorbitant salary, like Architects. It also includes people who can make large amounts of profit, like Merchants.
The rules don't "work for NPCs". The rules "work" for their intended purpose--players rolling a die to see how much money they get--but they were never intended to simulate an economy (that's why even a level 20 Profession God can't make more than 50 gp a week) or to actually calculate NPC earnings. For some kind of middling-income tradesman, the rules vaguely make sense, if you handwave away the fact that any trade, by the rules, has the exact same income potential (i.e. by the rules your career literally has zero effect on your income, and if you handwave away supply and demand, and if you handwave away all of the other things actually affect actual economies.
But trying to apply these rules to calculate NPC wages for architects or lawyers or merchants who are good at their job is actively harmful, as you will then have to twist your world in order to fit the nonsensical results. You can twist yourself into knots trying to explain why it's impossible for a merchant to make more than 50 gp a week (even if he's level 20!), no matter what he trades in or how high his profit margin is. You can twist yourself into knots trying to explain why the existence of two more blacksmiths in a small town has no effects on the profits of a third blacksmith.
Or, you can just eyeball their approximate wages, and have a game world that actually works better as a result.
You'd rather believe that the designers are such complete idiots that they don't understand how supply and demand works, that they don't understand that the field you work in has a huge effect on your earning potential... than accept that maybe, just maybe, it's a bad idea to use this rule to figure out what various NPCs make.
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.
Don't you think it's stupid that an NPC merchant or lawyer would have to be level 20, with various feats and such investment, to make a mere 44.5 gp a week?
Don't you think it's stupid that supply and demand apparently don't exist?
An axe made for chopping wood would probably ignore part of the wood's hardness. I'd actually like to see that in an equipment list as a non-weapon axe. It would be a tool, not a weapon, but could be wielded as an improvised weapon.
If it appeared in equipment lists, some adventures may carry them specifically with the purpose of bashing in doors with them, like a fireman's axe.
Does the tree get an attack of opportunity?
Round one. The tree wins initiative. It remains stationary and uses a standard action to cast barkskin.
Round two: the tree casts tree shape.
Round two: the tree casts tree shape.
With something like 20-50 limbs and easily enough hit dice to have Multiattack and Improved Natural Attack, you don't want to be caught by that thing, it'd be nasty.
TL;DR
I missed whether anyone has actually tried to chop down a tree with a hatchet. Note that I say "hatchet" rather than "hand axe" as they're different things.
I have. It doesn't work, and I have a Strength > 8. A hand axe would work even worse than a hatchet.
Damn tree with it's at-will barkskin ability.
Note that I say "hatchet" rather than "hand axe" as they're different things.
It's critical that the game accurately model this distinction!
I've already explained to you, in great detail, exactly why these rules are intended for PCs and why it would be not only useless but actively counterproductive to try to apply them to figuring out how much NPCs make.
And I've already explained to you, in precise detail, exactly why these rules are not just intended for PC's. Because it doesn't say that the profession skill is only for PC's. The profession skill tells us how much someone makes practicing a profession. That's what it is designed for. Whether you like the results of that design is moot.
NPC's are built with the profession skill. You house rule that they are not tied to the results of their skill checks, which is somewhat like giving them free skill points elsewhere because there's no reason to put points in profession. And if you do keep putting points in the profession skill, well, there has to be a quantifiable result.
You wound up basically agreeing with me--you acknowledged that it's kind of dumb that a butcher can make more money than a lawyer--but then you suggested that instead of this being a problem with the Profession skill itself, or with applying it to NPCs, that the skill is perfect and instead the DM should first figure out and then peg the NPC's Profession skill to his income. Which, incidentally, means no one who has a Profession can even make 100 gp a week.
Somewhat. I don't agree with you that a butcher should make more than a barrister. I think that is setting specific; frankly, I don't care what professions you personally believe should make more money than other professions. That's your choice.
But I do agree that some professions inevitably make more than others. To handle that you need only assign the profession level to the point it needs to be. You want porters to make peanuts? Don't give them a profession skill. Don't give them the skill if they're first level, and don't give them the skill if they're twentieth level.
You think a butcher should make just a little bit more than peanuts? Give them a rank or two in their profession; again, do this whether they are second level, or twentieth level.
You think a barrister should make a lot of money? Max out their profession skill, and consider giving them a skill focus. As they grow in levels so does their income.
Jo, you just told me that a merchant or lawyer (for example) making a lot of money is impossible, because the rules don't allow it.
This is a thing you literally just said.In your game world, MERCHANTS CAN'T MAKE MORE MONEY THAN THEIR PROFESSION CHECK ALLOWS. Trade just happens on its own, magically, without any merchant making even as much as 100 gp/week.
This can't honestly be what you actually believe, can it?
The basic difference we have here is understanding what a lot of money is. Money has a relative value no matter how many zeros you add to the end. 1 gp can be a fortune, 1 gp can be discarded change. It depends upon the setting.
Pathfinder has been kind enough to provide us with a profession skill that gives us glimpse into how valuable the coins are, along with a generic pricing table. Determining that 20 gp a week is monumental compared to 10 gp a week is a matter of perspective. After all, $100,000 a year is a heck of a lot more than $50,000 a year. If you doubt that, just ask a fellow making $50,000 a year.
Your view of money is sophomoric, and provincial, and your desire to give someone 100 gp a week is arbitrary at best.
Remember, just because the arbitrarily assigned numbers in your setting don't match the profession skill results doesn't mean games can't be run using the rules of the game as they are written. Does it take a little more forethought? Sure it does. Is it worth it? That's subjective; some folks will say yes, others no. To each their own, which is why I say, hey, enjoy house ruling things differently, but don't blow hard about how your way is right, and the rules weren't designed to do what they tell us in the descriptive text they're designed to do.
***
The original post in this thread had nothing to do with the economy. The NPC in the example did not want to make a living cutting wood. He wanted to cut down a tree, specifically, a tree his wife asked him to cut down. They were, apparently, going to use that tree for firewood.
Now, it doesn't matter if the NPC cut down that tree, or if the NPC tried to cut a branch. Hardness is hardness by the rules. Luckily, there's a rule that bypasses hardness; it's usable at the very least. I'm not fond of how easy it makes the process, but the rule exists.
How can this impact a game?
"After a long day of cutting firewood with your ax you head back to the house with your ax slung over your shoulder. Unfortunately, the door to the house is locked, and you can hear muffled screaming inside. It sounds like (blah NPC) is being assaulted!"
"Is the door made of wood?"
"Uhm, yes."
"Great, I swing my ax against the door to break it open."
"Hmmm. Okay, so wood has a hardness of 5 . . . and you're doing . . ."
"Wait one minute. I've just been cutting firewood all day! Are you telling me that now I can't cut through wood because I'm in combat?"
Now, in my case, there is a wood chopping competition in the Kingmaker adventure path. No, it doesn't include a low strength fellow trying to chop wood, but there are some potential angles drawing off of that competition I'd like to look into. Even if I just play with the idea of having a poor man's village version of the competition occurring at an earlier date to help lead into the prestigious nature of the big boy festival competition later.
Regardless, there was a rule, and I appreciated being pointed toward it.
***
Ultimately, there are two economies existing in Pathfinder. One of the economies is tied to the PC's wealth by level, and it includes merchants catering to the adventuring crowd.
The other is an economy of the masses, and it deals specifically with the profession skill, unskilled wages via the price table, and the crafting skill rules.
It can be hard to find verisimilitude in the juxtaposition of those economies, but that is the nature of the beast when you tie wealth to character level, and the CR of encounters.
It's up to you, as a GM, to figure out how to settle those differences. You can throw the baby out with the bath water, and just assign some arbitrary numbers to everything. Or you can mold the value of a gold coin into something more reasonably reflective of the profession skill, and stop assuming that every NPC makes the same amount of money because you built them the same and, darn it, those numbers look too close to each other in my inflated eyes.
Note that I say "hatchet" rather than "hand axe" as they're different things.It's critical that the game accurately model this distinction!
x2 or x3?
Somewhat. I don't agree with you that a butcher should make more than a barrister. I think that is setting specific; frankly, I don't care what professions you personally believe should make more money than other professions. That's your choice.
But I do agree that some professions inevitably make more than others. To handle that you need only assign the profession level to the point it needs to be. You want porters to make peanuts? Don't give them a profession skill. Don't give them the skill if they're first level, and don't give them the skill if they're twentieth level.
You think a butcher should make just a little bit more than peanuts? Give them a rank or two in their profession; again, do this whether they are second level, or twentieth level.
You think a barrister should make a lot of money? Max out their profession skill, and consider giving them a skill focus. As they grow in levels so does their income.
Your logic fails in this one area because based on the RAW whether or not I want a barrister or the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker, to all make different amounts of money at a certain level have to adjust the profession skill ranks I give them. If I'm statting up a 9th level butcher, I can't give him 9 skill ranks in Profession (butcher) and give his neighbor down the street 9 ranks in Profession (king of awesomeness) because then they will be making (relatively) the same amount of money.
The raw mechanics don't support you. You are making situational adjustments of the mechanics to come up with something that is more realistic. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact that's how it should be. Which is exactly what LogicNinja has been saying the whole time. You can make the mechanics work, but to say that they work regardless of GM tinkering for realism is flat out false.
And I've already explained to you, in precise detail, exactly why these rules are not just intended for PC's. Because it doesn't say that the profession skill is only for PC's. The profession skill tells us how much someone makes practicing a profession. That's what it is designed for. Whether you like the results of that design is moot.
"The rules say this stupid thing, so it's totally intentional" is pretty bad reasoning. The 3.x rules used to say that you could drown someone at negative hit points to 0--that doesn't mean that it was a good idea. The combat rules say various things, but it'd still be stupid to use the combat rules to model a serial killer killing other NPCs in their homes.
Not that that's even relevant, because you haven't shown why those rules are intended to. Those rules are intended to address the question in a quick, abstract, and handwavey manner, not in a detailed manner that actually makes any sense. You can tell because the rules are quick, abstract, handwavey, and don't make any sense.
NPC's are built with the profession skill. You house rule that they are not tied to the results of their skill checks, which is somewhat like giving them free skill points elsewhere because there's no reason to put points in profession.
NPCs are built with the profession skill to make you feel like that NPC "really" has that profession.
Giving NPCs "free skill points" doesn't matter, because they're NPCs, and often giving them free skill points, breaking skill caps, etc makes more sense. It's eminently reasonable for the court vizier to have a huge Sense Motive score while still being low level.And if you do keep putting points in the profession skill, well, there has to be a quantifiable result.
*Why*? How does it improve the game *in any way* if you give the NPC 3 more gold coins because he has more ranks in Profession or a higher WIS? Will anyone even know why he has 3 more gold coins?
Somewhat. I don't agree with you that a butcher should make more than a barrister. I think that is setting specific; frankly, I don't care what professions you personally believe should make more money than other professions. That's your choice.
But I do agree that some professions inevitably make more than others. To handle that you need only assign the profession level to the point it needs to be. You want porters to make peanuts? Don't give them a profession skill. Don't give them the skill if they're first level, and don't give them the skill if they're twentieth level....
In other words, you think architects and engineers should make more than butchers... but that this should be resolved by making them wiser and higher-level. All architects are wise and
I've already shown you that, say, the difference between Profession +2 and Profession +12, when taking 10, is (10+2)/2 vs (10+12)/2 = 6 vs 11 = 5 gp a week.So, yes, the guy with Profession +12 will make more than the guy with Profession +1, but by 5 gold a week.
You think that 4 gp a week--1/3 of his salary--is the amount of a good architect or engineer (i.e. someone working with the affluent nobility, and being paid by them, on an entirely different scale than the common laborer works at) should make more than a common laborer? Really?
You're arguing that I should make up appropriate income values, and *then* tweak NPCs until their Profession ranks. And that no professional NPC should have an income beyond what his. A lawyer that works for rich courtiers? Nope, he only makes 20 gp a week, which is only twice the 10 gp a week than what the freaking butcher makes.
And, of course, then there's the question of--if I'm picking appropriate GP values for these NPCs' incomes myself--why I'm bothering the Profession rules at all. We're doing the same thing--eyeballing how much they should make--only after, you're making the NPC higher level because otherwise he couldn't make that much because Profession says so. The way you are using the rules is actively counterproductive. It makes the game make less sense, not more.
Why?
Why are you so attached to the idea that the Profession rules MUST determine how much an NPC makes? How do merchants exist in your world? How does trade exist? It literally doesn't matter what a merchant trades in or does, he still makes the same 1d20+1 to 10 gp a week!
The basic difference we have here is understanding what a lot of money is. Money has a relative value no matter how many zeros you add to the end. 1 gp can be a fortune, 1 gp can be discarded change. It depends upon the setting.
Pathfinder has been kind enough to provide us with a profession skill that gives us glimpse into how valuable the coins are, along with a generic pricing table. Determining that 20 gp a week is monumental compared to 10 gp a week is a matter of perspective. After all, $100,000 a year is a heck of a lot more than $50,000 a year. If you doubt that, just ask a fellow making $50,000 a year.
It's not a matter of perspective, because if a guy making 10 gp a week can't afford to own a home at all, or can afford only a ramshackle tiny house, then a guy making 20 gp a week certainly can't afford a house in a nice part of town. And the thing is, according to you, a guy making 50 gp a week? Doesn't exist. Because the rules say he can't--he'd need too many profession ranks!
Your view of money is sophomoric, and provincial, and your desire to give someone 100 gp a week is arbitrary at best.
Excuse me? My view of money is based on things like supply and demand existing, which they apparently don't in your mind.
My desire to give someone 100 gp a week--or 1000 gp a week, for that matter--is based on the fact that people in some careers make orders of magnitude--not "1/3 more", not "double", but orders of magnitude--more than people in other careers, and that this was at least as true historically as it is today.My view of money is based on the blatantly obvious fact that being good at a low-income job won't get you more money than someone being mediocre at a high-income job.
Money is relative. It doesn't matter if 1 gp buys a horse or a meal--the point is, a merchant who's making a lot of money should have orders of magnitude more money than a porter or cooper or waiter who's good at his job.
But if you use the Profession rules, he won't be. He'll be making half again as much, maybe.
If you use the profession rules, the merchant is incapable of turning more than the tiniest of profits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your logic fails in this one area because based on the RAW whether or not I want a barrister or the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker, to all make different amounts of money at a certain level have to adjust the profession skill ranks I give them. If I'm statting up a 9th level butcher, I can't give him 9 skill ranks in Profession (butcher) and give his neighbor down the street 9 ranks in Profession (king of awesomeness) because then they will be making (relatively) the same amount of money.
MendedWall,
Uhm. You have to adjust the skill ranks of your NPC's as you see best. I don't understand what you're saying here at all. When do you not have to build your NPC's? Do you just build them and max out the same stuff on every build?
Heck, do you build NPC's?
Wait, I think I get it. I think you completely misunderstood what I wrote.
The raw mechanics don't support you. You are making situational adjustments of the mechanics to come up with something that is more realistic. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact that's how it should be. Which is exactly what LogicNinja has been saying the whole time. You can make the mechanics work, but to say that they work regardless of GM tinkering for realism is flat out false.
I'm saying that as you are building your NPC's you should - within the boundaries of ranks allowed by the NPC's level - adjust the ranks to their proper place. I'm saying you shouldn't raise the skill with levels if you don't want it to raise.
I am not saying that you should assign extra skill points to NPC's, or that you should assign more skill ranks to the profession skill than the NPC's level allows.
Wait, I think I get it. I think you completely misunderstood what I wrote.
I'm saying that as you are building your NPC's you should - within the boundaries of ranks allowed by the NPC's level - adjust the ranks to their proper place. I'm saying you shouldn't raise the skill with levels if you don't want it to raise.
I am not saying that you should assign extra skill points to NPC's, or that you should assign more skill ranks to the profession skill than the NPC's level allows.
Yes, you're saying that if the NPC's job indicates that he makes more money, he should have a higher Profession bonus (by having more skill ranks in Profession).
According to you, if a lawyer makes 40 gp a week (which would be reasonable, for a guy who works for the nobility, say)... then he needs to have a +70 Profession bonus. So he needs to be level 40. Or, rather, he can't make 40 gp a week, because... because everyone's income needs to be capped at levels a low-mid level character taking Profession ranks can reasonably achieve. Because otherwise, using the Profession skill for NPC income might not make sense. God forbid.According to you, everyone in a low-income trade has a low Profession skill. Which means a common laborer who's been working constructions for 20 years can't answer basic questions about working construction (DC 10, he has like a +1 bonus so that he doesn't make as much as a lawyer).
According to you, merchants can't make a profit, because how much money they make literally has no connection whatsoever to what they trade in or how good a deal they can get.
You are claiming that the weekly pay of every single person in the world playing a trade should be modelled on a scale that goes from 5 gp to 15 gp or so.[/i] Because the rules say so. And nothing is important as adhering to the rules, even if you're using them in ways they were never intended to be used.
(Oh, wait, I forget--you literally think the designers intended the Profession skill to limit how much money merchants could make.)
Step 1: Profession (Slacker): 4 ranks.
Per the PF SRD . . ."a Profession skill represents an aptitude in a vocation requiring a broader range of less specific knowledge."
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Make money!
This has the makings of some late-night get-rich-quick infomercial.