No Baby... I Gotta Say It

[geezerdm]

I think there would be a difference between how much money could go toward preening if you're talking Medici-like Italian city state, or Louis the XIV "sun king" or if you're talking about a 5th century warlord trying to hold his land on te wild borders of the German barbarians, or the English king during the war of the roses trying to keep costs as low as possible at the Harlech outpost in wales.

Well, when things go to hell, they go to hell, but I think we have to keep our eye on the goal, here.

Draining the PC's of every thin copper, possible.

[Ragnorakk]

The only problem I have with the blacksmith charging more for steady service to a lord is that it assumes a high demand market.
Depending on the level of sophistication of the D&D culture you're playing in, often (say, Dark Ages) the only smiths around were in the service of lord-types. Particularly when it came to weapon & armor smithing.

[geezerdm]

The only problem I have with the blacksmith charging more for steady service to a lord is that it assumes a high demand market.
Depending on the level of sophistication of the D&D culture you're playing in, often (say, Dark Ages) the only smiths around were in the service of lord-types. Particularly when it came to weapon & armor smithing.

How many adventurers are in your world?

Really, while I generally agree with everything I've written in this thread, in part, I'm playing devils advocate. I see GG's design choices denigrated on the net, often. Without going overboard and saying he was perfect, I do think he was a kick-ass designer and agree with James Maliszewski's observation that "D&D is Always Right." (And I hope I got that quote right.)

[Matthew]

I'd have to see a lot more and a detailed breakdown to be convinced. Not that it's a big deal or anything I'm concerned with, though I'll now end up looking into it for myself.

I would expect a blacksmith to charge more, when on a Lord's staff. It's a different situation, with different demands and when rich people hire Private specialists, they pay for it.

Lord A: "My Blacksmith costs 260 pieces of Gold a month!"
Lord B, with Smug Satisfaction: "Mine costs 300!"

Well, detailed analyses are easy to find, here are some useful threads:

True Armour Costs
Why Bother with Copper?
[AD&D] Campaign Economics

[geezerdm]

The only problem I have with the blacksmith charging more for steady service to a lord is that it assumes a high demand market.
Depending on the level of sophistication of the D&D culture you're playing in, often (say, Dark Ages) the only smiths around were in the service of lord-types. Particularly when it came to weapon & armor smithing.

How many adventurers are in your world?

Really, while I generally agree with everything I've written in this thread, in part, I'm playing devils advocate. I see GG's design choices denigrated on the net, often and without going overboard and saying he was perfect, I do think he was a kick-ass designer and agree with James Maliszewski's observation that "D&D is Always Right." (And I hope I got that quote right.)

I'd better mention that I'm not accusing anyone here of unfairly maligning GG or anyone else. Hence, Devil's Advocate, as opposed to something more... hardline.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

Draining the PC's of every thin copper, possible.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I agree with Matthew that the numbers don't make sense as the base for a realistic economy. But, I don't think the AD&D book prices for hirelings or armor are necessarily reflective of what a hereditary king might be paying. An NPC like that probably has 1) contracts and agreements set up for bulk purchases; and 2) subjects who work for him out of a sense of loyalty or just inertia and therefore might not charge as much as the book rates. I think the rules in the book are for what happens when the PCs (usurpers, conquerors, frontiersmen) attract hirelings or buy goods. In the case of the PCs, I can see having to pay more for a full-time armorer because your kingdom is likely in a borderland regions surrounded by dangerous monsters and you have only recently risen to power and have yet to prove your worth as a ruler.

[geezerdm]

Draining the PC's of every thin copper, possible.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I agree with Matthew that the numbers don't make sense as the base for a realistic economy. But, I don't think the AD&D book prices for hirelings or armor are necessarily reflective of what a hereditary king might be paying. An NPC like that probably has 1) contracts and agreements set up for bulk purchases; and 2) subjects who work for him out of a sense of loyalty or just inertia and therefore might not charge as much as the book rates. I think the rules in the book are for what happens when the PCs (usurpers, conquerors, frontiersmen) attract hirelings or buy goods. In the case of the PCs, I can see having to pay more for a full-time armorer because your kingdom is likely in a borderland regions surrounded by dangerous monsters and you have only recently risen to power and have yet to prove your worth as a ruler.

Great points!

[Matthew]

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I agree with Matthew that the numbers don't make sense as the base for a realistic economy. But, I don't think the AD&D book prices for hirelings or armor are necessarily reflective of what a hereditary king might be paying. An NPC like that probably has 1) contracts and agreements set up for bulk purchases; and 2) subjects who work for him out of a sense of loyalty or just inertia and therefore might not charge as much as the book rates. I think the rules in the book are for what happens when the PCs (usurpers, conquerors, frontiersmen) attract hirelings or buy goods. In the case of the PCs, I can see having to pay more for a full-time armorer because your kingdom is likely in a borderland regions surrounded by dangerous monsters and you have only recently risen to power and have yet to prove your worth as a ruler.

That would make sense if the mark-up was similar for related armour types, but as things stand in the DMG the cost of production varies for no obvious reason. For instance:

Scale Armour: 30 Days [4.5 + 100 GP]
Mail Armour: 45 Days [7.5 + 150 GP]
Banded Armour: 30 Days [9 + 100 GP]
Splinted Armour: 20 Days [8 + 66.67 GP]
Plated Mail Armour: 90 Days [40 + 300 GP]

So, because of the way the system is set up, armour classes 6 and 5 cost more than double to produce than their purchase price in the PHB, whilst two of armour classes 4 and 3 cost less than their purchase price in the PHB. We could argue that it is more difficult to produce mail or scale armour, but the prices in the PHB are not related to difficulty, rather they are simply ten times the cost of the materials.

There is no underlying logical reason for this, but it is certainly possible to come up with explanations with enough effort.

[geezerdm]

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I agree with Matthew that the numbers don't make sense as the base for a realistic economy. But, I don't think the AD&D book prices for hirelings or armor are necessarily reflective of what a hereditary king might be paying. An NPC like that probably has 1) contracts and agreements set up for bulk purchases; and 2) subjects who work for him out of a sense of loyalty or just inertia and therefore might not charge as much as the book rates. I think the rules in the book are for what happens when the PCs (usurpers, conquerors, frontiersmen) attract hirelings or buy goods. In the case of the PCs, I can see having to pay more for a full-time armorer because your kingdom is likely in a borderland regions surrounded by dangerous monsters and you have only recently risen to power and have yet to prove your worth as a ruler.

That would make sense if the mark-up was similar for related armour types, but as things stand in the DMG the cost of production varies for no obvious reason. For instance:

Scale Armour: 30 Days [4.5 + 100 GP]
Mail Armour: 45 Days [7.5 + 150 GP]
Banded Armour: 30 Days [9 + 100 GP]
Splinted Armour: 20 Days [8 + 66.67 GP]
Plated Mail Armour: 90 Days [40 + 300 GP]

So, because of the way the system is set up, armour classes 6 and 5 cost more than double to produce than their purchase price in the PHB, whilst two of armour classes 4 and 3 cost less than their purchase price in the PHB. We could argue that it is more difficult to produce mail or scale armour, but the prices in the PHB are not related to difficulty, rather they are simply ten times the cost of the materials.

There is no underlying logical reason for this, but it is certainly possible to come up with explanations with enough effort.

I think there's a lot of factors involved. Do PH blacksmiths work for themselves, or is a Lord paying for all of that time? For that matter, are PH armor 2nd hand repair jobs? PC's are always trying to scrounge enemy armor for resale, after all.

My main point has been that the monthly costs for a PC retaining a Smith, wouldn't necessarily correlate well with PH pricing. Various factors might apply.

And the system given may very well have been, in Gary's estimation, the most gameable approach to those variables.

[Matthew]

I think there's a lot of factors involved. Do PH blacksmiths work for themselves, or is a Lord paying for all of that time? For that matter, are PH armor 2nd hand repair jobs? PC's are always trying to scrounge enemy armor for resale, after all.

My main point has been that the monthly costs for a PC retaining a Smith, wouldn't necessarily correlate well with PH pricing. Various factors might apply. The system given, may very well have been, in Gary's estimation, the most gameable approach to those economic questions.

What I am saying is that there are no underlying factors, no hidden internal logic or considerations of medieval and ancient society, behind the way the system is set up that once revealed has it all make sense. Rather, the costs were set up without worrying about correlating factors. As I say, we can make up any old nonsense to explain it, but as it stands it is not actually playable, in fact the game master is required to come up with explanations for why it is uneconomical for player character lords to produce mail armour, but economical to produce plated mail armour.

[Philotomy Jurament]

What I am saying is that there are no underlying factors, no hidden internal logic or considerations of medieval and ancient society, behind the way the system is set up that once revealed has it all make sense. Rather, the costs were set up without worrying about correlating factors. As I say, we can make up any old nonsense to explain it, but as it stands it is not actually playable, in fact the game master is required to come up with explanations for why it is uneconomical for player character lords to produce mail armour, but economical to produce plated mail armour.

Yeah, that's how I see it, too.

FWIW, I think EGG's approach in to economic stuff in Lejendary Adventure is more consistent.

[geezerdm]

I think there's a lot of factors involved. Do PH blacksmiths work for themselves, or is a Lord paying for all of that time? For that matter, are PH armor 2nd hand repair jobs? PC's are always trying to scrounge enemy armor for resale, after all.

My main point has been that the monthly costs for a PC retaining a Smith, wouldn't necessarily correlate well with PH pricing. Various factors might apply. The system given, may very well have been, in Gary's estimation, the most gameable approach to those economic questions.

What I am saying is that there are no underlying factors, no hidden internal logic or considerations of medieval and ancient society, behind the way the system is set up that once revealed has it all make sense. Rather, the costs were set up without worrying about correlating factors. As I say, we can make up any old nonsense to explain it, but as it stands it is not actually playable, in fact the game master is required to come up with explanations for why it is uneconomical for player character lords to produce mail armour, but economical to produce plated mail armour.

I agree that the whole inflated economy thing is more than a little screwy in this instance, but I wouldn't call producing chain less economical then producing plate. The lord isn't trying to sell anything and he's paying for availability, dragging the armorer off and setting him up, paying his upkeep and, most importantly, increased production of specific items.

In town, the guy might only work on new armor off and on, as he has time, with his bread and butter going to repairs and small jobs. He would then sell the armor, which may have taken several months to finish, for whatever the local economy would dictate.

The sale price wouldn't be tied to what his earnings would be if he was on retainer. Also, there's only a 10% chance the guy can even make plate, which also takes twice as long to make as chain.

[Matthew]

[
I agree that the whole inflated economy thing is more than a little screwy in this instance, but I wouldn't call producing chain less economical then producing plate. The lord isn't trying to sell anything and he's paying for availability, dragging the armorer off and setting him up, paying his upkeep and, most importantly, increased production of specific items.

In town, the guy might only work on new armor off and on, as he has time, with his bread and butter going to repairs and small jobs. He would then sell the armor, which may have taken several months to finish, for whatever the local economy would dictate.

The sale price wouldn't be tied to what his earnings would be if he was on retainer. Also, there's only a 10% chance the guy can even make plate, which also takes twice as long to make as chain.

The inflated economy aspect is incidental to this issue, which is that the player can buy mail armour off the rack for less than half the cost of maintaining an armourer to do it for him. Reasoning out why that is the case is possible, but clearly convoluted explanations were not intended by the designer, since there is not even a recognition that there is a disparity in the book. If you look at the armourer entry in the DMG you can see that time spent doing other work is factored in, his pay is based on a full working schedule. Regardless of whether the armourer in town works on mail "off and on" the cost of that time does not change, which is to say he is taking losses in one area (mail production) by underwriting it with another (say, splint production). The sale prices are not linked to man hours taken. As for skill level, you will note that splint and mail have the same skill level to produce, but either way we are required to ignore the fact that all armourers are paid the same even though only 10% have the skills to make plate. This is not something that needs rationalising out, the process just was not paid enough attention that all the consequences were sounded out. To be blunt, there are no economic considerations in play differentiating the armourer employed as a hireling and the armourer selling outside of that paradigm (whatever his condition), we can make them up, but they are a product only of our own imaginations and necessary only because the system is inconsistent in the first place.

We cannot recognise a problem, solve the problem, and then claim because we have solved it there was no problem in the first place.

[geezerdm]

I think the main place we disagree is your statement here:

"The sale prices are not linked to man hours taken. "

There are several areas of work, even today, where this is the case when people are working for themselves. The type of mail a proprietor might make, would be influenced by his knowledge, materials on hand, possibly what he enjoyed working with and mainly by demand.

The man-hours don't matter, if his customers are demanding certain things and that's what he can sell. If people don't like the slow movement rate and bulkiness of splint, they might prefer chain. And that's what the armorer would make. And however many hours he put into it, the local market would set the price. How many townsfolk can afford armor, anyway?

If the armorer had his druthers, he's make what was easiest, quickest and cheapest, all day long and sell it for as much as possible.

It's not that I think the system is perfect, or couldn't stand some tweaking. I just don't agree that it's "unplayable."

[Matthew]

I think the main place we disagree is your statement here:

"The sale prices are not linked to man hours taken. "

There are several areas of work, even today, where this is the case when people are working for themselves. The type of mail a proprietor might make, would be influenced by his knowledge, materials on hand, possibly what he enjoyed working with and mainly by demand.

The man-hours don't matter, if his customers are demanding certain things and that's what he can sell. If people don't like the slow movement rate and bulkiness of splint, they might prefer chain. And that's what the armorer would make.

If the armorer had his druthers, he's make what was easiest, quickest and cheapest, all day long and sell it for as much as possible.

It's not that I think the system is perfect, or couldn't stand some tweaking. I just don't agree that it's "unplayable."

Here are the issues in a nutshell:

1) All Items are sold in the PHB for ten times the cost of the materials
2) Time taken to produce armour in the hireling rules is unrelated to this cost

We can wriggle around and make up excuses all we like, but the bottom line is when these rules were designed this relationship was basically ignored. No other factors are considered in the rules, so we are making them up ourselves to fill in the blanks. It is not only "not perfect" it is simply "bad", and whilst anything can be playable with enough effort, as written the sale cost and time taken to produce does not match up, and it is "unplayable" in the sense that it makes no sense in and of itself. If I want to run players through domain building they are going to turn around to me and ask about this issue. Either I answer with a reason I have made up to patch the problem, or I adjust the rules to agree with one another, depending on what I want. Whatever I do, I have to take action because the rules do not do the labour for me in this case.