3.5E Costs for building a home or business?

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 26 May 2005 04:29:47 -0700, lewis@lwb.org carved upon a tablet of
ether:

> All,
>
> Which 3.5E Supplement (or 3.0 would be fine) lists the costs for
> building structures that can serve homes or businesses? Do any of the
> published D&D settings list costs of living and what a commoner expects
> to pay for a house? I have always been curious about what the costs are
> associated with mundane structures. Let me know what book it is in, if
> the information is out there.

Stronghold Builder's Guide, for 3.0, lists some components that can be
used for normal housing. IIRC a cottage comes to about 500-1000gp if
it's just a basic multi-purpose livng area with wooden walls. A
commoner's normal income is supposed to be about 1sp per day, and you
can assume their outgoings equal that.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:27:08 -0500, freakybaby
<Here-I-Am@No-Where.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> lewis@lwb.org wrote in news:1117106987.439315.204880
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Which 3.5E Supplement (or 3.0 would be fine) lists the costs for
> > building structures that can serve homes or businesses? Do any of the
> > published D&D settings list costs of living and what a commoner expects
> > to pay for a house? I have always been curious about what the costs are
> > associated with mundane structures. Let me know what book it is in, if
> > the information is out there.
>
>
> For the house side of the things it could be as cheap as free if a commoner
> builds something like a soddie.

That still costs in the form of the time the builder has lost from
other endeavours.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 27 May 2005 11:09:44 -0500, freakybaby
<Here-I-Am@No-Where.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
> news:f82e91lbd3ki383s830j61nlei3aeeq02k@4ax.com:
>
>
> >>
> >> For the house side of the things it could be as cheap as free if a
> >> commoner builds something like a soddie.
> >
> > That still costs in the form of the time the builder has lost from
> > other endeavours.
>
> Not really, as most who build soddies are settlers and require the temp
> structure to live in, while at the same time they also need to get a field
> ploughed to sow crops. Usually the men plough the field and break the sod,
> the women and children prepard the sod and started laying it down to build
> a soddie. In most cases two birds have been killed with one stone.

The women's and children's labour could still have been used on
something else, so it's still a cost. Also, not ploughing the sod back
under costs in nutrients, so there's a cost there, as well.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:09:41 -0500, freakybaby
<Here-I-Am@No-Where.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> An death from exposure is not a greater cost? Virgin soil tends to be
> so rich that not ploughing the sod back under is not a big deal. The
> plain fact is labour is not a real cost, unless it is hired labour.

Oh, come off it. If you die from exposure without the house, you biuld
the house. That doesn't mean you didn't have to pay for it, one way or
the other. Sure you don't have to plough the sod back in, but it still
costs some nutrients. Sure, you didn't have to actually pay your wife
and kids for their labour, but they still weren't doing other things
they could've been doing, so there's still a cost.

If I'm some kind of consultant and can earn $200 an hour working on
jobs for someone else, if I do my own thing all day every Monday I
have effectively paid $200 an hour for my labour at those things, and
reduced my weekly income by 20%. Opportunity costs still put you out
of pocket.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:06:03 -0500, freakybaby
<Here-I-Am@No-Where.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> That is the way you see it. I see a bit differently. What other things
> should they be doing and what are the costs of those tasks? Give us some
> numbers to bite into.

They could be helping fell timber to clear land. They could be helping
remove rocks, etc., from the fields, or they could be putting in
vegetable gardens. They could also be making cloth. If it's an autumn
crop you're putting in they could be gathering wild berries and other
food. There are any number of productive things they could be doing
that have to wait because they're building the house. You're making
the mistake of assuming that because putting in the house is the most
important thing for them to do that it becomes free. Either that, or
you're assuming that the labour of women and children is of little top
no value normally, so when they do something worhtwhile (like build
the house) it's all 'profit'.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."