Cost of Bigger Greatswords

[Milo v3]

How much would a greatsword cost if it was huge or gargantuan in size?

[Flickerdart]

The same amount. Only armour of unusual size has different costs involved.

[andromax]

I don't believe that prices are printed for huge and gargantuan, but large costs double, so most would just keep doubling the price as you go.


At some point it would just be cheaper to add the sizing property (5,000gp), especially if it were made out of something expensive like adamantine.

[andromax]

The same amount. Only armour of unusual size has different costs involved.


This cost is the same for a Small or Medium version of the weapon. A Large version costs twice the listed price.

Check again bud

[Milo v3]

I don't believe that prices are printed for huge and gargantuan, but large costs double, so most would just keep doubling the price as you go.
Are you sure, small size doesn't halve the price.


At some point it would just be cheaper to add the sizing property (5,000gp), especially if it were made out of something expensive like adamantine.
I sadly lack MIC, so I'm not sure I'll be able to use that.

[Flickerdart]

Check again bud
Ah, hm. Missed that.

[andromax]

Are you sure, small size doesn't halve the price.


I sadly lack MIC, so I'm not sure I'll be able to use that.

It doesn't say that small size halves the price, so unfortunately, no :-/

[Milo v3]

It doesn't say that small size halves the price, so unfortunately, no :-/

I wasn't asking if small size halved it. I was saying that reducing the size didn't halve it, and wondering why increasing it doubles it.

[andromax]

I would guess that, the reason for the size increasing the price is due to increased work and materials. Decreasing size wouldn't necessarily decrease the amount of work, though, but it should decrease the materials one would think. I suppose they just figured it'd be easier to charge a flat rate than make you do a bunch of math.

[Sacrieur]

If you’re designing a weapon larger than the standard, its weight increases by 50% for each size category increase. Its cost increases at the same rate.

A greatsword costs 50 gp. A large greatsword, according to these rules, would cost 75 gp. A huge greatsword would cost 112.5 gp, and finally, a gargantuan greatsword would cost a measily 168.75 gp.

But if we're playing by the other rules with the large greatsword having a pricetag of 100 gp, then it would cost 150 gp for a huge and 225 gp for a gargantuan.

[Milo v3]

A greatsword costs 50 gp. A large greatsword, according to these rules, would cost 75 gp. A huge greatsword would cost 112.5 gp, and finally, a gargantuan greatsword would cost a measily 168.75 gp.

Except 3.5e rules says a large weapon costs double that of its medium version.

[Sacrieur]

Except 3.5e rules says a large weapon costs double that of its medium version.

Well, it is in direct contradiction then, because the example used in the book doesn't double the price, it uses the aforementioned rule.

I guess it's up for the DM to decide (I think it makes more sense to use the A&E rule, but meh).

[Milo v3]

Well, it is in direct contradiction then, because the example used in the book doesn't double the price, it uses the aforementioned rule.

I guess it's up for the DM to decide (I think it makes more sense to use the A&E rule, but meh).

A&E is from 3.0e, 3.5e overrides it.

[Carth]

For what it's worth, because there's no rule on huge weapons, it'd be entirely reasonable to say they cost 8x the price of large ones, given that by volume they use 8x the material.

[Curmudgeon]

The house rule I use is to adapt the Armor for Unusual Creatures factors (Player's Handbook, page 123) to also apply to weapons outside their specified (Small-Large) range.

[Kelb_Panthera]

A&E is from 3.0e, 3.5e overrides it.

That's correct. But the 3.5 update never made a rule concerning weapons of greater than large size so using the +50% rule from A&EG for huge, gargantuan, and colossal weapons is still RAW.

[Baroncognito]

It doesn't say that small size halves the price, so unfortunately, no :-/

Yeah. That's kind of silly in certain ways. 20 pounds of adamantine used to make a small suit of Chainmail costs 10,000 gp. 25 pounds of adamantine used to make a medium Chain Shirt costs 5,000 gp.

[Curmudgeon]

That's correct. But the 3.5 update never made a rule concerning weapons of greater than large size so using the +50% rule from A&EG for huge, gargantuan, and colossal weapons is still RAW.
That might be true, except one major difference is that 3.5 removed weapon size entirely from the game. 3.0 weapon sizes have nothing to do with character size; a dagger is normally always a Tiny weapon, a light mace always a Small weapon, a heavy mace always a Medium weapon, and a greatsword always a Large weapon (see the 3.0 Player's Handbook Equipment chapter. Arms and Equipment Guide added complexity to this by introducing "unusually sized weapons", and the rule you're referring to is part of that. While the terminology looks similar to that used in 3.5 D&D, those sizes mean something much different than you think. A Huge 3.0 greatsword is a weapon +1 size larger than normal, instead of the +2 sizes larger you would expect from 3.5 rules. A Huge 3.0 dagger is a weapon +4 sizes larger than normal, again compared to the +2 sizes larger than normal for 3.5 rules.

3.0 weapon size changes require you to apply them to 3.0 weapon sizes. D&D 3.5 "weapon size" doesn't really exist; instead, that's a shorthand for "weapon appropriate to a creature of that size".

So no, it's not RAW any more, because it's a rule which applies to a part of 3.0 D&D that doesn't have any correspondence in 3.5 D&D. It's similar to something which changes how Ambidexterity (a 3.0-only feat) works; it can't be part of the 3.5 rules.

[Morph Bark]

The bigger question is... how much would a sword half a mile long cost?

[Kelb_Panthera]

That might be true, except one major difference is that 3.5 removed weapon size entirely from the game. 3.0 weapon sizes have nothing to do with character size; a dagger is normally always a Tiny weapon, a light mace always a Small weapon, a heavy mace always a Medium weapon, and a greatsword always a Large weapon (see the 3.0 Player's Handbook Equipment chapter. Arms and Equipment Guide added complexity to this by introducing "unusually sized weapons", and the rule you're referring to is part of that. While the terminology looks similar to that used in 3.5 D&D, those sizes mean something much different than you think. A Huge 3.0 greatsword is a weapon +1 size larger than normal, instead of the +2 sizes larger you would expect from 3.5 rules. A Huge 3.0 dagger is a weapon +4 sizes larger than normal, again compared to the +2 sizes larger than normal for 3.5 rules.

3.0 weapon size changes require you to apply them to 3.0 weapon sizes. D&D 3.5 "weapon size" doesn't really exist; instead, that's a shorthand for "weapon appropriate to a creature of that size".

So no, it's not RAW any more, because it's a rule which applies to a part of 3.0 D&D that doesn't have any correspondence in 3.5 D&D. It's similar to something which changes how Ambidexterity (a 3.0-only feat) works; it can't be part of the 3.5 rules.

I don't see how the changes in exactly how the labels apply matters to the fact that its a rule for making a longsword that's an appropriate size for a larger creature. In 3.0 a medium longsword was a longsword that was medium and appropriately sized to a medium creature. In 3.5 it's the exact same thing.

In 3.0 making that longsword as a large weapon would increase its size by one category, make it appropriately sized to a creature one size larger and increase the cost by 50%. In 3.5 increasing its size does the exact same thing except that it costs double instead.

How a weapons size relates to its intended wielder's size changed but the size-categories themselves haven't.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't see how the changes in exactly how the labels apply matters to the fact that its a rule for making a longsword that's an appropriate size for a larger creature.
But that's exactly what you couldn't do in 3.0 D&D. Any 3.0 creature of Gargantuan or Colossal size can use any D&D weapon because there is no concept of "appropriate size" in those rules. There's only "too big to use".