Weapon size increase to cost increase

[Yogibear41]

According to the playershandbook small and medium sized weapons have the same cost, when you increase a weapon from medium to large its price doubles.

My question is if you continue to increase the size of the weapon does its cost continue to double? so x4 for huge x8 for gargantuan x16 for colossal?

[INoKnowNames]

According to the playershandbook small and medium sized weapons have the same cost, when you increase a weapon from medium to large its price doubles.

My question is if you continue to increase the size of the weapon does its cost continue to double? so x4 for huge x8 for gargantuan x16 for colossal?

I'm not sure how one would -use- a weapon that much bigger than themselves, but it seems like that would be a logical guess as to how the pricing continues.

[Curmudgeon]

You'll have to ask your DM, because that's not specified in the rules. My personal house rule is to extend the armor cost multipliers (see here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#armorForUnusualCreatures)) to also apply to weapons.

[shaikujin]

The AE&G has rules on the costs of changing weapon sizes.

It's +50% for each increase.

Increasing from med to large was updated by the SRD to 2x, but you can use the 50% rule for further size increases.

[Curmudgeon]

The AE&G has rules on the costs of changing weapon sizes.
If you're playing in a 3.0 game that's useful information. However, the change from 3.0 to 3.5 rules completely scrapped the 3.0 weapon sizes. In D&D 3.0 all weapons start out at the same size independent of the user's size, meaning a longsword is always a two-handed weapon if your character is Small size, and a longsword is always a light weapon if you're Large size. Then Arms and Equipment Guide adds unusual size weapons, with the cost rules you indicated, on top of those.

Because D&D 3.5 doesn't have those 3.0 weapon sizes at all, rules for adjusting them (and the costs of doing so) simply can't apply in a 3.5 game.