Weapon Pricing

[Almos]

Greetings!

I'd like some help figuring this out, because I'm thoroughly confused by the pricing for weapons. I can't for the life of me figure out the thought process behind it. Why does a particular weapon cost what it does? How much is a certain weapon property worth? If I compare the Morningstar to the War Pick, for instance, I just can't see what the designers were thinking.


Morningstar, 1d8 piercing damage, 4 lb., no properties, 15gp
War Pick, 1d8 piercing damage, 2 lb., no properties, 5gp

Neither of these weapons has any properties, but the War Pick weighs less, is a useful tool besides being a weapon, has the same damage as a Morningstar, AND costs 1/3 as much money? WHY?!


Scimitar, 1d6 slashing damage, 3 lb., finesse, light, 25 gp
Shortsword, 1d6 piercing damage, 2 lb., finesse, light, 10 gp

Same thing here, these two weapons have the same properties and do the same damage, but the Scimitar weighs more than a Shortsword (by just a smidgen) AND costs 2,5 times as much. WHY?! There are no Katanas since they can easily be represented by the Longsword, just as there is no Kama since that's basically a Sickle by another name, so why in the world is there a Scimitar at all if it just has the same stats as a Shortsword? Is the slashing damage really that much more valuable?


Longsword, 1d8 slashing damage, 3 lb., versatile (1d10), 15 gp
Warhammer, 1d8 bludgeoning damage, 2 lb., versatile (1d10), 15 gp

These two are identical except for the damage type and the very slight difference in weight. So, damage type and weight have no impact on cost? *shrug* One lb. more or less is no big deal I guess, but why do these two have the same cost while my other examples are so different?


Mace, 1d6 bludgeoning damage, 4 lb., no properties, 5 gp
Spear, 1d6 piercing damage, thrown (range 20/60), versatile (1d8), 3 lb., 1 gp

Assuming that damage type and weight have negligible effect on cost (as per the Longsword/Warhammer comparison), the difference between these two is that the Spear can be thrown AND wielded two-handed for more damage. So, why, oh why, does the Mace cost FIVE times as as much?! In certain situations, Bludgeoning actually is more valuable, against Skeletons for instance, but that belies the Longsword/Warhammer comparison above.


Greatsword, 2d6 slashing damage, 6 lb., heavy, two-handed, 50 gp
Maul, 2d6 bludgeoning damage, heavy, two-handed, 10 lb., 10 gp

Another great example of the strangeness of weapon pricing. Is bludgeoning damage more valuable than other types, or less? At least in this example, the weapon with the lower weight has a higher cost, but the difference is FIVE times as high, for 4 lb. lower weight. I can't just get a grip on how this works!

I'd really like some assistance figuring this mess out. Thank you.

[Greylind]

Scimitar, 1d6 piercing damage, 3 lb., finesse, light, 25 gp
Shortsword, 1d6 piercing damage, 2 lb., finesse, light, 10 gp

Same thing here, these two weapons have the same properties and do the same damage, but the Scimitar weighs more than a Shortsword (by just a smidgen) AND costs 2,5 times as much. WHY?!

There are no Katanas since they can easily be represented by the Longsword, just as there is no Kama since that's basically a Sickle by another name, so why in the world is there a Scimitar at all if it just has the same stats as a Shortsword?


Scimitar does slashing damage, not piercing, but apart from that I have some of the same questions.

[Almos]

Scimitar does slashing damage, not piercing, but apart from that I have some of the same questions.

Thanks for that. I've edited my post to correct it.

[Daishain]

The pricing is intended to reflect difficulty in crafting the weapon in question, not its mechanical aspects. Which is how they actually would be priced in reality.

Notice that the cheapest item you mention, the spear, is basically just a metal pointy thing on a stick. An apprentice smith would take much more time just heating up the metal than actually forging the item, and could make hundreds of the things in short order.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have the greatsword. Between the extreme stresses it will face, the tight COG requirements, and the need to keep the overall weight low, those suckers take a great deal of skill and time to make. A shoddy job might shatter in the wielder's hands after the first few hits, and/or bring the strongest warriors attempting to wield it to the point of exhaustion in short order.

Granted, this method of pricing has its flaws as well, but no, the pricing of mundane items is not in general intended to be a direct reflection of the item's practical value.

[Almos]

The pricing is intended to reflect difficulty in crafting the weapon in question, not its mechanical aspects. Which is how they actually would be priced in reality.

Granted, this method of pricing has its flaws as well, but no, the pricing of mundane items is not in general intended to be a direct reflection of the item's practical value.

This makes perfect sense if you want to be realistic. I really wanted to create some way of customizing a weapons properties, so that you could have any weapon you wanted, with an easy way of figuring out the weapons cost. Realism is getting in my way. Buggerit!

For example, I would like to have a Longspear as opposed to the simple Spear. I want it to be a martial melee weapon with 1d8 piercing damage, weighing 5 lb., and with the heavy and versatile (1d10) properties. I'd also like both spears to have the finesse property.

Still, if its possible to break cheaper weapons, since they're made of more wood than metal for instance, then that would help me out. However, I haven't seen any rules about breaking weapons. The Fighter Battle Master doesn't have a Sunder maneuver. For the sake of simplicity I suppose this option has been removed. Perhaps I'm complicating things too much.

By the way, I just noticed that the Halberd and Glaive actually have the EXACT same stats. Damage, weight, properties, and price are all identical.

[BW022]

I'd like some help figuring this out, because I'm thoroughly confused by the pricing for weapons. I can't for the life of me figure out the thought process behind it.
...
I'd really like some assistance figuring this mess out. Thank you.

It is based on pseudo-historical costs of the weapons. How difficult it was to craft them, now much metal is in them, how intricate the weapons are, etc. People in the 14th century didn't walk into a weapon-smith and say "15gp for that? It only does a d6 damage!".

If what to price weapons purely by damage and abilities, it is easy enough to come up with your own pricing models. 5gp per average point of damage, and 50% per weapon trait.

However, I'm sorry but historically slings and quarterstaffs were virtually free; spears don't require much smithing; and shortbows often took months to make. Yet, quarterstaffs, spears, and shortbows all do a d6 damage.

[infinitetech]

they have always been based on psudo history, if you want i can make a meta based list for you, but think about it, if things were based on effectiveness irl there are a ton of things that would be WAY different wouldnt there??

[T.G. Oskar]

I'd like to point out there is discrepancies between a Longsword and a Battleaxe, in that they're functionally identical but the Battleaxe has a slight edge in the end:

Longsword, 1d8 slashing damage, 3 lb., versatile (1d10), 15 gp
Battleaxe, 1d8 slashing damage, 4 lb., versatile (1d10), 10 gp

The only reason you might get a longsword is because it's the more popular weapon, hence it might get more magical versions of it than battleaxes (case in point: the Holy Avenger). However, if going strictly with mundane, the Battleaxe is only 1 lb. heavier, and yet it's 5 gp cheaper, so if you need a secondary weapon, the Battleaxe is a better choice.

As for the Morningstar/War Pick...it's good that the pick (which is functionally a hammer; most warhammers had a piercing head which was used to punch through plate) got some respect, but not at the expense of the Morningstar. The Morningstar's shining trait was that it could deal both bludgeoning and piercing damage in 3e (specifically 3.5), so it was a very useful weapon. Had it remained the same, you could have seen a difference between the Flail, the Morningstar and the War Pick that would have made more sense. However, since apparently simplifying things requires eliminating that possibility, they went for removing the bludgeoning damage from the flail. Otherwise (i.e. having the Morningstar deal bludgeoning damage rather than piercing damage, as befitting a weapon functionally similar to a mace except with protruding spikes), the Flail would have effectively eclipsed the Morningstar in functionality.

Weapon tables (and also armor tables) are probably the strangest changes in the system, since they didn't really explain the reasoning behind the prices. Some weapons (the Mace, the Flail, the Morningstar and the War Pick) have no properties, but nothing to compensate for, making them pointless when there's better choices. The Quarterstaff is far, far better than the Mace (same damage, has Versatile property), the Warhammer is better than the flail (same as with Quarterstaff/Mace), and the Morningstar is eclipsed both by the War Pick and the Rapier (the latter having the Finesse property, despite being more expensive). Of the four, the War Pick is slightly better, but it could have been better (say, having the Versatile property to make it the choice alongside the Battleaxe, the Longsword and the Warhammer for Sword & Boarders who want to deal more damage by dropping their shield).


they have always been based on psudo history, if you want i can make a meta based list for you, but think about it, if things were based on effectiveness irl there are a ton of things that would be WAY different wouldnt there??

Short version: there's a trope for that (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/BoringButPractical/RealLife).
Sarcasm alert? Why are you sounding?
Longer version: There's a reason why we don't use plate armor anymore, or why there's so little spears and polearms from early ages compared to latter ones, or why the pike was one of the last melee weapons still widely used and trained for in all armies (and why it still exists to an extent). They're very, very, VERY efficient.
Whaddya mean this sounds like sarcasm? It could be true...
The link explains it better, but many things we take for granted exist because of their sheer effectiveness. We still use simple machines for just about every work, for example. Very few things have changed so greatly that they defied the paradigm of the age and forced a massive change; the shift from plate armor to lighter armor to combat vests was done because of a focus for effectiveness. Crossbows and guns didn't displace the longbow because they were more powerful, but because they could deal the same amount of damage (speaking in qualitative terms) than a longbow with less training, thus allowing more soldiers to be trained for the same amount of effectiveness. Most of the weapons built had more common uses: the flail, for example, was a farm tool (just as the scythe), but people found good use for them in battle. Eventually, the flail designed for war was altered to be made more efficient, but as long as you could strike the balance between ease of construction, ease of use and the ability to approach or exceed effectiveness, you wouldn't replace the original. And, it still wasn't as effective as the mace, which was easier to use, was constructed earlier, and had evolved better.
You tend to work wrong every now and then, so why should I trust you, sarcasm alert?
So yeah: if we didn't based on effectiveness but instead on aesthetic, things would be way different, and we'd be far behind in technology by decades. Note that I equate efficiency with "functionality, cheap cost and ease of production", which might not be the same kind of efficiency you speak.

[infinitetech]

i meant that if things that actually serve a goal and/or work well were valued more then most positions in buisness, most items we buy, most things we do would all be thrown catterwompus, i mean seriously, sports wouldnt exist, neither would most other tv stuff, goverments, ceos, and lots more would be gone, food would be like gold, gold wouldnt be much, a knife would be on par with a modern phone... shall i keep going?

[Almos]

We're getting a bit off topic here. I suppose I'll have to improvise a bit and use my best judgment if I want to create new weapons. Anyone have any thoughts on my new spears?

[infinitetech]

those spears would be about 10 gp, 15gp with leather strips or bracer chain, 20GP for both, 25 gp for a metal handled version, 30gp for metal handle with leather grips or bracer chain, or 35 for metal with both, (based roughly on the scaled price from their system using a cavalry spear as the base point(from history), grips allow for better handling/shock absorb so with grip = finesse, bracer chain was used to attach to the lower arm of the user (if disarmed it is a free action to get it back in the hand, cant throw it but can use it for a lunge at a +5 reach compared to normal) metal vs wood = (M) -1 to hit +2 dam, (W) +1 to hit, also (with spear or halberd feat) on a miss roll again, on a crit range do 1d2 dam [W] or 1d4 dam [M] bludgeoning (you hit them with the main shaft of the heavy spear)

[VeliciaL]

If you wanna keep it simple and in line with the rest of the weapon list, I'd just base it off the longsword, and have it do piercing damage. Flavor it as a heavier, military spear, as opposed to the lighter one in the simple weapons list. If you want to give it something to differentiate it from the longsword, let it count for the Polearm Master feat.

Military Spear - 10 gp* - 1d8 piercing - 3 lb - Versatile (1d10)

*Less than a Longsword, but more than a simple spear.

[Almos]

Thank you for the excellent answers and suggestions!

[infinitetech]

no prob, i make custom weapons for players all the time