Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Griffon23 Sep 07, 2014 0:10:43	So I love 5E. LOVE! However, there is one stirge in the ointment that from a game design standpoint makes absolutely no sense to me: bizarre weapon costs for relatively the same effects.   For example, why is a Scimitar 25 GP when it does the same damage, has the same traits, and is only 1 pound heavier than a Shortsword that costs 10 GP?   A Greatsword costs 50 GP, but a Maul, that does EXACTLY the same amount of damage and has the same traits is only 10 GP.  Since there isn't a real difference between Slashing and Bludgeoning damage for most purposes, this seems like a ridiculous over pricing for a weapon that weighs 4 pounds less and does the same thing as its 10 GP cousin......   The Longsword costs 5 GP more than a Battleaxe with the same profile except for a 1 pound weight difference.   And lastly the Spear and Trident. 4 GP difference for essentially the same weapon.   These pell mell disparities reflect absolutely no playable difference but cost significantly different amounts just for what is really just a special effect of the underlying weapon profile.   I'd love to hear a rationale for this that makes any kind of sense.
#2 Undrhil Sep 07, 2014 2:19:06	Griffon23 wrote:
#3 Captain_Kobold Sep 07, 2014 2:21:48	The gp costs aren't based on balance, but the actual likely costs of such an item. Scimitars are longer, generally require more work and skill to make than the relatively simple shortsword. Likewise greatswords require careful forging and tempering to produce a balanced, springy, sharp long blade, whereas a maul is just a lump of something solid on a stick. Axeblades can be cast, and do not require the beating out and more skilled and complex process of a sword.   Spears are really simple weapons. Tridents are a bit more complex, needing more metal and work.   The rationale is that they made it a reflection of what a character would likely pay for the weapons in a D&D world. They didn't regard a few GP as a significant balance issue.
#4 Griffon23 Sep 07, 2014 10:17:20	Yeah well, I must be too entrenched in wargame design because those reasons would never fly in a wargame where fluff doesn't cost you over effect.
#5 NullOperative Sep 07, 2014 11:51:01	Griffon23 wrote:
#6 Moirdryd2 Sep 07, 2014 11:59:29	Aye it's an RPG not a Wargame. The prices have always reflected the costs of forging said weapons regardless of game stats, although there are benefits, for example it's a lot harder to break a properly crafted sword blade than the haft of the average militia-peasant soldier spear etc. Typically basic weapon costs are soon not a factor for adventurers who are often very wealthy compared to Joe farmer. Then there are things like enchantments to consider, depending on how it all ultimately works in this edition differant enchantments can only be cast upon items of certain types. Older and other rulesets have had it being material based as well etc.
#7 Kalani Sep 07, 2014 12:58:42	NullOperative wrote:
#8 SpedGuy Sep 07, 2014 14:10:07	Well in the scimitar's case, it is because of class restrictions on weapon use (IE: Druid); BUT on other cases... show of wealth?  I use a Greatsword instead of a Maul because of conspicious-consumption: skilled warriors all use Greatswords because it shows they are good enough at what they do to be able to afford such equipment, unlike peasant-McGee overthere with his big mallet?
#9 Whir Sep 07, 2014 16:43:00	Griffon23 wrote:
#10 Griffon23 Sep 07, 2014 20:49:29	Scimitars IRL are not light weapons. They are heavy cutting implements. Sabres on the other hand would qualify as light. I think Drizzt Do'Urden had more to do with the current 'scimitar' than anything else.
#11 Sherman Sep 07, 2014 23:42:12	Scimitars have a long history and come in a variety of forms. Choosing one design that is lightweight is totally acceptable to my mind. On average they are a lighter blade.   As an RPG, differences in weapons can be made important depending on the DM. Hafted weapons might break easier than full steel ones for instance. D&D used to have soft boots vs. hard boots. It's a similar theory I think. Peopl in hard boots might not have ochre jelly chew through them as quickly, but maybe the DM would say they make more noise than soft. Really it depends on how into realism and screwing with the PCs the DM is.
#12 Captain_Kobold Sep 08, 2014 0:31:43	Griffon23 wrote:
#13 Oraibi Sep 08, 2014 0:36:57	Captain_Kobold wrote:
#14 Greenstone.Walker Jan 07, 2015 3:04:29	Captain_Kobold wrote:
#15 cowleymen Jan 06, 2015 23:44:00	I have a minor problem similar to this, swords can easily deal piercing or slashing damage, even a shortsword. Even a dagger. Does this bug any one else? I was never a big fan of damage type for melee weapons as a whole, though I under stand why a mace works better then a sword, even one swung to hit with the flat of a blade, when hitting a skeleton. Other the that.....I really dont see a big difference. is this also legacy from earlier editions? I have lightly read the 2e books, but never really played them. Eve had trouble understanding some of the rules.
(Reply to #13) Sorxores	Oraibi wrote:
#17 RCanine Jan 07, 2015 8:45:45	Griffon23 wrote:
(Reply to #17) Coredump00	RCanine wrote:
#19 Orethalion Jan 07, 2015 10:55:17	cowleymen wrote:
#20 cowleymen Jan 07, 2015 11:29:26	Orethalion wrote:
#21 Orethalion Jan 07, 2015 13:55:01	cowleymen wrote:
#22 cowleymen Jan 07, 2015 17:44:14	Orethalion wrote:
#23 RCanine Jan 08, 2015 0:48:18	Coredump00 wrote: