Price of Fine weapons

[Rune]

Can anyone tell me what the logic behind the prices of Fine weapons are?

Swords are x4 cost. And then cutting weapons are x10 cost.
The prevailing theory (as far as have been able to read) seems to be that it is because axes are so cheap to begin with, and by giving all cutting weapons x10 modifier this balances it out.
But then all impaling and crushing weapons only have a x3 modifier. And hammers and picks are priced the same as axes.
So the low initial price can not be the explanation as I see it.

Any ideas?

[Eltharon]

I could be utterly wrong, but I don't think game balance has anything to do with it. It's simply that making a cutting weapon (like a sword) of a higher quality requires more work then making a high quality spear, or warhammer. A spear needs a well crafted point. The rest of it is literally a stick. A fine sword would require more high quality metal, more time making the thing, etc.

[Crakkerjakk]

You've got it backwards, but I agree that it's probably not based in game balance but in real material/cost constraints.

[Eltharon]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

You've got it backwards, but I agree that it's probably not based in game balance but in real material/cost constraints.

Yeah, I'm operating on little sleep and being sick. I'll edit my post once I read over the equipment section again...

[Figleaf23]

I have a vague memory of an explanation that did not make it from earlier editions into 4e -- making a 'good' sword takes more skill and craftsmanship than making a 'good' axe or spear. Hence swords' baseline is higher and so the increments cost less.

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I have a vague memory of an explanation that did not make it from earlier editions into 4e -- making a 'good' sword takes more skill and craftsmanship than making a 'good' axe or spear. Hence swords' baseline is higher and so the increments in cost less.

To further this, I think the reasoning is that you can get away with lower quality materials and craftsmanship to make something as simple an an axe or spear, hence them having so much lower of a cost than a sword. You can still get away with such shortcuts for higher-quality impaling weapons, as the only really demanding portion of it is the impaling tip - the rest you just use marginally better material to help reinforce from breakage. With cutting weapons, getting them beyond Good means you can no longer cut corners - you must use high quality materials and expert craftsmen. Swords "front-load" a good deal of this cost because they must already use high quality materials and skilled craftsmen - upgrading to higher quality materials and better craftsmen is less of a jump than for axes and other cutting weapons. Thus, you get the pattern of impaling costing the least, swords next, and the highest cost being cutting weapons other than swords.

[Rune]

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS

To further this, I think the reasoning is that you can get away with lower quality materials and craftsmanship to make something as simple an an axe or spear, hence them having so much lower of a cost than a sword. You can still get away with such shortcuts for higher-quality impaling weapons, as the only really demanding portion of it is the impaling tip - the rest you just use marginally better material to help reinforce from breakage. With cutting weapons, getting them beyond Good means you can no longer cut corners - you must use high quality materials and expert craftsmen. Swords "front-load" a good deal of this cost because they must already use high quality materials and skilled craftsmen - upgrading to higher quality materials and better craftsmen is less of a jump than for axes and other cutting weapons. Thus, you get the pattern of impaling costing the least, swords next, and the highest cost being cutting weapons other than swords.

I can see the logic for a swaord already requiring good materials and a lot of work. The next step (fine) is not as great as with axes.
You are right about crushing not getting extra damage. My guess would be that it is because extra damage comes from a sharper edge/point. It would still have to be made from a stronger material to avoid breaking. But perhaps part of the cost comes from making that extra sharp edge.
That would in part explain the higher price for axes compared to picks. But in my view there is still a bit work put into a fine pick and especially into a fine spear, so 5 times as expensive still seems too hefty a price increase IMO.

But still, it seems likely that this was the logic behind the price differential.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I have a vague memory of an explanation that did not make it from earlier editions into 4e -- making a 'good' sword takes more skill and craftsmanship than making a 'good' axe or spear. Hence swords' baseline is higher and so the increments cost less.

I believe it was something along the lines of "To make a Fine axe you have to make it out of sword quality steel.". This doesn't apply to maces and spears.

Maces particularly gain little from Fine. The don't get the damage bonus if I remember correctly, just the breakage benefits.

[jason taylor]

A sword has to be made of fine metal all the way through the blade because one weak spot anywhere will break it; a spear or ax or equiv only needs the metal at the blade, for wood will suffice for the shaft.

An ax can be used for cutting trees as well as people. A sword is a specialty.

A proper sword, as opposed to a falchion, sax, etc gained extra prestiege for the reasons above and became a sign of status, and in fact still is which is why naval and military officers have swords. Naturally a noble's sword would be highly decorated and such like as well as being unusually well made. If a given noble happens to prefer a sax, say, for some odd reason(that would be a quirk, a minor one as many nobles did prefer saxes; prefering a crude and undecorated one would be a major quirk)and has it especially well made, it would be almost as pricy as a sword.

Mass produced swords like a gladius, might be thought of in a separate category. A gladius, is of course a shortsword. A spatha is a longsword but made for professional soldiers rather then aristocrats. In either case they would cost less then a noblemans sword unless there is some sort of value-added like "so-and-so wore it when he saved the life of Emperor so-and-so five hundred years ago".