Meaning of 'Listed Price'

The SRD states that a large weapon's price is doubled from the listed price. Does this mean that a large weapon made out of some special material (say, cold iron) only has its listed price in the weapons section doubled, or should the material cost of the cold iron also increase?
Cold iron is a bad example. It specifically says that a cold iron weapon costs twice what its normal counterpart costs. So the price of a large sized cold iron weapon would be listed price x2 (for large) x2 (for cold iron).

As for other special materials - the numbers given either don't follow any pattern for increasing weights or give a flat value per pound. For example an adamantine dagger and an adamantine greatsword both cost 3000gp more than the base item even though the dagger weighs 1 lb and the greatsword weighs 8 lbs - suggesting the fabrication process is the bulk of the cost, not the raw materials. Given this I wouldn't increase the price unless the material gives a price directly related to weight.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Abraxas said:
Cold iron is a bad example. It specifically says that a cold iron weapon costs twice what its normal counterpart costs. So the price of a large sized cold iron weapon would be listed price x2 (for large) x2 (for cold iron).

And given the standard rule of thumb which generally seems to be employed by D&D rule books (a la Keen type multidoubling situations) this would seem to me to indicate that the price of a large sized cold iron weapon would actually be listed price x3 (for large cold iron) when you put them together, though again this would be applying logic to the situation which, as Olaf pointed out, is not neccesarily the D&D way to go.
 


Special material costs are multiplied by size. From the 3.5 FAQ:
"A set of mithral chainmail barding would cost 16,000 gp: 600 gp
for the chainmail barding plus 15,400 gp (the cost of mithral
medium armor [4,000 gp], minus the masterwork cost for
armor [150 gp], times 4)."
 

Aha. While that particular ruling has already been made (and while the FAQ is held to be questionable by many), it helps to know that. Thanks!
 

moritheil said:
the FAQ is held to be questionable by many
The core rules themselves are held questionable* by many, but I still use them.

* Also the dictionary, recorded historical events, mother Theresa, etc.

Note that I read the FAQ daily (multiple times), and my career involves critical thinking and finding fault in things. It's not perfect (nothing is) but it serves its purpose. It's mainly grumpy old hens that constantly bicker and bemoan imagined inaccuracies.
 

Well, Western culture as a whole is enamored of the perfect ideal, particularly in our law-givers. I didn't mean to cast aspersions on your contribution, just to note that some players might counter an FAQ link with the assertion that the FAQ is flawed. :)
 


mvincent said:
Not at all. That's not how I took it. I was merely taking the opportunity to deliberately disperse aspersions upon the FAQ-haters ;)

My spurious supposition of miscommunication has been replaced by a perception of the dispensing of deliberate, deterrent delineations! :p

Thanks again. :D
 

Remove ads

Top