Heron

I quite agree, and it is this narrative difference that separates them rather then stat points. A thief might never put down his rapier and poisons even on the largest battlefield, whereas a paladin might refuse to take off his heavy armour or put down his great sword even when entering a city. This is what the style of play should reflect when 'classing' weapons into one category or another.

I don't think the actual nuts and bolts of the poll as it stands is really the debate here, more the concept of repercussions for hiring and firing party members. Which I think is a splendid idea, if we're looking for complex, many-layered companions to interact with rather then armour-plated robots then their reaction to parting ways should be unique to that character. A sell-sword might demand his pay, a necromancer might attack you, a samurai might commit seppuku - why not? In my view choices should have consequences and the added inconvenience of negotiating a separation simply adds to the tactical element of making that choice.

Surely role play is a good place to start? The type of character who uses a raipier is going to be different to one that uses a longsword or warhammer, whereas one who uses a raipier might also use a dagger or a short bow. As such weapons could be grouped under general notions of play-style, and contribute to the construction of characters rather then purely being reduced to stats and numbers.