Adapting 3.5 to a pre-Medieval technology setting

[VoxRationis]

Say I'm setting a 3.5 game in a setting where plate armor and windlass-driven crossbows, along with many other Late Medieval and Renaissance pieces of technology, aren't really available commonly. In fact, most soldiers in the setting (being based around ancient Mesopotamia) should be unarmored or lightly armored at best, mostly using spear and shield in combat.

Now, many on this forum would recommend that I ignore all setting-based restrictions on player characters' options, but that still leaves NPCs. If nothing else, I should definitely have NPCs exemplify the characteristics of a setting. So how should I adapt NPC fighters and warriors to settings where much of their typical gear is unavailable?

[Sian]

Make Hit'n'Run Tactics ACF (from Drow of the Underdark) the default choice for both Fighters and Warriors and to make them more lightfooted and mobile

[John Coake]

I'd suggest some sort of HP buff to make up for the lack of practical AC, to keep them around the same challenge to the PCs. And yes, I know its DandDwiki, but this PrC has some decent abilities you could steal: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Soldier_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)

[Flickerdart]

Frostburn has rules for primitive weapons and armors. You can also just say that swathes of items don't exist and the PCs won't care. For example, crossbows are useless anyway. If you feel bad, take all the crossbow feats and apply them to slings.

[Willie the Duck]

Is this going to be a decidedly martial campaign? Are you going to change anything other than the equipment?

Making the best 'normal' martial build (mithral plate and a greatsword or spiked chain) unavailable will make martial characters even more unfavored. Expect a lot more unarmed builds, spellcasters, etc.

[VoxRationis]

This is mostly supposed to be a quick game for people who haven't played much in the past. Optimization will be low, I suspect, so I'm not too worried about top-tier fighter-v-wizard comparisons. I just want things to be roughly playable sans plate-and-greatsword (or plate-and-chain). I'm working with the d20srd, so UA stuff is available, but no library of sourcebooks is available.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The DMG has rules on stone and bronze weapons, iirc. There are more rules in the AEG. Generally, the changes reduce hardness, and impose a penalty on damage rolls. The penalty is a bit odd - bronze swords are perfectly lethal, they're just not as hard as iron, so they go blunt faster (but then, there's no upkeep in D&D).

It's fairly reasonably to straight-up ban breastplates, half-plate and full plate, plus longswords, scythes, and other weapons with large blades, and crossbows. Warhammers are, of course, famous for their armour-bending properties versus plate, but they can be made with pre-medieval technology, so you don't necessarily have to ban them (most players don't use them anyway).

[VoxRationis]

The DMG has rules on stone and bronze weapons, iirc. There are more rules in the AEG. Generally, the changes reduce hardness, and impose a penalty on damage rolls. The penalty is a bit odd - bronze swords are perfectly lethal, they're just not as hard as iron, so they go blunt faster (but then, there's no upkeep in D&D).
Yes, I was planning on ignoring those rules, since they don't really make sense, and there's not a point in universally nerfing everyone's weapon damage.

[Tvtyrant]

Say I'm setting a 3.5 game in a setting where plate armor and windlass-driven crossbows, along with many other Late Medieval and Renaissance pieces of technology, aren't really available commonly. In fact, most soldiers in the setting (being based around ancient Mesopotamia) should be unarmored or lightly armored at best, mostly using spear and shield in combat.

Now, many on this forum would recommend that I ignore all setting-based restrictions on player characters' options, but that still leaves NPCs. If nothing else, I should definitely have NPCs exemplify the characteristics of a setting. So how should I adapt NPC fighters and warriors to settings where much of their typical gear is unavailable?

I would give everyone an AC boost, which could be something like dex to AC twice or con+dex to AC.

None-magic weapons break on a confirmed failed crit, to simulate more fragile materials (but won't effect the party once they get magic weapons) and perhaps incorporate the faeries and witches can't stand iron thing by making iron preposterously rare and act like anti-magic shackles.

[J-H]

To make up for the AC reduction, you could give everyone a dodge AC bonus equal to 1/2 their BAB (rounding down).

[Kelb_Panthera]

UA (and the SRD) has an alternate rule for class-based AC bonuses. You could use that.

[Vogie]

The DMG has rules on stone and bronze weapons, iirc. There are more rules in the AEG. Generally, the changes reduce hardness, and impose a penalty on damage rolls. The penalty is a bit odd - bronze swords are perfectly lethal, they're just not as hard as iron, so they go blunt faster (but then, there's no upkeep in D&D).


Actually, that wouldn't be that bad of an idea - tack in some sort of upkeep effect. Even if it's as simple as having to sharpen one's axe every so often.

Called shots from Pathfinder could be used to make melee fights more dynamic if combat feels like it's missing something.

[danzibr]

I would give everyone an AC boost, which could be something like dex to AC twice or con+dex to AC.

None-magic weapons break on a confirmed failed crit, to simulate more fragile materials (but won't effect the party once they get magic weapons) and perhaps incorporate the faeries and witches can't stand iron thing by making iron preposterously rare and act like anti-magic shackles.

To make up for the AC reduction, you could give everyone a dodge AC bonus equal to 1/2 their BAB (rounding down).

UA (and the SRD) has an alternate rule for class-based AC bonuses. You could use that.
I like all of these. Con to AC, I've always been in favor of... kinda weird though, since it makes a tank SAD. But then again, I don't see this as a bad thing, and most tanks will want some Str anyway.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I like all of these. Con to AC, I've always been in favor of... kinda weird though, since it makes a tank SAD. But then again, I don't see this as a bad thing, and most tanks will want some Str anyway.
An actual tank will want strength (trip, grapple, bull rush - controlling enemies) and dexterity (Combat Reflexes, AC). My favourite tank build is probably crusader/incarnate with Karmic Strike, Improved Trip, a reach weapon, and therapeutic mantle + martial spirit. Pretty MAD, sadly, but a good mix of options, and a lot of synergy.

[danzibr]

An actual tank will want strength (trip, grapple, bull rush - controlling enemies) and dexterity (Combat Reflexes, AC). My favourite tank build is probably crusader/incarnate with Karmic Strike, Improved Trip, a reach weapon, and therapeutic mantle + martial spirit. Pretty MAD, sadly, but a good mix of options, and a lot of synergy.
Ahh right, I don't mean typical MMO tank stuff. More like blob. Just a dude (or dudette) that soaks up a ton of damage.