Equipment for an Ancient Greece campaign

[Trask]

I would appreciate some critique of the revised armor and weapons I am devising for a campaign set in High Fantasy Ancient Greece. My aim is not total historical accuracy, but I do intend to capture the aesthetic feel.

WEAPONS

Weapons are limited to daggers, spears, pikes, lances, shortswords, javelins, greatclubs, short bows, and slings.

Added is the Kopis, which is identical to the shortsword except it deals slashing damage.

Simple and Martial weapon distinctions are removed, instead any character with martial weapon proficiency increases the damage die of a former simple weapon by one when he is using it. So in hands of a fighter, a shortsword deals 1d8 damage. The exception is when two weapon fighting is used, then the weapons retain their original damage values.


WEAPON PROPERTIES

An important part of ancient greek warfare was the spear, and spear fighting. To this end I do a few things to give the spear a niche on the battlefield.

polearm master is removed the attack of opportunity is added to the reach property baseline.

the reach property is added to spears

This is added to the reach property

"When you attack a creature within 5ft of you with a reach weapon, your attack has disadvantage." This is to create the image of the Greek warrior armed with his spear and sword both, using them for different situations.

new fighting style
"Spear Fighter: When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you reduce its spedd to 0. You have advantage on opportunity attacks."

To the pike I create a new property called extra reach, the same as the reach property except it extends to 20ft and disadvantage is imposed within 10ft.

The greatclub's damage increases to 1d10 simple, 1d12 martial and gains the "heavy" property.


RANGED WEAPONS

sling damage increases to 1d6 simple


ARMOR

All armor in the book is removed and replaced with 3 armor types.

The Chiton, a tunic worn by light infantry made of cloth 12 AC Light armor

The Linothorax, a cuirass of thick leather, bronze greaves and helmet 15 AC Medium armor

The Panoply, a cuirass of bronze decorated with muscles, greaves, and a helmet. 18 AC Heavy Armor.

No armor gives disadvantage on stealth since the cuirass was one piece of bronze and wouldnt clink, also myths are full of warriors sneaking which I want to encourage.


PROFICIENCIES
Every class has proficiency with light armor, spears, and swords if they do not already. A wizard would certainly be able to wear a chiton, in fact it would be a classic look. And all citizens would have basic training with spears and swords.


FURTHER SUGGESTIONS
I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on how I could represent a "composite bow" of sorts. In the Odyssey, Odysseus' bow is far too powerful to be pulled by any ordinary man.

Please critique, but keep in mind that 100% balance or elegance is not my aim, creating weapons and armor that creates a feel of greek warriors in the golden age of greece is.

[Elistan]

Further suggestions
I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on how I could represent a "composite bow" of sorts. In the Odyssey, Odysseus' bow is far too powerful to be pulled by any ordinary man.

Please critique, but keep in mind that 100% balance or elegance is not my aim, creating weapons and armor that creates a feel of greek warriors in the golden age of greece is.


Sounds really cool!

For the bow, I would just make it a Longbow that functions off Str instead of Dex, and requires 15/16 Str to use. Or a normal Longbow with just the Str requirement.

[Trask]

Sounds really cool!

For the bow, I would just make it a Longbow that functions off Str instead of Dex, and requires 15/16 Str to use. Or a normal Longbow with just the Str requirement.

Would you split dex to hit and str to damage or just make str the only stat you need

[Elistan]

Would you split dex to hit and str to damage or just make str the only stat you need

I would definitely only use one stat for hit and damage. Splitting it will almost guarantee nobody ever uses it. MAD is basically a swearword in this game, and splitting the attribute for hit and damage is a form of that.

[PeteNutButter]

A bit of historical rant/some interesting things about bronze age weapons and the evolution of weapons:

Bronze in general isn't as flexible as iron or steel but is just as hard as iron. That made the metal not suited for longer swords which began to grow popular in later roman times (spatha), which later developed into the D&D longsword (historically usually called the arming sword), and also the D&D greatsword (historically called longsword :smallannoyed:).

My point is the limit of the metal didn't prevent axes or hammers at all. Bronze axes and hammers did certainly exist, although primarily as tools. A maul or greataxe would be perfectly effective it its head were made out of bronze with little difference in overall durability. It is only longer metal weapons that were strictly impractical with bronze, as they would bend beyond use.

You might ask why we don't have lots of bronze age greataxes, to which the answer is likely armor. Armor simply wasn't good enough back then to want to forgo using a shield. Even the Macedonians with their ridiculously long pikes kept shields. Even many bronze age light (ranged) infantry used shields. Shields were just the cheapest and easiest way to stay alive.

As is your rules seem to be mostly a refluff of existing rules, which is fine, but if they instead wished to more accurately reflect the weapons of the time, you could still allow mauls and greataxes, reduce AC from armor and boost AC from shields. That's probably more work than it's worth, as it is stands your proposed system seems to incentivize the styles you want. I'd consider offering a feature or feat or something that benefited formation work amongst the party.

[Trask]

you could still allow mauls and greataxes, reduce AC from armor and boost AC from shields.

I was originally considering this, limiting armor to leather equivalent, hide equivalent, and half plate equivalent and with a +4 shield bonus instead of +2. But I messed with a lot of other things, namely unarmored defense becomes WAY stronger. And I would feel obligated to retool it for monsters as well. As you said, too much work.

I could keep in great axes, a labrys seems a fine fantasy greataxe for a greek campaign even though it was strictly ceremonial, but mauls to me seem to medieval, and then they werent strictly historical as such, being more of a long handled war hammer or a pole axe served the same purpose. I like the club aesthetically because it calls to Hercules and perhaps northern barbarian types.

[Dragonkingofth]

I think it's worth remembering one thing about Ancient Greece as a setting: Persia, is right next door.

In ancient Greece before Alexander took it on, Persia was a giant of a nation, it was powerful, well run, and massive stretching from Turkey to India.

If you put this massive empire in your world: what does that mean? Did they and Greece fight? I imagine so if you want some war story's, how do they feel about it? Is this fantasy Persia itching for round two? are they even of a common race with the PC's? Is this Persia run by Gaints with lesser races as there satraps (governors of the provinces), remember Persia was diverse and tolerant so I could easily see mixed races in such an empire.

It gives a point of political tension that does not exist between the city states and there other neighbors, something rally around and join forces when they otherwise quite hate each other.

[Trask]

I think it's worth remembering one thing about Ancient Greece as a setting: Persia, is right next door.

In ancient Greece before Alexander took it on, Persia was a giant of a nation, it was powerful, well run, and massive stretching from Turkey to India.

If you put this massive empire in your world: what does that mean? Did they and Greece fight? I imagine so if you want some war story's, how do they feel about it? Is this fantasy Persia itching for round two? are they even of a common race with the PC's? Is this Persia run by Gaints with lesser races as there satraps (governors of the provinces), remember Persia was diverse and tolerant so I could easily see mixed races in such an empire.

It gives a point of political tension that does not exist between the city states and there other neighbors, something rally around and join forces when they otherwise quite hate each other.

I'm definitely going to utilize the Persians, as you said theyre a ripe existential threat to Greece that isnt just a barbarian horde. Its a nation, it has high culture and power. Id probably make it a source of many of the worlds wizards as well, maybe its even run by wizard magi of Zoraster.

There are a ton of possibilities.

[leogobsin]

A thing to consider if you do "simple and martial weapons don't exist, but if you have martial weapon proficiency weapons damage die increases by 1" is that weapon proficiency isn't always handled in terms of just simple vs martial. For instance, Rogues get proficiency with "Simple weapons, hand crossbows, longswords, rapiers, shortswords", would they be able to use a shortsword for 1d8 damage? Same question could apply for Dwarves and Elves' weapon training features.

[GreyBlack]

So, I mean, a quick and dirty method might be to actually go through and see if there are any weapons you might be able to call "martial weapons" and just reskin them? For example, reskin the halberd as a long spear to spitball.

[DivisibleByZero]

You also have to have rival gangs, the T-birds and the Scorpions, going at it in the streets.
And sometimes breaking into song.

[Rixitichil]

I'd make something like Odysseus's composite bow a Magic Item. Maybe have it add Str to damage as well as Dex? Anything that seems rare or beyond the scope of normal craftsmanship seems prime material for being a magic item, (Ajax's shield seems a good example here.)

What would you place swords like the Egyptian Khopesh as?

[JackPhoenix]

I'd make something like Odysseus's composite bow a Magic Item. Maybe have it add Str to damage as well as Dex? Anything that seems rare or beyond the scope of normal craftsmanship seems prime material for being a magic item, (Ajax's shield seems a good example here.)

What would you place swords like the Egyptian Khopesh as?

Refluffed battleaxe. Or maybe longsword, I'm not sure which one did Planeshift: Almondcat use. There's not much of a difference mechanic-wise, and khopes is closer to an axe than a sword.

[PeteNutButter]

... [snipped]

I could keep in great axes, a labrys seems a fine fantasy greataxe for a greek campaign even though it was strictly ceremonial, but mauls to me seem to medieval, and then they werent strictly historical as such, being more of a long handled war hammer or a pole axe served the same purpose...

The reason for the unpopularity of mauls/warhammers in general was again armor. These heavy bludgeoning weapons were only truly worth using against steel plate armor. That's all just part of 5e's simplicity though. In reality a greatsword is much more effect against bare flesh and a maul more effective against armor.

To sum up I'd just raise the greatclub to 1d12 and allow the greataxe so if a particular player likes to 2-hand weapons they still have viable options. The great club is just a horrible weapon that deals 1-handed damage.

One other thing, by adding the reaction attack from PAM to every reach weapon you make the sentinel feat extremely viable, and it already was. With just one feat stopping people in their tracks is amazing. Not sure if that's a problem, just pointing it out before a player catches you off guard with it.

[Vogie]

I would love to see a Composite bow as a STR + DEX (up to 2) ranged attack, but limits movement and has the loading quality (that is, it can't be used with extra attacks)

Since you are not going for *actual* Ancient Greece, make sure you review The 300, Wonder Woman, and Clash of the Titans movies to see if there is any of that current content that makes sense for your players to piggyback off of, since they may do that anyway

[JellyPooga]

WEAPONS

Weapons are limited to daggers, spears, pikes, lances, shortswords, javelins, greatclubs, short bows, and slings.

This list seems arbitrarily small. Why no axes? Sure, ok, they weren't much used in warfare at the time (...by the Greeks...to the best of our knowledge) but they had them. Same goes for the Whip and Net, Blowguns existed and the Sickle isn't a weapon in medieval times any more than it was (by any other name) at the height of ancient Greek civilisation. No Dart? Why not? Flails were a farming tool, a Maul is just a big hammer and why no Light Hammer either, for that matter? What about the Trident? I know it's just a spear by another name, but it's a fishing tool that's been around for millennia. OK, so the modern Longbow didn't exist back then, but composite bows did; call a Longbow a Composite Bow and BAM! Job's a good'un.


Added is the Kopis, which is identical to the shortsword except it deals slashing damage.

Sooo...like a Scimitar then?

It seems to me that you're trying too hard to shoe-horn your Ancient Greek theme, thinking of the stereotypical image of Greek Warfare and Heroes, but not really considering that options are good, that Player Characters are the exception from the norm (e.g. you mention Heracles and his Greatclub...he was noteworthy in one respect because he used a club, not because it was a common weapon of war) and that a little re-fluff is often easier and goes further than expurgating what doesn't fit the model precisely and introducing new material.

The only things I can really see that need to be removed from the list are all the Crossbows, the Greatsword, Longsword and Rapier. Even then, there's still some room for debate.


Simple and Martial weapon distinctions are removed, instead any character with martial weapon proficiency increases the damage die of a former simple weapon by one when he is using it. So in hands of a fighter, a shortsword deals 1d8 damage. The exception is when two weapon fighting is used, then the weapons retain their original damage values.

This feels like a needless houserule to compensate giving out extra weapon proficiencies to those that don't have them already. Remove the latter, no need for the former. Keep It Simple.


WEAPON PROPERTIES

An important part of ancient greek warfare was the spear, and spear fighting. To this end I do a few things to give the spear a niche on the battlefield.

polearm master is removed the attack of opportunity is added to the reach property baseline.

the reach property is added to spears

This is added to the reach property

"When you attack a creature within 5ft of you with a reach weapon, your attack has disadvantage." This is to create the image of the Greek warrior armed with his spear and sword both, using them for different situations.

new fighting style
"Spear Fighter: When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, you reduce its spedd to 0. You have advantage on opportunity attacks."

To the pike I create a new property called extra reach, the same as the reach property except it extends to 20ft and disadvantage is imposed within 10ft.

The greatclub's damage increases to 1d10 simple, 1d12 martial and gains the "heavy" property.

Why? Pike and Lance already have Reach to represent longer spears, the latter already imposing Disadvantage at 5ft. Why not just encourage their use instead of modifying the baseline Spear? You new Fighting Style steps on the toes of the Sentinel Feat, so instead of changing a whole heap of things, why not add a Fighting Style something like "Formation Fighter: You can wield a Lance or Pike one-handed". One added feature that cuts out the need for a lot of other houserules; it makes Fighters the guys who are the best with longer spears by being able to wield them with a Shield and the better damage they offer means you don't have to go fart-arsing around increasing damage types for martial weapons compared to simple weapons.

The Maul does 2d6, so why change the Greatclub to match it instead of keeping the Maul?


RANGED WEAPONS

sling damage increases to 1d6 simple

Because...?


ARMOR

All armor in the book is removed and replaced with 3 armor types.

The Chiton, a tunic worn by light infantry made of cloth 12 AC Light armor

The Linothorax, a cuirass of thick leather, bronze greaves and helmet 15 AC Medium armor

The Panoply, a cuirass of bronze decorated with muscles, greaves, and a helmet. 18 AC Heavy Armor.

No armor gives disadvantage on stealth since the cuirass was one piece of bronze and wouldnt clink, also myths are full of warriors sneaking which I want to encourage.

Again, I think you're overthinking. Re-fluff, not replace. Padded, Leather and Studded leather are just variations of the Chiton (with Padded representing a softer or lower quality version, while Studded being Chiton armour that includes leather greaves and vambrace as well). Same with Medium and Heavy armour; all your houserule is doing is replacing all armour with one option for each of Light, Medium and Heavy. Why? Your Panoply is just Full Plate, so why can't you also have a lesser version that doesn't have greaves, for example, that gives AC:16...oh look, it's refluffed Chainmail. Again, taking away options makes things worse, not better, as a rule. Let your players choose instead of taking choices away from them.

As for a breastplate not clinking...what about buckles, fittings, extraneous straps and so forth, plus the consideration of weight and bulk? Disadvantage on Stealth is not just about whether it goes "clink".



PROFICIENCIES
Every class has proficiency with light armor, spears, and swords if they do not already. A wizard would certainly be able to wear a chiton, in fact it would be a classic look. And all citizens would have basic training with spears and swords.

What if a player doesn't want to be a citizen? What if he's a foreigner or some farmers son from a remote area? What if he simply wasn't very good with weapons, so while he technically got trained, he got an "F" and still counts as non-proficient? This again feels like trying to shoe-horn your setting rather than actually adding to it and it creates disparity that requires additional rules to equalise.


FURTHER SUGGESTIONS
I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on how I could represent a "composite bow" of sorts. In the Odyssey, Odysseus' bow is far too powerful to be pulled by any ordinary man.

I've addressed this already; Longbow. Odysseus' bow is probably best represented by a Magic Item, perhaps even an Artefact (I know it wasn't really, but for rules purposes, it might as well be) with it's own special rules (i.e. "you must be Odysseus to string this bow").


Please critique, but keep in mind that 100% balance or elegance is not my aim, creating weapons and armor that creates a feel of greek warriors in the golden age of greece is.

I think you're overthinking things in your attempt to capture the feel of Ancient Greece. Instead of limiting options and changing the rules, focus on the setting; your descriptions, the layout of towns and infrastructure, names (both of NPC's and equipment), goods available and so on and so forth. This, more than any houserule, will hammer home the feel of the setting.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Maybe improve the range on the sling, too? Greek slingers could out-range the bows of their day. It was considered one of their primary advantages, on top of portability and ease of construction.

[Vogie]

Maybe improve the range on the sling, too? Greek slingers could out-range the bows of their day. It was considered one of their primary advantages, on top of portability and ease of construction.

That's not a bad idea. Maybe a martial sling that deals d6. Perhaps remove the loading property (allowing multiple shots) if the target is outside a minimum range?

[Willie the Duck]

Sling range could increase for classes that previously had martial weapon proficiencies. Much like the increased damage dice, slings also emulate the whole 'seasoned soldiers used the same slings and spears as shepherds and huntsmen did, they just knew how to use them better.'

[JackPhoenix]

The only things I can really see that need to be removed from the list are all the Crossbows, the Greatsword, Longsword and Rapier. Even then, there's still some room for debate.

Ancient Greeks had crossbows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes). Rhompaia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomphaia) existed practically next door, and it's big enough to count as longsword. Same with falx, some of them were big enough to serve as greatswords. Though it is arguable if they should count as polearms or swords with unusualy long hilts.

[Trask]

This list seems arbitrarily small. Why no axes? Sure, ok, they weren't much used in warfare at the time (...by the Greeks...to the best of our knowledge) but they had them. Same goes for the Whip and Net, Blowguns existed and the Sickle isn't a weapon in medieval times any more than it was (by any other name) at the height of ancient Greek civilisation. No Dart? Why not? Flails were a farming tool, a Maul is just a big hammer and why no Light Hammer either, for that matter? What about the Trident? I know it's just a spear by another name, but it's a fishing tool that's been around for millennia. OK, so the modern Longbow didn't exist back then, but composite bows did; call a Longbow a Composite Bow and BAM! Job's a good'un.

Axes were used mostly as tools, not weapons of war. Of course a theoretical bronze war axe COULD exist, but as you yourself said, they werent used in Ancient Greece. Neither were mauls, tridents were fishing implements. The "flail" as we think of it wouldnt exist. Darts are a good point though, they would.



Sooo...like a Scimitar then?

No, like a kopis. Look it up, it was a weapon used by hoplites. Names are important.


It seems to me that you're trying too hard to shoe-horn your Ancient Greek theme, thinking of the stereotypical image of Greek Warfare and Heroes, but not really considering that options are good, that Player Characters are the exception from the norm (e.g. you mention Heracles and his Greatclub...he was noteworthy in one respect because he used a club, not because it was a common weapon of war) and that a little re-fluff is often easier and goes further than expurgating what doesn't fit the model precisely and introducing new material.

Options are good, but the feel of a campaign is also important. Weapon and armor lists immensely contribute to that feel. Greatclubs were not strictly historical as such, but are really the only example of a true, two handed weapon I can think of that would be feasible, since the limit of bronze is that it couldnt be fashioned as long as iron.


The only things I can really see that need to be removed from the list are all the Crossbows, the Greatsword, Longsword and Rapier. Even then, there's still some room for debate.

There really isnt though. Those weapons did not exist. Full stop.



This feels like a needless houserule to compensate giving out extra weapon proficiencies to those that don't have them already. Remove the latter, no need for the former. Keep It Simple.

I did it mainly because the damage die are smaller than they would be if all the martial options were allowed. But maybe youre right and its unnecessary.




Why? Pike and Lance already have Reach to represent longer spears, the latter already imposing Disadvantage at 5ft. Why not just encourage their use instead of modifying the baseline Spear? You new Fighting Style steps on the toes of the Sentinel Feat, so instead of changing a whole heap of things, why not add a Fighting Style something like "Formation Fighter: You can wield a Lance or Pike one-handed". One added feature that cuts out the need for a lot of other houserules; it makes Fighters the guys who are the best with longer spears by being able to wield them with a Shield and the better damage they offer means you don't have to go fart-arsing around increasing damage types for martial weapons compared to simple weapons.

Because real life pikes were used in Greek warfare and they were like 20 feet long. Real spears as used in a Greek campaign should definitely have reach, because that is why they used them. I dont use feats so I dont worry about treading toes there.


The Maul does 2d6, so why change the Greatclub to match it instead of keeping the Maul?

Because mauls did not and would have no reason to exist in the bronze age.




Because...?

I should have elaborated, slings were commonly used in Greek warfare, but as it stands theres basically no reason to use on over a bow.




Again, I think you're overthinking. Re-fluff, not replace. Padded, Leather and Studded leather are just variations of the Chiton (with Padded representing a softer or lower quality version, while Studded being Chiton armour that includes leather greaves and vambrace as well). Same with Medium and Heavy armour; all your houserule is doing is replacing all armour with one option for each of Light, Medium and Heavy. Why? Your Panoply is just Full Plate, so why can't you also have a lesser version that doesn't have greaves, for example, that gives AC:16...oh look, it's refluffed Chainmail. Again, taking away options makes things worse, not better, as a rule. Let your players choose instead of taking choices away from them.

Fair point, but there just werent that many different kinds of armor in Ancient Greece. Not wearing vambraces or greaves seems to be splitting hairs, they werent that encumbering and they were really really good to have. Pretty much all warriors used them. I just dont see why players need the "options" of all the redundant armors that exist, nobody uses padded, nobody uses regular leather, nobody uses hide, nobody uses splint. Theres just no reason to. Why am I going to go and create a bunch of armor variants when players are just going to pick the best ones? The only real merit I see is in creating a "chainmail" variant.


As for a breastplate not clinking...what about buckles, fittings, extraneous straps and so forth, plus the consideration of weight and bulk? Disadvantage on Stealth is not just about whether it goes "clink".

There were not any buckles and fittings that light armor would not use. The cuirass was one piece of bronze, any extraneous buckles would be for water, bags, etc, stuff anyone else would also use. As I also said, in the myths warriors snuck around in their heavy gear at times and I want to encourage that as a tactic.


What if a player doesn't want to be a citizen? What if he's a foreigner or some farmers son from a remote area? What if he simply wasn't very good with weapons, so while he technically got trained, he got an "F" and still counts as non-proficient? This again feels like trying to shoe-horn your setting rather than actually adding to it and it creates disparity that requires additional rules to equalise.

Well I guess its possible, but if youre not a citizen youre a slave or a barbarian, and barbarians were not exactly welcome. I plan to have each character be a citizen of a city state, with certain bonuses that come from that. Citizen can be pretty broad, from poor to rich, merchant to warrior, etc so I think its fine. If a character doesnt want free proficiencies, I guess he just doesnt have to use them?



I've addressed this already; Longbow. Odysseus' bow is probably best represented by a Magic Item, perhaps even an Artefact (I know it wasn't really, but for rules purposes, it might as well be) with it's own special rules (i.e. "you must be Odysseus to string this bow").

Yeah thats a better idea


I think you're overthinking things in your attempt to capture the feel of Ancient Greece. Instead of limiting options and changing the rules, focus on the setting; your descriptions, the layout of towns and infrastructure, names (both of NPC's and equipment), goods available and so on and so forth. This, more than any houserule, will hammer home the feel of the setting.

I will also do that, but I disagree that the equipment lists are not important. What players and enemies use, what they fight with and wear, and visualize contributes immensely to a setting's flavor. It does limit options, but that comes with a unique setting, it cant be a kitchen sink of all different weapons. Even standard D&D doesnt have every weapon in existence, it has mostly European arms and armor because thats the standard.

But I do appreciate your detailed input. You made some good points I'll consider.

[Trask]

Ancient Greeks had crossbows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes). Rhompaia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomphaia) existed practically next door, and it's big enough to count as longsword. Same with falx, some of them were big enough to serve as greatswords. Though it is arguable if they should count as polearms or swords with unusualy long hilts.

Crossbows were only used around the 1st century AD. The Greek homeric age (which is what im going for) was as old as 1000 BC. But then again, I'm not going for strict realism so I dont think it would be a big deal to add them.

The falx was also more culture specific, and not something that would be generally used among Achaeans (the players) who would see it as a barbaric tool. But if the players were ever to find some barbaric Thracians with their falx, of course they could be picked up.

[JellyPooga]

Ancient Greeks had crossbows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes). Rhompaia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhomphaia) existed practically next door, and it's big enough to count as longsword. Same with falx, some of them were big enough to serve as greatswords. Though it is arguable if they should count as polearms or swords with unusualy long hilts.

As I said; debatable :smallwink:


Axes were used mostly as tools, not weapons of war. Of course a theoretical bronze war axe COULD exist, but as you yourself said, they werent used in Ancient Greece. Neither were mauls, tridents were fishing implements. The "flail" as we think of it wouldnt exist. Darts are a good point though, they would.

No, like a kopis. Look it up, it was a weapon used by hoplites. Names are important.

Options are good, but the feel of a campaign is also important. Weapon and armor lists immensely contribute to that feel. Greatclubs were not strictly historical as such, but are really the only example of a true, two handed weapon I can think of that would be feasible, since the limit of bronze is that it couldnt be fashioned as long as iron.

There really isnt though. Those weapons did not exist. Full stop.

Because mauls did not and would have no reason to exist in the bronze age.

Because real life pikes were used in Greek warfare and they were like 20 feet long. Real spears as used in a Greek campaign should definitely have reach, because that is why they used them. I dont use feats so I dont worry about treading toes there.

I should have elaborated, slings were commonly used in Greek warfare, but as it stands theres basically no reason to use on over a bow.

I feel like my point was missed.

The point is that removing those options is an arbitrary move in your attempt to recreate a single archetype; the "classical" Greek Warrior. What I foresee is a party of Player Characters that are homogenous in a system that encourages diversity in the group. This is not, necessarily, a bad thing if that's what you want, but it's generally my experience that a GM should say "yes" to as much as they possibly can. For example;

Player: "I want to wield a really big axe, because I'm a bear-like dude that can swing one like a boss. I was thinking maybe I've got some Germanic blood in me from an ancestor that traveled here many years ago."

GM: "Yeah, that sounds cool, but how about instead of Germanic ancestors, you actually have a little bit of divine blood?"
OR
GM: "No, sorry, Classical Greek Warriors didn't use their tools as weapons. Ever. Fact"

Which GM sounds like the better one?

What I'm saying is not to get bogged down by the image of Greek Warfare that you have from your "Ancient Greece 101" Class. Sure the 20ft Pike existed and was used in battle (where I'll point out is the only place such a weapon is useful; it's most certainly not a skirmishing or a dueling weapon; only a moron would go on an "adventure" with one) and sure, the Greeks didn't use tridents or axes in battle under ideal circumstances or in the histories that survive, but we're talking about a time when history was a modern concept; it's worth taking a big pinch of salt with it. Axes, Hammers, Flails...these things all existed. Just because the Greek army didn't use them (and that's not something you can take for granted either; remember that pinch of salt) doesn't mean they weren't a weapon all the same.

Yes, names are important. But just as your kopis is "a shortsword that does slashing", so is a scimitar. You're putting in too much work. Instead of looking at the weapon table and thinking "ok, that's kind of like a...", crossing out the name and putting in a new one, you're looking at it and saying "that didn't exist, get rid of it, I'd rather have this instead", where "this" is (mechanically) exactly what you just removed or close enough that it might as well be. To paraphrase you; "I want Spears to have reach but impose disadvantage at 5ft, but they didn't have Lances, so I'll take out Lances and introduce a houserule about Spears" is unnecessarily complicated compared to "Huh, Lances kind of do what I want, I'll just call them a Longspear and make them a common weapon in the military".


Fair point, but there just werent that many different kinds of armor in Ancient Greece. Not wearing vambraces or greaves seems to be splitting hairs, they werent that encumbering and they were really really good to have. Pretty much all warriors used them. I just dont see why players need the "options" of all the redundant armors that exist, nobody uses padded, nobody uses regular leather, nobody uses hide, nobody uses splint. Theres just no reason to. Why am I going to go and create a bunch of armor variants when players are just going to pick the best ones? The only real merit I see is in creating a "chainmail" variant.

Except there were. I'll advise you again to take a pinch of salt with your history. Remember that most of what's survived has been written by people with an agenda; i.e. making their nation or patron look as clean and shiny as possible. History is a bloody affair and a messy one; it wan't all bronzed heroes in gleaming armour, not everyone that went to war could afford a full Panoply, not everyone wanted to. If you're taking out the option because Players will only choose the "best" one (in your opinion), then you might as well not play a roleplaying game at all and just play "who can roll highest on the die".


Well I guess its possible, but if youre not a citizen youre a slave or a barbarian, and barbarians were not exactly welcome. I plan to have each character be a citizen of a city state, with certain bonuses that come from that. Citizen can be pretty broad, from poor to rich, merchant to warrior, etc so I think its fine. If a character doesnt want free proficiencies, I guess he just doesnt have to use them?

Who do you think they traded with? The term "barbarian" literally refers to anyone that isn't Greek; the Ancient Greek world was full of Barbarians. Merchants, envoys, travelers, slaves and former slaves, foreigners that have just settled, to name just a few. If barbarians weren't living all over Greece, why would you have rules about how only Greek citizens can vote, for example? "Not using" your free proficiencies is all well and good, but what are you actually achieving by giving them out in the first place? All I can see is that it's necessitating your creation of further houserules and complication to compensate for it.


I will also do that, but I disagree that the equipment lists are not important. What players and enemies use, what fight with and wear, and visualize contributes immensely to a setting's flavor. It does limit options, but that comes with a unique setting, it cant be a kitchen sink of all different weapons. Even standard D&D doesnt have every weapon in existence, it has mostly European arms and armor because thats the standard.

I'm not saying the equipment list isn't important; quite the opposite. I'm saying that the kit list is important enough that you shouldn't be taking a hacksaw to it and gluing together that pieces that are left. Crafting a unique setting is more like surgery; a delicate touch is needed. A little refluff here, a slight alteration there, but the game is still the familiar D&D the Players are expecting. Change the game too far from that expectation and you might as well use a different system.

[Trask]

As I said; debatable :smallwink:



I feel like my point was missed.

The point is that removing those options is an arbitrary move in your attempt to recreate a single archetype; the "classical" Greek Warrior. What I foresee is a party of Player Characters that are homogenous in a system that encourages diversity in the group. This is not, necessarily, a bad thing if that's what you want, but it's generally my experience that a GM should say "yes" to as much as they possibly can. For example;

Player: "I want to wield a really big axe, because I'm a bear-like dude that can swing one like a boss. I was thinking maybe I've got some Germanic blood in me from an ancestor that traveled here many years ago."

GM: "Yeah, that sounds cool, but how about instead of Germanic ancestors, you actually have a little bit of divine blood?"
OR
GM: "No, sorry, Classical Greek Warriors didn't use their tools as weapons. Ever. Fact"

Which GM sounds like the better one?

What I'm saying is not to get bogged down by the image of Greek Warfare that you have from your "Ancient Greece 101" Class. Sure the 20ft Pike existed and was used in battle (where I'll point out is the only place such a weapon is useful; it's most certainly not a skirmishing or a dueling weapon; only a moron would go on an "adventure" with one) and sure, the Greeks didn't use tridents or axes in battle under ideal circumstances or in the histories that survive, but we're talking about a time when history was a modern concept; it's worth taking a big pinch of salt with it. Axes, Hammers, Flails...these things all existed. Just because the Greek army didn't use them (and that's not something you can take for granted either; remember that pinch of salt) doesn't mean they weren't a weapon all the same.

Yes, names are important. But just as your kopis is "a shortsword that does slashing", so is a scimitar. You're putting in too much work. Instead of looking at the weapon table and thinking "ok, that's kind of like a...", crossing out the name and putting in a new one, you're looking at it and saying "that didn't exist, get rid of it, I'd rather have this instead", where "this" is (mechanically) exactly what you just removed or close enough that it might as well be. To paraphrase you; "I want Spears to have reach but impose disadvantage at 5ft, but they didn't have Lances, so I'll take out Lances and introduce a houserule about Spears" is unnecessarily complicated compared to "Huh, Lances kind of do what I want, I'll just call them a Longspear and make them a common weapon in the military".



Except there were. I'll advise you again to take a pinch of salt with your history. Remember that most of what's survived has been written by people with an agenda; i.e. making their nation or patron look as clean and shiny as possible. History is a bloody affair and a messy one; it wan't all bronzed heroes in gleaming armour, not everyone that went to war could afford a full Panoply, not everyone wanted to. If you're taking out the option because Players will only choose the "best" one (in your opinion), then you might as well not play a roleplaying game at all and just play "who can roll highest on the die".



Who do you think they traded with? The term "barbarian" literally refers to anyone that isn't Greek; the Ancient Greek world was full of Barbarians. Merchants, envoys, travelers, slaves and former slaves, foreigners that have just settled, to name just a few. If barbarians weren't living all over Greece, why would you have rules about how only Greek citizens can vote, for example? "Not using" your free proficiencies is all well and good, but what are you actually achieving by giving them out in the first place? All I can see is that it's necessitating your creation of further houserules and complication to compensate for it.



I'm not saying the equipment list isn't important; quite the opposite. I'm saying that the kit list is important enough that you shouldn't be taking a hacksaw to it and gluing together that pieces that are left. Crafting a unique setting is more like surgery; a delicate touch is needed. A little refluff here, a slight alteration there, but the game is still the familiar D&D the Players are expecting. Change the game too far from that expectation and you might as well use a different system.

I suppose a player who wanted to be partly barbarian and wanting to use axes and such is fine. Youre right that theres no real harm.

I didnt take out lances, they are still used but are mostly for mounted combat. True that a pike would be a silly thing to adventure with but it still existed, and i plan for grand battles to be a thing. I changed spears the way i did because in homeric epic warfare it was common to have 3 phases of battle, between tossing of javelins, spear battle, and finishing with swords. im just trying to replicate that a warrior would have need of his spear and his sword, for long and close range battle

I think the armor choices are fair, the linothorax is leather and the panoply is bronze and the chiton is cloth. It covers the main 3 types of armor, the best of each type. I dont think its the same as not giving the players a choice, its just removing the stuff theyd never use anyway. Im the kind of dm that makes plate more readily available anyway.

[GreyBlack]

Who do you think they traded with? The term "barbarian" literally refers to anyone that isn't Greek; the Ancient Greek world was full of Barbarians. Merchants, envoys, travelers, slaves and former slaves, foreigners that have just settled, to name just a few. If barbarians weren't living all over Greece, why would you have rules about how only Greek citizens can vote, for example? "Not using" your free proficiencies is all well and good, but what are you actually achieving by giving them out in the first place? All I can see is that it's necessitating your creation of further houserules and complication to compensate for it.


Quick quibble.

Barbarian, as you rightly point out, was literally everyone who isn't Greek. Fine. It was still an insult as it implied you weren't "civilized" enough to speak a real language. Like Greek.

It's the equivalent of an Elf saying that both Dwarves and Orcs are barbaric, because neither speaks with the beautiful eloquence of the Elven language.

[Saintheart]

I see not a single reference to an aegis here. I am disappoint.

[Kiero]

The shield is more important than armour in this period, and using just a shield and helmet should be a viable strategy if you want to retain mobility. There should be a clear distinction, mechanically, between using a large shield like an aspis, and a small one like a pelte. I'd recommend giving the former a big bonus to AC against missiles and when in formation.

A cloak wrapped around the forearm should also serve as a makeshift shield, at least against light weapons.

Fighting spears and javelins should be distinct from each other. An akontio is not a melee weapon, it's too fragile. A doru is a poor missile, it's weighted wrong. On the other hand, dual-purpose spears like the longche also exist.

Pikes are virtually useless outside formations. The regular fighting spear (the doru) is not a pike, and is counter-weighted so that it can be used one-handed.

Axes should be available, but they're not very "Greek". I'd agree with those saying a hammer isn't a weapon in this period. Also agree there should be both shortbows and composite bows.

A horseman's kopis was longer than that of an infantryman, and would be a (slashing) longsword. Celtic, Thracian and other "barbarian" swords were longswords, too.


Maybe improve the range on the sling, too? Greek slingers could out-range the bows of their day. It was considered one of their primary advantages, on top of portability and ease of construction.

That's because they used the glande or bullet, not because there was something novel about the construction of their slings. The ammunition a sling uses is the primary determinant of range and stopping power. A pebble or stone is inferior to a lead bullet.

[JackPhoenix]

Crossbows were only used around the 1st century AD. The Greek homeric age (which is what im going for) was as old as 1000 BC. But then again, I'm not going for strict realism so I dont think it would be a big deal to add them.

The falx was also more culture specific, and not something that would be generally used among Achaeans (the players) who would see it as a barbaric tool. But if the players were ever to find some barbaric Thracians with their falx, of course they could be picked up.

Well, thing is, "Ancient Greece" covers period longer than middle ages, so even if you limit yourself geographically, it's not bad idea to specify what part of those 1500-2000 years you're talking about, because things were changing over time.


I think the armor choices are fair, the linothorax is leather and the panoply is bronze and the chiton is cloth. It covers the main 3 types of armor, the best of each type. I dont think its the same as not giving the players a choice, its just removing the stuff theyd never use anyway. Im the kind of dm that makes plate more readily available anyway.

Linothorax wasn't made from leather, it was multiple layers of linen cloth soaked in various subastances to harden it. Some historical artwork shows something that looks like scale armor. Persians wore that, but you can see hoplites with something similar. And breastplate without the full panoply should still be a thing.

[Kiero]

The gastraphetes was real, but it only saw use in sieges. Clearly for a reason.


Linothorax wasn't made from leather, it was multiple layers of linen cloth soaked in various subastances to harden it. Some historical artwork shows something that looks like scale armor. Persians wore that, but you can see hoplites with something similar. And breastplate without the full panoply should still be a thing.

Tube and yoke armour might be made out of leather as well as quilted linen or some other textile. We can't be sure, given organic armour doesn't survive for millenia under any conditions.

[Eric Diaz]

I was originally considering this, limiting armor to leather equivalent, hide equivalent, and half plate equivalent and with a +4 shield bonus instead of +2. But I messed with a lot of other things, namely unarmored defense becomes WAY stronger. And I would feel obligated to retool it for monsters as well. As you said, too much work.

Maybe a heavy +3 Aspis... if you're using encumbrance, 16 lb and disad to stealth (specially since armor doesn't cause it) would certainly balance things out.

[Eric Diaz]

As for the composite bow, only Str would work fine... However, shooting with dex and damaging with Str would work too. You encourage your heroes to be BOTH dexterous and strong, which fits well IMO.

[Eric Diaz]

Another thing to consider: you made dual-wielding a lot more enticing... is that on purpose?

[Willie the Duck]

Another thing to consider: you made dual-wielding a lot more enticing... is that on purpose?

He already stated that the game is featless, so TWF and sword&board are going to dominate a lot more than feat-full campaigns.

[Eric Diaz]

He already stated that the game is featless, so TWF and sword&board are going to dominate a lot more than feat-full campaigns.

I mentioned it not because feats, but because it sounds like using a 1d8 kopis in each hand would be an optimal strategy. Probably better than sword&board in a "duel" scenario.

[Beleriphon]

Tube and yoke armour might be made out of leather as well as quilted linen or some other textile. We can't be sure, given organic armour doesn't survive for millenia under any conditions.

I've seen some reconstructions of linothorax. There is enough debate about the validity of the testing methods that they have to be taken as seriously flawed, but the general consensus is that linothorax worked well enough to stop arrows and dissipate the energy from sword slashes and thrusts.

http://www.uwgb.edu/aldreteg/Linothorax.html

[Trask]

I know of the linen vs leather debate, i personally think it was probably leather because linen is hard to produce, and the linothorax was most likely armor for people who couldnt afford bronze

[Waterdeep Merch]

That's because they used the glande or bullet, not because there was something novel about the construction of their slings. The ammunition a sling uses is the primary determinant of range and stopping power. A pebble or stone is inferior to a lead bullet.
That could actually be a simple, cool way to differentiate between the standard sling and the military sling: ammunition.

If you throw pebbles, go by the default book. It's a simple weapon.

If you throw bullets, upgrade to a d6 and double the range. Further improve the long range by another 60 feet or so if you're using formed clay bullets, or the short range by 30 feet if using lead.

Clay bullets can also be designed to whistle when thrown, if desired.

[Thrudd]

Have you already mined "Mazes and Minotaurs" for ideas? It's much simpler than 5e, obviously, but it is a Greek mythology-based D&D.

[Kiero]

I know of the linen vs leather debate, i personally think it was probably leather because linen is hard to produce, and the linothorax was most likely armor for people who couldnt afford bronze

That doesn't accord with the general lightening of panoplies as the Classical era went on and into the Hellenistic. Bronze was simply inconvenient and poorly suited to a soldier who was on campaign for long periods of time, as compared to a militiaman who would only be fighting for the summer before returning home. There's always a mobility v protection trade-off, for the professionals who came later wearing a full panoply of bronze wasn't a good trade-off.

[JackPhoenix]

I know of the linen vs leather debate, i personally think it was probably leather because linen is hard to produce, and the linothorax was most likely armor for people who couldnt afford bronze

Linen was already used for clothes. You simply need more of it for armor. Leather requires work to cure, has less everyday use, and requires cows... goat and sheep skins aren't thick enough to serve as an armor. There's a reason why leather armor wasn't as prevalent in real life as it is in fantasy.

[beargryllz]

This is bronze age play FYI. Heavy armor should be 15 or 16 AC at best. Bronze is comically inferior to steel.

Spears should be unchanged. Most martial weapons are impossible with the technology of ancient greece

[JackPhoenix]

This is bronze age play FYI. Heavy armor should be 15 or 16 AC at best. Bronze is comically inferior to steel.

Spears should be unchanged. Most martial weapons are impossible with the technology of ancient greece

Ancient Greece is not bronze age, especially not the period OP is apparently talking about.

Bronze being inferior to steel is irrelevant if there's no steel to compare it to. So no, heavy armor shouldn't be limited in AC, even if only for balance concerns.

[Kiero]

Linen was already used for clothes. You simply need more of it for armor. Leather requires work to cure, has less everyday use, and requires cows... goat and sheep skins aren't thick enough to serve as an armor. There's a reason why leather armor wasn't as prevalent in real life as it is in fantasy.

Athens in antiquity, as just one example, had a major leatherworking industry. And it doesn't "require cows", any animal with skin thicker than a human will do.

[JoeJ]

Athens in antiquity, as just one example, had a major leatherworking industry. And it doesn't "require cows", any animal with skin thicker than a human will do.

And if anything does require cows, that's not a particularly difficult requirement to fill. There were domesticated cattle in ancient Greece.

[Trask]

I might have more advanced weapons and armors as "atlantean artifacts" or something, but I would treat them as magic items.

[Kiero]

I might have more advanced weapons and armors as "atlantean artifacts" or something, but I would treat them as magic items.

Don't do that, then all that flavour becomes nothing more than a pastiche as the PCs end up looking just like a generic fantasy party as they deck themselves out with "advanced" gear.

[GreyBlack]

Don't do that, then all that flavour becomes nothing more than a pastiche as the PCs end up looking just like a generic fantasy party as they deck themselves out with "advanced" gear.

I mean, I guess. The average adventuring party already runs around wearing weapons and armor from 6-7 different cultures already (a Dwarven battleaxe, Elven cloak, gnomish goggles, orcish armor, human adventuring gear, halfling pipe weed, etc.) so that pastiche is kinda baked into the heart of D&D proper. Dunno why you'd draw the line there but okay.

[Dr paradox]

Really cool stuff! All looks pretty great.

I think it's a good call having a fairly narrow range to start with, as a tone setter. If people really want to bring stuff like greataxes and stomach-crossbows, you can judge that on a case by case basis as inspiration strikes them. As a player, I think I'd really appreciate this thematic commitment as a starting point.

Good work!

[Kiero]

I mean, I guess. The average adventuring party already runs around wearing weapons and armor from 6-7 different cultures already (a Dwarven battleaxe, Elven cloak, gnomish goggles, orcish armor, human adventuring gear, halfling pipe weed, etc.) so that pastiche is kinda baked into the heart of D&D proper. Dunno why you'd draw the line there but okay.

That emergent property is only true if the GM exercises no editorial control over what the players put in front of them after outlining the premise. Pastiche isn't baked into the system, it's part of the assumptions of many players and remains so if it's never challenged.

I ran a straight historical game using D&D-derived ACKS and was very clear about what was and wasn't allowed, and didn't get the "fantasy UN" turning up with a mish-mash of equipment from everywhere.

[JackPhoenix]

That emergent property is only true if the GM exercises no editorial control over what the players put in front of them after outlining the premise. Pastiche isn't baked into the system, it's part of the assumptions of many players and remains so if it's never challenged.

I ran a straight historical game using D&D-derived ACKS and was very clear about what was and wasn't allowed, and didn't get the "fantasy UN" turning up with a mish-mash of equipment from everywhere.

"I changed things from default, that means default isn't kitchen sink" isn't really good argument.

[Kiero]

"I changed things from default, that means default isn't kitchen sink" isn't really good argument.

Except changing things from default is exactly what the OP has done.

[JackPhoenix]

Except changing things from default is exactly what the OP has done.

Sure, but it's not like the Greece was isolated from other cultures. They may have been barbarians, but they were still around, and some of the had nice stuff.

[Boci]

Sure, but it's not like the Greece was isolated from other cultures. They may have been barbarians, but they were still around, and some of the had nice stuff.

Its depends on the feel the DM is aiming for. Sure, mix and match works in any setting, but sometimes a DM might want players to be less, well players. And rather than going "huh, this great axe deals 1d12 damage whilst the kopis deals 1d8" they might want to encourage players to go "Well this blunt barbarian weapons is cleary inferior to the finest bronze craftmanship of if my home".

[Willie the Duck]

Hollow World in BECMI's Known World/Mystara setting had a mechanic around that where a character who came across a weapon or armor outside of their culture, it literally wouldn't occur to them to use it in an ongoing manner (only weapon available was still allowed, but you would replace it when you could, even if it worked better than your own culture's stuff).

The same thing could be done with social pressures. Sure a greataxe might be superior, but walking around with one is going to cause problems. It's not like there aren't legitimate, real-world reasons why you would walk around with the trusty Grecian spear and shield instead of a two-handed weapon (shields are awesome). Just have the society take it to heart, even if mechanically you might disagree on the best course of action.

Mind you, most people aren't playing campaigns that are, well, military campaigns. What the Greeks actually used on the battlefield is relatively uninformative to what they would do if they were adventurers going into dungeons filled with beasts and treasure. So I wouldn't feel too beholden to it, certainly if it leads to one and only one real way to build a martial character.

[Kiero]

Sure, but it's not like the Greece was isolated from other cultures. They may have been barbarians, but they were still around, and some of the had nice stuff.

None of which is relevant to the question. "Other cultures in antiquity" doesn't mean medieval-era-standard equipment is appropriate. There were no actual two-handed swords (no, a falx isn't one), no articulated plate, mail was non-existent before around 300BC, hammers were a blacksmith's tool not a weapon, dedicated "armour piercing" weapons didn't exist.

[Trask]

Don't do that, then all that flavour becomes nothing more than a pastiche as the PCs end up looking just like a generic fantasy party as they deck themselves out with "advanced" gear.

Yeah you're right, that probably isnt a good idea. I do like the idea of using Atlantis as a sort of half mythical ancient civilization players can find ruins of and artifacts from, but I'll keep them distinctly Hellenic, or at the very least ancient Mediterranean in character.

[Trask]

Really cool stuff! All looks pretty great.

I think it's a good call having a fairly narrow range to start with, as a tone setter. If people really want to bring stuff like greataxes and stomach-crossbows, you can judge that on a case by case basis as inspiration strikes them. As a player, I think I'd really appreciate this thematic commitment as a starting point.

Good work!

Thank you. I too think starting with a narrow range is good as the players will no doubt explore and maybe even push into barbarian lands and travel to far flung Greek colonies and they can encounter new stuff there.

[Trask]

Another thing to consider: you made dual-wielding a lot more enticing... is that on purpose?

When two weapon fighting is used the weapons retain their original damage values regardless of the character's martial proficiency.

[Kiero]

Yeah you're right, that probably isnt a good idea. I do like the idea of using Atlantis as a sort of half mythical ancient civilization players can find ruins of and artifacts from, but I'll keep them distinctly Hellenic, or at the very least ancient Mediterranean in character.

If you want to use Atlantis like that, make their gear better quality versions of the things that are already available, rather than complete departures. So Atlantean swords are largely the same as regular ones, just made out of better quality materials.

[Corsair14]

None of which is relevant to the question. "Other cultures in antiquity" doesn't mean medieval-era-standard equipment is appropriate. There were no actual two-handed swords (no, a falx isn't one), no articulated plate, mail was non-existent before around 300BC, hammers were a blacksmith's tool not a weapon, dedicated "armour piercing" weapons didn't exist.

What do you mean a Falx isnt one? Its very much a 4-6 foot, 2 handed weapon that made a mockery of shields and helms. Sica was the one handed version. Or are you refering that they just didnt exist at the time of which I am unsure as there is very little historical data on the Dacians before the Romans. Kind of make sense that they didnt since there wasnt a lot of armor to be worth making a weapon like the falx.

Chain existed just was not in wide use, I dont think the Greek used it at all. Scale was far more common in the various forms of lamellar of which the Greeks would have access to. The heavy infantry of the Greeks was well known with the Spartans being the heaviest armored of them all, that said most city states armored up similarly enough the differences were negligable. That heavy armor was around 60-70 pounds of bronze plate.

[Kiero]

What do you mean a Falx isnt one? Its very much a 4-6 foot, 2 handed weapon that made a mockery of shields and helms. Sica was the one handed version. Or are you refering that they just didnt exist at the time of which I am unsure as there is very little historical data on the Dacians before the Romans. Kind of make sense that they didnt since there wasnt a lot of armor to be worth making a weapon like the falx.

Chain existed just was not in wide use, I dont think the Greek used it at all. Scale was far more common in the various forms of lamellar of which the Greeks would have access to. The heavy infantry of the Greeks was well known with the Spartans being the heaviest armored of them all, that said most city states armored up similarly enough the differences were negligable. That heavy armor was around 60-70 pounds of bronze plate.

A falx or rhomphaia are only swords in the most loose of definitions, being a short-ish handle and long blade. A falx isn't an armour-piercing weapon either, which is why it was relatively easily defeated by adding a ridge to the helmet and putting armour on the arm.

There's little evidence for the existence of mail before around 300BC, when the Celts appear to have invented it. The Greeks did use it - only later around 200BC (see the reliefs depicting the battle of Raphia). Which is well outside the assumed date range for "ancient Greece" which I'm assuming means the Classical era.

[Corsair14]

Agreed that it is loosely defined as a sword. Disagree about the anti-armor capabilities. It wasnt easily defeated by adding those armor pieces. I have seen one cut through a traditional Roman Scutum length-ways. Before they up armored their helms they were easily slicing through the normal issue helms the Romans wore. Uparmoring the legions simply made them more survivable, not impervious. A direct hit, and not the glancing shots the armor was added for, will still quite easily penetrate the helm. They literally added as much armor as they could before making the helms and armor too heavy for marching and use and they still suffered fairly heavy losses during the second Dacian campaign. Notable enough enemies to make a giant column in honor of the parties involved. As soon as the campaign ended they stripped the extra armor back off as it was too heavy.