Primitive Weapons and Armor

[Outrider]

Are there any published rules for weapons and armor made of lower quality materials such as wood, stone or bone? The equipment in the PHB pretty much assumes all civilizations are capable of working steel, and that isn't the case in the setting I am working on. I intend to have a number of tribes who are still using stone age weapons and armor, where having a metal weapon, let alone a steel one, is a rare treasure.

I know the simplest way to accomplish this would just be to re-flavor the equipment, but that removes any advantage there is to having a steel weapon instead of one made of stone or bone. Instead I was considering house ruling some kind of weapon/armor fragility system, where primitive equipment has a chance of breaking. Something like rolling a one on an attack might prompt a fragility check. Failure means your weapon becomes broken and does less damage. A second failure might break it entirely. The same could be done with armor if it sustains a critical hit, lowering it's protection until destroyed.

On the one hand, this could offer a sense of danger mid-combat if your weapon or armor suddenly breaks, and could make proficiency with tools like leather working, woodcarving and smithing much more important since they could be used to repair equipment. On the other hand, going off of my own experience with video games that use an equipment degradation mechanic, it can get kind of annoying and difficult to have to replace your primary weapon when it breaks mid dungeon, and I don't want to make it a chore.

Thoughts, ideas, suggestions?

[Mellack]

Realize that having sub-standard equipment is going to unfairly effect different classes. A monk and most casters will hardly care. A fighter or paladin will be losing out the most. Consider if the changes will make the game more fun overall. Personally, I would say the added hassle is not worth it.

[leogobsin]

You could take the opposite approach: instead of of more primitive equipment being weaker than the standard have primitive equipment be the standard and have steel weapons work like masterworks in previous editions: give a +1 to attack and damage rolls without being magic.

[Renvir]

I suggest reducing weapon damage by 2 and AC by 1. It keeps the math simple while making it clear the primitive weapons and armor aren't as good.

[NorthernPhoenix]

You could have steel weapons have advantage against primitive armour, and primitive weapons have disadvantage against steel armour. This would strongly highlight the difference between the two, but keep in line with 5e's modifier light design goals

Just remember to balance for sneak attack somehow!

[Ganymede]

Yeah, all this might accomplish is PCs carrying around a bunch of weapons.

[Unoriginal]

There are published rules, in the sense that they shown us the stats for that kind of equipment and their stats are identical to the regular ones.

For example, bugbears use stone-tipped javelins.

The only differences is the type of equipment that can be created with those materials, the interactions with a few spells (no Heat Metal on an ivory blade), and how easy it is to break them if you use the rules for that in the DMG.

I don't think anyone gains anything from making it more complicated.

[Kadesh]

A club deals less damage than greatsword. Is that not what you mean?

[Albions_Angel]

I dont know of any published versions, but I DID make my own primitive weapon list for a stone age game a while back.

Be warned, I took some inspiration from 3.5e.

I kept club, greatclub, javelin and quarterstaff as is.
I swapped shortbow and sling damage but kept the range the same. Primitive bows wernt as good as slings in combat.
I kept nets and blowguns.
I took daggers, spears and handaxes and did the following:

Each one could be made of one of 3 materials.
Flint does regular damage and is essentially free.
Obsidian does regular damage and gives +1 bleed for 1d4 turns. It costs the regular price.
Bronze/Copper does regular damage but crit on 18-20. These require significant trade value. I left that up to DM discretion.

I also did the same with arrows:
Flint arrows are normal arrows.
Obsidian arrows do bleed.
Bronze arrows have 18-20 crit.

I ditched ALL OTHER WEAPONS.

I also limited armor to light and medium, where medium used bronze or stone disks sewn to the leather underneath.

[JackPhoenix]

If I play at lower tech level, I use the base stats for standard equipment, and turn weapons and armor from more advanced materials to +x's. Any balance problems solved.

[Vogie]

This is a fun thought experiment

I'd restrict things to basically just Simple weapons (except light crossbows, but also whips, nets & blowguns), and armor to medium armor, and give everyone a d4 for unarmed combat. I'd also do some sling upgrades - remove the faux-loading property, and definitely increase the viability.

Heavy Armor classes, such as Paladins & Fighters, gain the ability to add an additional 2 to their armor based on Strength mod above 14.

Martial weapon classes can exhibit mastery over learning a weapon - by same melee weapon over the course of a short rest and a long rest can increase the damage die to d8, and another Short rest & long rest will give it a versatile d10 property

I don't like the idea of armor and weapons breaking down unless everyone at the table is preemptively super-thrilled about resource management and downtime crafting.

[Anonymouswizard]

You could take the opposite approach: instead of of more primitive equipment being weaker than the standard have primitive equipment be the standard and have steel weapons work like masterworks in previous editions: give a +1 to attack and damage rolls without being magic.

This. Bare in mind that Strength-based warriors from more primitive cultures will be disadvantaged by having no access to the heaviest armours, I would recommend that such characters could be given Medium Armour Master for free.

Of course the best way to do it is to ask what the technology level of the average PC culture is and base it around that. If they're using bronze armour and weapons then those using stone and maybe iron should be penalised while those with steel should gain a bonus. I'd recommend limiting it to a +1/-1 deal unless you want to go all the way into simulationism (in which case some weapons will be plain better against certain kinds of armour, and the weapons available will depend on what armour has been developed.

[rbstr]

As many have sort of alluded to, you upset the balance of the game when you start messing with the stuff in the weapons/armor table. The basic equipment table is assumed in class balance. So nerfing access to that will hurt many classes relative to classes that don't really need that stuff as much.
This is kinda related to the common "I want punish heavy armor use in my setting for X reason, how do I do it?" threads...well you're nuking strength characters...is that your intent?

My recommendation is to re-flavor/name stuff rather than actually changing numbers.

[NorthernPhoenix]

As many have sort of alluded to, you upset the balance of the game when you start messing with the stuff in the weapons/armor table. The basic equipment table is assumed in class balance. So nerfing access to that will hurt many classes relative to classes that don't really need that stuff as much.
This is kinda related to the common "I want punish heavy armor use in my setting for X reason, how do I do it?" threads...well you're nuking strength characters...is that your intent?

My recommendation is to re-flavor/name stuff rather than actually changing numbers.

I mentioned advantage before, but another idea could be to use resistance. Maybe boneplate and steel plate armour are both AC 18, which like you say is important. But, Steel plate has auto resistance to bone/etc weapons, but not to steel, which damage it normally.

[Outrider]

I mentioned advantage before, but another idea could be to use resistance. Maybe boneplate and steel plate armour are both AC 18, which like you say is important. But, Steel plate has auto resistance to bone/etc weapons, but not to steel, which damage it normally.

Hm, that could work pretty well for armors.

I think the masterwork method might be the best for weapons, giving steel a non-magical +1

[Hand_of_Vecna]

You could take the opposite approach: instead of of more primitive equipment being weaker than the standard have primitive equipment be the standard and have steel weapons work like masterworks in previous editions: give a +1 to attack and damage rolls without being magic.

That's always been my method. Whatever is "normal" for your campaign has the stats listed in the phb.

[allen]

Find a copy of castles for 2nd edition. It supplied all the rules you need. Plus as a bonus the damage and stuff is the same in most editions for all weapons.

[Sigreid]

Maybe give damage resistance against weapons of a lower tech /poorer materials than the metal armor worn? I specify metal armor because I'd expect leather and hide armor to not have much of a tech level variation (though I'm aware that cloth armor created through layers glued together was much netter protection than most of us would think).
Edit: I'm thinking something like DR 1 per step so iron against steal would be -1 while bronze would be -2. Then it's just deciding what fits in each step.

[rel]

I generally rule that inferior weapons have a lower damage die, D6 instead of D8 for example.
For particularly shoddy examples I sometimes give weapons a chance to break after use, breaks after dealing damage on a crit, breaks on an odd roll, breaks on any natural roll of 16 or above, etc.
But I usually reserve those rules for weapons of truly terrible quality; only the most hastily improvised or long unmaintained of kit.

[Mastikator]

You could take the opposite approach: instead of of more primitive equipment being weaker than the standard have primitive equipment be the standard and have steel weapons work like masterworks in previous editions: give a +1 to attack and damage rolls without being magic.

I really like this option.

[crabwizard77]

I would, like many of the above, make primitive weapons the default. However, I feel like steel weapons should probably be either mostley nonexistent or ignoring X points of primitive armor's AC, and primitive weapons should have to hit a extra X points of AC against steel armor. Not sure what X is though. Or just use lower damage dice, so a dagger does 1 damage, and a shortsword does 1d4

[Demonslayer666]

Just lower the weapon damage dice by one.

I recall there being a 3.5 edition book that covered this, but I can't recall what it was in.

[Witty Username]

Realize that having sub-standard equipment is going to unfairly effect different classes. A monk and most casters will hardly care. A fighter or paladin will be losing out the most. Consider if the changes will make the game more fun overall. Personally, I would say the added hassle is not worth it.

That depends on implementation,
Monk has enough problems as it is too keep it balanced.
Casters use equipment as well, make the wizard need stone tablets for a spell book for example.
I would ax cantrips in this setting set up though, if the goal is to make equipment interesting, they just provide a silly way around it than a way for casters to keep feeling castery.

[JonBeowulf]

Goodman Games has a 5e conversion of Isle of Dread with two primitive armors (both Medium):




Armor
Cost
Armor Class
STR Req
Stealth
Weight


Wicker
2 gp
11 + DEX mod (max 1)
---
Disadvantage
12 lbs.


Bone
50 gp
14
STR 13
Disadvantage
20 lbs.



"Wicker Armor is comprised of woven reeds that form a protective vest for the torso, and sometimes arm and leg guards. Although not very protective, it is cheap and simple to manufacture and is relatively lightweight."

"Bone Armor is a woven mesh of bones and animal teeth, typically worn by native tribesmen. Although macabre, some cultures consider it an honor to use the bones of opponents that have fallen in battle. Creating bone armor requires a trained craftsman and can take days to craft a custom-designed set for a warrior."

They also include some primitive weapons (Macana, War Claws, War Boomerang, and a couple others). DM me if you want stats on them.

[Luccan]

Most of the time available materials are going to dictate what type of weapons can even be made and then probably how fast weapons break. Note that the former is easy to handle (you're probably not going to have bone greatswords, for instance) while implications of the latter would mean things like losing out on loot or potentially breaking a weapon and having no replacement because the goblins' weapons all broke too. Most people still playing 3.5 don't try to sunder weapons for a reason.

Also, I don't think it's that 5e assumes everyone is working with steel. It's just that this is a heroic fantasy game, so choosing to use bone or bronze or whatever is generally a character detail. Plus, I mean, if we're going for realism you aren't stabbing through a steel breastplate with a knife regardless of what it's made of. You're attacking the least armored areas so the point or edge of you're weapon does the most damage possible. And if you can hit flesh if basically doesn't matter at that point what your weapon is made of.

[Skrum]

I agree with others; leave the equipment mechanically the same, and flavor the "magic" items as advanced materials.

But, I will say that if you're keeping the game at VERY low levels, like 3 or less, I think it'd be relatively fine to nerf/limit equipment. No metal armors, simple weapons only, like that could work at those levels. But fighter, paladin, barb, etc., is going to be impacted quite badly if they're 8th level and still fighting with hide armor and a spear.

Alternatively, let characters that get extra attack who aren't full casters add their proficiency bonus to their AC and damage rolls when they get extra attack. That would offset the difference pretty well.

Edit: Or. Lol. Nerf casters. Normal progression to level 4, and then they have a max of 1 slot per spell level after that. So a 9 level spell caster would have cantrips, 4 1sts, 3 2nds, 1 3rd, 1 4th, and 1 5th.

[rel]

I would ax cantrips in this setting set up though, if the goal is to make equipment interesting, they just provide a silly way around it than a way for casters to keep feeling castery.

Hey, it works pretty well in 3.5

[Chronos]

The 3.5 book with primitive weapons was Frostburn.

And I really wouldn't recommend giving steel weapons advantage vs. primitive armor, because that would often make primitive armor worse than useless. If I were facing a guy with a steel sword, sure, I wouldn't want to be relying on bone armor... but I'd want even less to be completely unarmored.

Another thing to keep in mind is that some equipment in the game still is primitive. A medieval club or quarterstaff isn't significantly different from an ancient one, and hide armor is hide armor.

[Luccan]

The 3.5 book with primitive weapons was Frostburn.

And I really wouldn't recommend giving steel weapons advantage vs. primitive armor, because that would often make primitive armor worse than useless. If I were facing a guy with a steel sword, sure, I wouldn't want to be relying on bone armor... but I'd want even less to be completely unarmored.

Another thing to keep in mind is that some equipment in the game still is primitive. A medieval club or quarterstaff isn't significantly different from an ancient one, and hide armor is hide armor.

This is a good point. Whatever you decide it shouldn't make using a weapon or armor you're proficient with worse than being naked and unarmed