PDA

View Full Version : Weapon Material and Quality



AKA_Bait
2007-09-23, 02:24 PM
I've noticed some folks take umbridge with the rules in the back of the DMG for higher and lower tech weapons.

Essentially, the question is: Why should a bronze weapon get penalties if there are no steel weapons at all? Shouldn't the relative availability of the materials be factored into the universal attack and damage mechanics.

I think it makes perfect sense for weapons in a diffrent era, say bronze, to be less effective than steel weapons even if there are no steel weapons around. Bronze doesn't get as sharp, hold it's edge as well, resist breaking and bending as well as steel and, consequentialy, is less useful in the job of killing people (or things). Attack and damage are the ingame mechanical representations of 'how useful is this to kill something'. As such, even though there are no steel weapons to be had, it's still just as hard to hew through flesh, bone, and armor. So, the penalties make sense.

Other thoughts?

Raolin_Fenix
2007-09-23, 02:27 PM
It makes sense to me. It's just a little needlessly complicated as far as I'm concerned -- everyone's getting the same penalties. But for people like monks, it's important to note that their fists are just as useful as ever, so they actually have an edge in bronze-age technology settings.

Not that, y'know, it offsets the rest of the crappiness that is the monk class.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-23, 02:32 PM
It makes sense to me. It's just a little needlessly complicated as far as I'm concerned -- everyone's getting the same penalties. But for people like monks, it's important to note that their fists are just as useful as ever, so they actually have an edge in bronze-age technology settings.

Not that, y'know, it offsets the rest of the crappiness that is the monk class.

True, but it's also not just monks. Any monster with claws and teeth is still as nasty as they ever were.

Subotei
2007-09-23, 02:37 PM
And bludgeoning weapons will be unaffected as well - a bronze mace would make just as an impressive dent as a iron one, providing the weight is the same.

Leicontis
2007-09-23, 02:39 PM
It wouldn't make as big a dent against an armored target.

martyboy74
2007-09-23, 03:07 PM
Except that the armor would be made out of bronze, so it would.

Zincorium
2007-09-23, 03:11 PM
It wouldn't make as big a dent against an armored target.

Only in the sense that steel armor would have a smaller dent, the person underneath is at least as likely to suffer internal bleeding and shattered bones as if hit with a steel mace.

Against bronze armor, there's no difference. And why would you be using bronze weapons if you had enough steel to make armor? Masochism?

Citizen Joe
2007-09-23, 03:17 PM
Personally, better materials just means they hold an edge better or are more resistant to damage. Improved armor makes sense, but not weapons. Likewise a bronze plate armor would have the same protection, but it would be thicker, thus heavier, and possibly worse armor penalties for that reason.

Even stone weapons can be as sharp as steel, but they are brittle so you have to replace them often. Same would go for bronze. Sharpen them after every battle and you should be fine. Bronze arrow heads should be easy as well, since you're planning on them breaking anyway.

Bronze bludgeoning weapons should be fine though. Weight is weight, it doesn't matter if it is malleable or not.

martyboy74
2007-09-23, 03:24 PM
Bronze bludgeoning weapons should be fine though. Weight is weight, it doesn't matter if it is malleable or not.

Try hitting someone with eight pounds of Silly Putty, and telling me that it has the same effect as metal.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-23, 03:26 PM
Personally, better materials just means they hold an edge better or are more resistant to damage. Improved armor makes sense, but not weapons. Likewise a bronze plate armor would have the same protection, but it would be thicker, thus heavier, and possibly worse armor penalties for that reason.


Thing is, holding an edge better and being less malliable does make a diffrence in the kind of combat going on in D&D. If my blade is more likley to be bent when going up against the natural armor of many creatures, or even the bones of others (after cutting through that tasty tasty flesh) it is less likley to make as damageing a cut. It's diffrence bettween cutting something's leg off and just cutting it to the bone. Will both do a lot of damage? Yes. Will one do more? Yes.

RMS Oceanic
2007-09-23, 03:31 PM
Complete Arms and Equipment Guide had rules for Bronze and Bone weapons. I think it pretty much amounted to damage penalties, but it was interesting. I know it's 3.0 edition, but the rules should still stand.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-23, 03:37 PM
Complete Arms and Equipment Guide had rules for Bronze and Bone weapons. I think it pretty much amounted to damage penalties, but it was interesting. I know it's 3.0 edition, but the rules should still stand.

Yes. DMG does as well. I just started this thread because of a discussion about if adding those penalties makes sense or not.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-23, 04:09 PM
hang on, wouldn't this cause claw and bite attcks to do less damage? They're made of bone, right?

kamikasei
2007-09-23, 04:13 PM
hang on, wouldn't this cause claw and bite attcks to do less damage? They're made of bone, right?

Claws are made of keratin (like fingernails). Teeth are kind of like bone but as I understand it they're much, much harder.

Rockphed
2007-09-23, 04:21 PM
Also, things with claws and teeth have teeth and claws that are designed to rip things to shreds.

Shas aia Toriia
2007-09-23, 07:59 PM
Oh yeah. . . Thanks. Also, what if somebody found a chunk of sharp iron? Wouldn't this cause him to become a great warrior? :smallconfused:

Machete
2007-09-23, 08:07 PM
Oh yeah. . . Thanks. Also, what if somebody found a chunk of sharp iron? Wouldn't this cause him to become a great warrior? :smallconfused:

Bronze Age Adamantine. Its all relative, mostly anyways. I like the idea of metal being a little nerfed.

If only to mix hings up and make the Greatclub suck less.

TheThan
2007-09-23, 09:40 PM
I’ve always thought that the rules in the DMG for primitive weapons and weapons from different ages are silly. Because they don’t take into account the subjective nature of their rules. Yes, a steel sword is better than a bronze sword, but if you’ve never encountered a steel sword, and bronze is the best material you have, then how are you going to know that steel swords are better?

I mean why would a warrior suffer a penalty for using a bronze weapon when that is the best weapons available?

If there are multiple types of material being used such as bronze vs. bone or flint (for example the Conquistadors vs. the Aztecs), then yes I can see such penalties being used and would have no problem with it. However if the setting is in say, a Bronze Age society, and people are making both weapons and armor out of bronze, both the weapons and armor for each other would be evenly matched. Besides warriors would be used to using what’s at hand that they probably wouldn’t notice the apparent ineffectiveness of their weapons. Plus they would have nothing to compare it to except for what they used before they discovered bronze.

TheOOB
2007-09-23, 09:44 PM
In a greek-ish campaign I'm running I assume normal weapons and armor are made from bronze or iron (many weapons where iron, even in greece), and masterwork equipment is all steel(due to the existence of dwarves, steel forging is much more advanced and common then in real greek times.) This way a difference in materials still matters, but I don't have to change rules.

BardicDuelist
2007-09-23, 09:47 PM
I just make the most common material the base (no penalty) and give bonuses to anything which is better than that, as it simplifies things a little more.

I don't make magic stronger though. I know this is mechanically unbalanced, but making magic marginally less powerful doesn't bother me.

bugsysservant
2007-09-23, 10:10 PM
I’ve always thought that the rules in the DMG for primitive weapons and weapons from different ages are silly. Because they don’t take into account the subjective nature of their rules. Yes, a steel sword is better than a bronze sword, but if you’ve never encountered a steel sword, and bronze is the best material you have, then how are you going to know that steel swords are better?

I mean why would a warrior suffer a penalty for using a bronze weapon when that is the best weapons available?

If there are multiple types of material being used such as bronze vs. bone or flint (for example the Conquistadors vs. the Aztecs), then yes I can see such penalties being used and would have no problem with it. However if the setting is in say, a Bronze Age society, and people are making both weapons and armor out of bronze, both the weapons and armor for each other would be evenly matched. Besides warriors would be used to using what’s at hand that they probably wouldn’t notice the apparent ineffectiveness of their weapons. Plus they would have nothing to compare it to except for what they used before they discovered bronze.

That would be true, if all the monsters in the DMG relied on steel claws and teeth. And even then it still wouldn't work. In theory the weapon damage is based on a standard hit against a certain monster. When you can't hit that monster as effectively, you either have to change weapon damage (which they did) or monster hp/AC.

What bothers me is armor. Having weaker armor grant a lower AC acknowleges that some attacks are breaching the armor as a matter of course, so any armor should gradually decrease in AC without rutine repairs by a blacksmith as it accumulates holes. Since no such mechanic exists, it is silly to lower the AC of bronze armor.