Post/Author/DateTime	Post
UnrelentingHoror 11-21-06, 04:37 PM	Okay, I'm desighning an adventure and I need help coming up with a list of things to arm people from an aztec/mayan type culture who have access to some bronze work but not verry much metal so anything that takes up too much metal to make or breaks theme is kind of out. Heres what I have so far: Light picks darts javelins spears morningstars Those swordlike clubs with the obsidian edges(what are they called? and any help statting them) Spiked gauntlets daggers nets clubs Now classically did those cultures utilize armor other than shields? So thoughts anyone?
tarkin 11-21-06, 04:48 PM	You left out the most famous one of all: atlatl (Spear thrower) The Aztecs called their obsidian-edged sword macuahuitl. Usually the swords were lined with ten blades; five on each side.
BelainDefenderofJerusalem 11-21-06, 05:31 PM	just use the stats for a longsword or bastardsword for your bladey thingy but change the crit to x3
Watchman 11-21-06, 05:45 PM	The Incas (who'd actually gotten to the Bronze Age when the Conquistadors turned up) also used heavy bronze battleaxes. Those were apparently effective enough that the steel-armoured Conquistadors were a bit wary of them - otherwise the only native weapon they actually had to worry about was the sling, which could cause serious cranial damage even through a steel helmet. Axes and spears were always cheap and popular weapons specifically they took so little metal to make. That they could be used for more than killing neighbours certainly didn't hurt, although for a standing army (such as those maintained by the major Native American powers) their usefulness as hunting weapons or tools was obviously secondary. By what I've read the macauitl (the spelling for the obsidan-bladed sword-club I've seen) actually wasn't all that effective a weapon. It had some trouble delivering deep cuts due to its construction, and as such wasn't terribly lethal although I'd imagine you could split heads with it well enough (normal clubs can do it, anyway, and this thing has a narrow impact area to focus the blow's energy with). This actually suited the Aztecs right well, as they tended to be more after captives than dead enemies and the macauitl was quite sufficient for disabling the limbs of the foeman. There was also a long-hafted proto-glaive version typically used by young warriors in the second ranks to support the front rankers, and a large two-handed version no doubt considerably more lethal but which the armoured Spaniards found mainly annoying, as it tended to knock them around. Armies of nations unconcerned with a steady steam of captives to sacrifice tended to go more for axes and spears instead and also pay more attention to ranged combat, and duly their soldiers naturally enough went straight for the throat. Bows should be on the list too, by the way. Like darts and javelins they're deadly enough with stone, bone and copper heads especially if you don't need to worry about much armour. Some of the Aztecs' neighbours were apparently noted for their archers, who also doubled as capable light infantry and flankers. The around only place in the Americas where you could find the necessary materials (mainly horn; animal sinew is available readily enough) for a composite bow would be the Great Plains of the northern continent though. (As a side note the Plains Indians began developing composite bows soon after they got horses, but the relatively easy availability of decent firearms stifled this autochtonous parallel evolution soon after.) Armour in such a setting would really be restricted to leather and padded (South American thick quilt armour was tough enough it would probably rate as Leather in D&D though), although enough hardened leather reinforcements to produce the equivalent of Studded Leather wouldn't be a major stretch. Bronze scale armour for really elite and/or high-ranking (or just seriously filthy rich) individuals wouldn't be entirely impossible either, although that would no longer be very faithful to the setting even if within the limits of the technology base in question. Ditto for solid bronze pectoral plates (historically used in some regions until well into Roman times to protect the chest area), although how those would rate in D&D terms I've no idea (Scale perhaps ?). The Native American civilizations incidentally used the atl-atl solely as a dart-thrower (and some versions could apparently propel two at once) AFAIK. I've read it was a bit tricky weapon to use, and as such mainly restricted to nobility (who, not having to work for a living, could spare the training hours) and some other small elite groups such as warrior-priests and possibly small, really elite picked military units. More primitive hunter-gatherer peoples would likely be familiar with the slightly different spear-thrower though, although that device rarely stuck around long once bows were invented.
Grizzled Gryphon 11-21-06, 06:34 PM	Dont forget the club and greatclub. They were usually carved to show the deities, or some ferocious animal, but they were still just a big stick to hit things with. Just out of curiosity, why is a Greatclub not a simple weapon?
Tony Vargas 11-21-06, 06:40 PM	I'd be tempted to stat the macuahuitl as a morningstar. However, I could see making it a martial weapon, with slashing-bludgeoning (and otherwise identical stats to the morningstar), instead. Not terribly effective, but definitely unique.
Manyfist 11-21-06, 07:09 PM	Macuahuitl was an EXTREMELY effective weapon, the only downside that the wood could be busted, or the Obsidan could chip away. Since that was there "Sword" because they were still in the Stone Age by the Time most of the Native Americans were destroyed. They also had Obsidan Knives which were sharper than the sharpest Scapel. How ever it was inferior to the Sword because you can Thrust with a Sword and had to swing the Macuahuitl. Also many of the Sword Clubs kinda shattered v. Metal. Stats: Macuahuitl, Small (Less wood, less Obsidan) 1d6 19-20/x2 Macuahuitl 1d8 19-20/x2 Macuahuitl, Great (More wood, Longer, More Obsidan) 2d6 19-20/x2
Watchman 11-21-06, 08:16 PM	Volcanic glass has its limitations. Macauitls probably constantly kept losing their edge on enemies' wooden shields too, but then again those glass shards were something of a disposable technology anyway - broke easily, were relatively easy to replace (just get the old one out and glue the new one in), and a skilled maker could likely make the things by the dozen in a fairly short time. Anyway, the thing that sort of put a damper with what you could do with the design was for one the fact that you had to build up the "blade" from many fairly small pieces, and that's a pretty suboptimal way to make a cutting edge. Another was the presence of the club base, which whatever you did couldn't be made all that thin and would have been pretty much dead weight when it came to cutting deep into a body. A cutting weapon wants to be all sharp and narrow like a scalpel so there's minimal "drag", you know ? The kind that gets chopped directly into the target, anyway. Curved "draw cut" metal things tend to be more like wedges in profile, but that's obviously rather beside the point here.
UnrelentingHoror 11-21-06, 08:51 PM	Thanks guys, you have all been rather helpful, I think I have what I need.
Tordek 11-21-06, 09:23 PM	I'd suggest that you rule that stone and wooden weapons shatter on a 1, and have reduced hardness from metal weapons. Also, I think that native peoples had bolas.
UnrelentingHoror 11-22-06, 04:56 AM	I'd suggest that you rule that stone and wooden weapons shatter on a 1, and have reduced hardness from metal weapons. Also, I think that native peoples had bolas. So using a wooden club straight out of the PH it should shatter on a 1? And don't they already have lower hardness based on the material? Isn't that abit harsh man?
SiouLubb 11-22-06, 09:29 AM	So using a wooden club straight out of the PH it should shatter on a 1? And don't they already have lower hardness based on the material? Isn't that abit harsh man? Harsh indeed. Perhaps instead, on a natural 1 the attacker should make a sunder attempt on their own weapon? I think that would work far better, as a truly strong weilder would run a much greater chance of breaking their weapon and the breakage would no longer be automatic. Feats such as improved sunder wouldn't count for such a check. I second the idea of the sword club being slashing/bludgeoning D8 x2 crit. Seems to fit well with the concept and reality of the weapon. Hell, a weapon of that combo would be nice to add to the standard list of weapons too.
Masterfulks 11-22-06, 10:28 AM	The obsidian thing sounds a lot more like a mace to me than a sword....
VonRichthofen 11-22-06, 01:56 PM	I'd generally see those weapons more on the club side, with slashing/bludgeoning as damage type. They might have been quite effective against other native cultures, but when matched against European steel, they performed rather poorly. You couldn't do a lot of what we understand as swordfighting/fencing with them - thus I'd consider them rather crude weapons/club-style. So the question is: Wasn't there a set of rules for primitive weapons? If not, I'd give the ratings similar to D&D sword, but one die size smaller and adding bludgeoning to damage type. The typical macuahuitl would thus be: One-handed, martial, 1d6/19-20, bludgeoning & slashing. Upon a natural "1" I'd rule it to have a certain chance of losing one/all of its' obsidian edges - thus losing the slashing ability. But you'd still have an odd-shaped club with some nasty shards in it.
savant_warlord13 11-25-06, 01:45 PM	The atlatl (which can be found in frostburn) is a ranged weapon that was used by the aztecs as late as the era of the conquistadors.
savant_warlord13 11-25-06, 01:46 PM	The obsidian thing sounds a lot more like a mace to me than a sword.... It is definitely a sword
Jaid 11-25-06, 03:25 PM	you could always look into dark sun (athas.org) for non-metallic weapons. they have a lot of rather odd ones, in fact.