Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Boarfury 01-18-06, 05:58 PM	I am working on a Bronze Age campaign and have run across a slight problem: I intend to have the "greatest weapon" be the bronze short sword (think Roman Legion). The problem arises in the penalty to attack and damage that bronze weapons have. I don't know why anyonw would use them when there are so many other non metal weapons that don't suffer from the penalty and deal an equal or greater amount of damage. I use the humble wooden club as an example. It deals the same amount of damage and has no penalty. It has a smaller threat range, but my players are crazy and don't care about threat ranges. How could I make the Bronze short sword more appealing to the characters?
Vahenir 01-18-06, 06:42 PM	First of all.. the Romans didn't use bronze swords. Just wanted to get that out there. Secondly, you're going with the wrong approach. If your entire setting is going to be Bronze Age, then you should not use alternate rules for bronze weapons. Those rules are in place to provide a difference between iron and bronze. If there are no iron weapons, then there's no comparison necessary and bronze doesn't need to be inferior. So.. no penalties. Bronze weapons function the same way in a Bronze Age campaign as iron weapons would function in an Iron Age campaign.
Rulebook 01-18-06, 06:43 PM	well, one would assume that the greatest weapon of the day would be the Spear. the spear (and its derivitives) have been at the forefront of warfare from its inception up until (fairly) recently. its got reach over other weapons, it packs a punch, easy to use and make... weapons liek the Greek Kopis and whatnot (about the best bronze sword that comes to mind) were nice and all, but theres a reason that a lot of bronze age combat centered around Phalanx type formations. the sword though, to be sure, was an awesome weapon, i just see no particular reason to favor it over the far less expensive spear. (unless you want to use a bow too... then swords win for ease of storage)
Nitrokitty 01-18-06, 06:45 PM	One variant is for bronze weapons to have no attack and damage penalties, but less hardness and hp than the equivalent steel weapons. In the arbitrary world of D&D, steel weapons are the benchmark, and therefore all weapons are penalized or increased depending on their performance vs. steel. In a world where steel and iron weapons are not available, then the next best thing, bronze, becomes the benchmark. Another idea is to make the club have the same penalties. A club, in D&D terms, is not just a big stick. Often they are carefully crafted to be well balanced, fire-hardened, have metal bands or spikes set in to reinforce the wood, and so forth. You could argue that just as metallurgy has not advanced to the level of your standard D&D campaign, neither has woodworking.
Vahenir 01-18-06, 06:51 PM	Rulebook: Ya know I've never heard of a Bronze Age kopis. The first kopis/falcata that I'm aware of was iron - made in something like 300 B.C.E., which would have been towards the beginning of the 'true' Iron Age in Greece and Iberia. I imagine a bronze kopis would do rather poorly, since it's a hacking sword and most bronze age swords do better as thrusting weapons, considering their weaker, more easily-bent structure.
Thurbane 01-18-06, 08:34 PM	Damn - from the title I was hoping to find an invitation to a social club with members interested in bronzeware... :D
Rulebook 01-18-06, 08:59 PM	oh, whatever. got mixed up with another sword.
Rulebook 01-18-06, 09:04 PM	ah, i was thinking the Xiphos, which really wasnt a bronze age sword either, but was pretty much a direct copy into iron from previous bronze swords.
RaspK FOG 01-18-06, 09:21 PM	ah, i was thinking the Xiphos, which really wasnt a bronze age sword either, but was pretty much a direct copy into iron from previous bronze swords. Actually, xiphi (pl.) [ξίφος, το (pl.: ξίφη); Greek; neutral noun, "sword"] were made from copper originally, and, some time after that, they used brass and bronze to make them. By the time they found out how to make effective iron weapons, they also switched to iron blades too. ;) I generally use a bit of a variant rule when it comes to subpar materials: I may reduce the penalty of some weapons, since they may well function quite as effectively despite their lesser make.
Vahenir 01-18-06, 09:28 PM	Yes, the xiphos would have been bronze at one time, and, as was said, possibly copper before that, though I don't know of any evidence of copper xiphi. I generally use a bit of a variant rule when it comes to subpar materials: I may reduce the penalty of some weapons, since they may well function quite as effectively despite their lesser make. In my opinion, and as I said before, the OP is going about it all wrong. In an IRON AGE world bronze weapons are inferior and have penalties. In a BRONZE AGE world bronze weapons are the norm, and LESSER weapons (such as copper and stone weapons) should be the ones suffering a penalty.
Watchman 01-18-06, 09:53 PM	Bronze swords were mainly thrusting weapons exactly until the point some clever craftsman came up with the tang. Before that the blades were simply riveted to the handle at their base, and if you tried to use them as cutting weapons the rivets altogether too often tore the thing bronze to shreds. *Very* many of the bronze blades from that period I've seen in museums are damaged precisely in that fashion. Oakeshott once observed this told something about what a natural and instinctive move a hacking motion was in the press of combat - the early Bronze Age warriors didn't use stabbing swords because they *wanted* to but because they *had* to. Once the tang was introduced cutting swords became feasible. The classic wasp-waisted "hoplite" sword would be one example - there's at least one up here in Finland too. Tells you something about how far such prestige items could be traded.
Boarfury 01-18-06, 10:20 PM	All good suggestions. Another question I have would be how best to make the transition from bronze age to iron age. I want the characters to love their bronze weapons, but the iron weapons need to be able to pull them away from bronze. It's all about getting the characters to feel conflict over changing from bronze to iron.
Gilfalas_Elaandrin 01-18-06, 10:27 PM	Treat Iron as the Adamantine of the bronze age?
Watchman 01-18-06, 11:24 PM	Iron is cheaper by several orders of magnitude, for one thing. In some places you can quite literally fish the stuff up from lakes and bogs. And it doesn't do anything meaningfully *worse* than bronze - keeps a better edge too. I think one area where it really would show is armour. Bronze mainly gets you various coverages of scale armour and even a sort of proto-plate (not really something you walk around in - theory is the "Dendara panoply" was made for a chariot warrior) - all hideously expensive and quite heavy for their protective value. Iron is *way* better and cheaper once the craftsmen work out the glitches, although as a curious side note bronze and other copper alloys remained in use in scale armour long into the Iron Age. On the other hand, this is a magic-using world we're talking about. That means that around the time iron starts becoming common, most of the magic weapons and such will still be ones made before that time and hence of bronze... I don't really know a good way to deal with the difference between the two metal in D&D rules though - the to-hit and damage penalty is kinda clunky and IMHO a bit inappropriate. Perhaps use the penalties conditionally ? Bronze gear gets penalties (to-hit, to damage, to AC) when faced with appropriate iron gear (armour, weapons) ? Iron has better DR and HPs as far as Sundering goes ? The hairy barbarians flooding over the border are all decked out in cheap iron armour whose bronze equivalent is normally only worn by the elite and the rich ? Certainly the prospect of getting rid of even one point of to-hit and damage penalty when facing iron armour ought to alone be quite sufficient for the players to start looting all the ironmongery their chars can get their greedy mitts on, if I know anything of the logic D&D players work by...
Vahenir 01-19-06, 01:30 AM	Bronze swords were mainly thrusting weapons exactly until the point some clever craftsman came up with the tang. Even then.. bronze cutting swords were not hugely common at all, simply because of the inherent weakness in bronze. It bends too easily. People surely cut with their swords, but I would say the majority of bronze sword-styles were of a primarily thrusting type. I believe I'm backed up on that theory by Richard Burton's Book of the Sword, but I'd have to double-check to be sure. I want the characters to love their bronze weapons, but the iron weapons need to be able to pull them away from bronze. Watchman presented an excellent concept: Most magic items will still be made of bronze. Iron is new - which means there aren't a lot of magical objects made out of it yet. As for there being 'conflict' between iron and bronze.. there really shouldn't be. People should be jumping all over the chance to get iron wherever/whenever possible, because it -is- out and out superior to bronze for both weapons and armour. I also agree with Watchman on the idea of penalties being a clunky way to handle different metals. Here's my take on it: Weapons: Bronze are normal. Iron weapons have increased Hit Points and Hardness. Bottom line, this is the real life reason iron weapons are superior - they don't get damaged as easily during use. Armour: Bronze armour is normal. Iron armour provides DR 2 against any bronze weapon and weighs 10% less than bronze armour of the same style. Just an idea to kick around.
Yanagita Kunio 01-19-06, 03:01 AM	The Egyptian/Canaanite khopesh/khopsh were made of bronze as well as iron, were they not? Might be worth looking at, at least from a "here's an available variety of bronze sword" standpoint. I, however, have no idea how a khopesh was used in a fight...thrusting, chopping, or drawcutting? Re/ materials: I'd say it's a good idea to make bronze the standard, penalty-less material. "Inferior" materials would be things like copper or tin.
Vahenir 01-19-06, 03:30 AM	Yes, there was the khopesh. All told, off-handedly I can name three distinct Bronze Age cutting swords: Khopesh, sapara, xiphos. Compare that to the incredibly variety of thrusting swords and long-knives, many of which resembled what we might call a 'Scythian' sword - a very short, deeply-tapered thrusting sword. Also, just because it's worth noting: There is still huge debate among scholars as to whether or not the khopesh was actually a weapon. The contention seems to be that a khopesh made in the fashion that Egyptians would have used would be wholly unwieldy, and that it's more likely that it served as a status symbol, a ceremonial item, or both.
tarkin 01-19-06, 09:11 AM	It should also be noted that in real life the differences between Bronze and Iron were very different. Bronze got dull quickly, and was much MORE expensive, at least until iron weapons became very common. Bronze needs two relatively rare metals to make, while Iron is relatively more common and easier to find. Iron was more of a discovery than an invention. If I was to actually play in a game with Bronze and Iron both in use, I would rule that Bronze weapons started were variable like this: Rule 1: You could not buy non-masterwork Bronze ANYTHING. It was all that was available. Iron etc. is still available in non-masterwork versions. Rule 2: Masterwork bronze worked like this: First attack: +1 to hit, +1 to damage 2nd attack: +1 to damage 3rd attack: +0 4th attack: -1 to damage 5th and greater attacks: -1 to hit and -1 to damage. To reset it to +1/+1 took 10 minutes of sharpening. This would in my opinion, more realisticly represent bronze.
Da_weasel 01-19-06, 10:08 AM	Well I read in a book that Bronze weapons for D&D purposes on a die roll of a 1 would mean it iether would dull the blade(-1) to damage ot it would brake part.(Dm's choice,I am using a bronze campaine now and if any one rolls the lovely 1 i roll % die and see if it either is dulled or breaks.Also I treat bronze weapons and High Quaility(+1 to damage) and Stone weapons as the normal meaning that they are easier to find and get ahold of.BUt you still would need a weappon smith the create the weapons like a Stone sword or axe.And for bronze armor which isn't very comon I thik it was -1 to ac but + 1 to max dex where your iron suit would be the reverse of it.Also you might want to look at the weapons and armor book I thik that ha a bit more details on other types of armor materials in different time frames.
Watchman 01-19-06, 01:32 PM	Nah, there's no shortage of bronze cutting swords. Toughness shouldn't be a concern - AFAIK bronze actually beats iron in that, though it's a tad softer. I've read proper cold-hammering results in surface hardnesses comparable to iron, though. Anyway, bronze was for quite a while *the* metal to cast cannon from - it was tougher and more elastic, resulting in a lighter gun for the same amount of bang, and moreover if and when it failed it just split or burst instead of shattering to a cloud of dismembering fragments like iron cannon tended to. I suspect the reason thrusting blades were more common was more prosaic than the issue with holding an edge or considerations of resiliency - expense. Even the longer clearly cutting swords are rather small and thin looking compared to iron swords; given how expensive bronze was this may have been simply in order to keep the price down and conserve the valuable metal. Thrusting blades - nevermind spear- or axe-heads - don't need to be as large (as leverage isn't an issue) and hence ought to have been a whole lot cheaper, and thus more popular and common. Besides, in most ways thrusting weapons are more lethal anyway and bronze *does* have some issues with keeping an edge...
Vahenir 01-19-06, 04:44 PM	Nah, there's no shortage of bronze cutting swords. I only know of the sapara as a purely cutting bronze sword. (The Khopesh is arguable, depending on which belief you prescribe to on its use as a weapon.) The xiphos, of course, was a cutting sword, but it was also a thrusting sword. Likewise, there were plenty of solely or primarily thrusting swords during the Bronze Age. It just seems to me that for many reasons aside from the realities of honing an edge that bronze swords would be far more capable on the thrust than on the cut.
Boarfury 01-19-06, 05:20 PM	Excellent, excellent...thanks guys, good stuff. Now, while we are at it, the players are gonna be in Italy c. 388 BC - Late Etruscan/Early Roman (I think). I don't know anything about the Etruscans, so any idea of what weapons/armor they did or didn't have would also be welcome.
crossbow 01-19-06, 05:27 PM	I only know of the sapara as a purely cutting bronze sword. (The Khopesh is arguable, depending on which belief you prescribe to on its use as a weapon.) The xiphos, of course, was a cutting sword, but it was also a thrusting sword. Likewise, there were plenty of solely or primarily thrusting swords during the Bronze Age. It just seems to me that for many reasons aside from the realities of honing an edge that bronze swords would be far more capable on the thrust than on the cut. Vahenir, While the discussion has primarily centered on European bronze age swords, you may wish to look at some of the early Chinese weapons, they appear to be both cut and thrust, posessing a solid tang and quite a sharp blade. crossbow
Watchman 01-19-06, 05:42 PM	Spears. Lots of spears. Greek-style hoplite warfare was the norm in the region. Plus swords, and probably some axes. Armour would probably top at scale, although I'll freely admit I haven't a clue how the pectoral plates for example the Samnites used rate in D&D terms. Breastplates they sure as Hell aren't. I thought a bit about the bronze sword thingy, and my best guess it's related to the edge-keeping qualities of bronze. Cuts aren't all that effective even with good steel blades after all, and most bronze swords I've seen have looked rather light and small to begin with. On the other hand, I know maces were sometimes made of bronze in the Middle Ages so it sure can't be a resiliency issue and Oakeshott's The Archaelogy of Weapons describes a bronze falchion found in Zeeland - clearly a purely chopping weapon. According to said book from "Middle" Bronze age onwards the standard sword type was a cut-and-thrust one - the things are wasp-waisted and fairly wide towards the tip before tapering. The "Early" period ones - before the invention of the tang - were long narrow thrusting blades ("rapiers" is the word the book uses). *shrug* I'm just saying I have a hard time imagining a long leaf-shaped, wasp-waisted sword to be intented as a mainly thrusting weapon, especially as it has edges all the way down its side. Heck, when you think about it the wasp-waist actually gives the cutting edge a sort of recurve yataghan shape...
Vahenir 01-19-06, 06:27 PM	While the discussion has primarily centered on European bronze age swords, you may wish to look at some of the early Chinese weapons, they appear to be both cut and thrust, posessing a solid tang and quite a sharp blade. Chinese military history is a bit outside my typical area of interest, but from what I understand the majority of Bronze Age Chinese swords were also thrusting weapons. I have no doubt they were sharp. Bronze Age European swords were sharp. I never said bronze couldn't be sharpened, I said it wasn't very sturdy. although I'll freely admit I haven't a clue how the pectoral plates for example the Samnites used rate in D&D terms. Breastplates they sure as Hell aren't. Balanced Answer: I'd just call them the statistical equivalent of studded leather. Unbalanced Answer: Same thing but with the weight and weight category of chainmail. Bronze armour is fairly heavy for its size. I thought a bit about the bronze sword thingy, and my best guess it's related to the edge-keeping qualities of bronze. Cuts aren't all that effective even with good steel blades after all, and most bronze swords I've seen have looked rather light and small to begin with. Well that's my thought process. Not only will a bronze edge 'turn' much easier than an iron one - but bronze weapons were generally much smaller than iron weapons could be, making them generally less effective cutting tools anyway. Combine these two facts and it's easy to understand why thrusting might be preferred. On the other hand, I know maces were sometimes made of bronze in the Middle Ages so it sure can't be a resiliency issue Sure it could. There's a huge difference in what kind of stress an object can take based not on its composition, but shape. A heavy orb of bronze is -certainly- tougher and more durable than a thin strip of it. Oakeshott's The Archaelogy of Weapons describes a bronze falchion found in Zeeland - clearly a purely chopping weapon. I remember that. But I also seem to recall (can't check because my copy is still in the States) it being a rather strange find, not something Archaeologists and military enthusiasts would expect to see. According to said book from "Middle" Bronze age onwards the standard sword type was a cut-and-thrust one Absolutely. But as was said - those are cut-and-thrust, not just cutting weapons. I'm contending that these swords would fare better on the thrust than on the cut. Also, I'm not sure I agree with them being the 'standard' sword type of the entire Bronze Age. Perhaps the standard sword of a particular period of the Bronze Age in a particular location... The "Early" period ones - before the invention of the tang - were long narrow thrusting blades Or short, narrow, thrusting blades - often triangular in profile. And it's my understand that such blades continued to be used alongside the 'xiphos' style swords. I'm just saying I have a hard time imagining a long leaf-shaped, wasp-waisted sword to be intented as a mainly thrusting weapon, especially as it has edges all the way down its side. Not mainly a thrusting weapon, but it was certainly a thrusting weapon, and everything I know about bronze weapons leads me to believe that the thrust would have far less likelihood of damaging the weapon. The edges are there, obviously, because it is a cut-and-thrust weapon. But primarily thrusting weapons can still have completely sharpened edges. Many single-hand swords in the 14th-16th centuries were primarily thrusting weapons not truly the best at cutting, but still with sharpened edges.
Watchman 01-19-06, 10:00 PM	Yeah, the falchion is mentioned to be a bit of a rare oddity. But the wasp-waisted cut-and-thrust things were apparently pretty darn widespread, and over a pretty long period too - the design was apparently found workable or something. Could also be that they were simply considered beautiful and impressive, and traded widely as status symbols mind you...
Boarfury 01-19-06, 10:19 PM	Am I even correct in thinking 388 B.C. is in the Bronze Age?
Vahenir 01-19-06, 10:30 PM	Double-post.
Vahenir 01-19-06, 10:31 PM	But the wasp-waisted cut-and-thrust things were apparently pretty darn widespread, and over a pretty long period too - the design was apparently found workable or something. Could also be that they were simply considered beautiful and impressive, and traded widely as status symbols mind you... Definitely. I don't content the widespread use of the leaf-blades. And you're right, it is possible that they served more the purpose of rank than of use. The Bronze Age was definitely more the Age of Spear and Sling than of sword. Am I even correct in thinking 388 B.C. is in the Bronze Age? By that time much of the world was in a sort of transitional phase - moving toward iron weapons whenever possible but still making extensive use of bronze, especially in armour. Except for the Japanese.. they didn't start using iron for quite a few more centuries.
Boarfury 01-19-06, 10:40 PM	That's good, I was worried for a second. I like the idea of transition. Imagining the heroes facing a small horde of barbarians with weapons and armor made of iron fills me with a certain glee. Also, someone mentioned a fulcata, I think. I think I've seen one of those: a slashing short sword, right? Curvy handle?
Vahenir 01-19-06, 11:12 PM	Falcata (http://www.museumreplicas.com/webstore/eCat/Swords%20and%20Knives/Falcata.aspx) Imagining the heroes facing a small horde of barbarians with weapons and armor made of iron fills me with a certain glee. I remember in one game that was sort of.. Historical Fiction - the PCs were something akin to 2nd Crusade Knights (mail, nasal skullcaps, swords and shields) and ended up on a Bronze-Age island fighting an entire civilization of evil cannibals based on a sort of quasi-Egyptian/Greek ideal. It was really fun.. the players really enjoyed the visual of being shining beacons of steel glittering against a wall of gold.
spectralphoenix 01-20-06, 01:26 AM	I've noticed that most people are saying that bronze weapons should have less hardness and hit points. That's all well and good, but keep in mind that the D&D system doesn't really care about a weapon's durability unless it's being sundered. Maybe you could make a rule that says on a attack roll of 1, bronze weapons lose their edge and take a penalty to attack and damage until they can be resharpened? (Say -2, more or less depending on how much better you want iron to be.) I think that would make the difference more noticeable in the average campaign.
Vahenir 01-20-06, 03:29 AM	Less durability is realistic, and it's -sufficient- reason to want a better weapon, provided the better weapon isn't exhorbitantly more expensive. There's really no reason to assign arbitrary penalties or extra rules to keep track of. The fact that D&D pays little attention to real world concerns like durability is a bit unfortunate, but trying to make up for that by adding more rules to keep track of isn't, in my opinion, the best way to go unless everyone is really on board for it.