Metal Weapons & Armor - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 tyrantlobe Sep 15, 2010 7:58:58	I don't really like the 4E mechanics of metal weapons & armor. I'm thinking of making metal items function basically as a +1 Magic Item. Same cost, same bonuses, etc. No chance of weapon breakage. This way, the price is much higher and having a metal weapon is something to really look for. I thought about making them +2, but decided that may be a bit too much. Thoughts?
#2 shadrs Sep 15, 2010 8:58:01	Given that most DS campaigns should be making use of the inherent bonuses, being +1 isn't that great (using inherent bonuses that plus only really adds to the damage). If your looking for metal to be slightly better, that is one way. The rout I've taken for my campaign is that I've made "soft" metal weapons (bronze, copper, etc) function as +1. And they're still able to use the Weapon Breakage rules. And thier cost is at a minimum double the normal going rate. I've made steal weapons be Jagged (crits on a 19 or 20) and upped the cost to appropriatly obscene levels. Also, the weapon breakage rules do not apply.
#3 FlashbackJon Sep 15, 2010 9:30:46	I'm not actually sure if it made it into the DSCS, but the original rule was that weapons and armor that were metal had to have a bonus of +3 or greater. So... try that? EDIT: +2 or greater for armor, but no such rule for weapons. Easy enough to adapt.
#4 tyrantlobe Sep 15, 2010 9:40:37	Wow, +3! Really? Is that what they said before it was released? It definitely isn't in the final product.
#5 FlashbackJon Sep 15, 2010 9:44:09	Rich Baker said... Since most Athasians are similarly armed and armored, there are no special penalties for using weapons and armor made from inferior materials. Instead, metal arms and armor are exceptional. In Athas, steel (or bronze or any other metal) is a masterwork material with a minimum enhancement value of +3. In other words, if you find a steel longsword, it’s automatically a +3 steel longsword at the bare minimum. Naturally, steel longswords are worth thousands of gold pieces or their ceramic equivalent. There isn’t any real difference between a +3 bone longsword and a +3 steel longsword; you just can’t find any steel swords that aren’t at least +3 in value as compared to un-enchanted weapons made of lesser materials.
#6 mouthymerc Sep 15, 2010 10:02:43	EDIT: +2 or greater for armor, but no such rule for weapons. Easy enough to adapt. I think that last sentence on page 119 is referring to all items, weapons and armour included.
#7 FlashbackJon Sep 15, 2010 10:09:53	EDIT: +2 or greater for armor, but no such rule for weapons. Easy enough to adapt. I think that last sentence on page 119 is referring to all items, weapons and armour included. That was my initial read too, and how I would run it, but the sentence order is weird.
#8 OneWeirdCat Sep 15, 2010 20:25:03	I think +3 as the minimum enhancement is a bit excessive, except possibly steel if you wish. I would keep it out of reach until later in the heroic tier, like +2 enhancement, if you wanted steel to be +3, consider making iron +2 then. Perhaps bronze, copper weapons are +1 and subject to breakage, as mentioned earlier. I like Masterwork armor being available without it having to be enchanted as a reward as well. If you want to burn PC resources, forcing them to enchant things burns money and keeps things more rare. If you are using inherent bonuses, then the pcs aren't likely to get weapons/armor of that tier til then anyways with the reduced treasure parcels. Remember, inherent bonuses are in place to reflect harsher world, the appeal of magic/psionic items still applies, it simply doesn't stack. I think PCs would like them for prestige value anyway. In old 2E, Steel/Iron simply cost the GOLD value, not the ceramic value, remember 1 actual GOLD Piece was worth 100 Ceramic pieces, which was like having 100 gold pieces, as long as it what it was buying wasn't made of metal. It was simple, but confusing and inelegant at times.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

tyrantlobe

Sep 15, 2010 7:58:58

I don't really like the 4E mechanics of metal weapons & armor. I'm thinking of making metal items function basically as a +1 Magic Item. Same cost, same bonuses, etc. No chance of weapon breakage.

This way, the price is much higher and having a metal weapon is something to really look for. I thought about making them +2, but decided that may be a bit too much.

Thoughts?

shadrs

Sep 15, 2010 8:58:01

Given that most DS campaigns should be making use of the inherent bonuses, being +1 isn't that great (using inherent bonuses that plus only really adds to the damage). If your looking for metal to be slightly better, that is one way.

The rout I've taken for my campaign is that I've made "soft" metal weapons (bronze, copper, etc) function as +1. And they're still able to use the Weapon Breakage rules. And thier cost is at a minimum double the normal going rate.

I've made steal weapons be Jagged (crits on a 19 or 20) and upped the cost to appropriatly obscene levels. Also, the weapon breakage rules do not apply.

FlashbackJon

Sep 15, 2010 9:30:46

I'm not actually sure if it made it into the DSCS, but the original rule was that weapons and armor that were metal had to have a bonus of +3 or greater.

So... try that?

EDIT: +2 or greater for armor, but no such rule for weapons. Easy enough to adapt.

tyrantlobe

Sep 15, 2010 9:40:37

Wow, +3! Really? Is that what they said before it was released? It definitely isn't in the final product.

FlashbackJon

Sep 15, 2010 9:44:09

Rich Baker said...

Since most Athasians are similarly armed and armored, there are no special penalties for using weapons and armor made from inferior materials. Instead, metal arms and armor are exceptional. In Athas, steel (or bronze or any other metal) is a masterwork material with a minimum enhancement value of +3. In other words, if you find a steel longsword, it’s automatically a +3 steel longsword at the bare minimum. Naturally, steel longswords are worth thousands of gold pieces or their ceramic equivalent. There isn’t any real difference between a +3 bone longsword and a +3 steel longsword; you just can’t find any steel swords that aren’t at least +3 in value as compared to un-enchanted weapons made of lesser materials.

mouthymerc

Sep 15, 2010 10:02:43

EDIT: +2 or greater for armor, but no such rule for weapons. Easy enough to adapt.

I think that last sentence on page 119 is referring to all items, weapons and armour included.

FlashbackJon

Sep 15, 2010 10:09:53

EDIT: +2 or greater for armor, but no such rule for weapons. Easy enough to adapt.

I think that last sentence on page 119 is referring to all items, weapons and armour included.

That was my initial read too, and how I would run it, but the sentence order is weird.

OneWeirdCat

Sep 15, 2010 20:25:03

I think +3 as the minimum enhancement is a bit excessive, except possibly steel if you wish. I would keep it out of reach until later in the heroic tier, like +2 enhancement, if you wanted steel to be +3, consider making iron +2 then. Perhaps bronze, copper weapons are +1 and subject to breakage, as mentioned earlier. I like Masterwork armor being available without it having to be enchanted as a reward as well. If you want to burn PC resources, forcing them to enchant things burns money and keeps things more rare.

If you are using inherent bonuses, then the pcs aren't likely to get weapons/armor of that tier til then anyways with the reduced treasure parcels. Remember, inherent bonuses are in place to reflect harsher world, the appeal of magic/psionic items still applies, it simply doesn't stack. I think PCs would like them for prestige value anyway.
In old 2E, Steel/Iron simply cost the GOLD value, not the ceramic value, remember 1 actual GOLD Piece was worth 100 Ceramic pieces, which was like having 100 gold pieces, as long as it what it was buying wasn't made of metal. It was simple, but confusing and inelegant at times.