Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6634416" data-attributes="member: 6669384">I use Alchemical Silver as a reference point simply because the book does.  It's described in the DMG as the silver alloy used to make "silver" weapons.  That is, it's hard enough to hold an edge and take a hit in combat.That alone makes it harder than even the cupranickel alloys used in coins, and much harder than straight copper.Agreed, though one could presume that the Bronze used to make the classic Gladius (Roman short sword) would be an alloy hard enough to make a useful blade.Modern Bronze alloys approach the strength and resiliency of some steel alloys, particularly when you add phosphorus (Phosphorus does for Bronze what Carbon does for iron, making it possible to harden via heat treating.)  This is, however a strictly modern adaptation.Not exactly a fair comparison.  The axe was originally designed to cut wood, and the spear to penetrate flesh.  A solid spear or arrow strike may well penetrate deeper into the wood that the axe blade, but the axe cuts a broader swath of damage.  Should we make damage adjustments in game for piercing v bludgeoning v slashing damage, based on the material?  We could.  I don't think, personally, that the added complexity would be worth it.In game design, you are looking at three goals:  Realism, playability, and believability.  A combination of either realism or believability with playability is good, but playability must always be present.  There are realistic results that often run counter to what our gut reaction says should happen, but rules that adopt either or both of these, but aren't practically playable, are a failure.I can hack firewood with a sword and dull the edge no more than I would dull the edge of an axe.  I can chip away at firewood by digging in it with a spear point the same way.The axe, being designed for the job, will cut the wood faster than the sword.  The spear, not being designed to "cut" at all, is going to come in a distant third.But steel blades have a greater hardness than wood.  If I were to integrate weapon degradation rules, I'd have it based on relative hardness.  The softer material, based on that hardness rating, would suffer "degradation".Your comparison of the axe to the sword is interesting though.  Perhaps there needs to change of phraseology, where we change the "Slashing" designation to "Cutting", and then subdivide that into "Slashing" and "Chopping", when it comes to relative effectiveness against various materials.As for the +5 Adamantine longsword v the stone wall:  Under current rules, that blade is just short of a lightsabre against that wall.  It ignores the stone hardness completely, and just carves at it as if it were thick clay.</blockquote>

Verification