Limitations of Bronze

[Michael Morris]

I'm tagging this as setting related since I'm moving my setting into the bronze age. Been researching a bit on my own (and having the history channel obsess over biblical history - most of which is in the bronze age, hasn't hurt). Apparently a classic D&D weapon - the longsword - won't exist in such a setting. (and by extension rapiers). The reason is that any bronze blade longer than 30 cm or so will snap the first time it hits *anything*. Also, bronze is more brittle (more prone to breaking - so lower hardness).

I'm wanting to reflect the different quality of the material without over-complicating the rules. From what I gather so far, sundering as a tactic will be much more attractive in this setting.

Any thoughts on this. Looks like I'll be cooking up a new equipment list for players unique to the setting.

 

[EricNoah]

Seems to me that a material's hardness/hp should somehow limit how much damage a weapon made from it can dish out. Because wouldn't the weapon basically have to endure many blows over time? That's the only thing rattling around in my brain right now...

 

[mythusmage]

Actually, d20 has hardness all wrong. What the d20 system calls hardness is better known as durability. A metal can be soft, but durable. Exemplia gratia, leaded naval brass, which is soft but durable.

On the other hand, a metal can be hard, but brittle. Cast iron for example. Mistreated in preparation it can be very brittle.

One thing to remember about bronze is that the composition of the alloy wasn't standardized until relatively recently. Back in the Bronze Age what people called bronze could have most any composition. For instance, zinc is sometimes found with tin. Thus many ancient bronzes had zinc as well as tin. Sometimes more the former than the latter, which made the alloy in question more a brass than a bronze. Arsenic, iron, and other metals were sometimes incorporated. Usually by accident. So bronze quality would vary from region to region, with some areas becoming known for the quality of their bronze.

You could use this fact in your world by varying 'hardness' and hit points according to point of origin. A bronze spear head from nation A having more of both that one from nation B.

Hope this helps.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

An easy solution: Bronze weapons get -2 to sunder checks, in addition to having reduced hardness and hit points.

More complicated: Give each weapon material a "damage dealt" threshold, beyond which the weapon breaks or must be reworked/repaired to be usable. Example approaches:

- On a max-damage critical hit, the weapon is rendered useless after inflicting damage (alternately, use a critical fumble rule to damage the weapon), or
- Bronze weapon has 500 hp of damage available, once it inflicts 501 hp, it is damaged and must be repaired (iron/steel might have 1500 hp, mithril 2000, etc). Lots of bookkeeping involved. An alternate version with even more bookkeeping might be that for every 100 hp of cumulative damage a weapon inflicts without rework, it gets an additional -1 to damage and loses 1 hp -- eventually, you beat your weapon into uselessness if you don't get it repaired.
- When used against a metal-armored foe, bronze weapons are -1 to damage (-2 if armor is made of steel or harder substance)

 

[Jdvn1]

I don't know if you saw it, but this may serve useful.

 

[tarchon]

The short answer is that D&D rules for weapon sundering and damage are so coarse and unrealistic that the real differences between bronze and steel probably can't be captured effectively.
I think the best thing to do is drop the hardness to 9 and increase the weight by about 20%, perhaps even 30%, for the higher density and the requisite extra thickness (as well as dumping any blade longer than about 3 ft., and that's the very pinnacle of the technology). It's good to keep in mind that D&D regards iron and steel as being identical materials, and they're every bit as different from one another as either is from bronze. Bronze tends to bend more than iron, but it can have a higher yield strength, though a much lower yield strength than a good steel. Another problem is that bronze is really an alloy system, so the properties are widely variable depending on the particular formula used, and we know from archaeological evidence that the Chinese, for example, really did use different proportions for different types of weapons.
There are a few good pages on the web
http://chineseswords.freewebspace.com/about.html
http://www.bronze-age-craft.com/

 

[Tetsubo]

The short answer is that D&D rules for weapon sundering and damage are so coarse and unrealistic that the real differences between bronze and steel probably can't be captured effectively.
I think the best thing to do is drop the hardness to 9 and increase the weight by about 20%, perhaps even 30%, for the higher density and the requisite extra thickness (as well as dumping any blade longer than about 3 ft., and that's the very pinnacle of the technology). It's good to keep in mind that D&D regards iron and steel as being identical materials, and they're every bit as different from one another as either is from bronze. Bronze tends to bend more than iron, but it can have a higher yield strength, though a much lower yield strength than a good steel. Another problem is that bronze is really an alloy system, so the properties are widely variable depending on the particular formula used, and we know from archaeological evidence that the Chinese, for example, really did use different proportions for different types of weapons.
There are a few good pages on the web
http://chineseswords.freewebspace.com/about.html
http://www.bronze-age-craft.com/

I can agree with lowering the hardness. But I wouldn't increase the weight at all. Weapon weights are and have always been completely whacked in D&D. No one who has ever actually used a hand weapon would pick one that had a D&D rated weight. I also think how bronze performs will depend on the weapon type. A blunt weapon made from bronze is going to function pretty much the same as an iron version. That D&D thinks iron and steel is the same is also vastly silly...

 

[A'koss]

Weapon weights are and have always been completely whacked in D&D. No one who has ever actually used a hand weapon would pick one that had a D&D rated weight.

It is all very screwy indeed, but I just wanted to point out the weapon weights in D&D do include a kind of "encumbrance factor" in those numbers. If anyone wanted "real world" weights for D&D weapons let me know - I've got a chart tucked away somewhere...

Cheers!

 

[Tetsubo]

It is all very screwy indeed, but I just wanted to point out the weapon weights in D&D do include a kind of "encumbrance factor" in those numbers. If anyone wanted "real world" weights for D&D weapons let me know - I've got a chart tucked away somewhere...

Cheers!

Then the rules should call them "Encumberance Weights" rather than just list them as weights. A twelve pound greatsword my fuzzy white...

 

[A'koss]

Then the rules should call them "Encumberance Weights" rather than just list them as weights. A twelve pound greatsword my fuzzy white...

Yeah, I brought up those very same questions during the playtest but it obviously there were greater priorities...

Cheers!