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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 1173626" data-attributes="member: 3051">I haven't found any outside of AE&G. Any recomendation?Well, I'm not unbiased, as I've posted an exotic materials system on these boards before.  We had a big discussion on this topic a few months ago.  The system I use was something we whipped up before the A&EG came out, and we decided to keep it instead of switching over.  A lot of the numbers I used were based on the old AD&D exotic metal system, from an old issue of Dragon I believe.I did this because a general rule might not work well with all weapon. For example, bronze maces were used well into the high middle ages, so their should be no penalty for using one.It depends what the penalty is.  Instead of attack and damage penalties, you could always play around with its crit numbers.  A mace has a 20/x2 crit, so penalizing either threat range or multiplier doesn't hurt maces at all.  Penalizing just threat range favors axes and picks over swords (a good option for iron/crude steel, for example).So, you could say bronze was "-1 to crit multiplier, -1 to threat range", and it'd make bronze an inferior material overall, but only in regards to critical hits.  Base damage would be unaffected, and weapons that already had a 20/x2 crit (which is mostly blunt ones) wouldn't change at all.Or better yet, make it something like "-4 to threat confirmation rolls", which affects every weapon but hurts those that rely on crits more.  This is closer to what I did IMC; quite a few materials have bonuses or penalties to threat confirmation rolls, since it doesn't really depend much on the weapon type.Bronze maces were used well into the middle ages, but it doesn't mean they were the equal of steel, it was just that the difference wasn't worth the cost for most people.  Weight and durability aren't major considerations for common soldiers in many cases.  But, there should never be NO penalty for using the cheaper material, or else no one would ever make a steel mace.A bone glaive would do 1d8 *2 whereas a bone spear keeps its full damage and crit.Whether this is good for realism or not, it's probably not too good for game balance.  My point, though, was that if you make the penalty for Bone only apply to a single type of weapon (spear) and not to any others, it keeps people from wanting to use that weapon type; they'll just switch to a similar weapon that SHOULD have the same sort of drawback but doesn't.You could just say "any attack roll of a natural 1 with a bone weapon risks breaking the weapon; roll again.  If you miss this fumble confirmation roll the weapon breaks."  Basically, just a more serious fumble penalty.  Then, it wouldn't matter what kind of weapon they take, and you don't need large tables.And to add to CCamfield's table:Brass was copper and zinc, usually in an 80/20 split I think.  Orichalcum was copper and gold (usually 80/20 also).  Copper's just one of those metals that makes alloys really easily.</blockquote>

Verification