The Champions of Lemuria meet here.

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

4/29/2014 8:08 pm  #1


Steel vs Stone

So I'm working on a homebrew Swords & Sorcery setting which features the "13 cities of steel".
These are 13 city states that have mastered forging metal weapons and armor.

The lands outside the cities are populated largely by savage sub human hordes or primitive stone age tribes. 

I've been trying to figure out a simple way of reflecting the difference between metal weapons and stone weapons.  I'd rather have something other than a simple bonus die to combat. And I imagine that for the purposes of a game, getting hit in the head with a stone axe will do largely the same sort of damage as getting hit in the head with a metal one, so damage modifiers are not terribly interesting to me.

I'm wondering if there's a way to represent stone weapons as being more fragile than metal ones.
Maybe they break when the user rolls a double on the attack?
It's not something that will make stone age weapons useless, but it certainly makes metal weapons far more desirable, right?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Alex
 

 

4/29/2014 10:31 pm  #2


Re: Steel vs Stone

I think it was Gman who had stone weapons do 2 less damage vs armor (picts vs heros). The doubles on attack break is a cool idea! Perhaps on the first incident the weapon becomes chipped, -1 to attack and damage, and fully broken on the second incident.


Coins, cleavage, and carnage...the three C's of Swords & Sorcery.
 

4/30/2014 12:49 pm  #3


Re: Steel vs Stone

I wouldn't have the stone weapons do less damage. Too much fussing. I would just make the weapon break on a calamitous failure (snake eyes) on 2D6.technically obsidian weapons are sharper than steel. They are just more brittle. steel is prone to duling and breaking also. It just isn't reflected in the rules.

 

 

4/30/2014 3:08 pm  #4


Re: Steel vs Stone

Obsidian is indeed razor sharp but has little chance in penetrating armor. I personal have aged weapons scavenged from old crypts do -1 damage from age and neglect. Broken swords function as -1 to hit and damage daggers. Works well for my group and provides incentive to acquire decent gear. I agree, simplicity is key in bol but I don't know if calamitous failures would happen enough for the op intent.


Coins, cleavage, and carnage...the three C's of Swords & Sorcery.
 

4/30/2014 3:09 pm  #5


Re: Steel vs Stone

Both are good ideas.
But damage reduction doesn't feel very S&S.
Breakage on a calamitous failure is a good one.
I'd have to playtest both snake eyes breaks vs doubles breaks to see which one (if either) actually makes a difference in practical play terms.
 

     Thread Starter
 

4/30/2014 3:25 pm  #6


Re: Steel vs Stone

Just my $0.02 worth.
Id be stoked to play in either one of yer games http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/smile.png

 

4/30/2014 3:41 pm  #7


Re: Steel vs Stone

Let us know how the playtest turns out...and other S&S geeks are always welcome at my table (happy)


Coins, cleavage, and carnage...the three C's of Swords & Sorcery.
 

4/30/2014 4:17 pm  #8


Re: Steel vs Stone

Well, if either of you is interested in helping me play test, PM me and we`ll set it up.

     Thread Starter
 

6/13/2014 4:24 am  #9


Re: Steel vs Stone

Depending on where you want to place the main focus of this setting, I'd say -if a majority of the folk is made of primitive savages- that primitive weapons would be working by the standard rule and more advanced like alchemical creation (as per the rules).

 

Board footera