"Stone
Stone Age weapons almost always utilize stone in some way. From rocks lashed to wooden hafts to create early maces and axes, to flint knives and stone arrowheads, these primitive weapons are still deadly.
Stone weapons cost a quarter of what base items of their type do, and weigh 75% of what base items of their type do.
Weapons: Light and one-handed bludgeoning weapons, spears, and arrowheads can all be made of stone."
Regarding the last sentence above, looking at the examples listed at the start... axes and flint knives...
Should this be read as:
Light weapons, as well as one-handed bludgeoning weapons, spears and arrowheads can all be made of stone.
or
Only bludgeoning weapons that are light and one handed, as well as spears and arrowheads can all be made of stone.
Well, seeing as how light and one-handed weapons are two different categories of weapons, I'd say it's like this.
1. Light bludgeoning weapons.
2. One-handed bludgeoning.
3. Spears.
4. Arrowheads.
The "axes" part is likely just fluff.
That is one way of reading it, but calls into question why they would use both axes and flint knives as examples earlier in the same text...
So you are choosing the second way I wrote it out?
I'm gonna edit it a bit to clarify...
Light weapons of any sort, as well as one-handed bludgeoning weapons, spears and arrowheads can all be made of stone.
or
Only bludgeoning weapons that are light and one handed, as well as spears and arrowheads can all be made of stone.
Fluff for sure, but remember a 'stone axe' was probably not sharp like our axes, thus not fitting into 'slashing'. Rule-wise for combat it would be a 'hammer' that is used like a crude axe. Flint arrows/spears/knives were sharp, but not very big, and were very easy to chip/dull.
Fluff for sure, but remember a 'stone axe' was probably not sharp like our axes, thus not fitting into 'slashing'. Rule-wise for combat it would be a 'hammer' that is used like a crude axe. Flint arrows/spears/knives were sharp, but not very big, and were very easy to chip/dull.
Stone weapons ARE fragile, they are listed as such. Which is odd... if they are primarily bludgeoning weapons...
It implies that wood is harder than stone.
http://www.knivesofflint.com/
For the people that think flint wasn't used to make large/functional items... it is still in use today.
Stone weapons ARE fragile, they are listed as such. Which is odd... if they are primarily bludgeoning weapons...
It implies that wood is harder than stone.
It implies that stone is more brittle than wood - which it definitely is. The flexibility of wood makes it really hard to break while the hardness of stone is precisely what makes it easier to damage.
Harder no, durable and resistant to aging when handled correctly? yes.
Akin to why we use a steel composite for swords you can relate to wood, Even dead it retains flexibility, but rigidity. Maintaining and repair of wood (and weight but I digress) is why we use it for housing. Some of the first 'axes' we used didn't really cut, more just chop (Thud, thud, thud). I'll relate a good example: If you have ever chopped wood, you can tell when the axe gets dull as it doesn't cleanly go though, or if you miss-strike it tends to get stuck in the wood rather then cleanly bisect it.
As for flint, Industrialization does makes larger objects easier. Though so does a equally increased IQ level we have today.
Although close in age a good 'Glass' chopper would be a Macuahuitl, a bit later in years but still early. Obsidian being much harder then rock, but sharper then flint.
I highly recommend anyone under the impression that flint is somehow dull and unable to be used as a cutting edge check out that website I posted above...
So so far no one on here thinks flint axes or knives are allowed to be sharp...
I highly recommend anyone under the impression that flint is somehow dull and unable to be used as a cutting edge check out that website I posted above...
So so far no one on here thinks flint axes or knives are allowed to be sharp...
We are not saying they cant be sharp; Using the site above no blade is bigger then the palm of your hand, And are suggested used for skinning. Flint as a knife uses a serrated edge, like a saw, to cut. Skinning doesn't always need this mind you, as anything of a certain sharpness can easily separate the fat tissues of animals. A axe is mostly just a heavy wedge, simple tool 101.
Note many of these are not as sharp as those, aging regardless. Refined edge making on stone is a more complex task. They had a rock to sharpen a rock.
I meant in game...
Stone, as written, seems a bit confusing. It cites axes and knives as examples of stone weapons (neither of which are bludgeoning weapons)...
I personally lean towards the reading that allows for light weapons of any sort (like slashing axes, piercing or slashing daggers), and bludgeoning one handed...
Others feel differently.
I have yet to take it up with my GM.