Okay I got some beef with the rules for Bone as the material in weapons and armor. Let's start with weapons. "Bone weapons take a -2 penalty on damage rolls." Why? I can't speak for using bones as bludgeoning weapons but there is physical evidence that bone arrowheads are just as effective as stone and in fact are more readily used because they can be worked easier than stone. There are tribes in Africa that still make and use bone arrowheads today.
Ermm.. aren't both stone and bone considered primative? Arrowheads are assumed to be metal.
Now on to armor, "Studded leather, scale mail, breastplates, and wooden shields can all be constructed using bone." "The armor/shield bonus of bone armor is reduced by 1, but in the case of studded leather, the armor check penalty is also reduced by 1(to 0)." So with this we can buy bone studded leather that gives us the same armor bonus as regular leather it just weights more, has a lower Max DEX Bonus, higher arcane spell failure chance, and it costs more. So why would any culture, primitive or not, use that?
They wouldn't. But if you want a quick armor conversion SOME armor was going to loose out on the formula somewhere.
And somehow bone weights more than stone and obsidian,
Obsidian is denser, but you need less of it to make a good arrowhead. I don't know which would weigh more, but it isn't automatically a bone headed thought.
So why would any culture, primitive or not, use that?
Probably because it's the only thing available to them. My understanding of these variant rules when I read them in the 3.5 DMG was that it was for low-tech campaigns. Games where all the characters had more primitive weapons so it ended up evening out. If you wanted to use it in other settings maybe you could throw your party against a big stupid giant whose standard damage output would risk a total party wipe-out, except, haha! his great club is made of bone, so it does less damage and balances the encounter somewhat.
All they did was make these technologically inferior weapons, well, inferior. If you wanted to actually play as a character who started out with primitive weapons, the character themself would probably just as quickly want to upgrade to a steel sword as you the player would. It makes for interesting role playig.
So why would any culture, primitive or not, use that?
Probably because it's the only thing available to them. My understanding of these variant rules when I read them in the 3.5 DMG was that it was for low-tech campaigns. Games where all the characters had more primitive weapons so it ended up evening out. If you wanted to use it in other settings maybe you could throw your party against a big stupid giant whose standard damage output would risk a total party wipe-out, except, haha! his great club is made of bone, so it does less damage and balances the encounter somewhat.
All they did was make these technologically inferior weapons, well, inferior. If you wanted to actually play as a character who started out with primitive weapons, the character themself would probably just as quickly want to upgrade to a steel sword as you the player would. It makes for interesting role playig.
He's pointing out that if you modify studded leather with bone, you have a worse version of leather armor. It is inferior in all ways to leather armor, but requires more effort to create. Why would a primitive culture invent a worse type of armor to something that is already available? It's like adding "speed holes" to your car.
Arrowheads are a poor comparative tool because the weight of an arrowhead is so negligible. With larger weapons, bone's honeycomb structure makes for great pressure strength, but it's low mass makes for difficulty getting the same force behind a blow. Hence, the minus to damage. I could easily see a house rule that arrows do the same damage regardless of arrow material.
As for the studded leather...maybe there are some aboriginal biker gangs out there?
...but it isn't automatically a bone headed thought.
I c what u did there.
I've always heard that, pound for pound, human bones are stronger than (or as strong as?) steel. That's a pretty hefty claim, but I agree on the point that it would be much, much lighter. That said, I would houserule the damage penalty away based on that.
What does obsidian do? I'm curious, since I don't have UC and obsidian weapons are relevant to part of my home setting that's still under development.
...but it isn't automatically a bone headed thought.I c what u did there.
I've always heard that, pound for pound, human bones are stronger than (or as strong as?) steel. That's a pretty hefty claim, but I agree on the point that it would be much, much lighter. That said, I would houserule the damage penalty away based on that.
That's getting into strength to weight ratios, which is a very different story. A pound of bone may be stronger than a pound of steel, but they're going to have drastically different volumes. For example, a hammer generates a lot of it's force by the motion of the weight on the end of it, if you make the hammer out of a lighter material, but keep it the same size, it will generate less force.
That's getting into strength to weight ratios, which is a very different story. A pound of bone may be stronger than a pound of steel, but they're going to have drastically different volumes. For example, a hammer generates a lot of it's force by the motion of the weight on the end of it, if you make the hammer out of a lighter material, but keep it the same size, it will generate less force.
This is why titanium makes awful swords.
That's getting into strength to weight ratios, which is a very different story. A pound of bone may be stronger than a pound of steel, but they're going to have drastically different volumes. For example, a hammer generates a lot of it's force by the motion of the weight on the end of it, if you make the hammer out of a lighter material, but keep it the same size, it will generate less force....but it isn't automatically a bone headed thought.I c what u did there.
I've always heard that, pound for pound, human bones are stronger than (or as strong as?) steel. That's a pretty hefty claim, but I agree on the point that it would be much, much lighter. That said, I would houserule the damage penalty away based on that.
I am aware of this... I was speaking more to the issue of arrows, since that's what I caught on earlier in the thread.
OP...what evidence do you have that says bone is just as good as stone?
He's pointing out that if you modify studded leather with bone, you have a worse version of leather armor. It is inferior in all ways to leather armor, but requires more effort to create. Why would a primitive culture invent a worse type of armor to something that is already available? It's like adding "speed holes" to your car.So why would any culture, primitive or not, use that?
Probably because it's the only thing available to them. My understanding of these variant rules when I read them in the 3.5 DMG was that it was for low-tech campaigns. Games where all the characters had more primitive weapons so it ended up evening out. If you wanted to use it in other settings maybe you could throw your party against a big stupid giant whose standard damage output would risk a total party wipe-out, except, haha! his great club is made of bone, so it does less damage and balances the encounter somewhat.
All they did was make these technologically inferior weapons, well, inferior. If you wanted to actually play as a character who started out with primitive weapons, the character themself would probably just as quickly want to upgrade to a steel sword as you the player would. It makes for interesting role playig.
I figure the base leather armor is actually made out off boiled/treated leather armor where as studded leather armor is simple leather with studs, usually metal, added to it.
Basically leather is less likely to be available in a primitive campaign, where as hide armor and studded leather armor equivalent is available.
He's pointing out that if you modify studded leather with bone, you have a worse version of leather armor. It is inferior in all ways to leather armor, but requires more effort to create. Why would a primitive culture invent a worse type of armor to something that is already available? It's like adding "speed holes" to your car.So why would any culture, primitive or not, use that?
Probably because it's the only thing available to them. My understanding of these variant rules when I read them in the 3.5 DMG was that it was for low-tech campaigns. Games where all the characters had more primitive weapons so it ended up evening out. If you wanted to use it in other settings maybe you could throw your party against a big stupid giant whose standard damage output would risk a total party wipe-out, except, haha! his great club is made of bone, so it does less damage and balances the encounter somewhat.
All they did was make these technologically inferior weapons, well, inferior. If you wanted to actually play as a character who started out with primitive weapons, the character themself would probably just as quickly want to upgrade to a steel sword as you the player would. It makes for interesting role playig.
The idea behind these rules is not that a primitive culture intentionally makes everything worse, its that they don't have access to the good versions in the first place. They're not taking all the metal studs out of metal armor and replacing them with bone, they're making it with bone from the start because thats what they have. Its not like "making speed holes" for your car, its like using an old timey crank engine because your society only recently entered the industrial era.
Yes but making it with bone makes somthing that's inferior to a easier product. Looking at your analogy it assumes you want that crank car. But lets say the Train has the same reliability (This includes going exactly where you want) is faster and cheaper why would anyone use the car except as a status symbol.
|
And on the issue of bone studded leather being worse than plain leather, a studded leather armor, as far I've understood, is a brigandine - a much more advanced armor than boiled and hardened cowhide. Primitive societies wouldn't have had the necessary development to create brigandine, making the point moot.
Truthfully bone equipment should be far lighter than standard equipment. Pick up an inch thick bone 4 inches long, and then do the same for a piece of iron, and it is obvious for anyone that one is far, far lighter than the next.
If anything the bone-studded leather armor should provide at least the same benefits as leather armor while also being lighter and easier to move in than regular leather armor, because the bone would theoretically re-enforce the leather while keeping the weight down (because leather is heavier as well).
Just a consideration.
And on the issue of bone studded leather being worse than plain leather, a studded leather armor, as far I've understood, is a brigandine - a much more advanced armor than boiled and hardened cowhide. Primitive societies wouldn't have had the necessary development to create brigandine, making the point moot.
If they're making weapons out of stone and bone, then are their leather armors really all that advanced as to have hardener anyway? I'd think they'd wear hide armor and bone-converted wooden armor almost exclusively.
Of course, I'm thinking of Native Americans with their animal skins and flint arrowheads. I'm not even sure how sensationalized they are to know if they wore any kind of "armor" or if it was just decoration (but we all know they had stone arrowheads).
What does obsidian do? I'm curious, since I don't have UC and obsidian weapons are relevant to part of my home setting that's still under development.Cannot be used for armor, normal weapon damage, has the same fragile quality as bone and other stone.
Incidentally the terbutje/macuahuitl is probably my second favorite of the primitive weapons in the book (it loses out to the taiaha for me).
As an anthropologist I'm obliged to mention that "primitive" obsidian is the best material we have for many surgical applications. Unless there has been a major breakthrough within the last couple of years, obsidian blades have the best (thinnest) cutting edge we can currently make, much superior to that of our best metal implements.
As an anthropologist I'm obliged to mention that "primitive" obsidian is the best material we have for many surgical applications. Unless there has been a major breakthrough within the last couple of years, obsidian blades have the best (thinnest) cutting edge we can currently make, much superior to that of our best metal implements.What does obsidian do? I'm curious, since I don't have UC and obsidian weapons are relevant to part of my home setting that's still under development.Cannot be used for armor, normal weapon damage, has the same fragile quality as bone and other stone.
Incidentally the terbutje/macuahuitl is probably my second favorite of the primitive weapons in the book (it loses out to the taiaha for me).
That's really awesome to know. Thank you jocundthejolly. ^.^