So, my players are interested in the idea of a Greco-Roman style campaign, and we even grabbed the greek pantheon from 3.5 and converted it for Pathfinder. But as I read over some threads on this style of game I noticed that a lot of people advised against it as Bronze makes Heavy Armor and many Two-Handed weapons impossible to craft, making a lot of builds useless.
To counter this problem, I intend to give everyone that would be able to use heavy armor Combat Expertise for free, regardless of Int score. Does this seem like a reasonable compromise, or does this still sound unfair?
I don't really get what the point of it is. Combat expertise is in no way equivalent to heavy armour or two-handed weapons. In fact it's a very weird case, because it's a feat a lot of people take but very few people want to use.
I have thought about this issue in the past and I wondered about giving heavy armor classes a homebrew bonus feat that grants a bonus to armor class while wearing medium armor.
Doesn't really cover the weapons though.
I figured that it allows people to bump up their AC if they need to, as well as opens up access to the Combat Maneuver feats such as Improved Trip or Improved Disarm.
And not all two-handed weapons are gone, just many. But if you have a suggestion to make up for that, i'd love to hear it.
Maybe look at things like the armoured kilt that give an AC bonus but upgrade the 'level' of the armour by 1.
Are there special materials like mithril and adamantine?
If this is in the transition phase (even early) perhaps there is non-bronze armour and weaponry, but iron is a special (and rare) material. If you don't have adamantine you could even just sub in adamantine stats for iron.
When I was planning a bronze campaign, I was thinking that special materials would be available, but weapons and armor that can't be made from bronze hadn't been invented anywhere throughout the planes. I was planning to use the rules for cold iron to represent all iron.
The armored kilt is a great piece of gear for primitive campaigns, IMO. Good call.
Morganstern, while it does allow characters to raise their ac, it's only at the cost of attack bonus, which they'll most commonly want more. I imagine it won't really enable high ac builds, though it would help the maneuver builds.
As far as two-handed weapon variety, you could change the stats of the junk weapons that never get used. Maybe give bludgeoning weapons more damage or better crits so it's not just axes all the time.
You could also make a feat that raises the crit range, crit multiplier or damage die of a chosen weapon. Balance it against exotic weapon proficiency.
One thing you can do house rule the weapons stats in the rule books are are all copper, then give iron or cold iron an additional +1 or +2 damage, and give materials other than copper DR as adamantine, except can be surpassed by iron weapons or better. This is the simplest solution.
The thing to keep in mind is the restriction on heavy armor is based on history. That historical lack of heavy plate armor (as opposed to the breastplate, which existed extensively in the ancient era) is based on economics. Bronze was fairly rare and expensive to produce. Such an armor is so expensive to produce it would be more a status symbol than used for general warfare. Further, it could bend under heavy hammering by weapons. That said, you could just magically enchant the armor. The base armor would just be way more expensive, and perhaps all heavy armor must be crafted masterwork.
All metal armors get dented when hit. Different armors can take that punishment and still be functional. Full plate mail from the European Middle Ages is built of many small plates. If those bend the wrong way, say from being with a war hammer or falling off your mount, it can reduce effectiveness of protection and reduce movement ability. Having a a few plates to cover your forearms, shins, chest and back connected by leather straps reduced this likelihood. Having lots of interlocking metal pieces around your joints that can bend present a problem if they bend in a way that doesn't allow you to, say, move your shield-arm elbow as much. This can happen with iron as well as bronze, but far less so, and this is ignored in Pathfinder expert through Sunder, and then done in a general sense.
If you play a Bronze Age setting, you'll have compromise on strict realism (w/o magic) vs playability and fun. For instance, lances would not get double damage on a charge without the stirrup, which was introduced to the Roman Empire via the Scythians. The bronze age used chariots for melee/ranged primarily, with exceptions.
You may also find the first section of this article on dnd wiki to be relevant as well - Socialnomicon
Part of the reason it took so long to forge iron historically was the inability of keeping fire hot enough. I don't need to tell you how many ways in Pathfinder you can make really hot for with magic. Unless Iron is rare in your universe, it would get figured out quickly by a Red Dragon who wants to arm Goblins or Orcs with superior weaponry at low prices (iron is a super abundant metal in the real world).
eakratz, that doesn't help anything. The armor and weapon dependent PCs will be upstaged by their fellows in new ways. It's not balance against the monster's that the issue, it's bronze gear hurting certain characters a lot and the rest not at all.
Heavily armored meant carrying a tower shield. While bronze was softer than tempered iron, that meant it had half the AC bonus for the non magical part of AC(Minimum +1). The most they had made was piece plate(helmet, chest plate, shin guards, ect).
With bronze, attachments between armor pieces, such as hinges and latches, would break and bend constantly. The long spear was prevalent.
Just don't make heavy armor builds. Certain armors, weapons, and fighting styles just won't exist yet.
I imagine certain spells wouldn't have been developed yet either. But that's more to deal with.
Elysian Bronze (UE) will help out your characters alot perhaps.
eakratz, give me some credit. I genuinely think that balance within the party is an issue here. I am not making excuses to justify a dislike of your solution, I am just seeing different problems to you.
The way I see it, characters with heavy are missing out on the best melee weapons (half a damage or a powerful crit range), the best armour (2 points of ac) and the ability to depend on keeping their gear in the early game, since your bronze greataxe breaks after 20 swings. Put all that together and it looks significant to me.
Maybe I'm dead wrong, but you don't get to point the finger just because you don't find my position convincing.
I kind of agree with Earkratz, at least in so much as most "heavy armor" builds shouldn't even exist in a Bronze Age setting - the bronze material makes it impractical to support that kind of technology of armor. The kind of armor you'd expect with a hoplite soldier - bronze breast plate, bronze kilt, full helm, shin guards and shield, would be the heaviest armor practical (perhaps adding tower shield for something heavier). Any kind of plate mail even if made of bronze is not only anachronistic, but by the reliance on bronze material, sensibly impractical. While other hoplite equivalent bronze armored peoples might exist, the majority would be less armored than this, even with shield as the only armor.
Playing a bronze age setting is not simply playing a standard medieval setting, just replacing the metal. It means many heavy armor builds do not belong, which does change the mechanics somewhat, but that's an expectation with bronze age technology.
True, but people mostly haven't been advocating outright allowing heavy armor and greatswords. We've been suggesting ways to encourage a greater diversity of roles and builds among heavily gear-dependent classes within the thematic limitations of a bronze-age setting.
I know you weren't. I was arguing against yours. You explained your position, which is all good, but for some reason you also spoke dismissively, telling me I "just didn't like" your idea, which is questioning my motive for disagreeing. That's both rude and wrong.
The real reason I said it wouldn't help anything is because, shockingly, I thought it wouldn't help anything; Not because I didn't like the nature of the solution. Personal taste wasn't a factor.
Linothorax is your friend.... Are you playing Trojan War, Persian Wars, Peloponnesian Wars, Philips Wars, Alexander, The Successor States or Rome of the Kings, Or Early, Mid, Late Republic or empire.... Anything after Troy or the Kings is Iron Age... In fact the Hittites "allies" of the "Trojans" had iron...
He's playing fantasy bronze age. The big iron meteor that heralded the change has not been unearthed. Maybe the Hit-ite tribe of dwarves will find it during the campaign.
So, my players are interested in the idea of a Greco-Roman style campaign, and we even grabbed the greek pantheon from 3.5 and converted it for Pathfinder. But as I read over some threads on this style of game I noticed that a lot of people advised against it as Bronze makes Heavy Armor and many Two-Handed weapons impossible to craft, making a lot of builds useless.
For heavy armor, just create a heavy version of the Breastplate that is like full plate stat-wise, while retaining a thinner, lighter medium armor version. That's what I have planned if I ever do Swords and Sandals. Two handed weapons just don't fit the game, except some polearms, but the spear and longspear could be given stats to make them as good as a greatsword, and shortspear the longsword, given how important spears were at that time.
To counter this problem, I intend to give everyone that would be able to use heavy armor Combat Expertise for free, regardless of Int score. Does this seem like a reasonable compromise, or does this still sound unfair?
Combat Expertise is a pretty sucky feat that only gets used for prerequisites. Never seen someone actually use it's ability in a game.
Thanks for the advice everyone, and as for the actual setting it's just Fantasy Bronze Age. There's really no historical counterpoint to my setting, we're all just interested in the Greco-Roman feel.
Zergtitan, thanks for pointing out Elysian Bronze as I hadn't actually known about it yet. I only recently bought Ultimate Equipment and haven't had the time to check it out fully.
As for the Combat Expertise, it's there mostly as a way to remove feat tax for some of the Combat Maneuvers, but after talking with my players a bit we all agreed to also give out Dodge for free.
So, my players are interested in the idea of a Greco-Roman style campaign, and we even grabbed the greek pantheon from 3.5 and converted it for Pathfinder. But as I read over some threads on this style of game I noticed that a lot of people advised against it as Bronze makes Heavy Armor and many Two-Handed weapons impossible to craft, making a lot of builds useless.
To counter this problem, I intend to give everyone that would be able to use heavy armor Combat Expertise for free, regardless of Int score. Does this seem like a reasonable compromise, or does this still sound unfair?
You could also get a look at SKR's The New Argonauts for inspiration. It has some interesting mechanics, stressing on the importance of the shield over heavy armour. Otherwise its mainly OGL and easily portable to Pathfinder.
[edit] not what I had in mind, but very interesting and relevant stuff nonetheless, and 100% Pathfinder compatible!
I think the whole point of a bronze age campaign is that it changes the paradigms.
Some builds thought of as sub optimal might come into their own, as other fall into obscurity.
I wouldn't worry about what it changes, just roll with it, keep your monsters and adversaries thematic and watch their abilities for areas you might need to nerd if stuff gets too far out of control.