Ask about weapons, armour and combat

Last night one of my players tried to use a scimitar to pry open a door. The door was magically locked so sadly the prying pushing and searching for an opening mechanism failed. My question was how strong were blades from these time periods, would having the sword break on a low roll be fair? Can you talk about the general metals and materials used in sword construction? Thanks, very excited to hit up this resource!

About how long does it take to don and doff a shield?

Some thoughts that go along with this question... Different editions of D&D give different action economies. 5th edition makes it a standard action (~6 seconds), while 3.5 allows for feats to reduce it to a free action. Also, I imagine donning and doffing a shield in the thick of real life melee combat would be exceedingly difficult, if not suicidal. And of course, the answer probably varies with the type of shield.

A corollary question, if you were inclined to house rule on shields, what sort of changes would you make (edition specific)?

Thanks for the insight. In terms of game theory, I think having a shield impose disadvantage on all attacks is too powerful. A more balanced effect might be that while wearing a shield, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on one attack. In either case, I'm pretty weary of house ruling. My purpose in asking how you might house rule shield use wasn't to instate such rules at my table, but to gain a better understanding of how they generally function in a fight.

The last line is an interesting idea, confirming some stuff I've read/watched about how shields were hardly just defensive items. I think a bonus action shield bash would be a fair addition to the Shield Master feat without becoming too imbalanced (namely because most shield using builds have better things to do with their bonus action on most turns).

I have a question for you regarding weapons and armor. Sadly, it is metallurgical in nature.

I'm going to be starting a new campaign with my group. The setting I'm working on features a large oppressive empire that has conquered most of the "known world". This setting is very low magic. Magic was banned a couple hundred years ago, and all magic users have been systemically wiped out within the empire (I add this just to give an idea of flavor). My current concept has this taking place in the early iron age of this world. The country that conquered the world did so partially because they were the first to master iron smithing. The rest of the world was still using bronze weapons.

The story takes place a couple hundred years after the big "unifying" war. By now, these smiths have mastered making steel weapons and armor. However, weapons in general are banned to the populace. Only the military and government officials are allowed to bear arms and armor. Some more rebellious peasants may fashion weapons out of farm implements, but these would be bronze or crude iron at best (not steel). There is also an unconquered nation of steppe nomads to the north that are still free and wield bronze and occasionally crude iron weapons.

I am trying to formulate a mechanic to show the superiority of the steel weapons and armor wielded by the establishment. A few ideas I've toyed with:

-All attacks made with non-steel weapons against an opponent wearing steel armor have disadvantage. Reverse is true too; attacks against non-steel armored opponents using a steel weapon would have advantage (worried this punitively difficult)

-Reducing the RAW damage value of a given weapon by one die if its not steel (so 1d8 becomes 1d6; assuming steel weapons to be the baseline in D&d rulebooks)

-A break mechanic of some kind; steel weapons have a chance to sunder non-steel weapons and armor (not sure how best to implement)

I'm interested in any feedback on these mechanics and any other ideas anyone may have for how to illustrate this difference in weapon material within the context of the game.

Thanks all!

Imposing disadvantages or penalties seem too punishing. In game design, advantages are usually better received, even if the outcome is otherwise the same.

A +1 to attack and damage seems adequate for steel weapons, and likewise +1 to armor. You can treat them as magical if you wanted, really.

In fact, I would argue that weapons created by unobtainable or inconceivable means IS MAGICAL for all intended purposes. Steel, in this case, might as well be magical.

How often do we hand wave our own smart phones as piece of "technology" without knowing how it is produced or designed? How often do we do the same with medicine?

Say hello to prison shivs!

The Skinny
Sadly I'm still not a metallurgist, but some of this question can touch on history and archaeology.
Bronze weaponry and armour
Bronze is a decent weapon material, but it must be cast. This means the area and length of a piece is severely limited and gets exponentially more difficult/expensive as you increase the size.
In Europe, we essentially had 2 bronze ages: the first where it was an elite material, used in small amounts for high status stuff. The second was where the technology proliferated and became much more common, although still "fancy". The change coincided with a huge shift in culture.
Making bronze armour would be a costly process compared to iron or steel, and would be done with smaller, thicker plates. Something like a coat of plates. I would impose movement or encumberence penalties for someone in lots of bronze armour.
Bronze is not very flexible, so breakage and repair would be a feature of usage. Bear in mind though, that to repair a bronze sword you have to melt it down and re-cast it.
Many bronze weapons were socketed and possesses lugs to aid with hafting. Spearheads and axe heads in particular were "winged" - given little loop holes or lugs projecting from the side of the socket that you would pass a leather strap or cord through to tie it to the haft.

Iron and steel.
Iron weapons vs steel is essentially Romans vs "Celts". Plenty of historical accounts and archaeological evidence.
The principal difference is durability. There are many accounts of Celtic fighters having to exit combat to straighten a bent iron blade.
Similarly, iron armour would bend and stay bent. Working it back into shape would cause weak points and eventually breakage.

Steel making came into its own with the invention of the blast furnace, allowing for plates larger than a square foot to be reliably produced. There is a really good book called "The Knight and the Blast Furnace" that covers this in detail.
Steel is harder than iron and use of a softer material vs a herder one will wear or damage the softer one a lot more. I am not sure about bronze though.

Sumptuary law.
Forbidding items or materials based on social class is called "Sumptuary Law" and was practiced in Europe for millennia in one form or another. Forbidding certain pigments, clothing styles and weaponry to non-nobles.
However, wording of the law is important. In parts of Medieval Germany, non-nobles were forbidden from carrying swords. A "Sword" was defined as a 2-edged blade. If it had only 1 edge, it was a "knife".

This led to the development of long, single edges weapons called langesmessers, about the size of a single handed sword but with a longer hilt and culminating in the 2-handed kriegsmesser (as used by one of the players on the podcast ;-). I'll try to find some pics when I'm not on a mobile.

Peasant weapons

HUUUUUGE topic here but I'll keep it brief.
Peasant armament was often repurposed from agricultural tools. I wouldn't say "improvised", as that implies they just pick stuff up and start swinging.
One popular method is to put it on a big stick, as with the billhook. Another is to have something that looks innocuous, like a knobbly staff (you just don't trim the little branches off so well and you end up with lots of spikes and hooks).
I'll see if I can link some images below later, but Paulus Hector Mair captured some peasant weapons in his 17th century treatise. Among them were staffs of various lengths, cudgel, sickle, scythe and grain threshalls (a 5-6 foot pole joined to a 2-3 foot pole with a leather hinge or chain.











Your Answer
Definitely have a difference in the math. Perhaps look at a system for charting weapon and armour damage like object HP from the DMG.
Iron and bronze weapons should break often enough for it not to be a rare thing, but infrequently enough that it doesn't render the technology useless.

What I would do

On a miss, 50% chance it takes 1 point of damage 1% chance of catastrophic failure. No such chance for steel weapons, or perhaps a 0.01% chance (roll 1's on a D100 in a row)

1 - Write out the law banning weapons and define "Weapon". Badly.
2 a decide the punishments. Mostly it will be fines (unless you have a sophisticated tax system, most local government is funded by fines.

Most laws were vaguely worded to allow freedom of interpretation to those enforcing it (it's better to have people break a law you can fine them for than lock them up and loose them from the labour market)

Some ideas:
Spear head, cord and a good knife. Easily concealable and you can make a haft easily.
Iron tips/edges on agricultural tools like adze's, spades, or even paddles.
Mauls are for splitting logs - usually wooden but perhaps bound with lead.
Iron nails in a stick, either just the heads or long nails sticking through
Slings and rock-in-a-sock type weapons