This is a house rule I am thinking of implemented, especially for the early (Pre-Arthur) Periods:

Some weapons are not made of steel, but of iron or bronze (bronze would be rare).

In combat, steel weapons break ion and bronze weapons on ties.
Iron weapons break bronze weapons on ties.

This is a house rule I am thinking of implemented, especially for the early (Pre-Arthur) Periods:

Some weapons are not made of steel, but of iron or bronze (bronze would be rare).

In combat, steel weapons break ion and bronze weapons on ties.
Iron weapons break bronze weapons on ties.

Too fiddly for my taste.

Bronze weapons can be of very good quality, easily comparable to iron weapons in durabiity. Indeed, given that the Bronze Age ended around a millenium ago, any surviving Bronze Weapons ought to be of highest quality / magical.

Something like a mace-head was never of sword-quality steel, since it didn't need to be. You could get away with poorer quality also in axes and spearheads. It is mainly swords where the metallurgy becomes very important, so that your sword doesn't simply snap on hard impact. (And of course armor, the whole plate armor thing.)

In any case, I would not implement this rule, especially since it encroaches on the only special ability that a sword has, which is the breakage (breaking other weapons and being immune itself). If you want to keep the flavor of it, how about simply saying that all regular swords are steel (high-status weapons that they are), except for the cheap seaxes and the like, and seaxes break against regular swords on a tie as if they were non-swords? But not against other non-swords, which would be the majority that the regular rank-and-file would go against.

Sorry, I wasn't clear about this: only swords (and greatswords) break other weapons. So a Steel headed mace won't break an iron one, but a steel sword will.

So all this rule is doing is downgrading swords by quality.

Sorry, I wasn't clear about this: only swords (and greatswords) break other weapons. So a Steel headed mace won't break an iron one, but a steel sword will.

So all this rule is doing is downgrading swords by quality.

I think this would only apply to swords as well. Until you get to the later phases of a game, it can be assumed that hafted weapons are going to have a wooden haft. Now, if an all metal Mace (scepter?) were to come about, like Morien, I think that this would be something really special and should be treated as "metal" as opposed to breaking things down.

On the other hand, if you are trying to tailor the system to be more general in nature, I whole heartedly approve of such changes.

SDLeary

I think this would only apply to swords as well. Until you get to the later phases of a game, it can be assumed that hafted weapons are going to have a wooden haft. Now, if an all metal Mace (scepter?) were to come about, like Morien, I think that this would be something really special and should be treated as "metal" as opposed to breaking things down.

That was my intention. That I failed to state it clearly in the original post is evidence that I probably shouldn't do this stuff at 2:30 AM.



On the other hand, if you are trying to tailor the system to be more general in nature, I whole heartedly approve of such changes.

SDLeary

I was more thinking about how steel was fairly new/rare in 5th century Britain. I could make steel rare in the early years, and make it superior to iron. As the timeline progresses and we get into the "Aurelius Period" steel would become more prevalent.

I was more thinking about how steel was fairly new/rare in 5th century Britain. I could make steel rare in the early years, and make it superior to iron. As the timeline progresses and we get into the "Aurelius Period" steel would become more prevalent.

Given that Great swords are introduced only in Romance Period (appropriately, since the longer blade takes a lot more metallurgical effort and skill in tempering than a shorter one), this change is just for normal swords.

I reiterate that I would make remaining bronze swords as good as iron swords. Bronze was supplanted by iron mainly because of the availability (and hence cost) rather than being by itself superior.

I'd also make the iron swords significantly cheaper than steel swords. However, as warrior elite, you could argue that the knights would already have steel swords, which would just mean that you give the rank and file an inferior sword to showcase the difference in metallurgy. In effect, you are doing what I suggested with the introduction of the cheap seax. :P

Given that Great swords are introduced only in Romance Period (appropriately, since the longer blade takes a lot more metallurgical effort and skill in tempering than a shorter one), this change is just for normal swords.
It's possible someone might have an older iron or bronze sword and end up facing someone with a (steel) Greatsword. In my last campaign one of the PKs got the "Ancient Bronze Sword" from the Cymric Luck table and kept using it well into the Grail Period. The extra +2 was worth it. He just didn't use it if he had reason to believe the opponent had a skill over 20.
Or,. maybe, just a really cheap Great sword. But yeah, this is probably going to belimited to swords.



I reiterate that I would make remaining bronze swords as good as iron swords. Bronze was supplanted by iron mainly because of the availability (and hence cost) rather than being by itself superior.

Considering the year there probably shouldn't be all that many bronze weapons around anyway. Probably just what pops up on the Cymric Luck table.




I'd also make the iron swords significantly cheaper than steel swords.

I think probably make the steel swords more expensive at first. Reason being that swords should still be more expensive that most other weapons. I'll have to look over the weapon prices and see how much wiggle room there is between swords and other weapons to see if reducing the price is a valid option. I don't want to make swords cheaper than axes or spears.



However, as warrior elite, you could argue that the knights would already have steel swords, which would just mean that you give the rank and file an inferior sword to showcase the difference in metallurgy. In effect, you are doing what I suggested with the introduction of the cheap seax. :P[/QUOTE]

I think that dpends on the year. Very early on, it probably all or mostly iron for everyone. As time passes more and more steel shows up. Note that when I say very early on I'm thinking pre-Pendragon. By Aurelius time all but the poor knight probably have steel, and by Uther's time all knights have steel. By Boy King or Conquest everybody in Britain would have it, or at least have could have it if they want it and can afford it.

A cheap low grade weapon, like the seax does make some sense, too. Even steel swords were't always that great, especially if they were cheap mass produced ones.

I reiterate that I would make remaining bronze swords as good as iron swords. Bronze was supplanted by iron mainly because of the availability (and hence cost) rather than being by itself superior.

This is a good point--there is not enough copper in Europe to fuel the Bronze Age, so once Celtic shipping was destroyed by the Romans they were cut off from the North American copper mines. Historical oddities aside, note that after the Romans left, iron production in Britain dropped off precipitously in favor of recycling and reuse. Apparently there was enough iron floating around that even the Saxons could get ahold of it and reforge it for their purposes.

That is, all of weapons, armor and tools. We can assume that the blacksmith's work is as much or more repair and reforging of iron as it is smelting and creation of new pieces.

--Khanwulf

This is a good point--there is not enough copper in Europe to fuel the Bronze Age, so once Celtic shipping was destroyed by the Romans they were cut off from the North American copper mines.

Celts were major Iron Age pioneers in Western and Central Europe, and had been since Rome was still a shepherd's hut (see Hallstatt culture). I am not sure what you mean by Celtic shipping being destroyed by the Romans? And I am absolutely sure that you typoed 'North American copper mines'. :P

Celts were major Iron Age pioneers in Western and Central Europe, and had been since Rome was still a shepherd's hut (see Hallstatt culture). I am not sure what you mean by Celtic shipping being destroyed by the Romans? And I am absolutely sure that you typoed 'North American copper mines'. :P

Bronze Age America. (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1286770.Bronze_Age_America) Also: Michigan Copper in the Med (https://grahamhancock.com/wakefieldjs1/). More is redundant to the limited point of the post.

Evidence points to basically everyone and their dog knowing NA was where it still is, and going over periodically. Columbus knew what he was doing and "looking for a way to India" was a pretext. Anyway, the Celtic theory is that the Romans destroyed their shipping during the Gallic wars.

--Khanwulf

Val does go to North America in PPrince Valiant strip, and that Arthurian. So maybe.

Bronze Age America. (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1286770.Bronze_Age_America) Also: Michigan Copper in the Med (https://grahamhancock.com/wakefieldjs1/). More is redundant to the limited point of the post.

Evidence points to basically everyone and their dog knowing NA was where it still is, and going over periodically. Columbus knew what he was doing and "looking for a way to India" was a pretext. Anyway, the Celtic theory is that the Romans destroyed their shipping during the Gallic wars.


Just to clarify, I am not contesting the existence of ancient copper mining in Michigan (which very clearly did exist), but the Transatlantic trade with the Celts that was disrupted by the Romans around 50BC.

As for everyone and their dog knowing about North America, alas, that is not the mainstream view.

I did read through the link you provided, and I am not impressed. The main conclusion seems to be: 'No one knows for sure where the copper came from, therefore Michigan, therefore Transatlantic trade in the Bronze Age!'

Here is a link to a thesis "OXHIDE INGOTS, COPPER PRODUCTION, AND THE MEDITERRANEAN TRADE IN COPPER AND OTHER METALS IN THE BRONZE AGE":
http://nautarch.tamu.edu/pdf-files/JonesM-MA2007.pdf

Here is another link debunking some of the wilder claims of pseudo-archaeologists regarding Michigan copper: http://www.ramtops.co.uk/copper.html

However, since this has very little to do with KAP, shall we agree to disagree?

However, since this has very little to do with KAP, shall we agree to disagree?

I'm not going to die in any of these hills and they're not relevant to KAP. Point is that bronze by Arthur's day would be either very old, very odd (i.e. village-made armor from whatever reused metal was available), or very much out of Faerie.

.... bronze by Arthur's day would be either very old, very odd (i.e. village-made armor from whatever reused metal was available), or very much out of Faerie.

In my campaign, bronze weapons are the weapons of choice for faeries, and indeed the only sorts of weapons that can be carried into Faerie.

In my campaign, bronze weapons are the weapons of choice for faeries, and indeed the only sorts of weapons that can be carried into Faerie.


Just how does that play out?

Does the iron prevent the character from entering Faerie? Or does the iron just stay behind when the PK crosses over?

And...what about armor?

Just how does that play out?

Does the iron prevent the character from entering Faerie? Or does the iron just stay behind when the PK crosses over?

And...what about armor?

Well it's no fun to have your enchanted elf-gate dispelled by the first knight in armor trying to pass. So it should just not work for him. That said, silvered armor would go fine, because it's not just iron anymore.

If you need to invite the PKs to faerie, they could be told to leave their arms behind unless they bring the bronze that their forefathers carried in the days that the Fae were respected.

--Khanwulf

Just how does that play out?

Does the iron prevent the character from entering Faerie? Or does the iron just stay behind when the PK crosses over?

And...what about armor?

Yes, in my campaign iron and steel weapons and armor are not permitted to cross into the realm of Faerie. My characters learned this as a bit of Faerie Lore and accepted it without question, so I never had to test the theory. There was a guardian in the Faerie hill, however, who seemed pretty small and harmless, but I reckon he would have revealed himself to be otherwise had the players tried to ignore the prohibition. But you could handle the manifestation of this law however you wished.

Luckily, the ancient burial mound which contained their Faerie gateway had some bodies with some bronze weapons that they were able to pick up and carry with them to the Otherside, without objection from the guardian, who just looked at them with a sly smile.


T.

I was just thinking that if it prevented the PK from crossing over it would ruin a lot of adventure ideas. A PK could carry iron with him to avoid any possibly of crossing over by accident (and that's most Arthurian faerie stories).

Maybe better if the iron is somehow magically substituted with bronze or "faerie silver" (looks like steel, but clean and polished) when the PK crosses over. That way he can still get drawn into all those "knight wanders into faerie" adventures and won't notice anything amiss until it's too late.

I was just thinking that if it prevented the PK from crossing over it would ruin a lot of adventure ideas. A PK could carry iron with him to avoid any possibly of crossing over by accident (and that's most Arthurian faerie stories).

Nah, I'd take another, and more humorous route! They embark, and simply arrive on the other side sans iron/steel.:D

Ride through, come out, no iron of any kind. Knights in doublets, with threws falling down (if they say they had an iron belt buckle), no weapons, perhaps falling off their horses if there was iron in the buckles for the saddle, or horses roaming if their tack was iron. Hilarity ensues!

THEN, you bring out the mischievous brownies and pixies.

SDLeary

Ah, so One-a-Day doesn't keep the redcaps away?

I just go with the iron doesn't bother them because it's not cold iron.

Nah, I'd take another, and more humorous route! They embark, and simply arrive on the other side sans iron/steel.:D

Ride through, come out, no iron of any kind. Knights in doublets, with threws falling down (if they say they had an iron belt buckle), no weapons, perhaps falling off their horses if there was iron in the buckles for the saddle, or horses roaming if their tack was iron. Hilarity ensues!

THEN, you bring out the mischievous brownies and pixies.

SDLeary

How Pythonesque. I feel sorry for Sir Ironsides.

How Pythonesque. I feel sorry for Sir Ironsides.

Not quite Pythonesque. I have been convinced in another forum/discussion to equip the pixies with halberds, and I feel the brownies should have blowguns!

SDLeary

Not quite Pythonesque. I have been convinced in another forum/discussion to equip the pixies with halberds,

I think I know the forum. Soltakss, if I'm not mistaken. How about giving them some butterfly riding lancers?





and I feel the brownies should have blowguns!

SDLeary

Not quite as ludicrous.