In original DS, metal equipment was extremely rare and expensive but did have some advantage over non-metal. Non-Metal weapons were prone to break and had attack and damage roll penalties. Non-Metal armor, while not subject to daytime encumbrance penalties, was restricted to hide and studded leather.
Now, we can as easily use special Athasian weapons doing up to 2d6 (or 2d8 subdual with reach but no reach close combat penaties!) damage without any drawbacks whatsoever at 1/100 of the cost of metal. So, I wonder, why would anybody use metal equipment at all. In fact, why should iron be so expensive if it's really obsolete? For Jewellry?
Kilamar
1) overcome DR/Metal.
2) have superior hardness compared to non-metal weapons.
3) price is dictated not only by utility, but also by scarcity.
Originally posted by Jon, Oracle of Athas
Metal weapons:
1) overcome DR/Metal.
2) have superior hardness compared to non-metal weapons.
3) price is dictated not only by utility, but also by scarcity.
In otherwords noone in their right minds will bother with more than a dagger made of the stuff, and certainly noone will ever wear armor made of it.
Originally posted by Jon, Oracle of Athas
Metal weapons:
1) overcome DR/Metal.
2) have superior hardness compared to non-metal weapons.
3) price is dictated not only by utility, but also by scarcity.
As far as I understand, special Athasian weapons are not subject to the inferior materials penalties to hardness and hit points as outlined in table 6.3
Gold isn't only valuable because of its scarcity, but also because of its uses, as it does not corrode and so retains its pretty looks. Scarce but useless stuff tends to be expensive, but not overly so. Remember, iron is already very expensive in a medieval-style, standard D&D world.
Currently, we only have less-than-common spell 'braxatskin' that offers DR/metal. I hope we will see many, many monsters with it in the upcoming compendium, else I don't see much use for metal, especially considering the many spells that specifically target metal.
Increased harness is an improvement, but it's not all that essential, either, as it is only applied in special circumstances. I even suspect many DMs hardly make any use of it at all.
Metal armor seems to have even less redeeming qualities. I really think you should consider more disadvantages for non-metal stuff. If you just replace metal with almost equivalent other materials, the metal scarceness pf Athas becomes just an aesthetic oddity without any deeper gameplay implications.
Finally, there is a contradiction about metal tips in the rules set. On page 34, we're told 'A short spear (having only a metal tip) can be purchased for [shouldn't that read 'at'?] the reduced cost.' However, on page 41, we learn that: 'For example, an obsidian or bone-tipped spear costs 1 Cp on Athas, but a spear tipped with dasl would cost 75 Cp.' I think it should be completely ruled out to have metal tips on low-cost weapons.
Please do not consider this as a bashing of your ruleset - I think you've done an amazing job, actually, and I realize I can (and will, anyway) change any and all rules for my own house rules. I'm really just trying to help you polish them by discussing that here.
As far as I understand, special Athasian weapons are not subject to the inferior materials penalties to hardness and hit points as outlined in table 6.3
No, they're not subject to a unilateral penalty ... the materials have their own stats. Side effect: "Sunder" is going to be a very common action on Athas, because most weapons have a hardness that is not prohibitive. Also interesting to note: Near as I can find, 3.5 has no enhancement bonus restrictions for damaging weapons. That is, I actually stand a chance of breaking your +2 longsword with my measly +0 heavy mace -- if I can overcome the hardness. In 3.0, you had no chance unless you also have a weapon of +2 or higher.
There was a point in time when we were working from a stance close to the one that you're currently advocating. The problem is, it didn't work. Dredwinaard, if he feels like talking, can probably give a much more descriptive argument than I'm about to present. He's the one who bludgeoned this into the rest of us ...
AD&D2 -- and especially Dark Sun -- had no concern for balance, whereas 3e is centered around it. 3e is a very Gamist system. The idea of balance is integrated into everything from race selections to your rate of advancement. The problem is that the balance is a very, very delicate, and little things can end up shattering it.
When you reduce the quality of equipment available -- by making "good" materials prohibitive in cost, and slapping everything else with a penalty, you do a serious disservice to equipment-dependant classes. The most noticiable of those is, of course, the fighter, but the ranger, brute and rogue are all highly dependant upon equipment ... especially once you start climbing in levels. A metal weapon costs more than enchanting it to +2 -- or +3 in the case of some of the larger weapons.
Making heavy armor inaccessable also punishes fighters, clerics and others who aren't dedicated to having a high dexterity. They'll get hit a lot more, which means they're a lot more likely to die.
Now, you might not care about the delicate balance of the 3e system. You may be planning on imposing broad sweeping penalties on anything not made of metal. That's your perogative -- and one that we don't have. DS3 is a D&D3.5 system, not a d20 system. That means that we operate within the constraints of D&D3.5, which includes maintaing the balance.
Even if that wasn't an imposed constraint, it's a wise one anyway ... keeping the differences between our rules and the core rules minimal helps to keep Dark Sun accessable to the rest of the D&D playing "world" ... not scaring away 80% of the gamers who look at the setting would be a fabulous step for DS.
I do happen to agree that metal costs more than it's worth, given the benefits that you get from using metal ... my own solution (and a none-too-popular one) is to fix the price of metal. That seems to be unlikely to go anywhere, however, thanks to the historical precident.
I do not want to seem to be trying to stir 'popular unrest' against your ruling by discussing the issue here. So if you think it's a waste of webspace and could only be cause for unnecessary dissent within the community, I'll stop right now, even though I'd like to talk about this some further, just for the love of it
@Jon:
I had read the 'balance vs setting/flavour' argument there already, concerning defilers/preservers, if that's what you're alluding to. Thing is, I wasn't aware how far-reaching the balancing issues would be if you'd increase the disadvantages of non-metal equipment.
Even in standard D&D non-metal wepons, like quarterstaff and club should have some hindrace against metal wepons. Try to stop a metal sword with a wooden staff...
Another problem in DS is with e.g the spear: according to the rules as it has only minuscule amounts of metal (the tip only) so even a metal spear can be purchased on the reduced costs. However it is a metal wepons, so it can overcome dmg resistance! I think this is a major break. I always considered spear to be affected by inferior material rule. "It's just the tip what are metal" -yeah, but the tip is the most important part of the spear! If it is not metal, but wood it is not a spear, but a stake. (Good against vampires, but useless any other way.) The same applies to arrows.
So my suggeston is to put EVERY non-metal wepon under the inferior material rule (even the "only the tip" style of wepons and the special Athasian wepons). That evens things out. Of course I don't think it would make way into the official rules due to the restrictions (they can't change PHB) but for house rules. But the rule break problem with spears and arrows colud be revised by the athas.org team!
Another problem in DS is with e.g the spear: according to the rules as it has only minuscule amounts of metal (the tip only) so even a metal spear can be purchased on the reduced costs.
You're misreading it. Metal-tip spears, arrows etc. cost the same as in the PHB. It's just that non-metal versions of said weapons don't incur inferior material penalties.
Originally posted by moorkh
Finally, there is a contradiction about metal tips in the rules set. On page 34, we're told 'A short spear (having only a metal tip) can be purchased for [shouldn't that read 'at'?] the reduced cost.' However, on page 41, we learn that: 'For example, an obsidian or bone-tipped spear costs 1 Cp on Athas, but a spear tipped with dasl would cost 75 Cp.' I think it should be completely ruled out to have metal tips on low-cost weapons.
@Jon/Flip: That's the paragraph I was referring to. You will agree that this is a contradiction that shouldn't be in the final version.
Originally posted by Jon, Oracle of Athas
You're misreading it. Metal-tip spears, arrows etc. cost the same as in the PHB. It's just that non-metal versions of said weapons don't incur inferior material penalties.
IMHO: they should be. Constructing the spearhead from inferior material diminishes the power of the weapon. It simply can't pierce through armor and flesh as effectively as a metal spearhead could. So it would be logical to have the inferior material penalty for spears and arrows. I don't see any balance issue with this, but you can judge it better than me.
If I remember correctly, 2e was also not consistent on that. For example the obsidian-tipped gith spear got the -2 Thaco and -1 dmg penalty associated with obsidian, altough at the equipment chapter it was written, that spears are not affected by inferior material rules. We have this rule overridden by a house rule, and it never caused any problem during the 4 years we played DS.
My suggestion: keep the 'not effected by inferior material' rule only for weapons that doesn't contain ANY metal parts. Quarterstaff, club, whip and net are OK with that (I'm sure there are a few others, but I don't have the book with me now). Spears, javelins, tridents, arrows and bolts definitely should be affected by inferior material rule.
Spamdrew
Spamdrew
Another problem, that the weapon and armor paramaters are not too detailed in D&D. For example AC is a catch-all category for everything that makes somebody harder to get wounded. It includes the avoiding of blows (DEX, deflection, etc.) and the toughness to reduce the effect of a solid hit (armor, natural armor, etc.). Similar way attack bonus also means the ability to hit more precisely, and the ability to hit stronger. (+6 attack bonus can be a 1st level fighter with STR 20, or a 5th level fighter with STR 13. No difference from the system's point of view).
Not effective equipment (non metal weapons) affects the ability to have as penetrating hits, as with metal wepons. So even if an obsidian edge can be as sharp as steel, it won't be as effective. It simply can't transmit as much force as a metal blade.
I don't agree with their reasoning but I can somewhat understand them - enough to respect their decision and resign to house rules.
Still: Balance for me is more a matter of good DMing than of good rules. We're not planning to do a DS MMORPG, after all ;) And the different - maybe unbalanced - slant of DS was (and still is) what makes it so attractive to me.
I also a bit against having special Athasian weapons, that are non-metal, but doesn't has the -1 penalty.
DMG anyway puts the inferior material modifier to -2, instead of the -1 used in the official pdf.
So I'm thinking about the following as a house rule: all non-metal weapons has -2 penalty to attack and dmg due to be from inferior material.
Exception: Certain non-metal wepons have only -1 penalty for being from inferior materials. These wepons are the non-metal weapons from the PHB (quarterstaff, club, etc.), and the special Athasian weapons. Bows don't include inferior material penalty (as they are always non-metal), but arrows and bolts do (as they do the hitting and wounding part, which is affected by inferior material rule).
With that it even makes sense to have a metal trikal, as it is better than a non-metal one.
And the difference between having a -2 modifer or not is big enough to justify the statment about the Tyrian army: they can destroy 5 times larger armies just because of the better (metal) weapons. Two points difference in the modifier makes it belivable. One point difference does not IMHO.
Originally posted by Nagypapi
I also a bit against having special Athasian weapons, that are non-metal, but doesn't has the -1 penalty.
By that reasoning, a quarterstaff or a club should have the penalty applied to them as well ...
The reason they don't? They're designed to be made from non-metal materials (in this case wood) ... the same reasoning applies to why the various Athasian weapons don't have the inferior material penalty.
Originally posted by flip
By that reasoning, a quarterstaff or a club should have the penalty applied to them as well ...
Yes, they should. I'm in martial arts training since 8 years, also including weapon handling (katana and quarterstaff, namely). In a metal sword vs. wooden staff combat, the chances clearly at the combatant with the sword. If he/she manages to hit the staff the chances are that it will broke, leaving the staff guy weaponless. And this is a really bad thing. (Forget movies: if your opponent has any weapon (even a simply knife) and you don't then run. Otherwise the chances you will loose (and die) is minimum 90%.)
Also think about 'Little John' from Robin Hood: his staff was special, having a metal core, so it could be used effectively against sword wielding opponents. If he used a simple wooden staff he would be cut down years before.
So in a real fight having an inferior wepon is a real disadvantage. And a wooden staff is inferior to the metal sword. That's the real world, welcome to it.
The reason they don't?
The reason is to keep the game system simple, and heroic, not because it is not so. It is acceptable from gamingwise, but keep in mind that any game system is a model, following reality only within a certain accuracy. I played in gaming systems, where every wepon has four basic statistics: attack bonus, defense bonus, initiative bonus (speed) and damage. In that system the difference between a wooden staff and a longsword was clearly seeable.
If you are using a more abstract and simple modell (like the D&D system) such differences are disappearing, but they are not a problem anyway. But in DS this thing gets more emphasis again, due to the inferior material rule. So we have the problem to somehow make the difference feel in a system which are not designed for that.
They're designed to be made from non-metal materials (in this case wood) ...
This is not 100% true. These simple weapons were used mostly by the poor, who didn't have the money, or didn't have the right to bear real, metal wepons. So they used wooden clubs and staffs. But having a metal version from them clearly has benefits. Think about Little John's iron staff. A metal (or ironed) quarterstaff is a fair fight for an enemy with a metal sword. On the other hand a wodden quarterstaff has a big hindrace against that metal sword.
the same reasoning applies to why the various Athasian weapons don't have the inferior material penalty.
It's the same as above. These weapons are made from bone, obisdian, etc. because metal is not available. But if metal were available, and they made from metal they clearly would be superior to their non-metal version. And this superiorty means much more advantage than the current "it can hit creatures with DR/metal". Even if we upkeep that the Athasian's ingeniuity make these special weapons better, this has it's limits. In my country we have proverb for that wich summarises it nicely: You can't build a castle from sh**. ;)
With these in mind did I the rules change as I worte in my last post.
In the real world, unskilled weapon users can still kill quite easily a skilled unarmed opponent. Yet in D&D a high level monk dusts a low level sword swinging fighter. So hence we have heroics overcomming realism.
While I tend to like as much realism as I can realistically squeeze into my game, only so much will fit. Weapon materials is a prime example of too much realism vs too much heroism.
Oh, and since I just can't help myself:
From Jon:
DS3.5 Cure Rules document
So that's why the revisions keep getting better. You guys have had a cure rules spell handy ;)
Nonmetal items have no penalties (save poor harness and hp)
Metal items have bonuses.
Piecemeal metal armor provides an additional +1 enhancement bonus, while fully metal armor grants an additional +2. (-2, -4 penalty to saves vs hot weather respectively)
A metal weapon has an extra +1 to hit and damage.
Whenever you feel the characters would aquire +1 magic items, instead give out some metal. When it's time for +2, then give out the first magic stuff.
Sacrificing the venerable tradition of lust for metal isn't the right thing to do to in the interest of balance. The two can and should exist together.
Originally posted by stidwell
Here's an optional approach which has the virtue of preserving the traditional advantages of metal weapons while preserving the hard-won balance of 3e
I think the problem with this is that if you give normal metal weapons a bonus, that would make them better than similiar weapons on other worlds. Why would Athasian metal be better than Oerthian metal? Personally, I can't think of a solution to the metal=better on Athas that doesn't complicate game play.
If anything, Athasian metal is going to be inferior to metal on other worlds.
Either it's very old, thus it's been rusting away in a hidden horde for centuries and is now dull and pitted. Or it's modern, has been smelted by poorly implemented techniques, from inferior ore, and thus it's brittle and impure.
Originally posted by Mach2.5
Nagypapi has hit the nail on the head in some respects.
Thanks Mach!
But alas comes the issue of translating real world into the make believe game mechanics.
In the real world, unskilled weapon users can still kill quite easily a skilled unarmed opponent. Yet in D&D a high level monk dusts a low level sword swinging fighter. So hence we have heroics overcomming realism.
While I tend to like as much realism as I can realistically squeeze into my game, only so much will fit. Weapon materials is a prime example of too much realism vs too much heroism.
With all due respect to your point of view, I see it otherwise. True, that D&D is a herioc system, so in a Greyhawk or FR campaign I also don't give a damn about having penalties to the wooden quarterstaff. And I also like to play high level monk who kicks the armored a** of a horde of enemies.
But:
1) Dark Sun is not a heroic world IMHO. It goes about the survival of the fittest. So realism could get more share than in a normal fantasy world.
2) The 'lack of metal'-feature of Athas makes the difference between metal and inferior weapons quite in focus.
So we have a game system based on a heroic and abstract model. But even in this model there is a place for realism. I think the trick is to find that 2-3 main points (the heroic system doesn't allow more without serious reconstruction) where we can infuse the realism into the heroic system. In other word: we have to focus on the most important areas an features of the setting. For me these are:
-elemental clerics without gods (and the effect it has on the populace's religiousness)
-defiler magic (and the effect it has on the world's ecosystem)
-non-metal weapons and tools (and the effect it has on the world in general)
(Of course there are others, but I think they are not so important. Psionic is an add-on, no problem in 3e. Fighters, druids, rogues, druids almost unchanged, etc.)
That's why I keep the inferior material rules important. It is a defining aspect of the DS feeling.
Anyway how it comes, that DMG states a -2 penalty for inferior weapons, and official DS goes with -1 and sometimes zero?
Anyway how it comes, that DMG states a -2 penalty for inferior weapons, and official DS goes with -1 and sometimes zero?
Here's the game design aspect: FR operates with a -1 penalty to attack rolls only for inferior weapons from Chult. We found -2/-2 to be too crippling. -1/-1 is a good inbetween value. We also need weapons that don't skew balance in encounters where PCs encounter monsters, thus unique athasian weapons (carrikal etc) and certain PHB weapons don't accrue penalties from inferior materials at affordable prices roughly equivalent to the PHB prices (converted to cp).
The "logical" explanation for the reduced penalties and not present penalties is that weapons are designed specifically taking the material into consideration. Note that there was also precedent in DS2 for certain specific athasian weapons that did not have inferior material penalties due to said reason.
I think you are 100% on in everything said so far.
This is a problem for those of us who want to keep these old rules.
What about letting the Athasian weapons take the penalty, too?
It seems we have to give up either
(a) superiority of metal weapons, or
(b) certain Athasian weapons are customed designed to be effective when not made of metal.
If we want to play Dark Sun as it was originally conceived, more is lost giving up (a) than (b).
1) overcome DR/Metal.
2) have superior hardness compared to non-metal weapons (Improved Sunder will be a popular feat for those with metal weapons).
If you want to play the original Dark Sun, play 2nd edition. If you want to play 3rd edition with skewed balance, impose inferior weapon penalties for all non-metal weapons.
Originally posted by Jon, Oracle of Athas
Here's the game design aspect: FR operates with a -1 penalty to attack rolls only for inferior weapons from Chult.
So much for 'consistency to the core books'. Congrats to WotC...
We found -2/-2 to be too crippling.
Right. But at the same time it's a good incentive to use the Athasian weapons, and 'be in style'.
-1/-1 is a good inbetween value. We also need weapons that don't skew balance in encounters where PCs encounter monsters, thus unique athasian weapons (carrikal etc) and certain PHB weapons don't accrue penalties from inferior materials at affordable prices roughly equivalent to the PHB prices (converted to cp).
Understood. I tend to use less monster and more NPC as enemy, so the balance is not skewed so much. But it's only my personal take on DS.
The "logical" explanation for the reduced penalties and not present penalties is that weapons are designed specifically taking the material into consideration. Note that there was also precedent in DS2 for certain specific athasian weapons that did not have inferior material penalties due to said reason.
That's why I use -1 panlty only on thoose weapons instead of -2.
Originally posted by Jon, Oracle of Athas
Metal weapons are still superior. They:
1) overcome DR/Metal.
2) have superior hardness compared to non-metal weapons (Improved Sunder will be a popular feat for those with metal weapons).
The first is a setting specific parameter. It's effect entirely depends on how many Athasian creatures got '/metal' dmg resistance. And if I may quote from somebody: 'it is not possible to balance game mechanic benefit/hindrace with setting hindrace/benefit'. So?
The second is a specific circumstance, it's usage is very limited.
On the other side comes the general enormous price and rarity of metal weapons. Not in line with each other...
Originally posted by Jon, Oracle of Athas
Ironically enough you are complaining about the price of metal, a preserved setting flavor issue. It is easily explained by both fundamental theories of economics and marketing, though, through concepts such as sparcity and status symbols. This just proves once again we can't please all opinions. Grounded theory might be fine and dandy for capturing breadth, but appeasing all views is close to impossible.
Nonono, I'm not complaining about the price! I'm all for flavour! And an economist myself, so I know what you are speaking of. I'm complaining about the usefulness!
Bu it's true that it's impossible to please everybody.
Balance: in order for a setting to be balanced a standard (low level) fighter needs access to a weapon as good (but not better) as the longsword (1d8/19-20). This is because the weapon determines the damage output of the fight class and this needs to be constant across settings in order to be balanced against damage from spells, eg. fireball or magic missile.
Now, the important part is not that the weapon is called a longsword, but that the setting has a standard, easily available weapon with the same stats. I might make a setting where everyone uses "long daggers" with the same stats as a longsword. As long as this setting does not have a better, also easily available weapon, it would be balanced. By this line of reason, I might have a "uber long sword" (2d6/18-20) available but it would need to be extremely rare.
The balance issue does not say anything about transporting items from campaign to campaign - it merely requires that I might be able to introduce an item with similar stats/rarity in another setting without unbalancing anything. So in the example
above, let us say a fighter from Greyhawk gets transported into my setting - in this case he suddenly has a superior item. But the setting is still internaly balanced.
Let me rephrase this, what is required is that the same stats may get transported - not the exactt items, but the abstract representation as a "1d8/19-20 medium one-hand weapon". This line of reasoning is exactly what is behind using the standard ability range in DS35e. We (or some of us) still think a DS 18 str fighter is way stronger than a Greyhawk 18 str fighter. But they still function the same in their relative settings.
Another example: let us say I create a setting where everything is giantsized. Do I then use the giant stats from DnD? No - for that would be unbalancing. Take weapons for example. A giants sized longsword does more damage than a medium longsword. If everyone used giant sized sword it would be unbalancing, because swords would be better relative to spells. The solution to this problem is using the standard rules, but defining "giant" to be the reference size - that is, a giant longsword would have the same stats as a medium longsword in Greyhawk. Again, the setting is balanced - but there are clearly differences if I physically transport a character from "Giantworld" to Greyhawk (and again, this is not really a balance issue as I see it).
Again - note that the important factor is the "stats of the standard weapon available to fighters are the same".
Let me wrap my general reasoning up, by mentioning the rule in DM for inferior weapons. As I remember it (version 3 only), it is CLEARLY unbalancing, because (again, as I remember) it mentions applying the -2 to a whole setting. What is not unbalancing however is using the -2 penalty for eg. a low-tech region, as long as the PCs only stay in that region temporarily. Rephrased: the -2 penalty is unbalancing if you apply it to a whole setting, but not if it is applied to parts of the setting.
Let us now apply the reasoning above to DS. I will use three categories of weapons:
"Dark Sun weapons" meaning weapons metioned in the conversion
"standard weapons, Dark Sun materials": weapons from PH made out of dark sun materials like obsidian
"Standard weapons, metal" PH weapons, made of metal (iron).
We need a easily available weapon which can be used by any fighter and which does 1d8/19-20. This weapons - in the current rule set - is the mahuikal (spelling probably grossly incorrect
. Because this weapon exists, is "cheap" and available, it does really not matter (balance wise) what happens to eg. obsidian longswords as long as they are not better (than the mahuikal). This is because any fighter still has a weapon with "longsword stats" available.What about hardness? The Dark Sun weapons have lower hardness. There are two possible stances on this: 1) "hardness is not that important" 2) "hardness is very important". Taking the view of 1) the Dark Sun fighter have a slight disadvantage to standard spells, this is ignored because it is minor, not something majo like changing his damage output. Using The view of 2) Dark Sun would seem unbalancing. I tend to favour 1).
My point (at last....): there a 3 (possible more) balanced solutions to all of this (for the following it is important that the Dark Sun weapons have stats similar to PH weapons)
a) Dark Sun weapons "as is", standard weapons (DS materials): penalties, standard weapons (metal) no penalties.
b) Dark Sun weapons "as is", standard weapons (DS materials): penalties, standard weapons (metal) bonuses (like +1 or +2 damage).
c) Dark Sun weapons "as is", standard weapons (DS materials): no penalties, standard weapons (metal) no penalties.
Soluation a) is the one used by the current conversion. This is balanced because a fighter has access to weapons of similar stats as PH weapons.
Solution b) is balanced because metal weapons (in Dark SUn) are rare, so they might certainly be better - in the same sense a magic sword might be better without being unbalancing.
Soluation c) is also balanced (for once I wont repeat the arguments
I think the solution used ought to be the one which suits the setting best (as we want it). Now we turn to setting advantages/disadvantages (not balance issues anymore)
Solution a) encourages the use of Dark Sun weapons (good). It makes everyone using a standard weapon, dark sun materials completely stupid - hence (in my opinion) almost any npc would always use a dark sun weapon. This is in contrast, at least to the
first supplements/books, where swords etc. was still considered reasonable weapons (at least people used them). In addition it does not explain issues such as Tyr having (apparantly) a MAJOR military advantage by having access to metal weapons.
Soluation b) still encourages the use of Dark Sun weapons, but suddenly makes metal weapons far mor valuable and helps explain the military advantage by using such weapons. Note that this example broadens the gap between standard weapons (dark sun materials) and standard weapons (metal) because the former has a penalty and the latter has a bonus. Because of this, ceratin people may consider it "unrealistic".
Solution c) makes standard weapons (ds materials) reasonable to use once again. However, the disadvantages are that dark sun weapons suddenly lose their (stats based) appealing.
But, let me repeat, all solutions are perfectly balanced!
In my campaign I use a compromise between b) and c) in the sense that I have choosen a specific inferior material (let us say bone) and doing
standard weapons, metal: bonus
standard weapons, bone: unchanged from PH
standard weapons, other materials: penalty. <- not many uses these weapons.
I strongly suggest the Dark Sun conversion to adapt the viewpoint "metal is better than standard", because I feel "the metal hunt" is an integral part of Dark Sun. I feel it is less important if solution b) or c) (or my compromise) gets choosen.
Even though this "is metal better?" discussio has been quite a few times on the board, I still feel my post (by a long itme lurker)has some relevance and - so to speak - cuts to the meat in the discussion. Comments?
Well, my comment to that is the "metal is better" setup can't be used in the official material, as it violates the adaptability and interchangeability guidelines. As with that an Athasian metal long sword would be stronger than metal long sword from Greyhawk or Realms. Not to mention flavourwise: the Athasian mines produce very poor quality iron, so the weapon forged from it can be hardly better than it's Greyhawk counterpart.
One more comment to that: "better" is a relative form. The question is: better than what? If a wepon has -1 penalty it's better than a wepon with -2 penalty, but worse than a weapon without any penalty, etc. The question is only where do you put the scale, what is the best and the worst.
Alright, due to the lack of metals on Athas (like a high medieval culture could actually drain the Earth dry of metals), Athas has to naturally lack heavy metals. This means Athas is a huge world. It has to be to have the gravity it has without metals. I know some are thinking, but it takes a large amount of mining to deplete an area void of metals. Most of the metal mined would have be reused. So naturally, Athas is metal poor. So Athas is 1.5 to 3 times the size of Earth. Remember that gravity relies on density as well (not just size, but mass).
Athas' heat; reaching 120F in the day means a thick, earth-like atmosphere. Mars can reach 60F in the summer, but that is only an inch off of the ground.
I am sure Athas is full of new and different cultures. Why don't they visit the Tyr region? Distance and desert. Why travel across the wastes?
As for why havn't other cultures come to Tyr, I always assume they simply haven't managed as well with the changeover from the Green age to the current one until recently (hence, why they're only now starting to crop up, but I'm still working on my expanded regions stuff).
But anyhow, we're straying way off topic.
Low grade iron can still be turned into high grade metal (iron or steel) with the proper refining processes. Steel, being a composite of other metals, should be extremely rare with iron being far more common. In order not to skew balance, I've been thinking of using iron weapons as the base (no penalty and no bonus), but steel weapons, of which no new ones can be made, are of superior design. Since steel hasn't been able to be crafted for a few thousand years, the only steel weapons left would have had to have been enchanted in order to survive the ravages of time. Basically, steel weapons are considered masterwork for the purpose of combat adjustments and enchanting. Iron weapons can be made into masterwork items as well, but at twice the usual cost and time.
This is really only for those who want the extra realism in their game and quite unneccessary for anyone who doesn't have players constantly nagging them with textbook style questions all the time