RE: steel

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

I am in agreement with Kevin on this one.  I don't see, at least in terms
of a blade, where steel helps any more than in the amount of upkeep
that the blade requires.  An edge is an edge.  A stone axe can cleave
just as easily as a steel one, but you have to replace the stone axe-head
a lot more often.  Now, as regards armor, I definitely see an advantage
with steel.  I would opt for the removal of damage bonuses (steel only
gives +1 to damage, right?) based on materials, but have the sturdiness
of the material reflected in resistance checks.  Which, by the way, is
something that has bothered me for a while; why is it that iron has a better
resist vs. STR than steel does?  (If I recall correctly, iron has a 19 while
steel has an 18, or something like that.)

Lyle

-----Original Message-----
From:	Kevin Collins [SMTP:kcollins@bilbo.bio.purdue.edu]
Sent:	Tuesday, June 16, 1998 3:47 PM
To:	gmlist@cioe.com
Subject:	steel

Hey guys,

	I have always thought that the occurance of steel is fine just
the way it is.  Steel should be common, but not necessarily of high
quality.  In the middle ages, blacksmiths would coat their finished 
products in pig's fat.  It would be placed in a leather bag/stomach.
After cooking the bag in the forge for several hours, the carbon from the
fat would be absorbed into the iron.  That is how the production of steel
was done commonly.
	I also disagree that steel or any other material should give a 
bonus "to hit" or "to damage".  The edge that can be put on a iron, steel,
or adamantite weapon isn't that noticable.  The only differences is the 
duration of the edge.  Instead of bonuses, steel and adamantite weapons
should require less upkeep and repair than iron weapons.

Kevin