Roman Gladius

[Emiricol]

I'm curious how folks would model the gladius - the potent Roman short sword (or at least, the Romans took the idea and improved it.)

The simple answer is to make it just a short sword with a fancy name, but I don't think that accurately reflects the blade (otherwise the Romans wouldn't have used it).

What other ideas are there for modelling Roman-like troops with the gladius?

 

[Ace]

I'm curious how folks would model the gladius - the potent Roman short sword (or at least, the Romans took the idea and improved it.)

The simple answer is to make it just a short sword with a fancy name, but I don't think that accurately reflects the blade (otherwise the Romans wouldn't have used it).

What other ideas are there for modelling Roman-like troops with the gladius?

It really is just another shortsword

Its a good design but not a be all end all weapon

I would just treat the Gladius as a short sword that does cut and thrust.

If you want roman legion style fighting you will need a sperate PRC or feat. I think there are a few out there now but none come to mind

Sorry

 

[barsoomcore]

Is there some quality the gladius possessed that made it special? I always assumed it was just a regular shortsword -- pointy bit, sharp bits, holdy bit.

1d6 seems fine, doesn't it?

 

[CCamfield]

I think a short sword would probably do. D&D doesn't really spend a lot of effort on modelling formation fighting or the space required to wield a weapon - the legionnaires, each with their big shield and gladius, fought in closer order than Celts wielding bigger slashing swords. There's no limitation on the tower shield that restricts characters to use a light weapon. (I think a Roman soldier's shield would count as a tower? Or would it just be large?)

I think I saw a formation feat in my DM's copy of The Complete Warrior that would be appropriate for Romans, although they also fought in a more dispersed fashion which I think suggests a lot of training for flanking and the like.

 

[clark411]

The Romans are so romanticized.

 

[humble minion]

The Romans are so romanticized.

Romanticised or not, they did manage to rule most of Europe for a few hundred years, so they must have been doing something right...

I agree that the gladius is effectively just a standard short sword (masterwork if you're feeling very generous). The Roman armies were effective because of their training and their logistical skill rather than through the use of any superweapons. The Phalanx Fighting feat from Complete Warrior simulates the Roman shield-wall techniques reasonably well. I seem to remember one called Improved Cooperative Fighting or something, which increases the flanking bonus to +4 - that one might be worth a look as well.

Still, unless you're using some variant of D&D which recognises that barbarians swinging greataxes and longswords around take up a lot more room than 5ft square each, then any game representation of Roman tactics will be a little on the inadequate side.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Romanticised or not, they did manage to rule most of Europe for a few hundred years, so they must have been doing something right...

And that's called missing the joke folks...

I agree that the gladius is effectively just a standard short sword (masterwork if you're feeling very generous). The Roman armies were effective because of their training and their logistical skill rather than through the use of any superweapons. The Phalanx Fighting feat from Complete Warrior simulates the Roman shield-wall techniques reasonably well. I seem to remember one called Improved Cooperative Fighting or something, which increases the flanking bonus to +4 - that one might be worth a look as well.

... but you're forgiven because I would agree with you here. If you really want the gladius to be an exceptional short sword, make it masterwork. Much like a katana is a masterwork bastard sword.

 

[BSF]

I would model it as a masterwork shortsword. If that still doesn't seem strong enough for you, consider expanding the threat range. By the time long/broad swords, hand and a half swords and those types of things came around, I am not sure the gladius would have been that special.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

D&D does a poor job of representing the advantages of a smaller weapon, the bigger the size the bigger the dice. There is no way in real life you can wield a great axe effectivley in a little 5 foot box regardless of whether you're in a tight formation or in a dungeon passage. I could continue to point out the disadvantages of larger weapons but I won't, the simple fact is d&d isn't that complex. Though it could be with a few simple changes modified to be a bit more realistic regarding the advantages of small sized weapons.

I think this thread has sparked my interest in investigating those few simple changes.

Meanwhile unless you make some additional rules give your "Romans" longswords and tough it out.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I would model it as a masterwork shortsword. If that still doesn't seem strong enough for you, consider expanding the threat range. By the time long/broad swords, hand and a half swords and those types of things came around, I am not sure the gladius would have been that special.

If the Romans had wanted to they could've used swords the size of those to which you refer, other peoples used them and the Roman cavalry used a larger blade as well. There was obviously some advantage in using a smaller weapon (see my above post).