Roman Gladius

[Ds Da Man]

I think the D&D short sword was versioned after the gladius, hense the piercing damage type. A short sword is really just a generic term for a blade around 36" long. D&D just simplifies stuff. There were probably hundreds of different types and makes of the "short sword". A cheap, mass produced blade, that is lighter and easier to carry and use then a longsword (longsword also being a generic term).

 

[Paka]

This thread has displayed some amazing historical knowledge of the ENworld community.

Now could we help Em with his issue?

He wants a gladius to mean something special in his game. How can we help him to achief this goal?

 

[rkanodia]

I think I'm settling on a feat that models close-formation, highly disciplined troops. Using a particular shield and a particular sword, they get bonuses to AC for fighting next to others with similar equipment.

Have you considered Formation Expert, from Complete Warrior? It gives you a +1 bonus to AC whenever you have a ready shield and allies on opposite sides of you also have ready shields. It also allows you to move into the square where an ally drops as though you had readied a move action (all intervening squares must contain allies), and gives you a +2 bonus to attack rolls when you and your adjacent allies are wielding identical polearms.

Sounds like kind of a one-stop shop for a legion; the guys in front use the shield wall portion of the feat, while the guys behind use the polearm attack bonus part with their spears. If a shield/gladius guy goes down, the guy behind him maintains the line with the free move, then drops his spear and readies his shield and gladius. I could see the 6+ BAB requirement being waived for members of an organized fighting force.

 

[Tzeentch]

The best way to describe this would be to have a rugby scrum and give them knives and you'd probably have much the same result, pressing the enemy back.

-- That might be how the SCA fights, as they do not fear death and dismemberment, but historical accounts of Roman battles didn't always end up looking like phalanx pushes.
-- In any case, it's probably a mistake to assume the Roman legionnaires were perfectly drilled automotons. There's plenty of evidence that they used the cut as well as the thrust with their gladius; but the thrust is certainly the one emphasized by Vegetius and some accounts by Tacitus.

Some good resources:
The Roman Army At War 100 BC-AD 200, Adrian Goldsworthy (Clarendon Paperbacks, 1996). Most noteworthy for it's far more "grunt-level" emphasis.
The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD - Third Edition, Graham Webster (Red River Books, 1998). Has a bit of everything, including diet and logistical information.
Military Institutions of the Romans, Vegetius (Various). Blame this guy for the automoton perception of the legionnaires. Keep in mind he was looking back on the "good old days" and trying to get the legions of the late Empire back to an infantry focus.

http://webpages.charter.net/brueggeman/table-of-contents.html -- This site rocks, can't recommend it enough.

 

[Abisashi]

It all about class...

I think the difference between "barbarians" (not the class) and Romans (and other highly-trained armies) is best defined by using different classes for them.

About the warrior npc class, the DMG states (pg 109) (emphasis added):
- "The warrior is a strong, stout combatant without the specialized training and finesse of a fighter..."
- "You can also use the warrior class for soldiers (although perhaps not for commanders or career soldiers)..."

When listing possible roles for the fighter, the PH lists "the elite foot soldier..."

When using the warrior to represent viscious barbarians and the like, I suggest giving them a d10 hit die, like the fighter, or even a d12 if you want to make them seem extra viscious; the d8 for the warrior seems overly craptacular, and since the barbarian civilization is supposed to be more "barbaric", I think a d10 is reasonable.

Exceptional barbarians should have fighter or barbarian levels, in general.

Anyway here you go; I used d10 for the "barbarians" and gave them average starting gold for a warrior (3d4x10, or 75 gp on average), which is all spent on his 2 possesions:

Average "barbarian": human warrior 1; CR 1/2; medium humanoid; HD 1d10+3;hp 8; Init +0; spd 30ft; AC 13 (studded Leather), touch 10, flat-footed 13; Base Atk +1; Grp +1; Atk +2 greatsword (2d6, 19-20/x2); AL N (CN*); SV Fort +2, Ref +0, Will +0; Str 11, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 10.
Skills: Handle Animal +4, Intimidate +4, Swim +3 (+4 when unarmored)
Feats: Toughness**, Weapon Focus (greatsword)
Possesions: Studded Leather (25 gp), Greatsword (50 gp).

*Neutral with chaotic tendancies, to reflect their barbaric nature.
**If you want the "barbarians" to be more barbaric (and weaker, at this level), give them power attack instead of toughness.


And here is the average roman legionnaire. Again, average money, though that is 150 gp in the case of the legionaire, reflecting his better salary/equipment:

Roman Legionnaire: human fighter 1; CR 1*; medium humanoid; HD 1d10+3; hp 8; init +0; spd 30ft; AC** 19 (heavy shield, Chain shirt, Phalanx Fighting), touch 10, flat-footed 19; Base Atk +1; Grp +1; Atk +2 melee Shortsword (1d6, 19-20/x2), Atk +1 ranged Pilum (1d6, 30ft, see below); SAAl N (LN***); SV Fort +2, Ref +0, Will +0; Str 11, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 10.
Skills: Climb +2, Listen +2, Spot +2.
Feats: Phalanxe Fighting(CW), Toughness, Weapon Focus (Shortsword)
Possesions:gladius (shortsword)(10 gp), lorica hamata (chain shirt)(100 gp), 3 pilum (only carries 1 at a time; extras are for if the main one gets "lost" (breaks, etc.))(3gp), Heavy Wooden Shield (7gp), 30 gp (mostly not on his person; may be held by the army, in his families house, etc.)

*Sepparated from his unit, he is possibly CR 1/2 (see next)
**When not fighting in a phalanx, the Legionnaire has 2 less AC.
***Neutral with lawful tendancies, to reflect the orderly nature of the legions.

**NEW ITEM**
Pilum: 1d6 damage, range 30 ft., 20/x2; medium martial weapon.
Special: If a pilum misses due to the target's shield (i.e., it misses by an amount equal to or less than the shield's shield bonus), then it become stuck. Removing a stuck pilum requires a standard action and a strength check DC 18. While a shield has an embedded pilum, its user is considered non-proficient if their str bonus is less than the shield's armor check penalty. Note that a pilum can't embed in a weapon that it couldn't sunder. Once thrown, a pilum can't be used again until it is fixed (dc 10 craft (weapons) check). Otherwise, it acts as a javelin.

Design notes: In exchange for going up one proficiency category, the javelin gets its special characteristics. The mechanic is slightly inelegant to prevent the pilum from hosing shield using PCs and important NPCs.

Thoughts?

 

[Darklone]

Some points:
Caesars battle descriptions in his "Gallic war (sp?)" say more than once that the infantry fought with the pilii in melee till the cavalry came. The gladii were the last resort when the formation broke or was dissolved.

Gladii were made from steel, not iron. It was not necessarily high quality steel, but the Romans had a huge industry compared to their neighbours and were able to equip more soldiers with more weapons.

Back to D&D: If you want to build a legionnaire, I suggest to use a heavy shield as the main weapon and a light shortsword in the off hand (TWF without Dex requirement perhaps as class ability). Point Blank Shot and Far Shot for throwing the spears. Phalanx Fighting from the Complete Warrior is nice for additional AC in formation and will stop most barbaric Cleave attempts pretty soon.

If you're interested in military logistic, basic training and tactical and strategical stuff, have a look at the Kingdom of Kalamars Handbook. Professional use of three class skills for fightertypes (Knowledge military tactics, Knowledge military tactics and military basic training) gives another +6 to be distributed between to hit and AC bonuses.

Put everything together and you'll have a bunch of level 2 fighters that can only be stopped by Fireballs.

 

[clark411]

This thread has displayed some amazing historical knowledge of the ENworld community.

Now could we help Em with his issue?

He wants a gladius to mean something special in his game. How can we help him to achief this goal?

I think all this amazing historical knowledge is pretty bluntly boiling down to the fact that the Roman Gladius (note: thread topic) isn't something special in any mechanical sense. The best bet is either slashing / piercing the craft DCs and times on them, making them far cheaper, or incorporating Roman type feats that extend beyond your usual Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization to allow something extra, like perhaps using 1.5 strength bonus with the lil bugger to represent the efficiency and power of the Roman wrist twist stabbing style. Balance be damned if weapon quality niftiness based on illusion is what is sought.

Also, as a note, Romans excelled in combat due to their study and rationalization of war. Some sources I've seen show diagrams depicting the exact timing of a pilum toss. The Romans were capable of, en masse, performing maneuvers that would send dozens upon dozens of breaking iron/stick spears into their foes ranks and draw weapons in time to clash. It's pretty amazing to see how they timed it all to the second with exacting precision. Beyond specifically setting their charge speeds to match their speed with drawing melee weapons, and timing their pilum to land where their foes would be rather than where they currently were at the time of their being tossed, Pilum, mechanically, were far more ingenious than the gladius any day of the week... designing a weapon that your enemy can't pick back up and toss back at you- genius.
/anotherhistorydorkmodeoff

(ps. and any snarkiness was np.)

 

[Darklone]

**NEW ITEM**
Pilum: 1d6 damage, range 30 ft., 20/x2; medium martial weapon.
Special: If a pilum misses due to the target's shield (i.e., it misses by an amount equal to or less than the shield's shield bonus), then it become stuck. Removing a stuck pilum requires a standard action and a strength check DC 18. While a shield has an embedded pilum, its user is considered non-proficient if their str bonus is less than the shield's armor check penalty. Note that a pilum can't embed in a weapon that it couldn't sunder. Once thrown, a pilum can't be used again until it is fixed (dc 10 craft (weapons) check). Otherwise, it acts as a javelin.

Design notes: In exchange for going up one proficiency category, the javelin gets its special characteristics. The mechanic is slightly inelegant to prevent the pilum from hosing shield using PCs and important NPCs.

Thoughts?

Pilums did not bend. Tests have shown that they either break or stay straight.

About the reason why the Romans used shortswords instead of longer ones... They didn't. Later Roman soldiers used spatha, essentially longswords.

The rest is a nice comparison between warriors and legionnaires...

 

[Paka]

I think all this amazing historical knowledge is pretty bluntly boiling down to the fact that the Roman Gladius (note: thread topic) isn't something special in any mechanical sense.

Since when does D&D play have anything to do with history?

I think there are ways of showing how cool a gladius could be by just fiddling with the rules, feats, magic and not making the gladius into the katana of this decade.

A feat that utilizes the group tactics the short sword afforded with shield walls and such or something else, something I haven't thought of, something only accessed by reaching into the forum and getting an idea and not quoting this half a paragraph from a half-remembered book read ten years ago about the Roman legion.

Thassall, I think there is a way to meet Em's goals without thumbing our nose too harshly at history but capturing the feel of a weapon with an amazing history.

 

[Steverooo]

First of all, this thread is about the Gladius, not how many Hastae Roman Legionaries carried... If you wish to argue the point, it would be best to start a new thread... Therefore; this will be my last post on the topic...

You are AFAIK wrong.
The Roman legionaries carried 1 Pilum to battle.
In the premarian legions the triarier were equipped wih a spear or lance the hasta.

As for how many Pilae a Roman Legionary carried, and/or which forms of Hasta, neither you nor I know. We weren't there! The Lacus Curtius disagrees with you, however. It states that a heavy footman carried two pila and a lance, as well as a gladius and Pugio (dagger), into battle. He would have carried spares with his gear.

http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Hasta.html

(You will find the relevant portion right under illustration number three.)

Also, if you will go to this location:

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/romanarmy2.html

and look at the drawings of bothe the Legionaries in marching gear and parade dress, you will see that both are carrying multiple hastae...

It is also worth noting, here, however, that eight legionaries shared a tent/kitchen, and a mule. It is doubtful, however, that the mule transported their extra weapons. It is possible, however... As I said, I wasn't there.

When The legionaries came to combat reach, tehy chraged the enemi with a hail of pilas, and then folowed with scutum and gladius.

Which is no different than what I said, eh?