Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lode 03-27-07, 02:24 PM	This is my build for the average soldier of a country in my campaign world. I wanted the military modeled somewhat upon the legions of Imperial Rome, and after reading up a little on the subject, this is what I came up with. Human Fighter 2 Feats: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Specialization, Agile Shield Fighter, Powerful Charge Equipment: Longsword, Heavy Wooden Shield, Studded Leather Armor, Dastana, Pilum x3 Given two to four levels of Fighter how would you build a legionary?
Return of the Flumph 03-27-07, 02:34 PM	Change those Fighter levels to Warrior.
Lode 03-27-07, 03:44 PM	Thought about it, decided to stick with fighter.
nightwyrm 03-27-07, 04:10 PM	Roman (infantry) gear tends to resemble more short sword/tower shield/banded mail, but you might not want to follow that religiously.
Lode 03-27-07, 04:31 PM	That may be the iconic image of the legionnaire, but the legions in general had lighter armor than banded mail and heavy wooden shields instead of pavises (tower shields). And short swords simply don't have the 'oomph' of longswords.
Elthbert 03-27-07, 04:49 PM	That may be the iconic image of the legionnaire, but the legions in general had lighter armor than banded mail and heavy wooden shields instead of pavises (tower shields). And short swords simply don't have the 'oomph' of longswords. What ime period are you basing this on? before the reforms of Marius ? After? Caeserian legions, Imperial Legions? 1st, 2nd,3rd,or 4th century Imperial Legions? It is simply difficult to comment without more info. Edit: but studded leather is not really appropriate regardless--- Mail, scale or banded ( though roman banded mail should be stated out more like a breastplate than banded in D&D)
unfortunate_crow 03-27-07, 04:50 PM	I use a level 1 warrior. feats: toughness, endurance equipment: Short sword, javelin (x3), hvy steel shield, chainmail (early legions), banded mail (marian legions).
Lode 03-27-07, 05:08 PM	The army I'm thinking is based loosely on the legions of the post-Marian Reform, before their barbarization. As for heavier armor, I feel this limits the capability of the average legionnaire. I would have given them chain shirts, but those are even more expensive than some heavy armor. I considered making them warriors but I've always felt that warriors were more like militiamen or levies than professional soldiers. However, if fighters prove to be too much I'll probably cook up some kind of legionnaire base class.
Khementari 03-27-07, 06:51 PM	Tight formations that historically conquered massive swaths of earth just scream fireball to me.
Araes 03-27-07, 07:33 PM	I tend to agree with you on the fighter vs warrior debate if you are pre-marian reform, however, after that point the legions became largely drawn from the commoners. Comparatively for their time period they would probably still be decent warriors, but I guess I might still put them as warriors, not fighters. However, its also totally your call about how many well trained fighters you'd like to have in your world. If you were going to have them that way to elevate them from the more barbarian warriors then I could see that too. According to Wikipedia, they should be armed with two javelins (pila), a short sword (gladius), chain mail or banded mail, and a tower shield (scutum). In terms of leveling, I would probably follow something close to the doubling rule that they often use in the DMG for officers as well since you've got something the size of a small-medium city on the move which is totally focused on war. (Assuming your base) Decurion - Fighter 4 Centurion - Fighter 8 Legatus legionis - Fighter 16 With other positions maybe spanning the gaps between. Tesserarius - Fighter 5 Duplicarius - Fighter 6 Optio - Fighter 7 Primi Ordines - Fighter 9 Pilus Prior - Fighter 10 Primus Pilus - Fighter 12 Tribuni Angusticlavii - Fighter 14 As far as the fireballs, in terms of the stuff they'd be fighting, they'd probably be uncultured heathens (in Roman terms) who wouldn't be organized enough to have more than a shaman or something like that. Romans being what they were in their day, its very likely that some of the members of the Auxilia would be highly trained war wizards who would know all kinds of good stuff like fireballs and lighting bolts of their own, as well as dispel.
Lode 03-27-07, 09:55 PM	I wouldn't say that the quality of the the post-Marian army was any worse than that of the pre-Marian. The training that legionnaires went through was formidable to say the least. In my world Fighters are relatively rare, since most countries are based around an early medieval social system: a highly trained, well armed elite supported by lesser soldiers raised by levy or press gang. This army is different in that though the average legionnaire isn't going to be as well trained or equipped as a knight/samurai/whatever, they are far better than a conscript, thus making the overall quality of their army surpass that of most if not all of their foes. As for equipment, I gave them the shield specialization feat and the dastana from Arms and Equipment Guide to pick up the AC slack, so that they stay mobile and makes them better able to operate in all sorts of terrain. I wouldn't give the officer corp of the legion such high levels. A legate, level 16? I'd wonder why he was in the military in the first place when he could ply his trade as an adventurer or simply take over the country with the very legion he leads. I would make officers Fighter/Marshals, or since we're in a fairly magic rich world, Warmages.
Elemental_Elf 03-27-07, 10:28 PM	You should add Phalanx Fighting (from the Complete Warrior) to the list of feats. I know the name sounds Greek, but in truth the feat feels more Romanesque. All you need is a bunch of Guys fighting with Heavy Shields and using Light Weapons, sounds like what you're trying to do. What's better than an army with +3 to AC when fighting together?
Elthbert 03-27-07, 11:56 PM	I wouldn't say that the quality of the the post-Marian army was any worse than that of the pre-Marian. The training that legionnaires went through was formidable to say the least. In my world Fighters are relatively rare, since most countries are based around an early medieval social system: a highly trained, well armed elite supported by lesser soldiers raised by levy or press gang. This army is different in that though the average legionnaire isn't going to be as well trained or equipped as a knight/samurai/whatever, they are far better than a conscript, thus making the overall quality of their army surpass that of most if not all of their foes. As for equipment, I gave them the shield specialization feat and the dastana from Arms and Equipment Guide to pick up the AC slack, so that they stay mobile and makes them better able to operate in all sorts of terrain. I wouldn't give the officer corp of the legion such high levels. A legate, level 16? I'd wonder why he was in the military in the first place when he could ply his trade as an adventurer or simply take over the country with the very legion he leads. I would make officers Fighter/Marshals, or since we're in a fairly magic rich world, Warmages. Well I wouldcertianly agree that the legions of the post marian reform were certainly not worse than those before it. They were however much less individually skilled as the army came less from the landed class and more from the commoners. This is not necessarlly bad. An army of individual fighters (I see the fighter class as leading very much to individual combatants unless you are going to have standardized feats, in which case you might as well make a legionare class with those as class features) are a force to be reconed with but they do not do well for the maintianance of empires, for that you need disiplined regular troops who do precisly wha they are told, when they are told. Warriors can be exactly that. A warrior is a serious full BAB combatant, they are just not feat heavy. I would really hesitate to use fighter here.
Elthbert 03-28-07, 12:00 AM	Tight formations that historically conquered massive swaths of earth just scream fireball to me. This has been an issue in my campaign as we have had several large scale conflicts in them. The trick of D&D combat is that the spell casters on the battlefield seem to demand the implimentation of 20th century small unit tactics, however a small unit gets obliterated agianst a large group with reach weapons, and instakilled by a lance equiped cavalry charge. So the question becomes, how many spell casters are running around your world, particularly how many that can cast area of effect damage spells.
Elthbert 03-28-07, 12:06 AM	The army I'm thinking is based loosely on the legions of the post-Marian Reform, before their barbarization. As for heavier armor, I feel this limits the capability of the average legionnaire. I would have given them chain shirts, but those are even more expensive than some heavy armor. I considered making them warriors but I've always felt that warriors were more like militiamen or levies than professional soldiers. However, if fighters prove to be too much I'll probably cook up some kind of legionnaire base class. How does it limit them? I mean scale isn't that expensive. I just thin studded leather is too light. I would go with scale at the least. Just as a note. If thier AC is too low then a heavly armoured cavalry charge is going to ride overthem like grass, legionarres don't have pikes. The D&D combat system is not sufficent to show the serious advantages of fighting in formation .
Araes 03-28-07, 01:00 AM	So the question becomes, how many spell casters are running around your world, particularly how many that can cast area of effect damage spells. This was part of the reason why I brought up the point about legions having the financial and social resources to recruit good mages to go along with the armies compared to the unorganized hordes. They'd probably on average have more mages than anybody else they encountered and the danger from area effect damage spells is rather negligible. This allows them to then concentrate their formations with little danger and over come the problems with this level of technology weaponry. As for heavier armor, I feel this limits the capability of the average legionnaire. Yeah, I didn't really get this either. Its not like they're very mobile to begin with the way they're fighting. Up till the loss of strict formations, the amount of mobility provided to any single soldier was pretty drastically limited anyhow. They basically just march up, shield bash, stab, repeat, cycle in when someone dies. They can stow it away on long marches if necessary and most legionaires were carrying 50-60 pounds of gear around with them anyhow. I'd wonder why he was in the military in the first place when he could ply his trade as an adventurer or simply take over the country with the very legion he leads. Since we're looking at Rome for this as an example, that actually happened quite often. Also, to properly take over a country, they need to be charismatic or popular enough to sway a large number of legions to their cause, as in any kind of Roman state you're talking about 25-30 of these things active in the country at any one time. The reason that someone that high level would stay, is that the position pays Very well with relatively little danger or responsibility and a large degree of prestige. You're about as close to the top as you can get without being a senator.
nightwyrm 03-28-07, 01:27 AM	You might want to consider mages as artillery pieces and adopt some of the battle conventions of the gunpowder era. During those times, infantry was basically pikeman/musketeers and was good against cavalry, cannons was good against infantry formations, and cavalry was used against the relatively slow and immobile cannons. Of course, the parallels would not be exact in your game since your armies are legionaires and mages are much better at protecting themselves in close combat than cannons, but I imagine that in magical warfare, armies would have specially trained units whose main job would essentially be mage killers. They would break through enemies lines either by stealth or high speed and kill or disable mages before the main army engages in battle. It's possible that the outcome of a battle would be greatly determined by which side was able to kill the other side's mages.
sciguy98 03-28-07, 02:47 AM	I would probably create a feat like phalanx fighting (or that uses phalanx fighting as a pre-req) specifically for a testudo formation. Maybe even make the testudo count as a solid barrier so that Fireball wouldn't have line of effect on the fighters beneath. It would still damage the shields, but even then if you make them magical then they might be able to stand up even to that. Although, this would probably need to be a specialized unit...
ff6shadow 03-28-07, 03:37 AM	The Phalanx Fighting feat also offer a +1 bonus to Reflex saves, but requires the Heavy Shield and a light weapon. That should help somewhat with fireball and lightning bolt buting wholes in the formation. Maybe Fighter 2 1st - Lightning Reflexes Fighter 1 - Phalanx Fighting Human - Powerful Charge Fighter 2 - Shield Specialization Equipment: Short sword, Heavy Wooden Shield, Studded Leather Armor, Dastana, Javelin x2 Close to yours, but giving up the Shield Bash for a little more Fireball defense. Standard elite array NPC 5th level wizard, drops 15 into intteligence and boosts it at 4th level. 5d6 fireball (average damage 17) with Reflex save DC 16 Normal array for warrios, Str 13, Dex 12, Con 11, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 8. Reflex Save is +1 from Dex, +2 from Lightning Reflexes, +1 from Phalanx fighting. HP is average of 15. They have a 45% chance of surviving a fireball. Switch Str and Con, and they always survive fireball, but are at 0 HP on a failed save.
Lode 03-28-07, 12:22 PM	I see a lot of nominations for Phalanx Fighting, but the problem with that is it isn't representative of how the legions actually fought. They didn't line up side by side, they used staggered formations to give themselves plenty of room to maneuver and attack. They were also trained to work in smaller units rather than just a big mass of spearmen. It was common for a unit to disengage from the main body of troops in order charge into the enemy's flank. The legions have always had problems with heavy cavalry, look at the wars with the Parthians. Being an army of primarily swordsmen leaves much to be desired when fighting cavalry. I'll probably make up a unit designed to combat such a threat at a later time. The legions were actually very mobile when they fought (see above). It was why they were so effective against hoplite armies, they were able to outflank them. In addition they were required to march a distance of 21 miles carrying 55 lbs of gear in 5 hours. Impressive to say the least. The idea behind the lighter armor is to give the average legionnaire with a STR of 13 the ability to march long distances carrying all their secondary gear in addition to armor and weapons, as well as the capability to fight on a field, ship, what have you. And, I probably should have mentioned this earlier, this particular army will of course be supported by all sorts of specialist troops: rangers, mages, and the like. Thinking about it, I suppose in a fantasy world a high ranking officer could possibly be a relatively high level character, though I would make it a rare and dangerous (to the emperor) occurrence.
Araes 03-28-07, 02:02 PM	though I would make it a rare and dangerous (to the emperor) occurrence. Possibly, although this depends on how you view characters like the emperor in your campaign. In many campaigns, the most influential people are often rather high level characters, even if its just in something relatively useless like Noble. And, as mentioned, the danger from single characters is, in my opinion, fairly minor except in an assassination when you're talking about armies of 5-15 thousand people wandering around. Been watching far too much of HBO's Rome lately, but even the real Augustus didn't have to do much personally to defeat his foes. He simply delegated responsibility to people who he trusted and could handle it and sent them to their tasks while he strategized. As far as the phalanx vs legion argument, its an old one, but I agree, they don't fight as a legion. In fact, I would say the fact that the Romans don't use the phalanx formation and instead have uniform soldiers is the primary reason the hoplites lost to legions, not the factor of land speed mobility provided by troops. Quoting Polybius: the Macedonian formation is at times of little use and at times of no use at all, because the phalanx soldier can be of service neither in detachments nor singly, while the Roman formation is efficient. For every Roman soldier, once he is armed and sets about his business, can adapt himself equally well to every place and time and can meet attack from every quarter . He is likewise equally prepared and equally in condition whether he has to fight together with the whole army or with a part of it or in maniples or singly In D&D the phalanx is regarded as this magical device that can conquer all foes, and in truth, in D&D it is - because it suffers none of the practical problems of the real world. Fighters are always in nice little 5' squares and combat locations rarely have problems with terrain, so a formation that depends completely on being correctly formed works well.
Lode 03-28-07, 08:20 PM	Romans don't use the phalanx formation and instead have uniform soldiers is the primary reason the hoplites lost to legions, not the factor of land speed mobility provided by troops But it can't hurt. Getting to the battlefield quickly can be just as important as actually fighting it, particularly in my campaign. I don't have a problem with having these legions equipped with lighter armor because their AC is decent overall: 17 by itself, 20 when in total defense. There is also the matter of carrying capacity. 40 lbs of chain mail with everything else makes this army a slow one. One day I'll just have to go through the manual and redo the weights of all the weapons and armor. Though the phalanx is the most effective formation in D&D I just don't feel like running battles where the legionnaires constantly have to line up just to get the most out of the feat.
Elthbert 03-28-07, 09:26 PM	But it can't hurt. Getting to the battlefield quickly can be just as important as actually fighting it, particularly in my campaign. I don't have a problem with having these legions equipped with lighter armor because their AC is decent overall: 17 by itself, 20 when in total defense. There is also the matter of carrying capacity. 40 lbs of chain mail with everything else makes this army a slow one. One day I'll just have to go through the manual and redo the weights of all the weapons and armor. Though the phalanx is the most effective formation in D&D I just don't feel like running battles where the legionnaires constantly have to line up just to get the most out of the feat. where do you get 17? 10 + 3 from studded leather + 2 from a heavy shield. That comes out to 15. What am I missing?
Lode 03-28-07, 09:46 PM	+1 from dastana, +1 from shield specialization.
Elthbert 03-29-07, 10:17 AM	+1 from dastana, +1 from shield specialization. Ah I see. I missed the dastana( though I must admit I don't like tacking on bits of armour to what is suppose to be a complete set to raise AC) and was unsure about the shield specialization as the average soldier being a 2nd level fighter ( not warrior) seems excessive to me. Four feats for a standard soldier build is a lot. But to each his own. If your everyday soldier is a 2nd level fighter, what is the average level of the trained elite ( knights?) of thier enemies. I would assume rd or 4th at least.
Khementari 03-29-07, 01:24 PM	You have to consider that if warfare itself evolved in a world in which magic is real, would battles be fought by the conventional standards of our historical armies? I think not.
Lode 03-29-07, 02:38 PM	Ah I see. I missed the dastana( though I must admit I don't like tacking on bits of armour to what is suppose to be a complete set to raise AC) Just making the most with what I've got. the average soldier being a 2nd level fighter ( not warrior) seems excessive to me. Four feats for a standard soldier build is a lot. I originally wanted to make the legionnaire better than the average warrior but at the same time not as good as the average fighter. It's looking increasingly as though I'll have to make a new NPC class. You have to consider that if warfare itself evolved in a world in which magic is real, would battles be fought by the conventional standards of our historical armies? I think not. It comes down to a matter of scale and control. It's easier to recruit and control an army and have them attack other countries/defend the frontier/whatever than to hire a wizard powerful enough to do the same thing.
Khementari 03-29-07, 04:46 PM	It comes down to a matter of scale and control. It's easier to recruit and control an army and have them attack other countries/defend the frontier/whatever than to hire a wizard powerful enough to do the same thing. The simple existence of magic is enough to entirely derail the manner in which people would confront one another in comparison to real-world tactics.
Elthbert 03-29-07, 05:00 PM	The simple existence of magic is enough to entirely derail the manner in which people would confront one another in comparison to real-world tactics. Well it depends how common magic is in your world and how high a level the average spell caster is.
Evil DM Mk3 03-29-07, 05:34 PM	True, but the simple existance of MONSTERS is enough to have the same effect. I am NOT a history buff so if I start drawing comparisons between the danger posed by a unit of infantry and by a war elephant I will fall down on my ignorance. But the basic point is the same. I would expect humanoids who have to deal with monsters on any kind of regular basis would favour reach weapons over anything else, just to try and even the odds a little!!
Khementari 03-29-07, 05:42 PM	Well it depends how common magic is in your world and how high a level the average spell caster is. Even in my own game where I try to make magic a little more special than standard PHB fare the simple reality is any military force would know magic existed and need to account for it. Having to account for magic is a necessity in D&D and military leaders would have no other way to acount for it other then to seek it out and gain some control over magic themselves. If you have an army that has no magic, i.e. using tactics that have evolved in a real-world manner, then your army has no chance of survival.
Elthbert 03-29-07, 07:19 PM	Even in my own game where I try to make magic a little more special than standard PHB fare the simple reality is any military force would know magic existed and need to account for it. Having to account for magic is a necessity in D&D and military leaders would have no other way to acount for it other then to seek it out and gain some control over magic themselves. If you have an army that has no magic, i.e. using tactics that have evolved in a real-world manner, then your army has no chance of survival. Well I disagree, I think 16th and 17th century tactics are perfectly pliable in a D&D game, except that 16th or 17th century tactics don't have an answer to air power, but then agian the answer to air power is, well, air power. So as ong as the army has flying wizards or steed there shouldn't be a problem.
Elthbert 03-29-07, 07:32 PM	Actually the legion was pretty flexable, with some adjustments to account for better metalurgy and stirrups as well as magic they could be viabe as well.
Lode 03-29-07, 09:09 PM	Funny thing about magic. While it is a tool that any country with a decent literacy rate will attempt to utilize, the very nature of magic will prevent most of them from integrating it to a very large degree. Unless they're in a magocracy, the idea of an individual running around with the ability to turn invisible, control thoughts, summon demons to do their bidding, etc is every ruler's worst nightmare. You can't defend yourself against that kind of person unless you have the assistance of someone with similar power and there's usually no guarantee that the person you hired won't do the same thing you're hiring him to protect you from. Monsters wouldn't be too much of a problem because they are, for the most part, dumb. And if there is a monster or group thereof that you can't do anything about, that's what adventurers are for.
Lode 03-29-07, 09:12 PM	If your everyday soldier is a 2nd level fighter, what is the average level of the trained elite ( knights?) of thier enemies. I would assume rd or 4th at least. Think Germanic comitatus: third or fourth level fighters in tight formation led by the chieftain.
Elthbert 03-30-07, 12:23 PM	Think Germanic comitatus: third or fourth level fighters in tight formation led by the chieftain. Thats what I figured--- what is thier Tech level do they have plate armour? Do they have Kite shields? Do you concider a Kite shield a tower shield? If so then a 23 ac is very possible for them without Dastana or shield specialization.
Elthbert 03-30-07, 01:33 PM	A 2nd level fighter with a str of 13 is going to need to role a 20 to hit these guys--- I think you need to reevalute your feat selection to at least get weapon focus long sword. i think that a well trained army should have some focus on offensebeyond the offensive use of a shield.
Lode 03-30-07, 03:57 PM	Their tech level and organization is less than that of the legions. Chainmail at most. Tower shields are more like pavises rather than the heavy shields used for personal combat. Kite shields fall in this category. I was thinking about putting feats away from shield use into more offensive capabilities. Or maybe I'll just use the warrior from Races of War. I can't think of a satisfactory way of representing legions or a fantasy facsimile thereof.
Elthbert 03-31-07, 12:56 AM	Their tech level and organization is less than that of the legions. Chainmail at most. Tower shields are more like pavises rather than the heavy shields used for personal combat. Kite shields fall in this category. I was thinking about putting feats away from shield use into more offensive capabilities. Or maybe I'll just use the warrior from Races of War. I can't think of a satisfactory way of representing legions or a fantasy facsimile thereof. Well I agree with you on most things but I would definantly concider a kite shield a tower shield, given how it is presented in 3.5. It is obvious that the tower shield is supposed to beareally large shield carried in hand and not a previse. Though in past additions I would agree with you. I cannot accept that a kite shield offers no more protection than a heater or round shield. But this is not a shield discussion. I think if you want to make a Romanesque army you need to make up a teamwork feat or a a tactical feat that allows them to have advantages when fighting in formation and the like. I don't think you can do it with the currently published feats--- at least notthe ones I have seen
Narris 03-31-07, 03:29 AM	Didn't they use to hold shields up over their heads to make a giant cover against ranged weapons from above?
Darth Syntax 03-31-07, 04:18 AM	That would be the Testudo formation. The name literally means tortise in Latin.
Southernskies 03-31-07, 09:21 AM	Players Guide to Arcanis has just what you're looking for. Legionnaire feat (proficiency in Lorica, Tower Shield and Gladius) Shield Wall (+2 AC when adjacent to an ally with the feat) Lock Shields (another +2 AC with allies) Tandem Fighter (+1 attack/damage with allies) Advanced Tactics (+2 attack/damage with allies) Gladius is a 1d8 shortsword with special rules Lorica is medium armour with a 30' base move. As a group, even low level warriors/fighters become devastating with this sort of feat tree.
Lode 03-31-07, 10:47 AM	Well I agree with you on most things but I would definantly concider a kite shield a tower shield, given how it is presented in 3.5. It is obvious that the tower shield is supposed to beareally large shield carried in hand and not a previse. I would use tower shields but for the -2 on attack rolls you get while carrying it. Players Guide to Arcanis has just what you're looking for. Sounds interesting. May need some tweaking but interesting nonetheless.
Elthbert 03-31-07, 11:52 AM	I would use tower shields but for the -2 on attack rolls you get while carrying it. Yeah I don't like the - 2 know it is there forbalancereasons but I still don't like it--- I certianly think there should beafeat to eliminate it. Advanced tower shield use or something like that.