PDA

View Full Version : Legionaire Build: lvl 2



Nevermore
2007-04-16, 09:26 PM
Ok, I decided for the hell of it to make a lvl 2 Fighter into a Legionary.

30pt buy
Human
Fighter lvl 2
str 16
dex 12
Con 16
Int 12
Wis 10
Char 8

Skills: jump 5 Climb 5 Swim 5 Intimidate 5

Feats: Phalanx Fighting, Brutal Throw, Shield Specialization, Weapon Focus: Short Sword
Weapons & Armor: Master Crafted Short Sword, Banded Mail, Heavy Wooden Shield, and 3x Javelins.

Other Gear: Whatever I can afford at the time.

Wehrkind
2007-04-16, 10:01 PM
If you are going to Roman Legionaire, I would pull some points out of STR and put them into CON. Most of the Roman's advantages went towards staying power and the ability to march long distances and deal with hardships, not so much raw power (the barbarians were more famous for that.) This isn't to say they were not as strong as others, but rather that they focused more on endurance than might.

Other than that, it pleases this Roman :)

Townopolis
2007-04-16, 10:10 PM
Weren't the Romans also known for their tower shields?

Matthew
2007-04-16, 10:11 PM
Argggh. No, they were known for their Scuta (amongst other things), not their Pavises.

Anyway, no such thing as a Roman Legionaire. It's Legionary. What period?

Building a Legionary is pretty much impossible using D&D, but you can have some fun with it. Banded Mail is not Lorica Segmentata. Lorica Segmentata is Banded or Laminated Armour, which isn't quite the same thing.

I recommend using Weapon Proficiency Group (Roman Weapons)

Nevermore
2007-04-16, 10:13 PM
You're right, editted.

I am starting to love Brutal throw. It allows you to cause truly devastating damage from afar... And it increases the range too from all the points in strength. I can imagine a Barbarian w/ Brutal throw and spears... or even better yet, a Pious Templar of Gruumsh...

Abstruse
2007-04-16, 10:14 PM
Additionally, it's kind of hard to take combat expertise with an INT below 13.

Nevermore
2007-04-16, 10:17 PM
Doh, fixed

Townopolis
2007-04-16, 10:26 PM
AFAIK a scuta is what a tower shield would represent and a pavise is more of a "portable wall" for crossbowmen to reload behind.

Nevermore
2007-04-16, 10:32 PM
Arguably it could also be a Heavy wooden shield in both earlier and later years... Also I believe Phalanx fighting is a very Roman Feat... but it wouldn't be of any use when you use a tower shield.

Wehrkind
2007-04-16, 10:40 PM
They are called "Legionaire" in France. Try and be culturally sensitive. :-P

Considering how abstract D&D's armor definitions are, I would not feel terrible calling lorica segmentata banded armor. Not strictly speaking the same, and if you really wanted to be finickity you could just make an armor type of name "lorica segmentata" and give it whatever AC you deem appropriate, but if you are going to have an ancient era game, making banded the top end with chain and leather as alternatives, you probably won't go too wrong.

Roman shields really are not THAT big... I don't know that I would call it a tower shield either, though I am not entirely certain what D&D means by tower shield, other than a shield that is so large as to be awkward to use, which a scutum is not.

Matthew
2007-04-16, 10:41 PM
This comes up so often, but basically:

Tower Shield = almost as tall as the user
Scutum = Not

Tower Shield = 45 lbs
Scutum = 10-20 lbs

Tower Shield = Cannot Shield bash
Scutum = can

Tower Shield = encumbrance to fighting
Scutum = not

Tower Shield does not model a Scutum well, a Heavy Shield does a much better job. However, there is nothing stopping you from making it a Tower shield or creating a Scutum shield type, just my opinion.

[Edit]
Heh, I don't know what they call 'em in France, but I ain't French and I ain't speakin' French. Latin, maybe.

D&D Armour Classes are indeed abstract, but basically you have three or four Roman Armour types:

Scale (+4 AC)
Mail (+4 AC)
Lamellar (+4 AC)
Breast Plate (+ 5AC)

For my money, Banded or Laminated is going to be (+5 AC)

Townopolis
2007-04-16, 10:47 PM
I didn't se it as so much awkward as exceptionally curved (for a shield) and large enough that it restricts your ability to strike from certain angles. However, he's right about Phalanx Fighting, which means the rules are implying that a Scuta is a Heavy Shield, so I'll concede defeat in this debate.

Wehrkind
2007-04-16, 10:50 PM
Yea, I would be down with that armor distribution. I tend to think scale protects a little better than mail, but honestly I think I am just biased. I have no reason to really think so other than the "arrows go through mail" argument, and the fact I like my scale...

Scutums are probably best put as heavy shields, maybe with a bonus to bashing? I don't know enough about the medieval shields D&D fails to model correctly to really base it off the system.

Edit: No, they really are not that large and awkward. Pretty much any shield is going to get in your way a bit, bit it is no large matter to learn to go around them. There are no strikes that can not be made with a shield; the problem arrises when your shield is in between your enemy and your sword. A good shield fighter, and one allowed to bash, has no problem alleviating that issue.

Matthew
2007-04-16, 10:54 PM
Indeed.

Really, what you need to create a Roman Legionary is a Template 'Blooded in the Legion' or something that grants all the cool Bonus Feats you need.

Wehrkind
2007-04-16, 11:01 PM
I think if I were going to do a Roman era campaign, I would keep the soldier levels down, to 4 say for the Legionaries/Triarii, and perhaps 2-3 for the greener Romans, 2 for velites etc. with Centurions at 5-6.The Gauls might be 2-4, with a few 5-6, but with poorer equipment, and a few champions with more aggressive feats (barbarian class, power attack, etc.).
The main thing that seems to have set the Romans apart was their team work and intensive training, where many other armies had lots of conscripts and "warriors" out for glory.
I wouldn't let the PCs get higher than 8-10 though, since that starts getting into comparatively epic territory, as centurions were considered some of the top warriors anywhere, etc.

Matthew
2007-04-16, 11:16 PM
Here are a few links to previous discussion:

Designing NPC Soldiers (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36542)
Spartan Warriors (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37347)

Prestige Classes:

[Prestige Class] Veteran Roman Legionary (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11244)
[Prestige Class] Roman Centurion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11414)

and a recently proposed Campaign Setting:

[Campaign Setting] Roma Fantasia (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39598)



Shield Feats:

Good Shield Feats (Highly recommended)

Block Arrow (Heroes of Battle, BAB 0+, Dexterity 13+) [Negates a Ranged Attack]
Shield Wall (Heroes of Battle, BAB 0+, Shield Proficiency) [+2 AC when in formation]
Shield Specialisation (Players' Handbook II, BAB 0+, Shield Proficiency) [+1 AC with Shield)

Average Shield Feats (High level or specialised stuff)

Shield Charge (Complete Warrior, BAB 3+, Improved Shield Bash)
Shield Slam (Complete Warrior, BAB 6+, Shield Charge)
Shield Snare (Dragon #309, BAB 0+, Improved Shield Bash) [Disarm with Shield],
Shield Ward (Players' Handbook II, BAB 0+ Shield Specialisation) [Add Shield AC against Touch Attacks],

Bad Shield Feats (Basically useless)

Shield Mate (Miniatures Handbook, BAB 1+) [An AC boost for non Shielded allies when in formation].

Feats Mentioned

These Feats are frankly not as good as Block Arrow and Shield Wall.

Phalanx Fighting (Complete Warrior, BAB 1+, Heavy Shield Proficiency) [The problem with this Feat is that it relies on Heavy Shields and Light Weapons, so it cannot be used in conjunction with a Long Spear]
Formation Expert (Complete Warrior, BAB 6+) [Similarly, this Feat is very specific and requires a high level]

Nevermore
2007-04-17, 09:58 AM
Phalanx Fighting (Complete Warrior, BAB 1+, Heavy Shield Proficiency) [The problem with this Feat is that it relies on Heavy Shields and Light Weapons, so it cannot be used in conjunction with a Long Spear]

Luckily enough most romans used the Gladius and Javelin, not long spears which is why I call it a Roman Feat- the Gladius is a short sword, so it works.

The reason why I am so taken by the Roman Fighter is because I've been reading Jim Butcher's Codex Alera. Cursor's Fury centers around a legion. If I could roll my stats (I normally roll so abyssmally I have to reroll or extrodinairily well...)I'd play a Spirit Shaman/Fighter gestalt in an instant. This would represent the Legions in that fantasy setting very well.

Matthew
2007-04-17, 01:03 PM
Heh, yes that was a copy and paste mistake from the Spartan Thread. Even so, it all depends what Romans you are modelling. The Triarii during the Punic Wars and prior to Marius' reforms did indeed use 'Long Spears' and Shields. Moreover, in the Late Republican and Imperial periods, Auxillaries used Spears in conjunction with Shields, and in some cases, so did Legionaries. A lot depends on the period you are seeking to model, as even the Gladius / Short Sword is questionable outside of the very Late Republic and Early Empire as the weapon of the Legions.

As a sidenote, Phalanx Fighting is quite misleadingly named, really, given that the word Phalanx is most commonly associated with Shield and Spear Fighting. All the same, Shield Wall is going to be a generally better Feat, especially if your Legions are making use of Heavy Javelins (I can't tell if normal Javelins are Light or One Handed Weapons).

Hurlbut
2007-04-17, 08:35 PM
one handed weapon

raistlin807
2007-04-18, 07:48 PM
How would build a pilum? I've had this argument with my DM since he refuses to let me use it. How would YOU suggest creating a weapon specifically designed for neutralizing an enemy's sheild?

Matthew
2007-04-18, 08:20 PM
Presumably, it would be some sort of Ranged Sunder Attack, but to be honest D&D 3.x does not really model that level of detail, nor was the Pilum specifically designed to neutralise enemy Shields, that was merely a reported secondary effect of it's primary purpose, which was to kill people.

If you really wanted to model it, though, I suppose you could make a case for all hits that would have succeeded if it wasn't for the Shield Bonus resulting in Damage being dealt against the shield. You couldn't limit that to the Pilum, though, it would have to be the case on every attack, regardless of the weapon used.

If D&D used an 'Active Parry' system, this would be a lot easier to model.

Hurlbut
2007-04-18, 08:23 PM
He lose the shield bonus for one turn while spending a full round action taking it out or drop the shield entirely.

Annarrkkii
2007-04-18, 08:33 PM
Okay. My answer is to multiclass to Knight. Chew me out for optimizing, if you really want, but it's the most sensible choice by far, flavor-wise. The only two problems are 1) mounted combat twist on Knight class, and 2) Code of Conduct. These create significant RP barriers, while the rest of the class matches fairly well with the Roman soldiery tactics.

Shield Block +x makes shields more worthwhile—and a dip into Fighter allows you to explore various tactical options. For a lvl 2 build, I'd go straight Knight, taking Shield Specialization and Shield Block as my two feats. At later levels, Vigilant Defender and Shield Ally could make for absolutely BRUTAL formations, and a whole line of Bulwark of Defenses is not only realistic but highly potent. Their armor mastery allows you to negate movement penalties for their medium armors, which is also realistic for the more lightly armored and mobile Roman tactics.

Matthew
2007-04-18, 10:32 PM
Eh? Knight. With Knight's Challenge, Mounted Combat and Knight's Code? Sounds like a kind of odd fit, especially when there are already enough Shield type Feats floating around.

Annarrkkii
2007-04-19, 06:54 AM
True. However, I observed that, and I would like to point out that Shield Ally, Bulwark of Defense, and Vigilant Defender are all very on-flavor. With a little tweaking...

Ah, well. IF not knight, then straight fighter with a focus on shields is the way to go.

Matthew
2007-04-19, 03:45 PM
Indeed you did, I just could not see how they worked flavourwise over something like a Human Fighter 1 with Shield Specialisation, Shield Wall and Weapon Focus (Roman Weapons). Don't know what would be appropriate at Fighter 2, though, maybe Block Arrow.