Pikemen w/ Shield Training?!

[Starmage21]

Seems mutually exclusive kind of deal. Large 2-handed weapons AND large shields?!


Seems like they shouldnt be able to go together, but shield training says foot units only, which is what Pikemen are.

Im extremly tempted to houserule, but whats the "official" answer?
/me goes to check 2nd edition Birthright rules.

[Mikal]

Seems mutually exclusive kind of deal. Large 2-handed weapons AND large shields?!


Seems like they shouldnt be able to go together, but shield training says foot units only, which is what Pikemen are.

Im extremly tempted to houserule, but whats the "official" answer?
/me goes to check 2nd edition Birthright rules.

Heh, once again we rear our ugly heads.

anyway, the thing I see about this is that only elves or ELITE trained troopers could pull this combo off. As such, I figure it's an extremly specializied ability. Obviously they don't use both at once, but rather trained in such a way as to be able to act to incoming archer volleys by getting the shields (most likely strapped to their backs) foward to deflect the arrows (+4 def vs.), otherwise they use their pikes against whatever they face in melee.

[Fizz]

Depends what kind of shield we're talking about. In a Greek phalanx, troops carried both a long pike and shield. In fact that's how the infantry got their name, hoplites, for the round shield known as a hoplon.

So, it's possible.

-Fizz

[Starmage21]

Depends what kind of shield we're talking about. In a Greek phalanx, troops carried both a long pike and shield. In fact that's how the infantry got their name, hoplites, for the round shield known as a hoplon.

So, it's possible.

-Fizz

The shield training desription details large shields, and Im assuming it refers to something similar to the Roman Tortoise formation where they wall their shields and create a roof using their Scutums.

[irdeggman]

You cannot use a 2 handed weapon and a large shield at the same time. So no, a pikeman unit would not be able to take that training.

Even though they could use it with the simple weapon - they would essentialy lose their unit benefit of setting for a charge wince their weapon would have no reach.

[irdeggman]

/me goes to check 2nd edition Birthright rules.

Book of Regency is the where unit training and imporvement was brought up. It did not go into the detail that the BRCS has though (mostly due to the combat system used).

[Mikal]

You cannot use a 2 handed weapon and a large shield at the same time. So no, a pikeman unit would not be able to take that training.

Even though they could use it with the simple weapon - they would essentialy lose their unit benefit of setting for a charge wince their weapon would have no reach.

Which was what I said, basically. Which makes sense. It's not as if they'd get swarmed with arrows while preparing for a charge from the cavalry

[dalor]

You can use a two-handed weapon and a shield at the
same time. The feat "Monkey Grip" (should be named
something else) allows the use of a two-handed weapon
in one hand.

In real life, the Greeks (as well as Macedonians using
a much longer pike called a Sarissa (sp?) and many
other successor states like the Selucid (sp?) Empire)
had shield bearing pikemen.

The feat mentioned above incurs a -2 penalty to hit (I
think); but then when you are fighting in massed melee
with pikes, there really is no "target" by individual
pikemen. The true intent is to form a "perfect row of
pike points" with which you simply push against an
enemy until your pikes begin to inflict damage against
the enemy. Opposition from enemy pikes usually
resulted in a "pushing" contest until one unit broke.

For the sake of D&D, I`d say Monkey Grip is what the
unit could use and still use a shield. A tower shield
would get in the way too much (OUCH...a -4 to hit with
tower shield and Monkey Grip); but then again, the
intent isn`t to hit an individual...a pikeman just
aims at the enemy mass in front of him.

As for setting against a charge, pikemen were idiots
if they tried to hold their pike on their own and hit
a charging anyone...made the weapon too unreliable.
Instead, a bronze or brass butt-spike was slammed into
the ground and the charging fool was allowed to impale
himself on any number of pikes from the square.

To counter a pike formation, the best idea is a unit
of heavy swordsmen (the Swabians were famous for
obliterating even the fabled Swiss Pikemen) who use
heavy two-handed swords to chop apart the pikes and
wade into the lightly armored enemy.

Pikes are good though! I like pikes. :-)


Anthony Edwards


--- irdeggman <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
>
> irdeggman wrote:
> You cannot use a 2 handed weapon and a large shield
> at the same time. So no, a pikeman unit would not
> be able to take that training.
>
> Even though they could use it with the simple weapon
> - they would essentialy lose their unit benefit of
> setting for a charge wince their weapon would have
> no reach.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[irdeggman]

You can use a two-handed weapon and a shield at the
same time. The feat "Monkey Grip" (should be named
something else) allows the use of a two-handed weapon
in one hand.

No longer.

The feat was redone in 3.5 (pg 103 of Complete Warrior) to allow you to use a weapons sized one category larger as if it was the same weapon only sized one size smaller.

Basically in 3.5 weapons come in various sizes that are based on the size of the wielder; tiny, small, medium, large, etc.

Weapons are classified by the effort it takes to use them.

from the SRD:


Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.

Light: A light weapon is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and it can be used while grappling. A light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his or her Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls.

Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

A weapon’s size category isn’t the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient with the weapon a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.

[dalor]

So with monkey grip I can use a giant sized bastard
sword one handed even though it does about the same
damage as a greatsword?

But I can`t hold a normal pike in one hand?

Hogwash.


Anthony Edwards

--- irdeggman <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net
> message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
>
http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3039
>
> irdeggman wrote:
>
You can use a two-handed weapon and a
> shield at the
> same time. The feat "Monkey Grip" (should be named
> something else) allows the use of a two-handed
> weapon
> in one hand.
>
> No longer.
>
> The feat was redone in 3.5 (pg 103 of Complete
> Warrior) to allow you to use a weapons sized one
> category larger as if it was the same weapon only
> sized one size smaller.
>
> Basically in 3.5 weapons come in various sizes that
> are based on the size of the wielder; tiny, small,
> medium, large, etc.
>
> Weapons are classified by the effort it takes to use
> them.
>
> from the SRD:

>
> Light,
> One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee
> Weapons: This
> designation is a measure of how much effort it takes
> to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a
> melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the
> weapon’s size category, is considered a light
> weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed
> weapon.
>
> Light:
> A light weapon is
> easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed
> weapon is, and it can be used while grappling. A
> light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s
> Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee
> attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the
> primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength
> bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands
> to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on
> damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the
> weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand
> only.
>
> An unarmed
> strike is always considered a light
> weapon.
>
> One-Handed:
> A one-handed weapon
> can be used in either the primary hand or the off
> hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage
> rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if
> it’s used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his or her
> Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a
> one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during
> melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character’s
> Strength bonus to damage rolls.
>
> Two-Handed:
> Two hands are required
> to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply
> 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage
> rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
>
>
>
> Weapon
> Size: Every weapon has
> a size category. This designation indicates the size
> of the creature for which the weapon was
> designed.
>
> A weapon’s
> size category isn’t the same as its size as an
> object. Instead, a weapon’s size category is keyed
> to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a
> light weapon is an object two size categories
> smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an
> object one size category smaller than the wielder,
> and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same
> size category as the wielder.
>
> Inappropriately Sized
> Weapons: A creature
> can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t
> properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty
> applies on attack rolls for each size category of
> difference between the size of its intended wielder
> and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature
> isn’t proficient with the weapon a –4 nonproficiency
> penalty also applies.
> The measure
> of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether
> the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or
> two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is
> altered by one step for each size category of
> difference between the wielder’s size and the size
> of the creature for which the weapon was designed.
> If a weapon’s designation would be changed to
> something other than light, one-handed, or
> two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t
> wield the weapon at all.
>
>
>

>
> Birthright-l Archives:
> http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to
> LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[irdeggman]

So with monkey grip I can use a giant sized bastard
sword one handed even though it does about the same
damage as a greatsword?

But I can`t hold a normal pike in one hand?

Hogwash.


Anthony Edwards

Read the feat it has changed substantially as has how weapons are structured (ie.e., size and amoutn of effert).


A medium sized character can not use a Huge sized weapon at all.

A medium sized person can use a large size bastard sword as if it was a medium sized bastard sword. Which means, 2 handed unless yuo have the exotic weapon feat then it can be wielded one-handed.

There is also a -2 penalty to use due to the size difference, but the amount of effort required is the same.

Without the feat there is still a -2 penalty and the level of effort increases by one category.

So without the feat a medium creature can use a large bastard sword as a 2 handed weapon and never as a one handed one.

[dalor]

That is what I`m trying to say. If a person can use a
weapon not even sized for them with just one hand;
then why can`t the same person use a weapon that IS
sized for them with one hand?

The rules somantics are somewhat out of touch with
reality in this situation. I suppose this would have
to be a house rule; but I`ll be darned if I understand
how the Greeks, Macedonians and others could use a
pike (the Macedonian pike was like 15 to 18 feet long)
with one hand because the D&D rules say otherwise.
(sarcasm intended toward the rules only!)

That is what I was saying was hogwash.


Anthony Edwards


--- irdeggman <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
>
So with monkey grip I can use a giant
> sized bastard
> sword one handed even though it does about the same
> damage as a greatsword?
>
> But I can`t hold a normal pike in one hand?
>
> Hogwash.
>
>
> Anthony Edwards
>
> Read the feat it has changed substantially as has
> how weapons are structured (ie.e., size and amoutn
> of effert).
>
> A medium sized person can use a large size bastard
> sword as if it was a medium sized bastard sword.
> Which means, 2 handed unless yuo have the exotic
> weapon feat then it can be wielded one-handed.
>
> There is also a -2 penalty to use due to the size
> difference, but the amount of effort required is the
> same.
>
> Without the feat there is still a -2 penalty and the
> level of effort increases by one category.
>
> So without the feat a medium creature can use a
> large bastard sword as a 2 handed weapon and never
> as a one handed one.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[The Jew]

A minor point. I don't believe phalanx unit members used both a shield and pike at the same time. I thought the front lines used the shields, while the back lines used the pikes. A 12-15 ft pike would easily reach past the shield bearer.

[dalor]

All Phalanx members used a shield. Several ancient
documents support this, as well as Roman accounts
somewhat later after their battles against the Greek
cities of southern Italia, the City-State of Syracuse,
their battles against Pyrhius, Macedonia, etc... Even
the Ptolemy regime of Egypt...decidedly non-greek
after only a very short time in Egypt, used shield
bearing phalanx fighting pike wielders up to the time
of Gaius Julius Caesar; although I admit the
historical documents supporting this are much rarer.

The Greek Phalanx also used a shorter thrusting spear
called a Xyston in combat...not a true pike as used
during the middle ages (but still around ten or more
feet long). The Macedonians, under direction of
Philip, were the ones that used the first true pikes
in the form of the Sarissa (still not sure on the
spelling there...need to brush up!).

Interestingly, before the Roman military reforms of
Marius, the "crack" troops of the Roman armies were
also spear wielding soldiers called Triarii. These
men were nearly identical to Hoplites; but were
instead formed into something more akin to a Schiltron
of spearmen in block formation allowing them more
flexibility than the long Phalanx of the
Greek/Macedonian armies. Their "spears" were more
akin to the D&D Longspear though...but still used in
one hand and for thrusting from behind their shields
(which were more oval in shape than the round Hoplon
used by the greeks).

I still call foul on the restriction to not allow pike
and shield use at the same time.


Anthony Edwards

--- The Jew <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
> The Jew wrote:
> A minor point. I don`t believe phalanx unit members
> used both a shield and pike at the same time. I
> thought the front lines used the shields, while the
> back lines used the pikes. A 12-15 ft pike would
> easily reach past the shield bearer.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Starmage21]

All Phalanx members used a shield. Several ancient
documents support this, as well as Roman accounts
somewhat later after their battles against the Greek
cities of southern Italia, the City-State of Syracuse,
their battles against Pyrhius, Macedonia, etc... Even
the Ptolemy regime of Egypt...decidedly non-greek
after only a very short time in Egypt, used shield
bearing phalanx fighting pike wielders up to the time
of Gaius Julius Caesar; although I admit the
historical documents supporting this are much rarer.

The Greek Phalanx also used a shorter thrusting spear
called a Xyston in combat...not a true pike as used
during the middle ages (but still around ten or more
feet long). The Macedonians, under direction of
Philip, were the ones that used the first true pikes
in the form of the Sarissa (still not sure on the
spelling there...need to brush up!).

Interestingly, before the Roman military reforms of
Marius, the "crack" troops of the Roman armies were
also spear wielding soldiers called Triarii. These
men were nearly identical to Hoplites; but were
instead formed into something more akin to a Schiltron
of spearmen in block formation allowing them more
flexibility than the long Phalanx of the
Greek/Macedonian armies. Their "spears" were more
akin to the D&D Longspear though...but still used in
one hand and for thrusting from behind their shields
(which were more oval in shape than the round Hoplon
used by the greeks).

I still call foul on the restriction to not allow pike
and shield use at the same time.


Anthony Edwards



I still think there is something wrong with a man, in a unit formation, attempting to wield both a Pike(a weapon with as much as a 20ft' long shaft) and a large shield, probobly very similar to the roman Scutum.

Holding a pike in 1 hand might work if you were one of the people in the first few ranks(shorter pikes) but that still doesnt fall in line with the amount of strength its going to take to push that pike through mail armor, and a 1 handed push definitly isng going through something like roman lorica armor.

In addition, there is no balance in the way youre holding the weapon 1-handed. Youre not wielding this thing like a spear(1 hand in the middle of the shaft), youre holding it at the end, so youve got as much reach as possible. Get out a broom and hold it at the very end of the handle and thrust with it a few times. The slightly heavier end of the broom will represent the heavier metal spike at the end of a pike. Once you have a real idea of how hard this thing is going to be to wield like that, youll know exactly what Im talking about.

[Mantyluoto]

for my own game i made up a Phalanx unit, based on the Pikemen but instead gave them all long spears. it made it all so much easier.

Manty

[irdeggman]

Remember that the D&D "definitions" of weapons is different than historical ones.

Just because a weapon is 15+ ft long doesn't mean it is a two-handed weapon in D&D terminology.

The Hoplite (and equivalent) weapons weren't true long spears in the D&D definition.

It all has to do with the abstraction of combat that D&D uses.

[Fizz]

I still think there is something wrong with a man, in a unit formation, attempting to wield both a Pike(a weapon with as much as a 20ft' long shaft) and a large shield, probobly very similar to the roman Scutum.

Yes, and i think you're right. A spear/pike that long could not be held at the end with one hand- it would be an incredible amount of torque on the wrist.

The hoplon wasn't the huge 4-foot tall shields that are associated with Roman legions. Rather, the hoplon was a round shield that was maybe 2 feet in diameter (i think) and could be strapped to the forearm.

Thus, it's possible to have a shield and still have your two hands available for use. You just have to have the right kind of shield.


-Fizz

[Starmage21]

Yes, and i think you're right. A spear/pike that long could not be held at the end with one hand- it would be an incredible amount of torque on the wrist.

The hoplon wasn't the huge 4-foot tall shields that are associated with Roman legions. Rather, the hoplon was a round shield that was maybe 2 feet in diameter (i think) and could be strapped to the forearm.

Thus, it's possible to have a shield and still have your two hands available for use. You just have to have the right kind of shield.


-Fizz

in D&D they call that a buckler.

the Shield Formation description states large shields.

[The Swordgaunt]

Damn, Dalor. I started reading and thought of several good points supporting the sield and pike theory, but as I read further down the thread, you'd used most, if not all, of my arguments...

So, I'm left with: I agree.

As for the rule-lawyering, I say, make a house rule. It's open-source, after all.

[caesar70]

As a classicist I can tell you that a shield was employed at the same time as the pike. The shield is NOT held in the hand but strapped down in place over the shoulder. This frees up both hands to hold on the the pike.
Intersting the Conan rpg allows a regional feat to be spent to allow a type of solider to fight this way. Philip was supposedly responsible for this type of training and in a rpg I dont see why it cant be reproduced by the spending of a feat.


BtW I used to be here as Bulletmagnet but had to change the name and password. Its good to see my love of all Rpg worlds still going.:)

[irdeggman]

BtW I used to be here as Bulletmagnet but had to change the name and password. Its good to see my love of all Rpg worlds still going.:)

Good to have you back.



As a classicist I can tell you that a shield was employed at the same time as the pike. The shield is NOT held in the hand but strapped down in place over the shoulder. This frees up both hands to hold on the the pike.

Intersting the Conan rpg allows a regional feat to be spent to allow a type of solider to fight this way. Philip was supposedly responsible for this type of training and in a rpg I dont see why it cant be reproduced by the spending of a feat.

And since the current 3.x D&D rules don't have shields used in this way the ruling that shield training can't be taken by pike units is consistent.

Now if using another mass combat /unit system - then things are different. There is no shortage of those out there and almost all of them go into more detail than does the BRCS.

I haven't read the Conan rules but am interested, especially since that is where the product originally titled "Bloodlines" went. And "Bloodlines" was so much an obvious Birthright game (it was to have had bloodlines from dead gods, a domain system and a mass combat one) that I'm pretty fairly sure that Mongoose couldn't publish it due to IP issues with the concept as a whole and they dropped the bloodlines stuff and just incorporated domain and mass combat, which are not specifically tied to a Birthright setting. But I haven't read the book yet to see.

The other reason is most likely economical. Stand alone systems for domain and mass combat have not sold well per the companies in question. Cry Havoc did not do well per Monte, even though the concpet was very good and well-liked. I am also fairly certain that Fields of Blood has the same fate - too niched. Where if you tie something into a "setting" like Conan then it gains more support.

[The Swordgaunt]

I use a mass-combat system that allows for such units as those in discussion to be incorporated with minimal hassle. I've described it more closely here. (http://www.birthright.net/showpost.php?p=34895&postcount=7)

[geeman]

There\'s one thing I\'d like to point out about the use of shields for _units_ of soldiers as opposed to the ability of characters to do the same at the PC level: Companies of soldiers are an abstraction. Large scale units, their training and abilities should differ from that of characters at the adventure level of play because what is being reflected is not the standard D&D feat system x200 but the capacities of a large unit of individuals working together.

For instance, one could give a unit the equivalent of a feat, but not assume that means every individual soldier in that unit then has taken the feat. Instead, it might represent a small fraction of the total soldiers--maybe enough to represent a ten man \'platoon\' at the company level--but not enough to count as the kind of thing every soldier gets. Optionally, it might represent a certain number of troops in a unit being equipped and trained a little differently than others. For instance, with \'shield training\' it might represent a group of the soldiers being issued large, kite-type shields and they are trained to maneuver so as to keep themselves between an enemy and the rest of the company while the other soldiers are trained on how to keep their facing towards an enemy between the gaps in a shield wall. There are any number of rationales for such effects. Whichever one is chosen doesn\'t really make a difference, all things considered.

If one were to include other types of \'training\' it might be seen the same way. For instance, the number of hits a unit has doesn\'t really represent the entire unit being killed off, right? It just represents the amount of casualties a unit might take before it stops being an effective unit at the company level. In that context, training a company to include \'healers\' would represent not the ability to heal every single soldier in a unit, but enough soldiers trained and given the supplies to bandage up enough to represent a single hit of combat (or however many hits that training would allow them to repair.) The ability to climb mountains, forage, scout, etc.
need not necessarily represent the training of every soldier in a company but the abilities of a small percentage giving the rest of the company the benefit of that \'platoon\' sized group of soldiers within the company. Not every soldier need be able to scale mountains if one in ten can do so and then hang ropes for the rest of the company to climb. Not every soldier need be able to kill a deer each for the company to eat if one in ten can do so and provide food for the whole company, etc.

So, the question really isn\'t how a feat works in 3e, but whether a company could/should be able to get the benefit of a company level effect for its stat block, special abilities, etc.

Gary

[Arjan]

Mail got accidentally deleted while not being imported, thus forwarding them
to list again.

Arjan

-----Original Message-----
From: Birthright RPG Discussion [mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On
Behalf Of Anthony Edwards
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 6:31 AM
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] Pikemen w/ Shield Training?! [19#3039]

I`ve had similar thoughts.

By using Flaws for units this would be easily
accomplished. Taking, for example, the flaw Phalanx
Fighter (I think that is what it is called) causes an
individual to be at -4 To Hit when not adjacent to an
ally. This flaw would allow the unit to take a feat
that would allow them to have the ability to use a
shield and pike.

I dunno. As the rules stand it doesn`t work; but
there are lots of alternative rules allowing this that
could be looked at for the Birthright Rules that are
being worked on.


Anthony Edwards

--- Gary <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET> wrote:

> There`s one thing I`d like to point out about the
> use of shields for
> _units_ of soldiers as opposed to the ability of
> characters to do the
> same at the PC level: Companies of soldiers are an
> abstraction. Large scale units, their training and
> abilities should
> differ from that of characters at the adventure
> level of play because
> what is being reflected is not the standard D&D feat
> system x200 but
> the capacities of a large unit of individuals
> working together.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Arjan]

Mail got accidentally deleted while not being imported, thus forwarding them
to list again.

Arjan

-----Original Message-----
From: Birthright RPG Discussion [mailto:BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM] On
Behalf Of Anthony Edwards
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 6:32 AM
To: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] Pikemen w/ Shield Training?! [19#3039]

<Nod>

--- caesar70 <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
> As a classicist I can tell you that a shield was
> employed at the same time as the pike. The shield is
> NOT held in the hand but strapped down in place over
> the shoulder. This frees up both hands to hold on
> the the pike.
> Intersting the Conan rpg allows a regional feat to
> be spent to allow a type of solider to fight this
> way. Philip was supposedly responsible for this type
> of training and in a rpg I dont see why it cant be
> reproduced by the spending of a feat.
>
>
> BtW I used to be here as Bulletmagnet but had to
> change the name and password. Its good to see my
> love of all Rpg worlds still going.:)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Cuchulainshound]

There\'s one thing I\'d like to point out about the use of shields for _units_ of soldiers as opposed to the ability of characters to do the same at the PC level: Companies of soldiers are an abstraction...
Gary
Exactly.

The central question is not, nor should it be, whether or not a single character can use both a shield and pike at the same time, but can a unit of a few score carry both and make use of them when appropriate over the course of a few hours or a day or week, or whatever the battle turns end up abstracting. (And IRL, they can, and historically have.)

Another important consideration is simplicity of rules- the fewer exceptions/limitations, the easier the rules are for all to use and internalize.

Personally, I think that it should be allowed*. But since Pikemen are mostly defensive, I would think that the combination would be less common/useful/popular than several others I could think of for the same cost.
(* tho' the "Elite only" suggestion holds some small attraction as well.)

It's a fantasy game- throw the doors open a bit and let the players stretch. For me, the intimidating image of a phalanx of pikemen with bronze shields glistening, adds to the flavour of the game, not detracts from it.

[RaspK_FOG]

Allow me side with the "for" party here: it is historically evident that this tactic is viable only in the field of battle (having participated in the study of weapons as well as sparring, I can assure you that strapping a shield like the hoplon [there is no direct equivalent in D&D, but try and think of a large ovoid wooden shield with half or a little more the height of an average man and his width] in such a manner in single combat is pure madness). In fact, the shield was still partly held on one arm (loosely strapped on it to deflect an incoming blow, obviously). As for the tactic, yes, the Macedonians did indeed use a pike named the sarissa, which is very well known for its 18 feet of length.

[ThatSeanGuy]

I think, in a broader sense, a feat-like system for units might be interesting. It'd be a good way to give "special" units, like the Iron Guard and the Guardians of the Mhor, something becides a boost in stats to make them unique.

To use our example here, the shield-bearing pikes would probably have "Extra Armor" or something along those lines. Then they'd get a unique unit name, a small bonus of some kind, and that's that.

[Cuchulainshound]

Allow me side with the "for" party here: it is historically evident that this tactic is viable only in the field of battle... I can assure you that strapping a shield like the hoplon ... in single combat is pure madness).
Good point- for "RL" considerations, many successful formation weapons were not viable for one-on-one situations. Any pike formation survives only by being in formation, and so on. (A single 18' pike is laughably easy to dodge around, shield or no, but that consideration has nothing to do with unit effectiveness.)

A shield wall is formidable not just because the shields cover "more" of the individual targets, but because together they overlap and interlock, so any individual "wrap around" tactics are negated.

But again, we (if I may be so bold as to include myself) shouldn't over-think this. It's a mistake to think we are modeling this after "Reality". We are (I would hope!) looking for flavour, for simplicity, for elegance of the rules, and to make sure nothing is badly broken. So long as a pike unit with shields is not some heinous min-max juggernaut of a unit, the ONLY unit any gamer would want in a combat situation, then it's all to the good to avoid making a special rule just to exclude it.

[RaspK_FOG]

What I wanted to emphasize is that the rules generally make a good point by effectively disallowing something like to actually work under standard adventure play; however, the phalanx was very well known for the use of two weapons primarily: any pike (from the Roman pilum to the Macedonian sarissa) and any "short sword" (from the Roman gladius to the Greek xiphos) for close combat, should the pikes prove problematic. For all it's worth, creating a special upgrade (proper training was still needed) that allows a pike formation to bear shields for an extra cost (i.e. an increase in its defence) does not seem that problematic to me...

[Cuchulainshound]

For example, the BRCS rules don't let cavalry units move as quickly as a single mounted character could travel- units don't act the same as individual characters. A unit with pikes could pull up their shields when suffering archery fire, and then return to their pikes when a melee unit is about to engage them.

While a character has "rounds" to do this, units have minutes (or more.) It's an abstraction, and, in this case, a legitimate one.

[geeman]

At 10:36 AM 9/2/2006, Cuchulainshound wrote:

>But again, we (if I may be so bold as to include myself) shouldn`t
>over-think this. It`s a mistake to think we are modeling this after
>"Reality". We are (I would hope!) looking for flavour, for
>simplicity, for elegance of the rules, and to make sure nothing is
>badly broken.

I would rank all those considerations at about the same level of
importance. Reality, flavour, simplicity, elegance and balance (to
rephrase "nothing is badly broken" in a nice single word term) are
all just about equally significant or--more accurately, perhaps--a
rule should be able to survive all of those standards before it is
employed. If it breaks any one of them then it should be reconsidered.

>So long as a pike unit with shields is not some heinous min-max
>juggernaut of a unit, the ONLY unit any gamer would want in a combat
>situation, then it`s all to the good to avoid making a special rule
>just to exclude it.

So the question then becomes will that happen if one can alter the
stats of a unit of pikemen to include an increased defense from
shields (or some other influence that one assumes is going to have a
similar effect) going to imbalance the situation? I think it
satisfies the reality issue, it`s flavourful, simple if it`s just a
change to the stat block, and it should balance well. It`s not a
particularly elegant thing, but it works well enough that nobody
would kick it off the dance floor. So, I vote yea.

Gary