A Pathfinder Spartan
decalod85
make his next char very much like a Spartan Soldier.
We started with a human Fighter 1, using the 18 point buy, and got the
following array.
STR 16, DEX 15, CON 13, INT 12, WIS 11, CHA 10
Now, if we were really trying to stick with the movie, the PC would
have to have CHA 18 and STR 18, but I digress...
We decided that he wanted to use a spear, short sword, and a light
steel shield. Yes, I know a spear is two handed, so I nerfed his
spear a little by making the crit a x2 instead of x3. The shortspear
did not feel right, as the ones in the movie were pretty long.
We selected Two weapon fighting, Improved Shield Bash, and Shield
Focus as feats. He wanted to be able to use the shield dynamically in
combat, bashing, knocking others down, generally kicking ass with it.
AC of 18, with a chain shirt, was our biggest step away from the
concept. Leonidas and the rest of his band are wearing greaves, capes
and diapers...
Now I just have to find a god-king for him to make bleed...
Any other ideas to improve/extend the concept?
Keith Davies
> My 11 year old has seen a few clips of "300" on youtube and wants to
> make his next char very much like a Spartan Soldier.
>
> We started with a human Fighter 1, using the 18 point buy, and got the
> following array.
>
> STR 16, DEX 15, CON 13, INT 12, WIS 11, CHA 10
>
> Now, if we were really trying to stick with the movie, the PC would
> have to have CHA 18 and STR 18, but I digress...
>
> We decided that he wanted to use a spear, short sword, and a light
> steel shield. Yes, I know a spear is two handed, so I nerfed his
> spear a little by making the crit a x2 instead of x3. The shortspear
> did not feel right, as the ones in the movie were pretty long.
I made spears 'simple bastard weapons'. That is, with simple
proficiency you could use them two-handed, with martial proficiency you
could use them one-handed.
At least, until I revised weapon proficiencies altogether, but that's a
different post entirely.
You could also look into Monkey Grip feat, which lets you use two-handed
weapons one-handed (at a -4 penalty IIRC).
> We selected Two weapon fighting, Improved Shield Bash, and Shield
> Focus as feats. He wanted to be able to use the shield dynamically in
> combat, bashing, knocking others down, generally kicking ass with it.
Reasonable. I wou
>
> AC of 18, with a chain shirt, was our biggest step away from the
> concept. Leonidas and the rest of his band are wearing greaves, capes
> and diapers...
And in reality they wore the best armor they had available for the time.
It wasn't the beefcake festival the movie made it out to be.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Do you know what is in beer? The strength
keith....@kjdavies.org to bear the things you can't change, and
keith....@gmail.com wisdom to ignore them and fsck off for
http://www.kjdavies.org/ another beer." -- Owen, discussing work
Justisaur
Bronze breastplate, greaves, helmet and possibly a number of other
pieces almost to the equivalent of bronze age plate mail. Their
ability to fend off large numbers was due in large part to their
better armor.
Look up Spartan Hoplites for some pictures of what they might have
looked like.
- Justisaur
Manuel
<deca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>My 11 year old has seen a few clips of "300" on youtube and wants to
>make his next char very much like a Spartan Soldier.
>
>Any other ideas to improve/extend the concept?
The main problem is if you want to follow the movie or the historical
data for Spartan warriors.
A hoplite was somewhat comparable to the Medieval knight in that his
equipment was expensive, though in the case of the hoplite it did not
involve ownership of a war horse.
The Spartan warriors armour did change over time but they would
usually have a chest plate to protect themselves from melee attacks to
their torsos, bronze cuirasses, Leg greaves and a helmet most
typically in the Corinthian style.
Weaponry would consist of a spear know as a Dory, which was very large
and rather unwieldy, the Spartans however were more skilled at using
than their opponents were with lesser weapons.
The Spartan warriors would also carry short sword which was used for
stabbing when in close quarters. For defence they would carry a
hoplite shield known as an Aspis, this would big enough for them to
carry a wounded comrade in and would require great strength to use
effectively in the battle.
--
http://NewOnlineShopping.net Read the article about the Star Wars Jersey!
http://TechGamesBlog.com USB Gadgets, Music, a Magic Wand and... Star Wars.
Baird Stafford
Manuel <pri...@noreply.com> wrote:
<snip>
> The Spartan warriors would also carry short sword which was used for
> stabbing when in close quarters. For defence they would carry a
> hoplite shield known as an Aspis, this would big enough for them to
> carry a wounded comrade in and would require great strength to use
> effectively in the battle.
Hence the parting valediction of Spartan women: "Return with your
shield or on it."
Baird
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is. -Yogi Berra
Peter Knutsen
> Hence the parting valediction of Spartan women: "Return with your
> shield or on it."
For proper simulation, there must be a penalty to movement rate when
carrying such a large shield, so that it's an in-character decision to
drop the shield in order to able to flee faster.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Tetsubo
To have that sort of penalty, what sort of advantage would the shields
grant? More than just a simple +2 AC I'm hoping...
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
phy
news:heo69r$t73$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> Baird Stafford wrote:
>>
>>> Hence the parting valediction of Spartan women: "Return with your
>>> shield or on it."
>>
>>
>> For proper simulation, there must be a penalty to movement rate when
>> carrying such a large shield, so that it's an in-character decision
>> to drop the shield in order to able to flee faster.
>>
>
> To have that sort of penalty, what sort of advantage would the
> shields
> grant? More than just a simple +2 AC I'm hoping...
>
Full or partial cover from missiles perhaps?
-phy
WDS
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> Baird Stafford wrote:
>>
>>> Hence the parting valediction of Spartan women: "Return with your
>>> shield or on it."
>>
>>
>> For proper simulation, there must be a penalty to movement rate when
>> carrying such a large shield, so that it's an in-character decision to
>> drop the shield in order to able to flee faster.
>>
>
> To have that sort of penalty, what sort of advantage would the
> shields grant? More than just a simple +2 AC I'm hoping...
>
Shields in D&D come out a lot wimpier than they really were. A large
shield like that ought to make it *very* difficult to hit the guy
holding it front-on.
Tetsubo
I remember once asking if a character with the racial ability of
Powerful Build (Goliaths for example) could carry oversized shields. I
was told that mechanically there is no such thing as an oversized
shield. That a shield larger than normal for a Medium race would provide
no additional protection. Which struck me as down right silly. But the
situation never came up in any game I played in so I never needed a
house rule.
What you describe here with the Spartan shield does seem like such a
situation. A larger, heavier shield needing a greater mechanical
advantage to justify a greater movement penalty to better reflect reality.
phy
news:heppcs$vtj$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
I could be wrong, but istr reading that a tower shield provides cover.
(I may be thinking of a computer game though) I don't know that a
Spartan's shield could be considered a tower shield though.
-phy
Tetsubo
I think we arriving at the realization that shields got shafted. :)
Peter Knutsen
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>> carrying such a large shield, so that it's an in-character decision to
>> drop the shield in order to able to flee faster.
>
> To have that sort of penalty, what sort of advantage would the
> shields grant? More than just a simple +2 AC I'm hoping...
The first time I saw "300", the thought struck me that really large
shields, either made of metal or else covered in metal, ought to have
all sorts of tactical uses.
Of course one simple solution is to make them much more resistant to
breakage, although that's more relevant in systems where shields suffer
gradual damage (and the only such systems I know of is GURPS, where at
least in 3rd Edition there was an optional rule for shields taking
hitpoint damage, and then one of my homebrew systems where equipment has
a sort of "savin throw" for Durability that drops when it fails); in
such cases, characters who can resupply easily won't worry too much
about shields that don't last very long, whereas characters that
sometimes do their fighting far away from resupply, such as adventurers,
will be more willing to consider using more durable equipment.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Keith Davies
Complete Fighters Handbook for AD&D 2e had stuff on armor and shield
wear. I don't remember if they covered wear on weapons as well.
Will in New Haven
An actual Spartan would be wearing a breastplate, probably of bronze.
He would wield a long spear and a fairly sizable heavy shield. His
sword would be a backup weapon, rarely used.
--
Will in New Haven
Myrmidon
8b5362...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
bill....@taylorandfrancis.com says...
> On Nov 25, 12:03 am, decalod85 <decalo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My 11 year old has seen a few clips of "300" on youtube and wants to
> > make his next char very much like a Spartan Soldier.
>
>
> An actual Spartan would be wearing a breastplate, probably of bronze.
> He would wield a long spear and a fairly sizable heavy shield. His
> sword would be a backup weapon, rarely used.
>
the Roman Legions developed their Gladius from the Greek swords. The
Gladius was rightly feared in its time as unlike many of the other
swords of the day, it was a piercing weapon that had a much higher
mortality rate than the more common slashing weapons of the time. I
realize the vast majority of the Persians didn't have much in the way of
heavy armor when they fought the Greeks, but thought that the Romans
developed their shieldwall formations from the Greeks such as the
Spartans.
While I'm not a historian by any stretch, I have read some of the
accounts of the Romans putting down the Celtic rebellion in England.
Though vastly outnumber, accounts indicate that the Roman Shieldwall
formations pushed the much larger Celt army back to the point where the
Celt rear ranks were literally pinned against their own baggage train.
The front rank of the Roman formations systematically impaled their foes
in close quarters where a spear wouldn't work, and walked forward over
the fallen pushed by a row of their fellow soldiers behind them. As the
wall advanced, those behind the front rank would simply slay any of the
enemy wounded beneth them as they advanced. Periodically the front rank
of the Roman formation would peel of and go to the back of the line.
Those at the front only spent 3 to 5 minutes there (which is a long time
in a fight) and then rested / pushed their comrades forward for about 30
to 40 minutes before taking their place at the front of the line again.
By all accounts, the Roman's disciplined behavior and superior armor and
weapons resulted in tens of thousands of dead for the Celts and very few
wounded or dead of their.
Myrmidon
--
Non nobis solum nati sumus
"We are not born for ourselves alone."
D.J.
>While I'm not a historian by any stretch, I have read some of the
>accounts of the Romans putting down the Celtic rebellion in England.
>Though vastly outnumber, accounts indicate that the Roman Shieldwall
>formations pushed the much larger Celt army back to the point where the
>Celt rear ranks were literally pinned against their own baggage train.
>The front rank of the Roman formations systematically impaled their foes
>in close quarters where a spear wouldn't work, and walked forward over
>the fallen pushed by a row of their fellow soldiers behind them. As the
>wall advanced, those behind the front rank would simply slay any of the
>enemy wounded beneth them as they advanced. Periodically the front rank
>of the Roman formation would peel of and go to the back of the line.
>Those at the front only spent 3 to 5 minutes there (which is a long time
>in a fight) and then rested / pushed their comrades forward for about 30
>to 40 minutes before taking their place at the front of the line again.
>
>By all accounts, the Roman's disciplined behavior and superior armor and
>weapons resulted in tens of thousands of dead for the Celts and very few
>wounded or dead of their.
Yes, talked about during a History channel documentary. The Queen of
the Iceni. Boudica. Boudica's rebellion is end of the situation you
talk about
JimP..
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
Will in New Haven
> In article <248cb932-4787-4c3c-8c91-
> 8b5362cef...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com says...> On Nov 25, 12:03 am, decalod85 <decalo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My 11 year old has seen a few clips of "300" on youtube and wants to
> > > make his next char very much like aSpartanSoldier.
>
> <snip>
>
> > He would wield a long spear and a fairly sizable heavy shield. His
> > sword would be a backup weapon, rarely used.
>
> That's news to me about the sword being rarely used. I thought
> the Roman Legions developed their Gladius from the Greek swords.
The gladius was developed, copied really, from a weapon they
encountered in Spain. It was an improvement over their previous
infantry sword, which _was_ probably based on Greek models.
The
> Gladius was rightly feared in its time as unlike many of the other
> swords of the day, it was a piercing weapon that had a much higher
> mortality rate than the more common slashing weapons of the time.
Any fairly serious sword wound is going to kill you more often than
not because of infection. So any would be feared.
I
> realize the vast majority of the Persians didn't have much in the way of
> heavy armor when they fought the Greeks, but thought that the Romans
> developed their shieldwall formations from the Greeks such as the
> Spartans.
The Romans _gave up_ the long spear rather quickly. They beat the
Macedonian phalanx by not going spear on spear with them.
>
> While I'm not a historian by any stretch, I have read some of the
> accounts of the Romans putting down the Celtic rebellion in England.
> Though vastly outnumber, accounts indicate that the Roman Shieldwall
> formations pushed the much larger Celt army back to the point where the
> Celt rear ranks were literally pinned against their own baggage train.
> The front rank of the Roman formations systematically impaled their foes
> in close quarters where a spear wouldn't work, and walked forward over
> the fallen pushed by a row of their fellow soldiers behind them. As the
> wall advanced, those behind the front rank would simply slay any of the
> enemy wounded beneth them as they advanced. Periodically the front rank
> of the Roman formation would peel of and go to the back of the line.
> Those at the front only spent 3 to 5 minutes there (which is a long time
> in a fight) and then rested / pushed their comrades forward for about 30
> to 40 minutes before taking their place at the front of the line again.
Those Romans weren't using spears but gladii as their main weapons.
They had throwing spears but not long, thrusting spears.
> By all accounts, the Roman's disciplined behavior and superior armor and
> weapons resulted in tens of thousands of dead for the Celts and very few
> wounded or dead of their.
That was a pitched battle and soldiers beat warriors in mass combat. I
wouldn't bet on a hoplite against one of those Celtic warriors. A
Roman Legionary of that time would have been able to fight one of them
on fairly even terms. For soldiers, they were fine individual
combatants.