Pikemen w/ Shield Training?!

[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.

[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.