[Axel]

Fairly obvious title. In attempting to create a campaign world set around the time of the late Roman Republic I've been going through the equipment lists, cutting out what logically shouldn't be available. Apart from learning a great deal about the history of arms and armor (never knew that scale and chain mail were frequently used by the legions) I've raised a number of questions about the deffinition of weapons in D&D. What I'm hung up on right now is simply the lengths of various swords.
I know that the Bastard and Great swords are out, because the earliest two-handed swords I can find didn't enter use until after the year 1,000. But what troubles me are the Short an d Long swords. Although technically Longsword is synonymous with Bastardsword the two are obviously different in D&D. The two main swords from the period in question seem to be the Gladius and Spatha, one roughly 60cm and the other between 75 and 100cm (or 24in and 30-42in respectively). Is the Spatha a longsword?

Also, during the Roman period a form of armor was frequently used with metal plates protecting the torso and lower limbs. Is this appropriately some form of plate mail?

[ladyofdragons]

Yes, the spatha could be considered a longsword. At ~29" it's not that long of a longsword, but it's definitely in that range. For some excellent background on varying sword types, I suggest a look at the ARMA definitions page.

As for the lorica, I would say is what in game terms would be called "field plate".

[Dthclaw]

On the more system-oriented side, look at Arms and Equipment. They have a deal that shows what weapons were common or uncommon by era. I believe it also includes armor, but since I'm in class at the moment I can't swear to it.

[Axel]

The Iorica Segmentata of the Legions is deffinitely banded mail, it's probably what banded mail is based on. I've also found that the Iorica Hamata, which the slingers and archers wore, was essentially chain or scale mail. What confuses me, however, is that some gladiators were equiped with armor made from collections of interlocking plates on parts of the body. These plates make it extremely hard to move that area and were typically only covering a small portion of the body. However, the general premise is similar to plate mail. There is also the question of the Greek Hoplites, whose armor incorporated a bronze breastplate with helm, shin and arm guards. Is that just a breastplate, or is it a form of plate?

[Dthclaw]

I would say breastplate made from the appropriate material. The breastplate wasn't a one-piece armor; the torso armor is what gave it the name, but it had other segments involved, too.

[Axel]

That's what I thought, but wanted to be sure. There are some other questions regarding certain weapons, but I've bummed a copy of the Arms and Equipment Guide, so I'll see what it has to say about the Khopesh.

[Dthclaw]

Ah yes, the good ol' khopesh. I'm not sure if that one made the list of "By Era" things or not, but it was used by the ancient Egyptians (pre-Islam), so it may fit with the feel of your campaign.

[Axel]

Well, Khopesh is in there, but the book itself is sadly lacking. The era charts make a leap from bronze age to dark age, making them nearly useless for my purposes. I'll stick with historical deffinitions of various weapons and try to apply those myself. It'll be more work, but I just don't trust the Guide that much. Besides I'll get greater insight into the world I'm making.

Which actually raises a very interesting question in regards to the use of NPC armies in this world. The (ridiculous) assumptions in the DMG are based on the conscription and rough training of peasants into an army. Which is completely opposite of the intense training of bronze and iron age militias. The model of the world was the Hoplites, who were citizen-soldiers who trained long and hard to use their significant arsenal. The legionaries, though they didn't own their weapons like the hoplites, still had dedicated training and served for many years. All of this suggests that every proffessional soldier should be a fighter, and the warrior class neglected entirely, save perhaps for the occassional vigile.

[Dthclaw]

You could just go with a Soldier class, too, to fill the gap between Warrior and Fighter.

I actually ignore the DMG when it comes to NPCs, so keep up the good work. Too many non sequiturs with NPC assumptions and world design.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

Personally, I'd say that your average bronze/iron age soldier was a first-level fighter. It might make things more deadly for PCs, but face it, if you're just another guy with a sword and a spear, you really shouldn't be special. Then again, getting stabbed by a sword should be moderately lethal, and most Heal checks should be treated as damage rolls, considering the forms medicine tended to take in those times....

[Axel]

That depends, medicine didn't advance very much during the middle ages (at least in Europe) so there's not much difference between what a Roman healer and a Crusade surgeon could accomplish. Increased contact with the Arabs is really what sparked renewed scientific research in the West. Since D&D is largely based on Western Europe during the middle ages, I can't see Heal changing much.

[Dthclaw]

Nope. They ought to be at least the same - in fact, older healers would probably be better at it because they didn't believe (as much) in the nonsense of the Dark Ages and later, and actually used tested methods of helping the healing process along.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

Wow. You both manage to completely ignore the useful information and try to attack the one bit of sarcasm in the post. Way to drag yourselves off topic!

Here, I'll try to pull you two back to the topic you started. I would say that trained soldiers have levels of Fighter. Also, if you use the gestalt character option presented in UA, you can definitely let normal soldiers be Fighters. This works well if you insist on your heros being automatically bigger and better than everyone else from the start, because they will just begin play as gestalt characters. If you want your PCs to actually have to overcome a challenge to gain the power that most heroes wield, then they are not gestalt characters and must merely face people of equivalent level for a while until they are able to gain enough levels to rise above the crowd.

[Axel]

I prefer the more mundane solution. And since I seriously doubt any intelligent characters will go attacking legionaries at any rate, there shouldn't be much problem. Although I am somewhat troubled because I had thought of having at least one character be an ex-legionary, which is difficult considering that a career soldier's tour of duty was usually 25 years. Although many soldiers were recruited for one campaign alone, which would explain being at level one, I wouldn't expect the triarii to be so low, after all.

[Ssri-Tel-Quessir Hitokiri]

Concerning the ex-legionary character, would it be strange to have a character who ran away from the army for whatever reason?