PDA

View Full Version : Botch on the Battlefield.....



keilyn
2009-02-05, 07:11 PM
Alright - here's the deal. Our group (down to 2 players now) is going to be starting a new campain, with the whole thing beginning on the battlefield. My question to the forum is:
Have any of you ever used the Heroes of Battle, and if so, how successfully?

There is woefully small amount of supporting material that I can find on the web, and we are a role-playing heavy group, so it's not going to be a hack'n'slash campain.

I suppose the bottom line is: Does anyone have any advice for a war campain such as this?

Any useful tricks or tips to managing the logistics behind such large endeavour would be appreciated.

BRC
2009-02-05, 07:18 PM
For a heavy RP Group, I reccomend the campaign take place in a fragile alliance. I own Heroes of Battle, but havn't used it, though it seems like it has potential to be useful. Here is an imagined setup.


Nation A is small, but it controls a critically strategic area, perhaps the only passable parts of a mountain range that seperates Evil Nation and the other good nations. When nation A is attacked, the other good nations send troops to help fight back the EN. However, the other good nations don't really get along due to ideological differences. The players are from nation A, and are trying to hold the alliance together, however, Nation B's religions beliefs clash with the mercenary nature of Nation C, and while Nation D's wizards are vital to the war effort, they don't get along with the druids that nation E sent. Meanwhile, nation F has a proud tradition of warfare, which means that their generals are taking offense at pretty much anything any of the other nations try to do that isn't exactly what Nation F says.

keilyn
2009-02-05, 07:29 PM
Alright. That definately sounds like a good idea. I was hoping to use the war as a staging area - my goal is to slowly build it to the point where some greater threat is looming that forces everyones hand into working together to save everyones bacon.
The players would play an important role, obviously, but my hopes are to keep the campain going after said threat is gone - I think there may be some backstabbing by one country or another, taking advantage of weakened forces to expand their territories, so your idea is most definately useful, thank you.

BRC
2009-02-05, 07:46 PM
Alright. That definately sounds like a good idea. I was hoping to use the war as a staging area - my goal is to slowly build it to the point where some greater threat is looming that forces everyones hand into working together to save everyones bacon.
The players would play an important role, obviously, but my hopes are to keep the campain going after said threat is gone - I think there may be some backstabbing by one country or another, taking advantage of weakened forces to expand their territories, so your idea is most definately useful, thank you.
As for the role of the players, here is my idea, the players are the field commanders for nation A, but only on account of their being the highest ranking field officers left alive. So they are technically only Majors or Captains, while the other allied armies are led by Generals, who while technically supposed to listen to the PC's (Since it's their country and all), have trouble taking orders from somebody with such a low rank.

Okay, here is a potential idea, the other nations are helping nation A in the scenario described above, though mostly out of pity, and to save themselves the trouble of having to fight the evil nation later and on their own turf. Thus, they don't really have much stake in the conflict, hence why they are constantly bickering and ready to pull out. A big threat arises, and the nations get their collective acts together to defeat it, however, poor little nation A get's pretty much wiped out in the crossfire. It's army is gone, and it's government is shattered. The other nations all start manuevering to get a piece of nation A for themselves, the PC's are trying to re-establish nation A as a power in it's own right, or maybe they will align themselves with one of the other nations, or maybe they will just wander around trying to make it easier for the citizens of nation A whose lives were shattered by the first war, and now have to handle another one.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-05, 07:54 PM
The best use for PCs on the battlefield is as Special Ops, IMHO. Kill enemy commanders/casters, destroy/steal magical items/artifacts, and destroy/capture strategic locations. How well they do determines how well their side does in the next battle.

Aron Times
2009-02-05, 08:10 PM
Yeah, Special Operations would fit very well with the standard D&D party. Provide the party with warhorses for mobility; it will allow them to conduct hit-and-run tactics and it will help negate the penalties for wearing heavy armor.

Rings of Sustenance allow the party to operate deep within enemy territory for extended periods of time. The party's mage can use Prestidigitation to maintain weapons and armor, eliminating the risk of equipment failure. Amulets of Nondetection protects them from enemy scrying attempts.

Fax Celestis
2009-02-05, 08:32 PM
Yeah, Special Operations would fit very well with the standard D&D party. Provide the party with warhorses for mobility; it will allow them to conduct hit-and-run tactics and it will help negate the penalties for wearing heavy armor.

Rings of Sustenance allow the party to operate deep within enemy territory for extended periods of time. The party's mage can use Prestidigitation to maintain weapons and armor, eliminating the risk of equipment failure. Amulets of Nondetection protects them from enemy scrying attempts.

Forget rings of sustenance: everlasting rations (with or without everfull mugs) are cheaper.

keilyn
2009-02-05, 09:24 PM
Wow. So many posts, so very quickly. I was expecting it to take a little longer, but they are all -very- much appreciated, as the ideas are coming quite a bit easier now, so thank you.

I definitely agree with Fax - the everlasting rations are much cheaper, and the party will only be lv. 3-4 when they start, so they are much more appropriate as well. I think I would also use them to help with story telling - a drawn out seige or stressful trek through enemy territory is mentally exhausting, but on top of that, the characters have to rely on the -same- food, day in and day out - it's just another little detail that I enjoy adding to descriptions. If the players think creatively to flavor their rations, I'd allow it, however. (not too hard)

As far as the aftermath, I'm liking the idea of country A being the little "pie" that everyone wants a slice of. I'm going to have to think of a very plausible reason that even their good allies would attempt to get in on the spoils, but that shouldn't be too difficult, we're all only as good as the circumstances allow us to be, after all.

As far as mounts go, I definately agree that mobility is essential, but I think I would start with the characters having something more akin to light horses, and if they showed an interest, increasing the mounts through the campain - A warhorse is even more of an investment than the everlasting rations, if I remember the prices correctly.

So, this is taking shape quite nicely, all the feedback is appreciated. I didn't think about it at first, but I'm going to have to give my players strict notice not to read this thread. They may learn too much.