D20 3.5 Battlefield

[imp_fireball]

This is still in the making.

So far, the mechanics I've had established are:

- Initiative is based on the average initiative of everyone in a single army. Assuming they are trained to the point of effective field co-ordination and assuming their commander has tactical knowledge (usually at GM discretion; tactical knowledge usually represents ranks in Knowledge: Martial Lore), then they can go 'first' if they have higher initiative.

- 'Units' form groups of twelve, spaces that effectively occupy 60ft (or one space on a battlefield map). Larger units occupy spaces much in the same way, assuming ordinary 3.5 rules for larger sizes occupying spaces. These groups can have a squad commander, or they can be commanded by someone from another squad (or perhaps a single commander co-ordinating many soldiers). Penalties are usually adjusted based on however many units a commander must get the order to in a specific round.

- Units typically synchronize their actions, unless trained to do otherwise. Ie. A unit of berserkers might each perform their own attack maneuvers, while a unit of archers might be trained to fire simultaneously when called upon to. Units also are usually forced to move the same amount of space so as to remain close to each other, less they become separated. If units are separated (in groups of less then twelve across multiple spaces) then either a breakdown of spaces (usually forcing closer map specifications in the form of 5ft. spaces) is called for. The tactic is usually considered 'free-ranging' or guerrilla combat.

- Soldiers can consist of any creature and class listed in D&D. Creatures are typically sapient (int 3 or greater) so that orders can be followed. Those with int less than 3 are typically directed (ie. a rider directing her mount) or by another means as is typical in D&D.

- Many special attacks can be performed utilizing armies, which could not be accomplished by individual characters. Ie. A unit of archers can perform a volley that targets an entire space and forces a reflex save utilizing average modifiers, with a percentage taking damage based on spread (ie. if one arrow does 1d6, and a volley of 12 is fired, a failed reflex save means 12d6 on a single 5ft. space, or 1d6 dispersed throughout every space ultimately making up a single space on a battlefield map). Alternatively, a faster soldier can use the bodies of other soldiers in his unit as cover, providing a bonus to his own reflex save.

- Average attack modifiers for a unit are used. If one soldier in a unit can make more than one attack, then their additional attack modifiers do not apply towards calculating this average, and merely apply after the synchronized attacks have been made. Different attack types also involve different die rolls.

- Average modifiers are typically used in all circumstances involving an entire unit.

- A unit that attacks (or performs some other action) usually involves only one die roll, even if multiple maneuvers are performed by different soldiers within the unit. If such is the case, the GM deals with each condition but applies only the single die roll to it.

------------
Any suggestions?

I want to include the idea of raising domains and kingdoms, conquoring, etc. - if a campaign ever turned to that.

It doesn't need to be a nation game, considering nation games demand that the game begins that way from the beginning and that there's no way out of it.

The main key is to keep it as open as possible. War is brutal. All is fair game. It'd be an interesting adventure node to allow the PCs to sneak behind enemy lines, sabotage a defense mechanism, return home only to heed the call of battle and get promoted on the field to command status (thus allowing a GM to insert battlefield rules), and see the affects that their sabotage mission (if successful) had on the enemy.

[DanielLC]

You seem to imply that the front lines only have a depth of one. If you filled the square completely, it would hold 144 troops.

I wonder if it would be a good idea to just use an actual wargame. If you base it on D&D, it won't be very realistic, but then again, neither is the rest of your campaign.

If you don't care about realism, I don't even know what matters, let alone what you could improve. If you do care:
The main damage of arrow volleys should be loss of cohesion. You could make it so they could take a turn to regroup in order to regain the cohesion.
You mentioned no mechanics about flanking or surrounding the enemy. The latter makes a larger effect.
I think in war getting hit with an arrow once is enough to get you out of the battle. It won't necessarily kill you, but it makes it psychologically impossible to fight.

[imp_fireball]

In fact, I do care about realism, and I like the loss of cohesion rule - cohesion being that the soldiers make up a unit but the unit is temporarily lost and must reform with the aid of a soldier making a leadership (charisma or knowledge: martial lore check).

Everything else tries to use all the rules of D&D. Really, this is simply a way of streamlining battlefields in D&D, rules like flanking would still apply. Since a unit typically operates in synchronistic fashion, they would all be flatfooted to another enemy unit when in the process of performing another operation. In that way, flanking is practically guaranteed when a pincer movement is made, unless the flankee has partial cover provided by fences (one of many circumstances).

In short, this is still using the rules of D&D 3.5. I'm trying to stay true to that so that people don't end up reverting to chain mail or warhammer and having the GM throw out shotgun conclusions like 'you died in battle' without actual relevant mechanical merit.

[Silence]

You realise how terribly suited for this D&D is? D&D was created for small scale combat, and there are many systems for larger scale combat.

In fact, the beggining of D&D was due to the fact that people were trying to modify the large scale combat systems down into a small scale system, because that's all that was out there. You all know what Gary did from there.

[imp_fireball]

The system is for small scale combat, sure.

But it almost feels like people have refused to see the larger picture.

[Another_Poet]

Unlike Silence, I like the idea. But I do have some suggestions.


- Initiative is based on the average initiative of everyone in a single army. Assuming they are trained to the point of effective field co-ordination and assuming their commander has tactical knowledge (usually at GM discretion; tactical knowledge usually represents ranks in Knowledge: Martial Lore), then they can go 'first' if they have higher initiative.

For consistency with normal D&D rules, initiative should be based on the lowest (not average) initiative. Presumably, everyone is delaying action to act on the same initiative count - that's already in the rules. Your team of 4 PCs can do that if they want. This is just the same thing on a larger scale. It also makes sense: a group is only as quick as its slowest member.

Also, each unit should act on its own lowest initiative. You might have a squadron of 12 rogues with Dex 16 and Improved Initiative whose goal is to snipe enemy commanders in the first round of battle. That unit has its orders and will act on its initiative of +7. Meanwhile the 144 heavy infantry have some people with Dex 8 will act a few ticks later, at initiative -1.



- 'Units' form groups of twelve, spaces that effectively occupy 60ft (or one space on a battlefield map). Larger units occupy spaces much in the same way, assuming ordinary 3.5 rules for larger sizes occupying spaces. These groups can have a squad commander, or they can be commanded by someone from another squad (or perhaps a single commander co-ordinating many soldiers). Penalties are usually adjusted based on however many units a commander must get the order to in a specific round.

This is where you're going to have to depart a bit from D&D. Your battle mat can't just have squares. hexes won't do it either.

You need to account,to some degree, for formation shapes.

The rank - 12 men wide, 1 man deep.

The file - 12 men long, 1 man wide.

A typical unit would consist of 2-4 ranks, right behind each other

The square - 12 men wide, 12 men deep. Occupies 1 map square.

The wedge - a triangle of any shape, up to 72 men. Considered to occupy 1 full square. Bonus to attacks, but hard to change direction.

The circle - a defensive formation up to 72 men. Considered to occupy part of 8 different squares (a ring around a central square). Bonus to AC, but cannot move.

Loose - Like a square, but less less densely packed. 72 men max. Typical barbarian formation; imparts bonus to Attack and Speed, penalty to AC.

Those should cover most circumstances. As you can see, you'll either need to create special pieces (i.e. small rectangles that fit 12 to a square) or (and I recommend this one) use graph paper with small squares ("one man" squares) and draw lines every 12 squares to indicate "unit" sized squares. For purposes of distance, I would consider "personal" squares to be 3' x 3' (rather than 5' x 5'). This will mean men are someone crowded together, which is realistic, and it will also mean you get more accurate senses of distance between units.

In addition to formations you'll need to allow3 certain manoeuvres such as "shield wall" (bonus to AC versus melee) "pike wall" (bonus to attack versus mounts) "phalanx" (bonus to AC versus melee AND ranged, but cannot attack) etc. Almost any formation can use almost any of these manoeuvres (assuming they have shields, pikes, etc) but they have to be trained in it first. Historically most units only knew one or two such manoeuvres.

Good luck!

ap

[imp_fireball]

Those are great suggestions!


In addition to formations you'll need to allow3 certain manoeuvres such as "shield wall" (bonus to AC versus melee) "pike wall" (bonus to attack versus mounts) "phalanx" (bonus to AC versus melee AND ranged, but cannot attack) etc. Almost any formation can use almost any of these manoeuvres (assuming they have shields, pikes, etc) but they have to be trained in it first

Being trained is a matter of having weapon proficiencies and feats. This would all be covered by regular D&D rules, but the only problem I have in that matter is units with many mixed classes.

I think the rules for initiative might encourage commanders to do things like group rogues away from everyone else (so that they can act first, ie.).

3x3 sort of encourages 1 man to one 5' space and 3 men to two 5' spaces. In actual guidelines for the game, I'd probably lay out the different formations like you suggested (hopefully I'll remember to credit you).

------
In terms of an actual game, this departs from standard D&D however it tries to stay true to the rules. The main departation is in the role playing aspect, which would have to be on a grand scale rather then through an individual - of course, the easiest way to do so is through the eyes of a commander, ie.

The key idea is to make it inclusive with D&D, not to get rid of one or the other.

[imp_fireball]

Those are great suggestions!


In addition to formations you'll need to allow3 certain manoeuvres such as "shield wall" (bonus to AC versus melee) "pike wall" (bonus to attack versus mounts) "phalanx" (bonus to AC versus melee AND ranged, but cannot attack) etc. Almost any formation can use almost any of these manoeuvres (assuming they have shields, pikes, etc) but they have to be trained in it first

Being trained is a matter of having weapon proficiencies and feats. This would all be covered by regular D&D rules, but the only problem I have in that matter is units with many mixed classes.

I think the rules for initiative might encourage commanders to do things like group rogues away from everyone else (so that they can act first, ie.).

3x3 sort of encourages 1 man to one 5' space and 3 men to two 5' spaces. In actual guidelines for the game, I'd probably lay out the different formations like you suggested (hopefully I'll remember to credit you).

------
In terms of an actual game, this departs from standard D&D however it tries to stay true to the rules. The main departation is in the role playing aspect, which would have to be on a grand scale rather then through an individual - of course, the easiest way to do so is through the eyes of a commander, ie.

The key idea is to make it inclusive with D&D, not to get rid of one or the other.

[lesser_minion]

I think the main place PCs are going to participate in this battle is either as part of the 'strike team' suggested by the DMG - an elite unit specifically tasked to take down commanders, monsters and their counterparts on the opposite side or as unit leaders (possibly generals, if you really want loads of strategy and tactics, but depending on your approach to realism that could get boring).

I'm pretty sure the relevant knowledge is 'Strategy and Tactics', and this certainly makes sense as an addition to the initiative system.

Possible formation types for a professional military, very loosely based on a Roman organisation.


Team or rank (about 8-12 individuals). May be led by a sergeant or by a higher ranking officer, but these officers are more likely to form a 'command group' if this unit is part of a company.
Half-Company (often about ten ranks). Could also be called a half-century or warband, depending on setting. Almost invariably led by a captain of some sort.
Company - both halves of the company.
Cohort or Battalion (six companies, or five double-sized companies)
Host or Contingent (six cohorts, each with its own commander, including one larger elite cohort, led in the field by the commander and 2IC of the host and usually three or more captains or champions (one who acts as 3IC, and also one who carries the host's individual banner and a third who commands the most prestigious company))


Ranks generally don't act independently of their companies, but small 'strike teams' of roughly the same size might.

Horsemen, knights and auxiliaries (including archers and skirmishers) would be fielded in the same kind of formations, but generally in much smaller units. You would also expect to see a few musicians and standard bearers, who would be used to signal the troops and maintain formation.

I'd suggest offering some groups a formation bonus of maybe half the number of individuals present, and treating a typical rank as a creature with hitpoints = total for a typical group of that class. The formation bonus could be removed by taking a certain amount of damage in one round, or a certain amount of damage over the course of the battle. A formation that runs out of hp is destroyed or dispersed - the DM can work out the exact details, but typically the rank-and-file die or flee, leaving leaders to keep on fighting.

A disrupted formation would also move slowly - half speed?

A tightly packed infantry formation would have the AC of a gargantuan creature, but probably some kind of formation AC bonus as well (unless they have shields, this is only in melee). A loose formation would use the default AC for the creature size.

If a PC is in a formation that gets targeted, then there is a chance that some of the attacks are directed against him. In melee, you can just make him fight a few enemies 1-on-1, while against archery you should probably just divide the arrows up equally among individuals

[DanielLC]

Why not just flip a coin for initiative? I can't see why it's that important. Not unless the battle starts with the armies within range of the archers.

Perhaps the best plan is to take an actual wargame, and modify it to be compatible with D&D.

There should probably be more than one man every five feet. It might not work to well for individual combat, but I think armies generally work better that way.

[imp_fireball]

I was going go for a more realism approach to the mechanics. How many mechanics the GM uses is up to them, but like PHB I was thinking that it would simply assume that to play this sort of map at least most of the rules would typically get followed.

Realism is also a good basis on which to base most fictional elements, because then it can be compared relatively to anything else you might throw in the face of your players on the battlefield.

Units that are dispersed forgo a formation bonus but can still move at the same speed. Certain conditions can cause them to forgo their formation bonus. Certain feats can allow them to resist forgoing their formation bonus. Certain tree-based feats can allow a single soldier in a unit to allow others to resist forgoing their formation bonus (feats that are used usually only up the average damage which effectively = total damage of a unit. Or perhaps the maximum damage would be used and then divided by 4 or 8 on a d4/d8 roll?).

Formations also could depend on equipment. Equipment might make a formation more effective, ie. a hoplite phalanx offers an increased shield bonus that can only exist by stacking with an existing shield bonus - obviously that bonus wouldn't apply if they didn't have shields. Some formations also make speed slower, increase damage (readied power attack action, readied rage, ie.), etc.

The battle would be entirely tactical and completely run by the GM - the only information players would know would be what equipment their soldiers have... and that's prior to the battle, assuming they checked the equipment manifest that say, the quarter master presented them (in a typical scenario).

All soldiers are also NPCs - the commander is always a PC (otherwise there's no point in using this supplement). Some soldiers can be PCs too, but of course, they're unaware of what the PC is doing unless the order is relayed efficiently enough. I'd include mechanics for relaying orders in the heat of battle as well.

All of this considered, the eventual goal is to keep it simple but open and detailed enough that D&D can present itself as a very fun tactical strategy game (that might even be conducted PbP... roleplaying a commander and seeing a description that the GM provides of the violence waged would be pretty fun too).

[lesser_minion]

Well, the organisation I mentioned imply a clear chain of command - one commander per host consisting of one primary cohort (elites, double-sized companies) and five smaller cohorts, plus up to an equal number of auxiliary troops.

It makes most sense IMHO to give a single PC command of one century/company/warband made up of ten 8-12 man squads. There may or not be an NPC commander who they are expected to obey, but ~ 100 men seems like a reasonable number.

In that case, they would know the individuals under their command pretty well.

I think generally PCs are going to get the airship company, the cavalry or the ninja strike group (or the roc battle platform), as this gives them the most freedom - they don't have to control too many NPCs if they have a company, and with decent mobility, you can ensure that the company also has the flexibility needed to let the players play a key part in the battle.

[Another_Poet]

Being trained [in phalanxes and such] is a matter of having weapon proficiencies and feats. This would all be covered by regular D&D rules,

I disagree, and feel that gaining special bonuses or cover beyond the usual shield bonuses should require a feat or some other kind of special training. However, I can see why you would rule it your way for simplicity.



but the only problem I have in that matter is units with many mixed classes.

I wouldn't allow it. You can have a squadron of mages and a squadron of archers and a squadron of heavy infantry. You can even put them one behind another, mages in the middle, archers at rear and infantry in a big wedge in the front. But they remain distinct units with their own initiative and tactics. A lone mage will never stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the infantry guys in the middle of their formation, and an infantryman won't drop his falchion to pull out a shortbow. The heavy infantry won't even have a shortbow to pull out.

Every unit has its own assigned task and tactic and that's all they do in a given battle. Maybe they can change tactics once, like going from a shield wall to an open charge as the enemy tries to pull out. That's it.

That's the way actual formations worked in real life battle (for simplicity, ease of training and to avoid FUBAR) and that's the way I would run a D&D wargame (for simplicity, ease of unit building and to avoid MUNCHKINS).

Just thoughts... thanks for the props by the way. I hope your game goes well.

[lesser_minion]

I disagree, and feel that gaining special bonuses or cover beyond the usual shield bonuses should require a feat or some other kind of special training. However, I can see why you would rule it your way for simplicity.

I wouldn't allow it. You can have a squadron of mages and a squadron of archers and a squadron of heavy infantry. You can even put them one behind another, mages in the middle, archers at rear and infantry in a big wedge in the front. But they remain distinct units with their own initiative and tactics. A lone mage will never stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the infantry guys in the middle of their formation, and an infantryman won't drop his falchion to pull out a shortbow. The heavy infantry won't even have a shortbow to pull out.


I'd suggest only permitting two kinds of mixed-class unit: commander units (which often include a mage and a cleric, a champion, a few officers, the marshal, and some bodyguards) and strike units (basically, adventuring parties)

Other than that, however, you're right. Most units are going to have one function and precisely one function. I'd suggest offering bonuses for that function, however (i.e. shieldwall and 'wall of spears' bonuses). The D&D combat rules assume skirmishes by default, so military training and formation bonuses aren't factored into the standard rules. Really they would be class features for pretty much every full BAB class.