Well I have subjective news and bad news...

[Drakevarg]

The subjective news: My current campaign has had the most forward plot momentum of any I've ever run.

The bad news: I'm currently averaging out at one PC death per session.

-----

Today's session was (the first half of) a bandit raid. When I originally planned the raid, my intention was nine 3rd level TWF Rogues* on horseback lead by a 5th level boss vs. 20 3rd level Archery Rogues (10 mounted) lead by the PCs (5 3rd level Rogues and 1 3rd level Warrior*). However, after my usual weekly posts here in the Playground, it was suggested** I increase the number of enemies lest the NPC mooks slaughter the bandits without needing the aid of the PCs. So I did, making the bandits now consisting of 9 TWF Rogues (+boss) and 9 Archery rogues (+boss).

After the usual "several hours of aimless chitchat" that often precludes a game, we finally started up. Since the PCs had a day's forewarning of the bandits, they created a closed circle with their tribe's tents, with the combat-trained members of the tribe posted evenly about the perimeter (despite knowing for a fact that the bandits would be attacking either from the west or northwest) and the 'civilian' population huddled in the middle.

The bandits arrive, and begin combat by letting lose a volley of arrows that take out the camp's westmost cavalry. The nearest archers quickly drag their fallen comrades into the tents and deliver first aid. PC Warrior Darius, the tribe's leader, can't be content with waiting in his hut and instantly volts onto his horse, rounding the western end of the camp and calling for a cavalry charge. This of course clearly marks him as the leader and the archer boss plunks an arrow in his shoulder.

Next the bandit cavalry begins to charge. They split into two groups, five to the south and four plus the boss to the north. The mooks to the north avoid Darius's cavalry and begin rounding to the eastern edge of the camp, while the cavalry boss makes a hit-and-run attempt at Darius, which is retorted by a morningstar to the back followed by one of Darius's redshirts getting off a critical. The boss is then dropped by PC Archery Rogue Osama, who also killed the tribe's previous chieftan (thus giving him 2 boss kills, while only one other PC has managed to kill anything so far in this campaign).

Next the bandit archers get another volley. This time half the archers are aiming for Darius's cavalry, all missing except for a single critical that knocks the redshirt that crit'd the cavalry boss into the negatives. Darius quickly moves to give him first aid, but fails by 1. Not that it matters, as the redshirt manages to stabilize himself on his first try. This in addition to criting the boss impresses the PCs so much that for the rest of the session they refer to him as Ensign Badass and insist on him being made a proper NPC if he survives the raid.

The next few rounds quickly descend into chaos. Darius sends one of his cavalrymen to gather up the cavalry to the east to charge the archers. He does so, but half the eastern cavalry is knocked out trying to get past the northern bandit cavalry, while the cavalryman sent to round them up is rushed by the southern bandit cavalry, managing to drop one. The next few rounds consist of the bandit cavalry doing hit and run attacks on the eastern edge of the camp, while the archers take out the western edge.

Meanwhile, PC TWF Rogue Atem, posted on the southwestern edge of the camp, gets sick of being useless at anything other than point blank range and flat-out charges the archers. Mind you, these are 10 archers at his level or higher, 150 feet away, across almost perfectly flat terrain (it's slightly downhill). After making it within 10 feet of the archers (because I forgot he was there for a round), five of them shoot him for 34 damage. He had 17 health.

Darius, now knocked down to 11 health, decides his part in this fight is over and retreats with Ensign Badass's unconscious body into the middle of the camp, ordering the guard he posted there to go around the camp and supply first aid to fallen troops. Meanwhile the remaining tribesmen and PCs begin slowly dwindling down the NPC forces. Unfortunately, here the session is forced to end. As of that point, here are the forces that remain standing:

Bandits:
5 Level 3 TWF Rogues (Mounted) [1 Wounded]
9 Level 3 Archery Rogues [1 Wounded]
1 Level 5 Archery Rogue (Mounted)

Tribesmen:
4 Level 3 Archery Rogues [2 Wounded]
3 Level 3 Archery Rogues [2 Wounded]
1 Level 3 TWF Warrior (PC, Darius. Mounted) [Wounded]
1 Level 3 TWF Rogue (PC, Al-Ed. Mounted)
1 Level 3 TWF Rogue (PC, Mizu.)
1 Level 3 Archery Rogue (PC, Osama.)

Um... wow. Actually now that I look at it in simple list form, the PCs seem royally screwed. And except for the bandits inexplicably turning tail and running, I don't really see any way to "cheat" in the PC's favor.

-----

Other things I learned this week:

- Since this is a military campaign, large battles like this will come up a lot, and they will only get larger. Since the NPC's turns take obscenely long, I think in the future I'm going to make all NPCs of a particular unit type make unified attack and damage rolls. Their HP and targets of choice will remain independent, but this will probably shave several minutes off of their turns.

- Mounted combat is a bitch. Ultimately I said "**** it" and ignored everything about the horse beyond speed. They even essentially popped out of existence once their riders were knocked out, because I didn't want to bother keeping track of them.

- Do NOT make lines on the map indicating where the characters have moved to-and-from. In short order your nice clean map will be nothing but a jumble of lines.

- It would help to come up with a consistant legend for "PC" "Allied NPC" "Enemy NPC" "Enemy NPC Boss" "Unconscious Allied NPC" "Unconscious Enemy NPC" "Unconscious PC" "Unconscious Enemy NPC Boss" "Dead PC" "Dead Allied NPC" "Dead Enemy NPC" and "Dead Enemy NPC Boss." However, there's only so many combinations of dots, circles and Xs.

*Homebrew. See sig.
**Note that this is NOT an attempt to displace the blame. It wasn't my idea, but I was the one who acted on it. Mea culpa.

[Solaris]

- It would help to come up with a consistant legend for "PC" "Allied NPC" "Enemy NPC" "Enemy NPC Boss" "Unconscious Allied NPC" "Unconscious Enemy NPC" "Unconscious PC" "Unconscious Enemy NPC Boss" "Dead PC" "Dead Allied NPC" "Dead Enemy NPC" and "Dead Enemy NPC Boss." However, there's only so many combinations of dots, circles and Xs.

*Homebrew. See sig.

You'd be surprised. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Military_Symbols_for_Land_Based_Systems)

[Drakevarg]

You'd be surprised. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Military_Symbols_for_Land_Based_Systems)

On the subject of surprising:

Of the 13 unconcious allied NPCs, 6 of them were knocked to exactly 0 health when dropped.

[BayardSPSR]

It sounds like you set your players up for a fair fight. Now, this is not necessarily a good thing.

There are three kinds of fights:

1. Fights in which the players have an advantage.
2. Fair fights.
3. Fights in which the players have a disadvantage.

In a fair fight, all things being equal, the probability of the players winning is 50%. It is very important for both you and them to be conscious of this before you set them up for such a fight.

The way you set it up, it looks like the players had a slight advantage, but poor tactics (deploying in a ring despite information that the attack was coming from a particular direction, along with other errors) caused the bandits to, well, win (I don't see a way out for them right now short of a deus ex machina - or an eucatastrophe if the circumstances allow it). These things happen; most people aren't brilliant tacticians - that's what makes people like Julius Caesar, Sun Tzu, Napoleon, and me special.

You could have avoided this, of course. If the risk of the NPC friendlies winning the fight alone was significant, the bandits could have used better tactics to even the odds (it looks like they did anyway) rather than just coming in with more numbers. Alternately, if all the NPCs are lower level than the players instead of identical - likewise for the bandits - you can keep up the scale of the fight without limiting the players' influence to tactical fumbling.

What to do now... If you aren't willing to use a deus ex machina or eucatastrophe, I'd say that the players might have to make a run for it. Not everyone conquers an empire on the first try (see Alfred or Babur). That's what horses are for, after all.

[Drakevarg]

You could have avoided this, of course. If the risk of the NPC friendlies winning the fight alone was significant, the bandits could have used better tactics to even the odds (it looks like they did anyway) rather than just coming in with more numbers.

I had intended for the bandits to use the encirclement tactic from the beginning, but had no way of knowing the PCs' tactical skill. Without some sort of standard to go by, I couldn't make up for inferior numbers with "better" tactics - since I had no standard against which to be better than.


Alternately, if all the NPCs are lower level than the players instead of identical - likewise for the bandits - you can keep up the scale of the fight without limiting the players' influence to tactical fumbling.

My choice of levels is mostly due to in-universe standards. According to my setting, the average soldier is at 3rd level. Since prior to their assassination of the tribe's chief the PCs were nobody of merit, they were also at third level. (One of them because he really is a trained soldier, while the rest of the party are nomads living in an environment that lends itself to more competent individuals than average. In terms of NPCs, this means that a nomad is going to be 2 levels higher than their "civilized" equivalent. Meaning if the nomadic PCs were fully trained soldiers they'd be at 5th level, like their former chieftan.)


What to do now... If you aren't willing to use a deus ex machina or eucatastrophe, I'd say that the players might have to make a run for it. Not everyone conquers an empire on the first try (see Alfred or Babur). That's what horses are for, after all.

Here are the options as I see them:

- Once either the bandit cavalry or the archer boss is defeated, the archers turn tail and run. They're only here to raid for supplies, after all - it's not worth losing most of their party over.
- The PCs call for a retreat. This isn't likely, because PCs never seem to think of this unless you send an unstoppable horror after them Pyramid Head-style. Even then, it's hard to get their forces - plus the 30-ish civilians in camp - across miles and miles (it's an hour's walk on foot to the nearest Imperial settlement) of featureless terrain (ergo, no cover) with archers at their backs.
- The PCs surrender. This is also unlikely because PCs are prone to suicidal last stands. If they did, the bandits would likely just take what they wanted and leave. On the plus side, they'd be alive. On the downside, they'd have little to no supplies and the tribe's moral would plummet.

[elpollo]

Since this is a military campaign, large battles like this will come up a lot, and they will only get larger. Since the NPC's turns take obscenely long, I think in the future I'm going to make all NPCs of a particular unit type make unified attack and damage rolls. Their HP and targets of choice will remain independent, but this will probably shave several minutes off of their turns.

Have you considered switching to some sort of wargame for the large combats (or even just doing the bits the PCs aren't actually involved in via narrative)? 3rd edition combat crawls as it is, let alone when you've got 50 turns in a round (as well as having to track 50 sets of HP, initiative, status effects, etc.).

Even if not this, using the mean damage for NPCs means you'll be making a good deal fewer rolls per round. You could also stop tracking hit points and have the NPCs have two conditions (those being uninjured and injured). Any attack that deals less damage than the NPC's maximum hit points makes them injured if they are uninjured, or kills them if they are injured. Any attack greater than their maximum hit points kills them outright (or at least takes them out of the fight). Bosses and the like can afford to not obey this rule, but it means that you've only got two states to track for each mook NPC rather than the 15 or so for a third level character.



**Note that this is NOT an attempt to displace the blame. It wasn't my idea, but I was the one who acted on it. Mea culpa.

To be fair, it was posed as a "20 NPCs and 6 PCs against 10 NPCs", which isn't what actually happened.



The way you set it up, it looks like the players had a slight advantage, but poor tactics (deploying in a ring despite information that the attack was coming from a particular direction, along with other errors) caused the bandits to, well, win (I don't see a way out for them right now short of a deus ex machina - or an eucatastrophe if the circumstances allow it). These things happen; most people aren't brilliant tacticians - that's what makes people like Julius Caesar, Sun Tzu, Napoleon, and me special.

From what I can tell they didn't know the direction they were coming from, which means they had to split their forces. This turns the 26 vs 20 that it would have been (i.e. a fight the players should easily have won from cover) into something akin to a 10 vs 20. Ok, the players weren't smart, but even in cover (I'm assuming they were in cover) they have a disadvantage whilst they try and scramble their forces. The bandits being able to focus two attacks on each target at once means that there's a reasonable chance of that target being dropped in one round.



You could have avoided this, of course. If the risk of the NPC friendlies winning the fight alone was significant, the bandits could have used better tactics to even the odds (it looks like they did anyway) rather than just coming in with more numbers.

If the bandits only had half the numbers, though, and the players had all of their troops set up together as it seems most people interpreted the problem, it would have been a massacre. Tactics aren't much good when you lose 70% of your troops in the first turn.

[Drakevarg]

Even if not this, using the mean damage for NPCs means you'll be making a good deal fewer rolls per round. You could also stop tracking hit points and have the NPCs have two conditions (those being uninjured and injured). Any attack that deals less damage than the NPC's maximum hit points makes them injured if they are uninjured, or kills them if they are injured. Any attack greater than their maximum hit points kills them outright (or at least takes them out of the fight). Bosses and the like can afford to not obey this rule, but it means that you've only got two states to track for each mook NPC rather than the 15 or so for a third level character.

This actually makes a great deal of sense. I like it.


To be fair, it was posed as a "20 NPCs and 6 PCs against 10 NPCs", which isn't what actually happened.

True. But that's not what happened specifically because I was advised that the fight would be too easy. So, I doubled the enemy NPCs, thus resulting in the current cluster****.


From what I can tell they didn't know the direction they were coming from, which means they had to split their forces.

No, they knew for a fact that the bandits would be approaching from the west or northwest, but also knew that the "split up and flank" tactic was pretty much standard procedure. This is probably the main reason for evenly spreading their forces across the camp. Personally I'd have focuses most of it towards WNW with a skeleton guard in the rear and simple repositioned troops as needed, but that's probably because I'm the DM and already knew what they would do.


This turns the 26 vs 20 that it would have been (i.e. a fight the players should easily have won from cover) into something akin to a 10 vs 20. Ok, the players weren't smart, but even in cover (I'm assuming they were in cover) they have a disadvantage whilst they try and scramble their forces.[quote]

About half the allied forces had cover. The other half were on horseback and were out in the open.

[quote]If the bandits only had half the numbers, though, and the players had all of their troops set up together as it seems most people interpreted the problem, it would have been a massacre. Tactics aren't much good when you lose 70% of your troops in the first turn.

True, but since the bandits didn't have any foreknowledge of the tribe's defenses beyond a vague headcount, their only real options were "superior numbers," "standard but effective strategy" or both.

[EDIT]: Another issue I think was present is that while the bandit's entire archer division remained in formation and continued to rain down volleys at the camp, half of the tribe's archers were called away to assist in a cavalry charge that rather pointedly never happened. Leaving 4 archers against 10.

[Fouredged Sword]

Solution - PC's loose. They are taken captive by the bandits and sold into slavery into an arena style pit. There they must fight for thier freedom and the freedom of thier people, leading a slave revolt and takeing over the nation.

Solution 2 - The PC's get reinforcements from a passing merchant caravan that is just as intrested in takeing out the bandits as they are and they charge the bandits from the rear and distract all those archers. They then help with the wounded after combat.

[LOTRfan]

Yikes. :smalleek:

I see you listened to my suggestion about giving the bandits archers....

This is definitely partially my fault, but this seems to have been mostly bad tactics. How violent are these bandits? Is surrender a viable option at this point, or would the bandits massacre/enslave them regardless of any attempt to sue for peace? Also, if they are not good at making a strategy, I may have a solution: Perhaps "Ensign Badass" has a decent understanding of strategy, and can act as an advisor in the planning stage for futures battles.

[Drakevarg]

How violent are these bandits? Is surrender a viable option at this point, or would the bandits massacre/enslave them regardless of any attempt to sue for peace?

If Darius surrendered or all the tribe's combatants were killed, the bandits would simply help themselves to the tribe's supplies and be on their way. They aren't interested in slaves; you have to keep slaves alive and the bandits don't want to spend resources they could use for themselves. (They live in the middle ring of the desert, which is mostly empty sand dunes. The tribes living on this ring more often than not survive entirely on raiding the neighboring tribes.)


Also, if they are not good at making a strategy, I may have a solution: Perhaps "Ensign Badass" has a decent understanding of strategy, and can act as an advisor in the planning stage for futures battles.

Ensign Badass (who I think I'll name "Salutari.") will probably either become a major support NPC or a DMPC. Depends on whether or not the PCs want him with them when they're away from their forces-at-large.

[LOTRfan]

If Darius surrendered or all the tribe's combatants were killed, the bandits would simply help themselves to the tribe's supplies and be on their way. They aren't interested in slaves; you have to keep slaves alive and the bandits don't want to spend resources they could use for themselves. (They live in the middle ring of the desert, which is mostly empty sand dunes. The tribes living on this ring more often than not survive entirely on raiding the neighboring tribes.)

If they will just help themselves to the supplies, I think surrender is the (albeit unfavorable) best choice for survival. Regroup the troops and hope that there is a nearby tribe weaker than themselves to raid/conquer.

[Drakevarg]

If they will just help themselves to the supplies, I think surrender is the (albeit unfavorable) best choice for survival. Regroup the troops and hope that there is a nearby tribe weaker than themselves to raid/conquer.

Yes, well. The trick is getting the PCs to come to that conclusion on their own.

[nedz]

Bandits:
5 Level 3 TWF Rogues (Mounted) [1 Wounded]
9 Level 3 Archery Rogues [1 Wounded]
1 Level 5 Archery Rogue (Mounted)

Tribesmen:
4 Level 3 Archery Rogues [2 Wounded]
3 Level 3 Archery Rogues [2 Wounded]
1 Level 3 TWF Warrior (PC, Darius. Mounted) [Wounded]
1 Level 3 TWF Rogue (PC, Al-Ed. Mounted)
1 Level 3 TWF Rogue (PC, Mizu.)
1 Level 3 Archery Rogue (PC, Osama.)


To summarise the odds
Bandits:
10 Archers + 5 Melle = 15
Tribesmen:
8 Archers + 3 Melle = 11

Thats what 3::2 odds.
Its not garanteed to be a walk over for the bandits.
Good tactics from here can turn the tide for the party.
You generally need 3::1 odds to garantee victory in an assault.

You have a dead PC: how do you go about introducing new ones?
The Players would have a sense of failure if a new PC turned up with re-inforcements, but its an option.

It looks likely though that the PCs side is going to lose which should teach them something. I'd be tempted to play it out and see what happens. Don't forget moralle though - at some point one side will surrender or run away.

For the larger combats you need more dice.
5 sets of D20s and D6s/D8s in matching colours should allow you to do 5 arrows in one throw. This should speed things up a lot: you just roll all of the dice in one go.

Battles are another thing entirely though.

[Drakevarg]

You have a dead PC: how do you go about introducing new ones?
The Players would have a sense of failure if a new PC turned up with re-inforcements, but its an option.

I require that each PC knows (and is on good terms with) at least two (living) members of the party. At this point that pretty much requires that they be an as-of-yet unmentioned member of the tribe.

Of course, in the event of TPK then we're basically starting from scratch. In these situations I usually fastforward the plot a few months and toss the next round of PCs into the new status quo.


It looks likely though that the PCs side is going to lose which should teach them something. I'd be tempted to play it out and see what happens. Don't forget moralle though - at some point one side will surrender or run away.

The tribe is defending their home, and in addition have 30 civilians to worry about. They won't retreat or surrender unless their chieftan orders them to.

The bandits are merely on a raid. If the archer boss is killed or the rest of the cavalry is wiped out, the remaining bandits will flee.


For the larger combats you need more dice.
5 sets of D20s and D6s/D8s in matching colours should allow you to do 5 arrows in one throw. This should speed things up a lot: you just roll all of the dice in one go.

Battles are another thing entirely though.

That's certainly an option, though right now I'm liking the idea of simply unifying rolls for particular unit types.

[Zwischenrufer]

These things happen; most people aren't brilliant tacticians - that's what makes people like Julius Caesar, Sun Tzu, Napoleon, and me special.

Made my day. Being the average gamer geek and showcasing an absurd amount of hubris really go well together.

[nedz]

The tribe is defending their home, and in addition have 30 civilians to worry about. They won't retreat or surrender unless their chieftan orders them to.

Erm, it doesn't quite work this way.:smallsmile:
If the situation looks bad then normal people may well run away.
Hero's are another matter, well usually.

Napoleon orders in the Old Guard.
They march majestically to the top of the ridge.
They are ambushed.
Against cries of "Le Gueard Mort, Le Gueard ne recuse pas", they leg it.
With Cries of "Le Gueard Recuse", The Army leaves the field in disorder.
Napoleon is finished.

[Solaris]

Solution - PC's loose. They are taken captive by the bandits and sold into slavery into an arena style pit. There they must fight for their freedom and the freedom of their people, leading a slave revolt and taking over the nation.

I've had bad experiences with this.

[Drakevarg]

Erm, it doesn't quite work this way.:smallsmile:
If the situation looks bad then normal people may well run away.
Hero's are another matter, well usually.

Normal people, yes. But the tribes tend to be extremely close-knit. Many normal people would still fight to defend their families. Moreso, considering that survival in the desert would be considerably more difficult alone.

There's also the "several miles of almost perfectly flat featureless terrain with archers on your tail" thing to consider. Running doesn't make you any less of a target, and you can't strike back while fleeing.

[Sillycomic]

I have a question: Why are the bandits raiding?

I'm just curious to their motives because what they want might correspond to how desperate they fight for it. If they are looking to take over this tribe versus they're desperate for food and water.

Because honestly wouldn't a group of bandits not fight to the last man? The bandits would have to think about how many people they're willing to lose before this raid is worth more than the reward.

Unless these bandits felt like they were wronged in some way and this is a personal battle, I imagine they'd retreat the moment they start seeing some serious casualties.

Which makes this fight far more winnable for the PC's.

[Odin the Ignoble]

If you want the PCs to surrender, you could always have the bandits offer them the chance.

If the fighting gets pretty harsh, you could even have the bandits simply offer to walk away, if they're allowed to take their wounded with them. If they were planning a raid for resources they probably aren't willing to lose many of there number if they can find easier pickings elsewhere.

Alternatively if the fight looks like it's going to be a last stand that will decide whether or not the tribe survives, allot of the "Civilian" non-combatants join the fight. If you have 30 noncombatants, there's a good chance that about 5-10 of those are tribesmen that are just to old or already injured to normally fight but could in a pinch. If you're willing to draft mothers and the almost of age, you might get another 5-10 more. Of course these would probably be 2-1 level characters or maybe a hand full of 3rd level characters who've advanced age categories or have permanent injuries like missing hands or lame legs.

If the bandits see another dozen fighters some out of the camp, even if they are old infirm or young, they might decide to run.

[Drakevarg]

I have a question: Why are the bandits raiding?

I'm just curious to their motives because what they want might correspond to how desperate they fight for it. If they are looking to take over this tribe versus they're desperate for food and water.

This requires a bit of understanding of the setting's immediate geography; the desert of Harena Maris. It's more or less circular in shape (for reasons that will come up later in the campaign), with three distinct regions:

-The outermost ring is known as the Salt Flats, which mostly consists of flat, featureless earth with sparse shrubbery. The locals survive primarily through hunting and a few oases, most of which are located in the ruins of cities that predate the Empire that now rules the nation (in name only, really. The Empire has essentially no power over the nomad tribes).

-The next ring in is known as the Sea of Sands. It's your cliche desert in the sense that it's mile after mile of completely empty sand dunes. There are a few shelters in the form of more ancient ruins that occasionally poke through the sands, which can contain underground oases and some animal life. However, more often than not the locals are forced to raid the surrounding tribes - including other raiding tribes - for supplies. (Note that the tribes of this region pretty much only live there out of a case of "stuck between a rock and a hard place." They're kept from making a full-scale exodus into either the Salt Flats or the central ring by the tribes already living here.)

-The central ring is named the Canyon Rings, a series of steep-walled mountain ridges and canyons. This is probably the most heavily populated area of the desert due to being naturally defensible and because the canyons create natural shelter for both the tribes and wildlife. Despite remaining as harsh as any of the other desert dwellers, the tribes here are probably the closest to being "civilized" in the traditional sense, with many permanent settlements. However, they still get by on hunting as the terrain simply doesn't lend itself to agriculture.

TL;DR: The bandits raid because their territory has almost no natural resources of its own and they need to steal from their neighbors to survive.


Because honestly wouldn't a group of bandits not fight to the last man? The bandits would have to think about how many people they're willing to lose before this raid is worth more than the reward.

Unless these bandits felt like they were wronged in some way and this is a personal battle, I imagine they'd retreat the moment they start seeing some serious casualties.

Which makes this fight far more winnable for the PC's.

They're admittedly more tenacious than bandits would be in a less desperate environment, but as I've mentioned twice they will flee if:
a) The archery boss is taken out, leaving them bereft of leadership.
b) Their remaining cavalry is taken out, reducing them to half their numbers.

At that point the risk outweighs the reward and it's better to, at bare minimum, regroup and try again with replenished numbers.


If the fighting gets pretty harsh, you could even have the bandits simply offer to walk away, if they're allowed to take their wounded with them. If they were planning a raid for resources they probably aren't willing to lose many of there number if they can find easier pickings elsewhere.

Considering the environment that instigated the raids to begin with, it's unlikely that the bandits would bother to collect their wounded for the same reason they don't bother with prisoners; people not directly contributing to their survival aren't worth the resources.


Alternatively if the fight looks like it's going to be a last stand that will decide whether or not the tribe survives, allot of the "Civilian" non-combatants join the fight. If you have 30 noncombatants, there's a good chance that about 5-10 of those are tribesmen that are just to old or already injured so normally exempt from fighting. If you're willing to draft mothers and the almost of age, you might get another 5-10 more. Of course these would probably be 2-1 level characters or maybe a hand full of 3rd level characters who've advanced age categories or have permanent injuries like missing hands or limps.

Officially all of the 'civilians' are Level 1 Rogues (this is roughly on par with your average hunter in civilized regions). This is because they might be needed to take place of the tribes proper hunters if something happens (which is unsettlingly common, as pointed by the fact that the entire tribe, which owns 1/4th of the Salt Flats, consists of 50ish people while the raiding tribe that's attacking them - these are people in a nigh-resourceless environment whose entire survival is dependant on attacking neighboring tribes, mind - has a total population of roughly 100 and has a total territory about half the size of the PC's tribe. (This also has an explanation that will be revealed later in the campaign.)).

However, I could probably stick in a few Old-Age Level 3s in there.

[RandomLunatic]

Look at it from the raiders's persepctive.

They have run into (I am guessing) unexpectedly stiff resistance that has cost them 25% of thier members, including one of their leaders. The defenders have been reduced to half, but mostly because of stupidity, and counting on that to continue is foolish, and they do occupy the superior position. They probably could take the defenders if they pushed hard enough, but their own losses could potentially be so severe as to wipe out the band.

So if I were the surviving leader, I would order the archers to cover the horsemen as the latter rounded up all the unconcious defenders lying out in the no-man's land (along with any reasonably intact corpses-after all, it is dark, so it would be hard to tell they are actually dead at 50 yards). Then I call a cease-fire, and open negotiations. Instead of killing everybody and stealing everything that is not nailed down, I settle for a week's worth of provisions in exchange for leaving (or three days. Or whatever I can get.) And if the defenders do not play ball, I start offing captives until they come around (OOC: And the beauty of this is that, even if the PCs want to fight it out, the NPCs would greatly prefer Uncle Abdul come back alive).

Depending on how treacherous and bloodthirsty I am, I may or may not kill the captives and whoever drags the supplies out to me before riding off.

[Sillycomic]

Fighting in a battle with those two conditions, this actually doesn't seem like that hard of a fight from the PC's perspective.

If it was a fight to the last man, they'd be screwed, but you put up some good lose scenarios which I think will lead to a tough but winnable combat.

[Drakevarg]

Look at it from the raiders's persepctive.

They have run into (I am guessing) unexpectedly stiff resistance that has cost them 25% of thier members, including one of their leaders.

Normally the tribe has about half their military strength when the bandits reach them since the hunters are usually out, y'know, hunting. This would've been the case this time around as well had the tribe's chieftan not been assassinated two days prior and the entire tribe had gathered to decide on his successor.

As such in most occasions the tribe gives some token resistance before surrendering and handing over a portion of their supplies, since the alternative is the death of every skilled combatant in the tribe and the loss of all supplies.


The defenders have been reduced to half, but mostly because of stupidity, and counting on that to continue is foolish, and they do occupy the superior position. They probably could take the defenders if they pushed hard enough, but their own losses could potentially be so severe as to wipe out the band.

So if I were the surviving leader, I would order the archers to cover the horsemen as the latter rounded up all the unconcious defenders lying out in the no-man's land (along with any reasonably intact corpses-after all, it is dark, so it would be hard to tell they are actually dead at 50 yards).

At the very least I think I'll have the bandit cavalry maneuver to the west side of the camp so as to receive covering fire from the archers.


Then I call a cease-fire, and open negotiations. Instead of killing everybody and stealing everything that is not nailed down, I settle for a week's worth of provisions in exchange for leaving (or three days. Or whatever I can get.) And if the defenders do not play ball, I start offing captives until they come around (OOC: And the beauty of this is that, even if the PCs want to fight it out, the NPCs would greatly prefer Uncle Abdul come back alive).

Depending on how treacherous and bloodthirsty I am, I may or may not kill the captives and whoever drags the supplies out to me before riding off.

The bandits are rarely the ones to open negotiations. When they realize they're losing (or at the very least not winning enough to make it worth the bodycount) they usually just cut their loses and split.

[EDIT]: Now that I think about it, this might be one of my less lethal campaigns. Sure, I'm killing a PC every session, but in my current longest-running campaign I actually averaged a TPK every four sessions.

[BayardSPSR]

I suddenly had a brilliant idea! I don't know how I didn't notice it before...

You have bandits who are winning What do bandits do when they're winning?

They engage in banditry.

It would not be unrealistic for some or many of them to split off and start looting while the rest keep the defenders busy. Hell, they're bandits; there's no reason for them to have perfect discipline.


And thank you, Zwischenrufer.

[Earthwalker]

Can I ask the OP a question and this may not be an isssue for your players, its just your setup reminds me of a game I was in recently.

How much of the battle is time spent with the GM rolling dice, either the Tribe NPcs attacking the bandit NPC or the bandits attacking the tribe NPC.

Are you spending the majority of the session rolling dice for NPCs ?

[Quietus]

As an aside, I'd like to offer unrequested advice with regard to your dead PC : Offer to let him take up Ensign Badass as his new PC. The guy's already won a place in the player's hearts, letting him continue to shine isn't a bad idea.

[Garwain]

If the bandits are only after supplies, let them kills some more allied NPCs before offering the PC the opportunity to hand over their goods or get killed. Unfortunatly, adventurers tend to have a death wish over their precious items.

[Cartigan]

Mostly unrelated: Why are there so many melee characters in the party? Why are so many of them 3/4 BAB? And why are so many of them TWF?

[Saintheart]

The subjective news: My current campaign has had the most forward plot momentum of any I've ever run.

The bad news: I'm currently averaging out at one PC death per session.


Total Party Kill: if you do it right, they'll never forget it. :smallbiggrin:

[Tankadin]

Mostly unrelated: Why are there so many melee characters in the party? Why are so many of them 3/4 BAB? And why are so many of them TWF?

As I understand it, at this point in the campaign these are more or less the players' only choices--the homebrewed classes in his signature. The reasoning is that this particular desert tribe pretty much does the rogue and warrior thing--as it is a very low magic world, there aren't any native magic users or classes with supernatural abilities.

[Cartigan]

As I understand it, at this point in the campaign these are more or less the players' only choices--the homebrewed classes in his signature. The reasoning is that this particular desert tribe pretty much does the rogue and warrior thing--as it is a very low magic world, there aren't any native magic users or classes with supernatural abilities.
That just raises the question of why the Warrior has such terrible combat choices. Even not being on the list of combat styles, inexplicably, he still would've been better off two-hand or archery.
And why does the Rogue get archery..

At any rate, this is getting into serious issues with the homebrew classes.
I don't blame the TWF Rogue for going kamikaze. I'm more surprised that the other three TWF didn't. Sure, archery makes sense, but why are so many mounted characters two weapon fighters? Does no one make longspears in your world?

And the PCs are screwed. They already lost 1 PC and if I counted right, half the NPCs. The enemy has lost... 1/4 of his forces including one boss. My only suggestion is send a rider out at night to the nearest town to hire some ronin.

And have you looked into the mass combat rules in Heroes of Battle? Or did I miss that you did?

[Sebastrd]

How did the bandits react when their "boss" got dropped so quickly?

Also, I'm guessing that your dead PC went kamikaze out of frustration rather than poor tactics. Are you sure all of your players are keen on a mass battle type campaign?

[Drakevarg]

Can I ask the OP a question and this may not be an isssue for your players, its just your setup reminds me of a game I was in recently.

How much of the battle is time spent with the GM rolling dice, either the Tribe NPcs attacking the bandit NPC or the bandits attacking the tribe NPC.

Are you spending the majority of the session rolling dice for NPCs ?

About half of the time was spent with NPC dice rolladge, yes. Hence my decision to unify rolls for unit types. It was too damned time-consuming.


As an aside, I'd like to offer unrequested advice with regard to your dead PC : Offer to let him take up Ensign Badass as his new PC. The guy's already won a place in the player's hearts, letting him continue to shine isn't a bad idea.

It was actually suggested that Ensign Badass be made the PC of the other player that is currently dead (his PC died last session and he didn't show up this week to roll a new one). However, it was feared that he would simply get Ensign Badass killed. The players have generally the same expectations of Atem's player.


Mostly unrelated: Why are there so many melee characters in the party? Why are so many of them 3/4 BAB? And why are so many of them TWF?


As I understand it, at this point in the campaign these are more or less the players' only choices--the homebrewed classes in his signature. The reasoning is that this particular desert tribe pretty much does the rogue and warrior thing--as it is a very low magic world, there aren't any native magic users or classes with supernatural abilities.

This is correct. Plus, the homebrewed classes I made were specifically designed to incorporate as many of the nonmagical features of the vanilla base classes as possible. So the Rogue has the stealth-based features of Rogue/Ranger/Swashbuckler, while the Warrior has the melee-based features of Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger.

Though I won't deny that there's room for improvement. For example, giving the Rogue a Favored Enemy ability.


That just raises the question of why the Warrior has such terrible combat choices. Even not being on the list of combat styles, inexplicably, he still would've been better off two-hand or archery.
And why does the Rogue get archery.

The Warrior made his own decisions in regards to which of the combat styles he could have chosen. And as for why 2H weapons isn't on the Warrior combat style list... I couldn't think of any appropriate feats other than maybe Monkey Grip. And archery seemed more apropos for a Rogue (as in sniping).


At any rate, this is getting into serious issues with the homebrew classes.
I don't blame the TWF Rogue for going kamikaze. I'm more surprised that the other three TWF didn't. Sure, archery makes sense, but why are so many mounted characters two weapon fighters? Does no one make longspears in your world?

The bandits, you mean? It's because normally their raids are at night and aren't cavalry based. The reason they went for a daytime cavalry raid was because they were confident they had an advantage for two reasons:

a) The camp they're raiding usually only has half the defenses it has now, as most of the hunters are usually out doing their job. This was foiled by the whole chieftan assassination thing that called all the hunters back to camp.

b) This raiding group is twice the usual size because two raiding groups (normally consisting of 9 bandits plus a leader) decided to hook up since they were going in the same direction.


And the PCs are screwed. They already lost 1 PC and if I counted right, half the NPCs. The enemy has lost... 1/4 of his forces including one boss. My only suggestion is send a rider out at night to the nearest town to hire some ronin.

It's the middle of the day, and the fight has gone on for probably 30 seconds, total. They won't last to night.

Besides, the bandits will flee if their second boss or the rest of their cavalry is beaten.


And have you looked into the mass combat rules in Heroes of Battle? Or did I miss that you did?

I never use online material and finding 3.5 books in stores these days is like pulling teeth.


How did the bandits react when their "boss" got dropped so quickly?

Probably something to the effect of: "Serves him right for charing straight into cavalry. Ah well, more food for us."


Also, I'm guessing that your dead PC went kamikaze out of frustration rather than poor tactics. Are you sure all of your players are keen on a mass battle type campaign?

He basically said after the session that he just wanted to roll a new character and that this was the best opportunity to do so. He'll be rolling a Warrior next.

And a military campaign was their idea. Two of the PCs wrote as their primary adventuring goal "wants to conquer the country." (Two more are basically just along for the ride, one wants to learn magic and the last one is an ex-military sniper out for revenge for his burned-down hometown.)

[Cartigan]

The Warrior made his own decisions in regards to which of the combat styles he could have chosen. And as for why 2H weapons isn't on the Warrior combat style list... I couldn't think of any appropriate feats other than maybe Monkey Grip. And archery seemed more apropos for a Rogue (as in sniping).
What about the number of Power Attack related feats?
And it really isn't. Sniping is only useful for the Rogue inside 30 feet, and they are going to be better off with a crossbow than a bow due to probably not getting a benefit of strength. That doesn't excuse Warriors not getting it as there definitely are a number of Ranged feats.




b) This raiding group is twice the usual size because two raiding groups (normally consisting of 9 bandits plus a leader) decided to hook up since they were going in the same direction.
Wouldn't the group without a leader desert?



It's the middle of the day, and the fight has gone on for probably 30 seconds, total. They won't last to night.
They won't last another 30.

Perhaps you can all reflect on issues with both tactics and homebrew classes when everyone gets TPK'd.

[Drakevarg]

What about the number of Power Attack related feats?

Those are useful for everyone, not just 2H.


And it really isn't. Sniping is only useful for the Rogue inside 30 feet, and they are going to be better off with a crossbow than a bow due to probably not getting a benefit of strength. That doesn't excuse Warriors not getting it as there definitely are a number of Ranged feats.

Then I'll put archery back on the Warrior list (but leaving it on the Rogue list as well) if I ever get around to reworking those classes.


Wouldn't the group without a leader desert?

Not if they plan on eating this week.


They won't last another 30.

Perhaps you can all reflect on issues with both tactics and homebrew classes when everyone gets TPK'd.

They can definitely handle what's left of the cavalry, and when that happens the archers split. Not hard.

[Cartigan]

Those are useful for everyone, not just 2H.
They aren't particularly useful for TWFs. Or at all to archers. Two-handers most benefit from them.



Not if they plan on eating this week.
Then why have leaders? Why not just be a motley crew of cutthroats without leaders? Presumably the leader is the big powerful guy able to bully everyone into working together. If he went down, some portion of the group should scatter.

[Drakevarg]

They aren't particularly useful for TWFs. Or at all to archers. Two-handers most benefit from them.

I see melee classes take them more often than not. The combat style feats are specifically supposed to be ones you wouldn't take unless you intended to specialize in that particular combat style.


Then why have leaders? Why not just be a motley crew of cutthroats without leaders? Presumably the leader is the big powerful guy able to bully everyone into working together. If he went down, some portion of the group should scatter.

You presume incorrectly. The bandits work together out of:
a) Brotherhood. This is a tribe of people, and most of them are literally related.
b) Mutual survival. These aren't people bullied into service. Each one works with the group because they'd die in the desert otherwise.

The group "leader" is really just the veteran. He's older, more experienced, and has the respect of his fellow tribesmen. Hence, he's the one who calls the shots.

[Cartigan]

You presume incorrectly. The bandits work together out of:
a) Brotherhood. This is a tribe of people, and most of them are literally related.
b) Mutual survival. These aren't people bullied into service. Each one works with the group because they'd die in the desert otherwise.

The group "leader" is really just the veteran. He's older, more experienced, and has the respect of his fellow tribesmen. Hence, he's the one who calls the shots.

Then killing the other leader wouldn't end the fight either. They would have to kill at least 50-75% of the enemy troops without losing so many that even that leaves them outnumbered.

[Drakevarg]

Then killing the other leader wouldn't end the fight either. They would have to kill at least 50-75% of the enemy troops without losing so many that even that leaves them outnumbered.

There's a world of difference between losing one of your leaders and losing all of your leaders. Even if he's not subjugating them, he's the only one left in the group with any real military experience. The rest know only the barest basics of tactics. Loss of organization plus loss of morale ultimately adds up to "reward no longer worth the risk."

[mykelyk]

I've played recently same largish scale battle in dnd (from tens up to hundreds).

Here some point you could find interesting.

This is, as I understand, a military campaign where you usually fight small army against small army.
Because the army are loud and easy to spot you have time for (quick) fortification, so if you want them to survive they should be prepared at this kind of fight.

Two weapon fighting sacrifice damage, accuracy, defenses, mobility and money for more melee attack. There is no point at two weapon fighting if you don't have *big* static bonuses like many dice of sneak attack.
Two handed fighting sacrifice some mobility for control (reach weapon) and can choose to sacrifice accuracy for a *lot* of melee damage.
Archery sacrifice damage, accuracy, defenses and money for a guaranteed full attack every round.
Sword and board sacrifice everything for his own survival.
Mounted fighting sacrifice money for mobility.

When defending:
TWF is useless.
THF is good for stopping and killing the enemy when is getting near.
Archery is gold because guarantee a lot of damage from cover.
S&B is useless.
A horse doesn't give you anything at all.

When attacking:
TWF is worse than useless because the most important way to do damage (charging the enemy or moving and attacking) nerf the damage hugely.
THF is gold because of the good damage and the end of a charge, the extra attack of opportunity with reach and the ability to disarm archer (you have a +4 +good strength and they have a -4 with sucky strength, even without feat is hard to fail).
Archery is good because limit the mobility of the enemy (without cover=dead).
S&B is useless.
A horse could very well be the difference between living and dying both in attacking (less time under fire from archer) and escaping.

I think that in your campaign there is no reason ever to choose TWF or THF.
Money allowing every PC should have a horse, a composite bow and a tower shield.

This analysis is completely wrong when you put in magic and splatbook, but in your campaign should work.

At high level (10+) in your campaign this should happen:
TWF with rogues became one-shot anything under the right circumstance (flank+full attack).
THF remain relevant but became less able to one-shot the enemy and more and more reliant of full attack.
Archery became weaker because the damage doesn't scale well, but is still very often a necessity.
S&B get more and more useless.

The "best" team in your campaign seems to be:
Level 1-2: S&B(30%) + Archers(70%).
Level 3-5: THF(30%) + Archers(70%).
Level 6-10: THF(50%) + Archers(50%).
Level 10-15: THF(60%) + TWF(20%) + Archers(20%).
Level 16-20: THF(50%) + TWF(50%).
Level 20+: TWF(100%).

[Drakevarg]

-stuff-

These seems like the exact opposite of accurate in regards to every real life army ever.

Also you need to take into account that both Warriors and Rogues get Uncanny Dodge/Improved Uncanny Dodge in this campaign, meaning no flanking.

And, in large numbers, arrows involve Ref saves instead of AC. Also in large numbers, shield walls give soldiers +8 AC in the middle and +4 on the edges. I'd hardly call that useless. (Plus you can't flank a shield wall.)

[Cartigan]

These seems like the exact opposite of accurate in regards to every real life army ever.

Also you need to take into account that both Warriors and Rogues get Uncanny Dodge/Improved Uncanny Dodge in this campaign, meaning no flanking.

Then why does ANYONE get sneak attack? Or even bother with taking Rogue instead of Warrior?

[Drakevarg]

Then why does ANYONE get sneak attack? Or even bother with taking Rogue instead of Warrior?

Because you only become flank-proof at 8th level and the vast majority of characters in this world are 7th level or lower. Beyond that... yeah. Unless you plan on assassinating elephants you won't have much use for a Rogue. (In combat, that is. They're still skill-monkeys.)

[Cartigan]

Because you only become flank-proof at 8th level and the vast majority of characters in this world are 7th level or lower. Beyond that... yeah. Unless you plan on assassinating elephants you won't have much use for a Rogue. (In combat, that is. They're still skill-monkeys.)
Maybe some one should make an elephant hunter Rogue...

[Drakevarg]

Maybe some one should make an elephant hunter Rogue...

Considering the Empire of the campaign is a crude Persia-expy, I might throw in elephant cavalry at some point.

[mykelyk]

These seems like the exact opposite of accurate in regards to every real life army ever.

Also you need to take into account that both Warriors and Rogues get Uncanny Dodge/Improved Uncanny Dodge in this campaign, meaning no flanking.

And in large numbers arrows involve Ref saves instead of AC.

Actually in reality the best defensive army is long spears+arrows+cover and the best offensive is arrows+mounted chevaliers.
No one in his right mind ever used TWF in a battlefield.
So level 1-5 are pretty much reality.

But you are forgetting something important:
You are playing dnd, not reality.

A big example that show the difference:
In reality if you get hit by 1 (one) arrow you are out of the combat, because you cannot physically fight with an arrow in you arm/leg/chest.
So a good tactic in real life is to spread fire, because hitting the same person twice is wasting ammo.
Instead the average soldier in your setting can easily be hit by 6+ arrow and keep on fighting.
In dnd the fight is serial so the good tactic became to concentrate fire:
everybody attack enemy one until is dead than pass to enemy two...

I however think level 1-5 are a pretty good approximation of reality and the tactics I show you works pretty well.

About reality:
If you lose 10% of your soldier you are retreating or your soldier are rebelling.
If you lose 50% of your soldier you lost, even if you win.
Nine time out of ten people don't go for the kill if they can and if your player do they will be considered extremely cruels.

[nedz]

Do you let the players run the friendly NPCs?
I'm mainly thinking about in combat here.
That would give them more to do, and you less.
It also keeps people in the game if their character is down.

[Drakevarg]

Do you let the players run the friendly NPCs?
I'm mainly thinking about in combat here.
That would give them more to do, and you less.
It also keeps people in the game if their character is down.

No I don't. They're leaders, not masters of mind control. All they can do is give orders.

[mykelyk]

Because you only become flank-proof at 8th level and the vast majority of characters in this world are 7th level or lower. Beyond that... yeah. Unless you plan on assassinating elephants you won't have much use for a Rogue. (In combat, that is. They're still skill-monkeys.)

TWF get useful only when you have 4 attacks, meaning they are never useful (by then everybody is immune).
Being a skill-monkey is useful but extremely boring, so I don't see how playing a rogue would be fun, better have rogue hirelings for traps.
Because a rogue need dex, con, int I cannot see him with a big cha without being useless in a fight, so even as the party face he fail.

[Drakevarg]

TWF get useful only when you have 4 attacks, meaning they are never useful (by then everybody is immune).
Being a skill-monkey is useful but extremely boring, so I don't see how playing a rogue would be fun, better have rogue hirelings for traps.
Because a rogue need dex, con, int I cannot see him with a big cha without being useless in a fight, so even as the party face he fail.

Considering Bluff is the only social interaction-based skill I don't remove entirely, party face is more dependent on the player's RP skills.

And besides, there's more to DnD besides fighting. One of the best campaigns I was ever in (though admittedly also one of the shortest) had no fights besides one or two PvP bouts because I was playing a psychopath.

[BayardSPSR]

After unexpected resistance and the loss of a leader (if not all), it wouldn't be unrealistic for the bandits to pull back at least temporarily to take stock of the situation (command and control everywhere in the world was crap until the radio and worse without uniforms and signalling). This could buy your players time to regroup as well. Negotiation is not impossible.

[Earthwalker]

No I don't. They're leaders, not masters of mind control. All they can do is give orders.

While I see what you are trying to do, it might be worth your while splitting the NPc in the tribe to be under differnt players and allow them to roll the dice even if they don't get to choose exactly what the NPCs do, it will take some of the work load off you for this.

Player 1 this is your group of 5 archers you roll for them I will tell you what actions they take, player 2 gets these 5, player 3 gets the calvery and so on.

Or use a differnt system for large battles

Or just don't use a system and only run the PCs actions.

[Drakevarg]

While I see what you are trying to do, it might be worth your while splitting the NPc in the tribe to be under differnt players and allow them to roll the dice even if they don't get to choose exactly what the NPCs do, it will take some of the work load off you for this.

I'll keep it in mind for future battles. Darius will have default control (being tribe leader) but can give troops to the other PCs for particular tasks. (For example, letting someone lead a cavalry charge.)

[mykelyk]

Considering Bluff is the only social interaction-based skill I don't remove entirely, party face is more dependent on the player's RP skills.

What is the point of being a skill monkey then?


And besides, there's more to DnD besides fighting.

Roleplaying is not only about fighting, but the rule of dnd are (also because you also removed nearly all the rule that aren't about fighting).


One of the best campaigns I was ever in (though admittedly also one of the shortest) had no fights besides one or two PvP bouts because I was playing a psychopath.

I played a nearly crazy chaotic evil pyromaniac one. Lots of pvp, lots of fun, for me. Then I understood my fun was detrimental to the fun of the other people and I changed to a *smart* nearly crazy chaotic evil pyromaniac one. No pvp, lots of fun for everyone.
I'm not saying that this is your case, only that sound like one.

[Drakevarg]

What is the point of being a skill monkey then?

Roleplaying is not only about fighting, but the rule of dnd are (also because you also removed nearly all the rule that aren't about fighting).

I removed Intimidate, Diplomacy, Gather Information, etc. Those are nowhere NEAR "all the rules that aren't about fighting." You forgot the running, jumping, climbing, sneaking, disabling traps parts.


I played a nearly crazy chaotic evil pyromaniac one. Lots of pvp, lots of fun, for me. Then I understood my fun was detrimental to the fun of the other people and I changed to a *smart* nearly crazy chaotic evil pyromaniac one. No pvp, lots of fun for everyone.
I'm not saying that this is your case, only that sound like one.

My psycho was Lawful Evil, actually, and one of the PvP incidents was just a boredom-induced knife fight (we were taking a several day-long trip through the frozen mountains, which was incredibly dull in-character). The other two incidents involved idiots insulting the mentally unstable 7-foot tall wolf-man with biceps as thick as your head.

[mykelyk]

I removed Intimidate, Diplomacy, Gather Information, etc. Those are nowhere NEAR "all the rules that aren't about fighting." You forgot the running, jumping, climbing, sneaking, disabling traps parts.

Everyone can run, being a skill monkey doesn't help.
Jumping and climbing are so situational they are nearly useless.
Sneaking is only useful to bore everyone to death and then dying alone.
Disabling traps is boring, you are better off with an hireling.

I'm sorry I don't see what a rogue is supposed to do in your campaign.


My psycho was Lawful Evil, actually, and one of the PvP incidents was just a boredom-induced knife fight (we were taking a several day-long trip through the frozen mountains, which was incredibly dull in-character).

I don't think lawful evil randomly attack partner when they are bored.
If I where in your party I would have decided that you where too dangerous to bring along and devised a test to see if you are trustworthy.
Fail the test and you are out of the party, fell free to bring a new (better) PC.


The other two incidents involved idiots insulting the mentally unstable 7-foot tall wolf-man with biceps as thick as your head.

If you cannot sustain a small insult, the party should be better without you, why did they bring you with them?

[Drakevarg]

Everyone can run, being a skill monkey doesn't help.
Jumping and climbing are so situational they are nearly useless.
Sneaking is only useful to bore everyone to death and then dying alone.
Disabling traps is boring, you are better off with an hireling.

I'm sorry I don't see what a rogue is supposed to do in your campaign.

You're entitled to your wrong opinions.


I don't think lawful evil randomly attack partner when they are bored.

I didn't "randomly attack him." I pulled out a knife and asked in a conversational tone, "I'm bored. Wanna have a knife fight?" He agreed.


If you cannot sustain a small insult, the party should be better without you, why did they bring you with them?

We weren't formally affiliated. We just happened to be headed in the same direction and two of us were chasing the same bounty.

[mykelyk]

You're entitled to your wrong opinions.

I've justified my thought so they are not just opinion.
You instead didn't.

Because you seem to not be interested in listening to me I will stop arguing.



I didn't "randomly attack him." I pulled out a knife and asked in a conversational tone, "I'm bored. Wanna have a knife fight?" He agreed.

I've understood something different, no problem with that.


We weren't formally affiliated. We just happened to be headed in the same direction and two of us were chasing the same bounty.

Then why were you together? The most reasonable thing the others should have done is ignoring you.

I'm just saying that maybe there is a reason the campaign is short lived, while in my group the average length of a campaign is more than a year.
I've found that the trust between the players is the most important thing.

[Drakevarg]

I've justified my thought so they are not just opinion.
You instead didn't.

"It's boring" is never a justification. And terrain navigation skills are only situational to the point of uselessness if your DM is lazy and hands you nothing but perfectly flat terrains. The aforementioned campaign that had almost no combat consisted mostly of navigating mountains, which involved a LOT of skill checks. Very fun.


Then why were you together? The most reasonable thing the others should have done is ignoring you.

Because the only way to get where we were going was to follow the guide. Hence, we were all in a group by way of necessity and remaining completely silent for two weeks was just not going to happen.


I'm just saying that maybe there is a reason the campaign is short lived, while in my group the average length of a campaign is more than a year.
I've found that the trust between the players is the most important thing.

It was short lived because of RL issues, largely involving school and the fact that half the party never checked their damned emails. Most of the party later grouped up and began playing under my games.

[elpollo]

I've justified my thought so they are not just opinion.

Uh... technically you just offered your opinion on the skills. Depending on the game those skills aren't useless and don't necessarily lead down the paths you suggest, and they can certainly be fun when done correctly.

[mykelyk]

"It's boring" is never a justification. And terrain navigation skills are only situational to the point of uselessness if your DM is lazy and hands you nothing but perfectly flat terrains. The aforementioned campaign that had almost no combat consisted mostly of navigating mountains, which involved a LOT of skill checks. Very fun.

As a DM that threw at a party a fight against shadow shark and burrowing umber hulk in a vertical half-solid air-tunnel in the middle of a sea while being moved by a sack of air attacked to a spiral submarine roller coaster, I would say that I'm a sucker for non standard terrain.
My point that having skill point in climb is not enough to make up for the inability to be useful in a fight.
Skill check out of combat are nearly always, in my experience, I take 10/20 and move on.
Skill check during a fight can be a lot of fun (like traps).


Uh... technically you just offered your opinion on the skills. Depending on the game those skills aren't useless and don't necessarily lead down the paths you suggest, and they can certainly be fun when done correctly.

A human [Psycho] warrior with 10 of int can maximize 5 skills, from this list:
Climb (STR), Handle Animal (CHA), Heal (WIS), Jump (STR), Listen (WIS), Ride (DEX), Search (INT), Spot (WIS), Survival (WIS), Swim (STR).

I am saying that I don't understand the point of being a rogue when being a warrior is so much better.

[Drakevarg]

Skill check out of combat are nearly always, in my experience, I take 10/20 and move on.

You can only take 20 on a check that failing doesn't result in plummeting to your death. "Taking 20" implies that if you fail at first you just keep trying until it does work.

And if you're in the sort of terrain that lets you do that, then it's hardly interesting terrain.


A human [Psycho] warrior with 10 of int can maximize 5 skills, from this list:
Climb (STR), Handle Animal (CHA), Heal (WIS), Jump (STR), Listen (WIS), Ride (DEX), Search (INT), Spot (WIS), Survival (WIS), Swim (STR).

I am saying that I don't understand the point of being a rogue when being a warrior is so much better.

I take it you're not a fan of Splinter Cell.

[The Glyphstone]

Out of curiosity, how did you decide to handle healing, in the lack of magical healing?

[Drakevarg]

Out of curiosity, how did you decide to handle healing, in the lack of magical healing?

Just the RAW nonmagical healing, that is, 1 HP/level/day, or 2 HP/level/day when not doing anything that day but resting. It hasn't really come up much yet.

If it becomes a problem I might have it be CON bonus/level/day or 2x CON/level/day when you rest all day.

[The Glyphstone]

Well, your players have plenty of downtime to spend healing right now, so that makes sense. It'll become a problem if they survive past level 5-6 or so, though.

[Cartigan]

"It's boring" is never a justification. And terrain navigation skills are only situational to the point of uselessness if your DM is lazy and hands you nothing but perfectly flat terrains. The aforementioned campaign that had almost no combat consisted mostly of navigating mountains, which involved a LOT of skill checks. Very fun.

Your definition of fun and many other people's definition of fun are not even close together.

[Jornophelanthas]

Your definition of fun and many other people's definition of fun are not even close together.

Perhaps the players' definition of fun is the same as the DM's (and none of them are "many other people"). Perhaps it's even why the play together.

Remember that this is not the main issue of this thread. One player may have killed his character out of boredom, but what is really needed there is a good talk about game expectations between the DM and that player, not broad accusations about bad DM-ing or this DM's homebrew PC class rules.

After all, the OP has expressed a desire to improve his game, and has already taken many pointers to both involve the players into the action more, and to speed up NPC actions performed by the DM.

Aside from this, this discussion is mainly about suggestions for solving the battle situation without a TPK or breaking the suspension of disbelief. Or at least, that's how I read the first post.

[Cartigan]

Aside from this, this discussion is mainly about suggestions for solving the battle situation without a TPK or breaking the suspension of disbelief. Or at least, that's how I read the first post.
Both of those seem unlikely. The OP seems attached to his own ideas on how the bandits should behave in the given scenario against reasonable advice from posters. This will end in fiat or TPK.

[Jornophelanthas]

Both of those seem unlikely. The OP seems attached to his own ideas on how the bandits should behave in the given scenario against reasonable advice from posters. This will end in fiat or TPK.

That was just my subjective interpretation. I'm glad you appear to agree with the rest of my post.

[Sebastrd]

The OP seems attached to his own ideas on how the bandits should behave in the given scenario against reasonable advice from posters. This will end in fiat or TPK.

That was my conclusion as well.

[Friv]

I would definitely chime in with "the bandits offer to negotiate a surrender wherein the tribe doesn't lose everything, and the bandits get to take a decent amount of stuff".

It's a reasonable option at this point, and it keeps the PCs from feeling like their efforts were meaningless. If their actions mean that the tribe continues to live, and both sides walk away, you've also created a new long-term adversary for the players. What happens the next time they cross the path of these bandits?

[BayardSPSR]

I would definitely chime in with "the bandits offer to negotiate a surrender wherein the tribe doesn't lose everything, and the bandits get to take a decent amount of stuff".

It's a reasonable option at this point, and it keeps the PCs from feeling like their efforts were meaningless. If their actions mean that the tribe continues to live, and both sides walk away, you've also created a new long-term adversary for the players. What happens the next time they cross the path of these bandits?

Or the bandits could stop the fight and demand to take some limited loot in exchange for not attacking again, since they've taken pretty high casualties, realistically speaking.

[Cartigan]

Or the bandits could stop the fight and demand to take some limited loot in exchange for not attacking again, since they've taken pretty high casualties, realistically speaking.

Or the Bandits could sing and dance and not stop until they are payed...

[Sebastrd]

...or the bandits could force the PCs to hop up and down on one foot until they say uncle...

Too bad you aren't playing 4E. Then you could make a skill challenge out of it.

[McSmack]

Hmmm, yeah you may have overplayed it a bit. But I dont' think the situation is unwinnable. With good tactics the PC's could pull this one off.

The archers seem to be your biggest issue. You're PC's strengths are in melee. So forcing the enemy into a melee situation is best.

A set some huts on fire. The smoke will play hell with the enemy archers and probably force them to ride in to finish the deed. They'll need to be quick about it because if they let it burn they lose all the supplies they're fighting for. For the tribe it's a scorched earth policy, if the tribe is going to be slaughtered they're going to make damned sure they ruin the bandits' day.

Get some commoners and have them fashion some makeshift spears, have them stand around preparing for a charge, they could still do some impressive damage. Have them use some of the suppies to make some crude barricades, you'll be surprised how little it takes to stop a charge.

Commoner+makeshift weapon = flankin' buddy!

Focus fire the enemy down, wounded enemies can still fire. All else fails aim for their horses.

[BayardSPSR]

Too bad you aren't playing 4E. Then you could make a skill challenge out of it.

Fixed that for you (we had one in one of the two 3.5 games I have played in).

In all seriousness, though, the bandits aren't trying to destroy the village and kill everyone inside; that would put them out of a job. They're trying to loot some stuff and leave so they can come back later and do it again - think like Seven Samurai or Magnificent Seven. The enemy, in this case, has no incentive to massacre the defenders, and if there are easier pickings out there no reason to risk heavy casualties. Negotiation and retreat are both justified.

On the other hand, the defender would know this and feel similarly - but you could use that to have the NPCs pressure the PCs into negotiation if you wanted to. All sides but the PCs would have been expecting rather low-intensity combat here, not the massive casualties in a war (while PC attitudes towards warfare are similar to those of Cold War-era nuke-hawks - if there's one of them left, and two of us left, we win).

All the NPCs here, friend and foe, appear to be sane humans. That means that no one wants to be slaughtered, and even 30% casualties - realistically - is practically a slaughter.