War Ideas

[Zanthy1]

So sometimes I get in a DnD mood, and come up with all sorts of crazy ideas! where do i go when this happens? the playground!

lol anywho....

Was reading through the "Heroes of Battle" book and got to thinking that I really like this. I am currently running a campaign with some of my buddies in which they are part of a guild in this city-state, and they were gathering some items, then decided that the guild master who was asking them to get the items is up to something. Funny story, he is lol. Its basically a gather all these items, summon a demon, fight the demon and the guy yada yada save the day. After they beat the BBEG, they get to choose who will be the new King of the city, as the previous one was murdered.

What I want is to forward the time about 15 years after this campaign finishes. The city comes under attack by an evil foreign power. The specifics of the story are not super important yet, but I feel like red dragons will play a part in it.

Questions I have:
1. If the players choose to keep the same characters, providing they survive the final battle, how much would you expect them to level up in 15 years? they are currently level 11, will probably level up to 12 by the time this leg of the campaign is finished. I plan on letting them make new characters if they choose, but if they are attached to their current character, I would let them do it. In 15 years, how many levels would a level 12 character gain?

2. When it comes to dealing with actual battles, are there any suggestions for dealing with war? The book I have is great, but I want some playground input and maybe even some fresh ideas!


Ideally I have the basic idea of using victory points to determine outcomes of battles. If I divide each battle up into a series of Tiers, each tier having a couple different objective options, and each objective has a certain victory point value based on difficulty and importance. (the players will not know the value) and if they achieve a certain number of victory points, the battle is won! Thoughts on this?

Thanks!

[Machinekng]

So sometimes I get in a DnD mood, and come up with all sorts of crazy ideas! where do i go when this happens? the playground!

lol anywho....

Was reading through the "Heroes of Battle" book and got to thinking that I really like this. I am currently running a campaign with some of my buddies in which they are part of a guild in this city-state, and they were gathering some items, then decided that the guild master who was asking them to get the items is up to something. Funny story, he is lol. Its basically a gather all these items, summon a demon, fight the demon and the guy yada yada save the day. After they beat the BBEG, they get to choose who will be the new King of the city, as the previous one was murdered.

What I want is to forward the time about 15 years after this campaign finishes. The city comes under attack by an evil foreign power. The specifics of the story are not super important yet, but I feel like red dragons will play a part in it.

Questions I have:
1. If the players choose to keep the same characters, providing they survive the final battle, how much would you expect them to level up in 15 years? they are currently level 11, will probably level up to 12 by the time this leg of the campaign is finished. I plan on letting them make new characters if they choose, but if they are attached to their current character, I would let them do it. In 15 years, how many levels would a level 12 character gain?

2. When it comes to dealing with actual battles, are there any suggestions for dealing with war? The book I have is great, but I want some playground input and maybe even some fresh ideas!


Ideally I have the basic idea of using victory points to determine outcomes of battles. If I divide each battle up into a series of Tiers, each tier having a couple different objective options, and each objective has a certain victory point value based on difficulty and importance. (the players will not know the value) and if they achieve a certain number of victory points, the battle is won! Thoughts on this?

Thanks!

1.) Depends. The characters return to relatively normal lives? Maybe 1 or 2 levels at most. The characters still lead active "adventuring" lives, which could also include difficult and risky professions, such as politics, diplomacy, high-stakes smuggling, military, etc...? Maybe up to 5 levels. It really depends on what level you want to run the campaign.

2.) That seems like a good baseline. Will the players be in positions of command? If so, you may need a system for adjucating how those under their command fare, although a smiliar point system would probably work. Each mission has a point value equal to its difficulty. One character makes an uplifting speech, and you gain a point. Another deciphers vital intelligence, and gains another.

If creatures such as Red Dragons are involved, how are you going to handle combined aerial/ground mass combat?

Another interesting idea to consider would be siege warfare. In addition to leading missions, the players have to defend the city itself, probably splitting up to face multiple incursions.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Question 1 is essentially unanswerable. If they continue adventuring at a good clip, they could be at 20 or even epic after 15 years. If they settle down into government positions they might not level at all in 15 years. Start the campaign at the level you want.

Question two is best ansered thusly, IMO; Don't involve the PC's directly in a rank-and-file battle. If you absolutely must, draw up a couple mobs (DMG2) of warriors of the appropriate race and just have them take swarm damage if they're foolish enough to get in the melee. These mobs would be composed of troops from both sides of the conflict and are intended more as a mobile hazard than as something they're actually supposed to attack. Seriously though, keep the PC's on special assingment missions; take the artillery enplacement, ferret out the enemy command post, cut the supply lines, etc. Rank-and-file soldiers get slaughtered like so many bugs in a clash between armies, and you don't want your PC's to have any part of that if you don't want to have a significant risk of them becoming one more war statistic.

Edit: drop the Reds. Dragons don't participate in humanoid wars unless they stand to gain something, personally, or are compelled by powerful magicks. If one side has dragons and the other side doesn't, the side with the dragons wins; end of story.

[Zanthy1]

1.) Depends. The characters return to relatively normal lives? Maybe 1 or 2 levels at most. The characters still lead active "adventuring" lives, which could also include difficult and risky professions, such as politics, diplomacy, high-stakes smuggling, military, etc...? Maybe up to 5 levels. It really depends on what level you want to run the campaign.

2.) That seems like a good baseline. Will the players be in positions of command? If so, you may need a system for adjucating how those under their command fare, although a smiliar point system would probably work. Each mission has a point value equal to its difficulty. One character makes an uplifting speech, and you gain a point. Another deciphers vital intelligence, and gains another.

If creatures such as Red Dragons are involved, how are you going to handle combined aerial/ground mass combat?

Another interesting idea to consider would be siege warfare. In addition to leading missions, the players have to defend the city itself, probably splitting up to face multiple incursions.

I definitely can work wit those ideas, I will probably say they lead political lives, as they are now working directly with the monarchy. So maybe level them up 1-2 times. that point system idea for underlings is going to be the most difficult I predict, but I like your ideas. Red dragon would probably be the symbol of the attacking army, if an actual red dragon were to appear (it totally would) I would probably not have it be during a large ground battle, and focus it more like a traditional encounter with a dragon. Or maybe make it a special mission? that idea is still in the works.

Siege warfare is absolutely a must! I think that there will be various battles that involve taking a fort or something similar, as well as defending. If they get beaten really badly all up and down the battlefields, then a siege battle in their own city is definitely happening. Worst case scenario: they lose the war. Then is turns into a political refugee campaign where they just are on the run and trying to escape the country, maybe to a friendly neighbor, raise an army and try to take it back? Who knows what they'll do!

Thank you for you input!

[Zahhak]

For dealing with battles, you need to first answer a few questions:

1. Do you want the PCs actively in the battle?
The answer is no. I don't care what the rules say is epic level, the odds of an adventurer making it to level 11 is so slim they are in a position to set themselves up as God-Kings. God-Kings do not actively engage in battle.
2. Do you want the PCs to act as a special forces unit?
This is talked about in Heroes of Battle, and if this is where you want to go, I say stick with those rules as this is the kind of situation they are meant for. Essentially, have a "Choice Tree" based on the missions the PCs take and the outcomes.
3. Do you want the PCs to command the battle?
At this, you basically need to scrap DnD altogether, because no part of the DnD rules really covers this. I'd say your best bet is to port the rules from Warhammer.

As for level advancement, I'd say that if isn't role played, they gained 1 level max. And even then, that level is under the assumption that they spent the 5 years in between teaching lower levels. Otherwise, I'd say they should almost lose a level (what an unpopular notion!) from the skills getting rusty or simply forgotten.

[Flickerdart]

As for level advancement, I'd say that if isn't role played, they gained 1 level max. And even then, that level is under the assumption that they spent the 5 years in between teaching lower levels. Otherwise, I'd say they should almost lose a level (what an unpopular notion!) from the skills getting rusty or simply forgotten.
Levels aren't just skills. They represent growing as a person. Just like learning how to ride a bicycle, the lessons learned from adventuring stick with you. Frankly, given how traumatic adventuring is, I'd be surprised if they could forget even if they wanted to.

[Zahhak]

Train for and run a marathon. Then, go months without training. The experience is still there, but you have none of the ability to run a marathon. You can say it's about growing as a person, but the part that matters from adventuring can be lost very easily.

[Rejakor]

I need to make a War Compendium because I see these war questions a lot.

Typically war in DnD is about whose side has bigger wizards or bigger monsters. Think if it like WWII trench warfare. Wizards are the artillery, and with birds, the air support. Other casters can fill those roles too. High level fighters and summoned monsters are the tanks, especially with buffs. They can Great cleave aside walls of guys, and smash apart trenchworks with their bare hands.

Basic infantry with crossbows are the order of the day, maybe special forces (lvl 3-6) with gas masks and grenades and actually good crossbows, and basic infantry use nets and crossbows to hold the line while digging out siegeworks for cover against fireballs and cloudkills (GAS GAS GAS GAS!).

In fact, if you've read any Dan Abnett Gaunt's Ghosts, that's another good setting to draw inspiration from. Most of the time, you're fighting against other humans or whatever, but occasionally a high level wizard will spare a Planar Binding to send a ****ing VROCK on your ass and then **** goes south until your hero characters can deal with it.


And a good way to think of adventuring levels is that some people can shape up for a marathon in like a week. Those people are adventurers.

[Zanthy1]

Those are all very good ideas/examples. However, "trench warfare" as you mention it was not WWII, but WWI. WWII was more famous for the German/Nazi Blitzkrieg, or "lightening" strike, in which the air force bombards the enemy into dust, then the panzers and tigers would rush in and mow down the survivors, followed lastly by the infantry who would secure the area. The French built their Maginot Line on the border between them and Germany, thinking that the next war would be fought just the sam as WWI, however, just like they did in WWI, the Germans came through Belgium and made their blitz towards Paris, which they took in a matter of weeks. In fact, it is because of this Blitzkrieg tactic that in football there is a play called a "blitz."

Sorry, I have a great interest in history :P

[Flickerdart]

Train for and run a marathon. Then, go months without training. The experience is still there, but you have none of the ability to run a marathon. You can say it's about growing as a person, but the part that matters from adventuring can be lost very easily.
Training to run a marathon and gaining adventuring levels have nothing to do with one another. Right after you train for that marathon, you're not any better at, say, knitting, or taking an axe to the chest, or swinging a sword.

[Sugashane]

What I have done (and been in as a PC) is allow the players to be the elite strike team. This can be used for several mission, such as stealth and sneaking in to kill enemies as they sleep, or forging the way for an elite hero to face against the final boss.

I put 10 sections for each side, all in a line and facing each other. To simplify things for myself, I would just roll a d6 for each, whichever won the roll advanced 5 ft per point they won. So if allies "A" beat enemy "A" by 4, then they advanced 20 feet in that minute.

If you want to make it a little more in depth, then add bonuses, such as adding 3 to the enemies roll if their CR averages out to 3 more than the allies. After a section advances 20 feet, they could give their neighbor side a plus 2 to their roll, as now one section is semi-flanked.

Adding archers to shooting at a section could give their allies a +2 bonus.

There are near infinite ways to add or detract from the depth of the war, but the biggest thing is to make the main focus on the players. It sucks when a DM gets more into RP'ing the rest of the war and the players just sit and wait, especially when the war may or may not have a direct impact on the PCs actions. Make them important to the battle and it should be a memorable adventure. :)

[Rejakor]

There was actually a lot of trench warfare in WWII. Most of it was the 'two armies meet, neither side can really get an advantage, field fortifications are dug' variety. Which is the kind you'd get in DnD, because if you build a big wall or something, the enemy is just going to teleport over it, or use earth elementals to destabilize it or whatever. In the end you're expending more magic defending the wall than they're spending to attack it, so there's no point in it at all (unless your wall is made of magic, see; Epic Spells, Stupid Faerun Bull****, and Other Phlebotinum) much like the Maginot Line in the initial invasion of france.

WWII is actually the perfect example because it was the testing and proving ground for mobile armoured warfare that relied on communications, fast travel, and units like tanks that combined heavy firepower with speed, yet at the same time the majority of forces (artillery, infantry) were slower than that, so it was a combination of fast raids and slow grinding siege work, which is the natural evolution of the mages-monsters-fighters-commonerswithbows trope that DnD has going.

[Zahhak]

Training to run a marathon and gaining adventuring levels have nothing to do with one another. Right after you train for that marathon, you're not any better at, say, knitting, or taking an axe to the chest, or swinging a sword.

And gutting trolls doesn't make you any better at bowmaking or improve your knowledge of geography. Somehow though, when you level up for gutting trolls you get better are bowmaking and know more geography. And somehow, spending months making composite +1 longbows does not make you better at gutting trolls.

My point is, you spend a lot of time developing a set of physical attributes, skills, feats, and maneuvers, and if you don't use them, you lose them. And that's the same for anything, be it running a marathon, or gutting trolls.

[Rejakor]

No. You are wrong. A Navy Seal is going to be better at killing people than you are even if he hasn't trained in years and you've been doing it in your backyard for the last six months.

Learned skills are not physical.

They can get rusty but they never go away.

It's like riding a bicycle - you never forget it.

[Zahhak]

I think we're comparing apples to potatoes here. Let me try it this way:

Will you agree that going a year without training will reduce the physical abilities of the SEAL? IE, his ability to perform on a physical fitness test?
Will you agree that going a year without practice will reduce the marksmanship abilities of the SEAL?
Will you agree that going a year without training will reduce the hand to hand combat abilities of the SEAL?
Will you agree that going a year without practice will reduce the ability of the SEAL to engage in hostage rescue?
Will you agree that going a year without practice will reduce the ability of the SEAL to engage in direct action?
Will you agree that going a year without practice will reduce the ability of the SEAL to engage in counter terrorism?
Will you agree that going a year without practice will reduce the ability of the SEAL to engage in unconventional warfare?
Will you agree that going a year without practice will reduce the ability of the SEAL to engage in recon?
Will you agree that going a year without practice will reduce the ability of the SEAL to engage in military manhunts?

Edit: Note, I am not referring to the abilities of the SEAL relative to anyone other then himself, nor to his ability to pick up those abilities afterward, but simply whether or not prolonged lack of use of skills will cause them to degrade over time.

[Flickerdart]

And gutting trolls doesn't make you any better at bowmaking or improve your knowledge of geography
Except in 3.5, it does.

[Zanthy1]

Well I have decided on a few things. The characters will either level up twice, making them essentially around level 14, OR I'll just have them make new dudes at a lower level. I have taken various ideas from this which I plan to use.

The players will mostly be special forces type, doing small various missions. Their army is supposed to be the underdog, their city's history consists of largely isolationist, with small contact to other city states, and only for trade purposes. Their army is not bad, but it does not have a lot of monsters or anything. I want my players to actually crap themselves when they realize how out numbered and out -gunned they are. (figuratively speaking, there are no guns in this campaign).

Basically, as a special forces team they will earn "victory points" based on the difficulty on tasks they take and how well they perform them. If they get the maximum points on each tier of a task, then their side seems to win, if they are 100% successful, then their side will also be victorious. However, if they achieve their missions, but the missions were not valued at high enough levels, then they could still lose. For example, if they stay and guard the medical tents the entire battle, they will probably lose, depending on the different sizes of each army and such. However, if they assassinate a couple enemy generals, cut off enemy supply lines, and lead the vanguard in a charge, then they will probably win the battle.

[Zahhak]

Flickerdart, I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse, or if you just have no idea what I'm saying.

[RaggedAngel]

Flickerdart, I don't know if you're intentionally being obtuse, or if you just have no idea what I'm saying.

He isn't being obtuse. He's explaining that while you are correct if we're talking about the real world, we aren't. We're talking about a world that runs on the rules of 3.5.

[Firechanter]

*scribbles notes*

I'm also about to run a War campaign, however there the PCs will start at level 3, then there'll be a short line of events leading up to it, and I expect to have **** hitting the fan around level 5-6.
In the first half of the campaign, the PCs are going to be kind of a Special Forces squad. They may get involved in a few field battles but not as rank-and-file infantry.
Later on, after let's say level 11 or so, I think I'm going to make them leaders for a change of pace. Maybe they get a stronghold at the front line, depending how the war effort goes.

Speaking of the war effort, that's basically the key question: what kind of influence do the PCs have? Victory points are a good idea there. As well as specific special missions: did the PCs succeed in organizing a batch of adamantine? Then the attacking Iron Golems are quickly dispatched by the anti-tank squad. If not, there'll be heavy losses.

Did you ever play Neverwinter Nights 2? There in the basic campaign, you assume command over a keep. You have to make several decisions, like what parts of the keep should be renovated, how picky the recruiters should be, how well equipped the troops should be, which of your sergeants is supposed to train them, and on the other hand how to generate income - do you tax the peasants and merchants, or are you paying it out of your own pocket, or do you try to make the keep pay for itself? Stuff like that.

[hoverfrog]

1. If the players choose to keep the same characters, providing they survive the final battle, how much would you expect them to level up in 15 years? they are currently level 11, will probably level up to 12 by the time this leg of the campaign is finished. I plan on letting them make new characters if they choose, but if they are attached to their current character, I would let them do it. In 15 years, how many levels would a level 12 character gain? My advice would be to NPC their previous characters and have them operate in the background. The priest is now Cardinal or Archbishop of the city, the warrior is a lord, the bard is a high ranking member of the king's court, the rogue is master of the thieves guild and the mage is the king's grand vizier. Have them pop up to give advice or to provide missions for the new party.

You can even have the old characters in play by using flashbacks. Say the vizier wants to impart a particular piece of information about a sealed dungeon on the party. Having him cast a spell or activate a powerful item that allows the new PCs to witness the events that the old PCs carried out in their adventuring career by having them play the events out. Then have the new PCs explore the same sealed dungeon and see the smashed golems, scorched walls, etc and face the undead remnants or new constructs that populate the place.


2. When it comes to dealing with actual battles, are there any suggestions for dealing with war? The book I have is great, but I want some playground input and maybe even some fresh ideas! Yeah, don't run the whole battle. Run the bit that the party is aware of and keep an idea of what their actions could do to change the outcome. If the party attack a hill and wipe out the troll halberdiers defending it then this hill can't be used to launch by troll hurling trebuchets on an assault on the walls later. If the wizard goes into battle hurling fireballs at packed ranks of enemy goblins then archers are going to be brought up to pincushion him.


Ideally I have the basic idea of using victory points to determine outcomes of battles. If I divide each battle up into a series of Tiers, each tier having a couple different objective options, and each objective has a certain victory point value based on difficulty and importance. (the players will not know the value) and if they achieve a certain number of victory points, the battle is won! Thoughts on this?Sounds about right to me.

[Rejakor]

I'd organize the battles into 'stages' - so have approximate times for each stage, and turn it into a decision tree thing - Stage 2: If the PCs take the hill and the elves start raining arrows down on the dwarves, the dwarven commander pulls back from this sector but starts a flank attack on both the watch towers - If the PCs defeat the Miner Dwarves attacking the towers from below and use the catapults, the dwarven commander uses the artillery hidden in the woods to demolish both towers, giving up his plan to turn the towers on the elves - if the PCs do both etc etc.

That way the battle can evolve 'naturally' as time goes on, with you knowing what would happen if the PCs do nothing, and you knowing what would happen if the PCs do things you've thought of them doing - it makes it much easier to ad-lib if the PCs do something you don't expect, and it gives them a sense that the enemy commander has plans and resources you've already set up and that they're actually facing a foe across the battlefield who is doing his own things to assure victory.

[Slipperychicken]

Frankly, given how traumatic adventuring is really ought to be, I'd be surprised if they could forget even if they wanted to.

You're talking about the guys who make penis-jokes every time they impale someone, don't know the name of the country they grew up in, and would savagely bludgeon children at the drop of a hat if they got gold or xp for it.


They'd forget their own names if it wasn't written at the top of the character sheet...