PDA

View Full Version : Large Scale Battles



TempestLOB
2013-02-26, 12:20 AM
I have come to a point in my 3.5e campaign where the characters are preparing (as part of a small company of knights and foot soldiers) to defend the realm against a barbarian horde. Against insurmountable odds, of course.

I'm trying to figure out the best way to run a large scale battle without actually having hundreds of enemies in the encounter at once. I'm going to need to break it up into manageable pieces but I don't want to lose the scale of it.

Has anyone done this recently? How did you handle it?

Shator
2013-02-26, 12:23 AM
Good question. The last DM that I saw do any sort of large scale battle just rolled D20's for each side to see who came out on top, but that's a real simplified version. If someone has a real solid approach to dealing with large scale battle, that involves some tactics I'd certainly like to know.

Some systems I'm sure are much better than 3.5 at this sort of thing, but seems like there's got to be a way to do it in an at least decently interesting and not too cumbersome a way with 3.5.

NecroRebel
2013-02-26, 12:31 AM
Create custom creatures that represent a whole formation, then make the army out of them. A colossal creature might represent over a hundred soldiers if they're in a tightly-packed formation, for instance.

The trouble is that your PCs are going up against barbarian hordes, a type of force that isn't known for its disciplined formation fighting. You can still use the same sort of approach, though; just make the mass-creatures weaker and call them rabble, and mix in single more powerful warriors to represent barbarian champions.

Dungeons and Dragons hasn't really been a very suitable system for this sort of thing since OD&D spun off from Chainmail, though... You can do it, it just won't work very well.

TempestLOB
2013-02-26, 12:41 AM
Few more pieces of information that might be needed. It's a low-magic e6 campaign. They are level 4, mainly fighters and holy roller types. I want the players to play their characters in the battle, not do some abstract battlefield commander mini-game.

May as well share the campaign blog:

http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/trials-of-the-vale

Surfnerd
2013-02-26, 12:47 AM
You could have certain actions the players could perform to effect the outcome as the battle progressed. Increasing the likelihood of winning. Allow them to devise plans and allow them to attempt to execute those plans. I think most importantly players need to feel heroic inspite of the magnitude of a mass battle.

You could have every plan or action led by the pcs that is successful count toward a victory count. Allow the enemy to also rack up victory points, perhaps when the difference in victory points reach a certain margin you could have morale rolls for routing units. This keeps the dice rolling of the combat to a minimum and you can focus on the PC actions. The victory points can be associated with fluff so you could add dialog to the encounter at certain points such as that action caused the left flank to crumble or they seem to be overwhelming your forces. It also allows players to attempt to respond to the battle.

I'd focus on the players immediate surroundings and let the massive combat sir in the background and work absractlty

W3bDragon
2013-02-26, 03:41 AM
I can't really comment on help with large scale battle systems. I know there are some many out there that could help with that.

However, having taken a quick look at your adventure blog, the way I would run it is to pick one important objective and two or three mini objectives, and make those the goal of the PCs.

For example, since you mentioned something about the barbarian horde breaking down the outer wall, I would make the major task of the PCs fixing that problem. Then you can throw in a couple of other issues that they can address.

Sample task list for PCs:

* Use the distraction of the battle to get past the horde and enter the fortress.
* Find the chief wizard of the fortress or one of his subordinates.
* Deliver these 3 scrolls of Wall of Stone to said wizard.
* Clear and secure the area around the broken wall so the wizard can use the spells to plug the gap.
* Our units will engage the horde recklessly to keep them busy for X amount of time, after which they'll have to regroup, you have that long to complete your objectives.

Then you can throw in some optional objectives as well:

* In the opening moments of the battle, before you enter the fortress, you spot a group of shamans starting to cast a group spell. The sky gets cloudier and lightning starts shooting down and hitting your men. A quick hit and run on the shamans now will save the lives of many of your men and buy you more time for your objectives.

* A large hideous looking beast that is trying futilely to bite the barbarians around it is chained and being dragged along with the horde. They will no doubt loose it on your men. If you find a way to break it from its bonds before it reaches your men, it will definitely cause serious damage to the horde, buying you even more time.

* The chief of the fortress seems to be pinned down with a few of his men in a tough spot just outside the fortress. They are managing to survive because only a handful of barbarians have spotted them so far. Once the rest of the horde spots them, they're definitely going to be in trouble. The loss of the chief so early in the battle will be hard on morale and will probably cost you time.

Decide how long they have to achieve these objectives and how many of these need to be completed to win the battle. Then run it accordingly.

Rhynn
2013-02-26, 03:42 AM
Mongoose put out a d20 mass combat system: PDF download link (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CFYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mongoosepublishing.com%2Fpdf% 2Fconanmasscombat.pdf&ei=33QsUcXDKuKu4ATy14G4Dw&usg=AFQjCNGbdkUrg3zg3BQwJQI_S7G7MTc8yw&sig2=W23H260qqtGT9QGdS_ihjg&bvm=bv.42965579,d.bGE). There may be tiny differences you'll need to adjust for, since this is for Conan d20.

This OGL version (http://www.scribd.com/doc/7851118/d20-Open-Mass-Combat-System-) (scrib.com link to the document), based on the above, looks to be very similar but for 3E (or 3.5, not much difference).

Each unit is potentially hundreds of combatants.

That's some good, simple rules for actually playing out combat between units. I really recommend looking into it.

Ashtagon
2013-02-26, 03:47 AM
Green Ronin's Mythic Vistas Testament (and Troy) had useable mass combat rules.

Dark Dungeons has converted the BECMI war machine mass combat system. This is good if you want to deal with the army fight as a few quick die rolls, and then deal with the PCs' personal fights separately.

ArcturusV
2013-02-26, 04:20 AM
I remember the 2nd Edition "Combat and Tactics" book had some loose and fast rules for running large scale encounters that more or less boiled down to NecroRebel's suggestion about just using "unit" creatures. I seem to recall it worked well enough.

But the way I normally try to run such scenarios is to give a momentum/morale thing going to decide a battle.

So I'd have a scale like this for example:

+5 Outstanding Victory, no serious losses, completely routed the enemy and inflicted grievous damage upon them.
+4 Devastating Victory, you incurred less than expected loses, completely routed the enemy, inflicted grievous damage upon them.
+3 Decisive Victory, you incurred more or less "Acceptable Losses", you drove the enemy from the field and impacted their ability to launch a successful counterattack anytime soon.
+2 Clear Victory, you incurred expected losses, and have been hampered from carrying out your own attacks for a short time until you recover. You held the battlefield at the end of the day however.
+1 Pyrrhic Victory, you won... but at great cost. You suffered greater losses than you ever wanted in pursuit of your victory, destroyed your own army/holdings, and despite your win are actually on the verge of being routed.
0 Draw, the battle was inconclusive, both sides suffered casualties, and were unable to gain ground or decisive advantage. Eventually you went back to your camps, bloodied, sore, tired, and not having accomplished all that much.
-1 Withdrawal, you lost, but barely. You managed to severely damage the enemy forces in such a way that they cannot truly claim victory against you, but you are still forced to retreat and regroup, giving ground up to the enemy.
-2 Clear Defeat, Your army was routed in the field, while it wasn't destroyed as a fighting force, there is no way to question if it was a defeat or not. The enemy is not so decisive in victory that they can instantly crush your weakened, demoralized force now.
-3 Decisive Defeat, your army was sundered, and you are no longer an effective fighting force. Key personnel may have deserted, troops surrendered, or killed. You are not an effective army at the moment and survival of what you have left is in doubt. It's not so bad you can't recover, but you won't be engaging the enemy effectively for a long time unless someone pops off a miracle.
-5 Complete Defeat, your army was slaughtered. There is no army to speak of. There might be survivors, but these are deserters who fled the battle, or prisoners of war, not a disciplined fighting force. As it stands you have no method of resisting the enemy in even a minor way, and will effectively have to rebuild your army from scratch.

So I have a scale like that, which tells me what happened in the battle. Then instead of worrying about "Running" the battle... I focus on the heroes. I give them modifiers to the scale based on what is going on.

So your example, normally the battle would start at -1, Withdrawal. The enemy outnumbers you, and without any clear advantage you're not going to win. Say the players plan out some layered defense and choose to fight on highly favorable terrain. That might bump it up to 0, or a +2 depending on how severe the advantage is.

Then have "In battle" modifiers that give the players something to do. Like... there's an Elite Unit which is going to be able to inspire and lead the barbarian horde to greater victories than normal. If this unit is allowed to run the battlefield as they see fit it's a -2 to the Player's outcome. So the players have a clear, small scale role they can play. Destroy the Elite Unit, which has a concrete effect on how the battle is going to run. Little things like that where you keep the focus on the players, and the players know vaguely "If we do well, we tip the odds in favor of our side" in a fluid way rather than relying on dicerolls on a squad of pikers against Dinosaur Cavalry or the like.

TheOOB
2013-02-26, 04:22 AM
Pick up the Tome of Battle for D&D 3.5 if you can. It covers this nicely.

Basically, there are three things you need to know about mass battles when it comes to D&D.

A) Handling the actually mass combat is way beyond the scope of the game and should be avoided.
B) If your side has the PC's the other side likely has other powerful forces to match.
C) Any army has far better things for a party of adventurers to do than fight on the front line.

Give the PC's a number of tasks to acomplish, cutting supply lines, taking out officers, fighting those ogres that are crushing the troops, capture that defense tower, disrupting those spellcasters. That way they can have an impact on the larger battle without having to make new cumbersome rules. ToB suggests using a VP(Victory Point) system. Give the players VP every time they complete an objective, and make a small table. At 0 VP you have the outcome of the battle if the PC's where not there at all. Then at two or three points determine what will happen if the PCs get X Y or Z amount of VP. That way you can measure the players impact without playing out the entire battle.

Also remember that the PCs don't have to be(and shouldn't) be the lynch pin in every battle. A battle agienst terrible odds may not be winnable, even with the PC's, but they could turn a crushing defeat into a relatively safe retreat.

ArcturusV
2013-02-26, 04:33 AM
So seems I kitbashed/reinvented what Tome of Battle already did. I should probably find that book sometime when I have extra money. :smallbiggrin: Oh well... moderately okay minds think alike?

Ashtagon
2013-02-26, 04:59 AM
Personally I hate the Heroes of Battle approach. It makes the entire battle hinge of the actions of the PCs as front-line rank and file soldiers. This makes sense when the PCs are generals, or commandoes performing special missions outside the main battle, but as ordinary rank & file soldiers, their actions will not make a mingful differnece when contrasted against the actions of hundreds of other rank & file soldiers. Their actions will determine personal survival and potential for receiving medlas and recignition of bravery (and hence promotions), but it won't swing the tide of that battle.

A bad battle but a good fight could lead to the PCs leading a wing of the army in the nbext battle, where they will have an influential effect. But note that its their charisma and leadership that'll swing things there, not so much personal valour (unless they decide to one on one the enemy general or similar heroics of course).

Conversely, a good battle but a bad fight could lead to the PCs being left behind among the "dead" when the army marches on. It may lead to a demotion if really bad; certainly others would get promoted ahead of them.

Rhynn
2013-02-26, 09:05 AM
I remember the 2nd Edition "Combat and Tactics" book had some loose and fast rules for running large scale encounters that more or less boiled down to NecroRebel's suggestion about just using "unit" creatures. I seem to recall it worked well enough.

Well, if you want to talk 2E, there's Warmachine (and the IMO better if poorly presented 1E Warmachine). I think the Dragonlance module series even had you play out all those big battles of the war (at the High Clerist Tower, etc.) out with Warmachine (1E, since DL was 1E AD&D).

I think using the Mongoose system is much easier than refitting Warmachine, though.


Basically, there are three things you need to know about mass battles when it comes to D&D.

A) Handling the actually mass combat is way beyond the scope of the game and should be avoided.
B) If your side has the PC's the other side likely has other powerful forces to match.
C) Any army has far better things for a party of adventurers to do than fight on the front line.

A is obviously wrong, since AD&D 1E, 2E, BECMI, and Mongoose's d20 Conan all do it just fine. It's just a matter of scaling. Most battles won't even have to involve more combatants (units) than a smallish regular D&D combat.

B and C are completely dependent on PC level, and somewhat on setting. There's no reason 1st-level PCs couldn't be involved in a battle, for instance, and if you're fighting an enemy with, say, ogres in their forces (like Dragonlance Dragonarmies), your side is going to need 3rd-5th level PCs in its front lines, etc.

NichG
2013-02-26, 09:21 AM
To elaborate on the victory point thing, for a large scale battle to really be interesting it has to be diverse. Don't think of it like ten thousand units all on an infinite grassy plain. Think of the various 'parts' of the large scale battle as rooms in a dungeon, except in this case they all relate to eachother somehow.

For example, in a siege situation with PCs as defenders I might have the following 'significant locations':

- Enemy encampment: Center of the enemy forces. The main point of interest here for the PCs is supplies. The supplies as they stand mean that victory for the defenders would take either defeating 50% of the enemy forces, or surviving 1 week under siege. If the supplies are destroyed then the fort only has to hold out for 48 hours.

- Immediately outside the walls: This is the sieging forces of the enemy, but the relevant elements of this for the PCs are the siege engines, which will breach the walls in the next 30 minutes unless all of them are destroyed. If the siege engines are destroyed then a breach will take significantly longer (but will still happen eventually, perhaps in 3 days time or so).

- The fort's waterways: A necessary vulnerability for the fort. Enemy sappers are attempting to breach the waterways. If the waterways are breached, then battle advances to the fort interior. If the waterways are sealed, the fort only has water for the next two days. If the waterways are accessed by enemy poisoners, the fort will begin to take losses and will also have limited water supplies.

- The gatehouse: An enemy wizard is attempting to teleport into the gatehouse and simply open the fort's gate. The PCs can attempt to stop this here.

- The courtyard: Battle advances here if the fort's walls or gatehouse are breached. Battle here is likely to be a delaying action and may not be appropriate for the PCs. However, before a breach the PCs can attempt to raise morale by spending time in the fight giving speeches in the courtyard.

- The fort's armory: In the case of a wall breach, control of this area may determine how effective the troops are since it contains various supplies, ammo, etc.

- The keep: An inner fortification with its own set of gates and defenses. However, the keep has a floor plan which might include hiding spots and escape routes. If the PCs want to save the lord of the keep if the battle goes poorly, this is where the PCs will have to fight.

The battle might proceed in 'quarters' - that is, quarter-day-long segments. Each PC can only operate in one area in each quarter (since each area comes under threat for the entire duration of a quarter) though much of this will collapse to individual skirmishes, etc.

The battle also has distinct time stages. Night will be different than day, and furthermore depending on which quarters are won or lost then the specific approach to attacking different areas of the battlefield will be different.

This could be combined with the victory point model, etc.

FatR
2013-02-26, 11:09 AM
Has anyone done this recently? How did you handle it?

DnD has actually a fairly thin gap where large-scale battles in medieval style are still technically and logistically possible, but characters can be in the thick of fighting without much risk of getting randomly killed by average mooks. I'd say levels 3-8, talking generously. So I never really bothered with a mass combat system for DnD, never found a good one anyway. Instead, if PCs found themselves in a midst of a battle, accomplishing a series of fairly transparent key objectives, such as slaying enemy commanders and champions, casting down banners, or taking important points, secured victory for their side.

TempestLOB
2013-02-26, 08:51 PM
Thanks for the Heroes of Battle suggestion. I hadn't heard of that book and it has some good ideas.

ksbsnowowl
2013-02-26, 09:06 PM
Thanks for the Heroes of Battle suggestion. I hadn't heard of that book and it has some good ideas.

To build on this and see it in practice, check out the mega adventure Red Hand of Doom. The Battle of Brindol puts these concepts into play very effectively.

The final battle happens around character level 9 or 10, but you could translate the concepts easily enough w/ scaled down CR's.

Gnoman
2013-02-26, 09:55 PM
What I've generally been doing with this sort:

1. Assess the releative strength of the two units in combat. Determine which has the advantage, weighing their numbers, equipment, and general experience level. Do this even when only one side can actually damage the other, such as archery units and reach weapons. Do not include armor in this consideration unless it grants offensive capabilites.

2. Make an opposed attack roll. Each side rolls 1d20, higher result wins. IF a large majority >70% of a unit has a high BAB or a +something weapon, apply that to the die roll. Otherwise, ignore it.

3. Roll for casualties. The base roll is 1d100, for units of the same power level on a tied roll. For every point that the winner of the attack roll exceeds the losing roll, add one extra die. If one unit is more powerful then the other (numerically or qualitatively) add an x2 multiplier for a slight advantage (one side is using bastard swords, while the other is using longsword and shield; outnumbered by 10%) x5 for a major advantage (level 3 fighters vs level 1 warriors; outnumbered b 50%), and x10 for a massive advantage (outnumbered 40:1, level six fighters against level 1 commoners, etc.) In the event that each side has an advantage of different type (one has better weapons, the other has greater skill), apply the advantage to both sides.)

4. Apply the casualties. Unarmored units take full casualties, with 75% being killed, 20% being severely wounded, and 5% being light wounds. Light armor retains the 100% casualties, with 75% killed and 5% being severely wounded.
Medium armor cuts the casualty rate to 75%, with a 50/20/30 ratio. Heavy armor drops to 50%, with 25/10/65 ratio. Severely wounded soldiers have a 50% chance of dying within 24 hours if not treated. A DC 20 heal check doubles chances of survival, while a Cure X Wounds spell will eliminate the risk of death, but not reduce recovery time. It takes 1d20 weeks to reach light wound status. Troops with light wounds are immediately combat ready if they recieve a Cure X Wounds spell. Otherwise, they return to duty in 1d10 weeks.

5. Casters, Artillery units, and PCs operate independently. For the purpose of spells and artillery, Medium creatures fighting in tight formation can fit as many as 9 individuals in a 5-foot square (3 across by three deep), although this density is usually only found in spear-shield defensive formations.


There's definately a lot of eyeballing involved, and you can add much more, such as loose units taking less damage from archery but more from dense melee formations, and adding creatures to the mix adds further complications, but it's worked well enough for me so far.

TheOOB
2013-02-27, 03:59 AM
Personally I hate the Heroes of Battle approach. It makes the entire battle hinge of the actions of the PCs as front-line rank and file soldiers. This makes sense when the PCs are generals, or commandoes performing special missions outside the main battle, but as ordinary rank & file soldiers, their actions will not make a mingful differnece when contrasted against the actions of hundreds of other rank & file soldiers. Their actions will determine personal survival and potential for receiving medlas and recignition of bravery (and hence promotions), but it won't swing the tide of that battle.

A bad battle but a good fight could lead to the PCs leading a wing of the army in the nbext battle, where they will have an influential effect. But note that its their charisma and leadership that'll swing things there, not so much personal valour (unless they decide to one on one the enemy general or similar heroics of course).

Conversely, a good battle but a bad fight could lead to the PCs being left behind among the "dead" when the army marches on. It may lead to a demotion if really bad; certainly others would get promoted ahead of them.

I'm not entirely sure what the point you are trying to make. PCs should not be rank and file soldiers, D&D is a game about Heroes, and if you want to play a game about front line soldiers, find a better system for it. Heroes of Battle assumes your PC's act as commandos or specialists, where they can have a very real effect on the battle(but will rarely be the sole deciding factor). PCs as generals doesn't work to well, as D&D is a game about adventurers and heroes, so controlling troop formations isn't something the system does very well.

Ashtagon
2013-02-27, 04:31 AM
I'm not entirely sure what the point you are trying to make. PCs should not be rank and file soldiers, D&D is a game about Heroes, and if you want to play a game about front line soldiers, find a better system for it. Heroes of Battle assumes your PC's act as commandos or specialists, where they can have a very real effect on the battle(but will rarely be the sole deciding factor). PCs as generals doesn't work to well, as D&D is a game about adventurers and heroes, so controlling troop formations isn't something the system does very well.

Well, the way the OP phrased it, that was an entirely reasonable supposition of how they might be used by their commanding officer. And "rank & file soldier" is certainly a situation that PCs could find themselves in. Not all adventures have to be about slaying the dragon. D&D is broad enough to encompass this too.

Rhynn
2013-02-27, 06:02 AM
Well, the way the OP phrased it, that was an entirely reasonable supposition of how they might be used by their commanding officer. And "rank & file soldier" is certainly a situation that PCs could find themselves in. Not all adventures have to be about slaying the dragon. D&D is broad enough to encompass this too.

Indeed. Nevermind that I think the assumption the PCs are heroes is nonsense, but even heroes can indeed just fight on the front lines. If the warfare is actually medieval and not magically modern warfare (it all depends on the world and the availability of magic), there'd be little to no call for commando action, etc.

A story about taking part in a battle on the front lines is just as valid as one about behind-the-lines operations.

Also, PCs as generals works great, because D&D is a roleplaying game, and that's roleplaying right there - coming up with plans and ideas, implementing them, interacting, etc.

There's plenty of RPGs that actually integrate all of this into the game itself - including BD&D and AD&D.

Obviously you need some separate rules for mass combat if you want to play it out, such as the mass combat rules I linked above (or, in BD&D, it's own Warmachine, or AD&D 1E and 2E's Battlesystem - I got the names confused earlier). I think it's a great idea, because warfare and large battles are a part of the tradition of fantasy no matter how you slice it - Conan, Lord of the Rings, and D&D itself (cf. Dragonlance, Dark Sun).

Ashtagon
2013-02-27, 06:54 AM
Oh, as for PCs as generals not working too well, the classic D&D module X10: Red Arrow, Black Shield is all about being generals and diplomats.

Lorsa
2013-02-27, 07:49 AM
I played a large scale battle once, and I thought it worked out great. The PCs were generals in this case though, and they had set up some general tactics beforehand, they had gotten to know the various captains, lieutenants and sergeants, selecting the right people for the right groups (or so they thought anyway). While the battle took place without them being able to affect much of it (battles get chaotic) I broke it down into four small-scale encounters that the PCs were involved in. One was in the beginning of the fight, defending a small hill (that was strategically important) against an assault and even though there were other people there I managed to pit the PCs against a very specific encounter which involved a skeletal dragon. They were the most hardcore people there though, so it was natural they would rush to take care of that specific assault, so it might not work so well for you. Later on, while standing on the walls watching the battle and giving orders, they noticed some enemies that had managed to sneak around the flank (through the woods) without being noticed and now approaching the side wall. There was no way they could get other people there fast enough so they had to rush and take care of the first wave themselves before reinforcements could arrive. The third was when a few fires broke out in town, and they realized the enemy had people working inside the city and again had to rush to take care of them. I can't really remember how the fourth encounter came to happen, but it was outside the city, towards the end of the battle, in a small forest.

Not sure my examples help you, but try to break it down into a few small encounters that are more interesting than "you stand in the line waiting for enemies to charge you". One way or the other it's up to the PCs to take care of this "special threat".

Rhynn
2013-02-27, 08:41 AM
Oh, as for PCs as generals not working too well, the classic D&D module X10: Red Arrow, Black Shield is all about being generals and diplomats.

Also, for AD&D, the whole Bloodstone Pass module series, H1-H4... and obviously DL8 Dragons of War is partly a war scenario (and maybe some other DL modules, not sure)... and FRQ2 Hordes of Dragonspear.

1E Battlesystem, at least, specifically has rules for PCs as commanders of units and armies - in fact, all such commanders should be statted out as PCs/NPCs anyway.

TempestLOB
2013-02-27, 02:08 PM
As with almost any aspect of DMing you need to tailor it to your players. In my case, I know that they are not interested in being generals, they want to hack and slash . I could see how either style of play could be fun. They might be ready for command it after the campaign matures a bit. Provided they aren't dead after this.

TheOOB
2013-02-27, 03:24 PM
Indeed. Nevermind that I think the assumption the PCs are heroes is nonsense, but even heroes can indeed just fight on the front lines. If the warfare is actually medieval and not magically modern warfare (it all depends on the world and the availability of magic), there'd be little to no call for commando action, etc.

The problem with front line warfare is that going Dynasty Warriors in D&D isn't fun. Yes a 12th level fighter can kill an arbitrary large amount of 2nd level warriors, but it's not fun. Besides, that fighter is needed to take out the vampire barbarians the other side has(remember, if your side has adventurer's, it's safe to assume the other side has elite units as well).

Besides, magic exists in D&D, and ignoring how it would impact battles is folly. A dozen 5th level wizards casting fireball twice each can dramatically impact the course of a battle, and no army will ignore the kind of impact that can make(or the impact a single wizard casting stone to mud can make). Not to mention that you don't need modern style combat for commando actions. Scout units away from the main force accomplishing objectives isn't a new idea.

I'm just saying the system for D&D is good at certain things, and it's usually better to try to adapt a situation to D&D than adapt D&D to a situation.

Ashtagon
2013-02-27, 04:02 PM
The problem with front line warfare is that going Dynasty Warriors in D&D isn't fun. Yes a 12th level fighter can kill an arbitrary large amount of 2nd level warriors, but it's not fun. Besides, that fighter is needed to take out the vampire barbarians the other side has(remember, if your side has adventurer's, it's safe to assume the other side has elite units as well).

Besides, magic exists in D&D, and ignoring how it would impact battles is folly. A dozen 5th level wizards casting fireball twice each can dramatically impact the course of a battle, and no army will ignore the kind of impact that can make(or the impact a single wizard casting stone to mud can make). Not to mention that you don't need modern style combat for commando actions. Scout units away from the main force accomplishing objectives isn't a new idea.

I'm just saying the system for D&D is good at certain things, and it's usually better to try to adapt a situation to D&D than adapt D&D to a situation.

Well, at 12th level, you aren't going to BE a rank and file soldier, unless you somehow got recruited into the war of heaven v hell. But you can certainly be a general at that level. But levels 1-3? rank and file material. Level 4-6? you get promoted to captain if you aren't in an "attached" unit.

And that dozen wizards? That assumes a campaign setting in which you can recruit a dozen 5th level wizards into your army. Not everyone plays that setting.

Rhynn
2013-02-28, 12:35 AM
Yes a 12th level fighter can kill an arbitrary large amount of 2nd level warriors, but it's not fun. Besides, that fighter is needed to take out the vampire barbarians the other side has(remember, if your side has adventurer's, it's safe to assume the other side has elite units as well).

Who said the 12th-level would be on the front line? And on the other hand, who said the other side would have vampire barbarians? These are very specific assumptions that do nothing about the general principles.


Besides, magic exists in D&D, and ignoring how it would impact battles is folly. A dozen 5th level wizards casting fireball twice each can dramatically impact the course of a battle, and no army will ignore the kind of impact that can make(or the impact a single wizard casting stone to mud can make). Not to mention that you don't need modern style combat for commando actions. Scout units away from the main force accomplishing objectives isn't a new idea.

Who says you can even have 12 5th-level wizards? The Whitestone Council army of DL8 has no wizards aside from the PCs, for instance. This is a world-specific assumption (3.X DMG world).


I'm just saying the system for D&D is good at certain things, and it's usually better to try to adapt a situation to D&D than adapt D&D to a situation.

But D&D has been adapted for warfare successfully, repeatedly. Warmachine, Battlesystem 1E and 2E, Birthright, the Mongoose and Open Mass Combat rules above... and that's just what I know and can think off off-hand. There's also a third-party book, Fields of Blood - The Book of War, for 3.5 ...


You're making really specific assumptions that, while they may be encouraged by the 3rd edition D&D DMG, have not borne out, historically, and are not automatic. Yes, if the world is dominated by even low-mid level wizards everywhere, it's going to look different. If the PCs are 12th-level, they probably won't be fighting in the front lines. If

VanIsleKnight
2013-02-28, 02:55 AM
You could have them strategize about what formations to put up, where troop placement will go, who will be in what battallion, what the fallback points are, where siege equipment like catapults and the like can go, and a ton of other things like that.

Each of those decisions that they make can influence the battle to swing in their favour, or against if they make poor decisions. Have them decide where to stand, and then they can fight until they need to retreat, or fight until it becomes apparent that they are needed elsewhere. Then you can have multiple combat encounters in different locations as they decide where to travel to. There would be almost no resting in between encounters.

You could also have the battle go on for the whole day, as the PCs forces repel attack after attack that occur sporadically. Different locations would suffer different types of losses, based on the opposed forces, so the PCs might have to make a decision of what area they personally need to reinforce.

Just make sure that you set a time limit for them to make decisions, and ensure that they understand beforehand what that time limit is. Otherwise, combat is going to roll on forever, and people will start to lose interest. Just be a good storyteller, describe the scene well, and try to use as much common sense as you can when determining what side is winning where.

Being a little cinematic in this case might not hurt either.

TheOOB
2013-02-28, 03:01 AM
Who said the 12th-level would be on the front line? And on the other hand, who said the other side would have vampire barbarians? These are very specific assumptions that do nothing about the general principles.



Who says you can even have 12 5th-level wizards? The Whitestone Council army of DL8 has no wizards aside from the PCs, for instance. This is a world-specific assumption (3.X DMG world).



But D&D has been adapted for warfare successfully, repeatedly. Warmachine, Battlesystem 1E and 2E, Birthright, the Mongoose and Open Mass Combat rules above... and that's just what I know and can think off off-hand. There's also a third-party book, Fields of Blood - The Book of War, for 3.5 ...


You're making really specific assumptions that, while they may be encouraged by the 3rd edition D&D DMG, have not borne out, historically, and are not automatic. Yes, if the world is dominated by even low-mid level wizards everywhere, it's going to look different. If the PCs are 12th-level, they probably won't be fighting in the front lines. If

The point was that if your side has powerful or special forces of any kind, the other side likely does as well. If low level characters are unlikely to have a huge impact on a battle(though by virtue of having PC classes they shouldn't be rank and file), why play through that scenario, D&D is a game about heroes and adventurers. It's strength is small group tactical combat and dungeon exploration.

As for the wizards, D&D is high fantasy, the mechanics of the game assume access to magic and magic items, that the players are heroes, and that monsters are evil. In a setting where schools of wizardry are things, I don't think a kingdom capable of supporting an army would be unable to find some low level mages to help them in battle, I mean, 5th level isn't exactly earth shatteringly rare.

My biggest point is that there are lots and lots of wonderful RPG systems out there. D&D can't be everything to everyone. Everywhere you look, someone is trying to modify D&D to make it be something it's not. If you want fantasy warfare, go break out some Warhammer, or heck Exalted. D&D runs a specific type of game(Heroic High Fantasy) very well, but that doesn't mean it should be used for everything.

immi
2013-02-28, 03:22 AM
In the world of D&D, conflict often takes place in the smaller, more relatively confined battles within hundreds of feet. But, lost in this kind of world, what happens to the commander's view? The War-room discussion and tactics planning portion that comes with large-scale battle, itself. This by no means ever has to come to a common player character's destiny




Australia Immigration (http://www.immigrationoverseas.com/Australia.aspx)

Ashtagon
2013-02-28, 04:07 AM
The point was that if your side has powerful or special forces of any kind, the other side likely does as well. If low level characters are unlikely to have a huge impact on a battle(though by virtue of having PC classes they shouldn't be rank and file), why play through that scenario, D&D is a game about heroes and adventurers. It's strength is small group tactical combat and dungeon exploration.

As for the wizards, D&D is high fantasy, the mechanics of the game assume access to magic and magic items, that the players are heroes, and that monsters are evil. In a setting where schools of wizardry are things, I don't think a kingdom capable of supporting an army would be unable to find some low level mages to help them in battle, I mean, 5th level isn't exactly earth shatteringly rare.

My biggest point is that there are lots and lots of wonderful RPG systems out there. D&D can't be everything to everyone. Everywhere you look, someone is trying to modify D&D to make it be something it's not. If you want fantasy warfare, go break out some Warhammer, or heck Exalted. D&D runs a specific type of game(Heroic High Fantasy) very well, but that doesn't mean it should be used for everything.

So many assumptions.


You assume that rank and file people can't have PC class levels. Even in 2e, it was quite common to stat soldiers as 2nd level fighters or something.
You say D&D is about heroes. I say it is about role-playing. It's right there in the concept name - a role-playing game. "Soldier" is just as valid a role as "hero".
You assume schools of wizardry are common.
You assume wizards will let themselves be conscripted into armies.
You assume 5th level is a low level wizard. That's relative to the setting; Classic D&D described 5th level as unimaginably powerful in places.

ArcturusV
2013-02-28, 04:49 AM
Heck, the classic DnD I remember getting into an Elf got to level 6 and was the pinnacle of its race, unable to advance any further. :smallbiggrin:

But I think the general flaw with the presumption that a couple of wizards will wreck an army is the idea that somehow it's a one sided advantage. Almost any spell tactic has a counter to it. And the one group of classes most likely to know what's coming are also the classes most likely to be able to give it a flat "No You" counter. And when spellslingers are too busy going "No You" to each other... it's still the guy with the pointy metal object who's winning the battles.

NichG
2013-02-28, 06:47 AM
There are several reasons to adapt D&D to this rather than jump to a new system:

1. The army scenario is just a small part of the overall campaign. Thus changing systems to capture the army scenario 'optimally' means you capture the rest of the campaign poorly.

2. D&D is pretty much the 'standard' game that people know. By running D&D you have a higher chance of finding players than if you were running, say, Exalted. So if you can adapt D&D to do the job, there's a concrete advantage to doing it. People who already have a solid set of players don't benefit so much from this, but for people trying to find new players or having to replace players it is a significant thing.

3. D&D actually does have existing written support for this kind of thing anyhow - things people have mentioned on this thread. Heroes of Battle in 3.5, Birthright campaign setting in 2ed, etc. So its not like you're even necessarily needing any homebrew.

Finally, changing systems will not help if you as a DM don't understand what aspects of the battle will be compelling to run at the table. 'I kill another orc' can be as boring in Exalted, FATE, GURPS, etc as it would be in D&D. If you're running a game where the PCs are rank and file soldiers (at low level, as has been suggested), the likely thing is that the story isn't about them single-handedly crushing the enemy army or about that one orc they bring down being the important one. Its going to be about them trying to survive, probably as the battle conditions change and they find themselves in a critical moment (the enemy commander is exposed, their unit is wiped out and they're stranded amidst the enemy, whatever). Or its going to be about them coming to the war with some personal goals, and the battlefield is the environment in which their goals next move forward (there's someone they hate but can't legally kill, so they arrange for them to have an accident in the midst of battle; that kind of thing).

For a good example of a D&D campaign-style progression amidst a battlefield/war scenario, look at the TV series Sharpe. The main character starts as basically just another enlisted man (Lv1-3 range), gets a battlefield promotion to command, and slowly rises in the ranks over the course of the Napoleonic wars. He's got his party, which acts as a tactical strike team at times, but they also participates in major battles, sieges, etc from time to time. The story isn't always (or even usually) about how awesome they are at killing the next enemy soldier; more often its about what they do when superiors give dumb orders, personal enmities that form and manifest in battle, etc.

Rhynn
2013-02-28, 07:24 AM
D&D is a game about heroes and adventurers. It's strength is small group tactical combat and dungeon exploration.

Can't agree there. D&D has done and can do realm management, warfare, etc. You may be speaking of 3.X specifically, but then you're only talking about what's been published (by WotC at that; cf. Fields of Blood - The Book of War, Mongoose, etc.). Why should anyone limit themselves to that, if they want to do something else?

There is no reason D&D cannot be a game about knights, or barons, or kings, or merchants, or any other thing a DM and a group of players want to play.


Everywhere you look, someone is trying to modify D&D to make it be something it's not.

And they should! That's the whole point. Make the game your own. And if in the process you create something awesome like Conan d20, Adventurer Conqueror King, or Stars Without Number, everybody wins.

Making games into something they're not has been proven to have awesome results. Adapting D&D to do other things has created awesome things. Indeed, if you want to really get into it, that's how we got RuneQuest, Chivalry & Sorcery (and thus HârnMaster), and pretty much every other RPG.


If you want fantasy warfare, go break out some Warhammer, or heck Exalted.

Or, you know, BECMI and Warmachine, or AD&D and Battlesystem, or Mongoose's Mass Combat... if I sound repetitive, it's because you don't seem to be acknowledging that it's been done and done well. (You haven't even offered arguments against "done well.")

There just aren't any good reasons not to do warfare in D&D, when it's been done successfully over and over. Obviously you're going to have to adapt to your particular campaign (which may or may not include a lot of low-mid level wizards - my D&D worlds don't, for instance)


Sure, if I wanted a whole RPG about warfare (and its attendant politics and management, maybe), I'd go with HârnMaster and BattleLust, or The Riddle of Steel. (Exalted or Warhammer? WTF :smallconfused: ) But there's no reason a person shouldn't try to adapt D&D for it, and NichG gave a pretty good list of reasons someone might want to.

jjordan
2019-04-18, 11:08 AM
Create custom creatures that represent a whole formation, then make the army out of them. A colossal creature might represent over a hundred soldiers if they're in a tightly-packed formation, for instance.

The trouble is that your PCs are going up against barbarian hordes, a type of force that isn't known for its disciplined formation fighting. You can still use the same sort of approach, though; just make the mass-creatures weaker and call them rabble, and mix in single more powerful warriors to represent barbarian champions.

Dungeons and Dragons hasn't really been a very suitable system for this sort of thing since OD&D spun off from Chainmail, though... You can do it, it just won't work very well.I'm going to unapologetically raise this thread from the dead just to say that this is a great idea. It's super flexible, relatively quick, and it preserves a lot of player agency that is lost in other sytems.

Malphegor
2019-04-25, 10:38 AM
There is the Mob template, from DMG2: Take an existing creature, now make them a group of creatures. They have a single pool of HP, a decent BAB boost as a group, but have some fun quirks based on being a group of individuals rather than lots of individuals who happen to be working together in a group.

In theory if someone decided an LA for it you could even have a PC who's a Mob. ... I'm not sure how that'd work but it'd make for a weird battle game where each player represents 30+ people of the same class. "Wizards! All cast fireball!" pewpewpewpew!