Legends&Lore: The Art of War

[Stray]

New article (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140428) detailing mass combat rules a bit. Going back to Chainmail roots, one miniature represents small unit of troops. Combat between those units is resolved with a single roll, as if they were a single creature. Combat between units and individual PCs or NPCs is done by each member of a unit making their own attack on a character. Combat between solo characters is done by playing out 10 turns using regular rules per one mass combat turn.

[Person_Man]

Argh.

D&D is a a game of exploration, roleplaying, and tactical combat. It is not a mass combat game. Doing mass combat and tactical combat well within the same game is essentially impossible, as you'd essentially need two tracks of combat rules for everything.

For example, the "always hit on a natural 20 and always miss on a natural 1" makes a lot of sense in a tactical combat game, where you want to maintain some chance of success and failure on every action. But it makes no sense in a mass combat game, where 100 commoners with bows can kill anything in 1 round thanks to critical hits.

And kludging one onto the other (even as an optional rule) is just going to lead to a lot of frustrating games, and/or class abilities (Feats/items/etc) which are only useful for tactical or mass combat (but not both).

[Sartharina]

The game's constrained math, which works exceedingly well when handling groups of less than 10, also breaks down when you throw in too many dice on either side!

[Stubbazubba]

Not that "focus" has ever been D&D's aim, but yeah, I would prefer it if "mass combat" were just a type of encounter described in the DMG where the tactical accomplishments/failures of the party can influence the course of a pitched battle, but we don't have to actually play out the entirety of the battle. I guess that's what house rules are for.

[Seerow]

Argh.

D&D is a a game of exploration, roleplaying, and tactical combat. It is not a mass combat game. Doing mass combat and tactical combat well within the same game is essentially impossible, as you'd essentially need two tracks of combat rules for everything.

For example, the "always hit on a natural 20 and always miss on a natural 1" makes a lot of sense in a tactical combat game, where you want to maintain some chance of success and failure on every action. But it makes no sense in a mass combat game, where 100 commoners with bows can kill anything in 1 round thanks to critical hits.

And kludging one onto the other (even as an optional rule) is just going to lead to a lot of frustrating games, and/or class abilities (Feats/items/etc) which are only useful for tactical or mass combat (but not both).

I dunno. I actually don't mind this so much. Yes it's going to end up being a kludge and hard to balance (read: for wotc, it's going to be broken as all hell), but mass combat rules are something that you see people looking for all the time. In my experience in particular, I've had a few DMs who really love the idea of big epic battles and have seen everything from hundreds of enemies with no special rules to weird homebrewed mass combat variants to "Okay we're putting away D&D for the night and pulling out this war game to finish things up". The first works, but is ridiculously slow. The last also works and is likely the best balanced, but is really unsatisfying to have such a thing be resolved completely independently of anything to do with the game you've been playing. The middle ground generally ends up imbalanced because writing rules to scale a small squad tactical game into large scale combat is hard, and people mess that up easily.

So yeah, it's something people want, and fits the genre... it's just that making it work is hard. While I have little faith in WotC pulling it off (especially with the scaling being 10 creatures to a unit. That means if we get beyond the scale of 50 or so to a side, we're just as bad off as we were before, unless there's great rules for continuing to scale up), I really can't fault them for wanting to try or include it into the game.



Points that caught my notice regarding implementation:

As noted above, 10 creatures to a unit can potentially be a problem in not providing enough scale. Starting at a baseline of 50 or 100 would have been better IMO.
Morale being a simple will save...meh. Sure, there should be a die roll in there somewhere, but I'd honestly make it so rather than wearing down enemy hit points, you're wearing down morale to cause them to break and run.
Inclusion of PCs as solo units on the battlefield. While this is potentially cool, what we know of the implementation is... weird. The PC gets one attack per round unless fighting another solo, but if a group attacks him, each monster in the group gets a hit. Seriously, put any one mid-high level PC against a group of 10 standard level 1 creatures, and he can probably kill the lot of them in 10 rounds. Why let the PC act as an individual but gimp him in this way? It would make more sense if the default scale was higher, but as it is?
Speed is apparently the only stat that gets recalculated. What sort of damage/hp do these groups have? Does a group of goblins simply have the stats of a standard goblin? If so that would help explain why PCs only get one attack against the group in a minute of combat... but that seems like it'd be weird.
Magic. There is no mention of it at all. Does a fireball being dropped simply destroy all groups that get caught in it? If not, why not? What about buffs, how do they work here? These are issues most mass combat rules tend to gloss over, I'd hope to see it actually addressed in one being built specifically for D&D.

[Morty]

Argh.

D&D is a a game of exploration, roleplaying, and tactical combat. It is not a mass combat game. Doing mass combat and tactical combat well within the same game is essentially impossible, as you'd essentially need two tracks of combat rules for everything.


It's also a game where characters and monsters eventually become powerful enough to take on large groups of weaker combatants or creatures. Mass combat rules are necessary to make it possible for such a scenario to be actually played without being a massive, boring headache.

Now, will they manage to implement it well? That we don't know, and I'm sceptical. But it's good that they at least recognized the need.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The "10 rounds of combat" makes me hesitant, even if I approve of the fact that it's being attempted. I mean, done right, this could be epic! But it sounds, at this stage, like it's going to be a bit unwieldy.

[Lokiare]

If a single character goes up against 10 creatures without an area attack, they are toast. 2 rounds means at least 1 crit and about 6-12 hits depending on the character AC. 6d8 or 12d6 damage every round is going to kill anyone no matter what level they are.

Then there's area spells. A fireball can potentially hit at least 4 groups of 10 targets if they are relatively close together and if you are fighting goblins, they would all die in the first salvo of a fireball. Now think what happens if you have 10 wizards casting 10 fireballs each round against anything in the game. 60d6 damage save for half or average 210 or if a save 105. Which means 2 rounds and anything in the game is dead. Yeah, it would be possible to do mass combat correctly, but this isn't it.

Note: I haven't read the article yet, I'm going off the information provided in this thread.

[Envyus]

Note: I haven't read the article yet, I'm going off the information provided in this thread.

Then don't comment on stuff you have no idea about.

[Mewtarthio]

The whole "when two solos meet, pause the entire combat and just let them duke it out with the regular rules" bit seems sketchy to me. Along with the "you take ten attacks (remember, bounded accuracy, so they all have a decent chance of hitting) when you engage a stand" rule, it seems like they're trying to just divide mass combat into "solo vs solo" and "army vs army" bits. Given the differences in timescales, though, solo vs solo will probably end up taking over 90% of the playtime; meanwhile, the army vs army fight is the only fight that really matters (stands are devastating to solos unless the latter have armies of their own to protect them). In short, the vast majority of your playtime is spent on fights that are ultimately irrelevant.

Now, I could understand focusing on solo vs solo combat. It's epic fantasy, and you want to see your players doing awesome things, so you could pare the battle down to clashes between champions, with the chaos of battle serving as the backdrop. For that sort of system, you'd want something that relegates the battle to an environmental effect, albeit one that the PCs can influence with their heroic actions (and possibly with a military-style PC's own--highly abstracted--tactical skills). Each "tactical round" is probably just a single roll that influences how easily the PCs can reach their next goal. If you need to have PCs fight large groups of mooks on their own, use mob rules or something like that.

I could also understand focusing on army vs army combat. It would definitely the harder route (and not necessarily the more rewarding one, at that), since party-level stuff is the meat of the game, but if you really wanted to drive home the point that single heroes cannot cut down dozens of enemies on their own, that would at least be a coherent philosophy. For that, you'd have to come up with rules for scaling the PC's contributions up to a mass-combat level. PCs would be like accessories that the military units could equip, giving bonuses based on their class and level (Naturally, PCs should never be among the random casualties, and if the unit is routed, they can almost always be assumed to escape). Individual class features would need "mass combat" tags explaining how they affect their equipping units in mass combat. Things get a little bit trickier when you throw "boss" enemies into the list--How can the PCs hope to stand against a dragon if they'd die instantly against the armies it just torched (and I shouldn't have to explain why the reverse, where armies instakill dragons, is just as bad)? And doesn't your epic fight against the Lich King feel kind of hollow when you know that the real battle is with his undead legions, which you can't effectively fight on your own?--but that's why it's the harder option.

What this L&L describes is trying to have your cake and eat it, too. What it gets is an incoherent mess that inherits the worst of both worlds.

[Gamgee]

I'm willing to give it a shot. If it works well it sounds awesome. I like the horde rules in Deathwatch, so we'll see.

[Stray]

If a single character goes up against 10 creatures without an area attack, they are toast. 2 rounds means at least 1 crit and about 6-12 hits depending on the character AC. 6d8 or 12d6 damage every round is going to kill anyone no matter what level they are.

Then there's area spells. A fireball can potentially hit at least 4 groups of 10 targets if they are relatively close together and if you are fighting goblins, they would all die in the first salvo of a fireball. Now think what happens if you have 10 wizards casting 10 fireballs each round against anything in the game. 60d6 damage save for half or average 210 or if a save 105. Which means 2 rounds and anything in the game is dead. Yeah, it would be possible to do mass combat correctly, but this isn't it.

Note: I haven't read the article yet, I'm going off the information provided in this thread.

Well, in the article it says that mass combat is fought on a 20 foot per square grid (also, single mass combat turn taking a full minute was left out by me in the summary), so single fireball hits single enemy group. And I would say, fireballs obliterating tight formations of infantry are a feature, this is exactly what an exploding ball of fire should do.

[Seerow]

Well, in the article it says that mass combat is fought on a 20 foot per square grid (also, single mass combat turn taking a full minute was left out by me in the summary), so single fireball hits single enemy group. And I would say, fireballs obliterating tight formations of infantry are a feature, this is exactly what an exploding ball of fire should do.

Fireball is a 20ft radius burst, not 20ft diameter. It would take out 4 groups.

But yes, if the Fireball takes out all 4 groups that's a feature. On the other hand, it's a distinct possibility it just does a couple damage to the group HP, which would seem really weird.

[Stray]

Fireball is a 20ft radius burst, not 20ft diameter. It would take out 4 groups.

But yes, if the Fireball takes out all 4 groups that's a feature. On the other hand, it's a distinct possibility it just does a couple damage to the group HP, which would seem really weird.

Indeed, my bad.

It depends how damage to a stand is divided and how casualties are determined. If everyone is ok as long as a stand has HP left, mediocre damage roll sucks. It had little to no effect on a battle. If loosing every 10% of stand HP means one enemy is out of combat, then it had some effect, maybe this unimpressive roll can cause them to panic and flee, and at least it's one attack less to deal with. From fluff perspective, it could be explained as using bodies of comrades as a cover from the fire. Or whatever explanation is used when fireball lands between two orcs and does little damage in normal encounter.
I think it would be more interesting if each stand made it's own morale checks, instead of whole regiment or whatever they want to call larger units, with possibility of chain reaction when nearby stand looses morale. It would give couple of good attacks more immediate result, instead of killing 20 dudes before the rest maybe gets the message that they don't want to fight with this guy.

Overall, I don't expect WotC to create something brilliant here. An universal fantasy wargaming system would be worth it's own book, or even own product line. As long it's more or less functional, I'm ok with it.

[Sartharina]

I'm kinda torn on Fireballs being able to take out entire massed formations, even if it can take them out individually. On one hand, Fireball probably could use the boost. On the other, given that HP are an abstraction of luck, having it be able to deal heavy damage to the group but have some survive (By being shielded by the other bodies and just getting lucky) keeps it from being too overpowered.

[Person_Man]

For what little it's worth, in early editions of Chainmail/D&D Magic-Users could could cast Fireball and Lightning Bolt at will like missile attacks, since Magic-Users were basically artillery like catapults in mass combat tabletop miniature games.

[Joe the Rat]

I'm kinda torn on Fireballs being able to take out entire massed formations, even if it can take them out individually. On one hand, Fireball probably could use the boost. On the other, given that HP are an abstraction of luck, having it be able to deal heavy damage to the group but have some survive (By being shielded by the other bodies and just getting lucky) keeps it from being too overpowered.

I'm thinking fireballs taking out entire stands - or multiple stands even - is a feature. Evokers are artillery, as Person-Man noted. It's the single-target effects that would get really weird. Magic missile or ray of frost I could see as "damaging" to a stand, but charm person? What would that do? A penalty to the stand as they lose a guy? Target the platoon leader to disable the stand? Force 1-1 action? How do hoard-breaker Rangers work? When you get your "whirlwind", you could conceivably solo a stand of weak mooks. You get initiative, you attack the whole stand at once. Maybe that's intended as well.

On the topic of magic-users of all stripes, I wonder if their assumption is that caster-stands are supposed to be a block of coordinated wizards, or if they're thinking a caster block should be one or two, with a stack of meat shields - treating them as solo + support (This would also be a better idea in general - you want your caster's spread about so they won't be wiped out with a single AoE).

Where this really breaks down is in size scaling. One giant is a solo, and takes 10 at once. Two giants is a stand, and resolves by stand rules. Personally, I like the idea of there being Giant+ solos being treated like a stand: One monster that utterly decimates swaths of soldiers at one go. It would be one way to deal with the Horde of Commoners vs. Dragon issues.

[Seerow]

One more thing to note: a 20x20 square can hold 16 people, or 4 large people. So for some reason medium creatures are spread out more than normal (10 out of 16 spots filled), while larger creatures get squeezed in tighter than normal (5 out of 4 spots filled). I have no problem with the large creatures being squeezed in, it makes sense that units working together in formation don't need as much space as individuals in small group tactical combat. My problem is more with the medium units being so spread out. I would imagine the Stand of medium creatures fitting 20, and small creatures fitting 30, into that same area.

[Morty]

Blasting spells can destroy stacks with impunity or not, depending on what game balance calls for. It's magic, so neither will make less sense than the other once described.

[1337 b4k4]

One more thing to note: a 20x20 square can hold 16 people, or 4 large people. So for some reason medium creatures are spread out more than normal (10 out of 16 spots filled), while larger creatures get squeezed in tighter than normal (5 out of 4 spots filled). I have no problem with the large creatures being squeezed in, it makes sense that units working together in formation don't need as much space as individuals in small group tactical combat. My problem is more with the medium units being so spread out. I would imagine the Stand of medium creatures fitting 20, and small creatures fitting 30, into that same area.

I suspect this decision was largely an ease of math / gamist decision. As described in the article, stands are 10/5/2 which makes for some convenient math, especially if one way of resolving the "one dragon gets hit 10 times, but 2 only get hit once" issue is dividing stand sizes to get the number of attacks (i.e. 1 dragon gets hit 10 times, 2 dragons get hit 5, 5 giants get hit twice or 10 soldiers take 1 hit).

[Lokiare]

Then don't comment on stuff you have no idea about.

Actually, I'm talking about the parts quoted from the article, so I do know what I'm talking about.

After having read the article, this appears to be quick fix for a problem that should be resolved another way. Here let me homebrew a better system in 20 minutes:

Different monster types make up different group sizes. creatures up to 5 hit dice can have 20 per group. Creatures up to 10 hit dice can have 10 and creatures above 10 hit dice have a maximum of 5 per group. This can be scaled up or down based on the size of the battle at the DMs discretion.

The way this homebrew system works is that you add together all the hit dice of each creature for the groups total hp. So say we have 20 Orcs with 1 hit dice. That means we have a 20 hp group. To figure out how much damage this group can do to other groups, divide the average damage of the creatures attack by 8. So a lone Orc can do 1 damage while in a group to another group. The key here is that a 20 Orc group can deal 20 damage each round to another group. As a groups hp drops, so does their damage. It drops by the value of the lone monster for every hp lost based on how many hp a lone creature contributes to the group.

So lets say we have a 20 member drow group that has 3 HD and deals 3d8+4 damage. This means the group has 60 hp and deals a ratio of 2 damage per 3 hp in the group. To start it deals 40 damage. When it drops to 10 members it has 30 hp and deals 20 damage.

Now each group has a 'type'. There is brute, skirmish, and artillery. Brute groups deal extra damage. Skirmishers can move an extra square each 'round' which remains at the 1 minute mark. Artillery can attack from a distance. You use the standard spells and count each square as 25 square feet. Damage from spells, powers, or traits is divided by 8.

Conditions work normally, except in the case of movement and action affecting. In the case of action denial the damage dealt by the group is reduced by the percent that would be expected to fail the save (a little quick math will show you the percent based on the DC and the saving throw). If you want to further speed up use this optional rule. If up to 38% of the group would be affected, then damage is reduced by 25%. If between 38% and 63% of the group would be affected damage is halved. If between 63% and 88% would be affected then the damage is reduced by 75%. If more than 88% would be affected then just round up to 100% of the damage being gone. Movement is affected in a similar way.

If move speed is reduced by 25% or more of the group, then the rest of the group waits on them. In the case of skirmishers, then raise that to 50% because of their mobility.

If the DM puts a mix of creatures into a group, use averages for the whole group to determine hp and damage and they gain none of the advantages of the other groups. This can be useful to bolster weak groups by mixing in stronger creatures. Player groups are an exception to this rule. A party of players is considered a group. They get to each do one attack in the round using the regular mass combat rules except that their result is multiplied by 10 for non-magic attacks and cantrips and at-will powers and traits. Limited use powers or spells can be substituted reducing the multiplier (10) for each limited use power used. Note that no more than 10 limited use powers or spells can be used on any given mass combat round. This will slow down the mass combat, but will reflect the players choices relatively accurately over that time, while glossing over small scale tactics that would happen during a normal combat encounter. Damage is divided by 8 as normal against groups and against the party damage is multiplied by 8 and divided evenly between members. If a power or spell would reduce damage or temporarily raise AC it negates damage that mass combat round against the target. For instance if a Fighter has a maneuver that allows them to increase the AC of a nearby ally by 1d6 points when they are attacked, and they use that maneuver during a mass combat round against the above imaginary goblin group to protect the Wizard, the Wizard for one round would not take any damage, in this case 20*8/6 party members = 26 damage if the goblin group successfully hits the parties AC. Healing spells work as normal for parties.

If a group goes one on one with a single creature, such as a legendary creature or a player, play out that battle using the normal rules in 10 round increments on the mass combat turn of the group. So if a group of 20 townsfolk engaged in a mass combat with an army of kobolds meets up with the legendary dragon that leads them, on the round of the townsfolk, non-mass combat for 10 rounds would ensue between the dragon and the 20 individual townsfolk.

Damage is static to speed up play. Attacks can be calculated by percentage chances to hit against static ACs and multiplied by total damage to get an even quicker system that is more accurate.

Healing spells get divided by 8, but otherwise work as normal.

[da_chicken]

Actually, I'm talking about the parts quoted from the article, so I do know what I'm talking about.

After having read the article, this appears to be quick fix for a problem that should be resolved another way. Here let me homebrew a better system in 20 minutes:


That's... a lot math to have to recalculate on the fly for actual mass combat where it might be 20 or more units in play.

This issue with why it's so abstract and unrealistic is that this is probably their core design criteria:


If you know the combat rules for D&D, you're already 90 percent familiar with how Battlesystem works.

I think they're trying to make an abstracted system that works well enough to see the minimal amount of use they expect mass combat to see in a D&D campaign. I think they want a system that a DM and players can bust out for that one session where there's a war, and play the session without getting bogged down by mass combat rules. D&D isn't a wargame, but there has to be a "good enough" system that lets groups resolve them if they want to. It doesn't have to be good. Good isn't at the top of their criteria. It has to be simple, easy, intuitive, and has to reasonably resolve the combat relatively fairly while allowing player characters to affect the battle field as necessary.

And honestly, we haven't had official mass combat rules that I recall since 2E, and except for Birthright which is in it's own category, I remember all D&D mass combat rules completely sucking ass. Even Basic D&D was pretty stripped down as I recall, but it's been almost 30 years since I've played that game.

[Knaight]

Doing mass combat and tactical combat well within the same game is essentially impossible, as you'd essentially need two tracks of combat rules for everything.

For something essentially impossible, I've seen a lot of functional implementations. REIGN and Legend of the Five Rings come to mind.

That said, this particular implementation seems iffy, largely because the solo-stand division breaks down with larger creatures. Joe the Rat covered that pretty well, and it doesn't seem like something particularly easy to fix, unless the round structure as relates to size is changed more fundamentally, where smaller creatures just act more (which is in keeping with the fiction, and could be done). It's a shame, as I do like (and have actually dome some system design with) the modeling of large groups of standard troops with the occasional champion thrown in.

[Person_Man]

For something essentially impossible, I've seen a lot of functional implementations. REIGN and Legend of the Five Rings come to mind.

So I haven't played REIGN or Five Rings. Can you expand upon how mass and tactical combat works in them?


To expand upon my earlier point that Tactical Combat + Mass Combat don't work together in D&D, consider the issue of how many creatures a class ability or spell or magic item can target. If a Haste spell can target 1 creature, it's useful in Tactical Combat but useless in Mass Combat. If it can target 20 creatures it's useful in Mass Combat but potentially breaks Tactical Combat, since now I can use it to give a massive buff everyone in my party with just 1 spell/action. The same issue comes up with Range. A range of 20 feet is decent in Tactical Combat, but is a joke in Mass Combat (where a formation of creatures might be a 20 foot square).

Now, you could write some abilities/spells/items/etc that are useful just for Tactical Combat, and others that are useful for Mass Combat. But then players could unintentionally screw their builds - if I memorize a lot of Mass Combat spells, I'm far less effective in Tactical Combat encounters.

Also, every time a writer makes a new class ability/spell/item/etc, they have to consider it's implications in two different types of combat. For example, lets assume that I can use Control Weather to create a hail storm that deals 1d20 damage to every creature within 1 mile. In a Tactical Combat game, that's a nifty but not particularly powerful way to clear out a bunch of mooks. But in Mass Combat, it can destroy entire armies.

[russdm]

This sounds like a system for use for players to be like generals or something. You know, lead entire armies into battle like Aragorn in LoTR; aside from the fact that spells like fireball and Meteor Swarm plus wall spells and X cloud (ones that kill or disable enemies) spells are simply devastating to enemy armies. Same deal with dragon breathing too.

But we don't have the full list of spells that are available in Next, so most of the army breaking spells in 3.5 might be missing. That would make mass combats less likely to depend on which side had the biggest wizard support, although having clerics in battle would help the army to survive the battle.

Its strange that including it in would something to be done when it feels more like something would be in its own module/setting more.

[huttj509]

So I haven't played REIGN or Five Rings. Can you expand upon how mass and tactical combat works in them?


To expand upon my earlier point that Tactical Combat + Mass Combat don't work together in D&D, consider the issue of how many creatures a class ability or spell or magic item can target. If a Haste spell can target 1 creature, it's useful in Tactical Combat but useless in Mass Combat. If it can target 20 creatures it's useful in Mass Combat but potentially breaks Tactical Combat, since now I can use it to give a massive buff everyone in my party with just 1 spell/action. The same issue comes up with Range. A range of 20 feet is decent in Tactical Combat, but is a joke in Mass Combat (where a formation of creatures might be a 20 foot square).

Now, you could write some abilities/spells/items/etc that are useful just for Tactical Combat, and others that are useful for Mass Combat. But then players could unintentionally screw their builds - if I memorize a lot of Mass Combat spells, I'm far less effective in Tactical Combat encounters.

Also, every time a writer makes a new class ability/spell/item/etc, they have to consider it's implications in two different types of combat. For example, lets assume that I can use Control Weather to create a hail storm that deals 1d20 damage to every creature within 1 mile. In a Tactical Combat game, that's a nifty but not particularly powerful way to clear out a bunch of mooks. But in Mass Combat, it can destroy entire armies.

First off, L5R is highly inspired by Japanese Samurai movies/stories, and a lot of the mechanics reflect that.

The gist of L5R is that mass combat is a contest between 2 generals, supported by their soldiers.

Every round, the generals roll their Battle skill (Lore (Battle) is a skill in L5R). How many rolls are won by who determines the sway of the combat.

PCs (one of whom might be the general) have a chance each round of something heroic happening. This might be finding an opportunity to strike an enemy flag-carrier (and try to carry their standard back to allied cover), spotting an enemy champion and having a 1v1 duel while battle rages around you, etc. Success or defeat in these battles can carry a bonus/penalty to the character's honor/glory, and can also give your General a bonus/penalty to his skill checks, helping sway the course of the entire battle.

Now, there's additional nuances to where in the battle the PCs are, affecting their chance of an event happening, and the risk/reward of general hp loss vs gained honor/glory, but that's the main strokes.

It can definitely bog down if you're not prepared, but I feel when it conveys nicely the idea of supporting the general while not being able to solo the entire opposing force, along with heroic "Aragorn vs the cave troll" opportunities (and when you're in the middle of a battle, and suddenly your brawler runs into a giant demon, and charges in unflinchingly as arrows pelt both sides, it can make for some great stories).

[Zombimode]

First off, L5R is highly inspired by Japanese Samurai movies/stories, and a lot of the mechanics reflect that.

The gist of L5R is that mass combat is a contest between 2 generals, supported by their soldiers.

Every round, the generals roll their Battle skill (Lore (Battle) is a skill in L5R). How many rolls are won by who determines the sway of the combat.

PCs (one of whom might be the general) have a chance each round of something heroic happening. This might be finding an opportunity to strike an enemy flag-carrier (and try to carry their standard back to allied cover), spotting an enemy champion and having a 1v1 duel while battle rages around you, etc. Success or defeat in these battles can carry a bonus/penalty to the character's honor/glory, and can also give your General a bonus/penalty to his skill checks, helping sway the course of the entire battle.

Now, there's additional nuances to where in the battle the PCs are, affecting their chance of an event happening, and the risk/reward of general hp loss vs gained honor/glory, but that's the main strokes.

It can definitely bog down if you're not prepared, but I feel when it conveys nicely the idea of supporting the general while not being able to solo the entire opposing force, along with heroic "Aragorn vs the cave troll" opportunities (and when you're in the middle of a battle, and suddenly your brawler runs into a giant demon, and charges in unflinchingly as arrows pelt both sides, it can make for some great stories).


While this is certainly a system to determine the outcome of a battle, it is not really a mass combat system.
Typically, people who search for a mass combat system for their RPG system search for mechanics and rules that allow them actually play out the battle (or parts of it) much like an table top strategy game (ie. Warhammer, Demonworld) but with a close tie-in (or even neat-less conversion of) the mechanics of the RPG system.

Now, this may be a misguided proposition, but at least the need for solid rules for resolving fights between large groups of creatures will come up often enough to warrant attention by the system.

Lets examine an example:

As a culminating point of a campaign/adventure, after everything is said an done, an invading force ha reached the realm the party has an interest to protect. A battle is inevitable and the PCs do of course take part in it. In the preceding adventure the PCs have acquired influence and/or wealth and so, in addition to their role as highly skilled individual combatants, they provide a small strike force of their own to the war effort of their realm.
It is only fitting that this force is commanded by the PCs in the upcoming battle.
The battle as large is resolved by a more abstract system like a set of predetermined outcomes with different paths that take the actions of the PCs into account, the Victory Point system of Heroes of Battle or something along those lines.
But, in this case, the actions of the PCs include what the do with their own troops.

Let say, the have gathered 20 heavy cavalry, 100 spearmen and 50 archers, the spearmen and archers are basic level (and cut above conscripted peasants, but lacking the edge of actual soldiers).
They receive orders from the armies general to "conquer that hill, hold it and, at an opportune moment, strike at the flank of the enemies main force".
So they set out with their force but on the way to the hill, they encounter a large group of orcs who bear the colours of the enemy. While a fight is not inevitable, the PCs are now faced with a strategic decision: do the commit their full force to vanquish the orcs, but in that loosing precious time? or do they ignore the orcs at the risk of getting surrounded later on? or will the split forces to proceed to their objective and fighting the orcs and the same time?
Until now, no mass combat system of any kind is needed.

Lets say, the PCs decide to split forces. They order their spearmen and 30 archers to confront the orcs. As an extra edge, on of the PCs accompanies them.
Now, assuming the orcish unit will take the fight, the GM has several options to resolve the battle.

1) Handwave it: let the PC make some tactical decision, and let him/her fight some of the orcs, and if it works out well enough, have the orcs be defeated.
2) Use an abstracted system like the L5R one presented above.

For some playgroups, one of those options will be fine and the game continues.

Both methods have the disadvantage of failing to account for details.
Mechanically, the human spearman is likely very different from the orcish warrior. Sure, you can somehow work those differences as modifiers in whatever abstracted method you are using.
But lets not stop here.

Say, the PCs have taken great pains to equip all of their spearmen with chain armors. This, plus their heavy shields, will give them better protection then the lighter amored orcs. Again, you could work this advantage in as a modifier. But what if the spearmen are not wearing chain armor, but the mechanically slightly weaker (but much cheaper) scale armor? The spearmen are still better protected then the orcs. Will you use the same modifier as with the chain armor?
Or, what if only half of the spearmen wear chain armor while the other half is unarmored? A field marshal can work around this disadvantage by clever positioning, which in turn could be countered by clever maneuvering. But how can you adjudicate this in-game without actually playing it out?

To me, having a solid base of mass combat rules (no just a battle resolution system) would be a big draw to a system.

[huttj509]

While this is certainly a system to determine the outcome of a battle, it is not really a mass combat system.
Typically, people who search for a mass combat system for their RPG system search for mechanics and rules that allow them actually play out the battle (or parts of it) much like an table top strategy game (ie. Warhammer, Demonworld) but with a close tie-in (or even neat-less conversion of) the mechanics of the RPG system.

Now, this may be a misguided proposition, but at least the need for solid rules for resolving fights between large groups of creatures will come up often enough to warrant attention by the system.

Lets examine an example:

As a culminating point of a campaign/adventure, after everything is said an done, an invading force ha reached the realm the party has an interest to protect. A battle is inevitable and the PCs do of course take part in it. In the preceding adventure the PCs have acquired influence and/or wealth and so, in addition to their role as highly skilled individual combatants, they provide a small strike force of their own to the war effort of their realm.
It is only fitting that this force is commanded by the PCs in the upcoming battle.
The battle as large is resolved by a more abstract system like a set of predetermined outcomes with different paths that take the actions of the PCs into account, the Victory Point system of Heroes of Battle or something along those lines.
But, in this case, the actions of the PCs include what the do with their own troops.

Let say, the have gathered 20 heavy cavalry, 100 spearmen and 50 archers, the spearmen and archers are basic level (and cut above conscripted peasants, but lacking the edge of actual soldiers).
They receive orders from the armies general to "conquer that hill, hold it and, at an opportune moment, strike at the flank of the enemies main force".
So they set out with their force but on the way to the hill, they encounter a large group of orcs who bear the colours of the enemy. While a fight is not inevitable, the PCs are now faced with a strategic decision: do the commit their full force to vanquish the orcs, but in that loosing precious time? or do they ignore the orcs at the risk of getting surrounded later on? or will the split forces to proceed to their objective and fighting the orcs and the same time?
Until now, no mass combat system of any kind is needed.

Lets say, the PCs decide to split forces. They order their spearmen and 30 archers to confront the orcs. As an extra edge, on of the PCs accompanies them.
Now, assuming the orcish unit will take the fight, the GM has several options to resolve the battle.

1) Handwave it: let the PC make some tactical decision, and let him/her fight some of the orcs, and if it works out well enough, have the orcs be defeated.
2) Use an abstracted system like the L5R one presented above.

For some playgroups, one of those options will be fine and the game continues.

Both methods have the disadvantage of failing to account for details.
Mechanically, the human spearman is likely very different from the orcish warrior. Sure, you can somehow work those differences as modifiers in whatever abstracted method you are using.
But lets not stop here.

Say, the PCs have taken great pains to equip all of their spearmen with chain armors. This, plus their heavy shields, will give them better protection then the lighter amored orcs. Again, you could work this advantage in as a modifier. But what if the spearmen are not wearing chain armor, but the mechanically slightly weaker (but much cheaper) scale armor? The spearmen are still better protected then the orcs. Will you use the same modifier as with the chain armor?
Or, what if only half of the spearmen wear chain armor while the other half is unarmored? A field marshal can work around this disadvantage by clever positioning, which in turn could be countered by clever maneuvering. But how can you adjudicate this in-game without actually playing it out?

To me, having a solid base of mass combat rules (no just a battle resolution system) would be a big draw to a system.

So, you have a Fighter.

But wait, his helmet's made of Mythril, and his left pauldron was damaged by acid and crudely repaired. Plus, he ate some bad fish last night, and didn't get to stretch before fighting. However, he's using Bonetti's Defense, and is prepared for the opponent to counter with Capo Ferro.

Sure, you could handwave all this with a couple of modifiers, but really, how can you properly adjudicate the fight without accounting for all that in detail?

[Zombimode]

So, you have a Fighter.

But wait, his helmet's made of Mythril, and his left pauldron was damaged by acid and crudely repaired. Plus, he ate some bad fish last night, and didn't get to stretch before fighting. However, he's using Bonetti's Defense, and is prepared for the opponent to counter with Capo Ferro.

Sure, you could handwave all this with a couple of modifiers, but really, how can you properly adjudicate the fight without accounting for all that in detail?

I get what you are likely trying to say with that comparison but I think you are missing my point.

My example is quite obviously based on D&D 3.5
In this system the details I've mentioned are actually present on an individual level and the advantages gained through clever tactics (and countertactics) are both possible and relevant.
Thus, if you would use a more abstracted battle resolution system like you've described above you would significantly loose out on details.

On the one hand, your comparison misses the point because the use of modifiers per se is not what I'm arguing against. The difference between Chain Armor and Scale Armor on the individual level is mostly a difference in modifiers, too. The point is loosing out on granularity that was already there in the underlying system. This, in turn, creates a dissonance within the reality of the gameworld ("does make wearing chain armor instead of scale armor a difference or not?"), which is something I find unsettling and try to avoid.

On the other hand, your example actually illustrates my second issue I have with abstracted battle resolution systems like the L5R one you've described or the rather similar one in Savage Worlds.
In your example, a player might be disappointed, because this (hypothetical) system is not powerful enough to support the level of detail he or she prefers when it comes to individual combat.
This exactly is my second problem with battle resolution system like the L5R one: they don't give me what I, personally, want. Either as player or GM, if there is a mass combat which my character could influence like a commander, I want to have the ability to make in-depth tactical decisions, taking what would be possible if the battle would be played out on the individual level as a point of reference.

That's why I called the L5R mass battle system a "battle resolution" system in contrast to a mass combat system - because it skips the "combat" part and jumps right to the resolution.


But to be honest, the point you tried to make isn't all that clear. That is because your posting, at least to me, came of as a sarcastic knee-jerk reaction - which isn't really helpful in a discussion.

So, if you are actually interested in discussing the possibilities, merits and pit-falls of mass battles systems in RPGs, I would ask you to elaborate your points a bit more in the future.

[Morty]

I don't know about anyone else, but a situation in which a fighter uses a certain fighting style and predicts, correctly or not, what their opponent will use in order to counter it is a situation the system should totally take into account.

[Knaight]

So I haven't played REIGN or Five Rings. Can you expand upon how mass and tactical combat works in them?

Five Rings was covered, so I'll cover REIGN. Essentially, REIGN has company mechanics, wherein large groups are modeled as a company. When attacking, you roll Might + Treasure*, taking into account previous expenditures of both of these things, when defending you use Might + Territory*, again taking into account previous expenditures. There are also rules for combining them, and for modifiers wherein commander tactics, morale, etc. come into play. This is more on the strategic end of mass combat than the tactical end, the tactical end involves sets of squads of varying sizes being commanded, where the leadership abilities affect the squads - it's a war game, and the PCs mostly come in in the context of providing bonuses via tactics skills. The big thing with it that is particularly noticeable is that logistic skills are relevant, as they affect information flow and order lag, and having people responding to what you told them to do two turns ago gives you a pretty big advantage over having people responding to what you told them to do three turns ago (this is obviously dependent on distance)

Generally though, you use the more abstract strategic side, where individual battles are likely just one roll, but there are decisions to be made at a broader side - do you send the bulk of your might here or here, do you use up treasure that could be funding your war directly in a diplomatic maneuver or through funding terror tactics, etc.

*Note that there are quite a few things that affect these stats for specialized rolls. For instance, if there's a group in a fortified mountain in the center of a swamp they could easily have a bonus to territory rolls specifically for defending against invasion, that they wouldn't get to use for things like strengthening the economy or trying to increase sovereignty through public works.