Unearthed Arcana: Mass Combat Rules!

[DireSickFish]

They just posted the mass combat rules in the WoTC website!

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Battlesystem.pdf

As someone who tends to make there threats capable of summoning armies I've been looking forward to this. I'm not sure how elegant they are, and I could see having trouble getting players used to these rules if they don't come up very often. Getting used to "Units", "Stands" and "Solos" and keeping track of available actions could bog things down.

It seems like spell-casting as Solos will be the biggest complicated thing, as spell-casting with units works just like all the other scaled up stuff more or less.

What do you guys think of these rules?

[JFahy]

(Respondents, could you please mention if you have experience with
tabletop wargames? I'm curious if that'll affect peoples' reactions.)

I've got the rules printed off and in my backpack - I'll get into them
this evening.

[Naanomi]

So the best commander has Max Charisma and Wisdom, proficiency in Wisdom Saves (plus boost them as able), and needs to flawlessly make DC 15 persuasion or intimidation checks (probably via expertise). Paladin/Bard?

[Stan]

usable but nothing special

I've played quite a few wargames and some miniature games. Since they are not assuming non-rpg experience, it makes sense that they use D&D stats. Collapsing 10 creatures to a figure is a sensible move, especially without simplified rules; otherwise it's going to be very cumbersome. Collapsing more per figure would have made it hard for individuals to show up as anything other than leaders.

The should have a separate section to spell out solo vs. stand interaction.

The bonus action for reach weapons is a nice touch and will make reach weapons more interesting for battles than they are for individual combat.

Instead of standard initiative, turns with command rules might be better. For a typical battle setup, it might take 3-4 turns to make contact; by then the advantage of going first will be largely lost.

Regiment vs skirmisher is good but I'd add more options for both. Also would make skirmishers slightly more resilient from missile fire for being more spread out, like half cover.

With even a moderate size army (say 500 soldiers per side), it's still going to take quite a while to play out and have a lot of book keeping. I'd rather have a simplified system where units are either full, wounded, or dead so you can do bookkeeping with just on the table with something to mark unit status.

Another option would be to take action by unit, not stand. For example, a unit of 10 stands attacks another unit of 10 stands. Based on a the roll, a number of stands in the unit is eliminated.

[Sindeloke]

See, now this is the kind of thing I would have liked to see in the DMG, instead of 600 pages of unecessary magic items.



With even a moderate size army (say 500 soldiers per side), it's still going to take quite a while to play out and have a lot of book keeping. I'd rather have a simplified system where units are either full, wounded, or dead so you can do bookkeeping with just on the table with something to mark unit status.

Another option would be to take action by unit, not stand. For example, a unit of 10 stands attacks another unit of 10 stands. Based on a the roll, a number of stands in the unit is eliminated.

The low size troubled me as well. As you say, you could step it up to acting by unit rather than stand, but it'd also take a judgement call to figure how that would affect solos. If you have an elder red dragon fielding a massive force of kobolds and lizardfolk against the players' new kingdom, the cleanest thing would probably be just for them to fight the dragon in a regular scale encounter, with map hazards to represent other soldiers, but that requires the players deciding that's the best way to spend their time.

It does seem pleasantly modular, though. You could easily take solos out of the equation and just enforce players as commanders, or scratch Victory Points and just track deaths if you want a long, bloody battle of attrition rather than a quick objective-centered skirmish.

[Forrestfire]

Heh, it's like the reverse of 1e. Instead of having rules applied to a wargame to turn it into an RPG, we get rules applied to an RPG to turn it into a wargame. "Chainmail: 5th Edition", if you will :smallamused:

Seems interesting enough, although I'm likely to just handle mass battles with vague handwaves regarding combat not involving the PCs, like I've done in every edition I've DM'd in. It just saves time.

[Stan]

Seems interesting enough, although I'm likely to just handle mass battles with vague handwaves regarding combat not involving the PCs, like I've done in every edition I've DM'd in. It just saves time.

If players are not into controlling armies and learning extra rules, that's the way to go.

[Naanomi]

A commander can support a unit by...

Prepare, Incite: DC 15 Persuasion/Intimidation checks... easy to get ensured success if you have expertize.

Initiative: Use lowest value for normal units (IE: Would-Be-Commanders, don't dump Dex!); or highest value for Skirmishers (IE: Would-Be-Commanders, get a Halfling archer to join with your unit of Skirmishers)

Moral: DC 10 Wisdom Save... easy to get ensure success if Proficient with a Good Wisdom score (or have a source to bonuses for the Save, such as Paladin Aura)

Rally: DC 10 Wisdom Save with special Bonus equal to Commander's Charisma Bonus (IE: Even easier than normal Moral checks)

Therefore, the Ultimate Commander leading all forces is...
Lightfoot Halfling Rogue 1/Paladin 7+; DEX and CHA 20, Wisdom 18; Expertise in Persuasion and got proficiency in Wisdom Saves somewhere.

[DireSickFish]

It has a lot of rules for Commanders running around and joining units to become commanders, but what can a solo unit do.. solo? It doesn't even have to be a PC, if you have a Dragon or a Storm Giant as a solo can they attack the units? Can a PC as a solo cast spells and attack?

[Yakk]

I found rules for solo spellcasting. If you cannot target 5+ creatures, you cannot target stands. If it can, it works "normally". Defensively if a stand volleys spells at you, you take 2x damage and are at disadvantage on saves.

For attacking, I couldn't find a rule that made you any worse than a normal attack. Which means solos deal 10x the damage they "would normally" against stands, and stands deal 1/10x the damage they "would normally" against solos.

But I might have missed something.

[ashiok]

So, is it just me, or should darkness break battles completely by wrecking morale and making all stands Isolated without magical darkvision? (the spell darkness)
These rules seem easily exploitable...
For example, a unit of skirmishers divided between minotuar and archer squads can wreck anything by knocking them back, compromising integrity, and then hitting them with a volley of arrows.

The rules look fun, and I want to use them, but I'm afraid of abusing them.

[Psikerlord]

I think it's great they've made these rules available for those who want them. Personally it's not my cup o' tea.

[WickerNipple]

So, is it just me, or should darkness break battles completely by wrecking morale and making all stands Isolated without magical darkvision? (the spell darkness)
These rules seem easily exploitable...
For example, a unit of skirmishers divided between minotuar and archer squads can wreck anything by knocking them back, compromising integrity, and then hitting them with a volley of arrows.

The rules look fun, and I want to use them, but I'm afraid of abusing them.

Darkness is only a 15ft sphere with a range of 60ft - sounds like a useful choice of tactical spell in this case, but I don't think it's abusive given the scale we're talking about.

Overall I rather like these rules - certainly better than the old Battle Card rules which were the only D&D/Wargaming crossovers I've tried.

We wrote rules to adapt Warhammer to D&D back in my days of Birthright, but I'd give these a whirl myself.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Ooooh! Shinynewthing! Want! NEED!

I am excited. My players love little, detailed combat stuff. I'd love to run a game with these rules.

[Mrmox42]

(I have played a lot of wargames since the 80's. I have about 40 of them on my shelf, from the small old Napoleon at Waterloo from Strategy and Tactics magazine, to the massive Drang Nach Oosten and Unentschieden)

I am a bit worried about book keeping, so my 5 cents would be the following:

Roll all of a unit's dice at the same time. If you have 10 lvl. 1 fighter stands vs. 10 Orcs stands, roll 10 D20, see how many hits, and roll all damage and add it together. Lets say you do 47 points of damage in all. If an Orc stand has 15 HP, then you remove 3 Orc Stands (45 HP) and note that the unit has taken 2 more HP damage.

This should speed things up considerably, but it also requires that all stands in a unit are alike.

If different or special stands (like Solos) are in a unit, they will still need to be attacked seperately.

[Stan]

I am a bit worried about book keeping, so my 5 cents would be the following:

Roll all of a unit's dice at the same time. If you have 10 lvl. 1 fighter stands vs. 10 Orcs stands, roll 10 D20, see how many hits, and roll all damage and add it together. Lets say you do 47 points of damage in all. If an Orc stand has 15 HP, then you remove 3 Orc Stands (45 HP) and note that the unit has taken 2 more HP damage.

This should speed things up considerably, but it also requires that all stands in a unit are alike.

If different or special stands (like Solos) are in a unit, they will still need to be attacked seperately.

I'm also worried about book keeping and like this idea. I'd add that stands always do average damage when they hit so the total damage is number of hits times average damage. You could even throw in rounding of the damage or discard remainders for even less book keeping. Solos still track hp and roll for damage. Even with average damage, there is room for variability with handfuls of attack rolls.

For simplicity, I'd add that stands can't hurt solos that are part of stands.

I don't see a rule for solos attacking stands but I think disadvantage on attack rolls is fair as you're killing 10 at a time.

Other things: The Defend configuration should allow melee attacks, the half speed is penalty enough.

The Aid configuration is very nice for a unit 2 stands deep. The rear stands can't reach opponents but they can give the front row advantage.

[Mrmox42]

I would also add a Morale Check Bonus to veteran units or units with special training.


I'd add that stands always do average damage when they hit so the total damage is number of hits times average damage. This makes it even simpler, yes.


The Aid configuration is very nice for a unit 2 stands deep. The rear stands can't reach opponents but they can give the front row advantage. I was thinking the same thing.

[Yakk]

So, I'm a bit less leery about how "effective" solos are.

Solos that are isolated are doubly-disadvantaged. They take double damage, attackers have advantage (if stands are low level creatures, this almost doubles their hit rate on the solo), they have disadvantage on attacks (which reduces their damage output by 25%-50%).

So they take ~3x damage and do 2/3 damage when isolated.

Each weapon attack simulates 10 rounds of weapon attacks (1 minute instead of 6 seconds): it "deals 10x damage" (as it deals stand-level damage) against stands.

10x * 2/3 =~ 6x normal round damage.

Meanwhile, the stand is dealing 1x*3x = 3x normal damage back.

So the solo, while isolated, is only "2x" as effective as they "should" be compared to a stand that is integrated.

Meanwhile, if the solo is integrated, then they are near allies. And we can presume that enemy stands are mostly worried about the masses of nearby enemy troops, not the solo (even if the solo is out in front a bit).

...

In short, when a solo is integrated, it deals 10x single-normal-round damage in 10 normal rounds. It takes 1/10th single-normal-round damage.

When a solo is isolated, it deals 6x / 10x, and takes 3x / 10x.