Military Formation in a D&D Campaign

[legomaster00156]

In our world, classical military formation was tightly-knit so that every soldier covered those beside him. Phalanxes would form impenetrable defenses from most attacks.
But in a world where a single Fireball can burn to a crisp everyone within a 20' radius, shields and armor be damned, how would military formation change? How do you get the same kind of effectiveness in a world where enemy battlemages are a bane to every soldier's existence - including your own battlemages?
Assume that neither army has spells of any kind available above L4, and 95% of both forces are level 1-3 Warriors.

[IcarusWulfe]

I am by no means an expert on the subject, but i would imagine that an army would either find ways of neutralizing enemy battle mages (counterspelling, mass energy resistance, or assasination) or make units much more spread out and give them reach weapons to cover the gaps.

[Elkad]

You need magical superiority, same as you need air superiority on earth.

Killing the enemy mages at range, or counterspelling their AoE effects will be the most important job of your mages. Only after they win that battle will they be free to fry enemy soldiers.
Sniper/infiltration teams will be sent on mage-killing missions as well.

Otherwise you have to shift to a more modern formation. Troops with good ranged weapons can do that natively. Fight from cover/concealment, with individual soldiers spread out 20-30 feet apart.
Melee troops might do something similar, but in pairs or trios (either moving at maximum speed to close with the enemy, or heavily concealed for an ambush). Once they engage the enemy and "get under the guns", additional groups can close in to help them.

[Sacrieur]

You would have a mage corps that would focus mostly in abjuration and some evocation magic. Given its wide use, it's unreasonable to say a military wouldn't apply magic liberally, since war is the great truth finder. What works is kept and what doesn't is left in a dead pile.

Tactics would involve attempting to kill the enemy's mages so that your mages can kill their soldiers.

[jiriku]

Complete Warrior has some discussion of military formations (pp.123-126). A few thoughts come to mind after reading it:

For a classical military formation:
* volleying your archery converts ranged attacks into an AoE, and a majority of the spellcasting classes have poor Reflex saves.
* if a formation readies itself to disperse at the command of a spotter with ranks in Spellcraft, it can use a readied action to spread out in response to an incoming AoE.
* Phalanxes advancing under the protection of tower shields have cover, which grants a +2 bonus to Reflex saves.
* Spellcasters do not have line of sight or line of effect to troops advancing behind a rolling shield partition.

For a modern military formation, I think combat proceeds much the same as in mage duels or assassination threads we've seen on the Playground:
* Your first defense is to make the enemy believe you are not an enemy so that you can operate unhindered.
* Your second defense is to make the enemy believe you are not operating in his area, so that he is at least off his guard.
* Your third defense is to avoid being detected, so that he at least cannot attack you.
* Your fourth defense is to present decoys or deceptions so that he wastes some of his time and energy attacking nothing.
* Your fifth defense is to utilize allies, proxies, and expendable fodder troops so that he attacks assets that are of least value to you.
* Your sixth defense is to utilize damage mitigation and recovery so that you suffer less harm from his attacks.
* Your seventh defense is to heavily defend your valuable assets so that he finds them difficult to destroy.

Classical approaches typically start at the bottom of this seven-point list and begin to work up it, and usually stop before reaching the top of the list. Modern approaches work from the top down, and try to hit all seven defenses.

[torrasque666]

Despite its.... less than stellar storytelling, the Inheritance Quartet covered this kinda well, given that its a world where mages can kill with mere words (not unlike D&D actually). Mages are still few enough in number that battles need to be fought with traditional armies, but mages are sprinkled throughout the formations providing protection from other mages to the troops (as magical combat essentially boils down to a mental struggle, and muggles have limited ability to resist), while at the same time striving to take out the mages on the other side.

[Greenish]

Another difference between D&D and real world is that in D&D you can domesticate/tame basically any animal (and several magical beasts), and there are far more huge and nasty ones about (especially flying ones). There are ones that spit acid, great many have things like pounce or trip. There are magical beasts with vorpal tusks, ones that burrow, even ones that have Colour Spray as an at will SLA (take that, army of level 1-3 warriors).

Imagine tigers the size of war elephants and that's a good starting point.

[Necroticplague]

Taking magic into the equation, DnD militaries actually seem like they should operate more closely to modern militaries or X-COM than ancient ones. Teleportation, burrowing, and flying being easily available means supply lines are very hard to disrupt, AoE damage means you try and avoid clustering up, the levelling system encourages use of small, elite groups instead of masses of barely-trained miltiamen (as does negative levels, which could decimate low level armies, but mildly inconvenience high level squads). Even if only 5% are mages, any reason your small squads can't be full of people crammed to the gills with templates and magic items? It seems the ideal combat would be small squads of soldiers armed with the absolute best you have, then put through a ringer of arcane experiments to pile on templates (Lycanthropic for Magebred Paragon creatures, spellwarped, half-golem, Mineralized Warrior). Of course, the effort into creating these soldiers mean that you'd have less of them, but one such elite is probably worth quiet a many of the untemplated man.

[Greenish]

Taking magic into the equation, DnD militaries actually seem like they should operate more closely to modern militaries or X-COM than ancient ones. Teleportation, burrowing, and flying being easily available means supply lines are very hard to disrupt, AoE damage means you try and avoid clustering up, the levelling system encourages use of small, elite groups instead of masses of barely-trained miltiamen (as does negative levels, which could decimate low level armies, but mildly inconvenience high level squads). Even if only 5% are mages, any reason your small squads can't be full of people crammed to the gills with templates and magic items? It seems the ideal combat would be small squads of soldiers armed with the absolute best you have, then put through a ringer of arcane experiments to pile on templates (Lycanthropic for Magebred Paragon creatures, spellwarped, half-golem, Mineralized Warrior). Of course, the effort into creating these soldiers mean that you'd have less of them, but one such elite is probably worth quiet a many of the untemplated man.Half-golem, magebred, and so on might be difficult or expensive to create, but just turning the mentioned level 1-3 warriors into werebears (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lycanthrope.htm#werebear) takes less than a month at most, can be applied en-masse, buffs the soldiers like no-one's business, and as an added bonus turns them all into Lawful Good citizens (if you want some other alignment, pick a different strain of lycanthropy).

[MyrPsychologist]

The answer to this question is going to depend on the prevalence of magic and how your DM handles NPC levels.

Using what is standard, I would imagine that the presence of magic wouldn't change a whole lot. They would just need to be countered with counterspells, subterfuge, and proper enhancements to protect the individuals running into combat. There could be a shift to more "specialists" like knights that are quick, mobile, and powerful on their own but it's probably going to be cultural dependent.

But it's not like you're going to see epic level mages wading into battle. You probably won't even see mages with more than a couple levels. So I wouldn't expect too many insane magic shenanigans.

[jiriku]

OP should also consider that if 95% of both armies are low-level warriors, and presumably only a minority of the remainign 5% are casters and none of them have spells above 4th level, the actual threat posed by casters may be overstated. The typical 5th level wizard can cast 2-3 fireballs per day. After that he is down to 1st- and 2nd-level spells that do not have the same large AoE effect. His contribution is significant and impactful, but 2nd and 3rd level warriors can survive a fireball if they make their saves, and unless those 2-3 spells are carefully used to maximum effect, the wizard's offense is in danger of being overwhelmed by the superior numbers of the low-level warriors. Mass battles that last for hours severely tax the stamina of low-level spell-casters, who only have enough spells to maintain a few minutes of continuous casting.

[Andezzar]

That is only if you use the randomly generated populations. AFAIK the books do not say that only a certain percentage of the population can become wizards. So especially if those countries draft at a fairly young age, they will probably produce quite a few more wizards. Even if they insist on training them with martial weapons and all sorts of armor, fighter 1/wizard 1 will be quite a bit better than fighter 2, even with INT 10. INT 11+ however will make a vast difference.

[Yahzi]

But in a world where a single Fireball can burn to a crisp everyone within a 20' radius, shields and armor be damned, how would military formation change?
Tower shields are your friend. They provide total cover, with enough DR and HP to absorb a 5th level fireball.

It's not much of a stretch to presume that large shields, when used in Turtle formation, do the same. I rule that troops with the Shield Wall feat can form Turtle in response to an incoming fireball with a morale/training save.

Add on some alchemical covering and your soldiers can take up to 2 fireballs!

Another advantage: D&D only lets you put 1 soldier every 5 ft, which is wildly ahistorical (Roman legions were at least double that density). So your guys die half as fast. Skirmish formation, on the other hand, is probably 1 guy per 10' ft, armed with bows, slings, or javelins. These options are possibly cheaper than the cost of a single charge from a wand.

I'm actually writing a whole document on this. It is bad, but it's not as bad as it seems. There is still a place for mass troops. However, your wizards have to be relatively rare. If 5th level casters are common (i.e. you have more than 100 of them) troops will instead be equipped with Magic Missile Wands, and battles will resemble WWII more than fantasy (except at much shorter ranges).



The typical 5th level wizard can cast 2-3 fireballs per day
Create Wand is standing at the back of the room, mocking you. :smallbiggrin:

[Saintheart]

Relevant: The Spartan Handbook, or, How To Rock The Phalanx (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4963).

[Seharvepernfan]

Tower shields are your friend. They provide total cover, with enough DR and HP to absorb a 5th level fireball.

Another advantage: D&D only lets you put 1 soldier every 5 ft, which is wildly ahistorical (Roman legions were at least double that density). So your guys die half as fast. Skirmish formation, on the other hand, is probably 1 guy per 10' ft, armed with bows, slings, or javelins. These options are possibly cheaper than the cost of a single charge from a wand.

This, pretty much. If you let up to three soldiers occupy a single square, you can make a cube of tower shield that fireballs and lightning bolts can't get through. Of course, it can only move with one move action per round, and they can't see anything.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The answer to this question is going to depend on the prevalence of magic

And the prevalence of other units.

In real life, close formations are not a good defense against volleys of arrows, or against artillery strikes. But looser formations are vulnerable to infantry charges and particularly to cavalry.

Cavalry, while usually only available in modest numbers, is dangerous. It will fork you up good, and many tactics of the past were specifically designed to stop the from being a threat as much as possible, any side effects of that were worth it. Around 1200-1300 in Europe a rule of thumb was that a knight on horseback should be able to handle about ten foot soldiers. And while tactics and weapon design did become more anti-cavalry focused in later centuries, horses weren't exactly a weird new invention nobody could defend against.

I will agree that a wizard of decent level is at least about as dangerous as that. While they are very vulnerable, not being able to wear armor (of course some other classes do not have this disadvantage), they can fireball ten soldiers to death easily. And with the help of a horse they are very mobile. An important question then becomes: how many wizards are there? If their numbers are much lower than those of the stabby kind of cavalry, military formations would probably evolve much the same as they did in our past. Although they might bring some extra ranged attackers to down those pesky spellcasters on horseback. With 95% of the forces on both sides being level 1-3 warriors, there may simply not be enough magic users to really put their stamp on the battle.

(All of that is based on semi-real world logic though. I don't think you could really build a "worth ten foot soldiers" knight out of a level 3 warrior. So maybe cavalry itself is simply a lot less prevalent in this campaign world. Who knows, maybe all the nobles study magic instead of horseback fighting?)

[Elder_Basilisk]

It's going to depend very heavily on the assumptions of the world and the scale at which you operate.

The world under discussion has army composition of mostly Lvl 1-3 warriors and the "battle mage" spellcasters don't have access to 4th level spells. What isn't clear is how many "battle mages" are likely to be around.

Now, even in the real world, unit formations depend very heavily on the scale you are working with. In the norse sagas, for example, there is no mention of formations in small unit engagements such as when Njal's enemies burn his house down, killing him and most of his family. On the other hand, when the vikings get to England and decide to challenge King Harold (or previous kings), both sides adopt a shield wall. Shield wall formations were highly effective at that time, but only for large engagements. In smaller, skirmish level engagements, there often weren't enough people to make an effective shieldwall.

In D&D, the same holds true. If you have a battle with a few dozen warriors on each side, a few fireballs has the potential to change the course of a battle. (Though in a world where level 1-3 warriors are the vast majority of armies, what are the odds that you will find a level 5 wizard in any given skirmish between 40 soldier platoons or even 100 soldier centuries?) On the other hand, if you have five hundred soldiers per side, a single fireball won't get more than 16 soldiers in a double line. That's a big deal to the 16 soldiers, but unless it happens at a particularly crucial time and in a particularly strategic location, it won't be the difference between winning and losing the battle. The advantage of the formation could easily outweigh the disadvantage of fireball vulnerability. For comparison, the damage dished out is probably pretty similar to 16-24 archers using rapid shot with longbows. If the other side has 100 archers, you'd be foolish to make a single level 5 wizard with 3 fireball spells (probably 2 if he's not an evoker) your primary consideration in choosing a formation. So, in large scale battles, one or two relatively low-level spellcasters are not going to make a huge difference--not with fireball at least. (Entangle is a much better candidate than fireball for "game changer" in mid size engagements like that--especially if you can have more than one per round in a relatively low powered setting).

Now, if you add 4 or 5 battle mages per side to that 500 per side battle, things are potentially different, but there you're starting to transition into a higher powered, higher magic type world than the vast majority of soldiers are level 1-3 warriors type world that the original poster envisions.

However, at that point, there are other considerations like the prevalence of clerics and other spellcasters and the system you are using to play D&D. The average damage on a clvl 5 fireball is 17.5 on a failed save or 8 on a successful save. A group of first level warriors will probably be wiped out whether or not they save, but depending on their con and whether or not they have toughness, may not actually be dead. With decent con and toughness, they might even be conscious after a successful save. Second level warriors will almost certainly be conscious on a successful save and probably won't be dead even if they fail. Third level warriors might even survive a failed saving throw. Now, if you're running pathfinder, a cleric can channel energy to heal in an area, so even if the formation is super vulnerable to fireball, a level 5 cleric could probably channel well enough to undo the effects of the fireballs and a level 3 cleric could do it in a couple rounds. Likewise, with non-core materials, communal resist energy (pathfinder) and mass resist energy (3.5) can mitigate the effects of the fireballs. Alternately, a high level archer with readied actions to interrupt spellcasting or a group of archers with orders to simply pincushion anyone on the opposing side who casts a visible spell could put down a wizard before he does too much damage. (If your 5th level wizard is targeted by a group of 20 first level warriors with longbows (assume 14 dex, and rapid shot), he's likely to take a good amount of damage (mage armor and shield would give an AC of 18-20, so 40 shots at +1 would yield 4-8 hits for 18-36 damage). Give them masterwork arrows and that number goes up significantly (27-45). The 5th level wizard had better have protection from arrows up and hope that those archers didn't get flame arrow, greater magic weaponed arrows, or have a friendly bard if he wants to live. But even protection from arrows won't enable him to survive a second rapid shot volley.

How you build the world and how common spellcasters are will have a big impact on magic changes the formations and tactics of soldiers. But historical models can still have a lot of validity in scenarios where you don't have high level wizards all over.

[Elder_Basilisk]

An interesting question. Let's assume elite array and combat optimized feat and stat choices since that knighthood was in part a combat optimization program.

3.5
Level 3 warrior. Strength 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8.
Feats: Toughness, Power Attack, Cleave
HP. 23 (4.5x3 round up plus 9)
AC. 19 (banded mail, heavy steel shield, dex)
Atk. +6 mwk longsword (1d8+2) or mwk lance (1d8+2, x2 on a charge)
Assume he's riding a heavy warhorse.

foot soldier, less combat optimized. Non-elite array
Level 1 warrior. Strength 13, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 9.
Feats: Skill focus: Farming, Skill focus: sense motive
HP: 6
AC: 14 (leather armor, heavy wooden shield)
Atk. +2 morning star (1d8+1)

The level 3 warrior has the ability to kill 2 foot soldiers each turn with cleave though misses will mean that he probably only kills three every two turns or so. His warhorse will account for at least 1 more per turn. It's entirely plausible that he and his warhorse could kill all ten warriors in four turns.

The foot soldiers can expect to land 3 hits on the knight for every 20 attacks, but if the knight uses ride to take cover behind his horse, all but one of those will be negated. The knight takes 5 hits to kill, so the foot soldiers would probably all need to each attack him for four rounds in order to defeat him, if he doesn't use Ride to negate any of their hits.

However, when you consider that the knight's greater speed and reach should enable him to attack first and that the knight should get at least one AoO with the lance's reach before he is surrounded, it is likely that even on the first round, he will only take 7 or 8 attacks. (He drops one footman with his lance, and either cleaves into a second then takes the AoO for a third or misses one of the attacks and only drops two). Thereafter, for every footman he or his horse drop, he will have fewer attacks incoming. My guess is that the well equipped level 3 warrior knight will usually emerge victorious against ten footmen. Arm the footmen with pikes, bows, or crossbows, or even just heavy armor, and the match changes a lot. But that's also to be expected. The knight was the equal of 10 footsoldiers, not ten dismounted knights or ten pikemen.

If you go to Pathfinder, or use Fighter, Knight (3.5), or Cavalier (pathfinder) for the "knight" in question, the basic battle math is even more lopsided in the knight's favor.


(All of that is based on semi-real world logic though. I don't think you could really build a "worth ten foot soldiers" knight out of a level 3 warrior. So maybe cavalry itself is simply a lot less prevalent in this campaign world. Who knows, maybe all the nobles study magic instead of horseback fighting?)

[dascarletm]

Another point to consider is that while many armies in medieval Europe could have used more "modern" tactics, most large battles took place in an open field with two sides lined up against each other. The opposing factions would at times set up where and when the battle would take place. As such, you have to ask, do the forces in your world do this, or do they adopt a more "modern" approach.

Heck, it could be that you have both armies line up, not unlike the large flintlock formations of old, and whack spells and gunshots at one another.
Commander A: "Soldiers, line up! Mages to the field, ready spells."
Commander B: "Looks like we have some fireballs heading our way boys, mages prepare dispels or counters. Armsmen ready your weapons and pray our mages make the caster level check!"

[Flickerdart]

Frankly, you want the wizard to be killing your 1-3 level warriors. Every round he kills some, he's not killing your elite units, like your own mages, expensive cavalry, commanders, etc.

To make sure the wizard spends extra time killing them, make them skirmishers - low-level rogues with Evasion who are trained to move in loose formation and take advantage of cover.

[5ColouredWalker]

Create Wand is standing at the back of the room, mocking you. :smallbiggrin:

Or in this case, on a mage covered in as much armor as possible while mounted on a horse that's equally armored. Seriously, after paying for the wand, paying for the tower shield and full-plate is a minor expense, especially since Arcane Spell Failure doesn't apply to wands.

But yes, good points here are Tower Shields providing Total Cover to units and volley fire towards mages.

[archon_huskie]

Zerg rush. Meat for the Grinder.

If the troops can close with the enemy quickly then a battle mage would have accept friendly fire. Presumably this would happen while battle mages are trying to take each other out.

The mage would also run out of spells eventually. Mage might be better off casting widen extended grease than fireball.

Imagine how this battle might have turned out if V could have cast grease right there instead of invisibility.

[Krios]

A lot of good points have been raised here. There are two that I think are being missed though.

First, it's quite possible that the societies that arise in a world with D&D's rules simply don't last long enough to adapt to magical tactics. dascarletm alludes to an important point here:


Another point to consider is that while many armies in medieval Europe could have used more "modern" tactics, most large battles took place in an open field with two sides lined up against each other. The opposing factions would at times set up where and when the battle would take place. As such, you have to ask, do the forces in your world do this, or do they adopt a more "modern" approach.

It's worth noting that, historically, people didn't modernize tactics immediately even when confronted with modern weapons. WWI was basically the result of people refusing to admit that "send hordes of people at it" stopped being a good solution to problems when those problems started being machine guns.

I suspect it would take a while for people to accept the use of Wizards in combat, even if there were obvious advantages. That, in concert with the relative infrequency of wars, means that it could take a couple of years for a military to incorporate magic into its tactics. And those years just don't exist if people adventure and gain levels in the way they nominally do according to the rules.

People are expected to win four level appropriate encounters a day and level up (roughly) every thirteen such encounters. That's a level every three days. That's ten levels in a month. That's going from "nobody" to "chaining planar bindings together" nine times in the time it takes to bring a pregnancy to term. It's hard to believe that societies can exist at all under those pressures, let alone last the decades that have historically been required to adapt to new military technologies.

But while that's interesting, it's also kind of dumb. It's how the game works, but it's oblique enough and unhelpful enough to ignore. So let's assume you do. There's still another problem that people don't seem to have addressed. Namely, the predictability of what magic users can do. We tend to assume that people in the game world's experience of learning spells is the same as our own. That is, they level up and then pick a couple of new spells.

But that's not (always) the case. Sure, it's sometimes the case (for Wizards or Wu Jen or whatever), and sometimes it's functionally true (Clerics learn all their spells, which is a fairly predictable list of spells to know). But Sorcerers or Favored Souls or Warlocks or whatever don't necessarily pick the spells they get. Those spells are nominally expressions of draconic heritage or divine favor or whatever. And they can seriously be whatever.

So it's possible that the military adaptation isn't going to meaningfully happen. If your casters just get "stuff", you can't really integrate them into the military. Squads that happen to have Sorcerers in them will adapt their tactics around the Sorcerer's ability to summon demon goats or conjure walls of fire. And squads that don't won't. But the brass won't have any ability or expectation of being able to call on their mage corps to bridge a river or enhance their troops' weapons.

And this has implications even for societies with a more standard spread of classes. It means that militaries are going to try and snap up casters who either have predictable lists (Clerics, Warmages, Beguilers, Druids). Not necessarily because those casters are better than the Warlocks and Sorcerers of the world, but because you can actually tell them to do specific things and expect them to do it. You can prepare a barrage of fireballs with Warmages, or call up a horde of badgers with Druids, or whatever in a way you can't with the personal magic of Favored Souls and Duskblades.

So it's possible that you'd see some interesting prejudices about magic users in a society that used them in the army. People who knew predictable spells (or at least learn spells when told, like Wizards) would be prized for the military in a way other people wouldn't. So Sorcerers are basically pariahs until they get strong enough to bring enough personal oomph to the table that the military in question adapts tactics around Dave the Deadly's ability to rain ice from the sky or turn trees into lamps. Which potentially makes them deeply scary, as that is basically the point where they have a reasonable chance of simply overthrowing society.

[ekarney]

I'd assume that it would operate similarly to a late 1600s/1700s army.

With infantry forming the bulk of the army to do the line work, artillery (mages) to decimate the infantry and cavalry to chase down the mages and assist infantry.

Edit: Fun fact, Vrill/Goblins actually make the best pike wallers, arm them all with a trip/reach weapon and give them the swarmfighting feat, then build for tripping and you're looking at 20 - 40 trip attacks per turn from a group of 6 squares.

[atemu1234]

Guerilla tactics would probably be (more) the norm, due to low listen and spot on mages. Maybe it would turn into an FMA-style system, where wizards who chose to become 'dogs of the military' would gain higher rank and have soldiers guarding them.

[Flickerdart]

People are expected to win four level appropriate encounters a day and level up (roughly) every thirteen such encounters. That's a level every three days. That's ten levels in a month.
Hold your horses - just because a party is expected to be able to handle four CR-appropriate encounters a day doesn't mean they get those encounters. A 1st level party that saves their village from a goblin raiding party and then goes and defeats the chief to make sure the goblins stay away might never meet another goblin and settle back into a life of farming and hunting. Even if they are career adventurers, ruins and monsters and world-threatening plots won't just conveniently drop into their laps like clockwork. This goes double if there are meaningful quantities of adventurers to affect entire societies - there aren't that many monsters to go around! You can always try your luck at the next town, but it takes a good long while to hike or ride your way through a country even when there are roads to where you need to go.

Then there are the death rates. Each one of those four encounters a day is supposed to tax the party of 20% of daily resources. That distribution will not be even, as anyone in the "take hits to the face because the party wizard is squishy" roles knows all too well. By the day's last encounter those adventurers are running on 1/5th hit points and 1/5th spell slots, and the tiniest skew in distribution is enough to bring someone down to dead. These are the kind of odds that make someone retire after they hit level 5, and open an inn.

So between availability of monsters and the very real risk of death when fighting said monsters, you're really not going to be seeing many adventurers skyrocketing from peasant to planar binder. The ascent from there (once the PCs have access to global informant networks and teleportation) ought to be faster, but then you have the "teams of superheroes" paradigm that ignores all armies no matter how you arrange the pawns.

[Vogie]

The actual formations would be based largely on the nuance of each nation-state and their population. An army with an abundance of clerics will fight very differantly than an army with an abundance of Wizards, which would also be different than an army with an abundance of Druids. And it wouldn't actually be planned like that - the commanders would see the normal makeup of their peoples, devise tactics accordingly, and then encourage recruitment to fit those tactics, which would reinforce the original makeup of their people. The interesting part of those battles would be how those styles impact each other in the battlefield and the surrounding metabattle before and after.

A fairly diverse population would most likely have a military similar to actual adventuring parties... small teams of 5-10 with some skill overlap and specific specialties based on the team makeup.

A population with an abundance of clerics would be in slightly larger teams, probably a bit more aggressive in nature, as damage could be quickly healed away. They would act more like a traditional form of an army. Domains would also come into play.

A population with an abundance of Wizards/Sorcerers would probably smaller teams, focused on obliterating a target as fast as possible, as they have a hard-cap of "Ammunition". Of course, they would also vary MASSIVELY based on spell schools and bloodlines. For example, I could see Evocation and Divination Wizards more like SEAL teams or the magical equivalent of drone strikes, with an emphasis to overwhelm the target and end the battle before it begins... they'd use the mundanes amoung them to create a distraction or draw off the defenses, then strike; Illusion or Necromancy Wizards would have seemingly limitless boots on the ground ; Conjuration Wizards could generate their own Army, or join Abjuration and Enchantment can bolster an existing ones...

A population with an abundance of Druids would probably act most similar to guerillas or, ironically, urban warfare. Highly versatile, each team could rely slightly more on "DIY Natural Disasters", "Suddenly, Elephants", "Augemented with elementals" or some combination of druidic abilities. They wouldn't be as small of teams as wizards could pull off, nor as big as clerics.

And then the interactions could be staggering.

[Talothorn]

I made military unit rules based in large part on The Alexandrian rules for crowds and mobs.

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/crowds.html

If you are interested I can post mine, but the link will give you the origional work which deserves 99% of the credit

[Elder_Basilisk]

No, no, no, a thousand times no! Every edition of the game seems to come out with a mob template (3.5 had an official one, pathfinder has an official one, and there have been numerous third party ones too) to "make mooks relevant at high levels" and they all share the same flaws:

1. They all end up making a lot of the things that characters (especially martial characters) get specifically to deal with large numbers of weak monsters useless or even counterproductive.

1.A. Martial characters get things like Combat Reflexes (especially with reach weapons), Cleave, Great Cleave, and Whirlwind attack to deal with large groups of monsters. How many of these work on mob templated mooks. That's right, none of them.

1.B. Martial characters do things like increase their armor class or get damage reduction in order to deal with large groups of weaker monsters. Do those help against mob templates? Of course not. What's the most important defensive abilities a character can have to help against the mob? Improved Grapple or Freedom of Movement. What the heck?

1.C. What do we think fireball is for? (Though this is common, it is not really a good example--fireball doesn't really have much of an impact on really large combats--see my previous posts; You don't really get true army wrecking spells until much higher levels--sunburst and storm of vengeance come to mind). Area damage spells are supposed to wreck large groups of weak monsters. They're not very good for other purposes. So why change the rules to specifically give minions a better chance against them. (And despite the typical +50%/double damage/etc sop that is usually thrown to area effect damage by mob rules, they do make such spells less effective than they would otherwise be--that's one of the design goals: to let the DM fill a big square with mooks who don't die to a fireball).

2. Mob rules are bad conceptually. The rationale for mob rules is that the 10th level fighter is supposedly immune to minions (most of them really aren't, but let's leave that to the side for now) but shouldn't be and that because the 10th level mage can obliterate 20 level 1 orc warriors with any number of spells, the game needs a "fix" in order to make the level 1 orc warriors able to survive the level 10 mage and hurt the level 10 fighter.

None of that is true.

2.A. One of the differences between high level play and low level play is supposed to be the threat level. At first level, you face a few orcs. At 6th level, you face an orc warband. By 12th level, those aren't supposed to be a threat--you're supposed to be going against the giants instead. The tenth level fighter is not supposed to have much to fear from a mob of 1st level orc warriors. He is supposed to mow through them like wheat or cut through them like butter. Those are the kind of stories that mid to high level D&D is supposed to tell. Gimli and Legolas are supposed to have a kill competition where they notch up 40+ kills each in a single battle. Roland is supposed to stop an entire detachment of saracens by himself. The expendables are supposed to cut down the mooks with minimal effort until they run into a tank or one of their guest star villains. That is a feature, not a bug. Likewise, first level orc warriors are not supposed to be able to stand up to a high level mage using anti-minion spells. That's what fireball is for--wiping out minions by the platoon.

2.B. The presence of the mob template ruins a number of story elements as well. Are we supposed to believe that heroes who can go mano a mano with a dragon are threatened by a mob of peasants? Or that the peasants who cower in fear of a pair of ogre bandits and beg low level heroes to deliver their village could manhandle the ogres if only they got drunk and angry enough to become a mob?

2.C. The assumption that normal rules minions are unable to threaten higher level heroes as a general rule is mistaken anyway. They can, if the heroes are not optimized for dealing with groups of minions. A large number of attacks will wreck anyone who didn't focus on armor class and didn't invest in damage reduction. Careful positioning can significantly mitigate the effectiveness of area effect spells, and they're generally not that good anyway so what else are they for? Trip, grapple, etc (especially in 3.5 where BAB doesn't automatically give you a leg up on combat maneuvers other than grapple) can cut armor classes down to size, as can tanglefoot bags, flanking, charging, bards with bardsong, clerics with bless/prayer/recitation/etc, (and teamwork feats in Pathfinder--especially with a cavalier or two to hand them out). Granted, those aren't always enough, but they work for a lot longer than most message board posters give them credit for--8th to 12th level is my experience in most cases; sometimes higher.


I made military unit rules based in large part on The Alexandrian rules for crowds and mobs.

http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/crowds.html

If you are interested I can post mine, but the link will give you the origional work which deserves 99% of the credit

[Talothorn]

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I wouldn't use this for pc vs mook hoards. I use it for "Military Formation in a D&D Campaign", as in unit vs unit combat.

Yes:

"I train my 50 1st level followers to fight as a group, and lead them against the orc marauders."

No:

"I square up against the conscripted peasents, and prepare for turn based combat."



Are we supposed to believe that heroes who can go mano a mano with a dragon are threatened by a mob of peasants?

I can't imagine making a group of mid to high level player characters, or even a single competent mid to high level pc, roll out a combat against a group of peasants or similar cr nothing creatures. That would be a 10 second narrative combat which included the pc wading through the ranks of the rabble, reaping them like grain. If you make them roll that out, that's your whole night in a combat with no point.

"You roll a 2? Yep. With your modifiers, that hits. Roll damage. Minimum? Yep, with your strength bonus that still kills the peasant/kobold/goblin/skeleton. Yep, you can cleave. Yep that hits too. Roll damage. Yep, dead. Yep, cleave. Yep, hits. Yep, it's dead." etc.

"You killed them all. Let's see, 150 peasants at cr 1/8, you get 125 xp. Well, that was a fun session guys. Next week we'll fight the other hundred or so peasents. 500 more sessions and you can level up!


No, no, no, a thousand times no!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah, the mob template is super useful when adjudicating mob VS mob combat. Instead of rolling for each of the 50 peasants on either side, you roll for one attack per blob. It also avoids the problem of the 5ft square being super unrealistic outside of small fighrs, since a melee battle is often a tight press of bodies from either side.

[Elder_Basilisk]

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I wouldn't use this for pc vs mook hoards. I use it for "Military Formation in a D&D Campaign", as in unit vs unit combat.

Yes:

"I train my 50 1st level followers to fight as a group, and lead them against the orc marauders."

No:

"I square up against the conscripted peasents, and prepare for turn based combat."

Sounds like I did misunderstand you. It also sounds like an interesting way to go about it (somewhat similar to the Pathfinder battles rules from Ultimate Campaign but less abstracted). The strength of the approach is that it seems like it would be easier to mix in individual hero units (such as the PCs) into a larger group. The downside is that as soon as they mix, the hero abilities start working differently as discussed above.

Where do you start using these rules?

My experience is that, with a good DM, the system can handle a 20 or so participant combat without breaking down, that it goes up to 30-40 with minor streamlining (as found in D&D minis rules), and that beyond that, you need a more abstract rules system dealing with units rather than individual characters. Otherwise (probably earlier with a mediocre DM) it starts bogging down and you can take the whole session to play a combat, most of which isn't interesting.

[dascarletm]

A DM could always add in rules that account for the problems you mentioned. Examples include: cleave does more damage, DR is increased verses mobs, etc.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

An interesting question.

...

The knight was the equal of 10 footsoldiers

Thanks, that was really cool to read. It's always fun when games/scenario's line up well with what you want them to simulate.

[/Nothing further to add.]

[Talothorn]

Where do you start using these rules?


Whenever the PCs are directing units in combat, as opposed to directly engaged. If a PC is in melee, all that matters for dice rolling purposes is what happens in his/her immediate vicinity. If they are on the hilltop giving orders, they roll their units vs. enemy units.

If they lead the charge, I would have them engage against commander's and officers, and maybe roll once per round for their commanded troops. If they are mowing through troops to get to the leaders, narrative combat until a legitimate threat is encountered.

[Tvtyrant]

Note: I play E6, not full 3.5. My advice is limited to a world of fireballs and flight, not teleporting and chain gated angels.

One faction I had used independent platoons that fought at some distance from each other to prevent being wiped out by a good fireball or deeper sleep spell. The platoons consisted of 20 horse archers, 10 lancers, and either a few chariots or a few war elephants. The chariots were for casters, allowing them to cast while moving with the rest of the group. Higher level casters (5-6) would fly over the battlefield in groups of 10 to intercept enemy casters and break pursuit of the retreating archers.

Another used mobs of cheap infantry with crossbows and 1/100 had an eternal wand of fireball. The wand would be picked up if the soldier died, and kept enemies from wanting to clump together. Casters were too important as manufacturers to use on the battlefield.

The goblin tribes had their soldiers converted into werewolves to help them fight their foes. The rest of the tribe remained normal goblins and allowed the warrior societies do the fighting, fleeing if they were defeated.

The Orc tribes were all owned by a single vampire lord who allowed the tribes to elect chiefs, and would then transform them into vampires. Strong enemies and badly wounded Orcs were made into vampire spawn to act as suicide squads for the tribe. In return for vampire powers and a perfect alliance system the Orcs had to provide blood tribute to the local vampire, and would send captives to the Vampire Lord for his direct consumption.