New UA: Mass Combat [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Shining Wrath

2017-02-21, 12:49 PM

Link to unlimited mayhem! (https://t.co/OhVreDlrq6)

Note: I can't open it at work, but I got the tweet.

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/834095434188546048

King539

2017-02-21, 12:54 PM

Just release the mystic already!!!!

Idkwhatmyscreen

2017-02-21, 12:56 PM

It uses a system where each group of combatants is assigned a BR that acts like hit points, and a Moral rating, that I don't have time to get my head all the way around

Mordrigar

2017-02-21, 01:28 PM

Sception

2017-02-21, 01:34 PM

I don't know, I find mass combat can be relevant in almost any setting. It's something that a lot of campaigns can benefit from. I don't have the sense to really fully grasp whether these rules are that good or not just from reading them, but mass combat rules are the sort of thing I'm happy to see UA providing.

I would have preferred to see the mystic first, mind, but even still.

Cybren

2017-02-21, 01:34 PM

Well, I am starting not to like Wizards' UA policy. I mean, they produce content that can fit into Eberron, Planescape, Darksun, Birthright etc but everytime they add only a single content for each setting. This is far from being satisfying. Instead of mass combat rules (Which is useful content for Birthright actually and it is also useful in Faerun for example) I'd like to see more -for example- Eberron content. Why? Because we already got Artificer but it is not enough to play in Eberron. So why don't them try to make Eberron playable again? or why don't we have another planar archetype that we can use in our Planescape games? Instead of different, non-linked contents every week, I really prefer a bit more focused content.

"this free thing that they do is bad because it's not the free thing i want!!!" is not a good look, though.

I do really prefer UA content to be more akin to stuff like this, though I think this is the wrong approach. Framing mass combat on a battle map just kind of.... is a bad idea? Look at the kludges they have to implement to make sense of that: A force consisting of a single level 20 barbarian takes up 100ft of space? What?

DanyBallon

2017-02-21, 01:36 PM

Well, I am starting not to like Wizards' UA policy. I mean, they produce content that can fit into Eberron, Planescape, Darksun, Birthright etc but everytime they add only a single content for each setting. This is far from being satisfying. Instead of mass combat rules (Which is useful content for Birthright actually and it is also useful in Faerun for example) I'd like to see more -for example- Eberron content. Why? Because we already got Artificer but it is not enough to play in Eberron. So why don't them try to make Eberron playable again? or why don't we have another planar archetype that we can use in our Planescape games? Instead of different, non-linked contents every week, I really prefer a bit more focused content.

Because for the moment the only officially supported setting is Forgotten Realms, and from time to time they provide tips to convert to other settings. Those UA with material specific to a different setting is just a teases until they decide to fully support those settings. But right now they don't have any incetative to do so, as they don't have any derivated product that they can milk like they are doing with FR stuff.

Mordrigar

2017-02-21, 01:38 PM

"this free thing that they do is bad because it's not the free thing i want!!!" is not a good look, though.

I do really prefer UA content to be more akin to stuff like this, though I think this is the wrong approach. Framing mass combat on a battle map just kind of.... is a bad idea? Look at the kludges they have to implement to make sense of that: A force consisting of a single level 20 barbarian takes up 100ft of space? What?

Well, I didn't know that producing a free thing makes you immune to any kind of criticism. Besides they already published rules for mass combat in the past. You sir, totally missed the thing that I'm trying to point. I'm not saying "this content sucks" or something like that. I mean, I believe that more focused content is better for both players and designers. Series of alternative archetypes was a good idea for example. But "bit of this, bit of that" is not the thing I like.

jaappleton

2017-02-21, 01:38 PM

DizzyWood

2017-02-21, 01:42 PM

Ok I get why some of you are excited for this but my group will never use anything like this. There are other system that specialize in this and it just isn't a D&D feel to me. Maybe I am and old man lol

Hathorym

2017-02-21, 01:46 PM

When the super nautaloid with the thousands of Neogi attack the city in a few weeks, this will come into great use. I was going to use the first set, as a matter of fact, so this is good for me.

Sception

2017-02-21, 01:47 PM

That's fine, not every group is going to use every thing, there's a reason why they didn't consider mass combat rules to be important enough to include in the core books, and likewise there's a reason why they did consider them important enough to put out as an optional variant now.

But I love campaigns that, in the late game, end up with the party controlling geopolitical territory, and this will be super relevant to that. Likewise, my favorite adventure module was the Red Hand of Doom, and this is potentially quite useful in a 5e adaptation of that as well.

War_lord

2017-02-21, 01:55 PM

I can see a lot of use for this in games with a lot of political stuff. If the players are participating in a battle, and you don't want to have a per-determined outcome, these rules could be useful. Personally I'd rather more UA be oddball stuff like this instead of classes unique to settings I have no plans to go near.

JumboWheat01

2017-02-21, 01:57 PM

I'm sort of "meh" about the latest UA, as the games I play in are definitely on a much smaller level, more squad v. squad than large groups. It's nice that it's there for more army-based campaigns, but it's nothing that'll ever see use in my group's games.

Cybren

2017-02-21, 02:34 PM

Well, I didn't know that producing a free thing makes you immune to any kind of criticism. Besides they already published rules for mass combat in the past. You sir, totally missed the thing that I'm trying to point. I'm not saying "this content sucks" or something like that. I mean, I believe that more focused content is better for both players and designers. Series of alternative archetypes was a good idea for example. But "bit of this, bit of that" is not the thing I like.
"this isn't the product I want" is not a criticism, though, if you aren't actually paying for that product.

Mordrigar

2017-02-21, 02:37 PM

I tested new rules. But I think I'm missing something.

I tried to make 2 armies.
Army One:
50 Knight CR 3 (limit 50) HP:52 Ranged: 100/400 & Melee
52 Warhorse CR 1/2 (limit 208) HP:19
1 Warlord Commander CR 12 (limit 1) HP:229 Cha: 18
2 War Wizard of Cormyr CR 9 (limit 2) HP: 66

With my own calculations on morale, they have +8 Morale Modifier

Good treatment by a commander or allies +1 (Cormyr Army)
Big stake in the battle’s outcome (Protecting the motherland)
Competent or Well-prepared commanders (Army is leading by Legendary General of Cormyr)
Good equipment (fine Cormyr arsenal for ranks of the Purple Dragons)
Purple Dragons are fearless fighters, so no negative morale modifiers based on number of enemies
+4 Total, +4 from Leader Charisma = +8 FANATIC

Initiative: 10 + 8 Morale + 4 Commander = 22
Speed: 60 feet warhorse x 10 = 600 feet
Morale: +8
Attack: d20 + 148 against ENEMY BR

Army Two:
100 Veteran Adventurer CR 3
10 Hired Mage CR 6
2 Volunteer War Priest CR 9
1 Sembian Champion General CR 9 Cha 15

With my own calculations on morale, they have +4 Morale Modifier

Good Pay +1 (Sembian mercaneries earn well)
Overwhelming army (Cormyr army is small in numbers compared to Sembia) +1
+2 Total +2 from Leader Charisma = +4 Stalwart

Initiative:10 + 4 + 2 = 16
Speed: 30 x 10 = 300
Morale: +4
Attack: d20+280 against Enemy BR

Outcome seems interesting.

Well armed noble knights of Cormyr has BR of 148
Sembian mercanaries has BR of 280

Attack formula is d20+BR
Cormyr army can never hurt Sembian mercenaries with these numbers.

I thought 50 knights could easily beat 100 veterans but with rules, it is impossible.

What am I missing?

DanyBallon

2017-02-21, 02:47 PM

Shining Wrath

2017-02-21, 02:53 PM

Mordrigar

2017-02-21, 03:00 PM

Quickly, I'd say that having twice as more CR3 in its army than in the opposing army is what makes the Sambian victorious. It's not the 52 warhorses that will offset that. In addition their is nothing in the Cormyrian army that offsets the 10 CR 6 mages of the Sambian army...

Even without Mages, (Which is just 50 points) difference is too big. If we remove all casters from both sides we get 110 BR without commander (128 BR with commander) for Cormyr and 200 BR (210 with Commander) for Sembia.

I'm sure 50 mounted knights with ranged attack can easily beat 100 veterans in normal combat.

Army limits are 260/400 (Cormyr) and 113/400 (Sembia)
50 Large horses gives +10 BR but takes up 200 spaces. So that means cavalry is less useful compared to infantry, which is kinda weird if you ask me.

I think this system encourages to play with fixed amount of creatures. Instead of having 100 veterans in 1 unit, I could divide it to two 50/50 units. This time Sembian army will have 100 BR against Cormyr's 128. But on this scenario, Sembia can't even hurt Cormyr because even on a natural 20, it's attack score will be 120 against Cormyr's 128 base. 2 adjacent armies against 1 enemy only gives an advantage on attackers roll. So, splitting it into 2 different units does not help.

50 Knights + 50 warhorses vs 100 Veterans = Veterans are immune
50 Knights + 50 warhorses vs 50 veterans + 50 veterans = Knights are immune

I wasn't excepting a 1-shot kill like that.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to add Sembia's commander score for 50+50 vs 50 combat. In that case it'll be like d20+110 vs d20+128.
If Sembia rolls 20 as attacker and Cormyr rolls 1 as defender, it'll be 130 vs 129 and Sembia can hit Cormyrian army! Possibility is 1/400 without gaining advantage from adjacent Sembian army. With advantage, is it 5/400 or what?

DanyBallon

2017-02-21, 03:22 PM

Even without Mages, (Which is just 50 points) difference is too big. If we remove all casters from both sides we get 110 BR without commander (128 BR with commander) for Cormyr and 200 BR (210 with Commander) for Sembia.

I'm sure 50 mounted knights with ranged attack can easily beat 100 veterans in normal combat.

Army limits are 260/400 (Cormyr) and 113/400 (Sembia)
50 Large horses gives +10 BR but takes up 200 spaces. So that means cavalry is less useful compared to infantry, which is kinda weird if you ask me.

I think this system encourages to play with fixed amount of creatures. Instead of having 100 veterans in 1 unit, I could divide it to two 50/50 units. This time Sembian army will have 100 BR against Cormyr's 128. But on this scenario, Sembia can't even hurt Cormyr because even on a natural 20, it's attack score will be 120 against Cormyr's 128 base. 2 adjacent armies against 1 enemy only gives an advantage on attackers roll. So, splitting it into 2 different units does not help.

50 Knights + 50 warhorses vs 100 Veterans = Veterans are immune
50 Knights + 50 warhorses vs 50 veterans + 50 veterans = Knights are immune

I wasn't excepting a 1-shot kill like that.

Edit: Oh, I forgot to add Sembia's commander score for 50+50 vs 50 combat. In that case it'll be like d20+110 vs d20+128.
If Sembia rolls 20 as attacker and Cormyr rolls 1 as defender, it'll be 130 vs 129 and Sembia can hit Cormyrian army! Possibility is 1/400 without gaining advantage from adjacent Sembian army. With advantage, is it 5/400 or what?

The problem is that, expectation aside, you are comparing 50 CR3 creatures vs 100 CR3 creatures. I only skimmed through the Mass combat rules but it seems that they don't take in consideration the destructive power of a charge.

Cybren

2017-02-21, 03:25 PM

The problem is that, expectation aside, you are comparing 50 CR3 creatures vs 100 CR3 creatures. I only skimmed through the Mass combat rules but it seems that they don't take in consideration the destructive power of a charge.

I think one of the more significant mistakes of these rules are assuming that CR in small unit skirmishes that adventurer's participate in should somehow be the basis for their utility in mass combat

Lonely Tylenol

2017-02-21, 03:26 PM

I tested new rules. But I think I'm missing something.

I thought 50 knights could easily beat 100 veterans but with rules, it is impossible.

What am I missing?

The system is evidently not supposed to handle mass combat exclusively between high-CR units. Think about the distribution of NPC CRs as being highly irregular, or even exponential: CR 1/8 and CR 1/4 creatures will make up the vast majority of a given population, be it an army or civilian unit. CR 2 and 3 creatures are exceptional and may be leaders in a town. CR 5 creatures aren't even found in small towns; they are the strongest people in larger towns, or even small cities. Above that are regional and national forces or threats. For every Gladiator in a city, there are thousands of people of a lower CR who would pay to watch their feats of skill in combat. This is glossed over in most campaigns, since most parties only deal with exceptional people by name (normal people don't get names or much in the way of interaction), but the battle rating system makes this clear: a CR 3 Knight is considered a force on the field equivalent to 40 CR 1/8 Guards, of which either side has an equal chance of suffering casualties depending on the rolls (but obviously, a lone wolf Knight will eventually break down, as one bad roll for the Guards equals two casualties, and a single casualty for the Knight is a total loss). The Knight will mostly only win against these overwhelming numbers by causing ranks to break through battle supremacy.

Where your army scenario fails is that each individual unit in your mass combat scenario is overwhelmingly powerful in the scope of a mass combat scenario. For whatever reason, your commander is leading an entire army of units that themselves could be captains of units as large as their own, based off the irregular distribution of CRs. On top of that, man for man, all combatants are more or less equal: a single Veteran is considered equivalent to a single Knight per the challenge system, and in a given head-to-head, it is not clear which one will win. So your scenario is pitting two highly competent and experienced armies, with no weak links, against each other, where one force is twice as large as the other (the horses are negligible when the baseline unit strength is that high, just as a single horse is negligible for determining the Challenge of a single Knight). Further, because there are SO MANY exceptional units on the field, the BR is so high that morale is irrelevant.

If you want to balance this encounter, make all the Knights and Veterans Guards instead. Simple fix.

If you want a TRUE "man-against-all-odds" scenario, take a group of 300 Gladiator Veteran units, give them a Commander or similar, and give them a Stalwart or Fanatic morale (morale is statistically insignificant for BR at this level), and determine how many Guards with a single Commander and neutral morale it takes to match them. :smallamused:

LtPowers

2017-02-21, 03:30 PM

Framing mass combat on a battle map just kind of.... is a bad idea?

On the contrary, wargamers have being doing exactly that for decades.

A level 20 Barbarian isn't a unit; she's probably leading a unit of level 1-5 Barbarians, or she's acting as a free agent on the battlefield.

Powers &8^]

Cybren

2017-02-21, 03:39 PM

On the contrary, wargamers have being doing exactly that for decades.

A level 20 Barbarian isn't a unit; she's probably leading a unit of level 1-5 Barbarians, or she's acting as a free agent on the battlefield.

Powers &8^]
1) Wargamers aren't playing tabletop RPGs. The needs a wargame has with regards to mass combat are different than the needs a tabletop RPG does. For one thing, the tabletop RPG should remember that the purpose of mass combat isn't to have long drawn out battle sequences, it's to find out who wins that battle while giving meaningful choices to the participants.

2) A level 20 barbarian is certainly a unit, in that one level 20 barbarian can take on a large number of CR 1 mooks. If the rules can't handle using individual PCs as units, they aren't particularly useful mass combat rules for D&D.

BlacKnight

2017-02-21, 04:25 PM

" Look at the kludges they have to implement to make sense of that: A force consisting of a single level 20 barbarian takes up 100ft of space? What?

It depends on size, not CR. A lv 20 barbarian takes the same space of a peasant. You can have an unit of 400 lv 20 barbarians.

Arkhios

2017-02-21, 04:29 PM

MEH! ....If I wanted to play with an army, I'd play Warhammer or similar...

DragonSorcererX

2017-02-21, 04:36 PM

MEH! ....If I wanted to play with an army, I'd play Warhammer or similar...

Well, I find it difficult to measure the power level of stuff without comparing values... so, it is good to have a form of measuring how powerful an army is (or at least should be if the CR system worked perfectly) even if I will never use the system in play (just for immersion, because with characters controlled by human players, anything can happen).

Waterdeep Merch

2017-02-21, 04:44 PM

I have plans for mass combat in my own game, as my players will be slowly accruing allies and lands that will need defending. Some good, solid rules that don't take away too much from the usual exploring, delving, and politics of the campaign would be wonderful.

These are not them.

As written, it overly simplifies the nature of combat to the point that the only non-negligible unit type is bowman. The math buckles under its own weight the moment you have two armies with different CR's because the BR will wildly eclipse the measly d20 you'll be adding to it.

Other strange observations-

Bow mounted archers cannot shoot.
400 mounted knights will always lose to 400 unmounted knights just because of the unit size restrictions.
Intelligence plays no part in battlefield tactics, but charisma does.
Cover and fortifications apparently do nothing, or at least weren't considered an important aspect of warfare.
As written, morale only comes into play when your unit has been halved or you see an allied unit leave the field/get obliterated. And in the case of losing half your unit, only the one time.
No mention of whether critical hits are possible would mean 400 CR 2's could weather an endless onslaught from CR 1's. Even if they are possible, they'd need a preposterous 91.5 critical hits to just make them hittable without critical hits to an untouched, fully built unit of CR 1's. That's an average 1,830 attacks before they're nearly reduced to fighting on equal terms.

I keep rereading the rules, hoping I'm missing some bit of math that makes these rules work.

KorvinStarmast

2017-02-21, 05:00 PM

Whether you like the UA article or not, PLEASE do not forget to fill out the Warlock & Wizard feedback survey!

Provide constructive criticism, not just "broken OP would not allow". Say why its broken. Survey completed, comments made.

If they can make mass combat as fun as Chainmail used to be (yeah, I'm that old) good ... but it's no small chore to back fit as the Swords and Spells supplement to OD&D showed.

Sigreid

2017-02-21, 05:13 PM

Anyone have access to software that would run a bunch of simulated combats between a CR 20 dragon and 1000 troops? I'm interested to see if the battle is about even (as it would be expected to be if the BR is right).

Lonely Tylenol

2017-02-21, 05:22 PM

MEH! ....If I wanted to play with an army, I'd play Warhammer or similar...

While I totally understand this sentiment, this is really useful for handling larger-scale combat around a smaller one. This is definitely a "DM's option". I have an adventure planned for my group where "bolster the front line" is but one of many combat options available to them, and I need to figure out quickly, and largely off-screen, whether the front line needs to be bolstered at various points in the session.

Anyone have access to software that would run a bunch of simulated combats between a CR 20 dragon and 1000 troops? I'm interested to see if the battle is about even (as it would be expected to be if the BR is right).

What is the CR of the troops? 1/8 for Guards, all the same, maybe a Knight for a commander?

Cybren

2017-02-21, 05:33 PM

It depends on size, not CR. A lv 20 barbarian takes the same space of a peasant. You can have an unit of 400 lv 20 barbarians.
I am too lazy to fix the spacing that PDFs mess up but:
"Unit Space
A unit takes up a space that measures 100 feet
on each side regardless of how many creatures
are in it. The unit’s size is an abstraction to make
tracking units on the battlefield easy in play."

Sigreid

2017-02-21, 05:36 PM

What is the CR of the troops? 1/8 for Guards, all the same, maybe a Knight for a commander?

All I was looking at was 1000 cr 1/8 guards without any support have the same battle rating as a CR 20 dragon. In theory the fight should play out as a somewhat fair fight. Or am I off on that?

Vaz

2017-02-21, 05:40 PM

Whether you like the UA article or not, PLEASE do not forget to fill out the Warlock & Wizard feedback survey!

Provide constructive criticism, not just "broken OP would not allow". Say why its broken. Say why you'd never allow it.

If you don't like it and wants things fixed, tell them.

There's a limit to 200 characters lol

jaappleton

2017-02-21, 06:01 PM

There's a limit to 200 characters lol

200 words. But I did exceed the limit for Lore Wizard :smallbiggrin:

Shining Wrath

2017-02-21, 06:12 PM

Sounds like I'm going to have to do this myself because WotC is weak and feeble.

Le grande sigh.

BlacKnight

2017-02-21, 06:25 PM

I am too lazy to fix the spacing that PDFs mess up but:
"Unit Space
A unit takes up a space that measures 100 feet
on each side regardless of how many creatures
are in it. The unit’s size is an abstraction to make
tracking units on the battlefield easy in play."

I guess they were intending that the unit takes that space regardless of the size of the creatures.
BTW I'm not seeing the problem with the lone barbarian. Ok, a bunch of soldiers in a 100 feet space would stop their movement to fight the killing machine. That's sound right to me.
The barbarian can't treat enough the soldiers farther than that to make them stop ? Well, a limit has to be put somewhere.
What exactly doesn't work to you ?

Lonely Tylenol

2017-02-21, 06:35 PM

All I was looking at was 1000 cr 1/8 guards without any support have the same battle rating as a CR 20 dragon. In theory the fight should play out as a somewhat fair fight. Or am I off on that?

Yeah, that's about right, except, I think, units need to have commanders, because the de facto leader's Charisma affects the morale check. But ignoring that...

If you put the units together, head-to-head, on a level field, with adjacent units, then they will have an equal chance to win a given attack. Since the individual dragon "unit" can't suffer casualties, a "casualty" in this case can mean wounds to the dragon. The combat will eventually turn based on the initial successes, because each attack victory leads to an increased chance of victory on the next attack. So there's an equal chance of the dragon being subjugated and the army breaking ranks and fleeing, with early successes and failures heavily influencing later ones.

This is undermined a bit by the dragon's superior tactical options. The dragon can fly, and it's not necessarily true that all the units can attack at ranged, so the BR check when the dragon is flying is much lower for the attacking army (meaning they likely don't even inflict any wounds). But if you assume that, say, the dragon is actively tearing down the walls of their castle while attacking, using tooth and claw to decimate the army, there's a pretty even chance of victory for either side.

Deleted

2017-02-21, 06:35 PM

Boring. Pass.

StorytellerHero

2017-02-21, 07:07 PM

The UA mass combat rules are a bit oversimplified IMO.

Part of the fun of mass combat has to be from being able to try out different tactics that take advantage of weather, terrain, siege machines, and special units, but the UA rules appear to be primarily based around simple attrition warfare.

An example of what I'm talking about would be forced movement of an enemy army group so that an ally army group can make a charge towards the commander of the enemy army.

Another example would be special command officers that can add extra options to the army groups that they lead. An archery commander could possible give bonuses or commands to other army groups far away by shooting arrows with flaming tips (using a substance that changes the color of the flame to a signature color). A scholar commander could be able to add new movement or attack options for the army group that the commander leads, based on historically recorded tactics used in past warfare.

The UA rules as they are now are just blah. Mostly masses of soldiers being pushed against each other until they die or retreat.

Sigreid

2017-02-21, 10:36 PM

Yeah, that's about right, except, I think, units need to have commanders, because the de facto leader's Charisma affects the morale check. But ignoring that...

If you put the units together, head-to-head, on a level field, with adjacent units, then they will have an equal chance to win a given attack. Since the individual dragon "unit" can't suffer casualties, a "casualty" in this case can mean wounds to the dragon. The combat will eventually turn based on the initial successes, because each attack victory leads to an increased chance of victory on the next attack. So there's an equal chance of the dragon being subjugated and the army breaking ranks and fleeing, with early successes and failures heavily influencing later ones.

This is undermined a bit by the dragon's superior tactical options. The dragon can fly, and it's not necessarily true that all the units can attack at ranged, so the BR check when the dragon is flying is much lower for the attacking army (meaning they likely don't even inflict any wounds). But if you assume that, say, the dragon is actively tearing down the walls of their castle while attacking, using tooth and claw to decimate the army, there's a pretty even chance of victory for either side.

Yeah, I understand that by these mass combat rules they are basically equal. I was wondering if anyone had a simulator to see if by normal D&D rules it is the same. Curious if their math is good, basically. :smallbiggrin:

toapat

2017-02-21, 10:39 PM

The UA mass combat rules are a bit oversimplified IMO.

they are actually really, really broken too.

If a Crown/Tyranny Paladin Mass-Knights their 400/400 strong army of Commoners/Guards, even after the horrific Moral penalty, the jump from CR 1/8th to CR3 yields a 40 times power increase to the unit, which essentially means that, when the time comes to actually fight, if your Opponent didnt Mass Knight at least one unit, you will obliterate any "Mideval" army with your own. horribly geared Knights

Oh, and most units are melee range, including most casters, while also having at worst a movement speed of 2 squares

to compare, 1000 Guards vs 1 Ancient Red, the Dragon is basically immune, but if one of those guard regiments was Knighted, they destroy the dragon in the first round while suffering no losses

Lonely Tylenol

2017-02-21, 11:33 PM

If a Crown/Tyranny Paladin Mass-Knights their 400/400 strong army of Commoners/Guards

What on Earth is a "Mass-Knight"?

Asmotherion

2017-02-21, 11:38 PM

Just release the mystic already!!!!

Apparently, it won't be a class... And I'm glad it won't because I would hate a 13 class. U_U

Arkhios

2017-02-21, 11:41 PM

Apparently, it won't be a class... And I'm glad it won't because I would hate a 13 class. U_U

Whaaat? Where'd you hear/see this?

As far as I know, the latest information implied that the next iteration of Psionics will be a class (Mystic) with 20 levels and 6 subclasses, and a Fighter sub-class, Sohei.

Lonely Tylenol

2017-02-21, 11:51 PM

Apparently, it won't be a class... And I'm glad it won't because I would hate a 13 class. U_U

You would hate a thirteenth class?

I hope you skipped the Artificer UA, then...

Mortis_Elrod

2017-02-22, 12:23 AM

I find this to be a blessing. My DM needed a good way to produce mass combat, and this is a good start. We are about to start a war campaign that has to groups of opposing PCs. The sessions won't be simultaneous and the Group A won't interact with Group B. at least not until the very end. However since the end of the war is suppose to be organic, battles need to be fought, not decided. Originally the idea is that each group would be in scouting parties or participating in small skirmishes or the like. Critical events is perfect until we are promoted to be leaders of units. We also plan on using Heroscape tiles for maps. Should be the best campaign ever.

toapat

2017-02-22, 02:20 AM

What on Earth is a "Mass-Knight"?

the act of giving an army pride and something to fight for that isnt just "this ****ty scrap of dirt".

Lonely Tylenol

2017-02-22, 05:29 AM

the act of giving an army pride and something to fight for that isnt just "this ****ty scrap of dirt".

This only raised more questions.

JackPhoenix

2017-02-22, 06:10 AM

You would hate a thirteenth class?

I hope you skipped the Artificer UA, then...

Ah, but as Artificer UA was released after Mystic, Artificer is actually the FOURTEENTH class!

Lonely Tylenol

2017-02-22, 06:15 AM

Ah, but as Artificer UA was released after Mystic, Artificer is actually the FOURTEENTH class!

Is this like elevator logic, where they skip from twelve straight to fourteen, and we're also just supposed to believe that the number thirteen doesn't really exist?

JackPhoenix

2017-02-22, 06:42 AM

Is this like elevator logic, where they skip from twelve straight to fourteen, and we're also just supposed to believe that the number thirteen doesn't really exist?

Technically... 13th class doesn't really exist, because Mystic didn't get 20 level writeup yet... so, yep, it fits. Kinda.

EvilAnagram

2017-02-22, 08:04 AM

Bow mounted archers cannot shoot.
Well, they should be holding their bows instead of mounting them.

TrinculoLives

2017-02-22, 10:30 AM

I don't like how Intelligence plays no part in leading a military force. It was a good opportunity to increase the paltry number of things that the ability can be used for.

Unoriginal

2017-02-22, 10:39 AM

I don't like how Intelligence plays no part in leading a military force. It was a good opportunity to increase the paltry number of things that the ability can be used for.

Intelligence's uses in battles is more "choose what to do at the right time" rather than mechanical effects.

A charismatic leader who's a moron will have an efficient battle unit doing things less useful than they could optimally do, but an intelligent leader who is unable to convince their battle unit to obey them won't get the unit to do anything.

Cybren

2017-02-22, 10:44 AM

toapat

2017-02-22, 11:36 AM

This only raised more questions.

while its skewed into the Aesop of the movie Kingdom of Heaven, Balian of Ibelin knighted a large number of squires and freemen leading upto the 1187 siege of Jerusalem, because "Does telling a man he is a Knight make him a better fighter?" "Yes."

joaber

2017-02-22, 11:37 AM

Intelligence's uses in battles is more "choose what to do at the right time" rather than mechanical effects.

A charismatic leader who's a moron will have an efficient battle unit doing things less useful than they could optimally do, but an intelligent leader who is unable to convince their battle unit to obey them won't get the unit to do anything.

Charisma in D&D isn't being cool or fun. It's represent lidership that is the most important thing to make 400 peoples follow what you command while they life is in imminent danger.
Who cares that you're a genius and have the best plan if you can't make the rest follow you or convince them that this really is the ultimate plan? Plans can be taken before the fight too.
And the commander probably don't have int 7.

Cybren

2017-02-22, 11:56 AM

Charisma in D&D isn't being cool or fun. It's represent lidership that is the most important thing to make 400 peoples follow what you command while they life is in imminent danger.
Who cares that you're a genius and have the best plan if you can't make the rest follow you or convince them that this really is the ultimate plan? Plans can be taken before the fight too.
And the commander probably don't have int 7.

If we're assuming this is a medieval world with culture roughly analogous to Europe in that time period, their society is probably based in deference and social hierarchy. You don't have to "convince" a mass of uneducated peasants of anything- they do what you tell them, because their entire society is structured around their role being to do what you tell them. Similar for lesser nobles and knights that make up your officers. There is a hierarchy, and what is most likely to get either group to violate that hierarchy is a collapse in faith in a) your ability to provide pay and/or plunder and b) your competence, and even likable, charismatic commanders used beatings and executions to exact discipline in their own men.

WickerNipple

2017-02-22, 12:01 PM

1) Wargamers aren't playing tabletop RPGs.

Sure we do. My entire RPG group is pulled from a larger group of wargamers.

I'm not sure I like this system at all, but mass combat is a regular aspect of our D&D games.

spinningdice

2017-02-22, 12:15 PM

I've given them a read through and they don't accomplish want I want. Essentially it's just slightly more formalised eyeballing the result there. The bonuses are generally so massive that there's no skill or luck involved.

I'm not sure quite what I want out of a mass combat system, but this doesn't look like it at all.

Unoriginal

2017-02-22, 12:29 PM

Charisma in D&D isn't being cool or fun. It's represent lidership that is the most important thing to make 400 peoples follow what you command while they life is in imminent danger.
Who cares that you're a genius and have the best plan if you can't make the rest follow you or convince them that this really is the ultimate plan? Plans can be taken before the fight too.
And the commander probably don't have int 7.

Yes? That's what I said, I don't know what you're objecting to?

this is.... the opposite of true.

It's not. You can be as smart as you want, if you can't get to have people obey you, you can't lead a military unit.

Essentially it's just slightly more formalised eyeballing the result there. The bonuses are generally so massive that there's no skill or luck involved.

Well, it's essentially "fighting through CR + numbers"

Sigreid

2017-02-22, 12:35 PM

I'll continue to use the old West End Games Star Wars method.

Cybren

2017-02-22, 12:44 PM

It's not. You can be as smart as you want, if you can't get to have people obey you, you can't lead a military unit.

You can be as charismatic as you want, if you can't supply & manage your army, you can't lead a military unit. Because you don't have a military unit.

You can be as charismatic as you want, but if you don't drill your military unit in battlefield tactics, you can't lead a military unit. Because your unit will be routed the first time it contacts significant opposition.

You can be as charismatic as you want, but if you aren't responding to changing battlefield conditions, you can't lead a military unit, because you just got trapped in a double envelopment and now no longer have a military unit.

joaber

2017-02-22, 12:47 PM

I think to go in another direction:
Transform the entire unit in just one monster following the DMG table (pag 274). Like each 10 in BR is equivalent to 1 lvl in CR table, starting by 1/8. Add more HP or damage for each 1BR above 10.

So, a 100 BR unit will be a CR 7 with:
prof +3
AC 15
HP 161
Attack +6
Damage 45 (or like 8d8 +9)
ST 15 (don't know if usefull, maybe for some effect in morale)

a 109 BR would have:
prof +3
AC 15
HP 175
Attack +6
Damage 50 (10d8 +5)

When you lose a % of your max HP equivalent of BR/10, you drop 1 in the table. So the 100 BR, for each 10% of his HP (16) lost he will drop 1 CR point in the table (except for HP, this continue as the current one).
now as CR 6 he only do 39 damage, this because of casualties. Less creature or hurted ones in unit, less powerful it is. Until will be reduce to 0, or flee.

We still can keep morale and add effects as monsters would have for any unit, adjusting ofense and defense and the rest with the creatures.

Yeah, I know is harder than original BR, but away more flexible and (maybe) balanced. Many low CRs can handle a high CR unit fairly and each unit has his own individual effects, like creatures that compose it. A crit could represent the commander's dead and increase morale of the attacker, and any morale check decrease morale instead of an auto flee.

Add 1/3 (round down) of morale as bonus (or penalties) to hit or AC, so a +10 morale unit could divide +3 bonus to hit or AC.

joaber

2017-02-22, 12:59 PM

Yes? That's what I said, I don't know what you're objecting to?

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post

You can be as charismatic as you want, if you can't supply & manage your army, you can't lead a military unit. Because you don't have a military unit.

You can be as charismatic as you want, but if you don't drill your military unit in battlefield tactics, you can't lead a military unit. Because your unit will be routed the first time it contacts significant opposition.

You can be as charismatic as you want, but if you aren't responding to changing battlefield conditions, you can't lead a military unit, because you just got trapped in a double envelopment and now no longer have a military unit.

Again, Charisma in D&D isn't what you think.
And yes, you can command a unit without battlefiled tactics, they will follow you (at least until they flee) and will trust you and get morale for your charisma. Of corse that if the commander is a vegetable, all that morale will be gone with the casualties. This is provided in actual rules.

the battlefield tactic is what the player commanding the unit will choose to do, if he think right, he get advantage. You don't mesure this like morale, you simply choose the most efficient options. The samething when you choose a strategy in normal combat.

Chaosmancer

2017-02-22, 01:02 PM

The worst thing about this is that it fails on every level.

It doesn't give options for PCs to make meaningful decisions. In fact, the rules seem to encourage you to disregard the mass combat rules when the PCs are acting. If the rules aren't meant to be used with the players does that not seem like a failure?

Then, they completely disregard typical advantages of warfare. Most ranged options in the phb are less than 100 ft (which is the standard space for this system), an enemy moves 300 ft on their turn. This means barring attacking at disadvantage with bows or heavy crossbows every ranged unit is essentially a melee unit, because the enemy reaches them in a single turn suffering zero casualties in the process. Walls and fortifications do not help you defeat a superior force, because rolling at advantage does not get you a result above 20. Cavalry in making a unit larger typically weakens your army because units of 100 are weaker than units of 400 (unless we are talking cr 1/8 units, because the horses are higher cr and actually make up the bulk of the units BR)

As has been pointed out, a difference in 20 points and difference in size means a mid cr group of medium sized creatures destroys any unit of greater cr larger creatures with no casualties. I did the math on ENworld and a full 400 force of veterans needed a unit of cr 19 large creatures to even have a fair fight for their 800 BR.

Even a small group of 100 mounted knights (which is significantly weaker than 200 knights on foot) has a BR of 220, while your 400 guardsmen have a BR of 20... Which is so low they could never win a single fight against any other type of unit. 400 orcs is at least BR of 80. In fact to make it a fair fight it would have to be 400 guardsmen vs 100 orcs. Anything bigger 190 and the guardsmen flat out lose no matter the circumstances, because you can't overcome the 20 point swing.

And finally, lets say you have units of infantry grinding each other up, evenly matched. That 80 BR of the orcs, asuming they get hit for max and make a DC 10 morale check everytime (not hard when even basics like "motivated to win" and "we aren't fighting a superior force" can net a +4 to the roll before leader bonuses) takes 8 rounds to get to the half way point of a DC 15 morale check. If it is an even match and the damage is just 2 pts every round, it takes 20 rounds of combat to get half way through a single unit.

That takes too long, no players want to wait that long to resolve a battle they can't meaningfully alter the course of. You're better off either declaring a victor or rolling 2d20 once and declaring the winner from who rolled the highest. The math is essentially the same and you won't have wasted the night of gaming.

Unoriginal

2017-02-22, 01:10 PM

You can be as charismatic as you want, if you can't supply & manage your army, you can't lead a military unit. Because you don't have a military unit.

Who's talking about supplying or managing an army? We're talking about commandering an unit in a battle

You can be as charismatic as you want, but if you don't drill your military unit in battlefield tactics, you can't lead a military unit. Because your unit will be routed the first time it contacts significant opposition.

I'm not seeing your point, sorry.

You can be as charismatic as you want, but if you aren't responding to changing battlefield conditions, you can't lead a military unit, because you just got trapped in a double envelopment and now no longer have a military unit.

You can lead a military unit. Lead it into a ****ty situation, sure (as I mentioned in my first post), but lead it none the less.

As I said before, Intelligence would be to represent how well the commander choose what to do on the battlefield. If the unit should Dash, if they should act defensively, where they should go, etc. But this won't change the modifiers for the UA rules, because those rules are about how to resolve the confrontations between units, not about how tacticians choose to do things.

If the DM decides to pit two forces who are identical in all aspects except the intelligence of their leader, then you can expect the DM to make the forces of the smarter one act more intelligently.

The same way that an orc chief might have his gang defeated by less powerful but smarter opponents who managed to ambush him: mechanically, the orcs should succeed in a fair battle, but it's not a fair battle, so they get rekt before they can defend.

Cybren

2017-02-22, 01:20 PM

Who's talking about supplying or managing an army? We're talking about commandering an unit in a battle

They are inextricably linked. You can't fight without the logistical support to allow it. This is the most critical aspect of military command, which is why the phrase "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals study logistics" exists. Besides, if you're arguing your ability to be charismatic is important to leading troops, you can't seriously be saying "just in the context of a single battle" and not "the entire duration of training and leading your troops on campaign". In which case, your logistical ability will be even more critical, and likely based on intelligence given what those ability scores represent in the game.

You can lead a military unit. Lead it into a ****ty situation, sure (as I mentioned in my first post), but lead it none the less.

As I said before, Intelligence would be to represent how well the commander choose what to do on the battlefield. If the unit should Dash, if they should act defensively, where they should go, etc. But this won't change the modifiers for the UA rules, because those rules are about how to resolve the confrontations between units, not about how tacticians choose to do things.

If the DM decides to pit two forces who are identical in all aspects except the intelligence of their leader, then you can expect the DM to make the forces of the smarter one act more intelligently.

The same way that an orc chief might have his gang defeated by less powerful but smarter opponents who managed to ambush him: mechanically, the orcs should succeed in a fair battle, but it's not a fair battle, so they get rekt before they can defend.
Your very argument could be reversed on itself. Why represent anything with charisma when you can just use roleplaying to see how inspiring a leader you are? The purpose of the game is to abstract out these scenarios, so yeah, your int bonus should come into play in a battle.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post

Again, Charisma in D&D isn't what you think.
And yes, you can command a unit without battlefiled tactics, they will follow you (at least until they flee) and will trust you and get morale for your charisma. Of corse that if the commander is a vegetable, all that morale will be gone with the casualties. This is provided in actual rules.

the battlefield tactic is what the player commanding the unit will choose to do, if he think right, he get advantage. You don't mesure this like morale, you simply choose the most efficient options. The samething when you choose a strategy in normal combat.

"why use your strength and proficiency bonus to attack when you can just get some boffer weapons? You don't measure this like morale, you simply choose the the most efficient attacks"

Lonely Tylenol

2017-02-22, 01:24 PM

while its skewed into the Aesop of the movie Kingdom of Heaven, Balian of Ibelin knighted a large number of squires and freemen leading upto the 1187 siege of Jerusalem, because "Does telling a man he is a Knight make him a better fighter?" "Yes."

That answers some questions.

But knighting just doesn't work that way in D&D. Suddenly calling a CR 1/8 Guard a knight doesn't magically give them 6 more hit dice, a better proficiency bonus (with access to new save and skill proficiencies), 18 Strength, 16 Charisma, and the Parry and Pseudo-Bless special abilities, and transform into a CR 3 guard; it turns them into a CR 1/8 Guard with a title. It transforms you into a new Knight stat block no more than taking away all their armor and throwing them in prison would transform them into Gladiators. This isn't Pokemon or Fire Emblem; you can't just Thunder Stone or Master Seal your Guards to turn them into new and inherently stronger classes of being instantly. Even the change from Commoner to Guard is thought to represent at least a few months of training necessary to have baseline proficiency in weapons and armor.

If you really want the knighting to represent a fundamental chance in identity or personhood over that single event, they would either remain Guards but spontaneously gain the Noble (Knight) background, or at most, they would become Nobles representing knights-errant, with their short but intensive training in the military being reflected in gaining the Parry action for single combat, but no sudden, qualitative change in unit strength.

If you want to represent "telling a man he is a Knight making him a better fighter," you're in luck: being promoted, given the promise of title or land if they survive the battle, and uniting people under a common bond, such as an order, or the cause that order represents, are all potential motivating factors which can improve the group's morale modifier. If, at the knighting ceremony, the commander gives an impassioned speech stating why defense of this land goes above defending a plot of earth and carries into a defense of the ideals the people on that land hold dear, that event could lead to one (or maybe two!) steps of improved morale, because of the motivation of being compelled to fight by both promise of title and/or land and by appeal to their bonds to the land. A change from Motivated (+2) to Fanatic (+8) represents a unit empowered to fight with a strength equal to an additional 120 men, so a unit of 400 so empowered, with otherwise equal morale and commanders, would be able to fight a theoretical unit consisting of 520 men at equal power, or match a unit with more experienced units peppered in, or just crush an equal unit head-on!

Unoriginal

2017-02-22, 01:43 PM

They are inextricably linked. You can't fight without the logistical support to allow it. This is the most critical aspect of military command, which is why the phrase "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals study logistics" exists.

Field leaders are not really in dire need to know of logistical support in the middle of the battle.

Besides, if you're arguing your ability to be charismatic is important to leading troops, you can't seriously be saying "just in the context of a single battle"

Yes I can, because the rules of the UA is for how troops perform during the different fights of one single battle.

Again, we're talking field leaders choosing how their units move during the battle, and how the unit perform while fighting. Not how the general decide what the plan is, or what the army's budget is.

Your very argument could be reversed on itself. Why represent anything with charisma when you can just use roleplaying to see how inspiring a leader you are?

You could do this, but do you really want the DM to roleplay every unit leader commanding their units, every turn of the battle, and decide how much this roleplay is worth as a modifier?

The purpose of the game is to abstract out these scenarios, so yeah, your int bonus should come into play in a battle.

How is your int bonus making each individual soldier under your command perform better in combat? And if it does, why don't your int bonus not making the Barbarian fight better in regular combat?

"why use your strength and proficiency bonus to attack when you can just get some boffer weapons? You don't measure this like morale, you simply choose the the most efficient attacks"

What are you even talking about? Strength and proficiency bonus to attack affect the roll in a fight. If your character is clever and decide to ambush the Black Knight instead of facing him up front, he doesn't get to add his Int to his rolls either.

Unoriginal

2017-02-22, 01:48 PM

That answers some questions.

But knighting just doesn't work that way in D&D. Suddenly calling a CR 1/8 Guard a knight doesn't magically give them 6 more hit dice, a better proficiency bonus (with access to new save and skill proficiencies), 18 Strength, 16 Charisma, and the Parry and Pseudo-Bless special abilities, and transform into a CR 3 guard; it turns them into a CR 1/8 Guard with a title. It transforms you into a new Knight stat block no more than taking away all their armor and throwing them in prison would transform them into Gladiators. This isn't Pokemon or Fire Emblem; you can't just Thunder Stone or Master Seal your Guards to turn them into new and inherently stronger classes of being instantly. Even the change from Commoner to Guard is thought to represent at least a few months of training necessary to have baseline proficiency in weapons and armor.

If you really want the knighting to represent a fundamental chance in identity or personhood over that single event, they would either remain Guards but spontaneously gain the Noble (Knight) background, or at most, they would become Nobles representing knights-errant, with their short but intensive training in the military being reflected in gaining the Parry action for single combat, but no sudden, qualitative change in unit strength.

If you want to represent "telling a man he is a Knight making him a better fighter," you're in luck: being promoted, given the promise of title or land if they survive the battle, and uniting people under a common bond, such as an order, or the cause that order represents, are all potential motivating factors which can improve the group's morale modifier. If, at the knighting ceremony, the commander gives an impassioned speech stating why defense of this land goes above defending a plot of earth and carries into a defense of the ideals the people on that land hold dear, that event could lead to one (or maybe two!) steps of improved morale, because of the motivation of being compelled to fight by both promise of title and/or land and by appeal to their bonds to the land. A change from Motivated (+2) to Fanatic (+8) represents a unit empowered to fight with a strength equal to an additional 120 men, so a unit of 400 so empowered, with otherwise equal morale and commanders, would be able to fight a theoretical unit consisting of 520 men at equal power, or match a unit with more experienced units peppered in, or just crush an equal unit head-on!

This. All around great post.

Cybren

2017-02-22, 01:49 PM

Field leaders are not really in dire need to know of logistical support in the middle of the battle.

Without logistical support prior to the battle they will not win the battle. That's a fairly trivial extrapolation. Additionally, battles could last days, so logistics are still relevant in an individual battle

What are you even talking about? Strength and proficiency bonus to attack affect the roll in a fight. If your character is clever and decide to ambush the Black Knight instead of facing him up front, he doesn't get to add his Int to his rolls either.

Right, strength and proficiency bonus effect the roll in a fight because those are the qualities that abstract your decision making in the conflict. You don't have to choose whether you're attacking on the left side or the right or keeping your guard up or anything, because barring certain special options, that is all abstracted into the dice roll. Likewise, the decisions you make in a larger order conflict, i.e., a mass combat scenario, are dependent on intelligence rather than strength (or dexterity, or your spellcasting ability modifier). So the rules, as i said, should be more abstract. They should be zoomed out another level.

Beleriphon

2017-02-22, 01:56 PM

Without logistical support prior to the battle they will not win the battle. That's a fairly trivial extrapolation.

Which the morale rules are supposed to cover. Really, the rules for mass combat are that, rules for combat. They don't take into account the myriad of details that an army on the march actually require to fight. The whole thing is boiled down to how strong are the units fighting, and how likely are they to break under stress?

Lonely Tylenol

2017-02-22, 01:59 PM

I'm backtracking a bit, but this was posted while I was working on my post (mobile):

You can be as charismatic as you want, if you can't supply & manage your army, you can't lead a military unit. Because you don't have a military unit.

You can be as charismatic as you want, but if you don't drill your military unit in battlefield tactics, you can't lead a military unit. Because your unit will be routed the first time it contacts significant opposition.

You can be as charismatic as you want, but if you aren't responding to changing battlefield conditions, you can't lead a military unit, because you just got trapped in a double envelopment and now no longer have a military unit.

All of these things are represented in morale penalties, which are cumulative. Being charismatic and incompetent leads to poor morale, which results in the unit being weak and easily fractured. But between two competent leaders, the more charismatic one will have more of an impact in battle rallying troops and maintaining morale than a less charismatic one.

If you want capital I Intelligence to have more of an impact, tie these logistic issues (which, I repeat, have a very real impact on unit strength through morale) and the way that they are resolved to the Intelligence score of the commander and their advisors.

Unoriginal

2017-02-22, 02:04 PM

Without logistical support prior to the battle they will not win the battle. That's a fairly trivial extrapolation.

And what? Are corporals in charge of ten soldiers also in charge of the pre-battle logistical support?

You don't have to choose whether you're attacking on the left side or the right or keeping your guard up or anything, because barring certain special options, that is all abstracted into the dice roll.

Dude, your positioning during a combat encounter, which action you want to use, and how your character use the world around them to their advantage during a fight ARE things you choose and that are not decided by dice abstractions.

Why would the positioning of combat units, which action they use, and how they use the world around them to their advantage be decided by dice abstractions?

Likewise, the decisions you make in a larger order conflict, i.e., a mass combat scenario, are dependent on intelligence rather than strength (or dexterity, or your spellcasting ability modifier).

And you'd note that, once again, you don't have to roll to make decisions in a fight.

Cybren

2017-02-22, 02:26 PM

Dude, your positioning during a combat encounter, which action you want to use, and how your character use the world around them to their advantage during a fight ARE things you choose and that are not decided by dice abstractions.

Why would the positioning of combat units, which action they use, and how they use the world around them to their advantage be decided by dice abstractions?

Either you didn't read my post or seemed to have misinterpreted it:

In combat, you do not decide "overhead swing" "quick thrust" "feint a cut to the hamstring then dart six inches left and thrust to the kidneys". You choose "attack" or "dodge" or "cast a spell" or use a special ability you have. All the former options I presented are abstracted into the die roll. So too, the mass combat rules should be more abstract and incorporate your intelligence modifier. Because in a mass combat situation your meaningful decisions, governed by your own experience and ability, each inform your success.

And you'd note that, once again, you don't have to roll to make decisions in a fight.

No, but there is an entire set of decisions that are abstracted into the roll

Unoriginal

2017-02-22, 02:34 PM

Either you didn't read my post or seemed to have misinterpreted it:

In combat, you do not decide "overhead swing" "quick thrust" "feint a cut to the hamstring then dart six inches left and thrust to the kidneys". You choose "attack" or "dodge" or "cast a spell" or use a special ability you have. All the former options I presented are abstracted into the die roll. So too, the mass combat rules should be more abstract and incorporate your intelligence modifier. Because in a mass combat situation your meaningful decisions, governed by your own experience and ability, each inform your success.

And I am saying that what Intelligence does in mass combat is not comparable to "deciding if you use overhead swing", it is akin to positioning and the rest of the things you make your character do in combat to take advantage of a situation.

The mass combat rules are essentially "combat where you treat units as one being with X stats".

Because in a mass combat situation your meaningful decisions, governed by your own experience and ability, each inform your success.

What kind of meaningful decisions? Deciding where you have to be? Deciding what action to use?

No, but there is an entire set of decisions that are abstracted into the roll.

And by definition those abstracted decisions are not placed under "use of Intelligence", so there is no reason they'd be while using mass combat.

Cybren

2017-02-22, 02:36 PM

And I am saying that what Intelligence does in mass combat is not comparable to "deciding if you use overhead swing", it is akin to positioning and the rest of the things you make your character do in combat to take advantage of a situation.

The mass combat rules are essentially "combat where you treat units as one being with X stats".

What kind of meaningful decisions? Deciding where you have to be? Deciding what action to use?

if you've been keeping up that is the fundamental problem I have with the mass combat rules. Because it is a flawed premise.

Unoriginal

2017-02-22, 02:47 PM

if you've been keeping up that is the fundamental problem I have with the mass combat rules. Because it is a flawed premise.

There are other ways to do it, to be sure, but it's supposed to be a quick way to deal with units fighting other units without having to invent another game to do it.

So it uses the existing combat system, with a few tweeks.

If you think a different system should be used altogether, fair enough, but it doesn't make the UA system internally wrong.

joaber

2017-02-22, 03:51 PM

"why use your strength and proficiency bonus to attack when you can just get some boffer weapons? You don't measure this like morale, you simply choose the the most efficient attacks"

Looks like you're rambling. What weapons and strenght have something to do with intelligence and charisma?

weapons, strenght, cunning, armor are covered by BR
lidership to keep forces united and do what your planned with morale
and intelligence is the choice to what to do, guard, attack, surprise, pushing enemies to the cliff. The commander will choose the option, if is good, he get advantage, force desadvantage get one surprise round, more range attacks...

you don't need one:
-"I'll attack"
-"good you have +4 in the attack because your commander is very intelligent thought in a good strategy!"

You already have benefits if you play smart and this will raise your morale, if you fight dumb, this will decrease. Intelligence has his part in morale too.

Cybren

2017-02-22, 03:57 PM

Now i'm not even sure you're reading my posts.

Chaosmancer

2017-02-22, 06:49 PM

A change from Motivated (+2) to Fanatic (+8) represents a unit empowered to fight with a strength equal to an additional 120 men, so a unit of 400 so empowered, with otherwise equal morale and commanders, would be able to fight a theoretical unit consisting of 520 men at equal power, or match a unit with more experienced units peppered in, or just crush an equal unit head-on!

I hate to break it to you, but that isn't what the UA rules say.

According to the rules we have Morale only does two things.

1) it prevents the unit from breaking and "dying" in combat

2) it increases their initiative

A unit with a morale bonus of +20 but a BR of 400 will always lose to a unit with a BR of 430 no matter what the enemies morale.

All that will happen is the weaker force will die to a man, while the enemy suffers no casualties, instead of running or surrendering

Estrillian

2017-02-22, 06:57 PM

I've run mass combats in any number of RPGs using various sets of rules (such as the original Legend of the 5 Rings system, the GURPS mass battle system, battle rules for Ars Magica and so on), and these rules seem to be the worst I've seen.

They attempt too much detail (1 minute rounds? Field battles last for hours!), while providing no real opportunities for characters to act as part of the army. When it comes to character abilities these rules just throw up their hands and say "actually we have no rules for these, wing it". I can't imagine these rules being satisfying for a PC in the normal battle-lines, and I can't see it being interesting for an army commander either (which is a common role for PCs to take).

My favourite style of rules for battles do something like the following

Break the battle into abstract phases (perhaps 3-5) each of which represents a key period of action, but is not strictly timed
Resolve each phase with a single contested roll that gives both some sense of the loss on each side and provides bonuses for the next round
Gives each character a chance to do special things (magic, killing leaders, scouting, blowing stuff up) in each round to give bonuses
Allows PC commanders to add something (often a leadership or tactics bonus) to the whole roll
Has a random set of occurrences (routs, betrayals, mis-delivered orders) to make each round less deterministic
Takes account of various battlefield advantages (e.g. cavalry advantage, ranged advantage, magic advantage, fortifications) on the roll
Translates results to player injuries

This seems to be the standard for most abstract battle systems. Some also allow players to take more or less risk in a round, or to win honour or glory (like the L5R one did).

I can't see myself using these rules in preference to any of the others I've tried.

Lonely Tylenol

2017-02-22, 06:58 PM

I hate to break it to you, but that isn't what the UA rules say.

According to the rules we have Morale only does two things.

1) it prevents the unit from breaking and "dying" in combat

2) it increases their initiative

You're right, I'm sorry. The fanatic unit will just be less likely to break.

A unit with a morale bonus of +20 but a BR of 400 will always lose to a unit with a BR of 430 no matter what the enemies morale.

30 BR is not insignificant. It represents a fighting force of 600 "standard" soldiers, in a unit of 400. This is not an arbitrary difference.

Cybren

2017-02-22, 07:00 PM

I hate to break it to you, but that isn't what the UA rules say.

According to the rules we have Morale only does two things.

1) it prevents the unit from breaking and "dying" in combat

2) it increases their initiative

A unit with a morale bonus of +20 but a BR of 400 will always lose to a unit with a BR of 430 no matter what the enemies morale.

All that will happen is the weaker force will die to a man, while the enemy suffers no casualties, instead of running or surrendering

This phenomena has cost many a careless EU4 player their entire army. As it turns out, sometimes high morale is bad.

Zalabim

2017-02-22, 07:01 PM

A unit with a morale bonus of +20 but a BR of 400 will always lose to a unit with a BR of 430 no matter what the enemies morale.

All that will happen is the weaker force will die to a man, while the enemy suffers no casualties, instead of running or surrendering
Technically, units that are defeated in mass combat don't necessarily have even a single creature in that unit die. Other than that, this is correct. This just gives the PCs a certain amount of time to turn around the battle with their actions.

toapat

2017-02-22, 07:39 PM

This phenomena has cost many a careless EU4 player their entire army. As it turns out, sometimes high morale is bad.

ah, the last time that happened to me, i had a 2 million soldier battle involving 12 countries in europe in the high Alps in Midwinter.

i had something like 30 units with 0/1000 troops, with a single battle involving the armies of Germany+Scandinavia (Me, as i had conquered most of Germany and then turned to denmark, england and sweden when poland took Danzig), every OPM in Italy, Novgorod (My ally), France (My other ally, Last war i would fight with them), the Ottomans, Austria, Scottland (My Vassal), and Poland.

England was actually Exiled from Europe by my previous success at 3 separate wars to take the isles, the first of which involved landing a 40 unit army into an undefended Dover.

then Res Publica came out and i stopped playing since they massively nerfed the Merchant Republic (Custom nations in EU4 would allow you to make a Norse/Merchant Republic, which with religious Ideas was the most powerful Nation in the game, even starting with only 1 Province)

Moral is kinda better in this than in EU4 though

Kane0

2017-02-22, 11:19 PM

-Snip-

What would you recommend? My group has been using an adaption of some old AD&D stuff and winging it.

Cybren

2017-02-22, 11:37 PM

ah, the last time that happened to me, i had a 2 million soldier battle involving 12 countries in europe in the high Alps in Midwinter.

i had something like 30 units with 0/1000 troops, with a single battle involving the armies of Germany+Scandinavia (Me, as i had conquered most of Germany and then turned to denmark, england and sweden when poland took Danzig), every OPM in Italy, Novgorod (My ally), France (My other ally, Last war i would fight with them), the Ottomans, Austria, Scottland (My Vassal), and Poland.

England was actually Exiled from Europe by my previous success at 3 separate wars to take the isles, the first of which involved landing a 40 unit army into an undefended Dover.

then Res Publica came out and i stopped playing since they massively nerfed the Merchant Republic (Custom nations in EU4 would allow you to make a Norse/Merchant Republic, which with religious Ideas was the most powerful Nation in the game, even starting with only 1 Province)

Moral is kinda better in this than in EU4 though
My favorite is a Protestant noble republic in north China, bordering Korea/Manchuria/Mongolia, but I haven't tried it since they changed how tech groups work.

Also: it's real wordy but I'd recommend looking at GURPS mass combat. Even if you don't use it directly, as with many GURPS books it has lots of ideas you can steal

Thunhus

2017-02-23, 08:40 AM

My favourite style of rules for battles do something like the following

Break the battle into abstract phases (perhaps 3-5) each of which represents a key period of action, but is not strictly timed
Resolve each phase with a single contested roll that gives both some sense of the loss on each side and provides bonuses for the next round
Gives each character a chance to do special things (magic, killing leaders, scouting, blowing stuff up) in each round to give bonuses
Allows PC commanders to add something (often a leadership or tactics bonus) to the whole roll
Has a random set of occurrences (routs, betrayals, mis-delivered orders) to make each round less deterministic
Takes account of various battlefield advantages (e.g. cavalry advantage, ranged advantage, magic advantage, fortifications) on the roll
Translates results to player injuries

This seems to be the standard for most abstract battle systems. Some also allow players to take more or less risk in a round, or to win honour or glory (like the L5R one did).

I can't see myself using these rules in preference to any of the others I've tried.

I like your ideas as mass battle rules.

I have run mass battles using War Machine rules (BECMI), house ruled War Machine rules, my own 4e mass battle rules and Battle system rules (playtest rules for 5e).

Example of Battle

Army 1:

50 Knight CR 3 (limit 50) HP:52 Ranged: 100/400 & Melee
52 Warhorse CR 1/2 (limit 208) HP:19
1 Warlord Commander CR 12 (limit 1) HP:229 Cha: 18
2 War Wizard of Cormyr CR 9 (limit 2) HP: 66

Army 2:

100 Veteran Adventurer CR 3
10 Hired Mage CR 6
2 Volunteer War Priest CR 9
1 Sembian Champion General CR 9 Cha 15

I like rules that let me and my players to resolve a mass battle in a one hour playing time.

War Machine is fast and could easily to be played in one hour.

Battlesystem is not fast and would take at least 2 hours.

New mass battle rules seems something between War Machine and Battle system.

The biggest difference is that Battle system and new mass battle rules uses minis and grid but War Machine is abstract system.

I like also rules that produce results that would happen if the battle is played using D&D 5e rules. I mean the rules that we use for our PCs and monsters.

War Machine is not very good at this.

Battlesystem is better.

New mass battle rules seems like a waste.

I'm developing an abstract system that is based on CR scores, armies tactics and PCs actions (heroic actions, scouting, stealing battle plans, assassinate enemy leader).

Thunhus

Stan

2017-02-23, 10:02 AM

On the whole, meh. It's interesting that, instead of tweaking the first mass combat rules, with 10 per unit, they went a different level.

One thing that many of the criticisms in this thread miss is that BR maxes out at 50. This lessens the problem of BR swamping the die roll but does not eliminate it. If you have some high CR creatures, you'll have to spread them out into smaller units or mix them with low CR creatures. But 100 CR 1/2 creatures would be 20 and would be unable to scratch a unit of 25 CR 3 creatures - maybe that's appropriate. But I think, given the CR range, bonuses need to be more than advantage on the roll to give weaker units a chance to accomplish something with tactics.

Units should have the possibility of one or two of a few features to make them more interesting. For example, units with thrown missile weapons might get +10 BR to a single attack (put a marker on them, remove it once they've thrown all their missiles). Spear/Pike units might get +5 BR when calculating defense, +10 vs cavalry. Maybe powerful, chaotic creatures such as gnolls and bugbears need twice as much space than their size would indicate as they're not good at fighting in formations.

It feels like a system to resolve really large battles (1000+ per side) where 98% of the participants are CR 1/2 or less. As such, it's ok but crude and unexciting. Are any of the designers wargamers? Have they studied the various iterations of Battlesystem and the mass combat rules for Birthright? Or any of the miniature rules out there (and not just skirmish rules with each figure representing only one creature)?

toapat

2017-02-23, 11:54 AM

My favorite is a Protestant noble republic in north China, bordering Korea/Manchuria/Mongolia, but I haven't tried it since they changed how tech groups work.

Also: it's real wordy but I'd recommend looking at GURPS mass combat. Even if you don't use it directly, as with many GURPS books it has lots of ideas you can steal

well, lets be fair, buying upto Western Tech group is hilarious. my issue is that after Res Publica, Merchant Republics basically cant expand unlike the other 20 government types, as well as the reformed Estates system moving estate power further into the tech group and much more away from the government

However, if you think Protestant is awesome, you really should look at Norse Paganism, that religion literally gives you a set of Monarch-bound National Modifiers via Divine Intervention.

but, as long as were using EU4 as a discussion platform, going out and finding a real copy of the Europa Universalis boardgame and deciphering its rules for combat and applying them to DnD would be better than this UR technically

Cybren

2017-02-23, 12:15 PM

well, lets be fair, buying upto Western Tech group is hilarious. my issue is that after Res Publica, Merchant Republics basically cant expand unlike the other 20 government types, as well as the reformed Estates system moving estate power further into the tech group and much more away from the government

However, if you think Protestant is awesome, you really should look at Norse Paganism, that religion literally gives you a set of Monarch-bound National Modifiers via Divine Intervention.

but, as long as were using EU4 as a discussion platform, going out and finding a real copy of the Europa Universalis boardgame and deciphering its rules for combat and applying them to DnD would be better than this UR technically

Going pagan spells trouble for when Europeans show up. Wanna get those royal marriages, otherwise I wouldn't bother with noble republic

Stan

2017-02-23, 12:30 PM

One option is a slight modification that's common in wargames. All units on a side move simultaneously. Then each unit gets to participate in one attack. Multiple units can combine their BR into one attack as long as all are within range of the same target. This allows weaker units to combine and have a chance of to damage tougher units. It also makes missiles more useful as it's easier for them to combine against one target.

Exploding dice are also an option. If you roll 19-20, roll again and add it to the total. Lots of units have a chance of getting more lucky hits.

Beleriphon

2017-02-24, 10:34 AM

toapat

2017-02-24, 11:58 AM

And these rules demonstrate how hard it is to add rules to games. I've been trying to come up with a ruleset for ship combat for months, and what I really need to do is decide what the rules are going to do, and what they aren't going to do. I haven't managed to get that far yet, rules design is hard. Its even harder when you have an RPG rather than a wargame where the individual player are expecting the abilities of their individual characters to be useful.

i think these rules are a good example of both Overthinking and Underthinking a problem at the same time.

i personally feel like a 20*20 square of units is actually too much abstraction for ever making the rules work at all, as shear numbers of properly trained units break them. If a Red Dragon is going to be your Standard unit of measure of battlefield supremacy, it should probably be around the maximum unit size on its own.

Maybe a Commander of a unit actually defines the Maximum Battle Rating of the unit as a function of their (Higher Of Intelligence or Wisdom) * Charisma. and they probably should count to the space of a unit

Mounts need to exclude any units designated as Riders from the "size" of a unit. there is no reason why the PDKs run at half manpower per unit because everyone is mounted.

even so, just by changing the unit size from 20*20 to 4*4, and lets say a round of mass combat is 5 rounds party combat, Bows are actual threats that give more than 1 free attack, superelite units like a group of spellcasters are actually ranged.

But now Balion if Iblin isnt the secret hax of the entire system, his advantage per unit means that they only compete with a Red Dragon, not render the entire opposing army an excersize of surviving siege damage to your walls while his 400 men proceed to instagib entire other armies.

Beleriphon

2017-02-24, 12:12 PM

i think these rules are a good example of both Overthinking and Underthinking a problem at the same time.

i personally feel like a 20*20 square of units is actually too much abstraction for ever making the rules work at all, as shear numbers of properly trained units break them. If a Red Dragon is going to be your Standard unit of measure of battlefield supremacy, it should probably be around the maximum unit size on its own.

It is for sure both overthinking and under thinking at the same time. My biggest issue is that the rules are clearly meant to for a bunch of mooks fighting other mooks, or very small numbers of elites or something massive like a dragon. It falls a part a bit when you have elite units of different compositions fighting each other. I think a good addon would be that any units that are mounted get like a +10 BR per unit if the whole block is mounted, since it is a substantial force multiplier. Same thing with some extra BR if a unit charges for its initial attack, this would give mounted units a reason to do be mounted and would emulate the actual tactics of heavy cavalry pretty well.

Chaosmancer

2017-02-24, 12:29 PM

One thing that many of the criticisms in this thread miss is that BR maxes out at 50. This lessens the problem of BR swamping the die roll but does not eliminate it.

I'm trying to figure out how you got that limit of 50.

My best guess is that you are assuming that the CR 20 creature having a BR of 50 means a unit maxes at 50. However, the BR total heading only tells us that we total the BR of the creatures and their commander, it says nothing of an upper limit and i don't think 50 was meant to be a limit. Though it is amusing to realize that a lot of over CR 20 creatures are currently stuck with a lower BR than they probably deserve

Stan

2017-02-24, 01:06 PM

I misread the bottom left of page 1 - 'BR starts as a bonus from +1 to +50' but now I think they just mean per creature. Which makes it evenmore unplayable as as the difference between units will swamp the die roll. The fixed damage would also contribute to make things often boring, unless morale breaks. Imaging a 50 pt unit with very high moral vs. a 100 pt unit. The 50 pt unit is doomed with no hope of causing a scratch but might take 10 turns to kill them off.

I can't believe the writers sat down to crunch numbers. UA articles often look thrown together to fill space - this more so than most. I'm not sure if it's even fixable. The first mass combat rules were problematic but less likely to create unplayable results.

ChaosOS

2017-02-24, 01:52 PM

There was a pretty good reddit post that more or less salvaged it by just changing how the attack mechanic works: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5vuhyx/a_minor_tweak_to_make_the_new_mass_combat_work/

If a unit takes the attack action, there is a contested roll: 1d20 plus each unit's morale bonus. Now, the damage is calculated as follows:
Base damage is the attacking unit's BR divided by 10, rounded down to a minimum of 1. This damage is still applied to the defending unit's BR, but instead of the fixed amounts of the original rules, this system scales:
If the attacking unit's roll wins by +11 or more, it does double damage, so (BR/10) times 2
If it wins by +6 to +10, damage is (BR/10) times 1.5
If the attacker wins by +5 or less, or the rolls tie, or the defender wins by +5 or less, the damage done to the defender is base damage (BR/10)
If the defender wins by +6 or more, the attack does half damage, so (BR/10) divided by 2.
That's it, that is all that is needed to make the system workable to scale with any group size from BR 10 (which is essentially 10 CR2 creatures, any less than that really doesn't seem sensible to resolve in mass combat). Now I will explain the reasoning behind the changes I propose, and then suggest a few additions to make the entire system a bit more realistic and open up more options at the cost of slightly more complicated combat turns, but that is supposed to be considered a variant to add depth, the basic system is simply the above.
So, the changes made and the reasoning behind them: BR represents the amount of combatants in a unit, their individual strength and resilience - so it seemed sensible to use this both as a value of "health" or amount of fighters remaining in the unit, and how much damage is inflicted - after all, fifty orcs with greataxes should hit harder than fifty peasants with pitchforks (and also harder than twenty orcs with greataxes). The calculation might seem mathy at first, but since BR/10 means simply dropping the last number of the BR value, it is trivial, and doubling/halving it is also easily done.
Using morale to determine the battling unit's success also seemed quite well-fitting because morale is already described as a combination of equipment, battle experience and willingness to die for the cause and their commander - it seems obvious that a poorly equipped peasant rabble would be a lot less enthusiastic to charge into the enemy lines than a group of devoted paladins.
Finally, there is no situation where no damage is done at all - it just seems very odd to me to imagine two armed groups of soldiers clashing on the battlefield for a full minute and not a single one getting stabbed - also, this gets rid of the "invincible space marine" problem of high BR units. They might be stemming the tide and dish out a lot more than they take, but eventually fifty paladins cant stand against a thousand goblins, no matter how well-trained they are - unless they manage to break their morale.
This was the simple change part, now follows the variant that I feel would add a lot of verisimilitude to the battles without actually requiring much more work, but since it is not strictly necessary to fix the official stuff, I am keeping it separate.

Variant: exchanging blows

The notion of one unit attacking the other on its turn, without automatic counterattacks, is quite reasonable in single combat, after all, the big boss giant still only has one weapon to swing and can only look in one direction at a time. However, when lines of soldiers slam into each other on the battlefield, people die on both sides, and "diving in and out of melee" as rogues are prone to doing in normal 5e combat does seem rather tricky to do with 200 people at once, doesn't it?
So in that vein, to add a bit more gritty steel-meets-steel meatgrinder feeling to the battles and open up some more tactical choices, I propose that after the above damage calculation was done for the attacker, the defending unit also gets to calculate damage - when armies exchange blows in melee, soldiers on both sides die. The rolls are kept as they are, there is no reroll, but the positions are inverted. The advantage of using this rule is that battle becomes a lot less dominated by numbers - by taking away the orcish invulnerability due to high BR of the original wotc system, they are going to get swamped by the vastly more numerous defenders nine out of ten times. With this variant, defeat in detail is still quite possible, but it allows for more of the shock and awe tactics that were quite common in pre-firearms battles where relatively small but well-trained groups of soldiers often managed to rout large numbers of peasants. To stay with my initial example, its quite possible for 2000 human defenders to overwhelm the 400 battle-hardened powerful orogs, but there is no such thing as free attacks. It is going to be costly, and those bastards don't break easily.
Important to note is that the exchange of blows rule only applies for melee combat, as archers firing volley's are not able to suddenly shoot more volley per turn while they are being attacked by other ranged units. Moreover, the damage calculation of the attacking unit still happens first and the morale check upon decimation applies before a counterattack is made, so things like heavy cavalry charges still have a very good chance of simply routing an undisciplined enemy without incurring any losses, especially if the other variant rule is used as well:

Variant: fluid morale
Morale in the base system is doing what it should quite all-right, but in a realistic battle, morale very much changes over time - even a disorganized and badly armed peasant rabble will become quite enthusiastic if they break one or two units of the attacking goblins, suddenly the daunting foe is not looking so daunting anymore! Or when the battle seems lost, and our defending soldiers are resigned to death, suddenly the wizard shows up with a bunch of horsemen and gives the defending forces new hope with a devastating cavalry charge! That big impactful actions on the battlefield are not isolated is already reflected in the "friendly casualties" morale check of the original ruleset, however, I am not a big fan of the soldiers being demoralized into standing around for a turn and then going back to business as usual. It works for simplicities sake, but by adding another bit of complexity, we get a much more fun and important morale system: Instead of keeping the morale value for each unit that was decided at the beginning of the battle, we regard the morale table as a variable, with the added stipulation that if a unit would move below -10 on the table, it immediately routs and is considered eliminated.
Now, the following rules exist to track morale changes, replacing the "Morale Checks" rules of the original UA:
If a unit suffers 10% (BR/10) or more of its current BR in an attack, it must succeed on a DC 12 morale check or regress one tier on the morale table. If it suffers 20% (BR/10 times 2) or more of its current BR, it must succeed on a DC 15 check to suffer only one tier of regress or two if it fails. If a unit suffers 50% or more of its current BR, it must succeed on a DC 20 check to suffer only four tiers of regress or suffer eight tiers of regress if it fails. (This is potentially a morale deathspiral, as losing morale due to damage will mean it is likely to get hit harder in future attacks and the BR threshold lowers). This rule replaces the original "Casualties" rule and will be the main source of unit elimination, as few soldiers are fanatical enough to fight to the last.
the "friendly casualties" rule is modified to: If a friendly unit is eliminated, all units directly adjacent to it must succeed on a DC15 morale check or regress two tiers on the morale table. I am not a big fan of the 500ft distance rule as I don't think soldiers locked in melee would not quite be aware of what happens five units down the line, however they are quite aware that the buddies to the left dropping their swords and running off is a very, very bad thing.
if a unit manages to break or decimate an enemy unit, it gets moved up one tier on the morale table.
if a unit's attack roll is a natural 20 or natural 1, it advances/regresses one tier on the morale table (keep in mind that this applies only on the attack, so if the exchange of blows variant is in place and the defending unit rolls a nat20, it will likely get less damage while defending and then gets to attack with a nat20 and the morale boost afterwards).
Critical actions to the flow of battle such as collapsing a wall, taking the city gate or decimating the enemies' elite force can boost or lower morale of all units in the vicinity.
These rules do add some work for the DM, but they also open up so many options for player interaction and agency on the battlefield - the paladin inspiring the few remaining defenders to hold the gate at all costs until reinforcements arrive, the barbarian charging ahead of his soldiers, shattering the ranks of the enemy and putting fear into their eyes, the druid summoning a tidal wave to throw units into disarray, opening them up for a cavalry charge - all those things have more impact, since it will affect the performance of all the units that are around to see it, and potentially even rout badly disciplined units without even damaging them directly - it turns the battlefield into a more immersive sandbox of discipline and heroism, and less of a "hitpoint-slugfest" that the original BR-based combat system tends to be. At the end of the battle, you might have a heroic group of dwarven commoners that looked death in the eye and didn't flinch, or a bittersweet celebration with the decimated group of knights that charged through foes and fire to get to the enemy spellcasters, turning the tide of battle.
In any case, the core change is very simple and easily implemented, the variants are for those whose players take interest in organizing the battle and participating in the fight itself as opposed to peripheral action - not necessary to make mass combat workable, but certainly opening up great options once the "fellowship" part of the campaign is over and the armies of the evil overlord come marching.

Stan

2017-02-24, 02:18 PM

There was a pretty good reddit post that more or less salvaged it by just changing how the attack mechanic works:

That's better but still has issues. Doing that level of damage means units take ~10 turns to die, after they've made contact. Since there isn't much in the rules for fancy tactics, that amounts to quite a bit of boring die rolling.

Opposed die rolls amount to 2d20 + mods, and can be rather swingy.

Morale should be important but this overstates it. Morale was already for morale checks and initiative. Making it a force multiplier makes almost everything.

More importantly, the rules are still kinda boring, not much decision making for the two sides. If something requires little thought, it should require little time as well.

JackPhoenix

2017-02-26, 07:02 AM

As I see it, this UA is less "here's a thing for you, what do you think?" and more "help us playtest this new thing we're working on and help us make it work". It's the second UA on mass combat, and totally different from the first one- that suggest to me that WotC is waiting for response to compare them with the first mass combat UA responses to see what the players want before creating a third (and perhaps official) version. See: Ranger.

Kane0

2017-02-26, 04:08 PM

Is there a reason they can't update and reuse at least some material from previous editions? I've heard nice things about older mass combat rules.

Unoriginal

2017-02-26, 05:34 PM

Is there a reason they can't update and reuse at least some material from previous editions? I've heard nice things about older mass combat rules.

For D&D? Unlikely.