PDA

View Full Version : DM Help How do you do epic battles at player scale.



notXanathar
2019-10-20, 12:54 PM
In my campaign, I want to have a few large battles at climactic moments, like the battle for helms deep. However, I am not looking to convert dnd into a wargame. I want to keep it firmly at player scale, but at the same time, make it feel like there's a battle going on around them.

I am open to all suggestions, but ideally there should be a way for the battle to influence the players, the players to influence the battle, and low book keeping. I really don't want to be keeping track of 10 different units, since the players aren't going to be the ones commanding them, although they might take part in planning.

Thanks in advance.

Shinizak
2019-10-20, 01:04 PM
Legends of the 5 rings has a great system for this.

Basically, you try to swing the battle by deciding where you are in the formation, depending where you are, you get a certain amount of potential damage, but can get the opportunity to swing a potential fight.

At the end, you total the Amount you have, and see if it meets a target number.

jjordan
2019-10-20, 01:23 PM
I like the Unearthed Arcana model where you convert groups of creatures into a single meta-creature to create a workable number of combatants and then fight it out. PCs can choose to join a 'creature' or remain separate. You're still keeping track of a large number of units but it's pretty simple.

jayem
2019-10-20, 02:10 PM
In my campaign, I want to have a few large battles at climactic moments, like the battle for helms deep. However, I am not looking to convert dnd into a wargame. I want to keep it firmly at player scale, but at the same time, make it feel like there's a battle going on around them.

I am open to all suggestions, but ideally there should be a way for the battle to influence the players, the players to influence the battle, and low book keeping. I really don't want to be keeping track of 10 different units, since the players aren't going to be the ones commanding them, although they might take part in planning.

Thanks in advance.

As a crude idea (that could then be extended), more or less cribbed from Pirates and other thoughts

Create 2 NPC players to represent each 'army'. Use as many of the basic concepts as convenient (noting that 10% hit points means 10% casualities)
This creates a independent battle that is vaguely similar to a fight and can be adjusted to match tempo (if you literally use the same numbers it should more or less be right assuming instant 1-1 combat, but long term I'd tweak it so attack strength and HP has some relation to numbers, while unit 'HP' goes into defence strengths).

The players (it is assumed) are mostly fighting their direct counterparts in heroic fights. This mostly takes place independently.

However:
Various rolls in the army battle lead to an advantage/disadvantage in the heroic fight
Some are based on actual throws (your army may be hopelessly outnumbered but it's heroic stand gives you courage), have advantage in the next roll
Some are based on outcomes (your army outnumbers his 10-1, he's having to watch his flank, have a free mook's sneak attack)

Various rolls in the heroic fight(s) similarly lead to an advantage/disadvantage in the army battle
On top of this the GM pre-emptively fudges based on situation. It's a narrow pass, your army can only attack with 300 men, etc..
[ETA... this is mostly the same as just suggested in X-post but reducing it to 1 unit each]

Tawmis
2019-10-20, 02:33 PM
As a crude idea (that could then be extended), more or less cribbed from Pirates and other thoughts

Create 2 NPC players to represent each 'army'. Use as many of the basic concepts as convenient (noting that 10% hit points means 10% casualities)
This creates a independent battle that is vaguely similar to a fight and can be adjusted to match tempo (if you literally use the same numbers it should more or less be right assuming instant 1-1 combat, but long term I'd tweak it so attack strength and HP has some relation to numbers, while unit 'HP' goes into defence strengths).

The players (it is assumed) are mostly fighting their direct counterparts in heroic fights. This mostly takes place independently.

However:
Various rolls in the army battle lead to an advantage/disadvantage in the heroic fight
Some are based on actual throws (your army may be hopelessly outnumbered but it's heroic stand gives you courage), have advantage in the next roll
Some are based on outcomes (your army outnumbers his 10-1, he's having to watch his flank, have a free mook's sneak attack)

Various rolls in the heroic fight(s) similarly lead to an advantage/disadvantage in the army battle
On top of this the GM pre-emptively fudges based on situation. It's a narrow pass, your army can only attack with 300 men, etc..
[ETA... this is mostly the same as just suggested in X-post but reducing it to 1 unit each]

This is something similar to what I use...

I essentially look at each force...

So let's say humans and orcs.

Humans are pretty well equipped - wearing chainmail. Might be about 5,000 humans.
Orcs, they're in leathers, using good weapons though, about 3,000 of them.

As combat happens, I assign AC to each side based on what they're wearing.
Each side attacks each other.

So for example, Humans hit Orcs.
I roll a 1d10 dice for "damage" and x10 - roll an 8.
In the first round of combat, roughly 80 orcs are killed.

So on and so on.

Aliess
2019-10-20, 03:27 PM
Something I read on here and have used a few times now is to let the players choose what their roles are going to be in the battle and run mini encounters for each group.
I.e. the fighter decided they're going to help hold the gate while the wizard and ranger get up on the walls to stop the enemy flyers getting in.
Encounter one is the gate being smashed open by a troll and the fighter having to stop it.
Encounter 2 is a bunch of flying monsters trying to destroy the artillery before they get fireballed/shot.
Then make a judgement call on the overall Battle based on how well the players do.

Psyren
2019-10-20, 04:46 PM
Pathfinder has Mass Combat rules, but ideally I would have the larger battle happening in the background while the PCs are doing more key things - repelling/assassinating enemy lieutenants/elites or powerful summons, defending/weakening key fortifications, reinforcing/demoralizing uneven areas of the battlefield etc. Then as others have suggested, apply some kind of circumstance or morale modifier to the battle as a whole depending on how well (or poorly) the PCs do.

For examples of this approach, view the Battle for Azure City in OotS, LotR's Battle for Minas Tirith (imo, a much better "PC-centric" mass battle than Helm's Deep was), or Dragon Age Origin's final push against the Archdemon.

King of Nowhere
2019-10-20, 05:12 PM
My campaign also had a massive war, and that's how I handled it:

First I talk strategy, troop placement and general plans. I describe how the battle evolves. this is mostly fluff, and there are no rules involved. I can cut it short if the players don't want to participate in that. How well they handle the battle determines how difficult will be the next part, and the final outcome.
then we reach a pivotal moment in the battle, and I isolate the party and an enemy task force sent to deal with them specifically. Generally it's the enemy elite team, but could be a larger force of weaker opponents if I feel like doing something different.
Of course it is assumed that there are other people fighting all around, but it is equally assumed that their reciprocal efforts are neutralizing each other. I have a random table of effects to reinforce the idea that there are people around - from "an enemy throws a fireball against you" to "an ally cast mass cure light wounds on you" to "an archer shoot someone with +X to hit and Y damage". I put together a few dozen effects, and each one can be positive and negative (as in, an enemy archer attacks a party member or an allied archer attacks an enemy). I can roll that from once per round to every time someone makes his turn, depending on how big I want the battle to be; the biggest the battle, the more random effects.
the outcome of the encounter decides the battle. If the pcs win, their army managed to break the enemy and force them to retreat. If the pcs lose, their army also have to flee. then I describe outcome of the battle, generally in terms of resources lost by both sides.

Of course it requires a bit of trust, as there are no rules for deciding how the battle goes you must try to be fair, and your players must accept your judgment. But it can bring a really epic feeling to a campaign.

And by the way, some other poster also was in a similar predicament and asked me for my table, which I posted here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23993001&postcount=27). It is intended for high level armies, because my war only involved high level people (the reasoning be that when you have a couple thousand people of level 11+ on both sides, a mundane army can't really contribute in any meaningful way). But it can be adapted to other kinds of wars

Drache64
2019-10-20, 05:21 PM
Ran something like this in a pathfinder session, but I am a huge fan of miniature war gaming.

I used Lord of the Rings Strategy battle game (you could use another system) to represent NPC vs NPC combat, but the players used Pathfinder rules.

Case in point: I had an army of paladins attack a town and the players were caught in the middle.

When an NPC paladin fought an NPC town guard I used LoTRSBG rules and stats of an Elf vs an Orc. When a player attacked an NPC they rolled against a normal Paladin NPC profile I created.

Turn structure:
Players turn
any Paladins in combat with players turn
switch to LoTRSBG system for the rest of the table.

The players didn't know I was doing this, they just saw me move all the npcs, role a few dice, remove a few models and go back to their turn.

REALLY make sure the soldiers have just 1-2 MAYBE 3 HD or else this combat will last for years.

Duff
2019-10-20, 08:17 PM
Each round they fight an enemy. Often an enemy is there for a round and then gone. Sometimes they have some variation.

Have opponents scaled from 1 - 10. Use a deck of cards. Each round flip a card. If it's a red, they have to fight an opponent of that "Type"
On a black card they have the same foe as last round. Picture cards have different effects. If they score a hit on the foe, score a point. If they kill them, score the card value of them.
I quick suggestion list below (probably not yet fit-for-purpose)

1 - wounded normal soldier. they have -2 to hit and any hit on them will kill them
2 - a normal soldier
3 - an Archer which you are in melee with
4- a wounded Cavalry soldier
5 - a normal cavalry soldier
6 - a talented soldier
7 - a sergeant of foot
8 - a mounted sergeant
9- An officer
10 - a champion

Red Jack - Draw 2 cards and deal with them both
Black Jack - Same as last round + a new foe
Red queen - Rest for a round
Black queen - a squad of archers shoots from out of engagement range
Red King - an opportunity - maybe a chance to try for an enemy leader or wizard
Black king - you find yourself near a high level spellcaster

notXanathar
2019-10-21, 04:06 PM
Thanks for all the responses. I will certainly take a look at what has been suggested, although am likely to take my own route.

My thoughts are like this: each side attempts to complete a series of objectives, especially those which materially influence which encounters or bits of encounter the players take on. These might be 'break down the gates', or 'defend the beacon so we can get aid'. After roughly each encounter, the DM rolls a contested check, based roughly on attack bonuses for the basic units of each side. The side that wins completes their objective. On a draw, it's just that. If the players do something material to help their sides' objective, such as shoot down enemies approaching the gate, their side has advantage. If NPC enemies do the same, advantage to their side. If either side fails spectacularly on the encounter level, they get disadvantage. If one side accumulates enough successes, they win, overrunning the others. The number of required successes is determined by the quality of the battle plans.

What do you think?

Duff
2019-10-21, 05:40 PM
I'd play it!

Kaptin Keen
2019-10-22, 01:12 AM
Personally, I just describe the scale of the battle - say ...

'As you crest the last ridge and Madripore pulls into view, you see the unimaginable scale of the slaughter. Entropy's forces of undead, creatures of the dark above and below, seem to swarm in endless profusion, crashing against the walls of the great city in waves.'

Something like that: It's a big battle.

Then I describe - without a single dice roll - how the PC's make their way through all the dross to their objective.

'You and your escort of paladins form a wedge, and with thundering hooves and gleaming lances and swords, you cut a swathe of destruction through the massed enemy. Entropy stands, tall as a mad wizards tower, central among his forces, sucking the life force from Madripore minute by minute.'

Bla bla, the little folk die beneath your armored heel, now let's get to the point.

Generally though, I don't do epic. My games are much more likely to be about saving granny's herbal garden from a fire imp than about preventing the end of the world.

noob
2019-10-22, 04:35 AM
Thanks for all the responses. I will certainly take a look at what has been suggested, although am likely to take my own route.

My thoughts are like this: each side attempts to complete a series of objectives, especially those which materially influence which encounters or bits of encounter the players take on. These might be 'break down the gates', or 'defend the beacon so we can get aid'. After roughly each encounter, the DM rolls a contested check, based roughly on attack bonuses for the basic units of each side. The side that wins completes their objective. On a draw, it's just that. If the players do something material to help their sides' objective, such as shoot down enemies approaching the gate, their side has advantage. If NPC enemies do the same, advantage to their side. If either side fails spectacularly on the encounter level, they get disadvantage. If one side accumulates enough successes, they win, overrunning the others. The number of required successes is determined by the quality of the battle plans.

What do you think?

So if the battle plan is "Murderise all the opponents in a straight fight while your army stands back" and that the players have the resources to make sure they can not take hits and dish progressively enough harm to kill all opponents how do you measure that?

Imbalance
2019-10-22, 07:15 AM
Thanks for all the responses. I will certainly take a look at what has been suggested, although am likely to take my own route.

My thoughts are like this: each side attempts to complete a series of objectives, especially those which materially influence which encounters or bits of encounter the players take on. These might be 'break down the gates', or 'defend the beacon so we can get aid'. After roughly each encounter, the DM rolls a contested check, based roughly on attack bonuses for the basic units of each side. The side that wins completes their objective. On a draw, it's just that. If the players do something material to help their sides' objective, such as shoot down enemies approaching the gate, their side has advantage. If NPC enemies do the same, advantage to their side. If either side fails spectacularly on the encounter level, they get disadvantage. If one side accumulates enough successes, they win, overrunning the others. The number of required successes is determined by the quality of the battle plans.

What do you think?

I like it. It sounds very Helm's Deep. Good luck refining the mechanics.

It's been a long time since I played it, but I really liked the way Ogre Battle handled combining epic strategy with character role-playing.

redwizard007
2019-10-22, 11:41 AM
Thanks for all the responses. I will certainly take a look at what has been suggested, although am likely to take my own route.

My thoughts are like this: each side attempts to complete a series of objectives, especially those which materially influence which encounters or bits of encounter the players take on. These might be 'break down the gates', or 'defend the beacon so we can get aid'. After roughly each encounter, the DM rolls a contested check, based roughly on attack bonuses for the basic units of each side. The side that wins completes their objective. On a draw, it's just that. If the players do something material to help their sides' objective, such as shoot down enemies approaching the gate, their side has advantage. If NPC enemies do the same, advantage to their side. If either side fails spectacularly on the encounter level, they get disadvantage. If one side accumulates enough successes, they win, overrunning the others. The number of required successes is determined by the quality of the battle plans.

What do you think?

I think you are on to something. Heroes of Battle (3e?) Used a system where there are basic objectives like you describe here, but how well the PCs do with objectives determines the outcome of the battle. Sort of. In truth, they encourage the DM to predetermine the outcome of the battle if the PCs do nothing. Their successes and failures influence the outcome from there. The battle its self is little more than a backdrop as the PCs move from encounter to encounter.

Lord Torath
2019-10-22, 12:29 PM
A mechanic I've seen is Turning Points.

There are several key points in the battle where the outcome of a small section has a large impact on the overall outcome. These are the turning points, and are places where the PCs can make an impact.

For example, removing a strongpoint that's stymieing your forces. The enemy has an oiliphant or two, and your cavalry won't go near them. If they are not stopped, your army will likely fail. If your PCs stop the oiliphants, their side gains one or two turning points. If they fail to stop them in so many rounds, the other side gets the turning points.

The enemy elite guard is launching a sneak attack at your artillery division. If you can hold them off for a specific number of rounds, reinforcements will arrive and your artillery will be safe. Otherwise, even if the elite guard are destroyed, so is your artillery, which is far more valuable. +/- 1 turning point.

A particular enemy champion is terrorizing your troops. Engage him in single combat. If you kill him in so many rounds, you gain the turning point. If he kills you, his side gets the point. If you kill him, but take too long, neither side gets a point.

You get the idea. At the end of the battle, the side that won the most turning points is victorious.

Edit: This is really just what you said in your last post. I should have read it more carefully. :smallredface:

King of Nowhere
2019-10-22, 03:12 PM
Thanks for all the responses. I will certainly take a look at what has been suggested, although am likely to take my own route.

My thoughts are like this: each side attempts to complete a series of objectives, especially those which materially influence which encounters or bits of encounter the players take on. These might be 'break down the gates', or 'defend the beacon so we can get aid'. After roughly each encounter, the DM rolls a contested check, based roughly on attack bonuses for the basic units of each side. The side that wins completes their objective. On a draw, it's just that. If the players do something material to help their sides' objective, such as shoot down enemies approaching the gate, their side has advantage. If NPC enemies do the same, advantage to their side. If either side fails spectacularly on the encounter level, they get disadvantage. If one side accumulates enough successes, they win, overrunning the others. The number of required successes is determined by the quality of the battle plans.

What do you think?

ultimately, it depends on how well you do it, how well you can make your players feel that there's a point to it and it's not just a bunch of random rolls.
And that's true for every mechanic, I guess.

Quarian Rex
2019-10-22, 04:23 PM
If you want to have an epic war scenario then you will have to dip a little into wargaming territory if you don't want the results to just be DM fiat. Just accept that right off the bat. The real questions are how well are you going to model the battle and how are you going to highlight the players interaction/effect.

I would strongly advise against reducing the battle to just some kind of opposed check. Nothing is less epic than a single d20 roll determining an encounter. It also reduces player influence to something arbitrary and unsatisfying (What, we took out the Duke's supply lines and that only got us a +1 on the last battle check? And we rolled low anyway? What was the point?)

I am a big fan of ACKS (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/130926/ACKS-Domains-at-War--Campaigns?filters=0_0_0_0_0_31815) and their mass combat system but adapting new units can be a pain so I've adapted one of it's best ideas, the Heroic Foray. When Heroes are on the field of battle allies rally to them and decisive turning points can be had. What this means is that the the PCs Stake some of their forces against the enemy. Each PC can Stake anywhere between 0 (just entering the fray) to 3 (seeking glorious death) in 0.5 increments. Multiply their level by the total Stake. That is how much CR of their forces they are bringing into their corner of the battle and how much of the enemy army they will be engaging. If you want, you can allow the party to count Cohorts, Followers, Hirelings, Animal Companions, etc. as separate Stakes if the PCs want to bite off a bigger chunk.

Resolve the Foray as a normal combat encounter with the exception that the characters can withdraw from the Foray by taking two Withdraw actions in a row away from the combat, disappearing into the greater battle. The foray ends when all of the heroes or foes have been defeated. Foes who voluntarily withdraw or who flee are considered defeated. If the heroes win the foray, the opposing army loses units with a combined CR equal to the total CR staked in the foray.

If there are heroes present in both armies, they will often end up foraying during the same battle turn. In this case, the heroes of each army might face each other in the foray. The highest total CR staked by either side is used. The heroes from each army will be supported by the staked CR worth of allies drawn from their army.

A foray with heroes on both sides ends when all of the heroes and creatures on one side have been defeated. Each side loses units with a combined CR equal to the total CR their side lost in the foray.

The question is now how do you represent the masses of soldiers brought into combat? Here I give you the Unit template.


Here are some tables that will be necessary to use when creating creatures with these templates.

Die Size Progression
Progression 1:
1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6
-or-
Progression 2:
1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8
-or-
Progression 3:
1d12, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6



Old Size
New Size
Str
Dex
Con
Nat. Armor
AC/Attack


Fine
Dim
Same
-2
Same
Same
-4


Dim
Tiny
+2
-2
Same
Same
-2


Tiny
Small
+4
-2
Same
Same
-1


Small
Medium
+4
-2
+2
Same
-1


Medium
Large
+8
-2
+4
+2
-1


Large
Huge
+8
-2
+4
+3
-1


Huge
Garg
+8
Same
+4
+4
-2


Garg
Colossal
+8
Same
+4
+5
-4


Repeat the adjustment if the creature moves up more than one size.




Unit Template

Across the bland field of grass you see a solid block of men, nearly 20 feet on a side. You marvel for just a moment at the exacting detail of their matched uniforms and equipment, and the precision of their combined movements, until you realize those movements have sent them charging across the field at you.

The Unit Template is an Acquired template that can be applied to any creature that possesses the ability to gain ranks in profession (soldier), whether by nature, or by advancing with character classes. Use the original base creature for making this determination, ignoring other applied templates (specifically undead templates). This creature will be referred to as the base creature.

Special: If the unit will be mounted (cavalry) then the base creature must also have at least one rank in ride.

The Unit Template is designed to be highly adaptable. When applying this template is necessary to assign a value N, which indicates the number of sizes the unit will increase over the base creature. It is also used to determine the effectiveness of much of the creature. N may be any value from 1 to 4. N=1 represents a squad (@16 individuals) N=2 represents a light platoon (@ 36 individuals) N=3 represents a company (@ 128 individuals, using an extra spacing, doubled for each size increase beyond Colossal, as per swarms) and N=4 represents a battalion (@ 432 individuals, using 2 extra spacings, doubled for each size increase beyond Colossal, as per swarms).

Special: The feats of the base creature may be discarded in exchange for unit feats, unless they are bonus feats or specific racial feats that always apply.

By this I mean, a unit of fighters has the same number of feats as a fighter, not necessarily the same feats as a fighter. However a unit of skeletons (who all have improved initiative) cannot discard improved initiative.


Size and Type:
Increase the Base Creature’s size by N steps. Example, if N is 3 a medium creature becomes gargantuan.
The Base Creature gains the Unit sub-type.

Hit Dice and Hit Points:
The Unit retains the Base Creature’s original hit dice. In addition the template grants N bonus hit dice. Determine the size of these bonus hit-dice using the table below. Creatures that possess more than one hit-die Type (whether racial, class, or from some other source) use the largest die size to determine bonus hit-dice. For example, a Lizardfolk fighter would have 2 racial hit-dice (d8s) and 1 class hit-die (d10) and would use the d10 to determine the size of the Bonus Hit Dice from this template. For example, a battalion (size N=4) of Warriors (1d10 HD) would gain 4 HD (N=4) with each of those HD being 6d8 hp (24d8 hp in total).

These bonus hit-dice advance the BAB at 1/2 per HD. A Unit’s good saves are reflexes and will, summarized below. Units have no class skills, and gain no skill points per level.

Original Hit Dice


N
1d4
1d6
1d8
1d10
1d12
BAB
Fort
Ref
Will
CR


1
1d6
1d8
2d6
2d8
3d6
+0
+0
+2
+2
+1


2
1d8
2d6
3d6
3d8
4d6
+1
+0
+3
+3
+3


3
2d6
3d6
4d6
4d8
6d6
+1
+1
+3
+3
+6

4 3d6 4d6 6d6 6d8 8d6 +2 +1 +4 +4 +10


4
3d6
4d6
6d6
6d8
8d6
+2
+1
+4
+4
+10



Initiative:
The Base Creature’s initiative is adjusted for the new dexterity score, based on the size adjustment.

Speed:
The Base Creature's speed is adjusted with a -10' circumstance penalty. This penalty cannot reduce the unit's speed to less than half the base creatures speed.

Armor Class:
The Base Creature’s AC is adjusted based on size, including size adjustment and natural armor modifier.

Base Attack/Grapple:
The Base Creature’s base attack bonus is modified by the bonus hit-dice granted by this template; see above.
Grapple: BAB + Unit Strength + Unit Grapple Modifier

Attack/Full Attack:
The template’s BAB and Strength modifier improves the Base Creature’s to-hit modifier and damage, but does not increase the die size for damage.

Space and Reach:
The Unit takes up space as a creature of its new size, using and extra spacing at N=3 and using 2 extra spacings at N=4, similar to swarms (so a battalion of N=4 medium creatures would take up three 30'x30' contiguous spacings). The Unit’s reach is the same as the Base Creature.

Special Attacks:
Iterative Attack, Envelop, Swirling Melee, Coordinated Assault, Coordinated Grapple

Special Qualities:
Unit Traits, Law of Averages

Base Saves:
The Base Creature’s base saves are used, adjusted for the template’s bonus hit-dice and attribute changes.

Abilities:
The Base Creature’s abilities are adjusted for size increase.

CR:
The CR increase for this template is +1 for N=1, +3 for N=2, +6 for N=3, and +10 for N=4

Description of Abilities

Iterative Attack:
For each attack, or full attack, action a Unit may make N attacks or full attacks. Full attacks must be completely allocated to a single target. Additionally a unit can make up to N attacks of Opportunity per round.

Envelop:
A Unit may move to surround any creature 2 sizes or more smaller than the Unit, and envelop them. This takes place as part of a normal move action, or other action that allows movement (such as charging). The unit does not have to stop to engage any target in can envelop.
Enveloped creatures must use 2 squares of movement for each square they move within the unit. Enveloped creatures are considered threatened and flanked by the unit surrounding them.
A Unit may initiate a grapple against an enveloped creature without provoking an attack of opportunity.

Swirling Melee:
As a swift action, a Unit may make one attack at their highest attack bonus against every enveloped creature.

Coordinated Assault:
A Unit may coordinate its efforts against a target of sufficient size. Rather than making a normal attack, a unit may make a Coordinated Attack. The target of a Coordinated Attack can be no smaller than one size less than the unit. Make an attack, or full attack, against the target, but use the damage dice associated with a creature of the Unit’s increased size. Coordinated assaults are limited to melee attacks.

Coordinated Grapple:
When grappling, the size of the target creature may be advantageous to a Unit. A Unit uses the size modifier of the target creature when grappling, unless the target creature is smaller than the Base Creature, or Larger than the unit, in which case it uses the Base Creature’s size or the Unit’s size respectively.

Law of Averages
A Unit may always choose to take 10 on saving throws, as well as any skill for which taking 10 is normally an option.





Unit Traits:

Units gain Hit Dice based on the Base Creature
A Unit’s good saves are Reflexes and Will
A Unit’s BAB Progression is ½ per Hit Die
A Unit has no class skills, and gains no skill points per Hit Die.
A Unit is immune to sneak attack or critical damage from creatures two or more sizes smaller than the unit. This immunity extends to similar abilities such as a Scout's Skirmish damage.
Only other Units may flank a Unit.
Because of their low individual damage, Units have trouble overcoming DR and Hardness. For targets two or more sizes smaller than the unit increase the DR or Hardness by N, for all other creatures multiply by N.
Because of their nature, Units gain increased effect from abilities which effect HP or damage. Multiply by N any HP or damage modifier. For example, the Toughness feat would grant 3*N bonus hit points. NOTE: Sneak attack, and similar abilities, are bonus damage and not a modifier and are not increased in this fashion.
Because of their nature, Units gain the full effect of bardic music, marshal’s auras, or similar abilities for the entire unit as long as a minimum of N squares of the unit would be affected.
Units are particularly vulnerable to area of effect attacks. Apply 1/4 the base damage to the unit for every square covered by the effect.
Because of their large number of members, Units are effectively invulnerable to individually targeted spells, spell-like abilities, or other special abilities.
Because they are made up of a large number of individuals, Units are affected differently than normal by feats that allow extra attacks per turn. Cleave, great cleave, whirlwind attack, combat reflexes, or other similar feats or class abilities grant 1d6 bonus damage against Units on every attack for each such feat or ability.
Units may make N number of uses of any special ability (spell-like ability, spell, supernatural ability, etc.) of the Base Creature, as an action of the normal type. For example, if a base creature has a gaze attack as a standard action, the Unit may make N gaze attacks per round. A Unit may forgo one or more of these attacks to gain a +2 effective heightening to the ability (see heighten spell, heighten spell like ability, etc). For example, a N3 spell caster unit may cast 3 spells, or cast 2 spells with one spell heightened by 2, or may combine all 3 spells into one spell heightened by 4.
Undead Units are hard to turn. They gain a morale bonus to turn resistance equal to N.
All Units gain a morale bonus to fear effects equal to N.
When a Unit is reduced to 0 or fewer hp it is disbanded into its constituent creatures. Half of those creatures are considered dead/destroyed, one quarter are at disabled 0 hp, and the final quarter is left at half hp. Success on Fort DC 20 adjusts casualties to one quarter dead/destroyed, one half left at half hp, and the last quarter still disabled 0 hp.


Unit Feats
Units have access to a special category of feat, Unit Feats.

Trained Movement
Prerequisites: Unit Subtype, Base Creature with Profession (Soldier) 1 rank.
Benefit: The unit ignores the circumstance modifier to speed associated with the Unit Template.
Normal: Units suffer a -10’ circumstance modifier to speed.

Coordinated Fire
Prerequisites: Unit Subtype, Base Creature with Profession (Soldier) 3 ranks.
Benefit: The Unit may make Coordinated Assault attacks using un-hurled ranged weapons (bows, crossbows, etc).
Normal: Unit cannot make Coordinated Assault attacks with ranged weapons.

Coordinated Hurl
As Coordinated Fire above, but applies to hurled weapons.

Ranged Combat Specialization
Prerequisites: Unit Subtype
Benefit: A Unit applies 1/2 of its strength bonus to hit and damage on all attacks, including ranged attacks. Focusing on Ranged Attacks in this manner makes the unit less effective in close combat. This is in addition to normal dexterity modifiers.
Normal: Units normally apply their full strength bonus on melee attacks, and no strength bonus on ranged attacks.
Special: A unit applies its full strength bonus on ranged attacks where it would normally apply (hurled weapons).

Ranged Combat Mastery
Prerequisites: Ranged Combat Specialization, Profession (Soldier) 2 ranks
Benefit: The unit adds its full strength bonus on ranged attacks, and 1/2 its strength bonus for melee attacks.
Normal: Units normally apply their full strength bonus on melee attacks, and no strength bonus on ranged attacks.

Formation Fighting
Prerequisites: Unit Subtype, N=2, Profession (Soldier) 2
Benefits: The unit has learned to use the advantages of numbers and formation, granting a +5’ bonus to reach. This is similar to natural reach, and does not prevent a unit from attacking adjacent targets.

Synchronized Strike
Prerequisites: Unit Subtype
Benefit: The unit has learned to synchronize their attacks, to overcome some of their inability to deal with damage reduction. Reduce N by 1 before increasing or multiplying the value of DR or Hardness.
Special: This feat may be chosen multiple times, its effects stack.

Marshal Commander
Prerequisites: Unit Subtype
Benefit: The Unit is lead in battle by a Marshall. Although not individually represented on the field, the unit may benefit from one or more Marshall Aura’s. The Marshall’s effective level is equal to N, and his Charisma Modifier is N/2 (minimum 1). Choose Marshall Auras as appropriate for a Marshall of this level.

Bardic Accompaniment
Prerequisites: Unit Subtype
Benefit: A level N bard has joined the unit. The Bard’s perform skill is equal to N+3, and the bard has access to all bardic music effects for a character of this level. The unit does not benefit from the bards spell casting or other abilities.


This may look like a lot at first but it is actually pretty simple, largely applying swarm-like traits to humanoid scale creatures and applying size modifiers to everything (including rolled hitpoints) to represent greater numbers/aid other checks/shifting formations/etc. Where this is different from the Troop or the Mob is that all of the elements of the original creature are preserved, not reduced to a homogenized blob of impossible HD. The equipment, training, and capabilities of the base creature are all critically important. A Battalion of 1st level Commoners wielding pitchforks bears no resemblance (and stands no chance) against a Battalion of 1st level Paladins in Plate Mail and wielding Greatswords. The Unit template was also pretty heavily analyzed in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?569991-Making-mooks-a-threat-(3-P)) thread as well, seeing how well it does the job and it is still the best option that I've found.

Use Units in the Foray, splitting the Staked CR into bite sized chunks (a Battalion of @ 432 individuals is +10 CR, Company of @ 128 individuals is +6, etc.) on each side and see if the PCs can turn the tide of battle.

This also means that sny side missions that the PCs undertake can have a more direct effect on things as well. Cut off supply lines? Apply Fatigued or Exhausted to the Units to reflect starvation. Tainted the enemy water supply with Filth Fever? A few days of disease damage can gave a pretty big effect. It opens up a lot of options and the end results can be a lot more satisfying/memorable than just an opposed check after some semi-related side quests.

As for the rest of the battle? Just break the remaining forces in Battalions of arbitrary size (if you have a 40,000 man army, breaking it into 4,000 man Battalions for mass combat resolutions is fine) and have them duke it out for a round or two. Have both sides take losses based on damage taken, re-total the armies and re-engage with another Foray. Or just finish up the battle, whatever you and your table seem to think works best. Either way, this is now a victory or loss that seems earned.

Tvtyrant
2019-10-22, 05:48 PM
Read the Illiad or other ancient myths with demigods in war. Humans are largely not suicidal, so the moment it becomes obvious you are heroes the troops are going to get the heck out of the way and let you duel their commanders/special forces. Have the actual armies move aside wherever the party goes as giants and heroes clash, everyone scatters when the dragon flys overhead, etc.

The parties job is to deal with those units, if they fight line infantry the infantry will run away until rescued by a villain or monster. Their allies won't fight giants and dragons either, they simply let the heroes deal with it and hope for the best.

noob
2019-10-23, 04:49 AM
Read the Illiad or other ancient myths with demigods in war. Humans are largely not suicidal, so the moment it becomes obvious you are heroes the troops are going to get the heck out of the way and let you duel their commanders/special forces. Have the actual armies move aside wherever the party goes as giants and heroes clash, everyone scatters when the dragon flys overhead, etc.

The parties job is to deal with those units, if they fight line infantry the infantry will run away until rescued by a villain or monster. Their allies won't fight giants and dragons either, they simply let the heroes deal with it and hope for the best.

Or in 5e all of them shoot at the dragon(or giant) simultaneously thus vaporizing it because bows in 5e works like magic rifles.(because bounded accuracy)
You need to use tricks to make sure the heroes or villains can not suffer from spontaneous existence failure by troop focus fire (like having them be underground most of the time or having tons of heroes and villains relatively to the number of troops(like more than one hero/villain per 100 soldiers))

Tvtyrant
2019-10-23, 03:38 PM
Or in 5e all of them shoot at the dragon(or giant) simultaneously thus vaporizing it because bows in 5e works like magic rifles.(because bounded accuracy)
You need to use tricks to make sure the heroes or villains can not suffer from spontaneous existence failure by troop focus fire (like having them be underground most of the time or having tons of heroes and villains relatively to the number of troops(like more than one hero/villain per 100 soldiers))

Not really, just don't have the troops do that. Achilles could have been killed by a few men with lassos tying them down and hitting him with hammers, but they didn't because war is chaotic and focused fire isn't possible in the chaos.

redwizard007
2019-10-23, 03:50 PM
Not really, just don't have the troops do that. Achilles could have been killed by a few men with lassos tying them down and hitting him with hammers, but they didn't because war is chaotic and focused fire isn't possible in the chaos.

I'm gonna have to disagree on this. Focused fire is certainly a thing, both in games and RL. The limiting factors are primarily communication and visibility. A unit of well placed longbowmen should be a legitimate threat to most large/obvious targets. Artillery, casters, and rock throwing giants fill similar roles. The obvious solution is to have the PCs, or an allied force, disrupt the ranged combatants in some way.

Quarian Rex
2019-10-23, 07:49 PM
Read the Illiad or other ancient myths with demigods in war. Humans are largely not suicidal, so the moment it becomes obvious you are heroes the troops are going to get the heck out of the way and let you duel their commanders/special forces. Have the actual armies move aside wherever the party goes as giants and heroes clash, everyone scatters when the dragon flys overhead, etc.

The parties job is to deal with those units, if they fight line infantry the infantry will run away until rescued by a villain or monster. Their allies won't fight giants and dragons either, they simply let the heroes deal with it and hope for the best.


I've been on the fence about that sort of thing. I get the initial argument (self-preservation = let someone else deal with it, an easy stance to take for most of us in the current day) but that sort of thing seems to be very culturally dependent (as in the cultures in the game world) and would only persist until someone took advantage of an enemy unwilling to engage.

Allowances have to be made for the realities of the game setting as well. Unlike in our world, a commoner conscript charging into battle can result in him leveling and becoming (in many ways) twice (or more) the man he was. A particularly brave showing could even result in commanders paying for the raising of such a hero after death, providing a massive morale boost to their forces and less risk-averse behavior than might be expected in our universe.

Besides that, not everything is a random encounter. Sometimes that dragon/orc horde/demon invasion actually wants to destroy your town and there are never enough heroes to go around. Any bastion of civilization in D&D-land would have had to defend itself against the ravening hordes. Any that were unwilling would have been wiped out by their own cowardice long ago.

Tvtyrant
2019-10-23, 08:13 PM
I've been on the fence about that sort of thing. I get the initial argument (self-preservation = let someone else deal with it, an easy stance to take for most of us in the current day) but that sort of thing seems to be very culturally dependent (as in the cultures in the game world) and would only persist until someone took advantage of an enemy unwilling to engage.

Allowances have to be made for the realities of the game setting as well. Unlike in our world, a commoner conscript charging into battle can result in him leveling and becoming (in many ways) twice (or more) the man he was. A particularly brave showing could even result in commanders paying for the raising of such a hero after death, providing a massive morale boost to their forces and less risk-averse behavior than might be expected in our universe.

Besides that, not everything is a random encounter. Sometimes that dragon/orc horde/demon invasion actually wants to destroy your town and there are never enough heroes to go around. Any bastion of civilization in D&D-land would have had to defend itself against the ravening hordes. Any that were unwilling would have been wiped out by their own cowardice long ago.

The ravening horde is also not fearless though. Real life casualty rates rarely ended up above 10% of each side unless there was a rout, and really hot battles tended to peak in the mid teens. People won't engage in long melee fights or really lethal ranged shootouts for long, when it does happen it is often psychologically debilitating and becomes a frequently repeated story.

Say you have a Goblin. They charge an enemy line, which rakes them with arrow fire and then blocks them with a shield wall. How long do the Goblins actually stay in melee? How many of them are actually seeing combat as opposed to standing behind the guy who is actually swinging? If your square is 10 dudes deep and fifty wide and you actually get to swing a hammer as the third guy in line you watched 100 buddies die by the time you actually do anything but push in. In Gaul battles tended to involve the sides queing up, running into each other, then immediately retreating to do it again if the other side didn't break.

With giants and heroes the people who meet them on the front are dying more or less instantly. A red dragon in 5E can drop 500 feet and then immediately kill 78 people with fire, as well as routing another 500 with its dragon fear. It can simply wait for the lines to meet and then drop into the enemy line and break them, moving into range faster then archers can shoot at it. Losing 600 people in the center of your line ends most armies, so the heroes have to stop the dragon.

Tajerio
2019-10-23, 08:34 PM
The ravening horde is also not fearless though. Real life casualty rates rarely ended up above 10% of each side unless there was a rout, and really hot battles tended to peak in the mid teens. People won't engage in long melee fights or really lethal ranged shootouts for long, when it does happen it is often psychologically debilitating and becomes a frequently repeated story.

You're making two key assumptions there that don't necessarily hold.

Assumption #1 is that human psychology concerning death and the risk thereof is the same in a world in which everybody knows as a matter of demonstrable fact that there's an afterlife. I'll grant you this isn't true in every setting, but it's true for enough settings that you've got to take it into account.

Assumption #2 is that all of the nonhuman sapient races have the same psychology as humans in our world do. Maybe dwarves really don't fear death, for instance, and will stand and fight long after the best-disciplined humans would have run for it.

Tvtyrant
2019-10-23, 08:45 PM
You're making two key assumptions there that don't necessarily hold.

Assumption #1 is that human psychology concerning death and the risk thereof is the same in a world in which everybody knows as a matter of demonstrable fact that there's an afterlife. I'll grant you this isn't true in every setting, but it's true for enough settings that you've got to take it into account.

Assumption #2 is that all of the nonhuman sapient races have the same psychology as humans in our world do. Maybe dwarves really don't fear death, for instance, and will stand and fight long after the best-disciplined humans would have run for it.

1. At this point there is no need for adventurers, because everyone would be one. The hero/fearless murder hobo niche exists because most people are the Poopsmith, if every Poopsmith can fight dragons there wouldn't be heroes. Heck, the social trade off of freedom for security makes a lot less sense if everyone is fearless.

2. Then you need a good reason for them to either not all get eaten by monsters they were too reckless to avoid, or conversely have not conquered the much more cowardly humans. If Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs are fearless, have higher birthrates, and are equally strong/smart as humans we aren't winning that one.

Beyond the fearless vs. not fearless thing, it makes large scale battles much easier to run for players and the DM. Using ancient myths as examples the battle can be limited to key figures, and have a few scenes where the party kills 20 people in a round and everyone else simply books it out of these. There is a DM of the Rings joke about fighting through the battle of Helmsdeep one Orc at a time, and they literally fall asleep from boredom after 10 hours. Narrowing it down to a few key figures is not only more realistic, it is better gameplay.

Quarian Rex
2019-10-23, 11:56 PM
The ravening horde is also not fearless though. Real life casualty rates rarely ended up above 10% of each side unless there was a rout, and really hot battles tended to peak in the mid teens. People won't engage in long melee fights or really lethal ranged shootouts for long, when it does happen it is often psychologically debilitating and becomes a frequently repeated story.

I hear ya, I just don't know if that would be as applicable in D&D-land. Average damage on most inexpensive weapons and standard stabilization mechanics mean that it may not be hard to drop the average conscript but they will rarely be put into deep negatives, have more time to get assistance than most combats last, and even have a good chance of stabilizing without help. So long as their side wins the battle they have a pretty good chance of survival. Should their side lose or withdraw then the coup-de-grace and looting begins. Sounds like pretty good reasons to hold the line. Also, even the most grievous wounds are healed naturally within a few days so long as someone can throw them a Heal check once a day, to say nothing of actual magical healing. Stacking the wounded like cordwood before the Cleric uses Channel Energy could restore half the front line in one shot :). These are not people who have to worry about sepsis, severed tendons, and seeping chest wounds. If they are alive at the end of the combat (even if not conscious) they will probably be ok. That changes things. That changes everything.

We also have to recognize that things just don't work the same in D&D-land. Disengaging from the enemy results in spending a full-round action to take a double move to avoid AoOs from your starting square. You are now perfectly positioned to receive a Charge from your previous opponents. You just spent a round giving your opponent a free attack on you, with bonuses. Good luck with that tactic. The mechanics of d20 heavily incentivize staying and attacking in all but the most lopsided situations. I think that it's important to realize that sort of thing. Eventually there will come a time when you or your players might actually play out a mass combat scenario, and if the players approach it as a scaled up version of what they already know (as they probably should) then they will either come off as Sun Tzu as they direct their forces in a mechanically realistic way against foes the DM is trying to portray 'realistically', or they will feel attacked and cheated as the DM tries to dictate more 'realistic' actions onto their allied forces. Better just to accept that things work a little differently there and acknowledge that the people living there are aware of that.



1. At this point there is no need for adventurers, because everyone would be one. The hero/fearless murder hobo niche exists because most people are the Poopsmith, if every Poopsmith can fight dragons there wouldn't be heroes. Heck, the social trade off of freedom for security makes a lot less sense if everyone is fearless.

2. Then you need a good reason for them to either not all get eaten by monsters they were too reckless to avoid, or conversely have not conquered the much more cowardly humans. If Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs are fearless, have higher birthrates, and are equally strong/smart as humans we aren't winning that one.

You seem to still be making a lot of assumptions here. An absence of existential dread =/= fearlessness. No one likes getting stabbed in the crotch by a goblin, especially when you don't have the class abilities to deal with it (Poopsmith obviously being one of the more prestigious Commoner archetypes), and so wouldn't be going out of their way to go looking for trouble (hence everyone is not going to be an adventurer). But, when the un-smithed poop does hit the fan, even the Poopsmith would understand that his best chance is to stand with his neighbors in their little spot of civilization. Abandoning it would mean facing the wilds and certain death by any random encounter. Besides, even if he does die protecting his home, he'll die protecting his church and fellow worshipers (most communities usually don't have the whole pantheon) and most religions give bonus points for not going out like a wuss. These things all count.

And you are right, even against other humanoids humans are usually seen as being at a disadvantage, whether due to Strength (orcs) or birthrate (goblins), so it is even more important for the humans to try to make up for it with something like discipline or just general testicluar fortitude. We have a lot to draw on from media and literature in this regard.



Beyond the fearless vs. not fearless thing, it makes large scale battles much easier to run for players and the DM. Using ancient myths as examples the battle can be limited to key figures, and have a few scenes where the party kills 20 people in a round and everyone else simply books it out of these. There is a DM of the Rings joke about fighting through the battle of Helmsdeep one Orc at a time, and they literally fall asleep from boredom after 10 hours. Narrowing it down to a few key figures is not only more realistic, it is better gameplay.

Hey, that's why I'm a big fan of the Unit template. Streamlines the hell out of everything while having a mechanically similar result. So this sort of thing can be very playable and fun. Granted, I'm not wholly disagreeing with you either. One thing that I liked about the World of Prime books (a setting that's D&D based where leveling is explicitly acknowledged) was the idea that large battles were places where leveled individuals kept an eye out for spots where large amounts of soldiers were dying so they could seek out the enemy nobles (classed individuals). I think that sort of thing is the natural consequence of such a setting. Where you and I seem to differ is that I don't think that the enemy (or allied) forces would (or should) part like the Red Sea to allow easy access to their commanders. Just like any other military, you hold the line until you are told otherwise. The main difference would be that failure to do so will result in you having to answer to commanding officers who are (comparatively) walking demi-gods whose capabilities are seemingly solely devoted to combat. Mutinies would probably be a lot less common.

There is no real right answer to this sort of thing but there is a lot to consider. I just think that it's important for the DM and the PCs to both realize that there is a lot of room for cultural idiosyncrasies in the game world, but that it's best not to try forcing our perceptions of reality on it too hard.