PDA

View Full Version : ACK! Too Many NPC's!!!



Myatar_Panwar
2007-12-29, 01:34 AM
I'm not sure if this should go in this section, or homebrew, but here goes:

So, in the current campain I am playing in, it seems pretty apparent that when we get to a higher level, we will be leading armies. And thus it got me thinking, how would that be fun AT ALL?

I can see it now, we siege a castle. Some 20-25 enemy npcs on the map grid, and around 20 of our npcs and us as well. Each player takes around 1-2 minutes with their action, now its the DM's turn.... "OH MY GAWD... theres... theres alot of stuff to do here.."

So the problem seems obvious, it would take way too long to decide each npcs action. There also seems to be an issue with keeping track of damage that each NPC has taken. And Ive tried to DM some scenarios like this as well, and the boredom on my players faces is apparent as they wait for me. And thus Ive been recently thinking of ways to speed up battles like these.

First of all, I was thinking that maybe (and although it may be less exciting) creating small pieces of paper before the session, each with a number is a different color on it. Each color will represent a different kind of NPC (such as RED = Goblin Archer. GREEN = Bugbear, etc) and the numbers will represent individuals among the type of creature. Then on a seperate chart that every one can see, you have a table with the creatures on one side and the damage they have taken on the other. Thus players could take a quick look at the chart, see that 3 is badly damaged, and decide that "I will aim one of my shots at him". Using this sort of 'technique' would prevent 2 things: First, it would stop the confusion granted when you have tons of similar looking miniatures on a map, and the players cant distinguish between them (it would also look neater). Secondly, it would prevent (for those of you using a battle mat with dry-erase/ wet-erase markers) having to deal with the large amount of jumbled numbers that are constantly having to be moved around the mat.

Secondly, I was thinking about maybe creating a system that dictates the amount of damage (if any) that an NPC does to ANOTHER NPC (not against players). First, you divide up all of the NPC's into separate groups, and name those groups (group 1, group 2, etc). These groups should contain a variety of different creatures (such as group 1 containing 2 goblin archers, 1 bugbear, and 2 hobgoblin fighters), so that when group 1 all misses, it isnt ALL of the goblin archers missing simultaneously. Organizing and keeping track of these groups should be easy if you use the system I described in the paragraph above.

You then come up with a pattern that each group will follow in according with attacking. I was thinking of maybe something like: 'first round, group 1 will roll a 10, grp 2 will roll a 15, grp 3 will roll a 10, and grp 4 will roll a 5.' You would use these "rolls" to see if the NPCs hit through the other NPC's armor. And then damage will always be average. If you keep the various NPC's attack bonus+damage next to their name, this should go by fast.

Using these rules may seem even more time consuming than just rolling, but if you prepare for all of it before the session starts, then I believe that the actual encounter will go by faster. And you will be saving your players from a world of pain.:smallbiggrin:

Those are just ideas, and I wouldn't be surprised if I overlooked a huge section in the DM's guide devoted to just this (it wouldent be the first time :smallwink:). It is laking, comments are appreciated.

Alleine
2007-12-29, 01:45 AM
I think it's a baaad idea to have such detailed control in a battle like that. If the PC's are going to be commanding, make them command, not dictate. It's much easier to say "Ok, the archers are going to fire a volley into those guys", with a few general rolls. Unfortunately, I don't know what those rolls would be best as.
It might be best to have all the people under each PC's command get the same initiative as the PC. They can direct things easier. Instead of three warriors rushing out, the PC changing their mind and moving the rest of the troops somewhere else.

I know that in my group, it takes us FOREVER to get through combat, not that it isn't fun, but if we did detailed attacks, a few rounds might take the entire session.

Myatar_Panwar
2007-12-29, 01:51 AM
Good point. I suppose that if the PC's are commanding, they should be controlling them. Maybe my original idea would only be applied to the NPC's I control, and I'll let my players decide how they want to deal with their NPCs. They could split up each separate section of their force and each control a small group. Or something...

Alleine
2007-12-29, 01:54 AM
Of course, you have to watch out for the possible realization the PC's might have that if they turn on their own army, they'll get even more XP. This is more likely with evil arcane casters, since they are most likely to survive slaughtering an entire army.

TheOOB
2007-12-29, 02:00 AM
What you are trying to do is play a wargame, D&D is a heroic fantasy game, not a wargame, and as such deals with mass combat quite poorly.

That said, there is an entire book, Heroes of Battle, which focuses on D&D in a wartime/large-scale conflict situation. Instead of controlling the entire battle, the book uses the victory point system to measure the impact the PCs are having on the battle.

The PCs might gain victory points for defeating an enemy squad, holding a breach, assassinating an officer, saving an ally squad, destroying seige engines, ect. The amount of victory points is based on how much the action influences the battle. Taking out an enemy infantry squad isn't worth many VP(one squad doesn't mean much, and PCs tackling soldiers is rather wasteful, PCs should be completing objectives or taking out the other sides PCs), capturing an enemy supply train is worth more, and killing the enemy general would result in a lot of VP.

Before the battle, the DM determines what would happen without the PCs interaction, and determines how many VP are neccesary to change the outcome. For example, a battle chart for a single day might look like:

0 VP: Ally army is pushed back to the river, where it holds for the rest of the day.

20 VP: Ally army holds position in the hamlet past the river.

50 VP: Ally army pushes enemy army back to hills where they hold for the rest of the day.

100 VP: Enemy army routed near sundown.

Naturally, the bigger a battle is, the more VP is needed to make a difference, as the PCs represent a smaller portion of the force. A small battle with 40 people per side may only require a dozen or so VP for a dramatic change, while an epic battle with thousands a side may require 50 VP for a minor change.

The idea behind the system is that the players cans still influence the battle, but they don't control it directly, which D&D(as mentioned) does poorly. It also means that as a DM you don't have to keep track of what every NPC is doing. You only keep track of the PCs actions, and at the end of the hour/day/week/battle you tell the PCs the progress of the battle based on their VP.

EDIT: Just to note, PCs giving good orders can generate VP, in fact commanding a battle generates more VP then most other actions, as it has a much bigger impact on the battle then most other actions.

Alleine
2007-12-29, 02:25 AM
If you think about it the PC's ought to make great commander types. Chances are they'll be able to know the enemy movements better than most generals who will be lower level, they'll know what movements will best compliment their abilities, and are a bit more imposing than the level 5 commander who took 5 arrows and went down crying. Its just cool to imagine the PC Wizard throwing up a magic shield to save a regiment, the druid wildshape into something crazy and dive into the fray, or the frenzied berserker(that everyone knows to stay away from) just go insane and kill everything within arms reach and then some.

And yes, I'm fully aware that the commander wouldn't be close enough to the battle to get attacked, and there are other flaws with my thinking. Its just my opinion.

A.Sondergaard
2007-12-29, 11:08 AM
If you wanna replicate mass combat without taking several turns for individuals, you can use the "Mob" template from the DMG2. Without going into too much detail, mobs function like swarms, but are made up of larger creatures.

snoopy13a
2007-12-29, 11:50 AM
NPC soldiers are not pawns on a chessboard, even if they seem that way. Each of them theorectically has a backstory, ambitions, family, etc. They aren't going to blindly follow the PC's orders like a zombie (unless the army is a bunch of zombies :smalltongue: ). If they believe that the PCs see them as sacrificial pawns then they will try to desert.

I'd force the PCs to lead the NPCs through example. Otherwise, the NPCs would be unwilling to sacrifice their lives for a bunch of cowards who stay in the rear. Of course, leading through example means the PCs are spending their actions fighting instead of commanding others.

Jack Zander
2007-12-29, 12:13 PM
Before each battle, have the commander of each side make a knowledge (tactics) check. Winner gains a +2 circumstance bonus to their army's attack or defense (commander's choice) for the encounter. If they tie, no one gets the bonus.

Stat the armies into groups of creatures with a size relative to the total. (If there are only 100 soldiers on each side, 5 groups of 20 would do nicely. If there are 1,000 maybe have 4 groups of 250. Whatever is manageable for you.) Each group has HP equal to the number of creatures in it. Take the average Attack Bonus and Damage of each soldier in each group, and add them together to get a group's attack. Then take the average soldier's armor bonus, sheild bonus, dex and con modifiers and that becomes a groups defense. Each round these armies deal damage to each other which is reduced by their defenses (it'll usually come out to something like attack of 1d8+5 vs defense of 4 or 5 for level 1 conscripts). Each point of damage represents a casualty. If a group has any clerics present, each one gives the group a cumulative 1 fast healing (they essentially each heal one soldier a round).

You can add in rules for better terrain or fortifications, and now each PC can command their own group of soldiers instead of trudging into a mass of 1,000 soldiers. If you'd like, give each PC their own actions as well which could be casting a tactical spell, issuing commands, inspiring morale, or leading the charge for extra damage.

Balkash
2007-12-29, 12:15 PM
My idea would go as follows. To command a group of NPCs, the PCs must make either a diplomacy check, or an intimidate check, figure out the DCs, something mild for attack, medium for charge, hard for possibly sucidal frontal assault, and really friggin' hard to hold at all costs til dead or relieved. That said, for groups, either use coloured paper squares or risk minis (you know, all the stupid little plastic guys). Anyways, all the groups (remember, this is all my opinion) will be made up of the same guys. Green paper square = goblin archers. I'll talk about sizes later. When the battle starts, all the PCs and all the groups make initiative rolls. Everyone in a group has the same initiative roll, its like a group initiative, group health, group attack, group defense. Now, before any group can do anything, they must be ordered to by the PCs. Obviously they will defend themselves if attacked, but I mean they wont charge unless ordered to. The PCs or PC then makes the check to see if he or she can command the group to do something. If failure, then the group doesnt do anything, and if it is a hard or really friggin' hard check that was failed, roll a percentile and on anything less than 10%, the army either revolts if initidated, or flees if diplomacy. If the check suceeds, the group does what they do until told otherwise, or they lose over 3/4 of their starting group, in which case they flee until commanded to stop. Now group size. For now, I'd say group size can be anything from 1 to 100. No more than 100, because thats what im doing here. If you want more, just see if you can mod these rules. Now the group all has the same weapons, and the same attack bonus (for the record, i dont care that they are humans, as far as im concerned, for attack and such, they are clones). Lets say they are all 1st level human warriors with longbows. Base attack bonus +1. Now if it is a group of 20 men lets say, thats a +20 bonus. 1+20=+21. So roll a d20 + 21. Now for defense. Same thing. If its a group of twenty, and your men all have studded leather, thats 10 + 3 + 20 = 33. 33 is the group AC, which obviously changes when men die, and d20 + 21 is the attack which obviously changes when men die. Group health is 8 (max d8 for warrior) + number of men. 8+20 = 28. Damage is like the others, 1d8 + 20. Easy as i think it can be. I gotta go, but please tell me if you think this is crap or good or i can change stuff. good luck :smallwink:

Sleet
2007-12-29, 12:18 PM
No need to make this complicated.

The way I do it is just to describe the battle going on around the PCs. Then put bad guys on the battlemat - these are the ones the PCs have to deal with, and simply resolve the battle as usual. If you like, put in some simple rules regarding movement ("If you move more than your speed, you get an automatic AoO from 1d3 nameless enemies each round").

Just resolve the larger battle whichever way is more dramatic, and have the PCs fight their own fight. My group does this all the time and it works very well. In fact, this is close to what the game King Arthur Pendragon does for mass combat.

Illiterate Scribe
2007-12-29, 12:19 PM
If there are too many NPCs, it's a clear sign the DM wants you to slaughter them all and take and sell their loot. :smallbiggrin:

Jack Zander
2007-12-29, 12:23 PM
No need to make this complicated.

The way I do it is just to describe the battle going on around the PCs. Then put bad guys on the battlemat - these are the ones the PCs have to deal with, and simply resolve the battle as usual. If you like, put in some simple rules regarding movement ("If you move more than your speed, you get an automatic AoO from 1d3 nameless enemies each round").

Just resolve the larger battle whichever way is more dramatic, and have the PCs fight their own fight. My group does this all the time and it works very well. In fact, this is close to what the game King Arthur Pendragon does for mass combat.

Neither of those two methods were complicated. Mine had a whole three stats to deal with, Balkash's idea used 4 and took into consideration army size for more than just HP of the group. Now look at your character sheet and tell me how many stats that has written on it.

Sleet
2007-12-29, 12:27 PM
Neither of those two methods were complicated. Mine had a whole three stats to deal with...

You said


Stat the armies into groups of creatures with a size relative to the total. (If there are only 100 soldiers on each side, 5 groups of 20 would do nicely. If there are 1,000 maybe have 4 groups of 250.

Which is fine, if you want to bother with that. It sounds like a fair bit of work to me. With my method, you just toss some bad guys out there and fight. Done.

Jack Zander
2007-12-29, 12:29 PM
Dividing by 4 or 5 is work to you?

That's great if you'd like to DM fiat battles (it really is the simplest), but I don't think that's the solution the OP was after.

Sleet
2007-12-29, 12:35 PM
I think you'll agree that your method is a bit more than a simple division. You still need to stat everyone out to determine the groups' stats, and track its HP, damage, and status. Not tremendously difficult, but you still need to spend a few minutes prepping.

Your method will work, and it will work well. I'm not saying it won't. But what I'm saying is that it can be abstracted completely, if you wish it to be. Just have it fade into the background, and you don't need to worry about statting out any of them except for the ones the PCs will be fighting directly.

Jack Zander
2007-12-29, 12:48 PM
Well the idea is that if you are going to stat out a few soldiers, you can simply use those stats for an army of them.

Yeah, background battles are easiest, but I think the OP wants to be able to have the PCs fight and command NPC soldiers in order to affect how the battle goes, not just have them fight a few squads of soldiers and feel irrelevant as the rest of the battles goes on without them.

And to be honest, I've DM fiated battles before and didn't like having to make a decision. I wanted the battle just as random as PC vs monster battles since most of my campaigns change with regards as to what happens each session.

Either method works fine, but if the OP wants to play out huge battles without hour long turns and bookkeeping, the two methods presented are a happy medium.

EvilElitest
2007-12-29, 12:52 PM
what is wrong with Tome of Battle?
from,
EE

Sleet
2007-12-29, 02:09 PM
And to be honest, I've DM fiated battles before and didn't like having to make a decision. I wanted the battle just as random as PC vs monster battles since most of my campaigns change with regards as to what happens each session.

Fair enough. I tend to go the other way, but there are lots of play styles out there. :smallsmile:

I was tossing my idea out there because I've noticed that some GMs try to decide things with dice and detailed rules that don't always need to be. There's nothing wrong with using dice and wargame-style rules, but make that a deliberate decision rather than an unconsidered default. :smallsmile:


what is wrong with Tome of Battle?

I've only glanced at ToB, but my impression is that it doesn't help much with the "volleys of arrows that darken the sun and cavalry charges that shake the foundations of the earth" sorts of battles. Still too much bookkeeping for that. I could be completely wrong.

mabriss lethe
2007-12-29, 02:30 PM
Legend of the Five Rings introduced a Battle table system a long while back to simulate heroic warfare. It's pretty good for resolving things quickly.

Basically, you're character rolls on a table depending on what part of the battle he's in. (Heavily Engaged, engaged, something elsewho's name escapes me, and reserves) (with various modifiers for each) The closer you are to the action, the more reknown you generate, the more wounds you take, etc. It could easily be adapted to the Heroes of Battle idea of VP instead of reknown. You run mass combat rounds until you roll a "heroic opportunity." The action then revolves around your character/s as something important happens, you duel an enemy VIP, stop a saboteur, capture the enemy standard, lead the charge to overrun an enemy emplacement... whatever.. It resolves a lot of the warfare very quickly, while still allowing the PCs to directly influence the outcome. I think they even converted the table to D20, but I honestly don't know where it would be found. Just my 2 cents and probably a handful of mud to cloud the waters.

Triaxx
2007-12-29, 04:07 PM
I once had the misfortune of planning two large scale battles. One with mere fifty men to worry about. We stripped out every single chess piece and checker in the house.

The next battle was easier. I alerted the players that we were going to have such a battle and the next time one player brought two cases of Warhammer miniatures. Unfortunately, since they were all 40k miniatures, the goblins ended up as Space Marines.:smallwink:

Arbitrarity
2007-12-29, 04:10 PM
what is wrong with Tome of Battle?


You mean Heroes of Battle?

Crow
2007-12-29, 04:59 PM
Well I'll go ahead and throw my system into the mix here. I just thought this up in the last ten minutes, so it probably sucks.

Start by breaking up the army into a managable number of units. (5 groups of 100, 5 groups of 20, 5 groups of 1000, etc...whatever is managable)

Next, figure the average attack and maximum (non-critical) damage of each group. Add these together to get an "attack rating".

example: A group with +2 attack and 1d8+1 damage comes out to an attack rating of 11.

After that, figure each group's "defense rating" by taking their average AC and subtracting 10.

example: A group with an average AC of 17 has a defense rating of 7.

When two units engage eachother, each unit compares their attack rating with the enemy's defense rating. The difference is how much damage is inflicted, which equates to a percentage of their original fighting capability (In a 100 man unit, 7% damage is always 7 men, even when unit size is reduced due to casualties). Regardless of the opponent's defense rating, an attacker is always able to inflict 1 point of damage.

example: The Knights have 100 men, an attack rating of 10, and defense rating of 7. The Orcs have 100 men, an attack rating of 11, and a defense rating of 3.

When these two units engage eachother, the Knights inflict 7 damage (attack 10, minus defense 3), while the Orcs inflict 4 damage (attack 11, minus defense 7). 4 Knights, and 7 Orcs are casualties that round.

Assume 50% of casualties are dead, and the other 50% are wounded (incapacitated). Incapacitated men will die if they don't receive medical attention after the battle. The wounded may exceed an army's ability to treat them...

You may use modifiers to simulate situations that may arise on the battlefield:

Advantageous terrain (higher ground, etc...): +2 attack
Flanking opponent: +2 attack
At opponent's rear: +4 attack
Outnumber opponent 2-1: +2 attack
Outnumber opponent 4-1: +4 attack
Outnumber opponent 8-1: +6 attack

This is just bare-bones modifiers. I'm sure you can figure out more.

A unit will begin to break once it has taken 50% casualties. At this point it must make a Will save (DC20), or rout. A player character among or near the unit may attempt a Diplomacy or Intimidate check (DC20) in place of the unit's Will save. Success keeps the unit in the battle. A rallied unit will begin to break again at 60%, 70%, and 80% casualties. Once a unit has sustained 80% casualties, any further casualties will cause the unit to break unless it makes a successful Will save, or is rallied by a PC. A unit at 80% ormore casualties will require usually require constant inspiration to continue fighting.

Trapped units who are unable to flee may surrender, or fight to the death. (DM's choice)

Kojiro Kakita
2007-12-29, 05:31 PM
For battles in the D20 system, I actually turn away from it. Instead I adopt the rules of the L5R RPG. Makes battles a bit more realistic and time saving in my mind.

Yami
2007-12-29, 06:52 PM
Here's my solution.

You get out your battle mat or whatever, make the terrain the players are going to be about and then toss down all your d6's. You've got your allies, set em all to 6 and notch em down when they get wounded or discard them when they die. Then you need your enemy army, throw another bunch of die, or some other markers out for the foes.

The trick is to only deal with the foes near the PC's. For the rest you don't really involve them at all, maybe have an NPC kill an enemy near the PC's or have the PC's get surrounded but if you want to deal with inter army conflict reduce them to a roll for each side per initiative.

It's really the only way, save wargames.

Kompera
2007-12-30, 01:32 AM
Fantasy Rules! (http://www.sabersedge.com/chipco/fr3.htm) is a table top miniatures fantasy rules system which allows for a battle to be played out in about an hour. The PCs can be abstracted into the Heroes, casters, and General units in the game.

CactusAir
2007-12-30, 07:22 AM
take a look at the rules in the Heroes of Battle and Miniatures Handbook splats?