3.5 DnD: RTS style

[Doresain]

i plan on setting up a game where the PCs are part of a mercenary army that has been drawn into a much bigger plot than they realize...ive run into a couple problems however:

1) massive combat between NPC groups will be present, im just not sure how to handle it without it bogging down to dozens of rolls (and id rather keep the random factor by not pre-rolling them)...how would you guys handle this situation?

2) basic troops and officers...what power level should i be keeping them at? so far, squads typically consist of 10 1st levels led by a 2nd level (with exceptions being named characters and their personal guard)...should basic troops stay at level 1? how fast should nameless officers advance in level?

these are the only problems ive encountered thus far, and would greatly appreciate any help you guys can give

[Sstoopidtallkid]

First, the PCs should never be directly involved in massive battles. It doesn't work. Rather, they get sent on missions, and the better they do, the better their side does overall. "Quick, the enemy is attacking! Go destroy Bridge X so they can't get reinforcements!" "They have some new strategist. Find out who he is, where he is, and eliminate him." "They have a Cleric casting Heroes Feast before battles. Rather than just kill him, we need you to get NPC Y within 55' of him so that one of you can counterspell and he can cast (homebrew poisonous feast Z)." "They wiped out the east point! We need you to hold them at the Lion's Gate until we can force the rest of the army to retreat." They're spec ops, not grunts.

As for the other, it depends on the PCs and the flavor of your world. I'd say start the PCs at the level of 'good' and advance them to 'fight with the enemy's archmage and guards' for the end, if it's a campaign.

[Emperor Tippy]

For the first, I find the average attack roll, damage roll and HP of the group and then just treat it as a single unit.

In regards to the second, lot's of people will say that you should go with Warrior 3's or the like but I find that that gives soldiers that are way too weak and with too limited a skill set. Try Fighter 4/ Barbarian 2/ Ranger 1/ Rogue 1/ Monk 2 for your regular fighter.

For officers go pure class ToB, level 12 Warblades should work.

[RTGoodman]

For mass battles with an air of randomness, here's how to do it. Roll a d20 for each group. If a group is untrained peasants, give 'em a -4 penalty on the roll. If a group is trained knights, they get +2. If the unit consists of scalemail-clad ogre warhulks with cleric support, they get a +4 or +6. Compare the rolls and add in other situation +1s or so (for terrain, tactics, etc.), and see which wins. If the groups tie, both lose men but keep fighting. If one wins by 5 or more, the other group loses a significant portion of men but keeps fighting. If one wins by 10 or more, it loses even more men and is routed. If one wins by 20 or more, the other is decimated with no survivors.


As far as PC action, I LOVE Heroes of Battle (and Red Hand of Doom) for using Victory Points. Basically, each mission the PCs have the opportunity to go on is worth X number of points if they succeed. After a certain amount of time, if the outcome of the battle (or, at least, part of it) is determined by how many points they got. If they got just a few, the army loses and is forced to flee, or something. If they get a middlin' amount, armies entrench and the PCs have a chance to rest and then go after the leaders. If they get a LOT, they've managed to eliminate leadership or something and the opposing force has to flee.

[streakster]

Here you go. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=681572)

[revolver kobold]

I'm with Sstoopid on this one.

A few campaigns back, our DM tried to run a massive battle during one of the sessions. We are talking thousands on thousands here, with dragons and giants and all sorts of beasties thrown in. We started at about 5pm, and the game wasn't over until about 4 in the morning. It sounds great on paper, but it just takes far too long in practice.

In the same campaign, after the huge battle, the war shifted down into the Underdark, which forced the tactics to change from giant battles to small skirmishes and precision strikes. Both the games and the story flowed much faster, and it just became more enjoyable for all involved.

[Kizara]

Go play Mount and Blade (http://www.taleworlds.com/), and stop dreaming.

[elliott20]

First, the PCs should never be directly involved in massive battles. It doesn't work. Rather, they get sent on missions, and the better they do, the better their side does overall. "Quick, the enemy is attacking! Go destroy Bridge X so they can't get reinforcements!" "They have some new strategist. Find out who he is, where he is, and eliminate him." "They have a Cleric casting Heroes Feast before battles. Rather than just kill him, we need you to get NPC Y within 55' of him so that one of you can counterspell and he can cast (homebrew poisonous feast Z)." "They wiped out the east point! We need you to hold them at the Lion's Gate until we can force the rest of the army to retreat." They're spec ops, not grunts.

As for the other, it depends on the PCs and the flavor of your world. I'd say start the PCs at the level of 'good' and advance them to 'fight with the enemy's archmage and guards' for the end, if it's a campaign.

this is how I would do it as well. To make this easier, here's what I'd do, have a bunch of missions that they can do crop up at different times. They have to choose which one they want to finish. While they're doing one thing, another mission could have resolved itself or another new situation could have cropped up, potentially needing their attention. That way, there is a sense of urgency to their choice, and each one is not made easily. But at the same time, they are on the clock as warfare is not some chess game where you can sit and think it out.

this way, the players will feel like they have some semblance of strategic choices they can make. And failure to accomplish certain missions will result in the deduction of victory points.

[Knaight]

For the first, I find the average attack roll, damage roll and HP of the group and then just treat it as a single unit.

In regards to the second, lot's of people will say that you should go with Warrior 3's or the like but I find that that gives soldiers that are way too weak and with too limited a skill set. Try Fighter 4/ Barbarian 2/ Ranger 1/ Rogue 1/ Monk 2 for your regular fighter.

For officers go pure class ToB, level 12 Warblades should work.

Go with low level fighters, otherwise the average soldier is way too powerful. Fighter 2, with humans gives 3 feats to each soldier, and by varying them you have options. That said I would strongly suggest switching away from 3.5 D&D if you plan on doing mass battles.

[Doresain]

ok i never stated that the PCs were going to be in said "massive battles"...i asked about NPC squad vs NPC squad...i would like to keep the option of allowing the PCs to help out an allied squad when it looks like their in trouble, but if it seems to hectic i wont do it

The PCs will have their own separate missions where its just them, no army...in fact, the first encounter i have planned is one for just the PCs

[Knaight]

If the squads are large at all(as in 6 people plus) 3.5 is still going to be exceptionally slow. Also you did say that "massive combat between NPC groups will be present", and if the PCs get involved, PCs are now in a mass battle, game slows to a halt.

[RPGuru1331]

If it's NPCs vs. NPCs, why do you need to roll individual attacks anyway?

[Duke of URL]

1) massive combat between NPC groups will be present, im just not sure how to handle it without it bogging down to dozens of rolls (and id rather keep the random factor by not pre-rolling them)...how would you guys handle this situation?

You may want to treat an entire squad as a single unit, akin to a swarm, but not quite the same. Like a swarm, it would have a pool of hit points representing the entire group, and the group gets a single attack per turn -- the group's HP total represents combat effectiveness; when it is reduced to 0 or less, the unit "breaks" and is no longer combat-capable (50%+ losses) until it can be regrouped (possibly combine two "broken" units to create a new one).

The squad's stats should be based on a single "creature" who's CR is the same as the group's normal encounter level -- e.g., 10 CR1 soldiers plus 1 CR 2 leader is EL7, so make the "composite" creature CR 7 (a LA 0 race with 7 [martial] class levels would do the trick), such as Fighter 7. This would give the "swarm" 7d10 HP, full attacks at +7/+2 (plus any applicable STR and weapon bonuses), 3 regular feats (+1 for humans) and 4 fighter feats. (Alternatively, other martial classes can be used, with their various strengths and weaknesses.) AC and abilities would be the average of the unit. Damage output for the unit should be lowered as the unit's effectiveness drops.

You could then customize your swarms/squads to different combat types -- archers, pikemen, assault teams, defense teams, flankers, etc., using the feats for the "swarm" to make them specialized. There would be no need to factor in the "leader's" bonuses, as the extra feats, etc., would simulate this anyway.

[Nerd-o-rama]

NPCs vs. NPCs? Fake it, handle it off-camera. Give the battle to whichever side has the advantage unless the PCs interfere. Have the PCs' actions affect the strategic situation, i.e. destroying a bridge, assassinating an enemy commander, assisting a small group of NPCs in holding a chokepoint, etc, which changes the result of the overall battle. There's no need whatever to roll off for the armies as a whole.

[SurlySeraph]

I second the people saying to treat entire units like single creatures; it's really the only way to do it. rtg0922's recommendation simplifies it even further, which is definitely good. And make sure to make "units" big enough that it actually makes a difference. How big depends on the scale of the battle, but 20 people is the very least there should be in most units.


In regards to the second, lot's of people will say that you should go with Warrior 3's or the like but I find that that gives soldiers that are way too weak and with too limited a skill set. Try Fighter 4/ Barbarian 2/ Ranger 1/ Rogue 1/ Monk 2 for your regular fighter.

Jesus, Tippy. I knew you liked high-powered games, but that's... wow. So your sun-imploding wizards are actually cheesed out that much just to stay at the same power level as the rest of the world, then?

@V: That does make sense, but still. 10 levels (and all of them useful levels) in PC classes just for the average soldier? I'd hate to fight the kind of enemies that can decimate an army of those guys.

[Emperor Tippy]

Jesus, Tippy. I knew you liked high-powered games, but that's... wow. So your sun-imploding wizards are actually cheesed out that much just to stay at the same power level as the rest of the world, then?

What? I don't like needing 5 classes to approximate a soldier's skill set. But fighter doesn't give enough skill points or class skills, at all. Monk is there to get unarmed strike, barbarian for uncanny dodge, rage and fast movement are just nice bonuses. Rogue is there to up the skill points and for the 1d6 sneak attack (how many soldiers wouldn't learn how to make a crude sneak attack?). Actually I would switch one level of monk for another of rogue. Ranger is there for Favored Enemy.

And this way soldiers pretend to be at least a credible threat to the PC's when in large numbers and at high levels. If it's lower level then you just have the soldiers the PC's interact with be new recruits (only the fighter levels).

[Knaight]

Monk for unarmed strike-don't need it, you can just use power attack. Rogue for sneak attack- power attack while flanking/at flat footed easy to hit enemies. Barbarian rage is just going aggressive, and Uncanny Dodge doesn't even make sense at they typically won't be flanked. Favored enemy works, but isn't usually needed. So lets say fighter 2, rogue 1. 3 feats(4 human), a reasonable amount of skill points, basic sneak attack, weapon proficiencies. Done. Make 1 feat power attack, take improved unarmed strike, take weapon focus, humans get one extra.

[Doresain]

wow...never considered using mobs for the squads...i like it...just a little confused on how cavalry would work

and i want to do NPC vs NPC rolls to keep the chaos factor...making it up doesnt seem as chaotic as it should be considering its a large-scale battle...the unbiased decision of the die roll is perfect imo

[Sstoopidtallkid]

wow...never considered using mobs for the squads...i like it...just a little confused on how cavalry would work

and i want to do NPC vs NPC rolls to keep the chaos factor...making it up doesnt seem as chaotic as it should be considering its a large-scale battle...the unbiased decision of the die roll is perfect imoThe other thing you could do for the NPCs, at least when the PCs aren't present, is assign a 'Degree of Difficulty(DoD)' to each squad. Militia are 1, mostly-rookies are 2, trained vets are 3, spec ops are 5, elite depends on the exact unit. Roll 1d10, add to the DoD on each side, and whichever is higher wins. Add in modifiers for stuff like fatigue, advantageous position, buffs/debuffs, and superior gear/items. Increase the dice size based on total number of units. Gives you randomness without requiring 50 rolls per round.

[Triaxx]

I've always preferred total HP/ total damage. So an elite unit might have hundreds of HP, but when an opposing unit is doing that same amount of damage, it won't make a difference. For a 10-man unit, one-tenth of the HP in damage will randomly kill one of the units, as well as dropping the max HP.

Ogre Battle had it well designed.

I've found the PC's are better at leading reserve units. Let the light infantry fight, but when the opposing side breaks through with elite units, that's where the PC's are needed. Orcs across the line, then a group of Giant's/Ogre's break through in one spot. That's where the PC's need to head.