Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Mass Combat

How much of the problem here goes away if we resolve a clash by using opposed morale checks instead of opposed BR checks?


-Brad

While I'm sure these types of rules are very appealing to some DMs and players, I can't think of a single group I've been in during the last 30+ years where I'd use something like these rules. In the past, as a DM, I just have the battle going on around the players and have their PCs engaged in a key spot in the battle - and the results of their battle influence the rest of the battle. If they achieve their goals, the battle goes well for their side. If they get pushed back or fail in their mission, it turns the tide of battle against their forces and everything goes down hill. Often, the objective is something battle related: Hold the line against the waves of invading monsters, break through the line and kill the general, defend the spellcaster long enough for the spell to go off, etc....

Additionally, how much of the problem goes away if we eliminate the size restrictions? (So 400 large sized creatures comprise a unit that's 4 x 100-ft squares). At least I'd be able to use my minis to accurately represent their space on the battlefield, right?


-Brad

On a side note are the units to big ?

This might just be a thing with how we handels mass combat in our campaigns so far, we tend to focus on key moments in the battle.
For example : Can the players plus a group of 300 elite soldies hold the pass that the enemy army is trying to use to outflank the main army long enough, if so the battle is won.
But 300 is still to much to do each soldiers actions seperately.

Leading me to the question if you had mass combats in your games how big where they ?
less then 100 each side , 500 or numbers like 20000 each ?

What scale of battle to play out is most common, and for that reason must be best suported by the rules ?

Eubani said:

Maybe they ran out of time and threw this out instead.

Click to expand...

It seems more likely that someone just spit this thing out in a few hours by comparing two groups of critters with the same CR.

For example, if a unit is outnumbered, that pretty much only gives either advantage or disadvantage on that unit's combat roll; it doesn't provide any other bonus or penalty. So a unit of Cult Fanatics (CR 2; BR = 400) surrounded by Tribal Warriors (CR 1/8; BR = 20) will still easily destroy them all, despite having disadvantage on most attacks and the Tribal Warriors having advantage on nearly all of theirs -- unless you decide that there is at least one unit of Tribal Warriors that has Unbreakable morale and a commander with 18 or higher Charisma. (There is nothing in the mass combat rules that suggests that a morale check automatically fails on a '1'; the rules explicitly compare the morale check to an ability check, which explicitly doesn't fail on a '1' in the core rules.) In *that* case, the Cult Fanatics can keep smashing them and forcing morale saves that the Warriors can't fail, despite their BR dropping quickly below zero and well into the negative numbers, while the Warriors remain completely incapable of inflicting any effect on the Fanatics. Combat is a draw.

If you're representing armies with units of the same size and CR on both (or all) sides, then maybe this system is workable. Trying to do anything remotely 'fantastic' with this system, though (say, simulate the Battle of Five Armies), and you quickly find the system unhelpful and effectively unusable.

--
Pauper

I think the actual attack method simply dont work.
Instead of using BR, we make opposed morale check and still using conditions like cover, higher ground to give advantage or disadvantage.
If the attacker wins the contest it deal damage to the defending unit.

If you win by 10+ you deal 3/4 or your BR.
If you win by 5+ you deal 1/2 of your BR.
If you win by 4 or less you deal 1/4 of your BR.
If you loose the check nothing happens.

A unit may have 800 or more BR. We cant just dealt 2 or 5 BR each turn. We gonna roll all the evening.
Dealing up to 3/4 BR will speed up the combat.
The system will let a chance to low BR units to make a stand.

For example:
A unit of guard Cr 1/8, BR 20, with a morale of +6.
vs
A unit of orc cr 1/2, BR 80, with a morale of -2.

In the actual system, the Guards have no chance. D20+20 vs D20+80. They will loose in a few turns.
Morale, Tactics, who strike first change nothing.

If we use the opposed morale check, the guards unit will give a fight against the orcs.

Guard attack. Roll 10+6 vs 11-2. Win by 5, deal 10 BR.
Orc attack. Roll 5-2 vs 12+6. Nothing.
Guard attack. Roll 15+6 vs 13-2. Win by 10 deal 15 BR.
Orc attack. Roll 17-2 vs 5+6. Win by 4 Deal 1/4 (80-25) 13.75 BR. Forcing a morale check
And so on.

The guards will rarely win, but they can slow down orcs unit.

Krachek said:

I think the actual attack method simply dont work.
Instead of using BR, we make opposed morale check and still using conditions like cover, higher ground to give advantage or disadvantage.
If the attacker wins the contest it deal damage to the defending unit.

If you win by 10+ you deal 3/4 or your BR.
If you win by 5+ you deal 1/2 of your BR.
If you win by 4 or less you deal 1/4 of your BR.
If you loose the check nothing happens.

A unit may have 800 or more BR. We cant just dealt 2 or 5 BR each turn. We gonna roll all the evening.
Dealing up to 3/4 BR will speed up the combat.
The system will let a chance to low BR units to make a stand.

For example:
A unit of guard Cr 1/8, BR 20, with a morale of +6.
vs
A unit of orc cr 1/2, BR 80, with a morale of -2.

In the actual system, the Guards have no chance. D20+20 vs D20+80. They will loose in a few turns.
Morale, Tactics, who strike first change nothing.

If we use the opposed morale check, the guards unit will give a fight against the orcs.

Guard attack. Roll 10+6 vs 11-2. Win by 5, deal 10 BR.
Orc attack. Roll 5-2 vs 12+6. Nothing.
Guard attack. Roll 15+6 vs 13-2. Win by 10 deal 15 BR.
Orc attack. Roll 17-2 vs 5+6. Win by 4 Deal 1/4 (80-25) 13.75 BR. Forcing a morale check
And so on.

The guards will rarely win, but they can slow down orcs unit.

Click to expand...

Idk. I don't think the goal is to reduce a BR to zero. I think it's more likely that the opposed morale check will eventually produce a situation that breaks a unit's morale to the point they retreat. So we don't need massive reductions in BR, really.


-Brad

Bawylie said:

Idk. I don't think the goal is to reduce a BR to zero. I think it's more likely that the opposed morale check will eventually produce a situation that breaks a unit's morale to the point they retreat. So we don't need massive reductions in BR, really.


-Brad

Click to expand...

With 2 or 5 BR damage each round, it will take at least 11 rounds to bring a unit of orc to half BR and to make a morale check.
Multiply this by 10 units on both sides, we will roll all night long.

Krachek said:

With 2 or 5 BR damage each round, it will take at least 11 rounds to bring a unit of orc to half BR and to make a morale check.
Multiply this by 10 units on both sides, we will roll all night long.

Click to expand...

When an attacker wins a morale check by 11 or more, that also procs a morale save dc 10.

I don't know the odds, but it seems to me that for higher BR units, the morale save will fail before the unit is reduced to half BR.


-Brad

Quickleaf said:

Nice! That looks like a nice start to me.

The next question I'd have is: what's the advantage of cavalry in mass combat?

In this system, if we have a unit of 400 Thugs (CR 1/2, +1 BR per 5 creatures, total BR 80) versus a unit of 100 Thugs mounted on Riding Horses (total BR 40), there appears to be no advantage to a lord putting his thugs on horseback.

I'm no military historian, but I always thought cavalry would be more potent? Like, in the mass combat rules, maybe cavalry (and archers?) get to deal their damage first or something?

Click to expand...

I like this change too (using BR/100 instead of just straight BR) but you're right in that there's still not much use for cavalry. However I think a simple change might fix that. As I understand the two main advantages of cavalry in warfare were the speed that they can move around the battlefield and the sheer combined mass of a cavalry charge.

The first is factored into these rules as is and you need to take that into consideration. A unit of Thugs on foot could move at best 3 squares/hexes per round (30 feet of movement x 10/100) while the same unit on horseback could move 6 squares/hexes per round. That gives the cavalry version a large degree of mobility, at least until the unit gets locked down in fighting, which feels right to me.

What's missing is that second piece, namely the advantage of charging. I propose that any unit (cavalry or not) can charge on their action. This allows them to move up to double their speed and attack at the end of that movement, gaining a bonus to the attack roll equal to the number of hexes they moved. This favors all units but makes cavalry especially devastating. In our above scenario the thugs on foot could get +6 to the roll if they charged while on horseback they could gain +12.

Obviously that only helps them on the first initial attack. After that initial charge the advantage of cavalry vanishes unless they can disengage from the unit they are fighting and charge again. Again that feels right to me.

I would also give units the ability to set against a charge. That imposes disadvantage on the attack roll against them and if the attack is a tie or a fail then the unit that is set against charge can immediately counter attack against the charging unit for free. I might even give them advantage on the attack roll if they are equipped with spears or lances.

Of course all of this only works if we use the BR/100 rule that was suggested above. Otherwise adding even a +12 on rolls where units add +800 will hardly matter.