D&D 5E Mass Combat Rules?

[atanakar]

I'm currently preparing session that will include a large battle between two armies. Which ruleset would you use for that? Are there Mass Combat rule for 5e by a third party publisher?

 

[dave2008]

I'm currently preparing session that will include a large battle between two armies. Which ruleset would you use for that? Are there Mass Combat rule for 5e by a third party publisher?

There is a UA on mass combat and several homebrew systems. I believe Matt Colville is working on a book, but that will not help you for your next session.

EDIT: The is also an older UA: When Armies Clash , though I assume the one linked above is an improvement on the system as it came out 2 years latter.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Depends on how complex you want it. I dusted off my AD&D Battlesystem rules when running a kingdom-based game, which probably had the most advanced rules of any system I've used, but also could account for nearly everything with little adjustments needed.

Pathfinder's Kingmaker campaign introduced mass combat rules which were refined in its Advanced Player's Guide and available as OGL still on its site.

Balduran's Guide to Kingdom Building on DMsGuild has solid rules for, obviously, making a kingdom and introduced some simple mass combat rules, which appear modeled from the UA mass combat rules put out a few years ago.

If you're only doing 1 battle, I'm not sure a mass combat system works as well as simply having the party do skirmishes that affect the outcome. If you have a prolonged campaign with armies moving about the kingdom and concerns about weather and paying for those armies, then I'd push for Pathfinder or Battlesystem.

 

[robus]

I'm currently preparing session that will include a large battle between two armies. Which ruleset would you use for that? Are there Mass Combat rule for 5e by a third party publisher?

What are the PCs going to be doing while the battle takes place? Are they going to be central to securing the victory or is the battle a background component? Is the outcome of the battle to be left to chance? Or is it a foregone conclusion?

 

[atanakar]

What are the PCs going to be doing while the battle takes place? Are they going to be central to securing the victory or is the battle a background component? Is the outcome of the battle to be left to chance? Or is it a foregone conclusion?

The characters are nobles. They will each be attached to a unit as commander. The eldest character will be the general. They must repel invaders that have taken over a portion of their barony. The outcome will be based on their actual performance in the field.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The characters are nobles. They will each be attached to a unit as commander. The eldest character will be the general. They must repel invaders that have taken over a portion of their barony. The outcome will be based on their actual performance in the field.

So does each PC command a unit, and the one character is a general over those units? How big are these units compared to the overall armies?

How I would run it depends a lot on the PC's levels. At tier 4, especially spellcasters, they can dominate a battle field and kill enemies by the dozens. Even at tier 3 they can do a lot of course. And one "hero" can help a lot, but they can't usually protect their entire company and will watch their numbers dwindle.

Maybe a "hero" vs. "hero" allowing the PCs roles to do key points that would turn the tide narrative?

In general, I would run it more like a board game of Risk or something, using key points where the PCs can shine or falter as the play dictates.

 

[Garthanos]

I have been considering how to use magic the gathering for mass combat...

 

[atanakar]

So does each PC command a unit, and the one character is a general over those units? How big are these units compared to the overall armies?

How I would run it depends a lot on the PC's levels. At tier 4, especially spellcasters, they can dominate a battle field and kill enemies by the dozens. Even at tier 3 they can do a lot of course. And one "hero" can help a lot, but they can't usually protect their entire company and will watch their numbers dwindle.

Maybe a "hero" vs. "hero" allowing the PCs roles to do key points that would turn the tide narrative?

In general, I would run it more like a board game of Risk or something, using key points where the PCs can shine or falter as the play dictates.

They are level 7. Each PC commands a unit of his type. - the fighter commands men-at-arms.

 

[atanakar]

There is a UA on mass combat and several homebrew systems. I believe Matt Colville is working on a book, but that will not help you for your next session.

EDIT: The is also an older UA: When Armies Clash , though I assume the one linked above is an improvement on the system as it came out 2 years latter.

After reading the Mass Combat UA, I'll be using it. It's short and sweet. Thanks for the link.

 

[robus]

The characters are nobles. They will each be attached to a unit as commander. The eldest character will be the general. They must repel invaders that have taken over a portion of their barony. The outcome will be based on their actual performance in the field.

Cool. In that case I would have each player use some kind of tracker to measure how their unit is performing and each round their unit does battle with the opposing side. For example a range of 1 to 10. Start each unit at 5.

Assuming that the opposing sides are relatively evenly matched the PCs actions should be what determines whether their unit has the advantage or disadvantage in their combat in each round. For example the combats would simply be a flat opposed d20 roll. (If you want to make it interesting you could give the opposition some bonus if they're an especially dangerous unit totally up to you )

Depending on the player's choice of leadership role for example: Inspiring Words, Tactics or Courage, they make an ability check: Charisma, Intelligence or Wisdom respectively (DC set by you but somewhere near 15 probably; note: They also can't use the same leadership role twice in a row). If they succeed, their unit gets advantage on their opposed roll. A nat 1 (at least) for the ability check would give disadvantage on their attack. Winning a combat moves their tracker one point closer to victory. Losing moves it one point away from victory.

If the unit manages to get to the victory line on the tracker (10 in the example range) they rout their opposition. If they reach the loss marker on the tracker their line is routed and the unit is broken. If a fellow PCs unit wins their battle they can take a round to move to assist a flagging PCs unit, the reinforcements then granting advantage on all combat rolls in future rounds. (A routed unit cannot assist another unit and is removed from the battle).

I think that would make for a fun, and relatively lightweight, battle for your PCs to play out.