D&D 4E 4E Compatible Mass Combat Rules

[Warbringer]

Unless you actually intend to play this out as a war game, miniatures and all, I'd recommend doing the mass combat as a challenge, with the characters actions contributing to successes and failures.

For the base combat just resolve a success outcome based on the relative strengths of the armies ... Each side rolls a d6 +1 for superior forces, +1 for superior general, +1 for defensive grounds, +1 for special events (summonings, sapping, other stuff).

Add all up, if difference less than 1 tied, if difference 2-3, 1 success, >3, 2 successes...

Conduct this test to a frequency that makes sense for your battle, but give yourself about 6-8 rolls, with he heroes acting out encounters between the checks , generating extra successes that change the battle ..

Make sense?

 

[lawful_stupid]

Good ideas for overall campaigning, but the real focus is to allow for 3 or 4 decisive battles to be fought out on the battlemat with the PC's and the armies interacting.

I am aware that any one of these battles will be the lion's share of our 5-6 hour game sessions. I would include maybe a skill challenge to cover scouting, marching, supply, and morale. Then, adjust the terrain to reflect the results. Set everything up and fight it out. Waves of troops and changing conditions help keep things fresh. Most importantly, find a method to allow the equivalent of the short rest in the battle (magical or divine boon for which the party went on an earlier adventure). A 4 hour battle with PC's able to choose their role of battlefield commander, agile skirmisher, or mighty war mage is my party's wet dream. I just need to make the rules and bookkeeping light enough so I do not get a headache 2 hours into the whole thing. Obviously, I will hand over the allied army to my players to run.

 

[Unwise]

One thing that I have done for very large battles, is to give each PC control over a special swarm of soldiers. What I then do is modify each swarm to have recharge and encounter powers based upon things that the PC can bring to the party. This reflects the individual PCs direct contribution to leading the unit. For example, a phalanx of soldiers might have resist 5 to fire and a recharge power to cast a blast spell if it had a PC pyromancer in its ranks. A troop of archers might have regen 5 and a blinding holy attack by having a cleric inside it.

Mostly, by the time my PCs were at the level to be involved in armies, they were also high enough level to be taking on phalanx of soldiers solo anyway, so mass combat rules were of less importance.

 

[dnoonan]

Regardless of the exact technique you use, I think one of the most important aspects is to reduce NPC-vs-NPC rolling as much as you can. That can be a recipe for disengagement at the table.

NPCs that your players are controlling (either through their PCs or just through proxy control) don't count--for the duration of the battle, they're functionally PCs. The 12th Hussars are Jeff and the 4th Legion is Christine until someone sounds the retreat, as it were.

One way or another, deputize your players as much as you possibly can. They'll have more fun, and your head won't explode. Win-win!

--Dave.
Twitter: davidnoonan
Blog: nnnooner.blogspot.com

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=98008]Unwise[/MENTION], I like the approach that you described in your post!

 

[Balesir]

If your players enjoy 'lite' wargaming, another angle you can bring in is command and control. Modern wargames rules manage this quite simply; an example inspired by one set (Traveller's "Striker" rules, for those interested) might work like this:

- For poorly trained troops, in order to move they must be directed; this takes a Move action from a "High Initiative" creature (like a PC) to move the troop unit. Once moved it will attack enemies within range automatically. "High Initiative" creatures may join the troops (note that individual creatures can interpenetrate with swarms); if they do so then they may move with the troops using the same Move action as they move the troops with - this is called "Leading" the troops.

- For better trained troops, they can be given orders during a short rest. Orders may be to take and/or hold a specific station (relative either to a terrain element or to other troops - e.g. "on the flank of this other unit", thus making bigger "units" that are a line of 'swarms'. Such a unit could then be led by a PC or PNPC leading one of the constituent swarms. The unit designated could also be an enemy unit - "you guys attack the goblin skirmishers during the next attack".

- Truly elite troops would be "High Initiative" - i.e. just like characters that can be given to a player to direct without limitations.

This sort of structure can give plenty of fun stuff for PCs to do in mass combat other than the usual attacks against the enemy troops.

Oh - probably it's obvious, but missile troops work better with Ranged Area attacks than with multiple Ranged attacks.

 

[lawful_stupid]

--Dave.
Twitter: davidnoonan
Blog: nnnooner.blogspot.com

Uh, did Dave Noonan just give me advice on my campaign? I loved a lot of the 3E and 4E products you worked on for WotC, but I understand that those works are often collaborative. More specifically, the advice you gave on the D&D podcast has become a central pillar of my DM'ing approach to 4E. Rule of Cool, dynamic encounters with interactive terrain and changing conditions. Think about the next session as a great campaign is made out of great sessions. Thank you for spending your creativity and time on my hobby!
/endgeekout

All of the allied troops will be run by the players. Their characters will have lots of stuff they can do beyond morale checks. I like Unwise's idea of having powers that recharge depending on the PC's. If the sorcerer fights with a squad (places himself in or adjacent to the 3" x 3" space for the squad), they gain some bonus based off of his Spell Source. He is a Cosmic Sorcerer so it would be more aura damage that is radiant and fire, more AC, or a short ranged teleport. Likewise, our cleric and swordmage have shown a lot of interest in command. The cleric could provide the Radiant keyword to a squad's attacks and Regen 5. The swordmage adds 5 damage of whatever element he wants to their attacks.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Well, get to work with you *crack*!

I know, I know.

A problem with that is that there is already a mechanism whereby 4 of a creature are worth +8 levels (minions work this way with the experience budget setup). That would make 10 creatures about +13 or +14 levels. Later minions are suggested to be 5-for-1 rather than 4-for-1; that would make it around +11 to +12 levels for 10. But maybe that would be a sound basis in itself?

What that doesn't take into account though is the diminishing returns of simply having MORE troops of the same quality.

Thats why +6 levels per multiple of 10 works.

 

[Balesir]

What that doesn't take into account though is the diminishing returns of simply having MORE troops of the same quality.

Thats why +6 levels per multiple of 10 works.

The principle is fair enough, but just three of the same creature is "worth" around +6 levels in the XP budget scheme - a number of creatures that you are quite likely to see in a normal, "adventuring" combat. That seems rather out of balance, to me.

The general intuitions/explanations/"fluff" behind the "diminishing returns" seem fairly clear to me: creatures in a mass get in each others' way and can't all fight the same enemy at once, and when a proportion of them are down the rest are likely to flee. That said, maybe I could believe a "half value" status. That would give -4 levels from the "theoretical level"; the average level adjustment for 10 creatures would be +12, so the final adjustment for the "morale-affected unit" would be +8. That might be reasonable - and easier to work with than what I have been using - hmmm, looks like my own position is changing - unheard of!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Balesir!

The principle is fair enough, but just three of the same creature is "worth" around +6 levels in the XP budget scheme - a number of creatures that you are quite likely to see in a normal, "adventuring" combat. That seems rather out of balance, to me.

The general intuitions/explanations/"fluff" behind the "diminishing returns" seem fairly clear to me: creatures in a mass get in each others' way and can't all fight the same enemy at once, and when a proportion of them are down the rest are likely to flee.

It was more a case of representing the diminishing returns of skill rather than getting in each others way. Although certainly the fact that they can't all fight the same enemy at once is relevant.

That said, maybe I could believe a "half value" status. That would give -4 levels from the "theoretical level"; the average level adjustment for 10 creatures would be +12, so the final adjustment for the "morale-affected unit" would be +8. That might be reasonable - and easier to work with than what I have been using - hmmm, looks like my own position is changing - unheard of!

I decided that the best solution was to halve the flat Level modifier (from +12 to +6) rather than halve the effectiveness vis-a-vis experience points.

However this approach is probably skewed towards my epic bias.

In a 30 level system how many 1st-level characters should a Level 30 PC (effectively a demigod lets not forget) be able to take on.

In my system that would be an army of 100,000 1st-levellers.

1 - 7 - 13 - 19 - 25 - 31 (100,000 as a Level 31 standard rank enemy).

Technically, the Level 30 PC would be equal to a Level 35 elite monster (50/50 chance of death), meaning that an Army of 1 million troops (Level 37 standard converted to Level 28 Solo Monster) would be more suitable in terms of an exact match.

...so your Level 30 (demigod) PC should be fighting million strong horde's of low level troops.

Interesting parallels arise when you work out whether or not Driz'zt could actually defeat 1000 orcs...short answer, yes he can.

If we apply the XP laterally (without modification), then a Level 30 PC would be challenged by fighting groups somewhere between 100-1000 orcs.

That to me just isn't epic enough. It means that someone like Orcus (as officially written) would be 'worth' about the equivalent of 1000 orcs.

So I guess a bit of it is how each campaign visualizes EPIC tier gaming. Do you want your game to be epic or EPIC!!!!!!!!!!!...?