Are military armies valid in 4e?

[JoeGKushner]

One of the biggest problems 3e and previous editions had, was the high level wizard blowing up entire armies with a few well placed spells.

4e seems to have gone quite the other way in terms of thinking.

Mind you minions and ultra low level entities may be destroyed by a area effect spell, but it doesn't seem that wizards and other controllers have the massive effect on overall combat that they used to.

Opinions?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The rules system of 4E does not attempt to model the game world outside of what the PCs interact with, and the system reflects the PCs interaction with the world and not the world itself.

On the surface, Wizards fireballing masses of troops isn't really supported at this time. If one were to use 4E to place PCs in the midst of a large battle, it would be in a single or series of tactical encounters to represent the immediate area of the battle the PCs are involved in at the decisive moment.

Anything more than that would require a battlesystem type set of army battles rules, which we don't yet possess.

 

[MerricB]

Part of the problem here is that 4e's "design for effect" doesn't cover what happens with armies: it's designed for (relatively) small-scale combats. Skirmishes, really. I dare say that a DM, running a war campaign, would have individual soldiers being minions relative to the 11th level Court Mage!

Mind you, I've seen some pretty big effects laid down by our higher-level warlocks and wizards...

Cheers!

 

[coyote6]

I imagine battlefield-scale magic in 4e would involve rituals. Seems appropriate to me -- longer casting times, component costs, skill rolls, etc.

Lets you involve PCs, too; you can have PCs sent on dangerous missions to infiltrate enemy lines, locate the enemy spellcasters, and disrupt their war rituals before they destroy the city's walls.

 

[Klaus]

One of the biggest problems 3e and previous editions had, was the high level wizard blowing up entire armies with a few well placed spells.

4e seems to have gone quite the other way in terms of thinking.

Mind you minions and ultra low level entities may be destroyed by a area effect spell, but it doesn't seem that wizards and other controllers have the massive effect on overall combat that they used to.

Opinions?

If you pit the wizard against squads of minions, he will do a lot of damage. But you also have more competent leaders that can target the wizard with ranged attacks, and you can even stat up stats of soldiers as, say, a Gargantuan swarm.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Now that 4e has a warlord class, I think if they're used for small-unit leaders (or "monsters" approximating the class), armies could be split into small platoons. Beating the warlord and his classed (or higher-level "monstrous" soldiers) could beat an entire platoon. Naturally the heroes would be taking on the higher-level, more elite platoons, perhaps the opposing leaders' bodyguard unit.

However, if armies consist mainly of minions and very low-level characters, wizards could steamroll them with literal at-will AoEs. (I can picture lots of Cloud of Daggers spam.) Even so, wizards have low hp and AC and fewer long-lasting defensive options than in 3e. I don't think a wizard can stay on a battlefield long. There's no (from what I can see) long-term flying and combat invisibility platforms that would enable a wizard to unleash at-will AoEs all day. Also, lots of archer minions can pincushion a mage; I've seen that done to heavy AC paladins.

I must say, IME, knights are nasty. (I don't believe there are "official knights" anywhere, I had to draw some up by myself.) I made the typical knight 5th-level, since the typical town guard is 3rd-level. Ow. Cavalry armies are nasty, not least because the rider needs to be at least 3rd-level (the level of a typical horse).

Somewhat off-topic note; is giving a platoon leader an ability that, when he hits, makes one of his allies mark the victim, fair?

 

[Celebrim]

The rules system of 4E does not attempt to model the game world outside of what the PCs interact with, and the system reflects the PCs interaction with the world and not the world itself.

On the surface, Wizards fireballing masses of troops isn't really supported at this time. If one were to use 4E to place PCs in the midst of a large battle, it would be in a single or series of tactical encounters to represent the immediate area of the battle the PCs are involved in at the decisive moment.

Anything more than that would require a battlesystem type set of army battles rules, which we don't yet possess.

This.

The question you ask is inherently simulationist and hense not relevent to 4e play. 4e's answer to the question is that a battle is a narrative event, resolved according to the needs of the narrative and has nothing to do with the rules. Those beings not directly interacting with the PC's have no and do not need any stats. The rest of the world behaves according to whatever agreed upon conventions you have, and does not adhere to the rules. Armies are effective if you agree that they are effective because this fulfills your narrative needs or expectations.

4e is based off the notion of an encounter. Placing the PC's in a single encounter which went for longer than 10 or 12 rounds probably would be considered bad design. The 4e approved version of a large battle would be a series of set peice engagements with a small group of forces, between which there would be sufficient time to reset the player's encounter powers so that in each battle the players would have a variaty of things to do. The battle would in this sense be 'cinematic' in as much as nothing terribly important happens in the battle except when the 'camera' is looking at it, and anything that the 'camera' does not look at does not need to worry about rules.

Minions never really are expected to battle minions. Minions fight PC's. The rules governing PC interaction with minions have nothing to do with how those creatures interact with each other. Fighting with each other, minions can be wounded or otherwise act in any way the DM feels is appropriate to the narrative even where this narratives violates the rules.

 

[Wik]

I imagine battlefield-scale magic in 4e would involve rituals. Seems appropriate to me -- longer casting times, component costs, skill rolls, etc.

Lets you involve PCs, too; you can have PCs sent on dangerous missions to infiltrate enemy lines, locate the enemy spellcasters, and disrupt their war rituals before they destroy the city's walls.

Very good point. I think this post pretty much sums up how high-level magic works in D&D.

As it's been pointed out, PC involvement in a large scale battle is one of encounters, and mass combat is a narrative thing that should not be covered by the rules, but instead by PC actions.

One poster mentioned that minions should not be fighting minions... I've run some "mass" combats (about 30 vs. 30), and most were minions. And it worked out fairly well, actually. So I don't know if I agree with that assessment.

 

[MerricB]

One poster mentioned that minions should not be fighting minions... I've run some "mass" combats (about 30 vs. 30), and most were minions. And it worked out fairly well, actually. So I don't know if I agree with that assessment.

When you get down to it, most mass battle games have minions fighting minions anyway. (Chainmail, progenitor of D&D, certainly did!) The trick is to have the minions within a reasonable level of each other.

Cheers!

 

[Herremann the Wise]

This.

The question you ask is inherently simulationist and hense not relevent to 4e play. 4e's answer to the question is that a battle is a narrative event, resolved according to the needs of the narrative and has nothing to do with the rules. Those beings not directly interacting with the PC's have no and do not need any stats. The rest of the world behaves according to whatever agreed upon conventions you have, and does not adhere to the rules. Armies are effective if you agree that they are effective because this fulfills your narrative needs or expectations.

4e is based off the notion of an encounter. Placing the PC's in a single encounter which went for longer than 10 or 12 rounds probably would be considered bad design. The 4e approved version of a large battle would be a series of set peice engagements with a small group of forces, between which there would be sufficient time to reset the player's encounter powers so that in each battle the players would have a variaty of things to do. The battle would in this sense be 'cinematic' in as much as nothing terribly important happens in the battle except when the 'camera' is looking at it, and anything that the 'camera' does not look at does not need to worry about rules.

Minions never really are expected to battle minions. Minions fight PC's. The rules governing PC interaction with minions have nothing to do with how those creatures interact with each other. Fighting with each other, minions can be wounded or otherwise act in any way the DM feels is appropriate to the narrative even where this narratives violates the rules.

I agree with Celebrim. However, for those who have read Sepulchrave's SH, the effects created by the 3E Druid versus the church's army were suitable, powerful and narratively spot on. Just thought I'd mention one of the things that sticks in my mind in relation to this topic. 4E's way of doing this is covered by Celebrim's quote, which while suitable, is in my opinion nowhere near as narratively powerful as 3E's/(Sepulchrave's example) way of handling such things.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise