Are military armies valid in 4e?

[Umbran]

I have to go with a few others - the rules don't give us the required information to answer the question.

In 3e, we knew NPCs worked on the same rules as PCs, and they gave us sample demographics to work from. We could then make some statements about what kind of forces cities and nations could raise, and talk about what made tactical sense. We could use the rules to generate empirical examples, if we wanted.

4e does not give us that information. We are not given demographics. We don't have rules for how conflict between NPC forces should work out. So, in 4e, whether "armies" make sense depends on the DM - what forces he wants to make available, and how he feels they'll interact in conflict.

 

[Rechan]

While previous editions may have had mechanics that handled army vs. army battling, I don't think even they had addressed the issue of high level PC vs. low level army.

Changing the point from wizard, look at the Fighter. The high level fighter on the battlefield of orcs threatened by the orcs - they can't hit his AC, period. At least in 4e, minions (who are high enough level) can at least hit and damage the fighter in a delicate fashion.

So, not only would a war in 4e's eyes be a narrativist event with set pieces or a few encounters with the backdrop of being in a battle... I suggest to you a specific narrative to base a 4e war on:

The Illiad.

A high level Fighter is Achilles. No little punk is going to touch him. He mows through the opposition without breaking a sweat.

The climax of the thing is when Achilles faces the enemy's Champion, and bests him in single combat.

The Narrative is Achilles slaughtering his way through the enemy army, and the actual encounter is vs. Hector.

 

[Korgoth]

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.

Hold your horses, buddy! That may be a problem in Forgotten Realms and/or 3E, but Old School D&D does not presuppose or necessitate large numbers of wizards in the world, ruling the roost. The number of magic-users who can decimate an army may be only a handful, or two, or none at all.

 

[MerricB]

Hold your horses, buddy! That may be a problem in Forgotten Realms and/or 3E, but Old School D&D does not presuppose or necessitate large numbers of wizards in the world, ruling the roost. The number of magic-users who can decimate an army may be only a handful, or two, or none at all.

One of my favourite descriptions of AD&D-style warfare comes at the beginning of "Artifact of Evil" where a besieged force spends all of its magic on some illusions of attacking men.

Cheers!

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Take a 3E Wizard, level 12-15, cast Overland Flight and Extended Greater Invisibility. 24 Rounds of area spells later...

 

[JoeGKushner]

Hold your horses, buddy! That may be a problem in Forgotten Realms and/or 3E, but Old School D&D does not presuppose or necessitate large numbers of wizards in the world, ruling the roost. The number of magic-users who can decimate an army may be only a handful, or two, or none at all.

Uh, Forgotten Realms has been around since 1st edition.

And Old School D&D certainly may not have had 'large' numbers of wizards but they could easily decimate armies. Especially as Fireballs tended NOT to cap at 10d6 eh?

 

[Vigilance]

I think magic and heroes would have to be viable in all editions really.

I mean, either they're extremely rare, in which case there probably are not enough to turn the tide of a battle.

Or they're common, which case they likely appear on both sides, and cancel each other out.

The only thing that could make armies not viable is if only one "side" (good or evil for example- or one country) had wizards and/or heroes.

 

[Celebrim]

So, not only would a war in 4e's eyes be a narrativist event with set pieces or a few encounters with the backdrop of being in a battle... I suggest to you a specific narrative to base a 4e war on:

The Illiad.

A high level Fighter is Achilles. No little punk is going to touch him. He mows through the opposition without breaking a sweat.

The climax of the thing is when Achilles faces the enemy's Champion, and bests him in single combat.

The Narrative is Achilles slaughtering his way through the enemy army, and the actual encounter is vs. Hector.

While the Illiad is just about the perfect peice to base D&D warfare on, I want to protest that the Illiad and things like it is precisely what earlier editions of D&D were capturing at high level. I don't know enough about 4e to say whether it continues to be true, but I do know enough about earlier editions.

In first edition, a high level fighter, say 10th level, will mow through 200 or 300 low HD monsters on his own. In 3rd edition, the exact numbers by which we define 'high level' and low HD may have changed a little bit, but it would generally play out the same.

The Illiad is perfect as D&D source material because it dates to the two great 'heroic' ages in world history - the introduction of bronze and the introduction of steel. Both periods saw the rise of heavily armored professional warriors sporting what was then rare 'high tech' and expensive gear with apparantly magical properties that allowed them to be the equal of a dozen or more unarmored foes. Neither period featured large disciplined infantry formations with their equalizing and egalatarian features, so naturally the society held up an aristocratic warrior ideal. As a result, its the early bronze age and the medieval which loom large in our heroic mythology. These were the times one man really could make a huge difference.

The 'real' Achilles mowing down scores or even hundreds of unarmored foes without apparantly breaking a sweat is probably not that far of an exagerration. Bronze plate, shield, and sword likely made the wielder seem invincible to unarmored warriors wielding wooden spears and clubs.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

The 4E ruleset is not very well suited to do hard, simulationist battles of large armies.

However, it is well suited to do a narrativist, movie-like scene of war. I would run a battle this way:

First, I would describe the battlefield, the armies facing each other, the nervousness of the troops, the flags, the drums, the trumpets...

Then I would start a multi-part Skill Challenge / Delve mix:

Part one: The Big Heroes have to rally up the different sections of the army and do their best to organize them into a decent fighting force. Here, the PCs could try giving a pre-battle speech, or maybe they could try to give strategic instructions to specific platoons, or maybe they could try to give a last minute greasing up to the trebuchets. Complexity 1 (4 successes before 3 failures), Primary Skills: Diplomacy, History, Bluff. Secondary Skills: Thievery, Arcana
Success means that the player's army gets a bonus for the next part of the challenge, and less opponents face the party in the first encounter. Failure means the party has to face more opponents in the first encounter.

Part two: The party is at the front of the army, defending against the first wave of attackers (or at the front of the first charge, depending on the campaign!).
For this I would choose some terrain like a castle wall that has just been breached, or maybe a section of the ramparts where the group faces enemies climbing ladders.
The enemies in this encounter are 4-6 skirmishers and 4-8 minions, depending on how well they did on part one.

Narrate this as the "closeup combat" shots in movies like LotR or 300, where the camera is focusing on the actions of the heroes, while the rest of the battle is background noise and blur.

Part three: Back to the big picture and the sweeping vista of cgi soldiers! Create a mixed skill challenge, tailored for your party. For example, the Paladin, Warlord and Bard may have to shout orders and encouragement to the soldiers under their command (Diplomacy, History, Bluff), the Spellcasters could have to engage in magic duels with their enemy counterparts (Arcana, Religion), The Fighter, Warden or Barbarian could engage in awesome feats of strength and brawn (Athletics, Endurance), inspiring their allies and making enemies fear them.
This time, make it a level 4 complexity (10 combined successes before 3 failures). If the party succeeded in part one, remove one success for each success gained in the previous challenge. Success removes opponents from the next combat, failure means each member of the party loses one healing surge (which can be described as the effects of fatigue, wounds or simply lack of morale).

Part four: Again, pick a combat encounter, this time against the elite of the enemy army. For example, a couple of brutes, mixed up with some artillery or lurkers, plus 3-6 minions depending on the success of part 3. The terrain could be the same of part 2, or it could be something else.
Again, explain to the players that the PCs are surrounded by the chaos of battle and that they are just fighting the poor sods right in front of them, out of the hundreds of enemy soldiers.

For Part five, the skill challenge could be something else. For example, the heroes have spotted the Big Bad Guy some 100 feet away. And he's about to... dunno, do something bad, like kill the good King, or complete a foul ritual, or... something!
The party has to make their way through the waves of mooks and reach the Bad Guy.
Complexity 1, the skills could be Endurance, Athletics and Acrobatics (for the melee guys) and Arcana, Insight and Religion (for the spellcasters)
Success means the final encounter has less opponents. Each failure removes a healing surge.

Part six is the climatic battle between our heroes and the Big Bad guy and his bodyguard!

 

[Wrox]

I'd suggesting using monster throngs (from Open Grave) and designate them as minions. It works for Zombie Hordes, why not footsoldiers on a battlefield?