Are military armies valid in 4e?

[StreamOfTheSky]

From this question: Would any commander worthy of the name ever assume the wizard was on his own? The commander would allow his forces to be spread so thinly that he cannot communicate with them and allow them to be cut apart by cavalry?

Probably not.

The defense suggested is only useful in a very specific circumstance - there is only one wizard, and the army knows there's only one wizard. That in no way settles the question in general.

Look, I know that in real life your points are true about infantry formations. But what about in the D&D rules? Set vs. Charge can be pretty viscious, and I don't see many inherent advantages in being tightly grouped against cavalry. I suppose preventing them from riding past into the clear (ride by attack) by having people behind you is useful, as is the likely greater amount of AoO's the cavalry would suffer with the infantry close together. But...those don't seem like such major benefits as to make it suicidal to stagger the formation, purely by the 3E rules....

From the wikipedia entry I linked to before, it notes:
"In typical military strategy, the success of any cavalry charge depends on the infantry breaking ranks so that the cavalry can mow them down. If the infantry does not break, however, cavalry charges will often fail - with even trained warhorses refusing to advance into the solid ranks of opponents."

Now the very last part supports what you say. But there are no rules for horses for such things. Furthermore, there are no morale rules (Heroes of Battle, made for this stuff, does have them, admittedly), so by RAW the infantry simply won't break. I know it says all over the place that this wouldn't be the case (like in the Warfare section in Complete Warrior, stating the most common soldier is a conscripted commoner who'll run away easily), but it's still rather vague in the rules about how easy it is to break their morale.

I just...I don't even know if cavalry charges should be as effective in D&D as they were in real life. The charge rules already make a knight with a lance more devastating than he probably should be. And there aren't many "free" group fighting tactical benefits in even the supplements to support a tightly packed infantry. Even the Shield Wall is not free to use, but a Tactical Feat, iirc.

Well, if they're travelling anywhere they'll be on a road _ *boom*. Or they're drawn up facing an army allied with the wizard *boom*. It only takes a small army in close order to beat a large army that's had to disperse. Likewise besieging a town, castle, or most other military tasks (guerilla tactics are still efffective though)

It is however true that if all you are trying to do is survive, the Wiz will have trouble killing you. The issue is more that 200 troops + Wizard beats 2,000 troops with no Wizard. In fact I've run an awful lot of battles just like that - PCs plus a small regular force outnumbered 10:1 by the Orc Horde; PCs fly over the orcs and zap them, regulars mop up.

Sounds like Agincourt now.
Replace all that focused power that's in the wizard with it spread out evenly among the entire small force, and you basically have any real life battle situation where the smaller side has superior technology or skills ideal for that battlefield. And yeah, a Wizard and some regular guys are stronger than the sum of their parts. Yet another reason why I say, in a world with magic, if one side has a significant edge over the other one in that regard, the "low tech" side will need great numbers, tactics, and/or luck to overcome that deficiency. While your occasional story of a wizard led elite unit crushing a small army can happen, more often than not, if the enemy is aware of their magic disadvantage, they would delay hostilities until they could do something about it. Even if you have enough soldiers to beat the wizard's forces, it'd probably be a rather Pyrrhic victory most commanders would not want to obtain (whilst ones like Xykon who don't care if his own people die would not hesitate to accept).

You've yet to convince me how a spellcaster lower than high levels (~14-16 and up, hard to quantify) left without any worthy opposition on the other side could cause more devastation than in actual historical conflicts where the smaller side won a crushing victory. ...Or took a lot of folks to hell with them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the Idea of Rituals as "Battle Magic" which can clear out large armies... IIRC ADnD 2nd edition spells which affected a battlefield had casting times of 1 hour or even more and sometimes needed to be sustained.

Also PC´s should be at key events which have an influence on the outcome... you could do a skill challenge like system: PC´s need to force the enemy to retreat 4 times before they have to retreat 3 times themselves...

Also if you don´t wan´t high and low level wizards killing minions by just beeing around, roll up their HIT Points (a.k.a how many fireballs etc. need to hit to kill this particular (pack) of minion(s)) A very easy way to make minons stronger with only slightly increased book keeping...

 

[Bullgrit]

Something about these kinds of "X vs. army" questions that bugs me is how it seems to always be assumed that the army side is basically just a large number of 0th/1st/low-level infantry.

Just as a real world "army" is not just a bunch of infantry, a D&D world "army" wouldn't be just a bunch of infantry.

The real world army would have special forces troops, scouts, skirmishers, medics, helicopters, tanks, artillery, planes, etc.

A D&D army would have higher-level special troops, scouts, skirmishers, divine casters, arcane casters, ground and air beasts, etc.

So any X vs. an army isn't a question of how many 1st-level warriors the X can kill, and how the 1st-level warriors can't strike back at the X. Any group large enough to be called an army is going to be a whole package of various persons and things.

So a wizard-type can't just pop up on an army and lay down the fire, then fly away. Any army worthy of the name will have units to deal with such things. Just like a ground attack jet can't just fly in on a real-world army, drop bombs, and then just fly away.

Bullgrit

 

[Umbran]

Look, I know that in real life your points are true about infantry formations. But what about in the D&D rules? Set vs. Charge can be pretty viscious, and I don't see many inherent advantages in being tightly grouped against cavalry. I suppose preventing them from riding past into the clear (ride by attack) by having people behind you is useful, as is the likely greater amount of AoO's the cavalry would suffer with the infantry close together. But...those don't seem like such major benefits as to make it suicidal to stagger the formation, purely by the 3E rules....

First off, interestingly, I cannot seem to find an equivalent of "Set vs charge" in the 4e rules. However, they are horribly indexed, so maybe I'm missing them.

Now, as for under the rules... let's use 3.5e...

Take two ranks of close-packed infantry. These are men on foot, so each takes a 5' square. The front has spears, the back has longspears.

Your horse is large - takes a 10' space. You are charging - say you have a lance, so you're doing double damage. You have a +2 to hit, but a -2 to AC. There are four spear points readied and set to take that charge (so, doing double damage if they hit, like your lance), after which (because the spears are readied, they get to attack first) that horse and rider gets to make one basic melee attack against one of them.

Do you now see the advantage? The infantry get 4 attacks to the cavalry's one. In 3e, the odds are a little better, as the horses have a 5' facing, so the knight can be at only at 2-to-1 odds.

Now, compare this to spreading out your footmen, so they cannot be taken out wholesale by a fireball. the horses can pack tightly, and get 2-to-1 odds on the footmen! The horsemen can charge, if they like, and that footman is at best going to hit one of them with that set spear.

Even better, with the footmen spread out, the horses don't charge. They just take normal movement. They lose the double damage on their attacks, but they also don't receive the readied shot. The horses are faster - so the footman cannot effectively run away. A pair of knights can just walk up and flank each footman and make mincemeat of him, and move out before people far away in that "loose formation" can come in to help.

 

[S'mon]

Something about these kinds of "X vs. army" questions that bugs me is how it seems to always be assumed that the army side is basically just a large number of 0th/1st/low-level infantry.

Read the actual descriptions of soldiery in the relevant sections of the 1e & 3e DMGs - 0th level with 4-7 hp (1e) and 1st level Warriors (1e).

You can change this so typical soldiers are 5th level/hd, just as you can change it so that Magic-Users/Wizards etc are very rare. Personally in my current 3e campaign to get a medieval feel I made almost all NPCs low level, 1st-4th with a few 5th-6th, and very few Wizards.

 

[Bullgrit]

Read the actual descriptions of soldiery in the relevant sections of the 1e & 3e DMGs - 0th level with 4-7 hp (1e) and 1st level Warriors (1e).

You can change this so typical soldiers are 5th level/hd, just as you can change it so that Magic-Users/Wizards etc are very rare. Personally in my current 3e campaign to get a medieval feel I made almost all NPCs low level, 1st-4th with a few 5th-6th, and very few Wizards.

So, in your mind and world, because a "typical soldier" is a 0/1st level man, an army is just several thousand of these typical soldiers? An army is just a large number of typical soldiers, with nothing else?

How does an army capture a castle? Do 10,000 typical soldiers just run up and start hacking at the walls until they do enough damage to break through? Of course not.

Because an army is more than just several thousand typical soldiers. An army will have sappers, siege towers, siege engines, etc. In a fantasy world such as D&D, an army will also have fantasy extras -- beasts, monsters, spell-casters, etc.

If the PCs learn that an army, 5,000 strong, is advancing on their position, does that mean there are just 5,000 0/1st-level men marching to them? Is that what "army" means? Just a whole bunch of "typical soldiers"? So the PCs could safely assume there's no cavalry, no archers, no spell-casters, no monsters? Just a bunch of hand-to-hand warriors?

That's what I'm talking about. An "army" is not just/only a bunch of walking typical soldiers. An army is a whole big package -- cavalry, scouts, skirmishers, archers, engines, and monsters and magic in a fantasy world.

Just like in the real world, there is a "typical soldier," but that is not all the army is composed of. And when an army goes to fighting, it's not just a whole bunch of infantry clashing.

Bullgrit

 

[JoeGKushner]

But that's not really how it works no?

Most soldiers won't even be fighters, they'll be warriors.

And they won't be lead by fighters, they'll be lead by nobles.

And there wouldn't be wizards/clerics, they'll be adapts.

Those npcs that are classes, will not have as much money/supplies/resources as the players.

To say, "that's not how it works in my campaign" or that doesn't make sense is fine, but that's not the default assumption in the core rules.

 

[Umbran]

But that's not really how it works no?

Most soldiers won't even be fighters, they'll be warriors.

And they won't be lead by fighters, they'll be lead by nobles.

And there wouldn't be wizards/clerics, they'll be adapts.

That's a question of demographics. The 3.x DMG gives some suggestions on that - and there's a whole lot of characters with PC classes in the mix. Ultimately, though, the mix of available forces is up to the DM.

Note that the thread originally asks about 4e, which doesn't have these classes, and has even less demographic suggestion than 3e.

So, "how it really works" isn't any one particular way.

 

[JoeGKushner]

That's a question of demographics. The 3.x DMG gives some suggestions on that - and there's a whole lot of characters with PC classes in the mix. Ultimately, though, the mix of available forces is up to the DM.

Note that the thread originally asks about 4e, which doesn't have these classes, and has even less demographic suggestion than 3e.

So, "how it really works" isn't any one particular way.

Yet 4e tends to lean even more in the PCs != NPCs in terms of abilities. The whole minions bit for example is a sound mechanic in making armies weak and yet the nerfing of the spellcasting classes suggest that multiple foes, even weak ones, are going to be a lot more problematic then they would in previous editions.


Even the very nature of magic items works against 'army killing' in 4e unlike 3e where a wand of fireballs is going to be the death of many a trooper.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Yet 4e tends to lean even more in the PCs != NPCs in terms of abilities. The whole minions bit for example is a sound mechanic in making armies weak and yet the nerfing of the spellcasting classes suggest that multiple foes, even weak ones, are going to be a lot more problematic then they would in previous editions.


Even the very nature of magic items works against 'army killing' in 4e unlike 3e where a wand of fireballs is going to be the death of many a trooper.

Does this not suggest that battles in a 4e setting are going to more closely resemble a typical pre-gunpowder battle than anything else with prehaps some special effects from rituals and scrolls?