Battlefield Combat

[AnonymousOne]

Is there any mechanic for having PC's participate in a full fledged battle?

I've been pouring through the Tome of Battle and I don't really see what I'm looking for, they have some good ideas, but I just don't see what I'm looking for. If you have PCs on a battlefield, do you simply have progressively harder stages of combat, each represented by a different "encounter" on the battlefield?

My problem is that if you get down to it, a party of 6th Level PCs on a battlefield will be fighting the following kinds of opponents:

1st level Fighters, Paladins, Combat Medics, Rangers (These are your average rank and file soldiers)

2-3rd level in those classes might be considered officers, specialists, or veterans.

Commoners - i.e. conscripts (pure cheese, but if you want to represent a battle, there are usually some of these on the battlefield.)

Now you might have the occasional mid level champion or the king's personal bodyguard of level 15+ Characters, but it seems like it's going to be ridiculously hard to represent a standard distribution of opponents for a group of mid level PCs.

Thoughts and Ideas on helping to alleviate this?

 

[shilsen]

I'm not understanding exactly what the problem is or what you mean by "a standard distribution of opponents". If the PCs are on the battlefield, then presumably the enemy can field some enemies of their caliber or thereabouts. Depending on what you want their role in the battle to be, they can fight clumps of weaker enemies and sometimes encounter a stronger force, or they can have to shore up allied troops that are breaking or being driven back by enemy forces, or they can be leading an attack on a key enemy position, or they can make a surgical strike on their own against enemy leaders, and so on. There are literally dozens of options (and more) for what PCs can do in a battle. It just depends on what you want their role to be.

 

[Thurbane]

As far as WotC products go, Heroes of Battle deals more with largescale battles and tactics.

 

[Ranger REG]

Is there any mechanic for having PC's participate in a full fledged battle?

I've been pouring through the Tome of Battle and I don't really see what I'm looking for, they have some good ideas, but I just don't see what I'm looking for. If you have PCs on a battlefield, do you simply have progressively harder stages of combat, each represented by a different "encounter" on the battlefield?

My problem is that if you get down to it, a party of 6th Level PCs on a battlefield will be fighting the following kinds of opponents:

1st level Fighters, Paladins, Combat Medics, Rangers (These are your average rank and file soldiers)

2-3rd level in those classes might be considered officers, specialists, or veterans.

Commoners - i.e. conscripts (pure cheese, but if you want to represent a battle, there are usually some of these on the battlefield.)

Now you might have the occasional mid level champion or the king's personal bodyguard of level 15+ Characters, but it seems like it's going to be ridiculously hard to represent a standard distribution of opponents for a group of mid level PCs.

Thoughts and Ideas on helping to alleviate this?

By "full-fledged battle," do you mean the PC party fighting alongside an army on the battlefield?

Or do you mean the missions/adventures leading up to the final(e) battlefield conflict?

 

[Zephiel7]

You should refer to "heroes of battle" rather than "tome of battle."

 

[AnonymousOne]

Duly noted, I apologize I misspoke I meant Heroes not Tome. My problem is that HoB seems to assume that you are going to be running a campaign full of separate battles, not just one or two.

Yes by battle I mean the party slugging it out on the field.
I'm well aware of the capacity for the party to fill in different roles (infiltration, sabotage, assassination) on the battlefield, but is there a mechanic that allows the PCs to stand shoulder to shoulder with NPCs on the field without having to roll a ton if initiatives and track the activities of each NPC? Can you use squads of low level NPCs and assign them one initiative value?

 

[Ranger REG]

Yes by battle I mean the party slugging it out on the field.
I'm well aware of the capacity for the party to fill in different roles (infiltration, sabotage, assassination) on the battlefield, but is there a mechanic that allows the PCs to stand shoulder to shoulder with NPCs on the field without having to roll a ton if initiatives and track the activities of each NPC? Can you use squads of low level NPCs and assign them one initiative value?

Well, the book suggest you pre-planned the outcome of the battle before gameplay. So, whatever happens with the PC's participation, the outcome have already been decided before they get into it.

I prefer a freeform influential approach. If the PC is winning, then their NPC army is winning. If the PC is losing, then their side is losing. Whatever the case you only to describe the army battle in the background. Just determine how many opponents the PC party must defeat to get the overall outcome.

 

[shilsen]

Well, the book suggest you pre-planned the outcome of the battle before gameplay. So, whatever happens with the PC's participation, the outcome have already been decided before they get into it.

I prefer a freeform influential approach. If the PC is winning, then their NPC army is winning. If the PC is losing, then their side is losing. Whatever the case you only to describe the army battle in the background. Just determine how many opponents the PC party must defeat to get the overall outcome.

I agree with Ranger REG's suggestion, though I would modify it based on the particular circumstances. In a case where the PCs' army is badly outnumbered and very unlikely to win, their actions may simply mitigate the degree of the defeat or make it a stalemate. Or the PCs winning the day may have more to do with them killing off the right enemy leaders to swing the tide of battle, rather than taking out large swathes of the enemy. In short, play it by ear but give the PCs the chance to significantly affect the outcome of the battle.

 

[Meloncov]

Well, the book suggest you pre-planned the outcome of the battle before gameplay. So, whatever happens with the PC's participation, the outcome have already been decided before they get into it.

It does? Maybe I'm getting it confused with another system, but I could have sworn that it suggested a victory point system, where the number of victory points aquired by the PCs determines the outcome of the battle.


In answer to the original post, the other side has heroes too, and when they see the PCs wading through their low level soldiers they'll come over to stop them.

 

[Ranger REG]

It does? Maybe I'm getting it confused with another system, but I could have sworn that it suggested a victory point system, where the number of victory points aquired by the PCs determines the outcome of the battle.

Actually, that's another suggestion later in the book.

If you're using the Victory Point, you need a framework that produces five outcomes: from no help from the PC heroes to having PC heroes can dramatically yet realistically alter the outcome of the battle (with three outcomes in between them).

Is this what you want to use?