Battlefield d20: rules for large combats

[Wyrm]

I really like this so far.

I have a suggestion for the feats Cleave, Great Cleave, and Whirlwind Attack. Perhaps lowering/increasing their effect against opposition based on the ratio of attackers to defenders and their relative Challenge Ratings. For example, several hundred cleaving dwarves probably shouldn't get a benefit against 3 large dragons. The benefit could probably be increased in a situation with several hundred cleaving dwarves versus several thousand weak orcs.

I'm not sure how to accomplish this without a lot more math though and may be best left to DM adjudication.

Keep up the good work.

 

[jgbrowning]

looks very good

looks good. you might have addressed this and i just missed it.

a melee unit in formation would not allow all of its individual units an attack.

a missile unit would be allowed to use all its units to attack.



if you addressed it sorry ta bother you.

joe b.

 

[angramainyu]

Wyrm: Yeah... I'm not sure how complicated that would make things. I might just add a section the the rules assume you are using a large number of relatively low hit-point creatures, and startes to break down otherwise. For cleave, it might be eough to give each force a cleave factor that shows how much an opponent having cleave adjusts the AC by. That would probably go under Advanced Rules, though.

jgbrowning: The damage averages assume that a creature is attacking about 50% of their 6-second rounds. In a full attack, the forces are already enganged, so attacking 100% of the turns isn't unreasonable, I think. Melee units will also essentially be attacking when dealing their defensive damage. For ranged units, I kinda attribute the 50% reduction in damage to a miss chance (since I see them more aiming at an area as opposed individuals) but offset that with a lower penalty than normal for long ranges. The two assumptions are probably not entirely accurate, but should be reasonable close, I think, and let me keep the same mechanic for both types of attacks.

 

[Vaxalon]

The more I work on it, the more I think that battles that the PC's are not directly involved in should be handled by DM Fiat.

If they ARE directly involved, then the DM should prepare a set of encounters and events during the battle, and play them out, noting the effect on the overall events.

 

[Lord Asharak]

Great work!

I have a suggestion, though: you could include leaders for the forces. Those have a Knowledge(Tactics) Skill or something similar. They can improve the fighting capabilities of the soldiers, so finding good leaders for your forces becomes important (which is rather realistic in my opinion) ...

Also, some rules on longer campaigns, like providing the appropiate logistic support would be nice (maybe the players want to assault the castle of the evil necromancer. Then they need to face the challenge of getting their troops there in the first playe.) Only suggestions, though. Especially the logistics may not be needed at all in actual play...

 

[Plane Sailing]

I have a suggestion, though: you could include leaders for the forces. Those have a Knowledge(Tactics) Skill or something similar. They can improve the fighting capabilities of the soldiers, so finding good leaders for your forces becomes important (which is rather realistic in my opinion) ...

Interestingly, this would make Fighters the poorest generals... It might be better to include a feat e.g.

Generalship [general, fighter]
pre: Leadership
benefits (whatever benefit you want to give - whether it is along the lines of adding Int/Wis/Cha bonus or class level or whatever to something)

Angra = I love the way that you are doing it at the moment. One thing that might be worth including is a "fog of war" element - the kind of thing that prevents a general from using his forces optimally, unforseen circumstances and so forth. This is the kind of thing that could be countered by good generalship (whether something like the feat above or handled by some other mechanic)

Cheers

 

[Lord Asharak]

Of course, this skill would have to be added to the list of class skill of fighters, paladins etc.

Alternatively, one could say that it is alright that fighters make bad leaders, since they're more of the frontline type. Aristocrats and Experts seem more appropiate. Paladins should still get the skill, though...

Also, I think "Generalship" would have to cover to great variety of things for a single feat. I'd find feats like "Marksmanship" [would increase your ability in commanding archers] better. Or "Reconaissance" to lift the fog of war you are proposing.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Also, I think "Generalship" would have to cover to great variety of things for a single feat. I'd find feats like "Marksmanship" [would increase your ability in commanding archers] better. Or "Reconaissance" to lift the fog of war you are proposing.

I disagree here. If you divide it up too much it becomes impossible for anyone to become a general unless they have been training their whole life for it, and that just doesn't sound like heroic fiction to me!

I think that something like Generalship (or "Strategy") would be all that is required for heroic fantasy. For something more realistic you might want Strategy, Tactics and Logistics.

It might be that it could just be subsumed within the Leadership feat itself, of course.

Cheers

 

[Lord Asharak]

You are possibly right. It depends whether the GM WISHES to let the characters become general, or whether he preferes them to have to enlist the service of some kind of "military advisor".

 

[Dark Jezter]

*bump*

Finally, a good set of rules for mass combat in D&D. Although it is a little math-heavy, it's a really good set of rules so far. I can't wait to see updates for it. I'm especially excited for the section regarding sieges to be done.