• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E D&D 5E and Mass Combat

Erechel

Explorer
This is almost an old thread revamped, but what do people think about mass combat and warfare in D&D 5th edition? I know there is already an Unearthed Arcana regarding this topic, but it doesn't really cover AoE effects that on almost every edition render mass combat obsolete. A single fireball can wipe out entire battalions in one round.

Although 5e has toned down the raw power of spells with rules like Concentration, AoE effects are still pretty nasty to common infantry. Undoubtly, Cover and Dodge are a little better than in prior editions, as they also grant the benefits to Dexterity saves. But most field troops and mooks (as goblins, hobgoblins and guards, perhaps even the orcs)have weak HP, and even if they pass the Dex saves they are pretty much screwed. Even the beautiful pike horde is. And we aren't talking about big, powerful spells like Meteor Swarm, but the ever present fireball.

I know many people like to link AoE magic to modern artillery, and many even said that ancient battles pretty much ended with the introduction of cannon fire, a thing that isn't necessarily true. Many battles were fought in close formations, and the line combat ended very recently, more than four hundred years after the introduction of gunpowder and cannons to the battlefields (they ended mostly because of gatling guns, not really heavy artillery).

And this doesn't really recognizes the fact that artillery was used from very old times. The archer's volleys were in fact this more than anything else, but also the siege engines, like catapults with burning oil projectiles. And in fact, the usage of artillery (specially arrows) was one of the main factors that promoved the closed formations like shield walls and phalanxes. They were mostly defensive, although the offensive value of things like a pike formation was amazing. D&D history almost doesn't recognizes this. Except for one feat.

Shield master (among other benefits) allows for the first time to actually use a shield to cover against a red dragon's fire breath, granting the half cover's bonus to the Dex save and negating any damaging effect if the saving throw is successful. Combining this with a Dodge action and you have a very effective defense against most AoE effects. But, of course, this comes somewhat late in the game, and only to PCs, unless you use the Racial Trait's rules for NPCs and make all of them Variant Humans. Orcs, hobgoblins, and other small horde like monsters in general are still screwed.

But that feat is very inspiring. And in fact, once we understand how it works (a lot like half cover, although not exactly in the same way), we can work it out. And this pretty much brings us back us to battle formations.

Battle formations may function like collective stances, like the one introduced with the tunnel fighter combat style in the UA of the Underdark. This way, you can combine the efforts of the many to achieve the feats of the few to truly mantain the threat of the low-level enemies around many levels in this edition.

I've uploaded a small file to the DMs Guild with tentative rules for battle formations inspired on this. Of course, not all of them are defensive in nature (like the Shield Wall), including a pike phalanx (which doesn't really protect against a fireball) or a cavalry charge. The supplement has been worked to fully function whitin the mainframe of 5 Edition and the When Armies Clash Unearthed Arcana.

I truly believe that a meaningful mass combat can be achieved within this edition, although it still needs some tweakings and house rules to properly function. This small file is intended to achieve that (it's basically free, although a small contribution is always appreciated).

Thoughts? Ideas?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Shiroiken

Legend
I guess it depends on what you want. Many just want to hand-wave battles, with the winner being determined by story. Others want a simple system to adjudicate mass combat without taking multiple sessions (such as the War Machine rules from BECMI). Some want to run the full combat, often resembling an old school wargame, which is where the UA looks at.

If you want to consider the power that AoE spells have in mass combat, you have to take a lot into consideration, mostly how common is magic in your world. A high magic world will have spellcasters on both sides, and the casualties for both sides are going to be high (probably leading to either huge armies of scrubs, or lots of skirmishes with elite units). A low magic world probably won't have that many spellcasters in a battle (if any), but they can single-handedly turn the tide (from the loss of morale alone, even if that many units don't die). Another thing to consider is how powerful are most NPCs (mostly as they compare to PCs), since that will determine the survivability of the average soldier.
 

This is almost an old thread revamped, but what do people think about mass combat and warfare in D&D 5th edition? I know there is already an Unearthed Arcana regarding this topic, but it doesn't really cover AoE effects that on almost every edition render mass combat obsolete. A single fireball can wipe out entire battalions in one round.

Er, no. It could wipe out a squad, maybe even a platoon if they're packed shoulder-to-shoulder. You're probably going to need between 20 and 50 Fireballs to wipe out a battalion of 800 troops. Meanwhile the troops are shooting back.

Eight hundred hobgoblins vs. twenty 9th level mages is probably a tossup, but at least in my world, it's a lot harder to get your hands on twenty 9th level mages. (And the hobgoblins will use their shadow ninjas to attempt assassinations and poisonings in advance of the battle, to whittle those twenty mages down even further. 800 hobgoblins crushes ten 9th level mages.)

Also bear in mind that most magic in 5E is extremely short-ranged. Fireball has a range of only 50 yards, compared with 200 yards for longbows.

I'm not opposed to better tools for actually running large battles, but I'm fairly confident in my intuition here: quantity has a quality of its own. Hobgoblins and orcs are very much still a threat en masse against small numbers of PCs, even if the PCs are high level.
 
Last edited:

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
If I don't ant to push piles of minis around a terrain table, I default to the War Machine from the BECMI/Rules Cyclopdia edition. It is clean and abstract but still takes into account all the D&Disms.
 

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer
If I don't ant to push piles of minis around a terrain table, I default to the War Machine from the BECMI/Rules Cyclopdia edition. It is clean and abstract but still takes into account all the D&Disms.
That is one of a few rules I borrow from the Rules Cyclopedia to cover things not yet done better in 5th edition.
 

If I don't ant to push piles of minis around a terrain table, I default to the War Machine from the BECMI/Rules Cyclopdia edition. It is clean and abstract but still takes into account all the D&Disms.

That is one of a few rules I borrow from the Rules Cyclopedia to cover things not yet done better in 5th edition.

The warmachine rules have been conveeted (very succesfully) to 5E: http://www.rpgnow.com/product/194619/Immortals-Companion?src=hottest_filtered
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
This is almost an old thread revamped, but what do people think about mass combat and warfare in D&D 5th edition? I know there is already an Unearthed Arcana regarding this topic, but it doesn't really cover AoE effects that on almost every edition render mass combat obsolete. A single fireball can wipe out entire battalions in one round.

Although 5e has toned down the raw power of spells with rules like Concentration, AoE effects are still pretty nasty to common infantry. Undoubtly, Cover and Dodge are a little better than in prior editions, as they also grant the benefits to Dexterity saves. But most field troops and mooks (as goblins, hobgoblins and guards, perhaps even the orcs)have weak HP, and even if they pass the Dex saves they are pretty much screwed. Even the beautiful pike horde is. And we aren't talking about big, powerful spells like Meteor Swarm, but the ever present fireball.

I know many people like to link AoE magic to modern artillery, and many even said that ancient battles pretty much ended with the introduction of cannon fire, a thing that isn't necessarily true. Many battles were fought in close formations, and the line combat ended very recently, more than four hundred years after the introduction of gunpowder and cannons to the battlefields (they ended mostly because of gatling guns, not really heavy artillery).

And this doesn't really recognizes the fact that artillery was used from very old times. The archer's volleys were in fact this more than anything else, but also the siege engines, like catapults with burning oil projectiles. And in fact, the usage of artillery (specially arrows) was one of the main factors that promoved the closed formations like shield walls and phalanxes. They were mostly defensive, although the offensive value of things like a pike formation was amazing. D&D history almost doesn't recognizes this. Except for one feat.

Shield master (among other benefits) allows for the first time to actually use a shield to cover against a red dragon's fire breath, granting the half cover's bonus to the Dex save and negating any damaging effect if the saving throw is successful. Combining this with a Dodge action and you have a very effective defense against most AoE effects. But, of course, this comes somewhat late in the game, and only to PCs, unless you use the Racial Trait's rules for NPCs and make all of them Variant Humans. Orcs, hobgoblins, and other small horde like monsters in general are still screwed.

But that feat is very inspiring. And in fact, once we understand how it works (a lot like half cover, although not exactly in the same way), we can work it out. And this pretty much brings us back us to battle formations.

Battle formations may function like collective stances, like the one introduced with the tunnel fighter combat style in the UA of the Underdark. This way, you can combine the efforts of the many to achieve the feats of the few to truly mantain the threat of the low-level enemies around many levels in this edition.

I've uploaded a small file to the DMs Guild with tentative rules for battle formations inspired on this. Of course, not all of them are defensive in nature (like the Shield Wall), including a pike phalanx (which doesn't really protect against a fireball) or a cavalry charge. The supplement has been worked to fully function whitin the mainframe of 5 Edition and the When Armies Clash Unearthed Arcana.

I truly believe that a meaningful mass combat can be achieved within this edition, although it still needs some tweakings and house rules to properly function. This small file is intended to achieve that (it's basically free, although a small contribution is always appreciated).

Thoughts? Ideas?

History quibble: formations were not ended because of gatling guns. The end of the US Civil War saw formation warfare effectively ended and the beginning of trench warfare. The real death of formation warfare was the professionalization and decentralization of military command. When lower unit commanders were trained and trusted to control their units independently in pursuit of broad general tactics or strategy decided at the flag level, that's what ended line formation warfare. It had previously been weakened by the advent of gunpowder weapons, and then the deployment of battlefield cannons, but the real death of formations was the reduction on reliance of strong, central command direction.

In medieval and antiquity combats, formations provided the ability of a battlefield commander to direct tactics precisely, and also offered the strength of concentrated numbers. With the advent of gunpowder, the formation remained because it the inaccuracy of the gunpowder weapons was so poor that it required massed coordinated fire to be effective. That the formation also provided fantastic targets for such fire was a wash. Battlefield control by the commanders was still paramount due to the nature of the weapons and prevailing military doctrine. Also, the poor individual quality of training for soldiers, who were taught only how to operate their weapons and respond to drill commands. The advent of effective battlefield cannon didn't really change this structure much until it became ubiquitous and numerous. The later battles of the Civil War showed this effect, as formations were abandoned in favor of massed charges and trench warfare. Standing in a formation was suicide against a cannon emplacement firing grape, for instance. The Civil War also marked a doctrinal change in warfare as the size and power of armies caused a break down of battlefield control and war started to moderize. The sides had a number of officers that had been professionally trained at West Point, and the decentralization of command during battles became a key new feature of Civil War era battles. The formations were abandoned because they were no longer necessary to provided effective combat power and the need for strict battlefield control by a single commander was abandoned in favor of a general strategy pursued by sub-commanders independently.

The advent of the gatling gun wasn't part of these changes. While developed during the same span as the Civil War (and for the purpose of showing how futile war was, ironically), it was not deployed during the war until the last years, and then they were deployed to defend the trenchlines It was a new, rare weapon, but the changes away from formation battles were already moving and the gatling gun had little impact on them.
 
Last edited:



hastur_nz

First Post
One could argue that if magic is common enough, you'd want to look at WW2 and beyond for your prevailing strategies, i.e. stagnant defenses might have their place, but mobile, decentralised units will, over time, overwhelm them if sufficient numbers and technologies are employed with good strategies and tactics. So large formations should only exist where they have sufficient protections from fireballs etc. Smaller, mobile units would be very important. "Heroes" i.e. special units, are also very important. I've run Battlesystem games under a couple of old editions' rules, they tended to be too static in formations and so on, but they were still viable and fun diversions; from memory the 5e rules are along those lines (the ones from 2e, IIRC).
 

Remove ads

Top