NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 4004870" data-attributes="member: 54710">It's certainly true that 3E was about improving your character, not your character's army and domain.  However, that's all putting the cart before the horse.  The reason that raising an army isn't very interesting is because D&D doesn't have a good mass combat system.  Who cares what ammunition your 2000 elven archers are using if they can't really fight anyone.  Believe me, nobody would care about +5 swords if D&D didn't have a satisfying combat mechanism for small groups.Of course, core D&D shouldn't maintain it's focus on individual combat.  (And it will.  As noted, WotC isn't nuts.)  But in year 3 or so, I would like to see a good mass combat system based on the core 4E principals.  That is to say - units should behave like units and should have interesting characteristics based on what the units are made of.  Presumably, spear units would all have a certain feel that is different from sword units, but orc units would also work a little differently than dwarf units.  The hard problems are (A) figuring out how units interact with individual characters and (B) making sure that the various classes all have different cool things they can do in mass combat that don't make people chose between having fun during mass combat battles and having fun the rest of the time.But if we had a good mass combat system, folks could start caring about armies and castles because your army effectively becomes your character's most important piece of equipment.</blockquote>

Verification