Heroes of Battle reviews?

[S'mon]

When editing the Helm's Deep battle sequences in "The Two Towers", Peter Jackson discovered that the action began to flag whenever too much time was spent away from the main characters.

Generic orcs and humans hitting each other wasn't as interesting.

HoB sounds very much like it takes that approach to mass combat - I can't wait to see the book.

Cheers!

This has certainly been my experience also. BTW does HoB address high-level play (PCs 11th+)? This is the area I've had a problem running mass battles with. "Saving Private Ryan" sounds pretty low level in D&D terms.

 

[Ryltar]

Well, it contains sample missions that are intended for (IIRC) 10th level PCs, but offers scaling advice for a +/-2 EL every time, I think. The system itself doesn't fall apart at high levels; the book even mentions in passing some challenges that higher level characters might face (for example, the effects of teleport when fighting fiends - leaders and combat HQs beware!). Basically, you can create your own missions; all you'll have to do is up the ELs for the specific encounters, as usual.

Example: You have a predesigned mission (King of the Hill) in which the PCs have to defeat some stone-hurling giants on a hill that are defended by ogres. Once they've done that, they come under attack by trolls and a group of fire giants. What's to stop you from adapting the situation to higher party levels? The strategic importance of high ground remains the same. Maybe the hill features a trebuchet that has to go, or maybe some high level mage that is raining down destruction upon the battlefield. Replace the guards with a fiend squad, or whatever suits your fancy. Have the PCs be a strike team that has to take down aerial bombardiers. Or a dragon. The sky really isn't the limit here .

 

[TerraDave]

Buddy, you dunno what you're talking about and you're just embarassing yourself. Chapter 5 of MH is skirmish rules. Chapter 6 is Mass Combat: "These mass battles rules are designed to allow large-scale battles using D&D miniatures." Just b/c these rules use one mini per unit doesn't mean they're not mass combat rules; it just means you need lots of minis! Or, more realistically, you just treat every mini as 5 or 10 guys.

That's great and all that you may/may not consider them to be mass combat rules, but the fact of the matter is that they are. Whether you like it or not. The original poster asked about mass combat rules and the MH has them. Who cares if they meet your level of "traditional" or not; I know I don't. For people needing some rules for mass combat, the MH has 'em. I can't say about the quality b/c I haven't used them, but they're the only official 3E D&D mass combat rules out there.

I really, really wish people would quit saying that the Miniatures Handbook doesn't have mass combat rules. It does!!!

Ogrork, you should be embarassed. I do know what I am talking about. That is a one to one system, most wargammers would not consider it a mass combat system. And just because the Minis handbook says it is doesn't make it so.

 

[D+1]

Because it's not meant to be a mass combat rulesbook. There are plenty of other systems to achieve that end. This particular sourcebook is meant to show how a party of adventurers can fit into a campaign involving a war, rather than how the war itself would play itself out mechanically.

Strangely enough, it is this precise methodology that I have been condoning for a couple of years now instead of trying to institute actual massed combat. Since the game is about the PC's and the challenges THEY face in the world any large-scale military actions should be run not from a massed-combat perspective but from the CHARACTERS perspectives.

Had I learned that this was in fact just another attempt at mass combat rules I VERY likely would have ignored it. But knowing that this actually would follow my personal philosophy on the subject I intend to buy it, even if all I get out of it is a few ideas rather than a larger system for mixing PC's into larger-scale warfare.

 

[Li Shenron]

Ok, so the book doesn't have mass combat rules. IMHO battles on a larger scale (tens, hundreds, thousands...) are an absolutely great part of fantasy, and are perhaps the one and only thing which D&D does not recreate. I agree that D&D is not a game about large battles but it's a game about heroes. However I still want the heroes to take part of great battles that change the world they're living at, just like so many heroes in mythology and fantasy sagas.

As a DM I think that we don't need full mass combat rules: WITH or WITHOUT full mass combat rules, the key point is how the player characters are going to influence those battles? They HAVE to influence them! Definitely I wouldn't care for mass rules if the DM had to make all the rolls and the players watch, but at the same time neither I would like rules that simply turn each PC into a sort of "commander", because not all heroes are commanders (and D&D is not a game just about commanders).

There are rules for leadership and morale checks, and for determining how much the PCs contribute to the outcome of the battle.

Therefore what I want to know is... HOW does Heroes of Battle allow the PC to contribute to a battle, and how does it let the PC use their own abilities to do that.

I hope it's not just a collection of (optional) feats or anything that you must take in order to influence a battle. I hope it is a collection of rules about using everything your PC already has during a large battle.

 

[Laman Stahros]

Therefore what I want to know is... HOW does Heroes of Battle allow the PC to contribute to a battle, and how does it let the PC use their own abilities to do that.

I hope it's not just a collection of (optional) feats or anything that you must take in order to influence a battle. I hope it is a collection of rules about using everything your PC already has during a large battle.

It contains more advice than rules for how to allow the PCs to contribute. There are rules for the PCs to become commanders, but that isn't a large part of the book.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

That is a one to one system, most wargammers would not consider it a mass combat system.

Who cares what "most" wargamers would consider it - I don't. The poster asked about mass combat rules, not "wargaming rules". And mass combat rules is EXACTLY what the MH has.

Just suck it up and admit you made a mistake. You'll look a lot less silly...

p.s. your cred is shot so I won't be responding to anything else you have to say, no matter how silly.

 

[DungeonMaster]

Who cares what "most" wargamers would consider it - I don't. The poster asked about mass combat rules, not "wargaming rules". And mass combat rules is EXACTLY what the MH has.

What you two are arguing is the meaning of the word "mass combat" and that's specific to the context of wargaming. The min-handbook rules are not mass combat rules as interpreted by 99.9% of the wargaming community.

And let's face it, there are a lot of wargammers who play D&D and D&D has its roots in wargamming. If you label things incorrectly, or try to redefine terms for your own purposes, people tend to laugh and point fingers and get upset.
I wouldn't run a dog show with a side venue of cats and label all rodents as cats.

Let's move on.