How do you run skirmishes?

[nikolai]

How do you run skirmishes?

By this I mean small "battles" with large numbers of NPCs on each side (or maybe just on the PC's side). So, for example, the PCs longboat (with 15 NPC sailors) is attacked by an longboat crewed by two dozen zombies. Or, the PCs are at a beacon, manned by 10 guardsmen, when it is attacked by a score of orcs. Or, the PCs are with a caravan crossing the desert with an accompanying escort, when attacked by a colony of dire vultures.

This is very different from the usual PCs vs. monsters encounter. As far as I can see it isn't dealt with in the rules. Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels become redundant, because of the additional force on the PCs side and the need for corresponding force on the opponents side. So there's no guidelines for balancing them. How do you manage experience? The large numbers of people on each side make micro-managing the encounter a logistical nightmare.

These could be really interesting to run. There's lots of literature where the heros lead a larger group: if only for a small time. This would add a new dynamic if used across an adventure and would give PCs new things to worry about in the tactics they use in combat. So how do you get started on these things?

 

[smetzger]

I don't use any special rules. You may want to take a look at the section in the DM's Guide for speeding up combat. Here is what I do:
1) Use miniatures
2) Let the PC's run everyone on their side, maybe split up equal numbers for each PC.
3) For every group of monsters only roll one initiative.
4) Have one of your players keep track of initiative.

 

[drnuncheon]

I have two methods, generally:

1) fake it. This is the fast way - the PCs deal with a certain subset of the monsters, while the rest of the forces handle the others.

Advantages: easy to change the difficulty of the encounter 'on the fly' by having more forces from one side or the other join the PCs part of the fray. Fast and easy to handle.

Disadvantages: some people don't like so much being DM fiat.

2) mass combat rules. I like Cry Havoc personally, although Empire looks good too.

Advantages: Good for letting the PCs be in charge of their entire side.

Disadvantages: new rules to learn, doesn't generally work well for mixed units, usually requires prior setup.

 

[RFisher]

When a battle reaches a certain size (...or...er...an uncertain size ) I just deal with the PCs' part of it. I don't track individual combatants or take the time to play out NPC v. NPC combat. Opponents materialize out of the "battle cloud" around the PCs as necessary. If they ask questions about the larger battle, I just make up something reasonable. The PCs can try to get to leaders or use other tactics to try to have an affect on the larger battle.

 

[Piratecat]

When all the combatants on one side are the same, I sometimes use the law of averages. I figure out what AC they would hit on what roll. I then divide them up amongst potential targets and use average damage. A lot of this is fudging, but it works if I need something fast on the fly.

Example: 50 archers have been commanded to target the first person to appear in a gate -- but by looking at the PC's AC, I know the archers can only hit on a natural 19-20. When the PC shows himself, 50 readied arrows fly. About 5 hit.

 

[Henry]

First of all, I break the opponents down into their most basic scores: AC HP, attacks and damage, and any special powers or resistances. Typically I don't choose opponents with lots of wacky powers or spell-like abilities going on. Then I set out the minis or counters (counters work better because you can number them, but minis with labels work too), and I roll init either 2 or 3 times for the bad guys. I don't bother with dex mods etc. unless the monsters are known for their high inits. (For example, a group of quicklings will get a +8 or so to their inits, a group of elves +3 or so). Monsters go when their initiative card (from THE GAME MECHANICS, naturally) comes up. It makes it really easy.

 

[S'mon]

If there are lots of NPCs fighting each other and I don't want to spend ages die-rolling I can use a d6-based system to see who kills who. I use it especially for my Conan game, which is less dependent on 'balance' than core-D&D.

Basically an NPC kills an NPC of similar power on a 5+ on d6, a somewhat weaker foe on 4+, a somewhat stronger foe on a 6. That works excellently for masses of humanoid combatants of roughly similar power hacking at each other; if the sides are greatly different in power it either has to be all rolled, or just say the stronger side kills X number of weaker a round, maybe with a % chance of taking casualties.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I tend to work on a law of averages with a bit of fudge factor in there... Especially if it's not really vitally important. Normally roll a D20 for each side, take into account the power of each side and work accordingly.

In another campaign, it was important (200 orcs firing arrows at PCs)...Excel was used to roll and compile the results for the shots. Then rolled any crit threats 'by hand'. Seemed to work well.

 

[Eccles]

Total 100% fudge for the story.

I have an idea of who's going to win, and why, just 'coz I know the numbers and skills involved.

Then I let the PCs tip the balance one way or another. If the PCs smash through the enemy with ease, then their army gets a huge helping hand.

If the PCs really struggle (and I want them to live), then the army as a whole might do better and give the PCs a breather.

Ideally, teleporting and higher level parties should be there to leap from critical fight to critical fight within a battle, meaning they get all the good bits, and their army wins as a result.

 

[shilsen]

Eyeball it for the NPC vs. NPC part of the skirmish. Only when one of the NPCs is actually encountering a PC will I roll dice for it.