Romnipotent
First Post
200000 Kobold Archers.... statistically deemed to kill almost anything
If you were a General...
- Thread starter Storyteller01
- Start date
Kax Tuglebend
First Post
Storyteller01 said:
thats a wee bit metagamey for me, how would the Pay Corps know that Buldriq the Invicible was a 10th level fighter and not a 5th level warrior? (dont anybody say Sense Motive!)
Romnipotent
First Post
Tests of skill and ability result in a payscale. check E23 for Caravan of Ein Arris (for gurps), players perform tasks/competitions which guides the pay scale; just finished this module, its a good way of determining ability (or luck).Kax Tuglebend said:
Could have been a DM thing but the time was reduced each time to make the shots harder to make, in the archery test. Of course GURPS is different.
Storyteller01
First Post
Kax Tuglebend said:
HAve him go up against friendly forces in mock combat. If he wants the pay, let him prove that he's worth it.
The pay is there mostly as a quantifier. Everyone's on the same page as to what someone of X capability is worth...
A'koss
Explorer
Succinctly...
High level strike teams are what you want. Use the heroes (and their allies if necessary) of your kingdom and pay them with the spoils of war (captured goods, titles, land, etc.). First have them target the opposition's HL defenders, then to supress the lesser threats. Bring in the army later as peacekeepers.
Don't bother putting armies on the battlefield in world with D&D rules (and demographics). HLers keeping an eye on enemy kingdoms (scrying/spying) should be able to make hit and run strikes to keep an army from ever being mustered in the first place.
A'koss.
High level strike teams are what you want. Use the heroes (and their allies if necessary) of your kingdom and pay them with the spoils of war (captured goods, titles, land, etc.). First have them target the opposition's HL defenders, then to supress the lesser threats. Bring in the army later as peacekeepers.
Don't bother putting armies on the battlefield in world with D&D rules (and demographics). HLers keeping an eye on enemy kingdoms (scrying/spying) should be able to make hit and run strikes to keep an army from ever being mustered in the first place.
A'koss.
Ogrork the Mighty
Explorer
I think this is a great metagaming question if you're playing Warcraft or Age of Empires or some other computer war game.
I think it's a bad question if you're seriously considering applying the answers to D&D.
More often than not, a military commander will have the majority of his army determined for him by factors beyond his control. Politics and the supply of desirable troops being two of the first that spring to mind. I just don't think it's possible to sit down and come up with an order of battle to such precise specifications. And I can't imagine too many high-level druids (or any class for that matter) with nothing better to do than involve themselves in wholescale destruction (maybe if this is some kind of epic battle to decide the fate of the realm or something, but not in general). It's a very dangerous game indeed to play around with armies like they're pieces on a chessboard - the "human" factor is just too complex. At best, I'd allow a PC to come up with a desired order of battle and then let him try to figure out a way to achieve it. Very quickly he'd learn that putting it down on paper is far easier than actually being able to raise such a "perfect" army. High-level strike teams may be easier to arrange (at least on a temporary basis), but remember that these are exceptional characters who aren't going to be bossed around like some 1st-lvl commoner. These NPCs will have goals/views of their own and, if typical D&D campaigns are any indication, will quite often be very independent-minded and not be terribly persuaded by pleas for loyalty to king and country (especially if it's happening on a regular basis).
In modern terms, think of it like this: every commander would love to have an army made up of Green Berets/Navy Seals/Commandos/SAS/whatever, but it's just not possible to get that. You have to rely on what you've got, rather than what you wish you had.
My 2 cents...
I think it's a bad question if you're seriously considering applying the answers to D&D.
More often than not, a military commander will have the majority of his army determined for him by factors beyond his control. Politics and the supply of desirable troops being two of the first that spring to mind. I just don't think it's possible to sit down and come up with an order of battle to such precise specifications. And I can't imagine too many high-level druids (or any class for that matter) with nothing better to do than involve themselves in wholescale destruction (maybe if this is some kind of epic battle to decide the fate of the realm or something, but not in general). It's a very dangerous game indeed to play around with armies like they're pieces on a chessboard - the "human" factor is just too complex. At best, I'd allow a PC to come up with a desired order of battle and then let him try to figure out a way to achieve it. Very quickly he'd learn that putting it down on paper is far easier than actually being able to raise such a "perfect" army. High-level strike teams may be easier to arrange (at least on a temporary basis), but remember that these are exceptional characters who aren't going to be bossed around like some 1st-lvl commoner. These NPCs will have goals/views of their own and, if typical D&D campaigns are any indication, will quite often be very independent-minded and not be terribly persuaded by pleas for loyalty to king and country (especially if it's happening on a regular basis).
In modern terms, think of it like this: every commander would love to have an army made up of Green Berets/Navy Seals/Commandos/SAS/whatever, but it's just not possible to get that. You have to rely on what you've got, rather than what you wish you had.
My 2 cents...
Last edited:
Similar Threads
