D&D 5E Legends & Lore 28.04: Battlesystem! (mass battles rules)

[GX.Sigma]

But a stack can only attack once during a Battlesystem turn.

Well, as the article says, when a stand attacks a solo, it makes one attack for each creature in the stand.

But... actually, wait. The PC's hp isn't abstracted out. 10 battlesystem attacks is the same as 10 normal attacks to a PC. In order to make the scale correct, you'd have to divide the PC's hp by 10.

 

[Derren]

Another problem with [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] "stack retain their base HP" theory is that it precludes stacks of mixed units, or at least makes stuff really complicated.

We know that solos can join stacks, so what HP would a stack of 9 orc bodyguards (12 hp) and the orc general (42 hp) have?

Well it would be a lot less than 100 attacks. Assuming the orcs are able to keep him surrounded as long as they have the numbers for it then it is a max of 8 attacks per round. Then assuming the fighter is taking out 1-3 per round with multiple attacks my very quick calcs comes up with somewhere bewteen 20-30 per round (maybe a little more is the fighter is less than 5th level).

That automatically assumes that the fighter is engaging the orcs and killing them at the same time (a assumption the battlesystem does not make, it is still round based). And what if the fighter is engaging a different stack with ranged combat instead?
We already know that when a stack engages a solo, they do one attack per stack member. But to be in line to the proposed "stack keep the HP of the members" idea, they also have to attack 10 times because of combat rounds or the HP of the solo has to be divided by 10 as proposed by Sigma.

Another question, can stands even lose members before being destroyed? Units can lose stands, thats what forces moral checks, but can stands use individuals? Because that can also create headaches as there would be no easy way to distribute damage especially if a solo is involved. On the other hand, if not you would have zombie orcs (not the same as really zombified orcs) who can keep on fighting even though in normal combat they would be dead (a stack of orcs reduced to 1 hp, yet all of them would be alive). That doesn't matter so much in stack vs stack combat, but against solos the number of creatures in a stack matters.

 

[fjw70]

Another problem with @Dausuul "stack retain their base HP" theory is that it precludes stacks of mixed units, or at least makes stuff really complicated.

We know that solos can join stacks, so what HP would a stack of 9 orc bodyguards (12 hp) and the orc general (42 hp) have?



That automatically assumes that the fighter is engaging the orcs and killing them at the same time (a assumption the battlesystem does not make, it is still round based). And what if the fighter is engaging a different stack with ranged combat instead?
We already know that when a stack engages a solo, they do one attack per stack member. But to be in line to the proposed "stack keep the HP of the members" idea, they also have to attack 10 times because of combat rounds or the HP of the solo has to be divided by 10 as proposed by Sigma.

To keep things simple certain abstractions and assumptions have to be made. There is always the possibility of have each engagement a solo is in ran like a normal 10 round 5e combat.

However, I think the solo attack the stand he is engaged with is a decent assumption. For the stand to have maximum effectiveness it will have to enter his square and surround him. This would make him focusing on something else very difficult.

if we assume the solo and stand stay in adjacent squares then they can't surround him and could only get 2 or 3 attacks on him per round. This brings us back up to the 20-30 attack per Battlesystem round.

We will need to see the full rules to see how it really works and maybe 10 attacks is to few, but 100 is way to much.

On the mixed stand of orcs. It will probably be handled the same way as a stand with a PC in it.

 

[Derren]

However, I think the solo attack the stand he is engaged with is a decent assumption. For the stand to have maximum effectiveness it will have to enter his square and surround him. This would make him focusing on something else very difficult.

Different example, a stack of goblin archers engages the paladin without ranged weapons. No reason not to have 100 attacks. Also, that a stack gets 1 attack per member is confirmed so we know that the fighter is not killing them in return. The other multiplicative is combat time when solos are involved.
And as I wrote in my edit, we don't even know if stacks can lose members before it is destroyed. Both ways creates more headaches.

 

[fjw70]

Different example, a stack of goblin archers engages the paladin without ranged weapons. No reason not to have 100 attacks.
And as I wrote in my edit, we don't even know if stacks can lose members before it is destroyed. Both ways creates more headaches.

10 goblins in a formation will be somewhat different than 10 goblins acting as individuals. But assuming the solo isn't attacking back then they probably would get more attacks. Probably not the 100 since there are probably line of sight issues with a formation.

The bottom line is that it wouldn't handle every situation perfectly. However, from what I have heard so far it sounds like a solid simple simple.

 

[Dausuul]

Whoa there buddy, don't go putting words in my mouth! I'm not under any such assumption. I've never made any complaint about a solo killing a stand in a "single blow."

Never said you did. My point is this: You're complaining that solos get one spell per round or ten spells per round depending on the target (one spell against a stand, ten against a solo). I'm saying there is no reason to believe solos are ever limited to one spell per round. Mearls said nothing about spells, or actions in general. All he said was that solos get one attack per round.

If a Battlesystem attack is ten regular-D&D attacks, the logical implication is that you can cast ten regular-D&D spells in one Battlesystem round, regardless of target.

But... actually, wait. The PC's hp isn't abstracted out. 10 battlesystem attacks is the same as 10 normal attacks to a PC. In order to make the scale correct, you'd have to divide the PC's hp by 10.

Under the rules Mearls described, stands do one-tenth the damage you'd expect them to do, both to solos and to each other.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Never said you did. My point is this: You're complaining that solos get one spell per round or ten spells per round depending on the target (one spell against a stand, ten against a solo). I'm saying there is no reason to believe solos are ever limited to one spell per round. Mearls said nothing about spells, or actions in general. All he said was that solos get one attack per round.

If a Battlesystem attack is ten regular-D&D attacks, the logical implication is that you can cast ten regular-D&D spells in one Battlesystem round, regardless of target.

Hmmm I see. But if a solo Fighter can get one attack per round and a solo Wizard can cast 10 cantrips per round... no, that can't be right. That's way too ridiculously overpowered to be true. And even if cantrips were to count as attacks instead of spells for this purpose, casting 10 Fireballs or whatever per round is equally absurd. Ten gnolls can launch one arrow at the town militia in the same time it takes the Wizard to cast ten Fireballs back at the gnolls? I have no idea how they'll handle spell in the Battlesystem, but this can't be it.

 

[Dausuul]

Hmmm I see. But if a solo Fighter can get one attack per round and a solo Wizard can cast 10 cantrips per round... no, that can't be right. That's way too ridiculously overpowered to be true.

AoE spells are different. A fireball that hits a whole stand at once is different from a cantrip that can only hit one creature in the stand. And then you have to worry about spells where the AoE is too small to hit the entire stand, and how you handle that, and what happens when you use something like magic missile. Can you kill a stand of ten orcs with a single casting of magic missile? That's a whole lot of mileage you're getting out of one first-level slot. It's a huge can of worms, and I'm not surprised Mearls glossed over it.

Bottom line, it would make sense to be able to cast ten spells per Battlesystem-round, but somehow or other the system has to resolve them on an individual basis. Given how few spell slots you get in 5E, there's no sensible way to aggregate ten spells into one, the way you can aggregate ten attacks.

And even if cantrips were to count as attacks instead of spells for this purpose, casting 10 Fireballs or whatever per round is equally absurd. Ten gnolls can launch one arrow at the town militia in the same time it takes the Wizard to cast ten Fireballs back at the gnolls? I have no idea how they'll handle spell in the Battlesystem, but this can't be it.

Ten arrows, not one; remember it's a Battlesystem-attack, not a regular-attack.

But that's touching on the other issue here, which is that even after you factor in the "stands versus solos" rule, stands get one-tenth as many attacks as they should. Forget spells. If I've got a fighter whose hit points and AC enable her to survive an average of 20 orc attacks, and who can reliably kill one orc per round, what happens if you pit her against 10 orcs? In regular D&D combat:

Round 1. The fighter suffers 10 orc attacks, and kills an orc.
Round 2. The fighter suffers 9 orc attacks, and kills another orc.
Round 3. The fighter suffers 1 orc attack and drops. Eight out of ten orcs are still on their feet.

In Battlesystem combat as described by Mearls:

Round 1. The fighter suffers 10 orc attacks, and kills the stand. The fighter is at half hit points and all ten orcs are dead.

If you continued out the "regular combat" example and assumed the fighter somehow survived, she'd suffer a total of 55 orc attacks* before taking down the last one! If the stand wasn't losing members, it'd be 100 attacks. As GX.Sigma points out, you should divide the fighter's hit points by 10 for Battlesystem.

But that still doesn't fix the problem, because then you have to look at what happens when a stand of orcs fights a stand of peasants. If an orc can kill a peasant in two rounds, this battle should be over in about twelve seconds--maybe eighteen if you figure the orcs need a round to get into position. In Battlesystem, though, it takes 120 seconds. That might not seem like an issue, until our orc-battling fighter embeds herself with the peasants:

Regular D&D combat:
Round 1. The orcs kill 5 peasants, and the fighter kills 1 orc.
Round 2. The orcs kill 4 peasants and wound the last, and the fighter kills 1 orc.
Round 3. The orcs finish off the last peasant, and the fighter suffers 7 orc attacks and kills 1 orc.
Round 4. The fighter suffers 6 orc attacks and kills 1 orc.
Round 5. The fighter suffers 5 orc attacks and kills 1 orc.
Round 6. The fighter suffers 2 orc attacks and drops. Four out of ten orcs are still alive, and the fighter and all peasants are dead.

Battlesystem combat:
Round 1. The orcs reduce the peasant stand to half hit points, and the fighter kills the orc stand. Five out of ten peasants are still alive, the fighter is unscratched, and the orcs are all dead.

Because the orcs are dishing out damage at a tenth their normal speed, while the fighter is blasting it out on full power, the result is still a dramatic difference from the expected outcome.

[SIZE=-2]*Or 52, if you figure only eight orcs can crowd in to attack the fighter at once.[/SIZE]

 

[Jack99]

How does that one work?

It's been years since I last used it, but it was basically a framework and guidelines to build units of war using the 4e roles. So a unit of orc barbarians would be a brute, with perhaps over average damage but low AC, while a unit of roman soldiers would be stated as a soldier. Furthermore, a skirmisher unit could have some extra movement, so that they could strike and move quickly away (one of the main differences between a unit and a normal monster was that units had a lot less movement, since each square would represent much bigger areas, relatively). You could also assign encounter/daily powers, if a unit had a dragon for example, of if the PCs were part of it (and higher level than the rest).

If it does sound very simple, it is because it was, but we had a lot of fun with it, something which we had never had before, with the previous battlesystems.

 

[Sage Genesis]

AoE spells are different. A fireball that hits a whole stand at once is different from a cantrip that can only hit one creature in the stand. And then you have to worry about spells where the AoE is too small to hit the entire stand, and how you handle that, and what happens when you use something like magic missile. Can you kill a stand of ten orcs with a single casting of magic missile? That's a whole lot of mileage you're getting out of one first-level slot. It's a huge can of worms, and I'm not surprised Mearls glossed over it.

Bottom line, it would make sense to be able to cast ten spells per Battlesystem-round, but somehow or other the system has to resolve them on an individual basis. Given how few spell slots you get in 5E, there's no sensible way to aggregate ten spells into one, the way you can aggregate ten attacks.

It might "make sense" from a certain point of view, but it allows casters to go fully nova like never before. If you can get all the spells of 10 normal-rounds within the space of one battle-round, but you only suffer one "single" attack because you can attach yourself to a stand... that's going to become all kinds of messed up. Even if you could somehow incorporate all spells of shapes, sizes, and effects, the sheer quantity is problematic.

Ten arrows, not one; remember it's a Battlesystem-attack, not a regular-attack.

Yes one arrow attack. Come on man, you know what I meant.

But that's touching on the other issue here, which is that even after you factor in the "stands versus solos" rule, stands get one-tenth as many attacks as they should. Forget spells. If I've got a fighter whose hit points and AC enable her to survive an average of 20 orc attacks, and who can reliably kill one orc per round, what happens if you pit her against 10 orcs? In regular D&D combat:

(snip rest of post)

Yes, exactly. That's precisely what I meant in post #65.