Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mass Combat
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tormyr" data-source="post: 6412375" data-attributes="member: 6776887"><p>You bring up some good points, and certain types of magic could be challenging to integrate if one is concerned about verisimilitude, but I think I disagree on some points (numbered so they are easier to discuss).</p><p></p><p>1. Units are made up of multiple stands working together. When a unit loses half its stands, it has a chance of morale failure. The advantage that area of effect attacks give is that they can be positioned to hit multiple stands. </p><p></p><p>2. While a solo should be able to do something besides just attack, the granularity is not their. This is not D&D scaled up. It is a completely different combat system designed to scale up to a wargaming system. The time scale is different; the action economy is different; the movement is different. In normal D&D, a creature gets 10 actions per round. In Battlesystem D&D they get 1.</p><p></p><p>3. Some spells get wonky. Disintegrate and Finger of death could kill a stand even though I think it usually only works against 1 creature. This is a substantial bonus. Area of effect spells can do damage to multiple stacks. I think this offsets the wizard only getting 1 casting per round.</p><p></p><p>4. Combat is an abstraction in D&D. Wargaming combat with groups or creatures as stands or units is even more of an abstration. Don't expect it to make sense very much. Expect it to be as simple and fair as possible. (And yes, I consider allowing spells that target 1 creature to affect an entire stand without burning more spell slots to be a pretty good trade off. Without the abstraction, a fireball could conceivably miss all the creatures in a stand if they were at the outside corners of the 20'x20' square.</p><p></p><p>5. The solos probably should not get extra actions as it throws off the normal progression of the combat. Solos will already have actions, bonus actions, reactions the same as stands. Each of those stands is only getting the normal set actions, bonus actions and reactions as well, even though they have to fill a minute as well. A stand has multiple units in it. In normal D&D, some creatures could take actions while others attacked, healed or did something else. Stands honestly have a stronger argument for multiple actions than solos. But this is Battlesystem D&D. Everyone only gets the standard set of actions per round, even though it is a minute.</p><p></p><p>6. The fighter will already be able to multiattack the one stand or multiple stands with its movement in squares in between attacks. It gets its full set of actions for the round. Likewise, a rogue could use an item as a bonus action.</p><p></p><p>7. The thing to remember is that all the creatures <u>are</u> doing other stuff, this is just how we are abstracting it.</p><p></p><p>In short, I think that Battlesystem combat will work best if it is treated like normal D&D combat with the minimum of changes. Something similar to the following might work.</p><p>1. 1" = 1 square or 20'</p><p>2. Stands/Solos get their movement divided by 5 to get squares per round (or squares * 20 feet. So 30 feet of movement changes to 120 feet of movement per round. So multiply movement by 4 to get feet per round.</p><p>3. Stands that attack solos that are on their own make as many attacks as creatures in the stand.</p><p>4. 1 round = 1 minute.</p><p>5. Moral failure rule.</p><p>6. Solos can move with a stand and act independently but get protection from being mobbed.</p><p></p><p>I probably am missing something, but I could see the players at my table being thrown into a situation where they have to lead an army and being able to grasp the rules quickly because the action economy is not messed with.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tormyr, post: 6412375, member: 6776887"] You bring up some good points, and certain types of magic could be challenging to integrate if one is concerned about verisimilitude, but I think I disagree on some points (numbered so they are easier to discuss). 1. Units are made up of multiple stands working together. When a unit loses half its stands, it has a chance of morale failure. The advantage that area of effect attacks give is that they can be positioned to hit multiple stands. 2. While a solo should be able to do something besides just attack, the granularity is not their. This is not D&D scaled up. It is a completely different combat system designed to scale up to a wargaming system. The time scale is different; the action economy is different; the movement is different. In normal D&D, a creature gets 10 actions per round. In Battlesystem D&D they get 1. 3. Some spells get wonky. Disintegrate and Finger of death could kill a stand even though I think it usually only works against 1 creature. This is a substantial bonus. Area of effect spells can do damage to multiple stacks. I think this offsets the wizard only getting 1 casting per round. 4. Combat is an abstraction in D&D. Wargaming combat with groups or creatures as stands or units is even more of an abstration. Don't expect it to make sense very much. Expect it to be as simple and fair as possible. (And yes, I consider allowing spells that target 1 creature to affect an entire stand without burning more spell slots to be a pretty good trade off. Without the abstraction, a fireball could conceivably miss all the creatures in a stand if they were at the outside corners of the 20'x20' square. 5. The solos probably should not get extra actions as it throws off the normal progression of the combat. Solos will already have actions, bonus actions, reactions the same as stands. Each of those stands is only getting the normal set actions, bonus actions and reactions as well, even though they have to fill a minute as well. A stand has multiple units in it. In normal D&D, some creatures could take actions while others attacked, healed or did something else. Stands honestly have a stronger argument for multiple actions than solos. But this is Battlesystem D&D. Everyone only gets the standard set of actions per round, even though it is a minute. 6. The fighter will already be able to multiattack the one stand or multiple stands with its movement in squares in between attacks. It gets its full set of actions for the round. Likewise, a rogue could use an item as a bonus action. 7. The thing to remember is that all the creatures [U]are[/U] doing other stuff, this is just how we are abstracting it. In short, I think that Battlesystem combat will work best if it is treated like normal D&D combat with the minimum of changes. Something similar to the following might work. 1. 1" = 1 square or 20' 2. Stands/Solos get their movement divided by 5 to get squares per round (or squares * 20 feet. So 30 feet of movement changes to 120 feet of movement per round. So multiply movement by 4 to get feet per round. 3. Stands that attack solos that are on their own make as many attacks as creatures in the stand. 4. 1 round = 1 minute. 5. Moral failure rule. 6. Solos can move with a stand and act independently but get protection from being mobbed. I probably am missing something, but I could see the players at my table being thrown into a situation where they have to lead an army and being able to grasp the rules quickly because the action economy is not messed with. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mass Combat
Top