Some thoughts on D&D warfare

[Yair]

I call into question just how available 'dreadnauts' might actually be, and whether or not War1 actually constitute the majority of the armies of the 'major powers' capable of fielding 'dreadnauts'.

....

The level composition of the army is a matter for the DM to decide. I embrace the "lots of 1st level warriors" model, and that's what the MM does too. Go to Goblin, you've got a 1st level warrior statted. Go to organization, and you've got a "10-24 with worg mounts" warband. The same goes for any similar monster - from kobolds to drow. The common grunts the PCs encounter at low levels are (IMC) those war1 guys. So, what, they only get to meet the academy rejects?
I find it simpler to work from the MM structures and go from there. This gives me lots of low-level grunts, a few mid-level or lower commanders, and no high-level characters. I then sprinkle unique monsters and NPCs to taste, and serve warm. You get a managable army, with few unique critters to keep detailed stock of and lots of bulk that can be treated relatively easily by considering its CR/EL and composition (avoiding the need to count each goblin's arrows, potions, hp, etc.).
I've long since stopped trying to make XP make sense. It just doesn't. I accept that, and move on to build the armies and demographics I want to, rather than build complex models and painstakingly tailor them to reach a similar result.

I agree that with the higher levels you espouse dreadnoughts will be much harder to come by, and may not be a useful concept. Against low level opponents even relatively expensive dreadnoughts are useful as they can kill a lot of bulk if used properly, more than what it costs to equip & train that bulk.

Yes, smart tactics can negate certain dreadnoughts, effectively turning them to bulk. That's half the fun - getting your PCs to think up such tactics. I don't want a war situation where the tricks are tried and true, I want to allow the PCs to show creativity. I can always come up with new dreadnoughts and enemy tactics myself. That's the other half of the fun.

 

[gizmo33]

The level composition of the army is a matter for the DM to decide. I embrace the "lots of 1st level warriors" model, and that's what the MM does too.

Yes, I agree with this. Some people interpret the "training" of certain persons in the army as if it only represented increased ability in individual combat - troops train in order to gain basic proficiency in their weapons, but also in order to follow commands, fight in formation, and move in good order in a variety of formations. Knowing what a certain drum-signal means or how to form a shield-wall without stabbing your comrade in the chin doesn't necessarily make you 2nd level IMO.

However, the "core" of an "expeditionary" force would probably be high level than the normal demographic. A kingdom of 1 million persons wouldn't send a troop of 1000 1st level warriors to fight by themselves during an important battle. Celebrim's examples of tactics (eg. getting 100 4th level knights to form a unit and charge) could still be applied to a 3E game using the "official" demographics.

 

[Celebrim]

The level composition of the army is a matter for the DM to decide. I embrace the "lots of 1st level warriors" model, and that's what the MM does too.

In my experience, the lots of 1st level warriors model can present serious problems. One of the most obvious that a DM will run into is that the first time you player's (say in junior high) decide to rob and loot the towns rather than the dungeons, because by the books the towns are richer and the 'monsters' easier to kill, you'll find that you've got no real tools to handle that.

The next question might be, if the 'monsters' gaurding the town really are easier to kill than the ones in the dungeon, why haven't the ones in the dungeons long ago killed off the ones in the the town?

If your answer to the above conundrums is 'High Level Characters', it begs the question of why the town would bother with an army at all since it isn't good for much of anything. What good is an army that can't defeant any of its potential foes? Why not have an Ankh Morpork style watch to handle criminal matters and fire the whole useless army? After all, both sides of the fight aren't getting much use out of thier army at all, so why bother? Why not just send out the high level characters and be done with it?

Another problem presented by the masses of war1's model is that very quickly, humanoids become unusable foes against PC's. By the time you get PC's into even the mid-levels, the party can probably take on 100 War1's in a straight up fight if it has to. By the high levels, this number probably reaches into the thousands. To solve that problem, almost everyone creates dungeons full of tougher opponents. But if Orc 3rd level barbarians or 4th level Hobgoblin fighters exist in some numbers, why aren't these in the 'armies'? And if there are guard rooms of such in the dungeons, why aren't there equivalent guard rooms containing more elite troops back in the cities? If there aren't, why haven't the armies of drow/orc/ogre/goblin/mongrelmen/etc. fighters (or whatever) long ago taken over the world? Is it merely be humans have more 12th level characters, even though their armies are pathetic compared to everyone elses?

Yet another problem is how in the world do those War1's and Com1's survive when the heroes aren't around? You create a 'Batman problem'. If you are me went out to become a vigilente, and patrolled the streets of Gotham, it would probably be months or years before we actually happened to come across a crime (robbery, mugging, rape, whatever) in progress. Yet Batman happens to come across a purse snatching or jewelry robbery in progress every single night. How does he always manage to be at the exact right place at the exact right moment to save the day? To me, this problem is insufferable if we are trying to model something rather than simply tell a linear story. The PC's may be necessary to save the day, but they can't be everywhere at once and the ordinary folks have to present enough of a threat that the numerous monsters of the world can simply go wherever the PC's aren't and murder or loot at will. Do the monsters really just sit still and wait for the PC's to come and kill them?

Go to Goblin, you've got a 1st level warrior statted. Go to organization, and you've got a "10-24 with worg mounts" warband. The same goes for any similar monster - from kobolds to drow. The common grunts the PCs encounter at low levels are (IMC) those war1 guys. So, what, they only get to meet the academy rejects?

No, they are meeting foes from cultures that don't have academies at all. The assumption is Warrior represents a class of individuals who must be prepared for combat, but are basically self-taught amateur combatants who have demands on thier time that prevent them from spending 4 hours a day in training and don't have a large body of experts standing behind them ready to repair armor, cook thier meals, mend thier uniforms and so forth. In other words, warriors are part time combatants without formal training. This potentially includes things like youths in a street gang, bandits, primitive tribal warriors, and anyone who lives near or in a dangerous region but spends most of thier time doing something other than fighting. The town watchmen who spends 8 hours a day wandering around keeping an eye on things, stopping into the pub for a bitter, and occasionally knocking heads is a warrior classed individual. The same goes for the goblin tribal member that spends most of his time hunting squirrels, cultivating mushrooms, carving out tunnels to live in and so forth. Neither of them are full time fighters, though they can do well enough in a pinch.

If the Goblins happen to have an actual empire with 100,000 members, and a full time professional army with an extended training period (goblin boot camp), I would expect thier Worg cavalry to be full fledged fighters rather than mere warriors.

I find it simpler to work from the MM structures and go from there. This gives me lots of low-level grunts, a few mid-level or lower commanders, and no high-level characters.

I find the MM structure creates problems. But, note that my system produces exactly the same distribution that you described - lots of low-level grunts, a few mid-level commanders, and no high-level characters (except for the PC's and thier mentors and foils). And I also season with a few 'monsters' to taste - griffin cavalry, archers mounted on war mastadons, etc.

It's just that I consider low-level to extend up to about 3rd level.

 

[gizmo33]

The next question might be, if the 'monsters' gaurding the town really are easier to kill than the ones in the dungeon, why haven't the ones in the dungeons long ago killed off the ones in the the town?

Good point - the town should only be as rich as it's ability to protect what it has. That solves the problem of the "Junior High marauders" as you describe.

Remember, too, that destroying a town usually attracts the attention of those beyond the town, while this is much less often the case with monsters. That's another reason to stick to dungeons. And another reason why a 1st level commoner in a civilized land would have slightly more stuff than a 1st level goblin in a dungeon.

Why not just send out the high level characters and be done with it?

In the "pre-history" of your campaign world, when the first two cavemen reached 12th level fighter and decided to attack each other, the one that brought 100 of his friends with him won the battle. I don't think an army (especially one with a range of levels, like the 3E demographics rules, for instance) would be useless. 1st level guards can protect against 1st level menaces in a town (which are plenty). If they all die from a fireball, then the wizard with fireball is going to control the town - but at least the wizard has had to show his cards.

Another problem presented by the masses of war1's model is that very quickly, humanoids become unusable foes against PC's. By the time you get PC's into even the mid-levels, the party can probably take on 100 War1's in a straight up fight if it has to.

AFAIK there is no such thing as a warband of 100 War1's.

But if Orc 3rd level barbarians or 4th level Hobgoblin fighters exist in some numbers, why aren't these in the 'armies'?

Yes, I agree with this. Furthermore, I would think that humans would have to have equivalently leveled characters to counter this - although I would think that a few dozen War1s could kill a 3rd level orc barbarian, so there are populations to consider as well. Orcs may have a higher proportion of leveled characters, but humans might be able to prevail by greater numbers.

Yet another problem is how in the world do those War1's and Com1's survive when the heroes aren't around?

In what situation are you concerned about their surivival? War, or peace? In war plenty of War1s would get killed on either side, I don't see the problem with that. If they don't like it (and they often don't), they can run away (and they often do). The side that runs away first loses.

In peace time, War1s patrol the places where they live to the best of their ability. Any group of War1s over a certain number has a War2 in it, and so on. A group of 12th level PCs who wants to take over a town should probably succeed anyway, shouldn't they?

Bottom line - I think demographics solve all of the problems that you're talking about.

In other words, warriors are part time combatants without formal training.

Is this in the rules? This wasn't my understanding of the Warrior character class. IIRC a 1st level commoner is a "typical" farmer, so a 1st level warrior would be a "typical" warrior, not an amateur.

 

[Odysseus]

I think if you assume the highest levels on each side fight each other, while the lowest levels fight each other.Then CR differences balence out. When this doesn't happen you get problems. Based on the EL system from the immortals handbook, a 1000 war1, is a reasonable encounter for 10 20th level characters.

I believe if you want to compare D&D warfare to a historical period. The ACW is the best option. A low magic setting might be compared to late medieval or napoleonic period. The ACW can be characterised by is destructive power and high casulties, but also for the ability for one side to defend areas. And the importance of resources, supply routes. Magic can by highly destructive, however with preperation it could be countered. In any warfare , assuming competent generals,and even forces, it would be decided on the resource managment. But mistakes by generals would be extremly costly.

In any professional army. The soldiers could easily have on average of 5 years experience of warfare after training. 5 years experience would perhaps make the typical soldier 5th level. There may well be 1st level soldiers , but the more the army fights the higher its level. So I don't think its right to assume armies should be made up of mostly low level characters.

 

[S'mon]

Yes, thanks for clarifying, that was the "normal feudal practice" I was talking about. It certainly wasn't normal for people to rope together hordes of commoners to collect a 1sp/each ransom

I suggested Swiss pike War-3 because the German Landsknechte were fearsome professional mercs yet they pretty well always lost to the Swiss. You can rate both Swiss & Landsnechte War-1 if you like. IMC in a population typically 1/4 are 2nd level, 1/8 3rd level etc.

Actually using Monte's DMG demographics battles would logically be fought by groups of level 10-20 HLCs found in every large city or Metropolis, the War-1s or War-3s might as well stay at home...

 

[S'mon]

Is this in the rules? This wasn't my understanding of the Warrior character class. IIRC a 1st level commoner is a "typical" farmer, so a 1st level warrior would be a "typical" warrior, not an amateur.

The DMG says "Warriors" may be the typical inhabitants of "harsh lands where conflict is common" - that includes pretty well all the goblin types, elves & dwarves, human barbarian cultures, etc. It can also include human frontiersmen.

 

[S'mon]

In any professional army. The soldiers could easily have on average of 5 years experience of warfare after training. 5 years experience would perhaps make the typical soldier 5th level. There may well be 1st level soldiers , but the more the army fights the higher its level. So I don't think its right to assume armies should be made up of mostly low level characters.

I think in 3e rules professional soldiers with combat experience should be above 1st level. I use for NPCs:

1st - Novice
2nd - Trained
3rd - Experienced
4th - Veteran
5th - Elite

Most NPC combatants are Warriors, I reserve Fighter for trained-from-birth warrior caste like knights, samurai & sparteatei.

When I stat out armies IMC the 'typical' soldier is usually 2nd or 3rd level, even if half the army is 1st level the smattering of higher levellers bump up the average considerably.

 

[gizmo33]

I suggested Swiss pike War-3 because the German Landsknechte were fearsome professional mercs yet they pretty well always lost to the Swiss. You can rate both Swiss & Landsnechte War-1 if you like. IMC in a population typically 1/4 are 2nd level, 1/8 3rd level etc.

The basic point I've been trying to make on this subject is that victory in battle can be the result of something other than personal "single-combat" fighting ability (which I equate with level). The tactics, command, and morale of the Swiss could have been superior, and thus the consistent victories - though I'm not familiar with the reasons for win/loss. The question could be whether or not you think a Swiss pikeman would be more likely to surivive a fireball than his Landsknechte counterpart.

Actually using Monte's DMG demographics battles would logically be fought by groups of level 10-20 HLCs found in every large city or Metropolis, the War-1s or War-3s might as well stay at home...

OK, good point - I actually don't use the DMG demographics, I assumed that they were something like what I do use and it was easier than explaining the details.

I still say it comes down to demographics. IMO it works like this: The demographics rules that you use has to make it economical to form your armies with War1s (assuming that you want this). Nobleman A's army would be 500 War1s, 50 War3s, and maybe 5 or so characters of levels 5 and up, perhaps a 10th level leader (Nobleman A) and an 8th level chaplain and his 8th level cousin or something.

Nobleman B, working with the same population, decides he wants a smaller army of higher level characters. He takes the 50 War3s, but sends the War1s home. Then he starts scouring the countryside. He's able to locate another 30 or so level 3 characters, but they're independant minded pit-fighters, rogues, eccentric wizards etc. They want money, land, etc. In short, more expensive, less loyal, generally more trouble than if he just had stuck with the 500 War1s. And he's not sure that his 80 L3 characters could really beat the 500 L1s that Nobleman A was able to more quickly field anyway. 500 arrows/round is a lot of arrows.

Of course it also depends on the power-differential between low and high level characters (driven by availability of magic items and house rules). If the 10th level noblemen can kill 500 War1s in one round, then he probably wouldn't bring them to a fight with Nobleman B.

 

[gizmo33]

Based on the EL system from the immortals handbook, a 1000 war1, is a reasonable encounter for 10 20th level characters.

The 3E DMG makes a good (IMO) point that beyond 8 CRs difference or so, the power comparison breaks down. 10 20th level characters have so many powers and abilities that 1000 war1s could never counter. I'm not familiar with the "immortals handbook" though, but in normal 3E, or even my houserules d20 version, I can't imagine 1000 War1s standing a chance. In fact, if a few of the 20th level characters are wizards, the battle would probably last one round. 20th level characters IMC are demi-gods and not likely to be involved conventional wars at all.