Some thoughts on D&D warfare

[Conaill]

I largely agree with Gizmo that the answer (uhm, what was the question again? ) must lie in the demographics of the army and the general population.

IF you want a world in which mass armies are useful, then the number of higher-level soldiers shouldn't outweigh the threat posed by the lower-level ones. That way, it's not just a matter of the higher-level commanders having to "baby-sit" the lower levels, because it's the lower levels which form the bulk of the power in the army. Otherwise, we're just going to see small high-level strike teams fighting each other, not mass armies.

Let's start with those 100 War1 for example, but now add to that 50 War2, 20 War3, 10 War4, 5 War5, 2 War6 and a single War7 to lead them. Just by the raw EL numbers, those 100 War1 should pose a more serious threat than any single level of the officer hierarchy.

Also keep in mind that for those 100 War1 we began with, there will be a significant number of support troops of other NPC classes. Experts and (especially) Adepts come to mind. These will typically be more abundant in the general population than PC classes such as Cleric and even Fighter. Let's say you get one Adept for every 10 War, so 10 Adp1, 5 Adp2, 2 Adp3 and one Adp4. Now you start to add the ability to cast 2nd level spells to your "grunt" army... Invisibility / See Invisibility, Web, not to mention Bless, Obscuring Mist, etc.

All that gives you a common "cannon-fodder" type unit, led by a sprinkling of adequately competent veterans. By no means a crack combat unit, as evidenced by the large numbers of low-level soldiers and the lack of PC classes. But one that is *far* more useful and far more likely to be able to take on a high level party than just those 100 War1 by themselves.

I guess the basic idea of mass armies in D&D has to be to defeat the assumption that anything X levels lower is essentially not a challenge. Sure, the raw math tells us that one 19th level character should be equivalent in power to 512 1st level characters, but we all know what's going to happen in that case. The challenge in building an efficient army is to sprinkle in just enough higher-level support characters that the math *does* work out, and the 1st level characters can leverage their numbers without being made completely irrelevant. The higher level ccharacters aren't there to do all the work, they should be there to enable the lower-level masses to be effective.

 

[Celebrim]

I largely agree with Gizmo that the answer (uhm, what was the question again? ) must lie in the demographics of the army and the general population.

Under that very narrow definition, I agree with Gizmo too. After all, I'm also appealing to demographics, I've just got a slightly different demographic answer. First, I recognize that the only purposes of the 'Warrior' class is to a) be backwards compatible with previous editions, and b) to ensure that 1st level PC's are still exceptional members of the population. To me, even though I've been playing since 1981, 'a' is not a very important goal, and 'b' while its important can be achieved in other ways. Based on this and some flavor involved, I postulate that fighters are at least as common as warriors. Afterall, if you had the choice, you'd always choose to be a fighter. Warriors only show up where their society can't afford to (or doesn't have the skills to) devote years to training a professional soldier class.

So the first thing that gizmo and me seem to really disagree on, is that armies should principally be made of fighters and not warriors. In my opinion, any properous civilized nation can and did produce a professional soldier class. And the ones that didn't, disappeared. Fantasy cultures should be no different, and if anything more likely to produce such a professional class because they tend to be more prosperous than thier real world equivalents.

Fighter vs. Warrior doesn't sound like much, but the extra hit points and feats really add up. Fighters might well be 20% more efficient than warriors, and by 4th level than can just do things that Warriors can't.

IF you want a world in which mass armies are useful, then the number of higher-level soldiers shouldn't outweigh the threat posed by the lower-level ones.

I partially agree, but not with the way you've expressed it. If you want a world in which mass armies are useful (and I do), then those armies have to have the skills, equipment, and training to be useful against most threats that the society would expect to encounter. In my world, that means monsters in the CR 2-10 range, and 'high level characters' from 5th up to about 9th level.

That way, it's not just a matter of the higher-level commanders having to "baby-sit" the lower levels, because it's the lower levels which form the bulk of the power in the army.

Well, yes, but we don't disagree on that. I'm just decreasing the distance in levels from the low levels of the army and its commander. I disagree over the spread that exists in most game worlds between the low level masses and the high level characters. Gizmo's example postulates a 10th level commander leading a force of 80%+ 1st level characters. My example postulates a 6th level commander leading a force that averages just over 2nd level. I think this better models the way armies actually operate. And there is absolutely no danger of 'baby sitting' problems assuming that forces scale upwards similarly.

My demographics really top out at about 7th levels, by which time most human commanders would be past middle age and thier fighting prime anyway. Anything higher than 7th level is an exception, and like the PC's must have lived a very interesting life and yet managed to survive to have gotten where they are.

Otherwise, we're just going to see small high-level strike teams fighting each other, not mass armies.

Agreed. And that's exactly my point. Equip them how you like. I've been DMing for about 20 years now, and if there is any trick which can be played, I can play it. I'm also very familiar with the composition of real world armies from antiquity on to modern times. But in D&D, small strike teams of high levels would still make up the bulk of the fighting force if most members of the army where 1st level warriors. A small team of 8th-10th level characters can wreck havoc in any number of ways. Just as some examples, virtually any sort of magic, far shot + better mobility, hide +15, AC 25+. Even just having the cover of darkness and any sort of terrain to take cover amongst and isolate small groups in (even just the tents of an encampment) can let a small force move with impunity, slaughtering, and sowing confusion amongst a large force of War1's. Great cleave is a beast. Any PC that lets high level characters suffer more than a couple dozen attacks per round either doesn't have much of an imagination or has a DM that metagames. Sure, if all opponents are instantly alert and aware of the PC's location immediately, never have to put on armor or light torches, are able to act without orders, never break morale, and can see in the darkness then the high level PC's may have to be a little more creative, but war1's just don't have a chance in my experience. High level characters don't have to fight to the finish. They can slaughter a few dozen characters usually in just a few rounds, retreat to a prepared defensive position, and rince and repeat. Healing is alot easier than raising the dead.

Heck, even my assumptions about army composition is based on the assumption that groups of 15th level characters simply don't exist, or at least exist so rarely that they are famous throughout large portions of the world and thier deeds are sung in song for centuries. If you want to go to a Forgotten Realms type experience scale, then you have to start composing armies like the Purple Dragons or the Sembian Lancers before mass armies make even a lick of sense (but then you have to wonder how 1st level characters survive much less thrive in such a situation).

Let's start with those 100 War1 for example, but now add to that 50 War2, 20 War3, 10 War4, 5 War5, 2 War6 and a single War7 to lead them.

Which is an average level of 1.89, not that far under the level of 2.1 that I estimated for my games. Now that you are going to have nearly half the army over 1st level, and the bulk of its fighting force in non-1st level characters, what disagreement do you actually have with me? Shift 50 of those War1's into War2's, and turn the whole group into fighters and you have something not that far from what I just suggested.

All that gives you a common "cannon-fodder" type unit, led by a sprinkling of adequately competent veterans. By no means a crack combat unit, as evidenced by the large numbers of low-level soldiers and the lack of PC classes. But one that is *far* more useful and far more likely to be able to take on a high level party than just those 100 War1 by themselves.

Very much agreed. But then, your common army is almost half over 1st level, and the characters in that world seem to get not much higher than 7th or so. That's very different than an army which is 90% 1st level in a world with 10th level characters.

The higher level characters aren't there to do all the work, they should be there to enable the lower-level masses to be effective.

The more you stretch the number of levels between the low level masses and the highest level characters in the society, the more you strain that assumption. If society is producing 8th-10th level characters, or if the countryside contains say a tribe or two of Frost Giants, then 1st level warriors get squashed by those crack combat units and the high level characters just can't afford to baby sit them.

 

[A'koss]

I was going to jump in on this topic (didn't think it'd be revisited this soon...) but Celebrim seems to have it well in hand. Personally, I have high hopes that Iron Heroes will be able to support HL heroes and armies working together a little more... plausibly.

Cheers!

 

[Endur]

Just a quick comment that Hero vs. Hero fighting similar to the Trojan war makes more sense if you think of the Heroes being high level characters and the rest of the army being low level. What Hector, Paris, Ajax, Achilles, etc. does really does determine the outcome of the battle if you give them 3E stats.

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim supports you on this though - the best way to model elite troops in DnD with the minimal amount of work is to make them higher level. Without mass combat rules, you have nothing else to work with.

There are alot of responces I could make, but I'll start with a short one here. I don't think you understand my position enough to speak for me.

I've used mass combat rules. But in any mass combat system based off D&D, level is going to be the most important characteristic of the units.

Personally, my campaigns start at Lvl 1, I use my own level progression, and PCs above 9th level are the exception. Given what I see on the internet, this style of DnD is not the norm anymore, so that probably explains some of the differences.

For the record, those are my preferences to. I'd guess we are both old school gamers that have been playing since 1st edition. So, I'm guessing that your completely off base when your trying to in your head explain away some of the differences.

Because of the Level 1 thing, raising the average level of NPCs in my campaign would make these lower-levels very awkward.

Not really. Most of my NPC's will have point buys of 15-20. A PC with a point buy of 28 is a pretty exceptional person even at 1st level. A small group of such individuals is extraordinarily talented and capable even at 1st level, even if in theory out there somewhere is a group of 4th level fighters. Those 4th level fighters are very good at what they do (fight and kill things in pitched battles), but that list of things that they do probably does not include diplomacy, trap finding, stealth, spell casting, surviving in the wilderness, resisting mind effecting spells, and all the other things that a PC party can (and must) do. A group of 1st level PC's at the least represent enormous potential. Between having maximum hitpoints at first level (rather than merely average) and higher attributes, 1st level PC's will be as capable as average NPC's of a level higher than themselves and will have fewer glaring deficiencies.

One drunken swiss trooper in a bar could kill the whole party.

Nah. A 4th level fighter specialized in a Pike or Crossbow might well be fearsome when sober and in a military unit, but drunk in a bar he's just going to be outgunned by a party of 1st levels because even then the party is capable of 'assymetric warfare'. Besides which, even if he's a swordsman specialized in normal melee, shouldn't there be grizzled veterans which mere rookies can't yet handle? On the other hand, if the town has 'swiss troopers' in it, then its highly unlikely that one drunk PC will be able to kill the whole town, which in my opinion represents a bigger problem. It's this latter case that caused me to first start thinking about the problems of a town full of 0-level fighters (as they were called then) in the first place.

 

[S'mon]

By making elite troops War3, you're making them, as a group, inhuman in their capabilties.

I disagree - I'd have to be making them 8th+ before they'd necessarily be 'inhuman' in that they'd be noticeably tougher than normal humans relative to the animal stats in the Monster Manual. If anything War-3s are still a bit weak to represent 'normal' humans when compared to the real-world animals statted in the MM, while War-1s are incredibly weak. In real life you hear tales of the unarmed woman hiking in the woods who killed a cougar with her bare hands when it attacked her child - OK the cougar killed her too - but in D&D she'd be a Commoner and a mountain lion would kill a Com-1 in 1 round!

I find comparing NPC stats to Monster Manual animals gives a better comparison than spells, which don't exist. You might argue on weapon damage, but there's no reason to assume a 4.5 hp wound is meant to be a 'killing blow' - after all we have Criticals, and IRL it usually took several weapon blows to actually kill someone. IMC a typical experienced War-3 soldier has maybe 18-22 hit points, ST 14 and Power Attacks with halberd for 1d10+9 = average 14.5 damage, he'll kill a similar adversary in 2 hits, or 1 hit if he Criticals. He won't do too well against a lion or tiger.

 

[S'mon]

Personally, my campaigns start at Lvl 1, I use my own level progression, and PCs above 9th level are the exception. Given what I see on the internet, this style of DnD is not the norm anymore, so that probably explains some of the differences. Because of the Level 1 thing, raising the average level of NPCs in my campaign would make these lower-levels very awkward. One drunken swiss trooper in a bar could kill the whole party.

Strange - I do the same as you - my current campaign started at 1st level, I use 1/2 XP (Lost City of Barakus) and the demographics noted above, with many NPCs in the 2-5 range. I haven't had any problem of the PCs randomly attacking the grizzled mercenary at the bar. In their starting frontier village I did mention "most of these villagers have more hit points than you" and the sky didn't collapse. - Even a 3rd level Expert with 12 hit points would rather a Fighter-1 PC with 11 hit points did his fighting for him. There was one event where the 2nd level PCs ran into a squad of 9 dragoon guards hunting an escaped slave the PCs were sheltering, the Wizard player did say "We could take these guys" - which had me slightly worried (the dragoons were 6 War-2, 2 War-3, 1 War-4, probably about EL 5-6 over party level) but sensibly the PCs decided to negotiate.
The PCs are now 3rd level, making the fighter-types individually tougher than all but the toughest 'mundane' soldiery. I've had only good experiences from using my NPC demographics so far, it gives the setting much more versimilitude. Example - a raiding band of 15 orcs (12 War-1 2 War-2 1 War-3) attacked the village; the PCs certainly helped minimise human casulaties as they drove off the orcs, but the ex-mercenary innkeeper NPC couple Vali Ftr-5 & Jeanna Ftr-4 were clearly far from helpless in the fight. The players got the impression that while the village might have survived without them, far more people would have died than the one War-3 soldier who was actually killed.

 

[S'mon]

Let's start with those 100 War1 for example, but now add to that 50 War2, 20 War3, 10 War4, 5 War5, 2 War6 and a single War7 to lead them. Just by the raw EL numbers, those 100 War1 should pose a more serious threat than any single level of the officer hierarchy.

Conail - this is basically what I do; I agree it does make a big difference vs mid-level PCs (ca 6th-9th), and adding a few Adepts can make a difference vs even high-level PCs. I basically treat War-1s in a professional army as green troops; in a barbarian or orc horde they are the bulk of the force because the force represents the general population, but veteran units who have fought many battles will be higher level IMC, possibly averaging War-4.

 

[S'mon]

Very much agreed. But then, your common army is almost half over 1st level, and the characters in that world seem to get not much higher than 7th or so. That's very different than an army which is 90% 1st level in a world with 10th level characters.

I think you're saying that the default DMG demographics don't work. Does _anyone_ disagree with that proposition?

 

[S'mon]

Just a quick comment that Hero vs. Hero fighting similar to the Trojan war makes more sense if you think of the Heroes being high level characters and the rest of the army being low level. What Hector, Paris, Ajax, Achilles, etc. does really does determine the outcome of the battle if you give them 3E stats.

D&D is great for Trojan War if you just eliminate the spellcasting classes.