Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana - Mass Combat Rules

[Grainger]

.

 

[Grainger]

.

 

[Magistus71]

Someone on reddit ran the rules and liked the play.

http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2xy4mo/tried_out_the_new_mass_combat_rules_last_night_in/

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The mass combat didn't happen (players went in a different direction). There's another large combat all set up to happen next time but it's only 30 participants total so will probably use the regular rules. Oh well.

These are all interesting rules, but please if you have the chance to play some large battles in your games, please please use the current battlesystem as-is first, and send your feedback to WotC. They can still change it (as well as all stuff appearing in UA), but if each gaming group doesn't even test it before trying their own variants, then the feedback will be inconsistent, and WotC won't make proper adjustments.

No. The existing system isn't compelling to me. It doesn't sufficiently model the things I'm interested in modelling, but TerraDave's modifications improve it enough that I'd be willing to give it a shot. (Remember what the competition is here: any mass combat system has to be better than just running the combat with regular rules on a much larger scale, which isn't really that hard even with hundreds of creatures.)

Besides, I don't submit feedback to WotC anyway.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Absolutely agree with this. It always strikes me as odd when gamers machine-gun a set of house-rules at a system without even trying it first. As a famous paleontologist once said, how can you *possibly* know what to expect?

"Mathematics". The rules tell you precisely how gameplay will function, so the consequences of a given set of rules are absolutely foreseeable in advance (at least in principle).

For example, in 5E it's not necessary to encounter a goblin conga line before realizing that the 5E rules enable such a thing. If you like that consequence, you keep the opportunity attack rules as is. If you hate that consequence with a burning passion, you modify the rules for initiative and/or opportunity attacks to render the exploit infeasible. If you dislike that consequence but not with a burning passion, you may do either.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I prefer the 13th Age PC focused mass combat rules.

http://pelgranepress.com/site/?p=17221

 

[SkidAce]

Anyone see anything about UNIT movement speeds?

Specifically, what about units made up of stands of varying creatures, like the example under units on page 2, orcs and ogres.

And since Skimishers "excel at moving quickly" is there a mechanical benefit anywhere?

Obviously, a faster stand in a unit of slower creature could reduce its pace to stay in formation and not get isolated, etc.

Also, I don't see any movement differences between regiments and skirmishers ( quote "Regiment units move in strict ranks, creating a tight formation. Although they are slower than skirmisher units, regiments are adept at delivering powerful attacks and holding key points on the battlefield.")

 

[Tormyr]

Anyone see anything about UNIT movement speeds?

Specifically, what about units made up of stands of varying creatures, like the example under units on page 2, orcs and ogres.

And since Skimishers "excel at moving quickly" is there a mechanical benefit anywhere?

Obviously, a faster stand in a unit of slower creature could reduce its pace to stay in formation and not get isolated, etc.

Also, I don't see any movement differences between regiments and skirmishers ( quote "Regiment units move in strict ranks, creating a tight formation. Although they are slower than skirmisher units, regiments are adept at delivering powerful attacks and holding key points on the battlefield.")

My understanding so far is that the stands have movement speeds, and differing movement speeds could lead to one stand being isolated from the others in its unit.

EDIT: Basically what you said in line 4. I don't think there is a movement speed limit on regiments. Where the movement in strict ranks seems to influence things is the regiment stands having to be adjacent while skirmishers can be 1 square away.

 

[Jester David]

Thoughts on Battlesystem:

I see two big problems: solos and armies.

The system isn't so much a mass combat system as a moderate combat system. You can send a couple hundred orcs against a fort of 50 dwarves and the PCs and that will be a fun encounter.
But if you try and recreate the Battle of the High Clerist's Tower or Battle of the Hornburg things fall apart. 2000 soldiers versus 10,000 uruk-hai translates into 200 strands versus 1000 strands and 1200 attack rolls each round.
If there were some way to attack with entire units as one that'd be handy. Or to step up the scale again for strands of 100 versus strands of 100.

Solos are the big problem though. Even with the ease of becoming isolated, it's easy for solos to be more effective than they should be.
A fighter than can take out three orcs in regular combat should be handily able to defeat a whole strand of 10 orcs.
Conversely, there's no way to, say, send an army against a dragon. Sending 100 veterans against a dragon would be almost as effective as sending 20 soldiers against the same dragon. 100 challenge 1 veterans could kill an challenge 17 adult dragon in a few short rounds (doing something like 300+ damage on average each round). But 10 strands of challenge 1 veterans will do a third of that damage, even with advantage on attacks and double damage from the isolated dragon. And with more rounds, the dragon might be able to easily dispatch a large number of opponents. Disadvantage on attacks means nothing to its breath weapon.
Doubling the base damage to solos and increasing the damage to isolated solos to triple damage would help.

 

[Tormyr]

Thoughts on Battlesystem:

I see two big problems: solos and armies.

The system isn't so much a mass combat system as a moderate combat system. You can send a couple hundred orcs against a fort of 50 dwarves and the PCs and that will be a fun encounter.
But if you try and recreate the Battle of the High Clerist's Tower or Battle of the Hornburg things fall apart. 2000 soldiers versus 10,000 uruk-hai translates into 200 strands versus 1000 strands and 1200 attack rolls each round.
If there were some way to attack with entire units as one that'd be handy. Or to step up the scale again for strands of 100 versus strands of 100.

Solos are the big problem though. Even with the ease of becoming isolated, it's easy for solos to be more effective than they should be.
A fighter than can take out three orcs in regular combat should be handily able to defeat a whole strand of 10 orcs.
Conversely, there's no way to, say, send an army against a dragon. Sending 100 veterans against a dragon would be almost as effective as sending 20 soldiers against the same dragon. 100 challenge 1 veterans could kill an challenge 17 adult dragon in a few short rounds (doing something like 300+ damage on average each round). But 10 strands of challenge 1 veterans will do a third of that damage, even with advantage on attacks and double damage from the isolated dragon. And with more rounds, the dragon might be able to easily dispatch a large number of opponents. Disadvantage on attacks means nothing to its breath weapon.
Doubling the base damage to solos and increasing the damage to isolated solos to triple damage would help.

Without, having tried out the system yet, I am not sure how imbalanced solos really are, but for a beta it seems good/intriguing. As for running a bigger army, maybe just scale it up a second time by the same multiplier? So rounds represent 10 minutes, a single square represents 80 feet to a side, and stands hold 100 creatures. There would be a few things to clean up such as gargantuan solos possibly moving to a medium sized mini, and it doesn't help any issues with solos, but you would only need 20 soldiers and 100 uruk-hai. To be honest, those numbers kind of show that the battle is beyond the scope of the system. I cannot think of a whole bunch of players that would want to sit down to a battle with 120 minis on the board. Although I am not a wargamer, so I may be mistaken.

I am not sure if I share your concerns about the solos though. I will have to crunch the numbers and see what comes up. If 100 veterans went up against a dragon, I am not sure how many of them would be able to get close enough to effectively hit it. 10 stands however could all be adjacent to the dragon simultaneously. I do agree that the balance of power seems to shift somewhat.

My group is finishing up a chapter of our AP next week, and we do something else on the weeks between chapters to try to combat campaign fatigue. I may send these rules out to them and tell them we are trying a mass battle that intervening week.