Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Unearthed Arcana 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="Istbor" data-source="post: 7709427" data-attributes="member: 6801670"><p>The more I read the UA as presented and this thread, the more I am convinced that we are only seeing part of the picture. </p><p></p><p>It has been pointed out that BR contesting BR is wonky, and that anyone should be able to see that. My guess would be they already know this, and that discussion and other points of the rules presented are what they are after. </p><p></p><p>For instance, I think a unit of 400 creatures is too large to be the base. That is the size of whole garrisons and mercenary companies. They surely won't all be the same unit type, but a mix of ranged, caster, and infantry, not to mention cavalry and special cases. Should there be a way to scale up or down unit sizes for different scopes of conflict? Certainly. </p><p>I still very much enjoy the idea of 'zooming' in once the Player characters get engaged in combat. Then, once the 'minute' passes, they get to resume seeing how the rest of the battle is playing out. </p><p></p><p>From what is presented, I think the simple draw win/lose is too static. As typical D&D combats go, a lot can happen in a 'minute' so I would like to see attrition being dealt to both the winning and losing unit. To me at least, it only makes sense. It would obviously be more severe for the losing side than the unit that won the toss. </p><p></p><p>I like the idea of the BR table and conversion it makes it simple, but there has to be more to it. I don't think they are hoping to test the math on us. It is too out of whack for 5e in the current state. I am thinking they just want us to think about the conversion and the table itself. Does it feel right? Is it simple and intuitive? </p><p></p><p>There is a lot more I see from this, but I will spare you all the text.</p><p></p><p>All in all, I like this. I like what potential is there, and I love that they are still thinking about mass combat rules. It has me excited that support for this aspect of the game is potentially coming down the pipe.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Istbor, post: 7709427, member: 6801670"] The more I read the UA as presented and this thread, the more I am convinced that we are only seeing part of the picture. It has been pointed out that BR contesting BR is wonky, and that anyone should be able to see that. My guess would be they already know this, and that discussion and other points of the rules presented are what they are after. For instance, I think a unit of 400 creatures is too large to be the base. That is the size of whole garrisons and mercenary companies. They surely won't all be the same unit type, but a mix of ranged, caster, and infantry, not to mention cavalry and special cases. Should there be a way to scale up or down unit sizes for different scopes of conflict? Certainly. I still very much enjoy the idea of 'zooming' in once the Player characters get engaged in combat. Then, once the 'minute' passes, they get to resume seeing how the rest of the battle is playing out. From what is presented, I think the simple draw win/lose is too static. As typical D&D combats go, a lot can happen in a 'minute' so I would like to see attrition being dealt to both the winning and losing unit. To me at least, it only makes sense. It would obviously be more severe for the losing side than the unit that won the toss. I like the idea of the BR table and conversion it makes it simple, but there has to be more to it. I don't think they are hoping to test the math on us. It is too out of whack for 5e in the current state. I am thinking they just want us to think about the conversion and the table itself. Does it feel right? Is it simple and intuitive? There is a lot more I see from this, but I will spare you all the text. All in all, I like this. I like what potential is there, and I love that they are still thinking about mass combat rules. It has me excited that support for this aspect of the game is potentially coming down the pipe. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Unearthed Arcana Mass Combat
Top