D&D 5E World Building: Army building

[overgeeked]

Then that's how arrow volleys should work in the game as well. Unless there's a big target for everyone to shoot at e.g. a dragon or giant, treat volleys as AoE damage spread out among one or more units, and give any PCs in those units a save to see if they specifically happen to get hit this time.

I agree. But that’s not how 5E works. This is one more reason I don’t play 5E any more.

 

[Oofta]

I agree. But that’s not how 5E works. This is one more reason I don’t play 5E any more.

Where do you get "how 5E works" for this? It's not like we have mass combat rules. If you break your army up into mobs, just spread the volley out over a handful of mobs or have mobs be a bit amorphous.

Not that I think it really matters much, there's a reason we don't have mass combat rules for 5E. Much like standard and quantum physics, D&D is just not really designed for armies and a system designed for armies likely wouldn't work well for D&D.

 

[overgeeked]

Where do you get "how 5E works" for this? It's not like we have mass combat rules. If you break your army up into mobs, just spread the volley out over a handful of mobs or have mobs be a bit amorphous.

Arrows are not handled as AoE attacks, they’re single-target attacks. A volley of 100 mundane arrows is not treated as an AoE attack. That’s how the system works. One arrow, one single-target attack. Also, gamers. No gamer is going to intentionally not target the obvious big bad unless they have no choice. So yes, focus fire on the obvious target.

Not that I think it really matters much, there's a reason we don't have mass combat rules for 5E. Much like standard and quantum physics, D&D is just not really designed for armies and a system designed for armies likely wouldn't work well for D&D.

The standard combat rules work perfectly well for armies. Just assign one stat block to represent more than one person, as I said above. Also, the mob rules you reference work well enough for mass combat.

 

[Krachek]

You only need 208 longbowmen to down an adult red dragon in a single volley.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/worlds-of-design-the-nature-of-armies.690619/page-3#post-8743530

And using the Guard template. The lowest troop quality. Better template will do the job with less soldiers.

 

[Lanefan]

Arrows are not handled as AoE attacks, they’re single-target attacks. A volley of 100 mundane arrows is not treated as an AoE attack. That’s how the system works. One arrow, one single-target attack. Also, gamers. No gamer is going to intentionally not target the obvious big bad unless they have no choice. So yes, focus fire on the obvious target.

Easy enough to rule the shooter can only target the unit rather than any specific individual, if more than x-distance away (most battlefield archery was at pretty long range).

 

[Oofta]

Easy enough to rule the shooter can only target the unit rather than any specific individual, if more than x-distance away (most battlefield archery was at pretty long range).

One of the things that bugs me about 5E is longbow long range. The range they list is volley range, not actual range that you would use to target an individual. Probably wouldn't be all that terrible (it's fantasy after all) but then you get people with sharpshooter and they insist they can shoot someone from 600 feet away that's peeking out of an arrow slit.

 

[Lanefan]

Arrows are not handled as AoE attacks, they’re single-target attacks. A volley of 100 mundane arrows is not treated as an AoE attack.

So you're going to roll 100 individual d20 to-hits to resolve this? Pardon me, but I somehow doubt that.

That’s how the system works. One arrow, one single-target attack. Also, gamers. No gamer is going to intentionally not target the obvious big bad unless they have no choice. So yes, focus fire on the obvious target.

So all I need to do to more or less neutralize the opposing archery battalion is to make my general invisible here while casting an illusion of her strutting around over there, with the illusion including her somehow being unhittable by mundane arrows. Got it.

 

[kigmatzomat]

One of the things that bugs me about 5E is longbow long range. The range they list is volley range, not actual range that you would use to target an individual. Probably wouldn't be all that terrible (it's fantasy after all) but then you get people with sharpshooter and they insist they can shoot someone from 600 feet away that's peeking out of an arrow slit.

None of that bothers me. Once there is magic, physics ceases to be bounded by the things we assume.

What bothers me is that the designers don't commit to the bit. Either go full Earthdawn or pull back to MERP, but this "all things to all people as long as you don't think about it" schtick just irks me.

 

[overgeeked]

Easy enough to rule the shooter can only target the unit rather than any specific individual, if more than x-distance away (most battlefield archery was at pretty long range).

Sure, you could house rule that.

So you're going to roll 100 individual d20 to-hits to resolve this? Pardon me, but I somehow doubt that.

I never said I would. You're connecting two things that aren't connected. 1) How you resolve 100 individual arrow attacks, and; 2) who is or is not a valid target of those attacks. They're not dependent on each other. You can roll for the group and attack one target.

So all I need to do to more or less neutralize the opposing archery battalion is to make my general invisible here while casting an illusion of her strutting around over there, with the illusion including her somehow being unhittable by mundane arrows. Got it.

Casting a spell while invisible breaks invisibility. Invisibility is a concentration spell...as are most illusion spells, at least those powerful enough to do what you're suggesting. So it's either, or...not both. But, if that's what's fun for you and your table, sure.

One of the things that bugs me about 5E is longbow long range. The range they list is volley range, not actual range that you would use to target an individual. Probably wouldn't be all that terrible (it's fantasy after all) but then you get people with sharpshooter and they insist they can shoot someone from 600 feet away that's peeking out of an arrow slit.

Exactly. 5E characters are straight up superheroes. I wouldn't mind playing superhero fantasy is the system was actually designed to do it well. 5E has way too many hold overs from the wargame days to work well as a superhero fantasy game. Way too many moving parts, things that shouldn't be there but are, etc.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Casting a spell while invisible breaks invisibility. Invisibility is a concentration spell...as are most illusion spells, at least those powerful enough to do what you're suggesting. So it's either, or...not both. But, if that's what's fun for you and your table, sure.

FYI, Major Image upcast to 6th level is permanent until dispelled, no concentration required. Cast the illusory general, then cast Invis. Use your action to animate the General. Might as well cast Greater Invis so you can throw fireballs too.

have the illusion climb into a bag of holding until needed. Get the general a hat of disguise to look like a typical trooper.