Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gavinfoxx 11-09-07, 09:13 PM	Hi there, I've noticed that D&D is not good at approximating the relative utility of massed combat, and while there have been some threads that talk about how to fix this (coming up with military units inspired by the mob rules, for example...), these broke down when you tried to single out one of these infantrymen and their combat capability... so I've been trying to find something that can explain an "Average soldier" in such a way that the soldier is survivable, efficient to train, and, when grouped with many of his compatriots, gains significant advantages. First off, I decided that I wanted them to use a Reach Polearm, since those are so useful in mass combat situations... the sort of thing that lets the second rank also attack over the shoulders of the front rank, something that they can use against cavalry, and things like that. Unfortunately, most of the polearms that can be used against cavalry and which also are reach are exotic, so I went and found what I thought was the best exotic polearm, and I found something interesting... There is the Heavy Poleaxe in Complete Warrior and Complete Adventurer, and the Dwarven Warpike in Races of Stone. They appear to look like the exact same weapon, and have almost exactly the same stats, except for one has shared focus halberd and another can be used to trip. Hmmm. What I would do is combine both of them into one weapon, which would make more sense to me. IMO, its stats would be this: Poleaxe: 2 handed, 2d6 damage, 20/x3 crit, Piercing or Slashing, cost: 20 gp, 15 lbs, hardness 5, hp 10, Reach 10', vs Charge, Trip, Polearm, shared focus (Halberd) Remember, you are spending a feat on it! Exotic weapons should kick ass! Then maybe people would use them some more... Now, to find a cost efficient armor for them to use. Basically, I was looking at the cheapest armor with a +4 armor bonus that wasnt exotic. I found it. Unfortunately, it was 3.0, but it seems to fit a niche that isnt filled by 3.5 armors, so I just ganked it and said that it should be 3.5 legal. Its Brigandine, from Arms and Equipment guide. To get it, you take the stats of Scale Mail (which are the same in 3.0 or 3.5), decrease the max dex mod by one, increase the armor check penalty by one, increase the asf by 5%, decrease the price by 20 gp, and increase the weight by 10 lbs. Then, I gave them spiked gauntlets so that they will threaten adjacent squares... but they needed a weapon for ranged attacks, and crossbows are heavy and bulky... So I started looking at slings... there is your basic, simple sling... 1d4+str damage, 20/x2, range increment 50', bludgeoning damage, 0 lb... not bad... and then there is that crazy and exotic halfling war sling, which a medium sized one does 1d8 with a 3 gp rock, which is just craaazzzyyy... So in my games, that weapon doesnt exist. neither does the rock. The highest end sling is a more modest "Warsling", which is a martial weapon that uses normal sling bullets. Warsling 1d6 damage, 20/x2, 50' range increment, bludgeoning, 5 gp, strength improves the damage, martial weapon proficiency, requires a move action to reload, can be fired but not loaded with one hand. See? Thats not too bad. Next is the build of the actual soldiers themselves. One thing I noticed is that, in order to get useful soldiers using this, you probably need about three feats: one for the exotic weapon, one for unit cohesion and rank-and-file fighting, and Combat Expertise, to make them able to actually survive combat a bit. Assuming human soldiers, that makes them all level 3. ick. Thats no good. To that end, I propose this rule: Allow generic warriors access to the Fighter class (which, as we all know, is a weak class!) but only up to the number of levels they also have in the Warrior class. That makes things better! So these "average" soldiers would be Warrior 1/Fighter 1. Still plenty generic. And you should encourage PC's that want to be fighters to be Warblades...because that class isnt totally gimped, and it is an actual heroic class... Also, every good soldier should carry some rations, some sling bullets, a dagger, a backpack, bedroll, some rations, a winter blanket, and some tools with which to build fortifications -- generic woodcutting and digging tools, which could easily save his life! (Hooray partial cover!) Now, I have looked for "Group feats" that these soldiers could have, like phalanx fighting and that sort of thing, but I didn't find anything that worked. So I decided to come up with my own! Here it is: Custom Feat: Back Brother Requirements: BAB+1 When you are fighting within five feet of at least one other person with this feat, and as long as you are equipped with the same category of melee weapon (light, 1 handed, polearm, etc) you gain a +1 morale bonus to hit, will saves, and to armor class. In addition, as long as you are part of a cohesive unit, you no longer have any penalty for sharing your square with up to two other non hostile members of your unit who also have this feat. The stats that I used for this should look something like this: Strength 12 (+1) Dexterity 10 (+0) Constitution 11 (+0) Intelligence 13 (+1) Wisdom 9 (-1) Charisma 8 (-1) The motivation for these stats being that one would need to pass some basic strength and intelligence tests in order to be in the infantry. Thoughts? Critiques?
Werral 11-10-07, 09:29 AM	Better exotic weapons don't really give an advantage to mass troops since PCs can use them too. Pikes should be better for infantrymen since they could fight in 3 ranks (or at least, that's the way the rule should be). I like the direction you're going with the back brother feat. How about creating feats? What I mean is, as long as all the troops are well drilled the UNIT itself can take feats (Preq, Profession (Soldier) ). That way the better drillled the unit, the more effective they become. Some rules should represent unit disipline, for example if the unit takes more than 25% casualties or is attacked by an enemy it cannot harm (ie with hefty DR) or terifying monsters (like demons) then the unit must make a Will save (based on troops save + Chr bonus of commander) or lose all unit benefits. Unit feats could include: Shield Wall could grant a hefty AC bonus and Ref save bonus versus ranged attacks. Maybe double normal shield bonus and +4 Ref save versus ranged attacks. Phalanx (or some of the later Roman developments on this idea): Bonuses to AC and attack, similar to your feat. Mass charge (where the troops can make their normal attacks and the unit gets a free bull rush (or overrun for mounted troops) attack based on the size of the unit) Fire in ranks: Crossbowmen (or musketeers) can fire in ranks so that while one rank fires the second reloads, effectively maintaining constant fire. Scour: The troops work as a unit to check for invisible foes. Since the wall of weapons is hunting for them, invisible creatures lose the advantages of invisibility and are treated as though they only had a blur spell effect (ie 20% concealment). Unit cohesion: Any creature hit by a member of the unit provokes and Attack of Opportunity from every member of the unit that has not yet attacked. One of the best massed combat systems for D&D ever was the 1E Battlesystem. Strangely in the days when D&D lacked any kind of rules consistency, the massed combat rules were consistent, realistic, flexible and fast. You could have armies of hundreds of troops, with spellcasters, flyers, warmachines and invisible monsters and it still played faster than say Warhammer or similar. It would take a fair amount of work to adapt it to D20 but I reckon it would be worth the efffort. If you can track it down, do so.
Gavinfoxx 11-11-07, 10:44 PM	Well I really did want to see what I could come up with from the bottom up, rather than the top down!
Gavinfoxx 11-24-07, 04:14 PM	So what does everyone think?
Holy_Beholder 11-24-07, 06:37 PM	My advice would be a feat that modifies flanking, so it is just about how many people are fighting someone. So 4 people would then get a +8 bonus if all of them were fighting someone. A series of feats would probably be needed, to establish maximum bonus. That way, ganging up is more effective. Then there is dealing with area attacks. Also, about slings, they were actually incredibly effective, so use the halfling war sling. There would also be feats that allow flanking to affect AC, and rules for area attacks, such as instead of them just doing the damage, they would have to divide up 2.5 times that damage among all the targets, preferably so that the ones that are hit first are hurt most.
Illithid Tentacles 11-24-07, 07:39 PM	If they don't suck, they're not infantry. Generally, the point of infantry is to take up space, and make sure the enemy's infantry is occupied with something. In LARGE amonts, infantry can be effective, yes, but infantry isn't MEANT to be effective. You can drop gravel on your enemy, but unless you have a ****load of it, it's not going to have a significant impact.
Gavinfoxx 11-26-07, 12:06 PM	Are you saying that, for example, there should not be warriors from a culture that spends their lives fighting? That there should not be a way to have well trained and disciplined troops be, you know, badass when fighting as a unit? That the only thing that makes infantry work is numbers? Why would the people that are MOST expected to fight not be good at it in a culture that supports them properly?
trapspringer 11-27-07, 09:25 AM	Well, I mean, that depends, really. Remember the focus of D&D is on a small group of "epic" heroes, not accurately modeling a realistic fantasy world. The standard infantry isn't going to be very effective in comparison to PC adventuring because if they were, the town gaurd would handle it and the PCs would sit around at home drinking coffee and bangin'... erm... fireworks. So basically yea, infantry are supposed to suck relative to PCs. Personally I don't think it's unreasonable for the rank-and-file soldier to be level two and for veteran soldiers to be level three. I think they'd be pretty effective at dealing with most threats at that point if they were properly equipped. Properly equipping such a soldier would probably involve a Heavy wooden shield, studded leather, a short sword, and a spear. figure: Warrior 3 str 13 Hp 17 dex 11 Ac 15 con 12 In +0 int 10 Saves +4/+1/+1 wis 10 cha 8 Attacks Spear +4 (+3 thrown) (1d6+1) Short Sword +4 (1d6+4) I'd go with some of the shield feats from heroes of battle, personally, but powerful charge, weapon focus, improved initiative, I dunno, the stats above are without feats and with sub-par stats.
solandras 11-27-07, 10:51 AM	I generally have your average rookie military soldier (whether infantry, cavalry, etc.) be a 2nd level fighter. Basically they do a bootcamp like thing to get their first level of fighter (or using some rules in books I've found, switch their first level to Fighter) and then they will probably have at least one big combat encounter (and if not, then plenty of training while waiting) so that explains the levels. Veterans tend to be around 4th level. But like I said, that's also very generalized. In some countries, on average they are higher. Also all countries tend to have some hardcore units that just rock, being on average 6th-8th level.
Mesraic 11-28-07, 01:19 PM	Any mass military template should IMO focus on teamwork feats like you've discussed. Phalanx, Improved Flanking, Shield Brother, Any of the feats that utilitize multiple people. And as you said the second row should have a reach weapon to fight against the people directly in front of the first line. Other feats, have your ranged rows look at volley fire rules in Heros, as well as some of the archer feats there. Someone posted above feats that allow a unit to accomplish something by all members having it. I would say instead take things like teamwork benefits. Your team leaders, squad sergeants, platoon leaders, etc (higher level NPCs) would be the people being the team leader. That way the rank and file soldiers can use his few feats for things like the above feats. Also, while Infantry can in fact be "badass" as a unit, alot of infantry through history has relied on support fire (archers, and later motor{fireballs ec}). I suggest for larger battles things like fireballs, or battlefield control spells such as Web. Web could be used in more then just an offensive manner, don't think of webbing the enemies to keep them in one place, theirs also the ability to protect the flanks of your team by webbing to prevent calvalry from charging that area, or to protect your archers from being attacked by calvalry or infantry. Another tactic, take a low level spellcaster and assign 1 per squad of troops. place him in the third or second row. once combat has begun on the furst row, he moves forward, and when an ally goes down in the first row, enemies rush to the hole, insert (color spray). Think of low level utility spells that are great for battle field control. However, I dont like alot of the custom things you've done, bringing in armor from 3.0, etc. Alot of the rank/file soldiers didnt get great equipment. The U.S. army buys equipment from the lowest bidder for their bulk stuff. So I would say things like leather, studded leather. Maybe for important units chain/hide etc. But few and far between for those. Think about other effects you can do. I liked the Back Brotherfeat, althoug not the name. Morale bonuses are huge in mass combat. You can always adhoc morale bonuses/penalties for events that occur on the field, a unit's line is broken and the unit suffers a small morale penalty, their loved commander dies, maybe they gain a morale benefit from anger, etc. A single magic standard in a unit provides the whole unit with a benefit. Let me know what you think, sorry if this was way off base.
Gavinfoxx 11-28-07, 06:00 PM	I think that any society that manages to have decently equipped and trained troops that work together well as a unit should be able to have those troops not suck. I would just make those societies that manage to have good numbers of them very rare in anything resembling a points of light setting. But whats wrong with there being a city state that can manage to do this? I just wouldnt have there be an empire that can do this in a points of light setting...
Mesraic 11-29-07, 12:00 AM	There's nothing wrong with it. Just remember the logistics of equiping that many people at that quality could get exspensive. Anyways if you want a "badass" unit of infantry make the city's elite watch. They're there to handle those roving monster groups that attack. Think of them as SWAT teams. Make something like 20 lvl 3-5 people. A few lvl 7-8 as their commanders. That should give them some staying power, the reason for nice equipment, and skills/feats to flesh out any teamwork benefits, groupfeats, etc... That way you have a infantry style group that rocks without breaking the logistics and feel of the players being hero like. these guys should be a little tougher, their the city's best soldiers.