Greetings, friends of mine. It is quite an honor to write my inaugural article on the Wizards.Community boards. I have dedicated everything towards the success of this article, and I hope it will help to entertain and educate at least a few other Dungeon Masters in the world.
I was reading my handy Dungeon Master's Guide II, and I discovered the mob template. I must not have been the only DM to stop and think to myself: "Wait one moment, this is just about one step from a fully-baked mass combat system, based on a single template!" My mind rushed with excitement at the prospect of being able to run mass army combats with unprecedented ease. It felt like I could do what was commonly seen as the practically impossible: create a believable, simple, and flexible system for mass military combat that didn't thoroughly suck. "Hasn't Heroes of Battle already done it?", you might question. My answer is a confident ‘no’. First of all, Heroes of Battle is an entire book, not a simple template. Books are large, books take days of careful reading to become useful, and books cost money. Second, what Heroes of Battle introduces is not a mass combat system at all, but a large set of rules and guidelines (which include verbal advice, spells, prestige classes, feats, and lots of other goodies) that a Dungeon Master can use to design Player Character adventures on a field of battle.
What this article, on the other hand, hopes to set forward, is a simple yet flexible template (along with a few sample military units and a simple commandeering feat), that allows any competent Dungeon Master that can apply a template (and that damn well better account for most of them) and is comfortable with the siege weapon rules in the Dungeon Master’s Guide can make mass military combat a part of his or her game with unparalleled ease, and never, ever have to wing it again.
The Template
MILITARY UNIT
A military unit is comprised of a large number of the same type of combat-ready troop. Military units are typically a part of a much larger army. Military units generally require a daily upkeep of 15 gold pieces for a standard unit and 45 gold pieces for an elite unit (with an additional 10 gold pieces per day required to maintain a mounted unit) in wages and supplies, or else the unit disbands.
A military unit is a single entity similar to a swarm, except that it is made of larger creatures. A military unit can be comprised of Small, Medium, or Large creatures, but all the individual creatures must be the same type. A military unit that incorporates a crowd of warrior orks and goblin archers along with a hobgoblin general is best modeled by two separate military units and a unique creature (the general). You can use the following template to create specific types of military units.
“Military Unit” is an acquired template that can be added to any Small, Medium, or Large creature. A military unit uses all the base creature’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.
Size and Type: A military unit is a Gargantuan creature composed of either forty-eight mounted or unmounted Small creatures, forty-eight unmounted Medium creatures, or twelve mounted Medium creatures or unmounted Large creatures. The military unit's type remains unchanged from the base creature.
Hit Dice: A military unit has a single pool of Hit Dice and hit points. All military units have 40 Hit Dice; this number represents the unit’s mentality and physical mass. The type of Hit Dice rolled is set by the unit’s racial Hit Dice, not any class levels the military unit might have. Thus, a military unit of human fighters would roll d8s for hit points, not d10s.
Reducing a military unit to 0 hit points or low causes it to break up, though damage taken until that point does not degrade its ability to attack or resist attack. Military units are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage.
Initiative: A military unit’s initiative modifier is always +0.
Speed: A military unit’s speed is 10 feet slower than that of the base creature (unless it is a mounted unit; see below).
Armor Class: As base creature, modified by -4 for the military unit’s Gargantuan size, with a +2 shield bonus and +1 armor bonus if the military unit is light infantry or mechanical archery, a +4 armor bonus if it is heavy infantry, or +1 armor bonus if it is nonmechanical archery.
Base Attack: Since all military units have 40 hit Dice, their base attack bonuses are set depending upon their type.
-As of 6/19/06-
Change Heavy Infantry (Ex) to the following:
(Optional Quality) Heavy Infantry (Ex): A heavy infantry unit is one that trains for and enters the fray with a significant amount of armor, large and powerful melee weaponry (such as bastard swords, heavy maces, and battleaxes), and are not equipped with shields. A heavy infantry’s skirmish attacks deal 9d6 base damage. Heavy infantries have a +4 armor bonus to AC, maximum dexterity bonus of +2, and a -4 armor check penalty. Heavy infantry is an optional unit classification. One unit classification (and only one) must be selected for each unit.
The description and classification you have given are applicable to nearly all standard army units. If I ever will create a war setting with a mass combat going on, I will use this and nothing else. I agree with you that it is hard to put spellcasters in this framework, but the small scale mechanism you propose is really good. For easy counting I will use 12 man units of 2nd level casters, lead by a 3rd or 4th level caster, arcane and divine apart. For backup healing, a bunch of adepts may be really good. Pump all their skillpoints into heal and it's done.
Thanks for the great work
.Sunai
Errata Update:
Current Errata
-As of 6/19/06-
Change Heavy Infantry (Ex) to the following:
1. (Optional Quality) Heavy Infantry (Ex): A heavy infantry unit is one that trains for and enters the fray with a significant amount of armor, large and powerful melee weaponry (such as bastard swords, heavy maces, and battleaxes), and are not equipped with shields. A heavy infantry’s skirmish attacks deal 9d6 base damage. Heavy infantries have a +4 armor bonus to AC, maximum dexterity bonus of +2, and a -4 armor check penalty. Heavy infantry is an optional unit classification. One unit classification (and only one) must be selected for each unit.
2. Commanding a Military Unit: All military units can be given commands and field orders, such as 'go there', 'stand your ground', 'attack that enemy', 'lay prone', or 'charge!'. Anyone that tries to direct a military unit's actions in this way must succeed on a DC 15 Diplomacy or DC 20 Intimidate check if the unit does not recognize her as a commander, a DC 5 Diplomacy or DC 10 Intimidate check if the unit does recognize her as a commander, or a DC 25 or DC 35 check (respectively) if the unit recognizes her as an enemy. The Diplomacy check takes a full-round action, but the Intimidate check is a free action. If attempting to issue highly peculiar or suicidal orders, there's a -8 penalty for the check. For every 5 points the result surpasses the DC, the military units benefits from an additional +2 morale bonus to all attack and damage rolls, skill checks, and saves until the end of the next round*. There is a new feat named Prestigious Commander that makes the job of leading a military unit a lot easier.
* hope that is balanced
One question I would like answered before continuing. Why Diplomacy for commanding units? Diplomacy is a non-combat skill and delivering messages is covered by the Bluff skill.
I can't say I agree with you here.
Diplomacy can be defined as the art of making others see things your way, and it is never specifically said that it is non-combat. Bluff really isn't really a message-delivering skill so much as it is a skill that centers around lying through your teeth.The Diplomacy use wasn't even my idea, it was based off of the crowd control rules in the DMG, which are obviously already core to boot. ;)
And finally the whole mob rules are completely illogical in a D&D sense, especially when confronted with magic and DR creatures. Why do 48 soldiers who are in a close quarter die from a single fireball and a mob doesn't? There is no difference between those two groups except that one calls itself a mob. Same with DR, when a single warrior can't penetrate DR then 47 additional warriors also can't, so why suddenly can those warriors penetrate the DR when they call themselves a "mob"? Same goes for AC. A standard warrior has an attack ranging from 1-3, so why can a mob of them automatically damage everything even when it has an AC of 80? Also when they do automatic damage why equip units with full plates when they offer no protection at all?
Consider this topic yoinked! *hits print button*Here's your cookie
I found that this template combined very well with the rules presented in the Heroes of Battle book. I was able to simulate encounters with large numbers of troops through the use of mob units. These encounters were mixed in with normal CR appropriate encounters (such as a group of ogres, a group of worg riders, and a group of griffin-mounted aerial cavalry).
I did not use as detailed a military template as yours. I simply increased the relevant stats of a mob as I saw appropriate. This usually resulted in increased AC (armor worn by unit, plus shield, -4 for size) and I replaced the damage die (5d6) with higher die for better weapons (5d8, 5d10, etc). If they had reach weapons then the mob had reach.
For ranged attacks I allowed each mob to fire a volley of arrows (per the rules in Heroes of Battle). This allowed them to effectively make area attacks against multiple foes or concentrate fire on a single target for significant damage. It also gave them an excellent option against flying PCs who are normally out of the reach of mobs.
I highly recommend this method for anyone looking to conduct a huge battle. It allows you to remain totally focused on the PCs but have the feel of tremendous events and grand armies.
But, despite that this works well enough for unit vs. unit combat, how would you, Verelor, DM / RP a PC party charging into, or among military units?
I want to believe that my PCs could be a part of these grand battles without having to be the chess player in it all. They will, no doubt, want to be the Russell Crowe of the battle, where the camera is focused on them as endless blurry hordes blitz dangerously around them as they hack off limbs and batter shields smash skulls and miraculously hold their own.
Tell me a story! ;)
This tardiness makes it great for crowd control where you are trying to rouse their emotions (or quell them) through a great speech, but decidedly ungood when all you want to do is to make a particular squad to "Fall back and wheel left, then set pikes against charge," but do it right now and not after you have stroked their collective ego by telling them how marvelously great they are for a full minute. ;)
That, and Intimidation is a Class Skill for fighters, while Diplomacy isn't, and I would sort of like it if Fighters could be good commanders without having to choose a PrC for it.
So basically use the same DC all the time, but use the "hurried negotiations" rule for Diplomacy, giving a -10 to the Diplomacy-users roll (unless he has feats to make him a swifter talker). If you think that is too rough, you could allow the Diplomacy-user make a rousing pre-battle speech that gives him some bonuses to command (in effect reducing his penalties)
I would like to suggest that there should be some sort of mechanism around this, maybe giving the creature a will save if it takes massive damage in a round? Treat it like death from massive damage perhaps only a will save instead?
Just a thought.
As far as my calculations indicate there are approximately 3 times more creatures than there is room for said creatures in this mob/formation. That being said, would it not make sense for them to take penalties on their to hit bonus to represent close quarters? or have you resolved this issue with their inability to strike adjacent opponents and only strike as if swarming?
Getting 48 people into a 20'x20' space would be VERY cozy.
One strange effect of this template is that it makes low-HD creatures more susceptible to high damage output characters. For example, say the 10th-level fighter in my group is attacked by a unit of goblins. Normally goblins have an AC of about 15. In this system, if I understand correctly, the unit's would be 11 (Gargantuan size). The fighter has a total of +15/+10 attack with his greataxe so he cranks up the power attack. Say he takes a -5 penalty to do +10 damage. In normal combat he will only be able to kill 2 goblins a round, but in this system he can do his full HP damage to the unit as a whole (something like 42 points on average if he hits with both attacks which he usually will).
Of course it also gives the goblins a decent chance of actually damaging the 10th-level fighter in return, so it's all good.
I would suggest Intimidation be easier than Diplomacy - or allowing the use of either with the same DC and to the same effect. Diplomacy is mostly about making people see things your way, but is specifically about making a one-minute speech (or more).
I disagree. I think that trying to quickly "bully" an entire squad of combatants is harder than just telling them that something is a good idea.
That, and Intimidation is a Class Skill for fighters, while Diplomacy isn't, and I would sort of like it if Fighters could be good commanders without having to choose a PrC for it.
Fighters, even predominantly commander fighters, still fight first and command second.
So basically use the same DC all the time, but use the "hurried negotiations" rule for Diplomacy, giving a -10 to the Diplomacy-users roll (unless he has feats to make him a swifter talker). If you think that is too rough, you could allow the Diplomacy-user make a rousing pre-battle speech that gives him some bonuses to command (in effect reducing his penalties)
This use of the Diplomacy skill is already only a full-round action (and the Intimidate check is a free action). Read it, it says it. ;)
There are some rules for at least archery units in Complete Warrior for making volley attacks. Basically the commander makes an attack roll modified by his Intelligence modifier (plus any negatives for range increments) and the archers fire a volley into a number of adjacent squares equal to the number of squares the unit occupies. If the attack is successful, any units occupying those squares take damage from the arrows.
You are certainly more than encouraged to use those rules (and I do).
The rules look nice for a very abstract "light" mass combat but lack complexity. For example, equipment isn't taken into account much except in broad categories. A unit of naked humans with sticks is exactly as effective as a unit with chain shirts and spears. Nor are levels taken into account so there is no difference between untrained peasants (commoner 1), militia (warrior 1), trained soldiers (warrior 2) and hardened veterans (warrior or fighter 3) except arbitrary applying the elite quality to some of the units mentioned above. Feats are also a thing those templates lack although you probably could simply say that if everyone in the unit has this feat, the unit has too. Of course some feats like combat expertise would be useless in your system.
A unit of untrained peasants is represented by a mob. Hardened vets (like all level 3's) are represented as an elite unit. Anything more than a unit composed of level 3-equivelant warriors is unheard of (I'm not talking about HD either, this system is perfectly usable for a blood war unit or a group of 12 celestial charger unicorns, for example). And just what is a group of naked men with sticks doing in a professional, paid military regiment? I don't think I could have done much more than that to make this system for mass combat infinitely flexible and yet conform to a single simple template and feat. And feats such as Deflect Arrows, Combat Expertise, and Spring Attack are indeed ridiculous for a group of 12-48 different creatures to coordinate all at once. Those aren't tactics that military soldiers have ever used at any point in history.
I would like to suggest that there should be some sort of mechanism around this, maybe giving the creature a will save if it takes massive damage in a round? Treat it like death from massive damage perhaps only a will save instead?
The current morale system presented as a simple work-in for the Diplomacy/Intimidate check already gives bonuses to your saving throws.
Note that military units are still at risk of massive damage. If a military unit is massively sacked in a matter of seconds, their morale plummets and the panicked warriors will disperse in all directions.
And finally the whole mob rules are completely illogical in a D&D sense, especially when confronted with magic and DR creatures. Why do 48 soldiers who are in a close quarter die from a single fireball and a mob doesn't? There is no difference between those two groups except that one calls itself a mob. Same with DR, when a single warrior can't penetrate DR then 47 additional warriors also can't, so why suddenly can those warriors penetrate the DR when they call themselves a "mob"? Same goes for AC. A standard warrior has an attack ranging from 1-3, so why can a mob of them automatically damage everything even when it has an AC of 80? Also when they do automatic damage why equip units with full plates when they offer no protection at all?
Why does one die and not the other? Because one is a haphazard group of commoners that are PO'd about something, and the other is a professional unit of conscripted troops. I can't understand what you are talking about with the DR, maybe if you worded it a little better? ;) For the automatic attacking things, it's like getting covered in ants; it doesn't matter if your are epically-slick; the ants are going to bite you. For mass combat, it is practically necessary use the armor as damage reduction rule. Remember this everyone. I'm putting it in the errata. Thanks for the reminder.
Current Errata
-As of 6/28/06-
Change Heavy Infantry (Ex) to the following:
1. (Optional Quality) Heavy Infantry (Ex): A heavy infantry unit is one that trains for and enters the fray with a significant amount of armor, large and powerful melee weaponry (such as bastard swords, heavy maces, and battleaxes), and are not equipped with shields. A heavy infantry’s skirmish attacks deal 9d6 base damage. Heavy infantries have a +4 armor bonus to AC, maximum dexterity bonus of +2, and a -4 armor check penalty. Heavy infantry is an optional unit classification. One unit classification (and only one) must be selected for each unit.
2. Commanding a Military Unit: All military units can be given commands and field orders, such as 'go there', 'stand your ground', 'attack that enemy', 'lay prone', or 'charge!'. Anyone that tries to direct a military unit's actions in this way must succeed on a DC 15 Diplomacy or DC 20 Intimidate check if the unit does not recognize her as a commander, a DC 5 Diplomacy or DC 10 Intimidate check if the unit does recognize her as a commander, or a DC 25 or DC 35 check (respectively) if the unit recognizes her as an enemy. The Diplomacy check takes a full-round action, but the Intimidate check is a free action. If attempting to issue highly peculiar or suicidal orders, there's a -8 penalty for the check. For every 5 points the result surpasses the DC, the military units benefits from an additional +2 morale bonus to all attack and damage rolls, skill checks, and saves until the end of the next round*. There is a new feat named Prestigious Commander that makes the job of leading a military unit a lot easier.
* hope that is balanced
3. There is a catch-22 in the Armor Class system: it is pointless in template-based mass combat, in which the unit/mob always scores a hit for damage. This makes applying the Armor as Damage Reduction rule from Unearthed Arcana to military units a necessity. It can be found (legally) here:
The Official Armor as DR System
The rules look nice for a very abstract "light" mass combat but lack complexity. For example, equipment isn't taken into account much except in broad categories. A unit of naked humans with sticks is exactly as effective as a unit with chain shirts and spears. Nor are levels taken into account so there is no difference between untrained peasants (commoner 1), militia (warrior 1), trained soldiers (warrior 2) and hardened veterans (warrior or fighter 3) except arbitrary applying the elite quality to some of the units mentioned above. Feats are also a thing those templates lack although you probably could simply say that if everyone in the unit has this feat, the unit has too. Of course some feats like combat expertise would be useless in your system.
And finally the whole mob rules are completely illogical in a D&D sense, especially when confronted with magic and DR creatures. Why do 48 soldiers who are in a close quarter die from a single fireball and a mob doesn't? There is no difference between those two groups except that one calls itself a mob. Same with DR, when a single warrior can't penetrate DR then 47 additional warriors also can't, so why suddenly can those warriors penetrate the DR when they call themselves a "mob"? Same goes for AC. A standard warrior has an attack ranging from 1-3, so why can a mob of them automatically damage everything even when it has an AC of 80? Also when they do automatic damage why equip units with full plates when they offer no protection at all?
I knew someone would bring up these issues. So I'd like to address them on behalf of the OP (I hope you don't mind Verelor!).
Yes this is less complex and more highly abstracted than other mass combat systems. But that's exactly why it works. More accurate and rules consistent (fireball accurate) systems fail to achieve the desired goal of allowing a PC centric combat system that moves quickly and is fun.
When I used this system I simply explained to my players 'this is a more abstracted system than normal D&D. As far as the rules are concerned you're going to need to treat each unit as a single creature.' My players had no trouble with this. Instead of fireballing a single unit they made sure that they fireballed multiple units. When four mob units each take 150% damage from a fireball it is extremely impressive.
Furthermore my PCs were 9th level. If the rules worked normally there would be no challenge in these encounters. They'd easily wipe the floor with hundreds of low-level soldiers because the standard D&D rules are not designed to support that kind of battle against high level PCs. The rules have to be abstracted to make it a challenge. Most noticeably high AC, DR, and Area Attacks must suffer reduced effectiveness.
This system also allows the pivotal villains to be run like normal D&D villains. If the PCs want to attack the leader of the army you run it like a normal combat and his troops can still be a factor. The mobs should only be used to represent standard troops. Run the specially leveled or powered creatures normally.
This system has several advantages.
-It uses the same rules as normal D&D combat. So no one has to learn a new mass combat system.
-The players continue to play their characters rather than becoming part of an impersonal unit.
-Its very speedy, largely because everyone knows the rules already.
-Its easy for the DM to run because hundreds of combatants are represented by 5 or 6 units using the rules he already knows.
-It makes fighting an army an actual challenge for heroes above 8th level largely because the abstraction does reduce the effectiveness of DR, high AC, area attacks, etc. So rather than being a flaw in the system this is one of its primary advantages IMO.
-It combines very nicely with the rules found in Heroes of Battle (volleys, siege weapons, morale, commander auras, etc).
The first two advantages alone were enough to keep me from every trying a massive battle with another system. I found that my players (especially casual players) didn't want to learn a new system and as soon as they stopped portraying their characters and playing a "unit" they stopped caring what was happening.
If you and your players can't stand the added abstraction of using the mob unit rules than this system is definitely not for you. But trust me it works if your players are willing to accept it.
Some house rules that I used during my campaign were:
-Certain feats give you a +1d6 damage bonus on all melee attacks against mob/military units. A short list of them includes cleave, great cleave, whirlwind attack, and combat reflexes. Having reach also grants a +1d6 damage bonus on all attacks if you also have either great cleave or combat reflexes. These are cumulative. The reason for this is that in combat with a lot of weak opponents these feats would be tremendously valuable by granting extra attacks, but are no help against a mob unit because the game mechanic that controls them no longer comes into play. This rule brings them back into play. So a barbarian with great cleave will gain +2d6 on all of his attacks against a mob unit.
-Turning an undead mob unit deals the mob unit 1 negative level for each point of turn damage done.
Just don't forget to supplement with the latest errata as of 6/28/06, everyone. Armor as DR applied to the military units is necessary for balance (read the errata to find out why).The current morale system presented as a simple work-in for the Diplomacy/Intimidate check already gives bonuses to your saving throws.
Note that military units are still at risk of massive damage. If a military unit is massively sacked in a matter of seconds, their morale plummets and the panicked warriors will disperse in all directions.
Agreed -- but you may want to switch the allowed save from Fortitude to Will.
Great job, and a god system! I was actually having trouble with this in my campaign; the characters are on a ship that got hit by Mind Flayer pirates. That was ugly. Imagine "make five WILL saves."
There are cases where the outcome of a battle is indeterminate, and must be decided via tactics and rolling dice, but I prefer to avoid them. If players want to experience the thrill of commanding armies, I sincerely believe video games are better suited for that. D&D is a role-playing game, and on the battlefield, the PCs are basically a small, elite unit. Furthermore, numbers aren't the only concern when it comes to mass combat. "Battle" is a rather loose term that can refer to either a single skirmish lasting minutes or an extended mission lasting weeks. The flow of time is very relative in massive battles. There are simply too many variables for me to give mass combat justice (without boring the players to sleep, anyway).
So, to keep the focus on the adventurers themselves and the task at hand, I treat mass combat as an environment or event. They can walk into the battlefield if they wish, maybe whack at some foes, but the battlefield is essentially an area of effect where everything is flying and spinning and burning. In terms of game mechanics, this is similar to being in an area hit by a storm. They're free to do as they wish, but their ability to influence the situation (beyond their immediate surroundings) is limited. PCs also risk taking damage each round in the "area of effect", so to speak.
As far as interaction between party and battle goes, the outcome of a battle hinges on the party's deeds in a more indirect fashion: sending a message or recovering an item, for example. In short, they are given an incentive to do what only heroes can do -- whatever that may be -- as opposed to diving into the fray as just another elite unit. I keep the focus of the game on adventuring and heroics.
Here are the shortcomings of this system.
1. Equipment doesn't matter.
That is especially true for armor. As those military units don't roll for attack and do automatic damage AC is entirely irrelevant. There is no reason to equip armor at all, and if you do (to get the right subtype) the weakens armor of the needed type is enough.
The same is true for weapons. Why equip your elite unit with masterwork weapons when they never have to roll an attack?
2. Levels don't count.
With the change of the HP to the racial HD a unit of lvl 2 warriors is exactly as hard to destroy then a unit out of lvl 3 fighters.
Basically under this system the chance of a much lower level unit defeating a much higher level unit is very high compared to normal D&D
3. Area spells
Under the mass combat system area effect spells become a lot weaker. Take 48 lvl 1 fighters with 12 HP, put them into a 25x25 ft square and throw a fireball with 30 damage into the middle. The result is that all fighters die, no matter if they make the save (15 damage) or not.
Now take the same 48 fighters again and call them a mob. Nothing has changed but now the fireball does only minor damage. How do you explain that logically? You can't.
4. DR
Imagine a siege of a castle made out of andamantine. That means the walls have hardness 20. Now imagine a normal archer without any magical equipment firing an arrow at the wall, what would happen? The arrow would bounce off harmlessly because it can't do more then 20 damage. Take another 47 archers who fire alongside the first archer, would the result be different? No their arrows aren't anymore powerful. But now call those 48 archers a mob/military unit. Suddenly their arrows are strong enough to damage the wall (5d6) and so the archers can slowly raze the castle.
You might call that an advantage because it nerfs high powered characters but I don't. Played well a horde of weak units can still be a threat to mid level characters, you don't need illogical mob/military rules for that.
Solving those issues would require more complex mechanics so for some people they might defeat the whole point of this rules, still some people might find them more useable then mob rules.
(Warning, that are just ideas not a fully thought out system. Also the mechanic is different than normal D&D but as far as I can see those mechanics are compatible to the normal D&D fighting system)
Generally I agree that combining creatures into a single unit is a good idea, but not by replacing all of the creatures statistic by mob values.
Here some ideas.
As with Verelors system, all units consist out of the same creature type with the same levels and feats.
Basically you use the stats of the single creature for the unit by multiplying it by the number of creatures in the unit. An exception would be the damage which is only 1/4 (? not sure, requires testing) of that value (because not all members would hit and it would end fights to fast)
So for example a unit out of 20 lvl 2 fighters would look like:
SMALL FIGHTER UNIT
N Human
Init +4; Senses darkvision 60 ft., Listen +3, Spot +3
Languages Common,
____________________________________
AC 19 (Half Plate+Heavy steel shield), touch 10, flat-footed 18
Hp 380 (19*20) (2 HD)
Fort +5, Ref +1, Will +1
____________________________________
Speed 20 ft. (4 squares)
Space 20 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
Base Atk +2; Grp +5
Attack: +6 (masterwork longsword)
Damage: 5d8+10 (Base 1d8+2)
____________________________________
Abilities Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8.
Feats Power Attack, Improved Imitative, Cleave
Skills Listen +2, Spot +2
You see that stats are compatible with the D&D combat system.
Now for the damage.
For every 10 HP damage (the HP of a single creature) one of the fighters die. That means the HD gets reduced by 1. For every 4 HD lost the damage gets reduced by 1d8+2 (the damage a single fighter would do. If you don't use more then 1/4 damage adjust accordingly)
Special rules: The military unit can use aid another on itself. also because the unit is trained to fight in formation the effect is stronger then normal. That means the unit can forfeit to do damage to increase the attack bonus (for every damage increment sacrificed, that means damage a single member would do, 1d8+2 here, up to a maximum of 1/2 of the total damage the unit would do, the attack bonus increases by +2.
Area effect vulnerability:
Area effect spells and effects very powerful against military units. If the area effect covers the whole unit the damage the effect does is multiplied by the number of creatures in the unit. If the area effect only covers 1/2 of the unit multiply the damage by half of that number and so on. If the area effect covers less then 1/4 of the unit it has no effect.
Targeted effect protection.
A military unit offers protection against targeted spells. When a unit is hit by a spell or effect which only effects one or a specific number of creatures a random member(s) of the unit are affected (if the effect allows are saving throw roll only once). If the effect kills or otherwise neutralizes its target reduce the HD of the unit accordingly. If the effect has a duration then the loss of HD is only temporary till the duration runs out. In case the effect does not neutralize its target or can be overcome with outside help it has no effect on the unit.
Separate attack.
The total damage a unit does is a product of multiple smaller attacks. That means effects which reduce damage like DR are very effective against units. Multiply the DR of the target by the number of creatures in the unit divided by 4.
I hope this is understandable despite my bad English.
These rules are crude and not playtested so they need adjustment (especially how high the damage should be in relation to the HD/number of creatures in the unit) but imo they work much better then mob rules.
If you have questions (because you don't understand something) please PM me.
The advantages of this system are:
- Much more flexible unit size
- Equipment factors in correctly
- Correct area effects behavior
- Correct DR behavior
- Levels factor in correctly
Disadvantages:
- More calculation necessary
- Creating an army takes longer
. Might slow down combat (but imo not by much)
Number 1, Change the command skill from Diplomacy, to Profession: Soldier, or Profession: Commander. Let it synergize with diplomacy and or intimidate. (The rest of this post assumes you ignore this)
Number 2, I suggest removing the "for every 5 points" phrase from commands, and making it, "If the test succeeds by more than". The DC for commanding a unit with diplomacy is only 5, with the feat, anything but a 1 is a guaranteed success, and a 5 or better is a guaranteed bonus.
Number 3, I know it adds complexity, but I think a system for conveying orders would be good. Shouting only works so good in combat, hence why banners and horns were used for signaling. Commanding a unit the character has joined is a free action, commanding a nearby unit requires a spot/listen check to receive the order, etc.
Number 4, Continues number 3. The system needs a standard action table of some sort. A unit of gnoll barbarian (not necessarily the class) mercenaries is ordered to hold their ground, and the command roll is failed, what do they do? I suggest something like:
1-3 default action
4-5 secondary action
6 tertiary action
where for each type of unit those actions are defined. The barbarians above, default would be Charge/Engage, secondary would be approach (half speed towards enemy) tertiary would be hold ground.
As an add on for this, giving an order for the default action gets a +5, for the secondary gets a +2, the tertiary is unmodified, and any other order is a -5.
A unit would continue to follow any one order until it was concluded, but would roll for action again each time it found itself without orders.
Number 5, The layout seems to suggest tight formations of troops, which works, but I suggest the ability to order the unit into a scattered formation. This would effectively reduce the combat ability, but increase the survivability against arrows, magic, or the like.
These are just my suggestions. Overall I think the system looks great, and I can't wait until my party comes over the hill and sees a small mercenary group forming up to raid the village they were hired to protect.
Unit size: A medium-sized creature is an average human (basically). To fight effectively, you would need about 25 square feet of space. But in armies, especially medieval armies, troops operate very close together. They train to fight this way. And with 48 people in a 20 x 20 square, each person has 8 1/3 square feet of space. If you think this isn't much, check for yourself. It's plenty of space for a soldier.
Unit health: It's not very common for an entire unit to be slaughtered to the last man. They stay and fight for a while, but after a certain point (all hitpoints lost) they break. Some throw down their weapons and surrender, some run for their lives. The unit HP works. However, I would add in some form of weakening. Say, for every 20% of health lost, the unit's attack would be one die less. For example:
[list]
[*]Full health: Normal damage.
[*]80% health: 1 less
[*]60% health: 2 less
[*]40% health: 3 less
[*]20% health: 4 less
[*]0% health: Dead
Reducing a military unit to 0 hit points or low causes it to break up, though damage taken until that point does not degrade its ability to attack or resist attack. Military units are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage.
I do have something against this idea. You are pretty much saying that after you have reduced the unit to 0 hp it breaks up and everyone in it just goes off and does what they would be doing if they weren't in war. You have to understand that if everyone in the squad had less than 0 health they would be long dead.
I also suggest that as the unit loses health that the squad decreases in effectiveness.
e.g. for a squad of 40 commoners. After the squad drops 20hd (aprox) then the squad becomes a 20hd squad.
But I had one thought. Probably, in most people's worlds, the average joe on the battle field is just a 1st level warrior. So, using racial hit dice fits perfectly or isn't much of a change and doesn't become a problem.
But somebody running some game somewhere might have a world in which the power levels are higher. Somebody might have a world in which the average warrior on the field is a 5th level or even 10th level warrior. I'm just wondering how this could be reflected in the template.
I know many people will say that it is unrealistic, but somebody might have a world like that. And it would be cool (though not really necessary and I'm certainly not saying that it's your job to make) to have a mechanic that could handle that. Or is it just too complicated to be worth it?
Number 1, Change the command skill from Diplomacy, to Profession: Soldier, or Profession: Commander. Let it synergize with diplomacy and or intimidate. (The rest of this post assumes you ignore this)
Hmm, I will be considering this.
Number 2, I suggest removing the "for every 5 points" phrase from commands, and making it, "If the test succeeds by more than". The DC for commanding a unit with diplomacy is only 5, with the feat, anything but a 1 is a guaranteed success, and a 5 or better is a guaranteed bonus.
And it should be that much a guaranteed success for a long-haul military commander. When you are at the point of taking that feat as a general, it is no longer about whether or not you can command your army, it is a matter of how well.
This system does not make armor useless: If you had even skimmed the errata you would have known that military units sue the armor as DR rule.
Number 5, The layout seems to suggest tight formations of troops, which works, but I suggest the ability to order the unit into a scattered formation. This would effectively reduce the combat ability, but increase the survivability against arrows, magic, or the like.
Well, actually it is for medium formation. Tight formation would be the unit fighting defensively, and extremely combat formation is the unit taking total defense.
Remember that piercing damage does not harm solid walls at all, so even the archery unit's 5d6 attack will not do any damage.
- More calculation necessary
- Creating an army takes longer
Might slow down combat (but imo not by much)
Alas, such disadvantages are everything this single-template system avoids. It stresses the speed of simply applying a template to a creature type with the full familiarity of all existing combat rules in place. The fact that the system already demands that the Armor as DR variant be applied to all military units is already something of a dent in consistency.
If anyone has more questions or troubles, feel free. ;)
Probably, in most people's worlds, the average joe on the battle field is just a 1st level warrior. So, using racial hit dice fits perfectly or isn't much of a change and doesn't become a problem.
But somebody running some game somewhere might have a world in which the power levels are higher. Somebody might have a world in which the average warrior on the field is a 5th level or even 10th level warrior. I'm just wondering how this could be reflected in the template.
I know many people will say that it is unrealistic, but somebody might have a world like that. And it would be cool (though not really necessary and I'm certainly not saying that it's your job to make) to have a mechanic that could handle that. Or is it just too complicated to be worth it?
It’s not that unrealistic. While a unit of lvl 10 fighters would be very uncommon, a unit of lvl 4 fighters/knights is very plausible. And you are right, the original template doesn't take levels into account. For an idea on how to solve that, look at my previous post.
Brilliant, simply brilliant. I love this idea and I wish you the best on future endeavors. Although, bear with me as I am stunned by your ingenious idea, why not create race specific units? I understand the challenges of doing this but it would make it easier for massed battles considering how often players slaughter orcs. Slave orc units and Tribal orc units as an example. Such a variety of backgrounds and stories can create a huge index of standing armies, even of the same race. THIS IS A GREAT IDEA you've struck on my friend. Hope I don't post twice!
Slave orcs and tribal orcs units would both be light infantry units: poorly outfitted but tough.
I do have something against this idea. You are pretty much saying that after you have reduced the unit to 0 hp it breaks up and everyone in it just goes off and does what they would be doing if they weren't in war. You have to understand that if everyone in the squad had less than 0 health they would be long dead.
Actually, it's exactly the same as the mob template: about 1/4 to 1/2 of the creatures in the swarm are left alive when it is sacked (although those that are left are surely injured to near-oblivion), just so everyone knows (though it can be described however your DM wishes).
I also suggest that as the unit loses health that the squad decreases in effectiveness.
e.g. for a squad of 40 commoners. After the squad drops 20hd (aprox) then the squad becomes a 20hd squad.
1. I say keep it simple.
2. When you get attacked by a military unit, it isn't all 48 (lol) all striking you simultaneously. You get attacked by between 4 and 12 units in the same general "flank" or "side" of the unit. If the unit is reduced to half of its members alive (near-defeat), that doesn't change. It doesn't change even if there are only 1/3 of the members left standing; the same general number of members attacking from the same side.
First of all, let me start off by saying that this is great. Everybody that has read this thread loves it.
Thanks. :D
But I had one thought. Probably, in most people's worlds, the average joe on the battle field is just a 1st level warrior. So, using racial hit dice fits perfectly or isn't much of a change and doesn't become a problem.
But somebody running some game somewhere might have a world in which the power levels are higher. Somebody might have a world in which the average warrior on the field is a 5th level or even 10th level warrior. I'm just wondering how this could be reflected in the template.
I know many people will say that it is unrealistic, but somebody might have a world like that. And it would be cool (though not really necessary and I'm certainly not saying that it's your job to make) to have a mechanic that could handle that. Or is it just too complicated to be worth it?
How interesting. I can't for the life of me imagine a world that is that high-powered (unless you are talking about the outer planes; e.g. blood war armies, then this template doesn't clash with that at all). But if it is in any level of demand, my idea would be to simply advance HD, granting an additional feat with each third HD after 40 (43, 46, 49, etc.).
Create a new class of feats, Unit Feats. A unit receives 1 Unit Feat automatically, plus 1 for every 3 racial hit dice, or levels of the constituent creatures. Many unit feats can be based on regular feats, others would be unique. Also, bonus feats could be allocated if the entire unit is, say fighters. Therefore, the ridiculous unit of level 10 warriors would have basically the same stats as level 1 warriors, but would have 3 more feats.
Along the same lines you can say if the majority of the unit has high enough BAB for multiple attacks, the unit can make additional "swarm" attacks. Some Unit Feat ideas (Without pre reqs which would take more thought then I have available right now):
Skirmishers
Choose one side of the unit, along that side the unit gains reach 5'. As a move action, the unit can select a new face as the attacking face.
Toughened Unit
Improved hit points
Shield wall
Any individual (suicidal?), or another unit choosing to enter into a unit must make an overrun attack vs the unit.
Battlemagic
Choose one spell of up to level n (to be determined) which has the legion's or mass descriptor. The unit may use that spell once during the battle as a free action.
Just some quick thoughts.
But that last one raised another issue. I have no books near me right now so I can't look up many examples, but what effect would the various legion's and mass spells have on a unit. It goes hand in hand with the fireball thing. I think the easy solution is for HP related stuff, the effects of the spell should be applied 3 times, making a separate save for each. So a single 10d6 fireball would provoke 3 saves, and do up to 180 points of damage to the unit. Same for mass heal, it heals the unit 3x as much as it would heal an individual. Again my numbers may be off.
Similarly, non HP things could be applied 10 times. Legions magic weapon gives +10 damage on the skirmish attack.
you are simply not going to find an assembly of dozens of characters with more training than level 3.
Historically speaking, yes. But by power of DM fiat, it's possible to change the assumptions about what the average power level is for a foot soldier in a given world.
For that paramount of power, there is the elite unit quality.
Even that wouldn't cover the kind of increase that I'm talking about.
However, I have the feeling that I'm the only one having this problem, so I'll just work it out on my own. Cheers :D
Even that wouldn't cover the kind of increase that I'm talking about.
I would never wish to leave you behind; this system is for everyone. The simple solution to your scaling-power dilemma is to simply advance the HD.
Alas, such disadvantages are everything this single-template system avoids. It stresses the speed of simply applying a template to a creature type with the full familiarity of all existing combat rules in place. The fact that the system already demands that the Armor as DR variant be applied to all military units is already something of a dent in consistency.
I don't think your system is much faster then mine. For army creation you must create a mob creature, which most people are probably rather unfamiliar with) and in my system you create a normal NPC and multiply some stats with the army size. I don't see how your system would be faster, the only difference is that my system needs a calculator but that should be standard equipment for a DM.
Using Armor as DR might solve the "naked armies" problem, but unless you also use this rule for the normal D&D game it increases the differences between mass combat and normal D&D even more. The main problem with your system is still that it isn't compatible with standard D&D combat rules. As long as the PCs don't take part actively in a battle everything is fine, but if they do your system breaks down (or rather the PCs break down). Also, your system leads to rather strange situations when it comes to things like area spells and DR (see one of my earlier posts).
Looking at the system you proposed in your earlier post I can see why it’s attractive to someone looking for rules consistency. But for effectiveness in the game I'll take the mob rules. There are several problems with your system and they mostly stem from the lack of change in how the normal rules are applied to mass combat. Here's what you posted for ease of reference. I'll add my comments in bold face.
So for example a unit out of 20 lvl 2 fighters would look like:
SMALL FIGHTER UNIT
N Human
Init +4; Senses darkvision 60 ft., Listen +3, Spot +3
Languages Common,
____________________________________
AC 19 (Half Plate+Heavy steel shield), touch 10, flat-footed 18
Hp 380 (19*20) (2 HD)
Fort +5, Ref +1, Will +1
____________________________________
Speed 20 ft. (4 squares)
Space 20 ft.; Reach 5 ft.
Base Atk +2; Grp +5
Attack: +6 (masterwork longsword) My first complaint: This unit is nearly ineffective against anyone with an AC higher than 26. Easily achieved by 10th level.
Damage: 5d8+10 (Base 1d8+2)
____________________________________
Abilities Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8.
Feats Power Attack, Improved Imitative, Cleave
Skills Listen +2, Spot +2
You see that stats are compatible with the D&D combat system. Now for the damage.
For every 10 HP damage (the HP of a single creature) one of the fighters die. That means the HD gets reduced by 1. For every 4 HD lost the damage gets reduced by 1d8+2 (the damage a single fighter would do. If you don't use more then 1/4 damage adjust accordingly)This is an additional level of tracking that I as the DM have to do for every unit on the battlefield. This is unnecessary with mob units.
Special rules: The military unit can use aid another on itself. also because the unit is trained to fight in formation the effect is stronger then normal. That means the unit can forfeit to do damage to increase the attack bonus (for every damage increment sacrificed, that means damage a single member would do, 1d8+2 here, up to a maximum of 1/2 of the total damage the unit would do, the attack bonus increases by +2.
Area effect vulnerability:
Area effect spells and effects very powerful against military units. If the area effect covers the whole unit the damage the effect does is multiplied by the number of creatures in the unit. If the area effect only covers 1/2 of the unit multiply the damage by half of that number and so on. If the area effect covers less then 1/4 of the unit it has no effect.My next major complaint: This unit is decimated by a 10d6 fireball even if it makes its reflex save which is not likely since it only has a +1. A 10th level wizard will not be challenged by this unit in the slightest. Also it seems that line attacks (like lightning bolt) would be much less effective than they should be against this unit since they could often hit less than 1/4 of the unit. Further I as DM have to calculate what percentage of the unit is included for every unit that is affected by the attack. If four units are all affected in differing degrees this will be needlessly time consuming.
Targeted effect protection.
A military unit offers protection against targeted spells. When a unit is hit by a spell or effect which only effects one or a specific number of creatures a random member(s) of the unit are affected (if the effect allows are saving throw roll only once). If the effect kills or otherwise neutralizes its target reduce the HD of the unit accordingly. If the effect has a duration then the loss of HD is only temporary till the duration runs out. In case the effect does not neutralize its target or can be overcome with outside help it has no effect on the unit.
Separate attack.
The total damage a unit does is a product of multiple smaller attacks. That means effects which reduce damage like DR are very effective against units. Multiply the DR of the target by the number of creatures in the unit divided by 4. Next major complaint: This means that anyone with DR 10 is immune to this unit. Since a 7th level wizard can cast Stoneskin again this unit is no challenge.
I hope this is understandable despite my bad English. I thought you articulated this idea very well. Especially for a second language.
These rules are crude and not playtested so they need adjustment (especially how high the damage should be in relation to the HD/number of creatures in the unit) but imo they work much better then mob rules.
If you have questions please PM me. The advantages of this system are:
- Much more flexible unit size
- Equipment factors in correctly
- Correct area effects behavior
- Correct DR behavior
- Levels factor in correctly
Disadvantages:
- More calculation necessary
- Creating an army takes longer
. Might slow down combat (but imo not by much)
I don't see these as advantages over the mob rules. I mean you no offense when I say that this seems to me to be an over attachment to the letter of the rules and to a system not designed to support this sort of battle.
The units in your system will be slaughtered en masse by a 10th level party unless they are of near equal level to the party. That is not what the mob rules are trying to achieve.
The mob rules are trying to make large groups of WEAK opponents a viable threat against Higher level (8+) PCs. That's why the CR of a single mob of commoners is 8. It is absolutely necessary to give the mob the ability to overcome high AC, to inflict high enough damage to overcome DR, and to survive area effects, for them to be a challenge to high level PCs.
The mob rules are fun to use in this way. Trust me my players loved it. Another thing that your rules lack is mass. A 20x20 mob unit contains about 50 creatures (yours contained 20). If you defeat two mobs you've beaten 100 enemies and that's how the DM describes it. My players defeated six mobs, 300 goblinoids, while also fighting worg riders, griffin riders including an officer ranger 6, and ogres. These central tougher foes were supported by mobs of goblinoids, but were run as normal D&D monsters. Meanwhile they had several units on their side dealing with even more mobs and monsters. In total 4000 troops were involved in the battle (though I merely described the events of those not directly involved with the PCs rather than actually calculating it).
It was easy for me as the DM to run this battle and a ton of fun for my players. The variation in the rules didn't bother them in the least because it was fun. The mob rules are fast and they are rewarding. They are not accurate in detail because that accuracy is what would make them fail to be fun. The mob rules let me throw an avalanche of goblins at my players and required them to pay attention to it rather than just ignoring it as they could under the standard D&D rules.
By putting high level soldiers in the group you're criticizing the mob rules for not doing something they were not intended to do in the first place. So it’s not really a valid criticism. If you want armies of high level bad guys then I agree with you the mob rules are not for you.
But if you want to stage something like the Battle of Helm's deep from the Lord of the Rings they work like a charm.
Because one is a haphazard group of commoners that are PO'd about something, and the other is a professional unit of conscripted troops.
And it's that sort of motivation that allows them to swim across a small stream of molten lava that should incinerate each individual member. Talk about the power of teamwork and positive thinking!
My goal wasn't to create a system where low level goons artificially provide a challenge to high level heroes, but to create a system for mass combat which fits seamlessly into the standard D&D combat system.
My players (9th-10th level) are currently in a dungeon with ~100 goblins in 1 room. What I did was give them clerics, bards and barghests, but this template could have made a very interesting alternative. First time I rate a thread in this forum. Brilliant.
PS. I know this is not very well written but I simply had to tell you how well thought out your rules are.
As such, I have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting several posts from this thread into a new thread that I will further edit as we hammer out the problems listed here. I invite you all to come join my thread on the "What's a DM to do" Board:
Workshop: Military unit as template
Please join me there!
I have one trouble with this system. You allow a DC25 Diplomacy Check for a recognized enemy to command a unit, with only a -8 penalty for something completely absurd. Realize by this a mid-level bard with any sort of focus on Diplomacy could conquer worlds by going to military units and turning them upon each other. The DC for an enemy to command a military unit should either be MUCH higher, or nonexistent.
Thing is, mid-level bard is right on target with being able to do that. He can still only do it once per round, so the other military units that are enemies might be saying "he's trying to turn us against each other! Skem him!"
And it's that sort of motivation that allows them to swim across a small stream of molten lava that should incinerate each individual member. Talk about the power of teamwork and positive thinking!
Sarcasm aside, this is again criticizing the mob rules for not doing something they were never intended to do. The mob rules are for combat, not the handling of environmental hazards.
It's important to remember that a mob will never be used as or by a player character. They're always NPCs under DM control so the DM can simply say "that doesn't work". Examples might include crossing a stream of lava by taking the damage, having a unit jump off a 200 foot cliff as a short cut, having them batter through an adamantine wall, and so on. As a DM I would never allow a PC to "join" a mob to accomplish such a goal (actually I'd probably just never let a PC join a mob period.)
The people advocating the use of the mob are the ones who are in favor of rules flexibility, so why would we allow obvious abuses like this just because mechanically they may be possible. This isn't a video game after all.
Sarcasm aside, this is again criticizing the mob rules for not doing something they were never intended to do. The mob rules are for combat, not the handling of environmental hazards.
Even in combat you encounter such logic holes. For example, when attacking creatures with DR, when attacked by area spells and the whole equipment and level issue. Just change "survives walking through a lava stream" with "survives a meteor swarm" or "survives a great wyrm dragon breath weapon."
Sarcasm aside, this is again criticizing the mob rules for not doing something they were never intended to do. The mob rules are for combat, not the handling of environmental hazards.
This is not entirely accurate. Environmental hazards are simply a subset. The more general case is probably better illustrated by area effects that deal sufficient damage to kill each individual member and affect the mob entire. It could be lava, an intense fireball, a casting of cloudkill, survival on a damaging plane, hanging out in acid fog, a fear aura that would repulse all 5 HD creatures, a wall of fire, and so on and so forth.
DR should probably work double against mob units, but no more. You have to assume that soldiers are trained to use Power Attack and assist another actions more effectively than nonmilitary foes, and thus, while DR and high AC make it harder for them to hit you, they will still get through if you're a single opponent.
All in all, I'm going to use a slightly more "open" version of this template past 10th level, but your system certainly works well for the first 10 levels of any campaign.
Summed up, I wasn't entirely certain yet on how to handle certain things when it came to the units. This idea here is quite simply exactly what I needed, and can be converted to NWN. I'm looking forward to trying it out and see how well it works in-game. Cheers.
This is not entirely accurate. Environmental hazards are simply a subset. The more general case is probably better illustrated by area effects that deal sufficient damage to kill each individual member and affect the mob entire. It could be lava, an intense fireball, a casting of cloudkill, survival on a damaging plane, hanging out in acid fog, a fear aura that would repulse all 5 HD creatures, a wall of fire, and so on and so forth.
But all of this can be explained easily by a failure to explain to the players that a higher level of abstraction is being used.
For example, before the battle I explain that each 20'x20' mob unit is an abstraction of the location of the greatest masses of people, but the whole battlefield is actually covered with enemies. Your fireball may encompass the whole 20'x20' square, but it does not include all of the members of the mob because the 20'x20' square is not an absolute indicator of their location. You may wipe out everyone in the area that your fireball goes off, but immediately afterward people from outside the AoE will spill in and reform the mob (though significantly weaker than before because of the damage the fireball did).
With things like the lava flow, or a damaging plane, or things of that nature the DM should just use his judgment and adjudicate appropriately. In most such cases, I as the DM, would rule that the effect treats them as individuals. A lava flow can't be crossed by a mob unit, the unit dies in one round on a significantly damaging plane, and so on. Why change the rules here, because they don't have much to do with how the mob interacts with the party which is what these rules are for.
In another thread, Derren S, asked "Why does anyone want a unit of 1st level warriors to be a challenge to high-level PCs?" That seems like a very relevant question to this thread so I'm going to address it here. NOTE: I'm specifically referring to PCs taking part in the actual large scale battle in the preceding examples. That is the PCs specifically fighting legions of foes. You can still use low-level PCs in a battle context by arranging lower EL encounters related to the greater battle (PCs as commandos etc).
There are several reasons:
1. It's fun to create large scale battles between vast armies. Vast armies are usually not composed of high level characters or monsters who are by their nature very rare.
2. Large scale battles between vast armies are incredibly lethal to low level characters, and thus not much fun. 20 orcs is a serious threat to a 3rd level party and may wipe them out.
3. For such an encounter to be fun or rewarding it must present some type of challenge to the PCs. The mob rules allow it to be both challenging and rewarding. A hundred CR 1/2 enemies is no challenge, provides little XP, and almost no treasure to a 10th level party. Two CR 8 mobs provide a suitable challenge (EL 10), worthwhile XP, and possibly even worthwhile treasure (maybe they're guarding something).
From #1 and #2 it becomes apparent that mid-to-high level PCs (6+) are the only ones who should be taking part in these battles, but with the normal D&D rules CR 1/2 creatures in large numbers are no challenge to such PCs. This leads us to number 3.
4. It keeps monsters like goblins, orcs, etc relevant into higher level campaigns without having to have constant encounters with large groups of high level goblin and orc NPCs. The mob rules allow you to justify how a standing army (generated with the city generation rules in the DMG) could defend a city against twenty 10th level orc barbarians. Without the mob rules they can't.
5. Fantasy Armies and torch wielding mobs chasing after relatively powerful monsters are a staple of fantasy literature (Frankenstein, Lord of the Rings, etc). The mob rules allow this to make sense in the context of a D&D world.
6. It reduces the dominance of magic in the world without nerfing the players magical abilities. It explains how a city might be able to defend itself against a 10th level wizard without needing a 10th level wizard of its own.
7. It provides a deterrent to players running amok and ignoring peasants, city guards, etc. If an 8th level wizard fireballs an enemy in the middle of a crowded city he may find the 200 spectators a much worse threat than his initial opponent.
8. It allows armies to make sense and function in a manner similar to how the function in the real world. You can actually use a large enough army to conquer a city defended by higher level PCs.
These last few all relate to the fact that allowing large numbers of low-level NPCs to be a threat to mid/high level PCs can help the world be a more believable place. It explains how concentrations of low-level creatures can survive in a standard D&D world.
It should also be noted that a standard mob/unit is CR 8. Against truly high level PCs (15+) they are still not threat at all. Very powerful individuals and monsters (dragons) still have unquestioned supremacy over them as they should. So, there are the reasons why I want to allow a large number of weak opponents to be a threat to mid/high level PCs and monsters.
In a Neverwinter Nights campaign that I've been hosting for some time now, a war recently broke out. Although the party isn't too involved with the battles at the moment (their main priority is finding an artifact that will completely hinder the BBEG's plans), I do anticipate that they will be involved in various battles at some point, and had been developing a small system that utilised single creatures to represent units in a mass combat.
Summed up, I wasn't entirely certain yet on how to handle certain things when it came to the units. This idea here is quite simply exactly what I needed, and can be converted to NWN. I'm looking forward to trying it out and see how well it works in-game. Cheers.
Whoa.
Good luck with that one. ;) But all of this can be explained easily by a failure to explain to the players that a higher level of abstraction is being used.
So, there are the reasons why I want to allow a large number of weak opponents to be a threat to mid/high level PCs and monsters.
Wow, just wow. Finarin, you have stated in words what I probably could never have merely observed of my own creation. Damn near every point has been well explained for its overall purpose and rationale. Rock on.But I was wondering, shouldn't a military unit of 48 medium creatures be considered a Colossal entity instead? I can understand how a Riot or a Stampede could be considered Gargantuan, but a unit of combat ready troops?
In my spare time, I'm trying to upgrade the old Bloodstone adventure to v3.5 and this is no easy task. A good part of the adventure consist of a military campaign against a well organized bandit army. However, the adventure is exclusively based on the old battle system of the first edition! When I discovered the Mob template in the DMG II, I finally thought that the adventure could see the light of the day, but I was quite dissatisfied with the chaotic ways of a Mob. I tried to do a unit template myself but I found that yours is far better than mine!
Again, you did a great job!
I'll be needing a simple rules system soon as the Zhents will be assaulting Ravens Bluff in my campaign. And I don't like the Heroes of Battle nor the D&D Miniatures "rules", if you can call what was published in HoB a rule system.
Again, thank you Verelor. You are a demi-god of simple tabletop war-crafting.
Thanks to you, I'll now be able to add mass combat to my campaigns without having to go through pages and pages of material. It won't take hours to make armies now, it will take minutes.
Thanks.
Now, effectively you take 48 commoners and meld them together to form a Combat Unit, right? But what if I wanted to use Fighters? (This question has been asked, now hopefully I have an answer that everyone will like).
My answer is, give the Combat Unit Class levels ON TOP of the template.
EG: take 48 commoners (or in this example Orcs) and make your Combat Unit.
ORK HORDE (GROUP OF ORKS) CR 10
CE Gargantuan Humanoid (mob of Medium orks)
Init +0; Senses darkvision 60 ft., Listen +3, Spot +3
Languages Common, Orcish
____________________________________
AC 10, touch 6, flat-footed 10
Hp 180 (40 HD)
Fort +22, Ref +13, Will +12
____________________________________
Speed 20 ft. (4 squares)
Melee skirmish (9d6+2)
Space 20 ft.; Reach 0 ft.
Base Atk +25; Grp +39
Atk Options expert grappler, trample 2d6
____________________________________
Abilities Str 15, Dex 11, Con 11, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8.
SQ crowd anatomy, heavy infantry, light sensitivity
Feats Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush (B), Improved Overrun (B)
Skills Listen +3, Spot +3
Now you want to advance the unit? So add a Level of Fighter.
Observe.
ORK HORDE (GROUP OF ORKS) CR 11 (Fighter 1)
CE Gargantuan Humanoid (mob of Medium orks)
Init +0; Senses darkvision 60 ft., Listen +3, Spot +4
Languages Common, Orkish
____________________________________
AC 10, touch 6, flat-footed 10
Hp 190 (40 HD + 1d10 fighter)
Fort +24, Ref +13, Will +12
____________________________________
Speed 20 ft. (4 squares)
Melee skirmish (9d6+2)
Space 20 ft.; Reach 0 ft.
Base Atk +26; Grp +40
Atk Options expert grappler, trample 2d6
____________________________________
Abilities Str 15, Dex 11, Con 11, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8.
SQ crowd anatomy, heavy infantry, light sensitivity
Feats Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush (B), Improved Overrun (B), Cleave (F)
Skills Listen +3, Spot +4
See? Its simple. The Unit as a whole have progressed One Level of Fighter.
Say we took it one step further and gave the unit another level of Fighter we might get.
ORK HORDE (GROUP OF ORKS) CR 11 (Fighter 2)
CE Gargantuan Humanoid (mob of Medium orks)
Init +0; Senses darkvision 60 ft., Listen +4, Spot +4
Languages Common, Orkish
____________________________________
AC 10, touch 6, flat-footed 10
Hp 195 (40 HD + 2d10 fighter)
Fort +25, Ref +13, Will +12
____________________________________
Speed 20 ft. (4 squares)
Melee skirmish (9d6+2)
Space 20 ft.; Reach 0 ft.
Base Atk +27; Grp +41
Atk Options expert grappler, trample 2d6
____________________________________
Abilities Str 15, Dex 11, Con 11, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8.
SQ crowd anatomy, heavy infantry, light sensitivity
Feats Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush (B), Improved Overrun (B), Cleave (F), Great Cleave (F).
Skills Listen +4, Spot +4
Now if the unit dispersed it would break down into 48 level 1 commoners (or Warriors), but when it comes together it is a 2nd Level, Mob/Unit, Fighter. It works just like adding levels to any other monster. You could go so far as to have Epic Units with 50 levels of Fighter.
Well just a suggestion, what do you think?
I am not sure if this was brought up before, but I read several postings discussing the optimal skill/ feat for commanding military units. One proposal was to accept diplomacy as well as profession (soldier?).
There are already examples for applying different skills in a situation (e.g. your usual Dungeon adventure: different knowledge skills, open lock vs. brute force for opening doors etc.). Hence discussions on which skill to seem fruitless to me. There are different leadership styles. So why shouldn't there be different skills which emulate these styles when commanding military units?
A proposal:
- Charismatic characters use diplomacy or intimidation.
- People with military background have "profession (soldier/ military/ ...)". A certain minimal amount of skill points (e.g. 5+) could correspond to commanding abilities which increase with skill point increase.
- Very powerful characters could use the leadership feat (accessible at level 6+). They are so powerful/ experienced/ ... that people listen to their orders, be it with or without charisma or military background.
Thanks again for sharing your insights, you certainly made purchasing DMG II considerably more worthwhile for me. :-)
Greetings,
Günther
However, if those same 50 men are standing in a solid block, and the same fireball goes off, not all (or even most) are killed. Why? Because the fireball had a lot of 'soft cover' to go through. If a man is surrounded by stone, fireballs do not simply go through it. And if a man is surrounded by comrades, then the fireballs won't simply go through them either. The mob absorbs most of the damage, because the 'meat shields' on the edge are absorbing multiple uses of the attack.
Look at it this way: a grounded dragon breathes flame at a block of troops. The front ranks find themselves well-toasted, but the flame needs to burn through them first, so the second ranks come out well done (still dead, but not incinerated), and the third ranks are probably horribly scarred and injured, but the fourth ranks are effectively unscathed. Even though the aoe template shows the breath covering the entire brigade, remember that the fire has to emerge and grow from the source. If there is too much meat to burn, then it can't burn it all, and thus, cannot spread as far as the breath would normally go.
Even if a fireball were thrown into the center of a formation, the same rule would apply, only from the inside-out. Men in the center would find themselves probably taking multiple sets of 10d6 damage, while the troops progressively further feel heat, but no damage. The fireball gets 'smothered' by the mass of troops.
Now, if a dragon were to breathe flame from overhead, or an aoe of poison gas or the like were to affect a platoon of troops, that might be a different story...
PC: "What!? But we're the Heroes!"
DM: "Well, I guess you shouldn't have spat into that man's drink and insulted his mother while the rest of his brigade was here then, huh?"
Just a thought. Maybe a character's armor should apply in some way to the unit's skirmish ability. As you currently have it, a character with a 30 AC is just as vulnerable to a unit as someone with a 9. Perhaps the damage reduction armor rules from UA could be applied here but only so far as damage taken from unit's skirmish ability. (I'm going to have to come up with a different name for that cause I keep confusing it with the scout's ability of the same name.
I suggested a while back that the unit should still make attack rolls: a successful attack against an AC deals full damage, while a miss deals half damage. Swarms can deal automatic damage, but mobs and units shouldn't.
I don't know the UA rules, but I think the incorporation of AC should be simple. My thought on this is to subtract the amount of AC from the damage rolled by the mass-combat unit. For example: your Orc unit would deal 9d6+2 damage. You roll it and get 43 damage. A figther wearing a full plate with an AC of 24 in total would receive only 19 damage. A sorcerer with an AC of 17 would receive 26 damage. It would act as a sort of damage reduction.
If this reduces the damage a little too much for your taste, instead of the AC you could use the armor bonus of your armor itself, combined with any extra armor from necklaces or bracers. Just all the bonuses which are used to calculate your flatfooted AC. Not the flatfooted AC itself, as the 10 base armor is not used.
A third idea is to use the flatfooted AC itself. The idea behind this method is that it is impossible to dodge/evade damage from massive mobs like this.
I don't know what system will work best. I am not much of a calculator, but if any one wants to do it, be my guest.
Sunai
If the character already holds a recognised rank, the unit will listen to their orders regardless, because that is what they have been trained to do. In a military hierarchy the soldiers do not question the commanders in the heat of a battle.
However, if those same 50 men are standing in a solid block, and the same fireball goes off, not all (or even most) are killed. Why? Because the fireball had a lot of 'soft cover' to go through. If a man is surrounded by stone, fireballs do not simply go through it. And if a man is surrounded by comrades, then the fireballs won't simply go through them either. The mob absorbs most of the damage, because the 'meat shields' on the edge are absorbing multiple uses of the attack.
A fireball is a (3D) spread area effect so it goes around soft cover, that means even in a formation all soldiers would die. This system here might be easy to use, but it is far from being accurate as it breaks the combat system completely. So if you want "real" mass combat this system is useless. The only point where you can use this system is when you want to challenge high level PCs by hordes of low level NPCs and accept all the logic holes with that. But then you can use the unmodified mob system.
The problem is still that people want to implement medieval combat in a non-medieval world and such twist the way combat works until they reached their goal, no matter how illogical it is.
A fireball is a (3D) spread area effect so it goes around soft cover, that means even in a formation all soldiers would die.
I would point out that locust swarms manage to survive fireballs, even though, individually, not a single locust in the swarm could survive a fireball.
For whatever reason, tightly packed creatures working cooperatively gain a form of spell immunity. In some respects, that is one of the main benefits of the Swarm Template.
I think in a D&D world, it would make sense that military leaders would study swarms and learn the secret of how they manage as a unit to survive spells that individually they never could.
Making a military unit a template combines these two concepts quite elegantly. Like a swarm, the soldiers in a unit can survive phenomena they could never survive independently. In return, however, they give up a lot of their individuality, training and gaining levels and Feats as a unit.
Verelor, I salute you!
A fireball is a (3D) spread area effect so it goes around soft cover, that means even in a formation all soldiers would die. This system here might be easy to use, but it is far from being accurate as it breaks the combat system completely. So if you want "real" mass combat this system is useless. The only point where you can use this system is when you want to challenge high level PCs by hordes of low level NPCs and accept all the logic holes with that. But then you can use the unmodified mob system.
The problem is still that people want to implement medieval combat in a non-medieval world and such twist the way combat works until they reached their goal, no matter how illogical it is.
I always thought this was kind of ridiculous. If fireball isn't limited by matter, then why doesn't it fry every living particle of a human being caught in the explosion? After all, it's just a 3-D spread. It's not the template that's so illogical: it's the fireball that's illogical.
I would point out that locust swarms manage to survive fireballs, even though, individually, not a single locust in the swarm could survive a fireball.
To use computer terms that is a bug, not a feature. There is no logical explanation for it except "to make swarms more dangerous" and should not be used as example why a military unit should survive a fireball. The swarm (and mob) rules are very screwed and using them is, imo, a bad idea.
It took about six hours,
And this is exactly why this system is so much better. You conducted a single combat in six hours. Using this system I was able to conduct four unit engagements in three hours. I will gladly accept a few MINOR rules inconsistencies (which are easily explained by a forthright DM) for an 87% savings in game time. I don't have six hours. I'm lucky to get to play for 3 hours once every two weeks. I'll take the mobs/swarms/units thank you very much.
I still don't see why my system I proposed way back is so bad as it also speed things up. But apparently some people want those rules inconsistencies and as my system stayed true to the game, so it was not good for them.
I just don't see them as rules inconsistencies. I see them as a different rules set since the core rule set isn't designed to mass combat encounters. And I don't see logic as an issue because there are already logical inconsistencies in the rules as they exist. For example, out of combat you can fit as many people as the DM deems reasonable in a 20x20 space, but in combat you can only fit 16 people in that same space. A cure light wounds spell will restore many 1st level characters to full health from the brink of death, but they barely help a 15th level character at all, etc. Rules are inconsistent sometime to facilitate good game play. In my opinion the mob and swarm rules fall in this category.
So to clarify...YES. I absolutely want the rules inconsistencies. They are what make the mob and swarm templates fun and easy to use. I believe I wrote an earlier post that goes into the many glorious effects the mob rules have on a campaign world and without the inconsistencies they simply wouldn't do me any good at all. They'd just be another set of mass combat rules that are too cumbersome or ineffective against PCs to bother with.
These rules work, they're fun, and they're fast. Rules don't get much better than that in my opinion.
Derren, I just don't see them as rules inconsistencies. I see them as a different rules set since the core rule set isn't designed to mass combat encounters.
And that’s fine when you are playing only mass combat, but when you mix normal D&D combat and mass combat, especially in the same battle, the differences in combat behaviour is simply much too great.
These rules work, they're fun, and they're fast. Rules don't get much better than that in my opinion.
You can have an equally fast and fun result without those inconsistencies by not using the mob rules but making up new rules (see my proposal somewhere at the beginning of this topic). Those rule inconsistencies are intentional and not a necessary evil.
To use computer terms that is a bug, not a feature. There is no logical explanation for it except "to make swarms more dangerous" and should not be used as example why a military unit should survive a fireball.
Obviously, I disagree. I think the whole point of the swarm template is that tightly packed creatures gain benefits that the individual components do not. I see it as an essential feature, and not a bug at all.
The swarm (and mob) rules are very screwed and using them is, imo, a bad idea.
That's certainly your prerogative. Personally, I think any military unit template that seeks to simply mimic the results of multiple actors working in concert, without considering the clear mechanical benefits (such as limited spell immunity) that working in concert clearly grants in a D&D universe (as shown in the Swarm and Mob templates), is itself "very screwed and..., imo, a bad idea."
Now, your criticisms about not accounting sufficiently for HD, class levels and equipment are well-founded, in my opinion. I would love to have a template that can be applied to veteran units, or even a unit of mixed levels. But I think the original post is a good start and I have absolutely no problems with the template granting resistance from AoE spells.
And that’s fine when you are playing only mass combat, but when you mix normal D&D combat and mass combat, especially in the same battle, the differences in combat behaviour is simply much too great.
You can have an equally fast and fun result without those inconsistencies by not using the mob rules but making up new rules (see my proposal somewhere at the beginning of this topic). Those rule inconsistencies are intentional and not a necessary evil.
I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree on this. I evaluated your rules suggestion earlier in the thread and it had exactly the problems that I love the mob template for solving. I want a mass combat system that nerfs area effect spells, damage reduction, and high armor class values. It is the only way that armies can be a threat to mid-level (10-15) characters. And I want them to be a threat to mid-level characters.
Any suggestion you make that includes making the rules function consistently but fails to do the above will not work for me. If you want to know why I want armies to be a threat to mid-level characters read my post #56 back on page 2.
I like the basic ideas that have been put forth here, and I like a lot of the suggestions that other posters have put out. I'm not sure if I would use this system as it is presented here, but it certainly gives me some ideas and a good solid place to start.
Here are some of the changes I would suggest and likely use myself:
1 - I would change the number of hit dice to be equal to the number of men in the unit. Thus a unit of 40 men would have 40 HD, a unit of 24 men would have 24 HD, etc. Every time a full HD's worth of damage is dealt, someone falls down. It's an oversimplification, since it basically says that all the damage dealt in a round is being redirected to a single guy, until he dies. But if this is mass combat, I would expect warriors to be falling over left and right, so this makes it easy to track casualties as they accrue. I'd also use the mode (median?) die value instead of racial HD (so a unit with ten fighters, two wizards and a cleric would roll d10s for HD.) Con bonus would be the average of all component men, as described below.
2 - I would have units make attack rolls. It just makes more sense to me, personally. The attack bonus of the unit would be the average of the component men, thus if all the men in a unit were level 3 fighters, the unit as a whole would have a +3 BAB. Ability modifiers (Str or Dex) would be treated as racial average, so 10 for humans (no bonus), or 12 if the unit is composed entirely of a race with a +2 bonus to Str (or Dex.) In a mixed race the bonus would be calculated by averaging the scores for each component man. Obviously, by this system, a unit comprised of ten level 3 fighters and a single level 15 fighter will have a higher attack bonus, but to me this represents a heroic leader inspiring his troops, so it's all good. Armor class is calculated much the same way. Average the Armor and shield bonuses of each component man to determine the bonus of the unit (men who are not wearing armor or carrying a shield count as having a +0 bonus, and therefore drag down the average.) Other bonuses to AC work the same way. Dex is not applied to AC in mass combat, since you can't really dodge that well with men on either side of you, thus being flat-footed only matters for determining if the unit can make an AoO (should the situation ever arise.) Besides, this is a mass combat system, even if the guy you were aiming at gets out of the way, there's still a good chance you'll hit someone else (I would assume the entire unit is smart enough to not walk forward chopping up and down mechanically.)
3 - As far as attack rolls are concerned, I agree with other suggestions made in the past. A hit deals full damage, a miss deals half damage, a natural 1 deals no damage and a natural 20 deals double damage (even if the majority of the unit are using x3 crit weapons, the effectiveness is reduced by the fact that it's mass combat - not everyone scores a crit all at once, the unit just does exceptionally well this round.) Damage is the mode [median?] damage die for the weapons being used by each component man, multiplied by the number of men in direct melee contact with the target unit. If the unit is engaged with multiple opponent units on different sides, it may make a single attack against each per round, but each soldier can only attack once, so if a single man is in melee range of more than one enemy unit, it must be declared which target it is attacking in the round. What this means in practice is that the player controlling the attacking unit needs to count up the total number of men in his unit and divvy that number between available targets.
4 - Regarding the size of the unit, I like the Gargantuan idea, but I would rule the unit occupies as much space as its component men would normally occupy (so a unit of 40 humans would occupy 40 5' squares.) Unit cohesion would require these squares to be contiguous and organized into ranks somehow. Remember that in the PHB Gargantuan is listed as occupying "20 feet or more" on a side, and Colossal is "30 feet or more." While we're on the subject, I'd allow this unit template to be applied to size Huge creatures, only they count as a Colossal unit. Not sure what to do about Gargantuan or Colossal troops trying to organize themselves into a unit. Incidentally, the size modifiers for a unit would be applied as normal, but after the average AC and Attack bonuses had been calculated.
5 - A unit can halve the amount of space it occupies by marching in tight formation, but this makes them vulnerable to area effect attacks, and they suffer double damage from such attacks while in tight formation.
To anyone who might be concerned about the amount of math involved in all these averages, it's worth mentioning that this is only really an issue when the unit has mixed races/equipment. If everyone in the unit is of the same race and class (and level), and is equipped the same way, these averages will all be the same as a single man from the unit.