| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wenin |
Posted - 20 Jan 2011 : 04:27:02
I have a season ending session that will result in the siege of Melvaunt by a horde of Orcs. The PCs are fighting on the side of the Orcs.
I'm not completely clear on how I want to run the session.
The elements I want included.
1. The battle to be able to go either way
2. The PCs have the ability to apply their abilities to the flow of the battle to determine the success
3. The PCs don't have absolute ability to control the outcome
4. I don't want to have the ability to predict the outcome of the battle =)
5. I want an actual system, that translates to the battlefield. I've thought of a series of skill checks kinda thing, but I don't feel that translates.
6. The PCs won't be leaders of the armies and I don't want to force them into being a "spec ops team" taking out targets throughout the city.
I'm looking for some ideas on what others have done. The more specific the better. =)
Any game systems out there that could be utilized for a massive combat? |
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BlackAce |
Posted - 28 Feb 2011 : 21:34:25
I did a simple battle a few years ago. Rather than try and stage the whole thing, I attached them to a 50 strong company of soldiers; 20 Archers, 20 armsmen, 5 clerics and 5 mages. They led the unit and I rolled a d20 against a table for casulaties inflicted and sustained, adding loose bonuses or subtractions for either good or bad tactical decisions. That let me keep better control of what was happening . I'd described events in the battle and then ask them for their orders in response. It enable them to influence the battle without either dominating it or feeling like spectators.
I'd probably change a few things next time based on lessons learned, but I can't recommend the KISS principal highly enough with these kind of scenarios. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 28 Feb 2011 : 16:14:36
quote:
Originally posted by Jakuta Khan
@alisttair,
well, it desfribes fairly every option during large scale battles, from hero-signle missions, up to tactical unit combat in D&D and even including fast resolve- army combat and tactical army bombat, so this is - imho a very good base for mass combat in D&D, the only backdraw is, that if you want to do it properly, it is quite a bit of work.
Oh ok a d20 product  |
| Wenin |
Posted - 28 Feb 2011 : 15:57:39
My first attempt was to transform Melvaunt into a "Board Game/Battlemap". The units (~100 soldiers in each) were to move about the map battling each other. The PCs were to be given special "Powers" that they can enact to either side's benefit. The PCs would then also be moving about the map as a "unit" as well, picking up more "Power Points", Treasure, Magic Items, Limited Use Items (Potions, wands, etc).
I got the map done, and was working on coming up with quick and dirty, but still representative units for the two armies.... when I decided that having a 4 ft by 3 ft map of Melvaunt covered in approximately 200 unit counters and several dozen status markers....... while epic in my mind and likely to play out nicely.... just wasn't my group's cup of tea. =)
I've decided to simplify it further to about 10 "armies" for each side, that are given stats as if they are characters. They can move across a less divided Melvaunt. The original map had approximately 80 "zones"... I finished the map but I had stopped counting at 60... when I realized the scenerio was to large for what would work.
=) |
| Jakuta Khan |
Posted - 24 Feb 2011 : 15:49:54
@alisttair,
well, it desfribes fairly every option during large scale battles, from hero-signle missions, up to tactical unit combat in D&D and even including fast resolve- army combat and tactical army bombat, so this is - imho a very good base for mass combat in D&D, the only backdraw is, that if you want to do it properly, it is quite a bit of work.
|
| Alisttair |
Posted - 24 Feb 2011 : 15:26:24
I am unfamiliar with Cry Havoc. |
| Jakuta Khan |
Posted - 24 Feb 2011 : 13:46:27
did anyone try the "CRY HAVOC" from Malhavoc Press, I find the options in there quite interesting, similar to Battlesystem I think. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 01 Feb 2011 : 04:46:11
BattleSystem bits and pieces and variants have served my table well indeed. During the Siege of Sentinel Keep. During the Second Siege of Sentinel Keep. During the Third Siege of Sentinel Keep. During the Assault on the Ruins of Sentinel Keep.
The rules have accomodated hack-n-slash, blasting, buffing, explosions, formations, unformations, waves of undead, monsters, and really big monsters — and everything else that's ever been smashed against the battered granite walls of Sentinel Keep.
It's easy enough to operate strategic (big) stuff semi-independently of the the tactical (PC/NPC) stuff so characters don't get killed off too much. |
| coach |
Posted - 31 Jan 2011 : 18:36:29
a 3rd party company made one for pathfinder
WARPATH -- Rules for Mass Combat (PFRPG) Print Edition |
| Halidan |
Posted - 31 Jan 2011 : 14:42:27
Oops. It was supposed to be Skymage, not Skyknight. Sorry about that. |
| Mystic Lemur |
Posted - 31 Jan 2011 : 04:46:53
Zhentarim Skymage was in Lords of Darkness, but I don't remember a Skyknight... |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 31 Jan 2011 : 02:32:46
Thier other minor goal was to kill a Zhent Skyknight who had been a re-occuring villian in the campaign.
Where is this class from? |
| Galuf the Dwarf |
Posted - 30 Jan 2011 : 15:46:07
For 3.X (preferedly 3.5) edition, I'd also suggest consulting The Complete Warrior as well as Heroes of Battle. CW may have some tactics (mostly towards the end of the book) that may help make battles interesting. |
| Kno |
Posted - 28 Jan 2011 : 18:58:54
quote:
Originally posted by Mystic Lemur
You could just script it. Decide how the battle will go if the PC's take no part in it, then set up a flow chart of key events. Depending on whether or how the PC's interact with the key events the outcome can be shifted either a little or substantially. Think of it like "Saving Private Ryan", sure there's a whole war going on out there but the story is about them and they can only deal with one problem at a time.
As for them not knowing the outcome, tell them the divinations show it could easily go either way and what the consequences would be of both overwhelming victory and defeat.
That's what I do, if the players want to be general they need to do the tactical work instead of rolling dice. |
| Rhewtani |
Posted - 28 Jan 2011 : 05:57:28
That's basically what Heroes of Battle does - the flow chart.
For encounters, it's probably a good challenge to set time goals. So, not only do the PCs need to stop X monsters in the scene but they need to do it in less than Y rounds, or Z happens.
When our DM ran the battle of dragonspear, there was a great deal of lead up with the PCs needing to track down support and acquire allies. We also had multiple PCs of varying levels. The first level guys had some "on the battlefield" combats, some of the middle level guys ended up cut off from the main forces and behind enemy lines with some high profile NPCs (a seriously injured Lady Bronwyn). We actually spent almost an entire day just handling that group repelling groups upon groups of orcs (Myself, I put down 72 of them). A mix up in roleplay had caused by 7th level guy to end up with the 3rd level guys, so I was pretty much the lynch pin for determining survival with my 3/2 attacks per round. The high profile PCs had specific objectives within the castle, though they did get separated and ended up facing some handpicked assassins that were well aware of their weaknesses. Those that survived had to prevent the gate from getting opened wider and keep Mephistopholes on the other side.
A lot of the way a battle is going to go is determined before it begins and you can really work into that. If the dwarven character hadn't recruited whoever the dwarves are that have steins on their shields, our mid-level group would have fallen to the last man and lost Lady Bronnwyn.
If the Cormyrean noble had been a little more careful with his security, he wouldn't have gotten the sage Filani killed. The group who ended up running through Curse of the Azure Bonds two years later would have appreciated that quite a bit. |
| Mystic Lemur |
Posted - 28 Jan 2011 : 05:16:49
You could just script it. Decide how the battle will go if the PC's take no part in it, then set up a flow chart of key events. Depending on whether or how the PC's interact with the key events the outcome can be shifted either a little or substantially. Think of it like "Saving Private Ryan", sure there's a whole war going on out there but the story is about them and they can only deal with one problem at a time.
As for them not knowing the outcome, tell them the divinations show it could easily go either way and what the consequences would be of both overwhelming victory and defeat. |
| Arioch |
Posted - 23 Jan 2011 : 08:57:59
I use "Heroes of Battle" when the PC are low/mid level, but the I recover one of the best combat system ever created (By SSI) and it is in DL11 Dragons of Glory!
I like it for its good and simple adaptability to most situations!
|
| Alisttair |
Posted - 21 Jan 2011 : 12:25:59
To add to the Heroes of Battle recommendation, you can use it with any edition of the rules really (1e, 2e, 3e/pathfinder, 4e), just by taking the ideas presented in it. |
| Rhewtani |
Posted - 21 Jan 2011 : 05:07:19
What the Zhents not honoring the treaty of the ride? That's preposterous! |
| Wenin |
Posted - 21 Jan 2011 : 00:42:06
LOL Rhew!! That's not so bad of an idea actually!
The issue with this battle is that the PCs are from Zhentil Keep. The invading army is an Orc Hoard attacking Melvaunt.
The PCs want the Orcs to succeed, but only by so much. =) |
| Rhewtani |
Posted - 20 Jan 2011 : 20:12:09
Kind of like when DM Tolkien was pondering which battle system to use for Pelennor Fields. Night before the game, he just decides "Screw this! I'm gonna send them on a side-quest. I'll just put a quick and dirty dungeon together where they can get some undead to either kill them, or join them. If they all die - problem solved, if they get the undead - the battle will be super easy."
Then, of course, 20 minutes before the game - Miranda and Dominic call and say they can't make it; and when they show up early the following week and want to run their characters, he goes all grudge-monster on them with "Yeah, you ride into battle and there is death all around you. That's when the witch king lands in front of you." Dominic rolls a double 20, confirm on him and when Tolkien balks at it saying "The witchking can't be killed by any man," Miranda gets all rules-lawyery and comes out with "Fine, I stab him, I'm a girl." And so, Tolkien relents and says "Fine he dies." Dominic follows up with "I check him for magic." And Tolkien angrily retorts, "No, you can't he shriveled up and imploded. There was nothing left. And you both drop to the ground and are poisoned."
That's one way to handle needing a battlesystem for mass combat. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 20 Jan 2011 : 18:51:29
I've learned that the best way to handle big battle is to have your PCs become key-points at specific times or places within the battle. For example, you can have your PCs be in the front lines, taking down the door or have them scale the walls, being a spearpoint in the surge.
Also, I'd second the idea of the Heroes of Battle supplement! |
| Halidan |
Posted - 20 Jan 2011 : 15:25:56
I did the final battle for the liberation of Dagger Falls in DR1369 in my campaign, but I did it a bit differently. I don't have my notes available at present, but here are the main points I remember.
- The overall battle went the same way as the battles the PC's fought (i.e. if the PC's were winning, so were the forces of Randal and the Freedom Riders).
- The PC's had a copy of the battlefield map (as prepared for Randle by his spies in Dagger Falls) and could go anywhere on the map.
- I developed a table of "wandering encounters" that encluded things like Zhent reinforcements passing withing view, the PC's being targeted by arrow or bolt fire by a nearby unit (friendly or unfriendly), wounded allies trying to get to safety, etc. The Pc's could get envolved in these encounters as much or as little as they saw fit.
- The PC's had a major goal and two minor goals to accomplish. Thier major goal was to secure the political prisioners held in the Sherrifs jail, and then get them back to the hole in the city wall where they'd be escourted by another unit to safety.
- One of their minor goals was to destroy the smokepowder supplies of a mercanary unit the zhents were using to defend the south walls of town. Randal's spies had given the PC's a small bag of smokepowder to set off a chain explosion.
- Thier other minor goal was to kill a Zhent Skyknight who had been a re-occuring villian in the campaign.
Given that the players accomplished all three goals without loosing more than 1/4 of the hostages, I declared the battle an overwhelming victory for the forces of good.
Because the battle was an urban assault, I gave brief descriptions of what the players could see from their various positions on the west side of town whenever they asked. They couldn't see much beside my "wandering encounters" until towards the end of the battle, when I described many leaderless Zhent troops running away from the sounds of battle at the east gate, stripping off thier black uniforms and collecting the buckskin uniforms off any dead Daggerdale militia they could find.
This outraged by players and caused them to get into a risky and vey unnecessary battle with the fleeing Zhents. They had a great time. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 20 Jan 2011 : 11:25:35
If you are playing 3E, there is the product "Heroes of Battle" which deals with D&D for mass combat, having PCs do infiltrations and other side tasks part of the big battle.
If you're doing 4E, some skill challenges with use of Endurance and Heal checks come to mind (something like this showed up in the adventure either King of the Trollhaunt Warrens or the one after (I was a PC so not sure how the DM linked everything). |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 20 Jan 2011 : 06:39:48
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
BD&D offered a simplified mass combat called "War Machine", both systems do offer ways for the PCs to stand out from the basic troops.
As I recall both systems resolve most combats based on modifies and roll of d100.
Modifiers include things as basic as number of troops in the opposing armies, their level of training, their character level, weapons used, armor used, amount of access to magic spells, amount (if any) that have aerial ability and other things like high ground and if behind defensible wall.
The system allows killing of hundreds on both sides with dice rolls and modifiers that do not in itself endanger the PCs.
I am sure there are others out there, however these two are the best designed for early D&D. Not sure how well would work with 3rd or 4th, it should work however some modifiers might need to be adjusted because basic rules had some changes as to class power conversions.
I vote for Kentinal's idea actually! I forgot all about the War Machine combat rules. They are very simple and don't require massive amounts of time. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 20 Jan 2011 : 05:10:37
BD&D offered a simplified mass combat called "War Machine", both systems do offer ways for the PCs to stand out from the basic troops.
As I recall both systems resolve most combats based on modifies and roll of d100.
Modifiers include things as basic as number of troops in the opposing armies, their level of training, their character level, weapons used, armor used, amount of access to magic spells, amount (if any) that have aerial ability and other things like high ground and if behind defensible wall.
The system allows killing of hundreds on both sides with dice rolls and modifiers that do not in itself endanger the PCs.
I am sure there are others out there, however these two are the best designed for early D&D. Not sure how well would work with 3rd or 4th, it should work however some modifiers might need to be adjusted because basic rules had some changes as to class power conversions. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 20 Jan 2011 : 04:50:56
1e and 2e D&D had the "Battlesystem" rules that you could use. |
|
|
