I've been running a world on the brink of war. The story has been leading up to one two big fights and the first one coming up. I've done a lot of research on army files to get a scope of large scale battles. I have the two sides: The Elsion Navy and The army of the damned. The party is 4 level 15 characters and each side has about 3,000 total troops. I have an idea of giving the party options such as: Help your front lines, attack the heavy artillery, or attach the Lt. Col. I wanted others opinions of how to run something this massive.
Full breakdown is:
The army of the damned- One Ice Devil leading the charge. 4 Erinyes in charge of one battalion each (infantry, Artillery, Heavy troops, and air support). Under that a total of 10 Companies led by a mix of Orthons and Horned Devils. And of course their troops.
The Elsion Navy- Basically the but using humans. The idea is the devils would gradually make ground against the navy if the party wasn't there. Should I add more options for the players or redo the whole way I run it.
To quote myself in a different thread, regarding how I think one can best conduct large scale combat/wars in D&D.
What I would do in this case, is have the party fight as part of a much larger army against the "Ogre Army".
However, I would not try and simulate the entire battle. What I would do is only do cinematic description of the large scale battle, and detailed description only of the part of the battle going on around the party.
This give you opportunities to have lots of different types of enemies stumble into the part of the battle which the players are involved - and to have them stumble back out. The same for allies.
Picture the party fighting a group of gnoll skirmishers, in the middle of the battle. Things are going to well? The gnolls fall back to a trio of Ogre "heavy troops". Is it going poorly for the characters? They can gain assistance from a squad of Cavalry which ride down the gnolls flank, and help route them!
Getting to repetitive? "Suddenly you spot a squad of human warriors who have - in a moment of battle fury - punched too far into the enemy lines. The enemy troops close in behind them, pinching them off from the main battle lines, and this squad is now encircled, back to back, they struggle to hold off the ring of goblin troops hacking at their ranks!" Now you have something different for the players to do - a mid-battle rescue maneuver.
You can have the situation change suddenly, and fluidly, because the players can't really see "the big picture" - they can't see the large scale flow of battle which thrusts a group of allies into their area here, or a group of enemy troops there ( and the dirty secret is that there is no larger structure to the battle - just the DM changing the local conditions according to what seems plausible, and dramatic :D ).
It's a lot of work - but it can be fun!
I might also adopt something like a "skill challenge" - essentially have an idea of how the battle would play out without the party, and then put the party through a number of "mini-encounters" within the larger context of the war. I would then adjust the cinematic outcome of the battle based on how well they perform in their little "slices" of the overall battle.
This allows the players to have an effect on the larger world, and doesn't require you to simulate an entire major battle ( which D&D isn't set up to do, anyways ).
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
3.5 had a supplement, I forget the name, Heroes of War maybe?
The basic idea is you don't focus on the large-scale battle, you focus on the PCs and what THEY do. Perhaps they take out a particularly problematic siege engine or sneak behind lines to take out a critical officer or cut supply lines. Point is, D&D isn't Warhammer and shouldn't be treated as such.
There's a "victory points" kind of system that allows the PCs to influence the outcome of the battle, but ultimately, the game stays focused on the PCs actions, not thousands of nameless NPCs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible." - Mark Twain
I read an article on this once that suggested large scale battles don't need to be rolled out; they're plot devices and as such the fortunes of war will flow according to the will of the DM.
I agree, mostly.
I'd give the players options. At the most basic level: "Will you be on the front line leading by example, or with the command issuing orders?" Different players could choose differently and you could bring up situations accordingly.
For example, two wizards choose differently. One remains with the command, one descends to the front lines.
The left of the line is under heavy attack, beginning to buckle. Does the wizard direct siege weapons to support? Send cavalry? This could be worked out with a single DC15 roll, with the wizard taking a "Help" action. Or, if you think it's an effective decision, it works.
Meanwhile the second wizard is fighting on the front line. You'd not send a high CR demon against him alone (unless you were sure he'd be sensible and retreat) but you might have his battalion cone under assault from hordes of weaker demons, and pit him against a "sergeant" in one-on-one combat. A straight up fight.
Each situation handled without excessive dice rolling and worrying about using some sort of "large scale combat" system.
I like the Red Hand of Doom module. It teaches how to run a war and its final battle. With "Victory" points that can be obtained during the entire war campaign. Even though the group of adventures are scouts and guerilla warfare and black-ops participants. They can still achieve very important things that effect the larger battle. Taking out specific tactical targets and leading figures gravely weakens the larger army. Each of such a task is a Victory point. Add them up and you know if the war is won or not, before the final battle starts.
If you also add a nice time table in which the opposing army reaches x objective, you also add time pressure and a possible outcome in favor to them. Prevent players from wasting time too much. Although pacing in 5e is a lot faster in regards to 3.5 so adjustments would be needed in that case. In 5e you get a ton more stuff done in a single day that could trivialize the time schedule if used by 3.5 standards.
As the DM you then narrate the larger scale war in the background. While the characters roam around the city, staying in contact with some of the important npc's. Getting information of a wall breach occurring and having to fight of wave after wave of enemies. On success push out just outside the gates to take out the siege instruments quickly before running back to the safety of the city. Where they get contacted about an NPC's and officers dying from an unseen sniper hiding in one of the buildings. Depending on the players relationships they might even be allowed some tactical influence of where clerics and important NPC's get stationed around the city. etc etc.
Something else that occurred to me - actually stealing the idea from Mass Effect 3 - if the battle/war is at the end of a long campaign arc, then enemy and allied resources can be present - or absent - contributing or withdrawing "victory points".
Did you save that Elvish Enclave from the undead pouring though the gate in the ruined temple on Gothfang Mountain? Well, then they're there, and the DM throws in a descriptive sentence about the " ... sudden flurry of arrows from the gleaming ranks of the Elvish arcrchers cutting down the charge of the enemy's undead creatures, causing the charge at your left flank to suddenly break ... "
Same thing for enemy resources - if you sealed The Dungeon of M'gen - the the hordes of giant spider skirmishers get cut from the final battle scene.
It's kind of narratively dressing up "victory points", and allowing events well in advance of the final battle to contribute - or remove - victory points.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Kingmaker is a pathfinder module that has some rule sets for large scale battles as well you'd just have to convert it for 5e. Not to mention an outline for PCs in leadership roles that you can use for reference.
I’ve run some large scale conflicts in 3.5 and my experience is that you want the players to be the driving force for victory.
One commenter above pointed out how your players can gain advantages for their side before the battle by saving allies, breaking secret codes and killing enemy leaders. Which is pretty fun, it reinforces the Player as Hero and gives the players agency to direct the game. Also, do the prep work on this, it can’t really be improvised imho.
In one battle my players were holding a wall against a besieging force. They had disrupted the communications of the enemy by breaking their codes and inserting bad messages into their command doctrine. That led to infantry trying to take the walls with ladders and without archery support. The players won that battle against long odds because they made their enemy play by their plan.
For each of the side quests they did I’d give their side a +2 to rolls in that area. I broke it down to Supply, Communications, Discipline and Movement. I required leadership rolls for each and as the battle went on, those bonuses were pretty telling.
5 edition doesn’t really have a method of managing large scale combat and that’s okay. I’d say limit the players perception of the field “The dust and smoke of the battle makes it impossible to tell what’s happening past 100 yards.” Then when they’ve accomplished all objectives, spring the “raised stakes” on them. By having an enemy commander direct efforts to sabotage the players side, with some success. Sometimes you can let it be an either or, both sides get an advantage or neither side gets one.
it’s up to you, but they can be very fun. Good luck storming the castle!
Whatever you do, don't try to turn the game into Dynasty Warriors where the party is expected to win the war by just slaughtering their way through mooks. Use the PCs as an elite special forces team that gets dispatched to handle specific objectives, like assassinating an enemy officer, rescuing pinned allies, sabotaging enemy siege equipment, or disrupting supply lines.
And then tell them how these actions are influencing the larger war. Stuff like "destroying the ships that the enemy army was using to cross the river forced them to reroute to a bridge twenty miles upstream. This delayed their attack on Stonekeep long enough for our reinforcements to arrive and launch a counterattack that forced them to retreat before the castle fell" or "because you were unable to kill the cabal of necromancers, they have begun animating the fallen of both sides, swelling their numbers with zombies. This surge in enemy numbers has caused significant damage and also hurt our troops' morale."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Whatever you do, don't try to turn the game into Dynasty Warriors where the party is expected to win the war by just slaughtering their way through mooks.
Not that there isn't a role for slaughtering your way through mooks, but the sheer number of mooks required to make a difference to even a modest size war is likely to be an unplayable slog even if the PCs are powerful enough to do it, which they probably aren't.
To quote myself in a different thread, regarding how I think one can best conduct large scale combat/wars in D&D.
What I would do in this case, is have the party fight as part of a much larger army against the "Ogre Army".
However, I would not try and simulate the entire battle. What I would do is only do cinematic description of the large scale battle, and detailed description only of the part of the battle going on around the party.
This give you opportunities to have lots of different types of enemies stumble into the part of the battle which the players are involved - and to have them stumble back out. The same for allies.
Picture the party fighting a group of gnoll skirmishers, in the middle of the battle. Things are going to well? The gnolls fall back to a trio of Ogre "heavy troops". Is it going poorly for the characters? They can gain assistance from a squad of Cavalry which ride down the gnolls flank, and help route them!
Getting to repetitive? "Suddenly you spot a squad of human warriors who have - in a moment of battle fury - punched too far into the enemy lines. The enemy troops close in behind them, pinching them off from the main battle lines, and this squad is now encircled, back to back, they struggle to hold off the ring of goblin troops hacking at their ranks!" Now you have something different for the players to do - a mid-battle rescue maneuver.
You can have the situation change suddenly, and fluidly, because the players can't really see "the big picture" - they can't see the large scale flow of battle which thrusts a group of allies into their area here, or a group of enemy troops there ( and the dirty secret is that there is no larger structure to the battle - just the DM changing the local conditions according to what seems plausible, and dramatic :D ).
It's a lot of work - but it can be fun!
I might also adopt something like a "skill challenge" - essentially have an idea of how the battle would play out without the party, and then put the party through a number of "mini-encounters" within the larger context of the war. I would then adjust the cinematic outcome of the battle based on how well they perform in their little "slices" of the overall battle.
This allows the players to have an effect on the larger world, and doesn't require you to simulate an entire major battle ( which D&D isn't set up to do, anyways ).
Whatever you do, don't try to turn the game into Dynasty Warriors where the party is expected to win the war by just slaughtering their way through mooks.
Not that there isn't a role for slaughtering your way through mooks, but the sheer number of mooks required to make a difference to even a modest size war is likely to be an unplayable slog even if the PCs are powerful enough to do it, which they probably aren't.
I don't remember where I read this unfortunately, but I did read an article about running large battles and the article advised breaking each battle down into a series of turning points centered on the PCs. Think like in a movie when the camera zooms in on two characters amidst the chaos.
The turning points can be things like 'take out the other side's fiercest warrior' or things like 'win control over this bridge' or 'disrupt their supply lines.'
Winning overall requires winning more of the turning points. Turning points can happen all at once for a big montage battle or can happen in succession. Or a blend. Maybe the battle for the bridge is a the first big turning point, but during that you have a chance to kill their warrior.
I think it'd be helpful to know why each point is critical. The bridge means access. Losing the bridge means having to ford the river elsewhere, likely under heavy fire unless super sneaky or the other side is distracted. A loss could also put villages or what-have-you on the players' side in danger. Winning is also a victory for morale. (This also gives a great alternative approach if your players are more inclined to be sneaky).
Killing the warrior is important because it demoralizes the other side and removes a threat, and also because the warrior could take over as leader of the other side if you managed to kill the leader. Etc.
Check out Strongholds& Followers. I just skimmed through this thread but I did not see any mention of it. Worth a look. Has a great rule set for running large scale battles.
As the DM, choose ahead of time which side would win before the players get involved. Also decide ahead of time what the characters could do to try to change this. This could be one large thing that determines the conflict instantly, such as defeating one side’s leader, or it could be several smaller things that add up to a different resolution, such as stealing an important artifact or gathering information. It is better when you can make a list (or at least have a general idea) of what both sides motives are. If the characters are trying to defend a village from a small army, they can’t also be sending an urgent message to the other side’s general. Don’t have the world freeze everywhere except where the characters currently are. That being said, it isn’t fun when the characters have no control over the outcome.
I know this is late, but I have been planning one of these for my party. They're planning on invading the lair of Demogorgon in order to get a ritual component that they need to stop the end of the world as they know it. I found a UA way to run wars, if you put in "UA Mass Battle" or "UA When Armies Clash" you should get a pdf for those which gives some really good ideas. I'm thinking of using the latter, simply because they're creating smaller battalions (stands) and not as many massive groups of creatures. However the battle rating system does have an interesting style.
I've been running a world on the brink of war. The story has been leading up to one two big fights and the first one coming up. I've done a lot of research on army files to get a scope of large scale battles. I have the two sides: The Elsion Navy and The army of the damned. The party is 4 level 15 characters and each side has about 3,000 total troops. I have an idea of giving the party options such as: Help your front lines, attack the heavy artillery, or attach the Lt. Col. I wanted others opinions of how to run something this massive.
Full breakdown is:
The army of the damned- One Ice Devil leading the charge. 4 Erinyes in charge of one battalion each (infantry, Artillery, Heavy troops, and air support). Under that a total of 10 Companies led by a mix of Orthons and Horned Devils. And of course their troops.
The Elsion Navy- Basically the but using humans. The idea is the devils would gradually make ground against the navy if the party wasn't there. Should I add more options for the players or redo the whole way I run it.
D&D is not built to simulate large scale combat,
To quote myself in a different thread, regarding how I think one can best conduct large scale combat/wars in D&D.
I might also adopt something like a "skill challenge" - essentially have an idea of how the battle would play out without the party, and then put the party through a number of "mini-encounters" within the larger context of the war. I would then adjust the cinematic outcome of the battle based on how well they perform in their little "slices" of the overall battle.
This allows the players to have an effect on the larger world, and doesn't require you to simulate an entire major battle ( which D&D isn't set up to do, anyways ).
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
3.5 had a supplement, I forget the name, Heroes of War maybe?
The basic idea is you don't focus on the large-scale battle, you focus on the PCs and what THEY do. Perhaps they take out a particularly problematic siege engine or sneak behind lines to take out a critical officer or cut supply lines. Point is, D&D isn't Warhammer and shouldn't be treated as such.
There's a "victory points" kind of system that allows the PCs to influence the outcome of the battle, but ultimately, the game stays focused on the PCs actions, not thousands of nameless NPCs.
"The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible."
- Mark Twain
I read an article on this once that suggested large scale battles don't need to be rolled out; they're plot devices and as such the fortunes of war will flow according to the will of the DM.
I agree, mostly.
I'd give the players options. At the most basic level: "Will you be on the front line leading by example, or with the command issuing orders?" Different players could choose differently and you could bring up situations accordingly.
For example, two wizards choose differently. One remains with the command, one descends to the front lines.
The left of the line is under heavy attack, beginning to buckle. Does the wizard direct siege weapons to support? Send cavalry? This could be worked out with a single DC15 roll, with the wizard taking a "Help" action. Or, if you think it's an effective decision, it works.
Meanwhile the second wizard is fighting on the front line. You'd not send a high CR demon against him alone (unless you were sure he'd be sensible and retreat) but you might have his battalion cone under assault from hordes of weaker demons, and pit him against a "sergeant" in one-on-one combat. A straight up fight.
Each situation handled without excessive dice rolling and worrying about using some sort of "large scale combat" system.
I like the Red Hand of Doom module. It teaches how to run a war and its final battle. With "Victory" points that can be obtained during the entire war campaign. Even though the group of adventures are scouts and guerilla warfare and black-ops participants. They can still achieve very important things that effect the larger battle. Taking out specific tactical targets and leading figures gravely weakens the larger army. Each of such a task is a Victory point. Add them up and you know if the war is won or not, before the final battle starts.
If you also add a nice time table in which the opposing army reaches x objective, you also add time pressure and a possible outcome in favor to them. Prevent players from wasting time too much. Although pacing in 5e is a lot faster in regards to 3.5 so adjustments would be needed in that case. In 5e you get a ton more stuff done in a single day that could trivialize the time schedule if used by 3.5 standards.
As the DM you then narrate the larger scale war in the background. While the characters roam around the city, staying in contact with some of the important npc's. Getting information of a wall breach occurring and having to fight of wave after wave of enemies. On success push out just outside the gates to take out the siege instruments quickly before running back to the safety of the city. Where they get contacted about an NPC's and officers dying from an unseen sniper hiding in one of the buildings. Depending on the players relationships they might even be allowed some tactical influence of where clerics and important NPC's get stationed around the city. etc etc.
Something else that occurred to me - actually stealing the idea from Mass Effect 3 - if the battle/war is at the end of a long campaign arc, then enemy and allied resources can be present - or absent - contributing or withdrawing "victory points".
Did you save that Elvish Enclave from the undead pouring though the gate in the ruined temple on Gothfang Mountain? Well, then they're there, and the DM throws in a descriptive sentence about the " ... sudden flurry of arrows from the gleaming ranks of the Elvish arcrchers cutting down the charge of the enemy's undead creatures, causing the charge at your left flank to suddenly break ... "
Same thing for enemy resources - if you sealed The Dungeon of M'gen - the the hordes of giant spider skirmishers get cut from the final battle scene.
It's kind of narratively dressing up "victory points", and allowing events well in advance of the final battle to contribute - or remove - victory points.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
cool
Kingmaker is a pathfinder module that has some rule sets for large scale battles as well you'd just have to convert it for 5e. Not to mention an outline for PCs in leadership roles that you can use for reference.
edit: fixed spelling
I’ve run some large scale conflicts in 3.5 and my experience is that you want the players to be the driving force for victory.
One commenter above pointed out how your players can gain advantages for their side before the battle by saving allies, breaking secret codes and killing enemy leaders. Which is pretty fun, it reinforces the Player as Hero and gives the players agency to direct the game. Also, do the prep work on this, it can’t really be improvised imho.
In one battle my players were holding a wall against a besieging force. They had disrupted the communications of the enemy by breaking their codes and inserting bad messages into their command doctrine. That led to infantry trying to take the walls with ladders and without archery support. The players won that battle against long odds because they made their enemy play by their plan.
For each of the side quests they did I’d give their side a +2 to rolls in that area. I broke it down to Supply, Communications, Discipline and Movement. I required leadership rolls for each and as the battle went on, those bonuses were pretty telling.
5 edition doesn’t really have a method of managing large scale combat and that’s okay. I’d say limit the players perception of the field “The dust and smoke of the battle makes it impossible to tell what’s happening past 100 yards.” Then when they’ve accomplished all objectives, spring the “raised stakes” on them. By having an enemy commander direct efforts to sabotage the players side, with some success. Sometimes you can let it be an either or, both sides get an advantage or neither side gets one.
it’s up to you, but they can be very fun.
Good luck storming the castle!
Whatever you do, don't try to turn the game into Dynasty Warriors where the party is expected to win the war by just slaughtering their way through mooks. Use the PCs as an elite special forces team that gets dispatched to handle specific objectives, like assassinating an enemy officer, rescuing pinned allies, sabotaging enemy siege equipment, or disrupting supply lines.
And then tell them how these actions are influencing the larger war. Stuff like "destroying the ships that the enemy army was using to cross the river forced them to reroute to a bridge twenty miles upstream. This delayed their attack on Stonekeep long enough for our reinforcements to arrive and launch a counterattack that forced them to retreat before the castle fell" or "because you were unable to kill the cabal of necromancers, they have begun animating the fallen of both sides, swelling their numbers with zombies. This surge in enemy numbers has caused significant damage and also hurt our troops' morale."
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Not that there isn't a role for slaughtering your way through mooks, but the sheer number of mooks required to make a difference to even a modest size war is likely to be an unplayable slog even if the PCs are powerful enough to do it, which they probably aren't.
And it's likely to get repetitive and boring extremely quickly if that's all you're doing.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Thanks! I will definitely use the advice!
IKR! I made the mistake of doing that once....
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
I don't remember where I read this unfortunately, but I did read an article about running large battles and the article advised breaking each battle down into a series of turning points centered on the PCs. Think like in a movie when the camera zooms in on two characters amidst the chaos.
The turning points can be things like 'take out the other side's fiercest warrior' or things like 'win control over this bridge' or 'disrupt their supply lines.'
Winning overall requires winning more of the turning points. Turning points can happen all at once for a big montage battle or can happen in succession. Or a blend. Maybe the battle for the bridge is a the first big turning point, but during that you have a chance to kill their warrior.
I think it'd be helpful to know why each point is critical. The bridge means access. Losing the bridge means having to ford the river elsewhere, likely under heavy fire unless super sneaky or the other side is distracted. A loss could also put villages or what-have-you on the players' side in danger. Winning is also a victory for morale. (This also gives a great alternative approach if your players are more inclined to be sneaky).
Killing the warrior is important because it demoralizes the other side and removes a threat, and also because the warrior could take over as leader of the other side if you managed to kill the leader. Etc.
Check out Strongholds & Followers. I just skimmed through this thread but I did not see any mention of it. Worth a look. Has a great rule set for running large scale battles.
They have two UA articles on this topic.
This one is from 2015
And this one is from 2017
But how do u determine who wins the war?
As the DM, choose ahead of time which side would win before the players get involved. Also decide ahead of time what the characters could do to try to change this. This could be one large thing that determines the conflict instantly, such as defeating one side’s leader, or it could be several smaller things that add up to a different resolution, such as stealing an important artifact or gathering information. It is better when you can make a list (or at least have a general idea) of what both sides motives are. If the characters are trying to defend a village from a small army, they can’t also be sending an urgent message to the other side’s general. Don’t have the world freeze everywhere except where the characters currently are. That being said, it isn’t fun when the characters have no control over the outcome.
I know this is late, but I have been planning one of these for my party. They're planning on invading the lair of Demogorgon in order to get a ritual component that they need to stop the end of the world as they know it. I found a UA way to run wars, if you put in "UA Mass Battle" or "UA When Armies Clash" you should get a pdf for those which gives some really good ideas. I'm thinking of using the latter, simply because they're creating smaller battalions (stands) and not as many massive groups of creatures. However the battle rating system does have an interesting style.
Should we occasionally add reinforcments for either side?
I also feel like I should make a set of rules for this.