Any tips on running a large battle? If its say 100v100 + PCs would you just trim it down so the PCs e.g. pick their targets (like the enemy commander) and only worry about HP for them and any monsters between them and their target but assign an attrition rate to the rest of them like 5 on each side per round? Then if the PCs e.g. kill the boss that moves things in favour of the 'goodies'?
Don't want to get lost in numbers but don't want it to necessarily be a foregone conclusion - Id want runaway to be a real option.
If you play 1ce/week for 4 hours per session a battle that size would take at least a month, even using the minion houserule. I would personally send the party in as an elite force to deal with a specific threat and just narrate the battle around them. But make sure the fate of the battle test on the party’s success so that they are the center of attention. They made a movie about the Dirty Dozen, and Kelly’s Heroes. They don’t make movies about the 100 troops who distracted the enemy valiantly while the heroes won the day.
You might want to consider getting Matt Coleville's Strongholds and Followers book. It has unit combat rules. I would use something like that. Make units for each side. Let the players run their side. Each round of combat, a player on his or her turn can make one unit act. In response you the GM make one of the enemy units act. If the players win their fight with the BBEG, then the unit combat resolves in their favor if it is not over yet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think I would approach it by first considering what role the players have to play in this set piece battle/pitched battle Are the players Generals ie will they command deployment and troop movements or free Champions assigned to troop formations or maybe held back by the General as shock troops to deal with particular threats as they arise on the battlefield?
short version - how you handle this is going to be very different if the players are actually in command then if the aren't
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
I use the legend of the 5 rings system for massed battles.
Players will be one of 2 things, senior combatants on the front line maybe leading a group of lesser troops, or as a shock attack unit.
Or players will be commanding massed forces from a place of relative safety overlooking the battlefield. They may even be split between the 2.
The shock unit focus just on their bit of the battle, they don’t have time to see what’s happening beyond the troops in front of them, give them a target or an objective and then let them figure out how to achieve it. Maybe they need to clear out a group of archers, or artillery pieces. Maybe they are a hit team targeting the key generals. Or maybe they need to get an urgent message to another part of the battle, new orders maybe. Their objectives should be important enough to swing the tide of battle and are run as combat encounters using the normal rules. If they succeed then the battle swings in their flavour.
If one player is acting as a general have the others act as bodyguard. In this case have a series of skill checks, describing the to and fro of battle those skill checks determine how good the players generalship is. If they come up with some great ideas for tactics go with it. Make some general rolls for enemy generals and determine how the battle is proceeding. to keep the other players interested have the enemy attack this position they battle a holding action while letting him get on with commanding the battle.
Would be cool if you could do a follow up on what you decided on and how it went, if and when you feel like it.
I know I'd be interested and think other would to I think I have a mammoth battle scenario coming with the Tyranny of Dragons Campaign I'm running specifically in The Rise of Tiamat - TRoT though that's a long ways off we're still in HotDQ, anyways some first hand accounts would really help get my head round it once I get that far. hope it goes well have fun
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
For mass battles, I just focus on the player's perspectives and do nothing else outside of their perspectives. I don't use "units". I tried using "units" once with an army made by the players but it just made action economy ridiculous as well as stole a bit of spotlight the players should have had.
Not everyone either wants to focus on units. Many D&D players just want to play a badass fantasy adventurer and even in mass combat, I think that should be kept. DM controlled units makes the game primarily the DM playing with themself in a way.
It basically says that instead of playing a whole battle, you have your players as leaders of an unit, have them focus on a series of skirmishes while the larger battle happens in the background and craft some encounters and events that have to be completed by their unit to end the siege/battle. You could probably assign a number of points to each event depending on how it is completed and then make a table that determines the outcome of the battle depending on the total of points earned.
It also offers some simplified rules for mass combat, an example of the time the poster used those rules on a session and some tips.
It's actually quite strange how poorly RPG's covers mass battles in their core rules. I actually don't recall any system with rules for thus that I actually liked and have used. That's kind of strange when you consider how big part of RPG combat is...
So, my advice is (unless you want to go for the roll for everyone and spend endless hours on the battle) to choose one of the "main" roads I think most DMs use for mass battles:
1. Have the battle as a backdrop and have the players focus on other things. Could for instance be to get an important person or thing to safety while the battle rages all around them. Can be very cool, but the outcome of the battle will usually be beyond the players control (unless their mission is what will save the day).
2. Gave the players act as commanders. The weak point here is that you probably would need a unit combat system. I gave never been able to find something here that suits our style of play, so here I can't help you.
3. Let the players be the "heroes" if their army. The outcome of the battle will depend on how the players are doing. If a player lands a massive blow on the enemy "hero", that means that the company "following" that player is plowing through the enemy (and vice versa).
What you prefer probably depends on your game style. Me and my players are not very interested in option 2. That becomes to much of a board game to us, so I usually go for the other options when I "have" to put the players in the midsts of a battle.
It's actually quite strange how poorly RPG's covers mass battles in their core rules. I actually don't recall any system with rules for thus that I actually liked and have used. That's kind of strange when you consider how big part of RPG combat is...
So, my advice is (unless you want to go for the roll for everyone and spend endless hours on the battle) to choose one of the "main" roads I think most DMs use for mass battles:
1. Have the battle as a backdrop and have the players focus on other things. Could for instance be to get an important person or thing to safety while the battle rages all around them. Can be very cool, but the outcome of the battle will usually be beyond the players control (unless their mission is what will save the day).
2. Gave the players act as commanders. The weak point here is that you probably would need a unit combat system. I gave never been able to find something here that suits our style of play, so here I can't help you.
3. Let the players be the "heroes" if their army. The outcome of the battle will depend on how the players are doing. If a player lands a massive blow on the enemy "hero", that means that the company "following" that player is plowing through the enemy (and vice versa).
What you prefer probably depends on your game style. Me and my players are not very interested in option 2. That becomes to much of a board game to us, so I usually go for the other options when I "have" to put the players in the midsts of a battle.
In many ways it makes sense that table top roleplay games don’t have rules for large scale warfare, because that is actually a whole genre of game styles. tabletop war games have entire books of rules devoted to mass combat and over the years have streamlined and made their rules far simpler. If you compare Warhammer Fantasy Battle now to the first edition version back then the stat block for each type of creature on the game was far more involved and detailed. But over time the company realised that mass battles are about the flow of tactics on the large scale rather then trying to treat each individual as, well and individual. But what it did allow back then was for Gamesworkshops roleplay system (Warhammer fantasy roleplay) to match the tabletop closer so allowing players to put there roleplay characters onto the battlefield.
In its essence When it comes to combat DnD is a skirmish game, if you run encounters using models, terrain, tape measures and templates the max number of miniatures you will use are 20-30, where as a tabletop wargame you may have hundreads of miniatures representing just a small portion of a larger battlefield.
I remember Legend of the 5 rings created a companion tabletop warfare game along with rules for converting player characters into heroes on the battlefield, it kind of worked but was not great and showed how hard it is to combine the 2 types of game.
It's actually quite strange how poorly RPG's covers mass battles in their core rules. I actually don't recall any system with rules for thus that I actually liked and have used.
That's because you did not grow up with D&D BECMI like I did. The War Machine system which is integral to that edition (as were the management of dominions, to the extent that the modules for Companion and Master level play figure that and the War Machine prominently).
Thanks for making me feel young, because you are both wrong and right. I am old enough to remember first edition (they were even translated into Norwegian), however you are right that I didn’t play that edition a lot and don’t know it very well. I stared playing MERP/Rolemaster, and then continued on to other games. I did play some ADD, but that was just occationally :-)
Perhaps I’ll check out that system then. As you describe it, it sounds like something that actually might «work» for me. As noted by Scarloc, you have the battle games like Warhammer, but that have never been very interesting to me and my group. We are quite role playing focused (to the point that I have players that think DnD is far to combat focused), and I have never read a system for mass combat and thought: «Wow, this is a great system for mass combat that will actually add tendion to the game!»
What I usually end up doing if I put my players into a mass combat (and the outcome is beyond controll of the players) is to just «create» a roll. In DnD, I might just roll an attack roll for both armies, give attack bonus based on size and strength etc, and then narrated that the side with the highest roll is winning. I do like to roll for it during play, because I like the randomness of it, and I as a DM, don’t want to know the outcome up front. That just doesn’t feel right.
Rule-wise, treat the regular enemy army as environmental hazard. In DMG there are 3 (maybe more, but I just use these 3): dungeon hazard, complication in a chase, and lair action/effect of legendary monsters. Read those, and make your own rule of this particular battle encounter based on and flavored with your game context.
that is a very broad description of how L5R handles massed combat. These rules seem to have changed from what I remember (will now have to dig out my 1st edition l5r books, which will then lead to me spending a day re-reading all the fluff :) )
Thanks everyone. In the end my squad totally scuppered my plans and I ended up in a siege which they then escaped from in a secret passage so the battle has been put on the backburner. It's likely it will come back around though - I'll let you know what goes down
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
Im a simple person so instead of running soldiers i run them as several swarm versions and use the mass combat rules in the dmg to maximize effiency with out any fancy homebrew.
The book sinister secret of saltmarsh has a way to run a ship fight where the PCs fight the main officers and the crews are assumed to follow the result. You could probably use that for an army combat as well.
Any tips on running a large battle? If its say 100v100 + PCs would you just trim it down so the PCs e.g. pick their targets (like the enemy commander) and only worry about HP for them and any monsters between them and their target but assign an attrition rate to the rest of them like 5 on each side per round? Then if the PCs e.g. kill the boss that moves things in favour of the 'goodies'?
Don't want to get lost in numbers but don't want it to necessarily be a foregone conclusion - Id want runaway to be a real option.
If you play 1ce/week for 4 hours per session a battle that size would take at least a month, even using the minion houserule. I would personally send the party in as an elite force to deal with a specific threat and just narrate the battle around them. But make sure the fate of the battle test on the party’s success so that they are the center of attention. They made a movie about the Dirty Dozen, and Kelly’s Heroes. They don’t make movies about the 100 troops who distracted the enemy valiantly while the heroes won the day.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You might want to consider getting Matt Coleville's Strongholds and Followers book. It has unit combat rules. I would use something like that. Make units for each side. Let the players run their side. Each round of combat, a player on his or her turn can make one unit act. In response you the GM make one of the enemy units act. If the players win their fight with the BBEG, then the unit combat resolves in their favor if it is not over yet.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think I would approach it by first considering what role the players have to play in this set piece battle/pitched battle
Are the players Generals ie will they command deployment and troop movements or free Champions assigned to troop formations or maybe held back by the General as shock troops to deal with particular threats as they arise on the battlefield?
short version - how you handle this is going to be very different if the players are actually in command then if the aren't
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
I use the legend of the 5 rings system for massed battles.
Players will be one of 2 things, senior combatants on the front line maybe leading a group of lesser troops, or as a shock attack unit.
Or players will be commanding massed forces from a place of relative safety overlooking the battlefield. They may even be split between the 2.
The shock unit focus just on their bit of the battle, they don’t have time to see what’s happening beyond the troops in front of them, give them a target or an objective and then let them figure out how to achieve it. Maybe they need to clear out a group of archers, or artillery pieces. Maybe they are a hit team targeting the key generals. Or maybe they need to get an urgent message to another part of the battle, new orders maybe. Their objectives should be important enough to swing the tide of battle and are run as combat encounters using the normal rules. If they succeed then the battle swings in their flavour.
If one player is acting as a general have the others act as bodyguard. In this case have a series of skill checks, describing the to and fro of battle those skill checks determine how good the players generalship is. If they come up with some great ideas for tactics go with it. Make some general rolls for enemy generals and determine how the battle is proceeding. to keep the other players interested have the enemy attack this position they battle a holding action while letting him get on with commanding the battle.
Thanks all - really useful
Would be cool if you could do a follow up on what you decided on and how it went, if and when you feel like it.
I know I'd be interested and think other would to
I think I have a mammoth battle scenario coming with the Tyranny of Dragons Campaign I'm running specifically in The Rise of Tiamat - TRoT though that's a long ways off we're still in HotDQ, anyways some first hand accounts would really help get my head round it once I get that far.
hope it goes well have fun
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
For mass battles, I just focus on the player's perspectives and do nothing else outside of their perspectives. I don't use "units". I tried using "units" once with an army made by the players but it just made action economy ridiculous as well as stole a bit of spotlight the players should have had.
Not everyone either wants to focus on units. Many D&D players just want to play a badass fantasy adventurer and even in mass combat, I think that should be kept. DM controlled units makes the game primarily the DM playing with themself in a way.
Mmm... well, I haven't had the chance of trying it yet and it isn't quite what you asked for but this might be able to help?
https://gamenightblog.com/2021/01/31/fantasy-siege-roleplay-combat-resource-how-to-run/
It basically says that instead of playing a whole battle, you have your players as leaders of an unit, have them focus on a series of skirmishes while the larger battle happens in the background and craft some encounters and events that have to be completed by their unit to end the siege/battle. You could probably assign a number of points to each event depending on how it is completed and then make a table that determines the outcome of the battle depending on the total of points earned.
It also offers some simplified rules for mass combat, an example of the time the poster used those rules on a session and some tips.
It's actually quite strange how poorly RPG's covers mass battles in their core rules. I actually don't recall any system with rules for thus that I actually liked and have used. That's kind of strange when you consider how big part of RPG combat is...
So, my advice is (unless you want to go for the roll for everyone and spend endless hours on the battle) to choose one of the "main" roads I think most DMs use for mass battles:
1. Have the battle as a backdrop and have the players focus on other things. Could for instance be to get an important person or thing to safety while the battle rages all around them. Can be very cool, but the outcome of the battle will usually be beyond the players control (unless their mission is what will save the day).
2. Gave the players act as commanders. The weak point here is that you probably would need a unit combat system. I gave never been able to find something here that suits our style of play, so here I can't help you.
3. Let the players be the "heroes" if their army. The outcome of the battle will depend on how the players are doing. If a player lands a massive blow on the enemy "hero", that means that the company "following" that player is plowing through the enemy (and vice versa).
What you prefer probably depends on your game style. Me and my players are not very interested in option 2. That becomes to much of a board game to us, so I usually go for the other options when I "have" to put the players in the midsts of a battle.
Ludo ergo sum!
In many ways it makes sense that table top roleplay games don’t have rules for large scale warfare, because that is actually a whole genre of game styles. tabletop war games have entire books of rules devoted to mass combat and over the years have streamlined and made their rules far simpler. If you compare Warhammer Fantasy Battle now to the first edition version back then the stat block for each type of creature on the game was far more involved and detailed. But over time the company realised that mass battles are about the flow of tactics on the large scale rather then trying to treat each individual as, well and individual. But what it did allow back then was for Gamesworkshops roleplay system (Warhammer fantasy roleplay) to match the tabletop closer so allowing players to put there roleplay characters onto the battlefield.
In its essence When it comes to combat DnD is a skirmish game, if you run encounters using models, terrain, tape measures and templates the max number of miniatures you will use are 20-30, where as a tabletop wargame you may have hundreads of miniatures representing just a small portion of a larger battlefield.
I remember Legend of the 5 rings created a companion tabletop warfare game along with rules for converting player characters into heroes on the battlefield, it kind of worked but was not great and showed how hard it is to combine the 2 types of game.
Thanks for making me feel young, because you are both wrong and right. I am old enough to remember first edition (they were even translated into Norwegian), however you are right that I didn’t play that edition a lot and don’t know it very well. I stared playing MERP/Rolemaster, and then continued on to other games. I did play some ADD, but that was just occationally :-)
Perhaps I’ll check out that system then. As you describe it, it sounds like something that actually might «work» for me. As noted by Scarloc, you have the battle games like Warhammer, but that have never been very interesting to me and my group. We are quite role playing focused (to the point that I have players that think DnD is far to combat focused), and I have never read a system for mass combat and thought: «Wow, this is a great system for mass combat that will actually add tendion to the game!»
What I usually end up doing if I put my players into a mass combat (and the outcome is beyond controll of the players) is to just «create» a roll. In DnD, I might just roll an attack roll for both armies, give attack bonus based on size and strength etc, and then narrated that the side with the highest roll is winning. I do like to roll for it during play, because I like the randomness of it, and I as a DM, don’t want to know the outcome up front. That just doesn’t feel right.
Ludo ergo sum!
Rule-wise, treat the regular enemy army as environmental hazard. In DMG there are 3 (maybe more, but I just use these 3): dungeon hazard, complication in a chase, and lair action/effect of legendary monsters. Read those, and make your own rule of this particular battle encounter based on and flavored with your game context.
http://lasthaiku.*******.com/battle
that is a very broad description of how L5R handles massed combat. These rules seem to have changed from what I remember (will now have to dig out my 1st edition l5r books, which will then lead to me spending a day re-reading all the fluff :) )
Thanks everyone. In the end my squad totally scuppered my plans and I ended up in a siege which they then escaped from in a secret passage so the battle has been put on the backburner. It's likely it will come back around though - I'll let you know what goes down
what was that saying "No plan survives first contact with the PC?"
Oh man... thanks for the follow up Sanctity_Greylock
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
Im a simple person so instead of running soldiers i run them as several swarm versions and use the mass combat rules in the dmg to maximize effiency with out any fancy homebrew.
Check out my homebrew subclasses spells magic items feats monsters races
i am a sauce priest
help create a world here
The book sinister secret of saltmarsh has a way to run a ship fight where the PCs fight the main officers and the crews are assumed to follow the result. You could probably use that for an army combat as well.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep