Hi,

My question is to ask how other GMS handle large encounters, and whether that changes when you're using a VTT. I don't mean largescale combat - I've seen other threads here that cover that, and I've personally and successfully used MCDM's warfare rules in those cases, including in a VTT. I mean just the PCs against potentially hundreds or even thousands of NPCs in a single adventuring day.

I'm at the tail end of a large project converting 2E adventures to 5E, over 800 pages. In several instances the PCs must, in a single long rest, infiltrate a place occupied by many NPCs, achieve the objective and get out. I have prepared in advance both individual and mob style encounters to be ready for whatever the PCs do. Two groups are running through the campaign.

In the one instance (actually the second) it was 80 lizardfolk with a dozen or more giant lizards, followed by a tower filled with more (a pair of leaders, a pair of giant lizards, a shaman, and common lizardfolk, with terrain advantage). Both player groups essentially start mass combat right off the bat, standing in an open field with few choke points. For the first group I used individual NPCs, and as i didn't want 80 NPCs all going at once, i used individual initiative. But then i'm bouncing all over the map, and still going through 80 NPCs as quickly and efficiently as I can in each round. But, the combat (to me) felt better, as well be explained via the second player group, which I used the mobs. Each mob represented 10 individuals for total HP, and I used the DMG rules for mob combat, calculating the damage they'd inflict on each PC in advance (adjusting down depending on remaining HP). It had it's own issues, where a single melee hit could cross "multiple" NPCs (rather than be limited to their individual max HP), AOE spells were clunkier (for example, it's a pain to track a bunch of NPCs reduced to 5 hp, rather than merely reducing the mob total hp and claiming most as dead). I didn't like it.

The other instance was a structure housing 200 soldiers, 50 knights, plus a boss encounter, with the primary mission to free a prisoner, but everyone wants to wipe the garrison because the NPCs were a recurring evil that the players (never mind the PCs) hate. In both cases the PCs sneak deep into the structure, one one group initiating non-discreet very loud combat with the rather tough boss encounter, and 250 troops between them and the lone exit descending on them. The other group just gets dead-center completely surrounded with multiple avenues of attack against them in every direction and initiate wholesale slaughter (they were only saved by hurling bottled farastu behind enemy lines that the soldiers had no way of hurting, that the PCs themselves could barely deal with once the fiends eventually turned on them).

In both scenarios, the players knew very well what they were up against. Perhaps they assumed that the GM would not present so many NPCs with no way to kill them all and survive, neglecting the concept of a stealth mission. And now I'm working on a module that involves infiltrating a mobile castle to steal something, where even at T4 level a full on assault - similar to above - is a suicide mission (thousands of higher CR fiends).

In each scenario there are plenty of ways and opportunities to sneak in and sneak out, or to tactically engage the enemy through pinch points, silent kills, etc. Instead, in every case, either through role play "needs", bad luck or bad choices, they trigger mass combat in a single encounter in an open nearly indefensible space against the entire garrison.

And in future scenarios the stakes are even higher where, at least in theory, full-frontal assaults are (more) suicidal. Sometimes they have clever plans that pull a well-deserved hail mary. But what happens if their plan goes south? So GMs, how do you handle these scenarios? Is the simple answer, be willing to let them die? Each group has been in this campaign for 1-2 years, with another year+ of content. Some kind of intervention that lets them walk away, but the mission is a failure? Like how many chances should they get before the entire nine hells and azmodeus himself comes down on the PCs? (like i said, the prize they're after is high stakes. It's one thing for a tactical strike, but it's another for 4-6 PCs in a prolonged siege in the lower layers of Baator).

So, in my sandbox world, there are ongoing events called The Crusades. They are a literal war, and I hate doing wargaming, and never use VTTs, so I needed something that would work for usch.

I shared the stuff I use to do this previously, but I'll share it again behind a spoiler tag.

That's it. Nothing exciting. It reduces the "big battle" to the actions of the players, while still being a really grueling combat session that makes folks not want to do too much of it, lol. Probably not useful in your situation, but it is something.

Quote from LouSIlver >>

Hi,

My question is to ask how other GMS handle large encounters, and whether that changes when you're using a VTT. I don't mean largescale combat - I've seen other threads here that cover that, and I've personally and successfully used MCDM's warfare rules in those cases, including in a VTT. I mean just the PCs against potentially hundreds or even thousands of NPCs in a single adventuring day.

I'm at the tail end of a large project converting 2E adventures to 5E, over 800 pages. In several instances the PCs must, in a single long rest, infiltrate a place occupied by many NPCs, achieve the objective and get out. I have prepared in advance both individual and mob style encounters to be ready for whatever the PCs do. Two groups are running through the campaign.

In the one instance (actually the second) it was 80 lizardfolk with a dozen or more giant lizards, followed by a tower filled with more (a pair of leaders, a pair of giant lizards, a shaman, and common lizardfolk, with terrain advantage). Both player groups essentially start mass combat right off the bat, standing in an open field with few choke points. For the first group I used individual NPCs, and as i didn't want 80 NPCs all going at once, i used individual initiative. But then i'm bouncing all over the map, and still going through 80 NPCs as quickly and efficiently as I can in each round. But, the combat (to me) felt better, as well be explained via the second player group, which I used the mobs. Each mob represented 10 individuals for total HP, and I used the DMG rules for mob combat, calculating the damage they'd inflict on each PC in advance (adjusting down depending on remaining HP). It had it's own issues, where a single melee hit could cross "multiple" NPCs (rather than be limited to their individual max HP), AOE spells were clunkier (for example, it's a pain to track a bunch of NPCs reduced to 5 hp, rather than merely reducing the mob total hp and claiming most as dead). I didn't like it.

The other instance was a structure housing 200 soldiers, 50 knights, plus a boss encounter, with the primary mission to free a prisoner, but everyone wants to wipe the garrison because the NPCs were a recurring evil that the players (never mind the PCs) hate. In both cases the PCs sneak deep into the structure, one one group initiating non-discreet very loud combat with the rather tough boss encounter, and 250 troops between them and the lone exit descending on them. The other group just gets dead-center completely surrounded with multiple avenues of attack against them in every direction and initiate wholesale slaughter (they were only saved by hurling bottled farastu behind enemy lines that the soldiers had no way of hurting, that the PCs themselves could barely deal with once the fiends eventually turned on them).

In both scenarios, the players knew very well what they were up against. Perhaps they assumed that the GM would not present so many NPCs with no way to kill them all and survive, neglecting the concept of a stealth mission. And now I'm working on a module that involves infiltrating a mobile castle to steal something, where even at T4 level a full on assault - similar to above - is a suicide mission (thousands of higher CR fiends).

In each scenario there are plenty of ways and opportunities to sneak in and sneak out, or to tactically engage the enemy through pinch points, silent kills, etc. Instead, in every case, either through role play "needs", bad luck or bad choices, they trigger mass combat in a single encounter in an open nearly indefensible space against the entire garrison.

And in future scenarios the stakes are even higher where, at least in theory, full-frontal assaults are (more) suicidal. Sometimes they have clever plans that pull a well-deserved hail mary. But what happens if their plan goes south? So GMs, how do you handle these scenarios? Is the simple answer, be willing to let them die? Each group has been in this campaign for 1-2 years, with another year+ of content. Some kind of intervention that lets them walk away, but the mission is a failure? Like how many chances should they get before the entire nine hells and azmodeus himself comes down on the PCs? (like i said, the prize they're after is high stakes. It's one thing for a tactical strike, but it's another for 4-6 PCs in a prolonged siege in the lower layers of Baator).

 Short answer: Neither the game nor VTT's are designed for large scale combat. You can create/steal statblocks for mobs, and assume that any icon represents X individuals, but trying to keep track of say more that 20 unique entities on a digital or actual battle map, forget it.

I haven't dealt with this exact problem, but I have some ideas.

• Form the more mook-ish enemies into a swarm, as with the skeletal swarm.
• Treat the enemies that aren't immediately engaged in combat as an environmental feature, such as a trap. Or you could even give the more engaged monsters lair or legendary actions appropriate to having a large number of nearby allies.

To answer your final question, I would let the PCs die if they don't get the picture that wave after wave of reinforcements will keep coming. Perhaps even dial up the tier of enemy as the combat goes on. Give them plenty of verbal cues that there are modes of escape.

Abstraction. TotM already does this, and the mob rules mentioned in the OP are the way to do it in a VTT as mentioned here:

Each mob represented 10 individuals for total HP, and I used the DMG rules for mob combat, calculating the damage they'd inflict on each PC in advance (adjusting down depending on remaining HP). It had it's own issues, where a single melee hit could cross "multiple" NPCs (rather than be limited to their individual max HP), AOE spells were clunkier (for example, it's a pain to track a bunch of NPCs reduced to 5 hp, rather than merely reducing the mob total hp and claiming most as dead). I didn't like it.

To me, it sounds like your main gripes involve abstraction as it applies to mob groups. You didn't like "overflow damage" and you didn't like how AOEs worked.

You need to either come to terms with this abstraction by changing your perspective - for instance, seeing mob HP not only as a pool of the individuals' HP but also as squad morale and cohesion - or refocus these encounters so that they involve only the immediate surroundings of the party, with additional enemies moving in to replace ones that drop and ranged attacks working as environmental effects that go off once a round.

If you don't want the party to attempt to lay siege to a fortress on their own, you can just tell them they can't do it. Sometimes the characters - who's lives are actually at stake - know things that the players - who might at the moment be more concerned about their Mountain Dew running out - don't. "Your knowledge of military tactics tells you that a frontal assault would be folly." This would be common sense and shouldn't even require a roll for an experienced party. Your characters should not be idiots by default just because your players are.

I am confused whether you are asking about running the encounter itself or allowing players to make terrible choices (ie full frontal assault against ridiculous odds) and get away scot-free.  I will leave others to answer the first question  but IMO terrible strategy and decision making leads to PC death.  I certainly would not coddle repeated bad choices even if the campaign had been going on for a long time.  If you are more lenient, they could be taken captive.