Have an army with siege weapons and several general types attempting to siege (Ladders/Balista/Mortars) a sort of Alamo type compound where the players currently are with their allies.
Just looking for suggestions/tips/things to keep in mind for this kind of combat.
I've already put the enemy groups into stages to determine what they are trying to do and what will happen if they do it and what will happen if the player's don't respond. What I am really looking for is a way to organize 60-foot soldiers + siege weaponry + leader actions in a way that does not involve me taking an hour for one round of combat. BUT WITHOUT TAKING AWAY PLAYER AGENCY OR DOING ANY OF THAT % BULLDANG.
I haven't read them myself, but I think there is an unearthed arcana or 2 that deal with mass combat. They are not on d&d beyond, but you can can find links to download PDFs from WotC on dnd wikis.
I haven't read them myself, but I think there is an unearthed arcana or 2 that deal with mass combat. They are not on d&d beyond, but you can can find links to download PDFs from WotC on dnd wikis.
It does have an entire section that discusses player involvement. As with most resources, probably not everything here will fit exactly what you are looking for, but hopefully it can provide you with a good "rules framework". Remember you are the DM and the table is your piece of art, so be creative and have fun with your vision!
I would suggest a heavy homebrew of the combat, and leaning towards a heavily simplified system where you pretty much summarise the turn of events. I would then ask the players roughly what they want to try and achieve, then layer on a very thick description of the events of the battlefield unfolding. Maybe decide on a few specific points where you pause and ask if the players want to change their plans.
Close Combat If they dive into combat with a regiment, just simplify it down to something like "You plunge into the thick of a melee. Friends and foes surround you on all sides as you add your shouts the the din of battle." Then ask them to roll 3 D20s one after the other, adding their usual combat modifiers. This will give you a rough indication of how they performed in the combat and lets you paint the narrative. I would react something like this:
1st Roll : 17 "You dive in with vigor, clearing a space ahead of you and raising a cheer from the allies around you. The enemy hesitate at the ferocity of your attacks and drop back slightly."
2nd Roll: 9 "The fighting closes in again as the enemy regroups. You're aware of blows making contact with your armour but you fight on as the mass of bodies around you press in."
3rd Roll: 5 "Your allies begin falling around you, succumbing to a fresh surge from the enemy ranks. A heavy blow impacts your right shoulder followed by a stabbing pain in your thigh as a spear strikes at you. (take 1d8 + 4 bludgeoning and 1d6 + 2 piercing damage (or whatever seems reasonable)). "You look up and realise that your regiment is being overrun by the enemy. What do you do?"
By doing this you've avoided the hassle of many rounds of meaningless attacks but still given the players a sense that their rolls have a significant impact on the outcome. Obviously you run the risk of having the battle take a potentially unplanned turned but I think that sense of unpredictability will only lend value to the encounter.
You also needn't rely on them simply fighting. Maybe the bard steps up with a chanting battle-song and rallies their allies. You still treat it as a simple roll of the D20 plus modifiers but obviously the description of what happens to swing the outcome of the encounter will be very different.
Spellcasters I think spellcasters could be handled a little differently as they would probably be disinclined to dive into a regiment. Maybe give them a "tactical view" of the battlefield and see what they fancy doing. Maybe don't bother with trying to work out the exact damage they deal, but instead have their spells impact the overall events. Definitely describe the damage but I don't imagine there's much need for tracking the numerical values on individuals.
I wouldn't have the entire battle play out in this way though. You don't want the players to suddenly think they've been pulled out of the world into a "battle map" style game so I would break the whole scenario down into something like this:
Group combats (simplified d20 rolls as described above) Hero Duel (A "hero" enemy steps forward challenging specifically the PCs to a fight. Treat this as a normal combat but with the potential to fold back into a group combat if either side fails) Skill check challenges (Once they reach the siege engines they must succeed at sabotaging / destroying them)
You could then repeat any of these steps depending on how it seems the scenario is playing out. If they fly through the first Group Combat and haven't quite impacted the battlefield in the way you wanted, throw another one at them. Maybe you want a major change to happen on the field so you through in one of the enemy Lieutenants as a mini boss, the defeat of whom causes a significant part of the enemy forces to weaken or flee.
The most important thing I would focus on is not getting bogged down with anything that starts feeling repetitive.
Alternatively, you can take a fire emblem sort of approach where even if it is implied that 2 armies are clashing, it focuses on just the few main fighters at a key location of the battle.
For the most part these battles would have enemies come in waves until an objective is completed, like seizing a fort, or holding out until reinforcements arrive.
Alternatively, you can take a fire emblem sort of approach where even if it is implied that 2 armies are clashing, it focuses on just the few main fighters at a key location of the battle.
For the most part these battles would have enemies come in waves until an objective is completed, like seizing a fort, or holding out until reinforcements arrive.
I think this option would be especially great if you're using miniatures. My suggestion above wouldn't really work for miniature play as you would end up with an underwhelming visual representation of what should sound quite epic from the DMs descriptions.
But yea, I'm all for the idea of focusing on smaller pockets of combat as a way of simplifying the overall battle. You could even do a series of encounters that are technically happening concurrently if the PCs decide to do different things on the battlefield. Could be fun to see the outcomes of each "pocket" and then bring them together to describe how the overall battle progresses.
How I've handled it in the past is to not try and simulate the larger battle at all. Do it narratively, instead.
All you need to work out is how you think the general flow of the battle would go without Player intervention - which you've done.
Then, all you need to do is describe in detail the small part of the battle that the party is involved in, at that moment.
This also allows you to tweak events to keep the Players' part of the combat interesting. The party is getting their butts kicked? Then they can be bailed out by allies. The party is slaughtering their way through the enemy unit you thought would be easy? Another group of enemies scales the wall and attacks their flank. Combat is getting to be a dull blow-on-blow slog? Have something big and dramatic and attention getting happen in the main flow of the battle ( the powder magazine gets fired and explodes, a Dragon arrives, the siege engines collapse the northwest tower of the keep, etc.).
You can absolutely describe the general flow of battlefield events - based on what you've worked out ahead of time - since the party would be generally aware of how things were going, but you don't need fine simulation of anything not within range of the Players' sight or hearing. This might even prompt them to change their plans, and shift the focus of the battle. You know that the enemy archers are going to scale the wall and start raining bow fire down into the courtyard? Maybe the party Rouge will try and scale the wall and start Assassinating them, etc.
Remember - the players are more engaged with what they can see/hear/sense around them - concentrate on that, and you can just keep the rest of the flow of events around them general, until the party starts paying attention to it, or the general flow interjects something big and dramatic which the party will notice.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Have an army with siege weapons and several general types attempting to siege (Ladders/Balista/Mortars) a sort of Alamo type compound where the players currently are with their allies.
Just looking for suggestions/tips/things to keep in mind for this kind of combat.
I've already put the enemy groups into stages to determine what they are trying to do and what will happen if they do it and what will happen if the player's don't respond. What I am really looking for is a way to organize 60-foot soldiers + siege weaponry + leader actions in a way that does not involve me taking an hour for one round of combat. BUT WITHOUT TAKING AWAY PLAYER AGENCY OR DOING ANY OF THAT % BULLDANG.
LOVE MITCH
I haven't read them myself, but I think there is an unearthed arcana or 2 that deal with mass combat. They are not on d&d beyond, but you can can find links to download PDFs from WotC on dnd wikis.
Hi Mitch,
Hope it is okay to share links on these forums... I've encountered before the UA article that DxJxC mentioned. Here it is: https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/2017_UAMassCombat_MCUA_v1.pdf
It does have an entire section that discusses player involvement. As with most resources, probably not everything here will fit exactly what you are looking for, but hopefully it can provide you with a good "rules framework". Remember you are the DM and the table is your piece of art, so be creative and have fun with your vision!
Lyrak
I would suggest a heavy homebrew of the combat, and leaning towards a heavily simplified system where you pretty much summarise the turn of events. I would then ask the players roughly what they want to try and achieve, then layer on a very thick description of the events of the battlefield unfolding. Maybe decide on a few specific points where you pause and ask if the players want to change their plans.
Close Combat
If they dive into combat with a regiment, just simplify it down to something like "You plunge into the thick of a melee. Friends and foes surround you on all sides as you add your shouts the the din of battle." Then ask them to roll 3 D20s one after the other, adding their usual combat modifiers. This will give you a rough indication of how they performed in the combat and lets you paint the narrative. I would react something like this:
1st Roll : 17
"You dive in with vigor, clearing a space ahead of you and raising a cheer from the allies around you. The enemy hesitate at the ferocity of your attacks and drop back slightly."
2nd Roll: 9
"The fighting closes in again as the enemy regroups. You're aware of blows making contact with your armour but you fight on as the mass of bodies around you press in."
3rd Roll: 5
"Your allies begin falling around you, succumbing to a fresh surge from the enemy ranks. A heavy blow impacts your right shoulder followed by a stabbing pain in your thigh as a spear strikes at you. (take 1d8 + 4 bludgeoning and 1d6 + 2 piercing damage (or whatever seems reasonable)). "You look up and realise that your regiment is being overrun by the enemy. What do you do?"
By doing this you've avoided the hassle of many rounds of meaningless attacks but still given the players a sense that their rolls have a significant impact on the outcome. Obviously you run the risk of having the battle take a potentially unplanned turned but I think that sense of unpredictability will only lend value to the encounter.
You also needn't rely on them simply fighting. Maybe the bard steps up with a chanting battle-song and rallies their allies. You still treat it as a simple roll of the D20 plus modifiers but obviously the description of what happens to swing the outcome of the encounter will be very different.
Spellcasters
I think spellcasters could be handled a little differently as they would probably be disinclined to dive into a regiment. Maybe give them a "tactical view" of the battlefield and see what they fancy doing. Maybe don't bother with trying to work out the exact damage they deal, but instead have their spells impact the overall events. Definitely describe the damage but I don't imagine there's much need for tracking the numerical values on individuals.
I wouldn't have the entire battle play out in this way though. You don't want the players to suddenly think they've been pulled out of the world into a "battle map" style game so I would break the whole scenario down into something like this:
Group combats (simplified d20 rolls as described above)
Hero Duel (A "hero" enemy steps forward challenging specifically the PCs to a fight. Treat this as a normal combat but with the potential to fold back into a group combat if either side fails)
Skill check challenges (Once they reach the siege engines they must succeed at sabotaging / destroying them)
You could then repeat any of these steps depending on how it seems the scenario is playing out. If they fly through the first Group Combat and haven't quite impacted the battlefield in the way you wanted, throw another one at them. Maybe you want a major change to happen on the field so you through in one of the enemy Lieutenants as a mini boss, the defeat of whom causes a significant part of the enemy forces to weaken or flee.
The most important thing I would focus on is not getting bogged down with anything that starts feeling repetitive.
Alternatively, you can take a fire emblem sort of approach where even if it is implied that 2 armies are clashing, it focuses on just the few main fighters at a key location of the battle.
For the most part these battles would have enemies come in waves until an objective is completed, like seizing a fort, or holding out until reinforcements arrive.
I think this option would be especially great if you're using miniatures. My suggestion above wouldn't really work for miniature play as you would end up with an underwhelming visual representation of what should sound quite epic from the DMs descriptions.
But yea, I'm all for the idea of focusing on smaller pockets of combat as a way of simplifying the overall battle. You could even do a series of encounters that are technically happening concurrently if the PCs decide to do different things on the battlefield. Could be fun to see the outcomes of each "pocket" and then bring them together to describe how the overall battle progresses.
How I've handled it in the past is to not try and simulate the larger battle at all. Do it narratively, instead.
All you need to work out is how you think the general flow of the battle would go without Player intervention - which you've done.
Then, all you need to do is describe in detail the small part of the battle that the party is involved in, at that moment.
This also allows you to tweak events to keep the Players' part of the combat interesting. The party is getting their butts kicked? Then they can be bailed out by allies. The party is slaughtering their way through the enemy unit you thought would be easy? Another group of enemies scales the wall and attacks their flank. Combat is getting to be a dull blow-on-blow slog? Have something big and dramatic and attention getting happen in the main flow of the battle ( the powder magazine gets fired and explodes, a Dragon arrives, the siege engines collapse the northwest tower of the keep, etc.).
You can absolutely describe the general flow of battlefield events - based on what you've worked out ahead of time - since the party would be generally aware of how things were going, but you don't need fine simulation of anything not within range of the Players' sight or hearing. This might even prompt them to change their plans, and shift the focus of the battle. You know that the enemy archers are going to scale the wall and start raining bow fire down into the courtyard? Maybe the party Rouge will try and scale the wall and start Assassinating them, etc.
Remember - the players are more engaged with what they can see/hear/sense around them - concentrate on that, and you can just keep the rest of the flow of events around them general, until the party starts paying attention to it, or the general flow interjects something big and dramatic which the party will notice.
Good luck!
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.