Any fellow DM's here? I've been running a 3.5e game with some bros for a little while, and we've reached a point where I'm subjecting them to large scale combat. Trouble is, the first and most recent fight took us 3 sessions to resolve, with a sluggish 3-5 rounds per session.
I break troops up into generic types so they all use a single initiative roll and try to stage their turns as quickly as possible, but still it drags. Any advice?
/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal
6 replies | 3 files | 5 UUIDs | Page 3
Check out the mass combat rules for Savage Worlds or GURPS, both can be applied rather easily to any other system. They're much faster to resolve (an hour tops, including set-up).
Another option would be to check out some rank & flank wargames and convert your party and warband into that system, like Warhammer Fantasy. Then play that out. Honestly, anything else is better than using fanmade or official rules for D&D mass combat.
Another option would be to check out some rank & flank wargames and convert your party and warband into that system, like Warhammer Fantasy. Then play that out. Honestly, anything else is better than using fanmade or official rules for D&D mass combat.
>>189568
Whenever I do a large-scale combat, it's because the conclusion (outside the player's leg) is predetermined (sometimes success, sometimes failure) and the only real details are specific to the players
Whenever I do a large-scale combat, it's because the conclusion (outside the player's leg) is predetermined (sometimes success, sometimes failure) and the only real details are specific to the players
>>189568
>3.5e mass combat
Read Heroes Of Battle. It has rules pertain to mass combat, and also to allow PCs to make differences in wars while also being D&D as expected (Victory Points).
I ran the Red Hand Of Doom game on this board, which involves quite a bit of mass combat and war themes, and refers to Heroes Of Battle in several places.
>I break troops up into generic types so they all use a single initiative roll and try to stage their turns as quickly as possible, but still it drags. Any advice?
I am partial to the Mob template from the DMGII for starting armies of 40-50 goblins as a singular creature. Players can either kill individual creatures in the mob, or attack the mob directly.
https://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/mob.shtml
>3.5e mass combat
Read Heroes Of Battle. It has rules pertain to mass combat, and also to allow PCs to make differences in wars while also being D&D as expected (Victory Points).
I ran the Red Hand Of Doom game on this board, which involves quite a bit of mass combat and war themes, and refers to Heroes Of Battle in several places.
>I break troops up into generic types so they all use a single initiative roll and try to stage their turns as quickly as possible, but still it drags. Any advice?
I am partial to the Mob template from the DMGII for starting armies of 40-50 goblins as a singular creature. Players can either kill individual creatures in the mob, or attack the mob directly.
https://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/templates/mob.shtml
>>189568
>Trouble is, the first and most recent fight took us 3 sessions to resolve, with a sluggish 3-5 rounds per session.
>I break troops up into generic types so they all use a single initiative roll and try to stage their turns as quickly as possible, but still it drags. Any advice?
Question: does your party have an evoker caster with an AoE spell that can wipe out 5-8 low level fodder enemies at once? If not, you should reconsider how you want to run mass combat in your game.
RHoD has an encounter at the beginning of the game that it suggests scaling down if the party doesn't have an AoE caster, because it would take too long and be unfun.
>Trouble is, the first and most recent fight took us 3 sessions to resolve, with a sluggish 3-5 rounds per session.
>I break troops up into generic types so they all use a single initiative roll and try to stage their turns as quickly as possible, but still it drags. Any advice?
Question: does your party have an evoker caster with an AoE spell that can wipe out 5-8 low level fodder enemies at once? If not, you should reconsider how you want to run mass combat in your game.
RHoD has an encounter at the beginning of the game that it suggests scaling down if the party doesn't have an AoE caster, because it would take too long and be unfun.
1745071839.jpg (424.3 KB, 1280x910, 7CA6083E-151A-4961-A4ED-4C5361C23217.jpg)
>>189620
>>189625
Thanks, I'll take a look. Mob rules will probably be handy, too.
>>189626
They've got a sorcerer with fireballs who does mop up a lot of mooks. The way it's set up is I have them acting as a vanguard for a larger army, so they are running in and taking segments of walls, capturing villages and small border forts, clashing with enemy vanguards, that kind of thing. The last one we did was them capturing a gatehouse during a siege. I do have pitched battles planned, we just haven't gotten there yet. I guess so far it hasn't been "mass combat" per se, more of just cleaving their way through a relatively static line. The thing is, everyone seems to have a lot of fun since they're all getting to fight and kill, I'm just worried about sheer turn length making people bored.
>>189621
The march is doomed to fail, I just have the party's successes or failures determining how long before that happens, and how much booty they can accumulate.
>>189625
Thanks, I'll take a look. Mob rules will probably be handy, too.
>>189626
They've got a sorcerer with fireballs who does mop up a lot of mooks. The way it's set up is I have them acting as a vanguard for a larger army, so they are running in and taking segments of walls, capturing villages and small border forts, clashing with enemy vanguards, that kind of thing. The last one we did was them capturing a gatehouse during a siege. I do have pitched battles planned, we just haven't gotten there yet. I guess so far it hasn't been "mass combat" per se, more of just cleaving their way through a relatively static line. The thing is, everyone seems to have a lot of fun since they're all getting to fight and kill, I'm just worried about sheer turn length making people bored.
>>189621
The march is doomed to fail, I just have the party's successes or failures determining how long before that happens, and how much booty they can accumulate.
>>189748
>The way it's set up is I have them acting as a vanguard for a larger army, so they are running in and taking segments of walls, capturing villages and small border forts, clashing with enemy vanguards, that kind of thing. The last one we did was them capturing a gatehouse during a siege.
That sounds s lot like the victory point system, except with the Victory point system the PCs don't need to do every sidequest, just enough to make a difference in the war (gain a certain number of points).
Volleys are also useful. The enemies can all shoot arrows, and that's resolved as a single AoE reflex save.
>The way it's set up is I have them acting as a vanguard for a larger army, so they are running in and taking segments of walls, capturing villages and small border forts, clashing with enemy vanguards, that kind of thing. The last one we did was them capturing a gatehouse during a siege.
That sounds s lot like the victory point system, except with the Victory point system the PCs don't need to do every sidequest, just enough to make a difference in the war (gain a certain number of points).
Volleys are also useful. The enemies can all shoot arrows, and that's resolved as a single AoE reflex save.
[View All] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
6 replies | 3 files | 5 UUIDs | Page 3
[Add to Thread Watcher]