Creative Director
|
I get all of that, really. My point is, since we can't assume players will get any of the special creature armies, that expectation assumes roughly 4000 2nd level fighters for the PCs army. That is going to be hard for some games to accept.
Perhaps. In other games it's going to be too FEW. Every GM runs a different game, after all, and part of the GM's job is to make changes so that the game makes sense not only to him but to his group. The observations you're making are exactly the type that an experience GM should make, and it's helpful to post them here, but none of those observations means that the mass combat rules are intrinsically "broken" in any way.
Implying that a game that uses these rules as presented without modification is not a game that will have "staying power" is kind of insulting, is all.
I get all of that, really. My point is, since we can't assume players will get any of the special creature armies, that expectation assumes roughly 4000 2nd level fighters for the PCs army. That is going to be hard for some games to accept.Perhaps. In other games it's going to be too FEW. Every GM runs a different game, after all, and part of the GM's job is to make changes so that the game makes sense not only to him but to his group. The observations you're making are exactly the type that an experience GM should make, and it's helpful to post them here, but none of those observations means that the mass combat rules are intrinsically "broken" in any way.
Note before hand that I am not saying the rules are wrong, or even bad. Just pointing out potentially hidden pitfalls for other GMs.
Implying that a game that uses these rules as presented without modification is not a game that will have "staying power" is kind of insulting, is all.
I'm sorry if the truth (for those that aren't you) hurts. But when I plan on being insulting, you will definitely know.
I'm sorry if the truth (for those that aren't you) hurts. But when I plan on being insulting, you will definitely know.
Man, even I try to not be abrasive to the Paizo-ites. This is just head-scratching to me.
|
Creative Director
|
I'm sorry if the truth (for those that aren't you) hurts. But when I plan on being insulting, you will definitely know.
I'm not trying to challenge you to be a jerk. I'm just trying to encourage EVERYONE (not just you) to be polite on the boards. There's enough grief on the internet already without paizo.com adding to it. In other words, if you feel the need to be insulting, take it somewhere else.
I'm sorry if the truth (for those that aren't you) hurts. But when I plan on being insulting, you will definitely know.I'm not trying to challenge you to be a jerk. I'm just trying to encourage EVERYONE (not just you) to be polite on the boards.
Alright. Let's go with that for a moment. Ignoring the content (EDIT:: By which I mean the fact that it doesn't paint the rules in a good light.), what about my post that you are trying to challenge (but not to be a jerk) wasn't polite?
|
I'm sorry if the truth (for those that aren't you) hurts. But when I plan on being insulting, you will definitely know.
Yeah. THAT was uncalled for and juvenile. Not to mention rude and troll-like.
When it was limited to buildings, and other intangibles, BP works fine. Great even. But once you get into the realm of equipment, and area where many players understand very well, BP breaks the existing economy even further.
First, the consumption of an army takes into account equipment maintenance. It makes sense, but if your players aren't "forced" to pay maintenance (which the base game doesn't assume) they might have difficulty accepting why their soldiers have to - via their kingdoms treasury.
Monthly upkeep rules for PCs are right in the Core Rulebook. Page 405 under "Cost of Living". It's a rule that you can choose to ignore, but it isn't found in a sidebar. It's right there with experience point awards, character wealth by level, and treasure values per encounter.
Armies are filled with intangibles. You have the obvious cost of purchasing equipment, equipment maintenance, food, housing & payroll. You also have to cost of training, the cost of people who are doing the training, the cost of a location where the training is performed. Plus you have the cost of the support structure for the army. Messengers, wagons, horses. All the people who support the army that aren't soldiers. Any bureaucracy that is needed to keep the army organized. Regular turnover.
That's just for an army that ISN'T fighting. Once you start fighting then you start to get into the logistics of moving and supporting a large group of people through unfriendly lands. Supply lines. An increased support cost. Replacement of casualties. Healing costs. Ammo.
Plus you have the money you have to spend to keep your population from getting too upset that you are sending their children, spouses, and parents off to their potential deaths. Plus you have the increased diplomatic costs to keep things nice and smooth with your neighbors who may get jumpy having a bunch of armed soldiers chilling out just over the border.
Are the soldiers just hanging out in an open field or are they in some sort of fortified position? What about the upkeep of that location?
I am NOT saying that the rules are totally flawless, but I haven't read any of the designers say they are. The rules are an abstract, written in the back of an adventure where space is at a premium. There are plenty of ways you can complicate the rules further that would probably make a lot of sense but that weren't really necessary for the rules to be playable. I look forward to Paizo doing a book dedicated to kingdom building and mass combat where they can take the time and pages to flesh out these rules more. In the mean time, I'll enjoy working with what I have in front of me.
No one is going to send the Pathfinder police to your house if you give the armies a break on upkeep.
Second, a player might be discouraged to find out that it costs roughly 400,000 gold per month to field an army with +1 weapons, no matter if the army is one unit, or 2000. (I used 2000 GP per BP taken from 1/2 the deposit rules in kingdom building. [Yes, I am well aware that it isn't meant to be a 1:1 relationship like that - but not everyone will be capable, or willing, to accept that.]
Well, like you just said, BP is not a 1:1 gp relationship. The designers have been pretty consistent in describing BP as NOT being a representation of raw coinage. You also have favors, public support, personnel, political capital, etc. If players choose to believe that BP is a straight representation of "money in the treasury" they are welcome to do so. They will also be wrong.
As for the +1 weapons, an entire army wielding magical weapons (outside the Forgotten Realms) is probably going to be pretty elite. Extra training, extra payroll, special quarters, uniforms, a dedicated support structure, political backing, security (so those weapons don't "disappear"). It does not cost 400,000 gold a month in actual coin since, as has been repeated by the designers in several locations, BP is an abstract, but it does eat up a ton of resources that could be spent elsewhere.
No recruitment cost can prove troublesome as well. A well prepared player might have the idea to field an iron golem as a unit at roughly 2 BP per week, and wonder why the kingdom doesn't have to pay recruitment costs for their armies of 2000 4th level fighters each (or whatever) when they actually have to build the golem themselves first.
You can easily say that the cost to recruit the solders is included in monthly maintainable cost. Spread out over a period of time instead of all at once. Also, I remember James saying earlier in this very thread that while the rules support the concept single-unit armies (like an iron golem), it isn't a good idea to build armies that way because the rules weren't meant for that.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Is the cost of purchasing resources for an army a flat rate or based on CR?It's a flat rate....
It's also a constant cost...
I just want to get a quick clarification:
The BP cost for improved weapons (5BP) is that a weekly, monthly, or one time charge?
The text isn't clear, my reading was that it was a one time charge. Your description seems to imply the opposite.
I think I'd like a copy of the aforementioned Warpath book as well.
Well if you do and have any questions, hop on over to one of the Warpath threads, and I'll do my best to answer!
Is the cost of purchasing resources for an army a flat rate or based on CR?It's a flat rate. Adjusting the costs for the size of the army is an interesting idea, but not one we had the room to explore in the article.
It's also a constant cost—armies with magic weapons are also, in theory, higher trained and thus get bigger paychecks. And you need to keep those magic weapons in good working order; they'll get broken or lost with some frequency and need replacement all the time.
Constant cost? Do you mean that it adds to Consumption, and in that case how much?
Furthermore, when I look under Consumption it says that "consumption can be further modified by tactics", but when I look under Tactics there's no mention of that. Should that be "consumption can be further modified by resources" instead?
|
Creative Director
|
Is the cost of purchasing resources for an army a flat rate or based on CR?It's a flat rate....
It's also a constant cost...
I just want to get a quick clarification:
The BP cost for improved weapons (5BP) is that a weekly, monthly, or one time charge?
The text isn't clear, my reading was that it was a one time charge. Your description seems to imply the opposite.
It's a weekly charge. Maintaining training with nicer weapons and keeping those weapons in good shape and replacing them when they break or get lost is costly.
|
Creative Director
|
Is the cost of purchasing resources for an army a flat rate or based on CR?It's a flat rate. Adjusting the costs for the size of the army is an interesting idea, but not one we had the room to explore in the article.
It's also a constant cost—armies with magic weapons are also, in theory, higher trained and thus get bigger paychecks. And you need to keep those magic weapons in good working order; they'll get broken or lost with some frequency and need replacement all the time.
Constant cost? Do you mean that it adds to Consumption, and in that case how much?
Furthermore, when I look under Consumption it says that "consumption can be further modified by tactics", but when I look under Tactics there's no mention of that. Should that be "consumption can be further modified by resources" instead?
There's no tactics that adjust consumption, although there could be tactics invented later that do adjust consumption.
I'm sorry if the truth (for those that aren't you) hurts. But when I plan on being insulting, you will definitely know.Yeah. THAT was uncalled for and juvenile. Not to mention rude and troll-like.
So, you consider honesty, directness, and straight-forwardness as juvenile, rude, and troll-like. Interesting. Would prefer I wrap my posts in guile and deception to appease your sensibilities?
Monthly upkeep rules for PCs are right in the Core Rulebook. Page 405 under "Cost of Living". It's a rule that you can choose to ignore, but it isn't found in a sidebar. It's right there with experience point awards, character wealth by level, and treasure values per encounter.
Well, it is Wealth per Level. Not Total Acquired per Level. The base game does not assume that maintenance is used. If you use it, you are assumed to be handing out a bit more treasure to cover it in order to roughly maintain the Wealth per Level. I do not see how the rule existing counters "the base game doesn't assume you are using maintenance costs."
Well, like you just said, BP is not a 1:1 gp relationship. The designers have been pretty consistent in describing BP as NOT being a representation of raw coinage. You also have favors, public support, personnel, political capital, etc. If players choose to believe that BP is a straight representation of "money in the treasury" they are welcome to do so. They will also be wrong.
As for the +1 weapons, an entire army wielding magical weapons (outside the Forgotten Realms) is probably going to be pretty elite. Extra training, extra payroll, special quarters, uniforms, a dedicated support structure, political backing, security (so those weapons don't "disappear"). It does not cost 400,000 gold a month in actual coin since, as has been repeated by the designers in several locations, BP is an abstract, but it does eat up a ton of resources that could be spent elsewhere.
What you seem to be missing is that while the designers have been pretty consistent in describing BP as NOT being a representation of raw coinage - to those who are reading the source material (namely GMs and potential GMs) there is no such description to potential players. I do not know why you would expect potential players to be fully in the know on this mechanic.
As for your rationale for the cost of magic weapons, that is largely group dependent. It is not uncommon in groups I play in to pass lower tier quality items to say, groups of peasants rescued in hostile territory, in order to give them the best possible chance of survival. I can see some groups wanting to give their militia better equipment for survivability reasons. I can also see players griping about 200 BP a month for their tiny militia army ordered to patrol their capital city. Especially when a direct gold comparison does exist because the players can add up to gold cost to do the same thing, and realize it is a one time cost rather than a reoccurring cost. And that is where my point lies. It isn't about what the rules are, or are not. It isn't about the quality of the rules. It is the fact that unless players are fully indoctrinated into the BP mechanic, there is a huge disconnect from the game from their perspective.
Also, I remember James saying earlier in this very thread that while the rules support the concept single-unit armies (like an iron golem), it isn't a good idea to build armies that way because the rules weren't meant for that.
Well, since the rules weren't meant for that, we should just realize that players would never even try it, right?
The fact is, that an iron golem set to defend a well fortified city is a perfectly good tactic to stop just about all standard armies as long as the typical "army smash" tactics are used. And guess what? The mass combat rules do a very good job of representing this. An iron golem is a CR 5 army, and even against a colossal army of 5th level fighters (for example) will do a very good job of holding them off. Especially if it behind fortifications. (By the way, this is a fairly common tactic among groups I have been involved with.)
But when a player is just dipping their toes into the mass combat rules finds out that potential 10s of thousands of well equipped 2nd level fighters has no recruitment cost, but GMs expect them to build a golem before they can field it as a unit (and then pay consumption cost on top of that) it will cause some confusion and probably a bit of resentment.
--------------------------------------------------
This discussion did bring me to realize something.
There is nothing mentioned about where armies are recruited/formed. Something to keep in mind, because some players will probably try to eek out the "we travel to the opponents city, and then form the army" idea to save travel time and consumption cost.
But when a player is just dipping their toes into the mass combat rules finds out that potential 10s of thousands of well equipped 2nd level fighters has no recruitment cost, but GMs expect them to build a golem before they can field it as a unit (and then pay consumption cost on top of that) it will cause some confusion and probably a bit of resentment.
Of course, if the players built the golem, then they'd be capable of taking the golem with them places and assisting them in everything. This I would definitely require them to pay the construction costs. If, on the other hand, they recruit some wizard to use his golem as a defensive force in the city, then I would justify them paying the 2 BP a week consumption cost.
I'm toying around with having things like special abilities and resources adjusting the CR of the unit as opposed to the current methods. Just for fun, I built a small flight of young green dragons:
Flight of Green Dragons CR 6
XP 2,400
LE small army of young green dragons
Combat
hp 39; DV 17; OM +7
Tactics and Resources: Ranged (Breath Weapon)
Special Abilities: Breath Weapon, Mobility Advantage (flight, +1 DV vs. non-flying), Spellcasting
Speed 13; Morale +0; Consumption 3
Leader None
I pitted it against the CR 7 Regular Army in the pdf, and used normal strategy track for both. The colossal army of humans was routed in 3 rounds and wiped out as they fled. the humans did 7 points of damage to the dragons. The only iffy thing that I added to the dragons (IMO) is the Spellcasting. Since young green dragons can entangle at will, I thought that was a fairly combat-oriented ability. Perhaps, I could change that ability to only be if the battle is in a forest or swamp, but even still, the real killer was the +1d4 damage from breath weapons.
I wonder if you increased the CR by # of special abilities / 2 (minimum 1)... hmmm.
I like the simplicity of the system. I've played Mechwarrior, Warhammer, etc. I don't want my Pathfinder sessions to turn into that because many of my players would hate it.
EDIT: Actually, if that increased the Consumption instead of CR, I think it works better.
|
Creative Director
|
There is nothing mentioned about where armies are recruited/formed. Something to keep in mind, because some players will probably try to eek out the "we travel to the opponents city, and then form the army" idea to save travel time and consumption cost.
An interesting point, and one that I'd basically assumed common sense would keep from occurring since in the real world, that's not how armies are built. Again... the fact that we had a very limited amount of space to present the mass combat rules forced us to skimp on some areas—and the process of building and hiring up an army was one of those.
My solution—new armies must begin at a city or lair or campsite from which they were recruited. Any of the human armies the PCs hire could start at ANY city they control (which gives yet another reason to have multiple cities, since that gives you more fluidity on where to start your army in play). If they wanted to hire a boggard army, it'd have to start in the hex with the boggard tribe site. And so on.
|
|
My solution—new armies must begin at a city or lair or campsite from which they were recruited. Any of the human armies the PCs hire could start at ANY city they control (which gives yet another reason to have multiple cities, since that gives you more fluidity on where to start your army in play). If they wanted to hire a boggard army, it'd have to start in the hex with the boggard tribe site. And so on.
This makes sense. I'll definitely use this one.
What about consumption costs? If kingdom upkeep is paid once a month, and army upkeep is paid once a week, what do you think about just multiplying an army's consumption by four and adding it to the kingdom's consumption? That way farms would help support the armies. It wouldn't work for armies built and dissolved in under a month, but it would work for more "permanent" military forces.
|
Creative Director
|
My solution—new armies must begin at a city or lair or campsite from which they were recruited. Any of the human armies the PCs hire could start at ANY city they control (which gives yet another reason to have multiple cities, since that gives you more fluidity on where to start your army in play). If they wanted to hire a boggard army, it'd have to start in the hex with the boggard tribe site. And so on.This makes sense. I'll definitely use this one.
What about consumption costs? If kingdom upkeep is paid once a month, and army upkeep is paid once a week, what do you think about just multiplying an army's consumption by four and adding it to the kingdom's consumption? That way farms would help support the armies. It wouldn't work for armies built and dissolved in under a month, but it would work for more "permanent" military forces.
Since armies and wars are intended to be fast, with armies moving about on the regional map a number of hexes per day, and with battles resolving multiple times a month, it's likely that many armies won't last an entire month. In addition, the resolution of armies and mass combats needs to be more in sync with the regular adventuring portion of the campaign, not the sideline of kingdom development month by month.
|
|
Alright. Let's go with that for a moment. Ignoring the content (EDIT:: By which I mean the fact that it doesn't paint the rules in a good light.), what about my post that you are trying to challenge (but not to be a jerk) wasn't polite?I'm sorry if the truth (for those that aren't you) hurts. But when I plan on being insulting, you will definitely know.I'm not trying to challenge you to be a jerk. I'm just trying to encourage EVERYONE (not just you) to be polite on the boards.
Wow man ...
After looking at the army building rules, I think I am going to add a houserule to Barracks in city creation.
A single barrack can billet a tiny army (25 soldiers). Multiple barracks can be used to billet a larger army. Troops in billets cost double their consumption score, but this is paid only once per month (instead of every week).
This would give the PCs the option of maintaining a small standing army, or a reserve army when the main army is away.
After looking at the army building rules, I think I am going to add a houserule to Barracks in city creation.
A single barrack can billet a tiny army (25 soldiers). Multiple barracks can be used to billet a larger army. Troops in billets cost double their consumption score, but this is paid only once per month (instead of every week).
This would give the PCs the option of maintaining a small standing army, or a reserve army when the main army is away.
That's a cool way to handle things. You might even throw in a free Tactics for armies created in cities with Barracks.
I'd also increase the size of the army allowed to billet in a barracks. Since it's supposed to take up a city block (250 people), why not allow a Medium (100 soldiers) or even Large (200 soldiers) army per barracks.
Maybe Barracks would be medium army and Garrison would be a Large army. Of course, you could also probably argue keeping a standing army in a castle as well. I like this idea, I'm going to modify my handouts.
Think I'm going with:
Barracks, Castle: House an army up to Medium size for 2 X Consumption per month.
Garrison: House an army up to Large size for 2 X Consumption per month. Armies created in cities with Garrisons gain a free Tactic.
|
|
Ok, finished 2nd read of the entire book last night.
I see that measurement is 1"=10ft (rather than 5ft of the normal Pathfinder).
So melee for most battles is 10ft.
But my real question.
Building units:
I am an old Warhammer and TSR Battlesystem player. (I don't actually see this in the book). But what are the unit building rules for building your blocks of units (WH had units of 5 to 30 figures for instance). I see no specification for this in the ruleset. I do see that players can specify themselves that one figure can represent from anywhere 1 to 1000 actual figures, meaning that a single figure can represent different size of units. But visually I don't understand.
My PC is leading a unit of 1st level fighters (100 of them), against a band of Goblins (200 of them).
I can do the entire battle with 3 figures??? 1 - my PC, 1-my 1st level fighters, and 1 the goblin unit?
This doesn't sound very visual to me.
What did I overlook?
Ok, finished 2nd read of the entire book last night.
I see that measurement is 1"=10ft (rather than 5ft of the normal Pathfinder).
So melee for most battles is 10ft.
But my real question.
Building units:
I am an old Warhammer and TSR Battlesystem player. (I don't actually see this in the book). But what are the unit building rules for building your blocks of units (WH had units of 5 to 30 figures for instance). I see no specification for this in the ruleset. I do see that players can specify themselves that one figure can represent from anywhere 1 to 1000 actual figures, meaning that a single figure can represent different size of units. But visually I don't understand.My PC is leading a unit of 1st level fighters (100 of them), against a band of Goblins (200 of them).
I can do the entire battle with 3 figures??? 1 - my PC, 1-my 1st level fighters, and 1 the goblin unit?
This doesn't sound very visual to me.
What did I overlook?
The battle does not take place on a tacmat. There are no visual or tactical elements to these rules. You don't use minis, you don't move them into position, you don't keep track of location at all.
Think less Starcraft and more Final Fantasy: you walk around on the world map according to certain rules, then once two enemies touch each other (ie enter the same hex) you go to the battle screen, and everyone lines up and hits each other.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Ok, finished 2nd read of the entire book last night.
I see that measurement is 1"=10ft (rather than 5ft of the normal Pathfinder).
So melee for most battles is 10ft.
But my real question.
Building units:
I am an old Warhammer and TSR Battlesystem player. (I don't actually see this in the book). But what are the unit building rules for building your blocks of units (WH had units of 5 to 30 figures for instance). I see no specification for this in the ruleset. I do see that players can specify themselves that one figure can represent from anywhere 1 to 1000 actual figures, meaning that a single figure can represent different size of units. But visually I don't understand.My PC is leading a unit of 1st level fighters (100 of them), against a band of Goblins (200 of them).
I can do the entire battle with 3 figures??? 1 - my PC, 1-my 1st level fighters, and 1 the goblin unit?
This doesn't sound very visual to me.
What did I overlook?
If you're talking about the mass combat rules in Kingmaker, they aren't intended to be visual at all. They are intended to be extremely abstract and to not actually use figures at all. The armies are assigned sizes as stat blocks, and the stat blocks face off using the battlefield combat turns in the system.
The idea is to allow a quick army-level resolution system, not to allow micromanagement of lots of figures, terrain, etc. It's definitely not Squad Leader or Battlesystem or Warhammer; it's much more in the vein of the War Machine mass combat system from the Companion rules (D&D Rules Cyclopedia for those who didn't follow along with BECMI D&D in the early 80s).
That's a cool way to handle things. You might even throw in a free Tactics for armies created in cities with Barracks.
I'd also increase the size of the army allowed to billet in a barracks. Since it's supposed to take up a city block (250 people), why not allow a Medium (100 soldiers) or even Large (200 soldiers) army per barracks.
Maybe Barracks would be medium army and Garrison would be a Large army. Of course, you could also probably argue keeping a standing army in a castle as well. I like this idea, I'm going to modify my handouts.
Think I'm going with:
Barracks, Castle: House an army up to Medium size for 2 X Consumption per month.
Garrison: House an army up to Large size for 2 X Consumption per month. Armies created in cities with Garrisons gain a free Tactic.
I was accounting for the storage of supplies, administraion space, and a parade ground from drilling as part of the barracks, but I could still see that working with a medium army.
I was accounting for the storage of supplies, administraion space, and a parade ground from drilling as part of the barracks, but I could still see that working with a medium army.
At the same time, a barracks fits a lot more people into the "living" space than normal housing. A bed and footlocker, and not much else.
At the same time, a barracks fits a lot more people into the "living" space than normal housing. A bed and footlocker, and not much else.
True. I know that from personal experience. I did not pay attention to the size of the building on the city grid, otherwise I would have stuck with a Medium army instead of deciding on a Small one. A medium army could easily fit in a barracks and still have the extra areas I mentioned.
On page 59 under the Sample Armies, there is a reference to morale, specifically that none of the included sample armies includes a morale score as "... that depends on on the result of a Loyalty check when the army is first consripted."
I've read through the pages on mass combat a few times and cannot find any other reference to this Loyalty check. The only thing that I could find was under Morale on page 55 it simply states that a new army has a morale score of +0.
Was this something that was considered and since dropped or am I missing a bit of text somewhere?
Thanks,
-Brooks
And that is by design. The PFRPG is built to support and run small conflicts on a much more personal level. We wanted to support and encourage a continuation of that style of play, so the method of filtering your character into an army statblock is intended to be kind of disappointing. This is to encourage games to NOT do one man versus armies... mostly because from a story viewpoint that's kind of unbelievable.
Actually, the rules for a one-man army seem to me to be not disappointing in the slightest:
A 13th level wizard is CR12, which as a Fine-size army makes him CR4. Spellcasting, a mount, and magic weapons and armor give him a total of +11 OM and DV. He ends up at 14hp; DV 25; OM +15. That's easily capable of engaging even the toughest of the sample armies even before factoring in any battlefield advantages that he could easily obtain or tactics that he may have acquired.Clerics and Druids are 18hp; DV 25; OM +15
Rangers and Paladins are 22hp; DV 22; OM +12
Bards are 18hp; DV 23; OM +13
Sorcerers are 14hp; DV 24; OM +14
Fighters are 22hp; DV 18; OM +8
Barbarians are 26hp; DV 18; OM +8
Monks and Rogues are 18hp; DV 18; OM +8
|
Creative Director
|
On page 59 under the Sample Armies, there is a reference to morale, specifically that none of the included sample armies includes a morale score as "... that depends on on the result of a Loyalty check when the army is first consripted."
I've read through the pages on mass combat a few times and cannot find any other reference to this Loyalty check. The only thing that I could find was under Morale on page 55 it simply states that a new army has a morale score of +0.
Was this something that was considered and since dropped or am I missing a bit of text somewhere?
Thanks,
-Brooks
Morale is not listed in the sample armies because a freshly hired army's morarle is +0.
At one point, there was an element where a leader had to make a check to establish how well the army likes him, but it was easier instead to simply adjust morale checks via the leader's Charisma score. And since Morale itself has a maximum bonus or penalty of +4 or –4, we didn't want to compound that much—the only way for that actual score to change is winning or losing battles.
On page 59 under the Sample Armies, there is a reference to morale, specifically that none of the included sample armies includes a morale score as "... that depends on on the result of a Loyalty check when the army is first consripted."
I've read through the pages on mass combat a few times and cannot find any other reference to this Loyalty check. The only thing that I could find was under Morale on page 55 it simply states that a new army has a morale score of +0.
Was this something that was considered and since dropped or am I missing a bit of text somewhere?
Thanks,
-Brooks
Morale is not listed in the sample armies because a freshly hired army's morarle is +0.
At one point, there was an element where a leader had to make a check to establish how well the army likes him, but it was easier instead to simply adjust morale checks via the leader's Charisma score. And since Morale itself has a maximum bonus or penalty of +4 or –4, we didn't want to compound that much—the only way for that actual score to change is winning or losing battles.
I thought that might be the case and appreciate the quick reply, particularly as the hours bleed away on a Friday evening.
-Brooks
|
Creative Director
|
And that is by design. The PFRPG is built to support and run small conflicts on a much more personal level. We wanted to support and encourage a continuation of that style of play, so the method of filtering your character into an army statblock is intended to be kind of disappointing. This is to encourage games to NOT do one man versus armies... mostly because from a story viewpoint that's kind of unbelievable.Actually, the rules for a one-man army seem to me to be not disappointing in the slightest:
A 13th level wizard is CR12, which as a Fine-size army makes him CR4. Spellcasting, a mount, and magic weapons and armor give him a total of +11 OM and DV. He ends up at 14hp; DV 25; OM +15. That's easily capable of engaging even the toughest of the sample armies even before factoring in any battlefield advantages that he could easily obtain or tactics that he may have acquired.Clerics and Druids are 18hp; DV 25; OM +15
Rangers and Paladins are 22hp; DV 22; OM +12
Bards are 18hp; DV 23; OM +13
Sorcerers are 14hp; DV 24; OM +14
Fighters are 22hp; DV 18; OM +8
Barbarians are 26hp; DV 18; OM +8
Monks and Rogues are 18hp; DV 18; OM +8
The one-man army rules DO work pretty well. They're disappointing because if you run an encounter with a one-man army character, you may be balanced well against the other forces, but you don't really get to use all of your abilities and spells and gear and all that since all of that stuff is, essentially, "absorbed" by the conversion to a one-man army.
So while they might work fine in the context of the battle, they're not very appealing or compelling to a player.
A 13th level wizard is CR12
Just a note: he's actually CR13, because he has a PC stat array and PC wealth by level (or at least more than NPC wealth). Class level -1 is only for characters with the basic NPC stat array and NPC wealth by level.
I don't know if that actually affects the numbers any, but I thought I'd point it out because it could be important. I don't have the rules for the mass combat.
|
A 13th level wizard is CR12Just a note: he's actually CR13, because he has a PC stat array and PC wealth by level (or at least more than NPC wealth). Class level -1 is only for characters with the basic NPC stat array and NPC wealth by level.
I don't know if that actually affects the numbers any, but I thought I'd point it out because it could be important. I don't have the rules for the mass combat.
Apologies if this is marginally off-topic, but is there any precedent to increasing a mook-level NPC's ability scores to the next level up when they turn out to be more important. I used to do it all the time, but it seems a little cheesier now for some reason. Could be that Kingmaker feels very well-defined and making changes to suit my purposes doesn't fit with that.
Apologies if this is marginally off-topic, but is there any precedent to increasing a mook-level NPC's ability scores to the next level up when they turn out to be more important. I used to do it all the time, but it seems a little cheesier now for some reason. Could be that Kingmaker feels very well-defined and making changes to suit my purposes doesn't fit with that.A 13th level wizard is CR12Just a note: he's actually CR13, because he has a PC stat array and PC wealth by level (or at least more than NPC wealth). Class level -1 is only for characters with the basic NPC stat array and NPC wealth by level.
I don't know if that actually affects the numbers any, but I thought I'd point it out because it could be important. I don't have the rules for the mass combat.
I've done that with a couple of NPCs I've created for Kingmaker. When they became more important and took a PC level, I adjusted each of their ability scores by 2.
|
|
Aha, I found my problem, I was asking about the wrong product/system in the wrong forum.
I thought this was a discussion of Cublicle 7's Warpath Mass combat system.
Oops, my bad, move along, nothing to see here.
:(
Ok, finished 2nd read of the entire book last night.
I see that measurement is 1"=10ft (rather than 5ft of the normal Pathfinder).
So melee for most battles is 10ft.
But my real question.
Building units:
I am an old Warhammer and TSR Battlesystem player. (I don't actually see this in the book). But what are the unit building rules for building your blocks of units (WH had units of 5 to 30 figures for instance). I see no specification for this in the ruleset. I do see that players can specify themselves that one figure can represent from anywhere 1 to 1000 actual figures, meaning that a single figure can represent different size of units. But visually I don't understand.My PC is leading a unit of 1st level fighters (100 of them), against a band of Goblins (200 of them).
I can do the entire battle with 3 figures??? 1 - my PC, 1-my 1st level fighters, and 1 the goblin unit?
This doesn't sound very visual to me.
What did I overlook?
If you're talking about the mass combat rules in Kingmaker, they aren't intended to be visual at all. They are intended to be extremely abstract and to not actually use figures at all. The armies are assigned sizes as stat blocks, and the stat blocks face off using the battlefield combat turns in the system.
The idea is to allow a quick army-level resolution system, not to allow micromanagement of lots of figures, terrain, etc. It's definitely not Squad Leader or Battlesystem or Warhammer; it's much more in the vein of the War Machine mass combat system from the Companion rules (D&D Rules Cyclopedia for those who didn't follow along with BECMI D&D in the early 80s).
Why does the "breath weapon" special ability deal less damage (1d4, can be used ranged) than the "poison" special ability (1d6 next round)?
A breath weapon is typically an area effect, while poison depends on 1:1 attacks to be delivered, so in my opinion they should deal at least equal damage, or the damage should be switched (poison 1d4, breath weapon 1d6).
Aha, I found my problem, I was asking about the wrong product/system in the wrong forum.
I thought this was a discussion of Cublicle 7's Warpath Mass combat system.
Oops, my bad, move along, nothing to see here.
:(
Yeah, hop on over to one of those threads if you have anymore questions!
It is not recommended to have 1 unit card represent 100 and another represent 1,000. The idea is to have it be consistent (again, see p.10).
|
Creative Director
|
Why does the "breath weapon" special ability deal less damage (1d4, can be used ranged) than the "poison" special ability (1d6 next round)?
A breath weapon is typically an area effect, while poison depends on 1:1 attacks to be delivered, so in my opinion they should deal at least equal damage, or the damage should be switched (poison 1d4, breath weapon 1d6).
Because breath weapons can be used at a range, so for balance reasons we set them up to do less damage than poison, which cannot.
Are the city district maps used at all, other than being a good graphical representation of the city? My players and I have been being kinda lazy and using an excel sheet one of the guys worked up to do the kingdom building. If we're going to need them for the mass combat rules though, then I'd like to get started putting them together.
|
Creative Director
|
Are the city district maps used at all, other than being a good graphical representation of the city? My players and I have been being kinda lazy and using an excel sheet one of the guys worked up to do the kingdom building. If we're going to need them for the mass combat rules though, then I'd like to get started putting them together.
The only thing the city district maps are really used for is a fun visual representation to help players keep track of what's in each city; they're a lot more fun to look at and easier to process than a dry list of words on a character sheet. You won't need these maps for mass combat, in any event.
District maps CAN be helpful in visualizing what happens if "the bad guys burn down the northern half of the city" or stuff like that, I guess... but since the element of movement and map placement and all that isn't involved at all in the mass combat rules... absolutely not necessary to run the mass combats.
I've been using the city grids to help determine where bad things happen. If there's a disaster rolled during the events, then I can roll 2d6 (one for row, one for column) to determine where it's localized then spread from there to determine which buildings are affected.
it's much more in the vein of the War Machine mass combat system from the Companion rules (D&D Rules Cyclopedia for those who didn't follow along with BECMI D&D in the early 80s).
Nice to see folks on here familiar w/ War Machine. That was an interesting piece of game design. I really liked the optional rules they later outlined in Dragon for scouting & naval combat.
I'd like to throw in my 2-cents on this topic ... just some observations I've made after a quick read of these new rules
- I really like the fact that this is simple. You get a decent amount of flavor from these rules without a lot of complexity, and that's a difficult goal to achieve in game design.
- The utilization of siege weapons is pretty cool. Ever taken a look at the old D&D Master's set where details were given on how to use siege engines in mass combat? Read those rules and you'll appreciate the simplicity and elegance of this single paragraph on page 57 regarding Siege Engines. I would recommend a slight change to this, a simple chart, perhaps, that details how an engine of a specific type can reduce the besieged's DV. Maybe 0-3 for a trebuchet or 0-1 for a battering ram.
There were actually some good options given in that old Master's set for siege warfare and it might be worthwhile trying to adopt some of those things for this system. Each side had choices they could pursue, with varied effects. For example, a defender can assault the attacker, and perhaps gain a combat bonus from surprise but loses all fortification bonuses. Alternately, the attacker had an option to bombard with siege engines, without a direct engagement.
If Paizo is looking to expand these rules, siege warfare would be a good place to start.
- I'm assuming that the number of soldiers for army sizes would be a range, not a fixed number. A unit of 1499 creatures would be Gargantuan, but 1501 would be Colossal. Also, armies can't be bigger than 2000? I imagine if you have a force of 10,000, you'd simply have 5 units each with 2k. But, overall, it looks like the number of men in a unit is simply abstracted and only used to arrive at a proper token size.
- The emphasis on Loyalty & morale is very good. After all, most armies weren't trying to exterminate an opposing force to the last man; rather, you're trying to break the other side's will and force a retreat. D&D ain't a wargame, but to me, this mechanic captures historical combat better than many actual wargames.
- I'm not real crazy about using hp instead of the # of men to determine how much damage a unit can absorb. If my army of Paltry Militia is reduced to 2 hp from 5 hp, it's still Medium sized? Here's the part that makes me wince ... an explanation from Paizo earlier in this thread: "The assumption is that when an army finishes a fight, it gets healed and that healing is, effectively, a combination of actual wound healing and recruitment of new soldiers. " But, recruitment in the middle of nowhere for units far from home doesn't ring true to me.
The only reason to use unit size is to determine the effect on the army's CR, right? Couldn't you just as easily arrive at a bonus by way of comparing the size of opposing forces and coming up with some ratio?
Overall, this is the most playable and most streamlined attempt at mass combat for an RPG I've ever seen. And, I've read quite a few. This is excellent stuff, despite a few reservations I spelled out earlier.
This may have been answered elsewhere (apologies in advance), but I need clarification on how to apply the strategy bonuses to damage. If a strategy applies a penalty to damage, does that penalty apply to damage received, or damage dealt? That is, if my strategy says "-4 damage," does that mean that I TAKE 4 less damage from each attack, or does it mean that I DEAL 4 less damage from each attack? Or, I suppose, option three: do BOTH things apply?
"The assumption is that when an army finishes a fight, it gets healed and that healing is, effectively, a combination of actual wound healing and recruitment of new soldiers. " But, recruitment in the middle of nowhere for units far from home doesn't ring true to me.
Instead of recruitment, I've been assuming that this "healing" is simply bringing new combat troops onto the line. In any engagement, you've probably got a percentage of your troopers that are not combat ready for one reason or another (resting up from previous wounds, getting over a bout of illness, healing up a leg they busted up in training the other day, etc.). The restoration of the army's hit points could easily reflect those troops regaining their combat effectiveness and returning to their fighting units.
I would also argue that even in the middle of nowhere, there's indigent populations that could be absorbed into an army, one way or the other. I'm reminded of a scene in The Patriot where British and Colonial armies clash in the fields next to the protagonist's farm. After the fighting the victorious British forcefully recruit a number of farmworkers. Mind you this was a Hollywood movie, but I think that it does illustrate that there is almost always someone around.
Even if the army is on foreign soil, I might imagine that there is a block of locals that would be happy to fight against their former government or who might be induced to do so for glory, gold, or whatever.
-Brooks
|
Creative Director
|
First off; thanks for the comments!
-I'm assuming that the number of soldiers for army sizes would be a range, not a fixed number. A unit of 1499 creatures would be Gargantuan, but 1501 would be Colossal. Also, armies can't be bigger than 2000? I imagine if you have a force of 10,000, you'd simply have 5 units each with 2k. But, overall, it looks like the number of men in a unit is simply abstracted and only used to arrive at a proper token size.
The number of soldiers can just as easily be a fixed number. In fact, the number of soldiers doesn't even matter at all; it's basically just flavor to help imagine how many people are in a Colossal army as opposed to a Medium army; you can change the numbers to whatever you want and the rules still work.
As for size, while the RAW don't go above a population of 2,000, if you want an army of 4,000 you can just achieve that by having two 2,000 person armies fighting side by side. Again... that's assuming you don't just add a zero or two to the ends of those population totals, since again, those totals don't actually interact with the rules.
- I'm not real crazy about using hp instead of the # of men to determine how much damage a unit can absorb. If my army of Paltry Militia is reduced to 2 hp from 5 hp, it's still Medium sized? Here's the part that makes me wince ... an explanation from Paizo earlier in this thread: "The assumption is that when an army finishes a fight, it gets healed and that healing is, effectively, a combination of actual wound healing and recruitment of new soldiers. " But, recruitment in the middle of nowhere for units far from home doesn't ring true to me.
The only reason to use unit size is to determine the effect on the army's CR, right? Couldn't you just as easily arrive at a bonus by way of comparing the size of opposing forces and coming up with some ratio?
An early version of the rules actually had an army's "hp" represented instead by its population, so that as an army took damage, it's total numbers of units dropped. That started to get a little weird, though. In the end we used hp because it's a game mechanic that everyone who plays the game already understands, and it's kind of silly to invent a new set of rules to model something that's already covered by existing rules. The "Recruitment of new soldiers" bit doesn't assume that happens immediately; if an army heals slowly over several days, then that's plenty of time to send out new soldiers. And if that still doesn't cut it for ya, then just assume it's all natural and magical healing—we're kinda vague on what the healing actually is for this exact purpose.
As for an army's damage reducing its combat effectiveness... this isn't something that the normal combat rules cover, and since we didn't want to force GMs to recalculate statistics for armies after every round of combat (since that would defeat the core goal of "simple and fast to run rules"), we just ignore that element of battle entirely.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This may have been answered elsewhere (apologies in advance), but I need clarification on how to apply the strategy bonuses to damage. If a strategy applies a penalty to damage, does that penalty apply to damage received, or damage dealt? That is, if my strategy says "-4 damage," does that mean that I TAKE 4 less damage from each attack, or does it mean that I DEAL 4 less damage from each attack? Or, I suppose, option three: do BOTH things apply?
The damage penalty is inflicted only to the damage you deal. Your tactics can't directly affect damage done by other units; the only way a strategy can affect an enemy's damage is indirectly by raising your own DV modifier. Basically; your army is avoiding attacks in order to protect itself if you use a Defensive or Cautious strategy; you're not making as many attacks, so you aren't doing as much damage.
I have a question as regards the beginning of the War with Pitax..the scenario states that it begins with an attack on one of the players settlements by the army of Pitax..but what defends that settlement if the players cannot raise an army before they know the war is happening..or do Garrisons, Castles and Barracks assume that you have a certain troop level available for defense that doesn't eat consumption(or is included in the kingdoms normal consumption at least) until the armies take the field?
Otherwise I can't see why the first attack doesn't just overrun the city it is directed against.
|
|
I may have missed it, but I can't really see the effects of the first attack on the PC's cities, has it just been left for the GM to determine? I love War of the River Kings but the war itself is very much left to the GM, with no rules for pillaging/damage to a city.
(I haven't gone through the book cover to cover yet so apologies if i've missed something.)
I agree on it being the GM's call..but my players are Wargamers to a man and will demand details as to how their city managed to survive an attack by 2000 men with aerial support.
I agree on it being the GM's call..but my players are Wargamers to a man and will demand details as to how their city managed to survive an attack by 2000 men with aerial support.
The town's hookers stood ready to welcome the invaders once they breached the wall, so most of the attackers never got round to the whole burn and pillage bit (and enough of those stopped by the thin pink line paid for themselves that the tax-incomes covered the repair-costs)