Mass Combat House Rules (SPOILERS, kind of)


Kingmaker

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My players just started book 5 and have entered the war of the river kings! Our first session ended before too much was done, but a lot of questions arose that the rules really didn't account for. As such, I felt the need to come up with some. I spoke with Jason Nelson about all of these to get his input, and ended up finalizing the below, shared for your use :)

Razing Improvements
An army that spends 1d3 days in a single hex can destroy all improvements in that hex (farms and roads with core rules, but also mines and such if you use Jason's house rules).

Cut-Off Improvements
Improvements that aren't connected to the closest city by roads stop providing their bonuses until the roads are rebuilt.

Emergency Army
CR 1 armies (Paltry Militia) can be raised in a single day.

Raising Armies
With a successful loyalty check, an army above CR 1 can be raised in 2d3 days. Otherwise it takes 2d6 days.

Digging In/Sieging (this uses some rules from later in the chapter)
An army that spends 2 days in the same hex as a city without attacking can dig in, gaining +2 to its DV if the city later attacks it. Also, for every week an army spends camped outside of a city, that city/kingdom loses 5 BP (in addition to the consumption cost of armies) to get in extra resources. Also, any armies stuck inside the city must make a DC 15 morale check (+1 per week) or lose 1 morale. Succeeding by 5 or more can increase their morale by 1 by spending 5 BP.

PCs attaching to armies
A PC can attach him or herself to an army, increasing its CR by 1 without increasing consumption. This effectively increases OM and DV by 1, along with HP (by a variable amount depending on the army).

Additionally, each PC should be given one Tactic that fits their class/type. While useless outside of an army, a PC can temporarily grant any army they are attached to the use of this Tactic.

Note: This was made because 1-person armies just are... dumb and really don't seem to mechanically work, but there should still be a good benefit for a PC working with their army. Hence the above. +1 CR and a bonus Tactic is pretty awesome.

Razing a City
If an army is successful in destroying the defenders and pushing in, they can spend 2 days in a city to raze it to the ground. This destroys every building (denying their bonuses to the kingdom), penalizes the kingdom by 2 to each score (Economy, Loyalty, Stability) and increases Unrest by 5. If the city is re-taken, buildings can be rebuilt as usual by paying half their cost in BP. The penalty to each score also goes away if the city is re-taken, although the Unrest will have to be dealt with as usual.

Flying Monsters attacking a City
A city only provides half the Defense bonus to DV against an army of attacking flying creatures.

New/Altered Equipping an Army
This goes off of Jason's changes in the Mass Combat thread way up top, with some additions. It mostly lowers the consumption cost, as it seemed way too high, while also adding a couple new options.

Arcane Aid (10 BP, +2 consumption, requires Academy): Arcanists attach to the army. +1 OM, +1 Speed.
Divine Aid (10 BP, +2 consumption, requires Temple or Cathedral): Priests attach to the army. +1 DV, special healing (once per battle, may heal double CR if army chooses to forgo an attack, or heal CR if they wish to keep attacking).
Healing Potions (10 BP, only adds to Consumption the week following their use (5 BP if only used once, 10 BP if used twice), requires Alchemist or Magic Shop): Up to twice during a battle, you can forgo attacking to heal your army hit points equal to twice their CR.
Improved Armor (3 BP, +1 consumption, requires Smith): +1 DV.
Improved Weapons (5 BP, +1 consumption, requires Smith): +1 OM.
Magic Armor (15 BP, +3 consumption, requires Smith and [Caster's Tower or Magic Shop]): +2 DV.
Magic Weapons (50 BP, +5 consumption, requires Smith and [Caster's Tower or Magic Shop]): +2 OM.
Mounts (BP = mount's CR x2, +consumption = mount CR, requires Stable): +2 OM and DV, and use the mounts' speed for the army. The army's CR is determined by the mount's CR if it is higher than the rider's.
Ranged Weapons (2 BP, +1 consumption, requires Smith): The army can act in the ranged combat phase.
Siege Engines (15 BP per engine, +5 consumption per engine, requires Exotic Craftsman): +2 OM (regardless of number of siege engines). For every siege engine in the army you reduce the enemy's bonus to DV from fortifications by 1d4 each round of the melee phase. Army's speed is halved (minimum 1).

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

I'd just add that it would be perfectly within reason to require PC leaders for armies to have ranks in Profession (soldier) to increase their army's CR, or to have a minimum number of ranks to grant a Tactic to their army.


Nice, I may steal some of these.

I think the time you've listed for destroying a city is way too short though. I think I'd base it on a combination of how many blocks were filled and the size/CR of the army. Maybe by using Turin's size multipliers.

Scarab Sages

You think? I was going off of the idea that setting fire to every building in town wouldn't take very long. Even 2 days might be too long really.

Keep in mind these buildings aren't totally demolished, as they can rebuilt with half the BP cost. The stone and base mortar will remain, but fire can ravage a city pretty quick when left unchecked. In any event, the idea is that hopefully no city will succumb to this with the quick militia rule. With the campaign, only the Fort Drelev city is likely close enough to come under quick assault, and it starts with pretty good Defenses. Every other city should be far enough away that armies can be raised before they're under threat.


True, and a particularly violent group may try to burn everything. Though that should raise some alarm from other neighbors, if cities conquered are all raised to the ground.

I still wouldn't have it as a fixed time not dependent on town size and army size/capabilities.

Scarab Sages

Well, the individual GM can adjust. Truth be told I hope it is never anything that a party has to deal with. I imagine the cities that are huge and have tons of bonuses will also have a lot of defense/protection.

So, even if a small city (or two) is razed by a small army bypassing the main fight, it shouldn't be hard at this point in the game for the PCs to rebuild. It may be painful for a month or two, but they'll recover.

Scarab Sages

Also, based on some further thought and Jason's comment, I'd probably still allow each PC to possess one tactic (regardless of ranks) but only allow a PC to grant it to an army if he/she leads it.

Sovereign Court

Jason Nelson wrote:
I'd just add that it would be perfectly within reason to require PC leaders for armies to have ranks in Profession (soldier) to increase their army's CR, or to have a minimum number of ranks to grant a Tactic to their army.

I never liked the Profession(Soldier). To tie something a wariior or fighter might need to Wisdom, seemed a little unfair. If you wanted to have a godd "natural ability" at soldiering you have to sacrifice one of your Physical stats, which are needed in regular combat. I know it gets better as you advance in levels, but think about, a Wizards with Craft(alchemy) use their primary stat. So I wouldn't suggest making Profession(soldier) a requirement for anything,except maybe a prestige class. I bet Aragorn didn't have Profession (soldier), and he was a great general.


Palious13 wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:
I'd just add that it would be perfectly within reason to require PC leaders for armies to have ranks in Profession (soldier) to increase their army's CR, or to have a minimum number of ranks to grant a Tactic to their army.
I never liked the Profession(Soldier). To tie something a wariior or fighter might need to Wisdom, seemed a little unfair. If you wanted to have a godd "natural ability" at soldiering you have to sacrifice one of your Physical stats, which are needed in regular combat. I know it gets better as you advance in levels, but think about, a Wizards with Craft(alchemy) use their primary stat. So I wouldn't suggest making Profession(soldier) a requirement for anything,except maybe a prestige class. I bet Aragorn didn't have Profession (soldier), and he was a great general.

Having a high Charisma bonus (raising your army's Morale) is not the same thing as knowing how to organize and lead men in battle (ranks of Profession - soldier). Yet both the Ranger (Aragorn) and the Wizard (Gandalf) really knew their stuff when it came to the latter. To be a great battlefield general requires both skill and leadership, even in pseudo-historical context.

Besides, we don't *know* that they didn't have a headband granting Profession (soldier), or an equivalent.

In KM by the time "real" war breaks out the PCs are 13th+ level. That's an awful lot of ranks. Since Profession is a class skill for almost every class in the game, that means a minimum Profession (soldier) check bonus of +15 or +16, probably more along the lines of a +20 or higher. Considering the opposition's generally worse bonuses ...

Fighters often place Wisdom as their 3rd ability score after Dex or Con. What good are you dominated / feared / (insert other mind-affecting effect here)?

Scarab Sages

Personally, I disagree on needing Profession (Soldier) as well. If you explain it to your players at the beginning of the game, I suppose that is ok, but I like to think that the heroes of the game have innate ranks in Profession (Awesome Hero) and should be able to lead an army based off of natural charisma instead of required ranks.

I also imagine that most GMs might not really look at the Mass Combat rules until getting closer to this book, at which point the PCs will only have a few levels to spend ranks. Making them spend ranks in Profession to lead one of their armies just feels artificial, as I always thought the Profession represented them stopping adventuring and just working as that job full time.


Karui Kage wrote:

Personally, I disagree on needing Profession (Soldier) as well. If you explain it to your players at the beginning of the game, I suppose that is ok, but I like to think that the heroes of the game have innate ranks in Profession (Awesome Hero) and should be able to lead an army based off of natural charisma instead of required ranks.

I also imagine that most GMs might not really look at the Mass Combat rules until getting closer to this book, at which point the PCs will only have a few levels to spend ranks. Making them spend ranks in Profession to lead one of their armies just feels artificial, as I always thought the Profession represented them stopping adventuring and just working as that job full time.

I think the basic objection is that Fighters get so few skill points that it is a real sacrifice to have to put them into Profession (Soldier), which gains them nothing mechanically outside the mass combat rules. In general, the Profession skills are ignored by a lot of players for precisely that reason, they give little mechanical bonus unless the GM goes out of his way to make sure they do (which I generally do any time someone takes an unusual skill). The only time I've seen people put serious ranks in a Profession skill it was for roleplaying/character concept reasons.

That said, I think there is a vast difference between being a good fighter and being able to lead men in combat. There have been few throughout history who were able to combine the two. I don't think that just because someone can fight well individually that they would even make an adequate, much less a good leader. Would Manny Pacquiao be able to lead a platoon effectively, much less an army? I applaud efforts to make a distinction between fighting and leading men in war.

Scarab Sages

Truth be told, I think allowing a high Charisma to give bonuses in place of Profession (Soldier) is just as rare and can make just as sense. Most fighters are ill-likely to have ranks in Profession (Soldier), as you mentioned, but those who want to be Leaders are likely to have at least a slightly above average Charisma (since Leadership has already shown us that charisma matters).

All in all though, it's a very simple way of handling the leader. I personally think any PC should be able to be a leader if they want, and let them use their Charisma modifier to help out in battle. Though I personally gave a small bonus to the one character that had the Leadership feat as well, but that's another story.


I'd like to wade into battle if I may ladies & gents...

In my head - profession (soldier) is mostly about what you can earn
playing at being a soldier. Low levels of ranks would equate to lower
ranking men-at-arms, with higher ranks in the skill progressing up into
NCOs & officers.
Low ranks would not necessarily help you running a battle/army, mid ranks
maybe, & higher ranks in the skill should definitely.

I do believe the leadership feat should play some part if you want it to,
as even though it's mechanics only apply to limited numbers - it's
'feeling' could perhaps be made to mean more. Even then more towards
perhaps the morale side of the equation - rather than your ability to
make the enemy suffer from your brilliance.

Another point not really discussed here much is knowledge (tactics), or
even knowledge specific to any particular 'type' of enemy.
Tactics will help you win a battle & should be very relevant should your
player choose to have taken it. In game I feel it should also have
mechanical benefits & I rule that if PCs are able to study 'the lay of
the land' for a while before battle - it helps for the first 'x' rounds.

Anyway - gotta go. Girlfriend just called me for dinner & I better not
be too late... :)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Kingmaker / Mass Combat House Rules (SPOILERS, kind of) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Kingmaker