Hero Units [Archive] - Birthright.net

Osprey

03-17-2005, 08:56 PM

I thought it worthwhile to start a new thread on the topic of Hero Units and their effect on the battlefield. I realize that without settling on a battle system for the BRCS, this will be something of a preliminary discussion subject to change.

To start with, though, I thought it would be good to at least critique the Hero Unit system in the BRCS as a starting point, and figure out if folks like it the way it is, or does it need adjusting or radical overhaul?

Here are some key aspects of the exisiting BRCS system:

- In the BRCS, Hero Units are like templates added on to existing units. They have no unit-scale effects on their own, only the ability to add to the stats of a unit they attach to.

Should Hero Units have the potential to be like independent units, capable of delivering a full hit of damage to an enemy unit? If so, they would need to be assigned stats for attack, defense, hits, move, and maybe morale. Probably more trouble than its worth, even if its more realistic.

- Hero Units add to the Morale, Attack, and Defense of a unit (in that order), scaled according to the total EL of the hero unit.

Is this appropriate, or do the effects need tweaking?

Here I'll insert my opinion based on playtesting and constructive reflection.

Heroes adding to a unit's Morale makes logical sense, but when it stacks with the unit commander's Morale bonus from Lead, things get ridiculous. IMO the morale bonus from hero units should be toned down, allowing a commander with the Lead skill to be the single most important bonus to unit morale.

Heroes adding to attack makes sense, too. However, what is lacking is a representation of the ability of high-level PCs/NPCs to inflict an incredible amount of damage per person. Adding to a unit's attack has no effect on how much damage they inflict, only on its likelihood of scoring a single hit in the appropriate phase. The net result is that (IMO) the destructive power of high-level heroes is under-represented on the battlefield.

Defense is a minor bonus granted only by high level hero groups: +1 Def for an EL 10 group, +2 for an EL 16 group. I am curious what the rationale for this bonus is, though. Is this simulating the ability of heroes to soak up some of the attacks that would normally target the rest of the unit? That's the only rationale I could come up with. Since it's such a small bonus, it's not a large issue, really.

The major changes I would propose then, is that the morale bonuses are lessened, and instead heroes could add a damage bonus at higher levels. Either that, or the hero unit gets a seperate attack altogether. The latter, though, leads to treating the hero group like a seperate unit (even if it is more realistic).

So here is a possible revised spread for the bonuses granted by a hero unit, using the BRCS stat system.

Hero Group Bonuses
EL........Attack...Defense...Morale...Damage
6...........+0..........+0...........+2.........+0
8...........+2..........+0...........+2.........+0
10.........+2..........+1...........+2.........+0
12.........+2..........+1...........+2.........+1 hits
14.........+4..........+1...........+4.........+1 hits
16.........+4..........+2...........+4.........+1 hits
18.........+4..........+2...........+4.........+2 hits
20.........+6..........+2...........+4.........+2 hits
22.........+6..........+3...........+6.........+2 hits
24.........+6..........+3...........+6.........+3 hits
26.........+8..........+3...........+6.........+3 hits
28.........+8..........+4...........+6.........+3 hits
30.........+8..........+4...........+8.........+4 hits

Note: EL 26 is the non-epic limit for eight 20th level characters. I included listings through EL 30 for the sake of low-epic characters, and to show the logical progression through epic levels. Most BR camapigns won't go there, of course, but a few will.

Each even level of EL increase thus grants at least one unit bonus, very rarely two seperate bonuses. Most importantly, the +1 hit of damage (definitely the most dramatic bonus) is always a gain by itself (not including EL30, but at epic level it's pretty OK if a unit gets +1 hit and +2 morale).

What do you think of this, folks?

Osprey

irdeggman

03-18-2005, 10:54 AM

A lot of good points and good discussion topic.

I do however call attention to the fact that adding to damage will essentially have the effect of wiping out entire units. Currently the hits per unit run from 1 to 4 (or so) so adding a single +1 to damage in effect reduces an entire low to mid-level unit to nothing.

IIRC you had previously pointed out that tying in increased critical ranges meshed better with an increased to hit bonus. I would instead go along that route since if a unit is more likely to hit it is more likely to inflict damage, etc.

IMO adding a separate hero unit is going to exponentially increase the amount of detail involve, pretty much like you inferred. This would be along the lines of how do you represent the battlefield equivalent of the different classes? Warrior types have more hits, better AC, etc. Spellcasters can generally inflict more damage (especially at higher level) and their tohit bonus would be better due to the way magic strikes (usually not a strike on AC). How would one represent a bard or rogue unit? The details just start to boggle the mind.

Other than that on first look over it looks promising.

The Jew

03-18-2005, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by "duane"
I do however call attention to the fact that adding to damage will essentially have the effect of wiping out entire units. Currently the hits per unit run from 1 to 4 (or so) so adding a single +1 to damage in effect reduces an entire low to mid-level unit to nothing.

I would say that is a good thing. Currently hero's provide much to slight of a benefit on the unit level of combat given how much damage they could be inflicting they were fighting on a normal 3.5 round to round basis. I think this may be part of the reason their is such a big push to create rules for heroes, especially mages, to operate on a round-to-round basis. Using Ospreys table, or some variant of it, would actually allow that 14th level character embedded within a unit to have real impact on the battle. Rather than going out individually, they could embedd withit a unit and then that unit could thrash its way towards the general.

graham anderson

03-18-2005, 04:16 PM

I think the old hero unit was fine as far as I am concerned it is a simple effective and relativly realistic in terms of the game mechanism.

Ospreys hero bonuses are far too high making a hero unit only matched by a hero unit.

An individual has much less affect in a mass battle. He often has little space to move can only attack people infront of him cannot move away from the rest of the unit without making himslef vulnerable. The reasons go on and on as to why those bonuses put forward by osprey are very very broken. As irdeggman said what about the different classes. There is far to much wrong with this the hero bonuses worked before they should be left alone.

Osprey

03-18-2005, 08:15 PM

I do however call attention to the fact that adding to damage will essentially have the effect of wiping out entire units. Currently the hits per unit run from 1 to 4 (or so) so adding a single +1 to damage in effect reduces an entire low to mid-level unit to nothing.

OK, on the revised table it requires an EL 12 hero group to add +1 damage to a unit. That's one 12th level PC, 2 10th level PCs, 4 8th level PCs, or 8 6th level PCs.

Let's just say the 'typical' hero group is a party of 4 PCs, so the EL 12 group is 4 at 8th level.

4 x 8th level PC's...what are they capable of?

8th level Fighter: likely to hit and kill (or at least disable, as good as a kill in battlefield combat) 2-3 average soldiers per combat round. That's assuming a decent spread of feats, probably including Cleave for that extra (3rd) attack.

8th level Ranger archer: with Rapid Shot and a Comp. Longbow: he can shoot and usually hit 3 targets per round. Most hits will either disable or kill a 1st level warrior. 2-weapon rangers are equally vicious in melee, what with 4 attacks per round at 8th level, all with a good chance of hitting and dropping a 1st level warrior - he probably ends up something like the fighter, with the possibility of a 4th kill per round, even 5 with Cleave. 2-weapon Fighter PCs are similarly extra-effective against hordes of 1st level warriors.

8th level Rogue: 2 attacks per round, sneak attack +4d6 when applicable (flanking is likely since he has improved uncanny dodge, probably tumble too)...assume rogues will fight strategically, targeting key officers and elites with their sneak attacks...this makes them as potentially devestating to an enemy unit's morale and cohesiveness as the fighter cleaving through the ranks.

8th level Cleric: 2 attacks per round, plus divine spellcasting for spells level 0-4; figure if it gets into melee, he'll be enhanced with a few key spells (Divine Favor, maybe Divine Power), pretty much ensuring 2 hits/kills per round. Plus he'll be enhancing his allies with area spells like Bless and Prayer, and/or diminish enemies with Bane. Healing your allies so they fight longer is also quite demoralizing to enemy troops without a healer of their own...

8th level Wizard/Sorcerer: Only 1 attack per round at +4 BAB, but still...with a crossbow they can probably hit and kill 1 soldier per round (far better than the average soldier can do). Figure some of their spells will be defensive if they're in a fighting unit, but that leaves a nice array of spells from 0-4th level...a key fireball is a hit of damage all by itself, a Fear spell (cone) could cause a large group of enemies to route in terror, Confusion could make a bunch of enemy soldiers start fighting one another or just stare stupidly as they're cut down...even without lots of spells, a few key ones could easily add an extra hit of damage all by themselves, especially when the morale factor is included in a spell's effects.

8th level Bard: like a rogue or cleric, they can do 2 attacks per round...plus their Inspire Courage (+2) song will drive every nearby ally to greater abilities - tripling the attack bonus of a 1st level warrior, and adding enough damage to make every hit count. That power alone can almost double the strength of a fighting company, especially if the bard's music is loud enough to hear over the din of battle. Throw in a few spells for extra effect, and the bard comes to be valued as a powerful addition to any hero group.

4 of these guys together...wow. I'd say it should be blatantly apparent why such a group could easily double the damage-dealing abilities of a unit on the battlefield.

EL 18 adds +2 damage: that's four 14th level PCs. By this time, they'll all likely have magic items boosting their key abilities (even in a low-magic setting), base attacks allow even more attacks per round (high = 3/round, med/low = 2/round), all PCs have more feats (fighters especially), rangers and paladins have a few enhancement spells, spellcasting starts getting truly viscious (14th level clerics/mages have spells through 7th level, metamagic like Widen Spell or Quicken spell can multiply mass-combat damage), rogue skills, sneak attacks, and special abilities make them incredibly deadly vs. NPC elites, bards' inspire courage goes up to +3, inspire greatness can give allied PCs even more potency, and their spells become quite a power in their own right...

You get the point...there are really sound justifications, IMO, for why higher-level PCs really do multiply the killing power of a unit they're leading.

Plus, never underestimate the power of morale on the mass-combat battlefield. Much like the fireball killing 20 men at once, the fear inspired by a 14th level fighter tearing through your ranks like your armor is made of tinfoil, well...for every man he kills, I bet another 2 or 3 are going to cower or bolt, or at least get the hell out of his way, which will break their formation and probably turn the killing into a route in a matter of minutes...

So yeah, I think it's perfectly justifiable that an EL 12 hero group could add one hit of damage to the unit they're attached to - they can kill a regular unit in one battle turn.

An EL 18 hero group attached to a unit could break a unit of veterans or tough regulars in one battle turn...still perfectly reasonable, IMO, given their incredible powers.

I really don't think these advantages are any more broken than the power gap between low and high level characters in D&D. And if you have an issue with that, well then no offense, but you probably shouldn't be too involved in a 3.5 conversion project in the first place.

Lord Valkyr

04-01-2005, 09:16 PM

What about making a template depending on hero type & level?

ex:

Fighter 8th +1Attack
Cleric 8th +1Defense
Bard 8th +1Morale
Wizard 8th +1Damage

etc etc....

Something so it would be easier to adjust the benefits a hero unit grant depending on the group of Hero's & level. But maybe having a cap to keep it from being unbalanced so no one stacks like 3 fighters & 3 Clerics etc

Osprey

04-02-2005, 07:35 PM

What about making a template depending on hero type & level?

That certainly creates a whole new realm of detail...which given the great variety of classes and prestige classes, each then staged by level, might be a can of worms best not opened...

Osprey

04-02-2005, 07:37 PM

I have been seriously tossing and turning the whole hero unit revision I proposed earlier. I've come to recognize that multiplying a unit's damage-dealing capacity plus adding to its attack value stacks up to be incredibly devestating compared to non-hero led units. In other words it lacks balance, in much the same way a PC with a wand of fireballs can completely unbalance the battlefield in a single battle turn of 5-10 minutes.

In other words, this is a recurring problem. I think in part this problem stems from the system itself: high-level characters are exponentially more powerful than low-level ones, and this is especially apparent when comparing high-level PC's to 1st level Warrior soldiers. In a more realistic game system, every soldier would be much more dangerous, and a heroic fighter would be more like a very experienced and deadly version of a soldier. In the D&D system, a high-level PC is more like a demigod in comparison to soldiers, so that when you start adding up the numbers, then multiplying by the significant length of a battle turn, there is a ridiculous gap between virtually-invulnerable war machine PC's and lowly NPC fodder (soldiers). Poor sots.

This is one of the reasons I am a proponent of giving professional soldiers easier access to PC classes and levels, particularly well-trained and/or veteran ones. I would prefer that the typical veteran soldier be a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th level Fighter - someone who better represents a career soldier who spends most of his working time training for war, and has real combat experience to boot. Units comprised of troops like this would certainly represent a far more serious threat to PCs on the battlefield, and would justify toning down hero unit bonuses somewhat, as they couldn't be mowed down quite so easily and might manage to hit a PC more often than once every 20 attacks.

One way I've thought of revising the Hero Unit bonuses I proposed earlier is to change the extra hits of damage into extra attacks. This would force more dice rolling whenever hero units engage, but it would also allow high-defense enemy units a chance to resist being obliterated by one lucky attack.

I would also be okay with lowering some of the bonuses I proposed earlier, mainly for the sake of preserving some semblance of balance.

Here's a scaled-down version of the 1st proposal:

Hero Group Unit Bonuses v2
EL........Attack...Defense...Morale....Extra Attacks
6...........+0..........+0...........+2..........+ 0
8...........+2..........+0...........+2..........+ 0
10.........+2..........+1...........+2..........+0
12.........+2..........+1...........+2..........+1
14.........+2..........+2...........+4..........+1
16.........+4..........+2...........+4..........+1
18.........+4..........+3...........+4..........+1
20.........+4..........+3...........+4..........+2
22.........+4..........+4...........+6..........+2
24.........+6..........+4...........+6..........+2
26.........+6..........+5...........+6..........+2
28.........+6..........+5...........+6..........+3
30.........+6..........+6...........+8..........+3

Extra Attacks: The impressive might of high-level heroes may enable a unit to make more than one attack per battle turn. These extra attacks must all be resolved at the same time - in whichever phase the unit would normally make its standard melee or missile attack.

These figures seem to me to better preserve some balance of play, while still showcasing higer-level heroes as tide-turning factors on the battlefield.

What do think, folks?

Osprey

RaspK_FOG

04-02-2005, 11:03 PM

Osprey

04-03-2005, 03:10 AM

In regard to accessibility to classes, I have given a veteran NPC for an adventrure I am writing 4 fighter levels, and he is of old age; I think that this is more in line with what you have in mind...

Well, consider that most PC's can reach 4th level in a few months of adventuring...are other humans really this incompetent and stagnant in comparison? To me, this is a ridiculous gap that treats everyone who is not a PC as if they were drooling idiots who go through their entire lives and barely learn a darned thing the whole time. While we all know people who resemble this, is this truly a decent representation of the vast majority of people? Or is it a 4-color daydream of where our heroes are like gods compared to the sea of mulling idiots that surround them? Talk about power-tripping...

I simply like to give the average person a lot more credit than the D&D system does. And I certainly tend to think that anyone, not just a few lucky individuals fated for greatness, are capable of achieving at least a high level of expertise and competence in their chosen profession...something that a few NPC or PC levels in the D&D system doesn't really represent very well.

An old veteran soldier could be only a 4th level fighter. But if he was a career soldier for 30 years or so, and was truly dedicated to his work, there's no reason he couldn't be 10th-15th level. His physical stats would be decreased a good deal (-3 each by old age), so he wouldn't be as strong or fast or tough as he once was - but his lifelong experience would make him very good at what he did.

I just don't care much for the idea that PC's are incredibly exceptional and super-special for some completely arbitrary reason. It allows PC's to have exceptional power and ability without them having to earn it, which means it gets taken for granted most of the time, which leads to immature roleplaying in general. Having a little extra edge, such as higher-than-average ability scores at the start, is OK: this says, "Your characters are talented, with good potential." Weak NPC classes, however, condemn the rest of humanity to be more and more incompetent in comparison to the rising levels of PCs. Not good IMO.

Anyways, I'm done ranting about that, I don't expect the BRCS to go against the core rules of D&D anyways. Just can't help wishing D&D were a bit more mature in this respect.

ConjurerDragon

04-03-2005, 11:21 AM

Osprey schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=3036

>

> Osprey wrote:

>...

>Well, consider that most PC`s can reach 4th level in a few months of adventuring...are other humans really this incompetent and stagnant in comparison? To me, this is a ridiculous gap that treats everyone who is not a PC as if they were drooling idiots who go through their entire lives and barely learn a darned thing the whole time. While we all know people who resemble this, is this truly a decent representation of the vast majority of people? Or is it a 4-color daydream of where our heroes are like gods compared to the sea of mulling idiots that surround them? Talk about power-tripping...

>

It is just like this :-)

Fantasy and fiction depend in their storytelling often on the HERO, who

achieves what noone else could hope to achieve.

There is only one Rambo in the US Army, only one Conan in Cimmeria, one

James Bond in the MI5, only one Mithrandir in Middle Earth.

So yes - the remaining population is just like our own reality. Boring,

routine jobs but no HEROS in the sense of D&D. There might be people

that excel at what they do in Birthright, e.g. a master smith with

several levels of Expert, a brilliant shepherd with several commoner

levels but I would not expect more than a very small percentage of the

population to have any PC class levels at all.

>I simply like to give the average person a lot more credit than the D&D system does. And I certainly tend to think that anyone, not just a few lucky individuals fated for greatness, are capable of achieving at least a high level of expertise and competence in their chosen profession...something that a few NOC or PC levels in the D&D system doesn`t really represent very well.

>

>An old veteran soldier could be only a 4th level fighter. But if he was a career soldier for 30 years or so, and was truly dedicated to his work, there`s no reason he couldn`t be 10th-15th level. His physical stats would be decreased a good deal (-3 each by old age), so he wouldn`t be as strong or fast or tough as he once was - but his lifelong experience would make him very good at what he did.

>

>

A long life does not equal XP. You argument runs in the same direction

that would have all sidhelien or dwarves that are more than a few

hundred years old, be 20th level Wizards/Fighters/Thiefs on a regular basis.

>I just don`t care much for the idea that PC`s are incredibly exceptional and super-special for some completely arbitrary reason. It allows PC`s to have exceptional power and ability without them having to earn it, which means it gets taken for granted most of the time, which leads to immature roleplaying in general. Having a little extra edge, such as higher-than-average ability scores at the start, is OK: this says, "Your characters are talented, with good potential." Weak NPC classes, however, condemn the rest of humanity to be more and more incompetent in comparison to the rising levels of PCs. Not good IMO.

>

>Anyways, I`m done ranting about that, I don`t expect the BRCS to go against the core rules of D&D anyways. Just can`t help wishing D&D were a bit more mature in this respect.

>

If all the population gains PC levels and advances (as it is so easy to

gain levels as you state) as fast as the PC´s, then they are not the

HEROES of the adventure. They would always vanish in a mass of equally

competent competitiors - it would be as much fun as playing 1 of

10000000 soldiers in the peoples army of China ;-)

bye

Michael

RaspK_FOG

04-03-2005, 06:10 PM

Indeed I find that D&D puts the common people very back in line when compared with PCs; however, I just said I gave the man 4 fighter levels, leaving the fact that he has an additional 4 warrior levels out of the equation. ;)

Having a common soldier have 4 warrior levels is not that bad an idea; if he devotes his feats to anything other than Weapon Focus, for example, he has a 75% chance of hitting another human with no armour; note that this is for the typical human with Strength and Dexterity scores of 10 and 11; considering the fact that such humans have no Constitution bonus to add to their hit points, and also taking into account the average weapons and armours used, the common soldier does not last more than a couple of minutes at most. However, veteran soldiers devote their training more appropriately and have better ability scores, which means they are far better (no, I NEVER use 1 HD humans as fodder on the battle-field; that's what really sickly commoners are for; in the above example, a young lad has reached his 6th HD).

I generally also try to make my players get it that they are not starters; there is no such thing as a person who suddenly starts off in his life, there is a more detailed backdrop - and a couple of levels attached to them. My players also get reduced XP according to the campaign I run (however, the XP are more spaced out on the tables; challenges with CR much higher than their own give more XP).

Osprey

04-05-2005, 03:22 AM

As much as I long to respond to Micheal and Rasp's replies, I fear I started a tangent that isn't directly related to the purpose of this thread, which was to revise the hero bonuses to unit stats. So, in an effort to bring the topic back on subject, I'll reitaerate the final question of my previous post:

"What do folks think of v2 of the revised hero bonuses?"

If you like them, please say so. If you don't, say why not, and say how they might be improved (and why that's a better solution/alternative). There seems to have been a general lack of constructive effort going on here of late, yet I don't believe most people are uncaring how their heroes would be represented on the battlefield once it came to an in-game situation.

Let's get back to work, people! B)

Osprey

irdeggman

04-05-2005, 10:54 AM

Heroes adding to a unit's Morale makes logical sense, but when it stacks with the unit commander's Morale bonus from Lead, things get ridiculous. IMO the morale bonus from hero units should be toned down, allowing a commander with the Lead skill to be the single most important bonus to unit morale

Good point, but using the 3.5 rules, “morale” is a bonus type and does not stack. So technically anything that provides a morale bonus will not stack with something else that provides a morale bonus. The greater bonus is all that is used. This is the reason that the effects of the bard’s inspire ability and bless and/or prayer spells do not stack.

OK, on the revised table it requires an EL 12 hero group to add +1 damage to a unit. That's one 12th level PC, 2 10th level PCs, 4 8th level PCs, or 8 6th level PCs.

Let's just say the 'typical' hero group is a party of 4 PCs, so the EL 12 group is 4 at 8th level.

There is a falicy in these calculations and it appears in the assumption as to how to calculate the EL of a party.

Per the DMG (pg 48) the EL of a party is the average of all the members’ character levels. So an EL 12 is 4 12th level characters not 4 8th level ones. This is also based on a party size of 4 characters. I got an e-mail from sage advice a while ago that said to calculate the EL for a party size greater than 4 you should take the average level of all members and then add +1 for every 2 more than 4. So a party of 6 8th level characters would be EL of 9.

So what this does is to strengthen your argument for how powerful a group of characters are.

Now what seems to have happened here is that the original proposal was following the lines of the “template” concept of the hero unit but seems to have spread into more of a separate unit itself.

As I stated (or tried to point out earlier) adding damage and now adding extra attacks seems to more reflect the actions of the heroes themselves and not their effect on the troops looking to them for leadership and inspiration.

I thought we had brought up the issue earlier that a character either operates independently or as part of a unit. What this means that if they are acting as part of a unit (thus functioning as a hero unit) then they have effects on the entire unit they are with and essentially give up their own actions to make that unit function better (i.e., the entire morale thing). What this seems to be doing is to translate a hero into a unit card all on its own, only leaving out the important aspects to make the transformation complete (hits, AC, etc.) Sort of like a mixing of 2 independent concepts and IMO makes the result inferior to taking on one approach or the other. That is to say either a hero unit is a unit in and of itself or it is a template that provides effects of leadership and inspiration to the unit it accompanies.

Thinking about it more – I think the better thing to do now is to ask the masses how they think (in broader terms vice the specific mechanics (e.g., bonuses, stats)).

So the question would be should a hero unit (i.e., characters on the battlefield) function as a template that inspires morale and inspiration (i.e., provides bonuses) to a unit they are “part of” or should they be considered a separate battle unit.

There are advantages to both systems. The traditional hero card from 2nd ed and the playtest functions along the lines of a “template”.

If we instead create a separate hero card then all aspects of PCs can be represented on the battlefield in an abstract system that can promote the consistent handling of the battle. What I mean is that we really wouldn’t have to worry about the differences between classes since every class has their own advantages/disadvantages and are supposedly considered equal. So the stats for a hero unit can be based solely on its EL or CR (since they can be individuals). This also means the effects of individual spells on the battlefield really wouldn’t matter since they are translated into an abstract hero unit. The individual accountability of the battle round duration vice standard rounds becomes mote since they have become abstracted and a sum of the effects are being done. Basically the greater hits a warrior styled class has is balanced out with the defensive spells and the multiple attacks of warriors types is balanced by the extra damage that offensive spells can deal out.

The more I think about this the more I like this latter concept (I think it is also what Doom was insinuated as a way to not grant any class special consideration – something that is very contrary to the entire 3.5 concept).

Osprey

04-05-2005, 02:32 PM

Good point, but using the 3.5 rules, “morale” is a bonus type and does not stack. So technically anything that provides a morale bonus will not stack with something else that provides a morale bonus. The greater bonus is all that is used. This is the reason that the effects of the bard’s inspire ability and bless and/or prayer spells do not stack.

Hmm...it could be problematic to consider bonuses to unit morale the same thing as a "morale bonus" at the adventure level. Since unit morale includes things like training, discipline, and saving throws (hence the soldiers' average Fort, Reflex, and Will saves play some role), all sorts of things could convievably add a bonus to unit morale. A Prayer spell, for instance, which normally grants a +1 luck bonus to attacks, damage, and saves, would probably add a +2 luck bonus to unit attack and +1 to morale as a battle spell. Battle Resistance would add a +1 resistance bonus to unit morale, a Holy Aura battle spell would add a +4 resistance bonus morale, and so on.

In the case of Lead skill and Hero Unit bonuses, they both are likely to be morale bonuses in the core rules sense of the term, so your point is well taken. This leads me to want to dampen the Morale bonuses from hero units even further, however, otherwise it will seem even more pointless to have a strong Lead score if you're playing unit commander (more often than not). Halving the previously proposed Morale bonuses will likely do the trick here.

OK, on the revised table it requires an EL 12 hero group to add +1 damage to a unit. That's one 12th level PC, 2 10th level PCs, 4 8th level PCs, or 8 6th level PCs.
Let's just say the 'typical' hero group is a party of 4 PCs, so the EL 12 group is 4 at 8th level.*

There is a falicy in these calculations and it appears in the assumption as to how to calculate the EL of a party.

Per the DMG (pg 48) the EL of a party is the average of all the members’ character levels. So an EL 12 is 4 12th level characters not 4 8th level ones. This is also based on a party size of 4 characters. I got an e-mail from sage advice a while ago that said to calculate the EL for a party size greater than 4 you should take the average level of all members and then add +1 for every 2 more than 4. So a party of 6 8th level characters would be EL of 9.

OK, I read over that section in the DMG, and realized that what you are describing, "the average of all the members’ character levels," is not EL (Encounter Level), it is the level of the party. This is the same value that in 3.0 was used for calculating experience awards, and in 3.5 is still used by a DM to guage the challenge presented by the CR/EL of foes to a party of adventurers. Supposedly, if EL = party level, the party should be able to take on and defeat 4 such encounters before needing to rest, heal, regain spells, etc.

Encounter Level is a DM tool used to add together the CRs of a group of opponents (essentially, EL is a group CR), as per the table on p. 49 of the DMG. Since PC character level = CR, my calculations were correct.

I think EL is a better tool than party level as a method of calculating a hero unit's effects, since CR/EL is a more specific measure of a person or group's combat effectiveness in a single encounter. This method has the advantage of letting monsters and NPC-class characters be easily calculated as hero units for their effects.

Now what seems to have happened here is that the original proposal was following the lines of the “template” concept of the hero unit but seems to have spread into more of a separate unit itself.

As I stated (or tried to point out earlier) adding damage and now adding extra attacks seems to more reflect the actions of the heroes themselves and not their effect on the troops looking to them for leadership and inspiration.

Hmm, perhaps we have different conceptions of how hero units work in general. First off, I apologize if my use of the term "hero unit" implies that they should be treated as a seperate unit. My intention has been to treat them as a group that imbeds in a unit, as they were in 2e BR and in the BRCS.

As to the effects of heroes on a unit, I'm almost certain that the bonuses they provided in 2e and the BRCS were meant to reflect a [i]combination of their indirect effects on unit performance (mainly by improving unit morale simply through their presence), and the direct effects of their personal combat abilities.

I would not assume, however, that a group of heroes joining a unit takes over actual command of a unit. More likely is that they will become the fighting nucleus of a unit, as their combat abilities will far outstrip those of most soldiers. So in a sense they provide leadership by "leading the charge." It's important to note that only a character with the Lead skill is really fit to play the role of unit commander, hopefully bettering the Morale of the unit even more than if he were just fighting with them. Most heroes (PCs/NPCs) aren't capable commanders, but they sure as heck will improve the net destructive potential of a unit at higher levels, simply by using the same (or similar) combat skills and powers that they use at the adventure level.

I thought we had brought up the issue earlier that a character either operates independently or as part of a unit. What this means that if they are acting as part of a unit (thus functioning as a hero unit) then they have effects on the entire unit they are with and essentially give up their own actions to make that unit function better (i.e., the entire morale thing).

I don't think heroes embedded in a unit would really be "giving up" their own actions. In fact, this would be a tremendous waste of their talents, and might even be detrimental to a unit if more than one character is trying to play company commander at the same time.

I have been assuming that PCs and NPCs will make the best (most effective) use of their characters when joining a company of troops. The best use of a high-level melee warrior would probably be to lead the attack from the front, an archer to shadow the flanks or rear of the company and provide fire support, a cleric to be in the front or middle and play a mixed role of support caster and melee combatant, a mage to stay well-protected while launching offensive spells at the enemy, a rogue to sneak attack enemy officers and champions, etc.

The main reason for PCs to 'embed' in a unit is that they will be less vulnerable to being overwhelmed by hordes of enemy troops thanks to the protection of friendly soldiers guarding their flanks and rear. They will also be more effective vs. entire units as their troops are able to press into the gaps and breaches that the tank-like PCs create with spells and swords. This doesn't require the PCs be taking leadership roles, only that they are able to fight as part of a larger company of troops. Given the combat abilities and experience of most higher-level PCs, it seems reasonable they could do this without some special requirement (like Warcraft or Lead skills, or special unit training).

What this seems to be doing is to translate a hero into a unit card all on its own, only leaving out the important aspects to make the transformation complete (hits, AC, etc.) Sort of like a mixing of 2 independent concepts and IMO makes the result inferior to taking on one approach or the other. That is to say either a hero unit is a unit in and of itself or it is a template that provides effects of leadership and inspiration to the unit it accompanies.

What I have been trying to do is illustrate the very large gap between the capabilities of low-level NPC soldiers and higher-level PCs in combat (according to the D&D rules system), and use this as a basis for translating the effects of these PCs onto a battlefield scale. The net results of this analysis were that units with heroes, especially higher-level heroes, really would be exponentially more powerful than those without, especially in their offensive capabilities.

My desire is not to exaggerate the effects of heroes on the battlefield, but to represent their combat capabilities on the battlefield while keeping in line with the 3.5 core rules. As it stands, I think the v2 bonuses were mostly toned down for the sake of balance of play - v1 is more of a direct translation of the core rules to battlefield scale, it just won't be as fun to play out, especially when two hero-led companies face off on the field (where mutual destruction of one another's companies is a likely outcome, usually in the first round of engagement).

If we instead create a separate hero card then all aspects of PCs can be represented on the battlefield in an abstract system that can promote the consistent handling of the battle. What I mean is that we really wouldn’t have to worry about the differences between classes since every class has their own advantages/disadvantages and are supposedly considered equal. So the stats for a hero unit can be based solely on its EL or CR (since they can be individuals). This also means the effects of individual spells on the battlefield really wouldn’t matter since they are translated into an abstract hero unit. The individual accountability of the battle round duration vice standard rounds becomes mote since they have become abstracted and a sum of the effects are being done. Basically the greater hits a warrior styled class has is balanced out with the defensive spells and the multiple attacks of warriors types is balanced by the extra damage that offensive spells can deal out.

The more I think about this the more I like this latter concept (I think it is also what Doom was insinuated as a way to not grant any class special consideration – something that is very contrary to the entire 3.5 concept).

I agree that PCs as part of a hero unit should not be distinguished seperately by class - it's just too complex and variable to be worth tackling on the battlefield scale. The exceptions, as many previous posts have pointed out, are the effects of certain area-effect spells, which have such incredible one-shot impact, often at long ranges.

My proposal is that heroes on the field should join or 'embed' in existing units as the default, simply because in most cases, it's the smart thing to do. They're better protected, and more offensively potent in melee engagements.

Heroes who want to act independently of units should be treated seperately, as their offensive and defensive capabilities will vary a great deal depending on the characters and the situation. I think the "zoom" method is probably a better way to handle PCs seperate from units.

A couple of thoughts to consider with individuals on the battlefield:
- We have established that troops acting on the company level tend to be quite sluggish compared to individuals at the adventure level, thanks to the slowness of giving, relaying, and following orders as a united company.
- This being the case, it is completely unrealistic to think that if a spellcaster unleashes a spell, then an entire company of archers would respond in the same combat round. The typical reaction time, given the sluggishness of troops in 5-10 minute battle turns, would probably be more like 5-10 combat rounds.
- Most any caster with even a grain of common sense won't stand still while hundreds of enemy archers prepare to fire at her - unless she has sufficient magical protections in place to ignore such a response. In that case, the caster may prove quite useful in drawing enemy missile fire away from allied companies advancing to engage.
- As a mobile individual on the field, targeting her with whole companies of archers would be very difficult. Actually hitting her would be even harder (though if she were mounted, the horse would make a decent target unless it were running). Realistically, a frequently-moving individual has little to fear in terms of enemy unit missile fire. The real threat would be from enemy heroes with their own, much more accurate and responsive ranged attacks and spells.
- Likewise, most heroes could easily out-maneuver companies of foot troops trying to run them down and engage them. Cavalry could be a more serious threat in this respect, unless the hero were mounted, in which case they could also easily out-maneuver any company of troops trying to engage them. Likely the best way to pin down individuals would be for squads to break off from the company, but this would have a very serious consequence in that it would break up company formation and make them more vulnerable to enemy attack.

I'm not certain I have good solutions to these problems, but I think they are real points that should be addressed when imagining what it would be like for individual heroes running aorund on the battlefield.

irdeggman

04-05-2005, 03:08 PM

A couple of thoughts to consider with individuals on the battlefield:
- We have established that troops acting on the company level tend to be quite sluggish compared to individuals at the adventure level, thanks to the slowness of giving, relaying, and following orders as a united company.
- This being the case, it is completely unrealistic to think that if a spellcaster unleashes a spell, then an entire company of archers would respond in the same combat round. The typical reaction time, given the sluggishness of troops in 5-10 minute battle turns, would probably be more like 5-10 combat rounds.

Actually not, this comparison was for keeping a unit in its formation (for lack of a better word) and keeping its damage done on a unit level (i.e., in battle damage - unit hits and the like). If a wizard can act individually then a whole unit of archers can act individually a take 200 shots. The damage is different when handled on a unit basis - which is why things are sluggish per se. It has to do with coordination of efforts - but that is something that should be dropped totally when handling things on a combat round style of basis (for example if a wizard starts to throw fireball spells in normal combat rounds vice battle rounds)

- Most any caster with even a grain of common sense won't stand still while hundreds of enemy archers prepare to fire at her - unless she has sufficient magical protections in place to ignore such a response. In that case, the caster may prove quite useful in drawing enemy missile fire away from allied companies advancing to engage.

Precisely why to take it out of the battle system if operating this way. It just doesn't work mechanically if mixing two systems (battle and normal comabat).

- As a mobile individual on the field, targeting her with whole companies of archers would be very difficult. Actually hitting her would be even harder (though if she were mounted, the horse would make a decent target unless it were running). Realistically, a frequently-moving individual has little to fear in terms of enemy unit missile fire. The real threat would be from enemy heroes with their own, much more accurate and responsive ranged attacks and spells.

IMO that is the price for playing it on an individual basis vice as part of a unit.

- Likewise, most heroes could easily out-maneuver companies of foot troops trying to run them down and engage them. Cavalry could be a more serious threat in this respect, unless the hero were mounted, in which case they could also easily out-maneuver any company of troops trying to engage them. Likely the best way to pin down individuals would be for squads to break off from the company, but this would have a very serious consequence in that it would break up company formation and make them more vulnerable to enemy attack.

Same logic applies here. If people are playing individually then so too should the units they are opposing perform individually. If people are dealing out damage in hit points (individual unit of measure) then so too should unti be dealing out hit point damage. Otherwise we are mixing two different mechanics - battle unit mechanics (unit hit) and standard mechanincs (hit points). The two are realted but only after they are summed up and not on an individual basis.

The Jew

04-05-2005, 04:37 PM

irdeggman

04-05-2005, 04:40 PM

Hmm...it could be problematic to consider bonuses to unit morale the same thing as a "morale bonus" at the adventure level. Since unit morale includes things like training, discipline, and saving throws (hence the soldiers' average Fort, Reflex, and Will saves play some role), all sorts of things could convievably add a bonus to unit morale. A Prayer spell, for instance, which normally grants a +1 luck bonus to attacks, damage, and saves, would probably add a +2 luck bonus to unit attack and +1 to morale as a battle spell. Battle Resistance would add a +1 resistance bonus to unit morale, a Holy Aura battle spell would add a +4 resistance bonus morale, and so on.

My bad - prayer does grant a luck bonus so it will stack with the effects of a bless or bard's insprire ability.

I don't think heroes embedded in a unit would really be "giving up" their own actions. In fact, this would be a tremendous waste of their talents, and might even be detrimental to a unit if more than one character is trying to play company commander at the same time.

But the following suggest otherwise.

who want to act independently of units should be treated seperately, as their offensive and defensive capabilities will vary a great deal depending on the characters and the situation. I think the "zoom" method is probably a better way to handle PCs seperate from units.

not assume, however, that a group of heroes joining a unit takes over actual command of a unit. More likely is that they will become the fighting nucleus of a unit, as their combat abilities will far outstrip those of most soldiers. So in a sense they provide leadership by "leading the charge." It's important to note that only a character with the Lead skill is really fit to play the role of unit commander, hopefully bettering the Morale of the unit even more than if he were just fighting with them. Most heroes (PCs/NPCs) aren't capable commanders, but they sure as heck will improve the net destructive potential of a unit at higher levels, simply by using the same (or similar) combat skills and powers that they use at the adventure level[/quote

[quote]This doesn't require the PCs be taking leadership roles, only that they are able to fight as part of a larger company of troops. Given the combat abilities and experience of most higher-level PCs, it seems reasonable they could do this without some special requirement (like Warcraft or Lead skills, or special unit training)

"Leading the charge" and "fighting as part of a larger company" both seem to indicate that the PC is "giving up" his personal actions to take part in the unit actions.

Osprey

04-05-2005, 07:14 PM

"Leading the charge" and "fighting as part of a larger company" both seem to indicate that the PC is "giving up" his personal actions to take part in the unit actions.

The main thing a character gives up in these cases is personal mobility (he is reduced to the speed of the company, and somewhat restricted by fellow soldiers occupying surrounding areas). There's not much justification, however, for a PC giving up much of their overall combat effectiveness once the fighting starts. Hence the reason I believe most of a PC's combat abilities should be factored in to the bonuses added to a company.

Let's make sure we're on the same page here: when speaking of "giving up" actions, I agree that PCs shouldn't be able to act on the adventure level (like a mage throwing fireballs at a distant unit as a special effect) AND add their level to a hero group aiding a unit. I only meant that I don't expect the hero group bonuses should be curtailed because of an assumption that when joining a unit, PCs are substantially weaker in combat than when they're acting seperately.

Does that help clarify the discussion here?

Osprey

irdeggman

04-05-2005, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Osprey@Apr 5 2005, 02:14 PM

Let's make sure we're on the same page here: when speaking of "giving up" actions, I agree that PCs shouldn't be able to act on the adventure level (like a mage throwing fireballs at a distant unit as a special effect) AND add their level to a hero group aiding a unit. I only meant that I don't expect the hero group bonuses should be curtailed because of an assumption that when joining a unit, PCs are substantially weaker in combat than when they're acting seperately.

Does that help clarify the discussion here?

Osprey
I think we are.

Basically a PC can either act as an individual or he can act as part of a unit. As part of a unit his abilities, etc., translate into a set of bonuses to the unit.

I don't have a problem with that at all.

I think however that the proposals tend to accentuate the individual abilites of the PC (e.g., extra attack for the unit) vice what his presence does for the unit. A high (or even medium) level PC gets mutiple attacks per round, but this shouldn't be a direct translation into a group around him getting more attacks. Now making their attacks more effective (e.g., increase attack bonus) does make sense and fits into the whole morale bonus concept of the core rules.

I am still leaning towards creating a system where the heroes card is an actual unit per se. Where this unit gets hits, attack bonuses, saving throw bonuses, and AC based on the effective level of the PCs in the unit. This gives the PCs something they can do that has a direct effect on the battlefield and yet keeps things in the same battle round as other units instead of trying to make special accomodations for wizards (the biggest sore point based on the recent polls where people sem to want standard spells to function as is on the battlefield).

We can set up a table and Eff Level equivalent that is based on the average level of the PCs in the unit and adjusts upward for having more. A slight adjustment for the avg level +1 per 2 extra over 4 system. Or it could be based on total eff levels (might be simplier to handle). But the concept being that the hits/att adjust, etc. is a means of setting the character into a higher level of fighting - similar to how a GB is a measure of currency in a greater scale than the standard one of gp. I hope I'm making opinion clear her and not just inserting more confusion into the disscussion.

Osprey

04-05-2005, 11:55 PM

I think however that the proposals tend to accentuate the individual abilites of the PC (e.g., extra attack for the unit) vice what his presence does for the unit. A high (or even medium) level PC gets mutiple attacks per round, but this shouldn't be a direct translation into a group around him getting more attacks. Now making their attacks more effective (e.g., increase attack bonus) does make sense and fits into the whole morale bonus concept of the core rules.

OK. I think the the proposal accentuates the heroes' role in a battle because heroes are so incredibly effective against low-level NPCs. Can you (or anyone) really argue effectively against this from a rules-based standpoint? Or is the opposition to this representation of hero power more of a gut-level "it doesn't seem fair" position? I feel I have provided a very comprehensive, rules/system-based justification for heroes providing substantial additions to a unit's abilities. No offense intended, but feel I have read little to no justifications for why this should not be the case, only unsubstantiated opinions by and large.

Hero units granting multiple attacks to a unit is most definitely not a direct translation of individual heroes' multiple attacks in a combat round. It is a more abstract translation of their raw destructive potential, which was originally represented by their unit inflicting extra hits of damage. That system (v1 of the hero group bonuses revision) was really a more direct translation of hero combat abilities. I changed it to extra attacks in v2 to provide a more tempered version of that idea that would give opposing units at least a chance of survival that didn't rely on a single d20 roll (i.e., they would take 3 hits or none from a unit led by a group of high-level heroes).

If a hero unit only adds an attack bonus to a unit, then what that system is representing is this: "A company led by a group of high-level heroes is more likely to inflict a single hit of damage on an enemy unit, that being about 50-100 casualties against an enemy foot unit in a single [5-10 minute] battle turn."

Given the destructive potential of high-level heroes, as I tried to illustrate in painstaking detail in previous posts, this seems a woefully inadequate representation of their abilities, and the benefits they would provide to a unit they joined.

If a hero unit adds extra damage to a unit's offensive abilities, then what we are saying is, "A company led by a group of high-level heroes is exponentially more powerful than a company without."

Now, as unfair as this may seem to those companies without heroes leading/joining them, it really is a more accurate translation of the power of high level PC's vs. 1st-2nd level NPC warriors and experts. Can anyone logically refute this with the 3.5 rules as a basis? I don't see how.

The closest thing I've heard as to an argument is Duane writing that the heroes would be more busy directing and inspiring the common soldiers in the unit than they would be engaging in the actual fighting. But I don't buy it - if it were my 12th level fighter embedded in a company of infantry, I would surely have him at the front, leading the attack, and carving a path into the midst of the enemy unit. How on earth could he make better use of his skills? With the ability to kill one enemy soldier every few seconds while having little to fear from the attacks of his 1st-2nd level warrior foes, well...just do the math. In a 10-minute combat round, even if we assume half of it is spent moving (and that's assuming his unit just engaged that turn, and wasn't already locked in engagement from the previous turn), that leaves 5 minutes, or 50 combat rounds, of slaughter...my L12 fighter could probably kill between 100 and 200 1st level warriors in those 5 minutes. And by the gods and all that is holy, what common soldier left alive in the enemy unit would even concieve of standing up to that killing machine after such a rampage? :o

Disgusting it may be, but these are the D&D rules expanded into the time scale of the battle system.

Does this make it any clearer as to why a simple unit attack bonus is insufficient in representing the effects of high-level heroes, and why higher-level heroes really are exponentially more powerful than companies of 1st and 2nd level warriors?

irdeggman

04-06-2005, 10:38 AM

So the 12th level fighter is now engaging a unit almost single handedly.

Well that means that the unit is also engaging the 12th level fighter almost exclusively. If that unit gets a few nat 20s (very possible considering the number of attacks - remember if the hero gets to count his individual actions then so too does the opposing unit). So instead of inflicting damage on the unit they are now inflicting damage directly to the hero himself. That means that there is a greater likelihood of the hero falling of being captured. If that happens then the unit he is with, regardless of the amount of damage they have taken previously, would immediatly surrender or flee. That is the downside to treating the hero on an individual basis.

While directly engaging with the enemy is very inspirational, the loss to morale of the hero falling is even more devastating - that is the flip side of this arguement. If the unit with the most powerful ally has fallen or fled then what does this do to the morale of the rest of the army? Again, it is totally devastating.

There are various combat options available to large groups to attempt to neutralize a superior foe - tripping is one that comes to mind so is multple grapplers. In general a PC gets only a single AoO per round, if he has Combat Reflexes then he gets a number up to his Dex mod - but still no more than one per opponent per opportunity, although cleave and great cleave can stack with this to great effect. The other assumption here is that the oppposing unit is not using the same initiative - using one initiative result for a group of oponents is a DM option to make combat flow faster, but since we are talking about how powerful an individual PC is then we need to give the opponents the same benefits (when possible) - assuming a set amount of feats that all classes receive and aren't normally assigned to a large group like a unit.

A first level human warrior still gets 2 feats and the sargents/commanders of the unit should not be considered to be warriors but rather fighters wich yields them even more feats.

The Jew

04-06-2005, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by "Duane"
So the 12th level fighter is now engaging a unit almost single handedly.

No, the hero isn't engaging single-handedly. He is engaging with the rest of his unit at his side and back. Let's take the fighter as our example. As he slaughters everyone in reach of him within a round, he and the men around him push forward. Then they repeat the process. If the units were fighting in fomation, this wedge would break the opponent pretty quickly. Otherwise, his group may be even more terriftying as their won't be enough order within the fight to send a solid group of men to try to kill him.

However the enemy unit is fighting, they will have trouble just mobbing him with trip attacks or grapple checks, since he will have his own men around him. He is fighting in coordination with the unit. But obviously that unit uses him in the most effective way possible.

I know this isn't historically accurate, but imagine how Homer describes the battles before the walls of Troy. Without a hero to stop them, the enemies hero's could run rampant throughout the field of battle.

On the flip side, a unit with a hero is not invulnerable, throw a couple knight units at it, and their could be trouble. Slaying that hero may be more important than actually winning the battle. All of the sudden, Mass Destruction is a bit nicer, if it is reserved for the unit with the opponents champion.

No, the whole army should not be penalized if the hero falls, as most won't know what is going on more than a few feet in front, and those that do won't be spreading that particular bit of info.

Osprey

04-06-2005, 07:07 PM

Well, Jonah (the Jew) said a lot of what I was going to say.

I continue to advocate a similar position, in that heroes by default should fight embedded in units, as the soldiers play a valuable support role in emphasizing and exploiting the hero's attacks, as well as defending his flanks and rear and preventing him from being completely mobbed. Though I admit, I have a hard time imagining a disciplined unit of soldiers resorting to grappling/overbearing tactics in the middle of a battlefield, unless there were absolutely no enemy troops anywhere nearby to threaten them. Talk about wrecking a formation.

I am opposed to trying to create heroes as seperate battlefield units. Their hit points would convert poorly to unit hits, for one thing. For another, it would be a very arbitrary-seeming method for heroes to die, thanks to their hit points gaining the frailty of a few hits. In actual groups, how would you determine which heroes get killed, and which ones live? In short, heroes (especially PC heroes) are a bit too important to kill off so easily.

While directly engaging with the enemy is very inspirational, the loss to morale of the hero falling is even more devastating - that is the flip side of this arguement. If the unit with the most powerful ally has fallen or fled then what does this do to the morale of the rest of the army? Again, it is totally devastating.
The chance of a hero fighter falling at the hands of common soldiers is very, very small with D&D rules. Given the strong likelihood that he will also be supported by a PC or NPC cleric in his unit, as well as carry multiple healing potions, even the 1 in 20 attacks that do hit him can be healed if they accumulate too quickly - and the hero need barely pause in his slaughter, thanks to the lightning speed of magical healing in this system.

A first level human warrior still gets 2 feats and the sergeants/ commanders of the unit should not be considered to be warriors but rather fighters wich yields them even more feats.

I would expect sergeants,as NCO's (or their medieval equivalent), to usually be more experienced versions of common soldiers with a few ranks in Lead and Intimidate. Which would place regular sergeants as 2nd-3rd level warriors when commanding 1st level warrior soldiers.

Full officers (say, lieutenants and captains), on the other hand, might very well be either Fighters, Nobles, or Aristocrats, depending on the unit and culture. But there's only going to be a few of these guys (2-4 I'd guess) per company, so at best this will slow down the hero just a little.

My estimate of a L12 fighter's damage-dealing abilities were actually pretty broad in range (100-200 soldiers in 5 minutes) - I figured 100 at the low end to account for movement greater than 5' steps, the occasional tough soldier (like a veteran soldier or sergeant) that takes more than 1 attack to kill, and an extra "lower than the math indicates" buffer for the sake of at least a sliver of believability. A 12th level fighter with Great Cleave and Combat Reflexes could theoretically dish out 300 or more attacks in 50 rounds of solid combat! Few if any would miss opponents with AC 20 or less. Great Cleave is a feat custom-built for this sort of fighting - killing every low-level opponent in reach in a single round. It is the "sweep" ability of 3e.

If a 1st level warrior has 2 feats, well, what would be typical? It would reflect his unit type and any special training options - regular infantry might have Weapon Focus with their primary weapon (so they might have as high as +4 attack at 14/15 Str; they still need a nat 20 to hit AC 24 or higher, which most any L12+ character, esp. melee fighting types, will have), and maybe Discipline for the 2nd feat (decent typcial Anuirean infantry feat at 1st level). Unruly types might have Improved Unarmed Attack instead, as they have at least as much experience brawling as they do in weapons combat. Cavalry troopers would of course have Mounted Combat, and maybe Ride-By Attack or Weapon Focus as well. Longbowmen Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot, etc., etc. All of this would make very little difference in affecting the calculations in my previous examples of hero abilities vs. common soldiers.

Walter

04-16-2005, 10:17 AM

Hereos are the most unbalancing factor in any Battle, at low level they are not ble to doo much then in the mid level 5-9 the magic wielder beginnig to be a very big problem,
because they alone can kill the enemy army before battle beginns, at higher leels the dspellcaster get even more dangerous meteor Swarm for example kills an entiry army unit, i had an high level sorcerer who killed over a thousad enemy while they were marching towards the capitsl city of a plyers realm no singel soldier saw the city.
At very high level even figther become inearly invincible, in an other csmpaign there was a 20th level barbarian who had a ton of spell like stonskin and improved invisibility cast on him he killed naerly 1500 Goblins in a singel day only few escaped.
High level hereos are to powerful when they are not opposed by NPC with similar high levels.

irdeggman

04-16-2005, 07:48 PM

Just to restate what I have said before, if Hero Units (or whatever you want to call them) are not strengthened from the BRCS template then obviously most players will want to play on a round for round basis for their characters. They will be able to inflict so much more damage. In order to discourage this, and for realism, the bonus that high level characters give should be somewhat commensurate with how powerful they are. If a 12th level fighter is in the unit, they won't spend their time yelling encouragements, they will be aiding in crushing the enemy which is in front of them, and doing an exceedingly good job at it.

On the other hand, if a hero does go off on their own, then the enemy units shouldn't be bound by all the different reasoning which we have been desperately searching for to explain why units and battles move so slowly. Once that mage starts blowing up a unit, then the smart fall is for the commander to yell, "Kill that *&^% Mage, fire at will." You may not be able to find historical examples of this, but then until WWI (the machine gun) there was not an example of anything that was nearly as destructive as a fireball wielding mage.

Essentially, if the characters act using 3.5 fighting rules, then so should the opponent. But we should strive to create a reason within the BR combat rules for the characters to act as part of a unit.

The Jew

I think this is where the three of us generally agree. Well at least the Jew and I do.

The only reason I brought up the hero unit as a specific unit itself was as an alternative to having people try to revert to combat round-by-round play because they wish to play their PCs to the max of their abilities. Again the general opinion of using standard magic without any modifications on the battlefield forces a game imbalance and a huge game mechanics break down. So if we can find a way to increase the benefits for playing as a unit vice on the individual level then things flow smoother. I think the specific details on why the hero unit functions the way it does are probably where we disagree, but really it doesn’t matter significantly or more to the point all the opinons expressed roll up to having the effect in question – the bottom line is to have some means of capturing PCs working with battlefield units and making it worthy of the player dropping the individual actions in lieu of bonuses to units.

Now back to Osprey’s v2 proposal:

Instead of EL why not make it total levels or total ECL for PCs? It makes it easier to count - the table in the DMG is probably one of the most unwieldy ones to figure out in the first place and is very daunting for a beginning DM to manage.

I do like the playtest document’s restriction of a minimum level for a PC to contribute to a heroes unit. I’m not sure 3rd is an appropriate level for this though, probably more like 5th since that is where the cumulative effect of feats and 3rd level spells (the first real increment of power increase in spells) start to have an effect that can be measured in large groups like a unit.

This would exclude things like class abilities (from the noble for instance) or blood abilities since they are special and give the class or scion that particular role. IMO to gain those class/blood benefits the character must be functioning on the unit level and not the individual one anyway.

Osprey

04-17-2005, 03:46 AM

Now back to Osprey’s v2 proposal:

Instead of EL why not make it total levels or total ECL for PCs? It makes it easier to count - the table in the DMG is probably one of the most unwieldy ones to figure out in the first place and is very daunting for a beginning DM to manage.

The EL table might seem a bit odd at first glance, but it actually makes a lot of sense if you follow the basic assumption of the D&D 3.5 system: levels (and CR's) are not linear in their power progression.

If a character's PC class level = CR, then it's very important to take a good look at those EL tables. A DM needs to be able to understand those tables if he's to use the D&D system at all. The basis of them is really quite simple: two CR 4 creatures are the same level of power (EL) as one CR 6 creature. Every identical pair adds +2 to the total EL of a group of creatures (or characters).

So what that means is that two 4th PC's are NOT equal to one 8th level character in power. Using the EL system, four 4th level or two 6th level PC's are the equal of one 8th level character.

If we're going to use the 3.5 system at all, we'd better incorporate its most basic assumptions and systems of power balance. That's why it doesn't work to just add up character levels.

I do like the playtest document’s restriction of a minimum level for a PC to contribute to a heroes unit. I’m not sure 3rd is an appropriate level for this though, probably more like 5th since that is where the cumulative effect of feats and 3rd level spells (the first real increment of power increase in spells) start to have an effect that can be measured in large groups like a unit.

I was sort of thinking 6th level myself, because that's when warrior classes (high BAB) gain their second attack per round. And that makes them a LOT bigger than a normal soldier. Also, sorcerers get their 3rd level spells at this point, too, medium BAB characters are up to +4 attack (quite strong), and even mages (low BAB) are at +3...better than your average 1st level warrior for certain. All characters get another feat at 6th level, too.

I've noticed with the various attack/save/class ability progressions that most classes tend to get very good stuff at 4th and 6th levels. These seem to be ideal levels for multiclass characters in particular. To that end, I would be OK with 4th level as a minimum level for heroes on the field, too, so long as the Hero Group bonuses only apply to an EL 6 or higher group (at least 2x 4th level characters).

irdeggman

04-17-2005, 05:59 PM

Osprey

04-18-2005, 04:16 AM

Osprey,

I don't disagree with the importance of the encounter table from the DMG, especially in ensuring that CR does not equal the ECL (or total levels) for a combination of creatures. It becomes extremely hard to interprete when the tables are deviated from. For example what is the EL for a group of PCs that are 4, 6, 8, and 3rd level. The rules for mixed pairs don't lend themselves to this type of situation. PC don't always advance the same due to PC death, different attendance of players, different starting times, etc.

The easiest way to determine a mixed group's EL is to break them down into pairs if possible, then combine those pairs as if they were one creature. For instance, in your example (levels 3+4+6+8), CR 3+4 = EL 5.5... Round that to EL 6 (that is, the 3rd and 4th level character are close to one 6th level character)...CR 6+6= EL 8...CR 8+8= EL 10. So that mixed group is an EL 10 hero unit. (A more stringent DM could insist on dropping fractions, in which case the unit would only be EL 9, but that's definitely the harshest ruling one could make.)

Anyways, you are right in that the EL tables are somewhat approximated and a bit messy, but they are that way because it's the closest they can come to an accurate measure of group power within the CR/level system.

If you or someone else can come up with a system that gives as fair a measure of real power within the D&D system, I'm willing to hear you out. It's just that every suggestion or alternative system I've seen is either more complex (in the end) or a poor measure of power within the existing system.

Look on the bright side: at least they printed a table for the system... ;)

Bokey

04-27-2005, 07:46 PM

Ok, first I want to say WOW. You guys have put a lot of time and effort into this thread! If I wrote a single response that was as long as some of yours, I would be typing for ½ an hour, and that doesn’t even include the time to compose such well thought out arguments. Now, that being said, here’s what I think:

I think EL is a better tool than party level as a method of calculating a hero unit's effects, since CR/EL is a more specific measure of a person or group's combat effectiveness in a single encounter. This method has the advantage of letting monsters and NPC-class characters be easily calculated as hero units for their effects.

I agree with this, as high level Heroes would be devastating on the field of combat given the exponential increase in power. CR would also allow you to add a single high level NPC to the fray on the opposing side and know how he would effect the unit.

if Hero Units (or whatever you want to call them) are not strengthened from the BRCS template then obviously most players will want to play on a round for round basis for their characters. They will be able to inflict so much more damage. In order to discourage this, and for realism, the bonus that high level characters give should be somewhat commensurate with how powerful they are.

I also see the need to make being part of a unit an attractive alternative to playing your character separately. The last thing I want is my 12th level PC fighter to even want to hack through the entire battlefield.

“morale” is a bonus type and does not stack.

And I don’t think it should. If you get morale bonus from other places, good for you, but lets keep the numbers down in the semi-astronomical/almost believable range.

All that being said, Osprey I generally like your overall plan here. I like the idea of extra attacks instead of increased damage, so I guess I like version 2 better.

I do have a difference of opinion in one category however, and that is the defense bonus. How is one ( or four or five for that matter) 10th level guy(s) going to make the whole unit harder to hit? Sure, he might be really hard to hit personally, but does that make his unit-mate any harder to cut down? I think a better reflection of the PC's abilities would be extra "hitpoints" for the unit. Give the unit the ability to take additional hits. The cleric could cast healing spells, the warrior types could absorb some of the attacks and lots of damage. Just my opinion though, and I am sure you all have already considered this option, just clue me in on the reasoning. ;)

Osprey

04-28-2005, 02:40 PM

All that being said, Osprey I generally like your overall plan here. I like the idea of extra attacks instead of increased damage, so I guess I like version 2 better.

Cool, thanks. I like it better too, a bit more versatile and less "all at once."

I do have a difference of opinion in one category however, and that is the defense bonus. How is one ( or four or five for that matter) 10th level guy(s) going to make the whole unit harder to hit? Sure, he might be really hard to hit personally, but does that make his unit-mate any harder to cut down? I think a better reflection of the PC's abilities would be extra "hitpoints" for the unit. Give the unit the ability to take additional hits. The cleric could cast healing spells, the warrior types could absorb some of the attacks and lots of damage. Just my opinion though, and I am sure you all have already considered this option, just clue me in on the reasoning.

Hmmm...no, it's a good point, and one I think I mentioned a while back...well, anyways, it's one I've thought about a fair amount.

As best as I can tell, the reasoning behind a defense bonus is that PCs tend to have very high AC's compared to soldiers. Being big, shiny hero types, they tend to attract a lot of attention - and enemy fire. If you figure that heroes are soaking up a decent percentage of enemy attacks, then an increased defense bonus makes a lot of sense.

Extra hits might be a decent addition as well, since the hit dice of higher-level characters really are equal to multiple lesser soldiers...combined with an assumption that heroes are targeted more often than average, a high-level hero group might indeed add a hit equivalent to a unit. But not more than one, probably...

Osprey

irdeggman

04-28-2005, 03:05 PM

Using bonus hits might also work on other levels as well.

We've already discussed the multiple attacks as making things flow less cfluidly (or at the very least causing them to require more work to handle).If instead more hets were added, then what essentially happens is the unit can stand up to more attacks before falling and thus get in more attack becasue they are still present. While from a logic standpoint it doesn't translate as well as multiple attacks the game effect becomes roughly the same. Besides if we give a hereo unit bonus of up to +3 attacks this makes things get out of hand quickly, at least IMO. The units attacks are always handled at the same time (like they are in normal combat). Well I guess we could say a unit gets a single charge attack and then could take the rest in the melee portion of the round. But think about the effect on an archer unit (a unit with 4 attacks would pretty much devastate anything else around).

Perhaps swapping bonus hits for bonus attacks might be more conducive and balanced in the long run.

Remember how very abstract hit points are in the first place.

The Jew

04-28-2005, 05:05 PM

Osprey

04-29-2005, 05:09 AM

I would also agree with swapping at least one of the extra attacks for an extra attack. But when looking at the chart and pointing out how devastating a unit with 4 attacks would be, try to make that unit. Without the Gorgon or Rhoubhe, if you were to combing the 8 most powerful humanoids within Anuire, they would not have an EL of 28. It would be difficult to make EL 20 hero unit, which gives 2 extra attacks. The Chamberlain would suffice otherwise it would require the queen of Sielwode, the king of Tuarhievel, the hand of Azrai and high mage Aelies.

So in the end, are you saying you still want to lower the bonus attacks or no?

I thank you for noticing those particular details of the table (the necessary ELs to gain bonus attacks). They're pretty key to the whole idea...low level heroes will only supplement a unit's basic abilities. But a group of high level heroes can much more dramatically deal out destruction.

I think it's good to remember (and fairly represent) just what high-level characters are compared to average humans: they're super-heroes, really, with fantastic powers, abilities, and experiences. Larger than life.

In a more realistic game system, heroes would play a vital morale-boosting role, inspiring the troops with their presence and deeds, but wouldn't be ten or twenty times more powerful than every poor sod of a soldier they meet.

The BR battlesystem is meant to be a mass-scale version of the normal D&D game. While this requires some abstraction, we should be careful not to enforce a paradigm shift. As in, going from high-fantasy D&D base system to low-fantasy grim and gritty medieval battle. I'm all for keeping realism as a guide when it doesn't conflict with our agreed-upon rules system. But it's important to understand what that rule system really means, conceptually. Advanced-level D&D heroes are truly high-fantasy heroes with mythical powers and stature. I think hero unit bonuses should be intended to portray this paradigm...and that means they are FAR more powerful than even hundreds of ordinary soldiers with ordinary weapons and no magic. They're not supposed to have a fair chance against heroes way out of their league.

If a group of truly mighty heroes. like four 16th level PCs, all band together and lead a unit on the field, I'm pretty okay with them tripling the power of their unit and being a nigh-unstoppable force on the battlefield - unless they meet a similar hero unit, or simply get overwhelmed by numbers. That's the 2 main options against such a unit (plus snipe at them with archers and nail them with all available battle and wide-scale magic you can muster, if you have it).

To make such hero vs. hero encounters more dramatic, I'd be okay with adding the occasional bonus hit to hero-led units - great heroes, that is, roughly similar to the bonus attacks progression.

Of course, this will make them even more nasty vs. regular units, but it will also balance out the damage dealt by hero units to one another...and make the heroes' fate a bit les fragile when the units they're with have only 2 or 3 hits normallt, and tend to always get taken out in my experience...

Osprey

graham anderson

04-29-2005, 08:01 AM

I am still of the opinion that the hero unit does not need to be changed. Anything that is going to make the hero supported unit only realy matched by another is to be avoided. This will heavily unbalance the game in my opinion and cannot be realy justified in my opinion.

The Jew

04-29-2005, 02:30 PM

I am not against swapping an attack for a hit die. It will make them less destructive, but also live longer. That seems like a balanced trade. One of the great risks with placing that 16th level hero in a unit, is that the unit could be destroyed and the hero lost. I imagine what would happen if the Chamberlain were to fall in battle. Yes, he would take out 5 enemy units first, but that would not be remotely comparable to the loss of the chamberlain.

If I was an enemy general, my main goal may be to take out the units with the hero's in it, whatever the cost. Yeah, I might lose this batle, but if you remove the hero who is often the regent, then you may improve your chances of winning the war. In that case I would prefer that the enemy unit had fewer hits, but more attacks.

This also would help explain how Rhouble and the spider survived the Empire. Militarily speaking, I never understood how they held onto their realms while the empire controlled half of Cerilia. This does make it a bit more sensical.

Osprey

04-29-2005, 02:50 PM

This will heavily unbalance the game in my opinion and cannot be realy justified in my opinion.

So how is your own opinion justified? That is, how was the original hero-group system balanced? Was it an accurate representation of the D&D ruleset, or was the "balance" more of a "let's keep PCs from being too powerful on the battlefield" version of balance. That sort of balance makes for ridiculous gaps in logic, IMO, in which PCs go from being nigh-unstoppable warriors on the adventure-scale to "handy little helpers" on the battlefield, wherein the soldiers do almost all of the work and the heroes just make them a little better at it. I really don't think that's a very good transaltion of the D&D hero.

Now if the sort of "balance" you're looking for is one which tones down the D&D hero's role in favor of something a bit more realistic, then I understand your preference. I just don't think it's very appropriate for a D&D based game.

What I've noticed in general is that many folks prefer a lower-magic, lower-powered setting for BR, which is fine, but without powering down the core rules system, a high-level character is still devestatingly powerful.

Making rules for a battlesystem is not the place to try and make things more realistic and less powerful re. the heroes. The battlesystem should be an as accurate as possible translation of the heroes on the scale of mass combat, not a re-arrangement of their abilities to better suit a realism-centered idea of game balance.

Osprey

04-29-2005, 03:13 PM

I am not against swapping an attack for a hit die. It will make them less destructive, but also live longer. That seems like a balanced trade. One of the great risks with placing that 16th level hero in a unit, is that the unit could be destroyed and the hero lost. I imagine what would happen if the Chamberlain were to fall in battle. Yes, he would take out 5 enemy units first, but that would not be remotely comparable to the loss of the chamberlain.

So do you think it should take an EL 20+ hero group to have a chance to deal 1 extra hit of damage? That seems like a really immense threshold to me. Personally, I think the powers of high-level heroes would start multiplying the offensive power of a unit well before characters reach 16th-20th level.

Taking out a high level hero, using the BRCS table for character survival, is nigh-impossible. As they get to make a character-level check, only a system which allows fumbles could result in the death or capture of a character of 9th level or higher. Otherwise the hero escapes to fight another day.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing that table get a little more lethal, either, but that's for another day. :)

Inflicting extra hits doesn't make it likely for a hero to get killed off, only gets rid of the heroes and their unit, at least temporarily, which can definitely help win a battle, but probably not the war.

Bokey

04-29-2005, 04:33 PM

Hero Group Unit Bonuses v2
EL........Attack...Defense...Morale....Extra Attacks
6...........+0..........+0...........+2..........+ 0
8...........+2..........+0...........+2..........+ 0
10.........+2..........+1...........+2..........+0
12.........+2..........+1...........+2..........+1
14.........+2..........+2...........+4..........+1
16.........+4..........+2...........+4..........+1
18.........+4..........+3...........+4..........+1
20.........+4..........+3...........+4..........+2
22.........+4..........+4...........+6..........+2
24.........+6..........+4...........+6..........+2
26.........+6..........+5...........+6..........+2
28.........+6..........+5...........+6..........+3
30.........+6..........+6...........+8..........+3

It seems to me that the following would also work, I substituted some of the defense bonuses (the odd increases) for Extra hits. Just a different idea; you could theoretically substitute any increase for the extra hits (maybe the attack bonus could go up by increments of 1, and you could increase the hits at the same time?).

The reason I justify "stealing" the bonus from defense instead of anything else is that defense and extra hit both extend the duration the unit will survive on the battlefield. It might make it seem a little less "invincible", but still maintains its ability to survive.

Hero Group Unit Bonuses v3
EL........Attack...Defense...Morale....Extra Attacks..Extra Hits
6...........+0..........+0...........+2..........+ 0.................+0
8...........+2..........+0...........+2..........+ 0.................+0
10.........+2..........+1...........+2..........+0 .................+0
12.........+2..........+1...........+2..........+1 .................+0
14.........+2..........+1...........+4..........+1 .................+1
16.........+4..........+1...........+4..........+1 .................+1
18.........+4..........+2...........+4..........+1 .................+1
20.........+4..........+2...........+4..........+2 .................+1
22.........+4..........+2...........+6..........+2 .................+2
24.........+6..........+2...........+6..........+2 .................+2
26.........+6..........+3...........+6..........+2 .................+2
28.........+6..........+3...........+6..........+3 .................+2
30.........+6..........+3...........+8..........+3 .................+3

I think the overall powerscaling has been well thought out, but if we were to increase hits a unit could take, we would have to decrease something, otherwise a unit would be unstoppable on the battlefield. This change would make it more likely to be stopped, but not without causing significant harm to the units trying to stop it, and probably causing quite a few of them to perish in the process.

irdeggman

04-29-2005, 04:49 PM

Osprey,

I’m not certain if you are saying that you are alright with the idea of swapping bonus hits for extra attacks or that you are open for adding another benefit corresponding to bonus hits.

The discussion you gave seemed to me to be saying that extra hits is roughly equivalent to extra attacks and in some ways preferable (i.e., it leads to greater hero unit survivability).

I strongly prefer some system where the entire extra attacks concept is removed. I have several reasons for this:

1. It doesn’t fit into the current battle round system which is comprised of
Resolve stationary missile attacks
Resolve charge attacks
Resolve melee attacks
Resolve moving missile attacks

Despite my arguments to using the standard D&D combat system where all actions occur on the character’s turn in the initiative order people said (no poll was taken though so my impression could be wrong) that they wanted to keep this style of combat resolution.

Extra Attacks: The impressive might of high-level heroes may enable a unit to make more than one attack per battle turn. These extra attacks must all be resolved at the same time - in whichever phase the unit would normally make its standard melee or missile attack.

This causes problems as to when these attacks are resolved. Can a unit then make multiple charge attacks? Can/should a unit be able to perform both a charge and then subsequent melee attacks if they are entitled to multiple attacks in a round? While multiple attacks are not allowed in standard D&D unless a full attack action is performed, this system is so different it is hard to say all the rules of standard D&D combat apply. Would a unit then be allowed to substitute a movement for an attack and not have to take a full attack action to get more than one attack in a round? These questions are only brought up if multiple attacks are allowed, since they have no meaning if they don’t exist in the first place.

2. It causes difficulty in readily resolving combat (something that was pointed out by you earlier). At the very least it causes a wrinkle in the consistency of the battle round combat system.

Let’s see how the following variations on the v2 version appeal to people.

Hero Group Unit Bonuses v2.1
EL........Attack...Defense...Morale....Bonus Hits
6...........+0..........+0...........+2..........+ 0
8...........+2..........+0...........+2..........+ 0
10.........+2..........+1...........+2..........+0
12.........+2..........+1...........+2..........+1
14.........+2..........+2...........+4..........+1
16.........+4..........+2...........+4..........+1
18.........+4..........+3...........+4..........+1
20.........+4..........+3...........+4..........+2
22.........+4..........+4...........+6..........+2
24.........+6..........+4...........+6..........+2
26.........+6..........+5...........+6..........+2
28.........+6..........+5...........+6..........+3
30.........+6..........+6...........+8..........+3

Bonus Hits: The impressive ability of high-level heroes may enable a unit to survive more attacks per battle. These bonus hits are bestowed to the unit the hero unit is attached to for the duration of the time the hero unit is attached. Treat these bonus hits as if they were temporary hit points.

Hero Group Unit Bonuses v2.2
EL........Attack...Defense...Morale....Extra Attacks Bonus Hits
6...........+0..........+0...........+2..........+ 0 +0
8...........+2..........+0...........+2..........+ 0 +1
10.........+2..........+1...........+2..........+0 +1
12.........+2..........+1...........+2..........+0 +1
14.........+2..........+2...........+4..........+0 +1
16.........+4..........+2...........+4..........+0 +2
18.........+4..........+3...........+4..........+0 +2
20.........+4..........+3...........+4..........+0 +2
22.........+4..........+4...........+6..........+1 +2
24.........+6..........+4...........+6..........+1 +3
26.........+6..........+5...........+6..........+1 +3
28.........+6..........+5...........+6..........+1 +3
30.........+6..........+6...........+8..........+2 +3

Extra Attacks: The impressive might of high-level heroes may enable a unit to make more than one attack per battle turn. These extra attacks must all be resolved at the same time - in whichever phase the unit would normally make its standard melee or missile attack.

Bonus Hits: The impressive ability of high-level heroes may enable a unit to survive more attacks per battle. These bonus hits are bestowed to the unit the hero unit is attached to for the duration of the time the hero unit is attached. Treat these bonus hits as if they were temporary hit points.

The reason to treat these as temporary hit points is so that they are the first to go and hence if the hero unit leaves the host unit the host unit will not automatically suffer extra damage like a barbarian when his rage ends.

I like version v.1 better, it is less complicated and less overwhelming, IMO. Heck heroes are supposed to be risking something to be heroic. I’m not sure how balanced v.2 is but it seemed like a good idea to increase the hits added (i.e., start earlier) so that it is more attractive and lesson the extra attacks granted. v2 us definitely more powerful, IMO.

I think I’d ensure whatever system we end up with has the hero unit start with 5th level characters to better try to incorporate those playing wizards since at 5th level they get spells like fireball and would just be itching to try to apply that directly onto a battlefield. So we want to encourage players to use this system instead by making it more attractive than other options. A single 5th level character is an EL of 4, 5 or 6 depending on how the DM wants to play it.

But when looking at the chart and pointing out how devastating a unit with 4 attacks would be, try to make that unit. Without the Gorgon or Rhoubhe, if you were to combing the 8 most powerful humanoids within Anuire, they would not have an EL of 28. It would be difficult to make EL 20 hero unit, which gives 2 extra attacks. The Chamberlain would suffice otherwise it would require the queen of Sielwode, the king of Tuarhievel, the hand of Azrai and high mage Aelies.

It is going to require significant development within the world before hero

It is not quite as hard as you would think to get to these ELs. If the scion has Battlewise, Great he gets +2 to his EL (as written in the present version of Chap 2). Now it doesn’t say that the benefit is additive if more than one scion is present so it is possible to get there. Although it probably shouldn’t be, and this ability is one that needs to be rechecked once we finish this chapter anyways.

Also take into account that the NPCs in the 2nd ed material will most likely end up with +1 to +3 levels from what they had due to the scion class factor. And then there is the cohort/Lt issue that can be worked. Overall it is very possible for players to work this system to their advantage for dramatic results (imagine players actually trying to beat a system, never happens).

geeman

04-29-2005, 05:30 PM

At 04:50 PM 4/29/2005 +0200, Osprey wrote:

>------------ QUOTE ----------

>This will heavily unbalance the game in my opinion and cannot be realy

>justified in my opinion.

>-----------------------------

>

>How can your own opinion be justified? That is, how was the original

>hero-group system balanced? Was it an accurate representation of the D&D

>ruleset, or was the "balance" more of a "let`s keep PCs from being too

>powerful on the battlefield" version of balance. That sort of balance

>makes for ridiculous gaps in logic, IMO, in which PCs go from being

>nigh-unstoppable warriors on the adventure-scale to "handy little helpers"

>on the battlefield, wherein the soldiers do almost all of the work and the

>heroes just make them a little better at it. I really don`t think that`s a

>very good transaltion of the D&D hero.

>

>Now if the sort of "balance" you`re looking for is one which tones down

>the D&D hero`s role in favor of something a bit more realistic, then I

>understand your preference. I just don`t think it`s very appropriate for a

>D&D based game, is all.

To extend Osprey`s comments above a bit: Game "balance" really is more

about making sure that character progression is fair between character

classes, or that the CR values assigned to monsters are appropriate to the

PCs they confront. It`s arguable how well a particular game system does

that, but regardless of where you fall down in that debate "balance" isn`t

something that is supposed to turn a large scale combat system meant to

portray events using a particular game system into something else. That

is, if one were running out an adventure level encounter between two groups

of "monsters" made up of creatures with appropriate CR/EL values to two

units of soldiers, but in one unit there were also several high level PCs

how do you think that encounter would run? Ignoring how influential such

characters might be on the battlefield isn`t a balance issue at all.

If the Gorgon was present on a battlefield should his stats and influence

on the field be "balanced" against existing unit types? Wouldn`t his

combat stats have more of an effect than the 12th level PC fighter that

opposes him? How/why would one "balance" a Cerilian dragon`s influene on

the battlefield?

The effects of heroic characters on a battlefield is not where "balance"

should take place. Rather, it is a reflection of all the other tools used

to balance the system as extended out into a larger timeline. If a unit of

soldiers equates to, say, a CR 8 encounter it is imbalancing to put a hero

into that unit that would demonstrably change the CR value of it without

recognizing how that character might change the unit`s stats.

All things being equal units should be balanced against each other, but the

effects of heros in those units is where all things aren`t equal anymore.

Gary

graham anderson

04-30-2005, 12:40 PM

So how is your own opinion justified? That is, how was the original hero-group system balanced? Was it an accurate representation of the D&D ruleset, or was the "balance" more of a "let's keep PCs from being too powerful on the battlefield" version of balance.

I have made posts on it before but here goes again. A hero whatever their level is one person or in a group a few people. Yes they are more powerful but they are fighting as part of a unit. They can only attack those in front of them and that assumes that they are in the front line. The need to fight as part of the group will greatly reduce their effectiveness in a fight. If they try and leave the group they will be pulled down and killed. There is a lot more to this point but that is the gist. You are only as strong as the soldiers with you.

Then we have the combat system one unit with high level heros could stomp on a whole army which is rediculous. As it is they give a good bonus to attack and defense the defense being the most important as it can make a good unit very good especialy if that unit has special training. This already has a significant impact.

That sort of balance makes for ridiculous gaps in logic, IMO, in which PCs go from being nigh-unstoppable warriors on the adventure-scale to "handy little helpers" on the battlefield, wherein the soldiers do almost all of the work and the heroes just make them a little better at it. I really don't think that's a very good transaltion of the D&D hero

But i do think it makes sense and is a good translation of the d&d system . There is no gap in logic. Such arguments and wanting unstopable units just smacks of powergaming and I will tell you now I would never use them nor would the few other people i know who play birthright it is broken if you cannot chalange a hero unit with a normal unit.

Now if you want to get into levels what about a unit of trolls surely by your logic they could conquer cerilia in a week and that only gets worse when you start looking at giants or ogres.

The Jew

04-30-2005, 05:17 PM

Duane,

I was using the levels from the regents Vitae post by Ian on the Atlas forum for their levels. That does include their extra blood levels. You are right that some characters will do everything they can to work the system, but I was giving a ludicrous combination of heroes to achieve the EL of 20. Aside from Rhoubhe, the Gorgon and the chamberlain, it's nearly impossible to achive that EL of 20 because its highly unlikely that the hand of Azrai, Aelies, and the two elven leaders will be in the same hero unit. IF I understand correctly, none of those 4 have the Andurias bloodline which is required to get battlewise. It's true that they can use Lt's and take cohorts, but even a Lt and a Cohort both 2 levels lower than the regent (of which I am pretty sure ailies and the hand do not have powerful Lt's) would not allow allow any of them to reach EL 20. So even if a character takes advantage of the rules, they still will need to gain a few levels before the strongest will get +2 bonus attacks, and most will need to work the rules just to get 1 extra attack.

Osprey,

I am for for swapping the 2 attack for an extra hit. Then the extra second attack would not be reached unitl EL 28. so a level 12 still gets 1 extra attack. While I personally like Duane's version 2, I do think too many people will have a problem with that level of power. So I think a table of equal level to your version 2 should be used.

Graham,

Unless you are powergaming and working the rules in the first place, I don't see how the table allows any unit to get to powerful. If you are keeping low level characters, then EL of 12 would be among the highest that a hero group gets, with an occasional EL of 14. The EL of 12 gives +2 attack, +1 defence, +2 morale and +1 # of attacks. That is a nice bonus, but it doesn't make the unit invincible. Its only if characters at level 16 or higher are common in the world, that the table starts to allow for hero units that will mop the floor with their opponents.

The Jew

04-30-2005, 05:23 PM

I keep on excluding the Gorgon, Rhoubhe and Chamberlain from my argument, those who just happen to extrordinarily powerful. I think its fair to do so, because the Gorgon is already insanely powerful and unbalanced, this just extends it further into the battle field. But he will always be a NPC, and presumably will be used responibly by the DM. T

The same goes for Rhoubhe, but he is also in the singularily bad position of being between multiple major powers, and so I think needs it to have survived for so many millenia.

The Chamberlain is almost always an NPC also, would probably only take the field should the Gorgon get out of control, and then will be amply balanced out by the Gorgon and his Lt's.

graham anderson

04-30-2005, 06:07 PM

Well jew it all depends on which one of the many tables being proposed that you look at although as i said I dont think it needs to be changed.

As for your people who could get up to a 20+ el add the elves ( both realms) the dwarves , boeruine, avan, and not forgetting the chimera and the spider as possibilitys. These are possibilitys with a large number of luitenants allies who could help along with strong bloodlines, bloodabilitys and scion levels.

Unless you are powergaming and working the rules in the first place, I don't see how the table allows any unit to get to powerful. If you are keeping low level characters, then EL of 12 would be among the highest that a hero group gets, with an occasional EL of 14. The EL of 12 gives +2 attack, +1 defence, +2 morale and +1 # of attacks. That is a nice bonus, but it doesn't make the unit invincible. Its only if characters at level 16 or higher are common in the world, that the table starts to allow for hero units that will mop the floor with their opponents.

I keep to low level characters but others dont and this is wide open to abuse. The el of 12 is still far to powerfull a knight unit or something similar, with renowned unit and special training which is what a lot of regents are going to fight with they will become far to powerfull.

Osprey

05-01-2005, 04:16 PM

The el of 12 is still far to powerfull a knight unit or something similar, with renowned unit and special training which is what a lot of regents are going to fight with they will become far to powerfull.

That depends on what sort of power balance you're trying to achieve. If I read you right, it seems you prefer that most units are fairly evenly balanced in power, with only slight advantages conferred by things like experience, heroes, or special training.

That sort of balance leads to a system in which quantity wins over quality. In this case, the biggest realms will tend to win most wars by sheer force of numbers.

Strengthening heroes allows for an upset of this sort of balance, in which the rise of great leaders and champions can turn the tide and allow a smaller realm to match a larger one if they have some great ones among them (the likely spot that PCs will be in). Personally, I like that heroes could make such a diference on the field.

As the Jew has pointed out, with any of these versions there is no "unstoppable" unit. For one thing, the Defense bonuses are minimal, which means the unit can get hit by regulars - so numbers will still matter, they'll just take more damage bringing down the enemy hero unit.

Osprey

05-01-2005, 04:45 PM

I have made posts on it before but here goes again. A hero whatever their level is one person or in a group a few people. Yes they are more powerful but they are fighting as part of a unit. They can only attack those in front of them and that assumes that they are in the front line. The need to fight as part of the group will greatly reduce their effectiveness in a fight. If they try and leave the group they will be pulled down and killed. There is a lot more to this point but that is the gist. You are only as strong as the soldiers with you.

Your point has some merit if you're talking only about melee fighters as heroes. But a typical hero group is really meant to be a PC party as its base type, which means you should expect a diverse blend of classes and roles. Many PCs aren't melee specialists; some are ranged experts (rangers, mages w/ spells), some are sneaky flanking types, and some are support specialists (cleric, bard). Support PCs can make the whole unit, or at least its fighting section, MUCH stronger (multiplying the bonuses of L1 or 2 warriors), and even basic party tactics will allow the heroes to spread their efforts out and each get a good piece of the action and play a vital role. In some ways, fighting with a big group will strengthen the heroes' effectiveness, especially those with area/mass spells (who can affect a lot of people at once instead of just her 3 PC allies in the party).

If you follow the EL table in the DMG, it should be apparent that PCs aren't just a little "more powerful" than 1st level warriors. They are many times stronger with even a few levels. Every 2 levels of advancement basically equals a doubling of power for PCs, or so the CR system claims.

For instance, a 6th level fighter is roughly equal to 10-12 1st level warriors (CR 1/2), or 7-9 2nd level warriors (CR 1). What that really means is that the fighter is 10-12 times as strong as a 1st level warrior.

An EL 12 group (four 8th level characters) is supposedly equal to about 88 1st level warriors (80-96) by the table...that almost 1/2 a unit. And that's assuming the heroes would be fighting them alone at the adventure scale...Since the heroes have soldiers of their own to protect them from being mobbed, I expect that over the fighting section of a 10-minute battle turn they could do quite a lot more than "a little bit extra" for offensive power.

But i do think it makes sense and is a good translation of the d&d system . There is no gap in logic. Such arguments and wanting unstopable units just smacks of powergaming and I will tell you now I would never use them nor would the few other people i know who play birthright it is broken if you cannot chalange a hero unit with a normal unit.

I hate to say it, but D&D is something of a power-gamer's dream, once PCs clear the lower levels. It's a game built on dungeon crawling and monster-slaying as a profession! The system reflects this premise.

My guess is you keep your games at low character level largely because the power level gets so high after a bit.

My point is that making stats for a battle sytem shouldn't change that fact (regardless of how you feel about the system in the first place). The proposals don't really affect low-level characters much at all - they're intended to recognize the exponentially greater power of high-level heroes.

Your claim that a system is "broken" if a normal unit can't challenge a hero unit - and I say this reinforces your insistence on realism over a heroic fantasy genre. Real human heroes of history are one thing...D&D fantasy heroes of renown (and high level) are super-heroes whose powers and abilities far exceed realistic proportions.

Also, a normal unit would need a lot of luck to actually beat a hero-led unit, but there's a fair chance that they could at least inflict a hit of damage. Hit them with 2, 3, or 4 units, and there's a chance that hero-unit will go down in a turn! I wouldn't call that unstoppable, just tough and viscious. Likewise, throw your own hero unit at them, and things are immediately balanced though not always equal (depending on the unit and hero quality).

Osprey

05-01-2005, 05:32 PM

Bokey, Duane, Jew, and anyone else following this thread:

Bokey, I liked your ideas on defense vs. extra hits, but I think it wise to keep attack and defense similar for the sake of balance in hero vs. hero units on the field. Right now, there's a heavy slant toward offensive power.

Also, I think it wise to add extra hits before extra attacks, giving a slight emphasis on heroes being more survivable first.

With those two things in mind, I decided that the best compensator could be reducing the attack value to increments of 1 instead of 2...helping to ameliorate the impact of extra attacks, too. Morale will be the one bonus that goes up by 2's, emphasizing this as the single greatest influence heroes have on a unit (the power of inspiration).

Here's a table I worked up, playing off of Bokey's, Irdeggman's, and my own earlier ones:

Hero Group Unit Bonuses
EL........Attack...Defense...Morale....Extra Attacks..Extra Hits
6...........+0..........+0...........+2..........+ 0.................+0
8...........+1..........+0...........+2..........+ 0.................+0
10.........+1..........+1...........+2..........+0 .................+1
12.........+1..........+1...........+2..........+1 .................+1
14.........+1..........+1...........+4..........+1 .................+1
16.........+2..........+1...........+4..........+1 .................+1
18.........+2..........+2...........+4..........+1 .................+2
20.........+2..........+2...........+4..........+2 .................+2
22.........+2..........+2...........+6..........+2 .................+2
24.........+3..........+2...........+6..........+2 .................+2
26.........+3..........+3...........+6..........+2 .................+3
28.........+3..........+3...........+6..........+3 .................+3
30.........+3..........+3...........+8..........+3 .................+3

Now, before you start to balk at the seeming power attributed to heroes, here are a few things I would propose to limit some of these effects:

Extra Hits: These extra hits are treated as temporary hits of damage which the hero group adds to a unit it joins. These bonus hits may depleted in place of a unit's damage, but doing so reduces the hero group's bonus hits for the remainder of the battle. Temporary hits may be restored with appropriate (healing) battle magic.

Ex.: An EL 18 hero group joins a unit of regular archers. The unit takes one hit of damage from enemy missile fire, and the hero group loses a bonus hit (leaving the archer unit unharmed). Next turn, the hero group rides ahead to join a unit of knights at the front. They now add only 1 extra hit to the knights.

Extra Attacks: Similar to a strategic 'full attack,' a hero group can grant extra attacks to a unit that is stationary for the entire battle turn. A moving unit still gains the other benefits of the hero group's presence (improved attack, defense, morale, and hits), but only one attack may be made by the unit that turn.

******************
So what do you think? I think these are some very resonable but significant limiters on the 2 very powerful additions: extra hits and extra attacks. Also, with very modest attack and defense bonuses, the effect of heroes gets "spread out" a bit over multiple effects rather than a few very potent increases.

Osprey

irdeggman

05-01-2005, 09:13 PM

Osprey

05-02-2005, 05:32 AM

I would reduce the extra attacks and add back to the attack bonus.

The logic for gaining extra attacks is predicated on a warrior in the hero group. The bonus due to a wizard present would translate into extra damage, but since we are attempting to limit that aspect (which I think is a good idea) the concept of extra attacks working instead of extra damage makes some sense. I just hate the concept of extra attacks it automatically causes the system to slow down and deviate from the "norm" since it only affects units with a hero unit present.

OK, a couple of responses here.

The logic for gaining extra attacks isn't just based on warriors, the rationale is a bit more complex: the original system was simpler (extra damage flat out), but a bit too "all or nothing" in its effect. The justification was based on the ability of any high level hero to in fact multiply the potential damage-dealing capability of a unit.

One of the major factors playing in here wasn't the warrior, but the spellcaster. If a spellcaster can whip out a normal fireball in a few seconds and potentially deal one hit of damage to an enemy unit, what then could 3 or 4 mages do in a single group? In comparison to that, the bonuses and extra attacks are extremely conservative, based on the reasoning that big offensive spells like fireball are spread out over the course of several battle turns, rather than expended all at once in a colossal barrage...after which the mage becomes nigh-useless without extra spell items like wands, staves, and scrolls.

Warrior heroes, of course, are a much easier measure of destructive power relative to time spent fighting - they are "spread out" by default - but still, the number of (effective) attacks a high-level warrior could make in a good 5 to 10 minutes of combat is pretty horrendous.

Other classes might still have pretty similar effects, just less directly - rogues sneak-attacking key officers might have equally devestating effects to enemy morale and internal discipline...which could equal a similar effect to the fighter on an anbstract "unit damage" level. Bards enhancing their entire unit (and allied heroes) with +2 or +3 morale bonuses to attack, damage, and fear (morale) saves also equals a pretty dramatic increase in the effectiveness of every single fighting man in the company...which again might have a similar overall effect tot he fighter. Clerics with support spells might also obtain similar effects, along with the defensive and morale boosts provided by (mass) healing, protection, and enhancement magic.

Heroes, I think, deserve some special treatment that makes it not only OK, but desirable, to deviate from the norm in order to highlight their dramatic abilities.

Something else I forgot to mention in my last post, but which I think would be good to include if this makes it to the BRCS, is the following (rough draft):

DM's may use some discretion in judging whether or not a hero can add his full level to a hero group's EL. In certain cases the DM may rule that a particular hero cannot add some or any of his class levels to the group's EL. This should be judged on a case by case basis and depend upon immediate circumstances. Here are a few examples for guidelines:
Ex. 1: If the hero group is adding to a unit's ranged attack, but some of the heroes lack significant ranged attacks or ways to support the unit's archers, then the ineffective characters should be treated as lower level, or simply not be counted at all when determining ranged attack bonuses and extra ranged attacks (if any). For instance, a rogue or magician with a light crossbow, firing beyond point blank (and sneak attack) range (30'), probably won't make an immense contribution to ranged fire unless he has multiple attacks per round and a feat like Rapid Reload. A spellcaster without any significant ranged attack or mass support spells prepared would also be of minimal aid in ranged attacks. For such 'minor' characters, treating them as only 1/2 their normal level might be appropriate.

Ex. 2: If a spellcaster expends a great number of spells through specific actions, the DM should feel entitled to reduce their effective level when determining their contribution to the group. The general guideline could be determined as a fraction of the character's total spell power (total spell levels available) - so if a PC wizard had cast 3/4 of his prepared spell levels, his effective contribution to a hero group might only be 3/4 of his wizard level.

Now this may seem like it adds a lot of complexity, but I think it's really important to periodically empower and assist DM's in finding ways to balance and customize hero group effects based on the situation and individual heroes and their particular strengths and weaknesses.

Hmmm, another way to go about this might be to provide a list of situational bonuses and penalties to an individual hero's effective level - like a fighter with Whirlwind Attack and/or Great Cleave might gain +1 effective level in melee fighting, a sorcerer with numerous offensive mass-damage spells might also gain +1 effective level, any spellcaster with Widen Spell +1 level, etc.

These last ideas are more just brainstorming stuff, but I do think I'd like to give some guidelines for such things without attempting to provide a comprehensive list of all possible circumstantial modifiers.

Osprey

irdeggman

05-02-2005, 02:00 PM

Yes it does add a lot of complexity. It also has a great potential for causing disputes between players and DMs. I can readily see player's saying that the DM is not being fair because in their (player) opinion certain bonuses shuld be applied or even worse the set bonuses should be 'modified' such that say a unit gets extra attacks or damage due to the circumstances. Even if it says the "DM can" from my history this doesn't stop players from feeling cheated by the DM. Heck see the opinions on TGA and how the AI cheats to get a feel for how some/many players view things. Adding specific options for specifics feats and such with regards to modifiers is pretty much opening a can of worms that I don't think we want to. IMO the BRCS is best served by simplicity whenever possible and not by building in more comlexity. There are several mass combat products out there already that provide a more detailed system and IMO it would be best if we had a simpler system to use (much like how the 2nd ed system was a "simple" system when compared to the normal war games out there.

But I wouldn't dismiss this outright or even make a snap judgment on it. IMO we need to be real careful on this one though.

For the record I didn't say I wouldn't go with the multiple attacks. I only said that I didn't like introducing a "special" mechanic in the middle of things. I said I understood where the logic is coming from. I did say that if it ends up with making the hero group concept more appealing than playing as individuals it is definitely worth it.

Bokey

05-02-2005, 09:02 PM

So what do you think? I think these are some very resonable but significant limiters on the 2 very powerful additions: extra hits and extra attacks. Also, with very modest attack and defense bonuses, the effect of heroes gets "spread out" a bit over multiple effects rather than a few very potent increases.

Osprey,
I like the chart the way you currently have it written. I believe that is about as good a balance as we are going to achieve. :)

DM's may use some discretion in judging whether or not a hero can add his full level to a hero group's EL. In certain cases the DM may rule that a particular hero cannot add some or any of his class levels to the group's EL. This should be judged on a case by case basis and depend upon immediate circumstances. Here are a few examples for guidelines:
Example ommitted.....

While I agree that this would be a good way to handle this situation in an "lab" or "ideal" setting, Irdeggman is correct when he says that it would add to much complexity. We should try to employ the KISS method- Keep It Simple, Stupid! (Note: I am not implying that you are stupid, we all know that is not the case, just stating what the acronym stands for). ;)

If a DM feels the need to adjust things, it is within his "rights" as DM to do so. I don't believe that we need to specifically address these issues in the sanctioned version.

Hmmm, another way to go about this might be to provide a list of situational bonuses and penalties to an individual hero's effective level - like a fighter with Whirlwind Attack and/or Great Cleave might gain +1 effective level in melee fighting, a sorcerer with numerous offensive mass-damage spells might also gain +1 effective level, any spellcaster with Widen Spell +1 level, etc.

These last ideas are more just brainstorming stuff, but I do think I'd like to give some guidelines for such things without attempting to provide a comprehensive list of all possible circumstantial modifiers.

I also disagree with you here. This gets back to a suggestion I read way back in the beginning of the thread about certain classes granting certain benefits. While the idea of a bard granting morale bonus while a fighter would grant attack bonus...etc would be cool and let you know what your character specifically was contributing to the unit, that level of complexity and the amount of space it would take up in the final product compared to the amount of use it would get....I just don't think it would be justified.

I think the little chart that you recently posted would warrent the space required to explain it. And I also like your limitations on use of extra attacks and how the "hits" would work as temporary hits, unlike a barbarian's rage.

One final series of questions though, (and I almost hate to ask them, because they also add a whole new branch of complexity): what becomes of the heroes when they run out of "hits" and the unit they are attached to is still alive? Do they cease to grant the bonus? Are they considered destroyed, or have they abandonned the unit to run for cover? Is the unit routed? Are they still attached to the unit, but can no longer switch units?

I like the final option, because it gives the unit (and therefore the PC's) the opportunity to escape to the reserves where the wounded PC's can be dropped off, or the option to risk it all and maybe sacrifice themselves for the greater good of God and Country. Let me know if you have any ideas on how to handle this potentially sticky issue.

The Jew

05-03-2005, 03:02 AM

A table of EL modifiers does seem like too much, but the paragraph seems perfectly reasonable. Any DM can ignore it, but should one be wish to and be willing to stand up to their players this will give them some rules backing.

irdeggman

05-04-2005, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Bokey@May 2 2005, 04:02 PM
One final series of questions though, (and I almost hate to ask them, because they also add a whole new branch of complexity): what becomes of the heroes when they run out of "hits" and the unit they are attached to is still alive? Do they cease to grant the bonus? Are they considered destroyed, or have they abandonned the unit to run for cover? Is the unit routed? Are they still attached to the unit, but can no longer switch units?

I like the final option, because it gives the unit (and therefore the PC's) the opportunity to escape to the reserves where the wounded PC's can be dropped off, or the option to risk it all and maybe sacrifice themselves for the greater good of God and Country. Let me know if you have any ideas on how to handle this potentially sticky issue.
Hmm interesting question and worthy of discussion.

I think it would be best to use a combination of the following:

From the BRCS-playtest:

If a unit containing a Heroes unit is destroyed, each hero should make a character level check with the following results. Characters that are captured are usually held for random or as hostages, but may be slain by merciless adversaries.* Survivors that return to the reserve may reform a new heroes unit.

I think this works pretty well for determining the "fate" of the PCs themselves.

I also think that heroes should have to spend a battle round with a unit inspiring and coordinating them in order to establish their link to the hero group bonuses. Basically the unit can perform no action (except normal defense) during this round {without the additional defense bonus provided by the hero group itself - this reflects that the group may just be passing through and using the unit as cover to move on}.

Part of this justification is that the hit bonuses supplied by the hero unit is not all contributed to by the number of hit points the characters themselves have, some is a reflection of how well the unit fights together now that they have an inspirational lead (or leaders) this inspiration also causes a willingness to fight beyond what a unit would normally do. Some of the hits a unit has is actually a reflection of the sheer number of individuals staying to fight - this is not just the morale as generally perceived. Well that is my opinion for what it is worth.

Bokey

05-04-2005, 03:09 PM

I also think that heroes should have to spend a battle round with a unit inspiring and coordinating them in order to establish their link to the hero group bonuses. Basically the unit can perform no action (except normal defense) during this round {without the additional defense bonus provided by the hero group itself - this reflects that the group may just be passing through and using the unit as cover to move on}.

Part of this justification is that the hit bonuses supplied by the hero unit is not all contributed to by the number of hit points the characters themselves have, some is a reflection of how well the unit fights together now that they have an inspirational lead (or leaders) this inspiration also causes a willingness to fight beyond what a unit would normally do. Some of the hits a unit has is actually a reflection of the sheer number of individuals staying to fight - this is not just the morale as generally perceived. Well that is my opinion for what it is worth.

Irdeggman,
I think I understand your logic on this, but I see one potential flaw that could be abused. You are saying that the heroes inspire people to fight beyond their normal limits, give a better effort, etc., which I agree with. However, if I understand you correctly, then what you are saying is that a unit loses the bonus temporary hits first, and then if the heroes leave the unit before they have taken "real" damage, that the unit is unwounded. The heroes could then move to a new unit, spend a round rallying/inspiring them, and then get the appropriate number of extra hits granted by their CR to the new unit(again). While in this unit they could take a certain amount of damage that, when the heroes left would not be applied to the base unit. The heroes could effectively switch from unit to unit and grant extra hits to each unit they were a part of, even if only for the time period that they were actually part of that unit. Does this make sense? Basically heroes would be constantly switching units to maximize the damage their army could absorb, and also present a moving target to any opposing regent trying to target them.

The only other thing I can think of to prevent this from happening would be to grant the heroes a set # of extra hits that they could grant in one battle, or to permanently tie them to one particular unit.

irdeggman

05-04-2005, 03:51 PM

Remember that the heroes have had to spend a round moving and then a round inspiring the new unit. They will not be able to flit from unit to unit pumping them up.

The unit they have just joined does not gain any bonuses for a round so they are subject to damage from enemy attacks during that round (these are real damage not temporary hits) and then they have to make a morale check to avoid retreating (again without the effective inspiration bonus from the heros).

While the unit they have just left, maybe not taking any "real" damage nor having to make a morale save to avoid retreating is no operating normally without any bonuses.

Essentially what I envision is that if the heroes are flitting between units they are taking a great risk everytime they do - forgoing a substantial part of their "protection" by spending time inspiring new units.

Osprey

05-06-2005, 04:02 PM

Remember that the heroes have had to spend a round moving and then a round inspiring the new unit. They will not be able to flit from unit to unit pumping them up.

Allow me to jump in here.

I've enjoyed following the discussion just now...as I've been offline for the past week, no internet for me! Stinking cable company... :rolleyes:

Duane, I like your idea about it taking one battle turn of "transition" for the heroes to integrate with a new unit. I think it's an excellent limiter on heroes bouncing around for maximized power-gaming effect. A one-turn delay, all by itself, can be a big disadvantage if it happens while the battle's already being joined nearby.

That being said, with 10-minute battle turns, a group of heroes moving by itself can cover an incredible amount of distance, even afoot. At the slowest, in heavy armor, medium creatures can hustle 40' a round, 400' per minute (4 x 100' squares), or 4000' (40 squares) in a battle turn! If most battle maps are more like 20x20 squares, then it would take only 1/2 of a battle turn for heroes (unmounted, in heavy armor) to traverse the entire length or width of the field. If our heroes are mounted, things are even easier (50' speed, hustle = 100' per round = 10 squares per minute = very rapid transition between units, almost negligible). Distances between friendly units are virtually guaranteed to be much less than the whole length of the field except in extremely unusual cases.

The bottom line: a hero group can pretty much move wherever it likes in much less than a full battle turn, so making them spend a turn just for movement is a little bit silly. I think it's going to be easier, given the current arrangement of things, to just say that heroes can move where they like in a given turn, but that it still takes that turn to integrate with a unit.

All that being said, I'm sticking with my assertion that the bonus hits granted by heroes are like temporary hit points, granted once per battle, and as Bokey asserted, don't "refresh" every time heroes join a new unit. I think a battle healing spell that cures unit hits could restore these bonus hits, but that's about it.

I think the other bonuses (attack, defense, extra attacks, and especially morale) are more than sufficient to represent the heroes' enhancing effects on a unit. The round of integration works as a representation of the ponderous logistics of setting up the heroes to best coordinate their positions and abilities within the pre-existing structure of a military company.

Essentially what I envision is that if the heroes are flitting between units they are taking a great risk everytime they do - forgoing a substantial part of their "protection" by spending time inspiring new units.

I wouldn't over-emphasize the role of heroes' inspiration of the troops. To be honest, the bonuses from the tables, being as trimmed down and conservative as they have become, are barely sufficient to represent the powers and abilities of high-level PCs/NPCs - the Morale bonus is the primary representation of heroes' inspiration. The only exception here is the role of bards and other support casters, nobles, and characters with the Lead skill...and the latter two have seperate effects anyways, which will probably stack with the basic hero bonuses from the table (at least with higher-level nobles).

************************************************** *****************
For the record: As is probably evident, my last version of the Hero Bonuses are more conservative than I would prefer, given the power of high-level characters in D&D. They are toned down as an effort to compromise with and appease the fans of a lower-power BR setting - more human and realistic, less D&D-ish.

In the end, I'm OK with this - but I'm also done with compromise and/or further "powering-down." As it is, I am highly suspect as to whether any character with his nasty little wand of fireballs and a bit of stealth or magical protection would ever bother to join a hero group rather than barrage the hell out of the enemy's elite units. A thousand rounds (1 battle turn) is a long, long time...

Osprey