Hero Units

[irdeggman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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