Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 57

Thread: Hero Units

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Osprey schrieb:



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

    > You can view the entire thread at:

    > http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...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

  2. #12
    Senior Member RaspK_FOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Moschato, Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,128
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    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).

  3. #13
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    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

  4. #14
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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).
    Duane Eggert

  5. #15
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    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 [in the quote above] 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 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.

  6. #16
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.
    Duane Eggert

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    california
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    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 encouragments, they will be aiding in cruching 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) their was not an example of anything which 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.
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

  8. #18
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.

    [quote] 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


    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.
    Duane Eggert

  9. #19
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    "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

  10. #20
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    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.
    Duane Eggert

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.