Results 21 to 30 of 57
Thread: Hero Units
-
04-05-2005, 11:55 PM #21I 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.
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?
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?
-
04-06-2005, 10:38 AM #22
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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.Duane Eggert
-
04-06-2005, 02:41 PM #23
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- california
- Posts
- 317
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
Originally posted by "Duane"
So the 12th level fighter is now engaging a unit almost single handedly.
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.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.
-
04-06-2005, 07:07 PM #24
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.
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.
-
04-16-2005, 10:17 AM #25
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 19
- Downloads
- 52
- Uploads
- 0
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.
-
04-16-2005, 07:48 PM #26
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- 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 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.
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.Duane Eggert
-
04-17-2005, 03:46 AM #27
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'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).
-
04-17-2005, 05:59 PM #28
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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.
All I was suggesting was that we see if it would be useful (or even possible) to come up with a table based on total levels instead. This won't work in all cases, but then again nothing ever will. There could be a modifier for subtracting from the total levels for every character above 2 (or 3) depending on how it starts to look. remember that the table from the DMG doesn't strictly apply in this situation, since things have been abstrated even more to reflect a unit vice group of individuals. I was just trying to see if there was an even quicker method than the one you had put up that would accomplish roughly the same result.Duane Eggert
-
04-18-2005, 04:16 AM #29Osprey,
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.
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...
-
04-27-2005, 07:46 PM #30
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.
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.
“morale” is a bonus type and does not stack.
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.Kill 'em all, let the God's sort them out!!
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks