User talk:Ghostwheel/Glyph/Mass Combat

Probably better to stick with 20 people in a unit and vary space sizes for larger and smaller creatures than to keep space sizes the same and vary numbers of people. Varying the number of people makes small units worth less individually since you need more of them in a unit to get the same benefit, and that's just weird.

Should be on later to talk more. - Tarkisflux 03:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Explain to me later in chat what you mean? Is way late, and I don't really get it. --Ghostwheel 11:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I keep missing you and may not be around for a few days, I'm gonna write it out here. My issue is with this idea: "20 medium individuals in a single unit. Double for smaller, halve for larger". I suspect it is there so you don't have odd space size issues pop up, but it does weird things. If you put 20 medium level 1 creatures into a unit, you get a level 7 equivalent creature. If you put 20 small level 1 creatures into a unit... you don't get anything. You have to put 40 small level 1 creatures into a unit, and that makes a level 7 creature. Which makes it look like the small creatures that went into the unit are worth less than the medium creatures that went into the unit, because you need more of them to get the same level equivalent group. The opposite happens with large creatures, you need fewer of them so it looks like they count for more than equal level creatures who happen to be smaller. And that looks looks a lot like inconsistent valuing of creatures when this template is applied, unless there's a creature thing here where creature power is dependent and level and size instead of just level (which is all kinds of weird for other reasons).

So I think there are two ways to work this. You can drop the "every unit needs to be 20x20" requirement, and then units of 20 small creatures will take up a 10x10 and units of large creatures will take up a 40x40 and it's not a big deal. It's no more weird than having big and small creatures take up more or less than the standard 5x5 square on the character scale. Alternately you can keep the "every unit needs to be 20x20" requirement, but drop the "get +6 level" equivalent part. If it takes twice as many creatures to make a unit, make that unit slightly more awesome, maybe a +7 or +8 level equivalent, to account for that. And if it takes half as many creatures to make a unit, make that unit closer in level to the things that make it up, only +5 or +4 level equivalent, to make up for their lack of numbers. That takes care of the member value issue while still retaining a standard unit size. I prefer just varying space sizing, since it's simpler, but you could also do both and have a squad template, a unit template, a cohort template, and so on to allow for various groupings of creatures with various level boosts.

Unrelated, but there were a few ip edits on your pages a couple days back. Not sure if those were you or not. - Tarkisflux 04:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that was me.

So; I would like A. standardized sizes for all units on the board (EVERY unit taking up a single square on the board, representing a 20' x 20' area), and B. not to make up a half-dozen templates for creatures of different size as a unit if at all possible, since that screws up the "glare" mechanic of making creatures 6 levels or more under you run away, making it not "worth" putting large and huge creatures into a unit. Is there any way to keep both of them? That said, I'd rather give up #2 if I had to give one of them up... --Ghostwheel 02:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly believe that #1 and #2 are hard to make compatible without losing a level of versimilitude. My take on it is just that units that are under-strength spread out more widely than those which are not. At the same time, I think that Tarkis' second solution is better - we still keep consistent unit sizes, with some variance in awesomeness based on how many folks you stuff it with. I'm not really sure that would cause severe issues, personally - it wouldn't be THAT many templates... - MisterSinister 02:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That still gives us a problem though - if Large creatures are only +5, then that means that there's no reason for them to move in units since the Glare ability only targets units at least 6 levels under. How does one solve that? I still want the ability to affect units that are -6 level, but... you see the problem. --Ghostwheel 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's only one template per size, if you only allow 20x20 units, which is all of 4 templates if you only make units out of small, medium, large, and huge creatures. And while large or huge creatures who join units would be immune to the glare ability because they are less than 6 levels lower, they would still do it to gain a level or 4 and be an effective counter to units of lower leveled smaller creatures, or to be more of a threat to heroes many levels above them. Being immune to glare if they break or don't join up doesn't make them a threat at that level difference after all. - Tarkisflux 05:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait a sec--didn't you yourself say before that without the balancing factor of the glare, it's much more likely that a creature would rather be apart in order to be able to A. attack multiple times, and B. require multiple attacks to take down so as to slow down the heroes for as long as possible? I thought that this was the specific problem that the glare fixed, wasn't it? How does it suddenly go away? O.o --Ghostwheel 08:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It matters substantially more if you're packing 20 creatures into a space; the glare thing only really solves the problem of being able to throw large amounts of low level bodies at you until iterative probability takes hold (it actually fails again for really large amounts of bodies, but it's not important here). If you're only packing 10 or 5 creatures into a space, and the turn length at the unit scale is equivalent to 10 character scale turns, then it's less so. You can't glare them away, but the abstraction that you are going to break their unit in ~4 turns is pretty similar to killing half and wounding the rest in ~40 turns at the character scale if you've packed 10 guys into a square. If they attacked you in a mass instead of in a unit, they do slightly more damage, but are more likely to all fall over dead, so it looks like a reasonable tradeoff of survival for straight damage. It's actually a better survival deal again if you're only packing 5 guys into one, since they would all be dead before you if they weren't in a unit.

Also, just to confirm, we are talking about creatures that are actually level -5 or -4 right? Not creatures that are level -2, with another -5 or -4 on top of it? In the latter case, the glare ability still effects all of these units anyway, and there's no issue at all. Just wondering, since that -2 keeps popping up in encounter design and I don't actually remember if it's being implicitly included here or not. - Tarkisflux 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Right; I also had an idea, what do you think of having all units having to be made up of minions? That way they're almost guaranteed to only have one attack, AND it sets in stone the likelihood that it'd be more advantages to remain in unit than alone? --Ghostwheel 06:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

When you say "minion", what do you mean? It's not defined anywhere I can find, and "guys you cut sweeps through" is already covered by alternate mechanics (glare). I don't sufficiently understand the difference between "minion" and "guy enough below you to be glared at" to be able to make any sort of informed comment here, but I'm inclined to dislike it due to what looks like unnecessary and not particularly helpful limitations on the scope of unit abilities and concepts. I retain the right to not actually carry that through based on actual definition of "minion" of course ;-). - Tarkisflux 16:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There are 4 classifications for monsters--normals (these work similar to PCs), elites (1.5 * normals, these are mini-bosses), solos (3 * normals, these are usually BBEGs), and minions. Minions are chaff that players can tear through easily; to make a minion you reduce a monster's health to 6 reduce their damage to around 1/3 of what it normally was. Most monsters have more options depending on what kind of type they are. Normals might have 3 types of attacks to keep them interesting for the DM, while elites and solos have more (and more per round), while minions almost always just have one so as not to flood the DM with too many options.

Does that help clarify at all? I think this might also be better since players are fielding multiple units at once, and while it will be bulky, we want to keep the bulkiness to a minimum as much as possible. --Ghostwheel 19:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Yeah, those descriptions are helpful.

While "units are minions only" is a simplification, it's not one I think a good one. It doesn't really increase their survivability, since the unit would only have 6 hit points anyway, so I don't see their survivability going up by being in a unit. They are going to fall or break in a turn to most heroes on the board even if they are of similar level, and that's not really different. It's actually bad for conflicts though, since fights turn into a few rounds of cleaning them up followed by fighting whatever big thing was leading them (which you can do at the character scale at that point). So while there should be units of minions, having units only be minions is sort of like saying that you can only have minions at the character scale, and that's not an interesting dynamic. And you get all of this non-good on top of having to come up with an in-game reason why you can't have units of normals or elites that doesn't make people cry.

And the benefit you get from that setup doesn't even look like one that matters. Remember that breaking out your armies and getting them into positions to fight someone else's armies is kind of a big deal. When this sort of fight is over, it's likely to be similarly decisive as completing a dungeon or whatever that contains several (or more) character scale encounters. It's ok if it takes longer and is more bulky because this sort of battle is likely to be the entire adventure for a session. - Tarkisflux 20:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Right--let me clarify; by becoming a unit, (medium) minions would not only 6 levels higher on the RNG, but also would as a whole have 24 HP total (like a normal creature), and so on. Does that make a difference to you at all? --Ghostwheel 21:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That fixes the survivability issue, but breaks the "10 rounds to a unit turn" approximation. Unit scale combat no longer maps to character scale combat for these units, since you kill only 10 of them over 40 rounds (4 unit turns) instead of wiping them all in less than half of that time at the character scale. It's a weird disconnect that I don't think is sufficiently explained by "organization".

And I still think it's an extreme reduction in concept space that leaves fights at the unit scale boring, just now with boring units that take longer to die and aren't really a threat to anyone on the board except other units. It doesn't affect my dislike for the restriction at all. - Tarkisflux 21:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean--could you get on the channel sometime today to clarify? --Ghostwheel 22:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible later tonight, my time is pretty fractured today. But there are two complaints here. The approximation issue is a verisimilitude one that only applies to the 24hp minion unit, and we can set it aside for now. The larger complaint of "this simplification sounds boring and not fun" is more important to answer, and if that's not clear I don't know what to tell you. I don't want to push around units making basic attacks (or any other variety of "the only attack they have") against each other while waiting to use my actual character to do something interesting or selectable. There is certainly a place for these sorts of units on the field, and putting them up (without the hp boost) as a cheap way to field lots of chaff is an interesting option, but as the only option it looks lame. I would rather have a bit of complexity and the options that come with it. Would you think the game fun for the DM if there were only minions and solos in it for the characters to fight? If not, why is it ok to do that for everyone at this scale? - Tarkisflux 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean--what we'll go with in the end is that most units are primarily made of minions (and thus have only one attack), but have a number of "normals" who have 2-3 attacks to keep things interesting, allowing one to field either, going with the chaff or fewer toughers who had more options. That said, what do you think unit cap should be? Take into account both when X (4-6?) players field armies together, and when a player fields an army alone. I'm leaning towards simply saying 12 units to a "side" max, but that feels kind of arbitrary and breaks realism. Can you think of a better way to do so? --Ghostwheel 22:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. I don't see any reason at all to say that most units are made from minions, unless most enemies you fight at the character scale are also minions (hence most things in the world are probably also minions). It doesn't add anything, even from a fluff standpoint, since people will just build the armies they want to use. So unless you want to bring in some sort of "rarity" aspect for enemies, which you can then tie into how many non-minion units you can recruit, you are better off just letting armies build themselves. I don't think minion units are going to be a big seller with players. I really don't. They have tiny hp, deal tiny damage, are boring to use repeatedly, and are basically only useful for getting in the way and slowing enemy advancement. They have tactical value, but not in a clear "win the day" sort of way. I expect they'll see more use on the GM side, where they can be a critical part of any "delay the PCs until we accomplish out goals" scenario.

On a more meta level though... look, you have created a setup that allows you to take low level units and put them together so that they function like higher level units in every way that matters. And it doesn't matter what those lower level units are: minons, normals, elites, or even solos. You put enough of them together to qualify for the template (determined by size), you pay for them as if you were paying for a creature of their new effective level of the same type (because that is what you functionally have), and you move on. Just give people a pile of points to spend on their units and let the game sort itself out. You are already limiting which units are available for recruitment based on the type lists, any extra limitations look entirely unnecessary.

Your setup has the further advantage of allowing you to re-use both your encounter budgeting mechanic and your monster entries. A unit of some medium creatures just costs the same as a single medium creature 6 levels higher, so you give people a pile of points expecting them to use spend them on those costs. And since you're not changing powers of the creature (just their bonuses) they just read them off the available list, copy relevant stats from their monster entry, and update a couple of bonuses. It's really a quite elegant setup at this stage. But adding additional restrictions and rules changes from the character scale without actual playtest reasons to do so is not helpful. Making people remember different ability sets for groups of monsters instead of standard monsters, or changing the way a creature type works, is going to slow things down on its own as it's so close to the character scale stuff that people are likely to mess it up. If an orc has a heavy strike ability, the unit of orcs should have a heavy strike ability with slightly better numbers. Doing otherwise invites all the problems of edition confusion in 3.x land and ability name duplication from 4e, and avoiding those looks like a higher priority to me at this point because they are known issues. I think you should test this first, and if it's problematic you can start making changes to unit availability or options (which seems a bit down the line now that I think about it, since you need to write up a couple of tiers before this even happens, but meh).

Moving on. I wouldn't do any sort of "per side" limitation, it really doesn't make sense and it removes the ability to do an actually large battle. It also looks like a rule that people would just ignore or work around by having more sides, which never bodes well. The previously discussed unit command cap already limits the number of units any individual player could field, and that's probably the only limit that makes sense to worry about. If the command cap (which needs to be highish to allow for rows of minions, heroes shouldn't be able to afford the cost of filling in all of their units with highest available level normals though) looks too high, you can let people buy more expensive units. Let people make units of elites and purchase solo creatures that are bigger than huge (at standard level -2 or -3 maybe since there's no templates to make a group from them, it's fine since everyone is the same functional level here). Since elites and solos cost more, people who buy them will have fewer units on the board naturally. I would probably buy elites in preference to normals, assuming they were costed appropriately, just for the survival and damage edge. Assuming I was playing an offensive game anyway.

If the "command cap only" leaves you worried about long breaks between player turns while 30 other units are moving, you can breaking up the blocks in which people take their turns. You could set it up so that on your initiative you get to deal with one unit (or take one action with a solo), and then the next guy goes, and so on, and after everyone has used one of their units they get to use another one. When someone runs out of units to move, they just drop out of the initiative line and everyone else continues. When everyone is out of units, the next turn happens and people begin again. People could pass on their turns of course, to wait to stage an ambush or whatever. And yes, that's a suggested rules change without playtest data which makes me a bit of a hypocrite, but the problems of player drop-out and smash brothers are pretty well known by now and that is pretty close to standard initiative passes anyway.

And my wall of text is complete. I'd have made this shorter if I could :-/ - Tarkisflux 03:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)