Dungeon Master: When Armies Clash Examination

Just recently I wrote a little article about adding in mass combat rules into the newest edition of D&D (5^th). Well, recently there was an article on the Wizards of the Coast website doing the same. Since I'm always looking for new rules to add to my games, took a look at the rules and even gave them a quick run, I felt it right to comment on the rules posted in the article “Unearthed Arcana: When Armies Clash”. I suggest a quick read of the article (click the blue text) since it's posted for free on the Wizards of the Coast website (big thanks).

What It Has/What Is Good

These rules in general touch on a lot of nice things for mass combat rules. A morale rule is included. Rules for terrain are included. They generally use mechanics from the main game where they can as well as providing general ways to translate abilities from the main game to the mass combat rules. They also have a concept of isolated groups, meaning that a line and formation has to be maintained or penalties are applied (there needs to be at least one other stand, the smallest bunch of people used in the rules, within a certain range to avoid isolation). They also have provisions for individual “solo” creatures that can also act as commanders. All of this is put into just over 8 pages, making it pretty light as far as mass combat rules go.

What Is Missing

• If you liked the penalties for casualties I had in my optional rule system earlier, this system doesn't have that. Now, it is easy enough to graft those rules onto the system provided by Wizards of the Coast, but it will come at the cost of more things to track (I'm not for or against either choice, but this needs to be noted). Instead of using the members of the unit, just use overall hit points.
• The other interesting thing is that while some quick translations are provided for spell effects, the rules do not allow movement diagonally and don't mention how to handle casting cones on diagonals (or if this is valid).
• The rules also say that you get one square for every 20 feet, but they does not mention what happens if the range is less than that (such as burning hands with 15 feet). It is easy enough to extrapolate, but I feel it should be clearly stated the same way as for ranged attacks.

What Is Wrong

• I really don't like the no diagonally movement rule and would prefer the optional rules from the Dungeon Master's guide instead for diagonal movement (though you would still not be allowed to attack diagonally). There is a similar rule in 3^rd edition.
• Area of effect spells do double damage when cast by a stand of spell casters. I can see why they did this (a solo, such as a player character, does spell damage as normal) but it still doesn't make sense when looking at the melee system. A general at the same level as a stand would do the same amount of damage as a stand of fighters at the same level. In my view, the double damage would need to apply to both mundane weapons and magic to prevent this anomaly with solos.
• Skirmisher units just seem better. The only advantage I could see to a regiment is that they can configure themselves but even that takes a full action (you want to go into a defensive posture while you close the distance to the archers? Once you get there, it will take an action to get out of defend configuration. That is assuming you can close the distance moving at half speed.)
• Units take an action as one, meaning that every stand (the smallest bunch of people used in the rules) that can cast a spell has to cast a spell when taking the cast action (or at least that is how I read it). It also means that the entire regiment unit has to have every stand in the same formation. This means you need to break down your unit into multiple ones for the flanks etc.
• I don't really like the Victory Point idea very much at the time I am writing this. Largely, it is because I feel it should be the role of the players and the characters to decide who won and who lost (unless you are playing these rules as a quick mass battle game). If the players just wish to destroy a single bridge to delay the advance of an army and they get there, destroy it and run away without even coming into contact with the enemy army, is that a total victory, causing units to be eliminated from the advancing army? I like the idea of the survivors fleeing based on a die roll, but I know for sure I'd prefer to decide which units roll and when. The good news is that anyone who feels like I do can just ignore that entire section.

Conclusion

It is nice to have some mass combat rules in D&D. That way, even if there are other rule sets, there is at least some system to fall back on if you have no other. However, as written, I am not really a big fan of them. This is largely because of what I see as the disparity between skirmisher and regiment units and the same mundane damage being done by a stand as well as a solo (assuming a fighter stand and a fighter player of the same level). I don't quite know how I feel about the entire unit taking one action idea, which makes me think there is something I don't like but I can't quite put my finger on what. The diagonal movement and casting is easy enough for an experienced Dungeon Master to house rule and fix, so I don't view those as too much of a concern. Should those 3 issues I mentioned previously be fixed (either in the rules or by house rules), I'd have liked it more. The rules are playable but could use more tweaking (but hey, that is why it is in draft form) to rise above alright.