D&D 3.5 genereal

>>54566318
A) Go to /pgg/ / /pfg/, it's effectively a 3.5 general
B) Steal Pathfinder's mass combat rules or use swarms.

If you wanted to run the combat in real time with the players, I would group together chunks of soldiers.

Squads, regiments, blocks, however they're organized. Make stat blocks for them and have them duke it out like monsters. I think it could easily be represented on the table if that's what your players want. It would play almost like 40k epic, or any similar game.

Background works just as well, but I would talk to your players about what they think would be the most fun!

>>54566318
Heroes of Battle, Stormwrack if yall go naval.

>>54566420
/pfg/ is a ghetto no one should be sentenced to. Just contained as is.

>>54566439
What's wrong with /pfg/?

>>54566457
What are you fucking kidding?

>>54566457
Ignore him. Some idiot is trying to paint all of /pfg/ just by the colors of the shitposters we have to endure.

>>54566482
Every single fucking thread you "people" post is the worst thread on /tg/ since we banned quests. Don't give me that "oh it's just shitposters" bullshit.

Anyone have any suggestions for expanding campaigns fir eldar evils?

>>54566482
>>54566496
Ladies, find your own thread

>>54566318
>On to my question. How the fuck do I run large scale combat without it becoming bogged the fuck down?
Don't. Mass combat has never worked in any edition of D&D.

>>54566318
3.5e D&D does not have the ability to handle this. It can barely handle skirmish combat between PCs and a handful of enemies. Pick up another system with mass combat rules (GURPS, Savage Worlds, Fate, etc.) and run it in that.

>>54566439
No, that's exactly where you should go if you want to talk about 3.5. They know the game WAY better than the fucktards you'll see posting in other 3.5 threads and that's more important than anything else if you're looking for mechanical advice. Seriously, people unironically say combat maneuvers are useful now.

>>54566982
>>54567016
>>54568652
>troll desperately tossing out bait

It's so sad that this is what you do with your life.

>>54568728
None of that is trolling you delusional fucktard.

>>54568746
>still trying

>>54568928
>believing that every single person who repeatedly tells you to kill yourself is the same person

>>54566439
3.5/PF players need to be sent to a ghetto for keeping their mutated braindamaged flipper baby of a system alive and unaborted

>>54569074
4e+ fags should go back to wow

>>54569232
>hurr 4e is wow
Seriously? This meme again? Lol 3aboos

>>54568728
>Being directed to a general based on 3.PF is trolling.
If your skin was any thinner you'd be practically transparent.

>>54569309
sorry your argument is too short you'll have to keep saying the same thing for two hours with four other people in simplistic roles who also repeat the same actions

>>54569417
.......I find that hilarious.

>>54568728
It isn't trolling if it's true.

>>54569417
Oh, I'm sorry faggot, you'll have to outright shut down dissent to stop people from fairly owning your ass with a proper argument
Actually, this says a lot about 3aboos. Also if your combat takes two hours, in any system, you're a retard or playing with retards

>>54569417
How does 4e combat take any longer to resolve than any other edition of D&D?

Not to mention, if I'm going to play a Fighter and be in combat for 2 hours, it's nice to have actual options for how I can approach combat that don't boil down to "Mother, May I?" and conditional modifiers.

"Heros of Battle" Supplement book might have the answers you seek.

On top of that, lump large groups of your soldiers unto units that can be represented by a single stat line. Play out the battle with those and see who wins. Have not touched HOB in a while, but I think there is army combat rules in there.

This also means you can influence that strength and number of units, special units, set up, moral, surprise rounds, all based on players decisions tactically and politically.

Pathfaggots still mad, I see.

>>54569752
Then it's trolling.
Who are you trolls, anyway? What's your game?

Are you just butthurt 4rries? Still trying to keep the system war going even though you lost?

File: 1378038474887.jpg (38KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x667px

>>54569968
>Truth is trolling

>>54569968
There isn't a game. You've invented this whole troll narrative in your head because you fundamentally can't handle anyone criticizing your pet system.

>>54569984
>pure lies are truth

I'm gonna just gonna go ahead and guess you really are just butthurt 4rries, and that you get triggered by just seeing 3.5. Like, literal PTSD, sending you back a decade ago.

>>54570003
>still trying

Everyone knows you guys are just butthurt trolls. Hell, shouldn't you be banned? Didn't your last troll thread get deleted?

File: 1448486357258.jpg (191KB, 970x617px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 970x617px

>>54570011
>Anything I don't agree with is a lie.

Where do I find a decent 3.5 campaign to join online? I'd rather do IRL but I live in the literal middle of nowhere

>>54570011
3.5 sucking at mass combat without the DM inventing a wholly separate subsystem for it isn't a controversial opinion given that the game is built around skirmish level combat. 3.5 itself doesn't even have mass combat rules anywhere outside of homebrew.

>>54570061
>>>/tg/pfg/

>>54570020
Maybe the mod's a troll too? Or maybe, just maybe, there is truth to what everyone says about 3.pf, that it has glaring oversights in its design and imbalance issues and is just not very good.

>>54570077
>3.5 itself doesn't even have mass combat rules anywhere outside of homebrew.

Congrats. You've revealed you know absolutely nothing, and that you were a troll all along.

I guess that's why you do nothing but spam lies in hopes that a repeated lie will one day turn into a truth. It's really sad and pathetic.

>>54570104
>still trying

It's not even sad at this point. It's now just devoid of any emotion.

You trolls are just going to keep at it, no matter how many decades pass and people continue to play 3.5 while your favorite games languish. If you could only accept this, you might be happier in the end, but instead you're going to always be here, shitposting futilely, while everyone just shakes their head at the weak bait you keep trying to toss about.

>>54570149
51% of all tabletop players play 5e.
The vast majority of 3.5e players moved on to Pathfinder.
Heck, fucking 4e has more players than 3.5
Your system is dead trash, m80.

File: irony.gif (34KB, 314x192px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 314x192px

>>54570120
>>54570149
>I guess that's why you do nothing but spam lies in hopes that a repeated lie will one day turn into a truth.

>>54570120
Heroes of Battle is unplayable.

File: tumblr_inline_ooxlo2Dwas1tmt2jn_500.png (161KB, 500x730px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 500x730px

>>54570156
>Heck, fucking 4e has more players than 3.5

Why is it zero surprise that the trolls here are delusional? You'd have to be, to be trolling as much as you do.

>>54570208
I don't give a shit, m8. I don't even play or like 4e.
The point is that your system is dead trash.

>>54570220
>delusional troll keeps trying after being BTFO for being caught in a lie

Why? Just give up, matie.

>>54570194
>moving goal posts

Also, nice opinion. God, you trolls really are pathetic.

>>54570243
Somehow I think the DM who's worried about combat getting bogged down with too many enemies wouldn't want to use the mass combat rules that bog the game down.

>>54570243
>troll keeps trying

Just give up already, nobody believes your lies anyway.

>>54570267
I swear to god, there was a 2e book that was all about running kingdoms. Might've been called Kingmaker, but the only thing I can find is the PF version.

>>54570284
You're thinking of Birthright and it was an entire setting based around running kingdoms. It was cool in concept but was also pretty much unplayable, no thanks to no playtesting.

>>54570279
You ever stop to think "man, maybe these 'trolls' are pissing me off in order to gain (you)'s and bump their threads?"

Because if you haven't, you're unbelievably dense.

>>54570279
>troll keeps getting caught in lies
>no, YOU'RE the one lying, not me

Could you be any more pathetic?

>>54570328
see >>54570317
Wake up.

>>54570328
>troll caught trying to hide
>immediately tries to twist it around on other people

You're not fooling anyone, troll.

>>54570361
see >>54570317
You're being played.

>>54566499
Sure
Which one?
Currently running Atropus

>>54570361
>ignore OP's post, do nothing but call the people who gave OP solutions and advice trolls
The only troll in this thread is you.

>>54570434
>do nothing except call helpful anons trolls and try to shift the blame
What's your end game? Is this really all you have to do with your life? Pathetic.

>>54570450
I haven't called anyone except Richard Petty a troll.

Wow, these 4rries really are buttblasted.

>>54570465
>still trying to deny it
Oh please. Anyone with half a brain can see right through your lies.

>>54570489
Not an argument.

>>54570507
I don't have to argue with trolls.

File: Heroes of Battle.pdf (7MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 1x1px

>How the fuck do I run large scale combat without it becoming bogged the fuck down?

3.5's mass combat rules are found in chapter 4 of Heroes of Battle. It works by accumulating Victory Points for achieving objectives rather than tracking every unit's hit points.

>>54570782
He asked how to do it without becoming bogged down.

>>54570901
Why are you still here?

>>54571054
Why are YOU still here?

>>54571088
People are not going to be scared off by trolls like you, no matter how badly you troll. Might as well give up.

Also, please, don't embarrass yourself any further by replying.

>>54571147
You do realize he's intentionally pissing you off in the hopes that you give me (you)'s right? That's how trolling works, you say something that garners a reaction in the hopes that somebody responds.

Is this your first day on 4chan?

>>54571054
>>54571147
Leave the little shit alone.

>>54566318
Honestly I can never believe that there are people who'd still play 3.X over pathfinder.
Using some 3.X book IN your pathfinder games? Sure. but just not using 3.75- I mean pathfinder? Why?
And it's not the same as comparing 2e vs 3e, or 4e/5e vs 3e. Path is just an updated 3.X.

Oh sorry a useful answer.
Well OP. Pathfinder did update rules over mass combats- much better presented then Heros of battle (Which was kinda clunky), rules for ruling territories/kingdoms and generally running an empire.

>>54566457
about the same thing thats wrong with 5e general.
shitposting, circlejerking and shitflinging at their respective enemy

I just always had pcs do missions, either through skills or skirmishes.

>>54571612
Kinda clunky is an understatement, you were better off looking at HoB for inspiration and then making shit up. It's extremely slow in practice.

> Characters are focused on ruling rather than heavy dungeoning
You know what sounds like the best system for such a game?
DUNGEONS and dragons.

Fucking retarded D&D players.

DUDE DND IS SHIT LMAO!!!!!!!!!!

just save yourself from the retarded shitposting and ask this somewhere else.

Here is something i would like to ask.

Why is it that you feel threatened enough to come here and attack 3.5? If it is a dead game, why noy let it die? Old World of Darkness and Wh40k rpgs are dead systems with less players combined yet you do not attack them. What is the source of your malfunction?

It's sad when you make a thread on /tg/ just so you can troll with fake arrogance

>>54571612
psionics and tome of battle

Tell me /tg/, do you like the tome of battle?

>>54572623
Best book ever made for 3.5, best subsystem ever made for 3.5.

>>54572677
Second, you mean.
Psionics was better

>>54572741
Psionics had some pretty major issues that ToB didn't, like half the classes and almost every PRC in XPH being shit, broken carryovers from Whizzard casting, action economy breakers that aren't broken when ToB does it but definitely are in the hands of something on par with Sorcerors, and C. Psi being a trainwreck. It's an improvement over Vancian on most fronts but it's definitely not the best subsystem.

>>54572823
>and C. Psi being a trainwreck.
why?

>>54572900
Shit editing, broken as fuck on many many fronts, copypasted power lists from XPH and nerfs to things that didn't need to be nerfed, Linked fucking Power. It's hard to find content that isn't extremely broken, isn't extremely shitty, and isn't reprinted from XPH in it.

>>54572994
Was there anything even good in there? I forget.

>>54573026
Ardent is cool, Lurk is okay although I think PsyRogue is much better, Soulbow makes a shitty class legitimately good, Zerth Cenobite is a better Fist of Zuoken(although it's not relevant anymore thanks to Tashalatora, but that's not C.Psi's fault).

>>54571634
>Implying that isn't how all D&D threads go nowadays.
At least in the general you'll find some help without being accused of being a troll when you say "well, maybe it's not the best system for X."

>>54573235
This, and the fucker doing that won't help the guy asking for help for shit on top of that.

>>54573235
>>54573309
>inb4 TROLLS TROLLS TROLL I HATE YOU DON'T YOU HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO DO THAN SPREAD LLIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEES!?!
I hate this place, I hope the fucker gets banned soon. It's even harder to discuss 3.PF nowadays because of him

Can I just say, rangers suck in 3.5.

>>54573496
Rangers would genuinely be a good class if they could freely switch who their favored enemy is.

Then again, that's the problem with most martials, they can only afford to be amazing in one particular instance and only a handful of times per day because their shit operates off of once/day shit.

>>54573496
Vanilla? Oh yeah, it's the picture of mediocrity. It's got a couple of good substitution levels and SotAO is excellent, though.

>>54573496
I rework weapon style in my games and make improved animal companion an option when someone uses them.

There was a feat , like improved rapid shot or something i wrote into the groups shared phb instead of many shot. I highly recommend it because it makes more sense for the abilities it has already and also removes the penalty of the extra arrow.

I also make favoured enemy retrainable and with broader monster groups.

People have already mentioned Tome of Battle and Stormwrack.
Two other books that might interest you (I'll post a Sendspace link):
Eden Studio's Fields of Blood- The Book of War.
All about mass combat and ruling realms.
Malhavoc Press' Cry Havoc.
Entirely about war and mass combat, but not it has suggestions for missions outside normal battles (raids, reconnaissance, rescue, assassination and negotiation).
/filegroup/tWcyn9jZ0pCzMXZZonWvSQ

>>54573978
I like the alternate ranger styles in Wildscape (a Fantasy Flight Legends & Lairs book. In fact, that whole series was awesome), it's nice having more options that 'bow and 'two swords'.

File: ISHYGDDT.jpg (93KB, 777x1024px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 777x1024px

Why would anyone willingly choose to run 3.PF in 2017?

>>54568728
Okay, where are the functional mass combat rules in D&D? Criticizing something you fanboy for isn't trolling.

>>54575158
He's not here for discussion, he's here to call everyone who dislikes 3.PF a troll.

Notice how he never contributes and leaves once people get wise to his shit?

>>54575219
"dislikes" is stretching it, it's more anyone who says anything negative about 3.PF at all.

>>54575479
Fair enough.

>>54572305

Not a fan of Dreamscarred's updates?

>>54573657
PF Rangers get a spell to do that and you can raise your FE bonus to far better than Smite levels with Horizon Walker. Get a wand of Instant
Enemy and a longbow and you hit like a truck made of trucks.

>>54575219
>>54575479
>>54575499
Why are you trolls still trying? Even the whole "please stop calling us trolls, it makes people not fall for our bait anymore" doesn't work if you keep shitposting in the same style in every D&D thread.

Hell, you do this every time people call you out for being trolls, and somehow you think that repetition and spam will one day make the board stop calling you out as trolls.

>>54576093
What a great contribution to the discussion that's taking place here. I'm glad that you came back to offer such input to us.

>>54575158
They've already been posted in this thread though. They're functional, and arguing otherwise is largely a matter of subjective opinion and taste.

And, how do you not recognize trolls on this board at this point? Is this your first time seeing them toss around the same old baseless bait, or are you just a troll performing damage control? I hate to suspect you of the latter, but if trolls weren't shameless, they wouldn't be trolls.

>>54575983
Huh, I didn't know that.

Out of curiosity, where should I look up my 3.PF info? I used to use dandtools but last I heard, it got shut down and the 3.5 SRD isn't as good as the one for PF.

>>54576151
nou

>>54576174
>They've already been posted in this thread though.
Yeah, and subsequently thrown away because OP didn't want to get bogged down.

OP specifically mentioned this as being the one factor he wanted to avoid the most, it's not our fault that 3.PF doesn't have mass combat rules that are more properly conveyed for ease of use.

>>54576197
What a witty retort. That surely increased the quality of this thread.

>>54576217
If you always have to exaggerate in order to try and dismiss something and to pretend you're right even when you're objectively proven wrong, people won't take anything you say seriously.

Just some general advice.

>>54576175
D&Dtools is still around in some form. I'm sure you could download a copy of it.

>>54576448
Well so far, the only rules that were posted was >>54570782 and having read it, it would in fact bog the game down due to having so many variables to keep track of, in addition to the complexity of managing a full scale battlefield with thousands of participants (as mentioned in the OP).

In fact, out of 100+ posts, only two people mentioned Heroes of Battle and you're pretty much the only person claiming that it's not going to bog the game down, which is suspect to say the least.

>>54576547
Seriously, that would be great.

>>54576601
Well, turns out you can, but it's useless if you don't know how to handle SQL.

>>54576652
Shame, oh well. What are ya gonna do?

>>54576576
If you keep exaggerating like this, it just makes you look more ridiculous, and people don't want to discuss the topic with you because you will invariably twist things in order to match your predetermined narrative, regardless of what they say otherwise.

Could the rules be improved? Certainly, as any rules can be tailored for a group, and it can be done as easily as simply picking and choosing the rules you find compelling. You can even see echoes of some of those rules in the 5e mass warfare rules, which can largely be described as an evolved form of those rules that worked on trimming them down to the essentials.

And, even when used in full, the rules would hardly "bog the game down". I'm actually starting to wonder why you bothered to try this angle, when even a casual read reveals that the rules are very simple and straightforward and allow players to resolve enormous conflicts in about or less than the time an ordinary skirmish battle takes to resolve.

You're free to think otherwise, but to attempt to dismiss those rules or to even pretend they never existed is just the level of exaggeration that paints you as a person not interested in anything except shitposting about a game you barely understand.

>>54576576
That's not true, I told OP to go check out PF's mass combat rules because they're less of a clusterfuck than HoB and they're free. Honestly, if I had to deal with this shit, I'd use M&M's brisk mass combat rules from Warriors & Warlocks to handle everything the PCs weren't directly involved in and run their part of the game normally.

>>54576775
Again, you're pretty much the only person ITT defending Heroes of Battle and your presence is shitting up the thread as a whole.

Ctrl-F on "Heroes" returns 6 results while "Troll" returns 47 results at the time of this post, and a solid chunk of them came from you personally.

And yet somehow, I'm the one shitposting?

>>54576775
>I have never played with Heroes of Battle ever but watch me defend it against people who have
Stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

>>54576900
...Yes?

You seemed to have missed the point, in that not only have you been proven objectively wrong, but you're even now still struggling to save face, to the point where you're trying to play a numbers game of "but people haven't just been repeating the same answer multiple times after it was provided! That means the answer's invalid!"

That's the exact kind of logic a little troll who hopes he can just spam bad opinions and somehow change the truth would think.

Also, you seem to be working under the interpretation only one person recognized you for being a troll. Really, you might want to consider giving up already, because this might be the tenth time you've been shut down in this thread, by my guess at least five different people.

>>54577025
>make a vague baseless statement and hopes it serves to discredit the poster

You really shouldn't talk about people embarrassing themselves, friend.

>>54577081
And yet all of the posts calling someone a troll have been all alone, while all replies to these posts calling out trolls seem to get multiple replies.

You are correct though. This thread does have one troll that multiple people are replying to. I'm doing it right now.

>>54577081
>Troll
There's that word again.

Listen Troll-kun, you can pretend that you've contributed something to this argument but at the end of the day, all you can do is claim that everyone else is wrong or a troll or disrupting discussion while you're the one causing most of the problems ITT.

If you'd like to link to posts that prove otherwise, I'd love to see it.
>inb4 YOU'D LIKE THAT WOULDN'T YOU FUCKING TROLL!
Welp, if you can't prove your own innocence then I guess that makes you guilty by default.

>>54577124
What? There's several posts where multiple people have called out you (and your fellow shitposters) out as trolls. It's weird how you think you can lie so boldly when the evidence is right above you, and even stranger that you're hoping to avoid the damning arguments just levied against you by trying to play a numbers game.

Now I feel foolish for advising you to give up. You're clearly just the shameless sort that won't give up no matter how much he has to embarass himself. You sir, are one incredible example of all the worst traits of a troll, and I shame my self just by keeping you company.

>>54577104
There's nothing vague about it. If OP didn't want to bog his game down, which is exactly what using a 150 page rule-dense book where 99% of it is more shit that isn't streamlined would do, he'd have to only use a single part of it AND he'd have to run using his backup plan instead of what he wanted to do. You're fucking insane if you took a look at that PDF and didn't immediately think that it's the opposite of what the OP wants, and honestly I wish he'd show up just to tell you to fuck off for shitting up the thread and defending bad advice.

>>54577218
Not him but,
>There's several posts
Mostly coming from you.
>multiple people
Care to link them?
>Trolls
There's that word word again.

At this point you don't even have an argument, you're just flailing around accusing everyone of being a troll without recognizing that most of the trolling is coming from yourself.

>>54577218
Oh Troll-kun, you crack me up.

>>54566457
Half a dozen highly prolific trolls.

At least they don't throw an illiterate tantrum every timesomeone posts homebrew.

>>54566318
Use the mass combat system (and possibly kingdom system) from pathfinder, it should just plug in and work.

>>54577218
Right off the bat >>54568728 replied to 3 separate posts calling them trolls. This was the only reply they got calling them out as trolls. It got 4 replies in response disagreeing in some form or another.

Similar case with >>54569968 >>54570120 >>54570149 >>54570243 >>54570279

There are far more posts where someone says something, gets one reply calling them a troll, and then that post gets two replies telling them to shut up.

It even happened with the post I initially replied to, here >>54577081

So tell me again where these 5 different people are that are all calling out this one troll, when if anything it seems to be the opposite?

>>54566318
There are rules for such things for 3.5

I want to say heroes of battle?

There's definitely 3pp subsystems for it. I used them when there wasn't anything official for it, back in like 2005.

>>54570208

31949 games, 43555 players.

So on average, 1.36 players. *golfclap*

>>54567016
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>54577223
Did you actually open that PDF?

It's really only about 10 or so pages of actual rules on how to run large battles, and the rest is ideas, options, and examples for the DM, and then some character options.

Sure, you can recommend something more streamlined, but it's really exaggerating to say that HoB's rules are unplayable or would bog down the game, especially when the actual rules governing how to run large battles do a fair job at simplifying mass combat without reducing it down to just a series of random, non-strategic rolls.

Really. Go and actually take a look, and quit being a prat. They're not my go-to when it comes to recommending large-scale battle rules, but the cries of "you have to be insane to use these rules" are nothing more than awkward exaggeration coming from people who tried to claim that the system didn't have rules for something that it did. And, some of the ideas in that book are still worth reading even if you opt not to use that book, because they did a fair job at exploring mass combat within a world riddled with D&Disms.

Fair, as in decent. I'm not defending it as the greatest book ever, but you're really exaggerating in your condemnation of it.

>>54577413
Actually he does, and you're just assmad.

>>54577395
The key difference between HoB and what OP wants is that HoB focuses on the smaller scale battles the PCs engage in and not the bigger picture he wants. Even then it still has you using a ton of pieces on the field at once.

>>54577410
Players is largely an irrelevant stat. You really only need pay attention to games being played.

File: 2017-02-02 01_45_52-Dragon Magazine #282.pdf - [dragon-282--pre-dist.pdf] - SumatraPDF.png (2MB, 801x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 801x1080px

What if I told you guys-
That all anti-3.5 shitposting is 5e marketers trying to derail discussion because 5e lore is godawful trite?
Bisexual Strahd, mongrelmen, Temple of Elemental Negroes, that fucking useless Faerun guide, Those fucking Halflings, butchered Monster ecologies, a class system stated to be original when it really is just 3.5's variant class start system extended to all levels, shaftign the Undead to Orcus outright to compete with pathfinder making him the cover boy to sell their shit, and cross-employment from Pozio employees in the art department and writign department, next to a lackluster ravenloft that has downplayed almost every aspect you could find in the older versions of the classic module, a pointless placement of Van Richten, due to lack of true vampiric diversity, downplay of the Vistani's fucked up super jewlike ways, Strahd's engame and boistrous charismatic assholle/silly villain style utterly dead, him being a once good figure through his conquering of Barovia reduced to muh trump boogeyman and so on?

That, and boardwide hated of Pathfinder.

TRANNY DWARF.
TRANNY DWARF SHAMAN.
TRRANNY DWARF SHAMAN WITH ((LIZARD)) FAMILIAR.
TRANNY DWARF SHAMAN ON HORMONE BLOCKERS SYNTHESIZED USING LORE FROM SAID LIZARD.
TRANNY DWARF SHAMAN FINDING RARE METALS AND ORES TO BENEFIT IT'S ((PEOPLE)) AND COMMUNITY.

>>54577484
Wouldn't that more likely mean many players are in multiple 5e games?

>>54577543
>Foglio
stopped reading right there

File: tinfoilhat.jpg (24KB, 288x294px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 288x294px

>>54577543

>>54577543
5e subclasses are more like kits, which predate 3rd edition. The rest of what you said is just not really worth addressing

>>54577124
I've seen these threads, and the way I understand it is that trolls are super insecure. When someone calls them out when they think they're not being obvious, it's like kicking a hornet's nest. It's not just with the trolls who troll D&D, but with really anything. Trolls will try to act like numbers (as high as four people, my goodness) can supplant everything else. Most people tend to ignore trolls, so very few people ever bother with addressing bait when one person's already done it. But, trolls can't just ignore people calling them out. They need to do damage control. Because, if people realize trolls are just trolling, it's no fun for the trolls. I hope this is illuminating.

>>54577675
Oh Troll-kun, you're so precious.

>>54577692
Thank you for illustrating insecurity and damage control. Can you ask a fellow troll or two to also chime in to further illustrate the point?

>>54577459
Did you? Because morale rules, commander rules, and terrain rules alone will slow a game down massively and none of them can be handwaved if you want to be running HoB and not specifically the victory point rules from HoB alone. This is ignoring that every example set by the book has you fighting alongside and against a shitload of NPCs/monsters by 3.5 standards and that HoB really isn't a set of mass combat rules, it's a set of rules for letting individual PC skirmishes affect an abstract larger battle.

File: 2017-05-30 21_06_58-Accessory - Dragon Magazine #303.pdf - [Acr6335.TMP] - SumatraPDF.png (2MB, 805x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 805x1080px

>>54577543
>Thread is autosaging
Well now, looks like I struck a nerve.

File: Gnome3-uncertain.png (961KB, 2000x2000px)

961KB, 2000x2000px

>>54577764
>massively

>>54577748
Aw, look at him go. Keep it up Troll-kun, shine on you crazy diamond.

File: Doubt.png (85KB, 492x280px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 492x280px

>>54577764
>none of them can be handwaved

>>54577804
Having to unavoidably track a bunch more shit for 20+ creatures in a game where you already track a bunch of shit is going to take its toll on game speed even with stat blocks being simpler for this. Not really arguable.

>>54577857
Do they look like optional rules to you?

>>54577469
Not assmad . Just familiar with the fact that there are options available.

For pathfinder :
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/kingdomsAndWar/massCombat.html
Or
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/mass-combat/
Add
http://endzeitgeist.com/ezg-reviews-ultimate-battle/ if desired

Or

There's cry havoc for 3.5, published by monte cook, written by wotc's skip Williams
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/678

Or warpath (3.5/pathfinder )
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/80623

Or
There's green Ronin's black company which included mass combat, or mongoose conan's combat rules:

Or If you wanted you could use this homebrew option
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?235268-3-5e-Mechanics-Mass-Combat-(PEACH)

He has SIX separate d20 mass combat systems to choose from, two of which are available for free.

>>54578141
Wow, an actual contribution.

>>54576763
dndtools.net works fine, and still has most everything except for some of the weird Dragon Mag shit

>>54578190
And that's not counting heroes of battle, which is more like company scale combat.

Black company includes both company scale and mass combat .

The conan mass combat system used to be free, but all their conan stuff got pulled when they lost the license.

>>54576652
Where can I get a complete copy of dnd tools? Handling sql isn't a problem, that has literally been most of my job at work on more than one occasion.

>>54578141
Seven. Mutants & Masterminds has six pages worth of 100% functional mass combat and it's not so far removed from other d20 games that it's impossible to use in 3.5/PF.

>>54578245
Google dndtools archive, there's a Reddit link that should point you at a dropbox download of the database.

File: d20 Conan - Mass Combat.pdf (849KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

849KB, 1x1px

>>54578141
Conan

File: jbe0206 - Pathfinder - Book of the River Nations - Mass Combat.pdf (1MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1x1px

>>54578265
8. There's also the River Nations mass combat system. (PF)

>>54578319
See, that's what mass combat rules should look like. Simple, easy to understand, easy to expand on if you want more depth, meaningfully different from the game's vanilla combat, and it doesn't bog itself down in stupid bean counting bullshit.

Can this be, actual contribution based on the OP where everyone's not accusing everyone else of being trolls?

What kind of pseudo-/tg/ have I stepped into?

File: Cry Havoc.pdf (7MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 1x1px

>>54578356
And (9) no guarantees, but like M&M, you might be able to stretch the True 20 mass combat system in the True20 Bestiary to work with 3.5, pretty easily, and it would probably be a pretty simple mass combat system, to boot.

Hell, the free 5e mass combat system probably wouldn't be too hard to use with 3.5 either.
https://roninarmy.com/true20-forum-archive/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1527

>>54578406
Yeah, I do this in every thread when I'm at my PC and see them. I throw people for a loop like this, once every couple months.

So as I said to >>54567016, back here, >>54577413, in response to
>>3.5e D&D does not have the ability to handle this.
>You don't know what you're talking about.

OP has fully TEN mass combat systems to choose from, 7 of which are directly compatible with 3.5, and 3 of which could work with 3.5 with minimal intervention.

>1. Conan
>2. River Nations
>3. Cry Havoc
>4. GitP Homebrew
>5. Warpath (Sorry, I dont have the PDF to upload.)
>6. Black Company (Don't have PDF)
>7. Pathfinder (+ Ultimate Battle if he wants more depth)
>8. True20 Bestiary
>9. M&M's Subsystem (Presumably M&M 2e)
>10. 5e Mass Combat UA.

And I got an answer to where I can get myself a copy of dndtools, which is something I've been trying to find for about a month now.

Win-Win.

>>54578603
You are truly the hero we need, not the hero we deserve.

>>54578603
It's in Warriors & Warlocks, page 95. Supposedly there's one in M&M 3E's core book too, but I have the DC branded one that came out to launch 3E and it's not in that.

File: True20 Bestiary (Optimized).pdf (7MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 1x1px

>>54578603

File: Ultimate Battle (Print).pdf (3MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1x1px

>>54578708

File: Ultimate Rulership (Print Safe).pdf (4MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1x1px

>>54578751

>>54578767
While I try to shrink Ultimate campaign below 8mb, There's also:

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/189275/Kingdoms

Which I've been considering buying for 5e, and which would also likely be able to get the job done well enough.

So 11 Mass Combat systems.

File: When-in-Doubt.jpg (93KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1280x853px

>>54577911
>unnavoidably
>massively
>not really arguable

I seem to remember a downloadable version of d20srd.org but I can't find any real mention of it on the site. Anybody know if I'm just misremembering and if not, where I could download it?

>>54578943
You want to argue with the facts, go right ahead.

>>54579050
There was another SRD that could be downloaded but its domain expired and got taken.

>>54579090
If you have a download for that, I'd also really appreciate it. Do you know the name?

>>54579114
I don't but here's another one that's downloadable: http://dndsrd.net/

>>54579128
Awesome, thanks. I'm pretty sure that's actually the one I was thinking of, looks much more familiar.

>>54579083
You first.

>>54579295
I argue the facts, not argue with them. You're the one saying that adding more stuff to track and manage doesn't slow a game down.

>>54579295
Oh Troll-kun, calling someone a troll and doubting their argument means nothing.

No biggie though, all you have to do present a counter-argument for why you believe that your position is correct.

I'm sure you can do it though, I believe in you senpai.

>>54579376
>my opinions are facts

Whoa. Didn't realize I was dealing with a super delusional troll here. I'll leave you to your exaggerations and hyperbole.

>>54579376
You said massively. That's not really true, and the rest of your post is just you having a bit of a fit.

>>54579396
>Troll
There's that word again.
>>54579412
>Implying the average DM won't have trouble keeping track of all the rules in HoB without slowing the game to a crawl.
Keep in mind, your average DM has trouble running combat for a party of 6 players fighting against a group comprised of 1-3 enemies per party member.

If you're not used to the rules presented in HoB, you're going to end up getting bogged down, especially if you've never read it before.

Compare to the systems presented here >>54578603 which are generally much shorter and a lot easier to understand, even if it requires a bit of conversion to 3.PF.

I don't understand why this is such a big issue ITT but HoB isn't the be-all end-all of mass combat rules and it seems foolish to get hung up on one supplement when there are other options available.

>>54579412
Making the terrain rules more complex, telling you to use them, and then dealing with 20+ characters that all have morale checks and commander bonuses layered on top does slow a game down massively, and it's not like those rules aren't the default that HoB was built around.
>>54579522
It isn't even a fucking mass combat system unless you're stupid and take 10+ archers being able to combine their fire while nobody else gets anything similar as proof of it being a mass combat system.

>>54579522
Yes, the average DM won't have trouble with it. Maybe you are just dumb? Or are you just trolling?

Either way, isn't the whole thing issue that some idiots just didn't think it existed? It clearly exists. Or, are you gonna say because you personally don't like something it stops existing, or some other way of moving the goalposts?

>>54579583
Not really. You're exaggerating a lot here, and this is coming from someone who played a fair bit with thise rules. Wasn't even tricky to learn them or anything, and it was pretty fun.

>>54579583
Morale makes things go faster, actually. Terrain also had a way of making battles go faster if you used it right.

>>54579585
>isn't the whole thing issue that some idiots just didn't think it existed?
No, OP asked if there were rules for mass combat that didn't bog the game down and the thread got sidetracked because someone said that HoB wasn't suited for OP's purposes.

Either way Troll-kun, I don't see why you're keeping this up. OP got what he needed and he's probably not going to use HoB now there are viable alternatives available no matter how much you bitch about people "exaggerating" how complicated that particular supplement is.

>>54579661
Making checks to slide an enemy down their morale track every single time an enemy hits 50% HP does not make a game go faster. Neither does having to contend with cover and concealment and difficult terrain constantly as the game says you're intended to, and neither does having to content with the *constant* slew of conditional bonuses and penalties that are all over the book. You couldn't make it more obvious you haven't played it if you tried.

>>54579681
>>54578603 Here.
If OP want's a mass combat system that's designed for 3.5 by WotC authors, Cry Havoc will do just fine.

If he wants more depth, Ultimate campaign will do just fine.

If he wants less depth, he can choose between the conan mass combat rules (which are modified 3.0 with armor as DR as a core design mechanism, and separate dodge and parry scores)

Or any of the other 8 options could also do just fine.

HoB isn't really "Mass Combat" so much as it's "Squad Combat"

>>54579661
Nothing that adds rolls to the resolution of an action will ever make combat move faster.

Also, keeping track of all the potential modifiers being applied from the terrain can also slow a DM down, which is why most tables don't bother keeping track of the environment that combat is taking place in, in favor of keeping track of HP, AC, and monster abilities.

>>54579617
You have to track more tiny buffs and debuffs, manage more characters, and make more rolls than you do in 4E under HoB and you don't even have conveniences like minion rules and standardized attack vs defense rolls. The sole saving grace you have is that archers can pool their attacks and squads with 10+ archers are in the minority. Fuck, you have to track more shit under this than you do in Legend.

>>54579772
Which is why I said 3.5 didn't have mass combat rules outside of homebrew, not that 3.5 couldn't do it. Third party and conversions from other systems are still homebrew.

>>54579863
>not that 3.5 couldn't do it.

>>54570077

Huh. Sounds like you just played yourself.

>>54579904
You might want to read that more carefully.

>>54579863
>Opinions
Third party is third party.
Homebrew is homebrew.

Third party by first party authors is the next closest thing to first party.

First party by a completely compatible game line (such as Pathfinder) Is first party to that gameline, which means you can expect "first party standards". Paizo's subsystems are no worse balanced than WotCs, and work with 3.5 just fine.

>>54579796
>Nothing that adds rolls to the resolution of an action will ever make combat move faster.

If those rolls supersede other rolls, yes, they will make combat go faster, especially when they help bring about conclusions faster.

>>54579936
>Paizo's subsystems are no worse balanced than WotCs, and work with 3.5 just fine.
Dubious honor, but that's why the literal first post in the thread was me telling OP to use PF's mass combat rules.

>>54579922
The part where it you say it sucks unless the DM invents a system, despite there being several published systems available?

> Third party and conversions from other systems are still homebrew.

That's not what homebrew is. You can't backtrack and also try to invent new definitions for words.

I'm sorry, but you played yourself, foo.

>>54579948
They only supersede maybe a single attack roll if they fail. If they succeed they haven't even done that.

>>54579973
Conversions are definitely homebrew by my book, but fair enough, I chose my wordings a little poorly.

>>54580049
It's not a conversion if it's literally designed for 3.5, and calling "Use one of the ones for pathfinder with no changes" a conversion is pretty disengenuous.

>>54578603
The first 7 of these would take no converting, just grab and use as is, they're all made for 3.x. Conan might require very slight adapting mechanics, where AC is concerned, but the rest of the first 7 are literally plug and play. #4 is homebrew. The others are not.

>>54580049
Now if you'd finish your slice of humble pie and redact the rest of your statement, there might still be some hope for you yet.

>>54580102
That 3.5's default rules and Heroes of Battle suck at mass combat? Not happening.

>>54580102
Now Troll-kun, that kind of attitude isn't going to endear yourself to others.

>>54580099
The things that were designed for 3.5/PF aren't conversions, although PF's mass combat needs a few changes to animal companion/wild shape rules due to differences between 3.5 and PF. They're third party.

>>54580227
>>54580242
Oh, so close. You were so close to finally not being a little shit, but your pride got the better of you. Could have just said "well, I guess 3.5 can do mass combat, I was wrong", but you wouldn't be a troll if you weren't shameless.

It's funny, how trolls have so much pride, but so little to be proud of.

>>54580325
Oh Troll-kun, you think anyone cares about gaining your approval.

How adorable.

>>54580227
It's weird how you're still sort of twisting things in order to avoid the point you're really trying to miss. It's not a good look for you.

>>54580359
Not him but you realize that an argument being wrong in one aspect doesn't necessarily make the argument in its entirety wrong, right?

Especially when it was an issue with wording, not logic.

>>54580359
I'm not going to credit WotC for rules that aren't theirs. Certainly not going to credit them for their own work there either, not when I've played through campaigns that used that piece of shit book and campaigns that tried to do mass combat with 1:1 representation.

>>54580227
I'm trying to dissect your thought process here, but I can't seem to understand you.

You erred. You made a statement to try and say 3.5 sucked at mass combat, and then you tried to support that statement by saying a DM would have to invent rules for mass combat, and then you went ahead and tried to redefine what homebrew was.

While you are willing to admit that homebrew isn't what you tried to define it as, you're not willing to follow the chain and realize that a DM had several different rulesets to choose from (depending on their preferences), all without inventing a single thing. And, with multiple rulesets that can cater to a wide assortment of tastes, including several very well-received and popular rulesets, it becomes very hard to maintain the argument that 3.5 does not have the ability to handle mass combat or that it sucks at it.

>>54580246
Right. Third Party.

Third party which is just as well written as the WotC options.

Fair enough re: wildshape, I had not considered wildshaping armies.

>>54580049
Not a conversion, not homebrew.

>>54580431
I think your WotC hate is a bit of an obsession for you. It's not like admitting a game can do something that it can do will somehow put a dollar in their pocket.
You really need to not get so focused on system politics all the time. It can't be healthy for you, and it really seems to distort your entire approach to game discussions.

>>54580458
What I was trying to say/should have said is that the official 3.5 content can't handle mass combat for shit, so unless you're using third party content, converting from another system, using some guy's homebrew, or are willing to get your hands dirty yourself, you're going to have a bad time.

>>54580497
>backtracking
>semantics
>missing the point
>appeal for purity
>exaggeration and hyperbole

I give up. You've reduced yourself to arguing a niggling point of no importance, when the broad statement of "3.5 can do mass combat" is like a big fat slap on your backside.

>>54580497
>the official 3.5 content can't handle mass combat for shit
Nobody denies this.

>unless you're using third party content, converting from another system, using some guy's homebrew, or are willing to get your hands dirty yourself, you're going to have a bad time.
The way you say that makes it sound like all those options are difficult and onerous, when they're not. Grab one you like and go.

>>54580549
I don't know if you've been paying attention but there's been someone arguing that for the entire thread.

>>54580570
Yeah; me.

I'm also the one who listed 10 different options, and then shared most of them.

>>54580549
>The way you say that makes it sound like all those options are difficult and onerous,
More like it's banned by default pretty often and even discounting DMs, a lot of 3.5 players don't look kindly on homebrew or third party content either.

>>54580570
I think a few people argued that and made that suggestion.

>>54580732
I kind of feel like you are being driven into a corner.

>>54580731
Arguing that official 3.5 content COULD handle mass combat well. I don't think you were doing that.

>>54580813
Ah. Yes, there was that one guy going on about HoB.

I thought you were talking about arguing that it's easy for a DM to just choose one of the many mass combat systems available and use it.

>>54580732
You're the DM, you get to decide which content is and is not banned. If you want to ban all of the published races and only use stuff from some third party setting, that's entirely up to you.

As for mass combat, you tell the players "These are the rules for mass combat we're using."

If they object, too bad, it's still your call; you're the DM. You just say:

>"Wizards of the Coast published squad combat rules in HoB, yes. As the DM, I feel Squad combat rules are not suitable to handling mass combat. So we'll be using this subsystem I selected instead".

If the players continue to argue beyond that, tell them tough titties and to go choke on a bag of dicks, there's nothing wrong with a DM choosing which subsystems will be used in a campaign.

>>54580886
I pretty much categorically agree with you aside from one thing, so...

I dunno. On one hand it's an easy fix if you aren't stupid/reticent, on the other hand there are a *lot* of tables where homebrew/third party is banned without a second thought because of bad experiences with other homebrew/third party, hearsay, DM doesn't want to learn something new, etc.

>>54578603
There's also Fields of Blood from >>54574794.

>>54581041
Huh. I missed that.

Also, I had no idea Eden made any d20 stuff.

>>54581223
It's more than I thought they did.
From RPG.net
Akrasia: Thief of Time
Fields of Blood: The Book of War
Liber Bestarius: The Book of Beasts
Secrets of the Ancients
Waysides: The Book of Taverns
Wonders Out of Time

d20 Modern
Odyssey Prime
Odyssey Prime: Southern Discomfort

File: 1493044589084.gif (234KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 200x200px

how to monk

>>54582338
In 3.5?

Refluff ranger or duskblade.

Flurry of misses is shit.

>>54583337
I like the idea of fighter taking his bonus feats from Blood and Fists, if the GM will allow it. Hopefully the Martial Arts Master or Brawler advanced class from it too.

>>54583337
>>54583406
Why wouldn't you just unarmed swordsage

>>54582338
There are a few builds to get a good punchy guy but none of them involve taking much Monk. Unarmed Swordsage gets the important core Monk abilities and has a whole subsystem dedicated to fighting. A Decisive Strike Monk 2/PsyWar 18 or Ardent 18, both with Tashalatora, is a damn solid second choice that can hang with the big boys. Although technically by the rules, you don't actually *need* Monk levels for Tashalatora to work, so if your DM was permissive and understood that Monk is kind of shit anyways you could just have Ardent 20 or PsyWar 20, or if you wanted the extra iterative from 17 BAB for the cost of a manifester level, Ardent 10/Slayer 10 or PsyWar 10/Slayer 10. You want to go with a gish Monk build, Monk 1/Wizard 4/Enlightened Fist 10/Abjurant Champion 5 with Carmendine Monk is the way to go.

>>54582338

If you give a level, then it'll be easier to outline a build

>>54580992
It's weird that you are conjuring up boogey-man groups, for no real purpose. It's literally you just going "there's bad groups out there" and then, that's it. No point, just twiddling your thumbs.

>>54586345
What's weird is that you're denying that third party content and homebrew not made by the group are banned more often than not.

>>54586499
Do you have a point yet?

>>54586499
Not by the DM introducing them into their games.

>>54586499
But, that's not what you said. You said they're banned without a second thought, which is pretty rare. Most groups don't like third party content because most third party content just isn't that great, not because of a kneejerk reaction to anything and everything not officially published. But, if we're talking about an additional subsystem, most groups would are more than willing to entertain the idea of using a published system with good reviews rather than relying purely on homebrew.

And, that's not only irrelevant, it's really inconsequential to the question of whether there's good third party material available, or whether it's possible for a system to do something, or really relevant to anything at all. You're really just sort of twiddling your thumbs here, and I suspect it's because you sort of have a need to get some kind of last word in.