[Mythras - Classic Fantasy] what to do with the rogue and the monk

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

Raleel

The Lemon LeCroix of Mythras
Moderator
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
7,518
Reaction score
19,297
BLUF; I've got two characters that can't lead for shit, and they are going into a situation where leadership will be a thing.

So, in a few games (maybe), there will come a time when the characters in my red hand of doom conversion will be ready to face the red hand horde - north of 1500 troops. Now, the original D&D module has the party building points over the course of things, and then they fight a few decisive battles at the group level, defending key resources and whatnot. I'm going to change this for my Mythras conversion, using Ships and Shield Walls, giving them sections of troops to lead into battle. To do such a thing, they get set up as commanders which requires Lore (Strategy and Tactics), Oratory, Influence, Locale, Lore (Region, but they are all from here, so they can use Locale), Passions, Piety (for sacrifices and holy stuff),

Now, the party is, surprisingly perhaps, uniquely suited for this activity.
  • everyone is good at locale and a good reputation with some of the people
  • A paladin with excellent oratory skills, modest influence skills, and has already inspired a town worth of people to take heart in Ganesha for a better place
  • a minotaur fighter/cleric of Murugan (a war god) with excellent influence, lore(S&T), piety, and access to battle level spells ripped from the tome of magic and converted
  • a cavalier with excellent influence, courtesy, and bureaucracy (important for enlisting certain allies), and a modest Lore (S&T)
  • a wizard with solid influence, Lore (Monsters - a sort of bachelor's study in the ins and outs of monsters), lore (alchemy), commerce, and courtesy
See, the trick here is that the monk and the rogue have nothing that I could lean on for group leading. They both have some stealth, which would be good for ambushes (and is a required skill for ambushing), but they would largely be doing it by themselves - a sort of death sentence :smile: Their leadership skills would be effectively about 15%, and that's just not going to be useful. They are both very much built to be "individual contributors", so to speak.

They are both surprisingly tough, and might make good scouts, but that sort of runs into the hacker problem - they are off playing their own game, and not really participating in the climatic battle. They are probably tough enough for some personal challenges. They have some useful passions, but it's not going to make them into good commanders. They are super useful up to the battle (good streetwise, good connections, valuable part of the team and all), but not so much in it.

So... what should I do with them to have them be able to reasonably participate in the battle?
 
Well, there’s tons of shenanigans they could get up to before the battle, but you’re right that would be a separate session.

Think Braveheart or Last Samurai. Have them set up traps and other battlefield surprises and roll for how well everything does in the battle itself.

Have them infiltrate the other army‘s baggage train or camp followers and be in position in the rear to attack key personnel. Dangerous, but could be extremely effective.
 
Have them infiltrate the other army‘s baggage train or camp followers and be in position in the rear to attack key personnel. Dangerous, but could be extremely effective.

i am concerned that this one is also a separate session sort of thing. definitely a different game. I am somewhat concerned that the shenanigans and dirty tricks would not be active enough. Then again, I expect the wizard will probably want to make a WMD if he can.

i have considered giving them NPCs to do the actual leading - sort of a virtual command skill, and keep them more focused on the actual ambush part. feels a little cheap though.
 
What's the issue with seperate sessions on the short term? Aside from RW scheduling issues, those kind of advnetures add depth to the campaign. Party variability can be very refreshing.
 
Aside from RW scheduling issues

this is not a small problem for us. We just got back after a 3 month hiatus due to illness, travel, work, and other real life issues. separate session is not a rational ask here, in no small part because it requires twice as much of my time. We feel quite fortunate when we get 4 sessions in a row at once every 2 weeks. This year we have played about 10 times.
 
So... what should I do with them to have them be able to reasonably participate in the battle?

You could have the Monk emulate Kwae Chan Cain and lead by quiet example. He could get a group of peasants to fight to defend their land.

Similarly, the Rogue could emulate someone like Wallace in Braveheart and just use CHA to whip up the masses for a battle. Rogues are good at that sort of thing.
 
Are there any appropriate NPCs to allow those two players to run during this particular conflict?

Alternately, the leader PCs could form a plan, and then the monk and rogue lead "special ops" teams with the leader players taking control of members of those teams.

Also, the thief and monk PCs can fully participate in the planning but the other PCs can do the talking and thus make the necessary rolls.
 
You could have the Monk emulate Kwae Chan Cain and lead by quiet example. He could get a group of peasants to fight to defend their land.
Similarly, the Rogue could emulate someone like Wallace in Braveheart and just use CHA to whip up the masses for a battle. Rogues are good at that sort of thing.

though he's lacking a lot of charisma. he has a low Influence, and no other social skills. He is a beast in a fight though. Currently, the best I have for him is to use his Streetwise to mobilize the scurvy rogues in the area into a makeshift troop. The monk happens to be a spy, so maybe he can work out something via connections.

Maybe they can work with their reputation. They do have some of that.

Are there any appropriate NPCs to allow those two players to run during this particular conflict?

yea, probably. I considered that. i'm not super happy with it, because it doesn't really put any spotlight on their characters.This story is very protagonist good guy focused.

Alternately, the leader PCs could form a plan, and then the monk and rogue lead "special ops" teams with the leader players taking control of members of those teams.

Nod, considered that as well. sort of the same thing, but reversed.

Also, the thief and monk PCs can fully participate in the planning but the other PCs can do the talking and thus make the necessary rolls.

oh, no doubt. I don't know that it gives them their moment to shine. As an aside, neither of the players there are very strategic or tactical thinkers, and one of them is just outright bad ;)
 
As an aside, neither of the players there are very strategic or tactical thinkers, and one of them is just outright bad ;)
Oh, that really makes it a lot more difficult. Not only are the PC's unsuited to the activity, but so are the players! That leaves me with two suggestions:
  1. Minimize the strategic side of the activity, and focus on special ops during the battle. The strategists can either play NPC mooks, or they can hand over the reigns of generalship to NPCs after designing the strategy.
  2. Split the party and jump between groups mid-session.
Option #1 waters the experience down for everyone a little, but option #2 is really tricky to pull-off, requiring confident game mastery skills.

You might also consider consulting with some of your more trusted players to see which option they prefer, or to suggest another.
 
ya, it is really kind of a pickle. There is always the small change that the climatic battle happens when these two particular players are absent, I suppose.

I'll have to read the battle rules over again (and again) and see what i can come up with. Maybe they will be set up to take out some particularly difficult monsters that are a unit, like the hill giants. Monk and thief are extremely good together - agile, moving in and out, monk sets up, thief moves in for the kill.

hrm. that might work. their "scale" is tactical, but a couple of big foes that are causing a lot of damage. the others are doing their turns as armies, but they are staying individual. that could potentially happen.
 
this is not a small problem for us. We just got back after a 3 month hiatus due to illness, travel, work, and other real life issues. separate session is not a rational ask here, in no small part because it requires twice as much of my time. We feel quite fortunate when we get 4 sessions in a row at once every 2 weeks. This year we have played about 10 times.

I empathise. Don't want to sound flip.
 
I've also found it can be difficult for a game to change up to army scale conflict for various reasons. I cut my teeth on wargamimg, but many players don't have the background or interest (or ability).

So I think Edgewise's ideas are solid. Special OPs focus, instead of wargaming, and/or split scenes with the Rogue and Monk. You can have some fun pacing with that.
 
thinking about it now, infiltration and sabotage while the other ones are fighting might work well. the battle rounds for armies work at 15 second intervals, which should be enough time to perform some dastardly deeds. Only 2 of them will make combat rounds go faster, and they do hit pretty hard. the monk is a changeling as well, so he should have an easy time moving about.
 
Logistics. :wink:

An army runs on its stomach. An army sees through its messengers. Blind and hungry is an easier enemy to fight. You always have to protect your logistics or You. Will. Lose. :eat: :hurry:

Monks excel in maneuverability, hence communications.

Rogues excel in deception, hence guerrilla supply lines.

Both are solid solo fighters who dress like it's peacetime. They blend in among the personnel as a secret heavy during enemy actions. (You are having enemy action against their logistics, yes? :hmmm:) And both their classes understand organizational hierarchy very well, including delegation.

I see no real problem. :thumbsup: Both of these PCs will have reason to pop up in ANY battlefield HQ. AND they have their own threats to fight maintaining their channels.
 
I would attach them to Units and allow them to augment different attributes of that unit perhaps - Morale, Competence, Damage - so that they are directly in the battle with their own single Unit formation. They might still be strategically under the 'Command' of another player, but they act independently within that command. Perhaps the Cleric has easy rolls to bolster Morale, and the Monk increases the damage a die step. With this there's a certain amount of increased personal danger for the Monk and Cleric, but they get to play as an elite unit formation.
 
I would attach them to Units and allow them to augment different attributes of that unit perhaps - Morale, Competence, Damage - so that they are directly in the battle with their own single Unit formation. They might still be strategically under the 'Command' of another player, but they act independently within that command. Perhaps the Cleric has easy rolls to bolster Morale, and the Monk increases the damage a die step. With this there's a certain amount of increased personal danger for the Monk and Cleric, but they get to play as an elite unit formation.
less the cleric and more the thief.

the cleric is a cleric/fighter of a war god with war domain spells that buff troops directly. he'll be just fine ;)
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top