# How does the Mob template work in 3.5?



## RangerWickett (Sep 15, 2008)

I'm trying to stat up 'military units' as individual creatures, and I know that some book had rules for a 'mob template,' but I don't have those rules. Can someone give me an overview of how it works? Thanks?


----------



## ruemere (Sep 16, 2008)

That would be Black Company setting, IIRC. 

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 16, 2008)

And it's in the DMGII.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 16, 2008)

> The Mob rules in the DMGII allow ~60 medium or 12 large creatures to become a "Mob"
> with 30 HD. It functions like a swarm, doing 5d6 damage and causing distrataction to any creature that occupies its area (20x20)
> Each mob is a CR 8



 That also negates cleave, greatcleave and whirlwind. Area attacks that should decimate those grouping of creatures now do only semi noticeable damage against 30 HD worth of hit points. It is like the angry mob became an angry blob.

If you saw the episode of Drawn Together where the sweat shop workers fuse together into a giant monster, you’ve got an idea how DMG2 mobs work. 







Kmart Kommando said:


> Unless you're Jet LI, and flying on wires, you're not going to beat a whole mob by yourself.



That’s exactly who D&D characters are supposed to be like. Feats like_ Great cleave _and _Whirlwind attack_ are specifically for defeating hordes of lesser foes.







Kmart Kommando said:


> Really, though, in game terms, if you're surrounded by a Mob, and you and the mob's component creatures are medium, you'd probably have, at most, 9 sets of hands trying to bring you down.  One in your square and 8 more surrounding you.



Only if the mob member are really fat. The D20 system seems to allow for allows for 5 folks to be grappling in one square,  see multiple Grapplers. And since there are 60 medium critters in one mob, 3 mob-ites to a square sounds about right meaning 24 sets of enemy hands are playing grab-ass. 







Kmart Kommando said:


> If You're a buffed-up melee combatant, and way overclassing the creatures in the mob,  I still don't see how they could bring you down.  Is this reflected in the Mob template? I haven't seen it lately.



 The Mob Template makes the group a 30 HD, gargantuan, trampling, engulfing blob. It takes 50% more damage from area effects, but that’s no consolation to the fighter who has had his armor, shield, _Cleave_, _Great cleave_ and _Whirlwind attack_ negated since it is now counted as one creature that deals auto-damage.  


 


			
				roguerouge said:
			
		

> One thing I don't understand is how the fighter is going to survive round one in combat with an ordinary human mob. The mob has a grapple check of +32.
> 
> Round one: grapple. Win. Move into space.
> Round two: win opposed grapple to damage opponent. Do 5d6 damage.
> ...



Running away.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 16, 2008)

FWIW,

I thought this was  much better take on mob templates

RPGNow.com - Throwing Dice Games - Notebook Essentials: Swarms, Stampedes, and Skirmishes


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 16, 2008)

Generally, people house rule extra damage for melee folk with cleave, great cleave, and whirlwind attack, for precisely the reason you observe. 

But, yes, I think the problem is the grapple scenario, as it is unstoppable, which is a shame. After all, the reason for the templates is precisely to give players of melee characters a feeling of being Conan. For the OP, however, he can rule that trained soldiers (or even militia) are not going to throw away their weapons and grapple, even if that is the mechanically superior option.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 17, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> After all, the reason for the templates is precisely to give players of melee characters a feeling of being Conan.



That's not my impression at all.  When I saw the rules for mobs, my very first thought was, "No more taking huge crowds of mooks for granted."  While there are problems with the implementation, I think mobs do what they're supposed to do ... threaten even powerful characters with fire and pitchforks and tar and feathering.  The very last thing they're supposed to do is make PCs feel like Conan ... unless you mean those times even Conan ran from mobs.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 17, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:


> That's not my impression at all.  When I saw the rules for mobs, my very first thought was, "No more taking huge crowds of mooks for granted."  While there are problems with the implementation, I think mobs do what they're supposed to do ... threaten even powerful characters with fire and pitchforks and tar and feathering.  The very last thing they're supposed to do is make PCs feel like Conan ... unless you mean those times even Conan ran from mobs.




I'll rephrase. 

You don't feel like Conan when the DM takes five minutes to roll a d20 for every mook on the battlefield. That's just really, really boring. 

You feel like Conan when you kill lots of mooks on your turn, the DM makes a quick roll, then you kill tons of mooks, then the DM makes a roll, then you kill some more and they just... keep... coming! 

And then, when this rapid-fire scene ends with you feeling challenged as a player—and excited due to the pacing—while your character's banged up but still breathing and has proved himself to be as mighty as 40 men... 

That's when you feel mighty. 

And the intersection of grapple and mob rules totally ruins that. Because now, 20 commoners without even pitchforks can take you down. How deflating. And being a fighter is deflating enough.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Sep 17, 2008)

You guys seem to be talking at cross-purposes.

One of you wants to be able to beat the stuffing out of high level characters. "Even though your character is high level, you should _never_ take it for granted that you'll be able to stomp something."

The other is cheering on mook rules, and how that can make a player feel bad-ass as they mow through people.

I think the "mob" approach is going to work just fine for Jeff, since he wants to inspire fear.

roguerouge should really be looking at "mook" rules. I guess mook rules could be kinda implemented through some sort of template, but my gut instinct is that mooks aren't a template. Main reason being that templates are adding a bunch of abilities and so forth to a creature(s). Whereas mook rules are sidestepping the "normal" rules (which a templated creature in theory is following) and going for a faster and simplified version. The faster and simplified version of resolving hits, damage, and so forth is what allows for that "I am MIGHTY!!!" kind of thing that using mooks promotes.

Mobs are almost a force of nature and it's difficult for a single (or small) group of people to stand against them.

Edit:



roguerouge said:


> And the intersection of grapple and mob rules totally ruins that. Because now, 20 commoners without even pitchforks can take you down. How deflating. And being a fighter is deflating enough.




Take a look here for some ideas to get more of what you seem to be looking for roguerouge:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-house-rules/208523-mook-rules.html

I personally like the approach that Tonguez takes, but I go a step further. The HD of the creature provides the initial BaB. For every additional [number you pick] mooks, add +1 to the BaB. Damage is the same. You're not rolling a die for each member of the group, it's a single roll for each group. When the appropriate number of hits has been scored, remove a member of the group.

A mook group can be scared off by doing an intimidation check. Base should be something like 10+ 1 for each member of the group. If you want to make the players feel big, you can have the group make something like a rout check; decide what the mooks base morale would be, and then apply a penalty for every casualty they've taken in combat.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 18, 2008)

What I want is a mob template that's a challenge to a fighter, not an auto-kill nor a laborious walk in the park. 

The problem with the Ars Ludi suggestion is that the DM is still rolling a ton of dice and slowing the game down. The idea of a swarm and automatic damage is a huge time-saver that's intuitive and improves pacing. The problem with the DMGII approach is that it not only makes no sense, it makes for bad game play, despite those two advantages.

First off, one 5d6 fireball should utterly decimate a mob of commoners (20' space) as it disables each individual in the mob automatically. Instead, it merely does 26.25 [(5d6)*1.5] on average to an entity with 135 HP. And its save is +9. And it doesn't because "of the mob's mentality and physical mass." Any enterprising player hearing that is immediately going to hire 20' space worth of commoners for his next dungeon crawl. And no matter what happens to them, he'll get 70 percent of them back.

Second, +34 to grapple is just a bad idea for game play reasons. The mob template should work for soldiers, but doesn't, because a smart general would instruct his soldiers to throw their swords at the enemy and then grapple them. 

Third, as stated, the melee feats that are designed to work against a mess of low HP combatants should not suddenly be taken away from the fighter. That's just unfair. 

DMs should eliminate the grapple option for mobs as a house rule. They already get a nearly identical ability by doing 5d6 bludgeoning to anything they end their turn on, plus they have the option to bull rush, overrun and trample. Nothing's lost for flavor and you solve one of the two major problems with mob rules.

How you solve the fireball problem, I don't know.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 18, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> First off, one 5d6 fireball should utterly decimate a mob of commoners (20' space) as it disables each individual in the mob automatically.



Out of curiosity, do you have this same problem with, say, _burning hands_ and a swarm of spiders?  If so, okay.  If not, why do you think that is?


----------



## ValhallaGH (Sep 18, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> Any enterprising player hearing that is immediately going to hire 20' space worth of commoners for his next dungeon crawl. And no matter what happens to them, he'll get 70 percent of them back.



Dude, real world military units are considered _destroyed_ if they take 30% casualties.  The unit is so badly under strength that it's no longer mission capable and must be reinforced and refitted.
15-20% is considered neutralized, no longer a tactical consideration due to loss of personnel and the shock of those losses.
5-10% is considered suppressed, or out of action for the moment, though they can be a concern in an hour or so.

There are scores of occasions throughout history where a unit that was destroyed, neutralized, or suppressed got the job done anyway.  The reason we remember and record these deeds is because they are a remarkable achievement, displaying some of the rarest and most valued traits in military history.  That's the same reason those units almost always received unit citations for gallantry after those events.
Similarly, there are many recordings of a unit being reduced to 10% or less of it's original strength.  Again, we record these events because they are so unusual.  Those kinds of losses (90% or more) are such an aberration from the norm that they are automatically remembered.

Things to consider when trying to build your super-mobs.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 18, 2008)

ValhallaGH said:


> Dude, real world military units are considered _destroyed_ if they take 30% casualties.  The unit is so badly under strength that it's no longer mission capable and must be reinforced and refitted.
> 15-20% is considered neutralized, no longer a tactical consideration due to loss of personnel and the shock of those losses.
> 5-10% is considered suppressed, or out of action for the moment, though they can be a concern in an hour or so.
> 
> ...




True enough. Blame the hit point system. The rules say that once the mob hits 0 HP, the mob disperses with 30 percent dead, 30 percent unconscious and the rest dispersed. Until that point, they're just like PCs, fighting without problems as long as they have 1 HP. 

Probably mobs should have been given 1/4 of the hit points to reflect that reality or simply poor morale. The demonstration that you CAN cast fireball or slice them to ribbons should be enough to overawe them.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 18, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Out of curiosity, do you have this same problem with, say, _burning hands_ and a swarm of spiders?  If so, okay.  If not, why do you think that is?




That's a good question. No, I don't. 

Thinking about it, mobs annoy the dramatist in me and they strike me as unfair. Squishing bugs/rats/bats is sufficiently non-heroic that I can just let the board game player in me say that these are the rules we play with. Plus, my inner dramatist can imagine the swarm retreating from what's an instantaneous effect, losing some of its number, but reforming in the square. Or the wizard didn't get them all. And so forth. Not to mention that it usually only takes one or two of those to take out a spider swarm. Genre-wise, I lump them into horror, where "it just keeps coming" is part of the terror. 

But with mobs... they're so dramatic that it seems like SUCH a missed opportunity when the DMGII let clunky, imbalanced grapple rules mess them up. Bug swarms don't use %&&*% grapple, which takes so much time and looking things up in books. So that annoys the dramatist in me. The gamist in me feels like the DM's letting me win when the monster uses hugely suboptimal tactics. It's like killing an evil necromancer who only uses magic missile rather than his fifth level spells. So neither part of me is satisfied with them.

And then there's the fairness issue. By the time a party is facing a mob, they're at the level where the fighter inherently lags behind the glory hogs (CoDzilla and wizards). I find it unfair to players of fighters that take feats specifically to deal with large numbers of weak creatures if they get them ruled out of existence simply because the DM calls them by a different name. As a player, I'd want to know before going down those feat paths that the DM was going to make them useless just when they'd be most useful and dramatic and interesting. 

The idea of a monster that takes something ordinary and makes it both a tactical challenge and a dramatic moment and does it without rolling dozens of d20s is SUCH a great idea. But I want it to be fair to the players. I want it play as fast and dramatic as possible. And I want to make the suspension of disbelief as light as possible.

When I use mobs as a DM, and I will, I'm going to have fighters with Cleave do double damage. Those with Great Cleave and Whirlwind attack might get triple and quadruple damage respectively, but have to move into the swarm to get them. I won't allow the mob to grapple, but perhaps replace it with a Fort save or dazed for one round (modeled on the distraction ability of swarms). And I'll just live with the suspension of disbelief on spells affecting mobs.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 19, 2008)

So taking a bunch of ideas into consideration, I came up with these three units. Please let me know what you think, and thanks for all the help.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 19, 2008)

"Attacks that normally affect multiple foes affect a unit differently. Area attacks deal half damage in general, but they deal that amount of damage once for every 5-ft. space of the unit that is caught in the area. Apply energy resistance to the initial damage before multiplying. For instance, if a fireball (10d6 damage normally) was centered on the unit, it would take half damage, multiplied by 9 for having all its squares caught in the blast."

So that fireball now does 157.5 fire damage on average. What do people think of that? It comes close to taking out that Ragesian company.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 19, 2008)

Well, seeing as I based the stats on some units that showed up earlier in the War of the Burning Sky campaign -- they were 4th level fighters -- I think it makes sense that a fireball could the unit out the same way it would take out 20 individual soldiers. Though they do have a higher Reflex save as a unit. 

They're definitely vulnerable to area attacks, maybe so vulnerable that their CR is too high. But for the encounters in which I'm using them, the party will be facing several at once. I mean, it's for the 20th-level adventure from the series.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 19, 2008)

One thing I need to do, though, is give them spot and listen to represent 40 guys looking around for invisible high-level enemies.


----------



## roguerouge (Sep 19, 2008)

It's for 20th level characters? Wow. That wizard will be able to take out... 28 units in 14 rounds with Quicken spell for... 560 deaths. In under a minute and a half.* 

*Using just fireballs for his third level slots and above and without counting ability scores or specialization. Obviously, larger area spells increase the carnage by quite a bit.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 24, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> Generally, people house rule extra damage for melee folk with cleave, great cleave, and whirlwind attack, for precisely the reason you observe.




Take your standard mob:

1) You do an extra 25% more damage to a mob if you have cleave, 100% more if you have great cleave.
2) Area effect do 50% extra damage to mobs.
3) DR is tripled against the attacks of mobs.

I use those rules in my game, and found mobs a pretty decent abstraction.


----------



## Azakiel (Nov 3, 2009)

The way I look at mobs vs AoE spells is that you are cramming 48 lets say commoners into a 20'x20' square.

technically a fireball covers that are completely if positioned somewhere within the mob, however it is somewhat tricky to actually pull that off in practice (due to mass of bodies etc) and so it is more likely that the fireball will detonate in the first rank or two of the mob. while this will deal a lot of damge to the nearby mooks, at least some of the commoners will be protected somewhat by the mass of bodies between them and the fireball.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Nov 28, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> So taking a bunch of ideas into consideration, I came up with these three units. Please let me know what you think, and thanks for all the help.




i do not yet know what is in your dcument, but I am at a Dunn Bros. coffee shgop ad the sight just got blocked fr 'inappropiat content. I am guessing the level of content block is set pretty high and for some reason it won't let me see it.

Any thoughts?


----------

