D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Cadence]

Has D&D ever had morale rules? I've never played anything earlier than 3.0, but that one I don't think had morale.

5e DMG has it as an optional rule on page 273
2e DMG has it pages 69, 115
1e DMG has it pages 36-37, 67
B/X has it as optional on B27

 

[Micah Sweet]

Has D&D ever had morale rules? I've never played anything earlier than 3.0, but that one I don't think had morale.

Everything earlier than 3.0.

 

[Hussar]

5e DMG has it as an optional rule on page 273
2e DMG has it page 69, 115
1e DMG has it pages 36-37, 67
B/X has it as optional on B27

I use those 5e morale rules in my game. SImple, fast, works fine. I modified it slightly though. On a failed save, the baddie runs. On a success, the baddie might withdraw anyway, or it might fight on, depending on my personal whim and what I feel is appropriate. Came up last session where three ogres fought the party. The first two were down and the party hadn't taken any serious damage, so, I rolled morale for the third ogre, which fled.

The players are pretty good about letting stuff go that runs away and not just murdering everything. Heck, I'll actually have baddies surrender a lot of the time, simply because it usually makes for an easy way to keep the game moving forward. My baddies will almost always be a source of intel, meaning that the players are incentivised to take prisoners.

 

[Lanefan]

And from what I read, it doesn't seem even remotely magical. You're not forcing the opponent to do anything

I thought the whole point of CaGI was to force the opponent to move in ways it might not want or intend to; i.e. toward you so you could smack it one.

 

[Lanefan]

The players are pretty good about letting stuff go that runs away and not just murdering everything. Heck, I'll actually have baddies surrender a lot of the time, simply because it usually makes for an easy way to keep the game moving forward. My baddies will almost always be a source of intel, meaning that the players are incentivised to take prisoners.

My lot generally like the idea of taking prisoners rather than killing them, but don't like the idea of having to feed/guard/herd around said prisoners for the rest of the adventure.

And so what they somewhat-often do instead is, if something half-intelligent and potentially useful surrenders to them, offer it a job as a party hireling or hench; and then treat it well enough that (ideally) it sticks around voluntarily.

 

[Hussar]

My lot generally like the idea of taking prisoners rather than killing them, but don't like the idea of having to feed/guard/herd around said prisoners for the rest of the adventure.

And so what they somewhat-often do instead is, if something half-intelligent and potentially useful surrenders to them, offer it a job as a party hireling or hench; and then treat it well enough that (ideally) it sticks around voluntarily.

Yeah. I've found that it took a long time to train players away from the idea that if they took prisoners, I was only going to screw them over. Which is a lesson that a lot of players receive. Prisoners become nothing but a major problem, so, the players respond by never taking prisoners, then the DM bitches that the players never take prisoners.

It really does have to be a carrot approach. I very, very rarely have prisoners become a problem. Far more fun to get them to stick around and let the group make their own problems.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

See here’s the funny thing.

There are no other “magic” fighter powers. There aren’t. Come and Get it is the only questionable fighter power in the 4e phb.

That’s why I get so prickly about these conversations. Because of the blatant misrepresentation that goes on. Fighters having magical powers wasn’t a big issue. It was ONE power among the hundred ish in the 4e PHB.

For the record. I did not say that I have a problem with the fighter being magical or supernatural or whatever. I specifically told you that "come and get it" is just a poster child for what was problematic about 4e for many of us who played that game, because it combines all those elements:
powers that:

• not always (easily) make sense in the narrative and require some creative storytelling
• are always expected to work
• are heavily dependent on the battlemap.

But critics would have us believe that this was a rampant element that permeated every single power a fighter had.

You don't speak of critics. You speak of people who demonized the game from day 1. They picked a class and ranted because they were very angry about wotc taking 3.5 away.

It’s a criticism that is so ludicrously easy to debunk.

Because that is not what many people criticize.

But ten years later, the drum beat is still all that you hear.

That is sad. But it is also your perception of it. One is allowed to speak about their experience with the game and why it ultimately did not work for them.

I can actually understand parts of your anger. While I played 4e and tried to make it work, people in my vicinity ranted about exactly those strawmans before even playing it. Also without seeing the strength of 4e:
-the fighter base class (without any powers) being able to keep enemies on them.
-hp recovery that makes sense and helps fighters be relevant.
-interesting fighter abilites, not just standing around an do x damage.

And so on.

 

[Hussar]

For the record. I did not say that I have a problem with the fighter being magical or supernatural or whatever. I specifically told you that "come and get it" is just a poster child for what was problematic about 4e for many of us who played that game, because it combines all those elements:
powers that:

• not always (easily) make sense in the narrative and require some creative storytelling
• are always expected to work
• are heavily dependent on the battlemap.

.

But that doesn’t actually apply. Almost no powers were always expected to work. There were reliable powers that didn’t expend unless they worked but that’s different. They still could fail to work.

Battlemap? Sure. That one I’ll totally buy. I just can’t imagine playing 5e without a battlemap. I’ve been in a group where he doesn’t use a map many times and it’s such a much poorer experience for me.

But I get that’s totally a taste thing.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Ah so that's why people are asking how this and that ability would work when used against a PC...

yes, when it comes to affecting character behaviour player attitude has been 'one rule for me, another for thee' for quite a while now when PCs are involved...

'you can't tell me my character HAS to do something, that's denying my agency and ability to roleplay my character'

 

[Oofta]

1) Untold millions, huh? What about all the ones that DID run away? Or at least cower a bit? It's almost like some make their saving throws, and some don't.

2) "someone looking at them funny." Sounds like garbage narration on the part of the DM or player. That or a failure of imagination. There's nothing in the ability that says it involves "looking at them funny."

Soldiers flee battle but we wouldn't have much in the way of wars if it was common. As I said above, occasionally a PC can cause an enemy to flee. Sometimes enemies run away when they realize they're losing But it's unrelated to an individual being intimidating.

As for #2, saying "Grr, aargh" menacingly doesn't really make a difference. What is the PC going to say? "I'm going to kill you?" Okay. Thanks Mr Obvious.

Any ability like this is going to work on a regular basis or no one will take it. If it does in my opinion it's supernatural.