What happened to Morale?

[Shiroiken]

You are so right. I should have looked more closely.

Still, I'm curious why it's an "optional" rule and somewhat vaguely defined. And Intimidate isn't even mentioned.

It seems like Morale has somewhat fallen out of favor. Is that true?

I would say that it has fallen out of favor, because it appeals to a specific playstyle that is not particularly popular. Having it as an optional rule is just fine, because it's easier to add things in than take things out of the 5E chassis.

Technically, the default is not that enemies fight to the death, but that the DM determines their actions. Hopefully this is based on specific situations, such as the creatures motivations, courage level, intelligence, and current health. If DMs are lazy and just have creatures fight to the death, adding a morale check isn't going to change that (it didn't in prior editions either).

The problem with morale (especially the current version) is that it could often create very weird situations where the enemy flees while winning. This is why I use a modified system that is rolled only at specific times, using the DMs best judgement. Taking out a leader, dropping a boss monster to half HP, or making an Intimidation check as a bonus action may trigger this check (encouraging tactics to use these things), but since everything is at the DM's discretion, it may not occur. This keeps stupid situations from occurring, but remember that they don't know the PCs HP or resources. Thus sometimes creatures may flee if they are "winning," but they simply don't know it (just like PCs may flee from an enemy on its last legs too).

 

[Bacon Bits]

I'm aware that elitist grognards like to blame anything they don't like about D&D on the influence of video gaming ("damn kids! get offa my battlemat!"), but everybody I know was killing everything in sight around the time we were playing Zork. I suspect the influence was the other way around: XP farming exists in video games because that's how TTRPGs were played.

Nah, I think it's because the game in the video game is usually a skill test at using your weapons. It's no skill test at all when the enemies run away, so it's not fun. That's why video game bosses get harder the more you shoot them in the face when in reality they should start out as strong as they'll ever be.

 

[Umbran]

Bear in mind that the word "decimate" literally means that 1 in 10 was killed, and yet it has become a word we associate with utter destruction.

A bit of an aside: classically, decimation wasn't what you did to the enemy.

Decimation was military discipline. The Roman army was mostly composed of soldiers who were not born in Italy. They were mostly the sons of conquered peoples, and so their loyalty was somewhat questionable. If a unit had some members guilty of cowardice or desertion or other serious crimes, you'd decimate them (kill 1 in 10), because you couldn't catch the real culprits. They broke the unit into groups of 10, and the drew lots - the one who drew death was killed by the other nine. The theory is that those not willing to face those odds or to kill their compatriots would help keep others in line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, this was the point I made earlier. Most RPGs, and very much so 5e, are not very "dangerous", so combat is fun and in general desirable because of XP. If you actually ran the risk of getting maimed or killed you'd be more reluctant to start a fight, and more willing to accept surrenders or let survivors flee (mitigated situationally by the risk of them coming back with friends, of course).

If combat is fun and desirable enough that players are prioritizing it over other aspects of the game, that implies to me the game should have more combat, not that combat should become less fun by making it harder.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If combat is fun and desirable enough that players are prioritizing it over other aspects of the game, that implies to me the game should have more combat, not that combat should become less fun by making it harder.

But it'll make the running & hiding, the tense negotiations, the pleading for help, and the years in the salt mines that much /more/ fun!

 

[77IM]

If combat is fun and desirable enough that players are prioritizing it over other aspects of the game, that implies to me the game should have more combat, not that combat should become less fun by making it harder.

There's fun combat, and there's tedious combat. Quality vs. quantity.

 

[TwoSix]

There's fun combat, and there's tedious combat. Quality vs. quantity.

Combat is like pizza, even when it's bad it's still pretty good.

 

[Pauln6]

I still have my 2e compendiums so use the Morale scores to set DCs for intimidation.
I might also make a roll when bloodied, when a leader dies, or when faced with high level spells.

 

[77IM]

Combat is like pizza, even when it's bad it's still pretty good.

Combat is like pizza, I enjoy it at first but I have trouble finishing a whole one. ;}

 

[Mouseferatu]

Combat is like pizza, even when it's bad it's still pretty good.

Ew. No.

Few things ruin a game session for me more than an unfun combat encounter. (But then, I'm also quite happy to have an entire session of pure RP or problem-solving, without a single die being picked up.)