Why was morale removed from the game?

[harpy]

I'm just joining the crowd going down old-school memory lane. Why was morale yanked from 3e? The structure and math behind 3e seems like it would have easily accommodated morale, along with rules that would trigger a cascade of effects.

You do have several levels of fear in 3E, but they are all condition effects that tend to come out of magic, never out of just the reality of seeing your side getting defeated in combat.
​

 

[Filcher]

I'm sure it is just fog of age, but wasn't 1e tailored more for "we hire 6 spearmen from town to come with us and carry our treasure, all for 1 share of the treasure plus first pick of the magic items, as long as we outfit them with gear first."

Whereas 3.x+ was about the party being unto themselves, largely. Maybe the morale rules fell into disuse along with the disuse of the hireling.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think getting rid of moral as a rule was a good idea. If played by the rules strictly, it could end cinematic fights in a hurry.

In 3E, it was up to the DM to decide when the monsters ran, just like it has always been up to the players when their characters ran. Or don't in the vast majority of cases.

 

[rogueattorney]

I think it was because the DM was supposed to decide for himself when the monsters retreated.

I have no problem with that in theory. However, I have found when I use the morale rules from O(A)D&D mechanically, monsters retreat or surrender far more often than they fight to the death. When I simply decide when monsters retreat or surrender, I'm far more likely to have them stick around and be slaughtered.

I like the results of the former rather than the latter. I guess I like what some of the "old school" bloggers call the "oracular power of the dice," or maybe the dice play the monsters smarter than I do. Anyway, when monsters retreat or surrender more, the party tends to not get scuffed up as much in less important fights, monsters can become re-occurring foes, and a lot more rp-ing happens.

It'd be real easy to incorporate the B/X D&D morale rule into 3e (or anything else). For each encounter give a morale rating of 2 to 12 - 7 is average, 12 is fanatical, 2 is cowardly. During combat roll for morale any time something happens that might make the opponents break (first death, half dead, leader dead, impressive show of force or magic, ect.) If the roll of 2d6 exceeds the morale rating, the opponents surrender or retreat as appropriate. If the opponent passes two morale checks in a combat, they fight to death.

 

[pawsplay]

Honestly, I think it's because many if not most GMs played monsters as nearly suicidal killing machines, ignoring morale completely. And the ones who didn't, probably felt they could handle using morale with common sense. I personally think morale rules are great and useful, but I get by without them based on what I think the NPCs would do.

Considering morale was removed from D&D miniatures skirmish because it was too hard, I think it probably remains absent from D&D because if it's too hard for a tactical game, it's really too hard for an RPG. Again, this is my viewpoint, but I feel if morale seems complicated, it's because the GM has not thought about what causes monsters to flee, and probably doesn't want to. People who care about that either implement a morale system or use their own judgment.

 

[Umbran]

I'm just joining the crowd going down old-school memory lane. Why was morale yanked from 3e? The structure and math behind 3e seems like it would have easily accommodated morale, along with rules that would trigger a cascade of effects.

It wasn't entirely removed - it still lurks, in the form of the Intimidate skill.

 

[Korgoth]

Someone rolled a '1' on his Craft: Role Playing Game skill check?

I like a simple Morale mechanic (like in Classic D&D) as a handy gauge for whether the monsters are ready to fight to the last, or hoof it. Still, it's not an absolute essential.

 

[MerricB]

Considering morale was removed from D&D miniatures skirmish because it was too hard

Morale wasn't removed because it was too hard: it was removed because it caused massive balance issues.

Cheers!

 

[weem]

In my first 4e campaign, I didn't worry about it as I was more concerned about getting to know the system etc.

My new campaign (4 games in now) I definitely think about the morale aspect and ask myself that question, "would they give up, under what circumstances, and when?" during each encounter (fighting encounter).

My encounters in this campaign have seen...

...someone give up right off the bat - stepped back with his hands up as the fight went on around him. He was later released.

...a few have pleaded for their lives at bloodied value, the realization that they were not about to win hit them suddenly... most of those were spared by the PC's.

...one young human gave up during a particular encounter and they held him for a bit questioning him. They released him after a little while... in the next game session this young boy (back with the thieves he was running with) found the PC's hiding... he told the others looking for them that this location (where they were hiding) was "all clear", effectively saving their lives - so that act of mercy came back around and helped them.

Most intelligent creatures don't want to die, especially when the fight is over something they don't care too much about or that is valued at much less than their lives are.

I just try to look at the situation and decide what would be realistic (as much as something can be realistic in this game of course).

 

[Celebrim]

Morale wasn't removed because it was too hard: it was removed because it caused massive balance issues.

Cheers!

There's that word again.