Why was morale removed from the game?

I figure morale is covered by things like bard, warblade and knight class features. It's not a system in its own right within 3.5, but is instead supported by the rule set as a whole.
Many powers in 4e are reasoned to work because of morale.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Morale removal

Merric, this is the first time I've heard a reason for why morale was removed. Do you recall which developer told you this?

I miss the old morale rules, and I don't really see why adding morale to the game would cause balance issues. Creatures that were inclined to run from fights they couldn't win could just have a slightly lower CR than one that fought to the death, right? Why would this affect balance/randomness more than any other variable?

Ken
 

Merric, this is the first time I've heard a reason for why morale was removed. Do you recall which developer told you this?

Note: that applies to D&D Miniatures, not the RPG, where you constructed warbands of a various point value to fight each other. In that sort of game, single rolls that were "save or die" could be incredibly swingy, especially for high-value figures.

I miss the old morale rules, and I don't really see why adding morale to the game would cause balance issues. Creatures that were inclined to run from fights they couldn't win could just have a slightly lower CR than one that fought to the death, right? Why would this affect balance/randomness more than any other variable?

Morale doesn't cause game balance issues - well, not significant ones - especially considering the PCs are normally meant to win. (Morale only affecting monsters favours the PCs significantly).

Admittedly, if you have a Challenge Rating, the CR of a monster with morale is less than a monster without morale, because in X% of combats, the monster will run and thus is less of a threat than its stats would otherwise suggest.

Cheers!
 



If I had to guess, I would venture to say that it was removed because it screwed up the math regarding CR and reward vs risk and that sort of thing.

Now the game is so tightly balanced (4e that is) that it feels like baddies skipping out before the end of combat screws things up. I think the game would have been better off it morale rules had been included and accounted for.
 
Last edited:

While understanding the reasons for removing Morale, and that it's not everybody's kettle of fish...

I miss it.

I get warm fuzzies looking at the Morale values of creatures in the Rules Cyclopedia. As a DM, I could ignore them if I wanted to... but they were a useful guide to the "aggro" of certain creature types, and a reminder that not every fight had to be to the death. I particularly liked those creatures which had adjustments to Morale based on circumstance, such as humanoids whose Morale dropped if their leader was slain, or creatures like Trolls that suffered a Morale penalty if attacked with fire.

Good times...
 

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

Cheers!

Since it applied to all players equally, I don't really understand how that could possibly true. It's not as if fearless creatures types were all Rares or something.
 

Since it applied to all players equally, I don't really understand how that could possibly true. It's not as if fearless creatures types were all Rares or something.

Something being fair doesn't mean that it's fun, and it's that problem that the DDM Morale rules ran into. High levels of randomness - and with morale often coming down to a single roll, that's what it was - work very much against a game wanting to be a skill-based, tournament game.

Luck tends to even out when there are many rolls that go into the result. Morale really stood out in DDM: much more important than any other type of roll.

Cheers!
 

Remove ads

Top