Why was morale removed from the game?

[JohnRTroy]

I really can't buy the argument that it would "screw up" game balance.

The reason being, assuming we are dealing with the post-2e vast "R&D" that WoTC added involving probability, statistics, spreadsheet analysis, massive playtest, etc., you can easily come up with formulae to involve morale. Let's say the morale check for a group of monsters is 50%. You can add that to a the equations used to measure the power of a monster and adjust based on that, just like you can take into account spell resistance or immunities into a power rating.

I think there are other reasons--design preference, etc., but not based on game balance.

 

[MerricB]

I really can't buy the argument that it would "screw up" game balance.

Which argument would that be?

I think there are other reasons--design preference, etc., but not based on game balance.

For 3E, design preference is - I think - a big factor.

Cheers!

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Actually, I believe it was removed because it was deemed better for the DM to make the choices for the monsters and opponents on his own. As noted, when morale doesn't affect the PC's that's a BIG advantage for the PC's. If you have a morale system then you have to have innumerable variables to adjust whether morale breaks or holds, and then it still is left to a die roll, and superseding ANY die roll there is still... the DM. That's as it should be since the DM can FAR better adjudicate than charts and tables whether the monsters can or should run away or press harder, but then rather silly to try to break it down to a die roll that the DM is rightfully authorized to overrule or ignore anyway.

 

[Ariosto]

rather silly to try to break it down to a die roll that the DM is rightfully authorized to overrule or ignore anyway

Which die rolls is the DM not "rightfully authorized" to overrule?

 

[pawsplay]

Sure, morale was important. But random? Is a morale check any more random than the 30 damage that led to it? People were not used to morale, and they didn't like it. It wasn't a broken mechanic, and it wasn't any more random that a lot of other aspects. I played many, many games of DDM, and morale was just a battlefield mini-objective.

 

[aboyd]

I still do morale rolls. They're very easy. I play 3.5 edition D&D, which has Will saves. I use those. At the point in combat where I'm pretty sure it's gone all wrong for the bad guys, with little/no chance of turning the odds, I give the bad guys a Will save (DC = average level of PCs + conditional modifier). If they pass, fight to the death as is usual for 3rd & 4th edition D&D. If they fail, they flee. Regardless of whether they die or flee, an enemy gone = XP.

(Of course, I don't imagine an NPC who passes the Will save and continues fighting is actually thinking he is willing to give up his own life -- usually it's more of a stubborn refusal to consider the possibility that he may be outclassed and lose.)

Every now & then I've done a Wisdom roll instead of a Will save. In those cases, I'm usually thinking that it's so obvious that the battle is lost that all I need to know is if they realize it. If they do, they take off.

I've never really told my players that I do this. It's not a house rule published on my game forum. However, they've heard me mumble "morale roll" to myself a few times, so once in a blue moon when combat isn't going their way, someone will pipe up with a hopeful, "morale?"

 

[coyote6]

I've done what aboyd said -- roll a Wis, Will, or Int check for an opponent to realize that now might be a good time to run. I also just use my judgment as GM to decide how dedicated to a fight a particular foe is.

Of course, it was usually just about the time the foes decide to run that the PCs would obliterate them. "Hmm," I'd think, "he's going to run as soon as it's his action, right after the archer goes," and then the archer is all, "Crit! Crit!". Or the sorcerer busts out the save-or-lose and my dice responded by busting out the natural 1s.

Edit: It was also amusing how often my dice decided to roll low when making those morale-type rolls. "Too stupid to run" was distressingly common.

I don't think morale roles would've helped my poor monsters any.

 

[FireLance]

Because monsters running away often interferes with the PCs' ability to kill them and take their stuff. In a game where gaining XP and treasure depends directly on the PCs' ability to kill things and take their stuff, monsters that run away tend to reduce the rate at which the PCs gain XP and treasure. This may annoy the players.

There are a number of solutions to this:

1. The DM has to explain to the players that hunting down every last one of the monsters they encounter is part of the challenge of killing things and taking their stuff. If they allow the monsters to get away, they only have themselves to blame for losing out on the XP gained from killing the monsters and the treasure that they carried.

2. Make the gaining of XP and treasure independent of whether the PCs killed all the monsters. However, some DMs do not like this approach because they believe that killing things is to only way to get better at anything, and that the only way to get treasure is to loot it from an enemy's corpse.

3. Remove morale so that all enemies fight to the death. This approach has the advantage of being both simple and direct. Without the need to track and check monster morale, the DM only has to think about which attack to use next.

Yes, I am only partly joking.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm thinking about instituting a morale system in my 4E game, as a way of cutting down the "grind factor." Something like this:

All NPC and monster groups have a Morale stat, which ranges from 1 (complete cowards) to 21 (unbreakable zealots). Each time one of the following things happen, the PCs can challenge the NPCs' morale:

• An NPC is reduced to 0 hit points.
• A PC scores a critical hit.
• A PC takes a standard action to make an Intimidate check against the highest Will defense among the monsters.

A morale challenge is simple: Roll 1d20 and get the NPCs' morale or higher. Successes on morale challenges are cumulative. As soon as the total number of successes equals or exceeds the number of NPCs remaining, the NPCs break and flee.

Certain things might enable the NPCs to strip off some of the morale challenge successes... still thinking about what that would be.

 

[Umbran]

The reason being, assuming we are dealing with the post-2e vast "R&D" that WoTC added involving probability, statistics, spreadsheet analysis, massive playtest, etc., you can easily come up with formulae to involve morale. Let's say the morale check for a group of monsters is 50%. You can add that to a the equations used to measure the power of a monster and adjust based on that, just like you can take into account spell resistance or immunities into a power rating.

The problem with this approach is that it gets awful... "swingy". You can add it to the math, and it works out in the long term. But for any particular fight, it can make or break things for the party. If you do the math, and add critters expecting that a specific percentage are going to break and run, and they don't, you might have a TPK on your hands. On the other side, if you don't bulk up the enemy, but more than expected break and run, you suddenly have a cake walk. This makes encounter design a bit of a pain.

4e got rid of "save or die" for a reason - it puts too much emphasis on the results of one single roll. Failing a morale check doesn't actually kill the monster, but it removes it from the fight, so it is mostly the same thing as far as the PCs are concerned.