Why was morale removed from the game?
- Thread starter harpy
- Start date
Starfox
Hero
Loss of morale rules is a part of DnDs progression from a skirmish wargame to an arena-style dungeon encounter game.
3E introduced the idea of the balanced encounter build. That does not go well with morale rules. In olden days the basic Orc encounter was with a LOT of orcs. The PCs would use bottleneck, hit-and-run, or shock and awe tactics to try and break enemy morale, because this was the only viable way for fighters to defeat a big group. But Fireball and 10' ceilings changed that (1 ed fireball was 132 5-ft squares of floor if the ceiling height was 10 ft). Suddenly all those orcs were merely fodder. By the time 3E came around, this way of thinking was so established that you could no longer use 1-st level orcs in an encounter for 10th level characters. AC now had an expected progression that a 1st level creature simply could not hit. Enter the balanced encounter, consisting mainly of critters just below the PCs in challenge rating. But suddenly, with fewer opponents, all the monsters could be brought to bear at once. You could no longer throw overwhelming force at the players because they would have too much Alpha-Strike capability. So numbers were reduced. Which means that by the time a morale roll would come into play, most of the monsters would be down, and the few runners could be chased down and killed. Making the morale roll pretty pointless.
3E introduced the idea of the balanced encounter build. That does not go well with morale rules. In olden days the basic Orc encounter was with a LOT of orcs. The PCs would use bottleneck, hit-and-run, or shock and awe tactics to try and break enemy morale, because this was the only viable way for fighters to defeat a big group. But Fireball and 10' ceilings changed that (1 ed fireball was 132 5-ft squares of floor if the ceiling height was 10 ft). Suddenly all those orcs were merely fodder. By the time 3E came around, this way of thinking was so established that you could no longer use 1-st level orcs in an encounter for 10th level characters. AC now had an expected progression that a 1st level creature simply could not hit. Enter the balanced encounter, consisting mainly of critters just below the PCs in challenge rating. But suddenly, with fewer opponents, all the monsters could be brought to bear at once. You could no longer throw overwhelming force at the players because they would have too much Alpha-Strike capability. So numbers were reduced. Which means that by the time a morale roll would come into play, most of the monsters would be down, and the few runners could be chased down and killed. Making the morale roll pretty pointless.
Which is kind of silly. "Look, we killed one of them! Hooray! Now let's run away!"
Yes, that's exactly my point. To a large extent, most of combat is about grinding away at the monsters during the encounter. Morale (and other "save or die" effects) steps out of that process.
This is the reason why I quit using the Morale rules when I DM'd 2E. If the goblin breaks and runs, he and his buddies are doomed. It's often in his best interest to stay and fight it out, maybe hope the PC's don't shiv his unconscious body.
I also found the 2E Morale rules to be too fiddly to be worthwhile. IIRC, the RAW method involved adding/subtracting a number of modifiers, which changed as the battle evolved. It was more trouble than it was worth.
Noir le Lotus
First Post
I really liked Morale checks in DDM and I ceased play the game when they removed it ...
On the other hand, I hate Morale checks in RPGs and I hate when Monsters are just big mindless chunks of HPs fighting to death.
I think that Paizo is the best for dealing with morale : each monster or NPC has a morale line in his tats block : fights to death, fights until reduced to xx% of his HPs and then flees or surrenders, avoids combat at all cost. No randomness, great help for the DM !!
On the other hand, I hate Morale checks in RPGs and I hate when Monsters are just big mindless chunks of HPs fighting to death.
I think that Paizo is the best for dealing with morale : each monster or NPC has a morale line in his tats block : fights to death, fights until reduced to xx% of his HPs and then flees or surrenders, avoids combat at all cost. No randomness, great help for the DM !!
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Isn't morale now mentioned as being part of "hit points"?
3E definitely still had morale as a condition. Shaken, Frightened and Panicked where 3 "morale" conditions.
I didn't like any rules that used Will Saves against fear or morale effects. Or maybe I should say I dind't like that Fighters and Barbarians had low will saves? These guys go toe-to-toe with Dragons! They should have the best chance to shrug off these effects!
3E definitely still had morale as a condition. Shaken, Frightened and Panicked where 3 "morale" conditions.
I didn't like any rules that used Will Saves against fear or morale effects. Or maybe I should say I dind't like that Fighters and Barbarians had low will saves? These guys go toe-to-toe with Dragons! They should have the best chance to shrug off these effects!
diaglo
Adventurer
don't let it happen again. or we might have to revoke your card and confiscate your minis.
any pics of the minis btw?
Well, remember that the PCs were expected to be leading a warband of their own. PCs don't check morale, but hirelings do.
Good point. One could build the rule such that you use Will or Fortitude, whichever is higher for saves.
The real objective of morale rules is to model the psychology of a soldier in a losing battle. For a newbie DM, that means realizing that if YOU know the orcs are losing and the PCs are going to win, then the orcs probably know that as well, and would probably run.
If I were making a 3e morale rule, I'd look up the Intimidate skill, the Shaken, Panicked and something else conditions and the 2e/1e morale rules. I'd make sure the 3e morale-like stuff meshes in with the rule verbiage.
I'd prolly make it a d20 role versus a base value of 15, and give a modifier for the side that has more units, and modifier for "looks like we're losing". Then I'd set conditions on what triggers a morale roll.
Basically, make it something I could roll every turn, without it coming up as a retreat until it was obvious the enemy should run.
Honestly, I'm not sure if a saving throw (i.e. level) matters in a morale check. A char should run because the situation is looking like his side will lose and HE will die. A 15th level NPC who just saw half his evil party die, including his leader versus a PC party of 15th level would probably be wise to run away.
Some modifier ideas:
-1 you leader is dead
-1 you are outnumbered
-1 you are outpowered (enemy side has more HD/levels than your side)
-1 enemy successfully Intimidated you
-1 others have failed a Morale check
-1 you are Shaken
-1 you are Panicked
-1 you are in Fear
+3 you are a zealot
I just made that stuff up, assuming I got the right conditions, etc. The real point though is, if the NPCs are losing, they should probably run.
Here's a question for those who like morale: How much do you think the PCs should be able to manipulate enemy morale checks? Should morale be essentially a means for the DM to terminate combat once the outcome is clear? Or should it be a tool PCs can use to swing the outcome in their favor - potentially using "shock and awe" tactics to overcome an enemy that would beat them in a straight-up fight?
If the latter, what sort of tactics do you think are appropriate for PCs attempting to break the enemy's morale?
If the latter, what sort of tactics do you think are appropriate for PCs attempting to break the enemy's morale?
Last edited:
Similar Threads
