Why was morale removed from the game?

[Janx]

Canis has a good point about sizing up opponents. This gets back to the "menace" check of how much of a percieved threat the char is. And as pawsplay mentions, it varies from character type as to what the nature of it would be.


Back to pawsplay, if you envision your half-orc barbarian as played by Don Knotts, then yes, your description makes sense.

I envisioned mine as played Sabretooth. Heck, I even photoshoppped the winter scene picture from the xmen movie. I wasn't literally thinking sabretooth, but I modeled the look on him, and some of the bad-assedy elements of him from the comics. Though a little less evil, since mine wasn't purely a homicidal psychopath.

I think Sabretooth is an intimidating individual. So I expected some elements of that in my PC.

I think one of the aspects we're talking about is the sensing the power and danger of somebody else. Some people, you can sense it. Others either don't have it, or don't project it. Some people pretend to have it.

Consider:
there are people who are dangerous, who don't project it, but you kind of know it (these are usually not bad guys)
there are people who try to seem more dangerous than they really are (bad guys or wannabees)
there are people who are dangerous and you can easily sense it (some bad guys and good guys who flip the switch)

Not all bad guys are bullies who just need a hug because inside, they're afraid. Some bad guys are bad guys because they ARE powerful and they know it. If power corrupts, then this inherently must be true of some bad guys.


Unrecommended experiment for the 98 pound weakling: go sit in a biker bar and watch ALL the bikers. How many are posturing. How many truly bad asses. To the casual observer, they're all bad asses. Observation will show variance. You will probably spot the dangerous quiet guy. You will probably spot the loud guy who's bark is bigger than his bite. You will also spot the loud guy who backs it up.

Now go spill a drink on one accidentally. Pick the wrong one, and you'd if don't feel intimidated, you're lacking in sense.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you have a core assumption slightly out of place.

Strength isn't inherently scary. Fighting skill is.

Erm. Whose core assumption are you talking about? I am absolutely certain that I understand the core assumptions of RCFG!

Guy who knows how to use his behaviour to intimidate? He's got a high Charisma. Guy with a lot of muscles, who can't effectively use those muscles to Intimidate? He's got a high Strength, perhaps, but less than average Charisma. Guy who only has an average of understanding about how his behaviour affects others, but has a lot of Strength? That's the guy who gets to use Strength to Intimidate in RCFG.

Likewise, a character can use Dexterity to climb, if he doesn't have a Strength penalty. Etc.

Your objections, btw, are covered by skill ranks and opposed checks. The tougher fighter is scarier because he can telegraph that he's a tougher fighter. (In RCFG, a 2nd level fighter or higher automatically can tell if someone has 1 HD or less.)

RCFG also uses morale, so some monsters run away more often than others, and some monsters seldom run away even when "Intimidated" (the skill). This is one of several factors that allows me to use set DCs, which makes encounter design a snap and actual play a breeze.

A character can also attempt to Intimidate to increase his effective AC, make a creature flinch (giving a bonus to hit), gain bonus damage, or any two (but not all three) of the above.



RC

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

The assumption I meant is that strength would be an effective intimidating factor to a skilled opponent.

It would not.

If I'm sizing someone up, the sheer musculature of the guy is not really on the list. How he carries his shoulders and his foot positions matter WAY more, for example. Where his eyes go is important. And I've only got 2 years of sissy suburban training under my belt. The average soldier, goblin raider, crazy cultist who makes a habit of fighting adventurers, and so on... they're going to have even more understanding than I do since fighting is actually their way of life. Strength will not impress them. They've seen plenty of strong guys. It's not a valid stat to base intimidation on for that audience.

Charismatic individuals will know how to intimidate them in various ways. People with very high fighting skill (BAB or whatever, NOT raw strength) will simply BE more intimidating if they show that they carry themselves and their equipment properly. Other people who fight for a living will know the signs. Charismatic individuals who also have fighting skills would be absolutely terrifying.

Strong people? No. Not remotely. Maybe to the peasants. Not to people who fight for a living. Not unless it's obviously supernatural. But unless he's carrying around railroad ties to snap over his knee he has no way of using that as a meaningful intimidation factor.

 

[Starfox]

So, a dozen or more orcs should see four or five human warriors and choose to run away? PCs don't have signs floating above their heads announcing "I am a 10th-level character. Ph33r."

yes, and this is exactly why you cannot use your DM knowledge as the orc's knowledge in the situation. As a Dm, you know these orcs are fodder, minions even. But the orcs don't know this! Heck, they are the local tough guys!

 

[Plane Sailing]

I envisioned mine as played Sabretooth. Heck, I even photoshoppped the winter scene picture from the xmen movie. I wasn't literally thinking sabretooth, but I modeled the look on him, and some of the bad-assedy elements of him from the comics. Though a little less evil, since mine wasn't purely a homicidal psychopath.

I think Sabretooth is an intimidating individual. So I expected some elements of that in my PC.
.

Although arguably in that case you should have given him the Charisma to represent that...

 

[Janx]

Although arguably in that case you should have given him the Charisma to represent that...

Apparently...

I can imagine putting the 18 in CHA (reduced to 16) and 10 in STR (increased to 12), and seeing how intimidating the half-orc barbarian of average strength is.

Part of your point, I believe is that if you want a game effect to fit your fluff, you gotta put the points in it to make the rules model it.

My point is, I don't think the rules modeled it correctly.
Part of that is me not getting what I wanted, the other part though is that I had a pretty extreme PC build that should have been more "Intimidating" than the rule modeled.

Personally, I less care about actually intimidating enemies and having them run away (means less things to whack or I have to chase after them). I don't think I was ever hurt in a scenario where "they should have run away if only the rules let them".

My example was more relevant in terms of the weakness of 3e's morale system (or lack thereof) caused the senseless death of too many NPCs and monsters. Will somebody think of the monsters!?

 

[Jhaelen]

Erm. Whose core assumption are you talking about? I am absolutely certain that I understand the core assumptions of RCFG!

Well, this thread is about the morale rules in D&D. Since RCFG is not D&D why should the core assumptions of RCFG matter within the context of this thread?

Guy who knows how to use his behaviour to intimidate? He's got a high Charisma. Guy with a lot of muscles, who can't effectively use those muscles to Intimidate? He's got a high Strength, perhaps, but less than average Charisma. Guy who only has an average of understanding about how his behaviour affects others, but has a lot of Strength? That's the guy who gets to use Strength to Intimidate in RCFG.

Well, IIRC, in 'Races of Destiny' there was a racial feat for orcs that allowed them to use their Strength bonus for Intimidate checks. I vaguely remember there's something similar in 4e. So it isn't that far-fetched.

Actually, I think, in certain circumstances, you can use pretty much every ability to intimidate someone. I remember having successfully intimidated people using Int in RL

More seriously, imagine a wizard incinerating a tree with a fireball to make his point - I can definitely see how that might be a convincing argument for would-be attackers to go looking for easier victims!
Depending on the attackers a simple cantrip might serve the same purpose.

All natural beasts are scared of fire. Many are scared of certain scents, etc.

And that's why I think it's good the morale rules were removed:
Let the DM decide if there's a chance that enemies are intimidated by the pcs' actions. Fluff text should be sufficient to indicate if a certain type of creature is more susceptible to being scared off than others.

It's also often a DM decision based on the dynamics of an adventure:
If a fight seems to drag on although the outcome is clear, let the enemies surrender or flee. In an adventure focusing on stealth, if the party surprises a bunch of mercenaries in their rest room, it might be the best choice to have them surrender, immediately, so the infiltration of the enemy base may continue without interruption.

On the flip-side there may be situations where enemies would never be intimated by anything the pcs might do. E.g. because they're scared to death to face the wrath of their masters.

In 4e official modules generally include guidelines about the enemies' morale in their tactics section. Often, surviving enemies will automatically flee once their leader is dead and half or more of them are bloodied or something like that.

Having general, hard and fast morale rules is nice, but simply not necessary.

 

[mxyzplk]

yes, and this is exactly why you cannot use your DM knowledge as the orc's knowledge in the situation. As a Dm, you know these orcs are fodder, minions even. But the orcs don't know this! Heck, they are the local tough guys!

Although often there are clues... I use the WoW comparison, where you can totally tell the difference between a pic of a high level character and a low level character. "Why's his sword glowing with a lambent black glow? And why are there little gems circling his head? And why does his helm look like it's made from a real dragon's head? Did his friend just teleport away? Crap!"

 

[Oni]

yes, and this is exactly why you cannot use your DM knowledge as the orc's knowledge in the situation. As a Dm, you know these orcs are fodder, minions even. But the orcs don't know this! Heck, they are the local tough guys!

And this is perfect example of why there were morale rules. To help the DM maintain a smidgen of impartiality. A mechanical aid to sidestep personal bias, or to provide an answer when he wasn't sure.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I hadn't noticed anyone mention this, but it's rather important so I thought I'd better. In all this talk about intimidate people seem to be overlooking that it is NOT a replacement of any kind for morale. Intimidate is a SKILL - in 3E terms it's a Standard Action, which means it must be a conscious effort on the part of the PC and prohibits him from taking a different Standard Action such as actually ATTACKING. In previous editions the check of morale was something that happened as a matter of course. It didn't matter if any PC wanted the enemy to break morale the morale rules determined when the check took place and what parameters influenced the check. PC actions and intentions were purely incidental to morale results, whereas use of the Intimidation skill is entirely dependant upon not just a PC sacrificing the ability to take other action in order to attempt it but relies entirely on the PC and HIS direct efforts to bring modifiers to bear upon the result. And, as has been noted, the difference in results is rather drastic as well - the entire SIDE fleeing or at least attempting to withdraw from combat as opposed to ONE INDIVIDUAL OPPONENT being inflicted ONLY with the Shaken condition (whereupon any combat continues otherwise unabated).

Morale checks and Intimidate checks are for any practical purpose QUITE unrelated.