Any good morale systems for 3.x/Pathfinder?

[garrowolf]

I liked that link. It has a good and simple morale system however I think that there is a better way of going about it. Reverse the situation

 

[Water Bob]

Yeah, it's simple, but it doesn't work. The librarian with the high WIL save will stand before a foe that sends the barbarian with the low WIL save running.

The GM has to know that the librarian will have a higher save DC than the barbarian that lives in blood.

The barbarian and the librarian face 7 bugbears. The barbarian has to fight 'em all, but he's faced these odds before and won. His morale is DC 10 WIL save.

The librarian has never picked up a sword in her life. She's pampered. All she's done is retrieved dusty scrolls for dusty old mages.

She might have a higher WIL save bonus, but she's got to roll DC 35.




The system works just fine.



The WIL save is used quite often for Fear saves...and what are Fear saves? They're basically morale checks.

 

[Cyberzombie]

Doesn't solve anything -- you still need rules for what those DCs are. I'll admit that it means not adding another subsystem, but it doesn't remove the need for work to be done. Unless you want to handwave the DCs, which I don't, and is why I posted this thread in the first place.

 

[Water Bob]

Doesn't solve anything -- you still need rules for what those DCs are. I'll admit that it means not adding another subsystem, but it doesn't remove the need for work to be done. Unless you want to handwave the DCs, which I don't, and is why I posted this thread in the first place.

What ever happened to good old GM judgement?

If you must have something written in stone, just use the standard DC categories.

0 = Very Easy
5 = Easy
10 = Average
15 = Tough
20 = Challenging
25 = Formidable
30 = Heroic
40 = Nearly Impossible

If you need more granularity, then use those above as a base and add/subtract 2 points.



Next, all you have to do is look at your troops and decide how likely it is that they'll fail morale.

An Ogre might be listed with an "Average" morale rating (DC 10). Goblins might find it "tough" to keep morale when things turn against them (DC 15).

Your librarian, from the earlier post might need a heroic roll (DC 30) to keep morale once things turn against her, but your seasoned barbarian, who's every day life is a battle for life and death, finds it easy (DC 5) to keep morale.


The last thing you need to do is decide when a Morale Check is appropriate. Use a simple, easy to remember, rule of thumb. I would think 50% casualties or 50% hit points lost.

Boom. All done. Simple morale system, using the existing rules.




EDIT: Here's how to put some granularity into the system. Goblins are rated as Tough, because they find it "tough" to keep morale when a check is called for. That's a DC 15 WILL save.

"Green" recruit goblins will have saves two points higher. DC 17. While, "elite" goblin warriors will have two points lower: DC 13.

 

[Vespucci]

If you really want Morale Checks rather than a 'skin' for hit points, I sketched the outline of a d20 conversion from Moldvay's Basic D&D morale system here. (You'll have to put up with some rejoicing over the axing of Leadership in Trailblazer - the morale notes are towards the end, around the bullet points.)

 

[mmadsen]

I have long felt that posturing should hold a major place in "combat" -- with cool-looking combat gear -- plumed helms, war standards, etc. -- made cool-looking specifically in order to be literally awesome.

Some enemies will fight to the death. The horde of zombies will keep coming until the PCs have defeated it; the construct guarding the crypt will not stop until it is a pile of rubble.

I keep returning to the idea of zombies taking "critical hits" when they "should" die -- but they keep coming, minus an arm, or while advancing up the shaft of the spear, etc.

Really, anything that keeps fighting at all after getting wounded, when it could slink off, is pretty unusual. Berserkers should be scary not because they're using a special berserk-rage power, but because they're trying to kill you more than they're trying to stay alive.

There are four times as many orcs as PCs. At what point are they going to realize they're dropping like flies and their numbers are *not* an advantage this time?

If we take this outside our gaming experience, and we totally remove the expectation of a fight to the death, it's not clear that the orcs even attack in the first place. What do they think they're going to get out of it? And who wants to be the first orc to charge the great elf champion with the glowing sword?

In the source material (Lord of the Rings), the orcs cower in fear of a single (assumed) great elf champion, a simple hobbit with a magic sword -- and, unknown to them, at least not consciously, a ring of power.

Anyway, if their sergeant yells, "C'mon you apes, you wanna live forever?" it's not clear that they then attack in good order. They probably start posturing -- yelling, smacking their shields with their weapons, stomping their feet, etc. If the other side doesn't turn and run, then they might start to wonder, "Who are these guys?"

If their leader motivates them, and they do charge, they expect the enemy to drop their shields, turn, and run. That's how you win a battle. If that doesn't happen, they might start wondering, "Are we going to win?" Guys in the back might be happy to stay there, and losing the front line without pushing the enemy back would be bad news.

You wouldn't need anywhere near 50 percent casualties to trigger a rout. (I suppose proportions get a bit weird with only five or ten guys on a side though.)

So, I suspect you'd be best served by a morale system with some numbers -- like an Intimidate skill with bonuses for cool-looking gear -- but with checks not-so-rigidly defined and results not so binary. Under 3E's rules, for instance, a successful intimidate check leaves the target shaken for 1 round, when it should probably leave them shaken indefinitely, potentially frightened, and even panicked.

 

[garrowolf]

I guess the system ate my original post.

Anyway I liked the linked system mechanic, however I would reverse the situation. Instead of having a morale check by the followers, have a motivation check by their leader. Use the same points that the linked articles says (lost 1/2 forces, faced with greater numbers or greater power, etc) and require that the leader make a motivation check to keep them going. If the leader dies and they face one of those morale shaken points then they either flee or someone else steps forward as a leader.

Then the randomness of the situation is taken out. Instead of the PCs just thinking that they are fighting or fleeing based on a die roll they are asking why did they keep fighting? Did they flee too soon for a reason? Are they falling back to a better position? Are they protecting something that they care about or are they more scarred of their leaders then they are of dying at your hand?

The die roll on the motivation check for the leader makes sense either way. He was motivating or not so motivating at that moment. Maybe they hate him and want you to kill their leader.

By shifting the kind of check it opens up the player to be able to figure out the behaviour of the enemy and it makes them more realistic and all with a simpler roll.

 

[Vespucci]

I don't see anything wrong with players checking morale for their characters' retainers (except when morale is being used as loyalty). But if you go into a 'motivation' check, it strikes me that players will claim that they should be able to apply the character's ranks in Persuasion (Diplomacy) or Intimidate. That makes setting the DC much more difficult - it's either going to be impossible for low-level characters to keep retainers from failing morale, or trivially easy for high-level ones.

Establishing that the troops can be rallied (as an action) gives most of what you want out of 'motivation', without running into the DC problem.

edit: Additionally, the ref should always "interpret" a die roll. Finding out that the hobgoblins failed morale is not the end of the tale. A ref can come up with any number of explanations for this result (and needs to for themselves, as well as the players). Motivation from a leader may be a common explanation, but I think it's a mistake to make that the default.

 

[Cyberzombie]

Boom. All done. Simple morale system, using the existing rules.

All right, you've managed to persuade me. I must admit that the "using the existing rules" part won me over after a day's contemplation and reading this new post. I'd probably tinker with it to make it less simple -- this IS D&D, and who wants simple D&D rules? -- but your logic is solid.

Mmadsen: I don't want to go too far down the path of realism. This is D&D (well, Pathfinder, same diff) and I want to keep the feel of the PCs wading up to their hips in the blood and entrails of their foes. But I also want the mooks to have *some* sense and eventually break and run. Your points would definitely be valid if I wanted something more realistic, though.

 

[Water Bob]

All right, you've managed to persuade me.

Glad I could help!

I'd probably tinker with it to make it less simple -- this IS D&D, and who wants simple D&D rules?

I think the more simple, the better. Easy to remember. Easy to implement.

But, I was just writing off the top of my head.

Please return to this thread and post what you come up with. I'd like to see what you create.