D&D 5E Is morale used anymore?

Sacrosanct

Legend
Sometimes I get the impression that people don't use morale anymore. That every monster fights to the death unless the adventure explicitly says otherwise. To me, that doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, no intelligent creature stays and fights to the death unless it's got no other real choice.

Maybe because I come from an AD&D world, but morale is very important in my games because it offers a lot more possibilities in combat. It allows you to face a group that might be a TPK if everyone fought to the death beatable if you could take out the leader, or take out enough of them to cause the rest to flee. It makes the combat more realistic and allows additional options other than attacking (intimidation and persuasion really shine when you use morale).

Anyway, just a thought I've been having recently.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


cmad1977

Hero
I use morale all the time. It's jus not something I roll for. I generally assess the type of creature, it's motivations and the situation.
If creatures are low on hp or if their comrades/leaders are dead I will have them retreat/flee/surrender. It's more to keep fights with 1hp goblins from dragging on for round after round due to poor rolls.

Some creatures do fight to the death but those are usually intelligent beings/servants who are Dedicated to their goal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
Sometimes I get the impression that people don't use morale anymore. That every monster fights to the death unless the adventure explicitly says otherwise. To me, that doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, no intelligent creature stays and fights to the death unless it's got no other real choice.

Maybe because I come from an AD&D world, but morale is very important in my games because it offers a lot more possibilities in combat. It allows you to face a group that might be a TPK if everyone fought to the death beatable if you could take out the leader, or take out enough of them to cause the rest to flee. It makes the combat more realistic and allows additional options other than attacking (intimidation and persuasion really shine when you use morale).

Anyway, just a thought I've been having recently.

I think it's mostly about player expectation - "fight to the death" is kind of the default in every game I've played, so it's also my default when I DM.

I have used 5e's morale rules, a small handful of times, but each time it was sort of a sudden realization that I could. Like, "oh, yeah, that option exists and it'd be interesting!".

Something I'd like to pay more attention to, because I like the variable outcomes it produces!
 

flametitan

Explorer
I try to, but I forget to use it sometimes, despite knowing I really should. After all, my party got a well liked NPC out of me using it to have a hobgoblin surrender.
 


Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I've found having monsters flee is often just a delaying tactic prior to death. The way that damage is set up in 5e, unless a monster flees at 75% of hp, they likely won't get away. If fleeing into reinforcements is available, usually those reinforcements are already close enough to hear and join the current fight. If I wait until even half of a group is killed, or a monster hits the halfway point in hitpoints, the only option that results in survival is surrender. Otherwise, they're just cut down or run down as they flee. And, considering the time scales of combat, in the fictions bare seconds have passed between the turning point and the end of the combat -- barely enough time to register you're fubar before it's all over.

Now, I have used mechanics like dodging, but that just makes it easier for the party to run down the bad guys. Faster bad guys have a chance to run, so long as they're not closely engaged when they break, and if there's enough cover to break line of sight then they can and do get away. I often have a group do different things when they break -- those not engaged try to run while those engaged stay in the fight, recognizing they can't get away. More intelligent (or cowardly) things surrender, but, honestly, if you're a goblin who's pretty much killed on sight, what reasons would you have to trust that your surrender would result in your living? Most D&D monsters are not suffered to live by the "civilized" races.

Still, I do have monsters surrender when it makes sense for them to do so. Typically, though, a fight's over faster than most creatures can even register it went against them. Given most of my fights last around 4 rounds, that's not even 30 seconds between joining the fray and bleeding out on the ground. Smart monsters in a realistic sense would just run if they ever saw a ragtag group of persons, of varying races, walking around blithely in dangerous areas because they've been raised on stories of the boogeymen called "adventures".
 

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
I have retreats fairly often. The occasional surrender. It is certainly more realistic. It also helps to keep fights a little shorter and more varied in their outcome.

Now, I don't know the last time I made an actual moral check. I know I have a few times, but its been a while.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I've found having monsters flee is often just a delaying tactic prior to death. The way that damage is set up in 5e, unless a monster flees at 75% of hp, they likely won't get away. If fleeing into reinforcements is available, usually those reinforcements are already close enough to hear and join the current fight. If I wait until even half of a group is killed, or a monster hits the halfway point in hitpoints, the only option that results in survival is surrender. Otherwise, they're just cut down or run down as they flee. And, considering the time scales of combat, in the fictions bare seconds have passed between the turning point and the end of the combat -- barely enough time to register you're fubar before it's all over.

Now, I have used mechanics like dodging, but that just makes it easier for the party to run down the bad guys. Faster bad guys have a chance to run, so long as they're not closely engaged when they break, and if there's enough cover to break line of sight then they can and do get away. I often have a group do different things when they break -- those not engaged try to run while those engaged stay in the fight, recognizing they can't get away. More intelligent (or cowardly) things surrender, but, honestly, if you're a goblin who's pretty much killed on sight, what reasons would you have to trust that your surrender would result in your living? Most D&D monsters are not suffered to live by the "civilized" races.

Still, I do have monsters surrender when it makes sense for them to do so. Typically, though, a fight's over faster than most creatures can even register it went against them. Given most of my fights last around 4 rounds, that's not even 30 seconds between joining the fray and bleeding out on the ground. Smart monsters in a realistic sense would just run if they ever saw a ragtag group of persons, of varying races, walking around blithely in dangerous areas because they've been raised on stories of the boogeymen called "adventures".

That's an interesting point, where combat encounters only last a few rounds.
 

MostlyDm

Explorer
I try to, but I forget to use it sometimes, despite knowing I really should. After all, my party got a well liked NPC out of me using it to have a hobgoblin surrender.
Yep, in nearly every game I run, the party ends up with NPC allies from the small monstrous humanoids sooner or later.

Sometimes it’s just a lone goblin or kobold, but often times it ends up eventually being turned into an in-depth alliance, such as a current group’s Dragonborn Paladin that has two different kobold tribes that consider him to be their protector and chief.

Goblins and kobolds in particular are so cowardly and prone to surrender, and more intrinsically amusing/nonthreatening than some of the larger monstrous humanoids, that I find it happens quite often.
 

Remove ads

Top