dave2008
Legend
Morale as in the 2014 DMG - so it is still a 5e thing
D&D General Mechanics of starting a combat & ending a combat
- Thread starter TheSword
- Start date
TheSword
Warhammer Fantasy Imperial Plenipotentiary
Well there are tons of rules to run combat… or do you just decide whether the PC and monsters hit or not.
I think ultimately this is still a DM judgement based approach. It’s just offering guidance. DM decides what is a clever use of terrain. DM decides if and who the leader is, elites etc.
I wouldn’t see it as an attempt to force a DMs hand. More a way of incentivizing interesting behaviors from players. Of course if the party just likes kicking doors down and then killing whoever is on the other side then this isn’t going to be useful.
Its funny, I was thinkint the exact opposite as the person you replied to. This sounds like even more "need to sweet talk GM" as the one negative point. The "know thy terrain" and "know thy players" (the know the enemy a bit less), just sounds like "sweet talk and argue with the GM", which most RPGs have too much of it anyway. So for me this needs absolute clear rules without GM fiat, else there is no tactical part of it.
In General I think having rules on how to end combat without killing enemies is good. This can allow combat which is still tactical (aka not done in 2-3 turns by just bursting down) and still have combats not drag on longer than needed. So thats great.
Killing the leader(s) to end combat is also something you see a lot of fiction, and is used as a mechanic in the RPG Computer game Resonance of Fate. And it allows to have broader variety in combat.
Maybe I am understanding it wrong, but you need to have a superiority higher than enemy resolve to win a fight, but you can spend superiority? This sounds like a (potential) trap option then. You make combat harder/go longer by giving you a one time bonus to a roll.
(It is of course fine, if you keep the maximum resovle + a bonus to a roll).
What I think is a bit unecessarily complicated is: Why are these 2 ressources? Resolve is only needed in comparison to superiority. So why not just have this 1 "tag of war" type of ressource.
If you reach lets say 5 superiority you win, and whenever enemies would gain resolve, the superiority is just 1 lower.
TheSword
Warhammer Fantasy Imperial Plenipotentiary
It might be my poor explanation. Just to clarify.
Superiority isn’t spent, it’s accrues and is lost through major actions during and before the conflict.
Resolve doest change - it’s a measure of how committed the enemy is. It’s a number assigned to the NPCs rather than a meta currency. In D&D terms Superiority is the save modifier and Resolve is the DC.
Regarding sweet talking the DM. It’s definitely not an adversarial DM thing. If that’s the dynamic this ain’t working for you.
Last edited:
Adding more clarity from the OP, you can "use superiority" once per round to get a bonus, but its not spent, that's just a straight up bonus you get.
In dnd terms, you have two pieces here:
1) The Superiority Bonus: An inspriation that can be used on a given round seems the simplest way to do that.
2) As a morale mechanic: This one is likely a bit trickier, dnd already has a few morale systems floating around, not sure if this is superior to any of those.
TheSword
Warhammer Fantasy Imperial Plenipotentiary
For me the straight up DC10 Wis saving throw is too arbitrary for me.
aco175
Legend
I was thinking that inspiration was the easiest to give as a bonus, but needs to be used in this encounter. You can just give it and not upset things if used in another encounter as well.
You can give out other bonuses to the group that anyone can use besides inspiration. Bumping a die roll by one or adding 2d6 damage to a hit are fun. Turning a die to critical is fun for the players or even turning a bad guy critical to normal hit works.
These are not as powerful as something that is used 1/round, but is a cool thing for planning and scouting and such.
You can give out other bonuses to the group that anyone can use besides inspiration. Bumping a die roll by one or adding 2d6 damage to a hit are fun. Turning a die to critical is fun for the players or even turning a bad guy critical to normal hit works.
These are not as powerful as something that is used 1/round, but is a cool thing for planning and scouting and such.
Ok if superiority isnt spent its better, but the "This superiority can be used once per round" sounded like you spend it, if not than thats fair.
Well the resolve might be a fixed number but the "home turf fighting" and the other things can increase it. And then I dont see a reason why this is its own thing, and not just adjusts superiority. Its not needed in that case, because its just compared to superiority anyway.
What exactly do you mean with this? I just dont like this "party game mechanics" of sweet talking the GM/guessing what they want to hear (the kind of things OSR is known for).
Why is a roll needed at all?
Just have enemy resolve bonus (being clever etc.) be removed from your own superiority, thats the value you start with, and if superiority hits 56 or 6 or 10 or whatever you want, they give up.
GMMichael
Guide of Modos
Somewhere in between. It seems weird that knowing your enemy and knowing the terrain grant special bonuses when they are already bonuses. "I know my enemy's weak spot." Great, hit him there. Do you really need a superiority system on top of that?
My NPCs don't use morale, but when they hit 50% health, they start making some key life decisions. "Do I want to risk my life to win this battle" has a clear-cut answer (for most humans, anyway). Unintelligent creatures are even easier - "feel pain? Run!" is a pretty clear-cut mantra.
Go for superiority/resolve if it works for you, but trying to see combat as a scene instead of boardgame rules goes a long way toward making combat more realistic.
Similar Threads
Enchanted Trinkets Complete
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 18 2026 -
October 1 2026
