Generalizing monster tactics/aggro

[Lord Xtheth]

What may be causing the confusion is that there WAS morale in Basic D&D, circa 1981. I believe it was resolved on a 2d6 roll? I just looked up my D&D rules cyclopedia, and sure enough, there it is.

Yeah, I guess my AD&D monster Manual from copyright date 1977-1978 VS. my AD&D2nd ed from 1996 isn't realy a fair comparison

 

[Plane Sailing]

Yeah, I guess my AD&D monster Manual from copyright date 1971-1972

That would be a neat trick considering that even OD&D wasn't out then

 

[Lord Xtheth]

That would be a neat trick considering that even OD&D wasn't out then

Orriginal post edited.

My stupidity when typing numbers aside, my statement is still true

 

[Grog]

I'm pretty sure that 1E did have morale, it just wasn't given a line in the monster stat blocks. I think the rules were in the DMG.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The 1e DMG had morale rules (p67) with general rules for humans, humanoids and intelligent monsters, although base morale was only determined by HD. I guess it was a 2e refinement to add a 'morale' line for creatures - although a quick look through my monstrous manual doesn't actually reveal in the MM what you were expected to use that figure for!

 

[Fifth Element]

But I don't know that users need to be given the keywords.

Why not? Why keep something like that from the people who are actually going to use the rules? If you can summarize several sentences for me by calling it "wolfpack", for example, I'm all for it.

There should be no veil between the designers and the users, particularly DMs. It should be easier to make changes to the rules if you know how the rules you are changing were designed.

 

[Klaus]

The 1e DMG had morale rules (p67) with general rules for humans, humanoids and intelligent monsters, although base morale was only determined by HD. I guess it was a 2e refinement to add a 'morale' line for creatures - although a quick look through my monstrous manual doesn't actually reveal in the MM what you were expected to use that figure for!

The rules for that were in the DMG (IIRD, next to a full picture of a cleric in black chainmail and red robes turning a few undead). IIRC (again), you rolled 1d20 against the morale number if any number of events occurred (dropped to 50% or fewer hp, friends dying, etc, etc) and if you rolled below that number, the creature kept on fighting. If you equaled or surpassed that number, it fled, so Fearless had a rating of 20.

 

[frankthedm]

"Wolfpack" (all monsters in group focus attacks on single most dangerous foe in effort to bring it down quickly)

"Predator" (attacks weakest-looking enemy)

Thing is "wolfpack", is not really about attacking the stronger foe, unless there is only one foe, it is about skirmishing to minimize damage to the pack while they distract defenders to get at whoever was being protected.

I don't think any animal ever tries to fight the strongest member of a pack of prey just to fight the strongest. The wolfpack tries to get the strongest away from the rest of the pack, but then the real attack on the young, old or infirm {in human cases, unarmored] is launched.

 

[Delta]

Really? Can someone confirm this? I could have sworn that the stat block in 1e contained a morale entry. But, am I confusing this with Basic/Expert D&D?

Excerpt from 1E AD&D MM attached.

 

[Imp]

I am fine with tactics and morale information being placed in the monster descriptions... there's enough variety possible that it really should comprise half the description, at least, for a lot of monsters, and "what's it like to fight one?" provides better flavor than history, ecology, etc. I don't think it really needs to be super-systematized. They just need to talk about it more than in the early 3e books.