Morale Checks

[LostSoul]

This is pretty much off the cuff.

At the end of each round, the monsters may have to make a morale check. They roll their Will (Will Defence -10 + 1d20) against an Easy DC set by the level of the party.

Triggers for morale checks:
- Leader is in a bad way or dead
- 1/2 or more of the monsters are in a bad way or dead
- In a bad way: Bloodied, stunned, dominated, prone + dazed, immobilized + no ranged attack, etc. DM should make a judgement call.

Modifiers to DC:
- per "bad way"/dead monster: +2
- leader dead: +5
- per "bad way" PC: -2
- per unconcious/dead PC: -5
- per monster not in a bad way: -2

Result of Failure: Monsters change tactics. Possible options are:
- run for it
- threaten coup de grace on downed PC
- attempt parley
- offer bribe
- surrender
- exhaust limited resources?

 

[eriktheguy]

I like morale checks.
Since this is 'off the cuff' I'm sure you don't mind criticism and suggestions.

So here are my suggestions
- To reduce book keeping, only force morale checks when 1/2 monsters die, or leader dies
- Enemies that are dead, unconscious, surrender, retreated count as "dead"
- Leaders do not make morale checks, they only 'change tactics' by their own will
- I would say +1 DC per monster down, -1 DC per PC down (they will add fast)
- You don't need a minus to DC per monster up, this would just amplify the above rule
- For all calculations of the number of monsters; elites count as 2, solos count as 5, 4 minions count as 1
- Instead of leaders affecting the DC, a leader can make an intimidate or diplomacy check when a morale check is triggered. Monsters use this roll or the result of their morale check, whichever is higher


As a side rule: (Since your moral rule seems to blend well with the intimidate rules...)

When a player makes an intimidate check to force a foe to surrender, the monster to make a morale check against the players intimidate result rather than using the normal rules. This check is subject to the above modifiers and influence by leaders. If the foe fails the check, they must either run, surrender, parlay or offer a bribe.

 

[Nytmare]

Do you really a need for a complex set of rules to take the place of the DM's brain for this?

Assessing combat on the fly and deciding to make the bad guys cut and run because they're outnumbered/the fight is going to be a slow boring loss seems like a much simpler process than checking a die roll against a list of modifiers and charts every round.

 

[LostSoul]

Nice suggestions, erik. edit: Can someone rep him for me?

When a player makes an intimidate check to force a foe to surrender, the monster to make a morale check against the players intimidate result rather than using the normal rules. This check is subject to the above modifiers and influence by leaders. If the foe fails the check, they must either run, surrender, parlay or offer a bribe.

About Intimidation...

Hmm... the original post came about from a new "quick combat" thing I'm trying out, where everyone takes their action at the same time and morale checks are made at the end of the round.

I don't know how it would work in normal turn-by-turn combat.

Do you really a need for a complex set of rules to take the place of the DM's brain for this?

The idea is that the DM can ignore the results if he wants, but there's a signal that "grind" might be about to occur. What's more, if the DM takes the referee role - impartial arbiter of the world - this sort of mechanic is helpful.

 

[the Jester]

I often use off-the-cuff morale checks, but I base it on a saving throw with arbitrary situational modifiers. It's much quicker than a formal system.

That said, I miss the days when every monster had a morale value in its stat block.

 

[LostSoul]

I often use off-the-cuff morale checks, but I base it on a saving throw with arbitrary situational modifiers. It's much quicker than a formal system.

That might be a better way to handle it.

I think one benefit to a (more) formal system is that the players could attempt to work it. They might be in over their heads and try to force a morale check to get the other guys to break ranks and run.

Then again, they can do this now - and in a more natural way - by telling the DM what they're trying to accomplish.

But again, players often overlook logical, in-game choices for what's written on their power cards; a formal subsystem might remind them what's possible.

 

[eriktheguy]

I agree that making a simple rule to handle it would encourage players to do it more often. Wizards tried this with the intimidate skill and failed miserably.

Here's an idea that uses existing rules
Intimidation skill challenge:
When things look bad, the players resort to wit instead of might to defeat their foes.
Requirements: The players may initiate the skill challenge if an enemy group has had a leader slain, half the enemies are bloodied/dead, or some other factor makes them particularly scary. The DM has the final say on who can be intimidated.
The challenge begins when a success is scored.
Primary skill: Intimidate, the party may use bluff and diplomacy each once.
Level: Level of encounter. The DM can assign modifiers to fearless or cowardly enemies.
Complexity: Complexity 1 (default system), 4 successes in 2 rounds (Stalker0's Obsidian system)
Failure: The challenge ends, the players may try again by restarting the challenge.
Success: The enemies are demoralized. Each enemy makes a saving throw, those that fail either retreat or surrender. Those that succeed can retreat, parlay, continue fighting, etc.
Special: Any player that scores a critical hit or kills an enemy during the challenge earns a success. If a leader is present, the number of successes required increases by 2.