Morale systems

[heretic888]

In 4e, not even necessarily death, just defeat - when you drop someone to 0, you can decide what happens to them, just KO them or whatever, instead of leaving them dying.

Yep. If pushed into a corner, I would describe hit points as one's capacity to turn a serious blow into a glancing blow or a near miss. This "capacity", however we define it, still has no clear relationship to a character's physical or psychological state as evidenced by the fact that it only indirectly interfaces with any of the game's other procedures or subsystems.

In 4e, Bloodied can bear on both.

Yes, there are a few powers, feats, and traits that interface with the Bloodied condition. However, as I pointed out earlier, the game doesn't care if you are Bloodied with 49% of your hit points or Bloodied with 1% of your hit points.

And, you already have separate-from-hd conditions (and can arbitrarily apply just about anything in the same manner, thanks to exception-based design), breaking an enemy's morale (temporarily if the fight isn't all but over) could be rattled, dazed or even stunned, for instance.

Yes, there are multiple ways to represent "morale" in the game. Morale saves are just another way of representing it.

One minor variation, apart from just having enemies break and run or break & surrender when it seems reasonable, would be to set lower DCs for it when the tide has clearly turned against their side and/or they're prone to surrender or run for any other reason...

Sounds like a good use of the DM's Best Friend to me.

Using a Skill Challenge structure parallel to the combat I could see, yes. It gives you a separate path to resolution.

The key to using this approach effectively is to have a goal for your encounters other than "not die" or "kill all the orcs".

The advantage of Abdul's approach is that it keeps the system 'simple' (less complicated? more elegant?), by using the existing mechanisms - hps, healing/regen, damage/conditions, traits, to model enemies with unusually good or poor morale. It seems like more than a few powers also want to model shaking enemy morale in various ways, already, too.

The skill challenge solution would share that advantage.

I'm not sure that approach is particularly "simple", I mean immediate saving throws are also part of the game's existing architecture too (such as when a character makes a save to avoid being forced into dangerous terrain). It sounds to me like adding a bunch of conditional traits to enemies and I generally think monsters having healing is a bad idea in 4E to begin with. Personally, as a GM it sounds like adding a bunch of book-keeping to the game without much real benefit.

Like I touched upon in my last post, I have other goals with my system other than "simulating morale" (although it does that too):
* Makes combat faster and more chaotic.
* Gives more agency to the players.
* Gives more flexibility in using hard or very hard encounters without overwhelming the players.
* Discourages the preeminence of focus-fire tactics.
* Promotes a cast of recurring villains or NPCs for more story-focused campaigns.
* Doesn't significantly add to the game's complexity or book-keeping.

I'm not sure what goal adding conditional traits to monster stat blocks reaches but it does sound like more complexity to how I usually run my games.

 

[heretic888]

No it can be multiple with one action relevant quote.

"If you attempt to intimidate multiple enemies at once, make a separate Intimidate check against each enemy’s Will defense. Each target must be able to see and hear you."

Great, didn't now that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yep. If pushed into a corner, I would describe hit points as one's capacity to turn a serious blow into a glancing blow or a near miss.

That's very 1e AD&D DMG of you. And, yeah, I'm fine with that.

Yes, there are multiple ways to represent "morale" in the game. Morale saves are just another way of representing it.

My concern is that it seems like a novel (to 4e, obviously it's old-school) mechanic. Like Abdul, I have a preference for using existing mechanics, if possible, to keep the game consistent. Saves in 4e are a duration mechanic. Hmm... I suppose it could be the 'duration of your courage...'

I mean immediate saving throws are also part of the game's existing architecture too (such as when a character makes a save to avoid being forced into dangerous terrain).

OK, there is /one/ example of a save that's not strictly speaking a duration mechanic. Fine. And, I suppose, in some instances, where the battlefield is just super-deadly, it can have an extreme effect of just being out of the fight or not. Fair point.

I guess establishing that team monster in a given encounter has 'brittle morale' or something would be like establishing that there's a bottomless pit or high cliff or the like, and anyone pushed over it is out of the combat - just one the PCs can't be pushed off. That'd make the combat 'easier' so you could have bigger exp budget...

...OK, I see it.

The key to using this approach effectively is to have a goal for your encounters other than "not die" or "kill all the orcs".

Nod. You can still kill all the orcs, and then complete the goal at leisure, but if you can complete it while any of them are alive, the fight no longer matters so much. The orcs give up, or you can evade them, or whatever, you can 'story-mode' the rest of it.

I'm not sure that approach is particularly "simple", It sounds to me like adding a bunch of conditional traits to enemies and I generally think monsters having healing is a bad idea in 4E to begin with. Personally, as a GM it sounds like adding a bunch of book-keeping to the game without much real benefit.

The benefit is what you want out of it, if modeling good morale (and thus longer, to-the-bitter-end combats) vs poor morale (shorter combats that end quickly when the tide turns), while using the existing mechanics in consistent ways, it seems reasonable.

 

[heretic888]

That's very 1e AD&D DMG of you. And, yeah, I'm fine with that.

I would add though, that since this "damage mitigation capacity" doesn't affect anything else about your character -- not your attacks, your defenses, etc --- that I see them more along the lines of "plot points" or "protagonist points" or whatever. Its clearly independent of a character's overall fighting ability or mental state.

My concern is that it seems like a novel (to 4e, obviously it's old-school) mechanic. Like Abdul, I have a preference for using existing mechanics, if possible, to keep the game consistent. Saves in 4e are a duration mechanic. Hmm... I suppose it could be the 'duration of your courage...'

I like that.

OK, there is /one/ example of a save that's not strictly speaking a duration mechanic. Fine. And, I suppose, in some instances, where the battlefield is just super-deadly, it can have an extreme effect of just being out of the fight or not. Fair point.

I guess establishing that team monster in a given encounter has 'brittle morale' or something would be like establishing that there's a bottomless pit or high cliff or the like, and anyone pushed over it is out of the combat - just one the PCs can't be pushed off. That'd make the combat 'easier' so you could have bigger exp budget...

...OK, I see it.

Yeah, one of my goals with the system was to give more wiggle room with using higher XP budgets for encounters.

Nod. You can still kill all the orcs, and then complete the goal at leisure, but if you can complete it while any of them are alive, the fight no longer matters so much. The orcs give up, or you can evade them, or whatever, you can 'story-mode' the rest of it.

Yep, its all about establishing interesting conflicting stakes during your scenes.

The benefit is what you want out of it, if modeling good morale (and thus longer, to-the-bitter-end combats) vs poor morale (shorter combats that end quickly when the tide turns), while using the existing mechanics in consistent ways, it seems reasonable.

Oh, it sounds perfectly reasonable to me too. I just personally dislike a) giving healing to enemies and b) making stat blocks more complicated and fiddly.

I should point out that I am a very, very lazy GM. One of the reasons I prefer Story Now style of play is it puts more of the burden on the players for running the show and I get to riff off their ideas and hooks. Anything that gives me more work to do is a no no in my book (one of the reasons I never took up 5E, incidentally).

 

[Garthanos]

I should point out that I am a very, very lazy GM.

Fixing intimidate to be more reliable CAN put more in the hands of the player wrt do they want to keep thrashing it out or get it over with. Making it easier might reduce the temptation to over optimize it as well.

 

[heretic888]

Fixing intimidate to be more reliable CAN put more in the hands of the player wrt do they want to keep thrashing it out or get it over with. Making it easier might reduce the temptation to over optimize it as well.

My problem with that is it makes Intimidate too much of a must have skill. What other skill could subdue an enemy with several hundred hit points remaining with a single roll? The high DC is clearly intended to make that use of the skill relatively rare and/or only really useful against enemies much lower level than yours.

Personally, I think using Intimidate in this fashion was a poorly thought out rule to begin. To me, using skills to end an encounter early is something that should involve more than one character and is clearly the purview of Skill Challenges.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Personally, I think using Intimidate in this fashion was a poorly thought out rule to begin.

I suppose the Intimidate rule would make a bit more sense if it differentiated among secondary roles. You should be able to intimidate minions, for instance, pretty easily, but because they're' never bloodied...? (start intimidating minions after you kill half of them?) There's at least as much fight left in a just-bloodied Elite as a fresh Standard, let alone a Solo. 1/4 hps for an Elite, and 1/10th for a Solo would make sense?

To me, using skills to end an encounter early is something that should involve more than one character and is clearly the purview of Skill Challenges.

I do like that idea. It's one less odd-rule-out (Intimidate is unusual working the way it does in combat), and one more thing to do with SCs.

The structure could be as simple as X successes before 3 failures, Intimidate primary, advantage: each bloodied standard enemy counts as a success...

 

[Garthanos]

Intermediate Intimidate Results mayhaps

My problem with that is it makes Intimidate too much of a must have skill. What other skill could subdue an enemy with several hundred hit points remaining with a single roll? The high DC is clearly intended to make that use of the skill relatively rare and/or only really useful against enemies much lower level than yours.

Yes I thought about that and the swing really sucks

Arguably there may be attacks able to do it against 1 enemy at a time if you are an optimized striker build they are not going to be multi-target encounter powers.

One could reduce the difficulty against singular enemies only ... so that if someone is optimizing
then they are a striker in this realm I think they spend backgrounds and feats and items (or martial techniques towards this end) then they rather are the specialist. AND only do the swingy feel if desparate against multiple opponents

but there may be something else ie intermediate results. I mean Intimidiate is supposed to influence someone to do something against their better judgement (ie force them to use an action inconvenient in combat would be akin to many of the effects of controller at-wills) a small amount of psychic damage perhaps to top it off we have to compete with at-wills

Personally, I think using Intimidate in this fashion was a poorly thought out rule to begin. To me, using skills to end an encounter early is something that should involve more than one character and is clearly the purview of Skill Challenges.

Only a partial skill challenge I think if you have significant amounts of the enemy already bloodied and the making a new roll against every enemy is rather akin to a 1 man skill challenge and bad juju in the 4e game philosophy I completely agree.

 

[Garthanos]

I do like that idea. It's one less odd-rule-out (Intimidate is unusual working the way it does in combat), and one more thing to do with SCs.

i have been thinking most every man skill actions like the recently conceived Distract and adjusted Aid Defense and ANY skill applied in combat as a standard action need to balance directly against At-wills due to action economy or they will not get used or will get over used...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think it works well - there may be problems with the Intimidate as a route to end of fight but it was made hit point dependent (so philosophically its not a blow regardless of the very likely problem of mechanics such as skill pumping and so on)

Insert the discussion here of the problem with sleep spell and you may see my point of view on it with the two of us swapping seats.

@heretic888
My problem splitting it is basically distinguishing willingness and ability to fight on in a way that just isnt done in game AND that not distinguishing is why healing is called both healing and inspiration and similar things all over in the game as it stands.

About Intimidate - likely if you do uber optimize it you can end the fight entirely multiple enemies knocked from bloodied to functionally zero, with one standard action.

Which is exactly the problem with Intimidate. It works on a completely different set of rules than all other forms of defeating your opponents. This makes it a sort of an all-or-nothing kind of a gamble. That doesn't really match with how I would think intimidation works at all!
[MENTION=60326]heretic888[/MENTION] claims that hit points "don't simulate anything", but I think that's not true! I think what they PRIMARILY simulate is "willingness to fight". When you reach zero hit points then your opponent has imposed his will upon you. This is the goal of all violent conflict. Any ROTC 'theory of war' class will teach you that.

By putting Intimidate into the fold of the normal mechanics it is now allowed to work in a much more natural way. You intimidate someone, they become closer to submission. Different techniques naturally 'stack' together. If I beat on the enemy and the bard demoralizes them, those are synergistic techniques.

I mean, 4e's intimidation rules SORT OF were synergistic with other forms of combat that do damage in that it normally required a bloodied opponent, but then there were a whole host of ways to get around that, as well as a whole array of optimization techniques which are at odds with optimizations for fighting (which doesn't really make sense, the most intimidating guy is the biggest bad-ass). It is just a mechanical situation which was ripe for problems.