Morale

[S'mon]

Going very off topic, but an English longbowman was mandated to train at range and could hit targets at 200 to 400 yards depending on source. A 5th level 3e archer has about a -10 attack modifier to shoot 300 yards, so about 1 in 4 chance to hit an immobile man-sized target (AC 5) which rises to 50% chance if you take the time to aim.

IMO with a +10 aimed-shot attack bonus it should be around 1 in 4 to hit a static (AC 5) man-sized target at 200 yards, ie needing roll of 16+ to hit, or a net 10+16=26+. That would indicate a -21 to-hit mod, let's call it -20, or 11 range increments in the 3e range system. Whereas in 3e 200 yards = 600' = 6 range increments, so ranges are about twice what they should be.

Edit: I'm using AB +10 as an appropriate number for a talented real-world competition archer; in 3e he'd be around 4th level Ranger. YMMV eg if you think no one in the real world is over 1st level then we can put a cap at BAB +1, +1 masterwork bow, +4 DEX 18, +1 weapon focus = +7, still pretty close.

 

[amerigoV]

BX, 1e etc have % Evasion numbers that work fine.

With 3e-4e if the pursuer is as fast or faster then you roll a few Endurance and/or Stealth type rolls. If the pursuee is faster then they always get away, perhaps after a parting shot or two.

In the immortal words of Doc Brown, "You are not thinking 4th dimensionally!"

Those might be fast, but they certainly are not much in the way of fun. I am thinking along the lines of Savage Worlds chase system especially their newest verision (Deluxe). There may be other systems out there was well. But something that breakouts out of "there is a long tunnel, roll endurance twice and see what happens" vs. dashing through a crowded market, overturning stands and leaping over counters, a wagon crosses your path unexpectedly from a side street, etc. Chase rules need to be as thrilling as combat (and as easy as running a combat on the fly), not like making a profession check to see if you fixed a sword IMO.

 

[S'mon]

In the immortal words of Doc Brown, "You are not thinking 4th dimensionally!"

Those might be fast, but they certainly are not much in the way of fun. I am thinking along the lines of Savage Worlds chase system especially their newest verision (Deluxe). There may be other systems out there was well. But something that breakouts out of "there is a long tunnel, roll endurance twice and see what happens" vs. dashing through a crowded market, overturning stands and leaping over counters, a wagon crosses your path unexpectedly from a side street, etc. Chase rules need to be as thrilling as combat (and as easy as running a combat on the fly), not like making a profession check to see if you fixed a sword IMO.

I don't find anything fun when it's unnecessarily dragged out like that. My fun comes from getting on with the actual game. If you want to craft a whole scenario around an extended chase sequence, fine, go for it. I'm interested in impromptu play - the ability to run a fun, fast game without extensive scripting.

Kinda the opposite of my experience of Savage Worlds, in fact. "Fast! Furious! Fun!", my a**.

Edit: I was going to type that I've never in my life enjoyed a cinematic chase sequence. But I can think of one - near the beginning of the recent Captain America movie. The outcome was in doubt, plus it had character interaction, not just cheesy leaping over applecarts stuff.

 

[Grazzt]

I don't find anything fun when it's unnecessarily dragged out like that. If you want to craft a whole scenario around an extended chase sequence, fine, go for it. I'm interested in impromptu play - the ability to run a fun, fast game without extensive scripting.

Agreed. We've run plenty of chases in 1e/2e without needing hard/fast rules for it. Just check the move speed of the PCs/NPCs/monsters involved and go from there.

 

[Weregrognard]

I'd like to see morale as an optional rule in core, and clearly indicated as such (a la 2e).

Also, a call me crazy, but I'd like to to see the return of the reaction table, with Charisma (and maybe feats, class features, whatever) modifying the roll instead of "I Diplomatize him."

 

[saskganesh]

I really like simple morale rules and use them all the time.

PC's are never affected by them of course. But they can act more heroic knowing that many of their opponents just might flee or surrender in response to a deadly round of attacks.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Some DM's may need rules for morale because they are not yet experienced enough to understand or at least utilize the concept. That said, morale is a rule for wargaming - not for RPG's. It effectively shoves aside a LARGE chunk of ROLEplaying for ROLLplaying. That is, it undermines what the game is SUPPOSED to orient around. DM's do need to appreciate that not every fight is to the death. Not all monsters will go down clawing and biting. Many will realize, just as a PC may realize, that they are in over their heads and decide to save their skin rather than make a doomed, desperate stand. However, that is not something that ultimately needs to be DICTATED to a DM by morale rules. It is something that needs to be EXPLAINED by appropriate discussion of the topic in a DM's guide and/or Monster Manual.

If a large number of people feel differently; feel that D&D needs mandatory morale checks and morale ratings for every monster and NPC, well, who am I to tell them they're wrong? Go ahead and put morale rules in the game if there is sufficient insistence. I will simply ignore such rules, much as I ignore my own bodys appendix. That is: Someday it might make its presence painfully known - but the solution to the issue will be to simply REMOVE IT.

 

[LostSoul]

Yes, but NOT d20 based! And for God's sake, not Will Save/Will Defense based!

Morale is a group dynamic. It works best with a bell curve system, 2d6 (BX) or 2d10 (2e) roll over morale and they flee, type of approach. Trying to shoehorn it into d20-roll-over would be a really bad idea.

Why do you think that? This is what I use and I am always looking to improve my mechanics.

 

[was]

I'd say yes, for monsters and npcs. They should not always fight to the death.

 

[saskganesh]

Having rules for something doesn't take away the DM's right to decide otherwise.

Some DM's may need rules for morale because they are not yet experienced enough to understand or at least utilize the concept. That said, morale is a rule for wargaming - not for RPG's. It effectively shoves aside a LARGE chunk of ROLEplaying for ROLLplaying. That is, it undermines what the game is SUPPOSED to orient around. DM's do need to appreciate that not every fight is to the death. Not all monsters will go down clawing and biting. Many will realize, just as a PC may realize, that they are in over their heads and decide to save their skin rather than make a doomed, desperate stand. However, that is not something that ultimately needs to be DICTATED to a DM by morale rules. It is something that needs to be EXPLAINED by appropriate discussion of the topic in a DM's guide and/or Monster Manual.

If a large number of people feel differently; feel that D&D needs mandatory morale checks and morale ratings for every monster and NPC, well, who am I to tell them they're wrong? Go ahead and put morale rules in the game if there is sufficient insistence. I will simply ignore such rules, much as I ignore my own bodys appendix. That is: Someday it might make its presence painfully known - but the solution to the issue will be to simply REMOVE IT.

The violence of your response is intriguing Mr. Hat.

I like a loose system. So in play, a morale roll is like a reaction roll. Or a wandering monster chart. Or a treasure composition table. None of these are dictating to the DM, but they are results that can be used.

Anyway, it's not just inexperienced DM's who like this kind of rule. And it's not just those awful awful wargamers. It doesn't undermine anything. I don't think you have built much of a case for your argument. Of course, you are free to ignore the rule, and this post and the need for any coherent rebuttal. But if you do, take a step back and chill out first.