Morale

Should 5e Have Morale Rules?

  • No

    Votes: 25 15.8%
  • Yes, for monsters and npcs only

    Votes: 82 51.9%
  • Yes, for monsters, npcs and pcs alike

    Votes: 14 8.9%
  • Yes, in an optional module

    Votes: 78 49.4%
  • Yes, as a core rule.

    Votes: 13 8.2%
  • Other- lemme explain

    Votes: 1 0.6%

AD&D morale is very complex and probably not a good fit at all for new DMs. I don't really care for everything about it myself, but it could be made easier FWIW.

Here are the basics in case some don't remember:

Morale checks = Percentile rolls to follow orders / maintain allegiance.

Situations for checks include:
Well, tons, but basically these fall into actions with high probabilities of resource loss (personal harm, property loss, ally loss, etc.), restricting resource gain (not stealing, asking for unwarranted pay, etc.), changing allegiances/alignment (bribes, calls for surrender, etc.), and combat morale (personal harm broken down even further).

Combat Situations: (what most use Morale checks for)
Superior enemy, 25% HP or ally loss, 50% HP or ally loss, leader unconscious or lost (slain, deserted, etc.)

Loyalty Score = 50% +/- Charisma adjustment of the leader + other modifiers.
(for henchmen, hirelings, followers, associates, [basically allies])

Morale Score = 50% +/- Charisma adjustment of the leader + other modifiers.
(for intelligent monsters w/o loyalty, [basically enemies])

The Morale Check uses a creature or faction's current Loyalty or Morale Score as the target number. Rolls are made as situations predefined arise.

Loyalty Score Modifiers are tracked by individual or faction. One roll is usually enough to know who failed and who succeeded in any current grouping, with resulting individual actions to follow. There are many, many, many Loyalty Score modifiers in the game for AD&D, you need only peek at the last page of the DMG to remember. Scores were only changed when modifier in place was changed "You get paid double now", for example.

Situational Morale Check Modifiers were not quite so many. These only altered the die roll, not the current Loyalty or Morale of the participants depending upon the situation.

A single, relatively static Loyalty or Morale score was easy enough to list as an NPC stat, even with all the complexity built in.


EDIT: I seriously think this should be made into a d20 check. Bulkier, more significant modifiers would mean there were probably fewer and therefore would be more easily remembered. I mean, if combat & magic systems can both get away with d20 as the base roll and other die types for other stuff, then clerics and other PCs can live with a d20 granular-sized behavior system. (The magic system d20 rolls being the Saving Throws).
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I voted "No" and find the fact that so many people voted "Yes" in some way or other mindboggling. I am not convinced that any GM needs a rule about morale. At all. If a GM wants opponents to give up or run away, they can do that without any rule. Just decide that it happens... and it does! It really is that easy. Especially since this is completely an issue of plausibility that needs to be regulated, if at all, at the individual table in the concrete situation and story. Any morale value, however delicately designed, is unable to handle that in any meaningful way without weighing down the entire decision process.
I mean, if it suits your game, fine. Please create a houserule and argue over this in your gaming group. But I think this is a waste of trees. How much reality does one want to be prescribed by designers in one's own game?
To be honest, I cannot find a rule less german than a morale rule in a RPG.
 

I just use common sense. I set the hp level when the NPCs and monsters break off combat and begin to run away. Only fanatical cultists, devoted defenders to unholy sites, or races of creatures where failure is rewarded with a painful torturous death (or terrible to live the encounter in failure) would fight to the death.

As for morale rules, I think having it as an optional module is fine.
 


I suspect morale rules also become more necessary if the PCs are constantly hiring NPC henchmen and hirelings a la 1st edition.

If Robilar is using his orcish mercenaries as clay pigeons and mine detectors, the DM is probably going to want a rule to determine when they say "@#$% this, I'm out of here".
 

There is a subset of DMs and Players who want an RPG to tell them EVERYTHING. May as well cater to them with options, so long as nobody who lacks that desire has to deal with those options.

There are also some who'd like to see shorter rulebooks, but think morale is a lot more important than than many other things the rules do cover.

Morale rules should take half a page to explain in the DMG. If that means they must take out a few example traps or magic items, fine. In the 4e MM each monster has a whole paragraph on tactics and several on encounter groups - both things the DM can invent just as easily; morale would probably take only one number.
 


The B/X D&D morale rules are perfect. Why they weren't adapted to D&D at large is beyond me.

No form of D&D as far as I know has ever had morale rules for players. The players' henchmen, followers, and other assorted npc hangers on, sure. But not for the pcs themselves.
 



Remove ads

Top