New Staff Blog: Run Away!

[Andor]

Dammit! It was, wasn't it...?!?

Just after I recently challenged anyone to show examples of 4E bashing in WotC's statements, and none were able to do so because there just hasn't been any...Evil_Reverend comes along and serves up a big old steaming meatball of bashing!!!

Stupid!

That post really smacked of the same tone as the releases leading up to 4E. Evil_Reverend is walking a very dangerous line, one that can do no good service for 5E. Just phenomonally Stupid!

They need to be very, very, very careful...and Evil_Reverend needs to seriously dial it back.

You're kidding right? The entire first paragraph is about how it was a mistake to remove morale from 3e. The only mention of 4e was one sentence. "Fourth edition taught D&D fans to focus fire on one monster at a time." No mention of that being a good thing or a bad thing. But that was a very dangerous line and needs to be dialed back?

Am I missing something?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think his comment is being taken with a slant and out of context:

But there’s more to it than this. Fourth edition taught D&D fans to focus fire on one monster at a time. Morale rules provide another option. A robust morale system might reward PCs who do something other than kill one mook at a time. Maybe the monsters check morale when their leader dies, when the PCs kill the standard bearer, or when the characters destroy the altar to Gruumsh. The monsters might still outnumber the PCs, but they find their confidence shaken after the adventurers destroyed the idol to their unspeakable master.

Like KidSnide, I don't believe his intent was to say that 4E was the sole source of teaching players to focus fire.

He's talking about what options morale rules could open up in his opinion. Someone else asked what benefit there was to not focusing fire in previous editions. Well, for one, a creature that had taken a certain amount of damage would make a morale check in games that used these rules. Thus, you could get a monster to flee without killing it. Damaging multiple creatures could get rid of multiple creatures if they failed their morale check. Killing one creature only gets rid of one creature.

As I have the books, I know you are fibbing/misinformed.

They are in the AD&D 2nd edition books. Which AD&D are you referring to?

The 1E MM did not have morale listed in the monster stat blocks IIRC.

 

[GSHamster]

I never played older editions with morale checks, so how did they decrease the necessity of focus-fire tactics? Seems to me that you would still want to focus fire. In the Total War RTS series, one of the first tips the game always gives you is to concentrate fire on a single unit so that it flees, reducing the morale of nearby units and beginning a cascade of retreat.

Morale rules change who you focus fire.

Under normal rules, kill order usually goes weakest defense/health first. I.e. it's usually better to mop up the little guys while controlling/mitigating the big guys. There are exceptions to this, of course, but it's a good rule of thumb.

However, under morale rules, targeting the big guys first can be a viable strategy. A big guy is not likely to run if a small guy dies, but a small guy is likely to run when the big boss falls. That turns the killing of the big guy into a 2-for-1, and makes targeting him first viable in some situations.

Basically, morale is an Alternate Win Condition and you can change your combat tactics to focus on that Win Condition, rather than the traditional one of simply killing all your foes. Or you can go the other way if you prefer.

Edit:One thing I should mention is that you can change focus in midstride. Like say the PCs are getting swarmed by goblins and beaten down. They might stop trying for a Hitpoint Win, and go for a Morale Win, targeting the Goblin Shaman inciting the band. The hope is her death causes the rest of the goblins to run away. (Or possibly it makes the goblins even madder and roast PC is featured on the dinner menu later that evening.)

 

[Andor]

If I use a mechanical rule to determine an NPC's behavior, I must use that rule for all characters, including PCs, in the interest of fairness and consistency. If I use a die roll to determine a PC's behavior, that PC will (rightfully) complain that this represents mind control. Thus, I will not use any such rule, except for actual mind control (enchantments, etc.). Retreating should be a tactical choice (and one that is encouraged and facilitated a bit more IMO).

Ummm... No?

A PC is a single character played by a single human. That human (the player) has invested into his character. He (hopefully) knows the characters background, history, motives, aspiriations and determination.

An NPC is one of hundreds or thousands of minor characters played by the single DM who has likely not written up a detailed description of the childhood traumas, motivations, hopes and dreams for every one of the 10,000 orcs in the approaching horde. A die roll is a perfectly valid tool to allow the GM to rapidly determine the response of an NPC to an unforeseen circumstance. No morale system ever demands the GM uses it, it is merely an option.

More to the point PCs decide their characters actions because that is the point of the game.

Do you not roll for NPC attitiudes, or do you force all your fellow players to roll their responses? Does any actual roleplaying take place or are you just doing a blind simulation?

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't favor morale RULES, it strikes me far too much as the game getting into the DM seat and telling you how to run your game. This isn't to say I don't like morale, but I don't feel there's any way to hard-code the rules without making them either so wishy-washy as to have no point, or to be just another excuse for rules-lawyers to get in the DM's face.

That said, I do use morale, but I make decisions on if it happens and how much it matters on my own. It's not just another "math tax" to either improve my players or hinder my opponenets. For the most part, if I want morale to play a huge role in my battle, I'll run a Leader-like character whose battlefield presence will affect morale. Otherwise it's probably not going to be anything more than having the bandits run away when they're down to their last man or two.

 

[El Mahdi]

You're kidding right? The entire first paragraph is about how it was a mistake to remove morale from 3e. The only mention of 4e was one sentence. "Fourth edition taught D&D fans to focus fire on one monster at a time." No mention of that being a good thing or a bad thing. But that was a very dangerous line and needs to be dialed back?

Am I missing something?

I'm kidding about what exactly?

Just because I didn't mention that he bashed other editions doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't there (though I don't think he was specifically bashing 3E, he was bashing whoever decided to not include Morale in 3E...but the tone of that was eerily reminiscent of the 4E run-up, which I did address).

And I didn't say that the line about 4E was dangerous. I said he's "walking a dangerous line" after saying the tone of the whole post was very similar to what came out in the run-up to 4E.

It's the tone of the post that's dangerous.

Read my whole post and understand all of it in context.

And [MENTION=4892]Vyvyan Basterd[/MENTION], I don't believe it is being viewed out of context or from a biased perspective (at a slant). I don't even play 4E. I simply don't prefer it. But that does mean I don't have an axe to grind or a sensitive spot when it comes to 4E. I can however, recognize bashing when I see it. And that was.

It may not have been Evil_Reverend's intention, but that doesn't change what's written on the screen. WotC's Design Team has been very careful to avoid making the kind of mistakes that were made in the run-up to 4E. It would be a shame to screw that up now...and Evil_Reverend just did exactly that.

I think he needs to fix it post haste, and be more careful about what he's saying and how he's saying it in the future, so as to avoid tripping over this again.

Because of what happened between 3E and 4E, there's very little collective slack among the fan-base for this anymore. That may seem unfair, but it is a fact of the current environment. A fact that must be remembered and factored in to all communication with the fan-base...whether they like it or not.

 

[Minigiant]

Oh, come on. 4e absolutely teaches people to focus fire. Just because focusing fire didn't originate in 4e doesn't mean that 4e doesn't teach it.

My 3rd grade teacher definitely taught multiplication. I am confident that she was not the first to do so.

-KS

4E (Or 3E) didn't teach focus fire. It is heavily supported it but 75% of my "victories" as DM is from focus fire gone wrong. Drop two elites and the ignored one clobbers the defender. Especially with my redfaced fey.

It just made most sense to take out the healer/mage/squishie/half dead guy first and remove than bit of offense when morale is not around.

Morale screws up the "remove offense bit completely one by one" strategy. Its Alt Win. I lurve Alt Win.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like morale rules. 4e actually has some kind of morale rules. The bloodied condition + intimidate.
But it is tied too much to the will save.

A different number that does not interact with other stats seems right here. After all it is simple and informative. Don want to roll? Fine. Have certain triggers? Fine. Making clear, that the number shown in the MM is just a guideline for random critters?

So while I fully understand, that the shift from random encounters to scripted encounters also made morale rules outdated, i totally agree with Evil_reverend, that those little numbers can change boring combats into more exiting ones.

 

[hemera]

I'd use morale rules if they were present.

What I use in most of my 4e games now is a morale algorithm. "If X, then Y."

"If the leader dies, the rest of the enemies flee."

"If the roc looses half its hit points, it escapes."

"If the party starts using fire magic, the yeti runs away."

"If the leader is attacked, the bodyguard focuses attention on those attacking the leader."

Etc.

(for the record, Evil_Reverend = Rob Schwalb, in case anyone cares. )

This is more or less what I use, situational modified morale.

And for the pc's henchmen/cannon fodder

More than half pc's bloodied, their henchmen flee

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I like some light morale rules, used them as written in 1E, and replicated their effects, often, in 3E/4E, not unlike what Kamikaze listed above. I didn't find that post particular bashing of 4E or 3E or D&D in general.

What I did see was some misunderstanding between the relation to focus fire and morale, that seemed to have arisen out of some particular prior history with morale mechanics and then their lack, rather than a more widespread look at what the mechanics do.

I'd also like to know how commenting on something that was explicitly spelled out in the article is "off-topic," while we are cleaning up any misunderstandings.