PDA

View Full Version : [3e/4e] Towards Morale Rules for WD&D*



LibraryOgre
2009-12-10, 01:45 PM
As has been pointed out, there's a sorta morale rule in WD&D already in the form of the intimidate skill. However, this intimidate skill has a problem in that it's an action to intimidate, which goes against the idea of morale as being an automatic "cajones check". So, I'm thinking about ways to change that.

The simplest method that comes to me is a passive check (in 4e) or a take 10 (in 3e). You take your Intimidate modifier and add 10. To that, you'd compare one of a couple different scores.

In 3e, you'd probably use that as a DC for their "modified level check"... d20+level+wisdom+bonus to saves vs. fear. Personally, I'd prefer to use it as a Will or Fortitude save, instead... about the same, but avoids the question of level.

In 4e, I'd use it as an attack against their Will defense, but I'm not as sure on the numbers for that... I think it will make anyone who trains intimidate into an unstoppable juggernaut of fear, especially at low levels.

Now, to this base DC (10+Intimidate Modifier), you add other modifiers. How much damage has been taken. How many are dead on their side. Who has larger numbers. Those modifiers would need to be played with, however, and I'm away from my sources.

I see a few problems with this. One of the main ones is that the people with Intimidate are not always going to be the scariest person on the team... the weedy rogue might have a high intimidate check, while the quiet wizard might have almost none... especially if he's dumped charisma and is a dwarf. Also, as mentioned, the numbers are not solid on 4e... pretty sure they're not going to work, especially with, say, a Intimidate trained Warforged Charisma-class.

My basic idea is that, on the first failed check, you are shaken. On the second failed check, you are feared. On a natural 20, you erase the shaken; on a natural 1, you drop immediately to feared.

There's a rough. People who have resources available, make a run at them.


*WD&D: Wizard's D&D.

oxybe
2009-12-10, 02:16 PM
As has been pointed out, there's a sorta morale rule in WD&D already in the form of the intimidate skill. However, this intimidate skill has a problem in that it's an action to intimidate, which goes against the idea of morale as being an automatic "cajones check". So, I'm thinking about ways to change that.

The simplest method that comes to me is a passive check (in 4e) or a take 10 (in 3e). You take your Intimidate modifier and add 10. To that, you'd compare one of a couple different scores.

In 3e, you'd probably use that as a DC for their "modified level check"... d20+level+wisdom+bonus to saves vs. fear. Personally, I'd prefer to use it as a Will or Fortitude save, instead... about the same, but avoids the question of level.

In 4e, I'd use it as an attack against their Will defense, but I'm not as sure on the numbers for that... I think it will make anyone who trains intimidate into an unstoppable juggernaut of fear, especially at low levels.

Now, to this base DC (10+Intimidate Modifier), you add other modifiers. How much damage has been taken. How many are dead on their side. Who has larger numbers. Those modifiers would need to be played with, however, and I'm away from my sources.

I see a few problems with this. One of the main ones is that the people with Intimidate are not always going to be the scariest person on the team... the weedy rogue might have a high intimidate check, while the quiet wizard might have almost none... especially if he's dumped charisma and is a dwarf. Also, as mentioned, the numbers are not solid on 4e... pretty sure they're not going to work, especially with, say, a Intimidate trained Warforged Charisma-class.

My basic idea is that, on the first failed check, you are shaken. On the second failed check, you are feared. On a natural 20, you erase the shaken; on a natural 1, you drop immediately to feared.

There's a rough. People who have resources available, make a run at them.


*WD&D: Wizard's D&D.

how do you go about determining the "scariest guy" if not by intimidate?

strength score? damage he's dealt? damage he's taken? gear he's wearing?

intimidate is exactly the skill you're looking for: it's how able the character is at selling himself. they know how to manipulate body language, send out verbal cues & use general psychology to get what they want.

a big minotaur with an axe might be "scary" but still come off as a clumsy brute. the little halfling rogue might not be "scary" but the threats he's making sure don't sound like bluffs, plus he looks like he's the one in charge of that minotaur.

fusilier
2009-12-10, 07:01 PM
I'm interested in this line of thought. My master's thesis actually involved implementing similar concepts in a computer game.

However, I'm not entirely clear on the details you presented:

Basically, if someone is trying to "intimidate" someone else, they roll against that characters passive intimidate? (so passive intimidate becomes the morale)

Or is it the other way around, if you want to check if character A is "frightened" by the character B, character A rolls against character B's passive intimidate?

The terms shaken and feared don't go together on that scale. When someone is shaken, they're essentially "nervous", when someone is "feared" others are afraid of them. (You could simply replace the term "feared" with "afraid", and I think it would work out).

Under what conditions can characters be rallied, i.e. improve their current morale state?

Anyway, I've got a bunch of ideas, but would like to get clarification before I continue.

Colmarr
2009-12-10, 07:25 PM
Like any houserule, your first question should be "What am I trying to achieve here?"

Specifically, will this apply to PCs or only to monsters? Are you trying to increase randomness in combat, simply shorten combats, or something else?

Your second question should be "What effect is this going to have on other areas of the game?"

The thing that immediately springs to mind is that this drastically increases the utility of classes and races with high Will defence. Indeed, it could easily lead back to the infuriating 3e problem of fighters spending half their campaign lives running in fear.


My basic idea is that, on the first failed check, you are shaken. On the second failed check, you are feared. On a natural 20, you erase the shaken; on a natural 1, you drop immediately to feared.

These conditions don't exist in 4e. I suspect you already knew that, but just thought I'd point out the obvious to direct your mind in constructive directions :smallsmile:

jmbrown
2009-12-10, 08:02 PM
Morale should be a fixed number completely unrelated to any stat or ability. It's a combination of fear, self preservation, and common sense; as much "Holy crap, I'm going to die!" as it is "These guys outnumber me 3-to-1, is this fight really worth the treasure?"

I'd stick with the basic idea of a static number based on creature type. Animals have low morale because of their survival instinct although they should get a bonus when defending their lairs or young. Dragons and giants would have high morale because they're big, arrogant, and tough. Humanoids would be average as they're not particularly cowardly or brave but subtypes like goblinoid are flighty and prone to fear. Undead and plants are fearless, of course.

Whenever a situation calls for a morale check (people die, health drops below a certain percentage, etc.) then you roll for morale and determine what the monsters do. Intelligent monsters may surrender. Powerful monsters like dragons, in the rare case you break one's morale, may barter.

And, of course, PCs should never be subject to morale. It isn't the DM's right to regulate the PCs state of mind... outside of magical influence.

LibraryOgre
2009-12-10, 08:40 PM
Gahhh... RPG.net has me spoiled with their multiquote feature. ;-) As for why the initial post seemed so scattered, I wrote it over the course of about 45 minutes, around helping people figure out the printer at work.


Basically, if someone is trying to "intimidate" someone else, they roll against that characters passive intimidate? (so passive intimidate becomes the morale)

Or is it the other way around, if you want to check if character A is "frightened" by the character B, character A rolls against character B's passive intimidate?

More or less the second; rather than frightened, however, it's more a question of "Are they willing to continue this fight?" In this case, Passive Intimidate become the base difficulty for their morale check, which will be either their Fortitude or Will save (in 3.x), or be compared to Fortitude or Will defense (in 4e).



The terms shaken and feared don't go together on that scale. When someone is shaken, they're essentially "nervous", when someone is "feared" others are afraid of them. (You could simply replace the term "feared" with "afraid", and I think it would work out).

Shaken and frightened would be more appropriate in 3.x; both have specific game meanings. A shakened (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#shaken) person takes penalties; a frightened (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#frightened) person tries to get away.


Under what conditions can characters be rallied, i.e. improve their current morale state? Most of the standards. Being healed, gaining reinforcements, or rolling a natural 20 on a Morale check. You could also gain a little bit (or at least an improvement on your chances) if certain enemies fell. If you make a check on one action and none of the enemies are dead, you'll take a penalty. If, the next round, you make another check, and three of the nine enemies are down because your spellcasting buddy showed up and hit them with a river... well, you're in a bit better mood (unless you pass out like a whiny hobbit *****).


Like any houserule, your first question should be "What am I trying to achieve here?"

Specifically, will this apply to PCs or only to monsters? Are you trying to increase randomness in combat, simply shorten combats, or something else?

Shortening combats is likely to be a side effect. This will have no direct effect on PCs, who are allowed to be as stupid brave as their players like. This moves more towards creating a set of usable and reasonable guidelines by which NPCs can be determined to be likely to surrender or flee.



The thing that immediately springs to mind is that this drastically increases the utility of classes and races with high Will defence. Indeed, it could easily lead back to the infuriating 3e problem of fighters spending half their campaign lives running in fear.

My 4e numbers are VERY shaky; training and attribute and half level are likely to make this basic approach untenable in 4e. I've also thought, however, of making the option either Will or Fortitude... doesn't do anything about the Pure Reflex classes, however. I need to take a better look at the basic mechanics of Intimidate in 4e.


These conditions don't exist in 4e. I suspect you already knew that, but just thought I'd point out the obvious to direct your mind in constructive directions :smallsmile:

I didn't, but I'm going to shelter under my serf's parma* for that one.

*Phrase from the Ars Magica mailing list, which means "I'm a peon who has to work for his living, so I don't/didn't have my books with me for reference

fusilier
2009-12-10, 10:18 PM
OK, first I would suggest that you keep the actual rules relatively simple. Don't overload yourself with modifiers or it will take too long to calculate. My thesis was based on more complicated work which actually modeled more emotions than fear (ok, so it had fear and anger). The basic premise was certain individuals are disposed toward particular emotions. When agents got angry they usually died pretty quickly, so limiting yourself to fear, is probably a good idea.

1. My system was based around ranged combat, so the number of the enemy and their distance were considered. In D&D you can probably just ignore distance.

2. The number of friendly agents nearby helped "boost" morale.

3. Witnessing the death of friends was a major negative factor, which was "remembered" (the other two factors are environmental conditions).

You can probably combine 2 and 3, by keeping track of what percentage of the character's team has "died".

Unfortunately, there's a serious problem with applying this to hand-to-hand combat. Once engaged, adrenaline is going to be through the roof and disengaging gets tricky. In wargames I've played hand-to-hand combat could be particularly deadly. In GURPS, characters actually engaged in fighting have a large bonus to fear checks (this will be gone after the battle though). Turning your back on an opponent during hand-to-hand combat is suicidal. At best the character might attempt to surrender, but really his opponent would probably have to offer quarter in the middle of the combat, before one would even consider this.

As for events that incur a morale check, for the most part simply use your judgment as GM:

Witnessing friends run away would cause morale checks. (They can also end up being counted as casualties).

Charges: The point of a charge was often not to engage the enemy in hand-to-hand, but to encourage them to flee. Most games present charges as if they are opposed morale checks. Both the attackers and defenders must pass a morale check. If the defenders fail, they at least fall back, if the attackers fail, the charge loses its impetus and stops short. If the attackers have no ranged weapons, you might want to give them a slight bonus. Counter charges can also startle the attackers, and unnerve them.

Death of comrades, explosions, particularly scary things, etc.

Rallying should be covered separately. Simply receiving reinforcements shouldn't incur a rally check (it should improve any other morale checks). In fact sometimes a panic can spread to fresh troops! Instead, leaders should have the ability to attempt to rally their own troops. Or if their is sufficient separation between a group of characters and their enemy, they can rally themselves. Even small bands would have someone who they may think as a leader (or conversely use whoever has the best charisma). Rallying typically takes into account casualties, but not other factors.

Again as DM you should come up with common sense modifiers. Troops behind fortifications usually had greater staying power. Particularly charismatic leaders may give a bonus to morale checks (just like particularly disliked ones may give a negative). Training and equipment only goes so far. Well trained and equipped troops who lack motivation, will often lose to guerillas who believe in what they are fighting for. Coming from a GURPS background, I wouldn't give hard and fast modifiers for all these, but would come up with them on the fly(or when planning the campaign). There's way too much to consider to spell everything out in minute detail.

I would suggest you focus on a basic morale system based around casualties and the relative size of forces, then let DM's apply what modifiers they think are appropriate.