You know what Monsters actually need as a Stat? Morale. They need a morale code or a better mechanic in game that lets DMs handle situations where they say "Nope, not gonna continue this fight cause half our buddies just got Julian'd and we don't wanna end up dead". Because "Just let the DM handle it all themselves" doesn't work. Cause a simple Wisdom check removes so many things that make Morale useful that doesn't involve every combat being a duel to the last man standing.
The game had a morale system. The ability to climax an encounter by not winning, but them losing morale wasn't really working out. I remember thinking that the system in general was a good idea, but in the end resulted in the fact that players didn't have to win the battle, but just defeat morale. And in such, battles often ended anti climactic.
I think this is probably best handled in terms of functionality - what's best for the encounter. And that's complex, and a little subjective. Sometimes one flashy fireball taking out 25% of the enemy group should be enough to break them, sometimes it's better if they fight to the last. Sometimes you're planning on one or more of the enemies getting away, or at least trying to. Sometimes you want the players to have the impression the enemy critters are cornered and might do something desperate. It's part of great encounter building, arguably, to convey that kind of subtext..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You know what Monsters actually need as a Stat? Morale.
D&D is a bit dependent on the monsters being dumb and attacking when they're really going to lose. "Fair fights are for suckers; if you're not sure you're going to win, wait and get reinforcements" may be sensible monster tactics but not terribly fun for the PCs.
D&D is a bit dependent on the monsters being dumb and attacking when they're really going to lose. "Fair fights are for suckers; if you're not sure you're going to win, wait and get reinforcements" may be sensible monster tactics but not terribly fun for the PCs.
And yet many of the people in this thread *****ing and moaning about Alignment say they want more "nuance" and monsters to not be "cookie cutter".....cause nothing says "I'm a nuanced Ork" like "I fight to the death! Today is a Good Day to Die! Lok'tar ogar!"
D&D is a bit dependent on the monsters being dumb and attacking when they're really going to lose. "Fair fights are for suckers; if you're not sure you're going to win, wait and get reinforcements" may be sensible monster tactics but not terribly fun for the PCs.
And yet many of the people in this thread *****ing and moaning about Alignment say they want more "nuance" and monsters to not be "cookie cutter".....cause nothing says "I'm a nuanced Ork" like "I fight to the death! Today is a Good Day to Die! Lok'tar ogar!"
Panta's comment aside, I think alignment leaves room for a lot more nuance than its detractors allow for, while a Morale mechanic likely straightjackets that part of an encounter more than is necessary. In general neither aspect is used all that well by many DMs, I'd say (it's something I could definitely improve on myself).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Panta's comment aside, I think alignment leaves room for a lot more nuance than its detractors allow for, while a Morale mechanic likely straightjackets that part of an encounter more than is necessary. In general neither aspect is used all that well by many DMs, I'd say (it's something I could definitely improve on myself).
I routinely have my monsters run away, but it's not something that's well served by a 'morale' mechanic, because it's really heavily dependent on "Do I think my side is winning", "Will running away actually work?", and "What are the stakes of this battle?". Also, my experience is that monsters that successfully run away really annoy the players (mine are currently in a brawl with a night hag coven. The last time they met, the hags fought a little and then went "Enough of this" and all went ethereal. If I have that happen again my players will be ... annoyed. Not that it might not happen.)
I routinely have my monsters run away, but it's not something that's well served by a 'morale' mechanic, because it's really heavily dependent on "Do I think my side is winning", "Will running away actually work?", and "What are the stakes of this battle?". Also, my experience is that monsters that successfully run away really annoy the players (mine are currently in a brawl with a night hag coven. The last time they met, the hags fought a little and then went "Enough of this" and all went ethereal. If I have that happen again my players will be ... annoyed. Not that it might not happen.)
Uh, Morale failure did include "We surrender!" instead of simply running away back in the day....
Uh, Moral failure did include "We surrender!" instead of simply running away back in the day....
Again, a morale stat isn't a terribly good way to resolve that situation, because it's heavily dependent on what the monsters think will happen if they surrender. Monsters aren't going to surrender if they think they'll be killed anyway.
Panta's comment aside, I think alignment leaves room for a lot more nuance than its detractors allow for, while a Morale mechanic likely straightjackets that part of an encounter more than is necessary. In general neither aspect is used all that well by many DMs, I'd say (it's something I could definitely improve on myself).
I routinely have my monsters run away, but it's not something that's well served by a 'morale' mechanic, because it's really heavily dependent on "Do I think my side is winning", "Will running away actually work?", and "What are the stakes of this battle?". Also, my experience is that monsters that successfully run away really annoy the players (mine are currently in a brawl with a night hag coven. The last time they met, the hags fought a little and then went "Enough of this" and all went ethereal. If I have that happen again my players will be ... annoyed. Not that it might not happen.)
I'm not implying anything about your particular games, but there's a whole lot of things someone can do that relate to morale. Often it's no more than "if X% of the critters in the encounter die before any of the PCs are taken down, the rest surrenders or flees", occasionally with a Persuasion or Intimidation check factoring in the losses if a player wants to try that, but morale could be tied to a particular enemy acting as leader to encourage the regular troops or gaining/losing control of a strategic point or the rate of attrition (tied to possible reinforcements or some other effect that will happen after a number of rounds). Or the DM can deliberately throw a larger number of enemies into the encounter for the express purpose of a few getting away. Or morale could be tied to other situations the PCs faced and how they handled those, or conversely to circumstances the PCs might still be able to manipulate before engaging in further encounters. It could be tied to the party's reputation as bloodthirsty, evil ******** or merciful, kind do-gooders. The possibilities are legion, and I expect adding some sort of official morale mechanic to races will almost certainly inhibit a lot of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There is also the thing that all the sudden players will decide to make encounters traps for the enemies and make sure no one runs away as this would just end up in being more trouble in the first place. And all the sudden instead of enemies that stand their ground til they die, you have enemies pleading for their lives as they are getting captured. And players debating if keeping them locked down makes sense instead of disposing them while the DM cries out "But please - think of my kids!" - i think some groups also don't want to deal with the emotional drama that comes from making things really realistic.
There is also the thing that all the sudden players will decide to make encounters traps for the enemies and make sure no one runs away as this would just end up in being more trouble in the first place. And all the sudden instead of enemies that stand their ground til they die, you have enemies pleading for their lives as they are getting captured. And players debating if keeping them locked down makes sense instead of disposing them while the DM cries out "But please - think of my kids!" - i think some groups also don't want to deal with the emotional drama that comes from making things really realistic.
Nah, put the suckers to the sword and be done with it. Every goblin raider you let live is another spear aimed at civilization. The pint-sized murder machine you spare today (cause lets be honest, really only Evil characters should take them into employment) will simply move to some other fiefdom and butcher and pillage some village you haven't been to yet. And thus the forces of Chaos/Evil will be that much stronger.
There is also the thing that all the sudden players will decide to make encounters traps for the enemies and make sure no one runs away as this would just end up in being more trouble in the first place. And all the sudden instead of enemies that stand their ground til they die, you have enemies pleading for their lives as they are getting captured. And players debating if keeping them locked down makes sense instead of disposing them while the DM cries out "But please - think of my kids!" - i think some groups also don't want to deal with the emotional drama that comes from making things really realistic.
Nah, put the suckers to the sword and be done with it. Every goblin raider you let live is another spear aimed at civilization. The pint-sized murder machine you spare today (cause lets be honest, really only Evil characters should take them into employment) will simply move to some other fiefdom and butcher and pillage some village you haven't been to yet. And thus the forces of Chaos/Evil will be that much stronger.
Which is fine but it certainly doesn't need to the default for any humanoid creature.
Which is fine but it certainly doesn't need to the default for any humanoid creature.
If they're raiders, I don't see why that is such a controversial statement. They've committed felonious crimes and are thus subject to the most extreme punishment one can mete out.
Which is fine but it certainly doesn't need to the default for any humanoid creature.
If they're raiders, I don't see why that is such a controversial statement. They've committed felonious crimes and are thus subject to the most extreme punishment one can mete out.
Human bandits would be met with instant death by default too? I think that tends to be the issue if one race is treated overtly worse than another as a default that is problematic.
If you want to have mindless goblin killing in your campaign its completely fine as long as the whole group is in on the deal but it certainly doesn't need to be the default WotC puts out.
Human bandits would be met with instant death by default too? I think that tends to be the issue if one race is treated overtly worse than another as a default that is problematic.
Human bandits, yes, though they're usually Neutral and could potentially be allowed to swear an oath ala the old Parole System that existed in the Medieval/Renaissance era (since many Bandits are former soldiers of armies that were dispersed). And do you understand what "Race" means is actually "Species"? Goblins are NOT humans. They're an alien, invasive species. And saying its "problematic" a bunch of malarkey.
Human bandits would be met with instant death by default too? I think that tends to be the issue if one race is treated overtly worse than another as a default that is problematic.
Human bandits, yes, though they're usually Neutral and could potentially be allowed to swear an oath ala the old Parole System that existed in the Medieval/Renaissance era (since many Bandits are former soldiers of armies that were dispersed). And do you understand what "Race" means is actually "Species"? Goblins are NOT humans. They're an alien, invasive species. And saying its "problematic" a bunch of malarkey.
Then I guess you and WotC do not see eye to eye on the subject as they are moving away from such generalizations. Orcs and Drow are likely the start but most playable humanoid races should be treated with equal respect IMO.
Then I guess you and WotC do not see eye to eye on the subject as they are moving away from such generalizations. Orcs and Drow are likely the start but most playable humanoid races should be treated with equal respect IMO.
Quite frankly, until the day they can kick my door in and beat me up to take my books, then I'll give a damn what WotC says/does.
Then I guess you and WotC do not see eye to eye on the subject as they are moving away from such generalizations. Orcs and Drow are likely the start but most playable humanoid races should be treated with equal respect IMO.
Quite frankly, until the day they can kick my door in and beat me up to take my books, then I'll give a damn what WotC says/does.
Thats completely fine and nobody will ever come and kick your door in to tell you how to play DnD so you should be golden!
Goblins are NOT humans. They're an alien, invasive species.
That's funny. WotC has portrayed humans as johnny-come-latelies taking over everywhere they set foot in every one of their editions, if we're talking about invasive species.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Was kinda wondering about that myself - humanity in D&D is infamous for forcibly uprooting and expelling every other species in the world from their ancestral lands any time humanity decides those ancestral lands would be better off paved and plowed. They're kinda the worst of Imperial England, back in the day.
Was kinda wondering about that myself - humanity in D&D is infamous for forcibly uprooting and expelling every other species in the world from their ancestral lands any time humanity decides those ancestral lands would be better off paved and plowed. They're kinda the worst of Imperial England, back in the day.
Keep on the Borderlands (like, the second D&D module ever) is pretty clearly an offensive border fort from which groups of raiders (PCs) sally forth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think this is probably best handled in terms of functionality - what's best for the encounter. And that's complex, and a little subjective. Sometimes one flashy fireball taking out 25% of the enemy group should be enough to break them, sometimes it's better if they fight to the last. Sometimes you're planning on one or more of the enemies getting away, or at least trying to. Sometimes you want the players to have the impression the enemy critters are cornered and might do something desperate. It's part of great encounter building, arguably, to convey that kind of subtext..
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
D&D is a bit dependent on the monsters being dumb and attacking when they're really going to lose. "Fair fights are for suckers; if you're not sure you're going to win, wait and get reinforcements" may be sensible monster tactics but not terribly fun for the PCs.
And yet many of the people in this thread *****ing and moaning about Alignment say they want more "nuance" and monsters to not be "cookie cutter".....cause nothing says "I'm a nuanced Ork" like "I fight to the death! Today is a Good Day to Die! Lok'tar ogar!"
Panta's comment aside, I think alignment leaves room for a lot more nuance than its detractors allow for, while a Morale mechanic likely straightjackets that part of an encounter more than is necessary. In general neither aspect is used all that well by many DMs, I'd say (it's something I could definitely improve on myself).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I routinely have my monsters run away, but it's not something that's well served by a 'morale' mechanic, because it's really heavily dependent on "Do I think my side is winning", "Will running away actually work?", and "What are the stakes of this battle?". Also, my experience is that monsters that successfully run away really annoy the players (mine are currently in a brawl with a night hag coven. The last time they met, the hags fought a little and then went "Enough of this" and all went ethereal. If I have that happen again my players will be ... annoyed. Not that it might not happen.)
Uh, Morale failure did include "We surrender!" instead of simply running away back in the day....
Again, a morale stat isn't a terribly good way to resolve that situation, because it's heavily dependent on what the monsters think will happen if they surrender. Monsters aren't going to surrender if they think they'll be killed anyway.
I'm not implying anything about your particular games, but there's a whole lot of things someone can do that relate to morale. Often it's no more than "if X% of the critters in the encounter die before any of the PCs are taken down, the rest surrenders or flees", occasionally with a Persuasion or Intimidation check factoring in the losses if a player wants to try that, but morale could be tied to a particular enemy acting as leader to encourage the regular troops or gaining/losing control of a strategic point or the rate of attrition (tied to possible reinforcements or some other effect that will happen after a number of rounds). Or the DM can deliberately throw a larger number of enemies into the encounter for the express purpose of a few getting away. Or morale could be tied to other situations the PCs faced and how they handled those, or conversely to circumstances the PCs might still be able to manipulate before engaging in further encounters. It could be tied to the party's reputation as bloodthirsty, evil ******** or merciful, kind do-gooders. The possibilities are legion, and I expect adding some sort of official morale mechanic to races will almost certainly inhibit a lot of them.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There is also the thing that all the sudden players will decide to make encounters traps for the enemies and make sure no one runs away as this would just end up in being more trouble in the first place. And all the sudden instead of enemies that stand their ground til they die, you have enemies pleading for their lives as they are getting captured. And players debating if keeping them locked down makes sense instead of disposing them while the DM cries out "But please - think of my kids!" - i think some groups also don't want to deal with the emotional drama that comes from making things really realistic.
Nah, put the suckers to the sword and be done with it. Every goblin raider you let live is another spear aimed at civilization. The pint-sized murder machine you spare today (cause lets be honest, really only Evil characters should take them into employment) will simply move to some other fiefdom and butcher and pillage some village you haven't been to yet. And thus the forces of Chaos/Evil will be that much stronger.
Which is fine but it certainly doesn't need to the default for any humanoid creature.
If they're raiders, I don't see why that is such a controversial statement. They've committed felonious crimes and are thus subject to the most extreme punishment one can mete out.
Human bandits would be met with instant death by default too? I think that tends to be the issue if one race is treated overtly worse than another as a default that is problematic.
If you want to have mindless goblin killing in your campaign its completely fine as long as the whole group is in on the deal but it certainly doesn't need to be the default WotC puts out.
Human bandits, yes, though they're usually Neutral and could potentially be allowed to swear an oath ala the old Parole System that existed in the Medieval/Renaissance era (since many Bandits are former soldiers of armies that were dispersed). And do you understand what "Race" means is actually "Species"? Goblins are NOT humans. They're an alien, invasive species. And saying its "problematic" a bunch of malarkey.
Then I guess you and WotC do not see eye to eye on the subject as they are moving away from such generalizations. Orcs and Drow are likely the start but most playable humanoid races should be treated with equal respect IMO.
Quite frankly, until the day they can kick my door in and beat me up to take my books, then I'll give a damn what WotC says/does.
Thats completely fine and nobody will ever come and kick your door in to tell you how to play DnD so you should be golden!
That's funny. WotC has portrayed humans as johnny-come-latelies taking over everywhere they set foot in every one of their editions, if we're talking about invasive species.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Was kinda wondering about that myself - humanity in D&D is infamous for forcibly uprooting and expelling every other species in the world from their ancestral lands any time humanity decides those ancestral lands would be better off paved and plowed. They're kinda the worst of Imperial England, back in the day.
Please do not contact or message me.
Keep on the Borderlands (like, the second D&D module ever) is pretty clearly an offensive border fort from which groups of raiders (PCs) sally forth.