In laying out the Black Book Beta, page 63 ended up being blank. This bugged me, but it’s actually a non-trivial problem to solve so I decided to lay it aside. I considered commissioning a full page of art to fill the space, but this would be expensive and randomly out of place given the layout in the rest of the book. So I’ve been looking at various ways to re-arrange Chapter 10: Companions & Allies and/or possibly Chapter 9: Conditions to “pad out” an extra page.
The other day, however, I was running a session of my Thracian Hexcrawl campaign and I realized how significant a role morale has begun to play in my handling of hirelings at the game table when one of the gem sisters collapsed into a complete panic when her sister was killed by a platoon of skeleton archers. So now I’m thinking that Page 63 — coming at the end of the chapter on Companions & Allies — might actually be a good place for morale rules. These would also be trivially adapted to use with adversaries and monsters; but the primarily utility would be aimed at hirelings.
Basically, as a DM, I don’t actually want to run hirelings as full NPCs: I’m already juggling enough balls that the idea of running a GMPC of any sort (player-initiated or not) isn’t appealing. I’d rather let the players manage their coterie. A simple morale system, on the other hand, gives a hireling a certain degree of “otherness” — they aren’t just adjunct PCs. (For some previous thoughts on hirelings and followers in Legends & Labyrinths, read here and here. For some thoughts on old school morale systems, read this.)
With all of that in mind, I’ve got a couple questions for you.
First, is this a good idea? It would be one of the more significant systemic departures from “vanilla 3E”.
Second, what form should such a morale system take? I’ve got a couple options in mind, but wouldn’t mind hearing some open-ended brainstorming in the comments.
OPTION 1 – OLD SCHOOL:In this option, morale and loyalty are essentially flat and don’t scale with level or CR. Loyalty would be determined by the PC’s Leadership score and/or the offer made to hire the NPC. The morale score of a hireling would be determined with a simple 2d6 roll modified by Loyalty. Morale checks would similarly be rolled on 2d6 (with a result lower than the hireling’s morale indicating surrender, panic, retreat, or a similar reaction).
An area of concern here is the scaling of the Leadership score by level. (Check out “Thinking About Morale” for why I think this is problematic. Essentially, it doesn’t take much for such a system to effectively become irrelevant.)
Another potential problem with this approach is that it’s radically inconsistent with the rest of 3rd Edition’s design ethos of having a “core mechanic”. (Although not that dissimilar from the turning mechanic, I suppose.)
OPTION 2 – SKILL-BASED: Alternatively, what if triggering events required a Diplomacy or Intimidate check with a DC set by the CR of the hireling you’re trying to keep from panicking? (Effectively you’d use the Trained Check DC from the Hazards table on page 86, although there’d probably be a morale-specific instantiation of the table on page 63.)
A potential problem with this approach is that it gives no ability for a hireling to stay loyal if their boss is incapacitated or absent. Maybe the hireling makes a Will save with the DC set by the CR of the prevalent threat, and only if they fail do their bosses have a chance to “rally the troops” using the skill check?
What do y’all think?
Hi.
I think that Morale rules are one of the most crucial rules that assist me in running the game – the tool to be able to check to see when hirelings and monsters choose to run allows me to adjudicate the game quickly while maintaining my neutrality.
As far as what I would like to see in the rules, well, static morale for monsters, and variable morale for henchmen based on treatment, hiring offer, charisma and other factors (alignment) – but surely you know I already play an old school game (1e) that has these rules. 🙂 Just passing on what I’m looking for and why.
Option 1: What about eliinating the Leadership Score and only using the Leadership modifiers win conjunction with the check?
For the second option does the Diplomacy/Intimidate check have to be an actual check? Perhaps a virtual check or Loyalty Score based on the same metrics as Diplomacy?Intimidate check?
Of the options presented I think the third is probably the best/cleanest to use
THe problem with a Will save is it makes Hardened warriors more likely to run away in the face of danger than a bunch of mages? But that has always been a problem with fear I guess.
For Option 2, I’d still tell the player to roll Diplomacy at -4 or Intimidate at -8. Having your boss incapacitated is going to be scary. The player is rolling a check for what the hireling remembers of your treatment- do they recall your promises of glory and riches? Have you terrorized them into Stockholm Syndrome?
I definitely like putting the check in the hands of the players; they should feel like they can make a difference in keeping their henchmen around. I agree that Will saves have problems, since “being a wizard” shouldn’t make a hireling more likely to hold their ground in a bloody battle.
Is it worth thinking about the difference between “discipline” and “loyalty”? Discipline would affect whether the hireling would freak out and panic (her sister just became a pincushion) whereas loyalty would affect more logical runnings-away, i.e. she just won’t fight a losing battle for her employer.
I really like the idea of a morale mechanic. What’s more, if you’re trying to increase the use of hirelings and henchmen in the adventure, it’s all but required to adjudicate their behavior when things get hairy. For that matter, in the adventure you could have players learning to talk to people to find a given prospective retainer’s rep for loyalty in the face of danger, etc.
I’m leaning toward an old-school-type mechanic myself. First, assign each NPC involved a morale, value of 7 plus-or-minus up to two points for each of three factors.
>Base of 7
>Modify based on loyalty and/or bravery (between -2 and +2, inclusive)
>Modify based on what it stands to lose (ditto)
>Modify based on the awe/fear factor; that is, how it compares to the strongest creature on each side of the fight, in its estimation (ditto)
Then when you feel someone or something’s mettle is being tested, roll… I’m not sure whether 2d6 would be better, or a straight d12, which is what I use. Thoughts?
In either case, rolling below one’s morale is a pass, above is a surrender, and a tie is “wavering” — if possible, taking a step back, assuming a defensive posture, and catching one’s breath for a round. Or something like that. So a morale of 1 means the first time the creature is tested, it backs off… but doesn’t necessarily give up entirely, if you’re rolling d12. A morale of 13 means the creature always fights to the death.
So dragons, in their arrogance, would tend not to ask for quarter. Animals would fight more fiercely in their dens than a random clearing in the woods. Well-treated retainers, or soldiers with a competent captain, would hold the line longer than other people. You can assign any monster or NPC a morale in a second because it’s easy to eyeball, and the common-Joe monster would have a morale of 7, easy enough to remember and just barely more likely to stay than break. Nu?
MY preference is not to have level affect loyalty checks at all. Just base them on Charisma, good treatment, etc. If you want to keep the same scale of d20 modifiers, use 2d10 instead of 2d6. Not everything has to use the core mechanic.
I would strongly be in favor of morale rules being included. It’s the one thing I most regret being absent from the core 3e rules. It radically changes the feel of the game.
It seems really inelegant to me to have a roll other than a d20 roll in a d20 system, especially one that’s supposed to be basically a pared down and simplified version of 3.5.
Therefore I think you almost have to go with option 2 and incorporate it into existing mechanics.
How’s this for a simple incorporated system?
When the hireling is ‘hired’ and upon all ‘renegotiations’ the player makes a d20 check modified by either diplomacy or intimidate and also modified by some sort of basic risk/reward calculation (we should assume that all combat npc’s are in imminent danger of death on a regular basis and so figure out what a reasonable rate of compensation they can expect based on the NPC’s level and what expected earnings for that NPC doing a ‘safe’ job would be; this can be pre-calced and a table could be made illustrating normal pay, high pay, low pay, and what the associated modifiers would be)
You cannot take a 10 or 20 on this roll; it is basically treated as a standard diplomacy/intimidate check. In terms of ‘renegotiations’ the player can opt to roll again, but only if he makes a significantly different offer than before. Offering to add 1 gp won’t cut it.
This result will be that NPC’s ‘morale’. The player can re-negotiate when circumstances change significantly (for example just before or even during a battle), even as a free action, by for example offering to double the NPC’s pay and/or threatening to kill the NPC. It should be noted that if the player does so in the heat of battle and gets a lower roll, too bad.
If the NPC survives with the player for enough time for the PC to level up, the NPC should get a +2 bonus to its morale for every level the PC gains while the NPC is in his service.
Now, when you want to check to see if the NPC quits, surrenders, flees, etc, in response to some sort of negative stimulus (fear-causing monster, battle going poorly, suffers significant damage, etc) make a morale check by subtracting the NPC’s morale from 20 and attempting to meet or beat it with a d20 roll.
Actually I want to edit that a bit. I think you SHOULD be able to take a 10 during the initial hiring process, but not a 20. Taking a 10 in this case is sort of like when you buy a product from a shopkeeper without attempting to haggle.
I’d avoid having it be based on skills if you want everyone to have hirelings for various kinds, since right now you don’t advance at all in non-class skills so at higher levels a lot of characters would fail any half-way challenging leadership skill test.
Good point Daztur; making it skill based throws off the balance. Perhaps a straight up +1 per level for all classes would be the best way to go for modifiers?
[wry] If Hautamaki really truly finds it “inelegant… to have a roll other than a d20” in a d20 system, what race does he play (to get d20 hit dice) and what weapon does he use (to get d20 damage)?
I wouldn’t use a d20 role for precisely the reason Daztur lists. Just doing a flat +1 per level is the same as having a fixed roll that is modified by non-level based issues.
Using a non-level-based or skill-based system also means that you don’t have to deal with a lot of modifiers, which is a pain at higher levels.
Use Diplomacy checks when you want to convince a henchman to do something, ie as a transaction. Morale and loyalty don’t work like that. Henchmen break as a spur of the moment thing. There isn’t time for rousing speeches in the middle of hand-to-hand combat.
One could potentially use Diplomacy to convince a terrified henchman to return to the party after the battle is over, for example, but it isn’t appropriate for during a battle.
I’d agree with the idea that if the goal of the project is to deliver a stripped down 3.5 experience then a morale check ought to be using a d20 roll. While other dice are used for damage or duration, all checks are done with a d20+modifier mechanic.
I too greatly desire to see a solid but simple morale system. When I got the beta the first thing went and looked at was the hirelings section, but when I saw that there wasn’t any morale system I kept moving. Without the morale system, along with some way of handing 20 hirelings in combat without making things grind to a halt, are needed for 3.5.
I’d also very much like to see a morale system for monsters. I’d want to have baked into the system the strategy of trying to “break” your enemy as a clearly defined option with the rules. If you really wanted Charisma to be valued, and not be a dump stat then making it directly useful in combat will tilt the scales more.
d20 already has a morale system, there’s just not many things use it.
Scary monsters and scary spells though, they rack up the Shaken, Frightened, and Panicked critters just fine, and they follow classic AD&D morale rules to the letter.
If you want “my employer just bit the dust” to inspire fear, give it a DC. Same for everything else, like half your buddies are down, or you’re the last man standing and have lost half your hit points. Paladins already protect their hirelings from it, the spell system widely covers bonuses against it and immunity from it, it’s all good.
Sure, Fighters should have good Will saves vs Fear, but Fighters should have all good saves anyway. Depends how many of the bad bits of 3e you feel like fixing.
To slightly rephrase the question: Are the current circumstances currently so Intimidating as to cause the hirelings to flee?
If you look at it that way, when the dragon (or the swamp) eats a PC, then it’s the *dragon* (or the swamp!) that is doing the Intimidating. The DC for intimidating is as per the rules as normal, but adjusted by their employer’s charisma, the circumstances (up or down), etc. etc. Interpreting it this way means the morale check is an opposed check (as DM, I would simply take 10).
I’m starting to use the system below for hireling/follower/cohort morale checks, and may use it for some monsters as well (possibly using my mass combat binomial distribution tables for resolving multiple checks with a single roll):
A morale check is: 1d20 + level/HD + applicable bonuses to fear saving throws
[Optional: also apply the “Leader’s Reputation” Leadership score modifiers for cohorts and followers]
An individual checks morale on its turn when one of the following conditions is true for the first time in that combat:
* individual is below 50% hit points
* first friendly casualty (dead/unconscious/held/asleep/otherwise out of fight)
* friendly leader is a casualty
* outnumbered by at least 2:1
* greater than 50% casualties on friendly side
* enemy has unmatched/unopposed support (spells, missiles, aerial troops, significant positional advantage, size advantage of at least one size category)
The DC of a Morale Check is 10, +2 for every condition listed above that currently applies. (So the lowest possible DC is 12.)
Morale Check Result Effect
Passed None
Failed by 1-4 Shaken until end of combat/encounter
Failed by 5-9 Frightened until end of combat/encounter, and shaken
for 1 hour thereafter
Failed by 10 or more Panicked until end of combat/encounter plus one
minute, and shaken for 24 hours thereafter
A roll of 1 on a Morale Check always fails, making the individual shaken if the check result would otherwise succeed.
A roll of 20 on a Morale Check always succeeds, and immediately removes all adverse morale effects from the individual, who is immune from further Morale Checks for the remainder of the combat/encounter.
Sigh, formatting hosed on the result table; for clarity:
Passed: No effect
Fail by 1-4: Shaken until end of combat/encounter
Fail by 5-9: Frightened until end of combat/encounter, and shaken for 1 hour thereafter
Fail by 10+: Panicked until end of combat/encounter plus 1 minute, and shaken for 24 hours thereafter.