NPC Morale/Routing Mechanic?

[Dimcair]

Is there a neat NPC Morale/routing Mechanic for 5ed?

If not for 5ed, any other DnD edition? Or homebrew?

/edit: morale, thank you

[goto124]

What is a(n) NPC moral/routing mechanic?

[some guy]

I usually use the old morale system of assigning a morale score between 2 and 12 to a monster. 2 never fights, 12 never retreats (most undead, constructs). I roll a morale check with 2d6 when the conditions on pg 273 of the dmg occur (surprised, lost half of the force, leader falls). If the check is higher than the monster's morale score, the monsters retreat/flee. If it is lower or equal the creatures continue to fight.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm not a fan of mechanic for moral effects. It's just roleplaying, cowardly kobolds may run the moment their ambush is noticed before they attack unless they face a gnome they hate and want to kill at all cost, bloodthirsty orcs may fight until their side clearly loses, but are afraid of dwarves and may run much sooner if confronted by them, well trained soldiers may retreat to regroup if the enemy uses battlefield control spells to tumrn the terain against them, even though they otherwise fight bravely, mindless zombies fight to the end and never stop chasing you unless you lose them, even if it means going through the minefield or one against army.

IMO, there's too many variables to create a good mechanic.

[Joe the Rat]

Mostly I've been eyeballing it - checking at half numbers (hit points for a single monster), again at disadvantage at 1/4 numbers/hp/last being standing. I've been bouncing between using Wisdom or Charisma saves ( I figure if an NPC has the relevant save proficiency, it's probably applicable).

It hasn't come up yet, but creatures immune to fear do not check morale. I'm thinking immunity to psychic damage may apply as well.

At least that's my plan. My players tend to demand surrender / claim prisoners / offer jobs in the relevant cases (in which case it's resisted with Wisdom (Insight))

[Dimcair]

I'm not a fan of mechanic for moral effects. It's just roleplaying, cowardly kobolds may run the moment their ambush is noticed before they attack unless they face a gnome they hate and want to kill at all cost, bloodthirsty orcs may fight until their side clearly loses, but are afraid of dwarves and may run much sooner if confronted by them, well trained soldiers may retreat to regroup if the enemy uses battlefield control spells to tumrn the terain against them, even though they otherwise fight bravely, mindless zombies fight to the end and never stop chasing you unless you lose them, even if it means going through the minefield or one against army.

IMO, there's too many variables to create a good mechanic.

The variables you cite can be easily incorporated by giving a penalty or a bonus. I get where you are are coming from though. But I personally don't want to make the decision of whether the party will survive or whether they may be worn out and killed. It feels fudged to me if I rule in favor of the party (monsters retreat early).



What is a(n) NPC moral/routing mechanic?

You got it now? =)

[KorvinStarmast]

Is there a neat NPC Moral/routing Mechanic for 5ed?

If not for 5ed, any other DnD edition? Or homebrew?
Do you mean morale or moral? For morale checks, you can use D&D original edition, AD&D 1st Edition systems. (1e starts on pg 36 of the DMG for 1e and is sorta crunchy. Once you master it I found that it does well).

The morale/rout system from OD&D is simpler, and was derived from the original Chainmail(3d editions), which used a 2d6 system and assigned a morale score based on the unit being peasant levies, (9) or elite infantry (5), and various quality in between.

You had to roll the morale score or above to not break once casualties reached a certain amount. About 1/3 for lower quality units, and about a half for higher quality units. In AD&D, groups of creatures of more chaotic alignment, and with leaders having a more chaotic alignment, had some default minuses to their loyalty/morale scores, while groups of Lawful alignment, or whose leaders were lawful, had some default plusses to their morale score, or a morale check.

The OD&D system is summarized here, but also slightly modified to account for bonus changes in 5e.

You can make it a one roll or two roll system.

For a two roll system you first determine what the basic loyalty is of the group to the leader(see below). That is directly influenced by the Charisma of the leader. You can if you wish further modify it based on the groups previous success. Successful groups tend to stay together in the expectation of future success. (per the elite units in Chainmail). Based on the original table on p. 11 of Men and Magic.


Charisma Score
3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18


Loyalty Base
- 4
- 3
- 2
- 1
0
+1
+2
+3
+4




To use a 2d6 morale check, subtract 1 from the above bonuses. To use a 3d6 moral check, use them straight up.

Assign a morale score to your group of goblins, (let's say 10 or 11) and let's say the leader has a 12 charisma. The goblins get a +1 to their moral roll on a 3d6 set up. (If you use 1d20 it's a lot more swingy, using 2d6 or a 3d6 is probably a better idea). Let's say they have average morale: 11.

For the same group in a 2d6 set up, they'd get 0 bonus for the charisma of their leader and have a morale score of 7.

They are fighting the PC's and lose about a third of their number. Roll to see if they will rout or remain. (Or surrender: depends on what kind of communication/offer the PC's make). For units with higher quality, like Hobgoblins, you would not check until they lost over half of their number (or their leader bolted).

For the added layer, if you want it. Establish a loyalty base for the group before the battle.

Morale dice can cause a man or intelligent monster to attempt to surrender or become subdued. When this happens an offer of service can be made (assuming that communication is possible). It can represent a decision to flee since morale of the group has broken and they are no longer obeying their leader.

Loyalty modifiers are applied from the second table. The loyalty base is checked once, and becomes a permanent modifier to any morale roll made until something about the group, or the leader, changes sufficiently to re baseline the loyalty score. Make sure to adjust for leader charisma when establishing this base score. This was originally designed to measure how many troops/folks would follow PC's, it may be overkill to add this to your NPC groups unless they are, for example, the soldiers and retainers of the BBEG.

Men, dwarves and elves will serve as retainers with relative loyalty so long they receive their pay regularly, are treated fairly, are not continually exposed to extra-hazardous duty, and receive bonuses when they are taking part in some dangerous venture. Judgment of this matter is perforce subjective on the part of the campaign referee, but there is a simple guideline: When one or more of such characters are taken into service a loyalty check is made by rolling three-six-sided dice. Adjustments are made for charisma and initial payments for service, and the loyalty of the character(s) noted by the referee.

this table is also from Men and Magic, p. 13


3 or less
4-6
7-8
9-12
13-14
15-18
19 and above

will desert at first opportunity
-2 on morale dice
-1 on morale dice
Average morale dice
+ 1 on morale dice
+2 on morale dice
Need never check morale

[Serket]

What is a(n) NPC moral/routing mechanic?

It's where the stories that teach ethics also tell the NPCs to flee.

I think the OP means morale - which is where the NPCs go "oh ****, you just killed five of my mates in six seconds, I should probably run away".

To actually answer the question, I'm with JackPhoenix - it's a roleplaying thing. The only point having mechanics is if you struggle, and that's unlikely unless you're running lots of random encounters.

[goto124]

I think the OP means morale - which is where the NPCs go "oh Pelor, you just killed five of my mates in six seconds, I should probably run away".

Yea, the spelling messed me up. Thanks!

Not sure why a mechanics is required. When someone will retreat is heavily dependent on the NPCs' motivations, their stakes, how willing they are, etc, which are rather fluff-based.

[Joe the Rat]

There are those who are more comfortable with mechanical ways to determine this sort of thing - and the existence of old rules as some guy mentions does set a precedent.

Given that in the day Morale was a two-edged sword (it applied to those monsters AND your hirelings), being able to point to a die roll rather than fiat soothes some of the issues with your torchbearers running from the horde of wights.

[JoeJ]

If you want an actual mechanic instead of just deciding yourself, it's on p. 273 of the DMG.

[Thrudd]

Yea, the spelling messed me up. Thanks!

Not sure why a mechanics is required. When someone will retreat is heavily dependent on the NPCs' motivations, their stakes, how willing they are, etc, which are rather fluff-based.
It is a really important element of battle that shouldn't be determined by DM fiat, just like the DM shouldn't just decide if someone hits or misses or how much damage they do. Morale and how npc's and monsters react to things are just as important as their hp, it can determine the outcome of a fight, or even if there will be a fight. You can give them bonuses or penalties based on the "fluff" factors, but you still should roll to see what happens, it's the only fair way to treat the players.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Personally, I consider whether the thing is sentient and has a survival instinct.

50% individual HP lost, the leader down, 1/3 of pals incapacitated will have almost any group looking for the exit IF AND ONLY IF the individuals are aware of the situation and running away is an acceptable option. It's really a role play decision by the DM. Use a die DC10 if it makes you feel better.

Most of my monsters act like real world predators. Easy prey is good prey. If the prey puts up too much of a fight, best to look for easier prey.

Most of my humanoids act like they want to live, but if necessary, will die with honor rather than live with disgrace.

Everything else (what is there?) is between.

Fear spells are another thing.

[Tanarii]

If you want an actual mechanic instead of just deciding yourself, it's on p. 273 of the DMG.

This, for enemy NPCs or Monsters. NPCs on your side have loyalty, DMG p. 93. Loyalty doesn't explicitly apply to combat morale though.

[JackPhoenix]

It is a really important element of battle that shouldn't be determined by DM fiat, just like the DM shouldn't just decide if someone hits or misses or how much damage they do. Morale and how npc's and monsters react to things are just as important as their hp, it can determine the outcome of a fight, or even if there will be a fight. You can give them bonuses or penalties based on the "fluff" factors, but you still should roll to see what happens, it's the only fair way to treat the players.

In mass battles, I would agree. In squad-level combat expected in default D&D gameplay, I still think it's redundant. The characters don't have to roll for morale when the fighter gets down or they eat a crit, but acts according to their personalities, motivations and the overall tactical situations, the enemy side should be the same. There isn't so many NPCs the GM is incapable of roleplaying them... though that's my perspective, different GMs have different playstyles and needs.

[Tanarii]

In mass battles, I would agree. In squad-level combat expected in default D&D gameplay, I still think it's redundant. The characters don't have to roll for morale when the fighter gets down or they eat a crit, but acts according to their personalities, motivations and the overall tactical situations, the enemy side should be the same. There isn't so many NPCs the GM is incapable of roleplaying them... though that's my perspective, different GMs have different playstyles and needs.its mostly useful if you're trying to run a game as a neutral referee, semi-war game style. The DMG optional rule covers a good spectrum of basic situations under which a creature might flee.

A creature might flee under any of the following circumstances:
• The creature is surprised.
The creature is reduced to half its hit points or fewer for the first time in the battle.
The creature has no way to harm the opposing side on its turn.
A group of creatures might flee under any of the following circumstances:
All the creatures in the group are surprised.
The group's leader is reduced to 0 hit points, incapacitated, taken prisoner, or removed from battle.
• The group is reduced to half its original size with no losses on the opposing side.

[lebefrei]

I roleplay it in the following ways:

Injury: most intelligent creatures will run when badly hurt and given the chance
Leadership: if you're led by a thug bully or charismatic creature, losing them may sap your will to fight
Power: an enemy that knows it is powerful will wait until it sees loss at hand. Then it is very likely to flee
Size: smaller things are more likely to run away. This is just survival logic.
Numbers: party suddenly outnumbers the enemy? Not a powerful foe? Time to run!

I like to use fleeing enemies as a continuation or next step in a sequence of encounters. Where did they go, and what is their goal? Reinforcements, hiding, blind panic? These all influence the story. I like not having specific rules that force these choices on me.

[Dimcair]

It is a really important element of battle that shouldn't be determined by DM fiat, just like the DM shouldn't just decide if someone hits or misses or how much damage they do.

I can't imagine how someone would argue against this. While the situational 'fudge' may be appropriate as a DM you ARE supposed to be a neutral referee, especially if it comes to combat.

[Tanarii]

I can't imagine how someone would argue against this. While the situational 'fudge' may be appropriate as a DM you ARE supposed to be a neutral referee, especially if it comes to combat.
Many DMs and Players don't believe that DMs ARE supposed to be neutral referees. Some think it's the job of the DM to drive the plot, or the like. The neutral referee stance mostly applies to people approaching the game as a wargame, where the players are actively competing against an impartial rule-set / world.

[Thrudd]

In mass battles, I would agree. In squad-level combat expected in default D&D gameplay, I still think it's redundant. The characters don't have to roll for morale when the fighter gets down or they eat a crit, but acts according to their personalities, motivations and the overall tactical situations, the enemy side should be the same. There isn't so many NPCs the GM is incapable of roleplaying them... though that's my perspective, different GMs have different playstyles and needs.

The players are role playing their characters. The decision to fight or run needs to be theirs, not decided by dice, that is part of the strategy of playing the game.

The DM is not role playing a character that must think strategically and make life or death choices, they are not engaged in a strategy game against the other players. They are controlling the entire world around the players. It is not fair for them to make all decisions for the npcs and monsters the same way the players do. This would negate the ability of the players to have impact on the world with their actions. The battle will always go how the DM wants it (enemies running or fighting to the death or surrendering only at the moment the DM chooses), players' social actions will mean nothing because the DM decides what happens and how creatures react, regardless of the pc's abilities. This is why there are rules and dice to decide how things turn out. The DM role plays the results of the dice, if the dice say an npc is convinced by a character's diplomacy, the DM plays that out. If the dice say the orcs lose morale after the players kill a couple of them, the DM role plays to explain how that happens.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

The players are role playing their characters. The decision to fight or run needs to be theirs, not decided by dice, that is part of the strategy of playing the game.

The DM is not role playing a character that must think strategically and make life or death choices, they are not engaged in a strategy game against the other players. They are controlling the entire world around the players. It is not fair for them to make all decisions for the npcs and monsters the same way the players do. This would negate the ability of the players to have impact on the world with their actions. The battle will always go how the DM wants it (enemies running or fighting to the death or surrendering only at the moment the DM chooses), players' social actions will mean nothing because the DM decides what happens and how creatures react, regardless of the pc's abilities. This is why there are rules and dice to decide how things turn out. The DM role plays the results of the dice, if the dice say an npc is convinced by a character's diplomacy, the DM plays that out. If the dice say the orcs lose morale after the players kill a couple of them, the DM role plays to explain how that happens.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fair" in this context. The DM-PC relationship isn't "fair" by any metric; it's incredibly lob-sided, by design. The DM will always have the prerogative to negate player action. If not in the highly specific instance of the exact moment when an opponent flees, then in a higher one. How many opponents are there? How quickly do they come back? What effect does this have on the plot? The DM simply has the power to force things a certain way if they really want to, all the while working within the rules.
More rules and stricter enforcement can't stop a bad DM.

[mephnick]

I can't imagine how someone would argue against this. While the situational 'fudge' may be appropriate as a DM you ARE supposed to be a neutral referee, especially if it comes to combat.

How is deciding when monsters run any different than deciding who they hit? I do what I think the monsters will do whether that's going to kill a PC or not.

If you actually go "oh the rogue is hurt, this bugbear better attack someone else" you're already deciding the battle by DM fiat.

You might as well roll dice to decide everything a monster decides to do if you aren't comfortable role-playing them. Who does it attack? Does it use a spell this turn? You wouldn't say these things are DM fiat, so why would morale be?

[Thrudd]

I'm not sure what you mean by "fair" in this context. The DM-PC relationship isn't "fair" by any metric; it's incredibly lob-sided, by design. The DM will always have the prerogative to negate player action. If not in the highly specific instance of the exact moment when an opponent flees, then in a higher one. How many opponents are there? How quickly do they come back? What effect does this have on the plot? The DM simply has the power to force things a certain way if they really want to, all the while working within the rules.
More rules and stricter enforcement can't stop a bad DM.

No, it's not about stopping a specifically bad DM. Fair, in this context, means the players actions have a fair chance to have a desired outcome based on impartial rules rather than purely DM judgement, and also have a fair chance of failing. The rules help a DM be a better impartial judge. It isn't implying the DM and players are competing or should have equal levels of power. The DM has a completely different role in the game from the players, you can't even compare them.
If the DM follows the rules, they do not negate player actions which also fall within the rules, and should have no need to do so.

Without using rules for morale and routing of combatants, a DM might allow every fight to be a fight to the death. In this case, having the rules would make the game better and potentially help someone become a better DM by pointing out that most creatures won't fight to the death and giving rules to determine when and why they might break off combat.

[Thrudd]

How is deciding when monsters run any different than deciding who they hit? I do what I think the monsters will do whether that's going to kill a PC or not.

If you actually go "oh the rogue is hurt, this bugbear better attack someone else" you're already deciding the battle by DM fiat.

You might as well roll dice to decide everything a monster decides to do if you aren't comfortable role-playing them. Who does it attack? Does it use a spell this turn? You wouldn't say these things are DM fiat, so why would morale be?

Because randomizing absolutely every decision is cumbersome and includes too many variables. But whatever can be reasonably and efficiently randomized, should be. Morale is easy, only rolled once or twice per combat, after certain conditions are met, with a small number of adjusting variables.

If you choose to divert attacks away from a wounded PC or specifically target a wounded PC when the creatures would have no reason to do so, that is bad DMing. A dice-driven decision tree would most likely have a creature continue attacking a single target, once selected, unless something caused it to change focus. This puts the outcome more in the hands of the players, as they could see that an ally needs help and take action in an attempt to draw away their attacker to another target, and their success or failure would not depend on whether the DM wants to be nice or not, but on the fact that their actions actually interacted with the game and has a mechanical outcome.

[Xetheral]

I can't imagine how someone would argue against this. While the situational 'fudge' may be appropriate as a DM you ARE supposed to be a neutral referee, especially if it comes to combat.

I disagree entirely, because I see the DM's role as entirely different. For me, my job as a DM is to do everything I can to make sure the players have as much fun as a possible. I will do everything in my power to achieve that goal, and in practice, I find that acting as a "neutral referee" is rarely the best method.

Both playstyles are perfectly legitimate. Your claim that DM's are supposed to be neutral referees is only true under your particular playstyle.

[rhouck]

Keep in mind the length of rounds being 6 seconds in 5e. How long does an average combat last? Maybe 3-4 rounds typically? That's not much time for a monster to enter combat, begin fighting, decide that it can't win, and then to try and flee -- particularly if they are fighting for their life in melee and don't to have a meta birdseye view of the entire battlefield.

I'm not saying that a morale system can't be useful, but just not to feel that it needs to be applied to every opponent in every combat.

[mephnick]

But whatever can be reasonably and efficiently randomized, should be. Morale is easy, only rolled once or twice per combat, after certain conditions are met, with a small number of adjusting variables. .

That seems neither reasonable nor efficient to me compared to role-playing the monsters properly, but if people want more fiddly rolls and modifiers in combat I'm not going to discourage them.