"Run away! Run away!" ... what if they don't?

[Les Moore]

If you're approaching three Stone Giants, I doubt it will be a secret, or hard to detect early. Giants aren't the most quiet or subtle creatures
in the book. IMO, it would be a given, if you have any stealthy characters in the party, you would have about three turns to decide to fight
or flee, prior to taking action. Barring outrageous extenuating circumstances, of course.

 

[5ekyu]

No, a dead character gets no experience.

However, the player learns a valuable lesson, (only if it's not to push the die button)
and also gains experience.

As per post #39, PC death is the ultimate player meta-game experience/lesson. The knowledge and wisdom
imparted to the player is far more valuable than anything the PC could have gained, in the game. As a more savvy
player, in the future you will handle your PCs more deftly, enabling them to easily surpass their predecessors. Remember
The Fifth Element? A little bit of destruction is a good thing...

Really? So its fine for players to assume their next characters all know and learned from their previous characters experience - as long as that previous character died???

I am sure that works for some ganes just fine. I have seen plenty of games where stuff like "my character wills my loot to my next character if i die" and alk sorts of things were done and they had fun too, so this knowledge carry over after character death is not that much dufferent.

So, fantastic for those who like that thing.

Not on,my menu of choice tho.

I cannot think of last time i had a character i created be so tied to a previous one or had it requested in my game.

 

[5ekyu]

No, a dead character gets no experience.

However, the player learns a valuable lesson, (only if it's not to push the die button)
and also gains experience.

As per post #39, PC death is the ultimate player meta-game experience/lesson. The knowledge and wisdom
imparted to the player is far more valuable than anything the PC could have gained, in the game. As a more savvy
player, in the future you will handle your PCs more deftly, enabling them to easily surpass their predecessors. Remember
The Fifth Element? A little bit of destruction is a good thing...

As for this specific piece...

"player, in the future you will handle your PCs more deftly, enabling them to easily surpass their predecessors. Remember"

Player - "but, well, no, that character was a paranoid thief with a background of betrayal and trickery, this new guy is a wizard excited to be experiencing these new glories - not nearly so jaded or cautious."

Cuz, you know, role-playing not wargaming or video gaming.

Just saying, its not anything like a built in thing that the next character will have somehow learned from the previous for any given game.

 

[jgsugden]

If you're approaching three Stone Giants, I doubt it will be a secret, or hard to detect early.

Not the best example... Reading the Stone Giant description in the MM rules compendium from D&D Beyond shows that they're quiet - hiding their lives and art away from the world. They also have a +2 Stealth (more stealthy than the typical human by a significant amount) - they even get advantage on Stealth in rocky terrain. They're lithe and graceful. The description indicates their guards and wandering brethren may be the least graceful and artistic - meaning perhaps the least capable of stealth - but, as written, they are generally not intended to be brash, blundering and obvious like a Hill Giant.

If low level PCs encountered a Stone Giant out in the woods by himself, I'd likely have him carrying some materials he found for his crafting. If just a random monster, I'd likely have him either ignore the PCs, or if they seemed like a threat, hide from them so that he could get allies to come at them together if necessary. I would not just have him attack, especially if the PCs were under level 5 where a single rock might kill a PC. Now, the PCs might decide to engage the Stone Giant and start a fight they regret, but there would be plenty of hints that this was a bad idea. If I rolled up a Stone Giant as a random encounter, I might have the PCs spot a brown bear in the distance and then have them see a boulder come flying in and kill it in one shot...

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Sometimes the reason for not running away can be that they simply don't believe it's possible. If the enemy is faster, or if there's rough terrain they have to retreat across, or if they know that spellcasters will be pounding them with fireballs as they retreat, etc.

Other times, they may simply have taken their current quest too much to heart. Sure, if they take on this fight they may well die - but if they back down, other peoples' lives are on the line. The only choice is to push through!

Pretty much this. In most parties I have seen, there's someone in heavy armor, or a small character, moving at 25', at which point escape is kind of futile per the rules. You're stuck eating an opportunity attack each round unless you disengage, at which point the monster walks up and hits you again or dashes themselves and you're repeating the process next round. Caltrops take an action to toss, so you're not gaining ground that way either. Either way you're getting poked to death once you're engaged with the enemy without exceptional measures (rogue cunning action, expeditious retreat, etc). I wouldn't run it that way myself, but I can easily see how players would just operate under that assumption when they start laying out the math. Some chase mechanics would have been nice.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I will have them see the giant tracks or something, and if they want to follow them and attack the giant stronghold at L3...well good luck with that. But at the same time maybe I roll 20 on a certain random encounter table and its the red dragon. Do the PC have spells and resources available for assisting escaping? I often see groups that don't seem to plan ahead to when they are going to have to run.

I do expect a level of metagaming as its silly to not expect a player to get better at the game and I hate the whole "how many times do I have to do what I know is wrong before I can do what I know is right" situation.

 

[KenNYC]

As for this specific piece...

"player, in the future you will handle your PCs more deftly, enabling them to easily surpass their predecessors. Remember"

Player - "but, well, no, that character was a paranoid thief with a background of betrayal and trickery, this new guy is a wizard excited to be experiencing these new glories - not nearly so jaded or cautious."

Cuz, you know, role-playing not wargaming or video gaming.

Just saying, its not anything like a built in thing that the next character will have somehow learned from the previous for any given game.

Intentionally playing badly isn't really role playing, at least role playing anyone else should be playing with for their own safety. Role Playing "my character always fights, goes on suicide missions and doesn't care if he lives or dies" is just another way of telling the DM "No" to everything he is working hard on, and the players "too bad" if they are enjoying the game or their characters.

 

[iserith]

Pretty much this. In most parties I have seen, there's someone in heavy armor, or a small character, moving at 25', at which point escape is kind of futile per the rules. You're stuck eating an opportunity attack each round unless you disengage, at which point the monster walks up and hits you again or dashes themselves and you're repeating the process next round. Caltrops take an action to toss, so you're not gaining ground that way either. Either way you're getting poked to death once you're engaged with the enemy without exceptional measures (rogue cunning action, expeditious retreat, etc). I wouldn't run it that way myself, but I can easily see how players would just operate under that assumption when they start laying out the math. Some chase mechanics would have been nice.

There are Chase mechanics in the DMG. I'm starting to think I'm the only one who uses them.

 

[KenNYC]

I’m kind of surprised at how often TPKs are being condoned. I am all for encounters where combat is a bad idea for the PCs, and all for maintaining danger for the PCs. But I also realize that when I present them with a challenge that is beyond their ability to defeat in combat, I’ve chosen to do so. Everyone seems to site the players’ choice to resort to combat as justification for a TPK....but no one seems to question the DM’s choice to set things up this way.

I am playing in a 1e game over roll20 currently. After 20 sessions in we are all 2nd level. Yesterday we literally ran into a Hill Giant throwing boulders at us. A Hill Giant encounter at 2nd level. Needless to say we did not attack and had we attacked our fate would be entirely our own making. We ran and went somewhere else.

Just because you are 2nd level does not mean you live in a world without Hill Giants.

 

[Yes]

This is an interesting question. One I find myself wondering about more and more as I play D&D.

Do I only set up fight that are challenging enough regarding player level? Should I try and balance the fights on the scale of an adventuring day? Should I only consider the scenario and make the most likely encounter occur considering the situation and not the challenge required? Do they have to stand reasonable chance for each fight?

Mostly, I think that the approach I have is wrong, and my player's approach too. No one likes to fight. Everybody wants to avoid fights. Even fights you're likely to win. Especially those fights, because, if you're opponents are smart, and know they might lose their lives, they'll most likely want to avoid it. My players are always itching for a fight, because that's what they're playing D&D for, they want to roll the dices, do damage and cast big spells, they want to fell the beast. But even if you have no doubt you'll triumph, the beast can bite.

I noticed that my players, even if I warn them that some creatures aren't just there waiting to be killed, and some might teach them a lesson, I see in their eyes they always kinda feel betrayed when it proves too much of a challenge. I wondered "How to do it?"

Alll of that brings me to that matter of "evaluating" an opponent's power. The tools to do such a thing are not really emphasized in D&D 5. I suggested to my players that they should, when they spot something or someone and things start going south, they should try and evaluate the threat. I'd ask for insight or perception or investigation checks. I also tried to tell them, especially since they're growing in power, that intimidation might be a powerful tool and avoid them to spend some valuable resources. But I don't know... it feels like they distrust those methods... they don't feel like it's very intuitive. But I have to admit, the game isn't built around them. There are lots of spells to burn or ice your ennemies, but none to tell that they'll most likely tear you to shreds. Only clue my players seem to value for that matter is basic lore, my intonations, and meta-gaming clues ( It's that kind of monster, I know it's bad/fair game/useless...)

I should probably think of some elegant powers and spells meant to evaluate the power or the offensive abilities of a foe.