D&D 5E Melee combat on the run

[Prakriti]

DMG, p 253, “A chase ends when... the pursuers are close enough to their quarry to catch it.”

Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. For one thing, "catch" isn't defined anywhere in the rules. And unless the quarry is grappled, what is to stop it from bolting and starting the chase over again? For that matter, why would it stop running in the first place? Just because a pursuer is close enough to "catch" a quarry doesn't mean that it has the means to stop it on that round. The pursuer will still need to use an Action to attack or grapple the quarry, which gives the quarry a chance to escape the pursuer once again. So until we see the results of that attempt, the chase really shouldn't end.

 

[iserith]

I have two issues with that post. First, I don’t think we’re talking about opportunity attacks that would only occur because of segmented turn structure. And second, I think the combat rules handle this situation just fine. The rules serve the DM, sure, but as a player, I wouldn’t be happy with a DM that used that as an excuse to rob my character of opportunity attacks.

In my games, the rules are clear (as I mention above): If the PC or NPC/monster moves "off the map" and someone follows, then we go into Chase rules. This way there are no surprises. In this case, I'd have the tarrasque beeline it to the edge of the map and the nature of the challenges changes accordingly.

 

[Hriston]

Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. For one thing, "catch" isn't defined anywhere in the rules. And unless the quarry is grappled, what is to stop it from bolting and starting the chase over again? For that matter, why would it stop running in the first place? Just because a pursuer is close enough to "catch" a quarry doesn't mean that it has the means to stop it on that round. The pursuer will still need to use an Action to attack or grapple the quarry, which gives the quarry a chance to escape the pursuer once again. So until we see the results of that attempt, the chase really shouldn't end.

Catch doesn’t need to be defined in the rules. If you’re chasing someone, and you catch them, that means you’ve closed whatever distance there was between the two of you. What’s to stop them from bolting is that they no longer have the lead on you they did when the chase started.

 

[Hriston]

In my games, the rules are clear (as I mention above): If the PC or NPC/monster moves "off the map" and someone follows, then we go into Chase rules. This way there are no surprises. In this case, I'd have the tarrasque beeline it to the edge of the map and the nature of the challenges changes accordingly.

That's fine if that's the ruling at your table, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to the example under discussion, which might not have been played on a map at all. My objection to proposals to use the chase rules in the particular situation given is that they seem to serve no other purpose than to justify denying the players their opportunity attacks. Honestly, I can't think of a situation more apt for opportunity attacks than for your opponent to be running from battle with you on their heels giving them multiple telling blows. What's the DM's agenda in denying the players this sort of narrative?

 

[Asisreo]

That's fine if that's the ruling at your table, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to the example under discussion, which might not have been played on a map at all. My objection to proposals to use the chase rules in the particular situation given is that they seem to serve no other purpose than to justify denying the players their opportunity attacks. Honestly, I can't think of a situation more apt for opportunity attacks than for your opponent to be running from battle with you on their heels giving them multiple telling blows. What's the DM's agenda in denying the players this sort of narrative?

Because that's probably the most ridiculous thing any NPC would ever do. Why would an NPC just waste their action running and taking free damage rather than attacking back? It's like a Newton's Cradle but instead of momentum, it's transferring free damage. It's alot less interesting than a chase, too.

What happens when the scenario is flipped at the players? They can't flee because they'll just keep taking free damage until they die, which is probably soon if they're fleeing!

 

[iserith]

That's fine if that's the ruling at your table, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to the example under discussion, which might not have been played on a map at all. My objection to proposals to use the chase rules in the particular situation given is that they seem to serve no other purpose than to justify denying the players their opportunity attacks. Honestly, I can't think of a situation more apt for opportunity attacks than for your opponent to be running from battle with you on their heels giving them multiple telling blows. What's the DM's agenda in denying the players this sort of narrative?

First, the discussion has expanded somewhat from the specific example. Further, what I do at my table could be adapted to theater of the mind - one would just have to determine what "off the map" means in that context and stick to it. Finally, the purpose could be to change up the scene from a straight combat to a chase scene which is a good dramatic move. The hunter becomes the hunted until the PCs prevail or the quarry escapes. I think it's uncharitable to think it's the DM trying to screw you out of your precious OAs.

 

[Prakriti]

Catch doesn’t need to be defined in the rules. If you’re chasing someone, and you catch them, that means you’ve closed whatever distance there was between the two of you. What’s to stop them from bolting is that they no longer have the lead on you they did when the chase started.

So when you are close enough to "catch" someone, that means you're running alongside them. What good does that do you? If you stop to Attack or grapple the quarry and fail, then the quarry is ahead of you again. The chase resumes. Therefore, it follows that merely being close enough to catch someone is not the right time to end the chase, and the DMG got it wrong.

 

[Hriston]

So when you are close enough to "catch" someone, that means you're running alongside them. What good does that do you? If you stop to Attack or grapple the quarry and fail, then the quarry is ahead of you again. The chase resumes. Therefore, it follows that merely being close enough to catch someone is not the right time to end the chase, and the DMG got it wrong.

It doesn’t necessarily do you any good. It doesn’t “win” the fight for you. But you don’t have to stop to attack, so no, the quarry doesn’t gain any ground thereby. It is within your reach and will incur an opportunity attack if it attempts to leave by continuing to run. In situations like this, it’s usually better to stand and fight, isn’t it? I think that’s why we have a rule for opportunity attacks.

 

[Prakriti]

It doesn’t necessarily do you any good. It doesn’t “win” the fight for you. But you don’t have to stop to attack, so no, the quarry doesn’t gain any ground thereby. It is within your reach and will incur an opportunity attack if it attempts to leave by continuing to run. In situations like this, it’s usually better to stand and fight, isn’t it? I think that’s why we have a rule for opportunity attacks.

If we're still talking about the DMG rules (and I assume we are): "Chase participants can't normally make opportunity attacks against each other, since they are all assumed to be moving in the same direction at the same time" (p. 252).

 

[Hriston]

If we're still talking about the DMG rules (and I assume we are): "Chase participants can't normally make opportunity attacks against each other, since they are all assumed to be moving in the same direction at the same time" (p. 252).

Also according to the DMG chase rules, the chase is over when the quarry is caught.