If you've modified the rules to.make those viable mechanical options, then yes, absolutely.
Are the rules explicit that NPCs and intelligent monsters fight to the death as the default?
If you've modified the rules to.make those viable mechanical options, then yes, absolutely.
No, but morale really isnt a thing either; it's all DM fiat.Are the rules explicit that NPCs and intelligent monsters fight to the death as the default?
No, but morale really isnt a thing either; it's all DM fiat.
Yeah, I support the idea of monsters being played intelligently. Softening combat is a Spectrum from more realistic actions all the way to sword tag. All I was saying was that if you were intent on avoiding combat altogether, you're gutting a large portion of the 5e engine.Should not-having-everything-be-suicidal appeal to those who like their DM fiat hewing to a bit of pseudo-realism?
Combat is roleplaying and doesn't require less creativity in my view that engaging with other pillars of play, but otherwise agree that players tend to do what they're incentivized to do provided they understand the goals and incentives (and find them fun and memorable to pursue).I tend to award more HP for resolving an encounter without killing. Smashy-smashy and stabby-stabby require less creativity than RP.
As one of the people who favor that style, it's not that the game can't do it, it's that we feel it doesn't do it particularly well. Having morale be an optional rule is good, as even back in the day a lot of DMs just ignored it. However, I've found from experience that the saving throw method doesn't work particularly well, and would prefer a better one from prior editions. I don't think another game is necessarily the best option, but some houserules are needed to make it work.Well yeah, no doubt the game has vastly improved from that era, but it's weird that people who favor that style tell people avoiding killing is something the game can't do,
Minor point, but the attacks of opportunity/disengage rules are something of a barrier to enemies (or PCs) fleeing. You could even imagine enemies fleeing not just to run away, but to establish a better position, but the stickiness of combat makes that less tactically effective
IMO people overemphasis the downside of taking an opportunity attack. Yes, it "feels" bad, but there are a lot of times when it's tactically the best option. I've taken them both as a DM and player when the situation called for it, and only a handful of times have a felt it was the wrong decision afterwards (the most notable one was taking a crit that dropped me to 0 HP). As a DM, if a creature has only a handful of HP and their opponent isn't engaged with another enemy, taking disengage is stupid, since the PCs can just move up and kill them on their turn.I think it’s 100% because of the “free” attack. Even though using your action to disengage instead of attack is actually a bad proposition for the players, especially if they have Extra Attack, it just feels wrong to just let the enemy get an attack in on your turn because you moved. Like you’re handing them something for nothing.
I agree! I think the fact that it feels wrong is why so many players work so hard to avoid provoking OAs, even when it is the best tactical option. But really it’s not that bad to take an OA most of the time.IMO people overemphasis the downside of taking an opportunity attack. Yes, it "feels" bad, but there are a lot of times when it's tactically the best option. I've taken them both as a DM and player when the situation called for it, and only a handful of times have a felt it was the wrong decision afterwards (the most notable one was taking a crit that dropped me to 0 HP). As a DM, if a creature has only a handful of HP and their opponent isn't engaged with another enemy, taking disengage is stupid, since the PCs can just move up and kill them on their turn.