D&D General Run Away!

[DND_Reborn]

1. The "out" isn't so much the moving and Dashing - it's the hiding. Cold comfort for someone in heavy armor unless they roll particularly well, but there are ways to mitigate that (Inspiration or working together, for example). I've used these rules a lot (or modified versions of them) and it's all about the hiding since that's the means to escape.

4. The existing chase rules work for this, if a bit clunky in my opinion.

Not really in either case IME because just about 80-90% of everything in the game has the same speed, and the creatures that don't have the same speed are nearly always faster than the PCs....

1. PC disengages and moves 30 feet. Monster moves 30 feet and attacks, repeat until PC dead.

OR

2. PC flees (dashing), provokes OA. Monster dashes to re-engage, repeat until PC dead.

You can't take the Hide action under direct observation in most cases, and if you are Disengaging or Dashing, you have no action to Hide anyway...

(bold)
Now, your modified versions might work better and are good enough for you, but using RAW unless I am missing something, they pretty much suck.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If a group is playing gritty adventure rather than heroic fantasy, where’s the problem? I think there are some assumptions at play that don’t hold universally across different types of games.

If the group agreed on gritty adventure, then that's what they like and that's not going to be an issue. The problem comes when:

1) The group doesn't want that and the DM is playing out the 'Dad makes the family go camping' trope from 90's sitcoms and everyone else is suffering for the one player who is at the wheel.

2) The game takes a shocking swerve into gritty adventure after being heroic fantasy at this one point either by design or because random encounters or not following the encounter guidelines.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It goes back to what I was talking about in my first post.

Forcing a rout is an interesting thing in non-interactive fiction, but the player is the one experiencing it by proxy. The hero you're playing is forced to break and run like Brave Sir Robin and they KNOW it's because either the DM is trying to make it happen or purposefully making things unfair by not following the encounter guidelines.

Thus, humiliation and resentment. I forced to either be a coward or die by someone expressly trying to make that a thing despite knowing I don't want it and that I'm giving up valuable free time to play with them. What's there not to be resentful about?

If I set an old school Paladin to fall through a sadistic choice, I'm in the wrong.

If I force a player's character to do any other thing they're not cool with, I'm in the wrong.

But Forcing a rout is okay because the DM really, really wants to? Nah, bro.

I think you’re creating a false dichotomy where it’s either “coward” or “fight to the death”.

Retreating isn’t synonymous with cowardice. I don’t see a problem if there are situations where fleeing is the clear choice.

Setting things up specifically so in order to placate the GM? That’s something different, and I agree with you that it’s to be avoided.

But I don’t think that if things go in such a way that the PCs need to flee, then suddenly they’re a bunch of cowards.

 

[iserith]

Not really in either case IME because just about 80-90% of everything in the game has the same speed, and the creatures that don't have the same speed are nearly always faster than the PCs....

1. PC disengages and moves 30 feet. Monster moves 30 feet and attacks, repeat until PC dead.

OR

2. PC flees (dashing), provokes OA. Monster dashes to re-engage, repeat until PC dead.

You can't take the Hide action under direct observation in most cases, and if you are Disengaging or Dashing, you have no action to Hide anyway...

(bold)
Now, your modified versions might work better and are good enough for you, but using RAW unless I am missing something, they pretty much suck.

The chase mechanics in the DMG acknowledge that "strict application of the movement rules can turn a potentially exciting chase into a dull, predictable affair. Faster creatures always catch up to slower ones, while creatures with the same speed never close the distance between each other." Hence why they put these rules together for DMs to use if they want. This acknowledgement specifically addresses your concerns in points 1 and 2.

Per those rules, every quarry gets a chance to hide at the end of every round. It requires no action. (Good ol' level 2+ rogue gets two shots if they want it with Cunning Action!) Hence my comment on hiding being the thing to focus on in most cases if you're the quarry. The rules already contain advantage and disadvantage conditions for the Stealth check based on things like line of sight. (See "Escape Factors" table.)

The RAW rules are clunky in my view for a couple of reasons, but I don't think they "suck" in play. They do what they set out to do - give the characters or monsters an opportunity to escape that is resolved outside of normal movement rules and combat actions which, as you say, fail to adequately address this when it arises. When used in play, they do help paint a scene of a frantic chase in the context of the environment where it is occurring. As to what I find clunky:

First, you have to keep track of distances still which gets weird when there a lot of creatures with different speeds all moving relative to each other. That's kind of a mess, so I prefer to switch that to zones or the like as I posted an example of above. Second, you roll a Complication on your turn that the creature whose turn it is next has to deal with. That's a bit counterintuitive in my view - just roll to see what that creature gets on their turn is better to me. Then there's the bit about using Inspiration to "pay off" and thereby avoid the complication. That doesn't jive with how we use Inspiration at my table, so I take that bit out. As well, the exhaustion rules that go away on a short rest aren't in sync with the normal rules for exhaustion and I don't care for that. Finally, I don't love how they push complications to be resolved in certain ways with what looks like prescribed ability checks. I prefer to simply present the complication, let the player say how they are dealing with it, and resolve it as normal using ability checks as needed. This keeps it more in line with how all other actions are resolved in the game.

 

[CleverNickName]

We could make a mini-game out of it.

First, make Evasion and Pursuit into ability checks, modified by Intelligence (to represent cunning and quick thinking) or Dexterity (to represent speed and agility). Groups of monsters/heroes use the rules for group ability checks. Maybe certain classes, races, and backgrounds are proficient with one, both, or neither. Maybe encumbrance or armor grants disadvantage on one or both? Maybe the faster of the two rolls with advantage? Anyway...

When a chase begins, combat ends. Both the Runner and the Chaser begin making opposed rolls.

• If the runner wins the contest they move X squares apart
• If the chaser wins they move X squares closer together.
• When X = some big number, the encounter ends.
• When X = 0, combat begins anew.

Might be fun, might be tedious. (shrug) I can see it going either way.

 

[CleverNickName]

In my philosophy?

The I would prefer no random encounters period. Lettings the dice rule the game is one of the things I hate most.

I get that, but it can put the DM in an awkward position.

If there are no random encounters, all encounters have to be placed by the DM. So if any monster is encountered, it's because the DM put it there, and for a reason. It also means that the DM is solely responsible for picking the "right monsters" for the party to fight. It's a setup: "why would you put a monster on the board if you didn't want us to fight it?" And "why would you pick a monster that could kill us?"

Not all groups play this way, obviously. But those last two sentences in the above paragraph are direct quotes from my gaming group from a couple of years ago. So I started using random encounters. I still get flack for the placed, scripted encounters that go poorly, but this helped a little bit.

 

[payn]

I think you’re creating a false dichotomy where it’s either “coward” or “fight to the death”.

Retreating isn’t synonymous with cowardice. I don’t see a problem if there are situations where fleeing is the clear choice.

Setting things up specifically so in order to placate the GM? That’s something different, and I agree with you that it’s to be avoided.

But I don’t think that if things go in such a way that the PCs need to flee, then suddenly they’re a bunch of cowards.

I believe Vaalingrade is speaking to GMs who dont communicate playstyle well, and try and enforce it through the rules. Not playing "correctly" and the rules will screw you over. These folks are around I've experienced them myself.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

What about using a variation of the 4e skill challenge mechanics for a chase.

 

[iserith]

What about using a variation of the 4e skill challenge mechanics for a chase.

I don't feel like D&D 4e skill challenges really have a place in D&D 5e due to certain underlying assumptions about the nature of ability checks and who gets to ask for them. In 4e, players are expected to ask to make skill checks and the DM is encouraged to almost always say "Yes," likely due to how skill challenges work with the number of hard and moderate DCs (plus advantages) baked into the skill challenge structure. In 5e, it's not all that bright to ask to make ability checks since the DM decides the DC and also whether there's a check at all.

I'm also not sure how the math would work out. My old D&D 4e group had a legit rocket surgeon who mathed it all out back in the day and it worked well for 4e but you could not really deviate from the structure without higher complexity skill challenges resulting in failure for the PCs. Who knows how that will work in 5e with bounded accuracy and the DM calling DCs on the fly.

The chase rules I listed above are fairly close to a 4e skill challenge structure, but with some obvious differences.

 

[Reynard]

This isn't an attempt to simulate pre-history humanity. It's a way to resolve the chase reasonably quickly in certain circumstances. Or shall we play out a shambling mound (20 ft. speed) chasing the PCs (25 or 30 ft. speed) through the forest?

You've never seen a Friday the 13th movie, eh?

More seriously: absolutely the "slower" shaming mound can catch them when they are waist deep in sucking mud (disadvantage) while it flows through the mire like it was born there (hint: it was; advantage).