D&D 5E Is the Default Playstyle of 5E "Monty Haul?"

[payn]

Yeah, I've been told (by the Internet) that nobody reads it.
Which confirms what I've suspected all along:
I'm a nobody on the Internet.

You should really stop listening to the internet. After this posting, of course.

 

[CleverNickName]

Isn't that rule #12 on the adventurers guide? When in doubt, sacrifice the gnome?

Well, they're slow and bite-sized, and they often carry their own sauces and seasonings (potions/spell components). What else are they good for?

 

[Oofta]

Are there set rules for pursuit and retreat? I've seen lots of house-rules and custom work-arounds, but I don't remember seeing them in the rules.

There are chase rules in the DMG. I use them for inspiration, it's basically a modified skill challenge.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This isn't even getting into the anti-heroic feeling of having to break and run from everything because the DM likes a playstyle the game doesn't support. Or the fact that I feel like players aren't going to trust a DM who will absolutely murder them for not retreating won't use the rules to murder them for retreating. Because the point is operant conditioning.

Its worse than that.

Unless you've got something like the rule that exists in a couple of games (13th Age and its "You can always retreat but there will be a campaign price to pay" comes to mind here) that permits deterministic retreat, retreating is part of a double-or-nothing calculation. Because if you start to retreat in a situation that's already gone badly, your chance of pulling out out usually goes from low to nonexistent, so if the GM is ever going to have you pursued, you have to guess if this is the time.

(This is assuming the game doesn't have a dedicated pursuit rules subset you can assess and decide if it looks better than your current situation; D&D has rarely been that game, and to the best of my knowledge, never outdoors).

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is super weird.

Like, the players don't know whether the people they hit and run will retaliate or thank them kindly for killing Bob because he was a jerk anyway, right?

And I assume that not literally every foe they do this to will adamantly refuse to give chase, right?

And the second something does give chase the players will see how the game straight up punishes them mechanically for doing so, right?

So they're going to learn not to not retreat at some time or other anyway because they don't actually know when the monster will roll over an snuggle them on the way out, or rain ranged murder into their exposed backs and one result is enough to remove the value of the other.

Because the mechanics suck, this only leaves the option to never play an enemy was anything but uncaring to forgiving toward hit and run tactics instead of actively seeking out better chase mechanics.

This isn't even getting into the anti-heroic feeling of having to break and run from everything because the DM likes a playstyle the game doesn't support. Or the fact that I feel like players aren't going to trust a DM who will absolutely murder them for not retreating won't use the rules to murder them for retreating. Because the point is operant conditioning.

Look, I get it. There are game rules in the D&D combat "board game" that can work themselves out to making retreat seem impossible if we treat the game as nothing but a board game.

PC Disengages from the monster and Moves away 30 feet. Monster Moves 30 feet and makes an Attack. PC either Disengages again and Moves 30 feet (after which Monster Moves 30' and Attacks again ad infinitum)... or PC Moves and uses action to Dash for 60 feet, but the monster thus gets to make an Attack of Opportunity. Then the monster Moves 60 feet themselves to become adjacent to the PC again, at which time again it's either Disengage and Move, or Move and Dash (both of which result in a monster attack at some point.)

If this was purely a mechanical video game with no narrative or story attached to either the PC or the monster... yeah, eventually the PC would die (or finally just turn around to face off against the monster and just fight.) But the thing is... this isn't a video game! There IS narrative and story. And you as the DM can think of any number of reasons why the monsters would not chase after the players, even if the mechanics of the game assured you as the DM that your monster could always win. Because that would be you metagaming as the DM-- knowing that mechanically the board game rules don't allow the PC to get away if you just have the monsters continually chase after them and attack when both are the same Speed.

So sure... if you want to say the game rules "suck" because they allow you to metagame and kill off the PCs no matter what they do? Fine. They suck. And if you want to see this loophole of "impossible mechanical retreat" closed in the new game? Sure! I'd be okay with that. Put it in the survey when the time is right, and maybe WotC will change the rule to close the loophole.

BUT... don't act as though the game is forcing you do anything, or forcing the players to do anything. Anything that happens is still due to your choices and the player's choices. And even if the game mechanical loop says a retreating PC will eventually be killed if you just keep chasing and pressing the attack... you do not need to do that. You have a choice not to. For whatever reason you can think of. And if retreat is something you want your players to occasionally choose... then ya just don't smack 'em in the face every time they do just because the "rules let you".

 

[Vaalingrade]

If we're being reduced to using 'board game' and 'video game' as rhetorical insults, we're done here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If we're being reduced to using 'board game' and 'video game' as rhetorical insults, we're done here.

I'll go as far as to say "If you have to completely sidestep the mechanics of the game you have for an important event resolution (and one that in theory can come up multiple times) then you either should be acknowledging that its time to houserule in some mechanics or you're playing the wrong game."

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'll go as far as to say "If you have to completely sidestep the mechanics of the game you have for an important event resolution (and one that in theory can come up multiple times) then you either should be acknowledging that its time to houserule in some mechanics or you're playing the wrong game."

I agree wholeheartedly. And I do not see anything wrong with house ruling in mechanics you like, nor playing a different game if another one has rules you like better. I think those are the easiest and fastest ways to get what you want.

 

[tetrasodium]

Now I'm getting confused-- there needs to be a mechanical reason for mooks to

[not OR delay]

go[ing] after the Cleric and Warlock? The narrative reason of not letting any of your enemies operate freely and do whatever they want isn't enough? Especially when those enemies are using magic to keeping their friends alive?

And I also am at a loss as to why you are putting a player construct of the "social contract" onto the game pieces of the mooks? The mooks have nothing to do with the social contract-- you and the players do. So are you saying that you as the DM are restrained from attacking the Cleric and the Warlock due to the social contract? If that's the case... then that's a problem of you and your table and not the game rules... because you apparently signed a really bad contract.

Dungeons & Dragons is half-board game and half-story. And there are plenty of times when you don't have or need a board game rule to let you make choices in D&D, just like you don't always need narrative reasons for doing what you want either. The game expect you to do both.

Back in past editions both sides in a combat were somewhat sticky for a

Spoiler: few reasons

• Taking more than a 5 foot step/1 square "shift" would trigger an AoO
• with things like the the iterative attack penalties (-5/-10/-15/-20) made it so attackers on either side could reliably hit with decent odds* on those AoOs without also being able to reliably hit on every attack. That made it so squishy types felt like they had a chance if they got unluckily focus fired & crunchy types usually faced some meaningful risk of attrition when targeted.
• A cleric could convert any of their spell slots to a healing spell to heal someone after the fight yes, but with vancian casting/Adeu+metered surges there was a tangible & visceral loss of something specific rather than a quantum slot
• The party had a smaller gas tank so any loss from that made a bigger difference or it hit soon enough for the reason it's not available now to still feel fresh in memory rather than several encounters later.
• Charged wands could extend things to a degree but their cost ate into the party's ability to spend elsewhere on equipment gains the system assumed they would make
• Resource recovery was longer & less certain

Now they are not sticky, players have dramatically more resources to nova through stuff, and recovery is trivialized to ensure it doesn't matter unless one side can pull out a can of rocks fall. The gm is restrained from pulling out that can of rocks fall by the social contract.


*4e was whatever adeu thing 4e was.

 

[dave2008]

5e doesn't seem to have those kind of experiences built into the game. It's assumed your party is going to win every fight without retreating. It's unnecessary to study a monster before facing it to develop tactics or to acquire special weapons or scrolls to win.

I'm mean I just showed you how 5e does support those kind of experiences and my players have had those experiences with 5e. So I think it is more fair to say that you and your group have as of yet been unable to produces those experiences in 5e.

Unless the DM makes significant alterations to the game, that style of play isn't supported.

I just showed you how to do it with no alterations to the game. Don't now what else to tell you. You seem to continue to ignore the simply solution.

It's like there's no middle ground in the fights. It's "this is a minor bump in the road" or "everybody dies."

IDK, my group is able to navigate these experiences and from what I can tell others on these forums have as well. Of course some, like yourself, have not been able too. Everyone is different. I guess I can't help you. We seem to be able to recreate the experiences you discuss in 5e without much effort. Maybe it comes down to not running published adventures?