D&D 5E Bravely running away

[Lanefan]

Then sometimes the PCs will lose, and when PCs lose they tend to all die.

See, this is where I fall off the bus.

When PCs lose then sure, some of them will die; but there's no good reason why all of them should die provided their players are playing them with any sort of in-character sense of self-preservation.

In nearly any party beyond the lowest of levels IME there's always at least one character who has some sort of a "getaway car" - a means of flying, dimension door, invisibility+stealth, teleport, or some other way(s) of escaping a bad situation. Self-preservation would suggest they're going to use that option when all seems lost and even more so if they happen to be the last one standing.

If your players a cool with re-rolling frequently, that's not a problem.

Which does raise a good point, if tangential: char-gen in the WotC editions is WAY too complicated.

 

[Lanefan]

Lol well that's the part about telegraphing, and that if this is the case then the party shouldn't be in combat at all unless they INSIST on it even after the GM says "this guy seems beyond your skill."

But just to entertain the in-combat "if you can't hit him and he can hit you easily" point, if it's Pathfinder 1e and you have a +10 to attack and you miss on a roll of 18, yeah you know you need to get out of change something up immediately. ACs can go crazy high. But with 5e's flat math, most enemies will have an AC under 20. The CR17 death knight has AC20 if they have a shield- that's pretty hittable at any level. And if the GM is saying out loud "I rolled an 8, plus his +11 to hit..." to give a hint to the party to GTFO, then they probably wouldn't even be in that situation because that GM probably would've said/telegraphed the danger earlier.

5e's math might be too flat for this to work, indeed. But narration can help too: "On what looks like a casual blow where he's not even trying he still smokes you for <roll> 14 damage, followed by a confident smirk that all too clearly says 'Is that all you got, punk?'. You're warrior enough to realize he isn't kidding."

 

[clearstream]

From another thread, the topic of retreat has come up, it sounds like it might be difficult for a couple of reasons:

1. The Cyclical nature of initiative makes it difficult for the party to retreat (Ol' Tim the Timid can still run off on his own though).
2. Movement speeds are largely the same between PCs and NPCs/Monsters, if you run away by dashing, the enemy can mostly keep up.

The only time I can recall players retreating in my game was during a session which was played more narratively rather than with the actual rules, so it doesn't really count (it was a hit and run on an opposing army's baggage train). They did also manage to escape engaging in a combat using a skill challenge, which again doesn't count, and perhaps that's what I'd switch to once the players discuss that they want to retreat, but it'd be interesting to hear what others would do.

So, to other DMs, if in the middle of combat players decide they should retreat, how would you run it?

Is there an assumption here that DM is obliged to keep the group in combat? Just end combat. Or if it is narratively interesting appeal to other rules such as ability checks, which could be invoked to break away from the combat or outrun or outwit the pursuit.

Players: We want to flee.​

​

GM: Right, you're all well-positioned to do so except Jay who will need to make an acrobatics or athletics check, DC 15. Failing means enemies keep up and can close with them... effectively they'll stay in the fight.​

​

Alternatively

GM: Sure, you break away but they pursue. Tell me how you plan to outrun or outwit them. I'm thinking that might need athletics or stealth checks, but what do you do?​

​

That's the short version. There's obvious scope to ask players to say more about how they get away. The combat ought to have been for a reason, and GM should make those stakes clear too. Saving their skins might still lose them what they were fighting for.

 

[el-remmen]

My issue with narrative-style rules for retreat/escape is when the situation is already one where everyone escaping together is unlikely. For example, my most recent session which ended in a total party defeat (second time this campaign) after starting a fight when spread out along and on both sides of a dam and with enemies spread among them.

 

[jasper]

From another thread, the topic of retreat has come up, it sounds like it might be difficult for a couple of reasons:

1. The Cyclical nature of initiative makes it difficult for the party to retreat (Ol' Tim the Timid can still run off on his own though).
2. Movement speeds are largely the same between PCs and NPCs/Monsters, if you run away by dashing, the enemy can mostly keep up.

The only time I can recall players retreating in my game was during a session which was played more narratively rather than with the actual rules, so it doesn't really count (it was a hit and run on an opposing army's baggage train). They did also manage to escape engaging in a combat using a skill challenge, which again doesn't count, and perhaps that's what I'd switch to once the players discuss that they want to retreat, but it'd be interesting to hear what others would do.

So, to other DMs, if in the middle of combat players decide they should retreat, how would you run it?

1. How much have they ticked off the monster? If not I going to kill you to the 7th generation, then let them go.
2. this what rulings not rules covers.

 

[cbwjm]

a rule from the rpg Fabula Ultima that I'd also consider bring in is Sacrifice, if you fall to 0 hit points you can either surrender (you're out for the rest of this combat) or sacrifice (you gone for good).

• Sacrifice can be a game changing action which foils the villain's plot, ends a centuries long curse, or lets your allies escape. Create a narrative with the DM to describe your sacrifice.
• Surrendering means that you won't be killed, but you be able to do anything else for the combat and there'll be negative effects depending on the scene.

Sacrifice I can see using as an addition to Quickleaf's rules, if a player sacrifices their character to allow the others to escape then the group check automatically succeeds.

I'm not sure if I'd use surrendering at 0 in a 5e game, but I might have it as an option if the entire party goes down. It takes away the fear of death, but the new circumstances will very likely not be favourable.

 

[Distracted DM]

1. How much have they ticked off the monster? If not I going to kill you to the 7th generation, then let them go.
2. this what rulings not rules covers.

How would you rule it if 2/4 members of the party are unconscious and the remaining two players decide it's time to retreat, and the enemy has reason to pursue them?

 

[Clint_L]

Then sometimes the PCs will lose, and when PCs lose they tend to all die.

Well, only if they are too dumb to retreat, or figure out another way. In which case...sure. That's a choice they've made.

Failure is essential to good stories. What would stories be if the heroes just won every time without any setbacks? Or, to look at it another way, players need to be able to recalibrate what success looks like. Sometimes, success is surviving to fight again.

The fight pictured below was designed to be almost unwinnable for the PCs. The BBEG was too high level for them to defeat at that time, at least in a straight fight, and the lava was home to a phoenix that would rise to the surface on round five and basically incinerate them. They knew it was a phoenix lair, and escalating lair actions made the creature's imminent arrival clear. So their chance at winning was just to get the key from the centre of the bridge and escape.

They wound up failing and barely getting away with their lives (one had to be revivified), but it was super fun and desperate. That was not their only setback in the campaign, but it was a big one, and they responding by hatching new plans. And when they eventually did defeat the BBEG, it was super rewarding. Failure has to be an option for the game to be fun, IMO. Otherwise, it's just the fantasy version of the Harlem Globetrotters vs. the Washington Generals.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think that's an excellent houserule which I might include in the next game I run so that players will at least consider retreat instead of a TPK.

Yeah. Something like a retreat action. Maybe one announces it and then a final round of attacks for the enemy. And then it switches to group initiative at the next round and chase rules.

For actual combat rules:

Everyone can use their action to ready a move when the last enemy acted.

So it will mostly be 1 round of attacks and one round of opportunity attacks as a cost of running away.

It is still important to switch to group initiative after the readied actions are taken, otherwise the concerted effort is for nothing.

 

[Li Shenron]

So, to other DMs, if in the middle of combat players decide they should retreat, how would you run it?

As you said, I'd run it narratively.

Depending on the situation, I will probably make something up that requires a bunch of rolls, just so that I don't have to decide myself if they succeed or not, and with what costs. It could be as complicated as using chase rules from the DMG, or ar simple as everyone getting an (abstract) ranged attack against, or even a single group skill check for escaping (3.0 used to have a skill called Escape Artist that I would have given this extra purpose, in 5e maybe even a mix of Athletic/Acrobatic/Stealth checks or even just Dex).

What I certainly would never use is combat rules. Movement in combat is just meant to represent that, movement in combat, not to get out of combat. Stuff like dashing doesn't make sense outside of combat, initiative doesn't make sense outside of combat, and even a creature's speed value doesn't make sense outside of combat. If I haven't said it enough times I can say it again: rules designed for combat do not make sense out of combat.

Also, I wouldn't care a poo about realism. If the characters choose to retreat, I want retreat to feel maybe like in a movie, not reality, just like I want combat to feel like in a movie and not reality. Simulationism has no value for me, and it's also a recipe for endless disappointment.