How to enable Running Away

[Derren]

Every time I've considered a retreat, the first step was always to use the combat movement rules. Which tends to be choices of:

And again someone who forgets the run action.
And when you run away from someone faster than you "not getting away without help" is not a bug, its a feature.

Help can take the form pf magic or items, like the caltrops you mentioned (except that you forget that they half the movement range of whoever steps on them)

I really start to wonder what the people who say "retreat is impossible" want. That the PCs can automatically get away when they declare they run away? That they simply have to succeed in a Dex roll?

When you have no items to aid your escape and the enemy is faster than you and has no reason not to purse then you can't run away successfully unless you split up. But that is not a fault of the system, that is working as intended.

 

[Janx]

And again someone who forgets the run action.
And when you run away from someone faster than you "not getting away without help" is not a bug, its a feature.

Help can take the form pf magic or items, like the caltrops you mentioned (except that you forget that they half the movement range of whoever steps on them)

I really start to wonder what the people who say "retreat is impossible" want. That the PCs can automatically get away when they declare they run away? That they simply have to succeed in a Dex roll?

When you have no items to aid your escape and the enemy is faster than you and has no reason not to purse then you can't run away successfully unless you split up. But that is not a fault of the system, that is working as intended.

As you could have quite clearly read, running away for 24 squares was in my bulleted list.

As for caltrops, I don't know what they do, I don't use them. But I do know you'll only get to move 6 squares, drop them, and then I can run 24 squares to catch up to you, which divided by 2 as you say, still leaves me plenty of movement to keep up with you.

In point of fact, unless the rules say otherwise, you'd only be able to drop the caltrops in one square (otherwise that's a crap-ton of caltrops to cover 6 squares).

Your last statement is EXACTLY why I started this thread. I found SEVERAL reasons for a DM to justify WHY the enemy doesn't have to pursue. Without which, the unimaginative DM with unprepared players has no reason in mind to NOT have EVERY enemy pursue the party, which is what tends to happen.

 

[Rogue Agent]

There are rules for tactical movement in combat. I'm starting to get the impression that GMs are continuing to apply those rules...

4E does create something of a void here in presentation (if not necessarily practice), but in both 2E and 3E movement rules are presented as a contiguous whole both in and out of combat. (Movement is defined by time, not by circumstance.)

...even once combat has broken off and characters should no longer be acting in initiative order/combat turns.

Yes. Mechanics for breaking off combat and entering a different game structure would be one of the key mechanics necessary for the game to adequately support running away.

Are you guys continuing to cycle through combat turns even when the two sides are no longer in contact (eg on the same battlemat), but one side is chasing the other?

Using RAW, it's impossible for two groups with the same speed to "no longer be in contact".

 

[chaochou]

My premise is that PCs don't run away because they don't think it will work.

My proposal is that GMs should design encounters so running away could be feasible.

Here's the ideas I have thus far:

<snip>

I think those are good ideas. Here's another suggested approach.

Make it clear to the players that if the party flees it will be resolved as a task. Set a DC based on the situation, speeds, terrain, malice and fighting spirit of the pursuers etc.

Tell them what happens if they succeed - like they get away to a place they feel is safe. Pick interesting complications for failure - they end up lost or somewhere unsafe or someone might be captured or they might lose stuff during their flight or lose hitpoints during the escape attempt (and if that drops them too bad) or a combination of those things depending on the situation. Then give them the option to make the roll.

In other words, take the granularity and micromanaging out of fleeing, and just cut straight into an outcome which provides new opportunities for people to do cool stuff.

It's a possible approach. Others may disagree, and I'm fine with that.

 

[S'mon]

Using RAW, it's impossible for two groups with the same speed to "no longer be in contact".

Last time PCs had to flee from overwhelming force IMC (4e), one guy held off the enemy which gave the others a round or so to scatter before he went down. It was night time in hillocky terrain and it was easy for the fleeing PCs to get beyond line of sight of the enemy, though both groups had the same move speed; both mounted on speed 10 horses so moving around 24 squares/round with a double-run action AIR. 24 squares/120' is the entire width of a Paizo flipmat.

With the two sides no longer in contact I went from round-by-round combat rules to evasion skill checks to adjudicate the flight & pursuit. I certainly haven't seen any indication that that's not how I'm 'supposed' to do it.

 

[Janx]

I'm going to try to merge some ideas here.

[MENTION=2518]Derren[/MENTION] seems to prefer letting the existing mechanics decide and to encourage players to prepare for retreat (buy gear/spells) than to just let them run away if they want.

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] have some ideas about making it a skill check/challenge.

For the skill check method, I would not want it to bypass or outshine planned/prepared retreat tactics by letting players say "oh crap, we weren
t prepared for this, we run away" and have it be better than the party that actually spent resources to be prepared for a retreat.

Conversely, by the raw, the rules don't give a perception of a reasonable chance for an unplanned retreat.

I think the reasoning for why a retreat may work beyond mere mechanical differences is psychological. Sometimes the enemy is wary of a trap, why would a weaker force attack unless they were stupid or hoping to provoke a pursuit into a trap.

I think a morale check or the skill check idea can account for this. Do a roll, add some modifiers for the mindset of the enemy or preparations the PCs made. Whatever.

If it suceeds, the party got away for any number of reasons, including the monsters just weren't hungry that day. If fails, the monsters were hot for bloody, hungry, etc.

If you want to use the existing movement mechanics, use this check as a morale/decision maker on whether THESE monsters are the kind that fight to the death, or these are the kind that aren't as motivated to run after the party forever.

If you're a DM who just decides what the monsters do based on whatever thing inside your head thinks make sense, that's fine too.

Just don't be a DM who runs every monster the same that never retreats, fights to the death, and never relents in its pursuit of the PCs.