D&D 5E Melee combat on the run

[Hriston]

Whoops, missed that. Though when a chase starts, it's best to not have the players start adjacent to the Quarry. The DM determines the distance and even if it began with them adjacent, a 100-200ft headstart will keep the chase going for a bit.

That's pretty much what I've been saying, except the way you state it seems a bit backwards to me. In the example under discussion, the PCs are adjacent to the "quarry", so that's why I said there's no chase. Surely you're not suggesting that the DM suddenly declare that the tarrasque is now 200 feet away (without some rules-justification to that effect) in order to invoke the chase rules and thereby negate the PCs' opportunity attacks?

 

[Hriston]

Because that's probably the most ridiculous thing any NPC would ever do. Why would an NPC just waste their action running and taking free damage rather than attacking back? It's like a Newton's Cradle but instead of momentum, it's transferring free damage. It's alot less interesting than a chase, too.

What happens when the scenario is flipped at the players? They can't flee because they'll just keep taking free damage until they die, which is probably soon if they're fleeing!

But it's the DM that decides what the NPCs do, so the consequences of that decision are on the DM, are they not? I don't think the DM should be in the habit of changing the rules in order to make NPC actions (that the DM has chosen) more viable. This just smacks of more hosing of the players.

PCs can flee, but that doesn't keep them from being pursued, and it isn't a free negation of opportunity attacks for them to do so.

 

[Hriston]

First, the discussion has expanded somewhat from the specific example. Further, what I do at my table could be adapted to theater of the mind - one would just have to determine what "off the map" means in that context and stick to it. Finally, the purpose could be to change up the scene from a straight combat to a chase scene which is a good dramatic move. The hunter becomes the hunted until the PCs prevail or the quarry escapes. I think it's uncharitable to think it's the DM trying to screw you out of your precious OAs.

Sure, and that opens things up quite a bit, doesn't it? Look, I have no blanket objection to the chase rules (except for that sentence about OAs, which I think is misleading), just in this particular situation I think they're inappropriate for the simple reason that the tarrasque was never truly out of melee with the PCs, given the information we have. @robus hasn't indicated that he was trying to set up a chase scene or make the sort of dramatic shift you describe, and I think it would be disconcerting as a player if, on the verge of victory, the opponent was suddenly out of reach, barring some in-world explanation.

 

[Asisreo]

But it's the DM that decides what the NPCs do, so the consequences of that decision are on the DM, are they not? I don't think the DM should be in the habit of changing the rules in order to make NPC actions (that the DM has chosen) more viable. This just smacks of more hosing of the players.

PCs can flee, but that doesn't keep them from being pursued, and it isn't a free negation of opportunity attacks for them to do so.

Nobody has changed the rules. We are, in fact, well within the rules.

It's for everybody. If the players want to escape just as the enemy, they are free to. There isn't any hosing as long as the players can do it too.

Also, it's frankly a dumb image. I couldn't take a game seriously when there's benny hill music playing with the rogue stabbing a tarrasque and the tarrasque moving just to stop and get stabbed again like a three-stooges bit. That's what the chase rules resolve and that's why it's important.

Otherwise, yeah, your players are going to be looking like those Tom and Jerry sequences where Tom is swatting at Jerry a bunch and Jerry is jumping and dodging.

 

[Hriston]

If I recall correctly, the rules don't define what "caught" means, leaving it up DM interpretation (i.e. the DM sets the win condition).

Depending how you define "caught," which seems open to interpretation to me.

I think, in the context of a chase, it's pretty well obvious what it would mean to be close enough to catch your quarry, and I think being within 5 feet would fit most people's idea of that, given the context of the rules of combat in D&D. I'm not particularly interested in debating natural language, however, so I'll concede that by using a more demanding definition of catch, the DM is justified in saying that condition doesn't apply to a given situation.

 

[Hriston]

So to broaden the discussion, do people enjoy the Chase rules?

I’ve used the Chase ruleset, 3 times now in 5 years.

I stand by my characterization of the Chase rules as “Serviceable”.

The ruleset functions, is a brief change of pace from the ‘normal’ rules, but has never elicited squeals of enjoyment from players.

I recently used these rules for an urban chase sequence, so they're fresh in my mind, and I found the complications added something to the experience. A PC had decided to spend the night alone on the city streets and had an encounter with some watchmen. The lieutenant in charge began to question her from 30 feet away, but instead of answering the lieutenant's questions, the PC decided to cast thaumaturgy on the lieutenant's torch in an effort to blind and distract the watchmen, so she could escape. I called for initiative to see if the PC could complete her verbal component before the lieutenant closed the distance between them to apprehend her.

The PC won the initiative roll, but seeing the lieutenant coming for her, she decided to drop the casting and use her action to dash away. The lieutenant and her men gave chase, and the group of watchmen immediately faced a complication that involved slipping and falling prone. It happened to be raining, so I said they had slipped on the wet cobblestones, which cost those that failed their save half their speed getting up from prone.

The next complication was a "maze" of barrels that the PC had to get through in order to continue forward. She successfully made a check to vault over them. I realized at that point that one of the shortcomings of the chase rules is that they're written as if a complication only affects the participant(s) for whom the complication is rolled, whereas logically many if not all of them would have a downstream effect on anyone coming after, and I decided that the watchmen would also have to get through the maze to continue their pursuit, which ended up slowing down the lieutenant somewhat.

The larger group of watchmen encountered another complication which slowed some of them down. I decided it was a cart that had pulled around a corner after the PC and the lieutenant had passed, blocking the street, but it really wasn't important as they were pretty far back already.

At this point, the PC was on the verge of having to make a CON check to avoid exhaustion, but decided to dash again to try to swim across an underground storm water tunnel that was blocking her path. She failed the check, incurring a level of exhaustion, and also failed to swim against the current and was swept away, which ejected her from the city and ended the chase.

 

[Hriston]

My 5e-fu is not all that strong, but I just wanted to try and clarify some of this. (Using the combat framework, not the chase framework.)

If T is in melee with P, and then decides to flee, I understand where the initial OA comes from. (Assuming that T has not also Disengaged because T already attacked.) If P then closes with T (and has sufficient movement to do so without Dashing) then the melee is back on. After this initial exchnage, T could then either Disengage and move, in which case there are no OAs but its rinse/repeat and T will be subject to ongoing attacks without being able to hit back; or T could Dash and move, take another hit of OAs, and then (assuming movement rates are the same) pull away by continuing to Dash. In this latter case if P Dashes and moves then P can keep up with T but won't be able to attack because Dashing instead.

So after the initial exchange, in which T suffers an OA, T's options seem to be either soak one attack per round while Disengaging and moving, or soak double attacks (normal + OA) but then evade melee attacks by Dashing and moving.

Have I got that right?

Not quite. If T dashes, and P also dashes, keeping up with T, then T is subject to an OA on every turn on which s/he moves and dashes. I think some posters object to this as artificial, but I think it's widely accepted (outside of D&D) that turning and running from a melee engagement is a good way to get killed.

 

[Hriston]

Nobody has changed the rules. We are, in fact, well within the rules.

It's for everybody. If the players want to escape just as the enemy, they are free to. There isn't any hosing as long as the players can do it too.

Also, it's frankly a dumb image. I couldn't take a game seriously when there's benny hill music playing with the rogue stabbing a tarrasque and the tarrasque moving just to stop and get stabbed again like a three-stooges bit. That's what the chase rules resolve and that's why it's important.

Otherwise, yeah, your players are going to be looking like those Tom and Jerry sequences where Tom is swatting at Jerry a bunch and Jerry is jumping and dodging.

I meant changing the rules being used, as in changing from the combat rules to the chase rules.

It seems like this rule (OAs not allowed in a chase) would come into effect anytime the situation arises in which a creature in melee uses its movement to leave the reach of an opponent and then is followed by that opponent, putting the creature back within reach. It's a mess that requires the DM to see into the future to know whether to allow an OA or not. No, thank you.

And I'm not convinced that's the actual rule. Let's look at what the DMG actually says:

Chase participants can't normally make opportunity attacks against each other, since they are all assumed to be moving in the same direction at the same time. However, participants can still be the targets of opportunity attacks from creatures not participating in the chase. For example, adventurers who chase a thief past a gang of thugs in an alley might provoke opportunity attacks from the thugs.​

​

So we can see that the chase rules do allow OAs, just not "normally" among participants in the chase. So if an orc and I are both chasing a flying macguffin, I can't make an OA against the orc just because the orc's turn comes before mine, because we're just running alongside one another. This makes a lot of sense, and I agree with it. But the quarry is not just any participant. If I get close enough to my quarry to catch it, which would have to be the case before I could make an OA against it, the chase has ended, so the question of whether the chase rules allow me to make an OA against my quarry has no practical relevance.

I can assure you there's no Benny Hill music playing at my table. I also don't understand why you think a rogue stabbing a tarrasque means the tarrasque has stopped moving.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

So, the problem with a Chase vs Combat is a Chase scene better illustrates the natural flow of a combat and pursuit. All characters are moving at the same time, some are catching up and some are falling behind simultaneously.

Combat mechanics are disjointed.
-Character 1 attacks, then moves away; character 2 gets an AoO.
-Character 1 is now 30 feet away so character 2 moves 30 feet to attack.

Was character 1 ever, really, 30 feet away? In a real-life combat, probably not. Character 1 and 2 were probably always a few yards apart and, as C1 moved away, C2 was hot on his heels.

And this, to me is the problem with the flow of combat:
A). Disjointed
B). Does not allow for retreat:
- I have two options to retreat:
Option 1: Dash and provoke an attack of opportunity. Enemy then runs full movement, forcing me to take another AoO if I Dash again, which means constantly being attacked
Option 2: Disengage, then move my movement. Enemy then moves their movement and attacks.

There's no option to go fully defensive and just run away. You suffer attacks no matter what you do. Even doing a dodge action is an action, so you can only move your movement and hope the Disadvantage AoO misses...but you'll never actually be able to flee. The rules of combat don't actually allow for it.

But, because combat rounds are just a mechanic used to organize actions - not the actual narrative of the conflict - I see no reason to move to a Chase if the enemy decides to run. Yes, give that AoO but then change to a Chase - especially if the NPC is important.

My issue is how to adjudicate the appropriate transition. Which, I guess, is the purpose of this thread. I've seen some pretty good suggestions but it's still muddy to me.

Edit: I think a good way to give rogues and their cunning action the upper hand in a chase is to allow them Advantage on whatever roll you are doing for the chase.