D&D General Playing to "Win" - The DM's Dilemma

[ezo]

An animal intelligence monster will only attack under those circumstances you mentioned anyway(as well as protecting its territory)

So, If the PCs don't encounter them, then the animal intelligence monster had no reason to attack.

Many animals are aggressive, so protecting its territory is certainly part of that, but IMO the only reason an animal intelligent creature might fight to the death is defending their young. There are certainly animals who will see one of their young taken off to be eaten if it keeps themselves alive and protects the rest of their young. Few animals will actually die themselves to keep their young alive.

Animals give up territory and would rather continue starving (and try to find food elsewhere) than actually die trying to get food (i.e. the tasty PCs). So, really, the more I think about that, animal intelligent creatures (other than undead/constructs) should really just about always flee instead of fighting to the death.

Now, that isn't to say the PCs might just kill an animal before trying to get to its young, as the young are easy to take if the parents are dead... but in my games "going after the young" would not really be something I would tolerate.

Of course, if we examine animal intelligence creatures which are not actually animals (or again undead/constructs) we are left with an assortment of plants/oozes, a couple fiends I think, and mostly some monstrosities.

Notably I think the exceptions arise with the monstrosities. Gorgons, hydras, bulettes, etc. might not be smart enough to realize they are about to die and due to their aggresive natures might fight to the death.

Frankly, I miss a codified morale system.

 

[Distracted DM]

I consider my game low magic in tier 1, and then slowly increase magic (spells and items) in tier 2, increasing both as the PCs continue to level. IME this makes sense simply do to how PC spellcasters themselves gain more powerful spells.

I guess I should've specified a low magic setting, since we're talking about the how widespread and known magic is... not the magic of your specific party

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you believe this we have very different views of what typical D&D worlds (/games) are like.

Wouldn't be surprising.

Most published adventures, from TSR through WotC, have healers, healing potions, etc. in most towns and even villages. Even humanoid adversaries can have shamans or witch doctors or priests who can cure wounds (or inflict them).

With every encounter though? How many times do even those humanoids get in a combat where their tribal shaman is back home with the rest of the tribe?

There's a big difference between "knows healing magic exists" and "expects to run into it in every fight".

Every, and I mean literally every, game I have ever played in has these things available and well-known of, even if expensive beyond what commoners could ever manage.

But I'm not talking about PCs here. PCs have all kinds of things present that are not, by all evidence, routine even for heavy combatants.

Magic, including healing magic, is well known in D&D worlds IME, and if an intelligent foes sees an injured enemy drop, just to rise again after being "magicked" back into the fight, will find an extra hit or two might lessen the chances of that injured dropped enemy from getting back into the fight.

YMMV certainly, but the bolded part is certainly false in D&D worlds I've experienced. Whether it is the commoners watching the local priest or acolyte even in procession before a service or seeing an herbalist selling a healing potion or a PC even casting a spell, MOST intelligent entities HAVE seen magical healers IMO.

I disagree its false in D&D worlds; I think you're likely overgeneralizing from limited samples and assuming those samples are typical for routine combatants.

Most intelligent beings have seen magical healers, but I have no evidence they've seen them in every or even the majority of combats they've ever been in.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I used to avoid targeting a single player, but now I am more comfortable doing it. I usually do it when logical as a response to a player doing something overwhelming themselves.

Sure. That's entirely rationale. People have had enemies pick on the mages for decades for example, which is why even with D&D offshoots where they aren't particularly brittle, you need to provide them some protection usually.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, sometimes it's just the logical consequence.

Group (around 3rd level) was squaring off against hobgoblin troops. They (the hobgoblins) had proven quite savvy and proficient in close quarters AND in ranged combat.

The player playing a wizard PC stated he wanted to get a good look over the battlefield, cast levitate, and, in full view, floated above everyone. What happened next was completely predictable as the wizard got pin-cushioned.

Yeah, that's a great tactic against melee-only attackers. Against those with ranged weapons--not so much.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'll vocally make decisions about whether a creature is fighting to the death, surrendering, or fleeing- but if the situation is in doubt I'll make morale checks via wisdom saving throws.
"He's a fanatical cultist, he is going to fight to the death." "She turns tail and runs, are you going to give chase?" Etc.

My only hiccup is that when foes flee, the players will argue as much as they can that the enemy can't get away- "my monks speed is 50ft, theirs is 30," that sort of thing. Or they'll try to get parting shots, which I'll usually allow. They usually only care about runners if there's danger of them bringing back more trouble.

The best answer to this is usually "how would you want it treated if the situations were reversed?"

Well, honestly, the people I play with would usually go "If the rules bite for doing functional retreats" (which I've argued an awful lot of RPG rules do) "then they do, and that's why we normally don't retreat if things go wrong, so we don't expect it to work out for the NPCs, either".

 

[Thomas Shey]

I know this question wasn't for me, but,,,

In my game, monsters with animal intelligence or lower will always fight to the death.

That seems odd. Animals normally (there are exceptions) are even less likely to fight to the death than intelligent beings. Hurt most animals significantly, and they'll usually decide they need to be somewhere else.

Very intelligent monsters, or significant NPC bad guys will always have an escape plan. Whether they are able to act on those plans, depends on the circumstances and the dice gods.

With all other monsters/NPCs it depends. Cultist will fight to the death. If the boss/leader/alpha is still standing, most monsters will continue to fight, even when the odds turn against them.

But the guys in my current group will chase after fleeing monsters whenever possible, so I guess it doesn't matter.

There's a tendency in people to do that, often because they've learned that the problem may just circle around and hit them again if they don't.

 

[Mort]

Yeah, that's a great tactic against melee-only attackers. Against those with ranged weapons--not so much.

Wizards have a lot of levers they can pull to do cool stuff. The trick is NOT to pull the lever that will make you the center of attention in a very bad way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I consider my game low magic in tier 1, and then slowly increase magic (spells and items) in tier 2, increasing both as the PCs continue to level. IME this m

Have their pursuit run into a larger force and get their butts kick--that should cure them of this habit quickly IME.

View attachment 395533

Most of the time mine would simply consider that deliberately punitive, since there's no reason the larger group wouldn't be on the way anyway. Not like combats are usually quiet.

 

[Thomas Shey]

An animal intelligence monster will only attack under those circumstances you mentioned anyway(as well as protecting its territory)

Even with territorial protection, most animals don't want to die.