D&D General Run Away!

[Reynard]

What about using a variation of the 4e skill challenge mechanics for a chase.

This what I do (see a previous post of mine) with a little influence from Savage Worlds as well, which handles chases much more fluidly than 5E.

 

[iserith]

You've never seen a Friday the 13th movie, eh?

More seriously: absolutely the "slower" shaming mound can catch them when they are waist deep in sucking mud (disadvantage) while it flows through the mire like it was born there (hint: it was; advantage).

I mean, we can just keep adding different contexts to fictional situations to make things work or not work. The basic rules I put up above are easy: If you're faster, you get away, and we move on. Wood elves, monks, barbarians, Mobile feat PCs, etc. might be pretty happy with that result. If you're not faster, then we use the remainder of the rules to resolve it.

 

[Reynard]

I mean, we can just keep adding different contexts to fictional situations to make things work or not work. The basic rules I put up above are easy: If you're faster, you get away, and we move on. Wood elves, monks, barbarians, Mobile feat PCs, etc. might be pretty happy with that result. If you're not faster, then we use the remainder of the rules to resolve it.

That's fine if it works for you, but if we aren't talking about a run down a 100m dash track, speed isn't the only thing that matters.

 

[kenada]

If the group agreed on gritty adventure, then that's what they like and that's not going to be an issue. The problem comes when:

1) The group doesn't want that and the DM is playing out the 'Dad makes the family go camping' trope from 90's sitcoms and everyone else is suffering for the one player who is at the wheel.

2) The game takes a shocking swerve into gritty adventure after being heroic fantasy at this one point either by design or because random encounters or not following the encounter guidelines.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that surreptitiously changing the premise/tone of the campaign isn’t cool. I’m up front about what I do for that reason (especially since it’s not the default way of playing a D&D-like game for so many).

 

[Vaalingrade]

If there are no random encounters, all encounters have to be placed by the DM. So if any monster is encountered, it's because the DM put it there, and for a reason. It also means that the DM is solely responsible for picking the "right monsters" for the party to fight. It's a setup: "why would you put a monster on the board if you didn't want us to fight it?" And "why would you pick a monster that could kill us?"

Honestly? Why are there monsters in the campaign that don't serve a purpose? And killing the PCs isn't a purpose.

 

[CleverNickName]

Honestly? Why are there monsters in the campaign that don't serve a purpose? And killing the PCs isn't a purpose.

Now that you mention it? It's been decades and I still can't figure out why bards and mind flayers exist.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I still can't figure out why bards and mind flayers exist.

I get mind flayers---but bards are a mystery...

 

[Vaalingrade]

Now that you mention it? It's been decades and I still can't figure out why bards and mind flayers exist.

Bards because they're the good casters.

Mindflayers? Because they need IP in a game based on ancient archetypes? Because Lovecraft is nerd catnip? I am good with them not existing. Ecstatic even.

 

[Reynard]

Now that you mention it? It's been decades and I still can't figure out why bards and mind flayers exist.

Bards exist so that when the gnomes are gone the monsters have something else to eat.

 

[Quartz]

In my experience, the PCs fleeing combat is one of the rarest events in a D&D campaign.

Way back when I pointed out in another thread that a prime use for Action Surge was extra movement, notably running away, and this was pooh-poohed by those insisting that Action Surge had to be used for fighting. So yes, I think you're right.