D&D 5E Running away on intimidation

[iserith]

I just need a neutral opinion on this situation: There has been a long-range battle (~150 feet distance) and group A is very likely to win. To get the remaining enemies to give up, group A used intimidation at range very effectively. This caused the survivors from group B to run for it. But group A doesn't want them to run, they want to capture them to get their loot and interogate them. But they can't outrun them (they don't even try). So group A's approach was to throw ranged weapons in front of their feet to get them to stop and let them get captured.

Question: If you were in the feet of group B, would you stop or would you rather feel motivated to run even faster?
(If you say the outcome is unclear, what kind of roll would you do to make the decision?)

If you as DM are uncertain as to how something will turn out, that's precisely when ability checks come into play. You have established Group B as trying to leg it. The PCs don't want that outcome and do something to try and prevent it. The stakes for the ability check are thus pretty clear: (Success) Group B stays put or (Fail) Group B runs or, alternatively, some of Group B runs while others stay put (or even Group B stays put, but it costs extra ammunition to make it happen).

A couple of checks could be appropriate here. Charisma (Intimidation) is the obvious choice. Another good choice might be Dexterity (Intimidation) for placing the arrows or whatever in a spot that would cow the enemy. I don't think Persuasion applies here.

 

[SkidAce]

I usually use some type of percentage in this situation, bolstered by any actions or checks of the PCs.

The PCs scared them into running if I read the OP correctly, and now they want to scare them into stopping and surrendering.

Depending on the foes, sounds like 50/50 to me. I might even have some stop and some keep running.

"Thunk"...wood groaning...."Mooooooooooooooo".....

"Run away, run away"

 

[Fishing_Minigame]

Recruit some archers. Next time around, specifically tell group B when you make the intimidate check that anyone who runs gets shot in the back.

 

[discosoc]

I feel like intimidation isn't being used correctly here... That's a character-level skill, not something that resolves or influences combat like that -- especially not at that range. Even at the character level, you don't just "roll intimidation" and see what happens. You roll intimidation because some action you are taking prompts the GM to request it; it's not an ability to click on your hotbar.

Back to your situation: if group B could run, they probably would. Unless group B is for some reason barbaric or feral or driven by an insane commander or something, in which case they wouldn't stay just to surrender.

 

[Flamestrike]

A command of 'Stop or I'll shoot' followed by a succesful intimidate check would work I would assume.

 

[Shendorion]

I feel like intimidation isn't being used correctly here... That's a character-level skill, not something that resolves or influences combat like that -- especially not at that range. Even at the character level, you don't just "roll intimidation" and see what happens. You roll intimidation because some action you are taking prompts the GM to request it; it's not an ability to click on your hotbar.

Back to your situation: if group B could run, they probably would. Unless group B is for some reason barbaric or feral or driven by an insane commander or something, in which case they wouldn't stay just to surrender.

I strongly disagree. I think that a player initiating a skill check rather than just lobbing another attack roll is good for the gameplay and the narrative both. This situation was a perfect setup for an Intimidation check - the intimidating characters had the upper hand, and the intended victims knew it. If this was a conflict happening in any medium other than a video game, it would be the part of the narrative where the winning side shouts, "give it up," or the losing side (if we're seeing the battle from their point of view) says, "this is hopeless! There's too many of them!" Whether the losing side pulls an ace out of the hole and turns the tide, throws down their weapons, flees for their lives or chooses to go down swinging is up to the DM and the dice in various proportions.

I'd want to know more about the situation before deciding what I'd do in it. If the creatures are low WIS, prone to panic, or of species commonly killed on sight, I'd probably have them keep legging it unless the first party could physically stop them. Otherwise I'd let them use Intimidation again to stop them running. Fire at their feet, roll the dice, and see what happens. The first success got them to abandon the fight; the second one gets them to abandon the escape attempt. Honestly, I wouldn't even make them do the attack rolls to land the shots ahead of the fleeing creatures unless you want the possibility of a really low roll killing one of them.

Under this edition's rules, any damage can be declared nonlethal at the time of assignment, so if they really want to catch a fleeing target and know the rules, they can shoot it down and call the damage nonlethal (a thrown weapon knocks them out with the hilt; an arrow wings them and they collapse under their wounds). Rule in their favor, and use this to fuel the narrative. If you want to feed them breadcrumbs and muddy the moral waters, have them winkle it out of your NPCs in a skill challenge. If you want them to be in the dark, the detainees knew nothing (or were fanatical enough to the cause to bite off their own tongues or similar). In short, reward them for doing something more interesting than fighting everything to the death with an interesting scene, information and loot at your discretion.

 

[iserith]

I strongly disagree. I think that a player initiating a skill check rather than just lobbing another attack roll is good for the gameplay and the narrative both. This situation was a perfect setup for an Intimidation check - the intimidating characters had the upper hand, and the intended victims knew it. If this was a conflict happening in any medium other than a video game, it would be the part of the narrative where the winning side shouts, "give it up," or the losing side (if we're seeing the battle from their point of view) says, "this is hopeless! There's too many of them!" Whether the losing side pulls an ace out of the hole and turns the tide, throws down their weapons, flees for their lives or chooses to go down swinging is up to the DM and the dice in various proportions.

I'm not certain you read the post you're quoting correctly. But I'll leave that poster to respond accordingly.

I'd want to know more about the situation before deciding what I'd do in it. If the creatures are low WIS, prone to panic, or of species commonly killed on sight, I'd probably have them keep legging it unless the first party could physically stop them. Otherwise I'd let them use Intimidation again to stop them running. Fire at their feet, roll the dice, and see what happens. The first success got them to abandon the fight; the second one gets them to abandon the escape attempt. Honestly, I wouldn't even make them do the attack rolls to land the shots ahead of the fleeing creatures unless you want the possibility of a really low roll killing one of them.

I take the OP at his or her word that given all the context available, the DM doesn't know what the result of the players' stated goal and approach is. Therefore, an ability check is required to resolve the uncertainty.

Under this edition's rules, any damage can be declared nonlethal at the time of assignment, so if they really want to catch a fleeing target and know the rules, they can shoot it down and call the damage nonlethal (a thrown weapon knocks them out with the hilt; an arrow wings them and they collapse under their wounds). Rule in their favor, and use this to fuel the narrative. If you want to feed them breadcrumbs and muddy the moral waters, have them winkle it out of your NPCs in a skill challenge. If you want them to be in the dark, the detainees knew nothing (or were fanatical enough to the cause to bite off their own tongues or similar). In short, reward them for doing something more interesting than fighting everything to the death with an interesting scene, information and loot at your discretion.

Knocking someone out in 5e requires a melee attack, according to the rules.

 

[Shendorion]

I'm not certain you read the post you're quoting correctly. But I'll leave that poster to respond accordingly.

You're right! I misread it to mean, "this isn't a situation that calls for Intimidation," when I think he meant rather that the characters needed to have done something to try and cow the other combatants into giving up as opposed to the players just saying, "I use Intimidation on them." My bad!

 

[thalmin]

Sounds like a time for the Cleric to use Thaumaturgy to amplify his voice and shout something like "Surrender and live or we will cut you all down as you flee!"

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I just wanted to discuss what you guys think would be realistic behavior in such a situation and if there's no clear answer, what rolls would be involved to decide. I intentionally left the situation as vague as possible to prevent anyone to be influenced by that.

Though I got all the answers I needed now, so if you really want to know here is the real situation I ran into:
1. PCs fought 4 Hobgoblin at a range battle.
2. Eventually only one hobgoblin was left.
3. The Cleric used thaumaturgy to make the sound of him moving stronger and shouted the hobgoblin should surrender.
4. I decided that it's very unlikely for the Hobgoblin to surrender, but the intimidation was very effective (good intimidation roll), so I decided the Hobgoblin drops his weapon and starts running away immediately.
5. I was kind of expecting the group to either try to catch the Hobgoblin (which I'd have resolved as Athletics contest to see who has more stamina) or let him go away. Most gave up on following him, but the Fighter said he throws his Javelin in front of the feet of the Hobgoblin and says "Surrender and we will let you live" and the Wizard said he shoots arrows at him until he stops or dies.