D&D 5E Running away on intimidation

[iserith]

Not fearing death is not equivalent to having nothing to live for. Otherwise hobgoblins wouldn't train and use tactics in order to win battles.

I made no such assertion.

At the very least, allowing your foes to capture you when you are unlikely to be able to escape or significantly injure them is tactically superior to throwing your life away. There are opportunities for sowing false information, gathering information and potentially escaping.

According to what the OP established, the only one giving chase at all was the fighter and the outcome was going to be left to the dice. While it's probably likely that the fighter wins that contest (unless it's a lower-Str Dex-fighter with no training in Athletics), I think a good one-on-one battle to the death with the fighter while his or her companions were far away would be more agreeable to a hobgoblin who doesn't fear death.

Finally if dying in battle is the prerequisite for a good afterlife, you can threaten to NOT kill him in battle. "If you don't surrender, then we will knock you unconscious and then leave you locked in a cage until you starve to death, denying you a good afterlife".

An empty threat at range since you can't knock anyone out with a ranged attack. So, again, failure without a roll in my view.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I made no such assertion.

You effectively said that it was impossible to intimidate him into surrender on the grounds that his god will reward him for dying in battle.

According to what the OP established, the only one giving chase at all was the fighter and the outcome was going to be left to the dice. While it's probably likely that the fighter wins that contest (unless it's a lower-Str Dex-fighter with no training in Athletics), I think a good one-on-one battle to the death with the fighter while his or her companions were far away would be more agreeable to a hobgoblin who doesn't fear death.

Far more agreeable does not translate to "guaranteed failure on intimidate" to me.

An empty threat at range since you can't knock anyone out with a ranged attack. So, again, failure without a roll in my view.

So the hobgoblin will literally say "hah, your threat is empty because I know that I die as soon as I hit 0 hitpoints unless you use the rules to knock me out, which you can only do with a melee weapon!"?

Also the rule on monsters dying at 0 hitpoints instead of making death saves is optional.

 

[iserith]

You effectively said that it was impossible to intimidate him into surrender on the grounds that his god will reward him for dying in battle.

Those grounds plus the specific context of the scene.

Far more agreeable does not translate to "guaranteed failure on intimidate" to me.

It seems like you're just picking at specific words being used to explain a ruling.

So the hobgoblin will literally say "hah, your threat is empty because I know that I die as soon as I hit 0 hitpoints unless you use the rules to knock me out, which you can only do with a melee weapon!"?

No, I don't think the hobgoblin will literally say that. However, born into and trained in battle as it is, I imagine the hobgoblin has a good idea of how hard it might be to carry out that threat from 150 feet away while it's legging it (or whatever range was established).

Properly telegraphed, the fighter's failure will be perfectly reasonable considering the circumstances in my view. I don't recall, but do you subscribe to the "Roll With It" approach where the DM asks for a check for just about anything that smells like an ability check could apply to it or where players sometimes ask to make or simply assume they should make an ability check? Because if you do, then just about any outright success or failure call by the DM may seem off to you.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Properly telegraphed, the fighter's failure will be perfectly reasonable considering the circumstances in my view. I don't recall, but do you subscribe to the "Roll With It" approach where the DM asks for a check for just about anything that smells like an ability check could apply to it or where players sometimes ask to make or simply assume they should make an ability check? Because if you do, then just about any outright success or failure call by the DM may seem off to you.

I let game mechanics decide uncertain events. In this particular case I don't think that the hobgoblin's reaction is certain, so a roll is justified.

 

[iserith]

I let game mechanics decide uncertain events. In this particular case I don't think that the hobgoblin's reaction is certain, so a roll is justified.

We differ on the uncertainty in the situation as established.