Running Away

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't particularly agree. I've seen plenty of parties flee successfully. Its a perfectly viable tactic in 4e and in fact one of the things 4e really MADE viable in general since combat doesn't involve so many devastating single attacks. Now in 1e or 2e running was almost always nonviable. It might work for high level parties but they also usually had those "get out of jail free" type powers. A low level 1e party that is over matched? Yeah, unless the monsters are slow they're history barring some kind of DM intervention.

Just because a monster is faster than the party doesn't make it a good idea for the monster to pursue either. It doesn't know that the party has no backups waiting a ways down the passage. For all the monster knows the whole thing is a ploy to bait it out. That aside there is always a tendency to hang back. You just won the battle. Sure it would be good to crush the enemy totally but chances are your side took some damage as well and you probably aren't all that hopped up to get into another fight right this minute. Look at history, its replete with examples of victorious armies failing to pursue a defeated foe. Your average Joe monster is more likely thinking about its own skin and hey there's some dead guys back there I can loot and I'm hurt and so what if those jerks come back again, we'll get them next time.

Even in a purely tactical sense its not true that an enemy can just pursue and charge. PCs can use the run action and drop an AP too if they want, which will let them immediately go from engaged to out of charge range. If they use that AP they can even do it without taking an OA (shift, run, AP, run some more). If they don't have an AP then yeah, they have to move (take an OA) then run. Its still a pretty good bet they can get clear. A monster with an 8 speed or higher can catch up, but if its got less than that then it has to run as well and now you're trading blows at no advantage to either side, plus you may well have just left behind your nice tactical situation and slower allies.

The worst case scenario is a fast monster that the party has no chance to defeat in a relatively open area. Well, in that case what logic is there for being able to disengage with an SC vs just scattering in all directions as fast as possible and hoping for the best? The SC version has no logic for how you escaped except "the enemy got bored and let us go". This is system independent too. Sure some systems may have MECHANICS for how you get out of that situation, but they can't explain how it worked because it just isn't realistic. An SC is no worse than that.

This all harks back to the whole dragon debate from a few months back. The DM should obviously know these situations when they come up. Either he wants to let the PCs go and has some explanation available for how, or he just wants to eat them for lunch and nothing is going to save a party from that.

 

[ChristopherA]

I would agree with ValhallaGH that running away is quite difficult in most role-playing games. It is extremely difficult to run away if you don't realize the situation is bad until you've already started fighting, since there is a good chance at least one of the party members is surrounded, immobilized or dead, or can't get out of the thick of the fight before being killed, or will be knocked out by ranged attacks because he is the slowest member while running away. It is just very difficult to escape unless you have some some of power that guarantees a party escape. Often some of the party members can escape, but having some of the party die and get eaten by the monsters generally isn't a very appealing prospect.

It is not always easy for the party members to know that they are supposed to run away before the combat starts unless they are given excellent monster knowledge. After all, the premise of fantasy adventures is that the characters are brave enough to fight horrible monsters no one else will face. They can't just chicken out every time they see a scary looking monster. They need to know that the monsters they see are clearly too strong for them.

Even still, running away is not that easy. One of the players will probably have heavy armor and a speed of 5. That means he can run away at speed 14. If all the monsters have speed 6 (not uncommon), they can run at speed 16 to catch up, then perform the run/charge maneuver at speed 14, getting an endless number of free attacks on the player that cannot be responded to. And realize that even without charging, if they merely end their turn next to the player, he suffers an opportunity attack when he moves away.

Even if some of the monsters are speed 5, they can keep up with the chase so they aren't afraid of being left behind. You'd have to have a speed 4 monster, or a special fast party, for running away to really be effective.

Of course, the GM can always arrange for story reasons why the monsters don't want to chase the PC's, or why circumstances such as special terrain allow the PC's to escape. But the players had better understand those reasons, otherwise they will look at the game mechanics and be very afraid of even trying to run away.

I think the skill challenge idea is excellent. That is what I would do if I wanted to simulate a chase and give the players a fair chance to escape.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Except I don't understand how you think the skill challenge is making things more believable. If the monsters can run down the party mechanically speaking then why would they fail? How is applying your knowledge going to fix that? My players aren't going to think that's any more realistic than just "the monsters decided not to follow you". Given that the consequences of failing the SC are presumably death anyway (or why would the party run in the first place) I'd think as a DM what I wanted and what I wouldn't want is a chance of a failed SC killing the party. So really if the DM wants the party to escape, an SC isn't solving anything at all. I can see situations where it would, but they would have to involve not being pursued TOO closely by the monsters in the first place, which to my mind is tantamount to the party escaped (from a tactical standpoint at least).

As for its hard to run because some members of the party might not escape, well yeah some might not. As an adventurer I think my attitude would be that a party which lost 2 members is better off than one that was TPKed. Even if I was one of the guys with no chance of escaping I'd still rather my buddies got away than died for nothing. Even if I'm totally selfish I'd rather they escaped to maybe come back and rescue me or at least bury me decently another day. When the battle is lost there's no downside to running.

 

[ChristopherA]

Except I don't understand how you think the skill challenge is making things more believable. If the monsters can run down the party mechanically speaking then why would they fail? How is applying your knowledge going to fix that? My players aren't going to think that's any more realistic than just "the monsters decided not to follow you".

But the idea here is that the normal combat rules are themselves are not the standards of realism, they are only an approximation. Everything is much more precise and cut-and-dried when playing a D&D combat than in the real/cinematic world. Everyone moves in exactly the way they intend to at all times with no possibility of imperfection. Everyone knows exactly what they can see on the map, where every square is, and everyone's movement is fixed with absolute precision, never slower or faster. It just doesn't lend itself very well to dynamic chase scenes. Once you move to noncombat time, you have more flexibility to move the characters to different terrain types and introduce stuff which would logically allow characters to escape in an action movie, without getting bogged down by the technical combat rules. My players are happy with this sort of thing in principle (though it is devilishly tricky to do well); I obviously can't know what your players would or wouldn't find believable.

Given that the consequences of failing the SC are presumably death anyway (or why would the party run in the first place) I'd think as a DM what I wanted and what I wouldn't want is a chance of a failed SC killing the party. So really if the DM wants the party to escape, an SC isn't solving anything at all. I can see situations where it would, but they would have to involve not being pursued TOO closely by the monsters in the first place, which to my mind is tantamount to the party escaped (from a tactical standpoint at least).

You have a good point that failure means a TPK. But the truth is that the "natural" consequence of failing a skill check is often death. That is why the DMG's approach is to mandate that GM's specifically sit down and invent reasons why skill checks don't have catastrophic consequences for failure. Maybe failure means the players find refuge in a dangerous haunted tomb, or fall into a pit into the Underdark, or are saved by interference by someone who wants favors later on. Hmm, I just hope the players don't fail to run away too often, or I'll run out of ideas.

I'm thinking more of the cases where the players run before getting engaged with the monsters. Once they are surrounded, I think it is time for a Bluff skill challenge, not a chase scene.

As for its hard to run because some members of the party might not escape, well yeah some might not. As an adventurer I think my attitude would be that a party which lost 2 members is better off than one that was TPKed. Even if I was one of the guys with no chance of escaping I'd still rather my buddies got away than died for nothing. Even if I'm totally selfish I'd rather they escaped to maybe come back and rescue me or at least bury me decently another day. When the battle is lost there's no downside to running.

True, but the original poster was speaking from a GM's point of view - how to allow the characters to escape. This means allowing all of the characters to escape. A battle where a couple characters escape with their lives isn't something the GM plans into the adventure (unless he's running Tomb of Horrors); it is something that just happens when the battle goes horribly wrong.

 

[Infiniti2000]

So, the party is losing and tries to flee an encounter. As a consequence the end up in a skill challenge, succeed, and end up with the experience anyway? As DM do you make sure the PCs are really needing to flee and not simply Jonesing for some easier SC XP?

Call me a cynic.

 

[korjik]

So, the party is losing and tries to flee an encounter. As a consequence the end up in a skill challenge, succeed, and end up with the experience anyway? As DM do you make sure the PCs are really needing to flee and not simply Jonesing for some easier SC XP?

Call me a cynic.

ooohh, you could get a party of pacifists who make epic tier without ever killing anything that way.

Brave Brave Brave Sir Robin!
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled!
Brave Brave Brave Sir Robin!

/this concludes your gratuitous Monty Python reference for this thread

 

[Saeviomagy]

Even in a purely tactical sense its not true that an enemy can just pursue and charge. PCs can use the run action and drop an AP too if they want, which will let them immediately go from engaged to out of charge range. If they use that AP they can even do it without taking an OA (shift, run, AP, run some more). If they don't have an AP then yeah, they have to move (take an OA) then run. Its still a pretty good bet they can get clear. A monster with an 8 speed or higher can catch up, but if its got less than that then it has to run as well and now you're trading blows at no advantage to either side, plus you may well have just left behind your nice tactical situation and slower allies.

The AP is really the only chance the PCs have: if the monsters were in melee and the PCs run, the monster can run and then run-charge. In this scenario the pursuers get to continue attacking, while the fleeing party just takes hits.

And really, what PC saves their AP to run away?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The AP is really the only chance the PCs have: if the monsters were in melee and the PCs run, the monster can run and then run-charge. In this scenario the pursuers get to continue attacking, while the fleeing party just takes hits.

And really, what PC saves their AP to run away?

There's no such thing as a run-charge...

My point was that disengagement in 4e is certainly possible and feasible. Of course nobody is claiming its always possible. However I do claim it is a viable tactic in many situations and I've had parties do it. In 1e or 2e? Yeah, I've seen the magic user and the rogue manage to exit stage rear while the fighter and the cleric died plugging up the doorway but in the vast majority of battles in those editions you only knew you were in trouble when it was FAR too late. 4e is MUCH more forgiving that way and has game mechanics that DO facilitate withdrawal, which is kind of what the post I originally responded to was saying isn't so.

Yes, I agree that you CAN use a skill challenge to govern what happens when a party HAS escaped for the moment, or is trying to sneak away from an area they just discovered they really really don't want to mess with, etc. I'm only saying its not particularly an improvement to do something like suddenly switch from combat mode to SC when in the middle of the combat the party decides to run away. Sure there can be factors beyond what the basic combat rules framework deals with, but you can deal with those in various ways. If the monster say is one you deem isn't much good for more than a short sprint then just have it break off or not pursue.

As I said before, there are plenty of good reasons why monsters would not bother to pursue, no need to call things hopeless for the party if you want to let them escape. Just don't have the monsters charge right after them nipping at their heels! Its perfectly easy to rationalize. NOW go to your SC where the PCs are hurrying to get away to somewhere safe while the monsters dog them. Its just the idea of running the disengagement part as an SC that I don't find particularly compelling.

I don't think the natural consequence of failing a skill check is death either. In fact hanging character survival on a single roll by design is never good adventure design. I'm perfectly OK with things come down to the wire at a certain point where sometimes if you fail a skill check you die, but its the consequence of a whole series of events. If you have adventures designed to kill PCs in an ordinary circumstance with a single die roll that pretty much IS the definition of Tome of Horrors, lol. Its a style of play that can be fun, if everyone is up for it.

In any case I'm not 100% sure exactly the situation the OP has in mind. To answer the original question directly if a party say spots some horrible situation before they actually get toe-to-toe with the enemy and turns tail, then yes I would probably use a skill challenge to see what happens next. Depending on what the PCs decide they do in this challenge and how they roll would determine how I would proceed from there. It would be an ad-hoc narrative challenge or even a series of small challenges perhaps depending on the situation.

And remember, PCs DO sometimes have the option to surrender or negotiate too. If a low level party were to say run into a big dragon in an area where escape seems unlikely then I would hope (and probably subtly encourage) the option to call a parlay. The best the PCs may be able to hope for is to get out with their lives, but that might be their best option and can make a pretty fun RP situation.

 

[Prism]

In 1e or 2e? Yeah, I've seen the magic user and the rogue manage to exit stage rear while the fighter and the cleric died plugging up the doorway but in the vast majority of battles in those editions you only knew you were in trouble when it was FAR too late. 4e is MUCH more forgiving that way and has game mechanics that DO facilitate withdrawal, which is kind of what the post I originally responded to was saying isn't so.

I'd cetainly say so too at low levels but after about 5th level in earlier editions spells changed the situation drastically. We pretty much always carried scrolls with various exit strategies on them since from time to time we would face unwinable fights. In 4e there is very little magic to help out with an escape, but as you say the movement mechanics are strong enough to help out.

It boils down to play style very much how important being able to escape a fight is. To be honest is one of the first things I used to plan for in many previous campaigns - always with magic though. The wizard in one of our 4e games has taken the planeshifter PP. The 12th level utility which lets you escape a fight is probably the more useful power in the party for us - some groups would get almost no use out of it

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd cetainly say so too at low levels but after about 5th level in earlier editions spells changed the situation drastically. We pretty much always carried scrolls with various exit strategies on them since from time to time we would face unwinable fights. In 4e there is very little magic to help out with an escape, but as you say the movement mechanics are strong enough to help out.

It boils down to play style very much how important being able to escape a fight is. To be honest is one of the first things I used to plan for in many previous campaigns - always with magic though. The wizard in one of our 4e games has taken the planeshifter PP. The 12th level utility which lets you escape a fight is probably the more useful power in the party for us - some groups would get almost no use out of it

I'd say in earlier versions as levels went up things got a lot less easy to predict. As early as level 5 it might be possible to effect an escape with the help of a spell, but the actual "bugger out" kind of magic really doesn't show up before level 5 spells. Of course once you start hitting levels above 9th you're also likely facing monsters with some pretty awesome instant killing power too. A level 10 party that is staring at a monster they are so scared of they are going to bugger out is staring at something like an Ancient Huge Red Dragon and if that sucker gets initiative and breaths on them, well bugger out magic is likely no longer an option as half their equipment is fried and the magic user with teleport is a crispy fried baco-bit. 1e was a bit more forgiving in the sense that the powerful monsters were actually kind of wimpy in that edition (dragons were pretty pathetic unless you were in way over your head).

Anyway, in general I guess we agree. 4e definitely lacks "poof we're out of here" for the most part, but the equivalent of a 2e 10th level party is I'd argue about 18th or 20th level in 4e and they do start to have some serious options at that point. At the very least they won't all go down in a round or two even against the top rank monsters.