D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[Lanefan]

Even in 2e D&D, fleeing from an opponent in melee gave them a free attack on you, which isn't the greatest idea if you're already losing.

EDIT: or multiple attacks, if the opponent has several attacks per round!

The bolded must be a 2e thing, as I only recall there ever being one free attack against someone fleeing in 1e.

 

[pemerton]

The bolded must be a 2e thing, as I only recall there ever being one free attack against someone fleeing in 1e.

Here is the relevant rule, from Gygax's DMG p 70:

Breaking Off From Melee:
At such times as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent.​

D&D might not support the whole group trying to flee at once (though perhaps it should, that's a different discussion) but it supports individuals fleeing just fine. The person fleeing just has to withstand an AoO or edition equivalent if facing a foe at the time, and then be able to either run faster than the foe (if means of even higher-speed travel aren't available) or to bleed it off onto an ally, preferably something expendable such as a summoned monster.

And how is this sort of play - ie in which PCs hire or summon "muscle", and then sacrifice it when expedience demands - better than play in which the protagonists fight their own fights?

Answer: it's not. My impression is that the number of contemporary RPGers interested in this particular approach is very much a minority.

 

[Lanefan]

Here is the relevant rule, from Gygax's DMG p 70:

Breaking Off From Melee:​

At such times as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent.​

And how is this sort of play - ie in which PCs hire or summon "muscle", and then sacrifice it when expedience demands - better than play in which the protagonists fight their own fights?

Answer: it's not. My impression is that the number of contemporary RPGers interested in this particular approach is very much a minority.

Interesting - I always somehow missed the bolded bit in the DMG quote.

Making it count as if the fleeing opponent is stunned is IMO a bit much; if nothing else, dexterity should still apply to AC.

 

[Nefermandias]

This too. How is the action declaration "We flee!" going to be resolved. The resolution in 13th Age is clear (the PCs escape, but suffer a "story" setback as decided by the GM). The resolution in Torchbearer 2e is clear (the PCs initiate a Flee/Pursue conflict, which gets resolved using the conflict rules). The resolution is relatively clear in classic D&D (the evasion/pursuit rules are activated).

In Torchbearer and class D&D the resolution of the plural declaration "we flee" is facilitated by the fact that there is generally no "turn order" across the PCs.

A system which separates the PCs in turn order and hence action economy, which resolves fleeing simply by movement of squares on a board, etc - ie that has the general properties of contemporary D&D - is already not well-positioned to support the resolution of a group decision to flee. 13th Age gets around this by using a "meta"-style of resolution for the declaration. I'm sure other technical solutions are possible too. But it's hopeless to approach this as if it's some sort of moral or intellectual or emotional failing on the part of players, as opposed to a question about both the technical and the aesthetic aspects of game design.

And that's why people should read the Dungeon Master's Guide.

 

[pemerton]

And that's why people should read the Dungeon Master's Guide.

I've heard mixed things about the 5e DMG pursuit rules, including the rules for transitioning from combat to pursuit.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Fleeing absolutely should be easier. It might not necessarily be the most satisfying outcome for a combat, but it still should be a viable option. Currently it really isn't.

EDIT: (Ah, I see there is a separate thread for this now. Let's take further fleeing discussion there and leave this one for healing.)

 

[Nefermandias]

I've heard mixed things about the 5e DMG pursuit rules, including the rules for transitioning from combat to pursuit.

You heard that, but have you actually read them?

 

[Vaalingrade]

You can afford to spend a turn not attacking your opponents if you can guarantee they'll attack your teammates instead.

At some point when things break down, the self-preservation instinct makes it an "every man for himself" situation: if you can get out, get out; and with any luck some of the others will also get out.

There are always acceptable losses.

Yeah, this is a team game I play with my friends. I don't find that level of betrayal and selfishness acceptable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here is the relevant rule, from Gygax's DMG p 70:

Breaking Off From Melee:​

At such times as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent.​

And how is this sort of play - ie in which PCs hire or summon "muscle", and then sacrifice it when expedience demands - better than play in which the protagonists fight their own fights?

Answer: it's not. My impression is that the number of contemporary RPGers interested in this particular approach is very much a minority.

It's different from the majority; it doesn't have to be better or worse, and how popular a style of play happens to be is irrelevant.

The question here isn't whether or not you would like it (I think we can safely claim you wouldn't), or whether or not enough people would support it to suit some corporation's profit "requirements", but rather whether or not such a tactic could work in play. I'm pretty sure it could, with the added personal bonus that such a tactic would make logical sense in many settings.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Interesting - I always somehow missed the bolded bit in the DMG quote.

Making it count as if the fleeing opponent is stunned is IMO a bit much; if nothing else, dexterity should still apply to AC.

Another excellent point, rules can always be changed if you don't like them or if they don't reasonably allow a course of action you and your group want.