D&D 5E When you've made the battle too much to handle...

[overgeeked]

I would say it can be something to strive for, but that in the doing the DM and players both need to be aware that an equation in a book is not going to take into account all the variables that may lead to things being harder (or easier!) than expected. Smart play in that context is to have a Plan B at all times. If everyone is on the same page with regard to that fact, then it can work just fine as a principle of challenge design.

Sure...but picking up any die and realizing that randomness is a part of the game...that dice are involved in play...should give you all the information you need for the "smart play" or to be "on the same page" in regards to always having a plan B. Players thinking they can safely rush in, brute force every problem, and always be assured an easy victory is as much a failing on the part of the designers as the DM and players.

 

[Mort]

Fights are exactly as difficult to flee from as the DM wants them to be.

While true, this is a meaningless statement.

If the PCs don't know that fleeing is an option, then, likely, they won't do it. The DM not only has to make fleeing viable, he has to ensure the PCs know it's viable.

It's quite helpful. It's just not something you want to do. Which is fair. But it's still a viable option.

The point is a TPK or even partial TPK is, often, the least fun option. The break in the action presents an opportunity to inject some other fun things that can occur.

The OP's request is predicated on a false premise. That encounter balance is something to strive for. It's not. It makes the world feel like a video game. Some things will be a breezy walk in the park, others a desperate and overwhelming fight to the death. Fights that you expect to go one way will inevitably go the other. So be it.

Encounter balance is more about the DM gauging how hard an encounter is likely to be so he can plan his adventures accordingly. D&D is a level based game, the DM HAS to know what will challenge the group, what won't and what will likely be too difficult. If nothing else, the DM needs to know WHEN to build in opportunities for the PCs to get the heck out of dodge.

The players can decide to run. If they don't, that's on them. The DM can decide to let them run, that's on them. The DM can also do any one of the dozens of suggestions already presented...up to and including the dreaded TPK.

If the DM inserts a deadly encounter (an actual deadly encounter not a DMG rated deadly encounter, which is just a resource thing) without taking into account that the PCs may have to run, or worse doesn't build in/allow ways for them to run, then the DM is being a jerk - full stop.

 

[iserith]

Sure...but picking up any die and realizing that randomness is a part of the game...that dice are involved in play...should give you all the information you need for the "smart play" or to be "on the same page" in regards to always having a plan B. Players thinking they can safely rush in, brute force every problem, and always be assured an easy victory is as much a failing on the part of the designers as the DM and players.

I'm not sure that's obvious to everyone, so it's worth talking about as a group in my view.

 

[overgeeked]

While true, this is a meaningless statement.

Not at all. It's a direct counter to your silly claim that all D&D fights in every edition are difficult to escape. You're wrong about that. The fights in D&D, no matter the edition, are exactly as difficult to escape as the DM decides.

If the PCs don't know that fleeing is an option, then, likely, they won't do it. The DM not only has to make fleeing viable, he has to ensure the PCs know it's viable.

As long as they have hit points and they're not locked in, the PCs can always run. If that needs explaining, there are deeper issues that need to be talked about first.

The point is a TPK or even partial TPK

We must not be using that abbreviation to mean the same thing. I'm using it to mean Total Party Kill. There's no such thing as a partial total something.

is, often, the least fun option. The break in the action presents an opportunity to inject some other fun things that can occur.

Only if it's the end of the game. As mentioned by me and a few other people, you can even make death or losing into a part of the game. Depending on how mythical or epic you want to go, it can be the most memorable part.

Encounter balance is more about the DM gauging how hard an encounter is likely to be so he can plan his adventures accordingly.

There's your problem. Don't do that. It's not for the DM to plan. It's for the DM to react. The PCs want to go hunting a dragon at 1st level? Fine. Let's go. The PCs want to play politics in the big city? Fine. Let's go. the PCs want to raid goblin villages at 20th level? Fine. Let's go.

D&D is a level based game, the DM HAS to know what will challenge the group, what won't and what will likely be too difficult.

No, the DM doesn't. The PCs get to decide what they tackle and how difficult the challenges are. If they want to hunt dragons at 1st level...cool. Start rolling up new characters now because you'll need them. Want to walk all over CR1/8 monsters at 20th...cool...if utterly boring.

If nothing else, the DM needs to know WHEN to build in opportunities for the PCs to get the heck out of dodge.

Again, unless the door is locked, the path barred, and the PCs dead, they can always run.

If the DM inserts a deadly encounter (an actual deadly encounter not a DMG rated deadly encounter, which is just a resource thing) without taking into account that the PCs may have to run, or worse doesn't build in/allow ways for them to run, then the DM is being a jerk - full stop.

The DM coddling the PCs and protecting them from their terrible choices is also a jerk move. The DM not playing the world with some sense of verisimilitude is also a jerk move. A hyper-intelligent lich scrying on an adventuring party and building the perfect counter to every one of their abilities is exactly what a hyper-intelligent lich would do. Anything less than that is coddling the players and being a jerk. Some fights are inescapable. Some fights are deadly. Some deadly fights are inescapable. A hyper-intelligent lich who can scry on the adventuring party and build the perfect counter to every one of their abilities is not likely to make it easy for the party to escape. Anything less breaks suspension of disbelief. If that seems unfair, tell it to the lich. I'm sure it'll be sympathetic. If the PCs are dumb enough to walk into a trap, then they're dumb enough to walk into a trap. It's only a jerk move if you don't telegraph it. Like old-school save or die stuff that's undetectable? Forget that noise.

I'm not sure that's obvious to everyone, so it's worth talking about as a group in my view.

It's not obvious that rolling a die produces a random number? Okay.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Fights are exactly as difficult to flee from as the DM wants them to be.

Didn't some guy up thread suggest murdering all the stragglers?

Sounds like the answer to 'can they flee' when it comes to enemies with ranged attacks or a speed greater than the PC races is 'no, u died. lol'.

 

[Mort]

Not at all. It's a direct counter to your silly claim that all D&D fights in every edition are difficult to escape. You're wrong about that. The fights in D&D, no matter the edition, are exactly as difficult to escape as the DM decides.

As long as they have hit points and they're not locked in, they PCs can always run. If that needs explaining, there are deeper issues that need to be talked about first.

This is simply not true. PCs OFTEN don't moves as fast/ or at least not faster than opponents. The DM needs to consider fleeing as an option or it may not actually be a viable one.

We must not be using that abbreviation to mean the same thing. I'm using it to mean Total Party Kill. There's no such thing as a partial total something.

Partial TPK just means short of a TPK like 50-75% of the party dying.

Only if it's the end of the game. As mentioned by me and a few other people, you can even make death or losing into a part of the game. Depending on how mythical or epic you want to go, it can be the most memorable part.

More often than not death just means rolling up a new character - which ok. A TPK just means everyone rolls up a new character. There are plenty of more fun/worse consequences than that.

There's your problem. Don't do that. It's not for the DM to plan. It's for the DM to react. The PCs want to go hunting a dragon at 1st level? Fine. Let's go. The PCs want to play politics in the big city? Fine. Let's go. the PCs want to raid goblin villages at 20th level? Fine. Let's go.

The DM still has to know how easy or hard the task the PCs are trying to accomplish is. You can't react if you have no idea what the PCs chances of success/failure are.

No, the DM doesn't. The PCs get to decide what they tackle and how difficult the challenges are. If they want to hunt dragons at 1st level...cool. Start rolling up new characters now because you'll need them. Want to walk all over CR1/8 monsters at 20th...cool...if utterly boring.

You're describing a true sandbox. Not all, probably not even a high % of games are run like that. Further, even in a true sandbox, the DM MUST know the relative difficulty of any given challenge. The situations you describe are obvious, but most are not. If the DM doesn't telegraph that certain encounters/situations are WAY above a groups paygrade -then cackles manically as they're brutally killed? that's not a good way to go.

Again, unless the door is locked, the path barred, and the PCs dead, they can always run.

Run where? just because they can run, doesn't mean the opponents won't follow. There has to be some way for them to escape successfully, or it's just a trap option.

The DM coddling the PCs and protecting them from their terrible choices is also a jerk move. The DM not playing the world with some sense of verisimilitude is also a jerk move. A hyper-intelligent lich scrying on an adventuring party and building the perfect counter to every one of their abilities is exactly what a hyper-intelligent lich would do. Anything less than that is coddling the players and being a jerk. Some fights are inescapable. Some fights are deadly. Some deadly fights are inescapable. A hyper-intelligent lich who can scry on the adventuring party and build the perfect counter to every one of their abilities is not likely to make it easy for the party to escape. Anything less breaks suspension of disbelief. If that seems unfair, tell it to the lich. I'm sure it'll be sympathetic. If the PCs are dumb enough to walk into a trap, then they're dumb enough to walk into a trap. It's only a jerk move if you don't telegraph it. Like old-school save or die stuff that's undetectable? Forget that noise.

Sorry, but a DM that builds a situation where the PCs are certain to die? That's a complete jerk move. It's basically a power fantasy where the DM may as well just read the outcome and not bother having the PCs even roll dice. A possibility of death, that's part of the game. A likelihood of death, as long as the PCs know what they signed up for - that can be great fun. A certainty of death - why even bother?

 

[iserith]

It's not obvious that rolling a die produces a random number? Okay.

That's a little reductive though. Not everyone is going to understand that the swing of a d20 is pretty big and that the range of possibilities may exist outside of their expectations. In my opinion, one can never be too careful about setting expectations ahead of time both in games and in life. It avoids a lot of issues downstream.

 

[Blue]

I don't believe that every encounter should be tailored to the PCs. I also believe that TPKs suck - but that doesn't mean it's the DMs responsibility to override player agency when they could occur. I do think it's thew DM's responsibility to telegraph when opponents are powerful, and to train players from early on that not all fights will be winnable so that they have that in mind when they approach (or avoid) fights.

All of that said, it sounds like you were aiming for a lesser fight and missed. Happens. So, what options do you have at this point while still preserving player agency?

The first many have mentioned is that the lich has other plans for them and would be happy if they (or most of them) don't die. So a TPK means ending in something worse than death. You mentioned a complicated backstory, can any of that fit in?

Another would be that you mentioned this is an atrophied lich with no phylactery. Is that "hit the table/the players know it" true? Because if not you have the ability to introduce a new element that your players would be expecting. Perhaps it gets unearthed in the action soon. You can go several ways. Maybe they require the phylactery to live since they are atrophied and it can be attacked and destroyed. Maybe whomever is holding it is automatically missed by / makes saves against the Lich and it can turn the tide of battle. But my favorite would have the Alu-Fiend know about it and grab it, cackling in Infernal that it can use it to control the lich, and the lich turns a couple of actions to dealing with the Alu-Fiend, giving the party a chance to regroup. Heck, maybe it was embedded in the Shield Guardian, explaining what the Alu-Fiend has been doing, tricky devil*.

(*Well, demon, but who's counting.)

A third option would be to start next session with "The lich is winning. Is anyone willing to be a martyr that the rest of the party can escape?" If not then play it out, letting them know the offer is still on the table. Makes a great recurring villain who has already killed a party member - they will want their revenge. And if you have a player who wouldn't mind retiring their character for a new one, they get that opportunity.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Regarding running: if @toucanbuzz feels the encounter is too difficult and properly telegraphs that the party is about to be killed and properly telegraphs that the lich is giving them an out, then running away shouldn’t be a problem.

 

[overgeeked]

This is simply not true. PCs OFTEN don't moves as fast/ or at least not faster than opponents.

That assumes the monsters must chase them. That's simply not true. The DM can always have the monsters not chase the PCs. Just as the DM can always have the monsters not kill the PCs. If it makes sense for the monster to do those things, do them.

The DM needs to consider fleeing as an option or it may not actually be a viable one.

As long as there's an exit, it's viable. Surrender is also always an option.

Partial TPK just means short of a TPK like 50-75% of the party dying.

So not a TPK, then. Got it.

More often than not death just means rolling up a new character - which ok. A TPK just means everyone rolls up a new character. There are plenty of more fun/worse consequences than that.

An infinite variety. One of which is both killing the party and continuing to use those characters. There's a lich. It has raise dead. There is an underworld, many of them more than likely. Death might want something. Like maybe the pesky necromancer lich to stop taking all these people out of the underworld. Having death be the end is simply not using the fantasy milieu to its fullest.

The DM still has to know how easy or hard the task the PCs are trying to accomplish is. You can't react if you have no idea what the PCs chances of success/failure are.

One simply doesn't follow from the other. The DM can have the stats of the monsters and use them. The PCs have their in-character and in-game knowledge of the situation. The fun is seeing what happens next. I don't need to know ahead of time that the party has a 37.9% chance of victory before they engage with a fight.

You're describing a true sandbox. Not all, probably not even a high % of games are run like that.

Sure.

Further, even in a true sandbox, the DM MUST know the relative difficulty of any given challenge.

Patently false.

The situations you describe are obvious, but most are not.

The situation the OP is describing is obvious. If the PCs decide to last stand that fight, it's on them.

If the DM doesn't telegraph that certain encounters/situations are WAY above a groups paygrade -then cackles manically as they're brutally killed? that's not a good way to go.

Agreed. I never said otherwise.

Run where?

Literally anywhere the deadly fight is not. You know, away.

just because they can run, doesn't mean the opponents won't follow.

You mean the opponents that the DM controls? Yeah, hint: the DM controls them. Not following the PCs is absolutely a viable option.

Sorry, but a DM that builds a situation where the PCs are certain to die? That's a complete jerk move.

And no one's claiming otherwise.

It's basically a power fantasy where the DM may as well just read the outcome and not bother having the PCs even roll dice. A possibility of death, that's part of the game. A likelihood of death, as long as the PCs know what they signed up for - that can be great fun. A certainty of death - why even bother?

Likewise, a certainty of success and everlasting life...why even bother?

That's a little reductive though. Not everyone is going to understand that the swing of a d20 is pretty big and that the range of possibilities may exist outside of their expectations. In my opinion, one can never be too careful about setting expectations ahead of time both in games and in life. It avoids a lot of issues downstream.

Even if it's reduced to the binary options of success or failure, you still have both as possibilities. I mean, I don't know what to do if someone cannot comprehend that failure is a possibility. I agree that with a lot of modern players, especially ones in my games, you have to literally explain to them that failure is a possibility. I'd somewhat naively hoped it was limited to my table. Clearly not.