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

[Mort]

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

You're the one arguing for strict verisimilitude. If the Opponent CAN follow and would follow, but does not - isn't that basically the same as fudging? The point is, the pc's fleeing needs to be considered and allowed for.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Alot of people mentioning here that the players become thralls or otherwise indentured servitude to the lich but if you don’t find a way out and a TPK does ensue it’d be really cool (in my book at least) if the high level of ambient necrotic magic naturally revives the players as undead (either as all thr same or different types) and have them wake up in a corpse bin/pit/room with all the previous dead adventurers and explorers

 

[Stormonu]

Also, if a TPK does occur, its possible that the lich otherwise discards/displays the bodies as a warning, which are collected by the "forces of good" and revived, in the hope that they had the best shot at defeating the lich, but just need a second chance. This gives the party a chance to rearm, seek out allies and otherwise try again - though likely the second time around the lich will take more care that there's no chance the defeated party can come back.

 

[overgeeked]

You're the one arguing for strict verisimilitude. If the Opponent CAN follow and would follow, but does not - isn't that basically the same as fudging?

Exactly.

As I already said:

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.

Not all opponents will chase fleeing PCs. Some will. Some won't. That lich? Maybe. It might be trying to kill the party. It might be trying to KO them and enthrall them. It might be trying to kill them, raise them, then enthrall them. It all depends on the monster and the circumstance in the moment.

The point is, the pc's fleeing needs to be considered and allowed for.

You're starting from a false premise. That it isn't allowed for by default and therefore must be explicitly put in for it to be a possibility. If there is space to move, the PCs can flee. If there's an exit, the PCs can take it. If the PCs came into the room, the vast majority of the time, they can exit that same way. The only time fleeing isn't allowed for is when the DM explicitly and intentionally takes that option away.

 

[Blue]

Also, if a TPK does occur, its possible that the lich otherwise discards/displays the bodies as a warning, which are collected by the "forces of good" and revived, in the hope that they had the best shot at defeating the lich, but just need a second chance. This gives the party a chance to rearm, seek out allies and otherwise try again - though likely the second time around the lich will take more care that there's no chance the defeated party can come back.

How cool. Let me take it further.

TPK happens.

Explain to the players how they awake on a fresh battlefield, filled with undead and the freshly dead wearing a symbols of a good-aligned god. It's 14 years later - they have been undead generals ravaging the land, but a bard sworre that they were the bodies of these noble heroes he had previously sung about. So forces of a good temple tried a risky gambit, and between a high level cleric and burning out a Rod of Resurrection have brought the players back.

But a decade and a half of ravishment have happened. And the temple intends them to put right what was done.

 

[Mort]

You're starting from a false premise. That it isn't allowed for by default and therefore must be explicitly put in for it to be a possibility. If there is space to move, the PCs can flee. If there's an exit, the PCs can take it. If the PCs came into the room, the vast majority of the time, they can exit that same way. The only time fleeing isn't allowed for is when the DM explicitly and intentionally takes that option away.

It is not a false premise. It is something the DM must consider. You're treating flight as an obvious option. But it isn't, just because the PCs can back away doesn't mean they can GET away. in 5e, combat, once engaged, is NOT easy to flee from (unless you're a caster that can teleport - then sure, it's easy).

 

[overgeeked]

It is not a false premise. It is something the DM must consider. You're treating flight as an obvious option. But it isn't, just because the PCs can back away doesn't mean they can GET away. in 5e, combat, once engaged, is NOT easy to flee from (unless you're a caster that can teleport - then sure, it's easy).

You don't need to build an escape hatch into a room with a door. Tschüss.

 

[overgeeked]

How cool. Let me take it further.

TPK happens.

Explain to the players how they awake on a fresh battlefield, filled with undead and the freshly dead wearing a symbols of a good-aligned god. It's 14 years later - they have been undead generals ravaging the land, but a bard sworre that they were the bodies of these noble heroes he had previously sung about. So forces of a good temple tried a risky gambit, and between a high level cleric and burning out a Rod of Resurrection have brought the players back.

But a decade and a half of ravishment have happened. And the temple intends them to put right what was done.

There you go. Now that's the makings of an epic story.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You don't need to build an escape hatch into a room with a door.

An enemy with a decent speed or a ranged attack just shoots you on the way out and is effectively inescapable.

 

[dave2008]

I don't play RPGs to be spoon-fed a pre-written story...I have actual fiction, written by actual writers for that. RPGs aren't fiction. They're not prose or movies. They're their own thing. Let them be their own thing. Sorry you've been so hurt by honest die rolls before.

If you trust the people at the table, neither option is really an issue.