Running away and/or Surrendering

[Democratus]

Over the years I've noticed that it can sometimes be very difficult for some parties to decide to run away from a very powerful monster.

I've also noticed that surrender is often considered worse than death.

Was wondering if others have noticed the same kind of thing in their games.

Particularly interested to hear how some of you pulled off a situation where the party surrendered rather than fight to the death.

Thanks!

[rel]

The main issue with running away is that if you can't beat the monster you often can't run from the monster. And even if you could run from the monster you might not realise you can't beat it until the chance to run is long gone.

As for surrender, often you don't know if you can. When was the last time an NPC actually offered quarter or a dungeon included signs that surrendering to the monsters would result in a preferable option to death.

This sort of thing really has to start with the NPC's. If they always grimly fight to the death never retreating or pleading for mercy the players might not even consider the option.

If the monsters tend to break and run often and early the players realise it's something they can do too.
It also let's you stock encounters with a lot more monsters since morale will make them less dangerous.
This also encourages the PC's to run because hey there are a lot of enemies here and the odds don't look good.

If the monsters start by demanding something instead of silently moving in for the kill and actually revise their demands to something more reasonable as the fight turns against them surrender is a lot more possible.

Then there is the encounter design itself. If there is a good escape route or few penalties to retreating there is more incentive to step back.

Finally, there is game design. Mentioning that retreat is an expected part of the game and that loot that that gets lost or stolen will be quickly recoverable in session 0 is probably a good idea.
Likewise, changing your level mechanics to not incentivize killing everything you meet might change the players approach.

[Democratus]

Well said.

It can sometimes be very tough to tell if a fight is beyond hope. Usually the first sign is when more than one party member is down.

I find it interesting there used to be mechanics in D&D for running away. That they have been removed may be a statement of how later editions are meant to be played.

Surrender situations have usually, in the games I've experienced, arisen when the opponent offers surrender. Sometimes it's the BBEG wanting to keep the party as witnesses so he can gloat about his cosmic plans (and giving a later opportunity for escape). Sometimes it's the local constabulary who wants to take the party to jail for some infraction or another.

Sandbox games are particularly prone to some of these issues, as there are places where the foes are simply too much for the players at the current level.

A giant fortress or dragon's volcanic lair is obvious. Less so things like wandering swarms of death-scarabs or groups of high-level humanoids. Short of hanging a sign in those areas that says, "You must be this tall to enter", I'm not sure what can be done about that.

[Pex]

Surrender is not an option against monsters because it's TPK. Trolls don't want prisoners. Against NPC bad guys there is a fate worse than death. The party will lose their stuff. It is the number one fear of all players. It may not be logical, but it's true.

It can and does happen that a TPK turns into a party captured scenario if only because everyone, including the DM, wants to keep playing with the same characters. Their stuff is taken, and the players aim to get it all back to take their revenge. It's fine. For players to surrender voluntarily there might be a need for a meta assurance from the DM it becomes the captured scenario. It's a pseudo session 0 where players buy into the game premise.

[Trask]

I've found running away to be a decent strategy a lot of the time. It won't work every time, but in wilderness encounters where one can make use of the terrain or against a lumbering beast or a predator only defending its den then yeah its a good option.

As for surrendering, far more dubious. I think it would only happen if the PCs were facing civilized enemies. The forces of a rival lord or the champions of a god that the players are on good terms with. But that assumes a kind of D&D where faction play is more prevalent, and even "good" forces could be the enemies of the PCs by circumstance. But in those scenarios I think surrendering is more likely and more reasonable than against monstrous humanoids who are more likely to eat you than anything.

[Pex]

When a party wants to retreat if they can do it on their own, great. Sometimes the DM might have to let them, fudge it to be technical. It's meta, but the alternative is captured or more likely TPK. It's more than just how the dice roll. If the party tries to retreat but the bad guys are effectively stopping them then players might take the lesson they never can and will never try in the future because the DM isn't letting them. It might be what the bad guys would logically do, but it can't be helped the players see the DM preventing them from leaving. Retreating is its own failure. The players already feel bummed by it. It gets worse if they fail at retreating and ugly if a PC dies in the attempt. It rivals TPK as the worst feeling. Suck it up buttercup has its place here in the sense that it's not a problem the party loses. What's to be avoided is adding insult to injury.

[Trask]

If the party tries to retreat but the bad guys are effectively stopping them then players might take the lesson they never can and will never try in the future because the DM isn't letting them. It might be what the bad guys would logically do, but it can't be helped the players see the DM preventing them from leaving.

I think some DMs can be a little too "hyper tactical" with some creatures. Not every fighting force, monster, or pack of predators is going to be able to effectively outmaneuver the PCs every time. Letting some enemies be slow on the uptake or easily fooled so the PCs can escape lets the very intelligent enemies shine through as that much more scary when they do effectively block escape.

[DrKerosene]

I think the closest I’ve come to seeing a Party “surrender” is when half of one Party decided to swear loyalty to the first dragon they heard about.


I’ve been wanting to run Curse Of Strahd, and it seems like a decent setting for the rule of thumb to be “if the Party did not plan a combat encounter, they should default to fleeing from any surprise/random encounters”.


I think one possible problem is that if Party can successfully escape an enemy, what prevents them from trying to kite the enemy in a harrier combat method?

[Doug Lampert]

Establishing ransoms as a thing in the setting goes a long way toward letting people surrender easily.

If you can surrender, and then you'll be expected to pay X GP to be let go and Y additional GP if you want to retain your gear; and X and Y are both set based on something like tier of play; then gold has a use, and people have a way to get gold, and everyone is more inclined to accept surrenders and to surrender at need.

Establish it early for your setting or the game area and you can have intelligent enemies give up and expect to receive these sorts of terms. There's either an iron bound rule of honor that you pay ransoms and deliver the prisoners when ransoms are paid (supernaturally powerful oaths or everyone will hear about it if you break the terms), or alternately, I've used a church with substantial divine aid as the ransom agent so no one wanted to go against the goddess.

Historically, no one wanted to kill a wealthy man they could take prisoner, PCs are often rich, the enemies shouldn't want to kill them unless they are carrying their entire fortune. And note that the existence of ransoms encourages things like having a secure home-base and relations with some larger group or organization so there will be someone to help arrange and deliver the ransom and so you won't be carrying all that money all the time.

You can't outrun the dragon, but the dragon likes money, if it trusts that it can parole you, and you'll deliver the money within a year and not attack again till at least three days after you've delivered the money because doing otherwise angers the gods/fates/magical forces/whatever. Then if the dragon will be willing to take prisoners. Dragons like gold.

[Samayu]

We don't surrender or run away, but there are many times we decide not to fight, or think really hard about it, because the monster seems too powerful. And very often they're less powerful than we expected. But often big fights go really bad for us at first, and we're all thinking we're going to die, and then finally the tide turns. I can't count how many times I've felt like this in the last couple of campaigns.

Then there was the time we fought the adult green dragon. The DM set it up as an unwinnable fight, one we should have run from, but we stayed and fought. The dragon was one barbarian hit away from death, when he fled, leaving only me behind. I was the cleric, who was then able to raise one of the four dead PC's. (He probably would have killed me too, except I never really posed a threat.)

Anyway, my point is that in our campaigns, the only fights we run from are the plot events that the DM makes unwinnable.

[Keravath]

If you want the players to consider options like running away, strategic retreat or surrender, you need to start by managing expectations in session 0.

Many players expect the DM to only provide encounters that are possible. It is an implicit underlying assumption for many folks so if you want to have a more "realistic" world, the DM needs to explain this very bluntly during a session 0.

1) The world you will be playing in is a living evolving place with multiple different story lines that can happen, some of which you may never encounter depending on the decisions you make. These events are happening in the world independent of the character actions for the most part. As a result, it is easily possible for you to make a mistake and get in over your head. I (the DM) will not magically remove you from such situations. You interact with the world and this means that you need to keep in mind that any particular encounter you run into is a part of the world and will not be tailored to match your party or your capabilities. This means that sometimes the best decision may very well be to leave or flee, talk or negotiate if possible and not necessarily jump in to attack.

2) Also be explicit that the creatures they encounter will behave realistically. This means that they may not all fight to death in every situation. Think about it. Most realistic armies did not fight until every last combatant on one of the sides was dead. Many DMs just consider orcs, goblins, bugbears, trolls to be monsters and thus cannon fodder ... but there are likely circumstances where they might flee, surrender or demand the surrender of the players if they looked to be overwhelmed. It's up to the DM to set the scene as to whether surrender for the players might be a reasonable alternative.

However, with that said, no one likes losing, especially in a game and surrendering feels a lot like losing. In addition, folks like building characters with somewhat extreme or fixed personalities and some of those would never surrender under any circumstances. All it takes is one character in a party that won't surrender and typically none of them will since the party sticks together is a paradigm :)

[Greywander]

I kind of want to see something where the party fights a group of goblins early in the campaign, and the goblins try to surrender but get cut down by the party like the murder hobos they are. Then toward the end of the campaign, the party finally faces the BBEG, a powerful knight in full plate armor, complete with spikes and skulls and such. He easily outclasses them, toys with them, and offers them reasonable terms if they surrender. And when they do surrender, he pulls off his helmet... and it's a flipping goblin. Naturally, he just laughs and cuts their heads off.

Part of the reason you might not see people run away or surrender is because it isn't "heroic". They want to be the big dang heroes, not a bunch of pansies who run away or beg and grovel for their lives.

But probably a big reason you don't see this is because the NPCs don't do it either. Try having some goblins surrender and see what happens. Your PCs may surprise you, but if they treat it like a free kill then that tells you a lot about what they think about surrender. I'll wager that players who actually accept the surrender and try to figure out what to do with their new captives are going to be more likely to surrender if it seems like the only option.

[rel]

But probably a big reason you don't see this is because the NPCs don't do it either. Try having some goblins surrender and see what happens. Your PCs may surprise you, but if they treat it like a free kill then that tells you a lot about what they think about surrender. I'll wager that players who actually accept the surrender and try to figure out what to do with their new captives are going to be more likely to surrender if it seems like the only option.

It needn't be an unconditional surrender. Especially if the enemies do it early and there are still a lot of them left.

'Let us leave with our wounded and you can have our coin purses'
is something a lot of monsters will probably offer or agree to.

'Your friend is down but not yet dead, let us go or I change that'
is another common offer.

'We also want that shiny sword you're carrying'
is a harder sell but something you can probably negotiate if you have a big advantage.

'Drop your weapons and let us tie you up'
isn't going to fly because the monsters will realise that there isn't much stopping the PC's from killing them once they are done with the disarming and restraining.

And if the PC's flat out refuse all offers of surrender or respond with unreasonable demands they will usually have to go back to fighting the now desperate monsters who are extra mad at whomever argued loudest for killing them instead of letting them live.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Over the years I've noticed that it can sometimes be very difficult for some parties to decide to run away from a very powerful monster.

I've also noticed that surrender is often considered worse than death.

Was wondering if others have noticed the same kind of thing in their games.

Particularly interested to hear how some of you pulled off a situation where the party surrendered rather than fight to the death.

Thanks!

Running is hard, especially if the enemy is winning, so if you don't think you can escape, might as well fight to the death. In a real battle, and for the NPC's, some fighters might consider leaving behind others so that they can escape. The party is strongly incentivized to leave no man behind, so if they don't expect to get out with everybody, they'll keep fighting. And, of course, they have to be able to at some point move faster than the enemy can, since if they move+dash at equal speeds and started in melee, they'll never get away and will just take an op attack every turn until they eventually die. It's possible, but it needs someone to cover the retreat and then be able to catch up/escape on their own, which is a pretty tall order if you're already losing the engagement.


Surrendering is limited to believing you can surrender, and that surrendering is preferable to death and you can expect fair treatment as a prisoner of war. If they're going to execute you as an example, sell you into slavery in a far off land, use you as a torture doll, eat your soul, etc. then there's no incentive to surrender and you might as well fight to the death.


I've had parties surrender, and I've had parties accept the surrender of their enemies. It's uncommon, since fleeing is preferable to surrendering.

[HappyDaze]

I think some DMs can be a little too "hyper tactical" with some creatures. Not every fighting force, monster, or pack of predators is going to be able to effectively outmaneuver the PCs every time. Letting some enemies be slow on the uptake or easily fooled so the PCs can escape lets the very intelligent enemies shine through as that much more scary when they do effectively block escape.

The same applies to hyper-tactical (at least with game tactics) players that are running a pack of Int 8 PCs as though they are brilliant combatants. If you want to put limits on the abilities of players--including the GM--then do it equally.

[HappyDaze]

Running is hard, especially if the enemy is winning, so if you don't think you can escape, might as well fight to the death. In a real battle, and for the NPC's, some fighters might consider leaving behind others so that they can escape. The party is strongly incentivized to leave no man behind, so if they don't expect to get out with everybody, they'll keep fighting. And, of course, they have to be able to at some point move faster than the enemy can, since if they move+dash at equal speeds and started in melee, they'll never get away and will just take an op attack every turn until they eventually die. It's possible, but it needs someone to cover the retreat and then be able to catch up/escape on their own, which is a pretty tall order if you're already losing the engagement.


Surrendering is limited to believing you can surrender, and that surrendering is preferable to death and you can expect fair treatment as a prisoner of war. If they're going to execute you as an example, sell you into slavery in a far off land, use you as a torture doll, eat your soul, etc. then there's no incentive to surrender and you might as well fight to the death.


I've had parties surrender, and I've had parties accept the surrender of their enemies. It's uncommon, since fleeing is preferable to surrendering.

This can change if your PCs bring along hirelings. Having your mercenaries hold the enemy while you escape might be an option--if they are fanatically loyal. However, getting that loyalty takes time (or unreliable magic) and losing it can happen very quickly.

[Pex]

1) The world you will be playing in is a living evolving place with multiple different story lines that can happen, some of which you may never encounter depending on the decisions you make. These events are happening in the world independent of the character actions for the most part. As a result, it is easily possible for you to make a mistake and get in over your head. I (the DM) will not magically remove you from such situations. You interact with the world and this means that you need to keep in mind that any particular encounter you run into is a part of the world and will not be tailored to match your party or your capabilities. This means that sometimes the best decision may very well be to leave or flee, talk or negotiate if possible and not necessarily jump in to attack.



Need to be careful with that. If the villagers are telling the 3rd level party not to go into the caverns because people who go there never come back, the players are not wrong to think that's a quest hook and go into the caverns only to be killed by an adult dragon.



The same applies to hyper-tactical (at least with game tactics) players that are running a pack of Int 8 PCs as though they are brilliant combatants. If you want to put limits on the abilities of players--including the GM--then do it equally.

8 Int is not a complete idiot. PCs know their own stuff. A fighter knows how to fight and fight well. 8 Int could mean he isn't capable of learning a lot, but he is able to learn something if he focuses on it. He can still be proficient in an Intelligence based skill. He's certainly proficient in fighting.

[HappyDaze]

8 Int is not a complete idiot. PCs know their own stuff. A fighter knows how to fight and fight well. 8 Int could mean he isn't capable of learning a lot, but he is able to learn something if he focuses on it. He can still be proficient in an Intelligence based skill. He's certainly proficient in fighting.

Sure, and all of that can be said for the monsters too. That is my point.

[Silly Name]

In addition to what has been said, most campaigns involve the PCs having some sort of heroic mission that they feel they must complete. This makes surrender or flight particularly difficult in their mind because it often won't be just a "failed" encounter, but an entire mission they're failing. Sometimes the idea of running away is simply not on the player's minds because there is no reasonable chance of that working in their favor, at least according to narrative logic.

Do you run away from a particularly difficult encounter in the BBEG's final dungeon? Now they're going to have enough time to complete the ritual an open the gates of Hell. Do you flee from the siege? You've survived, but the capital has fallen and so the BBEG now has their hands on the powerful artifact hidden therein.

When PCs die, the players can roll up new characters to take up the mantle. A PC's death can be heroic, dramatic, badass or even hilarious, something the players may remember with a certain degree of fondness as part of their shared experience. Fleeing is none of those things, it's disheartening and makes players feel bad, it undermines their objectives far more than death does, so they try to avoid it. Surrendering means leaving your characters at the mercy of the NPCs, which raises a lot of questions that may slow down the game or simply write the character out of the story but without a satisfying ending.

[Joe the Rat]

We don't surrender or run away, but there are many times we decide not to fight, or think really hard about it, because the monster seems too powerful. And very often they're less powerful than we expected. But often big fights go really bad for us at first, and we're all thinking we're going to die, and then finally the tide turns. I can't count how many times I've felt like this in the last couple of campaigns.

Then there was the time we fought the adult green dragon. The DM set it up as an unwinnable fight, one we should have run from, but we stayed and fought. The dragon was one barbarian hit away from death, when he fled, leaving only me behind. I was the cleric, who was then able to raise one of the four dead PC's. (He probably would have killed me too, except I never really posed a threat.)

Anyway, my point is that in our campaigns, the only fights we run from are the plot events that the DM makes unwinnable.

I've learned to treat every encounter presented to my players as both social and combat - they tend to talk to the things they should fight, and fight the things they should talk to. They do run away from encounters - or rather they decide to avoid the encounter entirely.

I do need to make a concerted effort to use fleeing and surrender on the monster side - when the fights are down to clean-up and the potential resource burn is not significant, go ahead and shut it down.

[Democratus]

In addition to what has been said, most campaigns involve the PCs having some sort of heroic mission that they feel they must complete. This makes surrender or flight particularly difficult in their mind because it often won't be just a "failed" encounter, but an entire mission they're failing. Sometimes the idea of running away is simply not on the player's minds because there is no reasonable chance of that working in their favor, at least according to narrative logic.

Do you run away from a particularly difficult encounter in the BBEG's final dungeon? Now they're going to have enough time to complete the ritual an open the gates of Hell. Do you flee from the siege? You've survived, but the capital has fallen and so the BBEG now has their hands on the powerful artifact hidden therein.

What I find interesting is that these are opportunities for great storytelling. "The capital has fallen. The bad guys are taking over. What do we do now?"

There is at least one current fantasy series where this very thing happens.


When PCs die, the players can roll up new characters to take up the mantle. A PC's death can be heroic, dramatic, badass or even hilarious, something the players may remember with a certain degree of fondness as part of their shared experience. Fleeing is none of those things, it's disheartening and makes players feel bad, it undermines their objectives far more than death does, so they try to avoid it. Surrendering means leaving your characters at the mercy of the NPCs, which raises a lot of questions that may slow down the game or simply write the character out of the story but without a satisfying ending.

Yeah. It's a tough nut to crack, narratively. Highly dependent on the game group and how married they are to the current storyline.

[NaughtyTiger]

Good explanations of why surrender is hard.
What I missed from this discussion is why running is hard.

You consider running when it is clear you are losing: low HP, member down, low resources.
The mechanics are stacked against running away:

You don't want to leave a dead or dying member behind.
Enemies typically move faster than your walking pace, so you have to use your action to dash to escape. you might not survive the AoO or range attacks.
You move as fast as your slowest member (dwarf or dragging unconscious mate)
Disengage/dodge keeps you in enemy range (slowest member above)

As a player, i might be okay letting goblins run away, but 1 party member always pursues... and demonstrates that once the foe begins retreat, they can be picked off easily.

So come up with good retreat mechanics for the players (and monsters)

[Keravath]

Need to be careful with that. If the villagers are telling the 3rd level party not to go into the caverns because people who go there never come back, the players are not wrong to think that's a quest hook and go into the caverns only to be killed by an adult dragon.


Agreed. However, the players/characters should know that approaching the cave should be done cautiously and the DM needs to set up the scenario so it is possible for the players to obtain the information they need to make an informed decision.

For example, villagers report a cave where people have disappeared ... why are the people going there in the first place?

1) Why is the cave worthwhile? Are there rumors of treasure? Is it an old mine? Does it contain magical waters? The reason why people go there could help define the level of threat involved since if it is valuable it might attract more challenging monsters capable of defending their territory.

2) Are there clues? Lizard like tracks in or outside the cave? Broken trees - how big are they? Saplings are easy to break but an oak would mean a much larger creature.

3) Is there a particular smell that could indicate a specific creature (brimstone for a fire creature?)

4) Are there scorch marks, acid etchings, frozen vegetation or vegetation that died of frost bite during the summer? Or perhaps there are statues of small woodland creatures scattered about?

In any case, it is up to the DM to provide clues if needed about a particular threat so the party can make an informed decision. If there aren't enough clues for the party to decide then it is up to the DM to provide an opportunity for retreat. They find the dragon but it is sleeping ... they DM explicitly tells the players that their characters are afraid and do not believe it is possible for them to defeat this creature. The characters have in game knowledge and it is up to the DM to make sure that something that would be obvious to the character is equally obvious to the player. If the DM wants to add tension and have the dragon awake or awaken then they need to provide a method of escape even if it is just a narrow tunnel or some other space the dragon can't fit.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Some people here have got it right. The truth is that if you want surrender to be a part of a game that doesn't have explicit mechanics for it, the onus is on the DM to demonstrate this is possible first. In both other TRPGS and most video games, all fights are to the death. Combined with the fact that surrender feels pretty bad and the mechanics of 5e not making it seem feasible, the DM who wants this to be part of their game has to go first by both displaying that it is a done thing in their world by having their own NPCs flee or surrender first, and also be accommodating when or if the players try. If the players actually take their foot of the murderhobo pedal enough to surrender or flee, don't punish or "gatcha" them, but reward them instead (with a successful escape/survival). Otherwise they'll know next time to never try again.

[stoutstien]

As far as retreating is concerned I use tons of touch and go encounters where the party faces the same NPC or group of NPCs multiple times.
I rarely have them pursue the party if they decide to break off because it's not a good idea for the same reason the party doesn't do it. First time a player decides that rushing after the fleeing NPCs gets a face full of ready actioned attacks in the face it they tend to think twice about it. I also tend to run encounters with more realistic distances and line of sight so even in a full rout situation it's takes some effort to simply mow them down.

[NaughtyTiger]

As far as retreating is concerned I use tons of touch and go encounters where the party faces the same NPC or group of NPCs multiple times.
I rarely have them pursue the party if they decide to break off because it's not a good idea for the same reason the party doesn't do it. First time a player decides that rushing after the fleeing NPCs gets a face full of ready actioned attacks in the face it they tend to think twice about it. I also tend to run encounters with more realistic distances and line of sight so even in a full rout situation it's takes some effort to simply mow them down.

for party or foe: where are the readied attacks coming from? if reinforcements, why do they hold back instead of reinforce? are the downed foes left unconscious able to be dragged off by their compatriots, or do you clarify that there is asymmetry and only PCs can drag away pals?

[LordCdrMilitant]

As far as retreating is concerned I use tons of touch and go encounters where the party faces the same NPC or group of NPCs multiple times.
I rarely have them pursue the party if they decide to break off because it's not a good idea for the same reason the party doesn't do it. First time a player decides that rushing after the fleeing NPCs gets a face full of ready actioned attacks in the face it they tend to think twice about it. I also tend to run encounters with more realistic distances and line of sight so even in a full rout situation it's takes some effort to simply mow them down.

Why though? Under the mechanics of the game, if all elements are in rout and there's no expected reserves to run into, and you're already winning the encounter, then any enemy slowing [not dashing] to make readied actions will just be bringing themselves closer to the enemy, who was already winning before.

And as far as realistic ranges and LoS go, as long as someone started in melee, if you operate on a policy of leave no man behind like most parties, then you're still in the situation of the fighter is unable to escape.


My party is encourage to pursue retreating enemies, at least as far as the next defensive position. Routed enemies eventually rally and make another stand with the next position, or at the end, though of course pursuing into a prepared defensive position is really bad.

[Xetheral]

If the party deliberately uses false retreats on a regular basis they can acquire a reputation for using that tactic. That reputation makes it much easier to pull off actual retreats, because anyone aware of that reputation will likely take an extra round or two to marshal their forces before pursuing, and a round or two is usually all you need to make yourself uncatchable against a similarly mobile enemy.

[stoutstien]

for party or foe: where are the readied attacks coming from? if reinforcements, why do they hold back instead of reinforce? are the downed foes left unconscious able to be dragged off by their compatriots, or do you clarify that there is asymmetry and only PCs can drag away pals?

Depends on the individual NPC in question. The rear of the NPC group can fall back a small distance and ready action to attack any pursuers while the front can disengage/dodge/dash to bound back. I use a lot spell casters with my more organized groups as well that add some support for breaking away.
As far as retrieving down comrades it depends on each group's general morales. Orcs might disregard fallen allies but kobolds might attempt to carry they're wounded away.

[NorthernPhoenix]

You can generally control how the players react to your fleeing NPCs with your framing. Unless you've already trained them differently, the players reaction will be different to "the goblins scatter in all directions as they realize the battle is lost, you have won a great victory" as opposed to "the goblins rush away at speed into the forrest, and you sense this is only the beginning of the trouble they might cause".

[stoutstien]

Why though? Under the mechanics of the game, if all elements are in rout and there's no expected reserves to run into, and you're already winning the encounter, then any enemy slowing [not dashing] to make readied actions will just be bringing themselves closer to the enemy, who was already winning before.

And as far as realistic ranges and LoS go, as long as someone started in melee, if you operate on a policy of leave no man behind like most parties, then you're still in the situation of the fighter is unable to escape.


My party is encourage to pursue retreating enemies, at least as far as the next defensive position. Routed enemies eventually rally and make another stand with the next position, or at the end, though of course pursuing into a prepared defensive position is really bad.

How does the party know what to expect while in pursuit? The fear of running headlong into the unknown is a pretty good factor on its own.

The fighter trying to retreat probably needs help from the rest of the party. if the party has a no man Left behind policy they probably should have a plan in place to ensure that happens.

[Democratus]

So come up with good retreat mechanics for the players (and monsters)

Agreed. This is something missing from the game in its current incarnation.

While I am running 5e at the table, I have stolen liberally from older editions for this. Red Box D&D had a section in the rules called "Evasion and Pursuit", which details how to perform retreats and chases. One fun bit is that if you are being chased by a non-intelligent monster, dropping food has a good chance of making it stop. Intelligent foes will, likewise, pause to pick up treasure that is dropped in their path. It also mentions creating obstacles like burning oil.

The new edition of D&D is fantastic, but don't forget the wealth of material that have been created for us over the decades. Mine those books for ideas to enhance an already great game.

[Silly Name]

What I find interesting is that these are opportunities for great storytelling. "The capital has fallen. The bad guys are taking over. What do we do now?"

I agree, I think that is actually a great plot hook and may lead to great character development. The issue is that PCs don't (or shouldn't) think in terms of narrative tropes, but should think as characters living in the world: if this is a big, pivotal fight that the campaign may hinge in, in general players will do everything they can to win it. The GM needs to communicate, at some point before retreat is too dangerous but defeat is clear, that the best option may be to escape and try to fix the mess later, rather than die heroically on the walls.


There is at least one current fantasy series where this very thing happens.

Does it involve a set of Gates and an undead villain?

[Mole]

Over the years I've noticed that it can sometimes be very difficult for some parties to decide to run away from a very powerful monster.

I've also noticed that surrender is often considered worse than death.



Given that the usual nature of the PC's opponents, surrendering into torture/slavery/being eaten alive is worse than death in battle !

Fleeing is more of a meta-gaming group dynamic thing. If a DM regularly allows the party to encounter things they cannot handle, they soon learn when to run.

[MaxWilson]

Why though? Under the mechanics of the game, if all elements are in rout and there's no expected reserves to run into, and you're already winning the encounter, then any enemy slowing [not dashing] to make readied actions will just be bringing themselves closer to the enemy, who was already winning before.

And as far as realistic ranges and LoS go, as long as someone started in melee, if you operate on a policy of leave no man behind like most parties, then you're still in the situation of the fighter is unable to escape.

My party is encourage to pursue retreating enemies, at least as far as the next defensive position. Routed enemies eventually rally and make another stand with the next position, or at the end, though of course pursuing into a prepared defensive position is really bad.

This bit here in bold is key. Pursuing a defeated foe in open terrain is fine (probably), but pursuing a kobold fleeing through a twisty labyrinth is asking for trouble. Therefore, it's not always best to break enemy morale by unleashing your biggest guns right away. Sometimes you need to suck them in and cut off their retreat, THEN unleash your big guns. Other times you want to use illusions to make the yourself appear weaker than you actually are, so they think their casualties are worth it and they're almost about to win, when really they're not even close.

Seeming is such a great spell.

[NaughtyTiger]

Fleeing is more of a meta-gaming group dynamic thing. If a DM regularly allows the party to encounter things they cannot handle, they soon learn when to run.

But how?
Mechanics discourage running:
Most NPCs are faster than your slowest toon unless that toon dashes.
Dashing encourages AoO and ranged pursuit.
Or ditch the slowest toon.

I havent seen the staged ready attack in play, and i am skeptical that it is effective.
A raiding party having prepared defensive positions 80ft away smells of Deus Ex Machina

[Democratus]

But how?
Mechanics discourage running:
Most NPCs are faster than your slowest toon unless that toon dashes.
Dashing encourages AoO and ranged pursuit.
Or ditch the slowest toon.

I havent seen the staged ready attack in play, and i am skeptical that it is effective.
A raiding party having prepared defensive positions 80ft away smells of Deus Ex Machina

It's harder in 5e than in many earlier editions. I couldn't find any rules for running in 5e. :smalleek:

But there are still some things that can be done.

1. One thing my last party did was scatter - everyone ran in a different direction. There was a chance that one of them (or a couple) might end up in trouble but the majority got away.
2. Another is to accept the AoO you get when dashing on the first round that you flee and then continue to dash afterward. Unless the enemy is double your speed - they can't attack effectively while keeping up with you.
3. If you know a tough fight is coming up you can prepare for a retreat. Set up snares, oil puddles to set alight, and other tricks to make chasing after the party much more difficult.
4. Spell casting can be very helpful. A few well-placed illusions can almost guarantee the party escapes from a battle going badly. So keep a spell slot or two in your pocket for just such an occasion!

As a last resort, there is always revenge. :smallcool:

Nothing motivates a party more than a villain who killed off several members of the party in an earlier battle.

[stoutstien]

But how?
Mechanics discourage running:
Most NPCs are faster than your slowest toon unless that toon dashes.
Dashing encourages AoO and ranged pursuit.
Or ditch the slowest toon.

I havent seen the staged ready attack in play, and i am skeptical that it is effective.
A raiding party having prepared defensive positions 80ft away smells of Deus Ex Machina

Every class has someway to break away unless they where dumb and focus every choice on damage.
Artificer- lots of toys to help.
Barbarian- enhanced movement speed
Bard- it's a full caster.
Cleric- it a full caster with decent AC.
Druid- one of the best. half the class is built around in inpeading the enemy
Fighter- prone means they lose half movement and have disadvantage on AOO when you move away. Each subclass also has at least one good tool for this.
Monk- yep
Paladin- has the hardest time but is also the most is also very durable.
Ranger- if you are a melee focused build the Z strike is probably on your list
Rogue- drop some ballbearings/Alchemist fire and GTFO.
Sorcerer- full caster
Warlock- all kinds of goodies and decent AC.
Wizard- the fullest caster.

[elyktsorb]

I feel like every character I've ever played always has an 'alright if it gets to this point I'm running' in fact in my session last week there was a point where 3 of my party were paralyzed/poisoned and just me and the bard were left. If the bard got downed I was going to have my character (a rogue) cut and run by dropping ball bearings/caltrops. (they are a thief so they would do it with their bonus action) but no, I landed the killing blow on the last enemy and we did not die.

[MaxWilson]

Paladin- has the hardest time but is also the most is also very durable.

Also has Find Steed for extra mobility.

IMO the cleric is the class that has the hardest time breaking contact. No teleportation spells, no Longstrider, no Expeditious Retreat... the cleric's best hope of breaking contact is probably just Sanctuary + hoping the enemy gives up. (Or buy a horse in advance and leave it somewhere close by outside the dungeon.)

[NaughtyTiger]

Every class has someway to break away unless they where dumb and focus every choice on damage.
Artificer- lots of toys to help.
Barbarian- enhanced movement speed
Bard- it's a full caster.
Cleric- it a full caster with decent AC.
Druid- one of the best. half the class is built around in inpeading the enemy
Fighter- prone means they lose half movement and have disadvantage on AOO when you move away. Each subclass also has at least one good tool for this.
Monk- yep
Paladin- has the hardest time but is also the most is also very durable.
Ranger- if you are a melee focused build the Z strike is probably on your list
Rogue- drop some ballbearings/Alchemist fire and GTFO.
Sorcerer- full caster
Warlock- all kinds of goodies and decent AC.
Wizard- the fullest caster.


i get that on paper, but i haven't seen a table pull it off successfully.
i think the issue is that they don't decide to run until resources are gone OR someone drops/close to drops, and the tables invariably don't like abandoning a party member (being abandoned)
my experience is mostly AL, that might drive some of the attitude...

[Demonslayer666]

Over the years I've noticed that it can sometimes be very difficult for some parties to decide to run away from a very powerful monster.

I've also noticed that surrender is often considered worse than death.

Was wondering if others have noticed the same kind of thing in their games.

Particularly interested to hear how some of you pulled off a situation where the party surrendered rather than fight to the death.

Thanks!

I've had my players decide not to fight, but never have they surrendered, but then again I have never intended to make them surrender. All fights are designed for the party to win, some just barely, or are intended to be avoided.

When they chose not to fight, I had to be extremely heavy handed with "this thing is way more powerful than you are". Even that didn't work, I had to have an NPC chime in and back up that avoiding the fight is necessary.

Player's mindset: Everything the DM puts in front of us is designed for us to win and overcome.

It's really hard to break that, even when you warn them.

[stoutstien]

Also has Find Steed for extra mobility.

IMO the cleric is the class that has the hardest time breaking contact. No teleportation spells, no Longstrider, no Expeditious Retreat... the cleric's best hope of breaking contact is probably just Sanctuary + hoping the enemy gives up. (Or buy a horse in advance and leave it somewhere close by outside the dungeon.)

If they have the spell slots they do have a few spells that are perfect for it but you are correct that sanctuary +dash is the low cost way of doing it. Plus you can share it for who ever needs it most.

I would say the party needing to break off is very rare but they need to believe it's a valid alternative to fight to the death.

*One of games is focused on the party dealing with a cult with nearly infinite supply of undead. Killing the undead fuels the leader so once the party eliminates the prime target they try to break away and avoid just wiping them all out. The monk been having a field day.*

[stoutstien]

i get that on paper, but i haven't seen a table pull it off successfully.
i think the issue is that they don't decide to run until resources are gone OR someone drops/close to drops, and the tables invariably don't like abandoning a party member (being abandoned)
my experience is mostly AL, that might drive some of the attitude...

AL is its own microcosms of gameplay. generally players have a large emotional attachment to their character but not the game which is going to drive a whole different style of play then a traditional party.

Losing party members is a risk. While it's rare, it bound to happen for most groups. This is table discussion and decision though.

One thing I do with NPCs is they tend to wait and regroup a round before charging after the party if they fall back if they decide to do it at all.
Players tend to as well. Don't want to run into a trap or realize it was a feint and you are being flanked.

[Pex]

One of my DMs ignores the rules when doing Chase scenes - the NPC is running and the party is chasing. Players get to improvise to think of anything they can do to catch up to the NPC or slow the NPC down. Any spell. Any skill. Any class ability. Any idea. The party needs to get three successes before three failures to capture. Each player is given a chance in turn. It's fine if one player gets two or three of the successes. If a player's PC can't help, such as at some point the NPC is so far ahead the PC can't reach or contribute, it does not count against the players. If no PC can do anything the NPC got away.

[elyktsorb]

i get that on paper, but i haven't seen a table pull it off successfully.
i think the issue is that they don't decide to run until resources are gone OR someone drops/close to drops, and the tables invariably don't like abandoning a party member (being abandoned)
my experience is mostly AL, that might drive some of the attitude...

Oh I'd definitely say it's the not abandoning people thing, if characters turn and run and end up leaving another character behind, well, that's an awkward table to return to, especially if you had 'some' options to either win or at least take the other character with you.

[HappyDaze]

Also has Find Steed for extra mobility.

IMO the cleric is the class that has the hardest time breaking contact. No teleportation spells, no Longstrider, no Expeditious Retreat... the cleric's best hope of breaking contact is probably just Sanctuary + hoping the enemy gives up. (Or buy a horse in advance and leave it somewhere close by outside the dungeon.)

At 11th level or higher, Word of Recall is perhaps the strongest retreat option there is.

[rel]

But how?
Mechanics discourage running:
Most NPCs are faster than your slowest toon unless that toon dashes.
Dashing encourages AoO and ranged pursuit.
Or ditch the slowest toon.

I havent seen the staged ready attack in play, and i am skeptical that it is effective.
A raiding party having prepared defensive positions 80ft away smells of Deus Ex Machina

Being able to disengage requires planning. you have to stock escape equipment like caltrops, leave CC spells in reserve, have good knowledge of the terrain...
It really ties into the dungeon crawling style of play a lot better than the heroic questing style of play

[MaxWilson]

If they have the spell slots they do have a few spells that are perfect for it but you are correct that sanctuary +dash is the low cost way of doing it. Plus you can share it for who ever needs it most.


At 11th level or higher, Word of Recall is perhaps the strongest retreat option there is.

You're both right, I forgot about Word of Recall, and I guess Etherealness and Plane Shift.

[Tanarii]

If creature want to run away, they need to decide while they are not in melee so they can segue to a chase scene, or have tools to enable them to properly disengage and plan ahead*. And they need to decide early, if you've waited until the third round it's too late.
(Edit: I still had enemies rout after the 2nd round, but never expected them to get away. They were just breaking in fear. Likewise players that wait to run until they're almost dead and PCs are down are routing, fleeing in fear of imminent death, not making a tactical withdrawal. They shouldn't expect them all to make it out alive at that point. Or any of them for that matter.)

And for Pc and the DM has to allow them to cut to a chase scene other than at the top of the initiative for their side. Often monsters are a single block of initiative. But if PCs want to flee, the first character to go after the monsters needs to make the decision for the PCs, under default initiative.

Also the DM has to be able to segue into chase scenes and back into combat as needed.

*PCs have the tools but unless you explicitly tell them to plan ahead for how to flee combat, they almost never will.