Doesn’t it seem kind of dumb for monsters – or PCs for that matter – to fight until they reach their very last hit point? Don’t any of the combatants in D&D have any sort of survival instinct? What ever happened to the flight part of fight or flight? In most combat scenarios the PCs beat up on the monsters and the monsters don’t back down until they’re dead. Unless the monster has good reason to fight to the end, why would they? The simple answer is that they shouldn’t.
Eventually all battles should reach a point where one side either surrenders or flees. Fighting to the bitter end is just stupid. Yet this is how D&D works. The PCs fight the monsters until one side (most often the monsters) is decimated. In those very rare occurrences when one or two monsters manage to flee the players will often complain that the DM robbed them of a totally victory (at least that’s been my experience). I think that we need to introduce a little bit more common sense into D&D combat and I know just the way to do it.
As it stands the PCs won’t back down because a balanced encounter gives the PCs a very reasonable chance at success. It’s how the game is designed and I’m the first to admit that as a player, I like it this way. Worrying that you PC might die every time they went into battle would make for a very different type of combat system and it absolutely wouldn’t be the D&D we all know today. But what if we made combat a just a little bit more dangerous? And what if, at the same time, we gave more of the monsters the instinctual awareness that they shouldn’t stick around and fight to the death unless they have a really, really good reason to do so? Here’s how we do it.
When the DM creates an encounter he’s got a specific XP budget to work with. As long as he doesn’t exceed this budget, than the encounter is considered “balanced.” Usually this means an equal number of monsters of the same level as the PCs. So five level 6 PCs would face off against five level 6 monsters, more or less. But this assumes that the monsters will fight it out to the bitter end and by doing so they will force the PCs to expend appropriate resources. Therein lays the balance part. But if the monsters suddenly turn tail and run when they reach their bloodied value or when half of their numbers are killed, the party doesn’t expend the resources that the mechanics expect them to. It certainly makes for a more plausible encounter, but behind the scenes the party earns a victory without putting in the expected effort.
The challenge becomes finding some middle ground. Begin by creating a balanced encounter as described above. Then pump up the level of the monsters. Make them all 2-4 levels higher. The important thing to remember after taking this step is that the monsters will flee or surrender when they reach their bloodied value.
Let’s look at an example. We’ll make the encounter simple. Seeking shelter from the cold, the PCs spot a nearby cavern and decide to hole up there until the weather improves. When they enter the cavern they find five Ogres who had the same idea. The Ogres are not the sharing type so combat erupts. Assuming that the PCs are level 6, then these should be standard level 6 Ogres to keep things balanced. This puts their hit points at 90 each; their AC at 18; and their melee basic attack score at +11 doing 2d10+6 damage.
If this were to play out as normal the PCs would have to bring each Ogre down from 90 to 0 hit points in order to be victorious, and they would expend the appropriate resources as expected. However, if we pump up the Ogres to level 8 they will have 111 hit points, their attack scores go up to +13 and their damage becomes 2d10+8. However, these Ogres didn’t become bigger than their normal brethren by luck. They have a keen survival instinct (since they obviously don’t have a whole lot of intelligence). When they become bloodied, or when two of the five are killed, the remaining Ogres flee. It’s one thing to stay warm and dry during a storm, it’s another thing entirely to get killed for being dry.
Assuming that the Ogres will flee when bloodied the PCs now only have to eat through 55 hit points each, rather than the 90 in the original setup. The monsters are a little bit harder to hit and will likewise hit the PCs a little bit more often, but in the end the resource expenditure (including healing surges) should be about what they’d expect to use during a normal fight against five level 6 Ogres.
Even though these were level 8 monsters, the desired outcome is approximately the same as fighting level 6 monsters to the death. With that in mind, I’d award XP as if the party fought level 6 monsters. If the PCs decided to give chase and slaughter the Ogres even after it was clear they were running away, then I don’t see any reason to reward extra XP because they brought them down from 55 to 0 hit points. In fact I wouldn’t even bother playing it out since it would have little bearing on the bigger picture.
Where this kind of tweaking of the numbers and levels becomes a bit more complicated is when the PCs won’t let the monsters escape or surrender, or in circumstances where the monsters have a good reason to fight to the death.
Using the same set up, the Ogres would have no choice but to fight if the PCs blocked the only exit from the room or executed the first Ogre to surrender. If these Ogres were protecting their offspring it would certainly give even these dim-witted creatures motive to fight on and try to drive the PCs from the cave. In circumstances where the DM knows the monsters are more than likely going to fight to the death then he should leave things as they are and let the level 6 PCs fight level 6 monsters. But any good DM will realize that in most circumstances the monsters won’t have a good reason to fight to the bitter end and that tweaking the numbers encourages the PCs to let the fleeing monsters go.
Making the monsters just a couple of levels more powerful than the XP budget allows will certainly make the fights more challenging, but it should make them a lot shorter and will definitely add a level of realism sorely lacking in most D&D encounters. It won’t take long before the players realize that more and more of the monsters are surrendering or fleeing. One added bonus to having monsters surrender is that the PCs can talk to them. This could give some players the motivation they need to choose feats and powers that give them additional languages or better skill checks in Diplomacy or Insight.
Just because D&D usually includes excessive amounts of hack and slash doesn’t mean that it has to continue to be that way. Have your monsters behave as you’d behave in their pace. Monsters with intelligence will realize they’re outmatched and flee. Those that rely on instinct will often come to the same conclusion in the same circumstances. So don’t have the monsters fight to the death, have them do the sensible thing and cut their losses.
How often do monsters surrender or flee in your game? How often do the PCs surrender or flee? Should a party facing a tougher monster get the full XP, even though the DM intentionally had the monsters only fight until they were bloodied?
Related reading:
- Should Monsters Employ Smart Tactics?
- Let Monsters Use the Treasure
- Retreat Is Always An Option, At Least It Should Be
View Comments (34)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 2 3 4 Next »Its the same in any game. (other than CoC) getting PCs to run away is a pain in the butt.
Thanks for the read
I've been doing similar for years, and several of the players I play with have never known anything else (so I've rarely had any complaints). Having monsters flee or surrender is a common occurrence in our games and has led to some great stories. It gives the PCs more options to develop their characters, as they're thrust into a position where they have to decide what to do with a surrendering enemy that they may not trust or may have sworn vengeance on.
On the other hand, while it doesn't show up as often (and I think it should show up more), I do throw more enemies than the PCs can handle at them from time to time. I try to make sure I put them in the position of fleeing or surrendering from time to time. It doesn't always work out that way (nothing ever works the way the DM plans), but I find them backing out for a breather or fleeing for their lives often enough for my tastes. I just don't want them to get complacent and expect victory.
Having monsters flee also allow for re-appearances, with interesting effects: recently, had the bullywug chieftain from Reavers of Harkenwold (the adventure from the DM Kit) flee after giving a beating on the chars; the adventure has a follow-up encounter where the players fight another group of bullywugs, and i added the chieftain to the encounter; boy, did the players have a grudge towards it, no quarter was given to any of the monsters, and everyone was trying their best to hit the chieftain.
My DM occasionally tries something similar, but we don't always get the hint. Most recently, he threw a brute type at us, we were level 7 and I believe the brute was level 11. When reaching bloodied the brute got much more powerful and was supposed to try to run away. Unfortunately our Warlord managed to pin it in place, and we just whittled it down, only barely surviving in the process through lucky arrangement of terrain, sustained Wizard Daily attacks, my Paladin's sanctions, and lucky application of a plot related weapon.
Afterward he made it clear that we really weren't expected to kill it though I think this would be the common reaction from players. It's become so expected that players will kill every last enemy, that when one tries to run they're far more likely to chase than let it escape.
I agree it makes more sense, but the DM would have to find a way to make it clear that the monsters are expected to flee and that there's no extra reward for chasing them down.
It seems like you should be able to do this without altering the monsters' level. As long as the players don't know the monsters' hp, you can have the first couple to run out of hit points drop, and have the remainder flee when they hit zero; while fleeing, the monsters become minions, so that a single attack from a spiteful PC drops them.
I was just thinking about this the other day and your proposal is actually a pretty good one. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out on the table.
That being said, the only concern I have are the spikes of using too many high level creatures. It's always the issue of going +2 is that sometimes you get insane spikes that the players aren't ready for. That being said, with the Bloody value equaling the end of the encounter, then the spikes shouldn't be as major of a concern.
Still, one problem with resource drains is also trying to get players to burn daily powers, magic items and consumables as well. I routinely have problems where players blow daily powers on the bbeg and destroy him before he has a chance to act but you can't force players to burn such resources so it sometimes just happens.
I have been a big fan of retreating monsters and PCs ever since the "Fight or Flight" Unearthed Arcana article came out. I will throw monsters of unreasonable levels or in large numbers at my players, because they are smart enough to know when to flee.
It does sound like a great idea - but I also think you need to take into account the party balance - at least if this were used in, for example, pathfinder (I am sad to admit my experience of 4th ed it quite lacking).
Although it was only an example, I will shamelessly use it myself regarding the cave and ogres! If the party only has one proper front-line fighter and say the rest were wizards or oracles or even inquisitors - a lot of hard hitting ogres that are of a significant level higher could be quite disastrous (especially if the PCs are quite inexperienced).
Similarly, they could all be front-line fighters but lacking a Cleric could suddenly have those hard-hitting ogres could cause quite a scare for the PCs who are not properly equipped.
Then again, I think as a GM it would be a good idea to know the party and realise what the party's real strengths and weaknesses are - and work from there. Again sadly I am speaking from a pathfinder point of view really - as I sadly have no 4th edition experience really to speak of!
I do like your system. I feel like especially when fighting things like city guards, bandits or even monstrous humanoids it would make encounters stand out a little bit more. It would make fighting things like Abberants or Undead more memorable because they wouldn't break or retreat.
I would just like to take up a point you made earlier in the article. You say that:
"Worrying that you PC might die every time they went into battle would make for a very different type of combat system and it absolutely wouldn’t be the D&D we all know today."
I absolutely disagree with that statement. When building encounters I won't go out of my way to stack the odds against the players, but each time I tell them to roll for initiative there is the real threat of death. Adventurers are heroes. They do things that most mortals can only dream of. They go dangerous places, do dangerous things and come through it all. If there is no threat of defeat or death, then the actions are not heroic. A party of first level heroes delving into Kobald hall and saving Fallcrest from the Kobalds and Dragon below is a heroic act because they can fail. A group of level 21 heroes doing the same thing isn't heroic. It's a slaughter. Killing the defenseless is exactly what those same heroes should be against.
I agree that both heroes and monsters should consider retreat an option. But it should be because they are in danger or imminent death, not because they feel like they are expending too many resources.
I've tried this, but my players always chase the monsters, and then the interminable fight just becomes an interminable chase. So I've decided to interpret it differently. In Warhammer 40K, at least the early editions, the book said that a dead soldier wasn't necessarily dead, just injured badly enough he couldn't participate in the fight anymore. So I'm going to have monsters, especially when it fits the story, not necessarily die, just lie there semiconscious and moaning in agony. That way, they can be woken and interrogated, too!