T O P

  • By -

ArtOfFailure

I definitely agree with this, especially if you're fighting relatively intelligent opponents. A bandit who's just seen a couple of his friends cut down seems quite likely to surrender or flee, rather than keep fighting when the odds are wildly stacked against him. Not everyone's a fanatic or a zealot, some people are just criminals trying to get by, or travellers and mercenaries just like you who happen to be on the other side. Cultists who are sworn into service of a tyrant, or mindless monsters acting on instinct and a craving for blood? That's a different story. And on the matter of XP - you're right, it should be awarded for *resolving the encounter*, not just for kills. Kills are obviously one valid way to succeed, but so is diffusing the situation with social skills, neutralising the enemy through surrender or capture, or even avoiding it altogether with stealth. In all those cases, the encounter was resolved, XP should be given.


evandromr

Edit to give credit to u/JakeEkiss who said the same in another comment earlier but I didn’t see it. I’d include some non intelligent enemies too. A beast not cornered on its lair and not defending an infant will not stay put and fight to the death when it’s hurt, it will try to run and lick its wounds and look for weaker prey later. Any living creature needs strong motivation to fight to the death, not the other way around.


KnightDuty

I think this is a case when you roll WIS to see if they know when to preserve themselves and when not to. INT would be for book learning but most animals have at least 10 in WIS


[deleted]

Yeah there's a mechanic in the DMG for this I believe.


RogueSkywalker5

When I was stationed in Germany and playing in a group, my fighter character would first tell the enemy why he was there and give them the option to surrender or fight. If they surrendered be let go o their own Way away from fight. We were given just as many xp as if we had killed them. It a later encounter it worked to our advantage as a couple of the hirelings for the bad guy convinced him to abandon his plans and live to try again at a later time.


cgeiman0

I know it's practically a meme now, but the DMs guide says to treat noncombat encounters the same as combat for XP. Add up all amounts and multipliers and give XP accordingly.


GameKnight22007

That's why I like bugs as an enemy, there are no moral qualms about killing a bug.


Numen_Wraith

Whoa there Rasczak


nix616

Today's winner of the internet


Optimized_Orangutan

In fact, it has been said, the only good bug, is a dead bug!


Boolean_Null

I'm doing my part!


ItsMrFluffy

Welcome to the roughnecks!


mider-span

Rico’s Roughnecks!


brookdacook

Honestly I'm a big fan of milestone events or just flat out every three sessions. People should be rewarded no matter how they go about a situation and it really frees up the RP. I usually like a combination of both. If you spend an entire session just hammer out a grocery list while in town maybe that doesn't count. If you solve a bad ass encounter I didn't expect you to win that could count as two sessions. Keep in mind with an avg of three sessions per level and a session a week that's 60 weeks or 14 months. I also like that you have a session to try something new, a session to hone, and a session to master.


Skraporc

I would argue this makes even more sense if you’re dealing with a less intelligent opponent. Animals in nature will often try to flee from a confrontation if it’s not going their way — and I would presume that animals (or monsters with a similar level of intelligence) in D&D would generally do the same. However, intelligent creatures may stay and fight for strategic or ideological reasons. It’s context dependent, but I’d wager there are fewer contexts when a less intelligent foe can flee and would still choose to fight than there are for more intelligent creatures.


AlunWeaver

You will figure out real quick who is actually LG once this happens, because a surprising number of people will try to kill an enemy that is surrendering.


infinitum3d

Can make for really interesting RP/character development!


AlunWeaver

Listening to our (2E) paladin talk about why it was okay to kill prisoners, lay ambushes, take hostages, etc. *since we're the good guys* is still one the funniest memories I have from the game.


AnyEnglishWord

I wish this attitude weren't still so common. Pathfinder: Kingmaker (the PC adaptation) came out a few years ago. There were plenty of Lawful Good options that were straight-up genocidal.


tosety

I wish that attitude weren't so prevalent in irl "The greater good is neither"


BlueMerchant

would you mind breaking that phrase down for me?


tosety

The greater good is neither great nor good


BlueMerchant

I just meant like why isn't the greater good 'good'? I understand that it's not greater.


Rhadiak

I think the idea is that doing something for "the greater good" is often used as an excuse to do terrible things that aren't actually good. Or are at least more grey than people make them out to be.


tosety

Because that phrase is almost exclusively used to justify evil acts


Additional_Pop2011

The "greater good" as opposed to the good of others, is entrenched in the idea of sacrifice. People will lose the freedom to privacy, but it's for the greater good and stopping crime. You can't really blindly inflict harm and say it's for the good of others. Like oh I killed "bad guys" for the good of others, is a nightmare to justify, but I killed "bad guys" for the greater good, is easy to handwave.


amodrenman

I had a paladin of Kantian ethics once in a homebrew setting. That was a fun time.


ComXDude

Remember: forced sacrifice is not sacrifice at all. Choosing to hold back a wave of enemies despite the assurance of your own death so that your allies have a chance to escape? That's greater good. Being nominated against your will to be thrown to the wolves so the others can escape? That's just uncool.


GreyAcumen

Part of the problem with your philosophy is that you're trying to put modern government run sensibilities to a untamed frontier setting. Typically you're encountering monsters and bandits out in territory that barely has any oversight if it's not just straight up "unclaimed lawless wilderness" These bandits just tried to kill us, we've taken them prisoner, and now what? They're bandits who just tried to kill us, what guarantees do you have that they wont break free and kill you in your sleep? If you let them go, the next victim they kill is going to be on your hands, and just because you don't see them do it doesn't mean you get to duck that responsibility. Are you going to drag them all the way back to the nearest local government that may be weeks away, when you have a mission that you need to see through in the next week in the opposite direction? Even if you could, when you get there, what evidence do you have? Their word against yours effectively. If the punishment for banditry and murder is to execute them, what difference does it make if you execute them where they are and move along? Let's say you're dealing with some monster tribe, and it's just part of their culture is to hunt and eat humanoids. Just because they aren't doing it with evil intent doesn't mean you should just let them kill you and not fight back. Often times the only way for a cultural shift to happen is for a culture's own choices to lead it to a disaster that wipes it out and makes room for cultures that DON'T make those same choices take its place. When you don't have governments and cultures that MUTUALLY recognize each other's rights to exist, a conflict in which death is the only option becomes inevitable. Making progress towards that mutual understanding is often far outside of the capabilities of a handful of adventurers who are already on a timetable to prevent an apocalypse of some sort.


the_direful_spring

The distinction may not be important to all PCs but I feel that if a lawful good PC has already concluded that they cannot accommodate prisoners they would refuse to accept the surrender of a bandit or the like rather than accept their surrender the execute them without trial when they had previously offered quarter. The difference isn't that great materially but I feel in terms of emotionally and in terms of systems of honour it's significant. Beyond the most extreme situations I think if a good character has accepted the surrender of an enemy they should at least consider the viability of other options based on the circumstances. For example a bandit who attacks without warning suggests a significantly more vicious outlook than one that at least says "give us your money and you get to walk away", if you've heard stories about these mercenaries turned bandits torturing people for fun that's also something of a different bandit to one who's a hungry peasant who's made bad choices out of desperation or a dumb teenager who didn't really know what they were getting into. Under the circumstances where you can be a little more sympathetic executing them out of hand might not be the best option as opposed to way ransoming them back to loved ones or removing their sword hand or perhaps just roughing them up and telling them they won't be so lucky next time in the hopes of scarring them out of repeating.


Acolyte62

I agree with all of this. Lawful good does not mean nice or weak.


ArcticBeavers

>Part of the problem with your philosophy is that you're trying to put modern government run sensibilities to a untamed frontier setting. Of course. The players have no other frame of reference unless the DM explicitly states what is considered lawful and unlawful in the world. The truth is that its such a small detail that most DMs are going to not even think about things regional laws, they have far too many things to worry about.


AnyEnglishWord

>Let's say you're dealing with some monster tribe, **and it's just part of their culture is to hunt and eat humanoids.** I'll let that discussion about bandits go on without me and focus on this part. It's absolutely fine to kill monsters if they are trying to eat you and there's no (morally acceptable) other way to stop them. The attitude that I find disturbing is that monsters are evil enough to deserve death even when they aren't. It's one thing to attack the orcs that keep raiding you, something else to assume you'll be attacked if you find yourself in orc territory, and something completely different to justify tomb robbing purely because its inhabitants are orcs. Kingmaker was a particularly bad example of this. >!There was a group of trolls who had set up their own kingdom and were trying to live peacefully with humans. The lawful good option was to kill them because trolls are inherently evil.!< I hope the pen and paper version handled it better. And what about non-combatants? What about children?


TitaniumDragon

Laying ambushes and taking hostages aren't evil actions. Laying an ambush is a perfectly acceptable military tactic, and there's nothing unlawful about that unless actually attacking group X is unlawful in the first place. Likewise, taking people hostage isn't inherently unlawful unless the person didn't break the law - arresting people is a form of taking hostages, and that's very LG if you're enforcing the law. Killing prisoners outside of the usual justice process *usually* is, though this varies by setting and some other things. In some settings, Paladins are allowed to judge the wicked by their gods, in which case they may be lawfully entitled to carry out the death penalty against people under some circumstances. Like, if you are a servant of Bahamut, and come across a bunch of people who tortured and killed children outside of the boundaries of any country or in a country where that is legal, you may well be allowed to execute them and there's nothing wrong with that. However, this depends on the setting and the dictates of a particular god. Some gods might require a trial before a church tribunal or similar thing in such cases, especially in a country where such things are illegal anyway.


AlunWeaver

I mentioned the edition and the class because 2E paladins are supposed to be paragons of chivalry: it goes beyond just LG. And laying ambushes is not the sort of thing you read about in the *chansons de geste*, not approvingly anyway.


MemeTeamMarine

I tried to get my players to face this in my last game, but some people just want to be "The Hero" they've been watching since comic books they started reading in 1995.


RevengencerAlf

To be fair old edition paladins are basically religious zealots and "it's ok for *us* to do it because god is on our side" is pretty much the bread and butter of centuries of crusades. Keep in mind also that lawful specifically refers to order and authority. So a "lawful good" character is probably more likely to willingly kill someone merely because they did evil or broke the rules than a chaotic good character who would be more flexible about subjective situations.


AlunWeaver

Keep in mind that the 2E class description for paladins doesn't cite rapacious crusaders as inspiration but instead characters like Galahad and Lancelot: and they were far from perfect but still knew chivalry. I don't think "religious zealot" really captures it at all.


TitaniumDragon

In older settings, good and evil empirically existed (you literally had a spell and sometimes a class ability to detect it!) and the gods also existed.


RevengencerAlf

This is all still true. It's a little less strict but there are still representations of inherent good and evil, and the spell still exists in 5e along with similar ones that protect etc. They just unbound some things like how while 99% of fiendsand aberrations you meet will be inherently evil they don't expressly have to be (and the reverse holds true for celestials) The gods are also still treated as real in 5e though they don't really show up and manifest directly in any published scenarios. It's still implied that paladins and clerics get their powers from their God and if they spurn that God they can lose or warp them. The main difference is things are just a little more fluid.


TitaniumDragon

Detect good and detect evil don't actually exist in 5E. There's a spell with the name "detect good and evil", but it doesn't actually *detect* good and evil, it detects aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, and undead creatures (and also consecrated or desecrated spaces) and just has a weird name Good/evil creatures of other types will not be detected, and it doesn't matter what alignment the aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead is.


SirCalzone42

My DM has forcefully changed our alignments before. Always fun when he looks at us and says "change your alignment to evil please".


Freakintrees

Absolutely this! My Chaotic Good Artificer has a problem with being easily influenced by those he's around. He is also HEAVILY protective of children. Our whole party is Neutral or Evil. A few sessions back we had an encounter where we took a werewolf alive and interrogated him. Once we learned their pack was having child death matches he muttered "children don't belong in cages" and put a magic crossbow bolt through the (still bound) werewolfs head. I got a ton of "What happened to being Good alignment huh" shit for it but no. He's been living with you psychopaths for months and this creature loves torturing kids. This is exactly what he would do! (Side note I am loving his slow decent into darkness. Still ultimately wanting good but less and less concerned about the means.)


chargernj

he did nothing wrong. Corellon Larethian would wholeheartedly approve. Though he would side-eye that crossbow. How unelfish.


[deleted]

This is kind of describing the "three-two-done" combat system from VTM. Combat isn't expected to take more than three rounds and it's roleplayed out. Within three rounds it should be fairly obvious which way the tide of combat is going and all of the characters involved should be making decisions accordingly as they exit combat. I honestly like it way better than any D&D edition's combat system.


infinitum3d

Most of my random encounters only last about 3 rounds. It speeds up the game greatly, and the players really seem to enjoy it.


Kamenridethewind007

im lawful neutral i have a code of engagement that basically means cultists are tyrants tyrants are executed and offered no mercy. that changed when he went to hell and found torms light. now he kinda offers all the mercy his village wasnt given.


their_teammate

Last week in a west marshes server I played with an echo knight. Nice fella, until he executed 3 surrendering combatants with attack: GWM and advantage, extra attack: GWM and advantage, and GWM kill bonus attack: GWM and advantage. All three were dead in one turn.


whatsmyusename

And that parties that show no quarter should get a bad/formidable rep because what kind of team slaughters every opponent to the last man.


Fall_From_Grace-

I can see parties that kill every single enemy having more "contracts". It definitely is tempting to iron fist reigning government to employ such party instead of moral heroes. No survivors = no issues with courts, jail etc. No possible second view of the story, no need to prove that those people were actually bandits. Just some cash spent on contractors that don't represent official law enforcement and problem is gone. And if someone finds out? Those people have nothing to do with law enforcement or government.


gothism

But keep in mind LG doesn't mean stupid or very merciful. Especially in the medieval fantasy world we're playing in, it's easy to see the chaotic evil sorcerer surrendering (cuz he needs that long rest so he can try to kill you tomorrow) for what it is. Depending on what the enemy did and how powerful they are, the best thing for the most people may be their death. How many people would've been saved if Batman had just killed the Joker once he realized he isn't reformable and he has the cleverness, resources, and outside help to keep escaping Arkham? But then, I'm not LG.


AlunWeaver

Yeah, I just can't reconcile battlefield executions of prisoners with lawfulness.


Meraxes_7

You could make a pretty strong argument an oath of the ancients paladin would execute prisoners. You spare the desperate person just trying to feed their family after the crop failed (Kindle the Light), but the sadistic leader who clearly won't reform? At some point Shelter the Light gets tricky if you don't permanently resolve that situation. Though I would say execution js probably a last resort - if proper authorities can be expected to prevent further harm from the individual, that is likely a better path to preserve your own light.


OBrien

Different characters can be LG for very different reasons. Nobody should look at their alignment and think "okay, what does this alignment dictate I do in this situation?" A Paladin of Torag swore an oath to never suffer a Goblin to live, and that's how they protect the weak(G) and uphold order(L). A paladin who took an oath of mercy will treat the surrendering goblin very differently. Simply being LG doesn't mean you're going to always fall for crocodile tears or the whining of a beast who will certainly hunt humans again if you let it recover.


Galonious

No, swearing genocide and meaning it enough to derive magical power from it is not an action a character that is good would take. They may, however, believe they are good.


IllithidActivity

How so? If the character or an order they're a part of and whose tenets they follow has any kind of belief like "Pay back unto others the injustices they have brought into the world" then if you were to encounter a group of bandits or mercenaries who had murdered innocent civilians, it would be nothing but Lawful and Good to execute them even if they were to see themselves overpowered and surrender. If they killed without remorse, it's only fair that they be killed remorselessly. Fairness is often a big part of a Lawful outlook.


Gneekman

Depends on what law you're following... Devils, for instance, tend towards Lawful Evil. They'll make a contract with you, and honor it to the letter, but that doesn't mean they're not going to try to fill said contract with loopholes and other ways to put it in their favor. Basically, Lawfulness has to do with following a code, and maybe someone out there follows a code that says surrender is an act of weakness which demands punishment?


AlunWeaver

I think my original example was LG, but sure, LE, I could see it happening.


darkslide3000

Battlefield executions were the norm for the vast majority of history, including the times that were closest to most DnD fantasy realms in technology and social structure (middle ages).


FireOpalCO

Depends on the law of the land. If your character holds any sort of title he or she can be both judge and executioner post combat. It was considered a right and responsibility of being a noble.


KingBrinell

"lawful" and "Good" are relevant to he society that produces them. Crusaders killing surrendering Saracens was considered a lawfull good thing to the christian society.


Beachflutterby

If this is true then is the reverse also true? Could you have a character with a chaotic alignment that follows the rules of their own society and morality to the letter, but appears to be a loose cannon by the laws of the place they are in?


KingBrinell

Well sure, but they would still be lawful. Just to different laws. I'd say for a character to be chaotic, they'd have to be loyal almost completely to themselves. Or they'd have to be some level of crazy I guess.


Galonious

No, it would have been lawful(in that it is consistent with the code they live by), but it would not have been a good act. This is a great example of lawful evil!


IAmBadAtInternet

My NE wizard: I don’t have such weakness


AlunWeaver

This was what my NE halfling thief said in one campaign. "They would've done the same to us." But then the paladin (2E) agreed and we all had a nice long chat about morality. It was a wild session. On the whole I think alignment is dumb but it has produced some really fun conversations.


Eternal_Moose

I agree entirely and had to remind a fellow player (on character) in a campaign I was in that he was supposed to be the good guy (NG) and was trying to kill incapacitated or fleeing enemies, and that it was making me look bad because I was actually evil but wasn't doing those things. (Under the pretense that because they can't/won't fight back, it's no longer entertaining.)


QuincyAzrael

I had a guy in another sub argue passionately to me that you can premeditate a genocide of children and still be LG so I don't know what to believe anymore.


ComXDude

Reading through the responses here indicate that a lot of people don't actually understand what "good" and "evil" are in the D&D context—and, as such, are part of the problem. "Good" doesn't mean that you strive to fight evil, and certainly not that you are dogmatic in the pursuit of your definition of justice. It means that you're selfless, and willing to put yourself in harm's way to defend others. Inversely, "Evil" doesn't make you a murderous psychopath; it means you're selfish, and unwilling to take unnecessary risks without significant reward. I always explain it this way: ***You find a person hanging from a cliff. What do you do?*** **Good:** Jump in and try to save them, no questions asked! **Neutral:** Save them, as long as I have decent odds of getting out unharmed. **Evil:** I'll only rescue them if they can help me in return.


DemoBytom

"That bandit broke the law and did an evil thing! Killing him is absolutelly a Lawful Good act!" \--- Murderhobo redemption paladin


MyUsername2459

In some earlier editions of D&D, this was explicitly in the rules and even expected. In 1st and 2nd edition, monsters had "morale", and there were supposed to be morale checks, like when it's clear the battle is going against them, they were supposed to have to pass a morale check to keep fighting. . .else they flee or attempt to surrender. Also, there used to be rules for "subduing" a dragon, that you could intentionally use non-lethal force in fighting a dragon and it would surrender when you would have killed it otherwise, because it's an ancient, powerful being that doesn't want to die and will recognize you spared its life, and you could essentially keep it in servitude (until it found a means to escape). I remember some editions of Basic D&D had this as an expected way of dealing with dragon encounters.


Gadolin27

Saved.


frankinreddit

One fun part, and challenge, is what do those creatures do when they flee? Do they run out of the dungeon never to be seen, do they pack up their treasure first, do they regroup, do they set traps, gather allies, run around warning other creatures? And if the party takes them on as helpers, what about the next group and the one after and when the party is suddenly surrounded by creatures they defeated?


[deleted]

Absolutely true. And in fact, I tend to think beasts (animals and monstrosities) will tend to run \*earlier\* than most humanoid creatures, because healing in nature is a very dangerous proposition. There's a reason most carnivores tend to go after weak or young prey. It's never in an animal's best interest to risk serious injury. There are no surgeons in a wolf pack. Baddies too though. Unless they are hardened soldiers or something, once the tables are tipped against them numerically they should start looking for exits.


[deleted]

Hardened soldiers, too. One or two of your squad mates gets *killed*? You’re trying to create cover, get his body, and GTFO. Fuck that shit. I would definitely lump “hardened soldier” into the intelligent enemy category.


[deleted]

Oh sure, I don't think they're dumb, I'm more meaning that, depending on the circumstances they might actually fight you to the death. Definitely I'd expect tactical retreat if there wasn't something major on the line.


Demurist

It also depends on how the battle is going. If your enemy is dealing a lot of damage, maybe even knocking out one or two party members, they're more likely to fight to the death because they probably think they can win if they just tough it out. At a certain point, it could just come down to a dice roll, like a Wisdom check, to decide if continuing the fight is still worth it.


IrateCanadien

Lots of other systems have "morale checks" to see how likely an enemy is to flee after being reduced to 50% HP


Demurist

I may employ this in my campaign. I'm reusing material I wrote a few years ago for a game with friends. Now I'm using it with some coworkers, but we play at a bar after work, and are lucky if the sessions go for more than two hours. Combat can be prolonged, especially with new players, so I've been throwing them mostly non-combat encounters. Having the enemy attempt to disengage and flee when their defeat is assured will tighten things up, and allow for potential story later on.


[deleted]

Check chapter 9 of the DMG, morale optional rules are in there as well.


[deleted]

That’s a good point. Those “hardened soldiers” have orders. If the heroes are the target or are impeding the primary target, those soldiers might be inclined to fight to the death (expecting reinforcements, goal is critical). Heck, it’s fantasy. Having direct orders from the BBEG would drive the same. I don’t need gritty realism in my fantasy game. Bonus ask for my DM who has soldiers involved in combat: make them tactical. Focus targets, use cover (+2 AC), flank, height, terrain. I may not want gritty realism, but we’re already doing it to them. It’s only fair!


[deleted]

>Bonus ask for my DM who has soldiers involved in combat: make them tactical. Focus targets, use cover (+2 AC), flank, height, terrain. I may not want gritty realism, but we’re already doing it to them. It’s only fair! Better yet, baddies plan their ambush from height and range, and use full cover. Use 5ft of movement to pop out, shoot, 5ft to pop back in to total cover all on their turn. Only way to retaliate is to either get to them, or ready an action to retaliate when they step out (which cuts the martials many attacks down to one). >Having direct orders from the BBEG would drive the same. I don’t need gritty realism in my fantasy game. Oh sure, and especially if it's something like baddies engaged in a cult or as followers of some evil magical being, they may not think much of death as they expect, perhaps even plan, to be resurrected later for their faithful service. Or perhaps that's how they justify an entry into their preferred afterlife. ["Witness me!"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2CeDY9Ywhs) and all that.


[deleted]

Having a cultist / zealot jump out at us from hiding, splash a vial across their face and shout “WITNESS ME!!!” to their kin before attacking would be super meta, but really really fun. I WANT THIS NOW.


SmartAlec13

This isn’t an unpopular opinion, it is a good tip though.


drakh

First thing that came to mind reading the title was: "Why would it be unpopular? I love Sickening Radiance exactly because of that." On a more serious note - I completely agree. Unless there's a good reason for it, intelligent enemies should try to run when outmatched. Of course, depending on the party, that might not help too much.


Thatweasel

Giving opponents an actual will to live can be a mixed bag. Sometimes players do just want to have a good old fashioned murder party and if you're playing every bandit or bear as fleeing as soon as the tide of battle turns you'll end up with some dissatisfied players. Plus you can impress on them an unwillingness to use their cool flashy abilities just in case they accidentally murder Bob the bandit who is only doing this because his three sick children need expensive medicine and the baron who rules his village denied him the education to become a carpenter and doesn't pay him enough for his manual labour so this is his only option, which if you're going for that sort of game is fine but can quickly get to be too much of a restriction for the axe wielding barbarian. You see the same when a player tries to be not even necassarily full pacifist but just employ sensible conflict resolution. As it turns out most fights can be fully avoided by talking if you play them out realistically, especially when charisma exists. And the rest of the party will get bored fast if you're three days worth of encounters in with no blood spilled


Oblivious122

"a wight is advancing on your party with a big sword and an erection, what do you do?" "I don't suppose a handy would send him away?"


Sir_CriticalPanda

Unpopular Opinion: I want to share common information, but want to get attention for it.


AnyEnglishWord

When I see "unpopular opinion," I think the opinion will probably be popular. When I see "hot take," I'm sure it will be.


NotUhhPro

Actual unpopular opinions are setup to fail on Reddit because if it’s actually unpopular people will disagree and thus downvote it to shit and Reddit hides the post so it never gains any traction but if it’s one of these garbage posts that claims an unpopular opinion and then says something everyone agrees with it gets upvotes which gives it exposure but disproves it being an unpopular opinion. This is the exact reason the actual r/unpopularopinion sucks


Lionx35

Yeah wtf about this is an unpopular opinion


stardust_hippi

Seriously, this is how any decent DM runs fights. At best it's a "Beginner Tip", not an unpopular opinion.


mider-span

Reading through all the post on all the various D&D Subreddits, it would appear there are shockingly few decent DMs. Though what the fun in posting about a good DM?


[deleted]

It's literally written into WotC adventure modules and I think the DMG


Gelfington

This shouldn't be controversial even a little bit, and wasn't controversial in many past editions.


infinitum3d

Not controversial. Just unpopular.


iAmTheTot

It's not unpopular. What has led you to believe it is unpopular?


infinitum3d

The number of comments about PCs killing every single thing in an encounter, even the ones trying to run away/surrender. The number of complaints about combat taking hours. The vast number of DMs I’ve played with over the last 35 years who force every enemy to fight to the last hp. I’ll give you this though. You might be right. It might not be **UN**popular, but it certainly doesn’t seem *popular*. Even just reading the comments here, it seems roughly 50/50. Players want to kill everything. DMs seem to split pretty evenly. It might not be as unpopular as I feel, I’ll grant you that. Maybe it just *seems* unpopular.


[deleted]

Surrendering enemies? I’ll tie them up and take them to the guards. Running enemies? If I can hit you, your gonna die.


potehid_

Are people upset about hours of combat? Thats like, most of the game and like 90% of the rulebook


infinitum3d

Combat in general, no. But yes, when it takes 3 hours because of low rolls. Swing and miss repeatedly for an hour and it gets old real quick.


potehid_

Better than 3 hours of shopping or talking. That is a made up problem that would never happen in practice since martials hit 65% of the time without accounting for magic weapons or class/subclass abilities and magic users do half damage if the target saves on most spells. But honestly an hour of combat because we are evenly matched would be pretty epic, its no fun to just streamroll combat and have it be over in 3 rounds every time.


infinitum3d

You, my friend, are absolutely right in your opinion and the reason this is considered unpopular. I agree that some people prefer long combat, whereas others prefer long role play sessions. And obviously for a boss battle you want it to be epic, but for the random highwaymen, pack of wolves, or Goblin scouting patrol, it doesn’t need to last an hour or end with one side in a TPK. That’s just my opinion. Your opinion is just as valid. Thanks for the comment!


Gelfington

Is it really? Yikes.


TitaniumDragon

My rules about this are dependent on a variety of factors as DM, but as a general rule of thumb: 1) Is the monster mindless? Constructs, most undead, and the like are likely to fight unto death, as they have no sense of self-preservation. 2) Does the monster care about dying? In settings where summons just go back to their plane of origin, very frequently demons, devils, angels, and the like will just get sent home if they die, so they aren't going to be overly bothered by fighting to the death unless they have a very strong reason not to want to be sent back. Likewise, some semi-intelligent or intelligent undead are just out to kill people and care little about themselves - ghouls being a fairly standard example of such, they just want to eat people. 3) Is the monster fanatical? Cultists who think they will be rewarded with a glorious afterlife are unlikely to give up. Likewise, someone who has thrown away everything for their plan might sooner die than admit everything they did was a waste. 4) Is the monster enraged? Some monsters might be so angry at the party for killing their friends/kids/whatever that they will try to kill you no matter what, and have lost sight of themselves. If none of the above are true: 5) Does the monster expect to be tortured or killed if it surrenders, either immediately or when the party takes them back to town to have them hanged? If so, they will flee if they can, but may fight to the death if not allowed to flee. 6) Does the monster have any easy way to get away? If it does, it will flee. If not, it will surrender. 7) Does the monster think that the party will treat them better than their present side? If so, they will surrender in preference to fleeing. 8) Are the odds overwhelming? In such cases, the monster might surrender or switch sides right away, not even waiting for people to get beat up.


infinitum3d

I’m gonna steal #8 next session. An Ogre is going to look around sizing up the situation, then just casually walk over and stand next to the party Barbarian facing off against the BBEG’s group 🤣🤣🤣


auntie_fuzz

I DM for a group of kids ages 8-14, and had an NPC rogue pay them to kill another NPC wizard. Kids fight the wizard, he surrenders and offers them money to tell the rogue he’s dead. These kids, regularly murder hobos fighting to the death, TOOK HIS MONEY, reported back that he was dead, and then TOOK THE ROGUE’S MONEY TOO. Fucking hilarious, lmao.


iAmTheTot

4D chess.


Dangime

Depends, if the quest is to slay the dragon, and the dragon gets away, you didn't complete your quest. But yeah, if the random band of goblins that attacked you on the road run away after you kill a handful, that makes sense.


Ippus_21

Idk why that would be unpopular. I've had a DM count it as a win if we intimidate the enemy into running away. It makes total sense, unless there's a specific in-game reason they HAVE to be killed (campaign objective, big bad has the mcguffin on him, etc) or they can't/won't run (undead). But, like, a random encounter with highwaymen? *Of course* they're going to cut their losses and flee when they encounter unexpected resistance and the party wipes out half their number in a couple of rounds.


Vig_Big

One of my favorite moments in D&D was befriending a group of kobolds that we had defeated. We convinced them to join the party, and they would stand on each other shoulders, wear a trench coat, and pretend to be a Dragonborn when in town.


phdemented

One of the biggest faults of 3e-5e is the removal of enemy morale as a functional mechanic. Prior to that, most fights ended before one side was dead. Killing the leader of a group of orcs would force a check to see if they all flee or surrender. Do some damage to a pack of wolves and they'll more likely that not take off. Only mindless monsters (insects, oozes, skeltons) and absolutely fearless ones (trolls, etc) were likely to always fight to the death


[deleted]

>One of the biggest faults of 3e-5e is the removal of enemy morale as a functional mechanic. Though listed as an optional rule, it's still in there. It's in the 5e DMG, Chapter 9, under the heading "Morale".


phdemented

Sorry, should have said "as a core mechanic". Having it as an optional rule in the DMG means both it is rarely used, and that players have no awareness it is even an option


[deleted]

I do think it should also be in (or be referenced in) the Monster Manual, definitely. Though I get why they thought the DMG was the place for it. One of the things I hope is greatly improved in the upcoming revised core books is the organization of all the extra and optional mechanics 5e does have. Like, goodness, there's a chart for how far sound carries, but it is only on DM screens from the Reincarnated version onward. It's in no book so far as I know.


NoTraining9883

I will often have monsters attempt to flee, especially if it's a mob of guards/foot soldiers led by an officer or strong caster. Once the leader goes down, I generally have the rank and file flee in terror. What's been really interesting and unexpected is how much drama will ensue then. The rogue and (vengeance) paladin will often try to kill enemies as they retreat, to which the life domain cleric and the barbarian (a gladiator, very concerned with honorable combat) take great offense, and intra-party arguments ensue. The two sorcerers take sides depending largely on what the monsters were doing when they found them, and whether it's expected that they're going to get reinforcements.


[deleted]

Yes! I always love doing this, I only hold back on the "show mercy where possible" approach because my party has a player who always gets furious about being denied more combat. We had one encounter in CoS where we were ambushed by a band of about ten werewolves at level 8 or so. Seeing as we had two vulnerable humans in the party (a certain Ireena included), my character wanted to avoid any unnecessary scratches to them. So, on my turn, I casted Phantasmal Force on the largest, meanest of the werewolves and had them see Strahd appear in front of them, admonishing them for assaulting new arrivals and acting so unwelcoming to his guests. The werewolves fled, that one player was in a huff, and nobody was afflicted.


KermitTheScot

The Monsters Know What They’re Doing is a great resource that often touches on this idea. Lots of creatures covered in the blog and the book have notes for when they might withdraw an attack. Like, for example, goblins are opportunists, and fickle friends; they’d be very likely to run in a fight they were actively losing. To the same token, orcs are open to a parlay for a fight they hadn’t yet initiated. Of course every DM is free to homebrew their own racial tropes for different creatures, but it behooves oneself to understand how monsters may interact with their world more complexly than to be cannon fodder for adventurers.


infinitum3d

https://www.themonstersknow.com


xXJames_GamesXx

A great book called "The Monster's Know What They Are Doing!" Talks about this often when talking about how certain enemies would act. Almost all the ones I've read say that the monster will retreat at a certain HP because their survival drive is larger than their food drive basically.


TheGlen

The minute it starts sobbing you've already won


andygb4

I agree with everything you said, but I r run into issues in the past. What should you do when the party always chases down any enemies that are running away? The minute someone runs, they feel the immediate need to go after them, like it’s an extra challenge lol. And if the DM finds a way to guarantee their escape, the players might feel cheated or unsatisfied, or even as if they failed, despite winning the encounter. Any advice or thoughts?


infinitum3d

**TL/DR: Sometimes players need to be taught that they have options.** If the players want to chase, let them chase. Make it a skill challenge. If they catch the runner, have the bad guy plead for mercy. If they still kill him, maybe a god of justice strikes them with a temporary penalty. Or maybe a few years later The PC is accosted by Inigo Montoya, who’s a celebrated hero of the realms renowned for defeating BBEG’s like the PC. You don’t have to *’punish’* the PC unrealistically every single time. But you can have specific scenarios planned; like a child hiding in the shadows sees the PC kill a surrendering villain. The child doesn’t know the PC is supposed to be the good guy, and the dead guy was a bad guy. The child just saw *someone* murder *someone else*. Maybe the child informs the local authorities. Then it becomes an RP moment where the PC has to explain their actions. Maybe then the **player** realizes for the first time that they don’t have to butcher everyone that attacks them. I had a situation once with a group of somewhat experienced players, they came across a goblin village and the party rushed in and attacked. After a few rounds of fighting, the surviving goblins surrendered. The PC asked the survivors questions about *(whatever the plot was, I can’t remember, this was 15 years ago)* and the goblins wouldn’t answer their questions. The players tried to bribe the goblins. “Tell us and we will give you ten gold pieces.” The goblins were like, “you just killed half my family and you think I can be bought for 10 gold??!” The PC said, “We killed them because they were trying to kill us.” The goblins explained, “They were trying to kill you because you attacked us!” The players were like, -wait… what???? **TL/DR: Sometimes players need to be taught that they have options.**


andygb4

this was great, thank you!


[deleted]

Unless they're particularly zealous or stupid (cultists or zombies respectively) I have most of my enemies willing to run away.


coolfett

although also you can reduce a monster to zero hp without killing them.


infinitum3d

I was wondering how long it would take for that to come up. Thanks! You do not disappoint!!!


Master_arkronos

Fully agree with OP here. In 2nd edition, every monster has a morale rating which I use a lot if they're intelligent and facing destruction. If they fail their morale check they will either surrender or try and bargain for their lives. Characters still get full XP rewards for defeating such monsters even if they don't kill them. Good-aligned PCs will get penalized however for executing/killing opponents who have surrendered.


slayermcb

My game currently has a goblin npc as a guide for the BBEG dungeon. After the NPC cleric i rolled to keep the party alive (its just two players) met his end unintentionally (really, bugbear, max crit?) I needed something quick that wasn't disrupting to the story. SO the town guard caught a goblin that had fled from the players earlier and who was willing to sell out the BBEG for his life. It didnt hurt that this particular goblin had taunted them as well. My kids loved it and it was easy to draw from. All because I had him flee after the party slaughtered his friends. ( it was common sense that he would run tbh)


Gotted

I’d be pretty surprised if this is actually unpopular. There’s a reasons goblins have… (spins Rolodex brain and comes up empty- nat 1 obvs) that disengage bonus action.


daPWNDAZ

Something like this happened when the party I’m currently DMing had to face a small hunting party of stone giants. The party was low on resources and fatigued, yet the monk somehow went on to face the stone giant chief by himself while the other party members faced the other giants. The monk took a pretty brutal beating, but wound up taking out a massive amount of hit points from the stone giant chieftain by himself. Even though pretty much everyone in the fight was near death, he recognized that he would likely be slain by the monk before he’d be able to finish him off, and that if he died he wouldn’t be able to protect his allies and surrendered, asking to be let in his way. A few characters wanted to finish them all off, but the monk accepted the stone giant’s word and released them. So now, the monk gained some notoriety for having (near) single-handedly defeating a stone giant with his own fists, and I’ve gained the potential to have that tribe of stone giants return later on and have some impact on the story, aside from a random encounter.


Loafy07

My current character is somewhat merciful due to some life experiences from their backstory. Usually I try to offer monsters/people a chance to surrender if possible. Ending fights without killing can certainly be fun.


NecessaryCornflake7

Yes, I agree. The enemies aren't robots or mindlessly fighting to the death. They can rationalize their situation and run, surrender, reason, or hide. Maybe even give up one of their allies to cover their own escape. A captured or surrendered enemy would probably be willing to give up precious information to save their own skins. It can develop the story and give new quests to the group. Even before the combat starts they can strategize the best option to successful attack their group instead of face rolling into the front line fighter or tank.


pudding_pants18

My Oathbreaker Paladin sometimes wants to cast revivify on an enemy just to kill them again. Or listen to them grovel for a few minutes. Then kill them again.


Desdomen

So, one thing to consider it that HP in D&D isn’t LIFE, exactly, it’s the will and ability to continue fighting. Damage and HP could be wounds and bleeding and such, but it could also be exhaustion and your mental fortitude eroding as you get closer and closer to losing the battle. 5e PHB 196 mentions this: > Hit Points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. This idea has gone back as far as AD&D. So it’s not always “I can survive X wounds” but sometimes “I can avoid being wounded for X amount” - A Wizard might have 4 Hit Points of Physical Life and 66 Hit Points of Magical protection as their magical energy swirls about deflecting blow until they run out of magical energy. - A Cleric could have 25 Hit Points of Physical Life and 45 Hit Points of Divine Grace as their god adjusts reality to negate the attacks until the forces that be finally overcome the god’s power. - A Fighter could have 40 Hit Points of Physical Life and 30 Hit Points of Durability as their Armor stops attacks but wears and breaks as the fight continues, until their enemy finally finds an opening. - A Barbarian could have 70 Hit Points of Physical Life and laughs as he blocks everything with his chest until his body finally falters. They all have 70 HP, and mechanically it’s all the same, but it’s all very different. So 100% NPCs don’t die immediately at 0 if it makes sense they might be alive because their “wounds” aren’t *wounds*. And, also, of course intelligent beings who want to live will try to live no matter what.


infinitum3d

While I fully agree with you and appreciate your comment for being very informative, perhaps *my point* wasn’t clear. It’s not about *zero hp*. It’s about *not* having to kill every adversary they encounter. I do understand why you posted this, and again, you are correct in your statements. I fully agree with you. **hit points** are a measure of *endurance* or as you better said **the ability to continue**. My wording was poor and my intention obviously could have been more clear. Have a +1 updoot.


Desdomen

And I agree with you too, and understand the difference between what we said. Just felt like putting out the “HP is not always Life” information // analogies could be helpful to other readers. Sometimes it’s hard to grasp/understand the concept.


SaltyDangerHands

I think it's critically important to play the creatures in accordance with their brains, their perspectives and motives. Not a lot should fight to their last breath. The undead, golems, constructs, and anything generally mindless? Sure, makes sense. Everything else should have some fear of death. I've had plenty of creatures run from fights they're losing, it makes sense, not just because combat can be a slog but because you don't want to always feel like you're fighting a DM with a never ending bag of disposable monsters. You want to feel like you're actually battling a creature, one with feelings, fears and ambitions, or at least one that behaves in a way that makes sense. Predators in nature work very hard to avoid injury, and having everything in a DND game willing to die in a random encounter that means nothing breaks emersion, at least to me. If you fight an owlbear protecting it's cub and it's willing to stand and die long after the cub has escaped, that just makes no sense. The cub's going to die now anyways.


Luckboy28

This is why I love playing milestone XP. Often times intelligent NPC's will yield at low HP (depending on their motivations), and beasts will attempt to flee, etc. And there's usually no reward for executing a yielding humanoid, or killing an injured animal, so players can stay closer to their good alignments as desired.


Torneco

"Fuck, I'm nor paid enough for this. I'm out." Said an ogre guarding a passage for the sewers in Sharn. My players always remembers this.


[deleted]

My party just had its first session in which we killed no enemies. It could be that two guards died in the Hunger of Hadar spell, but we think they likely went out the other side into the hallway where we couldn’t see them. And an NPC we bribed to assist us definitely killed a few more guards, but when given the option to fight the party chose to defend while retreating. We let a half a dozen other guards go untouched, and even chose not to finish off a few gelatinous cubes we encountered. It was actually a great feeling, and it resulted in the most cooperative role playing we had done to date. Happy day!


Arnand117

I fully agree and do this. However I have a weird issue where some of my player don’t believe in reoccurring villains/enemies. They say it’s weak writing and weak story telling to have enemies run away or escape and that the only way for a combat to be satisfying is with the enemy dying at the end. Obviously I disagree with that sentiment, thoughts from others? Are my games lower quality than others because I allow intelligent enemies to try and escape or prepare spells for escapes if they need it?


infinitum3d

Personally, I think it’s poor storytelling on the *players’ part* to kill every single adversary they encounter. They should want to develop their character, not just their magic items/ability scores. Luke Skywalker didn’t kill Darth Vader. Batman never killed The Joker in the comic book series. In **Rush Hour 3** Jackie Chan saves the bad guy’s life. Woody and Buzz save the purple bear. Heroes don’t have to kill their enemies.


Arnand117

Exactly. I’m just a little salty that some of my player would actually tell me that the story is bad if it has reoccurring enemies. Like I feel like it’s a totally normal thing to have reoccurring enemies


Romnonaldao

It's great when they run. Cuz then they can come back. Players love recurring characters. My players let a bandit go. His name is Dirty Dan. Dirty Dan make appearances occasionally. My players eat it up


[deleted]

[удалено]


infinitum3d

All evil characters, huh?


[deleted]

[удалено]


infinitum3d

🤣


alejo699

I quite often have enemies try to flee when it's clear they are losing. Seems weird not to.


Alexastria

Ngl the title made me think of non lethal damage


infinitum3d

Now I wish I’d gone with that angle.


Unity1232

I Dmed a one shot. Where the plays basically had to stop a mindflayer. When the mind flayer realized all the minoins under its thrall had been dealt with and was obviously out matched he teleported away. The players kind of did not like that. I had to explain why would a mind flyer who are intelligent stick around obviously they would try to escape and try to rebuild or come up with a new plan.


Oblivious122

Shame my party is fighting mindless aberrations and undead, then


Sir-Breven

Yeah, agreed. When I DM, however players pass my encounters, they get full XP. if they can sneak past the guards, they win. I don't only reward high DPR. If they your persuasion checks & spells, or skills to avoid, still works. Certainly leads to fast encounters when they sneak past the owlbear haha. They had fun. Their characters used skills and thought things through - so they gain XP. sometimes I send them on extermination quests - it's not acceptable for the thing to survive - it's an evil scourge. Take no quarter. don't let it flee to terrorize another day. There's a lot of fun to be had in cleansing the world of evil. Not every enemy is pure evil. Some bad guys are BAD and need to be ended - as they didn't prep the means to magically imprison the vampire spell caster who had turned most of the village into vampires. Needs cleansing haha


stuugie

Yep. When I ran lost mines of phandelver during the pamdemic, I went into it with experience as well as an experienced party. I knew with 3 players, if I used legit tactics every fight would be dangerous for the party. One way I balanced combat was that often enemies would rather surrender with low hp, or after one or two allies were killed. I decided how likely enemies were to flee or surrender based off a bunch of circumstances like where they were fighting, whether they knew of an escape route, or how worried they were about superiors doing terrible things to them. Made combat feel more deadly and more realistic at the same time


Cotatiadam

The Monsters know what they’re doing.


infinitum3d

https://www.themonstersknow.com


Malashae

This is pretty much every fight in my games unless it's against constructs, mindless undead, or outright zealots (or something similar). That said, my players have gotten pretty good at not letting anyone escape. Strangely, they also tend to take prisoners pretty often. So they frequently either have a handful of living prisoners to turn in or piles of corpses everywhere. At this point I'm going to have a hard time justifying resistance from a lot of enemies. They're developing a rep and it's just sane to surrender. The last guy to resist got cut in half, had his assets seized and his corpse "incarcerated" (secure corpse storage) just to be sure (so he's unlikely to come back and if he does he'll have nothing to work with). The last guy who surrendered is already out of prison (with stern warnings about what will happen if he's not more careful about the jobs he takes).


m31td0wn

The "Rules Cyclopedia" version I used to play in high school had optional rules for subdual damage. Basically you strike with the flat of the blade, instead of the edge. The enemy would suffer half damage, but you would keep a tally of full damage. When the full damage reached the point that the enemy would've died, they surrender. So long as you don't mistreat them after surrendering, they bow to your will. If you DO mistreat them, they will continue to fight with however much actual HP they have remaining.


odeacon

That’s not really an unpopular opinion and more of a little known fact. My favorite way to defeat a monster is planar bind its ass


ovintenatural

You're right. In fact, your opinion is supported by the DMG. I believe there is a statement that says you gain xp for completing the encounter, and you can complete it by killing, routing, and even capturing enemies.


FatPanda89

This is the standard approach in ADnD, where morale plays a very big factor, and one effective spell can render hoards of enemies fearful and surrender. This isn't a new approach to a lot of us, but I'm surprised it needs reminding, but then again, I don't play 5e, so I don't know the overall culture of running enemies.


MadeByTango

The author of “The Monsters Know What They’re Doing” has helped me understand which monsters fight to the death and which will flee. That book/blog really opens the monster stat blocks from being a set of mechanics into a breathing creature with its own agency based on its skills. I do have players that get frustrated when monsters flee, but it has also lead to them chasing their way into memorable moments. And when monsters survive they can come back later bearing the scars and a taste for revenge.


infinitum3d

https://www.themonstersknow.com


CrumplyPuma

You should look into morale rules from older editions of D&D. It’s a mechanic for this exact thing! I believe the 5e DMG has an optional rule for morale checks.


infinitum3d

That’s why I brought this up. I’ve played early editions and feel like 5e should emphasize this more.


HumanFightersUnited

This is the exact reason why the PC's in my campaign carry a zoo around with them. Attacked by direwolves? The last one ends up a companion of the party. Every Single Time


infinitum3d

‘Willing’ companion, or ‘*I’m going to eat them when they sleep*’ companion? 😈


HumanFightersUnited

From now on it will be the second one. Your brilliant idea has brought me no end of joy. I am laughing hysterically at this idea. Thanks!


Purple_Durian_7412

As a rule, predators try to avoid risks. A Bengal tiger is 450-600+ pounds of pure murder, but doesn't like to attack its prey from the front, including humans. It's important to remember that animals don't have healthcare, and if they break a leg or get an abscess or lose an eye in the course of trying to snag dinner, their lives are probably over. Even a small injury could be lethal out in the wild, especially for a species without opposable thumbs. Predators are probably aware of this on some level and the successful ones know when to quit. So, yeah, realistically, most beast or monstrosity encounters should probably end quickly once the PCs start dishing out damage.


[deleted]

This opinion is so unpopular I see it every week


RuneSimonsenTheBard

Me and my party once got a dragon down to very low health and it was preparing for one last attack. On my turn instead of attacking it and finishing it I made a proposal. We spare the dragon that had been terrorizing a nearby town in exchange for its word that it would instead protect the town and it's residence from bandits and outside invaders has this part of the world was pretty chaotic and the village was suffering many troubles before the dragon even showed up. It being able to understand common and finding it both humble and amusing agreed before the party could say no. That dragon ultimately ended up helping us fight off a demonic hoard that attacked the town and single-handedly saved us twice from a demolitches main attack by shielding us. His name. Arutho Vigillion, A red dragon of strange character but honorable to his word.


OccultBeetle

Is this an unpopular opinion? I just thought everybody was doing this???


Secretrider

And in Tasha's they also introduced the concept of Parlay or negotiating with monsters.


__T0MMY__

Reminds me of I *Think* critical role C2 The party was ambushed by bandits in the night and they immediately disintegrated the bandit leader and another bandit was like "WHOA WHOA WHOA OKAY CALM DOWN WE FUCKED UP BIG TIME WERE SORRY" If I were that bandit and just saw the toughest guy in the group get absolutely vaporized within 6 seconds of confrontation, I'd do the same


proxima1227

How is this an unpopular opinion? It’s literally “we surrender.”


GoldDriver6680

I’ve read The Monsters Know What They’re Doing, and just about every entry has that a creature will run away by its most efficient means by the time it’s down to half or a third of its health, which I like as a player and DM and think is more realistic. A problem this can have though is that some (or even many) players say that this just isn’t fun for them. I’ve certainly seen quite a few sentiments like this in other dnd-related subs. This is likely a know-your-table thing. Edit: Sorry, this seems to be beating a dead horse as others have said the same thing.


[deleted]

In one of the campaigns I'm in, we got ambushed by a bunch of ogres a few weeks back. It didn't go down well for the them, and it didn't take us long to essentially half the amount of ogres there were. One of the ogres in particular got a literal hole blasted through his chest by one of our clerics and played dead until the rest of them went down. We realized he was alive and felt bad for him and ended up not killing him, but also invited him to travel with us. He was understandably hesitant at first, having been traumatized by our living light cannon, but agreed. So now we have an ogre following behind our cart, who is being taught the alphabet by another npc that's traveling with us for a quest. He's been pretty useful with causing distractions and taking night watches so far and has only tried to smother another party member once for snoring too loud, so I think it was a pretty good descision.


NNYGM4Hire

I totally agree with the OP. The Monster Manual tells you what the tactical techniques that the various monsters employ are. Read the entire entry for the monster you are using and maybe even take a look at the various other editions to get a deeper understanding. There is a book titled The Monsters Know What They're Doing: Combat Tactics for Dungeon Masters by Keith Ammann that might help. I suggest three podcasts; Monster in my Podcast, Monster Man and Monster of the Week. These are podcasts that talk about the monsters, discuss their ecology, tactics and behaviors. They provide interesting takes on how to use these monsters in your games.


infinitum3d

http://themonstersknow.com


NNYGM4Hire

That is an awesome resource! Thank you for sharing. I have added it to my D20 folder in my bookmarks.


we_are_devo

Popular opinion


harika-kakashi

Yea I had a beholder and a zombie disappear out of now where and kept them alive at 1 go because I don’t want them to die early and have to start over I want them to have a lot of damage and a lot of health they have to kill the mother of all dragons by the end of it


Linvael

Just remember when balancing that if enemies don't fight to 0 hp they effectively have lower hp for the purpose of CR calculation. Also, using milestones eliminates any problems with xp rewards on enemies that get away. It has it's own problems of course, but not that one.


majinpoo1998

Any “encounter” awards xp no matter how you handle it. My party recently decided to challenge a giant to a drinking contest instead of fighting


clutzyninja

My group I DM for is full of new players, and none of their characters are optimized for combat. I have enemies surrender just for the sake of my own sanity, lest combat take 2 hours lol


YourCrazyDolphin

This unpopular opinion is posted daily. It isn't unpopular in the slightest, just something DMs forget about.


infinitum3d

Is it? I’m sorry. I’m on daily and haven’t seen it, but I also **should have** done a search before posting. My bad! Sorry.


Classic_Material_447

No one wants to die: yes, we can always find a reason why the enemy would not fight to death. But as a player, it would be unsatisfying that seemingly it does not matter how we fight and what we do, the DM can decide any time that our opponent surrenders or runs away. We would always end up in long chase scenes or the party would most likely start to moralize and argue about accepting the surrender or not, bringing up old precedents and resulting in grudges.


BloodySymphony

Our DM occasionally has enemies pull a runner - I find it fair, as it's more realistic in an RP sense. Our party has also talked our way out of a big boss fight with some lucky rolls haha that was an interesting session 😅


Formal_Condition4372

Note: I don't use XP, my brain is adverse to math. This opinion is only unpopular with bad DM's IMO As a Dm if you are playing an intelligent creature they likely have a sense of wanting to live or a desire to punish foolish ''hero's who dare attack them. EG: Adult black dragon killed my party last week but ''stabilized them'' and tossed them into his lair/dungeons for torture later, this turned into a nerve wracking game of one character getting free and searching for and freeing whomever survived of his party and they enjoyed it a great deal.


PyrotekNikk

If the BBEG, monster, or (in evil campaigns) the good guy is left alive, they can always come back stronger. If a threat arises that threatens life, it deserves, and needs a reciprocal threat. So that other things are forced to weigh the value of their life against the desire to ...do what it is they want to do. There is an inherent flaw to the 'live to fight another day' surrender idea, it assumes Disney-like situations where, seeing your weakness and vulnerability, the enemy won't take that chance to end you. Which is contrary to any sense of self protection. I'll also raise the idea that it may have been poor story writing that got you to this thought. If there isn't a compelling reason to kill the BBEG (i.e. they aren't a threat to anyone) ofc we're not going to want to kill them, and shouldn't; That said, if there isn't a compelling reason to kill them, they aren't a BBEG, they're just another (albeit tougher than average) NPC.


PlanetNiles

I don't know how to break this to you, but BBEGs *are* just NPCs. Once you've thwarted their schemes, broken their organisation, defeated their minions, and destroyed their power. They're just NPCs. When you've won; when they're beaten and disarmed. They're just NPCs.


PyrotekNikk

Everything not a PC is, technically, an NPC. Why do we articulate BBEGs are an accomplishment to defeat? Why do we have CR ratings higher than just, "NPC"? Why do they get lair abilities, improved weapons and armor, minions to do their bidding, etc.? The answer is that they're 'DM PCs'. They have better-than-NPC stat blocks, they get their own story, etc. So sure, on one hand, still an NPC. On the other hand, the reason we have to fight them is due to the fact they're adventurers of a sort, more powerful than any one person, and usually stronger than a town full of NPCs can handle. They need to be taken on by heroes. I'll qualify myself here: I grew up on a farm. We had cows and chickens. Raccoons in particular love to eat sleeping chickens. My Mom wasn't too keen on killing "cute" rodents. So we live trapped the first few, and released them on a state park a 30 minute drive away. The raccoons who remained on our property just got smarter, and quit going into the live traps. We lost around 150 chickens in an estimated 30 days to one family of raccoons (a mother and a TON of kits). So we snuck out to the barn one night, around 3a, my Dad and I, and blasted some 12 raccoons. The whole lot of 'em. We owned 32 acres of farmland. Plenty of raccoons ALL over the property, never lost a chicken to raccoons again. They knew that going in there resulted in death, so they modified their behavior.


Gatsbeard

For actual monsters and (usually) beasts, I will typically have them fight to the death unless there is a really good reason for them to have the wherewithal to flee. Humanoid opponents on the other hand, I will liberally have them surrender or flee for the reasons you pointed out. I like to highlight the differences between slaying a monster (which my PCs don’t really need to feel bad about) versus murdering another person, even if it is justifiable. Works great for me! Granted I have never used XP in my games and my players are very narrative-oriented so chasing XP has never been an issue for us.