So I'm a DnD newfag, and our DM just tossed 15 bandits at

>>54330413
Depends on the edition, and also the exact plans your DM has for the encounter.

>>54330413
Yes, regrettably.

>>54330433
5E.
Yeah, I know Pathfinder is better.

At what level?

>>54330456
Two.

>>54330443
That's a bad joke.

File: DMPC joins the party.jpg (691KB, 1312x2059px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1312x2059px

>>54330457
He either wants you to die or he has something in mind to tip the scales in your favor.

Like, say, getting rescued by his super-duper cool wish-fulfillment DMPC.

>>54330858
>Like, say, getting rescued by his super-duper >cool wish-fulfillment DMPC.

Most likely this

Bandits are CR 1/8 in 5e, have 12 AC, +3 attack, and do 4 damage. I don't see the problem.

>>54330413
the DM will throw whatever he thinks you can *just* handle at you.

Also you're metagaming. Imagine you are the character, not a player. 15 bandits appear in front of you - you must fight or run.

Don't forget, you can usually run from an encounter - sometimes its actually smart to run and fight another day. Its just a matter of all running at the same time, or else whoever is left behind will be captured or killed.

>>54330413
Did he throw 15 bandits at you?
Or did he have a world with 15 bandits in it that you happened to encounter?

Either way, the answer is yes.
Now if he expected you to beat them, that's a little more unusual.

>>54330443

Sure, if you've got a passion for grating your own eyeballs.

>>54331660
15 bandits at level 2 is tough but manageable. Use area effect spells like Sleep, Color Spray, Entangle etc. to keep some of them off your backs, and get to a choke point where they can't attack you all at once.

>>54330443
Only if you like disproportionately balance and trap options

>>54332949
>trap options
Yeah because my 5e has no trap options in it at all. Sigh...

>>54331368
>provoking AoOs like crazy
>enemies can follow you and still full attack you
Kek, this dude thinks he can withdraw in DnD, poor guy

File: 1456234350538.jpg (132KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 600x600px

>>54330443
>Yeah, I know Pathfinder is better.

>>54332962
From 1 to 100 the difference between a trap option in 5e and a good option is a 10, you're not optimal but playable and serviceable, in PF the difference is 5 billion, you're useless to the point you not being there is actually an improvement to the party.

>>54332962
You didn't read the bit about whatever gender options you want huh?
>>54332973
Does paizo pay you to shit post without reading the rulebook? That's just lazy

File: fishonheadfurther.png (75KB, 193x183px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 193x183px

>>54330413
>our dm just made us face a challenge
>is this normal?

what kind of inane question is this even, the GM has something planned for you. don't be so rigid as to think you need to kill everything and if it's too hard the game is broken.

>>54332986
Dude. I'm not arguing that, but after all this time, even a little kinda makes me wish they didn't bother wasting ink on such things.

>>54332991
>Does paizo...
Can you even fucking read? because clearly you completelyl got backwards of what my post obviously said
>also paizo not being shit DnD
D20 is garbage, better?

>Use action to disengage
>Use movement to move away
>Enemies use movement to reach you
>They multiattack your face
>Rinse and reapeat till PCs are dead
Yep, fleeing in 5e is possible

>>54333031
Doesn't running give you 4X movement?

>>54333049
>enemy runs too and ends up right next to you, again
>AoO when you move away, again
>rinse, repeat

>>54333031
Can't you disengage as a full action and move x3 movement?

>>54333049
In 5e? no
You don't run in 5e, you have Action and Movement, and you can turn your Action into a Dash (another movement), so a 2x movement. But you want to use Action to Disengague and not provoke when moving away from 15 dudes

>>54333068
it's almost like it's hard to run away from someone with equal or better speed than you.

>>54333085
>hard
*impossible

And that's good design, because...?

>>54333085
Which means is pretty hard to survive a hard combat, because:
1. You can't run away
2. You can't win

So if your Gm threw at you a hard encounter, go with the flow

>>54333031
>Don't waste your action to disengage
>Opportunity attack misses
>Get away

>>54333031
>Not using chase rules when one side declares they're fleeing.

>>54333049
You can't run and disengage on the same turn.
However, this isn't a massive problem, you'll only eat one set of AOOs.
The problem is if you follow the rules autistically there's no way to outrun something that has the same speed as you, but at the same time there's no way to catch something that has the same speed as you. That is if you only use melee combat like a dork.

desu if the PCs wanted to retreat I'd say they'd take one attack of opportunity if they don't have a free disengage, then do it as a constitution/dexterity check depending on how they're retreating

>>54333111
>Assuming party are 4-5 people
>15 enemies
>so around 3 AoOs for each one
If you're losing to the point of wanting to flee 3 attacks might be lethal
Also
>Opportunity attack misses
If you can make AoO miss that easily, why don't you stay and kill them all, mister superhero?

>>54333083
Okay that is pretty shitty design. It'd be better if getting away from someone was a contested roll, that way being faster would give you an advantage but not autohits.

>>54333085
>Niggah did you not watch scooby doo as a child?

>>54333104
i'm not saying that D&D does it well, unless i'm playing with dorks ate the LGS i don't play it, i'm just saying that there is a level of logic behind it.

>>54333107
what this anon says, unless your GM is an idiot that you shouldn't play with anyway he won't just play it like it's a miniatures wargame.

>>54333150
In 3.PF you couldn't move and full attack, and even if you had pounce it had to be in straight line without obstacles in between, but enemies could move through obstacles to avoid your attacks. In 5e there's nothing of that, so fleeing is night impossible with the actual rules, must be the only thing in where 3.PF has something better than 5e though.

>>54333150
>>54333140
>>54333117
A good DM will use the toolbox provided by the rules to say: Combat is over, so combat rules do not apply. He'll instead ask for, say, contested skill checks - DEX for burst speed, CON for endurance etc

Unless you're a monk, you will have a hard time fleeing in 5e. It's funny, once again monk exceels at fleeing while being meh or shit in everything else.

>>54333179
Sadly the average GM is not a "good" GM, is someone who follows the rules pretty tightly. "good" GMs are something really really scarce.

>>54333104
There's rules for how to run a chase, and the book specifically mentions that things are just too boring and predictable with default speed rules. I'm not saying it's perfect but it isn't impossible to run away.

>>54333117
>The problem is if you follow the rules autistically there's no way to outrun something that has the same speed as you, but at the same time there's no way to catch something that has the same speed as you. That is if you only use melee combat like a dork.
A chase isn't combat so you don't use the combat rules. You'd use the rules under Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores for a chase scene. Jumping and dodging obstacles would be a Dexterity check. Long jumping a chasm or knocking down a door or obstacle in your way would be a Strength check. You could have Constitution checks to see if you keep up your endurance while you're running at top speed for more than a short burst. Charisma check to blend into the crowd. Wisdom check to quickly spot ways out and things you can use to knock over or avoid. These checks would apply to both the pursued and the pursuer. If the pursued fails a bunch and the pursuers don't they catch up. If the pursuers fail a bunch and the pursued don't they get away.

But there are no hard rules for a chase which is a shame and a fault of the system (and part of the reason player characters always just try to fight to their deaths), but the system does give you the tools to create a proper chase.

>>54333252
>But there are no hard rules for a chase

Page 252 of the DMG guide.

The reason players don't run away that often is because in general nobody wants to be Sir Robin and bravely run away in a heroic fantasy game. It doesn't feel good and they don't like doing it as a result even if it would be an optimal choice.

>>54332962
>Sigh...
kill yourself, underage redditor faggot

>>54333252
Those rules are also garbage because someone with 20 ft speed and only 2 move actions can totally reach someone with 90 ft speed and 3 move actions

>>54333140
>trying to escape when you have a bunch of guys surrounding you is kind of difficult but still possible
Well, yeah. That's pretty well accurate. Kind of depends on who you are and who's surrounding you, which is also the case in the game.

>>54333288
>Page 252 of the DMG guide.
Yep, as a player I have a complete access to those rules

>>54333288
The main reason players dont run is because they're in a party. All it takes is one player to refuse to go with them and they're forced to make a decision with heavy OOC weighing one side.

>>54333303
>not reading the DMG without the GM noticing
Pleb

>>54333321
>party: we're running
>you: i am going to stay behind
>party: have fun dying

>>54333303
Are you honestly under the impression that there's stuff in there players shouldn't see? Or do you simply lack the physical copy (because that is hardly ever a limitation for the PHB)?
The only things a player shouldn't rifle through are the MM (to keep player and character knowledge separate) and the DMs notes.

>>54333363
I didn't donwloaded it because GM told me not to, as every Gm ever has told me in any system ever.

>>54333363
Not him, but it doesn't make sense to put the rules for running away in the DMG when it should be an option open for the players.

>>54333303

....

Is this bait or has the RPG player base become this mentality challenged?

Are you really saying that you can't either >A Read another book

>B Say 'hey GM , I'm thinking my character might flee here, what are the rules for that ?

>>54333383
It's there so the DM can adjudicate such situations. But it's not secret lore.

>>54333291
>Those rules are also garbage because someone with 20 ft speed and only 2 move actions can totally reach someone with 90 ft speed and 3 move actions
In that case the easily faster one would get away without any contest assuming there's no other factors in play.

>>54333398
That's not what the rules say

>>54333394
But why? It doesn't make any sense for it to be in the DMG and not the PHB.

I mean, following that logic, none of the mechanics should be in the PHB, like how combat works. What's the sense in it?

>>54333418
The rules say you, as a DM, have ultimate say in how you run the game. If you say "the guy who is significantly faster gets away easily" then that's how the game works.

>>54333391
Here's the problem
As a player you know the rules of how fleeing work, they're in the PHB, and are garbage, so you have the preconception that fleeing is a mistake, why would you imagine there are other hiden rules in other manuals for that without having previous knowledge?

Or do you, when in combat, ask how everything works in hopes there are some new rules that help you?

>>54333362
>game then has a 30-minute solo session where the player fights the enemy and possibly dies while the rest of the table get bored and get their phones out
or
>players decide that leaving a PC behind would be a dick move so they all stand and fight
or
>GM says that he doesnt want the party to split, 50/50 chance for the party to decide to stay

The worst outcome for standing and fighting is that you die. Then the GM either rewinds time or you roll up new characters. Running is often seen as 'wasting' more time than just dying. If player motivations were 1:1 with character motivations then it would be something a GM could rely on players to do, but they aren't.

Also nothing is worse for game flow than when That Guy plays a character who runs away at every opportunity.

>>54333217
Isn't the entire point of the gm and pen and paper rpg to have a loose ruleset, contrasting with the stricter ones of games with no gm?

>>54333441
And again the same problem as before, "good" GMs are scarce as fuck, your average GM will use RAW rules, Rules should be retard proof, not wishful thinking

>>54333453
>30 minute solo session
If they're running away, the fight is going to end one round or so when the party leaves one guy behind. Not going to be a long fight at all.

>players decide to stay
And? What's the difference between not running and deciding to stay?

>GM says that he doesn't want
What kind of shit GM would ever try to play a player's character for them like that? GMs don't tell you what your character does. You tell them what your character does and they give you the results of your actions.

And if you decide to stay behind when the party runs, the result is you die. Hard.

>>54333480
No amount of good rules will make a bad GM good. Game could be flawless and a bad GM would absolutely ruin it. Your complaint, therefore, is invalid.

>>54333480
>And again the same problem as before, "good" GMs are scarce as fuck, your average GM will use RAW rules, Rules should be retard proof, not wishful thinking
Then you're playing the wrong system. What you want is a simulationist game with a gorillion splatbooks for every eventuality. Otherwise, it's impossible to realize. 5e went the way of offering a way for quick, ad hoc resolution of such problems. You are encouraged to use proficiencies and attribute checks and advantage/disadvantage to simulate anything complicated not directly covered by the miniature-based combat rules.

>>54333519
Yeah and no amount of ignoring bad rules make a system good.

>>54333520
>Game has poorly made rules you're apparently meant to not use
>That means the only other game is gurps
Hate to break it to you, but it's entirely possible for a game to have rules that aren't required to be broken for the game to be played without also being gurps.

>>54333566
Fortunately, the system has the best rule of all in that they give you the ability to ignore rules when they don't make sense and are bad, making the system good.

You can either learn to accept this and move on or you can stay mad because this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

>>54333566
>>54333606
What are you even going on about? What "poorly made rules"?

>>54333505
>player hides, ambushes, sets traps, runs enemies around like any player with more than 2 braincells

Easily lasts 30 mins

Players staying = players not running away = one guy decides not to run makes the running not happen

>GMs saying 'hey guys can we not' or 'I'd really rather'

Not unreasonable at all, particularly for shit where the problem is meta, like splitting the party or player combat. The GM isn't a computer.

Point being, GMs can't count on players running, since even when there's only 1 player not wanting to, there's a good chance of it causing a ballache. Sure your character will die in a crunchy high-lethality campaign in a high-lethality system with a table of players who agreed to be somewhat ruthless. In a low-lethality narrative campaign it just leads to a PC getting captured and the game getting messy.

>>54330413
How many of you there are, and what are your classes? How's the terrain?

>>54333519
Or, OOOR, you could put the DMG rules in the PHB and removing the bad chase rules from the PHB. Because as it's, you can't run away in 5e using the PHB (only book players should have access too).

>>54333634
>player tries to do anything you mentioned
>gets stomped
If one guy could last 30 minutes against the threat then the party wouldn't have run from the threat.

>Not unreasonable
Entirely unreasonable and inappropriate. If the GM wants to choose what the player characters do, he can write a fucking novel and stop wasting the players' time with that horseshit. Don't be that GM, Anon. Get good.

>>54333616
>In that case the easily faster one would get away without any contest assuming there's no other factors in play
>That's not what the rules say
>The rules say you, as a DM, have ultimate say in how you run the game. If you say "the guy who is significantly faster gets away easily" then that's how the game works. (aka just fucking ignore that bit)

So that's proper game design to you then? Fuck off with what the rules say, I've decided otherwise. That's how good rules are written now?

>>54333422
And none if the normal weapon stats any monster stats are in the DMg either. If you can only get two books and want to DM the dmg is the one you need least.

>>54333447
That's the problem with modern players you treat RPGs like a video game and the books like the video games manual.

This is how the game actually works.

>GM narrates the scene
>Players declare an action
>GM adjudicates that action , deciding if it needs a roll or just happens etc.

If you need a mechanical clarification you ask before you declare your action. Hence if you want to run away you can ask mechanically how that would work before you do it.

>>54333643
I agree: the chase rules should be in the PHB.

>you can't run away in 5e using the PHB
See >>54333252

>>54333634
Question boss. How is the solo player doing any of that without first running away. That thing they've refused to do.

Don't think anyone's fooled by the bear trap you've just thrown on the floor in the middle of a sword fight. Bit confused on how you set it up so quickly though, thought you might have to pull it out of a bad or something, but I guess carrying live spring traps fully set and ready to go is the fashion these days.

File: 1497981277297.gif (45KB, 560x582px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 560x582px

>>54333671
This entire post is a 10/10 demonstration of why some people should never be allowed to sit in a GM chair.

>>54333704
>bear trap
are you for real

>>54333697
Super funny hearing this, because when I don't read shit and ask how something from the PHB works I got kicked from the games, Well, seems like whatever happens is the players fault, gg I guess.

>>54333707
I'm a bad GM because I don't tell my players what to do like I'm reading a storybook to them? Are you well? Do you need to be helped?

>>54333704
He's a hunter who carries traps and spends his 3-minute lead setting them up and hiding.

He's a mole man who burrows through the stone and throws his tent canvas over the pit.

He's an alchemist and has slathered the floor in caustic oozes and firebomb tripwires.

He's an archer who blocks the path with an explosive arrow before hiding himself in an ambush spot.

Assuming a slim lead it's easy if you're a little creative.

>>54333731
You're a bad GM (and also a bad player, perhaps even worse), because you consider the GM communicating with his players to be railroading.

I can guarantee that you're the guy at the table who fumbles angrily through his satchel for his PHB with a red face when your 1d4chan epic rules hack gets shut down by the GM.

>>54333717
Name one type of trap quicker to set up that will function against a human in any meaningful capacity. That includes the whole set it up in the middle of a combat you've explicitly refused to back down from.


I've thrown a live bear trap at someone before. That's my go to example. Fucking deadlands.

>>54333735
>his 3-minute lead
His what? Where did this magical thing come from? How do you think that's enough time?
>He's a mole man
Oh we're just ass pulling then
>He's an alchemist and has slathered the floor
Yeah that's easy to do un-noticed while you're being stabbed
>archer who blocks the path with an explosive arrow
Yeah that's easy to do while you're being stabbed

A guy's in a fight. Refuses to flee with everyone else. And now he's quantum batman? Fucking christ you moron.

>>54333735
>guy stays to fight
>no wait he runs
I get the feeling you're just here to argue and don't really care what you're actually arguing.

>>54333782
>you've explicitly refused to back down from
>you

On an anonymous board, expect more than one person to post replies.

>>54333805
>On an anonymous board never expect people to read what they're replying to.

Yeah go you fucking covered there.

>>54333764
I don't play my player's characters for them and tell them they can't make decisions they should be allowed to make, like run away from a fight they don't want to fight. If you do that, I feel immensely sorry for the people who watch you play their characters for them.

>>54333782
>assume for every example that this is taking place at the second the party agree to disengage from a close quarters combat
>HEY NONE OF THESE WORK HOW COULD YOU HAVE POSSIBLY GOTTEN A LEAD ON THEM IF YOU'RE AT THE SECOND YOU AGREED TO DISENGAGE FROM A CLOSE QUARTERS COMBAT

You are either being intentionally obtuse or you're a special kind of moron. Even taking your intentionally narrow and obtuse example, an alchemist slowing down people right on his tail by throwing AoE shit is viable.

>>54333790
Not a single example of those is running, they're stopping and preparing for a fight.

>>54330413
I frequently throw larger-than-survivable amounts of enemies at my players. I also throw scenes and scenarios that let them divide the enemy forces, cut visibility and cause general havoc in order to allow them to cut down how many they'll be fighting at a time, how effective they will be in battle, and how many overall will actually engage the PCs.

Few seem to ever take advantage. Most of my players seem to think every battle is essentially "my turn, pick which explicitly listed combat option I like most, hope the numbers are good".

Seriously, kiddos. Set something on fire. Roll the log onto the hill and have fun. Push the statue over on them. Use the fucking environment, they're not static environment assets in a videogame for Christ's sake.

>>54333731
Really depends on how experienced your players are.
If they aren't super veterans, helping them know a few of their choices is a nice thing to do. As someone else said, a lot of players play like it was a videogame, when the joke of D&D is that you can do whatever.

File: political compass.jpg (90KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1024x1024px

>>54333835
>hey guys can we try not split the party, it'll be a pain t-
>WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU PLAYING MY CHARACTER FOR ME YOU FUCKING NAZI

>>54333835
>okay, i want to go through the door
>GM: oh no that's not a good idea you should check it for traps first
>uh okay I check it for traps
>GM: you find no traps
>alright well i guess i'll open it
>GM: no no check again
>uh okay i check again
>GM: phew you finally found the trap and disabled it now when you open the door be sure to say you do it slowly so you don't wake up the sleeping dragon on the other end
What a fun and exciting game.

>>54330413
Nah man, you're fine.

>>54333874
Yeah, giving them options if they're new is fine.

Telling them "you're not allowed to do these things even though you should be able to do them and want to do them" is just kind of dumb, though.

>>54333858
Niggah I wasn't talking to you and your made up fucking scenario where you're right. I'm talking about the fucking example given to me by the fucking person I'm fucking talking to.

>>54333879
>"i can't handle a split party as a gm but no you're the bad gm for letting your players choose what they want to do"
Okay champ.

>>54330443
>Pathfinder is better.
>So I'm a DnD newfag
My suspicions are confirmed, you are indeed a newfag. You know what we say to newfags?

Lurk fucking moar.

>>54333859
DnD is not the system for that

File: capitalism.jpg (64KB, 640x785px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x785px

>>54333909
Both of those were at me, friendo. Perhaps you replied to the wrong post.

>>54333914
>I literally cannot abide the idea that a GM might want to communicate that a party shouldn't rape the new guy's character with visceral detail because that violates the NAP and the idea of a GM providing input to a game adds to the social insecurity provided by my micropenis and cuckolding fetishes

you live a blessed life

>>54333947
says the guy who wants to force his players to stay in a fight they don't want to fight, where they'll probably die, when they could and want to flee and live, all because you're inadequate as a GM and can't deal with a split party (something that isn't really that hard to do).

>>54333992
>a GM saying that he'd rather not split the party is reasonable
>processed by anon's mind
>I WILL NOT ALLOW MY PLAYERS TO SPLIT AS A PARTY, THEY ARE BOUND BY CHAINS OF NARRATIVE AND SHOULD THEY STRAY THEY WILL BE SMOTE FROM MY TABLE AND CAST INTO THE COLD

You're a fucking moron, anon. Go shave your neck and lurk on /fit/ in the desperate hope of finding redemption.

>>54330413
>15 bandits
>2nd level group
Is not normall.
Back in LMoP we, as 2nd level group because GM forgot some stuff and we ended battling against higher CR encounters than intended, we fought 13 goblins, we had to close a door and escape, and come back when we reached higher level, which lead to the hostague being killed. wich escalated into other stuff like we don't know where the mine is, etc, and the campaign ruined

Goblins are probably among the easiest humanoids to fight, and 13 were impossible to us, imagine 15 bandits

>>54333944
Every system is the system for that you insignificant dumpster-cunt.

>>54334011
>"we run but one guy stays"
>GM: yeah I don't want to do that because i'm lazy/incompetent and can't deal with a split party like a good gm
You should try being a good GM sometime.

File: bandit.jpg (144KB, 1145x374px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1145x374px

>>54330413
These bandits?
They have challenge of 1/8, so yeah, 15 (16) should be by the book standard encounter for 2nd level group.

>>54333031
>Play a Rogue
>Disengage as Bonus Action
>Movement
>Dash
>Enemies have to Dash to reach you
>They don't have an action to attack anymore
>Stab them
>Movement
>Bonus action Dash
>Rinse and repeat til Bandits are dead

Yep, fleeing in 5e is possible.

>>54334067
I'm actually impressed that you need it to be spelled out that I don't mind the party splitting in my games personally. I was saying that a hypothetical third-party GM saying that he would rather the party didn't, wouldn't be an issue.

Then, as you'll recall, you went into a fit of autistic screaming about your PLAYER AGENCY.

You might want to seriously consider necking yourself for the good of the hobby desu friend. It's not an activity designed for people who struggle to read.

>>54334078
>Everybody is a rogue
Also that's how rogues face combat, that's not fleeing.

>>54334098
>I was saying that a hypothetical third-party GM saying that he would rather the party didn't, wouldn't be an issue.
It would be an issue, and that issue is the GM isn't very good.

>I'm actually impressed that you need it to be spelled out that I don't mind the party splitting in my games personally.
Don't lie on the internet, buttsniffer.

>>54334102
>running away from the Bandits
>not fleeing

pretty sure you have to pick one, mate

>>54334077

You're not factoring in multipliers. They have 1500 adjusted XP so They're a deadly encounter for a level 2 group of 4 and a hard encounter for a level 4 group of 4 .

>>54334119
Fleeing means you want to escape, not because that's how you face combat.
Wolves running around at certain distance you is not because they're withdrawing the combat, is because they are flanking you and waiting to caught you by surprise

And again, not everybody is a rogue, not everybody has disengage and dash as bonus action
Also
>Stab them
>Movement
>Bonus action Dash
You provoked AoO in there, hope they weren't all near you

>>54333721
Don't play with cunts? Not sure what to say about this one...

I mean I expect a player to know what their character does after a few sessions but otherwise obviously it's the GM's role to clarify rules that come up.

>>54334153
Disengaging and running away is escaping/fleeing.

Wolves running around you isn't escaping/fleeing. Wolves running away from you is escaping/fleeing.

>>54334153
In this scenario though, you're literally just running away as others chase you? That's not really a way to "face combat", that's just people not wanting to let you get away.

If I'm a level 1 rogue and there are fifteen bandits on the road, I'm not flanking shit. I have single digit hitpoints. I'm running the fuck away.

My point isn't that everyone is a rogue, or that everyone should play a rogue. I'm saying that different classes are built with different things in mind, and "run away dear gods RUN AWAY" does exist in D&D, it's just a bit limited.

Fair point on the AoO, should have just disengaged instead of going for chip damage. Wait until you reach cover before even trying to fight back.

>>54334135
Oh, right. Well, perhaps OPs DM overlooked it too and that's where the whole misunderstanding come from.

How was PF handling this? Multipliers or just adding up CRs?

>>54334077
>15 of those
>3 per character
>3 attacks made at +3 that deal 4-5 damage
>On average a PC has 14-15 AC at 2nd level
>On average a PC has 13 HPs at 2nd level
Odds aren't on PC favous though
Whoever goes first decides the match

>>54334273
If memory serves, couple other Challenges by the book were a little off too. Eg. Hobgoblins were particularly nasty for their CR.

>>54334214
>and "run away dear gods RUN AWAY" does exist in D&D, it's just a bit limited.
Sorry if I say I doesn't exist, it was more an hyperbole, my point is that 90% of the time between choosing running away or keep fighting, keep fighting is the best solution, and is something that I always disliked about DnD, that and "full attack is always the best solution in combat, being imaginative is worst".

>>54334214
>and "run away dear gods RUN AWAY" does exist in D&D, it's just a bit limited.

>You must gather your party before venturing forth.wav

>>54334315
Being imaginative is generally very rewarding as long as your dm doesn't suck and you're playing the game to have fun instead of "to win",

>>54334368
I play the game to survive, if jumping on chandelier, cut the chain, and fall over my feet will take me 2 turns, 3 skill rolls with DC or 20 or more and do nothing, I choose to full attack because that will make me, and my team, survive better than doing nothing.

>>54334219
>perhaps OPs DM overlooked it

Probably the case, the DM believed it was an appropriate encounter for level but did the math wrong.

As an aside I think the fetishizing of balance has been one of the worst things about this game. I don't really see anything wrong with a group encountering 15 bandits even if it's not 'level appropriate' . The problem is that there's some weird assumption with an 'encounter' that the party has to murder all the bandits or be murdered when it could in reality play out in numerous different ways depending on context.

15 sounds about the right number for a small camp. The party could try to sneak past the camp. The party could try to negotiate with them to leave the area . The party could disguise themselves as bandits and pretend to be part of their faction. The party could simply talk with them, maybe trade a little and move on. The party could scout the camp and report back to the authorities. The party could try to meet with the bandit leader who could offer them a quest or something.

There also used to be reaction tables so sometimes those 15 bandits might actually be friendly or just plain indifferent. It was rare they were outright hostile.

As for PF I don't believe it had the multipliers but it's overall process was more complicated as well. Also at high levels in PF 15 bandits couldn't even touch a group whereas in 5E 15 bandits can still hurt a level 20 character.

>>54334479
>murder all the bandits or be murdered

D&D is a pretty binary sort of game. You hit or you don't, you murder everything or you don't.

If the bandits don't kill everyone or fight to the death, it's because the GM is just holding the players hands or something and therefore they're That GM.

>>54334472
But that's boring for D&D. There's better games if you just want to "play it by the book".

>>54330413
Get the fuck off /tg/ while you play you dipshit.

Ask these questions to your gm, the people you're playing the game with, your fucking parents because you're clearly 12. But don't come here to ask if shit if normal.

>>54331227
>What is action economy
On top of making for an absolute slog of an encounter, fifteen bandits will utterly destroy five level 2 characters.

>>54333634
>GMs saying 'hey guys can we not' or 'I'd really rather'
>Not unreasonable at all, particularly for shit where the problem is meta, like splitting the party or player combat. The GM isn't a computer.
This is a good post and I wish more people thought the way you do.

>>54334515
>D&D is a pretty binary sort of game

Nonsense the players can literally choose to do whatever they want and the GM is free to adjudicate those actions however he wants. It's only binary if you lack imagination.

>>54334515
Depends on how you play the game.

>murder the bandits
>defeat the bandits but don't murder them
>be murdered
>be kidnapped
>persuade the bandits to let you go
>scare the bandits off
>join them
>pay them to leave you alone
>defeat the leader or enough of them in order to demoralize them into surrendering/fleeing

There's a bunch of different ways out of a challenge like this, especially considering you're dealing with humanoids who can be talked to and reasoned with.

And that's not even considering spells. At level 2, for instance, a Wizard has the spell charm person in 5E. He could try to figure out which one is the leader (probably the guy who yells "get 'em!") and cast it on that leader, and now that he's your "friendly acquaintance" and he'll call them off. And the spell lasts an hour so you have plenty of time to hit the road and get away. Considering the bandits have a 10 in Wisdom, you have a pretty good shot a landing your spell.

I know that a lot of people don't play this way, I know a lot of people play tabletop RPGs like they're hack-n-slash games, and that's fine if that's what you want out of the game and you're having fun, but if you want more, D&D certainly allows for it and is by no means a binary game.

>>54334315
Eh, I can see your point, but imo it's more case by case.

>is there cover
>are reinforcements coming
>are we on a timetable

The question can swing a lot of ways in a lot of different scenarios.

>>54333947
>>54333992
you both would have a fruitful exchange in real-life.
the problem at hand is an ever present lack of empathy as both of you dont see the other as a person but rather what he represents.
in this case, a stance that, amplified to an extreme, is intollerable to you.
Your over-the-top implications talk about black and white but leave out the grey.
obviously communication between player and GM is important. so is the freedom to act on your own.

>>54333252
>You'd use the rules under Chapter 7:
in what fucking pdf? I have like 8 pathfinder pds and you didn't point out which

>>54333085
>Getting chased by 15+ bandits
>Not having them all trip on random stupid shit like twigs, rocks and falling pianos as you run away at full speed
>Not having them randomly explode as your backs face the explosions behind you

>>54333031
Mobile/Polearm Master and just hit-and-run

>>54332973
>provoking AoOs like crazy
>What is disengage

File: tempest elf cleric.jpg (37KB, 400x608px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x608px

Had a situation similar to this at level 3
Except because tempest cleric is perfect for dealing with this, our cleric made short work of them.
In fact the cleric held off like 6 at once on his own. It was a good session.

>>54339568
>Disengague
>move
>Enemies move and multiattack
What is disengague? death for you
>>54339069
Enemies can still reach you and multiattack you

>>54332986
Pathfinder just needs a new edition, honestly. Stop writing new fucking books and start cleaning house.

File: IMG_6939.png (362KB, 540x582px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 540x582px

>>54333717

>>54342366
that would require good game designers

>>54330413
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2050/roleplaying-games/revisiting-encounter-design

>>54330443
You'd better not be OP.

>>54334078
Wait, wouldn't that trigger an AoO after you stab them? You need your bonus action to disengage.