Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rainy 12-03-07, 03:57 PM	I mean as the mechanic stands now, it's just running away. You get a double move, and get to ignore the AoO from the guy you're fighting just because you say "Oh yeah, I'm withdrawing." I think there should be a good mechanic for this. I mean if there are attacks of opportunity as the result of moving, then you've got to be doing something to deny these. In my estimation you should have to trade something to gain this the benefit of slipping away. Things right off the top of my head; 1) make a sucessful feint 2) have to ready an action, allow the opponent an attack, and then leave -- seems to defeat the purpose, maybe you could fight defensively I dunno, just seems like this rule didn't get a lot of attention from the designers. Anyone else feel that way? And what have you brewed up to use instead? -rainy
Knightblde 12-03-07, 07:03 PM	You lose the ability to act. What could be more devistating in combat?
Rosisha 12-03-07, 08:40 PM	Withdrawing, according to Rommel's Infantry Attacks, is best done on the offensive. As such, just thinking off the top of my head I would say that if players want to withdraw they have to throw off their opponents. Opponents should be played appropriately, and this would help. I've seen suicidal monsters more often then I've seen smart ones. However, in most cases DMs and players approach combat as a game, rather then as if they were really going into combat. This is okay, and to help with this approach I suggest a rule: Players engage in combat can make an attempt to throw back their opponents. This is done with one of the players making an intimidate check DC 10 + CL of the opponents. They gain a +1 for each player with them that is still standing and combat able. If they succeed in the check, then the opponents will make 5' withdrawals while fighting defensively for 2d4 rounds. Each round, including the first, the opponents can make a Will save against the number rolled by the party. So if they party made there DC 15 check against a CL 5 opponent, by rolling a 17, then those opponents would make a Will save, DC 17 to start attacking again. This is totally broken in its current format, and probably badly worded. I'm reading the 2008 FY Budget for USAid. Blah. Rosisha
A_Ninja_Errant 12-03-07, 11:07 PM	Seems okay to me, its not like its attack of opportunity free movement, just the first square is not considered threatened, making it absolutely useless against monsters with reach. If you really think its too much, consider making it a 5' step followed by a standard move. similar effect, less total movement, makes it really hard to completely break off combat though. You might add the original in as a side benefit on dodge or mobility in that case (I've always thought those were kinda weak).
blacksheepcannibal 12-07-07, 12:49 AM	House rule: Disengage: To disengage, a player may move one-half of their movement away from an enemy, through no squares threatened by a different creature. This movement does not provoke an Attack of Oppertunity. This movement counts as a players movement for the round. It cannot be made through difficult terrain, nor can you run while disengaging, nor take this action twice in a round.
Dog_O_War 12-07-07, 11:55 AM	I thought withdrawing was a full-round action that was done with a single move. That's how I been using it anyway.
rainy 12-07-07, 12:16 PM	Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. When you withdraw, you can move up to double your speed. The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that square. Which means, that if you withdraw and your opponent wants to press the attack instead of letting you go, then he has to charge in order to catch up AND attack. As written, the withdraw rules seem to favor the defender. And maybe it's just from playing too many war-games, but the rules usually favor the attacker just slightly -- best defense being a good offense and all. I guess that your opponent charging you to attack you could be seen as a disadvantage (you are essentially 'giving' him the conditions necessary to charge), but he has to take a penalty on AC to do so. Maybe that's fair enough.
IceFractal 12-09-07, 02:51 PM	Here's the problem. If Withdraw only moves you a single-move or less, it is impossible to run away from combat. Let's take a simple example: two creatures with the same speed, using melee weapons. Current Rules: Creature 1: Withdraw Creature 2: Charge and Attack So even currently, you can't escape on open terrain. But at least if there's corners or rough terrain, you can get to an unchargeable spot and avoid attack (although they can still chase you). Weaker Withdraw (only moves you a single-move away): Creature 1: Withdraw Creature 2: Move and Attack This means there is no way to run from opponents with equal or faster speed. Whatever you do, they can keep hitting you every round. Might as well not even move. Making Withdraw weaker, to any extent, will make retreat not a viable option against the vast majority of enemies. What does this mean? Well for one thing, it means you can't use monsters stronger than the PCs and expect anything but a TPK. "Know when to run away"? That does no good unless you can run away. It also means that in most battles, the losing side would fight to the death because they know that running just gets them killed faster. Hell, after a few centuries of evolution in a world like this, prey animals wouldn't run from predators, they'd fight back or give up.
rainy 12-10-07, 03:27 PM	IceFractal, thanks for pointing that out. I really hadn't considered it from that angle and you're absolutely right. I definately don't want to foster a "we might as well fight to the death" attitude. -rainy