Talk me down: Withdrawal

[radmod]

I currently don't allow the withdrawal action in 3.5. I simply don't buy it and I'm wondering if anyone would like to "talk me down" from my position.

Basically, a withdrawal allows a person to leave a threatened square and move double with taking an AoO from the initial space. The 'penalty' is that it is a full round action.
I surmise that the basis of the idea is that the character is "parrying out" of combat (like a 5-ft. step) and continuing to move*. Otherwise, anyone could simply take a move action out of a threatened square and take no AoO. In fact, the only person I've heard argue the rule, argued it as essentially allowing a PC to take a step and then run for half a round.

With the "parrying out" defensive maneuver as a basis, I don't buy it:
1) Joe the Fighter (speed 30') and Bob the Barb are in combat. Joe's got 1 hp left. If he steps out of combat and drinks a potion, he will still be subject to several arrows. Instead, he withdraws into a building so he's under cover. No AoO. Okay, so far, so good under the rules.
2) Take instead that Joe is fine on hp. Cedric yells 'help' and so Joe moves the 10 ft. to aid his ally. If he withdraws he takes no AoO, but if he wants to attack he does. Yet, if a withdraw is parrying out of the threatened square and continuing to move up to his 60' then why can't Joe realistically parry out of the space, move over 5 ft. and attack?

If you think there's another foundation for the rule, let me know.

*I'm presuming it was a 2e house rule we created whereby you could "parry out" of combat by moving 1/2 your speed and then take a standard action. You also had to win a special initiative roll to avoid what was essentially an AoO.

 

[Uder]

I currently don't allow the withdrawal action in 3.5. I simply don't buy it and I'm wondering if anyone would like to "talk me down" from my position.

It's a necessary action to keep the game from locking down once everyone is in melee. It's not a simulationist manuever, it's a gamist one. It's one of the few actions that encourages manuever in 3.5, so I'd be loathe to get rid of it.

If it helps feel more "sim", try allowing participants in melee a free move action immediately after someone withdraws (maybe in lieu of their AoO?).

 

[PolterGhost]

My opinion on the matter:
Combat takes place in 6 second rounds, averaging a typical distance of 5ft per second on a move action for a normal person. I can reasonably assume that I can walk 5ft per second, which is exactly what a move action is: Walking (while trying to defend oneself.)

Two move actions together makes a Hustle, which in game terms can be a short sprint or quick hopping (once again, while trying to defend oneself in a combat situation- It's the exact reasoning why AoO doesn't lower your AC bonus to Dex when you make a normal move action.)

A Run is precisely what it says it is: You lower your weapon and make a mad dash in a single direction. Since there's no real way to run effectively with a weapon out, the game assumes that you aren't readied to parry against attacks, and therefore you lose your AC bonus from Dex.



Withdrawl uses the same speed a character uses for a Hustle, which in simulationist terms you can assume that the character rapidly backpedals while keeping his weapon out and guard up against his enemies. The difference between this and a typical move action is that with a Withdrawl, the character specifically sets himself up to defend himself against his foe (and probably "parries out of combat" as stated above), whereas a normal move indicates that the character has something else in mind to perform and his slight distraction allows the enemy to strike at him.

In a gamist perspective, Withdrawl is a great action to take when you need it, since you can get out of the line of fire and perhaps duck behind cover or a meatshield ally.

In a simulationist perspective, using what I stated in the fourth paragraph as a guideline, a Withdrawl can also make sense. Then again, if D&D wished to be truly simulationist (which, given that it was based on a wargaming system, it ends up making the compromise of simplifying combat for the sake of the game) it would have characters move at the same time. It does remind me, though, that Exalted has everyone move at the same time, even though everyone takes their actions at different intervals...

 

[Verdande]

I'm really not a big fan of Attacks of Opportunity as they stand anyways. It's basically requiring you to stay in combat and then only perform combat maneuvers.

That said, I can't really see what the difference is. Withdraw, basically, means that you're giving up your entire round to make a AoO-free 5 foot step, and then taking your other action to move your regular movement speed. How is that game-affecting enough to warrant your attention?

What is the worst that would happen if you allowed it? Would your players be using their entire round to withdraw out of combat every round when their enemies can move and then attack?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

OP does realize that if both sides have the same speed, if one withdraws, the other can just charge him after, right? What's less believeable to you? Moving double time and getting an attack, or moving double time and avoiding opportunity attacks from a square?

 

[radmod]

That said, I can't really see what the difference is. Withdraw, basically, means that you're giving up your entire round to make a AoO-free 5 foot step, and then taking your other action to move your regular movement speed. How is that game-affecting enough to warrant your attention?

That's what I have been allowing as my version of withdraw.
However, the RAW doesn't allow it (hence the house rule). In RAW, you can't step and take a move action. Further, Withdraw allows a double move which is not equivalent to a step + single move.
That's the crux of my distaste for RAW withdrawal: effectively getting to make a double move w/o an AoO when other forms of two actions provoke an AoO.

 

[radmod]

OP does realize that if both sides have the same speed, if one withdraws, the other can just charge him after, right?

Actually, the other can't just charge after him. Since withdraw is a double move the fleeing creature is not limited, IIRC, on his path. A Charge, OTH, must essentially be in a straight line that is unblocked. Thus the fleeing creature can move off, go around a corner and hide behind a wall. The charging creature cannot do that.

What's less believeable to you? Moving double time and getting an attack, or moving double time and avoiding opportunity attacks from a square?

In the case that the speeds are the same, they are equally believable. However, what if the speeds are different?
The reason I was forced to house rule AoO in 2e was because the speeds were not the same. A character with a high speed was chasing an orc. By the 2e rules, the PC could, at best, get a single attack against the orc every two rounds. (IIRC, what made it important was that the orc was fleeing to relatively safety where the PC would be in grave danger.)
Now, in 3.5 and with that specific case, the PC could have gotten a charge a round. Of course, with 3.5, I would have him juke a bit to avoid the charge. In fact, I imagine I could come up with a scenario in which the orc never takes an attack, let alone an AoO. Is that believable?

 

[radmod]

What is the worst that would happen if you allowed it? Would your players be using their entire round to withdraw out of combat every round when their enemies can move and then attack?

Sorry, I forgot to answer this one. The worst thing that could happen is that under the withdraw rules, either PCs or monsters could effectively avoid any melee attacks forever dependent on terrain (all it takes is a forested area). A creature would have to come up with some maneuver that forces an AoO, such as getting in front of a creature whose only path of escape (not the first square) means an AoO.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Actually, the other can't just charge after him. Since withdraw is a double move the fleeing creature is not limited, IIRC, on his path. A Charge, OTH, must essentially be in a straight line that is unblocked. Thus the fleeing creature can move off, go around a corner and hide behind a wall. The charging creature cannot do that.

True. I also play with a lot of splat books, maybe that makes a difference. There's a feat to make one up to 90 degree turn each charge in C.Warrior, that can be useful. No one ever takes that, though. The Twisted Charge skill trick in C.Scoundrel does the same thing, though. Except it only costs 2 skill points and can only be used once/encounter. Lots of people seem to take that.

If in a situation where we had to stop someone from leaving, spellcasting helps. Put up barriers, make the terrain hard to move in (grease...yum) or tentacle-filled... My personal favorite: One ally moves up to the guy, the caster or rogue (with wand) uses Benign Transposition to swap him with someone who's turn is about to come up, that person full attacks the escapee's sorry ass... Yay teamwork!*

Even without magic, you could throw a net and entangle him and at least try to anchor him in place. Non-proficiency just means a -4 to hit. On a touch attack. Big deal. If you can get an attack or AoO on him, Trip Grapple, the Stand Still maneuver... lots of potential ways to use that opportunity to hold up his escape.

Sorry, it's just that I have the opposite problem in my games. Short of teleportation, it's often very hard for my NPCs to retreat from the PCs. I'm kind of amused you think withdrawing is too easy, honestly.

Of course, with 3.5, I would have him juke a bit to avoid the charge. In fact, I imagine I could come up with a scenario in which the orc never takes an attack, let alone an AoO. Is that believable?

Do what a real life army would do when people are running away? Pull out your bow or other ranged weapon and shoot them in the freaking back!

* "Turn about to come up" including readying and delaying, of course.

 

[Uder]

In fact, I imagine I could come up with a scenario in which the orc never takes an attack, let alone an AoO. Is that believable?

Yes it's believable. A person can run around trees/buildings/terrain in such a way that all things being equal you can't get telling melee attack on them. I seem to recall similar standoffs as a child playing with toy swords. You either have to outmaneuver your target, or tire them out.

Also, if one side continually uses the tactic to avoid blows, the DM (who is not a robot, spot rulings > house rules, etc etc) is well within his rights to apply a circumstance penalty to movement or a balance check to avoid falling prone after the comedy wears off... but does it really come up that much?