!!insidediv!!



Being the Official Discussion Forum for HYPERBOREA®, a role-playing game of swords, sorcery, and weird science-fantasy


Visit us at the HYPERBOREA web site!


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

11/07/2018 5:28 pm  #1


Fighting Withdrawal

So, my group and I have been playing an AS&SH campaign for a little over a year, and the GM and I have had several extremely contentious arguments about the fighting withdrawal. It boils down to this: if using a fighting withdrawal, is  the withdrawaing party subject to an attack of opportunity. The writing of the rule seems to indicate that a an attack on occurs when fleeing. But, please, settle this before the game breaks up.

 

11/07/2018 6:06 pm  #2


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

I would say that the rules do not "seem" to indicate a free attack from your enemy, they implicitly indicate your enemy gets a free attack. Per the Fighting Withdrawl (Backpedaling) rules on p. 254 (AS&SH 2nd Ed.):

"If, however, a combatant attempts to run away or flee from a hostile situation, he suffers a −2 AC penalty, and each adjacent enemy gains a free and immediate attack (see p. 242: Combat, attack modifiers). If chase is given, movement rates should be compared."

Seems pretty clear ... But, as always, defer to your GM's judgment on this.

 

11/07/2018 6:18 pm  #3


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

Its the “if” that causes confusion. A combatant can 1/2 move and attack or full move and simply defend, potentially luring enemies (if they choose to press the attack). There seems to be a difference between a fighting withdrawal and fleeing. If the enemies choose not to pursue, then they all get a free attack? Even if a player’s movement is higher than the enemy’s, the enemy would still get a free attack. Why even have the option of a fighting withdrawal?

     Thread Starter
 

11/07/2018 7:23 pm  #4


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

So, for example:

So, assuming backpedaling/pursuit over at the same time: My lightly armored ranger wants to lure a heavily armored fighter in a trap where the party’s thief lies on wait to strike. My character elects to use his full move and simply defend. He backpedals 20 feet. The fighter pursues until 20 feet, his full movement. My character continues to backpedal, and the fighter gets an attack.

Assuming that the movement is separate: same scenario, but the fighter gets an attack because he moves second.

Assuming the fighter isn’t lured into the ruse: My character backpedals, the fighter elects not to pursue. He gets a free attack.

Other various scenarios: the fighter can follow the whole way, this altering his movement ability. The fighter /must/ follow, which means that my character must do the same thing without my consent to do so.

All in all, it does make sense since there seems to be a difference between backpedaling and actually fleeing. Fleeing from combat and incurring a -2 to AC and free attacks make sense—you’re turning your back, lowering your defenses leaving. But it explicitly says that when you backpedal, you’re still defending.

I understand that there advanced combat maneuvers (dodge, parry and block) that can be done with backpedaling, so maybe you’re right, but it seems weird to define two things of they are, in effect, the same thing.

     Thread Starter
 

11/07/2018 8:22 pm  #5


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

OK, let’s assume the defender has a base 40 MV. He has three basic movement options to withdraw from combat:

He can backpedal 20 feet (×½ MV) and still attack (if his opponent chooses to keep pace).
He can backpedal 40 feet (full MV) and still defend (if his opponent chooses to keep pace), but can’t attack.
He can run 80 feet (×2 MV), accepting a –2 AC penalty and granting his opponent a free parting attack.

 

11/07/2018 8:25 pm  #6


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

Ah. That makes much more sense. And that’s how I read it. Thanks for ya’ll’s reply.

     Thread Starter
 

11/07/2018 8:27 pm  #7


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

DMPrata wrote:

He can run 80 feet (×2 MV), accepting a –2 AC penalty and granting his opponent a free parting attack.

free parting attack OR keep pace
free parting attack AND keep pace(1/2 pace)???

Last edited by Iron Ranger (11/07/2018 8:29 pm)


 
 

11/07/2018 8:45 pm  #8


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

I have never used "Attacks of Opportunity".
To me, that is unrealistic unless the "retreater" drops his weapons and very much so does not defend himself.
Later editions, yuck, are heavy on the attack of opportunity. I think this is why people get confused so much on this topic.

 

11/07/2018 8:56 pm  #9


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

Later editions of D&D go heavy on the attacks of opportunity, for sure. But I think that was a problem of 3+ that micromanaged every detail. It makes sense that someone who turns and flees gets attacked: they’re no longer focusing on their opponent. But having engagement numbers, etc, is a bit too much.

     Thread Starter
 

11/08/2018 11:47 am  #10


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

Pelicanmeat wrote:

So, my group and I have been playing an AS&SH campaign for a little over a year, and the GM and I have had several extremely contentious arguments about the fighting withdrawal. It boils down to this: if using a fighting withdrawal, is the withdrawaing party subject to an attack of opportunity. The writing of the rule seems to indicate that a an attack on occurs when fleeing. But, please, settle this before the game breaks up.

What is this FLEEING!!!  Kill all the adjacent opponents, shake their blood from your sword, and only after a short pause to curse their ancestors move to the next enemy. 
 


“How can I wear the harness of toil
And sweat at the daily round,
While in my soul forever
The drums of Pictdom sound?” 
 

11/08/2018 8:24 pm  #11


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

Iron Ranger wrote:

DMPrata wrote:

He can run 80 feet (×2 MV), accepting a –2 AC penalty and granting his opponent a free parting attack.

free parting attack OR keep pace
free parting attack AND keep pace(1/2 pace)???

Well, if the fleeing defender is moving at ×2 MV, then (barring a radical difference in MV) the attacker likewise would need to take ×2 MV to keep pace. The parting attack is “free”, so I suppose the attacker could do both, but that would be his action for the round.

 

11/10/2018 8:48 pm  #12


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

DMPrata wrote:

OK, let’s assume the defender has a base 40 MV. He has three basic movement options to withdraw from combat:

He can backpedal 20 feet (×½ MV) and still attack (if his opponent chooses to keep pace).
He can backpedal 40 feet (full MV) and still defend (if his opponent chooses to keep pace), but can’t attack.
He can run 80 feet (×2 MV), accepting a –2 AC penalty and granting his opponent a free parting attack.

 
Is the “if his opponent chooses to keep pace” a free movement for the opponent that happens at the same time as the backpedal?

 

11/12/2018 2:31 pm  #13


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

"SavageGM" wrote:

Is the “if his opponent chooses to keep pace” a free movement for the opponent that happens at the same time as the backpedal?

Yes. Sorry we didn’t make it clearer.

Fighting Withdrawal (Backpedalling): A melee combatant can backpedal at ½ movement and continue to fight and defend, or backpedal at full movement and simply defend. Enemies may pursue a withdrawer, even if they have already attacked. Withdrawing potentially allows a combatant to lure an enemy. If, however, a combatant attempts to run away or flee from a hostile situation, he suffers a −2 AC penalty, and each adjacent enemy gains a free and immediate attack (see p. 242: COMBAT, attack modifiers). If chase is given, movement rates should be compared.

 

11/12/2018 3:41 pm  #14


Re: Fighting Withdrawal

Thank you sir!

 

Board footera






© 2009-2024 North Wind Adventures, LLC. “HYPERBOREA” is a registered trademark of North Wind Adventures, LLC. “Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea,” “AS&SH,” and all other North Wind Adventures product names and their respective logos are trademarks of North Wind Adventures, LLC in the USA and other countries. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.