Withdrawing from Combat

Just got your book, can't find a copy, have a cool adventure idea or story? Chat about it here.

Moderators: PEG Jodi, The Moderators

Do you include the withdrawal rules when GMing an SW game?

Of course! What a dumb question.
3
25%
Yes, because I think they are necessary.
8
67%
Yes, but only under certain circumstances -- not as written.
1
8%
Rarely.
0
No votes
No, because it slows things down too much.
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 12

Message
Author
User avatar
HawaiianBrian
Veteran
Posts: 700
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Withdrawing from Combat

#1 Postby HawaiianBrian » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:01 am

I posed a question over in the Official Rules page about how "withdrawing from combat" worked.
http://www.peginc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15959

I thought it had to do with running from combat -- i.e., turning one's back on assailants and trying to flee. My player wanted to interpret it more like a d20 "attack of opportunity," meaning as long as anyone moves physically away from you during melee, for any reason, you get one free attack.

My question is: how do you Savage GMs out there run it? Just wondering how others interpreted this rule... :jack:
Last edited by HawaiianBrian on Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
***** HawaiianBrian / getsavaged.blogspot.com *****

User avatar
DerFinsterling
Legendary
Posts: 5677
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:26 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

#2 Postby DerFinsterling » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:05 am

Basically, if you were standing fur one round adjacent to another guy and were thus engaged in combat, he gets a free attack.

If both just stood there and glared at each other, no free attack (dramatically not approbriate).

If you move past another one in one round, being technically adjacent for a short while while moving past him - no attack. Except the other guy has First Strike (but that's not free ;-)).

User avatar
Nailom
Novice
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:06 am

#3 Postby Nailom » Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:58 am

I like the rule that you get an attack for dwithdrawing.

Why?

I played to much d20.

Melee Fighter: I engage the archer and attack him.
Archer: Ok now my turn. I move back 5 ft. and make a full attack.
Melee Fighter: R.I.P.

bloodthirstylycan
Novice
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:15 am
Location: Australia, mate

#4 Postby bloodthirstylycan » Thu Sep 20, 2007 4:42 am

The way I GM it, is that if someone is actually attacking the target and then moves, then the person who was attacked can get a hit in.

It makes the most sense to do it that way, but as said before as long as you the GM follow the rule then make your players use it as well.
Oh, good. For a moment there I was a bit concerned that I actually might have a clue what was going on. Carry on.

*Vote Cthulhu if your tired of the lesser of two evils *

manifold
Veteran
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:02 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

I

#5 Postby manifold » Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:22 am

I think it's tactically more interesting to allow the attack if someone moves away. That makes shaking your opponant, or him shaking you, a more important option, because shaken characters can't attack. So, if you need to get away from the werewolf for whatever reason, but you don't think you can take the damage, you have a reason to try to intimidate, trick or whallop him, as do your compadres. The rule applies to PC's as well as NPC's, so a PC adjacent to a damage machine like a werewolf is effectively trapped unless he has a way to shake the critter and get away.

I've had to play out a lot of solo scenarios to really get my head around the rules, since my group meets so infrequently. This rule is one of the ones that made SW unique, and showed me how its tactics are different from D&D.

User avatar
Cutter XXIII
Legendary
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:08 am
Location: Village of Rock, MD

#6 Postby Cutter XXIII » Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:28 am

For me, limiting free attacks only to those with whom you were actively fighting is a little more logical, but adds too much to easily remember in practice (especially when there's a knot of mixed combatants at the center of the table).

We typically go by the letter of the law, where "each adjacent, non-Shaken enemy" gets a free attack in the case of withdrawing. Unless, of course, it's readily apparent from the set-up that one of them shouldn't.

Rolls fast, and works for us. :smile:
Matthew Cutter
Deadlands Big Bug (Brand Manager)
Pinnacle Entertainment Group, Inc.

User avatar
Clint
Site Admin
Posts: 19197
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:28 pm

#7 Postby Clint » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:00 am

Another thing I'll throw out is that just allowing a character to move away from melee because they say they are "not leaving combat" removes one of the mechanical benefits of Reach.

A character with a reach weapon can actually move away from an adjacent foe (within the Reach of their weapon) without "leaving melee."

But really, as long as both sides are using the same ruling, it might alter the tactics of combats, but it shouldn't be "unfair."
Clint Black
Savage Worlds Core Rules Brand Manager

www.peginc.com

User avatar
C.A.Pryde
Seasoned
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:04 pm
Location: Houston, TX

#8 Postby C.A.Pryde » Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:11 am

I always forget about the Reach thing. I'm going to have to employ that in some game.

I feel very strongly about allowing attacks any time someone moves back. In games like Necropolis, moving up and engaging a gun-toting opponent (like a zombie) is an important tactical maneuver, since it prevents that opponent from using his gun on you or forces him to expose himself to an extra attack. Nailom mentioned this with an archer, but I have seen it come into play even more often in games like Necessary Evil and Necropolis, where guns abound, but melee combat remains a big part of the game.

Blackheart
Seasoned
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 1:52 am
Location: Sweden

#9 Postby Blackheart » Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:53 am

I've thought about the reach thing too. Say a character with the Lunge edge (don't know if that's available exclusively in Pirates) wants to back one inch from his adjacent foe and then use his lunge, possibly to use First strike when the opponent engage again? Is this possible?

If not, I can't really figure out why you should be in need of a longer weapon than your opponent?

manifold
Veteran
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:02 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

asdf

#10 Postby manifold » Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:31 pm

absolutely. In fact, there's a thread around here somewhere that is all about using a reach weapon with first strike.

User avatar
DerFinsterling
Legendary
Posts: 5677
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:26 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

#11 Postby DerFinsterling » Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:52 pm

Blackheart wrote:I've thought about the reach thing too. Say a character with the Lunge edge (don't know if that's available exclusively in Pirates) wants to back one inch from his adjacent foe and then use his lunge, possibly to use First strike when the opponent engage again? Is this possible?

If not, I can't really figure out why you should be in need of a longer weapon than your opponent?


Yes, it is possible. But remember that you'd need Improved First Strike to pull that off every round.

My players haven't seen the benefits of spears yet, a lesson I have yet to teach them. Won't be too long now, though ;-)

User avatar
Clint
Site Admin
Posts: 19197
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:28 pm

#12 Postby Clint » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:13 pm

DerFinsterling wrote:
Blackheart wrote:I've thought about the reach thing too. Say a character with the Lunge edge (don't know if that's available exclusively in Pirates) wants to back one inch from his adjacent foe and then use his lunge, possibly to use First strike when the opponent engage again? Is this possible?

If not, I can't really figure out why you should be in need of a longer weapon than your opponent?


Yes, it is possible. But remember that you'd need Improved First Strike to pull that off every round.


Well, that depends on how many opponents he is facing really. If he's only fighting one foe, he's fine with the basic First Strike Edge.

The tricky part is making sure the guy moves in to attack you again as opposed to running off himself. After all, once the character is no longer adjacent, he is free to withdraw.
Clint Black

Savage Worlds Core Rules Brand Manager



www.peginc.com

User avatar
razorwise
Legendary
Posts: 2959
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Hither and Yon
Contact:

#13 Postby razorwise » Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:28 pm

Clint wrote:
DerFinsterling wrote:
Blackheart wrote:I've thought about the reach thing too. Say a character with the Lunge edge (don't know if that's available exclusively in Pirates) wants to back one inch from his adjacent foe and then use his lunge, possibly to use First strike when the opponent engage again? Is this possible?

If not, I can't really figure out why you should be in need of a longer weapon than your opponent?


Yes, it is possible. But remember that you'd need Improved First Strike to pull that off every round.


Well, that depends on how many opponents he is facing really. If he's only fighting one foe, he's fine with the basic First Strike Edge.

The tricky part is making sure the guy moves in to attack you again as opposed to running off himself. After all, once the character is no longer adjacent, he is free to withdraw.


After seeing some of the points in this thread earlier today, I entered a lengthy dialogue over some of these points. This last part in particular sounds quite a bit like a point I raised up in the midst of it.

Regards,

Sean

Misroi
Novice
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:26 pm

#14 Postby Misroi » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:09 pm

So, say you're fighting a bunch of savages on some unnamed island in the Caribbean. They're armed with spears. One of the players draws his rapier and moves to engage one of them. Do the natives get an attack as the PC moves up to fight them, since they're leaving a space that the savage (for lack of a better word) threatens?

manifold
Veteran
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:02 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

no.

#15 Postby manifold » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:16 pm

No. The free attack for withdrawing from combat seems to be based on the reach of the withdrawing character, not his opponent. It may not make sense, but it's fff. Otherwise, you're dealing with threatened areas, five foot steps, and AoO's, which is fine, but that's another game.

User avatar
Clint
Site Admin
Posts: 19197
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 2:28 pm

Re: no.

#16 Postby Clint » Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:25 pm

manifold wrote:No. The free attack for withdrawing from combat seems to be based on the reach of the withdrawing character, not his opponent. It may not make sense, but it's fff.


Actually, it's even easier than that. It's based simply on being adjacent (and in melee). If two spear wielders fight each other from 1" apart, either one can run off at any time without incurring an attack since they are not adjacent.
Clint Black

Savage Worlds Core Rules Brand Manager



www.peginc.com

AFDia
Veteran
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:11 am
Location: Austria/Vienna

#17 Postby AFDia » Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:41 am

Perhaps it is already answered in this thread (but not 100% clearly):

The text says: "Whenever a character retreats from melee, all adjacent non-Shaken opponents get an immediate free attack"

If I fight with a spear vs a longsword and I go back 1", this doesn't mean I leave the melee (based on the postings in this thread). If I go further back, my enemy would get a free attack against me but he doesn't because he isn't adjacent anymore.

Summary: A guy with Reach1+ can retreat from any melee without inflicting a free attack.
Is this true? (this would make the staff more powerful for wizards and in combination with first strike, this would be a very good tactic)

edit: if this is true, perhaps it should be written down in the next version of the SW rules.

User avatar
DerFinsterling
Legendary
Posts: 5677
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 4:26 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

#18 Postby DerFinsterling » Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:45 am

AFDia wrote:Summary: A guy with Reach1+ can retreat from any melee without inflicting a free attack.
Is this true? (this would make the staff more powerful for wizards and in combination with first strike, this would be a very good tactic)


Yes, it is - although some GMs may ask the player to space it out over two rounds, ie, round1 move one inch back, rouind 2 leave melee.
Otherwise you're really just leaving melee and since the actions happen so quickly, your opponent would still get a free attack.

manifold
Veteran
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:02 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

What?

#19 Postby manifold » Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:35 am

I don't agree. I think that's a built in advantage of the weapon; there's no reason to break up your movement. If you're protected by your reach when you withdraw, and then you want to move five more inches, well, good for you, mister spear wielder! I can't see the point of making the player divide that into two rounds, rules-wise or tactics-wise. (I can see it coming up grumpy GM-wise, but that's another sort of issue which might be addressed by pointing out that it's also a good tactic for NPC's.)

User avatar
HawaiianBrian
Veteran
Posts: 700
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

#20 Postby HawaiianBrian » Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:54 am

Another, related question:

So say you're squared off against five opponents. All of them are adjacent to you, even if that means diagonally. All five "withdraw" at the same time. Do you get five separate attacks? Or just one?
***** HawaiianBrian / getsavaged.blogspot.com *****


Return to “SW General Chat & Game Stories”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests