Breaking Off From Melee

[Aranion]

I've read the passage in the DMG that discusses a party or character actively fleeing melee. And I know I've asked about this before, but I've forgotten the responses and can't find it using the search tool.

Anyway - what if a character was in melee and wanted to "back out" - not fleeing, but not trying to draw the attacker with them?

Assume a basic combat situation - 30x30 room, 4 orcs, 4 PCs. One PC wants to back out and cast a spell, down a potion, etc. Would you allow it? Would the monsters get to follow?

Obviously, depending on the room contents, number and size of monsters, number of PCs, etc., this can be much more complicated, but the basic example above seems to fit my needs.

Any ideas or field-tested methodologies would be appreciated. We're playing tonight, so want to be ready!

[DMPrata]

A combatant can make a fighting withdrawal from melee , moving back at half speed, possibly in conjunction with a parry , without granting his opponent a free attack. Of course, movement rate permitting, the attacker can always choose to press.

[Runecrow]

Generally, I'd never allow a PC to retreat from a fight unhindered by his opposition. In fact, if he starts backing off like he wants out of the melee, he's just going to encourage his opponent's aggression. Once in melee, there's usually no getting out 'safely' unless you've comrades there to cover your retreat.

[Torctref Spleenkiller]

A combatant can make a fighting withdrawal from melee , moving back at half speed, possibly in conjunction with a parry , without granting his opponent a free attack. Of course, movement rate permitting, the attacker can always choose to press.

Dependimg upon the terrain type where the battle is being fought; rough, smooth, obsticles present; I'd have the character make at least a dexterity check to determine if they stumble, or fall as they fight their way backwards.

[garhkal]

It also imo depends on the opposition. As to whether they will allow said backing out.

[wedge_hammersteel]

no one mentioned using the character's three compatriots.

4 orcs, line-a-breast vs 4 characters, line-a-breast

I assume thats 1 vs 1.

1 character backs out and the three remaining spread out to make a 4 vs 3. One orc can try to get past the three characters to get at the withdrawing character. I would make him beat the opposing character in initiative to get past, if the orc loses initiative then that character can move over enough to block his way. If that happens then that character has to battle two orcs while the others are 1 vs 1.

The withdrawn character can cast his spell.

If the orcs wins initiative then he gets past.

[Matthew-]

I would allow it, but if the Orc wanted to follow and had to breach the line of the Player Characters to do so, then I would probably allow one or more of them a 'free attack' on the Orc, as if he were fleeing.

[Aranion]

Wedge and Matthew, thanks for the workable solutions. DMP, of course, thanks for the BtB ruling on withdrawal movement.

[nittanyTbone14]

A combatant can make a fighting withdrawal from melee , moving back at half speed, possibly in conjunction with a parry , without granting his opponent a free attack. Of course, movement rate permitting, the attacker can always choose to press.

I thought withdrawal was at 1/3 speed per the PHB?

I allow a friendly creature to "take the line" and prevent pursuit. So, if a fighter and a cleric are in melee and the cleric wishes to withdraw, the fighter can hold the line.

If a pursuer leaves the original melee to pursue, he must either (A) withdraw & parry himself or (B) book it out of there and open himself up to a free back attack.

I assume that the melee takes up a 10' circle, so if the fight is going on in a space larger than that, you need allies with Weapon Space required > maneuvering room. So, if you're in a 30' wide passage, you need several men with halberds to hold the entire passage and prevent pursuit.

[Runecrow]

no one mentioned using the character's three compatriots.

no getting out 'safely' unless you've comrades there to cover your retreat.

I would, however, only apply that in cases when the PCs actually outnumbered the opponents. As long as melee in 1 on 1, the PCs aren't going to be able to take up slack on someone elses opponent. They've got their own battle going on as is.

[phantasm72]

Personally I allow PCs to move from the 'front' lines to the back and vice versa with no penalty other then it costing their entire action for the round. As long as there is enough 'front line' characters to fill in the gaps, I have no problems with characters being out of the direct line of combat. Basically thats the whole concept of the fighters and priests protecting the mages and other 'soft-skinned' characters.

[garhkal]

Good points on the 'taking up the slack'. Heck one group i played with for their dungeon fighting order had the 2 main fighters in the front, with a cleric standing just to their rear to cast healing. the other fighter and the dual dagger wielding thief went back to back with those 2 fighters, so if one called for a rotation, they would just circle around bringing the fresh one into line... I allowed them IF both had initi on the opponents to do the switch before the opponent could attack, but they forfieted their chance to hit first by doing so.

If say the rotating out fighter had init on the opponent but the incomming one did not, the one who had init could stay in to take the blow (going defensive) while his oppoent wailed on him.
If the rotating in one had init, but the rotating out one did not, the opponent could get his whack in on the out going one before the rotation could occur.

If both lost init to the opponent, he could choose which one to strike against... And usually it was against the outgoing one to try and take him down, since they only rotated when they got low on HP..

[DMPrata]

I thought withdrawal was at 1/3 speed per the PHB?

I don't think the speed is specified, though I could have missed something.

[Simak]

A combatant can make a fighting withdrawal from melee , moving back at half speed, possibly in conjunction with a parry , without granting his opponent a free attack. Of course, movement rate permitting, the attacker can always choose to press.

Agree with this 100%. But, if one of the retreating PCs allies steps in and engages the pressing opponent, he has to engage with the engaging PC, or he himself is in fact "retreating."

I'll try to reword that. If I back out of combat, and a goblin is pressing, but fighter bob steps in and attacks that goblin, the goblin has to redirect his attention to the attacking fighter, or he is opening himself up to undefended attacks.

EDIT: Uhhh, maybe 99% agree, because I too vaguely remember using 1/3 speed, but can't remember where I got that from.....BTB or house rule???

[DestroyYouAlot]

I thought withdrawal was at 1/3 speed per the PHB?

I don't think the speed is specified, though I could have missed something.

I was sure that this was in the DMG, but looking now I can't find it; only the section on "breaking off from melee" (full speed retreat after a thing that we won't call an attack of opportunity ). The PHB might have it; I don't have that in front of me. I can tell you for sure that 1/3 move on a fighting withdrawal is the rule in HackMaster, and I'm almost positive that I remember this from the last time I ran 1e.

(As an aside, I went to look this up, and the page heading on the first page I turned to read "COMBAT (INSANITY)." I could only nod my head and agree. ) (I kid because I love.)

[ken-do-nim]

A combatant can make a fighting withdrawal from melee , moving back at half speed, possibly in conjunction with a parry , without granting his opponent a free attack. Of course, movement rate permitting, the attacker can always choose to press.

Is there a parry rule in 1E? I know the rule in 2E is no attacks in exchange for 1 pt of AC per 2 class levels, round down, +1 for fighters.

I was sure that this was in the DMG, but looking now I can't find it; only the section on "breaking off from melee" (full speed retreat after a thing that we won't call an attack of opportunity ). The PHB might have it; I don't have that in front of me. I can tell you for sure that 1/3 move on a fighting withdrawal is the rule in HackMaster, and I'm almost positive that I remember this from the last time I ran 1e.

I'm pretty sure the withdrawal rule is mentioned in the player's handbook in the combat section.

[Matthew-]

Is there a parry rule in 1E? I know the rule in 2E is no attacks in exchange for 1 pt of AC per 2 class levels, round down, +1 for fighters.

Yeah, you basically get your to Hit Bonus as an Armour Class Bonus in return for giving up your attacks.

I'm pretty sure the withdrawal rule is mentioned in the player's handbook in the combat section.

Pages 104-5, I think. It doesn't give a speed, though.

[Nazim]

Is there a parry rule in 1E? I know the rule in 2E is no attacks in exchange for 1 pt of AC per 2 class levels, round down, +1 for fighters.

Yeah, you basically get your to Hit Bonus as an Armour Class Bonus in return for giving up your attacks.

Without going into the Cavalier's parry, does the DMG parry give you anything more than (magic) item, strength, racial and (with UA) specialization bonuses? Because that leaves a lot of characters with no advantage to parrying. Many of them regular ol' fighters too. I'm not criticizing the rule, I just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly.

[JerryB]

It's in the PHB under combat (page 104). I don't think there is anything in the DMG about parrying.

It sounds worse than you think Naz, as only the strength bonus to hit is mentioned as a penalty to your opponents die role. Most characters would see no benefit from this manuever as written.

[Matthew-]

As Jerry says, the DMG doesn't mention Parrying, as far as I can see. The PHB refers only to Strength Bonus. It's basically useless to attempt to Parry unless you have Strength 17+.

[phantasm72]

Personally I think the reason why there is no active parrying rules is because of how long the combat rounds were. In that minute you probably execute many parries. I think thats the reasoning of AC10 being the base AC. A 1st level fighter attacking someone who cant defend, automatically hits. The same fighter attacking someone with no armour and can defend hits only 50% of the time. The difference comes from that the defender is parrying / blocking / dodging or whatever. BtB combat in AD&D is quite simple, one roll, all or nothing...

[Matthew-]

Personally I think the reason why there is no active parrying rules is because of how long the combat rounds were. In that minute you probably execute many parries. I think thats the reasoning of AC10 being the base AC. A 1st level fighter attacking someone who cant defend, automatically hits. The same fighter attacking someone with no armour and can defend hits only 50% of the time. The difference comes from that the defender is parrying / blocking / dodging or whatever. BtB combat in AD&D is quite simple, one roll, all or nothing...

Yes indeed. However, whilst the Fighter gets better at attacking, he never gets better at defending himself, which is an interesting disconnect. An Active Parry Rule like the one that turns up in 2e or some variation thereof can help out in that regard. I outlined a possible approach over at Knights & Knaves recently, which led to some interesting discussion: Alternative Defences.

[JerryB]

The 1e crew seem to have been decidedly opposed to active defense as a character option. From the almost pathetic attempt to defend oneself by using the PHB parry rule for anyone with less than exceptional strength, to the fact that despite significant historic precedent to the contrary the DMG is emphatic that an off-hand weapon may not be used to block or parry attacks, those who developed 1st edition were clear in their disdain for these tactics.

Matthew has put into posting an idea that has been bothering me all day, which is that while a fighter's attack matrix goes up at least every other level, he has no corresponding increase in his ability to engage in an active defense. Certainly as a fighter adventures and advances his share of treasure most likely enables him to buy better armor, and he could find magical armor or shield, but what of increasing skill with weapons?

Having just watched The Three Musketeers again, and marveling at how these unarmored fighters protect themselves with nothing more than skill in bladework, (or a parrying dagger!) I am thinking that maybe this area of AD&D game mechanics cries out for house ruling.

[Dell]

Matthew has put into posting an idea that has been bothering me all day, which is that while a fighter's attack matrix goes up at least every other level, he has no corresponding increase in his ability to engage in an active defense.

The argument is that the fighter's increased ability to defend himself at high levels is represented by his increasing hit point total.

[phantasm72]

Matthew has put into posting an idea that has been bothering me all day, which is that while a fighter's attack matrix goes up at least every other level, he has no corresponding increase in his ability to engage in an active defense.

The argument is that the fighter's increased ability to defend himself at high levels is represented by his increasing hit point total.

Yes, I was just going to say that. A high level fighter can take a lot of arrow hits to bring him down. Its not that hes developed the ability to become a walking pin-cushion, but because hes able to dogde, swat and pluck arrows out of the air before they hit him. 10 points of damage from a two handed swords probably lops the head of a 1st level fighter, but for the 10 level fighter, who know? maybe hes actually grabbing the sword blade in midswing and forcing it out of further harms way... it all can be hammed (or cheesed) up with a very descriptive combat session.
But honestly, I do see the appeal of having an active defence manouver, especially when the poor bugger is down to his last 2hp. But like any houserule, it takes a little bit of playtesting to find the balance that suits your game.

[DMPrata]

Having just watched The Three Musketeers again, and marveling at how these unarmored fighters protect themselves with nothing more than skill in bladework, (or a parrying dagger!) I am thinking that maybe this area of AD&D game mechanics cries out for house ruling.

Heh... that's because the Three Musketeers would be cavaliers, not fighters. Their parrying ability does improve with level.

[Nagora]

Yes indeed. However, whilst the Fighter gets better at attacking, he never gets better at defending himself...

Yes he does: that's why he gets more HP!

[Aranion]

Yes indeed. However, whilst the Fighter gets better at attacking, he never gets better at defending himself...

Yes he does: that's why he gets more HP!

This is exactly right. A few years ago, I toyed with the idea of fighters getting an AC improvement every 3 or 4 levels - like some here, I thought that their defensive "powers" should improve with skill and experience.

Except that GG & Co. already thought of this - thus HP increasing with levels. The books are explicit about HP incorporating characters' ability to dodge, minimize damage, etc. It's one of the reasons MUs have such sucky HP compared to fighters: fighters are trained to dodge, parry, block, etc., while MUs are simply not made for combat.

I also think - and this is MNSHO - that delving into this kind of detail goes against the spirit of the rules. AD&D combat mechanics were never meant to be "realistic" or simulate what really happens in an actual swordfight. The rules are meant to facilitate a game, retain the tone or atmosphere of swords and sorcery, and move the game along.

[Simak]

We allow a -2 def bonus when opting to parry, regardless of level. Sure, the argument that you are parrying all the time is true, but you are also trying to score a hit in that minute round as well. If you gave up the option to score a hit, it must mean you are putting more energies into defending yourself. My players use parrying all the time when they are retreating out of combat.

[JerryB]

Heh... that's because the Three Musketeers would be cavaliers, not fighters. Their parrying ability does improve with level.

Very good point. The only problem is that btb the cavalier class would require the heaviest armor available, whereas the musketeers wore none. Perhaps a cavalier subclass?