Knights & Knaves Alehouse

BTB the only player option is breaking off from melee which gives the monster(s) an attack as if the PC was stunned and from behind: +4 to hit?

Say if you have a wall of three fighters. They are engaged with 3 bugbears in a line facing them. Each is attacking one of the fighters (3 vs. 3) The fighter in the middle decides he needs to move back outside the 10' melee encounter range so the party cleric will move up and in to his spot during the same round.

The resulting action would be- the bugbear that had been attacking him would get the +4 to hit him, or all three bugbears since they are all in melee range of him? Does this attack count as their normal attack routine? Or would they get this special attack on our withdrawing fighter at +4 AND get their normal attacks that round?


Thank you.

My understanding of the intent behind that rule (and the way I resolve it in my games) is that it only applies if the character breaking off leaves his opponent unengaged (i.e. no other enemy within 10' in a mass melee, or directly engaged in a one-on-one melee). So, in the situation you describe (3 fighters vs 3 bugbears) if they're all in a mass melee (i.e. every round each fighter and each bugbear is rolling dice to see which opponent they attack, which is supposed to be the default, even though I rarely see it played that way) then one of the fighters could withdraw with no penalty since all three bugbears are still engaged against the other 2 fighters. If each fighter is directly engaged with 1 bugbear, then when one fighter withdraws the bugbear he's specifically engaged against would get a free attack, but not the other two (since they were never engaged against that character).

What's also worth noting is that the free attack is only gained when a character (or monster) makes a precipitous withdrawl, which allows him to move his full per-round movement away and breaks the engagement even if the opponent's parting attack was successful. There's also (only described in the PH?) the "fighting withdrawl" option which allows the character to break the engagement and move up to 1/2 move without suffering the free attack, but only if the opponent chooses to let him go -- otherwise they remain engaged but have shifted 10' (and the character who was attempting to withdraw has lost his opportunity to attack for the round).

Thanks. Now I know.

Note that while I believe my interpretation to be correct as per the intent of the rules, I've also played under plenty of GMs who handled things differently -- who always gave the opponent a free attack when someone tried to break off from melee even if he was still engaged with someone else -- so it's one of those things, like how surprise and initiative are handled, that I've just come to accept that each GM is likely to have their own interpretation and as long as I'm playing at their table I'll accept it (but when it's my table I'll do things my way). Part of me wishes there was more uniformity in these things, but only if that uniformity was towards the way I prefer -- if it's a choice between everybody doing it differently or everybody doing it the same but in a way I don't like (e.g. B/X or 2E), I'll take the former

Nice example and cogent explanation, hadn't thought about 'withdrawing from melee' and 'mass melee' together, thanks.

It does conjure another question for me which may have been addressed in a previous thread yet escapes me. How does one implement 'mass melee' and 'positioning' (flank, rear etc) or is positioning merely employed when a single combatant engages multiple opponents?

I think because the fighting withdrawal is not mentioned in the DMG, it was overlooked and not intended to result in free attacks with bonuses. In the case of three fighters simultaneously turning around fleeing from three bugbears, I would be inclined to have each one attacked by a bugbear, and I think that is the intention. If one character of three tried to flee from three bugbears I would probably still allow a free attack from one bugbear, but if there were more bugbears than fighters, then I would probably randomly determine if the fourth bugbear was in a position to take advantage.

Matthew wrote:I think because the fighting withdrawal is not mentioned in the DMG, it was overlooked and not intended to result in free attacks with bonuses.

I think the free attack on the withdrawing fighter is important otherwise withdrawing could be used as leading as in manoeuvering an opponent towards a trap or a concealed ally. Controlling the position of an opponent should only be possible for fighters say a few fighting ranks higher than the enemy at least that's how I allow it.

I would be interested to hear how Foster manages requests from players to manoeuvre their opponents in a fight.

kent wrote: I think the free attack on the withdrawing fighter is important otherwise withdrawing could be used as leading as in manoeuvring an opponent towards a trap or a concealed ally. Controlling the position of an opponent should only be possible for fighters say a few fighting ranks higher than the enemy at least that's how I allow it.

I think in a situation where there is a clear line of retreat, then withdrawing to a advantageously prepared position should be relatively easy, so I would not have a problem with withdrawal, bearing in mind that it would have to be a lot slower than running away (probably only 1-3").

kent wrote:

Matthew wrote:I think because the fighting withdrawal is not mentioned in the DMG, it was overlooked and not intended to result in free attacks with bonuses.

I think the free attack on the withdrawing fighter is important otherwise withdrawing could be used as leading as in manoeuvering an opponent towards a trap or a concealed ally. Controlling the position of an opponent should only be possible for fighters say a few fighting ranks higher than the enemy at least that's how I allow it.

I would be interested to hear how Foster manages requests from players to manoeuvre their opponents in a fight.

Sure, if a character is willing to act as bait and suffer a couple-three rounds' worth of attacks in order to lure a monster into a trap or ambush I'd definitely allow it, and would probably consider it a good tactical move by the players. There are some drawbacks: 1) the retreating character isn't allowed to attack on a round in which he's retreating (though if he has a Str-based "to hit" bonus he can Parry); 2) the way I rule it the engagement only shifts 10' per round (though looking now I don't actually see that written in the rulebook, so it must be a house rule of mine, perhaps lifted from the similar rule in RQ) so a character trying to lure a monster a significant distance in this manner is likely to suffer several rounds of attack; 3) nothing says the opponents have to let themselves be led, especially if they're intelligent -- sure skeletons and golems and some animals, and perhaps some of the dumber humanoids will allow themselves to be lured into traps or ambushes this way, but smarter opponents probably won't. A character standing just on the other side of a doorway or the edge of a pit saying "hey monsters, come and get me" is more likely to be met with a flurry of thrown axes and spears...

T. Foster wrote:if a character is willing to act as bait and suffer a couple-three rounds' worth of attacks in order to lure a monster into a trap or ambush I'd definitely allow it, and would probably consider it a good tactical move by the players. There are some drawbacks: ... the retreating character isn't allowed to attack on a round in which he's retreating (though if he has a Str-based "to hit" bonus he can Parry) ... the way I rule it the engagement only shifts 10' per round

Thanks that's a full description and a handling of withdrawal I recognize and support. Also If a player tells me he wants to finish a round of fighting beside an open doorway, window or sconce I'll tell him unless he makes some sacrifice such as giving up his attack a d8 will randomly determine just where he ends up in the room. I think fighting under even the slightist of intentions is a handicap.

My question was meant to be more general than withdrawal which as Matthew suggests might also reasonably not be penalised. For example fighting on a ledge over a precipice and forcing a fall; fighting an opponent and keeping him facing in one direction oblivious of activity behind him; exchanging one opponent for another in a melee. Often a manouevre [such as on brink of precipice] will force the opponent to flee as the safer option and it can be interesting for players to conceive of ways to force the +4 to hit.

Personally I have come to see levels 3,7 and 10 each as significant achievements and allow players with fighting men to describe manoeuvres which are unpenalized if they face opponents in a lower bracket. More usually they are fighting peers and some form of sacrifice as you brought up with withdrawal is required.

So I am curious if I as a player of a fighting man 2-3 levels higher than my opponent I wanted to attempt one the example manouevres above [ledge;facing;exchange] how would you manage the penalty if any.