Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Merric Blackman's running some AD&D again, and wrote a blog post about the rules inconsistencies in withdrawing from combat in AD&D; here's the relevant portion:

MerricB wrote:where failed morale gives four options:

* Surrender (no problem there)
* Flee in Panic
* Disengage/Retreat
* Fall back, fighting

However, when you look at the rules for moving from combat, you get the following:

It is never possible to flee from on encounter where the opponent party is in striking range. (See Breaking Off From Melee, below)

Breaking Off From Melee:
At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance.

So, what's the difference between "Flee in panic", "Disengage/retreat" and "Fall back, fighting"?

The Player's Handbook gives a little more detail:

Participants in a melee can opt to attack, parry, fall back, or flee. attack can be by weapon, bore hands, or grappling. Parrying disallows any return artack that round, but the strength "to hit" bonus is then subtracted from the opponent's "to hit" dice roll(s), so the character is less likely to be hit. Falling back is a retrograde move facing the opponent(s) and can be used in conjunction with a parry, and opponent creatures are able to follow if not otherwise engaged. Fleeing means as rapid a withdrawal from combat as possible; while it exposes the character to rear attack at the time, subsequent attacks can only be made if the opponent is able to follow the fleeing character at equal or greater speed.

Given that most characters have a zero modifier "to hit" from Strength - and even most of the better ones just a +1 - parrying is one of Gygax's really bad rules. All of these descriptions look like they'll be explained further in the DMG, but - surprise, surprise - such was not forthcoming.

Help comes from the various Basic D&D games, but AD&D is a frustratingly incomplete game in some of its core rules. And with some really, really overcomplicated rules.

Interestingly, the Bless spell adds +1 to morale, whilst AD&D morale is expressed in a percentage. Hmm. (It's also a really flawed version of morale; my favourite remains that in Moldvay).

Thoughts?

Depends if the opponent is in striking distance or chooses to follow.
Withdrawing disallows the rear attack but could leave you still engaged the next round if the opponent moves with you.

I'm not sure I see the issue.

The morale/bless thing is definitely messed up though.

Merric Blackman's brain is wired in such a way that he will never understand AD&D no matter how hard he tries (assuming he's actually trying in earnest and isn't just being a disingenuous troll, which was never definitively proven one way or the other - though the fact that despite being the #1 most prolific poster at Dragonsfoot he disappeared overnight once the Edition Wars forum was closed always seemed to point strongly towards the latter). Either way, I don't like the idea of his "leading questions" being cross-posted here. To the extent people feel the need or desire to engage with him I'd prefer they did so on other sites.

T. Foster wrote:Merric Blackman's brain is wired in such a way that he will never understand AD&D no matter how hard he tries (assuming he's actually trying in earnest and isn't just being a disingenuous troll, which was never definitively proven one way or the other - though the fact that despite being the #1 most prolific poster at Dragonsfoot he disappeared overnight once the Edition Wars forum was closed always seemed to point strongly towards the latter). Either way, I don't like the idea of his "leading questions" being cross-posted here. To the extent people feel the need or desire to engage with him I'd prefer they did so on other sites.

Totally in agreement.

My thoughts are that Mr. Blackman is a shit-stirrer.

With that said...

he is deliberately misconstruing and ignoring the way the rule is worded, to wit:

where the opponent party is in striking range.

He seems to want us to think the rule is worded vaguely*, and as a result, again he deliberately ignores that portion.

Those seeking to flee combat can break off once they move out of striking range. They can do so as a fighting withdraw and hope the opponent party doesn't follow up, or they can open themselves up to attacks to do so, again hoping the opponent party doesn't then move after them, but in either circumstance once they have opened the distance, then they can flee.

Oh, no, that means they can't flee if the enemy is going to chase them! TOO FUCKING BAD.

That's why it's called combat and not red rover. Wanna flee? Best hope your enemies aren't in the mood to chase you down and run you through like the cowardly dog you are, or you best bring the fight.

That's what the rule said, it's as plain as day, and there's no mistaking it unless the person doing the mistaking is doing it deliberately to take the piss.

YOU CAN FLEE IF YOU'VE GOT A HEAD START ON THE ENEMY, OTHERWISE THEY WILL JACK YOU UP, AND POSSIBLY CHASE YOU DOWN AND JACK YOU UP.

Now, Merric Blackman's rancid opinions about Morale and bless aside ("I prefer Moldvay morale!" yeah well I'd prefer he shut the fuck up but that clearly isn't going to happen now is it): a +1 to Morale? Look at the morale roll - that +1 on d100 just might tip the balance. Yes, Merric, plus one.

Now for the footnote * -

I'm not going to sit here and suggest that everything in AD&D is written out clear enough for 3rd edition addicts like Merric Blackman can read it like a spreadsheet; there are ambiguities, there are points of contention but guess what THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM. This is Merric being Merric and pulling that facile "Why, oh dear me, it seems that old Mister Gygax has created a bit of a rules conundrum in this so-called best version of D&D! Why, how-ever will we solve it. Say, lads, why don't we just use a much clearer rule...like the one right over here!" <indicating book that isn't AD&D>

Merric's the jackwagon who promulgates the whole "Oh well everyone played Basic D&D with AD&D books on the table, fact" notion. His lack of reading comprehension isn't the world's problem. Am I attacking the person instead of the problem? In this case they're one in the same. There is no ambiguity in the disengaging/fleeing rule, he's misreading it on purpose to cause a fuss, it's intellectual dishonesty and he knows it, and if he can't stand that the Bless spell only adds 1 to morale, tough titty to him then.