Great White Games/Pinnacle Entertainment Group

[HawaiianBrian]

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...
_________________
***** HawaiianBrian / getsavaged.blogspot.com *****

[DerFinsterling]

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 ).
_________________
Markus
The Sundered Skies Serial - full of spoilers!
Savagepedia at wikispaces

[Nailom]

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]

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]

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.

[Cutter XXIII]

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.
_________________
Matthew Cutter
Deadlands Big Bug (Brand Manager)
Pinnacle Entertainment Group, Inc.

[Clint]

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

[C.A.Pryde]

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]

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]

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

[DerFinsterling]

[Clint]

[razorwise]

[Misroi]

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]

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.

[Clint]

[AFDia]

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.

[DerFinsterling]

[manifold]

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.)

[HawaiianBrian]

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 *****