Talk me down: Withdrawal

[radmod]

So ultimately, do you actually have a problem with rendering the square the character starts in as no longer threatened ... or the chance that this will give anyone -- PC or enemy -- to avoid AoOs?

No, of course, not. It's just the mechanics of withdraw as the RAW says that I have a problem with. There should definitely be some form of withdraw.

What about the restricted withdraw? Would it suffice as your game's "standard" withdraw action?

(quoted from SRD)
Restricted Withdraw If you are limited to taking only a standard action each round you can withdraw as a standard action. In this case, you may move up to your speed (rather than up to double your speed).

Wow, I haven't seen that (or rather I probably did and forgot about it). No, for me, all you could do is step to avoid an AoO. Like regular withdraw, I believe the move action only allows you to move, not to parry as you move.

I'm still pondering over using my original 2e house rule: you can withdraw up to half your move as a move action (essentially rewriting parts of the 5 ft. step). In the restricted withdraw, you could use the single action to withdraw up to half your movement. In the end, I'll probably allow a step as the only way to avoid AoO.

 

[DumbPaladin]

No, for me, all you could do is step to avoid an AoO. Like regular withdraw, I believe the move action only allows you to move, not to parry as you move.

I'm still pondering over using my original 2e house rule: you can withdraw up to half your move as a move action (essentially rewriting parts of the 5 ft. step). In the restricted withdraw, you could use the single action to withdraw up to half your movement. In the end, I'll probably allow a step as the only way to avoid AoO.

How would your players avoid provoking an AoO against an enemy that has, say, 15' reach, when standing right next to said enemy?

 

[radmod]

How would your players avoid provoking an AoO against an enemy that has, say, 15' reach, when standing right next to said enemy?

By killing the enemy!

Seriously, that's a good question. However, please note that even RAW withdrawal wouldn't avoid the AoO because only the initial space you leave is considered non-threatened. So moving 10 ft. provokes an AoO. Same with mine.
And, come to think of it, the way I do step works better than RAW in this case because I allow a step as a move action. So you could double step to avoid the AoO as a full round action. RAW doesn't let you do that, right?
With my old 2e version, if you had 30 move, you could avoid the AoO by moving 15 and still take an action.

 

[DumbPaladin]

Right, even 3.5 rules won't let you avoid AoO by withdrawing ... but the withdraw action would let you get a lot further away from the BBEG. As a player, I like that. But honestly, I withdraw so infrequently (Benign Transposition or flying is how I get out of peril these days) that losing the action would not affect me greatly.

As long as you have some equivalent that your players can utilize, then I don't really know if you have to be "talked down" ... as far as I can tell, the only major difference between your house rule and RAW is the double move aspect.

 

[PolterGhost]

Aw, come on, you can do better than that.
"LLewellyn, the frail Evoker, armed only with a simple, ineffective staff attempts his best to bat away ..."

Hey, my Llewellyn wasn't anything but frail. He had 14 Str from his Gauntlets of Ogre Power, 18 Dex, 20 Con, carried a +1 Keen Greatsword and a +1 Heavy Steel Shield, decked out in Living Breastplate and a cloak taken from the hide of a fell beast, carried a Legacy staff that mimicked Ring of Wizardry I, II, and III and could form magic into various weapons on its tip...

...what topic was I on again?

Oh yeah, um, I personally don't mind the way you do things. It lets people still get out of the line of fire, just not with a double move. Not a huge loss. Of course, you could just force all your PCs to use Tumble, and then they'd move half their rate, avoid AoO, and still only use a Move action...