How to enable Running Away

[El Mahdi]

I'm curious, is this a fourth edition problem? Because I'm not aware of such an issue in other rule sets (and speak from having run all of them save 4 and 3.5, though I've played enough 3.5 to not recognize this). Not trying to derail, I am just baffled at the existence of such a thing.
(Conversely, you might well understand now why I misunderstood the thrust of the O.P., if in fact I did.)

I don't know all of the components of 4E play, but terrain is done essentially the same way as every previous edition. So in that aspect 4E is no different than 3E, 2E, or earlier.

 

[Derren]

I define unfeasable in this context as a game system that by the rules, makes retreating a less realistic tactic than it is in real life

And how effective do you think is running away in real life?

Most casulties in war, especially in the medieval period was during the enemies rout.

A route always turns into a slaughter when the enemy pursues, especially when he is faster than you or has ranged weapons. Successful escapes nearly always require a fighting retreat or a rear guard which bears the brunt of the attack while the rest flees.
And I don't think that most RPGs make escapes even less effective than that. Especially in 3E I think that running away is much more viable than in real life thanks to magic items. A potion of invisibility is enough to make pursuing you very hard and there are a lot of spells which restrict movement.

The only instance where terrain has a different effect in D&D than in real live is that mounted units are not slowed down more than someone on foot, but I don't think that alone makes running away not viable.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm curious, is this a fourth edition problem? Because I'm not aware of such an issue in other rule sets (and speak from having run all of them save 4 and 3.5, though I've played enough 3.5 to not recognize this). Not trying to derail, I am just baffled at the existence of such a thing.
(Conversely, you might well understand now why I misunderstood the thrust of the O.P., if in fact I did.)

I accidentally introduced a house rule in 4e giving charge +2 to speed, which made retreating harder. Whoops.

But I saw retreating problems in 3.x, and would carry through to 4e without accidental house rules.

3e withdraw:

Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. When you withdraw, you can move up to double your speed. The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that square. (Invisible enemies still get attacks of opportunity against you, and you can’t withdraw from combat if you’re blinded.) You can’t take a 5-foot step during the same round in which you withdraw.

If, during the process of withdrawing, you move out of a threatened square (other than the one you started in), enemies get attacks of opportunity as normal.

You may not withdraw using a form of movement for which you don’t have a listed speed.

Note that despite the name of this action, you don’t actually have to leave combat entirely.

And charging

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. However, it carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Movement During a Charge

You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles).

In an open field, withdrawing is lethal. You double move, your opponent charges you and hits you. You keep withdrawing, they keep charging.

Obviously there's ways around this, but other than terrain most of these methods take actions. Have the wizard cast Web? That's a standard action. Dropping caltrops? That's an action. (Also, caltrops are pathetic in 3.x). Throw a smoke grenade? Watch the game grind to a halt as the DM and players look up the concealment rules. Withdraw through difficult terrain? Your opponent can't charge, but they can follow into the terrain, or go around, possibly even meeting you on the other side! Cast Invisibility? Works on only one PC, and since the PCs are losing anyway, they aren't likely to be happy if a PC sneaks off by themself.

And, of course, opponents might not want to follow you into melee. They might shoot you. If they've got longbows or shortbows, rather than crossbows, reloading doesn't take actions. They can take a move action and shoot, and their attack range if far greater than your withdraw speed. (A longbow has a range increment of 80 to 110 feet, assuming no Far Shot, which is greater than your withdraw range, and the archer probably has the same speed as anyone but a monk, since they don't wear heavy armor; that could mean it takes three rounds before the archer takes any attack penalties for range; if the archer is "specialized" and not just a melee fighter using a bow as a backup weapon, Far Shot is common.) Even with all the penalties as you get further and further away, the pursuers are getting free attacks. This is just "on paper".

In practice, PCs won't retreat until someone is injured, and now you've got a cleric trying to manage the impossible task of running away from opponents, moving toward a wounded comrade (there goes their move action) and then casting a heal spell (there goes their standard action), or casting Mass Cure X Wounds, which doesn't heal a whole lot. (4e clerics can heal as minor actions, but can only do this a few times. Ranges are shorter, but this just gives incentives to the winning NPCs to keep pursuing.)

It works better in a dungeon, because you can just go around a corner, and an opponent can't charge you. In this case, your opponent (if they have the same speed) can catch up. (If they've got reach, withdrawing isn't going to work, but plenty of opponents don't have reach.) They can literally follow you for hours, as withdrawing doesn't actually give you any advantage other than making your first step a 5 foot step.

All of this assumes there's no NPC spellcasters. It's hard to run away if they can do anything to the ground, like Spike Growth, or Soften Earth and Stone, or Entangle (a 1st-level spell), or can cast spells like Glitterdust (I think you move at half speed if you're blinded in 3.x)... The NPCs only need to focus on one PC, since the PCs will not allow a friend to die, and will fight to the death to defend them rather than run away.

4e withdraw: I can't even find it, though I swore it existed somewhere in the combat section. I probably used 3.x rules accidentally. Maybe that's the reason running away is harder.

Ranged attacks are different. A longbow has a range of 20/40, which is less than the range in 3.5, but a longer accurate range. (You can't hit someone 5 range bands away for a -8 or -10 penalty.) Still, the range of a longbow is greater than a running PC's speed.

Quite a lot of opponents have effects that can slow or trip you (common among soldiers, the latter among brutes, and both among controllers).

I think withdraw is a generally poorly understood part of the rules. It's not hard to understand, though, but you use it less often than making attacks.

The biggest rule handicap to running away in D&D is the way the initiative system works and opportunity attacks, I believe. You move your full move, and then your opponent gets their full move... In real life, if I'm chasing someone with a nerf sword, I pretty much have to stop moving (or stop running and start walking) after hitting someone with the sword (or missing). I think in real life you have to "commit" once you've attacked. If you fail to "down" your opponent, it's over. They've gotten away. However, in D&D, and probably most games that allow opportunity attacks, you can follow and get opportunity attacks forever. It doesn't help that players seem to fear opportunity attacks, going to great lengths to avoid them. They know running away could mean provoking opportunity attacks (sometimes without a chance to strike back), and so they just ... won't.

 

[Serendipity]

I think withdraw is a generally poorly understood part of the rules. It's not hard to understand, though, but you use it less often than making attacks.

Okay, full disclosure, I tend to run (regardless of edition) narrative combat. I don't break out a grid unless there's a BIG fight. Having said that, I don't think I realized just how much rules obstruction there really was. Overall, I think it comes down to two things really.

1. Tactics. A lot of people don't quite grok how to effectively retreat. The back ranks provide cover fire for the engaged, who retreat singly or in pairs as appropriate. Movement effects are thrown down, caltrops scattered, etc etc by the retreating forces. Likely as not, someone feels some combination of heroic and stupid & holds off any pursuit at the nearest available bottleneck (but that's optional). This is just off the top of my head mind. (It helps that I have a background in wargaming.)

2. Opportunity attacks. If I never see these again I won't miss them for a moment. When I switched from running Pathfinder to my Swords & Wizardry game, the thing I was most happy to be rid of combat-wise were those damn OAs. Hate hate hate. Properly played and with the slightest optimisation by feat choice and attacks of opportunity are practically a perpetual motion machine, ending only when you have a line of dead opponants. Broken, as implemented, in every way.

Really though, a lot of it also (IMO) is groups that wait until it's too late to successfully retreat. Even a round too long, plus 1. and 2. above can tear pretty much anyone to ribbons.

 

[Derren]

In an open field, withdrawing is lethal. You double move, your opponent charges you and hits you. You keep withdrawing, they keep charging.

Or you simply take the AoO and run instead, moving at x4 your speed which takes you well out of charge range which solves all your problems with running away.
As for the rest, thats not a problem of the rules system but general dangers of running away the players always have to deal with no matter which system.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Okay, full disclosure, I tend to run (regardless of edition) narrative combat. I don't break out a grid unless there's a BIG fight. Having said that, I don't think I realized just how much rules obstruction there really was. Overall, I think it comes down to two things really.

1. Tactics. A lot of people don't quite grok how to effectively retreat. The back ranks provide cover fire for the engaged, who retreat singly or in pairs as appropriate. Movement effects are thrown down, caltrops scattered, etc etc by the retreating forces. Likely as not, someone feels some combination of heroic and stupid & holds off any pursuit at the nearest available bottleneck (but that's optional). This is just off the top of my head mind. (It helps that I have a background in wargaming.)

Even after reading Three Kingdoms, though, I have little idea of how to do a fighting retreat. It seems to consist of locking shields (did they use shield walls in China? Well, they did in Ancient Rome, so good enough) and moving back slowly (in D&D terms, just shifting or withdrawing, to not provoke opportunity attacks). However, that keeps the enemy in your face. They're only as tired as you are. Mechanically they should keep fighting.

It seems to work because the opponents are very scared of dying as individual soldiers, and they've already won, so they just let the "losers" flee. This mindset could easily apply to many (most? almost all?) NPCs. It doesn't apply to PCs though. They won't do a fighting retreat unless it gets them to safety within a minute (eg if they're fighting right outside the city walls, and it takes only a couple of rounds to get behind the gate), and if the PCs are winning, and the NPCs are doing a fighting retreat, the PCs will just kill them anyway (or demand their surrender), since as far as they're concerned the PCs won, the NPCs lost, and if they had anything new they'd have used it already.

2. Opportunity attacks. If I never see these again I won't miss them for a moment. When I switched from running Pathfinder to my Swords & Wizardry game, the thing I was most happy to be rid of combat-wise were those damn OAs. Hate hate hate. Properly played and with the slightest optimisation by feat choice and attacks of opportunity are practically a perpetual motion machine, ending only when you have a line of dead opponants. Broken, as implemented, in every way.

Don't know about broken but ... yes. It gets worse in 4e Essentials, since virtually everything is a bonus to a melee basic attack, and opportunity attacks are melee basic attacks. It only gets worse with a fighter (either knight or slayer, if they're using a warhammer or a battlexe) as they can essentially make retreat impossible.

A knight can use Guard the Line to make every melee attack slow the victim. Using Staggering Hammer, they can apply Power Strike to their OA, which means their opponent is "immobilized as long as they're next to the knight" (in essence, the knight is grabbing the opponent with a warhammer, somehow). A slayer with Brutal Axe can knock you prone when using Power Strike, which needless to say makes retreating a tad difficult.

Really though, a lot of it also (IMO) is groups that wait until it's too late to successfully retreat. Even a round too long, plus 1. and 2. above can tear pretty much anyone to ribbons.

I wish I had the link to that TPK article WotC did in late 3.x. I find the same thing on the DM's side of the screen. One moment the battle looks even, next moment half of the NPCs are dead, and the rest are bloodied. They can try to retreat now, but they're just going to die/be forced into surrender instead.

Or you simply take the AoO and run instead, moving at x4 your speed which takes you well out of charge range.
As for the rest, thats not a problem of the rules system but general dangers of running away the players always have to deal with no matter which system.

Or x3 for those with heavy armor, who are likely half the party In which case, the NPCs can run too, those who aren't shooting arrows at your now slightly lower ACs, and it becomes a contest of Constitution checks.

And did you see that point about PCs having an incredible fear of AoOs? (This might be especially important if you're losing, low on hit points, don't want to provoke an AoO from those poison-tipped spears that were just kicking your butts, etc.) AoOs aren't in every game system, and I think they're a big part of the issue. If you could just run, without penalty (other than losing the battle), I think you'd see it more often.

 

[Derren]

Or x3 for those with heavy armor, who are likely half the party In which case, the NPCs can run too, those who aren't shooting arrows at your now slightly lower ACs, and it becomes a contest of Constitution checks.

And did you see that point about PCs having an incredible fear of AoOs? (This might be especially important if you're losing, low on hit points, don't want to provoke an AoO from those poison-tipped spears that were just kicking your butts, etc.) AoOs aren't in every game system, and I think they're a big part of the issue. If you could just run, without penalty (other than losing the battle), I think you'd see it more often.

Sure the NPCs can run too. But they are in danger of being separated from the rest and becoming a easy target for the PCs in case they turn around.
In any case I don't see a problem with the enemy being able to persue, especially when the PCs have not prepared anything for their retreat (potions of expeditious retreat, etc).

And fear of AoOs is a player problem and not a problem of the rules system.

 

[S'mon]

Has anyone actually seen a party attempt to flee and be TPK'd during the retreat? Because I haven't. The worst I can recall was a party fighting a red dragon that lost 2 PCs during the withdrawal, out of 6. Not counting the case where 3/4 PCs are down and the last one gets killed on the round he decides to flee. I've seen a lot of 100% successful retreats, and some where some PCs are lost, but never a TPK.

 

[Serendipity]

Has anyone actually seen a party attempt to flee and be TPK'd during the retreat? Because I haven't.

Only once. 1st edition AD&D, party of 3 or 4 high level (12 -14) PCs and maybe ten experienced retainers between them - biting off more than they could chew. In the Hells.
Yeah, their choice to wait until the natives reinforced to twice or maybe three times their original number of middling HD devils and such before making for the gate was....an uninspired decision. I think two were still standing when a pit fiend came along and closed the gate. Ugly, but fair. (Having observed but neither played in nor GM'd that particular campaign.)
Not a representative sample, however.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Sure the NPCs can run too. But they are in danger of being separated from the rest and becoming a easy target for the PCs in case they turn around.

Why would the NPCs all split up that way? They know not to split their forces, the same way PCs try to avoid that. In essence, the NPCs have to "weaken themselves" to the PCs' levels to lose.

And fear of AoOs is a player problem and not a problem of the rules system.

It's a rules problem impinging on player psychology, since not all systems have AoOs. That issue just doesn't come up there. (The same issue affects the use of things like bull rushing someone into a pit trap. People without Improved Bull Rush don't do it, due to fear of AoOs, even if the damage they could do is higher than stabbing would do.)

Has anyone actually seen a party attempt to flee and be TPK'd during the retreat?

Actually, no. What I've seen are "aborted retreats". On occasion, the PCs might retreat for a round, but then something happens (a PC drops, for instance) and fighting commences anew.