Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="radmod" data-source="post: 5273469" data-attributes="member: 93008">I currently don't allow the withdrawal action in 3.5. I simply don't buy it and I'm wondering if anyone would like to &quot;talk me down&quot; from my position.Basically, a withdrawal allows a person to leave a threatened square and move double with taking an AoO from the initial space. The 'penalty' is that it is a full round action.I surmise that the basis of the idea is that the character is &quot;parrying out&quot; of combat (like a 5-ft. step) and continuing to move*. Otherwise, anyone could simply take a move action out of a threatened square and take no AoO. In fact, the only person I've heard argue the rule, argued it as essentially allowing a PC to take a step and then run for half a round.With the &quot;parrying out&quot; defensive maneuver as a basis, I don't buy it:1) Joe the Fighter (speed 30') and Bob the Barb are in combat. Joe's got 1 hp left. If he steps out of combat and drinks a potion, he will still be subject to several arrows. Instead, he withdraws into a building so he's under cover. No AoO. Okay, so far, so good under the rules.2) Take instead that Joe is fine on hp. Cedric yells 'help' and so Joe moves the 10 ft. to aid his ally. If he withdraws he takes no AoO, but if he wants to attack he does. Yet, if a withdraw is parrying out of the threatened square and continuing to move up to his 60' then why can't Joe realistically&nbsp; parry out of the space, move over 5 ft. and attack? If you think there's another foundation for the rule, let me know.*I'm presuming it was a 2e house rule we created whereby you could &quot;parry out&quot; of combat by moving 1/2 your speed and then take a standard action. You also had to win a special initiative roll to avoid what was essentially an AoO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="radmod, post: 5273469, member: 93008"] I currently don't allow the withdrawal action in 3.5. I simply don't buy it and I'm wondering if anyone would like to "talk me down" from my position. Basically, a withdrawal allows a person to leave a threatened square and move double with taking an AoO from the initial space. The 'penalty' is that it is a full round action. I surmise that the basis of the idea is that the character is "parrying out" of combat (like a 5-ft. step) and continuing to move*. Otherwise, anyone could simply take a move action out of a threatened square and take no AoO. In fact, the only person I've heard argue the rule, argued it as essentially allowing a PC to take a step and then [I]run [/I]for half a round. With the "parrying out" defensive maneuver as a basis, I don't buy it: 1) Joe the Fighter (speed 30') and Bob the Barb are in combat. Joe's got 1 hp left. If he steps out of combat and drinks a potion, he will still be subject to several arrows. Instead, he withdraws into a building so he's under cover. No AoO. Okay, so far, so good under the rules. 2) Take instead that Joe is fine on hp. Cedric yells 'help' and so Joe moves the 10 ft. to aid his ally. If he withdraws he takes no AoO, but if he wants to attack he does. Yet, if a withdraw is parrying out of the threatened square and continuing to move up to his 60' then why can't Joe realistically parry out of the space, move over 5 ft. and attack? If you think there's another foundation for the rule, let me know. *I'm presuming it was a 2e house rule we created whereby you could "parry out" of combat by moving 1/2 your speed and then take a standard action. You also had to win a special initiative roll to avoid what was essentially an AoO. [/QUOTE]

Verification