Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6544829" data-attributes="member: 42582">You're correct - I was also AFB and mis-remembered.Imaro raises a similar point to yours:I think the greater movement speed with disengage compared to fighting withdrawal is a meaningful difference - for instance, it means that you can keep pace with your archer and caster friends who are retreating, whereas in AD&D you have either get left behind or eat an attack.A lot depends on overall encounter layout, tendencies in dispositions of forces, etc. In my AD&D experience, though, fighting withdrawal was not a widely-used option because it precluded attacking while not permitting serious movement.For me, the difference would be that the default effect of a fighting withdrawal is that you are still in melee but in a new position (eg closer to your friends, if they are holding their positions). Whereas the default effect of disengage is that you are out of melee. For instance, because of turn-by-turn resolution in 3E and later editions, if you disengage in 5e there is actually a point in the round where you are out of melee; whereas the more-or-less simultaneous resolution of AD&D means that a fighting withdrawal never actually takes you out of melee. You have to use the "retreat" option and soak the enemy's attack sequence (and without getting an attack oneself).Intelligence is necessary to single out an opponent, but not sufficient. I think the issue of "able to single out" is meant to be resolved by the GM based on fictional positioning. A thief sneaking round the edge of a melee looking for a backstab opportunity would be a clear example. A band of orcs surrounding a PC taking point woud be another.I don't think the intention is that, in general mass melee, opponents can easily be chosen. Otherwise, the random-determination rule would have no work to do.They vary. The free attack against a retreating PC isn't modest, in my experience. Especially because it is a full attack sequence, which can mean a whole round's worth of damage with no chance to retaliate (and because it's rear, no shield or DEX bonus to AC as well as the +2 to hit).I haven't got my DMG ready to hand. I think the wilderness evasion rules, plus the rules on closing, identify 10' as the distance at which hostile parties become engaged in melee.</blockquote>

Verification