Withdraw Action

[Fanaelialae]

I don't see this as an undesirable situation. The entire point is that this is a last resort action. It's not meant to be used within combat for tactical advantage, it's meant to end combat for sheer survival.

Doing as you suggest changes the entire dynamic and function of the ability and makes it a viable once-off ability just to disengage and strategically reposition. That defeats the entire point of making the ability in the first place.

In that case, as I said, I'd suggest increasing the penalty to -5.

A -2 penalty to attack is almost meaningless when compared to encounter power nova. A -5 penalty will strongly encourage the party to avoid any further encounters in the day. A -2 penalty will not do much to discourage players to avoid using hit and run tactics against an already softened enemy group, though it would certainly discourage them from encounters with other groups of enemies (ones they haven't already beaten on).

EDIT: Also, your version is perfectly viable as a once-off for disengaging and strategically repositioning. If a player feels the need to use it, he'll use it (it's hardly as though your version costs xp or anything precious). It's simply that with your version, the player will likely want to avoid further encounters in the day (and because he's already used withdrawal once, there's effectively no further cost for using withdrawal the rest of the day to avoid all subsequent encounters). Whether Withdrawal is viable for tactical repositioning does not affect it's effectiveness with regard to running away from overpowered encounters in any way.

If you want something that can't be used for tactical repositioning, use something like the following:

WITHDRAW: FULL ROUND ACTION (yes, I'm aware full round actions don't officially exist in 4e)
Escape: You escape from the encounter.
Morale Penalty: You suffer a -2 penalty to attack until you take an extended rest. If you encounter the same enemy group (the one you withdrew from in combat) before an extended rest, you suffer a -5 penalty instead.

 

[Kingreaper]

I'm not sure I entirely see the need for this. What's wrong with "Shift. Run." "Run. Run." "Run. Run."

etc.?

Unless the enemy is hugely faster than them, they should be able to escape the scene that way. Maybe take a few OAs if they don't want to shift before they start running.

 

[Kzach]

I'm not sure I entirely see the need for this. What's wrong with "Shift. Run." "Run. Run." "Run. Run."

etc.?

Unless the enemy is hugely faster than them, they should be able to escape the scene that way. Maybe take a few OAs if they don't want to shift before they start running.

How many times have you actually played through this scenario?

From experience, I can tell you that it's actually WORSE for the PC's to do this, than it is for them to simply stay and fight.

 

[Kingreaper]

How many times have you actually played through this scenario?

From experience, I can tell you that it's actually WORSE for the PC's to do this, than it is for them to simply stay and fight.

Only a couple.

I'll bow to your experience. It's possible that the enemies run from in my campaign were just the right sort to run from (generally ones without immobilisation or high-movespeeds)


What generally happens, in your experience, when someone runs from combat?

 

[Infiniti2000]

What generally happens, in your experience, when someone runs from combat?

I'm interested in this answer, too. I think from reading a lot of threads that many players AND DMs simply play every combat to the death and always continue attacking even when someone is fleeing. I don't think it's reasonable and is simply a byproduct advantage of the turn-based system, nothing more. The other reason is that the DM is jerk and always screws the players whenever they let a bad guy "get away."

Regarding the original post: waaay too good. Not even close to something I would allow. At a minimum make it require a double move and eliminate the bonus to saves which makes no sense thematically or mechanically. Also, I recommend you rename this action "retreat" or "flee," which is a lot closer to what you mean. Withdrawing is not demoralizing, but retreating or fleeing is.

 

[Keenberg]

I don't see the need for this, either. The mechanics to "retreat tactically" are already available to the players. Don't want to get hit with an OA? The player shifts and then runs so not to step in to any threatening areas. Want a bonus to your defense? End the turn where you have cover.

The players aren't making it, even with good tactics? Reward them by fudging a roll or two.

 

[eriktheguy]

I'm noticing a lot of people commenting that this mechanic would be 'unnecessary'. Since they aren't playing in your campaign, this isn't really their call to make. The point is, is the mechanic balanced, is the mechanic sensible, and does the mechanic solve a problem that couldn't be solved in a better way?

The mechanic seems balanced, a minor bonus outweighed by a major penalty is generally bad for the players, but in specific situations they can use it well and be rewarded for it.

The mechanic is sensible, as you described, it is a morale issue.

The mechanic solves the problem of very difficult retreats. This is not an issue in every campaign, but in some campaigns you don't want the players to assume that every enemy they encounter is exactly their level. You want them to worry about the possibility of a very powerful enemy, and to be able to get out of there if necessary. If they do beat a hasty retreat, they can usually get away, but then they won't be ready or willing to fight again until they have a chance to regroup.

If your intention was to make this power one the players use until the end of the encounter, make it a stance instead of a move action.

 

[Kingreaper]

The mechanic solves the problem of very difficult retreats.

Not entirely. It helps V. enemies that have you partially (but not fully) surrounded.

It fails vs. enemies that have you immobilised. Which are the most difficult retreats.
For that you need some kind of "pull your allies" type ability.

Which would make reasonable sense.

The important question is what kind of enemies it needs to allow fleeing from.
If immobilising and/or fast enemies are the problem, this doesn't solve it AFAICT (they can hold you there, or run you down)


Some ideas for combat actions that might help:



Surrender: Diplomacy Vs. Will+5 (or a DC set by the DM, need to work out modifiers, probably will+15 or so for the target being bloodied)
Minor
You surrender, throwing yourself on the mercy of your captors. The diplomacy check is to recieve mercy from them. take a -2 morale penalty until your next extended rest.
If this fails, you know, and may continue fighting.


Vanish into the distance: Stealth Vs. Perception
Minor. Must be at least 10 squares away from target.

You are invisible to the target as long as you use all your move and standard actions to move away from them, and make no attacks

 

[Kzach]

What generally happens, in your experience, when someone runs from combat?

It doubles the amount of attacks the monsters have (provoking) and no longer reduces the damage output of the monsters (since the PC's aren't attacking, the monsters aren't dying).

Given that monsters can also run, it is actually detrimental to a group to run from an encounter and they have better odds of surviving by sticking it out.

At a minimum make it require a double move and eliminate the bonus to saves which makes no sense thematically or mechanically.

It makes perfect thematic and mechanical sense. I'm not even going to prove otherwise since I think the answer is so obvious.

 

[Kingreaper]

@kzach: A monster that is running is at a bigger penalty to attacks than your Withdrawal gives +to defence.

Said monster will also need to DOUBLE run if the PCs are willing to take OAs, meaning that it shouldn't be getting to attack at all.

How are the monsters keeping up, and hitting the PCs? With your withdraw I can see how: they move, then charge. With running?