Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

For DCC RPG rules discussion. Includes rules questions and ideas, new rules suggestions, homebrews and hacks, conversions to other systems, and everything else rules-related.

Moderators: DJ LaBoss, finarvyn, michaelcurtis, Harley Stroh

AJClark
Far-Sighted Wanderer
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by AJClark »

screenmonkey wrote:Keep in mind that the use of a "withdrawal free whack" rule is what effectively kills any chase scene from occurring. The PCs don't run when they should for fear of an ignoble death and the bad guys never manage to escape to plunge down some alleyway with the heroes in hot pursuit.
This is where I see a Mighty Deed come into play. Does the party need to flee a band of orcs they're in a fight with....and not want to get "free whacked" as they run? Do like the hero does in one of the Appendix N books....flip over a table, tear down a tapestry, slice the rope holding the chandelier, turn over the flaming brazier. Shield bash one of them into the others. Do something to give a momentary distraction and then run like hell. The trick is to stop thinking like this is a miniatures game with strict rules for movement and start think like it's an action movie.

The Hero doesn't just run away...he runs away with style.
User avatar
GnomeBoy
Tyrant Master (Administrator)
Posts: 4126
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:46 pm
FLGS: Bizarro World
Location: Left Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by GnomeBoy »

Devil and AJ have the right of it.

As always, creative your way out of conundrums.
...
Gnome Boy • DCC playtester @ DDC 35 Feb '11. • Beta DL 2111, 7AM PT, 8 June 11.
Playing RPGs since '77 • Quasi-occasional member of the Legion of 8th-Level Fighters.

Link: Here Be 100+ DCC Monsters

bygrinstow.com - The Home of Inner Ham
User avatar
Colin
Moderator
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:05 pm
Location: Devon, England

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by Colin »

Apart from creative solutions, I'd probably just drop the "free whack" rule anyway. It sounds logical enough, but really, how easy do you think it is to simply take another effective swipe at someone in combat if they start running from you? My gut feeling is that in most cases it isn't, by the time you realize what they're doing and react, they've probably managed a few swift strides away from you. I've never had someone sprint away suddenly in a bout, but if anyone who actually has had some real experience has (especially with weapons) I'd be curious to know.
phg
Wild-Eyed Zealot
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:00 pm

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by phg »

I had a question about whether the Rules As Written were meant to include a 'free whack' against spell-casters standing next to a melee threat. Somehow the dialog has taken a somewhat "4E is bad m'kay, and your questions are the reason...." tone.

I understand that the game is a simpler game and that not every contingency that can be dreamed of needs to be addressed in advance. I merely wanted to know what the intention of the designer was.
User avatar
Merl
Far-Sighted Wanderer
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:56 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by Merl »

screenmonkey wrote:Keep in mind that the use of a "withdrawal free whack" rule is what effectively kills any chase scene from occurring. The PCs don't run when they should for fear of an ignoble death and the bad guys never manage to escape to plunge down some alleyway with the heroes in hot pursuit.

That's been my experience anyway.
Exactly. And in fact, using the rule as written, it means the only way a fight can work is for everyone to stand there and slug it out toe to toe. Any movement entitles the enemy to a free attack.
Forwards, backwards, or even a sideways leap onto that table to do some heroic deed? All are "moving to a new position or attempting some action". Free whack.

And wanting to reposition isn't just a "war gamery" thing either - in my experience players in battle want to try something interesting/epic/stupid in about 96.2% of fights, rather than standing still and swapping hits with the bad guys until one side is down.
I must admit that I do like the simplicity of the rule as written - but it would be nice to have a touch more guidance than a two sentence paragraph, for something that must be an incredibly common occurrence in fight scenes.
Devil Swine
Wild-Eyed Zealot
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by Devil Swine »

*I'm not trying to be insulting or a jerk or anything other than to try and convey what I think the rule is all about.

You guys are too used to other more modern rule nutty games or are over thinking it.


The Free Wack rule is to stop every fight from turning into a chase. Think about it if you were in a sword fight and you were down to 4 hit points and your opponent was over 40 hit points still and you could run away without a major risk,why wouldn't you? If you don't you are dead! You can't do anything or help anyone or loot anything while dead. Running away you at least have a small chance of getting away.

Now the free wack rule gives a real reason why not to run away. Now that doesn't mean it could be done,many times you can still get away. It only adds a price to the attempt.

For those of you who think its unrealistic,pick up a stick and spar with a friend in your hallway and try to run away. It's almost impossible to get away with it unhit! Add a little training with that and anyone attempting to flee should have all there affairs in order! However,realism is a poor reason to use for a game.

Instead think about the way game play becomes effected. Try it out in game making sure you are fair and let the monsters and npc's use it as well. After all there is no reason that the monster would not simply run past the warrior out front and bit the wizards head off once hit by a spell. Once the cleric healed every intelligent for would focus all fire on the cleric IF they didn't do so from the get go.

Every foe would move about the battlefield at whim just the same as the players!

See I find most DM's who are against this rule, fail to change npc behavior to match the changed reality. For one because this puts the martially weaker players are a huge disadvantage.

Last but not least this doesn't mean that the battlefield can't be a place of movement! There is a huge difference from fleeing a battle and a swordman backing away from his enemy in a guarded position or lunging past his foe in a attack.

If you must have something codified in the rules to let this work for you think about a house rule that says this.

A combatant engaged in melee with a foe my move 10 feet in any direction during the round as long as he doesn't move through a occupied space and ends the round facing his foe.

Honestly I feel this isn't necessary and even adds more complexity (nearly always a bad thing) of combat.

I would rather use it than not use any free wack rules however.

Now if you try the game without withdraw rules and like it better then by all means do it that way. I'm by no means suggesting that the official way or my way is better for your game,simply that its better for my games.
User avatar
GnomeBoy
Tyrant Master (Administrator)
Posts: 4126
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:46 pm
FLGS: Bizarro World
Location: Left Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by GnomeBoy »

Re-reading the rule, you could just strip out some verbiage and make the meaning of 'melee' cover the entire fight. As in, if you try to escape the fight, then there's a free whack, but if you're just switching targets, shifting to higher ground, etc., then you're still in melee and no free whack is called for.

Does that work?
...
Gnome Boy • DCC playtester @ DDC 35 Feb '11. • Beta DL 2111, 7AM PT, 8 June 11.
Playing RPGs since '77 • Quasi-occasional member of the Legion of 8th-Level Fighters.

Link: Here Be 100+ DCC Monsters

bygrinstow.com - The Home of Inner Ham
User avatar
Skyscraper
Steely-Eyed Heathen-Slayer
Posts: 660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:23 pm
Location: Montreal

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by Skyscraper »

This is a good discussion. I think it addresses a problem that many RPGs have attempted to address, with limited success.

3E introduced the attack of opportunity (already known by other names in wargames) and one result was that combat became very static. Creatures clumped up somewhere, and since no one could flee without getting hit, there was practically no movemenet on the battlefield. 4E changed this a bit by allowing more move actions that didn't provoke AoOs, and also forced movement. This worked well to address the problem IMO and made for much more dynamic battles, but it was a complex solution. D&D Next is tackling this very question in its beta-testing: it started out with no AoOs but the feedback was that monsters could charge the spellcaster too easily and that the fighter couldn't do anything to protect him (and the other way around for monsters); now they brought in essentially the same AoO rule that DCC uses, the free whack, but I feel that the designers have not said their last word on this topic.

I think there is no easy solution. The combat becoming static is a real problem of AoOs in my opinion. 3E battles really became stale mainly (IMO) because of that.

What I would hope for, for a battle to be cool, is that the opponents move about the room and jump on chairs, pick up a bottle to throw, move up on the balcony to fire a dagger, and generally be mobile to access different areas in the environment. However, no one is going to try that with the free whack rule.

I think perhaps one way to address that is to change the trigger of the free whack rule towards intent instead of action. What I mean is that, presently, the free whack rule trigger is based on action, namely: when a first creature moves away from a second creature, the second creature gets a free whack on the first. The judge should then watch for any "movement away", and award a free whack if there is one. If instead you use intent, then you could say that the rule is: if a first creature wishes to flee the battlefield and is engaged in combat with a second creature, the second creature gets a free whack. However, if the first creature moves away from the second creature but its intent is to continue to battle it, such as by jumping on the countertop, strategically moving back to lure the second creature into a trap, or the like, then no free whack. Perhaps the battle-movement, if I may call it that way, could then be limited according to circumstances, i.e. the first creature might not benefit from its usual full movement capacity. It then becomes a judgement call by the judge, who can adjudicate depending on the feel of a particular battle situation.
Maledict Brothbreath, level 4 warrior, STR 16 (+2) AGI 7 (-1) STA 12 PER 9 INT 10 LUCK 15 (+1), AC: 16 Refl: +1 Fort: +2 Will: +1; lawful; Armor of the Lion and Lily's Blade.

Brother Sufferus, level 4 cleric, STR 13 (+1) AGI 15 (+1) STA 11 PER 13 (+1) INT 10 LUCK 9, AC: 11 (13 if wounded, 15 if down to half hit points), Refl: +3 Fort: +2 Will: +3, chaotic, Robe of the Faith, Scourge of the Maimed One, Darts of Pain.
AJClark
Far-Sighted Wanderer
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by AJClark »

The way Skyscraper just described is pretty much how I've been running our game. As long as the PC isn't running away from combat completely, they can move at will. If they want to turn tail and run, and haven't done anything to prevent the their opponent from doing so (i.e turned over a table to get in the way, dumped over a flaming brazier), the opponent gets a free shot. i want to promote that swashbucking feeling in combat. Jump on tables, swing fromt he chandelier, kick sand in their face. I encourage my players to think out of the box, try crazy moves, but they also need to feel they can flee if needed...they just need to be smart about it.

We have ruled that certain activities, (anything taking a more than normal bit of concentration and focus, such as casting a spell or using a ranged weapon) doesn't give a free shot, but any attackers get a +d to their attack die, since the defenders attention is being spent on something other than melee.

Sometimes to decide this it takes a little discusion between myself and the players. They describe what they want to do, I try to assess its feasibility, give some pros and cons, and let the playeer decide it they want to try it. So much more freedom than having fixed rules that say "if the PC does this, then this will happen". You just got to get in the right mindset :)
TheNobleDrake
Cold-Blooded Diabolist
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:36 am

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by TheNobleDrake »

I run it like Skyscraper is mentioning - a "free whack" only happens if you are attempting to exit a combat, rather than simply move that combat.

It's pretty easy to adjudicate too, you listen to the player for cues like "I wanna back this guy up to the rest of the group," or "I try to lead my opponent by that pool of water," instead of cues like "I've gotta get the [expletive deleted] out of here!"
CapnZapp
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:00 am
FLGS: Book

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by CapnZapp »

DCC is based on the d20 engine, but more recent games have proved (to me at least) that movement during combat is to be encouraged:

Static combats are boring, dynamic combats are fun and exciting.

I consider the static combats that result from various rules of d20 to be a great flaw of that system. Chiefly: you can't move more than a step and still get all your attacks, and you can't easily reposition yourself around a foe.

DCC is already better simply by always giving out a move - no matter what you do, you can't claim any advantages by giving up that move. Move, or don't move - your choice, but you don't even get the smallest +1 by not moving. This is very good.

However, DCC could be greatly improved by dropping its existing Withdrawal rule (page 95) and how only Warriors can do Pushback Deeds and similar.

The original point of making Melee combat "sticky" was to avoid the frustration of really old games where you (as a fighter or warrior-like monster) can only watch as a wizard or archer steps out of reach and peppers you with magic or arrows.

So why not have a rule that keeps that aspect while still allowing, no encouraging, movement! :)
User avatar
Bobjester
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:40 am
FLGS: Looking for one that doesn't withhold games from customers.
Location: The Good Life

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by Bobjester »

The free attack on a withdrawing opponent was part of the 1st edition rules, but it was 3e that coined the term "Attack of Opportunity". B)

I have never understood players who think that their only choice is to stand and fight, and that taking an unanswered attack is something to avoid at all costs.
I try to emphasize that the choice is still there to be made - albeit every move or non-move you make will have consequences.
Your opponent is going to try to hit you regardless.

I would use rear AC & front AC, so if you turn and run (rout, full retreat), your opponent gets one free swing at your rear AC. If you back away, step by step, using weapon and shield to protect your reverse movement, your opponent gets your AC with shield & Agility mods.

Causing a distraction, now that's new to me! A table flip, or kicking the fire, pulling the tapestry down, knocking over heavy furniture, bookcases, shutting a door in the attacker's face, etc., I'd make your opponent make a DC based on the table-flipping PC's Agility score (or use the warrior's Deed instead) to dodge or be slowed for a round - preventing a free attack.

Heck, I'd probably say that in either case the free attack is prevented, and the DC is only to see if the opponent is slowed for a round.
“The wounds received in battle bestow honor, they do not take it away...”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Raven_Crowking
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 3159
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:41 am
FLGS: The Sword & Board
Contact:

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by Raven_Crowking »

I have allowed Warriors to use their Deed to defend when withdrawing, or to defend an ally, to prevent the free attack.
SoBH pbp:

Cathbad the Meek (herbalist Wizard 1): AC 9; 4 hp; S 7, A 7, St 10, P 17, I 13, L 8; Neutral; Club, herbs, 50' rope, 50 cp; -1 to melee attack rolls. Hideous scar.
CapnZapp
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:00 am
FLGS: Book

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by CapnZapp »

Raven_Crowking wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:26 pm I have allowed Warriors to use their Deed to defend when withdrawing, or to defend an ally, to prevent the free attack.
Sounds like a great suggestion! :) I noticed the rulebook offered a protective +1 AC bonus, which struck me as really weak compared to the other cool options.
User avatar
GnomeBoy
Tyrant Master (Administrator)
Posts: 4126
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:46 pm
FLGS: Bizarro World
Location: Left Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by GnomeBoy »

CapnZapp wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:32 am ...and how only Warriors can do Pushback Deeds and similar.
For clarity, I'll point out that Deeds are things done along with attacks -- but they don't necessarily involve doing things that others can't do. Other Classes can attempt to disarm opponents, do a pushback, etc. They just have to do them instead of an attack that does damage. If I'm not a Warrior, I can attempt to trip you, but the trip will not harm you. If the Warrior attempts it, he may well kill you at the same time!
...
Gnome Boy • DCC playtester @ DDC 35 Feb '11. • Beta DL 2111, 7AM PT, 8 June 11.
Playing RPGs since '77 • Quasi-occasional member of the Legion of 8th-Level Fighters.

Link: Here Be 100+ DCC Monsters

bygrinstow.com - The Home of Inner Ham
CapnZapp
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:00 am
FLGS: Book

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by CapnZapp »

GnomeBoy wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:36 pm For clarity, I'll point out that Deeds are things done along with attacks -- but they don't necessarily involve doing things that others can't do. Other Classes can attempt to disarm opponents, do a pushback, etc. They just have to do them instead of an attack that does damage. If I'm not a Warrior, I can attempt to trip you, but the trip will not harm you. If the Warrior attempts it, he may well kill you at the same time!
Absolutely. I can offer a character a way to extract herself from combat by giving up her attack, but still rolling an attack roll - successfully hitting the opponent merely means you can move away without the free whack (no damage is inflicted).

Mathematically, however, the better option is to simply attack your foe, hoping it goes down, and moving away whether the monster is still there to free-whack you or not. Assuming you have enough hit points to survive that free whack of course.

So I absolutely see the value of Mighty Deeds. (Just not the +1 to AC one 8) )
User avatar
Raven_Crowking
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 3159
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:41 am
FLGS: The Sword & Board
Contact:

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by Raven_Crowking »

GnomeBoy wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:36 pm
CapnZapp wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:32 am ...and how only Warriors can do Pushback Deeds and similar.
For clarity, I'll point out that Deeds are things done along with attacks -- but they don't necessarily involve doing things that others can't do. Other Classes can attempt to disarm opponents, do a pushback, etc. They just have to do them instead of an attack that does damage. If I'm not a Warrior, I can attempt to trip you, but the trip will not harm you. If the Warrior attempts it, he may well kill you at the same time!
"Well, you've certainly knocked him down<" I say at times like this.

:D
SoBH pbp:

Cathbad the Meek (herbalist Wizard 1): AC 9; 4 hp; S 7, A 7, St 10, P 17, I 13, L 8; Neutral; Club, herbs, 50' rope, 50 cp; -1 to melee attack rolls. Hideous scar.
User avatar
qstor
Wild-Eyed Zealot
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:03 am
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Question about "Withdrawl," page 95

Post by qstor »

Mintaro wrote: Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:52 am something I found very funny was on page 12, in the introduction, it mentions
"DCC RPG does not have prestige classes, attacks of opportunity, feats, or skill points."
Except the with drawl rule IS basically attacks of opportunity.
But if you look at 1e in the DMG? Or PHB, that rule is in there too. It's basically if you "run away" from combat the opponent gets a free attack you. The DCC/1e rule doesn't mean for instance if you drink a potion in the middle of combat next to the bad guy, THEN the opponent gets a free attack at you, like in 3E that's up to the judge.
"I waste it with my Hackmaster +12" Dave KODT

Twitter: @qstor2
Post Reply

Return to “Rules discussion”