movement during combat

[bigjawhite]

another question.

regarding "backing away".....

rules state that if a PC backs away and he is pursued, he may attack the pursuer. but... that would mean making an attack outside his turn.

can a PC in melee attack, then make a "back away" movement away from his foe?

[dymondy2k]

I 'think' in a normal combat round you move then attack.. So once you make that attack you can no longer move.. I think what you are referring to is a 'Fighting Retreat' which allows you to move away from the fight without allowing them to get a parting shot at you. I don't think you get an attack if they continue to close on you.. At least that's not what I'm interpreting in the rules... What a Fighting Retreat allows you to do is get some space between you and the guy that just may be kicking your butt at the moment without letting him get take another shot at you. Sometimes with the hope an ally will slide in front of you and take your place so you can heal.

[bigjawhite]

dymondy:

agreed. RAW mention a PC being able to attack if his foe pursues.

general consensus on the boards (including other threads I have read) is as you suggesst - if you retreat or engage in a fighting withdrawal, you don't get an attack.

[Solomoriah]

If you perform a fighting withdrawal, your character has moved. (Obviously.)

If then you are pursued by your opponent, you may use your as-yet-unused attack against him, her, or it (if the opponent closes within melee range). Your attack will come on the opponent's Initiative number, just as with a held attack.

So you're attacking simultaneously, UNLESS one opponent has a significantly longer weapon than the other (in that case, the longer weapon attacks first).

... and, if the pursuer is using the longer weapon, he or she may deny the pursued the opportunity to attack by staying back just out of that character's reach.

[dymondy2k]

Chris.. We might need to tweak that rule then for the next edition because that's not how it reads. It really says nothing at all about getting that attack if they pursue. Just that they don't get a parting shot.

[Solomoriah]

Chris.. We might need to tweak that rule then for the next edition because that's not how it reads. It really says nothing at all about getting that attack if they pursue. Just that they don't get a parting shot.

Um... you're mixing your rules there. The "they" who don't get a parting shot refers to the combatant(s) being fled from, not from the combatant who is fleeing. Not getting a parting shot in no way prevents such combatant(s) from pursing and attacking, if they have unused attacks.

I will admit that the rules don't say that someone who has engaged in a fighting withdrawal may attack if an opportunity presents itself. On the other hand, neither do the rules say that such a combatant may NOT attack when an opportunity appears.

[bigjawhite]

perhaps a tweaking is not needed, but a clarification is

[dymondy2k]

perhaps a tweaking is not needed, but a clarification is

That's what I meant.. Its just not stated in the ruling at all that if a character who is making a fighting withdrawal can engage an enemy who pursues him with an attack.

[Solomoriah]

I'll concede, it's not stated in there, and it might be beneficial to include it as an example. But... in my opinion, it shouldn't be needed. If the rules don't say you can't, why would you think that?

[bigjawhite]

allowing a player to move and then to later attack is letting him/her split his turn. the example you used, Chris, of a player moving and attacking when his pursuer closes in is not the same as a PC opting to delay on his turn.