Technically speaking there is no requirement to be standing in a threatened square to take a withdraw action, but there's also no difference between doing that and just taking two move actions instead.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The usual reason to use the full withdrawal action os to avoid provoking an attack of opportunity. The action allows you to avoid an AoO, but at the expense of not being able to take any standard action. If you are not threatened, there is no reason to do a full withdrawal.
|
I think RAI indicates that you can only withdraw when you're threatened.
The Decoy Ring from Ultimate Equipment strongly implies this, otherwise you'd be able to activate it in a way that clearly isn't intended.
It sounds like that ring is why you're asking. If that's not it, what's the situation?
Withdraw
Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. When you withdraw, you can move up to double your speed. The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that square. Invisible enemies still get attacks of opportunity against you, and you can’t withdraw from combat if you’re blinded. You can’t take a 5-foot step during the same round in which you withdraw.If, during the process of withdrawing, you move out of a threatened square (other than the one you started in), enemies get attacks of opportunity as normal.
You may not withdraw using a form of movement for which you don’t have a listed speed.
Note that despite the name of this action, you don’t actually have to leave combat entirely.
Restricted Withdraw: If you are limited to taking only a standard action each round you can withdraw as a standard action. In this case, you may move up to your speed.
Avatar-1, nothing in the rule states you need to be threatened to Withdraw only that the first square of movement is not threatened.
This ring is a thick loop of mirrorlike metal. Whenever the wearer of this ring takes the withdraw action or becomes helpless (including falling unconscious), it instantly makes her invisible for 3 rounds and creates four illusory duplicates that either run off in opposite directions or perform other plausible actions that could draw enemy attention away from her. The duplicates last for 3 rounds before disappearing, but they instantly pop out of existence if struck by an attack (AC 10) and can be disbelieved (Will DC 19). Allies of the wearer always know her true location and can freely provide aid or assistance to her.
Nothing in Decoy Ring that indicates you need to be threatened.
You are adding a (RAI) restriction to the use of Withdraw (and the Decoy Ring) that does not exist.
Withdraw
Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. When you withdraw, you can move up to double your speed. The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that square. Invisible enemies still get attacks of opportunity against you, and you can’t withdraw from combat if you’re blinded. You can’t take a 5-foot step during the same round in which you withdraw.If, during the process of withdrawing, you move out of a threatened square (other than the one you started in), enemies get attacks of opportunity as normal.
You may not withdraw using a form of movement for which you don’t have a listed speed.
Note that despite the name of this action, you don’t actually have to leave combat entirely.
Restricted Withdraw: If you are limited to taking only a standard action each round you can withdraw as a standard action. In this case, you may move up to your speed.
Avatar-1, nothing in the rule states you need to be threatened to Withdraw only that the first square of movement is not threatened.
...
You are adding a (RAI) restriction to the use of Withdraw (and the Decoy Ring) that does not exist.
You do have to be in melee to withdraw, which often involves being threatened.
I would not allow the withdraw action unless you were within reach of an enemy.
Withdraw's purpose is to have you be able to retreat without provoking, but nothing says you have to be in melee. The rules call out melee because the snapshot feats did not exist at the time.
You can start an FAQ, but so far nothing has melee combat as a requirement.
withdrawing from melee combat is a full round action
It's in the very first 4 words of the rule. I don't think an FAQ is required when it is spelled out that clearly.
withdrawing from melee combat is a full round actionIt's in the very first 4 words of the rule. I don't think an FAQ is required when it is spelled out that clearly.
I still see a requirement to be in melee. It is just saying that withdrawing from melee combat is a full round action.
Now if it said "You must be in melee combat....." that would be different.
There's an interesting question: If you are wielding a longbow, and the only people you are threatened by are crossbow wielders with Snap Shot - can you withdraw?
Nothing about the situation is "melee combat".
I am imagining that if you can't withdraw from archers people will be up in arms. They already have the clustered shots feat. Making people take a new(not yet made) feat just to use withdraw because someone has a ranged weapon will not go over well.
I am sure that PDT will not say you only have to be in melee.
As an example many of the rules in the magic chapter call out the core casting classes, but we still apply them to new classes, and they were written with more limitations than the withdraw statement has.
There is no option to withdraw if you aren't in melee combat. Your sole option is withdraw from melee. Permissive rule set is I believe the phrase.
There is no requirement to be threatened though, so if you threaten someone with a melee weapon, but they don't threaten you, you can still withdraw.
With all this aside unless you are being threatened by someone with the snapshot feats it won't really matter because it is more efficient to just take a move action.
If someone has the snapshot feat line it won't matter if you are 5 ft away or 100 ft away because they can still shoot you barring some corner case so you really can't get away unless you can break line of sight at a minimum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To add on to Wraithstrike's line of thought...
Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action... The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see,
Even if we assume the first sentence is a "requirement" that you be in melee... The AoO avoidance would still work against Snapshot enemies, since there is no limitation to melee AoOs only.
(by that assumption, you would just need SOME enemy in melee with you, yet the AoO avoidance applies to all enemies threatening your square for AoOs including ranged enemies with Snapshot)But the first sentence ISN'T phrased as a requirement, it is just a description of the action... With the actual mechanical effects described in further sentences. So as I explained above, there is zero issue with the ability working vs. Snapshot, that is 100% within scope of Withdraw. To claim that Withdraw will work vs Snapshot when some melee enemy is threatening you, but NOT work vs Snapshot when only Snapshot archer is threatening you is absurd.
Melee is never given as a requirement. When you take the "Withdraw" / "Withdrawing from Melee Combat" action, it does what it tells you, period. No matter if the name of the action doesn't quite make sense in the context, you are using a game-mechanical action according to it's requirements and it's described effects. Even if it may be supefluous in a situation where there are no melee enemies, the action still is Withdrawing from Melee (and any Ranged who can threaten that square).
Can you withdraw from range for example?
I don't think you expected the rules pedantry into which this thread degenerated into.
You can withdraw from any combat just by moving away (as long as the enemy doesn't follow you, at least). That's usually accomplished with the move or run actions. Simply moving away.
The Withdraw action lets you move away from an enemy who threatens you with its melee weapons without provoking attacks of opportunity. Except in corner cases, attacks of opportunity is only relevant when you are within reach of an enemy with melee weapons. So there's no need to use the withdraw action if you're facing enemies with ranged weapons.
|
Fiendish Sprinter
Some tieflings have feet that are more bestial than human. Whether their feet resemble those of a clawed predator or are the cloven hooves common to many of their kind, tieflings with this trait gain a 10-foot racial bonus to their speed when using the charge, run, or withdraw actions. This racial trait replaces skilled
Withdrawing without actually "being in melee combat" does come up now and then.
Withdrawing without actually "being in melee combat" does come up now and then.
Fair enough.
I however believe there's at least a chance that Theodor Snuddletusk, the opening poster, is rather new to the game. It's possible he read the rules on the withdraw action, thought »So if I meet archers, I first have to close in before I can withdraw and end the encounter? That doesn't seem right« and then went here to ask about it.
And since next to no answer in this thread even implied that withdraw in the Pathfinder rules context means something very different from its standard English meaning I thought Thedor deserved a post explaining that, in case he needed one.
But you're right, Ascalaphus, and I should probably have mentioned Fiendish Sprinter or similar, had I known about it =)
The defense to this level of pedantry is to point out that "melee combat" isn't actually defined anywhere.
Actually that is not it. My point is that nowhere does it say "You have to be in melee to use the action". Now I think it is a fair extrapolation to make, but I really doubt the PDT will say "no withdrawing from someone with snap shot".
When viewing the rules regarding shooting into melee it states "Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other".
And with that statement I can say this-->I have never seen anyone say you can't withdraw from a creature such as a giant that can reach you, but you can't reach him. That is another reason why I don't think being in melee is a requirement to withdraw.
I wonder if anyone has ever allowed someone to only make a 5-foot step or acrobatics check to get away from this situation, and not withdraw.<---talking about anyone who is arguing that you must be in melee.
PS: Just building off of your post.
|
I would not expect either : "no withdrawing from someone with snap shot".
but I'd expect : "no withdrawing if you're not theatened".
even if you're next to an archer, you can be considered threatened: snap shot, armor spike, improved unarmed strike, ...
but I would not allow (in my games) a withdraw if you do not know that someone is near you , ready to strike.
|
|
The Decoy Ring (12Kgp) is a bit of a strange item. Compared to the Ring of Invisibility (20Kgp) it's rather cheap to activate that easily. Then again, the images only last for three rounds, so it's application to non-combat situations are rather limited.
It's possible that the writer of the Decoy Ring never realized that you might Withdraw in other circumstances than melee. Looking very closely at the text, there are some indications that you really should only be allowed to withdraw if you're actually in a melee;
Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. When you withdraw, you can move up to double your speed. The square you start out in is not considered threatened by any opponent you can see, and therefore visible enemies do not get attacks of opportunity against you when you move from that square. Invisible enemies still get attacks of opportunity against you, and you can't withdraw from combat if you're blinded. You can't take a 5-foot step during the same round in which you withdraw.
If, during the process of withdrawing, you move out of a threatened square (other than the one you started in), enemies get attacks of opportunity as normal.
You may not withdraw using a form of movement for which you don't have a listed speed.
Note that despite the name of this action, you don't actually have to leave combat entirely.
Restricted Withdraw: If you are limited to taking only a standard action each round you can withdraw as a standard action. In this case, you may move up to your speed.
So on the one hand, the only circumstance under which you explicitly can't withdraw is being unable to see. You can even withdraw from invisible enemies, it just doesn't help.
On the other hand, there's a strong assumption that withdrawing is from a combat. Although the second mention has already gone from melee combat to combat in general.
So assuming you have to be "in melee combat", what does that mean? We don't have a definition specifying what that means. The closest we get is the section on shooting into melee, which defines "engaged in melee with each other". If we set concerns about the scope wherein that definition applies side, we get that you're in melee combat if you're currently being threatened by an enemy and/or threatening that enemy. ("either", not "both")
I have to wonder though. I suspect that the writer of the Withdraw action simply didn't conceive of a situation where you would want to Withdraw instead of using a double move action to move normally. Which at the time wasn't a concern because there was no additional benefit to withdrawing instead of moving normally. So these "restrictions" could also just be stylistic devices, not an intentional attempt to limit when you're allowed to withdraw. Again, the only clear things saying when you're not allowed to withdraw is when you're blind or don't have the proper movement type.
I think with regards to power level, it makes sense to regulate the Decoy Ring to only activate if withdrawing from an actual melee engagement.
WITHDRAW is a COMBAT ACTION and implies you must be in combat to do so as per the CORE RULE BOOK on Full Round Actions in COMBAT.
Look at the Description for the Withdraw Action:
Withdrawing from melee combat is a full-round action. Blah blah blah...
It is in the first four words of the description there "MELEE COMBAT" that is pretty clear to me.
Anything else you are doing when not in MELEE is just MOVEMENT that does not require a special action.
the WITHDRAW FROM COMBAT action only exists to show your focus on "getting away" so you do not Provoke the AoO from the first square of movement... in all other ways it is just like a double move with the exception it requires a FULL ROUND ACTION.
Why would you restrict yourself to a double move as full round action if you were not in a threatened square to begin with? < I think that is the better question.
You would not do a full withdraw in ranged combat, you just double move.I can agree with that assumption on a general base.
But if my character is under constant fire from an archer, and it is clear that he has Snap Shot. Since every time i try to move about he gets in free shots.
Snap shot only gives the archer attacks of opportunity within 5ft (melee range)
There are other snapshot feats that increase the range of snapshot beyond 5 feet.
Why would you restrict yourself to a double move as full round action if you were not in a threatened square to begin with? < I think that is the better question.
There is no difference effectively. Both remove your standard and move actions, while leaving you with your swift action, except for the withdraw not allowing the AoO.
toportime, I think the issue here is that there are special abilities and magic items that only benefit you if you use the 'withdraw' action.
Since "Melee Combat" is a vague term that even if it was a game mechanic rather than just a general description of it's use it could mean 'you are in combat' or it could mean 'you are being threatened'.
The problem with the "melee combat" = "you are being threatened" argument is that it prevents you from using withdraw while being threatened by a person with Snap Shot which I don't think most people would interpret it as.
|
|
When the Withdraw action was written, as far as I know, being "engaged in melee" (to borrow the comparable term from the shooting into melee rules) was the only way to be at risk of an AoO for moving.
Since then, more ways have appeared (Snap Shot). I don't think it was intended that you couldn't Withdraw from those. In all cases, Withdrawing represents carefully extracting yourself from a dangerous spot; there's no obvious in-game reason why you could only to that if people were threatening you with one weapon but not with the other.
So I would certainly allow someone to Withdraw from a Snap Shot area. I'm inclined not to allow Withdrawal from an unthreatened spot just to activate a Decoy Ring though; that seems to go against the intent of the ring.
Personally, I think it doesn't go against the intent of the Decoy Ring.
The intent is to confuse the enemy so as to prevent them from knowing your true direction.
Whether you are doing it because you are threatened or not doesn't seem really relevant to "I am creating illusory doubles who move in different directions".
Earlier you compared it to the Ring of Invisibility citing that it would be a cheap version of the ring. I disagree with that.
Ring of Invisibility lasts for 3 minutes, not 3 rounds. It doesn't come with 4 illusory doubles telling the enemy 'someone is here!'.
It has one basic use, to confuse the enemy of your true location while moving around. Frankly, it is rather expensive for just that one use.
I'd think if you were under the gun (or bow) and your movement could trigger an AoO just by you doing so, you're eligible to withdraw. (If you're surrounded by invisible ninjae, of course, you wouldn't know and end up taking seven AoOs just by trying to walk away, but in that case you're already in deep trouble.) Or if Glen Glavieswinger was 10' away.
I think trying to cheese the Decoy Ring into a cheap very-short-term ring of invisibility is a bit outside what it's meant to do, tho.
Remember, withdraw only helps from the FIRST square. Let's say you're 10' directly west of Glen Glaiveswinger, and want to leave your square. If your withdraw goes straight north or south, yes, you're safe from leaving your first square. Glen will then take his shot when you leave the SECOND square. I think the same would cover withdrawing from someone who threatens squares at range, too.