It's not quite so simple. In RMC and RMSS the Disengage action is automatically successful, it moves the disengaging char 10' away from the attacker, and the attacker is not allowed an attack. The disengaging char may then turn and flee at no risk.
That's right... and we just don't use it.
Granted, it does require a certain amount of action to just get away, leaving the attacker enough movement to keep up if they want to, but this just isn't how melee combat works in the real world. If is advancing on you you either have to face them and retreat or just flat out flee (I realize there's exceptions, but this is generally what's really going to happen). This is why we rule the attacker simply gets to choose following or making a parting attack (or, if they choose, nothing of course).
Which brings us back to the LIC who has already said "no move", cannot attack now either, and is left to do nothing in the Action step, indeed having to wait until the end of the round to move his leftover % activity. Not an acceptable outcome for most players, I'm sure.
I am starting to see the possible issue. If the LIC doesn't move and doesn't attack, then has 100% movement at the end of the round, they get to move freely (assuming the are not in melee with someone as the opponent would get a free shot at them). I think I'm ok with that. They basically gave up a round and everyone else 'did their thing', leaving them to move about freely unless someone else has the same or more movement left over. It's the equivalent of just hanging back and avoiding notice. But, again, if they are in melee they are likely going to draw an attack when they leave melee due to how we treat leaving melee combat.
Your opportunity attack idea in effect replaces the Disengage auto-success and completely swings the advantage around from the defender to the attacker, which I think is also unacceptable. Of course this is all subjective. I would prefer a middle road approach, where the Disengage might be successful (as our group has already been house ruling) and the attacker might be able to chase a successful disengaging char rather than have to abide by his "no move" announcement.
You're right, this is an area where the advantage is with the individual who wants the combat to continue regardless of who won the initiative (sort of on the level of how we give a mounted attacker who is charging some significant advantages). In our minds this is simply realistic. Not that we're master world-class professionals (although one of my friends in particular has not met anyone that can beat him more than occasionally, but we have real life experience in 'light' fighting - rapiers/sabres type stuff. If someone is intent on continuing the fight you're either going to make a slow withdrawl until you can get some backup or you're going to essentially cut and run. Granted your foe isn't ALWAYS going to get an attack in on you, but we just treat this as a miss on the attackers part.
In short, Disengagement will need it's own special rule to be made for the new combat sequence described here, which is quite ok of course. I'll ponder this.
Agreed, even if it is drawing a possible attack, there would need to be something consistent. Realistically the average user is going to like it favoring the fleeing user rather than the attacker (because players will like not being able to get away less then their foes being able to).
Incidently, all this discussion going into the nitty gritty detail of the rules I think is absolutely necessary if there is any chance of this becoming part of a ruleset one day. Slim chance of course, but worth the time and effort should it turn out to be a keeper.
Oh absolutely. Any setup that doesn't have rational forward thinking people trying to cover the bigger picture is going to have problems once the masses get a hold of it. I used to work at WotC and the R&D team would have our group play against them fairly regularly, I suspect probably because we beat them pretty consistently. I don't think it's because we were better players, it's because they were too close to the process and had a fixed use in mind for a card, which we did not. So we would find ways to use them which were not intended. Even with as diligent as they try to be, stuff always slips through that they have to ban later.
