Hit from behind

[Guyon]

Our players are in face to face combat and using movement to run around and hit from behind. I can't find a rule that say you can't do that. But it seems cheep.

I can see you moving up to a character and putting a move on them to make a first hit from behind or turing on a character that just did a move by. But is there a rule that says you can't run behind a character that you are directly involved with HTH combat just to get the 1/2 DCV?

[Hugh Neilson]

There are no specific "facing" rules in Hero. I would rule that the opponent is far from stupid enough to allow an attacker to simply run around behind him - he'll turn to watch the attacker, and will not be attacked from surprise. The fact it's not the defender's action/phase does not mean he's held immobile in stasis.

If the PC doesn't like it, point out that, if the PC's can do this, so can the NPC's, in which case everyone will be attacked at 1/2 DCV from now on.

[Guyon]

Kewl, that is where I was going with this.

[CrosshairCollie]

There are no specific "facing" rules in Hero.

Afraid I have to disagree here. Defense Maneuver I's effect is that 'no attacker is considered to be attacking from behind', and according to the DCV Modifiers on pg.245 (non-revised book), 'Attacked from behind in combat' and 'Attacked from behind out of combat' both have entries.

Of course, I don't really have a solution beyond simply telling the player not to be a twink. The only thing I can come up with is to say that anybody who starts his phase adjacent to a character, and ends it adjacent to the same character, can be 'tracked' by the target unless he's using Acrobatics to get a surprise move.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I'd have to agree with Hugh here.

If two characters are concentrating on one another, the second character is going to turn to face the 1st character as character #1 runs around behind him. In anycase, character #2 will be expecting an attack and should get his full DCV.

The DCV penalty should only be applied against opponents the defending character didn't see coming. Defense Maneuver removes this penalty by having the defending character make an evasive maneuver specifically designed to deny attackers a clear shot at the defenders back.

[Frenchman]

When my PCs tried this I told them that they couldn't if they were facing off one-on-one, since their opponents would turn with them.
If they would gang up on one person at least 2-1, then I'd let ONE of them get behind him, but they had to make a teamwork roll to get 1/2 DCV. If they failed it, I'd give the guy 'behind' +1 OCV, cuz I'm generous that way. If they made it, I'd give the guy in front +1 OCV, too, since that is what teamwork does for multiple attackers.

[Hugh Neilson]

When my PCs tried this I told them that they couldn't if they were facing off one-on-one, since their opponents would turn with them.
If they would gang up on one person at least 2-1, then I'd let ONE of them get behind him, but they had to make a teamwork roll to get 1/2 DCV. If they failed it, I'd give the guy 'behind' +1 OCV, cuz I'm generous that way. If they made it, I'd give the guy in front +1 OCV, too, since that is what teamwork does for multiple attackers.

I would allow this with the caveat that the target would have the choice to focus on one attacker and give the other one the back shot bonus, if he wished to do so. However, he would have to select which character on his phase and can't change his mind between phases (without an abort).

[Silbeg]

I would allow this with the caveat that the target would have the choice to focus on one attacker and give the other one the back shot bonus, if he wished to do so. However, he would have to select which character on his phase and can't change his mind between phases (without an abort).

That is pretty much how I would go...

Another "trick" I have used is to just allow the defender a PER roll to allow full DCV... with the appropriate bonuses and/or penalties... the less subtle the manuever, the larger the bonus.

Skills such as acrobatics could help the attacked, but this should be an OCV bonus rather than a halving of DCV

[Blue]

I was asked this in game one time. My ruling was that you could only get the from behind bonus if...
1) You're flanked by another player (In other words you have players on both your front and back...
2) If you are already engaged with the target, you can only get to that spot AND get the bonus via surprise manuever of some kind (Acrobatics, 1st time you tport there, etc.)

[Sean Waters]

I'm pretty sure there are some rule in The Ultimate Martial Artist regarding passing other characters and how that can be a little awkward if they are not friendly.

At present there is nothing (assuming sufficient movement and manouverabilty) to stop you running to any point around a character and attacking from there - hence there are no general facing rules in normal combat. Facing only really 'matters' if you are surrounded or taken by surprise.

Well I say 'nothing' - there's the GM, of course....

DnD tried to plug this logical gap and came up with the rules about 5 foot steps and attacks of opportunity. That is almost certainly the most complex part of DnD combat. In Hero I've never really felt the need. If character A wants to get behind character B, and there is some possibility of this happening, then it is either a stealth/PER opposed roll or a Dex/Dex, with appropriate situational modifiers, or, it may be obvious from context, like multiple attackers (and, of course, there is a bonus for multiple attackers anyway.....)

[KA.]

A couple of thoughts:

1) This points out one aspect of Hero combat that annoys me (now that I am doing it 'by the book').
I used to assume (incorrectly) that if you have two characters 10 hexes apart,
both with the same SPD,
if the character with the higher DEX decides to do a Move-by, Move-through, or just close to HTH range and Punch,
that the lower DEX character could get off a Ranged attack while the higher DEX character was moving.

However, as all of you probably know, the actual rule is that the Character with the higher DEX gets to do his complete "move and attack", while the Character with the lower DEX stands there and waits to be hit (barring an Abort, etc.).

Based on that, it probably is book legal for a higher DEX character to run around behind a lower DEX character, again while the lower DEX character stands there waiting to get hit (barring an Abort).

I am not saying that I want it to be this way, but I think that may be what the rules are.

I know that in the first case I was talking about the actual order of attack, whereas the second case is more about getting to change your position,
but if you consider:
"Run around to the back and hit my opponent" to be your "attack action", then I don't know if the other character does get a chance to do anything, unless they Abort.

Now I do not believe that the attacker should get anything for 'surprise', if the victim knows an attack is coming, but based on the basic structure of a bipedal humanoid, it is harder to defend your back that your front without special training (i.e. buying Defensive Maneuver), so you probably would get the 'From Behind' bonus.

2) One other thought that I have, as a GM who would quickly tire of this.

If the character being attacked has a Held Action, and some Sense that would allow them to target the attacker without turning around, then I think they would definately be able to launch a Surprise Attack when their foe went around behind them.
After all, when you are running up behind someone, you don't expect them to Mule Kick you in the groin, or thrust their sword straight back at you, especially if you think you are going to get to act first.

3) In general the GM always has a hard time walking the line between promoting clever player tactics and stopping abuse of loopholes in the rules.

KA.

[Kristopher]

A couple of thoughts:

1) This points out one aspect of Hero combat that annoys me (now that I am doing it 'by the book'). I used to assume (incorrectly) that if you have two characters 10 hexes apart, both with the same SPD, if the character with the higher DEX decides to do a Move-by, Move-through, or just close to HTH range and Punch, that the lower DEX character could get off a Ranged attack while the higher DEX character was moving.

However, as all of you probably know, the actual rule is that the Character with the higher DEX gets to do his complete "move and attack", while the Character with the lower DEX stands there and waits to be hit (barring an Abort, etc.).

I'd rather the rules worked the way you were doing it, but there are too many people in love with the way they're currently written and what that's supposed to reflect from the source material.

[prestidigitator]

I still use the old +2 OCV from behind rather than giving the target 1/2 DCV (I also give a +1 OCV bonus for attacking, "from the flank," meaning not directly behind but just outside the normal range of peripheral vision from the target's general facing). If the target is truly unaware of the attack I use the 1/2 DCV surprise penalty instead.

I generally don't allow an attacker to simply move around behind a target unless that target is surprised/unaware, or the target is already engaged with other attackers. In the latter case, I allow the target to choose whether to focus on a character or a direction when an attacker tries this. If they choose to focus on a character, they also act as if they are doing this according to the Multiple Attacker Bonus rules. If you are fighting only one opponent, I assume you turn to face them automatically unless you explicitly specify otherwise (perhaps a good idea when there are a bunch of archers focused on you).

Another exception is when the attacker is making multiple attacks on one target using a Move By. I use the rules that say the attacker must move completely around the target before technically making another attack roll, but I count every attack after the first as being, "from the flank," which averages out the bonuses due to attacking from all sides. This has only happened once while I was GMing, so whatever. If I get a mob of speedsters at some point I may rethink it. :)

EDIT: Oh, by the way, I negate the behind and flanking bonuses not only if the target uses the appropriate Defense Maneuver, but also if the target has a Discriminatory, Targeting, 360-degree Sense.

[Dust Raven]

A couple of thoughts:

1) This points out one aspect of Hero combat that annoys me (now that I am doing it 'by the book').
I used to assume (incorrectly) that if you have two characters 10 hexes apart,
both with the same SPD,
if the character with the higher DEX decides to do a Move-by, Move-through, or just close to HTH range and Punch,
that the lower DEX character could get off a Ranged attack while the higher DEX character was moving.

However, as all of you probably know, the actual rule is that the Character with the higher DEX gets to do his complete "move and attack", while the Character with the lower DEX stands there and waits to be hit (barring an Abort, etc.).
Funny thing is, this accuractly reflects reality. If there's a dude with a gun in his belt, and a dude up to 20 feet away, almost always the second dude will be able to cross the distance and throw a punch before the first dude can even draw his weapon.

[Dust Raven]

I've always done the from behind thing.... :o

Wait, let me rephrase this. If a character wants to attack from behind, he must start his movement outside his target's field of vision, or else find some way to completely leave the target's field of vision without the target having any idea where he's gone. If he just runs around someone, it's obvious where he's gone. If he teleports, not obvious. If he was never in front of and in view of the target, he's already behind. If he's in an area of limited visibility, such as thick smoke or a crowd of people, he can duck deeper into the smoke/crowd so his target cannot see him, then maneuver behind for his attack. Just running around in circles doesn't let you get behind a target.

I might grant a surprise bonus for this tactic though; for no other reason that it might make the target to dizzy to dodge.

[Gary]

Heck, a Stretcher, especially with multiple limbs, can attack from any angle at any time without even moving. My guess is that most GMs won't give the Stretcher free attacks from behind, although it is a good special effect to justify purchasing Martial Arts and/or CSLs.

[Roland]

I liked the old -1 OCV penalty for making a half-move before attacking. It would serve as a disincentive to this ploy.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Heck, a Stretcher, especially with multiple limbs, can attack from any angle at any time without even moving. My guess is that most GMs won't give the Stretcher free attacks from behind, although it is a good special effect to justify purchasing Martial Arts and/or CSLs.

I allow Indirect attacks to gain the bonus for attacking from behind or by surprise if they are used in an inventive manner or if the target isn't expecting such an attack.

[Markdoc]

Like most of the GM's here the 1/2 DCV reflects an attack by partial surprise: it's simply easier to avoid detection from behind and harder to respond to something you can't see. Running around them doesn't help since it's not like they are stuck in aspic - they can simply rotate to face you. That doesn't count as an action or a move - UNLESS the target only has movement with a turn mode: then it makes sense that a faster attacker can "get on his tail".

You can get the multiple attacker bonus by flanking or otherwise surrounding your enemy - you can get the 1/DCV bonus by actually getting behind him, if he chooses or has to face away - there are several attackers in front, for example and he can't turn to present a flank to both. 360 degree vision or combat sense prevents this, of course, but it would not negate multiple attacker bonus - for that, use defence maneuver.

This rewards clever use of terrain in combat and encourages a single attacker to "put his back to something" if facing multiple foes.

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Move and attack:
One way to address the apparent iniquity of this is to call off actions as half phases. Your first half phase starts at DEX and your second half phase starts at DEX-5, or DEX-10, depending on preference, so full move attacks and move and attacks CAn happen before someone acting on the same phase ONLY if you have a really quite impressive DEX advantage. The current system is somewhat simpler, and whilst not actually in love with it we often exchange pleasantries. The -1OCV thing is also quite a good measure (as mentioned by Roland) - again I assume it was removed in the interests of speeding up combat, as slow combat reolution is often seen (rightly or wrongly) as one of Hero's weak points.

Attacking from behind:
Foolish as this may be, I like to assume that characters, even slow ones are not moving then freezing in place until it is their next go, and that the combat pacing rules are just there to provide a workable framework over which we have to lay a skin of common sense to actually see what the whole thing looks like. It would be utterly stupid to allow a combat bonus for running behind someone, unless, for some reason, they are unable to move or cannot turn to face you, so it does not happen. Mind you if you do something surprising you DO get a one off bonus. The rules could address this, but if they put on much more weight, they are probably worried I won't love them any more. Fools.

Common sense, eh? If it is so common, why is it never around when you need it?

[tesuji]

A chart isn't a rule and while, yes, the maneuver penalties are listed in a chart, if you read the rules it becomes a little clearer to me. pgs 380-381 list attack from behind under SURPRISED and gives it as just one case of surprised.

Reading thru the description of what also needs to happen to be surpised listed there in full text, i cannot see how you would conclude that "running around behind you while you see me" qualifies as earning the surprised bonus at all.

heck, they even list just "has good reason to suspect a sneaky attacker" is probably enough tovoid the surprise bonus.

[Hugh Neilson]

Based on that, it probably is book legal for a higher DEX character to run around behind a lower DEX character, again while the lower DEX character stands there waiting to get hit (barring an Abort).

I am not saying that I want it to be this way, but I think that may be what the rules are.

I know that in the first case I was talking about the actual order of attack, whereas the second case is more about getting to change your position,
but if you consider:
"Run around to the back and hit my opponent" to be your "attack action", then I don't know if the other character does get a chance to do anything, unless they Abort.

One has to accept the abstract of combat meshing with the concrete timing of a person's phase. We accept that one character moves at a time because allocating a 5 SPD character's 20" flight per phase into 200,000 discrete millimeters of movement over the turn is impractical.

To assume the other characters are held in stasis, however, is excessive.

In any case, if one accepts your premise that character A can use his phase to "run around behind my opponent and attack him", then his opponent should be able to "run around behind Character A and attack him" when his phase comes up - and Character A is in "between phases stasis".

With this in mind, why waste points on DCV? It's very inefficienct when it will always be halved anyway. May as well use lots of DCV halving maneuvers as well, since your DCV will always be cut in half in any case.

[Hugh Neilson]

I liked the old -1 OCV penalty for making a half-move before attacking. It would serve as a disincentive to this ploy.

I wouod happily take -1 to my OCV for halving the opponent's DCV, even if I didn't get a half move to reorient my position as part of the bargain. As such, I don't believe this would make much difference.

[Utech]

I used to assume (incorrectly) that if you have two characters 10 hexes apart, both with the same SPD, if the character with the higher DEX decides to do a Move-by, Move-through, or just close to HTH range and Punch, that the lower DEX character could get off a Ranged attack while the higher DEX character was moving.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable ruling for some games, some characters, or the special effects of some powers. If it works for you then by all means.

Here are some situations in which you might want to rule the other way:
Situation 1:
High Dex Guy is a speedster. Boy does he run fast! Matter of fact, his full combat move is 40 inches. That 10 hex distance from Low Dex Guy is nothing but a chuckle. The GM rules that LDG is just too slow to fire at HDG before HDG gets his move and attack.

Situation 2:
HDG is one heck of a nasty brick. He just picked up a van and smashed it down on LDG's good buddy. Several times. The van is destroyed and buddy is definitely headed for the hospital. HDG smiles, wags a finger at LDG, says "Now your turn!" (putting his high PRE to work) and leaps at LDG. The GM rules that LDG is just too unsettled to fire at HDG before HDG gets his move and attack.

Situation 3:
HDG and LDG are nearly evenly matched knights. HDG raises his sword and charges! LDG reaches for an arrow... The GM rules that LDG cannot possibly get the arrow out and in place, the bow pulled back and aimed in time to fire at HDG before HDG gets his move and attack.

Naturally you could reverse all of these situations and rule the way you have been:

Situation 1:
Low Dex Guy is a speedster. Boy does he run fast! Matter of fact, his full combat move is 40 inches. That 10 hex distance from High Dex Guy is nothing but a chuckle. The GM rules that LDG can easily fire at HDG as HDG gets his move and attack.

Situation 2:
LDG is one heck of a nasty brick. He just picked up a van and smashed it down on HDG's good buddy. Several times. The van is destroyed and buddy is definitely headed for the hospital. LDG smiles, wags a finger at HDG, says "Now your turn!" (putting his high PRE to work) and waits for HDG's leap. The GM rules that HDG is unsettled and LDG can fire as HDG gets his move and attack.

Situation 3:
HDG and LDG are nearly evenly matched knights. HDG reaches for an arrow... LDG -- his sword at the ready -- charges! The GM rules that LDG crosses the distance and attacks just as HDG fires.

What will really decide you is dramatic and common sense. If you want a default ruling go with what your guy tells you is right. Inform your players ahead of time and you're golden.

[KA.]

One has to accept the abstract of combat meshing with the concrete timing of a person's phase. We accept that one character moves at a time because allocating a 5 SPD character's 20" flight per phase into 200,000 discrete millimeters of movement over the turn is impractical.

To assume the other characters are held in stasis, however, is excessive.


I understand that it would be laborious to try to track every microsecond of combat, and I would not want to play a game that even tried.
My original thinking (again, this is not what the rules say) was that when you are dealing with two characters that act on the same Segment, that having a higher DEX gives the character the right to begin their action first.
Which means that if Gunfighter A and Gunfighter B are standing 20 yards apart on Main Street at High Noon, and they are both performing the same action (Shoot), then if Gunfighter A has the higher DEX, he will Shoot first, before Gunfighter B gets to act.
But, I thought (erroneously), that if Gunfighter A chose to Move and then Attack (like running all the way down the street and tackling Gunfighter B), and that all Gunfighter B wants to do is shoot, then he could do that while Gunfighter A was running.
I may have been subconsciously thinking that if you used a Half Phase Action to Move, and then another Half-Phase Action to Attack, that someone who was only doing the Attack, could do their Attack after you started your Move.
I also figured that you would be at a penalty, since you were shooting at a moving target.
I wasn't really intending to have some complicated set of formulas for where exactly you were in your move when your opponent shot at you, or how many inches of movement you could achieve, based on the difference in DEX scores before your opponent got a chance to shoot.
I just figured that if you chose Move then Shoot, and your Opponent chose Shoot, that they could get off a shot while you moved.
Again, it was not in accordance with the rules, but it did seem to make sense at the time.


In any case, if one accepts your premise that character A can use his phase to "run around behind my opponent and attack him", then his opponent should be able to "run around behind Character A and attack him" when his phase comes up - and Character A is in "between phases stasis".

With this in mind, why waste points on DCV? It's very inefficient when it will always be halved anyway. May as well use lots of DCV halving maneuvers as well, since your DCV will always be cut in half in any case.

I am not trying to argue with you, since my debate is between myself and my own understanding of the rules, but . . .
according to what I think are the official rules, what you suggest would be entirely within them.

If someone who has a drawn weapon pointing in the general direction of an opponent, does not have time to tighten their finger on a trigger before that opponent can run the length of a football field and tackle them, then how would they have time to shift their entire body around to a new facing?

I know that is an extreme example, and I am not trying to be snarky toward you, but "stasis" seems fairly accurate as far as the rules are written.

I am not trying to carry on a fight with you, I am just a bit annoyed with the rule itself.

I can understand how it might approximate an extremely comic-bookish sort of combat.

But even in comics, I see people getting shot at while they are running.
In the few cases where someone lets out a battle-cry and runs toward their stunned opponent, who stands their motionless with a gun in their hand until the hero attacks, I see that as more of a Presence Attack kind of thing, than the standard way that combat works.

Anyway, the rules are what they are, and of course, we are all free to adapt them as we see fit.

KA.

[Sean Waters]

OK, to get very basic:


In games I run you can't run around behind people to get combat bonuses* because it's stupid, even if it is technically legal.


*there are always exceptions: you may be invisible, or somesuch, but in the normal course of events you just can't.

[Gary]

OK, to get very basic:


In games I run you can't run around behind people to get combat bonuses* because it's stupid, even if it is technically legal.


*there are always exceptions: you may be invisible, or somesuch, but in the normal course of events you just can't.


Would you allow someone with 3" or more Stretching, possibly with extra limbs to get combat bonuses for attacking from behind?

[Hugh Neilson]

I wasn't really intending to have some complicated set of formulas for where exactly you were in your move when your opponent shot at you, or how many inches of movement you could achieve, based on the difference in DEX scores before your opponent got a chance to shoot.
I just figured that if you chose Move then Shoot, and your Opponent chose Shoot, that they could get off a shot while you moved.
Again, it was not in accordance with the rules, but it did seem to make sense at the time.

If the rules don'rt work, they need to be changed. There's lots of other appproaches that can be taken. I would summarize the underlying problem as the need to break up the chaotic flow of combat (everyone is acting at the same time) into discrete manageable chunks for game purposes (each person takes actions in turn). This artificial segregation of actions means a curtailment of reactions to actions.

One approach, as I think someone already suggested, would be to break the segment into half phases (best DEX gets an action, next, next, using a half phase only,until we get through all DEXes, then those whose half phase didn't end their phase gets their second half phase action).

This would chunk it up a little more, but we'll still wonder why WeaponsMaster (Dex 27) has time to sling his bow, draw his two swords and inflict his Autofire Slash on Beemer (Dex 26) before Beemer can blink to fire his eyebeams.

And now we'll ask whether we really think Tar Baby (DEX 3) could really have attacked Speedo (DEX 38) between his 3" Move (of a possible 25" half move) between the sprint and the punch Speedo intended to throw. [But at least there I can explain why, sometimes, Tar baby doesn't retaliate in the comics - he didn't have a phase that segment.]

To deal with these, we now need to create timing rules for DEXes that are very close (or not), only using X% of the possible move, what kind of attack each target wants to throw, etc. It could be done, but I agree with you that I don't think I want to play in a game that complex. And there will certainly still be issues within those complex rules that don't mesh perfectly.

I'm not arguing that the current system is perfect, but I do think the imperfections are necessitated by the need for a playable system.

[ASIDE: I'm reminded of an old IceStar story where a reformed villain is tellling his story. The villain based his tech powers on his gaming character from high school, sort of a rolling pinball gyro-vehicle. He lost to IceStar because IceStar froze his hydraulics, then leaped out of his path. It never occured to the villain to plan for that because "In the game, you can't move right after you attack".]


I am not trying to argue with you, since my debate is between myself and my own understanding of the rules, but . . .
according to what I think are the official rules, what you suggest would be entirely within them.

If someone who has a drawn weapon pointing in the general direction of an opponent, does not have time to tighten their finger on a trigger before that opponent can run the length of a football field and tackle them, then how would they have time to shift their entire body around to a new facing?

I know that is an extreme example, and I am not trying to be snarky toward you, but "stasis" seems fairly accurate as far as the rules are written.

It comes down to a matter of interpretation. Although we have a combat modifier that says "attacked from behind", there is no official rule for what facing is "behind" at any given moment in time.

With that in mind, I look to a common sense interpretation. Common sense tells me that I can reasonably allow the defender to visually track his opponent while he moves, so his opponent can't take a leisurely stroll from right flank to directly behind, then attack the target "from behind". It doesn't complicate my game to accept that facing changes are automatic actions which can be taken at any time (just as I would allow the target to speak, despite the fact it's not his phase), and failure to allow this not only hurts any "realism", but also harms the game itself (no one is ever NOT at half DCV, since virtually all attacks will be preceded by a half move to be "behind the target").

Defense maneuver is always an option, but I don't want it to be mandatory for every character, and besides, if it's the only way to get your full DCV, it's probably way too cheap.

So I would reserve "attacked from behind" for situations where the opponent is unable to take reasonable action to prevent being disadvantaged by the location of his opponent. That may include multiple opponents attacking. It would certainly include being attacked by an unexpected, unperceived opponent. It would not include a character moving a couple of hexes around the target.

I think d20 gets this more or less right - there's no drawback to where one opponent is located, unless another takes the opposite position so you can't watch them both at once.

[prestidigitator]

One has to accept the abstract of combat meshing with the concrete timing of a person's phase. We accept that one character moves at a time because allocating a 5 SPD character's 20" flight per phase into 200,000 discrete millimeters of movement over the turn is impractical.

To assume the other characters are held in stasis, however, is excessive.

In any case, if one accepts your premise that character A can use his phase to "run around behind my opponent and attack him", then his opponent should be able to "run around behind Character A and attack him" when his phase comes up - and Character A is in "between phases stasis".

With this in mind, why waste points on DCV? It's very inefficienct when it will always be halved anyway. May as well use lots of DCV halving maneuvers as well, since your DCV will always be cut in half in any case.
Technically true, but I find it realistic and more dramatic to confer some kind of penalties when a target is, say, stuck between a wall of archers on one side and a menacing spearman on the other (that is, without all of the attackers having to Coordinate). The target is completely aware of all attackers and fully expects them all to be attacking him/her. Giving the target a choice of which way to face and presenting a--relatively minor--bonus of +1 to +2 OCV to attackers who aren't in front of him has always been a good compromise to me. It replaces the surprise DCV penalty in this kind of situation; it never stacks with the surprise penalty. Just the way I handle it.

[Zeropoint]

That seems like a workable, balanced, and realistic approach to me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Technically true, but I find it realistic and more dramatic to confer some kind of penalties when a target is, say, stuck between a wall of archers on one side and a menacing spearman on the other (that is, without all of the attackers having to Coordinate). The target is completely aware of all attackers and fully expects them all to be attacking him/her. Giving the target a choice of which way to face and presenting a--relatively minor--bonus of +1 to +2 OCV to attackers who aren't in front of him has always been a good compromise to me. It replaces the surprise DCV penalty in this kind of situation; it never stacks with the surprise penalty. Just the way I handle it.

I think this is fair and reasonable - when there are opponents on both sides, the target clearly is at a disadvantage. It's not any more reasonable to place the attackers in "between phase stasis" so the defender can adjust to face each attacker independently than it is to place the defender in "between phase stasis" and let his opponent move into his blind spot.

[Dust Raven]

One way to address the apparent iniquity of this is to call off actions as half phases.

I would instead suggest to keep in mind that all actions in a Segment or Phase are simultaneous, and that even though it is the attacker's turn to act, his target is still in motion and can keep him in view.

[Sean Waters]

Would you allow someone with 3" or more Stretching, possibly with extra limbs to get combat bonuses for attacking from behind?

Not unless he can convince me it is a suprise manouvre.

[RDU Neil]

Before we stopped using the SPD chart, I'd been breaking actions down into "half phases" all the time. I did it for exactly the reason that KA states. If two characters who would otherwise act simultaneously (same SPD and DEX, etc.) go after eachother. One needs to move and strike, the other just needs to shoot. The shot goes off before the strike.

If move and strike guy is faster (DEX) but going in same phase the slower guy who just needs to shoot would get the shot off, and likely at point blank range because the move would happen brining them into HtH range, then the shot... before second phase actions could take place.

This worked fine for us... as most of the time supers have massively higher SPDs than normals, so closing and pounding a thug isn't a problem... but if your martial artist is going up against an equally skilled opponent, such a maneuver is much more risky.

Worked just fine and didn't slow things down at all. (We also played with the -1 for a half move rule for years after 4th came out, not realizing the rule was gone.)

We also felt this balanced out a perceived (maybe not real, but we felt it was real) lack of benefit to ranged attacks. That closing and attacking was just as efficient as simply pulling a trigger didn't set well with us... but this was mostly fueled by heroic level, "realistic" type campaigns... not supers.

(As for the "close 20 feet before they draw their gun" situation... that is moot because the rules say "close 20 feet before the guy who has braced and set with his assault rifle and is fully prepared and aware of your attack can simply pull the trigger" That is a big difference.)

[bigdamnhero]

(As for the "close 20 feet before they draw their gun" situation... that is moot because the rules say "close 20 feet before the guy who has braced and set with his assault rifle and is fully prepared and aware of your attack can simply pull the trigger" That is a big difference.)
Exactly. I have no problem believing that High Dex Guy can 1/2 move and attack before Low Dex Guy can draw and fire; the question is whether HDG can 1/2 move and attack before LDG can fire a weapon that's already readied.

I usually handle this by allowing LDG to make a Dex roll to see if he can react to HDG's move in time to get a shot off before HDG closes. (I suppose you could make it an opposed Dex roll if you really wanted to.) If LDG was set or had a held action I would probably give him the shot automatically. Now if HDG was a 40" Speedster who was only 3" away, I probably wouldn't bother because that's the whole point of being a speedster.

I know this is kinda like allowing abort-to-an-attack, which could potentially open up a whole `nother can of worms. But for this very narrow set of circumstances, I think it works without cluttering up the turn sequence too much.

As for attacking from behind, only if there's some reason why the defender wouldn't logically turn to face the attacker, typically because he's engaged with another opponent.

[Hugh Neilson]

(As for the "close 20 feet before they draw their gun" situation... that is moot because the rules say "close 20 feet before the guy who has braced and set with his assault rifle and is fully prepared and aware of your attack can simply pull the trigger" That is a big difference.)

Why doesn't he have a reserved phase? That's what "fully prepared" would imply to me.

I don't have a problem with this approach in theory, but in practice you now have to draw the line somewhere. Why can DEX 30 guy draw his bow, select, notch and fire an arrow before the same guy with the assault rifle, who has a 29 DEX, can pull the trigger?

One approach I would consider is permitting any character, at any time, to Hurry, and to use Hurry multiple times, with stacking penalties. He couldn't Hurry to shoot before a character who has already announced his attack. However, when Mr. Assault Rifle is charged, he could announce "I'll Hurry to shoot before that guy gets to me". He then starts rolling 1d6 at a time. When his DEX + those Hurry d6's exceeds the DEX on which the charging character started moving, he counts the d6's, applies the Hurry penalty for that many Hurry's, and fires.

To me, this has a few advantages:

(a) It provides for Assault Rifle Guy (ARG) to be able to pull the trigger

(b) It restricts the situation to circumstances where ARG has a phase in the same segment

(c) ARG takes a penalty for accelerating his action, so there is a cost to him.

(d) for widely divergent DEX scores, the odds of hitting are remote, so Joe Thug (11 DEX) isn't going to his Speedster (35 DEX) with this tactic very easily (on average, he'll have rolled 7d6 to Hurry), but two evenly matched opponents (both 35 DEX) will be much less punitive with only 1d6 rolled.

It is a limited form of "abort to attack", but within that parameter, I think it works reasonably well.

[prestidigitator]

Yeah. That kind of situation can be covered with Delayed (Half-)Phases, the Fast Draw skill (when appropriate), and maneuvers such as Hurry and Hipshot. Those, in a sense, are like, "abort to attack," actions. They just don't let you attack at any time, which would create an action mess IMHO.

[RDU Neil]

Yeah. That kind of situation can be covered with Delayed (Half-)Phases, the Fast Draw skill (when appropriate), and maneuvers such as Hurry and Hipshot. Those, in a sense, are like, "abort to attack," actions. They just don't let you attack at any time, which would create an action mess IMHO.

Yes they could... but IMO only... a clean, succinct interpretation of "half phases" which is a long standing Hero mechanic is much more intuitive and effective than trying to apply a bunch of convoluted skills and complicated late edition maneuvers which are highly situational and full of exceptions.

Highly complicated way to balance out the head scratching "what the?" issue when Dex 14 guy runs 20 feet and punches before Dex 13 guy can pull the trigger.

All I'm saying is that doing the half-phase thing works just fine in play from my experience.

[Killer Shrike]

It's perfectly legal to move around behind someone and take a shot at their back, or to use indirect / partially indirect attacks (including Stretching and Telekinesis) to accomplish the same thing.

It also makes perfect sense for highly mobile characters to do this -- they've paid some amount of points to be extra mobile. It makes total thematic sense for a speedster character to zoom around slower opponents and pop them one in the back of the head, for instance.

Similarly it makes perfect sense for a character using Acrobatics to flip and cavort around an opponent and land an attack from behind.

Targets of such a manuever can Abort to a Block or Dodge and change their facing as part of that -- it's primary purpose is to improve their DCV vs an opponent which falls squarely into the realm of a "defensive action".

There's a sample fight here wherein one of the characters (Nova) aborts several times to avoid being attacked from behind by the other character (Namorita). http://www.herocentral.net/readStoryThread.htm?postId=486927&campaignId=480875

The Defense Manuever Skill is a direct defense against this, allowing a character to shift facing and avoid being hit from behind. Characters / players that are concerned about it should buy that Skill.


All that having been said, players that abuse it for purely metagame reasons are just being cheesy. It's up to the GM to control metagaming / twinkiness in their game. If a player abuses it, try talking to them and asking them to use the tactic when it makes sense and is situationally appropriate.

You can also point out that it may not be an appropriate tactic for characters with certain Psychological Limitations that are common in some genres such as "Honorable" and "Code of the HERO".

If all else fails, the GM can take a wide range of tacts to mitigate / correct the abuse.

[Dust Raven]

(As for the "close 20 feet before they draw their gun" situation... that is moot because the rules say "close 20 feet before the guy who has braced and set with his assault rifle and is fully prepared and aware of your attack can simply pull the trigger" That is a big difference.)

Such a gunman would be holding an action or covering the target if he gets to shoot first. If not, he may make use of the Hurry or Hip Shot maneuvers to act before his attacker. Otherwise he's just holding his gun and is still in the process of aiming. Granted, this is here primarily for the purpose of game balance, but reality does continue to support it, if in theory if not in actuality. I have no doubt that I, if holding a gun and pointing down a hallway suddenly found a crazred madman running toward me, I could fire off a few shots before he reached me.

[Dust Raven]

I usually handle this by allowing LDG to make a Dex roll to see if he can react to HDG's move in time to get a shot off before HDG closes. (I suppose you could make it an opposed Dex roll if you really wanted to.) If LDG was set or had a held action I would probably give him the shot automatically. Now if HDG was a 40" Speedster who was only 3" away, I probably wouldn't bother because that's the whole point of being a speedster.

Sounds similar to the mechanc for the Hurry maneuver.

[Sean Waters]

It's perfectly legal to move around behind someone and take a shot at their back, or to use indirect / partially indirect attacks (including Stretching and Telekinesis) to accomplish the same thing.

It also makes perfect sense for highly mobile characters to do this -- they've paid some amount of points to be extra mobile. It makes total thematic sense for a speedster character to zoom around slower opponents and pop them one in the back of the head, for instance.

Similarly it makes perfect sense for a character using Acrobatics to flip and cavort around an opponent and land an attack from behind.

Targets of such a manuever can Abort to a Block or Dodge and change their facing as part of that -- it's primary purpose is to improve their DCV vs an opponent which falls squarely into the realm of a "defensive action".

There's a sample fight here wherein one of the characters (Nova) aborts several times to avoid being attacked from behind by the other character (Namorita). http://www.herocentral.net/readStoryThread.htm?postId=486927&campaignId=480875

The Defense Manuever Skill is a direct defense against this, allowing a character to shift facing and avoid being hit from behind. Characters / players that are concerned about it should buy that Skill.


All that having been said, players that abuse it for purely metagame reasons are just being cheesy. It's up to the GM to control metagaming / twinkiness in their game. If a player abuses it, try talking to them and asking them to use the tactic when it makes sense and is situationally appropriate.

You can also point out that it may not be an appropriate tactic for characters with certain Psychological Limitations that are common in some genres such as "Honorable" and "Code of the HERO".

If all else fails, the GM can take a wide range of tacts to mitigate / correct the abuse.


I can see the strength and sense of the argument but still I disagree. If someone with a high move rate used those 27" of running in an inventive way (say they run away, out of sight, round a building and back coming up on the blindside) then they get a surprise manouvre bonus of +1 to +3, and if they try it again, the target may well guess and spin on them as they come back around, catching the runner with a surprise manouvre.

The trouble is with being sensible and saying that lots of running is very genre appropriate for getting behind opponent and getting a bonus is: what is the cut off point?

I mean even your basic 6" running allows you to get behind an opponent you are in melee with as a half move, but that doesn't seem worth a bonus. What sort of run, or speed, do you need to get that bonus?

My preferred option, if someone wants to do this is:

+4 melee skill levels (20 active points) LINKED to running/flight/teleport (-1/2) for 13 real points. You can make it cost END too if you like, or make it RSR (acrobatics roll).

Running allows you to get from A to B fast and do scads of move through damage. In the normal course of events it (and powers like stretching, extra limbs, shapeshift) don't, and I'd say shouldn't, automatically give OCV bonuses. I may be a skinflint, but it has the advantage of consistency, at least.

[prestidigitator]

It's perfectly legal to move around behind someone and take a shot at their back, or to use indirect / partially indirect attacks (including Stretching and Telekinesis) to accomplish the same thing.
True. But I think the point is that such cases should be the minority. Situational modifiers for that type of thing should be awarded for difficult and imaginative uses (and surprise/unusual circumstances), not for every single attack roll. Just about every character has enough movement to move around the target every single Phase and attack from behind. That's what I'd rather focus my baseline rules around, and come up with exceptional, optional, or even judgement call rules for...

It also makes perfect sense for highly mobile characters to do this -- they've paid some amount of points to be extra mobile. It makes total thematic sense for a speedster character to zoom around slower opponents and pop them one in the back of the head, for instance.
...those types of situations. That's why I do things like allow modifiers for the second and successive attacks of a Move By and such. See my previous posts.


Similarly it makes perfect sense for a character using Acrobatics to flip and cavort around an opponent and land an attack from behind.
Every time they attack? Not likely. As a surprise maneuver (or when taking advantage of unusual situations like tricky terrain) I'm fine with it.


Targets of such a manuever can Abort to a Block or Dodge and change their facing as part of that -- it's primary purpose is to improve their DCV vs an opponent which falls squarely into the realm of a "defensive action".
Agreed. But they shouldn't have to all the time in ordinary combat. Aborts are a tremendously useful thing and should not be undervalued, but if a simple combat becomes a huge sequence of Aborts by whoever doesn't act first, or by both/all combatants, I think the play experience is going to get rather tedious and frustrating. I don't want Aborts to turn into the Hero analogy of ridiculous D&D Attacks of Opportunity.

[Killer Shrike]

I can see the strength and sense of the argument but still I disagree. If someone with a high move rate used those 27" of running in an inventive way (say they run away, out of sight, round a building and back coming up on the blindside) then they get a surprise manouvre bonus of +1 to +3, and if they try it again, the target may well guess and spin on them as they come back around, catching the runner with a surprise manouvre.

The trouble is with being sensible and saying that lots of running is very genre appropriate for getting behind opponent and getting a bonus is: what is the cut off point?

I mean even your basic 6" running allows you to get behind an opponent you are in melee with as a half move, but that doesn't seem worth a bonus. What sort of run, or speed, do you need to get that bonus?


Im not saying that it takes "lots of running" to make it genre appropriate, Im saying that
a) its mechanically how the game works. If you have a enough movement to get behind someone you hit them at 1/2 DCV. It doesnt matter if you move 1" or 27" to accomplish this.
and
b) there are in-character circumstances that make it a valid and appropriate tactic, and there are some SFX and character concepts for which it is particularly common / appropriate.






My preferred option, if someone wants to do this is:

+4 melee skill levels (20 active points) LINKED to running/flight/teleport (-1/2) for 13 real points. You can make it cost END too if you like, or make it RSR (acrobatics roll).

Running allows you to get from A to B fast and do scads of move through damage. In the normal course of events it (and powers like stretching, extra limbs, shapeshift) don't, and I'd say shouldn't, automatically give OCV bonuses. I may be a skinflint, but it has the advantage of consistency, at least.

I disagree. I've run this as its written in the book for 16 years and never had a major problem with it. There has been the occasional person that overused / abused the tactic but they were easily dealt with and taught the error of their cheesy ways.

In general I don't mind a player using the tactic about once per TURN or so, particularly if they've tried hitting an opponent a couple of times and found their DCV to be too high. If they try it every single Phase or rely on it as a key element of their combat repetoire its pretty egregious.

[Killer Shrike]

True. But I think the point is that such cases should be the minority.
In your opinion, which I don't share.


Situational modifiers for that type of thing should be awarded for difficult and imaginative uses (and surprise/unusual circumstances), not for every single attack roll. Just about every character has enough movement to move around the target every single Phase and attack from behind. That's what I'd rather focus my baseline rules around, and come up with exceptional, optional, or even judgement call rules for...

I think the assumption is that there are things that you can do which isnt necessarily the same as things that you should or would do.

You're supposed to take actions with your character that are appropriate for that character, make sense, contribute to the telling of a cinematic adventure story, and otherwise add to the overall play experience of yourself and the group.

This doesn't mean you can't also take actions that are tactically and mechanically sound, but it does mean that you should balance the two.

Having your character jig around to smack people in the back is mechanically and tactically sound, and is logically sound as well -- you are attacking people from outside their field of vision and from a direction that a persons body is not configured to be responsive to.

Whether or not it is suitable to weaving a particular character's tapestry of exploits or not will vary from character to character, but in general "run around and hit you in the back every action" is not very exciting, fun, evocative, or contributory to a fun playing experience.


The HERO System is not a nanny. It's not there to make you "behave", hold your hand, protect you from yourself, or otherwise keep the training wheels on.

Nevertheless mature roleplayers should be able to find a happy balance between what the rules will let you do and what it is appropriate to do themselves. This is as true of using / exploiting the combat modifier chart as it is of any other facet of the HERO System that is open to abuse (which is quite a lot of it).


If you think 1/2 DCV is too much, fine and well. I don't -- I think the rules as written work well in the general case across genres and its up to the GM to arbitrate specific uses / abuses of it.

[Vanguard]

A couple of thoughts:

1) This points out one aspect of Hero combat that annoys me (now that I am doing it 'by the book').
I used to assume (incorrectly) that if you have two characters 10 hexes apart,
both with the same SPD,
if the character with the higher DEX decides to do a Move-by, Move-through, or just close to HTH range and Punch,
that the lower DEX character could get off a Ranged attack while the higher DEX character was moving.


KA.

Actually, my GM does it that way and has all the time. Granted, he KNOWS the "proper" way to do it but it makes more sense to do it the other way.

It means there's a lot more thinking in combat. I mean, I'm not going to just blindly charge that guy standing in the hallway with a pistol because I know he's going to get a chance to shoot me as I do it.

I think it makes characters think a bit more.

It DOES have it's draw backs, sorta, for things like Move-bys, passing strikes, etc but I beleive the rulling he made was "If your half move is enough to get you there, you can make the attack without fear of reprisal."

I could be wrong, in either case I think it helps more then it hinders (IE: IT does slow combat down a bit more but you only really notice it if you're playing Champions and are dealing with speeds of 5+).

[Hugh Neilson]

In your opinion, which I don't share.

I think the assumption is that there are things that you can do which isnt necessarily the same as things that you should or would do.

You're supposed to take actions with your character that are appropriate for that character, make sense, contribute to the telling of a cinematic adventure story, and otherwise add to the overall play experience of yourself and the group.

This doesn't mean you can't also take actions that are tactically and mechanically sound, but it does mean that you should balance the two.

Having your character jig around to smack people in the back is mechanically and tactically sound, and is logically sound as well -- you are attacking people from outside their field of vision and from a direction that a persons body is not configured to be responsive to.

Given the level of advantage provided by halving a target's DCV, and the ease with which a simple half move can nomally place the attacker behind the defender, does it make sense for any character of average or above intelligence, combat experience and/or tactial skill to refrain from moving around behind his opponent at every conceivable opportunity? To me, if such an advantage is so easily gained, it is too foolish to pas up. Attacking while blind is extremely disadvantageous, and I would not expect a character to pass on the significant advantage provided by opening his eyes. If it is almost as easy to obtain a comparable advantage simply by moving 3 hexes from "in front of" to "behind" an opponent, it seems unreasonable to now suggest a competent character would not seek to access such an advantage.


Whether or not it is suitable to weaving a particular character's tapestry of exploits or not will vary from character to character, but in general "run around and hit you in the back every action" is not very exciting, fun, evocative, or contributory to a fun playing experience.

Here, we agree. In my opinion, if any rule strongly encourages actions which are not very exciting, fun, evocative, or contributory to a fun playing experience, then either that rule is being misinterpreted or misapplied, or it ought to be changed.

[mudpyr8]

I will echo Ghost Raven and Killer Shrike. This is not a broken mechanic. In real life if you try to move behind someone, which you can do, they will see it and only an idiot wouldn't abort to Dodge/Block or Hurry to beat your action. If you have targets that just sit there and take it, then you are the one that isn't reacting realistically. If I had a gun and was staring across a room at an opponent without a ranged weapon who I knew was intent on coming to get me, I would most definitely "Hurry" to be sure I got my shot off. If I had a melee weapon, I would still "Hurry" so I could hold my action and hit him when he got to me. Even if I tag him and don't drop him, I've established the length of the engagement and if my weapon is longer he will take an OCV penalty to hit me.

If you are looking to alter the rules to handle the half-move & attack before the guy with the readied weapon can attack is to allow a Hurry action to be declared after the half-move is declared. If used in this manner, it would require a contest of DEX to see if you can interrupt, just as if you had a held action.

One thing to keep in mind about the half-move/attack vs. readied action is what are the SPDs of each character. Taking an extreme, to illustrate a point, a SPD 2 character "pokey" vs. SPD 12 "speedy" and Speed has a higher DEX. Speedy is going to do a half-move and attack in Seg 6 and Pokey is going to fire his pistol, if he can. The reason this works is technically it Pokey's reactions are such that he can barely react to make 2 phases per 12 seconds. While the length of his action isn't techically 6 seconds, Speedy's actions are certainly fast.

If you put 2 characters in the middle of the map and have them slug it out until one guy falls, don't complain that the system has a boring combat system or that it doesn't support creative actions. Hurry, Hipshot, and aborts are all there to prevent things like the half-move/attack vs. readied from happening.

In all my years of play this has never been a problem. No one should really be able to pull this off, and if they do it should only work once. Every other bad guy who sees this is going to hold his action to see what the character is going to do since he's so "unpredictable". A successful Block will fix his red wagon since he loses initiative (assuming the next action is in the same segment).

[mudpyr8]

I will point out however, in the text for Surprised (which attacks from behind fall under):

5ER 381
"The GM should interpret the phrase "expecting any attacks" in a common-sense fashion. Obviously, anyone who's in combat expects to be attacked so in most cases other attackers entering the fray won't inflict the Suprised penalty. However, it's possible for a character in combat to {be surprised}: - attacker sneaks up behind via Stealth, - ordinary character suddenly reveals superhuman nature, - sniper finally shoots. On the other hand, if the character has good reason to suspect the presense of a sneaky attacker... Suprised probably wouldn't apply."

I think that's pretty clear that unless you use Acrobatics and have the leap to succeed, running around a target doesn't give you the Suprised bonus.

[RDU Neil]

Here, we agree. In my opinion, if any rule strongly encourages actions which are not very exciting, fun, evocative, or contributory to a fun playing experience, then either that rule is being misinterpreted or misapplied, or it ought to be changed.


BING BING bing!

This is a perfect, small scale example of "System Matters". Theory in practice.

If the game is intended to portray a dynamic, cinematic battle of kicks and punches and elbow shots and leg sweeps that reflect real life and movies and such... but what ends up is a portrayal of a bizarre dancing dosie-doe of "dance around your partner hit 'em in the back... then he dances around you and hits you in the back... repeat!"

... well then the system is not supporting the intent. This piece of the system... this rule... needs to be clarified, reinterpreted or changed.

[mudpyr8]

I agree, and I think it has been clarified. This is a non-issue.

[RDU Neil]

I agree, and I think it has been clarified. This is a non-issue.

I agree... in most games this has been a non-issue... but there is a legitimate question buried in here. (At least I think so...)

In a game where there are so many rules dictating movement and such... why is there no (or maybe there is and I don't know if 5th Revised) a ruling on a character staying within the same hex, but still moving. What movement is allowed... at what point in their phase... what is assumed to be free movement... what is not?

It is not an easy or clear connection between DCV (a passive mechanic that is actually reflecting active character defensive movement) and attacking character movement (highly ruled and regulated) to the no-facing assumption of Hero... to the open ended GM-rules-what-is-"surprise."

Those of us who have spent years absorbing the system don't always realize the rather convoluted logic (or just assumptions) going on... and it is worthwhile to break this down and try an make some simplifying changes and/or clarifying statements that can make the system better.

And all these interpretations are not the same. If I interpret DCV as my character simply rotating to follow you as you try to circle him... there is no need for held actions or a "Hurry" maneuver. It is a built in assumption of the game... one that has always worked in every game I've been in, though clearly it isn't universal or we wouldn't have this thread.

Hero play is a gestalt effect of the interaction of a ton of different rules, mechanics and baseline assumptions. Any time we clarify the interaction of all this... it's worth a discussion.

[JamesG]

It's perfectly legal to move around behind someone and take a shot at their back, or to use indirect / partially indirect attacks (including Stretching and Telekinesis) to accomplish the same thing.

With all due respect, you are mistaken as to the rules.

Well, let me rephrase, while it IS legal to "to move around behind someone and take a shot at their back", doing so does not, in general, entitle you to get that shot at 1/2 DCV.

As mudpyr8 already pointed out, the 1/2 DCV "from behind" modifier is a subset of the "Surprised" modifier, and a character who is expecting to be attacked is not surprised. So simply running around behind someone will not halve their DCV, assuming they see you doing it.

The old FAQ very clearly spelled it out:


Q: Does “Surprised” differ from “being attacked from behind,” and what are the implications for Defense Maneuver and the like?

A: Generally speaking, there’s no difference between “Surprised” and “from behind.” The very first sentence describing the Surprised Combat Modifier lists “from behind” as one possible way to be Surprised. The DCV Modifiers Table on 5E 245 lists the condition separately for the simple reason that the table would be largely useless if it didn’t list common conditions modifying DCV — that’s the whole reason it’s there. The “from behind” penalties mirror those for Surprised because they’re the same thing. Next time I’ll put “(Surprised)” in after the entry.

If there’s any contradiction here, it lies not in the table but in the text of Surprised itself, which (a) lists separate modifiers for “in combat” and “out of combat,” but (b) states that the Modifier doesn’t apply if the character is “expecting [an] attack[.]” Obviously anyone who’s in combat expects to be attacked, but yet Surprised modifiers exist for “in combat” situations (and Defense Maneuver deals with “from behind” situations as well).

The solution is to apply the concept of “expecting an attack” with a little common and dramatic sense. Ordinarily a character in combat expects to be attacked. Another attacker leaping out from ambush in addition to whoever’s already attacking him probably isn’t much of a surprise. Neither is a character with Stretching reaching around to smack him “from behind.” In those situations, there’s probably no good reason to apply a “Surprised in combat” modifier.

On the other hand, even if someone’s in combat, a new attacker creeping up on him from behind, particularly if Invisible or using Stealth or the like, probably would inflict the “Surprised in combat” modifier on the character, at least for his first attack. It doesn’t make much sense that Invisibility, or even Stealth, would become completely useless in that situation. If the character has good reason to suspect an attack from behind or from an Invisible foe, perhaps the modifier shouldn’t apply — and in any event there are already penalties for being unable to sense an Invisible opponent.

The benefit to Defense Maneuver I is that reasonableness of belief becomes irrelevant. The character’s fighting style or perceptions keep him from being Surprised from behind in combat regardless.

Now, I do agree that there should be some benefit to attacking "from behind", even if the target knows you are there, which is why I like prestidigitator's +2/+1 for behind/flank attacks. Here is the way I would handle it.

If a character is engaged in one on one combat, he won't normally get attacked "from behind", he can automatically rotate to track someone trying to run around behind him.

If for some reason he does not want to rotate to track, say he needs to keep an eye on something in front of him, then an attacker could get either the +2 or +1 OCV bonus for behind/flank attacks if they move appropriately. Or if he is surrounded by multiple foes, some of them will get either flank or behind attacks at +1 or +2 OCV. (Plus possibly a multiple attackers bonus).

And if the character is attacked by an assassin who successfully used stealth to sneak up behind him, he is "surprised" and at 1/2 DCV vs. the assassin.

[Zed-F]

Good quote on the FAQ entry. We could have used it for that fight between Nova and Namorita. I normally might give a +1 OCV for surprise maneuver for an attack from behind that the defender can see coming (being able to see the attacker move behind him) as I think 1/2 DCV in that context is a bit excessive. KS convinced me that the rules stated otherwise, but we didn't check the FAQ and find that entry. In the end, though, I don't think it would have altered the flow of that particular fight greatly, if at all.

[Kristopher]

This is one of those situations where I think the segment/phase/SPD system diverges from reality. People don't move or act in that stop-start, go-pause way.

If someone is in a fight, they aren't going to just stand there and let someone jog around behind them and stab or shoot them in the back. They'll turn to keep the attacker in front of them. The only time they'll end up with an opponent behind them is when they're surprised by a move (and by that, I don't mean a HERO "Move", but rather a "maneuver"), or when there are multiple attackers.

This is one of the cases in which the rules have to be trumped by what can be consider SFX...the "SFX" being two human beings in a fight, and what they'd actually do, not what the segment/phase/SPD and half-moves and whatnot breaks it down into.

[prestidigitator]

This is one of those situations where I think the segment/phase/SPD system diverges from reality. People don't move or act in that stop-start, go-pause way.

If someone is in a fight, they aren't going to just stand there and let someone jog around behind them and stab or shoot them in the back. They'll turn to keep the attacker in front of them. The only time they'll end up with an opponent behind them is when they're surprised by a move (and by that, I don't mean a HERO "Move", but rather a "maneuver"), or when there are multiple attackers.

This is one of the cases in which the rules have to be trumped by what can be consider SFX...the "SFX" being two human beings in a fight, and what they'd actually do, not what the segment/phase/SPD and half-moves and whatnot breaks it down into.
Absolutely. I don't ever go so far as to say we should try to track per-Segment movement or do any other sort of real-time simulation, but we have to make some allowances for the fact that combat positioning is dynamic. If I am sparring with someone in real life, and they pass by or start circling, I don't just stand there (unless I am being sneaky about something). It doesn't take the real-life equivalent of an Abort to Dodge or Movement. I simply circle with them and continue with the attack.

If I'm not aware of a threat, or there are other opponents, or something is (theoretically) so quick it can dart circles around me before I can react (as I have said I let speedsters use Move By for that one), it is a different matter. But when I am facing one opponent, that opponent is going to have to pull some pretty surprising sh*t to get around behind me unless I am already severely disadvantaged somehow.

[bigdamnhero]

The only time they'll end up with an opponent behind them is when they're surprised by a move (and by that, I don't mean a HERO "Move", but rather a "maneuver"), or when there are multiple attackers.
Emphasis added to make a point. I agree that "I run around behind him and hit him in the back" is silly at best. But in the case of multiple attackers, hitting someone from behind should be worth some kind of bonus. Otherwise, what's the point of Def Man I?

Whether or not 1/2 DCV is too much of a bonus is a seperate question. Personally, I think it shouldn't be worth as much as surprised in combat, so +2 OCV feels about right to me. But that will probably vary by campaign/genre.

[bigdamnhero]

I usually handle this by allowing LDG to make a Dex roll to see if he can react to HDG's move in time to get a shot off before HDG closes. (I suppose you could make it an opposed Dex roll if you really wanted to.) If LDG was set or had a held action I would probably give him the shot automatically. Now if HDG was a 40" Speedster who was only 3" away, I probably wouldn't bother because that's the whole point of being a speedster.
Sounds similar to the mechanc for the Hurry maneuver.
Not really. Hurry doesn't require a DEX roll, unless I've missed something. And I don't give LDG any OCV/DCV penalties for his shot; he's not really rushing his shot, HDG has just sorta delayed his attack by moving first.

Not saying you couldn't use Hurry to accomplish the same thing; just saying that's not how I handle it. IMHO/YMMV/etc.

[Dust Raven]

Not really. Hurry doesn't require a DEX roll, unless I've missed something. And I don't give LDG any OCV/DCV penalties for his shot; he's not really rushing his shot, HDG has just sorta delayed his attack by moving first.

Not saying you couldn't use Hurry to accomplish the same thing; just saying that's not how I handle it. IMHO/YMMV/etc.
With Hurry, you roll a d6 and add it to your DEX to see how much sooner in the segment you act. Theoretically, your opponent can to this as well, cause you two to "DEX off", high roll wins, to see who goes first (though the character with the higher DEX does have an edge). If both roll, then their bonues/penalties relative to each other cancel out.

[bigdamnhero]

With Hurry, you roll a d6 and add it to your DEX to see how much sooner in the segment you act. Theoretically, your opponent can to this as well, cause you two to "DEX off", high roll wins, to see who goes first (though the character with the higher DEX does have an edge). If both roll, then their bonues/penalties relative to each other cancel out.
Yes, I know how Hurry works and I have no problem with allowing the maneuver. But that's not what I'm doing here. I'm not changing the DEX order, I'm just allowing abort-to-attack in a very-narrowly-defined set of circumstances, such as charging someone with a readied gun. Again, I'm not saying "my way" is any better, just different. I'm kinda puzzled what you think is so similar about them?

[Kristopher]

Emphasis added to make a point. I agree that "I run around behind him and hit him in the back" is silly at best. But in the case of multiple attackers, hitting someone from behind should be worth some kind of bonus. Otherwise, what's the point of Def Man I?

Whether or not 1/2 DCV is too much of a bonus is a seperate question. Personally, I think it shouldn't be worth as much as surprised in combat, so +2 OCV feels about right to me. But that will probably vary by campaign/genre.

FWIW, I was only responding to the idea that because of the way the system works, it's possible, in a combat between two characters of fairly similar SPD and movement, for one of them to run past the other and get some kind of bonus for "attacking from behind".

[Zed-F]

I usually handle this by allowing LDG to make a Dex roll to see if he can react to HDG's move in time to get a shot off before HDG closes. (I suppose you could make it an opposed Dex roll if you really wanted to.) If LDG was set or had a held action I would probably give him the shot automatically. Now if HDG was a 40" Speedster who was only 3" away, I probably wouldn't bother because that's the whole point of being a speedster.
The rules themselves already have provisions for this sort of thing, so there's no need to houserule anything (unless you don't like the official rules...) Officially, if you have a held phase and a ranged weapon, and someone charges you, you just need to win a DEX-off to get your shot in before the other guy reaches you. The same thing applies if you both act on the same DEX and neither hurries; win the DEX-off and you're good to go first. These same rules are used whenever you want to use a Disarm- or Throw-based maneuver on someone who is closing to attack you, for instance. (The specific rules for this are in the Disarm maneuver text, which is p256 of FREd, for example.)

[Dust Raven]

Yes, I know how Hurry works and I have no problem with allowing the maneuver. But that's not what I'm doing here. I'm not changing the DEX order, I'm just allowing abort-to-attack in a very-narrowly-defined set of circumstances, such as charging someone with a readied gun. Again, I'm not saying "my way" is any better, just different. I'm kinda puzzled what you think is so similar about them?

The effect is functionally identical, given neither character is the subjects of attacks from other characters.