Attacking from behind

[cerebrolator]

If an attacker moves behind his target on a segment in which the target can't move, is the target's DCV reduced to 1/2? Would the target have to abort an action to turn around and have full DCV?

[Blue]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

I believe, yes, it takes him down to 1/2. In my game we decided it was kind of cheesy to be constantly running around behind your enemy and attacking every turn, so by mutual agreement we don't do it as routine.

 

As for the abort, it's up to your GM really. To me, since you can abort to a defensive action and since turning around raises your DCV, I'd allow it as an "abort to" manuever.

[cerebrolator]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

I agree that running around behind the target is a problem. It seems to me that the defender could just turn around as a free action. I'm thinking of only allowing the 1/2 DCV when the defender has to choose who they want to defend against and someone ends up behind them because they chose to face another direction. Can you see any adverse effects from such a house rule?

[Edsel]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

From the FAQ:

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 5ER 372 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.

 

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..

 

However IMHO this is a matter of common sense. If the attacker was originally in the defender's field of vision and then ran behind the defender and attacked him, I would not call it surprise. I wouldn't make the defender be 1/2 DCV. Of course if the defender were also being attacked from the front at the same time then he is going to have to allow someone a shot at his back and he'll be 1/2 DCV verses that attacker.

[Edsel]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

Looks like Blue has a SPD advantage over me.

[Blue]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

Makes sense.

 

In D20 they make up for this sort of activity with not having a specific facing unless you've got foes in opposing places. So saying that running around behind the guy doesn't count, but say, pulling a suprise manuevr that somehow gets you behind the foes (perhaps requiring a roll of some sort to get there) might be appropriate.

[Rapier]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

If an attacker moves behind his target on a segment in which the target can't move' date=' is the target's DCV reduced to 1/2? Would the target have to abort an action to turn around and have full DCV?[/quote']

The short answer is, Yes that's good tactics.

 

The long answer is, Depends. Does the target have Danger Sense? If the character has shrinking, I don't halve the DCV bonus from the Shrinking (since being unaware doesn't make you bigger).

 

The character could always abort to a dodge etc, however since it is coming in the midst of someone else's action they should DEX/Lightning Reflex it off.

 

As always the character is going to take an OCV hit for movement in the same phase.

[nexus]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

The short answer is, Yes that's good tactics.

 

The long answer is, Depends. Does the target have Danger Sense? If the character has shrinking, I don't halve the DCV bonus from the Shrinking (since being unaware doesn't make you bigger).

 

The character could always abort to a dodge etc, however since it is coming in the midst of someone else's action they should DEX/Lightning Reflex it off.

 

As always the character is going to take an OCV hit for movement in the same phase.

 

I have seen that rule refered to before but I can't recall where it is. Where is the penalty for making a move in the same phase listed?

 

Too answer the question, yes, I guess it is part of the rules but it just seems...silly to imagine people in fights constantly running behind each other to get a massively increased chance to hit. I mean they were -just- in front of you. Its not something you see very often in reality or fiction unless the attacker has some special effect that warrants like silent teleportation or super speed to the extent the target cant' see them when they move. Stepping behind somebody just to halve their DCV just seems cheesy and means allot more people will be Defense Manuver.

[Rapier]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

I have seen that rule refered to before but I can't recall where it is. Where is the penalty for making a move in the same phase listed?

 

Too answer the question, yes, I guess it is part of the rules but it just seems...silly to imagine people in fights constantly running behind each other to get a massively increased chance to hit. I mean they were -just- in front of you. Its not something you see very often in reality or fiction unless the attacker has some special effect that warrants like silent teleportation or super speed to the extent the target cant' see them when they move. Stepping behind somebody just to halve their DCV just seems cheesy and means allot more people will be Defense Manuver.

I want to say Combat Effects/Maneuvers table. -1 OCV for a Half Move in the same action. But I'll be damned if I can find the rule anywhere in the book. I'm almost wondering if this isn't some legacy thing I've been dragging around for all them years.

 

I can understand the problems with allowing the "From Behind Strikes." It can tend to really be a problem. However, there is always the old standby 'if the heroes can do it, so can the villains.' You would also be totally within your rights to rule that unless there is some particular reason for the character to ignore the guy moving around behind him (say a large brick winding up a haymaker in front of him) that the character can change his facing as a 0 phase action.

 

Shrug. Whatever works for you.

[nexus]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

That is how I handle it. Generally, just moving behind someone doesn't halve their DCV if they are unconstrained and able adjust their position. Multiple attacks are ususally required to get the bonus or some means of quick and/or undetectable movement. Or a distraction like that brick you mentioned.

[cerebrolator]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

It appears that most of you agree that running around behind an opponent presents a problem. Having heard the voice of the experts, I feel more comfortable with proposing a house rule for my players. We'll only use the 1/2 DCV in circumstances where surprise is somehow involved or where there are multiple opponents so that a facing must be chosen. I especially like the tactical advantage that can come from teleporation or superspeed that results in invisibility. Thanks for all the help!

 

(Wow! I just made "Standard Normal!")

[MitchellS]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

Personally I feel that attacking from behind, whether running around, jumping over, or some other means, is a valid way to get the 1/2 DCV. If you do not give that bonus then there is no reason for players to purchase Defensive Maneuver. The characters who can turn with someone who is running around them, even in off segments, are the ones who purchased the defense maneuver.

[MitchellS]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

The short answer is, Yes that's good tactics.

 

The long answer is, Depends. Does the target have Danger Sense? If the character has shrinking, I don't halve the DCV bonus from the Shrinking (since being unaware doesn't make you bigger).

 

The character could always abort to a dodge etc, however since it is coming in the midst of someone else's action they should DEX/Lightning Reflex it off.

 

As always the character is going to take an OCV hit for movement in the same phase.

The -1 OCV for half moves is not longer a valid penaltiy in 5E. Now you get no penalty for moving and can instead get a +1 OCV if you choose not to move by doing a Set [i see nothing in set which says it can't be use for HTH as well].

[Dust Raven]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

This actually came up in a scenario last week. I ruled that the attack was From Behind because the target still had foes on the other side. Granted, they knew the attack was coming, but couldn't see it (it was also on a Segment they'd already acted on, and couldn't abort in any case). I would have rulled the same in this situation if the attacker was making a HTH attack.

 

Now, assume all you have are two opponents. Like two boxers. I've never seen a boxer get behind his opponent (maybe that's not allowed), but even getting him on his side is next to impossible. He keeps moving around. I figure the same will happen. Even if the defender has already attacked, or is unable to abort, I'd rule that on one-on-one fights, they always face each other. The only exception would be if the target is Stunned, then it's kinda out of it and won't turn around. But that doesn't really matter, but if the target is Stunned, he's already at 1/2 DCV and getting behind him wouldn't do you any more good.

 

If the target is actually "flanked" (if I may borrow a term of D&D), then he'll have to decide his facing. A character's field of view will determine if he can still see all attackers. Any attacker he can't see coming is considered "from behind."

 

The character could always abort to a dodge etc' date=' however since it is coming in the midst of someone else's action they should DEX/Lightning Reflex it off.[/quote']

A Dodge is ALWAYS done in the midst of someone else's action. If it doesn't, you're just doing a little pee-pee dance on the battle field and look foolish.

[cerebrolator]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

Personally I feel that attacking from behind' date=' whether running around, jumping over, or some other means, is a valid way to get the 1/2 DCV. If you do not give that bonus then there is no reason for players to purchase Defensive Maneuver. The characters who can turn with someone who is running around them, even in off segments, are the ones who purchased the defense maneuver.[/quote']

 

You have a good point, MitchellS. Perhaps we should borrow the idea of "attacks of opportunity" from D20 (Harnmaster has similar rules for moving in and out of engagement). It might make sense to allow for any attack from behind to get the 1/2 DCV to explain why characters would want to purchase Defensive Manuever. However, we might also want to rule that any character who is "engaged" in combat cannot freely move around that character without opening himself up for a free attack. I'm sure there are important ramifications of this that I haven't considered, so I'd love more input if you're not sick of this thread.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

I want to say Combat Effects/Maneuvers table. -1 OCV for a Half Move in the same action. But I'll be damned if I can find the rule anywhere in the book. I'm almost wondering if this isn't some legacy thing I've been dragging around for all them years.

 

 

Dude, that's from Third Edition.

[Rapier]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

Dude' date=' that's from [i']Third[/i] Edition.

Um...eek? Well, Hell. So you're saying it might be time to dump that rule?

 

Heh. That is actually pretty funny. That is one of those things that we never looked up; it was one of those things we just knew. I've never even thought of looking it up in all these years until just the other day...and then couldn't find it. I just figured I was missing it.

 

TOO funny. And here I was thinking I am all forward thinking! HEH!

[Superskrull]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

Um...eek? Well, Hell. So you're saying it might be time to dump that rule?

 

Heh. That is actually pretty funny. That is one of those things that we never looked up; it was one of those things we just knew. I've never even thought of looking it up in all these years until just the other day...and then couldn't find it. I just figured I was missing it.

 

TOO funny. And here I was thinking I am all forward thinking! HEH!

 

Don't sweat it. A friend of mine used to insist that rule was there when we all started playing durring the BBB era. He'd been playing since several editions previously and it's always hard to seperate out the rules when you've used more than one edition of them.

[Rapier]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

Don't sweat it. A friend of mine used to insist that rule was there when we all started playing durring the BBB era. He'd been playing since several editions previously and it's always hard to seperate out the rules when you've used more than one edition of them.

Well, I'll try and phase it out, but it will be hard. We just automatically throw it in. I'm still kind of in shock.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Attacking from behind

 

My interpretation has always been "surprise is 1/2 DCV, and if the attack from behind is a surprise, then play it as such... but half moving from front to back is NOT a surprise." Facing (if there is such a term in Hero) is 360 degrees, unless something is keeping your focus like another attacker, or whatever.

 

If an attacker has acrobatics, and tries to do some tricky "flip around and attack" I just use the Acrobatics bonus that is part of that skill, +1 or +2 if you beat your Acro roll by half or more.

 

To me, this "running around behind" is a table top, wargaming concept and has no place in a roll playing game.

 

Defense manuever is great versus multiple attackers, as being attacked from behind WHILE ALREADY ENGAGED is grounds for 1/2 DCV.