Defense Maneuver IV

[Narf the Mouse]

What does "...any Combat Skill Levels that improve the character's DCV are considered Persistent for this purpose" mean?

 

I have no idea where DCV CSLs would apply when using Defense Maneuver; although it certainly deals with CVs, it doesn't grant DCVs, except insofar as it eliminates certain OCV bonuses.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Normally if you have skill levels you can only assign them when you are in or immediately expecting, combat - they can not be on generally. DCV is 'on all the time' (although, out of combat, you halve DCV if attacked with surprise, there is still something there to halve).

 

Even if you have 10 CSLs, if you are just walking down the street minding your own business, you can't have them assigned to DCV just in case you get attacked, UNLESS you have DM IV.

 

Then you can. They are still halved if you are attacked with surprise out of combat, but at least there is something there to halve.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Normally if you have skill levels you can only assign them when you are in or immediately expecting, combat - they can not be on generally. DCV is 'on all the time' (although, out of combat, you halve DCV if attacked with surprise, there is still something there to halve).

 

Even if you have 10 CSLs, if you are just walking down the street minding your own business, you can't have them assigned to DCV just in case you get attacked, UNLESS you have DM IV.

 

Then you can. They are still halved if you are attacked with surprise out of combat, but at least there is something there to halve.

Thanks; that makes sense.

[Checkmate]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Assigning CSL's is a 0 Phase Action. This means that, even when you enter combat you still can't assign them until your DEX comes up. So having DM IV can be very useful.

 

Sean,

Are you absolutely sure they're halved even with DM IV? I was under the (mistaken?) impression that they weren't.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Even w/ DefMan IV, if you can't sense a target w/ a Targeting Sense you still suffer reduced DCV...but you get to include your DCV levels (if any). You are not subject to DCV reductions for being attacked from behind, or multiple attacker bonuses. I believe this is a clarification in 6e, though it may have been true in 5e as well.

 

 

All in all, Steve does not seem to like Defense Maneuver, and it has gotten watered down over the last few rules iterations; the main one being the "clarification" via the FAQ that the "from behind bonus" doesn't literally mean "from behind" all the time, and now the removal of it from the combat modifiers table altogether in 6e which really waters down the utility of Defense Maneuver. Attacked from behind is now folded into Surprised, and further Surprised is very nerfed; it's explicitly very difficult to "surprise" someone already in combat, which means just getting behind someone doesn't really do anything in combat unless you go through some special effort to make it "surprising".

 

This is not how it works in real life. Having been in many fights (and playing lacrosse, which is sometimes the same thing!) I can tell you for a fact that you never ever want an opponent behind you, especially if you have to pay attention to things going on in front of you. You cannot really defend yourself effectively from someone in your blind spot. It's why you want to get your back up against a wall or something if being pack attacked and you never turn your back on a threat. Previous editions modeled this with the "from behind" penalty, and Defense Maneuver countered this and represented the skill of staying loose and nimble and not letting anyone get a straight run on your backside.

 

It used to be really awesome for certain types of characters (Spider-man and Daredevil like characters for instance; characters that rely on DCV levels). Now its marginally ok, but in 6e you can probably find somewhere better to spend 10 points and a little more discretion is advised. You might want to check w/ your GM though as the utility of the ability rests on the GM's interpretation of "from behind", surprise, and so forth. If your GM is old-school and runs combat more akin to 4e and original 5e before the relevant combat modifiers got "clarified" Defense Maneuver will continue to be a good pick, but if they are going with a strict rules as currently written interpretation, skip it unless your GM also likes to pile on Multiple Attacker bonuses.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Assigning CSL's is a 0 Phase Action. This means that, even when you enter combat you still can't assign them until your DEX comes up. So having DM IV can be very useful.

 

Sean,

Are you absolutely sure they're halved even with DM IV? I was under the (mistaken?) impression that they weren't.

 

What Killer Shrike said

 

Personally I'd be keen to do all kinds of interesting things with CSLs.

 

First I'd be perfectly happy to allow you to buy 'Persistent' for levels: makes the levels more expensive, you get more utility for them, you decide how many of the levels are persistent. Seems nicely 'Hero' to me. Far more tweakable than doing it with Defense Maneuver.

 

The other thing I'd do is allow AoE on levels (not 'range - that's just weird) so that if someone targets you with an AoE attack you increase the DCV of the target area. Call it a magneto-nuclear repulsion field or somesuch. You can do that (sort of) at the moment but it tends to work out horribly expensive and messy. I don't see that making the area round you harder to target should be that much of a balance issue.

 

I agree with Killer Shrike on 'surprised' too - I only noticed today but 'surprised in combat' is now 'half DCV'. Of course 'Surprise Maneuver' still exists as an OCV bonus: potentially if you are suprised you could be half DCV and your opponent could get +3 OCV. There is a potentially substantial amount of overlap.

 

It is also worth noting that (unless you build a power to prevent it or use a grab) the is no penalty for ignoring opponents in combat or walking straight past them. I think that may be why there is no specific bonus for attacking from behind - it is too easy in Hero to move behind a target, and then attack - you have to assume that the character aware of the opponent automatically changes facing. Of course if he has two opponents they can get a multiple attacker bonus - although you might want to reduce that bonus if they are both attacking from the same facing, for example if the character is fighting in a doorway so they can not get round behind and control his movement that way.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Generally I let a target turn with you if they want and if they know you are there and aren't dealing with another attacker at the same time. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some kind of bonus from behind when the circumstances do merit it, even if the target isn't completely unaware of the attack or that you are there. I'm considering a simple -2 DCV from behind plus no shield bonus where applicable instead of halving, if you are aware of the attack. The really funny thing is that there is still a strong note under Defense Maneuver that it doesn't, in any way, keep you from being Surprised. So if attacks from behind are wrapped into being Surprised, and Defense Maneuver doesn't keep you from being Surprised, I'm not sure it's worth any good whatsoever against attacks from behind.

 

I view the "surprise maneuver" OCV bonus and someone "being Surprised" as different. The former is a completely unexpected way of performing your attack (an attack the target is expecting in general though), whereas the latter is a completely unexpected attack (as in the target isn't expecting it to come at all, never mind how it is actually executed). Generally you won't get both at once, though if there's an unusually creative ambush or something I might make an exception.

[randian]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

What benefit would you give a character with a 360-degree sense in these situations? An attack from behind in that case surely cannot be considered "surprising" or "from behind", even if the sense isn't targeting. Personally, I don't think merely running around somebody should generate any sort of bonus, otherwise stupidly cheesy tactics become commonplace.

 

By RAW 360-degree senses seem to have no effect on multiple attackers. Quite odd, I think.

 

We've never bothered with trying to get or prevent multiple attacker bonuses, mostly because if you were fighting 4 or 5 supervillains by yourself the rest of the team was out of commission, making surrender or flight the better course of action regardless of DCV penalties.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Even if you can see all the attackers, it doesn't mean you, with your two arms and head full of eyeballs can react to those attackers as well as if against only one.

 

...I think I've got the Red Team on my brain.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

What benefit would you give a character with a 360-degree sense in these situations? An attack from behind in that case surely cannot be considered "surprising" or "from behind", even if the sense isn't targeting. Personally, I don't think merely running around somebody should generate any sort of bonus, otherwise stupidly cheesy tactics become commonplace.

 

By RAW 360-degree senses seem to have no effect on multiple attackers. Quite odd, I think.

 

We've never bothered with trying to get or prevent multiple attacker bonuses, mostly because if you were fighting 4 or 5 supervillains by yourself the rest of the team was out of commission, making surrender or flight the better course of action regardless of DCV penalties.

 

 

The rules on senses, detecting, not detecting, and the combat modifiers resulting are all pretty well covered. Using a non-Targeting sense and the effects that have on combat are covered.

[randian]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

The rules on senses' date=' detecting, not detecting, and the combat modifiers resulting are all pretty well covered.[/quote']

Hero nowhere states what "from behind" means mechanically. It assumes you "know" what that means, which frequently leads to the error of applying "common sense" to game mechanics.

 

My logic says "from behind" means "suffering an attack coming from a direction not covered by the arc of perception of at least one of your functioning targeting senses". Ergo, a character with a 360-degree sense cannot be attacked "from behind" even if they're surrounded. Been in plenty of games, though, where dry mechanical reasoning didn't fly. Everybody "knows" being mobbed is deadly, after all. Using Narf's logic above, the human body's lack of radial symmetry also supersedes game mechanics.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Looked at tactically, and from a superhero perspective, Surprise in Combat, Multiple Attacker Bonus and Attacking From Behind only REALLY matter to those who rely on DCV as a defence. Whilst you might gang up on a brick to coordinate attacks and stun him, there simply is not the same imperative to force DCV penalties because many bricks (with some notable exceptions) are relatively easy to hit - their defence comes from their defences (if that is not a tautology). Given that getting surprise includes attacking from behind and that surprise is stated in the rules to be something that shouldn't occur too often, it seems to me that Defense Maneuver is perhaps best used to avoid a multiple attacker bonus - which can be a serious issue for DCV reliant characters. To that extent it is useful, maybe even vital to some builds. Defense Maneuver prevents surprise by being attacked from behind, but not all surprise attacks (a well hidden sniper, for example, could still force the DCV reduction, whether they were in front or behind, if the attacked character had not perceived them).

 

I think that the interaction with 360 degree senses is this: if you perceive someone then you are not going to be surprised by them and they are not going to get the surprise bonus against you. To that extent, 360 degree sensing may well make Defense Maneuver I irrelevant in a lot of situations - but you still need to buy it for higher levels of DM.

 

Bear in mind though that 'from behind' can also include, presumably any direction. You might have 360 degree perception but still not be able to see directly above you* - an attack from there would be considered 'from behind' - but DM I would prevent that, because you move in such a way that you cover ALL the bases.

 

* It depends if you think it means 360 degrees in all three planes. It doesn't say it does in the book.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

I think there are more problems in dealing with an attack from behind than just sensing it as well. Coordination comes to mind. Try reacting effectively against something you see in a mirror. Also, our bodies aren't setup for dealing with things behind us very well; there's a pretty big asymmetry there. So while I might give someone with 360-degree vision a bonus (or less of a penalty) in some circumstances--and it certainly would be more difficult to surprise such a character--I don't think they'd be immune to a "from behind" penalty by any means.

[Gary]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

If you actually allow "from behind" as a separate discrete OCV bonus, then people with Stretching, Indirect, or TK would always get the bonus since they can always aim their attack from a direction that the opponent isn't facing. And then you always have the people who would half move behind their opponent every phase to get the bonus.

 

I agree with eliminating "from behind" as a separate modifier.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Hero nowhere states what "from behind" means mechanically. It assumes you "know" what that means, which frequently leads to the error of applying "common sense" to game mechanics.

 

My logic says "from behind" means "suffering an attack coming from a direction not covered by the arc of perception of at least one of your functioning targeting senses". Ergo, a character with a 360-degree sense cannot be attacked "from behind" even if they're surrounded. Been in plenty of games, though, where dry mechanical reasoning didn't fly. Everybody "knows" being mobbed is deadly, after all. Using Narf's logic above, the human body's lack of radial symmetry also supersedes game mechanics.

 

Really? That's odd, because a few minutes of looking finds several places where "from behind" is addressed in the rules. Such as:

 

6ev2 Page 37

DCV MODIFIERS TABLE

Character Is DCV Hit Locations

Affected by EGO +30 Mental Illusion ½ ½

Affected by PRE +20 Presence Attack ½ Normal

Affected by PRE +30 Presence Attack -0 ½

Affected by Flash/Darkness/Invisibility

Ranged, makes Nontargeting PER Roll Normal Normal

HTH, makes Nontargeting PER Roll -1 Normal

Ranged, fails Nontargeting PER Roll ½ Normal

HTH, fails Nontargeting PER Roll ½ Normal

Attacked from behind (Surprised) out of combat ½ ½

Attacked from behind (Surprised) in combat ½ Normal

...

 

6ev2 Page 46

Bouncing An Attack

A character with a Ranged Attack and Combat

Skill Levels that apply to it can Bounce the attack

off the right surface. The GM must decide what

surfaces are appropriate for Bouncing a given type

of attack. For each bounce the character wants the

attack to perform, the character must use one CSL.

(For example, if the character wants to ricochet

his attack off of three walls to hit the target from

behind, he has to allocate 3 CSLs to Bouncing.)

Determine the Range Modifier for the attack by

counting the length of the entire path of the attack.

A Bounce can give the character a Surprise Move

bonus (+1 to +3 OCV) if the target isn’t expecting

this type of attack (or possibly eliminate or reduce

the effects of the Behind Cover Combat Modifier).

 

 

6ev2 Page 50

Surprised

This Combat Modifier applies when a character

is attacked from behind, above, by an invisible

attacker, from ambush, or any other situation

where he’s surprised by the attack.

A character Surprised while out of combat is

at ½ DCV and takes 2x STUN from the attack;

moreover, the penalty for any Placed Shot is

halved (see 6E2 109). Double the STUN damage

before applying defenses (and, in campaigns using

the Hit Locations rules, before applying the STUN

modifier for a location). The “double STUN” rule

applies to any attack that does STUN damage —

Blasts, Killing Attacks, punches, AVADs, Drain

STUN, and so on.

A character Surprised while in combat is at ½

DCV, but Placed Shot penalties are not halved,

and he takes regular STUN damage from attacks.

 

WHEN SURPRISED APPLIES

For an attacker to receive a Surprised bonus,

the target must not be expecting any attacks.

For example, a character running at Noncombat

velocity toward a fight expects trouble, and isn’t

totally unaware, so he usually can’t be Surprised.

In this situation he wouldn’t take 2x STUN (but

he would have a DCV penalty because he’s using

Noncombat Movement). Conversely, an unconscious

(Knocked Out) or asleep character takes

2x STUN.

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 (even by surprise, such as when unexpected

reinforcements arrive) won’t inflict the

Surprised penalty. However, it’s possible for

a character in combat to be attacked from so

unexpected a quarter, or in so unexpected a way,

that he suffers a Surprised penalty. Some possible

examples include:

„„a clever assassin uses Stealth to sneak up

behind the character and stab him in the back

„„a character who seems like an ordinary soldier

suddenly reveals that he has superhuman

powers

„„a heretofore unseen sniper fires at the character

On the other hand, if the character has good

reason to suspect the presence of a sneaky

attacker, a sniper, or the like, Surprised probably

wouldn’t apply. And if the character has Defense

Maneuver, whether he’s expecting surprise attacks

really doesn’t matter; he’s automatically prepared

for them.

 

6ev2 Page 50

SURPRISED AND FACING

One of the most common ways for a character

to be Surprised is to be attacked from behind.

However, that’s not to say that all attacks from

behind qualify for the Surprised bonus. As always,

the GM should apply common sense and dramatic

sense — remember, combat is a dynamic situation

where the rules reflect many variables. For

example, if an opponent a character doesn’t know

about attacks him from behind, that usually means

the character is Surprised (though not necessarily,

as discussed above). But if the character knows

about or can see an opponent, that opponent

can’t get a Surprised bonus just by making a Half

Move behind the character before attacking. The

opponent might get the bonus if the character is

distracted (for example, if he’s already fighting one

foe who’s in front of him), but moving behind a

character before attacking does not per se earn an

attacker a Surprised bonus.

 

6ev2 Page 59

...

Indirect attacks aren’t exempt from being Blocked,

but the GM should apply common sense and

dramatic sense — if a character’s ready for an

attack from the front, the GM might not allow

him to Block a Ranged attack that strikes him

from behind due to Indirect.

...

[prestidigitator]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

If you actually allow "from behind" as a separate discrete OCV bonus' date=' then people with Stretching, Indirect, or TK would always get the bonus since they can always aim their attack from a direction that the opponent isn't facing. And then you always have the people who would half move behind their opponent every phase to get the bonus.[/quote']

I just deal with that reasonably. If you're only dealing with one opponent, there's no way they are going to be able to run (or even stretch) behind you and attack (unless they are a Speedster using a monumental Move By or something, in which case I'll probably give the behind bonus against attacks other than the first if the attacker succeeds in a Dex roll for timing each attack). If you're dealing with more than one opponent and someone tries it, you have a choice of whether to keep facing your current direction or turn and keep the one sneaking around behind you from getting in behind your guard. Anything else is going to take careful planning of movement during your Phase (i.e. teamwork or "keeping your back to the wall") to keep your back protected, or using a maneuver such as Dodge (I don't give behind modifiers against someone performing a Dodge or DFC where they are primarily moving, ducking, etc. to keep out of the way--though in the case of DFC it's moot because you're prone anyway) if you don't have adequate Defense Maneuver to use instead.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

As far as a non-targeting 360 degree sense and the effect that has on combat:

 

6ev2 Page 7

TARGETING AND NONTARGETING SENSES

Of course, not all Senses are equal — a normal

human can learn a lot more about someone by

looking at him than by smelling him. To reflect

this difference, the HERO System divides all Senses

into two categories: Targeting and Nontargeting.

A Targeting Sense is a Sense a character can use

to determine the exact location of a target. For

normal humans, Sight is the only Targeting Sense.

A Nontargeting Sense is one with which the

character can, at best, sense the general location

of a target. For normal humans, Hearing and

Smell are Nontargeting Senses. Taste and Touch

both have no range, so characters can’t use them

to locate targets at all (to use these Senses, the

character would already have to have found his

opponent).

 

Lack Of Senses In Combat

In combat, a character must normally use a

Targeting Sense to detect his target. If he can do

so, there’s no change in his OCV or DCV, and

combat proceeds normally.

 

However, characters can’t always perceive their

opponents with Targeting Senses. For example,

a character may have been blinded by a Flash, or

his opponent could be Invisible. When a character

cannot perceive his opponent with any Targeting

Sense, he suffers modifiers to his OCV and DCV:

„„In HTH Combat, the character is at ½ OCV

and ½ DCV. This applies both to when he

makes attacks in HTH Combat, and is attacked

in HTH Combat.

 

„„In Ranged Combat, the character is at 0

OCV and ½ DCV. This applies both to when

he makes attacks in Ranged Combat, and is

attacked in Ranged Combat.

 

If a character can make a PER Roll with a

Nontargeting Sense (a Half Phase Action) to

perceive a particular target, then against that

target only he is at -1 DCV, ½ OCV when attacked

or attacking in HTH Combat, and full DCV, ½

OCV when attacked from or attacking at Range.

 

Against all other targets he is affected by the standard

“lack of Targeting Sense” modifiers described

above. The benefits of making this roll last until

the beginning of the character’s next Phase; if he

wants them to continue, he has to use another

Half Phase Action and succeed with another

PER Roll.

[archermoo]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Really? That's odd, because a few minutes of looking finds several places where "from behind" is addressed in the rules. Such as:

--snip examples--

 

Yeah, I think when people talk about Hero not addressing "from behind", what they often mean is that there isn't a set in stone "you are at -x DCV if someone is on your flank, and -y if they are behind you" kind of thing. The examples you give are examples of what someone I used to game with refers to as "GM negotiation". Which is to say that rather than having a rule in the book that the Ref can fall back on, he actually has to make a ruling himself as to whether the situation calls for any modifier, and if it does, frequently how big that modifier is.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Yeah' date=' I think when people talk about Hero not addressing "from behind", what they often mean is that there isn't a set in stone "you are at -x DCV if someone is on your flank, and -y if they are behind you" kind of thing. The examples you give are examples of what someone I used to game with refers to as "GM negotiation". Which is to say that rather than having a rule in the book that the Ref can fall back on, he actually has to make a ruling himself as to whether the situation calls for any modifier, and if it does, frequently how big that modifier is.[/quote']

Oh. Yeah, certainly. At least on the, "when a modifier applies," part. Often it is decided how big a bonus is--the best contrary example I can think of is the OCV bonus for a surprise maneuver. But it does take the application of common/dramatic sense and a bit of imagination to decide when some modifiers should be applied, and whatever kind of, "from behind," modifier you use is a good example of that.

 

I just disagree that the only time some kind of, "from behind," modifier should apply is when you are completely unaware of the attack. You could argue that anything else is covered under the Multiple Attacker bonus, but I just don't buy that; I know it takes careful and proactive attention and planning to keep yourself from that crucial vulnerability, and I also know that simply keeping your back to a wall doesn't negate the difficulty of dealing with multiple attackers either. And I do wonder at the proliferation of situations that cause you to be at 1/2 DCV; I'd rather there be a few more shades of gray, so to speak. That's why I'm considering a flat penalty like -2 DCV from behind, not to emulate AD&D's behind/flank penalties. Where it makes sense, use it, even if it happens to look like an aspect of a game system for which you don't generally have much respect.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

If you actually allow "from behind" as a separate discrete OCV bonus' date=' then people with Stretching, Indirect, or TK would always get the bonus since they can always aim their attack from a direction that the opponent isn't facing. [/quote']

 

Yes, and I've seen this many times. It was a classic move to use Stretching, Indirect, and TK in this fashion.

 

Of course, if I had such a power in real life, I would do the same thing. In genre fiction, characters with such powers often do so as well.

 

The ability to do these things is part of the utility of those Powers. It's why "direct only" is a limitation for stretching, why the different grades of Indirect fixate around direction and origin, and part of why TK is worth its high cost.

 

It may not be "fair" in a queens rules put up your dukes and fight sense, but mechanically it worked out pretty well, IME. Reacting to and working around such a tactic also presents some interesting combat challenges and can make combat more interesting.

 

If a particular character _always_ does this, then that's pretty predictable and opponents can find ways to neutralize such a repetitive and unimaginative threat.

 

And then you always have the people who would half move behind their opponent every phase to get the bonus.

 

Sure. If you were fighting an opponent who was already committed to something and couldn't react, would you hit them straight on, or slip around and strike at their wide open back? Maybe throw a rear naked choke of some kind on them. Maybe go for the kidneys. Or maybe the back of the knees. Or maybe throw a knee into the base of their spine. Or an elbow drop on the back of the neck. It's such a nice big open target area with so many options, why wouldn't you go for it if the opportunity presented itself?

 

In 4e and 5e a creditable infighting character would have Defense Maneuver to protect themselves from this sort of tactic.

 

I agree with eliminating "from behind" as a separate modifier.

 

I usually agree with you, but not on this one.

[Gary]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Yes, and I've seen this many times. It was a classic move to use Stretching, Indirect, and TK in this fashion.

 

Of course, if I had such a power in real life, I would do the same thing. In genre fiction, characters with such powers often do so as well.

 

The ability to do these things is part of the utility of those Powers. It's why "direct only" is a limitation for stretching, why the different grades of Indirect fixate around direction and origin, and part of why TK is worth its high cost.

 

It may not be "fair" in a queens rules put up your dukes and fight sense, but mechanically it worked out pretty well, IME. Reacting to and working around such a tactic also presents some interesting combat challenges and can make combat more interesting.

 

Whether it's realistic is beside the point. For game balance purposes, I don't think someone who purchases 3 meters of stretching for 3 pts should get +X OCV bonus against most opposition.

 

If a particular character _always_ does this, then that's pretty predictable and opponents can find ways to neutralize such a repetitive and unimaginative threat.

 

How without the use of other powers or talents to compensate?

 

 

Sure. If you were fighting an opponent who was already committed to something and couldn't react, would you hit them straight on, or slip around and strike at their wide open back? Maybe throw a rear naked choke of some kind on them. Maybe go for the kidneys. Or maybe the back of the knees. Or maybe throw a knee into the base of their spine. Or an elbow drop on the back of the neck. It's such a nice big open target area with so many options, why wouldn't you go for it if the opportunity presented itself?

 

In 4e and 5e a creditable infighting character would have Defense Maneuver to protect themselves from this sort of tactic.

 

A normal person with 12 meters of running can easily half move behind the opponent he's facing and hit from behind. And then the opponent does the same thing ad nauseum. I don't think that should warrant any sort of OCV bonus.

 

 

I usually agree with you, but not on this one.

 

That's the beauty of these boards. Everyone has an opinion.

[archermoo]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Oh. Yeah' date=' certainly. At least on the, "when a modifier applies," part. Often it [i']is[/i] decided how big a bonus is--the best contrary example I can think of is the OCV bonus for a surprise maneuver. But it does take the application of common/dramatic sense and a bit of imagination to decide when some modifiers should be applied, and whatever kind of, "from behind," modifier you use is a good example of that.

 

I just disagree that the only time some kind of, "from behind," modifier should apply is when you are completely unaware of the attack. You could argue that anything else is covered under the Multiple Attacker bonus, but I just don't buy that; I know it takes careful and proactive attention and planning to keep yourself from that crucial vulnerability, and I also know that simply keeping your back to a wall doesn't negate the difficulty of dealing with multiple attackers either. And I do wonder at the proliferation of situations that cause you to be at 1/2 DCV; I'd rather there be a few more shades of gray, so to speak. That's why I'm considering a flat penalty like -2 DCV from behind, not to emulate AD&D's behind/flank penalties. Where it makes sense, use it, even if it happens to look like an aspect of a game system for which you don't generally have much respect.

 

In times that I've fought single opponents I've never needed to particularly worry about them getting behind me, and I've certainly never needed "careful and proactive attention and planning" to stop it. And in times that I've fought multiple opponents while being able to get into a position where they couldn't flank me but I still remained mobile didn't deal with all of the difficulties of fighting more than one person it certainly made it considerably easier. And for that matter when I've been on the outnumbering side, most of our maneuvering tends to be based on getting ourselves evenly spread around the defender, making it as difficult as possible for them to avoid having at least one of us behind them.

 

Of note, if I was thinking of any game system when I mentioned set in stone modifiers for flank and rear, it was GURPS. I haven't played D&D since it was AD&D, and have almost no recollection of how combat worked even in that version. And I certainly agree that "because it is in a game that I don't like" isn't a good reason to not do something, anymore than "because it is in a different game that I do like" is a reason to do something. I was just pointing out that my take on people talking about a lack of Hero dealing with facing/rear attack issues has to do with there not being a set in stone way of always dealing with it solely based on the facing.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

The quoted rules seem pretty clear - You get the "From Behind" bonus if the particular method of attacking from behind was "Surprising". Seems like it would work pretty well.

[archermoo]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

The quoted rules seem pretty clear - You get the "From Behind" bonus if the particular method of attacking from behind was "Surprising". Seems like it would work pretty well.

 

More to the point you get the "Surprised" bonus if your attack from behind is sufficiently "surprising". And yes, in my experience it works pretty well.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

In times that I've fought single opponents I've never needed to particularly worry about them getting behind me' date=' and I've certainly never needed "careful and proactive attention and planning" to stop it.[/quote']

I was very, very clearly talking about situations with more than one opponent. I've already very clearly stated what I do when there is only one and both are free to move.