Defense Maneuver IV

[archermoo]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

I was very' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

And I very clearly expressed my personal experiences in dealing with more than one opponent. Though that was in the part of my post that you cut out.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

And I very clearly expressed my personal experiences in dealing with more than one opponent. Though that was in the part of my post that you cut out.

Yep. And I didn't really see anything to disagree with there (that being why I cut it out), though I'm still contemplating whether and how it supports the idea that attacks from behind should only be considered different if they catch an opponent by surprise. Knowing that someone has circled around behind you to attack doesn't help much unless you manage to very proactively change the situation so you are no longer at such a clear disadvantage. Pretending that you can just stand there and still fight with people behind you (that you are completely aware of and that you expect to attack you) just as effectively as you could if your back was to a wall and the opponents weren't behind you seems pretty silly to me, both conceptually and from personal experience.

[archermoo]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Yep. And I didn't really see anything to disagree with there (that being why I cut it out)' date=' though I'm still contemplating whether and how it supports the idea that attacks from behind should only be considered different if they catch an opponent by surprise. Knowing that someone has circled around behind you to attack doesn't help much unless you manage to very proactively change the situation so you are no longer at such a clear disadvantage. Pretending that you can just stand there and still fight with people behind you (that you are completely aware of and that you expect to attack you) just as effectively as you could if your back was to a wall and the opponents weren't behind you seems pretty silly to me, both conceptually and from personal experience.[/quote']

 

Ah, that would be because it wasn't intended to.

 

That being said, I would say that the fact that in the real world it is in general easier to hit someone if you are attacking from behind even if they know you are there is due to the fact that they can't actively defend against you rather than because they are just innately easier to hit. So it seems better modeled by not allowing them to block you, rather than giving them a DCV penalty.

[randian]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

Really? That's odd' date=' because a few minutes of looking finds several places where "from behind" is addressed in the rules.[/quote']

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to bonuses or penalties, but rather how does one determine from Hero's ruleset when one character is behind another in order to apply those bonuses. You may think this obvious, but it is not. For example, is it related to your Arc of Perception? If it is, and I argue it is, I arguably don't have to actually be behind you, launching an attack 90 degrees from your facing is sufficient since that is outside your Arc of Perception. Don't be stupid, you say, you can turn your head? When does your Arc of Perception becomes fixed for purposes of determining whether an attacker is within it? It has to happen sometime, because you take serious penalties for not perceiving an attacker with a targeting sense, and the only way to measure that is to compare your Arc of Perception with the location of your attacker. If you can turn your head any time you want, then you aren't enforcing a 120-degree Arc of Perception, are you? And if you're giving 180 effective degrees of coverage for a nominal 120, wouldn't it then make sense to give 360 for 240?

[archermoo]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to bonuses or penalties' date=' but rather how does one determine from Hero's ruleset when one character is behind another in order to apply those bonuses. You may think this obvious, but it is not. For example, is it related to your Arc of Perception? If it is, and I argue it is, I arguably don't have to actually be behind you, launching an attack 90 degrees from your facing is sufficient since that is outside your Arc of Perception. Don't be stupid, you say, you can turn your head? When [i']does[/i] your Arc of Perception becomes fixed for purposes of determining whether an attacker is within it? It has to happen sometime, because you take serious penalties for not perceiving an attacker with a targeting sense, and the only way to measure that is to compare your Arc of Perception with the location of your attacker. If you can turn your head any time you want, then you aren't enforcing a 120-degree Arc of Perception, are you? And if you're giving 180 effective degrees of coverage for a nominal 120, wouldn't it then make sense to give 360 for 240?

 

There are penalties if you don't have a functioning targeting sense with which to perceive someone attacking you, whether it is because your targeting senses are non functional or because they just don't work on that person. The severity of which are dependent on whether you make a non-targeting perception roll or not.

 

Not having a functional targeting sense with respect to an attacker isn't the same thing as that attacker being behind you.

[dmjalund]

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

 

I wouldn't allow from behind bonusses from stretching - as the target can see the limb going behind him - however if it had the "does not occupy intervening space" advantage they would have a better chance.

If TK or an Indirect attack can be sensed by a non-targeting sense it would also not get the "from behind" bonus, and (for example) the target could hear it coming