[Martial Arts] Melee Threat area?

[lambda]

Originally Posted by laserdog

My bad, my real goal is to make run arounds harder. I'll take any solution that accomplishes that.

I view run arounds as a pure relic of the turn based system.

As I think a realistic fencer would simply step to cut off an attacker trying to run all the way around him, and or use his/her sword to deny the avenue.

Since allowing yourself to be surrounded is often as bad as an attack, it seems like there should a way to actively to deter or stop it.

But you can do that, to keep one opponent from running around you, with Wait as suggested, or Kromm's proposed rule. What you can't do is stop all of 5 attackers at once from going around you, and that seems reasonably realistic. I know people who do real-life fencing in large groups, and being outnumbered by just a little bit makes it unimaginably harder for them, even when they're really good. Also, you see a very different style of fencing than you do with modern one-on-one sport fencing; you don't see nearly as many lunges when you're a line going up against a line, since a lunge exposes you massively to both of the people on either side of the person you're attacking.

But really, one guy is not going to be able to block a wide hallway very well from multiple people attacking and trying to go around. If he can physically be in the way of the whole hallway, (it's a one hex hallway), then sure, you can't run past him, but no one can attack someone in front of them, parry attacks from that person, and worry about blocking people running past their side all at once.

Now, your original scenario mentioned a tentacled monster in the middle of the hallway, in which case you can probably come up with some appropriate combination of extra attacks, advantages, and techniques like Kromm's for that unnatural situation, but it's not something that just anyone should be able to do.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

So this character is fighting four competent, armed opponents? The technical term for that, even in cinematic settings, is usually "screwed". Having one of them nip round him and deliver a quick stab while the other three keep him occupied, strikes me as entirely plausible.

One on two is challenging enough, but if the two haven't worked together, it's plausible. With three or four on one, one can easily arrange for that extra person to slip past.

Of course, if he's adequately cinematic, he waits until his environment is adequately target-enriched, and then executes a Whirlwind Attack and takes all of them down in one blow.

I am become Cuisinart, Destroyer of Mooks.

[Kromm]

Certainly, Whirlwind Attack is eminently adaptable to other situations. I could see a GM allowing a Heroic Stand technique that has the same defaults and rules, but instead of attacking everybody standing around you now in circular order, you must attack everybody who rushes past you in the next turn, in temporal order. It's still an All-Out Attack, and liable to leave you no more able to defend than turning your back to some foes, but it might suit some players' sense of aesthetics better.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Certainly, Whirlwind Attack is eminently adaptable to other situations. I could see a GM allowing a Heroic Stand technique that has the same defaults and rules, but instead of attacking everybody standing around you now in circular order, you must attack everybody who rushes past you in the next turn, in temporal order. It's still an All-Out Attack, and liable to leave you no more able to defend than turning your back to some foes, but it might suit some players' sense of aesthetics better.

I like that, quite a bit. I must think about the idea for a little while...

[kmunoz]

People here are talking mainly about situations where a foe is running past you from a distance, and in those cases it makes a lot of sense to require a Wait to be able to react.

But there's another situation, I think, where that would not make sense. The thing is, I think GURPS already takes it into account. And, oddly enough, D&D doesn't. In GURPS, there are limitations to how far around a person you can get while in melee with him (see below). But in D&D, you only provoke an AoO if you leave your opponent's threat zone, which *doesn't* happen if you're running around him, only one square away. (But to be fair, D&D doesn't really have a "facing" notion, since the rounds are so long.)

Suppose I'm attacking you, face to face, one hex away, using tactical combat. I have Move 6. It's my turn. If I Move and Attack, I can move 3 hexes around you (all "forward"), then turn to face you (free, since I only used 3 points), then attack... but my skill is maxed at 9. Ouch. But it could be even worse: do those 3 hexes require facing changes? If they don't count as simple forward moves, then I'm spending 6, not 3, and I can't attack. (B387 isn't clear to me: do the facing changes that cost 1 point during a move include the ones that are obligatory when moving "forward" into front side hexes, or are those forward turns free?)

Okay, so I try another way: All-Out Attack. I can move 3 hexes around you (all forward)... and then I'm stuck. I can't turn, tactical combat All-Out Attack doesn't allow it (B385), and I'm back in the position I was with the Move and Attack.

The fear originally was that I could get around you, attack you, and you'd be stuck staring at empty space. You can't do any active defense, so you're a sitting duck. But in all likelihood, I can't hit you anyway: at best I get a 9 to hit, at worst *I'm* the one stuck staring at empty space. Then on your turn, you get smart and use an All-Out Attack: you spin around (3 movement points). Even if you only have a Move 5 you can still attack me in a front hex, since it only requires 2 movement points to get me in your front arc. If you only have Move 4 you can't do that, but at that point your Speed is low enough that it wouldn't make sense for you to be able to out-dance someone with a Speed 50% faster than yours.

[OldSam]

I fully agree with the circling/waiting-tactics in a duel as this happens very often - both fighters are observing their opponent and wait for an initial attack....

But the discussion about the wait-maneuver brought up this question for me:

The "wait-strategy" gives advantage to the defender who can intercept and thus strike first... Given I am an experienced fighter knowing this - why should I attack at first anyway? (as of course I'd prefer to intercept...)

So this leads to a point which is probably not easy to simulate - I don't know if there are rules for this in the new MA (but pre-ordered the book ;))

==Fighting psychology or mental control of the fight==

If I am the attacker can I somehow <provoke> an attack / intercept of my opponent with making him <believe> that I start a real attack?

I am for myself training in martial arts for several years and this is an essential part of the advanced fighting methods - to make the opponent believe something, give him false informations with body language etc. to get him into a trap...

In Gurps-Terms: For a duel-situation where both fighters waiting for the other to attack, is there a rule for a mental contest in that sense?
Maybe a combination of quick contests in relative-fighting-skill-levels (experience) and will-attribute...?

(This tactic is of course a kind of "feint" but as I understand the feint-maneuver, it could be intercepted with a counter-attack just as a normal attack...?)

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by kmunoz

But in D&D, you only provoke an AoO if you leave your opponent's threat zone, which *doesn't* happen if you're running around him, only one square away.

Um No, in DnD you provoke an AoO for leave a threated square, not the zone

Originally Posted by SRD

Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent.

so if your run around a person within their reach you provoke Multiple AoO for ever square you leave, BUT unless they have combat reflexes they only get 1 a turn anyway

[Kromm]

As it happens, I think that the main reason you'd break off a series of Wait maneuvers is to attempt a Feint. And Martial Arts has rules for no-contact, mind-game feints, called Ruses (p. 101). In addition, the last paragraph of Dirty Tricks (p. 76) gives you an excellent reason to do something skeevy out of the blue . . . in a formal duel situation. And The Contest of Wills (p. 130) kind of replaces strings of Waits with something more psychological, for those who want to use the rule (it doesn't suit every gaming group, but then none of these rules do!).

[khorboth]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

so if your run around a person within their reach you provoke Multiple AoO for ever square you leave, BUT unless they have combat reflexes they only get 1 a turn anyway

This brings up one of the most often ignored rules in DnD. Under no circumstances and with no abilities can you ever make multiple AoO's on the same target in one round. The result being that the runaround being discussed in this thread works fine in DnD too, since fighters and rogues have no problem absorbing one extra attack.

Edit: Correct for 3rd, but not 3.5, see below.

[kmunoz]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Um No, in DnD you provoke an AoO for leave a threated square, not the zone



so if your run around a person within their reach you provoke Multiple AoO for ever square you leave, BUT unless they have combat reflexes they only get 1 a turn anyway

Really? That makes more sense. I misremembered a diagram in the PHB, I think.