[DF] Demon of Old Chain Attack to the Back against Knight with No Peripheral Vision

[InexplicableVic]

The Demon of Old can use its chain to attack someone closer than the chain's reach by attacking at a -5 and hitting the person in the back (assuming the chain goes past the person, or is a wide attack, and hits that way). If the Demon of Old attacks a Knight with a full face protection helm, and thus no peripheral vision, can the Knight defend? I know that the writeup for the Demon of Old says to treat the attack as one from the side, giving another -2 to defend. But no peripheral vision indicates that you can't see your side hexes, so side attacks count as attacks from the back.

Since the Demon of Old is basically in front of the Knight, it seems more like a "Runaround Attack" (hitting someone in the back, but starting in front where the opponent can see them) and thus why it is treated as an attack from the side. But if the Knight just sees the chain fly wide and then loses sight of it as it goes past him...I can see why the Knight gets no defense as he gets hit in the back.

Thoughts? I'm inclined to treat it as some further penalty, or force some kind of roll (against Tactics or something like that) for the Knight to recognize it and defend at the standard -2.

[Varyon]

Handle it as a Runaround Attack (I believe Runaround Attack similarly states to treat it as an attack to the Side). Characters with No Peripheral Vision should arguably be more susceptible to Runaround Attacks, particularly those to the Back, so it might be appropriate to treat Runaround Attacks to the Side as being at -2 and Runaround Attacks to the Back as being at -3 (maybe even -4, although that may be a bit too harsh). Unless the Knight has a particularly flexible arm, I believe his only legal defense would normally be a Dodge - but given the nature of the attack, I'd be inclined to allow a Block or Parry (he knocks the part of the chain in front of him away, spoiling the attack), using the same penalty.

[InexplicableVic]

Yeah, I guess it's also an interesting question as to Runaround attacks and people with no peripheral vision--seems like there needs to be a greater penalty than folks who don't have that limitation, and I suppose the question that comes up is this: Do folks wearing full-face protection just get hit by run-around attacks, or do they have a chance to notice it? Presumably if you see the opponent run behind you, you realize they may be trying that, but it seems like you may not have any defense at all. Kind of a weird situation.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by InexplicableVic

Yeah, I guess it's also an interesting question as to Runaround attacks and people with no peripheral vision--seems like there needs to be a greater penalty than folks who don't have that limitation, and I suppose the question that comes up is this: Do folks wearing full-face protection just get hit by run-around attacks, or do they have a chance to notice it? Presumably if you see the opponent run behind you, you realize they may be trying that, but it seems like you may not have any defense at all. Kind of a weird situation.

With a Runaround Attack, you can't see the opponent when they attack - that's what makes it a Runaround Attack. However, because you saw them dart out of view and know they're attacking immediately (remember, each round in GURPS takes place over the course of a single second), you still get a (penalized) defense. As I said, I can see justification for those with reduced peripheral vision suffering a further penalty, as they have a larger blindspot from which the enemy can attack, but not being able to defend at all means you need to be caught unawares - if someone gets out of sight (even if "out of sight" is just being in one of your Side hexes, if you suffer from No Peripheral Vision) and stays that way for a round or two, it's too hard to predict when (if ever) they'll attack, so you don't get a defense (outside options like passing a penalized Hearing check to hear them coming, Danger Sense alerting you to the attack, or similar).

[Plane]

Originally Posted by InexplicableVic

The Demon of Old can use its chain to attack someone closer than the chain's reach by attacking at a -5 and hitting the person in the back (assuming the chain goes past the person, or is a wide attack, and hits that way).

IE the Return Strike technique for a flail/kusari on MA78 ?

Originally Posted by InexplicableVic

If the Demon of Old attacks a Knight with a full face protection helm, and thus no peripheral vision, can the Knight defend?

Well...

"If the target has never seen this move (GM decides), treat it as an attack from behind."

"This usually allows no active defense! Otherwise, it’s considered an attack from the side"

If it operates the same way in DF as it does in MA then I would assume whether it counts as coming from behind (no def usually) or the side (-2 def usually) it would depend on whether their target has seen it.

Statistically speaking I'm wondering if "is familiar with Return Strike" ought to count as a perk to distinguish the higher value of characters who do have experience with it.

Originally Posted by InexplicableVic

I know that the writeup for the Demon of Old says to treat the attack as one from the side, giving another -2 to defend. But no peripheral vision indicates that you can't see your side hexes, so side attacks count as attacks from the back.

That does seem to make sense.

One thing that Return Strike / Demon of Old might have overlooked is B394's rules on visibility: you can always dodge at -4 so long as you're aware you're being attacked, even if you can't see the defender or your weapon.

Perhaps to actually discern a Return Strike is coming (and not just that they aimed at you and missed) it could involve a tactics roll as below.

I've always found this kind of a strange roll though because how exactly would you know if you're being attacked at a specific time? You might know "there's a guy trying to stab me" but not "he's going to stab me now".

I think like with dodging gunfire this could be a place we could use the 'preemptive dodging' concept, or like that Move and Attack (Evasive Action) introduced in Pyramid.

Another countermeasure if you're rather block/parry instead of dodge, might be to make a Hearing roll, since that can expand your defense options against unseen opponents.

B394 has you do a Hearing-2 roll where a success let's you block or parry with a -4 penalty.

I think that assumes a standard attack from an invisible foe in the front though: B390's "Defending Against Attacks from the Side" penalties would probably stack, meaning you'd be -2 to defend and can't use an arm to defend against attacks from the opposite side unless you're Double-Jointed or that arm is Extra-Flexible.

That -2 doesn't apply to those with Peripheral Vision so it seems physically there isn't really any awkwardness about it except for the opposite-side "my body is in the way" problem which DJ/EF get around.

It seems strange there's no similar benefit to the possible targets you can attack at on B388's chart... seems like it's a Wild Swing as usual... if you can't parry/block attacks coming from the opposite side it seems strange you can still attack/bash in that direction without turning...

B391's "Defending Against Attacks from the Back" would probably also stack: an extra -2 to parry attacks from behind and can't block, though as above DF/EF will remove the -2 / unblockability.

I'm figuring that the Hearing-2 success allowing a defense at -4 supersedes the usual "cannot defend at all" for normal people, though I guess good hearing isn't of any help to the Peripheral Vision guys who can already defend at -2 which is a lesser penalty than what a Hearing success let's you defend with.

I'm not exactly sure where "rustling chain" would fit on the B358 table, I imagine fighters of different size using weapons of different size/force would make different amounts of noise.

It'd be cool if you could have some kind of skill roll (attacking quietly/efficiently) which could influence this. Far as I know it's a Quick Contest between Stealth and Hearing but you still need to know the basic level of sound to know how to penalize the Hearing roll.

Originally Posted by InexplicableVic

Since the Demon of Old is basically in front of the Knight, it seems more like a "Runaround Attack" (hitting someone in the back, but starting in front where the opponent can see them) and thus why it is treated as an attack from the side.

There's a lot of similarity between the Runaround Attack rule and the Return Strike technique which I think Demon of Old is based on.

The primary difference though is Runaround Attack's nerf on attacks-from-back works as long as they began in your sightline and didn't vanish (ie if you use Warp to teleport behind I don't think they defend at -2) whereas Return Strike nerfs the rear attack based on the defender's familiarity with the technique.

Originally Posted by InexplicableVic

But if the Knight just sees the chain fly wide and then loses sight of it as it goes past him...I can see why the Knight gets no defense as he gets hit in the back.

Personally I think it'd be cooler to do a soft cap of a cumulative -1 per pivot you'd need to face the attack head-on

Originally Posted by InexplicableVic

I'm inclined to treat it as some further penalty, or force some kind of roll (against Tactics or something like that) for the Knight to recognize it and defend at the standard -2.

if we're not going to use some kind of "return strikes can be defended like side attacks" perk to reflect a difference in the familiar/unfamiliar then I definitely like the idea of something like a tactics roll to base that on.