[DF] Striking ST (only on surprise attack): what's a surprise attack?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

If one was looking for a more “sneak attack that was triggered by flanking and surprise”, How would you price (and word) Striking Strength (whenever your opponent cannot defend properly)?

From a crunch perspective: Whenever your target is defenseless (unaware, tied up, surprised), or whenever you attack them from an advantageous point (runaround attack, from the side/above, etc) or if your opponent decides to AoA. This would not trigger if you used a deceptive attack or attacked when there was uneven footing, or be negated with a telegraphic attack.

This would be from a flavor perspective finding the weak point in armor or taking advantage of greater precise striking when your opponent is off balance or can’t see where the attack is exactly coming from.

I'd throw in allowing it against Stunned/Grappled* enemies, give it -20%, and call it Striking Strength (Sneak Attack), with a later note as to what Sneak Attack entailed.

*If you opt to toss TG in with your DF, I'd probably require enough CP to inflict -4 to DX.

[Kromm]

"Surprise attack" means "An attack against which you have no active defense because you could not see it coming." That is, an attack from behind, or by someone invisible or otherwise undetectable to you, or in a social situation where you were caught completely off-guard. The important part is that (1) you did not expect to be attacked at that instant, and (2) as a result, you have no defense roll. Condition (1) by itself isn't sufficient; if you didn't expect an attack but are merely stunned and at -4 to defend, it isn't a surprise attack (from GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 11: Power-Ups, p. 35: "If the victim of the blow would receive an active defense, even at -4 for being stunned, this doesn't count!"). Condition (2) by itself isn't sufficient, either; thus, making an All-Out Attack, being told not to defend via Mind Control spells, etc. would not work.

And FWIW, I would treat the reduction for either of those conditions by itself as -30%. If you always get the bonus when your target has no active defense, even when you're in plain sight? -30%. If you always get the bonus when your target cannot detect you, even if your attack is detectable and allows an active defense at a penalty at the last instant? -30%.

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by Kromm

"Surprise attack" means "An attack against which you have no active defense because you could not see it coming." That is, an attack from behind, or by someone invisible or otherwise undetectable to you, or in a social situation where you were caught completely off-guard. The important part is that (1) you did not expect to be attacked at that instant, and (2) as a result, you have no defense roll. Condition (1) by itself isn't sufficient; if you didn't expect an attack but are merely stunned and at -4 to defend, it isn't a surprise attack (from GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 11: Power-Ups, p. 35: "If the victim of the blow would receive an active defense, even at -4 for being stunned, this doesn't count!"). Condition (2) by itself isn't sufficient, either; thus, making an All-Out Attack, being told not to defend via Mind Control spells, etc. would not work.

And FWIW, I would treat the reduction for either of those conditions by itself as -30%. If you always get the bonus when your target has no active defense, even when you're in plain sight? -30%. If you always get the bonus when your target cannot detect you, even if your attack is detectable and allows an active defense at a penalty at the last instant? -30%.

Indeed. I always though the rules were quite clear. I do have a house rule, because I wanted to make the thief a little more combat worthy (before the advent of the assassin as a template) that any attack where the defender does not get a defense lets you add your Surprise Attack bonus. This means:

1. You attack from behind.
2. The opponent is unconscious
3. You make your stealth roll during combat to sneak into the shadows and start combat by backstabbing your foe
4. You attack first during a non-combat situation where violence was not expected
5. You attack with the first Return Strike (I let my players DF-ize any techniques they like from Martial Arts), and you're not known for doing that.
6. The opponent All Out Attacks
7. You critically hit

1 to 4 are standard as far as I understand the rules. 5 would also be if return strike is allowed in game. 6 was because I had a player who wanted to play a crit fishing MMO style rogue, and I didn't want to create a house rule allowing crits on a 7, because I understand probabilities ;).

Now I have an assassin/martial artist who power blows (3x)/unarmed master/claws from behind ;)

[GodBeastX]

Sorry Kromm, your wording being so long confused me. Striking Strength Surprise Attack doesn't work on someone who All Out Attacked?

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

Sorry Kromm, your wording being so long confused me. Striking Strength Surprise Attack doesn't work on someone who All Out Attacked?

Not unless he also doesn't see you (so you get it if you attack him from behind, you're invisible or he's blind, and doesn't hear you, etc etc). Not at least by the rules as written and intended (though you are free to change how they work in your game, if you're the game master)

[GodBeastX]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

Not unless he also doesn't see you (so you get it if you attack him from behind, you're invisible or he's blind, and doesn't hear you, etc etc). Not at least by the rules as written and intended (though you are free to change how they work in your game, if you're the game master)

I like it better working on All Out Attacks too. I've seen enough movies where someone does some crazy all out attack and a rogue slips around them burying a dagger in their backs, and it's always a big hulking dude with a giant hammer.

So in my game it works! Mwaha. Plus it's easier to say "If they can't roll a defense you can get your damage."

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by GodBeastX

I like it better working on All Out Attacks too.

All-out attack is already a stupid choice to make almost all the time. No need to make it even more stupid. I'd be tempted to say that you can defend at -4 during an AoA.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

All-out attack is already a stupid choice to make almost all the time.

IME, this isn't remotely true. If you are using a ranged weapon especially from cover it's often worth it for the +1 (and required for Sighted Shooting if using that rule). If you have high DR and can shrug off attacks it's often worth it. If you are attacking a helpless or unaware foe it's often worth it. I see it used (and used well) on at least 10% of attacks.

[simply Nathan]

Further, if you are offensively heavy and have an adjacent ally with good defenses and stuff like Shield Wall Training to cover attacks made against you All-Out Attack can be good. In "every man for himself" skirmishes, not so much.

[The Benj]

I also favour the version where all that's required is that they have no option to defend, but yeah, -60% is too much for that.

And yeah, I see AoA used pretty frequently, especially from behind or when you have plenty of DR.