Dodge question
 

We are in a game at the moment and was wondering, if attacked from the rear and sides if you are aware of an attack do you have a - to active defences

Re: Dodge question
 

Normally, you are at -2 to defenses against attacks from your side hexes, and cannot defend against attacks from the rear hex at all. Peripheral vision lets you defend attacks from the sides at no penalty, and the rear at -2. 360º Vison eliminates all penalties.

If your atttacker has done a runaround – moves from your line of sight to behind you and attacks, you have -2 to defend (instead of no defense).

Re: Dodge question
 

-2 to side hexes, no defense from rear hex. B390-391.

Re: Dodge question
 

Did I read it somewhere or did I just dream it?

I've not my books at hand, but I remember that if a character can't dodge an attack he is not aware of (of course), if he is aware of it, he can still dodge an attack from the back, with a -4 penalty.

And I also read that for a runaround attack that ends to the back, the penalty is -2. As from a side hexe (which is logical; it's not really an attack from the back)...

But as I wrote it above, I've not my books at hand, so, these numbers have to be checked.

Re: Dodge question
 

You are correct about the side Dodge penalty, at least.

Re: Dodge question
 

RAW, you can't dodge an attack from behind, unless it's a runaround attack.

RAW, you can defend against an attacker you can't see. I think that might be a -4 penalty.

I don't know how these go together.

Re: Dodge question
 

That's not what my rules say. They say that you can, if you are aware of it.

Re: Dodge question
 

I can just see it now.. My character sneaks up behind someone during battle - his enemy is without any kind of periphereal vision... He cries out his battle cry, "AiyYaiYaiYaiYaI!!!! I'm Going to Kill You Jim!!!!!!!!" - ahhhh, but Jim doesn't get to doge because I came at him from behind. ;)

Re: Dodge question
 

Yes!

;-)

Or, more seriously, a foe sneaks behind your character, tries to cut his head off with his huge sword, but a friend of your character suddenly shouts: "On your back!" ... Or the foe just miserably miss his stealth roll...

There are a lot of situations where an attack in the back can realistically be dodged...

Sorry, but I still don't have my books at hand... So I am still unable to say whether my point of view is rules as the are written.

Re: Dodge question
 

B391. What's your reference?

Re: Dodge question
 

Gentlemen. Due to the brief (1 second) combat rounds defending an attack you cant see is actually possible. But seeing and Awareness are not the same thing.

If Im in combat with a guy who steps behind me, he does so to do harm to me and the harm is coming immediately. I move.

If a friend Steps behind me, then shivs me in my spine, I wasnt aware of that attack. I didnt expect it. Both figuratively and literally, I didnt see it comming.

Someone shooting me Lee Harvey Oswald style, I am not aware of. So I dont get a dodge.

See?

-4 is actually pretty consistent. In total darkness the penalty to attack is at -9 (I think?) so it seems reasonable that the penalty to defend would be 1/2 that.

Nymdok

Re: Dodge question
 

IDHMBWM, but what's the default for Timed Defense?

Re: Dodge question
 

"Shooting Blind" on B389 implies that it's -10.

Re: Dodge question
 

OK. I've got my books at hand now and knows how the -4 came in my mind...

First, Ulzgoroth is right, it is not rules as they are written. These are very precise:

• "Against an attack that comes from one of your side hexes, you defend at -2 unless you have Peripheral Vision (p. 74) or 360° Vision (p. 34).", page 370.
• "Against an attack that comes from your back hex, you cannot defend at all unless you have Peripheral Vison (which lets you defend at -2) or 360° Vision (which lets you defend at no penalty).", page 391.

But the -4 was not just a dream. In the Active Defense Modifiers summary (pages 548-549), it is written: "Can't see the attacker: -4, and block or parry requires a Hearing-2 roll".

Now, it is also written: "Attack from behind: no defense possible (defense at -2 w. Peripheral Vision)".

So, what?

To my mind, in most cases, nobody can't see an attack coming from behind. So nobody can be aware of it.

If someone suddenly step from the character's side to the character's back, or from his front to his back, this is a Runaround attack (see page 391). Then, the penalty is -2.

Now, in the specific case where someone is attacked from behind and someone else suddenly warn him, a dodge with a -4 can be attempted. But I have to admit that it is a house rule, based on an official one (can't see the attacker), but still not official.

Re: Dodge question
 

The Blindness disadvantage agrees with you.

SO it is.

At any rate, its still close and the logic holds.

Run around to where I cant see you and attack your blind spot is -4 to defend.

If i were suddenly TOTALLY blind (sand in the eyes or somesuch) Id be at -10 to combat skill which effectively is -5 to a parry or block.

Nymdok

Re: Dodge question
 

For what it's worth, I agree that you should be able to at least dodge against attacks from behind, if you have a way to know you're being attacked.

And there is (maybe in the vision rules?) a writeup of the specific rolls needed to defend against an attacker you can't see (which agrees with the ADM listing, probably). I would apply those instead of the B391 rule for attacks from behind.

Re: Dodge question
 

-4 is the modifier I always used.

Untill yet, I believed it was a rule as written. It is not really...

But "Can't see the attacker: -4" is still the more close from an attack from behind which could realistically be dodged.

Re: Dodge question
 

I also always used -4 to defend against attacks from the back if you're aware of them. Could be a 3e leftover.

Re: Dodge question
 

The difference is is the GM is using Tactical Combat or not. In "normal" Combat, you can defend against any attack you are aware of, mostly because "facing" isn't an issue. In Tactical Combat, defending from a side hex is at -2, no defense is allowed from the rear hex (except for the listed exceptions), and no defense is allowed for an attack you are not aware of.

Also, Can't See Attacker is a -4 modifier, and requires a Hearing-2.

Re: Dodge question
 

While I can certainly agree with not being able to dodge an attack one's not aware of, I don't agree with flat-out not being able to dodge an attack from the rear. In the end though, it's the GM's decision. As GM, I would allow a dodge at a penalty, even for the simple fact that even though I may be facing a certain direction, my head is probably turning in ways independent of my body.

What would be my "facing" if my head was turned at 90 degrees relative to my body? Would my back effectively be my side for purposes of vision and awareness?

In the heat of battle, I would allow some sort perception roll to notice someone getting ready to attack from behind. If the would-be defender attacked that round, there would probably be a penalty for being distracted or preoccupied...

Re: Dodge question
 

As others have already pointed out, attacks from side hexes give the defender a -2 penalty to succeed. Attacks from the rear hex leave no option for defence.

But!

Beware the "Runaround attack"-rule! For an attack to truly be from the rear and not fall under this rule, the attacker has to start the turn INSIDE the two lines of hexes traced through the defenders SIDE hexes. See the scematic for vision on B74 - you have to come from a black hex to get a true "no defence possible" attack - and that is actually pretty hard to do in tactical combat where opponents are aware of you, because they often go and change facing on you on THEIR turn, putting you into Runaround Attack-territory.

If you look at the box for the runaround rule, you'll see the phrase "start from the front". I took that to mean the front 180 degrees for a long time, but have since been corrected by Kromm.

And the above is for people with normal vision. For Peripheral Vision and 360 degree vision there is no true rear hex, as mentioned.

I also think that the above takes care of that "what if I look the other way than where my body is facing, by giving you 270 degree awareness.

Re: Dodge question
 

Of course, this leaves out what happens if you have a sense other than vision that gives you 360 degree coverage. Can Daredevil dodge attacks from behind like he does in the comics, or not at all?

Re: Dodge question
 

Daredevil probably has Pararadar with 360º arc, and hearing based. Any targeting sense can be used to allow active defenses, IIRC.

Re: Dodge question
 

Is that stated explicitly, or does the RAW text only reference advantages that expand the scope of actual vision?

Anyway, either way, on that principle I'd allow a successful Blind Fighting roll to allow for this as well, on the basis that if you're able to use your other senses to target attacks in total darkness, against the invisible, or if totally blind, then you can target those behind you (and their attacks) as well.

Re: Dodge question
 

Blindness is a special case - its modifier assumes you're used to it. Visibility, B394: "Attacker cannot see anything. If the attacker is blind or in total darkness, … He attacks at -10 (-6 if he is accustomed to being blind)." I guess the defense modifier is lighter than ½ on the grounds that you don't have to reach a "dodge location" or such, anywhere out of the region being attacked is good.

Personally, I'd say Daredevil has Dark Vision with Hypersensory(p46, Powers), and similarly-modified vision advantages… but other examples come to mind, like a dolphin and a shark fighting in water opaque with silt. In the case of Scanning Sense, it states "you may ignore darkness penalties in combat", which if you require the rules to make sense implies enough. That seems to be as close as RAW gets, though.

Given that 360° Vision completely eliminates facing penalties to defend, it does seem to be purely a matter of perception…

Re: Dodge question
 

There is a RAW quote that says you can defend against Choke Holds from behind if you are aware you are being attacked.

Since this is very likely not refering to a runaround attack this again implies you may be allowed to defend if you know you are being attacked from behind.

Re: Dodge question
 

Say, that is an interesting quote. Mayhap the line editors would take an interest in that one.

Re: Dodge question
 

The keywords are "legal defense". If you can't defend because you lack the appropriate advantages, then you don't get to defend.