Dodge question

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

B391. What's your reference?

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

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

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

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.

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

[aesir23]

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

[thulben]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

In total darkness the penalty to attack is at -9 (I think?)
Nymdok

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

[Gollum]

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.

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by thulben

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

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

[Ulzgoroth]

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.

[Gollum]

-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.

[Exxar]

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

[cccwebs]

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.

[bocharuk]

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...