Defending against an unseen attack

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Jotape

After researching, I discovered that the average speed would be 90 m/s, which would be -10 on the speed and size table. You could consider -2 size modifier for the arrow... and those who have reflexes in combat would gain a +6 bonus on this vision test (only add the luminosity modifier if necessary).

It's not RAW, but don't forget contrast. Arrows silhouetted by the sky or a light background are easier to see. That would give a +10 bonus to Vision rolls for "being in plain sight."

Penalties for bright light are very real when attempting to detect small fast-moving objects "coming out of the sun," which is why it was a preferred attack method during WW1 and WW2 air combat. Again, not official, but I'd double the usual penalties for bright light.

Originally Posted by Jotape

Now, when it comes to blinding lights in meele combat, if after I have a successful dice roll I start to have a "sense" of the combat as if I were "seeing it", wouldn't it be plausible for me to be able to defend myself from an attack from behind (Considering the -4 modifier)?

If you've got the Blind Fighting skill or a suitable advantage like 360-Degree Vision, sure.

Other than that, it's the GM's goodwill.

A good fighter will develop "situational awareness" to guess at where foes will be in the future, even when they're not in sight, but even the best combatants lose situational awareness if they're facing more than a few foes or if the tactical situation changes suddenly.

In a single combat in an otherwise quiet room, I'd allow Blindfighting to default to a Per-based Tactics skill roll, with penalties to vision or hearing due a fighter's helmet, to get a sense that a foe is behind them.

If the fighter succeeds in detecting their foe and the player can plausibly explain how their character could defend against an attack from the rear, I might even allow them to Block or Parry with a suitable weapon or shield, but with success only on a Critical Success. (You can "sort of" maneuver a sword or Small/Medium Shield to defend to your rear, but it's literally blind luck to defend successfully.)

In an ambush situation with ambient background noise I only allow that stunt if the player gave a really compelling reason (e.g., "They're tromping through dry leaves while wearing full plate armor.") and in melee, forget it.

Most of this is just my opinion, not RAW, since I like to let my players try the nearly impossible if that's their character's only option, rather than just telling them no.

[Jotape]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Being unaware of an attack means you have no idea you're under attack at all. It's not merely being unable to see your attacker, or their specific blow. You don't know that there's a poison dart hidden among the oranges in the grocery store, or that there's a sniper in the office building down the street, so there's no reason to be Dodging like a maniac, or have your weapon ready to parry attacks from the oranges. (Fruit Ninjas are the obvious exception here...)

The only exceptions listed to the "can't defend to the rear" listed are Peripheral Vision (reducing the penalty to -2) and 360 Degree Vision (eliminating the penalty). Martial Arts has places to change this rule for Blind Fighting if that had been desired, but it did not.

Blind Fighting says:
Lighting, blindness, and invisibility does not include relative position on a tactical map. So, strictly by hyper-literal RAW, I'd have to say that no, Blind Fighting does not mitigate penalties for defending against side or rear attacks. Tactical position is not "lighting, blindness, or an invisible foe".

All that said, personally, I'd allow it, and houserule adding successful Blind Fighting rolls to the list of exceptions (Peripheral Vision, 360 Degree Vision). The intent for the cinematic skill (so cinematic it requires Trained By a Master) is to fighting "using senses other than vision". To me, it's not logical for defending against an attack from the rear to be even harder than defending against an attack from a straight-up invisible opponent.

Note that penalties and restrictions due to awkward tactical positioning and reach listed on B391, such as the prohibition for Parrying in the off-side hex or Blocking to the rear, are still applicable. Even with the appropriate vision Advantages, there's a -2 penalty for Parrying attacks from behind and prohibition on Blocking without some physical Advantages to make the motion possible. These penalties have nothing to do with awareness, vision, or, or "senses other than vision", and so Blind Fighting does not remove them. Successful Blind Fighting doesn't mean literally "no penalty against attacks from the rear" (a phrase which doesn't appear in the skill text at all), but "no penalty due to not being able to see your opponent well".

Maybe I expressed myself poorly. I didn't want to mitigate the penalties for defending myself from an attack from behind. I wanted to know if a person with "blind fights" can sense that there is an attacker coming from behind, and thus defend themselves with the -4 that a person with 360 vision would be able to. After all, he, in total darkness or blindfolded, "feels" an enemy in front of him, why would it be any different with an attack from behind?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Jotape

After researching, I discovered that the average speed would be 90 m/s,

hyper-detail note: This is for modern, lightweight arrows, probably from compound bows. Medieval war arrows were much heavier - from 0.1 to 0.25 pounds (as much as 100grams or 1,500 grains) - and subsequently slower, perhaps half as fast. 40-45m/s is a better bet for old-school arrows, though that is still -8 instead of -10.

You may be interested in some of the fiddle from Dodge This! (pyramid 3/57)