YOU'RE the GM: the circular firing squad

[Skarg]

Yes I think Steve never noticed he hadn't said anything explicit about whether thrown weapons should get a facing mod or not.

As I wrote in some earlier discussion of this, while I agree that someone facing the other direction would be easier to hit due to not seeing the attack coming, I don't think it warrants the same amount of to-hit bonus that hand weapon attacks get for that. It seems to me that with hand weapon attacks, facing makes a huge difference because presumably there is an interaction between front-facing fighters where they try to hit each other and not get hit in a variety of ways (keeping distance, parrying/blocking/dodging, menacing, attacking, etc) all of which would be greatly reduced or absent when facing the wrong way. But much of that does not apply to any ranged attack, because there is no reach issue, and unless the target is also menacing the attacker with a ranged weapon, there's no menacing and attacking deterring the ranged attack.

So really I'd tend to favor some compromise modifier such as +1 or +2 for a ranged attack of any type (other than thrown spell) at someone who can't see the ranged attacker.

[MikMod]

Originally Posted by RobW

Sure, I'll try.
First why is there a facing bonus for normal melee attacks? I'll say this reflects that there's lots of little things a living target, unlike a static one, can do to make themselves harder to hit when they can face what's coming. This passive defence applies even when you're otherwise occupied, casting a spell, or changing weapons. You can go even further and take on an active defence, ie defend option, and now even harder to hit. But it's the lack of passive defence that produces a +4 bonus from the rear.

A missile weapon doesn't get facing bonus. A thrown spell doesn't get facing bonus. The intention here seems to be that these kinds of attacks aren't subject to the little things that constitute passive defence. These attacks friend entirely on the attackers skill.

Hopefully we're in agreement this far.

Now, I can hit someone with a snowball in the back much more easily than from the front. This is because my target can more easily evade.

Hopefully still agreeing so far.

Now is the snowball in the back thing due to active dodging of passive defence? Well, I'd say even if the target were bobbing and weaving it would be easier to hit them from the back. So for me, a facing bonus for thrown attacks seems reasonable.

I think the crux here is that you see passive defence being something that will hinder a knife thrower, but not an archer?

For instance, an archer and a knife thrower stand side by side. Archer at DX 12 and Thrower at DX 11. They both fire at a tree 2 hexes away. So the archer will fire first with 12 to hit and then the knife thrower will roll 9 to hit.

Replace the tree with a fighter who is charging at them and has moved over half MA. The situation is identical.

But make that fighter face the other way, perhaps actively engaged in a hectic sword fight, and suddenly the knife thrower goes first and rolls 13 to hit, followed by the archer who still only has 12 to hit? Does that feel right to you?

I actually can't see what the big difference is between the knife thrower and the archer. They both have to aim and deliver an attack at range. Any passive defence would surely affect them both the same, and arguably the archer would benefit more from being behind a foe since any opportunity to hit them more easily will be easier to capitalise on because the projectile moves faster?

[MikMod]

ITL p115: "Thrown Spells... are targeted just as though they were thrown weapons. The DX adjustment is exactly the same." P106 'a figures facing does not affect the AdjDX of spells cast at him'

Also consider the diagram on p114. A is discussed throwing a weapon at various people but no side or rear adjustments are mentioned, despite them clearly facing away from their attacker.

And on p106. "A physical attack" made from the side gets +2 and from the rear, +4. What does "physical attack" mean though? It's explained a few lines earlier: "a physical attack may only be made against a figure engaged with you - that is in one of your front hexes", so this is pretty clearly not a bonus for ranged attacks...

[Axly Suregrip]

BTW, what does RAW mean? I see it used often and it seems to imply the old version (decades old version). Is that it or is it different than that?

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

BTW, what does RAW mean? I see it used often and it seems to imply the old version (decades old version). Is that it or is it different than that?

RAW just means Rules as Written. In this context it would refer to the current version.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by MikMod

I think the crux here is that you see passive defence being something that will hinder a knife thrower, but not an archer?

Yes, that’s right. In “real life” I think there’s a reasonable case for that. I tried to explain why, but I can see you’re not convinced. Does this mean you’re ambivalent in real life about being targeted by a crossbow or a boomerang? I’ll take my chances against the boomerang!

In game terms, I agree your example of replacing a fighter with a tree shows there is a problem. If this kind of contest ever came up (!) I agree would have to give the knife a +4 bonus to be logically consistent.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by MikMod

And on p106. "A physical attack" made from the side gets +2 and from the rear, +4. What does "physical attack" mean though? It's explained a few lines earlier: "a physical attack may only be made against a figure engaged with you - that is in one of your front hexes", so this is pretty clearly not a bonus for ranged attacks...

Yes, but p114 also says, “A thrown-weapon attack is treated exactly like a regular attack”.

[RobW]

If it helps, I would say if our GM or any of the players object and raise the issues you raise I’d agree completely and say fine, let’s carry on as we always have and not give facing bonus to thrown attacks.

[MikMod]

Originally Posted by RobW

Does this mean you’re ambivalent in real life about being targeted by a crossbow or a boomerang? I’ll take my chances against the boomerang!

Does this mean that if there were a boomerang user and a crossbow user behind YOU in real life - at equal distance and equal skill - you would much rather the crossbow fired at you?!

After all, you're saying if they were both DX 10 that the crossbow would only hit you 50% of the time, but the boomerang would hit you 90% of the time...

Can you see why that doesn't seem right to me?

[RobW]

Originally Posted by MikMod

Can you see why that doesn't seem right to me?

Sure I can see, and in fact I think I said a few times, we have always played with no facing bonus for thrown weapons. It never even occurred to me as a possibility until hearing something on this forum.

Originally Posted by MikMod

Does this mean that if there were a boomerang user and a crossbow user behind YOU in real life - at equal distance and equal skill - you would much rather the crossbow fired at you?!

After all, you're saying if they were both DX 10 that the crossbow would only hit you 50% of the time, but the boomerang would hit you 90% of the time...

Well, I was talking about in real life! If I can see what's coming, I think I have a much better chance of sidestepping, catching, or deflecting a thrown weapon than a crossbow bolt. If I can't see what's coming, then not much I can do about it is there, and so I wouldn't care so much about how the weapon is being delivered, just how much damage it will do. I'm not sure there is anyone that would feel differently?