Rear attacks and Facing?

General topics, including off-topic discussion, goes here.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 7439
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Rear attacks and Facing?

Post Sat Mar 23, 2019 10:20 pm

Your first move above involves more than 90 degrees of facing change, by the strictest reading of the rules. He's turned 45 degrees right, stepped forward, turned 45 degrees left, advanced, then turned 90 degrees left. 180 degrees.

But I'll agree, in a fully open field, this kind of maneuver seems possible. I'd simply say "no" to anyone trying something like that... unless the target is actually surprised, it shouldn't be possible to just walk by him and then attack from behind him. This is where GM Fiat comes in... if the result doesn't seem reasonable, even if the rules say it's okay, the GM can just say no.

Also, re: parting shots. You only get a parting shot if the combatant leaving the zone makes more than 1/2 move. That is the difference between a fighting withdrawal and a retreat.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 2287
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: Rear attacks and Facing?

Post Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:49 pm

Any movement that is not a straight line involves some rotation except when moving backward in a fighting withdrawal (which halves your movement)
If I would let a character to move with a "locked sight" like movement, then I would remove his movement by half
In some situations it could work, but probably it would take time, and time is not something that you can always spend to gain a +2 to attack.
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/martin.dimirag/
Gronk
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:02 am

Re: Rear attacks and Facing?

Post Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:26 pm

Image

With only a 90º facing change a round, a character walking through a twisty tunnel will often exit facing the wrong direction.

It might be easier not to use facing at all, unless there is surprise involved. Surprise=no action for the surprised=rear attacks by non thieves.
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 7439
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Rear attacks and Facing?

Post Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:55 am

Respectfully, your diagram is nonsense, Gronk. If you are moving through a tunnel that is twisty enough that 90 degrees of rotation aren't enough to keep you facing forward, you have to stop when you need to turn and can't. This abstraction is somewhat consistent with real life... having run through narrow, twisting ways before, I can attest that sometimes you can't use your full movement rate because you can't turn fast enough.

You can only move in the direction you are facing, so the last "leg" of your diagram is impossible. IF, and only if, you told me at the start of the round that you wanted to "sidestep" rather than move directly forward, I'd allow that at a walking pace (your normal movement) but not at a running pace (because you can't run and sidestep at the same time). I might even allow you to sidestep in forward, WALKING movement without counting a facing change. Walking backward is done at 1/2 movement, as attested previously, even if you aren't doing a "fighting withdrawal."
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 7439
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Rear attacks and Facing?

Post Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:01 am

Though, given your diagram, if you wanted to sidestep from the first corner to the second, you could end your move facing forward. As long as you don't have to exceed walking speed to make the move.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
Gronk
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:02 am

Re: Rear attacks and Facing?

Post Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:09 am

I appreciate the patience. These are questions I will be asked at my table. If a character can sidestep more than just one space, as you seemed to say, it is easier to navigate. Would you place a distance limit on sidestepping?
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 2287
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: Rear attacks and Facing?

Post Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:12 am

With only a 90º facing change a round, a character walking through a twisty tunnel will often exit facing the wrong direction.

It might be easier not to use facing at all, unless there is surprise involved. Surprise=no action for the surprised=rear attacks by non thieves.
Unless its a combat situation you shouldn't really bother with this unless the scenario is such that movement should be reduced due to terrain difficulties
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
Drawing portfolio: https://www.instagram.com/martin.dimirag/
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 7439
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Rear attacks and Facing?

Post Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:37 am

Gronk wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:09 am
I appreciate the patience. These are questions I will be asked at my table. If a character can sidestep more than just one space, as you seemed to say, it is easier to navigate. Would you place a distance limit on sidestepping?
In effect, I did, by limiting it to walking movement. I feel like I can sidestep about as fast as I can walk forward, so long as my ancient creaking knees hold up.

I've considered using a movement point system, rather than a rate, but I've never gone to the trouble to write it down. An MP system makes all this more fluid... each step costs points based on the space entered, each turn costs points, etc. But "more fluid" doesn't mean "faster"... if anything, it would be slower in play.

... for example, I'd figure 1 MP = 1 foot of clear space. So crossing a 5' square directly would cost 5 MP, and a 10' square would cost 10. A diagonal step would be either 7 MP or 14 MP depending on the square size (a 10' square is about 14' diagonally, not exactly but close enough for our purposes). Likely I'd charge 5 MP per 45 degrees of facing change (basically 10 feet for 90 degrees). But it would involve a lot of counting when moving... just not sure it would be worth it.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 16 guests