Two opponents - front and back - how do you handle

[Armak]

Let's say that you end up in a fight in a situation where NPC has a PC A directly in front of him fighting him and PC B directly in the back. NPC is aware of both PCs. Situation is quite confined - not much room to move sideways.

How would you handle. Would you give a possibility to do CAs (for example parry or evade) against the PC B. What kind of bonus would you give to PC B against NPC or minus for the NPC.

What if the NPC was not aware of PC B.

 

[Dan True]

Let's say that you end up in a fight in a situation where NPC has a PC A directly in front of him fighting him and PC B directly in the back. NPC is aware of both PCs. Situation is quite confined - not much room to move sideways.

How would you handle. Would you give a possibility to do CAs (for example parry or evade) against the PC B. What kind of bonus would you give to PC B against NPC or minus for the NPC.

I wouldn't give a bonus at all. A simple ruling that "you cannot parry an attack from behind, when you cannot manouver" - which is rather obvious - makes it. He cannot parry the guy behind him if, unless the turns around.

What if the NPC was not aware of PC B.

Then I probably wouldn't even make it a combat. If you're standing with a weapon behind a person who's not aware of you, you can simply do what you like with him.

- Dan

 

[Armak]

Let's say that you end up in a fight in a situation where NPC has a PC A directly in front of him fighting him and PC B directly in the back. NPC is aware of both PCs. Situation is quite confined - not much room to move sideways.

How would you handle. Would you give a possibility to do CAs (for example parry or evade) against the PC B. What kind of bonus would you give to PC B against NPC or minus for the NPC.

I wouldn't give a bonus at all. A simple ruling that "you cannot parry an attack from behind, when you cannot manouver" - which is rather obvious - makes it. He cannot parry the guy behind him if, unless the turns around.

--> This is how I ruled in the situation. No parry possible, actually it was the only way any of the A & B were finally able to hit the NPC in that fight.

What if the NPC was not aware of PC B.

Then I probably wouldn't even make it a combat. If you're standing with a weapon behind a person who's not aware of you, you can simply do what you like with him.

- Dan

Gritty but real - this is how I ruled a garrotte attack earlier in the same session.

 

[rust]

Let's say that you end up in a fight in a situation where NPC has a PC A directly in front of him fighting him and PC B directly in the back.

Provided that PC B has a weapon which can harm the NPC, the
NPC obviously can only surrender or risk to enter his religion's
version of an afterlife - in both cases there is no combat, only
the NPC's prudent or foolish decision, depending on his perso-
nality and motivation. Most of my NPCs would drop their wea-
pons, raise their hands and hope to be treated fairly.

 

[Mixster]

Let's say that you end up in a fight in a situation where NPC has a PC A directly in front of him fighting him and PC B directly in the back.

Provided that PC B has a weapon which can harm the NPC, the
NPC obviously can only surrender or risk to enter his religion's
version of an afterlife - in both cases there is no combat, only
the NPC's prudent or foolish decision, depending on his perso-
nality and motivation. Most of my NPCs would drop their wea-
pons, raise their hands and hope to be treated fairly.

This.

If he wants to take the combat, I'd however rule that if he isn't too confined he can change which direction he faces, and hence where he can attack/parry as a CA, this should, unless the NPC is a beastly fighter make the combat pretty one sided.

 

[DamonJynx]

There is the obvious bonus to attacks to consider and if the NPC is not aware of PC B (didn't pass his Perception Test or whatever) then it's pretty much all bad. PC B has at least a cumulative bonus of +40% (attacking from behind, and vs. a 'surprised' opponent), the NPC can't defend so at a minimum RAW, PC B gets at least 1CM on a successful attack which with the bonus is going to be likely over a 100% so the chance for failure is ridiculously small.

NPC should give up or pray.

 

[ThatGuy]

Can the guy being attacked just turn sideways?

If so, I would rule a bonus to the attackers for attacking from the side applies, but the defender can defend or attack using the weapons on either side that are available.

This situation is not indefensible in my opinion.

For example: in a fantasy setting, two common thugs- not so bright, and rather clumsy (maybe even a bit drunk) decide to try and attack a very capable Elf Warrior in an alley. The Elf, with its high INT and DEX may have more CAs than the two attackers put together (I have a character in an online game with 4, and he uses a shield, so, five. Consider- if the defender has a Hoplite, he may very well be able to bar one combatant from the fray entirely. If a PC were to be that creative I would reward him with success (to an extent- the attacker on the other side of the shield would have an automatic hit and would be choosing the "Damage weapon" CM every time).

Just saying, a capable fighter against common thugs could handle this situation...

EDIT: Of course, if a PC or NPC is unaware of an attacker behind them, thats not a fight. Thats an assassination attempt, and should be treated as such.

 

[Redcrow]

I would say it depends on how cinematic you want things to be. You could impose a -60% (blindness) penalty to defend against the attacker they are aware of but can't actually see and perhaps an additional -10% (confined space) penalty. That would make defending against an attacker directly behind really difficult but not impossible for a highly skilled fighter.

Even if they are unaware of the person behind them, I would personally still require an attack roll because even though there isn't alot of room to maneuver a miss is still possible even once all the bonuses are added together and thats exactly the kind of thing that can change the course of events through a single botched roll. Only if the target was completely unaware and unmoving would I not require an attack roll. So successfully sneaking up on a guard standing watch I would consider the guard as basically 'helpless' and the attacker would get an automatic critical hit. But if the target is involved in any type of activity where they are moving I like the idea that there is always the possibility they will bend over to tie their shoelace (or somesuch) at the last moment and narrowly (and perhaps unwittingly) escape death. YMMV.