Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 4 2008, 09:36 AM

would a Troll of 2.5m size in Close-Combat now be getting +1 for his reach or +3 because he is at least 0.5m higher than the average person of every other race out there?

would a Dwarf of 1.50m size standing on a 1.20m table have a +1 on the troll if the troll were standing on the ground? because the troll gets +1 and the dwarf gets +2?

would a Troll standing on the same table get the +3 if fighting the 1.50m tall dwarf?

Posted by: Fuchs Jun 4 2008, 09:43 AM

I never have used the modifier for higher position so far in my game, and probably never will.

Posted by: Muspellsheimr Jun 4 2008, 09:52 AM

Superior Position is not determined by a character's height. It takes into account more than just where you are striking from, including things such as foot position.

And Trolls have +1 Reach, as specifically stated in their description. Dwarfs do not suffer a reach penalty due to height.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 4 2008, 10:36 AM

soo . . if the 1.50m "tall" dwarf were to . . let's say . . stand on a 0.5m high chair . . he would get a +2 which gets partly negated by the trolls +1 from reach so the then 2.00m tall dwarf has a net +1 on the 2.5m tall troll?

Posted by: Sma Jun 4 2008, 11:40 AM

If you decide that standing on a chair while trying hit and evade your opponent, fills the superior position requirements then, yes the dwarf would be at a net +1.

I usually use the superior position modifier in cases where one of the opponents is maneuvered or starts out in a position where his ability to maneuver is hampered in some way or other, such as being seated in a car, pushed into a corner etc.

Posted by: Fuchs Jun 4 2008, 11:43 AM

Yes. Simply standing on 50 cm higher ground doesn't alyways qualify for the "superior position" bonus in my opinion. In many situations, I'd consider it the worse position (historically, IIRC, the legs were the most vulnerable spots of the soldiers in many battles.

And if a troll gets a permanent +2 modifier for being trollsized, there should be a +2 modifier for shooting the troll as well.

Posted by: Ryu Jun 4 2008, 12:18 PM

Being larger does not at all qualify for superior position. The troll gets a flat +1 reach, done.

Posted by: Blade Jun 4 2008, 12:23 PM

I think it's easier if you consider those as guidelines rather than rules: when a character has an advantage because of his position, then he gets the bonus. If the character has an advantage because of how far he can reach, he's got a bonus.

The fact that the troll is taller than the dwarf means that the troll has an advantage because of his reach, so he'll get the reach bonus, but it doesn't have anything to do with the troll or the dwarf's position, so he won't get any position modifier. If the troll is on a table high enough for the dwarf to have trouble hitting him (forcing him to jump to be able to hit) then he'll get a position modifier, as well as his reach modifier.

This works fine for me, but it won't please those who prefer to have strict fixed rules.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 4 2008, 04:01 PM

ok, a Troll(2.5) and a Dwarf(1.5) walk into a Bar . .
the bar is filled with jolly people, everybody is happy, everybody is having his/her preferred poison.
The Bar has a long Saloon-Like serving table, which is about 1.50 high and the ceiling is about 3.5m high . . of course our little friend is having trouble reaching up at the table and the Troll can't help himself and point that fact out again and again and make small jokes from time to time, as the evening progresses . . of course both Troll and Dwarf consume vast ammounts of their favourite alcoholic beverage caipirinha and bloody mary . . and after an especially bad jab at his shortcomings the Dwarf decides he has had enough and throws his still half full Drink at the Troll . . of course, having drunken several of those allready means he is not quite sober anymore, so he is maybe acting a little short sighted . . and by te way, his throwing skills suffered a little bit too . . so he misses the Troll, hits someone else and 5 Seconds later we are witness to one of the little pleasures of a nice evening at the Bar . . the all nightly Brawl! Over short and long the Troll finds himself standing on the Table . . allthough he has to duck a little bit, as he would be heads and shoulders through the ceiling if he were standing upright . . the Dwarf is still standing on the Ground and trying to hit the Troll and does so by jumping up and taking swings at the Ankles of his foe . .

So the Troll whos arms probably don't even reach down to the Table he is standing on gets a +3 on his close combat due to the fact that he can't even reach the dwarf to hit him?

And if the situation were reversed so the Dwarf would be in optimal punching height for the Troll, the Troll would only get a +1 and the dwarf would get a +2 which would mean that 1 of each do cancel each other out and despite the Troll just having to act as if the Dwarf were his personal Punching-Bag the Dwarf would get a net of +1 and thus be on the advantage?

Posted by: Wesley Street Jun 4 2008, 04:09 PM

In my opinion, it's a matter of what's considered to be "reasonable" advantage. Standing on a chair? No, because someone can stab the character in the leg. Standing on a cargo shipping container when the target is on the ground? Or the top of a three story building? Obviously, yes.

I don't need nor do I want specific heights as to what's considered an advantage. That's too many variables and bogs down the game. But your mileage may vary.

Posted by: Fuchs Jun 4 2008, 04:10 PM

I'd say the troll would get +3 to dodge the dwarves attack, but could not attack without an equal penalty.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 4 2008, 04:11 PM

ok, so let's go with the Cargo Container being 2m of hight, troll on the Container, Dwarf on the Ground . . how the heck would they even be able to enter close combat with each other?
or the other extreme, Troll on the Ground and Dwarf on top of a 3-Story-Building . . how the heck does this work? @.@

@Fuchs: you know . . that does sound reasonable and logical . . as such it has to be wrong of course *g*

Posted by: Wesley Street Jun 4 2008, 04:20 PM

The higher dropping onto the one on the ground or the one on the ground Levitating up and kicking... oh, hell, I don't know. Okay, too extreme and a bad example. A better one: a cargo ramp on a very sharp incline or a short staircase (say nine or ten steps for this example). The one on the higher elevation has the advantage as it would take less strain to strike the opponent beneath him. I think of it in terms of what would be a natural muscle movement versus what would be weird and strenuous.

Posted by: Cain Jun 4 2008, 04:22 PM

Monowhip.

Posted by: Blade Jun 4 2008, 04:28 PM

That's why I said it should be seen as guidelines.
The troll would have gotten an positive modifier if he wasn't too restricted by being on the table (having to duck a bit and being unable to move too much if the table is too small would count as restricting his movements). But the troll still has the advantage of having long legs so that he can kick the dwarf in the face while staying out of range of the dwarf's hands. On the other hand I'd consider that the dwarf is in an inferior position and give him negative modifier for hitting the troll (but not for dodging his attacks).

But once again I've got a very loose interpretation of the rules.

Posted by: Ryu Jun 4 2008, 09:51 PM

Nice scenario Stahlseele. I suggest to keep the drunk from harming themselves - superior position mod goes to the defender, regardless of who that is at any given second.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 4 2008, 10:03 PM

thank you ^^
hrm . . sounds about right, depending on the definition of superior position i think . .
ok so whoever is on the table has superior position because he has the higher ground . .
but everybody who ain't on the table has superior position because it is harder to hit him due to him being able to simply duck or move out of reach without the table-dancer being able to simply follow . .

Posted by: Fortune Jun 4 2008, 11:24 PM

If a character was about to engage in melee with his back to a cliff (big fall, not big wall), then I would give his opponent the Superior Position modifier.

If a character was hanging from a rope ladder by one hand, while fending off an attack by a flying creature (or alternately, an attacker braced at the top of the ladder), then I would give his opponent the Superior Position modifier.

If a character was in the process of taking a dump, with his pants around his ankles, when an assailant kicks down the door and begins to pummel him, then I would give his opponent the Superior Position modifier.

Etc. ...

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 5 2008, 12:31 AM

Actually, the dwarf standing on the table doesn't get any bonus because the troll has enough sense to grab the table, yank it out from under him, and beat him to death with it. This goes triple for the highchair, which would certainly count as unstable ground even if the table does not.

Posted by: Muspellsheimr Jun 5 2008, 07:49 AM

Others have said it multiple times, and myself in a not-so-clear post at the beginning of the thread - Superior Position is not automatically Higher Ground or Taller. It is the position of the attacker compared to that of the defender, taking into account things such as terrain, footing, etc. For example, if your opponent is on rough terrain, such as loose rubble, and for some reason you do not need to worry about it, you have Superior Position.

Posted by: Stahlseele Jun 5 2008, 11:25 AM

hey I do know that . . but the rules-book says otherwise *shrugs*