Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane
[INDENT]
Active defences confuse me too, since it's not as clearcut as a hit penalty as to who is the subject.
"you would fight as though", if you consider defences to be party of fighting, seems like it could mean Lowerton could ignore the active defence penalty...
however, since Higherton is the one doing the fighting when he does an active defence, it sounds like he would still keep the active defence bonus.
|
Precisely, active defenses are what's bugging me. Hit locations are fairly straight forward to figure out, since the depend on each combatant weapon
individually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon
If the upper fighter has the Reach 3 weapon, he reduces the vertical distance by 6 feet for the extra 2 yards of reach his weapon gives him and fights as if the vertical distance were only three feet, giving him a +1 to his active defenses. The lower fighter reduces the vertical distance by three feet for the extra yard of reach his Reach 2 weapon gives him and fights as if the vertical distance was six feet, giving him a -3 to defend.
If the lower fighter has the Reach 3 weapon, he fights with the vertical distance reduced to three feet and defends at -1 to his active defenses. The upper fighter with the Reach 2 weapon, fights as if the vertical distance was six feet and gets +3 to his active defenses.
|
So, it is your understanding that the modifiers for Active Defenses derive, as do the allowed hit locations, from each weapon individually? The "problem" (if it be called that) with this interpretation is that the upper fighter gets worse defensive bonus the longer his weapon is.