Posture question

stilleon · 10-10-2004, 09:03 AM

I was playing a one-shot adventure last night. In it a little gun play happened. My character was making choices about how to approch the battle. I decided I would take a different posture to be defensive in the gunfight.

Something is wrong. According to the posture table standing straight up makes you -0 to be targeted. Crouching is -2. Fine. But all other positions, kneeling or ling on the ground also only makes you -2 to hit.

This is very odd. If in a gunfight I dive tothe ground I am a very small target... mainly head and shoulders. This should make targetting me harder.

Please help me with this rule problem. Thanks.

Sam Baughn · 10-10-2004, 09:30 AM

See the note at the bottom of p. 551. Someone who is at your level or lower and not standing right next to you targets your head, arms and hands at -2 (in addition to the normal hit location modifiers), your torso at -4 and has no chance at all to hit your legs, feet or groin.

stilleon · 10-10-2004, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfect Organism

See the note at the bottom of p. 551. Someone who is at your level or lower and not standing right next to you targets your head, arms and hands at -2 (in addition to the normal hit location modifiers), your torso at -4 and has no chance at all to hit your legs, feet or groin.

Still confused. (I lent my campaign book to a player so I can't see it). At my level or lower? What if the attacker is at say 20 yards and is standing. I am on my stomach, laying on the ground. What is the modifier. In this case he is higher than my level.

Bruno · 10-10-2004, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stilleon

Still confused. (I lent my campaign book to a player so I can't see it). At my level or lower? What if the attacker is at say 20 yards and is standing. I am on my stomach, laying on the ground. What is the modifier. In this case he is higher than my level.

If he's standing, he can see more than your head and shoulders. He can see your feet, although, at a bad angle.

Only if his head and shoulders are at floor level can he only see your head and shoulders when you are prone.

Try this out: get your friend to lie down, and then stand 20 yards away and see if you can see his feet.

stilleon · 10-10-2004, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

If he's standing, he can see more than your head and shoulders. He can see your feet, although, at a bad angle.

Exacly... at a bad angle compared to crouching. Yet both make him -2 to hit. In 3e wasn't crouching -1 and on the ground higher?

lawman · 10-10-2004, 10:30 AM

Crouching was -2 in 3rd edition. Crawling and Lying down were -4, but only for ranged weapons.

stilleon · 10-10-2004, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawman

Crouching was -2 in 3rd edition. Crawling and Lying down were -4, but only for ranged weapons.

I am only talking about ranged weapons. So, does everybody thnk it is right to have the crouching and lying target penalties both at -2 when you fire at them?

Unless someone explains the logic I think I may go back to 3e values. Better dig out that book.

Kromm, out of all the 10,000 great enhancements you made to this book, what happened here?

jahn · 10-10-2004, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stilleon

Kromm, out of all the 10,000 great enhancements you made to this book, what happened here?

That was uncalled for. Why does almost everyone that doesn't like or understand a rule assume that Kromm and Pulver made a mistake?

garyb · 10-10-2004, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jahn

That was uncalled for.

While I agree that I don't like the change... and would like some logic for some changes in 4th... Jahn is right.

stilleon · 10-10-2004, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jahn

That was uncalled for. Why does almost everyone that doesn't like or understand a rule assume that Kromm and Pulver made a mistake?

I didn't say it was a mistake. I was quoting Dr. Kromm when he was upset that people were critisizing the manuscript. I never said it was a mistake, I said I do not understand the reason. I want to understand it, but I do not.

I am asking for clarity. As a consumer of the product I think I deserve that. I have had this experience a few times. it seems that some of the rule is in one place and some is in another and I miss something. But as my understanding of the rule as I am reading it, it does not hold up to logic.

Please elucidate me.

10-10-2004, 09:03 AM	#1
stilleon Join Date: Sep 2004	Posture question I was playing a one-shot adventure last night. In it a little gun play happened. My character was making choices about how to approch the battle. I decided I would take a different posture to be defensive in the gunfight. Something is wrong. According to the posture table standing straight up makes you -0 to be targeted. Crouching is -2. Fine. But all other positions, kneeling or ling on the ground also only makes you -2 to hit. This is very odd. If in a gunfight I dive tothe ground I am a very small target... mainly head and shoulders. This should make targetting me harder. Please help me with this rule problem. Thanks.

10-10-2004, 09:30 AM	#2
Sam Baughn Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and some other bits.	Re: Posture question See the note at the bottom of p. 551. Someone who is at your level or lower and not standing right next to you targets your head, arms and hands at -2 (in addition to the normal hit location modifiers), your torso at -4 and has no chance at all to hit your legs, feet or groin. __________________ My blog.

10-10-2004, 10:30 AM	#6
lawman Join Date: Aug 2004	Re: Posture question Crouching was -2 in 3rd edition. Crawling and Lying down were -4, but only for ranged weapons. __________________ LAWMAN --You could have a rule for everything, but then you'd have a rule for everything.