Posture question - Page 2

Sam Baughn · 10-10-2004, 04:58 PM

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.

Not according to the rules on page 551. He is only considered higher than you in that instance if he is sixty feet tall.

Nikolai · 10-10-2004, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfect Organism

Not according to the rules on page 551. He is only considered higher than you in that instance if he is sixty feet tall.

What makes you say that? I can't find anything like that on p. B551.

NJ

stilleon · 10-10-2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perfect Organism

Not according to the rules on page 551. He is only considered higher than you in that instance if he is sixty feet tall.

So what is the penalty to hit me at 20 yards if I ma laying on the ground? -2? Is it -2 and the penalty for head? Do you do you saw that only head and arms are exposed.

Help

garyb · 10-10-2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stilleon

So what is the penalty to hit me at 20 yards if I ma laying on the ground? -2? Is it -2 and the penalty for head? Do you do you saw that only head and arms are exposed.

It appears to be a total of -7(Face) or -9(Skull)... although I can't find it, specifically, in the book, I can't imagine when your opponent is lying down you now have a better chance of hitting...meaning -2 total. No you have to add the location modifier as well...

Lancewholelot · 10-10-2004, 10:45 PM

To me it seems the designers intended that the head and arms be targeted at the normal penalties, the torso at –2 (this also being the penalty for basic combat), and the legs, groin, and feet not being valid targets at all if the target is crawling or lying down (but hey, what if they’re crawling away from you?). This seems to rule out random hit location without some work on the DM’s part (unless I’ve missed a table or special method). I agree that the –2 penalty seems too little for targeting such a reduced profile as a prone target would offer. I might just have to house rule this one back to 3e modifiers.

Also, I believe that the vertical difference bonus for combat is figured from the ground level of each combatant regardless if standing or lying down since the posture modifier table already takes these factors into account.

stilleon · 10-10-2004, 11:34 PM

We need Dr. Kromm to explain this. Everyone seems to see this in a different way. Please, Sean, save us.

Eljay451 · 10-11-2004, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stilleon

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.

Correct. The details are summarized on p548, under Target. Basically, it's a SM for posture.

Quote:

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.

Your head is the same size if your are standing or crouching. It already incorporates the SM for targetting the head.

The general penalty is for untargetted attacks (what I call potshots).

stilleon · 10-11-2004, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eljay451

Correct. The details are summarized on p548, under Target. Basically, it's a SM for posture.

Your head is the same size if your are standing or crouching. It already incorporates the SM for targetting the head.

The general penalty is for untargetted attacks (what I call potshots).

And yet you cannot dodge. I remember one game (3e) I had no cover and the enemy came in. I doged and dropped then aimed (with bracing) from the ground. I was not hit though I was shot at.

So the above scenario would be just stupid to do in 4e?

Eljay451 · 10-11-2004, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stilleon

And yet you cannot dodge. I remember one game (3e) I had no cover and the enemy came in. I doged and dropped then aimed (with bracing) from the ground. I was not hit though I was shot at.

So the above scenario would be just stupid to do in 4e?

Why would it be stupid in 4e? You are a smaller target (-2 to be hit (torso)), you get braced (+1 to hit) aim (+Acc to hit).

garyb · 10-11-2004, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stilleon

And yet you cannot dodge. I remember one game (3e) I had no cover and the enemy came in. I doged and dropped then aimed (with bracing) from the ground. I was not hit though I was shot at.
So the above scenario would be just stupid to do in 4e?

It's only stupid if all the PCs and NPCs are 'headhunters'...

Do you always aim at the head?

10-10-2004, 10:45 PM	#15
Lancewholelot Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: USA, Planet Earth, The Milky Way Galaxy	Re: Posture question To me it seems the designers intended that the head and arms be targeted at the normal penalties, the torso at –2 (this also being the penalty for basic combat), and the legs, groin, and feet not being valid targets at all if the target is crawling or lying down (but hey, what if they’re crawling away from you?). This seems to rule out random hit location without some work on the DM’s part (unless I’ve missed a table or special method). I agree that the –2 penalty seems too little for targeting such a reduced profile as a prone target would offer. I might just have to house rule this one back to 3e modifiers. Also, I believe that the vertical difference bonus for combat is figured from the ground level of each combatant regardless if standing or lying down since the posture modifier table already takes these factors into account.

10-10-2004, 11:34 PM	#16
stilleon Join Date: Sep 2004	Re: Posture question We need Dr. Kromm to explain this. Everyone seems to see this in a different way. Please, Sean, save us.