Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mal Malenkirk" data-source="post: 4603933" data-attributes="member: 834">Correct.&nbsp;So you are out of reach, obviously.&nbsp; It's nice for an archer to be out of reach of the fighters.Melee only?&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Just to honor 3e?There is no advantage to having higher ground in melee, Revenge of the Sith notwithstanding.&nbsp; Quite the contrary, in fact.&nbsp; Your opponent keeps hacking at your leg and you keep hitting at his upper body.&nbsp; Which sounds good if you just look at rolemaster's critical table but in practice it's something else.&nbsp; The guy on lower ground as a much easier time attacking and defending effectively than the guy above.For sh*t an giggle, take a friend, sticks and cardboard shields and see which is easier to defend.&nbsp; You'll find out that the guy below can beat off your attack with ease.&nbsp; He can hold his shield high and hack at your feet with impunity.&nbsp; Meanwhile the guy above is having a hard time defending his legs while counter attacking passed the high shield.&nbsp; Go ahead try it (but do it on stable ground! Don't do something stupid like trying to fight on a table!)&nbsp;&nbsp; You'll soon conclude that the guy with the higher ground needs a penalty!&nbsp; But that wouldn't be very swashbuckly.Anyway, who cares about realism right?&nbsp; We just don't want to multiply the tiny +1 to hit.&nbsp; There are enough as it is.&nbsp; Adding some for higher ground would serve neither realism nor ease of play so why do it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mal Malenkirk, post: 4603933, member: 834"] Correct. So you are out of reach, obviously. It's nice for an archer to be out of reach of the fighters. Melee only? Why? Just to honor 3e? There is no advantage to having higher ground in melee, Revenge of the Sith notwithstanding. Quite the contrary, in fact. Your opponent keeps hacking at your leg and you keep hitting at his upper body. Which sounds good if you just look at rolemaster's critical table but in practice it's something else. The guy on lower ground as a much easier time attacking and defending effectively than the guy above. For sh*t an giggle, take a friend, sticks and cardboard shields and see which is easier to defend. You'll find out that the guy below can beat off your attack with ease. He can hold his shield high and hack at your feet with impunity. Meanwhile the guy above is having a hard time defending his legs while counter attacking passed the high shield. Go ahead try it (but do it on stable ground! Don't do something stupid like trying to fight on a table!) You'll soon conclude that the guy with the higher ground needs a [I]penalty![/I] But that wouldn't be very swashbuckly. Anyway, who cares about realism right? We just don't want to multiply the tiny +1 to hit. There are enough as it is. Adding some for higher ground would serve neither realism nor ease of play so why do it? [/QUOTE]

Verification