[4E] Missing Rule: Height

[Thajocoth]

Lets say A & B get into a barfight. A hops up onto a table, 1 square up. They are both still in one another's melee reach (the 3x3x3 cube centered on their own space). What has changed?

Has A gained combat advantage over B?
Does A have cover from B?
Is everything exactly the same as it would be sans table?

I cannot find any clarification for this sort of situation in the PHB.

And... What if B drops prone? Can A still hit him without getting down or dropping prone himself?

[Dublock]

Hmm...I think this has to be done my DM approval. I don't remember the page number in the DMG but I know it says that the DM can grant CA when he/she feels like there should be.

Also I personally feel like a 5 foot difference does not matter to much do to the weapons having a long enough reach (along with arm length) to still hit.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Hmm...I think this has to be done my DM approval. I don't remember the page number in the DMG but I know it says that the DM can grant CA when he/she feels like there should be.

Also I personally feel like a 5 foot difference does not matter to much do to the weapons having a long enough reach (along with arm length) to still hit.Go and stand on a table. Now call a friend over. See how much of their body is now protected? And how much of yours is simply out of reasonable reach? Remember, you take up 5' square. A single step back from the edge probably puts half your body beyond any reasonable vulnerability to non-polearms, let alone shortswords or maces.

[Ninetail]

Lets say A & B get into a barfight. A hops up onto a table, 1 square up. They are both still in one another's melee reach (the 3x3x3 cube centered on their own space). What has changed?

Depends on your GM's ruling. Here's how I'd handle it:



Has A gained combat advantage over B?


Yes, or at least a bonus to hit. It's cinematic, and this is the sort of thing I want to encourage.



Does A have cover from B?


No, because it's cinematic and I want to encourage my players to do stuff like jump up on tables, rather than just stand and swing.

Now, if B were to dive under the table, he'd gain total cover against A...



Is everything exactly the same as it would be sans table?


No. Because that's boring.



And... What if B drops prone? Can A still hit him without getting down or dropping prone himself?

I'd say not with a melee attack, unless A is using a polearm or other long weapon. However, A can jump down from the table as part of his attack, gaining more bonuses.

[Colmarr]

Go and stand on a table. Now call a friend over. See how much of their body is now protected? And how much of yours is simply out of reasonable reach? Remember, you take up 5' square. A single step back from the edge probably puts half your body beyond any reasonable vulnerability to non-polearms, let alone shortswords or maces.


I don't have a source, but I remember reading that (at least if both combatants are wielding shields) the higher of two combatants is actually at a disadvantage.

The lower combatant has a much easier time manouvering a shield above their head than the higher combatant does manouvering one around their calves and ankles. Sure, the higher combatant is only exposed at their lower body, but that won't be any comfort to you when you lose a leg.

But on the original topic, the rules don't provide any bonus for being on higher ground. I can only assume that that was an intentional omission from the 4e rules.

[FoE]

The guy on the table is also easier to knock over. Just kick the table hard and at the very least he'll lose his balance.

[V'icternus]

I'd say it's all up to the DM. I mean, maybe it makes your legs more vulnerable, but prevents critical hits? Maybe the table breaks under your unbearable weight and you're knocked prone? Maybe you gain combat advantage, but without the +2 to attacks because they can duck and avoid your strike? It's all about how your DM wants to play it.

[Oracle_Hunter]

So, I don't see anything in RAW to help you here. My first instinct would be to treat entering the table square as difficult terrain; clambering up on it takes effort, but not a climb check - maybe an Athletics check to see if you can jump up on it without slowing down your movement. But otherwise, I would not have it affect combat. But, if you want a close analysis...
I've never liked the high ground bonus (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=150) so I wouldn't bother granting combat advantage. After all, "high ground" is not always an advantage with melee weapons - while it is easier to chop at the heads of your enemies, it is harder for you to protect your legs from their very low attacks. Heck, if height were that important to combat, Large creatures should always get a bonus to-hit thanks to being higher than their target.

As for cover, B actually has cover from A - the table has made it impossible for A to hit below B's waist and, unless the table is very large, B will have no trouble reaching A with a melee weapon. If B were to drop prone, it would be very difficult for A to reach him from the table (unless A were a Halfling :smalltongue:). I would say no effect when both are standing, but B can drop prone to gain cover - though he'd still grant CA to A if he attacked.

So is there no good reason to climb on tables? Not at all! To start with, you have some height advantage, so if you wanted to jump over your pursuers you would have a much easier time of it (I'd have an Athletics check followed by a DC 15 Acrobatics to avoid OAs). The table is also going to be free of bad guys, allowing for more mobility in a combat. Now, if someone comes up to fight you on that table, I'd say that getting pushed off the table would knock you prone on the ground, as well as having been moved.

[TheOOB]

I wouldn't grant combat advantage by any means. A good test is whether or not it should allow a rogue to sneak attack, which being a few points higher doesn't do.

If you must add a bonus, a simply +1 to attack would be enough, but I think the simple fact that you have more mobility, and can shift into cover, should be enough.

[bosssmiley]

On the table: higher ground bonus (until the table gets trashed)
Behind tipped-over table: cover

Combat advantage? I thought that was for when people were blinded, glued to the floor and such... Doesn't seem applicable here. :smallconfused:

[Kurald Galain]

Lets say A & B get into a barfight. A hops up onto a table, 1 square up.
Squares are two-dimensional, not three, because the combat rules become problematic if you start thinking in cubes. I am aware that some rules do mention "squares upwards", but other parts of the rules refer to "feet upwards" instead. I suspect that this might be covered in the DMG2.

I'd give the higher ground a +2 to hit, and make the prone guy out of reach, but neither is mentioned in the rules. Officially, you get no bonus for standing on a table, and you are still within reach of a melee dagger if you're prone next to a table.

[Thajocoth]

This has been quite helpful. I think I'll say in my campaign:

B has cover from A, but A has CA on B. If B drops prone, he has superior cover, unless A also drops prone, but then there's the "you're prone" penalty to hit.

This makes both positions differently advantageous.

Unless rules for this actually come out.


It came up when a player in my campaign dropped prone next to a bar counter while the Doppleganger Assassin on the counter was attacking her. I didn't give height any consideration besides distance, so the doppleganger attacked the same as if right next to her with her prone.

All the "squares" when height is involved are treated as cubes. Melee reach is the cube of squares touching the player, unless they have reach... A Blast 3 power hits a 3x3x3 cube, if applicable. Normally this doesn't matter, as terrain is almost always 2D... But there's always that occasional fight when it matters.

[Oracle_Hunter]

B has cover from A, but A has CA on B. If B drops prone, he has superior cover, unless A also drops prone, but then there's the "you're prone" penalty to hit.

That would result in Halfling Fighters constantly riding on the shoulders of Dragonborn for free "height CA."

Better to just give A a generic +2 bonus... hopefully one that doesn't stack with flanking.

Chicken Fighting Halflings everywhere! :smalleek:

[hamishspence]

"It's over. I have the high ground!"

"You underestimate my power!"

Seems like the result of making high-ground bonus too good?

[Oracle_Hunter]

"It's over. I have the high ground!"

"You underestimate my power!"

Seems like the result of making high-ground bonus too good?

Also: hax! (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=150) :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

that was funny- haven't seen that comic before.

[Oracle_Hunter]

that was funny- haven't seen that comic before.

Possibly one of the best VG Cats ever.

It's good to look through the Archives 'cause he sure as hell ain't updating! Might as well change his name to "Dresden Codak" :smalltongue:

[valadil]

I agree with everyone that it's up to the GM and I want to point out that that's a good thing. If there were quantified rules for bonuses on a table, on a table crouching, on a table prone, balance checks to gain advantage while on a table, etc, the game would be bogged down with more rules than anyone could ever hope to keep track of. DnD has done its job if your DM can use the rules that exist as a model to create rules for this situation.

If I were DMing, I'd let the table give you combat advantage, but your opponent could make an attack to knock over the table. It'd be his strength against your reflex and if he wins you go prone. Or something like that.

[Thajocoth]

That would result in Halfling Fighters constantly riding on the shoulders of Dragonborn for free "height CA."

Better to just give A a generic +2 bonus... hopefully one that doesn't stack with flanking.

Chicken Fighting Halflings everywhere! :smalleek:

This group wouldn't take advantage of it like that, and if they DID try something like that, I'd just declare shoulders to be unstable ground or something. Thus they'd be considered "balancing" until they got down.