Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Why does high/low ground matter so much?

Enjoying the game a lot!

But something I've found in combat that kind of bothers me is how high ground/low ground is a thing. Low ground shouldn't really matter at all unless the enemy has cover from something. Same for high ground; the fact that you're higher up than someone doesn't mean your chances of hitting them should increase. This made sense in D:OS, less so in D&D inspired combat.

I also find that standing in front of an enemy often yields less positive results in terms of the chances of hitting someone, forcing me to walk Lae'Zel around an enemy to stand behind them to get the Backstab condition. Which isn't a thing Fighters have. It's just something baked into this game that all characters can make use of. Whether my fighter is facing an enemy or standing behind them should not increase or decrease their chances of hitting them, that's not how it works in D&D nor do I think that is how it should work in BG3.

In other words, I'm a bit annoyed at how the game forces weird movement and positioning just to get better chances of hitting someone. My Cleric should not have to benefit from high ground to increase their chances of hitting a Guiding Bolt.

If I'm missing something that explains why all of this makes sense, feel free to comment! But currently, I see no reason this should be a thing in Baldur's Gate 3, unless the class you're playing has benefits from a feature/ability that gives them increased chances of hitting enemies in various positions.

The way they have high/low ground is you get an advantage/disadvantage in hitting hence the chance increase. Now idk why they chose to have this. It can be very annoying when a lot of enemy encounters start with archers sitting up top throwing bombs.

I actually like this, it encourages you to better position your party in combat and think more tactically.

Advantage for high ground is actually one of the situations used as an example that a GM can use to give Advantage to a person in the battle. GM's in the tabletop are given wide leeway as to what situations apply Advantage/Disadvantage. It's only listed as a suggestion/option because the more things you track the more you slow down gameplay on a tabletop. Computer games are just able to track all this stuff easily so it's easier to include it.

I'm into this thread title, since I had a similar feeling. I think its cool that this high ground concept exists, but I think its being overused. Right now its like the main thing driving AI combat positioning.

It's logical that shooting down is better than shooting up, at least when gravity is an issue like with bows and arrows. But its also logical that a dude racing up the side of the mountain to get to higher ground, or standing on top of a house waving his hands in the air, probably makes for an easier target in a lot of cases too.

One thing I've noticed, and its not dissimilar to pathfinding issues that existed in the original BG1 game, is how Party members block friendly movement. In BG2 the solution was to have the Companions automatically step aside whenever a friendly was trying to pass by, which worked reasonably well.

For combat tactics some body blocking is cool (it makes sense for hostiles), but not so much when its disrupting friendly movement. This goes for the computer enemy as well. It doesn't make sense the tiny goblin to be all body blocking a big bugbear on his own team, forcing everyone to run around each other instead of just taking the shortest distance to whack the target. I think its a situation where pathing should take priority over whatever novelty is introduced by blocking. Clearly you still want your tank plugging holes, and shutting down doorways. But when its time for him to step back so you can land a backstab or whatever, I'd rather friendly could pass through each other temporarily.

That might alleviate some of the issues involved with the battle for the high ground, or being forced to do a bunch of end arounds or scrambles just to reach the enemy when one of your buds is right in the way lol.

Agree that these sources of advantage are unnecessary for the game, and trivialize getting advantage.

Other ways of getting advantage in this game require some kind of investment. E,g, tricksters current channel divinity, costs an action, a channel divinity use and requires concentration. It's AWFUL. Faerie fire - costs a spell slot, concentration, and the enemy gets the make a saving throw against it. Barbarians reckless attack - doesn't cost an action, but it gives the enemy advantage to attack them back.

Right now there are some situations where the players start off in terrible positions.. but from level 3 as a wizard you can have your wizard misty step up behind all the archers on the ledge and thunderwave them off in one round. Sure that's really cool the first time you do that, but it will get old quick.

I think there are better ways to provoke tactical thinking than forcing players to make really awkward movements to squeeze extra benefits out of combat. My fighter standing in front of an enemy with 62% to hit shouldn't suddenly get a 84% to hit because they're now standing behind the enemy. High ground low ground is less bothersome, but it still isn't a D&D mechanic, and while I'm all for critically rethinking some D&D mechanics to adapt them to this video game, I can't really say I enjoy this particular one. My rogue is essentially acting as a ranger most of the time. My cleric is scrambling for beneficial positions to hit a Guiding Bolt. I'm not a fan of it.

Maybe there's a better way to tackle this issue that isn't getting rid of this completely. But I find myself dedicating all my turns of combat to repositioning and finding benefits, which isn't really a fun way to play to me.

Being able to just jump or circle "behind" your enemy every time before attacking for advantage feels really cheesy.

sneaking past the gnoll fight to take the high-ground from the archers turned it from a hard fight to an easy one for me, but the trip of getting everyone over there without being seen and deciding when to strike was great....I like it, it's the sort of tactical realism and dramatic tension I like.

This would still be a good strategy even if high ground didn't provide advantage. You'd be getting up close with their ranged attackers without their frontline to protect them, and it's a good defensive position for when their frontline does come up at you. IF you knock their archers down ,you can use the terrain to prevent them from having line of sight to shoot you, which is far better than the disadvantage theyd have if they shot from low ground in the current situation.

The terrain and verticality in this game make for very interesting battles even if the high/low ground advantage wasn't a thing.

Indeed, that feels bad.

+1

Finding edges I can shove people off has been a consistent strat of mine.

I think that the many advantages and techniques are used by the AI to represent that it's a hostile world out there and most warriors WILL be constantly considering tactical advantages.

That being said; if you haven't done any sort of actual "combat" or SCA or even martial arts, you may not understand just how great a difference seemingly subtle differences of ground/level and positioning can make.

I agree this backstab thing is an issue, but you know how i fixed it?? i didndt, i got the amulet with teleportation and every fight i equip it in battle on the person who moves first and teleport them into backstab position or high ground and then unequip the amulet, repeat for every character: profit.

And im getting really tired of doing this, i agree the warrior should only use his thaco to determine hit not have any bonuses for backstabbing.. I find myself spamming jump button more then anything else, and it doesnt even have a hot key, where is logic behind that??

I can tell you that that sort of repositioning is frequent in actual physical fights, especially those with complex terrain. So it makes sense to me just fine.