Originally Posted by Demoulius
Hey all,

Lets talk about height advantage laugh its a topic that comes up alot and I feel it needs fine tuning. Il provide my own opinion on it first. I feel giving advantage and giving enemies disadvantage at the same time if they are attacking you while you have high ground is to much. You are granting creatures with high ground double bonuses for it basicly. I would be fine with it just beeing advantage and providing no penalty at all to the enemy. That said I do have a perfect scenario: turn the bonus into a bonus to hit rather then advantage. With it providing partial cover to you (bonus to your AC) if they try to attack you while you have it. That way high ground is still very valuable but not openly OP anymore. Still gives you battlefield advantage but not the end if the world if you dont have it either. It would be a happy medium and would be perfectly fine with regards to the rules.

The forum doesent seem to have a poll option so il have to do a questionnaire manually. Please understand making polls or working with statistics isent my proffesion or anything so if the format needs some work, let me know and il make some adjustments. Please anwser the questions with yes or no first. If then later you want to explain or discuss your choice feel free to do so but please keep it seperated from your anwsers from the post with a open space.

Question 1: Do you feel that granting creatures advantage if they attack from high ground is to powerfull?
Question 2: Would you prefer if the advantage gets replaced with a flat bonus to hit?
Question 3: Do you feel that the disadvantage penalty for attacking someone on high ground needs to be removed?
Question 4: Would you be ok with high ground granting cover to people in place of it granting the attacker disadvantage?
Question 5: Would you prefer if the bonus and penalties for high ground get removed alltogether?
Question 6: Would you prefer the heigh ground 'issue' be resolved in a different manner? If yes, please explain in your post how you would like to see it solved.

If I were to anwser my own questions it would look like this:
Question 1: No.
Question 2: Yes.
Question 3: Yes.
Question 4: Yes.
Question 5: No.
Question 6: No. (mostly because my perfect solution is doable with questions 1-5 smile )

Looking forward to reading replies!

Hey, you'd be right, if I got a +10 to hit from having high ground? That's doubling the actual scores, right? The problem with the rest of that particular scenario is that if it's the other way around, you get the Disadvantage. Your perfect solution is exactly how it works right now. You get a bonus to hit, and a bonus to AC, since Disadvantage makes you harder to hit, which == bonus AC. So it doesn't change anything but what it's called, but still does exactly the same thing.

1. Nope, just like I don't think we should lose benefits/detriments to having Darkvision or not.
2. It's already there, changing the name doesn't change anything else.
3. On one hand you talk about giving partial cover, which equates to bonus AC, and on the other you talk about removing it? Which are you going for?
4. See 3?
5. Nope.
6. Nope, and changing the names might trick some of the people, some of the time? But that's all your perfect system does, takes the same stipulations that apply now, and changes their name to something else.