So instead of strategizing about what spells to use, the player just spends their movement. There are other positioning choices that could be made as well if the player wasn't over-incentivized to move all their ranged party members to high ground.
In my opinion, this is more an issue with being low level and lacking a substantial spell roster, rather than height advantage. Ranged character being incentivized to seek out high ground is a good thing as it promotes more tactical combat than would be possible without verticality coupled with increased mobility. I do agree with all positional advantage is over-incentivized however, so much so it will force Larian to make some significant homebrew to Barbarian and their staple Recless Attack ability for instance.
This is interesting because I feel higher ground is gimmicky and backstab can be alleviated with simple changes.
I've always been in the camp that high ground benefits are overtuned. I'm not saying they should be completely removed, but advantage/disadvantage together is always going to over-incentivize it. Which is currently some Larian has doubled down on by creating a threatened status where ranged attacks are at disadvantage around 3-4 meters. There are a lot of fights where you don't have a choice on where to position a ranged caster. I would like the choice to make calculated risk with a wizard. Threatened + The total value of high ground benefits, denies the player any real choice.
(Note too close to use ranged abilities is already in the game providing disadvantage, threatened is a double-up).
It becomes a chore instead of a reward. The player is actually punished for having a ranged caster on the same level, within four meters of an enemy. A lot of fights start with an enemy within four meters because you were locked in dialogue.
Referencing other suggestions from the forums: if higher ground gave the player +2 AC and +2 to hit and threatened doesn't provide disadvantage. Now the player can make a calculated attack on the first round to finish off an enemy, then pursue the high ground (the enemy might be out of the spell range after moving to high ground). The player shouldn't be forced into pursuing higher ground, where they now cannot finish off one of the enemies in combat, and they'll have to initiate damage on another enemy.
High ground benefits should be a choice, not a must-do.
That said, I take much more issue with flanking/backstab advantage than the height counterpart. At least enemy AI focus on gaining height advantage while they pretty consistently fail to take advantage in melee. Besides, moving to the back in melee constantly is EXTREMELY gimmicky in a way that reveals turn based movement/combat (that I actually prefer) as a highly unrealistic approximation of combat. It downright hurts immersion in a way ranged advantage simply doesn't.
I didn't expect classes that are range-dependent to become Pidgeon-holed. In tabletop DnD 5e, the fun of playing Sorcerer, Druid, and Wizard in DnD is that they are strategically diverse. You make situational choices that benefit the party.
In Baldur's Gate 3, Fighter can solo a Bulette and wizard is stuck here casting magic missile. Ranger needed buffs, but don't give non-martial classes the shaft. Non-martial classes are denied being fun in the current meta. Even Druid is showcased as being "Wild Shape is amazing and you're an idiot for trying anything else."
I don't want a game where Wizards and Druids are one-trick ponies. When they're supposed to be the opposite.
To be fair, one of the very strongest builds is a Wizard specced out as a fighter with the appropriate magic items, they become the most versatile builds in the game able to go toe-to-toe with anything or stay at range. I have seen even regular built mages win in combat fighting both the Bulette AND the two Minotaurs at the same time.
I was mostly highlighting this because martial classes have been more enjoyable to play in early access. If the enemy AI used backstab as often as the player does, everyone in the forums would see the issue with low-cost advantage.
All-in-all
I would like more spells to be viable:
I would like to have the choice of using scorching ray on an enemy 3 meters away without having disadvantage imposed on the wizard.
Spell save DCs don't get the benefit of reduced AC, so they're going unused usually shelved.
And
I don't want to be forced to move my wizard to higher ground arbitrarily. Again it should be a reward for a chain of good decisions by the player, not "do this or spells miss".
Magic Missile and Shatter are great, but I would like to use other spells.
Higher ground being overtuned is just a part of several reasons why combat feels stale for casters. Reducing enemy AC instead of increasing player proficiency makes the situation worse than it could be.
