This is interesting because I feel higher ground is gimmicky and backstab can be alleviated with simple changes.
Why on earth would having higher ground advantage feel unrealistic to you I wonder? It is a staple mechanism from real life historic battles to Star Wars where having high ground leads to surrender or death lol.
At least I back up my feeling with reason. Higher ground bonus is realistic because it is an attack that comes from above, forcing the defender to split their attention between navigating the ground and avoiding the lethal threat above. A secondary reason is that it work both ways. You are not constantly reminded that the AI is too dumb, in fact, the AI seeks height advantage almost to a fault. The only reason for it being remotely gimmicky is by proxy of the AI not taking melee advantage, which oftentimes causes the AI to abandon near-melee situations to scamper to higher ground far away.
As said, the current flanking/backstab mechanic clearly reveals turn-based combat as poor approximation of real combat the way the enemy lets you walk behind them in open combat without reacting. HIGHLY UNREALISTIC! Damaging for immersion (and a sense of fairness) for anyone with any measurable critical sense. The enemy and player should automatically pivot facing enemy flanking attempts even when it's not their turn, provided they are not caught flat-footed and surprised. "Backstab" should require actual realistic movement, like two enemies threatening a single foe and one moving behind (or the aforementioned surprise/ambush).
Allow me to reiterate, is not that you gain a bonus for flanking I feel gimmicky, it's the cheap way you get it.
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.
Definitely. So over-tuned it becomes an all important strategy for at least ranged martial characters. This would be an important strategy for ranged martial characters even with a more balanced approach (ie. high ground granting half cover effect +2 AC/dex save, inversely flanking/backstab could give +2 to hit). Advantage/disadvantage is already overused in RAW D&D without Larian's bumbling homebrew that becomes a self-generating vehicle for more homebrew because it infringes/breaks other abilities as mentioned in my above post.
Higher ground isn't nearly as essential for wizards as you make it out (not being threatened is). Wizards have so many more and better options than utilizing cantrips/spells that can leverage height advantage. This becomes, as mentioned previously, more true as you level. By 5th level you can cast Fireball (somewhat nerfed by Larian's lowering AC/increasing health to combat unfun RNG) and Hypnotic Pattern that can win combat before it gets really dangerous.
Seems to me you universalize your own private playing style/experience when you keep on about Wizards being uniquely locked into a repeating pattern or out of options. To the contrary, the Wizard is arguably the most versatile, mobile, and powerful class in the game, and again - this becomes more true as the Wizard gains level and moves beyond attack cantrips. Near unparalleled mobility can be gained through spells and the Wizard's action economy makes using bonus actions a better deal than for many other classes that has more use of their bonus actions. Level 1 Longstrider gives a decent boost to mobility and lasts all day. Jump is brokenly overpowered, a level 1 spell that basically gives you a free level 2 Misty Step teleport every turn for a minute. Misty Step is a spell many considered a must in its own right.
