Maybe you should go back a little farther, and brush up on the conversation that started the discussion?
Here, I'll make it easy for you...
Cool. That's irrelevant to the claim of gaslighting. You are claiming that Maximuuus wants High Ground Advantage to be in the game and doesn't understand the problems with Advantage.
Maximuuus is arguing that there should be some high ground bonus that is not advantage (+1/+2), especially since so much of the Larian maps are built around verticality. Which is a fair point and it's disengenous to misrepresent his argument as "High Ground Advantage or nothing."
One of Maximuuus's suggestions is that High Ground Advantage should just be replaced with
only a range increase for ranged weapons, which is a pretty good suggestion. That would be a nice mix of
-already implemented in DOS, so easy for Larian to do
-doesn't waste the verticality present in BG3 maps
-not too powerful, in that it doesn't invalidate Advantage-granting spells & abilities and also doesn't affect bounded accuracy
It is true that height does not give a range increase according to 5e RAW, but that alone is not a good argument against Larian implementing it
Edit: The goal should be to balance the various difficulty options so that high difficulty forces you to make tactical decisions, and height can and should be one of these considerations. The problem right now is that it's too powerful (Advantage) for its cost (movement, sometimes 0 if you're just climbing a ladder), so getting high ground & backstab is always correct. If it height was modified to only give increased range and maybe a +1 bonus, jump+disengage was removed from the game, and ladders were difficult terrain that might require dashing to climb, then choosing to take high ground might become a real tactical choice with benefits and drawbacks.
