I don't know what "willy-waving" means so I hope it's not something I'll do.
Gm4's suggestion was :
- a story mode = a unchallenging mode
- a RAW mode = a strict RAW mode that exclude anything that don't belongs to D&D.
- an extreme RAW mode.
When reading "remove highground" you may understand "remove advantage from highground" and I may understand "remove any bonuses from highground".
Your words and quote and screenshot won't make your assumptions stronger because I have the same opinion since monthes : highground shouldn't give an Advantage.
On the other hand in a tactical TB game and even more - in a world build with A LOT of verticality - it would be stupid not to offer players mechanics to play with higher ground
(or to limit them to a boring and unchallenging story mode).
I find shove OP and I'd like them to tone it down.
I hate that we have an Advantage going higher and I'd like other bonuses. But as many players I like that being higher (or not) mean something.
As OcO said you already have (very) situational bonuses and that's cool but very limited.
RAW or not, a better range make sense and is an interresting bonus in tactical games.
On the other hand a lot of players complain that we're missing too often and I guess that's why they implemented advantages for highground and backstab.
A flat bonus is something that allow players to miss less and that can be easily custom for everyone to play with or without it.
You are equating the removal of a bonus for ranged attack from high ground, with removing combat tactics. You have nothing to support your opinion, other than "you believe that high ground should give "some bonus", while completely ignoring the inherent benefit of getting to high ground, less chance of a ranged character being pulled into melee, and greater chance of maintaining concentration spells.
Getting to high ground does not make a person more accurate with a ranged weapon.
