Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Remove Height and Backstab as Sources of Advantage/Disadvantage

Now this thread can have more focused discourse

I just had a thought.

I haven't played with a rogue in this game yet, and I refuse to bring Astarion into my main party. But I assume that since height advantage exists, a rogue on high ground will basically get sneak attack damage no matter what, right? If this remains, imagine how nasty that would be when we reach Baldur's Gate and we are likely to run into ENEMY rogue archers. Not exactly a concept that would be very creative.

Fixing that part of stealth would be nice, but I believe the bigger issue by far is Hide being a bonus action for everyone. Make it a full action (except for the Rogue of course) and Hide for advantage is already much less of an imbalance simply due to action economy.

I happen to disagree and think that the bigger issue is precisely the lack of having to pass a stealth check over it being a bonus action.

Why do I say so ? Because it's bad enough to break the game even when you are using a rogue, the class that SHOULD have it a as bonus action to begin with.

Conversely the "bonus action hide" in itself wouldn't be so powerful for other characters if they had to pass a check (maybe even one with disadvantage, depending on their armor/status) to use it effectively.

It's one of the reasons I've been against it (future encounters in abstract). We got a preview of what that would be like with the 2nd gnoll fight in patch 3 (when advantage was much easier to get).

I've used Astarion in the Shattered Sanctum battles with him firing arrows with impunity from the rafters. Made all of it a complete joke.

Height advantage/disadvantage has to go. Without a doubt.

Made all of it a complete joke.
Wait to have in the game a Battlemaster bowman with Sharpshooter feat.

With Double Attack on top of that from level 5 onwards, at that.

Some thoughts after playing a few hours in Patch 5:

Another reason it would be good to remove height advantage. Bonus action hide can still provide advantage from high ground, but at least a bonus action was spent.

Currently high ground will have: terrain benefits -> Advantage -> Disadvantage on incoming attack rolls -> whatever the character chooses to with a bonus action.
That's a huge amount of benefit from simple positioning.
**************************************************************************************

[I've probably mention the below before, but it feels worth reposting]

I do understand that some players are attached to the "I have the high ground" Star Wars euphoria. The easiest fix is to implement a homebrewed "Combat Advantage" from 4e, which would provide a +2 to hit. If the player gains Advantage, they would have that instead of Combat Advantage. (Of course, Combat Advantage won't proc Sneak Attack. So a rogue would have to bonus action hide to get Sneak Attack, etc.)

This way the players who are attached to Star Wars mechanics can get their fun, and the game will be better balanced. They will see "Combat Advantage" in the HUD and probably not notice that anything has changed.

This would also allow for stealth/hide mechanics to be fine-tuned more freely as a more independent system.

For fights like defending the Grove on the wall, adding in an "Elevated" status to increase the radius of ranged attacks would work (some spells still have less range than they should). The Elevated status would be independent of Combat Advantage & Advantage.
(It's rather obvious that high ground Advantage exists to help the player in this specific fight, as a lot of spells/attacks would be attacking enemies outside of normal range. It's here that the player would benefit from the Elevated status.)

Agreed!!!

100% agree. Druid Grove gate battle was too easy because I started with High Ground. Gith Battle is too hard because THEY can port to High Ground easily and do the same to you.

I must say im shocked, looking how complex and deep arguments you all have. O_o
"I made it joke > it have to go"

...

I'm sorry, what were you trying to say?

Funny you are asking like this ...
Since i was trying to ask the autor what was he trying to say.

Bcs it seemed to me like: "I hit my head against the wall and it hurts ... therefore the wall needs to be torn down immediately!" O_o
Nope dude, you just need to stop hitting it with your head. :-/

Could you elaborate? This is the only post I see about anyone hitting their head.

Also, could you be on topic? Thanks.

Of course ...
AAnd of course ... btw i am, the whole time ... you just have to read more than last sentence.

>>>
>>>
>>>

I'm sorry, but my dear. no need to be like Astarion in the latest update. no need to be absolutely repulsive selfish and demand to remove from the game everything that does not suit you. I agree with the advantage of stabbing in the back. It's almost like in real life. What's wrong with damage from a height? In life, this also gives an advantage. It sounds kind of weird. I do this and I don't like it in my game. So it needs to be removed. But you also can't do that in your game. I almost never throw enemies. I just don't like it. The same goes for Jump behind the enemy's back. I have done this in my game 1 or 2 times. Although many people like it. Why other players who like to kill goblins from the rafters (from a height) should abandon their play style? Or I do not understand something I apologize again.

I think I have said this quite a bit, but I think Highground Advantage would be better suited as +2/-2 instead of True Advantage, since it is taking the place of the now partially-defunct cover/half-cover system. That flat bonus still gives higher ground meaning, but also makes it balanced and gives other tactical decisions more meaning and weight when compared to just "move characters to highest position and attack."

half Cover for those who don't know (pasted from DnD Beyond): A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend.

I've always argued that height advantage/disadvantage was several degrees worse than backstab advantage and barrlemancy and such, because there is no way to control it at all. It's not a conscious choice there, it's always positioning-based, and if you're not using it, the enemy will absolutely abuse it against you regardless, meaning you're still taking part in the disadvantageous portion of the mechanic in some way. The only way to negate this is if you're on even ground with the target, which isn't happening like 3/4ths of the time, with how this game's encounter design is laid out. And it's the 'true advantage/disadvantage' part that people have the most issue with, most people are generally fine with downscaling it to a simple +2/-2 bonus instead.

And quite frankly, it's also problematic due to how it indirectly gives rogues such an insane benefit that nobody else can replicate, a literal double or triple damage with high accuracy every single time they're shooting arrows from high ground with no other conditions needed. This will scale way out of control later in the game when sneak attacks become stronger, for something that doesn't require any thought other than 'get as high as possible'. Not even archers of other classes with the Sharpshooter feat can compete with that. That's not even getting into the argument that height advantage is likely precisely the reason why the Sharpshooter feat isn't implemented yet either, if it ever will as long as height advantage exists. At that point, it's like why even bother making a dedicated archer of any class other than rogue? It's going to get even dumber once multiclassing comes into the equation too. If this sticks, we're basically going to see our own version of the Skyrim stealth archer meme in this game, with a bunch of martial classes dipping into rogue once they get their most crucial class features possible with the level cap being 10-12.

(Rogues were already considered pretty busted in a tabletop setting, the main difference is that in order to trigger a sneak attack there, you either had to have the target standing next to another party member meaning said other party member would be in danger, or the rogue had to gain advantage in much rarer ways. But high ground in BG3 just seemingly gives them sneak attack 24/7.)

Anyone literally taking the 'you can just not use it' argument and applying it to the height advantage/disadvantage discussion obviously doesn't understand what they're even talking about or have zero sense of foresight.

Agreed ... personaly im all in for "alterning" high ground, so it make more ballanced game.
But also totally against removal. :-/