My point was that the suggestion is not ideal because it is adding more complications for unnecessary reasons.
Sorry. But on the other side you're pretty much moving to the bare-bones approach, which may leave us with "just smack it to death".
Don't fix what isn't broken. Larian's rules for advantage are breaking things. If you want advantage, then there are a lot of things which can grant advantage. Those all come with a cost or drawback. Giving it for free for being higher up or moving behind an enemy which does nothing messes with all of those things.
Advantage from height is not that big a deal, being behind a target without flanking the target is a big deal that should be fixed its not an emergency to resolve it but before live release it should be. Standard high Armor class vs standard high end attack roll bonus your talking +3 bonuses your looking at +6 + 3 + 5 to hit which is around +14 to hit +2 additional bonus for barbarians so +14 to +16 vs a standard ac around 25-27 so at beast without magical buffs or other tricks its around 45-55% with best gear to hit in melee range most of the time your looking at around a 65-70% chance but advantages your talking 78% - 85% chance to hit. Early access average to hit should be +2 +4 + 1 so + 7 to hit against ac 17-19 40-50% with advantage its around 70-75%. Since most enemies have around a 15 -16 ac in early access for the harder enemies your talking around 60% / 80% with advantage which is around where the numbers should be. This does not factor in buff bonuses and discluding magical buffs the average numbers.
If you were to talk absolute best possible its 49 ac vs +41 to hit which is 60% those are stars align abilities in dnd. Advantage its 80% chance to hit. So same as the numbers above. Little bit higher on average for the base to hit when your talking absolute best possible min max numbers. You can get a small small differences with min maxing based on class of around a 5%-15% difference. Advantage generally yields a 70-85% chance to hit vs not at advantage generally gives you a 40-60% chance to hit if your on par with the enemies your fighting. Any more or less would be stronger vs weaker situations.
Though they should add some more fights where height cant be as utilized / fights where situationally being higher up may be needed more so that your diversifying options and class needs. Like fighting big brutal melee damage characters where you can be up on a ledge can be impactful on combat same time not being able to be up there can be bad for casters / ranged characters exploiting height advantages. Making a fight harder. The minotaurs in most recient patch felt over tuned vs the prior patch where they felt under tuned. In same situation current more recient patch the spider matriach felt much easier vs the prior patch where it felt more challenging. I also min maxed an entire party using friends to allow me to run a 3 character party and add utility to the party via bringing in an npc as i felt needed. (One of reasons we need mercs quality of life).
Druid/Ranger/Fighter Build with ranger having a dex based build to utilize archery skills as well as being an alternate melee character and fighter being a main melee. Druid being jack of all with support from whatever character I needed to balance the group for the situation. I would cut the ranger as levels go up however as rangers are not good at higher levels currently based on standard dnd rule sets they get weaker the higher the levels go compared vs other classes early game they are on the stronger side.
