i don't like the +2 attack on elevation. since the ruleset mentioned advantage it should just have advantage instead. also the bonus action, etc.
They started of with High Ground Advantage (plus Disadvantage if you're on lower ground), and it was hated by many. It placed WAY too much emphasis on those things in combat, with the effective +10 difference between a character on high-vs-low ground. Additionally, many options were essentially invalidated: "oh you have a cool skill that gives you advantage on an attack, probably that has a resource cost? Well I can just climb 2 feet up a hill and get advantage that way!"
D&D 5e already has rules for giving +2 to AC in half-cover, so there is precedent for flat numerical bonuses. Since cover isn't implemented in BG3, just think of High Ground +2 as inverse half-cover.
would that be due to the design of the overall encounter has high ground availability? if one can just easily climb 2 feet up a hill to get an advantage would probably also mean a design encounter issue. or this could also mean that d&d5e ruleset does not translate so well into a game. but d&d is d&d. changing the ruleset basically means it's no longer d&d. also, is that a technical issue where half-cover could not be implemented? just curious.
