Introducing the Cover rules from 5e PHB page 196. For a rough summary, shooting "through" another creature (ally or enemy) provides your target with +2 to its AC, if the creature is covering at least 1/2 of the target. So, as an example:

X -> YZ

If X shoots at Y, X rolls their attack as normal.

If X shoots at Z, Z gets a bonus of +2 to its AC

Implementing this solves the problems created by granting Advantage/Disadvantage to attacking from/against a target above/below you. For starters, it's less of a mechanical bonus or penalty to the Attack roll, which makes the impact on combat of even small changes in height less pronounced. Solving that problem can trickle down to realigning enemy AC/HP values with what they should be in the monster's stat block, which solves a whole host of other issues.

However, it still provides a reward/penalty for use of the 3d terrain. Using the previous example, if X is 10 meters up in the air, and shoots at Z, Z would likely not receive any bonus to its AC because X is high enough so that Y isn't blocking at least 1/2 of Z. Moreover, X will have the reward of being able to Move to the edge of the cliff/roof/etc., shoot, then move backwards to possibly gain Cover from whatever is providing their height advantage.

I like this idea in theory (especially as you suggest giving rid of height adv/dis), but there'd be some difficulties. Currently, the game uses LoS to determine if it is even possible to hit someone: i.e., only caring about Total Cover. So to adapt your suggestions, they'd have to change that. Okay, sure, now characters are "see through" for the purposes of targeting other characters and the game counts how many characters your line goes through when calculating AC.

But Larian currently allows you to target different parts of character models to determine if you hit (If i can draw a line to someone's head but not their torso, Larian allows me to shoot firebolt at them without penalty). How is this implemented with cover? Does the game have to check what percentage of the target is covered by another character(s), drawing all the possible lines of attack? Not sure how resource-intensive calculation this would be, but at the very least I could see players complaining about unfairness if they disagreed with the assessment. Unfortunately, determining if you're "shooting through" another creature is easier in 2D grid-based combat, of which this game is neither.

I'll provide a compromise suggestion, where height always give +2 to attack and low-ground always -2. This is both simple and not as powerful as the current adv/dis, and sort of approximates the scenarios you brought up. If you're on high ground (rafter or cliff), the enemy probably can't see more than half of your body due to there being terrain in the way...

+2/-2 for backstabbing purposes as well.

You want -2 for...frontstabbing??? xD

half cover for some highground scenarios sounds good but backstab is just stupid.
in turn based combat it looks ok but it really doesn't make any sense.
there is already a "backstab" mechanic in 5e it's called sneak attack, rogues have it and it makes sense.

Backstabing is *sort of* ok as bunch of mechanisms by which it's easy to get advantage on attacks have been removed. 5e Flanking rules are a bit of a mess so meh if it's different. The high ground / low ground advantage is a bit silly. It really should be cover which is a mechanism already available in the rules. It's also worth noting that there's a feat "Spell Sniper" which bypasses this mechanic, showing how (un)important it's meant to be.

yeah it seems pretty easy to solve, keep the range improvement for spells, but dump the extra stuff (spells should not be affected by gravity), for arrows and throwing stuff it does makes sense

+1

They seem to have simply transplanted those effects from DOS2.

I don't think half cover by line of sight will be added to this engine. However, they could (should) remove advantage and disadvantage from high elevation, and replace the disadvantage with a -2 for low cover.

Same could/should be done for backstabbing. Advantage is way too much, but +2 for flanking seems fine to me.

You do know that hitting from behind is a variant rule in 5e right? So no Sneak Attack isn't the "back stab" mechanic. They are litterally using a variant rule in DnD. Sneak Attack doesn't even need to be from behind to go off in 5e, you just need to be sneaky when you are attacking.

I personally don't mind the current Advantage system Larian went with. To be honest cover and advantage is some of those systems most tables have some form of house rule on anyways. At my table we use "Help action is a reaction" so people can give advantage once per round if they are within melee range. (they are distracting the enemy while their ally hits).
We used to use flanking, but that just lead to "Conga Line of Death" scenarios where you had enemy-ally-enemy-ally-enemy lines so everyone got advantag.

Height is actually a form of cover anyways. Being on high ground is benificial irl because you gain cover from it, and same with low ground.

The reason I like the rules as is: It makes the battlefield positioning matter, and thus makes combat more engaging, and tactical.

This is what we have now actually. Lae'zel kangaroos about every turn to get free advantage, it's ridiculous and devalues all other sources of advantage like Faery Fire.

Problem there imo isn't backstab, but that Larian made all the Cunning actions available to everyone.
Make Disengage a bonus action and suddenly trying to get into backstab comes at a cost if you are surrounded.

In my opinion it's really the Bonus Actions that's the major issue, not the advantage rules.

*Ideally* Larian will realize how much better the game would be with either can actual Grid overlay (even if only during combat rounds ala Wasteland 3), or by tightening up the current grid significantly so it is better at approximating the 5ft squares. From those change, the process for implementing Cover gets a lot easier. Yes, Larian will have to change their engine's coding, which is not a bad thing.

I'll start a separate thread for feedback on the backstab mechanic, but as Slapstick astutely pointed out, it completely devalues the means of gaining Advantage when all you have to do is circle strafe your enemy each turn.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. I think it would take some immersion out of the gameplay for the sake of being by the book. I would usually sway to being in more line with 5e in most cases, but I think certain restriction in 5e are based on the fact that you are playing with a human DM that shouldn't have to worry about doing calculus while roleplaying a battle scene. We are playing with a computer DM that can make all those calculations instantaneously, so why not use that to make the gameplay feel more lifelike?

I do agree that advantage handout's could be toned down though. I like the ideas of adjusting to +/-2 to simulate cover or flanking.

The problem is that you don’t even need a bonus action to get into backstab, try order your character to walk behind an enemy, it doesn’t trigger AoO. So you literally get free advantage, cost only movement.

Absolutely not a fan of "grid overlays" and I struggle to imagine what benefit would introduce to the current game.
Vector-based movement made Temple of Elemental Evil great and works rather well here, in a 3D environment.

This is what I have an issue with, you can just marry go round backstabs and not have to worry about an AoO. Hopefully this won't stay as is.

You don't trigger attacks of opportunity unless you leave a creature's reach. Moving around them in the middle of combat is not going to trigger an attack of opportunity, even if faithful to 5e rules.

If we're being faithful to DnD rules, you don't get advantage from being behind someone either. Rogues can already sneak attack just because allies are close, we don't need to have this backstab system on top of that.

If Larian thinks missing in a video game is not fun, reduce enemy AC seems to be a better solution than giving everyone easy access to advantages. Because free advantage really cheapens the value of many abilities and spells.

I very much agree with this sentiment (and that of the OP). I think getting a simple bonus to attack while elevated is fine, but giving advantage is too much. 5e removed lots of the fiddly numbers to make combat easier to track, but we don't have to worry about that with a video game, so it's not something to be as concerned about. Advantage is simple to track on the tabletop, but it is also very powerful and shouldn't be handed out to easily. Just being out of reach is a great reason to find the higher ground - it doesn't need to grant advantage.

Isn't this just changing the name? The latter mechanic, shooting over Y to shoot Z already exists, in the Advantage of high ground, exactly as per your example. I'm not sure how the game calculates shooting at z through y, but if it's applying disadvantage now, that would be the same as the AC bonus Z gets, or at least similar?

Ultimately, the difference is one of numbers and how much elevation *can* impact combat.

Right now, being higher than your enemy is *always* a benefit, with a roughly average +5 to your attack rolls (Advantage). That's huge. Additionally, your target will have -5 to their attack rolls (Disadvantage), coming out to a net benefit of +-10!!! to the target that is elevated. That's.....that's just insane.

Using Cover mechanics, the elevated position is *sometimes* as a benefit, and the difference is noticeably less impactful. Being higher than your target would only be a benefit if it somehow allowed you to ignore the target's Cover. If there is no cover between X and Z on a flat plane, then X would get no benefit to their attack roll from being in an elevated position.

They did reduce enemy AC, and increased enemy HP, which alters the effectiveness of spells which work based on an amount of HP or AoE spells.

I disabled the advantage/disadvantage from height and tbh...the game plays better

also got rid of the "too high" bullshit from spells and abilities

it DOES make the game a touch easier, but (and this is a HUGE but), I've been restricting myself to one long rest for every FOUR encounters, and I increased the number of short rests to 2 per long rest.

This makes the game feel oh so much better! This is how the game should be, 5e isn't about Brutal Combats -> Long Rest, it's about resource management

Please email this mod to Swen asap. They can work on incorporating Cover mechanics later, let's get these changes in ASAP.

(joking, I'm aware we don't have his email)

I still believe you'll have to wait for the Complete Overhaul and Removal of D:OS System Mod lol.

There absolutely needs to be some form of cover. And a way to know if you have it.

Trying to move Gale behind a tree or under a ledge usually does nothing. They can shoot him anyway through foliage or a ledge because of the curvy flight path arrows have. Being able to shooting someone without a line of sight with advantage is a big problem. Ranged weapons need to check a direct path. And foliage clearly needs to give some level of cover if you can't actually see your target.

Going to 3rd person mode to check if the enemies can see you should matter when you are trying to find a safe position.

It doesn't matter if I'm using a bow, or a sniper rifle, if I have high ground, I'll have an advantage, double that if I have cover. Your net benefit is also wrong. You don't have a +10 to hit because you have high ground, you have the advantage roll, + any bonuses you may have, and minus any penalties, are you human, shooting into a darker zone? The penalty to your opponent does not affect your hit chance. Being higher does, because, as in the example laid out in the post I replied to, you can shoot over that cover, whether that's another NPC, or a boulder, or a barricade. There's a reason snipers go for high ground today. I don't really want to go into the full physics of projectiles here, but we'll suffice it to say that arrows or bullets do not climb higher as they fly farther, but drop, and that drop can be significant, according to the range, and the initial velocity of the projectile.

Advantage is like around +4.5 bonus to hit, so u hit with advantage and enemy hit u with disadvantage, it is like +9 net, your comment is wrong.

Attack with Advantage in DnD world means just better accuracy. But high ground advantage in real world actually means two different things: 1. higher damage due to ballistics and gravity 2. better accuracy due to overcomming eventual obstacles. If we had proper cover mechanics in BG3, which gives flat bonus to AC, then it would be possible to implement high ground to counter this flat cover bonus and maybe adds some extra damage. But I believe we should not add the DnD Advantage to those attack. They are not more accurate per se. I still believe it's a little bit harder to shot somebody from above because lesser hitbox. It's really just a way to overcome obstacles and deals higher damage if I will hit the target.

Speaking about arithmetic mean (average) there is 3.3 difference. Standard roll has mean 10.5 while advantage or disadvantage has 13.8 resp. 7.2. Median for d20 roll is 10 or 11, whille median for advantage is 15 and disadvantage has 6.

Wrong, for a host of reasons.

1. Not bringing in IRL flight patterns of objects.

2. The "net benefit" is different from a +10 to-hit. A flat +10 to-hit would actually be less impactful because then the lower attacker wouldn't suffer as badly. This is just bad faith arguing on your part.

3. You're...making my point? Elevation changes should be beneficial, just not as stupidly game breaking as they are now where there is a functional equivalent of +-10 to the to-hit rolls between them (it's actually more than that because the chances of a Crit and a National 1 are doubled respectively). Implementing cover rules per the rules of 5e drops that number to +-4, and significantly, also makes less impact on various Class Abilities like Rogue Sneak Attack and others that rely on advantage/disadvantage. It also means that having the height advantage isn't *always* a benefit or a detriment, depending on the lay out or how you play.

Actually, let's revisit #1. Snipers go for high'ish ground, not the highest ground. Because you don't want to silhouette yourself against the sky/backdrop. Snipers are trained to go for the location with the best ingress/egress, best sightlines, and best cover and/or concealment. This may be the highest ground, this may not be. They don't do it to increase the range of their rifle, they don't do it because it makes the rifle any more or less accurate. A properly doped up rifle and sight makes changes in elevation practically irrelevant in terms of hitting your intended target at ranges. Doubly so if you have some of the newer sights and laser rangefinders that account for elevation/windage when you're sighting-in. I went to school for it, I'm pretty well versed.

Lastly, and this is why I wanted to revisit it as you clearly don't know what you're talking about, bullets absolutely do 'climb' as they fly further. Unless you have the most insanely stupid sighting-in for a rifle, bullets will leave the rifle and achieve a higher elevation during their flight than their point of origin. This is to compensate for the impact of wind resistance and gravity on bullet flight path and the minimal difference in point of aim versus point of impact at most ranges. But if your rifle is dialed in for 300m and you aim at the head of a target only 50m away, chances are pretty good you'll miss because the bullet flight path will go over the target (caliber dependent). This is a simplistic discussion but it gets the point across -> https://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/ballistic-calculators/ballistic-resources/external-ballistics

A much more mathematically inclined friend of mine showed me the full breakdown, but it's actually slightly more than that because Critical hits and Nat 1s come into play to skew the averages a bit more.

Additionally, the rules of 5e literally make Advantage/Disadvantage equal to a +-5, at least in terms of calculating Passive skill checks. PHB page 175, "If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5"

I think elevation giving advantage only makes sense.

Also positioning benefits are in rules. Page 252... So I am not even sure what exactly you're so offended about with Larian using the rule.

Three reasons:

1. They didn't actually implement that rule (only the Advantage part and not the other 90% of the optional rule)

2. No one uses that. Some DMs use Flanking, some don't. I've literally never seen a DM use Facing.

3. They literally used the same mechanics as "Backstabbing" in DoS 2 but didn't include the ground indicator to know if you're going to get it or not.

I lied, 4 reasons:

4. Advantage for positioning yourself behind someone is drastically overpowered, and it cheapens other sources of providing advantage. This gives melee combat an extreme amount of "sameyness" where the objectively best choice, each turn, is to circle-strafe your opponent to get Advantage, then they do the same to you.

It does not matter who uses it or not - it's official in print and everyone can use it at will. Reality is that the rule is there. It also does not need 100% carbon copy down to last letter, but what they do is close enough. As you can see attacking from behind gives both advantage and -2AC in case creature has a shield. All fine and dandy by rules.

That's certainly much better than people here meming, as if it's some sort of never heard of thing completely unrelated to 5e, when in fact it's bloody there in print black on white page 252.

It also does not matter if it's overpowered or any other silly reason in your head-canon - the rule is there. Take it to WoTC if you think it's so busted, not to Larian.

Right, speaking strictly about attack rolls there is critical hit/miss. The flat equivalent depends on AC but its somewhere between +-4 and +-5. That flat modification from PHB is too generous for my tasting, especially when ability and skill check rolls don't use critical hit/miss mechanic. But whatever.

Advantage or disadvantage has also another builtin "feature", they don't stack, while normal flat modifiers usully do. They also cancel each other. All of those are reasons why I think high ground rule should not use advantage/disadvantage rule but something else. (EDIT: Adv/Disadv. should be quite rare, undeniable conditions)

Attacking someone from the rear is already in the rules. If you attack someone who cants see you; you get advantage. Its not taken from Divinity at all.

Height giving advantage I could have sworn was in the book somewhere but cant for the life of me find it. Height also imposing disadvantage on you if you attack the one higher up though is sheer overkill. It makes the game lean so heavily on having higher ground if you want to succeed that it becomes silly.

Simply replace height giving advantage/disadvantage by a ±1d4 to attack rolls only ?
The differential will be around ±2.5 on both sides, instead of ±5 wich should litteraly halve the benefits.

This way it will also be cumulative with other boni/mali by spells (like bless/bane will add/remove another d4), but advantage would require more work from player, like facing enemies to "backstab" them (minor illusion, cat become suddenly useful), or other effects like true strike and such.

Right now the combo height = both advantage to attack + disadvantage to enemy is flat OP.

Using high ground to remove natural covers is fine, adding a slight bonus to hit / malus to be hit looks fine to me, but automatic advantage makes thing too powerful, not to mention some nasty combos like auto-sneak attack with ranged weapon for the rogue...

This is the optional facing rule the other guy just posted here. But even that rule allows following: "A creature can also change its facing as a reaction when any other creature move.". You are not supposed to just walk or jump around somebody's back and suddenly get the strongest buff in the game.

I agree something like ±1d4 or flat ±2 for highground should be fine. That way spells which gives you advantage still hold its value. E.g you can combine high ground with Guiding Bolt. Or True Strike, while bad spell, still would have at least some sense.

still on the opinion that it can be simple:

keep the range gain and advantages for things that depend on gravity: (arrows, throwables)

for things that doesn't depend on gravity(spells) keep only the range gain

no rocket science and things will make sense again

Facing doesn't really work in a turn based system.

I mean it's stupid how many attacks you can do from "behind" before the target gets a chance to react, especially when anyone can just jump there.

That's what I do to enemies anyway. They are in front of me but I can still get 3 characters to attack "from behind" before they can turn. And then I just jump behind again and repeat.

An abstracted flanking rule would work much better. Second attacker on the same target gets +2 ab, and every attacker after that. The spirit of the rule is that being ganged upon is bad. Target should automatically turn to face the first attacker if they are aware of them.

You shouldn't get backstabs or flanking bonuses in 1v1 combat ever. Unless an ability stuns or blinds or whatever.

If target isn't aware of the attacker, you should get advantage regardless of facing.

Let me get this straight, advantage and disadvantage is rolling two d20s, advantage takes the high and disadvantage takes the low, right?

Kind of sad but I thought advantage/disadvantage was actually a +2/-2 feature, rather have that.

Jumping/disengage should be imo a standard action, ontop of the already movement since its both.

+1

Please implement it like this. This is just better, than the current solution.

The current granting of advantage for ranged attackers devalues other options to gain advantage, because it's so extremly simple to gain. Easy ranged advantage indirectly devalues all other options to gain advantage. This is what makes it seem, on the surface, that shoving, grappling and other combat manoeuvres need a decrease in cost from full action to bonus action.
The current settup also strengthens ranged attacks, an already strong combat option (If have seen it argued that ranged attacks are strictly superior to close quarters combat in D&D). This tilts combat more extremely in the direction of ranged attacks. Well set up ambushes gain an obscene boost.

Unfortunately, they've already said they wouldn't implement cover due to the difficulty. Presently, this unholy union of DOS systems and 5e is quite a mess. They really need someone on their team that understands how 5e abilities interact with one another, these zany design choices make a host of abilities and spells meaningless, the waste of an action and precious resource for a benefit that can be gained just a bit of movement or entirely for free. The entire function of these spells and abilities, some of them keystone abilities of the classes, is to grant advantage at some resource cost, or to provide something unique that only their class can do.

This height in BG3 is horrible..its not in the D&D 5th rule book so please don't add stuff that doesn't exist.. Please just stick to the game you're supposedly designing around 5th edition, not some Divinity thing, thanks.

Height / Below could be tweaked to either :
a) give +2 or -2
b) give only once per target the Advantage / Disadvantage.

The tactical concept is interesting, but it is too huge a factor in the current form.

The guy lists 4 good reason why this should not be implemented, but you just say because it is an optional rule so they can use it? We are not arguing if they can or not, but if they should or not dude.

I like the height stuff, sorry It works both ways and mobs try to gain the high ground as much as you do. They also know (when they can see you) to run for cover. Sometimes it's not that easy to ascend to higher ground depending on your position. I'm not a D&D purist so I don't really care as long as it's a fun mechanic. I actually spend a good bit of time trying to sneak in to the best possible spot to start an attack. If you get rid of this it just becomes a bit more boring; to me at least. Higher ground is also a legitimate combat tactic in order to gain an advantage over your opponent. Not all terrain is created equal and I like that Larian baked this concept in to the game. Any suggestion of 1-time use just makes no sense. What I get 1 strike that takes advantage but standing in the same place my second strike has no effect? That sounds more like a balancing act than something that makes sense in the real world. It makes about as much sense as resting at camp under the moonlight while you are traveling through the underdark

YES! 5e cover system and no adv/disadv from height please.