Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
OP Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Hey all,

Lets talk about height advantage laugh its a topic that comes up alot and I feel it needs fine tuning. Il provide my own opinion on it first. I feel giving advantage and giving enemies disadvantage at the same time if they are attacking you while you have high ground is to much. You are granting creatures with high ground double bonuses for it basicly. I would be fine with it just beeing advantage and providing no penalty at all to the enemy. That said I do have a perfect scenario: turn the bonus into a bonus to hit rather then advantage. With it providing partial cover to you (bonus to your AC) if they try to attack you while you have it. That way high ground is still very valuable but not openly OP anymore. Still gives you battlefield advantage but not the end if the world if you dont have it either. It would be a happy medium and would be perfectly fine with regards to the rules.

The forum doesent seem to have a poll option so il have to do a questionnaire manually. Please understand making polls or working with statistics isent my proffesion or anything so if the format needs some work, let me know and il make some adjustments. Please anwser the questions with yes or no first. If then later you want to explain or discuss your choice feel free to do so but please keep it seperated from your anwsers from the post with a open space.

Question 1: Do you feel that granting creatures advantage if they attack from high ground is to powerfull?
Question 2: Would you prefer if the advantage gets replaced with a flat bonus to hit?
Question 3: Do you feel that the disadvantage penalty for attacking someone on high ground needs to be removed?
Question 4: Would you be ok with high ground granting cover to people in place of it granting the attacker disadvantage?
Question 5: Would you prefer if the bonus and penalties for high ground get removed alltogether?
Question 6: Would you prefer the heigh ground 'issue' be resolved in a different manner? If yes, please explain in your post how you would like to see it solved.

If I were to anwser my own questions it would look like this:
Question 1: No.
Question 2: Yes.
Question 3: Yes.
Question 4: Yes.
Question 5: No.
Question 6: No. (mostly because my perfect solution is doable with questions 1-5 smile )

Looking forward to reading replies!

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Demoulius
Hey all,

Lets talk about height advantage laugh its a topic that comes up alot and I feel it needs fine tuning. Il provide my own opinion on it first. I feel giving advantage and giving enemies disadvantage at the same time if they are attacking you while you have high ground is to much. You are granting creatures with high ground double bonuses for it basicly. I would be fine with it just beeing advantage and providing no penalty at all to the enemy. That said I do have a perfect scenario: turn the bonus into a bonus to hit rather then advantage. With it providing partial cover to you (bonus to your AC) if they try to attack you while you have it. That way high ground is still very valuable but not openly OP anymore. Still gives you battlefield advantage but not the end if the world if you dont have it either. It would be a happy medium and would be perfectly fine with regards to the rules.

The forum doesent seem to have a poll option so il have to do a questionnaire manually. Please understand making polls or working with statistics isent my proffesion or anything so if the format needs some work, let me know and il make some adjustments. Please anwser the questions with yes or no first. If then later you want to explain or discuss your choice feel free to do so but please keep it seperated from your anwsers from the post with a open space.

Question 1: Do you feel that granting creatures advantage if they attack from high ground is to powerfull?
Question 2: Would you prefer if the advantage gets replaced with a flat bonus to hit?
Question 3: Do you feel that the disadvantage penalty for attacking someone on high ground needs to be removed?
Question 4: Would you be ok with high ground granting cover to people in place of it granting the attacker disadvantage?
Question 5: Would you prefer if the bonus and penalties for high ground get removed alltogether?
Question 6: Would you prefer the heigh ground 'issue' be resolved in a different manner? If yes, please explain in your post how you would like to see it solved.

If I were to anwser my own questions it would look like this:
Question 1: No.
Question 2: Yes.
Question 3: Yes.
Question 4: Yes.
Question 5: No.
Question 6: No. (mostly because my perfect solution is doable with questions 1-5 smile )

Looking forward to reading replies!

Hey, you'd be right, if I got a +10 to hit from having high ground? That's doubling the actual scores, right? The problem with the rest of that particular scenario is that if it's the other way around, you get the Disadvantage. Your perfect solution is exactly how it works right now. You get a bonus to hit, and a bonus to AC, since Disadvantage makes you harder to hit, which == bonus AC. So it doesn't change anything but what it's called, but still does exactly the same thing.

1. Nope, just like I don't think we should lose benefits/detriments to having Darkvision or not.
2. It's already there, changing the name doesn't change anything else.
3. On one hand you talk about giving partial cover, which equates to bonus AC, and on the other you talk about removing it? Which are you going for?
4. See 3?
5. Nope.
6. Nope, and changing the names might trick some of the people, some of the time? But that's all your perfect system does, takes the same stipulations that apply now, and changes their name to something else.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
1. No
2. Yes [+1 per 10ft or 3m - was always our own personal house rule]
3. No. [But a -1 per 10ft/3m is fine too, of course]
4. Yes.
5. No.
6. No, [nott really, it's fine as is. If they want to tweak it more, I'm fine with that, too]

Joined: Aug 2014
F
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
F
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by Demoulius
Question 1: Do you feel that granting creatures advantage if they attack from high ground is to powerfull?
Question 2: Would you prefer if the advantage gets replaced with a flat bonus to hit?
Question 3: Do you feel that the disadvantage penalty for attacking someone on high ground needs to be removed?
Question 4: Would you be ok with high ground granting cover to people in place of it granting the attacker disadvantage?
Question 5: Would you prefer if the bonus and penalties for high ground get removed alltogether?
Question 6: Would you prefer the heigh ground 'issue' be resolved in a different manner? If yes, please explain in your post how you would like to see it solved.

Question 1: No.
Question 2: No.
Question 3: No.
Question 4: No.
Question 5: This seems like an addendum to question 3. No.
Question 6: No.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
1: Yes
2: No
3: Yes
4: Yes
5: No
6: No. I think that granting a cover bonus to AC for having the high ground would be the best solution, granting advantage/disadvantage is simply too powerful.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Demoulius

Question 1: Do you feel that granting creatures advantage if they attack from high ground is to powerfull?
Question 2: Would you prefer if the advantage gets replaced with a flat bonus to hit?
Question 3: Do you feel that the disadvantage penalty for attacking someone on high ground needs to be removed?
Question 4: Would you be ok with high ground granting cover to people in place of it granting the attacker disadvantage?
Question 5: Would you prefer if the bonus and penalties for high ground get removed alltogether?
Question 6: Would you prefer the heigh ground 'issue' be resolved in a different manner? If yes, please explain in your post how you would like to see it solved.



1. Yes
2. Neither, remove it. A character on high ground already has a lot of advantage just by leveraging line of sight.
3. Yes
4. No. Have Larian actually implement cover like they should have in the first place.
5. Yes
6. Yes. Follow 5e ruleset. A character on high ground can already peek, shoot and go back to not be in line of sight. This is already an incredible advantage. At most, I could see that a character on high ground can have a longer reach, but that's it.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
D
Joined: Oct 2020
1. Yes. Advantage is super strong in DnD, and standing on a 3 foot rock is not a good enough reason for advantage. This has already turned combat into king of the hill, trying to get higher than your opponent or pushing them down

2. No. This would be an improvement but still holds the same issues.

3. Yes. Same reasons as 1 but vice versa.

4. No. This would probably be the best compromise out of all the suggestions. Small AC bump, maybe a +2, only if the person is FAR below them, standing on a crate is not enough.

5. Yes!

6. Height you are out of any melee danger unless the enemy uses significant resources to get to you. Height also lets you peak in and out of cover which also protects from low ground ranged. It is strong at its core without any additions

Last edited by dotemtpy; 30/10/20 01:13 PM.
Joined: Aug 2014
1
addict
Offline
addict
1
Joined: Aug 2014
It grants both advantage and disadvantage at the same time. At best, That can translate to +5 AC and +5 attack at the same time. That's a 10 point swing to normal combat which is insane.

With the easy Shoving, all combat is king of the hill.

This should be a priority fix

Joined: Oct 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Oct 2020
Question 1: Do you feel that granting creatures advantage if they attack from high ground is to powerfull?
No (Its really the low AC that's an issue imo. I wouldn't mind if you needed a little more height before you get the bonus though, right now it's a little too easy to get)

Question 2: Would you prefer if the advantage gets replaced with a flat bonus to hit?
Yes (Something like reverse cover bonuses, +2 is okay.)

Question 3: Do you feel that the disadvantage penalty for attacking someone on high ground needs to be removed?
No. (As long as there isn't any cover rules, high ground works as cover. But if we change it to a flat bonus like with cover then it would be better I think)

Question 4: Would you be ok with high ground granting cover to people in place of it granting the attacker disadvantage?
Yes (See above. That's what high ground in general is, it makes you a smaller target)

Question 5: Would you prefer if the bonus and penalties for high ground get removed alltogether?
No. (I like the dynamics it creates in the game, DnD tends to be played on a flat surface, but in a videogame we have 3D, and it makes the fights more interesting)

Question 6: Would you prefer the heigh ground 'issue' be resolved in a different manner? If yes, please explain in your post how you would like to see it solved.
No. (I honestly don't think it's an issue. I wouldn't mind it becoming live "cover", but all in all I have no problem with how it works now. Of all the things I want changed in the current build the height "issue" is the least of them)


Last edited by Aurgelmir; 30/10/20 02:16 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
L
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
L
Joined: Oct 2020
Question 1: Do you feel that granting creatures advantage if they attack from high ground is to powerfull?
Yes - BG3 as it currently exists makes it too easy to get advantage. That is an incredibly strong bonus, and shouldn't be so easy to get.

Question 2: Would you prefer if the advantage gets replaced with a flat bonus to hit?
Yes; I like encouraging high ground, but advantage is too much.

Question 3: Do you feel that the disadvantage penalty for attacking someone on high ground needs to be removed?
Yes - disadvantage is a major penalty; giving the attacker a flat penatly to hit, or the defender a bonus to AC, would be better.

Question 4: Would you be ok with high ground granting cover to people in place of it granting the attacker disadvantage?
Yes - this also opens up feats like Spell Sniper and Sharp Shooter to be added to the game, as they would allow someone that invests in those feats the ability to ignore the cover bonus.

Question 5: Would you prefer if the bonus and penalties for high ground get removed alltogether?
No - I like the tactics it currently encourages.

Question 6: Would you prefer the heigh ground 'issue' be resolved in a different manner? If yes, please explain in your post how you would like to see it solved.
No - a flat bonus seems easiest and most balanced.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
addict
OP Offline
addict
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Interesting to read everyones replies smile

Question 1 it seems to be 50/50 atm.
Question 2 has 4 anwsers for yes, 3 for no.
Question 3 5 for yes, 3 for no.
Question 4 has 5 for yes and 3 for no.
Question 5 has 2 for yes and 7 for no.
And question 6 has 2 for yes and 7 for no.

Anwsers which did not give a clear yes or no I dident count.

@robertthebard comparing advantage or disadvantage to a flat bonus isent really accurate though. A bonus of +5 wont do anything to counter a roll of 1. Only advantage gives you a chance to avoid it because you roll 2 die and pick the highest. Mind you rolling 1's is only an issue if critical misses have further effects then just missing. Which they dont seem to have atm. I havent seen anyone drop a weapon, break a bowstring or hit a friendly for example...

Disadvantage and advantage also nulify eachother and you generally cant counteract bonuses to hit outside if raising that ac beforehand.

Standing on high ground shouldnt counteract the fact that you cant see your enemy to name an example. Its just kind of silly...

In the same vein attacking someone who is on a elevated position doesent warrant disadvantage. Elevation might make it a tiny bit harder for a ranged combatant to hit, but that shouldnt be 'im literally blind atm' hard.

In my opinion ofcourse smile

Joined: Jun 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Jun 2020
Question 1: Do you feel that granting creatures advantage if they attack from high ground is to powerful? Yes
Question 2: Would you prefer if the advantage gets replaced with a flat bonus to hit? No
Question 3: Do you feel that the disadvantage penalty for attacking someone on high ground needs to be removed? Yes
Question 4: Would you be ok with high ground granting cover to people in place of it granting the attacker disadvantage? Yes
Question 5: Would you prefer if the bonus and penalties for high ground get removed altogether? No
Question 6: Would you prefer the high ground 'issue' be resolved in a different manner? If yes, please explain in your post how you would like to see it solved.
  • Related to question 4, I'd prefer they use the cover system that exists in 5e, and remove Advantage/Disadvantage (and Too High from spells) as it exists. Not a fan of this current iteration. While I answered No to question 2, I would still prefer they only offer like a +2 to hit for height instead of advantage, so that would be preferred but still not desired.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Demoulius
Hey all,

Lets talk about height advantage laugh its a topic that comes up alot and I feel it needs fine tuning. Il provide my own opinion on it first. I feel giving advantage and giving enemies disadvantage at the same time if they are attacking you while you have high ground is to much. You are granting creatures with high ground double bonuses for it basicly. I would be fine with it just beeing advantage and providing no penalty at all to the enemy. That said I do have a perfect scenario: turn the bonus into a bonus to hit rather then advantage. With it providing partial cover to you (bonus to your AC) if they try to attack you while you have it. That way high ground is still very valuable but not openly OP anymore. Still gives you battlefield advantage but not the end if the world if you dont have it either. It would be a happy medium and would be perfectly fine with regards to the rules.

The forum doesent seem to have a poll option so il have to do a questionnaire manually. Please understand making polls or working with statistics isent my proffesion or anything so if the format needs some work, let me know and il make some adjustments. Please anwser the questions with yes or no first. If then later you want to explain or discuss your choice feel free to do so but please keep it seperated from your anwsers from the post with a open space.

Question 1: Do you feel that granting creatures advantage if they attack from high ground is to powerfull?
Question 2: Would you prefer if the advantage gets replaced with a flat bonus to hit?
Question 3: Do you feel that the disadvantage penalty for attacking someone on high ground needs to be removed?
Question 4: Would you be ok with high ground granting cover to people in place of it granting the attacker disadvantage?
Question 5: Would you prefer if the bonus and penalties for high ground get removed alltogether?
Question 6: Would you prefer the heigh ground 'issue' be resolved in a different manner? If yes, please explain in your post how you would like to see it solved.

If I were to anwser my own questions it would look like this:



Looking forward to reading replies!


Question 1: Yes. It already provides defensive bonuses. In most games, a condition that provides BOTH a defensive advantage AND an offensive advantage, is powerful. Lets not forget line of sight can often be broken by using the ledge too.

Question 2: Yes. In most cases advantage is handed out like halloween candy. Advantage = +5 hit. We can give out bonuses without it always being +5.

Question 3: Yes. Height has simply replaced cover. Due to the "all-or-none" nature, Height has the power of "three-quaters cover"(+5AC, which is mathematically what advantage translates into) without anything resembling "half-cover" (+2 AC). Height needs 2 tiers... not just "Advantage or no advantage". It would be balanced if there was a "+2 to hit at this height" tier.

Question 4: Essentially this is what I am preaching. Cover did not provide BOTH offensive AND defensive buffs.

Question 5: No. The game needs to just embrace that this is how it handles the cover mechanic and treat it as such. Nixing only the offensive aspect and keeping the defensive aspect. It does not need both, theres backstabs already

Question 6: . Yes. Mostly because I feel like it needs a 2 tier system exactly like cover. Which means its not a binary condition, its "High, Higher, Too High (some spells actually say this already)"

Last edited by pill0ws; 30/10/20 07:05 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Question 1: Do you feel that granting creatures advantage if they attack from high ground is to powerfull?

I do. Advantage is really strong for the player and really frustrating to fight against when the enemy manages to ambush you or take the high ground. The gnoll fight was incredibly annoying because all their archers had advantage and there was nothing I could do to stop every single arrow in the universe from hitting Gale.



Question 2: Would you prefer if the advantage gets replaced with a flat bonus to hit?

I think this would be better, yes. Say a +1 per elevation level above the target. That said I think a range advantage would be more appropriate. Especially since height already gives you an advantage in hitting your enemy as the arrow arc can almost always hit over cover or obstacles.



Question 3: Do you feel that the disadvantage penalty for attacking someone on high ground needs to be removed?

I do not. I think disadvantage on hitting someone high up makes sense from a realism point of view and from a tactical point of few. Having your archers up high makes it harder for enemies to counter-skirmish as the ledge can get in the way.



Question 4: Would you be ok with high ground granting cover to people in place of it granting the attacker disadvantage?

I don't think this is necessary. You can already step back to get out of LOS of enemy archers and then step back in to loose.



Question 5: Would you prefer if the bonus and penalties for high ground get removed alltogether?

No. I like the added tactical level of gaining advantages by seeking out advantageous terrain.



Question 6: Would you prefer the heigh ground 'issue' be resolved in a different manner? If yes, please explain in your post how you would like to see it solved.

No, I think what I've described already would be sufficient.

Last edited by SaurianDruid; 30/10/20 10:41 PM.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5