Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Shooting down at things shouldn't be easier (a picture)

Ok, what does being higher than your target actually mean?

Pros:
1. You can shoot farther. Irrelevant if distance isn't a factor.
2. You can potentially see over some cover they are using (but only if they aren't right up against it), and then only if it would completely cover them from a front perspective.

Cons:
1. The greater the angle (the higher you are in relation to your horizontal distance to them), the smaller your target becomes.

Thus, a being higher than your target shouldn't make it any easier to shoot them.

Behold my paint skills + opening Maya for the first time:
Note how the angle increases the target gets smaller, just like coverage behind the barrel from the front perspective.
@Larian: Cmon guys, there has got to be a better way to make "verticality" matter (it would be much harder for someone to reach you).

This is great and I totally agree. I’m no archer myself but I’d also argue that it’s possibly more awkward to shoot a longbow downwards than upwards?

The same concept works nicely in many other similar games, not sure why BG3 should be different.

Well the most obvious reason is that BG3 is based on D&D 5E, which has already had a lot of thought and balancing go into it. And there’s no bonus for shooting down on something in 5E.

Shooting anything from higher up like a bow or rifle has advantages like better field of vision. You have a wider angle compared to ground level or shooting from below when the target is above you. Also if the target is below you up above isn't part of their normal line of sight.

( °o°)

Holy moly, so true!
Damn, I loved taking the high ground.
If this logic prevails - this nice little strategy will become useless. ^^

I hope Larian Hires you as consultant because, good lord ! You're clever !

Not really sure how to address this game wise vs real life wise. But shooting down at a target is much easier than shooting up at one. When looking down at something you get a much wider sense of picture at your target and immediate surroundings. Being below something and looking up at it, you only get to see your target and what's directly infront of it. I'm thinking from an elevated rampart point of view.

In game, I would like to see maybe not such a dramatic increase of damage and accuracy from having the high ground. But the exact opposite for the character that has the low ground.

The low ground character should suffer accuracy penalties. To incentive a pushed assualt for the high ground or clever thinking to neutralize the low ground debuff by finding even level terrain and repositioning.

Just watched some archery pros on YouTube on this matter and yeah it’s (slightly) more difficult to shoot downhill or uphill, definitely not substantially easier as getting advantage would suggest.
Medieval longbows were designed to be fired upward too, if you point it too steeply downward you’re going to be sticking it into the ground. Not that it really matters in a fantasy setting of course.

If you’re shooting up at someone chances are they’re going to get some degree of cover, so yeah you should be penalised for that using the normal cover rules (they get +2/+5 to AC).

The high ground is the desired position because you have a greater view and more ability to plan the strike. Also no one ever looks up for some reason. There should be perhaps a slight buff to hit due to this, but it would make more sense to have some sort of penalty on the person at the lower elevation.

High ground is more defensible, and I think that's the reason to take it.

I didn't really delve into the bonus/penalty of the lower person in my OP. These quotes sound like reasons why the person below should have a penalty, but not necessarily that the person above should get a bonus. More field of view is great for spotting more enemies, but that's irrelevant once you're targeting them.

Also keep in mind that if there isn't actually cover for the person above, the same thing happens where they become a smaller target to the person below as the angle steepens.

OP is correct. Also shooting from above adds an additional dimension to the movement. Shooting someone on the same height as you, you don't care if the run in a 45° angle towards you - its just left or right. From above it does matter. The biggest advange from shooting from the highground is the additional overview, cover helps less and the guy below needs more energy to reach you physically (also with his/her projectiles).

Just test it in any 1st person shooter Or read what Total War has as advantages/disadvantages... or just go with the 5e rules. In short BG3 solution is oversimplified and unbalanced.

Not sure about 1st person shooters but it seems like snipers and assassins in real life tend to shoot from above. Or in movies and TV shows we see snipers aiming at people from higher places.

Pretty sure you have a better view from above and the oppenent has a much harder time to dodge since he has to look up ehile fighting on ground..

Yeah because of a better view an less cover - but keep in mind the world is hardly flat - that's why a shooter would be taking the higher position. there is always something in the way especially when you take hundreds of meters/yards into account. But as the illustration from the OP shows - your target size doesn't increase, quite contrary. Also it can move in more directions. Its definitely not easier to hit. Just harder to hide yourself.

Even fighting melee - the biggest advantage besides the additional fatique from holding your weapon/shield up and move upwards that affects the lower fighter is that the one with the high ground can go for the head and upper torso, while the other has most likely only the feet/legs in reach and has to protect the head. This would justify an advantage by D&D standards rather than for a shooter.

I think most everyone who has hunted out of a tree stand would disagree.

Pretty much haha, I was hoping another hunter would be here to chime that point.

I believe, attaching sufficent high explosives to the arrows would lead to the desired damage and accuracy. Collateral loss of jack daniels is tragic, but the chances of jack daniels surviving any encounter with men have always been very small.