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

My experience was that it didn't add to the strategy, it clobbered it. All other strategies quickly became obsolete because it was the easiest to pull off and came with the most benefit. So yeah, changing it to +2/-2 would be MUCH better, but maybe (and I'm fully making this number up) 75% of fights in the game shouldn't have verticality. If it wasn't the best choice almost every time I think the strategic diversity of the game would be better.

I made the OP because I wanted a good visual that explained how the steeper angle decreased the viable target area and it was just a fun challenge. I think the OP here Remove Height and Backstab as Sources of Advantage/Disadvantage makes the best argument for why the bonus shouldn't be advantage/disadvantage.

Anyway, it's been a fun discussion

Larian needs to add readied actions (do they still exist in D&D 5E) so the next character that moves up eats 20 arrows.

Exactly this. Ranged attackers already have enough benefit vs melee combatants, let’s not tip the balance any further. In DOS2 ranged characters were very OP, resulting in melee characters needing to be incredibly mobile (with skills like Phoenix Dive).

Just wanted to thank the OP, Nezix, for starting this thread. I briefly touched upon this question in another thread, and I had vaguely thought of making a thread about this, but I'm still writing my feedback, and thus confined to a quick-comments-only jail (of my own making).

From what I've read here, with arguments for different perspectives (if you don't mind me phrasing it that way ...), I feel confirmed in the idea that the high-ground rule has no real-life/simulationist justification. (Which is different from tactical/gaming justifications.)

Now, the other big question on my mind :

How much of this whole, indiscriminate "high-ground gives superiority" myth start with Revenge Of The Sith ?

I'm still talking about one-on-one ranged combat (I understand the advantages for a medieval or early-modern army).

Any pop culture historian around here ?

I'm sorry what? You really think that the high ground has no real world benefits. Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but take in any historical account and real life defensive measures of a ranged unit with high ground. And its a recording of benefit to the elevated shooter.

Yes.


It's all about the setting, and if I understood well what you said earlier in the thread, we are, in fact, mostly in agreement..

- When an army, with infantry and a battalion of archers, sits on a hill and a similar army comes from a distance, then the army on the hill will indeed benefit from the high ground.

- When two archers are shooting at each other, the one standing on a big rock, a wagon, rooftop or at the top of stairs, will not have benefits from the high ground.

The battles we fight in DnD/BG3 are small scale fights that usually erupt when both parties are already pretty close.



A couple more considerations.

* In a case of hunting/camping/sniping, the hidden (presumably high-grounded) archer is not seen by the target. 5E DnD already has a rule that gives Advantage to an attacker in that case.

* An archer on a fortification with parapet, or on a gallery with balustrade/railing, or who will crouch or step back after firing will get some amount of cover. 5E DnD already has a rule that makes the attacker less likely to hit in that case.

* As for spotting/acquiring target, again, in standard BG3 battle, we generally have everyone see everyone, broadly. If an archer has trees or pillars to hide behind (think : hall of priestess Gut), the other archer will lose sight of the target. This hold irrespectively of high ground or low ground. It's about your surroundings. In DnD, there is no cost for acquiring target, but you can't shoot at someone who is not in your line of sight. So that's kind of taken into account already.


If an archer is standing alone, on the edge of a rooftop, a big rock, or the top of stairs (think : Nautiloid helm), they are giving a pretty clean shot to any archer on a lower ground, which certainly doesn't make it harder for them to hit. And the high grounded archer doesn't have any benefit from their position.

You're welcome And now asking the real questions!



Yeah, a lot of the pro-height people tend to forget the elevation required in the the game for this huge bonus/malus is laughable... as is shooting 18 meters. It seems like most people read high ground and immediately picture someone at the top of the castle shooting through arrow slits for cover, but like you said that is independent of height and these bonuses in game function without requiring said cover.

Speaking in game wise, I'm just going through the goblin fights at the blighted village. These fights involved the goblins fighting from the rooftops really working the high ground mechanic. Maybe its just more polish the game needs, but the height advantage of vantage was really underwhelming. I was sneaking thru the streets pretty much right in front (not below) of them just out of their cone of vision. With height vantage should totally come wider and farther cones of vision.

And to the point on one archer on the roof vs one archer on the ground. Without the factor of cover, both archers are clean silhouettes to shoot at. I will agree that your angles of fire are somewhat more limited from the higher position aiming down, but so is shooting up at certain angles.

With no outside factors besides one is up and the other is ground level. The raised archer still has the benefit. Its complicated to really attach this to "accuracy" because that is a measure of the shooters skill not positioning.

Well speaking in rl terms, height does play a factor in it. Specially when using bows, as you are doing in BG3. When it comes to firearms not so much. With bows your able to shoot further without the need of aiming to correct for arrow drop vs. distance to target. Then there is the way the person lower then you has to aim to hit you, Also if you have some form of cover while on the high ground, again it affects how the lower archer will have to aim in order to hit you. If your higher you can negate alot of cover do to them being more exposed then they would be if you were on level ground. All this said yes height does have a real life affect when it comes to shooting a good deal in archery, but even when using guns it has an affect on how you aim, if cover is going to be effective, and how much it's going to effect the shooter.

NOW this 'advantage' is actually the opposite when it comes to melee, being lower then your opponent forces the 'higher' person to guard their legs, harder to do with shorter weapons. While you can easily hold a shield over your head, and even ruin the angles they block almost entirely. This can easily allow you to go ape on their ankles, shins, feet, knees etc. while they are forced to protect those harder to protect areas. Again with the 'lower' person using a shield the can negate the defense by simply putting their shield between the 'higher' persons torso and legs.

There isn't a 'rule' that I can find in 5e that states that high ground gives advantage, though depending on the dm they house rule it or not. Which is true for most of the 'rules' in D&D, since even in books it states the rules are more guidelines hence my use of ' '. This in the end comes down to wether it makes sense or no?, does it fit the layout of the land? would the creatures be smart enough to use this to their advantage?

Example 1. The archer at the top of the hill in the druids grove vs. you going to the top of the hill in the druids grove. Both cases make sense, as does the Teiflings being atop the ramparts, and gates. The part in this and there are a couple is.

a. Teif raising the gate being shot. Uh hold on a fucking moment. (I also might be incorrect please correct me.) he is standing protected by the horizontal part of the wench, the rope, and the top of the wall??? WTF sniper goblins?? This doesn't make sense in the fact how does a goblin (even the one on top of the wall) manage to aim so well to strike this person who is almost completely blocked from sight. Sure makes great cinematic if you don't factor in all the cover he has. Most rp'ers strat gamers will take this into account though. Now there are at least 2 goblins that climb atop 'high' ground in that fight, and to this I call bullshit. There needs to be a usage of climb, or a severe reduction of their movement to get up there. (ugg fingers don't fucking want to spell there but instead their sorry) For in a fight you'd not be trying to climb one or 2 sheer spots. which these 2 spots are at least visually appear to be. Indeed why in all the hells is that archer so out of position as to be in front of the tanks!!

b. The goblins in the village atop the houses. In a way it makes sense for some of them to be up there. Look outs, snipers etc. Yet in this case it is overdone. With all of them at the front being up their and one being still higher up do to 'smith??' house being higher then the road it's kinda makes you wonder why all of them are up there. Still I can kinda see this, though on the other hand it would make sense for a couple of this group to also be on the ground. or the group in back to have a presence in front. Yet this falls to pieces when you take note of the goblins stationed as guards on all the other gates. None of them using the high ground to keep a watch, nor do they respond to any alert from the first group. Fuck those deaf assholes, probably sleeping on the damn job. I say kill them.

c. Goblin camp main building. For the love of all thats fucking holy why are there rafter hoppers!! Seriously what sense does it make to have 8 or so goblins (not sure as to exact count) hanging around on crossbeams? Sure looks cool, makes them feel great being up high. Yet heres the thing their feet can't be positioned enough to use their bows effectively, so using those bows would be ineffective canceling out the 'advantage' of their higher position. Now we figure in their height roughly 3 ft or so, their intelligence (sorry not a number) and they'd probably forget they were up there and fall. or get so excited on seeing something to kill they'd chaaaaaaarge right to their deaths. Again height just for advantage sake is poor form. Move those fools to the ground.

blah me and my damn wordy posts... anyway my thoughts