Just want to post my support for the OP and the side of the discussion favouring removing the majority of the always-available cost-free advantage sources in their current form.

Many folks have wanted to say that making it easier to achieve what you're trying to do reliably is a good thing, but what I'm seeing more than anything else is people saying that they like not having to think about, stock, use or ever consider a huge swathe of the interesting and different spells, abilities and features that are already, or will at some point be, available int he game... and I cannot fathom how being able to ignore most of the game's mechanics, abilities, spells and other features, becuase you can achieve their value for free without using them, could be considered to be a good thing by anyone.

Speaking just as a player of video games (I play table top as well, but I game plenty), if I am faced with a game that leaves one single tactic vastly superior to all other choices in combat, which is free and easy to abuse, and the go to in every situation, causing me to ignore almost the entirety of other features, spells and abilities ignored because they cost resources, and are less effective, or at best only just as effective, as the free, cost-free method... That's just bad game design. It's not fun. It gets tired and dull and boring way, way, WAY too fast.

- No more facing advantage; nix that entirely.
- *Optional* rule to use flanking for advantage, requiring another ally.
- Cover rules
- Height advantage removed in favour the base environmental benefit - it should usually negate cover.
- No low-to-high disadvantage either; at most, a high ground target that is back from the edge substantially can gain cover from lower attackers. One right on the edge is a sitting duck for low ground shooters - there's no way they should be harder to hit.