Originally Posted by daMichi
Height does bring advantages, mainly increased range and it is often far more easy to get behind cover. If the height difference is very pronounced, then I just need to duck a little bit, and you won't be able to see me anymore.

So the Advantage/Disadvantage system in BG3 currently is just way over the top. But a lot of people have already pointed that out.

My personal preference would be increased range with bows and crossbows, not with spells, and that's it.
+1 (If I'm looking for an ideal situation for the game)

I'd like to supplement this with some more minutiae:
  • Starting with (A) Height wouldn't provide AdvantageFOR/DisadvantageAgainst
  • (B) going beyond normal range is already in there, add in height extending the "normal range" for ranged weapons.
  • having a proper climbing speed (Ladders, etc.)
  • rough terrain being applied to ascending steep angles
  • Ranged attacks no longer being at disadvantage because an enemy is ~3-4 meters away (5 feet is fine for disadvantage)
  • Add in +2 to hit

^ This would be a healthy baseline for high ground benefits.

Higher ground would give a better vantage point in combat and enemies would have to expend additional resources to ascend. Also agreeing with applying a simple +2 to hit.

(Side note) Personally I'd rather we had proper Dodge or Prone actions than getting a bonus to AC for high ground. It would give the player more risk/reward options.

EDIT: adding this in here for clarity.

The core intent of 5e is that bonuses don't stack. The player takes the greater value that they've received. You see this throughout 5e. Examples: Temporary Hit Points from multiple sources, and Tortle's Natural Armor with Barbarian's Unarmored Defense.

Applying 5e's logic: if a player gains Advantage, Advantage would override a +2 to hit and not stack.

Last edited by DragonSnooz; 24/02/21 05:37 PM.