@acatlas, you seem to be arguing that 1.) Larian's implementation of Advantage and Disadvantage match tabletop, where you roll twice and take the higher or lower. 2.) It makes sense that it is easier to hit someone from high ground, and thus you should get Advantage (capital-A Advantage, instead of just an advantage) 3.) It makes sense that flanking a creature would grant Advantage, and thus Larian's backstab is fine.
My response 1.) No one is arguing that Larian's implementation of these mechanics differs from tabletop rules.
2.) There is a difference between capital-A Advantage and "an advantage." Most of us aren't arguing that it is easier to hit people from high ground, but that getting Advantage is too powerful for something that is so easy to get (walk or jump up a hill). It invalidates a lot of the other methods of getting Advantage (spells, class abilities), since sources of Advantage don't stack. If this bonus was changed into a +1 or +2, then it would be more reasonable (less powerful) but also not invalidate all those other sources of advantage.
3.) I agree that it makes sense that flanking could grant Advantage. However, this is NOT what is happening in BG3. In BG3, you get Advantage for simply moving behind someone, regardless if you have an ally on the opposite side. This doesn't make sense, because in a real fight that enemy would turn to face you.
Originally Posted by acatlas
Modifying the mechanic to be +1 or +2 just completely defeats the purpose of the games existing rule set
Why do you say this? D&D 5e already has a system that grants +2 or +5 to enemy AC (the Cover system) and +1-4 to attack rolls (Bless), so using flat bonuses instead of advantage is not inconsistent with the game's rule set.
Just being behind a target period should not grant advantage. I have not noticed that personally my self in testing however. I have noticed range does affect targets regarding disadvantage on rolls by the target being to close hit rates to lower on bows / ranged weapons. Height having a similar affect does make sense the the same regard.
Regarding your comments on height being a little to easy I do agree it is a bit to easy to get height advantage currently in some of the fights in bg3 there are times in DND when this is possible as well depending on your method of thinking and how you use mechanics. In the same regards I do think there should be more zones with more even flat terrain that prevents that abuse a little better. Most campaigns combat tends to have less ability to get advantage from height.
And yes there is cover bonus to AC and some flat bonuses but the height mechanic using that doesnt make logical sense since it isnt included in dnd. I do agree there should be some more implimentations regarding cover however I dont think you should take away a height advantage / disadvantage or flanking as a mechanic from the game and replace it with a passive bonus to hit. I would if there is an issue with cover argue that it should be implimented better maybe looking at a system similar to xcom with partial cover affecting your chance to be hit but then at the same time take into account that height does make some forms of cover inaffective as its not really cover. I would argue that a box doesnt apply cover particularly well ect. Regarding a person standing 5-10 feet higher up than you are it doesnt in the same way. But at the same time I dont think those mechanics will be fully fleshed out till live release. There are larger faulted issues overall than that currently which while they are an issue I also dont expect to be completely fixed untill majority of existing content is updated. Like wizards casting divine spells this completely invalidates some classes. Weapon swapping mid combat this completely invalidates an entire reason for weapon selection oh ill use a 2 hander then ill change weapons make an off hand attack then ill equip a shield so i do not lose my armor class bonus. While advantage and disadvantage probably needs tuning I would be far less concerned about it in early access regards to the affects of cover however if just having your targets back is giving you a significant % increase to your hit rate without having an ally in range of the target I would screen shot it and post it for a fix. I have not really ever checked that specifically myself as ive always implimented flanking tactics as I typically play 2-3 melee characters 2 of which an optionally switch to ranged weapons and still be effective with a bow. So I am generally always flanking the targets which losing advantage on that does not make sense as you would have it in game and its a valid reason for melee to have it as its also part a factor for playing a rogue to be able to flank for access to sneak attack.