We're using different definitions of stack. In my mind, the phrase "Advantage stacks" implies that multiple sources of advantage are better than a single source (when there are no sources of disadvantage/other factors to consider). And thus is false.
In your definition, you're only referring to the ability of advantage to cancel out disadvantage, right? Which my definition includes, but is not limited to.
Originally Posted by lofgren
2a. Somebody said that my interpretation of the term "few and far between" as meaning less than 50% was too strict. If non-ranged, non-high ground attacks rolls constitute more than 50% of your attacks, then they are not "few and far between." If something happens more than once out of two times, it is common and frequent.
2b. If it is unfair for me to assume that "few and far between" refers to 50% of rolls or less, then it is also reasonable to conclude that Foresight will still provide advantage on more than 50% of attacks, making it incredibly awesome even in a world with high ground continues to provide advantage.
Yes, me. The important distinction is "Total number of attack rolls for the entire party" and "Total number of attack rolls for a single character." My argument was that, FOR RANGED CHARACTERS, ~>50% of their attacks will be made from high ground (or low ground). Which is a small % of total party rolls, but a large percentage of rolls for that character.

Originally Posted by lofgren
I think we fundamentally disagree on how DnD is played. I absolutely love that a shove is more powerful than any spell in the right circumstances...Shove and the high ground advantage both simulate the creativity that I expect from my game and which the DMG encourages.
And you're allowed to. But you're arguing against a strawman yourself: that Height Advantage completely negates Foresight (I'm not the original person who brought up Foresight).

My (and many others') arguments against Height Advantage is that it is too powerful for its cost (spending movement to walk up a hill, or spend 0 movement to climb a ladder) and that it makes various spells/abilities less useful. Not that it is always better in every single case. And, because of this, the tactics in BG3 converge too "walk up a hill and shoot" instead of making use of party synergies.

For the record, this was much worse when Backstab was still in the game, as then the tactics were always either "walk up a hill and shoot" or "walk behind and stab." Now, at least, party synergy/class abilities are necessary to give melee attackers Advantage.