On Higher Ground

[ElectricDragon]

At a recent game session, one player brought this to my attention and after lengthy discussion, I thought I would ask here.

1. A medium character fighting another medium character, but having a slight height advantage gains a +1 to attacks in melee. Why wouldn't a giant of large size on even ground against a medium opponent gain the same advantage? The height is still a factor and the bonus would negate the giant's size penalty to attacks, but only against smaller opponents.

2. As a side note, why doesn't the higher ground (or height advantage) bonus scale in the same way that size penalties scale (though in the opposite direction); so that a huge giant attacking a medium opponent gains +2 for his height advantage? Then the large giant would gain +2 versus a small size opponent.

3. [House Rule Suggestion from player who brought it up] As to #2, how about: +1 to attacks for height advantage per size category difference between combatants (if both of generally humanoid shape, both non-humanoid shape, or larger is humanoid shape and smaller is non-humanoid shape). And +1 to attacks per 2 size category differences between combatants (if larger is non-humanoid shape and smaller is humanoid shape).

Yeah, I know, the second and third one complicates things a bit and belongs in house rules; but they kind of tie in with the first one and I thought I'd simplify things for me and just post all three here.

Ciao
Dave

 

[Warehouse23]

The best way to think about the RAW, I think, is to imagine the higher ground bonus as a "position" bonus. Size bonuses/penalties are already written into the rules under the size entries. That way there's no double-dipping when the orges start swinging their warclubs from the trees.

 

[Infiniti2000]

As Warehouse23 said. Note that a medium character fighting against another medium character while atop the table actually has an advantage, not necessarily because he's taller, but because of position. You can fill in your own flavor text here, but I think of it in terms that The character with higher ground presents less of a target and therefore concern himself more with offense (add +1 to attacks). I'm quite frankly curious why there's isn't a -1 attack penalty for the other character.

Your houserules seem too complicated for what should really be not a large bonus. You'll also have to consider oddly shaped creatures, otherwise your houserule that supposedly installs some more realism suddenly doesn't have any realism at all. Consider Huge ooze. Even some Small or Tiny characters should get an attack bonus for higher ground while attacking the ooze, unless the ooze swells up or something.

 

[Bad Paper]

1. A medium character fighting another medium character, but having a slight height advantage gains a +1 to attacks in melee.

There is no rule, or even hint of one, that says this. "Higher ground" means "one combatant is standing on a surface that is higher than the surface upon which the other combatant stands."

 

[moritheil]

There is no rule, or even hint of one, that says this. "Higher ground" means "one combatant is standing on a surface that is higher than the surface upon which the other combatant stands."

I believe he means "height" as in "elevation," which is in line with what you're talking about.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Couldn't it potentially be just as much of an advantage as a disadvantage attacking from higher ground? Charging down hill should grant the bonus (unless it's too steep). But if I'm standing on an object thats 5ft high then I'm going to have trouble striking at my oponent with my longsword.

 

[ElectricDragon]

I'm just thinking that the size penalty to attacks that a Large and larger creatures get seems to be in direct opposition to the higher ground rule.

Medium creature on higher ground: I don't have to protect myself as much so I get +1 to attacks.
Giant who is twice as tall as me and in no danger of getting hit in the head: gets -1 to attacks.

Medium creature standing on a table gets +1 to attacks against the giant who is still taller. Giant still gets -1.

Maybe I'm examining it too closely, but that seems counterintuitive.

Ciao
Dave

 

[Twowolves]

Think of it this way; when two medium sized people are fighting, the one on the table is more likely to hit this opponent's head or torso than legs (more likely to land a "true" hit, thus +1 to hit). A giant attacking a human is attacking a proportionately smaller target, and is itself a larger and easier target to hit (size modifier to hit and to AC), but if a human were on a table attacking a giant, he can strike at more vulnerable areas than just the giant's legs (getting +1 to hit for "higher" ground).
The higher ground bonus and the size modifiers are not mutually exclusive.

Twowolves Howling

 

[Infiniti2000]

Medium creature standing on a table gets +1 to attacks against the giant who is still taller. Giant still gets -1.

Maybe I'm examining it too closely, but that seems counterintuitive.

You're not examining it too closely, you're just making an assumption on the "on higher ground" rule that is not necessarily true. There's no clear definition of "on higher ground" in the rules, so you as the DM are perfectly okay in saying that a medium creature on a table does not have higher ground vs. the giant. The same thing goes for Aust's example. If you don't feel that charging down a hill side is acceptable as higher ground, then it isn't.