D&D 4E Elevation Bonus in 4E?

[KarinsDad]

And this right here is why I don't particularly like ad hoc DM assigned bonuses.

I think there are other bonuses and penalties in the game system that don't make sense in some scenarios where a DM assigned bonus or penalty would make more sense.

For example, when attacking a prone foe, the attacker is at -2. At range in a 2D more or less level situation, this makes sense. He's presenting a smaller profile far away, so he's harder to hit.

But when the same foe is prone in a 20 foot pit and the archer is shooting down at him, he should be easier to hit than if he was on his feet and could more easily dodge an attack, not harder. Looking and shooting down into a pit is merely a 90 degree turn from shooting horizontal. Why is shooting horizontal at a vertical foe (i.e. not prone) a 0 penalty, but shooting vertical at a horizontal foe (i.e. prone) a -2 penalty?

This is a case where game simplicity trumps logic. But I would have no problem if a DM made some adjustment to the normal rules to handle special cases like these.

 

[Mengu]

For example, when attacking a prone foe, the attacker is at -2. At range in a 2D more or less level situation, this makes sense. He's presenting a smaller profile far away, so he's harder to hit.

How different is that surface area when you compare a right side up crocodile to an upside down crocodile? How about a gelatinous cube that just got tipped on it's side? Why is there a -2 penalty to shoot them? It doesn't have to be logical. And I hate to argue with the player who says hey my hand of radiance is really my three ice ravens who swoop down on the enemy from the sky so I shouldn't have a penalty on my attacks against prone targets.

I find that following rules somewhat strictly despite illogical situations saves a lot of time arguing or pondering what alterations should be made to the rule.

When it comes to terrain rules, your imagination is the limit, we can make up all the rules we want, as long as the rules are communicated just before (or during) the encounter, it's all fun and flavor.

 

[chitzk0i]

I've played with higher ground granting combat advantage. Seemed to work just fine.

Ill have to argue this for my crow-riding halfing ranger|rogue.

 

[LostSoul]

I find that following rules somewhat strictly despite illogical situations saves a lot of time arguing or pondering what alterations should be made to the rule.

I think that the rule should be that the DM's judgement call should apply (thus no alterations to rules need be made) with specific restrictions (i.e. +/- 2); arguments may occur, but only if players don't recognize the DM's authority to make these judgement calls.

The reason why the DM is the one who should make these judgement calls is because he is supposed to be concerned about maintaining the consistency of the game world, not pulling for a specific side in a conflict.

I probably sound like a broken record at this point.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I have seen it explicitly called out in more than one 4E adventure module that a character "on a table"(etc), gets CA. Such that I assumed it was an actual RAW. Now that I think about it, I am sure I have ever seen the rule, but I am going to go looking for it.

Editorial: It never did make sense to me to get CA just because you are attacking from 3 feet higher. It almost seemed a negative in fact. Seems a case by case judgement works well here.

 

[Nytmare]

For me, these situations exist to make the combat map more interesting, not to make combat make more sense.

Like Mengu said, the game is a lot easier to adjudicate if there are sweeping rules that just exist, not lists of bonuses and penalties that have to be argued over.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My simple rule: Is it enough of an advantage to grant CA? If I think it is, I give it. If not? *shrug*

 

[Riastlin]

The "DM's Best Friend" will always be a subject of debate no matter what. The idea behind it, in my opinion, is that part of the DM's job is to make things a) run smoothly and b) more fun and interesting. Personally, I like to have my players think outside the box and would love for them to interact with the environment more. Thus, if they come up with something clever and it at least arguably makes sense, then I'll grant them the +2.

Going to the prone in a pit example, I would agree that an archer looking straight down would have a bigger target to aim at.

How about attacking from prone? Most of the time the -2 makes sense. I'm not entirely convinced it does though if the attack is with a crossbow.

Neither of those situations have come up before in my games though, so its not a huge deal for me.

The prone gelatinous cube though is an interesting one. I would certainly argue that he presents just as big a target. Does it grant CA for melee attacks? Does it suffer the penalty to attacks? I guess it depends on whether or not it can still move regularly while "prone".

 

[Aulirophile]

The odd thing is that squares are actually cubes. Flanking requires opposite sides. So standing on a table X is the Flankers, Y is the monster.

X
_YX

Imagine that top-down. Flanked? Nope. Now turn it sideways and the left X is standing on a table. Flanked? Nope. RAW this actually makes different elevations outright bad for getting CA in a lot of cases.

 

[Nytmare]

RAW this actually makes different elevations outright bad for getting CA in a lot of cases.

That would only be if you were standing on top of a 5 foot tall table. Standing on a table doesn't bump you outside of a combat square, standing on something like a full stage however would.

Side note: if I remember correctly, the encounters where they included the bits on attacking from higher ground gave you a +2, not combat advantage. A minor quibble, but one with different implications.