Define "Higher Ground"

[Thanee]

And here's some food for thought: If you're standing on a 5'-high rock and fighting a Huge Cloud Giant who isn't, do you still get the "higher ground" bonus, even though you're no higher than the giant?

Of course, the examples assume opponents of about equal size.

In other situations, you need to evaluate the situation accordingly.

But... does that mean, Mr Huge Cloud Giant gets higher ground against a human, both standing on the (same) ground?

Bye
Thanee

 

[evilbob]

But... does that mean, Mr Huge Cloud Giant gets higher ground against a human, both standing on the (same) ground?

Actually, right now it goes the opposite way: he gets a -1 size penalty to hit, even though he's much "higher." Maybe that's a good way to think about it - once you're high "enough," the size difference is going to make it "harder" to hit them. (Of course, via RAW, if he stepped 5' up, he'd get a +1 to hit again... Ok, nevermind...)

 

[mvincent]

Emphasis on ground.

As noted, that is not a truism... it is subject to interpretation (and many things that confer the bonus would not be considered "ground" anyways: tables, horses, balconies, etc.).

But still, I agree: airborne combatants should not be given this bonus. I probably cannot even accurately explain why I feel this way. I also feel the same way about swimmers (or others utilizing a 3-D movement mode).

 

[DarkKestral]

I'd give it to the guy who has Fly cast on him. The main reason for giving the attack bonus is that it's easier for the attacker to hit vital, often unprotected sections of the body (aka the head) and it's slightly harder for the opponent to defend, if the attacker is sufficiently higher than the opponent. I would essentially say that if your chest is at the opponent's head height or higher, you have higher ground, regardless of condtion. In combats where both opponents are capable of relative vertical movement greater than the height difference between them in the round during the attack, I'd not give the bonus, despite one person being higher up. (aka a monk might be able to negate the bonus if he passes a jump check, but a barbarian who fails the check can't negate the bonus unless he has some pre-existing or immediate buff that would give him the necessary vertical motion.) Honestly, it's a hard rule to adjudicate outside of a system that uses cubes for motion instead of squares.

 

[Klaus]

As noted, that is not a truism... it is subject to interpretation (and many things that confer the bonus would not be considered "ground" anyways: tables, horses, balconies, etc.).

But still, I agree: airborne combatants should not be given this bonus. I probably cannot even accurately explain why I feel this way. I also feel the same way about swimmers (or others utilizing a 3-D movement mode).

All instances here are solid surfaces supporting a character, as opposed to a flyer's or swimmer's lack of support.

 

[lukelightning]

All instances here are solid surfaces supporting a character, as opposed to a flyer's or swimmer's lack of support.

Why would an air elemental need support to get an advantage vs. someone below it?

 

[evilbob]

In combats where both opponents are capable of relative vertical movement greater than the height difference between them in the round during the attack, I'd not give the bonus, despite one person being higher up.

I'd agree with that: swimming doesn't make a difference, since you're both making generally three-dimensional movements.

 

[Victim]

Why would an air elemental need support to get an advantage vs. someone below it?

Exactly. A flyer with Good or better manueverability is really no less stable or agile in the air than a person with firm footing. Better even, in some ways. A creature with the fly spell could be fighting at impossible angles with no fighting stance or muscle movements to reveal their next movement patterns.

 

[Sunfist]

Actually, right now it goes the opposite way: he gets a -1 size penalty to hit, even though he's much "higher." Maybe that's a good way to think about it - once you're high "enough," the size difference is going to make it "harder" to hit them. (Of course, via RAW, if he stepped 5' up, he'd get a +1 to hit again... Ok, nevermind...)

 

[lukelightning]

I wouldn't even limit it by maneuverability. A manticore swooping down on you has an advantage. Of course said manticore has to either land or keep going, but either way will provoke an AoO.