Higher Ground

[Infiniti2000]

I'm positive this was asked before, but I cannot seem to find the thread. It seems like 4E doesn't give a bonus for higher ground, correct? KotS as an example spends a fair amount of time detailing rules on climbing to a higher vantage, but for what? Anyone houserule +1 or +2 or perhaps even combat advantage (melee only)?

Is the only advantage a better line of sight? If that's the case, it won't be worth the huge cost most of the time.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I'm positive this was asked before, but I cannot seem to find the thread. It seems like 4E doesn't give a bonus for higher ground, correct?

Correct.

KotS as an example spends a fair amount of time detailing rules on climbing to a higher vantage, but for what?

So you are out of reach, obviously. It's nice for an archer to be out of reach of the fighters.

Anyone houserule +1 or +2 or perhaps even combat advantage (melee only)?

Melee only? Why? Just to honor 3e?

There is no advantage to having higher ground in melee, Revenge of the Sith notwithstanding. Quite the contrary, in fact. Your opponent keeps hacking at your leg and you keep hitting at his upper body. Which sounds good if you just look at rolemaster's critical table but in practice it's something else. The guy on lower ground as a much easier time attacking and defending effectively than the guy above.

For sh*t an giggle, take a friend, sticks and cardboard shields and see which is easier to defend. You'll find out that the guy below can beat off your attack with ease. He can hold his shield high and hack at your feet with impunity. Meanwhile the guy above is having a hard time defending his legs while counter attacking passed the high shield. Go ahead try it (but do it on stable ground! Don't do something stupid like trying to fight on a table!) You'll soon conclude that the guy with the higher ground needs a penalty! But that wouldn't be very swashbuckly.

Anyway, who cares about realism right? We just don't want to multiply the tiny +1 to hit. There are enough as it is. Adding some for higher ground would serve neither realism nor ease of play so why do it?

 

[James McMurray]

I can see situations where higher ground might result in combat advantage or a +1 - +2 bonus, but would never make it a general rule.

KotS as an example spends a fair amount of time detailing rules on climbing to a higher vantage, but for what?

Nobody ever climbed any terrain in our KotS games. There was no point. Granted, the defender usually did his job and our ranged attackers were either not trained in climb so didn't want to risk it, or was a ranger who was happy in or out of melee (and had a few tricks to avoid melee of his own). I could see it happening in a group whose defender wasn't very sticky (perhaps a paladin or swordmage who can realistically only hold one person down at low level).

 

[FrozenChrono]

Giving combat advantage for having "higher ground" or "more stable ground" or whatever is a great way to take advantage of 4E's focus on abilities that use movement. I'd allow it in specific situations (by telling my party at the beginning of combat that whoever has higher ground gains CA because of the steepness of the hill, etc.) but I don't think I'd make it a universal rule.

 

[Infiniti2000]

segue

Good points, all.

Anyway, who cares about realism right? We just don't want to multiply the tiny +1 to hit. There are enough as it is. Adding some for higher ground would serve neither realism nor ease of play so why do it?

Not to honor 3e, that's for sure. To encourage PCs to use interesting terrain features. Right now, I can't get them "past the door" so to speak without putting an innocent in imminent danger or having an ambush. This was a beef (not the biggest, assuredly) I had with 3e and I was hoping 4e would have some motivations to help correct it. On the contrary, 4e's reliance on party members makes it even more likely for the PCs to just stop at the doorway (or equivalent). It's really frustrating to DM.

 

[MarauderX]

For sh*t an giggle, take a friend, sticks and cardboard shields and see which is easier to defend. You'll find out that the guy below can beat off your attack with ease. He can hold his shield high and hack at your feet with impunity. Meanwhile the guy above is having a hard time defending his legs while counter attacking passed the high shield. Go ahead try it (but do it on stable ground! Don't do something stupid like trying to fight on a table!) You'll soon conclude that the guy with the higher ground needs a penalty! But that wouldn't be very swashbuckly.

Go get some Gauntlets of Ogre Strength - you're not hitting hard enough. The higher ground is a nice advantage in melee, and I'll take it every time, whether with pole arms or rapiers, because I like gravity working for me. It is easier to lower your guard to defend than it is to sustain your guard high against faster, harder blows.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Especially if you're in real gear (try SCA stuff, not cardboard), and have to keep it up for more than 2 minutes.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Not to honor 3e, that's for sure. To encourage PCs to use interesting terrain features. Right now, I can't get them "past the door" so to speak without putting an innocent in imminent danger or having an ambush. This was a beef (not the biggest, assuredly) I had with 3e and I was hoping 4e would have some motivations to help correct it. On the contrary, 4e's reliance on party members makes it even more likely for the PCs to just stop at the doorway (or equivalent). It's really frustrating to DM.

There are other incentives to moving around. Cover is a good one and a more sensible result in most case. If you have a fight with a lot of artillery monsters and there is an hard to reach area that offers good cover, it's a good gamble to take it.

A trap with an ongoing effect also creates a good incentive to reach the control panel.

An entrenched enemy that causes a lot of trouble may encourage the rogue to go get him.

etc.

It is easier to lower your guard to defend than it is to sustain your guard high against faster, harder blows.

No it's not. Try protecting your feet. See how much strenght you can put on a parry this low or how akward it is to lower you shield that low and in what position it puts you.

Meanwhile, all your high blow come at a nice, predictible angle.

And did you say rapier? Rapier is a god awful weapon to use when fighting on uneven terrain. I fenced for many years and it is absolutely critical to be able to move back and forth freely when fencing. The style of fighting and the weapon are always inseparable but in the rapier's case, it is critical. It is a very specialized weapon that becomes a useless lump of metal if you can't fight with it the way it was intended.

While parrying is a basic fencing skill, the best and most essential defense is simply backing away just the right amount (preferrably while also trying simulteneously to strike the arm of the attacker). When you fence, being a keen judge of distance is key and retreating just enough so that the attack can't touch you while you still can reach your opponent (either reach his entire body if your reach is superior or just his extended arm if it is not) is basically the most common way to get a point (and in a duel, a win). At my peak, I'd routinely back up just so that the opponent's attack ended litterrally one inch from me while my attack landed sqaurely on him.

And the most basic attack is simply a sudden lunge, often prefaced by a feint. Try to do that if you are fighting in a stairwell or on a table. Lunging becomes impossible and therefore your offense is crippled.

Due to a long history of swashbuckling movie where fighters favor longs exchange of short jab and parries and where jumping on table is seen as a good idea, I wouldn't actually penalize this behavior in D&D. But I sure wouldn't reward it either.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

There is no advantage to having higher ground in melee, Revenge of the Sith notwithstanding. Quite the contrary, in fact. Your opponent keeps hacking at your leg and you keep hitting at his upper body. Which sounds good if you just look at rolemaster's critical table but in practice it's something else. The guy on lower ground as a much easier time attacking and defending effectively than the guy above.

Not completely accurate. You get more force with over-hand blows with a height advantage and they are harder to defend against for the other guy. It was an advantage mounted soldiers had over infantry, even after the shock-power of the charge had dissipated. And if you've got your shield up over your head, it's doing jack-all for you otherwise and it's not a blocking position you can quickly adjust. You're wide open to anything else. But height provides defensive disadvantages too, and in any style owing more to fencing than a battle-field, that's probably going to matter more.

 

[DracoSuave]

In my games, the higher ground gives you an advantage of cover and concealment. You can get behind enemies' cover easier and you have a bit of cover from your higher ground itself.

You know, the -actual- military benefit of higher ground.

Also, in mass warfare, you tired out an enemy by forcing it to run up a large hill while you rain artillery upon them.

This doesn't really apply in D&D, which is not mass warfare, however.