Very little in RAW annoys me as much as this wee modifier. I'm interested in when other DMs use it.
I mean it obviously applies if one of the combatants is standing on a stool while another is not but it seems to me that this pretty much does not come up.
What does come up is stuff like...
flying - does being airborne count as higher ground?
falling - do you have higher ground if your coming down from above?
being taller - do you get to be on higher ground if your a size category bigger then the opposition?
Other problems that come up are when and if higher ground is nullified. I believe it says somewhere in RAW that you get a higher ground bonus if your mounted - is that still true if your on a horse fighting a Colossal Red Dragon?
Very little in RAW annoys me as much as this wee modifier. I'm interested in when other DMs use it.
I mean it obviously applies if one of the combatants is standing on a stool while another is not but it seems to me that this pretty much does not come up.
It also comes up when fighting on a staircase, in a tree, on a boulder or ledge, while climbing, etc.
What does come up is stuff like...
flying - does being airborne count as higher ground?
falling - do you have higher ground if your coming down from above?
being taller - do you get to be on higher ground if your a size category bigger then the opposition?
Yes (unless both combatants are flying, in which case who has "higher ground" is determined by relative position), yes, and no.
Other problems that come up are when and if higher ground is nullified. I believe it says somewhere in RAW that you get a higher ground bonus if your mounted - is that still true if your on a horse fighting a Colossal Red Dragon?
No, because the dragon is not smaller than the mount. See Mounted Combat in the SRD.
Between you and Dragonchess Player, most of the instances when the Higher Ground rules are invoked have already been named. In the final analysis, though, it is you, as the DM, who must judge when the situation warrants invoking the rule.
Oooh, what about stilts?
Yes, but you'll be balancing, which means you'll most likely lose your Dex bonus to AC, and have to make Balance rolls every time you take damage.
What about a hillside? How steep must the hill be before one melee combatant gains higher ground over another?
I typically forget this modifier even exists; not choose to ignore it, just don't remember that it's there or that someone is on higher ground. I like to think as a DM, though, I've got enough to remember, so players should be responsible for asking if they've got said bonus (and thus reminding me).
|
What about a hillside? How steep must the hill be before one melee combatant gains higher ground over another?
I don't have a standard, but if I were to try to define the boundary, it would probably be around a 20% grade (one foot/five feet). One foot difference in height at standard melee distances is pretty important, IMO.
As Anakin Skywalker found out, Higher Ground is also critical in lightsaber fights.
As Anakin Skywalker found out, Higher Ground is also critical in lightsaber fights.
He was just trying something Obi Wan told him about...
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
What is really irritating is it is usually lower ground that gives the advantege. If you are below your opponent, you can hold your shield above your head and block 90% of their possible attacks while attacking their legs with impunity...
Personally, I'll take Sun Tzu's word on the high ground advantage. I think among other things you're underrating the effort involved in moving uphill.
Up hill is one thing, but "higher ground" is usually used for, as mentioned, fighting up stairs or on tables and such. Fighting uphill is covered by different rules.
Somehow I get the feeling it's also for hills. Higher ground is generally an advatage for many reasons. Not the least of which is a clear view of the area. Be it from a table or a hill. Give archers, or worse a wizard/sorceror, a clear view of a battlefield (however big) and the enemy is in trouble. Even hand to hand this is applicable.
Oddly enough, spellcasters with their area effect "artillery" are among those who gain the least from high ground advantage. There's no mechanic for it. Really, just weapon attackers gain the +1 bonus. If there were some rule set for lobbing fireballs accurately or being able to clearly view a field of combat in order to make good calls, then higher ground advantage would be more "realistic" to large scale combats, as it seems to be in reality. By the RAW, it's a much more individualistic thing. (Of course, if one uses Heroes of Battle, you could always assign 5-10 Victory Points for having higher ground, but that's not really germaine here)
Contributor
|
A sword combat club I used to participate in frequently had battles on hills, and the downhill side always had the advantage. It took me a while to realize that this was just because the rules did not allow attacks to the head...
Being uphill gives you better reach and more momentum in your attacks, and if you are using a shield, you can cover your legs just as well as the guy downhill can cover his head... and covering your legs doesn't block your view.
Can we get an OFFICIAL PAIZO ruling here? All the Attack modifiers on the Core Rulebook table are defined somewhere else in the RAW, EXCEPT on higher ground.
What "specifically" constitutes higher ground?
Is standing on a table "high" enough? Can a character make an Acrobatics check for a "long jump" and make a leap attack from higher ground or must a "vertical jump" Acrobatics check be made?
For me, this is an issue because I had a 3.5 Barbarian with the "Leap Attack" Feat. I am trying to re-create her in Pathfinder and now I need to know the rules for "On Higher Ground". Preferably something official so I do not have to debate it out with my DM.