The wording for the +1 bonus is "on higher ground". So by RAW I'd rule "no".
I also suspect that if this were allowed there are several abilities in the game that would allow exploiting it, so I'd probably rule against it from game balance if I suspected an exploit brewing.
Just curious, how high do you think you have to be above your opponent before gaining the +1 bonus?
BBT, there are specific rules granting the bonus from riding a mount, so that doesn't have to be interpreted.
I tried to find how "higher ground" was defined, but was unable to do so. I tried to find it because I suspected that it would be 5 feet if it were defined, and if so I'd rule that jumping that high would leave the square below and open you up to an attack of opportunity, but, alas, I did not find a specific ruling on what "higher ground" meant.
From the RAW you don't need to be "on something", you need to be "on higher ground". I think most people would accept that "ground" is stationary. However, I am sure someone will argue that.
Flying creatures have their own rules, I haven't dug into them.
Now, a really interesting question would be, do you gain it if levitating?
The word *ground* and being *on* it seem to indicate not, even if there's no RAW that specifically outlines it. But that's my RAI interpretation.
1) No, I would say it doesn't apply to flying creatures. They have their own bonuses from things like dive bomb, flyby attack, etc, that account for flying. I would say Higher Ground applies to ground creatures only.
2) I would say if you are a "square" above your opponent or more, you are "On Higher Ground". Obi-Wan wasn't THAT much higher than Anakin. More classic swordfighting references, you say? Look no further than the fight scene in Princess Bride. Clearly, small advantages gained for only being a step or 5 higher than your opponent.
3) No, it wouldn't have to be stationary, but eventually your moving high ground is going to unwittingly "tactically withdraw" you from the reach of your opponent anyways. If you're on the back of a giant turtle, who is moving, you would have the high ground until you're out of range. And then you're out of threat reach anyways.
4) Flying mount, I would say no, just like being "mounted" on a ground mount doesn't strictly qualify you. Being on a mount has it's own inherent bonuses. Vehicle, like on a donkey cart, I would say yes. Another reference: Pirates of the Carribean. First one. Will and Jack fighting on the "see saw". While Jack is up, he has "high ground". When Will is up, it's reversed.
I would reckon that levitating and Air Walk render you unable to benefit from the leverage/swing that you can gain by bracing yourself against a solid "ground" and things like Levitate, Fly, Air Walk, Cloud Step, Reverse Gravity, and other effects where you are not on a solid surface do not qualify you for "on higher ground" because there is no "ground".
Edit: If the reverse is ruled or proven, I demand a higher cost be placed on Boots of Striding and Springing, because I can see the ballerina pounce warriors horning in on the tactic to eek out that extra +1 constantly...
|
Well, in Mounted Combat, it notes that when you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground.
Nothing states your mount must be on the ground.
Also, Air Walk states that you can tread on air as if walking on solid ground.
I figure this would work the same with a creature using Water Walk, and attacking a creature in the water below.
Now, attacking from a Carpet of Flying is one I am unsure of.
Hmmm, I guess in the case of Air Walk and Mounted Combat they specifically say it, so you get it.
Flying Carpet is a good question. All the references I've seen show a flying carpet as kind of magically undulating as it floats its' way through the air.
Mechanically, it would simply move laterally in Pathfinder, though. Good question.
If meeting the higher ground requirements simply means standing on a surface whilst higher than the opponent, then it would seem to work with say, a Skateboard or Surfboard, as long as you were higher than the opponent.
Indeed. The distance qualifier is unknown. In my games, for simplicity, I'd simply say any square above the opponent that is or qualifies as higher ground, such as Air Walk, Mounted Combat, etc...
Edit: Flying Carpet flys via Overland Flight, which does not specify it's treated as solid ground. I would use flying creature rules for it if it's moving, and would allow Higher Ground if it's hovering. That's probably fair.
Well, higher if you have reach.
Sure. I was disregarding reach to keep the debate simplistic, but of course you'd account for reach as well.
No. Because traveling in the air means you are not "on" ground.
|
Using the ARG, I had a similar vein of thought when I created my insectoid race that flew about on Giant Wasps.
I imagined the Cavalier insectoid being above his opponent, sort of leaping off it to hit and gaining the +5 from being on higher ground (gravity, a sort of natural "zomg this bug guy just jumped out of the sky and beat my face in wth!?" and such, thus garnering the bonus from the feat)and having his Giant Wasp zip around to flank hit and make use of the Teamwork Feats that a Cavalier gains.
It was ultimately a lesson in fun theory crafting, but I never got to play it.
Jumping down from above and falling via gravity is not the same concept as mounted combat, aerial combat, or holding the high ground. For that kind of thing, I'd let you have Pounce-type bonuses, but not High Ground.
You aren't "on" the pole, you're using the pole to basically drop kick someone. Make no mistake, it's a leap attack. The fact that you use a vector such as a pole to plant yourself does not mean you are all-of-a-sudden above that person, qualifying for higher ground.
For instance, pole-vault kick a giant. Do you get higher ground simply because you used a pole? Nope. I might allow it if you're a size category larger than your opponent or more, though.
I very much enjoy your thousand-points-of-interest approach. Well thought out, as usual.
By this logic, Large creatures should get an extra +1 to hit you because they are simply attacking from a greater height.
Higher ground is for just that, when ON higher ground. That it doesn't apply to ranged weapons is a bit unfortunate though.
No. Because traveling in the air means you are not "on" ground.Well, you are on a pole, not hanging in the air.
It is an object and you are on it.
Guess we need to find out what "ground" is for the purposes of "on higher ground".
If you did this with a dawn flower dervish, would it be considered pole dancing?
I very much enjoy your thousand-points-of-interest approach. Well thought out, as usual.I cannot tell if you are using sarcasm. Text and all.
No sarcasm. Full props. You're one of the few I respect on these boards.
If you did this with a dawn flower dervish, would it be considered pole dancing?
Yes. Yes it would.
If you were balancing on an Immovable Rod, would you get the bonus?
Just how does one know what qualifies as "ground" for "on higher ground".
I mean, a castle wall could be called out as not being ground.
Yes, I'd allow it for an immovable rod, but you'd take a penalty for precarious balance unless you had one under each foot.
Ground, while not technically defined by the CRB, would default to a common sense definition of any solid surface or any effect, spell, item, or SLA that qualifies as a solid surface. Standing on it. Not pole vaulting using it. Not jumping up off of it. Not levitating over it.
I think you're looking a bit too far into the "ground" thing. Any solid surface on which is practical to stand or balance, and gravity gives a downward force relative to? A castle wall is not ground if you're springing off of it, but it would if you climbed it via Slippers of Spider Climb. If you're standing ATOP the castle wall, and slicing downward at a giant, I'd give you higher ground.
Too many variables to list every single possibility.
IIRC, to qualify for "On higher ground" requires at least 5 ft of vertical difference between combatants' positions in space. Usually, Medium characters mounted on Large creatures, climbing/standing on a ledge/wall, flying/levitating at least 5 ft higher than your opponent, etc. would qualify. Jumping normally does not, as it does not affect a character's vertical position for placement purposes.
However, you could probably use jumping to qualify for a charge, as long as you can meet the 10 ft movement requirement (i.e., 5 ft move and 5 ft vertical jump).
evidence:
Benefit: Whenever you charge an opponent from higher ground, or from above while flying, you gain a +5 bonus on attack rolls in place of...
that is distinguishing between those conditions as being different, separated by 'or', as in, flying at higher elevation is not 'higher ground'.
evidence:
Benefit: Whenever you charge an opponent from higher ground, or from above while flying, you gain a +5 bonus on attack rolls in place of...that is distinguishing between those conditions as being different, separated by 'or', as in, flying at higher elevation is not 'higher ground'.
The feat is about charging from higher ground (i.e., jumping off a ledge/wall) or from above while flying; normal charge bonus is +2. The difference isn't that flying doesn't qualify for higher ground, but that it's a different movement type, resulting in different conditions on how that movement can be used (i.e., fly spell, "ascend at half speed and descend at double speed").
Really, it's not like a +1 on attack rolls for a creature flying 5 ft off the ground is something that's horribly overpowered, anyway.
Must it be vertical surfaces? Perhaps walking up a wall via Spiderwalk?
That's why the "5 ft difference in vertical position" makes better sense. Two characters climbing a wall can attack each other (hold on with one hand, attack with the other) and the one that is higher has an advantage. Limiting the "higher ground" to "standing on a horizontal surface that is higher" is applying a restriction that, frankly, eliminates entire categories of traditional uses of "higher ground."
I see no reason to disallow getting the "higher ground" bonus from jumping. For one thing, the DC of a standing high jump to get 5' off the ground is 40, which, while it is certainly possible is a lot of work to put into getting a +1 bonus to hit.
I also find the argument that the use of the phrase "on higher ground" in the rulebook implies the need for a character to be specifically ON something, possibly the ground, to be overly semantic. The game does not typically use it's own terminology quite that specifically, and attempts to interpret it without this understanding lead to Trouble.
I'm of the opinion that if you are relatively higher than your opponent, you should be considered to be attacking from higher ground. You have a better angle on them and gravity is working to your benefit. I think it makes sense to give a bonus if you can reasonably be above the opponent. Solid footing seems less important.
I personally think jumping 5 feet off the ground to qualify as higher is reasonable, adjusted appropriately for larger creatures. If you can also use terrain to get that high, such as jumping from a ledge or whatever, that should do it too.
...Also, I kind of want to try designing a Dragoon class now. Hmm.
Edit: Another point of favor for jumping to receive higher ground = Rule of Cool. I mean honestly, a barbarian who jumps up to deliver an overhead chop with a greataxe, or a ninja who dives down with a dagger in hand, sounds so badass.
Ha, you can see my edit for that thought :P
|
|
I would reference the feat Death from Above.
You allow gravity to add extra force to your charges.
Benefit: Whenever you charge an opponent from higher ground, or from above while flying, you gain a +5 bonus on attack rolls in place of the bonuses from charging and being on higher ground.
Which would imply that any flying opponent receives the higher ground bonus when attacking a creature below it.
I would most likely not allow the higher ground bonus for jumping. If for some reason I did allow it, the above feat would become very popular on mobile mooks.
I would reference the feat Death from AboveWhich would imply that any flying opponent receives the higher ground bonus when attacking a creature below it.You allow gravity to add extra force to your charges.
Benefit: Whenever you charge an opponent from higher ground, or from above while flying, you gain a +5 bonus on attack rolls in place of the bonuses from charging and being on higher ground.
...?que?.... do you have a different understanding of 'or' than i do?
i mean, i just referenced that feat several posts up, where i wrote:that [reference] is distinguishing between those conditions as being different, separated by 'or', as in, flying at higher elevation is not 'higher ground'.
if it was characterizing flying as being higher ground, it wouldn't have contrasted it with 'or', it would have said 'such as' or 'including'.
*************************************************************************** *
but your point that death from above would be hugely attractive to just about anybody who charges (who can manage to semi-reliably get a 5' high jump with a running start) is very apt... any situation where you are charging (running) on flat ground is compatable with using it, since entering the square 5' up doesn't break the charge line or make the distance farther than need be*, it is still a 'straight' line with a 'slope' of 1 Y : [charge distance] X.
* unless you happened to already move an odd number of diagonals.
|
Well, I am thinking about combining a jump with a charge.
i have always wondered this myself. i mean, i know how i would do it, but i have always wanted to know the 'official' ruling in this.
like, would you aim the jumping charge into the enemy square (to account for both vertical and horizontal distance), then make your jump check, and either fall prone or gain your +2 (or +3) charging bonus?
|
|
...?que?.... do you have a different understanding of 'or' than i do?
i mean, i just referenced that feat several posts up, where i wrote:
that [reference] is distinguishing between those conditions as being different, separated by 'or', as in, flying at higher elevation is not 'higher ground'.
I read it as:
charge from higher ground
or
charge while flying
Either circumstance will normally give you a +4 bonus to attack, +2 from change and +2 from higher ground.
If allowing high ground while jumping: I envision monks jump kicking.