I don't recall any rules in particular, but depending on the situation, granting the players on the high ground half cover would mechanically cover the defensible aspect of the high ground.
There aren’t any high ground rules in this edition. In older versions there used to be +/- 1 or 2 if you were on high vs low. But this edition swept away virtually all situational modifiers in favor of advantage/disadvantage, which, for the record, I am not suggesting you use for high ground. Jhaffan’s partial cover sounds like a good house rule if you want to use it, though.
High Ground can grant cancel disadvantage of shooting at prone targets with a ranged weapon if within a radius of the height difference, would be a reasonable, realistic house rule.
Attacking someone with high ground in melee can result in your legs falling in lava...
High Ground can grant cancel disadvantage of shooting at prone targets with a ranged weapon if within a radius of the height difference, would be a reasonable, realistic house rule.
Attacking someone with high ground in melee can result in your legs falling in lava...
One benefit of high ground can simply be, if the terrain is steep enough, enemies have to move at half speed* to reach you, giving you more time to attack from a distance or prepare countermeasures. No homebrew required either since that's RAW.
I miss some of the old rules about high ground, flank and rear attacks and others that were done away with in 5e. Folks here have already given you some good advice. For most of it you'll have to home-brew, exepting what Charles pointed out. If you want do draw on 2e rules you can check out this link for combat modifiers.
I agree with what everyone else has kind of already said, giving half cover or something along those lines. Advantage/disadvantage is overused a little bit, so giving cover or something like that would make a little bit more interesting. If you wanted to stick with advantage/disadvantage, you run into the problem of giving rogues more sneak attack opportunities and the higher change for crits and whatnot. If you are okay with that, then I say go for it. Ultimately, I think using your best judgement and sticking with whatever method you decide to do will work just fine.
Fun fact about real combat, high ground is not advantageous in melee 1 on 1. It is good for shooting and armies, but not duels and the like, because it's easy to protect the head since the arms grow near it, and hard to protect the legs. Also, the person below can offend the torso and legs, while the person above can only go for the head.
There aren’t any high ground rules in this edition. In older versions there used to be +/- 1 or 2 if you were on high vs low. But this edition swept away virtually all situational modifiers in favor of advantage/disadvantage, which, for the record, I am not suggesting you use for high ground. Jhaffan’s partial cover sounds like a good house rule if you want to use it, though.
Obi-Wan Kenobi would be in favor of ADV for having the high ground.
What high ground provides is range for missile weapons (but necessarily spells) and the ability to perceive enemy motions more clearly in large scale battles. Ideally if you have the high ground you add palisades/berms, etc to protect the lower half of your body while leaving the foe’s entire body open to attack. Certainly climbing a steep slope would also be difficult terrain slowing the attackers giving more time for missile attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi everyone. I've been looking around for any office rules on elevation in combat and what having the high ground might grant a player.
I don't recall any rules in particular, but depending on the situation, granting the players on the high ground half cover would mechanically cover the defensible aspect of the high ground.
There aren’t any high ground rules in this edition. In older versions there used to be +/- 1 or 2 if you were on high vs low. But this edition swept away virtually all situational modifiers in favor of advantage/disadvantage, which, for the record, I am not suggesting you use for high ground.
Jhaffan’s partial cover sounds like a good house rule if you want to use it, though.
High Ground can grant cancel disadvantage of shooting at prone targets with a ranged weapon if within a radius of the height difference, would be a reasonable, realistic house rule.
Attacking someone with high ground in melee can result in your legs falling in lava...
This is what I was hoping to see here.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I thought you would have seen it on Mustafar.
One benefit of high ground can simply be, if the terrain is steep enough, enemies have to move at half speed* to reach you, giving you more time to attack from a distance or prepare countermeasures. No homebrew required either since that's RAW.
*unless the enemy has a climbing speed
I miss some of the old rules about high ground, flank and rear attacks and others that were done away with in 5e. Folks here have already given you some good advice. For most of it you'll have to home-brew, exepting what Charles pointed out. If you want do draw on 2e rules you can check out this link for combat modifiers.
http://people.wku.edu/charles.plemons/ad&d/flight_of_the_phoenix/reference_revised_combat_rules.pdf
That's what happens when you wear a helmet your whole life!
My house rules
I agree with what everyone else has kind of already said, giving half cover or something along those lines. Advantage/disadvantage is overused a little bit, so giving cover or something like that would make a little bit more interesting. If you wanted to stick with advantage/disadvantage, you run into the problem of giving rogues more sneak attack opportunities and the higher change for crits and whatnot. If you are okay with that, then I say go for it. Ultimately, I think using your best judgement and sticking with whatever method you decide to do will work just fine.
Fun fact about real combat, high ground is not advantageous in melee 1 on 1. It is good for shooting and armies, but not duels and the like, because it's easy to protect the head since the arms grow near it, and hard to protect the legs. Also, the person below can offend the torso and legs, while the person above can only go for the head.
That depends on the degree of difference in elevation and what each combatant is attacking with.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Obi-Wan Kenobi would be in favor of ADV for having the high ground.
What high ground provides is range for missile weapons (but necessarily spells) and the ability to perceive enemy motions more clearly in large scale battles. Ideally if you have the high ground you add palisades/berms, etc to protect the lower half of your body while leaving the foe’s entire body open to attack. Certainly climbing a steep slope would also be difficult terrain slowing the attackers giving more time for missile attacks.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.