Ok so I got in an argument with my GM abt this and I cant find anything on the internet. If the enemy has an advantage in this scenario high ground and I want to attack him. Do I role with a disadvantage????
The DM is allowed to rule when a scenario provides advantage and disadvantage. The rules identify some instances were these are applied; but there is nothing preventing the DM from applying them to a circumstance.
In the scenario you mentioned, I see it as reasonable that creatures with the high ground have advantage on attacks and the creatures on the low ground have disadvantage. Provided this rule is universal for PC and NPC, I do not see an issue. The DM, however, should make this clear so all parties at the table understand prior to making decisions for their characters.
To be more specific, a creature that has advantage with an action in scenario doesn't mean that its other creatures all have disadvantage to challenge or replicate the action. It is a situational basis. In this case, I can see how high ground (in particular with range weapons) makes sense to pose advantage or disadvantage based on the characters position.
The rules don't specifically grant dis/advantage to attack roll in lower or higher ground.. But a DM can always decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result. So it's really up to the DM.
Advantage and Disadvantage: You usually gain advantage or disadvantage through the use of special abilities, actions, or spells. Inspiration can also give a character advantage. The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.
As a counter example, the Barbarian’s Reckless Attack feature grants the Barbarian Advantage on their attacks, but also Advantage to enemies attacking them.
So, indeed, one creature having Advantage does not automatically impose Disadvantage on attacks against them.
(I could envisage a scenario where being in an elevated, exposed position might give a creature Advantage on their attacks, whereas attacks against them might have Disadvantage if made in melee but not if made with ranged weapons or by Large or bigger creatures. That would all be within the DM’s ruling.)
It is within the DMs purview to decide when advantage and disadvantage apply.
That said, personally, I probably would not use advantage/disadvantage for a situational height advantage. How much easier is it to shoot down on a target? Your ammunition could fall out of the weapon :). What advantage does height give making the target that much easier to hit? If you were firing at long ranges then firing down might be easier because the ammunition would not lose energy as quickly. However a firer still has to take into account flight path, arc, projectile velocity, wind and other factors when trying to hit. I don't see these factors being that much easier when firing down. Or that much more difficult when firing up. (feel free to correct me :) ... I have no experience firing a bow or similar weapon :) ).
In my case, I would tend to use the cover rules and give the creature with height advantage partial cover from shots from below. Whatever they are standing on, unless they are standing on the very edge, is likely to interfere with the shot from below. A cover benefit that the creature walking around on the ground doesn't have.
Depending on the specifics, I would either award half or 3/4 cover to the creature with the height advantage against shots attacking them. I would not give the creature on higher ground an improved chance to hit the target.
If I really wanted to get detailed, then I might impose a to hit penalty on both the higher and lower creature because the cross section of the target will get smaller the closer you are to firing straight up or down. However, that would be a rare situation and not worth implementing for 5e.
P.S. If the height advantage was less than the range to the target I would probably not use either cover or advantage/disadvantage.
Ok so I got in an argument with my GM abt this and I cant find anything on the internet. If the enemy has an advantage in this scenario high ground and I want to attack him. Do I role with a disadvantage????
The DM is allowed to rule when a scenario provides advantage and disadvantage. The rules identify some instances were these are applied; but there is nothing preventing the DM from applying them to a circumstance.
In the scenario you mentioned, I see it as reasonable that creatures with the high ground have advantage on attacks and the creatures on the low ground have disadvantage. Provided this rule is universal for PC and NPC, I do not see an issue. The DM, however, should make this clear so all parties at the table understand prior to making decisions for their characters.
To be more specific, a creature that has advantage with an action in scenario doesn't mean that its other creatures all have disadvantage to challenge or replicate the action. It is a situational basis. In this case, I can see how high ground (in particular with range weapons) makes sense to pose advantage or disadvantage based on the characters position.
The rules don't specifically grant dis/advantage to attack roll in lower or higher ground.. But a DM can always decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result. So it's really up to the DM.
As a counter example, the Barbarian’s Reckless Attack feature grants the Barbarian Advantage on their attacks, but also Advantage to enemies attacking them.
So, indeed, one creature having Advantage does not automatically impose Disadvantage on attacks against them.
(I could envisage a scenario where being in an elevated, exposed position might give a creature Advantage on their attacks, whereas attacks against them might have Disadvantage if made in melee but not if made with ranged weapons or by Large or bigger creatures. That would all be within the DM’s ruling.)
It is within the DMs purview to decide when advantage and disadvantage apply.
That said, personally, I probably would not use advantage/disadvantage for a situational height advantage. How much easier is it to shoot down on a target? Your ammunition could fall out of the weapon :). What advantage does height give making the target that much easier to hit? If you were firing at long ranges then firing down might be easier because the ammunition would not lose energy as quickly. However a firer still has to take into account flight path, arc, projectile velocity, wind and other factors when trying to hit. I don't see these factors being that much easier when firing down. Or that much more difficult when firing up. (feel free to correct me :) ... I have no experience firing a bow or similar weapon :) ).
In my case, I would tend to use the cover rules and give the creature with height advantage partial cover from shots from below. Whatever they are standing on, unless they are standing on the very edge, is likely to interfere with the shot from below. A cover benefit that the creature walking around on the ground doesn't have.
Depending on the specifics, I would either award half or 3/4 cover to the creature with the height advantage against shots attacking them. I would not give the creature on higher ground an improved chance to hit the target.
If I really wanted to get detailed, then I might impose a to hit penalty on both the higher and lower creature because the cross section of the target will get smaller the closer you are to firing straight up or down. However, that would be a rare situation and not worth implementing for 5e.
P.S. If the height advantage was less than the range to the target I would probably not use either cover or advantage/disadvantage.