Height advantage with Ranged Weapons?

[Socko525]

What I mean is, is there any advantage to having the higher ground as far as game mechanics go? A suggestion brought up to my group was if an archer has high ground and is firing down on enemies below that his attacks would have advantage. Not sure if this is cannon, but in my head that seems to make sense so I thought maybe I read it somehwere.

Flipping through the DMG and PHB though, I couldn't find anything on this, but perhaps I wasn't looking under the right section?

If it's not a rule, do you think this would be game breaking to house rule?

[Mr.Moron]

The GM can grant advantage any time they think they circumstances favor your attacks. If you're the GM and you think the attacker's higher position would be a help in that situation grant advantage.

No need for a universal ruling, in case something about your relative positions makes so that even though the attacker is higher, it isn't a help to them. Like defender is under some kind of outcropping or or the terrain on the higher ground means you can't leverage it properly.

There are way to many circumstances and variables to when you might or might not get advantage, it's judgement call. "We've got a good position" is certainly something fair to grant advantage for.

[Giant2005]

I don't think having advantage for being on higher ground is really fair. What it does do however is increase your target area so the people beneath you would need to find larger areas of cover than they would ordinarily require in order to be covered. The opposite is true of the person with the higher ground - they would need less cover to be adequately covered.
The ground between them could also be considered difficult terrain if the incline is sufficient which really reduces the options of those stuck below.

[SharkForce]

height advantage is also gravity advantage for ranged attacks. you really can put more force into that shot (or rather, gravity will do that for you).

[Shining Wrath]

It's not automatic because as Mr Moron notes there can be mitigating circumstances.

In WWII being able to fire through the top armor on a tank was a huge advantage if you could gain it because that armor was thinner. That's one example of a situation where plunging fire should gain advantage - firing down into a phalanx until they move their shields.

[Chronos]

It should also increase your range. I know that mixing real-world physics with game rules is dangerous, but in this case the result of the real-world physics is so simple that it's amazing that the game designers didn't include it by accident. In the real world, a shooter being at a higher elevation than the target increases the maximum range by an amount equal to the height difference, and a shooter at a lower elevation decreases the maximum range by the same amount.

[LordVonDerp]

Cover comes to mind

[SharkForce]

It should also increase your range. I know that mixing real-world physics with game rules is dangerous, but in this case the result of the real-world physics is so simple that it's amazing that the game designers didn't include it by accident. In the real world, a shooter being at a higher elevation than the target increases the maximum range by an amount equal to the height difference, and a shooter at a lower elevation decreases the maximum range by the same amount.

with the caveat that extreme height eventually stops being beneficial, yes.

(that is, if you're a mile up, you probably can't shoot a mile further because acceleration due to gravity is vastly more significant than acceleration due to your bow at that point, and even if you could you probably couldn't hit them at that distance anyways apart from incredible amounts of luck).

[Chronos]

I should clarify that that's the total three-dimensional distance, not just the horizontal component of distance. If you're a mile up, then you can throw something a mile just by dropping it.

And of course, it also assumes ballistic motion (no air resistance or other forces besides gravity) and a flat world, but those are pretty standard physics assumptions.

[MOLOKH]

I gave ranged attacks from higher ground advantage in the campaign I'm running and it seemed good at the time. Some lizardfolk were throwing javelins at the party from a flight of stairs and their positioning mitigated the range penalties. It backfired, however. When the Warlock learned Fly he started blasting at everything from a 100 feet in the air with advantage and there was no logic to say 'no' to him since we've been playing it that way all along. It hasn't been game-breaking, but it definitely feels unfair. Flying and shooting characters/creatures already have quite an advantage over melee ones. I won't retcon the house rule, but I wouldn't recommend using it unless there are other sircumstances.

[SharkForce]

i'm not convinced that beams (or bolts, or whatever EB fires) of force benefit from gravity the way that physical objects like arrows do.

[TheOOB]

I defiantly would not grant advantage for higher ground on a ranged attack. At most I'd grant an attack bonus, but probably not even then. Advantage is intentionally not supposed to be given out in blanket cases as it doesn't stack with itself. It's supposed to be a reward for play ingenuity, and not something that just happens. Further, the advantage of being able to shoot your foes while not being able to be melee attacked is reward enough.

[Cyan Wisp]

Interestingly, 3e rules gave a bonus to attacking on higher ground only to melee attackers. Is this because, at higher elevations, ranged attacks are at a smaller target, so no advantage is gained (or it cancels out)?

[hymer]

Interestingly, 3e rules gave a bonus to attacking on higher ground only to melee attackers. Is this because, at higher elevations, ranged attacks are at a smaller target, so no advantage is gained (or it cancels out)?

I think you'll find that the human(oid) body works better slightly bent forward (attacking down) than the opposite. You're automatically slightly off balance when engaging at an upwards angle, giving your opponent an advantage.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned: Shooting at a humanoid with equidistant shoulders to you and at your own altitude gives you the largest surface you could hope to be shooting at. Attacking straight from above is the very smallest surface you can hope to shoot at. So there's another point out of favour.
I agree with previous posters that cover is harder to get against someone shooting from above; I think this command of the field of fire is probably the main advantage in hitting when shooting from a height.