Elevation and Ranged Attacks

[FocusWolf413]

I'm the DM in a 3.PF game. Should I give a bonus to hit for archers who have the high ground?

Yes:
*You need better cover to protect yourself from attacks from above, if it helps at all.

*It's hard to divide your attention among multiple elevations.

No:
*No rules support, AFAIK.

[Doctor Despair]

3.5 Cragtop Archer has something similar to that, if I remember correctly.

As a DM, the correct answer is: do you want it to? A +2 wouldn't be the most broken thing in the world, and it would reward player creativity

[ExLibrisMortis]

A small bonus is reasonable, especially if it encourages overland tactical movement. "We'll circle around and approach the orc camp from the east, where we'll have high ground and the sun at our backs" is good; "We put our minis on this side of the battle grid because we get a +1 to hit" is not so good (in my view), although it is mechanically the same.

[Mendicant]

Yes.

At a minimum, making certain pieces of cover less useful is already implicit in the rules if you're at a high enough elevation. A 6' high wall might not block line of effect if you're high enough, for instance. More generally, a +2 is hardly game-breaking but rewards thoughtfulness and immersion.

[Diarmuid]

Yes.

At a minimum, making certain pieces of cover less useful is already implicit in the rules if you're at a high enough elevation. A 6' high wall might not block line of effect if you're high enough, for instance. More generally, a +2 is hardly game-breaking but rewards thoughtfulness and immersion.

But isnt potentially negating/diminishing the cover the "bonus" then from the elevated position? Would you be giving an additional bonus on top of that, or would your thought be that a flat +2 is sufficient to account for such things?

[FocusWolf413]

3.5 Cragtop Archer has something similar to that, if I remember correctly.

As a DM, the correct answer is: do you want it to? A +2 wouldn't be the most broken thing in the world, and it would reward player creativity

It's the same as flanking.

Yeah, okay. A +2 for high ground, but it needs to be 10 feet or more.

[Psyren]

Note that high ground can let archers mitigate cover (depending on how you draw the line from their square to that of the enemy). So if you do give them a bonus for being up there, keep in mind it may end up being bigger than you thought, if being up there also reduces the target's cover to partial or removes it entirely.

[Mendicant]

Yes.

At a minimum, making certain pieces of cover less useful is already implicit in the rules if you're at a high enough elevation. A 6' high wall might not block line of effect if you're high enough, for instance. More generally, a +2 is hardly game-breaking but rewards thoughtfulness and immersion.

Personally, I'd give the +2 for a significant elevation advantage, and only work out the effects on cover if we were dealing with total cover.

[Rainshine]

Not only is there no rules support for a bonus, but in PF, there IS rules support for no bonus -- it is listed as 0 in the the Player's Handbook. What I would be more likely to do in a game if I felt reducing cover insufficient s give an increased range increment (or better yet, number of increments allowed) for sufficient elevation.

[icefractal]

I'd give a bit of extra range, if anything. Maybe +1/4 height to the range increment (so +10' for being 40' up), probably with a max of 1.5x normal.