It doesn't matter if I'm using a bow, or a sniper rifle, if I have high ground, I'll have an advantage, double that if I have cover. Your net benefit is also wrong. You don't have a +10 to hit because you have high ground, you have the advantage roll, + any bonuses you may have, and minus any penalties, are you human, shooting into a darker zone? The penalty to your opponent does not affect your hit chance. Being higher does, because, as in the example laid out in the post I replied to, you can shoot over that cover, whether that's another NPC, or a boulder, or a barricade. There's a reason snipers go for high ground today. I don't really want to go into the full physics of projectiles here, but we'll suffice it to say that arrows or bullets do not climb higher as they fly farther, but drop, and that drop can be significant, according to the range, and the initial velocity of the projectile.
Attack with
Advantage in DnD world means just better accuracy. But high ground advantage in real world actually means two different things: 1. higher damage due to ballistics and gravity 2. better accuracy due to overcomming eventual obstacles. If we had proper cover mechanics in BG3, which gives flat bonus to AC, then it would be possible to implement high ground to counter this flat cover bonus and maybe adds some extra damage. But I believe we should not add the
DnD Advantage to those attack. They are not more accurate
per se. I still believe it's a little bit harder to shot somebody from above because lesser hitbox. It's really just a way to overcome obstacles and deals higher damage if I will hit the target.
