I know there are a number of you out there who agree with me that archery is too powerful in 5e. (If you don't agree that's fine; my goal with this isn't to argue the point.). Rather than rein in the damage across the board, I'd like to see its effectiveness vary situationally.
Assuming you agree, at least to some extrent, what are thoughts about the following options? Any other suggestions?
(These aren't meant to be applied all together....these are just different ideas.)
Personally, I think archery is perfectly fair as long as you enforce all of the rules around it (which not everyone does) - ammo tracking, cover, disadvantage while in melee, etc. To that end, I would highly recommend removing or modifying the crossbow expert and sharpshooter feats, as they both allow players to ignore some of these rules, thereby breaking archery in my opinion.
No sneak attack beyond a certain range (30' or whatever)
Eh, this one only affects rogues, and I think the ability to sneak attack with ranged attacks is a very important survivability feature for rogues.
Disadvantage against targets in melee combat with creatures their size or larger.
This doesn’t seem unreasonable, though personally I would just stick to the cover rules. Creatures of the same size or one size smaller grant half cover, creatures of greater size grant 3/4 cover.
Archery provokes AoO if used within 5' of an enemy. (Maybe only applies to crossbows/bows, but not thrown.)
I wouldn’t use this one. It complicates attacks of opportunity by adding more things that grant them, and it’s probably a less potent balancing factor in practice than it seems on paper since it costs a reaction,
Use cover rules if other characters are in melee combat with.
Yep, definitely do this, and your allies grant cover as well as your enemies. I find this rule often gets ignored and it makes ranged attacks far better than intended.
If shooting into a melee, if you miss by 5 or more, roll an attack against an ally. (DM's choice)
I like the idea behind this, but the specific mechanic feels clunky to me. Instead, I would simply apply the optional “hitting cover” rules from the DMG if you want to model the risk of hitting the wrong target when firing into melee.
Use your bonus action (to aim)
Considering this is one of the optional enhancements for rogues in the class features UA, I would not make this an option for everyone. Instead, I’d say make Aim an action that gives you advantage on your next ranged attack against the target (basically a nonmagical Truestrike that only works with ranged attacks) and let rogues Aim as a bonus action with Cunning Action.
Voluntarily roll with disadvantage (not cancelled if you have Advantage for some reason)
I don’t understand this... Are you saying that doing so would allow you to ignore penalties such as from cover? If so, I would not recommend this.
Forego additional attack(s) if you have one (again, to aim)
I see what you’re going for here, but I think my proposed revision to your Aim rule accomplishes the goal more effectively. If aiming is an action and only works on your next attack against the target, characters with extra attack are giving up two attacks on one turn to make one of their attacks on their next turn with advantage. Frankly, it’s a bad tradeoff for extra attackers most of the time, but might situationally be worthwhile for them. Rogues who could do it as a bonus action don’t have extra attack to worry about, and multiclassing to get both is a heavy build investment, so it seems fair.
Ban them, I say. Or change them so they don’t circumvent cover or the disadvantage for firing into melee. Both are very important balancing factors to ranged attacks that should not be circumvented.
