D&D 5E Nerfing Archery

[CleverNickName]

I agree that archery in 5th Edition is incredibly powerful. It's tactically superior to melee combat in many ways, and it can be optimized more easily for high hit rate and high damage output. And I'm okay with it.

The best way to reign it in, IMO, is to track ammunition and encumbrance, and be very strict about both.

 

[Stoutstien]

No, that's not RAW to my knowledge. It says you can get half cover from a creature, but there is no rule that all creatures provide half cover, and no rule that melee combat means everyone in melee combat gets half cover. That's a DM ruling to make it so, not RAW.

Well the 'DM makes the final call' is 5e rule zero so the semantics of 'can' is largely redundant. It is also equally possible that the 'can' is framed in context of it only provides cover when it's a factor vs a constant state like a shield's AC.
Reading the half cover section it seems that creatures provide half cover is the standard rule.

 

[Charlaquin]

What I've considered:

• Longbows require strength, not dex. Shortbows still use dex.
• Modify Sharpshooter, it doesn't allow you to ignore cover.
• Remove crossbow expertise.

That, along with enforcing cover and other penalties is probably enough for me. I don't want to totally nerf ranged casters, I just don't want someone shooting a guard that peeps through an arrow slit at 200 yards with no penalty.

Ranged casting is a slightly different beast in my opinion. Unlike archery it does not require ammunition, and many ranged cantrips’ origin point is in the target’s space, which allows them to circumvent cover. Cantrips also scale more aggressively than weapon attacks, though this is somewhat mitigated by the lack of damage bonus.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well the 'DM makes the final call' is 5e rule zero so the semantics of 'can' is largely redundant. It is also equally possible that the 'can' is framed in context of it only provides cover when it's a factor vs a constant state like a shield's AC.
Reading the half cover section it seems that creatures provide half cover is the standard rule.

If creatures in melee gave everyone else in melee half cover, it would say that. It doesn't. So not RAW. It's entirely circumstantial, where the DM has to look at the situation and make a call. That's the opposite of RAW.

 

[Charlaquin]

If creatures in melee gave everyone else in melee half cover, it would say that. It doesn't. So not RAW. It's entirely circumstantial, where the DM has to look at the situation and make a call. That's the opposite of RAW.

Yeah, that “can” I think makes it pretty clear that it’s up to the DM to decide when a creature does or doesn’t provide cover to another creature. Personally, I think you get the best results by having allies and enemies alike count as half cover for any creatures they are interposed between. But I’ve had plenty of DMs who say allies your don’t grant cover to your targets (heck, I’ve been that DM) and plenty who don’t bother having creatures grant other creatures cover. Technically any of those interpretations are valid under RAW.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I think the best way to handle it is to cut down on accuracy bonuses like Archery Fighting Style and ignoring cover like Sharpshooter feat. Then I'd cut down on the Archer's mobility. Their weapons already have Range built in, moving on top of that compounds the advantage of range weapons. Perhaps something like for each ranged weapon attack you make on your turn reduce movement speed for that turn by half.

 

[Stoutstien]

If creatures in melee gave everyone else in melee half cover, it would say that. It doesn't. So not RAW. It's entirely circumstantial, where the DM has to look at the situation and make a call. That's the opposite of RAW.

The DM making the call is realistically the only RAW concept in 5e. Saying creatures may or may not provide cover isn't the issue but a GM having an issue with the general power of ranged weapon users and not using the built is cover 'option' provided by the rules is.
No reason to add a bunch of rules to a part of the game that is mostly ok when there are others parts that could use that attention.

 

[Stoutstien]

Ranged casting is a slightly different beast in my opinion. Unlike archery it does not require ammunition, and many ranged cantrips’ origin point is in the target’s space, which allows them to circumvent cover. Cantrips also scale more aggressively than weapon attacks, though this is somewhat mitigated by the lack of damage bonus.

Most of the spells that bypass cover are saved based to begin with and cover does provide a bonus to Dex saves. Spells like chill touch still target ACs and cover adds to AC regardless of how the spell manifests.

 

[Charlaquin]

Most of the spells that bypass cover are saved based to begin with and cover does provide a bonus to Dex saves. Spells like chill touch still target ACs and cover adds to AC regardless of how the spell manifests.

Cover provides bonus to Dex saves, yes, but cover for spells is determined based on line of “sight” from their point of origin, not from the caster’s space. This is relevant for spells like Sacred Flame, for example, which is avoided with a Dex save, but the point of origin is in the target’s space, so there is no way to gain cover from it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Modify Sharpshooter, it doesn't allow you to ignore cover.

I'd remove the "Power Attack" part long before I removed that part. It's a convenience for me as DM not to have to worry about adjudicating cover, and and IMO sells the "cool factor" of the feat letting you thread arrows into narrow openings better than the big old number adjustment.

The corollary of this is to be religious about adjudicating cover for PCs who do not have the feat, in order to emphasize how cool the feat is.