D&D 5E (2024) How to make ranged attack more hazardous for the user.

[James Gasik]

Thinking about is maybe a rule like

"If you are not armed with a melee weapon, melee attacks against you are done at advantage. "

Should Monks have to carry a weapon? What about a shield?

 

[Horwath]

Should Monks have to carry a weapon? What about a shield?

let's say that you need "trained" unarmed strike.
shield can be a weapon and that might qualify to remove advantage.

 

[TigerDude]

I think the advantages of ranged attacks are mitigated by proper use of cover rules (super rare in practice).

But in general, having mobs that aren't just all on one side of the map qnd/or having cover from ranged attacks does a good job of stopping ranged characters from being so strong.

Certainly you can nerf ranged attacks however you like, just make sure you do it in session 0.

 

[Koloth]

Good defense against ranged attack is ranged attack. When goblin archers start targeting the party's archers, its all fair. Whatever the party has available for attacks, or defense, the opposition should have available as well.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

The biggest problem with ranged attacks being too good came from Feats - sharpshooter removed all penalties to ranged attacks (cover/disadv), and crossbow expert allowed ranged to outpace melee in damage. This problem persists in with the 2024 versions of the feats.

Generally i think its better to make melee stronger than ranged weaker - using Flanking will make melee combatants more threatening than ranged ones, since ranged attackers cannot provide flanking or benefit from it.

 

[Krachek]

Conclusion
All ranged based character will take the feat to ignore the penalties. The more the penalties will be severe, the more it will be a must pick.
Caster will pick one backup cantrip that use a save rather ranged attack.

So you won’t see the penalties in use, except for rare case.