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.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Penalties are only meaningful if they cannot be mitigated.

 

[James Gasik]

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

So if natural weapons are ok, then I can see species like lizardfolk or tabaxi becoming more popular.

I"m assuming improvised weapons are out (unless maybe proficient in their use? Could create a Tavern Brawler loophole). I can see problems with casters who use non-weapon focuses that take up a a hand- if you can use a staff or shield you're alright, but anything else is pretty much "you're SOL", even when using melee range spells like Shocking Grasp.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

I sometimes play archers but I often feel guilty afterwards.

I don't think it's necessary to bring in other situations like digging around in your backpack for an item, administering aid to a fallen comrade, or drinking a potion. Like it has been said, "5e doesn't really lean into realism."

However, I often feel 'dirty' after playing an archer. Maybe ranged combat could benefit from a bit of "realism". Like what Horwath originally proposed rather than all the 'problems' proposed. Just address archery. If those other things are problematic then I would suggest addressing them individually.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Some rulesets allow you to have a bonus if you take an action or move action to aim instead of moving.

I've added a house rule a few times where if you moved, you had either a malus or disadvantage on your ranged attacks. You either took the time to aim and shoot, or you skipped around and did a quick shot. It seemed to work, players didn't want to move and so they chose their position much more carefully.

You could also make it so if you move, you can't shoot. Or if you shoot, your movespeed is reduced. It forces ranged characters to eventually get caught by melees if they're getting chased.