rmcoen
Adventurer
Right, that's what I was thinking. When you're doing 1d6+10, the d6 isn't as relevant (hence the "essentially just -2 damage" comment). In 5e it tends to be 1d8+4, and there are only 2 range increments, so it is slightly more relevant (30% swing in damage, say), but it's still just "-2 damage" (ish). For monsters, though, their ranged attacks can be heavily dice-based. If the Stone Giant throws a rock at you, that's 28 damage (4d10+6); if it's at Long Range, with this house rule, long-range is a much safer place (4d10 twice, take lowest total, then add 6)!The real reason though that I don't bother applying disadvantage to damage beyond 5 range increments or something (I run 3e) is that IME the random size of damage dice mostly only matters at low level. The difference between ~2 average damage and about 3.5 average damage is pretty big, but the difference between 7 average damage or 8.5 damage isn't that big. In the long run D&D weapon attack damage depends on the bonuses more than the size of the die.