Melee based campaign -- adv to hit ranged wielders

[Madeiner]

I'm in the process of preparing for a new campaign.
It's going to have a lot of overland combat, possibly beginning at extreme ranges, and i want to disincetivize ranged attacks for PCs, to maintain a certain "feel" of the game.
Otherwise, with archery having clear advantages overland, and being "normal" in enclosed locations, it would get too powerful and dominate the game.

I was thinking of a rule like this:

- When you are subject to a melee attack and you don't have a melee weapon with which you are proficient in your hand, the attacker has advantage to hit you. (Fists count, if proficient/monk, and if not using a ranged weapon in another hand)

I'd also strictly enforce rules for switching weapons (i currently don't) and possibly institute an AoO for picking up a weapon on the ground.

What do you say? Of course it is meant to deincentivize (read: nerf) ranged combat.
I'm still looking for something else: if enemies do not use ranged weapons (and they culturally dont use them much), and PCs do, and the encounter begins at 600 ft, then the encounter is decided already. What can i do, rules-wise or even story-wise, do have more balanced encounters?
Historically, how did a group of warriors approach and attack in melee versus a group of archers?

[JumboWheat01]

Big ol' shields, or portable cover. Portable cover is particularly useful, you can put it on wheels and roll it safely towards your enemies as you are now completely covered and unable to be hit by ranged weaponry.

[JellyPooga]

Historically, how did a group of warriors approach and attack in melee versus a group of archers?

In open battle? Largely by having archers of their own and by using shields (both hand-held and the larger pavisse style mobile cover) and/or cover.

I'm not so sure you really need to nerf archery to maintain the feel you're going for. Adapting the terrain and tactics to accommodate a more melee-friendly environment should do the trick. You can't shoot something behind hard cover; low walls, rocky outcrops, groves of trees and so forth provide ample cover in an outdoor environment for a melee-oriented force to advance behind. Indoors, make layouts more "realistic"; corridors that are less than 5ft wide and rarely more than a dozen feet long, rooms to similar scale, spiral stairs that are 5ft in diameter and otherwise cutting down the utility of a ranged attack by confining the dimensions should all help incentivise melee combat over ranged.

[MrStabby]

A softer approach may involve weather/environment.

Between night time (most dark vision radius isn't huge), fog clouds, high wind, cover and the occasional indoors fight it should be possible to keep things balanced without needing too many rules changes. Disadvantage for shooting into the sun to cover the rest.

Whatever your fix, bear in mind long range spells like eldritch blast (which you can cast with a sword in hand).

[Thrudd]

I'm in the process of preparing for a new campaign.
It's going to have a lot of overland combat, possibly beginning at extreme ranges, and i want to disincetivize ranged attacks for PCs, to maintain a certain "feel" of the game.
Otherwise, with archery having clear advantages overland, and being "normal" in enclosed locations, it would get too powerful and dominate the game.

I was thinking of a rule like this:

- When you are subject to a melee attack and you don't have a melee weapon with which you are proficient in your hand, the attacker has advantage to hit you. (Fists count, if proficient/monk, and if not using a ranged weapon in another hand)

I'd also strictly enforce rules for switching weapons (i currently don't) and possibly institute an AoO for picking up a weapon on the ground.

What do you say? Of course it is meant to deincentivize (read: nerf) ranged combat.
I'm still looking for something else: if enemies do not use ranged weapons (and they culturally dont use them much), and PCs do, and the encounter begins at 600 ft, then the encounter is decided already. What can i do, rules-wise or even story-wise, do have more balanced encounters?
Historically, how did a group of warriors approach and attack in melee versus a group of archers?

Armor with helmets especially, shields. Charging to cover the distance quickly enough that they don't get too many shots off. Advancing under cover of their own archers. Cavalry is especially effective for covering distance quickly and flanking formations of archers. In an environment where battle is taking place on open plains, cavalry will be very important.

[SharkForce]

ranged (barring the use of crossbow expert feat) is already penalized when they are forced into melee. if you want ranged to be less valued, you should probably focus on making it more difficult to use at long range by having enemies make good use of cover, stealth, concealment (if some sort of smoke-screen is readily available to help close distance that makes a big difference), fast movement, etc.

one effective way can also be to keep track of ammunition more closely (though unfortunately it can also be quite annoying sometimes). 20 arrows does not last very long, and ranged combat doesn't sound nearly as appealing when you're probably going to be quickly reduced to using thrown rocks or at best a sling with regular stones. if it isn't easy to recover your used ammunition, and if enemies don't have any themselves, it can run out very quickly. you could also play around with spell ranges, since those generally do not require ammunition; for example, you could cut the range of all cantrips substantially and increase the range of limited-use spells somewhat (so that for example they can use a magic missile to strike at distant targets... but only for as long as their spell slots hold out, which probably won't be a very long time).

[Ruslan]

I was thinking of a rule like this:

- When you are subject to a melee attack and you don't have a melee weapon with which you are proficient in your hand, the attacker has advantage to hit you. (Fists count, if proficient/monk, and if not using a ranged weapon in another hand)
I'd change that to "melee weapon or shield", but otherwise makes sense.

[Vogonjeltz]

What do you say? Of course it is meant to deincentivize (read: nerf) ranged combat.
I'm still looking for something else: if enemies do not use ranged weapons (and they culturally dont use them much), and PCs do, and the encounter begins at 600 ft, then the encounter is decided already. What can i do, rules-wise or even story-wise, do have more balanced encounters?
Historically, how did a group of warriors approach and attack in melee versus a group of archers?

I mean, if you're the DM, why are you starting the encounter at 600 ft? Is this on a wide featureless plain of very short grass? You do have the ability to change the circumstances.

That being said, using ranged weapons is simply a smart thing to do, precisely because they are more effective. If the culture being fought against is really eschewing ranged weapons, they're going to get annihilated by any and all competitors, and rightly so.

If the opposing culture just doesn't have access to ranged weapons (why?) then they would have had to develop some method of attack that employs cover/concealment to avoid being massacred.

Otherwise, just let nature take its course. Also worth noting, ranged weapons already have smaller damage dice, and introducing a houserule that further reduces their value is likely to just discourage several classes and/or types of builds (But perhaps that's your intention?).

You might consider being very up front with your players about that intent, so as to avoid them building towards a concept that you are intentionally torpedoing. That would lead to very unecessary conflict.

[D.U.P.A.]

If the adventure takes place mostly open plains, it is obvious that people will be surely uses horses and other mounts. They have like double the speed of people and the more easily reach the archers. Also give them mounted combat feat and they will be very tough even if only melee. Note that only 1/4 of range is without disadvantage for long ranged weapons, so archers will be firing with disadvantage most of the time.

However your suggestion does not improve situation you are describing, because it happen only when melee reaches archers, the main problem you addressed is melee even to reach the archers.

[Mellack]

You know what group did very well on open plains? Mounted archers. Open areas are great for hit and run. I understand that the OP wants more melee, but the situation seems to heavily favor ranged. Maybe try something that has more cover available, such as lots of rocky outcroppings.

[djreynolds]

I'm in the process of preparing for a new campaign.
It's going to have a lot of overland combat, possibly beginning at extreme ranges, and i want to disincetivize ranged attacks for PCs, to maintain a certain "feel" of the game.
Otherwise, with archery having clear advantages overland, and being "normal" in enclosed locations, it would get too powerful and dominate the game.

I was thinking of a rule like this:

- When you are subject to a melee attack and you don't have a melee weapon with which you are proficient in your hand, the attacker has advantage to hit you. (Fists count, if proficient/monk, and if not using a ranged weapon in another hand)

I'd also strictly enforce rules for switching weapons (i currently don't) and possibly institute an AoO for picking up a weapon on the ground.

What do you say? Of course it is meant to deincentivize (read: nerf) ranged combat.
I'm still looking for something else: if enemies do not use ranged weapons (and they culturally dont use them much), and PCs do, and the encounter begins at 600 ft, then the encounter is decided already. What can i do, rules-wise or even story-wise, do have more balanced encounters?
Historically, how did a group of warriors approach and attack in melee versus a group of archers?

You brought your own archers. Goblin archers, orc archers, and make sure they are picking up arrows and have the background or skill or tool proficiency to make more or repair arrows. Limit merchants and wood for arrows.

Arrows shot using the sharpshooter feat have a bigger chance of breaking upon impact.

Second you archers are already wearing leather armor, maybe a 16 or 17 AC with max dex, advantage may not be fair.

[Markoff Chainey]

I would definately not change the rules. - If the players decide to walk in heavy armor without ranged weapon themselves into a field infested by goblins and orcs...

This is like walking into a dungeon without a torch. - And then you are worried that your players may feel uncomfortable, so you invent glooming mushrooms that covers all the walls.

Let them learn their lesson. They will soon be careful which path they choose so that they do not provoke attacks from 600 feet and they will pick ways of transportation that allow them to engage fast should they be so melee focussed. And once they are in melee, strength based fighter deal more damage then dex based ones anyway.

I would do the total opposite - assault them with goblins with poisoned arrows and fast mounts coming from different directions, then let them fall back and sneak up at night.. this makes for some interesting travels IMO :)

[Starsinger]

I would definately not change the rules. - If the players decide to walk in heavy armor without ranged weapon themselves into a field infested by goblins and orcs...

But... that's what the OP wants.

[djreynolds]

Arrows cost money and resources and merchants, etc. Not all arrows used can be recycled.
Cantrips are unfortunately automatic, but providing enemy with druids or clerics (shaman) types who cast spells of protection should limit the amount of ranged damage they can do.

When attacking ranged combatants, speed and numbers are the key. Spells like longstrider, misty step, just being a monk, dashing can close the distance between the enemy.

Unfortunately shields only convey AC, not cover. But fog cloud could be effective, darkness, or anything like that.

And remember the enemy can dash and move.

So if you want to mitigate the damage your PC's ranger or archer can accomplish, cannon fodder. Primitive tribes could be mounted, have beast allies, conjurers, etc.

Swarming the ranger may just make him shield up. Early level casters may not have access to feats like war caster. More than likely your archers are your stealth guys and are ahead stealthing, well hidden enemy would do well to separate archers from his buddies.

You are the DM, set the battlefield. And enjoy.

[Tanarii]

Ranged is powerful at long range, especially with a sharpshooter or spell sniper feats, since they ignore cover. A longbow sharpshooter or Eldritch Spear Spell Sniper is deadly in open plain, forest, or rocky terrain. All they need is some line of sight to the target out to 600 ft and they're effective.

But barring those feats, the low effective range of most at-will ranged attacks (typically 60ft or 120ft for cantrips, 80ft or 150ft for missile weapons) is your enemy's friend. And overall, SharkForce put it succinctly:

you should probably focus on making it more difficult to use at long range by having enemies make good use of cover, stealth, concealment (if some sort of smoke-screen is readily available to help close distance that makes a big difference), fast movement, etc.

To extrapolate: Full Cover whenever possible on approach, concealment smoke screens (from spells or mundane effects), ambush scenarios, and in open terrain riding creatures (Dire Wolves are traditional for evil humanoids, horses for good ones). Also the Dash and Dodge actions. Note the latter provides disadvantage regardless of range or feats.

If you want to house rule something, I'd suggest making shields more powerful in conjunction with the Dodge action against missile fire. Upgrade it from +2 --> +5 AC vs ranged attacks (equivalent of taking it from providing 1/2 to 3/4 cover), and stop the spell sniper & sharpshooter feats from ignore this cover bonus.

[Joe the Rat]

Are you trying to limit the amount of archery, or the amount of archery by players? The first is a matter of choice on the part of setting your encounters. The second can be reached via gentleman's agreement.

But if you need real incentive:
- Remove the stat bonus to damage for ranged attacks
- Bows are hard: Shortbows are Martial, Longbows require the Weapon Master Feat. Crossbows haven't been "invented" yet. Add Shortbow to the Rogue weapon list.
- Shields provide 3/4 cover (+5AC) against ranged attacks
- No Sharpshooter, or Sharpshooter corrects for cover or range, not both.

I suppose it depends a bit on what your feel is. Are you going Bronze age? Chess motif?

[Vogonjeltz]

Are you trying to limit the amount of archery, or the amount of archery by players? The first is a matter of choice on the part of setting your encounters. The second can be reached via gentleman's agreement.

But if you need real incentive:
- Remove the stat bonus to damage for ranged attacks
- Bows are hard: Shortbows are Martial, Longbows require the Weapon Master Feat. Crossbows haven't been "invented" yet. Add Shortbow to the Rogue weapon list.
- Shields provide 3/4 cover (+5AC) against ranged attacks
- No Sharpshooter, or Sharpshooter corrects for cover or range, not both.

I suppose it depends a bit on what your feel is. Are you going Bronze age? Chess motif?

The OP gives the impression that the players have access to normal arms/equipment, but the possible opposition is basically melee centric (even though their environment heavily favors ranged weapons).

If the terrain were highly mountainous with limited sight ranges, then just maybe there would be a reason to be more melee focused, but it's pretty implausible for a society to skip out on ranged combat entirely and survive.

I mean...they probably wouldn't even make it past the hunter/gatherer period.

[JackPhoenix]

Make it a cultural thing. If everyone believe only melee combat is honorable and only cowards use ranged weapons, longbows and crossbows propably don't exist at all...less reason to develop better ranged weapons, shortbow is used for hunting, not for fighting, and if you get a reputation for shooting the enemy from distance, you may get stigmatized by the honorable warriors: they will be less likely to talk or trade with you, they will insult you, won't trust you with important (and better rewarded) tasks...

In my bronze age (well, not really, but about the Rome equivalent era), no crossbows or longbows were developed yet (neither were greatswords, flails and plate armor beyond breastplate, but that's beside the point).

Or, you know, just talk to your players, explain them what you're going for and promise you won't screw them over with ranged or flying enemies when they agree to keep to melee...I don't know who are you playing with, but my players would understand.

[Laserlight]

That being said, using ranged weapons is simply a smart thing to do, precisely because they are more effective. If the culture being fought against is really eschewing ranged weapons, they're going to get annihilated by any and all competitors, and rightly so.

Not necessarily the case. Shortbows were common but didn't have all that much penetration; longbows and crossbows were different but, historically, most people didn't have them.
I recall reading of crusaders marching along with twenty arrows stuck in their armor and considering it merely a nuisance. Likewise, I recall one samurai having to retire from the front line because the arrows stuck in his armor made it hard for him to weild his sword. Heavy infantry will take *some* losses and disruption from missile fire, but they can certainly keep functioning.

[MaxWilson]

I mean, if you're the DM, why are you starting the encounter at 600 ft? Is this on a wide featureless plain of very short grass? You do have the ability to change the circumstances.

Standard DMG visual distance on a featureless plain is 1-2 miles. 600 feet is 1/8 mile and will be much more common.

The way you counter that is by cover and stealth and the fact that the planet is dark for 50% of the time. If the antagonists are noctural, PCs have to either find way to attack them during daylight hours (which may be hard if the enemies, e.g. shadows, always hole up in a dark place during daylight hours) or they have to fight them at night when visual range is only 60' at best, usually. Alarm spells and melee will become more important. Ranged combat will still be very strong even under such circumstances, but you can't afford to just hold the range open because that requires retreating into the darkness where they may be other shadows waiting.

[Vogonjeltz]

Not necessarily the case. Shortbows were common but didn't have all that much penetration; longbows and crossbows were different but, historically, most people didn't have them.
I recall reading of crusaders marching along with twenty arrows stuck in their armor and considering it merely a nuisance. Likewise, I recall one samurai having to retire from the front line because the arrows stuck in his armor made it hard for him to weild his sword. Heavy infantry will take *some* losses and disruption from missile fire, but they can certainly keep functioning.

The French leadership at Agincourt certainly discounted the value of archers and basically failed to use their archers/crossbowmen at all, and they paid for it dearly (It would appear that most all the French leadership were killed).

"A different source says that the French did not even deploy 4,000 of the best crossbowmen “on the pretext they had no need of their help".[29]"
(According to Curry, Anne (2000). The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. The Boydell Press. ISBN 0-85115-802-1.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

[Tanarii]

The French leadership at Agincourt certainly discounted the value of archers and basically failed to use their archers/crossbowmen at all, and they paid for it dearly (It would appear that most all the French leadership were killed).yes, but the English were using Longbows ...

[djreynolds]

No. I mean its like taking away magic from wizards, or smiting from paladins.

Yes, you can through just resources limit ranged attacks. No wood for arrows, and arrows break. And everyone thought that mending cantrip was not worth it and did not select it.

To defeat archers, you need speed and numbers, numbers, numbers. Throw enough goblins and your archer will run out of arrows or he will pull out his sword and shield and save those arrows for later.

But you will lose players who want to play archers. A monk with no weapons and no armor doesn't suffer but an archer, more than likely proficient in light and medium armor and a high dexterity does. Is it crazy for an archer to have a dagger at the ready? I would have to allow him at least to draw a dagger as a bonus action or reaction, advantage is huge. And all characters are now considered proficient in unarmed attacks according to the errata anyhow.

No do not impose this rule. Simply use my idea and have the archer waste arrows up on fodder. Roaming gangs of weak fodder will eat up arrows on tree starved plains, or the archer will go melee to save his precious resource. Piercing damage resistant adversaries work, skeletons come to mind. Creatures only hurt by magic weapons in a world where perhaps there were no magic bows or arrows created.

[Knaight]

The French leadership at Agincourt certainly discounted the value of archers and basically failed to use their archers/crossbowmen at all, and they paid for it dearly (It would appear that most all the French leadership were killed).

Agincourt isn't exactly a representative case, between the incredibly thick mud, the French attacking an entrenched position, and generally just a lot of stupidity in the French leadership in general. In other conditions, there are plenty of examples of heavy infantry being relatively unharmed by arrows.

[Vogonjeltz]

yes, but the English were using Longbows ...

I know, I wasn't trying to say anything about his comment that shortbows were relatively common vs longbows/crossbows. I mean, I don't think I agree with that statement at all anyway. Even if we were restricting our analysis to shortbows, he said in his own comment that a Samurai had to retreat from battle because he couldn't fight anymore for the arrows. That's still a win for ranged weaponry even if he wasn't killed outright.


Agincourt isn't exactly a representative case, between the incredibly thick mud, the French attacking an entrenched position, and generally just a lot of stupidity in the French leadership in general. In other conditions, there are plenty of examples of heavy infantry being relatively unharmed by arrows.

My point was that using ranged weapons doesn't somehow stop you from also employing melee weapons.

Refusing to use ranged weapons, when your opponents don't, is asking to lose.

Oh, and the English attacked the French, not the other way around. The English moved from an entrenched position to start the battle because the French were simply playing the waiting game with ~9,000 more troops on the way.

"On the morning of 25 October, the French were still waiting for additional troops to arrive. The Duke of Brabant (about 2,000 men),[36] the Duke of Anjou (about 600 men),[36] and the Duke of Brittany (6,000 men, according to Monstrelet),[37] were all marching to join the army."

36 & 37 - Mortimer, Ian (2009). 1415: Henry V's Year of Glory. London: Bodley Head. ISBN 978-0-224-07992-1.

"Henry's men, on the other hand, were already very weary from hunger, illness and marching. Even though Henry knew as well as the French did that his army would perform better on the defensive, he was eventually forced to take a calculated risk, and move his army farther forward to start the battle.[18] This entailed abandoning his chosen position and pulling out, advancing, and then re-installing the long sharpened wooden stakes pointed outwards toward the enemy, which helped protect the longbowmen from cavalry charges.[40] (The use of stakes was an innovation for the English: during the Battle of Crécy, for example, the archers had been instead protected by pits and other obstacles.[41])"

18 - Mortimer
40 - Keegan, John (1976). The Face of Battle: A Study of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme. Penguin Classics Reprint. Viking Adult. ISBN 978-0-14-004897-1.
41 - Bennett, Matthew (1994). "The Development of Battle Tactics in the Hundred Years War". In Curry, Anne; Hughes, Michael L. Arms, armies, and fortifications in the Hundred Years War. Woodbridge, England: Boydell Press. pp. 7–20. ISBN 0-85115-365-8.

[Gignere]

I wouldn't change anything. Just have them sometimes get attacked when it rains and rule disadvantage on all range weapons, so they can't just ignore melee. Mix it up, and let the sharpshooter shine sometime. One of my group's PC had sharpshooter, he was so happy when we finally had an open battle and he just basically soloed one whole encounter by kiting a score of hobgoblins. After he killed 2 or 3 hobgoblins and they couldn't shoot back at all I just turned it into a scene description and how he chased them off. He was boasting about it all night that is ok, because the next game I trapped him in melee and dropped him unconscious since his melee is weak and that game the paladin of vengeance was the PC to shine.

[Tanarii]

I know, I wasn't trying to say anything about his comment that shortbows were relatively common vs longbows/crossbows. I mean, I don't think I agree with that statement at all anyway. Even if we were restricting our analysis to shortbows, he said in his own comment that a Samurai had to retreat from battle because he couldn't fight anymore for the arrows. That's still a win for ranged weaponry even if he wasn't killed outright.Prior to the invention of composite bows, self bows were notoriously underpowered against armored units. Even composite mounted bows had much more limited power, effective vs light armor but not so much vs heavier. The reason mounted archery units (from Roman to Mongolian times) were so lethal was they could keep up a Parthian Shot or Cantabrian Circle tactic and wear down their opponents via kiting in open terrain.

Long bows and Crossbows saw historically late use and re-invigorated missile foot troops vs heavier armor. Just as composite bows did vs light armor as far back as Egyptian times. Even then, Heavy Armor stopped a lot of it. Agincourt was the exception, not the rule. Heavy Armor was obsoleted by gunpowder weapons, not Longbows/Crossbows.

Edit: In D&D terms, this is mostly represented by three things: open terrain gives advantage to missile units, having higher speed (mounted or otherwise) gives advantage to missile units and allows kiting, and Longbow has about double the range of shortbow. The latter gives you just over a typical humanoid foot creatures Dash's worth for effective range, and under for a mounted. Meanwhile the Longbow has an effective range of 2-1/2 Dash rounds, or 1-1/2 vs mounted opponents. And armor and HPs are effective at making it harder to kill with both, assuming you're fighting a non-mook it'll take several 'hits'. (Which could easily be arrows stuck in armor given what HPs represent.)

[MaxWilson]

Agincourt isn't exactly a representative case, between the incredibly thick mud, the French attacking an entrenched position, and generally just a lot of stupidity in the French leadership in general. In other conditions, there are plenty of examples of heavy infantry being relatively unharmed by arrows.

An AC 23 Paladin (Defense style + Shield of Faith) will be undamaged by 95% of the arrows fired at him by hobgoblins. If you wanted to keep track of the misses, it would be appropriate to have many of them hit his plate armor and stick there. The idea of a PC with hundreds of arrows sticking out of his armor by the end of a battle is kind of funny, but cool. I might experiment with that.

[D.U.P.A.]

I think that ranged weapons are a minor concern. Players would just go spellcaster instead. There are many spells with considerable range and damage, Eldritch blast - 120 feet, Firebolt - 120 feet, Sleet storm (3.level) - 150 feet, Fireball (3.level) - 150 feet.

[Tanarii]

EB is 60ft without Eldritch Spear. Only Firebolt and Chill Touch go out to 120.

[D.U.P.A.]

Since when it is 60 ft?

[Mellack]

My PHB shows Eldritch Blast with a 120' range.

[Tanarii]

Well ****, I've been doing EB wrong for a while now. And I thought there was actually a reason for Warlocks to take Chill Touch.

[Temperjoke]

Well, two options that I can think of:

1. Increase the chance of missing/failure at the distances you want to deter the players from attacking from.
2. Decrease the damage potential of attacks performed at the distances you want to deter the players from attacking from.

I mean, if we're talking spells, I don't know that I would waste using a spell slot on spell that would likely miss/fizzle, I'd wait until there was a better chance of it being successful, not to mention hitting with full power. If it's a home-brewed world, the reasoning could be something as simple as an abundance of a mineral that creates a natural background affect that weakens magic used beyond a certain distance from the caster. As for the range, if you have the maximum optimal distance be equal to the distance an enemy can move within it's turn, then spells are effectively the same as melee. Now, as a trade-off, you'll need to remove the penalty for using ranged attacks in melee range, that way players have incentive to stay in melee range to fight, instead of trying to kite their enemies.

[MaxWilson]

Well ****, I've been doing EB wrong for a while now. And I thought there was actually a reason for Warlocks to take Chill Touch.

Well, Chill Touch is a melee attack, so doesn't suffer disadvantage when enemies are within 5'.

[Randomthom]

Ways to lessen ranged without changing the rules;

Environmental:
Strong Winds, disadvantage to ranged attacks beyond 30ft.
Desert, wood is scarce and expensive, arrows/bolts are not easily available.
Night, can't shoot unsighted, exact disadvantage depends on player's race.
Heavy rain, reduced visibility, disadvantage beyond 60ft.
Fog, reduced visibility, disadvantage beyond x ft. (Variable for different levels of fog).

Tactical:
Use of terrain, can't shoot you if they don't know you're there!
Stealth, pair with night for double effect
Ambush, Enemy lies in wait until players are close
Cover, Enemies use heavy cover e.g. shooting through small holes in a dense hedge
Shields, Enemies use tower shields or magical barriers
Speed, fast enemies can get up in archer's faces in minimal time, especially strong with flight as they can then fly over player melee
Ditto, use ranged weapons too, could turn into a slugfest!

All of this is within the rules to manage, if you feel that this doesn't go far enough then perhaps introduce another layer. When Longbows were first introduced, many knights thought of them as dishonourable. This might be a way to limit a paladin or perhaps a lawful fighter or someone with a noble background's use of ranged weapons.

Perhaps all that is needed is to discuss things with your players beforehand, let them know that there will be a lot of under-open-skies combat and that you don't want to see any ranged specialist builds as they will unbalance things. This will hopefully allow some players to still carry ranged weapons and make some use of them without them dominating the combat through heavy optimisation.

[Blood of Gaea]

There is a few pretty easy ways around this, a few examples:

-Use thrown weapons, or one-handed ranged weapons. Rapier and Sling/Dagger for DEX 1d8 Versatile and Handaxe/Hand Crossbow for STR.

-Evocation spell casters.

-Kiting, 2 levels of rogue for Cunning Action (and sneak attack ranged attacks) and possibly the Mobile feat.

-The worst for this would be a Variant Human Warlock: Start with the spell sniper feat. Get Agonizing Blast and Eldritch Spear at level 2. That's a 1d10+2-to-4 (7.5-9.5 avg) force damage, that also ignores 1/2 and 3/4 cover. This build would just continue to get more dirty when you acquired darkness and Devil's Sight.



No matter what rule you make, there will be a way to wiggle through it. Have you considering the option of just asking your player to not play ranged based PCs?

[Essar]

Have more targets than the party has arrows.

Have the NPCs use Dash/Run to cover more ground than the PCs can with move+attack.

[Madeiner]

Thanks everybody for the good suggestions.
I will consider using more weather conditions and different terrain in order to not have a game dominated by ranged specialists.

Of course i would also fix any spells/feats/invocations that have a range outside my comfort zone. I really want to avoid one character getting 3-5 rounds of attacks versus an enemy while the rest of the party can do nothing.
Sharpshooter is another thing i'm going to revise. If i need to have cover and terrain difficulties, i can't have one feat removing that aspect from play (i really want to open another thread on this), that also happens to be the go-to feat for all archers.

Some enemy armies will sometimes use ranged attacks as their primary tactics, but not often. I am playing in the Warcraft world, and the theme of the game will be the difference between the races. I can't have orc armies use primarily rifles/bows as i want to emphasise their strength and savagery.
Also, the game will likely have very little monsters/dungeons/underground adventures. The focus will be on overland travel instead (i'm also removing all travel-negating spells like teleport)

Also, there's cinematic reason. You almost never see anyone using bows/ranged weapons in medieval fantasy movies. That's because they would be so effective they would essentialy ruin the scene. The same would happen in my game. It's much harder to have a chase scene where a couple characters are ranged specialists.


I want to achieve one of two goals:
- Ranged specialists are fine, but they are heavily penalized in non-overland combat. Since they would be SO strong for 3/4 of the game, they need to be really penalized when fighting in close quarters, since it would happen rarely.
OR
- Ranged specialists should be generally depowered, so that they are only slightly better in overland combat than everyone else, and somewhat ok in close quarters.

[JackPhoenix]

Again, talk to your players first. Coming to a consensus is easier and better for everyone involved then creating a ton of houserules and then being accused of bad DMimg for nerfing player abilities.

Also, what time period are you playing in? Because in the later WoW expansions, half the orcs are using tanks, bombs and scoped automatic rifles.

[Madeiner]

Yeah, of course talking will be the first thing.
But i have been playing them for over 10 years, so they trust me. I just want to have some rules, and not just say "here, play only these classes". I'm ok with ranged attackers, as long as they are rebalanced for the campaign.

I intend to play a few years before the cataclysm btw, and transitioning to after the cataclysm after a couple years of gameplay. We will have two groups of characters, each in a different faction, and the adventures of one faction will influence both groups.

[endur]

In 3.5e, Sunder was the melee warriors choice against an archer, but sunder hasn't made it into 5e yet.

[JumboWheat01]

In 3.5e, Sunder was the melee warriors choice against an archer, but sunder hasn't made it into 5e yet.

I think we can common sense it in, especially for bladed weapons. Don't need to destroy the bow itself, but the bow string is pretty weak against sharp, cutting things. Can't shoot your arrows with a sliced bow string.