No ranged attacks while an enemy adjacent--how crippling?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm contemplating a change to the rule about ranged attacks with an enemy within 5 feet of the shooter.

Current rule:

Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated.

Contemplated rule:

Any ranged attack made if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated automatically misses.

Edit notes Edited back in the (mistakenly) dropped clauses about creatures needing to be able to see you and not be incapacitated. Also clarified exactly what is meant by "cannot attack". In this case, any attack you make under those conditions misses.

The fiction is that ranged attacks with someone in your grille are trivially disrupted such that they (within normal bounds) are always ineffective.
/end edit notes
------

Some classes/features would allow you to bypass/mitigate this--one class might have a way of quickly switching weapons; another feature might let you five-foot-step without incurring OAs, etc. But generally, the point is to make ranged-focused characters have a weakness to compensate for their benefits.

[Corran]

I think there are too many ways with which ranged characters can disengage, so the change you are proposing might push some towards this optimization route rather than having their characters switch weapons (which is something that I would actually like to see encouraged, because it seems more realistic/ appropriate).

How about, you get disadvantage on your ranged attacks if you move during your turn? Combined with the disadvantage from shooting in point blank (scrap CE) it might push more towards making that sword on your belt less decorative. You probably need to change teleports into action then and cut down on weapon specialization feats (like PAM, GWM, SS, CE) significantly (which in turn means you have to lower the damage of spells), so that the player does not feel too punished from having their character switch styles mid combat, also not enough so that the ranged character who minds positioning and environment will feel a bit rewarded for doing so.

ps: A fighting style or feat that allows you to equip/unequip shields faster would be nice. A (better) fighting style/feat that encourages twf or one handed/versatile weapons would be even nicer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there are too many ways with which ranged characters can disengage, so the change you are proposing might push some towards this optimization route rather than having their characters switch weapons (which is something that I would actually like to see encouraged).

How about, you get disadvantage on your ranged attacks if you move during your turn? Combined with the disadvantage from shooting in point blank (scrap CE) it might push more towards making that sword on your belt less decorative. You probably need to change teleports into action then and cut down on weapon specialization feats (like PAM, GWM, SS, CE) significantly (which in turn means you have to lower the damage of spells), so that the player does not feel too punished from having their character switch styles mid combat, also not enough so that the ranged character who minds positioning and environment wont feel a bit rewarded for doing so.

I'm not as worried about encouraging switching weapons (in the main) as providing costs/drawbacks for ranged combat. If you have to spend actions, features, or other such things to be able to disengage, that's a win in my book. Ranged combat should be highly mobile, but really suffer from things like cover, fast enemies that can get in your face, etc. You should have to spend movement and actions to bring that up to par. As opposed to current system design, where ranged starts above par and gets boosted even more with feat (etc) synergy.

As a note, this is (potentially) going alongside a package that
* Scraps the Archery style's boost to ranged attacks
* Scraps all the feats, replacing them with skill tricks which are kinda micro feats. But none of them are "big combat damage boosts".
* Loads more damage into the classes themselves.
* Rebalances spell casting
* Eliminates abilities to dip for armor or other features.

[Corran]

Then, between making it impossible to shoot at some enemy who engaged you in melee (other than spending some resource to move around) and suffering disadvantage (while at the same time eliminating ways to counteract it while remaining in melee), I'd go with the disadvantage. Reason being that I dont enjoy game mechanics guiding my character's action to that degree. I'd rather have the option to attack at disadvantage than not having it at all (cause I can flavor/ narrate it).

[Psyren]

Removing the "who can see you and isn't incapacitated" clause is a bit silly. So if an unconscious foe is at my feet, my bow suddenly stops working?

Speaking of sight - what if the melee enemy is invisible? Walking around in 5ft increments and then trying to attack would be a way of finding an invisible foe. ("Can't shoot, step, still can't shoot, step, suddenly I can fire, he's back there somewhere.")

[stoutstien]

I've been using a version of this for a while and it's been a positive change. Some features can lessen it back to disadvantage but never to the point where there isn't a penalty. I think the smallest penalty would be -2 but I'd have to check.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Removing the "who can see you and isn't incapacitated" clause is a bit silly. So if an unconscious foe is at my feet, my bow suddenly stops working?

Speaking of sight - what if the melee enemy is invisible? Walking around in 5ft increments and then trying to attack would be a way of finding an invisible foe. ("Can't shoot, step, still can't shoot, step, suddenly I can fire, he's back there somewhere.")

I didn't mean to remove those clauses.

And it's not "you can't fire your bow", it's "any attempt to meaningfully damage someone with your bow will fail, so we'll just round down in the abstraction and say you can't attack (the game term)."

[Psyren]

I didn't mean to remove those clauses.

Should probably edit the OP then.


And it's not "you can't fire your bow", it's "any attempt to meaningfully damage someone with your bow will fail, so we'll just round down in the abstraction and say you can't attack (the game term)."

There's a huge difference between can't attack and zero damage though. Does the attack action still get wasted? Do they know it will get wasted if they can't see the enemy? What happens if they have extra attack and the first shot is wasted, can they drop/OI the bow away to melee?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Should probably edit the OP then.



There's a huge difference between can't attack and zero damage though. Does the attack action still get wasted? Do they know it will get wasted if they can't see the enemy? What happens if they have extra attack and the first shot is wasted, can they drop/OI the bow away to melee?

Edited to clarify (re-adding that clause and clarifying that "cannot attack" should have been "any ranged attack made <under conditions> automatically misses." Also added some fictional grounding.

---------------

I guess an alternative to this (replacing, not extending) is to change the Opportunity Attack section to include that any ranged attack, as well as any spell with range longer than Touch[1], provokes Opportunity Attacks.

[1] Cones and other point-blank effects have range Self (X), which is shorter than Touch. The order, as I see it, goes Self (including Self (X)) < Touch < any other range.

[Tanarii]

Depends if the expectation is the game will largely be in fairly short range environments and if the PCs will generally be outnumbered..

If no, it's probably too crippling or you have to make clear that primary ranged characters shouldn't be built. (Personally I'm in favor of the latter but that may not be your goal.)

Also be aware this rule change will hit casters a little less hard than ranged martials, assuming they still have plenty of save cantrips/spells available. Or melee attack spells.

[LudicSavant]

I'm not as worried about encouraging switching weapons (in the main) as providing costs/drawbacks for ranged combat.

A big thing you can do is simply removing the features that allow players to ignore cover (most commonly, one of the bullet points of Sharpshooter).

This makes everything more interactive -- people play XCOM, players now think about things like setting up flanks, etc.

A +2-5 AC bonus is no small thing. I think Sharpshooter being able to ignore cover is frankly more of an issue than the -5/+10 part (which martials need to keep up with damage in the first place).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think Sharpshooter being able to ignore cover is frankly more of an issue than the -5/+10 part (which martials need to keep up with damage in the first place).

I completely agree with this, although with one caveat around combining CBE and SS and spamming attacks.

[tokek]

A big thing you can do is simply removing the features that allow players to ignore cover (most commonly, one of the bullet points of Sharpshooter).

This makes everything more interactive -- people play XCOM, players now think about things like setting up flanks, etc.

A +2-5 AC bonus is no small thing. I think Sharpshooter being able to ignore cover is frankly more of an issue than the -5/+10 part (which martials need to keep up with damage in the first place).

I tend to agree. The combination of cover and disadvantage from a nearby enemy really shuts down ranged builds pretty hard. Neither one on its own does quite enough, but the two together really do.

The problem builds are SS, XBE and definitely the combination of the two.

Your proposal is really crippling. I would modify it to demand that if they are within 5' or one or more enemy they must target one of those enemies within 5' and that shot is at disadvantage. I think forbidding them from targeting the squishy dude at the rear while being pounded on in melee is pretty reasonable.

[Notafish]

I like the current rule as written better, especially if the feats that allow easy ranged attacks while in melee range are not available. It is easier to imagine that shooting at close range is difficult than it is to imagine that it is "trivially disrupted" by any and all hostile enemies.

I'd be more open to a rule that makes ranged attackers and spell-casters (other than melee spells) vulnerable to melee attacks until their next turn, or to expanding the list of things that provoke opportunity attacks.

[LudicSavant]

I tend to agree. The combination of cover and disadvantage from a nearby enemy really shuts down ranged builds pretty hard. Neither one on its own does quite enough, but the two together really do.

The problem builds are SS, XBE and definitely the combination of the two.

Yep, basically -- ranged combat already has built-in disadvantages, but those disadvantages are removed from the game by feats that you already take just to keep your damage on-par.

With SS and XBE, the cover problem is removed, the disadvantage problem is removed. Pretty much the only thing that ranged weapons lack is the ability to make opportunity attacks.

Speaking of which... casters get arguably the best opportunity attacks in the entire game if they take Warcaster...

[da newt]

I like the idea that a creature could prevent a foe from hitting their friends by getting into melee w/ the foe - but I think the foe ought to have a chance to hit the melee protector with their ranged attack (DISADV or 3/4 cover). In fact I'd like to see something similar for spells casts w/ saves (DISADV or +5 to save). I think it would make positioning / movement more tactical which I prefer. I think it would improve martial / ranged / caster balance overall.

[Rukelnikov]

If I were going to implement something like this I'd make it apply only to attacks with ranged weapons, so thrown melee weapons are still good to throw.

[Mastikator]

Remove the sharpshooter feat. Bam, ranged is no longer OP, cover and distance are a fact.

[Damon_Tor]

In the past I have allowed characters an AoO against a ranged attack made while in melee. I've done the same for spellcasting. In both cases of the AoO hits it triggers a concentration save that can cancel the spell or attack.