Houserule: Opportunity Attacks incurred by ranged attacks and spells.

[Tallifer]

The first campaign of any length I ran was in 4th Edition, and I still miss some of the rules and clarity.

I am thinking of introducing Opportunity Attacks against creatures trying to cast ranged spells or shoot missiles while they are within melee range.

Are there some unforeseen consequences of this rule change to 5E?

 

[77IM]

In 5e, if you make a ranged attack of any sort while within 5 feet of an enemy, you suffer disadvantage on the attack roll (see PHB p.195 for details).

Assuming you ditch that rule when you introduce your house rule, making the OA replace the disadvantage, it shouldn't change much. In my experience it's already fairly rare for people to use ranged attacks while in melee, because of that disadvantage (most characters, even spellcasters, have a halfway-decent melee attack they can use, or some other tricks like misty step or Cunning Action to get out of melee). You'll also need to update the Crossbow Expert feat to negate the OA instead of negating the disadvantage.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I thought about the same house-rule.

The other thing that should be in there, although I haven't come up with just the right rule, is that if your target is engaged in melee combat with an ally you either have disadvantage, or risk hitting your ally, or something of that nature.

Archery is just too easy/powerful in 5e.

 

[Horwath]

In 5e, if you make a ranged attack of any sort while within 5 feet of an enemy, you suffer disadvantage on the attack roll (see PHB p.195 for details).

Assuming you ditch that rule when you introduce your house rule, making the OA replace the disadvantage, it shouldn't change much. In my experience it's already fairly rare for people to use ranged attacks while in melee, because of that disadvantage (most characters, even spellcasters, have a halfway-decent melee attack they can use, or some other tricks like misty step or Cunning Action to get out of melee). You'll also need to update the Crossbow Expert feat to negate the OA instead of negating the disadvantage.

I'm doing both.

Disadvantage and AoO for ranged attacks.

Same goes for ranged spells and AoE spells that do not start from caster. I.E. burning hands have no penalty.

 

[neogod22]

I'm doing both.

Disadvantage and AoO for ranged attacks.

Same goes for ranged spells and AoE spells that do not start from caster. I.E. burning hands have no penalty.

Why do you hate ranged attackers?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The first campaign of any length I ran was in 4th Edition, and I still miss some of the rules and clarity.

I am thinking of introducing Opportunity Attacks against creatures trying to cast ranged spells or shoot missiles while they are within melee range.

Are there some unforeseen consequences of this rule change to 5E?

Probably no major consequences, but the first question you should always ask when changing a rule is: why are you doing this? What does it add to the game?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why do you hate ranged attackers?

/eyeroll

My answer: because ranged combat is not as fun/exciting as getting in there and mixing it up, and because there's not enough downside to using it too many people make it their exclusive combat style.

I'm all for heroes (and bad guys) using archery when it makes sense. But when the two sides close and it's a free-for-all, it's just too...fantastical...for my taste for the archers to run around like Legolas.

Also, way too many rogues use the shoot-hide-shoot-hide strategy. /yawn

 

[neogod22]

I'm doing both.

Disadvantage and AoO for ranged attacks.

Same goes for ranged spells and AoE spells that do not start from caster. I.E. burning hands have no penalty.

I think this rule is fair in 5e for a couple reasons. 1 casting a spell or shooting a weapon does not inherently leave an opening for attack. A good example is, no one tries to attack a person with a gun in real life no matter how close they are. A bow is a little different, but if you've seen the LOTR movies, you've seen Legales shooting MFers in the face at point blank range with his bow. That is usually what happens. You create a huge target for them to shoot at. I can understand disadvantage, because someone cuz can grab your weapon and make you miss

 

[Eubani]

because ranged combat is not as fun/exciting /yawn

For you that may be the case but others may take enjoyment out of it, so why kill their fun because of your melee preference. Having said that Ranged combat has drawbacks but the are largely removed with feats. Should players of ranged characters apologize for BadWrongFun?

 

[dungeonguru]

I think the biggest fallout is that you force players that dream of being Legolas to roll up a Gimli instead. I agree with TheCosmicKid, if you remove something the players are enjoying (and you're not using the same tactics against them) are you really adding to the game or just penalizing a particular play style.