Suggestion: I'd like to see the "Take Aim" feat apply to ranged spell attacks as well as ranged weapon attacks. Mechanically, imho this would not disrupt balance as a Warlock using Eldritch Blast in combat operates very similar to a Dex-based martial character firing a bow or crossbow. Conceptually, it feels like giving up a bonus action to carefully aim a ranged attack ought to apply equally to any ranged attack role (bow, knife, or eldritch blast, etc.). Thanks!
P.S. For SRD comparison, note that the Crossbow Expert feat is worded: "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls," which applies to any ranged attack role, and the optional Rogue feature Take Aim (from Tasha's) applies to any attack role.
I agree it should work for ranged spell attacks. But Take Aim should also provide Advantage on the attack.
I'm not sure it's really necessary to apply it to ranged spell attacks, although it could definitely help non Warlocks to deal damage more consistently.
I strongly disagree on it providing advantage however. It's largely powerful enough as is:
1/ Attack without malus even when close by enemy
Massive QoL for mainly ranged attacker, providing advantage on top of that would be too strong and weird (how are you supposed to have time and "tranquillity" to aim good enough to even generate advantage??).
2/ Attack at long range or targeting unlit character: massive efficiency boost already since negating disadvantage, providing advantage on top of that would be completely overpowered.
3/ Attack within an obscurity spell or while Blinded: same.
The ability to negate disadvantage means you can brush off many debuffs or avoiding "forced" movement to remove/avoid a danger or troubling area. Any more would make it really unbalanced.
Hi Thaladar and Llacote --
Happy new year! Thank you both for taking the time to weigh-in on the proposal. Two really fast replies...
Take Aim should also provide Advantage on the attack.
Negating disadvantage on ranged attack rolls is already very powerful. Providing advantage would unbalance play. I join Llacote in disagreeing with Thaladar's suggestion.
I'm not sure it's really necessary to apply it ["Take Aim"] to ranged spell attacks,
"Necessary" seems like a strong word. That said, the reason for applying "Take Aim" to all ranged attack roles (weapon attacks or spell attacks) is to preserve parody between martial and magical classes. The ability the fire your ranged attack without penalty at targets that are only 5-ft away is a HUGE boon and dramatically alters tactics on the battlefield. In my completely subjective opinion, Solasta's "Take Aim" feat overpowers a Ranger (or Rogue) with a bow as compared to a Warlock with Eldritch Blast; allowing "Take Aim" to apply to spell attacks would maintain balance between the classes.
Thanks again!
I'd like to react on that bit
Solasta's "Take Aim" feat overpowers a Ranger (or Rogue) with a bow as compared to a Warlock with Eldritch Blast; allowing "Take Aim" to apply to spell attacks would maintain balance between the classes.
First, you may not be aware of it or forgotten it, but there is a specific Invocation for Eldricht Blast that devs included (Eldricht Spear IIRC) which ignores half and third cover, so Warlock can spend their feat on something else instead, while a ranged martial would pretty much want it at some point too. So either Ranger in comparison would pick Take Aim at level 4 and suffer from cover while Warlock can bump Charisma or Concentration or minimum damage, or take Uncanny Accuracy first and Take Aime at level 8 while Warlock either bumps Charisma to 20 or gets another good feat (minimum damage is really good ^^).
Second, Warlocks that really want to achieve the same level of accuracy because they use and overuse Eldricht Blast could just go Devil's Sight + Darkness way, effectively nullifying disadvantage by providing advantage against most creatures. So no use of feat either.
Third, even without either shenanigans comparing just Ranger's Take Aim with Archery compared to Warlock's Eldricht Blast and invocations, I still wouldn't consider the former "stronger" than the latter.
Because the latter... Can be ridden with Repelling Blast. And that invocation alone is worth dozen points of damage over a regular day, sometimes hundreds. And I mean in in both figurative and literal meanings. The number of times I saved an ally's ass (or mine) by pushing enemy away (because past level 5 even at disadvantage unless enemy really has high AC you have a good chance of landing at least one hit), the number of times I made a fight drop from "near-impossible" to "easy-peasy" by making archers reachable by melee (fall from vantage point), keeping enemies inside a Plant Growth to prevent them to reach melee (and forcing them to self-harm again) or outright kill them (making them fall into unending pits)... Would require a full orchestra to be counted on hands.
Those are all fair points. There are plenty of great ways to build and play all of the classes, which is one of the things I love about the DnD rule set. As I said up front, my preference that Take Aim would apply to all ranged attack rolls (weapons or spells) is simply this one player’s subjective opinion. I appreciate hearing that you prefer the feat as-is and your reasons why… it’s always great to grok other perspectives! Thanks 🙏
Negating disadvantage on ranged attack rolls is already very powerful. Providing advantage would unbalance play. I join Llacote in disagreeing with Thaladar's suggestion.
I disagree that it would be unbalancing.
- Given the implementation of Advantage/Disadvantage in Solasta (which differs from 5e), granting Advantage would only negate one source of Disadvantage. It is not automatic Advantage. If there was no source of Disadvantage, then yes, you would have Advantage. And if there was only one source of Disadvantage, then it would be a straight roll.
- There is already a precedent for this set for Rogues in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything called "Steady Aim" which is a 3rd level feature of the class. As a Bonus Action, Rogues can give themselves Advantage on their next attack roll on their current turn and you can't move during your turn when you use this.
As the feat is currently implemented, the value it provides is too situational (although in fairness, many of the feats in Solasta are too situational) and you are better off taking a different feat.