The suggestion to buff DC's in favor of the caster is interesting. I'm open to that idea and I'll explain more below.
This issue exists for any ranged caster, not just warlock. Currently there is a condition know as "threatened", which has ranged attacks roll at disadvantage when an enemy is near. I've been questioning why a condition like threatened is in the game. Is threatened in the game to entice the player to use more spells? Is it there to entice the player to bunny hop away with their wizard?
> For example, an enemy encroaches on a wizard and the wizard now becomes threatened. (Firebolt will now roll at disadvantage)
> You go to use Poison Spray and most enemies have enough constitution to evade Poison Spray. Now the option to use is Magic Missile because it's unaffected by threatened.
Threatened feels like an unnecessary complexity. It makes ranged attacks more likely to miss and exacerbates all the benefits melee classes have now. Why play a caster, when ranger can just use spell scrolls, has more AC/HP, and can deal better damage in melee range?
Threatened would be a lot less of an issue if spells like Sacred Flame and Poison Spray were available 65% (or higher) to hit in more encounters.
Also, threatened could also just be removed from the game.
Ranged attacks have the benefit of ... range.
To counter that, if you are in melee, there needs to be some disadvantage.
That you are asking yourself, why you should play a caster, when every class can use spells via scrolls ... Well, Larian, they implemented it this way.
Threatened makes sense, or else there would be no need for melee weapons.
DnD 5e already has rules in place to balance melee and ranged. (for example high damaging spells require spell slots, melee fighters usually get better armor).
In Baldur's Gate 3 ranged attacks already have disadvantage if the target is too close (within 5 feet, same as 5e rules). Threatened affects the character at roughly 3 meters, so if your caster just happens to be in a congested room, they will have disadvantage. It's a change from DnD's rules and one that negatively impacts casters.
Threatened is not the biggest issue in the game, it's just really annoying that you regularly deal with situations where you are incentivized to move casters to higher ground. In comparison to tabletop, if the opponent isn't within 5 feet then the caster will have most of their abilities to choose from without worrying about disadvantage. There is no, "oh a battle started from that conversation... my caster started in a position where they happen to be threatened... guess I'll misty step over there..." Caster movement can feel like a chore rather quickly, all because of threatened.
It's much more fun to start the battle off with "I'll hit that goblin with Eldritch Blast and take out that enemy, so I can keep my caster in good range to follow up on other enemies with spells".
Add in that melee attacks get free advantage from backstab and it's easy to see that casters are currently getting the short end of the stick.
In 5e rules, a ranged attack is rolled as a disadvantage if the target is right next to you (5 feet). Threatened is Larian’s version of 5 feet, I think. There’s no grids so it’s not as clear but it’s trying to match the rules.
Magic missile is auto hit so rolls don’t matter except on damage.
Editing because I missed your post the first time. Even if there are no grids, a radius from the character can be used. Also, Larian already has a status for "too close" at 5 feet. Threatened is an entirely separate status that affects a greater radius.
I'm very honest when I said that I don't know why threatened would be a status in the game while "too close" already exists (so we can't assume it's only Larian's version of 5 feet). I want to give Larian the benefit of the doubt as well. I've pondered it was added to the game for NPC combat AI (for example: If threatened move X meters away). It could be a bug that threatened is affecting player characters for all we know.
