D&D 5E GWM+Longbow

[Olrox17]

By a strict technical interpretation of the rules as written, yes. A DM would be silly to rule this way, but that is technically consistent with the letter of the rule.


Nope, because the loading property prevents you from firing more than one piece of ammunition from a weapon. The orc has not fired any pieces of ammunition from the crossbow before throwing it.

Nobody ever said it was a good idea to run strict RAW.


There are more options than “run strict RAW even when it leads to nonsense” and “do what Jeremy Crawford says.”

I don’t always follow Crawford’s gospel. That’s why I said that I’m with him, on THIS one.
His interpretation of the Raw, in this case, is less silly than the one allowing GWM longbow bashers and requiring crossbows to be loaded before you can throw them at somebody.

 

[jaelis]

I’ve seen the issue elsewhere ( and I think there is a more specific tweet by Crawford): basically, if you only roll the damage once, for the purposes of the Evoker’s special ability, he gets to add his Int prof to each missile, which adds +9 dmg to even a 1st level et l magic missile.

Many of us, myself included, feel that the wizard class did not really need this power boost 3d4 + 9 seems a little high for a 1st lev el autohit attack, and it gets worse if you use a higher level slot (since each slot increases damage by 2d4 + 8).

Thanks I see... so not the MM interpretation in itself, but how it interacts with Empowered Evocation. Not sure I'd agree that Crawford is exactly wrong here but his claim that "RAI: It doesn't matter" doesn't make much sense, since it fact it does matter fairly significantly. Anyway, different topic.

 

[the Jester]

Thanks I see... so not the MM interpretation in itself, but how it interacts with Empowered Evocation.

That's the dislike due to mechanics approach. For me, empowered evocation has nothing to do with it- I just think rolling one die and applying it to each of the missiles is dumb. That has never been how magic missile worked in the past, and I find it personally distasteful to do it like that. Each missile gets its own roll, as Gygax intended, in my game.

But that's totally a matter of personal taste, and I don't for a second pretend that people who rule with Crawford are wrong, just wrong for my tastes.

 

[Charlaquin]

5e DMG, Page 5: "The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session."

So, the RAW is not intended to cover every use case, and the RAW explicitly tells us that. They do not have a specific thing they "meant" for every conceivable action, and they should not be read as if they do.

Trying to strictly interpret 5e RAW for all cases may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but doing so in play is not actually following RAW. To truly follow RAW, you must occasionally step beyond the RAW.

I don’t disagree.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The issue I have with improvised weapons in general, is almost any blunt object resembles a club. Clubs are simple weapons, so most characters are proficient with them.

 

[Havloch]

I think one thing that is being overlooked here is that "Heavy" weapons do not earn their property by their weight. Bows are lighter than most martial melee weapons, coming in at 2lb., and a longbow and shortbow share the same weight yet only the longbow is considered "heavy." Why? Well, if you read the key part of the property definition, "A heavy weapon's size and bulk make it too large for a Small creature to use effectively." That tells you the property is all about size and bulk, and that is what determines if you are able to use the weapon "effectively." It no longer being "effectively" used just means you are imposed disadvantage.
Now that the definition of heavy has been cleared up as simply being size and bulk.. just because a weapon is being used for a different purpose, the size and bulk has remained the same, no? So.. that property should not be lost. Also like others have pointed out, the section on improvised weapons states "Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus." I would say that a longbow is akin to a quarterstaff due to the way you would use it for a melee attack, so you would get the proficiency bonus if you are proficient with simple melee weapons. However that section does also specify "If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack ... it also deals 1d4 damage" and since a longbow is classified as a ranged weapon before being utilized as a melee weapon, that would apply. So by strict adherence to these guidelines my take is when making a melee attack with a longbow you are using it as a 1d4 quarterstaff (and you could have the simple weapon proficiency bonus), but it should still be classed as a heavy weapon due to its size and bulk remaining unchanged.
Nowhere in the improvised weapons section does it say a weapon's properties magically disappear just because it is being used for a different purpose or being reclassified, all that section is doing is redefining objects as falling under a different class of weapon; improvised weapons; just like simple melee weapons, martial melee weapons, etc.. Which is why a key part of the Tavern Brawler feat is to be proficient with them.. Or, what that section is doing is allowing objects to be redefined as an existing type of weapon at the DM's choice.
So my answer is YES, it should qualify for the perk of Great Weapon Master feat to gain -5 attack and +10 damage. As silly as it may be, and not in the players interest to do, due to sub-optimal damage and feat use.
But I will also argue that NO, using a longbow to make a improvised melee attack does NOT also qualify for the Sharpshooter feat's -5 attack +10 at the same time, allowing -10 attack +20 damage... Because, this should really go without saying, you are no longer using the longbow as a ranged weapon, you are using it as a melee weapon. Should the Sharpshooter feat's bonuses instead be qualified for use with an improvised thrown weapon, or any other weapon attack made from range? Yes, I believe it should.

As far as the gnome and greataxe throwing example that seems to keep being brought up.. Gnomes are 40lb, do you really think they can't lift something 7lb and toss it in an improvised fashion, even one handed? ...Can they not do a single push up, 20lb per arm? For reference, the rules say a gnome is capable of doing a grapple with only needing one free hand on another creature up to one size larger, so medium creatures... which can be up to 500lb, not to mention all the gear they could be carrying! Oh! And then they can carry or drag them up to half movement speed.. does that not have a greater disruption of suspension of disbelief?! I mean, if a gnome can pull off that feat of strength, I certainly think it can toss a measly 7lb object up to 60ft. I would say however, that a gnome should still be imposed disadvantage on throwing any weapon with the heavy property at any range, because by the property definition of heavy I went over earlier, it is still of a larger size and bulk. Keeping with that logic, I would say anything too large or bulky should impose disadvantage if used as any classification of weapon by a small creature, improvised or otherwise.

 

[fearsomepirate]

A longbow used for striking somebody is nothing more than a 2-lb stick with a taut cord on it. It weighs half what a quarterstaff does. A weapon property applies to its use; and if you're no longer using it by the book, you don't get the benefit of the properties. I would expect to see an errata clarifying this if players insisting they can use the GWM feat to hit somebody with a longbow ever becomes a problem in AL.

 

[fearsomepirate]

FWIW, my reading of the RAW is, and has always been, that an Improvised Weapon is simply its own thing. It doesn't inherit combat properties from the object you're improvising with. Normal weapons to do not add the Improvised Weapon property to their other properties when misused, as though they're some kind of Special Improvised Weapon that no frying pan or goblin carcass could ever aspire to be; they simply become Improvised Weapons. If you throw a Greatsword, for the purposes of adjudicating the action, it is no longer a Greatsword, but a standard Improvised Weapon. The weapon properties apply to the a weapon's proper use; they're not immutable characteristics that still apply when you're no longer using a sword to stab or a bow to shoot arrows

 

[auburn2]

nm

 

[auburn2]

Dammit, this guy used his longbow as a pretty fearsome weapon in melee, bashing people's faces with it. However, unless he was proficient in
improvised weapons," aka "clubs" (an improvised simple weapon" that resembles the attack he's doing), GWM feat won't do much good. But if he knows simple weapons, it appears the rules as written say he can bash away with "great weaponmaster feat."


View attachment 122150

I think in MAW (Myth As Written)he used a sword in melee.