D&D 5E GWM+Longbow

[Charlaquin]

Ah but if you keep the qualities of the original weapon you do, because that ALSO means you keep the ammunition quality, which means you’d also need to use that ammo whenever making a melee attack.
If you’re going to assume you keep all qualities, then you have to use all qualities, not cherry pick them.

except that ammunition rules state each time you make an attack (any attack. It doesn’t specify ranged only except in the fluff description) you must use ammo, which thus triggers loading.

Incorrect.

You can use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a ranged Attack only if you have Ammunition to fire from the weapon.

Bold added for emphasis.

but again, it’s all moot as it’s already been pointed out where Crawford clarified an improvised weapon loses all its original qualities when used as an improvised weapon.

His rulings are frequently inconsistent with a technical interpretation of the text. It’s certainly valuable insight for deciding how one wants to rule in their own games, but it is not really relevant when discussing RAW.

You know, like the RAW says (unless you can point out where it says in improvised weapons that the ranged weapon used in melee keeps its original qualities)

It doesn’t need to say it retains its qualities because D&D’s design is exceptions-based (sometimes summarized as “specific beats general”). The general rule is that a longbow has the heavy property. If there is a use-case where it is meant to lose that property, the rules for that use-case need to specify so. In the absence of a more specific rule to follow, the general rule applies.

So...yeah. Either they keep them all and you use stuff like ammunition and loading along with heavy, or they don’t.

As demonstrated, the ranged quality only requires ammunition to be used when making a ranged attack, and the loading property only limits the number of times ammunition can be fired from the weapon. Neither restrict melee attacks made with the weapon in any way.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, if ranged weapons lose their properties when used to make a melee weapon attack and melee weapon lose their properties when thrown, then not only can a halfling throw a great axe 20 feet without disadvantage, they can do so one-handed (dealing only 1d4 damage on a hit, of course.) YMMV on if that strains suspension of disbelief, but it certainly does for me.

 

[the Jester]

You know, like the RAW says (unless you can point out where it says in improvised weapons that the ranged weapon used in melee keeps its original qualities)

I mean... I agree with the sentiment that improvised weapons lose other qualities, but "it doesn't say that it doesn't" is hardly a good argument for saying that it's RAW. It doesn't say that it does, either. In general, "the rules don't say that it does" is a much stronger argument. And again, citing a Crawford tweet is highly unconvincing.

 

[Olrox17]

As demonstrated, the ranged quality only requires ammunition to be used when making a ranged attack, and the loading property only limits the number of times ammunition can be fired from the weapon. Neither restrict melee attacks made with the weapon in any way.

Wait a minute. So, a medium sized dude can swing an heavy crossbow in melee without worrying about the Loading and Ammunition properties, and using GWM to boot thanks to Heavy. OK.

What if the same guy tries to chuck the crossbow at some orc. Now he suddenly needs to use ammo to do it? Because it's a ranged attack? Why does he need ammo to throw a crossbow?
Oh! And if the orc wants to pick up the crossbow and throw it back at the dude's face, he needs to reload it, first.

This is silly. I'm with Crawford on this one.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

IMO when you use something as an improvised weapon it is, ipso facto, not a weapon. Otherwise you’d apply your proficiency bonus, no? And if it’s not a weapon then it’s not a heavy weapon.

This is flatly not correct. You don't add the proficiency bonus because you aren't proficient, not because an improvised weapon is "not a weapon". You can gain proficiency by taking the Tavern Brawler, and then you do add your bonus, so your logic here is just totally off. Sorry.

Also, if ranged weapons lose their properties when used to make a melee weapon attack and melee weapon lose their properties when thrown, then not only can a halfling throw a great axe 20 feet without disadvantage, they can do so one-handed (dealing only 1d4 damage on a hit, of course.) YMMV on if that strains suspension of disbelief, but it certainly does for me.

Ehhhhh I don't think that's too bad, because they're clearly just lobbing it - it's no worse than a Halfling throwing any other bulky, 7lb+ object. If that strains your suspension of disbelief, presumably a Halfling throwing a chair, or a small cask of ale/whiskey/etc., or a bag of flour or whatever also does.

What that means though isn't that it's wrong for a Halfling to be able to lob a greataxe specifically, it means you are gonna need house rules re: small people lobbing heavy things.

Maybe just halve the range if you don't meet a certain STR/weight ratio?

Just as an aside, I don't think a longbow actually has the Heavy trait because it is physically heavy, but rather hard-to-draw. So even if as a DM, I ruled some weapons retained some traits, I wouldn't rule a longbow retained the heavy trait. A heavy crossbow maybe, because you could really clonk someone with one of those things (and it's hardly broken to allow GWM with a weapon that is likely non-proficient, and only does 1d4 damage, I mean, ooooh, I'm so scared of the Fighter with GWM getting a -1 to hit and doing 1d4+4+10 damage, instead of +2 to hit and doing 2d6+4+10 (for example).

 

[jaelis]

This is flatly not correct. You don't add the proficiency bonus because you aren't proficient, not because an improvised weapon is "not a weapon". You can gain proficiency by taking the Tavern Brawler, and then you do add your bonus, so your logic here is just totally off. Sorry.

"You don't add the proficiency bonus because you aren't proficient": I think the presumption is that you are indeed proficient with longbows, and that is what you're attacking with.

The reason you don't add your proficiency bonus is because the rules say to treat a longbow as an improvised weapon. What defines an improvised weapon? It is something that is not a weapon. So you are treating the longbow as if it were not a weapon.

To the contrary, if you claim that you are still treating the longbow as a weapon, then you should follow the rules for treating improvised weapons as weapons, in which case you do get to add your proficiency bonus. (You might reasonably do that, and treat the bow as a quarterstaff.)

Tavern Brawler can say whatever it wants, it carves out its own exception. Obviously if the player here had TB they would add their prof bonus. But TB doesn't say you can treat improvised weapons as weapons.

 

[Charlaquin]

Wait a minute. So, a medium sized dude can swing an heavy crossbow in melee without worrying about the Loading and Ammunition properties, and using GWM to boot thanks to Heavy. OK.

What if the same guy tries to chuck the crossbow at some orc. Now he suddenly needs to use ammo to do it? Because it's a ranged attack? Why does he need ammo to throw a crossbow?

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.

Oh! And if the orc wants to pick up the crossbow and throw it back at the dude's face, he needs to reload it, first.

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.

This is silly. I'm with Crawford on this one.

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

 

[jaelis]

Not everyone sees Crawford's tweets as very convincing, regardless of WotC's official stance on a given day. His "roll 1d4+1 and it's for all of your magic missiles" post alone removed all his credibility as a rules guru for some people, just to post one example.

I don't have any strong feelings about how much credibility you want to give Crawford, but I don't really understand the problem with what he said about magic missile. This is the tweet you mean right?

No need to get into it here but there must be a long thread outlining the issue. I didn't immediately find it, can you direct me?

 

[Umbran]

If there is a use-case where it is meant to lose that property, the rules for that use-case need to specify so. In the absence of a more specific rule to follow, the general rule applies.

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.

 

[FrozenNorth]

No need to get into it here but there must be a long thread outlining the issue. I didn't immediately find it, can you direct me?

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).