Point Blank -10 +20. Does it work?

[Grear Bylls]

Ok. Question:
Let's say I have a fighter with SS, GWM, Tavern Brawler, and Crossbow expert. This character is adjacent to a gelatinous cube (low AC) wielding a heavy crossbow. He fires a bolt. Because he is adjacent to the cube, is it a melee attack with a ranged weapon, triggering both SS and GWM?

What if he beats the cube with the crossbow? It's an attack with a heavy ranged weapon, and he has proficiency due to Tavern Brawler. Does he trigger the +20 damage, +10, or nothing.

Just some theoretical ideas. Not actually going to use.

[GooeyChewie]

Firing a crossbow at a target is a ranged attack, even if it is done at point-blank range. Beating somebody over the head with an object is a melee attack, even if that object is designed to launch projectiles at somebody. No attack is simultaneously a melee attack and a ranged attack.

[GlenSmash!]

As far as I can tell firing a bolt is a Ranged Weapon Attack even if it's within 5ft. But to be fair that is my gut saying it, not a cross searching of the actual rules text.

[Grear Bylls]

Firing a crossbow at a target is a ranged attack, even if it is done at point-blank range. Beating somebody over the head with an object is a melee attack, even if that object is designed to launch projectiles at somebody. No attack is simultaneously a melee attack and a ranged attack.

But the thing is, SS requires a ranged WEAPON, not ATTACK. That's the question

[strangebloke]

Ok. Question:
Let's say I have a fighter with SS, GWM, Tavern Brawler, and Crossbow expert. This character is adjacent to a gelatinous cube (low AC) wielding a heavy crossbow. He fires a bolt. Because he is adjacent to the cube, is it a melee attack with a ranged weapon, triggering both SS and GWM?

What if he beats the cube with the crossbow? It's an attack with a heavy ranged weapon, and he has proficiency due to Tavern Brawler. Does he trigger the +20 damage, +10, or nothing.

Just some theoretical ideas. Not actually going to use.

short answer: No. Melee weapons are used to make melee attacks, and ranged weapons are used to make ranged attacks.

longer answer: NOooooooooo

First case: A ranged attack made in melee is still a ranged weapon attack. Otherwise, crossbow expert wouldn't apply to it, since the text of crossbow expert is "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls." Ranged weapons are for making ranged weapon attacks.

Second case: Is it an improvised weapon or ain't it? If it is, you can apply GWM and treat it as a greatclub. If it ain't, it's a ranged attack and you can apply SS and treat it as a crossbow. The only effective difference between the two is one damage die and which ability score you use.

[Unoriginal]

Firing a crossbow at a target is a ranged attack, even if it is done at point-blank range. Beating somebody over the head with an object is a melee attack, even if that object is designed to launch projectiles at somebody. No attack is simultaneously a melee attack and a ranged attack.

This.

Same way throwing your sword isn't a melee attack, even if it's 5ft away.

[strangebloke]

But the thing is, SS requires a ranged WEAPON, not ATTACK. That's the question

You can make a ranged attack with a melee weapon if it has the thrown property.

You cannot make a melee attack with a ranged weapon, ever. You can turn a ranged weapon into an improvised melee weapon.

[JackPhoenix]

You can make a ranged attack with a melee weapon if it has the thrown property.

You cannot make a melee attack with a ranged weapon, ever. You can turn a ranged weapon into an improvised melee weapon.

This. And improvised weapons don't have properties, so neither SS nor GWM apply.

[Malifice]

A crossbow as a melee weapon is an improvised weapon dealing 1d4 damage, and lacking the heavy property.

Under improvised weapons:

If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage.

It doesn't benefit from GWM.

[Phoenix042]

Actually, the rules include text that explicitly allows the DM to treat an improvised weapon as another weapon on the weapons table. My group leans on this rule to treat throwing knives as darts AND daggers for the purposes of rules interactions, sometimes both in one turn. We love that interaction; it allows our favorite rogue character to be very effective at throwing knives.

In the case of a heavy crossbow, I'd allow it to be treated as a greatclub, no problem. I'd actually argue not just that it's a cool thing to allow, but that it makes the most sense mechanically AND realistically; mechanically, great crossbow shouldn't lose the heavy or two handed property because that would remove important restrictions on their use. Realistically, heavy crossbows are very large and very heavy, and shaped pretty well to be a greatclub, with sturdy construction and more weight on the far end.

This still doesn't let you apply SS and GWM to the same ATTACK, but you could potentially apply them each to two different attacks in the same round without switching weapons, firing the crossbow for your first attack and clubbing someone with it when it's empty. You will have to ask your DM if he'll let you use the greatclub stats, or treat it as an improvised (1d4) melee weapon with the same other properties as a heavy crossbow (heavy, two handed), and in either case you can use GWM with it when you club someone with it. That's a DM call, but NOT a houserule (those are very different things; houserules are frequently bad for balance and should typically be avoided, while DM calls are necessary to simply play the game and cannot really be avoided.)

[Kyrinthic]

So. First, the relevant bits of rules:

GWM: Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with...

SS: Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with...

CE: Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack roll.

TB: You are proficient with improvised weapons

Weapons (P146):
Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged.
A melee weapon is used lo attack a target within 5 feel of you, whereas a ranged weapon is used lo attack a target at a distance.

Improvised weapons (P147):
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object).

If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.

-------------------------------

So, when you make an attack, you chose the weapon. The weapon is a heavy crossbow making a melee attack in this case.

Under improvised weapons, this is clearly an allowed circumstance, though it will only do 1d4 damage. There is no reason to assume it no longer has the heavy property.

Tavern brawler means they are proficient with it.

For GWM, they are making a melee attack with a heavy weapon, and they are proficient with it. This triggers, as common sense would suggest.

for SS, this for no good reason does not duplicate GWM and say a ranged attack with a weapon, but just states an attack with a ranged weapon. Tavern brawler again meets the proficiency requirement. By the wording in Improvised weapons, a melee attack with a ranged weapon is a valid thing, so this would also trigger.

---------------------------------

Now that is just a rules as written thing. you would be hard pressed to find a GM that would let this fly, and it requires 3 feats (crossbow expert isn't actually needed for anything), and gets you a 1d4+20 damage attack at -10 to hit, which by level 8+ isn't that impressive.

Its funny, I fully expected to find that it did not work until I pulled all the references together, but wound up convincing myself otherwise as I was doing it.

[Grear Bylls]

Now that is just a rules as written thing. you would be hard pressed to find a GM that would let this fly, and it requires 3 feats (crossbow expert isn't actually needed for anything), and gets you a 1d4+20 damage attack at -10 to hit, which by level 8+ isn't that impressive.

Its funny, I fully expected to find that it did not work until I pulled all the references together, but wound up convincing myself otherwise as I was doing it.

I was just looking at RAW, not actual game implementations. I was theory crafting to see what combinations of feats and weapons would allow you to do this.

Your response was sort of my reasoning behind this, I just wanted clarifications.

I also get it's a weak combo, but hilarious in the way that reading the rules a certain way can make it happen.

[Malifice]

Under improvised weapons, this is clearly an allowed circumstance, though it will only do 1d4 damage. There is no reason to assume it no longer has the heavy property.

The thing does weight 18lbs I guess. Its literally the heaviest weapon in the book (equal to the Pike). A maul only weighs 10lbs!

It might be entirely appropriate to grant it the heavy quality, although I wound be more inclined to treat it as a Greatclub (the closest thing to it, and lacking the heavy quality, but gaining a higher damage dice). Id rule it also breaks on a nat 1 or nat 20 though.

You aint getting sharpshooter when clubbing someone with it though, because you arent shooting.

[Grear Bylls]

The thing does weight 18lbs I guess. Its literally the heaviest weapon in the book (equal to the Pike). A maul only weighs 10lbs!

It might be entirely appropriate to grant it the heavy quality, although I wound be more inclined to treat it as a Greatclub (the closest thing to it, and lacking the heavy quality, but gaining a higher damage dice). Id rule it also breaks on a nat 1 or nat 20 though.

You aint getting sharpshooter when clubbing someone with it though, because you arent shooting.

Unless you jam it into them, and then pull the trigger ;)

[youtellatale]

The thing does weight 18lbs I guess. Its literally the heaviest weapon in the book (equal to the Pike). A maul only weighs 10lbs!

It might be entirely appropriate to grant it the heavy quality, although I wound be more inclined to treat it as a Greatclub (the closest thing to it, and lacking the heavy quality, but gaining a higher damage dice). Id rule it also breaks on a nat 1 or nat 20 though.

You aint getting sharpshooter when clubbing someone with it though, because you arent shooting.

I believe that it would no longer qualify as a "ranged weapon" as it is considered an "improvised weapon" once you use it in melee. This can be argued a number of ways, points for creativity for sure to OP who came up with this. Theory crafting is a fun exercise for sure, though this is incredibly cheesy - like fondue levels of cheese (but I also love it for that reason).

[GooeyChewie]

*snip*

Ah, but if you are using what would normally be a ranged weapon as an improvised weapon, it’s no longer a ranged weapon but rather “an object that bears no resemblance to a weapon.” In fact, if we want to take a really strict reading of the rules, you could argue that you *can’t* make such an attack because the crossbow *does* resemble a weapon, just not a melee weapon.

[strangebloke]

The thing does weight 18lbs I guess. Its literally the heaviest weapon in the book (equal to the Pike). A maul only weighs 10lbs!

It might be entirely appropriate to grant it the heavy quality, although I wound be more inclined to treat it as a Greatclub (the closest thing to it, and lacking the heavy quality, but gaining a higher damage dice). Id rule it also breaks on a nat 1 or nat 20 though.

You aint getting sharpshooter when clubbing someone with it though, because you arent shooting.

When wielding a weapon, the weight is less important than the distribution of that weight. A 10-pound hammer wielded from the head feels pretty light!. A Heavy Crossbow is probably shorter than four feet and is likely balanced around the center, so while swinging it around will tire you, it isn't really heavy in the sense that matters.

And anyway, by RAW improvised weapons are not, in fact, heavy, and any reasonable extensions of RAW have flown out the window along with OP's argument that sharpshooter applies to clubbing people with a crossbow.

[Davrix]

This is the kind of question is why we cant have nice things.

[Slipperychicken]

Is there anything in the rules to suggest that improvised weapons necessarily lose qualities such as being heavy or ranged?


Though RAW or not, this should not be allowed. Maybe you can take it to the same tables that let coffeelocks in...

[Grear Bylls]

To the people who are saying this shouldn't be a thing, I agree. I was just looking at the rules and said "hey, what if I did this". I'm not the most powergaming munchkin who builds the most broken character ever and expects tables to allow it, unlike someone else on the forum who may or may not keep getting banned.

This was me looking at something and seeing what you could do to it. A thought experiment. Relax

[Kyrinthic]

Ah, but if you are using what would normally be a ranged weapon as an improvised weapon, it’s no longer a ranged weapon but rather “an object that bears no resemblance to a weapon.” In fact, if we want to take a really strict reading of the rules, you could argue that you *can’t* make such an attack because the crossbow *does* resemble a weapon, just not a melee weapon.

See at first I thought that way as well, except the book explicitly uses it as an example on page 147.

> If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.

So clearly a ranged weapon can be used as an improvised weapon to make a melee attack. It doesnt become 'not a weapon', the way it is laid out almost seems like using an actual weapon in a non-standard way is a different form of improvised weapon than an object that bears no resemblance to a weapon, but still a valid action to deal 1d4 damage (which makes sense, you do see that sort of thing in media all the time).

Don't get me wrong, the idea of it counting on both sides is silly, and any sane GM would require a ranged attack for sharpshooter to work, but for some reason they did not add that stipulation into the feat. This is a rules as written answer, not a rules as intended one, its pretty clear using both would never be intended.

[Tanarii]

They didn't add the stipulation into the feat because you can't make melee attacks with ranged weapons, and because they didn't want that bullet point of the feat to work with thrown melee weapons or spells.

[Kyrinthic]

They didn't add the stipulation into the feat because you can't make melee attacks with ranged weapons, and because they didn't want that bullet point of the feat to work with thrown melee weapons or spells.

Except they specifically use a melee attack with a ranged weapon as an example under improvised weapons, and give rules on how to resolve it.

[RSP]

Except they specifically use a melee attack with a ranged weapon as an example under improvised weapons, and give rules on how to resolve it.

RAW it works, with the caveat everyone else has mentioned of whether it would be allowed or not. Improvised Weapons don't negate what the weapon is, so a crossbow used with a melee attack is still both a crossbow and a ranged weapon, which means that melee attack with the heavy crossbow also is eligible for the Archery FS +2 to the roll:

"You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons."

"Ranged weapons," not ranged attacks. In fact, you don't even need to be proficient with improvised weapons to get this +2...

[Tanarii]

Except they specifically use a melee attack with a ranged weapon as an example under improvised weapons, and give rules on how to resolve it.
Nothing in that says that a ranged weapon used as an improvised melee weapon remains a ranged weapon. In fact, it's pretty illogical* to think it does.

*used in the typical internet fashion of "it doesn't make sense to me personally" :smallwink:

[strangebloke]

RAW it works, with the caveat everyone else has mentioned of whether it would be allowed or not. Improvised Weapons don't negate what the weapon is, so a crossbow used with a melee attack is still both a crossbow and a ranged weapon, which means that melee attack with the heavy crossbow also is eligible for the Archery FS +2 to the roll:

"You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons."

"Ranged weapons," not ranged attacks. In fact, you don't even need to be proficient with improvised weapons to get this +2...

Yeah, I'm coming around on this. Definitely one of the sillier things in 5e ATM.

And this all happened because someone didn't want sharpshooter/archery applying to thrown weapons.

[RSP]

Nothing in that says that a ranged weapon used as an improvised melee weapon remains a ranged weapon. In fact, it's pretty illogical* to think it does.

*used in the typical internet fashion of "it doesn't make sense to me personally" :smallwink:

Whether a crossbow is used as an improvised weapon or not, it's still a crossbow: it doesn't suddenly change form to "undefined object." As a crossbow is, by 5e definition, a ranged weapon, it is also still a ranged weapon.

[Grear Bylls]

Given how RAW AL is, could I possibly run this build and them allow it?

[GlenSmash!]

Given how RAW AL is, could I possibly run this build and them allow it?

There's a lot more RAI involved in AL than you might think.

And I can't see most AL slowing down the game to hear your arguments of why this should work by RAW. Best cases scenario would have to approach the AL DM in between sessions and lay your argument out there.

[RSP]

There's a lot more RAI involved in AL than you might think.

And I can't see most AL slowing down the game to hear your arguments of why this should work by RAW. Best cases scenario would have to approach the AL DM in between sessions and lay your argument out there.

I'm not sure there's really anything mechanical "broken" about this. 3 feats, and a -10 applied to all attacks for +20 damage means a straight vhuman fighter can use this by level 8. In AL, you use standard array (correct me if I'm wrong on this point), so your Str will be 16, for a +3 mod. None of the +20 is doubled on a crit.

Essentially, all that effort goes towards an Attack Action of:

2x -2(1d4+23) [average dam of 25.5 per attack, with a 10% decrease in effectiveness and an average crit damage of 27.5]

vs taking either SS or GWM alone, with 2 ASIs to raise either Str or Dex to 20 for:

Pure Archer:
2x +5(1d10+15) [20.5 per attack, with a 25% increase in effectiveness and average crit dam of 26]

Pure GWM:
2x +3(2d6+15) [22 per attack, with a 15% increase in effectiveness and an average crit dam of 29]*

*if someone want to add in the average increase of GW FS's rerolls feel free.

I think the 35% increase in effectiveness for pure archers, and the 25% increase in effectiveness for the pure GWM, trumps the one-trick pony of the combo (that's a very significant difference in effectiveness).

So the combo will miss more than once for every 3 attacks that hit by the archer for a comparison of

Combo:
2/3 hits=~51 damage

Archer:
3/3 hits=~61.5 damage

Likewise, the combo will miss once for every 4 hits by the pure GWM:

Combo:
3/4 hits=~76.5 damage

GWM Greatsword:
4/4 hits=~88 damage

Note: these numbers are already weighted toward the combo (doesn't figure in the added damage on crits from Archer/Greatsword; doesn't factor in the additional 2% increase in effectiveness for the Archer; doesn't factor in the rerolls of the GW FS), and it still is less effective.

Not saying it should be allowed, but I do think it's less efficient.

Let me know how I did on those stats, though; it's not an area of expertise for me.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm not sure there's really anything mechanical "broken" about this. 3 feats, and a -10 applied to all attacks for +20 damage means a straight vhuman fighter can use this by level 8. In AL, you use standard array (correct me if I'm wrong on this point), so your Str will be 16, for a +3 mod. None of the +20 is doubled on a crit.

Essentially, all that effort goes towards an Attack Action of:

2x -2(1d4+23) [average dam of 25.5 per attack, with a 10% decrease in effectiveness and an average crit damage of 27.5]

vs taking either SS or GWM alone, with 2 ASIs to raise either Str or Dex to 20 for:

Pure Archer:
2x +5(1d10+15) [20.5 per attack, with a 25% increase in effectiveness and average crit dam of 26]

Pure GWM:
2x +3(2d6+15) [22 per attack, with a 15% increase in effectiveness and an average crit dam of 29]*

*if someone want to add in the average increase of GW FS's rerolls feel free.

I think the 35% increase in effectiveness for pure archers, and the 25% increase in effectiveness for the pure GWM, trumps the one-trick pony of the combo (that's a very significant difference in effectiveness).

So the combo will miss more than once for every 3 attacks that hit by the archer for a comparison of

Combo:
2/3 hits=~51 damage

Archer:
3/3 hits=~61.5 damage

Likewise, the combo will miss once for every 4 hits by the pure GWM:

Combo:
3/4 hits=~76.5 damage

GWM Greatsword:
4/4 hits=~88 damage

Note: these numbers are already weighted toward the combo (doesn't figure in the added damage on crits from Archer/Greatsword; doesn't factor in the additional 2% increase in effectiveness for the Archer; doesn't factor in the rerolls of the GW FS), and it still is less effective.

Not saying it should be allowed, but I do think it's less efficient.

Let me know how I did on those stats, though; it's not an area of expertise for me.

I never claimed it was broken just that you have to talk the DM into it which always has a risk of failure.

I think it would actually be easier to convince a non-AL DM that you have know personally to allow it for exactly the reasons you lay out, rather than an AL DM who doesn't know you and think you're trying to powergame and may never give you the chance to make your case.

[Kyrinthic]

Given how RAW AL is, could I possibly run this build and them allow it?

Maybe?

I mean, the RAW allows it, but its firmly in the land of GM discretion, and I expect a lot of GMs will say no.

That said, even on a GM that lets it fly, you are doing 1d4+20 damage at -10 to hit, after spending 3 feats. You arent exactly going to be stealing the spotlight with the build. You will mostly just miss a lot.

[RSP]

I never claimed it was broken just that you have to talk the DM into it which always has a risk of failure.

I think it would actually be easier to convince a non-AL DM that you have know personally to allow it for exactly the reasons you lay out, rather than an AL DM who doesn't know you and think you're trying to powergame and may never give you the chance to make your case.

Apologies Glen: my intent wasn't to indicate that you had claimed anything. Was really just interested in seeing what the numbers were. I probably should have just posted without any quote, I just thought of it while reading yours.

[GlenSmash!]

Apologies Glen: my intent wasn't to indicate that you had claimed anything. Was really just interested in seeing what the numbers were. I probably should have just posted without any quote, I just thought of it while reading yours.

Oh that makes sense. Thank you for clarifying.

It is a nice analysis.

[Kyrinthic]

I'm not sure there's really anything mechanical "broken" about this. 3 feats, and a -10 applied to all attacks for +20 damage means a straight vhuman fighter can use this by level 8. In AL, you use standard array (correct me if I'm wrong on this point), so your Str will be 16, for a +3 mod. None of the +20 is doubled on a crit.


Note that a fighter gets a feat at level 6, so this can come online a little faster, but otherwise, yeah, its terrible, dont do it even if your GM lets you.

A 1d4+23 vs 2d6+14 (the difference between using both feats vs using one feaet, and having one more stat bump and a greatsword) is about 4 points. You arent even getting a 1:1 trade on your -attack for doubling up.

[RSP]

Note that a fighter gets a feat at level 6, so this can come online a little faster, but otherwise, yeah, its terrible, dont do it even if your GM lets you.

A 1d4+23 vs 2d6+14 (the difference between using both feats vs using one feaet, and having one more stat bump and a greatsword) is about 4 points. You arent even getting a 1:1 trade on your -attack for doubling up.

Yes, you are correct: it would be level 8 on a non vhuman fighter, or level 6 on a vhuman fighter. Thanks for catching that.

[Crgaston]

All this back and forth about a crossbow as a melee weapon makes me wonder about the feasibility of a bayonet on a heavy crossbow.

Also, a melee strike with a non-bayonet-equipped heavy crossbow could simply be a buttstroke, right? Those tend to be pretty effective irl.

[RSP]

All this back and forth about a crossbow as a melee weapon makes me wonder about the feasibility of a bayonet on a heavy crossbow.

Also, a melee strike with a non-bayonet-equipped heavy crossbow could simply be a buttstroke, right? Those tend to be pretty effective irl.

I'd imagine a bayonet would be a melee weapon though: a dagger attached to a crossbow is still a dagger.