Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7863028" data-attributes="member: 6987520">No, that is your reading. I was actually pointing out why it is absurd given that by your reading I could throw a longsword and you would consider it a &quot;ranged weapon attack&quot;. So, I was actually arguing against how you read it, as in my post to [USER=6966824]@Esker[/USER] .And actually, your reading goes against the language used in the PHB. The Thrown property allows you to make a &quot;ranged attack&quot;, not a &quot;ranged weapon attack.&quot; Making an attack at range is not the same thing as making a &quot;ranged weapon attack&quot;, i.e. an attack with a ranged weapon.[ATTACH=full]116219[/ATTACH]You can only make a &quot;ranged weapon attack&quot; by attacking with a &quot;ranged weapon&quot;.[ATTACH=full]116220[/ATTACH]&quot;Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged.&quot; A dagger, as listed in the PHB, is classified as melee. So, the thrown property allows you to make a ranged attack with a dagger, but does not make it a &quot;ranged weapon&quot; and therefore you cannot make a &quot;ranged weapon attack&quot; with it, you can only make a &quot;ranged attack&quot; with it.This language is also what prevents Sharpshooter from working with spells. You can make &quot;ranged attacks&quot; with spells, but they are not &quot;ranged weapon attacks&quot;, and they are thus designated &quot;ranged spell attacks&quot;. If Sharpshooter took out the word &quot;weapon&quot; from the first two benefits, it could apply equally well to weapons or spells because it would simply be &quot;ranged attacks.&quot;[ATTACH=full]116221[/ATTACH]The final benefit was written as it was because of the &quot;proficient&quot; rider clause. It would be redundant to write:&quot;Before you make a ranged weapon attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with,&quot;They simply didn't need the first &quot;ranged weapon&quot; and it sounds awkward to include it.So, in summary: Thrown weapon = &quot;ranged attack&quot;, not &quot;ranged weapon attack&quot;. Thus, none of the benefits of Sharpshooter can work with Thrown weapons, only &quot;ranged weapons&quot; as classified in the PHB.THAT is my interpretation and why I wouldn't allow Sharpshooter (any part of it) to work with thrown weapons. Especially, as I stated before, when the opening sentence is about &quot;ranged weapons&quot; and the feat is not called &quot;Sharpthrower&quot;. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Now, hidden out there somewhere might be a tweet or SA note to the contrary, which is cool if there is, and I am fine with having Sharpshooter apply to thrown weapons if the table wanted it as I don't see it hurting anything and only makes thrown weapons more appealing. But, by a strict reading of the rules, I would say &quot;No. No, sir, indeed.&quot;(Jeez... that was long and I hate myself for it! See? See what I had to do! Bad dnd4vd, bad! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> )</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7863028, member: 6987520"] No, that is [I]your[/I] reading. I was actually pointing out why it is absurd given that by your reading I could throw a longsword and you would consider it a "ranged weapon attack". So, I was actually arguing against how you read it, as in my post to [USER=6966824]@Esker[/USER] . And actually, your reading goes against the language used in the PHB. The Thrown property allows you to make a "ranged attack", not a "ranged [B]weapon [/B]attack." Making an attack at range is [I]not[/I] the same thing as making a "ranged weapon attack", i.e. an attack with a ranged weapon. [ATTACH type="full" width="502px" alt="1574921479243.png"]116219[/ATTACH] You can only make a "ranged weapon attack" by attacking with a "ranged weapon". [ATTACH type="full" width="502px" alt="1574921686087.png"]116220[/ATTACH] "[I]Every weapon is classified as either melee or ranged[/I]." A dagger, as listed in the PHB, is classified as melee. So, the thrown property allows you to make a ranged attack with a dagger, but does not make it a "ranged weapon" and therefore you cannot make a "ranged weapon attack" with it, you can only make a "ranged attack" with it. This language is also what prevents Sharpshooter from working with spells. You can make "ranged attacks" with spells, but they are not "ranged weapon attacks", and they are thus designated "ranged [I]spell[/I] attacks". If Sharpshooter took out the word "weapon" from the first two benefits, it could apply equally well to weapons or spells because it would simply be "ranged attacks." [ATTACH type="full" width="503px" alt="1574922110930.png"]116221[/ATTACH] The final benefit was written as it was because of the "proficient" rider clause. It would be redundant to write: "Before you make a ranged weapon attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with," They simply didn't need the first "ranged weapon" and it sounds awkward to include it. So, in summary: Thrown weapon = "ranged attack", not "ranged weapon attack". Thus, none of the benefits of Sharpshooter can work with Thrown weapons, only "ranged weapons" as classified in the PHB. [I]THAT[/I] is my interpretation and why I wouldn't allow Sharpshooter (any part of it) to work with thrown weapons. Especially, as I stated before, when the opening sentence is about "ranged weapons" and the feat is not called "Sharpthrower". :) Now, hidden out there somewhere might be a tweet or SA note to the contrary, which is cool if there is, and I am fine with having Sharpshooter apply to thrown weapons if the table wanted it as I don't see it hurting anything and only makes thrown weapons more appealing. But, by a strict reading of the rules, I would say "No. No, sir, indeed." (Jeez... that was long and I hate myself for it! See? See what I had to do! Bad dnd4vd, bad! :( ) [/QUOTE]

Verification