Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7863173" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Yeah, I knew you would go to the unarmed strikes thing, but since it was after 1:30 AM when I posted, I was too tired to bother addressing that last night.Unarmed Strikes are a special melee weapon attack. The only reason they had to alter it was because they removed Unarmed Strikes from the PHB Weapons Table:[ATTACH=full]116242[/ATTACH]Oh, look, there it was... Too bad, it made it all so much easier and you didn't need to make the exception:[ATTACH=full]116241[/ATTACH]Of course, they did it because they didn't want certain features working with Unarmed Strikes.Now, he had to explain it further in the SA. I found it for you, didn't want you to have to exert yourself:[ATTACH=full]116253[/ATTACH]So, clearly he says "Similarly, 'ranged weapon attack' means a ranged attack with a weapon."Except there is that little thing at the end, that "bit of wording minutia". They have never, as far as I can recall, written "melee-weapon attack" with a hyphen in any text. Nor have they written "ranged-weapon attack".So, again there are features that Crawford doesn't want to work with melee weapons used as ranged attacks, such as the -5/+10 of Sharpshooter, right? Big surprise. Just like he didn't want some features working with Unarmed Strikes. Considering his track record for reversing his position on things, I wouldn't rely on Crawford.Finally, consider this:A Fighter with a blowgun and a Fighter with a handaxe both have Sharpshooter. They both gain the first features, so ignore disadvantage for Long range and 1/2- and 3/4-cover, but only the Fighter with the blowgun can use the -5/+10 feature. A 1 damage blowgun can do 11 points, but the handaxe can't... So, that makes lots of sense... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> Since you don't want to go over this again, you don't have to reply. This is more for everyone. As I have stated repeatedly, I am fine with SS working with thrown weapons, but the language dictates otherwise. Only the "special" considerations make it "official", but then the feat only half-works for thrown weapons, which is a ridiculous IMO. These silly nuances of attack language could easily have been avoided.Besides, these long posts are startin' t' aggrevate me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification