Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FarBeyondC" data-source="post: 6997851" data-attributes="member: 6803170">And I believe that organization serves a useful (and interesting) purpose.I disagree. They could have easily have made two entries for dagger, or any of the other thrown weapons, if they wanted to. It would have been wasteful, mind. They could have also easily made a third category for weapons considered to be both melee weapons and ranged weapons, that would have been less wasteful and more supportive of the way you view things. If throwing a dagger causes said dagger to become a ranged weapon, then there's no reason why you can't use Sharpshooter with them. The thrown property doesn't change a melee weapon into a ranged weapon, though. In a similar sense, a monk could not stab someone with a dart and then use their Martial Arts granted bonus action unarmed strike.There is such a theoretical table. Everyone (with perhaps the exception of really dedicated playtesters or obsessively strict rule adherers) deviates from the rules of such a table. That the game is flexible enough to handle any number of changes from the rules of this theoretical table is a strength of the game. The fact that almost no one plays by these rules in practice is irrelevant when it comes to telling someone what those rules actually say.</blockquote>