Edit: A lot of people say, that GWM needs a melee weapon attack, but they miss Jesses point: While GWM requires a melee attack with a heavy weapon, Sharpshooters only criteria is an attack with a ranged weapon (not a ranged weapon attack). Jesse bases his claim on the fact, that a crossbow is still a ranged weapon, even if used as an improvised weapon for melee combat. That’s why it deals 1d4(!)+20 damage. (It works with any ranged, heavy weapon btw., so Longbow qualifies too.) Of course Jesse is playing the devils advocate here and of course, no somewhat sane Walter will allow this in any campaign ever, as it’s obviously not the intention behind these feats. But you could read it that way and that’s Jesses (paperthin) point. Besides: he finds the image of a barbarian running around recklessly smashing a crossbow over everyone’s head to just be hilarious.
PHB says "attack with a ranged weapon" which is not necessarily a ranged attack.
It's an improvised melee weapon when you smack someone with it because you aren't using the weapon as designed.
It just feels like rules lawyering and focusing on semantics, when the intent is clear.
Also I get why it is a meme but I stand by my pedantry.
Of course it is, that’s the joke - as explained by the headline.
Thanks! Someone finally got it.
idk what those acronyms mean.
RAW = Rules as Written
RAI = Rules as Intended
This is one of those situations where the context is clear but they switched the wording to be about the weapon in the context of proficiency for the third bullet point. Ranged attack description, ranged attack for first two bullet points, and then ranged weapon for the third.
So if you ignore all the context and expect them to repeat "ranged weapon making a ranged attack" in every single sentence then yes, it literally says ranged weapon in the third bullet and not ranged attack.
Of course. It is a joke, but also a valid commentary on the weakness of WotC’s meta rules system. This is an area Paizo excels at.
I have to say that so many of the complaints about WotC rules writing come down to willfully ignoring context and similar phrasing. Yes, they should be more consistent and clear and mot name general ranged feats with weapon specific names or contradict themselves in their rules "clarifications."
A sentence out of context is not the gotcha that people seem to think it is though, and that joke is old and played out.
I'd disagree, for example in the specific case of the sharpshooter feat a thrown dagger is a ranged weapon attack, but not an attack with a ranged weapon- so, per Jeremy Crawford, the first two parts of the feat apply when throwing a dagger but not the third.
That doesn't ignore the context of being a ranged attack though, and something being true doesn't mean the inverse situation is automatically true.
My point was more that there is a specified difference between a "Ranged weapon attack", a "ranged attack", and "an attack with a ranged weapon"- the three things mean different things. Hitting someone with a crossbow is "an attack with a ranged weapon", and thus the third point on the sharpshooter feat should apply, for the same reason throwing a dagger doesn't apply it; if performing a ranged attack with a melee weapon doesn't count as an attack with a ranged weapon, why would performing a melee attack with a ranged weapon count as a melee weapon attack?
Sharpshooter's opening text makes it clear that the feat is about ranged attacks. "You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. You gain the following benefits:"
You are still ignoring the context of Sharpshooter being about shooting, aka a ranged attack.As I said:
The flavour text for the feats doesn't actually give the details of what rules they have. That's the issue- the rules are vague, rely on other bits of context which may or may not be considered part of the rules depending on the reader, and are followed up by a series of twitter rulings which tend to muddy things more often than they clear them up. In 5e, RAW, you can bonk people with a crossbow and use the third point on the sharpshooter feat- same as how in 3.5e, RAW, a chicken infested commoner could pull infinite chickens out of their spell component pouch, or an iron heart surge could take out an anti magic field, or drowning could heal someone from -1000HP back to 0. The point isn't "Hey, look at these things you should totally do in the game", the point is "here's what the rules literally say". And, by a literal reading of the rules, the sentence "Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage." must stand on it's own.
'Flavor text' is context because it shows that the text is describing. If a reading of the rules contradicts the flavor text because it is considered unclear, then the reading of the rules that contradicts the flavor text is wrong.
I'd be inclined to agree with you if there wasn't such a specific divide between the flavour text and the content. For instance, the sharpshooter feat doesn't specifically let you make shots that others think are impossible- saying "I use my sharpshooter feat to shoot the BBEG in his castle three hundred miles away" would certainly be a shot that others think are impossible, but I doubt any table would let that fly. Saying "I have the crusher feat, so I'm going to break the enemy's bones to debuff them" would fit directly into the flavour of "You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies", but it's also not what the feat does. For the halflings, you can take the bountiful luck feat, and then use it, despite the flavour text clearly stating "You're not sure how you do it; you just wish it, and it happens"- thus precluding anyone who knows about the feat or what it does from taking it. Lucky: "You have inexplicable luck that seems to kick in at just the right moment.", but it's actually very explicable, follows predictable rules and doesn't kick in at just the right moment unless the player knows just the right moment to use it.
No they don't, they just add a greater number of misinterpretable rules.