this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
144 points (88.3% liked)

RPGMemes

10340 readers
616 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 year ago (4 children)

GWM specifies a melee attack iirc

[–] Tarcion@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The meme community hasn't read the rules

[–] Skua@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

RAR, Rules As (mis)Remembered

[–] lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 4 points 1 year ago

RAM sounds better.

[–] drbluefall@toast.ooo 2 points 1 year ago

...has seriously no one bothered to make a WinRAR joke?

Suppose I'll just archive mine.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

Literally every time someone posts with this Walter and Jesse meme format, it is the dumbest shit I've ever seen. It makes me lose brain cells instantly and desperately wish I had unsubbed from this community months ago

[–] yaminoEXE@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

Reading in my ttrpg? Impossible. All that matters is the dm regurgitating the rules for the players.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You’re correct. It uses “melee attack” for everything, so a crossbow would be excluded. Unless maybe you’re using the crossbow as an improvised weapon and bashing the enemy over the head with it? But then Sharpshooter wouldn’t apply, because it specifies “ranged weapon attack” and hitting someone with a melee attack wouldn’t be ranged.

[–] IggythePyro@ttrpg.network 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sharpshooter specifies "an attack with a ranged weapon"- so the only argument I could see against using a crossbow for bonking counting for that is if using a crossbow as a melee weapon makes it not count as a ranged weapon. That's an interpretation I disagree with, though, per the sage advice on thrown weapons and sharpshooter- if throwing a dagger isn't an attack with a ranged weapon, it implies that "ranged weapon" is inherent to the item rather than how it's used. Throwing a dagger at someone is an attack with a melee weapon, ergo hitting someone in the face with a crossbow is an attack with a ranged weapon.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your note about thrown weapons has given me a new idea on how to start an argument with my DM. Throw a dagger at someone, then watch my DM pitch a fit when I argue that I can smite because throwing the dagger is a melee weapon attack.

[–] IggythePyro@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

Far be it for me to advocate starting rules arguments, but RAW I think that works and for flavour I'll always support ways to play paladins as something other than the melee knight in shining armour

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No. Sharpshooter (as written) requires an attack with a ranged weapon. Nothing says the attack has to be ranged. I could also use a shortbow as an improvised meelee-weapon and triggers Sharshooter (I’m mostly relying on the fact that just because I’m not using it as a ranged weapon, it still is one). But Crossbow is also heavy, allowing the use of GWM.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 3 points 1 year ago

Hitting someone with a melee attack is a range of 1m!

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It is a melee attack. Jesse hits people with the crossbow in melee. Jesse does read the rules. Thank you.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

But sharp shooter doesn't specify a ranged attack... right? Right?

(My source is wikidot)

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

even on that wiki it states that you need to make a ranged weapon attack. THREE TIMES, infact the same amount GWM states that it needs a melee weapon attack.

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm one to rule with intent, and would rule against using it, but at the same time, it does say

" 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 that attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage."

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Mhm yeah, but if you attack with a ranged weapon in melee, its no longer an attack with a ranged weapon as you use it as an improvised weapon instead.

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, the weapon changes type depending how it's used, I'll take that.

[–] IggythePyro@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I won't- per Jeremy Crawford, a thrown melee weapon isn't an attack with a ranged weapon, so by the same logic a melee attack with a ranged weapon wouldn't become a melee weapon attack.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Jeremy Crawford's 'rules clarifications' are inconsistent dog shit.

[–] IggythePyro@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 year ago

Jeremy Crawford's rules are also inconsistent dog shit. That's why we're here, looking at this meme :)

[–] cerevant@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Correct. It says an attack with a ranged weapon.

It does specify ranged weapon attack.

[–] Nikko882@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This doesn't really work as far as I can tell, RAW or RAI. While it is the case that in theory a Melee Attack with a Heavy Ranged Weapon would satisfy both criteria, there is no weapon that can normally perform such an attack, as far as I'm aware. Using a Heavy Crossbow or a Longbow to make a Melee Attack would be attacking with an Improvised Melee Weapon, which is both not a Ranged Weapon and does not have the Heavy property, so neither Feat would be useful.

If we are being generous we could say that attacking with a Heavy Crossbow would be like a Club and a Longbow would be like a Staff, and per the Improvised Weapons rules we could use those weapon stats for our Improvised Weapon, however, note that neither of these have the Heavy property, so you would be unable to use either Feat in this case as well. (The Heavy property, particularly on Ranged Weapons, seems to be not about the weight of the weapon (an intrinsic property of the thing), but about the strength required to attack with such a weapon in it's intended manner. In this way it would make sense that neither Feat would work.)

[–] IggythePyro@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

As far as I can see, the rule for using a ranged weapon for melee is just: "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." That says nothing about changing the traits of the weapon, nor that the weapon is treated as an improvised weapon for the purposes of the attack- the rules for improvised weapons are a seperate clause within the same paragraph. As such, I'd argue that hitting someone with the butt of your heavy crossbow is effectively an attack with a martial weapon, damage 1d4 bludgeoning, with the traits Ammunition (range 100/400), heavy, loading and two-handed- of which ammunition doesn't apply because it's not a ranged attack, and thus loading doesn't constrain multiattack (because only being able to load 1 piece of ammo per round doesn't affect the bonks per round). Per the thrown weapon rules, I'd also argue that bonking people with a crossbow would rely on the attacker's dex, because it doesn't have the finesse property and as a ranged weapon it's dex based.

[–] Nikko882@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If you look at the Ammunition Property it says "If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon", which I read as meaning your weapon is an Improvised Weapon rather than a Ranged Weapon. Although I do concede that the improvised weapons rule says that if you are using a Ranged Weapon to make a Melee Attack it will deal 1d4 damage, which I assume means that you can't use the rule that says that you can treat it like another similar weapon, which I think is odd, but ok.

(Also, if you want to be very nitpicky about it, the ammunition property says you can't make ranged attacks without loaded ammunition, but any type of attack will spend your ammunition. However, I don't think that's a fair reading, and I think the ammunition property simply does not apply, because you are using it as an Improvised Weapon and therefore none of the Properties apply.)

I suppose if you really wanted to get into the details, the rules in the Ammunition section would not apply to weapons that are Ranged Weapons, but do not have the Ammunition Property, like the Dart or Net. But I feel like it would be most reasonable to rule that these are also considered Improvised Weapons and not Ranged Weapons that deal 1d4 damage if used to make a Melee Attack. (Although the Net can not deal damage as per it's Special Property, so that doesn't really apply to it, so you would be left with the Dart, which doesn't have the Heavy Property, and thus isn't really relevant to the greater discussion here.)

[–] IggythePyro@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Looks like I was dead wrong here- turns out there's another JC tweet that says: "If you use a weapon in a way that turns it into an improvised weapon—such as smacking someone with a bow—that weapon has none of its regular properties, unless the DM rules otherwise." So bonking people with a crossbow wouldn't count for GWM because the crossbow isn't heavy when you're not shooting it

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The DM omnirule applies: If it breaks the game, then no, just no. But if it merely makes the game more ridiculous without giving the DM a splitting headache or driving players away from the table, allow it.

I suspect something like this would trigger the headache clause, and if I were DM I'd probably ask the player to pick which one he would rather it apply to, but not both.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

-10 to hit will mean this person is doing an average of 6 damage an attack across an arbitrary number of attacks. I think you'd be fine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FnordPrefect@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

geordi-no Heavy Crossbow

geordi-yes Heavy Crossbow

[–] dfc09@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My take on why this doesn't work RAW is there's a time that states "specific beats general"

When you use a crossbow as a melee weapon, it specifically belongs an improvised melee weapon for the attack, which trumps the general rule that a crossbow is ranged weapon.

I would even go so far as to say that means it doesn't qualify for GWM either.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

okay but if you're using the crossbow as a melee weapon does it still count as ranged?

(also this is what I hate about the wargaming origins of most DnD systems, and have been really enjoying the PBTA derived Matryoshka I want my game to be more about collaborative storytelling and roleplaying and a GM that can make on the fly decisions as to what makes sense with the rulebook more as a basic outline than concrete mechanical rules like we're playing a CRPG but with pen and paper)

[–] cerevant@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

PHB says "attack with a ranged weapon" which is not necessarily a ranged attack.

[–] Glytch@ttrpg.network 6 points 1 year ago

It's an improvised melee weapon when you smack someone with it because you aren't using the weapon as designed.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] cerevant@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Of course it is, that’s the joke - as explained by the headline.

[–] jounniy@ttrpg.network 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks! Someone finally got it.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

idk what those acronyms mean.

[–] pepesilvia@monyet.cc 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

RAW = Rules as Written

RAI = Rules as Intended

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] cerevant@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] IggythePyro@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] computergeek125@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FatPigeons@ttrpg.network 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] computergeek125@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Thank you much

load more comments
view more: next ›