Cool! So if you go to a restaurant, order mac and cheese, get it in a cardboard container and when it spills you get hospitalized for a week, do you say “mac and cheese is meant to be served very hot! Of course I’ll cover the medical bill myself!”. What about when a few dozen people run into the same issue, because the restaurant has figured out that the occasional lawsuit from people being badly injured is cheaper than the cost of keeping the mac and cheese at an edible temperature? I mean, consider the comparison you’re going for here. “If she’d heated a substance to that temperature herself, then spilled it on herself, it would be entirely her own fault! Why is it when someone else heats a substance to an unsafe temperature, then someone gets injured by it, it’s not entirely on the injured party? They should know that the substance was heated far beyond what anyone would reasonably expect it to be provided at!”

After their efforts with 4e’s VTT, I’m not surprised they’re so happy to be able to show basic functionality

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

That’s on me, I’ve been playing my tavern brawler for too long and overlooked that most people don’t have imrpovised weapon proficiency. It looks like using most ranged weapons in melee is maybe improvised for two reasons? Like, the ammunition property makes it improvised, but also the “ranged weapon to make a melee attack” rule makes it improvised. Which I guess lines up if you take it as Javelins being good for melee and throwing, while darts are only really good for throwing- makes sense to me, although it’s weird to have the same thing said twice over (a ranged weapon is improvised, but also an ammunition traited weapon is improvised, and only ranged weapons have that trait so they’re already improvised in melee)

Yeah, there’s a heck of a lot of overlap between Traveller and 40k- they were developed around the same times (classic traveller was '77, Megatraveller was '86, Rogue Trader was '87 and then Traveller: The New Era was '92) so there’s a lot of cross-pollination between the two

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

Good catch on the Ammunition property, I did miss that- I’m not sure if that goes for weapon traits or just proficiencies, or if it’s just a reference to that particular part of the improvised weapons section which specifically calls out ranged weapons in melee.

I do want to be very nitpicky with it- that’s what I’m doing here, having fun seeing what the rules technically allow rather than what they actually play like at the table XD

I kind of love the idea that the dart not having the ammunition property means it doesn’t count as an improvised weapon when used in melee, because that would mean a dart is just a dagger that weighs a quarter as much and doesn’t have the light property (also am I wrong to think that the dagger’s thrown property does nothing, since a thrown melee weapon without the thrown property does 1d4 damage with a range of 20/60ft anyway?)

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.

Ah, my mistake there- I thought that was another one with “attack with a melee weapon”. It does make more sense that crossbow bashing would be strength based tho, surprising to see the rules as written following logic XD

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

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.

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?

The FGHP is from Traveller, it deals a shedload of damage (2d6 times ten in a system where the average person has 21 ‘hp’), but has the unfortunate side effect of venting radiation all over everything when you fire it. It’s meant to be used in conjunction with a pretty good hazmat suit, but those can get expensive and a cheap enough hireling could run cheaper…

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.

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.

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.

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.

Honestly, coming from Pathfinder 1e (where you needed a feat to use combat maneouvers without provoking an AoO) I was a real fan of 5e allowing for more use of those mechanics without paying a feat tax. It’s unfortunate that they’re rarely worth using in place of dealing damage, but that’s a seperate issue. Shoving, Disarming and Grappling are available to everyone in 5e without any feat or class investment, at least.

Presumably you’re talking about subclasses? If so, I disagree to an extent- a lot of the subclasses have a valid reason to be included, since they fit more specific archetypes that people might want to play, for instance the conquest paladin fills a niche that doesn’t really have any strong alternatives. The issue I have is power creep- it feels like Strixhaven, for instance, throws the balance right out of whack with Silvery Barbs, while Tasha’s Cauldron gives us the Twilight Domain cleric with all it’s issues. If the new subclasses were balanced well, I’d be fine with having more of them, since players only need to remember the rules for the one they’re playing at the table, if that makes sense.

I think there’s a rules oversight on the choking side of things; while a creature can hold it’s breath for a minimum of 30 seconds (if it has a negative con modifier, which hardly ever comes up), the next paragraph of that rule says: “When a creature runs out of breath or is choking, it can survive for a number of rounds equal to its Constitution modifier (minimum of 1 round).” (emphasis mine) So I’d say that there’s a difference between holding your breath, and being actively strangled- the latter I’d probably rule as a second opposed athletics check during a grapple instead of dealing damage, which puts the creature down after Con Mod consecutive successes.