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.
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.
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.
No they don’t, they just add a greater number of misinterpretable rules.