Rogue weapon proficiencies

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/character-classes-continued#Rogue

"Weapon Proficiencies:  Simple weapons and Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property"

A normal humam would read that as excluding bows because bows dont have the light or finesse property.

But i assume this is one of those grouping issues? Like it needs parenthesis?

"Weapon Proficiencies: (Simple weapons) and (Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property)"

Which could be fixed if rewritten as 

"Weapon Proficiencies:  Simple weapons;  Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property;

I feel like wotc needs to hire a technical write who is a grammarian and has a background in software, and just go through this stuff with a fine tooth comb.

Or just get claude to resd through and proofread for ambiguous groupings like that

Jeebus

Rogues have proficiency with two categories of weapons:

• Simple weapons
• Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property

You can tell this is the intent because it says "simple weapons and martial weapons", rather than "simple and martial weapons". Though I agree it could've been worded a little better.

Rogues are thus proficient with shortbows (a simple weapon) but not with longbows (a martial weapon that is neither Finesse nor Light).

You know what would also be an easy fix? 

The Oxford freaking Comma.

Everyone who writes for a living uses the Oxford Comma except for journalists because back in the day, a comma took up space in the newspaper so they skipped it to save space.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

You know what would also be an easy fix? 

The Oxford freaking Comma.

Everyone who writes for a living uses the Oxford Comma except for journalists because back in the day, a comma took up space in the newspaper so they skipped it to save space. 

While I like the Oxford Comma in general, I'm not sure it would apply here; it's generally used in a list of three or more things.

It's as wagnarokkr said for both things: Weapon Proficiencies and the Oxford comma.

Second opinions:

Quote from SagaTympana >>

Quote from CunningSmile >>

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

I see no ambiguity here; rogues are proficient with Simple weapons AND Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property.

Weapon Proficiencies

Simple weapons and Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property

 That's how I read it too. This is why we need more Oxford commas

 
The Oxford comma only applies in lists of three or more items. It’s not relevant to this example, in which any comma would actually be completely incorrect. English grammar doesn’t really have any correct way to make this completely unambiguous, but they’ve chosen the best possible option.

Quote from Tarod_ >>

It's as wagnarokkr said for both things: Weapon Proficiencies and the Oxford comma.

Second opinions:

Quote from SagaTympana >>

Quote from CunningSmile >>

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

I see no ambiguity here; rogues are proficient with Simple weapons AND Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property.

Weapon Proficiencies

Simple weapons and Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property

 That's how I read it too. This is why we need more Oxford commas

 
The Oxford comma only applies in lists of three or more items. It’s not relevant to this example, in which any comma would actually be completely incorrect. English grammar doesn’t really have any correct way to make this completely unambiguous, but they’ve chosen the best possible option.

semicolon to the rescue.  From webster: A semicolon is used in place of a comma to separate phrases or items in a list or series"

i.e. "Weapon Proficiencies:  Simple weapons; Martial weapons that have the Finesse or Light property;"

If this were fiction, fine, whatever, a little ambiguity can make things interesting. 

but in a rule book??? Come on, wotc....