The DMs guide to Pre-Game ambiguous RAW

[Corinath]

Hey everyone!

I want to hear your suggestions for the ambiguous RAW that a DM should consider prior to starting their game. Examples of these questions would be "Can a lightfoot halfling rogue use their bonus action to hide behind a taller ally at mid-combat" or "If I take a warlock level at PC level 15, am I able to take a level 15 or higher invocation?"

Note, this isn't meant to discuss the merits of an answer to these questions, as most of these questions have threads of their own. It's more meant to talk about which questions exist so that DMs have an idea of what to discuss with their group in advance of starting a campaign.

Hit me with those questions, or with suggestions on how to clarify questions currently in the spoiler.

Thanks!

Edit: If you bring up something that is ambiguous, please be specific in how it's ambiguous, as I may not be familiar with it. Saying something like "That Find Steed thing with two spells" wouldn't do anything for me had I not already known it. (no one said this, it was an example).

---


1. Can a lightfoot halfling rogue use their bonus action to hide behind a taller ally mid-combat? Rogue hiding and location thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?368307-Some-thoughts-on-the-Rogue&highlight=lightfoot%20halfling%20rogue%20hide%20co mbat)
2. If I take a warlock level at PC level 15, am I able to take a level 15 or higher invocation?Offical WotC Answer on this and it's thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371665-THE-OFFICAL-WOTC-ANSWER-TO-Can-a-warlock-multiclass-and-pick-invocations-level)
3. If I cast Cone of Cold (or other Target: Self spells) while riding a mount found via the Find Steed spell, does the steed also cast a second Cone of Cold? What about other un-intuitive Target: Self Spells? (Magic Jar, Etc.) Find Steed thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371207-Find-Steed-being-broken)
4. Does Crossbow Expert allow you to dual wield hand crossbows by creating an entirely new set of rules for this situation, or does it modify the Two Weapon Fighting rules (as you are fighting with two weapons), therebye requiring a one handed melee weapon?
5. Do you get your Dex to damage with the bonus attack from Crossbow Expert?
6. Does Crossbow Expert allow the bonus action attack if you are only wielding a single hand crossbow?
Questions 4-6 are found in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367844-Rogue-Dual-Wield-Hand-Crossbows&highlight=Crossbow+Expert)
7. Do you get Mod to damage on the bonus attack offered by the haft of a polearm with the PolearmMaster feat?
8. Does Twin Spell metamagic require single target spells, or instead does it allow any spell with the ability to target multiple enemies (but currently only targets one enemy with this casting)? Twinned Spell Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369868-Twinned-spell-Sorcerer&highlight=twin+scorching+ray) Quicken Vs Twin Spell thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372283-Quicken-vs-Twin)
9. If a Half-Orc or Barbarian is under the effects of Chill Touch when reduced to zero HP or below, do they immediately change to 1 HP per their race/class feature, or does Chill Touch over ride it?
10. How does the effects of Chill Touch interact with the HP regaining features of Wild Shape?
11. If, as an Illusionist Wizard, you create a heavy object over an enemy, then use Illusory Reality to "make it real", does it directly deal damage when it invariably falls on the enemy below? Additioanlly, can I use the same combination to create spell materials?Illusory Reality thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372336-Illusory-Reality)
12. Can you use Wild Shape while already in Beast Form? Level 20 Druid Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369377-Duid-20-Infinite-Hit-Points) Onion Druid Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?371539-What-Does-quot-Onion-Druid-quot-Mean)
13. Does the Sentinel feat's second ability (Creatures within 5 feat of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.) change if I have a reach of 10 feet or more?
14. An enemy triggers an attack of opportunity from entering a Polearm Master + Battlemaster Fighter's reach at 10 feet. If the PM+BM player uses a trip attack, does the trip attack cause the creature to fall down at 10 or 15 feet?
15. A Barbarian's Rage ability grants certain benefits, so long as the player isn't wearing heavy armor. However, a totem barbarian's rage abilities do not mention armor at all. Would a Totem Barbarian gain their totem benefits in full armor?
16. If I use the Help action to give advantage to an ally's attack, can I move away on the same turn?
17. Do cantrips with level-based scaling damage increase in damage from over-all character level, or from the relevant class level(s)? Relevant Cantrip Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370537-Cantrips-scale-off-of-class-level-or-total-level)

Credit:
Thanks to Shadow for 4-8.
Thanks to Shining Wrath for 9-10
Thanks to Archaeo for 12
Thanks to Vowtz for 13-16
Thanks to DeAnno for 17



Article (http://dmdavid.com/tag/9-more-fifth-edition-dd-rules-questions-answered-by-the-designers/)

Rulings from the article:

1. The fighter’s dueling style, which grants a +2 to damage, works with a shield in the off hand.
2. A divine focus can be emblazoned on a cleric’s shield, enabling the cleric to wield a weapon in the other hand and still cast spells. A wizard can hold an arcane focus in one hand and a weapon in another and still cast spells. A druid must hold mistletoe as an arcane focus, so druids must either stash their shield or their weapon to cast.
3. Moving through the space of an ally, even a prone ally, counts as difficult terrain.
4. You cannot hide from a creature that can see you. Aside from that limitation, the DM must rule on when a creature can hide and sneak based on what makes sense in the game world. See “D&D next re-empowers DMs; players stay empowered.” The designers tried to write broad rules for stealth, but found that the number of possibilities made the rules too cumbersome for the elegant game they aimed to create.
5. Initiative rolls count as Dexterity checks, so anything that boosts Dexterity checks improves initiative.
6. Multi-classed characters only gain ability score increases when they reach the benefit levels in one of their classes. Although classes gain an ability score increase at fourth level, a character multi-classed to level 2 in two classes does not gain an ability score increase.
7. The missiles in a Magic Missile strike simultaneously. This means the strikes count as a single source of damage for things like resistance and that 3 magic missiles striking a character at 0 HP does not count as 3 failed death saves. Your wizard must decide which missiles will hit which targets before you start tallying damage.
8. If an opportunity attack or other reaction drops you prone as you move, you can still use your remaining movement to crawl or stand. The usual movement costs apply.
9. Spells that include an attack roll can score a critical hit.

[Shadow]

Point of note:
"3. If I cast Cone of Cold (or other Target: Self spells) while riding a mount found via the Find Steed spell, does the steed also cast a second Cone of Cold?"

It has Range: self
It targets an area, not you. So that's not an example of ambiguous rules. That's an example is misread rules.

[Corinath]

Touché. I'll withdraw it.

I never liked the ambiguity of that one anyhow, but since I didn't know how to directly refute it I included it. Striking it through.

Edit: So perhaps with CoC it doesn't work, but are there other Self: Target spells that perhaps do wonky things with Find Steed that would make a more relevant ambiguous RAW ruling?

[TheOOB]

I guess I just don't understand peoples issues with the halfling. Normally you cannot hide unless you can't be seen, and the Lightfoot Halflings ability allows you to attempt to hide when you're only obscured by a creature one size category larger than yourself. Under specific beats general, a Lightfoot Halfling can hide behind their larger ally no problem. Note that the second you move you likely won't be hiding any more.

As for the warlock thing, I'm pretty sure you need a warlock level to meet prereqs. Almost every ability in the classes chapter doesn't specify what class you need, only the level, because they are within the class features of a specific class. As invocations are a warlock class feature and worded pretty much the same, it should work the same.

[Corinath]

I guess I just don't understand peoples issues with the halfling. Normally you cannot hide unless you can't be seen, and the Lightfoot Halflings ability allows you to attempt to hide when you're only obscured by a creature one size category larger than yourself. Under specific beats general, a Lightfoot Halfling can hide behind their larger ally no problem. Note that the second you move you likely won't be hiding any more.

As for the warlock thing, I'm pretty sure you need a warlock level to meet prereqs. Almost every ability in the classes chapter doesn't specify what class you need, only the level, because they are within the class features of a specific class. As invocations are a warlock class feature and worded pretty much the same, it should work the same.

Seeing as how there was a very long debate about the halfling thing, I included it. No one had RAW on their side. Regarding the Warlock thing, the other thread on the front page (currently) literally elicited a response from WotC that, paraphrased, states "consult your DM." (Though thank you for reminding me it's Lightfoot halflings only. I'll make that edit.)

Either way, I don't want this thread to derail into the merits of a ruling on the questions. I just want to compile a list of questions.

[Shadow]

Possible questions, and what my personal ruling would be.

Does Crossbow Expert allow you to dual wield hand crossbows by creating an entirely new set of rules for this situation, or does it modify the Two Weapon Fighting rules (as you are fighting with two weapons), therebye requiring a one handed melee weapon?
My ruling: modifies the TWF rules and requires a melee weapon

Do you get your Dex to damage with the bonus attack from Crossbow Expert?
My ruling: No, see TWF rules

Does Crossbow Expert allow the bonus action attack if you are only wielding a single hand crossbow?
My ruling: No

Do you get Mod to damage on the bonus attack offered by the haft of a polearm with the PolearmMaster feat?
My ruling: No, as you are effectively using each end as a separate weapon, see TWF rules

Does Twin Spell metamagic require single target spells, or instead does it allow any spell with the ability to target multiple enemies (but currently only targets one enemy with this casting)?
My ruling: single target spells

[pwykersotz]

Does Twin Spell metamagic require single target spells, or instead does it allow any spell with the ability to target multiple enemies (but currently only targets one enemy with this casting)?
My ruling: single target spells

This one is important, it caused quite a stir. Surrealistik, among others, argued quite vociferously on it. I think it's likely to come up.

For what it's worth, my ruling is the same as Shadow's, but it's good to look at.

[Corinath]

Thanks Shadow!

I'm on my way out the door, so I'll add them later tonight!

[Shadow]

This post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18112302&postcount=16) and this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18112483&postcount=40) both clarify exactly why you cannot target yourself with a cone of cold to also have your steed cast another one, even though some people think that you can.

Well technically you can do it, but it's suicidal. Literally.

[archaeo]

I think the rules regarding Wild Shape are a bit ambiguous. Reading that section, it's certainly written in an absurdly comprehensive manner, but one issue is pretty unclear: can you use Wild Shape while already in beast form? If so, this allows functionally infinite HP at level 20 for the cost of a bonus action; if not, it requires both action and bonus action at level 20, which is at least slightly less crazy.

I've already talked about this, so I'll spoiler my reading of the rules.

The rules for Wild Shape read, in part:

"You can stay in a beast shape for a number of hours equal to half your druid level (rounded down). You then revert to your normal form unless you expend another use of this feature"

The clear suggestion here is that, if you use Wild Shape while already in beast form, you only extend your current transformation, and you do not get to transform again until you are in druid form. While the rules later say "You retain the benefit of any features from your class," the wording of the feature certainly doesn't explicitly say you can transform from one shape to another, while it most certainly does imply that using the feature while already transformed only extends it.

This still lets Druids have virtually infinite HP as long as they take no actions other than moving and switching back and forth every turn. But that is, apparently, the rules working as intended; I expect that there will be many CR 20 monsters that will be able to smack down your CR 6 forms. Druids are just the tankiest class in D&D right now, and I expect Sentinel, some buffs, and CR 6 forms with reach will be very popular late-game builds.

[Eslin]

This post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18112302&postcount=16) and this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18112483&postcount=40) both clarify exactly why you cannot target yourself with a cone of cold to also have your steed cast another one, even though some people think that you can.

Well technically you can do it, but it's suicidal. Literally.

RAW, you absolutely can. It's just that no DM should let you, since it's drowning a party member back to health tier.


Possible questions, and what my personal ruling would be.

Does Crossbow Expert allow you to dual wield hand crossbows by creating an entirely new set of rules for this situation, or does it modify the Two Weapon Fighting rules (as you are fighting with two weapons), therebye requiring a one handed melee weapon?
My ruling: modifies the TWF rules and requires a melee weapon

Do you get Mod to damage on the bonus attack offered by the haft of a polearm with the PolearmMaster feat?
My ruling: No, as you are effectively using each end as a separate weapon, see TWF rules

Except that ruling has no basis in logic. Two-weapon fighting is a specific set of rules for using a melee weapon in each hand. There is absolutely no reason to extrapolate it to every bonus action attack not getting the ability modifier to damage. What's next, monk and barbarian bonus action attacks don't get the bonus as well?

[Shadow]

Except that ruling has no basis in logic. Two-weapon fighting is a specific set of rules for using a melee weapon in each hand. There is absolutely no reason to extrapolate it to every bonus action attack not getting the ability modifier to damage. What's next, monk and barbarian bonus action attacks don't get the bonus as well?

Read the OP and respect it.


Note, this isn't meant to discuss the merits of an answer to these questions, as most of these questions have threads of their own. It's more meant to talk about which questions exist so that DMs have an idea of what to discuss with their group in advance of starting a campaign.

[Totema]

RAW, you absolutely can. It's just that no DM should let you, since it's drowning a party member back to health tier.

Casting the spell doesn't make your steed also cast it, it just includes it in the effect. And the effect in this case is damage. So go ahead, climb your steed, face an empty wall, and cast Cone of Cold on yourself so both you and your mount both take 8d8 damage.

[Eslin]

Casting the spell doesn't make your steed also cast it, it just includes it in the effect. And the effect in this case is damage. So go ahead, climb your steed, face an empty wall, and cast Cone of Cold on yourself so both you and your mount both take 8d8 damage.

That's not the case though. Spells like cone of cold have a range of (self) 60ft - the spell targets you, then its effect is to create a 60ft cone from you. You share that with the mount, the mount creates a 60ft cone as well. It doesn't hit the horse, because 'a cone's point of origin is not included in the cone's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise'.

I'm not advocating its use, since it is clearly just abusing poor wording and so shouldn't be allowed, but the fact remains that it is RAW legal.
For those reading who like the idea of using your horse to boost spells, content yourself with spells like produce flame, communion, vampiric touch and magic jar that clearly work and aren't just RAW abuse.

[Shadow]

You can only target yourself if you are in the area of effect, so in order to make this work, you have to take 8d8 damage. And then when it does work, you end up taking 16d8 damage instead.
Read the post you quoted. And then read the OP and the post I reponded with and we can all stop arguing in this thread.

[Totema]

That's not the case though. Spells like cone of cold have a range of (self) 60ft - the spell targets you, then its effect is to create a 60ft cone from you. You share that with the mount, the mount creates a 60ft cone as well. It doesn't hit the horse, because 'a cone's point of origin is not included in the cone's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise'.

I'd argue otherwise, because the spell's description doesn't ask you to specify a target. By RAW (pg 204, under Targets) the spell description needs to actually mention a caster selecting a creature within range for the spell to effect. The range property itself doesn't mean anything.

Spells like Magic Missile or Bless or what have you say that the spell's effects work on a creature within range, or a given number of creatures within range, whereas Cone of Cold and Thunderwave and et cetera make their effect on the area without technically targeting anything. If a creature would hypothetically be able to move out of the way as a reaction, the distinction becomes important; if it to moves out of the area of emanation from something like Cone of Cold as a reaction, the spell would still create the blast, whereas if it moves out of the range of something like Touch of Death, the spell would just fizzle.

[Gemini476]

I'd argue otherwise, because the spell's description doesn't ask you to specify a target. By RAW (pg 204, under Targets) the spell description needs to actually mention a caster selecting a creature within range for the spell to effect. The range property itself doesn't mean anything.

Spells like Magic Missile or Bless or what have you say that the spell's effects work on a creature within range, or a given number of creatures within range, whereas Cone of Cold and Thunderwave and et cetera make their effect on the area without technically targeting anything. If a creature would hypothetically be able to move out of the way as a reaction, the distinction becomes important; if it to moves out of the area of emanation from something like Cone of Cold as a reaction, the spell would still create the blast, whereas if it moves out of the range of something like Touch of Death, the spell would just fizzle.

Page 202 clarifies that.

RANGE
The target of a spell must be within the spell’s range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts.
Page 204 also has this:

TARGETS
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell’s magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).

AREAS OF EFFECT
[...]
A spell’s description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere. Every area of effect has
a point of origin, a location from which the spell’s energy erupts. The rules for each shape specify how you position its point of origin. Typically, a point of origin is a point in space, but some spells have an area whose origin is a creature or an object.

CONE
[...]
A cone’s point of origin is not included in the cone’s area of effect, unless you decide otherwise.
(emphasis mine)

It's drown-healing level of dumb RAW, and you probably shouldn't allow Find Steed and its ilk to be able to be used that way, but it's RAW.
Just remember that you're under no obligation to allow the rules-as-written in your game. I'm personally going to allow short interruptions in short rests and probably ban most casters, for instance. Arcane Trickster+Eldritch Knight+Paladin+Ranger+Warlock is more than enough, I find.

[Shining Wrath]

I wish people would not argue for rules interpretations that they, as a DM, would never allow; nor, as a player, ask their DM to accept. If you know it's not going to be used at your table, why do you waste bytes defending it? #rantoff

Nominee:
Chill Touch says the target
cannot regain HP. Does this mean that if you apply CT to a someone:

The half orc or barbarian with the "reduced to zero HP, return to one HP" feature is instead reduced to zero? That is, did you go to zero, and then regain a HP, or did you get reduced to one instead of to zero? CT would preclude the former and shut down this feature
The wild-shaping druid gets the HP of the new form. If the new form has more HP than the druid, is that regaining HP? Should the new form have the lesser of [form HP, druid HP]? This means CT may be able to shut down the onion Druid ...

[Vowtz]

Page 202 clarifies that.

Page 204 also has this:

....

....

....

(emphasis mine)

It's drown-healing level of dumb RAW, and you probably shouldn't allow Find Steed and its ilk to be able to be used that way, but it's RAW.

Thanks man, good explanation.

[Corinath]

Page 202 clarifies that.

Page 204 also has this:



(emphasis mine)

It's drown-healing level of dumb RAW, and you probably shouldn't allow Find Steed and its ilk to be able to be used that way, but it's RAW.
Just remember that you're under no obligation to allow the rules-as-written in your game. I'm personally going to allow short interruptions in short rests and probably ban most casters, for instance. Arcane Trickster+Eldritch Knight+Paladin+Ranger+Warlock is more than enough, I find.

That's a pretty good explanation for it as well. I may un strike through the Find Steed shenanigans. I personally disagree with it interacting that way, so maybe I let my bias slip in, but it seems there can be an argument for it RAW as well, so by nature of us being split on it I'm going to put it back on the table. At the very least, it's something DMs should be aware of, and that's really the intention of this thread at it's core.

Also, nice call on the Chill Touch. :)

[Gemini476]

I wish people would not argue for rules interpretations that they, as a DM, would never allow; nor, as a player, ask their DM to accept. If you know it's not going to be used at your table, why do you waste bytes defending it? #rantoff

Oh, the reason for that is pretty simple. The only thing that everyone has in common is the rules as written, so making sure that you know what they are makes discussing the game with everyone else lots simpler.

This is because of houserules, naturally. You need to clarify any houserules that you are using before being able to discuss the matter properly with anyone else - if I argue that the Warlock is the best class in the game, for instance, but only do so because I've banned all of the other full casters? I'll need to clarify that. If I argue that the Tarrasque is actually really difficult to kill, because I've given it immortality and ways to actually hurt someone flying above it pelting it with cantrips? I'll need to clarify that. If I walk into someone's discussion of how the Barbarian is a bit underpowered and argue that it isn't, because I let the eagle totem give them proper flight rather than high-jumps? I'll need to clarify that.

RAW is what binds us together, so making sure that we know what is and isn't RAW helps a bunch. Even if - especially if - said RAW is illogical and dumb. Because then you can warn DMs away from it so that they don't have to make snap judgements in play or get into arguments re:RAW legality at the table. In 3.5 the big examples of dumb RAW I'd give are drown-healing, the Monk's (non)proficiency in Unarmed Strikes, and Multiclass XP Penalties. The drowning rules in particular, since they're completely and utterly broken and need heavy DM fiat. That's the kind of stuff you need to be aware of as a DM before the game, so that you can make informed decisions in play. Because it will come up, given enough time. All it takes for Find Steed is for a Bard to decide that he'd like to use some unconventional spell that targets himself like Magic Jar or Cone of Cold rather than Fly or whatever. A DM should ideally not be caught unaware when such a situation arises, and the Bard says "I cast Magic Jar on myself and my steed, and the BBEG needs to make two Charisma saves or be possessed by either me or my horse."

[Shining Wrath]

Oh, the reason for that is pretty simple. The only thing that everyone has in common is the rules as written, so making sure that you know what they are makes discussing the game with everyone else lots simpler.

This is because of houserules, naturally. You need to clarify any houserules that you are using before being able to discuss the matter properly with anyone else - if I argue that the Warlock is the best class in the game, for instance, but only do so because I've banned all of the other full casters? I'll need to clarify that. If I argue that the Tarrasque is actually really difficult to kill, because I've given it immortality and ways to actually hurt someone flying above it pelting it with cantrips? I'll need to clarify that. If I walk into someone's discussion of how the Barbarian is a bit underpowered and argue that it isn't, because I let the eagle totem give them proper flight rather than high-jumps? I'll need to clarify that.

RAW is what binds us together, so making sure that we know what is and isn't RAW helps a bunch. Even if - especially if - said RAW is illogical and dumb. Because then you can warn DMs away from it so that they don't have to make snap judgements in play or get into arguments re:RAW legality at the table. In 3.5 the big examples of dumb RAW I'd give are drown-healing, the Monk's (non)proficiency in Unarmed Strikes, and Multiclass XP Penalties. The drowning rules in particular, since they're completely and utterly broken and need heavy DM fiat. That's the kind of stuff you need to be aware of as a DM before the game, so that you can make informed decisions in play. Because it will come up, given enough time. All it takes for Find Steed is for a Bard to decide that he'd like to use some unconventional spell that targets himself like Magic Jar or Cone of Cold rather than Fly or whatever. A DM should ideally not be caught unaware when such a situation arises, and the Bard says "I cast Magic Jar on myself and my steed, and the BBEG needs to make two Charisma saves or be possessed by either me or my horse."

If you were the Bard, would you try that? Because a lot of DMs would say "You just swapped minds with your horse" or something along those lines. It'd be a pretty high risk move if not pre-coordinated with the DM...

[Gemini476]

If you were the Bard, would you try that? Because a lot of DMs would say "You just swapped minds with your horse" or something along those lines. It'd be a pretty high risk move if not pre-coordinated with the DM...

Why would you swap minds with your horse? That's not how the spell works at all - it just takes your soul and stuffs it in a gemstone or other valuable object, and then on the next turn (presumably) you can jump from your current container to any humanoid container within range. (And yes, if it were allowed then I'd certainly contemplate trying it. Getting off two save-or-loses in a single turn off a relatively uncommon save? That's worth it.

Rather than attempting to nerf the combo, just ban it. Say "No, you can't do that. Do something else instead.". Don't say "Yes, but then everything goes horribly wrong! Haha, screw you for trying to mess with the rules in my presence."

[Socko525]

That's not the case though. Spells like cone of cold have a range of (self) 60ft - the spell targets you, then its effect is to create a 60ft cone from you. You share that with the mount, the mount creates a 60ft cone as well. It doesn't hit the horse, because 'a cone's point of origin is not included in the cone's area of effect, unless you decide otherwise'.

I'm not advocating its use, since it is clearly just abusing poor wording and so shouldn't be allowed, but the fact remains that it is RAW legal.
For those reading who like the idea of using your horse to boost spells, content yourself with spells like produce flame, communion, vampiric touch and magic jar that clearly work and aren't just RAW abuse.

Emphasis is mine, this is something I've been trying to figure out...I assume you mean commune? as there is no communion spell, at least that I could find.

[Corinath]

Spontaneous interjection.

I updated the RAW questions this morning. Additionally I added a RAW questions answered by designers section, based on an article that floated around here.

Finally, I'd like anyone who is posting a new question to link the thread we debate it in, if such a thread exists. I know when I was hearing about the Find Steed bit I was highly confused till I asked about it. It occurs to me now that, despite knowing it's an issue, the crossbow things or twinned spell things aren't inherently obvious ambiguities, so I'd like to post the reference thread to anyone interested.

Thanks!

Continue on!

[Vowtz]

Some of my questions, I see most are already there:



(-) can a lightfoot halfling hide on friends mid combat.

(-) Multiclass warlock invocations prerequisits are character levels or warlock levels?

(-) Polearm master add strength mod to bonus attack?

(-) Sentinel second ability, 5 feet or 10 feet?

(-) Polearm master + reach, attack occur before or after movement?

(-) Can I twin scorching rays.

(-) Can I rage in heavy armor, without gaining rage following benefits?

(-) If I use the help action to give advantage to an ally's attack, can I move away from this enemy on the same turn?

[Graustein]

Spontaneous interjection.

I updated the RAW questions this morning. Additionally I added a RAW questions answered by designers section, based on an article that floated around here.

Finally, I'd like anyone who is posting a new question to link the thread we debate it in, if such a thread exists. I know when I was hearing about the Find Steed bit I was highly confused till I asked about it. It occurs to me now that, despite knowing it's an issue, the crossbow things or twinned spell things aren't inherently obvious ambiguities, so I'd like to post the reference thread to anyone interested.

Thanks!

Continue on!

Relating to number 7:

7. The missiles in a Magic Missile strike simultaneously. This means the strikes count as a single source of damage for things like resistance and that 3 magic missiles striking a character at 0 HP does not count as 3 failed death saves. Your wizard must decide which missiles will hit which targets before you start tallying damage.

Would this ruling extend to similar spells, like Scorching Ray, which fire multiple single-target attacks? I mean Scorching Ray requires an attack roll for each ray, but otherwise pretty much the same concerns apply.

Personally I would rule that yes, they all strike simultaneously and count as a single damage source for all the same purposes as Magic Missile.

[Shadow]

Relating to number 7:
Would this ruling extend to similar spells, like Scorching Ray, which fire multiple single-target attacks? I mean Scorching Ray requires an attack roll for each ray, but otherwise pretty much the same concerns apply.

Personally I would rule that yes, they all strike simultaneously and count as a single damage source for all the same purposes as Magic Missile.

According to Mearls, each attack requiring a separate attack roll is treated separately, via twitter.
You're free to rule however you want, but you're going to screw warlocks over with that ruling.

[DrLemniscate]

(-) Polearm master add strength mod to bonus attack?


I would say yes, as well as the bonus attack from Crossbow Expert.

Adding your modifier to the attack and damage roll is the norm. Two-Weapon Fighting is the exception.

If Polearm Master or Crossbow Expert were intended to act like Two-Weapon Fighting, it would reference it like the Dual Wielder feat does.

[Graustein]

According to Mearls, each attack requiring a separate attack roll is treated separately, via twitter.
You're free to rule however you want, but you're going to screw warlocks over with that ruling.

Hmm, ok, I'll bow to the explicitly-stated RAI (such as there is) for the most part, I just thought it was something we might as well mention for this thread (:

[Corinath]

Some of my questions, I see most are already there:

(-) Polearm master add strength mod to bonus attack?

(-) Sentinel second ability, 5 feet or 10 feet?

(-) Polearm master + reach, attack occur before or after movement?

(-) Can I rage in heavy armor, without gaining rage following benefits?

(-) If I use the help action to give advantage to an ally's attack, can I move away from this enemy on the same turn?

These are mostly new to me. Can you go into detail about how there is ambiguity to these questions? I don't want to throw something on there that I don't totally understand the ambiguity of. Some of these seem like they'd have immediate RAW answers.

[cobaltstarfire]

This might help a little bit also? (http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/)

It's a blog that is documenting and tagging all the rules questions that have been asked of the game designers through twitter.

Every thing is tagged so it's easy to find stuff if you use the search function (works best to search for something like the class, then click on the tag on an entry brought up by the search results).

It's a mix of clear answers/clarifications, "ask your gm" and "this is how I would do it". There are also a few instances of them answering questions about misprints. (Ex warlocks don't learn ray of sickness, but it's mentioned in the warlock quick build).

[Corinath]

This might help a little bit also? (http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/)

It's a blog that is documenting and tagging all the rules questions that have been asked of the game designers through twitter.

Every thing is tagged so it's easy to find stuff if you use the search function (works best to search for something like the class, then click on the tag on an entry brought up by the search results).

It's a mix of clear answers/clarifications, "ask your gm" and "this is how I would do it". There are also a few instances of them answering questions about misprints. (Ex warlocks don't learn ray of sickness, but it's mentioned in the warlock quick build).

Thanks! I'll start to incorporate it. :)

[Ramshack]

According to Mearls, each attack requiring a separate attack roll is treated separately, via twitter.
You're free to rule however you want, but you're going to screw warlocks over with that ruling.

I like how you're always for casters have nice shiny bonuses on extra attacks but god forbid specific FEATs that grant off hand attacks trump the general TWF rules.

[Rummy]

I swear that one of the Devs through twitter confirmed that Polearm Master grants attack of 1d4 + Str. Unfortunately, searching the inter webs on my phone is too tough for my fat fingers.

[emeraldstreak]

Possible questions, and what my personal ruling would be.

Does Crossbow Expert allow you to dual wield hand crossbows by creating an entirely new set of rules for this situation, or does it modify the Two Weapon Fighting rules (as you are fighting with two weapons), therebye requiring a one handed melee weapon?
My ruling: modifies the TWF rules and requires a melee weapon

Do you get your Dex to damage with the bonus attack from Crossbow Expert?
My ruling: No, see TWF rules

Does Crossbow Expert allow the bonus action attack if you are only wielding a single hand crossbow?
My ruling: No

Do you get Mod to damage on the bonus attack offered by the haft of a polearm with the PolearmMaster feat?
My ruling: No, as you are effectively using each end as a separate weapon, see TWF rules

Does Twin Spell metamagic require single target spells, or instead does it allow any spell with the ability to target multiple enemies (but currently only targets one enemy with this casting)?
My ruling: single target spells


Wrong on all counts.

Quite the feat, Shadow!

[Eslin]

Wrong on all counts.

Quite the feat, Shadow!

Hear hear. He's not taking ambiguous wording, he's actively applying houserules and calling it solving ambiguity.

[Ramshack]

Wrong on all counts.

Quite the feat, Shadow!

I have to agree as well, he likes to argue specific vs general all the time, yet he ignores specific dual wielding feats over riding the general two weapon fighting rules. I'm sorry if someone spends a feat to learn how to master a fighting style, they trump the general, non specialized two weapon fighting rules.

Shadow Argues some good points in a lot of other topics but I can't understand why he is so against giving dual wielders nice things when they take a feat to do so.

[Ramshack]

I swear that one of the Devs through twitter confirmed that Polearm Master grants attack of 1d4 + Str. Unfortunately, searching the inter webs on my phone is too tough for my fat fingers.

I have a response from wizard of the coast confirming Crossbow Expert grants dex as the feat says it's a bonus attack and thus follows the attack action methodology. The same arguement applies to polearm master, as both feats trump the generic two weapon fighting rules.

[Rummy]

I have a response from wizard of the coast confirming Crossbow Expert grants dex as the feat says it's a bonus attack and thus follows the attack action methodology. The same arguement applies to polearm master, as both feats trump the generic two weapon fighting rules.

You rule! A lot.

[zoltar]

This might help a little bit also? (http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/)

It's a blog that is documenting and tagging all the rules questions that have been asked of the game designers through twitter.

Every thing is tagged so it's easy to find stuff if you use the search function (works best to search for something like the class, then click on the tag on an entry brought up by the search results).

It's a mix of clear answers/clarifications, "ask your gm" and "this is how I would do it". There are also a few instances of them answering questions about misprints. (Ex warlocks don't learn ray of sickness, but it's mentioned in the warlock quick build).

THANKS cobaltstarfire for the mention! :smallsmile:

Hope that http://www.sageadvice.eu/ will help to find answers, because this 5e is amazing and tweets from Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford give the rules tone of voice: good intentions not rules lawyers.



THANKS!

grazie!

[Shadow]

Wrong on all counts.

Quite the feat, Shadow!
Hear hear. He's not taking ambiguous wording, he's actively applying houserules and calling it solving ambiguity.
I have a response from wizard of the coast confirming Crossbow Expert grants dex as the feat says it's a bonus attack and thus follows the attack action methodology. The same arguement applies to polearm master, as both feats trump the generic two weapon fighting rules.

Actually, I'm not wrong.
Actually, I'm not applying house rules to anything.
Actually, your response from WotC is not the rule of law, and is really nothing more than a suggestion by another DM.

As has been stated, DM interpretaion trumps every single thing (including tweets by Mearls) except published and printed works such as FAQ and Errata.
My interpretation is exactly as valid as yours is. It is exactly as valid as Mearls' and Crawford's is as well, until and unless they actually errata something.
Then, and only then, would it become a houserule.

[cobaltstarfire]

Actually considering the way they answer questions. I'd imagine many of those answers are going to be errata'd/tweaked in later printings of the rules.

Some of their answers are flat out "This is what the rule means/yes/no you can't do that because the rules say this"

Some are "It is up to the DM"

And some are "This is how I would do it" (another "up to your dm).

There have also been some "oh yeah we need to look into that and change/fix it"

I'm inclined to believe that their responses are in fact more valid than yours for someone who wants to make sure they follow the RAW and at least try to stick to the RAI.

[Fwiffo86]

How to stop your onion druid.... I actually laughed when I read this. Cause all I could picture is the Druid player going Nova right after.

BlackHumor @__BlackHumor__

@mikemearls High-lvl druid wildshapes into form with much less HP. Enemy caster casts Sleep on her. Is she unconscious? Still in wildshape?

Mike Mearls @mikemearls
Follow

@__BlackHumor__ unconscious - basically ignore Druid stats unless it says otherwise


http://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/

[archaeo]

Actually considering the way they answer questions. I'd imagine many of those answers are going to be errata'd/tweaked in later printings of the rules.

...

I'm inclined to believe that their responses are in fact more valid than yours for someone who wants to make sure they follow the RAW and at least try to stick to the RAI.

Well, and you get the impression that they're just kind of spitting out whatever answer "sounds right" to them. I'm not going to track down the specific tweet, but Mearls mentioned "official ruling" somewhere, which certainly suggests that these tweets aren't supposed to be a final verdict on anything, just what two of the designers consider a sensible reading for now.

Mearls is also quick to bring up the surveys they're planning for next spring. If they pull off the concept of a "living edition," they stand a good shot at really keeping the 5e train rolling for the foreseeable future.

[cobaltstarfire]

Sure when they update all the things those things will supersede whatever Mearls and them spat out, but I am going to give more preference to what they said over what folks on a forum said, unless the folks on the forum can give a good reason for their ruling.


You don't have to run by their rulings but I've found that I and others find it much simpler to go with the game designers than to agonize and fight over a "proper" ruling. (And at least at the table I'm playing at right now, "This is what Mearls said about this rule" holds more weight than "I think it makes more sense this way")

[Theodoxus]

Question: Does a Beast Master companion have to be ordered every. single. round. it's attacking an enemy after being directed to do so once, or is it on auto-attack (allowing the ranger to use their action for other things). I don't have the thread link, sorry.

I like the auto-attack option, both as a DM and a player because it makes more sense and isn't overly powerful - but I feel it's wrong based on RAW.

[Vowtz]

Question: Does a Beast Master companion have to be ordered every. single. round. it's attacking an enemy after being directed to do so once, or is it on auto-attack (allowing the ranger to use their action for other things). I don't have the thread link, sorry.

I like the auto-attack option, both as a DM and a player because it makes more sense and isn't overly powerful - but I feel it's wrong based on RAW.

Agreed, I'm already using that houserule.

[Corinath]

Question: Does a Beast Master companion have to be ordered every. single. round. it's attacking an enemy after being directed to do so once, or is it on auto-attack (allowing the ranger to use their action for other things). I don't have the thread link, sorry.

I like the auto-attack option, both as a DM and a player because it makes more sense and isn't overly powerful - but I feel it's wrong based on RAW.

I'm AFB. How does it work now? Is it ambiguous? Or does it explicitly state you have to use, say, a bonus action to order it?

If there's RAW I'm not going to add it to the list. It's more like "This RAW is lame" as opposed to "This RAW is pretty ambiguous"

Edit: I added the Illusory Reality damage thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?372336-Illusory-Reality) to the questions. It's an interesting read so far, and even without it's damage potential, still reads as a very strong combination.

[Vowtz]

These are mostly new to me. Can you go into detail about how there is ambiguity to these questions? I don't want to throw something on there that I don't totally understand the ambiguity of. Some of these seem like they'd have immediate RAW answers.


(-) Sentinel second ability, 5 feet or 10 feet?

Sentinel's second ability says that if a creature is at 5feet and leaves you reach it gets aoo even with disengare.

But my reach is 10 feet, so if a creature is within my reach of 10 feet, disengages and leaves my reach, do I get aoo or not?




(-) Polearm master + reach, attack occur before or after movement?

Reactions occur before the triggering event, if I trip my opponent with a battlemaster maneuver from aoo triggered from polearm master feat, this creature falls at 10 feet or 15 feet distance? By raw it would be 15.



(-) Can I rage in heavy armor, without gaining rage following benefits?

The text of rage implies I can rage in heavy armor but would not gain the following benefits, that are x y and z (PHB page 48).

The wolf totem ability says nothing about heavy armor, so, can I rage in heavy armor and use wolf totem ability?

And about the bear totem ability?



(-) If I use the help action to give advantage to an ally's attack, can I move away from this enemy on the same turn?

Can my owl familiar go to an enemy, use a help action to give advantage on attack and leave my enemy's side before it's my turn?

Would I still gain advantage?

[frozen Gnome]

1. Can a lightfoot halfling rogue use their bonus action to hide behind a taller ally mid-combat? Rogue hiding and location thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?368307-Some-thoughts-on-the-Rogue&highlight=lightfoot%20halfling%20rogue%20hide%20co mbat)

-RAW-Yes, as long as the ally is directly in the line of sight of the enemies. In practice, this is stupid.

4. Does Crossbow Expert allow you to dual wield hand crossbows by creating an entirely new set of rules for this situation, or does it modify the Two Weapon Fighting rules (as you are fighting with two weapons), therebye requiring a one handed melee weapon?

-RAW- Entirely new set of rules... that do nothing. Loaded is not a defined state for a weapon. You need to rely on RAI for this, leaving two possibilities:
a. you have to dual wield crossbows.
b. you can just have one hand crossbow.

Of these two, option a. appears to be the most likely. The reasoning being that the reference to loaded is likely a holdover when loaded was a state. As such it can be read as "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with an [eligible to fire at the time of the first attack] hand crossbow you are holding." The counter argument is of course that it doesn't specify off-hand. Is it more likely that the intent is a double attack or a shove/grapple and fire? I would argue that it is the shove/grapple and fine.

Some folks would argue that it is option c. "It is two weapon fighting, and as such requires a melee weapon." This seems unlikely. If this was intended, the written rule would directly reference two weapon fighting, specify melee weapon (as holding two light crossbows is always a real option), or specify off-hand. it does none of these.

5. Do you get your Dex to damage with the bonus attack from Crossbow Expert?

RAW- Yes. It does not specify two weapon fighting. RAI- see above (yes)

6. Does Crossbow Expert allow the bonus action attack if you are only wielding a single hand crossbow?
Questions 4-6 are found in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367844-Rogue-Dual-Wield-Hand-Crossbows&highlight=Crossbow+Expert)
RAW-No (the feat does nothing) RAI- See above, no

7. Do you get Mod to damage on the bonus attack offered by the haft of a polearm with the PolearmMaster feat?

RAW- Yes, if you are proficient. It does not mention two weapon fighting, or even dual wielding. RAI?DM discretion- Are you proficient? Is the second strike a martial weapon strike or an improvised weapon strike? The most likely answer is that it is a martial weapon strike as it does not specifically state improvised weapon.




I specifically created a thread to help derail some of the silliness.

[LtDarien]

I'm AFB. How does it work now? Is it ambiguous? Or does it explicitly state you have to use, say, a bonus action to order it?


PHB: pg 98 Ranger's Companion:
"You can use your action to verbally command [your companion] to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action"

It's pretty clear to me that it requires your action every round.

[Theodoxus]

PHB: pg 98 Ranger's Companion:
"You can use your action to verbally command [your companion] to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action"

It's pretty clear to me that it requires your action every round.

Well, yes. Except, an animal can use an attack action on its own. You're initially directing it to the target you want - giving up [one of] your attack[s] in order to do so. But once directed, it's ambiguous as to whether it requires your action every round.
Even the 'Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action' clause could be presumed to mean at the start of the combat, or when re-directing your companion to a new or different target.

[LtDarien]

Well, yes. Except, an animal can use an attack action on its own. You're initially directing it to the target you want - giving up [one of] your attack[s] in order to do so. But once directed, it's ambiguous as to whether it requires your action every round.
Even the 'Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action' clause could be presumed to mean at the start of the combat, or when re-directing your companion to a new or different target.

Here's the beginning of the paragraph I quoted earlier:

"The beast obeys your commands as best it can. It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn't take an action unless you command it to. On your turn, you verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you)"

It explicitly says there that the beast companion doesn't take actions unless you command it. If, on your turn, you don't give it a command, it does nothing.

[Gemini476]

Here's the beginning of the paragraph I quoted earlier:

"The beast obeys your commands as best it can. It takes its turn on your initiative, though it doesn't take an action unless you command it to. On your turn, you verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you)"

It explicitly says there that the beast companion doesn't take actions unless you command it. If, on your turn, you don't give it a command, it does nothing.

Strange that they implement that 4E anti-minionmancy action economy mechanic for animal companions, yet not (as far as I can tell) for summoned/animated minions.

Animal companions take an action, created/animated (un)dead take a bonus action for the whole lot (but can have standing orders), conjured animals/celestials/elementals/fey/minor elementals/woodland beings take no action but are Concentration spells.

What on earth are WotC thinking?

[Shadow]

What on earth are WotC thinking?

They were thinking that your latter two examples used daily resources (ie: spell slots), while the former is a constant. A fact. Always present.
If animal companions were allowed freedom of action, it would break action ecomony and make rangers OP compared to others of their level. Look at 3.x druid and ranger animal companions for an example of this.
As casters need to use one of their extremely limited spell slots to gain a minion, they are afforded a little more leniency.

And for the record, the BM ranger isn't anywhere near as terrible as people on various forums claim it is.

[Speaker]

Dual wielding with shield might come up. I plan on doing it but so far it looks like something that'should going to be up to the DM.

[DrLemniscate]

And for the record, the BM ranger isn't anywhere near as terrible as people on various forums claim it is.

Always being limited to a Medium Beast with CR 1/4 or lower means it scales horribly. It would be better if later on the beast just needed to not be hostile towards you (the book is a little ambiguous on this).

[pikeamus]

They were thinking that your latter two examples used daily resources (ie: spell slots), while the former is a constant. A fact. Always present.
If animal companions were allowed freedom of action, it would break action ecomony and make rangers OP compared to others of their level. Look at 3.x druid and ranger animal companions for an example of this.
As casters need to use one of their extremely limited spell slots to gain a minion, they are afforded a little more leniency.

And for the record, the BM ranger isn't anywhere near as terrible as people on various forums claim it is.

It makes some sense in a way, but it's just immersion breaking for me. You command your wolf to attack an enemy and wolfy savagely rends at the beast... for six seconds, then it just chills and licks it's paws. Unless the ranger spends his turns like a shepherd, whistling orders for his doggie and mean mugging anyone that gets close to him (since he can't stab and order at the same time).

I'd rather it was something like: Command it once and it continues until the task is done, but if it takes a hit it'll retreat and needs a new command to get it back in the action. As you gain some levels your companion becomes better trained and more loyal, so won't need to be commanded all the time (this makes up for the fact that it doesn't scale very well vs threats on its own).

This is, of course, pure homebrew, so this isn't really the thread for it I guess.

[Theodoxus]

And for the record, the BM ranger isn't anywhere near as terrible as people on various forums claim it is.

This may (or may not) be true. However, it is miles worse than the Hunter, who gets a lot of nifty abilities that help both in and out of combat. The BM gets a pet dog that can't think on its own (seriously, it's less intelligent than mindless undead :smallfurious:) and... that's about it.

One would seriously need to be in love with having a pet to go BM over Hunter. Honestly, I'd just talk my buddy into being a moon druid and RP up that he's my wolf/panther/boar pet while in town.

[Chubbs Malone]

The posts I am seeing on Crossbow Expert Feat are driving me a little bonkers, so I have to say something.

The Feat clearly states that players can use any 1-Hand weapon + a Hand Crossbow in their other hand. It is 100% black and white.

Feats are specific rules which trump any general rule you find. This specific rule doesn't state that you need to be wielding a light or melee weapon, it requires players to be wielding a 1-hand weapon.

You attack with a 1 hand weapon and then, if you choose, use your bonus action to shoot a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.

There is no gray area where a DM's ruling or judgement needs to come into play. It is utterly specific, this can be done.

Where a DM's ruling DOES come into play, for example, is if Dex Mod is added to the damage on the hand crossbow attack.

[LtDarien]

Where a DM's ruling DOES come into play, for example, is if Dex Mod is added to the damage on the hand crossbow attack.

I don't think so. This doesn't reference Two-weapon fighting (like the two-weapon fighting style and dual wielder feat both explicitly do). It grants its own bonus action attack. so the Two-Weapon Fighting rules do not apply. You add your modifier to damage like a normal attack. The rules are completely separate.

[DrLemniscate]

I don't think so. This doesn't reference Two-weapon fighting (like the two-weapon fighting style and dual wielder feat both explicitly do). It grants its own bonus action attack. so the Two-Weapon Fighting rules do not apply. You add your modifier to damage like a normal attack. The rules are completely separate.

Hear hear.

They are both clearly covered under "Making an attack". Two-Weapon Fighting is the exception, not the rule.

Polearm Master goes the same way. You aren't Two-Weapon Fighting with one weapon, that's just silly. You're still using a two-handed weapon; using the other end doesn't change that.

[Corinath]

Going to jump in real quickly to add something. I'll add it to the OP as well.

If you have an instance that you think is ambiguous, please be specific on how it is ambiguous, as I may or may not be familiar with the concept and ask for elaboration.

Thanks!

[DeAnno]

For the record, I think the only part of Crossbow Expert that is at all ambiguous is if you can get by with only one Crossbow and nothing else or not (I think probably RAI is not). All the other "questions" about if you can use two hand crossbows or if you get Dex to damage seem to be people blatantly misunderstanding the rules and/or trying to nerf it with some strange internet version of DM fiat. Clearly you can use it with two crossbows and clearly it gets Dex to damage on the bonus hit, there is no room to argue within RAW or even RAI.

[Ramshack]

For the record, I think the only part of Crossbow Expert that is at all ambiguous is if you can get by with only one Crossbow and nothing else or not (I think probably RAI is not). All the other "questions" about if you can use two hand crossbows or if you get Dex to damage seem to be people blatantly misunderstanding the rules and/or trying to nerf it with some strange internet version of DM fiat. Clearly you can use it with two crossbows and clearly it gets Dex to damage on the bonus hit, there is no room to argue within RAW or even RAI.

I think if someone had cast a cantrip like Firebolt or Eldritch Blast I would still allow someone with this feat to shoot with a crossbow in the off hand as a bonus action as it's still within the spirit of the Feat. Though i don't think I;d allow someone to make both the attack action and bonus action with only 1 crossbow.

[Ferrin33]

I think if someone had cast a cantrip like Firebolt or Eldritch Blast I would still allow someone with this feat to shoot with a crossbow in the off hand as a bonus action as it's still within the spirit of the Feat. Though i don't think I;d allow someone to make both the attack action and bonus action with only 1 crossbow.

Crossbow Expert: "When you use the attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can-"

[HugeC]

Crossbow Expert: "When you use the attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can-"
And as a hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon, you can therefore be wielding just one hand crossbow and qualify for the bonus attack. I think it's kinda strange that people think it's OK to be wielding two hand crossbows with this feat (which you have no way of loading without a free hand), but a single hand crossbow, which you actually could load with your free hand, is right out.

[DrLemniscate]

And as a hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon, you can therefore be wielding just one hand crossbow and qualify for the bonus attack. I think it's kinda strange that people think it's OK to be wielding two hand crossbows with this feat (which you have no way of loading without a free hand), but a single hand crossbow, which you actually could load with your free hand, is right out.

How are you loading the single hand crossbow when your other hand is holding a sword/whatever? Just ignore the physical limitations, like the rest of D&D.

[HugeC]

How are you loading the single hand crossbow when your other hand is holding a sword/whatever? Just ignore the physical limitations, like the rest of D&D.
In my example you're just holding one hand crossbow, that's it, and the feat still works. It's when you aren't holding just one hand crossbow that the simulationist in me goes, "Huh?"

[Theodoxus]

How are you loading the single hand crossbow when your other hand is holding a sword/whatever? Just ignore the physical limitations, like the rest of D&D.

He's not holding a sword/whatever in the other hand. That hand is free. He's using the Attack action with the singular hand crossbow in his good hand, reloading it for free (since the feat removes the Load quality) with his off hand, and then shooting it again as a Bonus action.

Not as stylish as a rapier / crossbow attack in the Victorian sense (replacing a pistol with a crossbow), but legitimate per RAW - yet frowned upon by some in the community; while dual wielding crossbows Diablo III style is perfectly ok.

[DrLemniscate]

In my example you're just holding one hand crossbow, that's it, and the feat still works. It's when you aren't holding just one hand crossbow that the simulationist in me goes, "Huh?"

If it was intended to work that way, they wouldn't have included anything about a 'loaded' crossbow. In fact, they probably would have just said something like: "When you make an attack with a Hand Crossbow and are holding no other weapons, you may make another attack with that Hand Crossbow as a bonus action."

[Dark Tira]

If it was intended to work that way, they wouldn't have included anything about a 'loaded' crossbow. In fact, they probably would have just said something like: "When you make an attack with a Hand Crossbow and are holding no other weapons, you may make another attack with that Hand Crossbow as a bonus action."

Well changing the text to that would limit the feat severely. Anyways, nobody claims that the double shot hand crossbow is RAI, just that it's RAW.

[DeAnno]

Not mentioned anywhere is the RAW debate about which "level" scaling Cantrips refer to, class level or character level. Most people seem to agree its character level (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370537-Cantrips-scale-off-of-class-level-or-total-level) due to some corner cases you can infer from, but it isn't really spelled out anywhere in the RAW.

I personally think that for Cantrips acquired from classes it is entirely ambiguous and would only rule character level as a balance/creativity encouraging ruling, not as one that actually had much grounding.

[Corinath]

Not mentioned anywhere is the RAW debate about which "level" scaling Cantrips refer to, class level or character level. Most people seem to agree its character level (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370537-Cantrips-scale-off-of-class-level-or-total-level) due to some corner cases you can infer from, but it isn't really spelled out anywhere in the RAW.

Adding it now. Thanks! :)