Crawford rules on Crossbow Expert

[Shining Wrath]

Sage Advice on feats (dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats)


Do the first and third benefits of Crossbow Expert turn a hand crossbow into a semiautomatic weapon? The short answer is no.

The first benefit of the feat lets you ignore the loading property (PH, 147) of the hand crossbow if you’re proficient with that weapon. The upshot is that you can fire it more than once if you have a feature like Extra Attack. You’re still limited, however, by the fact that the weapon has the ammunition property (PH, 146). The latter property requires you to have a bolt to fire from the hand crossbow, and the hand crossbow isn’t going to load itself (unless it’s magical or a gnomish invention). You need to load each bolt into the weapon, and doing so requires a hand.

To dig deeper into this point, take a look at the following sentence in the definition of the ammunition property: “Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack.” The sentence tells us two important things. First, you’re assumed to be drawing—that is, extracting with your hand—the ammunition from a container. Second, the act of drawing the ammunition is included in the attack and therefore doesn’t require its own action and doesn’t use up your free interaction with an object on your turn.

What does that all mean for a hand crossbow? It means Crossbow Expert makes it possible to fire a hand crossbow more than once with a feature like Extra Attack, provided that you have enough ammunition and you have a hand free to load it for each shot.

I think this nerfs the dual-wield hand crossbow build.

[PhantomRenegade]

So it effectively turns the Hand crossbow into a two handed weapon..... great, thanks Wizards.


I don't know the specifics of the Dual-wield hand crossbow build but wouldn't it work just as well with only one hand crossbow?

[Kryx]

I think this nerfs the dual-wield hand crossbow build.
As well as shield + crossbow as the shield hand is not free.

It basically turns a hand crossbow into a 2 handed weapon, really...

[Shining Wrath]

As well as shield + crossbow as the shield hand is not free.

It basically turns a hand crossbow into a 2 handed weapon, really...

It makes the hand crossbow something you can carry one of in each hand, fire them both on round one, and drop. It might still work for ambushing rogues and the like. Which, fluff-wise, are the people who use hand crossbows; ambushers like Drow and thieves.

But do note what he says about gnomish devices. A crossbow with a 5 bolt clip is not out of the question, IMNHO, for 10x the usual price.

[PhantomRenegade]

For 10X you might as well just buy a magical one.

[Madfellow]

For 10X you might as well just buy a magical one.

Yes, just hop over to your local Magic Mart. Over 10,000 served.

[Kryx]

It makes the hand crossbow something you can carry one of in each hand, fire them both on round one, and drop. It might still work for ambushing rogues and the like. Which, fluff-wise, are the people who use hand crossbows; ambushers like Drow and thieves.
So basically you blow a feat to have a decent opening round? What a joke...


But do note what he says about gnomish devices. A crossbow with a 5 bolt clip is not out of the question, IMNHO, for 10x the usual price.
I will use wrist crossbows (action to put on/remove and can't wield any other weapons) and repeating crossbows (bonus action to change clip). Wrist cost 100g and Repeating cost 250g in 3.5. Seem fair prices to me.

[PhantomRenegade]

You can still make all your attacks with a single crossbow if you're going for a just hand crossbow build but it ruins any Demon Hunter inspired characters, plus its just overall less cool.

So does this mean you can't load a light or heavy crossbow? Or does the two handedness only apply to when you're firing? (I know rhetorical douchiness is never classy, feel free to ignore this bit, but come on what is even the point of the "hand" crossbow now, much sadface, such lame, wow.)

[Kryx]

You can still make all your attacks with a single crossbow if you're going for a just hand crossbow build
imo it was a terrible choice to kill the more balanced option that requires 2 hands and leave the 1 handed spam option.

[DanyBallon]

I don't see any problems with Crawford's ruling. You still can dual wield crossbow, but it's only effective on your first round, after that you'll need to drop one in order to reload the other one and still be able to shoot on the next round (or again if you have an extra attack). Hand crossbow are pretty much the same as single shot pistol. If you don't want penalties for reloading, you'll either need someone to reload for you, find (invent) some kind of automatic loader or get you hand on a magical crossbow that don't requires physical bolts. The first option would be a nice way to use an henchmen, and the other two needs your DM approval, but are quite common in fantasy tropes.

[coredump]

I think the clarification is 100% spot on. Nothing got 'nerfed', this is just clarifying how the rules have always been meant to be read.

We all know how a crossbow operates, we all have seen them and understand the process of using a second hand to **** the crossbow and draw another bolt. I don't see why this is such a surprise.
A handbow takes one hand to use, it takes one hand to shoot. But to get it prepared to be used, to load it, takes two hands.


As someone in another thread said:
The rules are an exceptions based design and they're founded on the principal that things in the worlds work according to our basic understanding of how things would work, in a medieval fantasy world, there would have to a specific rule, specifically stating that it changes the basic understanding that a free hand is needed to manipulate ammunition, to allow someone to load a piece of ammunition into a weapon without a free hand to do so. Crossbow Expert does not specify an exception to this basic understanding; and, it never has.

[coredump]

So basically you blow a feat to have a decent opening round? What a joke...
.
*and* to fire from within melee range
*and* to get an extra attack each round
*and* to get to fire with Extra Attack


But hey, if you think the feat is now useless.....

[Talyn]

The point of a hand crossbow is, as it always was, to have a weapon you can conceal. In a dungeon, sure, that's not much of an advantage, but in a dungeon just use a bigger crossbow.

[JAL_1138]

This is how I ruled it anyway. Granted firing a crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds is not physically possible to begin with, but it strains suspension of disbelief less.

Dual-wielding proponents, please explain what is happening in-universe after you've shot twice. Explain how you reload two crossbows at once, or reload a crossbow one-handed? Just describe what it would look like for me, please? I'm trying to picture it and I can't. I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know how you're picturing someone pulling the string back and putting a bolt onto it. I can see someone reloading one faster than normal, but if you have to, say, tuck one under your arm and load them one at a time to achieve the fire rate you could with a single crossbow, why do it?

(as a side note, dual-wielding any projectile weapon IRL is entry #1 in "How to Be an Inaccurate Shooter, Vol. 3", but apparently mentioning anything about how weapons work IRL in a discussion of game rules will have people go berserk on me "because fantasy")

[Xetheral]

I think the clarification is 100% spot on. Nothing got 'nerfed', this is just clarifying how the rules have always been meant to be read

Except that many people, including me, think that one of the original purposes of the feat was to permit the drow rapier-and-hand-crossbow fighting style. (For supporting evidence, read the old Xbx threads.) Crawford's ruling undermines that purpose.

[Mr.Moron]

All sensible calls imo. Don't like it? Change it at your table. One of the biggest points of 5e has been a move away from a fetishistic worship of RAW, which this isn't even really.

[obryn]

WotC just re-hired Sean K. Reynolds, so really, crossbow nerfs were inevitable.

[DanyBallon]

Except that many people, including me, think that one of the original purposes of the feat was to permit the drow rapier-and-hand-crossbow fighting style. (For supporting evidence, read the old Xbx threads.) Crawford's ruling undermines that purpose.

Forgive me my laziness but can you give us a summary of how a dual-wielding rapier/hand crossbow drow archetype would be able to use his crossbow more than once? When I think of such a concept I see more a musketeer using his rapier and shooting once his hand-crossbow, then droping it, either picking an other loaded hand-crossbow, or using his hand for something else.

[Xetheral]

Forgive me my laziness but can you give us a summary of how a dual-wielding rapier/hand crossbow drow archetype would be able to use his crossbow more than once? When I think of such a concept I see more a musketeer using his rapier and shooting once his hand-crossbow, then droping it, either picking an other loaded hand-crossbow, or using his hand for something else.

I'm not familiar enough with FR lore to give a canon answer. But in my mind with the feat hand-crossbows are (were) easy enough to reload that it only takes a couple fingers from your other hand. Thus, while it required possessing two hands, the other hand could still hold a one-handed weapon and have enough available fingers.

[obryn]

Forgive me my laziness but can you give us a summary of how a dual-wielding rapier/hand crossbow drow archetype would be able to use his crossbow more than once? When I think of such a concept I see more a musketeer using his rapier and shooting once his hand-crossbow, then droping it, either picking an other loaded hand-crossbow, or using his hand for something else.


I'm not familiar enough with FR lore to give a canon answer. But in my mind with the feat hand-crossbows are (were) easy enough to reload that it only takes a couple fingers from your other hand. Thus, while it required possessing two hands, the other hand could still hold a one-handed weapon and have enough available fingers.
With this ruling, you can't have a weapon in your other hand if you expect to reload. Even melee weapons.

Rapier + Hand Xbow is out. Double Hand Xbow is out. Single Hand Xbow is in, and you still get the bonus attack from the feat. It's like the antithesis of both flavor and good sense.

[Mr.Moron]

I'm not familiar enough with FR lore to give a canon answer. But in my mind with the feat hand-crossbows are (were) easy enough to reload that it only takes a couple fingers from your other hand. Thus, while it required possessing two hands, the other hand could still hold a one-handed weapon and have enough available fingers.

In my mind they fill basically the same roll as a small pocket pistol or derringer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derringer) might work in a setting with guns. Easy to hide, easy to shoot, not a lot of stopping power, no staying power. Something useful for a surprise attack from range but not a combat mainstay. The crowd who wants the stronger ruling to the feat seems to view as something more like the fantasy equivalent of a glock that you need never change the clip for.

One way of looking at it might to think of it as martial upgrade to the thrown dagger. It's not a great weapon compared to the others but it's light, and easy to carry around in a way they aren't.

[Shaofoo]

You can attack as many times as you like with your rapier when enemies are close and then you can stow away your weapon as part of your action to attack with your crossbow as a bonus action. Then you can unsheathe your weapon when you want to attack with your rapier. Note that this assumes that the weapon is loaded when you finish attacking and able to load it with a free hand.

If you have a rapier then I don't know why would you want to attack wit your crossbow in melee since it has a higher damage dice.

[DanyBallon]

With this ruling, you can't have a weapon in your other hand if you expect to reload. Even melee weapons.

Rapier + Hand Xbow is out. Double Hand Xbow is out. Single Hand Xbow is in, and you still get the bonus attack from the feat. It's like the antithesis of both flavor and good sense.

You still can use a hand crossbow with a melee weapon, or an other hand crossbow. You just can't use them to do repeated shot unless you have so way to mechanically, or magically reload your crossbow. Hand crossbow was never meant to be use at repetition. Like many said before, hand crossbows are stealth weapon to be use for surprise attack.

[Hawkstar]

I'd assume a hand is 'free enough' even if you're holding something in it.

[Talderas]

You can still make all your attacks with a single crossbow if you're going for a just hand crossbow build but it ruins any Demon Hunter inspired characters, plus its just overall less cool.

So does this mean you can't load a light or heavy crossbow? Or does the two handedness only apply to when you're firing? (I know rhetorical douchiness is never classy, feel free to ignore this bit, but come on what is even the point of the "hand" crossbow now, much sadface, such lame, wow.)

A hand crossbow can be fired one-handed. That is its advantage. This permits you to use your other hand to do other things, for instance swinging on a chandelier.

[jkat718]

I would allow my players to use a bonus action to reload, or possibly one attack from Extra Attack. Or reload while/instead of moving. Basically, unless you want to fire, move, interact with an object, fire again, and use your bonus action, then you can dual-wield crossbows. Again, that's just how I'm running the game, not an interpretation of the rules.

[obryn]

I would allow my players to use a bonus action to reload, or possibly one attack from Extra Attack. Or reload while/instead of moving. Basically, unless you want to fire, move, interact with an object, fire again, and use your bonus action, then you can dual-wield crossbows. Again, that's just how I'm running the game, not an interpretation of the rules.
But you get the same amount of shots if you're only wielding one hand crossbow. Why weaken the guy carrying around two of them?

[Mr.Moron]

But you get the same amount of shots if you're only wielding one hand crossbow. Why weaken the guy carrying around two of them?

Why weaken the guy who wants to fire crossbow bolts by loading them into his anus, eating a "Like 5 buttloads beans man. I'm talking all the beans town." and then firing with them force of his farts?

Mechanically he gets the same number of shots as the guy with the single crossbow, and it's more expensive since he has to buy all those beans, and he can't use heavy armor!

It's because the fluff of it is silly. Obviously that's rather absurd & extreme example but the same general principle applies. DWing crossbows is to some, a silly, extreme or even just odd image. Something that just doesn't quite fit with the look, tone, or style of the world they want to run or play in.

To use a less extreme example, I mean what if somebody wanted to use a Final Fantasy style Buster Sword? I think it's perfectly valid to go "No, that's not thing we do here" even if you could just as well go "Sure. Just use the stats for a greatsword".

[LordVonDerp]

Forgive me my laziness but can you give us a summary of how a dual-wielding rapier/hand crossbow drow archetype would be able to use his crossbow more than once? When I think of such a concept I see more a musketeer using his rapier and shooting once his hand-crossbow, then droping it, either picking an other loaded hand-crossbow, or using his hand for something else.

Well dishonored comes to mind, but really if you aren't skilled enough to reload a hand crossbow while holding a sword then you really don't belong in a fantasy world. For that matter you really don't belong past level 4 if, as people claim, its about the limit of human ability

[obryn]

Why weaken the guy who wants to fire crossbow bolts by loading them into his anus, eating a "Like 5 buttloads beans man. I'm talking all the beans town." and then firing with them force of his farts?

Mechanically he gets the same number of shots as the guy with the single crossbow, and it's more expensive since he has to buy all those beans, and he can't use heavy armor!

It's because the fluff of it is silly. Obviously that's rather absurd & extreme example but the same general principle applies. DWing crossbows is to some, a silly, extreme or even just odd image. Something that just doesn't quite fit with the look, tone, or style of the world they want to run or play in.

To use a less extreme example, I mean what if somebody wanted to use a Final Fantasy style Buster Sword? I think it's perfectly valid to go "No, that's not thing we do here" even if you could just as well go "Sure. Just use the stats for a greatsword".
Well, why not hop straight into crazy hyperbole while we're at it! That ought to be productive!

Sage Advice is about clarifying mechanics, not policing the game's flavor.

[Wartex1]

Also, when using a rapier, you could still pick up a small bolt and load it. Rapiers are light, and you could spare a couple of fingers to pick grab a bolt.

[Mr.Moron]

Well, why not hop straight into crazy hyperbole while we're at it! That ought to be productive!

If we have a mechanic that can represent different forms of fluff, it doesn't mean all those kinds of fluff are universally appropriate to account for that mechanic.

That is if it can be demonstrated that there is some bit of fluff that we can all agree is clearly absurd it means disallowing certain fluff when the mechanics are identical or comparable must be something we must agree is valid. From there it's a matter of where we draw the line. The fact that we disagree where the line is doesn't mean it isn't valid to draw a line. If "punishing" people for fluff by disallowing some options or making those options bad is in of itself bad, all fluff that can be accounted for by the same mechanics must be acceptable up to and including butt-arrows.

Clearly some of us draw the line before DWing crossbows, others not so much. Other people might draw the line before Buster Swords, others might say bring on your giant swords.


Sage Advice is about clarifying mechanics, not policing the game's cflavor.


I'm not sure separating the two is possible in a system where the mechanics are so closely tied to the in-universe meaning of it. D&D might not be a simulation but parts of it are trying to be close enough to one you can't really divorce them entirely.

[langal]

That's the way it should be.

What you can do with DM approval though is have a special xbow which merely keeps the bolt in when loaded until it is triggered. Have 2 to 6 of these tied to your belt. This way you can have at least one round of dual fire. It might require some sort of skill check to pull off. I would assume you would at least get advantage on the check though since it would be a well-practiced maneuver.

[jaydubs]

I'd *probably* let my players expend their free interaction to fight with a rapier and hand crossbow. Mostly because you can probably do something similar anyway, it would just be really immersion breaking. Aka:

1. Attack with rapier.
2. Shoot crossbow as a bonus action.
3. Drop rapier.
4. Reload hand crossbow.
5. Pick up rapier as free interaction.

Repeat as necessary. I'd much rather just say they've learned how to reload with just a few fingers, while still holding a sword.

[Shining Wrath]

You can still make all your attacks with a single crossbow if you're going for a just hand crossbow build but it ruins any Demon Hunter inspired characters, plus its just overall less cool.

So does this mean you can't load a light or heavy crossbow? Or does the two handedness only apply to when you're firing? (I know rhetorical douchiness is never classy, feel free to ignore this bit, but come on what is even the point of the "hand" crossbow now, much sadface, such lame, wow.)

Just like the two-handed long bow, you hold the weapon in one hand while loading ammo with the other.


WotC just re-hired Sean K. Reynolds, so really, crossbow nerfs were inevitable.

If you think Reynolds is telling Crawford how to interpret the rules Crawford wrote ... well, I suppose anything is possible.


In my mind they fill basically the same roll as a small pocket pistol or derringer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derringer) might work in a setting with guns. Easy to hide, easy to shoot, not a lot of stopping power, no staying power. Something useful for a surprise attack from range but not a combat mainstay. The crowd who wants the stronger ruling to the feat seems to view as something more like the fantasy equivalent of a glock that you need never change the clip for.

One way of looking at it might to think of it as martial upgrade to the thrown dagger. It's not a great weapon compared to the others but it's light, and easy to carry around in a way they aren't.

Agree. Look at the people who get hand crossbows as part of a list - drow, rogues. Sneaky types who will pull a hand crossbow out of their cloak and shoot from across the room, then conceal it. Also the sorts who would put poison of some sort on that single bolt and up the damage.

It's really an assassin's weapon. For maximum DPR in a long fight, larger crossbows ought to be more powerful.

[obryn]

Also, when using a rapier, you could still pick up a small bolt and load it. Rapiers are light, and you could spare a couple of fingers to pick grab a bolt.
Not per these rulings, no, you couldn't. Hand crossbows are light, too.

You can also, fwiw, cast spells with somatic components while wielding a weapon+shield or two-handed weapon. It's just the loading ammunition part that's apparently out of the question. :smallconfused:


If you think Reynolds is telling Crawford how to interpret the rules Crawford wrote ... well, I suppose anything is possible.
That was a joke based on SKR's hate-on for crossbows (and monks) during his tenure at Paizo.


It's really an assassin's weapon. For maximum DPR in a long fight, larger crossbows ought to be more powerful.
They still aren't, though. Mechanically, you still get your bonus attack with a single hand crossbow. You get the same number of attacks as you did before.


I'm not sure separating the two is possible in a system where the mechanics are so closely tied to the in-universe meaning of it. D&D might not be a simulation but parts of it are trying to be close enough to one you can't really divorce them entirely.
Sure it is. Address the mechanics, the reasoning for the mechanics, etc. That's what Sage Advice should be for.

[ChubbyRain]

WotC just re-hired Sean K. Reynolds, so really, crossbow nerfs were inevitable.

Oh yeah, I'm no longer surprised about what happened to xbow.


Well, why not hop straight into crazy hyperbole while we're at it! That ought to be productive!

Sage Advice is about clarifying mechanics, not policing the game's flavor.

I don't think they know the difference. Or care about the difference.


I'd *probably* let my players expend their free interaction to fight with a rapier and hand crossbow. Mostly because you can probably do something similar anyway, it would just be really immersion breaking. Aka:

1. Attack with rapier.
2. Shoot crossbow as a bonus action.
3. Drop rapier.
4. Reload hand crossbow.
5. Pick up rapier as free interaction.

Repeat as necessary. I'd much rather just say they've learned how to reload with just a few fingers, while still holding a sword.

The biggest issue is there is no mechanical unbalancing if you let people duel wield all these weapons. If one hand crossbow can give you all your attacks +1 attack and having two crossbows gives you all your attacks +1 attack.... They are just urinating all over fantasy and fluff for no reason and trying to force people to take a specific style as fantasy while ignoring what fantasy is.

Hell, Warcaster let's you ignore somatic component while wielding weapons, what the hell is the difference if you allow Crossbow master to ignore loading while a weapon is in hand?

[archaeo]

I mean, for what little it's worth, Jeremy Crawford isn't going to literally come to your house and shut down your D&D game if you decide dual-wielding xbows is cool and worth allowing in the rules, guys.

[Hawkstar]

I figure anyone who doesn't have a Claw-Machine hand should be able to load a crossbow with both hands occupied with very little fuss - Seriously - two fingers to hold whatever it is you're holding, and two more (Or one and a knuckle) to reload the crossbow. If you find that too great a feat of dexterity, you should seek a physical therapist.

The only objects I find there are difficulties in loading a bow while holding would be a bulky shield, because they require the whole hand to grip and balance, or the shield's face gets in the way of the crossbow's movement. But that's only with a viking/greek/roman shield.

[toapat]

Not per these rulings, no, you couldn't. Hand crossbows are light, too.

You can also, fwiw, cast spells with somatic components while wielding a weapon+shield or two-handed weapon. It's just the loading ammunition part that's apparently out of the question. :smallconfused:

This ruling is why i say even the authors dont know what they are exactly talking about. He basically eliminated the entire core idea of XBE by saying you cant use 1H+HXB while reloading. Thats literally the idea the feat is written to convey in the book. Just because certain, more optimal options exist, doesnt change that fact.

His ruling about 2H weapons was very counter-intuitive, as other then the Crossbows (and technically bows as well, but Avengers 1 Killed that) you can hold close to the center of mass effectively enough to defend with it. SnB and DW dont have a way though other then warcaster to bypass them.

[obryn]

I mean, for what little it's worth, Jeremy Crawford isn't going to literally come to your house and shut down your D&D game if you decide dual-wielding xbows is cool and worth allowing in the rules, guys.
No. Nor would he, before, have come to your house and kicked your face for failing to allow hand crossbow gun-kata.

It's Sage Advice, which has a bearing on how the game's rules are used and interpreted.

[Demonic Spoon]

This is not a ruling, this is an explanation of what was written on the page (informed by the person who wrote them who knows what the intent of the text was at the time it was written).

The distinction is important. There has been a lot of debate about the proper way to handle hand crossbows and crossbow expert since the PHB was released so many months ago. This column does not take into account any of it, except the part where people weren't sure what the RAI was.

In that sense, nothing has changed. It's entirely possible that JC and Mearls don't like the way crossbow expert works and agree with many of your concerns, but they don't retroactively change rules that are already published - that is a thing for errata, and Sage Advice is not errata.

As an example of this, here's a tweet from Crawford (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/600531271115145216) regarding the column, indicating that Lucky as written may be overpowered.


Now, when we're discussing crossbow expert, we have a clear, RAW/RAI starting point from which we can discuss the relative merits of houserules without getting into silly arguments about what the text is supposed to say. That's a win no matter what your position on it is.

[obryn]

This is not a ruling, this is an explanation of what was written on the page (informed by the person who wrote them who knows what the intent of the text was at the time it was written).

The distinction is important. There has been a lot of debate about the proper way to handle hand crossbows and crossbow expert since the PHB was released so many months ago. This column does not take into account any of it, except the part where people weren't sure what the RAI was.

In that sense, nothing has changed. It's entirely possible that JC and Mearls don't like the way crossbow expert works and agree with many of your concerns, but they don't retroactively change rules that are already published - that is a thing for errata, and Sage Advice is not errata.
I don't think this is correct, though. This interpretation of "Ammunition = Free Hand" is brand new.

[Shining Wrath]

No. Nor would he, before, have come to your house and kicked your face for failing to allow hand crossbow gun-kata.

It's Sage Advice, which has a bearing on how the game's rules are used and interpreted.

It's really more important to boards like this one, where we like to rely on RAW and optimize within RAW as a constraint for our own amusement. At every 5e table there's a DM, and they are either going to view dual-wield as unacceptable cheese or good clean fun, and probably few are going to give two copper pieces what Jeremy Crawford wrote.

I, having cogitated a little this morning, am leaning toward allowing wrist straps on hand crossbows, which are supposed to be small items. And if you have a wrist strap, you can let go of the crossbow for part of a round, then re-grasp it. It's certainly no more broken than Chill Touch. An off-hand light crossbow with a light weapon in the main hand also seems acceptable.

[Demonic Spoon]

I don't think this is correct, though. This interpretation of "Ammunition = Free Hand" is brand new.

It's not nearly as cleanly stated as it should be, but it's there - weapons with the ammunition property need to be loaded, and you can load the weapon as part of your attack action. It's implied by virtue of the fact that you're grabbing a piece of ammo that it would require a free hand.



It's really more important to boards like this one, where we like to rely on RAW and optimize within RAW as a constraint for our own amusement. At every 5e table there's a DM, and they are either going to view dual-wield as unacceptable cheese or good clean fun, and probably few are going to give two copper pieces what Jeremy Crawford wrote.

I, having cogitated a little this morning, am leaning toward allowing wrist straps on hand crossbows, which are supposed to be small items. And if you have a wrist strap, you can let go of the crossbow for part of a round, then re-grasp it. It's certainly no more broken than Chill Touch. An off-hand light crossbow with a light weapon in the main hand also seems acceptable.


Most of us on these forums are OK at judging balance (even insofar as we disagree a lot on everything). The average DM isn't good at it, and many DMs are absolutely awful at it. Even people who are fairly mechanically proficient will usually go through multiple iterations of proposed houserules before we settle on something we fully like.

A DM who isn't all that mechanically proficient isn't going to be able to do that. He'll either go by the RAW and not allow dual crossbows, or he'll come up with a houserule that is poorly-balanced and will introduce other problems.

[ChubbyRain]

I mean, for what little it's worth, Jeremy Crawford isn't going to literally come to your house and shut down your D&D game if you decide dual-wielding xbows is cool and worth allowing in the rules, guys.

A ton (figliterally) of people play Adventure League, so in a way, yeah these guys (Crawford/Reynolds/whomever) is doing that.

Replace "house" with "flgs" and yeah they are coming in and shutting down something that mechanically doesn't break anything for... Whatever reason they have for doing it.

Perhaps they don't know what they are talking about and don't know the difference between their rues and a hole in the ground?

[BRC]

As I see it, Crossbow expert has three rules scenarios, all theoretically supported by RAW.

1. Melee Weapon and Hand Xbow. This almost certainly seems to be the intended use.
2. Two Hand Crossbows for an extra attack. Fulfilling all your gunslinger fantasies. This is likely not intended, but isn't that broken.
3. Getting an extra attack off a single hand crossbow. Least likely to be intended, since it's basically just a free attack. More powerful than double crossbows since it leaves a hand free, and means you don't need to buy/take care of two crossbows.

From my standpoint, any interpretation will need to allow case #1, since I don't really see why the feat would be worded that way if they didn't want to allow One Handed Weapon+HandXBow to be viable. Any interpretation that allows #3 might as well allow #2 unless you think dual-wielding hand crossbows is too silly for your campaign world (But that's entirely about the tone the GM wants to set for the campaign). From a balance perspective, getting an extra attack off a single hand crossbow is better than duel wielding hand crossbows.

This interpretation seems to dissallow case #1 except on the first round of combat, or if you do some shenanigans to sheath your weapon after your attacks, then pick it up again at the start of your next turn. It forbids Case #2, so whatever, but it supports Case #3.

So, basically
http://i.imgur.com/hdMg2tQ.gif

[silveralen]

So, you can't make more than one attack with a longbow? Because that's a two handed weapon, so you don't have a hand free.

Or is removing your hand part of the free reload? In that case, lanyards for the handcrossbows allows the same effect.

[Demonic Spoon]

So, you can't make more than one attack with a longbow? Because that's a two handed weapon, so you don't have a hand free.

Or is removing your hand part of the free reload? In that case, lanyards for the handcrossbows allows the same effect.

The two-handed property states that the weapon requires two hands to use...use in this context being "attack with". Nothing in the rules says that you cannot physically carry the weapon in one hand, which means that you can carry the weapon in one hand and draw an arrow with another.

[Icewraith]

The first benefit of the feat lets you ignore the loading property (PH, 147) of the hand crossbow if you’re proficient with that weapon. The upshot is that you can fire it more than once if you have a feature like Extra Attack. You’re still limited, however, by the fact that the weapon has the ammunition property (PH, 146). The latter property requires you to have a bolt to fire from the hand crossbow, and the hand crossbow isn’t going to load itself (unless it’s magical or a gnomish invention). You need to load each bolt into the weapon, and doing so requires a hand.

I get what he's trying to say, but the language here works against his interpretation.

[silveralen]

The two-handed property states that the weapon requires two hands to use...use in this context being "attack with". Nothing in the rules says that you cannot physically carry the weapon in one hand, which means that you can carry the weapon in one hand and draw an arrow with another.

Which means that removing your hand from a weapon is either a free action or part of the free reload you get when attacking with a ranged weapon. Which means a handcrossbow and shield are fine so long as the weapons/shield are somehow anchored to you such that removing your hand doesn't drop them.


You need to load each bolt into the weapon, and doing so requires a hand.

The problem being that, if a weapon which requires two hands to use leaves you with a hand free, using a single handed weapon and shield should also let you have a hand free. You don't need to maintain a combat grip on your shield to keep it in hand anymore than you do with a longbow.

This is the ultimate problem, the rules do not, in any way, support how he thinks it should work, and he refuses to merely errata it, instead doing some absurd rule bending.

[archaeo]

It's Sage Advice, which has a bearing on how the game's rules are used and interpreted.

I imagine it has way more of a bearing on how people on the forums argue about the game, but whatever.


Most of us on these forums are OK at judging balance (even insofar as we disagree a lot on everything). The average DM isn't good at it, and many DMs are absolutely awful at it.

[citation needed]. Seriously, while I agree that there are likely many, many more DMs than there are competent game designers running games, I also suspect that virtually every table is either a) going to end up playing 5e in a way that they all like, with whatever combination of RAW and RAI they need to do so, or b) just not play 5e. Sure, obtaining perfect balance from the system is difficult, but obtaining perfect balance is pretty difficult in any TRPG thanks to the myriad ways social forces and original stories impact play.


A ton (figliterally) of people play Adventure League, so in a way, yeah these guys (Crawford/Reynolds/whomever) is doing that.

Replace "house" with "flgs" and yeah they are coming in and shutting down something that mechanically doesn't break anything for... Whatever reason they have for doing it.

I mean, if this ruling is a dealbreaker for you, stop going to AL and encourage other players to join you in a house game. It's as simple as that, to me. It stinks, I guess, if playing crossbows akimbo is really important to your headcanon or whatever, but I imagine that for the vast majority of people, this will just be a tiny thing that matters not a whit.

Of course, I say that, and this thread will probably go on for another 100 posts, so what do I know.

edited to add:


This is the ultimate problem, the rules do not, in any way, support how he thinks it should work, and he refuses to merely errata it, instead doing some absurd rule bending.

I don't think he "refuses" to do anything here, it's just that the article isn't titled "Sage Errata." Mearls & Co. have been open about the fact that they're going to wait to finish up all the surveys and playtesting they want to do before they start rewriting the rules, after all.

In any case, the whole parenthetical about bypassing the need for a free hand with clever Gnomish mechanics or magical stuff is enough leeway to fluff things however you like while still claiming to be within Crawford's RAW, if such contortions are really necessary at a table.

[coredump]

Well, why not hop straight into crazy hyperbole while we're at it! That ought to be productive!

Sage Advice is about clarifying mechanics, not policing the game's flavor.

You are right. ANd the *mechanics* of a crossbow is it takes 2 hands to load.
the mechanics of a light/hvy crossbow, is it takes 2 hands to fire
the mechanics of a handbow is it takes 1 hand to fire.

All he has done is address the mechanics.... you are free to add whatever 'flavor' you like.

[silveralen]

I don't think he "refuses" to do anything here, it's just that the article isn't titled "Sage Errata." Mearls & Co. have been open about the fact that they're going to wait to finish up all the surveys and playtesting they want to do before they start rewriting the rules, after all.

In any case, the whole parenthetical about bypassing the need for a free hand with clever Gnomish mechanics or magical stuff is enough leeway to fluff things however you like while still claiming to be within Crawford's RAW, if such contortions are really necessary at a table.

There is no good reason for him to add the bit about requiring a free hand then. Because that is not in the rules. Nor is "a free hand" described in the rules. It certainly isn't mentioned in the ammunition property, and wielding a two handed weapon normally doesn't let you have a free hand anymore than a one handed weapon and shield would leave you with a free hand.

The strictest RAW says that no weapon that requires two hands can now be reloaded, because the user lacks a free hand. A less strict version, allowing you to merely hold the weapon between attacks while reloading, and not wield it, opens up tons of ambiguity. Can I have a free hand if my shield si strapped to my arm, if I'm not actively wielding in by gripping the hand hold? It isn't strictly spelled out anywhere, but it certainly seems that is 100% legal going by the logic that you don't have to wield a two handed weapon to hold it.

Even with two handcrossbows it changes nothing besides requiring some method of keeping your hand crossbows anchored to your arm when you remove your hand from it. Again, a simple lanyard works, a long way away from a gnomish invention. Unless your DM disallows anchoring your weapon to your hand with a leather strap (because your DM is crawford, who probably will find a way to justify it). Despite the fact you can accomplish the same thing with a single handcrossbow. It is idiotic.

The part about the freehand was him trying to sneak in errata, as it is not mentioned in the rules, and it fails miserably at actually changing anything.

[coredump]

The biggest issue is there is no mechanical unbalancing if you let people duel wield all these weapons. Thats because this has nothing to do with 'mechanical unbalancing' it has to do with 'crossbows don't work that way'.



Hell, Warcaster let's you ignore somatic component while wielding weapons, what the hell is the difference if you allow Crossbow master to ignore loading while a weapon is in hand?

then create a feat that allows that. CE does not say you can do that... you are arguing that it is allowed even without a feat. A lvl5 fighter in your world can fire a handbow twice while holding a shield, or with only one arm.

You want to make the "Be John Woo" feat.... go ahead.

[coredump]

Thats literally the idea the feat is written to convey in the book. Just because certain, more optimal options exist, doesnt change that fact..So you are claiming to know why the rules were written, better than the guy that wrote the rules...???

[coredump]

I don't think this is correct, though. This interpretation of "Ammunition = Free Hand" is brand new.
Its not new. First, it has nothing to do with the 'ammunition' property. Second, I and others have been saying you need a free hand to load a handbow since the book came out. Just because you didn't believe it doesn't mean it is new.

[ChubbyRain]

Thats because this has nothing to do with 'mechanical unbalancing' it has to do with 'crossbows don't work that way'.




then create a feat that allows that. CE does not say you can do that... you are arguing that it is allowed even without a feat. A lvl5 fighter in your world can fire a handbow twice while holding a shield, or with only one arm.

You want to make the "Be John Woo" feat.... go ahead.

As written the crossbow feat does allow that, it may not have been intended by the devs, but the xbow feat certainly allows for it as it is written.

[coredump]

Which means that removing your hand from a weapon is either a free action or part of the free reload you get when attacking with a ranged weapon. Which means a handcrossbow and shield are fine so long as the weapons/shield are somehow anchored to you such that removing your hand doesn't drop them.



The problem being that, if a weapon which requires two hands to use leaves you with a hand free, using a single handed weapon and shield should also let you have a hand free. You don't need to maintain a combat grip on your shield to keep it in hand anymore than you do with a longbow.

This is the ultimate problem, the rules do not, in any way, support how he thinks it should work, and he refuses to merely errata it, instead doing some absurd rule bending.
what??

If you are using your hand to hold a shield, it is already doing something. YOu can't also use it to hold a greatsword, or a longbow, or draw a bolt.

You only need one hand to *hold* a bow, so when you are done firing the bow, you can hold it with one hand, the other hand can draw the ammo.
You need to use a hand to hold a shield....

[silveralen]

Its not new. First, it has nothing to do with the 'ammunition' property. Second, I and others have been saying you need a free hand to load a handbow since the book came out. Just because you didn't believe it doesn't mean it is new.

It literally says that no where in the book. Nor is a free hand even defined. It evidently doesn't mean a hand not wielding something, because two handed longbows. So, a shield strapped to your arm could count as a free hand. You can't wield a weapon in that hand, because you are already wielding something, but wielding a shield apparently doesn't mean you lack a free hand according to Crawford. That or the only bow that attacks more than once per turn is the handcrossbow.

By the rules, his interpretation means handcrossbow with a bonus action attack and a shield is legal, so long as the shield is strapped on so it doesn't drop if you top holding it.


what??

If you are using your hand to hold a shield, it is already doing something. YOu can't also use it to hold a greatsword, or a longbow, or draw a bolt.

You only need one hand to *hold* a bow, so when you are done firing the bow, you can hold it with one hand, the other hand can draw the ammo.
You need to use a hand to hold a shield....

Strap the shield on. Stop holding it when you reload, grip it when you aren't. Exactly the same as a bow, so long as the shield doesn't fall to the ground when you remove your hand, your hand is every bit as free as with a longbow.

The idea of "you have to hold it" is so easy to get around. You can't use that hand for other things when wielding it, and in order to wield it you do need to hold it. But you don't need to hold or wield it to keep it on your arm, and letting go is free as part of the reload.

[obryn]

The strictest RAW says that no weapon that requires two hands can now be reloaded, because the user lacks a free hand. A less strict version, allowing you to merely hold the weapon between attacks while reloading, and not wield it, opens up tons of ambiguity. Can I have a free hand if my shield si strapped to my arm, if I'm not actively wielding in by gripping the hand hold? It isn't strictly spelled out anywhere, but it certainly seems that is 100% legal going by the logic that you don't have to wield a two handed weapon to hold it.
Yep.

And going deeper down the rabbit hole... Eldritch Knights. They have a feature which lets them cast a Cantrip (spell at 18th), then make a Melee Attack as a Bonus Action. Seems to me like they can't do that, though, for any spells with Somatic components (where the 'free hand' requirement is explicitly spelled out in the actual rules as opposed to a sage advice column, and which includes basically almost all the spells).

Can they use a 2-H sword and peel one hand away to cast? What about a hand with a shield? Or do they need a legitimately free hand to cast spells, effectively restricting them to a free-hand Duelist style? What about clerics - armor/shield/weapon is completely in their wheelhouse, isn't it? How do they cast spells with somatic components? At what point is a hand 'free enough' for spellcasting or reloading a longbow, but not 'free enough' for reloading a hand crossbow?

This is a terrible ruling which has rippling unintended consequences. It's so bad we're basically ignoring the insane 'Luck' errata in favor of discussing this. :smallsmile:


Its not new. First, it has nothing to do with the 'ammunition' property. Second, I and others have been saying you need a free hand to load a handbow since the book came out. Just because you didn't believe it doesn't mean it is new.
If the 'ammunition' property is a de-facto 'free hand' property then, like I've been saying, there's pretty serious downstream consequences just to quash the flavor of gun-kata.

e: vvvvv Yep, that would be the case! vvvvv

[BRC]

This is a terrible ruling which has rippling unintended consequences. It's so bad we're basically ignoring the insane 'Luck' errata in favor of discussing this. :smallsmile:
You mean turning Disadvantage into SUPER MEGA ADVANTAGE!

[Knaight]

So, you can't make more than one attack with a longbow? Because that's a two handed weapon, so you don't have a hand free.

Or is removing your hand part of the free reload? In that case, lanyards for the handcrossbows allows the same effect.

Alternately, the rules are supposed to be understood as modeling the setting mechanically, and the setting still applies - which is part of why the rules can be defined more lightly, without having to spend half a page on how being dead denies you actions or similar. A longbow has multiple attacks because the way one actually loads a longbow involves holding it in one hand while grabbing the arrow with the other. Two hand crossbows don't because in-setting you need a hand to load a crossbow, and you can't do that while using two of them. So, you can get two shots, once. You can do something like a brace of pistols with crossbows, where you have six or eight, grab two, fire, grab another two, fire, etc.

With that said, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have specially modified crossbows for dual wielding with a hook at the bottom of the handle, such that they can be used to reload each other.

[silveralen]

Alternately, the rules are supposed to be understood as modeling the setting mechanically, and the setting still applies - which is part of why the rules can be defined more lightly, without having to spend half a page on how being dead denies you actions or similar. A longbow has multiple attacks because the way one actually loads a longbow involves holding it in one hand while grabbing the arrow with the other. Two hand crossbows don't because in-setting you need a hand to load a crossbow, and you can't do that while using two of them. So, you can get two shots, once. You can do something like a brace of pistols with crossbows, where you have six or eight, grab two, fire, grab another two, fire, etc.

With that said, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have specially modified crossbows for dual wielding with a hook at the bottom of the handle, such that they can be used to reload each other.

The problem is that this means we have formally recognized single handcrossbow+shield as legal. I really can't get around it, the way he defined free hand a strapped on shield, with a hand you can let go of without dropping the shield, should 100% be a legal source of a free hand as he has defined it. What he seems to be implying is going directly against what he actually said. He keeps mentioning freehand, as if it is a limiting factor, when we already know it can't be due to two handed weapons.

[Shining Wrath]

It literally says that no where in the book. Nor is a free hand even defined. It evidently doesn't mean a hand not wielding something, because two handed longbows. So, a shield strapped to your arm could count as a free hand. You can't wield a weapon in that hand, because you are already wielding something, but wielding a shield apparently doesn't mean you lack a free hand according to Crawford. That or the only bow that attacks more than once per turn is the handcrossbow.

By the rules, his interpretation means handcrossbow with a bonus action attack and a shield is legal, so long as the shield is strapped on so it doesn't drop if you top holding it.



Strap the shield on. Stop holding it when you reload, grip it when you aren't. Exactly the same as a bow, so long as the shield doesn't fall to the ground when you remove your hand, your hand is every bit as free as with a longbow.

The idea of "you have to hold it" is so easy to get around. You can't use that hand for other things when wielding it, and in order to wield it you do need to hold it. But you don't need to hold or wield it to keep it on your arm, and letting go is free as part of the reload.

There's different ways to hold a shield. One common way is basically a handle similar to a door pull. You can fit your hand through, but not an arm. Another way is a pair of straps and you slip your arm through. This one, though, holds your hand close to the shield, making it difficult to use the hand to manipulate anything - although by tradition, you can hold a torch.

It's therefore a bit of a stretch to say a hand / arm holding a shield is in any useful sense "free".

[PhantomRenegade]

This is a terrible ruling which has rippling unintended consequences. It's so bad we're basically ignoring the insane 'Luck' errata in favor of discussing this. :smallsmile:
OMG

That was their plan all along!!!!

[coredump]

There is no good reason for him to add the bit about requiring a free hand then. Because that is not in the rules. Nor is "a free hand" described in the rules. It certainly isn't mentioned in the ammunition property, and wielding a two handed weapon normally doesn't let you have a free hand anymore than a one handed weapon and shield would leave you with a free hand. You are approaching the game as if it is a computer program, and if a variable isn't specifically defined, it has no meaning.
This game is based on a typical earth-like medieval fantasy world. That is why we 'know' that you can't walk on water, how gravity works, that swords are made of metal, what a tree is, that you find lots of trees in a forest.... we *know* all of this because of the basic assumption of the game design. Just like the rules specifically use the terms 'gravity' 'tree' 'sword' etc, they purposely and specifically used the word Crossbow. Because we *know* what a crossbow is, and how it works. We already know it takes two hands to hold and load a crossbow, that is part of the rules using the term 'crossbow' instead of 'blowgun' or 'rock' or 'dart' or whatever else.


The strictest RAW says that no weapon that requires two hands can now be reloaded, because the user lacks a free hand. A less strict version, allowing you to merely hold the weapon between attacks while reloading, and not wield it, opens up tons of ambiguity. Can I have a free hand if my shield si strapped to my arm, if I'm not actively wielding in by gripping the hand hold? It isn't strictly spelled out anywhere, but it certainly seems that is 100% legal going by the logic that you don't have to wield a two handed weapon to hold it. Do you really want to argue that it always takes 2 hands just to *hold* a longbow, or greatsword? Have you *ever* played that way?
Then why try and bring it up now?
The rule is you hold a shield in our hand, there is nothing that says you can get the same benefits from strapping it to your arm and using that hand for a greatsword..... but the Hoplites did do something similar, so talk to your DM about it.




The part about the freehand was him trying to sneak in errata, as it is not mentioned in the rules, and it fails miserably at actually changing anything.It *is* in the rules, it is part of what it means when they purposely used the term "crossbow"

[Talderas]

And going deeper down the rabbit hole... Eldritch Knights. They have a feature which lets them cast a Cantrip (spell at 18th), then make a Melee Attack as a Bonus Action. Seems to me like they can't do that, though, for any spells with Somatic components (where the 'free hand' requirement is explicitly spelled out in the actual rules as opposed to a sage advice column, and which includes basically almost all the spells).

The bonus action does not occur simultaneously with the action that is casting the spell. Unless there is a reason to prevent the character from holding a weapon with one hand, and I've seen plenty of examples of people carrying bows, spears, crossbows, axes, and other two handed weapons with one hand, then there is no reason why an individual needs to constantly keep both hands on the weapon. The second hand is required for the act of striking with the weapon or otherwise using it for its intended purpose. Since the actions are not conducted simultaneous this also means that it is trivial to shift the hand from the weapon to not on the weapon and vice versa.

As to shields and spellcasting, the rules for casting in armor require that you be proficient in the armor in order to perform the gestures (somatic) components of the spell. Shields are listed as a subcategory under armor so it is reasonable to assume that the armor rule applies to shields. Since this is a more specific rule than the rules regarding somatic components, whether or not the shield hand is free is irrelevant.

[coredump]

As written the crossbow feat does allow that, it may not have been intended by the devs, but the xbow feat certainly allows for it as it is written.

Sorry, but it does not.

Where does it say you can Load a crossbow with only one hand? The same hand that is holding the crossbow?

The argument being presented in this thread doesn't even claim the feat allows it, the argument is that anyone can do it that way. If you can use a Shield and handbow, it doesn't matter if you have the feat...

[silveralen]

The rule is you hold a shield in our hand, there is nothing that says you can get the same benefits from strapping it to your arm

I'm not saying I get the same benefits from strapping it to my arm, I hold the shield with my hand when i want to use it, I merely have it strapped to my arm so I can use that hand for other things without dropping the shield, I'm not claiming to still be wielding the shield when doing so anymore than i claim to be wielding my longbow when I hold it in one hand.


There's different ways to hold a shield. One common way is basically a handle similar to a door pull. You can fit your hand through, but not an arm. Another way is a pair of straps and you slip your arm through. This one, though, holds your hand close to the shield, making it difficult to use the hand to manipulate anything - although by tradition, you can hold a torch.

It's therefore a bit of a stretch to say a hand / arm holding a shield is in any useful sense "free".

Right. Remind me again where this is spelled out in the PHB? Because I can find, from a quick google image search, shield that have a forearm strap and a forward hand grip. Release the forward hand grip, you have a free hand, and the shield doesn't fall because of the secondary strap. You can claim such shield don't actually exist, or are rare, or are historically inaccurate... but the PHB just has shields. No specifics. I've seen people with such shields illustrate a fair degree of manual hand dexterity. But I guess it just comes down to table. Making us all wonder what the point of Crawford offering this evenw as, since it apparently cleared nothing up!


The argument being presented in this thread doesn't even claim the feat allows it, the argument is that anyone can do it that way. If you can use a Shield and handbow, it doesn't matter if you have the feat...

You could use a handcrossbow and shield without it, it'd just be kinda crap... like every crossbow without this feat. Because the loading property hurts.

[PhantomRenegade]

You are approaching the game as if it is a computer program, and if a variable isn't specifically defined, it has no meaning.
This game is based on a typical earth-like medieval fantasy world. That is why we 'know' that you can't walk on water, how gravity works, that swords are made of metal, what a tree is, that you find lots of trees in a forest.... we *know* all of this because of the basic assumption of the game design. Just like the rules specifically use the terms 'gravity' 'tree' 'sword' etc, they purposely and specifically used the word Crossbow. Because we *know* what a crossbow is, and how it works. We already know it takes two hands to hold and load a crossbow, that is part of the rules using the term 'crossbow' instead of 'blowgun' or 'rock' or 'dart' or whatever else.
1 Unfortunately on the same hand you are aproaching the game as if it is a computer program, sure normally, you'd need two hands to load a crossbow, but these are not normal circumstances, for one this is a hand crossbow, much smaller than a normal crossbow, for another you have a feat, and if you want to look at it in real world terms then you must also consider the strength of the weapon user, i'm sure a strength 20 barbarian can pull the string of a heavy crossbow with his pinky while bracing it in his stomach but they dont let him do that now do they?

2: Before today there really was no place in the rules that stated you needed both hands to load any crossbow nor was there any place that said you need a free hand to load a weapon with the ammuntition property.

3(pretaining to your new post): While it did not categorically state that you could load it with one hand, it also did not state that you needed a hand free to do so, so one assumes you either did it with one hand or the weapon you were using on the other hand was no impediment to the loading action.

[JAL_1138]

The way a shield is strapped on, the grip is in your palm whether you are gripping it tightly or not. Your fingertips are free-ish, your palm is not. If it's just got an arm loop instead of a strap, the loop won't hold it on very well (or at all depending on position) if you let go of the grip. So your shield arm is never particularly free. Take Warcaster if you want to use S components with your shield-arm. That's what the feat exists for. EDIT: Shadow monk'd.


This could have been solved if they hadn't used the word "loading" for "1 shot per round unless you take a feat." Ignoring the "loading" property means ignoring the 1-shot-per-round limit, not ignoring the physical need to pull the string back, put a bolt in, and keep the weapon oriented such that the bolt doesn't fall out of it due to gravity.

[obryn]

You are approaching the game as if it is a computer program, and if a variable isn't specifically defined, it has no meaning.
This game is based on a typical earth-like medieval fantasy world. That is why we 'know' that you can't walk on water, how gravity works, that swords are made of metal, what a tree is, that you find lots of trees in a forest.... we *know* all of this because of the basic assumption of the game design. Just like the rules specifically use the terms 'gravity' 'tree' 'sword' etc, they purposely and specifically used the word Crossbow. Because we *know* what a crossbow is, and how it works. We already know it takes two hands to hold and load a crossbow, that is part of the rules using the term 'crossbow' instead of 'blowgun' or 'rock' or 'dart' or whatever else....
It *is* in the rules, it is part of what it means when they purposely used the term "crossbow"
The argument, of course, is that when we're looking at fantasy action heroes like in D&D, "reloading crossbows with one in each hand" isn't anywhere near as cut & dried as "can't take actions while dead" and "can't walk on water."


The bonus action does not occur simultaneously with the action that is casting the spell. Unless there is a reason to prevent the character from holding a weapon with one hand, and I've seen plenty of examples of people carrying bows, spears, crossbows, axes, and other two handed weapons with one hand, then there is no reason why an individual needs to constantly keep both hands on the weapon. The second hand is required for the act of striking with the weapon or otherwise using it for its intended purpose. Since the actions are not conducted simultaneous this also means that it is trivial to shift the hand from the weapon to not on the weapon and vice versa.
Would that imply that any time you're using a 2-handed weapon you also have a free hand? Seems contradictory!


As to shields and spellcasting, the rules for casting in armor require that you be proficient in the armor in order to perform the gestures (somatic) components of the spell. Shields are listed as a subcategory under armor so it is reasonable to assume that the armor rule applies to shields. Since this is a more specific rule than the rules regarding somatic components, whether or not the shield hand is free is irrelevant.
I don't see anything there about proficiency in armor giving you a free hand for somatic gestures. :smallbiggrin:

[JAL_1138]

The argument, of course, is that when we're looking at fantasy action heroes like in D&D, "reloading crossbows with one in each hand" isn't anywhere near as cut & dried as "can't take actions while dead" and "can't walk on water."


Would that imply that any time you're using a 2-handed weapon you also have a free hand? Seems contradictory!


I don't see anything there about proficiency in armor giving you a free hand for somatic gestures. :smallbiggrin:

If you're using a 2H weapon, you have a free hand for spells if you let go with one. You can hold the weapon in one hand, but not use it one-handed. So if you pick up and hold something in one hand, like a torch, you can carry the weapon in the other, but have to put that other thing down to swing, shoot, or stab with the 2H weapon.

This can be demonstrated IRL by holding a rifle in one hand and a flashlight in the other, such as when going from the truck to the deer blind before dawn.

[jkat718]

I don't see anything there about proficiency in armor giving you a free hand for somatic gestures. :smallbiggrin:

I sincerely hope you were joking, but on the off chance you weren't: proficiency doesn't grant you a free hand for somatic components, but lack of proficiency does prevent you from having one.

[PhantomRenegade]

This can be demonstrated IRL by holding a rifle in one hand and a flashlight in the other, such as when going from the truck to the deer blind before dawn. Having never actually shot a rifle or gun i ask if you wouldn't still be able to hold the flashlight while you shoot, just not as well?


Honestly at this point i'm just angry that this was what they decided to adress, something which in actual game balance has virtually no effect, wasnt there like a feat that did nothing acording to RAW?

[coredump]

The problem is that this means we have formally recognized single handcrossbow+shield as legal. I really can't get around it, the way he defined free hand a strapped on shield, with a hand you can let go of without dropping the shield,
No. you are making the assumption (ruling?) that it is trivial to strap on a shield and not need to hold it with a hand and still be able to use that hand for another purpose.
I do not 'formally recognize' that as true.

[obryn]

If you're using a 2H weapon, you have a free hand for spells if you let go with one. You can hold the weapon in one hand, but not use it one-handed. So if you pick up and hold something in one hand, like a torch, you can carry the weapon in the other, but have to put that other thing down to swing, shoot, or stab with the 2H weapon.

This can be demonstrated IRL by holding a rifle in one hand and a flashlight in the other, such as when going from the truck to the deer blind before dawn.
This isn't real life, and I'd say that fantasy heroes can and should be able to do much, much more than this. Which is why the crossbow ruling is off.


I sincerely hope you were joking, but on the off chance you weren't: proficiency doesn't grant you a free hand for somatic components, but lack of proficiency does prevent you from having one.
I don't know if I'm joking or not, honestly. I don't see how armor proficiency relieves you of a free hand requirement for somatic components.

[JAL_1138]

Having never actually shot a rifle or gun i ask if you wouldn't still be able to hold the flashlight while you shoot, just not as well?


Depends on the light and on the gun; sort of a bad example, but a convenient one.

[PhantomRenegade]

Yeah i get it.

[JAL_1138]

This isn't real life, and I'd say that fantasy heroes can and should be able to do much, much more than this.

...you do realize I'm saying that a 2H weapon user can always cast spells or carry a torch while holding their weapon, but just needs to actually swing the thing 2H, and thus a GWM, PM, or archer EK or bard has no need for Warcaster to cast, freeing up a feat or ASI? I'm arguing in favor of allowing the free hand for spellcasting with a 2H weapon.

[jkat718]

I don't know if I'm joking or not, honestly. I don't see how armor proficiency relieves you of a free hand requirement for somatic components.

:smallconfused: That's because it doesn't.


If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you...can't cast spells.

Nowhere does it say the inverse, that "if you wear armor that you possess proficiency with, you can always cast spells." I was actually misremembering, and it doesn't even call out out somatic components. Somehow, if you non-proficiently wear armor, you can't even cast Divine Word, Healing Word, Vicious Mockery, Command, Prayer of Healing, Power Word Stun/Kill, or any of the Smites, all of which are verbal-only spells (among others). I guess you're too busy holding up your pants?

EDIT: On a related note, I only just realized why all of the Smite spells are verbal-only. :smalltongue: And why are Power Words Stun and Kill verbal, yet Power Word Heal is verbal/somatic? Also, Cure Wounds really is such a bad in-combat spell, wow. The other healing spells are verbal-only, on top of all the other advantages they have.

[obryn]

...you do realize I'm saying that a 2H weapon user can always cast spells or carry a torch while holding their weapon, but just needs to actually swing the thing 2H, and thus a GWM, PM, or archer EK or bard has no need for Warcaster to cast, freeing up a feat or ASI? I'm arguing in favor of allowing the free hand for spellcasting with a 2H weapon.
Yep, I do.

I'm making parallels with this hand crossbow ruling; sorry if that wasn't clear.

This is the first time in 5e that anyone on the dev team has said, "Let's get picky about the contents of your hands!" without handwaving it (see: clerics+shields+holy symbol+material components), so the floodgates have opened. :smallsmile:


:smallconfused: That's because it doesn't.

Nowhere does it say the inverse, that "if you wear armor that you possess proficiency with, you can always cast spells." I was actually misremembering, and it doesn't even call out out somatic components. Somehow, if you non-proficiently wear armor, you can't even cast Divine Word, Healing Word, Vicious Mockery, Command, Prayer of Healing, Power Word Stun/Kill, or any of the Smites, all of which are verbal-only spells (among others). I guess you're too busy holding up your pants?

EDIT: On a related note, I only just realized why all of the Smite spells are verbal-only. :smalltongue: And why are Power Words Stun and Kill verbal, yet Power Word Heal is verbal/somatic? Also, Cure Wounds really is such a bad in-combat spell, wow. The other healing spells are verbal-only, on top of all the other advantages they have.
Got it. I was replying to Talderas's assertion earlier on this page that proficiency in shields lifts the requirement to keep a hand free for somatic components.

[CNagy]

Drawing ammunition is part of the attack action. You can't draw it with the hand that is holding the hand crossbow. You can't draw it with the hand that is holding a rapier, dagger, what-have-you--one sec, let me make this vaguely slashing movement across my torso with my blade-holding hand in the midst of a wild melee.

Crossbow expert was designed to give any character with extra attack feature their full complement of attacks with crossbows. It was designed to give hand crossbows an optional higher rate of fire. Tossed in there was the more generally useful ability to make ranged attacks (including spells) in melee range without incurring disadvantage. And the wording on that higher rate of fire is such that it doesn't rule out Musketeer-style blade and xbow. But nothing in there says anything about firing an empty crossbow. It didn't get rid of the ammunition property.

And dropping shields takes longer than people think: it's not like a sword that you are just holding, a shield is strapped to you--or so I would assume given that it takes an action to don or doff a shield (pg 146). Not being a fan of giving up actions in combat, for me the choice to use a shield is the choice to exclusively use something + shield.

Does it suck? Sure, I had visions of swashbucklers dancing through my head as well, shooting and stabbing their way through a chaotic melee. But like most things that defy physics, if we want it in the game world we're going to have to deal with magicians or gnomes.

[PhantomRenegade]

And dropping shields takes longer than people think: it's not like a sword that you are just holding, a shield is strapped to you--or so I would assume given that it takes an action to don or doff a shield (pg 146). Not being a fan of giving up actions in combat, for me the choice to use a shield is the choice to exclusively use something + shield. Unless its a buckler or another type of shield which you just actually hold and dont strap to anything, according to the game those still give +2 you just dont get to use a big shield with your hand crossbow because you aren't cool enough.

[Shining Wrath]

The rules are clear that the moment at which you attack with a weapon is only part of your turn. That's why you can move in between attacks if you have more than one. That's why the rules say that getting the ammunition is part of the attack when attacking with a weapon with that property. What Loading does is say "For this weapon, the non-attack part is time consuming, so you can only attack with this weapon once per turn", and Crossbow Expert says "For you, Feat Taker, the non-attack part is less time consuming, fire more than once".

All this talk of not being able to use a long bow and so on because you don't have a free hand relies on the fundamental mistake of compressing the entire round into one instant; treating the instant of attack as being the same as the instant of loading ammo. They are different moments in the character's turn.

A long bow, or a greatsword, requires two hands only at the moment of attack, a portion of your turn. It does not require two hands at any other instant during the attack. Clearly then, a two handed weapon may be held in one hand at every moment of the round other than the actual attack. A shield, on the other hand, has explicit rules for readying and stowing that say you can't claim to have that hand free except for the moment you use the shield. If you are wielding two weapons, there are rules for drawing and storing those weapons and again, it's not the same as a two-handed weapon.

You may argue if you wish that the PHB does not make this explicit; I'll just say that when you find a single DM who plays that way, get back to me.

[obryn]

You may argue if you wish that the PHB does not make this explicit; I'll just say that when you find a single DM who plays that way, get back to me.
I don't think you will, and I don't think they should. The example is intentionally ridiculous to highlight the complications that arise when you suddenly decide that you need a free hand for ammunition. :smallsmile:

[CNagy]

Unless its a buckler or another type of shield which you just actually hold and dont strap to anything, according to the game those still give +2 you just dont get to use a big shield with your hand crossbow because you aren't cool enough.

What is this "type" you speak of? There is one shield in the PHB, and it takes an action to put on or take off.

[PhantomRenegade]

A long bow, or a greatsword, requires two hands only at the moment of attack, a portion of your turn. It does not require two hands at any other instant during the attack. Clearly then, a two handed weapon may be held in one hand at every moment of the round other than the actual attack. A shield, on the other hand, has explicit rules for readying and stowing that say you can't claim to have that hand free except for the moment you use the shield. If you are wielding two weapons, there are rules for drawing and storing those weapons and again, it's not the same as a two-handed weapon. As Obryn said this is excessive rules lawyering to point out an issue that arrises, and the issue is there because according to the rule book you'll generally be loading the weapon as a part of your attack, the very attack that you point out needs two hands to happen.

Yes this is silly and does not apply in the real world, but neither does demanding that you have a hand absolutely free to shoot a hand crossbow.


edit:
@CNagy: Yeah you're right i hadn't spotted that, but looking at it through the lens of "real world stuff" like many people insist on doing, a buckler is a shield, small enough to simply hold and it seems silly that it would need an action to pick back up but a rapier wouldn't.

[SharkForce]

just to be clear, the rule is not that you cannot pull back the string one-handed (there are various simple ways to deal with that... all you really need is a hook or even a fingertip available somewhere, for example).

the rule is that you cannot have your hand on the handle of the pistol crossbow while also using that same hand to dig into your quiver, grab a bolt, and put that bolt on top of your crossbow. lanyards will not help with this. mounting the crossbow on top of your wrist will not help with this (well, it will for dual-wielding crossbows so long as you grab a piece of ammo for each crossbow at the same time and fire both before reaching for more ammo. won't do squat for shield + crossbow though).

on the plus side, this sounds like the sort of thing that would be well within the capabilities of an unseen servant, and those aren't *that* hard to come by. it would also be solved if you have access to the mage hand cantrip. the action described does not require strength (again, it is not pulling back the string, but rather putting the bolt into place, that is noted as requiring a free hand, and the bolts for a pistol crossbow should be very light).

[PhantomRenegade]

just to be clear, the rule is not that you cannot pull back the string one-handed (there are various simple ways to deal with that... all you really need is a hook or even a fingertip available somewhere, for example).

the rule is that you cannot have your hand on the handle of the pistol crossbow while also using that same hand to dig into your quiver, grab a bolt, and put that bolt on top of your crossbow. lanyards will not help with this. mounting the crossbow on top of your wrist will not help with this (well, it will for dual-wielding crossbows so long as you grab a piece of ammo for each crossbow at the same time and fire both before reaching for more ammo. won't do squat for shield + crossbow though).
Well this is easily solved by having a bracer with easy to reach crossbow bolts on the crossbow hand, if the strength for drawing the string is not an issue the surely the dexterity to take the bolts from the bracer and putting them in place with a rapier or dagger hand wouldnt be either.

[CNagy]

@CNagy: Yeah you're right i hadn't spotted that, but looking at it through the lens of "real world stuff" like many people insist on doing, a buckler is a shield, small enough to simply hold and it seems silly that it would need an action to pick back up but a rapier wouldn't.

A shield that can be put on or taken off as a free action, and still gives the same +2 AC. Why would anyone use larger, cumbersome shields when those handy little bucklers are just as good and double as small metal Frisbees?

[PhantomRenegade]

Well the game makes no distinction between types of shield also if i'm not mistaken (please correct me if i am) viking shields were also handheld and those were pretty big.

[Shining Wrath]

I don't think you will, and I don't think they should. The example is intentionally ridiculous to highlight the complications that arise when you suddenly decide that you need a free hand for ammunition. :smallsmile:

For a bow, the operations are:

Extract arrow from quiver, holding bow in off hand
Notch arrow
Draw arrow back, aim, fire


Fair enough?

For a crossbow, the operations are:

Extract bolt from quiver, holding crossbow in off hand
Draw string back
Place ammunition into notch
Aim and Fire


For the bow, steps 2 and 3 manifestly require 2 hands. I challenge you to imagine notching an arrow with one hand.

Why does it break D&D if steps 2 and 3 for the crossbow also require 2 hands?

[obryn]

A shield that can be put on or taken off as a free action, and still gives the same +2 AC. Why would anyone use larger, cumbersome shields when those handy little bucklers are just as good and double as small metal Frisbees?
I'm not sure. The "shield" apparently covers everything between target and tower, but also makes no distinctions between them for don/doff time.

[Wartex1]

For a bow, the operations are:

Extract arrow from quiver, holding bow in off hand
Notch arrow
Draw arrow back, aim, fire


Fair enough?

For a crossbow, the operations are:

Extract bolt from quiver, holding crossbow in off hand
Draw string back
Place ammunition into notch
Aim and Fire


For the bow, steps 2 and 3 manifestly require 2 hands. I challenge you to imagine notching an arrow with one hand.

Why does it break D&D if steps 2 and 3 for the crossbow also require 2 hands?

And does it take a whole hand to load a crossbow?

I'm pretty sure you could loosely grip a rapier with half of your hand and then use your two free fingers to grab and load a bolt.

[SharkForce]

Well this is easily solved by having a bracer with easy to reach crossbow bolts on the crossbow hand, if the strength for drawing the string is not an issue the surely the dexterity to take the bolts from the bracer and putting them in place with a rapier or dagger hand wouldnt be either.

probably shouldn't be a problem for a hand with a dagger, might be a bit more difficult with a rapier (you're swinging around close to a meter of sharp metal close to your body in a way that i can only imagine leads to you aiming the pointy end towards yourself). a shield would be a royal PITA if it is even possible at all. i'd even allow dagger to draw from your hip probably, no need for a special case anywhere else.

i'd probably allow for the rapier, mind you. but i can definitely understand if someone says it simply won't fit in the space allowed unless you have gorilla arms or something like that.

i don't think i'd allow for a shield regardless. or, at the very least, you're not using it as a shield in the same round.

[warty goblin]

And does it take a whole hand to load a crossbow?

I'm pretty sure you could loosely grip a rapier with half of your hand and then use your two free fingers to grab and load a bolt.

A rapier? No. It's got that big fancy hilt covering your hand.

[PhantomRenegade]

Well not all rapiers have a basket hilt.

[Anlashok]

Why does it break D&D if steps 2 and 3 for the crossbow also require 2 hands?

Who said anything about it breaking D&D?

The main complaint appears to be that it invalidates a fighting style some people like for no real reason other than that a couple other people happen to think it's "dumb" or something. Not that there's anything particularly gamebreaking about it (in fact the opposite, it doesn't really do anything meaningful from a balance perspective).

[Shining Wrath]

I think where we've arrived, then, is that a hand crossbow is special because the final step, aim and fire, requires only one hand.

The other steps, of extracting the ammunition, pulling back the string, and inserting the ammunition, require more than one hand, as one hand is holding the hand crossbow steady while these operations occur using the other hand.

Whether or not these steps can be performed with partial use of the other hand is all that is left, and people have proposed various tricks (lanyards, hooks on belts, shields where the hand is not gripping a handle) to facilitate these operations; the drawing of the string seems to be most problematic.

Crawford says "Nope", but most of us are saying "Yes" to some degree.

Wherever you land, may you enjoy your game.

[warty goblin]

Well not all rapiers have a basket hilt.

They do all pretty much have some variety of complex hilt though. Lacking this, it would be extremely unwise to use a rapier in most rapier fencing techniques, which rely on that complex hilt to keep the other person chopping your fingers off; a state of affairs which would sort of void the whole crossbow loading question in the first place.

[PhantomRenegade]

Well there's those that have like a cuppy thing on top and a crossguard but yeah you totally wouldnt be able to do it with those fancy handguards most of them have.

[Xetheral]

Why does it break D&D if steps 2 and 3 for the crossbow also require 2 hands?

Because a hand-crossbow is a 1-handed weapon, that this ruling effectively makes two-handed.

Because FR lore has the traditional drow fighting style being rapier-and-hand crossbow, that this ruling prevents even for those with the crossbow expert feat.

Because not only is getting the bonus action attack with a single hand crossbow now possible, it's now the only way to get the bonus attack for more than a single round, despite the one-handed weapon reference strongly suggesting that other one-handed weapons were intended.

Basically, Crawford turned the feat from "accomplishes its design goals at the cost of permitting degenerate uses" to "no longer accomplishes its design goals while still permitting some (if not all) of the degenerate uses".

[. Shadowblade .]

so OOTS is not right? damn

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html

[Icewraith]

Actually, he left wiggle room for dms. Get a fancy gnomish hand crossbow or a magic hand crossbow that reloads itself. Any character that's actually based around being some kind of badass hand crossbow wielder should probably end up with at least one anyways, getting two still lets you do the whole Demon Hunter thing if you really want to as well.

Drow in particular tend to be loaded with magic items that disintegrate in direct sunlight.

Also, unseen servant probably does work. To bypass this not-loading loading ruling.

[Mr.Moron]

so OOTS is not right? damn


Correct. Oots has a specific tone and style, one that is right for oots but not necessarily anything but oots.

[Shining Wrath]

Because a hand-crossbow is a 1-handed weapon, that this ruling effectively makes two-handed.

Addressed by a later post: one or two hands refers to the moment of attack. You can aim and fire an hand crossbow with one hand. This does not to the least degree mean that every operation required to use the weapon also requires one hand.

Because FR lore has the traditional drow fighting style being rapier-and-hand crossbow, that this ruling prevents even for those with the crossbow expert feat.

Agreed.

Because not only is getting the bonus action attack with a single hand crossbow now possible, it's now the only way to get the bonus attack for more than a single round, despite the one-handed weapon reference strongly suggesting that other one-handed weapons were intended.

I've always taken the hand crossbow as an assassin's weapon, used by people who were sneak attackers (drow, rogues). It shouldn't be better for a stand-up fight than the heavy or light crossbows; that doesn't feel right either.

Basically, Crawford turned the feat from "accomplishes its design goals at the cost of permitting degenerate uses" to "no longer accomplishes its design goals while still permitting some (if not all) of the degenerate uses".

Except for the "takes away the Loading property" and "allows you to fire right into some guy's face without disadvantage" purposes. Which are pretty serious purposes. If you're walking around with a heavy crossbow and a monster pops out of the shadows right next to you, you'll be glad for XBX. If you've got more than one attack and you want to use a heavy crossbow for all of them, you'll be glad for XBX. Not allowing pew-pew-pew with a hand crossbow doesn't mean the feat is useless

My replies are in green.

[silveralen]

the rule is that you cannot have your hand on the handle of the pistol crossbow while also using that same hand to dig into your quiver, grab a bolt, and put that bolt on top of your crossbow. lanyards will not help with this. mounting the crossbow on top of your wrist will not help with this (well, it will for dual-wielding crossbows so long as you grab a piece of ammo for each crossbow at the same time and fire both before reaching for more ammo. won't do squat for shield + crossbow though).

Yes it would a lanyard would, and having a crossbow mounted on your arm certainly would, because it only matters if your hand is occupied. If you let go of your other weapon yet have a lanyard to attach it to your wrist, your hand is now free, and you can grip your weapon again as a free action when you finish reloading, the same way you do after drawing ammo for any other weapon. Because, if any 2 handed ranged weapon is to be usable, removing your hand or grabbing your weapon must be a free action, or included as part of the attack action and reloading.

So, instead of using two fingers while holding a rapier, you have your rapier attached by leather thong to your wrist, let go to reload, and grasp it again when done, all for free. Or no one ever gets to reload two handed weapons. Those are the options. This ruling literally changed nothing besides making things less cool because Crawford is a annoying little tit who couldn't design his way out of a brown paper bag.


My replies are in green.

But... the hand crossbow is still a far superior weapon. The best possible option for the hand crossbow was getting the bonus action attack by itself, as it meant needing only one magic weapon, and using a one handed weapon alongside it offers no real benefit besides a potential small damage increase (more than likely not, thanks to fighting style:archery or the sharpshooter feat). Hand crossbow is still the best choice for a ranged weapon in a stand up fight over every other ranged option.

You did see the third eratta point, right? You can 100% pew-pew-pew with a single hand crossbow. He merely tried to remove the inferior duel wielding option, and tried to remove hand xbow+shield (and failed on both counts because he doesn't understand his own game and the fact the free hand bit he kept mentioning is literally meaningless trash).

[SharkForce]

he definitely removes hand crossbow + shield with that ruling. your shield hand is explicitly occupied, and explicitly takes an action to unoccupy.

you can argue that it was pointless to remove double hand crossbows (and it was) and pointless to remove the weapon + hand crossbow (and it mostly was - the melee weapon lets you have opportunity attacks that are not unarmed strikes, so there is actually a mechanical difference there, which is particularly significant for rogues), but the hand crossbow + shield option was a bit strong defensively for something that is also the strongest offensive (ranged, nonmagical) option.

and honestly, i'm not really bothered if someone wants to use double hand crossbows, or hand crossbow + rapier (or dagger, or short sword, or whatever other weapon). it's easy to houserule back in and isn't likely to break anything to allow it, so if someone really strongly wanted that option, i'd gladly let them have it (though i'm not clear on when exactly rapier + hand crossbow became the iconic weapon style of the forgotten realms drow... is this a 4th edition thing, or perhaps a recent novel thing? i don't recall that being standard. certainly, drow and (poisoned/drugged) hand crossbows have been a thing for quite a while (though i've seen more drow with conventional bows in games i've played), but i don't recall anything suggesting that drow were using a hand crossbow in one hand and a sword in the other.

[Strill]

I figure anyone who doesn't have a Claw-Machine hand should be able to load a crossbow with both hands occupied with very little fuss - Seriously - two fingers to hold whatever it is you're holding, and two more (Or one and a knuckle) to reload the crossbow. If you find that too great a feat of dexterity, you should seek a physical therapist.

The only objects I find there are difficulties in loading a bow while holding would be a bulky shield, because they require the whole hand to grip and balance, or the shield's face gets in the way of the crossbow's movement. But that's only with a viking/greek/roman shield.

You could also have a simple mechanism to allow you to load with just one hand. Make a spring-loaded quarrel modeled after a gun magazine, and mounted on the hip. The spring pushes bolts towards one end. When you want to load a bolt, you slide the crossbow down onto the quarrel, which pulls back the string and loads a bolt in a single motion.

[Hawkstar]

The first benefit of the feat lets you ignore the loading property (PH, 147) of the hand crossbow if you’re proficient with that weapon. The upshot is that you can fire it more than once if you have a feature like Extra Attack. You’re still limited, however, by the fact that the weapon has the ammunition property (PH, 146). The latter property requires you to have a bolt to fire from the hand crossbow, and the hand crossbow isn’t going to load itself (unless it’s magical or a gnomish invention). You need to load each bolt into the weapon, and doing so requires a hand.

I get what he's trying to say, but the language here works against his interpretation.The loading property has nothing to do with actually loading the damn thing. "Slow Load" would be more accurate. "Ammunition" is what determines whether or not something needs to be loaded or not.

The assumption that I find ridiculous is that it requires an entirely free hand to perform a task as simple as loading a weapon. Hell - it's possible to reload with only a single hand for both the weapon and ammunition.

[PhantomRenegade]

You could also have a simple mechanism to allow you to load with just one hand. Make a spring-loaded quarrel modeled after a gun magazine, and mounted on the hip. The spring pushes bolts towards one end. When you want to load a bolt, you slide the crossbow down onto the quarrel, which pulls back the string and loads a bolt in a single motion.This would qualify as a gnomish crossbow which is the sort of thing he says you need to use for some flipping reason.

I thought of having a lever action like mechanism for pulling back the string with the magazine mounted on the underside of the crossbow, although that's probably more complicated, i just think using the lever looks cool.

[Longcat]

So, what changes in practice?


Single Hand Crossbow: Nothing changes at all. From a "realism" point of view, this is the most appropriate version.
Dual Hand Crossbow: No longer possible, but you get the same number of attacks anyway. In addition, you no longer require two magic weapons to be at full functionality. Dual Hand Crossbows, in my experience, were typically favored by Diablo III fans or DMs opting for the least powerful version of Crossbow Expert.
Hand Crossbow + Melee Weapon: No longer possible unless you spend all your primary attacks on the melee weapon. I do not see much sense in this kind of build, though it is admittedly flavorful.
Hand Crossbow + Shield: No longer possible (if you want extra attacks). Though to be fair, it was a high optimization option which was only appropriate for some tables, and it was the cause for many a heated discussion. I was in the "allow it" camp, though seeing it go brings me a sense of closure. Hopefully, this will be a much less discussed topic.

[PhantomRenegade]

Hand Crossbow + Melee Weapon: No longer possible unless you spend all your primary attacks on the melee weapon. I do not see much sense in this kind of build, though it is admittedly flavorful. No this is still very much usable, even if your DM doesnt let you use the hand that is holding the 1H weapon to reload while holding said weapon you can still drop the weapon, use the hand crossbow, and then use your free action to pick it back up, it just feels really janky and lame.

[Longcat]

No this is still very much usable, even if your DM doesnt let you use the hand that is holding the 1H weapon to reload while holding said weapon you can still drop the weapon, use the hand crossbow, and then use your free action to pick it back up, it just feels really janky and lame.

There is a limit to the number of hoops I'm willing to jump through in order to make a particular concept work. At this point, I'd just rather not use that fighting style.

[warty goblin]

This would qualify as a gnomish crossbow which is the sort of thing he says you need to use for some flipping reason.

I thought of having a lever action like mechanism for pulling back the string with the magazine mounted on the underside of the crossbow, although that's probably more complicated, i just think using the lever looks cool.

Now I'm confused: how precisely does a person work a lever action weapon with one hand? Particularly a lever that's got to be fairly small - being attached to a concealable sort of weapon - and work the spring that provides the motive force for a lethal weapon?

[PhantomRenegade]

Longcat is looooooooooooong (sorry had to do it, its probably just sleep derpyness pay no mind)

Yeah it really sucks but for character who both fight at range and in melee, that sort of build is really good.

@warty goblin: Eh this inhabits the sort of headcannon where you can dual wield pump shotguns so i wouldnt think too much about it.

[Longcat]

Longcat is looooooooooooong (sorry had to do it, its probably just sleep derpyness pay no mind)


It's 3 AM where I'm right now and I need to be in class at 9 AM. So I feel you :smalltongue:



Yeah it really sucks but for character who both fight at range and in melee, that sort of build is really good.

Using a ranged weapon and switching to a melee with the free interaction if the need arises is always an option though. If Aragorn style (Longsword/Longbow) wasn't so taxing on the stats I'd be playing it more.

[PhantomRenegade]

Well yeah but its not as cooln plus even in melee this build deals the most damage as far as i know the only other ways to get your modifier on the bonus action attack is with fighting style or polearm master.

[Longcat]

Polearm Master is great. 1-4 1d10+Str Attack Action attacks, 1d4+Str Bonus Action attack, a semi reliable way of getting a Reaction Attack, and all those attacks can benefit from Great Weapon Master.

If Polearm Master + Great Weapon Master is the king of martial combat, Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter is the queen. One handed style/Sword & Board lacks a -5/+10 option, so it will not deal as much damage.

[Pex]

No this is still very much usable, even if your DM doesnt let you use the hand that is holding the 1H weapon to reload while holding said weapon you can still drop the weapon, use the hand crossbow, and then use your free action to pick it back up, it just feels really janky and lame.

That also allows the shield. Drop shield. Do all your attacks with the hand crossbow then use free action to pick up shield for the AC.

I'm not bothered by hand-crossbow & shield.

[Longcat]

That also allows the shield. Drop shield. Do all your attacks with the hand crossbow then use free action to pick up shield for the AC.

I'm not bothered by hand-crossbow & shield.

While I also allowed Hand Crossbow+Shield in my games, donning/doffing a shield specifically requires an Action.

[PhantomRenegade]

Yeah although that's kinda "eh" since there's no specification of type of shield and the tought of a shield you just hold with your hand being that much harder to don than a rapier is silly string.
(not arguing against the rules, clearly they're refering to shield you strap to your arm but its kinda wierd they didnt consider other shields)

[Joe the Rat]

Pavise shields were a thing. Stick it in the ground, and trade that shield (+2AC) for half cover (+2AC).

Did I miss the part where we complained about slings needing a free(ish) hand to load?

[LordVonDerp]

Longcat is looooooooooooong (sorry had to do it, its probably just sleep derpyness pay no mind)

Yeah it really sucks but for character who both fight at range and in melee, that sort of build is really good.

@warty goblin: Eh this inhabits the sort of headcannon where you can dual wield pump shotguns so i wouldnt think too much about it.

Did someone say derpyness?
Yeah, idk either.

[JAL_1138]

You could also have a simple mechanism to allow you to load with just one hand. Make a spring-loaded quarrel modeled after a gun magazine, and mounted on the hip. The spring pushes bolts towards one end. When you want to load a bolt, you slide the crossbow down onto the quarrel, which pulls back the string and loads a bolt in a single motion.

So, a gnomish device. (Which, if you lose, renders your one-hand reload unworkable). I have no problem with this.

I also have no problem with the lanyard-on-the-rapier thing, although you're fairly likely to slice yourself open that way IRL. And I might have it affect you if you tumble down a steep hill, or get you snagged on something (on extremely, extremely rare occasions). Heck, if you're fighting on dirt or a wood floor, just stick the sword in it (terrible for the blade and worse for the point, but we'll let that slide), reload, and pull it out again after you reload.

Tuck the rapier under your arm; not that hard. I don't have a rapier (yet) but I have a smallsword (which, granted, does not have sharp edges; it's a purely stabbing weapon), and I don't have a hand crossbow (yet) but I have a pistol, and I can pop in a magazine and rack the slide with the smallsword tucked under my arm. Granted, the bullet doesn't fall out if I tilt it the wrong way like a crossbow bolt would, but it seems plausible. You'd have the sword-hand free while you have it tucked like that. Should be minor enough not to even eat your free interact-with-an-object, so rapier+handXbow works.

[obryn]

he definitely removes hand crossbow + shield with that ruling. your shield hand is explicitly occupied, and explicitly takes an action to unoccupy.
If the shield arm is occupied for reloading, it's occupied for somatic components, too, though. :smallsmile:

[Xetheral]

i'm not clear on when exactly rapier + hand crossbow became the iconic weapon style of the forgotten realms drow... is this a 4th edition thing, or perhaps a recent novel thing? i don't recall that being standard. certainly, drow and (poisoned/drugged) hand crossbows have been a thing for quite a while (though i've seen more drow with conventional bows in games i've played), but i don't recall anything suggesting that drow were using a hand crossbow in one hand and a sword in the other.

If I'm remembering correctly, I considered drow rapier+hand crossbow iconic since before I'd heard of Drizzt. I don't recall my source, but it would have to be either late 2nd edition, early 3rd, or (potentially) something I picked up from my group (in which case I have no idea how old the source might be).

It's what makes drow such a pain to fight... they can keep you at bay with their melee weapon while efficiently shooting pre-poisoned bolts slathered in drow poison.

I think in 3rd they still took OA from shooting in melee, but by 4th they had a feat to prevent that.

[JAL_1138]

If the shield arm is occupied for reloading, it's occupied for somatic components, too, though. :smallsmile:

That's what Warcaster is for. Crossbow Expert lets you ignore the 1-shot-per-round limit (which is all the "loading" property is); Warcaster lets you do (or ignore) S components without a free hand, and otherwise you can't, due to how bulky a shield is.

2H weapon? Can do S components without Warcaster.
Shield and weapon? No S components with the shield hand (can still sheathe, cast, then draw weapon again, and other permutations thereof).

Sorry for the terseness of the foregoing post, it is quite late, I used up most of my ability to English in another thread, and I am slightly drunk. :smalltongue: Please forgive me if my tone is off; I do not mean to be argumentative.

[hymer]

That also allows the shield. Drop shield. Do all your attacks with the hand crossbow then use free action to pick up shield for the AC.

Donning or doffing armour has specific rules (PHB p. 146). For shields, it's an action to 'don' or 'doff' it.

[PhantomRenegade]

Did I miss the part where we complained about slings needing a free(ish) hand to load? Now i'm sure i complained about this, but it might have been in another thread, still its always nice to mention it.

Also blowguns, which is extra ridiculous since i'm sure pretty much everybody here could "load" and shoot a blowgun with the blowgun hand, unless the blowgun was just really long.

[ChubbyRain]

If the shield arm is occupied for reloading, it's occupied for somatic components, too, though. :smallsmile:

Now now, we can't have casters playing the same game as noncasters now can we?

[Steampunkette]

Yeah.... I just cannot be bothered to give a flying frog fart about this ruling.

At max level the Handcrossbow fighter gets 5 attacks. Either with one crossbow and a free hand or two crossbows and some panache. Who cares if it doesn't make perfect sense? I'm not going to charge my player a pile of gold to look cool.

The only marginal benefit they gain is having the ability to use two different (attuned) magic weapons at the same time.

Frankly I kind of wanna rework two weapon fighting slightly, anyhow. Make it so the player can use either hand for their standard attack and extra attacks, but only the off-hand for the bonus action attack. And when swapping in dagger attacks for one of the mainhand they'd still get the stat bonus to damage. Again, the marginal benefit is a different weapon enchant firing off on that attack than the mainhand. But without Dual Wielder it's gonna be less damage than the main hand, anyhow, so who cares?

The rule of cool fluff, therefore, trumps the rule of "But it's not realistic!"

[ChubbyRain]

Yeah.... I just cannot be bothered to give a flying frog fart about this ruling.

At max level the Handcrossbow fighter gets 5 attacks. Either with one crossbow and a free hand or two crossbows and some panache. Who cares if it doesn't make perfect sense? I'm not going to charge my player a pile of gold to look cool.

The only marginal benefit they gain is having the ability to use two different (attuned) magic weapons at the same time.

Frankly I kind of wanna rework two weapon fighting slightly, anyhow. Make it so the player can use either hand for their standard attack and extra attacks, but only the off-hand for the bonus action attack. And when swapping in dagger attacks for one of the mainhand they'd still get the stat bonus to damage. Again, the marginal benefit is a different weapon enchant firing off on that attack than the mainhand. But without Dual Wielder it's gonna be less damage than the main hand, anyhow, so who cares?

The rule of cool fluff, therefore, trumps the rule of "But it's not realistic!"

I would just say...

When you make a weapon attack you may make a second attack with the weapon or another weapon you are wielding.

The damage for this attack equals 1d6 damage unless your base weapon damage is smaller, in which you use your weapon's base damage.

If you have X features/feats (great weapon master, pole arm master, twf) you may add your ability modifier to damage of this second day attack.

Edited for clarity.

[Morty]

Crossbows are just fundamentally incompatible with D&D's combat model. Either you fire them at an absurd rate, or they're just sort of useless. It's not a problem that's going to be solved anytime soon.

[obryn]

That's what Warcaster is for. Crossbow Expert lets you ignore the 1-shot-per-round limit (which is all the "loading" property is); Warcaster lets you do (or ignore) S components without a free hand, and otherwise you can't, due to how bulky a shield is.

2H weapon? Can do S components without Warcaster.
Shield and weapon? No S components with the shield hand (can still sheathe, cast, then draw weapon again, and other permutations thereof).

Sorry for the terseness of the foregoing post, it is quite late, I used up most of my ability to English in another thread, and I am slightly drunk. :smalltongue: Please forgive me if my tone is off; I do not mean to be argumentative.
No, no - it's all good. I have a strong hunch, though, that in most games - going back all the way to AD&D 1e which first laid out V/S/M components - 95%+ of players and DMs haven't given a fig about the contents of Clerics', Paladins', Rangers' or multiclass Fighter/Casters' hands. Nor with splitting hairs about 2-H vs. 2-W vs. W+S and its relation to casting.

Heck; Crawford has tweets which basically say, "Don't worry about it" with clerics.

Or was this just my table? Has anyone told a Cleric player before casting a spell that they need to figure out what they want to do with their mace first?


Now now, we can't have casters playing the same game as noncasters now can we?
:smallbiggrin:


Crossbows are just fundamentally incompatible with D&D's combat model. Either you fire them at an absurd rate, or they're just sort of useless. It's not a problem that's going to be solved anytime soon.
...Except by not sweating the details. :smallsmile:

[Kryx]

Crossbows are just fundamentally incompatible with D&D's combat model. Either you fire them at an absurd rate, or they're just sort of useless. It's not a problem that's going to be solved anytime soon.
As if D&D is built on logic... As if I can swing my halberd around and attack with the wooden side at 10ft quicker than I can attack with the front side again.

[SharkForce]

If the shield arm is occupied for reloading, it's occupied for somatic components, too, though. :smallsmile:

that is correct. your shield arm is occupied as far as somatic components are concerned.

you can mitigate that with warcaster, but by default you must have a free hand available for casting any spell that includes a somatic component. it's right in the rules, clearly spelled out. not necessarily followed very strictly by every group, but it's there.

[ChubbyRain]

I found that removing V/S/M and replacing it with the psionic manifestation displays. Works wonders with the cleric.



Display
When a power is manifested, a display may accompany the primary effect. This secondary effect may be auditory, material, mental, olfactory, or visual. No power’s display is significant enough to create consequences for the psionic creatures, allies, or opponents during combat. The secondary effect for a power occurs only if the power’s description indicates it. If multiple powers with similar displays are in effect simultaneously, the displays do not necessary become more intense. Instead, the overall display remains much the same, though with minute spikes in intensity. A Psicraft check (DC 10 + 1 per additional power in use) reveals the exact number of simultaneous powers in play.

Dispense with Displays
Despite the fact that almost every power has a display, a psionic character can always choose to manifest the power without the flashy accompaniment. To manifest a power without any display (no matter how many displays it might have), a manifester must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the level of the power). This check is part of the action of manifesting the power. If the check is unsuccessful, the power manifests normally with its display.
Even if a manifester manifests a power without a display, he is still subject to attacks of opportunity in appropriate circumstances. (Of course, another Concentration check can be made as normal to either manifest defensively or maintain the power if attacked.)

Auditory
A bass-pitched hum issues from the manifester’s vicinity or in the vicinity of the power’s subject (manifester’s choice), eerily akin to many deep-pitched voices. The sound grows in a second from hardly noticeable to as loud as a shout strident enough to be heard within 100 feet. At the manifester’s option, the instantaneous sound can be so soft that it can be heard only within 15 feet with a successful DC 10 Listen check. Some powers describe unique auditory displays.

Material
The subject or the area is briefly slicked with a translucent, shimmering substance. The glistening substance evaporates after 1 round regardless of the power’s duration. Sophisticated psions recognize the material as ectoplasmic seepage from the Astral Plane; this substance is completely inert.

Mental
A subtle chime rings once in the minds of creatures within 15 feet of either the manifester or the subject (at the manifester’s option). At the manifester’s option, the chime can ring continuously for the power’s duration. Some powers describe unique mental displays.

Olfactory
An odd but familiar odor brings to mind a brief mental flash of a long-buried memory. The scent is difficult to pin down, and no two individuals ever describe it the same way. The odor originates from the manifester and spreads to a distance of 20 feet, then fades in less than a second (or lasts for the duration, at the manifester’s option).

Visual
The manifester’s eyes burn like points of silver fire while the power remains in effect. A rainbow-flash of light sweeps away from the manifester to a distance of 5 feet and then dissipates, unless a unique visual display is described. This is the case when the Display entry includes “see text,” which means that a visual effect is described somewhere in the text of the power.



For 5e just have presdigitation, druid craft, thaumatagory, or the minor elemental cantrips work at the same time as casting a spell. Like, when a cleric casts a spell their eyes light up or all the doors/windows shut or whatever.

[Steampunkette]

I love it. Houseruled.

[SharkForce]

Crossbows are just fundamentally incompatible with D&D's combat model. Either you fire them at an absurd rate, or they're just sort of useless. It's not a problem that's going to be solved anytime soon.

nonsense. you just need to allow a class to deal more damage with a single, well-aimed shot. rogues are pretty close to this, except that they benefit far too much from the reliability of getting an extra shot.

alternately, the beast master ranger actually works just fine with a crossbow, by having other things to do with the attack action than attack.

[silveralen]

Donning or doffing armour has specific rules (PHB p. 146). For shields, it's an action to 'don' or 'doff' it.

Thankfully you don't need to.

Wielding a shield doesn't mean your had isn't free, you don't stop wielding your longbow when you reload, Crawford has firmly established wielding a weapon doesn't mean your hand isn't free, nor that you must stop wielding it.

So long as your shield has a method where it is left on arm with your hand free, your golden. It doesn't count as doffing or donning it explictly, as it is established this sort of hand removal is distinct from normal item interactions like drawing or readying weapons.

Of course that's only by what we know now. Once he makes an actual errata and fully explains these new free hand rules he made up to limit character concepts, then we will see.

[Xetheral]

alternately, the beast master ranger actually works just fine with a crossbow, by having other things to do with the attack action than attack.

I don't understand how crossbows help the beast master. Can you elaborate?

[SharkForce]

I don't understand how crossbows help the beast master. Can you elaborate?

they don't particularly help the beastmaster (i mean, they're +1 average damage compared to a long bow, but that's about it). it's just that a beastmaster only makes 1 attack per round anyways, the other is used to let their animal companion attack, so the 1 shot/round limitation doesn't really hurt them.

[Xetheral]

they don't particularly help the beastmaster (i mean, they're +1 average damage compared to a long bow, but that's about it). it's just that a beastmaster only makes 1 attack per round anyways, the other is used to let their animal companion attack, so the 1 shot/round limitation doesn't really hurt them.

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.

[Longcat]

By the same token, they are great for War Clerics and Death Clerics as well. Valor Bards too, from Level 3-5.

[Steampunkette]

With this feat, they're pretty badass for Rogues.

[JAL_1138]

No, no - it's all good. I have a strong hunch, though, that in most games - going back all the way to AD&D 1e which first laid out V/S/M components - 95%+ of players and DMs haven't given a fig about the contents of Clerics', Paladins', Rangers' or multiclass Fighter/Casters' hands. Nor with splitting hairs about 2-H vs. 2-W vs. W+S and its relation to casting.

Heck; Crawford has tweets which basically say, "Don't worry about it" with clerics.

Or was this just my table? Has anyone told a Cleric player before casting a spell that they need to figure out what they want to do with their mace first?


:smallbiggrin:


...Except by not sweating the details. :smallsmile:

In 2e you either needed both arms (not hands) free and be able to speak to cast, OR you could use the V/S/M rules, in which case you the "free gestures" were never specified as requiring fiddly hand movements and the only indication of what "free" meant was "not restrained." So it was kind of up in the air.

The 2e PHB only has a short section on spellcasting, the important bits of which for this discussion are:

"The caster must be able to speak (not under the effects of a silence spell or gagged) and have both arms free. (Note that the optional spell component rule [following section] can modify these conditions.)"

"Once the casting has begun, the character must stand still. Casting cannot be accomplished while riding a roughly moving beast or a vehicle, unless special efforts are made to stabilize and protect the caster. Thus, a spell cannot be cast from the back of a galloping horse under any conditions, nor can a wizard or priest cast a spell on the deck of a ship during a storm."

"When your character casts a spell, it is assumed that he is doing something to activate that spell. He may utter a few words, wave his hand around a couple of times, wiggle his toes, swallow a live spider, etc. But, under the standard rules, you don't have to know exactly what he does to activate the spell. Some of this can be answered if your DM uses the rules for spell components."

"Verbal components require the caster to speak clearly (not be silenced in any way); somatic components require free gestures (thus, the caster cannot be bound or held); material components must be tossed, dropped, burned, eaten, broken, or whatever for the spell to work. While there is no specific description of the words and gestures that must be performed, the material components are listed in the spell descriptions."

However, Turn Undead specified that a character need their hands free. However, a target shield could probably be used with it, since it wasn't an impediment to crossbowmen and arquebusiers either. Other shields had descriptors saying what could and could not be done with the shield hand, but did not mention spells.

Short version, 2e was much more loose about what somatic components required, and written in an even more vague style than 5e.

[LordVonDerp]

Crossbows are just fundamentally incompatible with D&D's combat model. Either you fire them at an absurd rate, or they're just sort of useless. It's not a problem that's going to be solved anytime soon.

What if crossbows had damage multipliers instead of extra attacks?

[PhantomRenegade]

@Morty: Really Crossbow's are mostly fine unless you're a fighter with Crossbow master. Fighter's are the real problem what with them being able to attack 10 times in a turn if they're level 17 with Polearm master or crossbow expert, and use a action surge, you dont even see the halberd at that point, and its not like 5 attacks is that much more reasonable.




alternately, the beast master ranger actually works just fine with a crossbow, by having other things to do with the attack action than attack.Total sidenote, completely ignore it, i just feel its my civic duty to keep doing this until Wizards fixes it.

The beast master ranger doesn't work fine with anything (except mounted combatant TY easy-lee) that's what Crawford should be working on, not these barely impactful messy feat rulings (referring only to the crossbow expert one, the others were pretty nice to have)

[LordVonDerp]

As if D&D is built on logic... As if I can swing my halberd around and attack with the wooden side at 10ft quicker than I can attack with the front side again.

Hit with the wooden end first before bringing the blade up. Or at least that's what old dueling manuals suggest.

[-Jynx-]

Hit with the wooden end first before bringing the blade up. Or at least that's what old dueling manuals suggest.

Not against an opponent with a free arm, that only works if you're dueling against someone with the same weapon, or similarly a two handed weapon. The moment you swing the blunt stick end against someone you run the risk of your opponent grappling and disarming you or grappling and eviscerating you with a sword/dagger.

[Shining Wrath]

What if crossbows had damage multipliers instead of extra attacks?

Borrow from 3.5 if you want ... give crossbows an expanded critical hit range. Let a heavy hit like a ton of bricks if you find a chink in the armor.

[Steampunkette]

I think what Derp was suggesting was making 1 attack for ((number of attacks x weapon damage) + (number of attacks x damage modifiers)) damage.

[Longcat]

Making them scale like Cantrips instead of Extra Attacks could make them somewhat less suboptimal.

E.g.
1 Attack w/ Heavy Crossbow: 1d10+Dex mod
2 Attacks w/ Heavy Crossbow: 2d10+Dex mod

[PhantomRenegade]

I think what Derp was suggesting was making 1 attack for ((number of attacks x weapon damage) + (number of attacks x damage modifiers)) damage.You could even have the character do multiple attack rolls and fluff it as "taking better aim", the end result would be exactly the same and you wouldnt be bothered by the character shooting his crossbow super fast.

[JAL_1138]

You could even have the character do multiple attack rolls and fluff it as "taking better aim", the end result would be exactly the same and you wouldnt be bothered by the character shooting his crossbow super fast.

The question would then be why longbows don't work that way, since for a trained archer there's not any significant accuracy difference. Yet "aiming" (multiattacking) with the longbow would expend significantly more ammo--which becomes a factor when you're using poisoned arrows, magic arrows, etc.

[PhantomRenegade]

True, i didnt take ammunition into account.

[Shining Wrath]

I think we're going to wind up with bows being faster than crossbows unless you burn a feat. That makes sense, not that D&D always does, but it's hard to imagine someone arming and firing a crossbow Legolas-style.

In the real world (please don't throw tomatoes) the advantage of the crossbow was not superior range or power, but that it was usable with less training and skill. A Welsh longbow man was an incredible athlete compared to the average crossbowman.

If we wanted to replicate that in D&D, we'd have a situation where skilled weapons users (the people who get martial weapons as a class feature) would prefer bows, because they are trained athletes, while people whose bodies were less well trained would use crossbows. And without XBX, that's pretty much what you get; a class that gets only one attack per round might want the superior hitting power of the heavy crossbow, while a fighter or ranger is going to want the extra attacks afforded by the bows. And some people aren't even competent to use a crossbow.

[Morty]

...Except by not sweating the details. :smallsmile:

Yeah, except if you do that, a crossbow becomes a marginally more damaging bow that you need a feat to use properly - unless you're a rogue or another class that doesn't have multiple attacks. In which case the marginal increase in damage is probably going to be eclipsed by Sneak Attack or something else.

[PhantomRenegade]

@Morty: The common belief is that crossbows have a bigger draw power and because of that and how they are constructed they take longer to shoot.

I don't even know if that's actually true, the common belief is what matters for this argument.

That is represented in game terms by giving crossbows the loading property and a bit more damage than bows while keeping bows as the rapid fire weapon.


If your class has multi-attacks and you want to maximise your damage by using crossbows you can take a feat to do so instead of a stat increase or another feat with some other use.

Yes, you're shooting it faster than a normal person would be able to, but so does the Polearm master swing his weapon faster than a normal person would be able to, and so does the fighter swing all his weapons faster than a normal person would be able to.


What's the problem with this?

[Anlashok]

Yeah, except if you do that, a crossbow becomes a marginally more damaging bow that you need a feat to use properly - unless you're a rogue or another class that doesn't have multiple attacks. In which case the marginal increase in damage is probably going to be eclipsed by Sneak Attack or something else.

And that's a bad thing because?

[Icewraith]

Now I'm confused: how precisely does a person work a lever action weapon with one hand? Particularly a lever that's got to be fairly small - being attached to a concealable sort of weapon - and work the spring that provides the motive force for a lethal weapon?

Terminator-shotgun style. Some sort of badass spin-the-weapon-by-the-lever thingy. There are all kinds of objections you could raise regarding doing this with a crossbow, but don't, because awesome. Right?

(Still lamenting the fact that while yes, the Loading property just limits number of attacks, using "loading" in both normal and game terms in the same ruling makes it sound like gibberish.)

[LordVonDerp]

I think what Derp was suggesting was making 1 attack for ((number of attacks x weapon damage) + (number of attacks x damage modifiers)) damage.
Something like that, yeah.

[LordVonDerp]

Not against an opponent with a free arm, that only works if you're dueling against someone with the same weapon, or similarly a two handed weapon. The moment you swing the blunt stick end against someone you run the risk of your opponent grappling and disarming you or grappling and eviscerating you with a sword/dagger.

Since when does anyone try disarming anyone in DND?

[Morty]

@Morty: The common belief is that crossbows have a bigger draw power and because of that and how they are constructed they take longer to shoot.

I don't even know if that's actually true, the common belief is what matters for this argument.

That is represented in game terms by giving crossbows the loading property and a bit more damage than bows while keeping bows as the rapid fire weapon.


If your class has multi-attacks and you want to maximise your damage by using crossbows you can take a feat to do so instead of a stat increase or another feat with some other use.

Yes, you're shooting it faster than a normal person would be able to, but so does the Polearm master swing his weapon faster than a normal person would be able to, and so does the fighter swing all his weapons faster than a normal person would be able to.


What's the problem with this?

The problem is simple - crossbows in D&D don't give what is expected of them. A crossbow fires slowly, but has much more of a punch than a bow. Roughly speaking. Where a bow-wielding character will sling arrows left and right, a crossbow shooter will deal with enemies using a single well-placed bolt. But in practice, crossbows' slow-but-steady method bounces off D&D's assumption that martial prowess is expressed with multiple attacks, you're going to make a lot of them to bring down any serious enemy and weapon differences are small. The loading property is bypassed with a feat, or entirely irrelevant if your class doesn't make multiple attacks. An increase in the damage dice is marginal. If I'm going to fire a missile after missile, why am I even using a crossbow? I'll just use a bow so that peppering enemies with a hail of arrows doesn't look ridiculous.

[Icewraith]

Suggested houserule:

If you have multiple attacks, you have the skill to shove two bolts into the crossbow and still load and fire it without anything going wrong. Since the aerodynamics are now screwy, you still make separate attack rolls.

[LordVonDerp]

The problem is simple - crossbows in D&D don't give what is expected of them. A crossbow fires slowly, but has much more of a punch than a bow. Roughly speaking. Where a bow-wielding character will sling arrows left and right, a crossbow shooter will deal with enemies using a single well-placed bolt. But in practice, crossbows' slow-but-steady method bounces off D&D's assumption that martial prowess is expressed with multiple attacks, you're going to make a lot of them to bring down any serious enemy and weapon differences are small. The loading property is bypassed with a feat, or entirely irrelevant if your class doesn't make multiple attacks. An increase in the damage dice is marginal. If I'm going to fire a missile after missile, why am I even using a crossbow? I'll just use a bow so that peppering enemies with a hail of arrows doesn't look ridiculous.
Like I said, damage multipliers.
Also, guns.

[PhantomRenegade]

The problem is simple - crossbows in D&D don't give what is expected of them. A crossbow fires slowly, but has much more of a punch than a bow. Roughly speaking. Where a bow-wielding character will sling arrows left and right, a crossbow shooter will deal with enemies using a single well-placed bolt. But in practice, crossbows' slow-but-steady method bounces off D&D's assumption that martial prowess is expressed with multiple attacks, you're going to make a lot of them to bring down any serious enemy and weapon differences are small. The loading property is bypassed with a feat, or entirely irrelevant if your class doesn't make multiple attacks. An increase in the damage dice is marginal. If I'm going to fire a missile after missile, why am I even using a crossbow? I'll just use a bow so that peppering enemies with a hail of arrows doesn't look ridiculous.Oh ok so your problem is mostly with game feel rather than mechanics?

Well i'm sure most DM's would let you get a homebrewed "Shorbow expert" feat that let you use your bonus action to get an extra attack with a shortbow since mathematically it ends up being the same.

[Anlashok]

why am I even using a crossbow? I'll just use a bow so that peppering enemies with a hail of arrows doesn't look ridiculous.
Because you like the crossbow?

I honestly can't fathom why "rebalancing the game based on what I personally think is or is not silly" is even on the table to begin with, much less applauded like this. It's weird and feels like a waste of resources and contrary to a lot of 5e's design.

[warty goblin]

Because you like the crossbow?

I honestly can't fathom why "rebalancing the game based on what I personally think is or is not silly" is even on the table to begin with, much less applauded like this. It's weird and feels like a waste of resources and contrary to a lot of 5e's design.

It seems to me that if I like the crossbow, it's because I like how crossbows work; which is to say a relatively slow to operate weapon that hits very hard. Turning a crossbow into some sort of semiauto rifle or longbow equivalent that everybody just calls a crossbow may balance that thing, but it's not giving me something that substantively resembles a crossbow. If my goal is a certain crossbowishness, I don't particularly like that solution. If my goal is to write the word 'crossbow' on my character sheet, it works for that.

[Longcat]

I want Repeating Crossbows already.



I honestly can't fathom why "rebalancing the game based on what I personally think is or is not silly" is even on the table to begin with, much less applauded like this. It's weird and feels like a waste of resources and contrary to a lot of 5e's design.

Now that SKR joined the team, you may be in for a treat :smalltongue:

[coredump]

As if D&D is built on logic... As if I can swing my halberd around and attack with the wooden side at 10ft quicker than I can attack with the front side again.
It makes plenty of sense at 5'. I guess there "should" be a restriction on the PA extra attack if fighting at full range.....

[coredump]

Not against an opponent with a free arm, that only works if you're dueling against someone with the same weapon, or similarly a two handed weapon. The moment you swing the blunt stick end against someone you run the risk of your opponent grappling and disarming you or grappling and eviscerating you with a sword/dagger.
Not if you are swinging it like a weapon. In that case it works the same way as a quarterstaff would.

[Morty]

Oh ok so your problem is mostly with game feel rather than mechanics?

Well i'm sure most DM's would let you get a homebrewed "Shorbow expert" feat that let you use your bonus action to get an extra attack with a shortbow since mathematically it ends up being the same.

To the contrary, the issue is exactly about game mechanics. Which don't allow most classes to use crossbows as crossbows should be used, and be effective. As the recurring arguments about the Crossbow Expert feat show. Many people feel that it's stupid to fire a crossbow at the rate of three or four attacks per turn, but without it, classes other than the rogue have no reason to use them. Rogues, on the other hand, have no reason not to use crossbows... technically speaking, because it's not like a marginally smaller damage dice is going to make a difference, given that most of their damage is going to come from Sneak Attack.

I also don't know where or how shortbows enter into this.


Because you like the crossbow?

I honestly can't fathom why "rebalancing the game based on what I personally think is or is not silly" is even on the table to begin with, much less applauded like this. It's weird and feels like a waste of resources and contrary to a lot of 5e's design.

I like crossbows, so I'd like to play a crossbow-user that feels like such, as opposed to someone who uses a medieval automatic rifle. I'm truly sorry that you can't fathom it, because I see nothing confusing about this argument.

[PhantomRenegade]

To the contrary, the issue is exactly about game mechanics. Which don't allow most classes to use crossbows as crossbows should be used, and be effective. As the recurring arguments about the Crossbow Expert feat show. Many people feel that it's stupid to fire a crossbow at the rate of three or four attacks per turn, but without it, classes other than the rogue have no reason to use them. Rogues, on the other hand, have no reason not to use crossbows... technically speaking, because it's not like a marginally smaller damage dice is going to make a difference, given that most of their damage is going to come from Sneak Attack.

I also don't know where or how shortbows enter into this. Well you said that if you wanted to be all Pew Pew you'd use a bow so i was suggesting something that would make the shortbow as good as the Hand crossbow.

Anyway i see what you mean now, although the reason rogues use the hand crossbow and crossbow expert is because of the offhand extra attack with modifier which makes the Hand-Crossbow the most damaging ranged weapon for them(and all the other classes as far as i know).

[-Jynx-]

Since when does anyone try disarming anyone in DND?

Well to answer your question: Battlemasters

However... You referenced old training manuals on polearm combat, trying to justify dnd through a real life example. I was just telling you that you were wrong and why.


Not if you are swinging it like a weapon. In that case it works the same way as a quarterstaff would.

Balancing would be off since you're spear head is on the opposite side, so once a hand grapples the opposing end of the spear/halberd it's harder to contest. A quarterstaff also isn't an ideal weapon against steel in the first place. Doable sure, but axes longswords even some arming swords would hack away even nicer wooden staves very quickly.


All of this is irrelevant of course since this is DnD not real life, but I was only pointing out why that real life example only works in DnD and not for realsies.

[Hawkstar]

Ehh... to me, the "Crossbow Expert" feat IS designed to make it so that any crossbow your character is using becomes a Semiautomatic Weapon simply as a result of your character's Personal Awesomeness. Yes, the crossbow DOES load itself if you have the feat and the ammunition available. Every other feat is the same in the way it allows your character to perform superhuman abilities, such as becoming part of the armor you wear (Heavy Armor Mastery), making armor move more than it's physically capable of (Medium Armor Mastery), cause enemies to line up to be struck down in a single sweep, as well as amplify the force of a blow (Great Weapon Master), Be Hawkeye, but Better (Sharpshooter), etc.


As for the Realism angle... I'm not sure that a crossbow would have any worth beyond being the best ranged weapon for level 1-4 warriors, unless they also change the way bows work to emphasize the crossbow's "Shoot then reload" mechanic (Excellent on surprise/sudden attacks) vs. a bow's "Draw then fire".

[Shining Wrath]

So I'll throw this out as a homebrew fix to make crossbows more crossbow-ish.

Change the damage done:

Heavy: 2d8
Light: 1D10
Hand: 1D6
5 Shot Hand: 1D4


The 5 shot hand is 3x as expensive (so 225 GP) and is of either gnomish or drow make. The point of the 5 shot hand is as a poison delivery system and a way to force concentration rolls.

Modify Crossbow Expert:

Instead of completely removing the Loading property, it allows you to make 2 shots per round with such a weapon
Close-range feature unchanged. You can still shoot people in the face.
A hand crossbow may be either fired as a bonus action, or loaded as a bonus action - that is, an off-hand handbow gives you a shot every other round. This makes the drow rapier - handbow combo work without being OP.


EDIT: The reason the 5-shot hand crossbow drops in power is that a bow which can **** itself can't have quite the same draw as a normal one. A DM can of course allow for more powerful 5-shot hand crossbows, but perhaps at the cost of a strength requirement to point and aim them; they are getting pretty large for a one handed weapon.

[Kryx]

A hand crossbow may be either fired as a bonus action, or loaded as a bonus action - that is, an off-hand handbow gives you a shot every other round. This makes the drow rapier - handbow combo work without being OP.
Please share your math for how you think it is op. By my numbers posted all over this site now dual wielding crossbows is about in line with most everyone else and falls short of high damage melee folk like a barb or fighter.

From what I can tell your restrictions are fluff related, not balance fixes.

[warty goblin]

Ehh... to me, the "Crossbow Expert" feat IS designed to make it so that any crossbow your character is using becomes a Semiautomatic Weapon simply as a result of your character's Personal Awesomeness. Yes, the crossbow DOES load itself if you have the feat and the ammunition available. Every other feat is the same in the way it allows your character to perform superhuman abilities, such as becoming part of the armor you wear (Heavy Armor Mastery), making armor move more than it's physically capable of (Medium Armor Mastery), cause enemies to line up to be struck down in a single sweep, as well as amplify the force of a blow (Great Weapon Master), Be Hawkeye, but Better (Sharpshooter), etc.


As for the Realism angle... I'm not sure that a crossbow would have any worth beyond being the best ranged weapon for level 1-4 warriors, unless they also change the way bows work to emphasize the crossbow's "Shoot then reload" mechanic (Excellent on surprise/sudden attacks) vs. a bow's "Draw then fire".
I find Personal Awesomeness to be an unsatisfying building block, since awesome is a rather subjective thing. I don't find anything particularly awesome about the rules letting a person use a tool in a way the tool manifestly cannot be used. I find it annoying; the sort of thing that needs papering over. Awesome with a crossbow for me would be being a very good shot; able to work a complicated weapon under pressure, and so forth. If I wanted a character with a rapid-firing weapon, I'd either use a bow, or play a game with semiauto rifles in it. If I'm using a crossbow, it's because I want something that works like a crossbow.

Personally I liked the scaling damage dice based on number of attacks idea. Feels like being a good shot with a very powerful weapon.

[Steampunkette]

To that I say:

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/170/4/d/Edgar__King_by_CainePorter.jpg

And

http://www.vgrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/edgar.png

... and now I want to play 6 more than I have in months. Thanks for that.

[silveralen]

So I'll throw this out as a homebrew fix to make crossbows more crossbow-ish.

Change the damage done:

Heavy: 2d8
Light: 1D10
Hand: 1D6
5 Shot Hand: 1D4


The 5 shot hand is 3x as expensive (so 225 GP) and is of either gnomish or drow make. The point of the 5 shot hand is as a poison delivery system and a way to force concentration rolls.

Modify Crossbow Expert:

Instead of completely removing the Loading property, it allows you to make 2 shots per round with such a weapon
Close-range feature unchanged. You can still shoot people in the face.
A hand crossbow may be either fired as a bonus action, or loaded as a bonus action - that is, an off-hand handbow gives you a shot every other round. This makes the drow rapier - handbow combo work without being OP.


EDIT: The reason the 5-shot hand crossbow drops in power is that a bow which can **** itself can't have quite the same draw as a normal one. A DM can of course allow for more powerful 5-shot hand crossbows, but perhaps at the cost of a strength requirement to point and aim them; they are getting pretty large for a one handed weapon.

These are awful balance fixes that don't actually result in balance.

First off, burning a feat to use a hand crossbow+rapier every turn is balanced, it's strictly worse than dual wielder. That has never been a problem. So that's flat out silly as a balance suggestion that makes handcrossbow+rapier worse than what is widely regarded as the worst fighting style in the game.

You've now created a situation where people with multiple attacks are actually penalized by not being able to use the most powerful weapon. That makes absolutely no sense. It directly weakens some classes over others for no apparent reason.

The 5 shot hand crossbow is a stupid attempt to nerf a perfectly balanced weapon, by forcing the choice between two inferior weapons for no apparent reason.

Do you really not grasp that the issues you are fixing are not balance issues? The reason handcrossbows are an issue is the archery fighting style+being usable in close combat+sharpshooter makes them better than most one handed weapons. Because they balanced +2 to hit with +2 damage, and thought one weapon type getting power attack/extra attacks and another not was balanced.

They did that stupid thing where they try to have unique feats and styles for every weapon, without bothering to include an equal number or properly balance them.

Or are these purely thematic fixes? Because honestly the "multiple attack rolls represent aiming one shot" bit is better balanced and fixes it a lot easier.

[Steampunkette]

I definitely think GWM and Sharps were badly designed feats.

Both of them try to encapsulate power attack, but because they limit the function of power attack to specific weapons they create an altogether pointless dichotomy of "Worthwhile" weapon styles and "Everything Else".

I don't think it was a balance choice, though. I think they were just throwing the feats in the PHB as examples of possible feats since it is an optional system.

[warty goblin]

To that I say:

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/170/4/d/Edgar__King_by_CainePorter.jpg


That is a really badly designed chainsaw. There's no chain break, so if it kicks, it kicks straight up into your face with the blade still running. Which is made worse by both the grips being apparently in-line with the blade, making it very hard to stand properly offset from the blade, and the placement of the rear handle works to give the blade mechanical advantage against the user in case this happens. Assuming the pistol grip is supposed to be held from underneath the body of the saw, the teeth will tend to drag the cutting medium straight into the user's hands, and there's no stop to prevent this.

Conclusion: Even if for some bizarre reason you wanted to use a a chainsaw as a weapon, this one is far too dangerous to the user to be worthwhile. All it takes is one single enemy doing something annoying like whacking the tip of your blade with a metal bar, and next thing you know, your own weapon will be lodged firmly in your cerebellum. And if the purpose of the saw is cutting trees, it's a terrible tool for that as well; since the chain has entirely the wrong sort of teeth and it's still hideously dangerous. In both use cases, one would be much better off using an entirely conventional chainsaw.

Now if you're dead set on using power tools as melee weapons of war, a much better choice is the reciprocating saw, or sawsall. The blades are much less prone to kicking, and are blunt on the reverse, so the worst you get if they do is a nasty bruise. Moreover the blades can be changed in a matter of seconds in case of blunting, breakage, or changing tactical conditions. And with some decent engineering it should be possible to mount one on a more or less standard rifle in a bayonet configuration, with the engine and power source mounted at the rear of the weapon to keep handling from becoming too terrible. .

[Steampunkette]

That was amazing. You avoided the point so deftly Olympic Judges would be on their feet for a standing ovation, disregarding all professional decorum to whistle and cheer.

The reason I linked the fan art of a 16 bit videogame character was so that you would have a reference point in the form of his name if you had never played Final Fantasy 6. 3 in its original US release.

The character in question is the ruling and fairly flirtatious prince of Figaro castle, a technological marvel that burrows underground. He, himself, takes after the inventors in his family and creates the autocrossbow, among other inventions, including that rudimentary oversized chainsaw you were so keen to dissect, heedless of its irrelevant nature to the thread.

Bravissimo.

The point that I was attempting to make is simple. Edgar and his autocrossbow are awesome. So is your idea of the aiming mechanic. So is the 5 bolts in 6 seconds superspeed reload. All awesome as the Book of Nine swords.

In short, I was agreeing that awesome is subjective via image macro of someone awesome.

[warty goblin]

That was amazing. You avoided the point so deftly Olympic Judges would be on their feet for a standing ovation, disregarding all professional decorum to whistle and cheer.

The reason I linked the fan art of a 16 bit videogame character was so that you would have a reference point in the form of his name if you had never played Final Fantasy 6. 3 in its original US release.

The character in question is the ruling and fairly flirtatious prince of Figaro castle, a technological marvel that burrows underground. He, himself, takes after the inventors in his family and creates the autocrossbow, among other inventions, including that rudimentary oversized chainsaw you were so keen to dissect, heedless of its irrelevant nature to the thread.

Bravissimo.

The point that I was attempting to make is simple. Edgar and his autocrossbow are awesome. So is your idea of the aiming mechanic. So is the 5 bolts in 6 seconds superspeed reload. All awesome as the Book of Nine swords.

In short, I was agreeing that awesome is subjective via image macro of someone awesome.

So by looking at the name of a guy in a picture, I was supposed to assume he was the same as the low-res sprite, google the name, discover that he is associated with an autocrossbow, and from this trail of breadcrumbs deduce that you agree with me that awesome is subjective?

You know, I'm just not gonna kick myself over missing the point on this one.

[silveralen]

I definitely think GWM and Sharps were badly designed feats.

Both of them try to encapsulate power attack, but because they limit the function of power attack to specific weapons they create an altogether pointless dichotomy of "Worthwhile" weapon styles and "Everything Else".

I don't think it was a balance choice, though. I think they were just throwing the feats in the PHB as examples of possible feats since it is an optional system.

Indeed, my group has already turned polearm expert, GWM, sharpshooter, and CE into generic feats that can be used by multiple weapons. Quick strikes, power attack, careful aim, and quick ahot respectively. Sharpshooter was changed primarily to indicate it applies to thrown weapons. It's actually interesting because everything in crossbow and polearm expert are about speed, either in reacting, attacking, aiming, or reloading, so they work perfectly as generic feats. The only change made was GWM-> power attack, to remove the bonus action attack and replace it with str/dex mod damage as a free action, so the feats overlapped less.

I'd love to see an UA about feat creation and homebrew feats to see what they say.

[Steampunkette]

So Quick Strike gives you AoO if someone enters your threatened area, regardless of whether you use a Glaive or a Longsword?

Love it.

[Shining Wrath]

These are awful balance fixes that don't actually result in balance.

First off, burning a feat to use a hand crossbow+rapier every turn is balanced, it's strictly worse than dual wielder. That has never been a problem. So that's flat out silly as a balance suggestion that makes handcrossbow+rapier worse than what is widely regarded as the worst fighting style in the game.

You've now created a situation where people with multiple attacks are actually penalized by not being able to use the most powerful weapon. That makes absolutely no sense. It directly weakens some classes over others for no apparent reason.

The 5 shot hand crossbow is a stupid attempt to nerf a perfectly balanced weapon, by forcing the choice between two inferior weapons for no apparent reason.

Do you really not grasp that the issues you are fixing are not balance issues? The reason handcrossbows are an issue is the archery fighting style+being usable in close combat+sharpshooter makes them better than most one handed weapons. Because they balanced +2 to hit with +2 damage, and thought one weapon type getting power attack/extra attacks and another not was balanced.

They did that stupid thing where they try to have unique feats and styles for every weapon, without bothering to include an equal number or properly balance them.

Or are these purely thematic fixes? Because honestly the "multiple attack rolls represent aiming one shot" bit is better balanced and fixes it a lot easier.

Who said I wanted balance? I said I wanted to make crossbows more crossbow-ish; that is, to make them work more like people imagine they work (which is in part fantasy and part real world).

A dagger should not be balanced with a short sword should not be balanced with a long sword. A trained fighter going into melee should prefer the more powerful weapon in most situations, with lesser weapons being chosen by those who lack the strength or training for the long sword, or who are using inferior weapons so they can use two-weapon fighting techniques.

As I imagine things, hand crossbows are usually inferior to their larger cousins. They do have some advantages: they can be aimed and fired with one hand, they weigh less, they can be concealed under cloaks. In terms of the preparation for firing, they are nearly identical to their larger cousins. It's perhaps a little quicker because the draw strength is less.

In terms of damage done and range (which I didn't mention), they are always inferior. It's the price you pay for smaller.

A ranged fighter might start out with the heavy crossbow and then switch to the longbow once extra attacks start coming online. A melee fighter, though, might stick with the heavy crossbow to get that one powerful shot in before dropping it and closing.

The light crossbow is for people who either can't afford a heavy or who lack the training to use one.

The hand crossbow is for sneak attackers and as a supplemental weapon. No one who wants to primarily engage in combat as a ranged attacker should choose the hand crossbow.

That, then, is the design philosophy I was trying to achieve, with the stated goal of generating rules that made crossbows work more like I imagine they "ought to".

[JAL_1138]

To that I say:

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/170/4/d/Edgar__King_by_CainePorter.jpg

And

http://www.vgrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/edgar.png

... and now I want to play 6 more than I have in months. Thanks for that.

Note that he's using what is, for D&D purposes, a "gnomish device" rather than a standard crossbow. Gnomish devices are allowed under the ruling. There's some kind of magazine and some kind of mechanism which re-draws the bowstring (since I can't type **** on here apparently) more quickly than a human-operated windlass, cranequin, wippe or goatsfoot-lever could.

[Steampunkette]

Two questions!

1. Why's it gotta be a gnomish device? Humans invent ****, too! Everything that has been invented, so far, in fact!

2. Why does a "Gnomish Device" always gotta be more expensive in terms of currency? Shouldn't the feat cost be enough to instantly make every crossbow you pick up into a "Gnomish Device"?

Also I freaking hate Gnomes. Always. Forever. Them and Halflings. Eugh. Tiny hands, you know. Smell like cabbages.

[Knaight]

Who said I wanted balance? I said I wanted to make crossbows more crossbow-ish; that is, to make them work more like people imagine they work (which is in part fantasy and part real world).

A dagger should not be balanced with a short sword should not be balanced with a long sword. A trained fighter going into melee should prefer the more powerful weapon in most situations, with lesser weapons being chosen by those who lack the strength or training for the long sword, or who are using inferior weapons so they can use two-weapon fighting techniques.

If we're talking about simulationism, we should actually simulate things. Not being strong enough is not going to be why people choose not to use long swords, they really aren't all that heavy and don't particularly require exceptional strength (though being stronger is undeniably helpful, much as it is with other weapons). The choice is much more likely to reflect fighting conditions (dense foliage and bigger weapons can be a bad combination), technological limitations, ease of concealment, or load minimization (which is less a matter of mass in this case and more a matter of the shape of the sword making it a bit awkward to haul around in some situations).

[Shining Wrath]

If we're talking about simulationism, we should actually simulate things. Not being strong enough is not going to be why people choose not to use long swords, they really aren't all that heavy and don't particularly require exceptional strength (though being stronger is undeniably helpful, much as it is with other weapons). The choice is much more likely to reflect fighting conditions (dense foliage and bigger weapons can be a bad combination), technological limitations, ease of concealment, or load minimization (which is less a matter of mass in this case and more a matter of the shape of the sword making it a bit awkward to haul around in some situations).

If you're going into a dungeon, then, there should be almost no short swords except on two weapon fighters and those who lack training in long swords but have it for short swords (e.g., monks). If you're about to fight something that intends to eat your face, you'll put up with the effort to drag the big sword around. And in practice, that is what we see.

In a duel between two otherwise identical fighters, people are going to bet on the guy with the long sword over the guy with the short sword.

So, again, I did not set out to make hand crossbows equally useful as heavy ones. If you wish to do so, go ahead. And I'm not using that homebrew in my campaign; I just tossed it off in response to people saying crossbows should have a different flavor than bows.

EDIT: Long swords may not require a lot of strength, but they require more than a short sword, which requires more than a dagger. And the difference between "I can lift it" and "I can swing it repeatedly and rapidly" should be noted. Baseball players worry about differences of ounces on their bats, trading bat speed for power.

[PhantomRenegade]

Two questions!

1. Why's it gotta be a gnomish device? Humans invent ****, too! Everything that has been invented, so far, in fact!

2. Why does a "Gnomish Device" always gotta be more expensive in terms of currency? Shouldn't the feat cost be enough to instantly make every crossbow you pick up into a "Gnomish Device"?

Also I freaking hate Gnomes. Always. Forever. Them and Halflings. Eugh. Tiny hands, you know. Smell like cabbages.YEAH, our DM hasn't given us money is three month's, last time i asked for something fancy it was a helmet made of a monster head i'd cut off and he said it cost 750 Gp, how am i supposed to afford a Fancy-er hand crossbow, i can't even afford the normal one !!!!:smallbiggrin:

[silveralen]

Who said I wanted balance? I said I wanted to make crossbows more crossbow-ish; that is, to make them work more like people imagine they work (which is in part fantasy and part real world).

You made it so that the best melee weapon in the game for non fighter's was the heavy crossbow, which allows you to reload twice in close combat at no penalty when fighting at close range. No reason to use a greatsword when the heavy crossbow does it's job better.

You have made absolutely no gains in realism. It is arguably less realistic now, since the huge damage of the heavy crossbow makes no sense given the apparently easy pull. Such a huge difference in the draw of your hand and heavy crossbow result in no change in how quickly it can be reloaded? Nonsense.


As I imagine things, hand crossbows are usually inferior to their larger cousins. They do have some advantages: they can be aimed and fired with one hand, they weigh less, they can be concealed under cloaks. In terms of the preparation for firing, they are nearly identical to their larger cousins. It's perhaps a little quicker because the draw strength is less.

In terms of damage done and range (which I didn't mention), they are always inferior. It's the price you pay for smaller.

The difficulty with which you draw back a crossbow is directly proportional to how much range and damage it does. A notably weaker weapon will be notably easier to draw, result in a much higher rate of fire.


A ranged fighter might start out with the heavy crossbow and then switch to the longbow once extra attacks start coming online. A melee fighter, though, might stick with the heavy crossbow to get that one powerful shot in before dropping it and closing.

And, for any class which isn't a fighter, they just use the heavy crossbow at both ranges. Since they have literally no reason not to.

The light crossbow is for people who either can't afford a heavy or who lack the training to use one.


That, then, is the design philosophy I was trying to achieve, with the stated goal of generating rules that made crossbows work more like I imagine they "ought to".

When designing based on how things ought to work, one must no how they actually work. Otherwise you get a heavy crossbow that backs more punch than a rifle that fires as quickly as a hand crossbows. Or heavy crossbows being the best melee weapon in the game.


If you're going into a dungeon, then, there should be almost no short swords except on two weapon fighters and those who lack training in long swords but have it for short swords (e.g., monks). If you're about to fight something that intends to eat your face, you'll put up with the effort to drag the big sword around. And in practice, that is what we see.

Right. Because in close confined quarters, possibly hallways that force people to move single file with little clearance, there is certainly no benefit to having a smaller weapon designed for thrusting. Why not bring a greatsword or a polearm if strong enough, no downside at all!

[Mr.Moron]

Two questions!

1. Why's it gotta be a gnomish device? Humans invent ****, too! Everything that has been invented, so far, in fact!


It doesn't have to be gnomish. A "Gnomish Device" device in this case is being used as a form of general shorthand. It just means any intricate mechanical device that operates with properties a bit beyond the settings ordinary tech level. A special bit of clockwork engineering that is unconventional, rare or just otherwise not intergrated into the mainstream.

Substitute "Super Prototype", "Custom Model", "Special Masterwork" or "Uniquely Built" for "Gnomish Invention" as you see fit.



2. Why does a "Gnomish Device" always gotta be more expensive in terms of currency? Shouldn't the feat cost be enough to instantly make every crossbow you pick up into a "Gnomish Device"?


Because in the "Gnomish Device" way of flavoring it the ability to rapid fire like a modern pistol comes (at least in part), from the strange and special mechanics of the weapon being used. Taking the feat doesn't suddenly make that kind of unique tech ubiquitous or reliably available in the setting. If the shops didn't have crossbows with magazines, special cranks and high-tension springs before they don't suddenly do just because you took a feat. Certainly the crossbow you've been carrying all along doesn't sprout such features. If you needed to go to a special tinkerer for a special crossbow before, you still do that's why it's a special "Gnomish Device"

Such a thing might be implemented like this, for example

Auto-Crossbow

The auto-crossbow comes in hand, light and heavy varieties just as regular crossbows do and use the same range and damage profiles. Auto-Crossbows use standard crossbow bolts but must be loaded into special magazines that hold 10 (Hand), 20 (Light), and 25 (Heavy) bolts respectively.

To use an Auto-Crossbow that user must fit a loaded magazine into the bottom of the device. They must then crank the primary spring to pressurize it. Doing so takes 1 minute for a hand crossbow, 5 for a light crossbow or a light or heavy crossbow.

Once the primary spring has been primed and can be fired without reloading until all the shots have been fired from the loaded magazine.

Auto-Crossbows are only made by specialized machinists, and generally only available in large cities. If commissioned directly from the machinist they can be generally had for about the prices listed here, however it may take up 6 months for the labor intensive devices to be finished.:


Heavy: 300gp
Light: 200gp
Hand: 400gp


Many wealthier merchants may stock them, however they might charge up to 50% more than these prices.

Auto-Crossbow Magazines cost 25gp each. They can easily be produced by any blacksmith with ordinary tools and an example to work from.

EDIT: Possible addiiton:

"Only characters with the Crossbow Expert feat are considered proficient with the Auto-Crossbow and only with Auto-Crossbows of a type they'd be normally be proficient with. "


An implementation like this certainly makes dual-wield crossbows possible, it just transitions the loading part of it to the weapon rather than the user. It's a kind of fluff some might prefer. Others might not want such crazy devices and just go with the "Just that good" hands. Still others might not want DW crossbows under any circumstance and wouldn't entertain anything that would enable it. These are all valid views and ways to run a game.

[warty goblin]

If you're going into a dungeon, then, there should be almost no short swords except on two weapon fighters and those who lack training in long swords but have it for short swords (e.g., monks). If you're about to fight something that intends to eat your face, you'll put up with the effort to drag the big sword around. And in practice, that is what we see.

In a duel between two otherwise identical fighters, people are going to bet on the guy with the long sword over the guy with the short sword.


Depends on the dungeon. If I'm gonna crawl down the madly spiraling four foot wide tunnels left by the dread Hellwurms and haunted by their impish servants, I'm gonna go with the short sword, or maybe a larger sort of knife. If I'm fighting the ferocious orcs of the Iron Skull Legion in the ruined grandeur and great echoing halls of a fallen dwarf kingdom, I'll bring the poleaxe, and wear the longsword. Or if we aren't at a poleaxe and longsword technology level, I'll bring the spear, the shield, and the one handed sword, or maybe a nice hand axe. And in both cases I'll still wear a dagger, in case I am forced into a brutal wrestling match with Karg the Slaughterlord, and find it useful to stab out his demon-red eye.

[Shining Wrath]

Depends on the dungeon. If I'm gonna crawl down the madly spiraling four foot wide tunnels left by the dread Hellwurms and haunted by their impish servants, I'm gonna go with the short sword, or maybe a larger sort of knife. If I'm fighting the ferocious orcs of the Iron Skull Legion in the ruined grandeur and great echoing halls of a fallen dwarf kingdom, I'll bring the poleaxe, and wear the longsword. Or if we aren't at a poleaxe and longsword technology level, I'll bring the spear, the shield, and the one handed sword, or maybe a nice hand axe. And in both cases I'll still wear a dagger, in case I am forced into a brutal wrestling match with Karg the Slaughterlord, and find it useful to stab out his demon-red eye.

There are at present no rules support at all for "you can't wield a polearm in tight quarters".

[PhantomRenegade]

It's a kind of fluff some might prefer. Others might not want such crazy devices and just go with the "Just that good" hands. Still others might not want DW crossbows under any circumstance and wouldn't entertain anything that would enable it. These are all valid views and ways to run a game.Agreed, 1000% agreed.
I just wonder why Crawford is putting his rule-nose on our fluff-business with a ruling that has virtually no effect on game balance instead of fixing the beastmaster?

[warty goblin]

There are at present no rules support at all for "you can't wield a polearm in tight quarters".

There's advantage/disadvantage, for when an action is hampered in some way; like say trying to maneuver a long bladed cutting weapon in a very cramped space. There's also the DM saying something is flat-out impossible; like drawing a 6 foot longbow in a 4 foot diameter passage. Which is really all the support one needs. Really, this is one of those things that strikes me as so common sense I don't see why the rulebook would spend time pointing it out; rather like it also doesn't specify that a human moving generally involves putting one foot in front of the other, or that you need to actually put ammunition into a weapon in order to effectively shoot it; and therefore must be able to physically load the weapon between shots.

[silveralen]

There are at present no rules support at all for "you can't wield a polearm in tight quarters".

That's kinda the point. 5e is so far from realism with weapons I have no idea why you think ignoring balance to make one area marginally more realistically would be a decent idea. It's liek trying to end an ice age by burning down a town, it doesn't make a decent contribution towards your goal and has some rather hefty downsides.


Agreed, 1000% agreed.
I just wonder why Crawford is putting his rule-nose on our fluff-business with a ruling that has virtually no effect on game balance instead of fixing the beastmaster?

I honestly wish we knew.

[Mr.Moron]

Agreed, 1000% agreed.
I just wonder why Crawford is putting his rule-nose on our fluff-business with a ruling that has virtually no effect on game balance instead of fixing the beastmaster?

In this case loading/DWing fluff and rules are one and the same.

You can't answer "Does the feat allow you to dual wield Xbows" without making a firm implicit stament on characters loading xbows with hands full of xbows.

You can't clarify your intentions on what retrieving ammunition means without ruling for or against DW xbows.

All of the mechanical ambiguities in this case have fluff implications.

A ruling on any of the commonly argued "pop up rogue" issues would be the same. The rules and fluff are thoroughly intertwined.

[Steampunkette]

I disagree that the rules and fluff are entwined in this case.

They ARE being entwined in a manner that limits fluff. But they are not, by default, entwined.

As we've seen by some of the suggestions upthread "Loading a crossbow between attacks in the same attack action" can be done in a variety of different ways. Whether it's the autocrossbow, the fasthand loader, the "I'm only firing once but increasing damage via aim", or the "Taking the feat gives me a minor magic effect that reloads the crossbow for me" angle.

The ruling, here, declaring that you must have a hand free to load kills the autocrossbow, the multi-aim, and the magic reloader.

It interferes with fluff. It eliminates fluff. It's not, by default, a part of all fluff.

And, in the end, it's a terrible ruling that reduces the versatility and fluffy fun of the hand crossbow for the sake of 'realism' in a game where a level 19 fighter with an intelligence score of 3 and a charisma of 5 can suddenly learn to fling 4 Eldritch Blasts per round without ever taking a level of warlock, ignore cover, and fire it from 120ft away while a regular warlock has to be within 60ft and deals with cover at the same level (Unless they took feats and invocations otherwise).

[Mr.Moron]

That wound all be true if the game was written more generically, but isn't.

The crossbows are crossbows and not auto crossbows because the game explicitly defines and describes a regular crossbow.

It's not an fast oader because the game defines, tracks and describes equipment directly and such equipment isn't granted by feat.

It isn't magic because the game has rules and conventions for magic and magic items that the feat doesn't touch or interact with.

Like it or not D&D defines game objects in granular, concrete ways for the most part. We've got a conventional crossbow that needs to be loaded conventially because that's what the game gives us.

That said there is hardly anything wrong with houseruling, ignoring or otherwise playing different. Solutions are more interesting than whining about things you've no power to change.

[Shining Wrath]

That wound all be true if the game was written more generically, but isn't.

The crossbows are crossbows and not auto crossbows because the game explicitly defines and describes a regular crossbow.

It's not an fast oader because the game defines, tracks and describes equipment directly and such equipment isn't granted by feat.

It isn't magic because the game has rules and conventions for magic and magic items that the feat doesn't touch or interact with.

Like it or not D&D defines game objects in granular, concrete ways for the most part. We've got a conventional crossbow that needs to be loaded conventially because that's what the game gives us.

That said there is hardly anything wrong with houseruling, ignoring or otherwise playing different. Solutions are more interesting than whining about things you've no power to change.

The stunning invention of the wrist thong to keep a weapon in place makes most hand crossbow tricks available - maybe not the shield + handbow, but certainly the rapier + handbow or dual handbows. And I'm gonna assert that medieval technology includes cured leather.

[SharkForce]

The stunning invention of the wrist thong to keep a weapon in place makes most hand crossbow tricks available - maybe not the shield + handbow, but certainly the rapier + handbow or dual handbows. And I'm gonna assert that medieval technology includes cured leather.

somewhat. you kinda have to keep a crossbow level to keep the ammunition in place. letting it dangle from a leather wrist thong doesn't generally speaking accomplish that.

[obryn]

An implementation like this certainly makes dual-wield crossbows possible, it just transitions the loading part of it to the weapon rather than the user. It's a kind of fluff some might prefer. Others might not want such crazy devices and just go with the "Just that good" hands. Still others might not want DW crossbows under any circumstance and wouldn't entertain anything that would enable it. These are all valid views and ways to run a game.
Congratulations, you've just added a 'style tax' to your game.

[Shining Wrath]

somewhat. you kinda have to keep a crossbow level to keep the ammunition in place. letting it dangle from a leather wrist thong doesn't generally speaking accomplish that.

It does let a rapier dangle while you load the crossbow, though.

[LordVonDerp]

If you're going into a dungeon, then, there should be almost no short swords except on two weapon fighters and those who lack training in long swords but have it for short swords (e.g., monks). If you're about to fight something that intends to eat your face, you'll put up with the effort to drag the big sword around. And in practice, that is what we see.

In a duel between two otherwise identical fighters, people are going to bet on the guy with the long sword over the guy with the short sword.

So, again, I did not set out to make hand crossbows equally useful as heavy ones. If you wish to do so, go ahead. And I'm not using that homebrew in my campaign; I just tossed it off in response to people saying crossbows should have a different flavor than bows.

EDIT: Long swords may not require a lot of strength, but they require more than a short sword, which requires more than a dagger. And the difference between "I can lift it" and "I can swing it repeatedly and rapidly" should be noted. Baseball players worry about differences of ounces on their bats, trading bat speed for power.

...a longsword (or even a great sword) in two hands is faster than a short sword in one, and requires less strength.

[SharkForce]

It does let a rapier dangle while you load the crossbow, though.

yeah, but that won't help with dual crossbows.

'course, like i said, i'd be fine with allowing basically any combination of hand crossbow that doesn't involve a shield. i just don't like the strongest offensive option also being the strongest defensive option.

alternately, i believe it was silveralen's solution to make the feat more generic, such that you can get the bonus attack with any ranged weapon. i would also be okay with that, because it would mean that heavy crossbow or longbow (based mostly on preference, with a slight edge to heavy crossbow) would be the most damaging options, and hand crossbows (or slings, or darts) would be the less damaging, shorter-range options that allow you to have a shield (it would still be silly and implausible for the hand crossbow, but again, if someone really wanted it, why not? it isn't dramatically superior to a fixed dart option that doesn't limit you to drawing one per turn for no good reason). provided that you also use his other revised feats so that melees don't all have to use a quarterstaff + shield combination to keep up.

there'd still be some more tweaking to do imo (if anything, great weapon fighting style should get the bonus damage, while dueling should get something that doesn't boost its damage to nearly equal to GWM considering those two-handed weapons are giving up tankiness for their damage, and TWF still needs some help).

[silveralen]

yeah, but that won't help with dual crossbows.

'course, like i said, i'd be fine with allowing basically any combination of hand crossbow that doesn't involve a shield. i just don't like the strongest offensive option also being the strongest defensive option.

alternately, i believe it was silveralen's solution to make the feat more generic, such that you can get the bonus attack with any ranged weapon. i would also be okay with that, because it would mean that heavy crossbow or longbow (based mostly on preference, with a slight edge to heavy crossbow) would be the most damaging options, and hand crossbows (or slings, or darts) would be the less damaging, shorter-range options that allow you to have a shield (it would still be silly and implausible for the hand crossbow, but again, if someone really wanted it, why not? it isn't dramatically superior to a fixed dart option that doesn't limit you to drawing one per turn for no good reason). provided that you also use his other revised feats so that melees don't all have to use a quarterstaff + shield combination to keep up.

there'd still be some more tweaking to do imo (if anything, great weapon fighting style should get the bonus damage, while dueling should get something that doesn't boost its damage to nearly equal to GWM considering those two-handed weapons are giving up tankiness for their damage, and TWF still needs some help).

My group did our best to fix some of those as well.

The weapon fighting styles all became +1 to attack. Even TWF had its benefit. Only the armor and shield versions stayed the same.

The two weapon feat got the bonus damage for offhand weapon, kept the other two bonuses, and you get an additional +1 AC if wielding two light weapons or a dagger in one of your hands (two daggers doesn't stack). It can take the power attack feat already, so it's more or less even.

[Steampunkette]

Projectile Weapon Master
Thanks to Extensive training with projectile weapons, you gain the following benefits:

You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding. This bonus attack does not benefit from increased damage from other feats.
When you use the Attack action with any projectile weapon you can use a bonus action to attack with that weapon. This bonus attack does not benefit from increased damage from other feats.


That way the dual-wielding offhand crossbow with mainhand rapier style is still usable (as the feat intended) but the player can still use their longbows and such with the extra attack. But it also lowers the overall damage by nixing the Sharpshooter benefit. But since it is a consistent bonus attack, rather than GWM's situational one, the damage should level out a bit.

And yeah. I'd probably add the same clause to the d4 attack on PM.

So a Finesse weapon feat?

Cunning Combatant
Through practice, panache, and natural talent you are able to outwit, outstep, and outplay your foes.

You may add your Intelligence or Charisma modifier to damage when attacking with a finesse weapon (Chosen on taking this feat).
Once on your turn you may lunge, increasing your reach for 1 attack by 5 feet while using a piercing or slashing weapon.
You may forgo one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to prepare a parry. When you do so you may attempt to deflect an incoming melee attack as a Reaction by rolling an opposed melee attack roll against your attacker. On a success you deflect the attack and take half damage.

I think that could work... With the MAD a finesse fighter trying to get charisma or intelligence will have the damage value will be lower, but with no penalty, compared to Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master. It preserves the off-hand bonus attack, gives them a slight survivability option, and allows them to use a flavorful attack once per turn.

Thoughts?

[silveralen]

Projectile weapon master could honestly just be simplified to free bonus action attack at lower base damage. Afterall, polearm master+GWM already allows an extra attack with any polearm at +10/-5. I suppose one random lower attack would be harder to justify with ranged weapons (one shot dealing 1d6 when the other dealt 1d12, etc), so possibly lower the damage of all attacks by one die on the round with the bonus attack? Still a net gain for anything but a level 20 action surging fighter, even then it would be with sharpshooter.

I'd honestly switch lunge and int/cha around. Make lunge always on, or at least on for all attack if not for AoO, since 5 ft of reach on only one attack is rarely going to accomplish much (which is why i hate the BM lunge maneuver so much). On the other hand, a flat +2-+5 bonus on every attack is a bit much, especially considering a fighter wielding such a weapon already has a +2 damage likely. eldritch knights, paladins, most rogue's and especially arcane tricksters will already be investing in int/cha, so giving them such a powerful passive benefit is a bit much. Letting them add that much damage once per turn would still be very useful.

Also not sure parry should burn an attack and reaction, I can't imagine any class but fighter using that aspect.

TL;DR

Don't remove sharpshooter synergy, instead reduce the damage of the bonus action attack slightly, as per polearm master or duel wielding (by lowering the damage of one die or all die).

Make lunge usable on every attack at least, possibly have it just grant reach with such weapons. Make the int/cha to damage a once per turn thing. Possibly remove the sacrificing an attack aspect of parry. Having it take a bonus action and reaction even seems steep to me, but would be a slight compromise.

[SharkForce]

i'd say just have the bonus action attack do a d6, and justify it with rushing the shot so it either doesn't have as much power behind it, or in the case of crossbows is just not hitting quite as center of mass.

[Steampunkette]

Except that both Hand Crossbows and Shortbows do a d6 and thus deal no less damage. So the feat would penalize everyone else. Don't Slings (which would be covered) also do a d6? Or is it a d4?

No matter. Point is: These weapons aren't penalized.

Also I totally forgot to do a Throwing Mastery feat...

[silveralen]

Except that both Hand Crossbows and Shortbows do a d6 and thus deal no less damage. So the feat would penalize everyone else. Don't Slings (which would be covered) also do a d6? Or is it a d4?

No matter. Point is: These weapons aren't penalized.

Also I totally forgot to do a Throwing Mastery feat...

The penalty could be that you are using a d6 weapon rather than the d12 or higher. This is similar to how a duel wielder makes multiple d8/d6 attacks, rather than multiple d10 and one d4 a polearm master uses.

It's one of those things that's hard to balance because you have a fair degree of variance, but in all honestly 1d4 vs 1d6 for a single attack is a trivial bit of damage.

[SharkForce]

yeah, those weapons are penalized by the fact that you aren't using better weapons in the first place.

on a side note, i'd just say let the new version of crossbow mastery cover thrown weapons too, and include the caveat on the extra attack that if you make it with a weapon that has a smaller damage die than 1d6, you use the smaller damage die.

[Steampunkette]

Awww...

I was thinking of something fun to do with throwing mastery: Ricochets!

Bounce the throwing hammer off multiple targets, or bank it off a wall so that it hits someone who has total cover to you.

Things like that.

[Shining Wrath]

Awww...

I was thinking of something fun to do with throwing mastery: Ricochets!

Bounce the throwing hammer off multiple targets, or bank it off a wall so that it hits someone who has total cover to you.

Things like that.

Add magical weapons with the Returning property. Name your hammer "Mjolnir".

[silveralen]

Awww...

I was thinking of something fun to do with throwing mastery: Ricochets!

Bounce the throwing hammer off multiple targets, or bank it off a wall so that it hits someone who has total cover to you.

Things like that.

No reason you can't do that, many of us just opt for simplicity instead.

[whibla]

Cunning Combatant
...You may forgo one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to prepare a parry. When you do so you may attempt to deflect an incoming melee attack as a Reaction by rolling an opposed melee attack roll against your attacker. On a success you deflect the attack and take half damage.

Thoughts?

Nice idea, though I wonder if the following might not be simpler:

By reading your opponents' moves, any time you are attacked you may choose to use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attacker's to hit roll.

I do think the 'attack tax' is a bit steep, especially if the best you can hope for is half damage from their attack.

[Steampunkette]

I was basing it off Uncanny Dodge for Rogues. But because it's a feat I wanted it to be weaker than the actual ability (which takes your reaction). Though you might be right that both the attack roll and reaction bear out and the forgoing attack isn't needed.

[djreynolds]

Can you have preloaded hand crossbows on your body? Cheesy yes, but not unrealistic. They could be "dumby-corded" to you. Its about as realistic as casting a fireball. Because the image of a guy or gal in a dark cap wielding two hand crossbows is cool. But having a crossbow in the off hand, firing it and then grabbing a holstered preloaded handcrossbow for the next attack could work. Yeah its not for sustained combat, but for an assassin in the alley shooting off four poisoned bolts and then "bolting" could appease the dual wield crossbow crowd.

[SharkForce]

Can you have preloaded hand crossbows on your body? Cheesy yes, but not unrealistic. They could be "dumby-corded" to you. Its about as realistic as casting a fireball. Because the image of a guy or gal in a dark cap wielding two hand crossbows is cool. But having a crossbow in the off hand, firing it and then grabbing a holstered preloaded handcrossbow for the next attack could work. Yeah its not for sustained combat, but for an assassin in the alley shooting off four poisoned bolts and then "bolting" could appease the dual wield crossbow crowd.

practically speaking, not really. not unless the bolts are tied into the crossbow. which has other fairly obvious drawbacks.

[SouthpawSoldier]

practically speaking, not really. not unless the bolts are tied into the crossbow. which has other fairly obvious drawbacks.

Yup; while a standard arrow's nock grips the string, traditional crossbow bolts just rested against the cable. That being said, a modern version of a crossbow, with a Whisker Biscuit-like bolt holder, could be argued as a masterwork or gnomish weapon. Maybe even a standard feature of Drow hand crossbows.

[djreynolds]

Good point, maybe pre drawn. But the bolt would fall out. So yeah, can't do it. Good catch.