Anyone else finding hand crossbow stupid?

[Spacehamster]

Smallest and weakest of the weapons that use ammunition it does the MOST damage thanks to no way for the other weapons to get a bonus attack(xcpt the lvl 5 ranger spell)? Anyone else find this silly and refuse to use it for the same reason? xD

[smcmike]

Yes. You are not alone.

[Waazraath]

Smallest and weakest of the weapons that use ammunition it does the MOST damage thanks to no way for the other weapons to get a bonus attack(xcpt the lvl 5 ranger spell)? Anyone else find this silly and refuse to use it for the same reason? xD

I don't know for sure... haven't encountered it in play yet. But it does take a feat (which is an optional rule), and does only 1d6 damage; has relative short range, can't use a shield... it's good, no doubt, but I don't know if it's so good that it really overshadows other fighting styles.

[Spacehamster]

I don't know for sure... haven't encountered it in play yet. But it does take a feat (which is an optional rule), and does only 1d6 damage; has relative short range, can't use a shield... it's good, no doubt, but I don't know if it's so good that it really overshadows other fighting styles.

Meant more that it overshadows the real ranged weapons, the longbow and heavy crossbow. :) And do anyone really not play with feats? ^^

[Waazraath]

Meant more that it overshadows the real ranged weapons, the longbow and heavy crossbow. :) And do anyone really not play with feats? ^^

Yes, here, in no less then 2 campaigns! First 5e campaign our group decided to play without variant rules, to try it out (no feats, no MC) - we still stick with that. Another group I play with we haven't decided yet (not yet 4th lvl, and no vumans)

[Spacehamster]

Yes, here, in no less then 2 campaigns! First 5e campaign our group decided to play without variant rules, to try it out (no feats, no MC) - we still stick with that. Another group I play with we haven't decided yet (not yet 4th lvl, and no vumans)

Too each their own but finding that no feats really leaves martial classes in the dust. :)

[JumboWheat01]

You need to blow a feat on it to really make much use of the hand crossbow, and, as per either an errata or a tweet, you still need a free hand to reload the weapon in the first place, even with the feat. That means sheathing your main-hand weapon every single time you take a shot with the hand crossbow just so you can reload it and take another shot. And if you try to dual-wield them? Put one away to load the other, then put that away to take out the other, then reload that one, and take the other one back out... It's just not worth it.

Just give some daggers to throw with my free hand instead, since they don't require me to put away my main weapon in order to "reload." And don't require a feat to be useful either, just the base bonus action all classes have.

I find it silly because of the hoops you have to go through to use them, but find them strong? No, not at all.

[Finieous]

Yes, if you search "squirrel-killer" you'll probably find one or more of my rants. :smallbiggrin:

Set your campaign in Primeval Thule where they don't exist.

[RulesJD]

For super fun combine the following:

1. X-bow Expert Feat
2. Sharpshooter Feat
3. Archer Fighting Style
4. Multi-attack
5. Precision Battlemaster Maneuver (and Trip if you want to generate advantage)
6. Horde Breaker Ranger substyle

Congrats, you now have (more or less) both the best melee and ranged fighter in the game.

By level 8ish you're knocking out 4 attacks per round fairly easily (2 from Extra Attack + 1 Horde Breaker + 1 Bonus). 4d6+52 (3 dex + 10 sharpshooter*3). With Archer FS + Precision die you'll be hitting fairly consistently. Start throwing in Hunter's Mark for big targets or whatever and weeee off you go.

[Firechanter]

Yes. You are not alone.

+1

In our group, we have one player who "welcomes anything that breaks the supremacy of longbows", as he put it. Personally I prefer iconic weapons, and therefore would prefer if there was mechanical incentive to use iconics rather than special snowflakes.

[Spacehamster]

For super fun combine the following:

1. X-bow Expert Feat
2. Sharpshooter Feat
3. Archer Fighting Style
4. Multi-attack
5. Precision Battlemaster Maneuver (and Trip if you want to generate advantage)
6. Horde Breaker Ranger substyle

Congrats, you now have (more or less) both the best melee and ranged fighter in the game.

By level 8ish you're knocking out 4 attacks per round fairly easily (2 from Extra Attack + 1 Horde Breaker + 1 Bonus). 4d6+52 (3 dex + 10 sharpshooter*3). With Archer FS + Precision die you'll be hitting fairly consistently. Start throwing in Hunter's Mark for big targets or whatever and weeee off you go.

Ewwww, my fix for sharpshooter would be to make it only work for shortbow(mainly so halflings get something to use), longbow and heavy crossbow. Alternatively make the bonus attack of hand crossbow be done with -5 to hit(a quick shot with no time to aim kind of deal)

[brainface]

It's a cinematic weapon, rather than a simulationist one. Or perhaps rather, it doesn't even have a pretense of simulation to it.

As such, a certain type of player is going to really scorn it, another type is going to be really excited about being Darryl to some zombies.

(If I were to use them for a character, I'd use the pre eratta interpretation of duel wielding hand crossbows with Crossbow Expert, because if you're going to look ridiculous you may as well go whole hog.)

[Spacehamster]

It's a cinematic weapon, rather than a simulationist one. Or perhaps rather, it doesn't even have a pretense of simulation to it.

As such, a certain type of player is going to really scorn it, another type is going to be really excited about being Darryl to some zombies.

(If I were to use them for a character, I'd use the pre eratta interpretation of duel wielding hand crossbows with Crossbow Expert, because if you're going to look ridiculous you may as well go whole hog.)

Would more say that Darryl is using like a light crossbow and he does not shoot it like a machine gun. ^^

[jas61292]

I'm not a fan of Hand Crossbows, but I don't have too much of a problem with them mechanically. Now, to be fair, that is mostly because my group finds a few feats to be broken and doesn't allow them, and one of those feats is Sharpshooter. Without Sharpshooter, an extra attack with a hand crossbow is not nearly as attractive, having only a small damage advantage over using a heavy crossbow by mid game, in exchange for using up your bonus action, and therefore eschewing a lot of versatility.

I have a much bigger issue with the longbow, to be honest. Its not broken or anything, obviously, but in reality, the longbow has some distinct disadvantages vs the shortbow that are not represented mechanically. It is literally better in every way, except that it is heavy, but unless you are small, that means nothing, since both still need two hands. I mean, I don't need something huge, but I would just like to see something that gives people a reason to carry around a shortbow, which is the much more realistic weapon for someone to travel around with (longbows are massive and unwieldy).

[Waazraath]

Too each their own but finding that no feats really leaves martial classes in the dust. :)

That's why we wanted to try it out. But so far our findings are that the casters end up in the dust (literally, dead or frequently 0 hp) while the other classes (ranger & paladin) are muich more durable and deliver most of the DPR. Our illusionist is great for utility though, our bard is no more, alas.

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean, I don't need something huge, but I would just like to see something that gives people a reason to carry around a shortbow, which is the much more realistic weapon for someone to travel around with (longbows are massive and unwieldy).
Only if you are short and weak. :smallcool: If you want to make the difference more marked, or more simulationist, add a strength requirement for its use.
For a variety of reasons, leaning too much toward the simulationist mind set gets in the way of the game.

[Spacehamster]

That's why we wanted to try it out. But so far our findings are that the casters end up in the dust (literally, dead or frequently 0 hp) while the other classes (ranger & paladin) are muich more durable and deliver most of the DPR. Our illusionist is great for utility though, our bard is no more, alas.

Well true I guess its more in the late game that a featless game starts to suck for mundane pc´s. :)

[jas61292]

Only if you are short and weak. :smallcool: If you want to make the difference more marked, or more simulationist, add a strength requirement for its use.
For a variety of reasons, leaning too much toward the simulationist mind set gets in the way of the game.

This is true. I don't want to get too simulationist. I just wish there was something. Like obviously with melee weapons, the big ones need two hands, and that is the downside to their higher power. But with bows, the smaller one still needs two hands. Obviously the weapon table isn't perfect and there are a few examples of strictly outclassed weapons, but most of those make more sense to me and are with weapon types that are not lacking alternatives (such as the trident, which, while mechanically pointless, has alternatives in the spear and the warpick for any niche you could really want it for). Do we need a shortbow to have some advantage? Not really. But I think it would be nice. Even something as simple as 3.5's inability to use a longbow while mounted would at least give it a niche.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I have a vague feeling that all of the Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master and Sharpshooter feats were added as an afterthought to allow martial characters to complete their builds using feats instead of class features, but only given certain arms configurations and at the cost of horrible gimmicky flavour. (Dual Wielder gets a pass for being actually kinda balanced.)

[Vogonjeltz]

Smallest and weakest of the weapons that use ammunition it does the MOST damage thanks to no way for the other weapons to get a bonus attack(xcpt the lvl 5 ranger spell)? Anyone else find this silly and refuse to use it for the same reason? xD

Things to consider: Hand Crossbow only has a 30 foot range (outside that is disadvantage), whereas the Light Crossbow is 80 and the Heavy is 100.

Handcrossbow is burning the bonus action (which could be used for other things) and would be using 2 pieces of ammunition instead of just 1. This becomes important when we note that there are only 20 bolts in a case.

The Hand crossbow is fine, but it has some pretty severe limits. These might not be noticed if the party only ever engages in fights at point blank range.

[R.Shackleford]

Y'all need to look on youtube, the electric hand crossbow is fricken sweet.

Also the idea of damage die is pretty fricken stupid. For some reason a dagger is less likely to kill someone that a big hammer? Sorry, but stabbing someone in the lung or kidney will kill just as easy.

(I'm in the camp of replacing damage die with your hit die, the one you have the most of is your weapon damage).

[CrackedChair]

They are ludriciously expensive too, you need to shell your 75(?) GP just for one hand crossbow?!

At least if you DM rules that most weapons and armor sells for half it's price, you'd make a pretty penny looting drow corpses, earning 37.5 GP when you sell it to an arms shop. That's probably the only good thing about it, and only if your campaign features alot of drow.

[Asmodouche]

I thought perhaps we'd have some new feats by now for bows that could make hand crossbows less attractive. It does bug me that hand crossbows are the dominant missile weapon. They absolutely should not have the best rate of fire like they do.

I guess you can imagine them as cho ku nus or some such but that is a pretty niche weapon.

By the way, sharpshooter eliminates long range penalties and combats in d&d rarely occur at ranges greater than 120 feet in my experience.

I feel the feat was there for the classic drow style but mutated into the monster it is from shortsightedness and a failure to admit mistakes.

[MaxWilson]

Smallest and weakest of the weapons that use ammunition it does the MOST damage thanks to no way for the other weapons to get a bonus attack(xcpt the lvl 5 ranger spell)? Anyone else find this silly and refuse to use it for the same reason? xD

Technically you can do even more damage by using a heavy crossbow + hand crossbow. You just have to have a bunch of (pre-)loaded hand crossbows at hand that you can grab, fire, and drop each time you fire off your heavy crossbow.

[Spacehamster]

Technically you can do even more damage by using a heavy crossbow + hand crossbow. You just have to have a bunch of (pre-)loaded hand crossbows at hand that you can grab, fire, and drop each time you fire off your heavy crossbow.

Like a little belt across your shoulder down to your hip with a couple hand crossbows dangling from?

[Firechanter]

Longbow, massive? IRL they weigh about 1-2 pounds. oÔ
Recurve bows might be slightly heavier, but probably not exceeding 2lbs either.
I'm AFB (away from bows) this weekend, but when I get home I might weigh mine, if I remember. ;)

[JumboWheat01]

Are your bows wooden or modern materials? That does have an impact on the weight, after all. Wood can be surprisingly heavy at times, and without a doubt that's what DnD bows would be made out of.

[MaxWilson]

Like a little belt across your shoulder down to your hip with a couple hand crossbows dangling from?

Yep, something like that.

And yes, good luck not shooting yourself.

[Laserlight]

Smallest and weakest of the weapons that use ammunition it does the MOST damage thanks to no way for the other weapons to get a bonus attack(xcpt the lvl 5 ranger spell)? Anyone else find this silly and refuse to use it for the same reason? xD

Yes. In my campaign, hand crossbows don't exist.

[Spacehamster]

Yes. In my campaign, hand crossbows don't exist.

Now that's a campaign I would join for sure!

[Spacehamster]

All in all I would not mind weapons superior to other martial weapons just as most martial weapons are superior to simple weapons. But then make them noticeably stronger(bigger crit range/stronger crit or whatever) and have them require a half feat to unlock to make it something your PC aspire to that actually have a cost with how precious ASI's are. :)

Something like this: Exotic weapon mastery:

- increase your STR or DEX by 1
- you gain proficiency in the use of 2 exotic weapons from exotic list table on page xx

Requirements: STR or DEX 13 and knowledge in all simple and martial weapons.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Y'all need to look on youtube, the electric hand crossbow is fricken sweet.

Also the idea of damage die is pretty fricken stupid. For some reason a dagger is less likely to kill someone that a big hammer? Sorry, but stabbing someone in the lung or kidney will kill just as easy.

(I'm in the camp of replacing damage die with your hit die, the one you have the most of is your weapon damage).


Thank you! Awesome concept. Great video.

I'm curious, would you apply the class damage HD to ranged weapons as well?

Also, relating to the OP, just wanted to point out... Blowgun.

[R.Shackleford]

Thank you! Awesome concept. Great video.

I'm curious, would you apply the class damage HD to ranged weapons as well?

Also, relating to the OP, just wanted to point out... Blowgun.

Yup.

Essentially remove the weapon damage column and replace it with HD.

Multiclassing can get wonky at times but the size of your base weapon five isn't going to cause problems with your damage. It is typically the extra damage dice that cause problems.

All extra attacks from feats like crossbow expert, PAM, or tavern brawler (monk now starts with at least a d8 due to hit die) have a base of 1d6. This streamlines everything and going further you automatically know that it will be a d6.

Weapons are already quite bland in 5e, there is no reason to make them finicky and weird.

I also suggest getting rid of the light and heavy properties. Light and heavy are subjective and only apply if your strength is around 8 or 10... Once you get higher than that a "heavy" weapon is a toothpick.

I would say make weapons "role-playing" and not "roll-playing".

[SliceandDiceKid]

Yup.

Essentially remove the weapon damage column and replace it with HD.

Multiclassing can get wonky at times but the size of your base weapon five isn't going to cause problems with your damage. It is typically the extra damage dice that cause problems.

All extra attacks from feats like crossbow expert, PAM, or tavern brawler (monk now starts with at least a d8 due to hit die) have a base of 1d6. This streamlines everything and going further you automatically know that it will be a d6.

Weapons are already quite bland in 5e, there is no reason to make them finicky and weird.

I also suggest getting rid of the light and heavy properties. Light and heavy are subjective and only apply if your strength is around 8 or 10... Once you get higher than that a "heavy" weapon is a toothpick.

I would say make weapons "role-playing" and not "roll-playing".


Makes enough sense. I'd be hesitant to change the ranged damage, though. I'll think it over and may test it out with my group.

[Takewo]

Yup.

Essentially remove the weapon damage column and replace it with HD.

Multiclassing can get wonky at times but the size of your base weapon five isn't going to cause problems with your damage. It is typically the extra damage dice that cause problems.

All extra attacks from feats like crossbow expert, PAM, or tavern brawler (monk now starts with at least a d8 due to hit die) have a base of 1d6. This streamlines everything and going further you automatically know that it will be a d6.

Weapons are already quite bland in 5e, there is no reason to make them finicky and weird.

I also suggest getting rid of the light and heavy properties. Light and heavy are subjective and only apply if your strength is around 8 or 10... Once you get higher than that a "heavy" weapon is a toothpick.

I would say make weapons "role-playing" and not "roll-playing".

Quick question: how would you handle two-handed weapons?

[R.Shackleford]

Makes enough sense. I'd be hesitant to change the ranged damage, though. I'll think it over and may test it out with my group.

Most range damage will be d8 or d10 by classes that have d8 or d10 HD (fighter and rogue). The rogue's damage doesn't really care much for the base weapon damage which is why TWF is a good option for them.

I'm sure some MC might be able to grab waaaay more damage than before but as a few threads can show you... Getting damage isn't all that hard.

:)

[The Zoat]

They are ludriciously expensive too, you need to shell your 75(?) GP just for one hand crossbow?!

At least if you DM rules that most weapons and armor sells for half it's price, you'd make a pretty penny looting drow corpses, earning 37.5 GP when you sell it to an arms shop. That's probably the only good thing about it, and only if your campaign features alot of drow.

TBH it makes perfect sense to me at least that hand crossbows are so expensive, they're supposed to be more advanced and miniaturised than normal crossbows, and thus more sophisticated.

From what I see in this thread, they got a bit too good from 5th ed's removal of exotic weapons, but they're still balanced alright with the heavy crossbow and the longbow, since they require a feat the longbow doesn't and the heavy crossbow has a big range advantage, though it could be bigger.

I don't see the flavor problem either, if a player wants an unrealistic concept, for example the grappler rogue, it's up to the group's taste to allow it.

[R.Shackleford]

TBH it makes perfect sense to me at least that hand crossbows are so expensive, they're supposed to be more advanced and miniaturised than normal crossbows, and thus more sophisticated.

From what I see in this thread, they got a bit too good from 5th ed's removal of exotic weapons, but they're still balanced alright with the heavy crossbow and the longbow, since they require a feat the longbow doesn't and the heavy crossbow has a big range advantage, though it could be bigger.

I don't see the flavor problem either, if a player wants an unrealistic concept, for example the grappler rogue, it's up to the group's taste to allow it.

Personally I prefer the wrist bow, still 1d6 and one handed but looks awesome.

https://youtu.be/f3HH7mBTbHM

[jas61292]

Longbow, massive? IRL they weigh about 1-2 pounds. oÔ
Recurve bows might be slightly heavier, but probably not exceeding 2lbs either.
I'm AFB (away from bows) this weekend, but when I get home I might weigh mine, if I remember. ;)

By massive, I was more referring to the size than the weight. I mean, I'm no bow expert, but just looking up longbows on wikipedia, the very first sentence says that longbows are usually as tall as the wielder. I mean, by itself that's no more of a problem than a polearm, but it always just stuck me as odd, especially for someone like a ranger, to be sneaking around with a weapon as big as you strapped to your back, and either hitting things overhead, or dragging along the ground.

[Thrudd]

Things to consider: Hand Crossbow only has a 30 foot range (outside that is disadvantage), whereas the Light Crossbow is 80 and the Heavy is 100.

Handcrossbow is burning the bonus action (which could be used for other things) and would be using 2 pieces of ammunition instead of just 1. This becomes important when we note that there are only 20 bolts in a case.

The Hand crossbow is fine, but it has some pretty severe limits. These might not be noticed if the party only ever engages in fights at point blank range.

My problem with it is that it must operate on some sort of magic in order to work as the game has it. A tiny crossbow that can be loaded and fired without mechanical assistance, while it could easily be built, would be a children's toy. There is no way it's damage should be comparable to a bow, it's bolts would need to be the weight of needles, you could likely throw a dart as far and probably with more force. It might be a tool for accurately delivering poison darts to the necks of nearby unsuspecting people or animals, an assassin's contraption. Otherwise, not a reasonable weapon in any way. The feat makes it worse. Loading times for crossbows are already ridiculously short in the game, which is a concession I understand for the sake of fantasy and action, but the feat that removes it completely makes no sense. The ability to span a crossbow is a mechanical effect dictated by physics and can only be affected so much by the skill of the wielder. If we are saying that the feat makes the character so strong they can span a heavy crossbow by hand in a couple of seconds, then that strength would also affect everything else in their life, not just their ability to span a crossbow. They can pull over 1,000 pounds using only the force of their arm and shoulder. I don't even know what strength score that would give them, or how much damage their punches should do.

If you want to interpret the hand crossbow as a magical device using special materials found only in fantasy, or with bolts constructed of some special material that makes them super light but still able to pierce with the force of a normal bow, that's fine, but you need to consider the implications these materials and magical construction methods would have for everything else in the world. Surely, the same materials and magic methods used to construct the hand crossbow should be applied to many other devices and weapons as well. Apparently, all crossbows are made with the same magical methods, because it is possible to span them so easily yet they still deliver a force equal to or greater than normal bows. So where else is this technology and material used, and what exactly are its properties?

[R.Shackleford]

My problem with it is that it must operate on some sort of magic in order to work as the game has it. A tiny crossbow that can be loaded and fired without mechanical assistance, while it could easily be built, would be a children's toy. There is no way it's damage should be comparable to a bow, it's bolts would need to be the weight of needles, you could likely throw a dart as far and probably with more force. It might be a tool for accurately delivering poison darts to the necks of nearby unsuspecting people or animals, an assassin's contraption. Otherwise, not a reasonable weapon in any way. The feat makes it worse. Loading times for crossbows are already ridiculously short in the game, which is a concession I understand for the sake of fantasy and action, but the feat that removes it completely makes no sense. The ability to span a crossbow is a mechanical effect dictated by physics and can only be affected so much by the skill of the wielder. If we are saying that the feat makes the character so strong they can span a heavy crossbow by hand in a couple of seconds, then that strength would also affect everything else in their life, not just their ability to span a crossbow. They can pull over 1,000 pounds using only the force of their arm and shoulder. I don't even know what strength score that would give them, or how much damage their punches should do.

If you want to interpret the hand crossbow as a magical device using special materials found only in fantasy, or with bolts constructed of some special material that makes them super light but still able to pierce with the force of a normal bow, that's fine, but you need to consider the implications these materials and magical construction methods would have for everything else in the world. Surely, the same materials and magic methods used to construct the hand crossbow should be applied to many other devices and weapons as well. Apparently, all crossbows are made with the same magical methods, because it is possible to span them so easily yet they still deliver a force equal to or greater than normal bows. So where else is this technology and material used, and what exactly are its properties?

Damage isn't meat. A greatsword dealing 2d6+5 Damage doesn't even have to mean they hit the target. They just hit the target's AC, it could mean that the target dodges and got tired from dodging. Or it could mean that the target got lucky and there is less luck in his or her life.

[Firechanter]

By massive, I was more referring to the size than the weight. I mean, I'm no bow expert, but just looking up longbows on wikipedia, the very first sentence says that longbows are usually as tall as the wielder. I mean, by itself that's no more of a problem than a polearm, but it always just stuck me as odd, especially for someone like a ranger, to be sneaking around with a weapon as big as you strapped to your back, and either hitting things overhead, or dragging along the ground.

You'd probably just keep your bow in hand, as much as possible.
Besides, it's a bit of nonsense that D&D 3E established that shortbows do less damage than longbows. In AD&D that was more accurate, with the damage tied to the arrow type, and the bow type just governing the range. So in the olden days, Rangers would just use a shortbow and be fine.

Real-life bow comparisons are a bit of a complicated matter; basically a bow of any size can have any strength, it's just that the higher the length-to-draw-weight ratio, the easier and smoother it is to draw. Well, no use getting into too much detail here, but the long and short of it is that long bow = higher range is a much better game model than different damage.

[R.Shackleford]

You'd probably just keep your bow in hand, as much as possible.
Besides, it's a bit of nonsense that D&D 3E established that shortbows do less damage than longbows. In AD&D that was more accurate, with the damage tied to the arrow type, and the bow type just governing the range. So in the olden days, Rangers would just use a shortbow and be fine.

Real-life bow comparisons are a bit of a complicated matter; basically a bow of any size can have any strength, it's just that the higher the length-to-draw-weight ratio, the easier and smoother it is to draw. Well, no use getting into too much detail here, but the long and short of it is that long bow = higher range is a much better game model than different damage.

What's fun is seeing players want to use real world physics but then use a longbow on horseback... The entire reason for a short bow (in certain real world civilizations) was so that the bow could be used horseback.

[PoeticDwarf]

Smallest and weakest of the weapons that use ammunition it does the MOST damage thanks to no way for the other weapons to get a bonus attack(xcpt the lvl 5 ranger spell)? Anyone else find this silly and refuse to use it for the same reason? xD

No. Ever heard of refluffing? And in fights lighter weapons have an advantage anyways.

[napoleon_in_rag]

A hand crossbow should do the same damage as a dart but have a longer range. Not good for combat unless you put poison on the quarrel.

Unless there is magic involved.....

[Knaight]

Longbow, massive? IRL they weigh about 1-2 pounds. oÔ
Recurve bows might be slightly heavier, but probably not exceeding 2lbs either.
I'm AFB (away from bows) this weekend, but when I get home I might weigh mine, if I remember. ;)
The weight isn't the issue, it's that they are comparatively inflexible and long in one dimension.


No. Ever heard of refluffing? And in fights lighter weapons have an advantage anyways.
In the context of a hand crossbow compared to a bigger one, not really. In the context of saying that light weapons have an advantage across the board, also not really. A spear with a large head weighs a lot more than a short sword, in a duel I'll take the spear every time.

[R.Shackleford]

A hand crossbow should do the same damage as a dart but have a longer range. Not good for combat unless you put poison on the quarrel.

Unless there is magic involved.....

Using metal darts is now illegal in some states (in bars where dart competitions still go on) because people getting straight up murdered/maimed/severely injured with a dart.

If we are going to use "real life" as a benchmark for our fantasy world let's at least be consistent about it.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Using metal darts is now illegal in some states (in bars where dart competitions still go on) because people getting straight up murdered/maimed/severely injured with a dart.

If we are going to use "real life" as a benchmark for our fantasy world let's at least be consistent about it.

Please give me an example of someone in the real world getting murdered with a dart.

[R.Shackleford]

Please give me an example of someone in the real world getting murdered with a dart.

Back in the mid to late 90's a guy stabbed another dude in the neck with a steel tip dart while my father and I was at a small dart tournament. If I find the newspaper clipping I'll upload it to imgur.

[JumboWheat01]

Will lawn darts do?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31176/how-one-dad-got-lawn-darts-banned

[R.Shackleford]

Will lawn darts do?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31176/how-one-dad-got-lawn-darts-banned

Damnit, I should have used Google lol.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Will lawn darts do?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31176/how-one-dad-got-lawn-darts-banned

That's an accidental death, not murder. And a different kind of dart.

[R.Shackleford]

That's an accidental death, not murder. And a different kind of dart.

Accidentally killing someone with something seems to me makes the item more dangerous not less dangerous.

Close enough.

A hand cross bow dart would just be a small crossbow arrow (why are they called bolts, they look like arrows to me) so even that isn't the same as a dart.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Back in the mid to late 90's a guy stabbed another dude in the neck with a steel tip dart while my father and I was at a small dart tournament. If I find the newspaper clipping I'll upload it to imgur.

Did he die? But anyways, that's anecdotal until you post some evidence. I have seen people throw darts at each other and not do any real damage.

If you are in a bar fight and need a weapon, I suggest breaking a beer bottle or using a pool cue. Don't use a dart.

[R.Shackleford]

Did he die? But anyways, that's anecdotal until you post some evidence. I have seen people throw darts at each other and not do any real damage.

If you are in a bar fight and need a weapon, I suggest breaking a beer bottle or using a pool cue. Don't use a dart.

Yes, but dude, give it a rest. The other poster already showed you that yes, darts can kill.

Your advice about bar fights is hilarious. First off the guys were drinking and one for pissed. I'm just sure he was thinking rationally instead of just using the steel tip dart he had in his hand.

Let me guess, you are a 3rd degree black belt in bar fights?

[napoleon_in_rag]

Accidentally killing someone with something seems to me makes the item more dangerous not less dangerous.


Well, you used the word "murder" not "accidentally killed in a freak accident".

Accidents don't make something dangerous. Thousands of people accidentally choke to death on hot dogs every year but hot dogs aren't dangerous. You can't use it as a weapon. No one would say that a hot dog is more dangerous than a handgun.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but bolts or quarrels are usually shorter than arrows and only have 2 fletchlings vs the 3 or 4 on an arrow.

[R.Shackleford]

Well, you used the word "murder" not "accidentally killed in a freak accident".

Accidents don't make something dangerous. Thousands of people accidentally choke to death on hot dogs every year but hot dogs aren't dangerous. You can't use it as a weapon. No one would say that a hot dog is more dangerous than a handgun.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but bolts or quarrels are usually shorter than arrows and only have 2 fletchlings vs the 3 or 4 on an arrow.

Give it a rest.

Actually, I apologize as it won't matter, I won't be able to see your posts from now on.

[JumboWheat01]

Accidents don't make something dangerous. Thousands of people accidentally choke to death on hot dogs every year but hot dogs aren't dangerous. You can't use it as a weapon.

Mental note: find a way to weaponize hot dogs next game.

[R.Shackleford]

Mental note: find a way to weaponize hot dogs next game.

I like how it went from metal pointy thing to soft meaty thing.

But I'm sure a Rogue could sneak attack with a hot dog if they had tavern brawler.

Freeze the hot dog and stab someone in the eye. 1d4 + dex + xd6 sneak attack.

[Spacehamster]

I like how it went from metal pointy thing to soft meaty thing.

But I'm sure a Rogue could sneak attack with a hot dog if they had tavern brawler.

Freeze the hot dog and stab someone in the eye. 1d4 + dex + xd6 sneak attack.

But then it would not be a hot dog anymore since its now cold! :O

[Thrudd]

Damage isn't meat. A greatsword dealing 2d6+5 Damage doesn't even have to mean they hit the target. They just hit the target's AC, it could mean that the target dodges and got tired from dodging. Or it could mean that the target got lucky and there is less luck in his or her life.

No, hp isn't "meat", but the damage rating of a weapon represents in some way it's potential to kill someone that is trying to avoid being killed. Based on that idea, the damage of a hand crossbow dart should be around 1-2.

[JumboWheat01]

But then it would not be a hot dog anymore since its now cold! :O

I should introduce you to my sister, she's a fanatic for cold hotdogs, sometimes just eating them right out of the package.

But the real question is, are hot dogs finessable? Can't sneak attack if it's not a finesse weapon.

[R.Shackleford]

No, hp isn't "meat", but the damage rating of a weapon represents in some way it's potential to kill someone that is trying to avoid being killed. Based on that idea, the damage of a hand crossbow dart should be around 1-2.

Damage doesn't have to be meat. Damage can be just getting tired.

HP and damage to HP can be represented in tons of ways it isn't even funny.

[Thrudd]

Accidentally killing someone with something seems to me makes the item more dangerous not less dangerous.

Close enough.

A hand cross bow dart would just be a small crossbow arrow (why are they called bolts, they look like arrows to me) so even that isn't the same as a dart.

Lawn darts are nothing like what we're talking about. It isn't "close enough". Lawn darts each weigh a few pounds, the weight entirely loaded in the metal tip, which is about 1/4 inch thick. You chuck them way up in the air, and they come down and stick in the ground. People get hurt because they are standing under where a jart was coming down, and it nailed them in the top of the head. You could also be killed by a thrown horseshoe or anything heavy falling on your head.

Crossbow ammunition are called bolts to distinguish them from normal arrows, because they are different. They are necessarily a lot shorter, but also thicker and heavier to provide more penetration. The extremely powerful draw of a normal crossbow (made possible with the assistance of mechanical means of spanning it) makes it possible to throw such an object straight and far.

A hand crossbow would not generate enough force to throw a normal crossbow bolt very far, or with enough power to penetrate deeply. You would need lighter bolts. A bolt, the same weight or lighter than a normal arrow such as would be used with a hunting bow, which is also shorter and thrown by a smaller bow with less force, could in no way have the same potential to penetrate and kill someone as a normal bow. At best, being really generous for the sake of fantasy, I would give it 1d4 damage and a range equal to thrown darts. The advantage over thrown darts? It would look cool, I guess? A Chinese style repeating crossbow is sort of like this, but bigger in size. Those, likewise, had very little penetrating power and were understandably not widely used. Something that small which has a string that can be drawn quickly and with little effort necessarily will not have much force behind its shots.

[Thrudd]

Damage doesn't have to be meat. Damage can be just getting tired.

HP and damage to HP can be represented in tons of ways it isn't even funny.

I agree with the abstract nature of hp. What does that have to do with how deadly a dart should be? By your reasoning, if I understand it rightly, all weapons should have the same damage potential, since the only hp/damage that matters is the last one. The question still remains, is a hand crossbow even a realistically deadly weapon? I don't think so, not without poison and the ability to hit an unclothed area of the body. You would be more dangerous with a heavy rock thrown at the head.

[JoeJ]

It's not the base damage that makes hand crossbows so OP, it's the extra +10 damage per shot you can get with Sharpshooter. If you rule that the bolt is too lightweight for that particular part of the feat to apply, I think you'll find your players gravitating to the other missile weapons instead.

[Knaight]

I agree with the abstract nature of hp. What does that have to do with how deadly a dart should be? By your reasoning, if I understand it rightly, all weapons should have the same damage potential, since the only hp/damage that matters is the last one. The question still remains, is a hand crossbow even a realistically deadly weapon? I don't think so, not without poison and the ability to hit an unclothed area of the body. You would be more dangerous with a heavy rock thrown at the head.

It's a pretty similar niche to the blowgun, really. You can hurt people with them, but poison makes life a lot easier and they don't do so hot against armor.

[Vogonjeltz]

My problem with it is that it must operate on some sort of magic in order to work as the game has it. A tiny crossbow that can be loaded and fired without mechanical assistance, while it could easily be built, would be a children's toy. There is no way it's damage should be comparable to a bow, it's bolts would need to be the weight of needles, you could likely throw a dart as far and probably with more force. It might be a tool for accurately delivering poison darts to the necks of nearby unsuspecting people or animals, an assassin's contraption. Otherwise, not a reasonable weapon in any way. The feat makes it worse. Loading times for crossbows are already ridiculously short in the game, which is a concession I understand for the sake of fantasy and action, but the feat that removes it completely makes no sense. The ability to span a crossbow is a mechanical effect dictated by physics and can only be affected so much by the skill of the wielder. If we are saying that the feat makes the character so strong they can span a heavy crossbow by hand in a couple of seconds, then that strength would also affect everything else in their life, not just their ability to span a crossbow. They can pull over 1,000 pounds using only the force of their arm and shoulder. I don't even know what strength score that would give them, or how much damage their punches should do.

If you want to interpret the hand crossbow as a magical device using special materials found only in fantasy, or with bolts constructed of some special material that makes them super light but still able to pierce with the force of a normal bow, that's fine, but you need to consider the implications these materials and magical construction methods would have for everything else in the world. Surely, the same materials and magic methods used to construct the hand crossbow should be applied to many other devices and weapons as well. Apparently, all crossbows are made with the same magical methods, because it is possible to span them so easily yet they still deliver a force equal to or greater than normal bows. So where else is this technology and material used, and what exactly are its properties?

I think it's more along the lines of: They have their technique so spot on that they're able to load those crossbows faster than joe blow. They're very skilled, not brute forcing things. I'd also imagine the winding methods are the conventional ones, just done as quickly as is possible (whereas the non-experts aren't as quick on the reload.)

[Firechanter]

The damage dice of D&D crossbows (regardless of what edition) do not imply real-world draw weights anyway. We don't know about medieval values, but a modern full-size crossbow can have about 150-200lbs draw weight whereas modern hunting bows usually have less than 60lbs. Crossbows take much longer to reload because of the high draw weight, which in turn should directly be reflected by the damage die. 1d10 vs 1d8 does not imply a threefold difference in projectile energy.

BTW, I'm just doing some online shop research and actually, current hand crossbows seem to have draw weights between 60 and 80 lbs. Holy crap. :o They all come with lever systems of some kind or other for loading, and the vendors claim that they can be loaded "with ease". A sampling of youtube videos on the matter seems to confirm this claim.

Since you don't have any Strength options with 5E bows and crossbows, they may as well all revolve somewhere around 20-40lbs draw weight. That would explain why they can be drawn so quickly.

[PoeticDwarf]

Now that's a campaign I would join for sure!

So you just join a campaign because one weapon you don't like is removed:smallconfused::smallannoyed:

[Quintessence]

Butthurt about a hand crossbow? Sigh... Nothing can do damage in 5E without someone complaining.

[Spacehamster]

So you just join a campaign because one weapon you don't like is removed:smallconfused::smallannoyed:

Not really, just felt like writing that cause thats how much I hate the hand crossbow, it should be 1d2 or 1d4 damage at most and just used for poisoning people. :)

[LordFluffy]

Hand crossbows have always been stupid, but not for the reasons mentioned.

Back in AD&D, the only way to get a hand crossbow was to kill a drow and take it, then never hold it out in sunlight or it would melt.

In 2nd Ed, it was a 100gp weapon that did 1d4, and therefore pointless.

In 3rd/.5, it still was too expensive and required a feat to even weild.

I never played 4e.

Now, in 5th ed, it's the source of endless controversy. Can you dual weild? Simulation vs. fun? Etc.

And it's still too expensive.

The hand crossbow makes sense that it exists. Stated as a 1d6 weapon, it's a viable martial weapon; lower and it would be tossed in the wastebin next to morningstars and tridents. Flavor wise, it still fits for drow and theives. It's not game breaking and it is up to the GM as to if they want people to go akimbo with them, as far as I'm concerned (Sage Advice notwithstanding).

I don't understand the ire.

I've thought about building a character who uses one just for the hell of it. Like focuses on it. Not to go all cheese, but because I think it would be fun.

Personally, I've written up gun rules, though.

[LordFluffy]

BTW, I'm just doing some online shop research and actually, current hand crossbows seem to have draw weights between 60 and 80 lbs. Holy crap. :o They all come with lever systems of some kind or other for loading, and the vendors claim that they can be loaded "with ease". A sampling of youtube videos on the matter seems to confirm this claim.
I have a cheap one and the biggest problem I have is that I have to pull the trigger so hard to fire it that my hand starts to shake. Never fired it accurately once. It needs a foregrip.

[Laserlight]

Lawn darts are nothing like what we're talking about. It isn't "close enough". Lawn darts each weigh a few pounds, the weight entirely loaded in the metal tip, which is about 1/4 inch thick.

I've always thought of D&D "darts" to be martiobarbuli / plumbatae, rather than pub-style darts. Partly because martiobarbuli were actually used by troops.

Unlike, say, the hand crossbow. If you want them to have a pistol, just give them a pistol.

[R.Shackleford]

Butthurt about a hand crossbow? Sigh... Nothing can do damage in 5E D&D without someone complaining.

There you go, fixed that one. Don't want to leave out 3e, 3.5, 4e, 4e Essentials now do we? :smalltongue:

(I don't know of any complaints about D&D before 3e as I wasn't talking to people about it)

[LordVonDerp]

I don't know for sure... haven't encountered it in play yet. But it does take a feat (which is an optional rule), and does only 1d6 damage; has relative short range, can't use a shield... it's good, no doubt, but I don't know if it's so good that it really overshadows other fighting styles.

You can absolutely use a shield.

[smcmike]

You need to blow a feat on it to really make much use of the hand crossbow, and, as per either an errata or a tweet, you still need a free hand to reload the weapon in the first place, even with the feat. That means sheathing your main-hand weapon every single time you take a shot with the hand crossbow just so you can reload it and take another shot. And if you try to dual-wield them? Put one away to load the other, then put that away to take out the other, then reload that one, and take the other one back out... It's just not worth it.

Just give some daggers to throw with my free hand instead, since they don't require me to put away my main weapon in order to "reload." And don't require a feat to be useful either, just the base bonus action all classes have.

I find it silly because of the hoops you have to go through to use them, but find them strong? No, not at all.

This seems like it is a misunderstanding of how you use it with the feat - you only use one weapon, the hand crossbow, and you shoot it like a revolver - two regular attacks at level 5, then the bonus attack. 3 attacks a round with a ranged weapon at level 5 is the issue.

[smcmike]

You can absolutely use a shield.

How? You need a hand to load it.

[R.Shackleford]

How? You need a hand to load it.

Use your dang imagination!

Juggle the bullets or load them with your teeth, it doesn't matter

[smcmike]

Use your dang imagination!

Juggle the bullets or load them with your teeth, it doesn't matter

Yeah, that doesn't work for me (or the rules)

[LordVonDerp]

Longbow, massive? IRL they weigh about 1-2 pounds. oÔ
Recurve bows might be slightly heavier, but probably not exceeding 2lbs either.
I'm AFB (away from bows) this weekend, but when I get home I might weigh mine, if I remember. ;)
They're also, by definition, taller than the wielder

[LordVonDerp]

How? You need a hand to load it.

Use your shield hand.

[smcmike]

Use your shield hand.

My shield is in my shield hand.

[RulesJD]

You can absolutely use a shield.

It's been thoroughly discussed and ruled on.

You cannot load a hand-crossbow and use a shield at the same time. You could fire it once, but then wouldn't be able to reload.

[R.Shackleford]

Yeah, that doesn't work for me (or the rules)

Then you don't use the feature and I and other will.

Actually by the book, it does work, and is perfectly balanced too. The only thing that caused it not to work by the rules is a RAI update and then an Errata.

I think that same errata ended up messing up something... I can't recall right now though.

[smcmike]

Then you don't use the feature and I and other will.

Actually by the book, it does work, and is perfectly balanced too. The only thing that caused it not to work by the rules is a RAI update and then an Errata.

I think that same errata ended up messing up something... I can't recall right now though.

You should have just lead with "yeah, I don't consider Sage Advice or Errata to be rules." Which, I mean, fine. But loading a crossbow with your teeth is super dumb.

[LordFluffy]

It's been thoroughly discussed and ruled on.

You cannot load a hand-crossbow and use a shield at the same time. You could fire it once, but then wouldn't be able to reload.
Skirmisher's Sheild - 30gp, 7lbs + bolts
A Skirmisher's Shield is the same as a regular shield save for two features: a pair of prongs on the inside of the shield and a spring loaded slot that loads 20 bolts for a hand crossbow. These differences allow a user to use the prongs to reload a hand crossbow with one hand while holding the shield.

You're welcome.

[Thrudd]

The damage dice of D&D crossbows (regardless of what edition) do not imply real-world draw weights anyway. We don't know about medieval values, but a modern full-size crossbow can have about 150-200lbs draw weight whereas modern hunting bows usually have less than 60lbs. Crossbows take much longer to reload because of the high draw weight, which in turn should directly be reflected by the damage die. 1d10 vs 1d8 does not imply a threefold difference in projectile energy.

BTW, I'm just doing some online shop research and actually, current hand crossbows seem to have draw weights between 60 and 80 lbs. Holy crap. :o They all come with lever systems of some kind or other for loading, and the vendors claim that they can be loaded "with ease". A sampling of youtube videos on the matter seems to confirm this claim.

Since you don't have any Strength options with 5E bows and crossbows, they may as well all revolve somewhere around 20-40lbs draw weight. That would explain why they can be drawn so quickly.

20-40 lbs draw weight would be worthless as a weapon. Comparisons to modern weapons also don't give a good indication of anything, they are made with modern materials and have built-in mechanical assistance (pulleys), that allow mitigation of the draw weight. A modern compound bow might be drawn with 60-75 lbs, but actually be generating double that when the arrow is loosed. This wasn't the case with medieval and renaissance technology.

English longbows of the hundred years war period were said to have draw weights in excess of 100lbs. There has been research on medieval and renaissance crossbows which indicate, based on materials and the technology used, that draw weights could be in excess of 1000 lbs. The reason that this did not result in massively more penetrating force than a long bow was that the long bow's draw length is so much greater: the bows were six foot tall or more, and that length is a large part of factoring into the force behind the arrow, as well as the length and mass of the arrow itself. The crossbow's bow length and draw length is very much shorter, and therefore the bolts must be much shorter than longbow arrows as well. These factors decrease the overall force of the shot. Both longbows and crossbows had the potential to puncture armor, but neither provide evidence of doing so on a regular basis (otherwise armor would have become irrelevant much earlier, and crossbows would have become far more ubiquitous as the preferred weapon of warfare). Check out some of the youtube videos of people demonstrating replica medieval crossbows. Accounts exist of how many rounds per minute could be loosed by professional crossbowmen ij different circumstances. A single crossbowman, stationary and firing repeatedly could get off around three shots a minute, vs a longbowman's six per minute.

Damage dice would reflect the kinetic energy potential of the arrow or bolt once it has been loosed, not the draw weight required to draw the weapon. There are light crossbows, that use a belt hook and foot stirrup to draw, that would generate a less powerful shot than a longbow/war bow, but maybe the same as a shorter type of bow. A higher draw weight crossbow that uses a goat's foot lever might be equivalent power as a long bow. A heavy crossbow that uses a windlass or cranequin mechanism to load it would be more powerful than a longbow. Increasingly powerful crossbows require increasingly more effort and time to span. A heavy crossbow requiring a windlass simply could not be spanned faster than the mechanism allowed. After every shot, you needed to set the crossbow down, attach the windless to the string and start cranking. A goat's foot lever would have been faster, but still required the crossbow to be set down and the lever attached. To improve the rate of fire, crossbowmen would use a team to assist, standing behind a pavise/tower shield and using one person to span the weapon while another was being shot, and then trading out. In this way, they could more closely match the rate of fire of longbows. However, it required a three-man team and two different crossbows.

A more realistic representation of crossbows in the game would have maybe three different types. A light crossbow would be a d6 damage and be able to shoot once per round as long as the bowman remains stationary, that would be the belt-hook. You can move and shoot an already loaded crossbow, but loading requires using the movement action. A medium crossbow would be a d8 and shoot every other round, with the loading round requiring the crossbowman be stationary, the goat's foot lever. Heavy crossbow is a d10 and requires two rounds of stationary loading, using the windlass.
The balance would be a strength requirement added to normal bows, bows dealing d6 have a minimum strength of 10. Bows dealing d8 require 12+ strength.

[R.Shackleford]

You should have just lead with "yeah, I don't consider Sage Advice or Errata to be rules." Which, I mean, fine. But loading a crossbow with your teeth is super dumb.

So is using your imagination and pretending that you can talk to dragons, summoning demons and undead, and turn into animals.

No one is forcing you to take the feat or play that style. Having a balanced John Woo style for those that do only spreads more fun around.

If I don't like the necromancer tradition when I'm playing a wizard I don't raise a stink. You know why? Cause I don't have to play a necromancer! I can still take other necromancy spells if I like but I don't have to take the necromancer tradition.

The ideology of *badwrongfun* is an utter poison to ttrpgs, gaming, and life in general.

[smcmike]

So is using your imagination and pretending that you can talk to dragons, summoning demons and undead, and turn into animals.

No one is forcing you to take the feat or play that style. Having a balanced John Woo style for those that do only spreads more fun around.

If I don't like the necromancer tradition when I'm playing a wizard I don't raise a stink. You know why? Cause I don't have to play a necromancer! I can still take other necromancy spells if I like but I don't have to take the necromancer tradition.

The ideology of *badwrongfun* is an utter poison to ttrpgs, gaming, and life in general.

Yeah yeah yeah. I'm just saying that the designers of the game disagree with you in terms of the rules, and throwing in my subjective aesthetic judgment.

I say if you want to play John Woo, add guns or make your crossbows explicitly magical, but if you prefer to simply abstract it, that's fine, I guess, and honestly not much less realistic than loading and firing a crossbow 3 times in 6 seconds with the hand. Which is to say that the rules even as described by Sage Advice are a bit much for my own taste.

[R.Shackleford]

Yeah yeah yeah. I'm just saying that the designers of the game disagree with you in terms of the rules, and throwing in my subjective aesthetic judgment.

I say if you want to play John Woo, add guns or make your crossbows explicitly magical, but if you prefer to simply abstract it, that's fine, I guess, and honestly not much less realistic than loading and firing a crossbow 3 times in 6 seconds with the hand. Which is to say that the rules even as described by Sage Advice are a bit much for my own taste.

They didn't originally disagree, a vocal minority of "badwrongfun" wouldn't leave them alone.

I'm saying you don't need to add anything into the game for a balanced John Woo renaissance experience.

Do what the feat actually says and it is still balanced and spread fun.

Why does everything good/cool be relegated to magic? Why do some people get to play their characters from level 1 and others hope that the DM puts in a magical item, into a game that assumes no magic items, just because the vocal minority can't get over their "badwrongfun" mentality?


The same argument could be used... There are dragons, monks, guys with big swords, and divine casters in Anime. I think anime is stupid so we should remove all instances of dragons, monks, guys with big swords, and divine casters! Because of I don't have fun with them than no one else should! #facetious

Edit

My argument wasnt, at least originally, if it was against the rules. My argument was the ideology that hand Crossbow and crossbow was "stupid", is a straight up back buttwards thing to say in a game that has talking dragons, summoning demons and undead, and four less other things.

Saying "that's stupid I can't imagine that" while playing D&D is downright... Well... Hilarious!

[Coffee_Dragon]

No need to project "badwrongfun" on people who like verisimilitude.

[Knaight]

The same argument could be used... There are dragons, monks, guys with big swords, and divine casters in Anime. I think anime is stupid so we should remove all instances of dragons, monks, guys with big swords, and divine casters! Because of I don't have fun with them than no one else should! #facetious

You could also argue in the opposite direction that all sorts of other stuff should be included, even if people think it's inappropriate. Sure, the Atlantean tech-priest who comes to the surface with a bigass plasma cannon might be inappropriate for a whole bunch of fantasy, but other people could have fun with them, so they should make it in. A spot for just about anything can be argued.

In practice though, D&D isn't a generic system, and there are benefits to excluding certain things to try and preserve a particular feel. That above Atlantean tech-priest is fine for certain games (it's not that far off of a description for a current PC in one of mine, even), but it conflicts with the D&D feel and just including it waters down the identity. Similarly, there are conscious decisions made for how to handle things like equipment, and any option taken closes some option and reinforces some other option. The use of hand crossbows to ape the style of cinematic gunfights is one of the things that conflicts with a lot of them.

[R.Shackleford]

No need to project "badwrongfun" on people who like verisimilitude.

Saying "I can't imagine it, it is stupid" isn't about verisimilitude. Its about pushing your badwrongfun onto others.

What it comes down to us the mentality of "it I don't want my character to play that way you can't play your character yet that way". One person's character shouldn't be called stupid and gotten rid of just because another player can't wrap their brain around it.

[LordVonDerp]

That's an accidental death, not murder. And a different kind of dart.
A kind closer to DnD darts.

[Thrudd]

Saying "I can't imagine it, it is stupid" isn't about verisimilitude. Its about pushing your badwrongfun onto others.

What it comes down to us the mentality of "it I don't want my character to play that way you can't play your character yet that way". One person's character shouldn't be called stupid and gotten rid of just because another player can't wrap their brain around it.

It is not "I can't imagine it". It is that it doesn't fit in with the inventory of otherwise approximately realistic weapons and armor. If you want easily accessible magic or high-tech weaponry, you can do that. There are even optional ideas for that stuff in the DMG. If the table wants rapid-fire hand-held missile weapons available to all, the DM can include that. It just doesn't belong on the list of pseudo medieval/renaissance weapons. Rapid reloading, high tech mini crossbows might belong in a steampunk or magitech setting. They don't belong in swords & sorcery or high medieval fantasy, or in a game trying for a more grounded feeling.

What it comes down to, is the DM being in control of how the game feels. Allowing unrealistically powerful hand crossbows that can be dual wielded and magically reload without needing a free hand to do so means the setting has a certain feel and certain assumptions. It is completely reasonable not to want that feel for the game, which means such DM's will need to alter or ban this weapon. A DM who bans this weapon isn't doing it to stomp on your fun. This is also a significant argument for not using feats, or at least certain feats, in a game which intends to keep things more grounded. They are an explicitly optional element of the game, after all. More important than taking out the hand crossbow, I think, is taking out the crossbow master feat.

[smcmike]

Consider this - badwrongfun can be used both ways - aren't you telling me that my version of the rules, wherein a (very) slightly higher degree of verisimilitude is enforced, is badwrongfun?

Speaking of anime and other models, is there any outside media depiction of someone using a hand crossbow and a shield (leaving aside dual-wielded crossbows, which provide no mechanical advantage whatsoever)? I can't think of any, but I'm no expert.

[Finieous]

They didn't originally disagree, a vocal minority of "badwrongfun" wouldn't leave them alone.


If we're speculating on original designer intent, my suspicion is that they intended this: "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed melee weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding." I've bolded the word I added to RAW. In other words, the feat allows the drow-style "hand crossbow and sword" D&D trope. Having fired your hand crossbow, you obviously can't reload it, but you can drop it and maybe pull out another melee weapon, or sheathe your melee weapon and draw your ammunition as part of the attack on your next turn if you want to keep shooting, etc.

I think they landed on errata that they felt was the lightest change to the actual text as written, but the result is still not what they originally intended. And it has the unfortunate, in my opinion, effect of making squirrel-killers among the highest-damage melee and ranged weapon options in the game. Oh well.

[Reaver25]

They are ludriciously expensive too, you need to shell your 75(?) GP just for one hand crossbow?!

At least if you DM rules that most weapons and armor sells for half it's price, you'd make a pretty penny looting drow corpses, earning 37.5 GP when you sell it to an arms shop. That's probably the only good thing about it, and only if your campaign features alot of drow.

This. I always make lots of money off of dead people who used hand-crossbows against me. That they couldn't use. Because my Longbow had a massive range and I sniped them. And they could do NOTHING!!

But in all seriousness, I truly enjoy Persuading and/or Charming merchants to buy the Hand X-Bows for more than half, as that is our DM's rule as well.

[Reaver25]

Consider this - badwrongfun can be used both ways - aren't you telling me that my version of the rules, wherein a (very) slightly higher degree of verisimilitude is enforced, is badwrongfun?

Speaking of anime and other models, is there any outside media depiction of someone using a hand crossbow and a shield (leaving aside dual-wielded crossbows, which provide no mechanical advantage whatsoever)? I can't think of any, but I'm no expert.

I can't think of any either, but some shields had straps that attached to your arm that you didn't need to hold, so you had a free *hand* but not a free *arm*. I think it could be plausible to use a shield. And the thing about Shields is this: They're not all the same size. When I DM, I say there are three different types:
1. Small shield, think buckler, very easy to wield in combat, free *hand* like I was talking about. +1 to AC
2. Standard shield, medium size. +2 AC that we see in PHB.
3. Tower Shield, Large size, STR 16 required, heavy, +3 AC.

If this was the case, then someone in my campaign *might* use a shield (+1 variant) and a Hand X-bow.

[Finieous]

If this was the case, then someone in my campaign *might* use a shield (+1 variant) and a Hand X-bow.

Your game, your rules!

Here's how a buckler is held. ;)

https://grauenwolf.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/image13.png

http://www.steel-mastery.com/images/products/full/steel-buckler-3.jpg

[Quintessence]

There you go, fixed that one. Don't want to leave out 3e, 3.5, 4e, 4e Essentials now do we? :smalltongue:

(I don't know of any complaints about D&D before 3e as I wasn't talking to people about it)

True lol, my bad.

[Thrudd]

I can't think of any either, but some shields had straps that attached to your arm that you didn't need to hold, so you had a free *hand* but not a free *arm*. I think it could be plausible to use a shield. And the thing about Shields is this: They're not all the same size. When I DM, I say there are three different types:
1. Small shield, think buckler, very easy to wield in combat, free *hand* like I was talking about. +1 to AC
2. Standard shield, medium size. +2 AC that we see in PHB.
3. Tower Shield, Large size, STR 16 required, heavy, +3 AC.

If this was the case, then someone in my campaign *might* use a shield (+1 variant) and a Hand X-bow.

Historically, a crossbowman would have someone else holding the shield for him (of the tower variety), so he had cover while reloading.

[Reaver25]

Your game, your rules!

Here's how a buckler is held. ;)



Right, in the real world. I meant more of a "think of the SIZE of the buckler" than the actual way it is held. But thanks for the pictures! :D

[Asmodouche]

Really the rate of fire of the hand crossbow is the only thing that truly bugs me. I suppose I could mentally substitute every mention of "hand crossbow" with "short bow."

The weapons are statistically very close after all the rulings. Yeah the range is shorter on the crossbow (I mean short bow) but if you fire it insanely fast like that accuracy might suffer.

[Thrudd]

Really the rate of fire of the hand crossbow is the only thing that truly bugs me. I suppose I could mentally substitute every mention of "hand crossbow" with "short bow."

The weapons are statistically very close after all the rulings. Yeah the range is shorter on the crossbow (I mean short bow) but if you fire it insanely fast like that accuracy might suffer.
It's the fact that the damage is the same as a bow that bugs me. The range is ok. It should be 1d3, like older editions.

I propose a new crossbow expert feat:
You gain two attendants, a pavise bearer with a pavise and a dedicated crossbow reloader with a heavy crossbow. You can now ignore the loading property of crossbows, as long as your attendants are with you and have two crossbows at hand.

I think the hand crossbow is and always has been very expensive (when it was for sale at all), because it is a special Drow weapon that is rare/not widely available on the surface world.

Also note: the original Drow hand crossbow from AD&D uses darts that deal 1d3 damage and are tipped with poison. There was no mention of how long they took to reload, but normal crossbows could be shot only once every other round.

[LordVonDerp]

No need to project "badwrongfun" on people who like verisimilitude.
What about on people who don't?

[LordVonDerp]

Consider this - badwrongfun can be used both ways - aren't you telling me that my version of the rules, wherein a (very) slightly higher degree of verisimilitude is enforced, is badwrongfun?


Verisimilitude means having a consistent feel, whether that be dragons, magic, and easily reloaded hand crossbows, or a lack of any such things.

[smcmike]

Verisimilitude means having a consistent feel, whether that be dragons, magic, and easily reloaded hand crossbows, or a lack of any such things.

This is simply an argument of taste. There is nothing inconsistent or wrong about a setting with dragons, magic, and crossbows precisely modeled upon real-world weapons. Which, by the way, isn't even what I'm arguing for. I just think it's silly that the hand crossbow can be fired more quickly than a shortbow.

[Saeviomage]

A single crossbowman, stationary and firing repeatedly could get off around three shots a minute, vs a longbowman's six per minute.

So you are saying that the basic rules already have a first level character firing a longbow at twice the historical rate, and second/third/etc attacks only make that worse.

See, this is why I really don't care that the crossbow's rate of fire is too high. I DO care that the hand crossbow (and polearms) get a feat that lets you make a bonus action attack, because that makes those two weapons significantly more powerful than other alternatives, which is a bad thing.

[Knaight]

So you are saying that the basic rules already have a first level character firing a longbow at twice the historical rate, and second/third/etc attacks only make that worse.

Those numbers completely contradict the ones I've seen. It doesn't take ten seconds to fire a bow.

[JumboWheat01]

Maybe not a standard bow, but an English Long Bow was a BEAST of a bow, it required a lot of time to draw, aim, and fire. It was huge, after all.

[Knaight]

Maybe not a standard bow, but an English Long Bow was a BEAST of a bow, it required a lot of time to draw, aim, and fire. It was huge, after all.

There's a negligible increase in draw time, aiming is essentially the same, and there's an even more negligible increase in how long it takes to loose an arrow. The time it takes to get the arrow from quiver (or from stuck in the ground in front of you) to nocked is identical, and a substantial component. The extent to which it is huge is also overstated, you see similarly sized bows elsewhere, as well as smaller bows of similar or greater draw weight, particularly if you look at the Manchu and Mongolian cultures. The added draw weight doesn't make the bow take longer to draw; with bows it's pretty much a matter of you can draw it back in one reasonably quick motion or you can't draw it back at all. Draw weights beyond pulling strength that had to be compensated for with mechanical assistance were a crossbow thing.

[krugaan]

is it just me or is this one of those threads that keep popping up every couple months or so?

[Thrudd]

Those numbers completely contradict the ones I've seen. It doesn't take ten seconds to fire a bow.

No, the source indicated that is the rate at which an archer can fire without fatiguing themselves to the point of becoming unable to continue. For a brief combat, it is reasonable to be able to shoot more rapidly, the only slowing factor would be drawing arrows from a quarrel and finding a target (in massed combat, stationary archers shoot into the mass of the enemy without spending a lot of time aiming, with arrows already arrayed in front of them). I think one shot per 6 second round is reasonable, considering the moving targets and archers, necessity to draw arrows from a quiver and aim. Also, limiting the rate of fire is a simpler solution for the game than allowing an increased rate of fire and having to track fatigue in a more granular way if the combat were to go on for a prolonged amount of time.

The factor limiting crossbow rate of fire is mechanical more than it is the archer. While practice and strength will allow that to be lessened a bit, there is still time required to lower the crossbow and attach the spanning mechanism, draw a quarrel, and then aim. There is no way to avoid putting down the crossbow in between shots and needing to reacquire a target, and with heavier crossbows drawing the lever or winch from the belt or wherever it is hanging, and then reattach it before firing (unless the archer is stationary and leaving the apparatus on the ground next to them).

[Finieous]

is it just me or is this one of those threads that keep popping up every couple months or so?

Yes, that's perfectly apt. Hand crossbows in 5e are like an old man's...arthritis.

[krugaan]

Yes, that's perfectly apt. Hand crossbows in 5e are like an old man's...arthritis.

Surprised no one's linked that one video of that guy doing "amazing" things with a shortbow.

Anyone have that handy?

Anyway, depending how the hand xbow is set up, you could technically "fan the hammer" and get a high rate of fire.

[LordFluffy]

When the "can you dual crossbow" arguement started, I took two Nerf hand crossbows up to my attic and experimented. We are talking about toys, of course, but I'm also not a trained archer. I could almost get off four shots in 7 seconds, which was the benchmark.

I'll have to see what fire rate I can get with just one.

[smcmike]

When the "can you dual crossbow" arguement started, I took two Nerf hand crossbows up to my attic and experimented. We are talking about toys, of course, but I'm also not a trained archer. I could almost get off four shots in 7 seconds, which was the benchmark.

I'll have to see what fire rate I can get with just one.

Ok, but I can hit a punching bag with a broom handle about 15 times in 7 seconds, so....

[LordFluffy]

Ok, but I can hit a punching bag with a broom handle about 15 times in 7 seconds, so....
You're not very far off from the D&D concept of "Many blows, but only one or two actually do the damage, in a six second round".

The debate at the time was whether one could physically fire, reload, fire again with two hand crossbows in the time allotted. I was looking for proof of concept.

[LordFluffy]

I DO care that the hand crossbow (and polearms) get a feat that lets you make a bonus action attack, because that makes those two weapons significantly more powerful than other alternatives, which is a bad thing.
There's a campaign setting that I'm half-heartedly working on that involves repeating firearms. Even with a revolver, getting six shots off in six seconds is not huge thing, but giving a marksman six separate attacks is more detail than I think the 5e combat system intends, so instead, I wrote rules for "burst fire" which deals with it all as one attack. Applying a similar mechanic might suit you?

Instead of getting a second attack, the Crossbow Expert can expend a bonus action to get +1 to hit, +2 to damage, expending two bolts. This does limit them to one target, however.

[Thrudd]

When the "can you dual crossbow" arguement started, I took two Nerf hand crossbows up to my attic and experimented. We are talking about toys, of course, but I'm also not a trained archer. I could almost get off four shots in 7 seconds, which was the benchmark.

I'll have to see what fire rate I can get with just one.

lol, it's a pointless exercise. As you point out, it's a toy. It should give you an idea that in order to manage such as that feat would allow, the crossbow would need to be a toy.

If the world is such where devices that operate with the ease and simplicity of a toy, yet produce enough force to be lethal, it says something about the technology available. In other words, the technology exists to generate power without human effort (such as gunpowder does in our firearms). Perhaps it is rare, expensive or difficult to achieve, and therefore a "hand crossbow" (actually not a crossbow at all, but some sort of fantasy pistol), and this is why the weapon is extremely expensive. However, the existence of such a weapon may or may not be something a person wants available in their game world, at least as part of the standard inventory and not a special magic weapon. It belongs in the section of the DMG that gives optional rules for laser guns and firearms.

[Nerwen]

I do know that this is fantasy but these are ridiculous!!! These pretend to be real not magic so here I go. 1) These never existed as a weapon. 2) It is physically impossible for them to exist with pre-20th century materials. 3) THE ONES YOU HAVE SEEN ARE TOYS. Any example you have seen are toys used by nobles who set up targets in their gardens. The crossbow relies on the bow and draw length to develop power. A real crossbow has a draw weight greater than a longbow but a shorter draw length so the energy imparted to the arrow is about the same. A diminutive crossbow has neither weight or length. It can not develop enough power for any real use. So using the hand crossbow, not A crossbow but THE crossbow of DnD, is very much the equivalent of fighting with a nerf gun, but actually doing damage. Next melee character I build will wield a rubber chicken which does 2d8 damage on a bonus action attack from the off hand. Another thing, you can NOT leave a medieval crossbow drawn, the materials would rapidly deform and become useless. A medieval crossbow would take 5 rounds to load, no other movement or activities allowed.

So yes, I find them stupid. In fact I hate them because they immediately take me out of the game.

I have seen pics of modern crossbows with very different materials used as examples. Another bit of trivia; anything you see with a pistol grip is from the late 1600s or after. Pistol grips were not used prior to that. Not even pistols had pistol grips. Search "wheel-lock pistol" if curious. One shot then use like mace.

[LudicSavant]

Smallest and weakest of the weapons that use ammunition it does the MOST damage thanks to no way for the other weapons to get a bonus attack(xcpt the lvl 5 ranger spell)? Anyone else find this silly and refuse to use it for the same reason? xD

I think it's silly that crossbows are the ranged weapon that fires faster, not bows.

[Amechra]

Hand crossbows are stupid because they have the light property for no good reason.

Now, what probably happened is a communication failure - the obvious intent is that hand crossbows are ranged weapons for dual-wielders. Rapier+crossbow is a cool visual, after all!

But then, at some point, someone noticed that that didn't actually work, because the two-weapon fighting rules specify that both weapons have to be melee weapons. I'm guessing that it was pretty late in playtesting, since their response seemed to be "slap on a feat that lets you TWF with hand crossbows" (Crossbow Expert) instead of, you know, crossing out one instance of the word "melee".

And the end result is that the hand crossbow is basically the closest thing the game has to a machine pistol because of some loose wording. Oops!

[Arkhios]

Forgetting the least relevant detail (redundant Light property, which admittedly is quite stupid), let's take a look at the damage for a bit.

It deals 1d6 + dex in damage for all attacks.

The following assumes Dex 20 and Crossbow Expert feat (because without feat or another way to ignore Loading you can only fire once per turn. Period.
One attack with Attack Action and one with Bonus Action: 2d6 + dex * 2, so at most 12 to 22 damage in a turn. Mostly non-martials.
Two attacks with Attack Action and one with Bonus Action: 3d6 + dex * 3, so at most 18 to 33 damage in a turn. All classes with at least one Extra Attack.
Three attacks with Attack Action and one with Bonus Action: it's 4d6 + dex * 4, so at most 24 to 44 damage in a turn. Level 11+ Fighters only!
Four attacks with Attack Action and one with Bonus Action: it's 5d6 + dex * 5, so at most 30 to 55 damage in a turn. A level 20 Fighters only!

Compared to Heavy Crossbow, Dex 20, and Crossbow Expert (to get rid of Loading and be at common ground).

One attack with Attack Action: 1d10 + Dex, at most 6 to 15. Mostly non-martials.
Two attacks with Attack Action: 2d10 + Dex * 2, at most 12 to 30 damage in a turn. All classes with at least one Extra Attack.
Three attacks with Attack Action: 3d10 + Dex * 3, at most 18 to 45 damage in a turn. Level 11+ Fighters only!
Four attacks with Attack Action: 4d10 + Dex * 4, at most 24 + 60 damage in a turn. Level 20 Fighters only!

And just to be fair, longbow without Crossbow Expert and Dex 20 (at common ground = no need to worry about Loading):
One attack with Attack Action: 1d8 + Dex, at most 6 to 13 damage in a turn. Mostly non-martials.
Two attacks with Attack Action: 2d8 + Dex * 2, at most 12 to 26 damage in a turn. All classes with at least one Extra Attack.
Three attacks with Attack Action: 3d8 + Dex * 3, at most 18 to 39 damage in a turn. Level 11+ Fighters only!
Four attacks with Attack Action: 4d8 + Dex * 4, at most 24 to 52 damage in a turn. Level 20 Fighters only!



The following assumes Dex 20 and Crossbow Expert feat (because without feat or another way to ignore Loading you can only fire once per turn. Period.
One attack with Attack Action and one with Bonus Action: 2d6 + dex * 2, so at most 12 to 22 damage in a turn. Mostly non-martials.
Two attacks with Attack Action and one with Bonus Action: 3d6 + dex * 3, so at most 18 to 33 damage in a turn. All classes with at least one Extra Attack.

--

Compared to Heavy Crossbow, Dex 20, and Crossbow Expert (to get rid of Loading and be at common ground).
Two attacks with Attack Action: 2d10 + Dex * 2, at most 12 to 30 damage in a turn. All classes with at least one Extra Attack.

--

And just to be fair, longbow without Crossbow Expert and Dex 20 (at common ground = no need to worry about Loading):
Two attacks with Attack Action: 2d8 + Dex * 2, at most 12 to 26 damage in a turn. All classes with at least one Extra Attack.

Judging from this, we can quickly deduce that it's actually pretty close between hand crossbow, longbow, and heavy crossbow in most situations. Level 11+ Fighters get an upper hand, but then again, they would get that anyway, and actually Heavy Crossbow is potentially much better with only 4 attacks than Hand Crossbow with 5 attacks.

So, no. I disagree that Hand Crossbow is all that stupid as presented in OP. It's certainly slightly weird that with the smallest ranged projectile weapon you can deal the most damage, but then again when you think about it, you have taken a feat (Crossbow Expert) to specialize in crossbows (especially hand crossbows) to be better at it, so I don't get the complaint. Feats are supposed to make a difference, and without the feat, anyone using a crossbow can attack only once, because of Loading property, making the attack routine for those cases a "wet noodle".

Besides, the likeliest character to use a Hand Crossbow is usually the Rogue. Rogue has a strong focus as a damage dealer so, good for them to have at least an option to deal good amount of damage at range, with a little extra effort.

[SpanielBear]

Another thing, you can NOT leave a medieval crossbow drawn, the materials would rapidly deform and become useless.

*Snip*



Just want to address this point real quick. When people talk about an advantage of a crossbow being you can keep it drawn, I don’t think they mean holding it for days or even hours at a time. But you can set one up and hold it ready for good few minutes, long enough to take pretty careful aim despite being unskilled, or be ready for imminent trouble. A bow, especially a warbow, cannot be held at full draw for as long.

[Nerwen]

I keep reading about how people use these in the game and everyone breaks the rules. LOADING is a property which limits the use of the weapon to once per turn. AMMUNITION is the property that requires a free hand so makes it a two handed weapon. Crossbow Expert allows you to ignore LOADING but not AMMUNITION. Ranged has an enormous advantage because no one wants to count the arrows but you should not ignore the rest of the rule ever. If your DM allows hand crossbows to be used one handed, insist you can take a greatsword or polearm and a shield, or can wield a long bow in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other (or maybe 2 long bows as that makes more sense than the hand crossbow anyway), or have a sword and shield but can use your focus from the bag of holding. Maybe two swords and a shield since the characters can do things that normally are limited by the NUMERIC properties of hands and we are ignoring that. Either that or every player gets a magic weapon at start, not just the hand crossbow.

[Nerwen]

Just want to address this point real quick. When people talk about an advantage of a crossbow being you can keep it drawn, I don’t think they mean holding it for days or even hours at a time. But you can set one up and hold it ready for good few minutes, long enough to take pretty careful aim despite being unskilled, or be ready for imminent trouble. A bow, especially a warbow, cannot be held at full draw for as long.

As DM I definitely allow you to load a crossbow right before a combat. Keep it loaded? No. So any combat that does not give the ability to preplan the battle means no preloaded crossbows. And aim away, the vestigial fletching on a medieval crossbow bolt meant the crossbow was intrinsically inaccurate. Like the smoothbore firearm that replaced it, the crossbow was effective against large (really large not DnD large) targets like lines of troops. Ever see an account of someone going hunting with a crossbow in medieval times? They used bows which you could aim.

[Arkhios]

I keep reading about how people use these in the game and everyone breaks the rules. LOADING is a property which limits the use of the weapon to once per turn. AMMUNITION is the property that requires a free hand so makes it a two handed weapon. Crossbow Expert allows you to ignore LOADING but not AMMUNITION. Ranged has an enormous advantage because no one wants to count the arrows but you should not ignore the rest of the rule ever. If your DM allows hand crossbows to be used one handed, insist you can take a greatsword or polearm and a shield, or can wield a long bow in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other (or maybe 2 long bows as that makes more sense than the hand crossbow anyway), or have a sword and shield but can use your focus from the bag of holding. Maybe two swords and a shield since the characters can do things that normally are limited by the NUMERIC properties of hands and we are ignoring that. Either that or every player gets a magic weapon at start, not just the hand crossbow.

To be fair, you only need a free hand to load, but not necessarily to aim and shoot. And you can hold an item in one hand, even if the item in question would require two hands to wield it properly.

Holding and wielding are two different things, after all.

Regardless, you're right. People do very often tend to ignore important parts of the rules whenever it suits them and if they can get away with it. I might be cynical saying this aloud but it is what it is. In the end it's the DM's job to ensure the rules are used as they're written (or intended). If the DM doesn't require following the rules in one way or the other, it's essentially same as if they're saying players are allowed to do so. Of course, some DM's prefer it that way, keeping a relaxed athmosphere to the game instead of being painfully strict at all times. Which is fine, but when proposing something in forums or such, please, don't assume that it's the case for every table and DM.

[Nerwen]

Any mechanism of keeping the bolt in place would rip the fletching off the bolt making your chance of hitting with the pointy end and enough power to be at all is effective is zero. Remember we are talking medieval materials so fletching is feathers attached with elmers glue and string

[Arkhios]

Any mechanism of keeping the bolt in place would rip the fletching off the bolt making your chance of hitting with the pointy end and enough power to be at all is effective is zero. Remember we are talking medieval materials so fletching is feathers attached with elmers glue and string

In real life, sure. But this is a game, and not a very simulative one either. Have you noticed? :smalltongue:

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Closed for Necromancy.