Why does the hand crossbow have the 'light' property?

[Willie the Duck]

I'm sure this has been covered many times before, but googling '5e hand crossbow light' doesn't do it.

Why exactly does the hand crossbow get the light property. light seems to be used only for twf, and the twf rules only apply to melee weapons. The ability of twf, if it were applicable to ranged weapons, is a benefit gained by the Crossbow Expert, so it is clearly not some oversight and hand crossbows were meant to be invited to the twf-party. So why exactly are they light?

Thanks!

[jaappleton]

Small characters can't utilize Heavy weapons properly. Does that have something to do with it?

[Dalebert]

Maybe it has a place where you can mount a candle.

[Monavic]

Because a hand crossbow is a light weapon in the opinion of the game designers. It is a good idea to have weapons have all the fitting properties even if they don't interact with any current rules. In the future new game mechanics may come along.

[DracoKnight]

Probably so you don't have to invest in two different feats to TWF them. (Meaning you don't have to wait until 4th level (Vhuman), 6th level (Non-human Fighter), or 8th level (anyone else) to pull off TWF.)

[Tanarii]

There's no reason. The light property refers you to chapter 9 for two weapon fighting. Two weapon fighting can only be done with melee weapons, although if they are melee weapons (not ranged) with the thrown property, you can throw them with twf. Ranged weapons can't be used with two-weapon fighting at all, so there is no point in them having the light properly. (This would also apply to Darts, although they don't have the light property so it's a moot point.)

[DragonSorcererX]

Because WotC may make Repeating Hand Crossbows in the Future? Nothing says more Fantasy than a character with two Full Auto Hand Crossbows...

[DivisibleByZero]

Because a hand crossbow is a light weapon in the opinion of the game designers. It is a good idea to have weapons have all the fitting properties even if they don't interact with any current rules. In the future new game mechanics may come along.

This is part of it.
Another part is DM fiat situations. For example, in one encounter that happened within a narrow hallway, I declared that any weapon without the Light property had disadvantage on attack rolls due to the limited space, but weapons that had the Light property were maneuvered easily enough that they attacked normally without said disadvantage.
Incidentally, I use the same rules while grappled. Light weapons don't suffer disadvantage.

[Fishyninja]

Also there have been historically small pistol crossbows that are held one handed and thus should be relatively light.

As a side not I present to you the Potbelly (http://s1132.photobucket.com/user/Fishyninja/media/Crossbows_Belgian_Crossbow_Pistol.jpg.html?filters[user]=120049578&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0).

[Ruslan]

The Light property only refers to melee weapons, for the purposes of TWF. This property (or its absence) does nothing for a ranged weapon.

[Corsair14]

Realistically a light crossbow is one handed too, just takes two to reload. In my re-creation time I have fired one one handed accurately with no problem, the off hand would not be near as accurate one would think. Much easier to take cover and present a slimmer profile firing one handed. Kind of like firing with a pistol in both hands, good luck hitting something with the off hand. In old 2e there was even a kit for dwarves that started out with a dwarf using a light cross bow in each hand to get off two shots before closing to hand to hand.

[Plaguescarred]

There's no reason. The light property refers you to chapter 9 for two weapon fighting. Two weapon fighting can only be done with melee weapons, although if they are melee weapons (not ranged) with the thrown property, you can throw them with twf. Ranged weapons can't be used with two-weapon fighting at all, so there is no point in them having the light properly. (This would also apply to Darts, although they don't have the light property so it's a moot point.)This basically but also it would be subject to game elements interacting with light weapons, if any.

[Tanarii]

This basically but also it would be subject to game elements interacting with light weapons, if any.Off the top of your head, what are they? I mean, I can't think of any off the top of my head, or I would have added that caveat.

Which almost certainly means they exist. :smallyuk:

[Sigreid]

I think it's just so you can use it off hand without there being any question about it. I'm betting they had in their mind a character with a sword in one hand and hand crossbow in the other.

[doc225]

I think it's just so you can use it off hand without there being any question about it. I'm betting they had in their mind a character with a sword in one hand and hand crossbow in the other.

This would be my guess, and as a DM I would allow it. Light melee in one hand and light crossbow in the other. It's a fairly common trope, either with a crossbow or a flintlock pistol. I don't think Id allow dual wielding crossbows, but I'd allow dual wielding in the way you're speaking.

[Tanarii]

I think it's just so you can use it off hand without there being any question about it. I'm betting they had in their mind a character with a sword in one hand and hand crossbow in the other.But you can already do that with any 2 one-handed weapons.

Or are you saying "so it's obvious to a new player that doesn't know the rules well"?

Edit: BTW, when I first ready the Crossbow Expert Feat, I assumed the hand crossbow bonus action attack clause was written with precisely this fighting style in mind. Or rather, hand-crossbow & rapier. Because Drow.

[Sigreid]

But you can already do that with any 2 one-handed weapons.

Or are you saying "so it's obvious to a new player that doesn't know the rules well"?

Edit: BTW, when I first ready the Crossbow Expert Feat, I assumed the hand crossbow bonus action attack clause was written with precisely this fighting style in mind. Or rather, hand-crossbow & rapier. Because Drow.

If I recall correctly, you can only use light weapons to DW effectively unless you take that one feat. I think they were just shutting down that debate.

[Tanarii]

If I recall correctly, you can only use light weapons to DW effectively unless you take that one feat. I think they were just shutting down that debate.
No, I'm saying that you can always attack with a weapon in one hand, even with another weapon in the other hand. You just can't use a bonus attack to attack with one of them. (If you have extra attack you can alternate which one you want to attack with for those attacks though.)

The light property has no effect on that for a hand-crossbow. Even with the light properly, you still can't use a bonus attack to attack with it, because it's a ranged weapon. And since the light properly doesn't matter other than that ...

OTOH if they wanted to make it clear it was intended to be used in an "off-hand" (which technically doesn't exist outside of TWF bonus action attacks) for new players that don't know any better, I can see that. Problem with that line of thought is it's more likely to cause confusion and have those new players think they can make bonus action twf attacks with it.

[Sigreid]

No, I'm saying that you can always attack with a weapon in one hand, even with another weapon in the other hand. You just can't use a bonus attack to attack with one of them. (If you have extra attack you can alternate which one you want to attack with for those attacks though.)

The light property has no effect on that for a hand-crossbow. Even with the light properly, you still can't use a bonus attack to attack with it, because it's a ranged weapon. And since the light properly doesn't matter other than that ...

OTOH if they wanted to make it clear it was intended to be used in an "off-hand" (which technically doesn't exist outside of TWF bonus action attacks) for new players that don't know any better, I can see that. Problem with that line of thought is it's more likely to cause confusion and have those new players think they can make bonus action twf attacks with it.

This is getting into a select case, but with crossbow expert you can strike with sword and BA shoot the hand crossbow. Sorry, I think in terms of if you are going to do this you're going to take the feat and go that route.

[Tanarii]

This is getting into a select case, but with crossbow expert you can strike with sword and BA shoot the hand crossbow. Sorry, I think in terms of if you are going to do this you're going to take the feat and go that route.
Yes, I said that's what I thought was the entire purpose of that Feat when I first read it, in the quote you quoted just two of my posts up. (I was apparently wrong, given clarified developer intent for the feat as it being there so you can machine-gun a hand-crossbow. But whatever.)

That still has no bearing on the hand crossbow being pointless to have the light property. :smallconfused:

[WickerNipple]

The Light property only refers to melee weapons, for the purposes of TWF. This property (or its absence) does nothing for a ranged weapon.

But it might someday matter based on content released at a later date.

I suspect they were just future proofing in case.

[toapat]

Yes, I said that's what I thought was the entire purpose of that Feat when I first read it, in the quote you quoted just two of my posts up. (I was apparently wrong, given clarified developer intent for the feat as it being there so you can machine-gun a hand-crossbow. But whatever.)

That still has no bearing on the hand crossbow being pointless to have the light property. :smallconfused:

theres a few different ways XBX can be interpreted. the "Loophole" once you see it is clearly intentional. Im pretty Sure it was still designed First for being a Swashbuckling Pirate, someone noticed the Loophole, and they kept it because Good Design.

And then theres the Crawford comment that you need a hand free to reload, which means you lose the bonus attack.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm sure this has been covered many times before, but googling '5e hand crossbow light' doesn't do it.

Why exactly does the hand crossbow get the light property. light seems to be used only for twf, and the twf rules only apply to melee weapons. The ability of twf, if it were applicable to ranged weapons, is a benefit gained by the Crossbow Expert, so it is clearly not some oversight and hand crossbows were meant to be invited to the twf-party. So why exactly are they light?

Thanks!

IN case you use it as an improvised weapon to make a melee attack.

(PHB 146-147, Ammunition and PHB 148 under Improvised Weapons)

[tsotate]

But it might someday matter based on content released at a later date.

I suspect they were just future proofing in case.

If that were the case, it would make more sense to errata it if such content ever appears. (Which is unlikely, given how slowly they release these days.)

Obviously, hand crossbows are Light so you can pistol-whip someone as a bonus action.

[Tanarii]

IN case you use it as an improvised weapon to make a melee attack.

(PHB 146-147, Ammunition and PHB 148 under Improvised Weapons)
Improvised weapons keep their weapon properties?

That seems like something open to major shenanigans.

[The Shadowdove]

Because Van Helsing.

[CaptainSarathai]

To everyone saying that it doesn't need to be Light because dual-wielding only refers to Melee Weapons:

I think there is a very good chance that at one point, it was intended that you could not carry 2 weapons at all unless they were both light.
Possibly, this was done as a way of maintaining the notion of main-hand / off-hand without forcing players into actually choosing "one good hand."

As well as just the silliness of it. Why are you gonna bother carrying around a weapon that is too bulky to coordinate with your other weapon?

So the original rule may have been,
"You can only carry a second weapon if it is light"
Or even
"You can only carry a pair of weapons if they are both light."

This rule may have been intended to prevent a situation like the following:

PC: That creature is Resistant to Fire, but the other one is Vulnerable? What an interesting dichotomy you've set up for this encounter, DM! I suppose I'll just carry my +1 Flaming Longsword in one hand, and my War Axe in the other. Now I can attack whoever I find myself next to, simply by switching sides and fighting miraculously, just as effectively!
(no feat)

Because that's dumb.

They may have decided to cut it, just because it was an oddball situation to try preventing, and ultimately not worth the effort when the DM could simply rule it off.
--

It is interesting that at my table, we were already playing as though this was a functional house-rule. You cannot wield a second weapon unless you are actually two-weapon-fighting. The exception is that you can carry your arcane focus (including staffs), a throwing weapon, or a hand crossbow so that you can alternate between melee and ranged attacks.

[Arcangel4774]

I always read it as to double down on the fact thay it only needs one hand. (The other crossbows all have two hand).

However the errata regarding ammunition muddied this up as even a one handed ranged weapons needs a hand to load.

It could also mean that this crossbow is a special case that allows you to attack with it as a bonus action. Yet that ruling intrudes up crossbow expert feat.

I think this is one of the many cases at Wizarrd where the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing.

[War_lord]

I assumed it was the relic of some earlier playtest where an offhand weapon had to be light to be wielded without a feat.

[Willie the Duck]

Because Van Helsing.

But giving the hand crossbow the light property doesn't allow you to 'play Van Helsing' any better. So far as I can tell (and we've been able to come up with so far), it doesn't actually do anything with the rules yet published. The Crossbow Expert feat allows a one-in-each-hand crossbow wielder to work (although even there, it is unnecessary, since you can do the same thing with one, and do it better because you can subsequently reload), and it doesn't need the light property to make it work.

The ideas that it is for some later purpose (let's say some gunslinger archetype that can quickly draw and use light ranged weapons with some bonus), that the designers just thought it fit the weapon concept, or that it is a leftover from the playtest (where twf might have worked for ranged weapons) that never got taken out (lord knows, that's my impression of early hand-on-item rules and spellcasting is why quarterstaves are versatile) are my best guesses.

Thanks everyone for their ideas. Glad to know I'm not the only one who doesn't know for sure why it is.

[Tanarii]

This rule may have been intended to prevent a situation like the following:

PC: That creature is Resistant to Fire, but the other one is Vulnerable? What an interesting dichotomy you've set up for this encounter, DM! I suppose I'll just carry my +1 Flaming Longsword in one hand, and my War Axe in the other. Now I can attack whoever I find myself next to, simply by switching sides and fighting miraculously, just as effectively!
(no feat)

Because that's dumb.[B]That's not dumb. That's how it works. If you want to attack with 2 one handed weapons on the same round, you're absolutely welcome to, as long as you have Extra Attack. Or alternate every other round if you don't. The only reason you need light weapons is if you want to get in bonus attacks on top of your normal weapon attacks. Or invest resources in a Feat to get it without them.

From both a simulation and gamist perspective, that's perfectly fine by me. You attack 'faster' (as in more attacks) with two lighter weapons than without. Cool.

Edit: Your post basically boils down to "editing error due to something from playtest". Honestly, I totally agree with that part. I think it's an editing error due to something from playtest too.

[Dalebert]

Tanaril is right. This is why people sometimes get annoyed when you say your "offhand" attack. It's not your off hand. It's just the other hand. Handedness is not used in 5e for any mechanical reason. Thus saying that perpetuates this common misunderstanding about TWF.

[Tanarii]

Tanaril is right. This is why people sometimes get annoyed when you say your "offhand" attack. It's not your off hand. It's just the other hand. Handedness is not used in 5e for any mechanical reason. Thus saying that perpetuates this common misunderstanding about TWF.
Yeah usually I make exactly that point. It's your "other hand" for two-weapon fighting. You do not have to declare if your character is right-handed or left-handed, nor if a weapon is main-hand and the other off-hand.

You just have a one-handed weapon in each hand, and can freely make any attack with either. It's only if you want an extra bonus action attack that any special rules come into play. (And of course, for hand-crossbows, the required free hand for loading ammunition.)

[CaptainSarathai]

That's not dumb. That's how it works. If you want to attack with 2 one handed weapons on the same round, you're absolutely welcome to, as long as you have Extra Attack. Or alternate every other round if you don't. The only reason you need light weapons is if you want to get in bonus attacks on top of your normal weapon attacks. Or invest resources in a Feat to get it without them.

From both a simulation and gamist perspective, that's perfectly fine by me. You attack 'faster' (as in more attacks) with two lighter weapons than without. Cool.

Edit: Your post basically boils down to "editing error due to something from playtest". Honestly, I totally agree with that part. I think it's an editing error due to something from playtest too.

From both a gamist and a simulationist perspective, I don't like it.

Gamist - aside from edge cases like sage resistance or vulnerabilities, I don't see much sense in swapping between two one handed weapons. Perhaps swapping between a 1-hand and a 2-hand (opting for damage over defense) or melee in one hand and ranged in the other. But to go from a d8 Longsword to a d8 Rapier seems a bit silly, unless you're gaming the damage-type system.

Simulationist - there is a LOT wrong with D&D's dual-wielding from a simulationist standpoint, but I can't wrap my hand around the notion of someone fighting effectively with an entire longsword in each hand. The 'Skallagrim' YouTube channel has a good example of two-weapon fighting from HEMA, and while there are manuscripts for dual-wielding rapiers, it seems like a parlor trick at best, and rapiers are really quite a bit lighter than most of the other "non-light" 1-handed weapons on the list.


Tanaril is right. This is why people sometimes get annoyed when you say your "offhand" attack. It's not your off hand. It's just the other hand. Handedness is not used in 5e for any mechanical reason. Thus saying that perpetuates this common misunderstanding about TWF.


Yeah usually I make exactly that point. It's your "other hand" for two-weapon fighting. You do not have to declare if your character is right-handed or left-handed, nor if a weapon is main-hand and the other off-hand.

You just have a one-handed weapon in each hand, and can freely make any attack with either. It's only if you want an extra bonus action attack that any special rules come into play. (And of course, for hand-crossbows, the required free hand for loading ammunition.)

I understand how it works as written. What I'm saying is that it's a really odd design, and it really seems like -at one point- 5e was designed with handedness in mind, and they did away with it.
My guess is that they didn't want players to have to deal with tracking "handedness" or the silly shenanigans/debates that can arise from a "main/off" system. Just make every bidextrous, it's not perfect but it's easy.

But when you account for what the game might have looked like...

Fighting With Two Weapons
You can hold a weapon in your off-hand, provided that the weapon has the "light" property.
You may attack with either your main hand or off hand, and if you have the Extra Attack feature, you may split your attacks between the two as you see fit.
Furthermore, if both weapons are Light, then whenever you take the Attack Action, you can choose to use your Bonus Action to make an additional attack with a ranged or melee weapon held in your off-hand.

Weapons in your off hand never add your ability modifier to damage.

Two Weapon Fighting Style
You may carry a weapon in your off hand, even if it is not Light, and may make bonus attacks even if the weapon is not Light.
(this is more fitting with the notion of getting roughly +2dam from your style, like the +2 from Duellist, and average +1.5 with a Greatsword and GreatStyle)

Dual Wielder Feat
You are adept a fighting with both hands. You can add your ability modifiers to damage dealt by attacks made with your off-hand.


Crossbow Expert
You ignore the Loading property of Crossbows.
You no longer require a free hand to reload a hand crossbow.
You no longer incur disadvantage for shooting if there is an enemy within 5'.

You see - adding "handedness" doesn't take much effort, and doesn't even really change much, except for preventing players from swapping between weapons to abuse damage types.
I think that at some point during testing, the handedness shenanigans cropped up, and the devs asked if it really mattered that the character had a dominant hand. And when they decided "no," it had a trickle-down effect that went through Fighting Styles, Feats, and the general "Fight w/ 2w" rules.

This "trickle down" could also explain the switch with the TWF/DW style and feat. Initially, carrying 2 non-light weapons was more special, enabling Fighters to switch between two blades in order to game those damage types, and also to carry a non-light thrown weapon in their offhand. Anyone could get +Stat to damage and become "ambidextrous", but not everyone was "physically fit enough" to lift a longsword with their offhand. When they allowed everyone to carry a full-sized weapon, and swap between the two without penalty, the Fighting Style seemed a lot less useful, so they quickly switched the much more "specialized" Fighting Style with the more generic Feat, and in doing so, created a very underwhelming Feat choice.

[Vogonjeltz]

Improvised weapons keep their weapon properties?

That seems like something open to major shenanigans.

Light and Heavy seem fairly intuitive properties to retain.

Also, it's noted in the Improvised Weapons section of the PHB:

"In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club."

etcetera. Basically it being light is by virtue of being small and easy to handle, so that's a property it logically would retain.

Actually, reviewing, the ranged weapons none of them have properties that matter if they're used as melee weapons. (that I can see) So I think this is probably intended.

[Plaguescarred]

Off the top of your head, what are they? I mean, I can't think of any off the top of my head, or I would have added that caveat.

Which almost certainly means they exist. :smallyuk:I can't think of any neither :)