Houserule: dual hand-crossbow

[SanFlash]

Hello all. I'm both a player and a DM, coming for a discussion about houseruling and balance.
So, I guess this is not something tha'ts never thought before by anyone: going into battle with a pair of hand-crossbows wich pour fire onto the enemy. We know this is not possible by RAW, because of the rule of the "free hand needed" to load. The question is, would circumventing this rule by some in-game justification (more later) break the game and be to powerful for a pg? Here is my case:

Warforged Fighter, with both dual wielder and crossbow expert. That's means, only the free hand rule really prevents me from drawn both hand-crossbows and fire them for more than two attacks.
For those that would call out "realism" about reloading the hand-crossbows, by RAW I still would ignore loading; in-game, we could easily manage advanced crossbows (we are in a simil steampunk setting), and also, being a warforged, the loading system could be semi-integrated in the arms.

The question is: would firing 2+ ranged attacks for 1d6+dex damage be OP? Would still be fair even with Sharpshooter?

For those wondering why should one do this, since heavy crossbow would probably be a straightforward better option, the answer is: just roleplay. I know it's probably suboptimal, and this is why I'm pretty confident we can concede this in the game, I just need a confirmation about balance. Thanks!

[stoutstien]

I've allow it with just XBE. The only thing I really did was remove the ability mod from the bonus action attack.
If they want the mod they have to take my rewrite of the twf feat with grants stat mod to off hand plus some other benefits.

* As a personal rule I say No SS -5/+10 with one hand weapons in general.

[SanFlash]

Corrected Sniper to Sharpshooter.


*No SS -5/+10 with one hand weapons.

"Before you make a ranged attack with a ranged weapon with which you are proficient, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If you do so and the attack hits, it deals +10 damage." It says nothing about one handed weapons, by RAW. That's means you discourage to allow it in this case?

[stoutstien]

Corrected Sniper to Sharpshooter.



"Before you make a ranged attack with a ranged weapon with which you are proficient, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If you do so and the attack hits, it deals +10 damage." It says nothing about one handed weapons, by RAW. That's means you discourage to allow it in this case?
I should have been more specific. As a personal rule I don't allow it. I'll edit it

[JackPhoenix]

Dual Wielder is useless for hand crossbow, as TWF requires (light, but that part can be ignored thanks to DW) *melee* weapon. Crossbow Expert already allows you to make the bonus action attack with single hand crossbow (as it doesn't require the attack to be made by a *different* one handed weapon like TWF, just one handed weapon. Hand crossbow is one handed weapon).

The only difference is in the image, the effect is same as with single hand crossbow (well, not really, using TWF with them is worse in many ways... you require two magic weapons, you don't have free hand for other things, and you suffer from the TWF's "no ability mod to damage" thing, which means you need to take worse fighting style (TWF instead of Archery)).

What *is* problematic is hand crossbow + shield, which is why the "free hand" rule exists.

[stoutstien]

Dual Wielder is useless for hand crossbow, as TWF requires (light, but that part can be ignored thanks to DW) *melee* weapon. Crossbow Expert already allows you to make the bonus action attack with single hand crossbow (as it doesn't require the attack to be made by a *different* one handed weapon like TWF, just one handed weapon. Hand crossbow is one handed weapon).

The only difference is in the image, the effect is same as with single hand crossbow (well, not really, using TWF with them is worse in many ways... you require two magic weapons, you don't have free hand for other things, and you suffer from the TWF's "no ability mod to damage" thing, which means you need to take worse fighting style (TWF instead of Archery)).

What *is* problematic is hand crossbow + shield, which is why the "free hand" rule exists.
Raw you are correct but RTMS this is almost comical.
*Hey DM can a make an extra attack with my handbook?
*No
*What if it shoot it with my other hand?
* Sure

[SanFlash]

I cited the dual wielding feat for the only purpose to drawn both weapons without using an action. Of course in the great picture this feat is useful for me in many other ways, first of all to melee fighting. Thanks for the feedback anyway, I guess so far I was right considering this a non so good combat option, and so not problematic to allow.

[JackPhoenix]

Raw you are correct but RTMS this is almost comical.
*Hey DM can a make an extra attack with my handbook?
*No
*What if it shoot it with my other hand?
* Sure

I have no idea what are you trying to say.

[stoutstien]

I have no idea what are you trying to say.
The fact that juggling one handbow from hand to hand is fine but using two is wrong is supported by RAW but is down right silly as far as rules that make sense.

[Griswold]

Hello all. I'm both a player and a DM, coming for a discussion about houseruling and balance.
So, I guess this is not something tha'ts never thought before by anyone: going into battle with a pair of hand-crossbows wich pour fire onto the enemy. We know this is not possible by RAW, because of the rule of the "free hand needed" to load. The question is, would circumventing this rule by some in-game justification (more later) break the game and be to powerful for a pg? Here is my case:

Warforged Fighter, with both dual wielder and crossbow expert. That's means, only the free hand rule really prevents me from drawn both hand-crossbows and fire them for more than two attacks.
For those that would call out "realism" about reloading the hand-crossbows, by RAW I still would ignore loading; in-game, we could easily manage advanced crossbows (we are in a simil steampunk setting), and also, being a warforged, the loading system could be semi-integrated in the arms.

The question is: would firing 2+ ranged attacks for 1d6+dex damage be OP? Would still be fair even with Sharpshooter?

For those wondering why should one do this, since heavy crossbow would probably be a straightforward better option, the answer is: just roleplay. I know it's probably suboptimal, and this is why I'm pretty confident we can concede this in the game, I just need a confirmation about balance. Thanks!

You can get the same number of attacks and AC if you just take Crossbow Expert and the Defensive style instead of dual wielding. It even saves you a feat! There is nothing even remotely broken about what you're proposing.

If I were DM, I'd be more than happy to let a player take CE and defensive and wield two hand crossbows because it's cool (but we'd treat it mechanically the same as one hand crossbow and an empty other hand. This also gets around having to find 2 magic hand crossbows).

...In the scenario you're proposing, what's even the point of taking the Dual Wielder feat?

[JackPhoenix]

The fact that juggling one handbow from hand to hand is fine but using two is wrong is supported by RAW but is down right silly as far as rules that make sense.

What juggling? You're holding the crossbow in one hand, use the other to reload it. If you want to juggle with it, feel free, but why would you? And you can use two, you just can't reload them after the shot unless you have 3 hands. Or unless you drop one after the shot and use the now-free hand to reload the other.

[Malifice]

Im not sure if the OP is aware, but crossbow master feat grants the extra bonus action shot with a hand crossbow if all you're holding is a hand crossbow.

Personally I wouldnt care how you fluff it. If your Warfoged has a Predator style shoulder cannon that fires crossbow bolts that magically load from inside his chest or some ****, go nuts.

[SanFlash]

You can get the same number of attacks and AC if you just take Crossbow Expert and the Defensive style instead of dual wielding. It even saves you a feat! There is nothing even remotely broken about what you're proposing.

If I were DM, I'd be more than happy to let a player take CE and defensive and wield two hand crossbows because it's cool (but we'd treat it mechanically the same as one hand crossbow and an empty other hand. This also gets around having to find 2 magic hand crossbows).

...In the scenario you're proposing, what's even the point of taking the Dual Wielder feat?



I cited the dual wielding feat for the only purpose to drawn both weapons without using an action. Of course in the great picture this feat is useful for me in many other ways, first of all to melee fighting. Thanks for the feedback anyway, I guess so far I was right considering this a non so good combat option, and so not problematic to allow.



Im not sure if the OP is aware, but crossbow master feat grants the extra bonus action shot with a hand crossbow if all you're holding is a hand crossbow..

I wasn't aware before this thread, but in fact this help a lot