Crossbows: Loading and Object Interactions

[Zhorn]

Had a head-scratcher of a question from one of my player post-game this week.
They're playing a monk, so to add a bit of a range option they have a crossbow. I'd just explained during game to the rogue about drawing weapons and attacking, and how that ties into object interactions, so afterwards asked if loading the crossbow was consuming their single object interaction per turn, and if it wasn't, could they use it to load the crossbow a second time to use their extra attack. I said I'd get back to them.

My gut says 'no' to doing that, as the specifics of Loading is one shot per Action, and Crossbow Expert is all over that 'ignore the Loading property' aspect. BUT does that mean for the sake of maintaining that in-play consistency and reasoning, Loading is consuming the object interaction and that's why it's a one-shot per Action?

[diplomancer]

I would say that, because of the loading property, loading a crossbow takes enough time that it cannot be considered an object interaction. It is a matter of a specific rule beating a general rule.

So, when you use a crossbow you still have an object interaction free, but that cannot be used to load it (it takes longer to load a crossbow than to pick up a sword, for instance).

[NNescio]

Had a head-scratcher of a question from one of my player post-game this week.
They're playing a monk, so to add a bit of a range option they have a crossbow. I'd just explained during game to the rogue about drawing weapons and attacking, and how that ties into object interactions, so afterwards asked if loading the crossbow was consuming their single object interaction per turn, and if it wasn't, could they use it to load the crossbow a second time to use their extra attack. I said I'd get back to them.

My gut says 'no' to doing that, as the specifics of Loading is one shot per Action, and Crossbow Expert is all over that 'ignore the Loading property' aspect. BUT does that mean for the sake of maintaining that in-play consistency and reasoning, Loading is consuming the object interaction and that's why it's a one-shot per Action?

No, it doesn't consume an (object) interaction. But no, they can't shoot a second time either with the same Attack action.

Crossbows have both the Ammunition and Loading properties. "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)", so it does not consume an object interaction (likewise for bows which don't have the Loading property).

Loading restricts the number of attacks that can be made in a single action (Action, Bonus, or Reaction). You can "fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make." So, quite clearly, the Monk can only shoot the crossbow once (within the same Attack action), even if it has Extra Attack.

You don't load a ranged weapon (that has the Ammunition property) as a separate action or interaction. It is seamlessly done (and abstracted away) when you make an attack. The Loading property just means it takes more effort (and time) to load the weapon, so it can only be done once per Action/Bonus/Reaction (thereby limiting the number of attacks to one). Crossbow Experts ignore that restriction because (fluff-wise) they are just that good at using a crossbow (that they are already proficient in), and hence can load it as fast as any other person can do with a bow or sling.

[Greywander]

Crossbows are nice for classes that don't get Extra Attack, but the monk might do better with a shortbow. But yeah, the loading property basically says, "One shot per action only, please." As loading is part of the action you use to attack, you can't use any other kind of action (bonus action, reaction, object interaction) to get around it.

[Zhorn]

That's aligning with my gut feeling on it; that is shouldn't consume the Object Interaction and the player cannot use an object interaction to skirt the Loading rule.

Just the ruling interactions feel like they're in conflict; with a limiting factor on the Attack Action due to the type of object being used, but not being nor compatible with an Object Interaction.
Maybe the best way I can justify it to my player is Crossbow + Loading is like taking a Use An Object Action and that's why it's a one-and-done (not literally a Use An Object Action, just an analogy).

[diplomancer]

That's aligning with my gut feeling on it; that is shouldn't consume the Object Interaction and the player cannot use an object interaction to skirt the Loading rule.

Just the ruling interactions feel like they're in conflict; with a limiting factor on the Attack Action due to the type of object being used, but not being nor compatible with an Object Interaction.
Maybe the best way I can justify it to my player is Crossbow + Loading is like taking a Use An Object Action and that's why it's a one-and-done (not literally a Use An Object Action, just an analogy).

Technically, they ARE in conflict. And 5e has a way of resolving rules conflict, "specific beats general". The specific rule about weapons with the loading property beats the general "interacting with an object" rule.

[Zhorn]

"Specific beats General" just seems like a cop out to me.
I recognise its value in how the 5e rules are presented, and I agree it has its place, but in this instance it just feels off.

[TriciaOso]

All that being said - a hand crossbow and a shortbow are both d6. If the player is really in love with the idea of machine gunning a crossbow with their fast monk hands you could give them that.

As an alternative ranged option, there's a fairly common houserule to give monks their martial arts die for darts-as-throwing-stars.

[Zhorn]

Crossbows are nice for classes that don't get Extra Attack, but the monk might do better with a shortbow.

All that being said - a hand crossbow and a shortbow are both d6. If the player is really in love with the idea of machine gunning a crossbow with their fast monk hands you could give them that.

As an alternative ranged option, there's a fairly common houserule to give monks their martial arts die for darts-as-throwing-stars.
Bit of a deviation from the rules question going on here, but I think it's a worthwhile tangent to cover, as I see these recommendations pop up quite regularly.
I don't mean to come across as rude over the matter, play your tables as it best suits your group, all that jazz.

It just rubs me personally the wrong way when a DM dictates the actions and choices of the player's character.
What weapon the player wants to use is up to them. If it's not ideal, or even just not the optimal choice, that's not my choice to make, and unless they are asking me outside of the game for advice on improving their character, I'm not going to tell them what to do. I want my players to have 100% ownership of their character, because I've been on that other side where the DM was controlling the players' character and pushing them into meeting archetypes not of the players choosing.

I'm fully aware the mechanical benefits of them swapping to a different weapon, and I'm sure the player is aware of it also. They are choosing to use a crossbow, and I'm not forcing them to play differently to meet some optimised build requirements.
A while back I was discussing on a thread about one of my players have a blind man as their character by choice (a condition caused by a warlock pact, story reasons). A lot of the responses were people on the forum recommending how I can cure the character's blindness, taking away that player's choice of gimmick.
Some time before that there was a sharing about another player I group with multiclassing a wizard with a barbarian. Again, people were telling me to swap the player's class selection on them.
Just 'no'
It's not my character, not my choice.
I set the encounters, mediate rulings, I run the monsters and NPC's, and I present the story to the players. They run their character, and if they want to play them sub-optimally, that's their choice to make.
That warlock is still around by the way. The player is still leaning into the blindness thing and having a blast.

[diplomancer]

Bit of a deviation from the rules question going on here, but I think it's a worthwhile tangent to cover, as I see these recommendations pop up quite regularly.
I don't mean to come across as rude over the matter, play your tables as it best suits your group, all that jazz.

It just rubs me personally the wrong way when a DM dictates the actions and choices of the player's character.
What weapon the player wants to use is up to them. If it's not ideal, or even just not the optimal choice, that's not my choice to make, and unless they are asking me outside of the game for advice on improving their character, I'm not going to tell them what to do. I want my players to have 100% ownership of their character, because I've been on that other side where the DM was controlling the players' character and pushing them into meeting archetypes not of the players choosing.

I'm fully aware the mechanical benefits of them swapping to a different weapon, and I'm sure the player is aware of it also. They are choosing to use a crossbow, and I'm not forcing them to play differently to meet some optimised build requirements.
A while back I was discussing on a thread about one of my players have a blind man as their character by choice (a condition caused by a warlock pact, story reasons). A lot of the responses were people on the forum recommending how I can cure the character's blindness, taking away that player's choice of gimmick.
Some time before that there was a sharing about another player I group with multiclassing a wizard with a barbarian. Again, people were telling me to swap the player's class selection on them.
Just 'no'
It's not my character, not my choice.
I set the encounters, mediate rulings, I run the monsters and NPC's, and I present the story to the players. They run their character, and if they want to play them sub-optimally, that's their choice to make.
That warlock is still around by the way. The player is still leaning into the blindness thing and having a blast.

I see your point, but in this particular case it looks like the player wants to have his cake and eat it too (have the larger damage dice of the crossbow while being able to attack twice). If it is just a matter of character aesthetics, make him a homebrew weapon "fast-loading crossbow" that has the exact game statistics of the short bow.

[NNescio]

That's aligning with my gut feeling on it; that is shouldn't consume the Object Interaction and the player cannot use an object interaction to skirt the Loading rule.

Just the ruling interactions feel like they're in conflict; with a limiting factor on the Attack Action due to the type of object being used, but not being nor compatible with an Object Interaction.
Maybe the best way I can justify it to my player is Crossbow + Loading is like taking a Use An Object Action and that's why it's a one-and-done (not literally a Use An Object Action, just an analogy).

I guess the RAW way is to say that the Loading property (poorly named, really, since it's Ammunition that makes you need to load your weapon) means "one attack only per action" (not necessarily an Action). Object interaction doesn't enter into it — the crossbow may be loaded beforehand (which strictly speaking doesn't have a mechanical effect, which is why it's errata'd out of Crossbow Expert) but it's still one attack only.

This might clash with verisimilitude somewhat, but one can handwave it away as Loading makes it take too much effort/time to do it with a free (object) interaction.

But, hey, if you think the Use an Object Action analogy is more intuitive, go ahead, you're the DM and you know your players more.


Technically, they ARE in conflict. And 5e has a way of resolving rules conflict, "specific beats general". The specific rule about weapons with the loading property beats the general "interacting with an object" rule.

Technically no (I think?), because the object interaction rules only provide limited examples of interactions that can be taken for free (1/turn). While it does imply that a lot of similar interactions can also be taken freely, it also explicitly states that not all object/environment interactions can be done such, providing "some magic items and other special objects" and "any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle" as explicit (though somewhat vague) examples. Generally though, it leaves it for the DM to decide for the vague cases.

(Or, to put in in another way, the "general" rule is not so general and already contains specific exceptions built in.)

Edit: But yeah, it does feel that way.

[lperkins2]

"Specific beats General" just seems like a cop out to me.
I recognise its value in how the 5e rules are presented, and I agree it has its place, but in this instance it just feels off.

It is off. There are a large number of elegant mechanics in 5e that truly work well, which is the great strength of 5e. There are a handful of mechanics in 5e that are kludgy, where the designers preferred simplicity and speed over elegance. This is one of those areas. There are two underlying issues: loaded state is not tracked, in a fight your bow/crossbow/gun is unloaded until right before you shoot it; armed state is not tracked, but assumed, nothing required to operate the crank on a crank crossbow, no ramrod/priming the pan on the DMG firearms. This is so no one would have to keep track of 'is my weapon armed', but has problems with verisimilitude. For one, the limit is one attack per attack action. This means the fighter subclass that can order an ally to use their reaction to attack can actually make their ally attack faster with a crossbow than they can. Similarly, anyone who can reliably attack with a bonus action, or get an extra action that can be used to attack, can attack faster than the class who's whole thing is getting extra attacks. And finally, it leaves no possibility for attacking with hand crossbows and discarding them.

In previous versions of D&D, arming, and loading were tracked specifically, but that was discarded to simplify the action economy (no swift action, no movement action, et cetera), and to simply the state tracking.

[TriciaOso]

I see your point, but in this particular case it looks like the player wants to have his cake and eat it too (have the larger damage dice of the crossbow while being able to attack twice). If it is just a matter of character aesthetics, make him a homebrew weapon "fast-loading crossbow" that has the exact game statistics of the short bow.

And a hand crossbow already *has* the exact statistics of a shortbow except for the Loading property, so it's an easy fix. Except the range is worse!

[diplomancer]

And a hand crossbow already *has* the exact statistics of a shortbow except for the Loading property, so it's an easy fix. Except the range is worse!

Hand crossbow is martial, and you can fire it one-handed (though I'm not sure you can load it if your other hand is occupied

[NNescio]

Hand crossbow is martial, and you can fire it one-handed (though I'm not sure you can load it if your other hand is occupied

Can't after they errata'd the Ammunition property.


(you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)

They didn't like people going around dual-wielding hand xbows and decided to chuck verisimilitude out of the window when they rejiggered the Ammunition rules (and made the "loaded" state of weapons entirely cosmetic).

[Greywander]

Bit of a deviation from the rules question going on here, but I think it's a worthwhile tangent to cover, as I see these recommendations pop up quite regularly.
I don't mean to come across as rude over the matter, play your tables as it best suits your group, all that jazz.
I can understand your frustration, especially with the previous cases you mentioned, but it was at least worth putting forward as a possible solution. Sometimes people aren't as familiar with the rules and don't even know that something is an option. It is at least worth exploring every avenue within the existing rules before we start to homebrew solutions to the problem.

A similar solution would be to use a shortbow, mechanically, but fluff it as a crossbow. They still get to use a crossbow, but it has the stats of a shortbow. But maybe this isn't an acceptable solution, either.

If you want to stay within the existing rules, then the Crossbow Expert feat is the only way to get around the loading restrictions. (Actually, the artificer has an infusion that works, too, but that's UA and I assume you don't have an artificer in your party.) If you want to allow homebrew, then perhaps the monk could spend their bonus action to reload the crossbow for a second shot. I'd shy away from using the object interaction, as those are rarely used so you'd almost be letting them reload for free. You could also remove the loading property from crossbows, but it's one of the main things that distinguishes bows and crossbows, and there'd be little reason for anyone to use a bow after that. You could homebrew some kind of automatic crossbow, similar to the artificer infusion.

I'm not really sure what you want. You asked about the loading property, and I think that's been answered pretty thoroughly. I offered a solution to the issue presented, but you didn't seem happy with that solution. What kind of solution are you looking for? Or are you just going to tell this player that they can only make one attack per turn? Tell us what kind of solution you're looking for, and we'll do what we can to try and find an answer that will be helpful to you.

[Zhorn]

I'm not really sure what you want. You asked about the loading property, and I think that's been answered pretty thoroughly. I offered a solution to the issue presented, but you didn't seem happy with that solution. What kind of solution are you looking for? Or are you just going to tell this player that they can only make one attack per turn? Tell us what kind of solution you're looking for, and we'll do what we can to try and find an answer that will be helpful to you.
It's not really looking for a solution at all. This was just a rules Q&A for the sake of understanding.
My gut feeling was that it shouldn't be allowed to use the Object Interaction to reload, but the player had presented their question in a way that had be pause for a bit and wonder 'Surely not... but maybe?'. Not trying to rock the boat with making up new homebrew rules, just asking about an interaction between object interactions and the loading property.

Taking the Attack Action out of the equation, it would make sense that loading a crossbow would be a Use an Object Action, but as that is done in tandem with the Attack Action, that would indicate it is simpler than that. Simpler than a Use an Object, more complex than an Object Interaction, mechanically hand-waved as Specific Beats General.

Not seeking a 'fix', just a discussion.
The only thing I had an issue with regarding the offered solution is that it's me making a choice for the player. That's just me and my stance on that type of DM/player interaction regarding agency. For a player asking that question I see what is being suggested as perfectly valid 'solutions', but again I'm not seeking solutions for them.

[Greywander]

Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize if I may have come off as a bit terse or frustrated in my last post. After posting I realized my post could be interpreted as such, and that wasn't my intent.

I'd never suggest you force a player to play a certain way, I'm a big advocate for player agency. I was just offering some suggestions for possible courses of action, which you could then relay to the player and let them choose what works best for them.

As far as I'm aware, all ranged weapons, including crossbows, are always "loaded". You never have to actually reload a crossbow, that is presumably done as part of the Attack action. All the loading property really does is prevent you from using Extra Attacks, it doesn't actually require you to do anything to reload the crossbow.

Now, one thing I notice is that the loading property only prevents you from attacking more than once with that weapon. So, your monk could fire a shot from the crossbow, then use their second attack to throw a dagger/dart or punch someone. So maybe this would be a viable option for the monk? (Even though the crossbow is a two-handed weapon, you only need two hands to attack with it, you can hold it in one hand while you punch or throw a dart.)

What I'd suggest you do is sit down with the monk and lay out all the options they have according to the rules (including using the crossbow with only one attack, if that's what they really want). You could also offer some homebrew solutions, like using a bonus action to reload/make a second attack. Figure out what works best for them. Maybe before laying out any options, ask them what it is about the crossbow they like, and what they're trying to do with their character. It's not necessary to optimize, so long as you're having fun.

[Zhorn]

Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize if I may have come off as a bit terse or frustrated in my last post. After posting I realized my post could be interpreted as such, and that wasn't my intent.
No worries, you didn't come across as that to my reading.
Just with:

...I was just offering some suggestions for possible courses of action, which you could then relay to the player...
...your monk could fire a shot from the crossbow, then use their second attack to throw a dagger/dart or punch someone...
...What I'd suggest you do is sit down with the monk and lay out all the options...
...You could also offer some homebrew solutions...
it still comes across as trying to backseat drive the player's character.
I don't do that. This thread isn't about that. Even under the guise of 'offering advice' and 'suggestions', it is still coming from a DM AND wasn't asked for.
I understand you are trying to help, and I hope you don't take offence to to me just cutting this off with 'no'. The situation doesn't need a fix, and the player doesn't need help picking a "better" way to play their own character.


As far as I'm aware, all ranged weapons, including crossbows, are always "loaded". You never have to actually reload a crossbow, that is presumably done as part of the Attack action. All the loading property really does is prevent you from using Extra Attacks, it doesn't actually require you to do anything to reload the crossbow.Which is all well and good for the first attack of the Attack Action, but this was about AFTER that first shot being fired, at which point the crossbow would be not loaded. If it were still loaded at that point, then Extra Attack would be possible.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

You can allow him to use object interactions for it.
I can give you RAW example.

For reference the loading rules:


Loading. Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.

The limitation is for attacking with the same weapon.

Lets say your monk have two hand crossbows, tide to his wrist with a short leather strip.

He have one in hand, fire it, drop it and draw the second one, he didn't fire yet from the second one so he can fire it. The bows should be loaded for next round and he still have the second one in hand.

If you don't want the wrist strips just make him drop the bow on the ground and he will be able to pick it up with a free object interaction next round, it just limit him mobility a little (that is a big drawback for a monk).

It is cheesy but it's RAW.

Giving him the ability to load the bow with the free action is the same an the above but with one weapon.

Balance wise it shouldn't be a big problem, it is not overpowered to allow this and should not overshadow anyone.

I use this rule:
"If everyone happy and what you do don't hurt any player(or DM if you don't consider the DM a player) then there is no reason to not use it"
We play for fun.

[Zhorn]

Thanks BloodSnake'sCha , but as I've been saying to Greywander, this isn't about finding some fix or alternate selection for the player to use, nor is this about making new rules.

This thread was started just for the discussion around object interactions essentially bypassing the loading property (of which I agree with it shouldn't work), nothing more.

[RickAllison]

It’s a bit weird, but loading doesn’t actually have anything to do with ammunition, but with preparing the mechanism for firing. A crossbow still just has inserting the bolt as part of the action used to fire it if you like (it’s optional), but the loading property is more about having to **** the weapon.

This is not requiring active thought like an object interaction does, but it is time consuming and it breaks the flow of action. When a fighter gets their four attacks, they have found a vulnerability where they can go for some real attacks rather than perpetually clanging sword against shield. But when they have to reload that crossbow, that seam has closed by the time they are done. They can exploit a different seam with another action, but reloading the crossbow means putting yourself on the defensive and having to reanalyze the situation.

It’s an automatic process for someone trained in its use, but not a short one. It takes some thinking and perhaps it could be handled more elegantly, but it does make sense.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Thanks BloodSnake'sCha , but as I've been saying to Greywander, this isn't about finding some fix or alternate selection for the player to use, nor is this about making new rules.

This thread was started just for the discussion around object interactions essentially bypassing the loading property (of which I agree with it shouldn't work), nothing more.

I know, I was just arguing why balance wise I think it should work and why it shouldn't work by the rules.

I gave an argument against your why of thinking in order to give you more information to base your decision on.

[BoringInfoGuy]

No worries, you didn't come across as that to my reading.
Just with:

it still comes across as trying to backseat drive the player's character.
I don't do that. This thread isn't about that. Even under the guise of 'offering advice' and 'suggestions', it is still coming from a DM AND wasn't asked for.
I understand you are trying to help, and I hope you don't take offence to to me just cutting this off with 'no'. The situation doesn't need a fix, and the player doesn't need help picking a "better" way to play their own character.


A DM should not backseat drive a player, agreed. But there is a BIG difference between telling a player what he ‘should’ do and giving him the knowledge to make an informed choice.

The quick answer is no, using your object interaction does not allow you to bypass the “you can only fire one piece of ammunition from it ...” property of Loading weapons.

Assuming you agree and apply this at your table, your player - now armed with this knowledge - may WANT to change his choice of ranged weapon, or have further questions. The unasked for advice you have been given may then turn out to be useful.

[TriciaOso]

I don't know if there's anything to be gained by trying to explain. Zhorn has the RAW answer and has been extremely clear he considers any kind of further advice or discussion to be incitement to bad DMing.

Zhorn, maybe you should PM a mod and ask for this thread to be closed so no one else insults your DMing.

[Zhorn]

I don't know if there's anything to be gained by trying to explain. Zhorn has the RAW answer and has been extremely clear he considers any kind of further advice or discussion to be incitement to bad DMing.

Zhorn, maybe you should PM a mod and ask for this thread to be closed so no one else insults your DMing.
Insults my DMing? We're reading these comments very differently.
I also don't consider offering advice to players as 'bad DMing' and didn't call it such, just a different style, one that a bad DM used poorly and left a bad taste in my mouth and an aversion towards using it. As a tool it's not bad, I just don't like using it because of my personal experiences with a DM backseat driving the player characters. If my players are not asking for advice on how they should be playing their characters, I don't give them advice on how to better play their characters. I also don't assume they don't know about the other weapon options they have, and just trust they are doing things for a reason that I don't feel is constructive for our DM-Player relationship to openly doubt or second guess.
Regarding this thread and the discussion I was looking to have (and has been happening), what the players wants to do, or chooses to do going forwards is irrelevant, as this was about the rules interactions.