Mouseferatu
Hero
Whoa, now. I said in the OP that if it was purely a flavor thing, I was okay with that. I was just surprised that that might be the case, and was asking if I was missing something.
D&D 5E Crossbow confusion
Whoa, now. I said in the OP that if it was purely a flavor thing, I was okay with that. I was just surprised that that might be the case, and was asking if I was missing something.
Sorry, that wasn't directed at anyone in particular, I just saw a lot of people saying there was no reason to have it when you could have a light crossbow.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Evenglare
Adventurer
Also it's a weapon to equip NPCs with. While it's correct to say that the basic core rules have not all been released yet the item seems under powered for a character to use. But you have to keep in mind the basic rules aren't finished. It was stated you can run a full game with basic rules, this leads to the fact that you should be able to create NPCs and outfit monsters with weapons. Supposed the GM wants an NPC to have a hand cross bow? Why should that not be a choice? PCs may want the best gear all the time but NPCs are often equipped with ALL types of various armor and items. So now you say "why not include it when you include that stuff" and my reply is.... really? Why would they want to copy the equipment section, as is, then remove stuff only to add it back in later? No one in their right mind would needlessly create more work for themselves. So there you go. Question resolved.
Also 1000th post.
Also 1000th post.
AverageCitizen
Explorer
I, for one, often feel compelled by mechanical benefits even though my primary concern when creating a character is finding a concept I am excited about.
For example, back in 3e days I had a picture of a cut throat drawing a dagger across his throat in threatening pantomime while brandishing a rapier of some kind in his other hand. I statted him up and was excited to play him. Then I wondered if there was a better way to interpret him into the rules and posed the question on a character building forum.
Well, 10 pages later they decided that my rapier and dagger wielding cutthroat should be a rapier and siangham wielding multi class monk, or something like that. I know I don't have to follow their advice, but learning that adhering to my concept would come at the cost of martial effectiveness (for a character who was supposed to be deadly) really took the wind out of my sails.
I don't think I'm alone or unreasonable in that.
Who are you competing with for power level? Is the character not deadly compared to an NPC?
If everyone in the party keeps to around the same thing, you can still be perfectly useful and effective VS any encounter for your level.
Of course, this prevailing attitude towards "I MUST MAKE THE BEST CHARACTER EVER!!!" is why I ignored 3.5, PF, and 4E. Luckily, 5e looks to be kicking that to the roadside again.
The backstory behind a multiclass monk cutthroat who for whatever reason uses a rapier would be pretty interesting though.
If everyone in the party keeps to around the same thing, you can still be perfectly useful and effective VS any encounter for your level.
Of course, this prevailing attitude towards "I MUST MAKE THE BEST CHARACTER EVER!!!" is why I ignored 3.5, PF, and 4E. Luckily, 5e looks to be kicking that to the roadside again.
The backstory behind a multiclass monk cutthroat who for whatever reason uses a rapier would be pretty interesting though.
AverageCitizen
Explorer
That's the thing, once I realize there is a more optimal version of my character I experience genuine cognitive dissonance, and it's hard to explain why. I think it has more to do with being dissapointed my choices were not validated by the system than anything else.
Understand, this is a subconscious response, I can't justify it, only explain it.
Hm, I'm thinking *spell* and crossbow. For spells you get at with a bonus action, or reaction, but have a somatic component, for example, having the hand free is key.
Heck, it enables crossbow and shield, which doesn't work with a two-handed weapon...
Last edited:
Going strictly by the letter of the rules, I don't see a lot of reason to use a hand crossbow; sure, you can do shield-and-crossbow, but who does that? (Though Umbran makes an excellent point about spell-and-crossbow. Drow spellcasters ahoy.) And you'd have to be really hard up for Strength for the two pounds of encumbrance savings to be worth it.
However, the letter of the rules has been de-emphasized in 5E. IMO, the main virtue of the hand crossbow is that it gives you a free hand, which lets you justify doing a lot of stuff you would otherwise have trouble selling to your DM. For example, while the rules do not say you have to have a free hand to climb, I certainly would not allow a PC clinging to a sheer cliff to use a two-handed weapon! Hand crossbow? Go for it. Likewise if you're swinging on a chandelier or something like that. The hand crossbow is very Cunning Action-friendly.
I also expect there will be a feat that lets you dual wield with a hand crossbow.
However, the letter of the rules has been de-emphasized in 5E. IMO, the main virtue of the hand crossbow is that it gives you a free hand, which lets you justify doing a lot of stuff you would otherwise have trouble selling to your DM. For example, while the rules do not say you have to have a free hand to climb, I certainly would not allow a PC clinging to a sheer cliff to use a two-handed weapon! Hand crossbow? Go for it. Likewise if you're swinging on a chandelier or something like that. The hand crossbow is very Cunning Action-friendly.
I also expect there will be a feat that lets you dual wield with a hand crossbow.
Similar Threads
