D&D 5E Does the new ammunition rule screw up dual hand crossbow?

[Hriston]

Just my interpretation. Both arguments have merit, and obviously the only interpretation that matters is the DM at your table. You're right that there's no rational reason why one should need to occur before the other.

Perhaps I just prefer the second option because it repeats neatly each round, whereas the former must alternate between shoot > swing and swing > shoot, allowing the player to sometimes get OAs, sometimes not. Messy.

I see. For me, the two-round cycle seems the more elegant, as it allows for a full round of swinging and a full round of shooting, with the break being in the middle of your turn when you draw or sheathe your sword. Losing the ability to make opportunity attacks with your sword half the time seems like a small price for what otherwise doesn't seem possible, and remember you could always OA with an unarmed strike with your free hand.

 

[Hussar]

I thought you no longer threaten the squares around you when you lack a weapon. Is that mistaken?

 

[Hriston]

I thought you no longer threaten the squares around you when you lack a weapon. Is that mistaken?

I haven't heard that. I was going off of this:

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.

You can use an unarmed strike in a melee attack.

 

[Hussar]

Huh. You may be right. I might be channeling earlier edition rules.