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

[The Human Target]

Nobody's saying that having two hand crossbows, with no hands free to reload them, mysteriously getting reloaded anyway, round after round, is over-powered.

No, that's not what we're saying at all.

We're just saying it's silly beyond any possibility of belief!

Carry on.


Hey! How about a Tiefling with a 3rd handbow in his tail? I mean, if you can reload two, a 3rd one should be no problem, am I right? That's totally awesome. And they should shoot flaming acidic frost bolts of thunder force!

Sounds awesome to me!

 

[Sunseeker]

Sounds awesome to me!

I do actually wish we had a few racial feats, I really liked the one from 4th that let Tieflings use their tail in a prehensile manner, though you don't need that feat for 5th really as there's nothing that says you can't use your tail in that manner.

 

[Jester David]

Which is what we had. A DM who didn't like wondering how you could reload with no free hands could add limitations. A DM who didn't mind that wouldn't need to.

We had a nice little level of "moderate amount of reality". Now we have exact replication of (highly skilled) reality. Which is unnecessary.

Um, no. We had people arguing that Rules As Written you didn't need a free hand to reload. And we had DMs needed to be the bad guy and impose limitations (aka house rules), which was not being well received.
We didn't have a "moderate amount of reality". We had people reloading crossbows with their teeth or pulling bolts out of the aether.

We're really in the exact same position we were before: DMs who are okay with double crossbows can allow it, and DMs who are uncomfortable with it can ban. Only now the assumption has changed from permission from restriction. Instead of DMs having to ban the option, they now have to choose to allow the option. Opt into rather than opt out. Which is more harmonious as it's easier to give permission than to take away. It causes less strife.

Frankly, Sage Advice has added little to the game, and I think they should simply stop.

Sage Advice didn't really add anything, it just skirted the argument by pointing out an ignored rule. It was the errata that added something.

 

[Sunseeker]

Um, no. We had people arguing that Rules As Written you didn't need a free hand to reload. And we had DMs needed to be the bad guy and impose limitations (aka house rules), which was not being well received.
We didn't have a "moderate amount of reality". We had people reloading crossbows with their teeth or pulling bolts out of the aether.

You still needed to have the bolts. If your player ran out they were still stuck. If you don't like being the "bad guy" by putting limits on what your players can do I would tell you that DMing is not for you. Obviously you know as I've seen your arguments that there are times when you need to put the brakes on, so arguing that it caused DMs to be the "bad guys" is a patently false argument. The DM is always going to be the bad guy at one point or another.

We're really in the exact same position we were before: DMs who are okay with double crossbows can allow it, and DMs who are uncomfortable with it can ban. Only now the assumption has changed from permission from restriction. Instead of DMs having to ban the option, they now have to choose to allow the option. Opt into rather than opt out. Which is more harmonious as it's easier to give permission than to take away. It causes less strife.

I find removing rules tends to be more troublesome than adding them.

Sage Advice didn't really add anything, it just skirted the argument by pointing out an ignored rule. It was the errata that added something.

And that's why it's a waste of time.

We have a rulings not rules edition and what does WOTC run around doing? Making more rules. Seems somewhat contradictory to the point.

 

[Jester David]

The two crossbow issue really seems to be related to the underlying schism in the game. The people who really want D&D to be an over-the-top action game with cinematic combat akin to a film co-directed by Michael Bay and John Woo. And the people who want D&D to be a grounded historical fantasy game closer to Game of Thrones or Dragonslayer.
Basically, Lord of the Rings the books versus Lord of the Rings the movies.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Because they wanted to clarify their intentions on how they originally thought it supposed to work... knowing full well that anyone who didn't like it could just ignore the errata and play it however they wanted to.

Their original intention was that you could use 2 hand crossbows, which is why they made it light, the definition of light being "good for using with 2 weapons."

It isn't original intent, they have changed their mind on hand crossbows because they realized they're too good.

People dual-wielding hand crossbows with no manner or method to reload them were thumbing their eye at human anatomy and physics...

Yes, human anatomy, like how waiters can only carry 2 glasses. Sorry, I've got news for you on human anatomy and physics and how easy it is to do exactly what you're saying is impossible...

 

[Jester David]

You still needed to have the bolts. If your player ran out they were still stuck.

So... you'll let the players reload a crossbow like the T-800 cocking a shotgun but still require them to track ammunition?

If you don't like being the "bad guy" by putting limits on what your players can do I would tell you that DMing is not for you. Obviously you know as I've seen your arguments that there are times when you need to put the brakes on, so arguing that it caused DMs to be the "bad guys" is a patently false argument. The DM is always going to be the bad guy at one point or another.

There's being a bad guy for saying "no" to a plan, and then there's being a bad guy for saying "no" to a build found in the core rulebook. When a player's RAW option gets shot down at the table, that causes friction and animosity.
Just look at the animosity generated when other forum goers who have no authority over your game say an idea is silly.

And if there's a situation to choose between having to make some DMs the bad guy and having to make some DMs the good guy, the latter option is preferable. When a DM takes away a restriction and lets you play an awesome character that DM is a rock star to you. If they say "no" then that's sad but the rules, so it's less upsetting. I'm in favour of the rules making more DMs permissive rock stars.

I find removing rules tends to be more troublesome than adding them.

Depends on the rule. Changing rules is such a broad category it's useless to make a generalization (but I still like to default to having the DM grant permission rather than take it away). In this instance, it's super easy to ignore the extra hand needed to reload.

And that's why it's a waste of time.

We have a rulings not rules edition and what does WOTC run around doing? Making more rules. Seems somewhat contradictory to the point.

There are lots of questions that can still be answered, and vague rules that can be resolved. Sage Advice serves a purpose for may.

 

[Sunseeker]

So... you'll let the players reload a crossbow like the T-800 cocking a shotgun but still require them to track ammunition?

Yes. Shooting a crossbow that much is going to burn through ammunition much faster. It's a resource. Requiring a free hand causes other reality-check issues which I find less appealing. How do you load a two-handed ammunition weapon? With your Tiefling tail?

There's being a bad guy for saying "no" to a plan, and then there's being a bad guy for saying "no" to a build found in the core rulebook. When a player's RAW option gets shot down at the table, that causes friction and animosity.
Just look at the animosity generated when other forum goers who have no authority over your game say an idea is silly.

Being the boss is about how you approach people. I don't tell folks they're stupid and doing it wrong because my way is better. I tell them that doesn't work in this world because *reason* here.

And if there's a situation to choose between having to make some DMs the bad guy and having to make some DMs the good guy, the latter option is preferable. When a DM takes away a restriction and lets you play an awesome character that DM is a rock star to you. If they say "no" then that's sad but the rules, so it's less upsetting. I'm in favour of the rules making more DMs permissive rock stars.[/quote[
But my point is that the DM is never going to always be in the latter position. They will and sometimes often be in the former.

There are lots of questions that can still be answered, and vague rules that can be resolved. Sage Advice serves a purpose for may.

I still feel like it defeats the intended purpose of allowing DMs more freedom at their table.

All it seems to be doing is vindicating one side or another of an internet forum, leaving the losing side to either play the game in a manner they don't like, or disregard it entirely.

 

[Jester David]

Their original intention was that you could use 2 hand crossbows, which is why they made it light, the definition of light being "good for using with 2 weapons."

It isn't original intent, they have changed their mind on hand crossbows because they realized they're too good.

Quote please? Citation? Do you have some evidence that they intended people to be able to use and reload two crossbows at the same time?

Yes, human anatomy, like how waiters can only carry 2 glasses. Sorry, I've got news for you on human anatomy and physics and how easy it is to do exactly what you're saying is impossible...

Please videotape yourself holding two staplers at the same time and then refilling them. Without letting go of either stapler. In under 20 seconds. While your neighbour trys to hit you with a broom handle.

As a point of reference, here's a video of a modern hand crossbow:
https://youtu.be/KexjtfNG3ss
It's a self-cocking crossbow, which makes it much faster than anything that'd be available in a quasi-medieval world, since you just need to pull down on a lever to reset the drawstring. He cocks it at the 40-second mark, which requires two hands. Again, this is a much more efficient weapon than anything a PC would use (barring magic).
Cocking a crossbow requires 40-80 lbs of force. If you try and pull the string back with your teeth, you'll never need to visit the dentist again. It's akin to lifting a 4-year-old. Or a halfling.

 

[Jester David]

Yes. Shooting a crossbow that much is going to burn through ammunition much faster. It's a resource. Requiring a free hand causes other reality-check issues which I find less appealing. How do you load a two-handed ammunition weapon? With your Tiefling tail?

As clarified in the errata document, you can hold but not use a two-handed weapon with one hand. So you hold the bow with one hand, reload, and then fire. By the rules. Which matches reality nicely.

But my point is that the DM is never going to always be in the latter position. They will and sometimes often be in the former.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't limit the times the DM has to be the bad guy. They're going to have to say "no" enough without adding extra reasons.

I still feel like it defeats the intended purpose of allowing DMs more freedom at their table.

Then don't use it. The very first Sage Advice article was all about how it was a tool to settle arguments and didn't overrule the DM. Just ignore they exist.

All it seems to be doing is vindicating one side or another of an internet forum, leaving the losing side to either play the game in a manner they don't like, or disregard it entirely.

And? I don't see how this is a problem.
The alternative is just letting the argument go on and on without any resolution. Which causes problems at tables, makes the game less fun, and leads to issues during organized play. Sage Advice is all about giving the DM more tools to decide how they want to rule.