D&D 5E Dual hand crossbows, poison and hex warlock

[Greenstone.Walker]

I don't see how "needs one hand to reload" differs enough from "needs two hands" to make a fuss about it.

Because you can load the crossbow on a previous turn.

For example:
Round 1: Juma loads a hand crossbow (an Action, requires both hands), draws his scimitar (Free Object Interaction).
Round 2: He runs into combat, slashes someone (Attack Action), and shoots someone else (Bonus Action).

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Sorry, I don't see the logic in getting hung up on "needs one hand to reload" when D&D Crossbows differ from IRL Crossbows in so many ways.

Besides, unless you're truly absurdist, you do use two hands while loading the crossbow. After all you don't hold anything else in your hands but the crossbow.

I don't see how "needs one hand to reload" differs enough from "needs two hands" to make a fuss about it.

The rule prevents you from holding anything else, surely that's the important thing.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Well, a hand crossbow doesn't need two hands to use, but it does to load. That's why the question keeps coming up. For whatever reason, folks seem to have difficulty with the idea (and the rule) that it takes two hands to load a hand crossbow, even though it only takes one hand to use it once loaded.

Plus, I don't really see where they differ from IRL in so many ways. The only debatable way it differs is the amount of time it takes to load one. And that's somewhat dependent on which edition you're using, because in general they have followed the same usability - once/round. When a round was 1 minute long there wasn't any issue at all. When a round is 6 seconds, then it might seem a bit fast. But I don't think it's a stretch to load a light crossbow with a stirrup in 6 seconds. It's only when you start adding additional attacks in a round that it goes beyond what is reasonable in real life. And that works for most people without a problem, and probably without even thinking about how fast that is for a crossbow.

From a game perspective, does it matter? No, since damage output will be similar to a bow or many other weapons. So then it's solely a question of what's important to you and your game. Because of my round-less combat system, it's not really an issue at all. It takes a certain number of segments to load each type, and you can potentially get better at that, but it's really not worth the trouble for most people.

 

[Caliburn101]

I think you need to reread Wheaton's Law. Here:
"Don't be a dick."

Not allowing something that's cool because of common sense is being a dick, if the same end result can be achieved through lesser means.

Take, for instance:
"Can I crash through the window and thrust my sword at his heart?"

Answering "No." is being a dick if he could simply go through a door and attack him. Both outcomes are the same (minus a smashed window I guess), but one's cooler. Not allowing it because it's not the rules is being a dick.

Now lets apply it to dual-wielding crossbows:

"Can I fire at him with both my crossbows, rolling to the side to avoid return fire?"

Answering "No." is being a dick. Because anything he could do with two crossbows, is just as possible with one. To answer no is to punish him for investing more resources (a second crossbow for one) into, and lessening his options (no hands free) for being thematic.

Your point has no relevance to mine, you've taken a different situation and put two crossbows in it. Your example is fine by the way - completely compliant with the RAW. It is therefore irrelevant as a counterpoint.

Perhaps you advocate ignoring the rules whenever your players feel like coming up with a cool narrative to explain why they can exceed the abilities of their characters and equipment whenever that comes up. But then perhaps you don't, because you're not interested in conflict at the table and chaos in your game as you try to justify each and every 'on the fly' house rule at a whim to the players not taking advantage of it, or those who like the rules to be a stable source of guidance on what they can and cannot do.

I've never seen a game run that way, ever.

I do not 'punish' my players and never have. I have run countless games over 39 years of roleplaying and never been accused of that once - and I have always GM'd my way.

I get sick to death of people misreading my posts or applying a strawman argument them to suit some ridiculous point which only sounds good on a forum thread and wouldn't work round a table.

Telling me as passively-aggressively as you think you can get away with that I am being a dick for saying no when a player wants to exceed the capability of their character, or ignore the rules without an agreed house-rule (such as my example of self-loading crossbows) is insulting.

I await an apology.

 

[CapnZapp]

Because you can load the crossbow on a previous turn.

For example:
Round 1: Juma loads a hand crossbow (an Action, requires both hands), draws his scimitar (Free Object Interaction).
Round 2: He runs into combat, slashes someone (Attack Action), and shoots someone else (Bonus Action).

Since you can't sustain this every round of every combat*, I don't see a problem.

*) unless your DM allows the stupid hacky "drop-reload-pickup" routine, but then I'd say your game has bigger problems...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, a hand crossbow doesn't need two hands to use, but it does to load. That's why the question keeps coming up. For whatever reason, folks seem to have difficulty with the idea (and the rule) that it takes two hands to load a hand crossbow, even though it only takes one hand to use it once loaded.

Plus, I don't really see where they differ from IRL in so many ways. The only debatable way it differs is the amount of time it takes to load one. And that's somewhat dependent on which edition you're using, because in general they have followed the same usability - once/round. When a round was 1 minute long there wasn't any issue at all. When a round is 6 seconds, then it might seem a bit fast. But I don't think it's a stretch to load a light crossbow with a stirrup in 6 seconds. It's only when you start adding additional attacks in a round that it goes beyond what is reasonable in real life. And that works for most people without a problem, and probably without even thinking about how fast that is for a crossbow.

From a game perspective, does it matter? No, since damage output will be similar to a bow or many other weapons. So then it's solely a question of what's important to you and your game. Because of my round-less combat system, it's not really an issue at all. It takes a certain number of segments to load each type, and you can potentially get better at that, but it's really not worth the trouble for most people.

I can understand a newbie having problems getting to grips with the difference between loading and using the hand crossbow, but that's not what I think the complaints of the thread are about.

Unless I'm mistaken, some people complain you can use a hand crossbow in one hand at all. Others are angry you can't use two. Still others ramble on about IRL crossbows, despite how D&D crossbows clearly aren't them.

Myself, I'm trying to get the point across that the Crossbow Expert feat seems to allow certain cinematic action archetypes (chiefly scimitar plus hand crossbow) and then just don't.

While at the same time enabling the hand crossbow to become EXACTLY the kind of semi-automatic the Sage Advice explicitly said it isn't.

And THEN it completely usurps two-weapon fighting by offering the hand crossbow wielder a BETTER variant of TWF:ing than is possible with two weapons!?

AND it removes the last reasons to ever use melee since you now aren't penalized for fighting in melee.

Essentially the feat let's you walk around with twin shortswords with a 30 foot reach, WITH a free version of the two-weapon fighting style ON TOP of the Archery weapon style. (You don't actually wield any shortswords. All you're wielding is your single hand crossbow. But the game effect is much the same as fighting with two weapons, since you get to use your bonus action to make a bonus attack)

But it doesn't end there. All this combines perfectly with Sharpshooter, so your "shortswords" now have 120' reach and ignore any cover.

And then, as if that wasn't ridiculously over the top already, it let's you treat your "shortswords" as Greatweapons, i. e. you get to use the -5/+10 mechanism on them as well, which is EVEN BETTER than the regular version since you trade a bit of damage for a) the "offhand" attack, and b) the Archery +2 to hit.

There are so many strikes against that feat it isn't even funny. It is so mangled and not doing its job, yet at the same time so ridiculously overpowered, all you can do is to shake your head and ask what the designer was smoking. It truly is the premier trainwreck of the edition, failing on Every. Single. Level.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

I can understand a newbie having problems getting to grips with the difference between loading and using the hand crossbow, but that's not what I think the complaints of the thread are about.

Unless I'm mistaken, some people complain you can use a hand crossbow in one hand at all. Others are angry you can't use two. Still others ramble on about IRL crossbows, despite how D&D crossbows clearly aren't them.

Myself, I'm trying to get the point across that the Crossbow Expert feat seems to allow certain cinematic action archetypes (chiefly scimitar plus hand crossbow) and then just don't.

While at the same time enabling the hand crossbow to become EXACTLY the kind of semi-automatic the Sage Advice explicitly said it isn't.

And THEN it completely usurps two-weapon fighting by offering the hand crossbow wielder a BETTER variant of TWF:ing than is possible with two weapons!?

AND it removes the last reasons to ever use melee since you now aren't penalized for fighting in melee.

Essentially the feat let's you walk around with twin shortswords with a 30 foot reach, WITH a free version of the two-weapon fighting style ON TOP of the Archery weapon style. (You don't actually wield any shortswords. All you're wielding is your single hand crossbow. But the game effect is much the same as fighting with two weapons, since you get to use your bonus action to make a bonus attack)

But it doesn't end there. All this combines perfectly with Sharpshooter, so your "shortswords" now have 120' reach and ignore any cover.

And then, as if that wasn't ridiculously over the top already, it let's you treat your "shortswords" as Greatweapons, i. e. you get to use the -5/+10 mechanism on them as well, which is EVEN BETTER than the regular version since you trade a bit of damage for a) the "offhand" attack, and b) the Archery +2 to hit.

There are so many strikes against that feat it isn't even funny. It is so mangled and not doing its job, yet at the same time so ridiculously overpowered, all you can do is to shake your head and ask what the designer was smoking. It truly is the premier trainwreck of the edition, failing on Every. Single. Level.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I can understand a newbie having problems getting to grips with the difference between loading and using the hand crossbow, but that's not what I think the complaints of the thread are about.

Unless I'm mistaken, some people complain you can use a hand crossbow in one hand at all. Others are angry you can't use two. Still others ramble on about IRL crossbows, despite how D&D crossbows clearly aren't them.

Myself, I'm trying to get the point across that the Crossbow Expert feat seems to allow certain cinematic action archetypes (chiefly scimitar plus hand crossbow) and then just don't.

While at the same time enabling the hand crossbow to become EXACTLY the kind of semi-automatic the Sage Advice explicitly said it isn't.

And THEN it completely usurps two-weapon fighting by offering the hand crossbow wielder a BETTER variant of TWF:ing than is possible with two weapons!?

AND it removes the last reasons to ever use melee since you now aren't penalized for fighting in melee.

Essentially the feat let's you walk around with twin shortswords with a 30 foot reach, WITH a free version of the two-weapon fighting style ON TOP of the Archery weapon style. (You don't actually wield any shortswords. All you're wielding is your single hand crossbow. But the game effect is much the same as fighting with two weapons, since you get to use your bonus action to make a bonus attack)

But it doesn't end there. All this combines perfectly with Sharpshooter, so your "shortswords" now have 120' reach and ignore any cover.

And then, as if that wasn't ridiculously over the top already, it let's you treat your "shortswords" as Greatweapons, i. e. you get to use the -5/+10 mechanism on them as well, which is EVEN BETTER than the regular version since you trade a bit of damage for a) the "offhand" attack, and b) the Archery +2 to hit.

There are so many strikes against that feat it isn't even funny. It is so mangled and not doing its job, yet at the same time so ridiculously overpowered, all you can do is to shake your head and ask what the designer was smoking. It truly is the premier trainwreck of the edition, failing on Every. Single. Level.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I've never seen anybody complain that you can use a hand crossbow in one hand. Just reload it. And I've yet to see a convincing argument that they aren't actually crossbows (as IRL ones).

I'm not familiar with that cinematic archetype, although it clearly states that the hand crossbow must be loaded in the feat, so I think they are acknowledging the limitations up front.

Since it explicitly states a loaded hand crossbow, I'd say it's not enabling it to become the semi-automatic crossbow that Sage Advice clarifies that it isn't. Personally, I think they just relied on "common sense" too much, combined with rules that are confusingly named (loading property).

If you follow the rules, it does not usurp two-weapon fighting at all, nor remove the reasons for melee, etc., etc.

All of which is irrelevant if you actually follow the rules that state it takes two hands to load those hand crossbows.

Your arguments in this case are oddly the opposite of what your usual argument is, since the rules clearly don't allow the sort of abuse you're complaining about. Normally your complaints are that the rules are a problem if you follow them. Now you're saying the rules are a problem if you don't follow them. Go figure.

Your arguments here would be great if you reframed them as a list of reasons why allowing somebody to wield two hand crossbows and also be able to load them without a free hand would be a problem. I don't like it because it just doesn't make sense. You've shown that it's a bad idea due to the rules and game balance. Sounds like a good combination to me.

 

[Yunru]

Your arguments here would be great if you reframed them as a list of reasons why allowing somebody to wield two hand crossbows and also be able to load them without a free hand would be a problem.

No it wouldn't, it'd be a blank list
Mechanically dual crossbows is inferior to a single one in every way.
Thematically...

As to the "realism": there's a reason there exists a "101 ways to reload a crossbow without a hand free" thread.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Do folks even rogue? Maybe its our table's DMing style.

It's a lot easier to slyly pop off a hand crossbow bolt from under a cloak than, say, lob a dagger/javelin/fire a short bow. Plus you can better conceal multiple bolts than say, a brace of hammers or rack of hand axes. Of course, if you're going SWAT on the local rulers then sure, LXbow away, tho a HXbow is generally easier for a contact stash someplace inside.

We also use optional (best evar!)rules for Encumbrance Clothes, Thieves Tools, Potion of Healing, Oil, Mirror, Ball Bearings, Rope (Silk), Grapple, Sack, Back Pack, Chalk, Leather Armour, Short Sword and Dagger, we're looking at about 4.5 lbs of 'spare' gear before we hit penalties, assuming the classic Str 8 rogue*. Saving 2lbs for extra gadgets and equipment is a boon. Of course, if your DM decides you can get more HXbow ammo for the same price and/or weight as LXBow, then the choice becomes even more tempting for the serious rogue infiltrator.

*...of course, this is why higher strength rogues are awesome - more gear, more gadgets, more options! Hit the gym you 9 stone weaklings!

 

[CapnZapp]

I've never seen anybody complain that you can use a hand crossbow in one hand. Just reload it. And I've yet to see a convincing argument that they aren't actually crossbows (as IRL ones).

I'm not familiar with that cinematic archetype, although it clearly states that the hand crossbow must be loaded in the feat, so I think they are acknowledging the limitations up front.

Since it explicitly states a loaded hand crossbow, I'd say it's not enabling it to become the semi-automatic crossbow that Sage Advice clarifies that it isn't. Personally, I think they just relied on "common sense" too much, combined with rules that are confusingly named (loading property).

If you follow the rules, it does not usurp two-weapon fighting at all, nor remove the reasons for melee, etc., etc.

All of which is irrelevant if you actually follow the rules that state it takes two hands to load those hand crossbows.

Le me be clear: The Sage says

Do the first and third benefits of Crossbow Expert turn a hand crossbow into a semiautomatic weapon? The short answer is no.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats

It doesn't talk about two hand crossbows here, just the one.

And if shooting nine (9) times in the space of six seconds with one the same hand crossbow doesn't qualify as "semiautomatic", I don't know what will.

Not sure why you bring up the loading and/or ammunition keywords. Nothing about them change the fact that shooting one and a half bolt per second on average is completely RAW.

---

You don't mention anything re: how it at first blush appears Crossbow Expert allows you to wield a scimitar, say, in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other, much like this:



Only it doesn't support this at all.

You can shoot your hand crossbow once, but then you have no free hand to reload it.

(It's the same with twin hand crossbows, but unlike some other postsres, you don't seem to like it, so let's not bring it up here)

The only sustainable way to use Crossbow Expert (meaning round after round with no object interaction shenanigans) is if the weapon you're using for your main Attack(s) is the same hand crossbow you're then using for the bonus action attack granted by the feat.

How is that not bad?

---

I don't know what to say to "If you follow the rules, it does not usurp two-weapon fighting at all, nor remove the reasons for melee, etc., etc."

I have clearly and on multiple occasions demonstrated that the character with a single hand crossbow and the SS and CE feats work perfectly well in melee (he is NOT inconvienienced in the slightest by either being in melee himself or shooting into melee).

Furthermore this combo does two-weapon fighting BETTER than actual two-weapon fighting!

Here's the complete list of advantages for Drizzt the TWF:er.
- gets to make one opportunity attack per round when people leave his reach
- gets to use d8 weapons instead of d6 weapons
- has one feat slot open

Here's a partial list of advantages for the guy wielding a single hand crossbow.
- effective "reach" of 120 ft
- can attack the guy next to you just as well as the guy a hundred feet away (even if he's partially hidden behind a rock - you ignore cover bonuses). This saves you a tonne of movement, and pretty much ensures you will always have a foe to shoot at. (Drizzt, like all melee builds, always risks having the next foe be "too far away).
- you get to pick the best fighting style in the game: +2 to all attacks from Archery!
- you still get to enjoy the benefits of Two Weapon Fighting even though you never take that fighting style: CE grants you your Dex modifier to damage on the bonus action attack!
- you can use this with -5/+10 (from SS). Drizzt can never combine two-weapon fighting with greatweapon mastery!

AND I am following all the rules!

How does this not usurp two-weapon fighting, Ilbranteloth?!

And how does this not "remove the reasons for melee" - you get to do melee with no drawbacks AND you still got great range AND you can do TWF:ing better than Drizzt AND you can even combine it with "greatweapon mastery"!!!

Your arguments in this case are oddly the opposite of what your usual argument is, since the rules clearly don't allow the sort of abuse you're complaining about. Normally your complaints are that the rules are a problem if you follow them. Now you're saying the rules are a problem if you don't follow them. Go figure.

Your arguments here would be great if you reframed them as a list of reasons why allowing somebody to wield two hand crossbows and also be able to load them without a free hand would be a problem. I don't like it because it just doesn't make sense. You've shown that it's a bad idea due to the rules and game balance. Sounds like a good combination to me.

Not sure what I can say.

The specific thing on twin hand crossbows - yes, I agree with that other poster that it would be cool if it was allowed.

But that's an incredibly minor point.

I'm not sure even what you're trying to say here. It vaguely sounds like you're defending the status quo but I will let you read my arguments (above) and you can get back to me if you now still don't agree there's something monumentally wrong with Crossbow Expert in every level concievable.