Sage Advice (18 May 2015)

I can't believe they went that way with hand crossbows.

 

[redrick]

My sense is that that's not how people play the game. Of course each table's culture is different, but my suspicion is at most tables a sword-and-board wielder can still open a door (say) without losing the benefit of the shield.

That's the scenario here: the interaction is "free" and doesn't interfere with normal combat. YMMV, of course.

Couldn't you open the door with the hand holding the sword? I open doors while carrying something all the time.

Every table is a little different on the "object interaction" strictness. I've played at tables that did tend to keep an eye on it, and I've played at tables that tend to use it as a justification to just not worry about it.

Personally, as a player, I enjoy the stricter interpretation. As a DM, I hate enforcing the stricter interpretation.

I'd probably see this as not being able to load my hand crossbow on the same round as I tried to use another object in another hand. So I could "stow" my scimitar in order to re-load my crossbow, but I wouldn't be able to attack with the scimitar that round.

Lucky certainly wouldn't allow you to pick the best of 3 dice with disadvantage. It could allow you to choose which result — the worst die from your disadvantage roll, or the lucky roll. Or, it could just allow you to use the middle die of 3.

The former is a little better than the latter, but still worse than rolling lucky on a normal roll. For instance: Player rolls 17 and 6, with disadvantage. So he has rolled 6. The 17 no longer exists. Player can now use luck to roll another d20, and substitute it for 6 if he wants. Not quite as good as advantage, because the odds of the first roll sucking are good, whereas the odds of the second roll sucking are even.

And even if that's not Mr. Crawford's intention, that's how I'm running it.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Couldn't you open the door with the hand holding the sword? I open doors while carrying something all the time.

This is exactly what I'm saying: the 1/turn free interaction is enough to let you load with your rapier hand.

 

[Fralex]

As silly as that is, it is also hilarious, and reminds me of Terry Pratchett's Guards! Guards!: "It's a one-in-a-million shot...but it just might work!" "Sarge...would you suppose it's not actually, really a one-in-a-million shot? Couldn't it be, just, you know, one-in-a-hun'red thousands?"

Strangely enough, this logic erased pretty much all problems I had with being able to turn disadvantage into double advantage. One-in-a-million chances crop up nine times out of ten!

 

[redrick]

This is exactly what I'm saying: the 1/turn free interaction is enough to let you load with your rapier hand.

Nay, nay, that's where I disagree with you. Opening a door is a paltry action. Loading a crossbow? Lots of motions there. Wouldn't let you do it with a rapier in your hand, myself. At least not a rapier that you were also using to stab somebody with.

But, hey, your table. Juggling of hands and items is definitely something that varies a lot from one table to another. If you allow folks to draw, use and then sheathe a single item on one turn, you should allow the rapier and crossbow wielder to load their crossbow in the same turn they swing their rapier.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I should have added "with the crossbow expert feat" to my sentence, but I understand we still disagree. No worries! We both have fun anyways.

 

[redrick]

I should have added "with the crossbow expert feat" to my sentence, but I understand we still disagree. No worries! We both have fun anyways.

Yep. For me, I see it as a nod to "rules don't have to batter your common sense to death." So, Crawford says, "hey, we didn't say you didn't need a hand to load the crossbow with." And you say, "that's cool, characters in my game don't usually have much of a trouble freeing up a hand or using a hand carrying one thing to do something else, so long as it's minor enough. Load away!"

 

[Transformer]

I'm pretty sure the Lucky feat with disadvantage works like this: You roll 2d20 as you do when rolling with disadvantage, then you decide to use a luck point and roll an extra d20; you choose which 2 of the 3 dice will be used to determine disadvantage (like the 2 highest if you are smart). So basically you would end up using the middle value of the 3 dice. The last part where it says "...but you get to pick the die." probably refers to the die you will use for disadvantage, replacing one of the two that you initially rolled.

I think he didn't word it correctly. You get an extra die after you have rolled your disadvantage and have an undesired result. and you can pick the first undesired result or the result of the luck die.

You choose which two of the three dice to use -- you still need two die rolls because you have disadvantage, and you still take the lower of the two rolls you keep. Lucky plus disadvantage is still worse than Lucky on a normal roll.

I agree the article was worded poorly, which is especially bad when attempting to give clarifying examples.

Lucky certainly wouldn't allow you to pick the best of 3 dice with disadvantage. It could allow you to choose which result — the worst die from your disadvantage roll, or the lucky roll. Or, it could just allow you to use the middle die of 3.

The former is a little better than the latter, but still worse than rolling lucky on a normal roll. For instance: Player rolls 17 and 6, with disadvantage. So he has rolled 6. The 17 no longer exists. Player can now use luck to roll another d20, and substitute it for 6 if he wants. Not quite as good as advantage, because the odds of the first roll sucking are good, whereas the odds of the second roll sucking are even.

And even if that's not Mr. Crawford's intention, that's how I'm running it.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you four are simply ignoring the words right in front of you. Crawford's ruling is extremely clear. Lucky feat + disadvantage = you can pick any of the three dice, including the higher of the disadvantage pair.

"For example, if you have disadvantage on your attack roll, you could spend a luck point, roll a third d20, and then decide which of the three dice to use."

This quote is very clear, especially in conjunction with Crawford's subsequent tweets. Lucky turns disadvantage into advantage.

I can see how you could think that's a stupid ruling. I can see how you might even think that it's contrary to RAW. But it is very obvious what Crawford is saying.

 

[redrick]

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you four are simply ignoring the words right in front of you. Crawford's ruling is extremely clear. Lucky feat + disadvantage = you can pick any of the three dice, including the higher of the disadvantage pair.

"For example, if you have disadvantage on your attack roll, you could spend a luck point, roll a third d20, and then decide which of the three dice to use."

This quote is very clear, especially in conjunction with Crawford's subsequent tweets. Lucky turns disadvantage into advantage.

I can see how you could think that's a stupid ruling. I can see how you might even think that it's contrary to RAW. But it is very obvious that it's what Crawford is saying.

Judging by the tweet that Merric B shared, you're right. I assumed it was written poorly, because that ruling didn't make sense for me, but it is written correctly and that was his intention! So it goes.

Probably won't rule it that way at my table, though.

 

[Henry]

Yeah, looking at it from a cinematic point of view, the villain NEVER tells the hero, "there's no way you can defeat me. It's hopeless." You might as well surrender right the second you say it. you're better off telling him it's a shoe-in, at least it's dramatically appropriate for him to flub it...

As for the crossbow thing, i have no problem with it, because it makes the most sense. I've never seen anyone load a hand crossbow with one hand while standing.

 

[Jester David]

Its kind of backwards to the way I read it. You can't dual wield hand crossbows...but you can attack twice with the same one as a bonus action. Weird.

The problem with dual wielding hand crossbows wasn't that it was broken or the damage was too high, it was that it was freakin' ridiculous. Were they loading bolts with their teeth or something?