Sage Advice (18 May 2015)

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

 

[El Mahdi]

No.. the feat means what the feat says it means. You can't just add new meanings because you think it 'sounds right'.
Yes, you are the DM, you can 'rule' that Polearm master means you are really good with polearms and thus always attack with advantage. But you can't say that is part of the feat in the book.

He says you need a *free* hand. A hand holding a shield is not a 'free hand'. A hand holding another handbow is not a 'free hand'. A hand holding a rapier is not a 'free hand'.

You're right. You'd need War Caster. Just as Crossbow Expert aids spellcasting, War Caster should also apply to Crossbows.

 

[Coredump]

Not quite.

Folks were saying that they could dual-wield two hand crossbows, shoot both of them each round, and reload and re-shoot each of them each round (using extra attacks and a bonus attack) for a possible four shots each and every round.

In reality, they can get three-shots in one round with pre-loaded hand-crossbows, and then two per round thereafter.

I have never seen anyone say that....

What they were claiming, is an 11th level fighter could fire his handbow 3 times, then fire his 'other' handbow once as a bonus action.
That is not allowed, but...
That same fighter could fire his handbow 3 times, and then fire the *same* handbow as a bonus action..... assuming he has a free hand to help load.

As it stands, you could probably still do some form of dual weilding handbows with some combo of dropping and picking up.... but it doesn't get you any more attacks.
I think it might work to sheather/draw a rapier each round and still use a handbow....

 

[Mistwell]

I've seen several people say you'd choose to take disadvantage with Lucky to gain some advantage from it. That's not correct. You'd use it if you naturally find yourself at disadvantage, but you wouldn't voluntarily take disadvantage for no other gain as it doesn't help you on average if you do that. Here's why:

You only use the feat once you see what the dice rolled come up with (otherwise you may be wasting it). And only then are you seeing the lowest roll is a failure, and choosing to throw another die and choose between the other two dice.

Let's say you choose to do something with disadvantage when you didn't need to. Your target is a 10. You throw two dice, the first comes up 13, and the second comes up 7.

If you had not chosen to do it with disadvantage, you would have succeeded with the 13. Instead, you put yourself in a position where you needed to essentially declare your use BEFORE the dice are rolled, by deciding to do it at disadvantage when you didn't need to do it that way. Now, you've forced yourself to use Lucky just to get the same result you would have had without the voluntary disadvantage (success with the 13). It was a waste of the feat. So now, you needlessly throw a third die, and it doesn't matter what comes up because your first throw was a success which you could have used to begin with had you not been at disadvantage.

And that situation happens 50% of the time (the other half the 7 would have come up first and you'd have used Lucky like normal to get the 13). You gained no benefit overall from the feat by forcing disadvantage in advance when you didn't need to, on-balance. The only way such a tactic would have increased your odds is if you could decide to do something at disadvantage only after you throw the first die and see the result. But, that's not how the disadvantage rule works - it's declared before dice are rolled.

So no, mechanically, people are not going to choose disadvantage when they don't need to do so. They will still use it when they naturally find themselves with disadvantage of course, or if there is some other benefit to be gained from disadvantage, but they won't be choosing voluntarily to have disadvantage just for this feat as you're not really gaining the best of three dice that way, because you may be wasting the feat.

 

[Coredump]

You're right. You'd need War Caster. Just as Crossbow Expert aids spellcasting, War Caster should also apply to Crossbows.

NOt sure War Caster would help.... I don't think there is a problem casting spells while holding a crossbow....

 

[Oldtimer]

Sorry but.... this clarification matches what he has said on twitter, and matches the RAW of the rules in the book. I think its a simple RAW ruling.

I just noticed the Twitter quote. I can't belive that ruling.
So if you have taken Lucky, you're better of closing your eyes before attacking (assuming you don't have Sneak Attack). That's just silly.

Edit: Of course it would be less silly if using the feat is a limited resource, but I'm at work and can't check the books right now.

 

[Mistwell]

I just noticed the Twitter quote. I can't belive that ruling.
So if you have taken Lucky, you're better of closing your eyes before attacking (assuming you don't have Sneak Attack). That's just silly.

Again, no you would not. See the post above yours from me.

 

[El Mahdi]

And you could have pointed out my mistake without being a xxxx.

You mean like you did when you tried to shame someone else without checking your facts?

Sage Advice was Gary Gygax's column. Really, you should have come up with a new name. Shame.

That wasn't a mistake, that was doing exactly what you just accused MerricB of doing.

Well, I apologized. Which is more than I expect to hear from you all.

Why does he need to apologize for pointing out what you actually did?

Good on you for apologizing, but I don't see anything that MerricB needs to apologize for.

And your choice of language there, you all, makes me wonder who else you were expecting to hear mea culpas from?

Danny certainly didn't insult you either. He did however provide some very helpful advice. One can choose to take it as such, or choose to be insulted by it. One is constructive, the other is not, and both are most certainly a choice.

 

[Dark Kain]

I've seen several people say you'd choose to take disadvantage with Lucky to gain some advantage from it. That's not correct. You'd use it if you naturally find yourself at disadvantage, but you wouldn't voluntarily take disadvantage for no other gain as it doesn't help you on average if you do that. Here's why:

You only use the feat once you see what the dice rolled come up with (otherwise you may be wasting it). And only then are you seeing the lowest roll is a failure, and choosing to throw another die and choose between the other two dice.

Let's say you choose to do something with disadvantage when you didn't need to. Your target is a 10. You throw two dice, the first comes up 13, and the second comes up 7.

If you had not chosen to do it with disadvantage, you would have succeeded with the 13. Instead, you put yourself in a position where you needed to essentially declare your use BEFORE the dice are rolled, by deciding to do it at disadvantage when you didn't need to do it that way. Now, you've forced yourself to use Lucky just to get the same result you would have had without the voluntary disadvantage (success with the 13). It was a waste of the feat. So now, you needlessly throw a third die, and it doesn't matter what comes up because your first throw was a success which you could have used to begin with had you not been at disadvantage.

And that situation happens 50% of the time (the other half the 7 would have come up first and you'd have used Lucky like normal to get the 13). You gained no benefit overall from the feat by forcing disadvantage in advance when you didn't need to, on-balance. The only way such a tactic would have increased your odds is if you could decide to do something at disadvantage only after you throw the first die and see the result. But, that's not how the disadvantage rule works - it's declared before dice are rolled.

So no, mechanically, people are not going to choose disadvantage when they don't need to do so. They will still use it when they naturally find themselves with disadvantage of course, or if there is some other benefit to be gained from disadvantage, but they won't be choosing voluntarily to have disadvantage just for this feat as you're not really gaining the best of three dice that way, because you may be wasting the feat.

While it is true that a bit of education about posterior probability can help not wasting your limited luck points, your example is true only for low target numbers.
Please, let me present a counterexample.

Let's suppose your target number to save against a disintegration spell that will surely kill your 20hp character is 16 on a d20.
What is your % chance to survive by using Lucky in the way you suggest?
And what is your chance if you do it with disadvantage?

 

[Obryn]

No, I don't think that's right.

First, this sage advice column said nothing about not being able to load if you're holding a shield or another weapon.

As DM in my games, I have no problem envisioning someone pulling a little hand crossbow bolt out of its quiver or pouch with a couple of fingers, and even placing it in the crossbow and cocking it. That's what the crossbow expert feat means, you are Expert at loading very quickly and very agilely.

It's also certainly not outside the realm of reality for a player to have their extra ammunition stored on the inside of their shield.

Ruling not Rules, but I think the clarifications earlier about somatic components opens this up to the same ruling.

The same as being able to load, I don't believe this makes rapier+xbow verboten.

And dual-wielding is not out either. What's out is re-shooting both hand-crossbows in the same round, and repeating round after round. You can potentially get three-attacks in one round: shoot your loaded right-hand hand-crossbow with an attack, shoot your loaded left-hand hand-crossbow with an extra-attack, reload one of them using your Crossbow Expert Feat and shoot again using a bonus action.

Next round, however, all you're going to be able to do is shoot twice with one of them, simply because you need that hand (whether holding a shield or weapon, or not) to do your Expertly Fast reload. And you can still attack with that rapier.

I don't think this matches with Sage Advice.

I don't see any line you can draw where you can't reload a hand crossbow while holding a hand crossbow in the other hand, but CAN load a hand crossbow while holding a shield or sword in the other hand. (Same with somatic components and free hands, by the by.)

As for the rest.... I've never seen anyone advocate that you should get more attacks per round with two hand crossbows, than this ruling allows you to make with one hand crossbow and a free hand.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

One thing I'd like in Sage Advice is a concrete example of the clarification in practice. A little paragraph narratively outlining the situation and how it is resolved within the context of the rules and Sage clarification.