D&D 5E Champion Fighter level 11 only one shot with crossbow?

[redrick]

I disagree with MerricB's read of the rules.* I don't think the list Interactions with Objects Around You (which includes drawing or sheathing a sword) was meant to be a list of things limited to one free interaction, but rather simply a non-exhaustive of things that didn't require the PC to use their action. It was meant to be freeing, rather than limiting. A clear statement that you didn't have to use an action to draw or sheathe a sword, you could just do it at the same time as your move or your other action.

If a fighter with extra attacks can pull an arrow from a quiver, nock it, draw, and shoot for each of their attacks, without being limited to one arrow per turn, then I think they draw and throw multiple javelins per turn, too, provided they have a similar kind of set-up.

*Which is not to say that he is wrong. This is very much one of those "DM's call" kind of things.

I'm not going to go head to head with [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] in a rules dispute, but I have to say that I agree with this as far as how I'd rule it at my table. I imagine the javelin being held in a very quiver-like position on a fighter's body, so drawing a javelin should be comparable to drawing an arrow. (The javelin is longer, meaning that it would take a little longer to pull it out, but there is no need to nock it to a bow-string, and hell, I'm just not gonna worry about it.)

I see the main disadvantages to javelin over bow as, first of all, range, but also number. A character probably isn't carrying 20 javelins or hand-axes. (Certainly not 20 hand-axes that can be drawn quickly.) If a character really wanted to load up on javelins, I would probably impose some sort of limit on the number they could keep "at-ready." (Unless they wanted to sit next to a stack of javelins on the ground or something.) So a 5th level archer can last 10 rounds before she runs out of ammo, but a 5th level spear-chucker might only be able to operate 2 rounds at range. (We had a combat that probably took 10 or more rounds on Thursday. Player characters were storming a small, poorly guarded fort. As they fought the defenders in the courtyard, reinforcements returned from a raid, and began throwing ropes over the walls to restorm their own castle. I think the ranger might have actually taken an action to collect arrows that had been shot at her.)

 

[famousringo]

That video is a far cry from showing that it is "easily accomplished". In fact, by the end he says that most slingers never used a sling, and even the skirmishers would 'run forward, fire, then run back to reload" If it was "easily accomplished" there would be no need to run back and forth.

From a rules perspective, even he says you will need two hands to load, he is just using the same hand that holds the shield to also help load.

Most slingers never used a shield because he's talking about large battle formations. Few longbowmen would have worn heavy armor, but that's no reason to exclude the weapon and armor combo from DnD. The skirmishing slingers he describes are very much how I'd expect a small party of adventurers to fight. They're running back and forth because they're fighting right at the front and not threatening with a melee weapon. The shield guards against enemy projectiles while legs protect against a sword in the belly.

As to the plausibility from a rules perspective, does it really seem more far fetched that a shield hand could hold a stone for a second than the idea that a little specialized training would allow you to load and fire a heavy crossbow several times in just six seconds? Even the idea of firing once per round is as preposterous as magic words that can conjure fire.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That video is a far cry from showing that it is "easily accomplished". In fact, by the end he says that most slingers never used a sling, and even the skirmishers would 'run forward, fire, then run back to reload" If it was "easily accomplished" there would be no need to run back and forth.

There's "no need" for a lot of things that happen in combat. Civil War-era rifles could fire three aimed shots per minute--so why did battles last all day? In theory both sides could inflict crippling casualties on each other in sixty seconds, and yet they didn't, perhaps due to human factors. Maybe slingers ran back and forth for the same reason. After all, dodgeball players do the same, and it's not because they can't throw one-handed.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Not a criticism of your game, just a comment on verisimilitude...

(We had a combat that probably took 10 or more rounds on Thursday. Player characters were storming a small, poorly guarded fort. As they fought the defenders in the courtyard, reinforcements returned from a raid, and began throwing ropes over the walls to restorm their own castle. I think the ranger might have actually taken an action to collect arrows that had been shot at her.)

This is the problem with six-second combat rounds. In order to make this scenario work, the defenders have to coincidentally return within sixty seconds of when the PCs attack, AND they have to instantly formulate a plan to restorm their own castle with ropes.

In reality you'd probably have at least a half-hour (300 rounds) between initial assault and counter-attack.

 

[redrick]

Not a criticism of your game, just a comment on verisimilitude...

This is the problem with six-second combat rounds. In order to make this scenario work, the defenders have to coincidentally return within sixty seconds of when the PCs attack, AND they have to instantly formulate a plan to restorm their own castle with ropes.

In reality you'd probably have at least a half-hour (300 rounds) between initial assault and counter-attack.

Yeah, we don't try to get too hung up on verisimilitude.

Also, to go into more detail on the particular in-game events, there were actually 4 separate combat encounters, only the last of which involved reinforcements. The PCs defeated the guards at the gates, but not before one was able to alert the defenders inside of intruders. They then formulated a plan to storm the castle proper (involving a fly spell and climbing the walls), and fought another battle with defenders as they tried to get over the walls and into the courtyard. The last few defenders fled into an inner building, where the rest of the inhabitants were holed up. PCs spent some time investigating the courtyard, before formulating a plan to storm the inner "keep" (not really a keep). This was a drawn out combat into itself, as it involved setting the roof on fire and trying to smoke everybody out, then fighting or subduing those who fled the burning building. (Combat + 10 minutes non-combat + combat + 10 minutes non-combat + combat + reinforcements) In reality, the reinforcements returned to the castle sometime during the lead-up to storming the inner keep. They discovered the sentries slain and the door barred, and as they contemplated their options, saw smoke start to rise from the roof of the keep. At which point they started scrambling over the walls, lowering ropes, and taking positions on the towers of the gatehouse. Still probably doesn't map perfectly to the number of seconds expended, but I'm an editor and generally work within the concept of movie-time-logic.

B/X D&D has a nice rule — no matter how many rounds are spent in combat, a combat is seen as taking a full turn, or 10 minutes. 5e encourages more time gradation than the 10-second round and 10-minute turn of B/X, but there is also a sense of fluidity between the 6-second round (roughly limiting the amount that can be accomplished by a combatant before other combatants have the opportunity to respond in turn), and the greater flow of time in the world around. So, while only 3 combat rounds passed between throwing the torch onto the roof of the building and the first people charging out through a window, it's understood that it took more than 18 seconds for things to really heat up in there.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I disagree with MerricB's read of the rules.* I don't think the list Interactions with Objects Around You (which includes drawing or sheathing a sword) was meant to be a list of things limited to one free interaction, but rather simply a non-exhaustive of things that didn't require the PC to use their action. It was meant to be freeing, rather than limiting. A clear statement that you didn't have to use an action to draw or sheathe a sword, you could just do it at the same time as your move or your other action.

If a fighter with extra attacks can pull an arrow from a quiver, nock it, draw, and shoot for each of their attacks, without being limited to one arrow per turn, then I think they draw and throw multiple javelins per turn, too, provided they have a similar kind of set-up.

*Which is not to say that he is wrong. This is very much one of those "DM's call" kind of things.

I'm pretty sure the designers have referenced (or at least implied design intent) in agreement with what MerricB said. I agree with that assessment. I think the rules are pretty clear on the fact that you get one free item interaction like the examples on the table, and if you want more than one it takes your action.

That said, the rules are silent about moving items from one hand to another, so I would allow grabbing javelins from your off-hand for free.

 

[Coredump]

I'm not going to go head to head with [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] in a rules dispute, but I have to say that I agree with this as far as how I'd rule it at my table.

And it is a fine ruling for your table... but the rule in the PHB is pretty darn straightforward and is just like MerricB asserts. You are allowed one free object interaction, the rules very clearly state that a second interaction would take an action.


That is not to say there isn't room for DM modifications to that list....

 

[Taronkov]

Maybe I missed something somewhere along the line but where does it say that a weapon having ammunition and not the loading property is specifically what allows you to shoot multiple items as opposed to drawing say a throwing knife from a quick draw style setup or a javelin from a quiver and throwing multiple of them? I don't agree that's necessarily the intent of the rules at all. Otherwise you would have the same limitation when trying to throw darts.

 

[redrick]

And it is a fine ruling for your table... but the rule in the PHB is pretty darn straightforward and is just like MerricB asserts. You are allowed one free object interaction, the rules very clearly state that a second interaction would take an action.


That is not to say there isn't room for DM modifications to that list....

Hey, absolutely. As I said, "at my table." In this case, I would treat drawing the javelin to be part of the attack action, in the same way that I would treat drawing an arrow to be part of the attack action. That ain't in the PHB, and it's probably not RAI, but I don't think it's gonna pull the game down. The archer is, in so many other respects, kicking the teeth out of our strength fighter in ranged combat, that I don't mind throwing him this bone.

My observation has been that the degree of adherence to "object interaction" limits varies greatly from one table to the next, and I believe that is rules as intended.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Maybe I missed something somewhere along the line but where does it say that a weapon having ammunition and not the loading property is specifically what allows you to shoot multiple items as opposed to drawing say a throwing knife from a quick draw style setup or a javelin from a quiver and throwing multiple of them? I don't agree that's necessarily the intent of the rules at all. Otherwise you would have the same limitation when trying to throw darts.

Check the description of the ammunition property in the equipment chapter.