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

[Coredump]

But while you've placed all these doubts on the evidence I've worked to gather, you still haven't shown me anything in the RAW that suggests slinging requires two hands. They had a great opportunity in the weapon table and another one in the ammunition description, and they left out "two hands" in both, obviously quite deliberately in the first case. As far as I can see, there is no ambiguity, it's something you've entirely read in on your own. It's your house rule, and you're welcome to it.

Using a sling doesn't take two hands. Loading the sling takes two hands.

As far as rules support...
The Rules have purposely called this a Sling because we all know what a sling is, how it operates, what it looks like, etc. The rules are designed upon the premise that we have knowledge of the items they are using. You cant use a sword and say it looks like a stick, nor a horse and say looks and moves like a snake.
When the rules use the term 'tree' it is because we know what trees are, how they grow, what they look like. The rules don't have to tell us that a forest is full of trees.... that is already defined and covered by using the terms 'forest' and 'trees' in the Rules.
When the rules use the term 'sling', it is because we know what slings are, how they are made, how they operate. The rules don't have to explicitly tell us that you need two hands to load a sling....that is already defined and covered by using the terms 'sling' and 'loading'.

Now, to head off the obvious retort....some terms are redefined within the rules, and of course that takes precedence. But that is not the case here.


Oh, and it helps that Crawford has tweeted several times the same thing....

 

[Coredump]

It's an example. It's a list of things which do qualify. It is not an exhaustive or definitive list.

So,
The rules explicitly say you can have *one* object interaction for free.
The rules explicitly say that interacting with a second object requires your action
One of the examples explicitly states you can Sheathe *or* draw your weapon.

But... you somehow think that what they "really meant" was that you can Sheathe one weapon, *and* draw a second weapon, *and* draw a third weapon.

I know they wrote that swords do D8 damage, but what the 'really meant' was they do 3D8 damage. Can't wait to play my fighter....

You can feel free to stick to the letter of the rule, for your own games,

No, sticking with the letter of the rule would be to allow picking up an axe, but not a sword. What you are doing is going exactly against almost everything they have written, and somehow claiming it as an 'interpretation'.

 

[famousringo]

Using a sling doesn't take two hands. Loading the sling takes two hands.

As far as rules support...
The Rules have purposely called this a Sling because we all know what a sling is, how it operates, what it looks like, etc. The rules are designed upon the premise that we have knowledge of the items they are using. You cant use a sword and say it looks like a stick, nor a horse and say looks and moves like a snake.
When the rules use the term 'tree' it is because we know what trees are, how they grow, what they look like. The rules don't have to tell us that a forest is full of trees.... that is already defined and covered by using the terms 'forest' and 'trees' in the Rules.
When the rules use the term 'sling', it is because we know what slings are, how they are made, how they operate. The rules don't have to explicitly tell us that you need two hands to load a sling....that is already defined and covered by using the terms 'sling' and 'loading'.

Now, to head off the obvious retort....some terms are redefined within the rules, and of course that takes precedence. But that is not the case here.


Oh, and it helps that Crawford has tweeted several times the same thing....

Basically your answer is that the rules don't support you at all, it's simply common sense. Your absurd notion of "common sense" is to force a slinger to stow his shield every time he wants to reload, which seems rather distant from reality based on the evidence I've shown.

If single-handed sling operation broke the game, as you're so terrified it might, you'd think they would have noticed in testing and simply added the two handed descriptor.

 

[MerricB]

If single-handed sling operation broke the game, as you're so terrified it might, you'd think they would have noticed in testing and simply added the two handed descriptor.

It is certainly possible to *fire* a sling one-handed, which it is not in the case of a bow, so it makes complete sense that the sling does not have the two-handed property.

Reloading though - that's a lot trickier. The use of both sling and shield together in combat seems comparatively rare. (By which I mean I hadn't heard of it!) I really love Nikolas "lindybeige" Lloyd's videos (you linked to one before with him showing the use of sling and shield together), and upon further examination of your links and the use of shield and sling in history, I'm entertaining the possibility.

Reloading a crossbow with one hand? Not so much!

Cheers!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So,
The rules explicitly say you can have *one* object interaction for free..

My interaction is with my greatsword. The thing I am doing with my greatsword is trading it out for two short swords. It's one interaction. It's slightly more complex than just drawing or sheathing a weapon, but even the list of examples includes actions of different complexity.

It might be a bit of a stretch, but it's all semantics at that point. I could see people ruling against this, if they specifically choose to take the narrow interpretation you suggest. I would also expect a lot of reasonable DMs to take my side in this. There is room for interpretation.

Remember, the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world; they don't define it. If it doesn't make sense to you that drawing two short swords is the same interaction-level as drawing one short sword, then you need to make your case for what sort of reality you are seeing that would lead to the game rule interpretation you're trying to promote.

 

[MerricB]

My interaction is with my greatsword. The thing I am doing with my greatsword is trading it out for two short swords. It's one interaction. It's slightly more complex than just drawing or sheathing a weapon, but even the list of examples includes actions of different complexity.

Saelorn: Read the rule again. It isn't one item interaction, it's interact with one object. There are three objects involved in your example.

 

[Taronkov]

Drawing two weapons like your example of two short swords also explicitly takes the Dual Wielder feat. Your 'interpretation' makes one of the uses of that feat completely useless. It states "You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one." That's not an ambiguous statement at all. Rules are clear and concise, with no room for your interpretation.

Edit: I'm also going to quot the interacting with objects section here... "draw or sheath a sword"

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Basically your answer is that the rules don't support you at all, it's simply common sense. Your absurd notion of "common sense" is to force a slinger to stow his shield every time he wants to reload, which seems rather distant from reality based on the evidence I've shown.

If single-handed sling operation broke the game, as you're so terrified it might, you'd think they would have noticed in testing and simply added the two handed descriptor.

I think it's pretty cool to imagine a warrior who is skilled enough to toss a stone up in the air with his sling hand, catch it in his sling pouch as it's hitting its apogee, then whip it around to send it flying towards the enemy, all in one continuous motion. It would be pretty cool--kind of like watching the Lars Andersen archery video.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Saelorn: Read the rule again. It isn't one item interaction, it's interact with one object. There are three objects involved in your example.

I am interacting with one object - my greatsword! The interaction I am performing with my greatsword is "swapping it for two short swords".

I get that this won't fly in your game, because you see that as interacting with three objects. Even the listed example gives two objects, though - the sword and the sheath. That should be enough to show you that nothing is quite so cut and dried.

Again, I ask what the underlying reality is which would be modeled by two swords requiring an action to draw while drawing one sword leaves your whole action for attacking. In the case where the letter of the rule is at odds with the underlying reality of the game world, favoring the latter over the former is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Drawing two weapons like your example of two short swords also explicitly takes the Dual Wielder feat. Your 'interpretation' makes one of the uses of that feat completely useless.

No, the Dual Wielder feat explicitly allows it. That's different from the action explicitly requiring the feat.

Feats aren't even an assumed part of the game, and it's ludicrous to expect that a character who is all about dual-wielding must spend an entire action just readying weapons at the start of a fight. The game designers aren't that stupid. Give them some credit, at least.

They know that this rule is vague. Maybe their expectation is that everyone can draw two weapons, as a baseline, but you need the feat to do it if your game is using feats. In any case, that benefit of the feat is only useful if your DM rules that it would otherwise take your action to draw two weapons. Basically, it exists as protection from RAW, for one common situation where strict adherence to the mere letter of the rule would cause one character type to suffer disproportionately.

Edit: I'm also going to quot the interacting with objects section here... "draw or sheath a sword"

It's an example. It's not a definitive list. If drawing or sheathing a sword counts as one interaction, then it easily can be argued that doing both does not require more effort. Not everyone has to agree with that, but some people will.