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

[Celtavian]

Could you point to anything that even suggests you need 2 hands to load the hand crossbow?

I can point to the facts that the hand crossbow doesn't have the 2-handed quality, and the ammunition property says reloading is a part of making an attack with the weapon which since it isn't 2-handed only takes 1 hand to attack with it.

This also applies to blowguns and slings.

The fact that the current edition of D&D is intuitive. If you can clearly show it takes two hands to load a crossbow, hand or otherwise, it takes two hands. You would have to prove at the table you could load a hand crossbow with a hand crossbow in your hand to get that one by me as a DM. No DM should allow two-hand crossbows with Crossbow Expert bonus action save perhaps every other round according to drawing action. They have to clear a hand to load the hand crossbow.

It shouldn't have to be written down same as they don't have to write down you need legs to walk as a humanoid.

 

[Flatulus]

I can load a hand crossbow, whilst holding another one in my other hand. It isn't impossible. It is now very practical either

I don't think too much 'real world' hassle should impinge on a fantasy game though. If a monk can run at extraordinary speed in a fantasy game, but obviously can not in real life, where does that leave us?


(If you must know, you need a small hook under one hand crossbow, to pull the string back on the other, and you need a bolt holder on the side of the crossbow).

 

[Paraxis]

The fact that the current edition of D&D is intuitive. If you can clearly show it takes two hands to load a crossbow, hand or otherwise, it takes two hands. You would have to prove at the table you could load a hand crossbow with a hand crossbow in your hand to get that one by me as a DM. No DM should allow two-hand crossbows with Crossbow Expert bonus action save perhaps every other round according to drawing action. They have to clear a hand to load the hand crossbow.

It shouldn't have to be written down same as they don't have to write down you need legs to walk as a humanoid.

Reality has pretty much nothing to do with D&D.

In a real world a giant ball of fire or bolts of lightning would do tons of damage to surrounding areas. Something the size of a dragon, kraken, or titan wouldn't be bothered by a dagger. If something that big wanted you dead it would just step on you. So on and so forth....there are conceits when playing a FANTASY rpg.

And for the record if a player wanted to play a character in one of my games without legs, I would just give him some mode of conveyance that allowed him to walk/roll the speed listed for his race, and no I wouldn't make him use his hands to operate it.

The hand crossbow is not listed as a 2-handed weapon, that means all it takes to operate it or a sling or a blowgun is one hand.

The other hand could be holding another one handed weapon, a shield, could be tied behind his back or the character could be missing an arm. Until the rules say in black and white it takes a free hand to load the weapon it doesn't. RAW is simple that way.

Now can you rule differently at your table sure you can, but you could also rule that all elves fart rainbows and have a +100 to do things they are proficient in, none of that would be the rules as written either, just like forcing people to have a free hand to load a 1-handed ranged weapon with the ammunition property.

 

[El Mahdi]

Reality has pretty much nothing to do with D&D.

I understand you have a different view on hand-crossbows and the expert feat than others, including myself. It's also obvious you're not going to convince others of your view, just as they aren't going to change your view.

But the above quote...No...just No.

Your ruling at your table is completely your prerogative, and no more objectively right or wrong than anybody else's rulings at their table.

Same thing goes for reality.

Reality may have nothing to do with D&D for you...at your table. At my table and at other's tables, reality has a significant role in D&D.

Neither is more right or wrong than the other. Your conceits are different than mine, just as Celtavian's are different from you and me.

Defining D&D for anybody but yourself or your table is a fools errand, and will do nothing constructive other than sowing discord.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I can load a hand crossbow, whilst holding another one in my other hand. It isn't impossible. It is now very practical either

You can? I'd genuinely like to see it. I have hand crossbows, and I can't load one while holding something else in my other hand, let alone another crossbow. Those things are 80lb draw weights.

Reality has pretty much nothing to do with D&D.
.

That's what I tried to tell my DM when I said my 2nd level fighter ran up the wall and ceiling to get around the hobgoblin. He didn't buy it.

"Use the rules, don't let the rules use you."

 

[Celtavian]

Reality has pretty much nothing to do with D&D.

In a real world a giant ball of fire or bolts of lightning would do tons of damage to surrounding areas. Something the size of a dragon, kraken, or titan wouldn't be bothered by a dagger. If something that big wanted you dead it would just step on you. So on and so forth....there are conceits when playing a FANTASY rpg.

And for the record if a player wanted to play a character in one of my games without legs, I would just give him some mode of conveyance that allowed him to walk/roll the speed listed for his race, and no I wouldn't make him use his hands to operate it.

If a player wanted to do that in my game, I might work out something similar. There would definitely be a detriment. What's the point of playing a person missing their legs if there isn't any difficulty doing so? What's the point?

The hand crossbow is not listed as a 2-handed weapon, that means all it takes to operate it or a sling or a blowgun is one hand.

The other hand could be holding another one handed weapon, a shield, could be tied behind his back or the character could be missing an arm. Until the rules say in black and white it takes a free hand to load the weapon it doesn't. RAW is simple that way.

Now can you rule differently at your table sure you can, but you could also rule that all elves fart rainbows and have a +100 to do things they are proficient in, none of that would be the rules as written either, just like forcing people to have a free hand to load a 1-handed ranged weapon with the ammunition property.

It sure would be rules as intended. RAW don't fly in 5E. You can't force DMs to follow RAW, especially when it is goofy and causes a loss of verisimilitude. Thank WotC for that. One thing I despised about 3E was players attempting to force DMs to follow RAW. Overly legalistic rules are one of the reasons I like the new light rules.

Not in my game. Real world has nothing to do with it. Verisimilitude is something I still like, that means no loading hand crossbows without a free hand. If all you want to do is follow the rule to the letter, have at it. Your table, your options.

Unfortunately for you, DMs don't have to follow RAW. RAW doesn't even exist in this edition. Every single sage answer includes the usual caveat of your table, your rules. No more rule lawyers. I'm glad.

 

[Katmandoo122]

Are we really having this debate AGAIN? It's pretty settled, I think, that RAW let's you load the hand crossbows how you like but that some tables - for whatever reason - can't fathom the idea and therefore don't allow it. There are dozens of debates on this issue and very little if anything to add to it.

So tl;dr RAW yes, but for some, invisibility is ok but loading a crossbow heroically it too far fetched.

Anyone have something to add that doesn't fit that?

To the OP, the game gives you the opportunity to use your Imp outside of adventure but inside of the adventure, it would be hard to get a single dose let alone enough to use regularly unless your DM wants to run a high fantasy rule set. Even then, though, don't try to shoot a hand crossbow too often.

 

[Celtavian]

Are we really having this debate AGAIN? It's pretty settled, I think, that RAW let's you load the hand crossbows how you like but that some tables - for whatever reason - can't fathom the idea and therefore don't allow it. There are dozens of debates on this issue and very little if anything to add to it.

So tl;dr RAW yes, but for some, invisibility is ok but loading a crossbow heroically it too far fetched.

Anyone have something to add that doesn't fit that?

To the OP, the game gives you the opportunity to use your Imp outside of adventure but inside of the adventure, it would be hard to get a single dose let alone enough to use regularly unless your DM wants to run a high fantasy rule set. Even then, though, don't try to shoot a hand crossbow too often.

Loading two hand crossbows is heroic? How does that have anything to do with heroism? It's a power gamer exploit.

Anyone reading Crossbow Expert can see it was intended for a rapier wielding player or single sword user to fire a hand crossbow along with his weapon in melee. It's another example of a small clarification slipping by that gets exploited by power gamers looking for any advantage as they try to force RAW onto DMs to exploit rules.

Look at that, Crawford did clarify. I knew they never intended Hand Crossbows to be used like automatic pistols. Crawford agrees that you need at least one hand free to load the bolt. Like the new WotC says, your table, your rules. But it was never intended for you to use two hand crossbows and fire at will with the bonus action. It was always supposed to be one shot, enter battle, reload maybe every other round. Like a pirate or musketeer with sword and pistol.

@RSIxidor [MENTION=6678217]piz[/MENTION]zystrizzyDo you need two hands to load a hand crossbow? IE, could I have a shield or rapier in the other hand? I'd say you need at least one hand free to load the bolt. — Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) November 5, 2014

 

[Katmandoo122]

Loading two hand crossbows is heroic? How does that have anything to do with heroism? It's a power gamer exploit.

Anyone reading Crossbow Expert can see it was intended for a rapier wielding player or single sword user to fire a hand crossbow along with his weapon in melee. It's another example of a small clarification slipping by that gets exploited by power gamers looking for any advantage as they try to force RAW onto DMs to exploit rules.

Look at that, Crawford did clarify. I knew they never intended Hand Crossbows to be used like automatic pistols. Crawford agrees that you need at least one hand free to load the bolt. Like the new WotC says, your table, your rules. But it was never intended for you to use two hand crossbows and fire at will with the bonus action. It was always supposed to be one shot, enter battle, reload maybe every other round. Like a pirate or musketeer with sword and pistol.

@RSIxidor @pizzystrizzyDo you need two hands to load a hand crossbow? IE, could I have a shield or rapier in the other hand? I'd say you need at least one hand free to load the bolt. — Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford) November 5, 2014

Pretty disengenious, Celt...I'm not getting drawn into this dead debate. Run your table the way you want. Interpret it the way you want. I'll do the same. FWIW, I ran a low level (up to 6) dual hand crossbow character and was...underwhelmed. So it's not an overpower thing. As for Crawford, he also said (can't link because I'm behind the firewall at work):

"Crossbow Expert does allow a character to shoot a hand crossbow as an action and again as a bonus action." Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford October 21, 2014"

But whatever. The rules are there to be interpreted how you feel. That doesn't make you right or make me wrong. It also doesn't make you wrong or me right. Look, I think that Iggy Azalea is a dumpster fire of music. But some people like her. I can't understand why, but they do. If I am hosting a music party, does it make sense to piss on their foot and tell them they're wrong? No...I just don't play her music.

The world is not black and white..this one OR the ones we create inside of games.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Re: the whole "it's a fantasy game" angle? I think we can look through the editions of D&D and see that as a pretty good general rule, unless there's a specific text that says something does not follow the rules of physics, we apply real world laws to how things work in the game. It has to be that way, because it sets expectations. PCs need to eat a certain amount of food, humans can't jump 50ft up in the air, etc.

A dagger shouldn't be able to hurt a dragon in "real life"? Sure, but we have specific rules in game that override that (hit points).
People flying or casting lightning bolts? Not in real life, but the game gives us specific rules on those things.
Wanting your PC to do something that goes against the laws of physics and there is no rule for it? Not gonna happen.

So forgive me, but saying, "it's a fantasy game" is a pretty weak argument, I think, to allow things in game that are impossible in real life without something in the game that specifically overrides real life laws. Mostly because it's a super vague line that's highly subjective, and whenever you have something highly subjective, it doesn't make a strong argument for how things should be done.

I also disagree with RAW saying you can load crossbows with one hand. "Rules as Written" is what RAW means, so if you say that, you have to be prepared to cite where exactly that rule is written. Otherwise it's not RAW but is rules as interpreted. And I haven't seen any rules that say you can load crossbows with only one hand.