D&D 5E Does the new ammunition rule screw up dual hand crossbow?

[JackOfAllTirades]

I'm not buying this sheath/unsheath in the same round business. Arguments based on the idea that "the rules don't forbid this, therefore I can do it" are the reason the hand crossbow errata was necessary in the first place. Here we go again; the shenanigans never end.

And this is why I'm not a huge fan of the "rulings not rules" catch-phrase. Here's my ruling: it's sloppy game design that encourages rules lawyers.

 

[Obryn]

I'm not buying this sheath/unsheath in the same round business. Arguments based on the idea that "the rules don't forbid this, therefore I can do it" are the reason the hand crossbow errata was necessary in the first place. Here we go again; the shenanigans never end.

And this is why I'm not a huge fan of the "rulings not rules" catch-phrase. Here's my ruling: it's sloppy game design that encourages rules lawyers.

I'd say this is what happens when Sage Advice makes wacky rulings. In this case, flavor restrictions without balance considerations.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

I'd say this is what happens when Sage Advice makes wacky rulings. In this case, flavor restrictions without balance considerations.

Except it's not "wacky" to explain that "Yes, you need to have a hand free to load a crossbow."

"Wacky" is either:

A) assuming you can do it with exactly zero hands or,

B) assuming that everyone knows this and not pointing it out in the rules.


This isn't a Sage Advice problem, it's a PHB problem, and this is far from the only example.

 

[Obryn]

Except it's not "wacky" to explain that "Yes, you need to have a hand free to load a crossbow."

"Wacky" is either:

A) assuming you can do it with exactly zero hands or,

B) assuming that everyone knows this and not pointing it out in the rules.


This isn't a Sage Advice problem, it's a PHB problem, and this is far from the only example.

It was an unnecessary "clarification" though, given its near-zero mechanical impact. That's the wacky bit - that of all things they decided this required their attention.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There was a mechanical impact...

while 2 hand crossbows are fine for me and i guess most people, there were some people who used two hand crossbows and a shield. Which was a bit much... better armor and beter utility than two weapon fighting.

I would also like a clarification, that quaterstaff + shield + off hand quarterstaff attack is not allowed too...

 

[famousringo]

There was a mechanical impact...

while 2 hand crossbows are fine for me and i guess most people, there were some people who used two hand crossbows and a shield. Which was a bit much... better armor and beter utility than two weapon fighting.

I would also like a clarification, that quaterstaff + shield + off hand quarterstaff attack is not allowed too...

Pretty sure offhand attacks and shields are totally incompatible. I don't think you can can even offhand attack with a single staff and no shield, actually. Double weapons don't exist anymore. I suppose you could take the dual wielding feat to get an offhand attack with a second staff. It's a little goofy, but doesn't break the game.

You're right that handbow + shield is now illegal and may have been broken, thanks to the way it did an end-run around the offhand attack rules. I stand corrected. It still would have been better to fix the feat than to break shield slingers and offhand crossbows, IMO.

 

[Coredump]

The object interaction table explicitly lists
Draw or sheathe a sword.

To try and claim that also allows one to draw and sheathe a sword is a bit of a reach.

 

[Jester David]

Three or four weeks ago I drew this webcomic:



I figured by the time the comic was posted the debate would be over and it would no longer be topical.
I was very pleased that the debate was still going and, let along more heated than before. Pleased, amused, and somewhat saddened.

 

[Hriston]

IMO the feat does imply that the action happens before the bonus.

How is this implied? It seems to me that the word "when" implies that the attack and the bonus action happen at the same time, which I would interpret as happening at any point in your turn you choose, since there is no specific order of events that is given.

I'm only pointing this out because I think this is a much stronger argument than using your free interaction to sheathe and unsheathe your weapon, which I would agree with others is unsupported by the rules.

 

[famousringo]

How is this implied? It seems to me that the word "when" implies that the attack and the bonus action happen at the same time, which I would interpret as happening at any point in your turn you choose, since there is no specific order of events that is given.

I'm only pointing this out because I think this is a much stronger argument than using your free interaction to sheathe and unsheathe your weapon, which I would agree with others is unsupported by the rules.

Just my interpretation. Both arguments have merit, and obviously the only interpretation that matters is the DM at your table. You're right that there's no rational reason why one should need to occur before the other.

Perhaps I just prefer the second option because it repeats neatly each round, whereas the former must alternate between shoot > swing and swing > shoot, allowing the player to sometimes get OAs, sometimes not. Messy.