Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8102393" data-attributes="member: 6777737">Oh, definitely. I think hand crossbows should not do more damage or have longer range than thrown daggers. I just think it's much more fun to have a hand crossbows akimbo rather than someone rapidly firing one hand crossbow at all. Like I can imagine a hand crossbow "gunslinger" type character who uses two hand crossbows. I think that's a more evocative and fun image, so Crawford's ruling felt totally arbitrary and anti-rule-of-cool. It's actually less powerful to have to use two crossbows -- you'd need two magic ones -- so it felt more min-maxey, too.The feat is written with absurd language, too. Like, I submit that nobody reads, "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding," turns around and immediately thinks, "Oh, I should use a hand crossbow as my only weapon to get the most benefit from this feat." Sorry, but that language is screaming to me, "You can use a hand crossbow like it's an off-hand weapon. And you can ignore the loading property!" Instead, nope, the best use of the benefit is the plainest thing ever. A character running round with a rapier and hand crossbow? Awesome, but nope that doesn't work. Two hand crossbows? Fantastic, but nope that doesn't work. Just a hand crossbow? Ugh, yawn, but it's valid.I'd rather that there were no way to ignore the loading property at all, quite frankly. I'm okay with "forcing" ranged characters to use bows instead of making crossbows a straight upgrade for them because I think making all archers want to transition to crossbows is... dumb. It breaks the imagery of using a traditional bow in a fantasy game. I like the idea that crossbows are what untrained characters use (i.e., those who lack Extra Attack) and everyone who is skilled uses a regular bow. I think that's a better design. I don't think it's close, either.</blockquote>

Verification