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

[Coredump]

This is getting tedious. You insist on bypassing the topic in favor of mischaracterizing my statements and making up assumptions about me. Please stop.

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.

No, that is not what I said, but I think you know that. The rules say you are using a sling..... the rules assume you know about what a sling is and how it operates... same as the rules assume you know about trees, and gravity, and castles, and (not) walking on water, etc.....

All the evidence you have provided indicates that using a shield drastically slows you down, *and* makes the shield less effective. But you want to ignore your own evidence.

If you can use a hand to hold a shield *and* to load a sling, why can't you use a hand to hold a shield *and* fire a crossbow? Or hold a shield *and* use a greatsword?

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.

Really?
I never said (nor implied) that it broke the game.
I never said nor implied that I was terrified about it.
I never said nor implied that they 'missed' it in testing.
I *did* say many times that the one-handed descriptor is valid, because it only takes one hand to *use* the sling, it only takes two hands to load it.

As for their 'intention' during playtest.... the *RULES DESIGNER* has several comments stating that a one handed crossbow still takes 2 hands to load.


So, based on what you have presented.
Using a shield with a sling makes you much slower
Using a shield with a sling makes a shield less effective
The rules don't support using a shield hand for 'other' actions
The rules designer doesn't agree with your assertions.

Yet you still think it should be 'easily accomplished'....

 

[cmad1977]

Meh. I'd allow a shield wielding slinger. Loading a rock in a sack isn't the same as loading a bolt.

But as usual this is a stupid side topic.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Shield users have it explicitly worse: takes a full action to don or doff. Do your shield users walk around all day with their shields at the ready? If not what do you do? If so, why not have dual-wielders do the same?

Besides, a dual-wielder wouldn't spend a whole round drawing his weapons even if caught without them in hand. He'd draw them over two rounds while fighting. He loses a bonus action attack but that's it.

 

[Taronkov]

Or means you can do one but not the other. A is singular. That's not ambiguous, you may not rule it that way at your table but you are making a house rule one way or the other. Also where the feat says "when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one" reinforces that you explicitly need the feat as you can't do it otherwise.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Or means you can do one but not the other.

"Or" alone is neutral. "Either... or" is usually exclusive.

E.g. http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55692.html

 

[Taronkov]

True but context matters, which your linked article shows as well. In this case I would argue that the context of the rules and reading them means you can due either one or the other. The exclusion of either was considered acceptable without changing the meaning of the conversation because their examples, including the ones in the actual paragraph rather than just the table, show that you can only do one of these things and not multiple ones.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

True but context matters, which your linked article shows as well. In this case I would argue that the context of the rules and reading them means you can due either one or the other. The exclusion of either was considered acceptable without changing the meaning of the conversation because their examples, including the ones in the actual paragraph rather than just the table, show that you can only do one of these things and not multiple ones.

With specific regard to draw/sheathe, my reading of RAW its that you interact freely with one object. So draw/stab/sheathe its fine as long as it's just one sword. I could be wrong but that's what context is saying to me.

 

[Celtavian]

Isn't that interesting. Sling use with a shield. That's sufficient evidence to support it's use. It's all I ask for. D&D is cinematic. A D&D warrior using his sling with a shield at a faster pace than a real life guy is something I can buy into.

This is one of the reasons I don't like the one size fits all shield. I can see a slinger using a small or buckler shield with a sling. I could not see them using it with a large Roman or Viking shield.

 

[famousringo]

Isn't that interesting. Sling use with a shield. That's sufficient evidence to support it's use. It's all I ask for. D&D is cinematic. A D&D warrior using his sling with a shield at a faster pace than a real life guy is something I can buy into.

This is one of the reasons I don't like the one size fits all shield. I can see a slinger using a small or buckler shield with a sling. I could not see them using it with a large Roman or Viking shield.

It's true that a large round shield like a hoplite's might extend too far to the right and interfere with the sling arm, but the two 12th century depictions of slingers with shields show them using the same tall kite shields that the sword wielding knights are using. Casting a sling normally requires holding it above the head or away from the body so you don't whack yourself, so as long as a shield doesn't cover the head or the right shoulder, it can provide a lot of protection without interfering with the shot.

 

[Coredump]

Isn't that interesting. Sling use with a shield. That's sufficient evidence to support it's use. It's all I ask for. D&D is cinematic. A D&D warrior using his sling with a shield at a faster pace than a real life guy is something I can buy into.

thats cool. I don't think it was intended, and I don't like it for other reasons.... but that doesn't mean I think you shouldn't do it if you and your table think its fun.

This is one of the reasons I don't like the one size fits all shield. I can see a slinger using a small or buckler shield with a sling. I could not see them using it with a large Roman or Viking shield.

Hmmm.... I think it may be the opposite. A larger shield allows you to hide behind it and doesn't need you to move it as often or as much. I think the best would be a really tall shield that you could actually 'plant'. Kind of like an Archer's pavise that you hold on to.