D&D 5E Crossbow confusion

[Mouseferatu]

I'd just extend Two-Weapon Fighting to apply to any light weapon. It's the only light ranged weapon. I don't see any reason why it SHOULDN'T be that.

Exactly my plan, when I'm DM. I just hope other DMs feel the same; I have this rogue I really want to play...

 

[Johnny Champion]

Not knowing this alpha release feat, I would allow 2 bolts to be fired in one action at the start of an encounter (assuming the PC stated they were loaded). After that, treat them per the rules.

 

[Crothian]

....kind of a failure in Basic then. We're not supposed to have to use the PHB with this thing.

You don't need the PHB for Basic, but the Basic game is not complete as they still have things to add to it that they are holding back until some of the other books get released.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You don't need the PHB for Basic, but the Basic game is not complete as they still have things to add to it that they are holding back until some of the other books get released.

Sure, but since feats are optional...I don't know how a PHB feat is supposed to make the Basic Hand Crossbow any better, I guess?

 

[Crothian]

Sure, but since feats are optional...I don't know how a PHB feat is supposed to make the Basic Hand Crossbow any better, I guess?

It doesn't have to be feats. There could be sub classes that take advantage of the crossbow that we haven't seen yet. Or just rules that cover them that have not been released.

 

[Mouseferatu]

What Crothian said. The hand crossbow works just fine in Basic; it just appears to be an odd choice/design.

Actually, Hand of Evil's reminder about guns has me thinking, this may have been an accidental oversight. If the DMG covers firearms, it may well cover rules for dual light ranged weapons in general, with the fact that there's one such weapon that didn't wait for the DMG slipping through the cracks.

All just guessing, of course.

 

[GX.Sigma]

....kind of a failure in Basic then. We're not supposed to have to use the PHB with this thing.

You don't have to. How does one word in the weapon table break the game?

I'd just extend Two-Weapon Fighting to apply to any light weapon. It's the only light ranged weapon. I don't see any reason why it SHOULDN'T be that.

I can think of a few reasons. Like how it's a fricking crossbow that you have to reload after every shot, and you can't aim two shots at the same time.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I can think of a few reasons. Like how it's a fricking crossbow that you have to reload after every shot, and you can't aim two shots at the same time.

I agree you'd only get one shot from each, due to the load feature, but I don't agree you couldn't fire both at once. The hand crossbow's always been portrayed like a pistol-crossbow in D&D. Firing two guns at once may not be the death machine Hollywood likes to portray it as, but it's certainly doable.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Although, really, even if they weren't pistol-grip, but designed like other crossbows at the time, it'd still be quite possible to learn to fire them both at once with some degree of accuracy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It doesn't have to be feats. There could be sub classes that take advantage of the crossbow that we haven't seen yet. Or just rules that cover them that have not been released.

Erm, my response was pretty specific to feats. And also isn't Basic just supposed to be one subclass per class? And shouldn't a weapon having a point to it be independent of subclass or race?

I mean, "there is no point to them according to the current Basic RAW" seems like a true response, and would seem to me to be a problem that extra material from the PHB isn't likely to solve unless they fixed Two-Weapon Fighting or the crossbow itself between Basic and the PHB (which is possible, but hardly has to do with feats, races, or subclasses).