D&D 5E Crossbows and dual-wielding

[juggerulez]

My comments added in bold /Zapp
Yes I know this. It's not that I don't understand it, it is I don't like it. A Light Hammer is "light". A crossbow that isn't "light" shouldn't have been called light. You explaining how it works is not a good excuse, it's actually completely beside the point.

is it beside the point? for real? lol.

No, the rulebook's actual description of the light property is "Light. A light weapon is small and easy to handle, making it ideal for use when fighting with two weapons."

I think that statement speaks for itself.

So they can't use the same propriety for both a ranged 1 handed weapon and any other light one handed weapons because it creates confusion. ok I take it.

Again, you are responding a bit too literally. By answering like as if I don't understand the rules you come across as completely missing the point. (Not that it is easy to read nuance from internet posts, so that's okay.)

If you think i'm missing the point, we're done here. Two handed weapons must be operated with 2 hands but can be handled by just one. It's simple as that, you don't need to believe me, just read the errata. or is the errata beside the point too?

You keep saying that as if it could not be any other way.

because there is no wiggle room to assume it's different than this... believe it or not.

Do note that while YOU say this, the rules do not.

rules are crystal clear: if you wanna use TWF both weapons must have the light propriety and must be melee weapons.

Let's just say I find no good reason to be mindbogglingly super-detailed in some cases, and maddeningly inexact in others. Other than that I really don't have anything to say on shields.

good for you

Now you're just pulling my leg.

I was just reading the rules as they are written. If this pulls your leg, well... :v

Again you reply as if we didn't both have a complete understanding of the basics.

well repetita iuvant, they used to say in the old times

As I see it, the end result is very much the same - just like a TWF:er, you become able to use your bonus action to do one extra attack.
However, you don't need to take the Two Weapon Fighting style; freeing you to instead take Archery and STILL get your ability modifier (Dex) on damage for that extra attack.
In the end analysis: you gain range but give up... nothing.

so? why should you give up something? no other style expects you to, so why should you? o.o'

What is that supposed to mean? Are you again (over-)explaining or is this an attempt at justifying why?

It's an explanation of how well trained people won't have issue by shooting in point blank. Even in 3rd edition you had a feat called "point blank shot" which removed the issue entirely, so why the perplexity?

I don't see any good reason why they had to invent a completely different way to shoot extra crossbow bolts when they could have used the perfectly good rules for two weapon fighting.

beats me, but they did it anyways

Please stop assuming this is a thread on understanding the rules. This is a thread where I posit that the rules are unnecessarily sloppy and counterintuitive. Thank you.

well this is just your opinion. Mine is that they are pretty straight forward and i don't see any discrepancies or sloppyness or counterintuitiveness... so perhaps it is just me, or perhaps it is just you

I'm just gonna let that bit slide, since you're simply not having the same conversation I'm having. Sorry.

perhaps you're correct here. I'm speaking about ranged combat as seen from RAW and RAI perspectives. What are *you* talking about?

O rly?

ya rly

Sorry, what?

No, really - that's a genuine question. Or rather, yes, obviously ranged dual wield is completely hosed by the rules, so obviously it sucks.

we finally agree on something

The working alternative to melee dual wielding the rules gives us is the crossbow archer that uses a hand crossbow with the Archery style and Crosbow Expert feat. I say this has several advantages over melee but I can't find any disadvantages.

The disadvantages are that you can't dual wield two hand crossbows or 1 hand crossbow and 1 melee weapon. No warhammer witch hunter characters here, no fun allowed!

Don't be sorry - I have quite obviously failed to make it clear to you that, yes, I do understand the rules, I just don't like how they are constructed.

I'm not saying that you didn't understand them, I needed to quote RAW to make my arguments and explained RAI to prove my points. If you felt treated as someone who lack basic reading comprehension, I'm sorry I couldn't make clear that I'm not here to teach you how to read, rather than to show you that your approach on the matter was from a different angle than it should have been, and to suggest you to adjust accordingly. If you still consider your angle the better one, there is little to further discuss about

 

[CapnZapp]

Round One
Draw crossbow. Load crossbow. Draw sword. Attack with both.

Round Two
Attack with sword. Sheath sword. Load crossbow. Attack with crossbow.

Round Three
Load crossbow. Draw sword. Attack with both.

Round Four
Same as round two. Etc.

Gambling the object interaction rules would be the uncoolest way to play the game like ever, in my opinion. In fact, even thinking about object interaction puts me in a foul mood. Not having any of it myself.

 

[CapnZapp]

Instead of replying individually, let me specify exactly what I would have liked to see.

Three straight-forward changes:
1) The Light Crossbow being named simply Crossbow.
2) The melee-only distinction of two-weapon fighting be dropped.
3) The complete removal of the Crossbow Expert feat

This would make the rules for crossbows MUCH more intuitive.

This would mean a crossbow is a good choice for the basic guard or militiaman (having only one attack means loading is not a restriction).

An adventurer could pick up two hand crossbows to get two attacks at level 1, just like wielding shortsword plus dagger. After firing her two shots, she would drop the crossbows and draw melee weapons.

At level 5, you could combine a rapier, say, with a hand crossbow, and get that third attack. You would need to draw a new crossbow each round (or buy a repeating one).

The "single crossbow" would NOT be the be-all and end-all of crossbow usage. Sure a repeating heavy crossbow would be awesome, but it would be more of a cross between a bow (sorry) and a greatweapon than some perversely optimal two-weapon fighting facsimile.

In all cases, a crossbow would NOT let you combine the advantages of two fighting styles at once. You could not get +2 to attacks at the same time you add your Dex to your off-hand attacks.

But the biggest win would be that some rulesy baggage was simply dropped.


---


Then you could of course decide to not apply the errata to ammunition, and simply allow a character to reload with no extra hands, apart from the handed-ness of the weapon itself. A two-handed weapon like Heavy Crossbow you reload with those two hands. A one-handed weapon like Hand Crossbow you reload with that one hand.

Rules as Cool, not as written

 

[CapnZapp]

Bringing this back up on top to be referenced in another thread. Cheers [emoji55]