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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6733874" data-attributes="member: 5834">Rather than answer all the odd questions given at the end of all this you'll just have to do as you like to advise me: make a DM ruling, I'll give my take on how I run it.I look at Crossbow Expert as a guy that loves crossbows and has learned to use them all well. The needing a free hand to reload it is what I believe is a small token attempt to incorporate verisimilitude. I like a little verisimilitude in my game, so I like that ruling. I look at the feat's interaction with the hand crossbow as providing a sort of fan fire shooting. A crossbow expert is simply the best at using a hand crossbow. He uses one and fires it faster than a non-expert fighter using a hand crossbow. He's always able to get off at least one more attack because of his training. I don't allow dual wielding of hand crossbows continuously because no hand is free to reload it. I don't like the way that appears in my mind's eye. I don't care if they dual wield an extra hand crossbow, then drop it or place it back on their belt if they want that look initially. It's complete unnecessary to take advantage of the feat. I don't worry too much about light, heavy, or two-handed designations with ranged weapons. I think everyone has a general idea how the weapons work. So the tags are mostly unnecessary.Action Surge is not a mechanic that I attempt to think of in a realistic fashion. It's the fighter's non-magical cinematic ability. 5E is one of those games where a DM can decide what level of verisimilitude they want to work in. Seems The Sage has his views which you have included in your original post. Each DM is encouraged to rule based on their views. If a DM wants to look at a hand crossbow being a semi-automatic weapon in the hands of a fighter, I'm quite sure no one will care.We all know why dual wielding sucks and has since 2E. It was way overpowered in 2nd edition. Everyone took it that wanted power. Now the standing rule amongst game designers at WotC seems to be never make two-weapon fighting very good. We don't want what happened in 2E to happen again. Since that time two-weapon fighting has been inferior to two-hander style and sword and board. It's too bad Mike Mearls and his team couldn't have come up with two-weapon fighting that was balanced against two-hander style or archery. Even Mearls and the design team couldn't manage it. Once again two-weapon fighting will be something only used by those looking to role-play a two-weapon fighter rather than being a truly effective fighting style. Even in 3E/Pathfinder I maybe saw one two-weapon fighter in the entire time I played both games because the feat investment to be just a little behind two-hander style or archery was way too high. Here is yet another edition of D&D where two-weapon fighting is the odd man out as far as fighting style choices. Too bad Mearls and company wouldn't further analyze the fighting style to bring it up to par and make it attractive again.</blockquote>

Verification