D&D 5E Does the new ammunition rule screw up dual hand crossbow?

[spinozajack]

How does one pull the string on any bow 1 handed? One doesn't unless it's got a stirrup. And most with one need two hands to pull anyway.

It's a rules change in favor of realism - shocking for D&D. And, you could, in theory, do just like many a scotsman did in the border reaver period - one shot each from a weapoin in each hand, then draw steel and targe while charging. Looks very manly. Tain't all that effective (SCA experience using RBG's and Rapiers) - just charging into melee is good enough.

Needing to use two hands to wield a bow, such a tyrannical obsession with realism!

Pretty soon we'll be calculating arrow trajectories and Newtons of force to penetrate AC 18! That's no fun! I want to dual wield greatswords, where my fun at? I want to have a large flying dragon PC with unlimited laser breath and multiattack as a legal AL race option in Basic D&D, where my fun at?

D&D's all about MY fun, right? So I should get to pick any element from any TV show or movie and allow that at level 1. Otherwise the game designers are telling you what's badwrongfun.

 

[Sunseeker]

Your fun ends where mine begins. I don't find it fun even playing at the same table as another PC using objectionable or highly unbelievable mechanics. This is why I chose to play 5th edition.

The fact that you are incapable of even playing with other people who have different definitions of fun than you even as far as this issue goes, minor differences, says far more about you than it does anything else.

I'd still play (and have) at a table that followed the sage advice, with a character who used hand crossbows.

The fact that you find anything you don't agree with so intolerable you can't even play at the same table with it is frankly a pretty sour attitude, much worse than mine ever has been over this issue. Which is precisely why WOTC should not be picking sides in internet arguments, it DOES NOT benefit the hobby, but promotes people who believe that there is one way to play D&D and that way is your way.

 

[Sunseeker]

Needing to use two hands to wield a bow, such a tyrannical obsession with realism!

Pretty soon we'll be calculating arrow trajectories and Newtons of force to penetrate AC 18! That's no fun! I want to dual wield greatswords, where my fun at? I want to have a large flying dragon PC with unlimited laser breath and multiattack as a legal AL race option in Basic D&D, where my fun at?

D&D's all about MY fun, right? So I should get to pick any element from any TV show or movie and allow that at level 1. Otherwise the game designers are telling you what's badwrongfun.

I think you should reread your post and see what you've written, consider how you sound and take a moment to question if the problem is what someone else enjoys, or you.

 

[spinozajack]

It isn't and never was a matter of your fun v. my fun. I'm getting sick of every one of your posts prjorativly disregarding the playstyles of people who enjoy different things than you.

Yes it is. John Wu or Neo in the Matrix shooting two guns at the same time is fine, because it's an automatic weapon.

There are cases where my fun v your fun is a black and white ruling in RAW. And this is one such example. Either you allow hand crossbows to be reloaded without any hands, all the time, making them essentially fully automatic, which is a big power boost.

Or you make them require a free hand, and enforce that for balance reasons, which also means you can't dual wield and reload without putting at least one down and picking it back up multiple times in a row.

If my not wanting or enjoying ridiculous mechanics to exist in D&D makes you sick, good for you. That's effectively saying that what I find ridiculous I should respect. No.

I'm allowed to both think and write here on this forum, that dual wielding manually loaded hand crossbows is ridiculous and I'm not going to apologize.

The designers also happen to agree with my point of view, which is why they wrote this errata. The rules for how many hands you need to wield a given weapon are basic, if you don't agree with the way the basic D&D weapon rules operate, you should play a different game maybe? What it seems like you're saying is that the number of hands required to do something or operate some item or weapon, need to have no connection to the story or the fiction and be allowed. Would you allow a PC to run with only one leg? This is the same thing.

I not only don't care if things that I find ridiculous are purged from the game, I applaud it when that happens. It makes me happy. Even if that means someone else's fun is impacted. That's too bad. Their fun is not more important than mine.

 

[aramis erak]

Needing to use two hands to wield a bow, such a tyrannical obsession with realism!

Pretty soon we'll be calculating arrow trajectories and Newtons of force to penetrate AC 18! That's no fun! I want to dual wield greatswords, where my fun at? I want to have a large flying dragon PC with unlimited laser breath and multiattack as a legal AL race option in Basic D&D, where my fun at?

D&D's all about MY fun, right? So I should get to pick any element from any TV show or movie and allow that at level 1. Otherwise the game designers are telling you what's badwrongfun.

Assuming that the above is sarcasm... <golf clap>

If it isn't... there's always Prime Time Adventures...

 

[Sunseeker]

I not only don't care if things that I find ridiculous are purged from the game, I applaud it when that happens. It makes me happy. Even if that means someone else's fun is impacted. That's too bad. Their fun is not more important than mine.

Thats fine, when people tell me that the fun of other D&D players is unimportant to them, I know I've come across a person whose opinion is worthless. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[spinozajack]

Wait a minute, I thought telling people you were ignoring them was a faux-pas on this forum? It was when I did it. I guess not. No matter. Don't care, bro.

Anyway, it's not like you can just click Ignore on published material. These errata are already baked into the next PHB print run. Good luck showing up to a game with an illegal character and begging the DM to allow it. I wouldn't even have allowed this type of shenanigan even when it was RAW.

Giving even a passing glance towards realism in D&D I think is important to many. And the designers too, apparently. They deserve their ongoing sales success.

 

[Mercule]

I agree with the errata. Honestly, I was shocked to find out that it even needed errata because, well, it never occurred to me that anyone would think that was fun or cool.

That's not to say what you do is badwrongfun. I really don't care what you do at your table. I don't need rules to tell me that one-handed reloading of crossbows isn't happening. Nor do you need rules to tell you it's OK.

The simple fact is that I still, after two multi-page threads on the topic, can't wrap my head around anyone wanting to do this. That tells me that we're looking for different things from the game and neither of us would be happy at the other's table.

 

[epithet]

On the one hand, it is absolutely true that the game should be flexible enough to accommodate most of your character flavor ideas, including firing a crossbow with each hand. On the other hand, it is quite reasonable to insist that this can only be achieved with clockwork reloading crossbows, each with a 10 quarrel magazine that takes a full minute to reload, jams on a natural 1 requiring a short rest to clear, costs a small fortune and is only available from one eccentric gnome tinker, and requires special ammunition.

No problem.

 

[Sunseeker]

The simple fact is that I still, after two multi-page threads on the topic, can't wrap my head around anyone wanting to do this. That tells me that we're looking for different things from the game and neither of us would be happy at the other's table.

I don't really see why though, it's not like you're actively trying to squash someone else's fun. Your rules are your rules and my rules are my rules. If people are allowed to go beyond what you'd normally accept in verisimilitude that doesn't mean you have to. Mechanically you're not gaining or losing anything either way.

If I gave you the option to dual-wield hand crossbows, you wouldn't take it. Even if the game said "yes indeed it does work!" you wouldn't do it. Why wouldn't you do it? Because you don't like it. As always, play what you like. If the rules don't allow for something a player is welcome to talk to me and I'd be happy to help them achieve their goals. If the rules do allow for something you're under no obligation to play it, even if it is a mechanically superior option.

I don't think allowing dual hand crossbows really says anything at all about a table. I want to allow the most possible freedom I can for my players that's really all it has to do with.