D&D 5E (2014) Does the new ammunition rule screw up dual hand crossbow?

[thalmin]

The rules never said you could reload dual hand crossbows. They never mentioned reloading (and recocking, which is even more time-consuming than just placing a bolt on the string). They only said you could use one in each hand. Some people interpretted this as reuse, other did not, thus the errata. It is a clarification, and a change only if your interpretation included reuse. Each play style is valid, but for different groups. The clarification is so people can tell what Wizards now intends RAI. Whether it is what the designers origially intended is unknown to those of us outside the design team, but really now no longer matters. The RAW is what we have, and we are still able to play at our own tables as we want. The WotC Rules and Fun Nazis will not come into our livingrooms/game stores/gaming hangouts and insist we play our games one way or another. For organized play, errata was needed, as not everyone would come to the table with the same interpretation. And that wasn't fair to anyone.

 

[Mercule]

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.

The table really can't be mixed, though. To me, having another player at the table doing the Doc Holiday routine does actually ruin it. It's like having a guy who's playing a panda with a laser gun. Even if he's statted out as a half-orc with a hand-crossbow, it just doesn't fit, mentally, and is jarring.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, why can't you do exactly the same thing? If the rules don't allow for something, you're under no obligation to not play it. Why is it such a huge deal what WOTC says either way?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Honestly, if it's not overpowered I wish they would just keep to the "rulings not rules" line. Combined with the absurdist RAW Lucky ruling, and I'm much less interested in Sage Advice as a resource.

"Rulings not Rules" is ultimately a community thing. Either the broader community embraces it (so far it seemed to be doing so) or it doesn't. 3.0 was presented with 'Rule 0' very explicitly giving the DM power to house-rule away, yet the 3.x community developed the dogmatic Cult of RAW.

I'm a little concerned that WotC can tip the community back in that direction with things like this. Leave rulings to the DM. Each DM should be doing what's best for his group, anyway, there's no need for an 'official' errata or clarification putting a little more weight on one interpretation, leaving some DM's second guessing themselves.

 

[Sunseeker]

But, why can't you do exactly the same thing? If the rules don't allow for something, you're under no obligation to not play it. Why is it such a huge deal what WOTC says either way?

Because of people like Spinzcantspellhisname. To people like them, "rulings" in their favor are a vindication that they're playing D&D the "right" way and they're going to lord that over others, use it to shut people down and disrespect alternative playstyles. Because those people exist in real life too, people who are less interested in having a good time and more interested in having a competition to "win" over others.

That and nothing was changed mechanically. If there is a problem with the rules mechnically, that's what WOTC should comment on. If there is a question of verisimilitude their answer should be "play the way you want." That should have been enough of an answer for the vast majority of people (and it probably was). So much for "rulings not rules".

Have the arguments gone away? No. So what was accomplished if it didn't change anything mechanically, didn't put a stop to the debate/discussion/flame wars, and only served to tell people that their preferred level of verisimilitude is unacceptable?

I get this feeling from many of the Sage Advice blogs. They strike me more as "This is how we play the game we wrote." Not useful ruse clarifications.

 

[pemerton]

A fighter is meant to be realistic, they're grounded in reality.
When Thor does something inhuman it's fine, but when Hawkeye does something outright impossible even for the best archer imaginable it's problematic.

Hawkeye does stuff that's impossible all the time (jumps, falls, shots taken, etc).

I thought the fighter was grounded in Aragorn, in Conan, in Hercules (according to Moldvay Basic), etc. These characters do things that, both singularly but even moreso in combination, are impossible for real warriors.

Whether or not that includes reloading a hand crossbow using another hand that is also holding a hand crossbow seems like a table matter to me.

(Also - why can't my hand crossbows be on loops of cord, so to reload A I drop B, letting it hang from its cord, and then use my now free hand to help with the reload, and then with a flick of wrist B I bring crossbow B back into my hand?)

 

[Sunseeker]

The table really can't be mixed, though. To me, having another player at the table doing the Doc Holiday routine does actually ruin it. It's like having a guy who's playing a panda with a laser gun. Even if he's statted out as a half-orc with a hand-crossbow, it just doesn't fit, mentally, and is jarring.

I suppose I've never experienced that. If its within the domain of the game, then I don't have a problem with it. Some games allow more absurdity than others, but if I'm not running it, I'm there to have a fun time, another person having a fun time (provided his fun isn't coming at the experience of me or my character in a direct manner) only makes the game more fun, not less.

On that note, I may give a panda with a laser gun a shot now if I get a game that lets me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I get this feeling from many of the Sage Advice blogs. They strike me more as "This is how we play the game we wrote." Not useful ruse clarifications.

Yep. As is their right. They wrote it they thought was pretty clear... but then it turned out that wasn't the case. So they clarified it. If people don't like the clarification then they don't have to use it. They just conveniently not "find" it on the website. Or they ignore it.

But if people get annoyed that WotC is putting together a small sheet of corrections to their editing and sentence structure mistakes so they know what should be changed in the next printing of the book... that's on them. And WotC doesn't need to apologize to anyone for trying to make more plain their intentions with the rules they designed.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

Hawkeye does stuff that's impossible all the time (jumps, falls, shots taken, etc).

I thought the fighter was grounded in Aragorn, in Conan, in Hercules (according to Moldvay Basic), etc. These characters do things that, both singularly but even moreso in combination, are impossible for real warriors.

I've not seen any of the above do things that require them to sprout two extra arms.

And seriously, if the GM's requirement to accurately keep track of how many limbs your character needs to complete your stated actions during a turn is ruining all your fun, you're probably at the wrong table.


No, really. I've seen exactly one playable race with enough arms to do this. Go play a Thri-Kreen.

 

[pemerton]

I've not seen any of the above do things that require them to sprout two extra arms.

I assume most of the dual hand-crossbow players imagine their PC as using one of the hands holding a crossbow to help reload the other. (Or perhaps the crossbow-on-loop-of-cord arrangement that I described upthread.)