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

[Hriston]

(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?)

I think the issue here is having multiple object interactions that seem to go beyond the simple act of drawing and loading that is included in the attack. If it were that easy you could simply juggle the crossbows, reloading one while the other is in the air.

Seriously though, this is not a "new rule". I'm seeing multiple threads in which the errata are being regarded as rules-changes when in fact they are meant to clarify the existing rules and make the intentions of the designers more obvious. In this case they had forgotten to include language that spelled-out that you need to have a free hand in order to load a weapon, assuming perhaps that this was something everyone would logically understand to be the case. Including that language now should not be understood as changing RAI. I think we can trust the many statements of the design team to the effect that they are only correcting errors and clarifying meanings.

 

[aramis erak]

(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?)

If B is loaded, the bolt is likely to fall out, and at the weight given, you're likely to need a lot more force than the mass of the weapon is going to generate to use it to recock (unloaded) B. And there's the risk of entagling A & B.. Of course, you can always use a hand crossbow of reloading - if you DM lets you have one - that reloads itself... If not, well, you may as well just ignore it for the rest of the battle.

Then again, I'll let you wander with two readied - just not going to reload either until one isn't beating you from your wrist. (Lanyards are a bit of an issue within the reenactor groups. They much increase crowd safety, but actually increase slightly the risks of injury to self if disarmed by force...)

 

[Jester David]

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.

There's always some wiggle room between unreality. Some people find John McClane being able to survive an exploding jet unrealistic while others simply think it implausible. Others draw the line at taking out a helicopter with a car. Or Indy surviving a fall in an inflatable raft or being dragged by a car. But when you get to nuking a fridge, it takes you out of the film as you say "wtf?!?"

Pulling a 40 lbs crossbow cord (equivalent of the biggest weight lifting plate or a kindergarten child or four bags of potatoes) with half your hand seems pretty... hard to justify. It seems more likely to sever fingers. Drawing a crossbow really takes a lot of force.

(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?)

That seems like an excellent compromise as well. Have some xp.

 

[spinozajack]

I bet any money there's going to be a fully automatic reloading crossbow in a future "Arms and Equipment guide 5e" type book, and it will cost some extra money or be a magic item (even better).

Good point about Thri-kreen too, there is a race out there with 4 arms. Actually all you would need is 1/4 used to load the others. Otherwise juggling the crossbows in mid air while you reload is kind of silly to the point of it being unfair. This is a case of "rules" not rulings. You can't put every little thing in the game in a sidebar and have a workable set of game rules, it just doesn't work. DMs are always free to houserule but the basic game needs to make sense, and reloading a crossbow without a spare hand just doesn't make sense.

2-armed human or human-like beings, doing impossible things without magic, using an actual historical weapon, should not be allowed, no. For the same reason that we require two hands to wield a greatsword, greataxe, polearm, bow. Because it's just common sense. If the game not making sense is a requirement for anyone's fun, I say too bad for them. My fun playing this game is predicated on my understanding and acceptance of the rules before I agree to play it, and those rules, however flexible in many cases should not allow things that just don't, and can't possibly work. A lot of times DM rulings are there to put practical limits on what you can try to do, not just, why not? If this is such an obvious thing for a character to do, then it shouldn't be a problem convincing a DM to allow it, right? I think at the heart of this is people wanting something the rules just can't let them have without breaking other things. Believability in game rules is important.

Sometimes what makes a good game system isn't just all the stuff it allows you to do, but in the stuff it doesn't. Both aspects matter.

Leaving stuff like this to DM fiat, explicitly in the rules, by saying "up to the DM", would be bad form. Why make something up to the DM when it already is? That kind of sidebar would just create more arguments than it would solve, because I'm sure a lot of DMs would have a problem with allowing players yield a two-handed sword and carry a torch at the same time (without putting it down).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes.

The designers, in their finite wisdom, decided to tell you "you're playing the game wrong".

"Instead of using two cool hand crossbows, you can and should use only one hand crossbow instead."

"We've clarified our rules to allow you to shoot as many times with the single crossbow as you did with two, to make it pointless to use two. But, to ensure nobody plays our game wrong, we have also added errata specifically telling you you're breaking the rules if you use dual hand crossbows."

That's the take I'm getting out of that nasty discussion.

Why on earth they decided it was a good idea to put a thumb in the eye of all you who love Hong Kong action flicks, and want to play a fantasy John Woo character, I will probably never know.

No. Hand crossbows are light weapons. You can still fire one from each hand, you just can't reload them both. It is really a shame that such a clarification was needed. That some gamers today seemingly cannot tell the difference between a hand crossbow and a semiautomatic pistol is kind of sad.

Objectively: dual wielding hand crossbows that magically reload is silly.

Do whatever you want.

Why is that silly? If magical self cocking/loading hand crossbows existed then using two of them if they were available makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Coredump]

Pulling a 40 lbs crossbow cord (equivalent of the biggest weight lifting plate or a kindergarten child or four bags of potatoes) .

And a 40 lbs hand crossbow is only a little better than a toy. When you get to up closer to 80 lbs then we have a weapon.

 

[Jester David]

And a 40 lbs hand crossbow is only a little better than a toy. When you get to up closer to 80 lbs then we have a weapon.

I went with the lowest number I could find, because even that was something pretty damn hefty, but was something I could see being argued as a weapon a low Strength rogue might use precisely.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

If B is loaded, the bolt is likely to fall out, and at the weight given, you're likely to need a lot more force than the mass of the weapon is going to generate to use it to recock (unloaded) B. And there's the risk of entagling A & B.. Of course, you can always use a hand crossbow of reloading - if you DM lets you have one - that reloads itself... If not, well, you may as well just ignore it for the rest of the battle.

Then again, I'll let you wander with two readied - just not going to reload either until one isn't beating you from your wrist. (Lanyards are a bit of an issue within the reenactor groups. They much increase crowd safety, but actually increase slightly the risks of injury to self if disarmed by force...)

Finally, someone around here points out how crossbows actually work.

I couldn't give XP twice so I quoted to point out how freaking excellent this post is.

 

[Mistwell]

The errata for hand crossbows makes sense to me and it's how I would interpret it, but I also have no problem if someone wants to do it the other way because that's their character concept. As long as it's not broken, what do I care if they're doing it different than I'd do it? I am sure I am doing plenty of things with my character that others at the table would do differently if they were playing my character.

I also kinda dig the image of standing behind a table full of loaded hand crossbows, and continually picking one (or two) up and firing them each round, and not bothering to load them (or at least not bothering to load one of them).

 

[pemerton]

I think the issue here is having multiple object interactions that seem to go beyond the simple act of drawing and loading that is included in the attack. If it were that easy you could simply juggle the crossbows, reloading one while the other is in the air.

The game is riddled with rules compromises that defy reality. Shooting a crossbow every 6 seconds is one of those. A high-level fighter shooting 40 arrows a minute is another.

The game also elides many features of reality. Does anyone ever slip in mud while fighting? Or lose his/her grip on his/her weapon and have to regain hold of it?

If a player wants to add into that mix a juggling of hand crossbows, or using a hand to do something else while also holding a hand crossbow, I don't find that all that outrageous.

There's always some wiggle room between unreality.

<snip>

Pulling a 40 lbs crossbow cord (equivalent of the biggest weight lifting plate or a kindergarten child or four bags of potatoes) with half your hand seems pretty... hard to justify. It seems more likely to sever fingers. Drawing a crossbow really takes a lot of force.

But, with a free hand, a high level fighter can do it nearly once per second? (Four attacks + bonus action with the feat.)

Obviously any given player, or table, can impose parameters of realism wherever they want. It's the universalisation, via errata, that I am inclined to query.

If B is loaded, the bolt is likely to fall out, and at the weight given, you're likely to need a lot more force than the mass of the weapon is going to generate to use it to recock (unloaded) B. And there's the risk of entagling A & B.

The issue here is the same. There are no rules for bolts dropping out of loaded crossbows, for bow strings or sword belts or bandoliers become entangled, etc. These seem like narrations to describe outcomes, not inputs into outcomes - eg if a hand crossbow attack misses, the narration might be that the bolt fell out of the crossbow while reloading. But I don't see any pressing reason to subject hand crossbow wielders to burdens of realism that are not applied in other contexts or to other combatants.

It seems like a table issue to me, not one requiring universal errata.

2-armed human or human-like beings, doing impossible things without magic, using an actual historical weapon, should not be allowed, no.

Does that mean you don't allow high level fighters to perform four bow shots or five hand crossbow shots per round?