Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6640585" data-attributes="member: 37579">As clarified in the errata document, you can hold but not use a two-handed weapon with one hand. So you hold the bow with one hand, reload, and then fire. By the rules. Which matches reality nicely.That doesn't mean they shouldn't limit the times the DM has to be the bad guy. They're going to have to say &quot;no&quot; enough without adding extra reasons. Then don't use it. The very first Sage Advice article was all about how it was a tool to settle arguments and didn't overrule the DM. Just ignore they exist.And? I don't see how this is a problem. The alternative is just letting the argument go on and on without any resolution. Which causes problems at tables, makes the game less fun, and leads to issues during organized play. Sage Advice is all about giving the DM more tools to decide how they want to rule.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6640585, member: 37579"] As clarified in the errata document, you can hold but not use a two-handed weapon with one hand. So you hold the bow with one hand, reload, and then fire. By the rules. Which matches reality nicely. That doesn't mean they shouldn't limit the times the DM has to be the bad guy. They're going to have to say "no" enough without adding extra reasons. Then don't use it. The very first Sage Advice article was all about how it was a tool to settle arguments and didn't overrule the DM. Just ignore they exist. And? I don't see how this is a problem. The alternative is just letting the argument go on and on without any resolution. Which causes problems at tables, makes the game less fun, and leads to issues during organized play. Sage Advice is all about giving the DM more tools to decide how they want to rule. [/QUOTE]

Verification