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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="spinozajack" data-source="post: 6640692" data-attributes="member: 6794198">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.</blockquote>

Verification