D&D 5E Dual hand crossbows, poison and hex warlock

[Blue]

There is a milking rule. I don't have my copy of the DMG at work with me, but look under "poison" (in the index) for the page reference. From memory, it's a DC 20 Nature check to successfully gather poison from a target creature. If the check is failed by 4 or less, the attempt fails. If the check fails by 5 or more, the "milker" is exposed to the venom.

Thanks! I had missed that.

If I was DM'ing the warlock above, I'd maybe allow the "milking" check to be rolled with Advantage (assuming the imp was co-operative...), but I doubt I'd forgo it altogether. I'd also make sure the imp grows to resent being used in the purpose. After a few successful attempts, it begins laying plans to make the warlock suffer...

Why? Does the Beastmaster Ranger's companion get upset for being put into dangerous situations and turn on the ranger? The extended familiar is a class feature, what other class gets betrayed for using a class feature?

If you don't want it milked, don't pretend it's okay and then twist it. Just say no upfront, don't pretend it's okay to the player. Here's a reason you could use: "Sorry, it's a summoned familiar, the poison dissipates quickly after leaving the body, just like the body dissipates if it 'dies' so you can bring it back."

Players shouldn't get intentionally misinformed about the mechanics of their class. NPCs and the rest of the world, go for it. But be upfront with players about their character.

 

[Celtavian]

Pretty disengenious, Celt...I'm not getting drawn into this dead debate. Run your table the way you want. Interpret it the way you want. I'll do the same. FWIW, I ran a low level (up to 6) dual hand crossbow character and was...underwhelmed. So it's not an overpower thing. As for Crawford, he also said (can't link because I'm behind the firewall at work):

"Crossbow Expert does allow a character to shoot a hand crossbow as an action and again as a bonus action." Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford October 21, 2014"

But whatever. The rules are there to be interpreted how you feel. That doesn't make you right or make me wrong. It also doesn't make you wrong or me right. Look, I think that Iggy Azalea is a dumpster fire of music. But some people like her. I can't understand why, but they do. If I am hosting a music party, does it make sense to piss on their foot and tell them they're wrong? No...I just don't play her music.

The world is not black and white..this one OR the ones we create inside of games.

I thought your original reasoning was disingenuous. There's nothing heroic about it. Cinematic perhaps.

It does allow you to shoot a Hand Crossbow as a bonus action. A single hand crossbow, not two. If you read how it is worded, you can shoot a single hand crossbow for all your regular attacks and then shoot it again as a bonus action. It balances out against a regular crossbow because the base damage of the hand crossbow is lower. I don't dispute this. A hand is free, you hold it, and it is loaded. Never understood why people were focused on needing two hand crossbows to do what you could do with one. There is no offhand wording in the feat.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Stingers, like snake fangs, are biological hypodermic needles designed to inject a dose of venom. The crossbow bolt is nothing of the sort. It's a very poor delivery vehicle; most of the poison would just run right off. You could add some kind of thickener to make it stick to the bolt, I suppose, but that would impede its ability to mix into the victim's bloodstream.

Except in D&D, crossbow bolts are apparently great poison delivery mechanisms, as indicated by the drow stat block. It's goofy, but so are a lot of D&D mechanics.

I'd probably allow you to "milk" the imp and make a Nature check to brew a dose of basic poison out of the PHB, which would last 24 hours.

While I think Imp poison as it stands is a bit much, that's a pretty bad benefit, at least at mid to upper level. Basic poison deals so little damage to not even be worth hassle of rolling the damage, save, etc.

This actually came up in my game, where the warlock offered to make it for the party rogue, but the rogue eventually decided she didn't want to use poison for ethical reasons (and drew much mocking from the imp). Had they gone through with it, I would have let the poison scale with levels, starting worse, but eventually getting better than the imp's natural sting if refined with the poisoner's kit.

 

[Lancelot]

Why? Does the Beastmaster Ranger's companion get upset for being put into dangerous situations and turn on the ranger? The extended familiar is a class feature, what other class gets betrayed for using a class feature?

Eh, different styles and all. Here's my take on it...

1) It's not a class feature to milk the imp for venom and then apply it to your crossbow, so let's get that straight. There's nothing in the PH to indicate that's possible. We're talking about a DM's choice to allow something out-of-the-box here, not screwing over the beastmaster ranger who's legitimately trying to get his beast companion to Help as a Bonus Action, or whatever. Personally, my first inclination would be to disallow it... but I'm a "Yes" kind-of-DM. If the player comes up with a clever idea, I'll try to make it work. But I also might add a story complication, if I feel the request is outside the spirit of the rules. And I strongly feel that freely adding the imp's poison to all of the warlock's weapon attacks is outside the intended spirit of the rules.

2) The warlock is not lacking for damage as it stands. Multiple hand xbow shots with hex applied to all of them is pretty decent. From a balance perspective, I'm reluctant to allow it without *some* kind of kicker, because it sets a potentially annoying precedent. What's stopping the warlock from milking his imp for added poison damage on the whole party's weapons?

3) From a story perspective, the imp is a thinking creature with a mind of it's own. Classic fantasy is *full* of stories of abused familiars or constructs who have turned on their masters, from Frankenstein's Monster to Blade Runner to Ex Machina. There are outstanding *story* reasons why a milked imp (...which is a devil, after all...) might get peeved at its master. And that's great for the game! Or at least, my game. If your group runs things in a more tactically-oriented fashion, more power to you. That's equally legitimate; neither of us is "doing it wrong". But *my own group* (note emphasis) would *expect* some complications if the ranger kept using his animal companion as a trap-tester, or the wizard kept dropping "broken arrow" fireballs on his own raven familiar, or if the warlock kept milking the servant granted to him by the unnameable and terrifying infernal lord who owns his soul. That's just how our group rolls....

 

[Paraxis]

3) From a story perspective, the imp is a thinking creature with a mind of it's own. Classic fantasy is *full* of stories of abused familiars or constructs who have turned on their masters, from Frankenstein's Monster to Blade Runner to Ex Machina. There are outstanding *story* reasons why a milked imp (...which is a devil, after all...) might get peeved at its master. And that's great for the game! Or at least, my game. If your group runs things in a more tactically-oriented fashion, more power to you. That's equally legitimate; neither of us is "doing it wrong". But *my own group* (note emphasis) would *expect* some complications if the ranger kept using his animal companion as a trap-tester, or the wizard kept dropping "broken arrow" fireballs on his own raven familiar, or if the warlock kept milking the servant granted to him by the unnameable and terrifying infernal lord who owns his soul. That's just how our group rolls....

This part isn't exactly in line with the rules of the game.

From Find Familiar Spell.

You gain the service of a familiar, a spirit that takes an animal form you choose: bat, cat, crab, frog (toad), hawk, lizard, octopus, owl, poisonous snake, fish (quipper), rat, raven, sea horse, spider, or weasel. Appearing in an unoccupied space within range, the familiar has the statistics of the chosen form, though it is a celestial, fey, or fiend (your choice) instead of a beast.

Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands. In combat, it rolls its own initiative and acts on its own turn. A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal.

From Pact of the Chain entry.

When you cast the spell, you can choose one of the normal forms for your familiar or one of the following special forms: imp, pseudodragon, quasit, or sprite.

So the imp isn't an actual imp, it is a spirit in imp form that can even be a fey or celestial creature if the summoner so chooses. The familiar "always obeys your commands" there is no free will, the familiar will always do what you say.

So a warlock could just order his celestial spirit in imp form to fill up vials full of it's venom 24 hours a day if he wanted and the little house elf....er I mean slave..no thats not right...the familiar doesn't get to say NO, it doesn't get to be disobedient.

 

[Lancelot]

This part isn't exactly in line with the rules of the game... the familiar doesn't get to say NO, it doesn't get to be disobedient.

Which is why I was specific to use the terms "my group", "our style", etc. To quote someone: "Use the rules. Don't let the rules use you." Our group's take on familiar's is more in line with earlier versions of the game. The familiar is someone special. It's a personality. It has a name. It may get resentful if misused.

According to the rules of the game, if Guenhwyvar was an actual animal companion and not a figurine of wondrous power, Driz'zt could send her in as expendable cannon fodder to trigger pits and ambushes. There's nothing in the ranger entry to say that she'd ever fail to obey the command. That goes double for actual figurines of wondrous power. However, he doesn't. He treats her as a friend.

In our games, and consistent with a grand fantasy tradition, familiars and animal companions are real individuals with feelings... and maybe even personal goals. If treated well, they're boon companions. If treated like tools or "class features", then maybe they get a little resentful.

That's it from me, for this thread. I appreciate the different perspectives, but I really only logged in for this one to help out the OP by pointing out the DMG rule that allowed for milking poison (note: ...even though I'd be a bit leery of allowing it myself). The rest was just color commentary about how my personal group would approach it: maybe allow the milking, but think of a creative story reason to discourage doing it on a regular or abusive basis. Cheers.

 

[AmerginLiath]

Somehow, I'm envisioning the solution to all this being the drow firing away with two hand crossbows while his familiar sits on his shoulder, loading the crossbows for him with its own object-interaction abilities, in-between shots, like the loader on an artillery piece...

 

[miniaturehoarder]

The familiar "always obeys your commands" there is no free will, the familiar will always do what you say.

I'm sure the imp's real bosses want you to think that way.

 

[Paraxis]

I'm sure the imp's real bosses want you to think that way.

The thing is a familiar summoned by the spell is not a real imp. It is a spirit in the form of an imp, and that spirit could be celestial, fey, or infernal in nature. So you could summon a celestial spirit in the form of an imp, while you have a pact with a fey lord.

But yes I guess somewhere that spirit has a boss or some creature that might care how you treat it but unlikely or else the spirit wouldn't be so lowly as to be summoned by pesky low level mortals in the first place.

 

[FryEntropy]

In terms of whether or not you can load a handcrossbow with one hand. Im going to say no. But I was able to convinve my DM of a self-loading bolt holder that allows me to do such that. Getting the smithing proficiency I made a unique bolt holder. Kinda of like Tomb raider has with her pistols.