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

[CapnZapp]

No? Then what do they resemble? If they aren't crossbows, then why not call them something else and avoid this discussion altogether.

Because for me, they really kind of resemble crossbows. A lot.

Sorry what?

Of course the look like and operate much like crossbows.

Just crossbows you can shoot 1-9 bolts with in the space of six seconds.

They're still crossbows, just likely not as heavy to nock as real ones.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Yunru]

Sorry what?

Of course the look like and operate much like crossbows.

Just crossbows you can shoot 1-9 bolts with in the space of six seconds.

They're still crossbows, just likely not as heavy to nock as real ones.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

That's a flaw with the combat system rather than the crossbow.

You think 1.5 bolts per second is fast? Entire wars (well, skirmishes) can be fought in under ten minutes.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think you need to reread Wheaton's Law. Here:
"Don't be a dick."

Not allowing something that's cool because of common sense is being a dick, if the same end result can be achieved through lesser means.

Take, for instance:
"Can I crash through the window and thrust my sword at his heart?"

Answering "No." is being a dick if he could simply go through a door and attack him. Both outcomes are the same (minus a smashed window I guess), but one's cooler. Not allowing it because it's not the rules is being a dick.

Now lets apply it to dual-wielding crossbows:

"Can I fire at him with both my crossbows, rolling to the side to avoid return fire?"

Answering "No." is being a dick. Because anything he could do with two crossbows, is just as possible with one. To answer no is to punish him for investing more resources (a second crossbow for one) into, and lessening his options (no hands free) for being thematic.

Exactly.

The fact I'm stating what is and isn't RAW should be read from a "Crossbow Expert is terrible" perspective.

Of course! you should allow scimitar+hand crossbow (if you agree that looks cool and badass) and likewise twin crossbows. You aren't accomplishing anything the feat won't let you, except look cool doing it AND fulfilling the style which we all agree the feat description strongly hints at (the melee warrior with the off-hand hand crossbow).

The fact the feat by RAW *only* supports the exact configuration Sage Advice specifically says *isn't* supported (the hand crossbow as a semi-automatic) should be taken to mean one thing and one thing only: that the feat is FUBAR.

(It is FUBAR for other reasons too, this is just the one violating the Rules As Cool)

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

That's a flaw with the combat system rather than the crossbow.

You think 1.5 bolts per second is fast? Entire wars (well, skirmishes) can be fought in under ten minutes.

Again, I am only replying because there were posters bringing in IRL crossbows into the discussion.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Sorry what?

Of course the look like and operate much like crossbows.

Just crossbows you can shoot 1-9 bolts with in the space of six seconds.

They're still crossbows, just likely not as heavy to nock as real ones.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

OK, so what we're acknowledging is that they are crossbows, but we've (the designers) have chosen to make them viable in an abstract combat system. But accepting that they can be used faster doesn't mean that we've accepted that they can be used differently - that is, being able to load one with one hand.

I find time to be one of the more abstract portions of combat, compared to what you could actually do in 6 seconds (sometimes more, sometimes much, much less). The "6 seconds" designation is one of the problems I have with the combat system RAW, when it's a turn-based system and all of your actions including movement happens on your turn. But that's a different discussion...

That's a flaw with the combat system rather than the crossbow.

You think 1.5 bolts per second is fast? Entire wars (well, skirmishes) can be fought in under ten minutes.

Yes, it's very fast. Crossbowmen formed a specific purpose in a battle, but loading a crossbow was a very long process. A heavy crossbow with a cranequin could take up to 30 seconds to reload. While this sounds ridiculously slow to us, early firearms were the same way. The advantage of the crossbow (and early firearms) is that they didn't require the strength needed for a war bow, nor the years of training to use it. They built strategies around the weaknesses of the crossbow (and early firearms) because their advantages (very little training or Strength needed) made them viable in war.

Having said that, I don't accept that a round is 6 seconds of time either. Yes, that's how it's described. And combat is fast, but I don't think it's that fast, particularly depending on the size and complexity of the battle. In my campaign, I'm not using rounds any more. Crossbows take a certain number of segments to load. When I was using rounds, a crossbow (although not a hand crossbow) took one or more rounds to load.

On the other hand, all crossbows in my campaign are simple weapons, and every class can be proficient in them. Since I don't have damage-causing cantrips in my campaign, it's not uncommon for spell casters to be toting a light crossbow. Other classes that don't know how to use the bow will often carry them too. They use them from behind cover initially, or shoot the crossbow, drop it, and close for melee.

I'm not concerned about it being a weapon that everybody would want as their primary weapon, nor that it's not as powerful.

In any event, crossbows in my campaign not only look and operate like crossbows, they function much like crossbows too. Heavy crossbows have a "Strength" bonus for a high draw weight, but don't require the high Strength to get it like a regular bow, either. Armor in my campaign has resistance to different damage types, but the better crossbows reduce or eliminate this resistance (as do bows) at short range. So they are quite effective, but have a good number of limitations too. Just like real crossbows. And oddly enough, I find that players use them in ways that reflect their historical use.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I think you need to reread Wheaton's Law. Here:
"Don't be a dick."

Not allowing something that's cool because of common sense is being a dick, if the same end result can be achieved through lesser means.

Take, for instance:
"Can I crash through the window and thrust my sword at his heart?"

Answering "No." is being a dick if he could simply go through a door and attack him. Both outcomes are the same (minus a smashed window I guess), but one's cooler. Not allowing it because it's not the rules is being a dick.

Now lets apply it to dual-wielding crossbows:

"Can I fire at him with both my crossbows, rolling to the side to avoid return fire?"

Answering "No." is being a dick. Because anything he could do with two crossbows, is just as possible with one. To answer no is to punish him for investing more resources (a second crossbow for one) into, and lessening his options (no hands free) for being thematic.

And wouldn't that apply the other way too? That demanding being able to use two hand crossbows without limitation "because it's cool" is a dick move if it's specifically going against the feel and design of the campaign?

"Can I fire at him with both my crossbows, rolling to the side to avoid return fire?" Of course. Then you'll have to drop one to load the other.

The only reason it's an issue, is that they designed/presented the rules for a crossbow poorly in the first place. I don't recall what was allowed in 4e, but I'm pretty sure in earlier editions, they stuck with the idea that you have to use a free hand to actually load a crossbow.

And it's not really a good comparison because it is in the rules. This is similar to the discussion about casting spells using somatic components. If you want to allow the use of somatic components when wielding a weapon and a shield, say, then go for it. RAW doesn't, because of a weird way that they've linked somatic and material components when a spell has both.

Loading a crossbow (or bow) is the same way. The act of drawing a bolt or arrow is assumed to be part of the action of loading the weapon. Then they created a "load" property for crossbows to represent the fact that they are slower to use than a bow. Naming it "load" was a poor choice. The feat is intended to counteract this speed penalty for loading a crossbow. The third point in the feat specifically states a loaded hand crossbow. The errata and further clarification also maintains this intent.

If you don't like that as a group, then change it. But implying it's a dick move to not only follow the rules, but when the rules also make sense when you're referring to an actual weapon that has demonstrable requirements for use is something I find a bit insulting.

 

[Yunru]

And wouldn't that apply the other way too? That demanding being able to use two hand crossbows without limitation "because it's cool" is a dick move if it's specifically going against the feel and design of the campaign?

"Can I fire at him with both my crossbows, rolling to the side to avoid return fire?" Of course. Then you'll have to drop one to load the other.

The only reason it's an issue, is that they designed/presented the rules for a crossbow poorly in the first place. I don't recall what was allowed in 4e, but I'm pretty sure in earlier editions, they stuck with the idea that you have to use a free hand to actually load a crossbow.

And it's not really a good comparison because it is in the rules. This is similar to the discussion about casting spells using somatic components. If you want to allow the use of somatic components when wielding a weapon and a shield, say, then go for it. RAW doesn't, because of a weird way that they've linked somatic and material components when a spell has both.

Loading a crossbow (or bow) is the same way. The act of drawing a bolt or arrow is assumed to be part of the action of loading the weapon. Then they created a "load" property for crossbows to represent the fact that they are slower to use than a bow. Naming it "load" was a poor choice. The feat is intended to counteract this speed penalty for loading a crossbow. The third point in the feat specifically states a loaded hand crossbow. The errata and further clarification also maintains this intent.

If you don't like that as a group, then change it. But implying it's a dick move to not only follow the rules, but when the rules also make sense when you're referring to an actual weapon that has demonstrable requirements for use is something I find a bit insulting.

No, it's not, because that's not what you were saying.

You were saying anyone, anywhere, wanting to dual wield crossbows was being a dick because they were choosing rule of cool over "common sense". That's completely different to wanting to dual wield in spite of it being against the setting/atmosphere the dm is trying to build.

 

[Caliban]

Now, now. 5e is a flexible and robust system. Whether going by RAW or "Rule of Cool", anyone can be a dick if they try hard enough.


Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point being debated...

 

[Ilbranteloth]

No, it's not, because that's not what you were saying.

You were saying anyone, anywhere, wanting to dual wield crossbows was being a dick because they were choosing rule of cool over "common sense". That's completely different to wanting to dual wield in spite of it being against the setting/atmosphere the dm is trying to build.

Over common sense and RAW - the combination of the two.

But, yes, I had started in one direction and changed it.

The rules and common sense both say no. And I think that telling me, as a DM, that if I follow that I'm being a dick is insulting. Regardless of whether it's against the design of the DM.

If you tell me you have this idea in mind for a character, I'd work with you on it. In my campaign that would most likely be a spell or magic item because it would also be against what I'd like in my game world.

 

[CapnZapp]

OK, so what we're acknowledging is that they are crossbows, but we've (the designers) have chosen to make them viable in an abstract combat system. But accepting that they can be used faster doesn't mean that we've accepted that they can be used differently - that is, being able to load one with one hand.

I find time to be one of the more abstract portions of combat, compared to what you could actually do in 6 seconds (sometimes more, sometimes much, much less). The "6 seconds" designation is one of the problems I have with the combat system RAW, when it's a turn-based system and all of your actions including movement happens on your turn. But that's a different discussion...



Yes, it's very fast. Crossbowmen formed a specific purpose in a battle, but loading a crossbow was a very long process. A heavy crossbow with a cranequin could take up to 30 seconds to reload. While this sounds ridiculously slow to us, early firearms were the same way. The advantage of the crossbow (and early firearms) is that they didn't require the strength needed for a war bow, nor the years of training to use it. They built strategies around the weaknesses of the crossbow (and early firearms) because their advantages (very little training or Strength needed) made them viable in war.

Having said that, I don't accept that a round is 6 seconds of time either. Yes, that's how it's described. And combat is fast, but I don't think it's that fast, particularly depending on the size and complexity of the battle. In my campaign, I'm not using rounds any more. Crossbows take a certain number of segments to load. When I was using rounds, a crossbow (although not a hand crossbow) took one or more rounds to load.

Sorry, I don't see the logic in getting hung up on "needs one hand to reload" when D&D Crossbows differ from IRL Crossbows in so many ways.

Besides, unless you're truly absurdist, you do use two hands while loading the crossbow. After all you don't hold anything else in your hands but the crossbow.

I don't see how "needs one hand to reload" differs enough from "needs two hands" to make a fuss about it.

The rule prevents you from holding anything else, surely that's the important thing.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app