Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7198015" data-attributes="member: 6778044">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.</blockquote>

Verification