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: 7199667" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I've never seen anybody complain that you can use a hand crossbow in one hand. Just reload it. And I've yet to see a convincing argument that they aren't actually crossbows (as IRL ones).I'm not familiar with that cinematic archetype, although it clearly states that the hand crossbow must be loaded in the feat, so I think they are acknowledging the limitations up front.Since it explicitly states a loaded hand crossbow, I'd say it's not enabling it to become the semi-automatic crossbow that Sage Advice clarifies that it isn't. Personally, I think they just relied on "common sense" too much, combined with rules that are confusingly named (loading property).If you follow the rules, it does not usurp two-weapon fighting at all, nor remove the reasons for melee, etc., etc.All of which is irrelevant if you actually follow the rules that state it takes two hands to load those hand crossbows.Your arguments in this case are oddly the opposite of what your usual argument is, since the rules clearly don't allow the sort of abuse you're complaining about. Normally your complaints are that the rules are a problem if you follow them. Now you're saying the rules are a problem if you don't follow them. Go figure.Your arguments here would be great if you reframed them as a list of reasons why allowing somebody to wield two hand crossbows and also be able to load them without a free hand would be a problem. I don't like it because it just doesn't make sense. You've shown that it's a bad idea due to the rules and game balance. Sounds like a good combination to me.</blockquote>

Verification