Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7200456" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I don't like that anybody gets 9 attacks in 6 seconds, particularly in the incremental turn-based rounds of the game. I think it's too much period. I understand why, from a balance standpoint, they've opted to go that route, but it's just not my thing. So I've changed that for all such attacks.Because I think part of the confusion comes from the fact that the feat allows you to ignore the "loading" property, but you still need two hands to load a crossbow. Maybe it's just me.---Exactly, that's how it does support it. There's nothing in that picture that says they will take more than one shot with the hand crossbow. As I've said, crossbows are actually slower loading in my campaign, because my expectation is that for any type of crossbow, if you're closing for melee, then you'll shoot the crossbow, drop it, and engage in melee. I don't have any problem with twin hand crossbows, just the idea that you can load them while you're holding both of them.By the same token, you could say that two-weapon fighting is bad, since it forces you to use your off-hand for the second attack, so you can't use a shield. Well, duh.Because it's not bad or good. It just is. To load a crossbow, of any sort, requires a free hand. You're not a "Crossbow and Scimitar Expert," you're a "Crossbow Expert. So here's the problem. You're looking at a "cool" character design - oh look, somebody wielding a sword and a hand-crossbow - and assuming the rules are (or should be) designed to support that.Guess what? The rules don't support this either: <a href="http://imgur.com/8XALNZQ" target="_blank">http://imgur.com/8XALNZQ</a> You just can't wield two greatswords, as cool (or absurd) as it looks.To me, I look at the rules, and see the designers looking at a real weapon -  a crossbow - and writing rules that work with that weapon. They modified the rate of fire to balance it with other weapons, and to keep things simple (I'm sure they didn't want to get into multiple-round loading, and even requiring a bonus action to reload is more than is needed to keep them simple). You insist that they aren't crossbows, except the rules treat them like they are. That they require you to cock the bow and load the ammunition. If they were intending to design the rules to support that character, or one wielding two hand crossbows, they would have designed the rules differently.OK, and I have some issues with this, and altered the rules accordingly.Except that you're not using two weapons. I think that's where you lose me. If you're saying that these together allow you to use a single weapon and get an extra attack using a bonus action that's better than the extra attack using a bonus action with two weapons, OK. But that's not doing two-weapon fighting better, that's doing better with one weapon than the two-weapon fighter is with two.I was confused about your statement that fighting with hand crossbows does "two-weapon fighting" better than "two-weapon fighting" when we seemed to agree, that RAW, you can't use two hand crossbows for more than one round.But you were comparing the capabilities of using one hand crossbow against two-weapon fighting. So now it makes sense.</blockquote>

Verification