Sage Advice (18 May 2015)

I can't believe they went that way with hand crossbows.

 

[Mistwell]

While it is true that a bit of education about posterior probability can help not wasting your limited luck points, your example is true only for low target numbers.
Please, let me present a counterexample.

Let's suppose your target number to save against a disintegration spell that will surely kill your 20hp character is 16 on a d20.
What is your % chance to survive by using Lucky in the way you suggest?
And what is your chance if you do it with disadvantage?

Putting aside that I am not sure how you take disadvantage on a saving throw voluntarily, let's say the three dice rolls are: 16, 10, and 4, and they can come up in any order, the list being:

1) 16, 10, 4
2) 16, 4, 10
3) 10, 16, 4
4) 10, 4, 16
5) 4, 10, 16
6) 4, 16, 10

If you declare disadvantage in scenarios 1 and 2, you wasted your Feat. You'd have succeeded anyway.
If you roll normally, you decide to trigger Lucky on results 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Of those, you succeed with Lucky on results 3 and 6, and fail on 4 and 5.

So 1/3 of the time it's better to not voluntarily go in with disadvantage (because you waste the feat by doing that), 1/3 of the time it does not matter, and 1/3 of the time it helps you to go in with disadvantage.

Now if life is on the line, I can see risking wasting the feat. But I think it's safe to say this will not be a common practice. Life is usually not on the line like that, and often when it is you cannot voluntarily take disadvantage anyway. It's still safe to say as a generalization that you're not going to want to voluntarily take disadvantage with Lucky.

Bottom line, I don't see this being a problem. People will not be routinely volunteering for disadvantage with this feat.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I've never seen anyone advocate that you should get more attacks per round with two hand crossbows.

Of all the ranged weapons, only one has the light property. The light property has one main effect: it is "ideal for use when fighting with two weapons" (PHB 147). Now the general TWF rule (p. 195) does specify melee weapons, but it seems to me that by giving the weapon the light property, the designers intended to encourage two-weapon fighting with a hand crossbow and a light melee weapon, or two hand crossbows.

 

[El Mahdi]

I have never seen anyone say that....

What they were claiming, is an 11th level fighter could fire his handbow 3 times, then fire his 'other' handbow once as a bonus action.

I'm pretty sure that adds up to four attacks...

And it's also not what many have been claiming.

Many have taken the phrase "You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient." to mean that essentially, reloading is hand-waved. That you can dual-wield and fire them as many times a round as you have attacks plus bonus action, each and every round. That you do not need a hand to re-load.

Needing a hand to reload was claimed to not be RAW. It's now official that it is.

Also, initially, many of these people also used Two-Weapon Fighting to apply to this. That's since been shotdown for most people since TWF specifically states melee weapons.

Two of those who believe(d) this are [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] (who calls this sage advice clarification silly), and [MENTION=13009]Paraxis[/MENTION]

That is not allowed, but...

That same fighter could fire his handbow 3 times, and then fire the *same* handbow as a bonus action..... assuming he has a free hand to help load.[\quote]

True.

As it stands, you could probably still do some form of dual weilding handbows with some combo of dropping and picking up.... but it doesn't get you any more attacks.

There were many before this that claimed it did get you more attacks, by completely ignoring needing a hand to load. Don't just take my word for it, there are plenty of older threads claiming exactly that, give them a look.

I think it might work to sheather/draw a rapier each round and still use a handbow....

I agree. Dropping would suffice also. However, one would not be able to sheathe and re-draw in the same round.

So I guess then, as Obryn said, Rapier+hand-crossbow is out to a certain extent. One could be holding both and attack with both in the same round (with Crossbow Expert Feat), but only once, and then would have to sheathe the rapier in order to reload the hand-crossbow, or stow the hand-crossbow in order to draw a second weapon the following round.

As to War Caster, you're right. First the feat requires the ability to cast spells in order to take it, and the second listed benefit specifically refers to somatic components. I think I picked up that idea from those previous threads also. You're right, applying War Caster to loading ammunition is also not RAW.

 

[Obryn]

Of all the ranged weapons, only one has the light property. The light property has one main effect: it is "ideal for use when fighting with two weapons" (PHB 147). Now the general TWF rule (p. 195) does specify melee weapons, but it seems to me that by giving the weapon the light property, the designers intended to encourage two-weapon fighting with a hand crossbow and a light melee weapon, or two hand crossbows.

I think you're entering into weird territory with stat mods and the like. And ignoring the "melee" bit isn't kosher.

But okay. I've seen ONE person advocate for more attacks per round.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm not agreeing with Mistwell's analysis entirely. I think that Lucky will not be used in this 'disadvantage is best' option most of the time, but it will be used in this way in certain situations.

I'm ready to attack. I need to hit. I have the option of attacking with no advantage/disadvantage or giving myself disadvantage. I have Lucky. My first decision comes before I roll any dice. That decision is between:

a.) Attack with disadvantage and know I'll likely want to use Lucky to give me a total of three dice (effectively devoting the Lucky before I elect to roll any dice, although there is that 1 in 400 chance of double 20s or at least 2 numbers high enough to hit), or

b.) Roll without disadvantage and preserve the option to use Lucky for a second roll after I see the results of my first roll.

Under option A I have the highest chance of getting a 20 and the highest chance of hitting if I do not get a 20. Under option B, my chances of a 20 are cut by about a little less than a third, and my chances to hit are reduced as well... but I may avoid wasting that Lucky die if the first roll comes out well.

Effectively, I'm devoting that Lucky *before* I attack to maximize the chance of a Crit and also to maximize the chance I hit. These are things I will want to do when either I am not going to get many more chance to attack before I long rest / die; or b.) Absolutely *must* do as much damage as possible *right now*.

This use of Lucky might be seen as the 'B track' side of Lucky. It isn't going to be the prime usage, but it will be the way that Lucky gets 'used up' if there are unusued dice as the character approaches a Long Rest or is about to go down.

Personally, I like it in those circumstances. Closing your eyes and trusting in the powers that be to guide the sword home.... very heroic.

 

[SkidAce]

I don't think this is the case though. It has the same damage as a hand-axe, a javelin, quarterstaff, and scimitar and short sword. That's not bad for a little bitty piece of wood.



No it doesn't, it just makes it useless for those hoping to get an advantage over and above other weapons. You can still shoot with dual-wielded crossbows, it's just that you can only reload one of them and fire again in the same round. That means a potential three-attacks per round with a hand-crossbow. You can't do that with its bigger cousins.

This ruling simply keeps it from vastly overshadowing two-weapon fighting and other rules of the game. Now something like a self-loading hand crossbow means something again, or it opens things up for a player to devise a clever device that reloads and recocks without using a free-hand (just the hand holding the crossbow).

Realistic AND Cool! The Best of Both Worlds!

Best summation evar! Have XP.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I think you're entering into weird territory with stat mods and the like. And ignoring the "melee" bit isn't kosher.

But okay. I've seen ONE person advocate for more attacks per round.

Not sure what you mean by "stat mods", and we can disagree about what's kosher or not (I'm operating on specific trumps general). But perhaps you can explain what you see the meaning of the "light" property on hand crossbows being if not this.

 

[Obryn]

I agree. Dropping would suffice also. However, one would not be able to sheathe and re-draw in the same round.

So I guess then, as Obryn said, Rapier+hand-crossbow is out to a certain extent. One could be holding both and attack with both in the same round (with Crossbow Expert Feat), but only once, and then would have to sheathe the rapier in order to reload the hand-crossbow, or stow the hand-crossbow in order to draw a second weapon the following round.

Now apply this logic to the Eldritch Knight's Warcaster features. And the ability of a Cleric to cast spells with somatic components.

This ruling is a lot more far-reaching than gun kata with dual crossbows.

Not sure what you mean by "stat mods", and we can disagree about what's kosher or not (I'm operating on specific trumps general). But perhaps you can explain what you see the meaning of the "light" property on hand crossbows being if not this.

That it's unclear and poorly edited, basically.

 

[CrusaderX]

Yes!

I dunno; maybe my table likes over-the-top stuff (we really do), so we've never questioned the idea of dual-wielding hand crossbows, even if, in reality, it wouldn't work. Why? Because it's awesome. And that pretty much sums up the entirety of my table and gaming philosophy. If I think it's awesome, I'm probably going to allow it.

One man's awesome is another man's cheese. I've seen some people say dual-wielding hand crossbows should be allowed because it follows the "rule of cool". I see it as the exact opposite. Running around and going "Pew Pew Pew" with dual-wielding hand crossbows (while outperforming alot of other martial attacks) seems cheesy and lame. And very UNcool. It absolutely fails to pass the "rule of cool" test for me.

But of course, to each their own, and if someone thinks dual xbows are cool, more power to them! I don't want to discourage anyone from playing the way they like. I just wanted to chime in and say that the rule of cool in a situation like this is quite subjective.

 

[Coredump]

Putting aside that I am not sure how you take disadvantage on a saving throw voluntarily, let's say the three dice rolls are: 16, 10, and 4, and they can come up in any order, the list being:

1) 16, 10, 4
2) 16, 4, 10
3) 10, 16, 4
4) 10, 4, 16
5) 4, 10, 16
6) 4, 16, 10

If you declare disadvantage in scenarios 1 and 2, you wasted your Feat. You'd have succeeded anyway.
If you roll normally, you decide to trigger Lucky on results 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Of those, you succeed with Lucky on results 3 and 6, and fail on 4 and 5.

So 1/3 of the time it's better to not voluntarily go in with disadvantage (because you waste the feat by doing that), 1/3 of the time it does not matter, and 1/3 of the time it helps you to go in with disadvantage.

Now if life is on the line, I can see risking wasting the feat. But I think it's safe to say this will not be a common practice. Life is usually not on the line like that, and often when it is you cannot voluntarily take disadvantage anyway. It's still safe to say as a generalization that you're not going to want to voluntarily take disadvantage with Lucky.

Bottom line, I don't see this being a problem. People will not be routinely volunteering for disadvantage with this feat.

Your math assumptions are off.... Lets try it a different way.

You need to get a 16 for something and you are willing to use the Lucky ability if needed:
Normally you will succeed 44% of the time, and about half of that you will not even spend a Luck resource

If you create disadvantage, you will succeed about 58% of the time, and 1/10 of those will not require using the luck resource.

So creating disadvantage will make you about 32% more likely to succeed... but much more likely to actually use the luck resource.