Sage Advice (18 May 2015)

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

 

[Obryn]

More importantly, it also ruins the cheesy hand crossbow + shield approach some people were attempting. So with this feat, a hand crossbow might be better than a longbow in some situations, but at least it doesn't let you get a free +2 AC on top of that.

Does it, though? A cleric with shield and mace tries to cast a spell with somatic components. How does she do this?

An Eldritch Knight with shield and sword uses his class feature to cast a Cantrip and them attack. Is this possible for him?

The "free hand" bit for somatic components is in the rules text. Where is their free hand?

 

[Kobold Stew]

And relax - I don't have a horse in this race.

That may be, but I see you raise a number of questions subsequently, all of which are valid:

this means that Eldritch Knights need to keep a hand free (and stick with one-handed weapons) if they intend to use their War Magic feature for any cantrips with somatic components. (Sorry, I called this Warcaster before.) But what else? I'm thinking potion use just suddenly got way more complicated, for one...

Does it have an impact to longbows and heavy crossbows? These require two hands to use, so there's no free hand available to load ammunition, even though we know a free hand is required to load ammunition.

Does it, though? A cleric with shield and mace tries to cast a spell with somatic components. How does she do this?

An Eldritch Knight with shield and sword uses his class feature to cast a Cantrip and them attack. Is this possible for him?

The "free hand" bit for somatic components is in the rules text. Where is their free hand?

The answer to all of these questions, I believe, is the free interaction rule (PHB 190). That's the way we've played, and it means that in the course of a normal combat round, you can wash over concerns about the "action economy" that might otherwise slow play.

I'm not saying it's the *only* way around these issues, but it is a simple one, and it generally becomes a problem when a character has multiple attacks and is trying to do something unusual.

The same rule, I feel (and have felt since post 35 of this thread), solves the anxieties people have about hand-xbow-and-shield/hand-xbow-and-rapier: you use the standard rules, and assume that the one free interaction allows you to reload your hand crossbow.

Rapier-and-hand-crossbow is still viable, I believe; characters can still interact with one object for free on their turn (PHB 190), and for me that would include loading a weapon.

What you can't do is fire than hand crossbow twice if you happen to have two attacks (and the crossbow expert feat). But normal reloading, 1/turn is still possible. (Twice is possible on one's first round using the crossbow, too, assuming it's already loaded.)

When one application of a rule solves many problems, I think it deserves reasonable consideration. And that's the situation here.

 

[Pauper]

Actually, I think Crawford's ruling has an unintended consequence of making bows and crossbows impossible to reload and fire.

Ding, ding, ding! Give that man a cookie!

The Ammunition property states that you draw ammunition while making the attack. It doesn't say you need a free hand to do so.

However, a two-handed ranged weapon requires two hands when making an attack (since if you're not 'using' the weapon when attacking, then I have no idea what 'using' the weapon means). If you need a free hand to draw ammunition, and you draw ammunition while making the attack, then unless you have a third hand (where are the Eberron rules when you really need them!), you don't have a free hand to draw ammo when making your attack, so you can't technically reload the weapon.

If the intent is to prevent dual-wielding hand crossbows, then just make a ruling that dual-wielding hand crossbows isn't allowed.

--
Pauper

 

[Pauper]

Does it, though? A cleric with shield and mace tries to cast a spell with somatic components. How does she do this?

Based on Crawford's ruling on material components, she can do this if the spell requires a material component, that material component is non-costly (thus can be replaced with a spellcasting focus), and if the cleric has her holy symbol emblazoned on her shield. This satisfies the requirement that she can use the same hand to access material components that she uses to perform somatic components.

Note that if the spell doesn't require material components, then she can't cast the spell, since her hands are full. She'd need to drop the shield or the mace to cast.

Yeah, I'm a little confused as well, but it's there.

--
Pauper

 

[Corpsetaker]

Looks to me like they are nitpicking a little too much and it's going to cause more problems than what it actually fixes.

I think it's going to suffer from a ruling that is too "wordy" and ends up contradicting itself in other areas.

 

[Obryn]

Ding, ding, ding! Give that man a cookie!

The Ammunition property states that you draw ammunition while making the attack. It doesn't say you need a free hand to do so.

However, a two-handed ranged weapon requires two hands when making an attack (since if you're not 'using' the weapon when attacking, then I have no idea what 'using' the weapon means). If you need a free hand to draw ammunition, and you draw ammunition while making the attack, then unless you have a third hand (where are the Eberron rules when you really need them!), you don't have a free hand to draw ammo when making your attack, so you can't technically reload the weapon.

If the intent is to prevent dual-wielding hand crossbows, then just make a ruling that dual-wielding hand crossbows isn't allowed.

--
Pauper

Yup. And for the record I'm all for "don't sweat the details" but then we have a Sage Advice answer which sweats all the details. So...

 

[Coredump]

How were my math assumptions off? All you did was restate it as more precise percentages rather than generalized fractions. But your conclusion is the same. The bottom line is you are more likely to waste the feat, but also more likely to succeed. So if death is on the line you're more likely to do this, but in general you're not going to want to do this - same darn thing I said. Did you think being more precise changed that conclusion in a meaningful way?

Because you were treating the 6 possible outcomes as the only possible outcomes,and you were treating them as having equal probability. Both of those are false, and yes it does make a significant difference in the resulting math.


To look at it a different way, use your same method for a DC of 10, or 20, or 5.... you will get the same results.

 

[Coredump]

Actually, I think Crawford's ruling has an unintended consequence of making bows and crossbows impossible to reload and fire. But moving past that...

For the EK there's also weapon+shield, not just 2H.

And I'll extend your list.... If the longbow or the EK have "free enough" hands at various times, why doesn't Chow Yun Fatbelly the Halfling Rogue have a "free enough" hand to reload?

Because its not "free enough' it is *free* as in 'not being used for anything else.

You use two hands to fire the weapon, then you use one hand to hold the weapon and have one hand free.... that is the hand you use to draw and load.

 

[mlund]

Does it, though? A cleric with shield and mace tries to cast a spell with somatic components. How does she do this?

Typically by either taking the Warcaster Feat, dropping or stowing the mace, or gesturing with his or her holy-symbol emblazoned on the shield as the somatic and material component. Most of the cleric material + somatic mojo is about waving the icon of your deity at something so the gods can make with the blessing / smiting in that general direction. Clerics with holy symbol shields get to cheat ruthlessly on this count vs. other casters - and that's by design.

An Eldritch Knight with shield and sword uses his class feature to cast a Cantrip and them attack. Is this possible for him?

You either take the Warcaster feat to allow you to make spell gestures with your armament in-hand (I image this as gesturing with your sword instead of your fingers, typically) or you don't use a sword, a shield, and a somatic spell all at the same time (just like you don't use a sword, a shield, and holy water at the same time). Sword in one hand and sorcery in the other is typically how the tropes go. This isn't a bug.

Aside from that, for all intents and purposes all military-grade crossbows require both hands to cock them with any sort of speed. Getting off 2-3 shots in 6 seconds is pretty ridiculous, but D&D has never handled the crossbow (or most weapons, especially missile weapons) well in the first place so you can't expect much.

Marty Lund

 

[Mistwell]

Because you were treating the 6 possible outcomes as the only possible outcomes

No, that's your inference.

and you were treating them as having equal probability

No, it was obviously a rough calculation. It's why I kept saying "on-balance" and "in general".

Both of those are false, and yes it does make a significant difference in the resulting math.

Only on a math exam, not for purposes of communicating on this topic. We reached the same conclusion, based in the same stuff. If you feel like hoisting a flag saying "I am more right for being more precise" go ahead if it will make you feel better. Pedantry isn't a virtue.