Sage Advice (18 May 2015)

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

 

[Coredump]

Thank goodness we've prevented some kids from playing their favorite video-game character in D&D.

No one is 'preventing' it, it just isn't part of the baseline rules.... but I am assuming you already knew that....

 

[Sunseeker]

Two of those who believe(d) this are @shidaku (who calls this sage advice clarification silly), and @Paraxis

The only thing this changes is the visuals. I don't need the game to tell me how my play looks.

That's why it's silly.

 

[Coredump]

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.

It doesn't have to. It says you need to load the ammunition, and it takes two hands to load a crossbow. We know this because we all know what a crossbow is and how it works, the same way we know that swords are made of metal, how trees work, and that you can't walk on water. The game rules use terms and items we know about for exactly this reason.

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.

I believe you are purposely trying to make this more difficult than it is. You know how a bow works.... this isn't rocket science.
When you are using/attacking/firing the bow, it requires two hands,
After you have fired it, you are done 'using' it and can now simply hold it with one hand, and the other hand can draw and load the ammo.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Coredump]

No, that's your inference.



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



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.

Sure, and 3+3 is on-balance and in-general about the same as 3x3.....

Your math was wrong for several reasons, your results were significantly off from the actual results. Its kind of sad you feel the need to continually defend them.

 

[TwoSix]

No one is 'preventing' it, it just isn't part of the baseline rules.... but I am assuming you already knew that....

As I've read the thread and the article, I was informed on it, yes. My semi-snarky weak vitriol was aimed at the comment that was in the general form of "Video game thing X shouldn't be in D&D", which is an idea I've expressed rancor towards in the past.

 

[TwoSix]

The only thing this changes is the visuals. I don't need the game to tell me how my play looks.

That's why it's silly.

Precisely right. The issue has nothing to do with play balance, it's a question of condoning or condemning a certain aesthetic.

 

[El Mahdi]

Thank goodness we've prevented some kids from playing their favorite video-game character in D&D.

Not True. Anyone can play the game any way they want on their table; nothing about that has changed.

What's changed is people can't legitimately call it RAW.

It also has additional mechanical implications outside of this specific application (detailed below).

The only thing this changes is the visuals. I don't need the game to tell me how my play looks.
That's why it's silly.

Except it's not just visual; and I've seen you display a far too knowledgeable understanding of the system to believe you don't see the implications your self.

As I explained in a post in this thread earlier today:

...it's more than just flavor because If you go on the assumption that ignoring the loading quality means that you can do so with the same hand holding the crossbow, then you open up using shields and weapons freely while loading. That's a significant mechanical impact.

In most situations, as shidaku has pointed out, the number of attacks one can make has not changed. So in that respect, all that's changed is the visual.

But explicitly stating that a free-hand is required to load the weapon, that you're not handwaving the loading but just doing it so quickly and expertly that you can do it multiple times in a round, does have very real mechanical implications. Implications that can, and likely will, extend to other assumptions about the game's rules.

That implication is that one cannot use the Expert Crossbow Feat with just one free hand. One cannot then use a shield and a hand-crossbow, and reload with either the hand holding the shield or the crossbow, which is what you're interpretation allowed for. One also cannot use a weapon in the off-hand and still be able to re-load a hand crossbow using the Expert Crossbow Feat.

Those are significantly more than just visual implications.



Also, shidaku, why is it so hard to simply say you were mistaken? Why do you instead respond with "it's silly"? You stated over and over that your interpretation was RAW and everybody else was wrong; and you most certainly didn't think your stance and argument then was silly. Why, when it's now contrary to your interpretation, is it suddenly so?

If you're going to be one of the "Rules Guys," one of those here that take it upon themselves to clarify rules questions that people pose here (and BTW, you do it very well, fulfilling a very important role for our discourse community), don't you also have to admit when you're wrong? If for no other reason than to maintain your credibility?

 

[Mistwell]

Sure, and 3+3 is on-balance and in-general about the same as 3x3.....

Your math was wrong for several reasons, your results were significantly off from the actual results. Its kind of sad you feel the need to continually defend them.

The result was, "If death is on the line you might want to take disadvantage and use the ability, otherwise don't do that as you risk wasting the ability". That's an accurate result, and the same result you reached. The rest is just noise which has no meaning - it's not persuasive or informative of anything important for anyone concerned with the question. The personal attack is unnecessary. If the result can be reached through a rough shortcut estimate, then that's a fine way to reach the result. Your way is not "more right" as in this instance there is no "more right". You either reach the correct conclusion (which we both did) or you do not.

Now, because it's apparently important to you, I give you the last word.

 

[El Mahdi]

The issue has nothing to do with play balance, it's a question of condoning or condemning a certain aesthetic.

And that's an ad hominem attack and hasty generalization, not to mention a bit of a strawman and either/or fallacy to boot, all meant to attack the ethos of the issue rather than it's facts.

Since someone has to be doing the condemning, you're attacking the credibility (ethos) of those that hold a view consistent with sage advice. (ad hominem)

You've generalized that it's all about condemning (the opposite of nothing to do with play balance - an either/or declaration), implying that all those that hold a view consistent with sage advice are all doing it for the same reason. (hasty generalization and either/or)

And you've reframed the argument by creating your own argument (not rules clarity, but condemning an aesthetic), in order to win. (strawman)

I've always found it ironic how attacking the ethos of an argument or person mostly ends up eroding one's own ethos instead. The use of logical fallacies only serves, to those that recognize them, as a spotlight to just how weak an argument is in the first place.

 

[MerricB]

Actullay, I am not trolling. I got confused cuz I am tired and havent read Dragon since the early 90s. Gary Gygax wrote "From The Sorcerer's Scroll." I got the columns confused. Sorry.

And you could have pointed out my mistake without being a dick.

The problem isn't that you got the columns confused. The problem is that you made the statement at all, and in such a hostile manner. And in the wrong thread.

And doing it as your first post on EN World? What were you thinking?

The fact is that good discussion on the internet requires a modicum of politeness and respect which you failed to observe - and thus I treated you with the contempt your post warranted. Did you, personally, deserve such contempt? Probably not - but given what you chose to display here, you shouldn't be surprised by the response.

Looking back on your post, I would have preferred a couple of things to be done differently.

First, you should have started a new thread. This thread is primarily about discussing the *content* of the Sage Advice. A new thread is an appropriate place for such a major new thought.

Second, condemning the company and the people in it is very likely to immediately polarise people against the post. Rather, express your discomfort at the decision to reuse the column name. For instance,

"Wizards has started a column called 'From the Sorcerer's Scroll', which used to be the column Gary Gygax wrote for Dragon magazine. It bothers me that they're reusing the name; I think it shows disrespect towards Gary Gygax. What do you think?"

And from there you start a discussion, rather than a flame-war.

Would I like to see you continue posting on EN World? Absolutely, but please think before you post.