Sage Advice (18 May 2015)

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

 

[ericphillips]

Or, you know, you could take the suggestion as it was intended- as a helpful hint as to the social contract here in Moruss' house, at Moruss' party- and just chill out. Approach things in a less confrontational way. Or else don't be surprised when you get this kind of response.

But this kind of sarcastic reply isn't going to win you any points when the other guys are trying to be reasonable.

I am not trying to win points. In fact, I would not even post anymore except that y'all keep talking to me. I have no quarrel with you, just Merric B. Let's take a look at what he said:

ROTFL! Isn't it fun to see the troll get it wrong?

That comment is completely uncalled for. I think it is funny that my manner gets criticized while Merric B gets a free pass. His response was designed to get an emotional response from me... and it did. If anything, he was instigating a flame war. That is like trying to put out a fire with petrol.

I know I made a mistake when I made the original post, but a demeaning attitude is not the answer. If he had said the same thing about the history of Sage Advice, without the above quote, then would have been no offense to me.

There is an old saying: two wrongs do not make a right. I was wrong. He was wrong as well.

 

[Hriston]

Rounds 1 and 4 don't work because drawing ammunition must be part of the crossbow attack. I'd probably let it slide, though.

It's easy to fix this:

Round 1
Attack with one handed weapon
Sheathe weapon
Fire and reload hand crossbow

Round 2
Fire and reload
Unsheathe weapon
Attack with weapon

Repeat

 

[Dausuul]

Got to say I'm with Ericphillips on this one. Yeah, his first post was provocative and based on a mistake, but that hardly makes it trolling. It certainly did not merit the response it got.

...And I'm gonna leave it that and not play amateur mod, because I expect the real mods will be along shortly.

 

[Pauper]

It's easy to fix this:

Round 1
Attack with one handed weapon
Sheathe weapon
Fire and reload hand crossbow

Round 2
Fire and reload
Unsheathe weapon
Attack with weapon

Repeat

Not as easy as you might think.

First off, you have to make the attack before you get the bonus action: "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon..." So you can't fire the crossbow before you attack with the weapon, because it's the attack that grants the bonus action. If you use your Attack action to attack with the crossbow, then you can't attack with the melee weapon -- Two Weapon Fighting requires that the first attack be with a light melee weapon, and a hand crossbow isn't a melee weapon.

Second, the text of Crossbow Expert says "you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding." If the hand crossbow isn't loaded when you declare the bonus action, you don't get to make the attack. Some DMs hand-wave this requirement, but it does exist in the feat and can be enforced. Load-and-fire is perfectly acceptable with the Attack action, as noted under the ammunition rules, but not for this special bonus attack, if the DM chooses to enforce the rule.

--
Pauper

 

[Chryssis]

Not as easy as you might think.

First off, you have to make the attack before you get the bonus action: "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon..." So you can't fire the crossbow before you attack with the weapon, because it's the attack that grants the bonus action. If you use your Attack action to attack with the crossbow, then you can't attack with the melee weapon -- Two Weapon Fighting requires that the first attack be with a light melee weapon, and a hand crossbow isn't a melee weapon.
Pauper

- this applies to attacking with a 2nd one handed weapon without any feat, TWF has that requirement but only applies to adding modifier damage to isn`t relavent.

Second, the text of Crossbow Expert says "you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding." If the hand crossbow isn't loaded when you declare the bonus action, you don't get to make the attack. Some DMs hand-wave this requirement, but it does exist in the feat and can be enforced. Load-and-fire is perfectly acceptable with the Attack action, as noted under the ammunition rules, but not for this special bonus attack, if the DM chooses to enforce the rule.

Pauper

- the feat specifies that you can use a bonus action (not a bonus action if you take the attack action) therefore you can start with your bonus action attack with a loaded xbow.
-the previous post was round 1: attack, sheathe, fire and Reload (therefore it is now loaded). Fire and reload (loaded again) unsheathe attack.

no issue with that. As was said if you were in melee there would likely be consequence of OA's for sheathing although it could be argued that you sheathed 1 weapon not both so it is not like you have completely dropped your gaurd like turning to move away or sheathing all your weapons.



--

 

[Hriston]

Not as easy as you might think.

First off, you have to make the attack before you get the bonus action: "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon..." So you can't fire the crossbow before you attack with the weapon, because it's the attack that grants the bonus action. If you use your Attack action to attack with the crossbow, then you can't attack with the melee weapon -- Two Weapon Fighting requires that the first attack be with a light melee weapon, and a hand crossbow isn't a melee weapon.

I wouldn't interpret the word "when" to imply any kind of causality or as necessitating a particular order of events. To me, it means "at the time", which would imply you can take the bonus action on the same turn as you take the attack action. I don't think it matters what order you do it in. It seems to me that all that's required is you have a free hand when you take the bonus action so you can reload. And remember we're not talking about two-weapon fighting here. You can't use a hand crossbow in two-weapon fighting because it's not a melee weapon.

Second, the text of Crossbow Expert says "you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding." If the hand crossbow isn't loaded when you declare the bonus action, you don't get to make the attack. Some DMs hand-wave this requirement, but it does exist in the feat and can be enforced. Load-and-fire is perfectly acceptable with the Attack action, as noted under the ammunition rules, but not for this special bonus attack, if the DM chooses to enforce the rule.

I'm not sure if this is in direct response to my post. If you read it again you'll see that I accounted for the crossbow being loaded before the bonus attack occurrs, as in the statement "fire and load", meaning to fire an already loaded crossbow and then reload it as per Crawford's clarification of the ammunition property.

 

[El Mahdi]

I am not trying to win points. In fact, I would not even post anymore except that y'all keep talking to me.

That's illogical. If you're not trying to "win points" then why keep replying? You have the choice to not reply. As charismatic as many posters feel they may be, there's no way anybody here can make you do anything against your will.

That means you're still replying because you choose to. Because there is something you want.

What is it you want?

Are you trying to get MerricB to say he was wrong? Is that what you want?

The problem with that though, is I don't believe he thinks he's wrong, and everybody else that has replied to you (except Dausuul) have also said they don't think he was wrong (including me). The odds of getting what you want (if that's what you want) are slim to none; likely a futile endeavor. So why else keep posting, keep pursuing that apology? Isn't the very pursuit of that apology, metaphorically speaking, "trying to win points"?


And don't get me wrong, I'm not asking these questions because I want answers. I don't. The questions are only for your own contemplation.

His response was designed to get an emotional response from me...

There is nothing that singles out or confirms that conclusion. There are plenty of other possibilities, with the one that seems most likely to me being it was merely an expression of his emotions.

But that's just one possibility of many, and I don't claim that is definitively what his comment was. To claim definitively is to engage in mind-reading.

Engaging in mind-reading of other posters is always a recipe for bad things, especially in a medium devoid of cues such as vocal tone, inflection, and body language.

There is an old saying: two wrongs do not make a right. I was wrong. He was wrong as well.

And pursuing an useless apology while continuing an useless internet argument simply perpetuates that initial wrong. With every continued post you erode the very apology you made, in pursuit of something that likely will not give you what you want even if he does say the words.

MerricB, some faceless, pseudonymous poster on the internet, can't hurt you. He can't make you feel bad; only you can. Only you can choose to be hurt, and continuing to pursue something which you're likely not going to get only extends that hurt, and mucks up a thread in the process.

You likely came to ENWorld for a reason (unless a random dice roll made you come here ). Do you really want the totality of your experience and history here to be an insulting first post, one not about the subject being discussed, and followed by nothing but arguing over that first post? (And at the risk of offending you more (though not my intention), aren't those the very definitions of trolling and thread-crapping?)

What is it you want out of ENWorld? I can't help but think that so far you haven't had the experience you were looking for. Maybe it's time to let it go and start over.


How about this to get the ball rolling:

What are your thoughts on Crawford's interpretations?
How do you think it will impact the game?
How does it impact your view of the game?
Does this impact how you'll play the game in the future?

And Welcome to ENWorld.

 

[El Mahdi]

I'm gonna leave it that and not play amateur mod...

Begging the question, is there such a thing as a professional mod?

Unless they're getting paid, aren't they all amateurs?

 

[Pauper]

I wouldn't interpret the word "when" to imply any kind of causality or as necessitating a particular order of events. To me, it means "at the time", which would imply you can take the bonus action on the same turn as you take the attack action. I don't think it matters what order you do it in. It seems to me that all that's required is you have a free hand when you take the bonus action so you can reload. And remember we're not talking about two-weapon fighting here. You can't use a hand crossbow in two-weapon fighting because it's not a melee weapon.

Well, the issue in not presuming causality is that, if you use the bonus action before the action that's required to enable it, then you're pretty much committed to that main action -- you can't fire the crossbow with the bonus action enabled by Crossbow Expert and then decide to cast a spell or Withdraw instead. A DM can enforce this by requiring you to take the action that enables the bonus action first.

I'm not sure if this is in direct response to my post. If you read it again you'll see that I accounted for the crossbow being loaded before the bonus attack occurrs, as in the statement "fire and load", meaning to fire an already loaded crossbow and then reload it as per Crawford's clarification of the ammunition property.

Yep, I missed that part -- good catch, and that does answer that concern.

--
Pauper

 

[Hriston]

Well, the issue in not presuming causality is that, if you use the bonus action before the action that's required to enable it, then you're pretty much committed to that main action -- you can't fire the crossbow with the bonus action enabled by Crossbow Expert and then decide to cast a spell or Withdraw instead. A DM can enforce this by requiring you to take the action that enables the bonus action first.

Oh, I see. I'd probably require that the entire sequence be completed as well. The way I'd be inclined to do it is a little different in that I like for the players to declare their actions at the beginning of each round. Then if they don't want to do what they said they were going to do by the time their turn comes around, they don't get the opportunity to do something different.

The other way to enforce this, which just occurred to me, is if you shoot the crossbow as your bonus action and then decide, for whatever reason, not to attack with the one-handed weapon, then the crossbow attack is no longer a bonus action, but qualifies as your action instead.