Sage Advice (18 May 2015)

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

 

[Staffan]

To add to your argument, here's a guy loading and firing a replica of a 16th century hand crossbow:

https://youtu.be/se_N8CrooPY

It takes him both hands, though I could imagine using a "between the knees" maneuver or a belt clip of some kind to brace it, but it still takes him over 30 seconds to arm the thing.

I think a hand crossbow is supposed to be more of a de-fancified version of this weapon:
https://youtu.be/kevtXygG_NA

Note that the one in "your" video has a 320 lb draw, with a bow made of solid metal, and has to use a screw to get the appropriate leverage to draw the bow back. The one in "my" video is more like 70 lbs, and uses a lever.

 

[famousringo]

I think a hand crossbow is supposed to be more of a de-fancified version of this weapon:
https://youtu.be/kevtXygG_NA

Note that the one in "your" video has a 320 lb draw, with a bow made of solid metal, and has to use a screw to get the appropriate leverage to draw the bow back. The one in "my" video is more like 70 lbs, and uses a lever.

Yeah, I've seen videos of people firing crossbow pistols like that every ten seconds or so, but those are modern machines with modern engineering and materials. The ballestrino is the only medieval hand crossbow design I've been able to find information about.

I suppose you could argue that it's possible for a dwarven master craftsman to build a weapon with similar characteristics, but I feel that if you want to talk about realism in DnD, you should be looking at antique weapons, not modern crossbow pistols and compound bows.

As far as I can tell, the reality is that hand crossbows in any era have never really been regarded as much more than a novelty weapon.

 

[Celtavian]

Yeah, I've seen videos of people firing crossbow pistols like that every ten seconds or so, but those are modern machines with modern engineering and materials. The ballestrino is the only medieval hand crossbow design I've been able to find information about.

I suppose you could argue that it's possible for a dwarven master craftsman to build a weapon with similar characteristics, but I feel that if you want to talk about realism in DnD, you should be looking at antique weapons, not modern crossbow pistols and compound bows.

As far as I can tell, the reality is that hand crossbows in any era have never really been regarded as much more than a novelty weapon.

Don't you think a long lived race like drow could construct a highly effective hand crossbow capable of fairly rapid use?

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

I don't remember ever reading Salvatore describing a drow reloading a hand crossbow while holding something in the other hand, and Salvatore usually isn't shy about showing off their abilities.

To me dual wielding hand bows (or rather reloading while holding two) always seemed ridiculous (and I didn't allow it in my game), so I was quite happy to see this sage advice confirm my bias. If it hadn't I would have had no problem with house ruling against it.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't remember ever reading Salvatore describing a drow reloading a hand crossbow while holding something in the other hand, and Salvatore usually isn't shy about showing off their abilities.

To me dual wielding hand bows (or rather reloading while holding two) always seemed ridiculous (and I didn't allow it in my game), so I was quite happy to see this sage advice confirm my bias. If it hadn't I would have had no problem with house ruling against it.

I thought we moved on to whether they could be fired rapidly in one hand? Are we still on the one free hand discussion?

 

[mlund]

Hand crossbows are not semi-automatic weapons. You aren't performing "gun-kata" nonsense with them. You'll have to settle for the rest of the crossbow nonsense, longbow nonsense, sword nonsense, and magical lightning bolt shenanigans. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Marty Lund

 

[Sword of Spirit]

But is this RAW? I don't think "drop an item" is listed as a freebie on top of your normal interaction anywhere in the rules, or if it is, I've overlooked it.

That doesn't mean that I don't allow it- but I absolutely don't allow people to exploit the "free drop + free interaction" like you describe; it actually came up last game, when a rogue wanted to drop his rapier, fire his bow (already in hand) and then pick the rapier up again. Nope- it may be inelegant to rule differently based on circumstances, but that is a loophole exploit that I won't allow.

As far as I can tell dropping an item is free, and I believe the designers have said as much on Twitter. Even without their statements it seems to follow general 5e design philosophy of not penalizing players for doing things and requiring something to be somewhat significant before it counts as using any resources. Dropping something is pretty effortless, and the object interaction examples require quite a bit more effort than simply dropping something.

It is worth noting that this doesn't simply allow people to switch around weapons any which way as often as they like. You still have to take into account that whatever you dropped is on the ground, so if you want to move around during the round (say splitting up your move between attacks) you'd have to come back for it. And it doesn't have any effect on the drawing or sheathing rules. In your example, for instance, the rogue has already used actions or object interactions to get both of his weapons into his hands. At that point it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to allow him take advantage of the fact that he isn't using a shield and can just drop his weapon and fire his bow. Other situations where it wouldn't work would include if you are climbing or standing on a ledge, flying, etc.

 

[famousringo]

Don't you think a long lived race like drow could construct a highly effective hand crossbow capable of fairly rapid use?

Just as plausible as the dwarven craftsman.

Look, even if we take for granted that hand crossbows can fire rapidly, you still have light and heavy crossbows firing at the same, blisteringly improbable rate. My point is not that this is impossible and therefore shouldn't be allowed. My point is that the crossbow rules as written, with or without Crawford's added Sage Advice interpretations, are already so improbable that I don't see why reality should get in the way of one-handed loading (also monsters, magic, rapid recovery from mortal wounds, etc.).

If one-handed loading needs to go, it's for game balance reasons, not for verisimilitude. Personally, I only see single-handed loading as a balance issue when it's combined with feats. Without feats, ranged attackers are making similar choices as melee fighters, trading damage (and range) for defense or bonus attacks.

So we should be fixing the feats. Make two-handed weapon a requirement for the -5/+10 bonus of Sharpshooter, just like its melee equivalent, for example. This even makes sense for verisimilitude, as two-handed weapon platforms are naturally more stable than single-handed ones.

 

[Celtavian]

Just as plausible as the dwarven craftsman.

Look, even if we take for granted that hand crossbows can fire rapidly, you still have light and heavy crossbows firing at the same, blisteringly improbable rate. My point is not that this is impossible and therefore shouldn't be allowed. My point is that the crossbow rules as written, with or without Crawford's added Sage Advice interpretations, are already so improbable that I don't see why reality should get in the way of one-handed loading (also monsters, magic, rapid recovery from mortal wounds, etc.).

If one-handed loading needs to go, it's for game balance reasons, not for verisimilitude. Personally, I only see single-handed loading as a balance issue when it's combined with feats. Without feats, ranged attackers are making similar choices as melee fighters, trading damage (and range) for defense or bonus attacks.

So we should be fixing the feats. Make two-handed weapon a requirement for the -5/+10 bonus of Sharpshooter, just like its melee equivalent, for example. This even makes sense for verisimilitude, as two-handed weapon platforms are naturally more stable than single-handed ones.

I don't think it matters for game balance.

It's purely for reasons of verisimilitude in our group. If it doesn't cause your group any such reservations, I would let the player use a hand crossbow with a weapon, even a shield. I don't think it will anyway make them more or less effective than anyone else in the group. Sharpshooter hurts balance more than Crossbow Expert. If you're not going to get rid of Sharpshooter for balance reasons, no reason to worry too much about two hand crossbows or the like other than verisimilitude.

 

[Uchawi]

Too bad there is very little feats in comparison to spells, so feat rulings have more of an impact on classes that may already be strapped for choices or an increase in power.