I can't believe they went that way with hand crossbows.
Huh. So it seems.It actually gives a buff to the crossbow/sharpshooter, now they only need one crossbow instead of two.
Well, it always was a pretty crappy style. Lots of investment for little pay off. I'm probably the only one who cares about it. My assassin can make due with a short sword and throwing daggers instead. Slightly less damage, but still works.It also does this, which is arguably even worse because nobody cared enough to complain about that.
From the way I read it, you can duel wield hand crossbows - you just can't load them. So, start your combat with two, fire the off hand, drop the off hand, load the main hand and fire it twice. Basically, its a turn 1 extra damage.
Well, I like the aforementioned rapier and crossbow style.Why would you bother? Just for style? You still get all your attacks and the bonus action attack wielding one hand crossbow.
You choose which two of the three dice to use -- you still need two die rolls because you have disadvantage, and you still take the lower of the two rolls you keep. Lucky plus disadvantage is still worse than Lucky on a normal roll.Doesn't Lucky deserve more attention? If you have disadvantage you can effectively turn it into advantage with Lucky? You get to choose which of the three dice to use... If you really need to hit and have Lucky, but no route to advantage - give yourself disadvantage to increase the chances you hit?
I never interpreted it as needing two crossbows in the first place, so I don't see it as a buff. It didn't hurt the core of the combo at all, though.It actually gives a buff to the crossbow/sharpshooter, now they only need one crossbow instead of two.
Doesn't Lucky deserve more attention? If you have disadvantage you can effectively turn it into advantage with Lucky? You get to choose which of the three dice to use... If you really need to hit and have Lucky, but no route to advantage - give yourself disadvantage to increase the chances you hit?