Sage Advice (18 May 2015)

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

 

[Celtavian]

Jeremy Crawford has clarified it on twitter: You pick the best die out of all three you roll, but you're still in a state of disadvantage so things like Sneak Attack are disallowed...

...but he also says that a DM could rule that you make the disadvantage roll, take the lower d20, then roll the additional d20 and take the higher result.

Cheers!

I like this ruling. Makes Lucky more valuable. I like that it makes "it's better to be lucky than good" true.

 

[Li Shenron]

I kind of agree with all the Sage Advice in this issue.

I wouldn't mind however to let the spells learned from Magic Initiate to be cast using the slots from a spellcasting class (after all, when multiclassing the slots are not separate for each class), instead of having a single standalone slot.

But that said, I never considered Sage Advice as authoritative as the RAW, and 5e is even loose with RAW so when it comes to Sage Advice certainly I'll never feel bound to it.

 

[CrusaderX]

No. It always takes one free hand to load whether the weapon is one or two handed. Always.

When I said "operate", I was including the loading of the hand crossbow as part of its basic operation.

As in, you can't be holding a shield or a sword in the other hand. The other hand must be free and available to load the hand crossbow that you're holding one-handed in your other hand.

 

[Coredump]

I kind of agree with all the Sage Advice in this issue.

I wouldn't mind however to let the spells learned from Magic Initiate to be cast using the slots from a spellcasting class (after all, when multiclassing the slots are not separate for each class), instead of having a single standalone slot.
.

If you are a wizard, you have a rule saying 'you can use your spell slots to cast wizard spells'
If you are a sorcerer, you have a rule saying 'you can use your spell slots to cast sorcerer spells'
If you are a wizard with a sorcerer spell via MI feat, you do *not* have a rule saying 'you can use your spell slots to cast sorcerer spells'

It was simply a RAW ruling

 

[Zaran]

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you four are simply ignoring the words right in front of you. Crawford's ruling is extremely clear. Lucky feat + disadvantage = you can pick any of the three dice, including the higher of the disadvantage pair.

"For example, if you have disadvantage on your attack roll, you could spend a luck point, roll a third d20, and then decide which of the three dice to use."

This quote is very clear, especially in conjunction with Crawford's subsequent tweets. Lucky turns disadvantage into advantage.

I can see how you could think that's a stupid ruling. I can see how you might even think that it's contrary to RAW. But it is very obvious what Crawford is saying.

The thing is, he says the character still has disadvantage and that the feat doesn't change that.

 

[MerricB]

The thing is, he says the character still has disadvantage and that the feat doesn't change that.

The reason he does is because how Sneak Attack is worded: it functions only if you *don't* have disadvantage. So, you could use Lucky with disadvantage, choose the highest of three dice, but you still don't get to use Sneak Attack.

 

[Inchoroi]

The problem with dual wielding hand crossbows wasn't that it was broken or the damage was too high, it was that it was freakin' ridiculous. Were they loading bolts with their teeth or something?

Yes!

I dunno; maybe my table likes over-the-top stuff (we really do), so we've never questioned the idea of dual-wielding hand crossbows, even if, in reality, it wouldn't work. Why? Because it's awesome. And that pretty much sums up the entirety of my table and gaming philosophy. If I think it's awesome, I'm probably going to allow it.

 

[Mephista]

The invisible ninja assassin can get advantage on the paralyzed target again and again and again. And do all that juicy sneak attack damage in the meantime. (Assuming it is a paralyzed giant who needs some convincing to get in the grave.) The third die of advantage isn't a gamebreaker for an ability that you can only use 3 times a day. It just might feel a little too cheesy for my table. (We do have a luckster, so I'm sure this will come up!)

Here's the thing. Your Assassin can't use Lucky to turn Disadvantage to Advantage and get Sneak Attack dice. So, while he can get a lucky shot in, it won't do much damage.

For as much you can turn it to make bad luck into good... its still only three times a day, and you dont' get a lot of benefit from it in the case of someone with multiple attacks a turn, or needing to make multiple saves a turn - as time goes on, the effectiveness of the merit falls.

 

[Chocolategravy]

If you are a wizard, you have a rule saying 'you can use your spell slots to cast wizard spells'
If you are a sorcerer, you have a rule saying 'you can use your spell slots to cast sorcerer spells'
If you are a wizard with a sorcerer spell via MI feat, you do *not* have a rule saying 'you can use your spell slots to cast sorcerer spells'

It was simply a RAW ruling

Then by RAW the MC "spell slots" rule would allow your Wizard/Sorcerer MC character to use the Cleric spell they gained from the feat in other slots. But only if they MC, a pure Wizard or pure Sorcerer couldn't.

 

[El Mahdi]

As for the semi-auto crossbow, it's interesting how he skirts the realism aspect of the argument and goes right into rules, in that ammunition needs to be drawn. It's an interesting way of deflecting the argument. And I like how it does leave room open for a magical self-loading crossbow and/or a gnomish invention. So if your character concept relies on this there's options to approach your DM with.

Ammunition needing to be drawn is skirting realism?

I think you and I have very different definitions of realism.