Sage Advice (18 May 2015)

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

 

[Umbran]

You are right. And you don't have to respond to me if you want me to go away. But until then, I have to refute your points.

No you don't.

Admittedly, El Madhi and MerricB have not really handled this well. Their approaches made it personal, so between you all, now we are in a butting-of-heads ego-contest.

Thus enters the moderator. I shall level the playing field - all of you drop it, like a hot rock, please. Now, nobody needs to feel they lose face for backing down.

If you feel a need to discuss it, please take it to e-mail or private message with a moderator, per the board rules.

 

[Hriston]

Really?!?!
In your experience, hand-crossbows are effective at parrying melee weapons?
A momentary threat provides defense for an entire 6-seconds or so of combat?

So after they shoot, how are they defending them self with their sword in it's sheath?

Now, I was imagining that this is all taking place very quickly. The crossbow expert has the longsword in its sheath only long enough to get off two quick bonus shots with the crossbow. Then it gets pulled out again for two full attack actions. I mean, that's the main attack, so the longsword, or whatever weapon is used, isn't sheathed for any thing like a full round. It only gets sheathed during a bonus action at the end of the crossbow expert's turn and another one at the beginning of the next turn. After they shoot the longsword is back out again for the next attack. How long does a bonus action take anyway?

Exactly. Standing toe to toe with an opponent that is actively attacking them with a melee weapon. Taking the time to sheathe a weapon, namely the weapon one is using to fend off the melee attacks of your opponent, is a very bad thing.

How do you know the opponent even has a melee weapon? It could be a spell-caster, in which case the longsword wouldn't help you fend off your opponent's attacks at all. Should the spell-caster automatically get an opportunity attack?

For me it's a case of using the rules, not letting the rules use you. The reality of combat is that a hand crossbow is a momentary threat which once fired is no longer a danger. Even if the Crossbow Expert Feat allows a reload quick enough that it doesn't affect your action economy, it still does take time, even if just a millisecond; time that an opponent engaged in melee combat can exploit.

Nobody would ever do this in real-life because to do so would mean death. Therefore that's not how it's done in my games.

I appreciate your dedication to realism. I enjoy simulationism and could see house-ruling something that would take these factors into account, but it would have to apply evenly, not just to nerf this one feat. Do you grant opportunity attacks on anyone who enters melee without a drawn weapon?

By RAW, you are right. But my post wasn't about RAW, it was about my ruling based on what I see as RAI. In my games, unless one is specifically trained in unarmed combat against armed foes, such as a Monk, one cannot defend them self in melee combat without a melee weapon - thus, they provoke an attack of opportunity for dropping or stowing their weapon and not disengaging.

That sort of answers my question, and I know wizards aren't supposed to enter melee, but what about a caster using a touch cantrip? Does that provoke attacks of opportunity?

The reason why a disengage action exists is two-fold: one, the game needed a mechanic for someone to move away from an opponent without provoking an attack of opportunity, one balanced by the expenditure of an action economy resource; and two, the conceit is that a combat round consists of a constant trading of blows, parries, and feints - not just one single attack. Because of this conceit, I see the Rules as Intended to mean that one cannot drop their defenses during melee combat unless one actively disengages from that combat.

By defences I assume you mean a melee weapon. What if the character isn't holding a melee weapon to begin with? Let's say enemies attack while the character is unarmed. Do they get AoO right away, even if the character is using unarmed strike to defend, assuming non-proficiency?

Yes, they are trained in that manner, and receive a specific benefit: they don't suffer disadvantage for the shot. That's it. No amount of training can make a hand-crossbow something it is not; specifically, a melee weapon able to defend one in melee combat. I see their training as primarily focused on fast, precise loading, and secondarily as being experienced at snapping off a shot during melee; but that doesn't make them immune from the need to continuously defend themselves through the entire round.

I've already addressed the assertion that the expert would be without defences for the entire round. As for the lack of disadvantage firing up close, notice that the feat does not require the expert to have a melee weapon to benefit from this. It seems that if the intention was for the expert to be vulnerable to extra attacks in melee then it would be difficult to get a clean shot at all.

What kerleth posted may be RAW, though I didn't evaluate it in the context of RAW so I'm not sure; but it certainly is not consistent with real combat, and I believe counter to Rules as Intended.

I understand where you're coming from, especially with reference to realism, but if it was intended that holding a melee weapon made you less vulnerable to the blows of an enemy due to the added ability to parry, then I would expect such weapons to give you an AC bonus. Since they don't, I would think that the intention is that the entire issue be disregarded.

 

[the Jester]

You can actually do this easier by simply dropping the rapier and then picking it up as a free object interaction.

It looks dumb, but it works. I personally allow characters to use their free object interaction to hold their weapon under their arm or in their shield hand, etc, so as to free up a hand for spellcasting or reloading ammo provided they aren't accomplishing anything they couldn't accomplish by dropping the weapon and picking it back up. Since the rules allow you to drop and scoop it up, I just allow them to mechanically mimic that while maintaining control over the visualizations.

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.

 

[the Jester]

I'm sure that an expert xbow user could load a small xbow with 1 hand while holding something in the other. slip the bow between the knees cock it and slide in the bolt. Presto! granted realism is out the window in terms of melee combat, but not unreasonable if they are at range.

I'm not a crossbow expert myself, but I'm pretty sure that this is not at all realistic or (at least for my game) reasonable. Crossbows aren't easy and quick to cock; that's why they used to have a fire rate of 1 every other round.

 

[the Jester]

EDIT: Never mind, just saw Umbran's post.

 

[El Mahdi]

I understand where you're coming from, especially with reference to realism, but if it was intended that holding a melee weapon made you less vulnerable to the blows of an enemy due to the added ability to parry, then I would expect such weapons to give you an AC bonus. Since they don't, I would think that the intention is that the entire issue be disregarded.

In my games, weapons do add to defense. There's also a defense roll. All based on what I interpret as the intention behind Disengage, the conceit that Disengage informs.

 

[Pauper]

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.

That makes sense, though it gets a little ontologically twisty.

"I fire Schrodinger's Hand Crossbow -- we don't know if it's a bonus action or an actual action until I look in this envelope to see what I'm going to try to do next."

--
Pauper

 

[famousringo]

A crossbow has a higher draw weight than a longbow. That is why you can draw the longbow with one hand. A crossbow is designed to let you put much more force in the bolt, by holding the draw mechanically. That is why bolts penetrate better than arrows. It was this power that had the crossbow declared as the ultimate weapon when it was introduced in Europe (it was already in use in the Orient years before).

However, with the high draw strength, it is very difficult to draw one handed (unless you don't care about your back). You can use a crank one handed but it takes longer, and it still needs to be braced.

However, this is a fantasy game. Real middle age bowmen did not have the skills of those in the game. There were no Legolas' running around. Most of the bowmen were the worst trained of the soldiers, and would usually be slaughtered once the enemy broke the lines. Most of the time they fired in the air in an arc as a group on the hopes that some will accidentally hit the enemy. So the real weapons are not a good model when emulating high fantasy fiction.

As for "slipping it between the knees," crossbows had a bracket on the front end to put your foot in while you pulled the string back with both arms . Essentially you are using two arms and a leg to reload it. So you should not be able to move or have a free hand for melee. And your defense is compromised because it is hard to dodge while loading. An unnaturally high strength might be able to overcome the problem.

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.

This is why verisimilitude arguments about crossbows don't carry much weight with me. 5th ed combat rules in general, and especially crossbow rules, are hugely detached from the reality of medieval combat before you even get to the Crossbow Expert feat. The idea that anyone could arm a crossbow even once in a 6 second period is absurd. Once every 3, 2, 1.5 seconds? Just as crazy as doing it all one-handed.

More compelling is the argument that a Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter meets or exceeds the performance of a melee fighter in every respect if allowed to load one-handed, but it seems to me that's a problem that should be fixed by changing the feat, not by changing the loading rules. The fact that people can design goofy scenarios where melee + hand crossbow still works as long as the character is constantly sheathing or dropping his/her weapon completely undermines the idea that this ruling somehow improves verisimilitude.

 

[kerleth]

As DM, if you were to sheathe your melee weapon while engaged in melee combat (in a situation that would require you to take the Disengage Action to avoid an Opportunity Attack), my ruling would be that you trigger an Opportunity Attack.

As a certain Dark Lord of the Sith once said: You are unwise to lower your defenses.


In your example above, if you are moving from target to target to make your melee attacks, you haven't accounted for taking Disengage Actions (or the movement).


The Crossbow Expert Feat eliminates disadvantage for making a ranged attack within 5 feet of a hostile creature.

It does not eliminate the need for Disengaging, or make you immune to Opportunity Attacks.

I think that the Rules as Intended mean that when in melee combat, you have to actively maintain your melee engagement or use the Disengage Action to leave your threatened square. As long as you are in that threatened square your opponent is attacking. You can't just sheathe your weapon while somebody is in your face attacking you with a melee weapon; at least if you don't want to give them a free shot at you that is.

I know I didn't outright say this, but this was just a RAW thought experiment. I firmly believe in rulings not rules, but a lot of the discussion (and part of the point of sage advice as written in it's first column) is based on RAW.
That said, I'd like to point out a couple of things.
1) I never said anything about moving. Why do I need to disengage? I have a rapier and a crossbow that I can fire in melee. I no more need to provoke opportunity attacks than a greatsword fighter. As a matter of fact, I'm LESS likely to do so since I can always sheathe my rapier and "full attack" with my crossbow against whoever the heck I want. I'm honestly confused where this came from.
2) I completely understand the idea that sheathing your weapon would mean dropping your defenses and provoking an attack of opportunity. Just like to point out though, THIS IS A HOUSERULE. Nowhere does it say that this should happen. I know you just said that it is how you would rule as GM, but I wanted to highlight this. The reason being that reasonable houserules vary by table and setting, so what may not be appropriate for one campaign is pure awesomeness in another. (Example: two weapon fighting with dual lances while mounted).

Also, in response to another poster (that I'm just too lazy to go and quote seperately).
Yes, technically you must load your crossbow as part of the action of firing. When loading a crossbow is there a timer that automatically ejects the bolt if you don't fire within a few seconds? Using this sort of logic, we don't need a free hand ANYWAYS, because TECHNICALLY, it never says we do in the actual rules. Crawford's ruling is based on the idea that we all know how loading a crossbow works, and you need a free hand. Since we all know how a crossbow works, we know that it can be loaded well ahead of firing.
If Crawfords's need a hand ruling counts, because it's not in the rules but it is common sense that you do need a free hand. THEN
You can load the crossbow a couple of seconds ahead of time, because it's not in the rules but common sense says you can.
OR
We're worried about explicitly described game mechanics, which require you to load immediately before attack. THEN
Crawford's ruling is overruled, because by explicitly described game mechanics it never says you need a free hand to load and my character has a gnomish belt which he hooks the crossbow on to draw and load it in motion.

Actually, I really like the image of that belt.....TO THE HOMEBREW SECTION!!!

Editted due to realizing that I inadvertently made a disparaging remark and me being stupid.

 

[lkj]

The Lucky thing is one place where I'll be ignoring Sage Advice. That ruling falls under the heading of "Crawford brain fart" as far as I'm concerned--seriously, I have no idea what he was thinking. You can improve your chance to hit by closing your eyes? Riiiight.

(Edited after reviewing how Lucky works) I'm sticking with my previous ruling: You make the original roll with disadvantage, per normal. Discard the better die and keep the worse. Then you decide whether to use a luck roll. If you use a luck roll, you have your choice of using the new roll from Lucky, or the result of your roll-with-disadvantage. You don't get to go back, find the discarded result from the first roll, and fish it out of the trash. It's gone.

Everything else looks good though. Glad to see that we can quit talking about the dual hand crossbow/Sharpshooter build.

Jeremy has given (to me anyway) the impression that he probably agrees that the lucky feat has a problem:

"That's how the feat works. It's long been on our radar as a potential problem. But SA is for clarification, not redesign."

And:

"The feat is good—maybe too good. But in Sage Advice, I explain how the game works, not how I wish it worked."

He also responded to someone that resolving disadvantage first and then adding the lucky die was a very reasonable way for a DM to run it:

"That would be a sensible way to run it, if a DM wanted."

So, I suspect, we'll see a fix at some point. He's just being very narrow with how he uses Sage Advice.

AD