My DM is making a fuss with duel cross bows. How do you make the extra attack every round and load your weapons?
DM believes that the feat only works the first bonus attack when the crossbow is already loaded
Same way bow users make an attack every round and load their weapon while holding something in 2-hands.
Oh boy, one of these. It's highly contentious, and it requires an open DM. Be prepared for a lot of people stating what they believe and also claiming it to be the Rules As Written (RAW).
But my personal interpretation, assuming you mean with Crossbow Expertise: The Ammunition description allows you to draw (and load) as part of the attack, so if the crossbow was pre-loaded before the attack, you can attack and then reload as part of the attack. So, essentially, neither of your crossbows will ever be "unloaded" unless you choose not to load them afterwards, or you run out of ammo
There are no rules about needing free hands to load, but this is probably made ambiguous because the devs wanted to give some wiggle-room for DMs. Again, I personally allow this.
Jeremy Crawford recently tweeted that hand crossbows still require a free hand in order to be reloaded.
The crossbow expert feat does not remove the restriction of requiring two hands to load said crossbow. It just removes the loading property which limits your firing rate, making it akin to a short/long bow in that regard.
Kalani wrote:
mellored wrote:
You take a feat. It means you can do things others who don't have the feat typically cannot do. Feats can even bestow the ability to cast spells.
So how does it work? Like a boss.
MrBloodpuppy wrote:
Ammunition says that you can draw it as a part of attack. Hand crossbows don't have twohanded property so they dont require 2 hands to use.
Now I know that this doesnt exactly follow reality, but d&d is a fantasy. I would personally allow it, because why not? I dont think it is overpowerred.
For the loaded or not, I'd say if adventurer has reasonable reason to expect combat it would be loaded. If not then just use your free object interaction on first round to load it and now, barring some special circumstances or running out of ammo, it is always loaded after your action.
There are varying opinions on this so talk with your dm and hopefully you'll reach an agreement.
Hold bow in one hand, load now with other. I don't know what's soo difficult to grasp about this response.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
MrBloodpuppy wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Didn't the Gunslinger character from Stephen King's Dark Tower series have the ability to load a revolver in one smoot action? That's what I picture happening here. Not the same exact thing, but some sort of special technique that allows the PC to go all John Woo with crossbows.
If it's versimiltude you're after then you should probably play a game that doesn't have Rust Monsters and Gibbering Mouthers.
mellored wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
A player hold a bow in one hand
A player can load the arrow while holding the bow with one hand
The bow requires 2 hands (and thus the two handed property) to be able to fire.
apply same logic to hand crossbows. It's not rocket science. It's not inconsistent. The explanation works fine.
Yunru wrote:
MrBloodpuppy wrote:
idk if anyone remembers Terminator 2.
That's the movie where the Governor of California meets his housekeeper, with guns.
Anyway ... the last set piece has the Mom and Ahnode,
both with a busted arm (and one of them's a robot)
playing cloak and dagger with the Tarrasque and Pixie killer.
They both load and shoot a gun 1 handed.
And they both had a busted arm.
And they both load and shoot a gun 1 handed, multiple times.
And neither of them have "magic" ; although Ahnode's housekeeper begs to differ.
I SHOOT GUNS LIKE A HOLLYWOOD MARRIAGE , YOU OVERCRAFTED TOASTER !!!
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
MrBloodpuppy wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
You're joking. Christ. Okay, it seems the word itself is filtered, rather than you being overly considerate.
Elfcrusher wrote:
MrBloodpuppy wrote:
Yunru wrote:
To my understanding, a difference between hand crossbows and regular bows is that you need two hands to attack with a bow (an exception being if you used the bow as an improvised melee weapon), but only one hand to hold it. You only need one hand to do either with a hand crossbow. But either would need a free hand to load.
It seems that any weapon that fires ammunition requires a free hand to load that weapon. Per PHB, when firing/attacking with a weapon with the ammunition property, drawing the ammuition is part of the attack. It's a pretty big stretch to imagine drawing the ammo, loading it, and firing a ranged weapon as part of an attack when using only one hand.
The exception here might be a weapon with a magazine or chamber holding multiple ammunition pieces within it. One creative person came up with this idea for a hand crossbow, that has a magazine with 3 bolts built in:
http://www.silverblades-suitcase.com/rhino/2009/drow_handcrossbow5.jpg
But this seems to me to be the exception rather than the rule, if it were allowed to exist at all.
Yunru wrote:
As for being up to the DM: Yeah no. Whether it is excluded or included is something that effects an entire tree of character concepts. With effects like that its presense or absence is definitely intentional.
I'm not sure if you can reload one-handed (other than with a repeating crossbow), but you don't necessarily have to do it completely one-handed.
Depending on the crossbow design, you might be able to still hold the crossbow loosely and free up 2-3 fingers - enough to pull the string and load the other crossbow. Or you can hold the both crossbows in one hand/arm temporarily - giving you a completely free hand. Or, like another poster said, have straps on the crossbows - letting you free your hands while keeping the crossbows "at hand".
*imagining Wii straps on the crossbows*
That's another video I want to see: somebody with two hand crossbows on wrist leashes trying to load both of them in six seconds.
Elfcrusher wrote:
I agree, completely unreasonable.
Just like a fighter moving, interacting with an object, and attacking 9 times with a greatsword in 6 seconds.
Just like a monk being capable of sprinting directly up 70 feet of a vertical cliff.
Just like a wizard turning someone into a sheep and calling down a meteor from the sky.
Just like a paladin growing wings and being capable of inflicting a physical manifestation of fear with his mere presence.
Out of all the things to get hung up over regarding the realism of a fantasy game, we chose dual crossbows.
Valinere wrote:
Goofy argument isn't particularly strong in a game where Modrons exist, halflings' heads are enormous, and we're all pretending to be magic elves.
So if things are deemed cool, and thus not goofy, by an individual's subjective opinion, they are given a pass on the reality scale. Got it, that makes it much more clear.
Good thing we all have identical opinions on what qualifies as cool, otherwise that argument might have holes in it.
bawylie wrote:
It is up to the DM. It should always be up to the DM so he can run the game he wants for his players.
Honestly it seems most people do not know what these weapons actually are nor how they work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDeAxTxzorE This is a chinese repeating crossbow. It would always require two hands to use. Both for loading and firing just because of its design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3smTfaTPh0 this is the most modern version of a hand crossbow which would still always need two hands to re-arm and load
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjv6ucjPkZQ this is a typical hand crossbow which also would require two hands to re-arm and load
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs this is a light crossbow and it again requires two hands to re-arm load. This video also shows just how much slower a crossbow is than a long bow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEOeZTV9wiA this is a heavy crossbow. It is so large and complex that it always requires two hands.
This is why people are saying it requires a "free hand" to load a crossbow.
Now it is up to you in your game how far you want to allow the crossbow expert feat to go. You can allow dual wielding hand crossbows ala diablo 3 or you can say that you can only make one shot before you need to reload or you could say that it only allows for an extra shot when using one hand crossbow. Its up to you in your game.
Just make sure you know why you decide the things you do and how it will affect the rest of the game.
There are only two levels of skill with weapons non-proficient and proficent. Every one falls into one of the two groups. Anything you allow a proficent character to do a non-proficent character can do he is just lacking the +2 to do it. This means that a pesant farmer can dual wield hand crossbows if you allow a fighter that is proficient to do it.
This is why as DM you are required to make rulings and are not bound by rules. Game rules are set in stone and do not change based on what makes sense or what it logical. That kind of decision making is why a person makes the final call and not an arbitrary rule. You have the authority and resposnability to say that a pesant farmer that is compleetly untrained in any kind of combat should never be able to figure out how to just pick up a pair of hand crossbows and load and shoot them with no training.
At the same time you can say that you can fire a loaded hand crossbow as a bonus action durring combat once you have this feat, but loading would require at minimum the use of your object interaction.
Or you could say the hell with realism I want to allow it because I like the concept.
All of that is fine. It is all within your rights as DM to make that call and you should make the call you want for your game. Never let a player tell you that you must. As DM it is your game. Make the call. Players will eithor go along with you perhaps even grudgingly or leave that is the power of a player. Your power as DM is to make the call. The two sides ballance out since neithor can exist on its own.
randl wrote:
I definitely think a guy in a duster with crossbows akimbo blasting monsters looks pretty damn cool.
Again, I don't think it should be banned, both because I think the rules were intentionally crafted to leave it open and because...although it's not my thing...it's kinda cool.
But it should be accepted as being on par with modrons and oversized halfling heads, i.e. just something for which we suspend disbelief because it makes the game richer. These arguments of why it's totally reasonable from a practical/realism standpoint, or how long bows are categorized as "two-handed" weapons and thus you don't have a free hand to load, are trying to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized.
EDIT: And as the post above points out, you pretty much have to hold them sideways, gansta-style, if you're going to dual wield.
Because when it boils down to it - the game engine isn't a simulacra. The game engine covers the possible, the impossible, and the structure of play.
To that extent, I buy the "purposefuly excluded" argument. It's excluded bc the game wasn't designed with "making sense/not being goofy" as a primary concern.
Drycanth wrote:
I think that, in a world where a few gold can buy you a selection of potions that magically cures sword wounds it's not unreasonable to have a hand-crossbow you can reload one handed.
I mostly let my players get away with whatever the Rules allow them to, so-long-as they aren't then abusing it to the detriment of other players.
I could be wrong, but I'm guessing most people would rule that crossbows specially made or magicked to be quickly reloadable one-handed would be fine. I think the argument is about standard hand crossbows.
jessequentin wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
jessequentin wrote:
Let's not even get into how much force it would take to pull back such a tiny crossbow that it would have enough power to do the damage of a short sword.
Oh, wait, I just did....
IxidorRS wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
jessequentin wrote:
IxidorRS wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
People are strongly in favor of saving/justifying a mechanic allowing this 'bizarre' dual wielding. Enjoy describing that as a DM. However, I think it would be possible to justify or allow the dual wielding crossbow option with a series of pre-loaded hand crossbows. One of my players suggested that his character would have a number of loaded crossbows rigged to his torso with some kind of elaborate mechanism. He would get his bonus shot on the first round and drop the crossbow, then proceed to shoot the dominant hand crossbow until his next turn. Then he'd use his free interact to draw another crossbow with his off hand, and repeat. I'm guessing that he'd have four or so crossbows available. You could do the same with a repeater-style crossbow on a landiard, I guess.
Chakravant wrote:
1. Everyone agrees the hand crossbows don't just magically reload. The character needs to do some kind of interaction with the crossbow and bolt. That doesn't mean any of us are caught up in simulation arguments. That's simply the place where we all begin. Call it axiom 1 if you want. Unprovable but understood to be true.
2. The question on hand crossbows is a rules question about what is required to be done to load a hand crossbow. This is a very hard rules question to answer since the rules don't define loading or what is required to load a hand crossbow. Keep in mind that the lack of a rule about what is required for this is not the same as a rule that says nothing is required.
3. This leaves us in the Wild Wild West or better known as total dm discretion for determining valid ways to reload a hand crossbow in the world he created.
Nachturnus wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
The same reasoning that is used to prevent two can just as easily prevent 1 and a shield.
Nachturnus wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ummm. To some extent Isn't that what everyone here is doing?
Yunru wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I think the fact that being able to fire an extra shot and that dual wielding xbows is a superior damage option while at range is also a factor in why a dm wouldn't allow this. I don't at my table. A ton of top dpr builds use it. Just seems like a min/max thing.
SpinG22 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Yunru wrote:
No. Some people here are trying to push their interpretation as the only valid interpretation under RAW, and that anyone that disagrees must be breaking RAW.
And some people are even arrogant enough to believe they also know *why* people have a different interpretation.... like they don't like their players to be good at things...
No.
FrogReaver wrote:
Impasse reached. No territory gained or lost. Make closing arguments and move on.
Coredump00 wrote:
Final argument. It's a game where we pretend to be magic and elves. Im not adhering to what's sensible or realistic as my first principle. If you take the feat, you get the benefits. Ya'll do what you please, but in my game, you're welcome to dual-wield Xbows.
Closing argument: Talk about it with your table, either as the DM or as the player. That's right, with everyone! The ranger probably doesn't want to be put in the Rogue's shadow for ranged DPS. If the DM has a problem with it, find out WHY they want to disallow it. Is it DPS/Cheese related? Is it too much of a headache? Is it "realism" (using heavy heavy quotes) that is the problem? Maybe a compromise can be reached, akin to "If you let me dual-wield hand crossbows, I promise not to use a shield with it, and I also promise not to take the Sharpshooter* feat" or "I pay 20 extra gold to add hooks and levers to my crossbows. And until I do, I'll just make acrobatics/sleight of hand checks to toss one weapon in the air, load the second one, catch it, then repeat. Oh? You don't like that? Can I just quick draw these extra hand crossbows like Meryl from Trigun? Okay cool."
Remember to remind them that you're spending a FEAT on this. Yes not getting Disadvantage with ranged attacks in melee is cool, and ignoring the "loaded" part is okay-ish (for some builds), but if you make the other bullet completely useless then what's the point? Volley with this feat, and a Heavy Crossbow but that's it :-x Also remind them that if you need to attack (using up your other free hand with a handcrossbow, shortsword, dagger, whatever) to "activate" the bonus action, how in the heck do you have a free hand to shoot and reload, anyway, meaning the feat's wording makes that part useless! Well, I can see a Ranger using
* Some people talk about wombo-combos, but in my opinion it's Sharpshooter that tips things into crazy-town. I mean, I'd allow it as a DM, sure. But some DMs slap a ban-hammer on anything that even remotely smells like cheese (even if it's "RAW" cheese).
I've been back on forth on the issue, and I'm the one who asked Mr. Crawford about it. I actually disagree with him now.
If it can't be reloaded while you're using another weapon in the other hand, then the feat doesn't work at all, ever, unless you are carrying a bag of loaded hand crossbows on your back and are dropping one and pulling a new one out every turn.
That would be a very bad idea.
Suspend your disbelief and move on.
Closing argument:
D&D is fantasy game. I dont think dual wielding crossbows is op or broken etc. It could work for some character concepts. Until it becomes a problem I see no reason not to allow it.
Tastes differ so talk with your group. My group prefers "Sure, why not?" to "RAW says..." in corner cases.
I'll add my own closing argument since I've been debating this over multiple forums and multiple threads for the last month. Many of the arguments originally presented for why it wasn't possible were defeated and then new ones were presented. Repeat this process until now. The current form of the argument as to why it's not possible to reload while having two crossbows is as follows:
The argument that you need a free hand is basically entirely rooted within realism and what people are calling "common sense". It's very difficult to argue this point because of the following issue it brings up:
1. The rules for ammunition in no way require a free hand. The rules at no point state that to reload a 1 handed ammunition weapon, you need a free hand. The rules for ammunition simply state that reloading ammunition is done as part of an attack.
2. If you need a free to reload your weapon, every ammunition weapon which has the two-handed property becomes dysfunctional because the two-handed property states that you need two hands to "use" them. You can't argue that you're not using the weapon when you're reloading it, that's ridiculous bias to serve your argument. Also, the fact that you can hold a weapon in one hand, even if two-handed, does not allow you to reload it. You're using the weapon when reloading.
3. The term reloading is subjective. Even the ammunition rules don't use this term explicitely, only that drawing ammunition is again simply part of the attack process. You don't need other actions or anything like a free hand, you just do it as part of the attack.
4. Dual wielding hand crossbows is something that they are explicitely designed to do. Having the Light property tells us this since it reads that weapons with the light property are perfect for dual wielding.
There's probably more but these are the ones that come to mind. I propose that there's no need for a free hand. Everything needed to reload your weapon is accounted for in the ammunition rules where they state that "it is part of the attack." The edition brands itself as making things simple. Forcing these things to require a free hand, removing the option to dual wield a weapon which is specifically designed to work that way unless you jump through many hoops (or spend ludicrous amounts of gold to have a dozen weapons), creating problems with 2 handed weapons like bows, etc is not making things simple. It's overcomplicating things to the point where you break game mechanics and weapon groups because you're trying to force REALISM and COMMON SENSE onto it. The same people would now tell us, when presented with the obvious problems their views create, that it's up to DM interpretation. This isn't a valid argument, everything is up to DM interpretation. The RAW is not. It is what it is.
I wonder if Wish would let someone do this ... (because that looks more difficult than juggling 2 crossbows about the same size, and 1 quivver of bolts, without being a Chihuahua on an exercise ball). You know ... WISH. Maybe a Fighter with a legit rolled 3 Int stat, couldn't do this, even with a Wish. Because Chihuahuas >> Big Stupid Fighter + Wish.
awaken_D_M_golem wrote:
... it's just googling with lots of word combos.
This one is probably NSFW, but would rate less than PG-13.
http://moblog.net/view/894218/sprocket-naked-chainsaw-juggling
So are 5e feats (in 3e terminology):
Natural or Extraordinary or Supernatural ??
Like being able to take 2 Epic feats stacked, at level 4.
Or being able to take a Half-a-Wizard caster book, at level 1.
Am I the only 1 who read the rules?
Page 195 two weapon you have to use a light melee weapon.
That right there kills it.
The crossbow expert feat doesnt allow you to dual wield crossbows either and the extra attack it allows is a bonus action so even if you could you can't get an extra attack via the CE feat and dual wielding. And you would need 2 fighitng styles to enable it anyway (two weapon+archery).
Seems to involve some sketchy interpretation of the Crossbow Expert feat to allow it and even if it did work why bother if you have that feat anyway as you are still limited to a single bonus action so firing the crossbow is only 1d6 damage vs 1d6+ dex modifier to just having an extra attack with the CE feat.
The combo is a bad one even if the DM allow it. Even if you are level 10 with 2 fighitng styles you have to make a choice between your off hand attack and firing the other hand crossbow an extra time.
Zardnaar wrote:
Timborama wrote:
I could see being able to use the crossbow in the other hand to be able to recock the other hand crossbow, but there is no way to be able to load a bolt in either of them without a third arm.
Yunru wrote:
I'm using Crossbow Expertise for my Valor Bard reskinned to an Artificer character to take two shots with what is statistically a hand crossbow. My description was that I have a clockwork-enhanced crossbow that fires twice.
Zardnaar wrote:
crimfan07 wrote:
crimfan07 wrote:
If the DM allows it, rock on
If the DM says no, rock on
My DM says it is cool for my rogue to use his +1 longsword and fire his handcrossbow (with magic weapon spell) while his mage hand reloads it.
Nachturnus wrote:
hmm , let's see if real life juggling can do this.
assumption 1: 2 hand crossbows (hxbow 1 , hxbow 2) are easier and safer to operate than 2 chainsaws
assumption 2: quivver is easier and safer to operate than a chainsaw
assumption 3: arrow (and winking at audience member) is easier and safer to operate than a chainsaw
[start]
throw up hxbow 1 short
throw up hxbow 2 long
draw quivver
remove arrow from quivver
throw up quivver short
[repeat]
catch hxbow 1
load arrow in hxbow 1
wink at audience member
aim/shoot hxbow 1
catch quivver
throw up hxbow 1 long
remove arrow from quivver
throw up quivver short
catch hxbow 2
load arrow in hxbow 2
wink at audience member
aim/shoot hxbow 2
catch quivver
throw up hxbow 2 long
remove arrow from quivver
throw up quivver short
[/repeat]
Dude having a "ball".
awaken_D_M_golem wrote:
awaken_D_M_golem wrote:
... improvised weapon.
Kinda odd that a Ball and a Chainsaw would both do d4 damage.
I'd say those kids are probably at Long range, so he'd attack with Disadvantage.
They most likely haven't used their Summon Mommie training spell level 0, for this long rest.
awaken_D_M_golem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Just call it a repeating Xbow (make them pay extra for it if makes you feel better inside) and move on. Does it make sense, of course not, not even a little. But it's a fantasy game, its not supposed to.
Zardnaar wrote:
You can't fire a crossbow more than once per turn due to the loading property. CE is required to get around that, unless you feel like juggling multiple weapons somehow or jumping through hoops.
Chakravant wrote:
It doesn't matter what company is selling it, or what they are calling it, a 20# handbow is a glorified toy. I would say the same about a 10# shortbow.....
That said.... it *is* a fantasy setting, so if your vision of that setting includes being able to load both handbows.... have at it. You are not breaking any rules.
But neither do the rules expressly allow loading them both... and thus if your vision of the fantasy is different... then don't allow them. Personally, I really don't like the 'visual' of this happening. (at least not without special equipment or something...)
Oh, Repeating Crossbows *still* take 2 hands to load and fire; there are no Semi-auto crossbows.....
randl wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Lindonius wrote:
Lindonius wrote:
randl wrote:
Lindonius wrote:
randl wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
...you might want to re-read that and try again.
CahPahkah wrote:
randl wrote:
Well since your sentence stated something that wasn't true as a whole, and the bolded part was the offensive bit, I think it's perfectly ok to bold only that part and respond to only that part. We're also free to agree or disagree with some or all of your statements. Ignore it if you want, that makes no difference to us. Only that your statement be recognized as wrong since it is. We've never said you have to follow what we say, only that it is the RAW in the book. Which it is. Again, that you follow the RAW in the book or not, is completely irrelevant.
Noctaem wrote:
randl wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
randl wrote:
One side adds words like always the other side adds words like sometimes...
Yunru wrote:
randl wrote:
RAW is possible to discuss because everybody has the same book. The difficulty comes when people try to change RAW i.e. "intepret" it to suit themelves.
To provide "Player Help" not "DM Help" we must deal with RAW as the only sensible common ground from which to discuss everything that is DnD. To the others go write your own RPG, find a publisher and prove that your product is superior.
Do not mislead people with opinion. It is better to contribute to understanding RAW.
What if 99.9% of groups ignore raw on a given issue and somehow all play with the same house rule?
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
So so avoid the question because we can't prove 99.9% of the DNS population play with the same house rule?
Raegoul wrote:
Szifers wrote:
The RAW is what it is, no variance allowed. Whether people follow said rules is entirely up to them.
Yunru wrote:
Szifers wrote:
My point is that the concept of RAW as divorced from the DM's role is an absurd concept. It's a self-contradicting concept, because the RAW itself says that the DM decides, the DM determines the outcomes, and that the DM can always improvise. That's not a question of "logic". It's what the rules say. It's something that the RAW requires in order to make sense.
There's a fundamental implicit misconception in the OP about the relationship between the DM and the rules. I think that the rules are pretty clear about this relationship, and when people seem to miss that point, the right response is to remind them.
Are you saying we should discount anything written in the books at all? I guess these entire forums are pointless since everyone's DM can decide differently?
No? Then don't bring it up. Of course the DM can change anything, but to state something that isn't true as such (in this case that crossbows need free hands to reload) is counterproductive at best, malicous at worst.Yunru wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Szifers wrote:
And yet the point stands. The rules Being silent about whether something is required is not the same as the rules saying it is never required.
Noctaem wrote:
Yep, if I know I can use a crossbow as my weapon and I join a game and the DM refuses to let me use a crossbow. That's a problem. I shouldn't expect not to be able to use a crossbow, I should expect the content within the published books. If the DM decides to change a bunch of things, that's houserule territory and sure it's his prerogative. But he shouldn't be doing it without the consent of the group and he shouldn't be doing it in a way that is unfair to the group.
FrogReaver wrote:
There are no rules on loading a crossbow. Yet we know a crossbow needs loaded to fire because it is a freaking crossbow.
And before you say it, neither the ammunition or loading properties actually cover loading a crossbow.
So yes the rules are silent on loading a crossbow.
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
No there's only rules for drawing ammo for ammunition weapons
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
randl wrote:
Lindonius wrote:
I'm having trouble with this Groundhog Day -esque it's always Nov 11 thing.
Especially since the arguments here, could be construed as if this date problem, was actually reality true.
(wink)
So a question:
Could a Marillith , a Thri-kreen , or say ~toddler Gohan wield and load Dual Handxbows with the CE feat ??
awaken_D_M_golem wrote:
Without having access to the 4e Thrikreen, I assume it could do it.
(also on the off chance 3kreen get to be 5e races)
Mage Hand could do it, especially the RogAT 3 version.
Maybe one of the other manipulate a small thingie cantrip, can too.
Beholder with Gloves Of Man (3e) can do it. Beholder without that, might have to use the TK ray to "hold" the Xbows, and use it's tongue and mouth for the fancier handling issues. Or perhaps hold the xbows on both ends of it's mouth like cigars, triggering both with tongue, and TK-ing the bolts into place. Call him (it?) Glint Greased-Woods.
I'm certain Beholders have enough Int and tongue control, to do that Knotted Cherry Stem trick for reals, instead of an obvious item switch illusion.
@OP...
The rules don't specifically state whether or not you need a hand free/empty/unencumbered to reload your crossbow. One person might take that to mean that you are able to reload no matter what, whereas another person might think that is semantics. Ultiumately, it's up to your DM and group to decide which style to use. You can obviously FIRE a loaded crossbow in both hands (I don't think anybody disputes that) but you and your DM should look ahead to decide what level of realism you're seeking, or if you're more interested in the numbers. It's simply preference.
If you're running into a siutuation where you want to do that your DM won't allow, I suggest you USE YOUR IMAGINATION and find a common ground. It's too easy to harbor ill will without working together on this sort of thing. (I'm not trying to insult by caps-locking, just giving that more emphasis) If you're set on playing a dual-crossbow archer, figure out ways that combine your group's level of rules and reality to enhance the game. My go-to suggestions I've mentioned in the past:
1a - The crossbows are on wrist bracers, and as such you always have two free hands.
1b - The crossbows have been engineered/modified to be reloaded with limited hand involvement to reduce the need for interaction with them.
Both of these might require character generation feats and/or backgrounds which could give the PC and adventure flavor, plus it gives you goals (if you have to save up or obtain materials) plus gives you items that could provide future adventure possibilities.
Good luck, and happy gaming!
FrogReaver wrote:
If there's only one place where they describe ammunition and how it is handled in the game. And it says that you draw ammunition as part of the attacks you make, arguing that that does not cover cocking the ammo with your bow or drawing back the crossbow is just arguing in bad faith. There's no other place where ammunition is described or the mechanical steps are described or the requirements are described. So if it says it's done as part of the attack, it means that it's done as part of the attack. There's no need to start arguing like a pedant that it doesn't explicitely cover pulling back the string on your weapon.
and the loading property has nothing to do with what we were talking about. It's a property that limits the amount of times a weapon can be fired. It has nothing to do with reloading as part of attacks.
the problem is that the below is not RAW either. RAW says nothing about a weapon needing to be loaded to fire. So If you are going to dismiss my interpretation because it isn't RAW then yours gets dismissed when it isn't RAW too. Otherwise you were arguing in bad faith when you dismissed my interpretation just because it wasn't RAW.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
If you ignore tweets you have to go by the dictionary definition of loaded and loading, neither of which require a free hand, which makes it trivial.
So either it's redundant/descriptive or it's trivial.Yet more instances of simulationist perspectives ruining a system that otherwise works just fine.
If I can't say that the only ammunition rules in the game cover pulling back the string on your bow or crossbow to effectively "load" your weapon then you also can't argue that you need a free hand to do it.
Seems the rules cover loading ammunition is just fine... it's called "Interacting with Objects". The rules require you to draw ammunition. That's not really in question. The question is whether you can draw ammunition with something else in your hand, like a weapon. Can my character, while holding a hand crossbow in each hand, draw ammunition for a crossbow, and load it while already holding stuff in their hands? The answer is: The DM decides. The player describes what they want to do, and the DM describes what, if anything, happens.
Can I climb a ladder while carrying two people? Object interaction. The DM decides.
Can I swing from a chandelier while my hands are manacled behind my back? Object interaction. The DM decides.
Can I chop down a tree with unarmed strikes? Object interaction. The DM decides.
Can I tie a knot into a rope using only one hand? Object interaction. The DM decides.
Can I draw ammunition while I'm holding stuff in both of my hands? Object interaction. The DM decides.
Can a one armed person hold a hand crossbow and load it with the same hand that is holding it? Object interaction. The DM decides.
And yes, the rules say "Drawing ammunition is part of the attack." This statement doesn't invalidate anything I've said. All the line states is that you have to draw ammunition as part of the attack. It's a requirement. The line means you have to draw ammunition and that it is done as part of the attack process, so the object interaction to draw ammunition doesn't require a separate action. It is a free object interaction, neatly bundled in with each attack gained from other actions. Whether you CAN draw the ammunition is entirely up to the DM.
So then, people tend to fall back to the "But if you need a free hand to use the 1-handed hand crossbow, you can't ever use a 2-handed bow, since you'll never have a free hand"... this is a fool's argument. A bow requires 2 hands to make the attack. As part of the attack though one hand holds the bow, while the other hand draws ammunition and "loads" the bow. Both hands are then required to make the attack. Whereas with a hand crossbow, once the crossbow is loaded, only one hand is required to make the attack. The question is "How did you get your ammunition from its container to the crossbow?" If your DM asks how you draw ammunition, you, as the player, are required to describe how you do it. The DM then describes what, if anything, happens.
Is requiring a free hand to draw ammunition a houserule? No. The DM decides what happens when you try to interact with objects. That's RAW. There is no RAW stating that drawing ammunition doesn't require a free hand, so the DM isn't changing RAW, but rather following RAW, by deciding what happens. The DM is free to decide either way. Will this create variance from table to table? Yes. Is it against RAW to require a free hand? No. Is it against RAW to not require a free hand? No. RAW's lack of detail in the matter of object interaction allows both rulings to be RAW.
Sure, you, as a player, are free to disagree with the DM's ruling. But you, as a player, don't get to change that ruling.
Nachturnus wrote:
More evidence for why yall should get on board with my ROIP term. Just saying.........
Noctaem wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Yunru wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
(minor tangent)
I was looking at Heavy Xbow last night.
And then at the Loading quality.
Loading quality says "or" , which can be either and/or , or not/or.
Fighter 2 / Rogue 2 War Cleric 1
Action = Xbow
Bonus Action = Xbow
possible Reaction = Xbow
Action surge action = Xbow
... all in 1 round, with a Heavy Xbow.
edit --- biffed that Rogue 2 vs. Cleric 1, but it still stands.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because discussion of moderation in the forums is considered forum disruption and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
If you have a question about moderation in the forums please contact Customer Service here: http://wizards.custhelp.com/
Bloodscythe wrote:
I think people are getting too hung up over the dual crossbows = no free hand thing. It doesn't really matter as you can get the same effect using just one light crossbow and arguably it's even more OP to use Crossbow Expert with a shield (yet less controversial "realism" wise), because you still have a free hand (shields can be strapped to your arm) with which to load the light crossbow.
Hell, I'm running a little guy whose an Arcane Trickster mixed with Valor Bard who gets 3 attacks per round with his little light crossbow. He has a shield strapped to his arm and a fistful of mini bolts. Rather than move the off-hand to the crossbow to satisfy the "drawing ammo as part of the attack" requirement, he instead moves the light and maneuverable crossbow to the off-hand (so the reload action movement isn't impaired by the heavy weight of the shield). An entirely believable combat maneuver that is possible in the real world, let alone in a world where wizards can fly and fire fracking lazer beams out of their fingers.
Even if it's not completely legit RAW, it's quite easy to imagine for the simulationists. In fact I followed a little simulationist trick of adding my own arbitrary rule which my DM agreed was ok. PHB does specifically say that shields are carried in one hand, yet historically there is plenty of evidence to show that they were often strapped to the arm. Wikipedia mentions this:
The shield was held by a central grip or by straps which went over or around the user's arm.
My DM didn't have a problem with his this, heck I imagine he knew I was being a cheesy metagamer, but he didn't want to mess with my fun and just rolled with it. If you're a DM and you're nitpicking with your players about these kind of minor quibbles, you're forgetting the golden rule about letting the players have their fun. It is massively debatable whether or not firing an extra little crossbow attack is that OP in the first place (I don't think it is) and if it demonstrably turns out to be the case then just throw higher CR monsters at him for the next encounter. Just telling the player "you can't do that" restricts his fun for no good reason and I think outside of these forums there isn't a single, halfway decent, reasonably minded DM out there that woud restrict this. I've certainly never met any (maybe I'm lucky?).
Anyway, regardless of the whole shield cheese thing I mentioned, if you want to play it RAW, you can get a bonus attack with ONE light crossbow using the CE feat. You don't need another one. So he has a free hand.
So the only reason for someone to use dual crossbows (remember they are technically gimping themselves because they don't need to) is because it looks cool and enhances their fun. Are there really some DMs here that think it's ok to say no to their player's having fun?
Lindonius wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lindonius wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lindonius wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lindonius wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Lindonius wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Lindonius wrote:
As to those who are all "I'd totally allow double tapping but never dual wielding" (exaggerated for effect), listen to yourselves. Once you get past you unrealistic view of not being able to load a one handed crossbow with something in the other hand you're still left with the following:
● Dual Wielding offers no benefit over double tapping.
● Dual Wielding costs more (2 Hand Crossbows vs 1)● Dual Wielding means needing to get twice as many magic weapons to keep up with the double tapper.
and the only benefit?● Dual Wielding looks cool.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Yunru wrote:
IxidorRS wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
crimfan07 wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Yunru wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Here's an interesting design that could make it plausible to dual wield two hand crossbows(with the CE feat):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIhghSAj2N4#t=449
You can see how it works about 7 minutes in. Now just take and extend the clip horizontally to fit a bigger bolt(technically not needed since bolts don't list a specific size) and then add a strap to the back you can use to pull with your mouth to recock it.
Again, though, it would need DM approval but definitely helps provide a more realistic scenario.
bonethug0108 wrote:
Dual wielding is using two weapons, one in each hand, during combat.
Thank you google. Thus I say to you all whom are "there is no dual wielding": o'riely?If I, over the corse of combat, use both of the weapons I am holding, I am dual wielding. This isn't something rules allow or not, it is the definition of what I am doing.
Yunru wrote:
Oh and if you still haven't gotten the answer, it's not common sense because it doesn't make sense. That and it's clearly not common.
Okay I'll admit you need at least a single finger free (more makes it easier), but that's it.Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
It doesn't say my fireball doesn't also instantly kill any creature it hits, so it does.
Do you not see how that is NOT "RAW". It literally isn't written, thus it isn't allowed by "RAW" unless the DM allows it being that the DM rules over anything that is not defined in the rules.
bonethug0108 wrote:
If two weapon fighting doesn't cover every instance of using two weapons to fight(minus the rules exceptions), then I guess attacking doesn't cover every instance of attacking and per "RAW" I get to decide what is considered attacking and not the DM?
That is basically the argument being made. Because it doesn't say I can't, it means I can. By "RAW" you are 100% incorrect. Unless you are the DM ruling otherwise.
Also, the fireball example is totally legit. Just because it lists damage doesn't mean I can't infer that I can just kill something after the damage is dealt. It doesn't explicitly say I don't automatically kill what I hit.
That is EXACTLY what you are saying with TWF and two hand crossbows. Just because it doesn't say you can't doesn't mean you can.
Noctaem wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
This is as easy as it can get here. Do the rules say anywhere that you can dual wield hand crossbows? If you can show where it does than it is "RAW". If you can't then it falls into DM fiat.
The ONLY place you can find something that makes it plausible is the CE feat. Otherwise you are holding a hand crossbow in one of you hands for no reason.
I can hold two long swords in both hands, but that doesn't mean I can use them both unless I take a feat.
Do you see where this is going? Do you see how you are 100% wrong, unless I DM rules you can or you take the CE feat?
Edit:
I see we both had the same long sword idea. But you are also arguing semantics rather than whether you can actually dual wield(aka use them in the same round was THE original argument) two hand crossbows.
And my argument is not a strawman. I didn't change the argument from one thing to another. I made a comparison based argument that is just as valid.
You are the one saying what you meant by dual wielding was just holding two weapons instead of actually using them in th same round, when whether or not you can use them in the same round is the WHOLE ENTIRE POINT of this discussion. You are now arguing in bad faith.
You can wield a 1 handed weapon in a free hand. A hand crossbow is a 1 handed weapon just like a longsword, short sword, dagger, etc... The hand crossbow also has the light property which explains that the weapon is perfect for fighting with two weapons. If your bias is so great that you can't understand what this means, I have nothing left to say to you lol. And even then, I'm leaving this discussion since it feels like a total waste of time.
Adios!
Noctaem wrote:
You can make your attacks with weapons you are holding.
You are holding two Hand Crossbows.
Thus you can attack with both.
You don't, however, get TWF's bonus action attack.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
@DungeonKrusher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-HkwSO_xpU
bonethug0108 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
This is an incredibly depressing example of when Strict-RAW-Literalism versus DM-RAI-Semi-Realism goes on forever.
DS.397 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
How about we just go with the simple short version here
Page 6 ... how to play
You describe your action the DM decides on what relevent checks are involved you roll and he tells you the results...
So HOW do you load the crossbow with both hands holding a weapon. You tell the DM How he tells you if you can or not and what rolls to make.
DMG pg 263 "No matter what a rule's source, a rule serves you, not the other way around."
No rule tells the DM how to do anything. The all provide a frame work for him to make a judgement call.
bonethug0108 wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
I think we've come to an understanding on things, even if we don't see exactly eye to eye. My objective was to help the OP out as best as possible and I think figuring out what the rules do and don't say, and understanding the role of the DM, we've found the best way possible if for him to explain how he is loading his crossbow(s).
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
guachi wrote:
All I see here is Bloodscythe and DungeonKrusher repeating the same arguments that have already been countered. Repeatedly. Across three threads.
No amount of "I'm right because the rules don't say it" will make your opinion a rule. Since the rules don't say it, the DM decides based on what the rules DO say. And the rules say a DM decides if a character is capable of doing an object interaction. If the DM says you need a free hand to load a crossbow, it's required, and doesn't violate RAW.
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baitring is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Dual Wielding two hand crossbows works according to RAW. It is not optimal. The only thing that can stop you from doing this is if your DM says no with a reason. I did not require a lot of words.
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
[quote="Raegoul"]
Bloodscythe wrote:
The part that says you can attack with a weapon you are holding. The fact that you can hold two one-handed weapons. Done. Now show me where that's disallowed, with quotes and page numbers. And not extrapolative explanations either. Clear and concise.
Yunru wrote:
The light property explains that in order to gain a benefit for wielding two weapons with the light property, you can use the Two-Weapon Fighting rule. But that is in no way a restriction as you seem to be convinced. It would need to say what you're arguing, that you can't use hand crossbows in dual wield fashion. But it doesn't, in fact everything IN THE GAME tells us that you can. The weapon has the light property, you don't need a free hand to reload weapons and you certainly can dual wield any 1 handed weapon. Your bias which makes you create an exception for 1 specific weapon is ridiculous and nonsensical. You absolutely can use two hand crossbows at the same time. The only benefit of doing so is found with the CE feat or by simply being able to fire twice during your turn, once from each hand crossbow IF YOU CAN MAKE THAT MANY ATTACKS (level 5 or higher for most classes). You're constantly adding more restrictions to these things because you just clearly don't like them. You're biased and you show it everytime you post garbage like the above.
But let's go over your post in detail because frankly anyone who reads your posts and believes what you say is instantly losing out on something important.
1. When you take the attack action, you decide which weapon to use for that attack. Each attack of the attack action goes through the Making an Attack section in the PHB. Go read the rules. So yes it does specifically go over how attacking works.
2. When you have multiple weapons, being able to decide which weapon to use is very important. Say you have 2 longswords as you say, being able to pick which one to use can be important if you have MAGICAL weapons. So if one is better at dealing damage to undead, you would want to use it over the other which might not be as effective. Or better yet, if you have a scimitar and a rapier, you can deal 2 different types of damage. So while some monsters are resistant to piercing, you can do slashing with the scimitar. Your argument here basically completely ignores many many options for why dual wielding 2 weapons is beneficial because you either couldn't come up with them (unlikely) or you just didn't want to post them because that favored your argument (very likely).
3. Being able to attack twice at level 5, by firing each hand crossbow once is not an exploit. You're holding 2 weapons. That's like saying that because I have 2 longswords and I attack once with each it's an exploit. I just spent massive gold to buy 2 weapons that I'm now using as they are meant to be used. Quit knee jerk nerfing these things good god. If you think someone holding 2 hand crossbows is exploiting the game you have no idea what a game exploit is. You must have 0 reference point.
4. Your post becomes even more weird after this point. You go off on some tangent about things were not even saying and basically try to strawman the discussion in your favor. So I won't address this part.
So to resume: You're ignoring rules text and weapon properties because of your personal bias and you seem to be convinced that everyone who does this is somehow exploiting the game. So yeah, you're special.
Noctaem wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
It's been quoted a hundred times, it won't change anything to quote it to you again. You know exactly where the quote is in the PHB. I don't even really understand why you ask for the quote over and over again like if this is a new discussion. It's over a month old now.
Drycanth wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
All of this stems from the same root: "If the rules don't say I can't do it, then I can.". That statement is false. Completely false. The correct statement is, per RAW, "If the rules don't say I can't do it, the DM decides. If the rules say I can do it, then I can, unless the DM says otherwise. The DM decides."
Welcome to D&D, everyone.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Bloodscythe wrote:
To Yunru and Raegoul: Why do you need your character to be able to attack with two separate weapons during their attack action? I see you arguing that your character should be able to, but tell me why they would ever need to? How does not allowing dual wielding impair the functionality of your character? Does it impair it, or does it simply impair your vision of your character, their style?
Raegoul wrote:
"RAW" can only be "RAW" if it's actually written in the pages. Most of you are arguing "RAI" or even worse "if it doesn't say I can't it means I can", and then saying that ONLY your reading is right. No one is saying that your way of playing is wrong. It's only being said that there is literally no "RAW" on it, and it makes very clear that if the rules aren't clear or aren't even there then the DM decides.
Also, I saw someone mention that TWF doesn't mention main hand and off hand. No it doesn't, but it does say you have to use a different melee weapon in a different hand with each attack. That is effectively the same thing(only difference being that the "main" and "off" hands can change each round).
"You as a player do not get to decide."
This can not be overstated. It says the players describe their actions and then the DM decides the results. That is "RAW". If a player wants to wield(not hold) two hand crossbows on the same turn, they tell the DM and he decides. That is the "RAW".
I cannot answer for Yunru and I resent the fact that you lumped us together for no good reason.
Bloodscythe wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
No, I'm saying those things because if we are trying to figure out what is "RAW", we have to actually look at what is and isn't written. If something isn't written, it automatically isn't a rule as WRITTEN. That's why this whole notion of "because it doesn't say I can't means I can" thing is ridiculous. That's fine if your group plays that way. I have no issue with how you play your game. BUT it is not "RAW". The "RAW" is that anything vague or unwritten is ruled by the DM.
I'm NOT NOT NOT saying that means you cannot dual wield(USE not hold) hand crossbows by "RAW" on the same turn. I'm saying by "RAW" the DM decides if you can. There are literally no rules on it. There are only inferences that leads to different people looking at it in different ways. This is EXACTLY why the DM decides.
And I'm not bashing people over the head with the DM thing. That's literally right around the beginning describing how play works. That is the "RAW".
The whole point I've been making is that everything considered, the "RAW" literally says the DM decides this one. Why then is that considered bad by people? Why is it bad that the DM decides? He might say yes, he might say no. So what. He's running the game. Give him a good explanation and I'm sure a fair DM will allow it.
So being that the "RAW" says the DM decides, to help the guy out(which is what I have been trying to do from the beginning while other people arguing about rules that aren't even written but only inferred in their heads) we should suggest ways he could explain it to his DM of why it should be allowed.
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
But see, you can only draw the ammunition with the attack, and loading it is the free item interaction you are allowed. It does not say loading it is part of the attack. So in the strictest reading of "RAW" you cannot load TWO of them in the same turn, even if the DM allows it. Now the DM is overruling "RAW". I missed that before.\
In other words, if you are holding two loaded hand crossbows and have CE, you can fire both and grab ammo for both(if the DM allows it without a free hand or allows it with a good explanation). But when you load one, you use your free item interaction. Now to load the other one, you have to interact with a second item(the second piece of ammo) and the action is no longer free.
So I was wrong about it being a DM ruling by "RAW"(though the DM rules as he wishes and can overwrite "RAW" by "RAW" so now the universe is flipped inside out or something). "RAW" actually states that you cannot load two hand crossbows on one turn(barring something like action surge).
Loading property is ignored. Needing to load it is not. HUGE difference.
It also does NOT describe what loading entails, just that it is difficult to load that weapon. If you have a different page other than PHB pg. 147 could you provide it?
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Ok I have achieved my goal you guys are actually talking about the rules now 
Well I guess you were not comprehending because you thought the CE feat allowed you to ignore loading(rather than just the loading property, which is what it actually says; and yes you said loading property but then talked as if that meant loading) and that it actually describes how to load on pg. 147.
And I was always talking about the rules. I went into painful detail earlier in the thread. And for some reason I have to keep repeating it.
Care to add anything that actually helps the fellow in the OP?
Bloodscythe wrote:
When you make an attack (note: not when you take the Attack action) you attack with a weapon you are holding. If you are holding two weapons, therefore, you get to chose which weapon to attack with. THID IS UNDENIABLE (although I'm sure a certain someone will try). It has nothing to do eith the Light property, nothing to do with Two-Weapon Fighting, and as such TWF has no effect on it.
ALL TWF does is say if you are wielding two light melee weapons and take the Attack action, you can make a bonus action attack. That is all it does and all it affects.Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
If I take a walk, it's called walking. If I breathe in, it's called breathing. If I go for a swim, it's called swimming. If I hold a weapon, it's said that I am holding a weapon. If I hold two weapons, it's called dual wielding. Dictionary definition of holding two weapons: Dual Wielding.
Basic reading comprehension, do you have it?
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Bloodscythe wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Haha, anyway, I'm done. The final point: your interpretation of how dual wielding or two weapon fighting works hinges on assumptions you have to make regarding the rules, like when you declare which weapon you are wielding. Since the rules aren't explicit the answer is and has always been in every edition of D&D: The DM determines the rule. If you want to know if your character can dual wield, ask your DM. The rules don't explicitly say you can except for the rules for TWF, martial arts, and feats. You can dual hold weapons. Holding two weapons and wielding two weapons are not the same thing.
All of this discussion was in relation to "dual wielding" hand crossbows. The only rule in the book that suggests it's even possible is the Crossbow Expert feat, and it requires the second crossbow to be loaded already. And as it has already been mentioned on page 1 of this thread, Jeremy Crawford tweeted that you can't dual wield hand crossbows and load them. This is why the CE feat explicitly states the second crossbow must be a "Loaded hand crossbow". If it's not already loaded when you draw it, you don't have the means to load it since you are holding two weapons, and since it can't be loaded, you can't attack with it, and if you can't attack with it, you can't wield it. If you can't wield it, you can't be dual wielding.
"Holding two weapons and wielding two weapons are not the same thing in 5e."
Just in case they want to use the real world definition(which I couldn't find except on wiki, and it specifically says using, which in 5e is when you wield it not hold it).
I find it funny one can use a real world definition to argue a point for things that are NOT said in the rules, yet say it's silly to restrict things based on real world logic. Rules lawyers for ya I guess.
Bloodscythe wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Just because it's exception based doesn't mean everything in it is an exception. You keep wanting to use that for some reason. TWF is NOT an exception for dual wielding(which is not in the rules). It's an exception to only one attack per turn, just like extra attack and the CE feat are.
Edit:
Corrected attack action to extra attack.
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
The DM decides is mentions before they even start rolling out the rest of the rules.
DM describes, player describes, DM decides. It's not bashing. It's literally the first thing that could even be considered a rule in the whole book.
PHB pg. 6 under How to Play in case you were curious. This is before they even go into the base math and the d20 stuff and the specific beats general stuff.
Where do the rules tell you when to declare what weapon you are attacking with? It's not included in the attack part. Maybe it's included in the attack action?
bonethug0108 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
"Where do the rules tell you when to declare what weapon you are attacking with? It's not included in the attack part. Maybe it's included in the attack action?"
It's not in the rules, therefore the player describes and the DM decides.
Bloodscythe wrote:
That's a large and disingenious reach. If the rule really was just about light melee weapons, they could have called it light weapon fighting or something. Being that they called it TWF has meaning.
bonethug0108 wrote:
I said yes it was an exception. Did you miss that post? But not in the way you are claiming it to be. It's an exception that allows fighting with two weapons(thus it's name) where you otherwise cannot(nothing else in the base rules says you can).
bonethug0108 wrote:
I personally look at the rules and see Two-Weapon Fighting as the base defining rule for using two weapons. Looking it subject placement on 195 I see it carries the same weight as the rules for Opportunity Attacks, Grappling, and Shoving a Creature under the topic of Melee Attacks. I see these as all defining the base (or general) rules for the given actions that can be later modified by specific rules in Feats, Class, Race, or by Spells.
Raegoul wrote:
ALL TWF does is say IF you are holding teo light melee weapons you can make an EXTRA attack as a bonus action. Ergo if you're not talking about getting a bonus action attack from holding two light weapons, TWF doesn't cover it and thus is irrelevent.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Speaking of the actual text.
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand."
This is the text of the Two Weapon Fighting heading. Clearly, it specifies a state that a character could be in, and says you can do something extra in that state. That state is not "holding a weapon in each hand, and neither is Light," so it has nothing to say about Extra Attack or non-bonus-action attacks. That situation is governed by what Nachturnus cited. Hence, nothing about using hand crossbows has anything to do with that heading one way or another.
I find it perplexing that anyone would say that just the title of a section is a rule in itself and carries unwritten implications. Very surprised the argument has gone this long.
Bloodscythe wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Yunru wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
So ... some definition on the case? I can use two crossbows attack and then use the bonus action to attack with the other and they are loaded into the next turn already the feat says the loaded property is ignored?
Zakharock wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Zakharock wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
As for having to provide rules for it: no, I don't have to. Nothing links the attacks together, therefore there are independent. It's not some game term, it is a state of existence.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
In short the assumptions are once again only on your behalf. You assume (wrongly) that the concept of dual wielding and the TWF bonus action attack are thw same thing. You assume (wrongly) that declaring an attack is taking the Attack action, rather than Making an Attack (which is granted by the Attack action).
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Raegoul wrote:
So it goes without saying how you would rule if you were DM, but I have to ask if either you Yunru or you Raegoul are currently playing D&D 5e at another person's table. If you are, does your character dual wield? And if so, what are they wielding?
I'm currently DMing two games and playing in one game. The game I'm playing in is with a tiefling monk as my character. He does not dual wield. There is a fighter in our group who dual wields scimitars, which are light melee weapons. The fighter is 5th lvl and attacks twice with one of the two scimitars and attacks a 3rd bonus time with the scimitar in their other hand. Exactly as RAW describes fighting with two weapons. I'll have to ask the DM of that game how he would rule if my monk tried to use two longswords during his attack action (I'm 5th lvl so I also have two attacks per action). We're playing next thursday... I'll let you know what he says.
Bloodscythe wrote:
It is quite simple.
If dual wielding is allowed by RAW ... post the exact text and page number that says you can.
If you can not do so, then it is not RAW it is your infered meaning.
This does not mean a DM can not nor will not allow it, only that your position is not RAW and you shold not claim it is. That is arguing in bad faith.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
reading comprehension fail ...
Dualwielder is a feat pp.165. This feat modifies the rules for Two weapon fighting which are on pp.195
so if dual wielding ... note the spelling .... is in the book please list the page number.
If it is not and you try to fight with two weapons you fall under the catagory of Two Weapon Fighting ... pp.195
If the weapons do not fit those listed under the rule on pp.195 then they are not allowed per RAW.
Since you want to argue that RAW says you can fight with two weapons ... and call it dual wielding please post the page number and quote the section that says you can.
If you can not post this than it is not a Rule As Written.
As such if you can not post a section that specificly states how to fight with two weapons, other than those present in the two weapon fighting rule pp.195 and modified by the dualwielder feat pp.165, then per RAW there are no explicit rules that allow for dual wielding hand crossbows.
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
"A character hold two maces, one in each hand and raises them both above his head, is he holding them or wielding them? Where is the specific exception rule that says he cannot wield them?"
Where is the baseline that says he can? You need a baseline for there to be an exception. You are doing it completely backwards.
I'll explain it again in other terms.
Scenario A) Rule X says this, and Rule Y breaks it. THAT is exception based.
Scenario B) There is no specific rule, so there can not be an exception unless something specifically says I can't(that's literally what you are saying). That is NOT exception based. That's inference based.
bonethug0108 wrote:
And since I'm on a roll, one more. There needs to be a rule for there to be an exception to it. If there is no rule, there will NEVER be an exception.
You need an explicit Rule X for there to be an exception to Rule X. That is literally how the whole game works.
There is no explicit rule for "dual wielding" except for TWF(and certain class features and feats that may break it). That is literally the ONLY base rule for dual wielding. Therefore that IS the baseline from which the exceptions spring forth.
bonethug0108 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Literally everything in the rules points to TWF when talking about fighting with two weapons except for CE and Martial Arts(I may have missed something so point it out if I have). Those are exceptions to the baseline. Neither of those allow dual wielding hand crossbows except for CE for 1 round IF both of them start loaded.
Bloodscythe wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Anyway, thanks for the assistance Bonethug0108. Some people just refuse to see other perspectives.
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
"Two Weapon Fighting" is a rules term, because they needed to reference it elsewhere in the book and it needed a convenient handle. The name of that section is not a rule. The content of the rule is this:
1. Did you take the Attack action?Yes! ⤵︎
2. Did you make a melee weapon attack?
Yes! ⤵︎
3. Did you use a Light weapon to do it?
Yes! ⤵︎
4. Do you have another Light weapon in your other hand?
Yes! ⤵︎
5. Congratulations, you win a prize! Add this to the list of options for your Bonus Action.
bonethug0108 wrote:
@Macv, Everything here was referring to what you can do in one round.
If you put it like that(thanks for making a clear and rational argument by the way), yes you can fight with two weapons by "RAW" but you have to do so in different rounds. This does nothing as far as the actual topic goes. It was about one round, the CE feat, and dual wielding hand crossbows.
And if that's what Raegoul meant, he sure didn't make that clear. Everything he said seemed to point to one round.
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Never said I was leaving. I'm just done going in circles. If someone presents a new point(as did Macv) I have no issues discussing it. The old points have been done to death.
Bloodscythe wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Line Breaks Don't Work On Phones
You take the Attack action:Do you have Extra Attack?
If yes, you gain two attacks. If no you gain an attack.That is all the Attack action does. No calling out targets or weapons, that's all done under Making an Attack. Speaking of:
Making an attack:You declare a valid target. You attack with a weapon.
That is all there is to it. It's not complicated, and it does differentiate between which hand the weapon is in. It's not an absence of rules, their are no rules for making attacks while dual wielding because it's the same as the normal rules.If you have Extra Attack, you have two attacks. If you have two attacks you can attack with two weapons. If you are holding both weapons at the same time, you are dual wielding. Undeniable, although I'm sure you'll try.
Macv12 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
As for switching which weapon you are wielding: you don't, you are wielding both of them.
Yunru wrote:
Did you guys catch the post earlier from Bloodscythe where he actually stated for everyone to read that he's just arguing for the sake of arguing? Paraphrasing he said:
"I'm playing devil's advocate for DM's who don't allow this to work. "
So basically, he's not even arguing for something he might actually believe in. He's arguing for the sake of arguing and there is absolutely nothing to gain from arguing with someone who does this. This kind of behavior is exactly what trolling is all about He will simply (as he's been doing this entire time!) continue to argue, never backing down or admitting he's wrong, regardless of what we may say in response. He will always either ignore posts, shift the goal posts of the discussion, create strawmen in response to rule quotes, or just reiterate exactly what has just been addressed by someone or multiple people like if they didn't exist.
Stop feeding the trolls guys. Move on. This hasn't been a positive discussion for a long time. Nothing has moved forward for the last 10 pages. Bloodscythe and his cronies are simply making the discussion go around in circles over and over again. It's trolling at its best. It's been going on for over a month now and we're still feeding them. The same people who argued these things: Coredump, Bloodscythe, Meg... are still arguing it even though we've presented them with piles and piles of reasons or direct rules text that disproves what they are saying. We've done this in over 5 different threads, on multiple forums. And when they find they can't argue anymore, they fall back on "The dm decides".
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” - Mark Twain
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
I imagine at this point, this thread has become more of a private conversation than a convincing argument for either side. I imagine there are a few that pop in for the entertainment value. Most the players I've talked to don't even read the WotC formums, but usually look other places (or not at all). The ones that do say this isn't a topic that really interests them. I suspect the chance of this thread of actually changing anyone's particular ruling to be relatively small
randl wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Think of it this way: if you were correct in your assertion that weapons are determined at the Attack (action) level instead of the attack (single attack) level, Grappling and Shoving (which each replace a single attack) wouldn't work.
In helpful illustrated form:
The reason you can Grapple and Shove is because what you're doing within the Attack action is determined afterwards. If I have Extra Attack, I can Attack & Grapple, or Shove & Attack, or Grapple & Shove in any combination I want. And the only reason that works is because my weapon only comes into the equation when I Attack --> attack.
So, Attack --> attack with Longsword A
Extra Attack --> attack with Longsword B
Fulfills all of the requirements of Making an Attack on p. 193, does not involve Two-Weapon Fighting, and allows other game elements to work as written.
Your interpretation adds words to the rules, applies irrelevant game elements, and breaks both Grapple and Shove.
Bloodscythe wrote:
randl wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
randl wrote:
randl wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Yunru wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Plaguescarred4 wrote:
Off to see a rifftrax movie! TTYL
Bloodscythe wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I feel guilty for having posted in this thread now. I have in some small way contributed to one of the lamest circle jerk dorkfests in the history of internet message boards.
Lindonius wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
This thread is still going?
Seriously, why hasn't this been locked yet?
The thread is demonstrably off topic, and has become a hotbed of flaming. We're now talking about graphing people's opinions of other people's accuracy. How is that at all relevant?
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
CahPahkah wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
guachi wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lindonius wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
I find it funny that some people who are saying what Crawford said about no limitation on what weapon you attack with proves something, yet some of those people also ignored and derided using his tweet about dual wielding hand crossbows.
I've never argued the position of how extra attack is used and I actually agree with the position that you can use different weapons with each attack(not per "RAW" but as a DM ruling). That wasn't what the OP was discussing and it was irrelevant as a point in that discussion. If someone wanted to suggest that to the guy as a possible alternative to talk about with his DM that would have been fine with me. Problem is the DM would have ruled it the same way as CE with the bonus action so it seemed prety pointless that it was ever even brought up.
As a rule, it NEVER states that you attack with one weapon or two weapons with extra attack. It just says you attack twice instead of once when using the attack action. That's literally all the "RAW" says. Therefore it's up to the DM to decide if a player has to use the same or can use different weapons. I think pretty much everyone would allow the use of two weapons.
So now the head rules guy has said that dual wielding hand crossbows is a no go(outside of 1 round) by citing that you would need a free hand. That is still not "RAW" and the DM still decides, but at this point that is the closest thing to "RAW" we have on it.
He also said he has no issues with switching weapons with extra attack. There is no "RAW" on it and that's the closest thing we have to "RAW" on it.
So we have a bunch of people(me included) trying to argue semantics, with some people trying to use inferrences as actual rules but using the if it doesn't say I can't it means I can schtick. That's lead us to a long and pointless circle of trying to saw the same things 50 times.
As I said, I'm done with the circle, but since I was avoiding using Crawford's tweet to try to prove anything, I felt I was justified to do so now that others are using he other tweet to prove something. There is no "RAW" of how many weapons you ca use with extra attack, or on dual wielding hand crossbows. But it's clear that the rules were intended to work the way Crawford has outlined it. As a DM you can feel free to go against it. As a player you have no leg to stand on. Try to reason with your DM, and most reasonable DMs would be willing to oblige, but the rules do not support it.
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
1) No it's not clearly said anywhere otherwise you could quote it instead of piecing together different parts that still needs you to infer that it says that. Let's go through:
A) Extra attack never mentions number of weapons.
B) NOTHING in the making an attack section mentions attacking with any number of weapons outside of TWF. I made a very detailed post on this point.
C) Saying you add modifiers to something does NOT say, "You can attack with multiple weapons."
D) It actually NEVER says you choose a weapon anywhere in any section of Making an Attack.
E) That is called inference, not necessity, given point D.
2) Tweets in general yes. But even Mearls has been pointing people to Crawford saying he is the rules expert and where you should go for clarifications. That's more than off the cuff. That's a head rules guy giving an answer to a rules question. It holds weight(and a ton of it).
3) Again, you are inferring by using separate things to piece something together. It is never said, "You can use more than one weapon under normal circumstances." Not once. Ever. Only under MA, TWF, DW, and CE does it say you can. And where is the clear rule on hand crossbows that says, "You can dual wield hand crossbows." "RAW" explicitly allows it for 1 round if you have the CE feat and are holding two loaded ones. You keep citing rules that don't say what you say they are clearly saying, while I am literally writing down what they say and it's not what you are saying they say.
Again, this is inferring things that are never ever written.
You infer that you choose a weapon to attack with. Now this is an obvious inference that everyone would make but it is important to note because it never says you choose a weapon each time you attack. It's an exremely nitpicky point and I admitted that I would agree you can choose a different weapon with each attack. It's both realistic and never disallowed specifically. I'm not arguing my stance here. I'm arguing what the literal "RAW" is, and "RAW" does not say you choose a weapon. Obvious inference does.
Like I said, Extra Attack was never something I wanted to argue as it has nothing to do with the discussion in the OP and it would end with the same result as the OP's question about CE and the bonus action. This does not help. I'm simply clarifying what the actual "RAW" is.
Edit:
I see you edited point 3, so I would have to go back and read what it says and change my response. What you said before was definitely inference.
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
And then the CE feat would infer, by removing the loading property(or quality; synonyms), that loading becomes part of the attack. Again, not "RAW" but it's a leg to stand on. Still nothing about whether you need a free hand to draw and/or load it though. That's still 100% DM fiat which still leaves the OP looking for ways to change his mind.
bonethug0108 wrote:
You can ignore that post as I misunderstood what you meant and later clarified(and agreed with what you were saying).
Bloodscythe wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
It's explosive runes. Don't read it.
OOTS FTW!
bonethug0108 wrote:
No worries. I'm usually 20 posts behind after some of my longer posts.
bonethug0108 wrote:
Also, side note: when I capitalize a word it's for emphasis, not yelling. I know I should use the bold option but it's so much quicker. Slacker's gonna slack.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lindonius wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Funny that you think I'm Bloodscythe's alter when I've been around a lot longer than him.
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
As a literal term, sure. But I already pointed out what it's short hand for/the intent of saying it that way. In other words, it's clear what we meant but you want to argue semantics. Instead of tiptoeing around it for several posts despite knowing what is meant, why not just point out your issue?
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I think he did that purposely because he was proven wrong about drawing being part of the attack(which it's not; it CAN be part of the ACTION you use to attack).
Every time he is proven wrong on something he tries to latch to another small piece of something else. That's why I was done with the other conversation with him because he used it to argue in circles despite being proven wrong at every turn.
Raegoul wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Says the guy who half of his counter "arguments" are "no" and "wrong" without any explanation. On what issue in this thread have you admitted you were wrong?
bonethug0108 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
I care not to look back over hundreds of posts, many of which are needlessly long(due to people not deleting extraneous quotes). If you don't care to tell me, and given you post history, I'll just say eh.
Also, "great" counter points.
Interpretation does not equal intention. You say rules as intended is superior and then proceed to exclaim D&D is about interpretation. First, I never said it wasn't. In fact I said you read the rules and interpret them. Second, I'll repeat that interpretation does not equal intention. You like to use separate, unrelated things to argue the same point.
bonethug0108 wrote:
I do want to say that I don't like just writing people off unless they are being completely unintelligible, and I have no problem discussing things with you(though I won't fall in to the circle trap again; don't know why I always fall for them).
It's just hard for me to tell if you are trolling or just not understanding what we're saying. And you may think the same of me. But make no mistake I am not upset with you and hold you in no ill regard even if you are trolling.
It just seems that my position(on discussing "RAW"; not how I actually play) is coming straight from text quoted from the book with zero inference, whereas you seem to do a lot of piecing to infer things when they aren't directly said(which is not "RAW"). That's fine if that's how you interpret the rules but inferring is not "RAW". There is interpreting "RAW" and interpreting how the game is played, and you seem to be arguing from the second point while I'm arguing from the first point. It's not a huge difference, but it's enough of a difference to cause this thread.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
quick question to Raegoul: What do you think RAI means and stands for?
It has always been my understanding that it stands for Rules As Intended and is a term that references applying rules as they are intended, not as they are written. You keep using the word "interpret" though so it's confusing me. RAI does not mean Rules as Interpreted. You can't read words without interpreting them, so even RAW requires interpretation when you read them, by definition. Or do we just have fundamentally different ways of looking at this?
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
guachi wrote:
guachi wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Dual wielding hand crossbows is not an exploit. A shortbow weighs less than two hand crossbows, costs far less, has much more range, is available to anyone with Simple weapons proficiency, works with all three of a fighter's Extra Attacks natively, and does the same damage. Using two hand crossbows is inferior across the board, except for looking cool. Requiring a free hand to reload on top of that practically makes it a 2-handed weapon, and I don't see why anyone would bother using it instead of a light/heavy crossbow at that point. The whole point of using a hand crossbow is wielding it simultaneously with something else, even if you don't literally use both weapons during the same turn.
Depending on my mood, I might disallow the dual wielding if a player couldn't come up with a semi-believable method for reloading, but generally I'd be lax about it. For the same reason I'd let a player surf down stairs on a shield while killing guys, because it's heroic adventure fodder and the specifics of how they accomplished it are less important.
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
bloodscythe wrote:
guachi wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
guachi wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
I don't blame video games. I don't know what to blame as I've literally never seen anyone anywhere anyhow dual wield crossbows(hand crossbows or otherwise). It's extremely inefficient in real life and I'm still failing to see how it looks cool to fumble around trying to constantly load 2 of them.
The OP sounded like he was trying to abuse the system and constantly use the bonus action to attack. He never responded to my query about what his intent was. Regardless I gave him suggestions to run by his DM.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Raegoul wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
guachi wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
You're not answering the simply question: In my example, if you were the player, and I were the DM, how would you explain how your character gains twice as many attacks?
If you refuse to answer the question (in this hypothetical scenario), you forfeit the ability to dual wield hand crossbows. If you can't provide a satisfactory answer, the DM's rule stands. Go.
guachi wrote:
guachi wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote: