No, because it's dumb.
Why give the hand crossbow the "light" property if it cannot be dual-wielded? Are hand-crossbows intended to be TWF or not?
well TWF specifies "light melee" So no unfortunately it doesn't allow for the Bonus Action attack because it's melee attacks only. You can however dual wield light crossbows. It just doesn't give you any real benefit.
Misanthrope_Prime wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
The only thing the light property does is allow the weapon to be used while dual-wielding. That suggests to me that they intended that the hand crossbow could be used that way.
Specific rules always trump general; they even put that in the book. The TWF rules are the general, the light property on hand crossbows are specific.
Therefore, my ruling would be to allow the hand crossbow user. Plus, it's kind of a thing.
Allegedly there's a feat in the alpha PHB which allows Hand Crossbows to be dual-wielded. Which would imply they can't be otherwise while explaining the "light" property.
The light property currently gives nothing to the hand crossbow. Its light enought to be used while Two-Weapon Fighting but ts still not usable because its not a melee weapon. May be it has the light property to enable it down the road when a game element allows it to, such as a feat or feature.
Mephi1234 wrote:
From the alpha playtest:
Crossbow Expert Feat
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits:
• You ignore the loading quality of hand crossbows and light crossbows with which you are proficient.
• Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
• When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand-crossbow you are holding.
Valheru_Blade wrote:
Oh yeah i forgot improvised weapon, i assume using a hand crossbow in such manner would be akin to using a club (which is also light) and could be used to two-weapon fighting with it. But it isn't really what the OP had in mind i suppose as it would be making melee attacks with it rather than ranged ones.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Eric888 wrote:
Valheru_Blade wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Mmm... I conceed that I was wrong about dual wielding crossbows post feat. However, it still has no bearing on the fact that the feat does not prove that the crossbow cannot be used with TWF before the feat either.
We both agree it makes a change to the system. It remains to be seen if its just one change (allowing weapons like the longsword to be used) or two changes (longsword AND hand crossbow now allowed when not previously).
Mephi1234 wrote:
I dont see the problem with engaging with the hand-crossbow on the first attack, although reloading whilst in combat would be non-trivial. My personal solution is to have a hand crossbow, constructed with an attached blade similar to the various sorts of pistol cutlasses that have been manufactured over the last 500 years. Thereby allowing a poisoned hand crossbow bolt on the first attack followed by using it as a dagger or a shortsword depending on the length.
Just looking at it from a game balance perspective, I don't see a problem with letting someone dual-wield hand crossbows without a feat. They do the same damage as thrown handaxes. They do have an advantage in range, but they're also martial weapons, while handaxes are simple. They're supposed to be better.
From a game balance perspective I would say that you should need to take the feat. Yeah Two-Weapon Fighting in melee is nice, but you open yourself up to retaliatory attacks from melee opponents in general. Ranged attacks have the advantage of being just that, ranged. So if you let someone do that, you do level the playing field in number of attacks generated, but you give a massive advantage to the ranged attacker because they can't be attacked in return. 30/120 is good range!
At least with the feat you invest into it which makes the bottomline more even. Yeah you get to rock multiple attacks just like the melee guys, but you had to spend a feat to get it. Meanwhile the melee guys don't have to spend a feat, but instead have to deal with incoming attacks. That's fair.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Valheru_Blade wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
1eejit wrote:
"Light. A light weapon is small and easy to handle, making it ideal for use when fighting with two weapons. See the rules for two-weapon fighting in chapter 9."
This says that it is ideal for use when fightinng with two weapons, but does not specify that it qualifies the weapon for two-weapon fighting. The light property refers you to the actual qualifications for two-weapon fighting. So this is not a case of specific trumping general regarding the use of hand crossbows for two-weapon fighting. So the question is why assign it the light property in the first place? My guess is so that it can interact with the rules in the future, either as twf w/a feat or some other interaction with the light property.
That said, for me rule of cool comes into play. If a player had two pre-loaded hand crossbows or one and another light weapon, I would allow them to take the extra attack per the rules for thrown weapons. I wouldn't allow them to load it and then fire both off again the next round (or load, fire and then make an attack w/a melee weapon).
Mephi1234 wrote:
I think as written the hand crossbow cannot be used for twf as a ranged weapon because of the melee stipulation. I think it does allow holding it and another weapon so a person doesn't necessarily need to store or draw a weapon and can choose either when fighting. It seems largely pointless to restrict it, however, and I allow it for twf with a melee weapon and the hand crossbow for the bonus action attack on twf.
Is there any way we can get a ruling from WotC on this?
A ruling on what? TWF says it only applies to melee weapons. The light property is therfore meaningless on the hand cross bow (with the rules we currently have, once they introduce the new feat in the PHB then the light property will make sense).
obsid wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
Misanthrope_Prime wrote:
K people, there's clearly a very widespread misunderstanding of what Specific vs General is. You all need to really understand this if you're going to answer rules questions or read the rules of the game. I've explained it at length in my previous post:
http://community.wizards.com/comment/50912366#comment-50912366
The bottomline here is that the general rules for mundane weapons like the hand-crossbow's light weapon and reload properties for example are not specific in the sense of Specific vs General. The Crossbow Expert feat however is. Another example would be the fighter two-weapon fighting feature that allows you to gain your bonus damage on the Bonus Action attack of TWF, that's specific vs general which trumps the general rule that you don't. Another example is the rogue's feature Cunning Action which let's you use a Bonus Action to make a Dash, Disengage or Hide action instead of having to use your main action for your turn. Again that is specific vs general in that it trumps the general rules. Monsters have abilities that do this almost all the the time as traits or powers. One of the most important being their ability to cast spells without expending or using Spell Slots like PC characters do.
As a rule specific always has to specifically call out what it is that it trumps from the general rule. An example of this not happening is that when you're prone, the general rules say that you can only take the crawl, teleportation or stand up move actions. Ergo, if you have the option to move your speed as part of an ability/spell/feature/item/etc... unless that ability specifically states that you can move while prone you can't! That's the entire basis of an exception based system. If your ability on the other hand does say you can move while prone, that is specific vs general which trumps the general "being prone" rule.
Please note also that this is the correct way to read rules in an exception based system. The incorrect way falls within the Munchkin Fallacy which basically reads as "The rules don't say I can't, so I can". Which some people are getting dangerously close to falling into.
I hope this is more clear for everyone going forward.
Misanthrope_Prime wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ok let's try this another way.
You're saying that you can get the Bonus Action attack from TWF even though the general rule for it states that you can only do it with a melee weapon. You're saying that the general properties for the Hand-Crossbow somehow trump this general rule even though they don't say they specifically do anywhere. You're asserting that just because it has the light weapon property, which allows to dual wield the weapon in my opinion, this somehow allows you to ignore the general rule that says melee weapon only. I've explained now in detail why it can't work that way, citing examples of other game elements and how specific vs general actually works. You're refusing to listen to all of this and you're also refusing to acknowledge that the existence of a feat which specifically does what you're trying to assert, does not mean anything.
Fine. Obviously I can't convince you if you're not going to bother looking at the evidence presented.
Where's the proof of your assertion? You're asserting that you can, so the burden of proof is actually on you not me. Please provide some. Maybe if we go over it together it might clear this up.
And to answer your statement, it's not about my authority or assumption, you're making this personal when its clearly not. What I am doing is explaining that the way the edition works in language and in basic design is as an Exception Based System. Meaning that the basic rules for game elements (like the properties of weapons) are the general rules. Feats/features/abilities/spells/etc.. that modify these rules are the Specific within the language specific vs general. In an exception based system, specific always beats general or the system stops working. This is by design. It's also by design that all specific rules have to specifically call out what it is about the general rule that they change. This has been the system for DnD since 3rd edition I believe and hasn't changed since. I'm sure it was the system design for 4th edition at the very least. So it's not my personal assumption or authority, it's how the whole system is built and functions. If you need more examples about this system look at my previous posts.
As for dual wielding weapons that don't have the light property, it's ambiguous to some degree, but it's the only property on weapons that says it's for TWF. If someone could send a tweet to the devs and ask about this we might get a better idea about intent. Either way though, like you said, even if you can dual wield weapons that don't have the light weapon property, you can't use TWF with them. And see that comes back to specific vs general. Just because you can dual wield weapons without the light weapon property, it doesn't mean you can use the TWF Bonus Action attack option. That's how the system is built and that's how everything keeps working as it should.
Crossbow Expert Feat
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits:
• You ignore the loading quality of hand crossbows and light crossbows with which you are proficient.
• Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
• When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand-crossbow you are holding.
So the specific rule here clearly implies that this is not the case without the feat. It's therefore clear that one cannot otherwise get a bonus attack with a hand crossbow from dual wielding.
It doesn't specify that one cannot get a bonus attack with a melee weapon while a crossbow is in the main hand, however without this feat one would still be limited to a single main weapon attack per round in that case due to the loading feature.
1eejit wrote:
It seems pretty clear to me that you cannot use the hand crossbow to TWF. If you could, why would the term "melee weapon" be in the description for TWF? Why wouldn't it just say "light weapon." If it IS the intention that a light ranged weapon could be used in TWF, then you are interpreting the TWF rules as:
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one one, (or a ranged weapon if it has the light keyword.)"
That part in parenthesis makes no sense with the wording of the first part. they would just take out the melee and have it apply to light weapons.
My guess is the light is there for some other game mechanic. I would probably allow a player to make a TW improvised attack with it, though the rules don't concretely support that
Right thank you, the more people are going to read these game elements the more it's going to be obvious, it's only a matter of time.
Mephi, you also need to stop adding words into the rules text. The feat Crossbow Expert does NOT specify non-light weapons. Only one-handed. Stop adding rules text to try to make your argument stronger. You're only weakening it instead by showing that you're not capable of clearly understanding the rules you're quoting.
Now to address your actual response.
My evidence isn't suspect, I'm pointing the very basis of the system we're playing. It's an exception based system. For things to fall within "specific" in the specific vs general language, it MUST clearly say what it is that it is changing from the general rules. The property Light Weapon doesn't do that. It's the same text for every single weapon that has the property. That's not specific at all. That's the general rule of how the property works within the game system. You can't argue that it changes rules when it doesn't even say that it does in the first place! You're arguing that it changes rules and yet it doesn't even say that it does! It's the same writing as every other Light Weapon property item in the game. Your argument makes no sense buddy. There's even a feat coming out that does what you're arguing you can already do. Why would they make a feat that SPECIFICALLY allows you to do something you can already do? Can you give me a single example of that happening with any other feat or feature?
The problem is that you're adding rules text where none exists! Don't you see that? It doesn't say what you're asserting it does, so it can't do it in the first place! For something to be a specific vs general it HAS to specify a rule change. Like every other feature, spell, feat, etc does. Don't you see that huge difference? You're adding words where none exist. By your reading any weapon that has the Light Weapon feature trumps the TWF rules. This is not how this works. Light Weapon only says to refer to the TWF rules to see if you qualify. TWF requires a melee weapon. The hand-crossbow is not and can never be by itself considered a melee weapon.
The light weapon property on the hand-crossbow is not meaningless. I believe that it allows for dual-wielding because it's the only property that lists dual wielding and TWF. I believe that weapons without that property cannot be dual wielded on their own. But like I said earlier, it's ambiguous and we would need to contact the Devs for further clarity.
Also you're not even paying attention to my argument. Don't straw man my arguments please. I never said you can't shoot them. I pointed out that the Hand-Crossbow has the reload property which stops you shooting a hand-crossbow multiple times per turn. If you look at the Crossbow Expert feat, it also SPECIFICALLY calls out that if you have the feat, you can ignore the reload property. Meaning you can shoot multiple times per turn. Do you see how THAT is specific vs general? It calls out specifically which general rule it changes, in this case the reload property on the weapon. So if the reload property is a general rule and the feat is the specific in specific vs general, why is it you can assert that the Light Weapon property is not? With what basis do you somehow decide that one property is specific without it having to list any actual rule change, and the reload property doesn't? How do you come to that conclusion? The answer is that you can't because both of these properties are general rules.
So to answer your question, I believe that the light weapon property on the crossbow was designed to let you dual wield the weapon, so that you can have your rapier in your main-hand and the hand-crossbow in the other. Light Weapon property = Off-hand Weapon property from 4e as far as I can tell because every weapon that had the off-hand property in 4e now has Light Weapon in 5e. Furthermore it is the ONLY general weapon property that calls out that it's for Dual wielding and TWF.
Let me ask you a question in return. Why is it the Light Weapon property is specific enough according to you and somehow trumps general rules without requiring any actual text saying that it does? If you notice every other feat, spell, feature etc specifically calls out which of the general rules it changes or trumps. Why is it that according to you this one item property simply doesn't need to do so when literally EVERYTHING ELSE does?
FallingIcicle wrote:
The crossbow feat doesn't exist. It doesn't work as part of the debate because it's not confirmed that I have seen yet so might exist someday or might exist differently or might never exist. It isn't part of the rules so may as well be considered a house-rule unless someone has information from a device on it.
To be fair, the feat exists. The real question is if the feat will make it into the feat list when the PHB comes out. Since they left the hand-crossbow as it was in the playtest, there's a very good chance that the feat will also be released since it fixes many of the things that makes the hand-crossbow less interesting. Reload Property, lack TWF compatibility (not a melee weapon) and disadvantage when firing at an enemy within 5 feet. The feat makes the hand-crossbow a truly competitive weapon to use as your main weapon.
We can ask Mike Mearls on twitter and see if he gives us a response.
Noctaem wrote:
Like I've said before, I believe that the Light Weapon property is so that you can dual wield in the first place. So you can't dual wield Morningstars for example. But I look forward to the answer from twitter to see what happens. I could be wrong of course, but at this point I would surprised.
And thank you for tweeting him the question!!!
Noctaem wrote:
Misanthrope_Prime wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Kana is right. There is no way to interpret TWF as giving hand crossbows the bonus action. hand crossbows already allow for one in each hand to be fired, even with TWF there's no way to get a third shot out of one of them. the light property is the general rule for weapons that allows you to dual weild a weapon, TWF would be the specific rule for fighting with two weapons.
Noctaem wrote:
Gilwen wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I think under 5e, you are wielding any weapon you are holding that you can attack with. You cant be holding a hand crossbow in your hand and not be wielding it (that doesnt mean you can use your bonus action, just that you can choose among the weapons your are wielding which one you want to attack with). The light property makes it possible for the TWF to work, but is not everything needed, it also needs to be melee. We cant argue that doesnt make sense because it makes the light property useless becuase in the basic rules we only have a limited subset of the full PHB rules so under those rule it may not be useless. (it may have been added merely for esthetic reasons of the feat as they felt making a bonus attack with a non-light weapon wouldnt make sense)
here is the response from Mike Mearls:
@MonumentGames:
@mikemearls what is the purpose of the light property on hand crossbows as Two Weapon Fighting rules specify only melee weapons can be used?
@mikemearls:
@MonumentGames it might come into play with other abilities or DM rulings. For instance, tight passage where non-light weapons have disad.
Make sense to me! 
Mephi1234 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
'Sa real shame, I guess I need to hold out for a feat.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Misanthrope_Prime wrote: