I've read some of the CE megathreads, and there's a lot of arguing, but... I'm not sure what the two competing positions are. What are the two claims? How many attacks does one side say can be made with CE? And the other side?
Crossbow expertise removes the loading property from crossbows so you can fire you crossbow more than once per round. I don't know that anyone that has an issue with that (even if it is a little silly based on how crossbows work).
The other part of CE is that it grants you an attack as a bonus action as long as you have a loaded crossbow. Once again, I don't know anyone that has a problem with it.
The argument revolves around reloading crossbows (specifically hand crossbows).
One side (myself included) feel that you should have a hand available to load the hand crossbow. If you have a shield/sword/etc in one hand you can't reload the hand crossbow (regular bows/crossbows already take it into account since they are two-handed weapons). The rules don't specifically call it out but based on how bows work, it's a fair ruling by a DM. It's up to your DM to decide whether or not they care.
The other side feels that since the rules don't specifically call out the requirement for a free hand, you do not need one.
So I would say that without DM permission you can't fire hand crossbows round after round. First round, sure but after that you can't reload. Other people feel that you can fire hand crossbows round after round, the DM is house ruling if they limit it.
1: "The rules" says you can attack with a crossbow in 1 hand as long as you have ammuntion. Including a bonus attack.
2: "Common sense" says you can't load a crossbow while holding a shield. And it certainly can't shoot faster then a bow would.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you are really going to get a concise answer on this. Generally speaking, you will get as many attacks as your class allows in an Attack Action. Depending on circumstances, you may get a bonus attack with a hand crossbow. Most the issue deals with how you view those circumstances versus how crossbows work in reality versus differing interpetations of the rules. No clear answer beyond "It's up to the DM an players to come to an agreement ahead of time", as a series fo strawmen and misrepresentations are thrown about to show how absurb the other position is while the defend position is the one true RAW. As to why this is, there are many reasons. It hits many of the classic confrontations: Player vs. DM interpretation, realism vs. rules first implementation, etc. Also, with plans to use survays to get build FAQ's and errata, each side has invested interest in have a majority of people thinking one way or the other as being the intended rule when such surveys go out.
So here's what I think I understand. Which of these are in dispute?
Situation 1: First round of combat. Dagger in main hand, hand crossbow in off-hand, no CE feat. Make as many attacks with dagger as allowed by extra attacks. Cannot make bonus attack with off-hand hand crossbow.
Situation 2: First round of combat. Hand crossbow in main hand, hand crossbow in off-hand, no CE feat. Make one attack with main hand hand crossbow. Cannot make bonus attack with off-hand hand crossbow.
Situation 3: First round of combat. Dagger in main hand, hand crossbow in off-hand, with CE feat. Make as many attacks with dagger as allowed by extra attacks. Can make one bonus attack with off-hand hand crossbow.
Situation 4: First round of combat. Hand crossbow in main hand, hand crossbow in off-hand, with CE feat. Make as many attacks with main hand hand crossbow as allowed by extra attacks. Can make one bonus attack with off-hand hand crossbow.
Situation 5: First round of combat. Longsword in main hand, hand crossbow in off-hand, with CE feat but without DW feat. Make as many attacks with longsowrd as allowed by extra attacks. Cannot make bonus attack with off-hand hand crossbow.
1. True
2. True
3. True.
4. True. But this is the part that is being debated. Since you have the other hand crossbow in your off-hand, they argue that you can't make multiple attacks with any hand crossbow since you can't reload it after the first attack since you have no free hand. Which is total nonsense. Bows stop working by this reading along with every 2 handed ammunition weapon in the game.
5. False, you can because the CE feat has nothing to do with the Dual Wielder feat. You can make the bonus action attack with the hand crossbow since you met the requirements in the feat.
6. True.
7. True. But again this is a point of argument for some people. They would argue that you can't reload the hand crossbows so you can't make any further attacks with them, unless you dropped one to reload the other for example or jumped through other kinds of hoops.
The rules for ammunition only say that you draw ammunition as part of making an attack, there is no requirement of a free hand. There is no additional action requirement on your part.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
intently wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
randl wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
randl wrote:
It's worth mentioning something that was brought up in the latest CE (heh) thread: A requirement is for you to make an attack while holding a loaded crossbow. That requirement (whether it's a sword, a dagger, a hand crossbow, whatever) makes that part of the feat useless unless: You don't plan on reloading your crossbow since you have something in both handa, you drop and draw another (loaded!) hand crossbow for subsequent rounds, and/or you fight with an empty-handed fist+Crossbow.
Seems silly, no? I mean, mechanically silly at least. At LEAST as silly as being all John Wu Matrix or whatever?
mellored wrote:
Timborama wrote:
randl wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
And you're not even addressing the actual discussion now. Goooood job.
mellored wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mellored wrote:
Tell me where the rules define what "USE" means in relation to "USING" a bow or hand crossbow. Tell me where the rules define "LOADING" or "RELOADING" as actions that would fall under the "USE" category.
Till you can then your agrument against my definition of "USE" is not a RAW based argument. Until then my assetion that I am NOT USING the bow or hand crossbow by "loading or reloading" it is a valid RAW reading.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
So to summarize, one group thinks the rules only give rules on those things that need clarification from a gaming standpoint or where the game universe diverges from our known reality.
Others believe that (at in some select cases) the rules are complete as written and any attempt to understand how something would work by basing interpretation of the rules on the real world is blasphemy. Even if it means parsing hijinks like you can't draw arrows for a bow because the bow is a two-handed weapon and you aren't using the bow when drawing the ammunition even though it's specifically spelled out that drawing ammunition is part of the attack and if it's part of the attack then it is part of using it but ... [really wish there was a way to decrease font size down to nothing, but you get the point]
Oh, and noctaem, I'll go ahead and fill in for you ...
you're wrong!
Me: what the heck are you trying to say?
and repeat...
Everybody sing along!
This is the thread that doesn't end
Yes, it goes on and on my friend
Some people started arguing about the clause,
And they'll continue arguing it forever just because . . .
I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't put any stock in game developer tweets on complex rules issues. That a reasonable person would put such tweets on a RAW level is beyond me. Now with that said, I seem to recall some mention of tweets by the same devs that say they would require a free hand to load a hand crossbow... I don't think its very fair that you quote one tweet without quoting the other. Ya see what I'm saying?
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Please direct that to the poeple claiming you can walk on water and fire a mundane bow (almost magically without ever loading it). Them's the rules don't ya know?
Let me add if someone lawyers the rules to the point of absurdity that they believe that since the rules don't disallow a player from walking on water then this means it's RAW for a character to walk on water and that anyone who doesn't play that way is house ruling then there's a problem.
CahPahkah wrote:
Can I get some rules for this assetion? Changing from holding a weapon to using it requires an object interaction?
Noctaem wrote:
mellored wrote:
randl wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Sure can he do that in a combat situation without having a chance of dropping them?
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
randl wrote:
Timborama wrote:
This is a fantasy game, so let's compare to other fantasy setting:
Diablo3 you got the demon hunter who can shoot with 2 hand crossbow without problem. The demon hunter can even do it WITHOUT a quiver
REal life have no meaning in a fantasy setting, otherwise all the spellcaster are useless fouls bablling and doing nothing.
Sorxores wrote:
randl wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
So you disagree with how the rules work because you want a different game?
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Ok, I think I understand the dispute now 
I didn't mean to start another CE mega-thread!
intently wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
mellored wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Looks like hes be super effective in combat doing that.....
mellored wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
randl wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mellored wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
mellored wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
K Meg, you have got to stop strawmaning what we're arguing to try to undermine it. It's really getting pathetic that that is your only recourse. Get the damn point already.
CahPahkah wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Just for the record, for my game, i allow multi-shot with the crossbow. (Because cool > realism).
But, i only allow the bonus action attack if are dual wielding. (including dual hand-crossbows).
You can still handbow + shield, just without the bonus action attack. So there's some trade-offs.
that said, it's a houserule.
Showing inconsistency of an opponent in a debate to show how his #1 point is wrong is fair game.
You assert many times you can't use the real world to read the rules and yet you do just that when you disallow characters from walking on water.
Thats inconsistency my friend.
Noctaem wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
As a DM, I would allow these physics-breaking shenannigans. As a person in the real world, I cringe every time I think about someone thinking "Yeah, this makes total sense." It's stupid rule-monkeying, but oh well, it's a fantasy game. I imagine the T-1000 pumping two shotguns and let it be.
Progress.
Now where is the rule that allows me to load a hand crossbow one handed?
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I disagree
CahPahkah wrote:
If you want to make an assertion that the rule books says so then quote the exact text and page number where it explicitly states how you load and fire a hand crossbow one handed. Not implied or infered by your selective reading but explicitly stated. Can you do so?
FrogReaver wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Very good answers guys. +1 to you both.
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Back to the OP
There are actually 3 interpretations of the rule:
1) You don't need to physically interact with an ammunition to load it. It just happens. Kind of like Hawk the Slayer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Veszrg1TErk Not a long clip, but you can skip ahead to about 25 seconds in.
2) You need to draw ammunition from a container, but you can do it even if you have something else in your hand.
3) You need to draw ammunition from a container, and you need to have a hand with nothing in it.
I personally think option #1 is a house rule, and use #2 (if judging AL) or #3 (home game).
It's worth noting that #1 and #2 above are both fluff issues that do what the rules say and don't affect any of the mechanical elements of the game, whereas #3 severely limits the viability of a long-established D&D fighting style (see: Drow) and nerfs a feat (which are supposed to be meaningful and game-impacting) into oblivion.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Specific beats general in this edition right?
the weapon has the following statistics:
Crossbow, hand 75 gp 1d6 piercing 3 lb. Ammunition (range 30/120), light, loading
wiitch operate with the following general rules:
General:
Light. A light w eapon 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.
Two-W e a p o n F ig h t in g
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. You don’t
add your ability modifier to the damage o f the bonus
attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you
can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee
attack with it.
This means the hand can be used in ones offhand and make an attack with it. provided the main hand is light and both attacks are mellee or thrown, it also means you cannot make a normal ranged weapon attack with a bonus action while dual wielding.
Ammunition. You can use a w eapon that has the
ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if
you have ammunition to fire from the w eapon. Each
time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece
o f ammunition. (a) Drawing the ammunition from a quiver,
case, or other container is part of the attack. At the
end of the battle, you can recover half your expended
ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
Your class grants proficiency in certain weapons,
reflecting both the class's focus and the tools you are
most likely to use. Whether you favor a longsword or
a longbow, your weapon and your ability to wield it
effectively can mean the difference between life and
death while adventuring.
The Weapons table shows the most common weapons
used in the worlds o f D&D, their price and weight,
the damage they deal when they hit, and any special
properties they possess. Every weapon is classified
as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to
attack a target within 5 feet o f you, whereas a ranged
weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.
(b) If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property
to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an
improvised weapon (see "Improvised Weapons" later in
the section). A sling must be loaded to deal any damage
when used in this way.
(a) This means that according to the rules it TAKES NO ADDITIONAL ACTION TO LOAD A WEAPON THAT DURING THE SAME ACTION OF ATTACKING WITH A WEAPON YOU LOAD IT. no words are used to describe the order, load then shoot, or shoot then load. no words are used to describe how the interaction with the ammunition happens. by hand, by foot by mouth, by magic irrelevant for this rule.
(b) This means that anyone(!) can use an handcrosbow to make a improvised mellee attack with the handcrosbow (but thats not what we are after atm)
Loading. Because of the time required to load this
weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition
from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction
to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can
normally make.
this means that in a (bonus) action one can make only one shot.
specific rule
C r o s s b o w E x p e r t
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you
gain the following benefits:
•(d) You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with
which you are proficient.
•(e) Being within 5 feet o f a hostile creature doesn’t
impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
•(f) When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded
weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack
with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding
(d) means that you can shoot more then once per action, handy for duel wielding handcrosbos, or for making more then one attack in your normal action with a handcrosbow. its irrelevant for an offhand crosbow it literally does nothing for the offhand crosbow since it shoots oen attack only anyway. it changes nothing about the amunition part of shooting with a handcrosbow.
(e) handy in itself but not relevant to this discussion.
(f) ultrahandy this means that a handcrosbow does not need the twoweapon fighting rules if you want to attack with 2 handcrosbows.
NOTE that this does not require e different handcrosbow)
A+D means an action can be used to fire as many shots with a handcrosbow as a character can make attacks in a normal action provided he has the amunition availible.
A+D+F means that with one handcrosbow in a hand f full allotment of attacks + a bonus action attack can be made with one handcrosbow. Provided the character has enough availible amunition. Because A does not state when the weapon can be loaded, any player is free to state that the weapon is reloaded AFTER the shot if he so desires, meaning that as soon as the hand crosbow is pre loaded before the first shot in a round that a bonus action can be used to shoot said handcrosbow.
A key term in this all is availible ammunition, the rules dont state how a crosbow is loaded just as they dont say humans need 2 legs to walk.
A magical repeating handcrosbow that produces its own can be shot ad infinitum. A normal handcrosbowmight not have any availible ammunition after the first shot. even if the character hasd plenty ammo availible in a quiver because he has no availible hands/feet/teeth whaever availible to move the ammo from the quiver to the handcrosbow. its nice that the same action used to fire a crosbow can be used to reload it, but the ammo still needs to be availible, or it just moves to the crosbow because Its DND and not a reality sim.
The rules don't state anything at how the ammo is moved to the handcrosbow to load it, ergo its a DM's perogative.
CahPahkah wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
I'm not going to bother replying to nocteam because it's pointless. Anybody who disagrees with his statements is simply ridiculed. He "wins" debates by never addressing questions he doesn't want to answer (like my #1 assumption in my list) and making what, in my opinion are nonsensical statements like his stance one bows.
A summary of the way I see it
- Unless there is text that overrides how something works in the real world it is reasonable to assume the game world works in a similar way. If we don't there is no starting point, no consistency. We don't know that characters can't walk on water or how boats work or what you can use a rope for. Rules override reality to simplify play and to add fantastical elements to the game.
- We know how bows, crossbows and hand crossbows work in the real world.
- Any weapon with the ammunition property requires that you have ammunition available.
- You have to draw the ammunition from the container. Reality also tells us that you need to knock the arrow/bolt, pull back the string. To complete loading a crossbow you latch the string on the trigger mechanism.
- You need two hands to fire a longbow or a light crossbow when using it to attack (hence the two-handed property). Drawing ammunition can be part of the attack action.
- You can fire a hand crossbow without the use of both hands if you have a loaded bolt (hence the lack of two-handed property).
- After a hand crossbow is fired, it is empty until reloaded.
- To reload you must somehow transfer a bolt to the hand crossbow.
- The only way I know of transferring ammunition from a quiver to a hand crossbow and to draw the string back to arm it (without the use of magic or a magic-like device) is to use the hand not holding the hand crossbow.
Therefore you need a hand to reload your hand crossbow. It is up to the DM to decide if you can be holding something else in the hand used to load the ammunition.
Nothing in the rules contradicts the real world. If the rules override reality, apply the rules. Make decisions that make sense to your table.
Your list of steps needed to justify your side is really getting long.
Still...
Abow can draw ammunition as part of it's attack, while both hands are full.
Bbow can draw ammunition as part of it's attack, while both hands are full.
More personal attacks, more distortion of the truth of the matter and more strawmen. Thanks for your post Meg.
As for your #1 assumption. If you mean that question you keep asking people, let me explain this to you once again. Your question is ridiculous and is not relevant to the discussion at hand. It's exactly like asking someone:
"Do you still beat your wife?" Either Yes or No implies that you still or did. It's this kind of fallacious question that doesn't help your cause Meg. It's actually a named fallacy. And boy do you ever make a lot of fallacious statements. This has been explain to you though over the course of over 5 threads, in multiple forums, by different people. So frankly if you're not going to get it by now, you never will. Which makes us not addressing it directly even more important. This question does not make you seem witty or intelligent. In fact by now it's quite the opposite.
So to address your numbered statements.
1. Unless there is text that overrides how something works in the real world it is reasonable to assume the game world works in a similar way. If we don't there is no starting point, no consistency. We don't know that characters can't walk on water or how boats work or what you can use a rope for. Rules override reality to simplify play and to add fantastical elements to the game.
1.A There actually is rules text for the game elements we're discussing. Your insistance that there isn't is irrelevant when anyone can just look up the relevant rules text in the PHB on their own. Furthermore, see above regarding your fallacious question about "walking on water".
2. We know how bows, crossbows and hand crossbows work in the real world.
2.A This is completely irrelevant. Regardless of your insistance, dnd 5e is not the real world. See dragons, magic, fireballs and fighters attacking 11 times in 6 seconds for clear examples.
3. Any weapon with the ammunition property requires that you have ammunition available.
3.A True. As per the ammunition rules, you need ammunition to make an attack.
4. You have to draw the ammunition from the container. Reality also tells us that you need to knock the arrow/bolt, pull back the string. To complete loading a crossbow you latch the string on the trigger mechanism.
4.A In the real world the above is true. In the game, this entire string of events is all done as part of the attack. As per the ammunition rules in the PHB. Trying to claim otherwise is fallacious and directly ignores rules text in the book in favor of simulationist houseruling. Which you're free to do, as your table.
5. You need two hands to fire a longbow or a light crossbow when using it to attack (hence the two-handed property). Drawing ammunition can be part of the attack action.
5.A The above is false, you need two hands to USE the weapon, as per the two-handed property. So even reloading requires 2 hands, so your houserule where you need a free hand is simply impossible. Furthermore, see above for how this all actually works. It's all part of the attack. No free hand, no additional actions required.
6. You can fire a hand crossbow without the use of both hands if you have a loaded bolt (hence the lack of two-handed property).
6.A This statements is fallacious and makes no sense at all. Hand crossbows do not have the two-handed property. They do not require 2 hands to use (attack, reload, use). Making a seperation between attacking and reloading, as you're doing, is again fallacious. You're inventing houserules to glaze over the holes in your premise.
7. After a hand crossbow is fired, it is empty until reloaded.
7.A This is only semi true. You reload as part of the attack you make. So as the same action used to attack, you reload. So your weapon is unloaded for only that moment when you expend the ammunition to make the attack and you reload your weapon as part of that same attack.
8. To reload you must somehow transfer a bolt to the hand crossbow.
8.A Again, this is all part of the attack as per the rules for ammunition the PHB that anyone can read. There is no additional action requirement, no free hand requirement. It's all part of the attack.
9. The only way I know of transferring ammunition from a quiver to a hand crossbow and to draw the string back to arm it (without the use of magic or a magic-like device) is to use the hand not holding the hand crossbow.
9.A Or you could just follow the rules in the book and do it as part of the attack.
The above sounds more like a fluff requirements. Just because you can't reconcile reloading as part of the attack, as per the rules in the book you argue that it's not possible and you must use a free hand or use additional actions just to do it. Which leads to further problems within the game, which you then create more houserules to glaze over, which... and so on. This is becoming more and more apparent as we go. You should take the time to reconsider what you're arguing. Almost your entire post just ssays "I must have simulationism in my game, so I must argue that you can't just follow the rules if they don't fit within my vision of how the game must reflect the real world!"
mellored wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Now that all that is out of the way, I've spotted another potential issue. The third bullet point of Crossbow Expert specifically calls out attacking with a one-handed weapon. There is no "one-handed" weapon property - only "two-handed" and "versatile".
CahPahkah wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
mellored wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Comparing magic to mundane weapons isn't really a good comparison wouldn't you agree?
I mean where do the rules say I even need to be holding a long sword to attack with it? The rules say he can attack with the longsword while not holding it since it's not against the rules for him to do so, right?
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
So raw allows a character to attack with a long sword while both hands are to full too hold it. Got ya!
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Arguement seems moot anuyway as you only get 1 bonus action per turn o you can't dual wield and get the bonus attack off the CE feat. The rules also say that you can only dual wiled light melee weapons so it seems how you interpret the one handed weapon part of the CE feat.
Even if you could dual wield lt crossbows (thats a no in my games) RAW it is pointless to do so.
Zardnaar wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Timborama wrote:
I love how you avoid the question. Either raw allows you to attack with a longs word while both hands are full or it doesn't.
Everything you are saying points to you believing raw allows that. But then you come and say " that's not what I'm saying. "
So which is it? Does raw allow a character with all his hands to full to hold a long sword the ability to attack with it?
CahPahkah wrote:
Page 189 shoots the whole arguement down anyway.
If you have more than 1 bonus action you jmust chose what one to use. Thats a speciifc rule.
You can't dual wield hand crossbows at all RAW. The CE feat could be read to get around this as it is a speciifc rule. Ok fair enough evne if the DM allow you to fire 2 hand crossbowws and even if they allow you to reload them why would you bother as you need the dual wield wepaon style to add your dex bonus to damage anyway or you could do that with the extra attack CE allows.
SO this arguement baisally seems to revolve around certain posters want to do semi legit things to make their PC worse in combat?
Even if you can dual wield HC why would you as you still do not get the dex to damage without the dual weapon style and even if you ahve that and the archery style you are not doing anything that you could not do with the crossbow expertise feat all by itself (have an extra attack+dex to damge).
mellored wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
randl wrote:
randl wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Any DM that allows you to use a crossbow or bow -- or anything that requires a second hand -- while your off-hand is full should have his screen taken away from him. The rulebook is the beginning of the game, not the end of it.
Even if it was in the rules that you could fire and reload a crossbow or bow with only one hand, I would homerule that out. Similarly, if a character were to wear a buckler on his forearm, I would allow the reloading -- but wouldn't provide the AC bonus for the shield.
randl wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
mellored wrote:
You're correct; there are very few game elements that address "hands" at all. They generally aren't considered a resource that this edition is overly worried about managing. (Which makes all of the anxiety over "But how do you draw your crossbow bolts?!?!" to be really bizarre...)
CahPahkah wrote:
There is no point to duel wielding hand crossbows even if the DM allows it so. I have thought about this a bit more and have come to the following conclusions.
1. The player is a muppet and values looking kewl over being effective to the point h is undermining their own party.
or
2. The player is a munchkin and is hoping ther DM or anyon else is trying to sneak in an extra bonus action.
Has anyone brought up Evasion in this thread yet? No? Hooray!
"How does training yourself to have ability to reload a small crossbow with your fingertips break immersion more than every seventh level rogue in the world being able to stand in the middle of a 20' fiery explosion without harm?"
Crossbow Expert is a feat. It's meant to represent something that Joe Guy-With-A-Crossbow can't do. That this particular feat has become the poster child of real-world-model-immersion-breaking stuff baffles me given everything else in the game that's beyond what most normal people can accomplish. It's not even game-breaking.
Any home DM is free to rule as he chooses, with the expectation of the scorn and ridicule that any DM call on anything publicly discussed on the internet receives. The difficulty is with the Adventurers League. People will show up to public play events with characters with this feat, and they're going to want to play. There's no time for debate at that point, and shutting down a character sucks.
jonathonhawke wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
sigfile wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Did you notice that you bolded every sentence except the relevant one?
Seems legit...
CahPahkah wrote:
If the point you're trying to make is that "your hands being full" exists outside of the RAW of the game and is therefore always a houserule, then fine - I agree with you (though that feels slightly over-determined to me).
If that's NOT the point you're trying to make, what is?
Noctaem wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
I don't have any issue with that. I don't run my tables according to strict RAW, and play with a variety of minor house rules in D&D and in other game systems. That's all fine.
But the fact that I think house rules are often preferable to RAW doesn't mean that they aren't house rules, and it doesn't change what RAW says. These threads are full of people who are making up rules and calling them RAW, inventing tortured justifications for words that aren't printed in the books, and insulting anyone who disagrees with them.
I've never suggested that RAW is the best (let alone "only") way to play the game; only that substantial deviations from it are house rules and should be acknowledged as such.
CahPahkah wrote:
PHB, Page 5: "The many worlds of the Dungeons & Dragons game...begin with a foundation of medieval fantasy and then add the creatures, places, and magic that make those worlds unique."
This is the closest I've found to a relationship between the game and reality.
I understand where you are coming from. The difference is:
I don't view any of the things i listed like disallowing walking on water or disallowing jumping and landing on air or disallowing attacking with a longsword while both hands are full... I don't view any of those things as house rules.
So when I say disallowing the drawing of ammunition from a quiver while holding 2 hand crossbows is not a house rule I mean it in the same way that I don't call those other things house rules.
Now if in your view you think all those things I mentioned are house rules then it makes no sense to me that you would ever talk about or even care what You call raw says. Why? Because using your definition of raw, the game requires house rules to even be playable. That and almost everything done in the game is a house rule .
CahPahkah wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
And are those basic assumptions actually house rules?
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Sorry - it seems like you skipped the post above (you know, the one where you got called on making up lies about people who disagree with you). So, to recap:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
The properties being pointed out has been done for over 2 weeks now. They just either ignore it or don't directly address it and just dance around. Then a few days later come back and keep going. Or a new thread mysteriously appears and the debates starts again but again, without the arguments against the whole free hand thing. It's rather annoying and shows bad faith from quite a few people in this thread.
But yes. +1 for the incredibly obvious problem where the weapon HAS A PROPERTY THAT DIRECTLY STATES IT'S MEANT TO BE USED WITH ANOTHER WEAPON. But no no, of course, it needs a free hand --__--
CahPahkah wrote:
The two weapon style of using two melee weapons don't apply and aren't worth talking about in this discussion. The light property shows it was intended to be used potentially as an off hand weapon or with one whether dual crossbows or melee weapon and hand crossbow. If it was not intended to do that one handed would have been enough. Light is going the extra mile showing the context with which RAW and RAI should be interpreted.
OoftaMeg wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
@FrogReaver: I know there was a lot of text to wade through, but you missed the most important question:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mellored wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
And why make it half again as expensive as the other two crossbow options?
I wonder if there is some divide in this thread between physically competent people and physically incompetent people. Competent people can easily envision how this can be done in a six second turn. Incompetent people can't envision some rather basic feats of dexterity like shifting your grip to free a couple fingers to reload. Oh noes my hand is gripping a small object it has now become useless in all ways. If you can't comprehend it as remotely possible you can't see it as the intent of a mundane activity.
Ahglock wrote:
In that spirit, it's also pointing out that, in terms of ability:
PCs with Feats > PCs > NPCs > Us
jonathonhawke wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver answered a couple of the issues specifically, so I thought I'd reiterate why I think whether or not you can load a hand crossbow with both hands full is a judgement call by your DM.
I start with the assumption that the game world works like the real world unless the rules override it. So we know you can't walk on water, what rope is used for, how ladders work, and on and on. Rules override this for simplicity (hit points, AC to name a couple) or to add fantastical elements (dragons, fireballs, etc).
Bows and crossbows are modelled on real bows and crossbows. We know how they work and you need a hand to draw ammunition while the other hand holds the bow/crossbow. Nothing in the rules specifically says whether or not the hand drawing ammunition can also be holding something else so it's a DMs call.
Hand crossbows are not two-handed because you can attack with them if they are already loaded. You can't reload if you have no ammunition and whether you can draw ammunition/reload with something else in your other hand is up to the DM.
It's up to the DM to decide how to interpret the rule. If you want to say that interpreting the rules is always a "house rule" then yes a DM is free to "house rule" that you can't draw ammunition with a hand holding something else, or sink if you try to walk on water, or use a ladder, or that you can tie someone up with rope and etc, etc, etc.
Want to allow dual crossbows in your campaign? Go for it. I may not think it's reasonable to hold something in the same that draws the ammunition, but it's a judgement call by the person DMing the game.
jonathonhawke wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
So, the discussion has progressed to the point where a single hand crossbow (with nothing in the off hand) in the hands of a Crossbow Expert may be fired as many times per round as the character may attack including the bonus action attack, correct? Is it now just a matter of determining if a character with the Crossbow Expert feat may reload with fingertips or not to determine if the other hand may hold a weapon or shield?
jonathonhawke wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
sigfile wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Here is going to be my argument from now on:
RAW doesn't say you can load a hand crossbow without a free hand. Therefore everyone saying they can is not playing by RAW.
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
sigfile wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Hand bow.
Good god y'all.
What is it good for?
DS.397 wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
mellored wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Found a use for hand bows with your ruling.
Carry a heavy crossbow and 10 or so handbows.
Multi-attack with with the heavy.
Then hold it in one hand, draw and attack with a handbow as your bonus action.
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Thats is called a houserule
Ahglock wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Well in their mind the dm preventing a character from walking on water would properly be called a house rule.
I mean as long as they are going to that extreme to stay consistent with their definitions then I guess it isn't so big a problem.
It is just weird when they admit all those things are house rules and then argue that we should play and answer all rules questions from a raw point of view after calling almost everything done in the game a houserule.
Or you could be like me. I don't consider the dm disallowing a character from walking on water to be a house rule. I don't consider a the dm requiring a hard surface for a character to be able to walk to be a house rule. I don't consider a dm requiring a character to have a hand to load a crossbow to be a house rule either.
Now if they insist that by their definition those things are house rules that's fine and they are right. But for once I want to use my definition
OoftaMeg wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Yup. One handed wrapon, you draw as part of your attack. You only need one hand to use it per it being a one handed weapon. And since you draw as part of the attack rules wise you can't claim a rule based argument that a second hand is needed as the attack is one handed and drawing is part of that.
They doubled down and made it a light weapon to make the intent of the weapon clear. So RAW and RAI it's can be shot and loaded while one hand is otherwise occupied. It also can be done realistically so unless your GM is massively uncoordinated and holds pc heroes to his incompetent standards he shouldn't rule against it based on that.
FrogReaver wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Oh, and all of this started up again because apparently Jeremy Crawford (you know, the guy that wrote the rules?) tweeted that he would require a hand to reload a hand crossbow.
Not saying that tweets are gospel, just that people who understand the thought process behind the rules better than anyone posting on this message board said you need an empty hand.
OoftaMeg wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
Water walking analogy is as close an analogy as you can get. Are you trying to place an arbitrary restriction on a characters ability to move by disallowing them to walk on water?
DS.397 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
If there was a rule that said hand crossbow don't require a free hand to be loaded then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
Without such a statement raw is silent on the issue. That's my point. Raw doesn't say one way or the other. Deal with it. Just like raw doesn't say whether you can walk on water or not.
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Just the rules that you excised words from, for some reason. Hard to argue with someone who has no problem selectively editing the source text.
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Nope. the dm gets to rule on that too.
CahPahkah wrote:
And the general rule says I can move up to my speed. Since no specific rules override that I guess it's raw that we can walk on water and off cliffs without falling.
DS.397 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
so if you use the actual rule as written including the part where it specifies "with an already loaded hand crossbow" you are house ruling the game, yet if you ignore that Rule As Written ... you are some how following RAW....
Yes massa
The whole other side of the debate thinks it's a good point... Kinda looks like you may be a little biased as to what you think is related to the debate.
DS.397 wrote:
Yea i I did forget about the loaded requirement in the crossbow expertise thread. Wonder how the any deviation from raw is a house rule crowd gets around that one.
Drycanth wrote:
I never claimed raw doesn't exist. Raw exists it just doesn't cover all that much.
CahPahkah wrote:
Light. A light weapon is small and easy to handle, making it ideal for use when fighting with two weapons.
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
And yet, the hand crossbow still has the Light property.
FrogReaver wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
lmao, I'm just going to laugh at Meg's response because frankly that's the only appropriate way to go. The stuff you say Meg! For someone so concerned about reality in your DnD, you seem to have a very large disconnect based on your posts.
Is there anything new here? Other than that you state that because you can draw ammunition during your attack action you believe it does not require an empty hand? Or that only certain people know the true secret of RAW?
My logic is very simple. I base actions on reality unless specifically overridden by the rules (dragons, fireballs, hit points, et al).
Let's compare movement and ammunition rules.
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action.
A reasonable requirement for walking is a solid surface because we know how walking works, even though it's not spelled out.
Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack.
A reasonable requirement for drawing ammunition is an empty hand because we know how bows and crossbows work even though it's not spelled out.
Similar set of rules "On your (turn/action) you can (move your speed/draw ammunition)", same logical construction, similar conclusion.
Unless of course you're saying that requiring a solid surface to walk on is a "House Rule" and somehow different from Ammunition?
And this is not just my opinion. A tweet was reported from Jeremy Crawford
Jeremy Crawford responded to someone asking this question: "Do you need two hands to load a hand crossbow? IE, could I have a shield or rapier in the other hand?" I'd say you need at least one hand free to load the bolt.
Annnnd your logic is flawed because of the many many reasons which have been pointed out to you Meg.
Noctaem wrote:
A wager:
This issue will be clarified by an official FAQ. Losers agree to never post in this forum again.
I'm in.
Any takers?
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Wow, I think I accidentally started the longest mega-thread about Crossbow Expert! *self-five*
intently wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
intently wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Wow. Is this really a "this is common sense" versus "this is what the rules say" thread? One of the overriding themes I've heard about this edition that makes it so great is that it's streamlined -- and then this happens.
C'mon. Don't rely on the rulebook for every little aspect. It's there as a starting point, not the end-all.
@Meg
Again, your refusal to read the posts I've posted over the last many weeks, the posts from others who have clearly given you rules text and my references to those same rules is not my problem Meg. It's yours. I've never said what you apparently quoted me as saying so please stop trying to make it seem like I have. That's a misrepresentation or at worse character assassination because you have nothing else to fall back on. That's a personal attack Meg. Learn the difference.
We've already explored and explained to you MANY times now that your walking on water question is just silly. The fact that you keep bringing it up like if it means something shows that either you don't understand the explanations we're giving for why that is or you simply aren't reading them. If you did, it would be obvious to you (hopefully) why we're saying that about your question.
Saying I would rule in this context is the same thing. And I'm using his past tweets as reference here. He answers with the RAW, he has an established reputation for answering by RAW. This time however, he chose to answer differently. He said that he would rule that you need a free hand, but that's not how he normally answers and that certainly does not indicate that it is the RAW. What you rule at your table is not necessarily the RAW. So based on all of this, and the fact that his answer CREATES problems with other weapon groups which use the same rules:
I don't believe he was giving the RAW and yes I do believe he was giving an answer that for all intensive purposes was closer to a houserule than actual rules text or RAW.
And finally. No me calling you Meg is simply because Meg is in your name and it's the simplest way for me to address you directly. You've already explained your name to me in a previous thread. I have no idea why you're now so defensive that me calling you Meg is some sort of insult to you even though it's clearly in your display name. But based on your explanation, you're making some kind of comment to whoever you know as "Meg" (Family Guy reference?) so frankly I don't get it. But to make sure you get this, no I am not trying to insult you by calling you Meg. So defensive.... I mean, the grammatical structure of Norwegian interjection??? lmao really?? Calm down!
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver, how do you define "fighting with two weapons"? Engaging in combat while holding a weapon in either hand? Or is it limited specifically to one-handed melee weapon with the Light property in either hand?
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
Did you just say that needing a free hand to reload a weapon is a "nonsensical response"? Seriously? THAT logic requires a "full stop"? Does it really take you a "full stop" to understand that it takes one hand to hold a crossbow while it takes another to pull back the string, pull a bolt from the quiver, and nock it? I am reading and rereading your paragraph, and... that's what it seems like you're saying.
I can understand going to a rules forum to clarify things, but I can't figure out why anybody thinks a feat grants mystical crossbow-loading skills. From the quick rule scans I've found:
#1A The hand crossbow is light by the Properties terminology, making it ideal for two-weapon use. Ever seen a movie where people are running around with two pistols blasting away? Same thing. Except that the best pistol in the world requires ammo, and while you could conceivably create something to quickly reload a magazine pistol, I haven't seen one for reloading a crossbow. A clip-fed hand crossbow? Sure! But that clip will also run out of ammo eventually.
#1B The hand crossbow also lists loading as a property. Loading is the time and focus of pulling back a string and/or placing ammuniation in proper place on the weapon. The complete impact of the loading Property is that you have a limit to how many times you can fire, regardless of your attacks.
#1C The hand crossbow does not have the two-handed Property, because you use the weapon one-handedly -- this doesn't mean the same hand reloads, it just means that to fire the weapon one hand is required as opposed to a heavier weapon. That's like a two-handed M-60 compared to a .38 special; in order to be effective with the heavier weapon you would need a second hand, but the handgun doesn't have such a requirement. Please note that has nothing to do with loading (in fact, the M-60 is belt-fed and often used on a tripod, because you wouldn't have a second hand to load).
#2 Using a light weapon while two weapon fighting references melee weapons obtaining an extra attack, or throwing a ranged weapon. However, in the 'specific trumps general' realm, the light Property includes the ability to fire a light weapon. Two-weapon fighting doesn't mean reloading or grabbing another weapon -- only the actual attack.
#3 Crossbow mastery removes the loading Property of the crossbow, making it possible to reload quickly and continue firing. I don't have the text in front of me to reference, but I'm fairly certain it doesn't say "reloading happens automatically".
These aren't house rules. These are what the developers presented to us. Did they specify that you need to use the hand not holding the weapon in order to do this? No. Is that really the grey area you want to live in? I can see the upside of existing in that hazy space (heck, if we're allowed to disregard physics, I'm going to start reading closer into a LOT of rules!) but if you use your head for about 4.7 seconds, you'll find that the preceding logic makes sense AND follows the rules as written.
I think game designers sometimes assume the readers will apply base logic to the information they're presenting, and this is one of those times where they're doing that. Maybe you can provide me rules that contradict the ones I've referenced here. But if you're talking about upsetting game balance, I think feat-based autoloading of two weapons at the same time falls into that category.
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
"Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack"
There you go. It's part of the attack. No additional requirement. No free hand needed. It's part of the attack. Fluff that however you want.
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Hurray.
As for your second paragraph, that's not how an exception based system works, which is what 5e is, so it's normal that you won't find that kind of thing in the rules. So if you want to create a character with no arms that still manages to use a weapon, that's DM fiat territory.
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
For or someone such a stickler about raw you should know the raw says u can draw ammunition. It never says u can load it.
So it stands. Requiring a player to load the ammunition in the crossbow before firing is a house rule.
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
So you mean raw I can use my mind to two weapon fight with shortswords while I hold a longbow in my hands?
DungeonKrusher wrote:
This again? Two hands are only required to attack with the weapon
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
@Frog... maybe this isn't what you meant, but there is a rule about loading ammo. It's the loading Property for crossbows.
However, bows load much more smoothly and as part of aiming and firing; for a sling you're just putting the bullet in the pocket. Neither of those require enough effort and concentration on their own to warrant a loading Property.
mellored wrote:
Thanks. Yea there is a loading properly but it doesn't actually allow you to load anything. It just restricts the number of times you can attack.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
mellored wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I think you accidentally left the content out of that post while you were typing in the personal attacks.
CahPahkah wrote:
The raw doesn't require a crossbow to be loaded to attack with it I love dnd!
jonathonhawke wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher,
OoftaMeg wrote:
Just out of curiosity.
Would you allow reloading a sling 1 handed?
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mellored wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I guess i just don't understand the point of having a 1-handed ranged weapon that takes 2 hands to use.
mellored wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Ok, and then Frog or Meg come along and just say "No you need a free hand to reload your weapons, you don't have one so you can't. And not only that, but you now need to jump through a bunch of hoops to reload your weapon." vs me for example who just says "awesome let's go adventuring." Because what you just described is complete fluff that apparently you require in order to understand that you reload as part of the attack. Nothing you said actually changes the rules, it's all just fluff. So good for you for finding a way to get the simulationist in you satisfied I suppose.
Noctaem wrote:
randl wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
randl wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
mellored wrote:
They have already suspended belief so of course they allow that. The rules don't require anything to use a blow gun other than ammunition and the ability to make an attack.
randl wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I just quoted the rules text that directly refutes your logic when it comes to your bow argument. How is that not constructive. I mean it's been explained and pointed out to you for like a week and a half but maybe this time it'll sink in....
And no my opinion isn't as you describe it. I've explained it to you over a dozen times. People in this very thread have explained it to you over 5 times easy. You not reading the posts or refusing to admit that we are doesn't change that fact that we have done so. Go read.
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
randl wrote:
Ok, the RAW I think has been largely explained, accepted, and settled. So, I'm going to try to explain why people get irritated with using real life to change the rules with an example.
So someone asks if they can play any of the races in the player's handbook.
Person A: "No, you can only play humans because there's only humans in real life."
Person B:"That's not correct, Person A. According to the rules they can pick any race they want. They can certainly pick humans if they want but unless the DM is placing a restriction on the campaign, they're free to choose."
Ok, so can anyone see how this correlates to this thread topic? Can anyone justify Person A's response?
DS.397 wrote:
Actually it's not a strawman.
So someone asks if you can reload while holding two hand crossbows.
Person A: "No, you can't because you don't have a free hand."
Person B: "That's not correct, Person A. According to the rules you don't need a free hand. You simply reload your weapons as part of the attacks you make without the need of a free hand or additional actions. Furthermore hand crossbows have the Light property which says that it's a weapon that is perfect for dual wielding. You're free to houserule however you want though in your own game. But the rules are clear as to how this works."
Can anyone justify person A's response? Without the dancing around the issue wall of text BS of the past please. Oh and no "because in real life" BS either. This isn't real life. This is a game with rules in a book that can't change just because you don't like them. And no "insert random example of how something completely unrelated works" either. Keep it on topic.
Good luck...
Ahglock wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Meant as a reply to DS. Hit repky instead of quote. Oops.
No. Really they don't. They only sound like that to people who twist RAW from rules as written to rules as read by a munchkin trying to twist the rules. And no I don't even agree with them. But for those who actually want to talk about rules as written and not just be a tool you have to understand the basic concept that language and especially the written word which looses out on tone and expressions needs context to understand.
Mundane activities usually use some semblance of reality to understand in the raw. It's why the lame walk on water is raw arguments are bull crap. You have to use outside sources to create a context to actually understand raw. They created a reality barrier for this because yes usually you do need two hands to do these things in reality, so they were using that context to interpret RAW. The one handed part to them is to inform you how many hands it takes to use once already loaded and cocked. I disagree that it would be needed as my assumptions on reality are different. I also think the one handed and light properties are there to give context on how the reality should be scene.
Now using the lance as an example and I would have agreed with them. The one handed property is not intended to reflect how it is used in melee combat but in how lances are traditionally viwed as weapons on horseback.
Noctaem wrote:
randl 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.
DS.397 wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I'm not interested in answering your troll posts.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Since this has nothing to do with the thread itself, PM me if you're serious.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I asked this somewhere else but I feel it needs brought up here.
Consider drawing ammunition from a quiver
1. The ammunition rule gives a character the ability to do this.
2. By RAW how close must the quiver be the character? Answer: There is no restrictoin in the ammunition rule on this. There is also no restriction anywhere else in the rulebook on this or objects in general.
3. So since there is no specific rule to override the general rule that a character can draw ammunition from a quiver when he attacks then I should be able to draw ammo from a quiver 100 miles away as long as I'm attacking.
This is RAW right?
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I do remember DS (or somebody) saying that you can't play a game completely by RAW, and that's inherent to the point of being silly (like the argument about mundane daily activities that aren't mentioned, the law of gravity, etc).
On the other hand, unless a book is written with the most minute details in mind at all times, you can discount the mundane actions and STILL not play RAW, just for the ammo example. One side reads "draw ammunition" and logic that it means your hand grabs out the bolt/arrow/dart, and the other side says "it doesn't say that a hand draws it out, therefore it happens as a game mechanic no matter what." Honestly, both sides are using RAW, but with interpretation.
Unfortunately, that's where (I find) insults to start becoming inherent to the argument. Some of what I wrote isn't very pleasant, but most of it hasn't been necessarily with an evil intent; basically, if two people are applying their own perspective and/or interpretation, I would like both sides to have a reason, and where one side can point to logic ("Yes, you can draw it as part of your action, but if your hands are full you simply can't do it in the allotted time frame") but the other does not ("It says that I can. Therefore I can. Because I can. Read the rules.") I tend to get frustrated.
I like to think of the gaming culture as free thinkers (yes, despite the copious amounts of rulebooks available!) who are used to making deductions and ingenuity. It's not that I have anything against laziness (ask my couch) but when it comes to something I'm passionate about, I'd love to see effort. Part of the game's allure is that it forces us to think, and imagine, and use our creativity. So, please: use it.
That's where I come from.
Did I just write another twelve paragraphs? Oi.
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
I apologize for making a blanket statement.
It just seems to me that some people selectively apply reality and then cry "house rule" when someone disagrees with their opinion.
As someone else was once trying to point out, perhaps we need som term between RAW and house rule.
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I think my propsed term below RAW will be
RAW = Rules as written
R+IOP = Rules + Implicit object properties
This should differentiate the terms and not have the connotation problem that "implicit RAW" would. Basically R+IOP would be a framework that works like RAW with one notable exception, named objects like torches have implicit properties in the real world that the game doesn't go into detail on. One of those properties is that a torch only gives light when lit. These kinds of distinctions can be included in the R+IOP category.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Ok, my real preference is GOMRYDK (GET OFF MY RULES YOU DARN KIDS) but that's probably just because it's late and haven't eaten yet. :)
But ROIP is as good as anything.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
randl wrote:
So should we start a thread and label it what is ROIP?
the other not so apparent issue is that if bows / crossbows do not represent real world versions there of ... a magical version that has the ability to fire magic arrows that it creates gets a huge nerf.
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Unfortunately, common sense is not very common.
El_Condoro wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher, I think the disconnect is that you are reading the "loading is part of the attack" as purely a mechanics driven statement. An attack in that context is target, attack roll, damage roll. Saying that loading is part of that definetely means it could be done in any order.
I've been reading it that "loading is part of the attack" and defining "attack" using in game situations instead of purely mechanical notions.
Hopefully this post makes sense.
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
to answer the OP.
1: 1handed ammuniton weapons can be used in 1 hand.
2: 1handed ammunition weapons can be fired in 1 hand, but require a second hand to reload.