I'm attempting to make a ranger that is dual-wielding hand crossbows using the crossbow expert feat but I'm meeting a bit of DM resistance because the generic two-weapon fighting rule calls only for melee weapons. Does the more specific crossbow expert rule trump the generic two-weapon fighting rule and allow you to fire both hand crossbows each turn because you're ignoring loading properties? Thanks.
You are not using the TWF rules, so it's allowed.
Note also, that you are not useing the TWF rules, so TWF style does not apply. Though you get your Dex bonus anyways.
Note also, that you can also wield a handbow + shield, and get the bonus attack.
mellored wrote:
you ignore the loaded property meaning your crossbow is basically always loaded and ready to fire. Ignoring a property means it no longer applies to you. You can fire the handcrossbow as many times as you want.
As for why they specify loaded handcrossbow it's because you're expected to have ammo for it. If you have no ammo, it can't possibly be loaded and you can't fire it.
EDIT: I found this too
PHB189 Bonus Action: You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified
Timing is not specified on the feat, ergo you can use it whenever you want. You ignore loaded so it no longer applies to you. You can shoot however many times you want as long as you have ammo. The feat doesn't state it has to be in the off-hand so it can be in the main-hand. So you can have a hand-crossbow and a shield and still use Crossbow Expert for the bonus action attack.
Ganymede425 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
You can "dual-wield" hand crossbows but you need a hand crossbow in both hands and the feat. That way when you fire the first crossbow, you have a second crossbow in your other hand already loaded. You cant use the same crossbow for both attacks, because while you ignore the "loading" property that prevents you from fireing more then once per action it still had the ammunition property which you can load after you fire as a part of the same attack, but when you fire it, it is no longer loaded, and as such you can't use a bonus action to fire it as it is not loaded (and the feat required a "loaded" hand crossbow that you are holding and can only be used when you attack with the other weapon). You cannot use the bonus action first, because the feat says "when you use the attack action..." so it has to be when you attack that you use the bonus action, not before or after.
So forinstance you cant have one hand crossbow and a shield and then attack with the main and bonus action. You can dual wield hand crossbows in each hand (and you do get the full static bonus'es as you are not using the two handed weapon fighting to do the attack so the limitation on that does not apply).
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Man... You load the crossbow everytime you attack. Every time you attack. Do you not understand that? the action type you're using doesn't matter. Every time you ATTACK you reload as part of the it. So you attack once, you expend the ammo. You go to attack again, you reload as part of the attack and expend the ammo. You go to attack again via the bonus action, you reload as part of the attack and expend the ammo. etc etc etc...
It's basic english. You do something as part of attacking. If it said you jump 10 feet when you attack it would work the same way. Everytime you attack you jump 10 feet. Everytime you attack you reload. It's right there in the rules. How you can say it's irrelevant just makes me wonder if you aren't really arguing in bad faith..
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
You reload as part of the attack. I don't know how much more clear I can be, I'm basically quoting rules text. if you fire your weapon, you reload as part of the attack. If you have an unloaded weapon, you reload as part of the attack. I've said this like... 6 times now in different forms. How many more times does it need to be said lol...
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Here I'll copy paste:
Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack
Point to where it says only the initial loading please. Point to a rule please. Anywhere.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Direach wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
you just circled your "wagons" around two different sentences that don't say what you infer. You know what I'm good with my wagons, worry about your own!
Noctaem wrote:
or it could be that:
You describe that you need ammo, you then describe that each time you attack with the weapon you expend the ammo and finally that after attacking you reload the weapon as part of the attack.
See my version doesn't need me to add anything to the rules text. I just do exactly what it says, even in the sequence of the rules text. I reload as part of the attack. Are you done yet?
And frankly your arrogance to claim that it MUST be the same piece of ammo that the sentences talk about, but don't actually specify in any actual way, is laughable.
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Direach wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Direach wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
It seems like there are two different ways to approach this.
1. Noctaem's Argument
PC starts the round with a loaded handcrossbow. (They were expecting a fight or like to live dangerously with loaded weapons lying around.)
PC takes the Attack action and as part of that action reloads after firing. The handcrossbow is once again loaded.
PC can now use the bonus action to make another attack, and again reloads.
2. Ganymede425's Argument
PC starts the round with a handcrossbow in hand, but not loaded.
PC takes the Attack action and must load a bolt before firing. The handcrossbow is once again unloaded.
PC cannot take the bonus action because the handcrossbow is unloaded.
Both of these work RAW as far as I can tell. It's a matter of what state the handcrossbow is in at the start of the round.
Varden_Khol wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Direach wrote:
The problem is that according to the rules, the only time a weapon will be unloaded is when you don't have ammo for it.
That is functionally true, and I agree with it, although I would say that ranged weapons are also not loaded when they are stowed. Once a ranged weapon is drawn for combat, however, it is effectively loaded until the end of combat, or until it runs out of ammunition.
Direach wrote:
Please calm down. The word "reload" does not appear on page 146. "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack" is all it says, and that sentence qualifies the previous sentence. The logical inference is that one is drawing ammunition for an unloaded weapon to fire it immediately afterwards. You are welcome to disagree with this, but your interpretation is not gospel, or even the most plausible interpretation. You load your weapon, you fire it. On your next attack, you do so again.
Direach wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Direach wrote:
Direach wrote:
Noctaem 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.
Direach wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Direach wrote:
Most likely it was a leftover from previous iterations of the rules where loaded/unloaded mattered for ranged attacks. Now ranged attacks really are not tracked that granularly. 5e is about simplicity, folks are making an epic attempt to over complicate things for reasons I can't fathom. Do you really think that a feat is out there to take away functionality from a player? In 5e of all systems? Horse is dead mate. Don't cast Create Undead on it. Bury it and move along.
Noctaem wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what the use of a feat would be that only allows you to bonus attack with a crossbow that is loaded before you make the attack.
Case 1: Sword and hand cross bow. Fight starts. You shoot the hand crossbow from range (assuming you keep it preloaded). it's now unloaded. An enemy approaches in melee. You can never use the bonus action the hand crossbow feat gives you because your crossbow is never loaded the rest of the fight.
Case 2: two hand crossbows. Fight starts. You shoot one hand crossbow from range. bonus action attack with the other (assuming you keep it preloaded). Now the rest of the fight you can never use the bonus action the hand crossbow feat gives you because your crossbow is never loaded the rest of the fight.
So pretty much the only use of the hand crossbow bonus action attack is to get 1 extra attack per encounter while dual wielding hand crossbows.....
Given I feel the above is probably the best RAW approach and I could care less about RAI... but personally the above interactions don't feel right to me so if I'm the DM the bonus action attack with a loaded hand crossbow part of the feat is getting a buff.
FrogReaver wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
The problem people have with hand crossbows being good and usable stems more from how mechanically strong they are compared even to other ranged weapons. But....They are only stupidly strong because of the sharpshooter -5 attack and +10 dmg feat and not because of getting a bonus actoin attack with hand crossbows every round. (Yes that feat is that strong). If you take out the -5 attack and +10 damage feats all weapon choices are more or less equal.
I think it'd probably improve the fun if the -5 attack +10 dmg portion of the feats are banned everywhere as a basic houserule. It levels the playing field and makes other options actually playable. Whereas right now the only real optimized weapon options are great weapons and bows. Everything else is so far behind that its laughable.
Even if you cannot reload the hand crossbow right after attacking but before the bonus action shot for free, you can load it manually before taking your bonus action by using your free interaction for the turn on it.
So that's a moot point. Just putting it here in case someone runs into GM resistance based on the 'loaded' wording - feat wordings, by the by, are not infallible, just look at how one third of the Grappler feat does NOTHING, because it's referencing a grappling rule that no longer exists.
FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
I think it's weird to argue about ONE WORD in a feat. If it was intending for you to attack with a completely different weapon, surely it would be easy enough for them to say 'with a weapon in your other hand', then.
FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:
Let me just solve all these logistical problems in one sentence:
The crossbow is loaded before you take the action to fire it, and then use your in-action reload after the bow has been fired but before the end of the action.
Problem solved.
Your hand crossbow is now loaded at the start of the bonus action, thus qualifying as a 'loaded hand crossbow.'
This debate is utterly pointless. Your DM can argue it with you all you like, or you can argue it with your players all you like about it being 'gun-fu" or 'crossbow-kata' or whatever. AS the RAW stands a fighter can fire his single hand crossbow 5 times in one turn with no questions, and anything else is a houserule.
I resolve not to enter any more discussions about Crossbow Expert. 
It is clear that many people have many interpretations of this feat, and are unlikely to find a compromise here. My playing group is all in agreement that the feat is not meant to allow cheese, so we'll play it as we believe it is intended to work. That's definitely good enough for me. I hope everyone else's groups are similarly agreeable to their interpretations.
Fair enough!
Nachturnus wrote:
Direach wrote:
I'm not sure why there's even a debate, here. If you're wielding a shield and holding a hand-crossbow you don't have a free hand available to reload your crossbow after you fire it. Do you really need the RAW to tell you that? It's common sense. To paraphrase a great piece of advice from the 4e DMG, draft horses have a +4 bonus on Strength checks. Strickly speaking, by the RAW this means that draft horses are excellent at climbing trees, better even than a Str 2 squirrel with training in Athletics and automatic advantage on checks made to climb trees. But when was the last time you saw an arboreal horse, even in a fantasy setting? You haven't. They don't exist (or even fake exist), and the RAW doesn't need to tell you that.
If common sense isn't enough for you, the developers have you covered anyway. The Crossbow Expert feat specifically calls for a LOADED hand-crossbow, as has been repeated many times. Although no specific in-game "action" (an outdated term in some respects, but I digress) is required to reload a weapon with the Ammunition property, the bonus action triggered by the feat specifies a loaded crossbow; hence, no loaded crossbow, no trigger. The argument that the loaded piece of ammunition isn't necessarily the fired piece of ammunition is stupid, ascinine, and not worth considering. The argument that the loading takes place at the end of an attack is not directly mentioned by the rules; this information has been extrapolated from the rules on bonus actions, and may or may not apply. I'll admit that, due to the rules surrounding bonus actions, the wording of the feat would be a lot less ambiguous if it said, "After you take the Attack action..." instead of "When you take the Attack action...". But that doesn't change the intent.
In my opinion the intent of the feat is to allow Fighters, Paladins, and other classes with the Extra Attack feature to make multiple attacks with a crossbow, while also opening up the options of hand-crossbow dual wielding and the classic rapier-and-hand-crossbow fighting style popularized by drow warriors in D&D literature (the feeling and atmosphere of which 5e tries very hard to emulate). No matter the wording, making multiple attacks with a shield in one hand and a hand-crossbow in the other is outside the intent of the feat, unless you also think that horses should be able to climb trees better than a squirrel and that dual wielding hand-crossbows should be 100% useless compared to using a shield and hand-crossbow.
All of that aside, here is my advice coming from 19 years of DMing experience on how to handle players who want to dual wield hand crossbows or rock a shield and hand crossbow as their primary fighting style; Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) checks. (No "action" required.)
In the case of dual wielding hand-crossbows, after firing both quarrels I'd give the player two choices on subsequent rounds of combat; either they can put away one weapon and load/fire the other, or they can make a DC 15 Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check to toss each weapon in the air while loading the other. Failing the check means they can make their attacks with disadvantage; failing by 5 or more means they dropped one weapon and can thus only make one attack with disadvantage; and failing by 10 or more means they dropped both of their weapons and can only make unarmed attacks this turn.
In the case of fighting with a shield and a hand-crossbow, I'd require the player to describe to me how they're reloading their crossbow. (Often, questions like this are alone enough to deter rules-abuse.) I can personally think of only two ways this would work; either they awkwardly use their shield arm, or they have some sort of equally awkward rig set up with a bandolier.
If they decided to use their shield arm for reloading, I'd require a DC 15 Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check to load the weapon. On a failure, the weapon is loaded and ready to fire, but the player takes a -1 penalty to AC until the start of his/her next turn; failing by 5 or more would be a -2 penalty to AC; and failing by 10 or more would mean a -2 penalty to AC and attacks are made with disadvantage.
If they decided to use some sort of jury-rigged system involving one hand and a bandolier, I'd require the same DC 15 Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check. On a failure, attacks would be made with disadvantage; failing by 5 or more means the attacks are made with both disadvantage and as if the target had half-cover (or three-quarters cover if it already had half-cover); and failing by 10 or more would mean one attack automatically misses.
NOTE: In both cases dealing with the shield, I'd require only one Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check no matter how many attacks are being made.
Just my two cents. I'm a big believer in staying true to the SPIRIT of the rules as opposed to the wording, as well as indulging players by saying "no" to character concepts as little as possible. Not all DMs will agree.
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
RyderStrome wrote:
Yunru wrote:
It seems most of the current posters agree that dual-wield and not double-rapid the correct interpretation, which is nice.
As for the hands-free reload, it's explicitly allowed in the text of the feat. So the task is more of how you describe it narratively. I don't see it as a problem. All it means is that the amount of time required to reload does not meaningfully affect his action economy. There are dozens of ways of ways to describe it:
- Magically summons bolts into his crossbow
- Really really fast draw/stow
- Custom modifications to the weapon (auto loaders, wrist straps, etc)
- Juggling
It doesn't really matter. Remember that the rules are abstractions of what's happening not descriptions of it. Describing narratively what the rules mean is the fun part of the game, IMO.
The most controversial part of this feat is the whole "Can you 'proc' the bonus attack with the same weapon that takes said bonus attack?" which is a long-winded way of saying "Can I wield a handcrossbow and get 2 attacks and also have a shield." They had chances to word the feat differently, but didn't, so DMs can feel free to step in, since +2 AC is the big buff to this build, and Sharpshooter can make it very interesting.
What some others are saying though, is that you need a hand to load. Nowhere does it say this, not under "Loading" not under "Ammunition." This gets even MORE awkward when you consider that Heavy/Light Crossbows (and Low/Shortbows!) are two-handed weapons. It also clearly says that "drawing the ammunition" is part of the attack, meaning it can come before or after. So the mechanics are there, just add fluff (pulleys and levers, magic crossbows, acrobatic feats, switching hands, whatever). I'm curious why some people think that Handcrossbows weren't meant to be dual-wielded with this feat, when they went ahead and made them "light" weapons...
I think if we agree on anything, it should be: Dual-wielding is fine (Shortsword+Handcrossbow) and totes RAW. As for Shield+Handcrossbow? Ask your DM to see if it's RAI/Cheese/Okay
RCanine wrote:
Holy **** all i wanted was a mod to say whether dual-wielding hand crossbows is allowable or not....where did all this shield stuff come from and why is it clogging up my post??
lucipher888 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
lucipher888 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
reading the rules
pp. 165 crossbow expert
thanks to extensive practive with the crossbow, you gain the following benifits:
- you ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficent.
- being with in 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your 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 loaded hand crowwbow you are holding.
also taking
ppp. 7 specific beats general
it would seem that you are able to dule wield hand crossbows and shoot them like uzi's. including using your bonus action to shoot with one. since you ignore all the restrictions with croosbows and their loading property via specific beats general your hand crossbow would always be loaded if you had ammo to use.
weather of not its broken or intended is up to the individual DM and how they rule in their game. but a simple reading of the PHB would seem to say that it is doable. (guess some one likes the witch hunter from diablo 3 in the design team)
I love when people bebop into thread, read nothing and restate something other folks have been debating for several pages as if their reading is useful, definitive and clarifying.
Drycanth wrote:
You attack with a weapon.
IF STATEMENT: IF you have a loaded crossbow,
THEN STATEMENT: Then you get an attack with a crossbow.
After attack if you do NOT have a loaded crossbow, then you do not get to attack.
You CAN load the crossbow as part of your attack, UNFORTUNATELY you don't get that extra attack to then load the crossbow with. It must ALREADY be loaded NOT loaded as part of the attack.
---
Now, the question is, can you fire a loaded crossbow and use the ammo that is part of the attack to reload it. That may be a solution.
This topic again?
Here's the old thread on it.
community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4129016
Don't spend another 10 pages arguing.
I think that the intent of that part of the feat is to allow a faster shot rate with hand crossbows. I'd allow them to be dual-wielded even though, as someone who has tried to do that very thing, the actual realism of that eludes me.
However, I'd also allow a single hand crossbow to benefit from the feat simply due to the logic that you get a much faster shot rate from a single hand crossbow than you do while trying to use one in each hand.
Since a fairly small shield can be strapped to the arm while still leaving the hand reasonable free to manipulate objects a little, it is also logical that this poses no more of an impediment than holding an entire weapon on that hand instead. This also seems to be supported in the rules, so I'd allow that as well.
FrogReaver wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
RCanine wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
so you say it creates an error loop.
rai - its intent is to allow you to swing a sword and shoot at hand crossbow. it succeeds at this. or does it ... see below.
raw - can you make an attack with a hand crossbow and a bonus action attack with the same hand crossbow?
if it is loaded at the start of the battle an attack would leave it loaded since the attack allows for reloading, then you can shoot with your bonus action.
but it is now empty on your attack action so you load it and shoot it as part of the attack action leaving it empty at the begining of the bonus action and now no shot can be made.
so lets look at the same sequence using a sword and a hand crossbow.
you attack with the sword and use the bonus action to shoot with the loaded hand crossbow you load it after you shoot. ... check it works
you attack with a sword and use the bonus action to shoot with the hand crossbow ... oops its not loaded no shot can be made ... ever. .... OOPS! its broken and does not work as intended.
The RAW and RAI are not perfectly clear about all situations ... but the intent seems obvious to be to allow for the sword in one hand and hand crossbow in the other. yet its wording would restrict how it works. and make it dependant on weather or not the crossbow was loaded at the start of the battle. The intent would seem to also dictate weather or not you can dule wield the hand crossbows because of how poorly worded the rules are in this situation.
There are better ways they could have worded this. it goes back to what I said durring the play test. if they would stop using key words and rules interactions and instead say what they mean in simple natural language people would understand the intent and be able to implement it better. Using gamist rules wording only leads to looking for the loop holes and finding broken word rulings to exploit.
My rule 0 interpretation will be.
using a sword and a hand crossbow - you can make the hand crossbow attack with your bonus action.
using two hand crossbows - you can only make the standard number of attacks. Juggeling two weapons that require two hands to use when loading means no bonus action for you.
The only reason I would allow the two hand crossbows at all is how the feats are all quite powerfull and represent over the top abilities. I also will only allow feats no stat bumps in my game.
As far as pre-loading a weapon goes, the only other example I can find where someone might do that is with the sling. If you don't have a bullet loaded on a sling, you cannot deal damage with a sling as a improvised melee weapon. So there is precedence for maintaining the loaded status on a ranged ammunition weapon. Coincidentally, this rule is found in the Ammunition keyword on PHB pg 146/147. That would imply that someone could have their crossbow be loaded at the start of combat and then reload it with each attack, as opposed to loading with the attack and leaving it unloaded after the attack (as others have been saying.)
Drycanth wrote:
mellored wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I would allow loading a crossbow as a 'free object interaction', but like other object interactions... it depends on what else is going on. Like... having a hand free to help load the crossbow. (or some other way to facilitate the process)
And yes I am being consistent, I think you need a hand free to draw a sword, or turn a key, or many other things on the list.
As a DM, if my player had a way of loading the next quarrel in, I'd allow two weapon combo.
Arcane Trickster / mage hand would work.
Other than that, I saw a feat that allows you to draw / stow two weapons in a round. So maybe having multple weapons would work too.
Get a double string crossbow.
Load one of them, and then never fire it.
Really? This all over again?
what he does in his game is his and his alone. Note that he didn't disagree that it says that, only that he would rule to change it and specify a different weapon to make how I've sad it works this entire time no longer function. That's houseruling territory!
Noctaem wrote:
Crossbow Expertise + Shield is on the stronger side, but it's not blowing everything else out of the water.
I think the word "loaded" in the Crossbow Expert description is *not* redundant - it simply separates its condition from an unloaded one *by which you can still attack as an improvised weapon* as per p. 147 of the PHB.
With Crossbow Expert, we ignore the loading quality, so that restriction is removed. We are left with the ammunition quality, which clearly states that drawing the ammunition is part of the attack. In effect, as long as the character has ammunition to load, the weapon is loaded to fire when an attack or bonus attack action is taken.
The order is therefore:
First attack (simultaneous loading of the hand crossbow as part of the attack action)
Bonus attack (also loaded as part of this bonus attack action)
if loading the crossbow is part of the attack, is there anything that says the loading can't happen after the trigger is pulled?
i.e. I use my free action to load the crossbow. Then I use my attack action to fire the xbow, by pulling the trigger, then resetting the string and loading a new quarrel. Then I use my bonus action to fire again, and again load a new quarrel.
Nothing I've read indicates that it happens in any particular order.
You don't need to use *any* action to load the crossbow - the ammunition quality says it happens automatically when you attack/fire (when Crossbow Expert is used), in the same way an arrow is loaded when a bow is fired. Logic would indicate the fired bolt must be loaded before the trigger is pulled, though. You would be using another hand crossbow to fire your bonus action bolt, though - not firing the same weapon twice. If I understand your point...
El_Condoro wrote:
Not sure who hasn't read the preceding posts here - I know I have, and have seen it repeated often that the crossbow *is* loaded when you attack because it is an intinsic part of the ammunition quality. Nothing new and insightful about that - it's RAW, unlike your addition of the word *already* into the Crossbow Expert feat. It states "loaded hand crossbow", not "already loaded" - there is no implication in that wording that the hand crossbow must be loaded sometime before the attack action, it simply means the hand crossbow must be loaded as distinct from an improvised weapon.
You are still missing the important implication.
You state: "drawing the ammunition is part of the attack"
Yes, it is *part of* the attack. It is inclusive of the attack. It does not happen *before* the attack, it *is* a part of the attack. Once you are (free) loading ammo, you are attacking....
But the rule says you can only attack if you have a loaded crossbow.... if it isn't loaded, then you can't attack...at all... not even part of it...not even the 'loading' part of the attack.
If the crossbow is not loaded... then you can't proceed... you can't attack...you can't load&fire.....
As I said, it is part of the attack action. An attack action, including a bonus one as in this case, is many things as per the 3 steps on p. 194 of the PHB. So, as an example from the hand crossbow, (1) choose target within 30/120 ft., (2) check all modifiers, (3) roll the attack die. At some point in steps (1) and/or (2), according to the ammunition quality of the hand crossbow and Crossbow Expert, the firer pulls out a bolt and loads the crossbow. There is no extra action or requirement for the crossbow to be 'loaded'. Step 3 is the attack roll and, by then, the crossbow is 'loaded'.
Besides that, doesn't your restriction make the feat pretty useless - at least, that part of the feat - if it can only be used once? From what you're saying, even though the load quality is ignored by a Crossbow Expert, it will take an action to reload, so that you can qualify for the 'already loaded'? That nerfs the feat too much, in my opinion. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree until perhaps a definitive approach is made clear.
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
mellored wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
I read the entire thread and I think we can all agree the feat isnt really clear and open to interpretation. It does seems odd they mentioned the crossbow needed to be loaded but to be honest I'm not too concerned with loaded vs unloaded. It seems semi clear to me the intent was to make an attack with one weapon and then fire off a free shot with the off hand crossbow. I have no problem with someone using a sword and crossbow or two crossbows every round. I dont think someone should be able able to use the same crossbow to fire twice which might be why the feat had the "with a loaded crossbow" line in it but who knows.
Honestly this issue and the free hand for grabing spell components and using somatic components has me the most frustrated. I'm still not sure if all this ambiguity was a side effect of trying to simplify the rules or they just wanted to test DMs(or put the power back in their hands).
kimura121 wrote:
lol yeah right, those who don't agree with you are doing so under false pretenses. Thanks for the strawman buddy.
I think the bottom line is that the rules say one thing and people don't agree with it, so they add words to the feat, features, etc to invalidate them and make their argument possible.
It doesn't say with off-hand only
it doesn't say weapons are unloaded by default
it doesn't say it takes an action to load a crossbow other than to say that you automatically reload as part of an attack
there is no such restriction about when you can reload, either before you make the attack or after.
People who make these statements are inventing restrictions and rules text based on personal dislike of the poor shield wielding rogue or for fluff/rp/simulationist reasons or other. We've been through this over and over. I can wield a hand crossbow in my main hand and a shield in the other and yes I can use the bonus action attack from the Crossbow Expert feat. Everything in the rules allows for this and nothing contradicts this. Just like a Duelist Fighter can still wield a shield and gain the benefits so can I with Crossbow Expert.
Why this works:
-No restriction of off-hand only on the feat.
-No restriction about being able to wield a shield.
-No contradiction when it comes to the ammunition rules. In fact the ammunition rules are listed in the exact order I am arguing. You expend then reload as part of the attack. There is nothing in this text stating that the rules found here are talking about 1 specific piece of ammunition. They are in fact talking about ammunition as a general word and how ammunition is handled in the rules.
-Ammo is reloaded as part of the attack. Attacking and then reloading can be done as part of the attack. People who say no should also not be able to argue that you can reload before the attack. You can't have it work your way and not work the other. There are no rules stating one over the other or one without the other.
-No where does it say ammunition using weapons are unloaded by default. If I want my bow to have an arrow notched at all times while I wield it or my crossbow to be the same I can have it that way.
-The feat states that you make the attack with a loaded weapon, I fulfill that requirement without any problem via reloaded as part of attacks which is exactly what the rules text says.
-The tweet from mearls indicates that he would rule to change the text to specify that the bonus action attack must be done with another weapon. What he wants to houserule is his and his alone. The fact that he states he would change it to work that way shows that it does not by default, so the interpretation that you can in fact do the bonus action attack with the same weapon is reinforced not weakened by the tweet.
You can verifty all of the above via the PHB and direct rules text. I do not need to add words to make my interpretation valid. I simply follow the rules as written. Enough the beating of the dead horse. Provide rules text that clearly states what you argue or drop it already. At this point you're all just saying no without anything to back up your claims.
Noctaem wrote:
"I'd rule it should specify a different weapon, not same weapon twice"
saying something should specify a different weapon. Ok, what is he talking about? Obviously the feat. So according to mearls, he would rule that the feat SHOULD specify a different weapon, which would remove the ability to use the same weapon. Does it natively specify a different weapon? No, not at all. Which is why he's saying it should do so and that he would rule it as such.
If it did work the way you're arguing his answer makes no sense.
Yunru wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
I've been looking at this idea for a while, but a couple of things have been brought up.
Loading a normal crossbow usually means either jamming it into an armpit, or using a stirrup, to pull the bow.
If the pair of hand crossbows are held, the only way to pull a bolt from a quiver and load it is with a free hand, and something has to be dropped to do that. Picking up a weapon takes an action of some type.
If a hand crossbow is strapped to the fore-arm, it is held like a shield, which leaves the hand free. This way, reloading the hand-crossbow on the other arm is easy.
So, no matter what the rules say about when a bow is loaded or not, the act of loading is the bit that makes the difference.
That is what Mearls seems to be getting at. The act of loading takes time and effort, and cannot be done as part of an extra or bonus attack.
Noctaem wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
ok so other than nitpicking at the word reloading which btw is hillarious because of exactly what Yunru stated or trying argue the english language's use of general terms like ammunition in a phrase describing how to use it as a whole, no one has provided ANY rules text or anything really to show that you can't do it with the same weapon. Some of the main voices against this have quoted me and basically said no that's not how it works. So I've fulfilled my burden of proof at this point in I think every way I can, and no one seems to be able to provide anything contradicting it.
So there you go, until we have errata (which might be what mearls hinted at?) that's how this works.
Answer: Yes you can use a shield in your off-hand and a hand-crossbow in your main hand. Yes you can perform the bonus action attack from the Crossbow Expert feat with the same weapon. No there is nothing, anywhere, that contradicts this and in fact we have precedence via other game features such as the fighter's Duelist style which also allows the use of a shield. And we have a tweet from Mearls himself to solidify the argument.
The horse has been beaten to death.
Time to move on.
It works in RAW. This has been stated repeatedly, and largely agreed upon. (There are some notable exceptions, but most of them seem to be semantic objections rather than logical ones.)
It even works in sumulationism (multiple strings, having a string-shuttle, lever-action, auto-crossbow, magic, etc.)
The only reason it wouldn't work is because people assume it's somehow unfair or OP (It's not. it's still incredibly weak when compared to almost any other spec)
You're going to play it however you want and you're going to DM it however you think is fair. That's fine. Really all we can hope for is some errata to clarify the issue. You opting to play it your way doesn't make your interpretation RAW, fair, or kind to your players: that has to be determined on a table-by-table basis. Claiming your interpretation is correct for some reason other than "it's what the book says." isn't helpful, so please, unless you have a specific argument that can be supported by the text, please refrain from posting it.
might I suggest you check out pp.195 ... if you notice under both melee and ranged attacks there is no permission given to using a melee and ranged weapon at the same time. nor is there on under two-weapon fighting. Inface two weapon fighting makes it explicit with its permissions that it only applies to a melee and thrown weapon.
Looking at that page pluss the weapon properties and the feat you get a picture of how it is intended to work.
the goal RAI is that you can use this feat for the ability to fight with a melee weapon in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other as well as being a master with all regular crosbow attacks including using a crossbow in melee.
so its intent is to allow the first style and twitter posts have reflected that this was the intent of the creators. so where we come into the problem is do you streatch the feat to allow for the dule pistol crossbow style. mechanicly it is implied but not flat out confirmed because of the borderline wording of the rule.
so what would happen is that you can allow it but if you do you would only get a bonus action shot with one hand crossbow allowing you to fire both once. (because of the wording of pp.195) now when you fire both you use up two pieces of ammo (pp.146 weapon property) and if you run out you can not make the second bonus action shot. That is if you choose to allow the dule wielding of hand crossbows. if you do not you limit it to a single shot with an offhand hand crossbow that must use an item interaction to reload for the next bonus action shot to be made.
So it will boil down to a rule 0 situation in your game.
I just want to point out; those arguing for the 'attack allows reload' position...
That argument comes down to argung the rules will normally allow you to "Load then Fire", but with this bonus attack they are restricting the rule to *not* allow you to 'Load then Fire', but they *will* allow you to 'Fire then Load'. If that makes any sort of sense to you... then have at it.
Nachturnus wrote:
I actually think it works RAW but I think that is more to do with poor wording on the feat than the designers intent.
Coredump00 wrote:
Because it appears to work RAW, the loading arguement is really the only logical way to say it doesnt work within the rules. I just don't think that's how they designers intended it to work and i'm ok with that. Debating the point by using WOTC's grammar and sentance structure is a recipe for insanity 
It should be noted that this is not the only place in the rules where a 'loaded' weapon is required to do something. The other example, which doesn't involve Crossbow Expert at all, is using a sling as an improvised melee weapon:
"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 this section). A sling must be loaded to deal any damage when used in this way." (BR, p.46)
If you can load for free as part of an attack, this is only an issue if you no longer have ammunition for the sling.
--
Pauper
Ganymede425 wrote:
As written i believe Crossbow Expert let you attack with a hand crossbow twice because its a one-handed weapon and when you take the Attack action and attack with it, you can use a bonus action to attack with it again, since its loaded hand crossbow you are holding. I scratch the word "loaded" since it also ignore the loading quality of crossbows.
IMO insisting that the crossbow must be loaded, as in corked, is too restrictive, because the loading property doesn't describe crossbow as using action to load before you can fire with them, but as a limitation to the number of attacks per action you can make with one due to the ammount of time required to load it prior to attack. So if a DM require a crossbow to be loaded in advance, it means the feat will allow only one attack in combat, and then will need reloading it somewhow, which is far worse this for any hand crossbow user, wether he wields two or one in conjunction with another weapon or shield. If the rules wanted to require an action to reload a crossbow, it would have said so.
Ganymede425 wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Je sais
Nachturnus wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I've already adressed all of the requirements of this working in my earlier post, please refer yourself to it and/or read the rules in the PHB.
kimura121 wrote:
Oh wow, nice deflection. Not. True some have argued that the word "loaded" is redundant because you ignore the loading quality, but the main argument that you're so plainly trying to gloss over is: The word "loaded" is redundant because you can use an ammunition weapon in such a way that it is always loaded.
Coredump00 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Well even if Noctaem didn't I did. So no, we're not going to do work for you just because you cba to do it yourself.
As for the term "loaded" being meaningless: No, it's not. It's effectively meaningless, provided you get the order right.
Yunru wrote:
Okay: explain how you infer " the piece of ammunition mentioned in the previous sentence" is the subject of the second "the" in that sentence, rather than it (more logically) being the loading itself. And how that's "the best interpretation".
EDIT: Here's a counter proposition:
"You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon."
Well here, I'm inferring that you have to have ammunition for a crossbow in order to fire said crossbow.
"Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition."
Here, I infer only one piece of the ammunition mentioned in the previous sentence is used with each attack.
"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."
"When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."
Here I infer that a weapon can be loaded before your attack with it.
"Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack."
Here, I infer that ammunition is drawn and loaded for free as part of the attack mentioned in the previous sentence.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Yunru wrote:
... Because 'load then fire' is a legitimate thing? No-one's arguing you can't 'load then fire', only that you can't only 'load then fire' and that 'fire then load' is equally valid.
Yunru wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I infer such due to a combination of factors.
One factor is the fact that the three sentences quoted above are found in sequence, a pattern that indicates a relationship and shared meaning between the three sentences. I feel this factor is especially important as each sentence clarifies and expounds on the previous sentence; this is as opposed to the three sentences being unrelated.
Another factor is that the last sentence, "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack," uses the word "the" as highlighted. I feel the usage of "the" here further reinforces the idea that the sentences relate to each other in turn, and are used to further clarify the previous sentence. They aren't talking about any ol' amunition or attack, but "the" ammunition and attack as referenced in the immediately preceeding sentence.
A third factor is that, contextually speaking, it makes sense that the ammunitition drawn and nocked as part of the attack is the ammunition used in the attack. The previous three sentences just went through the anatomy of a missile attack, and it seems ham-handed to read into that anatomical breakdown an additional feature that only matters and manifests as a benefit in unusual corner cases (rapid firing a hand crossbow or smacking someone with a sling when you have no other melee weapon and already used up your free interaction). Otherwise, it is what I'd call hunting for an Easter Egg.
I combine that with Mike Mearls' guidance on the matter and would say that's a reasonable and cogent argument for my inferences above.
Yunru wrote:
Don't bother Yunru, they aren't even arguing the rules anymore because they can't. All you're doing is letting yourself get suckered into their nonsensical arguments. It's clear they aren't capable of admitting they are wrong, it's also clear they have nothing to contradict the post I made earlier. They resorted to personal attacks and straight up lies since I posted it in fact. All they could do is make pedantic statements about the word "reloading" for example. Which is just nonsense.
Link to post here:
http://community.wizards.com/comment/51351986#comment-51351986
It's clear they are never going to admit they are wrong. No matter how much rule text we quote or how many times we ask them to provide rules text (which they just ignore and continue spewing nonsense) they aren't here to discuss. So enough is enough. We don't get anything by continuing to respond to these people.
EDIT: Now they talk about REMOVING WORDS from the rules to suit their argument! What the heck??? And they just keep saying the same things no matter what you answer or disprove. Waste of time!
Yunru wrote:
I love how you claim to KNOW the author's intent! Haha.
Btw the only people who are deconstructing text here to make their argument work are the people who say it doesn't work. And if you really need me to I'll pull up the dozens of examples within this very thread for you.
Coredump00 wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
@Coredump00
Soo you just copy paste what I say and then send it back to me? Is that your strategy now? You're being childish, stop victimizing yourself. My post does not make personal attacks, I pointed out that you wouldn't answer his question directly. And of course, you have NOT answered the question. Please answer the question instead of bothering to post stuff to make yourself seem like a victim. It's not impressive to anyone.
I've refuted your arguments at every turn and have asked for rule backed arguments from you which you have yet to do. All you guys do is dance and make pedant posts about the word "reloading" while conveniently ignoring everything else that the argument has to offer. So stop wasting our time if that's all you're going to do and say.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
No, your argument throughout has been "fire then load isn't allowed so you can't use the same hand crossbow for the bonus attack for crossbow expert". Hell, there's even 5 pages of proof that that's your argument.
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
"Because it's RAW" is all the proof you need in a rule based game. The rules support the position taken. To say more proof is needed is ludicrous.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
pp.195 Two-weapon fighting
when you take the attack action and attack with a light melee wweapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonud action to attack with a dirrerent light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. you don't add your ability modifier to the damage of 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.
You can not dule wield hand crossbows per RAW. so its a moot question.
... Not sure if troll or...
Nachturnus wrote:
This is the bottom line. I'll put it here again because it's clear this debate is over and no one is opposing the consensus with anything concrete. Some of these items will list previous arguments against it that have been refuted just to make sure we're all on the same page.
Why this works:
-No restriction of off-hand only on the feat Crossbow Expert.
-No restriction about being able to wield a shield.
-No contradiction when it comes to the ammunition rules. In fact, the ammunition rules are listed in the exact order that this concensus follows in general. You expend then reload as part of the attack or load/reload and then expend as part of the attack. Either way is legal.
-Ammo is reloaded as part of the attack, no additional action is required. You cannot argue that reloading first then attacking is legal while stating that attacking first then reloading is not. Both are completely legal to do.
-No where does it say ammunition using weapons are unloaded by default.
-Nothing in the feat Crossbow Expert contradicts this consensus.
-The tweet from mearls indicates that he would rule to change the feat text to specify that the bonus action attack must be done with another weapon. If he would rule to change the feat to state this, it does not by default. Nothing on the feat specifies another weapon so that reinforces that conclusion. If you agree that the feat does specify another weapon in some way, his response makes no sense.
You can verifty all of the above via the PHB and direct rules text. The consensus does not need to add words to rules text, feats, features, etc to make its interpretation valid. It simply follows the rules as written (RAW).
Given: I have a character who has the Crossbow Expert feat and is holding a hand crossbow in one hand.
Possibility 1: The crossbow is not loaded.
Result: The character uses the Attack action to load and then fire the crossbow. After the attack is completed, the crossbow has returned to its unloaded condition.
The character has used the Attack action to make an attack with a one-handed weapon, and is holding a hand crossbow, but the crossbow is not loaded.
Crossbow Expert's requirements are not met (no loaded crossbow), so no bonus action is granted.
Possibility 2: The crossbow is loaded.
Result: The character uses the Attack action to fire and then load the crossbow. After the attack is completed, the crossbow has returned to its loaded condition.
The character has used the Attack action to make an attack with a one-handed weapon, is holding a hand crossbow, and the crossbow is loaded.
Crossbow Expert's requirements are met, so a bonus action is granted which allows the character to fire and then load the crossbow. After the attack is completed, the crossbow has returned to its unloaded condition.
Conclusion: If the handcrossbow is loaded prior to the attack, the bonus action is granted, otherwise it is not.
To be determined: Can the hand crossbow be loaded as a free interaction, outside of the loading allowed by the ammunition property?
Agree/Disagree, anyone?
jonathonhawke wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I just reported for trolling and quit. Let the thread die. Doesn't matter what he claims to have been arguing, 6 pages of reactions will show otherwise even if he edits all his posts.
jonathonhawke wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Yep. That's what they have fallen back on for some reason instead of just admitting they were wrong. Now we have to deal with trolling and childish behavior. I've also reported him.
This is the bottom line. I'll put it here again because it's clear this debate is over and no one is opposing the consensus with anything concrete. Some of these items will list previous arguments against it that have been refuted just to make sure we're all on the same page.
Why this works:
-No restriction of off-hand only on the feat Crossbow Expert.
-No restriction about being able to wield a shield.
-No contradiction when it comes to the ammunition rules. In fact, the ammunition rules are listed in the exact order that this concensus follows in general. You expend then reload as part of the attack or load/reload and then expend as part of the attack. Either way is legal.
-Ammo is reloaded as part of the attack, no additional action is required. You cannot argue that reloading first then attacking is legal while stating that attacking first then reloading is not. Both are completely legal to do.
-No where does it say ammunition using weapons are unloaded by default.
-Nothing in the feat Crossbow Expert contradicts this consensus.
-The tweet from mearls indicates that he would rule to change the feat text to specify that the bonus action attack must be done with another weapon. If he would rule to change the feat to state this, it does not by default. Nothing on the feat specifies another weapon so that reinforces that conclusion. If you agree that the feat does specify another weapon in some way, his response makes no sense.
You can verifty all of the above via the PHB and direct rules text. The consensus does not need to add words to rules text, feats, features, etc to make its interpretation valid. It simply follows the rules as written (RAW).
Yunru wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Except that our argument, since you've obviously failed to understand it, is that you can reload after you fire as well as before you fire. So no, it's never been an issue AT ALL. You fire then reload, then with the bonus action, you fire then reload. There. You did it. Congratulations. Now you're taking the bonus action on it's own like if the triggering attack doesn't exist. Man this is like 2 steps forward 3 steps back with you.
Hey, lets try a different tack, if you are willing.
Can you please give a short list of what consitutes and "attack"? What are the various parts?
Noctaem wrote:
Heck no, I'm not shifting the goal posts again. If you want to learn that go read Chapter 9 under making an attack. Go troll somewhere else. Reported again.
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Why is this thread still going on? This was settled like within 4 pages of the original thread, which was about 6 pages before the start of this thread, which means this topic has gone on for 12 pages too long!
I'll summarize to end this:
Yes, it's RAW.
No, it's probably not RAI.
It might be overpowered, but probably not, that's the DM's call and problem.
Yes, it makes dual wielding hand crossbows silly and pointless.
Yes, reloading dual wielding hand crossbows was silly anyways.
No, I don't have to explain how this all works because it's all been covered many times over.
End Summary. End Thread.
DS.397 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
@CoreDump00
What you quoted from my earlier post doesn't even say that. The heck?
And no in your tunnel vision example, which if you follow the consensus will never happen btw, the rogue would not get to make the bonus attack. I've never said otherwise, only that if you follow the rules it would never happen because you reload as part of the attack every single time.
Are you done now?
RCanine wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
lol well I'm sorry you feel the rules don't matter I guess.
Noctaem wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
There's 3 separate arguments going on.
1. A player has an unloaded hand crossbow. He loads with his action and attacks as the rules say he can do. He then wants to make the bonus action attack that crossbow expertise allows. Can he do that since his crossbow is not currently loaded?
2. Can a player use his one free object interaction a turn to load a crossbow?
3. Can a player fire a crossbow and then load it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I think there is a large majority consesnsus that he can't use the bonus action attack from crossbow expertise if he has an unloaded crossbow.
2. I think there's pretty much agreement that he can use his one free object interaction on his turn to load his crossbow. (Edit: Objections to the agreement I perceived are noted)
3. I don't think there's agreement on whether he can fire a crossbow then load it even though we all agree that he can load a crossbow then fire it. Seriously? Who in their right mind would argue he can do one but not the other? (Edit: Objections to the agreement I perceived are noted)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's also a fourth issue that hasn't really been explicitly mentioned, timing. The Crossbow Expertise feat says: When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack... It doesn't say After you .... it says When you....
4. So must the bonus action attack be done simultaneously with the primary attack? The word "When" leaves alot open to interpretation. As such there is grounds that it happens simultaneously which would rule out getting the bonus action attack with the same hand crossbow even if you do have a way to get it loaded for each attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the simultaneous reading supports how most people will play this feat. It allows for the use of dual wielding 2 hand crossbows. It allows for the use of a hand crossbow and a shortsword. It does not allow the bonus action attack for a single hand crossbow. I believe this (4) is the missing point that has kept it all from coming together.
And before anyone tries, you can make an argument that the "when" wording doesn't necessitate the simultaneous reading. I agree. But just because it doesn't necessitate that reading doesn't mean that reading is negated either.
Thus, I beleive RAW actually supports the way most every DM will rule on the crossbow expertise feat. That a single hand crossbow doesn't benefit from the feat (4 the simultaneous ruling). That he can as his one free object interaction, reload the hand crossbow that he will use for the bonus action attack (2 the free action ruling). That he must use his free object interaction to load it before making his attacks (1 the no bonus attack with unloaded ruling). And finally the (3 the fire and reload ruling) never actually has to come up.
bid wrote:
bid wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
I'll just respond to the part of this that I can, by RAW, disagree with:
FrogReaver wrote:
Before combat: loads hand crossbows in readiness. No need for use of Free Action, which arguably may not be 'legal' because it acts with 2 objects as mentioned above.
Round 1: (Action) fires crossbow and loads (reloads); (Bonus) fires crossbow and loads. Bonus action meets the criteria of being loaded before the attack action or bonus action, which I think is what some are arguing about.
Round 2: as Round 1 and so on until ammunition runs out.
I have no problem with that, and until an official ruling says otherwise, that's the way I will DM it. Nothing in the rules contradicts it, as far as I'm concerned. But we have travelled this road many times before...
El_Condoro wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Yunru wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Yunru wrote:
feel free to houserule it that way if you want. It doesn't say that though anywhere, so that's not how it works.
I'll put it here again because we've got a slew of new people who haven't read the thread up to this point (from what I can see). Some of these items will list previous arguments against it that have been refuted just to make sure we're all on the same page.
Why this works:
-No restriction of off-hand only on the feat Crossbow Expert.
-No restriction about being able to wield a shield.
-No contradiction when it comes to the ammunition rules. In fact, the ammunition rules are listed in the exact order that this concensus follows in general. You expend then reload as part of the attack or load/reload and then expend as part of the attack. Either way is legal.
-Ammo is reloaded as part of the attack, no additional action is required. You cannot argue that reloading first then attacking is legal while stating that attacking first then reloading is not. Both are completely legal to do.
-No where does it say ammunition using weapons are unloaded by default.
-Nothing in the feat Crossbow Expert contradicts this consensus.
-The tweet from mearls indicates that he would rule to change the feat text to specify that the bonus action attack must be done with another weapon. If he would rule to change the feat to state this, it does not by default. Nothing on the feat specifies another weapon so that reinforces that conclusion. If you agree that the feat does specify another weapon in some way, his response makes no sense.
-By following this consensus your weapon is never unloaded. The only time that could happen is if you ran out of ammunition during a fight and then found ammunition during that same fight. You would then simply reload as an object interaction or reload as part of an attack.
-The argument that the bonus action attack must be taken immediately is irrelevant. You reload as part of the attack. Once the attack is resolved, you now have a loaded weapon once again and you can take the bonus action to attack. However to actually address this point, compare Crossbow Expert with: Flurry of Blows: Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action. Immediately after. Crossbow Expert and many other features/feats do not say that. So it is not required to take the attacks they grant immediately after the trigger. If they all worked as immediate things, why then specify immediately after on flurry of blows? Clearly they made sure to mark the difference.
-Object interaction to load a weapon is legal for ammunition and a great many things. Unless you believe that a person can't draw a sword from a sheath (2 object interaction sword and sheath), can't take out an arrow from a quiver (3 object interaction arrow, quiver and bow), can't grab multiple coins from his money pouch (N interaction), can't grab more than a grain of sand from his component pouch (N interaction), etc... loading a weapon via this action is completely legal. The object you're interacting with is the ammunition which you load into your weapon.
Here are the legal and illegal forms:
Example 1
Weapon is loaded
Attack creature 1, expend ammunition, load weapon again as part of the attack
Attack creature 1 via bonus action from Crossbow Expert, expend ammunition, load weapon again as part of the attack
Example 2
Weapon is unloaded
Attack creature 1, load weapon as part of the attack, expend ammunition
You do not qualify for the bonus action from Crossbow Expert as your weapon is now unloaded
Example 3
Weapon is unloaded
Attack creature 1, load weapon as part of the attack, expend ammunition
Object interaction, load weapon
Attack creature via bonus action from Crossbow Expert, expend ammunition, load weapon again as part of the attack.
And if I really wanted to blow some minds there's also this:
Example 4
Weapon is unloaded
Attack creature 1, load weapon as part of the attack, expend ammunition, load weapon as part of the attack
Example 4 works because there is no restriction to how many times you can load a weapon as part of the attack. It does not say once per attack, or any restriction for loading the weapon. The only restriction is that you can only fire 1 piece of ammunition per attack. So you can load, fire then load. And before the walls of text arrive, please keep it to a page on the PHB which shows this can't be done. There isn't one but I'm sure you guys will find ways to make it so. Keep it simple yeah? For those curious the relevant passage is in Part 1, equipment, under weapon properties Ammunition in the PHB.
You can verifty all of the above via the PHB and direct rules text. The consensus does not need to add words to rules text, feats, features, etc to make its interpretation valid. It simply follows the rules as written (RAW).
Noctaem wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
bid wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Two-Weapon Fight =/= Duel Wielding.
Although duel wielding is a prerequisite for two-weapon fighting.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
The whole hand crossbows can't be used as dual wielding debate has been done. We got tweets from devs as well as rules text to back up that yes you can use two hand-crossbows at the same time. They have the Light Property which is required to dual wield. The reason it points to Chapter 9 and two-weapon fighting is because that area of the rules talks about using a bonus action to make an attack while using two melee or thrown weapons. The only section of the rules that mentions being able to use two weapons at the same time is under the Light property which states that weapons with that property are ideal for fighting with two weapons. So you can't argue that the hand-crossbow can't be used that way, it has the light property. Furthermore the bonus action attack from the feat Crossbow Expert is NOT two-weapon fighting. It is a unique game element which allows you to make an attack as a bonus action.
Anyway this has been discussed in the past and if you want more information please refer yourself to the proper thread via the search function on this forum. There's no point in dredging up that discussion here.
pp.195
Two-weapon fighting
when you take the attack action and attack with a light melee wweapon 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 of 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.
Fighting with two weapons rules explicitly stat melee and thrown. You can not two weapon fight using anything and a hand crossbow.
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Yes, unfortunately it seems you may not be aware that this entire system (5e) uses a specifc beats general mechanic. The two-weapon fighting rules which describe the bonus action attack do restrict it to work only with melee and thrown. That's why the Crossbow Expert feat does not refer to it and instead creates a specific exception to the general rule which let's you make the bonus action attack granted by the feat.
Furthermore the chapter 9 entry only talks about the bonus action attack you can do. It does not have the rules for wielding a weapon in each hand. That is found under the light property itself which the hand-crossbow is has.
Again though this has nothing to do with this discussion and there have been several threads already devoted to this topic. Please use the search function and go read them. You obviously haven't.
jonathonhawke wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
ok please understand, there are 40 page threads about hand-crossbows and dual wielding. Look them up. That has nothing to do with this discussion, so please stop derailing the thread.
EDIT: And I have to add that you unfortunately don't seem to understand how specific vs general works. The rules in the PHB for things like Two-Weapon Fighting under Chapter 9 is the general rule. The feature from the fighter that let's you add your modifier to the bonus action attack which is detailed there is an example of specific. In order for something to be specific, it has to specifically call out what it does differently than the general rule.
This is not the place for you to argue about things you don't understand. Please take the time to read up on these subjects so that you can better understand the edition you're trying to talk about.
Same selective reading
http://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2d2i5r/5e_dualwielding_hand_crossbows/
http://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2a2tfx/5e_dualwielding_hand_crossbows_in_5e/
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?358623-5e-question-dual-hand-crossbows
and this one from the play test which does not apply
http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-general-discussion/threads/3895516
via
https://www.google.com/search?as_q=dule+wielding+crossbows&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl#as_qdr=all&q=dual+wielding+crossbows+d%26d+5e
so once again ... post the rules text and page number.
I think some folks in this thread are confusing two-weapon fighting (the concept) with Engaging in Two-Weapon Fighting, the rules element of 5E.
Nothing prevents you from doing the former, it's just that there is no mechanical difference between that and swapping between two weapons.
The latter is a specific option, with prerequisites, that's orthogonal to the Crossbow Expert feat.
Also, be careful of using terms like "consensus" when you are stating your opinion or a shared opinion between you and another person. Consensus means that everyone agrees. Not that it's been discussed to your personal satisfaction, but that there is no possible amount of ambiguity preventing a rational person from interpreting it differently. If something is unequivocal in your head, you may just be lacking information or context. New stuff comes up all the time.
After all, it's been 2000 years and there's still no consensus over what's in the bible.
ah so you didn't look up the threads I was refering to. You linked to reddit threads and enworld. If you bothered to read the enworld one for example you would realize that they support double hand crossbows and being able to use the feat Crossbow Expert with crossbow + shield.
Did you even read the threads you linked?
What I was refering to was threads on this very board. Use the search function.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Since it seems there is some arguments that supprts both sides of the coin (dual wield vs. double tapping), I need to ask.
Is it a safe assumption that I double tap my hand crossbow by active realoading, using my "item/object interaction" action?
As an example, imagine me, a Fighter, with a Shield + Hand Crossbow and Crossbow Mastery Feat can:
Action(shoot) -> Interaction(reload) -> Shoot(bonus action)
Im asking, as a player thinking to use this fighting style (demon hunter diablo 3 style), I want to have, at least, a safe approach on this matter.
You know, 30ft isnt exactly ranged, a shield can help when the situation demands a close combat approach...
Thanks.
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.
Adratlas wrote:
Pangur wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Look its simple ... find any place in the rule book where it allows you to wield a hand crossbow in your off hand ... or even allows you to wield a ranged weapon and any other weapon at all.
Every place it mentions dule wielding or two-weapon fighting it specifies melee ... ranged weapons are not melee and do not qualify ...
so the chalange is simple post a page number and quote any text that says you can.
Drycanth wrote:
I'm speaking with him via PM's. No point in continuing to derail the thread. If you want to discuss that stuff again please make another thread.
All I can say is wow. I think people need a refresher on 5e being simplified vs. older editions. Actions are not broken down granularly. Making an attack is "a simple structure". This thread is far from simple.
FrogReaver wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
WibbleNZ wrote:
Again guys, please don't feed this person's arguments. I'm trying to explain this to him via PM. If he's going to keep derailing this thread please report him instead.
FrogReaver wrote:
WibbleNZ wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Yes I did not create the game and No I can not tell exactly what their intent it which is the point. RAI is about trying to guess what some one meant when they created the item. The person that made such item will know what they ment so they never need RAI they are the ones that made such rules and as such the rules must be in perfect agreement with what they thought since it was their thought. A person that did not create the rules can only infef intentions to rules by trying to read them as a whole and figure out the logic used in their crafting.
So yes I am the perfect one to claim RAI since I did not create the rules. I am infering the intention of the one that did and trying to understat what the Rules As Intended are.
As I have asked you and every one else show any place in the rule book that lists what happens when you fight with two weapns.
As I have said from the begining this will end up being a rule 0 situation at your table. You will have to decide via RAI what you think the rules mean. RAW they are restrictive and do not allow a whole lot of things that people think they should. But that is what RAW is. RAW is using the exact wording of the rules to try to twist them in order to gain every ounce of ability to out shine another player in the game.
I personally have stated pages and pages ago how I intend to decide on this matter in my game. You can decide for yours.
The stick is that people are still arguing that RAW says something it does not. If you say that RAW you can use two hand crossbows show where it says you can explicitly in the rule book. If it is not explicitly stated it is not RAW it is RAI.
So there's a neat block feature of the forums, which works really well for people who lack common courtesy on the Internet; my experience here improved significantly after I used it. I recommend you use it too.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation 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.
Drycanth wrote:
that depends on weather or not you are looking for a RAW answer or a RAI answer
RAW .... no the two weapon fighting rules restrict what you can hold in your hands durring combat
RAI ....... yes however weather or not you can shoot them both would be a rule 0 situation and varry by game
Drycanth wrote:
Again that is all I am asking for one place that allows for you to fight with two weapons where one of the two is not a melee or thrown.
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
This thread has gotten out of hand and has become quite comical. 5th edition was supposed to be simple, streamlined and intuitive. If you over think the rules you will probably get them wrong. Because of the streamlined nature of the rules there are some things can be unclear and it requires a bit of common sense to sort them out. The ability to hold a weapon in each hand should be obvious. Just because you are holding two weapns doesn't mean it is TWF....... I can't believe I even have to say this and I suspect there is some trolling going on or at the very least someone is playing Devil's advocate.
RAW:
Actions in Combat: Attack (General rule on attacks: Page 192)
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
Melee Attacks: Two-Weapon Fighting (Specific attack option - Available to all: Page 195)
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 of 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.
Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting (Modifies Two-Weapon Fighting - Fighter feature: Page 79, Ranger feature: Page 91)
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.
Dual Wielder (Modifies Two-Weapon Fighting - Feat: Page 165)
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
Crossbow Expert (Specific attack option - Feat: Page 165)
When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.
Only the parts in parentheses has been added.
I believe that these are the rules relevant to using two weapons in combat. (I may have missed some, though)
Where does it say that you cannot hold a weapon in one hand while a single attack with a weapon in the other?
Where does it say that Two-Weapon Fighting is the only method for attacking with two weapons?
I don't see either of these here, so please enlighten me.
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
kimura121 wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Um.. Ok let's make something clear here. Crossbow Expert gives you a bonus action attack. This is not the Attack Action and so you don't get to attack multiple times when you take this bonus action from the feat. You get 1 attack, that is all.
If you have multiple attack during your turn, you can attack multiple times by taking the Attack Action. This has nothing to do with the Crossbow Expert feat. The only thing that relates these two game elements is that Crossbow Expert allows you to ignore the Loading property, so you can make multiple attacks.
Again though Drycanth you just don't seem to understand what you're trying to discuss.
Captain_Kobold
correct. What they are claiming is that you can use your 1 attack to two-weapon fight with a pair of hand crossbows shooting once each then use your bonus action to fire again once each for a total of 4 shots.
The problem is that you can make a level 1 character then have 4 attacks if he takes a human with the alternate starting package via this interpretation. That is clearly beyond what the intent of the rules are intended to allow.
*edit
Noctaem
are you shure that no one at all is intending to try to get the bonus action to proc with both weapons?
Drycanth wrote:
We have never said what you are alleging. You've invented this argument about 4 attacks and I have no idea why.
You can't even do that anyway. Each time you attack you can only attack with 1 weapon per attack. If you have multiple attacks per Attack Action that's a different story, see level 5 fighters for example. This thread's discussion until you arrived and derailed it has been about being able to attack with 1 hand crossbow, then make the bonus action attack that Crossbow Expert gets you with the same one. No one has ever talked about 4 attacks as you are now inventing, well other than you.
Drycanth wrote:
Well at least it makes sense why he was so against what he thought we were saying.
lvl 1 fight with crossbow expertise and holding 2 hand crossbows gets a single main hand attack an then a single bonus action attack with the offhand hand crossbow
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
RE: 4 attacks at level 1
Perhaps re-reading the rules would benefit the person in question who believes that somehow a character ends up with 4 attacks at level 1. That's something that can be done in the solitude of ones own home, and not in an unrelated thread.
RE: Attacking with 1 hand crossbow with the feat crossbow expert, or with 2 hand crossbows, one in each hand with the crossbow expert feat.
It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks", it doesn't matter about what is thought to be the author's intent. All that matters is RAW for the purpose of this discussion (if this debacle of a thread can be called one). 5e is simplified; it's not a system for granular combat simulations. It works because the rules as written allow it too, regardless of whether a person agrees or disagrees with the text. As has been said ad nauseum - house rule things if it is a problem in a home game. RAW it works. Let the dead horse be dead.
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
It's legal to hold a hand crossbows in each hand, at the same time. It's legal to shoot a hand crossbow one time due to the "loading" property. When you have extra attacks, say 5th level as a fighter, you can attack two times per attack action. You can split the attack action between your mainhand, and your off hand weapon. You are still only having two attacks. So, in the case of the character wielding two hand crossbows, one in the main hand, and the other in the offhand; the 5th level fighter can shoot both of them per RAW for a total of 2 attacks during his attack action by firing each once. Hence, it's legal to dual wield hand crossbows.
-edit-
I responded because I got confused after reading so many different replies in various threads. I figured if I was on board from the beginning then confused myself, anyone could end up confused.
Pelican12 wrote:
Oh man I used to troll like this when I was younger. It was the perfect setup with people already emotional with entrenched positions.Then you come in and gently stir the pot with a bit of seemingly good logic and just keep pushing buttons. Dancing around the edge of the argument and change it ever so slightly when people start to prove you wrong. Well done good sir but you should have taken your time and you might have kept it going for longer
Drycanth wrote:
How do you load a crossbow when both hands are already filled? I'm not asking about rules, just visualizing the implausibility
Also, I feel dirty for adding to this thread.
I'm pretty sure the RAI for the feat in question, was to have some dastardy (Drow? :P ) Rogue have a rapier in one hand and a loaded crossbow in the other. This dual weilding of the bizzare combination of sword-and-shotgun would then wade into combat and pull the trigger on some poor kobold up close. I guess it would be pretty cool for the buccaneer type PC's due to the fact that 99% of games are going to lack firearms.
The third part of the feat is prety weird.
That being said, now it's gotten stranger. You have halfling and human urchin fighters with a crossbow shield combination. But eh, it's a fantasy world.
As for the RAW, yeah I believe it's possible, if you really scrutinize and argue over the fine print till you heart is content and your DM and fellow players are exhausted.
Mearls seems to say not at my table on the issue and I suppose many a DM will agree.
Though, It's not a overly broken combination. It's /slightly/ better than a few builds but it wont make you 'win' any better, faster, etc.
As for the two handcrossbows; I think it's a cool concept. I suppose you may need to be able explain to your DM how you can reload the hand crossbows fast enough to fire them. "Special" crossbows come to mind; two you could rub together like defibulators to simultaniousaly **** them. Then just drop a bolt on the top of them and fire.
You are going to need to explain at 20th level how your fighter fires a handcrossbow with a shield or a crossbow in each hand, nine times in six seconds, while moving 25 to 30 feet.
If you have Sharpshooter, you'll have to account for some aiming in that time too!
At our table if you wanted to argue this particular build because "It's in the Book!" till you exhausted our DM, he would prolly just say you have a repeating crossbow and 9 bolts in 6 seconds is gatling action.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
for some reason people seem to get confused by all this (meaning the thread).
DnD 5th is a fantastic game. It is one of the easiest to play and it is simple to modify the little rough spots to makt it yours. Things like this hand crossbow are exactly where you get to make the game your own. The rules do not tell you exactly what to allow nor do they have specific instructions on it. This is a good thing because now you can make the game more your own. You can decide to allow two hand crossbow wielding and have diablo 3 style characters, you can only allow for a melee weapon and a hand crossbow and make pireate type characters, or you can say no weapon when wielding a hand crossbow for a more realism type game. Its up to you and your group.
What has happened in this tread is people have looked for a mechanical written rule to try to tell a DM that he has to allow this in his game. The argument is centered on how do you prove that the rules say you can dual wield/ two weapon fight with a hand crossbow in each hand.
~~
lucipher888 wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
kimura121 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Where does the game say you only have two hands? (To play devil's advocate)
...
That said, Rule 0. Your DM'd probably allow a one-handed character, but not a nine-handed one.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yunru wrote:
My only argument the entire time is that people trying to claim that they rules say they can do something that is not in the rule book are flat out full of monkey poo. They can play the game how ever they want and can allow or disallow what ever they want, just stop trying to claim that they rules say you can do something they do not say.
I don't care what they do in their game they can dual wield heavy crossbows if they want, it does not affect me in the slightest. I just want they to stop trying to pass off their house rules as offical. Be honest and admit that it is a house rule and why you would do it the way you are. This way a new player can get an informed piece of information on what happens and what the effects are on the rest of the game rules.
Drycanth wrote:
Because if it is not Written it can not by simple logic be Rules As Written. RAW litterally means the explicit written rule with out infered meaning. If you infer meaning you are using RAI. Rules As Intended allow for more latitude and flexability and do not require specific written rules to be present.
Its not rocket science here guys. If it is not written then its not RAW. Lots of things are not RAW in this edition. This edition is designed to be played RAI with an emphasis on the interpretation of the people playing at the table.
So go right ahead and allow for two hand crossbow use. The game is designed so that you can allow it. Just be aware that there is no written rule that specificly says you can and therefore it is not RAW. Using two hand crossbows is at best RAI or possibly even using rule 0 depending on the individual DM and their game.
Drycanth wrote:
Then how do you define the two acronyms
Rules As Written (RAW)
and
Rules As Intended (RAI)
If you do not use their litteral meaning given in the actual words used in the names?
Drycanth wrote:
Agreed
Drycanth wrote:
DragnDave wrote:
DragnDave wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Divljak wrote:
Look at it simply from the training aspect.
You have not proficent and proficent. There are no longer additional levels of mastery so non-proficent means everything from you have never seen a crossbow to you are not even human but have hands like a ape.
Proficent covers everything from the average hunter to robin hood.
Feats are optional and not even guarenteed in any game.
So just for starters how likely is it that a farmer that has never seen a crossbow can shoot two hand crossbows and load them? That is what not proficent includes and stating that you can dual wield hand crossbows just because they are light weapons means exactly this.
Say you take a proficent character can they now manage to juggle two standard non-repeating crossbows and load them both?
What if they are proficent and have the crossbow expert feat?
This is why I have repeatedly said its not a specific rule that just is because it is in the book. That thinking goes against the entire design concept for fifth. This version of the game is about rulings not rules. People keep wanting to make statments using wording as if it is inflexable and concrete. Noctaem is a perfect example of this. He repeatedly makes statments and refuses to answer questions that point out any errors in his thinking. He keeps wanting to use RAW like a club and beat people into playing a specific way. Myself and others have pointed out to him and others multiple times that there is no set one way of reading the rules, and that this is part of the intent of the game design. DM's are nescessary to make decisions on when and how to implement rules.
Crossbow expert and dual wielding is just such an example. You have no specific wording because it is on a table by table basis using what makes sense in the situation. This way players and DM's can avoid those situations that can crop up where the rules dont make sense given the situation.
Even as Mike pointed out he would rule that it should be a second weapon. So in his game he would have you wield two weapons. His game his rule. What he has not nor have any of the developers said is this is how you should play it in your game.
What I caution people against is making claims of a given rule means only one thing. There are multiple ways of interpreting lots of the individual rules.
I would say that the crossbow expert feat can allow you to using one hand crossbow gain the bonus shot for having a loaded hand crossbow. Thus a level 1 human fighter with a single hand crossbow using the crossbow expert feat could shoot twice. That is one way to interpret the rule.
Nothing you just said even makes sense from a rules debate perspective Drycanth. Not a single thing.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Divljak wrote:
What happened to the suggestion that this thread be destroyed with fire? Allowed to live, it produces statements like the above. Come on guys, we don't need to go down this rabbit hole again.
In any event, for people interested in the rules, this doesn't make sense. Ignoring the loaded property means you--get this--ignore the loaded property. It doesn't mean "it can be loaded without you actually loading it." The loading property talks about the time it takes to load a weapon (it doesn't say something like "because this weapon needs to be loaded," for example). If you ignore the loading property, presumably you can load it faster. Ignoring the loading property means you aren't restricted to firing once per action / bonus action / reaction. Anything else explanatory that you add to that is not part of the rules.
Divljak wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Divljak wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Divljak, let's follow up on Bloodscythe's point. Do you think you need to load a sling?
paulstrait wrote:
So, then, if a crossbow expert was stripped of his weapon, and he found an unmodified hand crossbow, you would not allow him to ignore the loading property until he had time to modify the weapon?
Divljak wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation 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.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Divljak wrote:
/facepalms at the thread and the new posts especially
You guys aren't even talking about the rules in the book. You're just going off in random directions with your posts saying absolutely nothing relevant!
OoftaMeg wrote:
The issue comes down to the fact that according to the rules you can only reload 1 weapon/rnd and not both.
These are not pistols with clips these are medevel handheld weapons that require the pulling back of a wire,rubber, lever to reload.
This is more of a common sense issue then anything else
Divljak wrote:
Normally hand crossbow has the properties Ammunition (range 30/120), light, loading
Crossbow expertise removes loading (which restricts how often you can fire). It does not remove ammunition.
Ammunition states (in part) "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack."
So yes, you still need ammunition. You still need to draw the ammunition. Can you draw ammunition with a hand already holding something such as a hand crossbow? Up to your DM.
Noctaem wrote:
Divljak wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
It was most certainly not tongue in cheek. I was serious. The "fluff logic" does not seem to match the rule.
My understanding (rulebook returned to library alas) is that one Attack Action with any bow is load-and-fire, not fire-and-load.
This argument can be neutered by simple player forethought: when you expect trouble ahead, say, "I draw and load both my hand crossbows." Now you DO have two loaded weapons ready to double-shot somebody. The Dm and the other players can attest to this, in event of dispute. But you can only do this alpha strike once, then you must take an action to prepare another alpha strike.
If I was DMing and somebody tried to claim they could alpha strike every turn, I would ask with which hand they are loading the crossbows; both are full.
Divljak wrote:
In the event that you have a DM that won't let you dual wield crossbows due to realism, and you're in it for the stlye points anyway, you can just pick up 2 handcrossbows, the warcaster feat, the warlock class, and pretend to shoot your eldertich blasts out of the handcrossbows. Much better range, better base damage with agonizing blast, and you have full warlock spells. And you don't have to explain anything, because magic.
It's not like anyone in their right mind, who was in it just for combat stats, would ever go Fighter (the only class that can start with 2 handcrossbows with starting gear, since those things are expensive), when Moon Druid is literally the class right before it.
BRJN wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Well now our argument seems to get even stronger by the reply on twitter of Jeremy Crawford who indicates that the loaded crossbow part of the feat is actually fluff. I hope that settles the debate! Here's a link to his reply.
http://community.wizards.com/comment/51477801#comment-51477801
Look its fine to interpret the rule and make up any reason you want just stop claiming that there is only one way to read the rule. Your interpretation ignores two of the properties of the crossbow only one of which is changed via the feat. Not only that but there are no rules that say you can dual wield hand crossbows. Even the feat only suggests it in one interpretation. MM has even chimed in that he views the feat one way and jeramy crowfard has said yet another. This thread and at least three others are yet more proof that there is no consensus. There are multiple views on the feat and how it plays out in the game.
This is intentional.
This edition is about rulings not rules. The DM is supposed to make judgment calls not the rule book.
Coredump00 wrote:
So ambiguous that Jeremy Crawford himself gives a definitive answer lol. Yeah.
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
According to you since you refuse to even listen to what the man says. So at this point I'm convinced you will never change your mind. You're just stuck regardless of what evidence is presented to you. best to just put you on ignore and move on.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I tend to go with a creative interpretation myself. If the PC can justify how they are reloading the crossbow - I let them, providing there is justification.
The Dev's have said on several occasions you can dual-wield hand-crossbows and still reload them. Perhaps instead of arguing about it, you use a little imagination in figuring out how to accomplish this.
- The character might have small hooks attached to their armor and/or vambraces.
- They might wear a wand bracer (or similar item), allowing them to reload their crossbow hands-free.
- They might wear their crossbow bolts vertically against a small wooden block (placed at the bottom of their case). With practiced movements (Crossbow Expert feat), the character pushes down with their crossbow against this block, reloading their bolt, and simultaneously pushing back the string with the same fluid motion.
Wand Bracer (Dungeonscape p33)
This metal forearm band takes up space on the body as a bracer and can hold up to fi ve wands. Thin loops of thread fi t over your fingers, each connected to a spring mechanism on one of the wand slots. If your hand is empty, you can flex a finger as a swift action to cause the wand of your choice to spring into your grasp. You still must activate the wand as a standard action. Replacing a wand in the sheath is tricky and requires a full-round action. Most adventurers just drop the first wand to the ground (a free action) when they need a different one.
Thank you for your post Kalani.
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I stopped reading after page two, but thought I would share my interpretation of the rules since I had not seen it. While every rule book has mistakes made by the game designers, I always start with the assumption that what was written is what was intended. Both sides of the initial debate made good points, but I think they missed some things as well.
The crossbow feat gives a bonus action attack, not an extra attack within the attack action. Bonus actions are much more limited than attack actions.
The crossbow feat specifically requires a loaded crossbow.
The hand crossbow has the following features: Ammunition, Loading, and Light. Light is specifically defined as weapons that can be dual wielded. Thus hand crossbows can be dual wielded. It should also be noted that the light crossbow specifically needs two hands to operate, while the hand crossbow does not need two hands the operate. Thus the one handed man can fullly use the hand crossbow.
The crossbow feat allows a character to draw, load, and fire a crossbow all in one attack action. However, it does not allow it to be loaded twice, so the bonus action is not possible.
If the character is ready for a fight and has a loaded crossbow in hand he can fire and reload that crossbow as part of the attack action, which allows the bonus crossbow attack after a first attack with the previously loaded crossbow.
Example:
A warrior/rogue with extra attack and cunning action is expecting trouble and has a loaded crossbow in his hand. A monster appears within range and he wins initiative. As part of the attack action the character can fire, reload, fire, and reload again. With a loaded crossbow in hand the character can use the crossbow feat to fire, but not reload, but using that bonus action prevents the use of the cunning action bonus actions. Round two the monster is still at range, but the character does not have a loaded crossbow. The character can load, fire, load, and fire the crossbow with the attack action. However, the character does not have a loaded crossbow, so a bonus action attack with the crossbow feat is not possible.
The advantage of wielding two loaded hand crossbows is that you get a second bonus action attack with the crossbow from the feat.
Pheralan_Pathfinder wrote:
In Pheralan's example, the character is wielding a single, loaded hand crossbow.
After taking his bonus action attack in round one, that crossbow is no longer loaded.
This means that the character starts round two with an unloaded hand crossbow, and cannot use it for a bonus action attack in round two.
However, if the character is wielding two loaded hand crossbows, only one of them will be unloaded at the end of round one, and the other could be used for a bonus action attack in round two, for a total of two bonus action attacks (over the course of two rounds).
After this, both crossbows would be unloaded at the start of round 3, and neither could be used for a bonus action attack that round.
You can load the crossbow as part of the attack.
But, this goes nowhere.
Not only can you load it as part of the attack, the designers have said that the part about needing a loaded hand crossbow is unnecesary fluff. You a) ignore the loading property and b) can load it as part of the attack.
Or, why not start with the crossbow loaded, fire, and then load it as part of the attack. It's just that the loading comes after the attack. Even better, you don't need to dual wield as nowhere does it state that the bonus attack has to come with a hand crossbow in the other hand.
guachi wrote:
This all boils down to rule 0
If the DM says you can do it, you can... however if the DM says you cant do it, you cant.
Pretty simple and easy to understand and apply.
I believe you should prepare and take time (not during the game or 15 min before the game starts) to meet with your DM or call him/her put forward your best argument for why you feel you should be able to duel wield two crossbows.
Remember that the DM is not against you they are making the judgement based on allot of factors that are often not reconized by players.
Once the DM has made his position clear you can disagree but do so respectfully and move on... who knows perhaps (if you play your cards right) the DM may allow you to get an item or a magic crossbow that overcomes his/her reasons why it wouldnt be possable with mundane hand crossbows.
I wouldnt suggest trying rules lawyering to get what you want. I would try to frame the argument in as reasonable logical process. I would be very cautions about trying to claime to the DM page 186 in the PHB (English version) published in Auguest of 2014 paragraph 15 and I quote "A player can choose at anytime to triple dog dare the enemey. At which point the enemey must make a WIS save. If failes he must complete the dare"
IRONSKULL!
Bloodscythe wrote:
Most of the earlier speculations can now be ignored as this topic was resolved a long time ago in the official Player's Handbook Errata, and is included in the latest printing of the core rulebook.
Players Handbook Errata wrote:
I had to join just to say thank you - I've not played 5e yet and was trying to make sense of creating a Crossbow wielding Battle Master. I read so many discussions like this before I read the errata and then was frustrated nobody was referencing
Please could I also add something mentioned here:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats
Specifically that the feat allows you to attack with a hand crossbow and then allows you to fire it again as a bonus action - it seems now that was the whole purpose behind that third benefit (you could still potentially get one shot off while duelwielding)
While I'm at it, the ranged attack disadvantage benefit seems to apply to all ranged attacks (including spells), not just crossbow attacks.
I really hope this gets around - obviously if DMs want to still allow duel wielding crossbows/crossbow shield combos that is obviously their call - but it would certainly prevent a lot arguments on forums about the issue!
Good catch Thrasymachus0, I updated my post per your feedback.
Thank you, that was a good post.
As a DM who is also thinking about this issue I have some questions, so assume we have a level 5 fighter with Crossbow Expert:
1) He can hold a single hand crossbow and fire it twice as his Action, then another time as his Bonus Action. Correct?
2) He cannot hold two hand crossbows, fire one twice as his Action, then use the other hand for another attack as Bonus Action. Correct?
So the question: Why is this such a heated topic? I don't really see the benefit in wielding two hand crossbows.
Are there any shenanigans I am missing?
Kangodo wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
It also allows you to have a different magical enchantment on each weapon, which could be beneficial depending on the situation you find yourself in. Or if some enchants have passive properties you get just for wielding or being attuned to the weapons, that would be good too. But then that means that they have to purchase/find 2 magic weapons and it potentially takes up 2 attunement slots (there's a limit to how many you can attune to at the same time..) TBH I've never understand why people were so against it, it's just stupid imo. Let the play dual wield his hand crossbows ffs.
Kangodo wrote:
Owh, never heard of that. That's really messed up! I thought all discussion was with the understanding that people at least had to get the feat.
Totally forgot about subsequent turns, you're correct that at turn 2 I would be holding two empty xbows.
Without the crossbow expert feat:
- You cannot fire ammunition from a crossbow more than once per action, bonus action, or reaction due to the loading property (see Loading p147).
(This is true regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.) - You have disadvantage on your attack rolls if within 5 feet of any hostile creature (see Ranged Attacks in Close Combat p195).
- Using a bonus action to attack with a second weapon is only possible with light melee weapons. (see Two-Weapon Fighting p195)
(Hand crossbows are ranged weapons so they aren't eligible for two-weapon fighting. You can't fire a second hand crossbow as a bonus action even if it is already loaded.)
Kodor wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I'm glad common sense fiannly prevailed. Certainly if GM's want to house rule dual xbows with the CE feat is cool and they like it thats fine. To me it's clear the intent of the ammunition rule is to show that it does not take an extra action to reload a weapon with the ammunition property and not that it just auto reloads. To show how stupid this concept was I as a 1st level wizard could load sling. Then in my other hand I could hold my spell focus. I could then attack with the sling, wait for a reaction oppurtunity to cast a spell through my focus and my sling would auto reload. Which frankly is dumb
Mapuge wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Well, we can't leave the forum without leaving a lenghty discussion of wielding two handcrossbows on the first page.
You aren't using the two weapong fighting rule as PHB pg 195 says, because you are using a ranged attack not a melee attack. This rule clarify is made for melee attacks.
In the other hand, you can use 2 hand-crosbow in each hand with or without the crossbow expertise feat, with your full base attack and damage roll based in you Dexterity. But the numbers of attacks that you can do in a round is based on your action and features.
The first situation is that a hand crossbow has the loading property, as explained in pg 147 of PHB. This means that you only can fire only one time with the weapon, being indifferent how many attacks can you make in one action.
The crosswbow expertise remove the loading property of the weapon (in this case the hand crosswbow), and you can fire more that once with a ranged weapon type crossbow, but you still need one hand-free to recharge when you fire because it still has the ammunition property. If you have 2 weapons you can't recharge the ranged weapons, and it's only useful for the first round count that you start with 2 hand-crossbow recharged.
In this case, if you have 2 hand-crossbow recharged at the start of your turn. (left hand and right hand)
Round 1 Action : fire with one crossbow (left hand for example) -------- Bonus action (crossbow expertise) : fire with the other crossbow in the right hand (the feat specified that "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding",) LEGAL, because you're using the attack action with a one-handed weapon (the first attack and left hand is a one-handed weapon). ----------- drop one of the crossbow as no action (for example right)----------- recharge the crossbow on your left hand now, because you have a free hand. You don't need to use the free interact as explained on pg 190 of PHB ------- and you still remain to use your move . At the start of the 2nd round you have in your left hand one handcrosbow recharged and a free hand (right).
In this case don't compensates. Because you can do 2 attacks too with only one handcrosbow and crossbow feat. Action ---- recharge ---- bonus action ---- move and a possible free interact with an objecto or enviroment for free as explained in pg 190 PHB.
The only question is.... that i'm not sure that one player character with the crossbow expertise feat CAN have a handcrosbow in one hand and a shield in the other hand, an attack 2 times per round (action and bonus action), because it has a shield in the other hand (don't have a free hand for recharge the handcrosbow with the ammunition property). The shield is explained in pg 144 of PHB, and don't specified if you can interact with this hand. (I guess that this hand isn't free to preform any task)
Cite: SA_Compendium_1.03.pdf pg 3 (Sage advide for Jeremy Crawford)
Does Crossbow Expert let you fire a hand crossbow and then fire it again as a bonus action? It does! Take a look at the feat’s third benefit. It says you can attack with
a hand crossbow as a bonus action when you use the Attack action to attack with a one-handed weapon. A hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon, so it can, indeed,
be used for both attacks, assuming you have a hand free to load the hand crossbow between the two attacks.
Thanks, and have a good time!