I have a simple question: Can anyone show me an explicit rule that says I can reload a crossbow after my attack as part of the attack action. My DM is a stickler for RAW and he says that such a thing is not explicitly allowed by RAW.
He's not very persuaded by realism arguments either (as in some things are just the way they are for balance so get over it). So, is there a rule that says I can reload them as part of my attack action?
I don't see anything that says it's NOT RAW to do it at the end of a turn. The only things that are said (that I know of) is what's on pp. 146-147 of the PHB: "drawing ammo is part of the attack" (not the same as "loading", I know), and "you can only fire one piece of ammo regardless of how many you can normally fire with an action".
I don't see any RAW that says the loading happens at the beginning or end of an attack action, so if you had a crossbow loaded the turn before an attack, you could feasibly reload at the end of the turn in which you fired. Of course, you couldn't load, fire and reload on the same action.
So many things don't have explicit RAW - why should this be treated any differently?
El_Condoro wrote:
I'm not sure how you can argue with a person with that mindset. I don't think 5e is written to have watertight rules - it seems to encourage a lot of DM interaction and moderation. Technically, there is no RAW that I have seen that says you have to load a crossbow before firing it. You must have ammo that you use when you fire, but no explicit "load before firing" text. Logic, common sense and physics would say it must be done but nowhere does it say a crossbow must be loaded to fire it, so there is clearly room for interpretation beyond RAW.
El_Condoro wrote:
Drawing ammo is part of the attack. And you get one object interaction on your turn, to load a bolt or string an arrow.
Unless your GM thinks doing so is the same as cranking a drawbridge and would use a whole action.
BTW, are you the poster who wanted to know where in RAW it said characters could breathe?
Noon wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Can anyone show me a page rule that says your crossbow is unloaded after an attack?
mellored wrote:
The only rules your going to find on loading ammunition (that I know of) are
Page 45 of the basic rules (in the equipment section of the PHB)
Ammunition. 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. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack. At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield
Crossbows also have the "loading" property:
Loading. Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.
You could argue that loading a bolt into a crossbow could be done as a free object interaction, although that is limited to one per round.
But you won't find any definition of what "loaded" means in the PHB. It is not an obscure or game oriented term, most people know what "loaded" means.
OP: Try this out with your DM
Normally the presumption of an Attack action is that you load-and-fire.
BUT due to the tactical situation, you think that there is trouble lurking ahead. So you tell the DM (and the table), "I pull and load my crossbow." (This is assumed to be done before Round One of any combat.) For the duration of the fight, you get to fire-and-reload.
The key to this argument-smoothing proposal is that you must make the announcement beforehand. It's not an "always on" condition.
Discuss options with him; you will get further than if you try to beat each other over the head with a PHB.
Even if he only lets you do this 1/while (as part of a pre-planned ambush Alpha Strike, say), it's still better than Never.
As I am sure you are aware, this is a much trickier issue than it first appears..... and haven't you been part of this discussion previously...??
Drawing (and presumably loading) the ammo is "part of the attack" (*not* part of the "attack action"). So two issues crop up.
1) the rules say you may draw *the* ammo for *the* attack. Some find this implies the permission is for the current attack, no permission for drawing ammo for some ambiguous later attack.
2) The rules say it is part of the attack, and you want to attack and then reload. Well, if you attack and *then* reload, it is not part of the attack, but occuring after the attack happens. (Not saying this is the only valid interpretation, just one valid one, which your DM may follow)
More importantly... the only reason this is an issue is the CE feat, which raises two other issues.
1) By doing this, you are asserting that the rules of the feat stop you from "loading then firing" but somehow is okay with "firing then loading". Which seems like an awfullly fine hair to split.
2) By doing this, you are assuming that the requirement for a *loaded* crossbow is, in effect, worthless since you have devised a 'work around' via semantics. Again, to me, splitting some fine hairs..
OTOH, a Dev tweet indicates that the 'loaded' terminology is just flavor text... so perhaps it is supposed to be worthless/meaningless. Personally I want more than one off-hand tweet (that also misused the 'loading' property concept) before I ignore part of a rule. But I can't fault those that accept the tweet as 'errata'. (OTOOH, that same developer has clarified that Twitter and Facebook are just ways for them to keep in touch with fans; and only the upcoming FAQ is meant to be Official)
You can also ask if you can use an 'Object Interaction" to load it... but those are somewhat arbitrary in what is allowed and not allowed. You can't drink a potion, but you can fish the vial out of your backpack or drink a flagon of ale for 'free'.....
I would talk to your DM, tell him its part of your character concept and you want to try and work something out. Perhaps the character can pay extra for a specially designed crossbow, perhaps the design can only hold 2 bolts (so keep it loaded, and get 3 uses total), or perhaps it requires a DC check of some sort to use, Or you get a lead for a quest to fiind a part of magical bows that allow this.
Let him help you work out a solution....
Honestly, I think the ambiguous way they quoted ammunition was to imply you could load OR reload, partially depending on your weapon (bow vs. Crossbow) and your situation (was your crossbow empty? Well as part of your attack you draw to load and attack. If it was loaded, you attack THEN draw and load).
But maybe I'm just reading too much into the fact they don't just say "You can load a weapon as part of the attack before it happens"...
Looking at the weapon qualities page 146 of the PHB and the Basic Rules (P.45)
Ammunition<strong> wrote:
Illithidbix wrote:
I don't see why you couldn't use your free object interaction to load your crossbow that seems like exactly the kind of thing it would be used for. Like the poster above quoted: "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack. " Drawing ammunition isn't the same as loading a crossbow.
Bloodscythe wrote:
So everyone agrees that RAW doesn't cover the situation? I mean I see alot of arguments, some very logical some not so much. But none of those arguments are showing where the text says this can be done. So everyone is in agreement that there is no rule that I can point to that says you can reload a crossbow as part of your attack? Right?
There APPEARS to be.
But! It does not use the specific words "load" or "reload" so...probably not...?
FrogReaver wrote:
Back to the original question: Ammunition and Loading properties in the equipment section of the PHB are about all you're going to get as far as actual written rules.
Pages and pages of opinions about how to rule on this have been written. But like much of D&D a lot of things are left up to player/DM discretion with the DM having final say. Different DMs are going to have different opinions and at the end of the day they have to make decisions that make sense to them.
abs1nth wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
So then he's saying that you have to use your object interaction action to actually load the weapon, meaning that if you have multiple attacks you're screwed because you can only load one arrow into your bow/2 handed crosssbow/hand crossbow with or without the Crossbow Expert feat?
What's more likely here people? that you can do it as part of the attack which is what the ammunition rules describe and hand wave the rest or that you can never fire your bow more than once a round? It boggles the mind how some of you would completely shut down entire weapon groups so easily instead of double checking your logic. If your conclusion breaks a bunch of weapon groups (read every ammunition using weapon IN THE GAME), it's not a valid conclusion/argument!!!
abs1nth wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
"...Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack..."
From this quote from the PHB, it seems the crossbow is loaded just before the attack. You draw, you load, you shoot.
It's the "loading" property that is killing the notion of multiple shots per attack action and causing the confusion.
Loading. Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.
Here is another way to take it: The issue is that loading doesn't specificly say "once per round." It seems you can use the crossbow for one attack, a bonus action and a reaction if you have them. So, if you get 3 attacks per attack action and 1 reaction (the most you can get), you could fire that crossbow twice: Once for the attack action, and once as a reaction. If you have a bonus action that utilizes the crossbow, you would get to shoot the crossbow again as that bonus action, since it not part of the attack action; raising the total number of shots to 3 per round in specific cases.
"Per round" is the issue. Since the rules don't say loading means only "One shot per round" it opens the door to line of reasoning I just used above.
@ Bloodscythe and the others
By forcing people to load your weapon with another action like the Object Interaction which is a limited action, you shut down every single ammunition using weapon type. Does that not even factor in for you? Or did you just miss that little detail? Suddenly all ammunition using weapons can no longer be fired more than once per round, with or without the Crossbow Expert feat for that particular group. That is game breaking. And I will never sit here and let you tell people that that is RAI or RAW. It's not and will never be.
I mean WOTC creates a property to stop people from firing a weapon group more than once, then you have the DM state that you need to use another action to actually load your ammo. Ok fine. But then you have a feat to make you ignore the property, but then you can't make use of the feat because you still have to use the action to load the weapon? How redundant is that! lol It doesn't even make any sense at all.
And yeah blocking me would make it easier to live in complete denial of whatever logical argument I present or the problems I point out in yours. I know it's much easier to do that than actually present a logical argument that falls within the rules of the game. You guys just have to add in all sorts of restrictions or requirements that aren't written anywhere or just break the game. Nevermind the many weeks I spent debunking them one after the other. Now it's down to personal attacks and just blocking people? Good job guys.
God I hope no one actually listens to you people.
Kishri wrote:
I also think the ways object maipulation, drawing, loading and the loading property are worded badly. I think object manipulation rules should not be used for ammo, nor should rules for drawing a weapon be used neither. In short, keep ammo and it's use seperate where it needs to be. Also, since the rules say that drawing ammunition is part of the attack, not a seperate act, that the drawing/manipulating an object rules don't apply to ammo at all.
As I said, it is the way the "loading property" worded that can cause issues. I see it as you get one shot per round with your attack action, but the way it mentions bonus actions and reactions seperately begs the question does the person get shots via bonus action and reaction too if they have already used their attack action? I am inclined to say yes and that is how I run it.
Noctaem said, "God I hope no one actually listens to you people." That was my prayer back when they announced the development of 5e on these boards. That prayer included me as I am no game designer. Then I realized we never really listen to each other so all is good. 
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
mellored wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
mellored wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
This is honestly the most ridiculous discussion. It beats the "can my character breathe" one now. wow.
edit: for reference - http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4149071
same OP. Your DM... has a unique view of the world and of gaming. I might recommend a different game.
mellored wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
mellored wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
mellored wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Timborama wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
raleel wrote:
Compounding on this is that WotC is making some rules ambiguous on purpose. But we don't know what those are. So is it bad wording, or ambiguous to give the DM power...?
Either way, it's up to the whole table to work together to come to a consensus! Personally, we say if your crossbow is loaded prior to shooting it "draw as part of the attack" to us means that you can draw (and then load) as part of the attack AFTER the bolt has been expunged! Makes sense to us!
paulstrait wrote:
raleel wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Moral of this thread:
Convincing someone the rules say something when they don't explicitly say something is very difficult if not impossible.
Coredump00 wrote:
Also, I want to emphasize one very important point -- I still think there is no RAW reason to presume that on a single turn, the loading of the crossbow must precede the firing of the crossbow. There is absolutely nothing in the RAW that suggests that. The RAW simply state that "Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack." So you could just as easily say that you have to fire first and then reload as you could say that you could reload first and then fire.
paulstrait wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
dafrca wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
mellored wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
raleel wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
"The rules let you draw (load) the ammo"
You have added the "(load)" into the RAW - "drawing" and "loading" are not the same thing. One is pulling a bolt (for a crossbow) out of its holder (quiver?) and the second is going through the process of loading it into the crossbow ready to be fired. They are not the same thing: drawing takes next to no time, loading especially with a crossbow, takes more time.
I hope the developers will clarify this "loading" and its timing issue some time soon - this is the second very long thread where this question has gone around in circles.
So the rules don't only say whether or when I can reload the crossbow they also don't say that I can load one in the first place? Wow! just wow!
El_Condoro wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Drawing ammo says it can be done as part of an attack. The book actually defines what an attack is. It is either simply an attack roll (unlikely for this situation) or the steps described in the book for resolving an attack. Drawing the ammo would have to be done sometime during those steps. Either when a target is selected or when an attack roll is made or when the damage roll is made. Anything after that is outside what the book defines as an attack.
From this perspective its quite clear how the rules allow you to draw ammo "in non technical jargon, before an attack" but not "after an attack", because the rules define what we would say is before the attack as being part of the attack. (Hopefully that makes sense).
paulstrait wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
mellored wrote:
There is no final answer to this because some people are going to interpret the rules differently. But what does the RAW say?
Ammunition. 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. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack.
and
Making an Attack Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure. 1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location. 2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll. 3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
In a world where crossbow expertise didn't exist, I don't see how loading after the attack would ever even be considered as an option.
However, it is not explicitly spelled out. I think it's pretty obvious that #3 resolve the attack (firing the projectile) ends the attack ... but to each his own.
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.
Coredump00 wrote:
Also if you are trying to use the "resolve an attack" section to rule out loading ammunition as part of the attack from happening after step 3 then you could never draw ammunition as part of the attack because the steps never define where that would happen. None of the steps cover drawing ammunition. This is a case of specific trumping general. Attack resolution is general and ammuntion is specific. It adds another step to the attack resolution but doesn't define WHERE in the order that step occurs, it can happen before step 1, between step 1 and 2, between step 2 and 3, or after step 3. In theory it'd only happen once but that's not explicitly stated. Also when using a multiattack you resolve multiple attacks during one action, so why can't ammunition be drawn/loaded multiple times during one action?
The reason the crossbow has the loading property is to restrict it's use (without a feat) during a multiattack. This was done to represent that loading a crossbow is more intensive than nocking an arrow in a bow, and why the bow doesn't have the loading property. That's also why the crossbow expert feat removes the loading property on the crossbow, meaning the feat user is skilled enough with a crossbow to be able to load it rapidly and fire again during a multiattack.
Making an attack:
1. choose a target.
2. determine modifiers.
3. resolve the attack.
Ammunition property:
Drawing ammunition is part of the attack.
Making an attack (with a loaded ranged weapon):
1. choose a target.
2. determine modifiers
3. resolve the attack
4. draw ammunition
Making an attack (with an unloaded ranged weapon):
0. draw ammunition
1. choose a target
2. determine modifiers
3. resolve the attack
These are perfectly valid interpretations of RAW. RAW does not specify when ammunition is drawn, only that it is part of the attack. That ammunition can't be drawn after an attack is somewhat problematic when you factor in the extra attack feature:
Attacking with a loaded hand crossbow:
1-3: as normal
4:Draw ammunition as part of the attack
Is step 4 done before attack 2, or after attack 1? Well, both.
Bloodscythe wrote:
FWIW, Jeremy Crawford responded to someone asking this question: "Do you need two hands to load a hand crossbow? IE, could I have a shield or rapier in the other hand?"
I'd say you need at least one hand free to load the bolt.
paulstrait wrote:
I don't think there is rule on Loading or reloading your crossbow at all. It's basically, you get one crossbow attack a turn. It should be a simple check. Have you fired this turn? No? Then you may fire . Whether you load it before or after isn't important.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Timborama wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
It seems pretty straightforward to me too.... You do need two hands to fire the bow, but once fired, you use the two hands to load the bow... pretty straighforward. You need two hands so you can draw back the Longbow string, or hold the heavy crossbow steady, That doesnt mean your hands are glued in place.
Similarly, if a character was using a greatsword wanted to grab a flagon and finish off his ale before attacking... thats fine, his hands aren't glued to the sword either.
No one said the hands were glued to the weapon, what is being said is that in order to wield the weapon you must use 2 hands as per the two-handed property.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Show me where it says you don't need two hands to use (wield) your bow. If you're then going to argue that you don't use/wield your bow when you're reloading it, then that breaks even more game elements within 5e. So I'm curious how you're going to justify this.
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Holding an item is not the same as wielding it. You can't use a two-handed weapon one handed. Yet you're arguing that you can. I mean let's face it, reloading your weapon isn't explicitely covered in the rules, but if you're going to argue that you can wield and interact with two-handed weapons one handed I'm going to call you on it. That's why I said it breaks other elements of the game.
You are the one insisting that the rules are a striaightjacket stopping the use of a bow in the way *everyone* knows it works....
See for yourself....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9RGnujlkI
You obviously can't do this with one hand. You obviously need two hands to draw/load the bow. But she is obviously using the *same* two hands.
And yes, the DnD world uses Earth as the basis/default and modifiies from there. Unless specifically mentioned, the environment, physics, items, etc operate the same.
Noctaem wrote:
The property says you need 2 hands. Is that not specifically stated? lol
Requires two hands to use.... check the video, she *is* using two hands.
Whats the problem??
Noctaem wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Noctaem wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Hopefully someday there will be a real FAQ/Sage advice, not off-the-cuff random tweets. Until then all we can do as DMs is use our best interpretation of RAW and IMHO the phrase "requires two hands to use" does not mean "both hands must be permanently attached to the weapon at all times."
Noctaem wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
You use the bow when you interact with it in some way, and it could be argued that holding is an interaction but I don't think it would require 2 hands to simply hold the bow. Reloading your bow/light or heavy crossbow/etc is definetely using it, don't you agree?
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Some of you really should internalize THIS. Seriously though, who cares? RAW is meaningless. Do what makes the most sense and makes for the best gameplay. Clearly the designers themselves just do WTF they want, so why are some of you soooo stuck up about what it says at some point on some page?
Noctaem wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
I think this whole thing boils down to Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation is probably correct.
On one hand, my definition of "requires two hands to use" means that you need one hand to hold the bow while the other draws ammunition and then fire. Just like a real-life bow.
Noctaem ... I'm not really sure what he's arguing. I think he's saying that there is a problem with the rules because if you are using a bow both of your hands much be permanently attached to the bow so therefore you can't draw ammunition because you don't have a hand to draw ammunition. Or something. Feel free to clarify what you are trying to say because at this point I don't get it.
One explanation makes sense, doesn't break RAW and conforms to how we understand how bows work. The other ... once again I'm at a loss what Noctaem's version of RAW means.
Coredump00 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaern: The point of stating a 'free hand' is neeeded to load/draw ammunition for a 2-handed weapon with the ammunition property (note a 2-handed sword doesn't have the ammunition property so doesn't have a specific rule that trumps the general 2-handed property rule), is so that you can't be wielding a 1-handed weapon while holding a bow, and then draw/load ammunition in preperation for an attack. This is why crossbow expert states you can fire a loaded crossbow while multi-attacking with a 1-handed melee weapon: You don't have a free hand to load the crossbow so it has to be loaded already. Under normal use a 2-handed ammunition weapon considers loading as part of the attack and therefore part of the 2-handed use requirement. This in no way breaks how 2-handed melee weapons (or ranged without an ammunition property) work in the same way that specific rules never break the general rule for things that don't apply to the specific rule.
If people didn't try to abuse rules by finding loopholes we wouldn't need convoluted and sometimes ambiguous wordings to try to cover the more common exploits.
Under normal circumstances you never have to worry about the free hand for using a bow or crossbow because normally you will be using it in the normal manner. Now say someone wants to try to do something unusual that uses up both hands (one holding the crossbow, the other doing something else not related to the crossbow like holding a lantern) so it's no longer free but isn't going to attack with a crossbow (no reason to load a longbow early because you actually have to hold the arrow in place before firing it).
The ruling means they can't load the crossbow because they're otherwise occupied which means you can't pre-prep it for your next turn and use it with a melee-weapon and multi-attack (since that requires the crossbow be already loaded). This isn't likely to happen often but is adressed. Under the majority of gameplay, rather than theorycrafting, this will never be an issue and combat can flow smoothly.
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
The problem that some posters have with your position is that you're introducing an exception to "what it means to be a one-handed weapon" that the rules don't actually support, on the basis of "this is how it works in reality".
It breaks down as two groups answering the same question:
Q: How many hands does it take to use a one-handed weapon?
A1: One.
A2: Well, it depends...
I'm in camp "A1" because that's what the rules say one-handed weapons are, and I don't see any ambiguity there or reason to override the rules. You seem to be in camp "A2" because it better conforms with your understanding of the real world.
The reason I brought up Fireball is because my belief when it comes to a fantasy game is that our independent notions of reality aren't super-important in determining how magic works. And I apply the same standard to non-casters who want to do the things that the rules say they can do: go get 'em.
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
It's funny. We've been having all these arguments and somehow I just kind of assumed that hand crossbow had the "one-handed" property. Turns out it doesn't. It has the "Ammunition", "Loading" and "Light" properties. The light property doesn't really seem to add a lot, since it just specifies that light melee weapons can be used for two-weapon fighting.
The one feat that specifies you can use the crossbow to do an off-hand attack specifies that it has to be loaded before the attack.
There is no "one-handed" property in the book. So nowhere does it specify that a hand crossbow only needs one hand to use. Heck, technically I don't see anywhere that it says you need any hands to use it.
As far as my assumption that a hand is required to draw ammunition, you got me. We make a lot of assumptions about how the game world works and unless there are specific rules that say otherwise I'm going to assume that you need a hand to draw ammunition. Or to pick something up off the ground. Or that my character has lungs and that there is air for my character to breath. Or that if you walk off a cliff you fall. Or that you need a solid surface to walk on even though the movement rules never specify it. Or ... I don't know a bazillion other things that are not specifically spelled out in the rules. Unless of course there's a spell or other rule that overrides the normal situation.
What makes more sense? You need a hand to draw ammunition or that drawing ammunition just happens by magic even when no spell is involved?
If you can show where it says you don't need a hand to draw ammunition, or how my interpretation conflicts with RAW feel free.
CahPahkah wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Now I'll address the other comments:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
What if the point is the intersection between 4 squares and then goes out from there? - that would be 16 (in 2 dimensions) and the 10 ft. from point part of the trait can be met without any problems of corners.
Coredump00 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
i believe there is a specific rule that says you cannot reload and shoot twice in one round
if you have multiple attacks.
to me that means it works the same way as drawing a weapon; you can do it one per turn for free.
DaveyJones6913 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
It's simple. The way to interpret the rule should take the normal real world aplication of how you do things and use the rules as presented to figure out what is meant by the rule.
We know what a crossbow is. They exist in real life. We know how the loading operation of them works. You hold the weapon with one hand and with another hand draw back the string and load the amunition. Only heavy crossbows work slightly differently because of the sheer poundage of the string you need a mechanical assistance to pull back the string so you place the crossbow tip/ end on the ground and put your foot on the crossbar and then use a seperate hand crank to winch back the string using both hands and making a peddeling action. after the strin is set you then use one hand to place the bolt on the crossbow then use two hands to pick it up and fire it.
So real life tells us that a heavy crossbow needs two hands to hold and shoot. it also tells us that we need two hands to load and pull back the string. we then look at the rule and sure enough it is listed with the two handed property as well as the loading and amunition and heavy. The game rules reflect what the real world item requires.
Light crossbow and hand crowbow both have the loading and amunition property we know what those represent.
The feat crosbow expert breaks the basic understanding of how these work. This is where the DM is able to break the general rules of the understood and allow game reality to break normal reality. How far they decide to break this is a per DM and by the individual table decision. That is intentional. This edition is about DM rulings and not hard coded game rules.
And that is where so many go wrong. They think that there is a right answer on how to play. There is not. It is all about DM adjudication. Too many want there to be rules that force only one interpretation. That will not ever happen in this edition. This edition uses 1st edition style DM adjudication.
FrogReaver wrote:
Teo handed property only requires two hands to attack?
Endarrion wrote:
Define "use."
Endarrion wrote:
Can you (by RAW)? We have a definition for 2 handed weapons, after all. Is carrying also "using"? Certainly loading a bow is part of "using" a bow. If that's the case, then the longbow is impossible to use by RAW.
All I'm saying is that it's not like using 2 hand crossbows (or a hand crossbow and a sword, etc) is game-breaking. With a little ingenuity, we can come up with ways to make loading the crossbow without a 'free hand' (whatever that means by RAW) possible. Appealing to real-world applications of these weapons only bogs down the game. If a player wants to wield 2 hand crossbows, what's the big deal? The RAW supports it. And we're already ammending the rules as we go. Unless you wanna tell a player, "Sorry, but you can't play your character that way because it doesn't make sense." Like wizards or paladins or studded leather armor do.
Endarrion wrote:
Is it just me or has this debate run out of steam? We seem to be going in the same circles over and over at this point. Without some input from the development team, I think we all agree we have to do our best on our own. 
Endarrion wrote:
Endarrion wrote:
Endarrion wrote:
Endarrion wrote:
Endarrion wrote:
Please understand, I view the argument against dual wielding hand crossbows with the same incredulity with which you view my examples. That's the point. This is a dumb argument. Just let players play the characters they want as long as it doesnt break the game.
EDIT: An addendum: dual wielding hand crossbows is supported by the RAW. Period. I find it a small task to reconcile imagination with the rules in this case.
Endarrion wrote:
Endarrion wrote:
Endarrion wrote:
Endarrion 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.
What I DO understand now is how fruitless this debate is, since it truly comes down to an unwillingness to be imaginative in an imaginative and fantastic game. Though the game flirts with simulation, it isn't. Some parts of the game you just have to turn your head sideways and squint, or use your imagination. I remember in 3e someone did the calculation on how fast a monk actually was with the increased speed. It ended up being something ridiculous and Flash-like. Sure it doesn't make a lot of sense for the DnD version of Jackie Chan to have super speed, but in DnD, he does. It's just the way it is.
To quote myself
It is up to the DM. It should always be up to the DM so he can run the game he wants for his players.
Honestly it seems most people do not know what these weapons actually are nor how they work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDeAxTxzorE This is a chinese repeating crossbow. It would always require two hands to use. Both for loading and firing just because of its design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3smTfaTPh0 this is the most modern version of a hand crossbow which would still always need two hands to re-arm and load
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjv6ucjPkZQ this is a typical hand crossbow which also would require two hands to re-arm and load
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs this is a light crossbow and it again requires two hands to re-arm load. This video also shows just how much slower a crossbow is than a long bow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEOeZTV9wiA this is a heavy crossbow. It is so large and complex that it always requires two hands.
This is why people are saying it requires a "free hand" to load a crossbow.
Now it is up to you in your game how far you want to allow the crossbow expert feat to go. You can allow dual wielding hand crossbows ala diablo 3 or you can say that you can only make one shot before you need to reload or you could say that it only allows for an extra shot when using one hand crossbow. Its up to you in your game.
Just make sure you know why you decide the things you do and how it will affect the rest of the game.
There are only two levels of skill with weapons non-proficient and proficent. Every one falls into one of the two groups. Anything you allow a proficent character to do a non-proficent character can do he is just lacking the +2 to do it. This means that a pesant farmer can dual wield hand crossbows if you allow a fighter that is proficient to do it.
This is why as DM you are required to make rulings and are not bound by rules. Game rules are set in stone and do not change based on what makes sense or what it logical. That kind of decision making is why a person makes the final call and not an arbitrary rule. You have the authority and resposnability to say that a pesant farmer that is compleetly untrained in any kind of combat should never be able to figure out how to just pick up a pair of hand crossbows and load and shoot them with no training.
At the same time you can say that you can fire a loaded hand crossbow as a bonus action durring combat once you have this feat, but loading would require at minimum the use of your object interaction.
Or you could say the hell with realism I want to allow it because I like the concept.
All of that is fine. It is all within your rights as DM to make that call and you should make the call you want for your game. Never let a player tell you that you must. As DM it is your game. Make the call. Players will eithor go along with you perhaps even grudgingly or leave that is the power of a player. Your power as DM is to make the call. The two sides ballance out since neithor can exist on its own.
Endarrion wrote:
Endarrion wrote:
Endarrion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Endarrion wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Endarrion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
No Meg, I've explained and explained them and explained them. If you can't bother to read my posts I'm not interesting in constantly explaining it again. Go read some of the posts in one of the 7 other threads where I've explained this to you and the others. All you do is constantly ask me to re-explain it, I'm done doing that since you're not even willing to read it. I'm sorry if this sounded rude but It's annoying to constantly be told that you've never explained your position. I have. Dozens of times.
Noctaem wrote: