Bloodscythe wrote:
No. There are not Rules As Written to cover this. It is a Rules As Intended situation. This version of the game is not mechanic and written word driven. it is about logic and understanding the intent.
Drycanth wrote:
The DM, not RAW, allows your character to breathe. It's covered in the basic conversation of the game (page 3):
1. The DM describes the environment: "You're on a planet with breathable air."
2. The players describe what they want to do: "I try to breathe."
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions: "You breathe" or "You fail to breathe."
Sometimes, between steps 2 and 3, the DM decides that the outcome of the player's stated action is uncertain and has a chance of failure. In this case, he asks for an ability check to resolve the uncertainty one way or another.
The suffocating rules on page 183. The DM determines when they need to use that rule.
(Yes indeed this is a tad silly)
iserith wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
iserith wrote:
Well that's always the problem with RAW. RAW is incomplete but it doesn't eliminate everything. The RAW is meant to cover things that need to be covered (such as chances to hit, how magic spells work, etc.) It wasn't mean to cover every conceivable (and especially not obvious) situation that a character may encounter.
RAW matters when you're questioning something that the rules discuss directly. RAI matters when you're dealing with something the rules don't discuss. Some people take them to extremes as far as only RAW is allowed to if RAW doesn't disallow it it can be done (often a bit closer but still not perfect).
A recent example I saw on this forum over this was talking about whether a Tarrasque could throw a house at a flying character. RAW doesn't give them a ranged attack so some argued this means they couldn't and therefor a Tarrasque could be pinged to death with ranged attacks from a flying opponent. There's two flaws with this. One is the RAW strictly or it doesn't happen. The other is that the RAW does cover it and allow it, in the section about improvised weapons.
Grazel wrote:
Also questioning whether something is realistic to determine RAI is not always a useful discussion.
For example RAW and RAI both state that it takes the same amount of time to draw a weapon and remove something from a backpack - clearly for simplified play. Realistically that is very unlikely as anyone who has used a backpack (like all of us) knows that you can't actually reach in a backpack unless you remove it first, open it, dig around and then put it back on. In D&D this takes no time at all and requires no free hands either. So D&D is not realistic - just fun
FrogReaver wrote:
Yunru wrote:
And therein lies the point of my post. The first sentence is sincere... People need to learn how to extrapolate and accept that some rules are implicit.
Since the rules don't explicitly state that I need a free hand to pull an arrow out of my quiver to fire my bow, I don't need one. I do however need both hands to use my bow... but do I need both hands to carry my bow or just to attack with the bow? The rules don't state that I need a free hand to load a hand-crossbow, but it does state that I have to load the crossbow, and this loading process is part of the attack action. Does that mean I can fire a loaded crossbow and as part of the attack reload it? The rule doesn't explicitly state that I can... it says loading it is part of the attack. Is the loading done before or after the attack? It's not explicit. The description of a lantern says it sheds light. It doesn't explicitly state that I have to light it first... the object just sheds light. It's not explicitly stated that I have to light a lantern before it sheds light. A wizard's spellbook isn't explicitly stated to be nonmagical. The only listing of a spellbook in the equipment section of the book is described as a book with 100 blank pages. What happens once the pages aren't blank? It's no longer the version as described in the equipment section.
This is where a DM comes in. They apply something I like to call "common sense". Unfortunately, common sense allows for variance, because what one person might view as common sense and obvious may be interpreted by someone else to be something else.
If a player can describe to me how his or her character loads a hand crossbow without using a free hand, then I would allow it. The rules don't state that a free hand is required but I challenge the player to explain to me how it is possible. If they can't even imagine a way of doing it, then I'm likely going to rule that it can't be done. Or I may offer them how I imagine it would be done, especially if they've come up with an interesting character who only has one hand and despite the impairment, has pursued a life of adventure.
Although the above statement "RAW doesn't state that a player can breathe on a planet with breathable air" is just badly written (RAW doesn't state a character can breathe on a planet with breathable air), I knew what you meant. But which beings can breathe the "breathable air"? Is the "breathable air" in the elemental plane of Fire the same as the "breathable air" on the prime material plane? It is up to the DM.
Fish can't breathe the Earth's "breathable air"... although technically they can... they just die from it. Just as humans can breathe in water. It just doesn't work out so well for us.
The point is: It's the DM's world. The characters simply live in it. Any and all rules in the PHB can be rewritten, ignored, augmented, or new rules can be invented. As long as everyone at the table are playing by the same rules, the game will run much smoother.
Prism wrote:
iserith wrote:
Also, when two characters love each other very much they get together and roll stats...and that's where first level adventurers come from.
Bloodscythe wrote:
What were they trying to do that warranted being blocked?
Bloodscythe wrote:
jeeze did people forget about rule Zero in the time between 3rd and 5th edition?
BrianCritchley wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I tend to believe that every rule is a suggestion for the DM to follow or not, and moreover, as the forward to the 2e dmg stated, "don't fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book to everything for you... The rules are only guidelines."
That said, in addition to the suffocation rules which state that breathing air prevents suffocation, the water breathing spell states that characters have a normal mode of respiration, and creatures that cannot breathe air are all specifically tagged as such. The monk description (p. 76) tells us that humans can take a deep breath. But that is beside the point -- since the rules talk about breathing in conjunction with constitution checks, and set out the kinds of things that would require checks, it is very clear that the normal breathing of air is possible, and moreover does not require a check. So as far as examples goes, this one may not be the best for illustrating this point, since there isn't much of an inductive leap required to understand that a character can breathe air according to the rules...
paulstrait wrote:
Well, if you have an unspecified "normal mode of respiration" that is not breathing water, that implies that you can breathe I think. And certainly page 76 establishes that at least some humans can breathe. But the rules on suffocation say that a creature can hold its breath. What is breath? Breath is "the air inhaled and exhaled in respiration." Since you can "hold your breath," and since you can "[run] out of breath," you can breathe, since having breath in the first place entails the ability to breathe.
But let's bracket all of this off.
If we assume that breathing air is not something that can be done until we are told by the rules that every character can breathe air, so what? If you can't breathe air, you can't hold your breath, and if you can't hold your breath, you can't suffocate according to the rules as written. So there is no in-game implication. Can your character's favorite color be blue? Can your character enjoy rap music even if rap music doesn't exist in your game world? These things might change how you play your character, but they aren't rules questions.
And hell, even if they were rules questions, the DM always has the final say on what can and cannot be done, period, even if the rules say you can.
paulstrait wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
All bow to NOCTAEM the all knowing and all powerful. He alone knows how the game must be played for verrily I say unto you he hath descended from on high with his mighty thews and powerous glory to reveal unto ye how ye must make useage of the wholy scripture of DnD in all its glory.
Ye pesants and miscreants dare not chalange him in his ritous wrath for verrily I say unto the he knoweth the mind of the greatest work of the generations and will ye nil ye be it present in said holy book or not his mere utterance of the word doth make it so. Upon his lips doth wrest the mere existance of the knowledge of the mighty scripture.
in other words according to Noctaem if he says it is in the book it is there even if it is not and don't you dare ask him to prove what he says. The fact that he says it is so is all you need.
The essence of my argument with him boils down to.
It can not be RAW (rules as written) if it is not written down in the rule book. It must be RAI (rules as intended) if you infer the meaning of a rule when it is not explicitly stated. If you want to use RAI or rule 0 at your table that is great its what this version of the game is all about, just don't claim to be playing using RAW if it is not actually RAW, it will lead to confusion for new players and DM's. Share your house rules they are usefull even if they are only used as a method of not handeling a situation, just don't say it is in the rules when it is a house rule.
Three different posts and multiple PM's which I will be glad to provide if you want where he insists to be using the exact written rule and I keep asking him not to and saying that it is not if he can not provide text and a page number. Now he is here and once again making blanket statments about how only he knows what is correct.
lol thanks for proving my point.
So what this typically reduces to is everyone is right and yet no one is. It is not RAW to say that you can reload a hand crossbow without a free hand because it doesn't say you can. It however, doesn't say you can't. All the rules do have written is that you can attack with a hand crossbow, that it is a one handed weapon, that it requires ammunition, that drawing ammunition is part of the attack (humorously, drawing ammunition and loading aren't actually the same thing), and if you don't have the crossbow expert feat, the loading property restricts the weapon to a single attack per round. Anything else about the weapon, from what kind of ammunition it uses, what it's made of, whether you need a free hand to load it, whether loading is done before or after an attack, and whether the crossbow expert feat allows you to load a hand crossbow after attacking with it but before declaring your bonus action is DMs discretion.
Pretty much the majority of "rules" in D&D are subject to interpretation... the thing people need to grasp though, is that it's not subject to anyone's interpretation... only the DMs interpretation matters.
Bloodscythe,
I disagree that only the DM's interpretation matters. I think that everyone at the tables opinion matters as the game is played as a group, not like a consumer.
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
Sic semper tyrannis! ;)
Pelican12 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
There are rules that are clear, like all elves having proficiency in long bows. There are rules that fall into a more gray area, such as how to adjudicate stealth, whether or not you can attack with two hand crossbows (especially after the first round), whether a cleric needs to have a free hand at all times to cast all of their spells.
In a home campaign, a DM can make up whatever they want. They can decide that elves don't like bows or that druids can suit up in full plate. It's their world, they decide what rules to use or change.
But even in an Adventurer's League game some things are going to be up to the DM. That's just being realistic. Typing a novella justifying your opinion does not make it correct. Sometimes reasonable people simply disagree.
Bloodscythe wrote:
NO! RAW means Rules As Written
https://www.google.com/#q=Rules+as+Written
Under this search
http://www.acronymfinder.com/Rules-As-Written-(roleplaying-games)-(RAW).html
http://dmingwithcharisma.com/2013/09/rules-as-written-or-hate-the-playa-not-the-game/
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Rules+As+Written 6th down
and this one from the DnD wiki
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Rules_as_Written_(terminology)
You are wrong as to the definiton
From the DnD wiki site:
Rules as Written (terminology)
Rules as written in the D&D game refers to the rules that WoTC publishes. In a wider sense it means the rules of the game being played. Rules as written is used to distinguish these from both house rules and what may have been intended that the rules were to be, such as a reference in a blurb to an ability that the class in question does not actually get or that is being used incorrectly. It is important to note that often the rules as written are open to interpretation as there may be multiple viewpoints on what the RAW is.
Noctaem wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Obviously no!
But dont worry most law text, holy text and constitution around the world dont mention it raw either!
Noctaem wrote:
Using a sling as an improvised weapon alludes to a weapon being loaded without consuming ammo.
Yunru wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Great! So you have rules text to point out. Please quote it and list the page number so you can prove once and for all that you are absolutly correct and that your understanding of the rules is supported by the actual text.
I've already done that, feel free to use the search function and read the threads again, maybe what I've said for the last week will finally sink in.
So you do not have any text to back it up and you are just spouting off with non-factual statments based on your oppinion. Ok. so you can not dual wield per RAW. Good to know.
Yunru wrote:
You're the one refusing to read what's right in front of you. I've even made an actual thread about this very subject, and yet you don't go post there? Maybe because people there agree with my reasoning? Or maybe because they would tell you you're wrong if did post there? Oh wait, that already happened. You were told that you were wrong and yet here we are, with you continuing to spew the same garbage. Hurray.
I've told you now twice where you can find the rule quotes you're looking for. I'm tired of providing you with quotes and answering your questions. You've proven unable to read or understand what many people have now told you.
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
WibbleNZ wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
WibbleNZ wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
A hand crossbow has the light property, which means that it is small and easy to handle and ideal for two weapon fighting. It is hardly ideal for two weapon fighting if you can't use it more than once when two weapon fighting.
WibbleNZ wrote:
Danfmac wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
*Facepalm
Ok so you are saying that it is RAW (rules as written) so please post the exact text and a page number saying that you can hold one in each hand.
If you can not quote exact text it is not RAW.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Well then there's this guy...
Drycanth wrote:
Actually RAW does include "loading" a ranged weapon (bow or crossbow) as part of the attack. The problem is the misinterpretation of "draw". Anyone familiar with archery would realize that when you knock an arrow (or bolt) and pull the back the string this is called "drawing".
From Wikipedia's entry: Archery Terms:
- Drawing (practice) - The act of pulling an arrow against a bow string in readiness for shooting
This is just one of many cases in the RAW (aka books) where a term has multiple meanings which can cause RAW to be interpreted differently by different people depending on their understanding of the term. This is why rules lawyers (aka munhkins) can fight over RAW without going into RAI, because the terminology used in any rulebook is never 100% foolproof from differences in linguistic understanding and interpretation.
As for the dual-wielding crossbows it isn't technically RAW because nowhere in the rulebook does it specifically state you can wield two hand crossbows, much less actually attack with them past the first round. The rules are mute on the free hand requirement so the abiltiy to actually reload them while both are being held is strictly RAI and DM/table discretion.
Also unless you have a multiple attack class feature there's no reason to dual-wield a hand crossbow. The RAW doesn't allow you to get in two ranged attacks in a single round. The two weapon fighting rules specifcy: 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.
The bolded Melee emphasis is mine, as this shows RAW doesn't allow you to effectively dual-wield (just dual-hold) two hand crossbows (you could only fire with one of them). Now a DM (or a future book) could include a class feature or feat rule for dual-wielding hand crossbows but currently it's not allowed under RAW. Wielding is used in this sense to attack with the weapon, not just hold it, since you could hold a 2-handed weapon in each hand, just not attack with (wield) them.
The rules could have been slightly more clear by using less ambiguous terminology for ranged weapons but the designers don't always think of everything and if the playtesters never had confusion with the RAW presented then it would have been overlooked. RAW is always RAI in practice, and even munchkin/rules lawyer types argue RAI because they apply their own interpretation to the RAW, often claiming their interpretation is RAW and opposing ones aren't. The only places you don't see disagreement are in the places where people agree that RAW is RAI.
Grazel wrote:
the more people who repeat these things as I've done for the last 2 weeks, the higher likelyhood it'll finally sink in. I'm just sick and tired of doing it lol.
RAW: Can my character wear shoes? Do shoes even exist in 5e? I see a set of cobbler's tools in the equipment section, but no rules on what you can do with them.
Doesn't it say when describing "Fey" that they 'Eat, Breath and sleep?'
This must mean that only Fey need to breath! ... Eat... and Sleep...
jonathonhawke wrote:
randl wrote:
WibbleNZ wrote:
WibbleNZ wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
How do the Drow do it? They invented the dern thing, after all.
jonathonhawke wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Welcome to my world. I have been arguing with him for days. He can not or will not grasp that RAW means rules as written, and that if a rule is not written down then it is not and can not ever be RAW. RAI means rules as intended and allowes for you to use common sense and logic to fill in the gap between what is explicitly stated and what is not.
Saying you can hold two hand crossbows when fighting is using RAI.
No rule explicitly states that you can.
You instead look at the rules given and see that it has been given weapon properties that specificly state that this weapon is designed to be able to be used with one hand.
You then take a step of logic and interpret that since the weapon is designed to be used in one hand that you could hold one in each hand.
You then decide based on what logic and common sense tells you weather or not this will work based on what you understand is involved in loading a handcrossbow.
You have now filled in the gap between the RAW rules presented in the book and your RAI to decide in your game what will be allowed.
This is the essence of how DnD 5th is supposed to be. It is about making the game your own, not about strict reading of the rules and blind following of the exact written word. They had multiple editions that used that latter design and they were rules heavy and cumbersome with massive ammounts of mechanical tweaks being required on a neary constant basis just to fix the way the written rules worked and make the game function. This version is rules light with simple and easy being the primary goal so that multiple play styles can use the same rules set and tweak the game to fit their needs.
Drycanth wrote:
"So the above got me thinking. Does RAW allow my character to breathe?"
No. Your character will die in 4 minutes +1 minute per point of Con Mod + 1 round per point of Con Mod + the number of rounds it takes to fail 3 death saves. That's just the cold inevitability of the rules.
However, DURING that time your character can have an extremely long and vivid flashback sequence showing their progress from 1'st level all the way to 20th, played out over months of game sessions!
Bloodscythe wrote:
Absolutely not. "Breathing" is the kind of house-ruled nonsense that ruins any real D&D game. In my games, if you can't get yourself turned into a vampire in four minutes, you should have just picked a more optimized build.
Bloodscythe wrote:
So...the presumption is that any ranged weapon that has the Ammunition property but not the Two-Handed property nonetheless requires two hands to operate more than once?
Drycanth wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Danfmac wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe, the loading property is bypassed by crossbow expertise feat...
Pelican12 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
No one I'm aware of is saying you can bypass the loading property restriction (fire once per turn) without Crossbow Expert. You're inventing stuff to make your argument valid. Please quote someone who said this?
EDIT I want an answer to this because frankly too many people are putting words in other people's mouths during these discussions and it's getting out of hand. Quote someone who said that you can bypass the loading property without Crossbow Expert. Now please.
jonathonhawke wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
For crying out loud.
Post a video or example of any kind of how to load a hand crossbow with out using two hands. Not some special version that is built to do this but the basic hand crossbow since you are talking about a regular plain unmodified version for this wording to be able to be universal.
You can't no such method exists. The most advanced self-cocking type require two hands.
Here's what I find most humorous about this entire discussion. I'm arguing that rules are subject to interpretation and that the DM is the final say in what is or isn't the interpretation of the rule being used at the table.
People arguing against me apparently are arguing that this rule isn't subject to interpretation. My proof that is it subject to interpretation would be the forums themselves. There are numerous people arguing one interpretation against others. Those varying interpretations aren't necessarily wrong. They may just be based on differing opinion on what certain words mean. But arguing that the rule can't be interpreted more than one way is foolish.
You cant shoot a fireball from your hand too i think (and that one you will not find a video), and two weeapon fighting is unreal and so ineffective as dual wielding crossbows in real life.
So why bother playing a fantasy game is we can't do cool things we cannot do in reality?
There is no "reality rule" I think in 5e, if the rules says you can, you can, and how you fluff that is only relative on the scenario you are playing, nothing more.
The Rules are Written *based on* the existence of DM adjudication. That is the *Point* of how the game is designed.
Can you unsheathe a sword while moving to attack?
The RAW says you can... but what if both hands are full? What if you are carrying a heavy object? The game is designed for a DM to account for all of the variables and adjudicate the situation accordingly.
What about using a 'free interaction' to plant a banner?
The RAW says you can... but what if the ground is mostly stone? What if the banner pole is 20' long? The game is designed for a DM to account for all of the variables and adjudicate the situation accordingly.
I am not talking about DMs just changing rules ("In my world, Elves get no bonus weapon proficiencies") But rather doing their assigned job, as the game is designed.... to account for the many many possible variables, and adjudicate the situation accordingly.
Bloodscythe wrote:
No it is not a big deal and I would probably allow it, however reloading would not be possible since both hands are full. But I do not claim that this is all strictly RAW, this is me being the DM and adjudicating based on the factors.
1) that with both hands full you have no way to draw out a new bolt
2) with both hands full you can not draw back the string to **** the bow.
3) since both weapons are designed to be shot one handed you can hold one in each hand
4) since you can not multi-attack you can only shoot one of them
5) in order to reload you would have to drop one of the hand crossbows
That is my RAI descision on the subject.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
You're adding a requirment for additional object interaction in order to make something more realistic/make logical sense. Object interaction is accounted for in the attack action. If you want to house rule that it makes no sense you can shoot two seperate hand crossbows in the same attack action (first and second attacks), that's your tables call. 5e is based on allowing the players to do more without as much hassle. Since I believe you're using RAI (in your eyes) to restrict, that's contrary to how I feel (RAI) the games spirit is intended to be. The loaded line in the feat (which is a player forward addition) is an anomaly if you look at how combat works. It's so blatently not in the spirit of the rules(RAI), and so blatently outside the written rules(RAW) that I don't understand why you are backwardly applying it in an attempt to say RAW attacking with two hand crossbows is predicated upon it. Everything RAW in 5e is coming from a point of simplicity and streamlining past editions. You're arguing that you require DM fiat to do this - that's your perogative, DM's change rules all the time, but at a base level it works.
Danfmac wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Adratlas wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
Danfmac, in all fairness he never claimed a 2 handed weapon requires 2 hands on it at all times...
He has also said you can fire 2 preloaded hand crossbows. You just can't reload them because no free hand.
How is a lvl 5 fighter with 2 hand crossbows more broken than a lvl 5 fighter with a short bow? They can both make 2 ranged attacks for 1d6+Dex damage, and the short bow user has a longer range as well.
FrogReaver wrote:
I know this conversation is about RAW and not RAI, but Mearls has said that the RAI is that you can reload a hand crossbow even if you have a hand crossbow in your other hand. And his answer wasn't one of these "I'd rule that..." answers. Some people have a strange aversion to listening to what the game designer says about the game he designed, so if that was intentional, fair enough.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Danfmac wrote:
Danfmac wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
If you can attack with a shortbow for the same damage and chance of success, why does it matter? He's giving up a large amount of range for "coolness", that's all.
jonathonhawke wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Adratlas wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Blood scythe,
The hand crossbow reloading is not ambiguous by the rules. It's only ambiguous to you because you believe the rules have to explicitly say reloading a hand crossbow doesn't require A free hand or else it's ambiguous.
Are the rules also ambiguous about whether you can reload a hand crossbow while naked? While clothed? While in leather armor? While standing upright? While prone? What about while frightened? Or poisoned? Or blind? Or restrained? you must answer yes!
So, IMO you have declared every rule and law ever written ambiguous.
By your argument the speeding laws are ambiguous about whether it is against the law to speed in a blue sweater. The law doesn't say it is or isn' when wearing a blue sweatert. Your reasoning is ridiculous IMO.
The rules shouldn't have to define that you need a free hand to draw a piece of ammunition from a container any more than that you need legs to stand up from prone.
I don't care if you and your DM agree that you can have a Van Helsing crossbow
I just disagree that the RAW "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack." isn't clear. If you are not using a hand to draw the ammunition you must be using some kind of clockwork device or magic.
Heck, if you have a cool idea or description of how it works, if it's fun, if I don't think it's horribly broken, if you ask nice instead of insisting on some obtuse reading that your way of doing this is RAW when it clearly isn't I'd probably allow it.
OoftaMeg wrote:
paulstrait
that is fine. you can say that they can all you want you can interpret how ever you choose. The complaint is that it is not a strict RAW reading it is interpreting the rule and allowing something not expressly stated.
Even the crossbow expert feat does not say you can wield two hand crossbows it only says that you can make a bonus attakc with an already loade hand crossbow. Nothing says you can wield two nor does anything say that you do not need to use a free hand to load one. The statment for the hand crossbow is not worded to give exact wording that says you can dual wield and you never have to make any effort to load them. Nor does it allow some mystical, technological, or super skill method of one hand reloading them.
The rules are silent on this issue so that you can allow what you want in your game and I can deny what I want in mine and both are valid. 5 pages here and multiple pages elsewhare based on some people stating that the rules state something that they do not. The rules are silent on this and you must decide what you want in your game.
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Drycanth, are murder laws ambiguous about whether you can murder someone with a free hand or whether murder requires for you to have a free hand?
is that ambiguous?
paulstrait wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Danfmac wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Danfmac wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
There are rules detail how you draw mana to cast a spell? How is the divine intervention? How the rituals are prepared?
Since there are no rules on how you draw mana, you cant just cast a spell by that logic.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Danfmac wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Danfmac wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I've said it before, but given the insane length of this thread I suppose it needs to be stated again:
I'm not saying that dual wielding hand crossbows and drawing ammunition without a free hand isn't correct. I'm just saying it is only one interpretation of the rules.
And since DMs determine what interpretation of the rules is used at the table, the answer to the question "Can my character dual wield hand crossbows and reload them?" is "Ask your DM."
Mike Mearls answer to the question is roughly "If you juggle your items!" But if that is how he envisions a character pulling it off, and wanted to allow it at my table, I'd require a dexterity check while doing it to see if you manage to pull off an elaborate manipulation of multiple objects while in the heat of combat. Obviously, the extra roll would be a house rule.
Or I could just say you can't draw ammunition without a free hand. Since interaction with objects is vague, the DM decides what is and isn't allowed within the game.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
[quote="Danfmac"]<p></p><blockquote><div class="xbbcode-quote-header">Bloodscythe wrote:</div><div class="xbbcode-quote-content">
<p> </p>
<blockquote>
<div>paulstrait wrote:</div>
<div>
<p> </p>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p>I just disagree that the RAW "<span>Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container </span>is part of the attack.<span>" isn't clear. If you are not using a hand to draw the ammunition you must be using some kind of clockwork device or magic. </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p><span>You can hold two things in your hand at the same time. Or, at least, I can. If you are a crossbow expert, you might have worked on this technique, or maybe you </span>have some kind of holster or other device that helps you do this. It isn't unreasonable for you to tell a player not without explaining it in a plausible manner. That should apply to everything in the game, frankly.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Ever loaded a gun with the same hand holding the gun? If so, I'm impressed. More likely, you load a gun the way everyone else does. They either open the revolver with one hand while holding it with the other, and with their free hand, they put bullets into it. Or they hold the gun with one hand, remove the magazine, and using their free hand, slide a new magazine into the gun.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We're not discussing Crossbow Experts specifically. We're discussing general use of hand crossbows and anyone who uses one, proficient or not. No one is arguing that ONLY crossbow experts can draw ammunition without a free hand. People are arguing that anyone drawing ammunition can do so without using their hands.</p>
<p></p></div></blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Ever shot a fireball out of your hand? If so, I'm impressed. More likely, no one can shoot a fireball out of their hand so Wizards and Sorcerers don't exist. If someone wants to play one at my table they have to explain how they shoot a fireball or they can't. /s</p>
[/quote]
But shooting a fireball by definition requires magic. There's nothing in the rules that indicates that drawing ammunition is magical.
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
randl wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
I would have to agree that it seems many people here are arguing just for the sake of realism and not even about the rules in the book. you can't do x because it's not realistic that you can. "common sense" says that you can't because you need x by common sense.
No people. all I need is the rule in the book. If your argument requires you to link to youtube videos (I've seen that done many times now) that show real people not being able to do what the rule describes (and you use that as some kind of evidence for your argument) you've already lost. This is a table top RPG. Reality has nothing to do with a fantasy game about dungeons and dragons!!!
Noctaem you are compleetly missing the point.
Your opinion of this is that a untrained character that has no proficency can pick up the basic standard hand crossbow from any shop and some how use one in each hand and juggle them both in order to reload them with out dropping them. That is whay your interpretation of the rules says.
I've never said what you just stated so I have no idea what you're talking about. Please quote me saying that or retract your post.
Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:
I've once heard the saying "Common sense isn't really common or always make sense".
One of the biggest draws to 5th edition is the "rulings over rules" mentality constantly expressed through the playtest and by the developers. While I hope everyone will be able to find tables that will allow them to play the game as they want, I will also emphasize interpretations and rulings that will keep 5th the game I want to play. A good part of this is common sense rulings with balance and enjoyment for the majority of the table (consensis is difficult in any group larger than 1) that includes the DM. Anybody who does a large amount League play will just have to accept two thing:
1) The DM for the game may not allow some rulings I expect.
2) The DM may allows some rulings that I disagree with.
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Some asked *how* you'd load two Hand Crossbows.
Here's a couple of options;
1: Like any good action movie hero reloads two Pistols. You throw both Hand Crossbows into the air holding them by the string to notch them, whil they are spinning you draw two bolts and throw them into the air as well. You then catch both Hand Crossbows, as the bolts land snuggly into the groove.
2: As I'm not told I've got shoes, I use my flexible bare feet to pick up a bolt between my toes, and load my Hand Crossbows that way. Yes, this takes a little acrobatics, as I'm using both legs to do so.
3: Again, like any good action movie hero, you never see them reload. My Hand Crossbow reloads take place outside time and space. My ammunition is used, but how they get loaded is a mystery to everyone else. They never see me load...
GentlemanLoser wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
The problem isn't necessarily that they can't visualize it. The problem is that by allowing a hands free approach to object interaction, you open the door for exploitative behavior, like being able I drink a potion while your hands are tied. The rules don't state you need a free hand to grab a potion to drink it. But rightly so. It's possible to drink something without using your hands, but it is situational. It is DM's discretion. You can't make the unilateral declaration that the rules don't require a free hand to draw ammunition just because the rules aren't explicit. Much of the game is implicit or DM's discretion so it didn't need to be explicit. That is the intent of the design of the game. A bare bones framework to play the game but not so restrictive that play is bogged down by rules lawyering. A DM can make a judgement and it sticks because it's not like a player can say "hey wait a minute! The rules say I can load my hand crossbows without using my hands!". Well no, the rules don't say that. And anything not explicit is DM's discretion. Even some of the explicit rules say that the rule is not defined or detailed entirely and that ultimately is is the DM's judgement that refines the rules.
FrogReaver wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
The houserules you decide to enforce on your players to nerf their abilities and how they can interact with the rules at your table is up to you.
The rest of us prefer to follow the rules in the book thank you.
Noctaem wrote:
The PHB is not the bible in any way shape or form. The comparison is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure we can not talk about the bible. Yeah that sounds like a good plan.
I'm simply unable to accept that you adding words and restrictions to the rules in the PHB is somehow another interpretation of the RAW. RAW by default can't be modified by someones interpretation of the rules. You simply do exactly what the rule says. If it doesn't implicitely say you need a free hand. You don't. That's the end of it. Again you don't even understand what RAW means.
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I ask him why he feels the need to change the rules in the book. Then if he continues to argue he is correct. I ask him what he will do when someone with a 2 handed ammunition weapon comes along or any other issue the houserule creates. Does that person need a free hand as well even though they need 2 hands to wield their weapon in the first place? Odds are if I can point out obvious problems with the ruling or discuss openly the changes, any competent DM will at the very least start to rethink the decisions or a compromise can be reached that satisfies both DM and player.
If the DM is completely opposed to following the rule in the book, even after the discussion I would have with those questions I would then ask to change my character so that I can play one that follows the rules he has determined he will use at his table. I would also ask if there are any other rules he has decided to change arbitrarily so that everyone can know them ahead of time and play accordingly.. If he refuses to let me make change my existing character or make a new one and/or explain the houserules he is attempting to force 5 other people to follow, I would leave the group.
A DM who arbitrarily changes the rules, blocks discussion about those changes, makes additional changes and finally stops players from adapting to those changes (read houserules)... Yeah no one should play with that DM. You're playing as a group. The DM is not god, and his decisions that affect players in a negative way should be discussed within the group. Especially when those decisions make other things no longer function correctly. Players should not be reduced to "mother, may I?" questions to their DM. Everyone should be playing on the same foundations.
Now I come from the RAI camp more than the RAW, because RAW just makes no sense at all, then I polietly ask my player to just be cool and do something else, something less cheesy. Im not a hardball DM and we dont have any players really question my authority because i'm not out to screw them and I generally like to just tell a good story. It's a trust thing, I try to stay impartial and tell the players "yes" as much as possible. Then again after 3 editions, the same 8-9 players like to "win" without absoluetly getting insane about maximizing a character. But once in a while it comes up and we roll with it. We really dont have a lot of arguments.
So at our table....
Let's just say we have a 20th level Fighter/Battle Master and he has Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter. He has two hand crossbows of the standard non-magical variety, and his bolts are in very easy access quivers across his chest just for this kind of gunslinging action.
He gets the jump on 20 kobolds and goads them to chase him after revisting some old camp from his adventuring days in horde of the dragon queen.
After rolling init, he goes first.
He uses action surge.
He now has -nine- crossbow bolts being fired in a -six- second window in which according to "reality", the spirit of the rules and no magic being used he can also;
He can reload his crossbow for each shot.
He has to aim at least a little bit to get the damage bonus on Sharpshooter.
He has to move his arm to account for his moving targets or at least to lead them
He can do anything from trip them, to disarm them,, to goad them, to strike fear in them, etc etc from manuvers.
He can move 30 feet during this six second period.
Now at first I was going to tell a player no on the two crossbow thing or even the one crossbow + shield deal as it seems kind of dumb, being as we all know how hard it would be to do in real life with two hands. Then I figured out the above 9-shots in six seconds scenario and asked myself...."what if he didn't use a second hand crossbow and just used a heavy crossbow instead?" and my next thought was: "Oh, it's the same exact unrealistic fantasy gunslinging, except it's eight shots instead of nine."
An interpretation of the RAW that isn't the same as your interpretation isn't "changing the rules".
Upon asking a DM how a character using a 2handed ammunition weapon, like heavy crossbow for example, would attack with one, I would hope the DM states matter of factly "the character removes a hand from the 2 handed weapon, holding it in one, draws back the string, draws ammunition, loads the crossbow, then returns their hand to the crossbow, then pulls the trigger. Was that a serious question?"
Except I'm not arbitrarily changing the rules of the book. I just believe that unless you are using magic, D&D assumes that what you do should be physically possible. It is not physically possible to draw a piece of ammunition from a container without interacting with it with some appendage (typically a hand or possibly some kind of mechanical device).
Physically improbable I can live with. There's a guy who can fast-draw and shoot a pistol hitting two targets so fast that you have a hard time seeing it, and it sounds like he only gets one shot off. Unlikely? Yes. Possible? Yes. Could he have done it without drawing his pistol from his holster? No.
But ultimately you're saying that if the DM disagrees with you, you will refuse to play with them. Fair enough. Please don't play at my table with that attitude.
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
So basically, if I play a martial class I'm stuck auto attacking while the wizard can alter reality with a flick of his wrist. Sounds super fun!
To be clear, the rule is designed to remind people that everyone at the table having fun is the goal. Not just the classes who can use magic.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just a little reminder from your friendly neighborhood Dragonette: discussing moderation in the forums is off topic and considered forum disruption. This includes but is not limited to posting that you are going to report someone. By all means please report any content you find objectionable, but do not announce that you are doing so.
Thanks,
Monica
I always assume that the RAW is kind of layered on top of reality. The real world is the general rule. Game rules are specific overrides of the real world. Does the RAW conflict with the real world by saying that the wizard can produce flames from his hand? Nope ... burning hands is a specific rule that overrides real world reality.
paulstrait wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Dragonette wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
And the rules say the DM decides. That's RAW... rule as written.
Here's what I find hilarious. Your argument is based on your interpretation of what RAW means. Your definition, and I quote:
RAW (Rules As Written), abbreviation
1. The rules as they are written down in a source, without further interpretation, adjustment, addition or removal.
Can you please site the source of the definition?
When I google "Rules As Written Definition", I get:
The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law.
Please note the word interpretation in the definition.
Now I typed in "D&D RAW" and was directed to the D&D Wiki page which defines RAW as:
Rules As Written in the D&D game refers to the rules that WoTC publishes. In a wider sense it means the rules of the game being played. Rules As Written is used to distinguish these from both house rules and what may have been intended that the rules were to be, such as a reference in a blurb to an ability that the class in question does not actually get or that is being used incorrectly. It is important to note that often the Rules As Written are open to interpretation as there may be multiple viewpoints on what the RAW is.
So again, I ask: What is your basis for your definition of RAW, that it doesn't require "further interpretation"? Is it your definition or are you pulling from a source?
You're obviously not arguing in good faith.
Bloodscythe wrote:
What's the alternative to basing rules not covered by RAW on reality? When describing a game you have to have some common concepts to start from. We assume that people have to breath and normally breath as part of being a living creature because that's what happens in the real world.
Let's take the phrase "you can load your weapon as part of making an attack" that Nocteum likes to quote.
So you can load the crossbow as part of the attack. Great. What does "loading" mean? Well they have that defined. "Draw a piece of ammunition from a container". Ok, so far so good. Is there a definition of drawing a piece of ammunition? No. Then we have to fall back on what it means in the real world.
There's no interpretation of RAW, no house rule here because the rules don't explicitly define what drawing a piece of ammunition requires.
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Let's go with a new example:
You are a 5 level fighter and you have been arrested for stealing a horse. The town magistrate has sentenced you to a week in a pillory. Your trusty rogue companion will not let this stand and plans on picking the lock to get you out of that vile contraption!
The rogue arrives and must pick the lock to get you out, but you are surrounded by townspeople and even guards who might try to stop the rogue so the rogue gives you two unloaded hand crossbows and says "keep them off of me while I work!"
Given the interpretation that "Drawing ammunition is part of the attack" negates the need to be ABLE to draw ammunition, the fighter in this example may now attack with those hand crossbows since he has one in each hand and attacking with them is completely allowed per RAW. And you even allow the fighter to load them, attack with them, and reload them and continue attacking, every turn without missing a beat until he runs out of ammunition.
I submit that you are interpreting the sentence incorrectly, but it's completely within possible interpretations. By all means, continue playing the way you are. I just don't agree with you.
Your interpretation: If I can attack, I can draw ammunition as a free action.
My interpretation: If I attack, I have to draw ammunition as a free action. If I can't draw ammunition, I can't attack.
My interpretation isn't necessarily better than yours, but it's still a valid interpretation of RAW.
FrogReaver wrote:
Heh. Giving someone locked in a pillory an unloaded crossbow is kind of a d--k move...
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
So, then, you aren't going to respond to bloodscythe's hands-tied-behind-the-back example?
GentlemanLoser wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Or the guy with his hands tied behind his back still swinging a Greatsword? IIRC restrained gives you disadvantage on attack rolls. Themeatically appropriate.
What condition in the rules accurately reflects being 'bound'? There's no 'bound' condition. The closest is Restrained.
Moving from Restrianed to Incapacitated is easy. Any method that Incapacitates would suffice. Like a Grappler.
As for super hog tied equalling incapacitated. Ball Gag. No ball gag? Not super hog tied. Still restrained.
Regarding drinking a potion without the use of your hands, haven't you ever seen someone pick up a shot glass with thier mouth and drink the contents?
jonathonhawke wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem 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.
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.
paulstrait wrote:
Using Noctaem's wording of RAW since he has presented a clear cut definition to allow us to discuss things with him using.
Since you Noctaem state clearly that using two hand crossbows is RAW can there fore post exact quote of the text and referance the page number where it spedificly states you can dual wield hand crossbows.
Using your explicit definition of RAW you must be able to quote exact text that says you can hold one in each hand or exact text where it says you can fight with one in each hand. If you can not post this exact wording and page number and instead use some infered meaning of multiple other rules than you can not do this per RAW using your definiton.
Using your same definiton post the exact wording and list the location where it says you can load a crossbow or any other weapon with out using a free hand. If you can not post exact quote and instead use infered meaning you can not claim it is RAW using your definiton.
So which is it is your definiton of RAW wrong or is your stated postion not actually in the book and your RAI of the rules?
I am giving you a free out here, If your definion of RAW was incorrect than you and everyone else arguing were just operating under mistaken definion of a term and we can end this, if you still insist your defintion is correct than everything else will be all on you.
If your argument is RAW can be interpreted to mean hand crossbows can be loaded and used one in each hand with no need to have a free hand. Then yes, your argument is correct.
If your argument is RAW can ONLY be interpreted to mean hand crossbows can be loaded and used one in each hand with no need to have a free hand. Then, your argument was disproven the moment I presented a 2nd valid interpretation of RAW.
However, you have stated that your definition of RAW is the "real definition", which is absurd. And you have stated that my interpretation of RAW just isn't true. And you have stated that RAW cannot be interpreted, that it is not subject to interpretation. So based on this, I believe your argument has always been, and remains to be the latter. If it is the latter, then your argument is flawed because while my argument doesn't have to disprove your belief that hand crossbows can be loaded without a free hand, your argument does require disproving my interpretation of the RAW, which you have not done, nor have you ever attempted to do. Simply stating that your version of RAW is the only version of RAW doesn't cut it.
And I'm sorry if you don't agree with this either, but RAW, as any language, is subject to interpretation. The only "language" used by man that is resistant to ambiguity is math, and even that can have ambiguity. Since words convey multiple meanings two people can read the same sentence or same paragraph and come away with different meanings.
You could care less. You obviously have a pressing need to be right. Unfortunately for you, in this instance, you are not unless you are willing to accept that RAW can have more than one interpretation. That's just a simple fact.
Noctaem wrote:
I have given every one a way out. All some one needs do is claim that they were using the wrong understanding of what RAW means. Then every one can walk away with no winer or looser and no one needs admit they were wrong.
Bloodscythe wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
Lol this is so funny to read how you guys wiggle around trying to make an argument. What does "has ammunition" mean? You really have to wonder what it could possibly mean in relation to what DS.397 was talking about huh?
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
DS.397, be careful not to let yourself be sucked into the premise he just gave you. What he just said has 0 bearing on the position you presented. Being able to make an improvised attack with your weapon has nothing to do with what you were talking about.
And again, the RAW does not have multiple interpretations. The whole point of RAW is that it is exactly as it is written in the book. If it says you can draw a potion of healing as part of a move action, you would be able to do exactly that. What I just said isn't in the rules but if it was, you would be able to do exactly as it said. DS.397 is absolutely correct in his/her post earlier.
EDIT: Ha, I see you were able to determine the same thing as my first paragraph. I like you more and more
DS.397 wrote:
The simple fact that people are debating the exact meaning of the words regarding ammunition, loading, hand crossbows, dual wielding, etc. demonstrates that text is ambigious and can have more than one interpretation. Therefore the statement that RAW does not have multiple interpretations is instantly invalidated.
It's not a simple misreading of the text. It is text ambiguity.
Bloodscythe wrote:
I think you're just saying there's ambiguity for the sake of saying so or because you just don't like what the rule says since it violates your personal view of common sense.
DS.397 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Well, remember, I didn't just say "force a DM to rule one particular way," I said "force a DM to rule one particular way... if that DM is unwilling to houserule." Maybe that's not the best way to say that. But I think that we probably have a different idea of what is entailed in 'houseruling,' and that might be part of what is keeping us from coming to a full consensus.
I think we can all agree that the literal rules, as they are written, don't change until/unless there is errata. But people can disagree on what the rules as written mean for a particular situation. Now, you are right, just because people disagree doesn't mean some of them aren't wrong. But I (along with Bloodscythe, Drycanth, OoftaMeg, and possibly FrogReaver) think that this is a situation where there is some ambiguity and two DMs can disagree without either necessarily being wrong. We all might be wrong about that, sure, but I think the fact that we have hundreds of posts in this thread and still so many of us think the situation is borderline (everyone in the above list might not agree that the situation is 'borderline,' I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but they all agree that there is at least some intractable element of ambiguity inherent in the underlying rules) is suggestive.
Bloodscythe wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Bloodscythe wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I finesse my hand-crossbow all the time, and don't need a feat to drop the loading quality.
So, then, you are saying that for you, a character can only be in one of the states described by the PHB, even if it doesn't fit the situation?
OoftaMeg wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Can't quote.
As for spiders webs and restrained. That toally depends. Maybe the Spider (like Spider man) shots a sticky gob of webbing at you, which snares your arms to your your chest.
Leaving you able to move, but unable (or at a disadvantage) to act.
Regardless fo what type of webbing is shot, whether it's an existing web, or a single strand. The rules use the Restrained condition to represent this.
Bloodscythe wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Exactly.
Regardless of your vision of how the Sipder attacks with its web, the end efect is you're Restrained. Not bound, not Incapacitated.
Does it really look like the guy in the sample picture could take an action? Could he drink a potion with his arms stuck above his head in the web?
Not really, not by the illustration.
But in game he can. Becuase retrained doesn't stop us taking an action.
You could limit the actions you're allowed to take, based on your vision of the attack.
But that's a houserule. Nothing more.
GentlemanLoser wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Why is this thread still going? Nothing can be added to either side's argument, no opinions will be swayed. Just seems like people are debating for win points which don't exist.
I look forward to not seeing 20 new replies here everytime I scout Rules Questions in search of people with actual questions about the rules. This horse is dead, please bury it!
Nevvur wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
And some people did actually change their minds about some things. I know I think a bit differently about this question than I did 100 or so posts ago. And, frankly, made some new forum-friends in the process.
paulstrait wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I do have one new insight into hand crossbows and needing two hands to use them.
The PHB on page 149 gives us a list of weapons and each weapon has an exhaustive list of in game properties they possess. I want to draw your attention to the "Two-Handed" property on page 147. The "Two Handed" property says "This weapon requires two hands to use". Of particular importance is the fact that hand crossbows do not have the "two-handed" property.
From this we can conclude hand crossbows do not require two hands to use. I guess the only question is, what do the rules mean when they say "use".
FrogReaver wrote:
Personally, I have no qualms with dual wielding hand crossbows as long as the DM allows it. It is in no way game-breaking. I do have issue though with anyone saying that RAW isn't subject to interpretation. Language, all language, is subject to interpretation. And I think I demonstrated that the RAW covering ammunition can be interpreted more than one way.
Except nowhere in the PHB do the rules say or even hint at what Bloodscythe says above. So the above is houseruling, changing the rules to fit his self imposed restrictions, the game elements to work in a way that is not RAW or probably RAI. I wouldn't put any stock into the above. Just follow the rules, they are balanced and fair in this case.
Noctaem wrote:
As I've done many times now, I'll leave the things not covered by RAW for each person to decide. If you need someone to tell you, yes or no, that your character can breathe in a fantasy table top game because the rulebook doesn't specifically say yes or no, perhaps this game isn't for you.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Can a one armed character (flash backs to Swords of Sharpness...) attack with an unloaded Hand Crossbow in combat?
Said character has a container of hand crossbow Bolts to hand.
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
<p>[quote="Bloodscythe"]</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote>
<div class="xbbcode-quote-header">FrogReaver wrote:</div>
<div class="xbbcode-quote-content">
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote>
<div>FrogReaver wrote:</div>
<div>
<p>I do have one new insight into hand crossbows and needing two hands to use them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The PHB on page 149 gives us a list of weapons and each weapon has an exhaustive list of in game properties they possess. I want to draw your attention to the "Two-Handed" property on page 147. The "Two Handed" property says "This weapon requires two hands to use". Of particular importance is the fact that hand crossbows do not have the "two-handed" property.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>From this we can conclude hand crossbows do not require two hands to use. I guess the only question is, what do the rules mean when they say "use".</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>It's strange to me to say someone can use a hand crossbow but can't </p>
<p><span>load/reload </span><span>one. Why? To me loading/reloading the hand crossbow is part of using it.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Being able to interact with your ammunition is part of using it. All objects fall under the rules for interacting with objects. And since weapons, armor, and gear (including ammunition) are all objects, they all fall under the rules for interacting with objects. And since the rules aren't explicit on whether you are able to interact with objects without restriction, it is DM's discretion.</p>
<p>[/quote]</p>
If I am right about what it means to use a hand crossbow then it is not dm discretion.
can you fix your post .... the coding is jacked up
or wield a two-handed weapon?
GentlemanLoser wrote:
So if the arguement is that you require a free hand to attack (as a ranged weapon, not an improvised club) with a Hand Crossbow (a one handed weapon), as a free hand is a requirement to load a bolt.
Then how can anyone ever attack (as a ranged weapon) with a Heavy Crossbow, Shortbow or Longbow?
All three are Two Handed Weapons, and require both hands to use. You no longer have a free hand to load the weapon.
So basically, no one can ever shoot an unloaded Heavy Crossbow, Shortbow or Longbow?
It requires two hands to fire those weapons. Much like a two-handed polearm that requires two hands to wield, but you don't have to put it down to, say, drink a potion, because it can be *held* in one hand even though it requires two hands to use to attack.
BTW, no one is saying that a free hand is necessarily required, just that the rules are silent on the matter and so it RAW-consistent for it to be judged by the DM on a case-by-case basis.
paulstrait wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
One other thing as well. The game doesn't tell you how many hands it requires to hold a longbow.
Suppose that means it's dm discretion on whether you can hold a potion while loading one? I suppose that also means it's dm discretion on whether u can load a bow since he can rule u must keep 2 hands on it at all times this leaving u no way to reload
It requires two hands to fire those weapons.
I think we just determined that many of you believe that the rules don't cover being able to use a longbow at all.....
So almost everything is dm discretion. The dm can even rule I deal less in combat damage to certain monsters using a sword. The rules don't cover it....
you articulated that argument much better
GentlemanLoser wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I wouldn't because I understand what the rules are. I'm not interested in imagining myself believing what isn't true.
Your position is illogical because it can't be applied to every ammunition using weapon, or at least the position that you need a free hand. It's also illogical if you say you need another action because the rules for ammunition don't state any such extra action being required and neither do the attack rules. So really you have no argument left. All you and bloodscythe can do is make these tangent posts about "imagining yourself on the other side of the argument" or go on about "do the rules say you can breathe?".
What a huge waste of time. I have better things to do thank you. And frankly considering barely anyone is posting on these threads, the forum probably thinks the same thing. This is the last time I post in this thread.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
What's your point?
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Loading a Hand Crossbow is part of using it (as part of the Attack Action).
If you can't do that with one hand, it's *not* a one handed Weapon.
If it's a two handed weapon, it requires the Two Handed Weapon property. Which it doesn't have.
GentlemanLoser wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
You use a Hand Crossbow to make a Ranged attack. Part of that use requires you to draw ammunition.
As the Hand Crossbow is not a two handed weapon (does not have the Two Handed Weapon property), then *use* of the Hand Crossbow only takes one hand.
Use of a Hand Crossbow includes the act of drawing ammunition, as without that, you cannot *use* the Hand Crosbow.
GentlemanLoser wrote:
But all the rule states is that "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack."
GentlemanLoser wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
I've carried around a loaded Longbow before (seriously). It wasn't 'drawn', but the arrow was nocked.
Paul (can't quote again /sigh), I don't disagree with any of that post.
If people want to houserule the act of taking an Attack Action with a Hand Crossbow requires two hands, by all means go for it! It's even as simple as adding the Two Handed property to the weapon.
If it makes mroe sense in your own games to rule this way, great.
The only point I'm trying to discuss is (I'll try to stear clear of RAW!) why the inconsistency with rulings (one handed ranged weapons requireing a free hand, but two handed don't) and sometimes what feels like the inflexibilty to allow legal in game actions.
Hands manacled together, the hero, disadvantaged, manages to fend off his captors with a weapon he stole form one of them. Lying side by side, trapped tight in spider webbing, the Hero nuzzles over to his companion and using his mouth gingerly opens a puch and removes a potion bottle with his mouth. Sticking both Hand Crossbows in his armpits, drawing the string as he goes, the hero quickly reloads both while weaving through a horde of monsters.
Why stifle the story with arbitrary limitations on actions our heros/players can perform?
Balance issues, that's another territory. ;)
Why do you think that the crossbow expert feat specifies that a bonus attack can be made with a *loaded* crossbow? Why specify that it must be loaded if loading it is always something that is not only part of the attack
Finieous wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Pailstrait, I don't know the developers intention with placing loaded there. I can speculate but I'd prefer not to.
If you believe raw allows you to reload after attacking then that loaded requirement is meaningless. if there is some other way to load a hand crossbow on your turn other than attacking with it then it's also meaningless. However if there is no way to reload the crossbow after firing or to load it before your first attack then it per raw it would only allow 1 bonus action attack per encounter.
If that makes sense? It's a much more in depth discussion i think than what you were anticipating.
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Can you use a Hand Crossbow you have, when a stealthy rogue has cut the drawstring without you realising?
There will always be exceptions. Always be situations that require arbitration and GM intervention. That's the great thing about a RPG.
I was assuming we were discussing the standard though. Without any special circumstances that need to be addressed.
So you have the Hand Crossbow. It's not damaged. You're not manacled. No dastardly wizard has locked your ammunition container shut, nor tricksy rogue has pickpocketed all your bolts without your knowledge.
But the standard, run of the mill combat encounter.
Once the base has been sorted, then we can have fun with the exceptions. ;)
GentlemanLoser wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Wait, don't you think the rules don't already require you to have ammunition? I mean, had the feat not specified that the bonus action can be taken with a loaded crossbow, surely the other RAW still very clearly require that the character have ammunition in order to load and fire the crossbow.
Where I differ is the overly-literal interpretation of what two-handed means. You obviously need two hands to fire a bow, that does not mean both hands must remain attached to the bow at all times.
It's not two-handed because you don't require two hands to make a ranged attack with it.
GentlemanLoser wrote:
How is it a special circumstance when using an off hand weapon is part of the core rules?
thats not what the rules say. They say it's not two handed because you don't need to hands to use it
Finieous wrote:
Oh, one thing to add. I've always held that in most situations, the one-handed use of a hand crossbow would be fine. I think if you had a hand crossbow and a shield, you could probably shuffle the items around, maybe temporarily hold both the shield and the hand crossbow in the same hand while you grabbed a bolt, or temporarily holster the hand crossbow, or something of that nature. But I don't think it is an automatic right and I think that the game does not have to be modified in order to take into account obviously disabling situations like if your hand was bound -- I think that the fact that you need to be able to grab ammunition is so obviously an assumption of the rule that it would not violate the RAW for the DM to demand that you justify how your character was able to do it. I've even said that I would probably allow a crossbow expert to dual wield, provided a good enougn explanation. I would obviously allow without question a character to fire a loaded hand crossbow in each hand, even if locked in a pillory (but I would not allow that same character to use a heavy crossbow, loaded or otherwise).
That's part of the reason why I found some of the vehemence and anger among some of those who disagreed with me so overwhelming and bizarre.
GentlemanLoser wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Let's put it another way. You don't currently have an arrow in your bow. The DM tells you that you cannot draw an arrow because ... I don't know ... a goblin has poured a jug of sovereign glue (magical super glue) into your quiver.
GentlemanLoser wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
How is option #4 different (from a rules perspective) than the first 3 other than you don't want to discuss them as possibilities?
So the question has never been can I make an attack with a hand crossbow with only one hand. The answer is, per RAW, the hand crossbow is one handed, and you can attack with one hand. But properties of a hand crossbow are Loading and Ammunition. You can only attack once per turn with the hand crossbow because of the time it takes to reload it (Loading Property). You can only attack with the hand crossbow if you have ammunition and you must draw ammunition. Drawing ammunition is part of the attack (ammunition property).
The debate is what the "Drawing Ammunition is part of the Attack" means. Does this statement mean:
A) If I am able to attack with the hand crossbow, I draw ammunition whether I am able to or not.
B) If I am able to draw ammunition, I am able to attack with my hand crossbow. Drawing ammunition does not require a separate action.
Drawing ammunition is an object interaction. Currently the only rules for object interaction are that a character can Use Object Action to interact with an object during combat, or they can use 1 free Object Interaction during their turn (examples include drawing your weapon to attack), or, per the Ammunition property, the drawing of ammunition interaction is a free action since it is part of the attack.
How you interact is not defined. Since how a character interacts with objects is not explicit, it falls under the discretion of the DM. The character must describe how they interact with their ammunition, and the DM adjudicates. If the DM says you are not able to draw ammunition, then it follows that you can not load your hand crossbow, and you cannot attack with it.
GentlemanLoser wrote:
The problems I have with "A) If you can attack with the hand crossbow, you draw ammunition whether you can or not" is that it potentially creates rules questions or rules contradictions.
The first question is regarding the Crossbow Expert Feat. Interpretation A makes the statement "Loaded crossbow" redundant since any weapon with the ammunition property is effectively always loaded.
The second question is when you run into restrictions involving limited use of your hands. If you are locked in a pillory, you still have use of your hands. If you are holding loaded hand crossbows, it makes perfect sense that you can attack with them. Afterall, they are one handed, and they are loaded, and you still have use of your hands so you can pull the triggers. But can you reload them?
The third question is when you have limited or no access to your ammunition. If your ammunition is on your person but is locked in a container, do you "Have ammunition"? Well, yes you do. Per interpretation A) you are able to load your hand crossbow because you are still able to use your hand crossbow whether the ammunition is locked up or not. Since you can attack with the hand crossbow, the ammunition is drawn despite any restrictions on the ammunition.
These logical flaws beg the question: is interpretation A of the RAW correct?
I'm not saying it's correct or incorrect. But there are some valid questions raised. I'm just saying that since it's not the only interpretation, it would be wrong for a player to insist that a DM is overstepping their role as DM or houseruling RAW by saying the player's character can't reload their hand crossbow without a free hand or at least a description of how their character loads the crossbow without a free hand. It is DM's discretion, not the player's discretion.
It is DM's discretion
GentlemanLoser wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
I said I wouldn't get back into the semantics arguement, so I won't.
I'll leave this with;
Most language is ambiguous so it is unwise to argue that anything conveyed via language can only be interpreted one way.
FrogReaver wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
GentlemanLoser wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Oh, RAW can be ambiguous.
But that's an exaple of a badly written rule.
A good, solid, robust rule, has only a single interpretation. Much like in order to hit a target, you have to equal or beat thier AC on a d20 roll with modifiers.
There's no other way to interpret that.
If you roll (after modifiers) less than the targets AC you miss. Simple.
I think the problem here is just that some view said rules as unambiguous, and others don't.
Edit: I hope you enjoy your session!
I've got a while till my next one, but I think my players need the break! :P After running an encounter for 4 level 1 characters with the party being two level 3, and them still having trouble... ;)
Portent + Charm Person got them through it. ;)
Player: "I'm casting Charm Person on the Wizard. He rolled an 8 for his saving throw."
I know it would be more politically correct to just say that loading dual hand crossbows was ambiguous. I just can't. Any weapon with the ammunition property has to abide by the fact that you need to be able to draw ammunition from a container. That's not ambiguous.
Don't get me wrong, if you want to ignore the ammunition property and your DM agrees, more power to you. I just like my fantasy world to be more LOTR (Legolas and his probably impossible but visually plausible firing speed) than Hawk the Slayer.
Never seen Hawk the Slayer? Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Veszrg1TErk and specifically about 14 seconds in for the bow, 24 seconds in for the crossbow where the ammunition just kind of magically appears. This is what I envision when people say they don't need a hand to draw ammunition. It's kind of silly.
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
With a notable exception or two, I think basically everyone agrees that you have to be able to draw ammunition from your ammunition container in order to make a non-improvised attack with an unloaded weapon that requires ammunition. But what the people on the other side of the issue are arguing is that, essentially, there should be a strong presumption that you are in fact able to draw ammunition if you aren't subject to a condition that restricts your ability to make an attack. For the most part, everyone agrees that certain situations (your box of bolts has been arcane locked, you are locked in a pillory, etc.) would prevent you from drawing ammunition (without otherwise inhibiting your ability to make an attack). The disagreement is whether simply holding an object in each hand is sufficiently 'special' of a case to prevent you from being able to draw ammunition. I don't have a strong opinion that it is or isn't, just that it is sufficiently special that a DM could rule either way without really deviating from the RAW. While there isn't a conensus on that issue, I think we've arrived at a point where for the most part we all understand where one another is coming from. I consider this extended discussion a qualified success on that front.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Yeah, chuck the house.
Should do a situational +2 to hit versus Witches, and crit = Summon Munchkins.
I prefer a more detailed action economy where you break out movement, small actions, attacks, object use, etc. By adding additional language or more clarification, it sure helps avoid some of the arguments about mulitple weapon use, loading weapons, etc. The main problem is with the current state of the action ecnomy, bonus actions, etc. it is going to be a pain to retrofit or change it wihout redoing classes.
If the term "RAW" means a literal interpretation of the rules then yes I would say breathing is allowed by RAW and here is my reasoning:
Water Breathing is a spell that gives willing creatures the ability to breathe underwater. It also notes that the creatures retain their normal mode of respiration.
Amphibious is a trait given to some NPCs. This allows them to breathe air and water.
If Amphibious NPCs can breathe air AND water, and the spell water breathing gives the ability to breathe underwater, then the only reasonable interpretation of "normal mode of respiration" would be breathing air. Meaning unless otherwise stated you can breathe air.
slumgum wrote:
slumgum wrote: