Don't we have enough threads on this?
Also, your missing "if it takes 2 hands to reload a handbow, sling, or blowgun, then it's effectivly 2-handed and useless"
Not to mention the various fallacious parts of her post and the parts she specifically strawmanned. I haven't decided yet if it's even worth going over it again considering the amount of times we have done so previously in all the other threads. At work now so I'll see if I get the feel to do it.
Noctaem wrote:
mellored wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mellored wrote:
So this is the ring thread, "one thread to rule them all"? 
dafrca wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
lol
OoftaMeg wrote:
mellored wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
That causes people who know how RAW works no end of aggravation because it's effectively lying to people to get them to play a specific way.
Therein lies the real problem - pride; when RAW looks obvious to one and open to interpretation to another and both can give reasoned arguments for their positions. Then one says to the other 'I know how RAW works and you don't'. There will not be any resolution to this issue until it is officially resolved and then we can debate what is 'official' and what is 'resolved'.
To me, p. 6 of the PHB is RAW and thus: the DM describes and decides on the *interpretation* of RAW, including how bows and crossbows work.
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Handon_Kast wrote:
mellored wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
4 Whether it matters for your game is up to your DM (and may depend on what else you are holding).
This is in the wrong section. It's a key point to the RO argument not the R&R side.
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
More rules?
How 'bout a 4e thread discussing Dual Crossbows, now bumped.
awaken_D_M_golem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Seriously? How many threads do we need on this topic...I've counted ~6 active threads at least.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg, I thought it was a decent summary. Much better than most here could have done. Sounded slightly biased against the Rules only crowd but that's to be expected seeing your position. I don't think it was overly biased though. I would much prefer to see their own summary of their positions and then you could incorporate that into your opening post. I don't think any of them will make their own summary for their position though.
FrogReaver wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Page 5 of the PHB states that D&D worlds "begin with a foundation of medieval fantasy." To me that signifies a basic identity with the real world. Gravity works, the sun rises and sets, plants grow and winds blow. A torch is a torch, a rope is a rope, and a sword is a sword. So reality is included in RAW - to a point.
Some elements of D&D do not correspond to the real world - dragons, fireball spells, and raising the dead. Those things have detailed and specific rules governing their behavior in the game. Other elements do correspond to the real world, and only have such rules as are required to fit them into the game (mostly the numerical statistics).
jonathonhawke wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
It seems to me that the basic argument regarding crossbows is that how they are cocked and loaded is not described in the rules.
I know of three different historical methods of cocking a crossbow:
1) A hand crank that pulls back the string. This is used on the heaviest crossbows, and is the slowest method.
2) A foot stirrup is used to brace the crossbow, and both hands are used to pull back the string. (The only picture I've found of a crossbow in the PHB shows such a stirrup.)
3) One hand holds the crossbow while the other pulls back the string. This used on the lightest crossbows, and is the fastest method.
Note that #3 can be used for a hand crossbow, but I can easily envision a hook attached to a weapon-butt or a bracer that could be used to pull the string.
jonathonhawke wrote:
DS.397 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I know I'm biased. It's part of the human condition. But this really is a sincere attempt to bury the hatchet, have one place to point to for reference on what the different people think.
There are probably thousands of posts on this subject, someone who just wants to understand why it's controversial should be able to go to one posting and make their own decision.
It might also be that some/several/most of the arguments are coming from one or two people, rather than the collective position. I compare it to when a political party has an agenda (like wanting crispy muffins), and everybody's on board, and then a few people go too far ("I demand muffins with a two-inch crust and diamond sprinkles") and when it gets put into print the next day, the centrist-leaning politicos have a problem with it for fear that the other side (who want soft, squishy muffins) will go to the masses only with the extreme. Factions may skew the message, but that doesn't mean the message hasn't been presented by one side or the other.
The thread is an excellent chance read it and update the argument in a logical, side-by-side manner. I suggest you chime in and help its accuracy.
EDIT: perhaps a generalized statement of each sides stance would help. For instance, the R.O. side tends to be "It's in the rulebook, therefore it happens and nothing changes that." whereas the R&R side tends to say "The rules interpret reality, and require us to likewise interact with them rather than follow mechanic without basis." I'm not sure if that's accurate, but it seems close.
You never actually state the question, which is a big part of why this thread is valueless as you've presented it. Because you're (mis)representing the answers to a question that isn't the same as the question you're answering, and that's a big part of the problem.
So, again, what is the question you're trying to frame?
Is it: "By RAW, is a free hand required to load a hand crossbow?", or do you think the underlying question is something else?
CahPahkah wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I am clueless as to what you are asking for.
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Fine, if you'd like a specific suggestion, it would be "Don't presume to represent the opposing view, because you're either acting in bad faith or just shockingly bad at it. Make your own argument, support it (if you can) and let other people speak for themselves."
Start a post with "PCs need a free hand to reload a hand crossbow because..." and fill in the blank as best you can.
CahPahkah wrote:
Now, an important part of any discussion is the abilty to respectfully and accuratly paraphrase (or restate) the opposing viewpoint. He is trying to reach this level of understanding, so feel free to provide wording on the side of the issue you believe, and leave stating the opposite opinion to those that actually have that opinion.
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.