I am posting this here because it might serve as valuable information:
-There are no rules specifically about wielding two weapons. Only that you can wield a one handed weapon in your hand. You have two hands, so you can wield 2 one handed weapons at the same time. There's no reason to have rules specifically explaining dual wielding because you can't attack with more than 1 weapon at a time anyway and there's only 1 benefit to dual wielding by default. See below.
-The light property is tagged on multiple weapons which are specifically called out for being good to dual wield with, this property is also a requirement for the only real mechanical benefit to dual wielding. See below.
-Dual wielding one handed weapons however does not provide any mechanical benefit unless they have the Light property AND they are melee/thrown. You can find the only general rule benefit to wielding said weapons on page 195 of the PHB under Two-Weapon Fighting. This is the only benefit that everyone can access by default but it is restricted to light melee/thrown weapons. So yes, you can dual wield 2 longswords, but the only mechanical benefit you get from doing so is being able to decide with each attack, which weapon you want to use. This is because Longswords do not have the Light property.
-In order to gain more benefits, you need to invest in feats (IE: Dual Wielder and Crossbow Expert) or gain access to benefits via your class (fighter Two-Weapon Fighting feature page 72 of the PHB, Rangers Two-Weapon Fighting feature page 91 of the PHB, etc..).
-You can dual wield hand-crossbows, though on their own, the only benefit is that you can fire twice during your turn (once each) due to the Loaded property. Although they do have the Light property, they are not melee/thrown weapons so you cannot use the Two-Weapon Fighting rule on page 195 of the PHB. Adding in Crossbow Expert removes many of the problems, gives you a full bonus action attack (which is not related in any way to Two-Weapon Fighting in the PHB page 195) and makes them a competitive weapon. However you have to spend a feat to get that far.
-The reason why it keeps pointing you to page 195 of the PHB is because it is the only general rule benefit for dual wielding. So they want you to know immediately that its there and that you need 2 light property melee/thrown weapons.
-Any combination of one handed weapons is legal. Scimitar/Longsword, Dagger/Shortsword, Dagger/Hand Crossbow, etc..
I hope this helps.
Also worth noting that the only time you DON'T add your STR/DEX modifier to damage is with the Bonus Action attack from Two-Weapon Fighting (the action, not the class feature). So the bonus attacks from Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master, etc. all add their respective modifiers as defaults! The basic Two-Weapon Fighting action is the EXCEPTION not the rule (or, it's the specific rule, vs. the general rule) in this case.
Thanks for mentioning the fact you can hold onto 1-handed weapons at the same time. It sometimes slips peoples' minds. Then again, you get no real incentive from this, other than having 2 magic weapons to choose from, potentially! (It was the same thing in 4E, in fact. You could have a longsword in each hand, but if a power called for an off-hand attack, you could not do it, due to the two-weapon fighting rules). So as weird as it sounds, you can dual-wield tridents even without the feat, you just aren't as effective as you could be!
Noctaem wrote:
Please explain how you can fire two hand-crossbows in one attack action. I don't have the book with me at the moment. Does the Loaded property allow an attack as a bonus action?
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
correct, but it's important to mention it.
Noctaem wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Hey now, he was definitely legal in 4E! Rangers could dual-wield 1Handed weapons (including Scimitars) as a class feature at level 1!
And in 3.x he was, well, also fine, since Rangers had feat/feat-like abilities from the Ranger class (though I think he was officially a Fighter/Ranger?) to make him not suck at dual-wielding. Because ANYONE could dual-wield Scimitars in 3.x (and 4E, technically).
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I think a hand crossbow can be loaded with a single hand in real life. Just need to be creative with how u pull the strin back and then where to place the bow to load he bolt.
Definetly not most efficient way though
Correct me if i'm wrong because i dont seem to understand this thread...
I think a hand crossbow can be loaded with a single hand in real life. Just need to be creative with how u pull the strin back and then where to place the bow to load he bolt.
Definetly not most efficient way though
Noctaem wrote:
There is a video on youtube somewhere of someone dual wielding 6 shot western style pistols and reloading them (while holding on to the guns) and firing again all in a few seconds time.
I would imagine an expert crossbow user would be able to do something similar. Maybe have a hook on the handle of the hand crossbow that is used to draw the bow back for quick and easy reloading.
Noctaem,
I've been onboard with the reloading thing being simplified in the 5e rules. However I don't see how the rules are supporting you can shoot 2 hand crossbows (one held in main hand, the other in your off hand) unless you have a bonus action to allow it. In your above clarification of two weapon fighting, you asserting that you can dual wield hand crossbows. Would you mind clarifying what specifically you mean by dual wielding hand crossbows? Are you meaning hold one in each hand, or are you meaning holding one in each hand PLUS gaining a bonus action to attack with the off-hand, hand crossbow (like the rules for two-weapon fighting on pg. 195 of the PHB for light+melee weapons?)
I'm afraid that if your asserting that you gain a bonus action by virtue of holding a second hand crossbow in your offhand, I don't follow where in the rules the bonus action is given. If it's just holding two hand crossbows, one in each hand I'm following that. There have been many threads about this, so perhaps I'm just worn out from reading multiple thread derails etc. and missed something obvious.
Lawolf wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
The Crossbow Expert feat effectively allows you to dual wield a hand crossbow. If you only get one attack per attack action, you can attack once with hand crossbow A and bonus attack (per the feat) with hand crossbow B.
If you have more than one attack, you can attack multiple times with hand crossbow A since the feat allows you to ignore the Loading property, and then bonus attack with hand crossbow B.
I personally have no issue with carrying around two crossbows to attack twice in one round, but I have issue with people claiming that you can ignore common sense because the rules don't explicitly state it.
The other primary issue I have with the "no free hand needed" approach, aside from it just seeming stupid, is that it allows for a DPR that is unacceptable. Essentially it allows 1d6 + dex mod + 1d6 in damage, at level 1. From a ranged weapon. That damage output is the same as a fighter using a greatsword if the str and dex mods are equal, but the fighter only has a range of 5... the 1st level crossbow junkie has a range of 30/120.
So at range, barbarian, bard, some clerics, fighter, paladin, ranger, and rogues... with the highest damage output going to the rogue since sneak attack works with ranged weapons.
I'm sorry, but a first level rogue shouldn't be hitting for 3d6 + dex mod with their dual wielded crossbows.
I'm fairly certain that they didn't write the rules for ammunition and reloading your weapon as part of the attack to be limited to how many times you get to do an object interaction. That would mean that any ammunition using weapon could only be loaded once. Which is silly nonsense. Drawing ammunition as part of the attack clearly means that you load your weapon as part of the attack. There's no restriction for when during the attack. There's no need to take any other action other than attacking. There's no need for a free hand. There's no need to use your object interaction to load your crossbow.
These simulationist "but in real life you can't load a crossbow tha way" arguments are getting annoying. I'm not interested in them and neither should most people. If you want to restrict your fantansy table top game to real life gravity and physics then fine, do it. But stop arguing in threads that the rules say that garbage because they don't. In 5e I don't need a free hand to load my weapon, I'm playing a fantasy character who is so dextrous that he's able to toss his bow in the air take out an arrow and finally THROW IT AT THE STRING WHILE THE BOW IS STILL ALOFT TO FIRE IT AND KILL A GOD!
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Pulleys and levers, switching hands, magic, tossing both in the air and simultaneously grabbing two bolts and slamming them into place just before you snatch them out of the air like in those action movies...
Bloodscythe wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
lol why?
Just wondering how you would make the impossible possible. You don't have to describe how you do it. But then the writers didn't have to detail that a free hand is required. Truths don't have to be explicitly stated. Truths are true whether you believe it or not.
Bloodscythe wrote:
*sigh*
Just because you can't accept that you don't need free hand as per the rules (because you apply what you call common sense to them which is actually a form of restriction that you can't seem to get past) doesn't mean that my describing how I would fluff an attack with a hand-crossbow is doing the impossible. I don't see value in responding any further than that because you're not discussing what the rules say, you're discussing what houserules you would enforce at your table. Especially if you're going to sign that kind of illogical crap with "Truths are true whether you believe it or not".
Thanks for posting though!
Just to make this more exciting, why bother dual-wielding? With Crossbow Expert, a single hand crossbow can multiattack just fine, thanks, AND free up that off hand for a shield.
Seriously, we might as well let up on the Crossbow Expert / Hand Crossbow discussions until we get an official ruling. Not just a devtweet, but an honest-to-goodness rules clarification. Nobody's bending, and the discussion ends up taking over any thread in which it comes up. "Expect table variation" is as good as we're going to get 'till then.
I'm suprised how no one is mentioning how great it is that you can draw a handaxe as part of your move action, throw it at someone, then finish your move and wail on them with your two handed weapon.
Granted you don't get your ability damage on the axe but I still find this very satisfying.
Timborama wrote:
Theros wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Reposting from the other thread. I'm not sure why this seems complicated to people. Hold a cup of coffee in your hand. Can you pick up a small object like s pen with a couple spare fingers? I can and I'm clumsy. Now imagine you do the same thing but instead of a coffee cup it's the pistol grip of a hand crossbow and the small item is a mini bolt. Use bottom of pistol grip to draw string drop bolt in. I think I could do it and I'm both clumsy and untrained.
Ahglock wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Adratlas wrote:
Bloodscythe,
It doesn't matter about how and why because that is subjective. It will change at every table. A person may have a 3 fingered human pirate dual wielding hand crossbows, or someone may have a 1 armed, blind elf dual wielding hand crossbows. That's all fluff. Sure, it's silly in my eyes to say you have a 3 fingered pirate dual wielding hand crossbows, but the rules are there to allow players to dual wield them. Each table may handle things differently. It allows the players and table to have freedom to play whatever wonky idea that comes to mind, and have fun doing so. RAW isn't always logical, but RAW is what ends up discussed on rules forums because it's the only common ground everyone can have. Also, 5e is very simplified, it's not realistic. You won't get any satisfaction from looking for logic or realism. You will if you look for fun.
just a little bit of reality here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtXSt05Wx94
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n9Y5ReNfZ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-giFRumwVfM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6_dhveOqJU
these are all examples of how to load a crossbow not using a windlass. the last one is the most modern version and even it required two hands to use. you can shoot it with one but you need the second to reload.
Pelican12 wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Yes, DnD isn't reality, it's Trope-ality. You can reload without a free hand because that's what you expect of an Action Hero.
Yes of course how dare I mention that the rules do not explicitly cover every single aspect of the game and you must extrapolate how things are intended to work. What a jerk I must be for pointing out how the game does not specificly say something you want to claim is compleetly with in the rule.
IF IT IS NOT WRITTEN DOWN IN THE RULE BOOK IT CAN NOT BE RAW (RULES AS WRITTEN) BECAUSE IT IS NOT WRITTIN DOWN!
Drycanth wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Prism wrote:
Also nothing states you have to use your hand to load it, only that you can draw and load it. Which a mechanism could easily do, drawing the ammo from a container within the weapon.
Noctaem wrote:
Saying "leave reality out of it" isn't really an option. Some rules are implicit, and those implicit rules are based on the real world. We borrow what we know of our world as we craft the imaginary one. But just because something makes sense in the real world or is common sense or common knowledge, doesn't mean it has to make sense in a fantasy world. Maybe grass is purple and sings as the wind blows through it. Maybe water is yellow. Maybe weapons are made of madeupmaterial. Do we need to know where madeupmaterial falls on the periodic chart? No...
The answer to absoluetely every question regarding rules is "What does your DM say?". If you are the DM, don't even bother asking the question. Instead decide what the rule means and stick with it. Or invent your own rules. It's your world.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Can someone link to an official developer source on getting your Ability Score Modifier to damage from Two-Weapons Fighting bonus action attacks as opposed to damage from other, non-Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action attacks (Martial Arts, Flurry of Blows, Polearm Master, etc)? Because the guys who run games at my FLG both insist that you don't get your Ability modifier to damage for any attack you make with a bonus action, not just Two-weapon fighting (and one of them is an employee that runs the D&D stuff for the store in general). I'd really like to see something from Mike Mearls or Rodney Thompson or anyone from the dev team, because I don't think that anything else will really persuade them that they're reading the rule wrong, and it's really bugging me coz it's such a big part of the game.
Thanks!
sixtymya wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
You won't get one. Make the choice that works for your table. Fun > rules.
You could try twitter but there's no guarantee of a response. And honestly, even if you get a response, you probably end up losing anyway. Now you're the rules lawyer, the guy who brought a tweet from mearls to prove he was right for 3-4 more damage on his attack. I mean, do what you feel is right, but ask yourself if it's worth it.
sixtymya wrote:
There seems to be a RAW puzzle withing using the same light crossbow for both the Attack action and the bonus action with Crossbow Expert. We have already established that by the ammunition rules loading occurs as part of the attack (generic). The specific wording for the bonus action is "you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding." So you load and fire with the hand crossbow as part of your attack action. Your hand crossbow is now unloaded, so you no longer have a loaded hand crossbow to make the bonus action since the hand crossbow won't be loaded until an attack is made.
Inception!
randl wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Reload action?. 5e is simplified. A lot of people can't break away from the mindset of previous editions.
Pelican12 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
randl wrote:
Pelican12 wrote:
"Wielding" is not the same thing as "holding". The two words are different and come with different definitions.
You may not dual wield (bring to bear) two one-handed weapons. You may dual hold any combination of items that your GM permits you to fit in your character's hands.
The entire OP is misleading because of this.
TehSchwann wrote:
The differnence may be semantics, but it's notable none-the-less.
You may not simultaneously attack with two weapons at once. You may not simultaneously defend with one weapon while attacking with another.
What you may do is attack with one weapon, and then separately attack with an entirely different weapon, and only if you are allowed more than a single attack in a turn. This, however, is not what is being refered to when one mentions "dual-wielding." It's misleading to use that phrase with full knowledge that the term has an assumed meaning.
What you describe as "two weapon fightning/dual wielding" has been allowed in every D&D.
For example, in 3.X a 12th level Fighter has three attacks at Base Attacks of +12/+6/+1. He or she can make those attack with any weapons they happen to be holding in any order they choose. However, this is not dual wielding; I find it dishonest to confuse the two in order to make a point.
Example of the/my issue:
Going by your logic, a character with a greatsword in each hand is two-weapon fighting, albeit with a caveat that they cannot actually attack by the rules.
My rebuttal is that this is not, at all, two-weapon fighting; it's simply holding weapons, and it's misleading to label it two-weapon fighting when it's clearly not.
Dual wielding simply means using two weapons. Generally taken as fighting with one in each hand. There is no inherent implication of making simultaneous or extra, as opposed to alternate, attacks with them.
A fighter using a weapon in each hand is dual-wielding even if they never get extra attacks from their off-hand weapon. Even if they are just using that off-hand to parry and not attack.
I think that the "two-weapon fighting" phrase is what you may be thinking of since although it has no more actual meaning of simultaneous strikes, it has been used to denote that meaning in the D&D rules of the last few editions.
If you're going to make assumptions, that one is probably safer.
I think it's pretty safe to say that, on D&D forums on the internet, "two-weapon fighting" and "dual wielding" are, for all intents and purposes, interchangeable in meaning.
After all, when someone gets online and asks a question about "dual wielding rules," you inherently understand they're talking about "two-weapon fighting" rules.
randl wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
By that logic, my level 12 Human Fighter is just like Goku: He can fly, he can shoot energy beams for massive damage out of just his palms, he is super fast (faster than normal characters), etc.
All without magic and all because the rules don't say I can't do those things, so obviously, in this fantasy game, I can do whatever I can imagine, right?
If your character isn't as good as Superman, you're just not imagining hard enough? That's pretty ridiculous. ;)
The game rules assume reality, as we know it, as the default assumption, and then expands from that point outward into more fantastic ideas, such as magic. Saying otherwise is trying to swim uphill (not a typo).
Actually he can't because under the fighter entry it doesn't say you have those abilities. Unless you have a feature or ability which gives you the ability to fly and shoot energy beams. That could come to you via a spell for instance.
You're misunderstanding, there are rules for what I've linked to you. They simply don't explicitely cover that yes you have 2 hands, or yes you can walk on 2 legs. What you're arguing now is that you require rules for each situation. Which is something they have consciously decided not to do. But when it comes to telling players what kind of action is required to do something or telling them if you need an off-hand to do something, they have that covered.
And yes, you could fluff your character to do those things if that's what is interesting to you. Do you perhaps not know what I mean by fluff? It seems you don't by what you just posted.
The game rules do not assume reality in the slightest. Spells, magic abilities, dragonborn, tieflings. Are those found in reality? How about being able to attack 5 times in 6 seconds as a high level Fighter? Or how about losing accuracy in order to do more damage? Isn't it the other way around in real life? The higher your accuracy the more damage you can deal?
Anyway seems you have some self imposed limitations that I have no interest in dealing with. If those restrictions make you add text or change the rules that's on you.
We can go the other direction then:
Nothing in the race entries state that characters can breathe. Those rules are not included.
Where are the RAW penalties for death?
It's all nonsense.
Pretty much every designer for every edition has stipulated that they do not rule on every single potential thing because most of it relies on common sense to figure out. Every single bit of RAW is a guideline - not a hard, fast, law.
Following the rules as they are written in the book is nothing to scoff at. However needing to use "common sense" to modify or add to the rules in the book is. I've never stated I need rules to tell me the character can breathe. Those who argue "common sense" for some things and not for others however are arbitrarily deciding which rules to change to accomodate that "common sense". That's something to scoff at, especially if you then turn around and tell others that they are wrong about playing the game as per the rules in the book.
The rules to cover dropping below 0 hit points are found on page 197 under the entry with the same name. faling below 0 hit points makes you unconscious. It says see appendix A, which details that unconscious gives you the following effects:
An unconscious creature is incapacitated (see the condition which I will list after this), can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings.
The creature drops whatever it is holding and falls prone
The creature automatically fails strength and dexterity saving throws
attack rolls against the creature have advantage
any attakc that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attack is within 5 feet of the creature
As for incapacitated:
An incapacitated creature can't take actions or reactions.
So that's all the effects on you when you drop to 0 or below. This ends if you gain hitpoints. Furthermore, you're now considered to be "dying" so you get to make death saving throws at the start of each turn where you are at or below 0 hit points. Succeed 3 and you stabilize which means you no longer need to make death saving throws or 3 failures you die. Should you die, you have various ways of bringing your character back to life, such as the spell revivify for example. The penalty for dying is just that, you're dead. There is no bigger and more severe penalty.
Hope this helps you, but you should really read up on the rules you're going to try to discuss, especially if you're going to claim they don't exist.
Noctaem wrote:
randl wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
sixtymya wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Short question: assume that my game table allows reloading & attacking with a hand crossbow in each hand. With Crossbow Expert, is there any reason to use two hand crossbows (other than looking cool) over just one?
No, everything you gain via Crossbow Expert can be done with 1 hand crossbow. If you have shield proficiency you could wield a shield in your off-hand instead for +2 AC. Or you could wield a melee weapon in one hand and your hand crossbow in the other to be more versatile. Note that you could still wield a shield as a rogue (no shield prof), but you would have disadvantage on quite a few things which would make it lackluster. Unless you could somehow gain proficiency with shields somehow? Background maybe? Haven't looked into it.
Clutchbone wrote:
Adratlas wrote:
Hum... true, i didnt read that part about the net, actually it was the rogue of the party who suggested that to me.
But the point is still true i believe , item juggling is much more efficient with the 2 xbows setup than using an xbow+shield
Adratlas wrote:
Clutchbone wrote:
Clutchbone wrote:
Not really, if you read about loading and shoot it only says thar the reloading the weapon is a part of the attack action, so you can start with a loaded weapon and shoot+reload, either way works.
And a developer answer supports the dual setup.
This is more a RP qustion than a mechanic one I believe, I always RP that my weapons are unloaded, so I can say that I load them with special ammo at the beginning of the combat (simulating the battlemaster fighter attack effects)
Edited.
Adratlas wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Adratlas wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Adratlas wrote:
Adratlas wrote:
randl wrote:
So just to undestand what you're sayin'
The fact that a character had Dual Wielder feat doesnt mean it can actually attack with both weapons in a turn, it should gain an additional attack per turn to actually perform the attack?
LinkTree wrote:
Clutchbone wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
With regard to a summarized discussion of holding and attacking with two hand crossbows, this is what I came up with in another thread:
Adratlas wrote:
An alternative interpretation that adds restrictions to the rule or adds the requirement of additional actions that need to be taken to achieve the same goal is changing the rule regardless of what you tell yourself. Your interpretation is faulty.
I don't really understand these interminable arguments. Personally, I consider RAW hand crossbow + Crossbow Expert an exploit of rules that have not yet received required errata. My opinion is based both on versimilitude and on game balance. I can imagine an expert crossbowman in a military formation reloading a hand crossbow with a buckler in one hand and the weapon in the other, as long as there is a rank of infantry between him and the enemy. I can't imagine him doing so while an owlbear is chewing on his arm, buckler and all. Even if I could, I wouldn't be able to permit a rules exploit that undermined the balance of fighting styles, the balance of both melee and ranged weapons, and the balance of a broad range of abilities that permit extra attacks or use-limited bonus-action attacks (e.g. divine strike).
All that said, I don't see a point in arguing with those who want to exploit RAW. I won't play in their game and they won't play in mine. Problem solved!
Finieous wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Finieous wrote:
If it wasn't clear, I entirely agree with you, Bloodscythe.
Why does everyone arguing against this "loaded" issue choose to simply ignore that the very first bullet point says you "ignore the Loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient." ?
Can you hold two crossbows? Yes. But you can only attack with one unless you have the Expert Crossbow feat or an extra attack class feature.
The extra attack feature of Expert Crossbow feat was argued to death by the fact that it says it must be loaded......yet everyone ignores the fact that that very same feat says to ignore the loading quality.....
What they argued is not the property itself which states you can only fire a crossbow once per turn. It's that your crossbow is not loaded after firing it, meaning you don't qualify for the bonus action attack.
Nevermind that you get to load your crossbow as part of the attack so your weapon is a loaded crossbow when you go to make the bonus action attack, nevermind that the feat allows you to ignore the loading property, nevermind a bunch of stuff that was brought up and defeated by simple reading comprehension 
I've listed how this works in the OP. Refer yourself there friend, not to the nonsensical stuff in the following pages.
Noctaem wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
you didn't read the post at all if all you got stuck on was the typo "example 4" instead of 3...
We can't argue the intent behind why they indicated it needs to be loaded. That's the point behind the very detailed post I gave you up there. If you had read it, you might even understand that.
Don't even know why I bothered to answer your question.
Noctaem wrote:
My opinion doesn't require huge blocks of text because it's very simple. As always, these are just my interpretation of the rules.
- The attack action ends when you roll your D20 (or the last D20 if you have multiple attacks). To put it a different way, when the bolt (or arrow) leaves your weapon the attack ends, not at some arbitrary point after you attack unless there is some overriding text. At this point, the crossbow is unloaded.
- The crossbow expertise feat requires a loaded crossbow, not a crossbow that "can be loaded".
- The ammunition property states that you must draw ammunition from a container. It is up to a DM to decide whether or not you can draw the ammunition while you have something in your hand.
So even if you disagree with #1, #3 would (depending on your DMs ruling) stop you from firing after the first round.
Adratlas wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
FWIW, I asked Jeremy Crawford about why the crossbow expert feat included the langauge that the crossbow be loaded. His response seems to support what I think Noctaem's position is:
Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford 3h3 hours ago
@pizzystrizzy That's really flavor text. Assuming you have enough ammo, the first bullet of the feat enables you to easily load the weapon.
FYI Jeremy Crawford usually answers questions based on the RAW vs Mearls for example who answers based on how he would rule at his table.
I'm surprised that he would label it flavor text personally but for the purposes of the argument I presented it makes sense. And if it is flavor text as he says, it means that it's not even a real requirement. Flavor text is and always has been ignored vs actual rules text for purposes of determining how the rules actually work. This is because the flavor text is often misleading or contrary to how the rules are supposed to work. You can see that for yourself all over 4e and 5e. In 4e the flavor text of the powers or abilities that you gain would be all sorts of wonky if you compared them to the mechanical effects of the same power just as a quick example. Sometimes to the point that you would think they talked about two completely different things!
But anyway, very interesting development. Thanks for posting the reply from Jeremy, paulstrait!
No problem. I agree about Crawford vs. Mearls, but sometimes Crawford gets the rules seemingly wrong (I'm not saying this is one of those times) -- I noticed this one from today as well:
@LordOfTheChance Lucky feat + disadvantage = Roll 2 d20s (disadvantage), roll an extra d20 (Lucky), keep it or one of the others, use lowest
paulstrait wrote:
DragnDave wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I'll ask you guys to stop derailing the thread with talks about the Lucky feat. Although interesting, that is not the purpose of this thread. As the thread creator, I'll ask you guys to move that discussion to another more appropriate thread.
Thank you.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
It's too bad you're not even trying to make sense now Coredump 
EDIT: btw you never did appolgize for all the personal attacks you made or for being wrong about some of the statements you made. I'm still waiting for it.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I've called people troll?
Noctaem wrote:
paulstrait wrote: