Sage Advice (18 May 2015)

I can't believe they went that way with hand crossbows.

 

[Obryn]

Not really. First, it's on a par with two-weapon fighting and doesn't outperform it. Secondly, it's more than just flavor because If you go on the assumption that ignoring the loading quality means that you can do so with the same hand holding the crossbow, then you open up using shields and weapons freely while loading. That's a significant mechanical impact.

In most situations, as shidaku has pointed out, the number of attacks one can make has not changed. So in that respect, all that's changed is the visual.

But explicitly stating that a free-hand is required to load the weapon, that you're not handwaving the loading but just doing it so quickly and expertly that you can do it multiple times in a round, does have very real mechanical implications. Implications that can, and likely will, extend to other assumptions about the game's rules.

Sorry, as I clarified above, I meant the EK's features that let them make an attack as a bonus action after casting a spell. They have no free hands with which to do so, unless they are single-wielding a 1H weapon.

But I agree, this ruling from Sage Advice effectively turns the "ammunition" property into a "free hand" property, and that's bound to have rippling side effects.

 

[spinozajack]

So I guess every wizard is going to be carrying hand crossbows...

Or you can just imagine they have training in their use, to teach them to fire into melee.

One feat to avoid disadvantage when firing into melee is a good benefit, but there are plenty of ways around it without spending a feat (although, what other feats a wizard should take instead, I'm not sure)

 

[Mistwell]

Your math assumptions are off.... Lets try it a different way.

You need to get a 16 for something and you are willing to use the Lucky ability if needed:
Normally you will succeed 44% of the time, and about half of that you will not even spend a Luck resource

If you create disadvantage, you will succeed about 58% of the time, and 1/10 of those will not require using the luck resource.

So creating disadvantage will make you about 32% more likely to succeed... but much more likely to actually use the luck resource.

How were my math assumptions off? All you did was restate it as more precise percentages rather than generalized fractions. But your conclusion is the same. The bottom line is you are more likely to waste the feat, but also more likely to succeed. So if death is on the line you're more likely to do this, but in general you're not going to want to do this - same darn thing I said. Did you think being more precise changed that conclusion in a meaningful way?

 

[Mistwell]

Nope, it is not 1/3: you cannot do probability picking the results yourself.
You have to do the actual math

You can in fact pick the results yourself, given the choices are in the player's hand for each step (decide on disadvantage, then decide on use of the ability). Stating an example is useful for this. You are free to run more mathematics on it if you wish, but that doesn't make my example any less true or useful. I find those sorts of examples are usually more beneficial, for more people, than a more complex series of mathematics that might be more precise but are also less communicative.

 

[famousringo]

Sorry, as I clarified above, I meant the EK's features that let them make an attack as a bonus action after casting a spell. They have no free hands with which to do so, unless they are single-wielding a 1H weapon.

But I agree, this ruling from Sage Advice effectively turns the "ammunition" property into a "free hand" property, and that's bound to have rippling side effects.

For starters, speaking of Eldritch Knights, if you need a "free hand" to draw ammunition to fire your 2-handed weapon, such as a bow, it implies that a 2-handed weapon isn't really occupying both hands at all times during a round. If while using a bow, you have a "free hand" to draw arrows, don't you also have a "free hand" to cast somatic spells? If you have a "free hand" for bow ammunition, might you not also have a "free hand" for spellcasting while swinging a greatsword?

From what I gather, a lot of tables already run Eldritch Knights this way, but it's funny how these Sage Advice columns seem to muddy the rules as much as clarify them. They seem more like a DM ruling from an authoritative source, rather than a codified update to the RAW as some people seem to regard them.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I've seen a few mention just dropping your shield so I thought I would post this.

From the PHB page 146:

Category Don Doff
Light Armor 1 minute 1 minute
Medium Armor 5 minutes 1 minute
Heavy Armor 10 minutes 5 minutes
Shield 1 action 1 action

As you can see, it requires you to spend an action to drop your shield.

 

[Obryn]

For starters, speaking of Eldritch Knights, if you need a "free hand" to draw ammunition to fire your 2-handed weapon, such as a bow, it implies that a 2-handed weapon isn't really occupying both hands at all times during a round. If while using a bow, you have a "free hand" to draw arrows, don't you also have a "free hand" to cast somatic spells? If you have a "free hand" for bow ammunition, might you not also have a "free hand" for spellcasting while swinging a greatsword?

From what I gather, a lot of tables already run Eldritch Knights this way, but it's funny how these Sage Advice columns seem to muddy the rules as much as clarify them. They seem more like a DM ruling from an authoritative source, rather than a codified update to the RAW as some people seem to regard them.

Actually, I think Crawford's ruling has an unintended consequence of making bows and crossbows impossible to reload and fire. But moving past that...

For the EK there's also weapon+shield, not just 2H.

And I'll extend your list.... If the longbow or the EK have "free enough" hands at various times, why doesn't Chow Yun Fatbelly the Halfling Rogue have a "free enough" hand to reload?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

So this effectively ruins dual-wielding hand crossbows, BUT with his caveat "unless it’s magical or a gnomish invention." If I had a player who wanted to jerry-rig auto-loading hand crossbows, I'd probably allow it, especially since there's no actual mechanical benefit over just using one.

More importantly, it also ruins the cheesy hand crossbow + shield approach some people were attempting. So with this feat, a hand crossbow might be better than a longbow in some situations, but at least it doesn't let you get a free +2 AC on top of that.

Somebody claimed that it also ruins the sword+hand crossbow combo. This isn't necessarily true. The whole idea of that style, as I understand it, is that you carry a few hand crossbows on your person like derringers, and pull one out when you need it. (You can reload later when you have a few spare seconds.)

 

[ingeloak]

Its kind of backwards to the way I read it. You can't dual wield hand crossbows...but you can attack twice with the same one as a bonus action. Weird.

as long as you have a hand free, yes. it allows an extra attack without turning into a totally unbelievable dual-wielding Diablo demon hunter.

 

[TwoSix]

as long as you have a hand free, yes. it allows an extra attack without turning into a totally unbelievable dual-wielding Diablo demon hunter.

Thank goodness we've prevented some kids from playing their favorite video-game character in D&D.