You cannot pre-load crossbows RAW, as Ammunition requires ammunition be loaded with a free hand as “part of” the attack. Many DMs will houserule to allow you to preload, but it is not RAW.
I have seen that discussed before, and it has never sat well with me. Loading a crossbow as part of the attack is the counterpart to drawing your sword as part of the attack--it's nice to know you can do it at no extra cost, but it is unnecessary if the sword is already drawn. And it is unnecessary if the crossbow already has ammunition loaded. In fact, it is impossible if the crossbow already has ammunition loaded. I believe that the sentence is meant to be inclusive and not exclusive.
JC can feel as he likes, the RAW is in no way ambiguous. Melee weapons do not have a weapon property that says that they must be "drawn as part of the attack," nor is any similar language found in Chapter 9 in general about melee attacks. You may draw a weapon as part of an attack once, if you have a free object interaction left... but that really isn't mechanically very similar to loading Ammunition at all, because ammunition doesn't require a free object interaction and can be done multiple times per round, and must be drawn as part of an attack.
It's only confusing and inequitable if you go out of your way to ignore that they're very different things. Drawing multiple Thrown weapons as part of the attacks that throw them is a much closer analogy to Ammunition than drawing a single sword as part of one attack, and that wasn't even possible until very recently with Thrown Weapon Fighting Style. I wouldn't say its very persuasive to argue that "you have to be able to pre-load Ammunition (written in 2014) instead of loading as part of the attack, because you can pre-hold Thrown weapons instead of drawing them as part of the attack using Thrown Weapon Fighting Style (written in 2020)," it's really a potato-buffalo comparison if you ask me.
Repeating crossbows would literally solve it all wouldnt it?
So moving away from a crossbow and scimitar, as duel wielding really doesn’t seem like it works or happens with them - how would it play to duel wielding a scimitar and dagger or something like that?
Using a dagger instead of hand crossbow does let you get a bonus action attack without a feat. But unless you plan on throwing the dagger or just want it for the style, you may want to consider 2 scimitars/shortswords instead for the bigger damage die.
I have seen that discussed before, and it has never sat well with me. Loading a crossbow as part of the attack is the counterpart to drawing your sword as part of the attack--it's nice to know you can do it at no extra cost, but it is unnecessary if the sword is already drawn. And it is unnecessary if the crossbow already has ammunition loaded. In fact, it is impossible if the crossbow already has ammunition loaded. I believe that the sentence is meant to be inclusive and not exclusive.
I definitely agree that it seems wrong, but the RAW is what it is. JC's opinions, while enlightening, are still just opinions and not rules. Feel free to house rule it how you see fit, it isn't the kind of rule I'd go out of my way to enforce.
I asked for some clarification on the tweet, but since it was from back in December, I'm not holding my breath. Chicken is inserting his own more forceful language that never appears in the text to make his case.
You cannot pre-load crossbows RAW, as Ammunitionrequires ammunition be loaded with a free hand as “part of” the attack. Many DMs will houserule to allow you to preload, but it is not RAW.
I don't recall seeing that word in the property description.
JC can feel as he likes, the RAW is in no way ambiguous. Melee weapons do not have a weapon property that says that they must be "drawn as part of the attack," nor is any similar language found in Chapter 9 in general about melee attacks.
Nor that one.
It just says it is drawn. The nuance of whether that means can be drawn or must be drawn as part of firing the weapon is what we are discussing. It is also clear that you can use an object interaction to load the crossbow. I haven't seen anybody take issue with that. How, then, would you load the crossbow as part of firing it if it is already loaded? I know some people put more weight in JC's tweets than others do. For me, it's a window into the intentions behind the rules when they were designed that can shed some light on ambiguous or simplified wording.
When someone brings up the issue of needing a free hand, he clarifies the situation even further. And obviously, yes, this is an edge case, because then you have two unloaded crossbows and no free hand to reload either of them (unless you're a xorn)
And most importantly, again, I'm definitely not saying you are wrong or that you are failing to follow the rules as written by playing it the way you do.
I believe the wording of the ammunition property to be inclusive of the bolt-loading process, not exclusive and 'as part of' indicates a part of the process that is taken if needed. You open a door as part of moving through a doorway. When you walk up to an open door, you don't need to close it so that you can then open it as part of going through it. You need not spend an additional action or object interaction to load the ammunition when you fire the weapon. [Me paraphrasing] And the evidence I have presented indicates it is intended to work that way as well. In my opinion, to insist otherwise would be to completely ignore the context of the function and hang your entire argument on a single word despite any indication to the contrary.
Would you agree that a player has the ability to put a bolt in a crossbow and cock it without firing? To me, the Use an Object action is the correct action for this purpose. I am not sure if you are suggesting that a character does not have the actual ability to load a crossbow or whether you are suggesting that if the player pre-loaded their weapon, they would then have to unload it so that they could reload it as part of firing it. Both of those options seem rather silly to me.
If you want to be completely inflexible with the reading of that sentence, then I cannot even hand you a bolt to fire because you must first put in into a quiver, case, or other container so that it can be drawn as part of the attack. No picking up crossbow bolts from the floor in 5e. I am not suggesting you are saying that, by the way, because we both know that is absurd. At some point you just have to look at the word 'is' and say, "Surely that can't be the only way they mean it."
Can you pre-load a Longbow? I wouldn't think so, not in a meaningful way other than maybe keeping an arrow "on" your person if you're about to lose your quiver... a Longbow and a Crossbow, Light seem pretty mechanically similar, with the exception that a Longbow is also Heavy vs. the crossbow being also Loading.
The "you need not spend an additional action or object interaction to load the ammunition when you fire the weapon" language is very important: that's why loading Ammunition with each shot is entirely dissimilar to drawing a weapon to swing it, or drawing a Thrown weapon to throw it (without Thrown Weapon Fighting Style). Lacking that language, you would be able to fire only a single shot each round, because drawing a second piece of Ammunition with the next shot would appear to be an object interaction, and require [Tooltip Not Found].
I know that logically, it makes sense that you might be able to slide a bolt into the chamber and leave it there, skipping Ammunition for the first shot that you make... but what makes you believe that RAW, that bolt must stay in place to the next round? What weapon property of the crossbow tells you that the bolt hasn't fallen out, or slid in a way where it still needs a free hand to align it, or there's a safety to release, or whatever else might still be required?
But that all being said.... when I look at the property more closely, I think you do have a good point, and that I've been paraphrasing the property in my mind even as I quote it. You're right.
Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition.Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)
The blue part must happen "each time" you fire (use one piece of ammunition). That doesn't say ammunition must be drawn "each time." You are correct.
The red part could mean that if you must draw that ammunition from a quiver (meaning, not already loaded, not already in your hand, etc.), drawing that ammunition is part of the attack, not a separate interaction.
You're right, JC is right, I'm wrong. In my mind it read "Each time you attack with the weapon... you need a free hand to load the weapon." Which just isn't right, at all. My bad.
You cannot pre-load crossbows RAW, as Ammunition requires ammunition be loaded with a free hand as “part of” the attack. Many DMs will houserule to allow you to preload, but it is not RAW.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I have seen that discussed before, and it has never sat well with me. Loading a crossbow as part of the attack is the counterpart to drawing your sword as part of the attack--it's nice to know you can do it at no extra cost, but it is unnecessary if the sword is already drawn. And it is unnecessary if the crossbow already has ammunition loaded. In fact, it is impossible if the crossbow already has ammunition loaded. I believe that the sentence is meant to be inclusive and not exclusive.
EDIT: I went looking, and it seems Jeremy feels the same way, at least the part about not needing to load a loaded weapon.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
JC can feel as he likes, the RAW is in no way ambiguous. Melee weapons do not have a weapon property that says that they must be "drawn as part of the attack," nor is any similar language found in Chapter 9 in general about melee attacks. You may draw a weapon as part of an attack once, if you have a free object interaction left... but that really isn't mechanically very similar to loading Ammunition at all, because ammunition doesn't require a free object interaction and can be done multiple times per round, and must be drawn as part of an attack.
It's only confusing and inequitable if you go out of your way to ignore that they're very different things. Drawing multiple Thrown weapons as part of the attacks that throw them is a much closer analogy to Ammunition than drawing a single sword as part of one attack, and that wasn't even possible until very recently with Thrown Weapon Fighting Style. I wouldn't say its very persuasive to argue that "you have to be able to pre-load Ammunition (written in 2014) instead of loading as part of the attack, because you can pre-hold Thrown weapons instead of drawing them as part of the attack using Thrown Weapon Fighting Style (written in 2020)," it's really a potato-buffalo comparison if you ask me.
Edit: See below, I'm wrong.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I am not saying you are wrong to read it the way you do, and I have found plenty of other people who have come to that same conclusion.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Using a dagger instead of hand crossbow does let you get a bonus action attack without a feat. But unless you plan on throwing the dagger or just want it for the style, you may want to consider 2 scimitars/shortswords instead for the bigger damage die.
I definitely agree that it seems wrong, but the RAW is what it is. JC's opinions, while enlightening, are still just opinions and not rules. Feel free to house rule it how you see fit, it isn't the kind of rule I'd go out of my way to enforce.
I asked for some clarification on the tweet, but since it was from back in December, I'm not holding my breath. Chicken is inserting his own more forceful language that never appears in the text to make his case.
I don't recall seeing that word in the property description.
Nor that one.
It just says it is drawn. The nuance of whether that means can be drawn or must be drawn as part of firing the weapon is what we are discussing. It is also clear that you can use an object interaction to load the crossbow. I haven't seen anybody take issue with that. How, then, would you load the crossbow as part of firing it if it is already loaded? I know some people put more weight in JC's tweets than others do. For me, it's a window into the intentions behind the rules when they were designed that can shed some light on ambiguous or simplified wording.
When someone brings up the issue of needing a free hand, he clarifies the situation even further. And obviously, yes, this is an edge case, because then you have two unloaded crossbows and no free hand to reload either of them (unless you're a xorn)
And most importantly, again, I'm definitely not saying you are wrong or that you are failing to follow the rules as written by playing it the way you do.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Is= not discretionary. Aka, required.
May be= discretionary.
Is that not what you understand “is” to mean? “Chicken is right” can be read as “Chicken may, or may not be, right” in your eyes?
”as part of” does not mean “seperately from” either.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I believe the wording of the ammunition property to be inclusive of the bolt-loading process, not exclusive and 'as part of' indicates a part of the process that is taken if needed. You open a door as part of moving through a doorway. When you walk up to an open door, you don't need to close it so that you can then open it as part of going through it. You need not spend an additional action or object interaction to load the ammunition when you fire the weapon. [Me paraphrasing] And the evidence I have presented indicates it is intended to work that way as well. In my opinion, to insist otherwise would be to completely ignore the context of the function and hang your entire argument on a single word despite any indication to the contrary.
Would you agree that a player has the ability to put a bolt in a crossbow and cock it without firing? To me, the Use an Object action is the correct action for this purpose. I am not sure if you are suggesting that a character does not have the actual ability to load a crossbow or whether you are suggesting that if the player pre-loaded their weapon, they would then have to unload it so that they could reload it as part of firing it. Both of those options seem rather silly to me.
If you want to be completely inflexible with the reading of that sentence, then I cannot even hand you a bolt to fire because you must first put in into a quiver, case, or other container so that it can be drawn as part of the attack. No picking up crossbow bolts from the floor in 5e. I am not suggesting you are saying that, by the way, because we both know that is absurd. At some point you just have to look at the word 'is' and say, "Surely that can't be the only way they mean it."
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Can you pre-load a Longbow? I wouldn't think so, not in a meaningful way other than maybe keeping an arrow "on" your person if you're about to lose your quiver... a Longbow and a Crossbow, Light seem pretty mechanically similar, with the exception that a Longbow is also Heavy vs. the crossbow being also Loading.
The "you need not spend an additional action or object interaction to load the ammunition when you fire the weapon" language is very important: that's why loading Ammunition with each shot is entirely dissimilar to drawing a weapon to swing it, or drawing a Thrown weapon to throw it (without Thrown Weapon Fighting Style). Lacking that language, you would be able to fire only a single shot each round, because drawing a second piece of Ammunition with the next shot would appear to be an object interaction, and require [Tooltip Not Found].
I know that logically, it makes sense that you might be able to slide a bolt into the chamber and leave it there, skipping Ammunition for the first shot that you make... but what makes you believe that RAW, that bolt must stay in place to the next round? What weapon property of the crossbow tells you that the bolt hasn't fallen out, or slid in a way where it still needs a free hand to align it, or there's a safety to release, or whatever else might still be required?
But that all being said.... when I look at the property more closely, I think you do have a good point, and that I've been paraphrasing the property in my mind even as I quote it. You're right.
The blue part must happen "each time" you fire (use one piece of ammunition). That doesn't say ammunition must be drawn "each time." You are correct.
The red part could mean that if you must draw that ammunition from a quiver (meaning, not already loaded, not already in your hand, etc.), drawing that ammunition is part of the attack, not a separate interaction.
You're right, JC is right, I'm wrong. In my mind it read "Each time you attack with the weapon... you need a free hand to load the weapon." Which just isn't right, at all. My bad.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.