I had a player last night carrying a two handed weapon who wanted to then use a hand crossbow. Normally we use the rules that if you drop your weapon as a free action you can then equip the new weapon and attack on the same turn. However he had an enchantment on the two handed weapon that would dissipate if he dropped it so he chose not to attack so that he wouldn't lose it. He pointed out today that a two handed weapon can be held with one hand as long as it isn't being used. Was this the correct ruling?
There's no rule anywhere in the core books that says a two-handed weapon requires two hands to hold. They require two hands when attacking because their weight and center of balance makes them unwieldy if held in one hand or because you literally have to hold two different parts of the weapon to use it (e.g. a bow.) That doesn't mean they're too heavy to hold. A greataxe only weighs 6 pounds.
Yeah, holding a two-handed weapon with 1 hand is perfectly within the rules (pretty sure it specifies the difference between holding and wielding somewhere). Just remember he can only draw or put away one weapon per turn, and he can't weild the 2 handed weapon with something in his hand.
Something I forgot to address; it still takes two hands to operate a hand crossbow since you need to grab and load the ammunition. It's only a one-handed weapon in the sense that you only need one hand to aim and pull the trigger.
If the hand crossbow was pre-loaded (typically not a smart thing) then sure they can continue to hold the two-handed weapon in one hand, and use the now "free" hand to draw and shoot with no penalties. Next round, they could use their free object interaction to stow the hand crossbow and continue attacking with the two-handed weapon.
Caveats:
Doing this means they are no longer wielding the two-handed weapon for the rest of the round.
They cannot take opportunity attacks with the two-handed weapon this round
They cannot reload the hand crossbow
Could someone cheese things by hauling around a bunch of "disposable" loaded hand crossbows? Sure... at great cost and peril. You as a DM would get to have a lot of fun determining where/when they start going off while in a backpack. 😂
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It would would for at most a single shot. There is no way to reload a hand crossbow if you do not have your other hand free. I probably would not allow a hand crossbow to carried loaded and ready except in hand. The design of a hand crossbow, or regular crossbow for that matter, does not secure the bolt for carrying slung or in a holster.
The fact that a hand crossbow still requires a free hand is confusing and counter productive. (What is the point of a one handed crossbow that deals less damage, requires more training (martial), and doesn't let you dual wield or use a shield?)
The one and only benefit of the hand crossbow over the other crossbows is that it can make a bonus action attack with the crossbow expert feat (which you wouldn't even need if you could dual wield). It still requires 2 hands to attack with and is only treated as a one handed weapon for certain features.
I probably would not allow a hand crossbow to carried loaded and ready except in hand. The design of a hand crossbow, or regular crossbow for that matter, does not secure the bolt for carrying slung or in a holster.
Not really sure if that's always true. Apparently clips were added to some light/heavy crossbows to hold the bolt in place. That comes up around 7:10 in this video if anyone's curious. But that's a really good point.
The fact that a hand crossbow still requires a free hand is confusing and counter productive. (What is the point of a one handed crossbow that deals less damage, requires more training (martial), and doesn't let you dual wield or use a shield?)
The one and only benefit of the hand crossbow over the other crossbows is that it can make a bonus action attack with the crossbow expert feat (which you wouldn't even need if you could dual wield). It still requires 2 hands to attack with and is only treated as a one handed weapon for certain features.
A hand crossbow is way lighter and smaller than a regular crossbow, and if you're the type of person that likes to have some semblance of realism, you can't conveniently carry a regular crossbow around all day. You're going to get tired and look silly carrying a regular crossbow around town all day. Compare the crossbow from the previous video to this one:
Besides, that's how they worked in real life. You don't hold a hand crossbow two-handed; it's way too small for that. And it's no different from a sling in that regard. Plus, D&D isn't very realistic when it comes to weapons so it's a bit pointless to gripe about this particular one. The power difference between a hand crossbow and a heavy crossbow is enormous in real life; the damage scale D&D uses can't reflect that properly. Heck, it's speculated hand crossbows were just novelties with no practical combat use. Likewise, you'd never fight someone holding a spear with a dagger or try to shoot someone in full plate with a short bow but D&D hand waves all of that.
A hand crossbow is way lighter and smaller than a regular crossbow, and if you're the type of person that likes to have some semblance of realism, you can't conveniently carry a regular crossbow around all day. You're going to get tired and look silly carrying a regular crossbow around town all day.
Besides, that's how they worked in real life. You don't hold a hand crossbow two-handed; it's way too small for that. And it's no different from a sling in that regard. Plus, D&D isn't very realistic when it comes to weapons so it's a bit pointless to gripe about this particular one. The power difference between a hand crossbow and a heavy crossbow is enormous in real life; the damage scale D&D uses can't reflect that properly. Heck, it's speculated hand crossbows were just novelties with no practical combat use. Likewise, you'd never fight someone holding a spear with a dagger or try to shoot someone in full plate with a short bow but D&D hand waves all of that.
General response: I was referring to gameplay mechanics not realism.
Response to bold: literally says the reason the one handed weapon requires both hands is because realism, then says game doesn't follow realism for weapons.
Also, consider that most adventurers eventually get a bad of holding so they don't have to carry the weapon all the time. And mechanically it just always makes sense to use a 2 handed ammunition weapon over a 1 handed one.
General response: I was referring to gameplay mechanics not realism.
Weight is a gameplay mechanic, so there's that. Being one-handed arguably allows you to use them during Bladesong too. And pre-loading a one-handed ranged weapon is also a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you're anticipating combat but might need a hand free to hold a horse's reins or a torch or whatever.
Response to bold: literally says the reason the one handed weapon requires both hands is because realism, then says game doesn't follow realism for weapons.
Claim 1: The weapon is shot with one hand in real life. The mechanics are informing you of this, because you might not be an expert on renaissance weapons and this is a role-playing game.
Claim 2: D&D can't capture the full nuance of weapon combat in its rules but it has to represent dozens of weapons anyways. The hand crossbow is far from the worst offender in terms of being outclassed by other weapons, both in real life and within the game.
These are not contradictory statements.
Also, consider that most adventurers eventually get a bad of holding so they don't have to carry the weapon all the time.
I've been playing 5e for 4 years now and not once has the bag of holding or handy haversack come up. I run Curse of Strahd and the item just doesn't appear in that adventure, and the DM in my other game never handed one out either.
If bags of holding are standard-issue for adventurers, no one I play with got the memo. I find that what's more common is applying video game logic to inventory management. Two-handed weapons strapped to your back somehow, that kind of thing.
I wouldnt allow it. One of the main things about two handed weapons is that they are stronger, but you cant have anything in your hands. Thats like using it to attack, and then equip a shield when your turn is over(which requires a feat but completly removes the two handed property from the game). You cant use a one handed weapon while wielding a two handed one.
I wouldnt allow it. One of the main things about two handed weapons is that they are stronger, but you cant have anything in your hands. Thats like using it to attack, and then equip a shield when your turn is over(which requires a feat but completly removes the two handed property from the game). You cant use a one handed weapon while wielding a two handed one.
Equipping a shield requires an action. Removing it also requires an action. There is no feat that changes either of those requirements.
2 handed weapons are stronger and do require 2 hands. You can't attack with the 2 handed weapon while wielding a 1 handed weapon in the other hand, you can only use the 1 handed weapon. There's no reason this is unbalanced, in fact it effectively makes 1 arm useless in battle.
Since we're already necro'ing this thread, I'll add in my 2 cents. Something didn't exist two years ago (except in Eberron), Artificers. More specifically, the Repeating Shot infusion:
"This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it when it’s used to make a ranged attack, and it ignores the loading property if it has it.
If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it. The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target."
So the loading hand is no longer needed, and you may now wield a blowgun, hand crossbow, or sling in each hand, or while holding (but not wielding) a 2H weapon in the other hand. You also won't need a dozen pre-loaded hand crossbows in your Bag of Holding. You just have to be, or make friends with, a Artificer.
I had a player last night carrying a two handed weapon who wanted to then use a hand crossbow. Normally we use the rules that if you drop your weapon as a free action you can then equip the new weapon and attack on the same turn. However he had an enchantment on the two handed weapon that would dissipate if he dropped it so he chose not to attack so that he wouldn't lose it. He pointed out today that a two handed weapon can be held with one hand as long as it isn't being used. Was this the correct ruling?
There's no rule anywhere in the core books that says a two-handed weapon requires two hands to hold. They require two hands when attacking because their weight and center of balance makes them unwieldy if held in one hand or because you literally have to hold two different parts of the weapon to use it (e.g. a bow.) That doesn't mean they're too heavy to hold. A greataxe only weighs 6 pounds.
Yeah, holding a two-handed weapon with 1 hand is perfectly within the rules (pretty sure it specifies the difference between holding and wielding somewhere). Just remember he can only draw or put away one weapon per turn, and he can't weild the 2 handed weapon with something in his hand.
Something I forgot to address; it still takes two hands to operate a hand crossbow since you need to grab and load the ammunition. It's only a one-handed weapon in the sense that you only need one hand to aim and pull the trigger.
If the hand crossbow was pre-loaded (typically not a smart thing) then sure they can continue to hold the two-handed weapon in one hand, and use the now "free" hand to draw and shoot with no penalties. Next round, they could use their free object interaction to stow the hand crossbow and continue attacking with the two-handed weapon.
Caveats:
Could someone cheese things by hauling around a bunch of "disposable" loaded hand crossbows? Sure... at great cost and peril. You as a DM would get to have a lot of fun determining where/when they start going off while in a backpack. 😂
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It would would for at most a single shot. There is no way to reload a hand crossbow if you do not have your other hand free. I probably would not allow a hand crossbow to carried loaded and ready except in hand. The design of a hand crossbow, or regular crossbow for that matter, does not secure the bolt for carrying slung or in a holster.
The fact that a hand crossbow still requires a free hand is confusing and counter productive. (What is the point of a one handed crossbow that deals less damage, requires more training (martial), and doesn't let you dual wield or use a shield?)
The one and only benefit of the hand crossbow over the other crossbows is that it can make a bonus action attack with the crossbow expert feat (which you wouldn't even need if you could dual wield). It still requires 2 hands to attack with and is only treated as a one handed weapon for certain features.
Not really sure if that's always true. Apparently clips were added to some light/heavy crossbows to hold the bolt in place. That comes up around 7:10 in this video if anyone's curious. But that's a really good point.
A hand crossbow is way lighter and smaller than a regular crossbow, and if you're the type of person that likes to have some semblance of realism, you can't conveniently carry a regular crossbow around all day. You're going to get tired and look silly carrying a regular crossbow around town all day. Compare the crossbow from the previous video to this one:
Besides, that's how they worked in real life. You don't hold a hand crossbow two-handed; it's way too small for that. And it's no different from a sling in that regard. Plus, D&D isn't very realistic when it comes to weapons so it's a bit pointless to gripe about this particular one. The power difference between a hand crossbow and a heavy crossbow is enormous in real life; the damage scale D&D uses can't reflect that properly. Heck, it's speculated hand crossbows were just novelties with no practical combat use. Likewise, you'd never fight someone holding a spear with a dagger or try to shoot someone in full plate with a short bow but D&D hand waves all of that.
General response: I was referring to gameplay mechanics not realism.
Response to bold: literally says the reason the one handed weapon requires both hands is because realism, then says game doesn't follow realism for weapons.
Also, consider that most adventurers eventually get a bad of holding so they don't have to carry the weapon all the time. And mechanically it just always makes sense to use a 2 handed ammunition weapon over a 1 handed one.
Weight is a gameplay mechanic, so there's that. Being one-handed arguably allows you to use them during Bladesong too. And pre-loading a one-handed ranged weapon is also a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you're anticipating combat but might need a hand free to hold a horse's reins or a torch or whatever.
Claim 1: The weapon is shot with one hand in real life. The mechanics are informing you of this, because you might not be an expert on renaissance weapons and this is a role-playing game.
Claim 2: D&D can't capture the full nuance of weapon combat in its rules but it has to represent dozens of weapons anyways. The hand crossbow is far from the worst offender in terms of being outclassed by other weapons, both in real life and within the game.
These are not contradictory statements.
I've been playing 5e for 4 years now and not once has the bag of holding or handy haversack come up. I run Curse of Strahd and the item just doesn't appear in that adventure, and the DM in my other game never handed one out either.
If bags of holding are standard-issue for adventurers, no one I play with got the memo. I find that what's more common is applying video game logic to inventory management. Two-handed weapons strapped to your back somehow, that kind of thing.
I wouldnt allow it. One of the main things about two handed weapons is that they are stronger, but you cant have anything in your hands. Thats like using it to attack, and then equip a shield when your turn is over(which requires a feat but completly removes the two handed property from the game). You cant use a one handed weapon while wielding a two handed one.
Equipping a shield requires an action. Removing it also requires an action. There is no feat that changes either of those requirements.
2 handed weapons are stronger and do require 2 hands. You can't attack with the 2 handed weapon while wielding a 1 handed weapon in the other hand, you can only use the 1 handed weapon. There's no reason this is unbalanced, in fact it effectively makes 1 arm useless in battle.
And that is the answer we gave 2 years ago.
Since we're already necro'ing this thread, I'll add in my 2 cents. Something didn't exist two years ago (except in Eberron), Artificers. More specifically, the Repeating Shot infusion:
So the loading hand is no longer needed, and you may now wield a blowgun, hand crossbow, or sling in each hand, or while holding (but not wielding) a 2H weapon in the other hand. You also won't need a dozen pre-loaded hand crossbows in your Bag of Holding. You just have to be, or make friends with, a Artificer.
This is a standard rule in the games I run and in the games I play. One can easily hold a longbow with one hand. It just takes two hands to fire it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"