Coming into the Rules & Game Mechanics forum telling people to ignore rules & mechanics is going to go over super well... Homebrew & House Rules is over here
Listen, DMing isn't about an individual person's fun; it's about everyone's fun, and D&D is a cooperative group game. Following systemic rules does not make a DM an "arsehole"; it makes them a good DM. When you blatantly ignore systemic rules to allow a player's "flavor", you have to consider how that makes all the other players feel.
You would give the crossbow player the benefit of an entire feat, and a class feature from a different class (twice) without an expense. How are your other players going to feel about that? Are you going to give them each a feat and two class features as well? Have other players sacrificed what they would like to do for what they can do with their characters? Do your other players even want to play in a game that's been homebrewed?
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's pure flavor, and actually a bit weaker than simply using a shortbow (due to the range restrictions). One in each hand because s/he thinks that's cool and wants to pew pew people with double hand crossbows? Sure. Why the hell not. Zero mechanical impact on the game. No balance issues. Justify the loading and firing part however your player wants to explain it. "
Yeah, nope. You got no idea of what balance is. Starting with disarming and ending with 2 magical hand crossbow.
Lots of changes they should make, especially with crossbows, but not letting some one firing one in each hand.
Coming into the Rules & Game Mechanics forum telling people to ignore rules & mechanics is going to go over super well... Homebrew & House Rules is over here
Listen, DMing isn't about an individual person's fun; it's about everyone's fun, and D&D is a cooperative group game. Following systemic rules does not make a DM an "arsehole"; it makes them a good DM. When you blatantly ignore systemic rules to allow a player's "flavor", you have to consider how that makes all the other players feel.
You would give the crossbow player the benefit of an entire feat, and a class feature from a different class (twice) without an expense. How are your other players going to feel about that? Are you going to give them each a feat and two class features as well? Have other players sacrificed what they would like to do for what they can do with their characters? Do your other players even want to play in a game that's been homebrewed?
Where did I say I would give them a free feat? I was very clear in my response. One ruling for if they take the feat, and one for if they don't.
There is, mechanically, zero difference for someone who chooses to take this feat between having one crossbow they can shoot for a total of three times, and two crossbows they can shoot for a total of three times. It makes absolutely no difference for the game.
The only reason you would not allow someone to do this is because you don't like it. There's no mechanical reason.
Whether to allow them to dual wield hand crossbows without said feat is up to the DM as to what they think is balanced. I don't see why there's any issue with your player choosing to nerf themselves slightly by having two hand crossbows instead of one shortbow. They obviously have a fun character concept in mind with it, and there's no balancing reason not to let them. So my personal ruling would be sure, makes no difference to the game.
I don't know what kind of vindictive children you play with, but one of my players having some fun character flavour that in no way makes them stronger than any other character doesn't lessen the enjoyment of my other players.
As a complete aside I've had someone tell me at a convention they were reloading a hand crossbow with their teeth while hanging on a rope. They at least had the decency to talk as if they had no teeth afterwards.
There is, mechanically, zero difference for someone who chooses to take this feat between having one crossbow they can shoot for a total of three times, and two crossbows they can shoot for a total of three times. It makes absolutely no difference for the game.
Then you might want to consider the following:
On their sheet, they wield one crossbow. For mechanical purposes and all associated rules, they have one crossbow. But when they attack, they describe it as two. When they get a magic one, they can describe it as a pair of magic crossbows. That's how you handle things that are just for flavor - you just describe it that way regardless of the mechanical workings.
You have the same result while still preserving the underlying mechanics which may exist for reasons you haven't anticipated yet - players are notorious for ferreting out unexpected advantages from seemingly harmless rulings.
Coming into the Rules & Game Mechanics forum telling people to ignore rules & mechanics is going to go over super well... Homebrew & House Rules is over here
Listen, DMing isn't about an individual person's fun; it's about everyone's fun, and D&D is a cooperative group game. Following systemic rules does not make a DM an "arsehole"; it makes them a good DM. When you blatantly ignore systemic rules to allow a player's "flavor", you have to consider how that makes all the other players feel.
You would give the crossbow player the benefit of an entire feat, and a class feature from a different class (twice) without an expense. How are your other players going to feel about that? Are you going to give them each a feat and two class features as well? Have other players sacrificed what they would like to do for what they can do with their characters? Do your other players even want to play in a game that's been homebrewed?
Where did I say I would give them a free feat? I was very clear in my response. One ruling for if they take the feat, and one for if they don't.
Someone wants to dual wield hand crossbows with the Crossbow Expert Feat?
Fine by me.
Now, as to the OP's question about doing this without the feat:
I'm still saying yes.
*reorganized for readability
Whether you meant you'd allow them to still make 3 attacks without the feat or not, you're still giving them the benefit of the rest of the feat. You're still giving them the benefit of a different class' features (twice). That's a mechanical difference, no matter how you try to rationalize it.
Nobody cares what you do in your own games, and I mean that in the positive sense... really, nobody cares what rules you change for your group to have fun; that's all you.
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.
Coming into the Rules & Game Mechanics forum telling people to ignore rules & mechanics is going to go over super well... Homebrew & House Rules is over here
Listen, DMing isn't about an individual person's fun; it's about everyone's fun, and D&D is a cooperative group game. Following systemic rules does not make a DM an "arsehole"; it makes them a good DM. When you blatantly ignore systemic rules to allow a player's "flavor", you have to consider how that makes all the other players feel.
You would give the crossbow player the benefit of an entire feat, and a class feature from a different class (twice) without an expense. How are your other players going to feel about that? Are you going to give them each a feat and two class features as well? Have other players sacrificed what they would like to do for what they can do with their characters? Do your other players even want to play in a game that's been homebrewed?
Where did I say I would give them a free feat? I was very clear in my response. One ruling for if they take the feat, and one for if they don't.
Someone wants to dual wield hand crossbows with the Crossbow Expert Feat?
Fine by me.
Now, as to the OP's question about doing this without the feat:
I'm still saying yes.
*reorganized for readability
Whether you meant you'd allow them to still make 3 attacks without the feat or not, you're still giving them the benefit of the rest of the feat. You're still giving them the benefit of a different class' features (twice). That's a mechanical difference, no matter how you try to rationalize it.
Nobody cares what you do in your own games, and I mean that in the positive sense... really, nobody cares what rules you change for your group to have fun; that's all you.
You literally quoted the exact part of what I said that contradicts what you're saying I said??
Do you understand what the word "WITH" means?
If it wasn't already obvious, did it not then BECOME obvious when I later clarified "WITHOUT"?
Is this somehow difficult to understand? You don't strike me as stupid, so I'm forced to assume you're being deliberately disingenuous.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply misunderstood something, so here's some further clarification, even though I think I have been perfectly clear already:
If a player chooses to take the Crossbow Expert feat, then there are no mechanical differences whatsoever between them using one hand crossbow and two hand crossbows. The only reason you would say no to this is because you're a control freak who wants to deny one of your players a piece of flavour text. There is no mechanical nor balancing reason to do this. If you want to argue from a "fine print of the rules" standpoint, then there are still long-winded and exhausting ways around this, but remember that the rules exist to serve the game mechanics.
If a player wants to dual wield hand crossbows without this feat, then there are no mechanical advantages for them to do so, and in fact this is, for all mechanical purposes, just a nerfed shortbow. So it seems utterly petty to say to a player, "No, you can't have this piece of flavour for your character, you have to use a shortbow. It's better anyway."
It's bizarre to me that many DMs have some problem with players minmaxing, and then you have people who apparently won't even let their players put themselves at a disadvantage for flavour because it goes against the exact letter of the rules. Rules which, if we want to start getting really nitpicky, one could argue have workarounds by way of putting down one crossbow, loading the other, etc.
The rules are there to make the game flow smoothly, and set parameters for the primary purposes of balance. Arguing over the minutia of rules is fine, as long as the result of that ruling has some actual consequence. Arguing over the minutia of rules for the sake of pedantry, when there would be zero change to the game you're playing, regardless of the final say, is just asinine.
You've made a lot of aggressive assumptions about my personal character that are unfounded. You also seem to not grasp the concept of mechanical differences because many have already been pointed out, but I'll go ahead and point out one huge mechanical difference of 2v1 that cannot be handwaved away--magic item effects.
Let's say you have two magic hand crossbows: one with a property like Flame Tongue, and one with a property like Frost Brand.
You have not taken the Crossbow Expert feat, so you are first limited by the amount of attacks you can make with the Attack action, which is only one by default. Do you have Extra Attack? Two attacks per Attack action. You didn't take the feat, so there is no bonus action attack, period. Are you exclusively firing from one of these weapons per round, are you firing each once, or are you firing from one or the other as best fits your current scenario? You mentioned min-maxing, so I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions by assuming you would want to make all of your attacks with whatever weapon would be (at any given time) most beneficial to you, right?
If you're fighting a creature with resistance to fire damage, you probably want to make all your attacks with the one that deals cold damage, yeah? Too bad, that's not possible for you to accomplish without Crossbow Expert and Repeating Shot infusion (x2). That wouldn't be possible for you if you were only wielding one crossbow at a time either.. switching out one xbow (or any weapon) for the other is not something that is possible to accomplish on your turn without the use of your action. There is a clear benefit associated with actively wielding (unhindered) two different weapons that cannot be accomplished by wielding a single weapon at a time. This is a mechanical difference. Letting someone do this without investing in the requisite feat(s)/class feature(s) is a mechanical advantage.
Your entire argument is based on "flavor", but the content of your argument has nothing to do with flavor; you just want benefits without a cost.
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.
I'm basically of the opinion that I will let my players have the things they want as long as it doesn't break the game.
Someone wants to dual wield hand crossbows with the Crossbow Expert Feat?
Fine by me. We'll get around the "ammunition" part by saying they've got little gnomish mechanical crossbows that can fire from a "magazine" (like a Chu Ko Nu or whatever). Pew pew pew. Fire all the crossbow bolts. The "needing one free hand to load" part is the only conflict here.
They want a cool thing for their character concept, and it doesn't present any real sort of balance issue. Let 'em have it. I know this part of the forum is overflowing with finicky and pedantic rules lawyers, but I personally don't see the problem.
If you want to boil it down to some actual rules/balance reasons ANYWAY:
Crossbow Expert allows you to shoot from the same hand crossbow twice anyway. If you have extra attack, that becomes 3 times.
So holding one or two crossbows makes absolutely no difference here, mechanically speaking.
Therefore, having two crossbows is just flavour for your player. Saying no to your player's flavour for their character, which has precisely zero mechanical impact on your game, just makes you an arsehole DM.
Now, as to the OP's question about doing this without the feat:
I'm still saying yes. It's pure flavour, and actually a bit weaker than simply using a shortbow (due to the range restrictions). One in each hand because s/he thinks that's cool and wants to pew pew people with double hand crossbows? Sure. Why the hell not. Zero mechanical impact on the game. No balance issues. Justify the loading and firing part however your player wants to explain it.
The bottom line is, as long as it doesn't present a balance issue: let your players have nice things and don't take them away for arbitrary rules reasons!
Sorry, maybe not productive, but thankyou for this comment...So many people nowadays get bent out of shape for no reason at all.
Letting a character genuinely one-hand a hand crossbow is not pure flavor and does have a mechanical benefit, because they can fight like an Artificer, with a shield in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other.
My player has 2 Hand Crossbows as a ranger and is wanting to dual wield them. Another issue is that he has the multi attack (you mean Extra Attack?) feature from his ranger but doesn't have the Crossbow Master feat. What can he do in one turn?
Back to the OP's question... your player can load a single Crossbow, Hand & fire it once. Loading happens at the time you make an attack, not before, per the Ammunition property. There is no "pre-loading" of ranged weapons.
Your player could (don't.. just don't.) drop (not stow... drop on the ground) their first crossbow, draw their second crossbow, and load/fire it once. Don't do this.
Just have them take the Crossbow Expert feat, tell them to just use one Crossbow, Hand, and be done with it. If you want to deep-dive into why you shouldn't ever bother attempting to wield two crossbows, read this thread. The synopsis is: even if you can fulfill all of the prerequisites for being able to operate two Crossbow, Hand (which requires a minimum of two Artificers and the Crossbow Expert feat) without juggling shenanigans, it's not worth it. You will never be able to achieve more crossbow attacks per round than you can with a single Crossbow, Hand.
[edit] Whoops, fixed the link. Thanks CC.
It's not really about getting more attacks though. If you have a total of 8 attacks; it is cooler to imagine doing four shots each with 2 hand crossbows, than 8 shots with one. It's the western 'kewl' of the guy with two pistols shooting both at the same time. Even if someone is given a total of 8 shots in 6 seconds (1 round), and a second weapon does not grant more shots because you have to fire one or the other at a time and reposition your hand after the recoil or some other reason; the imige in the head of being able to fire from two weapons is still more pleasing to some than one. This is one of those rules that needs an update in the new evolution methinks as so many people I see across multiple threads wanting to do this and being told "but the ammunition property means you can't."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
A 20th level fighter can have like 12 attacks per round under the right circumstances; between standard, action surge, being hasted, then bonus and reaction, plus certain feats and class feature combinations. I'm not sure which does and doesn't apply to ranged weapons, but if you interpret #of attacks per round to equal #of shots from a bow where the loading and ammunition properties are negated by feats and/or magic (i.e. infusion). You presumably can have up to as many shots as is equal to your total number of attacks in a round.
I just picked 8 cause the analogy was a western pistol, which often was 8 shots in a barrel, no - perhaps 6? Anyway, someone was pointing out that by the RAW you can get all of your shots from one crossbow, but only 2 shots from dual weilding, and that people looking for a way around that were trying to double their number of available shots per round. I was simply retorting that it's not necessarily looking for a way to get more shots than your typical number of attacks would allow for, but rather that it's sometimes more fun to imagine delivering your attacks from both hands rather than one; and this is one of those cases where the RAW is getting in the way of that fun by insisting you can't; so it's a good spot for the rule of thumb about fun trumping RAW, and that in this instance the rule should be tweaked so under the right cirmstances, you can in fact dual weild your hand crossbows; even for no additional benefits compared to single weilding one; but just for the fun of being able to whip out two crossbows and make a series of shots from them.
Edit: The point someone makes above about if your crossbows being two different kinds of magiced is true though, so... I hadn't thought of that.
There is, mechanically, zero difference for someone who chooses to take this feat between having one crossbow they can shoot for a total of three times, and two crossbows they can shoot for a total of three times. It makes absolutely no difference for the game.
Then you might want to consider the following:
On their sheet, they wield one crossbow. For mechanical purposes and all associated rules, they have one crossbow. But when they attack, they describe it as two. When they get a magic one, they can describe it as a pair of magic crossbows. That's how you handle things that are just for flavor - you just describe it that way regardless of the mechanical workings.
You have the same result while still preserving the underlying mechanics which may exist for reasons you haven't anticipated yet - players are notorious for ferreting out unexpected advantages from seemingly harmless rulings.
-nods; this is the best actually. Just edit the name of one Hand Crossbow on the the sheet to Hand Crossbows or 'pair of hand crossbows' and have the assumption be they are weilding two while in play, but still actually do the rolls from the meta-perspective as being from a single item. The character can have the flavor, and it doesn't require to much actual homebrew fiddling. I like this for simplicities sake.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
@ 20th level it would be 4 as an Action, 4 more with Action Surge, 1 as a Bonus Action if they have Crossbow Expert. If they are under haste, that would be 1 more.
Do you mean like a Colt 45 Peacemaker? They were called “6 shooters” for a reason. That reason being they held 6 rounds in the cylinders, if there is ever more than 1 round in the barrel at the same time that’s a fantastic way to make a gun explode.
Crossbows and revolvers work nothing alike. From a “cinematic” perspective it may seem “cooler,” but from a mechanical/engineering/historical standpoint it makes no sense just from the feat itself, it would require something like the Artificer infusion of nothing else.
nods, and I think the battlemaster fighter and hunter ranger have a feature that gives you a +1 attack somewhere; i'm sure I've seen a 12 attack build floating around somewhere.
Something like that.
Yes, the Artificer infusion is currently the only RAW way I know of in 5e to remove the ammunition impact. You can homebrew a standard magical item version so as to divorce it from being dependent upon an artificers infusion, but that is not official. 3&4e and Pathfinder1 had mechanical repeating crossbows that did have side loading cartriges, but apparently from what I can find, only for heavy and light crossbows, or their own unique entry as a two-handed and medium sized weapon. I can't seem to find a mechanical repeating hand crossbow outside of homebrew content.
nods, and I think the battlemaster fighter and hunter ranger have a feature that gives you a +1 attack somewhere; i'm sure I've seen a 12 attack build floating around somewhere.
As Sposta said, a level 20 Fighter can make 4 attacks as a part of the Attack action. They can then action surge to get an additional action on their turn (technically they 2 action surges but they cant be used on the same turn, so maybe this is where people get confused) which would give them an additional 4 attacks. If they have Crossbow Master they can make an additional attack as a bonus action. Haste gives them specifically one attack as a part. This gives a grand total of 10 attacks.
Cavalier Fighter gives you a special reaction that you can take once on each other creatures turn that allows you to make an opportunity attack. That could feasibly give you as many extra attacks as there are creatures.
The battle master doesn't give you any extra attacks outright. Most of the Maneuvers require the use of a bonus action/reaction or are a part of the attack. The only one that I can think that might give an extra attack without needing a bonus action/reaction is 'Sweeping Attack' which requires a Melee attack that can hit an additional creature.
If you are a Hunter Ranger you can choose 'Hoard Breaker' and get an additional attack on a creature, and 'Volly' or 'Whirlwind Attack' which allows you to make any number of attacks on creatures within a certain area of each other/yourself. However, both of these specifically say "You can use an action to make a Melee/Ranged attack against..." indicating that this is its own action and not an attack action, so you would have to choose getting multiple attacks from an attack action or getting to hit however many creatures applicable via your 'Volly' or 'Whirlwind Attack' action.
That being said, if someone was to rule that 'Volly' or 'Whirlwind Attack' can be done as a part of your attack action then the potential number of targets you could hit would go way up. Even more so if you are allowed to do it per attack within the attack action.
But it says the weapon can only be fired once when you use and action, bonus action or reaction. So by raw if you’re dual wielding hand crossbows you should be able to fire both using extra attack, and also if you were a fighter and wanted to use action surge you should be able to fire them both again using your second attack action. It doesn’t say you can only fire the weapon once per turn.
But it says the weapon can only be fired once when you use and action, bonus action or reaction. So by raw if you’re dual wielding hand crossbows you should be able to fire both using extra attack, and also if you were a fighter and wanted to use action surge you should be able to fire them both again using your second attack action. It doesn’t say you can only fire the weapon once per turn.
You can attack once with each crossbow using your action (provided you have enough attacks), but to do it again with action surge you need a way to reload them. About the best you could do is attack with each one using your action, put one away or drop it, action surge, reload and attack with your remaining crossbow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Coming into the Rules & Game Mechanics forum telling people to ignore rules & mechanics is going to go over super well... Homebrew & House Rules is over here
Listen, DMing isn't about an individual person's fun; it's about everyone's fun, and D&D is a cooperative group game. Following systemic rules does not make a DM an "arsehole"; it makes them a good DM. When you blatantly ignore systemic rules to allow a player's "flavor", you have to consider how that makes all the other players feel.
You would give the crossbow player the benefit of an entire feat, and a class feature from a different class (twice) without an expense. How are your other players going to feel about that? Are you going to give them each a feat and two class features as well? Have other players sacrificed what they would like to do for what they can do with their characters? Do your other players even want to play in a game that's been homebrewed?
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's pure flavor, and actually a bit weaker than simply using a shortbow (due to the range restrictions). One in each hand because s/he thinks that's cool and wants to pew pew people with double hand crossbows? Sure. Why the hell not. Zero mechanical impact on the game. No balance issues. Justify the loading and firing part however your player wants to explain it. "
Yeah, nope. You got no idea of what balance is. Starting with disarming and ending with 2 magical hand crossbow.
Lots of changes they should make, especially with crossbows, but not letting some one firing one in each hand.
Where did I say I would give them a free feat? I was very clear in my response. One ruling for if they take the feat, and one for if they don't.
There is, mechanically, zero difference for someone who chooses to take this feat between having one crossbow they can shoot for a total of three times, and two crossbows they can shoot for a total of three times. It makes absolutely no difference for the game.
The only reason you would not allow someone to do this is because you don't like it. There's no mechanical reason.
Whether to allow them to dual wield hand crossbows without said feat is up to the DM as to what they think is balanced. I don't see why there's any issue with your player choosing to nerf themselves slightly by having two hand crossbows instead of one shortbow. They obviously have a fun character concept in mind with it, and there's no balancing reason not to let them. So my personal ruling would be sure, makes no difference to the game.
I don't know what kind of vindictive children you play with, but one of my players having some fun character flavour that in no way makes them stronger than any other character doesn't lessen the enjoyment of my other players.
As a complete aside I've had someone tell me at a convention they were reloading a hand crossbow with their teeth while hanging on a rope. They at least had the decency to talk as if they had no teeth afterwards.
Then you might want to consider the following:
On their sheet, they wield one crossbow. For mechanical purposes and all associated rules, they have one crossbow. But when they attack, they describe it as two. When they get a magic one, they can describe it as a pair of magic crossbows. That's how you handle things that are just for flavor - you just describe it that way regardless of the mechanical workings.
You have the same result while still preserving the underlying mechanics which may exist for reasons you haven't anticipated yet - players are notorious for ferreting out unexpected advantages from seemingly harmless rulings.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Right here?
Whether you meant you'd allow them to still make 3 attacks without the feat or not, you're still giving them the benefit of the rest of the feat. You're still giving them the benefit of a different class' features (twice). That's a mechanical difference, no matter how you try to rationalize it.
Nobody cares what you do in your own games, and I mean that in the positive sense... really, nobody cares what rules you change for your group to have fun; that's all you.
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.
You literally quoted the exact part of what I said that contradicts what you're saying I said??
Do you understand what the word "WITH" means?
If it wasn't already obvious, did it not then BECOME obvious when I later clarified "WITHOUT"?
Is this somehow difficult to understand? You don't strike me as stupid, so I'm forced to assume you're being deliberately disingenuous.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply misunderstood something, so here's some further clarification, even though I think I have been perfectly clear already:
If a player chooses to take the Crossbow Expert feat, then there are no mechanical differences whatsoever between them using one hand crossbow and two hand crossbows. The only reason you would say no to this is because you're a control freak who wants to deny one of your players a piece of flavour text. There is no mechanical nor balancing reason to do this. If you want to argue from a "fine print of the rules" standpoint, then there are still long-winded and exhausting ways around this, but remember that the rules exist to serve the game mechanics.
If a player wants to dual wield hand crossbows without this feat, then there are no mechanical advantages for them to do so, and in fact this is, for all mechanical purposes, just a nerfed shortbow. So it seems utterly petty to say to a player, "No, you can't have this piece of flavour for your character, you have to use a shortbow. It's better anyway."
It's bizarre to me that many DMs have some problem with players minmaxing, and then you have people who apparently won't even let their players put themselves at a disadvantage for flavour because it goes against the exact letter of the rules. Rules which, if we want to start getting really nitpicky, one could argue have workarounds by way of putting down one crossbow, loading the other, etc.
The rules are there to make the game flow smoothly, and set parameters for the primary purposes of balance. Arguing over the minutia of rules is fine, as long as the result of that ruling has some actual consequence. Arguing over the minutia of rules for the sake of pedantry, when there would be zero change to the game you're playing, regardless of the final say, is just asinine.
You've made a lot of aggressive assumptions about my personal character that are unfounded. You also seem to not grasp the concept of mechanical differences because many have already been pointed out, but I'll go ahead and point out one huge mechanical difference of 2v1 that cannot be handwaved away--magic item effects.
Let's say you have two magic hand crossbows: one with a property like Flame Tongue, and one with a property like Frost Brand.
You have not taken the Crossbow Expert feat, so you are first limited by the amount of attacks you can make with the Attack action, which is only one by default. Do you have Extra Attack? Two attacks per Attack action. You didn't take the feat, so there is no bonus action attack, period. Are you exclusively firing from one of these weapons per round, are you firing each once, or are you firing from one or the other as best fits your current scenario? You mentioned min-maxing, so I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions by assuming you would want to make all of your attacks with whatever weapon would be (at any given time) most beneficial to you, right?
If you're fighting a creature with resistance to fire damage, you probably want to make all your attacks with the one that deals cold damage, yeah? Too bad, that's not possible for you to accomplish without Crossbow Expert and Repeating Shot infusion (x2). That wouldn't be possible for you if you were only wielding one crossbow at a time either.. switching out one xbow (or any weapon) for the other is not something that is possible to accomplish on your turn without the use of your action. There is a clear benefit associated with actively wielding (unhindered) two different weapons that cannot be accomplished by wielding a single weapon at a time. This is a mechanical difference. Letting someone do this without investing in the requisite feat(s)/class feature(s) is a mechanical advantage.
Your entire argument is based on "flavor", but the content of your argument has nothing to do with flavor; you just want benefits without a cost.
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.
Sorry, maybe not productive, but thankyou for this comment...So many people nowadays get bent out of shape for no reason at all.
Letting a character genuinely one-hand a hand crossbow is not pure flavor and does have a mechanical benefit, because they can fight like an Artificer, with a shield in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other.
It's not really about getting more attacks though. If you have a total of 8 attacks; it is cooler to imagine doing four shots each with 2 hand crossbows, than 8 shots with one. It's the western 'kewl' of the guy with two pistols shooting both at the same time. Even if someone is given a total of 8 shots in 6 seconds (1 round), and a second weapon does not grant more shots because you have to fire one or the other at a time and reposition your hand after the recoil or some other reason; the imige in the head of being able to fire from two weapons is still more pleasing to some than one. This is one of those rules that needs an update in the new evolution methinks as so many people I see across multiple threads wanting to do this and being told "but the ammunition property means you can't."
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Where are you getting this “8 shots” from?!? That’s one number you absolutely cannot get with a hand crossbow and the crossbow expert feat.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A 20th level fighter can have like 12 attacks per round under the right circumstances; between standard, action surge, being hasted, then bonus and reaction, plus certain feats and class feature combinations. I'm not sure which does and doesn't apply to ranged weapons, but if you interpret #of attacks per round to equal #of shots from a bow where the loading and ammunition properties are negated by feats and/or magic (i.e. infusion). You presumably can have up to as many shots as is equal to your total number of attacks in a round.
I just picked 8 cause the analogy was a western pistol, which often was 8 shots in a barrel, no - perhaps 6? Anyway, someone was pointing out that by the RAW you can get all of your shots from one crossbow, but only 2 shots from dual weilding, and that people looking for a way around that were trying to double their number of available shots per round. I was simply retorting that it's not necessarily looking for a way to get more shots than your typical number of attacks would allow for, but rather that it's sometimes more fun to imagine delivering your attacks from both hands rather than one; and this is one of those cases where the RAW is getting in the way of that fun by insisting you can't; so it's a good spot for the rule of thumb about fun trumping RAW, and that in this instance the rule should be tweaked so under the right cirmstances, you can in fact dual weild your hand crossbows; even for no additional benefits compared to single weilding one; but just for the fun of being able to whip out two crossbows and make a series of shots from them.
Edit: The point someone makes above about if your crossbows being two different kinds of magiced is true though, so... I hadn't thought of that.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
-nods; this is the best actually. Just edit the name of one Hand Crossbow on the the sheet to Hand Crossbows or 'pair of hand crossbows' and have the assumption be they are weilding two while in play, but still actually do the rolls from the meta-perspective as being from a single item. The character can have the flavor, and it doesn't require to much actual homebrew fiddling. I like this for simplicities sake.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
@ 20th level it would be 4 as an Action, 4 more with Action Surge, 1 as a Bonus Action if they have Crossbow Expert. If they are under haste, that would be 1 more.
Do you mean like a Colt 45 Peacemaker? They were called “6 shooters” for a reason. That reason being they held 6 rounds in the cylinders, if there is ever more than 1 round in the barrel at the same time that’s a fantastic way to make a gun explode.
Crossbows and revolvers work nothing alike. From a “cinematic” perspective it may seem “cooler,” but from a mechanical/engineering/historical standpoint it makes no sense just from the feat itself, it would require something like the Artificer infusion of nothing else.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
nods, and I think the battlemaster fighter and hunter ranger have a feature that gives you a +1 attack somewhere; i'm sure I've seen a 12 attack build floating around somewhere.
Something like that.
Yes, the Artificer infusion is currently the only RAW way I know of in 5e to remove the ammunition impact. You can homebrew a standard magical item version so as to divorce it from being dependent upon an artificers infusion, but that is not official. 3&4e and Pathfinder1 had mechanical repeating crossbows that did have side loading cartriges, but apparently from what I can find, only for heavy and light crossbows, or their own unique entry as a two-handed and medium sized weapon. I can't seem to find a mechanical repeating hand crossbow outside of homebrew content.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
If it didn’t exist in 3/3.5, then it pro’ly didn’t exist in D&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As Sposta said, a level 20 Fighter can make 4 attacks as a part of the Attack action. They can then action surge to get an additional action on their turn (technically they 2 action surges but they cant be used on the same turn, so maybe this is where people get confused) which would give them an additional 4 attacks. If they have Crossbow Master they can make an additional attack as a bonus action. Haste gives them specifically one attack as a part. This gives a grand total of 10 attacks.
Cavalier Fighter gives you a special reaction that you can take once on each other creatures turn that allows you to make an opportunity attack. That could feasibly give you as many extra attacks as there are creatures.
The battle master doesn't give you any extra attacks outright. Most of the Maneuvers require the use of a bonus action/reaction or are a part of the attack. The only one that I can think that might give an extra attack without needing a bonus action/reaction is 'Sweeping Attack' which requires a Melee attack that can hit an additional creature.
If you are a Hunter Ranger you can choose 'Hoard Breaker' and get an additional attack on a creature, and 'Volly' or 'Whirlwind Attack' which allows you to make any number of attacks on creatures within a certain area of each other/yourself. However, both of these specifically say "You can use an action to make a Melee/Ranged attack against..." indicating that this is its own action and not an attack action, so you would have to choose getting multiple attacks from an attack action or getting to hit however many creatures applicable via your 'Volly' or 'Whirlwind Attack' action.
That being said, if someone was to rule that 'Volly' or 'Whirlwind Attack' can be done as a part of your attack action then the potential number of targets you could hit would go way up. Even more so if you are allowed to do it per attack within the attack action.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
But it says the weapon can only be fired once when you use and action, bonus action or reaction. So by raw if you’re dual wielding hand crossbows you should be able to fire both using extra attack, and also if you were a fighter and wanted to use action surge you should be able to fire them both again using your second attack action. It doesn’t say you can only fire the weapon once per turn.
You can attack once with each crossbow using your action (provided you have enough attacks), but to do it again with action surge you need a way to reload them. About the best you could do is attack with each one using your action, put one away or drop it, action surge, reload and attack with your remaining crossbow.