D&D V6 - Edition jokes don't really make sense anymore - Games

And I blew a guy's head off with a musket after telling him to surrender (he didn't)

[QUOTE=Eva-1337;51307159]While I personally wasn't a fan of that, since Paladins usually are more merciful, it's going to be really fun. Why? Because they forgot to interrogate him on all the traps.[/QUOTE] Be very weary about this sort of behavior. I played with a similar paladin player and there were a few instances where he really irritated the players by acting like a self-righteous zealot all the time and using his god to justify murderhobo behavior. Here's some highlights: [quote]- We lost an entire quest hook at one point because he insisted on challenging a local garrison commander to a duel to the death because of some past incidents. The commander laughed and had us all kicked out of the fort we were in. - Desecrated an alter in an attempt to rally the towns people. - Promised to return a cart of weapons to a shopkeeper in exchange for free splint armor, on the condition the armor was paid upfront. Broke his promise because he felt selling the weapons would better serve his holy mission. - Released a revenant and demanded it give him it's magic gnome sized plate armor. - Divine Smited some poor Bandit who was bound and gagged. There was nothing left. - Bludgeoned a woman to death before she could be burned at the stake. The fire wasn't lit. - Lied to PCs OOC, killing prisoners we asked to keep alive because 'the fall killed them, not me'. - When the DM explained to him that his PC was not the chosen champion of his Neutral god, he renounced his god and attempted to gain favor with Orcus by attacking one of the weakened PCs. The party unanimously told him the next time he did something remotely evil they would kill him.[/quote] He's gotten better after that last one. Point is our DM was limp wristed on punishments and we should have talked to him more directly. If you feel Paladins should be held to a higher standard, confront the player in a mature manner out of game or have the rest of the world react to his actions as you see fit. Just because the party doesn't mind him dispensing wild west justice doesn't mean the local guard, population, or divine entity won't take issue with this. You're the DM. What you say goes.

So where we last left my character Scyles, he had burned down a village (consisting of two long houses full of 50 halflings, elves, and halfling-elves) and in the resulting carnage caused the death of every inhabitant. However, he was the victim of a sleep spell just before his torch touched the thatch roofs and is now unconscious. Now most of the party is goody goody types, so they'll likely tie Scyles up with his own rope and put him on trial. I've been preparing my defense for next week's session: Scyles will argue that he is no indiscriminate murderer, rather, he was trying to gain useful supplies and valuables from the defenseless villagers. After all, Scyles did not actually kill a single villager, it was the attempts of the party in putting out the fire that resulted in the deaths of each and every villager. How did they know that Scyles was not trying to threaten the village into paying ransom? He did only try to burn one long house, the other one caught on fire on its own. The party will probably chastise him for his reckless endangerment of random people, especially people so innocent as these guard-less naive folk. This will confuse Scyles, as most "civilized" concepts do. The weak fall to the strong, if Scyles was not the one to burn the village and reap the rewards, some band of marauders would surely do the same eventually. The only difference is that Scyles' gain will benefit the party indirectly, whereas the eventual destruction of this village by other means would serve no purpose to the group. They'll likely tell him that arson and attempted murder are "Wrong" and that he's "Insane" but Scyles is absolutely certain of his righteousness in this matter. And if he is to be punished for committing no crime at all, that's just another bit of settled culture he'll have to get used to for the time being. Or they could just fucking stab him in his sleep and kill him.

[QUOTE=slayer20;51307253]The Adventurer's League for D&D5e got early access to some new PC races that are available to play. They just released a small PDF about each race and which Alliance they're tied too. The full book is available the 14th I believe, which will actually contain the racial stats and everything needed to play these races. These are the races: [sp]Aasimar, Firbolg, Goliath, Kenku, Lizardfolk, Tabaxi, Triton, Goblins, Bugbears, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Kobolds, and Yuan-Ti[/sp][/QUOTE] I don't see [sp]pixies[/sp], D&D still ruined forever.

[QUOTE=Archimedes;51310502]Be very weary about this sort of behavior. I played with a similar paladin player and there were a few instances where he really irritated the players by acting like a self-righteous zealot all the time and using his god to justify murderhobo behavior. Here's some highlights: He's gotten better after that last one. Point is our DM was limp wristed on punishments and we should have talked to him more directly. If you feel Paladins should be held to a higher standard, confront the player in a mature manner out of game or have the rest of the world react to his actions as you see fit. Just because the party doesn't mind him dispensing wild west justice doesn't mean the local guard, population, or divine entity won't take issue with this. You're the DM. What you say goes.[/QUOTE] Out of curiosity, what oath is he following?

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;51310794]Out of curiosity, what oath is he following?[/QUOTE] Oath of the Ancients, I think. He's since taken into consideration all the feedback we've given him and improved dramatically, weaving these unfortunate aspects of his character into a 'rebirth' and penitence process. Dunno what he is now. I think he's still Oath of the Ancients.

[QUOTE=Archimedes;51310814]Oath of the Ancients, I think. He's since taken into consideration all the feedback we've given him and improved dramatically, weaving these unfortunate aspects of his character into a 'rebirth' and penitence process. Dunno what he is now. I think he's still Oath of the Ancients.[/QUOTE] Not going to touch on the others, but here first tenant of that oath. "Kindle the light. Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back dispair." Look back at the list you wrote. There is some interpretation for any paladin player to be had with that sort of RP restriction (of course there should be some leeway and room for interpretation plus alignment), but I think he crossed the line far more than just a little bit. My DM would have probably called the first couple incidents enough to break the oath.

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;51311026]Not going to touch on the others, but here first tenant of that oath. "Kindle the light. Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back dispair." Look back at the list you wrote. There is some interpretation for any paladin player to be had with that sort of RP restriction (of course there should be some leeway and room for interpretation plus alignment), but I think he crossed the line far more than just a little bit. My DM would have probably called the first couple incidents enough to break the oath.[/QUOTE] Yeah that Paladin's behavior is much more in line with an Oathbreaker/Anti-Paladin/Dark Knight/Whatever. Good for him for actually turning a new leaf though.

After seeing some people talk about how good the Volo's monster book is, I decided to go ahead and order it. I'm not lucky enough to live near a place where they had some early copies, so I'll have to wait till the 15th before it is fully released and shipped, then the 18th when I actually will get it. On the plus side, I got 40% off it for pre-ordering it from indigo.

I really dislike that they gave Kobolds a -2 Strength as a player race in VGtM. Also their "Grovel, Cower, and Beg" ability is pretty dumb as well.

Doesn't basically every other small race have a strength penalty?

[QUOTE=slayer20;51314748]I really dislike that they gave Kobolds a -2 Strength as a player race in VGtM. Also their "Grovel, Cower, and Beg" ability is pretty dumb as well.[/QUOTE] Funnily enough, it's a fairly powerful ability. Kobolds make for an interesting discussion because of their ups and down.

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;51315380]Funnily enough, it's a fairly powerful ability. Kobolds make for an interesting discussion because of their ups and down.[/QUOTE] Absolutely not. The monster races are OP as fuck (or shitty as fuck) and any GM that allows them deserves what happens to them. They are unfinished trash like the races in the DMG, only worse because they are not even CLOSE to balanced while Eladrin and Aasimar were. [QUOTE=Nerts;51314766]Doesn't basically every other small race have a strength penalty?[/QUOTE] No, no player race has a stat penalty in 5e.

I mean, that's just what happens when you try to make every race equal. If every race has to be equal AND negative racial abilities are (almost) never allowed, you're by necessity going to have to cut out basically every race with any kind of interesting abilities. If you then later decide to bring in some weird monstrous races anyway they're just going to end up being unbalanced as fuck because you have no mechanics to level the playing field. That said, 3e's level adjustment was a pretty shitty fix since most of the more powerful races, while clearly superior to the standard races, are still rarely worth sacrificing a whole level or more.

ALright. one-shot games can be lethal and all, but our storyteller was a bit of a dick here: We're (level 3) pirates on a ship. We're investegating a rumoured story of a ship transporting a royal gold wrecked on an island Another wrecked ship, kept afloat by supernatural means, with skeletons inside, approaches us. It rams us. We all make Dex saving throws. Dif 10 Our cleric and bard fail. Not botch. Fail. They fall into the sea. The two of them get ganked by two merrow (Mermaids, male and evil) who have something to do with the necromancy ship, probably. One is instantly killed by a crit, the other goes through an unwinnable stuggle (the two characters were intended to be the final enemies) We kill the skeletons, one merrow comes up and gets killed, the other escapes. we sail to the island But am I the only one to think the storyteller went a bit to far there, even for a one shot? I wasn't a character who died, and the players didn't seem upset. But isn't falling off the ship more worthy of a botch state, rather than a simple fail?

My friend started a 5e campaign, and just starting from the tavern I have caused a fistfight via telepathy and framing someone else of doing it, who the rogue then took that as an opportunity to steal from them. I'm having fun as a Warlock. Also caused a questgiver to become highly depressed and leave after giving us a quest on behalf of his brother, but that was caused by a misunderstanding because he was acting sketchy as all hell and I ended up turning some of the party against him when he was trying to get us to all wear unknown magical items on our necks.

[QUOTE=Chronische;51315694] No, no player race has a stat penalty in 5e.[/QUOTE] Huh, strange, that doesn't give a lot of other options to balance them

[QUOTE=Nerts;51317097]Huh, strange, that doesn't give a lot of other options to balance them[/QUOTE] Low strength isn't much of a downside to begin with so it doesn't act as a good balancing tool It prevents you from making strength based characters obviously, but dexterity based characters barely notice if you aren't using the optional variant encumbrance rule, which is a huge pain anyway

[QUOTE=Glent;51317288]Low strength isn't much of a downside to begin with so it doesn't act as a good balancing tool It prevents you from making strength based characters obviously, but dexterity based characters barely notice if you aren't using the optional variant encumbrance rule, which is a huge pain anyway[/QUOTE] I mean generally, not having downsides to races would make things a pain to balance.

It's more of a general thing regarding how the negative attribute mods in general were a huge tool for adjusting races in prior editions, and aren't anymore hence the problem But in fairness, the base races already cover a ton, if you can't find a way to make what you want using the existing races as a baseline chances are it wouldn't have been very balanced anyway Though the whole thing doesn't surprise me, since 5th has kind of been made with the intent of cutting out all the nonessentials in name of simplicity, so most additions kind of would have to fall in the either 'useless or broken' set because there's not a ton you can really expand

[QUOTE=Nerts;51317097]Huh, strange, that doesn't give a lot of other options to balance them[/QUOTE] Their kneel, grovel and beg ability can give your entire party advantage against any enemy within 10 feet, and they get pack tactics, the later of which opens rather interesting options. [QUOTE=Glent;51317288]Low strength isn't much of a downside to begin with so it doesn't act as a good balancing tool It prevents you from making strength based characters obviously, but dexterity based characters barely notice if you aren't using the optional variant encumbrance rule, which is a huge pain anyway[/QUOTE] I'm actually not so sure kobolds would make for a bad strength-based class, provided you are not the only frontline fighter. Sure they make better dex based melee classes, but it isn't all quite doom and gloom to the point it wouldn't work or make them the worst race to choose for strength based classes. Pack tactics opens up some interesting option to a degree. While you might deal less damage per hit, you're probably hitting more consistently. Assuming you have a +1 strength at level 1 (14 or 15 -2 mod), when you are using pack tactics, you will outperform a character with +3 strength (14 + 2 mod or 15 +1), and prof bonuses of +2. Sure, you won't deal as much damage when you hit, but you will hit more often. Shoot this into anydice.com output [highest 1 of 2d20] + 3 named "2d20 drop lowest + 3" output 1d20 + 5 named "1d20 +5" If you can leverage pack tactics as often, it really isn't that bad a deal. On that note, if you are using the unearthed arcana ranger rules (or just the standard rules + very RAW rule lawyering), a beast conclave ranger kobold can ride a medium creature and get advantage on any attack roll. Heck, with how advantage and disadvantage cancel out, you can use ranged weapons within 5 feet on a mount pretty effectively. And.... now I wondering if my DM will let me make a harness to mount a heavy crossbow on a wolf.

I looked up pack tactics and Jesus Christ, a kobold barbarian buddied up to a rogue would murder the hell out of anything getting into melee combat with them

They do have sunlight sensitivity (though it is worded slightly different than other races leading to slightly different RAW perhaps), so it does depend a little on how your DM rules on sunlight sensitivity. I knew one DM who did it as anytime outside during the day, regardless of the location, including heavy forest or fog. Another one: "Wear a cloak with a hood". [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] Either way, this image really wants to make me run an all kobold party. [img]http://i.imgur.com/8p0lGnD.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Nerts;51317637]I looked up pack tactics and Jesus Christ, a kobold barbarian buddied up to a rogue would murder the hell out of anything getting into melee combat with them[/QUOTE] Barbarians essentially have advantage on attacks on demand already. In this case, the rogue would be the one who benefits from being a kobold. Plus, you can't use two-handed weapons as a kobold, though weapon + shield is far better than 2H in 5e. [QUOTE=Ogopogo;51317616]I'm actually not so sure kobolds would make for a bad strength-based class, provided you are not the only frontline fighter. Sure they make better dex based melee classes, but it isn't all quite doom and gloom to the point it wouldn't work or make them the worst race to choose for strength based classes. Pack tactics opens up some interesting option to a degree. While you might deal less damage per hit, you're probably hitting more consistently. Assuming you have a +1 strength at level 1 (14 or 15 -2 mod), when you are using pack tactics, you will outperform a character with +3 strength (14 + 2 mod or 15 +1), and prof bonuses of +2. Sure, you won't deal as much damage when you hit, but you will hit more often. Shoot this into anydice.com output [highest 1 of 2d20] + 3 named "2d20 drop lowest + 3" output 1d20 + 5 named "1d20 +5" If you can leverage pack tactics as often, it really isn't that bad a deal. On that note, if you are using the unearthed arcana ranger rules (or just the standard rules + very RAW rule lawyering), a beast conclave ranger kobold can ride a medium creature and get advantage on any attack roll. Heck, with how advantage and disadvantage cancel out, you can use ranged weapons within 5 feet on a mount pretty effectively. And.... now I wondering if my DM will let me make a harness to mount a heavy crossbow on a wolf.[/QUOTE] Theres already not much of a reason to focus on strength over dexterity. Having both a Dexterity raise and a Strength drop means there really isn't a reason for you to focus on strength. Yeah, you can compare +3 with advantage to +5 without, but you can also just compare it to +5 with advantage. Damage wise, you're looking at rapier (1d8+3) vs 2H longsword (1d10+1) or 1H longsword (1d8+1), since kobolds can't use 2handers. The only reason you'd want to go strength is if you wanted to be a kobold barbarian for some reason since that's the only class which specifically requires you to use strength weapons, but they already have advantage on demand as I pointed out before.

[QUOTE=Glent;51317721] Theres already not much of a reason to focus on strength over dexterity. Having both a Dexterity raise and a Strength drop means there really isn't a reason for you to focus on strength. Yeah, you can compare +3 with advantage to +5 without, but you can also just compare it to +5 with advantage. Damage wise, you're looking at rapier (1d8+3) vs 2H longsword (1d10+1) or 1H longsword (1d8+1), since kobolds can't use 2handers. The only reason you'd want to go strength is if you wanted to be a kobold barbarian for some reason since that's the only class which specifically requires you to use strength weapons, but they already have advantage on demand as I pointed out before.[/QUOTE] The big thing would be if you wanted to use a class in conjunction with heavy armour, or use the lance. A small race is actually able to use 2 handed weapons, it's just that they have disadvantage on any attack rolls with a heavy weapon (most two handed weapons) making them most of the time a non viable option. The way advantage and disadvantage stack makes it a little interesting too. You either have advantage from one or more instances of advantage, disadvantages from one or more instances of disadvantages, or neither from both. It doesn't matter if you have fifty instances of disadvantage, as long as you have one source of advantage, you roll as though you have neither. This means (RAW) that a frightened, blind, restrained, poisoned kobold wielding a maul, is able to hit an invisible enemy so long as there is a single ally not incapacitated within 5 feet of the enemy. Heck, in means that a kobold can use longbows and heavy crossbows within 5 feet without disadvantage so long as the conditions for pack tactics are met, or suffer from the effect of enemy spells which give you disadvantage. Still, heavy weapons generally won't be the best option for them. [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] Returning to the Barbarian kobold for a moment, while they do have advantage on demand, doing so gives them disadvantage. Playing a kobold with a greataxe is likely to work better than a different small race also with a greataxe, as you have more sources of advantage. Still isn't the best way to play the class as a kobold though.

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;51317827]The big thing would be if you wanted to use a class in conjunction with heavy armour, or use the lance. A small race is actually able to use 2 handed weapons, it's just that they have disadvantage on any attack rolls with a heavy weapon (most two handed weapons) making them most of the time a non viable option. The way advantage and disadvantage stack makes it a little interesting too. You either have advantage from one or more instances of advantage, disadvantages from one or more instances of disadvantages, or neither from both. It doesn't matter if you have fifty instances of disadvantage, as long as you have one source of advantage, you roll as though you have neither. This means (RAW) that a frightened, blind, restrained, poisoned kobold wielding a maul, is able to hit an invisible enemy so long as there is a single ally not incapacitated within 5 feet of the enemy. Heck, in means that a kobold can use longbows and heavy crossbows within 5 feet without disadvantage so long as the conditions for pack tactics are met, or suffer from the effect of enemy spells which give you disadvantage. Still, heavy weapons generally aren't the best option for them. [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] Returning to the Barbarian kobold for a moment, while they do have advantage on demand, doing so gives them disadvantage. Playing a kobold with a greataxe is likely to work better than a different small race also with a greataxe, as you have more sources of advantage. Still isn't the best way to play the class as a kobold though.[/QUOTE] None of this really gives you an advantage over a dexterity kobold. You'll get a slight boost in AC and a larger drop in attack. At most you start with 13 Str or 17 Dex, so it's a difference of +2 damage and +2 to hit. If you're using heavy weapons, you're never going to benefit from having advantage, which is one of the big reason to be a kobold too. If you're not using heavy weapons, you're doing 1d10+1 (at level 1) two-handed damage at most and missing out on a shield, you can't use great weapon master (one of the main reasons to use heavy weapons) with it either. If you're using a shield, your damage dice is exactly the same as a kobold with a rapier using a shield (1d8), but he has +2 more hit and damage than you for 1 worse AC. If you were playing a strength halfling, you'd only be -1 hit and damage for +1 AC behind a dexterity halfling and if you were playing a regular human you wouldn't have to give up anything. Basically if you go strength as a kobold you're playing against your strengths. Even more so if you go two-handed.

[quote]If you're using heavy weapons, you're never going to benefit from having advantage, which is one of the big reason to be a kobold too.[/quote] It's more of, just an option if you already have disadvantage more than anything else (mostly silly shenanigans).That aside... [quote]None of this really gives you an advantage over a dexterity kobold. You'll get a slight boost in AC and a larger drop in attack. At most you start with 13 Str or 17 Dex, so it's a difference of +2 damage and +2 to hit. If you're not using heavy weapons, you're doing 1d10+1 (at level 1) two-handed damage at most and missing out on a shield, you can't use great weapon master (one of the main reasons to use heavy weapons) with it either. If you're using a shield, your damage dice is exactly the same as a kobold with a rapier using a shield (1d8), but he has +2 more hit and damage than you for 1 worse AC. If you were playing a strength halfling, you'd only be -1 hit and damage for +1 AC behind a dexterity halfling and if you were playing a regular human you wouldn't have to give up anything.[/quote] A dex based kobold is going to have 17 dex at level 1 if maximizing it. With a rapier, it is +3 bonus to hit with 1D8+3 for damage. With leather armour and a shield they are going to have an AC of 11+3+2 for 16. A strength based kobold is going to have 13 dex at level 1 if maximizing it. With a longsword (or equivalent), it is +1 bonus to hit with 1D8+1 for damage With chain mail and a shield they are going to have an AC of 16+2 for 18. Alternative, using two hands with the longsword, you are going to deal 1D10+1 for damage (and GWF does apply though it will do less damage than on average than rapier and dex build) with an AC of 16. Using a sword and board, heavy armour versus light, you are effectively trading +2 to hit and damage for +2 to AC The most damaging form of a strength based kobold would be mounted with a lance for 1D12+1, while still using a shield, for an AC of 18 . [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] But returning to what I said originally, I'm not saying that a strength based kobold is the best way to play a kobold, but a strength based kobold isn't the worst way to play the strength based classes. [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] On the topic of abusing mechanics for kobolds, one of the stronger combinations which will emerge from the race is liable to be a TWF beast coven (yes it's technically unearthed arcana) ranger riding a panther. If you take TWF, and pick up dual wielding. Movement of 50 ft or 40 climb. Assuming level 4 for dual wielding and 16/17 dex, +5 to hit with advantage and 1d8+3, twice. With a chain mail shirt, an AC of 16 (thanks to +1AC from dual wielding). (Panther) Bite attack +5 to hit (ASI) 1d6+3 damage. If you used pounce, it's +5 to hit for 1d4+3, and on a DC 12 strength check, prone and a free 1d6+3 attack. Maximum of 22 damage a turn with guarenteed advantage to hit (unless given disadvantage from something) Absolute maximum of 38 damage a turn (Minimum of 16 if everything hits) At level 4 Alternatively, you could repeat the whole process with lances, though you'd be relying on another ally to be within 5 feet of the enemy, and have +3 to hit with advantage and 2x1d12+1. Not to mention the lower minimum damage.

you can play a strength kobold if you want it's 5e zero minmaxing is required

No, there's numbers right there, I need to get them as high as possible. [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] I NEED to

[QUOTE=Nerts;51318634]No, there's numbers right there, I need to get them as high as possible. [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] I NEED to[/QUOTE] Kobold fighter, dex based, get archery and sharpshooter at level four then max dex. At level 8 you'll have +10 to hit with any ranged attack. But we are using sharshooter. Provided an ally is next to an enemy, +5 to hit with advantage and 16 damage for a blowgun per attack (without poison or anything too). Or more reasonably a shortbow, +5 to hit with advantage and 1D6+15 damage per attack. And all you have to do to get advantage is have a friend stand by the target. At a +5 to hit, and advantage, you have a 51% chance of getting 20 or higher as a total to hit (not nat 20's, but you do have a 9.75% chance of those), and a 80% chance of getting 15 or higher. Pick up crossbow expert and a light crossbow at level 12 (or you could do it at 8 and get dex to 20 at lvl 12) and it becomes, +6 to hit with advantage for 1D8+15 damage per attack, with no disadvantage within 5 feet. Now assuming you picked champion (hope you did) enjoy an 18% crit chance per attack (and pick up defense at 10). Damage then becomes 2D6+15 for the shortbow, 2D8+15 for the light crossbow. Non-crit max and min damage per attack is 23 and 16. For crits, it is 31 and 17. If your DM let's you do this, go for hand crossbows. You go from a D8 to a D6, however, you get something else in return. That crossbow expert you picked up allows you to use hand crossbows as a bonus action. You get an extra bonus attack for 1D6+15. So at level 12 you can have +6 to hit with advantage for four 1D6+15 attacks. By comparison to the light crossbow (19.5), the average damage per attack is 18.5. So 74 average damage per round for hand crossbows and 58.5 for light. Max possible damage is 84 and 108 on criticals. Min damage is 64 and 68 on criticals. At level 14, you have a +7 to hit At level 15, crit chance increases to 27.75%. At level 17, you have a +8 to hit At level 20, you get a fourth attack, with your bonus bringing that to a total average damage of 92.5 damage per turn. Max possible damage is 105 and 135 on criticals per turn. Min damage is 80 and 85 on criticals. Oh yeah, and this is before second wind (which you get a second use of at level 17). In that case, double the numbers, but keep in mind you don't get a second bonus action. In that case (at level 20) max possible damage is 189 and 247 on criticals. Minimum damage is 144 and 153. This is 92.5 damage per turn (assuming you hit with advantage) regardless of range, half or three quarters. These numbers are without magic items, and assuming you have a share in a blacksmith for all those crossbow bolts. You also have an AC of 18 (studded + dex + defensive fighting style) all the while. [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] Now, for the ultimate cheese at level 20, convince your DM to allow you to build a tripod so you can use a heavy crossbow without disadvantage, as you are small and it is a heavy weapon, purely for second wind (as in use hand crossbows the rest of the time). Max damage is 280 (crits) for a use of second wind, with a min of 128, should you hit every shot. While at lower levels you might be tempted by such the idea, the guaranteed 16 damage of the minimum per attack outweighs it, as you only gain on average 2 more damage between a heavy and a hand crossbow per attack. However, on crits, it 4 more damage average, so you might start thinking it to be worth it sooner. At level 12, you would deal 61.5 average damage, 75 max and 48 minimum with a heavy crossbow compared to 74 average, 84 max and 64 minimum. The heavy crossbows do have an advantage when using second wind due to no second bonus attack if it crits, but the crit chance isn't quite high enough to outweigh the extra attack. It could be an option at level 15 (ify on whether the math would work out or not) when crit chance gets higher, again only for the purpose of using it for second wind, but you only have one second wind per rest.