Rogue - Dual Wield Hand Crossbows

[Chubbs Malone]

I was just wondering if anyone else has tried this yet? I'm planning to play a Halfling Rogue and going through my options.

I came across the Crossbow Expert feat, which I would attain at lvl 4, and it seems like a very viable option.

Crossbow Expert
• You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
• Being within 5 feet o f a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
• When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.

Because of this feat you are allowed to make 2 attacks with the damage bonus for each.

i.e. @ lvl 4 (if both attacks hit) you would be doing: 2d6+6 compared to the 1d6+3 with a Shortbow.

I guess the draw back is that you (1) sacrifice your bonus action and (2) need to be targeting creatures that are adjacent to your allies, so sneak attack will apply. Your range is also much shorter than the Shortbow.

On the upside, as long as your are targeting a creature your ally is adjacent to, you will ALWAYS get 2 chances at landing the sneak attack damage - with no stealth check required. Added bonus, if you hit with both attacks you get extra damage. If you need to target a creature that your ally is not adjacent to, you can always use your bonus action to stealth and shoot as you would with any other ranged weapon.

Down the road you would also be able to pick up the Sharpshooter feat to alleviate the range issues and obviously increase your damage.

Has anyone seen this kind of Rogue in action? Thanks!

[hawklost]

If you want to use this ability constantly, you pretty much willingly give up your bonus action (which is used by your 2nd level Rogue abilities).

It is really no different than using 2 light weapons in Melee for TWF except you are using 2 close range weapons (30ft if you don't want disadvantage).

Its not a terrible idea but I don't feel it directly enhances the rogues fighting potential except for being a good flavor combo (which is a perfectly valid reason to take the feat and do this!)

[Yorrin]

The major advantage I see over shortswords is the fact that you can target a much larger variety of foes, since your allies will be within 30ft of you most of the time, and thus engaged with potential targets.

[Goggalor]

i.e. @ lvl 4 (if both attacks hit) you would be doing: 2d6+6 compared to the 1d6+3 with a Shortbow.

Dual wielding in 5e doesn't work that way, fortunately. When attacking with two weapons that are both considered light, the main hand weapon gets the bonus damage added to it (1d6+3), while the offhand weapon does not (1d6). You would be increasing your damage, but not by nearly as wide of a margin.

[akaddk]

The primary reason not to do this is that wielding two hand crossbows at a time is retarded.

[Chubbs Malone]

Dual wielding in 5e doesn't work that way, fortunately. When attacking with two weapons that are both considered light, the main hand weapon gets the bonus damage added to it (1d6+3), while the offhand weapon does not (1d6). You would be increasing your damage, but not by nearly as wide of a margin.

The rules on Two-Weapon Fighting explicitly refer to light melee weapons. At no point does it mention 1-handed ranged weapons. This is a totally different scenario.

The Crossbow Expert Feat doesn't state that you need to be wielding a light weapon. It says, "When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."

I take that to mean, you could be attacking with a Longsword, Handaxe, Hand Crossbow, Javelin, (any 1-hand wpn) and then shoot with your off-hand crossbow. So I don't think what you're saying is correct at all.

I do believe you are correct in that the 2nd attack should not include the Dex mod. It is not excluded in either definition, but I think it's somewhat of a gray area they didn't identify or address. If you look at the Dual Wielder feat it remains with the same spirit of TWF, you just get to upgrade to any 1-hand weapons.

For those wondering, the 2 sections I'm referencing can be found on pages 165 and 195.

[Dark Tira]

I'd actually argue that you don't need 2 hand crossbows to fire twice with the crossbow expert feat. It seems to me since it removes the loading attribute you can fire twice with the same hand crossbow. Also the bonus attack doesn't follow dual wielding rules and does add dex mod.

[metaridley18]

The rules on Two-Weapon Fighting explicitly refer to light melee weapons. At no point does it mention 1-handed ranged weapons. This is a totally different scenario.

The Crossbow Expert Feat doesn't state that you need to be wielding a light weapon. It says, "When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."

I take that to mean, you could be attacking with a Longsword, Handaxe, Hand Crossbow, Javelin, (any 1-hand wpn) and then shoot with your off-hand crossbow. So I don't think what you're saying is correct at all.

I do believe you are correct in that the 2nd attack should not include the Dex mod. It is not excluded in either definition, but I think it's somewhat of a gray area they didn't identify or address. If you look at the Dual Wielder feat it remains with the same spirit of TWF, you just get to upgrade to any 1-hand weapons.

For those wondering, the 2 sections I'm referencing can be found on pages 165 and 195.

This is the same problem with the bonus attack granted by Polearm Master. I have heard that they are all intended to be TWF style bonus actions and should thus NOT add your modifier, but I haven't seen anything official clarifying that. My view is that since you spent the feat to get the ability to do so, you should be able to add your ability mod to the attack (similar to Dual Wielder).

From a balance perspective, the extra damage is roughly one half a feat (since you could just TWF for free anyway) so I don't see much wrong with adding ability mod.

RAW I definitely agree that you're allowed to add your ability mod since they don't reference the TWF rules at all, and all weapon attacks give you ability mod to damage. TWF is a special exception.

[Yorrin]

RAW I definitely agree that you're allowed to add your ability mod since they don't reference the TWF rules at all, and all weapon attacks give you ability mod to damage. TWF is a special exception.

This. It seems to make sense that you'd add mod unless otherwise specified. And it's not like it unbalances anything, since it's at most +5dmg/round.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I'd actually argue that you don't need 2 hand crossbows to fire twice with the crossbow expert feat. It seems to me since it removes the loading attribute you can fire twice with the same hand crossbow. Also the bonus attack doesn't follow dual wielding rules and does add dex mod.

• When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding,
The only point of contention being "loaded hand crossbow". You get to ignore the loading property, but even then does a hand crossbow you just fired qualify as a loaded hand crossbow?

I view this as murky, but I'd definitely permit this feat to let you use your bonus action for an extra attack when single-wielding a hand crossbow as well. It doesn't seem OP in any way, since a feat granting an attack on a bonus action with a specific weapon isn't really a big deal.

[TheOOB]

How would you reload the crossbow without a free hand? The loading property(which you ignore) only refers to the fact that the crossbow can only be fired once per action. In a combat situation it's kind of impossible to load a crossbow one-handed.

[Yorrin]

How would you reload the crossbow without a free hand? The loading property(which you ignore) only refers to the fact that the crossbow can only be fired once per action. In a combat situation it's kind of impossible to load a crossbow one-handed.

Because DRAMATIC ACTION SEQUENCE! Some junk about flicking a pair of bolts out of your hip-quiver while tossing one crossbow up in the air, loading the other, grabbing the one out of the air, tossing up the other, loading the second, catching the first one, and firing both.

Or if you're not prone to high drama, go with some sort of automatic reloading hand crossbow, wether via magic or some sort of psudo-machine-gun style belt of bolts or even a "clip" in the modern guns sense.

[akaddk]

(Scrubbed)

[Person_Man]

So in my play tests, the general combat decision tree of Rogues has been:

1) If I can get Advantage on an enemy without moving next to them, throw a dagger at them. It's a finesse/light/thrown weapon. If I hit, I deal 1d4 + Dex bonus + Sneak Attack damage. I then move away (preferably around a corner or heavy cover), and use use my Bonus Action to to Hide so that I can't be targeted by counter attacks. I don't mind giving up the chance at an additional 1d4 damage from a potentially successful second attack in exchange for the security of being farther away from and/or hidden from enemies.

2) If I can't get Advantage on an enemy, I move so that I'm "flanking" an enemy and then attack it with a shortsword, a finesse/light weapon. If I hit, I deal 1d6 + Dex bonus + Sneak Attack damage. Then use my Bonus Action to Disengage and then move away from the enemy (assuming that he won't follow me, since my flanking buddy can get an Opportunity Attack against him) or if I succeed in killing my target I move away and Hide so that I can't be targeted by counter attacks from his surviving friends. Again, I don't mind giving up the chance at +1d6 damage for the safety of being out of melee and potentially hidden.

3) In either case, if I miss, then I use my Bonus Action to make an additional attack with whatever light weapon makes the most sense. Hopefully I kill my target and can move safely away without provoking an Opportunity Attack. But occasionally I get caught on the front line. But that's the risk of being an adventurer, and I'm not going to hide like a coward every turn because doing so gives up a lot of potential damage from Sneak Attack.



It seems like Crossbow Expert would only marginally improve the first potential step of this attack routine, since a hand crossbow has a base range of 30 feet (instead of the 20 ft range of a dagger) and the hand crossbow deals 1d6 damage (instead of 1d4). But if I don't have Advantage on that attack, I'd still need to move into melee range to "flank" an enemy, and using a crossbow would be no better then using a shortsword.

Did I miss anything?

[Yorrin]

the general combat decision tree of Rogues

A perfectly valid point. Dual-Crossbows doesn't really improve much. But what I was trying to point out is that it's a viable option, not neccesarily that it's a "worth it" option, since that seemed to be what Malone was asking.

[HorridElemental]

(Scrubbed)

[obryn]

(Scrub the party, scrub the quote)
Nonsense. Going full-on Chow Yun Fat with a pair of hand crossbows is spectacular.

It's also the best way to deal damage in the game, with the Sharpshooter feat adding +10 damage to both hands' attacks.

Also, using "retarded" in this sense is pretty awful, so please stop.

[Chubbs Malone]

Nonsense. Going full-on Chow Yun Fat with a pair of hand crossbows is spectacular.

It's also the best way to deal damage in the game, with the Sharpshooter feat adding +10 damage to both hands' attacks.

Also, using "retarded" in this sense is pretty awful, so please stop.

This was my initial inspiration for the build; to pair Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert.

Sharpshooter allows you to ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover, use the 120 ft range without penalty, and possibly add +20 dmg if you hit with both attacks. There's obvious risk there, but it would play into the characters personality/mentality.

I disagree that it is the best way to do damage... but I think this thread has shown that it is a viable option and play style. The character I envisioned was more of a gunslinger scoundrel. Not sure why someone would call that stupid or "retarded". :\

[Grynning]

3) In either case, if I miss, then I use my Bonus Action to make an additional attack with whatever light weapon makes the most sense. Hopefully I kill my target and can move safely away without provoking an Opportunity Attack. But occasionally I get caught on the front line. But that's the risk of being an adventurer, and I'm not going to hide like a coward every turn because doing so gives up a lot of potential damage from Sneak Attack.


I am a little confused by this. By my understanding, there's no default way to use a bonus action to make another attack, or are you assuming the rogue is always dual-wielding?

[Rummy]

You can always use a bonus action to attack with an off hand light melee weapon (but no ability damage added).

I think I'll copy this build. One tweak... a 1 level dip in Fighter bags you +2 to hit! A two level dip gives you three chances to hit once ever short rest. A three level dip doubles your chance to crit your sneak attack!

[akaddk]

It's also the best way to deal damage in the game, with the Sharpshooter feat adding +10 damage to both hands' attacks.
Which is yet another reason why it's mentally deficient.


Also, using "retarded" in this sense is pretty awful, so please stop.
Yeah, it's perfectly fine for CyberThread to make fun of my sleep disorder, something I've complained about multiple times to the moderator, and yet I use a commonly used term to describe something stupid as being stupid, and get moderated for it.

[obryn]

Which is yet another reason why it's mentally deficient.

Yeah, it's perfectly fine for CyberThread to make fun of my sleep disorder, something I've complained about multiple times to the moderator, and yet I use a commonly used term to describe something stupid as being stupid, and get moderated for it.
Well, that sounds pretty terrible of CyberThread.

"Retarded" as a perjorative is common, but it's not okay, and it's getting less common, thank goodness, because folks are becoming aware that it's disrespectful and mean-spirited.

Anyway, as for myself, if "dude doing ninja rolls with a pair of hand crossbows and shooting the hell out of monsters" is wrong, I never want to be right.

[akaddk]

Anyway, as for myself, if "dude doing ninja rolls with a pair of hand crossbows and shooting the hell out of monsters" is wrong, I never want to be right.
There are limits for me and this snaps my limit in half and then beats me with it. Short of having four arms, it breaks suspension of disbelief to the point where I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief. Characters can do spectacular and super-human things but without some line being drawn in the sand, then abilities like these are basically magic and not mundane. And that destroys the intent of the feat and the separation in the rules between the two concepts.

Not to mention the fact that it's grossly unbalancing. Inevitably I always end up finding that the people who argue most vehemently for these types of things are also the types who seek to break the game for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else at the table. It always invariably comes down to the numbers and not the character concept or "imagination", which tends to be used merely as a facade to implement game-breaking mechanics.

[HorridElemental]

There are limits for me and this snaps my limit in half and then beats me with it. Short of having four arms, it breaks suspension of disbelief to the point where I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief. Characters can do spectacular and super-human things but without some line being drawn in the sand, then abilities like these are basically magic and not mundane. And that destroys the intent of the feat and the separation in the rules between the two concepts.

Not to mention the fact that it's grossly unbalancing. Inevitably I always end up finding that the people who argue most vehemently for these types of things are also the types who seek to break the game for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else at the table. It always invariably comes down to the numbers and not the character concept or "imagination", which tends to be used merely as a facade to implement game-breaking mechanics.

You are playing elf games. The fact that a dragon talking doesn't break your limit or you know magic users... But a ninja shooting two hand cross bows while flipping does... It just weird.

Unbalanced? Seriously I laughed so hard my wife was looking at me funny. Do you not understand what balance is?

But hey, that there champion fighter is the pinnacle of martial awesomeness! It is the only thing that we need or could ever want in a non-casting class! :/

[obryn]

There are limits for me and this snaps my limit in half and then beats me with it. Short of having four arms, it breaks suspension of disbelief to the point where I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief. Characters can do spectacular and super-human things but without some line being drawn in the sand, then abilities like these are basically magic and not mundane. And that destroys the intent of the feat and the separation in the rules between the two concepts.

Not to mention the fact that it's grossly unbalancing. Inevitably I always end up finding that the people who argue most vehemently for these types of things are also the types who seek to break the game for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else at the table. It always invariably comes down to the numbers and not the character concept or "imagination", which tends to be used merely as a facade to implement game-breaking mechanics.
The balance compared to ... what? Another Fighter? A Wizard? A Bard?

Anyway, this is something an awesome dude in a movie could do with a pair of pistols, so the D&D equivalent - a brace of hand crossbows - is dandy.

[HorridElemental]

The balance compared to ... what? Another Fighter? A Wizard? A Bard?

Anyway, this is something an awesome dude in a movie could do with a pair of pistols, so the D&D equivalent - a brace of hand crossbows - is dandy.

Video games are going more toward movies, I think table top RPGs (coughD&Dcough) should do the same.

Describing D&D in terms of movies is pretty rad and new players tend to love it from what I've seen. Imagining things works nicely but actually remembering that jet li in a movie jumped, slid down a banister, and shot some guys really sticks in your head and helps you become a better RPer while in and out of battle.

[Thrudd]

It only makes sense if you refluff the hand crossbows as magic weapons that fire energy bolts, like Star Wars-style blasters. I feel it's an oversight that the hand crossbow does not have the two handed quality, like all the other ammunition/missile weapons. Or the ammunition quality should include in its description that you need a free hand to load the weapon. Clearly expecting someone to dual wield actual crossbows for more than a single shot would not make any sense.

[Yorrin]

I feel it's an oversight that the hand crossbow does not have the two handed quality, like all the other ammunition/missile weapons

But that's the whole point of the weapon. They wanted that classic drow image of crossbow in one hand and rapier/shortsword in the other. (Also, dont forget Sling is also a 1h ammo weap.)

[Thrudd]

Video games are going more toward movies, I think table top RPGs (coughD&Dcough) should do the same.

Describing D&D in terms of movies is pretty rad and new players tend to love it from what I've seen. Imagining things works nicely but actually remembering that jet li in a movie jumped, slid down a banister, and shot some guys really sticks in your head and helps you become a better RPer while in and out of battle.

They already have games that are focused on that, like the excellent Feng Shui. D&D doesn't need to try to be a cinematic action game, it has never been designed for it. At its heart, it is a fantasy world simulation game. Regardless of what would be rad in a movie or a video game, I want D&D to make some attempt at simulating a believable fantasy world. Sure, we could turn D&D into a fantasy version of Feng Shui, but then where are people going to get their dungeon crawling exploration game? I guess we just keep playing AD&D or Rulescyclopedia or even Pathfinder.

[akaddk]

You are playing elf games.

Sigh. The last resort of the desperate. No point arguing any further, Hitler has been evoked.

[Dark Tira]

Sigh. The last resort of the desperate. No point arguing any further, Hitler has been evoked.

To be fair there hasn't been a point to arguing it for awhile. By RAW it's doable. The argument since then has been "it's cool" vs. "it's stupid" which is never going to be resolved.

[Thrudd]

But that's the whole point of the weapon. They wanted that classic drow image of crossbow in one hand and rapier/shortsword in the other. (Also, dont forget Sling is also a 1h ammo weap.)

You can hold it in one hand, yes, but logically you cannot fire more than one bolt. Just like a flintlock or any muzzle loading firearm. There is the iconic image of the highwayman with a pistol in one hand and rapier in the other, but once he fires that pistol once, he has to stash it or drop his sword. The drow's hand crossbow is usually loaded with a poison or magical bolt that could kill or incapacitate someone, you only need one shot.

However, if you really want the John Woo style double pistol action in your fantasy game, just say that the hand crossbows are magical and reload automatically after each shot, as I said above. Then, fine. But if they are normal mechanical crossbows, it makes no sense.
If we're going to do this, you might as well go completely abstract rather than having a list of weapons, dispense with keeping track of ammo and loading, and let people select the qualities of their attacks and describe them anyway they want. Ranged weapons which do a d6 cost a certain amount of build points. Melee weapons that do a d8 cost a different amount, and so forth. The wizard might describe their d6 ranged attack as a bolt of magical energy that comes from their fingers. The ninja calls it shuriken. The fighter calls it a crossbow. You just always assume they have enough bolts/knives/magical energy to attack whenever they want. A change this big we might as well call the game by a new name. A cinematic fantasy action game that is devoted to awesome fight scenes and super-heroic exploits like you find in movies and cartoons. "Fantasy Action Cinema", it would be lots of fun. It just isn't D&D.

[obryn]

It only makes sense if you refluff the hand crossbows as magic weapons that fire energy bolts, like Star Wars-style blasters. I feel it's an oversight that the hand crossbow does not have the two handed quality, like all the other ammunition/missile weapons. Or the ammunition quality should include in its description that you need a free hand to load the weapon. Clearly expecting someone to dual wield actual crossbows for more than a single shot would not make any sense.
Eh, why? What's so unbelievable that a skilled crossbow-slinger could quickly reload in a game where dragons are real? I'm not understanding the dividing line.

I can picture all sorts of ways for this to work - from special belt attachments, to quick finger maneuvers, to specially-designed crossbows, or whatever. There's no need to get blastery.

And frankly, I love a heaping dose of cinematic in my D&D. If wizards can cast reality-altering spells and we don't stop to ask how, there's no point to worrying about how a rogue reloads a little crossbow.

[Thrudd]

Eh, why? What's so unbelievable that a skilled crossbow-slinger could quickly reload in a game where dragons are real? I'm not understanding the dividing line.

I can picture all sorts of ways for this to work - from special belt attachments, to quick finger maneuvers, to specially-designed crossbows, or whatever. There's no need to get blastery.

And frankly, I love a heaping dose of cinematic in my D&D. If wizards can cast reality-altering spells and we don't stop to ask how, there's no point to worrying about how a rogue reloads a little crossbow.

lol But I do stop to ask how. It's a part of the background and cosmology of the setting.

That is true, you could have some kind of ammo belt, with bolts all around your waist, and you jam the crossbow down onto the bolts, stripping them from your belt. Or some kind of fancy mechanical crossbow that reloads with a bolt clip, so they look like medieval Glock 17's. But if that is the case, then put it in the description of the weapon. Or the player who wants to do this should have to come up with a solution and have an in-game way of implementing it, like paying a craftsperson to create the special mechanism or ammo belt for them (or having a crafting skill themselves). I would allow it, if the player who wanted to dual wield crossbows came to me with this sort of solution and had an in-game way of achieving it.

[obryn]

lol But I do stop to ask how. It's a part of the background and cosmology of the setting.

That is true, you could have some kind of ammo belt, with bolts all around your waist, and you jam the crossbow down onto the bolts, stripping them from your belt. Or some kind of fancy mechanical crossbow that reloads with a bolt clip, so they look like medieval Glock 17's. But if that is the case, then put it in the description of the weapon. Or the player who wants to do this should have to come up with a solution and have an in-game way of implementing it, like paying a craftsperson to create the special mechanism or ammo belt for them (or having a crafting skill themselves). I would allow it, if the player who wanted to dual wield crossbows came to me with this sort of solution and had an in-game way of achieving it.
I go more for rule of cool. If a player wanted to do this and be awesome, let 'em be awesome so long as they're not literally breaking the game. (And this doesn't come close, IMO.) Physics can be flexible for talented olympic-level archers and martial artists, as far as I'm concerned.

I do think the idea of gadgets and neat belt attachments is cool, though. If that's how my players wanted to skin it, I'd include it for free with the cost of the feat. :smallsmile:

[nocker]

Aren't hand crossbows wrist mounted on D&D? (at least I remember seeing art of drows with such weapons) Because if you can mount them on your wrists, then you could go into combat holding like 3-4 bolts in each hand and fast recharge your crossbows after each pair of shots. And this is something I thought while reading this discussion, which brings an important point:

What actually destroys my suspension of disbelief is depicting entire races who depend on firing weapons like bows and crossbows to survive limiting their techniques to what we consider reasonable. A drow doing some crazy kung-fu moves while rapid-firing his crossbow(s) in a blur doesn't look unrealistic to me. It looks like the logical consequence of a people who takes firing crossbows as quickly and deadly as possible very seriously (as in: failure to do so leads to death by duergar axe to the face), and had centuries to refine their techniques. And if a drow does that, the knowledge will eventually spread to a few people (say, the people who set a feat on fire to learn it).

[Thrudd]

I go more for rule of cool. If a player wanted to do this and be awesome, let 'em be awesome so long as they're not literally breaking the game. (And this doesn't come close, IMO.) Physics can be flexible for talented olympic-level archers and martial artists, as far as I'm concerned.

I do think the idea of gadgets and neat belt attachments is cool, though. If that's how my players wanted to skin it, I'd include it for free with the cost of the feat. :smallsmile:

Yes, physics do get flexible for mundane athletic characters. But the flexibility is in what they can do with their bodies, not being able to magically cause other objects to behave differently. I have no problem with an amazing crossbowman being able to draw and load his weapon with amazing speed unachievable by anyone in real life, but bolts don't just magically fly into the weapon, you need a hand to load them. To me, verisimilitude and immersion is broken by allowing things that are obviously counter to common sense. You can solve it all by calling it a "mechanical repeating hand crossbow w/ammo clip" and increasing it's cost by a factor of ten. I wouldn't like it and probably not use it in my game, or reduce it's damage to 1d3, but at least it would make some attempt at explaining how it could be dual wielded for more than a single shot.

[akaddk]

By RAW it's doable.

Actually it's not doable by RAW but that seems to be a discussion that is overwhelmed by the, "BUT I WANNA!" brigade.

[Thrudd]

Aren't hand crossbows wrist mounted on D&D? (at least I remember seeing art of drows with such weapons) Because if you can mount them on your wrists, then you could go into combat holding like 3-4 bolts in each hand and fast recharge your crossbows after each pair of shots. And this is something I thought while reading this discussion, which brings an important point:

What actually destroys my suspension of disbelief is depicting entire races who depend on firing weapons like bows and crossbows to survive limiting their techniques to what we consider reasonable. A drow doing some crazy kung-fu moves while rapid-firing his crossbow(s) in a blur doesn't look unrealistic to me. It looks like the logical consequence of a people who takes firing crossbows as quickly and deadly as possible very seriously (as in: failure to do so leads to death by duergar axe to the face), and had centuries to refine their techniques. And if a drow does that, the knowledge will eventually spread to a few people (say, the people who set a feat on fire to learn it).

It's called a "hand crossbow", not a "wrist crossbow". The original illustration of the Drow in the Fiend Folio has a handheld crossbow, not wrist mounted. As I said before, they use poison bolts that knock people unconscious, and nowhere does it imply they dual wield these crossbows with any other weapon.
But sure, we could try fluffing it that way. Let's think about the logistics involved in holding a handful of bolts in each hand while at the same time having the firing mechanism somehow connected to wrist or finger movement of the arm the crossbow is mounted to. How would that work? Having the ammo belt method would work better, which can work for handheld as well as wrist-mounted varieties, though really I think the handheld would work better. I think the ammo-belt is really the solution, and something I could easily imagine the Drow came up with, being the ones who also invented the hand crossbow and mastered its use. So go for it, I'm willing to concede that there are mechanical ways to allow the crossbow to be loaded with one hand.

[obryn]

Actually it's not doable by RAW but that seems to be a discussion that is overwhelmed by the, "BUT I WANNA!" brigade.
Why not? It seems workable.

[Dark Tira]

Actually it's not doable by RAW but that seems to be a discussion that is overwhelmed by the, "BUT I WANNA!" brigade.

Loading ammunition is part of the attack, there is no load action. All the arguments about needing a hand to load are moot because there's no requirements nor method to actually load weapons. So it's doable by RAW even if it's pointless since you can do it just 1 hand crossbow. The dual wielding is entirely stylistic.

[obryn]

Loading ammunition is part of the attack, there is no load action. All the arguments about needing a hand to load are moot because there's no requirements nor method to actually load weapons. So it's doable by RAW even if it's pointless since you can do it just 1 hand crossbow. The dual wielding is entirely stylistic.
Actually, weirdly, on a closer look, two-weapon fighting requires melee weapons, which leads me to wonder why the Hand Crossbow would get the Light property in the first place. (Or why one would ever use it for any reason.)
Crossbow Expert lets you ignore that rule.

[HorridElemental]

They already have games that are focused on that, like the excellent Feng Shui. D&D doesn't need to try to be a cinematic action game, it has never been designed for it. At its heart, it is a fantasy world simulation game. Regardless of what would be rad in a movie or a video game, I want D&D to make some attempt at simulating a believable fantasy world. Sure, we could turn D&D into a fantasy version of Feng Shui, but then where are people going to get their dungeon crawling exploration game? I guess we just keep playing AD&D or Rulescyclopedia or even Pathfinder.

I was off doing something else (Battle Master Fix) and I just got to see this.

I'm sorry but D&D has never really been a simulation game. And each edition of D&D, even before wotc got involved, makes for a pretty crappy simulation game, even pretty crappy at simulating a fantasy world. Look at everyone's favorite LotR, D&D doesn't simulate this at all unless you allow a player to be an Angel (high level) in a group of level 1 to 3 commoners and rangers. D&D can't really support that without the DM pulling their hair out since they get the Angel Summoner effect going on.

tangent: why do people think that the only fantasy out there is middle ages knights and mages? For a group of people playing make believe it is sad to see how many people limit what they are willing to accept as fantasy.

Dungeon Crawling can be cinematic, fantasy worlds can be cinematic, and D&D can be cinematic. Being cinematic doesn't stop a game from being anything else, it just builds upon what you already have. Allowing players who aren't playing magic-users to be cool and awesome doesn't take away from the game, it helps it become better. A magic user can fly around shooting lightning out of their butt and yet a person can't duel wield hand cross bows? The magic user is already being cinematic, I just want D&D to allow non-casters the same right.

Last I saw, Legolas used a shield to slide down a set of stairs and shot a ton of enemies with a bow. That is pretty darn cinematic, are people saying you shouldn't be able to do that in D&D? Won't that get your nerd card revoked if you say LotR isn't fantasy? (mine has been revoked long ago, between hating Josh Whedon movies and LotR I didn't go very long with my nerd card).

[Thrudd]

I was off doing something else (Battle Master Fix) and I just got to see this.

I'm sorry but D&D has never really been a simulation game. And each edition of D&D, even before wotc got involved, makes for a pretty crappy simulation game, even pretty crappy at simulating a fantasy world. Look at everyone's favorite LotR, D&D doesn't simulate this at all unless you allow a player to be an Angel (high level) in a group of level 1 to 3 commoners and rangers. D&D can't really support that without the DM pulling their hair out since they get the Angel Summoner effect going on.

tangent: why do people think that the only fantasy out there is middle ages knights and mages? For a group of people playing make believe it is sad to see how many people limit what they are willing to accept as fantasy.

Dungeon Crawling can be cinematic, fantasy worlds can be cinematic, and D&D can be cinematic. Being cinematic doesn't stop a game from being anything else, it just builds upon what you already have. Allowing players who aren't playing magic-users to be cool and awesome doesn't take away from the game, it helps it become better. A magic user can fly around shooting lightning out of their butt and yet a person can't duel wield hand cross bows? The magic user is already being cinematic, I just want D&D to allow non-casters the same right.

Last I saw, Legolas used a shield to slide down a set of stairs and shot a ton of enemies with a bow. That is pretty darn cinematic, are people saying you shouldn't be able to do that in D&D? Won't that get your nerd card revoked if you say LotR isn't fantasy? (mine has been revoked long ago, between hating Josh Whedon movies and LotR I didn't go very long with my nerd card).

I think D&D is simulating a fantasy setting particular to its own rules, not LoTR or any other non-D&D derived fatasy world. It isn't a game for recreating the events of particular novels or movies. It is a game which simulates exploring dungeons and wildernesses searching for treasure in a pseudo medieval fantasy world, or at least a world with mostly medieval level technology.

I'm not saying nothing cool should ever happen in D&D. I'm saying that the game doesn't focus on cinematic conventions. Yes, a wizard can cast a spell that lets him fly, and another spell that lets him shoot a lightning bolt. There are rules governing how and when he can do that, he doesn't just get to fly around and blast things non-stop like DBZ.

A character should be able to attempt any kind of activity one can think of, within the limits of their characters' abilities. If they want to slide on a shield down a staircase, I would let them try. I would probably require a roll vs their dex of some sort, and allow a chance that they fall on their butt and waste their action.
A cinematic game likely would not have you fall on your butt, and possibly not even require a roll. It happens, the only question is how many mooks you manage to take out while you do it, and you probably get a bonus for thinking of something that looks cool and uses the scenery. I feel D&D needs to be more challenging than that. When cool stuff happens, sometimes against the odds, it's a memorable experience. It isn't the expectation that every encounter will result in some kind of cool movie action scene.

[TomPliss]

I am disappointed by this thread : Why isn't there a Grenadier boob->gun reloading gif ?

[Sidmen]

I am shocked, shocked I say, that the most easily visualized reloading of 2 hand crossbows hasn't been mentioned. Bend down, placing your toes on the forward braces, pulling the strings back as you rise. Insert bolts from belt, and pick up crossbows.

It wouldnt be easy for a layman to do, but the adventurer is a crossbow expert.

[kattahn]

Actually it's not doable by RAW but that seems to be a discussion that is overwhelmed by the, "BUT I WANNA!" brigade.

We just finished up ruling this in the wizards forums in this thread:

community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4129016

its 100% raw. Heres the cliffnotes:

RAW, an ammunition weapon is always loaded as long as you have the ammunition for it on hand.

RAW, the only prerequisite to using Crossbow Expert's third bonus is that you have used the Attack action to make an attack with a one-handed weapon. Once you fulfill that, you can use a bonus action to attack with a Hand Crossbow. Loading and Holding it are all included in that action.

If you want more detail, page 3 and the first handful of posts on page 4 are where we really break it down.

[obryn]

Actually, weirdly, on a closer look, two-weapon fighting requires melee weapons, which leads me to wonder why the Hand Crossbow would get the Light property in the first place. (Or why one would ever use it for any reason.)
Double checking, the Crossbow Expert feat lets you ignore this, as kattahn's thread points out.

So it's 100% legit, rules-wise, and the feat itself seems written with the expectation that you're off-handing a hand crossbow and loading it as a free action.

[kattahn]

Also keep in mind, the feat does not require 2 crossbows. Firing a hand crossbow with one hand counts as attacking with a weapon, which would allow you to take a second attack with that same hand crossbow as a bonus action. @ 5th level, a fighter can attack 3 times a turn with 1 hand crossbow, take -5 to each, and get +10 damage to each from sharpshooter.(can make 5 attacks @ 20th level, same way)

[EvilAnagram]

Also keep in mind, the feat does not require 2 crossbows. Firing a hand crossbow with one hand counts as attacking with a weapon, which would allow you to take a second attack with that same hand crossbow as a bonus action. @ 5th level, a fighter can attack 3 times a turn with 1 hand crossbow, take -5 to each, and get +10 damage to each from sharpshooter.(can make 5 attacks @ 20th level, same way)

I don't think anyone in history has ever been able to fire a crossbow three times in six seconds, let alone accurately. At a certain point, a DM has to say no because shut up.

[obryn]

I don't think anyone in history has ever been able to fire a crossbow three times in six seconds, let alone accurately. At a certain point, a DM has to say no because shut up.
Nobody in history has ever created lightning bolts out of their fingertips, either, though.

[pwykersotz]

Nobody in history has ever created lightning bolts out of their fingertips, either, though.

I have! I just need a sweater, socks, and a really good shag carpet. :smalltongue:

[EvilAnagram]

Nobody in history has ever created lightning bolts out of their fingertips, either, though.

Not comparable. We're operating in a world in which magical energy exists, and people are capable of harnessing it. Therefore, shooting lightning. Other than the magical aspects of the world, it largely tries to emulate reality. Larger people tend to be stronger and can pick up heavier things. Gravity works at the same rate. F=ma. For nonmagical things, it makes sense that the world works in largely the same way as ours. Dual wielding hand crossbows is pure cool. Firing a single crossbow three times in six seconds is ridiculous.

[kattahn]

I don't think anyone in history has ever been able to fire a crossbow three times in six seconds, let alone accurately. At a certain point, a DM has to say no because shut up.

Warriors get 4 attacks with any weapon, without feats. They can fire a heavy crossbow 4 times in a single attack action if they so choose, once they hit level 20.

I'm just here to point out the rules as written. If you're in a campaign and want to house rule things, as the DM its your call. But your players, at least in my opinion, have a right to open it to a discussion and suggest alternative solutions, once you start going away from the rules of the game for reasons such as "because"

[Morty]

I treat dual-wielding hand crossbows as something I would never play but that should be possible. It's not like I have to pay attention to it if it's possible, do I? And of all the things that might end up overpowered or game-breaking in 5e... I sincerely doubt dual crossbows are going to be among them.

[pwykersotz]

Not comparable. We're operating in a world in which magical energy exists, and people are capable of harnessing it. Therefore, shooting lightning. Other than the magical aspects of the world, it largely tries to emulate reality. Larger people tend to be stronger and can pick up heavier things. Gravity works at the same rate. F=ma. For nonmagical things, it makes sense that the world works in largely the same way as ours. Dual wielding hand crossbows is pure cool. Firing a single crossbow three times in six seconds is ridiculous.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRb1SCPObcey2JyUvU3F2z7LtoWX-Z8n0uysEVKEapzEoqhVVUlBg

[obryn]

Not comparable. We're operating in a world in which magical energy exists, and people are capable of harnessing it. Therefore, shooting lightning. Other than the magical aspects of the world, it largely tries to emulate reality. Larger people tend to be stronger and can pick up heavier things. Gravity works at the same rate. F=ma. For nonmagical things, it makes sense that the world works in largely the same way as ours. Dual wielding hand crossbows is pure cool. Firing a single crossbow three times in six seconds is ridiculous.
A Fighter at 20th level could fire a Heavy Crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds with action surge. (e: ninja'd of course)

Also, I think you're confusing "physically impossible" with "would require a ton of training and coordination." If wizards are bending reality, your non-magical sorts should be basically physical paragons. Olympic-caliber (and possibly even superhuman) martial artists. Action heroes, in other words.

[kattahn]

Not comparable. We're operating in a world in which magical energy exists, and people are capable of harnessing it. Therefore, shooting lightning. Other than the magical aspects of the world, it largely tries to emulate reality. Larger people tend to be stronger and can pick up heavier things. Gravity works at the same rate. F=ma. For nonmagical things, it makes sense that the world works in largely the same way as ours. Dual wielding hand crossbows is pure cool. Firing a single crossbow three times in six seconds is ridiculous.

In 5E i can take 6 arrows to the chest, or several wounds from a greatsword, and then just will them away over an hour long rest, and be 100% recovered after. Without anything magical. There are lots of things in game that don't perfectly mirror the real world.

[obryn]

They can also reliably fall 1,000' without any risk of death. Are you saying that's okay, but loading little hand crossbows really quickly strains credibility?

[EvilAnagram]

A Fighter at 20th level could fire a Heavy Crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds with action surge. (e: ninja'd of course)

Also, I think you're confusing "physically impossible" with "would require a ton of training and coordination." If wizards are bending reality, your non-magical sorts should be basically physical paragons. Olympic-caliber (and possibly even superhuman) martial artists. Action heroes, in other words.

If they go through the effort of crafting a semi-automatic crossbow in-game, I'll allow it because having the ability to aim and fire that quickly is superhuman enough without loading considerations. After all, extensively drilled and trained soldiers could only fire at a rate of 2 per minute at the height of crossbow use.

[EvilAnagram]

In 5E i can take 6 arrows to the chest, or several wounds from a greatsword, and then just will them away over an hour long rest, and be 100% recovered after. Without anything magical. There are lots of things in game that don't perfectly mirror the real world.
Less than the crossbow thing, definitely.


They can also reliably fall 1,000' without any risk of death. Are you saying that's okay, but loading little hand crossbows really quickly strains credibility?
People in the real world have survived falling that far without dying. No one has ever fired eight crossbow bolts in six seconds using a crossbow you have to reload manually.

[obryn]

I treat dual-wielding hand crossbows as something I would never play but that should be possible. It's not like I have to pay attention to it if it's possible, do I? And of all the things that might end up overpowered or game-breaking in 5e... I sincerely doubt dual crossbows are going to be among them.
Believe it or not, this is one of the best ways (outside skeletal hordes) to push your damage in the game for a few reasons. (1) unlike with TWF, you get your Dex modifier to damage with your Crossbow Expert bonus attack. (2) The Sharpshooter feat exists, and can net you +10 damage per shot at a cost of -5 to-hit.

That -5 to each attack roll is really costly, so don't underestimate it. But against low-AC critters, or when you have Advantage, it's a good bet.

A 20th-level Fighter could get 9 shots off with Action Surge. 5 off in a normal round. At range, ignoring cover.

IMO, it's still not game-breaking in any way other than it counter-intuitively overpowers many other options, kind of like the Dartmaster in 1e. It's still nothing compared to spellcaster stuff.


If they go through the effort of crafting a semi-automatic crossbow in-game, I'll allow it because having the ability to aim and fire that quickly is superhuman enough without loading considerations. After all, extensively drilled and trained soldiers could only fire at a rate of 2 per minute at the height of crossbow use.
No, a 20th-level Fighter needs no such devices. They just need a heavy crossbow, the Crossbow Expert feat, and at least 8 bolts.


People in the real world have survived falling that far without dying. No one has ever fired eight crossbow bolts in six seconds using a crossbow you have to reload manually.
The key word is "reliably." I can jump off a 1000' cliff onto rocks, get up, take a nap, and go do it again.

[EvilAnagram]

No, a 20th-level Fighter needs no such devices. They just need a heavy crossbow, the Crossbow Expert feat, and at least 8 bolts.

Unless I'm the DM.


The key word is "reliably." I can jump off a 1000' cliff onto rocks, get up, take a nap, and go do it again.
Yeah, but my point is that even that is more believable to me than loading and firing 8 crossbow bolts in six seconds. Or however many. Honestly, firing one every six seconds stretches belief a bit, but I don't mind it because rules are rules. Firing eight or nine is... I don't even know if the string moves fast enough to do that when you pull the trigger.

[kattahn]

Unless I'm the DM.


Yeah, but my point is that even that is more believable to me than loading and firing 8 crossbow bolts in six seconds. Or however many. Honestly, firing one every six seconds stretches belief a bit, but I don't mind it because rules are rules. Firing eight or nine is... I don't even know if the string moves fast enough to do that when you pull the trigger.

What you deem realistic/unrealistic seems very, very arbitrary.

[obryn]

Unless I'm the DM.

Yeah, but my point is that even that is more believable to me than loading and firing 8 crossbow bolts in six seconds. Or however many. Honestly, firing one every six seconds stretches belief a bit, but I don't mind it because rules are rules. Firing eight or nine is... I don't even know if the string moves fast enough to do that when you pull the trigger.
And it's fine if you want to ban the Crossbow Expert feat for whatever reason, but I'm saying that your realism concerns seem a bit misplaced. You're comparing, with the high-level example, two 20th level characters. One - a better crossbowman than has ever existed on Earth - exercises superhuman might, self-control, and training to fire a heavy crossbow a bunch of times really fast with a well-practiced series of motions and adrenaline. One says funny words, makes weird gestures, and a Meteor Swarm flies a mile to utterly destroy a small town. It just doesn't seem very reasonable to poop on the crossbow guy.

Also, this is completely ignoring the main point, which was that reloading a hand crossbow fast is way more believable than either of these. Or falling 1000' (heck, 100') reliably and walking away from it.

[pwykersotz]

And it's fine if you want to ban the Crossbow Expert feat for whatever reason, but I'm saying that your realism concerns seem a bit misplaced. You're comparing, with the high-level example, two 20th level characters. One - a better crossbowman than has ever existed on Earth - exercises superhuman might, self-control, and training to fire a heavy crossbow a bunch of times really fast with a well-practiced series of motions and adrenaline. One says funny words, makes weird gestures, and a Meteor Swarm flies a mile to utterly destroy a small town. It just doesn't seem very reasonable to poop on the crossbow guy.

Also, this is completely ignoring the main point, which was that reloading a hand crossbow fast is way more believable than either of these. Or falling 1000' (heck, 100') reliably and walking away from it.

I believe the distinction is that he is viewing this as a simulation with magic added in. You're viewing it as a game. You get very different results that way.

[obryn]

I believe the distinction is that he is viewing this as a simulation with magic added in. You're viewing it as a game. You get very different results that way.
No, "guy loading and firing a crossbow fast" is - even when we're talking about an emphasis on simulation - way more reasonable than walking away from a fiery furnace or a 1,000' drop.

Wanting a simulation is fine, but the lines here, as near as I can tell, are really arbitrary. (Those lines seeming defined by the rules of 3.x or earlier D&D, rather than any actual sense of simulating a realistic world + magic.) It's like saying, "Yeah, fighters are awesome because they can take so much punishment and just keep going! They can take eight greataxe blows right to the face and it never slows them down! But they're not awesome enough to speed-load crossbows; that would be ridiculous."

[Morty]

I recall that the DMG will apparently include an optional module for focused attacks, which seem to be an option to replace multiple attacks with a singe, powerful one. It might help solve this kind of problem, depending on how it interacts with the Crossbow Expert.

[EvilAnagram]

No, "guy loading and firing a crossbow fast" is - even when we're talking about an emphasis on simulation - way more reasonable than walking away from a fiery furnace or a 1,000' drop.
You easily wave both the firey furnace and the fall off with magic. and if someone took the 100d10 of damage from a fall, I wouldn't let them shrug it off. If it doesn't kill them, it incapacitates them, and a long rest won't fix their broken bones.


Wanting a simulation is fine, but the lines here, as near as I can tell, are really arbitrary. (Those lines seeming defined by the rules of 3.x or earlier D&D, rather than any actual sense of simulating a realistic world + magic.) It's like saying, "Yeah, fighters are awesome because they can take so much punishment and just keep going! They can take eight greataxe blows right to the face and it never slows them down! But they're not awesome enough to speed-load crossbows; that would be ridiculous."
Well, if they took 8 greataxe blows without it slowing them down, I would interpret them as glancing blows. Eight blows to the fact with an axe won't be shrugged off without magic.

For the crossbows, you would have to move faster than the bowstring to pull of eight shots in six seconds. If you have to wait for that slow-ass bowstring to do its job, you might as well throw the bolts since you can do that better than the bow can. That's the point when things are completely ridiculous. It's not waved off by magic because the fighter doesn't use magic. It's beyond superhuman. If you can move that fast, your movement speed should be in the high triple digits at least. You're Quicksilver. Or the Flash.

But only when it comes to crossbows. It's ridiculous.

[kattahn]

No, "guy loading and firing a crossbow fast" is - even when we're talking about an emphasis on simulation - way more reasonable than walking away from a fiery furnace or a 1,000' drop.

Wanting a simulation is fine, but the lines here, as near as I can tell, are really arbitrary. (Those lines seeming defined by the rules of 3.x or earlier D&D, rather than any actual sense of simulating a realistic world + magic.) It's like saying, "Yeah, fighters are awesome because they can take so much punishment and just keep going! They can take eight greataxe blows right to the face and it never slows them down! But they're not awesome enough to speed-load crossbows; that would be ridiculous."

You brought up a fantastic realism question: burns.

I can sustain a dragons fire breath to my entire body. head to toe engulfed in flames. But as long as im above 0 hp afterwards, im fine. No burns, nothing. Never have to get it treated, either.

If you want to bring up the largest "unrealistic" part of DND, it has to be the lack of sustained injury treatment. Yes, people have fallen 1000' and survived before, but they had severe injuries that had to be treated. I can fall 1000' in DND, survive, get up, and dash 60' away every turn, forever, without ever getting tired, and without having to do anything about my obviously broken bones.

[TomPliss]

My reason for having the crossbow being able to fire multiple shots is that it's necessary.

Imagine that I am in front of a centaur, and that I have a Heavy crossbow. Me, little man, with a crossbow in my hands. I can tell you I barely have 10 dex, and I clearly don't have the sharpshooter feature. Hell, I'm not even proficient.
I fire, and luckily get a headshot on the centaur. He's got a bolt through his brain, and dies, because even if he's not a creature from our world, he still needs his brain.
Well, headshot means critical hit, I hope we agree on that. so I maxed my d10 and did 10 damage. Well, the centaur has 45 hitpoints, so how could he die from that ?

Worse, that hit was in his eye, and as he's dumb, he lets me shot another bolt, that goes through his other eye. He took two critical hits, so 20 damage. And D&D doesn't care that I hit his eyes.
He can still see me (I didn't use a maneuver to blind him, after all), and can hit me without any problem.


D&D isn't about making this realistically in any way : you double your Max HP (or even triple if you're lucky) between level 1 and level 3. If you don't let damage ramp up in a similar way, then what can your player do to matter ?

[obryn]

You easily wave both the firey furnace and the fall off with magic. and if someone took the 100d10 of damage from a fall, I wouldn't let them shrug it off. If it doesn't kill them, it incapacitates them, and a long rest won't fix their broken bones.
Wait, what?

First off, why can you wave off the dragon breath and the fall with magic?

Second of all, why are you adding riders to falling damage?

Third, it's capped at 20d6 or 20d10, depending on edition.

[EvilAnagram]

My reason for having the crossbow being able to fire multiple shots is that it's necessary.

Imagine that I am in front of a centaur, and that I have a Heavy crossbow. Me, little man, with a crossbow in my hands. I can tell you I barely have 10 dex, and I clearly don't have the sharpshooter feature. Hell, I'm not even proficient.
I fire, and luckily get a headshot on the centaur. He's got a bolt through his brain, and dies, because even if he's not a creature from our world, he still needs his brain.
Well, headshot means critical hit, I hope we agree on that. so I maxed my d10 and did 10 damage. Well, the centaur has 45 hitpoints, so how could he die from that ?

Worse, that hit was in his eye, and as he's dumb, he lets me shot another bolt, that goes through his other eye. He took two critical hits, so 20 damage. And D&D doesn't care that I hit his eyes.
He can still see me (I didn't use a maneuver to blind him, after all), and can hit me without any problem.


D&D isn't about making this realistically in any way : you double your Max HP (or even triple if you're lucky) between level 1 and level 3. If you don't let damage ramp up in a similar way, then what can your player do to matter ?
What? How would you... that's just...

Okay, here's the thing. Crit ≠ shot to face. It means you get to roll 2d10 instead of 1d10, and it means more damage, but it doesn't automatically mean you shot him in the eyeball. The DM's job is to interpret the dice. You crit-hit him twice? Great! He took two bolts to the chest, but he's still coming at you. He's obviously a badass at 40HP, so while they might cause him problems later, he's combat ready now.

Maybe you rolled really high, one arrow pierced a lung. He staggers. He starts moving away, but he's badly injured. Maybe you do hit his eye, but at an angle so he isn't dead. Well, he can't see out of it because there isn't an eye there.

The DM is the bridge between the rules and the fantasy. It's his job to make this world feel real and engaging. If he makes everything ridiculous and stupid, it's because he's a terrible DM.

[pwykersotz]

Wait, what?

First off, why can you wave off the dragon breath and the fall with magic?

Second of all, why are you adding riders to falling damage?

Third, it's capped at 20d6 or 20d10, depending on edition.

I've had GM's do stuff like this. He's houseruling in greater simulationism. It generally works pretty well as long as GM's and players have similar expectations about what that simulation entails.

[EvilAnagram]

First off, why can you wave off the dragon breath and the fall with magic?
Most adventurers, when they fall, can manage to save themselves with some sort of magic (monks, feather fall, flying, etc.). Same for the dragon breath, by the time they face dragons they'll find a way to mitigate the damage magically. But, let's say they don't. Well, the healers are going to heal people. It's what they do. Magic. If you managed to not take much damage from it, I'll assume you escaped the brunt of it and weave that into things. If it took half your HP, then only your superhuman will and herculean toughness are keeping you together. It's obviously a suspension of disbelief, but it's consistent within the world. Being able to move at near-sonic speeds, but only when you're loading a crossbow, is internally inconsistent.


Second of all, why are you adding riders to falling damage?

Third, it's capped at 20d6 or 20d10, depending on edition.

Oh, shoot. I messed up the falling rule. My b. Still, I would add a penalty to someone who fell 1000' because it makes sense to me, and I don't want to encourage adventurers to try out falling as far as they can. If a giant or a dragon pounded or burnt them to within an inch of their lives, I'd do the same. Get healing, or suffer because your bones are now pudding and your skin isn't there.

[kattahn]

I've had GM's do stuff like this. He's houseruling in greater simulationism. It generally works pretty well as long as GM's and players have similar expectations about what that simulation entails.

Its all fine and good as long as they recognize that they're house ruling, and that what they're doing is going against RAW.

Once you break out of RAW, you shouldn't really only argue over what you SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do in your table. Its your game, run it the way you want(as long as your players are ok with it).

RAW is a strict interpretation of the content we are provided with, and once RAW is established, we are free to interpret it/house rule it other ways in our own games.

RAW is really the only point in DND where you can be right or wrong about how to play the game.

*edited this. Meant to say you shouldn't be arguing over what you should or shouldn't do do in a game.

[TomPliss]

What? How would you... that's just...You didn't understand what I wrote :
Real me uses a real crossbow and shots a d&d centaur in the eye.
D&D can't model that, without a DM gifting me a maneuver because I made what can be best described as a critical hit.

To compensate the lack of "one-hit kill" when facing a centaur, D&D gives the possibility of firing multiple times, even if it with a crossbow.

[EvilAnagram]

You didn't understand what I wrote :
Real me uses a real crossbow and shots a d&d centaur in the eye.
D&D can't model that, without a DM gifting me a maneuver because I made what can be best described as a critical hit.

To compensate the lack of "one-hit kill" when facing a centaur, D&D gives the possibility of firing multiple times, even if it with a crossbow.
That still makes no sense. Why is real you in this situation? Why are you mixing a real action with simulated consequences? Why are we assuming your success? Why wouldn't a fatal shot simply be represented as fatal? Why would you bring this up at all?

[TomPliss]

Well, you bring up real world crossbow, I bring up real me.
By the way, how do you represent a "fatal" shot in D&D, when the facing creature has more HP that the possible mundane damage ?

[pwykersotz]

Its all fine and good as long as they recognize that they're house ruling, and that what they're doing is going against RAW.

Once you break out of RAW, you shouldn't really only argue over what you SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do in your table. Its your game, run it the way you want(as long as your players are ok with it).

RAW is a strict interpretation of the content we are provided with, and once RAW is established, we are free to interpret it/house rule it other ways in our own games.

RAW is really the only point in DND where you can be right or wrong about how to play the game.

*edited this. Meant to say you shouldn't be arguing over what you should or shouldn't do do in a game.

I disagree pretty heavily with the bolded bit. I think people who houserule or take unique interpretations of RAW should be able to discuss on a forum just as readily as those who adhere to other interpretations. If you're aware it's a houserule then you should identify it up front if possible, but some people don't know when they post. RAW is great, but it's not the only thing to be discussed or argued. Arguing for simulationism in D&D is difficult and perilous, but there are gems in the minds of the forum-goers here that must be mined.

Edit: Please let me know if I've taken your post out of context, I hope I haven't.

[EvilAnagram]

Well, you bring up real world crossbow, I bring up real me.
By the way, how do you represent a "fatal" shot in D&D, when the facing creature has more HP that the possible mundane damage ?

If you have a 100% chance of doing something completely 100% fatal to something, then the thing dies.

Otherwise, you just didn't hit it in the brain.

[Sidmen]

For the crossbows, you would have to move faster than the bowstring to pull of eight shots in six seconds. If you have to wait for that slow-ass bowstring to do its job, you might as well throw the bolts since you can do that better than the bow can. That's the point when things are completely ridiculous. It's not waved off by magic because the fighter doesn't use magic. It's beyond superhuman. If you can move that fast, your movement speed should be in the high triple digits at least. You're Quicksilver. Or the Flash.

But only when it comes to crossbows. It's ridiculous.

Or, if you absolutely must visualize it in a medieval manner without applying any magic to it, load the crossbow with two to four bolts at the same time - firing from the same frame.

Personally, I visualize those extra attack features as being magical themselves. Compressing time down so that you can make two effective strikes in the time it takes to make one. In a world where magic undoubtedly exists - nothing can be firmly said to be "mundane" since the magic is all around... doing things.

Of course, I'm not a simulationist, and find that mentality wearying, so maybe I'm not the best judge of such things.

[hawklost]

You didn't understand what I wrote :
Real me uses a real crossbow and shots a d&d centaur in the eye.
D&D can't model that, without a DM gifting me a maneuver because I made what can be best described as a critical hit.

To compensate the lack of "one-hit kill" when facing a centaur, D&D gives the possibility of firing multiple times, even if it with a crossbow.

You can do better than that even.

Real you brings a heavy crossbow right up to the Centaurs Eye and have the point mm from his eyeball aimed directly into his brain. You pull the Trigger and the Centaur does not try to move or fight you. He takes damage but, assuming he has HP more than the damage, is still perfectly fine otherwise.

There is nothing in DnD that hurts his eye, nothing in it to damage his brain, nothing that could insta-kill him unless you can do a certain amount of damage in a single attack (in this case). Heck, give him a day to rest and he will be back at full health and you could do it again to him without killing him.

Even if someone claims "Well, he might be able to survive a hit like that". that's cool, wait a day, repeat the attempt. then wait and repeat again infinitely. The Centaur or you will die of old age before the crossbow bolt will get him. At some point though, probability would have said that bolt insta killed him (which in DnD does not occur of course)

[TomPliss]

I'm gonna repeat myself :

You didn't understand what I wrote :
It is possible in real life to put a bolt in the brain of that creature, so that this creature dies.
If you take a "real life" centaur, it's not possible for a low level D&D fighter to kill it at low leve, even with the most lucky (which means critical hit with all max damage dices) to kill it without using extra attacks.
That's a part of why extra attacks exist.

[hawklost]

I disagree pretty heavily with the bolded bit. I think people who houserule or take unique interpretations of RAW should be able to discuss on a forum just as readily as those who adhere to other interpretations. If you're aware it's a houserule then you should identify it up front if possible, but some people don't know when they post. RAW is great, but it's not the only thing to be discussed or argued. Arguing for simulationism in D&D is difficult and perilous, but there are gems in the minds of the forum-goers here that must be mined.

Edit: Please let me know if I've taken your post out of context, I hope I haven't.

I don't think people who are arguing RAW have a problem with those who HouseRule, or that a person cannot interpret something one way (they might be right or wrong there). But when a person says "It is this way because I say it is" and people look up RAW and it says something completely different. The person who said the original statement can at least acknowledge that they have now chosen to houseRule their answer instead of trying to argue that they are still 'right' (They are right only in the sense that their houserule decides it, not the RAW)

[pwykersotz]

I don't think people who are arguing RAW have a problem with those who HouseRule, or that a person cannot interpret something one way (they might be right or wrong there). But when a person says "It is this way because I say it is" and people look up RAW and it says something completely different. The person who said the original statement can at least acknowledge that they have now chosen to houseRule their answer instead of trying to argue that they are still 'right' (They are right only in the sense that their houserule decides it, not the RAW)

On that, I can fully agree.

[Dark Tira]

For anyone complaining about the 8 attacks in a round crossbow. I'd suggest you don't look at the Hunter Ranger's Volley class feature. It will send you into an apoplexy.

[EvilAnagram]

For anyone complaining about the 8 attacks in a round crossbow. I'd suggest you don't look at the Hunter Ranger's Volley class feature. It will send you into an apoplexy.
Meh. Rangers are a caster class. I assume magic for a good portion of their stuff.

[Morty]

This thread illustrates the problems with combining D&D's paradigm of expressing weapon expertise by multiple attacks, and crossbows, which are by definition slower-firing but more powerful. It's been like that at least since 3.0 hit the shelves, although I suppose it doesn't apply to 4e. 5e seems to treat multiple attacks as the cornerstone of increased offensive potential of martial types, but then, the only reliable way to get decent ranged damage in 3e is also to fire off a veritable rain of arrows. The only real difference is that crossbows are slightly better for rogues than shortbows in 5e.

So I'm going to repeat my suggestion of waiting for the DMG to see that optional rule. Maybe it can be selectively applied to crossbows, who knows.

[kattahn]

I disagree pretty heavily with the bolded bit. I think people who houserule or take unique interpretations of RAW should be able to discuss on a forum just as readily as those who adhere to other interpretations. If you're aware it's a houserule then you should identify it up front if possible, but some people don't know when they post. RAW is great, but it's not the only thing to be discussed or argued. Arguing for simulationism in D&D is difficult and perilous, but there are gems in the minds of the forum-goers here that must be mined.

Edit: Please let me know if I've taken your post out of context, I hope I haven't.

My main point was that if we're arguing "should you be able to dual wield hand crossbows", you have to cover 2 things

1. Is it allowed according to RAW. RAW is the baseline rules we have available to us, and from there we are free to modify them on a per table basis. But it is always important to have a good understanding of what is/isn't allowed via RAW so that we all have the same foundation. At this point, the argument is "i think the rules say this, and he thinks the rules say that". If trying to play strictly by the rules, then its important to discuss what the rules actually are.

2. Would you allow it at your table. If you say "i understand this isn't raw, but we are going to houserule things this way", thats fine. People can debate it or offer suggestions or ask what your reasoning is, but they really have no place to say "no, you can't houserule it that way, because thats wrong". Its your table and as long as your gamers are ok with it, no one should be able to tell you what you can and can't change.

tl;dr - DND is meant to be played your way. Once you've acknowledged that you're discussing a house-rule or modification, people should feel free to discuss it but shouldn't tell you you're right/wrong in how you choose to run your own game.

[pwykersotz]

My main point was that if we're arguing "should you be able to dual wield hand crossbows", you have to cover 2 things

1. Is it allowed according to RAW. RAW is the baseline rules we have available to us, and from there we are free to modify them on a per table basis. But it is always important to have a good understanding of what is/isn't allowed via RAW so that we all have the same foundation. At this point, the argument is "i think the rules say this, and he thinks the rules say that". If trying to play strictly by the rules, then its important to discuss what the rules actually are.

2. Would you allow it at your table. If you say "i understand this isn't raw, but we are going to houserule things this way", thats fine. People can debate it or offer suggestions or ask what your reasoning is, but they really have no place to say "no, you can't houserule it that way, because thats wrong". Its your table and as long as your gamers are ok with it, no one should be able to tell you what you can and can't change.

tl;dr - DND is meant to be played your way. Once you've acknowledged that you're discussing a house-rule or modification, people should feel free to discuss it but shouldn't tell you you're right/wrong in how you choose to run your own game.

Then we are in full agreement. Thank you for the clarification. :smallsmile:

[EvilAnagram]

Hurray! We all agree on a thing for the first time in all the internets!

[pwykersotz]

Hurray! We all agree on a thing for the first time in all the internets!

And for the moment, there was peace.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdRgWOt-btsSNqTDDlO9I_622_jJuA6kkvLbES6THoTU4woPp4xw

[hawklost]

And then war broke out again

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/12/article-0-090A4426000005DC-737_634x493.jpg

[Shadow]

Alright, I came looking for this thread from another because I want to set some things straight.

You cannot, despite what people seem to claim, under RAW, dual wield hand crossbows.
In order to do so, you are attempting to do what? A hand crossbow is a weapon. If you want to use two of them, you are using two weapons. You are attempting to fight with two weapons.
Now read the Two Weapon Fighting rules.

Two-W e a p o n F ig h t in g
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

Yep. Hand crossbows are not light melee weapons, so you cannot TWF with them.
You can dual wield them, but you can only shoot one of them per round, so dual wielding them is pointless.
The wording of the feat is this:

C r o s s b o w E x p e r t
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits:
• You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
• Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
• When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.

Nowhere does it state that you ignore the regular requirements for TWFing. It simply allows you to use a hand crossbow in your offhand instead of a light melee weapon (or one handed melee weapon in the case of those with the Dual Wielder feat, and those whose DMs agree that XbX dismisses that requirement).
Furthermore, as you are indeed two wepaon fighting, you do not get your Dex bonus to damage with the offhand shot unless you have the Dual Wielder feat, as specified under the TWF rules.

Some people claim that taking this feat creates a completely new set of rules which govern the use of fighting with two weapons. And if you can convince your DM that this is the case, then go ahead and munchkin the TWF rules all you want to. But in so doing, know that you are indeed breaking the TWF rules, and if you won't admit it to him, at least admit it to yourself.

One person has even gone so far as to claim, and I quote:

Yes, you are fighting with two weapons, but you are not Two Weapon Fighting.

If murdering semantics, and telling yourself that fighting with two weapons is somehow different than two weapon fighting, is what it takes for you to feel better about yourself, then by all means please do so. But once again, at least admit to yourself that this is what you're doing.

You cannot, by RAW, dual wield two hand crossbows and fire both of them in the same round.
As to the argument that it works perfectly fine with a single hand crossbow, the answer is again, No.
The feat specifically states that the off hand crossbow used must already be loaded. How can it already be loaded when you just fired it? The feat removes the stipulation that it can only fire once per round. The removal of the reload feature does nothing to change the fact that it is not, at this moment, currently loaded.
Furthermore, if you are only wielding a single hand crossbow, then it is equipped in your main hand. No matter which hand it is in, that is your main hand, because you don't have a weapon in your off hand.

So no, you cannot, by RAW, wield two hand crossbows.
And no, you cannot, by RAW, use a single hand crossbow to activate the Crossbow Expert feat.

This feat is expicitly designed for using a melee weapon in your main hand (light, unless you have the DW feat, or ignoring that if your DM agrees that teh XbX feat dismisses that requirement) and a hand crossbow in your off hand. If you can convince your DM otherwise, then good on you, but you are not following RAW any longer.

[Sartharina]

Looking at the text of the feats, I'd say Specific Beats General.

A hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon. You can attack with a Hand Crossbow with Crossbow Expert and shoot again using your bonus action with another Hand Crossbow. It can semantically be Two-Weapon Fighting, but it completely and explicitly redefines and bypasses standard two-weapon fighting rules. It does say you ignore Two-Weapon Fighting rules, not explicitly but implicitly by redefining the rules of how you use a hand crossbow to make a bonus-action attack. It's simple, and clear as day - if you attack with any one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to make an attack with a hand crossbow. You can dual-wield hand crossbows, or you can go Rapier+Crossbow for more overall damage.

Shadow, you are the Nitpicking Rules Lawyer.

[DeAnno]

I'm really not sure why Shadow wants to get on such a high horse about this. The crux of his argument is clearly that 5e is about DM empowerment, and due to this Dual Crossbow Wielding should be banned. DM Empowerment does not automatically mean interpreting or twisting rules in such a way to disempower Player Characters.

You could just as easily say that DM Empowerment means characters shouldn't be able to cast spells without rolling to check for a botch, or that bonus actions are overpowered and shouldn't be allowed. You would be homebrewing just the same as you are here. While the DM has the final word in game, this forum has no particular DM, so the fact that you may be a DM in your home game does not empower you to overrule the rules as written and have the final word here. You can certainly suggest that Dual-X-Bows are OP, and suggest that DMs don't allow that in their games, but the banner of DM Empowerment alone is not a magic talisman that lets any argument be won by whoever is against something being allowed for a PC.

With regards to the RAW itself, I see it as very clear-cut. It doesn't refer to Two-Weapon Fighting in the feat, it just says that if you make an attack with a one handed weapon, you can make a bonus action attack with the Hand-Crossbow. The feat doesn't refer you to the TWF rules, the TWF feat, or make any further qualifications on the benefit at all.

[Shadow]

That post had nothing to do with DM empowerment, unless you count the points where I talk about convincing him of something.
I do whole-heartedly embrace DM empowerment, but that's a completely different topic than RAW and RAI.
I believe that DM interpretation > RAI > RAW, but thiat post was about RAW.
And it doesn't have to refer to the TWF rules, because it is implicit that by fighting with two weapons, you must adhere to the TWF rules except as noted in the feats and abilities that apply.

As to Sarth: again, if you can convince your DM that dual-x-bows are cool, then more power to you. But by RAW, they aren't.

[DeAnno]

Sorry, I was forgetting where in the thread of your arguments that was, since there was a ton of talk about DM empowerment in the other Topic that had some debate on the matter and linked into here. I still think your RAW argument has zero legs to stand on, which is probably part of why I missed it entirely.

[Dark Tira]

That post had nothing to do with DM empowerment, unless you count the points where I talk about convincing him of something.
I do whole-heartedly embrace DM empowerment, but that's a completely different topic than RAW and RAI.
I believe that DM interpretation > RAI > RAW, but thiat post was about RAW.

As to Sarth: again, if you can convince your DM that dual-x-bows are cool, then more power to you. But by RAW, they aren't.

You are your own worst enemy when you get into RAW discussions. Read the thread the Kattahn referenced with an open mind and enlighten yourself.

[DeAnno]

The Crossbow feat implies you are wielding two weapons of some sort while using the feat, and does not refer to any other specific rules which limit the feat's use. Since the TWF rules are about wielding melee weapons, I'm not sure how one could be convinced they apply here.

[Shadow]

The Crossbow feat implies you are wielding two weapons of some sort while using the feat, and does not refer to any other specific rules which limit the feat's use. Since the TWF rules are about wielding melee weapons, I'm not sure how one could be convinced they apply here.

That's right. The TWF rules are about melee weapons. And this feat allows you to exchange one of those melee weapons for a specific ranged weapon. That's the entire purpose of the feat.
The melee TWF rules apply here because they are the only TWF rules in existence.
There are no TWF rules for ranged weapons because you can not TWF with ranged weap[ons. If you could, they would have outlined at least some small measure of guidelines for it.

[DeAnno]

Two-Weapon fighting on page 195 is presented not as a state of being, but a combat action. It specifies a certain set of conditions which allow you to make a bonus action attack. Crossbow Expert specifies a completely different set of conditions which allow you to make a bonus action attack. There is no reason to think that either one is subservient to the other.

[Xetheral]

The section on Two-Weapon Fighting on page 195 of the PHB outlines requirements, which, if met, permit a bonus action attack subject to the listed restrictions. The Crossbow Expert feat outlines different requirements, which, if met, permit a bonus action attack subject to different restrictions. I see no reason that either needs to be interpreted in light of the other. They're simply different ways to gain a different bonus action attack. (Edit: What DeAnno said.)


As to the argument that it works perfectly fine with a single hand crossbow, the answer is again, No.
The feat specifically states that the off hand crossbow used must already be loaded. How can it already be loaded when you just fired it? The feat removes the stipulation that it can only fire once per round. The removal of the reload feature does nothing to change the fact that it is not, at this moment, currently loaded.

Nothing requires the bonus attack to be made immediately. For example, one can use some of one's move between taking the qualifying Attack action and using the allowed bonus action attack. So while yes, a hand crossbow is not loaded in the instant after it's fired, that seems irrelevant: there is plenty of time to reload it as per normal (i.e. as a non-action).


Furthermore, if you are only wielding a single hand crossbow, then it is equipped in your main hand. No matter which hand it is in, that is your main hand, because you don't have a weapon in your off hand.

Crossbow Expert doesn't mention the phrase "off-hand" at all, and if you're only wielding one crossbow then the two-weapon fighting rules on page 195 certainly don't enter into the interpretation. Firing the bonus attack from the main hand is perfectly acceptable.

[TomPliss]

Shadow, you seem nto to understand the point about the whole fighting with two weapons without two weapon fighting" thing :

Say a character holds a longsword in one hand. He can attack with it, according to the rules.
Say he has something in his other hand. He can still attack with his longsword.
Now, if the thing in his second hand is a second longsword, can He still attack with the first sword ? yes. He just can't attack with the second as a bonus action.
He could also attack with the second longsword, as long as he doesn't try to attack with the first longsword.


Now, imagine he has a hand-Xbow in each hand. He has the right to attack with any of those, as his action, while he doesn't do anything with the second hand-Xbow.
The Crossbow Expert feat makes him able to fire his second hand-Xbow as a bonus action after he has used his first hand-Xbow as an action.

This is what RAW means, and I don't see any reason RAI wouldn't, as the feat is made to let any character attack with a longsowrd and a hand-Xbow.

What RAW lets the character do that I don't think RAI would let him do (and what most GMs wouldn't let you do), is attacking 2 times with the same hand-Xbow.

[MeeposFire]

The feat actually allows you to make your attack action and the bonus action attack with just the single hand crossbow. Even if you wield a rapier in the other hand you do not need to attack with it. Regardless of how many crossbows you wield you can get that bonus action attack and it never needs to even think about twp weapon fighting rules.

[Shadow]

The omission of any reference to the TWF rules does not invalidate those rules.
As such, the TWF rules still apply, and they get altered in the way that the feat states, allowing for a one handed weapon attack (which according to the always valid TWF rules must be a melee weapon) and then one attack with a hand crossbow.
Those are the Rules As Written.

[DeAnno]

The omission of any reference to the TWF rules does not invalidate those rules.
As such, the TWF rules still apply, and they get altered in the way that the feat states, allowing for a one handed weapon attack (which according to the always valid TWF rules must be a melee weapon) and then one attack with a hand crossbow.
Those are the Rules As Written.

The feat does not alter those rules at all, or even refer to them. It presents an entirely new package of rules which can be used for a visually similar purpose. All the TWF rules do is allow a bonus action under specific circumstances. They literally do absolutely nothing else. This allows a different bonus action under different specific circumstances.

For it to work the way you claim, the rules would have to specifically make even holding two light ranged weapons illegal.

[Shadow]

The feat does not alter those rules at all, or even refer to them. It presents an entirely new package of rules which can be used for a visually similar purpose. All the TWF rules do is allow a bonus action under specific circumstances. They literally do absolutely nothing else. This allows a different bonus action under different specific circumstances.
But this feat doesn't invalidate the TWF rules. So those rules still apply. There's no need of referencing them because they always apply.
This doesn't allow a different bonus action, it merely changes the allowable weapons for that action, because you are still fighting with two weapons and therefore the TWF rules still apply, even if they were never specifically mentioned. Because there's no need to mention them. They've already been explained elsewhere in the book. This feat alters them by allowing that seconadary attack to come from a hand crossbow, which was not allowed previously.


For it to work the way you claim, the rules would have to specifically make even holding two one handed weapons illegal.
You can hold two of them just fine. But you can only attack with one of them unless you have the DW feat. And if you have the DW feat, then both of the weapons you want to attack with need to me melee weapons unless you have teh XbX feat, in which case one of those wepaons can be a hand crossbow.

[Xetheral]

But this feat doesn't invalidate the TWF rules. So those rules still apply.

Shadow, the rules on page 195 apply only when one wants to take the specific bonus action attack described there. Lots of other bonus action attacks allow one to use a second weapon (e.g. Berserker Barbarian's Frenzy (melee), War Domain Cleric's War Priest (any attack), Crossbow Expert (hand crossbow)) and none of them are affected by the section on Two-Weapon Fighting on page 195 because each is a separate source of a different bonus action attack.

[obryn]

Nowhere does it state that you ignore the regular requirements for TWFing. It simply allows you to use a hand crossbow in your offhand instead of a light melee weapon (or one handed melee weapon in the case of those with the Dual Wielder feat, and those whose DMs agree that XbX dismisses that requirement).
Furthermore, as you are indeed two wepaon fighting, you do not get your Dex bonus to damage with the offhand shot unless you have the Dual Wielder feat, as specified under the TWF rules.

Some people claim that taking this feat creates a completely new set of rules which govern the use of fighting with two weapons. And if you can convince your DM that this is the case, then go ahead and munchkin the TWF rules all you want to. But in so doing, know that you are indeed breaking the TWF rules, and if you won't admit it to him, at least admit it to yourself.
You are 100% wrong here. There is no (non-tortured) reading of the rules which supports your position.

The Crossbow Expert rules never reference and don't interact with the TWF rules. Crossbow expert adds a specific new option: "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding." This gives you a new option for your Bonus action, which can be triggered by the condition of "you attack with a one-handed weapon."

But what about the TWF rules? They don't apply. They can't apply due to their restriction to two Light Melee Weapons - a restriction Crossbow Expert neither references nor lifts, because TWF rules are irrelevant for the case of a Crossbow Expert's bonus action attack.

Specific beats general. Crossbow Expert says you can do this. As long as you meet the conditions - (1) attack with a 1-handed weapon, and (2) holding loaded hand crossbow - you can use the bonus action.

A light crossbow is a 1-handed weapon. Therefore, it can work to fulfill the conditions on the bonus action.

[wolfstone]

The balance compared to ... what? Another Fighter? A Wizard? A Bard?

Anyway, this is something an awesome dude in a movie could do with a pair of pistols, so the D&D equivalent - a brace of hand crossbows - is dandy.

I whole-heartedly agree. The concept is kind of cool. Who cares if it's not the most efficient or damaging concept? The point is that a player came up with a cool concept (I just posted questions on the 4e forum about a dual shield-wielder). If everyone was to go with just a small number of options, then what's the point of a high-creativity game like D&D? Might as well stick to Diablo, if that was the case.

Kudos on the cool character, and it's one I'd like to play as well! *thumbs up*

[Mr.Moron]

I personally think this is one goofiest ideas I've ever seen raised. It seems plausible by the rules though, if not solid. Like it's "Let's tie the goblin to the end of a pole and use that as weapon. He'll be wielding two OTHER poles, ALSO WITH GOBLINS TIED TO THEM. " levels of doofy.

I'd probably allow it, probably not without a little ribbing. I'd just rule that the crossbows are wrist mounted or something, so the image is a little less tone-breaking.

[Sartharina]

Hand crossbows are Fantasy Pistols.

I figure you reload them by using two fingers on each hand (The other two fingers securing the other crossbow against your thumb. So, some sort of arms-crossed reloading thing.

[obryn]

I personally think this is one goofiest ideas I've ever seen raised. It seems plausible by the rules though, if not solid. Like it's "Let's tie the goblin to the end of a pole and use that as weapon. He'll be wielding two OTHER poles, ALSO WITH GOBLINS TIED TO THEM. " levels of doofy.

I'd probably allow it, probably not without a little ribbing. I'd just rule that the crossbows are wrist mounted or something, so the image is a little less tone-breaking.
Naah, it's completely cinematically appropriate unless you have a tiny, black, withered heart and literally hate fun. :smallbiggrin: This was intended mostly ironically. Mostly.

Like I said, just imagine a John Woo movie, only replace a pair of pistols with a pair of hand crossbows and you're set. For the full effect, doves also need to fly out of something.

[wolfstone]

I personally think this is one goofiest ideas I've ever seen raised. It seems plausible by the rules though, if not solid. Like it's "Let's tie the goblin to the end of a pole and use that as weapon. He'll be wielding two OTHER poles, ALSO WITH GOBLINS TIED TO THEM. " levels of doofy.

I'd probably allow it, probably not without a little ribbing. I'd just rule that the crossbows are wrist mounted or something, so the image is a little less tone-breaking.

WHAT?!? Oh screw dual wielding crossbows! I want to dual-wield Dual-Wielding Goblin-Stickers! lol

[Typewriter]

But this feat doesn't invalidate the TWF rules. So those rules still apply. There's no need of referencing them because they always apply.


The TWF rules aren't being invalidated, they simply aren't relevant to the conversation. TWF deals with rules on how to handle a character fighting with melee weapons. The TWF feat augments the TWF rules. The crossbow expert feat does not deal with TWF - it specifically deals with a character using a crossbow, and in its rules it makes no reference towards having to hold a melee weapon or to the TWF rules. You are drawing that conclusion on your own - you are creating a link where none is written. If you think that is RAI then that's a fair statement, but how can you say it's RAW when you literally have to write/create your own connection between crossbow expert and TWF?

[Shadow]

You are drawing that conclusion on your own - you are creating a link where none is written.
No, I am seeing a link that others want to ignore.
The link exists because you are fighting with two weapons, so the TWF rules apply. They don't need to specifically be mentioned because they are implicit in the situation. You are fighting with two weapons. The TWF rules apply. Period.
You just don't want to see that because you want to gain a second ranged attack four full levels before anyone with the Extra Attack feature would gain one.
The TWF rules exist for balance reasons.
There are no TWF rules for ranged attacks for balance reasons.
Ignoring balance is all that people attempting to TWF with xbows using this feat are trying to do.

And before you say that it isn't OP, a human getting this at 1st level will probably have a 16 Dex if he's going to be a ranged attacker.
That's a +5 to hit and a +3 to damage on a 1d6 weapon.
The average kobold (for example) has 5hp.
So the XbXpert, at level one, has a 82.5% chance to kill a mob on every hit, twice per round, every single round, from the relative safety of range.
At level one, that's pretty much the definition of OP.
Reading the TWF rules correctly in conjuntion with this feat, he has to get into melee for that opportunity, and even then the second shot needs almost max damage to kill a second kobold.
Just like the TWFer.
Balance.
Anyone that reads this to ignore the TWF rules is simply trying to munchkin those TWF rules.

[Doug Lampert]

Unless I'm the DM.


Yeah, but my point is that even that is more believable to me than loading and firing 8 crossbow bolts in six seconds. Or however many. Honestly, firing one every six seconds stretches belief a bit, but I don't mind it because rules are rules. Firing eight or nine is... I don't even know if the string moves fast enough to do that when you pull the trigger.

Rules are rules for a shot every 6 seconds, but the exact same rules aren't rules at level 20?

In any case, if you don't know if a crossbow string moves fast enough for 9 shots in 6 seconds then I suggest you stop debating realism and crossbows.

You claim in multiple posts that the string isn't fast enough. How slow do you think the string is and how in the world do you imagine such a slow string is getting a bolt to launch fast enough to go anywhere? The bolt moves no faster than the string, and the string moves only about 1 meter, acceleration actually drops as the string advances, so the time to launch is less than double the time for the full speed bolt to move the distance of the draw.

If we assume string movement is the limiting factor (which is silly, but whatever, you claim it). Then the full speed bolt is moving at several hundred KPH, call it an EXTREMELY conservative 100 m/s. The draw is about 1m for a real crossbow. The string movement thus takes less than double 10 milliseconds, call it 20. The string thus can make 50 trips per second, or 25 shots per second, or 150 shots per round.

Not, the string isn't fast enough for 9 shots a round, but "the string MAY not be fast enough for 150 shots per round". And that's deliberately picking an absurdly slow string speed.

The limiting factor is the fighter's speed, not the string movement when you loose, and the figher's fast, because that's part of what level 20 means for a fighter.

[Yorrin]

I hate to jump in on this morass, but I spotted an important point that hasn't been directly addressed:


But this feat doesn't invalidate the TWF rules. So those rules still apply. There's no need of referencing them because they always apply.
(emphasis mine)

This is why you're wrong, Shadow. Because they don't always apply. The TWF rules are not some sort of universal rule for when two weapons are involved. It's simply outlining a possible bonus action that can be taken under certain conditions. Those conditions (two light melee weapons) don't require you to use your bonus action to make an off-hand attack when you attack with your main hand, they simply allow it. Other things also allow you to take bonus actions when holding two light melee weapons, such as the rogue's cunning action or the fighter's second wind, etc. The crossbow expert feat outlining a similar, though different scenario in which two conditions are met:

1- one of your weapons is a one handed weapon and
2- you're wielding a hand crossbow.

There are three possible ways this can happen:

1- a one handed melee weapon and a hand crossbow
2- a one handed ranged weapon and a hand crossbow
3- or simply a single hand crossbow.

In any of these cases the feat allows you to take a bonus action after attacking to make an attack with the hand crossbow. This could be called a "crossbow expert bonus action" to distinguish it from a "TWF bonus action" if you like. At no point have you met the conditions for TWF (two light melee weapons) so the TWF rules couldn't apply even if you wanted them to. It's an entirely different action under entirely different conditions.

[obryn]

The link exists because you are fighting with two weapons, so the TWF rules apply.
[citation needed]

[EvilAnagram]

Hold on, I was just reading through my PHB and went to the index to look up TWF. There were two entries:


two-weapon fighting, 195
Two-Weapon Fighting (class feature), See under fighting styles

I think it's time for semantics.

The first entry leads to the rule about fighting with twoweapons and how it works in-game. The second is the Fighting Style, which is a specific named class feature.

The first one is not capitalized, which implies that it's not simply a specific named rule for a specific situation, but a general description of how fighting with two weapons works. It's not a specific way a gaining a bonus attack. Specific rules have names, and names are capitalized in Indexes. Of course, specific powers like Flurry of Blows and Frenzy overrule this because specific beats general.

Now we have the issue at hand: Crossbow Expert. Definitely a specific rule, definitely uses specific language, and definitely terribly written. Is it a modification to the general rules governing fighting with two weapons? Is it an entirely different rule? Could they have possibly done a poorer job writing this rule?

RAW: It's a specific rule that allows you to dual-wield crossbows or wield them alongside melee weapons, but you're still fighting with two weapons, so general two-weapon fighting rules that aren't specifically countermanded by the rule still apply. No ability modifier damage. Interestingly, it also bypasses the second benefit of the Dual Wielder feat.

RAI: They probably meant for it to be wielded with a melee weapon, but they wrote this feat really poorly.

[Typewriter]

No, I am seeing a link that others want to ignore.

If this was RAW it wouldn't be a matter of ignoring anything, it would be a matter of you pointing to rules and being able to prove a point. You have, from what I have seen up to this point, been unable to do so. No written rule (RAW) says what you say.


The link exists because you are fighting with two weapons, so the TWF rules apply. They don't need to specifically be mentioned because they are implicit in the situation. You are fighting with two wepaons. The TWF rules apply. Period.

You believe that's RAI and you have stated you would rule as such, as is your prerogative as DM at your table. That does not make it RAW, and again - you have not pointed to a rule that states things the way you want them to.

Quick couple questions - I don't have the book in front of me at the moment - What 'section' of the book is TWF in, and how does it phrase it's use? Does it say 'Any time you attack with two weapons in combat use these rules' or does it just say 'A character can attack with two weapons using the following rules? If the rules say 'any time' it would support your argument - it would create the link you currently lack between Crossbow Master and TWF.



You just don't want to see that because you want to gain a second ranged attack four full levels before anyone with the Extra Attack feature would gain one.

What I want to see has nothing to do with it, I'm discussing RAW. I am rarely a player and when I am I tend to avoid ranged characters (personal choice). As a DM what I have currently seen makes me think that RAW would allow such use of the feat. If a player asked for a ruling on it (at my table) I would probably allow it.

Further, attempting to argue an individuals (my own in this case apparently) intention in what you claim to be a conversation about RAW makes no sense.



The TWF rules exist for balance reasons.
There are no TWF rules for ranged attacks for balance reasons.
Ignoring balance is all that people attempting to TWF with xbows using this feat are trying to do.


Nobody is talking about the TWF rules besides you - you brought them up. The feat doesn't mention TWF and even if it did - specific tends to trump general does it not? The language of the feat is straight forward. Your concerns about balance are fair but many don't share them. Regardless it has nothing to do wit



And before you say that it isn't OP, a human getting this at 1st level will probably have a 16 Dex if he's going to be a ranged attacker.
That's a +5 to hit and a +3 to damage on a 1d6 weapon.
The average kobold (for example) has 5hp.
So the XbXpert, at level one, has a 66% chance to kill a mob on every hit, twice per round, every single round, from the relative safety of range.
At level one, that's pretty much the definition of OP.
Reading the TWF rules correctly in conjuntion with this feat, he has to get into melee for that opportunity, and even then the second shot needs almost max damage to kill a second kobold.
Just like the TWFer.
Balance.
Anyone that reads this to ignore the TWF rules is simply trying to munkin those TWF rules.

You can't prove your point from a RAW perspective so you attempt to rely on RAI under the mask of RAW. When this is pointed out you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a munchkin. Gotcha.

[Shadow]

RAW: It's a specific rule that allows you to dual-wield crossbows*** or wield them alongside melee weapons, but you're still fighting with two weapons, so general two-weapon fighting rules that aren't specifically countermanded by the rule still apply. No ability modifier damage. Interestingly, it also bypasses the second benefit of the Dual Wielder feat.

Exactly.
Thank you.
Although my argument is that the requirement for the main hand being a melee weapon hasn't been countermanded either (but I can see an argument for the opposing view). But beyond that, I'm glad that at least someone here sees reason.

[Typewriter]

Exactly.
Thank you.
Although my argument is that the requirement for the main hand being a melee weapon hasn't been countermanded either. But beyond that, I'm glad that at least someone here sees reason.

When you start defining people who see reason as only those who agree with you you're not really making a very good argument for yourself - quite the opposite in fact.

[Shadow]

When people claim that the two weapon fighting rules aren't applicable to fighting with two weapons, I cannot in good consience call them reasonable.

[obryn]

Now we have the issue at hand: Crossbow Expert. Definitely a specific rule, definitely uses specific language, and definitely terribly written. Is it a modification to the general rules governing fighting with two weapons? Is it an entirely different rule? Could they have possibly done a poorer job writing this rule?

RAW: It's a specific rule that allows you to dual-wield crossbows or wield them alongside melee weapons, but you're still fighting with two weapons, so general two-weapon fighting rules that aren't specifically countermanded by the rule still apply. No ability modifier damage. Interestingly, it also bypasses the second benefit of the Dual Wielder feat.

RAI: They probably meant for it to be wielded with a melee weapon, but they wrote this feat really poorly.
I think the wording is clear (though I'm not certain using the same hand crossbow for both the attack and bonus action is RAI).

I don't see any reason to believe the rules for two weapon fighting are relevant here. The TWF rules open up one specific option - a bonus action attack while you are wielding two light melee weapons. There is no indication that they are intended as a generalized rule which also applies to Crossbow Expert. (In fact, they would make Crossbow Expert impossible, since Crossbow Expert never refers to or lifts the TWF restrictions.)

[Shadow]

The TWF rules do not create any specific anything.
The TWF rules are guidelines for fighting with two weapons.

[obryn]

When people claim that the two weapon fighting rules aren't apllicable to fighting with two weapons, I cannot in good consience call them reasonable.
It's been explained several times why those rules do not and cannot apply here.

The TWF rules open up a specific option for all characters. Crossbow Expert opens up a different (though superficially similar) option for characters with the feat. The two are unrelated.


The TWF rules do not create any specific anything.
The TWF rules are guidelines for fighting with two weapons.
[citation needed]

[BRC]

Also, as Ranged Weapons go, Hand Crossbows are not that great. You get disadvantage if you are more than 30 feet away (AKA "The distance most enemies can cover and start smashing your face off in one round").

At best you might be able to buy an extra round by forcing your enemy to Dash to close the distance with you.

Now, it DOES open up quite a few nifty tactical options in terms of using terrain to your advantage, or spreading out your damage among multiple enemies without using movement, but unless you pick up Sharpshooter you don't really get the safety that normally comes with attacking from range, especially with 5e's increased focus on mobility.

It's certainly a good feat, one of the better ones (seeing as how it not only gives you the Hand Crossbow trick, but also makes Heavy Crossbows a viable, all-purpose primary weapon), but I don't think it's blisteringly overpowered.


The TWF rules do not create any specific anything.
The TWF rules are guidelines for fighting with two weapons.

Nope.

TWF rules say "Hey, here's something you can do with two weapons".
Every other feat/ability dealing with TWF specifically says "When Two Weapon Fighting, you can do X"

Crossbow Expert says "Hey, here's something you can do with two weapons". It is a separate use of the bonus action, just like a Rogue's cunning action, or the Eldritch Knight's ability to use their bonus action to make an attack when they cast a spell. When they want to modify TWF, they do so explicitly.

But I think we've already had this exact argument enough times that nobody is going to be convinced.

[Typewriter]

When people claim that the two weapon fighting rules aren't applicable to fighting with two weapons, I cannot in good consience call them reasonable.

You make claims but are unable to support them with writings from the book (no RAW). You draw conclusions (RAI/personal interpretation) and argue those under the guise of RAW. When people point out that it isn't RAW you call them munchkins looking to power game (as if everyone involved is arguing for personal gain, not just because they disagree with you) and/or unreasonable. Trying to converse with you is, at best, vaguely insulting.

[Demonic Spoon]

It seems like a pretty clear-cut case of "Specific beats general". The feat outlines everything you need to know about how dual-wielding with a hand crossbow in the offhand works. Two-weapon fighting is a general rule which is overridden by the specific rule for this feat.

Whether or not it is balanced is completely irrelevant to that point.

The short range of hand crossbows makes them not that great as ranged weapons. At best it lets you project your damage a bit, but you'll rarely be able to fire from safety. If it's overpowered, then it's overpowered because of variant humans getting it at level 1, not because the feat is strictly better than other feats.

[obryn]

The TWF rules do not create any specific anything.
The TWF rules are guidelines for fighting with two weapons.
In more detail, really read the rules on p195.

"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."

It's a very specific if-then statement. If you fit these criteria, you can X.

This is only a general rule in the sense that anyone can do it. It's not a rule for all circumstances under which you are attacking with two weapons.

The rule for crossbow expert is similar but unrelated. It gives its own if-then statement. If it had said, "You can use a hand crossbow in your other hand when two-weapon fighting," that'd be a different story.

[EvilAnagram]

I think the wording is clear (though I'm not certain using the same hand crossbow for both the attack and bonus action is RAI).

I don't see any reason to believe the rules for two weapon fighting are relevant here. The TWF rules open up one specific option - a bonus action attack while you are wielding two light melee weapons. There is no indication that they are intended as a generalized rule which also applies to Crossbow Expert. (In fact, they would make Crossbow Expert impossible, since Crossbow Expert never refers to or lifts the TWF restrictions.)

My argument would be that two-weapon fighting is not a specific rule that gives you a specific option in a specific situation. In the index and in the feats and class features that reference it, it is never capitalized, so it seems less like a specific rule and more like the general guidelines that one follows when wielding two weapons. Without feats or class features, we're limited to light weapons and no ability modifier bonus to the bonus attack. Dual Wielder and Two-Weapon Fighting modify these rules and are much more clearly written than Crossbow Expert, but they do not set up brand new ways to fight.

Crossbow Expert, like Dual Wielder, provides you with another option for using two weapons in combat. This time, you're using crossbows instead of melee weapons. It's a simple modification of the rules for wielding two weapons.

Remember, the only upper-case TWF is the Fighting Style. The normal rules for two-weapon fighting are general rules, not specific ones, and they apply when you're fighting with two weapons unless they're specifically countered by the text in the specific rule. So, Crossbow Expert let's you use any one-handed weapon to trigger the bonus attack, and it let's you use a crossbow for the bonus attack, but it says nothing about the ability modifier damage. Therefore, you have more options for the weapons you use, but you do not get to use your ability modifier for the bonus damage.

[obryn]

My argument would be that two-weapon fighting is not a specific rule that gives you a specific option in a specific situation.
It's a general option with specific requirements and effects.

It's general in that anyone can use it, from Fighters to Wizards. Its wording is exactingly specific, though, with a simple and strict if-then wording and specific benefits for those cases.

Just because it's a combat option that anyone can use doesn't mean it's a generalized rule applicable to all instances of two weapons being used simultaneously.

[Shadow]

It's a general option with specific requirements and effects.

It's general in that anyone can use it, from Fighters to Wizards. Its wording is exactingly specific, though, with a simple and strict if-then wording and specific benefits for those cases.

Just because it's a combat option that anyone can use doesn't mean it's a generalized rule applicable to all instances of two weapons being used simultaneously.

[citation needed]

[Jacob.Tyr]

[citation needed]

Coast, Wizards Of The. Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook (dungeons & Dragons Core Rulebooks). S.l.: Wizards Of The Coast, 2014. Print.

[obryn]

[citation needed]
I'm tempted to say "I asked you first" but sure. You have to go next, though. :smallbiggrin:

My citation is the wording of the Two-Weapon Fighting text, p. 196 of the PHB. And the wording of the Crossbow Expert feat on p. 165.

Both are clear and specific self-contained if-then statements (or technically when...can statements) and I am using no other sources in my arguments, nor making any inferences outside the text.

e: Now it's your turn. I am particularly interested in how the restrictions of Two-Weapon Fighting are supposed to be modified by the text of the Crossbow Expert feat despite never mentioning those rules. For fun, please compare/contrast the text of the Dual Wielder feat.

[UHF]

I've always had a bit of an issue with this, but you don't need to be too flashy to make it work. The real question is whether it is unbalanced, and I don't think it is.

Hooks on Belt to shove the bow string against, and load the string with one hand, that would work and be fast. Loading bolts would be hard to do fast, maybe put the bolts on bracers. (Say, 10 arrayed around each bracer). Possibly have bolts clipped around the thigh.

In reality, you'd probably shoot everyone around you by accident when your manual dexterity failed. If you were wanting to balance fantasy with reality, you might have a 1 represent a miss fire which hits the nearest friendly with a bolt for base damage since its not aimed (1D6 Piercing). If no one else is near you, you shoot yourself in the... foot. That might balance against the extra advantage others here have complained about.

[Shadow]

IMy citation is the wording of the Two-Weapon Fighting text, p. 196 of the PHB. And the wording of the Crossbow Expert feat on p. 165.

Both are clear and specific self-contained if-then statements (or technically when...can statements) and I am using no other sources in my arguments, nor making any inferences outside the text.

Funny. Those were the exact same citations I was going to use. :amused:

[Jacob.Tyr]

I feel like I've seen the relevant rules posted in here enough times at this point to say... we probably don't need to keep citing things. Especially when those things are interpretations of RAW, conjectures on RAI, and personal ruling inclinations.

This thread was over days ago, lets go back to debating whether or not Casters are OP, if the sun stops shining on things when you put on a hat, and if human variant should be allowed.

[obryn]

Funny. Those were the exact same citations I was going to use. :amused:
OK. I helpfully added some discussion points you can use, but I'm sure it was after you started your reply, if you want to look back.

[EvilAnagram]

Just because it's a combat option that anyone can use doesn't mean it's a generalized rule applicable to all instances of two weapons being used simultaneously.

Except most specific combat options are capitalized. Dash, Hide, and Attack actions are capitalized because they're specific options that anyone can utilize. In contrast, grappling and two-weapon fighting are not capitalized because they are general rules (which can be altered by feats and class features) that govern non-traditional fighting styles available to players. The only thing tripping people up here is the fact that Crossbow Expert is so poorly worded.

That said, I understand the where your reading comes from, and I'm not terribly upset that we disagree.

[Sartharina]

[citation needed](Mearls et All. Player's Handbook)

The citations support Obryn, though, not Shadow and EvilAnagram.

Two Weapon fighting is a General Rule anyone can use, like shoving, opportunity attacks, and grappling. Those terms are likewise not capitalized in the index. So, saying the Crossbow Mastery feat invokes the Two Weapon Fighting rules is like demanding that the monk Way of the Open Hand knockback option when using Flurry of Blows needs to reference the shove action's rules, that a Fighter using Trip Attack needs to reference the shove action's rules, that a Druid casting entangle or Wizard casting web need to reference the grappling rules. Or a Battlemaster must reference the Opportunity Attack rules to make a Riposte.
Except most specific combat options are capitalized. Dash, Hide, and Attack actions are capitalized because they're specific options that anyone can utilize. In contrast, grappling and two-weapon fighting are not capitalized because they are general rules (which can be altered by feats and class features) that govern non-traditional fighting styles available to players. The only thing tripping people up here is the fact that Crossbow Expert is so poorly worded.
Those are specific Actions you can take. Shoving and Grappling are options you can use in combat (In the exact same section as Two Weapon Fighting), and are NOT capitalized.

Actions are captilized. Options are not. Two Weapon Fighting is an option available when wielding two Light Melee weapons.

Crossbow Master is NOT poorly worded. It's only interpreted as such by people trying to twist it to mean something it doesn't.

[BRC]

One thing to consider is that the idea of an "off-Hand attack" does not really exist in 5e, just Attacks made with the Attack Action, and attacks made with a bonus action from TWF/Crossbow Expert, with special rules governing the bonus action.

If you read Crossbow Expert as modifying the TWF rules, an argument could be made that doing so supports Dual-wielding hand crossbows anyway.

We're getting into RAW shenanigans, for a reading of the rules I don't agree with, but bear with me here.

TWF says "If you make an attack with a one-handed light melee weapon, you may make a bonus attack with a second one-handed light melee weapon in your other hand. Do not add your ability modifier to damage with the second attack."
Under TWF rules, Weapon A is a light one handed weapon, Weapon B is a light one handed weapon.
Crossbow Expert says: "If you make an attack with a one handed weapon, you may make a bonus attack with a hand crossbow (in your other hand? AFB so I can't be sure if it specifies the other hand)"
Under Crossbow Expert rules, Weapon A is a one handed weapon, Weapon B is a hand crossbow.
For comparison, let's look at the TWF feat, where Weapon A is a one handed melee weapon, and Weapon B is a one handed melee weapon.

I believe we all agree that the TWF feat modifies the two weapon fighting rules, replacing weapons A and B.

Now, if you assume that Crossbow Expert modifies the TWF rules, then you must ALSO assume that BOTH parts of Crossbow Expert (Attack with a one handed weapon AND bonus attack with a hand crossbow) are imported into the "New" TWF rules. Crossbow Expert Redefines Weapons A and B, just like the TWF feat does.

Crossbow Expert specifies a one-handed weapon, and a Hand Crossbow. Whether or not you think this is a modification of the TWF rules, there is no way to argue that ONLY the Hand Crossbow bonus action matters. (You can argue RAI, but that's a different story altogether).

[obryn]

So here's some compare-and-contrast.

Here's Two-Weapon Fighting, as cited above.
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."

Here's Crossbow Expert.
"When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."

Here's Dual Wielder.
"You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light."

Dual Wielder specifically references the two-weapon fighting rules. Crossbow Expert doesn't. So we have an example and a counter-example. I don't know how it could be clearer.

[Sartharina]

I believe we all agree that the TWF feat modifies the two weapon fighting rules, replacing weapons A and B.I disagree that it 'replaces' weapons A and B. It removes a restriction from two weapon fighting, but fully invokes Two Weapon Fighting. Crossbow Master doesn't reference two weapon fighting at all. If it did, then Crossbow Master would say "You can use Two-Weapon Fighting to make an attack with a Light Crossbow", which it doesn't. Crossbow master completely bypasses the two-weapon fighting rules in the same way a Monk's Flurry, an Eldritch Knight's War Magic, War Priest, and Great Weapon Master's Cleave allow bonus action attacks as well.

[obryn]

I disagree that it 'replaces' weapons A and B. It removes a restriction from two weapon fighting, but fully invokes Two Weapon Fighting. Crossbow Master doesn't reference two weapon fighting at all. If it did, then Crossbow Master would say "You can use Two-Weapon Fighting to make an attack with a Light Crossbow", which it doesn't. Crossbow master completely bypasses the two-weapon fighting rules in the same way a Monk's Flurry, an Eldritch Knight's War Magic, War Priest, and Great Weapon Master's Cleave allow bonus action attacks as well.
Yes, exactly. Good comparisons; all are conditional self-contained bonus actions.

And yes, if Crossbow Expert said, "You may use two-weapon fighting even when the [or one of the] one-handed weapons are ranged," it'd be an entirely different story. (It's also arguable that something like this would have been better wording for the feat, but that's not what we're here about.)

[Z3ro]

Here's Dual Wielder.
"You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light."

Dual Wielder specifically references the two-weapon fighting rules. Crossbow Expert doesn't. So we have an example and a counter-example. I don't know how it could be clearer.

To piggy back off this, look a little closer at the rule here: you can us two weapon fighting even..., which reads pretty clearly to me - you can't use TWF if you aren't using two light weapons, unlike in other additions where you could, but received penalties.

Add to that crossbow expert; it mentions taking a bonus action, but nothing in the feat explicitly removes the requirement of two light melee weapons for TWF. If shadow feels that TWF rules apply whenever a character wields two different weapons, then by RAW you can't use crossbow expert to fire a hand-crossbow with a melee weapon; nothing in the feat removes the TWF requirement of wielding two melee weapons. I suppose a four-armed race could use it.

[BRC]

I disagree that it 'replaces' weapons A and B. It removes a restriction from two weapon fighting, but fully invokes Two Weapon Fighting. Crossbow Master doesn't reference two weapon fighting at all. If it did, then Crossbow Master would say "You can use Two-Weapon Fighting to make an attack with a Light Crossbow", which it doesn't. Crossbow master completely bypasses the two-weapon fighting rules in the same way a Monk's Flurry, an Eldritch Knight's War Magic, War Priest, and Great Weapon Master's Cleave allow bonus action attacks as well.

I agree.

But, if you assume that Crossbow Expert DOES modify Two Weapon Fighting, it would be erroneous to only apply PART of the text (The part about taking a bonus attack with the hand crossbow), without also applying the first part (Attacking with a one handed weapon). Therefore, even if you DO say Crossbow Expert modifies TWF, double crossbows is still valid.

[Chubbs Malone]

Crossbow Expert
• You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
• Being within 5 feet o f a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
• When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.


There is a huge part of this people are overlooking. Two-Weapon fighting is a general rule, made to govern anything involving combat with a weapon in each hand. The key word being general.

YES, you can hold a 1-handed weapon in each hand with no problem (Longswords, Hand Crossbows, Warhammers, etc), but in order for you to make an off-hand attack they would both need to be light melee weapons.

Now, look closely at the Crossbow Expert feat. This is a SPECIFIC rule which governs combat with crossbows of any kind. It specifically states, "When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."

My Rogue uses a Hand Crossbow in his right hand, and makes an attack (which is completely RAW and meets the definition of onehanded weapon, what he is holding in his left hand does not matter). I also happen to be holding a loaded Hand Crossbow in my left hand. The Feat states you can use your bonus action to attack with a loaded crossbow you are holding, i.e. the loaded hand crossbow in my left hand. Without the feat this WOULD BE ILLEGAL, because TWF states you cannot make the second attack unless it is a light melee weapon. This SPECIFIC rule overalls the GENERAL rule of TWF and states, "you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding".

i.e. it amends TWF for hand crossbows and removes the prerequisite that you need a light melee weapon in your main hand . You could attack with a longsword in your mainhand and then with the loaded hand crossbow in your offhand; or you could attack with a handcross bow in your mainhand and then with a loaded handcross crossbow in your offhand.

[DrLemniscate]

i.e. it amends TWF for hand crossbows and removes the prerequisite that you need a light melee weapon in your main hand . You could attack with a longsword in your mainhand and then with the loaded hand crossbow in your offhand; or you could attack with a handcross bow in your mainhand and then with a loaded handcross crossbow in your offhand.

It does more than that. It doesn't mention Two-Weapon Fighting at all, so the bonus attack still gets all your damage modifiers.

[MeeposFire]

Crossbow Expert
• You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
• Being within 5 feet o f a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
• When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.


There is a huge part of this people are overlooking. Two-Weapon fighting is a general rule, made to govern anything involving combat with a weapon in each hand. The key word being general.

YES, you can hold a 1-handed weapon in each hand with no problem (Longswords, Hand Crossbows, Warhammers, etc), but in order for you to make an off-hand attack they would both need to be light melee weapons.

Now, look closely at the Crossbow Expert feat. This is a SPECIFIC rule which governs combat with crossbows of any kind. It specifically states, "When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."

My Rogue uses a Hand Crossbow in his right hand, and makes an attack (which is completely RAW and meets the definition of onehanded weapon, what he is holding in his left hand does not matter). I also happen to be holding a loaded Hand Crossbow in my left hand. The Feat states you can use your bonus action to attack with a loaded crossbow you are holding, i.e. the loaded hand crossbow in my left hand. Without the feat this WOULD BE ILLEGAL, because TWF states you cannot make the second attack unless it is a light melee weapon. This SPECIFIC rule overalls the GENERAL rule of TWF and states, "you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding".

i.e. it amends TWF for hand crossbows and removes the prerequisite that you need a light melee weapon in your main hand . You could attack with a longsword in your mainhand and then with the loaded hand crossbow in your offhand; or you could attack with a handcross bow in your mainhand and then with a loaded handcross crossbow in your offhand.

Simplify this whole thing even more.

Just wield ONE hand crossbow and nothing else.

No sword no 2nd crossbow nothing.

With just the one hand crossbow you are able to use an attack action with a one handed weapon and thus use your bonus action to attack again. IN other words you can utilize this feat just fine whether you use one crossbow or two. The only reason to use 2 hand crossbows is for the coolness factor it is actually more powerful to just wield one (you are more likely to have one magic weapon than two).

That is why this whole conversation about TWF is silly because we don't need it whatsoever. The dual hand crossbows are cosmetic not powerful.

[VoxRationis]

Eh, why? What's so unbelievable that a skilled crossbow-slinger could quickly reload in a game where dragons are real? I'm not understanding the dividing line.

I can picture all sorts of ways for this to work - from special belt attachments, to quick finger maneuvers, to specially-designed crossbows, or whatever. There's no need to get blastery.

And frankly, I love a heaping dose of cinematic in my D&D. If wizards can cast reality-altering spells and we don't stop to ask how, there's no point to worrying about how a rogue reloads a little crossbow.

OH MY GOD!!!!!!
I have had it up to HERE with the fallacious "We have X fantasy element, therefore all things are possible!" argument. The presence of one or more fantasy elements does not inherently remove restrictions from other aspects of the setting or system. If the presence of dragons makes it so that all things are equally valid for you, why are you playing an RPG with rules? The rules aren't necessary at all, since clearly everything is possible and the restrictions imposed by the rules are therefore clearly invalid. If you want to play a children's game of make-believe, where disputes become a shouting match of "no, Mr. Awesomeknight can leap INFINITY distance!", go do that. Stop insisting that such a mentality infect an adult's game.

[obryn]

OH MY GOD!!!!!!
I have had it up to HERE with the fallacious "We have X fantasy element, therefore all things are possible!" argument. The presence of one or more fantasy elements does not inherently remove restrictions from other aspects of the setting or system. If the presence of dragons makes it so that all things are equally valid for you, why are you playing an RPG with rules? The rules aren't necessary at all, since clearly everything is possible and the restrictions imposed by the rules are therefore clearly invalid. If you want to play a children's game of make-believe, where disputes become a shouting match of "no, Mr. Awesomeknight can leap INFINITY distance!", go do that. Stop insisting that such a mentality infect an adult's game.
Whoa, there, Tiger.

I think you hit some kind of slippery slope and fell all the way to the bottom. :smallsmile:

[BRC]

Now, here is a tricky question.
Do you need two hand crossbows? The feat is vaguely worded

Consider

• When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.

Now, "Loaded" is not an official state of being in the game rules. Loading weapons can only be fired once a round, but they are never considered "Loaded" or "Unloaded", and this feat lets you ignore the Loading quality.

Reading between the lines, we can assume that a Crossbow is Loaded if it has not been fired that turn, and Unloaded if it has. Crossbow Expert says you Ignore the Loading property. By RAW, that just means that you can attack with a crossbow more than once in a round.

So, if I have Crossbow Expert, and multiple attacks. When I make my first attack, is my hand crossbow now "Unloaded", and Crossbow Expert lets me ignore that and make a second attack anyway? Or is my Hand Crossbow instantly Reloaded (This is what's happening fluff-wise, but RAW cares not for fluff. By RAW, there is no Loaded, Unloaded, or Reloaded. There is only the Loading quality).

By one RAW interpretation, You can make an attack with a hand crossbow, then make a bonus attack with the Same Hand Crossbow, since it is a Loaded Hand Crossbow you are holding (Even though "Loaded" and "Unloaded" don't exist anywhere else in the rules).

[Chubbs Malone]

Simplify this whole thing even more.

Just wield ONE hand crossbow and nothing else.

No sword no 2nd crossbow nothing.

With just the one hand crossbow you are able to use an attack action with a one handed weapon and thus use your bonus action to attack again. IN other words you can utilize this feat just fine whether you use one crossbow or two. The only reason to use 2 hand crossbows is for the coolness factor it is actually more powerful to just wield one (you are more likely to have one magic weapon than two).

That is why this whole conversation about TWF is silly because we don't need it whatsoever. The dual hand crossbows are cosmetic not powerful.

The feat says "loaded hand crossbow you are holding". If you are only holding 1 crossbow and you shoot it, it is no longer loaded and the feat wouldn't apply.

[obryn]

There is a huge part of this people are overlooking. Two-Weapon fighting is a general rule, made to govern anything involving combat with a weapon in each hand. The key word being general.
...
i.e. it amends TWF for hand crossbows and removes the prerequisite that you need a light melee weapon in your main hand . You could attack with a longsword in your mainhand and then with the loaded hand crossbow in your offhand; or you could attack with a handcross bow in your mainhand and then with a loaded handcross crossbow in your offhand.
That's the same argument Shadow is making, more or less. The same counter-arguments apply.

Specifically (1) there's no reason to believe Two-Weapon Fighting governs all situations where you have a weapon in each hand, and (2) Crossbow Expert gives a really specific when you...you can structure that lays out a new bonus action you get access to. (Contrast the Dual Wielder feat for an example of how it would look if you were modifying Two-Weapon Fighting.)


The feat says "loaded hand crossbow you are holding". If you are only holding 1 crossbow and you shoot it, it is no longer loaded and the feat wouldn't apply.
But it no longer has the Loading property, and you can do non-actions between any attacks you are entitled to. For example, if you're wielding two light melee weapons, you can move between those attacks. I can't see an argument where it's okay to move between attacks but not (e.g.) nock a new arrow to a bow.

e: On the other hand, I can see an argument that you no longer qualify for the bonus action at the instant when you check the conditions. A similar point would be (1) attacking with a light weapon, (2) drawing your other weapon, and (3) claiming the bonus action for two-weapon fighting. I think it'd be fair to say this isn't kosher, since you didn't check all the boxes to qualify for your TWF attack.

So I think disallowing Crossbow Expert's bonus action when firing one hand crossbow is a reasonable reading.

[MeeposFire]

Now, here is a tricky question.
Do you need two hand crossbows? The feat is vaguely worded

Consider

• When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.

Now, "Loaded" is not an official state of being in the game rules. Loading weapons can only be fired once a round, but they are never considered "Loaded" or "Unloaded", and this feat lets you ignore the Loading quality.

Reading between the lines, we can assume that a Crossbow is Loaded if it has not been fired that turn, and Unloaded if it has. Crossbow Expert says you Ignore the Loading property. By RAW, that just means that you can attack with a crossbow more than once in a round.

So, if I have Crossbow Expert, and multiple attacks. When I make my first attack, is my hand crossbow now "Unloaded", and Crossbow Expert lets me ignore that and make a second attack anyway? Or is my Hand Crossbow instantly Reloaded (This is what's happening fluff-wise, but RAW cares not for fluff. By RAW, there is no Loaded, Unloaded, or Reloaded. There is only the Loading quality).

By one RAW interpretation, You can make an attack with a hand crossbow, then make a bonus attack with the Same Hand Crossbow, since it is a Loaded Hand Crossbow you are holding (Even though "Loaded" and "Unloaded" don't exist anywhere else in the rules).

Well the feat does not specify the exact timing of when it is being loaded except that it has to be loaded before you fire the bonus action shot (which makes sense you can't fire a weapon with no ammo).

Attack action fire your shots, load the crossbow, crossbow is now loaded and it is before you took your bonus action, fire your hand crossbow as a bonus action.

[Chubbs Malone]

Bottom line, if you have this feat you can take the attack action with your main hand crossbow, then shoot with your off-hand crossbow if it's loaded.

The real debate people should be having is over "what is loaded"? As others have mentioned, this is extremely murky territory considering the feat also states you ignore loading properties.

[VoxRationis]

Whoa, there, Tiger.

I think you hit some kind of slippery slope and fell all the way to the bottom. :smallsmile:

The person who thinks that the presence of dragons automatically makes all concerns about logistics or plausibility invalid thinks I've gone off the slippery slope? You don't get to be smug about some sort of rhetorical high ground here.

[Xetheral]

I disagree with the idea that the two-weapon fighting text on page 195 contains general rules meant to govern whenever someone is fighting with two weapons. Instead, it appears to be specific text that applies only to characters seeking to take advantage of the bonus action attack those rules permit. Consider:

1. A Fighter 6/Rogue 2 with no feats is wielding a rapier and a hand-crossbow. She uses her bonus action to dash, moves up to an opponent in melee, then takes the Attack Action. With her first attack she hits and kills the melee opponent with the rapier. With her Extra Attack she fires the hand-crossbow at a nearby opponent.

2. A single-classed Cleric with the War Domain and no feats is wielding two hand-crossbows. He takes the Attack Action, shooting one of the hand-crossbows, hitting and killing it. He then invokes his War Priest ability to make a bonus action attack. Because this is a separate action, the loading property would not prevent him from firing the first hand-crossbow again, but for whatever reason (e.g. style, differing enchantments) he elects instead to fire the second hand-crossbow.

These two examples show characters using two weapons without trying to take advantage of the bonus action attack allowed by the rules on page 195. In both cases use of that bonus action attack is actually forbidden, because (at least) the weapon used in the Attack Action wasn’t a light melee weapon. Would anyone nonetheless argue that the two-weapon fighting text on page 195 prevents either character from acting as described, or limit application of their dex bonus to damage?

[MeeposFire]

Bottom line, if you have this feat you can take the attack action with your main hand crossbow, then shoot with your off-hand crossbow if it's loaded.

The real debate people should be having is over "what is loaded"? As others have mentioned, this is extremely murky territory considering the feat also states you ignore loading properties.

Actually as far as I can tell the feat never mentions anything about which hand the crossbow is in. The feat does not seem to care at all. There is nor eason the crossbow could not be in the main hand for instance and be the main weapon.

I also think the loading issue is mostly superfluous since with the removal of action cost from reloading means you can reload at any time which of course means between attacks. You can't fire a crossbow that is not loaded (unless it has magical ammo or something). Think of a fighter using a crossbow and has 4 attacks per attack action. He needs to reload between every shot which is no different than when you have to make a shot using your bonus action. You just need to load your crossbow before you take the shot (which should be obvious as you need ammo to shoot).

[obryn]

The person who thinks that the presence of dragons automatically makes all concerns about logistics or plausibility invalid thinks I've gone off the slippery slope? You don't get to be smug about some sort of rhetorical high ground here.
You said,

why are you playing an RPG with rules? The rules aren't necessary at all, since clearly everything is possible and the restrictions imposed by the rules are therefore clearly invalid. If you want to play a children's game of make-believe, where disputes become a shouting match of "no, Mr. Awesomeknight can leap INFINITY distance!"
...in response to...

I can picture all sorts of ways for this to work - from special belt attachments, to quick finger maneuvers, to specially-designed crossbows, or whatever. There's no need to get blastery.

And frankly, I love a heaping dose of cinematic in my D&D. If wizards can cast reality-altering spells and we don't stop to ask how, there's no point to worrying about how a rogue reloads a little crossbow.
Which ... yeah, I am claiming some sort of rhetorical high ground. And feeling smug about it.

[MeeposFire]

Also remember that you can do things like move in between attacks so it is perfectly normal to do actions between attacks including bonus action attacks so there should be plenty of time to reload the hand crossbow before you decide to shoot it.

[BRC]

Bottom line, if you have this feat you can take the attack action with your main hand crossbow, then shoot with your off-hand crossbow if it's loaded.

The real debate people should be having is over "what is loaded"? As others have mentioned, this is extremely murky territory considering the feat also states you ignore loading properties.
AND is the only place in the rules that mentions "Loaded". The only time whether or not a crossbow is loaded matters, comes with the feat that says you ignore the Loading property.


The person who thinks that the presence of dragons automatically makes all concerns about logistics or plausibility invalid thinks I've gone off the slippery slope? You don't get to be smug about some sort of rhetorical high ground here.
This isn't "Dragons Exist therefore No Physics".
This is "The rules clearly intend to allow X, therefore it's not a stretch to say they allow Y".

If you have multiple attacks, Crossbow Expert, and a Hand crossbow in one hand, and a Sword in the other. You can:
Attack with your sword twice, and make a bonus attack with your Hand Crossbow, and then do the same next round without dropping your sword or crossbow.

Attack with your hand crossbow twice, don't attack with your sword, and do the same next round without dropping your sword or crossbow.

Everybody accepts this.

Physically speaking, reloading a hand crossbow while holding a sword is just as impossible as reloading a hand crossbow while holding another hand crossbow.

It's just that somebody with a sword-and-crossbow seems less silly than somebody with two hand crossbows.

If you ban two hand crossbows, then you either have to ban sword-and-crossbow, OR explain how a character can reload a crossbow with a sword in their hand, but not with another crossbow in their hand.

[VoxRationis]

No, actually, I said that in response to:


Eh, why? What's so unbelievable that a skilled crossbow-slinger could quickly reload in a game where dragons are real? I'm not understanding the dividing line.

Because clearly, a large flying reptile's very existence alleviates the need to have two hands to load a crossbow.

[Z3ro]

e: On the other hand, I can see an argument that you no longer qualify for the bonus action at the instant when you check the conditions. A similar point would be (1) attacking with a light weapon, (2) drawing your other weapon, and (3) claiming the bonus action for two-weapon fighting. I think it'd be fair to say this isn't kosher, since you didn't check all the boxes to qualify for your TWF attack.

So I think disallowing Crossbow Expert's bonus action when firing one hand crossbow is a reasonable reading.

Disagree; the feat never specifies when to check if the crossbow is loaded. It simply says if you use a one-handed weapon, you get a bonus action with a loaded hand crossbow. So the sequence is this: fire hand crossbow (fulfilling the first part), load hand crossbow, fire again (as you are now holding a loaded hand crossbow). I don't see any ambiguity.

[obryn]

No, actually, I said that in response to:

Because clearly, a large flying reptile's very existence alleviates the need to have two hands to load a crossbow.
Nope. The rogue being awesome with crossbows alleviates the need to have two hands to load a hand crossbow. As would a number of mechanisms I suggested, if you can't handle it.

Just like a fighter being awesome lets them attack 8 times with a heavy crossbow in 1 round at 20th level, with the same feat.

You were asserting that somehow this means I shouldn't want any rules for the game which is the opposite of the point I was making. My point is that the game's rules allow it, and generally stuff the rules allow should be plaubsility-checked against the rest of the game's rules. Otherwise, yeah, you do run into "which is more plausible, conjuring fire or loading a crossbow real fast?"


Disagree; the feat never specifies when to check if the crossbow is loaded. It simply says if you use a one-handed weapon, you get a bonus action with a loaded hand crossbow. So the sequence is this: fire hand crossbow (fulfilling the first part), load hand crossbow, fire again (as you are now holding a loaded hand crossbow). I don't see any ambiguity.
I can see that argument, too.

I'm saying that I don't find this specific argument wrong from the get-go, like I do any comparisons between Crossbow Expert and TWF. I think on this part it's possible for reasonable people to disagree.

[EvilAnagram]

That's the same argument Shadow is making, more or less. The same counter-arguments apply.

Specifically (1) there's no reason to believe Two-Weapon Fighting governs all situations where you have a weapon in each hand, and (2) Crossbow Expert gives a really specific when you...you can structure that lays out a new bonus action you get access to. (Contrast the Dual Wielder feat for an example of how it would look if you were modifying Two-Weapon Fighting.)
The reason to believe this is that it's a general rule that details the limits and capabilities characters have with regards to wielding two weapons. Really, that's the only question that matters. Does the Twf section apply to wielding two weapons, or is it a specific rule that gives you a specific action to take as a bonus action?

Obviously, we're in disagreement over this because we can't agree on the semantic basis of our discussion.

Because semantics are important!

[Chubbs Malone]

People also seem to forget that loading or drawing a weapon is considered part of the Attack action.

Example: a 5th level fighter wielding a Longbow is granted (2) attacks

Attack #1: draw an arrow and shoot
Attack #2: draw an arrow and shoot

The fighter is not limited to only shooting the bow once, he can load and shoot with each Attack.

To take this example further, a fighter with the Crossbow Expert Feat, ignores the general crossbow loading feature, so:

Attack #1: load a bolt and shoot
Attack #2: load a bolt and shoot

[MeeposFire]

People also seem to forget that loading or drawing a weapon is considered part of the Attack action.

Example: a 5th level fighter wielding a Longbow is granted (2) attacks

Attack #1: draw an arrow and shoot
Attack #2: draw an arrow and shoot

The fighter is not limited to only shooting the bow once, he can load and shoot with each Attack.

To take this example further, a fighter with the Crossbow Expert Feat, ignores the general crossbow loading feature, so:

Attack #1: load a bolt and shoot
Attack #2: load a bolt and shoot

Actually it is probably

Attack 1- shoot and then load a bolt
Attack 2- shoot and load a bolt

with a crossbow you probably should have it loaded and ready to go whenever possible in hostile territory.

[Xetheral]

The reason to believe this is that it's a general rule that details the limits and capabilities characters have with regards to wielding two weapons. Really, that's the only question that matters. Does the Twf section apply to wielding two weapons, or is it a specific rule that gives you a specific action to take as a bonus action?

EvilAnagram, would you apply the two-weapon fighting requirements on page 195 to the two examples I described above?

[Chubbs Malone]

Actually it is probably

Attack 1- shoot and then load a bolt
Attack 2- shoot and load a bolt

with a crossbow you probably should have it loaded and ready to go whenever possible in hostile territory.

Either option works, that's the point!

[Shadow]

Either option works, that's the point!

Actually, it doesn't.
The second attack never happens.
The text reads that you can make an attack with a loaded crossbow. In order for the attack to happen, it needs to be loaded.
Attack 1: load and shoot a crossbow.
Attack 2: Cannot attack, because the crossbow is not loaded. Until you take the attack, it is not loaded. So the fact that it needs to be loaded to make the attack disallows the action which will load it.
You can't attack with it unless it is loaded, so you're trying to use an action that you don't get to load it to fulfil the requirements to get the action.
It's a paradox.

[Chubbs Malone]

Actually, it doesn't.
The second attack never happens.
The text reads that you can make an attack with a loaded crossbow. In order for the attack to happen, it needs to be loaded.
Attack 1: load and shoot a crossbow.
Attack 2: Cannot attack, because the crossbow is not loaded. Until you take the attack, it is not loaded. So the fact that it needs to be loaded to make the attack disallows the action which will load it.

{Scrubbed} the example being discussed was for anyone with two-attacks, such as a fighter.

I'm glad to see you've accepted that dual wielding hand crossbows is RAW.

[Shadow]

I haven't.

[Chubbs Malone]

I haven't.

Well you're wrong, simple as that.

[Chubbs Malone]

I haven't.

Taking this feat means you could be wielding a rapier, longsword, warhammer, flail, mace, hand crossbow, axe, or any other onehanded weapon. It doesn't say melee onehanded weapon or light onehanded weapon, it says onehanded weapon. I hope that is abundantly clear.

As long as the weapon you are attacking with is a onehanded weapon you are allowed to shoot with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.

How is that not RAW? Feats are the perfect example of SPECIFIC BEATS GENERAL.

[EvilAnagram]

Just like a fighter being awesome lets them attack 8 times with a heavy crossbow in 1 round at 20th level, with the same feat.

Oh, gods, do we have to bring this nonsense up again? I don't care if it works by RAW, moving at Flash-level speeds, but only when loading crossbows is ridiculous. It's like having super strength, but only when tying your shoes.

This feat is mess, and there's a good chance I'll forbid it at the table. At the very least I'd HR it so that instead of dropping the loaded quality you get +1 DEX.

[Demonic Spoon]

You can only take a bonus action to fire if the weapon you're attacking with is one-handed.

Heavy crossbows are two-handed. You could do that with a hand crossbow, but while that is some extremely fast loading, it's not quite out of the realm of believability for a 20th-level fighter.

[EvilAnagram]

EvilAnagram, would you apply the two-weapon fighting requirements on page 195 to the two examples I described above?

I dunno. Didn't read them. Let's see:


1. A Fighter 6/Rogue 2 with no feats is wielding a rapier and a hand-crossbow. She uses her bonus action to dash, moves up to an opponent in melee, then takes the Attack Action. With her first attack she hits and kills the melee opponent with the rapier. With her Extra Attack she fires the hand-crossbow at a nearby opponent.

Obviously not. The twin weapon fighting rules are there to allow you to attack with your offhand weapon as a bonus action and set limits to when you may do this. This is obviously a case where a fighter is using the Extra Attack and does not need to use a bonus action. Beyond that, it doesn't meet the criteria for twin weapon fighting because one of the weapons wasn't light melee. The rules for twin weapon fighting are there for people attempting to utilize their two melee weapons in tandem without having to use up Extra Attacks. Or, in the case of Crossbow Expert, use their hand crossbows in tandem without having to use Extra Attacks.


2. A single-classed Cleric with the War Domain and no feats is wielding two hand-crossbows. He takes the Attack Action, shooting one of the hand-crossbows, hitting and killing it. He then invokes his War Priest ability to make a bonus action attack. Because this is a separate action, the loading property would not prevent him from firing the first hand-crossbow again, but for whatever reason (e.g. style, differing enchantments) he elects instead to fire the second hand-crossbow.
Well, first of all, he couldn't use that crossbow again this turn because of the loading quality. Second, again, no because he has a class feature that allows him to act as he does.

At no point have I claimed that specific rules don't trump general rules. What I'm saying is that general rules still apply when they're not explicitly countermanded.

[Xetheral]

Well, first of all, he couldn't use that crossbow again this turn because of the loading quality. Second, again, no because he has a class feature that allows him to act as he does.

At no point have I claimed that specific rules don't trump general rules. What I'm saying is that general rules still apply when they're not explicitly countermanded.

(The loading quality lets a weapon be used once per action, bonus action, or reaction, rather than once per turn. So a War Priest bonus action attack would allow a second shot with a weapon with the loading property.)

Why do you see War Priest bonus action attack as an exception to the two weapon fighting bonus action attack rules on page 195, but don't consider the Crossbow Expert bonus action attack to be such an exception?

[EvilAnagram]

(The loading quality lets a weapon be used once per action, bonus action, or reaction, rather than once per turn. So a War Priest bonus action attack would allow a second shot with a weapon with the loading property.)

Why do you see War Priest bonus action attack as an exception to the two weapon fighting bonus action attack rules on page 195, but don't consider the Crossbow Expert bonus action attack to be such an exception?

Thank you for the correction on the loading quality.

The War Priest is an exception because it is not, as per the book, an action one can only take while wielding two weapons. The War Priest has a bonus attack and can choose which weapon he or she is attacking with. That power does not rely on using two weapons, so it is exempt from the two-weapon fighting rule.

And might I say, it is nice to see a more Socratic approach to discourse here.

[MeeposFire]

Thank you for the correction on the loading quality.

The War Priest is an exception because it is not, as per the book, an action one can only take while wielding two weapons. The War Priest has a bonus attack and can choose which weapon he or she is attacking with. That power does not rely on using two weapons, so it is exempt from the two-weapon fighting rule.

And might I say, it is nice to see a more Socratic approach to discourse here.

The crossbow feat does not actually require two weapons either. It only requires that you have a one handed weapon which a hand crossbow qualifies by default.

[EvilAnagram]

The crossbow feat does not actually require two weapons either. It only requires that you have a one handed weapon which a hand crossbow qualifies by default.

Yes, but that's when we get into RAI and I say, "shhh."

[Xetheral]

And might I say, it is nice to see a more Socratic approach to discourse here.

Thank you for the compliment. :)


The War Priest is an exception because it is not, as per the book, an action one can only take while wielding two weapons. The War Priest has a bonus attack and can choose which weapon he or she is attacking with. That power does not rely on using two weapons, so it is exempt from the two-weapon fighting rule.


Yes, but that's when we get into RAI and I say, "shhh."

So, you'd apply the two-weapon bonus action attack rules to Crossbow Expert because you believe it was not intended to work with only one crossbow, thus being intended to only work if one has two weapons, and thus invoking the two-weapon bonus action attack rules?

It seems that your interpretation that, by RAW, the Crossbow Expert bonus action attack must adhere to the two-weapon fighting bonus action attack rules, itself hinges on your opinion that, by RAI, Crossbow Expert can't be used with only one weapon. Am I misunderstanding? Or are you okay with having your interpretation of RAW depend on your opinion of RAI?

[MeeposFire]

Yes, but that's when we get into RAI and I say, "shhh."

Yes RAI in which case I can tell you to shhh because I have determined that this IS rules as intended.

Which of course is the problem with RAI discussions you don't always know what the rules intended or if it means anything to begin with (sometimes the unintended consequence turns out to be good).

[wolfstone]

Okay, new player question(s) here... RAW? RAI? What are those?

[MeeposFire]

Okay, new player question(s) here... RAW? RAI? What are those?

RAW- Rules as written. Typically used as a way to say that you are using the rules literally as they are in the books without trying to add too much personal interpretation (the less is better in that case). It can lead to some interesting rulings using the rules sometimes.

RAI- Rules as intended. This is where you try to read a rule and decide how it works based more on how you think the designer wanted it to work rather than what the rule actually says. We all do this to a degree but the biggest problem with RAI is that two different people can come to two different conclusions on intent without the original writer weighing in on the question.

[wolfstone]

RAW- Rules as written. Typically used as a way to say that you are using the rules literally as they are in the books without trying to add too much personal interpretation (the less is better in that case). It can lead to some interesting rulings using the rules sometimes.

RAI- Rules as intended. This is where you try to read a rule and decide how it works based more on how you think the designer wanted it to work rather than what the rule actually says. We all do this to a degree but the biggest problem with RAI is that two different people can come to two different conclusions on intent without the original writer weighing in on the question.

Like whether or not a Dual-Wielding Goblin-Sticker counts as a valid weapon?

Actually... Dual-Wielding Goblin-Basher sounds better. :D

Thanks, btw. :)

[EvilAnagram]

So, you'd apply the two-weapon bonus action attack rules to Crossbow Expert because you believe it was not intended to work with only one crossbow, thus being intended to only work if one has two weapons, and thus invoking the two-weapon bonus action attack rules?

It seems that your interpretation that, by RAW, the Crossbow Expert bonus action attack must adhere to the two-weapon fighting bonus action attack rules, itself hinges on your opinion that, by RAI, Crossbow Expert can't be used with only one weapon. Am I misunderstanding? Or are you okay with having your interpretation of RAW depend on your opinion of RAI?
That's an astute observation, and I think it's well put. It seems to me that you have to twist and contort what would otherwise be a perfectly fine, if slightly muddled, sentence into an abominable horror to get that interpretation.

When a crossbow has just fired, it is not loaded. When a crossbow is not loaded, it is not eligible to benefit from the bonus action. Therefore, the feat does not grant a single crossbow a bonus action.

[Dark Tira]

That's an astute observation, and I think it's well put. It seems to me that you have to twist and contort what would otherwise be a perfectly fine, if slightly muddled, sentence into an abominable horror to get that interpretation.

When a crossbow has just fired, it is not loaded. When a crossbow is not loaded, it is not eligible to benefit from the bonus action. Therefore, the feat does not grant a single crossbow a bonus action.

So by that logic, when the crossbow is loaded it is eligible to benefit from the bonus action. Therefore, the feat does grant a single crossbow a bonus action as long as you load it. Not gonna argue with that. I'm totally against shooting crossbows without ammo.

[EvilAnagram]

So by that logic, when the crossbow is loaded it is eligible to benefit from the bonus action. Therefore, the feat does grant a single crossbow a bonus action as long as you load it. Not gonna argue with that. I'm totally against shooting crossbows without ammo.

No.


When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.
Because the feat removes the loading quality, you load the crossbow as part of the action that you use to fire it. The feat specifies that the crossbow must already be loaded for the bonus action to trigger. When you attack with the only crossbow you are holding, it ceases to be loaded, and thus the bonus action does not trigger.

[Dark Tira]

No.


Because the feat removes the loading quality, you load the crossbow as part of the action that you use to fire it. The feat specifies that the crossbow must already be loaded for the bonus action to trigger. When you attack with the only crossbow you are holding, it ceases to be loaded, and thus the bonus action does not trigger.

Except that being loaded is not a triggering requirement, that is just attacking with a one handed weapon. It's a restriction on the bonus action, as long as the crossbow is loaded for the bonus action then you can still use it.

[Shadow]

So by that logic, when the crossbow is loaded it is eligible to benefit from the bonus action. Therefore, the feat does grant a single crossbow a bonus action as long as you load it. Not gonna argue with that. I'm totally against shooting crossbows without ammo.

That doesn't work, and will only work if your DM (or the DMG) allows for action economy downtrades.

Action: Shoot the crossbow (loading inherent in the attack, ie: interact with object freebie, of which you only get one freebie during another action and if you want a second you must use your Action to get it, which you just used to fire the first volley)
Move action: Move -or- downtraded to Interact with Object to load again (if allowed)
Bonus: XbX attack (or choose rogue's 3rd level thief cunning action to reload, but then you can't fire again)


Except that being loaded is not a triggering requirement, that is just attacking with a one handed weapon. It's a restriction on the bonus action, as long as the crossbow is loaded for the bonus action then you can still use it.

Having one already loaded is a requirement, which makes the triggering action irrelevant if you don't have one loaded.

[Dark Tira]

That doesn't work, and will only work if your DM (or the DMG) allows for action economy downtrades.

Action: Shoot the crossbow (loading inherent in the attack, ie: interact with object freebie, of which you only get one freebie during another action and if you want a second you must use your Action to get it, which you just used to fire the first volley)
Move action: Move -or- downtraded to Interact with Object to load again (if allowed)
Bonus: XbX attack (or choose rogue's 3rd level thief cunning action to reload, but then you can't fire again)

Your mistake here is that it doesn't take any type of action to load ammo that's done automatically as part of an action.

[Shadow]

Your mistake here is that it doesn't take any type of action to load ammo that's done automatically as part of an action.

No, your mistake is allowing (or assuming) that taking an action denied by the text will create the sitution that allows the action to begin with.
It's a paradox.
You can't shoot it because it isn't loaded, but shooting it loads it and allows it to be shot.

When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded
w eapon, you can use a bonus action to attack
with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.

You can't take the bonus action to fire it unless it's loaded, but it isn't loaded because you need to fire it again in order to load it.
This is why it doesn't work with a single hand crossbow.

[Dark Tira]

No, your mistake is allowing (or assuming) that taking an action denied by the text will create the sitution that allows the action to begin with.
It's a paradox.
You can't shoot it because it isn't loaded, but shooting it loads it and allows it to be shot.

Again there is no loaded state and if there was you could still reload as part of the initial attack.

[Shadow]

Again there is no loaded state and if there was you could still reload as part of the initial attack.

If that were true then there would be no need for the text to require that it be loaded.

[Dark Tira]

If that were true then there would be no need for the text to require that it be loaded.

It's making it clear that it still uses ammo. If you do not have ammo you can't make the attack.

[Shadow]

It's making it clear that it still uses ammo. If you do not have ammo you can't make the attack.

No, because the Ammunition rules cover that already.

[Dark Tira]

No, because the Ammunition rules cover that already.
I actually agree it's probably not necessary and was ill considered, but you know how some people are concerning potential rule loopholes.

[Shadow]

I actually agree it's probably not necessary and was ill considered, but you know how some people are concerning potential rule loopholes.

Yeah, like people trying to use a single hand crossbow to get an extra attack via XbX feat.

[Dark Tira]

Yeah, like people trying to use a single hand crossbow to get an extra attack via XbX feat.

Don't even have to try. It's a given, having been settled for awhile now. Trying to not gain it requires a lot more twisting of RAW.

Check the link (http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4129016) from earlier in the thread for a more complete breakdown.

[Xetheral]

That's an astute observation, and I think it's well put.

Thank you.


It seems to me that you have to twist and contort what would otherwise be a perfectly fine, if slightly muddled, sentence into an abominable horror to get that interpretation.

I'm not quite sure I follow--could you clarify, please? The bonus action attack portion of Crossbow Expert reads: "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding." What part of that sentence needs to be twisted into an abominable horror to permit the triggering weapon to be the same crossbow fired as part of the bonus action attack? To me it seems that such a conclusion follows naturally from the language, without any twisting.


When a crossbow has just fired, it is not loaded. When a crossbow is not loaded, it is not eligible to benefit from the bonus action. Therefore, the feat does not grant a single crossbow a bonus action.

There doesn't appear to be anything requiring the bonus action to be taken immediately nor any other suggestion that holding a loaded hand crossbow is part of the triggering attack rather than a restriction on the bonus action. As written, it would seem to allow one to move between the trigger and taking the bonus action attack, which would seem to allow plenty of time for reloading (which is a non-action). Is there a reason I'm overlooking that would require the bonus action to be taken immediately?

I concede that my interpretation renders use of the word "loaded" effectively superfluous, and that makes me slightly uncomfortable. But, when trying to parse RAW, I'd rather assume the designers used a superfluous term rather than read in a unwritten requirement that the bonus action attack crossbow must be a different weapon than the triggering one-handed weapon.

[Shadow]

I'm not reading another thread on it from somewhere else. A thread which was composed of those same people you just mentioned trying to find a loophole around the text in order to create a paradoxical situation just so that they can get an extra attack by bending and breaking the rules for thier own benefit.
You can't take the bonus action unless it is already loaded, which if you just fired it, it is not.

addendum: ESPECIALLY not when my suspicions are immediately confirmed that they don't actually care about the rules by the fact that it is almost universally agreed that they still get Dex to damage with the bonus shot.
Nope. Not worth my time to read it.

[MeeposFire]

The rules only care if it is loaded before the shot. The rules allow you to do all sorts of things between those shots. For instance you could move your entire speed between your attack action and the bonus action shot. You can reload the crossbow before using the bonus action. The feat requires you to attack with a one handed weapon (check) and have loaded crossbow in order to use your bonus action to make a 2nd attack. Since I can reload after the first shot before I use my bonus action my crossbow is loaded when I use my bonus action which allows me to sue it. Clearly reloading a crossbow with this feat is not an issue as any given warrior type can shoot it multiple times per attack action and you cannot fire an empty crossbow.

[Dark Tira]

I'm not reading another thread on it from somewhere else. A thread which was composed of those same people you just mentioned trying to find a loophole around the text in order to create a paradoxical situation just so that they can get an extra attack by bending and breaking the rules for thier own benefit.
You can't take the bonus action unless it is already loaded, which if you just fired it, it is not.

addendum: ESPECIALLY not when my suspicions are immediately confirmed that they don't actually care about the rules by the fact that it is almost universally agreed that they still get Dex to damage with the bonus shot.
Nope. Not worth my time to read it.

What makes you think people are doing it for their own benefit? From my experience most people who argue for RAW just want the rules to be clear as possible. Whether something is overpowered or not is irrelevant when it comes to determining RAW. You may have an agenda to push, but most people don't.

Thanks for the addendum. I had forgotten that little bit of insight into your rules comprehension.

[Shadow]

I had forgotten that little bit of insight into your rules comprehension.

Congratulations on making my ignore list with that little gem.

[obryn]

addendum: ESPECIALLY not when my suspicions are immediately confirmed that they don't actually care about the rules by the fact that it is almost universally agreed that they still get Dex to damage with the bonus shot.
Nope. Not worth my time to read it.
How do you get that THEY don't care about the rules?

Crossbow Expert is self contained and clear. In a world without the TWF option on page 196, it would still function normally. Dual Wielder would not. That's the difference.

[Malifice]

Because clearly, a large flying reptile's very existence alleviates the need to have two hands to load a crossbow.

Yeah, but my 20th level Fighter with all the relevant feats is that good, he can reload a hand crossbow despite having one in his other hand by picking a bolt out of his belt with his thumb and forefinger and (without relinquishing his grip on the hand crossbow) nock it, aim and fire all within 0.75 of a second.

He can apparently move 30' to an opponent and have enough time to swing a Greataxe or a 5kg Maul at least enough times to generate no fewer that 9 chances to strike his foe all within 6 seconds (while wearing Full Plate armor no less), also a feat that sounds utterly impossible to do 'in real life'.

Why cant the Fighter be that good? His Monk buddy as been running on top of water since 9th level, and his Barbarian companion has been flying since 14th level. His Rogue companion is altering reality with his Stroke of Luck ability, and has been using sonar to locate enemies since 14th level.

It may sound impossible to you, but youre not a 20th level fighter. In fact its impossible to anyone but a 20th level Fighter.

Nigh Epic level characters are kind of extraordinary by definition.

[EvilAnagram]

I'm not quite sure I follow--could you clarify, please? The bonus action attack portion of Crossbow Expert reads: "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding." What part of that sentence needs to be twisted into an abominable horror to permit the triggering weapon to be the same crossbow fired as part of the bonus action attack? To me it seems that such a conclusion follows naturally from the language, without any twisting.
The rest of my post expanded on that. The feat specifies that you must have a prepared hand crossbow ready for the bonus action to take effect. To say that because you can load the crossbow without effort, you don't need to follow the part of the rules specifying a need for having an already loaded crossbow is a leap of logic not supported by the text and seems to me to require a twisting of its wording.



There doesn't appear to be anything requiring the bonus action to be taken immediately nor any other suggestion that holding a loaded hand crossbow is part of the triggering attack rather than a restriction on the bonus action. As written, it would seem to allow one to move between the trigger and taking the bonus action attack, which would seem to allow plenty of time for reloading (which is a non-action). Is there a reason I'm overlooking that would require the bonus action to be taken immediately?
The bonus action need not be taken immediately, but you only gain the bonus action when you fulfill all the conditions. Having a loaded hand crossbow is a requirement.


I concede that my interpretation renders use of the word "loaded" effectively superfluous, and that makes me slightly uncomfortable. But, when trying to parse RAW, I'd rather assume the designers used a superfluous term rather than read in a unwritten requirement that the bonus action attack crossbow must be a different weapon than the triggering one-handed weapon.

But is it unwritten? They may not have defined loaded as a state of being, but doesn't it seem perfectly likely that they would use a term that would commonly be understood by its readers in order to convey the requirements for using this feat? They could have said a "readied" hand crossbow if they wanted to, but this specifies that it must be loaded. Being loaded may not be defined in the book, but we are all aware that a loaded crossbow is one which has a bolt in it, prepared to fire. We don't need that to be defined for us.

So, what make you feel uncomfortable about your reading of the rule?

[Z3ro]

trying to find a loophole around the text in order to create a paradoxical situation just so that they can get an extra attack by bending and breaking the rules for thier own benefit.
You can't take the bonus action unless it is already loaded, which if you just fired it, it is not.


I'm not seeing a paradox in any way. Page 190 of the PHB says "You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."

This seems one hundred percent clear. You can fire you hand crossbow, use your free interaction to reload it, then use your now reloaded crossbow to take a bonus action. For this to not work, you need to explain why loading a crossbow is not allowed by this clause.

ETA:


The bonus action need not be taken immediately, but you only gain the bonus action when you fulfill all the conditions. Having a loaded hand crossbow is a requirement.


There's no timing requirement with the clause. It doesn't say something like "If you make an attack with a one-handed weapon while wielding a loaded hand crossbow". That would be a completely clear way to communicate the requirements. The hand crossbow must be loaded before you fire it, not when you make your first attack.

[Jacob.Tyr]

There's no timing requirement with the clause. It doesn't say something like "If you make an attack with a one-handed weapon while wielding a loaded hand crossbow". That would be a completely clear way to communicate the requirements. The hand crossbow must be loaded before you fire it, not when you make your first attack.

The fact that they included any mention of it being loaded makes me dubious here. I'm reading it as since you ignore the loading property then for all intents and purposes your crossbow is always loaded. But to say they were being clear when they said "you may make an attack as a bonus action with a loaded hand crossbow" because
The hand crossbow must be loaded before you fire it, not when you make your first attack then... what? Of course it must be loaded before you fire anything else would be absurd. But the very mention of it being loaded is what muddies the RAW and leaves things up to interpretation.

[EvilAnagram]

There's no timing requirement with the clause. It doesn't say something like "If you make an attack with a one-handed weapon while wielding a loaded hand crossbow". That would be a completely clear way to communicate the requirements. The hand crossbow must be loaded before you fire it, not when you make your first attack.
The phrasing implies that the crossbow is already loaded. There is wiggle room there, but that doesn't mean it's an honest approach to the rule.

[obryn]

Of course it must be loaded before you fire anything else would be absurd. But the very mention of it being loaded is what muddies the RAW and leaves things up to interpretation.
Yeah, I can see the argument that you're going through something of a checklist with both Crossbow Expert and Two-Weapon Fighting in order to qualify for their respective Bonus Actions.

TWF:
When you (1) take the Attack action and (2) attack with a light melee weapon that you're (3) holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a (4) different light melee weapon that you're (5) holding in the other hand.

As near as I can see it, you need to hit all of those points to qualify for the bonus action attack.

Example: Gutboy Barrelhouse has one drawn shortsword and a sheathed dagger. He attacks with his shortsword. Can he then draw his dagger and use TWF to make a bonus action to second attack? I'm not convinced. He didn't qualify for all of the prerequisites at the moment they're checked.

Crossbow Expert:
When you (1) use the Attack action and (2) attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a (3) loaded (4) hand crossbow you are (5) holding.

Let's ignore that "loaded" bit for just a second.

Example: Gutboy Barrelhouse has a rapier in one hand and a loaded hand crossbow at his belt, and has the Crossbow Expert feat. He attacks with his rapier. Can he then draw the hand crossbow and attack with it? I think you could reasonably argue that he can't, because he didn't qualify for all of the bonus action's prerequisites at the moment he'd need to qualify for it. I see this as isometric with the "loaded" criterion.

I personally don't know where I fall on all of these; I think there's room for debate on the single-hand-crossbow issue. (There is not, however, any reasonable debate on using two hand crossbows or getting your Dex bonus to the crossbow attack. You can do it, and you do.)

[Jacob.Tyr]

I personally don't know where I fall on all of these; I think there's room for debate on the single-hand-crossbow issue. (There is not, however, any reasonable debate on using two hand crossbows or getting your Dex bonus to the crossbow attack. You can do it, and you do.)
The only point of balance that makes me worry about single is shield usage, but if a player is swapping all of his light crossbow attacks to instead make them all with a single hand crossbow and get an extra attack in? Seems good. If you want to wield a light crossbow and a hand crossbow and get that bonus attack? Cool.

If you want to trade the ability to shoot a tiny crossbow well multiple times and instead get the power to rewrite reality with your mind? We're going to have to sit down and discu... wait that is already an option in basic? But the tiny crossbow bonus shot wasn't even in basic... What do you mean it is assumed that most of the party can just ignore physics and reality? No, I will not sit down, this is my office and none of what you're telling me makes sense. WELL WHY WOULD PEOPLE BE WORRIED ABOUT A TINY CROSSBOW WHEN THE ALTERNATIVE IS SUBVERTING THE UNIVERSE BY WAVING YOUR FINGERTIPS?

[Shadow]

I'm not seeing a paradox in any way. Page 190 of the PHB says "You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."

This seems one hundred percent clear. You can fire you hand crossbow, use your free interaction to reload it, then use your now reloaded crossbow to take a bonus action. For this to not work, you need to explain why loading a crossbow is not allowed by this clause.

OK, let us hypothetically say that you are allowed this interpretation, and let us look at it broken down.
But first, let us look again at what you said.
The rules said you can interact with one object as part of a move or attack action, where as you said you simply used a free action.
There are no free actions in 5e. That's a 3.X term. What it said was, once poer turn, you can use the Use an Object action (which is an action in and of itself) for free as a part of one of two specific other actions.

Round 1:
Attack with your loaded crossbow and use your free interact to reload it.
Bonus action attack with your newly loaded crossbow.
Move at any time you like.

Round 2:
Use your free interact to load and take the attack action.
Now you have no loaded crossbow, no action left to load it, and no bonus action available to attack with it because it is not currently loaded.

It works for one whole turn, the first turn of combat, because that it the only time that you have the action economy to start with it loaded and still load it again during the same turn in order to fulfill the requirement.
The feat (or rather, the extra attack portion of it) was specifically designed to fight with a loaded crossbow and another weapon. A melee weapon, because even if the other weapon was indeed a crossbow, the same problem occurs. If the attack came from a melee weapon, you can reload the crossbow as part of that attack every single round in order to gain the bonus attack every single round.

[DrLemniscate]

OK, let us hypothetically say that you are allowed this interpretation, and let us look at it broken down.
But first, let us look again at what you said.
The rules said you can interact with one object as part of a move or attack action, where as you said you simply used a free action.
There are no free actions in 5e. That's a 3.X term. What it said was, once poer turn, you can use the Use an Object action (which is an action in and of itself) for free as a part of one of two specific other actions.

Round 1:
Attack with your loaded crossbow and use your free interact to reload it.
Bonus action attack with your newly loaded crossbow.
Move at any time you like.

Round 2:
Use your free interact to load and take the attack action.
Now you have no loaded crossbow, no action left to load it, and no bonus action available to attack with it because it is not currently loaded.

It works for one whole turn, the first turn of combat, because that it the only time that you have the action economy to start with it loaded and still load it again during the same turn in order to fulfill the requirement.
The feat was specifically designed to fight with a loaded crossbow and another weapon. A melee weapon, because even if the other weapon was indeed a crossbow, the same problem occurs.

Crossbow Expert says you ignore the Loading quality of crossbows.

The Loading quality says you can't attack with a crossbow more than once if you are getting extra attacks (Fighter gets 3, some other classes get 1).

So just attacking with a Heavy Crossbow, a level 20 Fighter would be loading it 4 times a turn. This implies that loading your crossbow is now a free action.

Even without the feat, someone attacking with a Longbow would need to draw an equal amount of arrows.

[Mr.Moron]

Crossbow Expert says you ignore the Loading quality of crossbows.

The Loading quality says you can't attack with a crossbow more than once if you are getting extra attacks (Fighter gets 3, some other classes get 1).

So just attacking with a Heavy Crossbow, a level 20 Fighter would be loading it 4 times a turn. This implies that loading your crossbow is now a free action.

Even without the feat, someone attacking with a Longbow would need to draw an equal amount of arrows.

Put another way: it's implicit in the rules that loading, firing and reloading is all part of the same attack for for weapons without the "loading property". The "Loaded Crossbow" wording here seems to be a vestigial trait from an earlier iteration of the rules. Near as I can tell there isn't anyway for weapons to be in a "Loaded", "Unloaded" or any other state with regard to ammunition, save checking if you do/don't have ammo on your person at all.

One might argue by RAW since the loaded state doesn't exist the feat does nothing at all. The requisite "loaded" crossbow can't exist - the game engine has nothing that checks it. That seems a very squirrelly path to go down though.

[BRC]

OK, let us hypothetically say that you are allowed this interpretation, and let us look at it broken down.
But first, let us look again at what you said.
The rules said you can interact with one object as part of a move or attack action, where as you said you simply used a free action.
There are no free actions in 5e. That's a 3.X term. What it said was, once poer turn, you can use the Use an Object action (which is an action in and of itself) for free as a part of one of two specific other actions.

Round 1:
Attack with your loaded crossbow and use your free interact to reload it.
Bonus action attack with your newly loaded crossbow.
Move at any time you like.

Round 2:
Use your free interact to load and take the attack action.
Now you have no loaded crossbow, no action left to load it, and no bonus action available to attack with it because it is not currently loaded.

It works for one whole turn, the first turn of combat, because that it the only time that you have the action economy to start with it loaded and still load it again during the same turn in order to fulfill the requirement.
The feat was specifically designed to fight with a loaded crossbow and another weapon. A melee weapon, because even if the other weapon was indeed a crossbow, the same problem occurs.
Except that "loading" a crossbow isn't a thing in 5e. The Loading property says "You cannot attack more than once with one action". By RAW, without the feat, you don't need to use your "Interact with an object" to load a crossbow, you just can't fire it more than once a turn.

But, let's say that a crossbow is "Loaded" at the start of each turn, and "Unloaded" once it is fired. Crossbow expert lets you use your attack action to fire an "Unloaded" crossbow, but explicity forbids using the bonus action to fire an unloaded crossbow (Any crossbow that has been fired already this turn).

Using that reading of the rules, a single hand crossbow is "Unloaded" after it's used to attack, and even using your "Interact with an object" to put another bolt in it does not make it "Loaded" again.

From a more "How would this play out in pseudo-reality" perspective. Crossbow Expert lets you fire an "unloaded" crossbow, presumably by making you fast enough to reload it as part of your attack. Let's say that does not count for the bonus action, which is a quick snap-shot. But, you can use your "Interact with an object" free action to reload the crossbow in time to make your bonus attack.

[Shadow]

Crossbow Expert says you ignore the Loading quality of crossbows.

The Loading quality says you can't attack with a crossbow more than once if you are getting extra attacks (Fighter gets 3, some other classes get 1).

So just attacking with a Heavy Crossbow, a level 20 Fighter would be loading it 4 times a turn. This implies that loading your crossbow is now a free action.

Even without the feat, someone attacking with a Longbow would need to draw an equal amount of arrows.

The loading quality states that you can only make one attack per turn, yes.
And the feat states that you ignore the loading quality of crossbows. It doesn't state that weapons with the loading quality are automatically loaded. Let's be clear. Ignoring the loading quality does not mean that your crossbow is always loaded. It means that the stipulation limiting you to only attack once per round is lifted.
With a strict reading of RAW, independant of but also coinciding with RAI, basically says that you load it faster with that free interact, and can freely interact in this specific manner as many times as you have attack actions per turn.
(it is the drawing and setting of the string/bolt which requires this, whereas a bow is much more fluid, swift, and easy to manipulate)

But the feat specifically states that it must already be loaded in order to gasin the extra attack. If you just fired it, it is no longer loaded untill you do something which loads it.

[Mr.Moron]

But the feat specifically states that it must already be loaded in order to gasin the extra attack. If you just fired it, it is no longer loaded untill you do something which loads it.

Nothing loads weapons though. There is no action or ability which loads them, and no loaded or unloaded states are referred to elsewhere. The feat literally does nothing if you try to keep to strict reading like that, loaded weapons don't exist.

[Shadow]

Nothing loads weapons though. There is no action or ability which loads them, and no loaded or unloaded states are referred to elsewhere. The feat literally does nothing if you try to keep to strict reading like that, loaded weapons don't exist.

If that were the case then the text requiring the crossbow be loaded wouldn't exist either. Nor would the loading feature exist at all itself.

[Mr.Moron]

If that were the case then the text requiring the crossbow be loaded wouldn't exist either. Nor would the loading feature exist at all ityself.

Sure it can. Editing error.

The loading feature is restriction on how many attacks you can make. It doesn't give your rules to determine if your weapon is or isn't loaded, when it enters those states or even if such states exist. It refers to "reloading" but not in anyway that actually enters the gamestate.

"Loaded Crossbow" is clearly text leftover from when loading was an action and the loading property didn't exist in it's current form.

[BRC]

Nothing loads weapons though. There is no action or ability which loads them, and no loaded or unloaded states. The feat literally does nothing if you try to keep to strict reading like that, loaded weapons don't exist.

So we have to try to guess.

The Loaded property says you can attack once a round. We can extrapolate that to saying a Crossbow is loaded at the start of each turn, before it is fired, and unloaded when it is fired.

Crossbow Expert says "Ignore the Loading property", you can fire an unloaded crossbow, presumably because you're just that good.
It also explicitly says you need a loaded hand crossbow to use the bonus action.

You are not reloading your crossbow as a free action because free actions don't exist. You are loading it as part of each individual attack (Just like drawing and knocking arrows with a bow). The Bonus Action attack from crossbow expert specifies "Loaded" hand crossbow. Crossbow expert lets you load as part of an attack, but you cannot make the bonus attack unless it is loaded.

[Z3ro]

But first, let us look again at what you said.
The rules said you can interact with one object as part of a move or attack action, where as you said you simply used a free action.

I said no such thing. Look at my post again; I said free interaction.



There are no free actions in 5e. That's a 3.X term.
Round 1:
Attack with your loaded crossbow and use your free interact to reload it.
Bonus action attack with your newly loaded crossbow.
Move at any time you like.

Good so far.



Round 2:
Use your free interact to load and take the attack action.
Now you have no loaded crossbow, no action left to load it, and no bonus action available to attack with it because it is not currently loaded.

Woah hang on there a moment. Why are you using your free interaction to load your crossbow? It automatically loads when you take the attack action, with the crossbow expert feat. The free interaction loading is only to meet the (imho unnecesary) check for a loaded crossbow. It works every round.



The feat (or rather, the extra attack portion of it) was specifically designed to fight with a loaded crossbow and another weapon. A melee weapon, because even if the other weapon was indeed a crossbow, the same problem occurs.

Then why didn't they specify one-handed melee weapon in the feat, as so many other things in the book do?

[Xetheral]

The rest of my post expanded on that. The feat specifies that you must have a prepared hand crossbow ready for the bonus action to take effect. To say that because you can load the crossbow without effort, you don't need to follow the part of the rules specifying a need for having an already loaded crossbow is a leap of logic not supported by the text and seems to me to require a twisting of its wording.

Thank you for clarifying. I disagree that it requires a twisting of the wording (more on that below), which is probably why I couldn’t immediately follow what you were saying. :)


The bonus action need not be taken immediately, but you only gain the bonus action when you fulfill all the conditions. Having a loaded hand crossbow is a requirement.

This is likely the source of our disagreement. As I read it, to be able to take the crossbow expert bonus action attack one needs to (1) use the Attack action and (2) attack with a one-handed weapon. Once those two conditions are fulfilled, the trigger is met and the player has the option of taking, in the same round, a bonus action attack with a held and loaded hand-crossbow. Basically, I see both the “held” and “loaded” stipulations as being restrictions on how one can take the bonus action attack, rather than as part of the trigger. To me this follows from the sentence structure:

“When you <trigger requirements> you can use a bonus action to attack with <bonus action restrictions>.”

Even if the character didn’t have a hand-crossbow, the trigger requirements would still be met when a character with this feat used the Attack action to attack with a one-handed weapon. They simply wouldn’t be in a position to benefit from the bonus action attack they are now permitted to take. If later during their same turn they were to come into possession of a held and loaded hand-crossbow, the feat would allow them to take the bonus action attack at that time.


But is it unwritten? They may not have defined loaded as a state of being, but doesn't it seem perfectly likely that they would use a term that would commonly be understood by its readers in order to convey the requirements for using this feat? They could have said a "readied" hand crossbow if they wanted to, but this specifies that it must be loaded. Being loaded may not be defined in the book, but we are all aware that a loaded crossbow is one which has a bolt in it, prepared to fire. We don't need that to be defined for us.

So, what make you feel uncomfortable about your reading of the rule?

I’ll answer both of these at once, since my replies are similar. My reading makes the “loaded” (and, for that matter, “held”) restrictions on the bonus action superfluous, because those restrictions are normally required of all hand-crossbow attacks. Why then, were the terms included? I don’t have a definitive answer to that questions, and that is what makes me uncomfortable.

I see two possibilities: either the feat was written with a high degree of specificity and precision, or it wasn’t. If it wasn’t, then the inclusion of superfluous terms shouldn’t be a surprise: natural language includes many unnecessary words. If it was, then it should be interpreted (if possible) in a way to give effect to every included term. The most plausible such reading is the one you’re advocating for: that the triggering weapon must be separate from the hand-crossbow used to take the bonus action attack. However, if it was being written precisely with that intended reading, there are several better alternate formulations available. Most simply, the phrase “... in your other hand” could have been appended to the end of the sentence, just as it is in the rules on page 195 for getting a two-weapon fighting bonus action attack. The easy availability of better formulations that would require the hand-crossbow to be separate from the triggering weapon undermines the assumption that the feat was written precisely.

There’s still room to argue either way, but your preferred interpretation requires assuming both that the feat was written with a high degree of specificity and precision and that it was written badly. My preferred interpretation simply requires that the feat be written naturally.

-----

Wrapping back to an earlier part of the discussion, note that whether one assumes the feat was written naturally or precisely has an even larger impact on your belief that the feat should be read as a modification to the rules on page 195 for getting a two-weapon fighting bonus action attack:

If the feat was written precisely, and your interpretation is correct, then why wasn’t it formulated similarly to the Dual Wielder feat?

[Shadow]

I absolutely love how editing errors are used to explain a way to use a feat in a way that it was pretty clearly designed against, but that same editing error cannot possibly apply to any part of the feat which inhibits the way that people want to munchkin.

[Mr.Moron]

So we have to try to guess.

The Loaded property says you can attack once a round. We can extrapolate that to saying a Crossbow is loaded at the start of each turn, before it is fired, and unloaded when it is fired.

Crossbow Expert says "Ignore the Loading property", you can fire an unloaded crossbow, presumably because you're just that good.
It also explicitly says you need a loaded hand crossbow to use the bonus action.

You are not reloading your crossbow as a free action because free actions don't exist. You are loading it as part of each individual attack (Just like drawing and knocking arrows with a bow). The Bonus Action attack from crossbow expert specifies "Loaded" hand crossbow. Crossbow expert lets you load as part of an attack, but you cannot make the bonus attack unless it is loaded.

Again "Unloaded" crossbows aren't a thing either. Weapons aren't loaded or unloaded, that isn't a thing. It's not terminology that exists anywhere outside the feat. Weapons have no loaded state, you can't interact with it.

It's pretty clear that loading/reloading/unloading is all abstracted an handled implicitly as part of making a ranged attack. The feat simply either wasn't updated when the mechanics changed, or written with old assumptions and not caught in editing.

[Sartharina]

Nothing loads weapons though. There is no action or ability which loads them, and no loaded or unloaded states are referred to elsewhere. The feat literally does nothing if you try to keep to strict reading like that, loaded weapons don't exist.
Loading a crossbow is part of the attack action. To say that nothing loads crossbows is a violation of common sense, which D&D runs on when the rules don't say otherwise.

[BRC]

Again "Unloaded" crossbows aren't a thing. Weapons aren't loaded or unloaded, that isn't a thing. It's not terminology that exists anywhere outside the feat.

It's pretty clear that loading/reloading/unloading is all abstracted an handled implicitly as part of making a ranged attack. The feat simply either wasn't updated when the mechanics change, or written with old assumptions and not caught in editing.
Yes, but then you get into RAI.

By Pure RAW, you can never use the Bonus Action to make an attack, because hand crossbows are never "Loaded", because no crossbow is ever loaded. It's like a sign in front of a roller coaster saying "You must be at least purple feet tall to ride". You cannot be Purple feet tall, because Purple is not a valid measurement of height.

I'm inventing definitions of "Loaded" and "Unloaded" based on extrapolating from the rules as little as possible. Which is admittedly getting into RAI, because, as I mention above, by Pure RAW, you need to be at least purple feet tall with a loaded crossbow to use the bonus action.

[Shadow]

by Pure RAW, you need to be at least purple feet tall with a loaded crossbow to use the bonus action.

Not if your Attack action attacks with a melee weapon ....

[BRC]

Not if your Attack action attacks with a melee weapon ....
Nope, not even then.
By Pure RAW the hand crossbow must be "Loaded", but "Loaded" Crossbows do not exist by RAW.
Therefore, no crossbow can be loaded.
Therefore you can never use the bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow.

[Mr.Moron]

Nope, not even then.
By Pure RAW the hand crossbow must be "Loaded", but "Loaded" Crossbows do not exist by RAW.
Therefore, no crossbow can be loaded.
Therefore you can never use the bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow.

It should be noted that regular attacks do not require the weapon be loaded, such a requirement never appears in the text. Hence why they work generally but break with the feat.

It's squirrelly and stupid, but that's RAW for you.

[Shadow]

It should be noted that regular attacks do not require the weapon be loaded, such a requirement never appears in the text. Hence why they work generally but break with the feat.

It's squirrelly and stupid, but that's RAW for you.

So let me get this straight.
Your argument, and BRC's, is that a weapon with the Loading quality (which states that it can only be fired once per round) do not ever actually require that the wepaon be loaded.

Dude, it's implicit... because of the ammunition property. (and because of the general nature of a ranged weapn)

Ammunition.
You can use a w eapon that has the
ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if
you have ammunition to fire from the w eapon. Each
time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece
o f ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver,
case, or other container is part o f the attack. At the
end o f the battle, you can recover half your expended
ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.

Seriously guys. It's time to stop being ridiculous.

[Mr.Moron]

So let me get this straight.
Yopur argument, and BRC's, is that a weapon with the Loading quality (which states that it can only be fired once per round) do not ever actually require that the weapon be loaded.

Dude, it's implicit... because of the ammunition property.
.

They do not, because the word "Loaded" has no rules meaning. You could replace the word "loaded" with "Elephant'd", "Horseshoed" or "Frozen" and it'd be roughly equivalent.

Either the term loaded here is entirely meaningless (flavor text) and so puts no restriction on the use of the crossbow in the bonus action relative to when it's been fired, or it's a game state that has to be met which since it doesn't exist is impossible.

The ammunition text isn't relevant here because it makes no reference to loading, or being loaded. "Loaded" is not a term that appears anywhere I can see, except the feat.

[Shadow]

They do not, because the word "Loaded" has no rules meaning. You could replace the word "loaded" with "Elephant", "Horseshoe" or "Frozen" and it'd be roughly equivalent.

Either the term loaded here is entirely meaningless (flavor text) and so puts no restriction on the use of the crossbow in the bonus action relative to when it's been fired, or it's a game state that has to be met which since it doesn't' exist is impossible.

The ammunition text isn't relevant here because it makes to reference to loading, or being loaded. "Loaded" is not a term that appears anywhere I can see, except the feat.

C r o s s b o w E x p e r t
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you
gain the following benefits:
• You ignore the loading quality o f crossbows with
which you are proficient.
• Being within 5 feet o f a hostile creature doesn’t
impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
• When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded
w eapon, you can use a bonus action to attack
with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.

feat name
flavor text
relevant game/rules text

The word loaded appears in the relevant game/rules text. It is not flavor text.
And loaded is a term that any second grader could explain to you if you asked him. No explanation needed in the PHB.

[BRC]

C r o s s b o w E x p e r t
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you
gain the following benefits:
• You ignore the loading quality o f crossbows with
which you are proficient.
• Being within 5 feet o f a hostile creature doesn’t
impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
• When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded
w eapon, you can use a bonus action to attack
with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.

feat name
flavor text
relevant game/rules text

The word loaded appears in the relevant game/rules text. It is not flavor text.

But, loaded is not a defined term.

Of course, neither is "holding".
Therefore, we need to fudge some RAI to make this work.
Hence the debate.

[Mr.Moron]

C r o s s b o w E x p e r t
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you
gain the following benefits:
• You ignore the loading quality o f crossbows with
which you are proficient.
• Being within 5 feet o f a hostile creature doesn’t
impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
• When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded
w eapon, you can use a bonus action to attack
with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.

feat name
flavor text
relevant game/rules text

That reading makes the bonus action impossible to use *shrug*.

You can't consider the term "loaded" as part of the RAW to restrict it from being used multiple rounds in a row, while simultaneously ignoring that weapons can't be loaded. It's not a self-consistent position.

[Shadow]

I'm not giong to argue any longer about whether or not a weapon with the loading and ammunition properties needs to be loaded, or whether a loaded weapon exists, or about how tall you need to be to ride a coaster with people that can't use common sense in thier gaming.

You guys are attempting to read the rules like a legal document when the game intentionally and fully expects players and DMs to use common sense and respond appropriately.
If you can't do that, I'm done debating this issue with th etwo of you.

[BRC]

I'm not giong to argue any longer about whether or not a weapon with the loading and ammunition properties needs to be loaded, or whether a loaded weapon exists, or about how tall you need to be to ride a coaster with people that can't use common sense in thier gaming.

You guys are attempting to read the rules like a legal document when the game intentionally and fully expects players and DMs to use common sense and respond appropriately.
If you can't do that, I'm done debating this issue with th etwo of you.

What we've been doing is saying "it is absurd to read it like a legal document. Therefore we must interpret this", and then arguing over what interpretation makes more sense.

[Mr.Moron]

I'm not giong to argue any longer about whether or not a weapon with the loading and ammunition properties needs to be loaded, or whether a loaded weapon exists, or about how tall you need to be to ride a coaster with people that can't use common sense in thier gaming.

You guys are attempting to read the rules like a legal document when the game intentionally and fully expects players and DMs to use common sense and respond appropriately.
If you can't do that, I'm done debating this issue with th etwo of you.

You were the one trying to do that in order to tamp down the power level of a feat you don't like:




Round 1:
Attack with your loaded crossbow and use your free interact to reload it.
Bonus action attack with your newly loaded crossbow.
Move at any time you like.

Round 2:
Use your free interact to load and take the attack action.
Now you have no loaded crossbow, no action left to load it, and no bonus action available to attack with it because it is not currently loaded.

It's poor sportsmanship to throw up your arms and denounce the practice once it isn't working in your favor.

EDIT: But whatever. I'll take my wins however I get them.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/2746800/russian-dancing-o.gif

[Shadow]

What we've been doing is saying "it is absurd to read it like a legal document. Therefore we must interpret this", and then arguing over what interpretation makes more sense.

And explain exactly how saying that loaded and unloaded crosbows don't exist makes any sense whatsoever.

The feat was very clearly designed to be used in conjunction with the TWF rules, because you are fighting with two weapons.
The feat was very clearly not designed to be used with a single hand crossbow allowing multipe attacks per round four full levels before anyone with the Extra Attack option would get it.

Explain to me how talking about purple feat tall is using common sense.
Explain to me how claiming that loaded crossbows don't exist makes sense.

Use common sense guys.


You were the one trying to do that in order to tamp down the power level of a feat you don't like:

I absolutely LOVE the feat. I just wish that people would stop trying to munchkin it into something OP and unintended by saying things like "unloaded and loaded don't exist."

[Mr.Moron]

And explain exactly how saying that loaded and unloaded crosbows don't exist makes any sense whatsoever.

The feat was very clearly designed to be used in conjunction with the TWF rules, because you are fighting with two weapons.
The feat was very clearly not designed to be used with a single hand crossbow allowing multipe attacks per round four full levels before anyone with the Extra Attack option would get it.

Explain to me how talking about purple feat tall is using common sense.
Explain to me how claiming that loaded crossbows don't exist makes sense.

Use common sense guys.

Common Sense isn't RAW. You were trying to argue how the feat worked by RAW. Particularly you were claiming the RAW prevented back-to-back round usage due to the loading clause.

You wanna go down that road, go all the way down or don't go at all. If "Loaded" is a condition that has to be met, it can't be because the rules don't provide for it.

Now you wanna argue what kind of interpretations make sense, and what kind make for a good game. Let's do that. Let's just not pretend it's RAW because at the end of the day RAW is kind of stupid, and really... doesn't matter all that much.

[Symphony]

Use common sense guys.

Alright.

In your opinion, when is a crossbow loaded and what part of the rules allows you to do it? Is it the ammunition property or the free object interaction property or something else?

Is the default state of a crossbow loaded or unloaded?

Can a player open a door and fire his crossbow at something on one round, and fire his crossbow at something then close a door on the next round?

[Shadow]

Alright.

In your opinion, when is a crossbow loaded and what part of the rules allows you to do it? Is it the ammunition property or the free object interaction property or something else?

Is the default state of a crossbow loaded or unloaded?

Can a player open a door and fire his crossbow at something on one round, and fire his crossbow at something then close a door on the next round?

Previous page, post 237, ammunition property
The default state of a weapon is unloaded, as "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver,
case, or other container is part o f the attack." If you take the attack ction, you load and fir the weapon. But in the feat, it needs to already be loaded.

This is expressly why the feat was designed to be used with a melee weapon.
You load the crossbow as part of the melee attack, therebye making it already loaded for the bonus attack which requires that it already be loaded.

[Symphony]

Previous page, post 237, ammunition property
The default state of a weapon is unloaded, as "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver,
case, or other container is part o f the attack."

Notably, it does not say which part of the attack (before or after shooting).


This is expressly why the feat was designed to be used with a melee weapon.
You load the crossbow as part of the melee attack, therebye making it already loaded for the bonus attack which requires that it already be loaded.

Wait, you're applying the ammunition property to attacks with a melee weapon that doesn't have the ammunition property?

[BRC]

And explain exactly how saying that loaded and unloaded crosbows don't exist makes any sense whatsoever.

The feat was very clearly designed to be used in conjunction with the TWF rules, because you are fighting with two weapons.
The feat was very clearly not designed to be used with a single hand crossbow allowing multipe attacks per round four full levels before anyone with the Extra Attack option would get it.

Explain to me how talking about purple feat tall is using common sense.
Explain to me how claiming that loaded crossbows don't exist makes sense.

Use common sense guys.

Loaded Crossbows don't exist AS A GAME TERM, which is relevant here.

Concentration is a game term. It refers to a state of being, where a character is concentrating on maintaining a spell. There are rules for entering, exiting, maintaining, and disrupting Concentration.

It also exists as a word, where somebody is focused on something.

If a character is trying to see something in the distance, they are concentrating on it (Which is to say, focusing attention and effort on it), but they are not Concentrating on it. They can still maintain a Concentration spell while trying to see something in the distance.

loaded crossbows exist in game. That much is obvious, it's a crossbow with the string back and a bolt ready to go.

Loaded Crossbows do not exist as a game term. And yet the rules specifically mention a "loaded crossbow", referring to a game term that exists nowhere else.
But, like "held" we can extrapolate from the dictionary definition. An item is held when it is grasped in the hand.

We then need to figure out when exactly a crossbow is "loaded".

Lets assume two things.

1: "Ignoring the Loading Property" does not mean that the crossbow expert deals damage without putting a bolt into their crossbow. The crossbow is loaded as part of their attack. it never becomes Loaded (because that's a nonexistant game term), but it is loaded and fired.

2: A Crossbow Expert should be able to attack normally with a one-handed weapon, and then attack with their hand crossbow as a bonus action every round.

If a hand crossbow is loaded as part of an attack action (or by an explicit action otherwise), then you cannot use the bonus action to shoot a crossbow bolt when attacking with a melee one-handed weapon after the first turn of combat. Because once you've fired the bolt, you can only reload it as part of an attack action, and you cannot use your bonus action to attack because it is not loaded.


if you CAN reload an empty hand crossbow as part of the bonus action (To make the clearly intentional "Sword and Crossbow" possible), then the word "loading" in the feat has no practical meaning in game-terms, and you can get an extra attack with a single hand crossbow.

I suppose you could argue that you can reload the hand crossbow as part of your attack action with the Melee weapon, then fire it as part of the bonus action.