Longbow vs Heavy Crossbow

[Tarvil]

Hello, you helped me a lot with my paladin optimization (paladin is doing well). Today I have problem that bother my fellow player and we're curious that you think about it.

Guy play "archer type" Battlemaster with longbow and so far everything is good. But is there any reason (not role play reason of course) to use longbow instead of heavy crossbow? With little price (one feat on SAD character) you can get better damage dice and access to interesting short range weapon (hand crossbow).

[Eslin]

Hello, you helped me a lot with my paladin optimization (paladin is doing well). Today I have problem that bother my fellow player and we're curious that you think about it.

Guy play "archer type" Battlemaster with longbow and so far everything is good. But is there any reason (not role play reason of course) to use longbow instead of heavy crossbow? With little price (one feat on SAD character) you can get better damage dice and access to interesting short range weapon (hand crossbow).

That's still quite a price, one damage is very low for a feat. Using two hand crossbows is another matter altogether however.

[silveralen]

If you can afford the feat it a moderate upgrade, mainly in that you don't need to worry about melee range anymore and get a slightly bigger damage die.

Even with a SAD class it may not be the best choice. Res (wisdom) is almost a must have on fighter for example, he probably wants to get sharpshooter first as well, and max dex. It's a good feat but not the be all end all.

As for hand crossbows, using two of them at once with the sharpshooter ability can be very nasty, but without it you probably lose more than you gain compared to heavy crossbow. To make extra attacks work for you, you need lots of static damage boosts (which is why archery and great weapons work so well for fighter).

This is all assuming the extra shot cannot just be added on to a normal crossbow routine. If it can, the value of the feat rises quite a bit, though likely still behind sharpshooter unless you consistently face high AC targets or enemies consistently manage to close to melee range.

[Camman1984]

Speaking of hand crossbows, do you need a feat to use both at once or to say, use a spell as an action the shoot a hand crossbow as bonus in offhand

[silveralen]

Using a hand crossbow in the offhand doesn't require a feat if I recall correctly, but normally firing it in the offhand would lack your attribute bonus. That's not a huge deal later on, but early game it makes a difference.

Unless there is a caveat about ranged weapons and duel wielding. I know you can throw a weapon as part of an attack routine if dual wielding, I'm less sure of the exact wording potentially excluding projectile one handed weapons.

Can't use it when casting a spell, duel wielding requires the main action to be an attack action, as does this feat.

[MaxWilson]

Guy play "archer type" Battlemaster with longbow and so far everything is good. But is there any reason (not role play reason of course) to use longbow instead of heavy crossbow? With little price (one feat on SAD character) you can get better damage dice and access to interesting short range weapon (hand crossbow).

I prefer longbows. There is very much something to be said for never being outranged.

[Scirocco]

Speaking of hand crossbows, do you need a feat to use both at once or to say, use a spell as an action the shoot a hand crossbow as bonus in offhand

You can't do bonus action attacks with hand xbows without the feat, and even with it you have to take the Attack action with the primary hand. You're looking for War Magic/Battle Magic to do that.


Unless there is a caveat about ranged weapons and duel wielding. I know you can throw a weapon as part of an attack routine if dual wielding, I'm less sure of the exact wording potentially excluding projectile one handed weapons.

You could throw the hand xbow as an improvised weapon, but without the feat you can't get a bonus attack with them normally.

[silveralen]

Yeah, the duel wield section does disallow any non melee weapon. So you need the feat for sure.

[Mechaviking]

Also as written by the feat you don´t need to have 2 hand crossbows(which btw is physically inpractical :D ).

Because the feat says:

1. if you use the attack action with a one handed weapon(hand crossbow)

2. you can make a bonus action attack with a loaded hand crossbow which you are holding(same hand crossbow)

Since you ignore the loading rules you only need the single hand crossbow and can leave this silly dual wielding nonsense to the demigods from from D3 :D

[Shadow]

(same hand crossbow)

This has been argued to death, and the designers confirmed that a single hand crossbow was not intended to proc its own bonus action attack.
So yes, you do need another weapon. A single hand crossbow is not enough. And reading the feat in context instead of reading individual sentences within the feat makes that perfecly clear.

[silveralen]

Also as written by the feat you don´t need to have 2 hand crossbows(which btw is physically inpractical :D )

Impractical? Maybe. Awesome? Yes.

Come on, you know you want to play a fighter who rapid fires duel hand crossbows while performing borderline absurd acrobatics.

[Eslin]

Impractical? Maybe. Awesome? Yes.

Come on, you know you want to play a fighter who rapid fires duel hand crossbows while performing borderline absurd acrobatics.

Nope, I want to use a single hand crossbow and a shield. Much more practical =D


This has been argued to death, and the designers confirmed that a single hand crossbow was not intended to proc its own bonus action attack.
So yes, you do need another weapon. A single hand crossbow is not enough. And reading the feat in context instead of reading individual sentences within the feat makes that perfecly clear.
Then they should have put that in there. It says you need a one handed weapon, a hand crossbow is a one handed weapon, the instant I read the feat I assumed the two ways of using it would be rapier in one hand crossbow in the other or shield/empty hand crossbow in the other. If it's obvious as hell it can be used a certain way and the designers don't disallow it, you can do it.
Seriously, it's like the quarterstaff/polearm master thing - one of the obvious uses is shield/quarterstaff, it's obvious they meant for it to be allowed because they could have easily banned it and they didn't.

It's the difference between things like this and wild shape - the wild shape/stat increase thing is debatable, but you can make a pretty convincing argument that it shouldn't be allowed RaI because there's so much text the designers could easily have let it slip through without noticing it, hence no clarification. For something like crossbow expert where it's literally one sentence, there are only two reasons to let the using only one crossbow thing through: A, the designers are ok with it or B, the designers are somehow so bad at their jobs that they can't make single sentences work properly and are therefore probably cats rolling around on the keyboard rather than adult humans. I understand unintentional combinations getting through or not having perfect clarification on large complicated abilities, but there is no excuse for having single standalone sentences not be airtight in a product written and proofread by creatures other than cats.

[MaxWilson]

Then they should have put that in there. It says you need a one handed weapon, a hand crossbow is a one handed weapon, the instant I read the feat I assumed the two ways of using it would be rapier in one hand crossbow in the other or shield/empty hand crossbow in the other. If it's obvious as hell it can be used a certain way and the designers don't disallow it, you can do it.

Rapier + hand crossbow is obviously RAW and apparently RAI. Classic combo there. I'm not sure what you mean by shield/empty hand crossbow though.

[Shadow]

And that's exactly your problem Eslin. You read individual sentences instead of reading the entire description in context.
Stop doing that and things become quite clear.

[Eslin]

And that's exactly your problem Eslin. You read individual sentences instead of reading the entire description in context.
Stop doing that and things become quite clear.

Except it is an individual sentence. For other abilities, for example wildshape as discussed earlier, you have to take each individual sentence as part of the whole in order to figure out how to use it.

Crossbow Expert HAS NO entire description to use as context. There is no other text relevant to it. There is precisely one sentence relevant to the hand crossbow part and that is the sentence itself, and if it lets you attack with one hand crossbow then that was either intentional or the designers are cats.

[Mechaviking]

I´m looking at the feat right now and it is:

Title

Sentence

Sentence

Sentence

Sentence

that´s it.

There is no mention whatsoever of using 2 weapons in the entire feat none.

The classic drow using 2 hand crossbows comes to mind sure, but it is never stated. NEVER.

[silveralen]

The only context I can see is the "no disadvantage at close range ". With that and the hand crossbow bit, it kinda looks like they meant for you to get close with a melee weapon+hand crossbow. But that's really stretching the context.

I just like duel hand crossbow's cause it looks cool.

[Shadow]

The context comes from the fact that it needs to be loaded. If you just fired it, it isn't loaded, hence the other attack didn't come from that hand crossbow.
We'e gone over this dozens of times in different threads, and the designers have stated this to be the case. I'm not doing it again here.

[silveralen]

The context comes from the fact that it needs to be loaded. If you just fired it, it isn't loaded, hence the other attack didn't come from that hand crossbow.
We'e gone over this dozens of times in different threads, and the designers have stated this to be the case. I'm not doing it again here.

Oh, that's no a problem reading the feat in context that's ambiguity about bonus actions, as there is no in game definition for whether a bonus action occurs immediately after a triggering action, any time after a triggering action, or anytime after a triggering action is declared.

What's odd is that the designers are legitimately wrong about this, as in some places (such as here) their intent was apparently for the bonus action to occur immediately after the triggering action, while in other cases they clarified it to mean any time after the triggering action. This implies the language of the individual abilities should differ, but they do not. Meaning they don't seem to have a good idea how bonus actions should work. Some the language even leads abilities working as in option A, something they have yet to say was intended for any.

This, their intent is all but impossible to judge without a specific clarification, as the intent of two abilities with virtually identical wordings differs, seriously calling into question whether we should even be taking their word for it, as we don't know who handled which part. Which is the only real possibility in such a case.

[Shadow]

The feat says that you need to attack with a one handed weapon.
There are about 23 weapons able to be used with one hand.
The fact that you no longer take disadvantage in melee range implies that the feat was designed for a melee weapon in the other hand as a legitimate and viable option.
When you read it all together, as a whole, in context, instead of reading an individual sentence, it is absloutely crystal clear that the intent was for XbX to be a feat designed for a TWF style with the use of a handbow in one or both hands.
Hand crossbow is quite literally the *only* weapon wherein people seem to think that there's some kind of loophole out of this blatantly obvious intent.

I'll say no more on the matter. It's all been said before, ad nauseam.

[Mechaviking]

The feat says that you need to attack with a one handed weapon.
There are about 23 weapons able to be used with one hand.
The fact that you no longer take disadvantage in melee range implies that the feat was designed for a melee weapon in the other hand as a legitimate and viable option.
When you read it all together, as a whole, in context, instead of reading an individual sentence, it is absloutely crystal clear that the intent was for XbX to be a feat designed for a TWF style with the use of a handbow in one or both hands.
Hand crossbow is quite literally the *only* weapon wherein people seem to think that there's some kind of loophole out of this blatantly obvious intent.

I'll say no more on the matter. It's all been said before, ad nauseam.

And I keep telling you that a hand crossbow is a one handed weapon, the feat does not state one handed Melee weapon it says one handed weapon.

The hand crossbow is a light, ranged, loading One Handed weapon.

The feat allows you to ignore the loading quality of a weapon, I don´t know how that works in your games but it tells me that you can load the weapon so fast that it is technically always loaded.

Also the fact that it negates the disadvantage of making ranged attacks while in melee says to me that it was made for ranged attacks and or weapons.

Also:

When a bard with a Long bow is(in my opinion)better than some who has spent 2 feats on a crossbow themed character(whereas the bard spent 1) I see no problem in using the feat exactly as it is written.

Also number 2:

Aha! Mechanics aside: If you can move in between attacks during an attack action you should be able to reload a hand crossbow in the same time or less.


This has been argued to death, and the designers confirmed that a single hand crossbow was not intended to proc its own bonus action attack.

Can you link that quote to me?

[Shadow]

Take it somewhere else, like one of the millions of threads that already exist about it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?370020-a-feat-analysis-first-impressions-of-a-wannabe-optimizer&p=18356044&viewfull=1#post18356044)

[Mechaviking]

cool, thanks :D

[Mechaviking]

Also after reading the other thread I can understand why you feel like you´ve been slamming your face repeatedly into the same wall.

So for what it´s worth sorry if it personally bugged you.

[Shadow]

Also after reading the other thread I can understand why you feel like you´ve been slamming your face repeatedly into the same wall.

So for what it´s worth sorry if it personally bugged you.

It's not you that bugged me. It's the fact that every single time the words hand crossbow and crossbow expert get typed it leads to someone misinterpreting what the loading property is and does, which leads to another debate about a single handbow, when there have been dozens of threads and dev tweets about it already.
It gets tiresome.

The problem is that previous editions put players in the mindset to rules-lawyer everything, and this edition doesn't play well with rules-lawyering comparatively. They wanted to put the power back in the hands of the DM when the players have gotten used to that power. They've also gotten used to rulebooks that read like legal documents, so now that the game has returned to a rulings over rules philosophy many players are having a very difficult time adjusting.
They're too used to the RAW being law, when this edition places much, much more focus on the RAI.
5e's system is similar enough to 3e that players are reading the rulebook the way that they were used to for that edition, but the fact is that the system is different enough that they should be reading it without any bias, which many players just can't seem to do yet.
Old habits die hard.
It makes for a messy transition between editions.

[silveralen]

Honestly that's not it in this case. I literally had to have someone explain why it didn't work, because using the free item interaction to reload your crossbow seemed perfectly legitimate given how my table has handled bonus actions and triggering actions, which again is not laid out particularly well in the PHB.

Besides which, saying it ignores the loading property seems like it'd be easy to read the intent of the feat as "don't worry about whether your crossbow is loaded". So talking about he feat "as a whole" doesn't help.

It's just badly written.

[Eslin]

It's not you that bugged me. It's the fact that every single time the words hand crossbow and crossbow expert get typed it leads to someone misinterpreting what the loading property is and does, which leads to another debate about a single handbow, when there have been dozens of threads and dev tweets about it already.
It gets tiresome.

The problem is that previous editions put players in the mindset to rules-lawyer everything, and this edition doesn't play well with rules-lawyering comparatively. They wanted to put the power back in the hands of the DM when the players have gotten used to that power. They've also gotten used to rulebooks that read like legal documents, so now that the game has returned to a rulings over rules philosophy many players are having a very difficult time adjusting.
They're too used to the RAW being law, when this edition places much, much more focus on the RAI.
5e's system is similar enough to 3e that players are reading the rulebook the way that they were used to for that edition, but the fact is that the system is different enough that they should be reading it without any bias, which many players just can't seem to do yet.
Old habits die hard.
It makes for a messy transition between editions.

I really fail to see how that's rules lawyering. It says you need a one handed weapon, a hand crossbow's a one handed weapon, works fine. If you want to mix it up with melee that has its advantages, there are plenty of things that only work with melee attacks, but it's pretty clear RaI is that you can do it - if it wasn't, they would have worded it to exclude the possibility.

And regarding the whole edition and rulings over rules change - I call complete and utter bull****, but I do so hard enough that I'm making my own thread about it.

[Shadow]

Honestly that's not it in this case.
It's just badly written.

In this case I agree with you. You have to really read between the lines and understand where they were headed or it's easy to misinterpret.
I was speaking more in a general sense with the rest of that rant.

[Easy_Lee]

Answer to the crossbow debate: ask your DM. Both interpretations are RAW, one is RAI, and neither has any real mechanical benefit (beyond having a free hand, which you can avoid needing with a waist-strap a la Cadderly).

Getting the feat just to use a heavy crossbow over a longbow is not worth the investment unless your DM loves crossbows or lets you get opportunity attacks due to not having melee disadvantage. One damage is not a large enough difference; an extra attack at range with attribute is.

[Shadow]

Answer to the crossbow debate: ask your DM. Both interpretations are RAW, one is RAI, and neither has any real mechanical benefit (beyond having a free hand, which you can avoid needing with a waist-strap a la Cadderly).

Nope.
One interpretation is both RAW and RAI, and one interpretation is just incorrect.
That's not to say that it shouldn't be allowed. DM's call. It's not OP or anything. Unless you want to use a shield as well, in which case it should be disallowed IMO, because that violates the rules both as written and as intended, which means at that point you're just making up your own rules to get an extra attack and still have a shield.

[Easy_Lee]

Nope.
One interpretation is both RAW and RAI, and one interpretation is just incorrect.
That's not to say that it shouldn't be allowed. DM's call. It's not OP or anything. Unless you want to use a shield as well, in which case it should be disallowed IMO, because that violates the rules both as written and as intended, which means at that point you're just making up your own rules to get an extra attack and still have a shield.

If it was as cut and dry "right and wrong" as you claim, there would never have been a debate in the first place. It all depends on interpretation of the word "loaded", which could actually lead to you never getting the bonus attack at all depending on how it's read. Either way, /thread.

[Shadow]

If it was as cut and dry "right and wrong" as you claim, there would never have been a debate in the first place. It all depends on interpretation of the word "loaded", which could actually lead to you never getting the bonus attack at all depending on how it's read. Either way, /thread.

It doesn't depend on anyone's interpretation of the word loaded, it depends on people reading the description of the property that they get to ignore, and then ONLY ignoring what it says that property does.

And if your interpretation was "right" then the lead designer of the game would allow that interpretation in his games, which he does not.

So yes, /discussion

[Easy_Lee]

And if your interpretation was "right" then the lead designer of the game would allow that interpretation in his games, which he does not.

Developer intentions have nothing to do with right and wrong. Gamers are not slaves, nor are we children who need to be told what to do. Games evolve far beyond what developers intend.

Regarding the debate, "loaded" is pretty damn ambiguous when the same paragraph says "ignore loading". Either the crossbow is always loaded or it's loaded as a part of the attack. In the former case, one crossbow will suffice. In the latter case, you never get your bonus attack because the weapon isn't loaded until you attack with it. The "intended" outcome is neither of those. And no, I'm not reading the feat the way I "want to"; that's how it's written. Any argument to the contrary may be RAI, but is not RAW. Not only that, saying that anyone who disagrees with you is just reading feats the way they want to is insulting.

The feat should have said "when you make an attack with a one handed weapon, you may make a bonus attack with a crossbow wielded in the other hand." That's what evidently was intended, and it would have prevented this debate from ever happening.

[Shadow]

Maybe you should read the link provided above, wherein I explain to you (yes, to you personally) how loading works.

[Easy_Lee]

Maybe you should read the link provided above, wherein I explain to you (yes, to you personally) how loading works.

Trust me, I've read everything on the subject. Fact of the matter is I don't much care for anything that isn't written in the PHB. I've read several posts wherein one person proposes a way for something to work then says "this is how it is; deal with it", as if theirs is the word of God. I have no patience for such condescending arrogance.

I have stated the RAW, and you have stated someone's opinion on RAI. That is all there is to it. Reply to me again if you like. But your reply will not be read.

[Shadow]

Trust me, I've read everything on the subject. Fact of the matter is I don't much care for anything that isn't written in the PHB. I've read several posts wherein one person proposes a way for something to work then says "this is how it is; deal with it", as if theirs is the word of God. I have no patience for such condescending arrogance.

I have stated the RAW, and you have stated someone's opinion on RAI. That is all there is to it. Reply to me again if you like. But your reply will not be read.

So you claim to have no patience for "this is how it is, deal with it," and then proceed to say what is effectively exactly that.
Well played.

[Frenth Alunril]

Am I the only person who sees a pirate with his rapier pulling an off-hand wheel-lock pistol for his single surprise shot, then throwing it to the ground and grabbing another pistol?

This argument is insane. First how? You need two hands to load a crossbow, even automatic loading crossbows required them remaining stationary "ie held" while a simple one handed action was required, so the idea that some fool would wade into combat with two hand crossbows is ludicrous in reality, and while fantasy is not reality, extra ordinary feats don't let you grow an extra set of bow loading arms.

Sure, is the sentence explicit in banning the hand crossbow, nope. Go for it. As DM, you get two shots, then you have to drop one bow to load the other, just like the pirate.

"Rules lawyers" argue semantics and structure. This argument is, at its base, rules lawyery.

As to repeating crossbows: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow

[BRC]

Am I the only person who sees a pirate with his rapier pulling an off-hand wheel-lock pistol for his single surprise shot, then throwing it to the ground and grabbing another pistol?

This argument is insane. First how? You need two hands to load a crossbow, even automatic loading crossbows required them remaining stationary "ie held" while a simple one handed action was required, so the idea that some fool would wade into combat with two hand crossbows is ludicrous in reality, and while fantasy is not reality, extra ordinary feats don't let you grow an extra set of bow loading arms.

Sure, is the sentence explicit in banning the hand crossbow, nope. Go for it. As DM, you get two shots, then you have to drop one bow to load the other, just like the pirate.

"Rules lawyers" argue semantics and structure. This argument is, at its base, rules lawyery.

As to repeating crossbows: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow

The problem is that the same thing could be said about a crossbow and a one-handed weapon, which most people agree is the intended purpose of the feat.

Its hard to find a reading of the rules that allows attacking with a one-handed melee weapon and firing a crossbow, but does NOT allow attacking with a hand crossbow, and then attacking with another hand crossbow.

[Frenth Alunril]

The problem is that the same thing could be said about a crossbow and a one-handed weapon, which most people agree is the intended purpose of the feat.

Its hard to find a reading of the rules that allows attacking with a one-handed melee weapon and firing a crossbow, but does NOT allow attacking with a hand crossbow, and then attacking with another hand crossbow.

Oh, yeah, I agree. Completely.

Good luck loading those ;)

[Maxilian]

Wait... why would the loading quality matters? the feat state that:

"You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient."

[Easy_Lee]

Wait... why would the loading quality matters? the feat state that:

"You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient."

As has been discussed, the words "load", "loaded", and "loading" are different conjugations of the same verb. You either ignore the word or you don't. Shadow thinks you don't. Someone at WoTC agrees with him. It's possible that the only RAI application of the feat is using a hand crossbow in the offhand with a melee weapon in the other hand, like one of Salvatore's drow.

But as-written, the feat allows everything from dual hand crossbows to firing a single hand crossbow multiple times, since you ignore any form of the word "load". Maybe it's poorly written, but I don't much care. One interpretation limits player options needlessly, the other allows for a more diverse game.

[Maxilian]

As has been discussed, the words "load", "loaded", and "loading" are different conjugations of the same verb. You either ignore the word or you don't. Shadow thinks you don't. Someone at WoTC agrees with him. It's possible that the only RAI application of the feat is using a hand crossbow in the offhand with a melee weapon in the other hand, like one of Salvatore's drow.

But as-written, the feat allows everything from dual hand crossbows to firing a single hand crossbow multiple times, since you ignore any form of the word "load". Maybe it's poorly written, but I don't much care. One interpretation limits player options needlessly, the other allows for a more diverse game.

Well it doesn't make sense if that's how it should work RAI, i mean... if you can use the Extra Attack with a Crossbow then it should also let you do it with the feat, i would assume the crossbow is always loaded in combat unless there's something that makes that impossible (like the lack of bolts) or any other particular event that happens in that case (a mage frost your crossbow or something like that).

Note: I would agree with Shadow if these would make any character more powerfull that it should (it doesn't affect the balance of the game)

[Easy_Lee]

Well it doesn't make sense if that's how it should work RAI, i mean... if you can use the Extra Attack with a Crossbow then it should also let you do it with the feat, i would assume the crossbow is always loaded in combat unless there's something that makes that impossible (like the lack of bolts) or any other particular event that happens in that case (a mage frost your crossbow or something like that).

Note: I would agree with Shadow if these would make any character more powerfull that it should (it doesn't affect the balance of the game)

I agree it doesn't make sense. What makes the most sense to me is having a single hand crossbow and being able to fire it as a bonus action, for one more attack, due to extensive training. If you're worried people will use a shield in their offhand, then just house rule that using the feat this way requires a free hand for loading it. That's what I would do.

[Shadow]

Well it doesn't make sense if that's how it should work RAI, i mean... if you can use the Extra Attack with a Crossbow then it should also let you do it with the feat, i would assume the crossbow is always loaded in combat unless there's something that makes that impossible (like the lack of bolts) or any other particular event that happens in that case (a mage frost your crossbow or something like that).

Note: I would agree with Shadow if these would make any character more powerfull that it should (it doesn't affect the balance of the game)

Easy's problem in understanding it comes from one simple thing, as stated in the quote.
"You either ignore the word or you don't"
The fact is that you don't. You don't ignore the word loaded. You ignore the Loading Quality, which places a restriction on the number of attacks you can make, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the weapon is loaded, as loading the weapon is detailed in the Ammunition property.

I'll say it once again, take it to one of the millions of threads dedicated to this topic. One of those threads is conveniently linked in this thread.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Easy's problem in understanding it comes from one simple thing, as stated in the quote.
"You either ignore the word or you don't"
The fact is that you don't. You don't ignore the word loaded. You ignore the Loading Quality, which places a restriction on the number of attacks you can make, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the weapon is loaded, as loading the weapon is detailed in the Ammunition property.

I'll say it once again, take it to one of the millions of threads dedicated to this topic. One of those threads is conveniently linked in this thread.

So to clarify, (as I don't care to read through other threads on the subject) you are saying you've fired it, so it's no longer loaded and doesn't qualify for the bonus action?

[Shadow]

So to clarify, (as I don't care to read through other threads on the subject) you are saying you've fired it, so it's no longer loaded and doesn't qualify for the bonus action?

Correct.
Bonus action attacks are designed as [if this] scenario is met, [then this] action can be taken.
One of the requirements to trigger the bonus action is not met, so that bonus action cannot be taken.
But you should really read about a page or so from the point where that thread was linked.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Correct.
Bonus action attacks are designed as [if this] scenario is met, [then this] action can be taken.
One of the requirements to trigger the bonus action is not met, so that bonus action cannot be taken.
But you should really read about a page or so from the point where that thread was linked.

I absolutely agree with you regarding the syntax of actions. I'll go check it out if I have time. Thanks.

[MaxWilson]

All of this headache would have gone away if they had just named the "loading" property "slow-loading" or "slow" or something similar.

[Longcat]

People, the thread is about Longbow vs Heavy Crossbow, not about hand crossbows. Can we please focus on the topic at hand?

Regarding Heavy Crossbows: they deal an average of +1 damage when compared to the Longbow. Before Extra Attack, Heavy Crossbow is a viable alternative, but afterwards, Longbow gets plain better. Crossbow Expertise for the purpose of heavy crossbows is probably not worth the feat slot.

[Shadow]

Regarding Heavy Crossbows: they deal an average of +1 damage when compared to the Longbow. Before Extra Attack, Heavy Crossbow is a viable alternative, but afterwards, Longbow gets plain better. Crossbow Expertise for the purpose of heavy crossbows is probably not worth the feat slot.

That's subjective.
+1 damage and turning your ranged weapon into an all-purpose weapon may very well be worth a feat to some people.

[silveralen]

That's subjective.
+1 damage and turning your ranged weapon into an all-purpose weapon may very well be worth a feat to some people.

Unless you have feat slots to burn (fighter), i doubt it. 2-4 damage a turn is very meh, which is about what you'd be looking at if you just juggled between rapier and longbow. Not worth taking unless you cannot find a single other useful feat or stat increase, and even then only fighters or swift quiver users get any mileage out of it.

[Easy_Lee]

People, the thread is about Longbow vs Heavy Crossbow, not about hand crossbows. Can we please focus on the topic at hand?

Regarding Heavy Crossbows: they deal an average of +1 damage when compared to the Longbow. Before Extra Attack, Heavy Crossbow is a viable alternative, but afterwards, Longbow gets plain better. Crossbow Expertise for the purpose of heavy crossbows is probably not worth the feat slot.

I agree, except, that exact response has been stated quite a few times. The only thing that could make heavy crossbow worth the feat slot is if there was some specific heavy crossbow one wanted to use.

[Maxilian]

Correct.
Bonus action attacks are designed as [if this] scenario is met, [then this] action can be taken.
One of the requirements to trigger the bonus action is not met, so that bonus action cannot be taken.
But you should really read about a page or so from the point where that thread was linked.

I agree with you here (i was checking it and is actually as you say)

[Easy_Lee]

As stated, Shadow as arguing from the point of view "are you holding a loaded crossbow?" The debate is whether we ignore that word, loaded, as per the feat's earlier text. I think it's pretty clear at this point which version makes more sense, given the dual xbow Diablo demon hunter thing.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I think it's pretty clear at this point which version makes more sense, given the dual xbow Diablo demon hunter thing.
Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, but you're saying it makes sense, given a fictional character who fires hand crossbows as fast as a professional fires automatic pistols?

[SliceandDiceKid]

Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, but you're saying it makes sense, given a fictional character who fires hand crossbows as fast as a professional fires automatic pistols?

Lol
A fictional character from a video game.

And it's faster than world record holders can fire, when you hit the high end gear.

[Easy_Lee]

Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, but you're saying it makes sense, given a fictional character who fires hand crossbows as fast as a professional fires automatic pistols?

Not nearly that fast. Professionals firing automatic pistols can fire a hell of a lot more than 9 shots every six seconds, which is the maximum a fighter can reach. Nah, what I'm saying is this: Fighters can fire up to 8 shots from any crossbow in a single round with crossbow expert. There's no debate about that one, since it's explicitly in the book. So which makes more sense:

A fighter who has trained and can fire one more shot than normal from a single hand crossbow
A fighter who can't do the above, but can dual wield hand crossbows, reloading the one in his right hand up to 8 times and firing the other exactly once.

As I've said, I think the first makes more sense. And if a sensible DM requires the player have a free hand to pull off the additional shot, as in can't use a shield with a hand crossbow, then there's no mechanical benefit to one or the other. That said, if I had a player who wanted to dual wield hand crossbows, I'd let him/her because D&D is about having fun.

[Regulas]

This entire thread is hilarious.


Crossbow expert has a single sole exclusive definition of use both raw and rai. There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in any way shape or form.

If you are claiming otherwise that is because you are intentionally trying to break the rules. Now as long as the DM agrees then you can do absolutely anything regardless of the rules, but that is a homeruling and has nothing to do with the PHB.

As a side note to the guy above. In scenario 2 the guy can only fire 2 shots one from each cross-bow, [unless he drops the offhand or has more arms].

[Easy_Lee]

As a side note to the guy above. In scenario 2 the guy can only fire 2 shots one from each cross-bow, [unless he drops the offhand or has more arms].

Wrong. You ignore the loading property and therefore load as part of the attack. Hand crossbows are listed as a one-handed weapon, implying you don't need a free hand to load it. So how did you load it one-handed? Who knows, but according to RAW you sure as hell did.

[Regulas]

Wrong. You ignore the loading property and therefore load as part of the attack. Hand crossbows are listed as a one-handed weapon, implying you don't need a free hand to load it. So how did you load it one-handed? Who knows, but according to RAW you sure as hell did.

The rule that it occurs as part of the attack is the timing. This is not the method it just says when you do it.

As per the ammunition rules you must draw the ammunition from it's location. If your hands are full you have no method to draw something from a pouch/container etc. (or are you saying that if I am carrying a large barrel in each hand I can freely pick-pocket people?).

[Kyutaru]

Hrm...

https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/tag/crossbow/

Seems like it's just for dual wielding hand crossbows or using one in close combat. Lots of modern games have pistoleers being a close combat class. Same thing.

[Easy_Lee]

As per the ammunition rules you must draw the ammunition from it's location. If your hands are full you have no method to draw something from a pouch/container etc. (or are you saying that if I am carrying a large barrel in each hand I can freely pick-pocket people?).

Hence the toss and catch option many have discussed. If you needed a free hand to use hand crossbows, then the PHB would have them listed as two-handed (like the light crossbow, which could easily be held in one hand but requires a second to load it).

As to how the character is doing it, allow me to submit this. Maybe, just maybe, someone with extensive crossbow training knows something about them that you don't.

[Easy_Lee]

Oh, by the way everyone, I don't think dev replies are the end-all be-all of rulings. But here's one I found for those interested:

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/526087590080827393
"@pizzystrizzy That's really flavor text. Assuming you have enough ammo, the first bullet of the feat enables you to easily load the weapon." - Jeremy Crawford

We've been arguing about flavor text.

[Regulas]

Hence the toss and catch option many have discussed. If you needed a free hand to use hand crossbows, then the PHB would have them listed as two-handed (like the light crossbow, which could easily be held in one hand but requires a second to load it).

As to how the character is doing it, allow me to submit this. Maybe, just maybe, someone with extensive crossbow training knows something about them that you don't.

On what basis are you thinking the light crossbow doesn't take two hands to actually fire? "light" is a relative term to differ it from the heavy. A light crossbow is a plain regular average sized crossbow , which even if you could carry it one-handed you would still use both while firing it (one to hold and one to pull the tirgger, and both to aim). Whereas the heavy is the overly large variety.


Anything like the toss and catch concepts are home-rules pure and simple. If you and your DM want to justify that you guys have special physical abilities then by all means go ahead.

[Easy_Lee]

On what basis are you thinking the light crossbow doesn't take two hands to actually fire? "light" is a relative term to differ it from the heavy. A light crossbow is a plain regular average sized crossbow , which even if you could carry it one-handed you would still use both while firing it (one to hold and one to pull the tirgger, and both to aim). Whereas the heavy is the overly large variety.


Anything like the toss and catch concepts are home-rules pure and simple. If you and your DM want to justify that you guys have special physical abilities then by all means go ahead.

I don't know about you, but I've shot clay pidgeons with a shotgun, one-handed. I could probably aim and fire a crossbow with one hand. And I'm not a peak condition fighter, nor do I have extensive shotgun training.

I just need you to admit this one thing. Just one thing. Maybe you don't know everything there is to know about crossbows and how to use them.

[Regulas]

I don't know about you, but I've shot clay pidgeons with a shotgun, one-handed. I could probably aim and fire a crossbow with one hand. And I'm not a peak condition fighter, nor do I have extensive shotgun training.

I just need you to admit this one thing. Just one thing. Maybe you don't know everything there is to know about crossbows and how to use them.

This isn't about expertise even, it's about basic common sense. Can you walk through walls? Does gravity exist? Are hot things hot?

There may be ways to justify a sliehgt of hand check but that's about it.

[Kyutaru]

I don't know about you, but I've shot clay pidgeons with a shotgun, one-handed. I could probably aim and fire a crossbow with one hand. And I'm not a peak condition fighter, nor do I have extensive shotgun training.

I just need you to admit this one thing. Just one thing. Maybe you don't know everything there is to know about crossbows and how to use them.

The average shotgun kicks back about 20 foot pounds of force. If you're shooting one-handed, you're using a heavy shotgun. Recoil is dispersed across the weight of the object and if you check the PHB, crossbows are on par with swords. Except swords don't have recoil, they do however require dual hands at higher weights. Recoil isn't an issue with crossbows for its kickback... rather its the fact that the weapon will attempt to leave your hands long before the bolt has cleared it. To fire a crossbow, you must keep the weapon on target until the bolt has successfully discharged completely or you may as well be firing blind. That bolt isn't firing at the speed of a bullet... you're looking at maybe over 100 feet per second as opposed to some of nicer guns outputting over 5000 feet per second. Yet recoil still causes bullets to deviate from the intended target. If they say you need two hands to keep a crossbow from moving, I'll believe it... that thing needs to stay under control if you want to hit anyone in a vital part.

"I took an arrow to the knee!" -- Yeah, because the guy who shot you wasn't strong enough or good enough to keep the damn bow from recoiling.

[Captn_Flounder]

ITT: People don't know the difference between the Loading Property, loaded, and the Ammunition Property and trying to rules lawyer without reading the rules.

[Unoriginal]

ITT: People don't know the difference between the Loading Property, loaded, and the Ammunition Property and trying to rules lawyer without reading the rules.

Dude, why are you necromancing a 3 years old thread?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Dude, why are you necromancing a 3 years old thread?

Because he entered something into a search engine this topic came up on the list, he read it posted a reply without paying attention to the date.

[Easy_Lee]

Ah, the crossbow debates of yesteryear. I'm glad we have better things to argue about now.

Necromancy is fun.

[MeeposFire]

Ah to go back and see a time when people thought the RAW and RAI of crossbow expert was not to allow a single hand crossbow to work with the bonus action.

[danpit2991]

ok im sure im about to be slammed by those who MUST be right but why not just allow all scenarios? it doesnt make much difference if you use 1 hand xbow and shoot load shoot or two and shoot shoot reload or melee attach shoot do whatever makes the most sense to you at your table all this discussion does is flare tempers in the light of perceived ambiguity its usually best to fall on the side of whats cool