Why do People Hate on Crossbow Expert?

[NeoSeraphi]

So for those of us who don't own the phb (just got some holiday money but bookstores are closed on Thanksgiving) why does everyone cite Crossbow Expert as the main problem with 5e's vague wording? And if it's so bad, why hasn't a dev posted about it like Fast Hands?

[mephnick]

Because the intent of the feat is obviously to let you use a hand crossbow with another weapon on the same turn, like iconic roguish characters, not to double attack with the same crossbow on the same turn.

Unfortunately the wording is vague enough that players can say nothing prevents you from doubling your attacks with a single crossbow.

Some people can't get over RAW. Those who can have no problem with the feat.

[NeoSeraphi]

Wait I thought you could attack with your off-hand weapon without TWF in this edition. So why do you need a feat to TWF with a hand crossbow? :smallconfused:

[silveralen]

Wait I thought you could attack with your off-hand weapon without TWF in this edition. So why do you need a feat to TWF with a hand crossbow? :smallconfused:

Because, for some reason, TWF only works with melee weapons. You can even throw the melee weapons, but you can't use an actual one handed ranged weapon in your offhand by default.

As for why it gets hate, it's poorly written to lead to different readings, it was clarified by a designer, but only after many people already established their own method of handling it (which many prefer and consider as or more balanced).

To compound issues, his clarification is inconsistent with other parts of the rulebook that have been clarified, leading to some amount of annoyance. His "clarification" is more or less errata, as it works nothing like how he clarified it to the way it is written.

Oh, and with his clarification the feat is by far one of the least useful in the book. More or less savage attacker level.

[Giant2005]

Wait I thought you could attack with your off-hand weapon without TWF in this edition. So why do you need a feat to TWF with a hand crossbow? :smallconfused:

The un-feated dual-wielding only works with two light melee weapons.

[Longcat]

The feat is badly worded, resulting in some ambiguity. Specifically "ignore loading" vs "loaded". Depending on how you read it, it can mean any number of things. The feat varies in usefulness accordingly.

The discussions this feat has sparked have been rather heated, with both sides claiming RAW/RAI is on their side. Overall, it can be summarized as "your approach is BadWrongFun".

[mephnick]

Because, for some reason, TWF only works with melee weapons. You can even throw the melee weapons, but you can't use an actual one handed ranged weapon in your offhand by default.

It also lets you use your damage bonus, which TWF does not.

It's not really a big deal in the long run, but it's a fairly substantial power boost for low level characters.

[mephnick]

So the feat gives you TWF that is not reliant on light weapons AND let's you add your damage bonus to your off-hand weapon, which is powerful enough.

People just don't want the drawback of having to be in melee range to get two attacks at level 1. :smallsigh:

[Rummy]

Could someone summarize what the Dev errata was?

[NeoSeraphi]

Yes, could someone summarize or link the errata?

[Scirocco]

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

[NeoSeraphi]

I don't see the nerf. All it says is that you need to use a different crossbow for the TWF part of the feat.

[Rummy]

I don't see the nerf. All it says is that you need to use a different crossbow for the TWF part of the feat.

I concur. He's just clarifying that two weapons are required. That is what the feat seemed to say, but was unclear on. It is still a crazy good feat. Extra attack with Dex mod to damage? I'm in.

[Eslin]

I don't get it, there are subject titles and tags but no text.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Huh, crossbow feat works with range spells... I wonder how we can abuse this...

[NeoSeraphi]

Huh, crossbow feat works with range spells... I wonder how we can abuse this...

By RAW, it's clearly not RAI and besides eldritch knights can already attack and cantrip

[Regulas]

The intent of the feat is glaringly obvious.

I'm really confused actually as to how anyone has any confusion whatsoever over this feat in any way shape or form whatsoever.

Unless of course they are just trying to abuse the rules and are doing it intentionally.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

By RAW, it's clearly not RAI and besides eldritch knights can already attack and cantrip

Apparently by RAI too, Mike Mearles and Co didnt say it was against the intent.

[silveralen]

I concur. He's just clarifying that two weapons are required. That is what the feat seemed to say, but was unclear on. It is still a crazy good feat. Extra attack with Dex mod to damage? I'm in.

It's polearm master with less damage, no OAs or reaction attacks, and needs multiple magic weapons.

The link won't work for me (cellphone issue) but didn't he clarify it was melee+hand crossbow for intent?

[Kyutaru]

It's polearm master with less damage, no OAs or reaction attacks, and needs multiple magic weapons.

The link won't work for me (cellphone issue) but didn't he clarify it was melee+hand crossbow for intent?

That or double hand crossbow. Firing into melee is actually the written wording of it.

[obryn]

The discussions this feat has sparked have been rather heated, with both sides claiming RAW/RAI is on their side. Overall, it can be summarized as "your approach is BadWrongFun".
Uh, no?


The intent of the feat is glaringly obvious.

I'm really confused actually as to how anyone has any confusion whatsoever over this feat in any way shape or form whatsoever.

Unless of course they are just trying to abuse the rules and are doing it intentionally.
I agree its obvious intent is that you can dual-wield hand crossbows and go all Chow Yun Fat on owlbears.

Some folks don't agree that this is obvious, and have argued that you obviously can't John Woo a pair of hand crossbows due to Dual Wielding RAW and/or hand requirements for loading. Others have argued that you can obviously go gun & shield while still getting the bonus actions due to the feat RAW and the word "loaded".

In short, I don't think you can dismiss this all as "obvious" when it's "obviously" (heh) a badly-worded feat.

[Regulas]

Uh, no?


I agree its obvious intent is that you can dual-wield hand crossbows and go all Chow Yun Fat on owlbears.

Some folks don't agree that this is obvious, and have argued that you obviously can't John Woo a pair of hand crossbows due to Dual Wielding RAW and/or hand requirements for loading. Others have argued that you can obviously go gun & shield while still getting the bonus actions due to the feat RAW and the word "loaded".

In short, I don't think you can dismiss this all as "obvious" when it's "obviously" (heh) a badly-worded feat.

Why is it that you like so many other people miss-construes the timing of when you load (during the attack) as the method, when it is just the timing. And the feat only means you can load more then once, again having nothing to do with the method which is not mentioned.

The ammo rule states that you draw the ammo from it's container. Again that is simple and straightforward. If both your hands are fully occupied then without slight of hand you aren't going to be grabbing anything such as ammo from any container. {scrubbed}

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I think most agree that the feat:
1) Allows you to fully dual-weapon fight with a hand crossbow as the off-hand weapon
2) Allows use of any crossbow with extra-attack class features

1 is neat, but niche, and 2 isn't worth a feat on it's own. 1 could be expanded to mean that both weapons can be hand crossbows, and there's evidence that that was the intent. It gets weird trying to imagine how loading happens, but mechanically it's just a ranged version of two-weapon fighting with shortswords.

Shield and hand-crossbow does seem to drift away from the intent, unless you're bashing people with the shield before using the bonus attack. At my table I think this is where the line gets drawn; No bonus attack unless you made an attack with something in your other hand.

[Finieous]

{scrubbed}

[obryn]

Why is it that you like so many other people miss-construes the timing of when you load (during the attack) as the method, when it is just the timing. And the feat only means you can load more then once, again having nothing to do with the method which is not mentioned.

The ammo rule states that you draw the ammo from it's container. Again that is simple and straightforward. If both your hands are fully occupied then without slight of hand you aren't going to be grabbing anything such as ammo from any container. {scrubbed}
Oh! So you think it's obvious that you can't dual-wield crossbows and I think it's obvious that you can! How intriguing! It's almost as if the wording of the feat is crazy and vague, bringing us full circle!

Heck; even the designers apparently think you can dual-wield hand crossbows (https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/be-careful/), but what do they know, eh?

[Kyutaru]

It's also usable with the Van Helsing approach. Stabby weapon in one hand, crossbow in the other, melee combat focused. Shooting into melee is something people want to be able to do. Not because they lack a melee weapon, but because when that guy is dead they can still shoot someone far away without swapping.

[Regulas]

Oh! So you think it's obvious that you can't dual-wield crossbows and I think it's obvious that you can! How intriguing! It's almost as if the wording of the feat is crazy and vague, bringing us full circle!

Heck; even the designers apparently think you can dual-wield hand crossbows (https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/be-careful/), but what do they know, eh?

Oh so juggling doesn't take a skill check? Oh wait...

You "think" it works that way because you want it to so your intentionally bending you're interpretation to allow for it. That however is not vagueness in wording that is your specific intent.

[Kyutaru]

You can technically dual wield anything in the game. I can dual wield a pair of goblins if I wanted. I'm just not going to get any bonus attack from it. The rules merely clarify when certain bonuses are triggered, not what you can or cannot do. Monkey Grip allowed you to wield Greatswords solo handed, but you could always do that if you were capable of holding a 15 lb object in one hand.

Dual wielding crossbows is obviously possible. Whether you can reload them freely is what's debated and the developers have essentially said yes to that. Hands aren't the only things people use in combat. You might have six of seven bolts under your arm or are using your teeth to pull back the crossbeam.

We also have only two hands, but ten fingers. Don't tell me none of you have ever tried to hold more than two objects at the same time in your life. We find ways to put those digits to use...

If you can't see it from a rules perspective, go with my surefire DM ruling method: ask the players to attempt it in real life. If they can do it, their heroic characters can DEFINITELY do it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Oh so juggling doesn't take a skill check? Oh wait...

You "think" it works that way because you want it to so your intentionally bending you're interpretation to allow for it. That however is not vagueness in wording that is your specific intent.

So wait...

obryn has designer input on this issue and yet you think obryn is bending interpretations?

How in bloody hell does that work?

[Regulas]

So wait...

obryn has designer input on this issue and yet you think obryn is bending interpretations?

How in bloody hell does that work?

The designers response was "you juggle your gear". So if I accept that is valid then I must accept that juggling does not require any skill checks.

I guess that also means I don't need warcaster, since I can just juggle my shield and sword to free up my hands.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The designers response was "you juggle your gear". So if I accept that is valid then I must accept that juggling does not require any skill checks.

I guess that also means I don't need warcaster, since I can just juggle my shield and sword to free up my hands.

You realize that there is a difference in terminology from clown juggling and moving stuff around.

cope with by adroitly balancing.
"she works full time, juggling her career with raising children"
synonyms: handle, manage, deal with, multitask
"juggling three part-time jobs"

I bolded multitask.

[obryn]

Oh so juggling doesn't take a skill check? Oh wait...

You "think" it works that way because you want it to so your intentionally bending you're interpretation to allow for it. That however is not vagueness in wording that is your specific intent.


So wait...

obryn has designer input on this issue and yet you think obryn is bending interpretations?

How in bloody hell does that work?


The designers response was "you jungle your gear". So if I accept that is valid then I must accept that juggling does not require any skill checks.

I guess that also means I don't need warcaster, since I can just juggle my shield and sword to free up my hands.
So, Regulas, how's that "glaringly obvious" statement working out for you? Would you like to revisit it? Or is it now "glaringly obvious" that the designers intended characters to have to make Dexterity checks when playing Gun-kata?

As a side note - I'm getting a bit offended at your implications that I'm arguing in bad faith here. If the real intended reading of the rule (that is, "whatever Regulas thinks is the intended reading") is "glaringly obvious" and I disagree, does that make me a liar or an idiot? :smallbiggrin: Isn't it possible for two reasonable people to disagree when something's badly worded like the feat is?

This is also that same rabbit hole I was talking about in the Conjure Woodland Beings thread - this is a really bizarre thing I've mostly seen in 5e so far. I'm still not sure I can articulate it, but I'll try. It's basically rules lawyering vagueness. That is, instead of vagueness being simply vague or poorly stated, people insist that it's either (1) intentional because DM empowerment; or (2) intentional and it's obvious my way of interpreting it is the right way. (FWIW, I disagree with both of these contentions; I think a vague rule is probably sloppily-worded, and don't find vagueness empowering at all as a DM.)

[Ghost Nappa]

So, Regulas, how's that "glaringly obvious" statement working out for you? Would you like to revisit it? Or is it now "glaringly obvious" that the designers intended characters to have to make Dexterity checks when playing Gun-kata?

As a side note - I'm getting a bit offended at your implications that I'm arguing in bad faith here. If the real intended reading of the rule (that is, "whatever Regulas thinks is the intended reading") is "glaringly obvious" and I disagree, does that make me a liar or an idiot? :smallbiggrin: Isn't it possible for two reasonable people to disagree when something's badly worded like the feat is?

This is also that same rabbit hole I was talking about in the Conjure Woodland Beings thread - this is a really bizarre thing I've mostly seen in 5e so far. I'm still not sure I can articulate it, but I'll try. It's basically rules lawyering vagueness. That is, instead of vagueness being simply vague or poorly stated, people insist that it's either (1) intentional because DM empowerment; or (2) intentional and it's obvious my way of interpreting it is the right way. (FWIW, I disagree with both of these contentions; I think a vague rule is probably sloppily-worded, and don't find vagueness empowering at all as a DM.)

The short version is that the developers outsmarted themselves.

By trying to make it so the rules were vague and lite allowing for whichever table to do what it wanted, they basically took a metric ton of oil and poured it on to the "Internet Debate Fire."


A lot of players are coming from heavier rules sets from earlier editions and the change is messing them up. It's like trying to run a car with Olive Oil.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The short version is that the developers outsmarted themselves.

By trying to make it so the rules were vague and lite allowing for whichever table to do what it wanted, they basically took a metric ton of oil and poured it on to the "Internet Debate Fire."


A lot of players are coming from heavier rules sets from earlier editions and the change is messing them up. It's like trying to run a car with Olive Oil.

Do you have a problem with women driving?

*rimshot*

:smalltongue:

(Note: Yes I know the woman's name from Popeye is Olive Oyl but I couldn't help myself)

[obryn]

The short version is that the developers outsmarted themselves.

By trying to make it so the rules were vague and lite allowing for whichever table to do what it wanted, they basically took a metric ton of oil and poured it on to the "Internet Debate Fire."

A lot of players are coming from heavier rules sets from earlier editions and the change is messing them up. It's like trying to run a car with Olive Oil.
I'm not sure it was intentional - or if it was, it's really weird. 5e has a cargo cult version of vagueness. Oldschool games aren't intentionally vague about key details. Vagueness was not a design goal. (Lightness maybe, simulation certainly, fun gaming definitely, but not "vagueness.") If that was the designers' intent, they got it very wrong - because 5e is exceedingly specific for most of the rules.

[Regulas]

So, Regulas, how's that "glaringly obvious" statement working out for you? Would you like to revisit it? Or is it now "glaringly obvious" that the designers intended characters to have to make Dexterity checks when playing Gun-kata?

As a side note - I'm getting a bit offended at your implications that I'm arguing in bad faith here. If the real intended reading of the rule (that is, "whatever Regulas thinks is the intended reading") is "glaringly obvious" and I disagree, does that make me a liar or an idiot? :smallbiggrin: Isn't it possible for two reasonable people to disagree when something's badly worded like the feat is?

This is also that same rabbit hole I was talking about in the Conjure Woodland Beings thread - this is a really bizarre thing I've mostly seen in 5e so far. I'm still not sure I can articulate it, but I'll try. It's basically rules lawyering vagueness. That is, instead of vagueness being simply vague or poorly stated, people insist that it's either (1) intentional because DM empowerment; or (2) intentional and it's obvious my way of interpreting it is the right way. (FWIW, I disagree with both of these contentions; I think a vague rule is probably sloppily-worded, and don't find vagueness empowering at all as a DM.)

From my point of view in general, the rules aren't really that ambiguous, except that because it's fantasy some people stop caring about logic on the basis that it's fantasy so logic and common sense are entirely irrelevant. And to me this completely contradicts the point of there being rules to begin with.
The idea that crossbow "gun kata" works, before even getting to the rules, is based on ignoring various points of common sense (such as the notion that loading requires physical action), why? because it's fantasy that's why.

To me that works much better in say Whitewolf where the game is much more story driven but is just out of place in a rule intensive system like D&D.

[Sartharina]

Reloading a Hand Crossbow one-handed is SimpleTM - You fire off each hand crossbow, then quickly drop both hands down to grab the bolts with your fingers, pull the strings back with your elbows, load the bolts, then aim+fire again. You probably have to cross your arms, and might be able to load sequentially. You only need two fingers to hold a crossbow in a hand, and you have two more on each hand free to hold and reload bolts and manipulate the strings. Or you juggle the weapons.
Oh so juggling doesn't take a skill check?Nope!
(Note: Yes I know the woman's name from Popeye is Olive Oyl but I couldn't help myself)And I'm pretty sure she was a terrible driver in those cartoons.

[Finieous]

Reloading a Hand Crossbow one-handed is SimpleTM - You fire off each hand crossbow, then quickly drop both hands down to grab the bolts with your fingers, pull the strings back with your elbows, load the bolts, then aim+fire again. You probably have to cross your arms, and might be able to load sequentially. You only need two fingers to hold a crossbow in a hand, and you have two more on each hand free to hold and reload bolts and manipulate the strings. Or you juggle the weapons.

I lol'd. :smallbiggrin:

[Luriant]

I talk with my DM for ruling crossbow expert.

With 1 hand throwing weapon with finesse for using dex (Dagger or Dart) and a Hand Crossbow.

First attack: Throw the 1-handed weapon (+2 archery bonus and sharpshooter), or melee with the dagger.
Free action: Drop the melee weapon
Bonus action with Hand crossbow, and with free hand to reload. Archery bonus and sharpshooter.
Extra attacks: Hand crossbow. Archery bonus and sharpshooter.
Move action: Draw a new 1-hand weapon (ready for AoO), or get the same weapon for the floor/death enemy

My DM say that Crossbow expert beneficts its only for crossbows, so i can't throw in melee another weapon without disvantage.
And the damage is 1 point low. 1D4+Dex with dagger/dart, handcrossbow have 1D6+Dex. But the real power of the build its the extra attack with Archery bonus (without enemies at 5') and sharpshooter.

The GWM reference table teach me that the lower the average weapon damage and the better the hit bonus (+5Dex +2 Archery ¿+Bless?), the better Great Weapon Master and Power Attack are,
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373572-GWM-Reference-Table

[obryn]

From my point of view in general, the rules aren't really that ambiguous, except that because it's fantasy some people stop caring about logic on the basis that it's fantasy so logic and common sense are entirely irrelevant. And to me this completely contradicts the point of there being rules to begin with.
The idea that crossbow "gun kata" works, before even getting to the rules, is based on ignoring various points of common sense (such as the notion that loading requires physical action), why? because it's fantasy that's why.
You're switching tracks, here. We're not talking about whether or not you can imagine it working. You said the rule was glaringly obvious, but now you're bringing in all kinds of other baggage.

Because, again, it works just fine in my imagination. This is a game where a Fighter can shoot a much larger crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds and survive 200' drops as a matter of routine, after all. So to me, you're the one who's ignoring logic - that is, the logic that this is fantasy, and heroes are expected to do unbelievable things.

[NeoSeraphi]

Ok guys I get the idea so please stop arguing. I didn't start this thread to bait any hate.

[Pex]

Ok guys I get the idea so please stop arguing. I didn't start this thread to bait any hate.

Then why name the thread "Why do People Hate on Crossbow Expert?"

:smallbiggrin:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Ok guys I get the idea so please stop arguing. I didn't start this thread to bait any hate.

Hi, welcome to the internet, I see that you are new here.


:smallbiggrin:

[Easy_Lee]

Gonna go ahead and clear up this debate.

First off, reposting this link for developer tweets (https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/tag/crossbow/).

Point one: some people think you can't fire the same crossbow more than once because of the word "loaded". You have to be holding a "loaded" crossbow. According to a tweet above, the phrase "loaded crossbow" is flavor text. According to earlier lines of the feat, you ignore the loading property, but not the ammunition property. So you still fire bolts, but getting them in there is a simple task for your character. Let there be no more argument about how your character reloads his crossbows. Your character knows more about crossbows than you do.

Point two: some think that you must make the bonus attack with a separate crossbow. According to Jeremy Crawford's tweet, this shouldn't be the case since nothing in the text says the bonus action has to come from a separate crossbow. As long as we ignore the word "loaded", and according to Jeremy we do, then we should be able to use the same crossbow. However, Mike Mearls believes the feat "should" specify a different weapon, according to one of his tweets.

If we take developer posts as Word of God, we can't use a single crossbow for both attack and bonus attack. However, we can dual wield hand crossbows, or use one in tandem with another weapon. According to another developer tweet linked to above, we do this by juggling our weapons.

Again, the "no single crossbow" rule is not in the text. It comes only from Mike's tweet, where he says he felt the feat should specify more than one crossbow. Why? Probably because crossbow + shield was not intended. Does that mean the game is imbalanced if a DM allows single crossbow?

My personal approach is to say no shield in offhand, but single hand crossbow is fine. This is because you have to "juggle" your weapons while reloading, as suggested above, and you can't juggle a shield because it's strapped to your arm.

See how elegant that is? And the dual xbow thing is still possible. In fact, it's mostly superior; we can theoretically get hand crossbows with different enchants on them and favor one or the other when attacking specific monsters.

But wait, what about that developer tweet that says the feat should specify two crossbows? To that, I say two things: rule 0 and New Criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism). "For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting." Relying only on outside sources when interpreting a literary work dilutes the work and devalues the reader. Instead, talk it out with your DM and determine what works best for your game.

[Finieous]

Let there be no more argument about how your character reloads his crossbows. Your character knows more about crossbows than you do.


Dude, watching people try to explain how they reload dual-wielded hand crossbows is the only redeeming feature of this never-ending debate!

[Sartharina]

Dude, watching people try to explain how they reload dual-wielded hand crossbows is the only redeeming feature of this never-ending debate!I think they find a way to use their pects, honestly.

[Regulas]

You're switching tracks, here. We're not talking about whether or not you can imagine it working. You said the rule was glaringly obvious, but now you're bringing in all kinds of other baggage.

Because, again, it works just fine in my imagination. This is a game where a Fighter can shoot a much larger crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds and survive 200' drops as a matter of routine, after all. So to me, you're the one who's ignoring logic - that is, the logic that this is fantasy, and heroes are expected to do unbelievable things.


I'm not switching tracks at all. There are a lot of basic rules that aren't actually included in the book because they are generally common sense as to how things work. For example while there are rules for difficult terrain there is no rule that states that you can't walk through solid walls in fact at best walls would just count as difficult terrain. Why is there no rule? Because it's common sense. To you however these rules don't always apply, why? because it's "fantasy" so you just ingore them whenever you feel like it.

For a warrior to shoot 8 times would require simply that he be unnaturally stronger or faster but mechanically it can still function. Reloading a crossbow with one hand while holding the crossbow with that hand just doesn't mechanically work no matter how fast or strong you are. You could use magic certainly but we are not talking about a magic user here.

Heck get magic crossbows enchanted to reload there you go go ahead. But without that no.

[toapat]

i think the largest problem is people get snagged on the idea that the bonus attack is a ranged crossbow attack but the first attack is percieved due to wording as melee. Which it actually isnt

[Sartharina]

For a warrior to shoot 8 times would require simply that he be unnaturally stronger or faster but mechanically it can still function. Reloading a crossbow with one hand while holding the crossbow with that hand just doesn't mechanically work no matter how fast or strong you are. You could use magic certainly but we are not talking about a magic user here.You know nothing about my super-secret awesome one-handed crossbow reloading technique that looks absolutely kickass when performed, like something Arnold Schwartzeneggar might do!

[Regulas]

You know nothing about my super-secret awesome one-handed crossbow reloading technique that looks absolutely kickass when performed, like something Arnold Schwartzeneggar might do!

My favourite image I got from this thread was imaging a guy walking through a crowd with a giant heavy barrel in his arms and without using magic somehow pickpocketing the crowd without them noticing... or letting go of the barrel! maybe he's twirling it about and thats... somehow um... making suction to pull the gold purses out... or something :D

[SpawnOfMorbo]

My favourite image I got from this thread was imaging a guy walking through a crowd with a giant heavy barrel in his arms and without using magic somehow pickpocketing the crowd without them noticing... or letting go of the barrel! maybe he's twirling it about and thats... somehow um... making suction to pull the gold purses out... or something :D

So your main complaint is that you don't have the imagination to deal with a game based on using imagination? And because you can't fathom it then the creators and everyone else shouldn't be able to fathom it either?

[obryn]

I'm not switching tracks at all. There are a lot of basic rules that aren't actually included in the book because they are generally common sense as to how things work. For example while there are rules for difficult terrain there is no rule that states that you can't walk through solid walls in fact at best walls would just count as difficult terrain. Why is there no rule? Because it's common sense. To you however these rules don't always apply, why? because it's "fantasy" so you just ingore them whenever you feel like it.
That's a major slippery slope fallacy, now. The problem, here, is that there's a specific rule which says you can, indeed, go two-crossbows just like Ah Jong in the masterful Hong Kong action film, The Killer.

I don't worry about how Hank the Ranger can sneak through a forest covered in dry leaves. I don't worry about how Presto pulls Tiamat out of his hat. I don't worry about how Diana climbs up a wall. I figure they know a lot more about these things than I do. If Ahjong the Elf Rogue takes Crossbow Expert, I figure he's managed to get it working. How? Well, that's his business. I can imagine quite a few workable solutions, and 6 seconds is quite a bit of time in which to do them.

[Regulas]

So your main complaint is that you don't have the imagination to deal with a game based on using imagination? And because you can't fathom it then the creators and everyone else shouldn't be able to fathom it either?

But you are not using your imagination, on the contrary you are just assuming that "this works because it's fantasy" unto itself. That's literally not bothering to imagine why it happens and just assuming it does "cause it's fantasy".

You can always imagine that your character is somehow moving his arms so fast that he can reload the crossbows by letting go of them and reloading them and cocking them and catching them all in an instant without even trying or ever failing or requiring a skill check. Yet for some reason he only ever uses that speed or skill to reload them. He doesn't use it for aiming them, doesn't use it for any task, or sleight of hand, or attack. Nope the only time he ever bothers moving that fast or being that skill-full or accurate is when he loads his crossbows.

[Regulas]

That's a major slippery slope fallacy, now. The problem, here, is that there's a specific rule which says you can, indeed, go two-crossbows just like Ah Jong in the masterful Hong Kong action film, The Killer.

I don't worry about how Hank the Ranger can sneak through a forest covered in dry leaves. I don't worry about how Presto pulls Tiamat out of his hat. I don't worry about how Diana climbs up a wall. I figure they know a lot more about these things than I do. If Ahjong the Elf Rogue takes Crossbow Expert, I figure he's managed to get it working. How? Well, that's his business. I can imagine quite a few workable solutions, and 6 seconds is quite a bit of time in which to do them.

The feat itself says nothing about the ability to load cross-bows with your hands full, again it's about timing not the action.

Also
Hank: Pushing leaves aside while walking so they don't crunch, or moves in time with the wind. There are plenty of logical things that make sense that can explain almost anything without being as nonsensical as this loading nonsense.
Presto: It's a magic hat duh
Ahjong: Fires both crossbows then sheaths one so he can reload the other. Unless he's using magic.

[Eslin]

I'm not switching tracks at all. There are a lot of basic rules that aren't actually included in the book because they are generally common sense as to how things work. For example while there are rules for difficult terrain there is no rule that states that you can't walk through solid walls in fact at best walls would just count as difficult terrain. Why is there no rule? Because it's common sense. To you however these rules don't always apply, why? because it's "fantasy" so you just ingore them whenever you feel like it.

For a warrior to shoot 8 times would require simply that he be unnaturally stronger or faster but mechanically it can still function. Reloading a crossbow with one hand while holding the crossbow with that hand just doesn't mechanically work no matter how fast or strong you are. You could use magic certainly but we are not talking about a magic user here.

Heck get magic crossbows enchanted to reload there you go go ahead. But without that no.

This is a prime example of the thinking that was responsible for pathfinder and 3.5 being so unbalanced - you should not require direct magic for mundanes to do improbable/impossible things.

In this game someone with a few barbarian levels can fall from orbit, get angry before he hits the ground and survive. He can then heal the damage by resting for the night, and if he comes across a hand crossbow fighter the next morning and ends up with ten bolts sticking out of his chest he can take a short nap and get over that too - this is not a realistic game by any stretch of the imagination.

This is a crossbow expert, someone better with crossbows than anyone in this world has ever been. In a fantasy game, in which the wizard next to him is goddamn flying and the fighter can somehow not only fire 8 heavy crossbow bolts in 6 seconds but can also have those bolts trip a target over, disarm them or push them 15 feet back. He can find a way to reload a crossbow with his hands full if he wants to, hell if he had no hands I'd expect him to fire a crossbow with his teeth.

This fallacy, that impossible things should only be achievable with magic in a game absolutely full of impossible things being achieved without magic ANYWAY, is what lead to magic users being flat out superior to those who didn't.

[Regulas]

This is a prime example of the thinking that was responsible for pathfinder and 3.5 being so unbalanced - you should not require direct magic for mundanes to do improbable/impossible things.

In this game someone with a few barbarian levels can fall from orbit, get angry before he hits the ground and survive. He can then heal the damage by resting for the night, and if he comes across a hand crossbow fighter the next morning and ends up with ten bolts sticking out of his chest he can take a short nap and get over that too - this is not a realistic game by any stretch of the imagination.

This is a crossbow expert, someone better with crossbows than anyone in this world has ever been. In a fantasy game, in which the wizard next to him is goddamn flying and the fighter can somehow not only fire 8 heavy crossbow bolts in 6 seconds but can also have those bolts trip a target over, disarm them or push them 15 feet back. He can find a way to reload a crossbow with his hands full if he wants to, hell if he had no hands I'd expect him to fire a crossbow with his teeth.

This fallacy, that impossible things should only be achievable with magic in a game absolutely full of impossible things being achieved without magic ANYWAY, is what lead to magic users being flat out superior to those who didn't.

Surviving a fall from orbit is perfectly fine and acceptable. You could be tougher. Thrusting your hand through your body without causing an injury? That just doesn't make sense unless you are using magic.

There is a difference between being being beyond mundane means, and being immposible. Non-mages should be able to do things that are crazy and insane like lifting a mountain. They should not be able to do things that are phsycially immposible when they are explicitly are not using magic. Like lifting a mountain... on the other side of the planet without touching it.

They should get strength and speed that defies a normal person. But that's it they should still only be able to do what someone with super speed or strength could do. Because anything else is magic and they are explicitly not using it.

[bloodshed343]

I'm a newb, but how do fighters get to fire 8 heavy crossbow bolts in one round? They only get 4 attacks.

[Regulas]

I'm a newb, but how do fighters get to fire 8 heavy crossbow bolts in one round? They only get 4 attacks.

Action surge.

[obryn]

There is a difference between being being beyond mundane means, and being immposible. Non-mages should be able to do things that are crazy and insane like lifting a mountain. They should not be able to do things that are phsycially immposible when they are explicitly are not using magic. Like lifting a mountain... on the other side of the planet without touching it.

They should get strength and speed that defies a normal person. But that's it they should still only be able to do what someone with super speed or strength could do. Because anything else is magic and they are explicitly not using it.
...so you're okay with lifting a multi-billion-ton mountain, but not with loading a pistol-sized crossbow with (say) two fingers after a lot of practice and with unnatural dexterity?

I find the lines you're drawing ... perplexing.

[bloodshed343]

Action surge.

Oh right. Derp.

[Sartharina]

There are five fingers on a hand, usually. Reload with your hands full. It's not that hard.

[Regulas]

...so you're okay with lifting a multi-billion-ton mountain, but not with

I find the lines you're drawing ... perplexing.

Lifting a mountain (assuming the part you are lifting doesn't collapse) requires same "mechanics" as lifting any object but more strength.

Loading dual hand crossbow requires added mechanical action beyond what you would normally have to do.

Having more leg power can make you run or jump faster, but it shouldn't be turning the ground you walk on into chocolate pudding.

[Regulas]

There are five fingers on a hand, usually. Reload with your hands full. It's not that hard.

The issue for me isn't just that you are reloading while your hands are full, so much as that the hands are also already doing other tasks.

I wouldn't mind it so much if you were just holding an object in the offhand but you are attacking with both already.

[Sartharina]

I wouldn't mind it so much if you were just holding an object in the offhand but you are attacking with both already.In sequence, through six seconds. Fire/Fire, Reload, Reload, Fire/Fire, Reload, Reload.

[Eslin]

Surviving a fall from orbit is perfectly fine and acceptable. You could be tougher. Thrusting your hand through your body without causing an injury? That just doesn't make sense unless you are using magic.

There is a difference between being being beyond mundane means, and being immposible. Non-mages should be able to do things that are crazy and insane like lifting a mountain. They should not be able to do things that are phsycially immposible when they are explicitly are not using magic. Like lifting a mountain... on the other side of the planet without touching it.

They should get strength and speed that defies a normal person. But that's it they should still only be able to do what someone with super speed or strength could do. Because anything else is magic and they are explicitly not using it.

No, that's not how that should work. A character should be able to do anything related to their job that the rules allow.

This is like saying that polearm masters shouldn't get the extra attack with a quarterstaff and shield just because you have trouble imagining someone doing so. Martials are already severely behind in their capabilities - if the rules let them do something, you let them do that thing, you don't worry about realism because the game sure as hell doesn't. You assume they find a way, being masters of their field, to do whatever it is they can do.

In this case, a guy with a shield and a hand crossbow is firing the hand crossbow. How's he reloading it? No idea. Maybe he's using his teeth, maybe he's using his shield hand/a specific clip on the shield to hold the crossbow while he cranks it with the other hand, maybe he's got a repeating crossbow, maybe it's something else. When a martial wants to do something, in a game where casters can already do far far more, your first response should always be 'lets figure out how to let him'.

[Easy_Lee]

There is a difference between being being beyond mundane means, and being immposible...They should not be able to do things that are phsycially immposible when they are explicitly are not using magic. Like lifting a mountain... on the other side of the planet without touching it.

Two points:

We don't know what's physically possible in the world of D&D. The only hints we have at its physics are in the PHB. If your real-world physics disagree with the PHB, your real-world physics are wrong in D&D.
If only spell casters are able to go beyond certain limitations, then being a spellcaster is better than being a non-spellcaster. This is even more true in a system where everyone gets access to the same skills.

As a reminder, we're talking about a fantasy game. Let's agree not to use the phrase "physically impossible" when discussing the rules.

[Regulas]

Two points:

If only spell casters are able to go beyond certain limitations, then being a spellcaster is better than being a non-spellcaster.




Well by definition the whole thing with magic is the ability to go beyond limitations, wheras with the mundane you are stuck with the limits that naturally exist.

And if your character can do that then he's using magic. To be honest while I consider by RAW they are supposed to be mundane, and even if this lends creedence to bow loading; I do actually kind of consider ALL characters to be mages who are just using there powers unconsciously to augment themselves whether they know it or not. Cause the notion of mundane characters in a magical world is just funny, and it's the only real explanation for about anything they do (well maybe magic gear could also suffice).

[Eslin]

Well by definition the whole thing with magic is the ability to go beyond limitations, wheras with the mundane you are stuck with the limits that naturally exist.

And if your character can do that then he's using magic. To be honest while I consider by RAW they are supposed to be mundane, and even if this lends creedence to bow loading; I do actually kind of consider ALL characters to be mages who are just using there powers unconsciously to augment themselves whether they know it or not. Cause the notion of mundane characters in a magical world is just funny, and it's the only real explanation for about anything they do (well maybe magic gear could also suffice).

But what limitations naturally exist? Again, how many goblins you have slaughtered is directly related to how many arrow wounds suddenly disappear when you take an hour's nap and how likely you are to die when you fall off a bird thirty metres long depends on how angry you are when you hit the ground.

Easy_Lee said it best: If your view of what is physically possible and what the PHB says you can do disagree, your view is wrong.

[JoeJ]

In sequence, through six seconds. Fire/Fire, Reload, Reload, Fire/Fire, Reload, Reload.

I'm pretty sure I could reload and fire two hand crossbows without putting either of them down (although probably not within six seconds without an awful lot of practice). The grip is very similar to that of a handgun, so you can use your thumb and forefinger to control the first weapon leaving the other three fingers free to pull back the string and slip a bolt into the second one. Then repeat the sequence with the other hand. The trickiest part of the whole process would be keeping both weapons pointed in a safe direction the entire time - so I'd start out slow and learn to do it flawlessly before trying for speed.

[Eslin]

I'm pretty sure I could reload and fire two hand crossbows without putting either of them down (although probably not within six seconds without an awful lot of practice). The grip is very similar to that of a handgun, so you can use your thumb and forefinger to control the first weapon leaving the other three fingers free to pull back the string and slip a bolt into the second one. Then repeat the sequence with the other hand. The trickiest part of the whole process would be keeping both weapons pointed in a safe direction the entire time - so I'd start out slow and learn to do it flawlessly before trying for speed.

Sounds practical, though I probably couldn't do it. Now let's replace you with a crossbow expert who is as dextrous as humanly possible - look at that, it works.

[Finieous]

Sounds practical, though I probably couldn't do it. Now let's replace you with a crossbow expert who is as dextrous as humanly possible - look at that, it works.

Don't forget the owlbear chewing on your arm while you do it! :smallbiggrin:

Twenty-seven pages to go...

[Easy_Lee]

Don't forget the owlbear chewing on your arm while you do it! :smallbiggrin:

Twenty-seven pages to go...

That's probably why you have disadvantage when firing into melee...unless you have the crossbow expert feat. Damn, them's some skilled crossbow users.

[Speaker]

I don't know how people can say with a straight face that fighters can attack up to 8 or 9 times in 3 seconds with a polearm then go on about how its impossible for the fighter to dual wield hand crossbows. The ability to be that selective in how you think the game world works is well....unbelievable. I'd hate to be that guy who tells the fighter that he can't use a giant tree limb as an improvised weapon and attack with 8 times with it because he'd have to worry about it's logistics just like the same way I don't require casters to explain the physics or the logistics of their magic.

[MaxWilson]

I don't know how people can say with a straight face that fighters can attack up to 8 or 9 times in 3 seconds with a polearm then go on about how its impossible for the fighter to dual wield hand crossbows. The ability to be that selective in how you think the game world works is well....unbelievable. I'd hate to be that guy who tells the fighter that he can't use a giant tree limb as an improvised weapon and attack with 8 times with it because he'd have to worry about it's logistics just like the same way I don't require casters to explain the physics or the logistics of their magic.

I think you mean "in 6 seconds." Still impressive but not as difficult to imagine.

[Eslin]

I think you mean "in 6 seconds." Still impressive but not as difficult to imagine.

While moving and jumping and taking a bonus action.

[Cazero]

Reading the various posts, there is something big I don't understand here.
Some people here seem to believe you can't dual wield crossbows because it would be impossible to reload one with the other hand busy. Meanwhile, the rules seem to be allowing exactly that if you are using your crossbow with a melee weapon.

So, how exactly is it easier to reload your hand crossbow while holding a bastard sword rather than another hand crossbow in your other hand?

[Eslin]

Reading the various posts, there is something big I don't understand here.
Some people here seem to believe you can't dual wield crossbows because it would be impossible to reload one with the other hand busy. Meanwhile, the rules seem to be allowing exactly that if you are using your crossbow with a melee weapon.

So, how exactly is it easier to reload your hand crossbow while holding a bastard sword rather than another hand crossbow in your other hand?

Maybe the bastard sword has a crossbow reloading machine on it.

Legitimately my best guess, I don't know either.

[Speaker]

I think you mean "in 6 seconds." Still impressive but not as difficult to imagine.

How is that not difficult to imagine? Full strength blows at that speed is godlike. I don't think its as easy as you imagine it to be. Swinging or thrusting a weapon with as much strength as you can in that amount of time is amazing if its a polearm. A finesse weapon I can give you but swinging a polearm with full strength and accuracy at that speed is in the realm of demigods.

[Regulas]

Same would apply with a bastard sword as with a second bow. Regardless of the circumstances I would always require any loading like this to take a sleight of hand check at all times. OR optionally we could forgo ever rolling skill checks for anything. One or the other.



And I don't really get the argument of they should be able to do the impossible because they aren't mages. You are literally saying they do magic because they can't.

[toapat]

Same would apply with a bastard sword as with a second bow. Regardless of the circumstances I would always require any loading like this to take a sleight of hand check at all times. OR optionally we could forgo ever rolling skill checks for anything. One or the other.



And I don't really get the argument of they should be able to do the impossible because they aren't mages. You are literally saying they do magic because they can't.

blizzard explained how to reload a hand crossbow 1 handed in the Demon Hunter reveal cinematic, you have hip-quivers which you use to draw the bowstring and which have a, granted impossibly complex for medieval mechanical engineering, mechanism to ready a bolt for loading. the wielder, through alot of practice, hooks the bowstring in and loads a bolt with one thrust. there are Engineering problems galor but mechanical engineering problems =/= impossible.

and this is DnD, in 3rd we have characters who can speak gibberish at something and endear themselves so completely in that something's heart that it eclipses the power of magic to do the same Suggesting that some hyper-prodigy mechanical engineer hasnt come about to engineer the blueprints for a single action hip quiver for both right and left thighs is ignoring precident of the system itself

[Vogonjeltz]

I don't get it, there are subject titles and tags but no text.

Tap a subject title to expand it (didn't see anyone answer this by page 1)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Sounds practical, though I probably couldn't do it. Now let's replace you with a crossbow expert who is as dextrous beyond real world humanly possible - look at that, it works.

There, slightly fixed that.

People view D&D races and think that their nonmagical abilities should be able to replicated by real world humans... Nah, screw that :smallbiggrin:

[Cazero]

Same would apply with a bastard sword as with a second bow. Regardless of the circumstances I would always require any loading like this to take a sleight of hand check at all times. OR optionally we could forgo ever rolling skill checks for anything. One or the other.

Isn't autosuccess on that check the point of the feat? You are inserting a skillcheck where autosuccess is assumed due to character investment.

Magic is litteraly ordering the laws of physics to shut up and sit down while you rewrite part of reality in a way that you appreciate more. That kind of thing could require a skill check. But the skill 'magic' isn't used, because the current mechanics of magic makes uninteresting that additionnal complication.
Anyone with the right background can have access to magic, and wizards have no innate magic potential (as opposed to sorcerers). This implies that magic can be a trained skill, with automatic success an achievable thing while automatic failure is the norm. A skill check just wouldn't fit that critera without breaking bounded accuracy.
The ability to reload your crossbow insanely fast with your hands busy is similarly trained, except it's mundane. Putting a skill check on that because the skill exist is the same as asking a stealth check for every sneak attack, or an athletics check for every power attack, or...

Conclusion : you are making a distinction between two nonexistent skill checks solely because one is magic and the other mundane. Yes, that's a big difference, but you shouldn't cripple mechanics due to their nature only.


To ignore if you meant crossbow :
Also, a second bow draw the additionnal problem that it requires 2 hands to be used properly regardless of physical ability, while a crossbow requires the second hand to reloading purpose only, not to shoot.

[Eslin]

Tap a subject title to expand it (didn't see anyone answer this by page 1)
All that does is bring me to the same thing as whatever I just tapped except without the other items. As in clicking on crossbow expert changes nothing except that the page now has nothing but the crossbow expert bit.

[Regulas]

All that does is bring me to the same thing as whatever I just tapped except without the other items. As in clicking on crossbow expert changes nothing except that the page now has nothing but the crossbow expert bit.

Copy the title then paste it in the search field on the left. It should bring up the same thing only with the tweet. Had the same issue.

[Eslin]

Copy the title then paste it in the search field on the left. It should bring up the same thing only with the tweet. Had the same issue.

Cheers, thanks.

[Sartharina]

There, slightly fixed that.

People view D&D races and think that their nonmagical abilities should be able to replicated by real world humans... Nah, screw that :smallbiggrin:If they don't have a dexterity of 21+, they are not superhumanly dexterous.


Same would apply with a bastard sword as with a second bow. Regardless of the circumstances I would always require any loading like this to take a sleight of hand check at all times. OR optionally we could forgo ever rolling skill checks for anything. One or the other.That is a false equivalence. There are some abilities you roll for, and some that are assumed possible. You don't roll Athletics to jump or climb, nor do you roll Perception to see things that aren't hidden, nor do you make Acrobatics checks to not fall down walking across a floor. Reloading a crossbow is a routine task that requires no check.

When casting a spell, do you require the caster makes a Dexterity(Sleight of Hand Check) to properly perform the Somatic Component, a charisma check to properly perform the verbal component, and Intelligence(Arcana) check to know how to cast the spell properly each time?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If they don't have a dexterity of 21+, they are not superhumanly dexterous.


Not even close. A Dexterity 10 rogue can still dodge a fireball with a higher chance than a normal human.

All creatures within D&D are already beyond real world physically possible. We just need to remember this.

[Sartharina]

Not even close. A Dexterity 10 rogue can still dodge a fireball with a higher chance than a normal human.That's because of his training, not his dexterity.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That's because of his training, not his dexterity.

No, his training just makes him better than the fighter or mage. The fighter and mage can both dodge the same fireball and they don't have training in Dex saves.

You can't just chalk it up to training because every creature (that we know of) can get a Dex save versus a fireball and they all can somehow dodge some of the damage while they are within an explosion.

The training gives them a better chance but it isn't the base reason they are better than normal humans.

[Sartharina]

No, his training just makes him better than the fighter or mage. The fighter and mage can both dodge the same fireball and they don't have training in Dex saves.A rogue is trained in both Evasion and dexterity saves. But a DEX 12 rogue is just as dexterous as a DEX 12 commoner or fighter.

[RedMage125]

Two points:

We don't know what's physically possible in the world of D&D. The only hints we have at its physics are in the PHB. If your real-world physics disagree with the PHB, your real-world physics are wrong in D&D.
If only spell casters are able to go beyond certain limitations, then being a spellcaster is better than being a non-spellcaster. This is even more true in a system where everyone gets access to the same skills.

As a reminder, we're talking about a fantasy game. Let's agree not to use the phrase "physically impossible" when discussing the rules.
I love bullet point #1. It's something a lot of people need to keep in mind when discussing D&D. Kind of like how the idea of absolute values of Good & Evil in a D&D multiverse is sometimes incomprehensible to some people who can't see beyond rea-world ideas that "good" and "evil" are subject to perception and even cultural/social mores.


I'm pretty sure I could reload and fire two hand crossbows without putting either of them down (although probably not within six seconds without an awful lot of practice). The grip is very similar to that of a handgun, so you can use your thumb and forefinger to control the first weapon leaving the other three fingers free to pull back the string and slip a bolt into the second one. Then repeat the sequence with the other hand. The trickiest part of the whole process would be keeping both weapons pointed in a safe direction the entire time - so I'd start out slow and learn to do it flawlessly before trying for speed.

I agree, JoeJ, and I bolded the above words because spending a feat on Crossbow Expert is precisely that. It is mechanically reflecting the effort you have spent in mastering that skill. Because you did not instead choose to raise your stats, which would have reflected the improvement you made in yourself through practice.

[Finieous]

We don't know what's physically possible in the world of D&D.


Yes we do, if we're the DM.



If your real-world physics disagree with the PHB, your real-world physics are wrong in D&D.


Uh, no. The game designers get their say. The setting designers, if they're someone other than me, get their say. The players get their say. And as DM, I get the final say.

I imagine this disagreement is why the Crossbow Expert debate rages on. It seems to be a clarifying point for the Player Entitlement vs. DM Empowerment (or Player Empowerment vs. DM Fiat, as you like) alignments that have become such an integral part of forum arguments, if not actual play.

It is genuinely funny, though, so there are worse never-ending debates we could be having.

[RedMage125]

Yes we do, if we're the DM.

Uh, no. The game designers get their say. The setting designers, if they're someone other than me, get their say. The players get their say. And as DM, I get the final say.

First off, the wording of the PHB is the "game designer's say".

And of course DM's reserve the right to have final say on what goes on in their world. Hell, a DM reserves the right to say that dwarves cannot be wizards in his world.

That has no bearing on this discussion. Since we cannot possibly account for all permutations of deviations from RAW, for this purposes of discussions of RAW, no deviations are valid as facts. You may say "as a DM, I am going to do X", but that holds as much weight as an opinion. So, using the above example, it would not be a factual statement in a RAW discussion to claim that dwarves may not be wizards simply because you, as a DM, add that restriction to your game.

So, since D&D is a construct of fantasy that need not be beholden to ANY real-world concepts, the "game designer's say", AKA Rules As Written, is the only thing that can be considered factual and true within the world of D&D. And for a RAW discussion, we must assume a default setting where everything in the core rules is allowed.

Hence Easy_Lee's assertion of "If your real-world physics disagree with the PHB, your real-world physics are wrong in D&D". Because we are only discussing D&D, which is a construct of fantasy and can violate real-world perceptions. For example, the PHB (page 203) specifies that animating the undead is NOT a good act. You could, as a DM, conceive of a manner for YOUR home game in which an example of that could be a good act, but for a RAW discussion, it would only be factual to state that the animation of undead is NOT a good act.


I imagine this disagreement is why the Crossbow Expert debate rages on. It seems to be a clarifying point for the Player Entitlement vs. DM Empowerment (or Player Empowerment vs. DM Fiat, as you like) alignments that have become such an integral part of forum arguments, if not actual play.

It is genuinely funny, though, so there are worse never-ending debates we could be having.
I disagree that this is about "player entitlement" or "dm empowerment", and I am the kind of DM who is very concerned about balance and rues abuse. I absolutely hate it when people try and twist the way the words are used to get some kind of extra benefit. Like in 3.5, when people would use the feat that allowed you to spend 2 1st level spell slots to cast a 2nd level spel, I forget the name, and tried to claim they could use that as "ability to cast 2nd level spells" to enter a PrC...that's an example of player entitlement.

Let me ask the boards this question: Is it really unbalanced? It costs a feat to do this, and feats are a pretty big deal in 5e. It is the ONLY was a character can dual-wield ranged weapons, and the weapon die is average, at best (a d6).

More to the point, this feat could be used to get multiple attacks with a SINGLE hand crossbow, since it is a one-handed weapon, and the Crossbow Expert feat does not specify that the one-handed weapon attack used in the Action must be melee, and he can load it for free with this feat. A level 1 human fighter with this feat could get 2 attacks with one hand crossbow (Action and Bonus action). Because EVERYTHING about the use of this feat could be done with ONE hand crossbow, doesn't it break down to just being fluff to dual-wield them?
Here's the breakdown for a level 5 Fighter (who gets the Extra Attack ability):
Our First Fighter is wielding only a single hand crossbow
Action: make 2 attacks with Hand Crossbow (allowable since he has this feat and ignores the Loading property)
Bonus Action: make 1 attack with Hand Crossbow (since he has attacked with a one-handed weapon as an action, and has a loaded hand crossbow still in his hand)

Our Second Fighter is dual-wielding Hand Crossbows:
Action: make 2 attacks with Hand Crossbow in Main Hand
Bonus Action: make one attack with Hand Crossbow in off-hand.

Since there is mechanically no difference, how is this an issue of game balance, player entitlement or DM empowerment? It is not, it becomes an issue of fluff. I think it's safe to assume that none of the people who have been decrying the dual-wielding would have a problem with Fighter #1, correct?

The only time this is mechanically different is for a character who uses a melee weapon in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other. Something that has been in D&D since at least 3e.

If someone wants to fluff it that way, I say let them. What harm does it really cause to your game to allow someone who spent a feat to be able to pull this kind of trick off from paying their character the way they want it? Especially because the mechanics of their attacks would be identical if they only used one hand crossbow. In fact, it is MORE mechanically impacted if they only use one hand crossbow, because then they could use a shield. So if a player wants to dual-wield hand crossbows because he thinks it would be cool, and the mechanical impact is that he is identical in action to a character who only wields one hand crossbow and does not also use a shield, then what, really, is the problem with allowing it?

[MaxWilson]

Here's the breakdown for a level 5 Fighter (who gets the Extra Attack ability):
Our First Fighter is wielding only a single hand crossbow
Action: make 2 attacks with Hand Crossbow (allowable since he has this feat and ignores the Loading property)
Bonus Action: make 1 attack with Hand Crossbow (since he has attacked with a one-handed weapon as an action, and has a loaded hand crossbow still in his hand)

Our Second Fighter is dual-wielding Hand Crossbows:
Action: make 2 attacks with Hand Crossbow in Main Hand
Bonus Action: make one attack with Hand Crossbow in off-hand.

Since there is mechanically no difference, how is this an issue of game balance, player entitlement or DM empowerment? It is not, it becomes an issue of fluff. I think it's safe to assume that none of the people who have been decrying the dual-wielding would have a problem with Fighter #1, correct?

Wait, what? Have you read the debate? Fighter #1 is far more controversial than Fighter #2. I would allow #2. I think Shadow would too, from what he's said. Fighter #1 is unmitigated cheese, especially after he picks up a shield for his "empty" hand. (Also, Fighter #1 is achievable at first level, and Fighter #2 isn't due to the cost of two hand crossbows.)

Also, balance and cheese are different things. Cheese is a social sin (self-serving demands to selectively misread RAW the way you want it to be). I can imagine cases where I, as a DM, would be react negatively to a cheese claim (Warlock Invocation cheese so that a Warlock 2 can get Lifedrinker) even if I would be receptive to a request that I make an equivalent balance change ("bladelocks are weak, can you do something about that?"). Cheese is the D&D equivalent of "rude, pushy, and talks too loud." It can also break immersion.

[Shadow]

Wait, what? Have you read the debate? Fighter #1 is far more controversial than Fighter #2. I would allow #2. I think Shadow would too, from what he's said. Fighter #1 is unmitigated cheese, especially after he picks up a shield for his "empty" hand. (Also, Fighter #1 is achievable at first level, and Fighter #2 isn't due to the cost of two hand crossbows.)

Exactly.
He also asked about game balance.
What he and a few other seem to not understand is that we're talking about game balance. If you are only holding one weapon, you don't get a bonus action attack every single round. Ever. The sole exception is polearm master, and the bonus action attack is always bludgeoning because you are always using the haft instead of the main weapon. So PM effectively means you're using the haft as a second weapon, so you still aren't getting a bonus attack with one weapon.
You can never get a bonus attack every single round while only using one weapon, because that breaks the rules regarding how many attacks you can make per turn. There are lots of other ways to add attacks, but all of them either require one of the following:
1) something else held in your other hand
2) polearm master, effectively a second weapon
3) class features not related to the weapon at all

Fighter 1 is broken by virtue of breaking the rules regarding the number of attacks any character can make with a single weapon.
Fighter 2 is fine.

[JoeJ]

Wait, what? Have you read the debate? Fighter #1 is far more controversial than Fighter #2. I would allow #2. I think Shadow would too, from what he's said. Fighter #1 is unmitigated cheese, especially after he picks up a shield for his "empty" hand. (Also, Fighter #1 is achievable at first level, and Fighter #2 isn't due to the cost of two hand crossbows.)

A first level fighter can start with two hand crossbows if they roll really well for starting money (and don't burden themselves with very much armor). Or, just take the class starting equipment: the second line item is a choice of either a martial weapon & shield or two martial weapons.

[Xetheral]

Two points:

We don't know what's physically possible in the world of D&D. The only hints we have at its physics are in the PHB. If your real-world physics disagree with the PHB, your real-world physics are wrong in D&D.
If only spell casters are able to go beyond certain limitations, then being a spellcaster is better than being a non-spellcaster. This is even more true in a system where everyone gets access to the same skills.

As a reminder, we're talking about a fantasy game. Let's agree not to use the phrase "physically impossible" when discussing the rules.

(Emphasis in original.) I disagree with the bolded statement. While superficially true, subscribing to it as a general principle leads to results that would be unwelcome at many tables.

The PHB rules are there to (among other reasons) give guidance to the players on how their characters can interact with the game world, and what outcomes might be expected from various actions. The rules complement and augment (rather than replace) the players' notions of what would be possible in our own world.

In contrast, subscribing wholesale to the bolded statement in the quote leads to the conclusion that by looking at the rules one can gain insight into how the D&D world "really" works. While a fun thought exercise welcome at some tables, because the rules were not derived from some hidden D&D physics, there isn't necessarily going to be anything coherent to find.

These two different approaches produce profoundly different outcomes, as exhibited by questions posed in several different threads. For example, the first approach treats attacks of opportunity as a way to model character interaction with a foe. If instead one treats the PHB as insight into D&D physics, the attack of opportunity rules become a way to divine how easy or hard it is (and how much time it takes) to make such an attack. This disagreement led to the debate on whether one could make attacks of opportunity on party members. The discussion didn't get anywhere because the two sides were using the rules in inherently different ways.

In short, I believe your claim about real-world physics being wrong is incomplete. In the case of a conflict between the rules and real-world physics, it is indeed a valid approach to assume that the real world physics are wrong and to draw conclusions from that. However, it is equally valid to treat both the rules and the physics as correct, and chalk the conflict up to the inherent limitations of trying to write a rule set.

What does this mean for Crossbow Expert? If you interpret the feat as written to allow a player to violate real-world physics, it is perfectly acceptable to assume, as you do, that real-world physics don't apply in this situation in D&D. But it's also perfectly acceptable to find a very real conflict, and then choose to either live with it or change the rule to resolve the conflict. (If you don't interpret the feat as written to allow a player to violate real-world physics, then of course the question of how to handle the conflict is irrelevant.)

So, for players who treat the rules differently than you see them, the question of what is or is not "physically impossible" is quite relevant to the discussion. To agree not to use the phrase, as you suggest, would be to exclude a valid (and I'd argue, common) perspective from the conversation.

(For purposes of evaluating my biases: I interpret Crossbow Expert as written to allow a bonus attack with the same or with a different crossbow, regardless of what is held in the other hand. I find the loading of such a crossbow under many circumstances to indeed be physically implausible, and simply don't care--I can easily live with that level of implausibility in my games.)

[Eslin]

Exactly.
He also asked about game balance.
What he and a few other seem to not understand is that we're talking about game balance. If you are only holding one weapon, you don't get a bonus action attack every single round. Ever. The sole exception is polearm master, and the bonus action attack is always bludgeoning because you are always using the haft instead of the main weapon. So PM effectively means you're using the haft as a second weapon, so you still aren't getting a bonus attack with one weapon.
You can never get a bonus attack every single round while only using one weapon, because that breaks the rules regarding how many attacks you can make per turn. There are lots of other ways to add attacks, but all of them either require one of the following:
1) something else held in your other hand
2) polearm master, effectively a second weapon
3) class features not related to the weapon at all

Fighter 1 is broken by virtue of breaking the rules regarding the number of attacks any character can make with a single weapon.
Fighter 2 is fine.

You only have 3 examples to work from, and one of those examples is the feat itself. 'If you are only holding one weapon, you don't get a bonus action attack every single round. Ever.', but there are only 3 non class ways of doing so anyway. Way one is dual wielding, that's obviously gonna require two weapons. Way two is polearm master, than only requires one weapon. Way three is crossbow expert, that only requires one weapon.

Different analogy: Bob has written three books - one had no romance, the other has something that is arguably romance, and the third has romance. You're now arguing that the third book has no romance because Bob never writes books with romance in them - considering this is only the third book he's written, claiming that the other two make a strong pattern is not an argument.

[Edenbeast]

I don't get it why crossbow expert creates so much confusion. The first point implies that it's intended for character wanting to use a crossbow as their primary weapon, when they have the extra attack class feature, then can still make multiple attacks. Without this feat it's only one attack because of the loading quality.
Point two is obvious.
The third point implies for anyone wanting to use a hand crossbow as a side arm (in their off hand) with any type of melee weapon (not restricted to light), you receive one attack as bonus action with the hand crossbow. Mind you you can only use one bonus action per turn. If you're a fighter (or other class) with the extra attack class feature, it's still one extra attack, just as it would if you'd be fighting with two light melee weapons. The extra attack class feature does not apply to a bonus action.

[Eslin]

I don't get it why crossbow expert creates so much confusion. The first point implies that it's intended for character wanting to use a crossbow as their primary weapon, when they have the extra attack class feature, then can still make multiple attacks. Without this feat it's only one attack because of the loading quality.
Point two is obvious.
The third point implies for anyone wanting to use a hand crossbow as a side arm (in their off hand) with any type of melee weapon (not restricted to light), you receive one attack as bonus action with the hand crossbow. Mind you you can only use one bonus action per turn. If you're a fighter (or other class) with the extra attack class feature, it's still one extra attack, just as it would if you'd be fighting with two light melee weapons. The extra attack class feature does not apply to a bonus action.

Yes, we know that. The debate is between people who are wrong and say that a hand crossbow doesn't count as a one handed weapon for the purposes of making the bonus action attack and people who are right and say that it obviously does because it's a one handed weapon.

[Sartharina]

Yes, we know that. The debate is between people who are wrong and say that a hand crossbow doesn't count as a one handed weapon for the purposes of making the bonus action attack and people who are right and say that it obviously does because it's a one handed weapon.And the people who are wrong who think the crossbow can trigger its own extra attack.

[Eslin]

And the people who are wrong who think the crossbow can trigger its own extra attack.

Of course it can. When you use the attack action with a one-handed weapon, you get an extra attack with a hand crossbow. You'll notice the hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon. There's nothing in the feat to indicate the one-handed weapon can't be a hand crossbow, nor is there anything indicating they can't be the same weapon.

[Sartharina]

Of course it can. When you use the attack action with a one-handed weapon, you get an extra attack with a hand crossbow. You'll notice the hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon. There's nothing in the feat to indicate the one-handed weapon can't be a hand crossbow, nor is there anything indicating they can't be the same weapon.The crossbow that just fired is no longer loaded. You have to reload first, which doesn't take an action, but means the crossbow's not loaded when the opportunity for the bonus action attack to be granted comes around.

[Eslin]

The crossbow that just fired is no longer loaded. You have to reload first, which doesn't take an action, but means the crossbow's not loaded when the opportunity for the bonus action attack to be granted comes around.

Of course it is. The bonus action doesn't have to be the nanosecond the action finishes, and in any case you're allowed to ignore loading. To reiterate: it doesn't say you must immediately follow the attack action with the bonus action. You can move 30 feet between the two actions if you want, you can certainly reload your hand crossbow - loading is A) not an action and B) completely ignorable thanks to this very feat, if you're able to do anything between action and bonus action (which you certainly are) then the crossbow is loaded by the time you use your bonus action.

[Sartharina]

Of course it is. The bonus action doesn't have to be the nanosecond the action finishes, and in any case you're allowed to ignore loading. To reiterate: it doesn't say you must immediately follow the attack action with the bonus action.No, but the bonus action is granted simultaneously with taking the attack, at which point the crossbow's not loaded.

The logic path is:
Fire crossbow (Crossbow is no longer loaded):
Check Crossbow - if loaded, grant bonus action attack. If not, no attack.
Crossbow is not loaded. No bonus action attack
Load crossbow.

You ignore the "Loading" property, but that does not mean you ignore the act of loading the crossbow. All it means is you can load+fire a crossbow at the same rate you can draw+fire a bow. You reload a crossbow you attack with during the Attack Action, which is not the Bonus Attack granted by the feat.

... In fact, it looks like you may need to use your 'interact with an object' freebie to reload the offhand crossbow, which isn't loaded during the Attack Action with the main crossbow, since you don't get to load it with the bonus action attack (Since it's not an Attack action)

[Eslin]

No, but the bonus action is granted simultaneously with taking the attack, at which point the crossbow's not loaded.

The logic path is:
Fire crossbow (Crossbow is no longer loaded):
Check Crossbow - if loaded, grant bonus action attack. If not, no attack.
Crossbow is not loaded. No bonus action attack
Load crossbow.

You ignore the "Loading" property, but that does not mean you ignore the act of loading the crossbow. All it means is you can load+fire a crossbow at the same rate you can draw+fire a bow. You reload a crossbow you attack with during the Attack Action, which is not the Bonus Attack granted by the feat.

... In fact, it looks like you may need to use your 'interact with an object' freebie to reload the offhand crossbow, which isn't loaded during the Attack Action with the main crossbow, since you don't get to load it with the bonus action attack (Since it's not an Attack action)

You don't need to use your interact with object freebie to reload it, that's the whole point of the first part of the feat. And that's not the logic path - the path is a lot simpler, it goes:
Take whichever options you choose that are available to you - move, speak, interact, whatever
Fire crossbow as action
Take whichever options you choose that are available to you - move, speak, interact, whatever
Fire crossbow as a bonus action
Take whichever options you choose that are available to you - move, speak, interact, whatever

There is no reason at all you have to take the bonus action immediately, and the fact that you don't means you can always have loaded your crossbow before taking the bonus action. Don't get me wrong, such things exist as part of 5e - flurry of blows states that it must immediately follow an attack action, for instance - but crossbow expert doesn't work like that.

[Sartharina]

You don't need to use your interact with object freebie to reload it, that's the whole point of the first part of the feat. And that's not the logic path - the path is a lot simpler, it goes:
Take whichever options you choose that are available to you - move, speak, interact, whatever
Fire crossbow as action
Take whichever options you choose that are available to you - move, speak, interact, whatever
Fire crossbow as a bonus action
Take whichever options you choose that are available to you - move, speak, interact, whatever

There is no reason at all you have to take the bonus action immediately, and the fact that you don't means you can always have loaded your crossbow before taking the bonus action. Don't get me wrong, such things exist as part of 5e - flurry of blows states that it must immediately follow an attack action, for instance - but crossbow expert doesn't work like that.Bonus action is not granted if the crossbow is not loaded at the point of the crossbow being fired as an Attack Action. The crossbow is loaded as part of the Attack action (Just as a longbow is drawn as part of the attack action), but not as a bonus action attack.

You don't have to take the bonus action immediately, but you're not granted it if the crossbow isn't loaded at that point.

[Eslin]

Bonus action is not granted if the crossbow is not loaded at the point of the crossbow being fired as an Attack Action. The crossbow is loaded as part of the Attack action (Just as a longbow is drawn as part of the attack action), but not as a bonus action attack.

You don't have to take the bonus action immediately, but you're not granted it if the crossbow isn't loaded at that point.

Nope. 'you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding' - that in no way implies that you need to be holding a hand crossbow or have it loaded at the point you use your action, you only need a loaded hand crossbow when you go to use the bonus action to make the attack.

This is like saying that when you take the attack action with shield master, you don't get the bonus action shove unless there's a target within 5 feet of you when you take the attack action. You still do get it, all you need to do is be within 5 feet of a target when you go to take your bonus action.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Nope. 'you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding' - that in no way implies that you need to be holding a hand crossbow or have it loaded at the point you use your action, you only need a loaded hand crossbow when you go to use the bonus action to make the attack.

This is like saying that when you take the attack action with shield master, you don't get the bonus action shove unless there's a target within 5 feet of you when you take the attack action. You still do get it, all you need to do is be within 5 feet of a target when you go to take your bonus action.


Also, 5e let's most things break up actions and movements however they see fit.

So Action + Move + Continue Attacking with action + move + Bonus Action from first action = totally works fine unless ability (flurry) says otherwise.

So you could use Crossbow Expert, run across the room, slide, pick up loaded hand cross bow, and fire with bonus action.

Also, if you wanted to use teamwork... Your freebie use an item action or whatever could take your friend's hand cross bow to allow you to shoot.

This means if anyone has crossbow expert, then everyone in the party should have 1 or 2 handcrossbows on them at all times.

[Edenbeast]

If the hand crossbow is the only thing you're holding with crossbow expert feat, I'd say because of the light quality, it's easy to handly. You can have the second bolt ready in your off-hand and fire once again with the bonus action..

What I expect to be in the errata: If you attack with another one-handed weapon, you can fire the hand crossbow (in your offhand) as a bonus action.

[Eslin]

If the hand crossbow is the only thing you're holding with crossbow expert feat, I'd say because of the light quality, it's easy to handly. You can have the second bolt ready in your off-hand and fire once again with the bonus action..

What I expect to be in the errata: If you attack with another one-handed weapon, you can fire the hand crossbow (in your offhand) as a bonus action.

This is a game in which you can survive falls from orbit onto a pit of burning spikes and fire 9 heavy crossbow rounds in a few seconds while being grappled by the kraken, if you've got a hand crossbow in one hand and you're a literal crossbow expert (thanks feat!) you can reload it with your teeth if you feel like it.

[Sartharina]

This is a game in which you can survive falls from orbit onto a pit of burning spikes and fire 9 heavy crossbow rounds in a few seconds while being grappled by the kraken, if you've got a hand crossbow in one hand and you're a literal crossbow expert (thanks feat!) you can reload it with your teeth if you feel like it.You just don't get to attack as a bonus action with it unless you have another one.

[Eslin]

You just don't get to attack as a bonus action with it unless you have another one.
Why not? Feat specifies attacking with a one handed weapon, the hand crossbow's a one handed weapon. It's very simple.

[mephnick]

Actually I've come around and now I agree with the broken version, despite the problems it might cause.

I'd still probably house-rule that it doesn't apply to a single crossbow, but I wouldn't consider that the standard.

[GiantOctopodes]

I just want to say that in no part of the feat does it say that you must have a different weapon in your hand. As such, using the same weapon is RAW. Also, the ammunition quality states that drawing the ammo is part of the *attack*, not part of the attack action. There is a difference. As such, any time you make an attack with a weapon with that quality (which expressly, crossbow expert lets you make an *attack* as a bonus action), the interaction with the ammunition is part of that attack.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Why not? Feat specifies attacking with a one handed weapon, the hand crossbow's a one handed weapon. It's very simple.

What's funny is that it doesn't even unbalance anything.

I wouldn't mind a Double Tap bow/crossbow base ability like two weapon fighting.

You fire two arrows in your bow as an action + bonus action. You get off two shots quickly with your crossbow with your action + bonus action. The second shot fired deals modifier damage only.

[RedMage125]

Wait, what? Have you read the debate? Fighter #1 is far more controversial than Fighter #2. I would allow #2. I think Shadow would too, from what he's said. Fighter #1 is unmitigated cheese, especially after he picks up a shield for his "empty" hand. (Also, Fighter #1 is achievable at first level, and Fighter #2 isn't due to the cost of two hand crossbows.)
I addressed that using a shield would indeed be mechanically different.

I apologize that I was unclear. My intent was that Fighter #1 is using one hand crossbow and no shield or anything else in his off-hand. My whole point was addressing the seemingly unnecessary hatred for the dual-wielding of hand crossbows.

And since both of them are mechanically identical, there is no balance issue here.


Also, balance and cheese are different things. Cheese is a social sin (self-serving demands to selectively misread RAW the way you want it to be). I can imagine cases where I, as a DM, would be react negatively to a cheese claim (Warlock Invocation cheese so that a Warlock 2 can get Lifedrinker) even if I would be receptive to a request that I make an equivalent balance change ("bladelocks are weak, can you do something about that?"). Cheese is the D&D equivalent of "rude, pushy, and talks too loud." It can also break immersion.
I agree with you on the principle of the "social sin" of cheese. I disagree that dual-wielding would be cheese, however.

Some of us old-fashioned gamers dislike the intrusion of video game culture into our pen-and-paper hobby. But the reality is that video games are a big part of gamer culture. You may have a payer (especially a younger one), who has payed Diablo 3 and thought that the Demon Hunter, with his dual-wielding hand crossbows was really Bad***, and wants to make his character like that. If it is mechanically identical to a character who wields one hand crossbow and nothing in his offhand, why would you not allow it? How does it break immersion to the point that it's a distraction or disruption to your game? He just wants his character to be as cool as he envisions it, and he's not asking for a mechanical advantage.

In fact, at higher levels, there's a slight disadvantage, unless magic weapons are really easy to come by in your game. Assuming he ever finds a magical hand crossbow, he'd e mechanically better off firing just the one, instead of using a nonmagical one in his off-hand. So he's willing to endure a possible future disadvantage in order to have a cool character in a way that is not mechanically overpowered. I say, let it fly.

In case it was unclear, I agree that using a shield with this feat to get that mechanical advantage does have a whiff of dairy, yes.

Exactly.
He also asked about game balance.
What he and a few other seem to not understand is that we're talking about game balance. If you are only holding one weapon, you don't get a bonus action attack every single round. Ever. The sole exception is polearm master, and the bonus action attack is always bludgeoning because you are always using the haft instead of the main weapon. So PM effectively means you're using the haft as a second weapon, so you still aren't getting a bonus attack with one weapon.
You can never get a bonus attack every single round while only using one weapon, because that breaks the rules regarding how many attacks you can make per turn. There are lots of other ways to add attacks, but all of them either require one of the following:
1) something else held in your other hand
2) polearm master, effectively a second weapon
3) class features not related to the weapon at all

Fighter 1 is broken by virtue of breaking the rules regarding the number of attacks any character can make with a single weapon.
Fighter 2 is fine.
Who cares how many weapons he's using? You're nitpicking on some abstract principle that, in the end, does not have a mechanical effect.

Look, both #1 and #2 are 5th level Fighters with the Extra Attack ability and Crossbow Expert, right?
So both do this:
Use Action: Fire 2 shots from hand crossbow
Use Bonus Action: Fire 1 shot from hand crossbow.

That's the breakdown. Whether you are using 2 weapons or 1, the mechanical impact that the character is making in combat is identical. And furthermore, he had to spend a feat to do it, which is IDENTICAL to the Polearm Master, but this is the ranged attacker equivalent. So how is that an issue of game balance?


No, but the bonus action is granted simultaneously with taking the attack, at which point the crossbow's not loaded.

The logic path is:
Fire crossbow (Crossbow is no longer loaded):
Check Crossbow - if loaded, grant bonus action attack. If not, no attack.
Crossbow is not loaded. No bonus action attack
Load crossbow.

You ignore the "Loading" property, but that does not mean you ignore the act of loading the crossbow. All it means is you can load+fire a crossbow at the same rate you can draw+fire a bow. You reload a crossbow you attack with during the Attack Action, which is not the Bonus Attack granted by the feat.

... In fact, it looks like you may need to use your 'interact with an object' freebie to reload the offhand crossbow, which isn't loaded during the Attack Action with the main crossbow, since you don't get to load it with the bonus action attack (Since it's not an Attack action)
I'm sorry ma'am, but you're mistaken.
Edit: I apologize if my tone in the following comes across as condescending. But I've already written it all, and I realize I switched into "teacher mode", please do not take any kind of offense at perceived tone, but rather accept that I am genuinely trying to correct what I perceive to be a misunderstanding of the rules on your part.

The core of your argument seems to be that you misunderstand the distinction between an Action and a Bonus Action, and also what it means to "ignore the Loading property".

EVERY character, of every race and class is entitled to the following on their turn:
Move their speed
Take an Action
Take a Bonus Action - IF and ONLY IF, you have a class feature, special ability, or spell that says you can do something as a Bonus Action, and even then, only one Bonus Action per turn.

Bonus Actions are SEPARATE from the Actions, and thus the Action must be compete before the Bonus Action can be taken (or vis-versa). Take, for example, a Sorcerer using Quicken Spell. He may cast a spell as a Bonus Action, but still has an Action, since only one spell can ever be cast during one turn, he may now use his Action to cast a Cantrip or do something else that requires an Action. Trust me, this has been clarified y the devs, go check out Sage Advice if you don't believe me. Better yet, look at the Monk, whose Martial Arts specifies that at level 1 may, after attacking, use a Bonus Action to make an Unarmed Strike. But Flurry of Blows grants 2 unarmed strikes as a Bonus Action if you spend a ki point after using your Action to attack. This does not grant a monk 4 attacks at level 2, it grants him 3. Flurry of Blows is a Bonus Action, and once spent, the monk no longer has a Bonus Action with which to take the extra unarmed strike proffered by Martial Arts.

You seem to be under the impression that the feat grants you a "free attack", that must be taken immediately after attacking; as opposed to what it really does, which is open up an option for you to use your Bonus Action-to which all characters are entitled-to attack. Something not covered by regular Two-Weapon Fighting rules, which specify melee weapons only. Because without this feat, a character with the Dual Wielder feat AND Two Weapon Fighting Style STILL cannot fire a hand crossbow with their offhand when they attack with their main hand, even if they use a light weapon in their main hand, because although a hand crossbow is light, it is not a melee weapon.

The Loading Property means that a crossbow can only fire one piece of ammunition per round, regardless of the number of attacks you are entitled to. It mentions that the reason for this is because of the time needed to load the weapon, but does not specify how much time that takes.

So those are the rules, now for how they come together:
This means that a Level 20 Fighter without Crossbow Expert with a Heavy Crossbow can fire only one bolt as an Action, you agree there, yes? And since he can do this every round, it seems logical to assume that he starts every round with it loaded, therefore he reloads it with the rest of his action, yes? I hope you're with me so far. Because that assumption is just our minds making logical sense out of something, when the rules don't specify it. All the rules ACTUALLY say is that only one piece can be fired per round.

A Level 20 Fighter WITH this feat and a Heavy Crossbow may fire that weapon 4 times as an Action. Here's why: The Loading Property's only mechanical rule is the limitation on pieces of ammunition fired per round, and the feat ignores that property. The assumption then is that the feat represents the training this Fighter has undergone to load crossbows MUCH faster. Now, mind you, this is still just an Action, he hasn't taken a Bonus Action yet. Yet he has still somehow loaded the heavy crossbow a MINIMUM of 3 times during his action, and once again, since he can repeat that on the next turn, we must assume that he begins his turn with it loaded and thus has reloaded it FOUR times during his Action. Thus his Action is complete and he holds a loaded Heavy Crossbow. He is now free to use his Action Surge ability to grant himself another Action (not to be confused with a Bonus Action, which he still has not used), and can fire ANOTHER four bolts with your Action Surge-granted Action, and again, end your turn with a loaded Heavy Crossbow in hand.

Now, I used a Heavy Crossbow for those examples. Why? Because logical assumption (and perhaps being used to earlier editions) makes us believe that a big, honkin' 2 handed crossbow takes longer to load than a little hand crossbow. This makes logical sense. And yet, the mechanical impact of the rules, specifically the Loading Property of all crossbows, says otherwise. A Heavy Crossbow takes just as long to load as a hand crossbow. Also, I used a heavy crossbow because, as a 2-handed weapon, I could address my points separately.

You should note that the Extra Attack ability granted to some classes, like Fighters an Rangers specifies that they get more attacks "when they take the Attack Action on their turn", so this is still a part of the SINGLE Action that all characters are entitled to. We have not yet entered into discussion of Bonus Actions, which are separate. This, by the way, is the reason that my examples of Fighter #1 and #2 were level 5 Fighters, who had the Extra Attack ability, in the hopes of avoiding this very issue of confusion.

A level 5 Fighter without this feat using a hand crossbow may still only fire once when he uses his Action to attack. Even though he is entitled to 2 attacks with his Action because of Extra Attack. HOWEVER, if he uses his Action Surge class ability, he gets a whole extra Action, which he can then use to fire the hand crossbow again. And of course, after each compete Action, the weapon is loaded.

Now, a level 2 Human Fighter with this feat is holding a single hand crossbow in his hand. He moves his speed, and then uses his Action to attack an enemy with the hand crossbow. His Action is now complete. Remember our earlier point? How with or without the feat, the weapon is reloaded at the end of his Action? So, his action complete, he is now holding a loaded hand crossbow. So far, he has not technically used any benefits of the feat yet, because he only took an Action. However, he has now met the criteria of bullet 3 of this feat. So, at any time during this turn, he may use his Bonus Action to fire the loaded hand crossbow. He may also still use Action Surge to gain an additional Action to fire the hand crossbow again. And, as has been pointed out, unlike a monk's flurry of blows, he need not have used the Bonus Action immediately. He could have gone: move, Action, Action Surge, Bonus Action. Or even Action, move, Action Surge, Bonus Action. Or Action, move, Bonus Action, Action Surge.

You said it yourself: "you can load+fire a crossbow at the same rate you can draw+fire a bow". That much is correct, which is why I don't understand why you are confused at this issue. The Loading Property may cite "time take to reload" as a reason, but the mechanical impact is strictly "one piece of ammunition per action taken to fire". And either way, the Crossbow Expert feat doesn't say "you may fire a crossbow more than once per action, because you reload quickly" It says that you IGNORE the Loading property of the weapon. This means that for a character with this feat, crossbows DO NOT HAVE the Loading property. And the "time needed to reload" text is under the Loaded property. So either way you spin it, a character with this feat is COMPLETELY unaffected by the need to reload a crossbow (hand, light or heavy), presumably because such a character reloads them so fast.

So, in conclusion, to use your method. Again, we are going with a level 5 Fighter with this feat, since that was the original example:
The logical path is this:
Decide to take an Action:
Use Action to attack (ammunition expended from hand crossbow), since we ignore the Loading property and are entitled to 2 attacks per Action, we may fire again, which means, logically that we have already re-loaded the crossbow. Once again, you acknowledged that the feat lets you fire as fast as a bow user. Take Second Attack.
We have done everything we can do with this Action. As per our earlier discussion, we are understanding that, as a part of completing our Action, our hand crossbow is now re-loaded and ready to be fired. Action complete.
Now we have met the crtieria of bullet 3 of the feat, and we may use our Bonus Action to attack with the loaded hand crossbow held in hand.
Since we're a level 5 Fighter, let's also use Action Surge and get another Action. As an entire Action (not a Bonus Action), we can make 2 hand crossbow attacks, since we have the Extra Attack class feature, and we are unfettered by a Loading property on our weapon.

[Shadow]

Who cares how many weapons he's using? You're nitpicking on some abstract principle that, in the end, does not have a mechanical effect.

Look, both #1 and #2 are 5th level Fighters with the Extra Attack ability and Crossbow Expert, right?
So both do this:
Use Action: Fire 2 shots from hand crossbow
Use Bonus Action: Fire 1 shot from hand crossbow.

That's the breakdown. Whether you are using 2 weapons or 1, the mechanical impact that the character is making in combat is identical. And furthermore, he had to spend a feat to do it, which is IDENTICAL to the Polearm Master, but this is the ranged attacker equivalent. So how is that an issue of game balance?

You already stated the difference in the very first sentence of your response.
"I addressed that using a shield would indeed be mechanically different."
Fighter 1 allows the use of a shield.
It is NOT IDENTICAL because of that, not matter how many times you shout that it is.

[Edenbeast]

There is no feat that allows you to attack twice with a bow, as with the rapid shot feat for example. There's the pole-arm master that gives you a bonus attack for 1d4. That's actually the only feat that gives a bonus action to a single-wielded weapon. Therefore I'm pretty sure that one should interpret the "one-handed weapon" as another weapon, and not the hand crossbow. Nor do you get an extra attack with any light melee weapon, unless you dual wield two light weapons.
I believe that if you did get an additional bonus attack with the same crossbow, the rules would have specifically stated this. Like I said, I expect this to be in the errata.

[JoeJ]

Okay, so just to be clear:

If I'm a wizard 18/druid 2, and I have my 2,000 simulacra all wild shape into spiders and fire tiny hand crossbows twice per round while also using tiny shields, that would or would not be overly cheesy? :smalltongue:

[SiuiS]

A lot of players are coming from heavier rules sets from earlier editions and the change is messing them up. It's like trying to run a car with Olive Oil.

This is the big one. Actually, it's more than that; the developers are coming from more rules heavy systems. They made a valiant effort but they didn't quite pull it off. This and this alone helps me get through these threads because, sanctimony of devs who are all "I AM THE GOD OF THIS! I HAVE NO FLAW!", I can just roll my eyes and laugh it off.


Do you have a problem with women driving?

Goddess no. Have you seen those tubular, noodle arms? Woman couldn't handle a car before power steering and even then I am dubious.


From my point of view in general, the rules aren't really that ambiguous, except that because it's fantasy some people stop caring about logic on the basis that it's fantasy so logic and common sense are entirely irrelevant. And to me this completely contradicts the point of there being rules to begin with.

I'm seeing a bit of logic fetishization here.

You know logic can produce wrong, innacurate and deleterious results while still being logical right? Logic is "if this is true, then these results must be true because of it". It says nothing of whether the first preposition is true, or if it should be true, or if the output is useful, factual, necessary or even mutually exclusive of any other output. Logic is not, de facto, binary, where once you find "the logical answer", that's it folks, go home, game has been won.

Logic is a tool. Logic is a single component of rational thought. Logic can and frequently does provide irrational outputs and behaviors and expectations when this is forgotten. I would much rather have a rational discourse about how the game should work than a logical one. A logical discourse is why you can make a perform check naked in the desert and spontaneously generate gold pieces out of thin air. Logic is where RAW comes from. Rationality is where a game worth playing comes from.



To me that works much better in say Whitewolf where the game is much more story driven but is just out of place in a rule intensive system like D&D.

That's true. How do you take into account that they have attempted (though failed) to transition away from beig a rules intensive system though?


Reloading a Hand Crossbow one-handed is SimpleTM - You fire off each hand crossbow, then quickly drop both hands down to grab the bolts with your fingers, pull the strings back with your elbows, load the bolts, then aim+fire again. You probably have to cross your arms, and might be able to load sequentially. You only need two fingers to hold a crossbow in a hand, and you have two more on each hand free to hold and reload bolts and manipulate the strings. Or you juggle the weapons.

So am I the only crossbow user around these parts who uses accessories? They're called hooks. You either have one on your belt just above the quiver so you can engage the draw and pull a bolt into the mechanism with your thumb, or you have one under the wrist so you can pull and load with ease, and the other hook holds the crossbow you're not currently loading.

This requires as much gear as saying "my character is not naked". It could also be considered part of the crossbow kit itself, and simply require practice and proficiency to use – like, say, mastery of crossbows?


Okay, so just to be clear:

If I'm a wizard 18/druid 2, and I have my 2,000 simulacra all wild shape into spiders and fire tiny hand crossbows twice per round while also using tiny shields, that would or would not be overly cheesy? :smalltongue:

That sounds like romance to me. :smallwink:

[GiantOctopodes]

There is no feat that allows you to attack twice with a bow, as with the rapid shot feat for example. There's the pole-arm master that gives you a bonus attack for 1d4. That's actually the only feat that gives a bonus action to a single-wielded weapon. Therefore I'm pretty sure that one should interpret the "one-handed weapon" as another weapon, and not the hand crossbow. Nor do you get an extra attack with any light melee weapon, unless you dual wield two light weapons.
I believe that if you did get an additional bonus attack with the same crossbow, the rules would have specifically stated this. Like I said, I expect this to be in the errata.

As indicated earlier, there are only three feats total that grant attacks as bonus actions- crossbow expert, polearm master, and dual weapon wielder. Of those, *of course* dual weapon wielder does not use the same weapon. So it would also be fair to say that *every* feat except dual weapon wielder which grants attacks as a bonus action uses the same weapon. It is much more accurate to say that they all act differently (being different feats, and all).

The same could be said about the Barbarian bonus attack feature- no other class feature allows another melee attack with the same weapon. Does that mean that's not what this class feature does? No, because we're not talking about any other class features, and you don't read them based on what other, completely non related and different, class features do. You read it based on the specific verbiage of the class feature in question, which explicitly requires it to be the same melee weapon.

Similarly, we do not judge crossbow expert based on what dual weapon wielder or polearm master do, as they are different feats. We judge it based on what it *actually says*, and in terms of that, at no point does it posit a requirement for a second weapon. You can argue that it's RAI all day long, but the fact is, the ability to use the same weapon is RAW, as it is not excluded by any part of that feat, explicitly or implicitly.

[Shadow]

You can argue that it's RAI all day long, but the fact is, the ability to use the same weapon is RAW, as it is not excluded by any part of that feat, explicitly or implicitly.

Explicitly, no.
Implicitly, yes.
Context.
That's the issue. {scrubbed} Claiming that it is neither explicit nor implicit is ridiculous. If that were true, this argument wouldn't exist.

[Edenbeast]

Similarly, we do not judge crossbow expert based on what dual weapon wielder or polearm master do, as they are different feats. We judge it based on what it *actually says*, and in terms of that, at no point does it posit a requirement for a second weapon. You can argue that it's RAI all day long, but the fact is, the ability to use the same weapon is RAW, as it is not excluded by any part of that feat, explicitly or implicitly.

That reasoning is why in some countries cats end up in microwaves for drying.

[GiantOctopodes]

Explicitly, no.
Implicitly, yes.
Context.
That's the issue. {scrubbed} Claiming that it is neither explicit nor implicit is ridiculous. If that were true, this argument wouldn't exist.

{scrubbed} I know it's been done 100x, but apparently it's worth doing once more. Let's break down what the feat actually says in the section in question.

"When you use the attack action and attack with a one handed weapon" (Check, this is satisfied with a hand crossbow, I do not believe anyone is disputing that a hand crossbow is a one handed weapon capable of the attack action)
"you can use a bonus action to attack" (Great! Based on the bonus actions section we know how those work, and since the timing is not specified, you can choose when to take the bonus action)
"with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding" (Ok, ignoring the fact that it being loaded shouldn't even matter at all, since you ignore the loading quality of crossbows and thus load the weapon as part of the attack, you are allowed a free object interaction to load the thing before the bonus action takes place, so *even if you disregard the rules regarding ammunition weapons or try to twist them* you still qualify to make that bonus action at the time at which you take it)

You can argue all day long that *to you* the statement it needs to be loaded (which is a nonsensical one) is meant to require you to have it in a second hand, but *that's not what it says*. Again, I won't argue with you on RAI. I disagree with you, but the fact of the matter is that everyone can read different intents into rules, depending on their own presuppositions. What I am arguing is that the words in the rules have a distinct meaning already, and that since there can be no agreement on what is or is not implied by the rules, or what the developers did or did not intend, we can possibly at least agree on the actual meaning of the words used in the rules. And in terms of the Rules As Written, at no point does it indicate a requirement for a second weapon.

And certainly, not spelling out all possible hazards of a product, and assuming some "common sense", then having someone sue you when they accidentally blow up their cat might make you wail against the stupidity of the common man. But the fact is, the reason Murphy's Law has stuck around so long is because it is a sound engineering principle. Since anything that can go wrong will go wrong, it is best to not have it possible to go wrong in the first place. Plugs should be keyed so they can't accidentally be plugged in backwards. Microwaves should be designed so they can't be turned on with the door open. Your car should be designed so you can't lock yourself out with the keys in the ignition. And so on and so forth. Rules should be written in such a way that no ambiguity exists. You are assuming they failed this standard. You are adding ambiguity to a rule by assuming intent to have conditions that are not specified, then arguing that people are weaseling into a loop hole on a condition to the rule that does not exist in the first place.

Quite frankly, I personally don't care what they intended. I have no way of knowing that. They can always clarify with a FAQ or errata, and probably should. However, I do know what it says.

[Shadow]

Quite frankly, I personally don't care what they intended. I have no way of knowing that.

You do have a way of knowing what they intended.
Because they told us. And those of us that read the entire thing in context and thus inferred two different weapons were correct.

[GiantOctopodes]

You do have a way of knowing what they intended.
Because they told us. And those of us that read the entire thing in context and thus inferred two different weapons were correct.

Are you referring to the statement from one of the game developers who put it in the context of "I would rule", indicating it was his personal opinion on the matter, or what he would do as a DM? Yes, I agree, context is important.

[Shadow]

Are you referring to the statement from one of the game developers who put it in the context of "I would rule", indicating it was his personal opinion on the matter, or what he would do as a DM? Yes, I agree, context is important.

Yes, that one.
If the lead designer of the game requires two weapons in his personal game, you can be certain that this was the intention.
If allowing the bonus action attack to trigger via one single hand crossbow were intended, then the lead designer would allow it in his game.
So the intent has been clarified as two different weapons. All of your "we don't know, I don't know, you don't know, we can never know" is just wrong. We can know and we do know, because he told us.

[GiantOctopodes]

Yes, that one.
If the lead designer of the game requires two weapons in his personal game, you can be certain that this was the intention.
If allowing the bonus action attack to trigger via one single hand crossbow were intended, then the lead designer would allow it in his game.
So the intent has been clarified as two different weapons. All of your "we don't know, I don't know, you don't know, we can never know" is just wrong. We can know and we do know, because he told us.

And yet, even then *he did not say that was the intention*. You are, even from a source completely outside of the published rules of the game, making an inference. My argument is not even necessarily that the intention of the designer is unknowable fundamentally, but that *it is a poor basis for a discussion of the rules*, and that a discussion of the rules should instead be based on the rules as published. Were that in an errata? Absolutely, I would 100% agree with you, and there would be no debate. However, they are not, and what he does in his personal game, when different from the rules as published, means that for an intelligent discussion of the rules, we must work with the rules as written, not Merl's preferred house rules.

[RedMage125]

You already stated the difference in the very first sentence of your response.
"I addressed that using a shield would indeed be mechanically different."
Fighter 1 allows the use of a shield.
It is NOT IDENTICAL because of that, not matter how many times you shout that it is.
Again, I said it is mechanically identical if Fighter #1 is using one hand crossbow and NOT wearing a shield.

That's the second time I've clarified that, and I even bolded it for you so you didn't miss it.

I realized that I was not clear the first time I posted the 2 Fighter example that I explicitly meant no shield for Fighter #1, and addressed that a shield would be getting an additional mechanical benefit, thinking that would make it clear I meant Fighter #1 did NOT have one. And once again, because you keep missing it, the whole point of that was to address the people who had a problem with dual-wielding hand crossbows, which was quite prevalent in the early part of this thread. When you show that the two of them are mechanically identical, the argument that "balance" is somehow an issue does not hold water.

You do have a way of knowing what they intended.
Because they told us. And those of us that read the entire thing in context and thus inferred two different weapons were correct.
Funny that in your argument with GiantOcto, you even acknowledge that you are arguing intent (bolded it in your post for you), but still argue that he is wrong when he fat out says "I know you are arguing intent, but the written word is different"

I just went over to the Sage Advice page, where the developers answer rules clarifications, and they also say this regarding Crossbow Expert:
Q:why does crossbow expert specify that the bonus action requires a 'loaded' crossbow?
A (from Jeremy Crawford): That's really flavor text. Assuming you have enough ammo, the first bullet of the feat enables you to easily load the weapon.

Q:Crossbow Expert: how do you reload a hand crossbow with a weapon/shield/hand crossbow in your other hand?
A (Mike Mearls): very carefully! I imagine you just juggle items back and forth during your turn.

Mind you, Mike Mearls posted this ONE MINUTE AFTER he also posted someone what you are mentioning, that it should be a separate weapon. And even then, the quote was this:
Q:Is it intentional that you can use it to get two attacks with 1 hand crossbow + shield?
A (Mike Mearls): I'd rule it should specify a different weapon, not same weapon twice

That's an "I would", which is his perception, and is still Rules As Intended, and NOT Rules As Written. If you're still having difficulty with the concept, we can post the dictionary definitions of the words "written" and "intended" for you, since you seem to be having difficulty.

Not so nice when people take that same condescending tone to you, is it? Perhaps you should consider that when posting things like this:

Some of us are apparently better at inferring things from text than others.
Just some food for thought, and turnabout is fair play.

The fact is, you flat-out acknowledge that it is not EXPLICIT and that it is IMPLICIT, when, in fact, it is not even implicit because nothing in the rules AS THEY ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK says "another one-handed weapon", just "a one-handed weapon". And getting clarification on how they WOULD adjudicate that is still Rules As Intended.

I'm sorry Shadow, but the way the book is written, until such time as official errata contradicts it, it is valid to use one hand crossbow to get the Bonus Action attack. It is regrettable, that such allows the shield bit to work as well. I think that's Cheese, which is abusing the Rules As Written to mechanical advantage.

[Shadow]

And you can debate the philosophy and rules-lawyer all you want about the semantics of the english language.
But the bottom line is that if the lead designer of the game does not allow something in his game, then that something was OBVIOUSLY not intended.
Had it been intended, it would be in his game. Period. No discussion needed.

As to it not being implicit: There are those of us that did indeed infer the correct intent, so obviously there is grounds to infer such. Just because you can't see it doesn't make it non-existent. Some of us did indeed see it.

[RedMage125]

And you can debate the philosophy and rules-lawyer all you want about the semantics of the english language.
But the bottom line is that if the lead designer of the game does not allow something in his game, then that something was OBVIOUSLY not intended.
Had it been intended, it would be in his game. Period. No discussion needed.

So if the same lead designer also tells us that he doesn't have dragonborn in his game, because he doesn't have a place for them in his world, we should accept that dragonborn were NOT intended to be a part of the D&D game and that the only "correct" way to play is without dragonborn?

This is how your argument sounds to myself and GiantOcto.

[Shadow]

That's a strawman, adding rules about what works in his world for your example when no such conditions were given within the context of the intent previously mentioned.

As for it being RAI and *not* RAW, perhaps you'd like me to link you to one of the 9,000 times where I state specifically that.
I don't know why you're trying to convince me of something that I have personally said about a million times.

My argument has never been about what you should allow in your game. Allow whatever you want. My argument has always been about what was intended, and one hand crossbow triggering its own bonus action attack was absolutely not intended.

[Pex]

I don't see how using a hand-crossbow and shield with Crossbow Expert would be cheese presuming such a thing is allowed. As a class feature a Fighter can benefit from Duelist's +2 damage with a shield in his other hand, so there is precedent that a character can gain something Nice during making an attack while having a shield in his other hand. In this case the character is spending a feat resource for the ability to have something Nice during making an attack while having a shield in his other hand.

[Easy_Lee]

I don't see how using a hand-crossbow and shield with Crossbow Expert would be cheese presuming such a thing is allowed. As a class feature a Fighter can benefit from Duelist's +2 damage with a shield in his other hand, so there is precedent that a character can gain something Nice during making an attack while having a shield in his other hand. In this case the character is spending a feat resource for the ability to have something Nice during making an attack while having a shield in his other hand.

It's a clever use of mechanics. Some people around here will claim ANYTHING clever is abusive exploitation, cheese, and against RAI. See BM riding companion, mounted combatant rules in general, wizard's illusory reality with adamantine, dueling polearm master quarterstaff with shield, and basically anything having to do with familiars.

Edit: oh, and fabricate. Some people around here want to strike it from the spellbooks, and drop rocks on any player who uses it.

[GiantOctopodes]

That's a strawman, adding rules about what works in his world for your example when no such conditions were given within the context of the intent previously mentioned.

As for it being RAI and *not* RAW, perhaps you'd like me to link you to one of the 9,000 times where I state specifically that.
I don't know why you're trying to convince me of something that I have personally said about a million times.

My argument has never been about what you should allow in your game. Allow whatever you want. My argument has always been about what was intended, and one hand crossbow triggering its own bonus action attack was absolutely not intended.

Cool, I think we are on the same page then, as I am freely willing to concede that it may not have been intended. I don't think it's as clear cut as you think it is, as we have no way of knowing if Merls wrote that section of the book, and I'm disinclined to try to interpret someone's intentions in general unless they specifically state to me what they are, but I will gladly concede the possibility. As I stated when I started, I don't really care to speak to RAI, so if you wish to claim that is RAI, that's fine. I just want to make sure that for those looking for RAW they understand what it is, so they have the baseline from which to establish house rules as needed.

Edit:

So if the same lead designer also tells us that he doesn't have dragonborn in his game, because he doesn't have a place for them in his world, we should accept that dragonborn were NOT intended to be a part of the D&D game and that the only "correct" way to play is without dragonborn?

This is how your argument sounds to myself and GiantOcto.

As a point of courtesy, I would ask that you please not speak for me. Even if you are correct in your assertions, it creates a feeling of someone being "ganged up on", and that is never my intention, so I would rather not take part in such a thing. Beyond that, there is always the chance you might be wrong in your assertions, in which case you are giving people the wrong impression about my thoughts or viewpoints. As trivially important as those might be, I would nonetheless prefer that they be represented accurately. Thank you for your consideration.

[silveralen]

And you can debate the philosophy and rules-lawyer all you want about the semantics of the english language.
But the bottom line is that if the lead designer of the game does not allow something in his game, then that something was OBVIOUSLY not intended.
Had it been intended, it would be in his game. Period. No discussion needed.

If he was the only person who wrote it sure. But someone else could have wrote that particular passage, and the fact he specifies his own game really implies he doesn't know the intent of the feat, or disagrees with it (yes, he may dislike parts of the book. That's the difference between writing it by himself and with a team.

Another designer said the bit about it being loaded was flavor text. So without that portion of the feat, nothing at all stops single hand crossbow even slightly. He also didn't clarify it as his game, he spoke to feat itself.

So RAI differs depending on which designer we look at. Weird huh? Almost like its a vague feat that differs and doesn't have a right answer.

[Bakakiba]

Forget crossbows...spells + crossbow expert...yes or no?

[silveralen]

Forget crossbows...spells + crossbow expert...yes or no?

Which part?

[Easy_Lee]

According to dev tweets, crossbow expert lets you fire ranged attacks into melee without disadvantage, regardless of the type. Accirding to the text, it does the same. So it would work with spells.

[JoeJ]

Leaving aside for the moment the question of which one-handed weapon I'm using for my attack action, does the bonus attack with a hand crossbow let me add my Dex bonus to the damage, or does it work just like Two-Weapon Fighting?

[Eslin]

Leaving aside for the moment the question of which one-handed weapon I'm using for my attack action, does the bonus attack with a hand crossbow let me add my Dex bonus to the damage, or does it work just like Two-Weapon Fighting?

Lets you add your dex bonus. TWF is the only thing that doesn't have ability mod to damage.

[Sartharina]

You said it yourself: "you can load+fire a crossbow at the same rate you can draw+fire a bow". That much is correct, which is why I don't understand why you are confused at this issue.Simple - You can't draw+fire a bow as a bonus action.

All sources of Bonus Action Attacks outside of a monk's Flurry are simultaneous to a degree - A Great Weapon Master's bonus action attack is his momentum from one swing carrying through to a second target. A dual-wielder attacks with both weapons at once, or in quick succession. A polearm master's bonus attack uses the other end of the polearm to strike before he could strike twice with the business end. An attack-move-bonusactionattack is all one smooth motion+action. We just spread it out through a turn for ease of play.

[Eslin]

Simple - You can't draw+fire a bow as a bonus action.

All sources of Bonus Action Attacks outside of a monk's Flurry are simultaneous to a degree - A Great Weapon Master's bonus action attack is his momentum from one swing carrying through to a second target. A dual-wielder attacks with both weapons at once, or in quick succession. A polearm master's bonus attack uses the other end of the polearm to strike before he could strike twice with the business end. An attack-move-bonusactionattack is all one smooth motion+action. We just spread it out through a turn for ease of play.

Which doesn't change the fact that it is spread out. You can do half a dozen things between attacking and using your bonus action to fire a hand crossbow, and one of those things can be making sure its loaded. You're seriously having trouble with the idea that on a character that can specifically ignore the loading property of his crossbow and has time between action and bonus action, he can find time to load his damn crossbow?

[Sartharina]

Which doesn't change the fact that it is spread out. You can do half a dozen things between attacking and using your bonus action to fire a hand crossbow, and one of those things can be making sure its loaded. You're seriously having trouble with the idea that on a character that can specifically ignore the loading property of his crossbow and has time between action and bonus action, he can find time to load his damn crossbow?Doing so would require the "Extra Attack" class feature. Any of the 'half dozen' things he's doing between his initial shot and the second shot are all the same fluid motion (And what can you do beyond moving or kicking open a door?)

[Eslin]

Doing so would require the "Extra Attack" class feature. Any of the 'half dozen' things he's doing between his initial shot and the second shot are all the same fluid motion (And what can you do beyond moving or kicking open a door?)

Where does it say it's a fluid motion? When I create a warforged once they're out, I'm going to have it announce pretty much every single thing it does in discrete bursts.

Again, the other part of the feat says you don't have to worry about loading and you don't have to immediately follow the action with the bonus action. If a character wants to attack with his bonus action, it'll be loaded by the time he does. This is really not a complicated concept.

[GiantOctopodes]

Simple - You can't draw+fire a bow as a bonus action.

All sources of Bonus Action Attacks outside of a monk's Flurry are simultaneous to a degree - A Great Weapon Master's bonus action attack is his momentum from one swing carrying through to a second target. A dual-wielder attacks with both weapons at once, or in quick succession. A polearm master's bonus attack uses the other end of the polearm to strike before he could strike twice with the business end. An attack-move-bonusactionattack is all one smooth motion+action. We just spread it out through a turn for ease of play.

Yes you absolutely can! Where on earth do you get that you can't draw and fire a bow as a bonus action? Per the PHB: "Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack." And from crossbow expert: "you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding." Compare against this verbiage: "Starting at 11th level, your beast companion can make two attacks when you command it to use the Attack action."

If they had meant that you can only draw a piece of ammo and fire when using the attack action, that's what it would say. Your statement simply does not match up with the rules as they are written. If you have Swift Quiver active, for example: On each of your turns until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action to make two attacks with a weapon that uses ammunition from the quiver." Per your statement that would be impossible to do, as you only get one object interaction per turn, so *unless* drawing ammo is part of any attack, even if that attack is a bonus action (which it is), you would not be able to draw ammo at the necessary rate to actually use the granted bonus action.

[RedMage125]

Simple - You can't draw+fire a bow as a bonus action.

All sources of Bonus Action Attacks outside of a monk's Flurry are simultaneous to a degree - A Great Weapon Master's bonus action attack is his momentum from one swing carrying through to a second target. A dual-wielder attacks with both weapons at once, or in quick succession. A polearm master's bonus attack uses the other end of the polearm to strike before he could strike twice with the business end. An attack-move-bonusactionattack is all one smooth motion+action. We just spread it out through a turn for ease of play.

Grossly incorrect.

Bonus Actions are separate from normal actions. Re-read your PHB, page 189. Specifically "you choose when to take a bonus action on your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified".

The Bonus Action granted by Crossbow Expert does not have a specified timing, kind of like the Bonus Action granted to a monk from his Martial Arts class ability. Not Flurry of Blows, which DOES specify a timing, but the regular extra unarmed attack he gets at level one. A level one monk may strike with a quarterstaff, move, and then make an unarmed strike as a bonus action. Likewise, a character with Crossbow Expert may attack with a one handed weapon (let's say a longsword), move his speed, talk as a free action, and then still fire his loaded hand crossbow in his other hand.

You only get Bonus Actions when special abilities, spells or class features say you get them. In the case of the monk's Martial Arts and the Crossbow Expert, there is a trigger. If you make an attack, you may, as use a bonus action on your turn to make this other, specific attack.

Either way, the Action is complete before the Bonus Action even starts, it has to be. I'm sorry Sarth, but you're wrong. And furthermore, Crossbow Expert EXPLICITLY ignores the loading quality of all crossbows. 5e Game Designer Jeremy Crawford EXPLICITY stated that the specification of a 'loaded' hand crossbow in the third bullet of the feat is, and I quote "flavor text." Which he followed with: "Assuming you have enough ammo, the first bullet of the feat enables you to easily load the weapon."

Go check out the Sage Advice Q&A if you don't believe me, search for "crossbow" and you can't miss it.

[Person_Man]

I tend to just ignore all the fiddly simulationist rules. If someone wants to spend a Feat to get +2sh average damage per attack, why is that a problem?

[darkdragoon]

Yes, that one.
If the lead designer of the game requires two weapons in his personal game, you can be certain that this was the intention.
If allowing the bonus action attack to trigger via one single hand crossbow were intended, then the lead designer would allow it in his game.
So the intent has been clarified as two different weapons. All of your "we don't know, I don't know, you don't know, we can never know" is just wrong. We can know and we do know, because he told us.


Said lead designer has a history of coming up with vague mechanics that don't seem to match whatever the intent was. IE Shroud assassin powers.

[EvilAnagram]

I hate this damn feat. Honestly, I have no problem with the way it works mechanically, but it breaks immersion for me. The fastest anyone has ever shot a military-grade crossbow is once every 30 seconds. This feat allows you to conceivably fire eight times in six seconds. You essentially gain the ability to move like Quicksilver in DoFP, but only when reloading crossbows.

I have forbidden this usage of it at my table without crafting a mechanical automatic crossbow.

[Easy_Lee]

I hate this damn feat. Honestly, I have no problem with the way it works mechanically, but it breaks immersion for me. The fastest anyone has ever shot a military-grade crossbow is once every 30 seconds. This feat allows you to conceivably fire eight times in six seconds. You essentially gain the ability to move like Quicksilver in DoFP, but only when reloading crossbows.

I have forbidden this usage of it at my table without crafting a mechanical automatic crossbow.

Person A can load and fire a crossbow in six seconds. That's baseline, and that's pretty damn fast. It's already unlikely in real life, unless their crossbows more closely resemble chu ko nus than regular crossbows. But, regardless, we have to accept that these crossbows can be loaded, aimed, and fired in six seconds. I don't see how an extremely well-trained, practiced person doing that same thing in less time (or multiple times over the same duration) is unbelievable.

And also, you can conceivably fire the crossbow ten times (4*2+bonus+haste) as a max-level, buffed fighter, assuming your DM allows the single crossbow thing. Otherwise, you'll inexplicably need a second for that last shot.

Incidentally, I'm not sure why people feel this way about crossbows (which explicitly require specific training in order to reload quickly), but not longbows which still have to be nocked, drawn back, and fired. Shooting a heavy English longbow eight times in six seconds would still be a superhuman feat. Firing some kind of chu ku nu eight times in six seconds is something anyone could train to do. If we accept their crossbows have some kind of trick that makes them easier to reload, it shouldn't be a problem.

[obryn]

I hate this damn feat. Honestly, I have no problem with the way it works mechanically, but it breaks immersion for me. The fastest anyone has ever shot a military-grade crossbow is once every 30 seconds. This feat allows you to conceivably fire eight times in six seconds. You essentially gain the ability to move like Quicksilver in DoFP, but only when reloading crossbows.

I have forbidden this usage of it at my table without crafting a mechanical automatic crossbow.
Yeah, we can't have any D&D characters performing superhuman feats, can we?

I've banned spellcasting, hit points, multiple attacks, magic items, and saving throws from my own games. It's much more immersive.

My last campaign, 2 characters died from the flu, one got a nasty infection from a house cat, and the rest got gangrene and rotted away forgotten in a swamp before even getting to the goblin lair. Serves them right. They complained it wasn't any fun, but dammit, it was incredibly verisimilitudinous.

[S_Dalsgaard]

What I don't get, is why people become a..holes as soon as someone mention, that they don't allow dual-wielding of hand crossbows.

I don't allow it either (not that I can imagine that anyone at my table would ever ask if they could do it). I don't see anywhere in the rules, that explicitly says, that two hand crossbows is an exception to the TWF requirement of light melee weapons, and that includes the CE feat. On the other hand I don't have a problem with other DMs allowing it, as that is their own business.

[Easy_Lee]

What I don't get, is why people become a..holes as soon as someone mention, that they don't allow dual-wielding of hand crossbows.

I don't allow it either (not that I can imagine that anyone at my table would ever ask if they could do it). I don't see anywhere in the rules, that explicitly says, that two hand crossbows is an exception to the TWF requirement of light melee weapons, and that includes the CE feat. On the other hand I don't have a problem with other DMs allowing it, as that is their own business.

So I guess you're in favor of using one hand crossbow and getting the bonus attack off of itself.

[MukkTB]

My reading of the RAW seems to favor the 1 handcrossbow and a shield argument.

From a simulationist perspective I like the 1 hand crossbow and an empty hand setup.

2 hand crossbows sounds cool to me. The shield and hand crossbow also sounds cool.

Mechanically, I don't know if this is overpowered. Do you get dex to the second shot? You're spending a feat for the privilege of doing this.

[Regulas]

As I noted before, the feat comes down to how badly people care about style or mechanics abuse.

Main reasons people seem to want to see it do silly things is

1: cause they think it's cool so will see the rules as allowing it cause they would rather have the cool thing then believe otherwise

2: They are into rule abuse or min/maxing. They will interpret the rules by whatever way of reading it gives them the most bang for their buck common sense be dammed.

Though there was one guy who thought that non-magic users should be able to use magic because they aren't using magic.


Those who are particularly against these ideas are usually the "lawyers" who care about the strict readings, and the "realists" who are concerned with the impracticality or ridiculous nature of the concepts.

[Easy_Lee]

As I said, loading and firing a crossbow in six seconds during a hectic fight is pretty impressive, and that's apparently something any fighter can do. I don't think people have problems with the feat so much as they have problems with crossbows in general. If the feat granted a bonus attack with longbows, nobody would have complained.

Also, would just like to mention I have nothing but contempt for those who think their "immersion" is more important than another's fun.

[Edenbeast]

The first time I read the feat, my interpretation of the sentence containing "one handed weapon" and "loaded hand crossbow" was that they are two different weapons. I have never doubted this interpretation. It's the rule as written, and how I understand it. I've considered the other possibility and I also understand how some people are able to read something else, maybe due to the designers' sloppiness, or maybe because of the reasons mentioned in the previous post, and most likely a combination.

[Demonic Spoon]

Also, would just like to mention I have nothing but contempt for those who think their "immersion" is more important than another's fun.


This doesn't even make any sense. Immersion is part of the fun of D&D for what I would guess is virtually everyone (yourself included). You're debating whether or not certain interpretations of a vaguely-worded feat are justified or good for the same, your opinion is not intrinsically better because it hinges on mechanics rather than verisimilitude.

[Regulas]

The whole 1 hand bow making an off-hand never made sense to begin with. Like if you are wielding 1 sword do you normally make a second off-hand attack for "dual-wielding" the one blade? Clearly not so why does it magically work like that for hand-crossbows?

[Easy_Lee]

The whole 1 hand bow making an off-hand never made sense to begin with. Like if you are wielding 1 sword do you normally make a second off-hand attack for "dual-wielding" the one blade? Clearly not so why does it magically work like that for hand-crossbows?

Same reason you get a bonus attack with polearm master - you spent a feat for it.

Is the character doing too much damage? No, less than or equal to a dual wielder.

Does the character have too much survivability? No, no more than any other ranged character, and less than many casters.

Does the character have too much utility? No, less than a sorcerer who also does more (and more versatile) damage.

So what in the nine hells is the problem?

[Easy_Lee]

This doesn't even make any sense. Immersion is part of the fun of D&D for what I would guess is virtually everyone (yourself included). You're debating whether or not certain interpretations of a vaguely-worded feat are justified or good for the same, your opinion is not intrinsically better because it hinges on mechanics rather than verisimilitude.

I didn't say "equally" important, I said more important. Show me someone who thinks their own needs are more important than others', and I'll show you the cause of every interpersonal conflict in history, D&D included. If you aren't willing to deal with other players doing things you don't agree with, you aren't going to have a good time at any table.

And for the record, my opinion has nothing to do with mechanics, and everything to do with variety. What's right for person A is not what's right for person B. This is the foundation of tolerance.

[Regulas]

Same reason you get a bonus attack with polearm master - you spent a feat for it.

Is the character doing too much damage? No, less than or equal to a dual wielder.

Does the character have too much survivability? No, no more than any other ranged character, and less than many casters.

Does the character have too much utility? No, less than a sorcerer who also does more (and more versatile) damage.

So what in the nine hells is the problem?

The damage level does not constitute a reason. As a cleric my cantrips deal less damage then a walrocks. Does that mean I should get free damage?

Even besides that, what anoys me most about it is the abuse. This is a perfect example of trying to abuse how the rules work cause you want to do something. They never clarified details about trigger timing and action order, so your are choosing to interpret this in a way that lets you fire a the extra shot with the same crossbow. This is nothing like Polearm master that give you the attack directly in it's RAW but the extra crossbow attack with the same bow only works by reading rules outside the feat in a RAI fashion .

[Regulas]

And for the record, my opinion has nothing to do with mechanics, and everything to do with variety.

Well that explains a lot, if you just outright don't give a crap what the rules say.

Which begs the question as to why you are in this thread at all ever.

[Easy_Lee]

Well that explains a lot, if you just outright don't give a crap what the rules say.

Which begs the question as to why you are in this thread at all ever.

If you won't listen to me, perhaps you will listen to the devs. Back on the very first page of this thread, this link was posted:https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/tag/crossbow/

Jeremy Crawford says the "loaded" bit, as in bonus attack with a loaded crossbow, is flavor text. Mearls believes the text "should" specify a second weapon, implying that it doesn't by RAW. Both suggest that, by the book, firing a single hand crossbow twice, once as an action and once for bonus, is valid.

So the RAW is pretty firmly on my side. Game. Set. Match.

[Regulas]

If you won't listen to me, perhaps you will listen to the devs. Back on the very first page of this thread, this link was posted:https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/tag/crossbow/

Jeremy Crawford says the "loaded" bit, as in bonus attack with a loaded crossbow, is flavor text. Mearls believes the text "should" specify a second weapon, implying that it doesn't by RAW. Both suggest that, by the book, firing a single hand crossbow twice, once as an action and once for bonus, is valid.

So the RAW is pretty firmly on my side. Game. Set. Match.

Clarifying that it should explicitly be two weapons does not mean that the RAW allows it, it's simply a clarification because people like you are claiming otherwise.

This is where all this comes from, every time they don't explicitly put it in black and white you just assume that it all works exactly as bests suits you, even though it's just an assumption.

[Easy_Lee]

Clarifying that it should explicitly be two weapons does not mean that the RAW allows it, it's simply a clarification because people like you are claiming otherwise.

Said another way, one dev thinks it's fine and another doesn't. Now, if one of the devs thinks it's fine, it's pretty firmly in the not-exploit territory as far as I'm concerned. There is nothing in the feat which outright requires two weapons, except dubiously for the word "loaded" which Crawford said to ignore.

If you don't like it, I invite you to run a game and write your opinions on big bold letters on the DM screen. I am a DM, and it's allowed for npcs and pcs alike in my games. But frankly there is no right and wrong when it comes to fantasy. Saying one interpretation is the only interpretation shows arrogance.

[Regulas]

Said another way, one dev thinks it's fine and another doesn't. Now, if one of the devs thinks it's fine, it's pretty firmly in the not-exploit territory as far as I'm concerned. There is nothing in the feat which outright requires two weapons, except for the word "loaded" which Crawford said to ignore.

If you don't like it, I invite you to run a game and write your opinions on big bold letters on the DM screen. I am a DM, snd it's allowed for npcs and pcs alike in my games. But frankly there is no right and wrong when it comes to fantasy. Saying one interpretation is the only interpretation shows arrogance.



{scrubbed}

There is no right and wrong when it comes to fantasy unto itself. There is however a right and wrong when you are deciding to use a specific set of rules. Certainly you can run it however you want in your campaign the point is that that is Homebrew versus Canon. You can play "Hockey" where the puck is a cantaloupe there are three goals each one a tuba carried by a third team, but don't go complaining to the Hockey Hall of fame when they don't want to give you awards.

[EvilAnagram]

Yeah, we can't have any D&D characters performing superhuman feats, can we?

I've banned spellcasting, hit points, multiple attacks, magic items, and saving throws from my own games. It's much more immersive.

My last campaign, 2 characters died from the flu, one got a nasty infection from a house cat, and the rest got gangrene and rotted away forgotten in a swamp before even getting to the goblin lair. Serves them right. They complained it wasn't any fun, but dammit, it was incredibly verisimilitudinous.

It's not that it's superhuman, it's that it's superhuman in such a specific and inconsistent way. "I can move as fast as the Flash," would be fine with me. "I can move as fast as the Flash, but only within the confines of loading crossbows," is ridiculous.

[Demonic Spoon]

I didn't say "equally" important, I said more important. Show me someone who thinks their own needs are more important than others', and I'll show you the cause of every interpersonal conflict in history, D&D included. If you aren't willing to deal with other players doing things you don't agree with, you aren't going to have a good time at any table.

And for the record, my opinion has nothing to do with mechanics, and everything to do with variety. What's right for person A is not what's right for person B. This is the foundation of tolerance.

Are you referring to rules are different tables, or rules at a single table?

No one is or has ever argued that someone else isn't allowed to run the game the way they want to (whether or not they think it's a good idea is another matter). However, you seem to be arguing that players should be allowed to do the things they want to do because what they want for themselves is more important than what other characters want him to do?

[GiantOctopodes]

The whole 1 hand bow making an off-hand never made sense to begin with. Like if you are wielding 1 sword do you normally make a second off-hand attack for "dual-wielding" the one blade? Clearly not so why does it magically work like that for hand-crossbows?

I would like to point out that the feat says absolutely nothing about dual wielding. Ever, in fact, thus why some people don't interpret it as allowing dual wielding at all.

Sources of Bonus Actions that Grant Attacks:
Frenzy: Melee weapon attack, no requirements for use.
Battle Magic: Weapon attack, occurs when casting a spell, no limitations on the kinds of weapons that can be used.
War Priest: Weapon attack, must use the attack action, no limitations on the kinds of weapons that can be used.
War Magic: Weapon attack, occurs when casting cantrips / spells, no limitation on the kinds of weapons that can be used.
Martial Arts: Unarmed attack, must use the attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon
Flurry of Blows: Two unarmed attacks, must use the attack action
Charger: Melee weapon attack, must use the dash action
Crossbow Expert: Hand Crossbow attack, must use the attack action with a one handed weapon
Polearm Master: Haft of Polearm attack, must use the attack action with a glaive, halbred or staff
Two Weapon Fighting: Light melee weapon attack, must use the attack action with a different light melee weapon.
Swift Quiver: Two ranged weapon attacks, must use a weapon that consumes ammunition drawn from the quiver
Summoning and Conjuration Spells: Can direct the summoned entity or creature with a bonus action, leading to one or more attacks. They attack, not you, so it's indirect.

That's the list. Now, everyone who has been arguing that crossbow expert requires a second crossbow has been adding text into the rules, and arguing from the standpoint of rules for a completely different thing (two weapon fighting), arguing from a circular logic perspective (it's like two weapon fighting, so it's like two weapon fighting). Nowhere in the rules for Crossbow expert does it say a second weapon is required whatsoever, no more so than it does for any other source of bonus attacks, other than of course two weapon fighting.

Out of all possible sources of bonus attacks, there is only one (two weapon fighting) which specifies it cannot be with the same weapon, and only one (polearm master) which specifies it *must* be with the same weapon. For everything else, as no limitation is specified, it can be with the same weapon, or a different one, as what you were using for your main attack action, as long as the requirements are met. A Barbarian can "dual wield" Battle Axes while frenzying, attacking with one during his main attack action, then with the other during his bonus action. It's mechanically inferior to using the same weapon for all of them, but it's not against the rules.

People are free to house rule all they want. They are free to interpret the intent of the designers all they want. They are free to call those who stick with the rules as written "munchkins" or "rules lawyers" all they want. I stick by my philosophy that words have meanings, specific meanings, and the only requirement specified in the text of crossbow expert to gain a bonus action attack with a hand crossbow is that you make a weapon attack (not a melee weapon attack, just a weapon attack) with a one handed weapon (not a different one handed weapon, as is specified in two weapon fighting, just a one handed weapon).

That hand crossbow attack can be triggered by a melee attack, by a different hand crossbow, or by its own attacks, per RAW. As long as a weapon attack is made with a one handed weapon, you have satisfied the requirements to gain that bonus action option per the rules. Anything other than that is people choosing to houserule, which is totally fine, but it's not what the rules say.

Edit:

The very fact that the feat even mentions off-hand already by itself is all that should ever have been needed to know that you need 2 weapons. Any other interpretation already requires construing action economy interpretations to achieve.
Except it doesn't. At all. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The words "off-hand" never appear in the text for that feat, whatsoever. I highly recommend anyone arguing about what the feat says takes a moment to go and actually read it again, I think a lot of the issues is because people assume it says things differently than what it actually says.

[Regulas]

Snip.

Technically a strict reading of the raw requires the cross-bow to be loaded ahead of time, which would require two weapons since at the trigger time you just emptied the first.

The designer intent is that you could reload first so it doesn't have to be loaded, but their intent was also that you should be using it as an off-hand attack.

[GiantOctopodes]

Technically a strict reading of the raw requires the cross-bow to be loaded ahead of time.

Absolutely. The hand crossbow must be loaded in order to use the bonus action to attack with it. It must also be in your hand. Please note that it does not say "When you use the attack action to attack with a one handed weapon while holding a loaded hand crossbow, you may use a bonus action to attack with that hand crossbow". Instead, it specifies that attacking with a one handed weapon grants you a bonus action which can be used to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding. Unlike the monk's flurry of blows, which specifies that the bonus action takes place immediately after the attack action, this one does not specify a timing, so you have until the end of the round to use that bonus action, which is *plenty* of time to get that crossbow loaded and in your hand.


Edit:

Technically a strict reading of the raw requires the cross-bow to be loaded ahead of time, which would require two weapons since at the trigger time you just emptied the first.

The designer intent is that you could reload first so it doesn't have to be loaded, but their intent was also that you should be using it as an off-hand attack.

In terms of designer intent, they can intend a lot of things. But neither of the statements in your second sentence matches what they wrote. They can easily fix it, by issuing an errata, but neither the fact that you ignore the loaded quality, so normally you shouldn't have to have it already loaded, nor an "intent that you should be using it as an off-hand attack" matches what was written in the rules.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's not that it's superhuman, it's that it's superhuman in such a specific and inconsistent way. "I can move as fast as the Flash," would be fine with me. "I can move as fast as the Flash, but only within the confines of loading crossbows," is ridiculous.

Not really. I can load a gun insanely fast but I can't run a 40 yard dash in under... Well my fastest time was probably around 8 seconds haha...

It's all about training and if this is possible in the real world then why wouldn't it be possible in a fantasy setting?

Having speed and quickness in one task does not automatically give it to you in another task.

[Regulas]

Absolutely. The hand crossbow must be loaded in order to use the bonus action to attack with it. It must also be in your hand. Please note that it does not say "When you use the attack action to attack with a one handed weapon while holding a loaded hand crossbow, you may use a bonus action to attack with that hand crossbow". Instead, it specifies that attacking with a one handed weapon grants you a bonus action which can be used to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding. Unlike the monk's flurry of blows, which specifies that the bonus action takes place immediately after the attack action, this one does not specify a timing, so you have until the end of the round to use that bonus action, which is *plenty* of time to get that crossbow loaded and in your hand.


So can I use that bonus action in a later round then? Like can I make an attack and then next round cast an illusion spell and then draw and bonus attack with the crossbow? Can I take the bonus action before the attack? I mean it says that I cna take bonus actions whenever on my turn and since I am going to be making the attack on that turn.

What about later in the day? Or the next day?

[GiantOctopodes]

So can I use that bonus action in a later round then? Like can I make an attack and then next round cast an illusion spell and then draw and bonus attack with the crossbow?Can I take the bonus action before the attack? I mean it says that I cna take bonus actions whenever on my turn and since I am going to be making the attack on that turn.

What about later in the day? Or the next day?

No, not so much.

"On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first."
"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."
"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack."

You can use the bonus action later *in* the round, though, such as after you used your movement, and as part of your movement, used your object interaction to load the hand crossbow (or for that matter draw a loaded one).

Edit: And I know you're trying to be ridiculous, but I also suspect you're trying to play off of what you perceive as vague wording, so to be clear, it does specify "Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action." You can't take it on a later turn, or later in the day, it must be used on your turn when granted by said class feature, spell, or other ability. Note too that "You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take." So until such time as you had made a weapon attack with a one handed weapon, you don't have a bonus action with which to make the hand crossbow attack, and as such, it can't be done before the attack itself. The rules are actually quite clear on stuff like this when you read them.

[Regulas]

No, not so much.

"On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first."
"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."
"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack."

You can use the bonus action later *in* the round, though, such as after you used your movement, and as part of your movement, used your object interaction to load the hand crossbow (or for that matter draw a loaded one).

Neither the rules for Bonus actions nor the feat specify that the trigger which allows you to take that bonus action both have to occur in the same turn though. All it says is that you can choose when during your turn (which doesn't say same turn) to take the action, this just means that it has to be your turn and not someone else's.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Absolutely. The hand crossbow must be loaded in order to use the bonus action to attack with it. It must also be in your hand. Please note that it does not say "When you use the attack action to attack with a one handed weapon while holding a loaded hand crossbow, you may use a bonus action to attack with that hand crossbow". Instead, it specifies that attacking with a one handed weapon grants you a bonus action which can be used to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding. Unlike the monk's flurry of blows, which specifies that the bonus action takes place immediately after the attack action, this one does not specify a timing, so you have until the end of the round to use that bonus action, which is *plenty* of time to get that crossbow loaded and in your hand.

The feat also let's you ignore the loading quality.

Loading Quality: "Because of the time required to laid this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make." -PHB 147

Which that part of the feat doesnt actually do anything for us when using the the attack part of the feat!

Each time you take an action to shoot you are able to load the crossbow once as per the loading quality. Ignoring the loading quality just let's you make more attacks with one action (extra attack).

The feat allows us to make a bonus action attack with a one handed weapon after fireing the hand crossbow. Since you are using a new action you can load said crossbow again (ammunition property) action already for the ability to shoot it. You could use the same hand cross bow with nothing in your second hand if you like because loading the hand crossbow is part of the action to shoot the weapon.

Now why would the feat say loaded crossbow? So rules lawyers don't try to pull "I don't need ammo to do my next attack, it doesn't say it has to be loaded" or whatever.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Neither the rules for Bonus actions nor the feat specify that the trigger which allows you to take that bonus action both have to occur in the same turn though. All it says is that you can choose when during your turn (which doesn't say same turn) to take the action, this just means that it has to be your turn and not someone else's.

Really? You are really trying to argue this?

You can't be serious.

[EvilAnagram]

Not really. I can load a gun insanely fast but I can't run a 40 yard dash in under... Well my fastest time was probably around 8 seconds haha...

It's all about training and if this is possible in the real world then why wouldn't it be possible in a fantasy setting?

Having speed and quickness in one task does not automatically give it to you in another task.

It's really not possible in the real world. Even firing once or twice every six seconds stretches believability. Firing eight or even ten times in six seconds requires either mechanical changes to the normal crossbow apparatus or else superhuman speed. And when I say superhuman speed, I mean the actual time it takes the crossbow to fire after you pull the trigger would be the slowest part.

Remember that firearms are entirely different from crossbows. Even those trick shots who can fire revolvers faster than the eye can process can only do so because they're relying on two simple movements they can drill into their muscle memory. You need a minimum of five or six much larger movements to fire a hand crossbow, and that's still treating the drawing back as being much simpler than it actually is.

If a player spends a little gold to get a mechanical crossbow that simplifies reloading, I have no problem with his firing eight times in a few seconds with this feat. Accurately firing a semi-automatic rifle eight times in six seconds - potentially at multiple targets - would be extremely impressive all on its own. Adding in the reloading speed of a crossbow is just... it boggles the mind. It creates a situation in which your character is achieving such high speeds that he might as well just throw the crossbow bolt.

[GiantOctopodes]

Neither the rules for Bonus actions nor the feat specify that the trigger which allows you to take that bonus action both have to occur in the same turn though. All it says is that you can choose when during your turn (which doesn't say same turn) to take the action, this just means that it has to be your turn and not someone else's.

You seem to be ignoring "You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take." The feat in question grating the bonus action states "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." No using the attack action and attacking with a one handed weapon, no bonus action on that turn.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's really not possible in the real world. That's the problem. Even firing once or twice every six seconds stretches believability. Firing eight or even ten times in six seconds requires either mechanical changes to the normal crossbow apparatus or else superhuman speed. And when I say superhuman speed, I mean the actual time it takes the crossbow to fire after you pull the trigger would be the slowest part.

Remember that firearms are entirely different from crossbows. Even those trick shots who can fire revolvers faster than the eye can process can only do so because they're relying on two simple movements they can drill into their muscle memory. You need a minimum of five or six much larger movements to fire a hand crossbow, and that's still treating the drawing back as being much simpler than it actually is.


If a player spends a little gold to get a mechanical crossbow that simplifies reloading, I have no problem with his firing eight times in a few seconds with this feat. Accurately firing a semi-automatic rifle eight times in six seconds - potentially at multiple targets - would be extremely impressive all on its own. Adding in the reloading speed of a crossbow is just... it boggles the mind. It creates a situation in which your character is achieving such high speeds that he might as well just throw the crossbow bolt.

My point isn't that I can shoot insanely fast but that loading a gun is different than running. You can be insanely fast at one aspect but insanely slow at another.

Plus this is a fantasy game where you can fire however many shots with a crossbow with the proper training. This isn't real life where we have specific limitations. Within the game they can break those limitations without technology.

No mechanical changes needed, though if you made those mechanical changes I would say it would give the wielder the Crossbow Expert feat for free. And then all you did was put a price tag on a feat.

[Easy_Lee]

It's really not possible in the real world. That's the problem.

This is a fantasy elf game with magic, how in the hell is that a problem? Are only magic users able to do "impossible" things in your version of D&D?

No, no amount of "that isn't possible in real life" is ever going to be valid in D&D. Fall speed is linear, giant creatures ignore the square-cube law of muscle mass, and people can do ****ing magic. Your physics has no place in D&D when the text says otherwise.

[Regulas]

You seem to be ignoring "You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take." The feat in question grating the bonus action states "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." No using the attack action and attacking with a one handed weapon, no bonus action on that turn.

Nowhere does that say it has to be on the same turn. Literally nowhere. And to Morbo yes I am dead serious, it's not different then the logic that lets you fire off the same bow later in the turn after changing the conditions.
For that matter why can't I phase through walls and steel? The rules in the PHB only would make it count as difficult terrain.


The feat also let's you ignore the loading quality.

What does the loading quality have to do with being loaded. The quality just says that you can only reload once per turn so the feat just means that you can potentially reload more then once, it doesn't say anything about not needing to load ammunation.

[EvilAnagram]

My point isn't that I can shoot insanely fast but that loading a gun is different than running. You can be insanely fast at one aspect but insanely slow at another.

And my point was that even people who can be insanely fast at a specific task can't approach the speeds necessary to pull this off. The best-drilled troops who used crossbows could fire twice a minute. The game's normal rules allow characters to fire five times faster than that, which stretches believability. Firing fifty times faster than anyone ever has requires superhuman abilities, and I want to know why these superhuman abilities only show up when reloading crossbows.


This is a fantasy elf game with magic, how in the hell is that a problem? Are only magic users able to do "impossible" things in your version of D&D?

No, no amount of "that isn't possible in real life" is ever going to be valid in D&D. Fall speed is linear, giant creatures ignore the square-cube law of muscle mass, and people can do ****ing magic. Your physics has no place in D&D when the text says otherwise.

{scrubbed}

My only issue, as I've said before, is with the internal consistency. Why is this character capable of superhuman speed, but only within the confines of loading crossbows?

[GiantOctopodes]

It's really not possible in the real world. Even firing once or twice every six seconds stretches believability. Firing eight or even ten times in six seconds requires either mechanical changes to the normal crossbow apparatus or else superhuman speed. And when I say superhuman speed, I mean the actual time it takes the crossbow to fire after you pull the trigger would be the slowest part.

Remember that firearms are entirely different from crossbows. Even those trick shots who can fire revolvers faster than the eye can process can only do so because they're relying on two simple movements they can drill into their muscle memory. You need a minimum of five or six much larger movements to fire a hand crossbow, and that's still treating the drawing back as being much simpler than it actually is.

If a player spends a little gold to get a mechanical crossbow that simplifies reloading, I have no problem with his firing eight times in a few seconds with this feat. Accurately firing a semi-automatic rifle eight times in six seconds - potentially at multiple targets - would be extremely impressive all on its own. Adding in the reloading speed of a crossbow is just... it boggles the mind. It creates a situation in which your character is achieving such high speeds that he might as well just throw the crossbow bolt.

Please note that 8 or even 10 attacks would require using an action surge and/ or magic to achieve. It's not meant to be physically possible at that point. Just like a Rage pushes Barbarians to superhuman heights (to where even though they specifically *can't* use magic while raging, they *can* fly across an 80 ft chasm), or a Bard's inspiration is somewhat boosting their inner resolve, self belief and determination, and somewhat pseudo-magical, the fighter's action surge is somewhat pseudo-magical as well. 10 would require you to also have magic going that quite specifically boosts your speed to super human levels. Having an issue with the 3-4 achievable normally (1.5 second per shot) is totally fine, but keep in mind that any random guy off the street fires these crossbows at 6 seconds per shot. Compare more accurately with a bolt action rifle than a crossbow as it exists in our world. Is it unreasonable that with extensive training, someone would be able to achieve 3-4x the rate of fire of someone totally inexperienced with the weapon?

[EvilAnagram]

Nowhere does that say it has to be on the same turn. Literally nowhere. And to Morbo yes I am dead serious, it's not different then the logic that lets you fire off the same bow later in the turn after changing the conditions.
For that matter why can't I phase through walls and steel? The rules in the PHB only would make it count as difficult terrain.

So your arguing that having ever fulfilled the requirements for a bonus action allows you to take one at whatever point you choose in the future? No DM worth his salt would ever let that fly.

[Sartharina]

I think they reload crossbows by hand in D&D - Grab string, pull back to hook.

Or they use physics-defying winches. Pump Action Crossbows FTW.

[EvilAnagram]

Please note that 8 or even 10 attacks would require using an action surge and/ or magic to achieve. It's not meant to be physically possible at that point. Just like a Rage pushes Barbarians to superhuman heights (to where even though they specifically *can't* use magic while raging, they *can* fly across an 80 ft chasm), or a Bard's inspiration is somewhat boosting their inner resolve, self belief and determination, and somewhat pseudo-magical, the fighter's action surge is somewhat pseudo-magical as well. 10 would require you to also have magic going that quite specifically boosts your speed to super human levels. Having an issue with the 3-4 achievable normally (1.5 second per shot) is totally fine, but keep in mind that any random guy off the street fires these crossbows at 6 seconds per shot. Compare more accurately with a bolt action rifle than a crossbow as it exists in our world. Is it unreasonable that with extensive training, someone would be able to achieve 3-4x the rate of fire of someone totally inexperienced with the weapon?

That's... actually a very good point. Thanks for that.

[Regulas]

So your arguing that having ever fulfilled the requirements for a bonus action allows you to take one at whatever point you choose in the future? No DM worth his salt would ever let that fly.

Yes that's my point, I'm trying to showcase how messed up the logic of being able to fire the bow more then once is via the feat by extending it further. The rules don't say anything against it so why not! It's fantasy so why does common sense matter!


I mean what even is a crossbow? The rules don't clarify so is it just a large sponge I bounce things off of?

[Xetheral]

Your physics has no place in D&D when the text says otherwise.

You made this same argument earlier in the thread, but I believe you missed my reply: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18463433&postcount=98.

[Sartharina]

I mean what even is a crossbow? The rules don't clarify so is it just a large sponge I bounce things off of?
I'm pretty sure there's a picture in the book showing what a crossbow looks like. Pictures are just a simple way of condensing a thousand words of rule text.

[Regulas]

I'm pretty sure there's a picture in the book showing what a crossbow looks like. Pictures are just a simple way of condensing a thousand words of rule text.

Is there a title beside the picture saying that that is a crossbow?

[Easy_Lee]

{scrubbed}
My only issue, as I've said before, is with the internal consistency. Why is this character capable of superhuman speed, but only within the confines of loading crossbows?

{scrubbed}

And second, ever seen an experienced piano player play a fast section? Their hands move pretty damn fast. Hell, in the real world people can throw baseballs at 90mph. Does it really seem at all inordinate that someone in a fantasy game can reload a crossbow pretty quick?

And I don't see you arguing that playing a mobile, wood elf monk, which actually does let you run like The Flash, should get more attacks as his speed increases. Know why? Because that isn't what the monk trained to do.

[pwykersotz]

This thread is amazing. :smallbiggrin:


It's a clever use of mechanics. Some people around here will claim ANYTHING clever is abusive exploitation, cheese, and against RAI. See BM riding companion, mounted combatant rules in general, wizard's illusory reality with adamantine, dueling polearm master quarterstaff with shield, and basically anything having to do with familiars.

Edit: oh, and fabricate. Some people around here want to strike it from the spellbooks, and drop rocks on any player who uses it.

I think there's a line between clever and abusive. For me here is where that line is: If a specific interpretation and use of a mechanic gives you utility or power beyond any other equivalent level spell or class feature, or if it purports to automatically grant a resource normally controlled by the GM, it's abusive. If it provides utility or power that is in line with or less than equivalent level spells or class features, it's clever.

For example, Simulacrum armies: Abusive.
Using Cone of Cold to make an ice bridge across a lake: Not abusive.
Firing the same crossbow twice: Probably not abusive.
Using the dev's wording to apply the feat to spells: Abusive.

My 2cp.

[Xetheral]

Yes that's my point, I'm trying to showcase how messed up the logic of being able to fire the bow more then once is via the feat by extending it further.

That only works if the absurd conclusion you're trying to demonstrate follows clearly from the proposition you disagree with. Here, it doesn't: nothing in the interpretation that the triggering crossbow can also take the bonus action even slightly suggests that it should be possible to take the bonus action in a later round.

[Easy_Lee]

You made this same argument earlier in the thread, but I believe you missed my reply: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18463433&postcount=98.

No, I saw it. It's just wrong. D&D physics and real world physics are different. Nobody can debate that point with a straight face. Show me an example where the physics are identical, and I'll show you why you're wrong.

[GiantOctopodes]

Nowhere does that say it has to be on the same turn. Literally nowhere. And to Morbo yes I am dead serious, it's not different then the logic that lets you fire off the same bow later in the turn after changing the conditions.
For that matter why can't I phase through walls and steel? The rules in the PHB only would make it count as difficult terrain.


The difference here is that while the rules don't say that you can't phase through walls, or (per your logic) store up 10 rounds worth of actions, then use them all at once to get a 10 action turn (or better yet, travel in combat time all the time, so since you've moved 5 miles prior to this encounter, that's gotta be what, over 100 actions you have stored up when combat starts? And as an added bonus, you can never be surprised, since you're already in combat, and thus it isn't the first round), or things of that nature, the rules specifically say you can take a bonus action at a time of your choosing during your round if granted it by an ability. I'm not arguing that "the rules don't say I can't", I'm arguing that "the rules say I can". Also, if you're going to to complain about my logic, get it right- the worse one by far would be to attack someone with a sword, walk somewhere, drawing your hand crossbow while doing so, and since it was already loaded, firing it using the granted bonus action, as it was not even in your hand when you made the attack (as after all, that is *not* listed as a requirement of gaining the bonus action).

[Sartharina]

No, I saw it. It's just wrong. D&D physics and real world physics are different. Nobody can debate that point with a straight face. Show me an example where the physics are identical, and I'll show you why you're wrong.Have you never read a roleplaying game book's first few pages? You keep mistaking the GUI for the processor.

[pwykersotz]

No, I saw it. It's just wrong. D&D physics and real world physics are different. Nobody can debate that point with a straight face. Show me an example where the physics are identical, and I'll show you why you're wrong.

That's pretty harsh. I thought it was an eloquent and rational point.

[Regulas]

That only works if the absurd conclusion you're trying to demonstrate follows clearly from the proposition you disagree with. Here, it doesn't: nothing in the interpretation that the triggering crossbow can also take the bonus action even slightly suggests that it should be possible to take the bonus action in a later round.

I disagree that the condition to use the bonus crossbow attack is only decided when you make the bonus action, if that's the case then I would ask why I even have to make it in the same round.

When you make the initial attack if you don't have the loaded bow in hand then I would argue you don't get a bonus attack at all to begin with so can't decide to take it later on and thus would not be able to modify the conditions.

[Easy_Lee]

Everybody arguing with everybody here. Just drop it and ask your DMs, folks

[Xetheral]

No, I saw it. It's just wrong. D&D physics and real world physics are different. Nobody can debate that point with a straight face. Show me an example where the physics are identical, and I'll show you why you're wrong.

I'm not trying to argue that they're identical. I'm trying to argue that treating the rules as a (very coarse) model of real world physics is a legitimate playstyle, and that the viewpoint of those who subscribe to that interpretation is worth hearing. Statements such as "Your physics has no place in D&D when the text says otherwise." act only to categorically dismiss those viewpoints.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not trying to argue that they're identical. I'm trying to argue that treating the rules as a (very coarse) model of real world physics is a legitimate playstyle, and that the viewpoint of those who subscribe to that interpretation is worth hearing. Statements such as "Your physics has no place in D&D when the text says otherwise." act only to categorically dismiss those viewpoints.

Notice the part I bolded. If you're changing the rules, not adding to but changing them, just to suit your ideas of real world physics, then you're not playing D&D.

[Xetheral]

I disagree that the condition to use the bonus crossbow attack is only decided when you make the bonus action, if that's the case then I would ask why I even have to make it in the same round.

When you make the initial attack if you don't have the loaded bow in hand then I would argue you don't get a bonus attack at all to begin with so can't decide to take it later on and thus would not be able to modify the conditions.

Yours is indeed a valid interpretation of the RAW, but so is the alternative.

Your interpretation has the notable advantage of giving effect to the word "loaded". Giving effect to all the terms is an important interpretive principle. However, it is also true that one tries to avoid interpretations that are better expressed by alternative formulations. In this case, your interpretation could have been better expressed by following the two-weapon fighting phraseology: "with... a [crossbow] that you're holding in the other hand." This weighs against your interpretation. Because that alternative formulation is found in the same ruleset under analogous conditions, your interpretation is also weakened by another important interpretative principle: different formulations should be interpreted differently.

The alternative interpretation renders the word "loaded" superfluous, but doesn't otherwise have any interpretative problems. It has the additional advantage of reading the text narrowly, although that's less of an inherent benefit when interpreting RPG rule text.

Because both interpretations are valid, I'd argue the text is ambiguous. As it happens, we have a tweet from a developer clarifying that the word "loaded" was indeed superfluous. You're welcome to consider that unimportant to textual analysis, but don't be surprised when a large portion of the community relies on that expression of intent to resolve the ambiguity.

[GiantOctopodes]

I disagree that the condition to use the bonus crossbow attack is only decided when you make the bonus action, if that's the case then I would ask why I even have to make it in the same round.

When you make the initial attack if you don't have the loaded bow in hand then I would argue you don't get a bonus attack at all to begin with so can't decide to take it later on and thus would not be able to modify the conditions.

I get the point you're trying to make, I really do, even if I disagree with it. And again, as long as you're consistent with it that's fine, which means that Bards can only use Battle Magic if they already have a weapon in their hand when casting a spell, and can only make the weapon attack with that specific weapon they're holding, as you're arguing you must be ready to use the bonus action *right then* even if you're not going to use it, and can't change anything to be able to take advantage of the granted bonus action.

That's a houserule, but hey, whatever works for your table.

Bonus actions are their own thing, distinct from whatever actions or abilities spawned them. They are actions in and of their own right. You're saying that someone can make an attack with a melee weapon, walk across a room, tie a quick knot (but only with one hand, can't put down that crossbow or you'll lose the action!) and then take a shot with the loaded hand crossbow they've been holding this whole time, but they can't attack with a melee weapon, draw a loaded hand crossbow from a holster, and fire it right into the same person in front of them. That, even though they both met the requirements to gain the bonus action (attacking with a one handed melee weapon), because the person was not ready to use said bonus action *right then* they lose it. Beyond not being supported by the rules whatsoever, I personally find that a little silly, but hey, whatever works for you.

Edit: Xetheral, I wish there was a "like" button for your post.

[Xetheral]

Notice the part I bolded. If you're changing the rules, not adding to but changing them, just to suit your ideas of real world physics, then you're not playing D&D.

Thanks for clarifying! If one treats the rules as a model, then I think it makes perfect sense to choose to interpret ambiguities in that model by relying on knowledge of the thing (i.e. physics) being modeled. I don't see how the resulting interpretation is any less "D&D" than any other method of resolving ambiguities.

[pwykersotz]

Notice the part I bolded. If you're changing the rules, not adding to but changing them, just to suit your ideas of real world physics, then you're not playing D&D.

That has implications far beyond the thread as I've read it so far (and little to do with Xetheral's point). Are you suggesting that I'm not playing D&D if I rule that a fall from over 400' is instant death and that crossbows can only ever fire once before breaking? Or are you hyperbolizing the specifics of accepting that trying to make a combat system that never strains physics is improbable?

[Easy_Lee]

That has implications far beyond the thread as I've read it so far (and little to do with Xetheral's point). Are you suggesting that I'm not playing D&D if I rule that a fall from over 400' is instant death and that crossbows can only ever fire once before breaking? Or are you hyperbolizing the specifics of accepting that trying to make a combat system that never strains physics is improbable?

I'm suggesting that trying to make an accurate model of physics is neither possible nor desirable in the context of D&D. Filling in the gaps with physics? That's one thing (though still pretty dubious since we know D&D is selective with physics at best). Outright changing the rules because you don't think something is possible? That's going way too far, especially since you might be wrong about what's possible in the real world.

[Regulas]

As it happens, we have a tweet from a developer clarifying that the word "loaded" was indeed superfluous.

There is equally a tweet confirming you need a second weapon.

Beyond that I'll admit that the argument itself is a clever way to try and get around the black and white text, though your exaggerated wording makes it seem more that you believe it will for some reason confuse me.


I get the point you're trying to make, I really do, even if I disagree with it. And again, as long as you're consistent with it that's fine, which means that Bards can only use Battle Magic if they already have a weapon in their hand when casting a spell, and can only make the weapon attack with that specific weapon they're holding, as you're arguing you must be ready to use the bonus action *right then* even if you're not going to use it, and can't change anything to be able to take advantage of the granted bonus action.

That's a houserule, but hey, whatever works for your table.


Bonus actions are their own thing, distinct from whatever actions or abilities spawned them. They are actions in and of their own right. You're saying that someone can make an attack with a melee weapon, walk across a room, tie a quick knot (but only with one hand, can't put down that crossbow or you'll lose the action!) and then take a shot with the loaded hand crossbow they've been holding this whole time, but they can't attack with a melee weapon, draw a loaded hand crossbow from a holster, and fire it right into the same person in front of them. That, even though they both met the requirements to gain the bonus action (attacking with a one handed melee weapon), because the person was not ready to use said bonus action *right then* they lose it. Beyond not being supported by the rules whatsoever, I personally find that a little silly, but hey, whatever works for you.

Edit: Xetheral, I wish there was a "like" button for your post.

For bards yes you would have to have a weapon in hand, conceptually your supposed to be fighting casting together not casting magic and then fighting separately.

You did get that my whole using actions on another turn in sarcasm to point out how silly I find your use of the bonus action is right?

[GiantOctopodes]

There is equally a tweet confirming you need a second weapon.

Beyond that I'll admit that the argument itself is a clever way to try and get around the black and white text, though your exaggerated wording makes it seem more that you believe it will for some reason confuse me.



For bards yes you would have to have a weapon in hand, conceptually your supposed to be fighting casting together not casting magic and then fighting separately.

You did get that my whole using actions on another turn in sarcasm to point out how silly I find your use of the bonus action is right?

Cool, so long as you also remember then that it would preclude them using two handed weapons (including most ranged weapons) when casting spells with somatic components. Battle Magic does not specify that the weapon needs to be in the other hand already, and personally I find the idea of someone with a shield casting burning hands at someone as they rush forward, then drawing a sword at the last moment and slashing away at their still burning opponent just as much of fighting and casting together as someone casting with one hand and basically being forced to dual wield a weapon in the other hand.

[pwykersotz]

I'm suggesting that trying to make an accurate model of physics is neither possible nor desirable in the context of D&D. Filling in the gaps with physics? That's one thing (though still pretty dubious since we know D&D is selective with physics at best). Outright changing the rules because you don't think something is possible? That's going way too far, especially since you might be wrong about what's possible in the real world.

I dunno. Barring magical aid, it seems legit if a DM wants to cap run speed to Usain Bolt's top speed (as a random example used as a corollary to the point). I understand that you don't consider it worthwhile, but it's a fine playstyle.

My interest in discussing this stems from how my players perceive the game. They don't care about RAW, they care about what makes sense to them. They never would start this crossbow conversation with me on their own because they wouldn't consider parsing it like we have. What they WOULD do is ask if they could do X because "It makes sense". So not only 'filling the holes' with physics but out and out banning or allowing some things based on how we perceive the world increases immersion and fun for them.

This makes for interesting situations, because I myself tend more towards a gamist mindset while GM'ing, even if I go simulationist while playing. Thus, a lot of these ideas compound on each other. If I allow X, my players perceive it 'makes sense' for y to happen, since x is clearly possible. Y is unintended, and broken from a gamist perspective though, so I have to disallow X to keep both sides happy.

So yeah, I've done exactly what you suggest should never be done, alter the rules to deny players certain options, though with the noble reason being because of the way they prefer to interact with the world. I also alter the world to grant them boons...it's not all about taking options away, sometimes breaking or bending a few rules leads to better things.

So to finish with a question, does that style conflict with your sense of what D&D is?

[Regulas]

Cool, so long as you also remember then that it would preclude them using two handed weapons (including most ranged weapons) when casting spells with somatic components. Battle Magic does not specify that the weapon needs to be in the other hand already, and personally I find the idea of someone with a shield casting burning hands at someone as they rush forward, then drawing a sword at the last moment and slashing away at their still burning opponent just as much of fighting and casting together as someone casting with one hand and basically being forced to dual wield a weapon in the other hand.

To begin with I see this as a big part of the whole point of War Caster Feat so you can wield anything and cast all together.
It's a DM call but I would probably allow Two-handed weapons because you can just let go with one hand while still holding onto the weapon with the other as that's far less then unsheathing.

[Easy_Lee]

So to finish with a question, does that style conflict with your sense of what D&D is?

A couple things:

D&D is the ruleset. D&D with different rules is something else. Maybe it's pathfinder, maybe it's almost D&D, but it's not the game we all know any longer. These forums are about D&D 5e. If we all play by different rules, there's a limit to what we can discuss.
D&D with a perfect physics simulator wouldn't have dragons, magic, or anything else fantasy. If I wanted realistic, I'd go to Wal-Mart and slap random people with an overlong stick of salami. Or I might play some sports.
D&D with no rules other than what seems right at the time is more akin to play-pretend than an actual game.

As I see it, this is why one should be careful when ignoring RAW, and really ought to have the decency to at least acknowledge that's what they're doing. People who say fighters can't fire a crossbow X times because it would be hard in real life? That's not D&D, that's pretense.

[EvilAnagram]

{scrubbed}
{scrubbed}


And second, ever seen an experienced piano player play a fast section? Their hands move pretty damn fast. Hell, in the real world people can throw baseballs at 90mph. Does it really seem at all inordinate that someone in a fantasy game can reload a crossbow pretty quick?
Pianos rely on small, swift movements. Crossbows rely on much larger, dissimilar movements. Also, baseball pitchers can accelerate the ball much faster than their arms, and they don't have to move back and forth rapidly. Neither of these has any bearing on anything.

[Easy_Lee]

@EvilAnagram you're being rude, you're argument in no way contradicts my own, and you're arguing about what's possible in a fantasy game. So congratulations, I guess.

But your real-world concerns would have no relevance in D&D even if they were correct. And they're not. If I can load a crossbow twice in six seconds, and I can, I would expect a fighter in D&D can do better. Case closed.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

{scrubbed}


No one is saying reality doesn't matter at all even if it doesn't.

What is being said that if there are rules within a fantasy game that defy real world reality then the rules win and not reality.

I guess you don't play with HP, AC, Magic, or Monsters in your game. Cause you know, they are realiatic.

[GiantOctopodes]

To begin with I see this as a big part of the whole point of War Caster Feat so you can wield anything and cast all together.
It's a DM call but I would probably allow Two-handed weapons because you can just let go with one hand while still holding onto the weapon with the other as that's far less then unsheathing.

Right, but then they're changing their wielded weapons (since a two handed weapon can't be wielded in one hand) in order to take advantage of the bonus action granted by the action they had previously successfully completed (casting a spell), which is in all ways exactly the same thing as changing your wielded weapons to take advantage of the bonus action granted by crossbow expert. I agree that it's a big part of the whole war caster feat, but my point is, if you're not adding in extra requirements which don't currently exist to that ability, in order to enforce your idea of bonus actions being all together with the action that triggered it (even though they're not required to be, and explicitly allowed to be separated by movement and object interaction), why would you do so with crossbow expert? If you accept that you don't have to perform the action that triggers a bonus action with the same items in hand you use to complete the bonus action (which is indeed allowable by RAW), why would crossbow expert be the lone exception?

[pwykersotz]

No one is saying reality doesn't matter at all even if it doesn't.

What is being said that if there are rules within a fantasy game that defy real world reality then the rules win and not reality.

I guess you don't play with HP, AC, Magic, or Monsters in your game. Cause you know, they are realiatic.

The rules win for as far as you're willing to take them.

There is no explicit rule regarding the speed with which one can reload a crossbow. We have only inference from multiple sources. It would seem to follow that it is then up to interpretation based on the type of game you're running.

Arguing that logical extremes of rules here and there create a new type of physics that bears no similarity to anything previously seen, especially when the rules themselves are trying to model non-magical actions, is not really useful to most DM's. As theorycraft, sure. As practical application, not typically. Arguing that it is the one true way is, in my opinion, silly.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The rules win for as far as you're willing to take them.

There is no explicit rule regarding the speed with which one can reload a crossbow. We have only inference from multiple sources. It would seem to follow that it is then up to interpretation based on the type of game you're running.

Arguing that logical extremes of rules here and there create a new type of physics that bears no similarity to anything previously seen, especially when the rules themselves are trying to model non-magical actions, is not really useful to most DM's. As theorycraft, sure. As practical application, not typically. Arguing that it is the one true way is, in my opinion, silly.

Yes there is rules for how fast you can reload a crossbow.

Normal: Per action, bonus action, or reaction you can load and fire only once.

With feat: Per action, bonus action, or reaction you can loaf and fire as many times as the ability let's you.

Using the ammunition and loading properties along with the feat tells you this.

So if you get 4 attacks with one action and that feat you can reload the crossbow 4 times as fast as you normally could without the feat.

[Yagyujubei]

The designers response was "you juggle your gear". So if I accept that is valid then I must accept that juggling does not require any skill checks.

I guess that also means I don't need warcaster, since I can just juggle my shield and sword to free up my hands.

I guess it WOULD require skills checks....without the feat. the feat is what enables you to have the skill to wield two crossbows and load them effectively in combat.

so, so obvious.

[EvilAnagram]

@EvilAnagram you're being rude, you're argument in no way contradicts my own, and you're arguing about what's possible in a fantasy game. So congratulations, I guess.
...you are also arguing about what's possible in a fantasy game...


But your real-world concerns would have no relevance in D&D even if they were correct. And they're not. If I can load a crossbow twice in six seconds, and I can, I would expect a fighter in D&D can do better. Case closed.
If you are suggesting that you can accurately load, aim, and fire an actual crossbow twice in six seconds - drawing from a quiver - I am going to have to demand proof.

And yes, they have relevance. D&D rules obviously don't obey the laws of physics, but they do their best to simulate them in a simplified way. The fact that the acceleration due to gravity isn't accurately represented doesn't really matter because the purpose is to simulate the fact that you get pulled towards the ground. The rules exist to make the simulation of a fantasy adventure fun and immersive, and if a rule breaks immersion for me, then I have every right as DM to say, "Screw that rule, it's a variant anyways."




No one is saying reality doesn't matter at all even if it doesn't.

What is being said that if there are rules within a fantasy game that defy real world reality then the rules win and not reality.

I guess you don't play with HP, AC, Magic, or Monsters in your game. Cause you know, they are realiatic.

That's a lovely straw man. Clearly, because I would prefer that fantasy games have some sort of internal consistency, I only allow things that are entirely realistic and not at all magical. Your point is well made, and I congratulate you.

And I would point out that feats are allowed at the DM's discretion. If I think a rule is silly or broken or simply doesn't fit in the world we're playing in, then - as DM - I am not only allowed, but encouraged to change it or cast it aside, especially if it's a variant rule.

That said, some people have been making actual arguments in favor of the Crossbow Expert feat, so I'm warming to it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That's a lovely straw man. Clearly, because I would prefer that fantasy games have some sort of internal consistency, I only allow things that are entirely realistic and not at all magical. Your point is well made, and I congratulate you.

And I would point out that feats are allowed at the DM's discretion. If I think a rule is silly or broken or simply doesn't fit in the world we're playing in, then - as DM - I am not only allowed, but encouraged to change it or cast it aside, especially if it's a variant rule.

That said, some people have been making actual arguments in favor of the Crossbow Expert feat, so I'm warming to it.

Crying strawmen only works in debate club, look it up.

Anyways the game is consistent. If you have X ability or Y training you can do Z. You are trying to make the game inconsistent by applying out of game rules because you think adding reality to a fantasy game make more sense.

I'm saying that when a game gas rules that break reality then you go by what the rules say. The rules says you can fire a hand cross bow a million times per action then guess what? You can fire a million times per action no natter if a real world person could do it or not.

You are taking the rules of a game and comparing them to the real world. If some things don't add up that's ok (HP, AC, Magic) bit if other things don't add up then the world ends (loading a hand cross bow and firing a lot).

You are the one making the rules inconsistent with by applying real life reality into the game on whatever whim you want.

[Mechaviking]

Ok there are about 2-4 arguments going on in this thread... I think.

I´ll add some perspective and feel free to disagree or ignore at your leisure.

Player A Is a Valor bard using swift quiver, disease, bestow curse and some such to increase his damage alot(most of this helps the party but takes a while to set up), since presumably he is too starved for attribute points to get more than 1 or 2 feats at the most(lets use point buy for convenience). Number of attacks 4(5 with haste)

Player B Is a Warlock 2/Sorcerer rest, doing double eldritch blasts each round(not optimal but this is a mental exercise) 4 Beams at 5, 6 at 11 and 8 at 17.(fighter 2 for a hilarious 12 in one round)

Player C is a Bow wielding Eldritch knight with Haste(duh!) 2 attacks at lvl 5, 3 Attacks at 11, 3 attacks + Haste at 14, 4 attacks + Haste at 20.

Player D is just like Player C but has a heavy crossbow with expert so his damage goes up by 1 per attack on average(in one game he has 1 attack + 1 haste attack unless he pays for a repeating crossbow of some sort, even though player A and B can fly, teleport out of close combat and have full spell progression)

Player E Uses a Hand crossbow and crossbow expert Since we are going for max attacks he gets one extra from crossbow expert and using hand crossbow(or bows whatever) Number of attacks 10.


Ok, I´m not really great with dpr calculations but the hand crossbow is d6 and the longbow is d8, so you lose 1 point of damage per attack, you gain an extra attack the is on average 8,5 so you are losing a net 1,5 damage but since we are probably going for marksman you can subtract the 1,5 from the 10 you get from marksman netting you a 8,5 increase in damage per round if all of your attacks hit(they probably wont) at Lvl 20.

Since the damage for Heavy crossbow is d10 you gain a point of damage on each of the attacks so you actually get more damage by using a Heavy crossbow granted this is half a point of damage.

/Irony

Holy **** letting a hand crossbow get a bonus attack from itself is SO OVER POWERED that it reduces your damage compared to a heavy crossbow by half a point(at level 20) OP AS **** AMARITE?!

/Irony off

If anybody can do the math on a-e that be super but I´m sure they are somewhat similar but again more of a perspective thing maybie if we actually drag out all of the numbers we can find out if this is AN EXPLOIT or not.

Also I don´t like how the word exploit has become a negative word. How else do you win battles other than exploiting the weakness of the enemy or exploiting your own strength?

I´m assuming it has something to with MMO´s and a reference to exploits from there.

Also props for spell checker wanting to rename Eldritch to Britches :D

[Shadow]

/Irony

Holy **** letting a hand crossbow get a bonus attack from itself is SO OVER POWERED that it reduces your damage compared to a heavy crossbow by half a point(at level 20) OP AS **** AMARITE?!

/Irony off

If anybody can do the math on a-e that be super but I´m sure they are somewhat similar but again more of a perspective thing maybie if we actually drag out all of the numbers we can find out if this is AN EXPLOIT or not.

Also I don´t like how the word exploit has become a negative word. How else do you win battles other than exploiting the weakness of the enemy or exploiting your own strength?

I´m assuming it has something to with MMO´s and a reference to exploits from there.

I think you mean /sarcasm, not /irony. :smallwink:
It isn't about dragging out the numbers to find out if it's an exploit. Numbers aren't the determining factor in whether something is an exploit or not.
And the word exploit has a few different definitions, one of which, and the one being referenced, is the transitive verb, not the noun. Granted, it is almost exclusively misused as a noun while intending the transitive verb definition, but that's neither here nor there.
Exploit: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage
In this case it absolutely is an exploit, as it it being used as a way to grant more attacks per round than was intended or is available to any other character with any single ranged weapon. That was not its intent (as specified by a designer tweet) and that is not fair to any other ranged weapon.
That makes it an exploit. Period.

Now whether or not you choose to allow said exploit in your game is completely up to you as a DM, but at least have the decency to recognize it as the exploit that it is.
Is it game breaking? No.
Is it exploitative? Absolutely without a doubt.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It isn't about being over powered or not.

The problem is that some people can't get the idea that a fantasy game has rules that defies reality without it being magic. They can't wrap their heads around the idea that these non-casters with training can be "just that damn good" and expect them to work off real world rules while almost everything else in the game does not.

They are saying the rules don't make sense with regard to the setting logic when they really mean they the rules don't make sense when it comes to real world logic.

Hint. Fantasy is all about having things that don't make sense in the real world. It is the fundamental aspect of fantasy. Without having things that break real world logic YOU DON'T HAVE A FANTASY SETTING.

Saying that it doesn't make sense compared to the real world is a invalid argument because while some things are like the real world, rules that say otherwise are not like the real world.

People just can't wrap their heads around that. Just think if everyone's precious tolkein was told "hey you can't write that because it doesn't make sense in the real world". Where would we be?

[Easy_Lee]

Would just like to reiterate that I don't think a realistic fantasy setting is desirable. In the real world, people die of disease and accident far more often than combat. Often, people die for absolutely no reason at all, just out of the blue. Nothing learned, nothing gained, just a random, meaningless death as if George R Martin wrote it. We can't cast spells; we can't make a career out of exploring dungeons and slaying the evil monsters within; we don't even have a clear adversary, since everyone is lying all the damn time. Some people are pretty, most people are ugly. Some people are born athletes or into rich families, and most aren't. Is that fair? Hell no it isn't fair, but that's real life. What are you going to do, take money away from all the rich people and tell all the attractive men and women that they have to sleep with ugly people? Good luck with that.

Even the fun stuff, like eating and sex, have all kinds of bullcrap associated with them. Can't eat too much good food, or you'll get fat and look and feel like crap! Can't be promiscuous because you'll catch a disease, have an unwanted child, or in the very least make someone jealous and start a bunch of drama. Every time you take a step forward, it feels like a step back because some mofo starts hating on you for doing well. And we adapt, meaning that no matter how good we have it, we still don't feel any better about ourselves for very long. People commit suicide more often in the US, a developed and rich country, than they do in most poor, disease-ridden countries.

Point is, we get enough of that kind of crap in the real world. I don't want to make those kinds of compromises in my fantasy too. Fantasy worlds have fantasy elements, and that's not only expected, it's a good thing. Some people want a nitty gritty fantasy setting where the bad guys always win and the good guys have to deal with petty crap all the time. I think most people who want that are angsty teenagers, or never matured past that point. You want to take the fantasy out of D&D? Count me out. I'll run my own game where fighters can fire a crossbow nine times in six seconds, thank you very much.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The rules are a convenience. They are meant to help simulate and arbitrate the story that the players and DM are creating as a group. They are not holy writ, and when you get up on your high horse about a *variant rule* you are being silly. Even if all parties involved agree to treat the rulebooks as legal documents and anything RAW goes, the DM can arbitrarily ban feats.

Crossbows work the way they do (lots of potential attacks) because it keeps the rules simple, and for no other plausible reason. Obviously the designers know its hard to load crossbows, just look at 3.5.

Personally if people are unhappy with how crossbows work, I would rule it that crossbows can only target one creature per round. In this interpretation, they are only shooting one bolt, and the attack/damage rolls just simulate how well targeted it is.

[EvilAnagram]

Crying strawmen only works in debate club, look it up.
Sorry, but I tend to apply rules of discourse to any argument. In this case, you were arguing against a statement I had not made in order to feel smart. That's a straw man argument. Whether or not this is a formal debate does not matter, as we have identified informal fallacies in order to more clearly identify and see through terrible discourse. You can apply it to any heated discussion.


Anyways the game is consistent. If you have X ability or Y training you can do Z. You are trying to make the game inconsistent by applying out of game rules because you think adding reality to a fantasy game make more sense.
The game is consistent in that occasionally vaguely written rules are used to describe how your characters interact with the world.

It is inconsistent in the implications of some of these rules.

Now, I quite like GiantOctopodes' suggestion that, through dedication, Fighters gain access to some kind of natural magic to increase their martial ability, explaining why they can accomplish what they do. However, nothing you've said is in the least bit sensible. Of course I will compare what is allowed in-game to what is possible in real life. People always do that. When a shin-high fence blocks your way in a video game, people often remark on how silly that is. It's the same with D&D, save that because the DM is an intermediary whose job is to interpret the rules, he can alter them to create a more immersive environment.

[bloodshed343]

What I've taken from this thread:

The rules absolutely allow you to fire one hand crossbow twice.

People hate that.

I would allow firing a single hand crossbow twice but would disallow dual crossbows. It's more feasible to load one crossbow fast than loading two crossbows with your hands full.

'Course you can't do it with a shield, either.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

What I've taken from this thread:

The rules absolutely allow you to fire one hand crossbow twice.

People hate that.

I would allow firing a single hand crossbow twice but would disallow dual crossbows. It's more feasible to load one crossbow fast than loading two crossbows with your hands full.

'Course you can't do it with a shield, either.

Feasable in the real world, yeah. In a fantasy world? That's the closest to real world feasible you will get with a lot of these rules.

Just remember "they are just that damn good".

[GiantOctopodes]

I think you mean /sarcasm, not /irony. :smallwink:
It isn't about dragging out the numbers to find out if it's an exploit. Numbers aren't the determining factor in whether something is an exploit or not.
And the word exploit has a few different definitions, one of which, and the one being referenced, is the transitive verb, not the noun. Granted, it is almost exclusively misused as a noun while intending the transitive verb definition, but that's neither here nor there.
Exploit: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage
In this case it absolutely is an exploit, as it it being used as a way to grant more attacks per round than was intended or is available to any other character with any single ranged weapon. That was not its intent (as specified by a designer tweet) and that is not fair to any other ranged weapon.
That makes it an exploit. Period.

Now whether or not you choose to allow said exploit in your game is completely up to you as a DM, but at least have the decency to recognize it as the exploit that it is.
Is it game breaking? No.
Is it exploitative? Absolutely without a doubt.

Unless, of course, said character has swift quiver, in which case of course they are doing two attacks on their bonus action instead of one, and obviously it can be with the same weapon that was used to make the attack action, as there is nothing barring that from occurring (exactly the same as crossbow expert). So, in that case, without using a feat they are getting two additional attacks with the same weapon, more than is possible with this feat. They are of course using a spell. Alternately, someone with Haste gets an additional attack with a ranged weapon, which can obviously be with the same ranged weapon as they used on an attack action, as there is nothing barring it from occurring (same as crossbow expert). In fact, one can stack haste and this feat to get exactly the same mechanical advantage as someone using swift quiver, but as swift quiver directly replaces this benefit (providing two attacks during a bonus action), and also stacks with haste, obviously the most advantageous method is swift quiver + haste, to get a bonus three attacks from a single ranged weapon.

So how exactly is it more attacks per round than was intended or is available to any other character with any single ranged weapon? The tweet from the developer also has absolutely nothing to do with the number of attacks. Furthermore, the tweet from the developer is not a part of the rules of the game nor is it in any way included in the RAW until and unless it is made into an errata. Finally, in your quote itself: To make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage. Meaning, if it is not to one's own advantage (it's not obviously mechanically superior to other available options, which apparently you agree with, based upon the start of your post), and it's not unfair (by not positing a mechanical advantage over other available options, you have not reduced the fairness of the game), it fails to meet your own definition for exploiting the rules. Beyond that, I also argue it's not "mean" to recognize what the rules actually say vs what the developer (who may or may not have been the one who actually made the rule) supposedly intended them to say (which is also supposition as he never indicated intent, merely what he would rule in his own games).

[Shadow]

The argument that casting and maintaining a spell, which requires using resources and maintaining concentration, somehow makes offering a similar effect at-will using zero resources at all obsolete is ridiculous.
That's like saying there should be feats, available to anyone at level 4, which offer the best parts of spells, which aren't even available yet at level 4, without needing spell slots at all.
You're essentially saying "casters can do it a couple of times per day with slots, so anyone should be able to do it at-will with no resources required."
That was quite possibly the most ridiculous argument you could have just made defending your position.

[bloodshed343]

The argument that casting and maintaining a spell, which requires using resources and maintaining concentration, somehow makes offering a similar effect at-will using zero resources at all obsolete is ridiculous.
That's like saying there should be feats, available to anyone at level 4, which offer the best parts of spells, which aren't even available yet at level 4, without needing spell slots at all.
You're essentially saying "casters can do it a couple of times per day with slots, so anyone should be able to do it at-will with no resources required."
That was quite possibly the most ridiculous argument you could have just made defending your position.

Way to beat that straw-man shadow.

[Mechaviking]

Right you are Shadow, Sarcasm not Irony.

Also SpawnofMorbo:

You could swing it Earthdawn style if you are familiar with earthdawn:

This is a fantasy world full of magical dragons, beasts & whatnot. The fighter harnesses ambient magical energies to become a superhuman. already mentioned nvm.

Also an "exploit" to me is something that breaks the game in half much like Bane Crushing Batmans back, rendering unplayable.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Right you are Shadow, Sarcasm not Irony.

Also SpawnofMorbo:

You could swing it Earthdawn style if you are familiar with earthdawn:

This is a fantasy world full of magical dragons, beasts & whatnot. The fighter harnesses ambient magical energies to become a superhuman.

This isn't that though. This is a setting where the Fighter or whomever is just that good.

People need to understand that you don't need magic to be awesome in a fantasy setting.

The Flash isn't magical, the initiation into the class is messed up (Kid Flash copied it), but his abilities aren't magical just really really awesome. He can physically phase through solid objects. There is magic in that setting but it isn't the be all end all.

People readily accept this and yet they can't accept a fighter is "Just that damn good" in D&D.

Edit:

There are base rules that allow fighters or whomever to be just that damn good and they don't come close to where they could be. People's minds might melt if they were shown nonmagical abilities being awesome.

[GiantOctopodes]

The argument that casting and maintaining a spell, which requires using resources and maintaining concentration, somehow makes offering a similar effect at-will using zero resources at all obsolete is ridiculous.
That's like saying there should be feats, available to anyone at level 4, which offer the best parts of spells, which aren't even available yet at level 4, without needing spell slots at all.
You're essentially saying "casters can do it a couple of times per day with slots, so anyone should be able to do it at-will with no resources required."
That was quite possibly the most ridiculous argument you could have just made defending your position.

That's not what I was saying at all. I was responding to your comment:


In this case it absolutely is an exploit, as it it being used as a way to grant more attacks per round than was intended or is available to any other character with any single ranged weapon.

Note that in no way shape or form was or is my argument that casting and maintaining a spell somehow makes offering a similar effect at will using zero resources at all obsolete. I never used those words, I never posited that position, I made no claims even remotely to that effect. What I did indicate is that your statement was factually inaccurate. That is indeed, as Bloodshed so aptly indicated, a Strawman argument. (edited to remove an unfair and inaccurate accusation leveled at Bloodshed. Once again my apologies Bloodshed!)

Now, ignoring your blatant misrepresentation of both my position and my claims, and ignoring as well your continued factual inaccuracies (mainly your falsely comparing it to haste, which provides an additional action, and therefore has no opportunity cost, vs the opportunity cost of anything else you could be doing with your bonus action), here is what my actual position was and still is, so that it is clear:

The effect of the feat per the rules as written is that if you make an attack with a one handed weapon, you gain a bonus action option which may be used to make an attack with a loaded hand crossbow. That is the rules as they are written, and that does not preclude, in any way shape or form, any of the following combinations:
Attacking with a melee weapon, and using your bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow
Attacking with a hand crossbow in one hand, and using your bonus action to attack with a different hand crossbow
Attacking with a hand crossbow in one hand, reloading said hand crossbow using your free object interaction during movement, and using it to make the bonus action attack

All of those are 100% permissible according to the rules, as they are written in the player's handbook, and distributed by the company that makes the game. There are neither rules nor errata that preclude any of the aforementioned options from being used.

Now that I've made clear my stance and argument, let's return to the crux of what you argued:


In this case it absolutely is an exploit, as it it being used as a way to grant more attacks per round than was intended or is available to any other character with any single ranged weapon.
Now we've already discussed why this is factually inaccurate, so that's all well and good. Let's move on to your very next statement.



That was not its intent (as specified by a designer tweet) and that is not fair to any other ranged weapon.
Now, we also have designer tweets saying to disregard the loaded bit, but you'll notice I don't- because those designer tweets are not in the rules. They really could and should make an errata or an official FAQ, and that would support your stance if it was in there, but ultimately, the currently released and published rules for this game are what they are. Until and unless modified, you can house rule your game to match Merl's all day long, but that doesn't change the rules written in the PHB.

Note too that you return to the concept of fair. Being "fair" to a ranged weapon is an odd verbiage, but let's roll with it. What does that even mean? Well, to be "fair" could mean a number of things, but I doubt you're referring to skin tone or hair color. The most likely meanings you intend to convey (and please correct me if I'm wrong) would mean "without bias", or more specifically, "treating things in such a way as does not favor one over the other". The other option is "conforming with the established rules". The latter I've covered on a point by point basis how it conforms to the established rules, and you have not indicated that you disagree, nor on what point you might disagree.

The former, though, wouldn't that merit exactly what you indicated was not warranted? An examination of the mechanical results, to determine if (with or without that feat) one ranged weapon was indeed favored, or more mechanically advantageous, vs another? If without that feat, other ranged weapons were mechanically superior, and with that feat, a mechanical balance was achieved, or alternately (and more 'fairly' :smalltongue:) a superiority equivalent to that which could be obtained with a different feat, that would indicate that all options were then treated equally, right? So why not examine the mechanics? If that's what you wish to prove (which again, I frankly don't care. It is not my personal argument that it is or is not fair. I could care less, I just care what the rules say), then by all means prove it! But simply saying that it is unfair doesn't make it so, and an unwillingness to examine the numbers to identify if you are indeed correct or not does not lend significant weight to your argument.

[Shadow]

Now *that*, by the way, bloodshed, is a strawman- the act of claiming that your opponent's argument or position is something other than it actually is, and then attacking that position instead of their actual position. Since you seemed to be uninformed on the term you were throwing around. Just throwing it out there.

I'm not the one that said the word strawman. Just throwing it out there.


Now, ignoring your blatant misrepresentation of both my position and my claims,

You mean like you blatantly misrepresented my position and my claims when you told me what fits or does not fit within my own definition of something? Or do you maybe mean like you blatantly misrepresented both my position and my claims when you told me what I do or do not agree with, when I had already stated my opinion on the matter?

That's where I stopped reading, because hypocrisy, misrepresentation and insults (in the way of calling me uninformed) of this level gets added to my ignore list.

[archaeo]

D&D is the ruleset. D&D with different rules is something else. Maybe it's pathfinder, maybe it's almost D&D, but it's not the game we all know any longer. These forums are about D&D 5e. If we all play by different rules, there's a limit to what we can discuss.

Are you reading the same forum? Nobody's running the same game. Half the people reflexively disagree with the other half about every aspect of the game. And yet, we seem to have plenty to talk about.

5e really isn't designed at all, at any level, to be played the same at every table. It's a decision that is explicitly and implicitly stated throughout the books in a dozen ways.

[GiantOctopodes]

I'm not the one that said the word strawman. Just throwing it out there.

Thus why that statement was addressed to bloodshed, the person who did. Just throwing it out there. :smallsmile:




You mean like you blatantly misrepresented my position and my claims when you told me what fits or does not fit within my own definition of something? Or do you maybe mean like you blatantly misrepresented both my position and my claims when you told me what I do or do not agree with, when I had already stated my opinion on the matter?

That's where I stopped reading, because hypocrisy and misrepresentation of this level gets added to my ignore list.

And though obviously Shadow is no longer discussing things with me, let's examine this last statement: Note that rather than even discussing, much less discrediting, my position he instead accused me of hypocrisy and misrepresentation, which would be going from committing the logical fallacy of a strawman to poisoning the well (trying to discredit what a person might claim by presenting unfavorable information about them, be it true or false). Note that even were I guilty of hypocrisy and misrepresentation, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the rules do or do not support that action, nor did he even attempt to claim that it did.

Note too he indicated I "blatantly misrepresented [his] position and claims" by telling him what fits or does not fit within his own definition of something. Note that my indicating that his statement does not match his own definition (which it does not, for the reasons indicated in my previous posts) does not in any way shape or form change his claim or misrepresent it. Rather, it addresses it. To misrepresent, I would have to indicate his position was something other than what it was. Had I indicated that his position was that it did not match that definition, that would have been a false statement, or misrepresentation, regarding his claim. Instead, I indicated he claimed it did match that definition (which was indeed his stated position) and indicated why it was untrue, something Shadow failed to do in regards to my own position.

Note his second claim is that I told him what he does or does not agree with. Note that my specific statement was that "The latter I've covered on a point by point basis how it conforms to the established rules, and you have not indicated that you disagree, nor on what point you might disagree." Note that this statement does not indicate his agreeing or not agreeing with anything, and makes no claims to knowing his stance, but rather indicates that if he does indeed disagree with the points that I have raised, he has not made it known to me.

Obviously this entire post is made for the benefit of the neutral observer, so that it is clear that the statements made regarding my claims continue to be inaccurate. I don't add people to the ignore list, as ultimately, are any of us really trying to convince each other? Certain people are going to believe what they want to believe, debating with them with the intent of changing their mind or position is fruitless. But when statements are made that are contrary to the truth, whether about me or about the rules, I feel it important to make that known, so that those who lack knowledge of the subject will not be persuaded based on a lack of accurate knowledge being presented. Ignoring such statements merely makes it impossible for me to do so.

Edit (to address the edit): It was also claimed that I insulted Shadow by calling him uninformed. The only time the word uninformed was used was in reference to Bloodshed using the term straw man incorrectly, thus why it was in the section addressed to Bloodshed. But frankly, whether Bloodshed, shadow, or anyone else feels that I am insulting them by indicating that they "seem to be uninformed" when they are using a term incorrectly, they can absolutely 100% feel free to be insulted. That is not my intent, but as I've argued vehemently, intent is meaningless in the face of the written word, and my intent does not change whether or not they feel insulted. Frankly, a part of me might hope they do feel insulted, as it would imply (to me) a desire to never be uninformed, no matter how unrealistic that desire may be. Personally, I don't believe that I am informed on absolutely everything, and enjoy learning about new things,and as such do not feel insulted if I am under the impression that someone is implying that there is a possibility my knowledge is not 100% complete, that I am in fact not omniscient and there are still things others can bring to my attention.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Snip

I've learned recently that there are some people on here that act in such a way that it seems like they do it for the fun of acting in such a way.

There is an ignore list, for now on when I see one of their posts I'll just assume it says "rabble rabble rabble".

[Shadow]

And for the record, while I wasn't the one that called your argument a strawman, that's exactly what it was.
In your own words: "strawman- the act of claiming that your opponent's argument or position is something other than it actually is, and then attacking that position instead of their actual position"
We were discussing weapon combat. Your argument of my position included magic into the mix, and argued in the vein that magic and spells were somehow relevant to a discussion about weapon combat, when that wasn't what were discussing and they are not relevant to the discussion at all.

Your defense and perceived refutation of my argument only refuted things that were never implied nor stated by mt argument in the first place. You refuted points that were completely irrelevant to the discussion.
That's basically the definition of a strawman, even by your own words.

[GiantOctopodes]

And for the record, while I wasn't the one that called your argument a strawman, that's exactly what it was.
In your own words: "strawman- the act of claiming that your opponent's argument or position is something other than it actually is, and then attacking that position instead of their actual position"
We were discussing weapon combat. Your argument of my position included magic into the mix, and argued in the vein that magic and spells were somehow relevant to a discussion about weapon combat, when that wasn't what were discussing and they are not relevant to the discussion at all.

That's basically the definition of a strawman, even by your own words.

Indeed, we were discussing weapon combat, and my argument included magic, but the statement to which I was replying did not indicate anything whatsoever about 'the most attacks someone can get with a single ranged weapon without magic', and if it had, I would have posited a different position (namely that in a game where there are buffs to your weapon skills available with magic, where some classes are specifically built about the merging of their magical and physical abilities, magic is 100% relevant to the discussion). When discussing physical damage ranged combatants (the ones who would use crossbows, bows, or other ranged weapons), the top three contenders are rangers, bards, and fighters, in my humble opinion, and the reason bards and rangers are in that conversation is precisely because of swift quiver. Why on earth would I ignore it? And why, when discussing the supposed unfairness of a bonus action granting an attack with a single ranged weapon, would I consider it irrelevant to bring up an ability that grants a bonus action that offers Two attacks with the same single ranged weapon? *Especially* when that ability is *only* available to Bards and Rangers! I would personally consider it a point of equivalence to state that it is "unfair" to have such an ability available to bards and rangers, as no other class gets an ability that does that. To be clear again, that not my stance, I am not arguing that, nor am I positing that anyone else is arguing that. But my point which I *am* attempting to get across is hopefully demonstrated by that- that all abilities are different! There are very few abilities that are identical to each other. Sure, some are available to multiple characters (feats being an obvious one, as are combat styles, spells which are on multiple lists, etc), but if the archery style was the same as the great weapon fighting style, there would not be any point in having it, it would be redundant, or at best uninteresting.

So, arguing that something should not exist on the basis that nothing else has it (*especially* when disallowing comparables from different sources) does not make for a good argument. Druids have Wild Shape as a class feature. No other class has that, and though some other classes can replicate some of its effects (through polymorph, for example) that involves the use of spells, or other features not directly equivalent. That does not inherently make Wild Shape unfair. Proving that Wild Shape provides mechanical superiority to the other options provided other classes across the board, that would, but when trying to assess whether or not wild shape is fair, my position is that the *best* point of comparisons would be the alternatives you would use in its place, whether spells, other unique class features, feats, or whatever else the source- the opportunity cost you are giving up by choosing that option. (edit: Forgot the relevant last sentence which ties it back in, sorry) The same would be true of Crossbow expert- my position would be that the alternatives you would use in its place, whether directly replacing it or providing alternatives in its absence, would provide the best points of comparison.

Bringing up something irrelevant does not make for a strawman (that requires claiming the other person's position is something other than it is, which bringing up irrelevant information does not do), but I highly disagree that it is even irrelevant.

[obryn]

Thus why that statement was addressed to bloodshed, the person who did. Just throwing it out there. :smallsmile:

And though obviously Shadow is no longer discussing things with me, let's examine this last statement: Note that rather than even discussing, much less discrediting, my position he instead accused me of hypocrisy and misrepresentation, which would be going from committing the logical fallacy of a strawman to poisoning the well (trying to discredit what a person might claim by presenting unfavorable information about them, be it true or false). Note that even were I guilty of hypocrisy and misrepresentation, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the rules do or do not support that action, nor did he even attempt to claim that it did.

Note too he indicated I "blatantly misrepresented [his] position and claims" by telling him what fits or does not fit within his own definition of something. Note that my indicating that his statement does not match his own definition (which it does not, for the reasons indicated in my previous posts) does not in any way shape or form change his claim or misrepresent it. Rather, it addresses it. To misrepresent, I would have to indicate his position was something other than what it was. Had I indicated that his position was that it did not match that definition, that would have been a false statement, or misrepresentation, regarding his claim. Instead, I indicated he claimed it did match that definition (which was indeed his stated position) and indicated why it was untrue, something Shadow failed to do in regards to my own position.

Note his second claim is that I told him what he does or does not agree with. Note that my specific statement was that "The latter I've covered on a point by point basis how it conforms to the established rules, and you have not indicated that you disagree, nor on what point you might disagree." Note that this statement does not indicate his agreeing or not agreeing with anything, and makes no claims to knowing his stance, but rather indicates that if he does indeed disagree with the points that I have raised, he has not made it known to me.

Obviously this entire post is made for the benefit of the neutral observer, so that it is clear that the statements made regarding my claims continue to be inaccurate. I don't add people to the ignore list, as ultimately, are any of us really trying to convince each other? Certain people are going to believe what they want to believe, debating with them with the intent of changing their mind or position is fruitless. But when statements are made that are contrary to the truth, whether about me or about the rules, I feel it important to make that known, so that those who lack knowledge of the subject will not be persuaded based on a lack of accurate knowledge being presented. Ignoring such statements merely makes it impossible for me to do so.

Edit (to address the edit): It was also claimed that I insulted Shadow by calling him uninformed. The only time the word uninformed was used was in reference to Bloodshed using the term straw man incorrectly, thus why it was in the section addressed to Bloodshed. But frankly, whether Bloodshed, shadow, or anyone else feels that I am insulting them by indicating that they "seem to be uninformed" when they are using a term incorrectly, they can absolutely 100% feel free to be insulted. That is not my intent, but as I've argued vehemently, intent is meaningless in the face of the written word, and my intent does not change whether or not they feel insulted. Frankly, a part of me might hope they do feel insulted, as it would imply (to me) a desire to never be uninformed, no matter how unrealistic that desire may be. Personally, I don't believe that I am informed on absolutely everything, and enjoy learning about new things,and as such do not feel insulted if I am under the impression that someone is implying that there is a possibility my knowledge is not 100% complete, that I am in fact not omniscient and there are still things others can bring to my attention.


And for the record, while I wasn't the one that called your argument a strawman, that's exactly what it was.
In your own words: "strawman- the act of claiming that your opponent's argument or position is something other than it actually is, and then attacking that position instead of their actual position"
We were discussing weapon combat. Your argument of my position included magic into the mix, and argued in the vein that magic and spells were somehow relevant to a discussion about weapon combat, when that wasn't what were discussing and they are not relevant to the discussion at all.

Your defense and perceived refutation of my argument only refuted things that were never implied nor stated by mt argument in the first place. You refuted points that were completely irrelevant to the discussion.
That's basically the definition of a strawman, even by your own words.


Indeed, we were discussing weapon combat, and my argument included magic, but the statement to which I was replying did not indicate anything whatsoever about 'the most attacks someone can get with a single ranged weapon without magic', and if it had, I would have posited a different position (namely that in a game where there are buffs to your weapon skills available with magic, where some classes are specifically built about the merging of their magical and physical abilities, magic is 100% relevant to the discussion). When discussing physical damage ranged combatants (the ones who would use crossbows, bows, or other ranged weapons), the top three contenders are rangers, bards, and fighters, in my humble opinion, and the reason bards and rangers are in that conversation is precisely because of swift quiver. Why on earth would I ignore it? And why, when discussing the supposed unfairness of a bonus action granting an attack with a single ranged weapon, would I consider it irrelevant to bring up an ability that grants a bonus action that offers Two attacks with the same single ranged weapon? *Especially* when that ability is *only* available to Bards and Rangers! I would personally consider it a point of equivalence to state that it is "unfair" to have such an ability available to bards and rangers, as no other class gets an ability that does that. To be clear again, that not my stance, I am not arguing that, nor am I positing that anyone else is arguing that. But my point which I *am* attempting to get across is hopefully demonstrated by that- that all abilities are different! There are very few abilities that are identical to each other. Sure, some are available to multiple characters (feats being an obvious one, as are combat styles, spells which are on multiple lists, etc), but if the archery style was the same as the great weapon fighting style, there would not be any point in having it, it would be redundant, or at best uninteresting.

So, arguing that something should not exist on the basis that nothing else has it (*especially* when disallowing comparables from different sources) does not make for a good argument. Druids have Wild Shape as a class feature. No other class has that, and though some other classes can replicate some of its effects (through polymorph, for example) that involves the use of spells, or other features not directly equivalent. That does not inherently make Wild Shape unfair. Proving that Wild Shape provides mechanical superiority to the other options provided other classes across the board, that would, but when trying to assess whether or not wild shape is fair, my position is that the *best* point of comparisons would be the alternatives you would use in its place, whether spells, other unique class features, feats, or whatever else the source- the opportunity cost you are giving up by choosing that option.

Bringing up something irrelevant does not make for a strawman (that requires claiming the other person's position is something other than it is, which bringing up irrelevant information does not do), but I highly disagree that it is even irrelevant.
Get a room, you two.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Get a room, you two.

Forums are kinda like chatrooms... Watch what you wish for ;)

[Mechaviking]

Actually I do believe magic does in fact have a bearing on this since some magics grant effects similar to weapon attacks but with the caveat that this is magic(can´t be used in anti magic zones and can be dispelled).

Swift quiver and Crossbow expert both occupy the same slot(and the same bonus action) and since spells do indeed augment weapon combat and are part of the same game system they are fair game for both comparisons and to find out if things are skewed in favor of one mechanic or other.

Swift quiver give you the ability to attack two times as a bonus action on each of your turns(with a ranged weapon) until the spell ends, its casting time is 1 bonus action and it requires a bonus action to use(so you cannot use it in the first round according to the rules as I read them) it does not require you to make any attacks beforehand. It is a spell obtainable by the Bard class on Level 10 via the magical secrets feature that all bards get and you do not need to sacrifice anything in order to get it(aside from picking the spell with the feature) all bards regardless of any stats or weapons can pick this spell if they want it and is attainable by all Rangers on level 17 again requiring.

Crossbow expert functions similarly allowing you to do a single attack with a hand crossbow(single weapon) if you at any point during your turn attack with a one handed weapon(among other things). It requires the use of an "optional" feature that most games use, it is a feat and is thus a rather costly investment since it grants no stat increases as some feats do and is thus possibly reducing your effectiveness in other areas but most likely it augments a feature of your character and is usually a defining part of a character.

Since you cannot use both at the same time they occupy the same slot if you will on a character and can be compared with one another.

Likewise haste is a spell that augments weapon combat, it occupies the same slot as Swift quiver as they are both concentration spells of the same duration.

Magic weapon again augments weapon combat and is a concentration spell and so is Elemental weapon.

[Edit]

I need to type and or think faster

[Shadow]

Actually I do believe magic does in fact have a bearing on this

It doesn't. It has no bearing on the point that I was making. Perhaps I should have added a couple of words to make the point more clear, which I will do now:

In this case it absolutely is an exploit, as it it being used as a way to grant more attacks per round than was intended or is available to any other character with any single ranged weapon without the use of magic. That was not its intent (as specified by a designer tweet) and that is not fair to any other ranged weapon.
That makes it an exploit. Period.

There. Is that better?
It's an exploit. It's not a game breaking exploit, but it's an exploit none the less.

[JoeJ]

Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. Instead of real life, consider a movie. A live action movie, that looks more like Conan or Lord of the Rings than it does Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon*. In a movie like that, a character who is explicitly not magical can't fire a crossbow eight times in only six seconds within a single unbroken camera shot. If there are cuts in the scene, however, then they probably can get away with firing that fast. The difference is the cuts. Even if it's just cutting to another shot of the same character, simply having a cut introduces a bit of uncertainty about how long something is actually taking, so the audience will buy the character appearing to do things faster than they should be able to.

What does this have to do with the game? Consider how long a round is. According to the PHB, each round "represents about 6 seconds in the game world" (emphasis added). About 6 seconds does not mean exactly 6 seconds. One very plausible reading is that an average round takes 6 seconds. Any particular round, however, might be longer or shorter than that time. The exact amount of time doesn't matter; it's just however long it took for everybody involved to take one round's worth of actions. If some rounds are longer than others, then we don't really know how many shots per second came out of that crossbow. Very rapid shots, therefore, don't break verisimilitude.

*The movies were chosen purely for the purposes of illustrating a particular point. I'm not implying that a game of D&D should necessarily be modeled after any of them.