Crawford Regarding Crossbow Expert

[Longcat]

Jeremy Crawford on Twitter (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/524703008718721024)

TL;DR: You can benefit from Crossbow Expert using only a single hand crossbow.

[Person_Man]

So, based on Jeremy's Tweet (which contradict's Mike's Tweet) it increases your TWF damage from (1d6+ Str or Dex + 1d6) to (1d6 or 1d8 + Str or Dex + 1d6 + Dex), depending on whether your main attack is with another hand crossbow or with a one handed melee weapon, and your Bonus Action Attack is with the hand crossbow.

So now it seems like the optimal path for archers is to use hand crossbows, to take the Archery Fighting Style, Crossbow Expert, and Sharpshooter. (Assuming you don't have something better to do with your Bonus Action beyond making an extra attack). 3*[1d6+Dex+10]? Maybe another 1d6 per attack from Hunter's Mark or Hex, and maybe one extra attack from Hoardbreaker when it applies or Fighter 11 if you go that route.

Human Ranger 5 seems a lot more tempting now for players who just want strait damage dealing at low levels. Though it doesn't seem to really scale up beyond that, unless there's some buff spell I'm missing.

[Shadow]

I'd like to point out that he says that this is how it's written.
He also says that it's murky.
He also says that he plans on clearing it up in the future.
This implies that the way it's written is going to change.
He answered the question as it stands by the RAW. We all understood that perfectly to begin with. He has stated that in the past as well. His tweet changes nothing.


So now it seems like the optimal path for archers is to use hand crossbows, to take the Archery Fighting Style, Crossbow Expert, and Sharpshooter.

That was true before, regardless of weapon choice. SShooter for DPR, XbX to remove DisAdv in melee range.

[WickerNipple]

So, based on Jeremy's Tweet (which contradict's Mike's Tweet) it increases your TWF damage from (1d6+ Str or Dex + 1d6) to (1d6 or 1d8 + Str or Dex + 1d6 + Dex), depending on whether your main attack is with another hand crossbow or with a one handed melee weapon, and your Bonus Action Attack is with the hand crossbow.


This was never in question, was it?

Pretty sure the entire question is whether one can shoot twice with only the single crossbow - thus the folks who want hand crossbow + shield.

[Longcat]

He answered the question as it stands by the RAW. We all understood that perfectly to begin with. He has stated that in the past as well. His tweet changes nothing.


Given how long people have been arguing back and forth on the feat, I sincerely doubt that. Specifically, pedantic harping on the words "loaded" vs "loading".

Let's hope his change is to remove the word "loaded" from the feat. It would make it infinitely more clear.

[Shadow]

Let's hope his change is to remove the word "loaded" from the feat. It would make it infinitely more clear.

No. Let's hope the change is to make it clear that two weapons are required.

[Longcat]

No. Let's hope the change is to make it clear that two weapons are required.

To each their own, I guess. At least we have hand crossbow + shield as RAW for now.

[Kryx]

No. Let's hope the change is to make it clear that two weapons are required.

Agreed.
I sent him that tweet with the hope he'd confirm that. His words of clarifying give me promise, but we'll see.

[Doug Lampert]

So, based on Jeremy's Tweet (which contradict's Mike's Tweet)

Except that it doesn't. From the twitter feed linked in post 1.

Jeremy Crawford ‏@JeremyECrawford 21h21 hours ago
@MLenser Here's the difference: Mike was telling people how he would run it. I was telling people how it works as printed. @mikemearls

Mike Mearls ‏@mikemearls 21h21 hours ago
@JeremyECrawford @MLenser exactly! my "rulings" are my opinions, not canon.

And the origninal Mearls' tweet also said it was how he'd rule.

[silveralen]

I'd like to point out that he says that this is how it's written.
He also says that it's murky.
He also says that he plans on clearing it up in the future.
This implies that the way it's written is going to change.
He answered the question as it stands by the RAW. We all understood that perfectly to begin with. He has stated that in the past as well. His tweet changes nothing.

Really? I seem to remember some people arguing that it wasn't loaded immediately after firing, so it didn't work by raw. This is actually helpful, because it shows us how bonus actions work a little better.

[Shadow]

Really? I seem to remember some people arguing that it wasn't loaded immediately after firing, so it didn't work by raw. This is actually helpful, because it shows us how bonus actions work a little better.

This tweet from him, in combination with the earlier tweet from him stating that the word "loaded" was fluff, told us exactly what he considered the RAW to be.
That doesn't mean that this RAW corresponds to what the RAI was.
That's where the differences come into play. The RAI and the RAW are at odds on this one, which is what makes it murky (to use Crawford's words).
Hopefully the coming change(s) clear up the RAI/RAW discrepancies.

[Lord Kristivas]

I know it's fine with RAW, but dual hand-crossbows makes me want to puke. I know D&D's logic with combat is shaky, at best, but this totally takes the sanity cake and tosses it out the window.

[ghost_warlock]

I have zero problem with people being able to dual-wield and fire hand crossbows for precisely the same reason why I don't have a problem with 10th+ level clerics being able to convince their deity to personally intervene every few days.

[Eslin]

I know it's fine with RAW, but dual hand-crossbows makes me want to puke. I know D&D's logic with combat is shaky, at best, but this totally takes the sanity cake and tosses it out the window.

What's wrong with it? We've observed many times that bows and crossbows work nothing like their real world counterparts, a longbow which in the real world takes training from a very young age to use and lots of strength can be operated by someone with 3 strength in the D&D world. Aaaaand people can turn into bears or fall from the stratosphere and sleep it off. Do all those things make you puke too? You might need to see a doctor.


No. Let's hope the change is to make it clear that two weapons are required.
For a hand crossbow. A one handed weapon. You also hoping there are changes to make the shortsword and quarterstaff two handed?


This tweet from him, in combination with the earlier tweet from him stating that the word "loaded" was fluff, told us exactly what he considered the RAW to be.
That doesn't mean that this RAW corresponds to what the RAI was.
That's where the differences come into play. The RAI and the RAW are at odds on this one, which is what makes it murky (to use Crawford's words).
Hopefully the coming change(s) clear up the RAI/RAW discrepancies.
RAI: Make a bonus action attack with a hand crossbow.
RAW: Make a bonus action attack with a hand crossbow.

Not seeing the issue here.

[Mechaviking]

What's wrong with it? We've observed many times that bows and crossbows work nothing like their real world counterparts, a longbow which in the real world takes training from a very young age to use and lots of strength can be operated by someone with 3 strength in the D&D world. Aaaaand people can turn into bears or fall from the stratosphere and sleep it off. Do all those things make you puke too? You might need to see a doctor.


As it happens:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

They do work somewhat like in reality, the bows at least, this guy can shoot more arrows than an action surging level 20 fighter for sure. Not that this adds anything to the argument its just food for thought.

Also I´m firmly on the RAW side of things, if my DM decides to change things that is fully in his power and I´ll play by his rules whatever they may be. RAI is such a finicky thing to discuss because it has as many versions of it as it has both developers, players and readers, making it pretty ****ty for discussion.

And who gives two shakes if it is 2 handcrossbows or 1 that is just fluff and what type of badass you want to look, personally I saw Vampire hunter D: Bloodlust way before I played Diablo 3 so think a single handcrossbow is cooler than 1 but that is just me.

[Eslin]

As it happens:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

They do work somewhat like in reality, the bows at least, this guy can shoot more arrows than an action surging level 20 fighter for sure. Not that this adds anything to the argument its just food for thought.

Also I´m firmly on the RAW side of things, if my DM decides to change things that is fully in his power and I´ll play by his rules whatever they may be. RAI is such a finicky thing to discuss because it has as many versions of it as it has both developers, players and readers, making it pretty ****ty for discussion.

And who gives two shakes if it is 2 handcrossbows or 1 that is just fluff and what type of badass you want to look, personally I saw Vampire hunter D: Bloodlust way before I played Diablo 3 so think a single handcrossbow is cooler than 1 but that is just me.

Ok? I never said anything about number of arrows and bows, I said crossbows.

[Mechaviking]

And I said in regards to bows :D

But yeah I´d really like to see the winch that allows you to fire 9 bolts from a hand crossbow ;p

[Edit]

Rereading your post you stated bows and crossbows :D

[Longcat]

I've always envisioned the demon hunter from Diablo III when it came to Crossbow Expert, aka rule of cool. I think the feat suffers from the double standard applied to martial characters, which regards everything they can do through the lens of realism while giving magical characters carte blanche. I think this is the main reason why martials can't have nice things, but as long as RAW supports rule of cool in this instance, I am happy.

[obryn]

He answered the question as it stands by the RAW. We all understood that perfectly to begin with. He has stated that in the past as well. His tweet changes nothing.
Did we? I remember you were quite vociferous about how neither this nor two crossbows were raw based on an idiosyncratic reading of the two-weapon fighting rules.

[Shining Wrath]

First: Legolas lives! That Danish guy is pretty skilled.
Second: yep, you get to use two hand cross bows, and it's far less broken than a raging barbarian having resistance to B/P/S damage. Deferring damage into a pool I can see, but getting mad doesn't make your skin thick as a mammoth's.

And that's just one example of ways D&D is completely not real. Perhaps taking Crossbow Expert grants the PC a prehensile nose that allows them to reload without using a hand. Don't know; don't care.

[Shadow]

Did we? I remember you were quite vociferous about how neither this nor two crossbows were raw based on an idiosyncratic reading of the two-weapon fighting rules.

Yes, we did. We understood that this was Crawford's reading of the RAW, which I have already explained.
And I still contend that ignoring the word "loading" as fluff as he suggests is unreasonable and ultimately ignores the RAI instead. As such, I will continue to ignore his ruling on this one.

[Mechaviking]

Heh, prehensile nose :D or Even nosehair :D

[Knaight]

They do work somewhat like in reality, the bows at least, this guy can shoot more arrows than an action surging level 20 fighter for sure. Not that this adds anything to the argument its just food for thought.
Those are trick shots with a low draw weight bow. It still takes a lot of skill, but it's about as relevant to a fight as the revolver tricks in Wild West shows were. Which is to say that while some skills do transfer over (the muscle memory involved in nocking an arrow that quickly, the aim), it's not particularly indicative of combat techniques.