Crossbow expert

[arrowstorm]

"When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding." (PHB165)

"Two-Weapon Fighting When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage o f the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it." (PHB196)

The way I am reading this. I could go Vhuman, take crossbow expert, and use a rapier and hand crossbow in melee (since the "light" restriction is on attacking). Is this correct? If so, what should I do class and fighting style wise?

[BRC]

This is exactly what I did, and it was a lot of fun. Battlemaster Fighter is what I went with.

[Desamir]

Since a hand crossbow is not a melee weapon, the two-weapon fighting rules aren't relevant here.

In theory, Crossbow Expert would be enough to accomplish the rapier + hand crossbow style. However, according to Jeremy Crawford (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats), you still need a free hand to reload the hand crossbow, so using a rapier + hand crossbow wouldn't quite work out.

That said, Crawford's rulings are hit or miss, and I choose to allow hand crossbow + melee weapon in my game since it has little impact on balance.

[Finieous]

Player's Handbook Errata:

Equipment
Ammunition (p. 146): Loading a one-handed weapon requires a free hand.

[arrowstorm]

I am stuck between champion, battlmaster, hunter, and swashbuckler. I like swashbuckler a lot for flavor, but I think the others might be mechanically better. Will swashbuckler be underpowered?

[Rusvul]

The problem with a Swashbuckler using a hand crossbow is that they only get to avoid AOOs when they make a melee attack against a target. While it still ends up being pretty viable, you lose out on some of the usefulness of that ability. (Can't remember what it's called.)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Player's Handbook Errata:

Equipment
Ammunition (p. 146): Loading a one-handed weapon requires a free hand.

Meh, fantasy game, figure out a way for your character to load without a free hand and as a DM I'll allow it.

An additional 1d6+Dex is good, but what is better is the image of your character going all John Woo handgun hand cross bow style.

[Finieous]

Meh, fantasy game, figure out a way for your character to load without a free hand and as a DM I'll allow it.


If you're the OP's DM, that's great! Otherwise, it might be helpful if he has a heads up on what the rules say. Forewarned is forearmed, and all that.

[obryn]

Since a hand crossbow is not a melee weapon, the two-weapon fighting rules aren't relevant here.

In theory, Crossbow Expert would be enough to accomplish the rapier + hand crossbow style. However, according to Jeremy Crawford (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats), you still need a free hand to reload the hand crossbow, so using a rapier + hand crossbow wouldn't quite work out.

That said, Crawford's rulings are hit or miss, and I choose to allow hand crossbow + melee weapon in my game since it has little impact on balance.
Yes. I don't want to re-open this, but there was a lot of irony when Crawford's ruling explicitly ruled out the one use everyone was pretty much okay with (rapier + crossbow) and allowed the one use everyone pretty much hated (single hand crossbow on repeat). :smallsmile:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yes. I don't want to re-open this, but there was a lot of irony when Crawford's ruling explicitly ruled out the one use everyone was pretty much okay with (rapier + crossbow) and allowed the one use everyone pretty much hated (single hand crossbow on repeat). :smallsmile:

Yeeeeahhh

Shhhhh :smallwink:

[BRC]

Player's Handbook Errata:

Equipment
Ammunition (p. 146): Loading a one-handed weapon requires a free hand.
Fun
Having Fun (p. 103): Fun is not allowed to be had.



Fixed it for you!

Just kidding. Sword+handcrossbow is cool, fun, and fairly balanced. yes, Logic gets in the way, but if you can work something out (the "Hand" Crossbow is strapped to the wrist of your sword arm, and your other hand is free), it's a great combo.

[Joe the Rat]

Saw a Twitch where the single hand crossbow user described it as "fanning the bow" - but he had this whole cowboy shtick going.

Find out what visuals, or what rigs your DM requires, and work with it.

Or you can pick up repeating crossbows from Duergar merchants.


on to the 2nd: Swashbuckler ends up using the handbow as a backup more than a primary, or a bend around the 2-weapon rules with a built in range option.

Battlemaster and Hunter could make for some interesting handbow builds - and would be equally useful with bow or (finesse) blade. A Hunter with hordebreaker can get ANOTHER attack in crowds, or colossus slayer for sneak-attack-light damage. Spells as trick arrows is in there too. The Battlemaster is going to have a lot of trick shots at his or her disposal.

[RickAllison]

All you have to do is find a gnome tinker who can set you up with either A) an auto-loading hand crossbow or B) a case at your side where you can justify pressing the crossbow against it and sliding down to load the thing one-handed. Describe to the DM what you want and find a smart gnome to do it and the odds of getting to make this build rise greatly.

[Finieous]

Yes. I don't want to re-open this, but there was a lot of irony when Crawford's ruling explicitly ruled out the one use everyone was pretty much okay with (rapier + crossbow) and allowed the one use everyone pretty much hated (single hand crossbow on repeat). :smallsmile:

For the record, I share this reaction, so y'all can stop blaming me for the errata. :smallbiggrin:

[CNagy]

I'm amazed that people hate the single hand crossbow style. We run with it like renaissance SWAT.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm amazed that people hate the single hand crossbow style. We run with it like renaissance SWAT.

It isn't that I hate single hand crossbow... It is just that there isn't a reason to stop the John Woo style. You can have both.

But for some reason WotC and some players freak the hell out whenever you think slightly outside their little European renaissance/dark age box.

[Finieous]

I'm amazed that people hate the single hand crossbow style. We run with it like renaissance SWAT.

I hate* the idea of the hand crossbow as an actual weapon of war, rather than something for rednecks to shoot at squirrels. I hate that the Crossbow Expert feat allows a slow-ass-loading ranged weapon to be used in melee combat, and when combined with Sharpshooter, that the squirrel-killer ignores cover. Two feats wipe out tactical considerations of range, cover and even the distinction between ranged and melee combat.

But rolling drow-style with blade and crossbow is (was) the least offensive thing about it.

* I mean, it's a game mechanic..."hate" might be a little strong.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I hate* the idea of the hand crossbow as an actual weapon of war, rather than something for rednecks to shoot at squirrels. I hate that the Crossbow Expert feat allows a slow-ass-loading ranged weapon to be used in melee combat, and when combined with Sharpshooter, that the squirrel-killer ignores cover. Two feats wipe out tactical considerations of range, cover and even the distinction between ranged and melee combat.

But rolling drow-style with blade and crossbow is (was) the least offensive thing about it.

* I mean, it's a game mechanic..."hate" might be a little strong.

Do you have the same issue with all the other historical inaccuracy of D&D? Because there are a lot of them.

Abstract combat fantasy game where people shoot magic and people survive falls from space. Hell, a fall from orbit does the same type of damage as a fall from 200' up, no burning up on reentry (unless they updated rules or something).

Hell, plate mail wasn't nearly as cumbersome as D&D makes it out to be, though a lot louder than one might expect.

[Finieous]

Do you have the same issue with all the other historical inaccuracy of D&D? Because there are a lot of them.


Just the really ridiculous ones that completely distort the tactical environment. That said, I'll be the first to admit it's basically a pet peeve. It's not entirely rational.

[Mr.Moron]

It isn't that I hate single hand crossbow... It is just that there isn't a reason to stop the John Woo style. You can have both.

But for some reason WotC and some players freak the hell out whenever you think slightly outside their little European renaissance/dark age box.

People enjoy the things they enjoy and something has to presented as default (at least when you're trying to form a solid product identity the way WotC is). A lot of folks like the medieval box and WotC has tended to present a rather low ceiling on the power of mundane technology as default. That's all fine. People don't freak out when you want to think outside that box, they freak out when you try to label that box as bad, deny it is what is being presented by default, or imply they should allow the things you like in their box and they'd be wrong to do otherwise.

If someone put forward:
"Hey. Here's a way to read the crossbow rules where they all shoot flaming-laser swords. I'm not going to claim it's RAI, but it can work without any real changes in RAW if you're into that sort of thing. Here's some numbers and some thoughts on how it affects balance when you go down that route. Let me share an anecdote on why my group enjoyed it, in case you'd want to consider it as well"

instead the conversation usually goes more like:

"Hey! This is RAW! If you argue otherwise you hate cool things and want to deny player agency. Look this awesome video game and/or anime character that totally did this thing. Why can't you just embrace the awesome"

"That isn't RAW! That's silly and impossible. I'm a ROLEPLAYER who wants to play in a REAL universe"

"It's a GAME it's supposed to be FUN. It's a FANTASY universe. If you can accept IMPOSSIBLE DRAGONS why can't you accept FLAMING CROSSBOWS. REALISM is no reason to deny AWESOME FUN"

"It's not AWESOME it's STUPID and SILLY"

"What about this other unrelated UNREALISTIC THING? You're a hypocrite if you don't also hate that"

"That's totally different! First off it's easier to believe and secondly it's a classic thing D&D HAS ALWAYS DONE!"
etc... etc... etc...

[CNagy]

I hate* the idea of the hand crossbow as an actual weapon of war, rather than something for rednecks to shoot at squirrels. I hate that the Crossbow Expert feat allows a slow-ass-loading ranged weapon to be used in melee combat, and when combined with Sharpshooter, that the squirrel-killer ignores cover. Two feats wipe out tactical considerations of range, cover and even the distinction between ranged and melee combat.

But rolling drow-style with blade and crossbow is (was) the least offensive thing about it.

* I mean, it's a game mechanic..."hate" might be a little strong.

See, I come at it completely differently. To me, the hand crossbow is basically the pistol to the light crossbow's carbine and the heavy crossbow's rifle. The 1d6 damage die represents a fair amount of lethality, credibly dropping deer with a single shot on average with any positive Dex bonus. The sling is the squirrel-killer.

And yeah, two feats do remove a lot of the inherent penalty to fighting at range, but then again 2 feats is not a light cost. I don't know that they've struck the perfect balance, but the cost is enough that only a dedicated ranged weapon user would think to pay it. Make it much more, or make those penalties impossible to negate, and you shift the balance to there being no reason to focus on ranged weapons for an adventurer. It'd be like specializing in the man-catcher.

[BRC]

I hate* the idea of the hand crossbow as an actual weapon of war, rather than something for rednecks to shoot at squirrels. I hate that the Crossbow Expert feat allows a slow-ass-loading ranged weapon to be used in melee combat, and when combined with Sharpshooter, that the squirrel-killer ignores cover. Two feats wipe out tactical considerations of range, cover and even the distinction between ranged and melee combat.

But rolling drow-style with blade and crossbow is (was) the least offensive thing about it.

* I mean, it's a game mechanic..."hate" might be a little strong.

I mean, as I see it it's not a weapon of war.

Hand Crossbows are only a good weapon in the hands of either a Rogue (A reasonable use of the weapon), or somebody with Crossbow Expert, which means they're NOT your average soldier. They're somebody who has trained and practiced enough with the weapon to make it viable despite it's weaknesses.

Same with Sharpshooter. Yes, Sharpshooter ignores cover, because the person who takes it is a master marksman who can pin a fly to the wall by it's wings.

Remember, Feats are supposed to be extraordinary things. The skills held by great heroes for the most part, and even then they're pretty rare. A Vhuman Fighter gets, what, five, six feats total by level 20? By which point they're Legends to the degree of Odysseus or Beowulf. in 3.5 Feats may have been minor, but in 5e each Feat is a distinguishing aspect of the Hero.

It's not Garret, who has Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter. It's Garret the Bolt, who it is said could launch three bolts in the blink of an eye, and hit his target from the wrong side of an arrow slit. Running into melee with a hand crossbow isn't a good idea for anybody EXCEPT Garret the Bolt, because Garret is a Super Special Hero with the right mixture of talents, luck, and training to pull it off.

By which I mean Garret the Bolt is a PC. He's a Hero. and Heroes get to be special, and do things that look cool.

But, if that's not the flavor you want in your game, just drop those feats. Or, drop all feats. Feats are an optional rule for a reason.

[Tanarii]

"That's totally different! First off it's easier to believe and secondly it's a classic thing D&D HAS ALWAYS DONE!"That's my argument for why the other Hand Crossbow bonus action attack portion of Crossbow Expert works only Drow to be able to use, with a Rapier in the other hand. Clearly those additional requirements were written in invisible ink. I just haven't been able to find a way to make them appear yet.

[JackPhoenix]

I hate* the idea of the hand crossbow as an actual weapon of war, rather than something for rednecks to shoot at squirrels. I hate that the Crossbow Expert feat allows a slow-ass-loading ranged weapon to be used in melee combat, and when combined with Sharpshooter, that the squirrel-killer ignores cover. Two feats wipe out tactical considerations of range, cover and even the distinction between ranged and melee combat.

But rolling drow-style with blade and crossbow is (was) the least offensive thing about it.

* I mean, it's a game mechanic..."hate" might be a little strong.

It's not a weapon of war. It's a weapon for assassins and adventurers, i.e. highly trained, exceptional individuals. Normal soldiers lacks the Crossbow Expert feat, making light/heavy crossbow better for them, as they don't have Extra Attack anyway.

Edit: ah, dammint, shadow monk'd...thats why I should read all posts before responding to something in the middle of a thread

[Finieous]

It's not a weapon of war. It's a weapon for assassins and adventurers

...and squirrel-killers. But seriously, folks, no reason to make this all about me. It's okay that we have different preferences.

[Desamir]

Yes. I don't want to re-open this, but there was a lot of irony when Crawford's ruling explicitly ruled out the one use everyone was pretty much okay with (rapier + crossbow) and allowed the one use everyone pretty much hated (single hand crossbow on repeat). :smallsmile:

Well said.

I have a slowly-growing list of questionable Jeremy Crawford rulings that I refer to whenever someone asks me why I don't use him for RAW clarifications anymore.

[RickAllison]

Well said.

I have a slowly-growing list of questionable Jeremy Crawford rulings that I refer to whenever someone asks me why I don't use him for RAW clarifications anymore.

Hey, you could create an entire thread for them!

[Christian]

All you have to do is find a gnome tinker who can set you up with either A) an auto-loading hand crossbow or B) a case at your side where you can justify pressing the crossbow against it and sliding down to load the thing one-handed. Describe to the DM what you want and find a smart gnome to do it and the odds of getting to make this build rise greatly.

My son's Warforged Rogue/Fighter (homebrewed version, Scout subrace) has a built-in self-loading hand crossbow. Because it's AWESOME! :D

[SharkForce]

Yes. I don't want to re-open this, but there was a lot of irony when Crawford's ruling explicitly ruled out the one use everyone was pretty much okay with (rapier + crossbow) and allowed the one use everyone pretty much hated (single hand crossbow on repeat). :smallsmile:

actually, I don't really care about using a single hand crossbow. doesn't bother me in the slightest. the fact that it becomes the highest-damage ranged option is a bit annoying, but I can deal with that.

the one that I care about most is denying hand crossbow + shield, which Crawford's ruling denies as well. I do think it's silly that it denies rapier + hand crossbow (mostly because frankly the feat reads like this is exactly what it is supposed to allow), and would totally allow it, but I am actually quite happy with the fact that the ruling shuts down hand crossbow + shield.

but seriously, single hand crossbow? sure, whatever. why not. I can fluff it as someone being really good with a lighter-than-light crossbow easily enough, and having someone with basically a custom lower-draw version of a crossbow designed for speed shooting and trick shooting doesn't really upset me.