Crossbow Expert blues

[Vichrae]

As a long-term DM and player, I loathe the CE feat as designed. Not because it's a bad feat, but because it's so good that any ranged martial build is suboptimal unless it takes both Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert and uses hand crossbows. Of course, not every player chases optimization, but most players like to make characters that are effective.

My issue is the pidgeonholing towards hand crossbows, which I consider a rare and exotic weapon. Forget that the king of the medieval battlefield was the longbow, in D&D it is the pew-pew pistol.

Anyway, the meat of my question is to anyone who agrees with this... What have you done about it? My current solution is to not allow anyone to take both the SS and CE feats together. But does anyone have a better one?

Thanks!

[Willowhelm]

Can you explain why you think they're both auto-picks? That's two feats spent on some abilities you may never need as a dedicated ranged martial (and if you're not dedicated.. that's even worse!). Of course if someone is willing to spend two feats to get those abilities i'm all for it. It is hardly the most game breaking combo out there. I don't have the DPR comparison in front of me but if a front liner is taking their feats for similar benefits... why not the ranged?


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


For 1 & 3 - The most common thing I have seen around this is that you still require a free hand to load the weapon. You may be able to get out multiple attacks by ignoring the loading property, but you're not getting multiple attacks + bonus action hand crossbow every turn.
For 2 - You're a dedicated ranged martial - why are you within 5 feet?


Attacking at long range doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged weapon attack rolls.
Your ranged weapons ignore half cover and three-quarters cover.
Before you make a ranged attack with a ranged weapon with which you are proficient, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If you do so and the attack hits, it deals +10 damage.


These seem like the ones you want but even then... How often do you need to shoot a longbow further than 150'? You now ignore cover but you're going to give yourself the same penalty as cover to do the extra damage anyway.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

How is this different from PAM + GWM? Ranged damage dealers get two feats, melee damage dealers get theirs. Granted both CE nor PAM are significantly less worthwhile if you're spending your bonus action on something else, or if you're not using your action to attack (i.e. using a melee cantrip or similar).

Yes, the current game mechanics make doing it one specific way better than all the other ways, but often someone is going to forego doing it that one specific way for one reason or another. Maybe they found a cool magic weapon that's not of the right type to do it that one specific way. Maybe they actually have something else to spend their bonus action on more often than not. Regardless of why someone's not doing it that way, it's not broken unless literally everyone is better off doing it that way, which they aren't.

[Hytheter]

For 1 & 3 - The most common thing I have seen around this is that you still require a free hand to load the weapon. You may be able to get out multiple attacks by ignoring the loading property, but you're not getting multiple attacks + bonus action hand crossbow every turn.

The bonus action triggers from attacking with a one handed weapon. A hand crossbow is a one handed weapon. It triggers itself, so you can get multiple attacks plus bonus action without needing anything in your other hand.



These seem like the ones you want but even then... How often do you need to shoot a longbow further than 150'? You now ignore cover but you're going to give yourself the same penalty as cover to do the extra damage anyway.

The +10 is significant enough on its own - mathematically, is is almost always worth using if you have Archery style and/or advantage. The other effects are just gravy, and pretty good gravy at that. You won't be using the full range every battle but when it comes up it can completely change an encounter in your favour.

[DarknessEternal]

You are correct.

The only optimal weapons in 5e are halberds, glaives, quartersaves, spears, and hand crossbows.

[king_steve]

From my understanding, the real problem with Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter is the Archery fighting style. The Archery fighting style offsets the penalty of the -5/+10 dmg attach with sharpshooter and results in a raised hit rate for the feat.

Comparing CE+SS vs GWM+PAM, CE+SS comes out ahead due to the fighting style.

If you wanted to try to offset, I think a different solution might be to change the archery fighting style to allow the archer to ignore half-cover on ranged attacks. The Archery fighting style seems to be designed to offset the penalty for shooting into combat if you have an ally near by the target, which would result in a half-cover bonus, so the +2/-2 cancel out. The archery fighting style is one the only ways to get a static hit improvement without spending resources.

I think that type of change would put CE+SS in line with GWM+PAM which, to me feels about right.

[Tanarii]

Maybe they found a cool magic weapon that's not of the right type to do it that one specific way.
This is probably the biggest check in both polearm and hand crossbow builds. But at lower levels (thru mid to high T2) when magic items aren't so common the feats can really dominate, especially with a variant human. I know they used to be very common AL optimization builds, and they show up regularly on the forums.

[47Ace]

How is this different from PAM + GWM? Ranged damage dealers get two feats, melee damage dealers get theirs. Granted both CE nor PAM are significantly less worthwhile if you're spending your bonus action on something else, or if you're not using your action to attack (i.e. using a melee cantrip or similar).


I think the problem that most people have is that polearms were main battlefield weapons so them being optimal makes sense. On the other hand hand crossbows were probably after dinner toys of gentlemen* so them being more effective then an actual weapon of war like a longbow rubs people the wrong way.

*Yes assassins crossbow is a popular theory but most (all?) surviving examples are so finely decorated that they are far more likely to be rich men's toys then assassins weapons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM9t3Zk4KCs

[47Ace]

This is probably the biggest check in both polearm and hand crossbow builds.

Just out of curiosity do you have any evidence if the designers intended magical polearms/hand crossbows to be less common? I am not trying to say you are wrong I am generally curious is WOTC ever gave any guidance on something that has such an effect on differencing character choices effectiveness.

[RSP]

To me, the biggest issue with ranged builds is removing half and 3/4 cover penalties with SS: increased chance for cover is the only downside, really, to being a ranged build vs martial, and the SS feat just completely nullifies it.

[Rowan Wolf]

Just out of curiosity do you have any evidence if the designers intended magical polearms/hand crossbows to be less common? I am not trying to say you are wrong I am generally curious is WOTC ever gave any guidance on something that has such an effect on differencing character choices effectiveness.

I think that is more of a holdout from older addition as well and the folklore/mythology/fiction sources that inspired it. Magic swords being pretty much the normal with the occasional Mjolnir/Hammer of Thunderbolts.

[Tanarii]

Just out of curiosity do you have any evidence if the designers intended magical polearms/hand crossbows to be less common? I am not trying to say you are wrong I am generally curious is WOTC ever gave any guidance on something that has such an effect on differencing character choices effectiveness.
I was referring to the DMG treasure tables. At higher levels, when weapons with cool powers other than +1 kick in, they are frequently limited to specific weapon groups. Groups that aren't polearms or (hand) crossbows.

There's nothing that says what kind of weapon a (any) magic weapon is supposed to be, so far as I know.

But even without that, unless your DM is tailoring magic items to your party, pegging yourself to a fraction of available weapons means you're going to find more weapons you can't use than those you can.

[Waazraath]

As a long-term DM and player, I loathe the CE feat as designed. Not because it's a bad feat, but because it's so good that any ranged martial build is suboptimal unless it takes both Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert and uses hand crossbows. Of course, not every player chases optimization, but most players like to make characters that are effective.

My issue is the pidgeonholing towards hand crossbows, which I consider a rare and exotic weapon. Forget that the king of the medieval battlefield was the longbow, in D&D it is the pew-pew pistol.

Anyway, the meat of my question is to anyone who agrees with this... What have you done about it? My current solution is to not allow anyone to take both the SS and CE feats together. But does anyone have a better one?

Thanks!

I feel the bolded part is a far too strong statement. Whether it is correct depends on a lot of variables. Without the archery fighting style, SS gets weaker (the -5 to hit hits harder); on a class that has regular use of its bonus action, CE is weaker; with a DM that uses encounters with hardly any cover, SS gets weaker. Etc.

Let's go through a few martial classes:
- monk: only the keinsei can use these weapons (without spending feats); it can use a bonus action to gain extra damage on ranged attacks, aside from other good bonus action uses (dodge, dash), and needs its ASI's (pretty stat dependend). Typical case of "don't use CE" in my book - SS does work, especially with the ability to give yourself a +3 bow as a bonus action.
- ranger: I have strong doubts about CE here as well. Beast master needs the bonus action to use the critter. And several subclasses (hunter, gloom stalker) can get extra attacks; in that case, a bonus action spend on Hunter's Mark might gain more benefit than CE. Personally, I'd always start with a longbow, get SS early only if dealing with cover a lot (DM dependent) and/or a lot of encounters feature low AC monsters (for the -5/+10). Else, just get SS later (lvl 12 or something) and CE prolly not at all.
- fighter: here CE/SS rules: it has the fighting style, it has extra ASI's to burn, a fighter simply gets stronger with these feats than without. Arcane archer only uses bows though, so there's that.
- rogue: don't think the feats are a must. CE seems very nice though, since it gives you a second chance to land that sneak attack damage. SS is there only for dealing with cover if that's an issue, I'd never take the -5 to hit with only 1 (or rarely with CE: 2) attacks and without the fighting style, hitting and getting your sneak attack damage in is usually way more important imo. You do have ASI's to burn though.

Ignoring the usual non-archers paladin and barbarian, I don't think the OP holds. Personally, I've yet to see my first CE/SS build in play.

[MrStabby]

You are correct.

The only optimal weapons in 5e are halberds, glaives, quartersaves, spears, and hand crossbows.

I would add rapier to this list.

[Aelyn]

I would add rapier to this list.

Agreed, otherwise there's nothing for melee DEX fighters or your average sword-and-boarders.

Technically you could make an argument for any of the Martial Versatile weapons being better than a rapier on a STR-based sword-and-board character, since the Finesse is irrelevant and the Versatile trait might be relevant, but that's a relatively minor quibble.

[Hytheter]

Agreed, otherwise there's nothing for melee DEX fighters or your average sword-and-boarders.

Technically you could make an argument for any of the Martial Versatile weapons being better than a rapier on a STR-based sword-and-board character, since the Finesse is irrelevant and the Versatile trait might be relevant, but that's a relatively minor quibble.

STR characters are better off with spears and staves with PAM.

[Heliomance]

I would add rapier to this list.

Rapier and Scimitar are basically identical except the scimitar is better for TWF

[Tes]

As someone who picked up Crossbow Expert on a Rogue because it's just so damn great, agreed.
Generally speaking skipping Crossbow Expert is definitely a thing if you have a really busy Bonus Action. (Elf) Ranger (Alternative Class Feature or Revised ones) or Samurai are good examples where I'd stick with a Longbow and take (Elven Accuracy,) Sharpshooter and max Dex over CBE.
Hunters Mark, moving Hunters Mark, Tempest Strike, Shadar Kai/Eladrin BA Teleport/Misty Step for Ranger and Fighting Spirit, Action Surge, BA heal are going to keep your BA busy so I'm happy to take +2 Dex, actual range and a D8 weapon die for a lvl 10 campaign.

As a Battlemaster or Rogue though? CBE all day every day, Action Surge and Cunning Action are great but you're not going to be using them every round.

How good your bonus Action economy gets by taking PAM/XBE is honestly the problem there. If I were to rebalance Feats I'd take probably make the BA Attack straight weapon die without STR/DEX mod or Sharpshooter/GWM.
Looking at how bad dual wield is with a Feat and a Fighting Style I kinda want to fix it in the process while I'm at it.


To me, the biggest issue with ranged builds is removing half and 3/4 cover penalties with SS: increased chance for cover is the only downside, really, to being a ranged build vs martial, and the SS feat just completely nullifies it.

Agreed. That one is really bad design. I get that they wanted to make it simple, so it just removes the penalty.... but it should really not ignore cover completely, at least just downgrade 3/4 to half.
That it gives the option for +10/-5 on top of that is a different beast.

[Aelyn]

STR characters are better off with spears and staves with PAM.

That assumes that the build wants to spend an ASI slot on PAM. Something like a Cleric might choose to focus on WIS and caster-relevant feats, using their one-hander only as a secondary option. Those characters would generally prefer a longsword or a warhammer to a spear or a staff.

[Tes]

That assumes that the build wants to spend an ASI slot on PAM. Something like a Cleric might choose to focus on WIS and caster-relevant feats, using their one-hander only as a secondary option. Those characters would generally prefer a longsword or a warhammer to a spear or a staff.
That wouldn't really be a STR character though wouldn't it?
That would be a WIS caster with 16 STR secondary to wear plate and hit a Booming Blade here and there or something.

[Vichrae]

Personally, I've yet to see my first CE/SS build in play.

I run multiple campaigns on Roll20 and have one in each of them...its just luck of the draw mayhap.

[noob]

You are correct.

The only optimal weapons in 5e are halberds, glaives, quartersaves, spears, and hand crossbows.

You forgot slingstaves that you use as regular quarterstaves for cheesy use of ranged feats(it is with a ranged weapon and not with a ranged weapon attack and other confusing 5e absurdities because 5e is too over-convoluted: it have more than 50 pages of rules) and melee feats at once and pam too.
You also forgot a specific magical bow that many theory craft builds uses because it is a really good specific bow(and not a specific crossbow sadly)

[Tes]

DMs not including CBE and PAM applicable Oathbow, Flametongue, Holy Avenger etc variants is the single biggest point against those feats. A +1 Glaive/Hand Crossbow just isn't that great compared to +4D6 on Crits. :smallbiggrin:

[da newt]

OP - why do you feel the feats should be nerfed?

Some minor stuff from other posts: Action Surge does not use your BA. Rapier isn't even close to as effective as HXB or PA with their respective feats. The only downside to XBE is the use of a BA (do you attack or hide or HM or ...), but the math almost always supports taking the extra attack every time and using SS every time except if the target's AC is very high. XBE does not allow you to use 2 HXB - it allows you to make more attacks with one HXB. SS and XBE are more beneficial than +2 DEX for ASIs for DPR.

In My Opinion - SS/XBE is one of the most capable weapon builds out there. If you can find/craft a magic HXB, max your DEX, pick up archery FS, grab EA, and find ways to add damage riders to your attacks even better. For my gloomstalker/rogue/battle master I actually went away from the HXB because my BA decisions became too busy/stressful - so I have a XBE/SS who uses a heavy Xbow. It's suboptimal, but it lets me play them more strategically, emphasize positioning and defense, rather than just roll more attacks.

[Corsair14]

I as DM have not had this problem. Thankfully none of my players are optimizers but on the off chance we have a new player join, its in my campaign primers that CE maxes out at two shots per round on light or lighter crossbows. A heavy crossbow remains 1 shot per round no matter what. When I show a questioning player the reasoning, I show them the youtube video of a guy loading a heavy crossbow and the one time it came up the question turned to, shouldn't it be one shot every other round?

So my suggestion is either don't use feats or put specific limits on certain weapon feats that are ripe for abuse.

[noob]

I as DM have not had this problem. Thankfully none of my players are optimizers but on the off chance we have a new player join, its in my campaign primers that CE maxes out at two shots per round on light or lighter crossbows. A heavy crossbow remains 1 shot per round no matter what. When I show a questioning player the reasoning, I show them the youtube video of a guy loading a heavy crossbow and the one time it came up the question turned to, shouldn't it be one shot every other round?

So my suggestion is either don't use feats or put specific limits on certain weapon feats that are ripe for abuse.

In 3.5 reloading and shooting were both long with heavy crossbows and nobody used them if they had any ranged alternative(ex: a bow or a sling or whatever).
I guess it is why in the following editions they improved heavy crossbows.

[MThurston]

I find Sentinal and PAM to be by far the worst.

I also think Archery, Sharpshooter is just as bad.

Now CE is a good feat for more than archers but its really good with rogues.

If another feat allowed you to get no disadvantage on long shots then that would be great, but there is none. So you have to take Sharpshooter.

I run a 4th level rogue, 1st level fighter and I did 47 points of damage in one turn. 5th level character doing that damage is crazy.

But the rules allow it.

[MThurston]

I as DM have not had this problem. Thankfully none of my players are optimizers but on the off chance we have a new player join, its in my campaign primers that CE maxes out at two shots per round on light or lighter crossbows. A heavy crossbow remains 1 shot per round no matter what. When I show a questioning player the reasoning, I show them the youtube video of a guy loading a heavy crossbow and the one time it came up the question turned to, shouldn't it be one shot every other round?

So my suggestion is either don't use feats or put specific limits on certain weapon feats that are ripe for abuse.

Thank God I dont play at your table.

So tell me. If I play a fighter with a pole arm, you are ok with me getting two attacks at 5th level.

But not ok with a fighter with two attacks getting to fire twice with a heavy crossbow?

[Lupine]

Thank God I dont play at your table.

So tell me. If I play a fighter with a pole arm, you are ok with me getting two attacks at 5th level.

But not ok with a fighter with two attacks getting to fire twice with a heavy crossbow?

Bump on this. Don’t get me wrong, I love realism in game, but the proposed “fix” takes an already expensive build (takes a feat to attack multiple times) and makes it even less viable. With your plan, you would literally NEVER see any martial class use the heavy crossbow after fifth level, except the rogue. 2d8+10 from a longbow has better average damage, and a higher damage cap than 1d10+5. Not to mention it’s more likely to do any damage at all.

The only way it would become potentially viable for martials again is if you bumped its damage, whereupon it becomes absolutely bonkers with assassin rogues.

[Crucius]

Personally, I've yet to see my first CE/SS build in play.

I have, and boyyyy let me tell you, that **** is wack. And that is the scientific term for it. It was uncontrollable for me as the DM. Cover? Sharpshooter. Bumrush with a charger monster? Crossbow expert. Al while dishing out 3-6 attacks each turn with +15 damage on each arrow (gloom stalker/fighter MC).

My main gripes with these two feats are, besides the insanity of damage that you can do with it, is that they each remove the only things that make ranged combat tactical: Cover and being engaged in melee. While straight upgrades, you are inadvertently removing the fun of playing a ranged character for yourself. Being able to play around with cover, making positioning matter, that's mostly gone then.

I don't see the split between ranged and melee as a bad thing, it keeps things tactically interesting. This is why I'm not a fan of crossbow expert.

[Aelyn]

That wouldn't really be a STR character though wouldn't it?
That would be a WIS caster with 16 STR secondary to wear plate and hit a Booming Blade here and there or something.

It's also the first counter-example that came to mind. I can also imagine STR-based characters who have enough use for their Bonus Action that a single notch in the dice size plus effectively having one extra ASI is worth more than the 1d4 bonus attack from PAM.

Also, I started off by talking about a sword-and-board character in general, and only specified STR-based when talking about the difference between a rapier and a longsword (as opposed to a STR-based build).

Regardless, the point was that there are characters for whom a longsword is more optimal than a spear, staff, glaive / halberd, rapier, or hand crossbow.

[da newt]

Without the bump that feats like PAM, SS, GWM and XBE provide the combat effectiveness of combatants falls even further behind casters. Without these feats combatants can still act as meat shields and do a little damage, but they can't come close to keeping up with the casters for DPR and combat effectiveness.

For example an Eldritch Blast Warlock becomes a better archer than any martial can be if you remove SS and XBE and that's just using one cantrip with a couple invocations (no feats, no magic weapon, no subclass, no resources, no consumables, no weapon, and you can use a shield too for better AC).

For the DMs who hamstring the above feats, do you do the same to your casters too? Does fireball in your games have a smaller AoE or do you reduce it's damage die to reduce it's effectiveness to match your martails?

[DarknessEternal]

PAM gives 2 extra attacks per round. It should definitely be nerfed by every table in existence.

[47Ace]

PAM gives 2 extra attacks per round. It should definitely be nerfed by every table in existence.

How you only have one bonus action per turn.

[Zhorn]

How you only have one bonus action per turn.

Maybe they're counting the reaction attack as an every-round-white-room occurrence?

[Corsair14]

I actually give crossbows a +1 or +2 vs non-dex armor class depending on light or heavy crossbow. I hear no complaints. Again, characters are normal people placed into extraordinary situations, not super heroes. I also give important NPCs and many other NPCs classes and levels.

[DarknessEternal]

Maybe they're counting the reaction attack as an every-round-white-room occurrence?


You're allowed to move on your turn. If something is attacking you, you an always move in such a way to get that reaction.

[Aelyn]

You're allowed to move on your turn. If something is attacking you, you an always move in such a way to get that reaction.

As long as the attacker is melee-based, doesn't outreach you, there aren't sufficient enemies / terrain to pin you in place, there's no abilities (magical or otherwise) preventing you from moving away or from getting a reaction attack, and you're happy taking one or more opportunity attacks in return for getting to opportunity attack them

So... maybe half the time in practice? If that?

[Keltest]

You're allowed to move on your turn. If something is attacking you, you an always move in such a way to get that reaction.

As far as im aware, you cant ever trigger an opportunity attack off of your own movement. It has to be a result of some voluntary action from the enemy.

[Willie the Duck]

Anyway, the meat of my question is to anyone who agrees with this... What have you done about it? My current solution is to not allow anyone to take both the SS and CE feats together. But does anyone have a better one?
I am of two minds on the issue. One because:

The only optimal weapons in 5e are halberds, glaives, quartersaves, spears, and hand crossbows.
Is pretty much right, but then:

Without the bump that feats like PAM, SS, GWM and XBE provide the combat effectiveness of combatants falls even further behind casters.
Is also not exactly wrong.

It is a frustrating situation where there are some really straightforward simply-best options, making large swaths of the weapon chart, feat list, and character build conceptual space feel superfluous (or at least under-loved be the designers), while at the same time not really wanting to impose a lot of nerfing because then you just make casters (already buoyed by many people apparently having trouble getting in the 6-8 encounters) all that more dominant in the game.

The logical option, to my mind, would be to make other options out there which would support other specific martial type builds. Specific to PAM and not XBE, Shield Master used to be a good alternate before being able to use the shove bonus action preemptively was taken off the table.

As it stands, if there aren't specific counter-incentivizing issues (magic item drop chances, truly long range fights, DM actually makes you explain how you are carrying 500 hand crossbow quarrels, etc.), there are some pretty solid best-options.




You're allowed to move on your turn. If something is attacking you, you an always move in such a way to get that reaction.

Not unless you have a OA-restricting movement option of your own (and don't have to hold your ground for any other reasons, etc.). It's still a good ability, particularly if you won't have another use for your reaction, but it isn't guaranteed. I always calculate it as 50% of an attack per round as a rough estimate (which honestly is over-selling, because the guy without the feat would be getting some OAs in as well).

[MaxWilson]

I have, and boyyyy let me tell you, that **** is wack. And that is the scientific term for it. It was uncontrollable for me as the DM. Cover? Sharpshooter. Bumrush with a charger monster? Crossbow expert. Al while dishing out 3-6 attacks each turn with +15 damage on each arrow (gloom stalker/fighter MC).

My main gripes with these two feats are, besides the insanity of damage that you can do with it, is that they each remove the only things that make ranged combat tactical: Cover and being engaged in melee. While straight upgrades, you are inadvertently removing the fun of playing a ranged character for yourself. Being able to play around with cover, making positioning matter, that's mostly gone then.

I don't see the split between ranged and melee as a bad thing, it keeps things tactically interesting. This is why I'm not a fan of crossbow expert.

SS doesn't work against the best kind of cover (total). It only works against 1/2 and 3/4 cover. Nor does it remove disadvantage for firing at a prone target more than 5' away (though at 5' range that turns into advantage if you also have CE).

Positioning and tactics still very much matters against SS.

[deljzc]

I have always wondered why D&D has heavy/light crossbows and long/short bows.

The truth is a "true longbow" is not usable as a weapon in D&D. It is strictly a battlefield weapon, often 5-6' high. Every bow that would be used by PC's should just be called a "bow" and be almost a standard 3-4' recurve/double curve bows.

Same thing with crossbows. When you look in history, other than very specific war applications (in great numbers), crossbows were almost always the same size with a string length of about 2'. Only the crank methods were different (all sorts).

I'm think of just having bow and crossbow as options. Bow does 1d6. Crossbow does 1d8 but has loading issues.

Might just simplify the whole thing.

[Mellack]

I actually give crossbows a +1 or +2 vs non-dex armor class depending on light or heavy crossbow. I hear no complaints. Again, characters are normal people placed into extraordinary situations, not super heroes. I also give important NPCs and many other NPCs classes and levels.

Normal people like a lightening breathing dragonborn monk who can teleport between shadows, or a 500 year old elf wizard who can shoot fire from their fingertips at will? I don't see being able to fire a heavy crossbow every couple of seconds being startling.

[jjordan]

Thank God I dont play at your table.

So tell me. If I play a fighter with a pole arm, you are ok with me getting two attacks at 5th level.

But not ok with a fighter with two attacks getting to fire twice with a heavy crossbow?
I don't know how Corsair14 feels about your question, but I'm fine with it. Any standard crossbow that does more damage than a shortbow is an unwieldy and uncooperative pig to load. Getting one attack per round is generous. It ought to be more like one attack every other round and only CEs get to make an attack every round.

[Yakk]

So, my solution is:
1) shields can be sac'd for resistance. (Magic shields have free sac's)
2) dual wielder lets you double attack in exchange for advantage (lower die can be used by off hand weapon)
3) A feat that lets you riposte with a melee weapon held in one hand as a reaction to being missed.
4) Duelist style works on all one handed weapons (regardless of what is in ither hand), and lets you draw as part of action to attack. TWF style damage moved to DW feat.
5) GWF -5/+10 works with 2 H versatile weapons.
6) Aim bonus action (if you haven't moved ranged attacks next turn on aimed at target are at advantage)

2 makes TWF rival -5/+10 feats with advantage. 3 shores up both TWF and S+B; because it is on miss, helps shield more. 4 gives flexibility to 1 H characters. 5 makes switch hitting with versatile weapons work. 1 makes shields extremely tempting survival wise.

6 competes with XBE bonus action; advantage on 2 attacks rivals an extra attack often. It can also force enemies to take cover and break LOS.

Finally, foes become flanked if they end their turn with enemies on 2 opposite sides of them. When flanked, all attacks on them have advantage. This is not the same as the default flanking rules, as setting up a flank is a *threat*, forcing foes to move or be screwed, but it is a boost to melee types.

[Yakmala]

I totally get this sentiment. The combination of CBE + SS + a Fighter's +2 to hit is a deadly combination, and one that requires an exotic weapon that was historically a toy, or at best, a last resort. Back when I played 1e/2e, hand crossbows were incredibly rare, usually manufactured and used exclusively by Drow, and they would quickly deteriorate in sunlight.

But then I think about Eldritch Blast and how effective it is with zero feats required and I think that perhaps CBE + SS isn't so bad. A Fighter requires a major Feat investment to get the most out of a hand crossbow. A Warlock only needs to pick up 1-2 Invocations, which that get without sacrificing an single ASI.

The one saving grace for bows is Bracers of Archery. The +2 to damage, effectively turning a short bow into a 1D10 weapon and a Longbow into a 1D12 weapon, does not work with crossbows. This does not entirely make up for an additional shot via bonus action, but it helps.

Then there is the Oathbow. If you manage to get your hands on one of these, you will absolutely outshine a CBE + hand crossbow user... Against exactly one enemy per day. But for that brief moment in time, you will be glorious.

[Kemev]

Hot take: it's not that crossbow expert is over-powered in terms of overall gameplay, it's that there aren't enough other comparable feats to add the variety that feats are allegedly supposed to provide.

If you're looking at a feat driven combat character, there are only two or three clusters of feats to play with. There's big polearm fighting (Polearm Mastery, probably with Sentinel and Great Weapon Mastery), polearm-and-board (spear/staff with Shield Mastery, with the option to mix in PAM/Sentinel if you want), or crossbow + sharpshooter. We're what, six? seven? years into this edition, and that's only 6 relevant feats (PAM, Sent., GWM, SM, XBE, SS).

It's not that they're broken (especially at higher tiers of play), it's that they drive so many same-y looking characters that they become really maddening (particularly if you play a lot, which I suspect most people reading this do).

So instead of nerfing these handful of feats, I'd rather see a wider range of comparable-power-level feats to choose from.


I think the problem that most people have is that polearms were main battlefield weapons so them being optimal makes sense. On the other hand hand crossbows were probably after dinner toys of gentlemen* so them being more effective then an actual weapon of war like a longbow rubs people the wrong way.

*Yes assassins crossbow is a popular theory but most (all?) surviving examples are so finely decorated that they are far more likely to be rich men's toys then assassins weapons...

This is a minor derail, but I'm glad you posted this, 'cause I think about this a lot in terms of historicity in gaming a lot... I think it's an argument for firearms in D&D. A cavalier in plate armor with a wheel-lock pistol has a lot of verisimilitude. That same person with a dart launcher does not. I realize there's no meaningful difference in gameplay (if you simply declared via DM fiat "the hand crossbow is now a pistol" it changes nothing about the game), and that worrying about the issue at all in a game with time-traveling, tentacle-faced magic monsters is ridiculous. But still, it bothers my mind's eye.

Also Tod's Workshop is awesome. I hope one day he does a cross-over episode with Jason Kingsley from Modern History (sorry, can't post a link 'cause I don't have enough posts).

[Dienekes]

I have always wondered why D&D has heavy/light crossbows and long/short bows.

The truth is a "true longbow" is not usable as a weapon in D&D. It is strictly a battlefield weapon, often 5-6' high. Every bow that would be used by PC's should just be called a "bow" and be almost a standard 3-4' recurve/double curve bows.

Same thing with crossbows. When you look in history, other than very specific war applications (in great numbers), crossbows were almost always the same size with a string length of about 2'. Only the crank methods were different (all sorts).

I'm think of just having bow and crossbow as options. Bow does 1d6. Crossbow does 1d8 but has loading issues.

Might just simplify the whole thing.

You're right the longbow was a battlefield weapon, but I find it difficult to follow why it would therefore be a poor weapon for a PC. On the contrary, I know of archers who use 150 lb draw weight longbows recreationally which is within the range uncovered on the Mary Rose.

And Hell, if I was going against creatures with skin as tough as armor that is exactly the type of bow I would use. If I had the strength and skill to use a bow of course.

[stoutstien]

I avoid the whole issue by giving out SS/CBE/GWM/PAM and a few of the other feats out for free as weapon features. The fact that the feats that basically amount to just more damage are regarded as the best choices saddens me.

[Hytheter]

Finally, foes become flanked if they end their turn with enemies on 2 opposite sides of them. When flanked, all attacks on them have advantage. This is not the same as the default flanking rules, as setting up a flank is a *threat*, forcing foes to move or be screwed, but it is a boost to melee types.

Oh, that sounds interesting!


So instead of nerfing these handful of feats, I'd rather see a wider range of comparable-power-level feats to choose from.

You won't hear me complaining! Let's start by making Dual Wielder better, shall we?

[Keltest]

You're right the longbow was a battlefield weapon, but I find it difficult to follow why it would therefore be a poor weapon for a PC. On the contrary, I know of archers who use 150 lb draw weight longbows recreationally which is within the range uncovered on the Mary Rose.

And Hell, if I was going against creatures with skin as tough as armor that is exactly the type of bow I would use. If I had the strength and skill to use a bow of course.

I assume theyre referring to the English/Welsh longbow, which was sufficiently large that trying to use it in the short range skirmishes like most D&D parties get into could be problematic, either in terms of ammo replenishment or general maneuverability of the weapon.

Most "longbows" in D&D are not English longbows, by my understanding, so i think this is something of a moot point personally.

[Bobthewizard]

The truth is a "true longbow" is not usable as a weapon in D&D. It is strictly a battlefield weapon, often 5-6' high. Every bow that would be used by PC's should just be called a "bow" and be almost a standard 3-4' recurve/double curve bows.

I don't know, this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvKJcxa8x_g) seems pretty usable in combat.

[Keravath]

You're allowed to move on your turn. If something is attacking you, you an always move in such a way to get that reaction.

"While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, spear or guarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach."

Personally, I read "other creatures provoke" AND "when they enter your reach" to mean when "THEY enter" not when "I enter" their reach. Running up to another creature in combat does NOT give you an extra reaction attack when you have polearm master.

[Willie the Duck]

I assume theyre referring to the English/Welsh longbow, which was sufficiently large that trying to use it in the short range skirmishes like most D&D parties get into could be problematic, either in terms of ammo replenishment or general maneuverability of the weapon.

Most "longbows" in D&D are not English longbows, by my understanding, so i think this is something of a moot point personally.

The whole 'arbitrarily invoking realism' concept is a peeling-the-onion of differing layers of problems. Low hanging fruit like cumbersome bows or individual pikes out of formation are exactly that -- just the most obvious examples. Strictly speaking, just about every aspect of D&D adventuring (particularly 4-6 sturdy adventurers descending into conveniently present series of rooms and tunnels ~3-5 days trek into the wilderness in search of semi-well-guarded treasure) is inherently unrealistic. Beyond that, if one lived in a world full of dragons and gelatinous cubes (who were a threat on par with invading armies), then the types of weapons people carried probably would change to adapt to that reality. Fantasy gaming is rife with these contradictions, and pretty clearly player-centric* rather than wholly 'realistic.'
*As in the PCs use swords and bows and whatnot because the players want to do fights while playing the role of fantasy heroes who use sword and bow, rather than whatever weapons would evolve in a world full of dragons

It's perfectly reasonable to want some level of historic realism in the weapons used in the fantasy game, but you always run into a 'That? that's the line that is too far to cross for you?' situations.

[KorvinStarmast]

I find Sentinal and PAM to be by far the worst.

I also think Archery, Sharpshooter is just as bad. May I suggest that you take a peak at the Are Martials Screwed thread? Maybe having nice things like feats is a way to balance that out?

[Dienekes]

I assume theyre referring to the English/Welsh longbow, which was sufficiently large that trying to use it in the short range skirmishes like most D&D parties get into could be problematic, either in terms of ammo replenishment or general maneuverability of the weapon.

Most "longbows" in D&D are not English longbows, by my understanding, so i think this is something of a moot point personally.

And I am referring to English longbows as well. Thus the reference to the Mary Rose. The fellow I know who looses one for sport makes the 150 lb draw weight look easy. And I’m certain there are those who use it better. There are a lot of English longbow recreationalists in the world.

Having seen him use it, I don’t see why one couldn’t use it as an adventuring weapon. Much less cumbersome to carry about and move than a polearm. And while continuously loosing arrows on it are undoubtedly tiring D&D encounters tend to be over in about a minute in game time anyway. I’m sure he can loose 20 arrows in a minute which takes him up to about level 11 fighter terms. Which is where you’re supposed to go superhuman anyway.

[DarknessEternal]

"While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, spear or guarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach."

Personally, I read "other creatures provoke" AND "when they enter your reach" to mean when "THEY enter" not when "I enter" their reach. Running up to another creature in combat does NOT give you an extra reaction attack when you have polearm master.

That's the only want to read it. You move, they have to follow if they want to attack you. PCs vastly outdamage monsters, and you'll probably be harder to hit anyway. Take some single digit damage on an op and hit back for 25. Then get your extra attack that cost nothing later.

PAM is too strong.

[Aelyn]

That's the only want to read it. You move, they have to follow if they want to attack you. PCs vastly outdamage monsters, and you'll probably be harder to hit anyway. Take some single digit damage on an op and hit back for 25. Then get your extra attack that cost nothing later.

PAM is too strong.

Like I said earlier, to you:

As long as the attacker is melee-based, doesn't outreach you, there aren't sufficient enemies / terrain to pin you in place, there's no abilities (magical or otherwise) preventing you from moving away or from getting a reaction attack, and you're happy taking one or more opportunity attacks in return for getting to opportunity attack them.

So... maybe half the time in practice? If that?

[Willie the Duck]

That's the only want to read it. You move, they have to follow if they want to attack you. PCs vastly outdamage monsters, and you'll probably be harder to hit anyway. Take some single digit damage on an op and hit back for 25. Then get your extra attack that cost nothing later.

This ignores the possibility that you will be incurring multiple OAs, but sure. Just be sure to include that damage-offset in your DPR calculations somehow.


PAM is too strong.

I think the thread has settled round to it is certainly among the strongest martial combat options, but whether that is too strong or the right amount of strong and the other weapon choices needing to be boosted to that level being the question still up for debate.

[Bobthewizard]

1. I'd be happy if they disallowed pole-arms from GWM. So PAM gets an extra attack, other heavy weapons get bonus damage.

2. Change two-weapon fighting to allow to work with any primary one-handed weapon as long as the second is light. I'd love to use a rapier and a dagger, or a battle ax and a hand ax, but it's never optimized. Then the feat would allow two rapiers or two battle-axes.

3. The hand crossbow bonus action attack should only work if you attack with a different one-handed weapon. It would be a one time thing rather than every round. This would allow more longbow and heavy crossbow builds.

[Yakk]

1. I'd be happy if they disallowed pole-arms from GWM. So PAM gets an extra attack, other heavy weapons get bonus damage.

2. Change two-weapon fighting to allow to work with any primary one-handed weapon as long as the second is light. I'd love to use a rapier and a dagger, or a battle ax and a hand ax, but it's never optimized. Then the feat would allow two rapiers or two battle-axes.

3. The hand crossbow bonus action attack should only work if you attack with a different one-handed weapon. It would be a one time thing rather than every round. This would allow more longbow and heavy crossbow builds.
So take 2 strong options and make them suck, and make an option that is poor after level 4 and ok from level 1-3 better at level 1-3.

I would disagree with this strongly.

Martial types only exceed caster at-will damage because of the "strong" feats like the ones you nerfed

If you included broad-based power increases to martial classes, then weakened existing strong feats, sure.

I personally prefer making more strong martial options.

1. DW feat grants "use lower die on advantage for offhand weapon".
2. "Offhand" property added to dagger.
3. Feat that modestly boosts sword+board style.
4. Feat that boosts long/short/heavyx/lightx bows.
5. Expand duelist to apply to thrown and twf (Gain +2 bonus damage with melee weapons held in one hand, and you can draw a weapon as part of an action to attack with it). Move stat-to-damage to DW feat.

[Tanarii]

Martial types only exceed caster at-will damage because of the "strong" feats like the ones you nerfed.
No. They exceed caster at-will without any feats.

[Yakk]

Warlock hex+blast+darkness+devil's sight is 56 damage with crazy accuracy, can go all day. And has a number of unused slots for harder fights.

Without hex, is 42 damage with crazy accuracy.

A fighter using a longbow is 38 damage with +2 accuracy. She does have 2 action surges.

A fighter with a hand xbow and SS is 92.5 damage with -3 accuracy.

BM dice or samurai or champion crits isn't going to swing this.

We can gussy them up with magic items. The fighter archer gets +3 to hit and +5*4=20 to damage. The warlock gets +3 to hit, and almost doubles damage with bracers of bonus action cantrips.

So that isn't a win for the archer.

[Tanarii]

Warlock hex+blast+darkness+drvik's sight is 56 damage with crazy accuracy, can go all day. And has a number of unused slots for harder fights.
You said caster at-will. That's not caster at will.

There's one particular caster that, with an invocation, can mostly keep pace with martial at will.

[Hytheter]

Warlock hex+blast+darkness+drvik's sight

Hex and Darkness are both concentration, they can't be used together.

[Waazraath]

You said caster at-will. That's not caster at will.

There's one particular caster that, with an invocation, can mostly keep pace with martial at will.

2 invocations, 2 (incompatible, as been mentioned) spells, and thus hardly "at will", with white room Hex is always on sillyness (cause in a white room, that spells lot was never spent in an earlier encounter and the caster never fails a con save).

[JackPhoenix]

You forgot slingstaves that you use as regular quarterstaves for cheesy use of ranged feats(it is with a ranged weapon and not with a ranged weapon attack and other confusing 5e absurdities because 5e is too over-convoluted: it have more than 50 pages of rules) and melee feats at once and pam too.

You can't forget something that doesn't exist outside homebrew.


That's the only want to read it. You move, they have to follow if they want to attack you. PCs vastly outdamage monsters, and you'll probably be harder to hit anyway. Take some single digit damage on an op and hit back for 25. Then get your extra attack that cost nothing later.

PAM is too strong.

Or they ignore you and go after the wizard. No additional attack, take OA, and you've failed at your job. Congratulations.

[Bobthewizard]

If you included broad-based power increases to martial classes, then weakened existing strong feats, sure.

I personally prefer making more strong martial options.

1. DW feat grants "use lower die on advantage for offhand weapon".
2. "Offhand" property added to dagger.
3. Feat that modestly boosts sword+board style.
4. Feat that boosts long/short/heavyx/lightx bows.
5. Expand duelist to apply to thrown and twf (Gain +2 bonus damage with melee weapons held in one hand, and you can draw a weapon as part of an action to attack with it). Move stat-to-damage to DW feat.

I agree with this. I was trying to balance the weapons so there is more variety, and assuming that balancing between martial and spell caster classes is another thread.

I like your suggestions.

[Keltest]

Or they ignore you and go after the wizard. No additional attack, take OA, and you've failed at your job. Congratulations.

Or they pull out a ranged weapon, or start chucking rocks, or they try to grapple you, or they bring a friend who isnt getting speared... Lots of ways to get around that, really. Heck, just the sentinel feat and youre kind of SOL, if youre fighting NPCs with levels.

[Mellack]

Like I said earlier, to you:

As long as the attacker is melee-based, doesn't outreach you, there aren't sufficient enemies / terrain to pin you in place, there's no abilities (magical or otherwise) preventing you from moving away or from getting a reaction attack, and you're happy taking one or more opportunity attacks in return for getting to opportunity attack them.

So... maybe half the time in practice? If that?

Also that assumes they continue to go after the PAM fighter. They are now open to go attack the ranged/casters that are easier to kill.

[Aelyn]

Also that assumes they continue to go after the PAM fighter. They are now open to go attack the ranged/casters that are easier to kill.

Yeah. If I'm a front-liner with a polearm and a melee focus, last thing I want is to give the enemy an easy way to avoid me.

This looks to me like a case where white-room, one-on-one PVP logic is severely distorting how useful the approaching OA is in practice.

[greenstone]

What have you done about it?
First, use point-buy for ability scores. If a player has taken the two feats then they have passed up +4 DEX. That means the character's DEX will probably never be 20.

Second, focus more on the other two pillars.

+4 DEX is +2 to initiative, stealth, opening locks, acrobatics, etc. It is a lot to give up just to be somewhat better at one pillar of the game.

Also, run combats in bigger spaces and use cover more. Start the goblin archers at 300 ft from the party, not 30 ft. Give the archers full cover and have them duck out of cover and back, so that they have complete cover when it is the PC's turn.

[Mellack]

First, use point-buy for ability scores. If a player has taken the two feats then they have passed up +4 DEX. That means the character's DEX will probably never be 20.

Second, focus more on the other two pillars.

+4 DEX is +2 to initiative, stealth, opening locks, acrobatics, etc. It is a lot to give up just to be somewhat better at one pillar of the game.

Also, run combats in bigger spaces and use cover more. Start the goblin archers at 300 ft from the party, not 30 ft. Give the archers full cover and have them duck out of cover and back, so that they have complete cover when it is the PC's turn.

Doesn't starting at 300' actually make someone with sharpshooter and CE more powerful? They are not getting disadvantage for long range like the goblins are. If they get some cover themselves, I doubt they are going to be hit at +5 AC and the goblins all getting disadvantage.

[Willie the Duck]

Doesn't starting at 300' actually make someone with sharpshooter and CE more powerful? They are not getting disadvantage for long range like the goblins are. If they get some cover themselves, I doubt they are going to be hit at +5 AC and the goblins all getting disadvantage.

A hand crossbow's max range is 120'. Likewise, they won't be worrying about shooting in melee in this scenario. So the Crossbow Expert part of this equation pretty much will be a relative drag in this scenario (compared to +2 Dex).

[noob]

You can't forget something that doesn't exist outside homebrew.


It exists in the previous dnds and is represented in official dnd novels so you are wrong on that.

[JackPhoenix]

It exists in the previous dnds and is represented in official dnd novels so you are wrong on that.

"Previous dnds" don't matter to current edition. You can't use anything from there in 5e without homebrewing. Neither do novels, all kind of crap exists there.

[noob]

"Previous dnds" don't matter to current edition. You can't use anything from there in 5e without homebrewing. Neither do novels, all kind of crap exists there.

It still means it exist outside of homebrew making your previous sentence false.
In fact it even exists in real life in the pas t(and have been used even after the invention of guns but for weird situations and not just to throw rocks) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)#Staff_sling

Also dnd 5e is supposed to simulate a fictional world which is supposed to look like real life except for things for which the rules and texts about the worlds indicates it is not supposed to look like real life (such as battles, magic, the creatures , the cosmology and so on).

So it would be nonsense if a player with a character in a forest says "after some research in the forest using a knife I get a branch on a tree that splits in the way indicated in this drawing, I pull from my backpack a solid string and leather I bought before then I assemble the string and the leather as indicated in this blueprint here then I attach solidly the string with leather to the branch" to tell them "it explodes because we are totally in a videogame and what you are trying to make can not physically exist"
No what you can tell them is that the adventurer does not makes something useful as a weapon but the adventurer have a slingstaff(just one that is poor as a weapon)

Unless you are going to tell me the fact you fall outside of your own round if pushed from a cliff is homebrew because it is not indicated in the rules.

[Keltest]

It still means it exist outside of homebrew making your previous sentence false.

Also dnd 5e is supposed to simulate a fictional world which is supposed to look like real life except for things for which the rules and texts about the worlds indicates it is not supposed to look like real life (such as battles, magic, the creatures , the cosmology and so on).

So it would be nonsense if a player with a character in a forest says "after some research in the forest using a knife I get a branch on a tree that splits in the way indicated in this drawing, I pull from my backpack a solid string and leather I bought before then I assemble the string and the leather as indicated in this blueprint here then I attach solidly the string with leather to the branch" to tell them "it explodes because we are totally in a videogame and what you are trying to make can not physically exist"
No what you can tell them is that the adventurer does not makes something useful as a weapon(because in real life slingstaves are not great) but the adventurer have a slingstaff(just one that is poor as a weapon)

Unless you are going to tell me the fact you fall outside of your own round if pushed from a cliff is homebrew because it is not indicated in the rules.
Arguing that "you can totally ignore the rules whenever you feel like it just because" in a rules argument is not going to get you any ground. Slingstaves dont exist in 5e. Your ability to homebrew them in is beside the point.

[noob]

Arguing that "you can totally ignore the rules whenever you feel like it just because" in a rules argument is not going to get you any ground. Slingstaves dont exist in 5e. Your ability to homebrew them in is beside the point.

You understood nothing
What I did here was rules legal since it is a part of the rules that where the rules does not indicates how it works it works like in real life.
And I did not homebrew them in I am just telling you that if the character physically tries to make the item that the rules does not prevents its creation because in fact it is legal in the rules because of the whole "unless indicated otherwise it is like in real life"(it just results in an unstated item)
if the rules worked the way you imagined they would write "any attempt at getting an item that is not described results in failure"
or "unless specified otherwise nothing can be done and if a behaviour is not described it does not works like in real life instead it does not do anything so yes if someone is pushed from a cliff they have to wait for their turn to take the 'fall action' "

(in dnd 3.5 you actually had to wait for your turn to fall)

5E is completely absurd if you ignore the rule that "unless indicated otherwise it is like in real life" because their rules leaves a lot of gaps and does not allows to do a complete simulation of anything more elaborate that "people are doing the listed actions and avoid to push people from cliffs because it is a non defined behaviour".

[JackPhoenix]

It still means it exist outside of homebrew making your previous sentence false.

Well, if it exists outside of homebrew, you can surely provide a source (I'll be generous, a book and a page would be enough, no need to quote) that proves me wrong, right? It's all right, I'll wait.

[noob]

Well, if it exists outside of homebrew, you can surely provide a source (I'll be generous, a book and a page would be enough, no need to quote) that proves me wrong, right? It's all right, I'll wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)#Staff_sling
Here it exists in real life.

[JackPhoenix]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)#Staff_sling
here it exists in real life.

That's not 5e sourcebook.

[noob]

That's not 5e sourcebook.

homebrew means "made for the system by someone who is not among the creators of the system"
This wikipedia page is not made for dnd 5e thus not homebrew(it is not meant for dnd 5E) thus it exists outside of homebrew.
That is a straightforward proof that it is not homebrew (not for the system is not the same thing as homebrew)
The fact it exists in real life increase the odds of it being known by people just like how people knows railguns and swordcanes(both of them existing in real life) despite how neither are in dnd 5e.

[Jamesps]

homebrew means "made for the system by someone who is not among the creators of the system"
This wikipedia page is not made for dnd 5e thus not homebrew(it is not meant for dnd 5E) thus it exists outside of homebrew.
That is a straightforward proof that it is not homebrew (not for the system is not the same thing as homebrew)
The fact it exists in real life increase the odds of it being known by people just like how people knows railguns and swordcanes(both of them existing in real life) despite how neither are in dnd 5e.

You misunderstand how the term "homebrew" is being used.

It refers mechanical function in the written rules, or specifically the lack thereof, not the concept of the object. If the object doesn't have any written rules in the system in a published sourced it would be considered "homebrew" by common definition.

If you do not use this definition of "homebrew" you will be unable to communicate your ideas on the subject as it is nearly universal.

[noob]

You misunderstand how the term "homebrew" is being used.

It refers mechanical function in the written rules, or specifically the lack thereof, not the concept of the object. If the object doesn't have any written rules in the system in a published sourced it would be considered "homebrew" by common definition.

If you do not use this definition of "homebrew" you will be unable to communicate your ideas on the subject as it is nearly universal.
You have proven that stars are homebrew in dnd 5e (they have no written rules they are only described in the settings).
With the wording you used you have the official settings written by wotc contain homebrew objects(such as stars since they have no stats)
In fact if you follow the rules by the letter you are forced to introduce the homebrew sun when playing in a wizard of the coast campaign with it.
Basically your definition of homebrew is too wide and includes things that are in the base content of wotc.

[JackPhoenix]

You have proven that stars are homebrew in dnd 5e (they have no written rules they are only described in the settings).
With the wording you used you have the official settings written by wotc contain homebrew objects(such as stars since they have no stats)
In fact if you follow the rules by the letter you are forced to introduce the homebrew sun when playing in a wizard of the coast campaign with it.
Basically your definition of homebrew is too wide and includes things that are in the base content of wotc.

Yes, if you for some reason create some kind of stats for a star (though I have no idea what kind of stats you'd need and why), it would be homebrew.

As stars' (or the sun's) stats are irrelevant for 99.9(that's repeating, of course)% of games out there, no such homebrew is required.

[noob]

Yes, if you for some reason create some kind of stats for a star (though I have no idea what kind of stats you'd need and why), it would be homebrew.

As stars' (or the sun's) stats are irrelevant for 99.9(that's repeating, of course)% of games out there, no such homebrew is required.

You did not understand.
The star itself is homebrew not its nonexistant stats.
since you used that term for objects (you told the slingstaff was homebrew you did not say that for the sling staff rules that did not exist)

In fact by reading the definition you wrote before the slingstaff is not homebrew:
The slingstaff being not a weapon described in the manuals fits the improvised weapon category that is defined as a system of rules for using as a weapon something that is not a weapon (which it is not because it is not in the list of weapons) thus the slingstaff have rules: the improvised weapon rules (which is the definition of not homebrew you made: something is not homebrew if it have rules).

Please use a definition of homebrew that is less nonsensic because with your definition 1: the slingstaff is not homebrew and 2: things that are described in the system can be homebrew.

[Mellack]

If an object/creature does not have stats, it is fluff, setting, and has no real effect on the game. If you want a slingstaff to be anything other than a decorative name, you would have to create states for things such as range and damage. That is homebrew, which is fine, but not applicable to a RAW discussion. If it is only being used as an improvised weapon, than the name is irrelevant and you or your player can just as well call it a stick, or a hoopak, or a quezarrklt.

[noob]

If an object/creature does not have stats, it is fluff, setting, and has no real effect on the game. If you want a slingstaff to be anything other than a decorative name, you would have to create states for things such as range and damage. That is homebrew, which is fine, but not applicable to a RAW discussion. If it is only being used as an improvised weapon, than the name is irrelevant and you or your player can just as well call it a stick, or a hoopak, or a quezarrklt.

Makes more sense than the previous person saying that a slingstaff was homebrew even if it did not have stats.
Also quezarrklt sounds great.

[Keltest]

Makes more sense than the previous person saying that a slingstaff was homebrew even if it did not have stats.
Also quezarrklt sounds great.

If you want it to act as a slingstaff and not as an ordinary quarterstaff, then it is homebrew. A quarterstaff with a sling tied around an end is not a slingstaff.

[noob]

If you want it to act as a slingstaff and not as an ordinary quarterstaff, then it is homebrew. A quarterstaff with a sling tied around an end is not a slingstaff.

I never said it acted like a slingstaff in fact in the first example of "making your own slingstaff as an adventurer" I described the result as not being a functional weapon (being an improvised weapon then)

[Keltest]

I never said it acted like a slingstaff in fact in the first example of "making your own slingstaff as an adventurer" I described the result as not being a functional weapon (being an improvised weapon then)

You did, in fact. You specifically called it out as being a ranged weapon being used in melee to take cheesy advantage of certain feats. You also said this specifically in the context of "optimal" weapons in 5e.

[noob]

You did, in fact. You specifically called it out as being a ranged weapon being used in melee to take cheesy advantage of certain feats. You also said this specifically in the context of "optimal" weapons in 5e.

It was not the first post where I described its creation.
The thing is that ranged weapon and melee weapon are two non clear things.

I guess I used the wrong thing in the first post and should have mentioned bashing with an heavy crossbow as an improvised weapon in melee: you can benefit from sharpshooter's second part on a melee attack that way:


Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If that attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage.
and benefit from great weapon master second part


Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack’s damage.

[JackPhoenix]

I guess I used the wrong thing in the first post and should have mentioned bashing with a bow as an improvised weapon in melee: you can benefit from sharpshooter on a melee attack that way:

You can't, because beating up someone with a bow treats the bow as an improvised weapon. Sharpshooter only gives the -5/+10 option with ranged weapons, not improvised weapons.

[Keltest]

It was not the first post where I described its creation.
The thing is that ranged weapon and melee weapon are two non clear things.

I guess I used the wrong thing in the first post and should have mentioned bashing with a bow as an improvised weapon in melee: you can benefit from sharpshooter on a melee attack that way:

I dont understand your point. Sharpshooter has nothing at all to do with slingstaves not being a thing in 5e.

Also, ordinarily ranged weapons being used in melee count as improvised melee weapons, and bashing somebody with a bow is in fact the explicit example give for this.

[noob]

You can't, because beating up someone with a bow treats the bow as an improvised weapon. Sharpshooter only gives the -5/+10 option with ranged weapons, not improvised weapons.

where is it said it stops being a ranged weapon when you do not use it as such?
it counts as a melee improvised weapons but it does not says it loses its previous properties.

[Keltest]

where is it said it stops being a ranged weapon when you do not use it as such?

In the rules for improvised weapons.

[noob]

In the rules for improvised weapons.

where does it says it stops being what it was previously specifically because the page I found on improvised weapon does not says it stops being what it was before.
all I had that was revelant to melee attacks with ranged weapons was that

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
where it does not says it stops being a ranged weapon
the previous parts were for things that looked like an already existing melee weapon

[Keltest]

where does it says it stops being what it was previously specifically because the page I found on improvised weapon does not says it stops being what it was before.
all I had that was revelant to melee attacks with ranged weapons was that
where it does not says it stops being a ranged weapon
the previous parts were for things that looked like an already existing melee weapon

Using it in melee means it stops being a bow and starts being an improvised weapon. Nothing has given this improvised weapon the ranged property, which means it is a melee weapon. Also, the fact that youre using it in melee should be a clue.

[noob]

Using it in melee means it stops being a bow and starts being an improvised weapon. Nothing has given this improvised weapon the ranged property, which means it is a melee weapon. Also, the fact that youre using it in melee should be a clue.



You can use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a ranged Attack only if you have Ammunition to fire from the weapon. 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 (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended Ammunition by taking a minute to Search the battlefield. If you use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a melee Attack, you treat the weapon as an Improvised Weapon (see “Improvised Weapons” later in the section). A sling must be loaded to deal any damage when used in this way.
It never says it is a different weapon only that it is treated as an improvised weapon .
you are interpreting the rule in a dysfunctional way:
if the weapon stops being ranged once it is used as an improvised weapon then at the estimation of how the weapon works

Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their Weapons and have to Attack with whatever is at hand. An Improvised Weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead Goblin.

Often, an Improvised Weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her Proficiency Bonus.

An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee Attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.

which happens after it was guessed it was an improvised weapon then it could never enter the case "is a ranged weapon" because it would no longer be a ranged weapon when it reach that clause thus making that clause about ranged weapons pointless thus your improvised weapon stays ranged or else the clause about ranged weapon within the body of rules for improvised weapons would never apply.

[Mellack]

Sage Advice answered this specific question years ago.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/02/26/can-you-use-a-longbow-in-melee-to-get-great-weapon-master-and-sharpshooter-in-a-single-attack-for-20-damage/

[Keltest]

It never says it is a different weapon only that it is treated as an improvised weapon .
you are interpreting the rule in a dysfunctional way:
if the weapon stops being ranged once it is used as an improvised weapon then at the estimation of how the weapon works which happens after it was guessed it was an improvised weapon then it could never enter the case "is a ranged weapon" because it would no longer be a ranged weapon when it reach that clause thus making that clause about ranged weapons pointless thus your improvised weapon stays ranged or else the clause about ranged weapon within the body of rules for improvised weapons would never apply.

Yes, if you unstring a bow staff and beat somebody with it, it stops being a ranged weapon. Its up to the DM whether this counts as a quarterstaff directly (which is a melee weapon) or an improvised melee weapon, but it no longer uses the properties of the bow weapon. Assuming you dont break it, you can then re-string it, losing the qualities it had as an improvised weapon and switching instead to the properties of the bow, which is a ranged weapon. This isnt dysfunctional, this is just logic.

[noob]

Yes, if you unstring a bow staff and beat somebody with it, it stops being a ranged weapon. Its up to the DM whether this counts as a quarterstaff directly (which is a melee weapon) or an improvised melee weapon, but it no longer uses the properties of the bow weapon. Assuming you dont break it, you can then re-string it, losing the qualities it had as an improvised weapon and switching instead to the properties of the bow, which is a ranged weapon. This isnt dysfunctional, this is just logic.

so you confirm that it never happens that you have a ranged weapon when you reach that rule
If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee Attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage.
Because it already stopped being a ranged weapon before you reach that rule.
If yes does it means that I can use a ranged weapon as a thrown melee weapon?

[Keltest]

so you confirm that it never happens that
Because it already stopped being a ranged weapon before you reach that rule.

Im done having this argument. Sage advice and plain english both say youre wrong.

[JackPhoenix]

Because it already stopped being a ranged weapon before you reach that rule.

No, applying that rule stops it from being a ranged weapon. It's not a step-by-step process.

[noob]

No, applying that rule stops it from being a ranged weapon. It's not a step-by-step process.

it already was an improvised weapon and thus already not ranged because "improvised weapons have no properties" according to Keltest.


Im done having this argument. Sage advice and plain english both say youre wrong.
it was a different argument than the previous one: I was no longer arguing on the same thing.

[Mellack]

it already was an improvised weapon and thus already not ranged because "improvised weapons have no properties" according to Keltest.


it was a different argument than the previous one: I was no longer arguing on the same thing.

You may want to clearly state your position. I, for one, have no idea what you are asking.