How to build a character with a rapier and a hand-crossbow/gun in the offhand

[Wasp]

Hi everyone

So to get this out of the way: I know this is never going to be optimal and probably requires feats and dips for no good reason, but I just find the idea of a swashbuckler in melee who uses a rapier (or other elegant weapon) in the main hand and some type of ranged weapon like a hand crossbow or a firearm at the same time just so damn cool.

Therefore I wanted to ask how you would go on about creating a character that could do that and maybe even be good at it.

So it seems to me Crossbow Expert and Artificer 2 to get the Repeating Shot infusion is necessary to get this at least somewhat workable. And maybe some DM help. But what are your thought? What would you take as the main "chassis" for the thing? A Rogue? Battlemaster? Or Artificer all the way?

Any ideas how to get this halfway decent welcome. I have no major ideas for this character yet besides this fighting style...

[SLOTHRPG95]

Crossbow Expert's third line is basically tailor-made for this. Attack with rapier in main hand, and get an off-hand bonus action hand crossbow attack. I'm not sure why you'd need artificer at all, and would suggest some mix of fighter and rogue, or maybe just go single-classed Swashbuckler and call it a day.

[TheMango55]

Hi everyone

So to get this out of the way: I know this is never going to be optimal and probably requires feats and dips for no good reason, but I just find the idea of a swashbuckler in melee who uses a rapier (or other elegant weapon) in the main hand and some type of ranged weapon like a hand crossbow or a firearm at the same time just so damn cool.

Therefore I wanted to ask how you would go on about creating a character that could do that and maybe even be good at it.

So it seems to me Crossbow Expert and Artificer 2 to get the Repeating Shot infusion is necessary to get this at least somewhat workable. And maybe some DM help. But what are your thought? What would you take as the main "chassis" for the thing? A Rogue? Battlemaster? Or Artificer all the way?

Any ideas how to get this halfway decent welcome. I have no major ideas for this character yet besides this fighting style...

I'd make a hexblade warlock and just have the gun fire my eldritch blasts.

If it has to be a functional weapon then it's more difficult because with the ammunition property of the crossbow I don't think you can use it with another weapon RAW. However, you are right you can do it if you are an artificer using one of your infusions to make it a repeating crossbow. That way you can attack a couple of times with your rapier and fire off a crossbow shot with a bonus action (if you have crossbow expert).

[Hytheter]

Crossbow Expert's third line is basically tailor-made for this. Attack with rapier in main hand, and get an off-hand bonus action hand crossbow attack. I'm not sure why you'd need artificer at all, and would suggest some mix of fighter and rogue, or maybe just go single-classed Swashbuckler and call it a day.

You need the artificer dip because the Ammunition property of the hand crossbow demands a free hand to load the weapon. Crossbow Expert negates the loading property (which prevents multiple attacks with a single action) but not the ammunition property.

Yes, that's confusing and horribly worded within the books. They should have called "Loading" something like "Slow" instead.

[Mork]

I would complete lean into the swashbuckler lifestyle and play.. a swashbuckler. The Rogue subclass.
Start out with crossbow expert and start playing as a pirate, with their old guns that could fire once and then they continues with their swords.

Next I would first ask your DM, if they can ignore the ammo property. It's already kinda solvable by stowing and drawing each round. Each round you can get both your attacks and load new ammo.. but it looks stupid. In practice it only matter for oppertunity attacks I think.
If that doesn't work, I would try to ask if you are allowed to take this feat:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/comments/hs1mnp/infusion_adept_because_i_wasnt_quite_satisfied/
We already have feats for metamagic, for eldricht invocations, battle manuvers. Why not one for infusions.

If that doesn't work I would go rogue 4 (or 5), artificer 5 (battlesmith) rogue X. You can choose to either pump DEX or INT to 20. If you want to go the more INT based route maybe start with artificer 5 before going into rogue.

[Selion]

Hi everyone

So to get this out of the way: I know this is never going to be optimal and probably requires feats and dips for no good reason, but I just find the idea of a swashbuckler in melee who uses a rapier (or other elegant weapon) in the main hand and some type of ranged weapon like a hand crossbow or a firearm at the same time just so damn cool.

Therefore I wanted to ask how you would go on about creating a character that could do that and maybe even be good at it.

So it seems to me Crossbow Expert and Artificer 2 to get the Repeating Shot infusion is necessary to get this at least somewhat workable. And maybe some DM help. But what are your thought? What would you take as the main "chassis" for the thing? A Rogue? Battlemaster? Or Artificer all the way?

Any ideas how to get this halfway decent welcome. I have no major ideas for this character yet besides this fighting style...

I consider crossbow expert the worst written feat in the game.
By raw it wouldn't allow you to load and fire with your offhand, because there's nothing like pre-load/fast-load in 5e, and you still need a free hand to load the hand crossbow.
This feat is often used from optimizer, though, because:
"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."
if you only have a hand crossbow, it qualifies as one handed weapon, so by RAW:
- you cannot use a hand crossbow with a rapier in another hand, because you have not free hands to load the crossbow and you cannot even pre load it
- you can use the feat to fire an additional time with the hand crossbow, if you're using not other weapons, because you then have free hands and the crossbow itself triggers the additional attack.

This is complete bull-:smallannoyed: IMHO, the feat has obviously been written to allow a crossbow and rapier style, but it has been written so bad it fails in its intent and becomes overpowered for a second illogical reason.

Sorry for my rant, i'm sure your DM will fix it and you will work with your character concept just fine.

[chainer1216]

This is complete bull-:smallannoyed: IMHO, the feat has obviously been written to allow a crossbow and rapier style, but it has been written so bad it fails in its intent and becomes overpowered for a second illogical reason.

Sorry for my rant, i'm sure your DM will fix it and you will work with your character concept just fine.

I think you're overreacting a bit, it does exactly what polearm master does, gives you a bonus action attack that deals 1d4.

I dont think the intention was to make a melee/ranged style, I think it was intended to make using a single hand crossbow more viable.

[stoutstien]

I think you're overreacting a bit, it does exactly what polearm master does, gives you a bonus action attack that deals 1d4.

I dont think the intention was to make a melee/ranged style, I think it was intended to make using a single hand crossbow more viable.

It's probably not out of line but it does fall on the upper curve due to being the only way to guarantee adding the -/+ of SS to a bonus action attack.

As for the OP, a pure battle smith or one with a dash of fighter would work well for this concept. Artificer is reasonably SaD so it frees up ASIs early on and prevents the need for a lot of DM fiat to work.

[quindraco]

Hi everyone

So to get this out of the way: I know this is never going to be optimal and probably requires feats and dips for no good reason, but I just find the idea of a swashbuckler in melee who uses a rapier (or other elegant weapon) in the main hand and some type of ranged weapon like a hand crossbow or a firearm at the same time just so damn cool.

Therefore I wanted to ask how you would go on about creating a character that could do that and maybe even be good at it.

So it seems to me Crossbow Expert and Artificer 2 to get the Repeating Shot infusion is necessary to get this at least somewhat workable. And maybe some DM help. But what are your thought? What would you take as the main "chassis" for the thing? A Rogue? Battlemaster? Or Artificer all the way?

Any ideas how to get this halfway decent welcome. I have no major ideas for this character yet besides this fighting style...

You don't need Artificer, you just need to be willing to look stupid. You can always drop your rapier as a non-action, do your hand crossbow attacks, and then pick up your rapier using your 1/turn free Use an Object, performing your rapier attacks before or after your hand crossbow attacks (or not at all). What you need Artificer for is shield and hand crossbow.

The challenge with this fighting loadout is that 5E's various feats, fighting styles, etc are built around choosing between ranged and melee and leaning into that choice. Trying to be good at both will make you a jack of all trades, master of none - which, like in any ttrpg ever made, makes you bad at both, since they're designed for PCs to find niches to fill and shine in them, so an adventuring party can happen where different players are in the spotlight at different times.

The basics of being good with a hand crossbow or pistol are crossbow expert or gunner and sharpshooter, which are feats, so they can be shoehorned into any other build - it's just that fighters and rogues get additional feats. Being good with a rapier is a good deal harder, because the melee version of that combo is great weapon master and polearm master - which requires a very short list of melee weapons. Doing it without feats means finding another source of melee DPR. Of course, doing it with feats would mean delaying being any good for many levels - even requiring two feats already means an L4 VHuman/TCL or an L6 Fighter or an L8 someone.

There are four good sources of melee DPR I know of with a rapier, at least one of which has already been mentioned in this thread: barbarian rage/reckless, paladin smite, rogue sneak attack, and booming blade. Of the four, booming blade and rogue sneak attack are far more intertwined with the rapier - the barbarian and paladin abilities work with GM/PAM and hence are better with them. BB+GWM/PAM requires War Caster (you would do it by dropping the hand crossbow during the stab), and it's impossible to combine GWM/PAM with Sneak Attack.

There are basically two particularly good ways I know of to combine these, based on whether you want to pursue INT or CHA:
CHA: Swashbuckler + Genielock or Arcane Trickster + Genielock (ATs don't need INT - they can build around statless spells, it just makes their L9 ability worse); both Genielocks are Dao, and eventually you want the Crusher feat, although it's far from top priority.
INT: Arcane Trickster + Bladesinger (and possibly an Artificer dip, but as I said, you don't need one)

There are important differences between these playstyles, so you should consider which appeals to you more.

[Selion]

I think you're overreacting a bit, it does exactly what polearm master does, gives you a bonus action attack that deals 1d4.

I dont think the intention was to make a melee/ranged style, I think it was intended to make using a single hand crossbow more viable.

It's not about power, it's that the RAW differs too much from RAI and this has been exploited in a anti-narrative way.
There is no reason why a hand crossbow should have a fire rating higher than a shortbow, the only reason this kind of builds even exists is because a bug in the rules that has been approved by the developers.
If the feat had granted a bonus attack triggered by bonus action with ranged weapons, just as polearm master does, i wouldn't have said a word. In fact I have nothing against PAM on a narrative perspective.
"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."
The wording here refers to a generic "one handed weapon", if the intent was just allowing multiple attacks with hand crossbows they wouldn't have written the feat this way.

Now, OT, it's not possible building a rapier and crossbow character by RAW.

[Quietus]

You would 100% have to use Crossbow expert to make this work. For one, you're going to be within 5 feet of a target super often, so you want to negate that disadvantage. More importantly, you can't use two weapon fighting to attack with a crossbow, your offhand must be a melee weapon as well :


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 of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

With that in mind... I might consider that Fey Wanderer Ranger? The major advantage of having that crossbow attack is that you aren't limited to hitting the person in front of you. Fey Wanderer encourages you to attack different targets, and gives a small damage bump on each. Could be used as either a three level dip to spread that 1d4 around, or lean into it if the rest of the Ranger package appeals to you. I would encourage you to take the Favored Foe option from Tasha's, to apply another small damage bump. By level 4 (or 3 if you're vhuman) you can have crossbow expert and be attacking your main target with a rapier for 1d8+dex+1d4 psychic, a secondary target with your crossbow for 1d6+dex+1d4, and twice per long rest, apply a bonus 1d4 action-free to either of those, though this costs concentration. As you level up, you get that slight bump more frequently.

[chainer1216]

It's not about power, it's that the RAW differs too much from RAI and this has been exploited in a anti-narrative way.
There is no reason why a hand crossbow should have a fire rating higher than a shortbow, the only reason this kind of builds even exists is because a bug in the rules that has been approved by the developers.
If the feat had granted a bonus attack triggered by bonus action with ranged weapons, just as polearm master does, i wouldn't have said a word. In fact I have nothing against PAM on a narrative perspective.
"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."
The wording here refers to a generic "one handed weapon", if the intent was just allowing multiple attacks with hand crossbows they wouldn't have written the feat this way.

Now, OT, it's not possible building a rapier and crossbow character by RAW.

You dont get to decide what RAI is, if they intended a melee/ranged style they would have said "a one handed melee weapon" so they deliberately let the feat be used as a hand crossbow only thing.

[Keravath]

Any artificer with the repeating shot infusion will work to hold and use both weapons.

You will need the Cross bow expert feat in order to shoot the cross bow as a bonus action since it does not qualify for two weapon fighting.

Variant human Artificer - Cross bow expert feat to start at level 1 - by level 2 with the Repeating Shot infusion they can hold the cross bow in one hand and a rapier in the other and can make attacks with both.

You might also be able to do it by juggling weapons, dropping and picking up your rapier each turn while shooting the crossbow as a bonus action but it probably isn't the look you were looking for.

Also, keep in mind that without the dual wielder feat, you won't be able to draw both the rapier and the hand crossbow on the same turn. It is one weapon/turn you can pull as part of your weapon attack (using your object interaction) - if you want to use two the you need to use your action to pull out both or have the dual wielder feat. This also means that the drop/pick up approach doesn't work on the first round of combat since you have already used your object interaction to draw the weapon - you don't have another object interaction to pick it up after you drop it.

[Lunali]

The artificer repeating shot doesn't remove the ammunition property, it just creates the ammunition for you. This means that you technically still need a free hand to load the weapon.

It is entirely possible that your DM will not realize this fact. Even if they do, (or if you tell them) it is reasonably likely that you will be able to convince them to waive this requirement. That said, by RAW it still needs to be loaded with the other hand, which presumably means the ammunition is created in the other hand instead of inside the weapon.

[stoutstien]

The artificer repeating shot doesn't remove the ammunition property, it just creates the ammunition for you. This means that you technically still need a free hand to load the weapon.

It is entirely possible that your DM will not realize this fact. Even if they do, (or if you tell them) it is reasonably likely that you will be able to convince them to waive this requirement. That said, by RAW it still needs to be loaded with the other hand, which presumably means the ammunition is created in the other hand instead of inside the weapon.

The second part address that. The ammo is created once you attack so it bypasses the whole mess. Been verified as RAI as well.

[Hytheter]

I
This is complete bull-:smallannoyed: IMHO, the feat has obviously been written to allow a crossbow and rapier style, but it has been written so bad it fails in its intent and becomes overpowered for a second illogical reason.


You know what, I think you're right, actually. But we'll never hear that from the developers.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Alternate non-Artificer workaround, rather than repeatedly dropping and picking up your rapier: have a bandoleer of pre-loaded hand crossbows. Draw a new one every round w/ the free object interaction, and drop upon use to free up the hand for the next round. Sure, it's more expensive at lower levels, but it also capitalizes on the hand crossbow's single-shot weapon aesthetic.

[Floogal]

If you try the bandoleer of pre-loaded hand crossbows option, consider going Kensei Monk, choosing rapier and hand-crossbow as your Kensei weapons. It means that at level 6+, every hand-crossbow (and rapier) you use will count as being a magic weapon.

[JackPhoenix]

Alternate non-Artificer workaround, rather than repeatedly dropping and picking up your rapier: have a bandoleer of pre-loaded hand crossbows. Draw a new one every round w/ the free object interaction, and drop upon use to free up the hand for the next round. Sure, it's more expensive at lower levels, but it also capitalizes on the hand crossbow's single-shot weapon aesthetic.

Works with a gun, not with a crossbow. The shape is too awkward to be stacked in a bandoleer (thanks to the limbs). And you can't keep a crossbow loaded for extended period of time if you don't want it to lose its draw.

[Catullus64]

There's a relatively easy solution to the problem of the Ammunition property; just carry numerous hand crossbows/pistols. Sure, you might occasionally have to put down your sword to reload them, but that'll only come up in very long combats. It's not cheap by any means, at least not in the lower levels (Hand Crossbows cost 75 GP apiece, and whatever system your DM might have for firearms is probably more) but that's pretty small change at higher levels.

Single-classed swashbuckler is probably the ticket here; Fancy Footwork means your Bonus Action is going to be less busy than other Rogues, making the Crossbow Expert attack work in nicely; and it's always good to have an extra chance to land that round's Sneak Attack.

Fighter is also not a bad choice here, though Fighting Style gets a little weird here; having the hand crossbow in your offhand disqualifies you for Dueling, so you'll probably want Archery, Defense, or Blind Fighting. Crossbow Expert is still a good choice, though my preference would be to pick up Mobile as well; that way you can stab, move, and then shoot.

A war cleric can also do this reasonably well, with the Bonus Action attacks from War Priest. Sounds like an Old West traveling preacher-gunslinger.

[Vegan Squirrel]

Just want to chime in that I think the RAI and RAW of crossbow expert are in alignment. Like most 5e feats, it provides several benefits in a single package. It seems they wanted to provide an option for using ranged weapons in melee without a penalty, and they also wanted to provide an option for firing crossbows more quickly. By adding the hand crossbow bonus action, they also give you a way to focus on the hand crossbow without losing out on damage, since you can fire it an extra time. Then they expanded that option to add a very limited dual wield option, so you can more seamlessly switch weapons. I see no reason to think they intended to remove the ammunition property, because it wouldn't make sense to fire it again if you physically can't reload it. But now a loaded hand crossbow can be used more like a thrown dagger, as a one-shot off hand attack.

[Wasp]

Thank you all for the feedback! So many great ideas!



There are basically two particularly good ways I know of to combine these, based on whether you want to pursue INT or CHA:
CHA: Swashbuckler + Genielock or Arcane Trickster + Genielock (ATs don't need INT - they can build around statless spells, it just makes their L9 ability worse); both Genielocks are Dao, and eventually you want the Crusher feat, although it's far from top priority.
INT: Arcane Trickster + Bladesinger (and possibly an Artificer dip, but as I said, you don't need one)

There are important differences between these playstyles, so you should consider which appeals to you more.

Thanks! I really like the Arcane Trickster/Bladesinger/Artificer idea - maybe you don't get the higher level spells and it seems rather difficult to build, but I kinda find the idea of a Rogue that uses a very Elven thing like Bladesinger magic with the Artificer Technology - someone in both worlds. It kind of triggers all sorts of ideas! Thanks for that!


ow, OT, it's not possible building a rapier and crossbow character by RAW.

The artificer repeating shot doesn't remove the ammunition property, it just creates the ammunition for you. This means that you technically still need a free hand to load the weapon.
Are you really sure that Crossbow expert with a repeating shot hand crossbow in one hand and a melee weapon in the other doesn't work? Because I can't really follow you there?


With that in mind... I might consider that Fey Wanderer Ranger? The major advantage of having that crossbow attack is that you aren't limited to hitting the person in front of you. Fey Wanderer encourages you to attack different targets, and gives a small damage bump on each. Could be used as either a three level dip to spread that 1d4 around, or lean into it if the rest of the Ranger package appeals to you. I would encourage you to take the Favored Foe option from Tasha's, to apply another small damage bump.
That sounds like another fun way to go. I really need to explore that!


Alternate non-Artificer workaround, rather than repeatedly dropping and picking up your rapier: have a bandoleer of pre-loaded hand crossbows. Draw a new one every round w/ the free object interaction, and drop upon use to free up the hand for the next round. Sure, it's more expensive at lower levels, but it also capitalizes on the hand crossbow's single-shot weapon aesthetic.
I like that as well. It really fits the flair even if it sounds a tad impractical...


Works with a gun, not with a crossbow. The shape is too awkward to be stacked in a bandoleer (thanks to the limbs). And you can't keep a crossbow loaded for extended period of time if you don't want it to lose its draw.
Damn. Maybe Rule of Cool?


war cleric can also do this reasonably well, with the Bonus Action attacks from War Priest. Sounds like an Old West traveling preacher-gunslinger.
Man! I like this concept as well!

Great. Now I have so many cool competing ideas swirling around my head.

[Evaar]

Are you really sure that Crossbow expert with a repeating shot hand crossbow in one hand and a melee weapon in the other doesn't work? Because I can't really follow you there?

Repeating Shot removes the Loading property and creates ammunition for you. I don't see any reason to think it requires a free hand. You don't have to load it, and you don't have to get ammo for it.

[quindraco]

The artificer repeating shot doesn't remove the ammunition property, it just creates the ammunition for you. This means that you technically still need a free hand to load the weapon.

It is entirely possible that your DM will not realize this fact. Even if they do, (or if you tell them) it is reasonably likely that you will be able to convince them to waive this requirement. That said, by RAW it still needs to be loaded with the other hand, which presumably means the ammunition is created in the other hand instead of inside the weapon.

Repeating shot doesn't just create the ammo, it loads the ammo - functionally speaking, repeating shot lets you ignore both loading and ammunition (except that ammunition is used to express a weapon's range increments, and repeating shot has no interaction with range increments).

[hitchhike79]

I will forever find it HILARIOUS that in a fantasy game, where we can do some pretty batcrap crazy things.... you guys get stuck on the loading properties of a hand crossbow.
Its impossible, it cannot be done, RAI, RAW....blah blah blah.
Time to just let it go and give in to the idea that its for fun.

If your going to argue with me, you better be prepared to tell me how fast you can chug a potion because medicine doesn't go down easy and your not chugging your robitussin in 6 seconds.

[Vegan Squirrel]

I mean, I could accept a repeating crossbow with bolts pre-loaded for rapid firing just fine, but it would be a different piece of equipment. The game part has to represent something real in the world, and the standard crossbow in the world isn't enchanted to load itself. But there's no reason you can't find or commission such an enchanted crossbow, and it would be a nice boon.

I'd also allow you to reload a hand crossbow with your shield hand, assuming your shield is strapped to your forearm anyway. That's more believable than reloading while holding a sword.

[Man_Over_Game]

Anyone wanna talk about the fact that rapiers aren't light weapons? So add Dual Wielder to the list of useless BS that has to go into this build.

What's funny is that you can't even technically use dual wield rules with a crossbow-it's limited to melee weapons only.

Best-case scenario, you ask your DM for a little extra mercy to let you use the DW rules with the crossbow, go Artificer, and reskin a dagger as a Rapier. That'll give you everything you're looking for without too much hassle.

[Selion]

I mean, I could accept a repeating crossbow with bolts pre-loaded for rapid firing just fine, but it would be a different piece of equipment. The game part has to represent something real in the world, and the standard crossbow in the world isn't enchanted to load itself. But there's no reason you can't find or commission such an enchanted crossbow, and it would be a nice boon.

I'd also allow you to reload a hand crossbow with your shield hand, assuming your shield is strapped to your forearm anyway. That's more believable than reloading while holding a sword.

Would unseen servant work for reloading?

[chainer1216]

Anyone wanna talk about the fact that rapiers aren't light weapons?

Irl rapiers are some of the heaviest 1h swords out there.

[Vegan Squirrel]

Anyone wanna talk about the fact that rapiers aren't light weapons? So add Dual Wielder to the list of useless BS that has to go into this build.

What's funny is that you can't even technically use dual wield rules with a crossbow-it's limited to melee weapons only.

You can't use two-weapon fighting, but if you're using crossbow expert for the bonus action attack, then it doesn't matter whether your one-handed weapon is light or not.


Would unseen servant work for reloading?

I could see that working. It's a little tricky to coordinate, but for the cost of a 1st level spell with 1 hit point, it doesn't seem overpowered to allow it to work.

[Lunali]

Repeating shot doesn't just create the ammo, it loads the ammo - functionally speaking, repeating shot lets you ignore both loading and ammunition (except that ammunition is used to express a weapon's range increments, and repeating shot has no interaction with range increments).

A lot of people have said this, but it isn't in the text. A reasonable person will likely decide that off hand requirement is gone, it would not surprise me if the intent of the enchantment was to remove the requirement. The fact remains that the enchantment as written doesn't allow you to ignore the ammunition tag, which means you still need an off hand to load the weapon.

[Wasp]

What do you all think of adding something like this to the Arcane Trickster's Mage Hand Legerdemain:

You can use the hand as part of an attack action to reload a weapon with the ammunition property. This means you do not need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon. You cannot use the hand for anything else until your next turn.

[Selion]

Btw, a mechanical way to load a hand crossbow with one hand is at least possible: belt hooks.
https://www.benjaminrose.com/post/fast-archery-techniques-part-3-the-crossbow/

You pull the crossbow string hooking it at your belt, when the string has been fixed, you leave briefly the crossbow hanged to the hooks, take a bolt and load the crossbow.

Hand crossbows are supposed to not requiring a lot of strength to be pulled, i think that this method could be used, especially in a system in which it's possible to fire 4 arrows in 6 seconds with a bow (or even 8 times at high levels with action purge)

[stoutstien]

Anyone wanna talk about the fact that rapiers aren't light weapons? So add Dual Wielder to the list of useless BS that has to go into this build.

What's funny is that you can't even technically use dual wield rules with a crossbow-it's limited to melee weapons only.

Best-case scenario, you ask your DM for a little extra mercy to let you use the DW rules with the crossbow, go Artificer, and reskin a dagger as a Rapier. That'll give you everything you're looking for without too much hassle.

Crossbow expert is a new condition for allowing a bonus action attack with a hand crossbow so the twf rules don't apply. As long as the PC takes the attack action with a one handed weapon while wielding the hand crossbow its fair game. Same reason the bonus attack gets their ability modifier added to it.

[quindraco]

A lot of people have said this, but it isn't in the text. A reasonable person will likely decide that off hand requirement is gone, it would not surprise me if the intent of the enchantment was to remove the requirement. The fact remains that the enchantment as written doesn't allow you to ignore the ammunition tag, which means you still need an off hand to load the weapon.

"If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."

Where are you postulating the ammunition appears, if not inside the weapon? At the wielder's feet?

[Lunali]

"If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."

Where are you postulating the ammunition appears, if not inside the weapon? At the wielder's feet?

Since you still need a free hand to load the ammunition, I would assume it appears in the free hand. Though if I were DM in this particular game, I would change the rule to have the ammunition appear loaded in the weapon since that makes far more sense, it just isn't RAW.

[stoutstien]

Since you still need a free hand to load the ammunition, I would assume it appears in the free hand. Though if I were DM in this particular game, I would change the rule to have the ammunition appear loaded in the weapon since that makes far more sense, it just isn't RAW.

The infusion says it creates it's own ammo. If it's not created inside/on the weapon it not reasonably the weapons ammo. It is also created when the attack is made not before.

[Lunali]

The infusion says it creates it's own ammo. If it's not created inside/on the weapon it not reasonably the weapons ammo. It is also created when the attack is made not before.

You can also draw ammunition when the attack is made as part of the ammunition property so that's not particularly compelling.

I'm not saying it isn't stupid that it doesn't remove the off hand requirement. I'm just saying that it doesn't.

[OvisCaedo]

Of course, loading a crossbow isn't just a matter of putting ammo on/in it, you need to actually pull the string back too. Which is... again, PROBABLY something the enchantment is intended to eliminate needing a free hand for, but do they actually say anything about it in the text? I don't have it in front of me and am not sure if the quoted ammo-creation portion is the only thing it says. Although, I don't think the PHB ever says that this is how a crossbow works, either...

In fact, if you go deep into silly "it doesn't say this", nothing about firing a bow says you nock the arrow, either, just that you need to draw it from a quiver and that the ammo is expended. though i have a very ancient PHB pdf so it could be something they changed language on at some point.

[Valmark]

I was so sure you could just use a feat but turns out the Artificer feat is the only one that doesn't give you a tiny version of one of their signature features (unlike the Metamagic and Invocation ones).

Given that I'd say carrying multiple hand crossbows is your best bet if you got enough money- unless your DM is a stickler for tracking down how you're carrying stuff. Luckily I haven't had any DM like that.

Alternatively you'll need that Artificer dip, unfortunately.


Since you still need a free hand to load the ammunition, I would assume it appears in the free hand. Though if I were DM in this particular game, I would change the rule to have the ammunition appear loaded in the weapon since that makes far more sense, it just isn't RAW.

Given the fact that the ammunition is explicitely produced when you are attacking after not having loaded it makes no sense that you'd require a free hand to load it.

It explicitely produces one when you don't load it.

Regardless of the specific reading, RAW also doesn't say that the ammunition isn't automatically loaded into the weapon- you're free to read it either way but you can't claim that it isn't RAW because there's no statement that says that the ammunition isn't automatically loaded, just like there's no statement that the ammunition is automatically loaded.

[Lunali]

Regardless of the specific reading, RAW also doesn't say that the ammunition isn't automatically loaded into the weapon- you're free to read it either way but you can't claim that it isn't RAW because there's no statement that says that the ammunition isn't automatically loaded, just like there's no statement that the ammunition is automatically loaded.

RAW, the weapon has the ammunition tag, which means you have to load ammunition into it when you attack. Absent a specific exception to that, the general rule on ammunition applies.

[Evaar]

RAW, the weapon has the ammunition tag, which means you have to load ammunition into it when you attack. Absent a specific exception to that, the general rule on ammunition applies.


If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own

I'm not sure how it could get more specific.

[Talionis]

Just want to chime in that I think the RAI and RAW of crossbow expert are in alignment. Like most 5e feats, it provides several benefits in a single package. It seems they wanted to provide an option for using ranged weapons in melee without a penalty, and they also wanted to provide an option for firing crossbows more quickly. By adding the hand crossbow bonus action, they also give you a way to focus on the hand crossbow without losing out on damage, since you can fire it an extra time. Then they expanded that option to add a very limited dual wield option, so you can more seamlessly switch weapons. I see no reason to think they intended to remove the ammunition property, because it wouldn't make sense to fire it again if you physically can't reload it. But now a loaded hand crossbow can be used more like a thrown dagger, as a one-shot off hand attack.

I think it’s clear that they meant to remove both loading and ammunition with the crossbow expert feat. It would have been much easier to simply talk about an extra attack with the same crossbow similar to how polearm master works. Instead the crossbow feat talks vaguely about the crossbow being in the off hand, clearly allowing for weapons other than the crossbow.

[Vegan Squirrel]

I think it’s clear that they meant to remove both loading and ammunition with the crossbow expert feat. It would have been much easier to simply talk about an extra attack with the same crossbow similar to how polearm master works. Instead the crossbow feat talks vaguely about the crossbow being in the off hand, clearly allowing for weapons other than the crossbow.

Then why use the word "loaded," if it was a mistake? That seems like a very deliberate word choice, and there's no reason they would have included that word if they meant to remove the ammunition property. If they removed the ammunition property, then it wouldn't matter whether the crossbow was loaded or not; it only matters because they deliberately kept the ammunition property intact.

[Lavaeolus]

I can't ever guarantee RAI, but my thoughts. When Crossbow Expert was first published, its third benefit read:

When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.

The loaded part was removed in errata, of course. That's an odd little detail if it was originally meant to be done with a single hand-crossbow, isn't it? 5e doesn't really have a concept of preloading a weapon, so I assume that was just sort of a flavour justification; you'd hit someone with a sword or whatever, then quickly fire off a shot because your character had already loaded the crossbow. It doesn't really make any sense if both shots were done with the same crossbow, since a crossbow you've just fired is pretty obviously not loaded, both mechanically and in narrative.

Still not great wording if that was the original intent, of course, since as said preloading isn't ever something the game mentions or alludes to.

But the feat was messy and getting to fire a ranged weapon in melee after hitting someone with a melee weapon is already situational. So, if the feat was going to be altered anyway over confusions about crossbows being "loaded", they decided getting two crossbow shots was more appealing or maybe they decided it was a more natural benefit from a feat called "Crossbow Expert"; but the original more general "one-handed weapon" wording got left in, grandfathered.

[Vegan Squirrel]

The loaded part was removed in errata, of course.

Whoa. I thought I'd marked all the errata into my PHB, but that's the first I've ever heard of this instance of errata. That changes things.

I'd always read it that, since you can load an ammunition weapon as a free action while firing it, you could load the weapon freely in order for it to be loaded for the bonus action attack (presuming you had the free hand to do so). A little bit of quantum logic, maybe, but it made enough sense to me. Hardly the most egregious example of poor wording in the core rules.

If it doesn't have to be loaded, though, but they didn't errata it to mention the ammunition property or free hand requirement, I haven't the slightest idea what the RAI is any more. If they felt that the word "loaded" was a problem, there's no plausible way they didn't think about whether the ammunition property or the free hand requirement still applied. Removing the one word without addressing the more confusing question only obfuscates their intention, rather than clarifying it.

Also, I stand by my earlier comment, pre-errata: there's no way they accidentally used the word "loaded." It's not a word that would naturally appear in that sentence; it needed to be added deliberately. But then they removed it just as deliberately in the errata, as if that would clarify something. I can only imagine the RAI is to let each table play by different rulings on what the feat allows, since all the errata accomplishes is to make it easier to disagree on what the feat means.

[Evaar]

I think it’s clear that they meant to remove both loading and ammunition with the crossbow expert feat. It would have been much easier to simply talk about an extra attack with the same crossbow similar to how polearm master works. Instead the crossbow feat talks vaguely about the crossbow being in the off hand, clearly allowing for weapons other than the crossbow.

I agree with you. In fact, I specifically think it was intended to allow the Drow Dread Fang paragon path from 4e to work in 5e.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Dread_fang

However, I don’t think that intent was communicated well internally so we ended up with rapid firing hand crossbows instead. But Rapier and Hand Crossbow is an iconic weapon combination from earlier editions and Drow lore, it makes sense they’d want to enable that. Except it doesn’t actually do that.

One day I’ll collect all my complaints about mechanics that fail to realize the fantasy they’re meant to enable.