The Devout and the Dead: a guide to Clerics

[Sno]

How would a Life-Cleric going ranger work? I was thinking about a Life cleric 5, then 5 levels of ranger, before continuing cleric. So, if it ever gets to 20, it would be Life Cleric 15/Gloomstalker 5.

Personally, I think this is an amazing combo, as you get some sweet spells from Ranger, namely Healing Spirit, Goodberry, Absorb Elements, and Pass without Trace. You also get a second attack, which makes you respective in melee, especially on the first round (gloomstalker). The loss of casting levels and such is not as dire as one can assume, as many of the best level cleric spells can be upcast to almost the same efficiency as the higher-level spells. Looking at you Spirit Guardian. Gloom Stalker grants a lot of goodies that is awesome for a cleric, (better initiative, better darksight, and so forth).

Personally, I think this is an excellent support character who can tank well, thanks to being a life-cleric and heavy Armor, heal amazingly with some sweet spells that synergies great great… GREAT with disciple of life, and does some melee damage too (with some luck you find gauntlets of ogre power, or just use your dex 14 with a rapier), so not useless when conserving resources. Also, importantly, it works at all levels, and does especially good in dark adventures like mad mage or into the abyss, thanks to the darkness and Gloomstalker synergy.

What do you guys think about this combo?

[Yorrin]

Life Cleric 15/Gloomstalker 5

Sounds like a great build. Gloomstalker has lots of nice bells and whistles that splash well, and going all the way to five makes you very versatile.

If you're trying to be serious about melee then magic initiate for shillelagh could get you a wis based attack, and if you're REALLY serious about it shillelagh is compatible with polearm master. Makes the build pretty tight for feats, as you'll also probably be looking for warcaster and possibly resilient: con, all of which make variant human an attractive option.

[Dudu]

I like that Gloomstalker/Life Cleric combo

Question is: How would you progress?

I was thinking
1 Gloomstalker - get martial wpn proficiency and ranger spells
2 Life Cleric - heavy armor, cleric spells, bonus to healing
3 Gloomstalker
4 Gloomstalker - subclass features
5 Gloomstalker
6 Gloomstalker - extra attack
7... Life Cleric

[Sno]

I like that Gloomstalker/Life Cleric combo

Question is: How would you progress?

I was thinking Cleric 5 to begin with, reason being that getting those 3rd levels spells is really important. You thus start out with the standard cleric tool kit which is awesome. Unlike the wizard, I think that clerics has the most impact with his spells early on, with exception of course, and thus suffer less from lower levels spells. As said, casting lower level spells at a higher level is often the best option. I don't think he suffer too much from multiclassing into a ranger, and you get great things at every level with exception of the first level of ranger (precious spells like absorb elements, goodberry, healing spirit, and pass without trace, Defensive Fighting Style, Gloomstalker goodies, a feat, extra attack). Ranger beyond level 5 don't grant that much in my opinion, and thus going further is not needed.

I could also add that wisdom save is more important than ref save, and that is another reason starting a cleric, especially you want resilient (con). You get the same proficiency, as multiclassing into ranger grants you that one extra skill, and martial weapon prof anyway. What you loose, is just 2 Hit points from the starting hit points. Also, ranger 5 to begin with also suffer from the fact that your attacking stat (dex or maybe str), ain't as high, and I feel that a Life Cleric 5/ranger 2, works much better than say a Ranger 5/Life Cleric 2. I thus think starting cleric is the best option.

With this, you have a Life Cleric 5/Gloomstalker 5, and you heal just as well, if not better than an ordinary life cleric, at least in between combat (goodberry, healing spirit). You now just continue cleric, and you get really tanky with all the healing, high armor class, and can conserve you're spells more thanks to decent melee abilities.

I think the build works great at ALL levels tbh, and that is important in actual play.

[Lyracian]

Yorrin,
If you have not noticed TinyPic is shutting down so all your nice pictures in the guide have disappeared. You still have a week if you want to download them and put them else where.

[Yorrin]

Yorrin,
If you have not noticed TinyPic is shutting down so all your nice pictures in the guide have disappeared. You still have a week if you want to download them and put them else where.

Thanks for the heads up. Should have time to fix it tomorrow.

[Yorrin]

Thanks for the heads up. Should have time to fix it tomorrow.

Everything should be fixed now. Hopefully google photos doesn't decide to discontinue service before 6e comes out

[Leviatana]

Yorrin,

I really like your guide and been using it for the past week or so as I have been brainstorming my light domain cleric but perhaps you can help me take the following into consideration. I intend to play a variant human in Curse of Strahd.

We're using a custom point buy system. We have 30 available points, max 16, min 6 and 16 attribute is down to 10 point cost.

My current stats I'm considering is 10 str, 14 dex, 13 con, 12 int, 16 wis, 10 cha
I would bump the wis and con up with the variant stat to 14 and 17 respectively.
I then figured Observant might be nice for the added wisdom and perception/investigation and the ability to read mouths but I seen you also mention War Caster been nice even if you're not in melee range (which I originally felt like this was for)

Do you think it's worth switching up to 17 wis and grabbing War Caster instead or by chance grab War Caster/another feat (with +1 wis) on level 8. I honestly have a really hard time now deciding on what would be the best option here.

Our team is Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, Warlock and me (Cleric) if that matters.

Any help would be appreciated, thank you in advance!

[Yorrin]

Yorrin,

I really like your guide and been using it for the past week or so as I have been brainstorming my light domain cleric but perhaps you can help me take the following into consideration. I intend to play a variant human in Curse of Strahd.

We're using a custom point buy system. We have 30 available points, max 16, min 6 and 16 attribute is down to 10 point cost.

My current stats I'm considering is 10 str, 14 dex, 13 con, 12 int, 16 wis, 10 cha
I would bump the wis and con up with the variant stat to 14 and 17 respectively.
I then figured Observant might be nice for the added wisdom and perception/investigation and the ability to read mouths but I seen you also mention War Caster been nice even if you're not in melee range (which I originally felt like this was for)

Do you think it's worth switching up to 17 wis and grabbing War Caster instead or by chance grab War Caster/another feat (with +1 wis) on level 8. I honestly have a really hard time now deciding on what would be the best option here.

Our team is Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, Warlock and me (Cleric) if that matters.

Any help would be appreciated, thank you in advance!

Both are solid choices. I think I would go for the 18 with observant and save Warcaster for next time. The reason is that Concentration checks are super easy at very low levels and as a light cleric you probably aren't holding a weapon most rounds so your casting wont be heavily impacted by somatic components. The +1 to spell attacks and spell DCs (and healing) will be much more impactful at low levels and the passive perception/investigation, depending on your DM, might be huge.

[Lyracian]

Everything should be fixed now. Hopefully google photos doesn't decide to discontinue service before 6e comes out

All I get now is a "no Entry" sign but still no pictures.

[Leviatana]

Both are solid choices. I think I would go for the 18 with observant and save Warcaster for next time. The reason is that Concentration checks are super easy at very low levels and as a light cleric you probably aren't holding a weapon most rounds so your casting wont be heavily impacted by somatic components. The +1 to spell attacks and spell DCs (and healing) will be much more impactful at low levels and the passive perception/investigation, depending on your DM, might be huge.

Thank you, i'll keep my original thoughts than and pick it up if/when I reach level 8. I was intending to make a bit more of a ranged cleric so that fits the bill. I think the passive perception/investigation would be quite helpful due to being more roleplay based and backstory related but War Caster did start to sound more useful even for ranged after reading through your guide so thank you for that!

[Yorrin]

All I get now is a "no Entry" sign but still no pictures.

That's weird. It's working on my end.

Anybody else having problems with the pictures?

[Arkhios]

That's weird. It's working on my end.

Anybody else having problems with the pictures?

Yeah, I don't see even the picture slots. Just empty space where should be a picture.

It might be that the website/hub you're using to host the pictures doesn't meet the forum standards, or it might be "region sensitive". For example, I live in Finland, and some foreign websites simply don't work here (not because Finland was censoring anything, but rather because there might be copyright issues).

[Yorrin]

Yeah, I don't see even the picture slots. Just empty space where should be a picture.

It might be that the website/hub you're using to host the pictures doesn't meet the forum standards, or it might be "region sensitive". For example, I live in Finland, and some foreign websites simply don't work here (not because Finland was censoring anything, but rather because there might be copyright issues).

Well dang. Anyone know of some good picture hosting sites that work internationally?

[Lyracian]

Well dang. Anyone know of some good picture hosting sites that work internationally?

No. For my blog I mostly link to DeviantArt and add the image credits. There are certainly some decent Cleric pictures there.

[Waazraath]

Reading through the guide again, now that it was recently front page again, I have to admit I have troubles understanding some of the ratings, mainly regarding races.

I mean, I understand a rating like this is mostly ‘gut feeling’ and a lot of subjectiveness is involved. But even then, I can’t comprehend why some races got the rating they got, or how races are evaluated between each other (races that are strong imo are rated lower than weak races).

To give some info on how I evaluate races: one of the most important things are ability scores. For clerics, Wis deceides among others the save DC, number of spells prepared, spell attack rolls, and the number/day that special abilities can be used. Even for melee clerics, that also want a high Str or Dex, Wis is massively important for damage (spiritual weapon, spirit guardians). Bonusses to secondary or tertiary scores (dex/str for melee clerics, con for any cleric) are also important, but less than Wis.

Related to the scores (amazing, good, decent, bad, horrible): for me, that means that a race that has relevant ability score modifiers should be at least decent, and a whole way up to ‘good’. Best example is the standard human: you can start with 16 wis and 16 con (for a non melee cleric); that’s really nice, even though it gets almost nothing in addition. So for me, this seems to be borderline decent / good. Other racial abilities might lift a race up further (or bring it down), according to their usefulness.

With this in mind, the following:

• Standard human is ‘good’, with a few +1’s to relevant ability scores and a number of other +1’s on non-relevant scores. That’s good for a benchmark.
• How can Half-Elf be only decent, then? Cause it has two free +1’s, to spend on the most relevant stats, and a +2 on a not relevant one…. If we consider 4x +1 aproximately equal to +1 +1 +2, than human has two +1’s left, of which 1 or 2 are prolly wasted because they have to be added to an even score, while Half-Elf has two skills, and darkvision, and resistance to charm/sleep. A lot better in my book (so either good or amazing, according to this scale).
• Drow is rated as decent as well. While it has ability bonuses on a dump stat, and a stat that might be secondary in specific builds. It has a few nice abilities (like keen senses, darkvision 120ft, drow magic) but also sunlight sensitivity, which is a big penalty. That’s not decent, that’s trash, for the general Cleric build, even for dex builds I wouldn’t go above ‘bad’. In no way can I see it being on par with Half-Elf, which is rated the same!
• Dragonborn is rated as decent, and again, at best it has a bonus to a secondary stat and a dump stat. It’s other racial features are extremely limited (a weak breath weapon 1/rest and an elemental resistance), widely considered to be underpowered compared to what other races get in addition to their stat modifiers. Again, either horrible or just bad, and uncomparable with Half-Elf.
• Half-Orc is rated good, but I’d say that only goes for Str builds. Stats are better than either Dragonborn or Drow, because con is always relevant, and there are builds that rely on strength. But still, decent at best in general, cause it misses out on wisdom, and the other racial abilities aren’t that great. Same goes for Mountain Dwarf btw: maybe good, but only for Str builds.
• Aaracocra: though I understand why it would be amazing, I think It’s a bit DM dependent, for how / where are you gonna find that armor that accomdates your wings?
• Genasi (all exept water): this is a very mediocre race regarding additional abilities, and doesn’t have the primary stat bump. That’s not decent, but bad.
• Duergar: with sunlight sensitivity and no wis bonus (and not that many other interesting abilities), they are terribad I’d say.
• Half-Elf variant: good, at least, just as it’s normal version, but maybe even amazing for melee Clerics, since they can trade skills for Booming Blade. For that cantrip, it really doesn’t matter it is Int-based (like the guide says is a disadvantage). And hella flavorful and useful for Tempest clerics (who can maximize the damage, and have a class feature that can move an enemy around when hit).
• Protector Aasimar: could be amazing as well: primary stat boost, and a great package of other useful abilities.
• Firbolg… here I’m flabbergasted. It. Is. Amazing! +2 wis is fantastic, and +str makes it even better for str builds. Its features aren’t lacking, but great. Firbolg Magic allows either utility (like magical trap finding), or participation in social stuff (infiltration) that a cleric normally could not participate in. Very powerful. And Hidden step is also great. Even if its duration isn’t long enough for sneaking around, the least it does is giving disadvantaged on attacks against you for a round 1/rest, for only a bonus action. As a heavy armor wearing shield wielding cleric, you aint gonna be hit often when it’s active. The rest is just gravy. This one is really criminally underrated, prolly the best race for a Str melee cleric together with vhuman.
• Goliath: the guide says “good but not great Str race”. Don’t think so. It’s a below average Str race, only decent because the stat modifiers (str / con). The rest is either average or ribbon, only Stone’s Endurance being a bit ok, if you’re not having bad luck with the roll which means that it is wasted. And for a Cleric, that first and foremost needs Wis: it’s bad, or maybe terrible.
• Kenku: I personally dislike the concept of non-talking, but with perfect stats, and other decent abilities, how can they rate only ‘decent’?
• Lizardfolk: perfect stat boosts, other useful features: why not Amazing?
• Tabaxi: decent? Compare this to the Kenku, both raise dex, one raises the primary stat, the other a dump stat, both got useful other features. How can they be rated the same?
• Goblin: agree with the rating, but unable to comply how this can be ‘good’ where a Firbolg is ‘decent’.
• Orc: one of the worst Str races, without Wis… this is bad, or horrible.
• Gitzerai: I agree with the rating, but how can the +2 wis here be lifting a race in the ‘good’ territory, while a Firbolg (which raises Wis by the same number) is stuck in ‘decent’?
• Tiefling variants from MToF: aren’t mentioned at all. Might be worth it for completeness sake, one of the (Fierna) gives a Wis bonus (though tbh I’m not impressed with any of them as a Cleric race).

Hope this doesn’t seem over-critical. I like the guide, it’s very thorough, a lot of effort has been put into it (too bad pics are down atm), and most other sections, like spells, feats, etc. Don’t agree with everything, but those are solid, while the race section could be better (and more consistent) imo.

[Dudu]

Waazraath,
You put emphasis on stat bonus

In that case, you should state in which character making system you are following.
I assume it's some sort of point buy. Because in standard array, for example, Standard Humans are straight out garbage, coming out of the oven with 4 of it's stats as odd numbers.
Also, I don't rate +2 bonus to main stat as much better than +1, while a simple +1 is substantially better than nothing. So, in my view, a race that grants +2 to Wis and +1 to secondary stat isn't really a better cleric than one that grants +2 to another stat and +1 to Wis.
The reason is that 17 on a stat isn't much better than 16. The +2 is good for two reasons, to even out a 14, or if you have a half-feat in mind later on.

But I think we both agree that, to be above average cleric race, a mean to get +1 on Wis is necessary no matter what.
Still, even though standard humans do get +1 to Wis, the mediocre stat distribution across the board makes them below mediocre if you are playing with standard array system. They can function in a point buy system, though.

[Waazraath]

Waazraath,
You put emphasis on stat bonus

In that case, you should state in which character making system you are following.
I assume it's some sort of point buy. Because in standard array, for example, Standard Humans are straight out garbage, coming out of the oven with 4 of it's stats as odd numbers.
Also, I don't rate +2 bonus to main stat as much better than +1, while a simple +1 is substantially better than nothing. So, in my view, a race that grants +2 to Wis and +1 to secondary stat isn't really a better cleric than one that grants +2 to another stat and +1 to Wis.
The reason is that 17 on a stat isn't much better than 16. The +2 is good for two reasons, to even out a 14, or if you have a half-feat in mind later on.

But I think we both agree that, to be above average cleric race, a mean to get +1 on Wis is necessary no matter what.
Still, even though standard humans do get +1 to Wis, the mediocre stat distribution across the board makes them below mediocre if you are playing with standard array system. They can function in a point buy system, though.

All good points. Should have been more explicit: I assumed point buy, since the OP did so as well. For most races, it doesn't matter that much whether point buy or standard array is assumed, but fore some (standard human is indeed a good example) it matters a lot. Rolling for stats (still my favourite) changes things more, I think.

Also agree that with point buy, there isn't that much difference between +2 and +1, that's one of the reasons I can't understand the rating Half-Elf got.

[Yorrin]

Reading through the guide again, now that it was recently front page again, I have to admit I have troubles understanding some of the ratings, mainly regarding races.

To give some info on how I evaluate races: one of the most important things are ability scores.

Sorry for the late reply- I've just gotten back home after being out for a few days.

The short answer to most of your inquiries is that while ability scores were definitely taken into consideration I also gave pretty decent weight to other racial abilities and features. Firbolg is a great example of great ability scores but with absolutely nothing else relevant. Also the ratings assume that you're using each race for its optimal build, rather than being great for all possible Cleric builds, which explains most of the Str races being decently rated even thought Str builds are in general weaker and less compatible with the other major builds.

[ZorroGames]

Sorry for the late reply- I've just gotten back home after being out for a few days.

The short answer to most of your inquiries is that while ability scores were definitely taken into consideration I also gave pretty decent weight to other racial abilities and features. Firbolg is a great example of great ability scores but with absolutely nothing else relevant. Also the ratings assume that you're using each race for its optimal build, rather than being great for all possible Cleric builds, which explains most of the Str races being decently rated even thought Str builds are in general weaker and less compatible with the other major builds.

You can achieve parity in most stats by level 4 in a class and not lose too much. As a Predominantly Mountain Dwarf character player, as many on this forum know, playing a Cleric (Favorite 0D&D class) as a MD requires deciding where my emphasis lies. I may not be the “WOW” Caster like a Hill Dwarf or some other WI heavy others but I can back up the Martial PCs while using spells selectively to enhance my party’s success. It is what you and your party do that determines success rather than a +2 over a +1 at the start.

[Istriel]

Very minor comment, Yorrin, but in your Crossbow Expert feat blurb you imply it's unclear if it's intended to allow firing the same hand crossbow with your bonus action after firing it with your attack action. Crawford confirmed that the feat does indeed intend for a player to be able to fire the same hand crossbow with your bonus action and your attack action. You're probably already aware of this and just didn't realize you may need to edit that line or didn't think it necessary since the vast majority of clerics probably wouldn't take that feat anyway.

Including link just for confirmation
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/...721024?lang=en

Edit: initial wording was not precise about pertaining to the bonus action attack

[Arkhios]

Very minor comment, Yorrin, but in your Crossbow Expert feat blurb you imply it's unclear if it's intended to allow firing a single hand crossbow twice. Crawford confirmed that the feat does indeed intend for a player to be able to fire a single hand crossbow twice. You're probably already aware of this and just didn't realize you may need to edit that line or didn't think it necessary since the vast majority of clerics probably wouldn't take that feat anyway.

Including link just for confirmation
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/...721024?lang=en

Nitpicky, I know, but twitter statements aren't exactly officially airtight and waterproof unless they end up in Sage Advice Compendium. And even then, it's entirely up to DM to decide whether they choose to follow those advices.

That said, it kinda goes without saying that whatever Crawford says is likely correct (and in this case especially, makes sense); often more so than if it came from Mearls.

Regarding Crossbow Expert RAW: it says right in the first bullet point that you ignore the loading property. That alone means you can attack with a crossbow just as many times as you can attack with the Attack Action, because Loading property is the factor that normally restricts the number of attacks with a weapon that has it. The third bullet point allows you to make an attack as a Bonus Action, so if you had Extra Attack you could in fact attack with a hand crossbow not just twice but thrice (or more if you're high level fighter).

[Istriel]

Nitpicky, I know, but twitter statements aren't exactly officially airtight and waterproof unless they end up in Sage Advice Compendium. And even then, it's entirely up to DM to decide whether they choose to follow those advices.

That said, it kinda goes without saying that whatever Crawford says is likely correct (and in this case especially, makes sense); often more so than if it came from Mearls.

Regarding Crossbow Expert RAW: it says right in the first bullet point that you ignore the loading property. That alone means you can attack with a crossbow just as many times as you can attack with the Attack Action, because Loading property is the factor that normally restricts the number of attacks with a weapon that has it. The third bullet point allows you to make an attack as a Bonus Action, so if you had Extra Attack you could in fact attack with a hand crossbow not just twice but thrice (or more if you're high level fighter).

I mean, so we agree? I only made my comment because Yorrin specifically mentioned that it was controversial on what the crossbow expert feat meant in terms of being able to use your bonus action to attack an additional time with a single hand crossbow. I should have been more specific in my wording about that and will edit to be more clear.

If you want to talk about DM discretion, honestly the DM could overrule literally anything from any sourcebook, sage advice, or statement made by Crawford (or any game dev) to what they feel appropriate for their game.

Edit: I should have found it first, but the statement in the tweet by Crawford I linked actually was added to SAC later on.
https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/d...Compendium.pdf

[Yorrin]

Very minor comment, Yorrin, but in your Crossbow Expert feat blurb you imply it's unclear if it's intended to allow firing the same hand crossbow with your bonus action after firing it with your attack action. Crawford confirmed that the feat does indeed intend for a player to be able to fire the same hand crossbow with your bonus action and your attack action. You're probably already aware of this and just didn't realize you may need to edit that line or didn't think it necessary since the vast majority of clerics probably wouldn't take that feat anyway.

Including link just for confirmation
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/...721024?lang=en

Edit: initial wording was not precise about pertaining to the bonus action attack

I wasn't aware that Crawford had clarified in its favor (I had actually assumed the opposite) but I also don't care about Crawford's tweets unless they become official errata. It's still open to DM interpretation.

[Istriel]

I wasn't aware that Crawford had clarified in its favor (I had actually assumed the opposite) but I also don't care about Crawford's tweets unless they become official errata. It's still open to DM interpretation.

That clarification was added to the sage advice compendium. Is that not considered official? I was under the impression it was.

[Arkhios]

I wasn't aware that Crawford had clarified in its favor (I had actually assumed the opposite) but I also don't care about Crawford's tweets unless they become official errata. It's still open to DM interpretation.

Regarding the Bonus Action attack with a Hand Crossbow, you're wrong.

Crossbow Expert lets you ignore Loading Property with any crossbow you're proficient with. Ignoring Loading Property is exactly the same thing as if you removed the property from the weapon entirely. Without Loading property, a crossbow functions exactly like a shortbow or longbow; there's absolutely nothing preventing you from using both the regular Attack Action and the Bonus Action to attack with a Hand Crossbow if you're proficient with it and if you have Crossbow Expert feat. There's no need for Crawford's statement on whether it works. It does.

[Istriel]

Regarding the Bonus Action attack with a Hand Crossbow, you're wrong.

Crossbow Expert lets you ignore Loading Property with any crossbow you're proficient with. Ignoring Loading Property is exactly the same thing as if you removed the property from the weapon entirely. Without Loading property, a crossbow functions exactly like a shortbow or longbow; there's absolutely nothing preventing you from using both the regular Attack Action and the Bonus Action to attack with a Hand Crossbow if you're proficient with it and if you have Crossbow Expert feat. There's no need for Crawford's statement on whether it works. It does.

Ignoring the loading quality isn’t what the confusion is about. It’s that people didn’t realize the third point of crossbow expert, “if you attack with a one handed weapon you can use your bonus action to fire a hand crossbow you’re holding,” meant that you could fire the same hand crossbow as your attack action and as your bonus action attack. I agree that the clarification really shouldn’t be needed, as a hand crossbow is also a one handed weapon, but people just didn’t realize that.

[Arkhios]

Ignoring the loading quality isn’t what the confusion is about. It’s that people didn’t realize the third point of crossbow expert, “if you attack with a one handed weapon you can use your bonus action to fire a hand crossbow you’re holding,” meant that you could fire the same hand crossbow as your attack action and as your bonus action attack. I agree that the clarification really shouldn’t be needed, as a hand crossbow is also a one handed weapon, but people just didn’t realize that.

If I came off as if I was opposed to your initial post, my apologies. My intent was to make a stand for your point, not against it.

Personally, I've found the rules are very clear on this matter. Hand Crossbow is both listed and described as a separate weapon so (at least to me) it makes sense, that, while it certainly is a crossbow, it also has its own set of properties (if it didn't have, why make it a separate weapon to begin with?), and that includes the fact it's a one-handed weapon. Assuming that all crossbows must be two-handed weapons without checking the actual rules is just silly. If a person reading the rules is unwilling to read them carefully, the joke's on them.

[Bluemanarc]

If I came off as if was opposed to your initial post, my apologies. My intent was to make a stand for your point, not against it.

Personally, I've found the rules are very clear on this matter. Hand Crossbow is both listed and described as a separate weapon so (at least to me) it makes sense, that, while it certainly is a crossbow, it also has its own set of properties (if it didn't have, why make it a separate weapon to begin with?), and that includes the fact it's a one-handed weapon. Assuming that all crossbows must be two-handed weapons without checking the actual rules is just silly. If a person reading the rules is unwilling to read them carefully, the joke's on them.

These guys explain things pretty well.
So you only have one hand crossbow in one hand, you need a free hand still as part of the ammunition property of the weapon.
But your bonus action attack comes from the same hand crossbow you are holding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avSNwEAmm4M

[Yorrin]

Regarding the Bonus Action attack with a Hand Crossbow, you're wrong.

Strong words.

Personally I'm in agreement with all of you that a single hand crossbow can do all attacks from the attack action + bonus attack and I allow that ruling at my table. However what I'm saying is that I assumed this was not RAI, since the feat clearly seems intended for rapier + hand crossbow, and I assume that DMs might fall on either side of that particular ruling.