Rogue - Dual Wield Hand Crossbows

[Chubbs Malone]

I was just wondering if anyone else has tried this yet? I'm planning to play a Halfling Rogue and going through my options.

I came across the Crossbow Expert feat, which I would attain at lvl 4, and it seems like a very viable option.

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

Because of this feat you are allowed to make 2 attacks with the damage bonus for each.

i.e. @ lvl 4 (if both attacks hit) you would be doing: 2d6+6 compared to the 1d6+3 with a Shortbow.

I guess the draw back is that you (1) sacrifice your bonus action and (2) need to be targeting creatures that are adjacent to your allies, so sneak attack will apply. Your range is also much shorter than the Shortbow.

On the upside, as long as your are targeting a creature your ally is adjacent to, you will ALWAYS get 2 chances at landing the sneak attack damage - with no stealth check required. Added bonus, if you hit with both attacks you get extra damage. If you need to target a creature that your ally is not adjacent to, you can always use your bonus action to stealth and shoot as you would with any other ranged weapon.

Down the road you would also be able to pick up the Sharpshooter feat to alleviate the range issues and obviously increase your damage.

Has anyone seen this kind of Rogue in action? Thanks!

[hawklost]

If you want to use this ability constantly, you pretty much willingly give up your bonus action (which is used by your 2nd level Rogue abilities).

It is really no different than using 2 light weapons in Melee for TWF except you are using 2 close range weapons (30ft if you don't want disadvantage).

Its not a terrible idea but I don't feel it directly enhances the rogues fighting potential except for being a good flavor combo (which is a perfectly valid reason to take the feat and do this!)

[Yorrin]

The major advantage I see over shortswords is the fact that you can target a much larger variety of foes, since your allies will be within 30ft of you most of the time, and thus engaged with potential targets.

[Goggalor]

i.e. @ lvl 4 (if both attacks hit) you would be doing: 2d6+6 compared to the 1d6+3 with a Shortbow.

Dual wielding in 5e doesn't work that way, fortunately. When attacking with two weapons that are both considered light, the main hand weapon gets the bonus damage added to it (1d6+3), while the offhand weapon does not (1d6). You would be increasing your damage, but not by nearly as wide of a margin.

[akaddk]

The primary reason not to do this is that wielding two hand crossbows at a time is retarded.

[Chubbs Malone]

Dual wielding in 5e doesn't work that way, fortunately. When attacking with two weapons that are both considered light, the main hand weapon gets the bonus damage added to it (1d6+3), while the offhand weapon does not (1d6). You would be increasing your damage, but not by nearly as wide of a margin.

The rules on Two-Weapon Fighting explicitly refer to light melee weapons. At no point does it mention 1-handed ranged weapons. This is a totally different scenario.

The Crossbow Expert Feat doesn't state that you need to be wielding a light weapon. It says, "When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."

I take that to mean, you could be attacking with a Longsword, Handaxe, Hand Crossbow, Javelin, (any 1-hand wpn) and then shoot with your off-hand crossbow. So I don't think what you're saying is correct at all.

I do believe you are correct in that the 2nd attack should not include the Dex mod. It is not excluded in either definition, but I think it's somewhat of a gray area they didn't identify or address. If you look at the Dual Wielder feat it remains with the same spirit of TWF, you just get to upgrade to any 1-hand weapons.

For those wondering, the 2 sections I'm referencing can be found on pages 165 and 195.

[Dark Tira]

I'd actually argue that you don't need 2 hand crossbows to fire twice with the crossbow expert feat. It seems to me since it removes the loading attribute you can fire twice with the same hand crossbow. Also the bonus attack doesn't follow dual wielding rules and does add dex mod.

[metaridley18]

The rules on Two-Weapon Fighting explicitly refer to light melee weapons. At no point does it mention 1-handed ranged weapons. This is a totally different scenario.

The Crossbow Expert Feat doesn't state that you need to be wielding a light weapon. It says, "When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."

I take that to mean, you could be attacking with a Longsword, Handaxe, Hand Crossbow, Javelin, (any 1-hand wpn) and then shoot with your off-hand crossbow. So I don't think what you're saying is correct at all.

I do believe you are correct in that the 2nd attack should not include the Dex mod. It is not excluded in either definition, but I think it's somewhat of a gray area they didn't identify or address. If you look at the Dual Wielder feat it remains with the same spirit of TWF, you just get to upgrade to any 1-hand weapons.

For those wondering, the 2 sections I'm referencing can be found on pages 165 and 195.

This is the same problem with the bonus attack granted by Polearm Master. I have heard that they are all intended to be TWF style bonus actions and should thus NOT add your modifier, but I haven't seen anything official clarifying that. My view is that since you spent the feat to get the ability to do so, you should be able to add your ability mod to the attack (similar to Dual Wielder).

From a balance perspective, the extra damage is roughly one half a feat (since you could just TWF for free anyway) so I don't see much wrong with adding ability mod.

RAW I definitely agree that you're allowed to add your ability mod since they don't reference the TWF rules at all, and all weapon attacks give you ability mod to damage. TWF is a special exception.

[Yorrin]

RAW I definitely agree that you're allowed to add your ability mod since they don't reference the TWF rules at all, and all weapon attacks give you ability mod to damage. TWF is a special exception.

This. It seems to make sense that you'd add mod unless otherwise specified. And it's not like it unbalances anything, since it's at most +5dmg/round.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I'd actually argue that you don't need 2 hand crossbows to fire twice with the crossbow expert feat. It seems to me since it removes the loading attribute you can fire twice with the same hand crossbow. Also the bonus attack doesn't follow dual wielding rules and does add dex mod.

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

The only point of contention being "loaded hand crossbow". You get to ignore the loading property, but even then does a hand crossbow you just fired qualify as a loaded hand crossbow?

I view this as murky, but I'd definitely permit this feat to let you use your bonus action for an extra attack when single-wielding a hand crossbow as well. It doesn't seem OP in any way, since a feat granting an attack on a bonus action with a specific weapon isn't really a big deal.

[TheOOB]

How would you reload the crossbow without a free hand? The loading property(which you ignore) only refers to the fact that the crossbow can only be fired once per action. In a combat situation it's kind of impossible to load a crossbow one-handed.

[Yorrin]

How would you reload the crossbow without a free hand? The loading property(which you ignore) only refers to the fact that the crossbow can only be fired once per action. In a combat situation it's kind of impossible to load a crossbow one-handed.

Because DRAMATIC ACTION SEQUENCE! Some junk about flicking a pair of bolts out of your hip-quiver while tossing one crossbow up in the air, loading the other, grabbing the one out of the air, tossing up the other, loading the second, catching the first one, and firing both.

Or if you're not prone to high drama, go with some sort of automatic reloading hand crossbow, wether via magic or some sort of psudo-machine-gun style belt of bolts or even a "clip" in the modern guns sense.

[akaddk]

(Scrubbed)

[Person_Man]

So in my play tests, the general combat decision tree of Rogues has been:

1) If I can get Advantage on an enemy without moving next to them, throw a dagger at them. It's a finesse/light/thrown weapon. If I hit, I deal 1d4 + Dex bonus + Sneak Attack damage. I then move away (preferably around a corner or heavy cover), and use use my Bonus Action to to Hide so that I can't be targeted by counter attacks. I don't mind giving up the chance at an additional 1d4 damage from a potentially successful second attack in exchange for the security of being farther away from and/or hidden from enemies.

2) If I can't get Advantage on an enemy, I move so that I'm "flanking" an enemy and then attack it with a shortsword, a finesse/light weapon. If I hit, I deal 1d6 + Dex bonus + Sneak Attack damage. Then use my Bonus Action to Disengage and then move away from the enemy (assuming that he won't follow me, since my flanking buddy can get an Opportunity Attack against him) or if I succeed in killing my target I move away and Hide so that I can't be targeted by counter attacks from his surviving friends. Again, I don't mind giving up the chance at +1d6 damage for the safety of being out of melee and potentially hidden.

3) In either case, if I miss, then I use my Bonus Action to make an additional attack with whatever light weapon makes the most sense. Hopefully I kill my target and can move safely away without provoking an Opportunity Attack. But occasionally I get caught on the front line. But that's the risk of being an adventurer, and I'm not going to hide like a coward every turn because doing so gives up a lot of potential damage from Sneak Attack.

It seems like Crossbow Expert would only marginally improve the first potential step of this attack routine, since a hand crossbow has a base range of 30 feet (instead of the 20 ft range of a dagger) and the hand crossbow deals 1d6 damage (instead of 1d4). But if I don't have Advantage on that attack, I'd still need to move into melee range to "flank" an enemy, and using a crossbow would be no better then using a shortsword.

Did I miss anything?

[Yorrin]

the general combat decision tree of Rogues

A perfectly valid point. Dual-Crossbows doesn't really improve much. But what I was trying to point out is that it's a viable option, not neccesarily that it's a "worth it" option, since that seemed to be what Malone was asking.

[HorridElemental]

(Scrubbed)

[obryn]

(Scrub the party, scrub the quote)

Nonsense. Going full-on Chow Yun Fat with a pair of hand crossbows is spectacular.

It's also the best way to deal damage in the game, with the Sharpshooter feat adding +10 damage to both hands' attacks.

Also, using "retarded" in this sense is pretty awful, so please stop.

[Chubbs Malone]

Nonsense. Going full-on Chow Yun Fat with a pair of hand crossbows is spectacular.

It's also the best way to deal damage in the game, with the Sharpshooter feat adding +10 damage to both hands' attacks.

Also, using "retarded" in this sense is pretty awful, so please stop.

This was my initial inspiration for the build; to pair Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert.

Sharpshooter allows you to ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover, use the 120 ft range without penalty, and possibly add +20 dmg if you hit with both attacks. There's obvious risk there, but it would play into the characters personality/mentality.

I disagree that it is the best way to do damage... but I think this thread has shown that it is a viable option and play style. The character I envisioned was more of a gunslinger scoundrel. Not sure why someone would call that stupid or "retarded". :\

[Grynning]

3) In either case, if I miss, then I use my Bonus Action to make an additional attack with whatever light weapon makes the most sense. Hopefully I kill my target and can move safely away without provoking an Opportunity Attack. But occasionally I get caught on the front line. But that's the risk of being an adventurer, and I'm not going to hide like a coward every turn because doing so gives up a lot of potential damage from Sneak Attack.

I am a little confused by this. By my understanding, there's no default way to use a bonus action to make another attack, or are you assuming the rogue is always dual-wielding?

[Rummy]

You can always use a bonus action to attack with an off hand light melee weapon (but no ability damage added).

I think I'll copy this build. One tweak... a 1 level dip in Fighter bags you +2 to hit! A two level dip gives you three chances to hit once ever short rest. A three level dip doubles your chance to crit your sneak attack!

[akaddk]

It's also the best way to deal damage in the game, with the Sharpshooter feat adding +10 damage to both hands' attacks.

Which is yet another reason why it's mentally deficient.

Also, using "retarded" in this sense is pretty awful, so please stop.

Yeah, it's perfectly fine for CyberThread to make fun of my sleep disorder, something I've complained about multiple times to the moderator, and yet I use a commonly used term to describe something stupid as being stupid, and get moderated for it.

[obryn]

Which is yet another reason why it's mentally deficient.

Yeah, it's perfectly fine for CyberThread to make fun of my sleep disorder, something I've complained about multiple times to the moderator, and yet I use a commonly used term to describe something stupid as being stupid, and get moderated for it.

Well, that sounds pretty terrible of CyberThread.

"Retarded" as a perjorative is common, but it's not okay, and it's getting less common, thank goodness, because folks are becoming aware that it's disrespectful and mean-spirited.

Anyway, as for myself, if "dude doing ninja rolls with a pair of hand crossbows and shooting the hell out of monsters" is wrong, I never want to be right.

[akaddk]

Anyway, as for myself, if "dude doing ninja rolls with a pair of hand crossbows and shooting the hell out of monsters" is wrong, I never want to be right.

There are limits for me and this snaps my limit in half and then beats me with it. Short of having four arms, it breaks suspension of disbelief to the point where I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief. Characters can do spectacular and super-human things but without some line being drawn in the sand, then abilities like these are basically magic and not mundane. And that destroys the intent of the feat and the separation in the rules between the two concepts.

Not to mention the fact that it's grossly unbalancing. Inevitably I always end up finding that the people who argue most vehemently for these types of things are also the types who seek to break the game for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else at the table. It always invariably comes down to the numbers and not the character concept or "imagination", which tends to be used merely as a facade to implement game-breaking mechanics.

[HorridElemental]

There are limits for me and this snaps my limit in half and then beats me with it. Short of having four arms, it breaks suspension of disbelief to the point where I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief. Characters can do spectacular and super-human things but without some line being drawn in the sand, then abilities like these are basically magic and not mundane. And that destroys the intent of the feat and the separation in the rules between the two concepts.

Not to mention the fact that it's grossly unbalancing. Inevitably I always end up finding that the people who argue most vehemently for these types of things are also the types who seek to break the game for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else at the table. It always invariably comes down to the numbers and not the character concept or "imagination", which tends to be used merely as a facade to implement game-breaking mechanics.

You are playing elf games. The fact that a dragon talking doesn't break your limit or you know magic users... But a ninja shooting two hand cross bows while flipping does... It just weird.

Unbalanced? Seriously I laughed so hard my wife was looking at me funny. Do you not understand what balance is?

But hey, that there champion fighter is the pinnacle of martial awesomeness! It is the only thing that we need or could ever want in a non-casting class! :/

[obryn]

There are limits for me and this snaps my limit in half and then beats me with it. Short of having four arms, it breaks suspension of disbelief to the point where I'm not willing to suspend my disbelief. Characters can do spectacular and super-human things but without some line being drawn in the sand, then abilities like these are basically magic and not mundane. And that destroys the intent of the feat and the separation in the rules between the two concepts.

Not to mention the fact that it's grossly unbalancing. Inevitably I always end up finding that the people who argue most vehemently for these types of things are also the types who seek to break the game for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else at the table. It always invariably comes down to the numbers and not the character concept or "imagination", which tends to be used merely as a facade to implement game-breaking mechanics.

The balance compared to ... what? Another Fighter? A Wizard? A Bard?

Anyway, this is something an awesome dude in a movie could do with a pair of pistols, so the D&D equivalent - a brace of hand crossbows - is dandy.

[HorridElemental]

The balance compared to ... what? Another Fighter? A Wizard? A Bard?

Anyway, this is something an awesome dude in a movie could do with a pair of pistols, so the D&D equivalent - a brace of hand crossbows - is dandy.

Video games are going more toward movies, I think table top RPGs (coughD&Dcough) should do the same.

Describing D&D in terms of movies is pretty rad and new players tend to love it from what I've seen. Imagining things works nicely but actually remembering that jet li in a movie jumped, slid down a banister, and shot some guys really sticks in your head and helps you become a better RPer while in and out of battle.

[Thrudd]

It only makes sense if you refluff the hand crossbows as magic weapons that fire energy bolts, like Star Wars-style blasters. I feel it's an oversight that the hand crossbow does not have the two handed quality, like all the other ammunition/missile weapons. Or the ammunition quality should include in its description that you need a free hand to load the weapon. Clearly expecting someone to dual wield actual crossbows for more than a single shot would not make any sense.

[Yorrin]

I feel it's an oversight that the hand crossbow does not have the two handed quality, like all the other ammunition/missile weapons

But that's the whole point of the weapon. They wanted that classic drow image of crossbow in one hand and rapier/shortsword in the other. (Also, dont forget Sling is also a 1h ammo weap.)

[Thrudd]

Video games are going more toward movies, I think table top RPGs (coughD&Dcough) should do the same.

Describing D&D in terms of movies is pretty rad and new players tend to love it from what I've seen. Imagining things works nicely but actually remembering that jet li in a movie jumped, slid down a banister, and shot some guys really sticks in your head and helps you become a better RPer while in and out of battle.

They already have games that are focused on that, like the excellent Feng Shui. D&D doesn't need to try to be a cinematic action game, it has never been designed for it. At its heart, it is a fantasy world simulation game. Regardless of what would be rad in a movie or a video game, I want D&D to make some attempt at simulating a believable fantasy world. Sure, we could turn D&D into a fantasy version of Feng Shui, but then where are people going to get their dungeon crawling exploration game? I guess we just keep playing AD&D or Rulescyclopedia or even Pathfinder.

[akaddk]

You are playing elf games.

Sigh. The last resort of the desperate. No point arguing any further, Hitler has been evoked.