a feat analysis; first impressions of a wannabe optimizer

[Scirocco]

RAI is definitely Van Helsinging it up with twin hand xbows, no question at all there. The rest of it... *shrug*.

[Maxilian]

But when you take the attack action it'd be loaded, right? Afterwards between the attack resolving you'd get a free reload as well. Idk. If the intent wasn't to allow it they did an awful job of wording it, especially considering its hardly an OP ability anyways.

You're right, but... have in mind what was said about it (is not RAI), so don't dig to deep on it, cause it doesn't make sense that you can reload 8 times for your normal attacks but not once again for your bonus action... in the end, leave these to your DM

[Shadow]

You're right, but... have in mind what was said about it (is not RAI), so don't dig to deep on it, cause it doesn't make sense that you can reload 8 times for your normal attacks but not once again for your bonus action... in the end, leave these to your DM

I'm pretty sure that the lead designer of the game requiring a second weapon makes the RAI perfectly crystal clear, so yes, it is indeed RAI that XbX requires a second weapon and that a single hand crossbow was not intended to proc its own bonus action attack.

[silveralen]

I'm pretty sure that the lead designer of the game requiring a second weapon makes the RAI perfectly crystal clear, so yes, it is indeed RAI that XbX requires a second weapon and that a single hand crossbow was not intended to proc its own bonus action attack.

RAI gives us a fighter who can:

1. Reload and fire a hand crossbow four times in six seconds.

2. Can fire a second hand crossbow during this same period, then reload it as well

3. Do both of the above while holding a handcrossbow in each hand.

It also gives us a fighter who cannot:

4. Reload and fire a single hand crossbow 5 times in a round, even if that's the only weapon he is holding

The short version? If that was actually intended, we should make note of who responded so we can never listen to them again, as anyone who intends for that to be the case has their head firmly betwixt their buttox.

[Easy_Lee]

The short version? If that was actually intended, we should make note of who responded so we can never listen to them again, as anyone who intends for that to be the case has their head firmly betwixt their buttox.

I am in firm agreement with this sentiment.

[Shadow]

RAI gives us a fighter who can:

1. Reload and fire a hand crossbow four times in six seconds.

2. Can fire a second hand crossbow during this same period, then reload it as well

3. Do both of the above while holding a handcrossbow in each hand.

It also gives us a fighter who cannot:

4. Reload and fire a single hand crossbow 5 times in a round, even if that's the only weapon he is holding

The short version? If that was actually intended, we should make note of who responded so we can never listen to them again, as anyone who intends for that to be the case has their head firmly betwixt their buttox.

Right. And all of the above things that the fighter can do coincide with his normal number of attacks per action with one weapon.
The one that the fighter cannot do grants him extra actions above and beyond that which coincide with his attacks per action.
One weapon, the attack action grants X number of attacks.
Two weapons, the attack/bonus actions grant X+1 number of attacks.

Except I'd like to point out that (2) is incorrect. He can't fire a second one and reload it as well. Loading happens when the attack is taken.
As per the description of the Ammunition property, you draw (and thus load) the ammo as part of the attack. So no, by the RAW he can't shoot and then reload. You could houserule that, but it isn't RAW.

And before you bring up polearm master, I'll point out the the PM is effectively using the haft as a second weapon, so it still follows this system.

[silveralen]

Right. And all of the above things that the fighter can do coincide with his normal number of attacks per action with one weapon.
The one that the fighter cannot do grants him extra actions above and beyond that which coincide with his attacks per action.
One weapon, the attack action grants X number of attacks.
Two weapons, the attack/bonus actions grant X+1 number of attacks.

And before you bring up polearm master, I'll point out the the PM is effectively using the haft as a second weapon, so it still follows this system.

A polearm is one weapon. Great weapon fighter and barbarian both give an extra bonus action attack with one weapon. These are also situations where you can make a case for two weapons being easier or at least no harder than just swinging one more rapidly. But two crossbows is without a doubt harder than one.

[Shadow]

These are also situations where you can make a case for two weapons being easier or at least no harder than just swinging one more rapidly. But two crossbows is without a doubt harder than one.

Then I guess it's a good thing I'm not trying to argue which is easier.
I don't care which is easier. I care what was allowed and intended by the rule.

[silveralen]

Then I guess it's a good thing I'm not trying to argue which is easier.
I don't care which is easier. I care what was allowed and intended by the rule.

So...

It isn't more powerful to have one handcrossbow instead of two, it is as realistic or more realistic, and your reasoning is "well that's not what was intended".

Who cares? It's written ambiguously, so there is no reason to not interpret it as working with one handcrossbow.

[Easy_Lee]

Then I guess it's a good thing I'm not trying to argue which is easier.
I don't care which is easier. I care what was allowed and intended by the rule.

Allowed and intended are two different things. If I'm reading the tweets right, the only thing the developers intended with this rule was for someone to hold a melee weapon in one hand, take some swings with it, then make exactly one attack with their crossbow. Presumably they reload the crossbow somewhere in-between rounds. What they wrote and what they intended are two different things.

As written, the feat allows firing two hand-crossbows. It also allows for one, if we interpret the word "loaded" and "loading" to be past and present tense of the same verb (feat says ignore that word).

But you know what the funny thing is? It doesn't really matter what any of us think. The only thing that matters is what a specific DM thinks when his player attempts to do it. But if I was in the player's shoes, I'd much rather try to explain how I reloaded one hand crossbow one extra time vs loading two at once.

[Shadow]

Who cares? It's written ambiguously, so there is no reason to not interpret it as working with one handcrossbow.

And that's fine. Do that for your game if you want to. But some people like to argue that it explicitly follows RAW, when it most certainly does not.
Making claims that "this is RAW' when it is neither RAW nor RAI will lead to battles at the table.
Play your game however you want to, but if you suggest anyone uses a single hand crossbow and still gets a bonus action attack, make damned certain that you tell them flat out that what you're doing breaks the rules.
It's not OP to allow it (unless you also allow a shield IMO), but it absolutely isn't what the feat was designed for.

[Easy_Lee]

Play your game however you want to, but if you suggest anyone uses a single hand crossbow and still gets a bonus action attack, make damned certain that you tell them flat out that what you're doing breaks the rules.

Your interpretation of the rules is not the same as everyone else's. Not everyone agrees with you. What you say, what someone on twitter says, those have no more truth to them than anyone else's reading. Realize that simple fact, and please stop derailing every thread that mentions crossbows with this pointless argument.

[Shadow]

Your interpretation of the rules is not the same as everyone else's. Realize that simple fact.

I thought you were done talking to me.

[silveralen]

And that's fine. Do that for your game if you want to. But some people like to argue that it explicitly follows RAW, when it most certainly does not.
Making claims that "this is RAW' when it is neither RAW nor RAI will lead to battles at the table.
Play your game however you want to, but if you suggest anyone uses a single hand crossbow and still gets a bonus action attack, make damned certain that you tell them flat out that what you're doing breaks the rules.
It's not OP to allow it (unless you also allow a shield IMO), but it absolutely isn't what the feat was designed for.

It isn't breaking the rules because the designers couldn't even properly write the damn rules to represent what they intended. Nothing explicitly prohibits a single handcrossbow except your interpretation of "when you attack etc" so no, by raw it's ambiguous and up for indvidual interpretation, no rules breaking at all.

It is breaking the intent of the designer who was too incompetent to actually write the rule properly, and who explcitly tried to exclude something for no apparent reason, but that sentence should make it obvious why his opinion is irrelevant on the issue.

[Shadow]

his opinion is irrelevant on the issue.

I absolutely LOVE that people claim that the opinion of the Lead Designer of the game is irrelevant. Someone that posted earlier once said that he was not a reliable source.
Both of those statements are laughable.
Claiming that the Lead Designer's opinion is irrelevant and unreliable, coming from the mouths of random forum users. These random forum users somehow think that their opinion is more relevant and reliable than the Lead Designer of the game.
That's hysterical to me.

[Easy_Lee]

These random forum users somehow think that their opinion is more relevant and reliable than the Lead Designer of the game.
That's hysterical to me.

"New Criticism, as espoused by Cleanth Brooks, W. K. Wimsatt, T. S. Eliot, and others, argued that authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work of literature. W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley wrote in their essay The Intentional Fallacy: "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art."[1] The author, they argue, cannot be reconstructed from a writing - the text is the only source of meaning, and any details of the author's desires or life are purely extraneous. Such thinking essentially states that the author's intended meaning and purpose for the exposition are fundamentally unnecessary to the reader’s interpretation. This view is extremely useful in a postmodern relativistic framework as it successfully makes the reader or the consumer of the story the only authority on its meaning as opposed to the author or creator of the work."

Straight from the wikipedia page on Authorial Intent.

In other words, when analyzing a body of literature (the Player's Handbook counts), many feel the author's opinion is of no importance. Not just "no more important than a reader's", but literally of no importance. In other words, you argue that only "intended" readings are viable. New Criticism would say authorial intent doesn't matter at all. Many on this board would say that authorial intent matters no more than a player's, and less than a DM's.

Regardless, criticizing someone for disagreeing with you, saying it's "hilarious" that "random forum users" think their opinion is "somehow" more "relevant" than [insert Shadow's tweet-backed opinion here]...you're being extraordinarily rude.

[silveralen]

I absolutely LOVE that people claim that the opinion of the Lead Designer of the game is irrelevant. Someone that posted earlier once said that he was not a reliable source.
Both of those statements are laughable.
Claiming that the Lead Designer's opinion is irrelevant and unreliable, coming from the mouths of random forum users. These random forum users somehow think that their opinion is more relevant and reliable than the Lead Designer of the game.
That's hysterical to me.

Oh?

Remind me again what's unbalanced about allowing one handcrossbow five attacks rather one handcrossbow four attacks and a second crossbow one attack?

Remind me why that should be limited?

Remember how he couldn't even convey his intent properly in the feat?

[Shadow]

Oh?

Remind me again what's unbalanced about allowing one handcrossbow five attacks rather one handcrossbow four attacks and a second crossbow one attack?

Remind me why that should be limited?

Remember how he couldn't even convey his intent properly in the feat?

OK, I'll remind you again what's unbalanced about allowing one handcrossbow five attacks rather one handcrossbow four attacks and a second crossbow one attack.
What's unbalanced about it is that you are allowing more attacks than are intended and allowed by the rules if he only has one. The extra attack requires a secondary weapon specifically to preclude the use of a shield.
That's why it should be limited. One per attack until level 5. Two per attack beyond that unless you're a fighter. Use of a bonus action attack is disallowed entirely unless you have a second weapon in hand (and remember, Polearm Master uses the other end of the haft as a second weapon).
If you think it's cool that crossbow users get an extra attack with a single crossbow, then why can't I take an extra attack with my single scimitar?
Easy, I can't do it because I'm limited to what the rules say that I can take with a single weapon.

As for the last point, you seem to think that he personally wrote the entire book apparently.

As for Easy's wonderful wikipedia section: That applies top literature, sure. We're not talking about literature where the author might want to make me feel happy. We're talking about a rule book where the authors want us to play a game within the rules the prescribe.

[silveralen]

OK, I'll remind you again what's unbalanced about allowing one handcrossbow five attacks rather one handcrossbow four attacks and a second crossbow one attack.
What's unbalanced about it is that you are allowing more attacks than are intended and allowed by the rules if he only has one. The extra attack requires a secondary weapon specifically to preclude the use of a shield.
That's why it should be limited. One per attack until level 5. Two per attack beyond that unless you're a fighter. Use of a bonus action attack is disallowed entirely unless you have a second weapon in hand (and remember, Polearm Master uses the other end of the haft as a second weapon).
If you think it's cool that crossbow users get an extra attack with a single crossbow, then why can't I take an extra attack with my single scimitar?
Easy, I can't do it because I'm limited to what the rules say that I can take with a single weapon.

As for the last point, you seem to think that he personally wrote the entire book apparently.

You can't get an extra attack from getting a critical with a scimitar either, therefor great weapon fighter is unbalanced. You can't smash someone with the hilt of your scimitar, so polearm master is broken, right?

But with your scimitar and shield you can knock them prone with a bonus action and a feat. Which is worth an attack (and no, RAW you can't turn a bonus action attack into a trip, has to be an attack as part of an attack action) which is equivalent to the hand crossbow. Duel wielding sucks this edition compared to everything when feats are allowed, no idea why this would be different.

If he didn't write that passage how can he comment on the intent of the author?

[Shadow]

If he didn't write that passage how can he comment on the intent of the author?

I made no claims about the intent of the author, even though you and Easy seem to think that I have. I made claims about the intent of the rule, and that claim was supported by the Lead Designer of the game.

[Easy_Lee]

I made no claims about the intent of the author, even though you and Easy seem to think that I have. I made claims about the intent of the rule, and that claim was supported by the Lead Designer of the game.

Q: Who wrote the rule?
A: The author

[silveralen]

I made no claims about the intent of the author, even though you and Easy seem to think that I have. I made claims about the intent of the rule, and that claim was supported by the Lead Designer of the game.

If he didn't write that particular rule, he doesn't know the intent with which it was written.

Lead designer of the game gets tossed around a lot, but 5e isn't a design heavy system, it's rules light and designed to depend on DM interpretation. That's how he intended it.

You don't see the irony in telling someone that isn't how something works, because the designer said so, when the same designer created a system designed to be open to indvidual interpretation?

Especially when, as established, it is no more powerful than other options that already exist.

[Shadow]

Especially when, as established, it is no more powerful than other options that already exist.

But it is.
Show me one other example of when you can take a bonus action attack every single round with a single weapon.
Great Weapon Master? Nope, that's only with a crit.
Sword & board user? Nope.
Polearm Master? Nope, because for the purposes of this exercise the haft is a second weapon.
So go ahead. Martial Arts notwithstanding, show me one other example besides your misinterpreted XbX user, where a single weapon grants a bonus action attack every single round.

That interpretation is more powerful, because it allows the use of a shield and grants an extra attack on top anyway. It's the best of both worlds. Better defense and more attacks both at the same time.

[Easy_Lee]

But it is.
Show me one other example of when you can take a bonus action attack every single round with a single weapon.
Great Weapon Master? Nope, that's only with a crit.
Sword & board user? Nope.
Polearm Master? Nope, because for the purposes of this exercise the haft is a second weapon.
So go ahead. Martial Arts notwithstanding, show me one other example besides your misinterpreted XbX user, where a single weapon grants a bonus action attack every single round.

That interpretation is more powerful, because it allows the use of a shield and grants an extra attack on top anyway. It's the best of both worlds. Better defense and more attacks both at the same time.

A dual wielding character who picks up defensive duelist instead of crossbow expert gets an equal number of attacks and has up to +6 AC for the <1 attack per round that would otherwise hit him. Notice all the complaints about dual wield being broken, and finding ways to "fix" dual wield, and you'll understand why a crossbow and shield doesn't suddenly become broken by adding one attack. And oh, by the way, the dual wielder gets opportunity attacks.

Polearm master with a quarterstaff, dueling, and shield is arguably stronger. But I don't see you trying to argue that that's not RAW. You seem fixated on this one issue.

[Shadow]

A dual wielding character *and then I stopped reading because I specifically asked for a single weapon*

Polearm master with a quarterstaff, dueling, and shield is arguably stronger. But I don't see you trying to argue that that's not RAW. You seem fixated on this one issue.

Arguing RAW? Nope.
But that is also clearly not intended. The intention is that the staff be wielded via its versatile property, with both hands, to get the bonus attack.
We've gone over this. You know that we've gone over this.
You're on Ignore, sop don't bother quoting me and expect a response.

[silveralen]

Arguing RAW? Nope.
But that is also clearly not intended. The intention is that the staff be wielded via its versatile property, with both hands, to get the bonus attack.
We've gone over this. You know that we've gone over this.
You're on Ignore, sop don't bother quoting me and expect a response.

Oh that's easy, tavern master and the duel wielding fighting style and feat. Confused? Use your shield as an improvised weapon with duel wielding. This doesn't prevent the AC bonus from applying unless I'm overlooking a passage somewhere.

Or quarterstaff and shield. Or use the shield to get a trip action instead of an attack with shield master, which is equivalent to an extra attack.

Duel wielding is awful in this edition, it's strictly worse than using a polearm (it also makes no sense you arbitrarily decide polearms don't count because it uses a different part of the weapon).

Also, consider someone taking crossbow expert could get the duel weapon feat anyways. So... 1d8+mods five times a round with a +1 AC or 1d4+mods five times a round with a +2 AC. That's not exactly unbalanced.

[Shadow]

Oh that's easy, tavern master and the duel wielding fighting style and feat. Confused? Use your shield as an improvised weapon with duel wielding. This doesn't prevent the AC bonus from applying unless I'm overlooking a passage somewhere.

Or quarterstaff and shield. Or use the shield to get a trip action instead of an attack with shield master, which is equivalent to an extra attack.

Duel wielding is awful in this edition, it's strictly worse than using a polearm (it also makes no sense you arbitrarily decide polearms don't count because it uses a different part of the weapon).

Also, consider someone taking crossbow expert could get the duel weapon feat anyways. So... 1d8+mods five times a round with a +1 AC or 1d4+mods five times a round with a +2 AC. That's not exactly unbalanced.

So our example of a single weapon granting a bonus attack action every single round consist of:
--Tavern brawler with a shield used as an improvised weapon attacking unarmed.
Well that fails because he isn't using a single weapon. He's using unarmed strike (on the weapon table) and a shield. That's not single weapon, that's sword/board with the sword swapped for a fist.
--Staff & shield.... fails for the same reason, to say nothing of the fact that it wasn't intended at all that you get the bonus attack wile holding a shield....
--Polearm master, using the haft as a bludgeoning weapon, which by definition effectively makes it a secondary weapon, so not a single weapon for these purposes. Fail again.

And your numbers are off between dual wield and crossbow. Hand crossbows deal 1d6, not 1d4 ,and they do it from the relative safety of range.
The DW feat doesn't offer mod to damage, and requires you to be in melee.
And comparing everything with a fighter is unfair. Compare with a single extra attack, as that's more reasonable.
The dual wielder with extra attack and a feat spent would get (1d8+mod)*2 +1d8 = 23.5 and +1 AC, but needs to be in melee.
The crossbow user with extra attack and a single feat spent would get (1d6+mod)*3 = 25.5 and +2 AC, which is more damage AND better defenses from the relative safety of range.

But regardless, I'm still waiting for you to show me one other example besides your misinterpreted XbX user, where a single weapon grants a bonus action attack every single round. Because you said it was easy.... but you haven't actually done it yet.

[silveralen]

But regardless, I'm still waiting for you to show me one other example besides your misinterpreted XbX user, where a single weapon grants a bonus action attack every single round. Because you said it was easy but yet you haven't actually done it yet.

I'm showing that you can do the exact same thing mechanically. The issue you presented was that the hand crossbow could be used with a shield, unlike duel wielding. Thus, you have someone get tavern brawler to become proficient with improvised weapons, duel wielder to duel wield non light weapons, and the fighting style to add mod. This gives you a +3 AC, as you have a shield in your hand as well as two weapons, and you get a bonus action attack every turn at 1d4+mod, as well as your normal one handed weapon attacks. Cost you an extra half a feat to accomplish I admit, but you can grapple and are better in a bar fight as well so you got some extra goodies. Functionally similar.

If you aren't worried about mechanics but only in finding something that is a single weapon getting a bonus attack every round, polearm master qualifies because the haft of a weapon is not a separate weapon. It is one weapon. You have a halberd, you aren't duel wielding a halberd and a halberd haft. Are you going to rule the Halberd haft doesn't have the magical enhancements of the halberd? I certainly wouldn't, which makes it hard to claim separate weapons.

Polearm master+quarterstaff+shield qualifies in both ways besides you disqualifying it on the basis you dislike it (do you even have a developer tweet for this one?)

So I've illustrated it occurring in three ways, one through similar mechanics, one through your strict definition of a single weapon, and once through both.

[Shadow]

I don't care about anything involving a shield.
Show me an example with one weapon in one hand and nothing in the other (like you are saying is possible with XbX).
Show me one other example, excluding Polearm Master (because the haft is effectively a secondary weapon), and excluding Martial Arts (because I think we can all agree that MA should be exempt from this exercise).

[silveralen]

I don't care about anything involving a shield.
Show me an example with one weapon in one hand and nothing in the other (like you are saying is possible with XbX).
Show me one other example, excluding Polearm Master (because the haft is effectively a secondary weapon), and excluding Martial Arts (because I think we can all agree that MA should be exempt from this exercise).

So.... you start by asking me to show an example... then immediately disallow examples of it for no adequate reason?

A haft is not a secondary weapon. A haft is part of the same weapon. Is the hilt of a sword a separate object form a sword? No. Don't be absurd. It's one weapon. Like I said, are you giving a +1 halberd the bonus to hit and damage with haft attacks? If yes, one weapon. If no, that's neither RAW or RAI.

Unarmed strikes are more iffy, but I fail to see why it is clearly off the table.

You also forgot to say no to barbarian's bonus action attack. Unless you are trying to force me to use that as an example by arbitrarily removing all the other options, then pointing out it adds exhaustion as proof the feat is too good, ignoring the fact the barbarian ability is considered bad in comparison to other abilities, the same as duel wielding.

If you don't care about the shield, their is no difference between one hand crossbow with five and two hand crossbows, one with four and one with one. It'll be the same since off hand penalties aren't a thing unless you use the melee duel wield rules (which don't apply here).