Why do People Hate on Crossbow Expert?

[NeoSeraphi]

So for those of us who don't own the phb (just got some holiday money but bookstores are closed on Thanksgiving) why does everyone cite Crossbow Expert as the main problem with 5e's vague wording? And if it's so bad, why hasn't a dev posted about it like Fast Hands?

[mephnick]

Because the intent of the feat is obviously to let you use a hand crossbow with another weapon on the same turn, like iconic roguish characters, not to double attack with the same crossbow on the same turn.

Unfortunately the wording is vague enough that players can say nothing prevents you from doubling your attacks with a single crossbow.

Some people can't get over RAW. Those who can have no problem with the feat.

[NeoSeraphi]

Wait I thought you could attack with your off-hand weapon without TWF in this edition. So why do you need a feat to TWF with a hand crossbow?

[silveralen]

Wait I thought you could attack with your off-hand weapon without TWF in this edition. So why do you need a feat to TWF with a hand crossbow?

Because, for some reason, TWF only works with melee weapons. You can even throw the melee weapons, but you can't use an actual one handed ranged weapon in your offhand by default.

As for why it gets hate, it's poorly written to lead to different readings, it was clarified by a designer, but only after many people already established their own method of handling it (which many prefer and consider as or more balanced).

To compound issues, his clarification is inconsistent with other parts of the rulebook that have been clarified, leading to some amount of annoyance. His "clarification" is more or less errata, as it works nothing like how he clarified it to the way it is written.

Oh, and with his clarification the feat is by far one of the least useful in the book. More or less savage attacker level.

[Giant2005]

Wait I thought you could attack with your off-hand weapon without TWF in this edition. So why do you need a feat to TWF with a hand crossbow?

The un-feated dual-wielding only works with two light melee weapons.

[Longcat]

The feat is badly worded, resulting in some ambiguity. Specifically "ignore loading" vs "loaded". Depending on how you read it, it can mean any number of things. The feat varies in usefulness accordingly.

The discussions this feat has sparked have been rather heated, with both sides claiming RAW/RAI is on their side. Overall, it can be summarized as "your approach is BadWrongFun".

[mephnick]

Because, for some reason, TWF only works with melee weapons. You can even throw the melee weapons, but you can't use an actual one handed ranged weapon in your offhand by default.

It also lets you use your damage bonus, which TWF does not.

It's not really a big deal in the long run, but it's a fairly substantial power boost for low level characters.

[mephnick]

So the feat gives you TWF that is not reliant on light weapons AND let's you add your damage bonus to your off-hand weapon, which is powerful enough.

People just don't want the drawback of having to be in melee range to get two attacks at level 1.

[Rummy]

Could someone summarize what the Dev errata was?

[NeoSeraphi]

Yes, could someone summarize or link the errata?

[Scirocco]

https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/tag/crossbow/

[NeoSeraphi]

I don't see the nerf. All it says is that you need to use a different crossbow for the TWF part of the feat.

[Rummy]

I don't see the nerf. All it says is that you need to use a different crossbow for the TWF part of the feat.

I concur. He's just clarifying that two weapons are required. That is what the feat seemed to say, but was unclear on. It is still a crazy good feat. Extra attack with Dex mod to damage? I'm in.

[Eslin]

I don't get it, there are subject titles and tags but no text.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Huh, crossbow feat works with range spells... I wonder how we can abuse this...

[NeoSeraphi]

Huh, crossbow feat works with range spells... I wonder how we can abuse this...

By RAW, it's clearly not RAI and besides eldritch knights can already attack and cantrip

[Regulas]

The intent of the feat is glaringly obvious.

I'm really confused actually as to how anyone has any confusion whatsoever over this feat in any way shape or form whatsoever.

Unless of course they are just trying to abuse the rules and are doing it intentionally.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

By RAW, it's clearly not RAI and besides eldritch knights can already attack and cantrip

Apparently by RAI too, Mike Mearles and Co didnt say it was against the intent.

[silveralen]

I concur. He's just clarifying that two weapons are required. That is what the feat seemed to say, but was unclear on. It is still a crazy good feat. Extra attack with Dex mod to damage? I'm in.

It's polearm master with less damage, no OAs or reaction attacks, and needs multiple magic weapons.

The link won't work for me (cellphone issue) but didn't he clarify it was melee+hand crossbow for intent?

[Kyutaru]

It's polearm master with less damage, no OAs or reaction attacks, and needs multiple magic weapons.

The link won't work for me (cellphone issue) but didn't he clarify it was melee+hand crossbow for intent?

That or double hand crossbow. Firing into melee is actually the written wording of it.

[obryn]

The discussions this feat has sparked have been rather heated, with both sides claiming RAW/RAI is on their side. Overall, it can be summarized as "your approach is BadWrongFun".

Uh, no?

The intent of the feat is glaringly obvious.

I'm really confused actually as to how anyone has any confusion whatsoever over this feat in any way shape or form whatsoever.

Unless of course they are just trying to abuse the rules and are doing it intentionally.

I agree its obvious intent is that you can dual-wield hand crossbows and go all Chow Yun Fat on owlbears.

Some folks don't agree that this is obvious, and have argued that you obviously can't John Woo a pair of hand crossbows due to Dual Wielding RAW and/or hand requirements for loading. Others have argued that you can obviously go gun & shield while still getting the bonus actions due to the feat RAW and the word "loaded".

In short, I don't think you can dismiss this all as "obvious" when it's "obviously" (heh) a badly-worded feat.

[Regulas]

Uh, no?


I agree its obvious intent is that you can dual-wield hand crossbows and go all Chow Yun Fat on owlbears.

Some folks don't agree that this is obvious, and have argued that you obviously can't John Woo a pair of hand crossbows due to Dual Wielding RAW and/or hand requirements for loading. Others have argued that you can obviously go gun & shield while still getting the bonus actions due to the feat RAW and the word "loaded".

In short, I don't think you can dismiss this all as "obvious" when it's "obviously" (heh) a badly-worded feat.

Why is it that you like so many other people miss-construes the timing of when you load (during the attack) as the method, when it is just the timing. And the feat only means you can load more then once, again having nothing to do with the method which is not mentioned.

The ammo rule states that you draw the ammo from it's container. Again that is simple and straightforward. If both your hands are fully occupied then without slight of hand you aren't going to be grabbing anything such as ammo from any container. {scrubbed}

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I think most agree that the feat:
1) Allows you to fully dual-weapon fight with a hand crossbow as the off-hand weapon
2) Allows use of any crossbow with extra-attack class features

1 is neat, but niche, and 2 isn't worth a feat on it's own. 1 could be expanded to mean that both weapons can be hand crossbows, and there's evidence that that was the intent. It gets weird trying to imagine how loading happens, but mechanically it's just a ranged version of two-weapon fighting with shortswords.

Shield and hand-crossbow does seem to drift away from the intent, unless you're bashing people with the shield before using the bonus attack. At my table I think this is where the line gets drawn; No bonus attack unless you made an attack with something in your other hand.

[Finieous]

{scrubbed}

[obryn]

Why is it that you like so many other people miss-construes the timing of when you load (during the attack) as the method, when it is just the timing. And the feat only means you can load more then once, again having nothing to do with the method which is not mentioned.

The ammo rule states that you draw the ammo from it's container. Again that is simple and straightforward. If both your hands are fully occupied then without slight of hand you aren't going to be grabbing anything such as ammo from any container. {scrubbed}

Oh! So you think it's obvious that you can't dual-wield crossbows and I think it's obvious that you can! How intriguing! It's almost as if the wording of the feat is crazy and vague, bringing us full circle!

Heck; even the designers apparently think you can dual-wield hand crossbows, but what do they know, eh?

[Kyutaru]

It's also usable with the Van Helsing approach. Stabby weapon in one hand, crossbow in the other, melee combat focused. Shooting into melee is something people want to be able to do. Not because they lack a melee weapon, but because when that guy is dead they can still shoot someone far away without swapping.

[Regulas]

Oh! So you think it's obvious that you can't dual-wield crossbows and I think it's obvious that you can! How intriguing! It's almost as if the wording of the feat is crazy and vague, bringing us full circle!

Heck; even the designers apparently think you can dual-wield hand crossbows, but what do they know, eh?

Oh so juggling doesn't take a skill check? Oh wait...

You "think" it works that way because you want it to so your intentionally bending you're interpretation to allow for it. That however is not vagueness in wording that is your specific intent.

[Kyutaru]

You can technically dual wield anything in the game. I can dual wield a pair of goblins if I wanted. I'm just not going to get any bonus attack from it. The rules merely clarify when certain bonuses are triggered, not what you can or cannot do. Monkey Grip allowed you to wield Greatswords solo handed, but you could always do that if you were capable of holding a 15 lb object in one hand.

Dual wielding crossbows is obviously possible. Whether you can reload them freely is what's debated and the developers have essentially said yes to that. Hands aren't the only things people use in combat. You might have six of seven bolts under your arm or are using your teeth to pull back the crossbeam.

We also have only two hands, but ten fingers. Don't tell me none of you have ever tried to hold more than two objects at the same time in your life. We find ways to put those digits to use...

If you can't see it from a rules perspective, go with my surefire DM ruling method: ask the players to attempt it in real life. If they can do it, their heroic characters can DEFINITELY do it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Oh so juggling doesn't take a skill check? Oh wait...

You "think" it works that way because you want it to so your intentionally bending you're interpretation to allow for it. That however is not vagueness in wording that is your specific intent.

So wait...

obryn has designer input on this issue and yet you think obryn is bending interpretations?

How in bloody hell does that work?

[Regulas]

So wait...

obryn has designer input on this issue and yet you think obryn is bending interpretations?

How in bloody hell does that work?

The designers response was "you juggle your gear". So if I accept that is valid then I must accept that juggling does not require any skill checks.

I guess that also means I don't need warcaster, since I can just juggle my shield and sword to free up my hands.