Why do People Hate on Crossbow Expert?

[Navian]

I feel like I have something to add. I'm not sure I should add it, because I really don't want people to start arguing about it, yet it still seems like a salient point to me.

I've seen some people in this thread bring up the issues of common sense and physical possibility. Outside of gaming, a crossbow that can be casually drawn back by hand, without thought, to reload it, is a crossbow that will launch bolts with less force than they could be thrown with by hand--it doesn't work. In reality, a crossbow is a device for storing energy. Its power is proportional to how difficult it is to draw back, so the most effective ones would take up to a minute to load, and required using the full body and elaborate mechanical aid--goat's feet, cranequins, et cetera.

This isn't relevant in D&D. No version of D&D that I know of treats crossbows as a device that stores energy, they're instead regarded as devices that launch attacks of fixed power, at a pre-defined rate, regardless of the strength of the user, or how much of that strength they're loaded with. In D&D, there's no reason a crossbow expert can't load their weapons by casually dropping a bolt on them, because the damage they deal has nothing to do with the strength that is needed to draw them.

That means it's ultimately up to the DM to decide how far is too far to go in regards to ease of loading. I agree with Shadow's consistency-based argument, it bothers me when something works in a way that's unlike anything else in the core rules, even if it's still 'fair and balanced'. 2e was fun because of how idiosyncratic it was, but while idiosyncrasy is fun to play with, it's obtrusive and distracting when trying to focus on something that's not meant to be coloured or defined by the rules of the game system.

And yeah, numbers don't determine whether an rules interpretation goes outside the bounds of the rules or not. If you find something in the rules that lets you say that your cleric is unable to cast any spells, when this wasn't intended, and use that to justify not casting spells, that's still a rules exploit. On the other hand, if the rules allow you to use two different weapons that are identical, but one does twice as much damage than the other, regardless of which weapon you use, you're not exploiting the rules.
They might have made a typographical error, there, though, and if you realize that but choose to take advantage of it anyway, this is an exploit. Some game systems encourage doing this, but not many. It takes a lot of layers of ironic self-awareness to pull off well.

It seems the problem is that we don't really know what the developers' intent was, whether it was to leave it open for interpretation, or for it to be used in some specific way (and what way that was). Deciding the truth requires interpreting the text as a whole, which is difficult, so there's going to be a lot of disagreement about it. And if they just weren't thinking about it, or forgot their original intent and just made up a bunch of separate interpretations when they read it again later, then there really is no right answer to find. It's possible... and the only thing to do then would be to stop fighting about it, because any answer would be fabricated from out of thin air, anyway.

I think that answers the thread's original question.

[Shadow]

And yeah, numbers don't determine whether an rules interpretation goes outside the bounds of the rules or not.

Exactly.
Thank you.

Let me put this another way for some of you.
All of the following assumes no magic, as we are discussing weapon combat only and magic is a non-factor for this.
There are zero ways to get a bonus action attack with the same weapon used in the same manner other than martial arts.
We're going to exclude martial arts here, because unarmed strike, while being on the weapon table, isn't a physical weapon. Your hand or foot can be used as a weapon, but it wasn't designed as such. Martial arts is also exclusive to monks, requires specific (usually simple) weapons to be used, requires that you not be wearing armor, requires that you not be wielding a shield, etc etc etc. But we're mostly excluding it based on the fact that your hand or foot or whatever was not designed as a weapon, and we're discussing manufactured weapons here.

So what are the ways to get a bonus action attack?
1. Martial arts, which we have excluded for this discussion. But even if we did include it, you make the first attack with any monk weapon and the second requires an unarmed strike, so you're using two different weapons.
2. Two weapon fighting. This requires a second weapon.
3. Great weapon master. This requires a crit to trigger, and as such cannot be done at-will.
4. Tavern brawler. This grants a grapple attempt, which is not strictly an attack per se, and is certainly not an attack with a weapon.
5. Polearm master. This grants an attack with the haft of the weapon. This is basically using the other end of the weapon as an improvised weapon (which deals appropriate damage for an improvised weapon at 1d4). So this is basically using the haft as a second, improvised weapon. Not a single weapon, as far as this comparison goes.

How many of those use one single weapon, used in the same manner that it is normally used, without the use of any magic, to offer a bonus action attack every single round?
The answer to that question is: ZERO.
Every single one of those either requires a different, secondary (possibly virtual), or improvised weapon to grant the bonus attack.
None of them offer that bonus attack while using a single weapon in the same manner that the weapon is normally used.
Not a single one of them does this.
The reason that not a single one does this is because we have limits on how many times we may attack with a weapon in a turn. Those limits are set by our class and level. Those limits are set in stone. The only way to overcome those limits are to use magic, use a second weapon, or take a feat and then use a different weapon or different part of our original weapon as a virtual improvised weapon, which by definition makes that a second weapon for these purposes.
There are zero other ways to get a bonus action attack every single turn without exception. Those numbers are set in stone.

Crossbow Expert was not meant to break this rule, and by intent does not break this rule.
Nothing can break this rule.
So if you read XbX to mean that this rule has been broken, you are reading the feat in an exploitative manner.

[GiantOctopodes]

Exactly.
Thank you.

Let me put this another way for some of you.
All of the following assumes no magic, as we are discussing weapon combat only and magic is a non-factor for this.
There are zero ways to get a bonus action attack with the same weapon used in the same manner other than martial arts.
We're going to exclude martial arts here, because unarmed strike, while being on the weapon table, isn't a physical weapon. Your hand or foot can be used as a weapon, but it wasn't designed as such. Martial arts is also exclusive to monks, requires specific (usually simple) weapons to be used, requires that you not be wearing armor, requires that you not be wielding a shield, etc etc etc. But we're mostly excluding it based on the fact that your hand or foot or whatever was not designed as a weapon, and we're discussing manufactured weapons here.

So what are the ways to get a bonus action attack?
1. Martial arts, which we have excluded for this discussion. But even if we did include it, you make the first attack with any monk weapon and the second requires an unarmed strike, so you're using two different weapons.
2. Two weapon fighting. This requires a second weapon.
3. Great weapon master. This requires a crit to trigger, and as such cannot be done at-will.
4. Tavern brawler. This grants a grapple attempt, which is not strictly an attack per se, and is certainly not an attack with a weapon.
5. Polearm master. This grants an attack with the haft of the weapon. This is basically using the other end of the weapon as an improvised weapon (which deals appropriate damage for an improvised weapon at 1d4). So this is basically using the haft as a second, improvised weapon. Not a single weapon, as far as this comparison goes.

How many of those use one single weapon, used in the same manner that it is normally used, without the use of any magic, to offer a bonus action attack every single round?
The answer to that question is: ZERO.
Every single one of those either requires a different, secondary (possibly virtual), or improvised weapon to grant the bonus attack.
None of them offer that bonus attack while using a single weapon in the same manner that the weapon is normally used.
Not a single one of them does this.
The reason that not a single one does this is because we have limits on how many times we may attack with a weapon in a turn. Those limits are set by our class and level. Those limits are set in stone. The only way to overcome those limits are to use magic, use a second weapon, or take a feat and then use a different weapon or different part of our original weapon as a virtual improvised weapon, which by definition makes that a second weapon for these purposes.
There are zero other ways to get a bonus action attack every single turn without exception. Those numbers are set in stone.

Crossbow Expert was not meant to break this rule, and by intent does not break this rule.
Nothing can break this rule.
So if you read XbX to mean that this rule has been broken, you are reading the feat in an exploitative manner.

Ways to get a second attack with the exact same weapon used in your primary attack, used in the exact same fashion:
Frenzy: You can attack with a weapon, then use a bonus action to attack with the exact same manufactured, martial designed weapon in the exact same way, the very exact thing you are arguing does not exist. And it's not magic. And if you don't think a barbarian can be raging every round, you obviously have neither played a barbarian nor played with them.
War Priest: Their bonus weapon attacks *must expressly* be done using the exact same action normally taken with the weapon.
Martial Arts: It grants a bonus attack every single round, without any resource consumption or restrictions other than you must attack with an unarmed attack or a monk weapon (which are essentially the same as far as damage and mechanics are concerned), both of which count not only as martial weapons but by level 6 as magical weapons, and which cap out at 1d10 damage, higher damage than any one handed martial manufactured weapon. I don't care if you're not counting it, that is a direct equivalent, which again you are saying does not exist.

Also, once again, saying that something is unique does not in any way prove that it shouldn't exist. Saying that something shouldn't exist in no way proves it doesn't. You are very, very far away from actually saying anything about what the rule actually does with this argument. Instead you keep on hammering that 'nothing else does this (except for magic, things with unarmed attacks, class features, etc), so this shouldn't do it either'. You also indicate that granting attacks as a bonus action is breaking a rule that is "set in stone". Despite it not actually being a rule, of course, and despite this:

Spoiler

Show

Frenzy: Melee weapon attack, no requirements for use.
Battle Magic: Weapon attack, occurs when casting a spell, no limitations on the kinds of weapons that can be used.
War Priest: Weapon attack, must use the attack action, no limitations on the kinds of weapons that can be used.
War Magic: Weapon attack, occurs when casting cantrips / spells, no limitation on the kinds of weapons that can be used.
Martial Arts: Unarmed attack, must use the attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon
Flurry of Blows: Two unarmed attacks, must use the attack action
Charger: Melee weapon attack, must use the dash action
Crossbow Expert: Hand Crossbow attack, must use the attack action with a one handed weapon
Polearm Master: Haft of Polearm attack, must use the attack action with a glaive, halbred or staff
Two Weapon Fighting: Light melee weapon attack, must use the attack action with a different light melee weapon.
Swift Quiver: Two ranged weapon attacks, must use a weapon that consumes ammunition drawn from the quiver
Summoning and Conjuration Spells: Can direct the summoned entity or creature with a bonus action, leading to one or more attacks. They attack, not you, so it's indirect.

Which hardly seems to me to be the kind of list you should be able to get of abilities that break your rule which is set in stone.

[CrusaderJoe]

Omg, I'm laughing so much, this has been a very... Educational and halarious :).

I say that in all honesty and seriousness.

All I can say is that if you are freaking out over someone duel wielding crossbows or using the same crossbow in the same round then you shouldn't be the one DMing the game. I would hate for your mind to explode when you see all the other unrealistic rules in 5e.

IMaybe coming to this forum was a mistake, people tend to have forgotten what fantasy means and that D&D is a fantasy game.


fan·ta·sy
ˈfan(t)əsē/
noun
1.
the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
"his research had moved into the realm of fantasy"
synonyms: imagination, fancy, invention, make-believe; More

I really need to make this my signature if I'm to stay around.

[Xetheral]

Their argument, and the argument you're referring to particularly, is showing a bunch of math to suggest that it isn't exploitative.
One more time, for those of you that have missed it: Numbers are not the determining factor in whether or not something is exploitative.
Numbers can very well be the determining factor deciding whether or not something is BALANCED, but numbers are irrelevant in deciding if something is an EXPLOIT.
So all they're doing is proving that using the feat in that manner is not unbalanced (which I have never once said that it was), but they are then using that argument of balance to make claims that it is not an exploit.
Balance and exploitation are not mutually exclusive, nor do they walk hand in hand.

We're not even saying the same things, so our interpretive approach doesn't factor into it.
The methodologies certainly do though, because numbers cannot always be used to prove or disprove exploitation, as in this case.
Math can always be used to prove or disprove balance. That's where people get mixed up.

The only number that matters for determining if this is an exploit or not is: X+1
X is the number of attacks that anyone can take with a single ranged weapon without the use of magic.
X+1 is the number of attacks that they are getting by reading the feat in an exploitative manner and ignoring the intent.
Once again: Is it unbalanced? No.
Is it an exploit? Absolutely without a doubt.

Interesting. I was indeed misunderstanding your position, so thank you for clarifying. I was going to follow-up and ask what makes something an exploit in your mind if it isn't balance concerns, but I believe you've clarified that too in your next post.

There are zero other ways to get a bonus action attack every single turn without exception. Those numbers are set in stone.

Crossbow Expert was not meant to break this rule, and by intent does not break this rule.
Nothing can break this rule.
So if you read XbX to mean that this rule has been broken, you are reading the feat in an exploitative manner.

If the single-crossbow interpretation of Crossbow Expert did indeed violate a fundamental design principle, then I'd agree that violation would count against it (probably fatally). But I don't see any reason to believe you've identified a fundamental design principle at all, let alone one that is important enough to justify your statement "Nothing can break this rule". You've identified an extremely specific combination of restrictions (no magic, single weapons only, normal use of single weapons only, manufactured weapons only, no limited use abilities, no conditional abilities), observed that no abilities that meet those restrictions grant a bonus action attack (although GiantOctopodes challenges this), and concluded that this is an inviolate fundamental design principle.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning leading from your observations to your conclusion. Do you have any other evidence or arguments suggesting that you've identified a design principle of use in resolving ambiguities in the rules?

[Eslin]

That's the thing. This ISN'T a game about numbers. This is a game about playing a role within a campaign within a world of your and your friends' imaginations.
It has never been about numbers, except to the people that somehow think that they need to find a way to *win* D&D, and the intention of the rules be damned in the pursuit of that unattainable goal.

The main reason that 2e was always my favorite edition has nothing to do with the edition itself. 5e is gaining ground on 2e in that respect, but it's not *quite* there yet. But the main reason that 2e was my favorite, and the main reason that I pretty much despised 3e (and 4e, but for many other reasons as well) is because of the internet.
Players that need to *win* D&D and read the rules like a legal document, with zero regard for the intention of those rules whatsoever, have poisoned my table. Things that never would have entered players' minds were read about on some forum or another, and then they just had to try it! No matter if it was never intended. No matter if it was broken as hell. No matter if it was an obvious exploit. Some schmuck on some forum broke down the rules into segments rather than reading the rules as a cohesive whole, and from this incomplete understanding of what was supposed to be created an abomination designed to *win* at D&D.

The entire point of the game changed in the minds of most of the player base. The point used to be to have fun. The point then became *winning* after the internet, and the intention of the rules be damned in that pursuit.
2e didn't have that problem. That's why 2e is and will probably remain my favorite edition.

People that think D&D is a game about numbers don't even understand the POINT of the game, so why should I expect them to understand the intention of the game's rules?

Pretty much every single thing you just mentioned is fun as hell. You can't win at D&D, but you can try to do as well as you possibly can and enjoy the hell out of that - my players build characters as strong as possible so they can drop the ring in the volcano easily, go on to conquer the Grey Havens and build a giant kingdom while trying to find a way to kill the Ainur.

Again, why on earth would the way the rules are intended be in any way related to how they should be used? When I intend for my players to fight off a dragon turtle but instead they make friends with it, attach a complicated permanent wall of force/wall of fire/decanter of endless water combination to basically make it into a jet and crash it into a castle, I don't tell them they can't do that because that's not how dragon turtles or the wall spells or the decanter are supposed to be used, I have the wizard who lives in that castle get on his enlarged wyvern mount and come have a midair dragon fight.

The point of D&D has always been to have fun, but you really need to accept that a lot of people find trying to A) find new tricks and combinations and B) make a character as strong as possible fun.

[Easy_Lee]

Shadow, the problem isn't that crossbow expert is good. Spending a feat for a bonus attack is reasonable; we get the same from polearm master. The problem is we don't have similar feats for other ranged weapons. It's kind of like how evokers and sorcerers have to go fire because the other elements don't have enough spell options. We just need more feats so everyone gets support.

[Shadow]

(although GiantOctopodes challenges this)

I wouldn't know.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning leading from your observations to your conclusion. Do you have any other evidence or arguments suggesting that you've identified a design principle of use in resolving ambiguities in the rules?

The design principle is easy to identify. It's number of attacks based on class and level.
One attack for everyone under level 5.
Two attacks for certain classes and subclasses from 5 onward.
Three attacks for fighters at level 11.
Four attacks for fighters at level 20.
That is how many attacks any character can make with a weapon every round using no resources.

That's the design principle. That's the rule. That number is set.
In order to break this rule, one of the following three things must occur:

1. you use resources such as spell slots
2. you meet certain criteria, such as GWM crit trigger
3. you have a second weapon
   
   • polearm master applies, as the haft is an improvised weapon
   • martial arts applies, as the secondary attack must be unarmed
   • crossbow master applies, and requires this x-bow be loaded

That's it. That's the design. Crossbow master doesn't break that design, it fits perfectly into it.
Reading the feat as breaking this design isn't going to break your game, but it is absolutely an exploit. Reading it that way takes X as the number of attacks you can take, and makes it X+1, but doesn't require you to meet any of the three requirements that anyone else in the game needs to meet in order to take that extra attack.
Reading XbX in that manner breaks the number of attacks allowed by players. Those attacks aren't very powerful, so the numbers don't overwhelm things. But the overall output numbers aren't the issue.
The fact that it's breaking the formula in the first place is the issue.

[Eslin]

I wouldn't know.


The design principle is easy to identify. It's number of attacks based on class and level.
One attack for everyone under level 5.
Two attacks for certain classes and subclasses from 5 onward.
Three attacks for fighters at level 11.
Four attacks for fighters at level 20.
That is how many attacks any character can make with a weapon every round using no resources.

That's the design principle. That's the rule. That number is set.
In order to break this rule, one of the following three things must occur:

1. you use resources such as spell slots
2. you meet certain criteria, such as GWM crit trigger
3. you have a second weapon
   
   • polearm master applies, as the haft is an improvised weapon
   • martial arts applies, as the secondary attack must be unarmed
   • crossbow master applies, and requires this x-bow be loaded

That's it. That's the design. Crossbow master doesn't break that design, it fits perfectly into it.
Reading the feat as breaking this design isn't going to break your game, but it is absolutely an exploit.

The haft is not an improvised weapon, it's part of the same weapon. Polearm master in no way applies.
And the 'no resource' thing is silly, even the crossbow uses a resource in the form of bolts. At level 10 a bard is using swift quiver and a monk flurry of blows for four attacks - they're not costless, but it reaches a point where the cost is low enough that the option can be used for every combat round of the day without much impact on the character's resources.

This is a really specific, kind of tortured attempt to try to create design intent that was never there, and wouldn't matter even if it was there. 5e's fun, but the designers were all over the place in terms of intent and wording.

[Xetheral]

The design principle is easy to identify. It's number of attacks based on class and level.
One attack for everyone under level 5.
Two attacks for certain classes and subclasses from 5 onward.
Three attacks for fighters at level 11.
Four attacks for fighters at level 20.
That is how many attacks any character can make with a weapon every round using no resources.

That's the design principle. That's the rule. That number is set.
In order to break this rule, one of the following three things must occur:

1. you use resources such as spell slots
2. you meet certain criteria, such as GWM crit trigger
3. you have a second weapon
   
   • polearm master applies, as the haft is an improvised weapon
   • martial arts applies, as the secondary attack must be unarmed
   • crossbow master applies, and requires this x-bow be loaded

That's it. That's the design. Crossbow master doesn't break that design, it fits perfectly into it.
Reading the feat as breaking this design isn't going to break your game, but it is absolutely an exploit.

Thanks for taking the time to reformulate the general design principle you're trying to demonstrate. It's much simpler and easier to follow this way. Sadly, I still don't see any reason to think you're correct. In particular, there's nothing to suggest that your list of exceptions to the rule is complete or accurately grouped, let alone fundamental. It's at least as plausible that the general design principle is that the number of attacks is limited to the totals you've named, unless an ability says otherwise.

You see it as a general principle, and I don't, and from my perspective that's fine--it's simple enough to disagree on that point. However, since I don't agree on that underlying issue, I can't reach your conclusion that the single-crossbow interpretation is absolutely an exploit.

Thanks again for taking the time to lay out your argument. I feel I understand it much better now, even if I don't agree.

[Shadow]

You see it as a general principle, and I don't, and from my perspective that's fine--it's simple enough to disagree on that point. However, since I don't agree on that underlying issue, I can't reach your conclusion that the single-crossbow interpretation is absolutely an exploit.

Excluding the misinterpreted intent of XbX, which has been clarified for us (and that intent has indeed been clarified), find me an example of a bonus attack anywhere in the PHB that can't be explained using those guidelines.

In order to break this rule, one of the following three things must occur:

1. you use resources such as spell slots
2. you meet certain criteria, such as GWM crit trigger
3. you have a second weapon
   
   • leaving room for reasonable explanation, such as PM haft as an improvised weapon, etc

Excluding XbX (which is misinterpreted by many) find me a single example of a bonus attack which does not meet this criterion, and I will happily let this go. You won't be able to do it, because every single other bonus attack fits within this criterion. The misread XbX feat is literally the only one that doesn't, and that interpretation was not intended.

When XbX is read as intended, there are exactly zero examples which fall outside the parameters listed above.
You may not see that as enough to set precedent about it being a general principle, but I certainly do.

[Navian]

Also, once again, saying that something is unique does not in any way prove that it shouldn't exist.

It's impossible to prove something shouldn't exist under any circumstances because it's subjective, and regardless, Shadow isn't saying it shouldn't exist, he's saying it's not meant to work that way. This is also subjective, so it can't be proven except with words from an absolute authority on the subject, which none of us are and apparently not even the developers who've spoken on it are. I think Eslin is as close as we can get to an answer on that, in saying that they were all over the place and did not have clear intentions.

Having an exclusive feat that allows a single type of missile weapon to attack twice, but is not usable with other similar weapons, is idiosyncratic. It may or may not have been intended to be used that way, but it's a fair argument to either say that it was (to provide an extra option) or that it wasn't (to keep things consistent.) Which of the two is better is subjective, and would require far too many assumptions to 'prove' one way or the other. It would be safer to say one way is better for some groups, and the other is better for others.

Pretty much every single thing you just mentioned is fun as hell. You can't win at D&D, but you can try to do as well as you possibly can and enjoy the hell out of that - my players build characters as strong as possible so they can drop the ring in the volcano easily, go on to conquer the Grey Havens and build a giant kingdom while trying to find a way to kill the Ainur.

That kind of stuff really bothers me... it comes across to me as people breaking their toys instead of playing with them. Yeah, I... guess I can conceive of someone bringing over a box of Hot Wheels and smashing the cars together until they're all shattered and broken, all in the name of fun, and calling that 'playing' instead of 'wanton destruction'. I just wouldn't want to participate in that particular game, which is fair enough because I don't think I could ever understand what its rules were. On the other hand, I probably wouldn't play with people who like pretend they're having a fully legitimate NASCAR race with their toys, either. Fun is way subjective.

Again, why on earth would the way the rules are intended be in any way related to how they should be used? When I intend for my players to fight off a dragon turtle but instead they make friends with it, attach a complicated permanent wall of force/wall of fire/decanter of endless water combination to basically make it into a jet and crash it into a castle, I don't tell them they can't do that because that's not how dragon turtles or the wall spells or the decanter are supposed to be used, I have the wizard who lives in that castle get on his enlarged wyvern mount and come have a midair dragon fight.

This works so long as they still obey certain rules while they're breaking the rest of them--the narrative rules of the genre of the campaign you're running for them. I've seen several Star Wars games implode because some idiot in the group decided they would be "clever" and use a Relativistic Kinetic Kill Vehicle--the most terrible improvised weapon imaginable, something that is never alluded to in the movies Star Wars games draw from--to destroy an entire adventure area so they don't have to play the game. In D&D, archetypically this would be using the principles of convection to starve a cave system of oxygen with a large fire, defeating the humanoids within without engaging them.

In your game, they apparently aren't defying the logic the world you create runs on, so it works out. But what if the players were meant to fight their way through a dungeon, instead of skipping it with an improvised rocket? What if the villain was supposed to appear later, and wrestle one of the PCs on the roof of the clock tower, while the rest of the party was trying to shut down the self-destruct mechanism? Many DMs can't adapt when the PCs come up with something out of nowhere--especially not when it's something that's been established as unthinkable or even physically impossible in the setting--and many more don't want to, because they (and most likely some of their players) would consider the 'fun' that resulted from allowing the rules to be bent this way to be banal and gratuitous, in comparison to what could have been if their players remained within bounds.

Not everything about this is subjective, a well-designed game system is objectively more likely to function properly for its intended purpose when it's used the way it was designed to be used, and the situations the players get into are those that the designers anticipated. Admittedly, that's very specific and parts of it are subjective.

The disconnect here may be that some people find 'things functioning properly' to be utterly dull, and at the same time find it extremely entertaining when things are pushed to their breaking point and beyond. There's no getting past that--even I feel that way about some things, like cookie sheets. (They're much more fun when you slide down a mountain of ice on them than when you just use them for baking cookies, although I still find toboggans to be better for this.)

Anyway, for a specific example to answer your first question in this paragraph, Stronghold 2. It's a game about medieval armies, castles, and knights, and yet it turns out the best way to win is to stack a bunch of siege weapons on top of each other in one space, as if they're phased through themselves interdimensionally. With ballistae, this has the same functionality regarding those medieval armies as a .50 calibur machine gun in a concrete bunker. This is really bad. If it wasn't unintended, it was downright cruel to anyone that was expecting medieval combat, and it flattened out any complexity the game had into a rigid sort of arcade-style 'Tower Defense'.

No, 'rigid, arcade-style tower defense' is not inherently bad. But if they wanted to create that sort of gameplay, they could have done it a lot better without cluttering it up with all kinds of buildings and soldiers and resources that turned out to be utterly worthless when stacked-up siege weapons got involved. Again, some people only find this stuff interesting when they're ruining and breaking things or creating controversy. They'd spend months turning SH2 into this sort of game, and yet they'd get bored within minutes if they actually played a game that was designed to be used that way.

There's no getting around that... but we can definitely get back on topic.

[GiantOctopodes]

Excluding the misinterpreted intent of XbX, which has been clarified for us (and that intent has indeed been clarified), find me an example of a bonus attack anywhere in the PHB that can't be explained using those guidelines.

In order to break this rule, one of the following three things must occur:

1. you use resources such as spell slots
2. you meet certain criteria, such as GWM crit trigger
3. you have a second weapon
   
   • leaving room for reasonable explanation, such as PM haft as an improvised weapon, etc

Excluding XbX (which is misinterpreted by many) find me a single example of a bonus attack which does not meet this criterion, and I will happily let this go.

Martial Arts. It does not meet that criterion. It is a bonus attack on every round, using the same weapon (an unarmored attack) as the one that triggered it.

Edit:

It's impossible to prove something shouldn't exist under any circumstances because it's subjective, and regardless, Shadow isn't saying it shouldn't exist, he's saying it's not meant to work that way. This is also subjective, so it can't be proven except with words from an absolute authority on the subject, which none of us are and apparently not even the developers who've spoken on it are. I think Eslin is as close as we can get to an answer on that, in saying that they were all over the place and did not have clear intentions.

Having an exclusive feat that allows a single type of missile weapon to attack twice, but is not usable with other similar weapons, is idiosyncratic. It may or may not have been intended to be used that way, but it's a fair argument to either say that it was (to provide an extra option) or that it wasn't (to keep things consistent.) Which of the two is better is subjective, and would require far too many assumptions to 'prove' one way or the other. It would be safer to say one way is better for some groups, and the other is better for others.

Correct, but that is largely my point as well- that we cannot actually prove whether or not it is meant to work that way, or what the intentions of the developers may have been. Saying it was or was not meant to work that way is not meaningfully clarifying, and only serves to obfuscate conversation regarding the functionality of the feat. It is my stance that it is much, much, *much* more helpful to discuss what it actually does, using the rules that are actually written in the book, than it is to discuss how it is meant to work, or intended to work, or should work, or anything of that nature. It is further my stance that there can indeed be meaningful discussion on what it does say, and that unlike intent, which cannot be proven, it can be demonstrably shown what the feat actually does, as written in the book, and what actions are and are not allowable using it. Furthermore, a discussion can then reasonably be made regarding whether or not the effects *as they actually exist* are balanced compared to other available choices. I feel *that* conversation is much more fruitful, as it gives a common ground from which people can appropriately determine what houserules should or should not be made, to provide the desired impact on its mechanics, with full knowledge at that point on the impact, if any, you are having on game balance with said house rules. I would much rather be having that conversation, personally. Unfortunately others are stuck on debating a purely subjective and unprovable matter of intent, to the benefit of no one, and it does not feel right to allow only one side (and a very skewed side at that) of that subjective debate to be presented, so here I am.

[Xetheral]

Excluding the misinterpreted intent of XbX, which has been clarified for us (and that intent has indeed been clarified), find me an example of a bonus attack anywhere in the PHB that can't be explained using those guidelines.

In order to break this rule, one of the following three things must occur:

1. you use resources such as spell slots
2. you meet certain criteria, such as GWM crit trigger
3. you have a second weapon
   
   • leaving room for reasonable explanation, such as PM haft as an improvised weapon, etc

Excluding XbX (which is misinterpreted by many) find me a single example of a bonus attack which does not meet this criterion, and I will happily let this go. You won't be able to do it, because every single other bonus attack fits within this criterion. The misread XbX feat is literally the only one that doesn't, and that interpretation was not intended.

If I could find such a clear counter-example, I'd use it to show that your proposed general design principle is wrong. But here we're in the realm of fitting theories to the available evidence, and there are multiple possible general design principles that equally-perfectly explain the disposition of abilities that grant extra attacks.

Even if we had a much larger list of abilities to compare to your proposed general design principle, an inability to find a counter example wouldn't prove your point (although it would strengthen it). There would need to be some affirmative reason to think that you've identified such a principle, and not simply found a pattern that equally fits other explanations.

However, it's not just that I see no affirmative reason to believe you've identified a genuine design principle. I'm also skeptical because the number of exceptions you've built into the principle so closely matches the number of abilities on which your principle is based. That makes your proposed rule very likely to suffer from overfitting. I'd find a much broader general design principle (such as the one I outlined in my last post) to be far more plausible.

Of course, the single-crossbow interpretation Crossbow Expert doesn't conflict with more generalized principles, which is why your theory required such nuanced detail in order to fit the available evidence.

Also, keep in mind that because you want to use your proposed general design principle to inform the interpretation of an otherwise-conflicting data point, the threshold for demonstrating that you've accurately divined such a general principle is extremely high. But frankly, because of the probable overfitting problem, I'd be skeptical even if Crossbow Expert itself unambiguously supported your proposed general design principle.

[Shadow]

Of course, the single-crossbow interpretation Crossbow Expert doesn't conflict with more generalized principles, which is why your theory required such nuanced detail in order to fit the available evidence.

Also, keep in mind that because you want to use your proposed general design principle to inform the interpretation of an otherwise-conflicting data point, the threshold for demonstrating that you've accurately divined such a general principle is extremely high. But frankly, because of the probable overfitting problem, I'd be skeptical even if Crossbow Expert itself unambiguously supported your proposed general design principle.

It didn't require "such nuanced detail" to fit anything.
There are three ways to get around the limit. One of those is to use resources, which can't be done at-will, leaving two ways to get around that limit. One of those two ways is to proc off of something else, which also cannot be done at-will, leaving one way to get around that limit.
The only way to get around that limit, at-will, without using resources, is to wield (or effectively make use of) a second weapon.
The overfitting problem you see doesn't exist.

I edited this in the post above, which must have happened while you were already typing:
When XbX is read as intended, there are exactly zero examples which fall outside the parameters listed above.
You may not see that as enough to set precedent about it being a general principle, but I certainly do.

[Xetheral]

It didn't require "such nuanced detail" to fit anything.
There are three ways to get around the limit. One of those is to use resources, which can't be done at-will, leaving two ways to get around that limit. One of those two ways is to proc off of something else, which also cannot be done at-will, leaving one way to get around that limit.
The only way to get around that limit, at-will, without using resources, is to wield (or effectively make use of) a second weapon.
The overfitting problem you see doesn't exist.

I edited this in the post above, which must have happened while you were already typing:
When XbX is read as intended, there are exactly zero examples which fall outside the parameters listed above.
You may not see that as enough to set precedent about it being a general principle, but I certainly do.

Thanks for highlighting your edit--I had indeed missed it. I agree: we're looking at the same data and reaching different conclusions.

[Navian]

The important thing for me, considering whether it can be used with a single crossbow or not, is that if it can, then there's no little to no reason to dual-wield hand crossbows, and even less reason to wield any other sort of one-handed missile weapon aside from a crossbow if the feat is available to the character.

If the feat doesn't allow the character to use the feat with a single crossbow, builds for characters that fight at range are likely to be more diverse. I'd assume that makes things more interesting. It's like if there was an ability that negated penalties for heavy armour, characters with it would never have an incentive to use other armour types. Even if it improved the game balance by making a weak character more versatile and powerful, it would flatten out the game's complexity and reduce the number of viable builds and equipment options for that character, with a negative impact on fun.

So... Balance and diversity don't go hand-in-hand any more than balance and self-consistency do, and yet all three are key objectives for an ideal RPG system. No wonder good game design turns out to be so difficult.

[Shadow]

Thanks for highlighting your edit--I had indeed missed it. I agree: we're looking at the same data and reaching different conclusions.

Pretty much, yeah.

As for the people claiming that we can't ever know their intentions, I disagree.
There are two possibilities. Either (a) a single weapon was intended to trigger its own bonus attack, or (b) two different weapons were intended.
If (a) is true, that doesn't exclude (b).
If (b) is true, then it does indeed exclude (a).
The lead designer would require two different weapons in his game.
If the lead designer would disallow (a), then you can be damned certain that (a) was not intended. If (a) were intended, the lead designer of the game wouldn't disallow it.
If (a) was not intended, then by default, as we only have two options, then (b) was the one that was intended.
The argument that we can't know what was intended simply holds no water once Mearls stated what he'd require in his own game.

[Navian]

The argument that we can't know what was intended simply holds no water once Mearls stated what he'd require in his own game.

Doesn't work if he intended it to be open to interpretation, or if he didn't remember what intent it was written with and decided how to interpret it from the text later on. It also doesn't work if he wasn't involved in designing the aspects of the system that pertain to it. Being the lead designer doesn't make him the author of things he didn't write or suggest.

I'd love it if I could be damned certain, but I'm not that confident in the design team's internal communications. Of course, I only have second-hand information to go on. You might be right. ...But I still hold we can't know for certain unless the actual author of the feat can say conclusively what their intent for it was, and that might not be possible.

Also, there's no guarantee that if we did get a conclusive answer from them, it would be a satisfying. Maybe neither of these two interpretations were intended, but instead a third one that was more poorly thought-out than either. I don't think that's as likely as the two-crossbows one, but the argument about it could go on forever... It's a lot easier if gamers just use what works for them, although it would be nice if players couldn't argue that their interpretation is the right one just to have things their way, or accuse their DM of misinterpreting.

[GiantOctopodes]

The important thing for me, considering whether it can be used with a single crossbow or not, is that if it can, then there's no little to no reason to dual-wield hand crossbows, and even less reason to wield any other sort of one-handed missile weapon aside from a crossbow if the feat is available to the character.

If the feat doesn't allow the character to use the feat with a single crossbow, builds for characters that fight at range are likely to be more diverse. I'd assume that makes things more interesting. It's like if there was an ability that negated penalties for heavy armour, characters with it would never have an incentive to use other armour types. Even if it improved the game balance by making a weak character more versatile and powerful, it would flatten out the game's complexity and reduce the number of viable builds and equipment options for that character, with a negative impact on fun.

So... Balance and diversity don't go hand-in-hand any more than balance and self-consistency do, and yet all three are key objectives for an ideal RPG system. No wonder good game design turns out to be so difficult.

I 100% agree with your first sentence. That being said, is there currently any reason to wield any sort of one handed missile weapon other than hand crossbows with crossbow expert being available, even if you don't allow the bonus attack to trigger off of the weapon's primary attack? In addition, I agree that there is no reason to dual wield hand crossbows, but is there any evidence they intended to promote dual wielding hand crossbows? Look at all the "it's unrealistic" arguments that arise from that, and look at the arguments that it is intended to be an attack triggered by a melee weapon attack with the hand crossbow as an offhand attack. It's just as possible that the "intent" may have been to require the primary weapon attack to be a melee weapon attack (providing synergy with the first bullet point of the feat) as it is that it was intended to specify a requirement for a different weapon generically to be used.

I also disagree that disallowing it to work with a single crossbow promotes diversity in options used at range. Can you provide any argument for why someone considering a longbow would not, if you allow it to work using two hand crossbows but not a single one, dual wield hand crossbows? It's still the only ranged weapon with a feat, and it's the only ranged weapon that can be used without disadvantage at melee range, and it's the only ranged weapon that can get a bonus attack every round, all of those things are true regardless of whether you're holding it in one hand or two. And since it's not like wielding a longbow only requires one hand, there is no loss in using two hands for hand crossbows. Your armour analogy, though apt, flies in the face of both the specific requirements for monks and barbarians (which do exactly that- reduce the game's complexity and the number of equipment options), as well as the heavily armoured feat, which provides, for anyone not using stealth who is already allowed to use heavy armour, the best possible choice, doing exactly what you describe.

I agree there should be more incentives for build variety, and that this feat reduces the game's complexity and takes away from it. I also believe it was a poor design decision to word this feat in the way they did, and can think of a half dozen better ways to word it, depending on what I want it to do. But personally, I find the most important thing in considering whether or not it can be used with a single crossbow to be considering whether or not there is something in the rules (any part of the rules) that disallows that from occurring, same as for considering if it can be used with a second crossbow, or attacking with a sword and firing with a hand crossbow being held in the offhand, or if an attack can be made with by throwing a dagger at an enemy while holding a shield, then a hand crossbow being drawn with the now free hand and fired with the bonus action.

[SiuiS]

Forums are kinda like chatrooms... Watch what you wish for ;)

I'm suddenly interested in this conversation again. Get it? Get it? It's an implication, you see. Of interest. Because reasons. =P

[Shadow]

Doesn't work if he intended it to be open to interpretation, or if he didn't remember what intent it was written with and decided how to interpret it from the text later on. It also doesn't work if he wasn't involved in designing the aspects of the system that pertain to it. Being the lead designer doesn't make him the author of things he didn't write or suggest.

I'd love it if I could be damned certain, but I'm not that confident in the design team's internal communications. Of course, I only have second-hand information to go on. You might be right. ...But I still hold we can't know for certain unless the actual author of the feat can say conclusively what their intent for it was, and that might not be possible.

Also, there's no guarantee that if we did get a conclusive answer from them, it would be a satisfying. Maybe neither of these two interpretations were intended, but instead a third one that was more poorly thought-out than either. I don't think that's as likely as the two-crossbows one, but the argument about it could go on forever... It's a lot easier if gamers just use what works for them, although it would be nice if players couldn't argue that their interpretation is the right one just to have things their way, or accuse their DM of misinterpreting.

It doesn't matter if he wrote it or not.
We're not talking about the intent of one specific author. We're talking about the intent of the rules. The rules as a whole. And if the lead designer of the game disallows something from his table, you can be absolutely certain that the thing in question does not fit within the intent of the rules, for if it did he would allow it.

But now I'm back to repeating that any DM is free allow whatever they want in their game at any particular table. I've never said that anyone should not allow this. Allow whatever you want. But the intent was clear to many of us from the start, and that intent was confirmed via tweet.
The intent was two weapons. There is no third option as you suggest. There are two options. And one of them was not intended, which was confirmed via tweet with a tiny little bit of deductive reasoning.
Reading it otherwise isn't going to break anyone's game, but it is indeed exploitative.

[RedMage125]

I understand Shadow's argument. He's fighting on the behalf of "fairness" towards game mechanics regarding inanimate objects in the D&D game.

Who cares about the rule-breaking of number of attacks that can be made with one weapon? Are you starting some kind of charitable awareness organization to make sure each weapon in the game is treated "fairly"? It's only in one specific scenario do you even have a case of the number of attacks being exceeded. If a Level 20 Ranger with CE-using Easy_Lee and my assertion that you can use one hand crossbow-he still makes LESS attacks with the one hand crossbow (using both an Action and a Bonus Action for a total of 3 attacks) than a level 20 Fighter with CE does without even using his Bonus Action (4 attacks). Which is something even Shadow cannot deny is acceptable both in rules and intent, with this feat.

So...even without using a bonus action, a Fighter who isn't even using Action Surge or his Bonus Action can exceed the number of attacks with one hand crossbow, since Fighters get more attacks with the Extra Attack feature than anyone else.

So what exactly is the maximum number of attacks with one weapon, by your definition? 4? Because only a level 20 Fighter can do that. So that's ONE example of how only ONE character class-one that is SPECIFICALLY a combat expert-with ANY weapon, melee or ranged (crossbows only if he has this feat). And he can only do that at level 20, the max level of the game, a point at which spellcasting classes can kill with a word, bring back the dead with no penalties without even needing a body, open gates to other planes, or reshape reality; Barbarians can violate the "max of 20" for ability scores, Paladins get crazy transformative aspect abilities based on their oath, Rogues can turn any miss into a hit, or any skill check failure into a nat 20, and classes with limited per-day resources (monks with ki points, sorc with sorcery points, bardic inspiration, druids with wild shape) get an effectively-unlimited amount of those resources. Sorry, but defining "exploit" against anything that only a level 20 character can do seems silly.

So what number then is acceptable to defend as the "maximum number of attacks with one weapon"? 3? Because any non-Fighter (or any Fighter below level 11) could use this feat with one hand crossbow and use both Action and Bonus Action to get 3 attacks, which is the same number of attacks that a level 11-19 Fighter could get using only one action with any weapon.

Since a non-Fighter would have to use our interpretation of the feat to get 3 attacks with one weapon, is 3 too many attacks to claim as "the maximum that can be made with one weapon in one round"? Should we try and defend 2? But then EVERY Fighter over level 11 can do that with ANY non-crossbow even without feats. Hell, after level 5 a Fighter who uses Action Surge can get 4 attacks with one weapon in a round.

This, Shadow, is why I have a hard time accepting your attack on our point. You haven't even made clear what number is this "maximum number of attacks that can be made with one weapon" which you so fervently defend with the passion and dedication of a hippie protecting a tree the city wants to cut down.

I get your point about "exploits" and in spirit, I agree with you. Especially in regards to people trying to "win" D&D. I'm appalled at some of the crap spewed by the hardcore optimization crowd over on the 3.x/PF boards on this site. Stuff that's so far divorced from anything actually coherent to a character concept that they insist is the "only" way to play this class or that class (something about a Water Orc Dungeoncrasher Fighter or something). 4e, I will admit, did turn the mechanical side of D&D into a numbers game. But you are just as myopic as the people you criticize if you think that those games were not still able to be D&D in spirit. I liked 4e. Namely because I DM more than I play, and 4e made a DM's job so much easier. In fact, by knowing the numbers game as well as any optimizer, I could help my players with suggestions on powers that would be cool, so they could not fret over those decisions, and focus their energies on the roleplay aspects of the game (which are far more important, in my book). My 4e games were not all about nothing but combat, not because I went outside the rues or made up new ones, but because I saw 4e's potential for what it was: an open door to more free-form gaming for all the things not spelled out in simulationist rules. I started back in 2e, and to be honest, the mechanics were a chore, and an obstacle to actually playing and enjoying the game. By making the mechanics more universal and coherent, WotC actually protected players by not having a game whose rules were 100% hinged on "you only succeed if the DM decides to let you". There were some BULKY mechanics that made verisimilitude more true to real-world ideas, but were cumbersome. Remember how certain armors changed AC values depending on what kind of attack they were facing (chainmail, for example, had a worse AC against bludgeoning, but better against slashing). Which was coherent and made logical sense, but D&D is a game, and it's supposed to be fun, not a dice-rolled imaginary simulation of real-world physics. And there's no need to speak out like a bleeding-heart protester about how one weapon is being treated "unfairly" or "being exploited" because you can make one more attack per round with it than you can with other weapons, and that's if-and only if-you spend a valuable feat slot on it, which is something you chose to take instead of a +2 to an ability score. Who really cares? And who is hurt by this? I understand you see it as a symptom of some "larger problem" with D&D lately, a problem you have very real concerns about, and very valid points regarding.

But is this instance really worth taking a stand on? What is your victory by insisting on this? And what's really lost if you back down? Who's hurt by this? The other weapons get their feelings hurt because a hand crossbow can make more attacks by a person with this feat? I made a point earlier when I was defending the right of players to dual-wield had crossbows when some people were saying that it "violated their sense of realism". To them I pointed out that although many of us old-school gamers frequently resent the "intrusion" of video game influence into our pen-and-paper hobby. But it IS a part of gamer culture, and we should accept it instead of fighting it. A new player may want his character to look BA like a Diablo 3 Demon Hunter. And, since it was mechanically no more advantageous than what was allowed with one hand crossbow, why should it not be allowed? He just wants his character to be represented how he wants in a manner he will think is cool. You have the exact opposite problem on the exact same grounds. From what you've been saying, it seems you would have no issue with dual-wielding, since the number of shots fired per weapon would not exceed any sense of "normal maximum" for another member of that class. So, on the same note, I ask what's wrong with allowing it? How is it "exploitative" if you'd allow something that-mechanically-boils down to the exact same thing? The same number of attacks are being made, the same damage is being done, and do the imaginary feelings of all the other weapons matter in any way?

Who cares if a level 11 Ranger can use this feat and his only Bonus Action that round to make 3 attacks with a crossbow in his right hand than could be made by another level 11 Ranger with this feat, who must make 2 attacks with his right hand, and then make one with the hand crossbow in his left? Especially when a level 11 Fighter with this feat CAN make 3 attacks with one hand crossbow, without any doubt as to interpretation. Really, your argument against "maximum number of attacks that can be made with one weapon" being exceeded ONLY applies to members of the Fighter class over 11th level, since even if you allowed it, a level 11 Fighter makes 3 attacks just using his Action with ANY weapon, and thus no member of any other class is exceeding that number, and they would have to use both Action and Bonus Action to even equal 4 attacks with one weapon. And even a Fighter of levels 11-19, if you permitted one hand crossbow to work, would only be making as many attacks with one weapon in one round as a level 20 Fighter could do with ANY weapon. So, only a level 20 Fighter actually breaks the "maximum number of attacks with one weapon" if he's permitted to use this feat with one weapon, which would total 5 attacks (assuming no Action Surge, which is a whole nother monster altogether).

Edit: I wrote this before Shadow posted post #278, so forgive any redundancy, please.

[Mechaviking]

I agree with the above post it sums up in words, that which I have been trying to explain but have never been fully able to put into words. Well done sir.

[Edenbeast]

Dual wielding two hand crossbow unrealistic? I don't think so. Look at how a few decades later people could dual wield two flint lock pistols. You'd have two attacks. What can be conceived as unrealistic is the reload time and having multiple shots with each pistol, but we're talking about a game that is tun based. A flint lock weapon would probably give you 3 ot 4 shots a minute if you're a master reloader. A crossbow is maybe a bit faster. Luckily you can make one shot every round, and with the crossbow expert feat you can shoot up to the number of attacks you have each round. To me that's the most important part of the feat. Bullet two is nice as well. The last bullet has led to alot of discussion, it's like dscussion what came before the big bang.. We won't know until the developpers come with an official clarification on the rule. I think the best solution has been opted several times: ask your DM. As DM I'd rule you need a second weapon to trigger the bonus action. So to all the players wanting to shoot twice with the same crossbow by using the feat: don't have me as your DM :P

[Shadow]

This, Shadow, is why I have a hard time accepting your attack on our point. You haven't even made clear what number is this "maximum number of attacks that can be made with one weapon" which you so fervently defend with the passion and dedication of a hippie protecting a tree the city wants to cut down.

I don't need to make that number clear. The PHB makes that number clear in each class' description.
1 for rogues and full casters.
2 for certain subclasses of casters, rangers, paladins, barbarians and monks.
4 for fighters.
Anything beyond 1, for any class or subclass, is dependent upon class level.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

War clerics don't quite fit that, but close enough.

[Shadow]

War clerics don't quite fit that, but close enough.

War clerics get 1.
They use resources for the extras.

[RedMage125]

I don't need to make that number clear. The PHB makes that number clear in each class' description.
1 for rogues and full casters.
2 for certain subclasses of casters, rangers, paladins, barbarians and monks.
4 for fighters.
Anything beyond 1, for any class or subclass, is dependent upon class level.

You neglected to respond to the meat of the post.

That being, what really is being lost by "exceeding the maximum number of attacks with one weapon"? The other weapons get their feelings hurt because a hand crossbow can make one more attack in a round (in the hands of a character with the same class and level) than they can? ESPECIALLY because the most attacks made by a non-Fighter using both Action and Bonus Action can only equal, and not exceed, the amount of attacks made by a level 11-19 Fighter who only uses an Action. And a level 11-19 Fighter who does it equals the number of attacks made by a level 20 Fighter. Only a level 20 Fighter exceeds the maximum number of attacks with one weapon made by ANYONE else. And he's level 20, so who cares if he's pulling off something fantastic and amazing? After all, his companions are re-writing reality, turning skill check failures into natural 20s, and having STR and CON scores over 20 without magical aid. It's like you're defending some arbitrary limitation of action in the D&D world on behalf of all the other weapons out there. Since when has it ever been an issue of "how many attacks can be made with one weapon in a round"?

Here's the bottom line:
You would allow dual-wielding of hand crossbows, right? I mean, by definition, a hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon and meets the requirement in bullet 3 of the feat to trigger the Bonus Action. If you would allow a character to make ALL of his attacks with 2 hand crossbows, what is "exploited" by it being one weapon instead of two?

Granted, a character using a shield with the one hand crossbow is trying to eke out a mechanical benefit, and that's the kind of "trying to win" situation that probably counts as an "exploit". Maybe try to head that one off. But if you have a character that, say, fights with a sword in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other, but this round, all enemies are too far away and he wants to use all his attacks with his hand crossbow, why shouldn't he be able to?

[Mechaviking]

Dont forget Range Redmage125, the Long Bow outranges the hand crossbow by a factor of 5 and its closest competitor by a factor of 1,5. Doesn´t come into play as often I admit(most engagements being 30-90´) but still quite possibly a factor in all of this.