Why do People Hate on Crossbow Expert?

[archaeo]

D&D is the ruleset. D&D with different rules is something else. Maybe it's pathfinder, maybe it's almost D&D, but it's not the game we all know any longer. These forums are about D&D 5e. If we all play by different rules, there's a limit to what we can discuss.

Are you reading the same forum? Nobody's running the same game. Half the people reflexively disagree with the other half about every aspect of the game. And yet, we seem to have plenty to talk about.

5e really isn't designed at all, at any level, to be played the same at every table. It's a decision that is explicitly and implicitly stated throughout the books in a dozen ways.

[GiantOctopodes]

I'm not the one that said the word strawman. Just throwing it out there.

Thus why that statement was addressed to bloodshed, the person who did. Just throwing it out there.

You mean like you blatantly misrepresented my position and my claims when you told me what fits or does not fit within my own definition of something? Or do you maybe mean like you blatantly misrepresented both my position and my claims when you told me what I do or do not agree with, when I had already stated my opinion on the matter?

That's where I stopped reading, because hypocrisy and misrepresentation of this level gets added to my ignore list.

And though obviously Shadow is no longer discussing things with me, let's examine this last statement: Note that rather than even discussing, much less discrediting, my position he instead accused me of hypocrisy and misrepresentation, which would be going from committing the logical fallacy of a strawman to poisoning the well (trying to discredit what a person might claim by presenting unfavorable information about them, be it true or false). Note that even were I guilty of hypocrisy and misrepresentation, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the rules do or do not support that action, nor did he even attempt to claim that it did.

Note too he indicated I "blatantly misrepresented [his] position and claims" by telling him what fits or does not fit within his own definition of something. Note that my indicating that his statement does not match his own definition (which it does not, for the reasons indicated in my previous posts) does not in any way shape or form change his claim or misrepresent it. Rather, it addresses it. To misrepresent, I would have to indicate his position was something other than what it was. Had I indicated that his position was that it did not match that definition, that would have been a false statement, or misrepresentation, regarding his claim. Instead, I indicated he claimed it did match that definition (which was indeed his stated position) and indicated why it was untrue, something Shadow failed to do in regards to my own position.

Note his second claim is that I told him what he does or does not agree with. Note that my specific statement was that "The latter I've covered on a point by point basis how it conforms to the established rules, and you have not indicated that you disagree, nor on what point you might disagree." Note that this statement does not indicate his agreeing or not agreeing with anything, and makes no claims to knowing his stance, but rather indicates that if he does indeed disagree with the points that I have raised, he has not made it known to me.

Obviously this entire post is made for the benefit of the neutral observer, so that it is clear that the statements made regarding my claims continue to be inaccurate. I don't add people to the ignore list, as ultimately, are any of us really trying to convince each other? Certain people are going to believe what they want to believe, debating with them with the intent of changing their mind or position is fruitless. But when statements are made that are contrary to the truth, whether about me or about the rules, I feel it important to make that known, so that those who lack knowledge of the subject will not be persuaded based on a lack of accurate knowledge being presented. Ignoring such statements merely makes it impossible for me to do so.

Edit (to address the edit): It was also claimed that I insulted Shadow by calling him uninformed. The only time the word uninformed was used was in reference to Bloodshed using the term straw man incorrectly, thus why it was in the section addressed to Bloodshed. But frankly, whether Bloodshed, shadow, or anyone else feels that I am insulting them by indicating that they "seem to be uninformed" when they are using a term incorrectly, they can absolutely 100% feel free to be insulted. That is not my intent, but as I've argued vehemently, intent is meaningless in the face of the written word, and my intent does not change whether or not they feel insulted. Frankly, a part of me might hope they do feel insulted, as it would imply (to me) a desire to never be uninformed, no matter how unrealistic that desire may be. Personally, I don't believe that I am informed on absolutely everything, and enjoy learning about new things,and as such do not feel insulted if I am under the impression that someone is implying that there is a possibility my knowledge is not 100% complete, that I am in fact not omniscient and there are still things others can bring to my attention.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Snip

I've learned recently that there are some people on here that act in such a way that it seems like they do it for the fun of acting in such a way.

There is an ignore list, for now on when I see one of their posts I'll just assume it says "rabble rabble rabble".

[Shadow]

And for the record, while I wasn't the one that called your argument a strawman, that's exactly what it was.
In your own words: "strawman- the act of claiming that your opponent's argument or position is something other than it actually is, and then attacking that position instead of their actual position"
We were discussing weapon combat. Your argument of my position included magic into the mix, and argued in the vein that magic and spells were somehow relevant to a discussion about weapon combat, when that wasn't what were discussing and they are not relevant to the discussion at all.

Your defense and perceived refutation of my argument only refuted things that were never implied nor stated by mt argument in the first place. You refuted points that were completely irrelevant to the discussion.
That's basically the definition of a strawman, even by your own words.

[GiantOctopodes]

And for the record, while I wasn't the one that called your argument a strawman, that's exactly what it was.
In your own words: "strawman- the act of claiming that your opponent's argument or position is something other than it actually is, and then attacking that position instead of their actual position"
We were discussing weapon combat. Your argument of my position included magic into the mix, and argued in the vein that magic and spells were somehow relevant to a discussion about weapon combat, when that wasn't what were discussing and they are not relevant to the discussion at all.

That's basically the definition of a strawman, even by your own words.

Indeed, we were discussing weapon combat, and my argument included magic, but the statement to which I was replying did not indicate anything whatsoever about 'the most attacks someone can get with a single ranged weapon without magic', and if it had, I would have posited a different position (namely that in a game where there are buffs to your weapon skills available with magic, where some classes are specifically built about the merging of their magical and physical abilities, magic is 100% relevant to the discussion). When discussing physical damage ranged combatants (the ones who would use crossbows, bows, or other ranged weapons), the top three contenders are rangers, bards, and fighters, in my humble opinion, and the reason bards and rangers are in that conversation is precisely because of swift quiver. Why on earth would I ignore it? And why, when discussing the supposed unfairness of a bonus action granting an attack with a single ranged weapon, would I consider it irrelevant to bring up an ability that grants a bonus action that offers Two attacks with the same single ranged weapon? *Especially* when that ability is *only* available to Bards and Rangers! I would personally consider it a point of equivalence to state that it is "unfair" to have such an ability available to bards and rangers, as no other class gets an ability that does that. To be clear again, that not my stance, I am not arguing that, nor am I positing that anyone else is arguing that. But my point which I *am* attempting to get across is hopefully demonstrated by that- that all abilities are different! There are very few abilities that are identical to each other. Sure, some are available to multiple characters (feats being an obvious one, as are combat styles, spells which are on multiple lists, etc), but if the archery style was the same as the great weapon fighting style, there would not be any point in having it, it would be redundant, or at best uninteresting.

So, arguing that something should not exist on the basis that nothing else has it (*especially* when disallowing comparables from different sources) does not make for a good argument. Druids have Wild Shape as a class feature. No other class has that, and though some other classes can replicate some of its effects (through polymorph, for example) that involves the use of spells, or other features not directly equivalent. That does not inherently make Wild Shape unfair. Proving that Wild Shape provides mechanical superiority to the other options provided other classes across the board, that would, but when trying to assess whether or not wild shape is fair, my position is that the *best* point of comparisons would be the alternatives you would use in its place, whether spells, other unique class features, feats, or whatever else the source- the opportunity cost you are giving up by choosing that option. (edit: Forgot the relevant last sentence which ties it back in, sorry) The same would be true of Crossbow expert- my position would be that the alternatives you would use in its place, whether directly replacing it or providing alternatives in its absence, would provide the best points of comparison.

Bringing up something irrelevant does not make for a strawman (that requires claiming the other person's position is something other than it is, which bringing up irrelevant information does not do), but I highly disagree that it is even irrelevant.

[obryn]

Thus why that statement was addressed to bloodshed, the person who did. Just throwing it out there.

And though obviously Shadow is no longer discussing things with me, let's examine this last statement: Note that rather than even discussing, much less discrediting, my position he instead accused me of hypocrisy and misrepresentation, which would be going from committing the logical fallacy of a strawman to poisoning the well (trying to discredit what a person might claim by presenting unfavorable information about them, be it true or false). Note that even were I guilty of hypocrisy and misrepresentation, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the rules do or do not support that action, nor did he even attempt to claim that it did.

Note too he indicated I "blatantly misrepresented [his] position and claims" by telling him what fits or does not fit within his own definition of something. Note that my indicating that his statement does not match his own definition (which it does not, for the reasons indicated in my previous posts) does not in any way shape or form change his claim or misrepresent it. Rather, it addresses it. To misrepresent, I would have to indicate his position was something other than what it was. Had I indicated that his position was that it did not match that definition, that would have been a false statement, or misrepresentation, regarding his claim. Instead, I indicated he claimed it did match that definition (which was indeed his stated position) and indicated why it was untrue, something Shadow failed to do in regards to my own position.

Note his second claim is that I told him what he does or does not agree with. Note that my specific statement was that "The latter I've covered on a point by point basis how it conforms to the established rules, and you have not indicated that you disagree, nor on what point you might disagree." Note that this statement does not indicate his agreeing or not agreeing with anything, and makes no claims to knowing his stance, but rather indicates that if he does indeed disagree with the points that I have raised, he has not made it known to me.

Obviously this entire post is made for the benefit of the neutral observer, so that it is clear that the statements made regarding my claims continue to be inaccurate. I don't add people to the ignore list, as ultimately, are any of us really trying to convince each other? Certain people are going to believe what they want to believe, debating with them with the intent of changing their mind or position is fruitless. But when statements are made that are contrary to the truth, whether about me or about the rules, I feel it important to make that known, so that those who lack knowledge of the subject will not be persuaded based on a lack of accurate knowledge being presented. Ignoring such statements merely makes it impossible for me to do so.

Edit (to address the edit): It was also claimed that I insulted Shadow by calling him uninformed. The only time the word uninformed was used was in reference to Bloodshed using the term straw man incorrectly, thus why it was in the section addressed to Bloodshed. But frankly, whether Bloodshed, shadow, or anyone else feels that I am insulting them by indicating that they "seem to be uninformed" when they are using a term incorrectly, they can absolutely 100% feel free to be insulted. That is not my intent, but as I've argued vehemently, intent is meaningless in the face of the written word, and my intent does not change whether or not they feel insulted. Frankly, a part of me might hope they do feel insulted, as it would imply (to me) a desire to never be uninformed, no matter how unrealistic that desire may be. Personally, I don't believe that I am informed on absolutely everything, and enjoy learning about new things,and as such do not feel insulted if I am under the impression that someone is implying that there is a possibility my knowledge is not 100% complete, that I am in fact not omniscient and there are still things others can bring to my attention.

And for the record, while I wasn't the one that called your argument a strawman, that's exactly what it was.
In your own words: "strawman- the act of claiming that your opponent's argument or position is something other than it actually is, and then attacking that position instead of their actual position"
We were discussing weapon combat. Your argument of my position included magic into the mix, and argued in the vein that magic and spells were somehow relevant to a discussion about weapon combat, when that wasn't what were discussing and they are not relevant to the discussion at all.

Your defense and perceived refutation of my argument only refuted things that were never implied nor stated by mt argument in the first place. You refuted points that were completely irrelevant to the discussion.
That's basically the definition of a strawman, even by your own words.

Indeed, we were discussing weapon combat, and my argument included magic, but the statement to which I was replying did not indicate anything whatsoever about 'the most attacks someone can get with a single ranged weapon without magic', and if it had, I would have posited a different position (namely that in a game where there are buffs to your weapon skills available with magic, where some classes are specifically built about the merging of their magical and physical abilities, magic is 100% relevant to the discussion). When discussing physical damage ranged combatants (the ones who would use crossbows, bows, or other ranged weapons), the top three contenders are rangers, bards, and fighters, in my humble opinion, and the reason bards and rangers are in that conversation is precisely because of swift quiver. Why on earth would I ignore it? And why, when discussing the supposed unfairness of a bonus action granting an attack with a single ranged weapon, would I consider it irrelevant to bring up an ability that grants a bonus action that offers Two attacks with the same single ranged weapon? *Especially* when that ability is *only* available to Bards and Rangers! I would personally consider it a point of equivalence to state that it is "unfair" to have such an ability available to bards and rangers, as no other class gets an ability that does that. To be clear again, that not my stance, I am not arguing that, nor am I positing that anyone else is arguing that. But my point which I *am* attempting to get across is hopefully demonstrated by that- that all abilities are different! There are very few abilities that are identical to each other. Sure, some are available to multiple characters (feats being an obvious one, as are combat styles, spells which are on multiple lists, etc), but if the archery style was the same as the great weapon fighting style, there would not be any point in having it, it would be redundant, or at best uninteresting.

So, arguing that something should not exist on the basis that nothing else has it (*especially* when disallowing comparables from different sources) does not make for a good argument. Druids have Wild Shape as a class feature. No other class has that, and though some other classes can replicate some of its effects (through polymorph, for example) that involves the use of spells, or other features not directly equivalent. That does not inherently make Wild Shape unfair. Proving that Wild Shape provides mechanical superiority to the other options provided other classes across the board, that would, but when trying to assess whether or not wild shape is fair, my position is that the *best* point of comparisons would be the alternatives you would use in its place, whether spells, other unique class features, feats, or whatever else the source- the opportunity cost you are giving up by choosing that option.

Bringing up something irrelevant does not make for a strawman (that requires claiming the other person's position is something other than it is, which bringing up irrelevant information does not do), but I highly disagree that it is even irrelevant.

Get a room, you two.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Get a room, you two.

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

[Mechaviking]

Actually I do believe magic does in fact have a bearing on this since some magics grant effects similar to weapon attacks but with the caveat that this is magic(can´t be used in anti magic zones and can be dispelled).

Swift quiver and Crossbow expert both occupy the same slot(and the same bonus action) and since spells do indeed augment weapon combat and are part of the same game system they are fair game for both comparisons and to find out if things are skewed in favor of one mechanic or other.

Swift quiver give you the ability to attack two times as a bonus action on each of your turns(with a ranged weapon) until the spell ends, its casting time is 1 bonus action and it requires a bonus action to use(so you cannot use it in the first round according to the rules as I read them) it does not require you to make any attacks beforehand. It is a spell obtainable by the Bard class on Level 10 via the magical secrets feature that all bards get and you do not need to sacrifice anything in order to get it(aside from picking the spell with the feature) all bards regardless of any stats or weapons can pick this spell if they want it and is attainable by all Rangers on level 17 again requiring.

Crossbow expert functions similarly allowing you to do a single attack with a hand crossbow(single weapon) if you at any point during your turn attack with a one handed weapon(among other things). It requires the use of an "optional" feature that most games use, it is a feat and is thus a rather costly investment since it grants no stat increases as some feats do and is thus possibly reducing your effectiveness in other areas but most likely it augments a feature of your character and is usually a defining part of a character.

Since you cannot use both at the same time they occupy the same slot if you will on a character and can be compared with one another.

Likewise haste is a spell that augments weapon combat, it occupies the same slot as Swift quiver as they are both concentration spells of the same duration.

Magic weapon again augments weapon combat and is a concentration spell and so is Elemental weapon.

[Edit]

I need to type and or think faster

[Shadow]

Actually I do believe magic does in fact have a bearing on this

It doesn't. It has no bearing on the point that I was making. Perhaps I should have added a couple of words to make the point more clear, which I will do now:

In this case it absolutely is an exploit, as it it being used as a way to grant more attacks per round than was intended or is available to any other character with any single ranged weapon without the use of magic. That was not its intent (as specified by a designer tweet) and that is not fair to any other ranged weapon.
That makes it an exploit. Period.

There. Is that better?
It's an exploit. It's not a game breaking exploit, but it's an exploit none the less.

[JoeJ]

Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. Instead of real life, consider a movie. A live action movie, that looks more like Conan or Lord of the Rings than it does Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon*. In a movie like that, a character who is explicitly not magical can't fire a crossbow eight times in only six seconds within a single unbroken camera shot. If there are cuts in the scene, however, then they probably can get away with firing that fast. The difference is the cuts. Even if it's just cutting to another shot of the same character, simply having a cut introduces a bit of uncertainty about how long something is actually taking, so the audience will buy the character appearing to do things faster than they should be able to.

What does this have to do with the game? Consider how long a round is. According to the PHB, each round "represents about 6 seconds in the game world" (emphasis added). About 6 seconds does not mean exactly 6 seconds. One very plausible reading is that an average round takes 6 seconds. Any particular round, however, might be longer or shorter than that time. The exact amount of time doesn't matter; it's just however long it took for everybody involved to take one round's worth of actions. If some rounds are longer than others, then we don't really know how many shots per second came out of that crossbow. Very rapid shots, therefore, don't break verisimilitude.

*The movies were chosen purely for the purposes of illustrating a particular point. I'm not implying that a game of D&D should necessarily be modeled after any of them.

[pwykersotz]

Would just like to reiterate that I don't think a realistic fantasy setting is desirable. In the real world, people die of disease and accident far more often than combat. Often, people die for absolutely no reason at all, just out of the blue. Nothing learned, nothing gained, just a random, meaningless death as if George R Martin wrote it. We can't cast spells; we can't make a career out of exploring dungeons and slaying the evil monsters within; we don't even have a clear adversary, since everyone is lying all the damn time. Some people are pretty, most people are ugly. Some people are born athletes or into rich families, and most aren't. Is that fair? Hell no it isn't fair, but that's real life. What are you going to do, take money away from all the rich people and tell all the attractive men and women that they have to sleep with ugly people? Good luck with that.

Even the fun stuff, like eating and sex, have all kinds of bullcrap associated with them. Can't eat too much good food, or you'll get fat and look and feel like crap! Can't be promiscuous because you'll catch a disease, have an unwanted child, or in the very least make someone jealous and start a bunch of drama. Every time you take a step forward, it feels like a step back because some mofo starts hating on you for doing well. And we adapt, meaning that no matter how good we have it, we still don't feel any better about ourselves for very long. People commit suicide more often in the US, a developed and rich country, than they do in most poor, disease-ridden countries.

Point is, we get enough of that kind of crap in the real world. I don't want to make those kinds of compromises in my fantasy too. Fantasy worlds have fantasy elements, and that's not only expected, it's a good thing. Some people want a nitty gritty fantasy setting where the bad guys always win and the good guys have to deal with petty crap all the time. I think most people who want that are angsty teenagers, or never matured past that point. You want to take the fantasy out of D&D? Count me out. I'll run my own game where fighters can fire a crossbow nine times in six seconds, thank you very much.

That's cool, but where you draw the line matters. There's a large difference between simply not getting diseases or random deaths and superhuman martial prowess, and (to reference another post in this thread) the Flash phasing through solid objects. Where we draw the line matters for the game and it gives relevance to the situations that are considered wondrous.

Basically, you can't break barriers that aren't there, and you can't feel like you're at the top without a ceiling. Where do compromises begin? What can a Batman equivalent adventurer not do in D&D? Why can or can't his foes do the same thing? Does it have any impact on your fantasy immersion that this person can only fire once per round but that with Sneak Attack he can take down almost any person in the world in that one shot?

To bring in another DC character, Green Arrow near the end of Smallville (I think? I might be confusing sources) told a foe that he wasn't trained to be fast, he was trained to be accurate. He had to take a blow, he couldn't react fast enough to get out unscathed. But he hit his foe and won the fight because his shot was that good. There was a ceiling he hit that a magic user like Zatanna could have blown right past. But the way he addressed it made the situation epic. And the example is in line with the people arguing that shooting the same crossbow twice with the feat is broken.

So, I agree with you overall that high fantasy is super awesome and I like my martials to be freakin cool, but I feel like I'm being called to justify some of my beloved lower fantasy settings too.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So, I agree with you overall that high fantasy is super awesome and I like my martials to be freakin cool, but I feel like I'm being called to justify some of my beloved lower fantasy settings too.

The problem is that D&D and some on this forum wants to have Non-Casters to only play LotR (low fantasy) while casters can play SCION (high fantasy RPG tabletop game).

You essentially can't play low fantasy in d&d with the current classes for casters. Even the evoker blows low fantasy out of the water. The Non-Casters can't play high fantasy.

And this is the problem with d&d in general. We have two groups playing two different games.

Sure the noncasters can keep up with damage but that isn't the problem, interesting and awesome stuff is the problem within a system that has casters always doing awesome stuff, even their cantrips are awesome effects.

[GiantOctopodes]

The problem is that D&D and some on this forum wants to have Non-Casters to only play LotR (low fantasy) while casters can play SCION (high fantasy RPG tabletop game).

You essentially can't play low fantasy in d&d with the current classes for casters. Even the evoker blows low fantasy out of the water. The Non-Casters can't play high fantasy.

And this is the problem with d&d in general. We have two groups playing two different games.

Sure the noncasters can keep up with damage but that isn't the problem, interesting and awesome stuff is the problem within a system that has casters always doing awesome stuff, even their cantrips are awesome effects.

I totally agree with your main point (you can't hold some classes to realism standards and not others).

I also think that a lot of the "physically impossible" comments are made with the assumption that they're using "era appropriate" technology, which simply would not be the case. I personally envision a mechanism much like a bolt action on a rifle, where you grab it and yank it back and boom, the crossbow is reloaded, the string having been drawn taut and a fresh bolt having been popped into place from a small spring loaded "magazine" below it in the same action. Reloading such a weapon with one hand would take a Schwarzenegger type action (reloading the shotgun one handed in Terminator 2)- you toss it up a bit, grab the bolt action mechanism, yank down hard and then back up, having inertia carry the weapon downward while your upward moving hand forces the part to move through the act of reloading, then toss it back into your hand. Easily possible in a 1.5 - 2 second time frame, if you're enough of a hero.

In terms of the last part, though, I have to disagree. I currently play a Rogue, and having modeled my character after the ones in Assassin's Creed, I am always stalking targets from on high, jumping down and assassinating them, or shooting them with sleep poison, or lassoing them with rope and jumping down to hang them, etc. I have smoke bombs to get me out of trouble, and a thousand identities to stall for help when needed. Though I certainly would not say I don't miss spells, absolutely I would love to have them, they are pretty awesome, I definitely don't feel that I lack interesting and awesome stuff that I myself can do, both in combat and outside of it. Sure, martial characters might have to try a bit harder to find cool things to do vs just attack over and over, but if you're playing a tabletop RPG, I feel you are already looking to stretch your creativity, so if anything the challenge, for me personally, just makes it more fun.

What's *not* fun is when it gets blatantly shoved in your face the system's inherent favoritism for spellcasters, like when a pure spellcaster does what you do, only better, with spells like "knock" or "alter self" or "invisibility", allowing characters to automatically do better than someone could ever hope to do without magic with no investment or sacrifice on their part. But as D&D is a group game, if that's happening often, it's partially a flaw with the system, and partially a flaw with whomever is playing the caster and being a jerk. Basically I think what I'm trying to say is that I don't think in this edition non casters lack interesting things to do. It's just that, as with all D&D systems, there is very little of the interesting things they can do that can't *also* be done with someone playing a caster, and the reverse is certainly not true (there is plenty casters can do that non casters cannot).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I totally agree with your main point (you can't hold some classes to realism standards and not others).

I also think that a lot of the "physically impossible" comments are made with the assumption that they're using "era appropriate" technology, which simply would not be the case. I personally envision a mechanism much like a bolt action on a rifle, where you grab it and yank it back and boom, the crossbow is reloaded, the string having been drawn taut and a fresh bolt having been popped into place from a small spring loaded "magazine" below it in the same action. Reloading such a weapon with one hand would take a Schwarzenegger type action (reloading the shotgun one handed in Terminator 2)- you toss it up a bit, grab the bolt action mechanism, yank down hard and then back up, having inertia carry the weapon downward while your upward moving hand forces the part to move through the act of reloading, then toss it back into your hand. Easily possible in a 1.5 - 2 second time frame, if you're enough of a hero.

In terms of the last part, though, I have to disagree. I currently play a Rogue, and having modeled my character after the ones in Assassin's Creed, I am always stalking targets from on high, jumping down and assassinating them, or shooting them with sleep poison, or lassoing them with rope and jumping down to hang them, etc. I have smoke bombs to get me out of trouble, and a thousand identities to stall for help when needed. Though I certainly would not say I don't miss spells, absolutely I would love to have them, they are pretty awesome, I definitely don't feel that I lack interesting and awesome stuff that I myself can do, both in combat and outside of it. Sure, martial characters might have to try a bit harder to find cool things to do vs just attack over and over, but if you're playing a tabletop RPG, I feel you are already looking to stretch your creativity, so if anything the challenge, for me personally, just makes it more fun.

What's *not* fun is when it gets blatantly shoved in your face the system's inherent favoritism for spellcasters, like when a pure spellcaster does what you do, only better, with spells like "knock" or "alter self" or "invisibility", allowing characters to automatically do better than someone could ever hope to do without magic with no investment or sacrifice on their part. But as D&D is a group game, if that's happening often, it's partially a flaw with the system, and partially a flaw with whomever is playing the caster and being a jerk. Basically I think what I'm trying to say is that I don't think in this edition non casters lack interesting things to do. It's just that, as with all D&D systems, there is very little of the interesting things they can do that can't *also* be done with someone playing a caster, and the reverse is certainly not true (there is plenty casters can do that non casters cannot).

Your rogue is still low fantasy, a high fantasy rogue could hide and appear under someine's hat and then throw them into a flying air fortress...

I might have been reading 8 bit thratre lately.

But assassins creed isn't that high of fantasy.

[MukkTB]

If you guys care so much about *realism* then we need to deal with the entire turn system because firing a crossbow once every 6 seconds is not realistic for your common scrub.

-Is this RAW?
Maybe. Probably. The rules are ambiguous for no good reason.

-Is this realistic.
No. But without the feat its also unrealistic. The whole game is unrealistic.

-Is this cheese?
The shield and single hand crossbow seems a bit cheesy. But it also seems RAW.

-Is this overpowered?
Probably not, although someone needs to work the math out.

-Does this make the game unfun?
I can't see how.

-Why does everybody care?
It feels like they care more about play philosophy than this stupid badly worded thing. I just can't see anyone's day being ruined if this feat does the most liberal interpretation.

[Xetheral]

There is equally a tweet confirming you need a second weapon.

Originally I was thinking that since the tweet you are referencing referred to what the feat should have been (as opposed to commenting on what it said) that it was less relevant to textual analysis, and therefore even less likely that you'd consider it pertinent to the discussion of the black and white text. But, on second thought, it's perfectly reasonable to take or leave both tweets together despite the differences in wording. I should indeed have mentioned both tweets in my post.

Beyond that I'll admit that the argument itself is a clever way to try and get around the black and white text, though your exaggerated wording makes it seem more that you believe it will for some reason confuse me.

I apologize if my wording choices called my motives into question. I was only trying to be as clear as possible--there was no intent to confuse.

I'm not quite sure I follow why you think my analysis was an attempt to get around the black and white text. I deliberately refrained from mentioning the tweet until the very end specifically so as to confine my analysis to the text itself.

[Eslin]

Your rogue is still low fantasy, a high fantasy rogue could hide and appear under someine's hat and then throw them into a flying air fortress...

And steal vertebrae, secrets and souls, dodge explosions while he's in them and avoid taking falling damage by jumping just before he hits the ground. Honestly, if people just accepted that a high level rogue gets to act like Thief just as a high level sorcerer gets to act like Black Bage martials would be a whole lot more fun to play.

[Mechaviking]

It doesn't. It has no bearing on the point that I was making. Perhaps I should have added a couple of words to make the point more clear, which I will do now:

In this case it absolutely is an exploit, as it it being used as a way to grant more attacks per round than was intended or is available to any other character with any single ranged weapon without the use of magic. That was not its intent (as specified by a designer tweet) and that is not fair to any other ranged weapon.
That makes it an exploit. Period.

There. Is that better?
It's an exploit. It's not a game breaking exploit, but it's an exploit none the less.

Actually to me this is much worse as you change your statement to reflect a narrower set of the rules to support your statements. However this is the internet, the debate has been heated and I cannot argue against your intent when it is not written.

Instead I´ll compare crossbow expert to polearm master, I know one is for ranged combat and the other is not but since they use the same mechanic(bonus action) and the same requirement(the attack action) I can draw a comparison.

Polearm master vs crossbow expert:

3 weapons can be used to gain a bonus action attack vs 1 weapon can be used to make a bonus attack. Point for polearm mastery
Has a bigger weapon damage die but the extra attack does less damage vs same attack twice(one or two crossbows). About equal
Can potentially give an out of round attack vs does not give another potential attack, but potentially negates an attack from an enemy. About equal

Polearm master is slightly better as written but crossbow expert is ranged so they are pretty even.

The above is comparing the two feats side by side weather you allow the use of a single hand crossbow or requiring the use of two hand crossbows

You state that it would not be fair to any other ranged weapons:

Heavy crossbow D10 Avg: 5,5
Long bow D8 Avg: 4,5
Crossbow D8 Avg: 4,5
Short bow D6 Avg: 3,5
Hand Crossbow D6 Avg: 3,5

I did some preliminary math for the very high end of the spectrum and revealed that for 1 or 2 round fights there is a damage decrease for using the hand crossbow(0,5 point) even though it requires the use of a feat how is that fair and does it help my argument?

Lets take it down to lvl 11:

3 attacks base for a non human variant fighter:

Average damage for Heavy crossbow: (5,5x3+4x3) + 30(marksman) = 58,5
Average damage for Crossbow: (4,5x3+4x3) + 30(marksman) = 55,5
Average damage for longbow: (4,5x3+5x3) + 30(marksman) = 58,5
Average damage for Short bow: (3,5x3+5x3) + 30(marksman) = 55,5
Average damage for hand crossbow: (3,5x4)+(4x4) +40(marksman) = 70

This does not factor in accuracy I´ll give it a whirl

The attack bonus has been bounded so lets assume monster ac is bounded as well:

So the attack rolls of this particular fighter would be = Proficiency 4 + attribute 5(or 4) + Archery combat style 2 - 5 for marksman. So the attack bonus with marksman is 6 for bows and 5 for crossbows.

My assumption here is that monster ac is bounded relative to hit points(so higher AC less hp and conversely higher HP less AC)

I also assume that monster AC is roughly 11+(1/2 Character level). Note this is a ballpark number and a thought experiment to truly find out if allowing double fire on a single weapon(or using two such weapons) is fair relative to other ranged weapons.

Props to my buddy for point out that I can look up the Monsters in CR and find the AC of each one:

Dao an earth genie along with horned devil with the Highest AC for CR 11 coming in at 18
Roc is a big ass bird with the lowest AC for CR 11 being 15
The rest of the monsters have AC 17

Ok so we can make 3 comparisons one for each of the AC´s at this challenge rating

The crossbows using marksman have +5 to hit and the bows have +6 to hit

Someone already did the calculations but not for the same purpose and his did indeed use magic so well do this one again, but I´m still using 10 sustained rounds of combat as a factor.

Vs AC 18:

Bows have a +6 to hit and hit 12 times in 10 rounds of sustained combat one of which is a critical hit Hit %: 40
Crossbows have a +5 to hit and hit 10,5 times in 10 rounds of stustained combat one of which is a critical hit Hit %: 35
Hand crossbows have a +5 to hit and hits 14 times in 10 rounds of sustained combat two of which is a critical hit Hit %: 35

damage for Heavy crossbow: (5,5x3+4x3) + 30(marksman) = (58,5 x 35%) + (crit extra 5,5/10) = DPR 21,025
damage for Crossbow: (4,5x3+4x3) + 30(marksman) = (55,5 x 35%) + (crit extra 4,5/10) = DPR 19,875
damage for longbow: (4,5x3+5x3) + 30(marksman) = (58,5 x 40%) + (crit extra 4,5/10) = DPR 23,85
damage for Short bow: (3,5x3+5x3) + 30(marksman) = (55,5 x 40%) + (crit extra 3,5/10) = DPR 22,55
damage for hand crossbow: (3,5x4)+(4x4) +40(marksman) = 70 x 35%) + (2 crits extra 7/10) = DPR 25,2

Vs AC 17:

Bows have a +6 to hit and hit 15 times in 10 rounds of sustained combat one of which is a critical hit Hit %: 50
Crossbows have a +5 to hit and hit 12 times in 10 rounds of stustained combat one of which is a critical hit Hit %: 40
Hand crossbows have a +5 to hit and hits 16 times in 10 rounds of sustained combat two of which is a critical hit Hit %: 40

damage for Heavy crossbow: (5,5x3+4x3) + 30(marksman) = (58,5 x 40%) + crit extra 5,5/10) = DPR 23,95
damage for Crossbow: (4,5x3+4x3) + 30(marksman) = (55,5 x 40%) + crit extra 4,5/10) = DPR 22,65
damage for longbow: (4,5x3+5x3) + 30(marksman) = (58,5 x 50%) + crit extra 4,5/10) = DPR 29,7
damage for Short bow: (3,5x3+5x3) + 30(marksman) = (55,5 x 50%) + crit extra 3,5/10) = DPR 28,1
damage for hand crossbow: (3,5x4)+(4x4) +40(marksman) = (70 x 40%) + 2 crits extra 7/10) = DPR 28,7

Vs AC 15:

Bows have a +6 to hit and hit 16,5 times in 10 rounds of sustained combat one of which is a critical hit Hit %: 55
Crossbows have a +5 to hit and hit 15 times in 10 rounds of stustained combat one of which is a critical hit Hit %: 50
Hand crossbows have a +5 to hit and hits 20 times in 10 rounds of sustained combat two of which is a critical hit Hit %: 50

damage for Heavy crossbow: (5,5x3+4x3) + 30(marksman) = (58,5 x 50%) + (crit extra 5,5/10) = DPR 29,8
damage for Crossbow: (4,5x3+4x3) + 30(marksman) = (55,5 x 50%) + (crit extra 4,5/10) = DPR 28,2
damage for longbow: (4,5x3+5x3) + 30(marksman) = (58,5 x 55%) + (crit extra 4,5/10) = DPR 32,625
damage for Short bow: (3,5x3+5x3) + 30(marksman) = (55,5 x 55%) + (crit extra 3,5/10) = DPR 30,875
damage for hand crossbow: (3,5x4)+(4x4) +40(marksman) = (70 x 50%) + (2 crits extra 7/10) = DPR 35,7

At AC 15 using a pair of hand crossbows(or one double fired) is better than using a long bow by 3 points so it is about twice as good as an ability increase.

At AC 17 which looks to be some sort of a break point since a long bow is better than one double fired or dual hand crossbows.

At AC 18 the increase is 1,35 dpr meaning about 1,33 better than an ability increase

This is of course only for Raw damage calculations.

Is it better? Math says yes(except for AC 17)

[Easy_Lee]

I think it's expected for the dual hand crossbow to do better damage, in most cases, than other ranged options because the player spent a feat on it...what part of that is a problem? If they came up with a feat that did nothing but grant a bonus longbow attack, then longbows would be on top.

There's nothing wrong with crossbow expert granting a bonus attack. We just need a wider variety of feats for other ranged (and melee) options so other ranged characters don't feel left out. Some thrown weapon and dagger support would be a nice start.

[Shadow]

Actually to me this is much worse as you change your statement to reflect a narrower set of the rules to support your statements. However this is the internet, the debate has been heated and I cannot argue against your intent when it is not written.

Instead I´ll compare crossbow expert to polearm master, I know one is for ranged combat and the other is not but since they use the same mechanic(bonus action) and the same requirement(the attack action) I can draw a comparison.

I didn't change the statement. I clarified for some of you what I thought should have been 100% implied and assumed from the original statement, which was the fact that weapon combat should be compared to weapon combat, not compared to spells combined with weapon combat.

And no, you can't compare a ranged weapon to a melee weapon, because one has to be in physical danger in melee while one has the relative safety of range.
If I wanted to compare it to melee I could compare it to martial arts or polearm master or great weapon master or two weapon fighting or whatever. There are tons of ways to get a bonus attack without magic in melee.
There are ZERO ways to get a bonus attack with a single ranged weapon, and this feat doesn't (and was never meant to) change that fact.

And you may remember me telling you that numbers aren't the determining factor in whether or not something is exploitative. So while I appreciate the million calculations you just did, I didn't actually pay attention to any of therm because they're entirely irrelevant.
Because numbers aren't the determining factor in whether or not something is an exploit, as I have now stated three times.
The determining factor in this case if the fact that using a single handbow to generate its own bonus attack creates a situation where you get one extra attack above and beyond what any other single ranged weapon offers.
There are rules about these things for reasons.
To most of us the intent for two weapons was clear to begin with.
The designers later confirmed that the intent was two different weapons.
It's an exploit. It's not a game breaker, but it is indeed an exploit.
Allow it in your game if you want, but at least admit that it is in fact an exploit.

[JoeJ]

Your rogue is still low fantasy, a high fantasy rogue could hide and appear under someine's hat and then throw them into a flying air fortress...

I might have been reading 8 bit thratre lately.

But assassins creed isn't that high of fantasy.

In discussions of literature, high fantasy generally means that the characters are involved in an epic struggle morality play, with the fate of the world (or some large portion of it) at stake. It has nothing to do with how powerful the character are. Frodo Baggins is a high fantasy character, as is Taran the Assistant Pig Keeper from The Chronicles of Prydain. Your rogue that can hide under somebody's hat might or might not be high fantasy, depending on what kind of story they're in.

[Mechaviking]

I didn't change the statement. I clarified for some of you what I thought should have been 100% implied and assumed from the original statement, which was the fact that weapon combat should be compared to weapon combat, not compared to spells combined with weapon combat.

And no, you can't compare a ranged weapon to a melee weapon, because one has to be in physical danger in melee while one has the relative safety of range.

And you may remember me telling you that numbers aren't the determining factor in whether or not something is exploitative. So while I appreciate the million calculations you just did, I didn't actually pay attention to any of therm because they're entirely irrelevant.
Because numbers aren't the determining factor in whether or not something is an exploit, as I have now stated three times.
The determining factor in this case if the fact that using a single handbow to generate its own bonus attack creates a situation where you get one extra attack above and beyond what any other single ranged weapon offers.
There are rules about these things for reasons.
To most of us the intent for two weapons was clear to begin with.
The designers later confirmed that the intent was two different weapons.
It's an exploit. It's not a game breaker, but it is indeed an exploit.
Allow it in your game if you want, but at least admit that it is in fact an exploit.

Wow you ignore the numbers in a game about numbers. You take my work and say it doesn´t matter and you belittle me in the process(that´s how I feel about it) and your debate hinges on what you personally extrapolate from 3 sentences and a tweet from a developer of the game.

[Shadow]

Wow you ignore the numbers in a game about numbers.

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?

[Xetheral]

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?

Shadow, may I suggest an alternative interpretation? I don't think the gulf is as wide as you believe between a numbers-based quantitative approach to evaluating Crossbow Expert and your more qualitative approach--indeed, in some ways they're your closest philosophical allies. As I understand them, both approaches appear primarily concerned with interpreting the rules in the light of balance considerations, in contrast to other posters' focus on textual interpretation. Your interpretation is primarily driven by the question of number of available attacks, while the number-crunchers' approach focuses on calculating DPR. Both approaches, however, ultimately appear to be concerned with combat effectiveness as the most appropriate tool to determine how Crossbow Expert should be interpreted. In essence, you're taking the same interpretative approach, but relying on different methodologies with wildly different levels of detail.

[Mechaviking]

Easy_Lee want me to throw in some numbers without the marksmanship feat so we see how it holds up all by its lonesome?

Or are they redundant?

[Easy_Lee]

Easy_Lee want me to throw in some numbers without the marksmanship feat so we see how it holds up all by its lonesome?

Or are they redundant?

Naw I think it's fine as-is. Marksman is a powerful feat, but since it just adds fixed damage (when applicable) I suspect the tops of each category won't change. The numbers will probably just get a bit closer (since one extra attack from xbow expert gets one additional sharpshooter "proc").

It's true that it adds more damage for more attacks, so the combination with crossbow expert and hand crossbow(s) is a bit more powerful than just using it with a normal bow, of course. Since this takes two feats and a very particular weapon build, I don't see a problem. Rather, I think the lack of similar options for other bows is the real issue.

[Shadow]

In essence, you're taking the same interpretative approach, but relying on different methodologies with wildly different levels of detail.

But we're not.
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.

[SiuiS]

Is there a title beside the picture saying that that is a crossbow?

The letters on the colored background are just pictures really. Who knows what the rules are? The entire book is just a series of illustrations of a different Rulebook!

This thread is amazing.

That's certainly a word you could choose to apply...

[bloodshed343]

Just to clear my name: I only used the word straw-man once, to refer to the exact same post by Shadow that you used as an example of a straw-man. I fail to see how that indicates I was "throwing the term around" or that I didn't understand it.

In response to GiantOctopodes

[GiantOctopodes]

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.

But the number of attacks is not in question. We all know you can make more attacks with that than any other ranged weapon. That is expressly the purpose of that part of the feat. It's not comparable, because X is the number of attacks that anyone can take with any number of ranged weapons without the use of crossbow expert. Whether using one ranged weapon or two or 12, X is the number of attacks that is possible without Crossbow expert, and X + 1 is explicitly the number allowed by crossbow expert, with no debate even occurring on that point. That's like saying that X is the number of attacks possible with a single two handed weapon without the use of magic or class features, and X + 1 is the number of attacks possible with polearm master, and as such it's an exploit.

Yes, that is indeed what the ability does. Just because your statement is true, doesn't make it relevant, much less make the ability granting that an exploit. On the one hand, you disallow (for purposes of your own consideration, as obviously you can't actually make them irrelevant, you can just pretend they are) all comparable abilities, and then on the other hand you complain that the ability is unique.

Yes, it is a feat that increases the number of attacks with a ranged weapon. Yes, it is the only feat that increases the number of attacks with a ranged weapon. No, there is not a way to increase your number of attacks with bows, slings, thrown weapons, or any other ranged weapon except through magic. This is all true, and you keep repeating it like it means something. All it actually means is that they didn't make any other feats for other classes of ranged weapons. The fact that this leaves this feat unique in what it does in no way shape or form indicates, much less proves, that using the feat is an exploit. It just means that a) they didn't make that many feats, and b) they attempted to be unique with the abilities they made.

And saying that people are reading the feat in an exploitative fashion does not make it true. Trying to prove it by saying that 'it's an exploit because they're reading it in an exploitative fashion, which obviously makes it an exploit' does not, in fact, prove anything. At this point you have expressed neither disagreement that the rules allow it, nor that it is balanced to use the feat in this fashion. The only argument you actually make in there is that using it in the manner it is written ignores developer intent, which makes it an exploit.

I will agree on a small part of that. I agree that people are ignoring a developer's thoughts on the rule. I do not believe he is the one who was even the developer of the ability (as otherwise he would have spelled out his response as a clarification, not as his personal judgement on the matter). If Merls was the only one who developed the game, sure, his opinion would be unquestionable, but he did not. And if someone else wrote the ability, as I believe to be the case, and if that person spelled out something different than Merl's opinion by what they wrote (and I personally do not believe it is possible to imply your intent any more clearly than by actually saying what you mean, so I don't automatically assume he messed up the writing of the feat), why should I take Merl's word over the word of the person who actually wrote the feat? Does he have more authority on what the rules are or are not? Is his job designation to provide official rules clarifications? To the best of my knowledge, he does not and it is not, and as such, why would I take his word for it any more than I would take your word for it?

Finally, even if people were entirely and blatantly disregarding the developer's intent, that does not make it an exploit. That's just not what that word means. And you know me, I believe words have meaning, specific meaning chosen to correctly convey ideas. You provided your own definition of exploit: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage. That has Absolutely Nothing to do with developer intent. You could claim that people are disregarding developer intent, that's fine, I would then disagree, and claim that your opinion on the intent of the developer is no more valid than my own. You claim instead that it's an exploit, and then explicitly say that

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.

If it fails to meet your own definition (unfairly for one's own advantage) of an exploit because of the numbers, then yeah, they're relevant. You saying that they are not relevant does not make it so.

Edit:

Just to clear my name: I only used the word straw-man once, to refer to the exact same post by Shadow that you used as an example of a straw-man. I fail to see how that indicates I was "throwing the term around" or that I didn't understand it.

In response to GiantOctopodes

My sincere apologies. Looking back at it, I believe I completely misconstrued your post. I have no excuse, I simply failed at my reading comprehension on that one and replied in an inappropriate fashion to what I felt was an unfair accusation. I completely agree that even had you been directing it at me, it would not have been throwing it around, and that you were spot on in your assessment of the issue in the first place. I shall endeavor to not make that mistake in the future.