Why do People Hate on Crossbow Expert?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

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

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

You realize that there is a difference in terminology from clown juggling and moving stuff around.

cope with by adroitly balancing.
"she works full time, juggling her career with raising children"
synonyms: handle, manage, deal with, multitask
"juggling three part-time jobs"

I bolded multitask.

[obryn]

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

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

So wait...

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

How in bloody hell does that work?

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

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

So, Regulas, how's that "glaringly obvious" statement working out for you? Would you like to revisit it? Or is it now "glaringly obvious" that the designers intended characters to have to make Dexterity checks when playing Gun-kata?

As a side note - I'm getting a bit offended at your implications that I'm arguing in bad faith here. If the real intended reading of the rule (that is, "whatever Regulas thinks is the intended reading") is "glaringly obvious" and I disagree, does that make me a liar or an idiot? Isn't it possible for two reasonable people to disagree when something's badly worded like the feat is?

This is also that same rabbit hole I was talking about in the Conjure Woodland Beings thread - this is a really bizarre thing I've mostly seen in 5e so far. I'm still not sure I can articulate it, but I'll try. It's basically rules lawyering vagueness. That is, instead of vagueness being simply vague or poorly stated, people insist that it's either (1) intentional because DM empowerment; or (2) intentional and it's obvious my way of interpreting it is the right way. (FWIW, I disagree with both of these contentions; I think a vague rule is probably sloppily-worded, and don't find vagueness empowering at all as a DM.)

[Ghost Nappa]

So, Regulas, how's that "glaringly obvious" statement working out for you? Would you like to revisit it? Or is it now "glaringly obvious" that the designers intended characters to have to make Dexterity checks when playing Gun-kata?

As a side note - I'm getting a bit offended at your implications that I'm arguing in bad faith here. If the real intended reading of the rule (that is, "whatever Regulas thinks is the intended reading") is "glaringly obvious" and I disagree, does that make me a liar or an idiot? Isn't it possible for two reasonable people to disagree when something's badly worded like the feat is?

This is also that same rabbit hole I was talking about in the Conjure Woodland Beings thread - this is a really bizarre thing I've mostly seen in 5e so far. I'm still not sure I can articulate it, but I'll try. It's basically rules lawyering vagueness. That is, instead of vagueness being simply vague or poorly stated, people insist that it's either (1) intentional because DM empowerment; or (2) intentional and it's obvious my way of interpreting it is the right way. (FWIW, I disagree with both of these contentions; I think a vague rule is probably sloppily-worded, and don't find vagueness empowering at all as a DM.)

The short version is that the developers outsmarted themselves.

By trying to make it so the rules were vague and lite allowing for whichever table to do what it wanted, they basically took a metric ton of oil and poured it on to the "Internet Debate Fire."


A lot of players are coming from heavier rules sets from earlier editions and the change is messing them up. It's like trying to run a car with Olive Oil.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The short version is that the developers outsmarted themselves.

By trying to make it so the rules were vague and lite allowing for whichever table to do what it wanted, they basically took a metric ton of oil and poured it on to the "Internet Debate Fire."


A lot of players are coming from heavier rules sets from earlier editions and the change is messing them up. It's like trying to run a car with Olive Oil.

Do you have a problem with women driving?

*rimshot*



(Note: Yes I know the woman's name from Popeye is Olive Oyl but I couldn't help myself)

[obryn]

The short version is that the developers outsmarted themselves.

By trying to make it so the rules were vague and lite allowing for whichever table to do what it wanted, they basically took a metric ton of oil and poured it on to the "Internet Debate Fire."

A lot of players are coming from heavier rules sets from earlier editions and the change is messing them up. It's like trying to run a car with Olive Oil.

I'm not sure it was intentional - or if it was, it's really weird. 5e has a cargo cult version of vagueness. Oldschool games aren't intentionally vague about key details. Vagueness was not a design goal. (Lightness maybe, simulation certainly, fun gaming definitely, but not "vagueness.") If that was the designers' intent, they got it very wrong - because 5e is exceedingly specific for most of the rules.

[Regulas]

So, Regulas, how's that "glaringly obvious" statement working out for you? Would you like to revisit it? Or is it now "glaringly obvious" that the designers intended characters to have to make Dexterity checks when playing Gun-kata?

As a side note - I'm getting a bit offended at your implications that I'm arguing in bad faith here. If the real intended reading of the rule (that is, "whatever Regulas thinks is the intended reading") is "glaringly obvious" and I disagree, does that make me a liar or an idiot? Isn't it possible for two reasonable people to disagree when something's badly worded like the feat is?

This is also that same rabbit hole I was talking about in the Conjure Woodland Beings thread - this is a really bizarre thing I've mostly seen in 5e so far. I'm still not sure I can articulate it, but I'll try. It's basically rules lawyering vagueness. That is, instead of vagueness being simply vague or poorly stated, people insist that it's either (1) intentional because DM empowerment; or (2) intentional and it's obvious my way of interpreting it is the right way. (FWIW, I disagree with both of these contentions; I think a vague rule is probably sloppily-worded, and don't find vagueness empowering at all as a DM.)

From my point of view in general, the rules aren't really that ambiguous, except that because it's fantasy some people stop caring about logic on the basis that it's fantasy so logic and common sense are entirely irrelevant. And to me this completely contradicts the point of there being rules to begin with.
The idea that crossbow "gun kata" works, before even getting to the rules, is based on ignoring various points of common sense (such as the notion that loading requires physical action), why? because it's fantasy that's why.

To me that works much better in say Whitewolf where the game is much more story driven but is just out of place in a rule intensive system like D&D.

[Sartharina]

Reloading a Hand Crossbow one-handed is Simple^TM - You fire off each hand crossbow, then quickly drop both hands down to grab the bolts with your fingers, pull the strings back with your elbows, load the bolts, then aim+fire again. You probably have to cross your arms, and might be able to load sequentially. You only need two fingers to hold a crossbow in a hand, and you have two more on each hand free to hold and reload bolts and manipulate the strings. Or you juggle the weapons.

Oh so juggling doesn't take a skill check?

Nope!

(Note: Yes I know the woman's name from Popeye is Olive Oyl but I couldn't help myself)

And I'm pretty sure she was a terrible driver in those cartoons.

[Finieous]

Reloading a Hand Crossbow one-handed is Simple^TM - You fire off each hand crossbow, then quickly drop both hands down to grab the bolts with your fingers, pull the strings back with your elbows, load the bolts, then aim+fire again. You probably have to cross your arms, and might be able to load sequentially. You only need two fingers to hold a crossbow in a hand, and you have two more on each hand free to hold and reload bolts and manipulate the strings. Or you juggle the weapons.

I lol'd.

[Luriant]

I talk with my DM for ruling crossbow expert.

With 1 hand throwing weapon with finesse for using dex (Dagger or Dart) and a Hand Crossbow.

First attack: Throw the 1-handed weapon (+2 archery bonus and sharpshooter), or melee with the dagger.
Free action: Drop the melee weapon
Bonus action with Hand crossbow, and with free hand to reload. Archery bonus and sharpshooter.
Extra attacks: Hand crossbow. Archery bonus and sharpshooter.
Move action: Draw a new 1-hand weapon (ready for AoO), or get the same weapon for the floor/death enemy

My DM say that Crossbow expert beneficts its only for crossbows, so i can't throw in melee another weapon without disvantage.
And the damage is 1 point low. 1D4+Dex with dagger/dart, handcrossbow have 1D6+Dex. But the real power of the build its the extra attack with Archery bonus (without enemies at 5') and sharpshooter.

The GWM reference table teach me that the lower the average weapon damage and the better the hit bonus (+5Dex +2 Archery ¿+Bless?), the better Great Weapon Master and Power Attack are,
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...eference-Table

[obryn]

From my point of view in general, the rules aren't really that ambiguous, except that because it's fantasy some people stop caring about logic on the basis that it's fantasy so logic and common sense are entirely irrelevant. And to me this completely contradicts the point of there being rules to begin with.
The idea that crossbow "gun kata" works, before even getting to the rules, is based on ignoring various points of common sense (such as the notion that loading requires physical action), why? because it's fantasy that's why.

You're switching tracks, here. We're not talking about whether or not you can imagine it working. You said the rule was glaringly obvious, but now you're bringing in all kinds of other baggage.

Because, again, it works just fine in my imagination. This is a game where a Fighter can shoot a much larger crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds and survive 200' drops as a matter of routine, after all. So to me, you're the one who's ignoring logic - that is, the logic that this is fantasy, and heroes are expected to do unbelievable things.

[NeoSeraphi]

Ok guys I get the idea so please stop arguing. I didn't start this thread to bait any hate.

[Pex]

Ok guys I get the idea so please stop arguing. I didn't start this thread to bait any hate.

Then why name the thread "Why do People Hate on Crossbow Expert?"

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Ok guys I get the idea so please stop arguing. I didn't start this thread to bait any hate.

Hi, welcome to the internet, I see that you are new here.

[Easy_Lee]

Gonna go ahead and clear up this debate.

First off, reposting this link for developer tweets.

Point one: some people think you can't fire the same crossbow more than once because of the word "loaded". You have to be holding a "loaded" crossbow. According to a tweet above, the phrase "loaded crossbow" is flavor text. According to earlier lines of the feat, you ignore the loading property, but not the ammunition property. So you still fire bolts, but getting them in there is a simple task for your character. Let there be no more argument about how your character reloads his crossbows. Your character knows more about crossbows than you do.

Point two: some think that you must make the bonus attack with a separate crossbow. According to Jeremy Crawford's tweet, this shouldn't be the case since nothing in the text says the bonus action has to come from a separate crossbow. As long as we ignore the word "loaded", and according to Jeremy we do, then we should be able to use the same crossbow. However, Mike Mearls believes the feat "should" specify a different weapon, according to one of his tweets.

If we take developer posts as Word of God, we can't use a single crossbow for both attack and bonus attack. However, we can dual wield hand crossbows, or use one in tandem with another weapon. According to another developer tweet linked to above, we do this by juggling our weapons.

Again, the "no single crossbow" rule is not in the text. It comes only from Mike's tweet, where he says he felt the feat should specify more than one crossbow. Why? Probably because crossbow + shield was not intended. Does that mean the game is imbalanced if a DM allows single crossbow?

My personal approach is to say no shield in offhand, but single hand crossbow is fine. This is because you have to "juggle" your weapons while reloading, as suggested above, and you can't juggle a shield because it's strapped to your arm.

See how elegant that is? And the dual xbow thing is still possible. In fact, it's mostly superior; we can theoretically get hand crossbows with different enchants on them and favor one or the other when attacking specific monsters.

But wait, what about that developer tweet that says the feat should specify two crossbows? To that, I say two things: rule 0 and New Criticism. "For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting." Relying only on outside sources when interpreting a literary work dilutes the work and devalues the reader. Instead, talk it out with your DM and determine what works best for your game.

[Finieous]

Let there be no more argument about how your character reloads his crossbows. Your character knows more about crossbows than you do.

Dude, watching people try to explain how they reload dual-wielded hand crossbows is the only redeeming feature of this never-ending debate!

[Sartharina]

Dude, watching people try to explain how they reload dual-wielded hand crossbows is the only redeeming feature of this never-ending debate!

I think they find a way to use their pects, honestly.

[Regulas]

You're switching tracks, here. We're not talking about whether or not you can imagine it working. You said the rule was glaringly obvious, but now you're bringing in all kinds of other baggage.

Because, again, it works just fine in my imagination. This is a game where a Fighter can shoot a much larger crossbow 8 times in 6 seconds and survive 200' drops as a matter of routine, after all. So to me, you're the one who's ignoring logic - that is, the logic that this is fantasy, and heroes are expected to do unbelievable things.

I'm not switching tracks at all. There are a lot of basic rules that aren't actually included in the book because they are generally common sense as to how things work. For example while there are rules for difficult terrain there is no rule that states that you can't walk through solid walls in fact at best walls would just count as difficult terrain. Why is there no rule? Because it's common sense. To you however these rules don't always apply, why? because it's "fantasy" so you just ingore them whenever you feel like it.

For a warrior to shoot 8 times would require simply that he be unnaturally stronger or faster but mechanically it can still function. Reloading a crossbow with one hand while holding the crossbow with that hand just doesn't mechanically work no matter how fast or strong you are. You could use magic certainly but we are not talking about a magic user here.

Heck get magic crossbows enchanted to reload there you go go ahead. But without that no.

[toapat]

i think the largest problem is people get snagged on the idea that the bonus attack is a ranged crossbow attack but the first attack is percieved due to wording as melee. Which it actually isnt

[Sartharina]

For a warrior to shoot 8 times would require simply that he be unnaturally stronger or faster but mechanically it can still function. Reloading a crossbow with one hand while holding the crossbow with that hand just doesn't mechanically work no matter how fast or strong you are. You could use magic certainly but we are not talking about a magic user here.

You know nothing about my super-secret awesome one-handed crossbow reloading technique that looks absolutely kickass when performed, like something Arnold Schwartzeneggar might do!

[Regulas]

You know nothing about my super-secret awesome one-handed crossbow reloading technique that looks absolutely kickass when performed, like something Arnold Schwartzeneggar might do!

My favourite image I got from this thread was imaging a guy walking through a crowd with a giant heavy barrel in his arms and without using magic somehow pickpocketing the crowd without them noticing... or letting go of the barrel! maybe he's twirling it about and thats... somehow um... making suction to pull the gold purses out... or something :D

[SpawnOfMorbo]

My favourite image I got from this thread was imaging a guy walking through a crowd with a giant heavy barrel in his arms and without using magic somehow pickpocketing the crowd without them noticing... or letting go of the barrel! maybe he's twirling it about and thats... somehow um... making suction to pull the gold purses out... or something :D

So your main complaint is that you don't have the imagination to deal with a game based on using imagination? And because you can't fathom it then the creators and everyone else shouldn't be able to fathom it either?

[obryn]

I'm not switching tracks at all. There are a lot of basic rules that aren't actually included in the book because they are generally common sense as to how things work. For example while there are rules for difficult terrain there is no rule that states that you can't walk through solid walls in fact at best walls would just count as difficult terrain. Why is there no rule? Because it's common sense. To you however these rules don't always apply, why? because it's "fantasy" so you just ingore them whenever you feel like it.

That's a major slippery slope fallacy, now. The problem, here, is that there's a specific rule which says you can, indeed, go two-crossbows just like Ah Jong in the masterful Hong Kong action film, The Killer.

I don't worry about how Hank the Ranger can sneak through a forest covered in dry leaves. I don't worry about how Presto pulls Tiamat out of his hat. I don't worry about how Diana climbs up a wall. I figure they know a lot more about these things than I do. If Ahjong the Elf Rogue takes Crossbow Expert, I figure he's managed to get it working. How? Well, that's his business. I can imagine quite a few workable solutions, and 6 seconds is quite a bit of time in which to do them.

[Regulas]

So your main complaint is that you don't have the imagination to deal with a game based on using imagination? And because you can't fathom it then the creators and everyone else shouldn't be able to fathom it either?

But you are not using your imagination, on the contrary you are just assuming that "this works because it's fantasy" unto itself. That's literally not bothering to imagine why it happens and just assuming it does "cause it's fantasy".

You can always imagine that your character is somehow moving his arms so fast that he can reload the crossbows by letting go of them and reloading them and cocking them and catching them all in an instant without even trying or ever failing or requiring a skill check. Yet for some reason he only ever uses that speed or skill to reload them. He doesn't use it for aiming them, doesn't use it for any task, or sleight of hand, or attack. Nope the only time he ever bothers moving that fast or being that skill-full or accurate is when he loads his crossbows.

[Regulas]

That's a major slippery slope fallacy, now. The problem, here, is that there's a specific rule which says you can, indeed, go two-crossbows just like Ah Jong in the masterful Hong Kong action film, The Killer.

I don't worry about how Hank the Ranger can sneak through a forest covered in dry leaves. I don't worry about how Presto pulls Tiamat out of his hat. I don't worry about how Diana climbs up a wall. I figure they know a lot more about these things than I do. If Ahjong the Elf Rogue takes Crossbow Expert, I figure he's managed to get it working. How? Well, that's his business. I can imagine quite a few workable solutions, and 6 seconds is quite a bit of time in which to do them.

The feat itself says nothing about the ability to load cross-bows with your hands full, again it's about timing not the action.

Also
Hank: Pushing leaves aside while walking so they don't crunch, or moves in time with the wind. There are plenty of logical things that make sense that can explain almost anything without being as nonsensical as this loading nonsense.
Presto: It's a magic hat duh
Ahjong: Fires both crossbows then sheaths one so he can reload the other. Unless he's using magic.

[Eslin]

I'm not switching tracks at all. There are a lot of basic rules that aren't actually included in the book because they are generally common sense as to how things work. For example while there are rules for difficult terrain there is no rule that states that you can't walk through solid walls in fact at best walls would just count as difficult terrain. Why is there no rule? Because it's common sense. To you however these rules don't always apply, why? because it's "fantasy" so you just ingore them whenever you feel like it.

For a warrior to shoot 8 times would require simply that he be unnaturally stronger or faster but mechanically it can still function. Reloading a crossbow with one hand while holding the crossbow with that hand just doesn't mechanically work no matter how fast or strong you are. You could use magic certainly but we are not talking about a magic user here.

Heck get magic crossbows enchanted to reload there you go go ahead. But without that no.

This is a prime example of the thinking that was responsible for pathfinder and 3.5 being so unbalanced - you should not require direct magic for mundanes to do improbable/impossible things.

In this game someone with a few barbarian levels can fall from orbit, get angry before he hits the ground and survive. He can then heal the damage by resting for the night, and if he comes across a hand crossbow fighter the next morning and ends up with ten bolts sticking out of his chest he can take a short nap and get over that too - this is not a realistic game by any stretch of the imagination.

This is a crossbow expert, someone better with crossbows than anyone in this world has ever been. In a fantasy game, in which the wizard next to him is goddamn flying and the fighter can somehow not only fire 8 heavy crossbow bolts in 6 seconds but can also have those bolts trip a target over, disarm them or push them 15 feet back. He can find a way to reload a crossbow with his hands full if he wants to, hell if he had no hands I'd expect him to fire a crossbow with his teeth.

This fallacy, that impossible things should only be achievable with magic in a game absolutely full of impossible things being achieved without magic ANYWAY, is what lead to magic users being flat out superior to those who didn't.

[Regulas]

This is a prime example of the thinking that was responsible for pathfinder and 3.5 being so unbalanced - you should not require direct magic for mundanes to do improbable/impossible things.

In this game someone with a few barbarian levels can fall from orbit, get angry before he hits the ground and survive. He can then heal the damage by resting for the night, and if he comes across a hand crossbow fighter the next morning and ends up with ten bolts sticking out of his chest he can take a short nap and get over that too - this is not a realistic game by any stretch of the imagination.

This is a crossbow expert, someone better with crossbows than anyone in this world has ever been. In a fantasy game, in which the wizard next to him is goddamn flying and the fighter can somehow not only fire 8 heavy crossbow bolts in 6 seconds but can also have those bolts trip a target over, disarm them or push them 15 feet back. He can find a way to reload a crossbow with his hands full if he wants to, hell if he had no hands I'd expect him to fire a crossbow with his teeth.

This fallacy, that impossible things should only be achievable with magic in a game absolutely full of impossible things being achieved without magic ANYWAY, is what lead to magic users being flat out superior to those who didn't.

Surviving a fall from orbit is perfectly fine and acceptable. You could be tougher. Thrusting your hand through your body without causing an injury? That just doesn't make sense unless you are using magic.

There is a difference between being being beyond mundane means, and being immposible. Non-mages should be able to do things that are crazy and insane like lifting a mountain. They should not be able to do things that are phsycially immposible when they are explicitly are not using magic. Like lifting a mountain... on the other side of the planet without touching it.

They should get strength and speed that defies a normal person. But that's it they should still only be able to do what someone with super speed or strength could do. Because anything else is magic and they are explicitly not using it.

[bloodshed343]

I'm a newb, but how do fighters get to fire 8 heavy crossbow bolts in one round? They only get 4 attacks.

[Regulas]

I'm a newb, but how do fighters get to fire 8 heavy crossbow bolts in one round? They only get 4 attacks.

Action surge.

[obryn]

There is a difference between being being beyond mundane means, and being immposible. Non-mages should be able to do things that are crazy and insane like lifting a mountain. They should not be able to do things that are phsycially immposible when they are explicitly are not using magic. Like lifting a mountain... on the other side of the planet without touching it.

They should get strength and speed that defies a normal person. But that's it they should still only be able to do what someone with super speed or strength could do. Because anything else is magic and they are explicitly not using it.

...so you're okay with lifting a multi-billion-ton mountain, but not with loading a pistol-sized crossbow with (say) two fingers after a lot of practice and with unnatural dexterity?

I find the lines you're drawing ... perplexing.

[bloodshed343]

Action surge.

Oh right. Derp.