Why do People Hate on Crossbow Expert?

[darkdragoon]

Yes, that one.
If the lead designer of the game requires two weapons in his personal game, you can be certain that this was the intention.
If allowing the bonus action attack to trigger via one single hand crossbow were intended, then the lead designer would allow it in his game.
So the intent has been clarified as two different weapons. All of your "we don't know, I don't know, you don't know, we can never know" is just wrong. We can know and we do know, because he told us.

Said lead designer has a history of coming up with vague mechanics that don't seem to match whatever the intent was. IE Shroud assassin powers.

[EvilAnagram]

I hate this damn feat. Honestly, I have no problem with the way it works mechanically, but it breaks immersion for me. The fastest anyone has ever shot a military-grade crossbow is once every 30 seconds. This feat allows you to conceivably fire eight times in six seconds. You essentially gain the ability to move like Quicksilver in DoFP, but only when reloading crossbows.

I have forbidden this usage of it at my table without crafting a mechanical automatic crossbow.

[Easy_Lee]

I hate this damn feat. Honestly, I have no problem with the way it works mechanically, but it breaks immersion for me. The fastest anyone has ever shot a military-grade crossbow is once every 30 seconds. This feat allows you to conceivably fire eight times in six seconds. You essentially gain the ability to move like Quicksilver in DoFP, but only when reloading crossbows.

I have forbidden this usage of it at my table without crafting a mechanical automatic crossbow.

Person A can load and fire a crossbow in six seconds. That's baseline, and that's pretty damn fast. It's already unlikely in real life, unless their crossbows more closely resemble chu ko nus than regular crossbows. But, regardless, we have to accept that these crossbows can be loaded, aimed, and fired in six seconds. I don't see how an extremely well-trained, practiced person doing that same thing in less time (or multiple times over the same duration) is unbelievable.

And also, you can conceivably fire the crossbow ten times (4*2+bonus+haste) as a max-level, buffed fighter, assuming your DM allows the single crossbow thing. Otherwise, you'll inexplicably need a second for that last shot.

Incidentally, I'm not sure why people feel this way about crossbows (which explicitly require specific training in order to reload quickly), but not longbows which still have to be nocked, drawn back, and fired. Shooting a heavy English longbow eight times in six seconds would still be a superhuman feat. Firing some kind of chu ku nu eight times in six seconds is something anyone could train to do. If we accept their crossbows have some kind of trick that makes them easier to reload, it shouldn't be a problem.

[obryn]

I hate this damn feat. Honestly, I have no problem with the way it works mechanically, but it breaks immersion for me. The fastest anyone has ever shot a military-grade crossbow is once every 30 seconds. This feat allows you to conceivably fire eight times in six seconds. You essentially gain the ability to move like Quicksilver in DoFP, but only when reloading crossbows.

I have forbidden this usage of it at my table without crafting a mechanical automatic crossbow.

Yeah, we can't have any D&D characters performing superhuman feats, can we?

I've banned spellcasting, hit points, multiple attacks, magic items, and saving throws from my own games. It's much more immersive.

My last campaign, 2 characters died from the flu, one got a nasty infection from a house cat, and the rest got gangrene and rotted away forgotten in a swamp before even getting to the goblin lair. Serves them right. They complained it wasn't any fun, but dammit, it was incredibly verisimilitudinous.

[S_Dalsgaard]

What I don't get, is why people become a..holes as soon as someone mention, that they don't allow dual-wielding of hand crossbows.

I don't allow it either (not that I can imagine that anyone at my table would ever ask if they could do it). I don't see anywhere in the rules, that explicitly says, that two hand crossbows is an exception to the TWF requirement of light melee weapons, and that includes the CE feat. On the other hand I don't have a problem with other DMs allowing it, as that is their own business.

[Easy_Lee]

What I don't get, is why people become a..holes as soon as someone mention, that they don't allow dual-wielding of hand crossbows.

I don't allow it either (not that I can imagine that anyone at my table would ever ask if they could do it). I don't see anywhere in the rules, that explicitly says, that two hand crossbows is an exception to the TWF requirement of light melee weapons, and that includes the CE feat. On the other hand I don't have a problem with other DMs allowing it, as that is their own business.

So I guess you're in favor of using one hand crossbow and getting the bonus attack off of itself.

[MukkTB]

My reading of the RAW seems to favor the 1 handcrossbow and a shield argument.

From a simulationist perspective I like the 1 hand crossbow and an empty hand setup.

2 hand crossbows sounds cool to me. The shield and hand crossbow also sounds cool.

Mechanically, I don't know if this is overpowered. Do you get dex to the second shot? You're spending a feat for the privilege of doing this.

[Regulas]

As I noted before, the feat comes down to how badly people care about style or mechanics abuse.

Main reasons people seem to want to see it do silly things is

1: cause they think it's cool so will see the rules as allowing it cause they would rather have the cool thing then believe otherwise

2: They are into rule abuse or min/maxing. They will interpret the rules by whatever way of reading it gives them the most bang for their buck common sense be dammed.

Though there was one guy who thought that non-magic users should be able to use magic because they aren't using magic.


Those who are particularly against these ideas are usually the "lawyers" who care about the strict readings, and the "realists" who are concerned with the impracticality or ridiculous nature of the concepts.

[Easy_Lee]

As I said, loading and firing a crossbow in six seconds during a hectic fight is pretty impressive, and that's apparently something any fighter can do. I don't think people have problems with the feat so much as they have problems with crossbows in general. If the feat granted a bonus attack with longbows, nobody would have complained.

Also, would just like to mention I have nothing but contempt for those who think their "immersion" is more important than another's fun.

[Edenbeast]

The first time I read the feat, my interpretation of the sentence containing "one handed weapon" and "loaded hand crossbow" was that they are two different weapons. I have never doubted this interpretation. It's the rule as written, and how I understand it. I've considered the other possibility and I also understand how some people are able to read something else, maybe due to the designers' sloppiness, or maybe because of the reasons mentioned in the previous post, and most likely a combination.

[Demonic Spoon]

Also, would just like to mention I have nothing but contempt for those who think their "immersion" is more important than another's fun.

This doesn't even make any sense. Immersion is part of the fun of D&D for what I would guess is virtually everyone (yourself included). You're debating whether or not certain interpretations of a vaguely-worded feat are justified or good for the same, your opinion is not intrinsically better because it hinges on mechanics rather than verisimilitude.

[Regulas]

The whole 1 hand bow making an off-hand never made sense to begin with. Like if you are wielding 1 sword do you normally make a second off-hand attack for "dual-wielding" the one blade? Clearly not so why does it magically work like that for hand-crossbows?

[Easy_Lee]

The whole 1 hand bow making an off-hand never made sense to begin with. Like if you are wielding 1 sword do you normally make a second off-hand attack for "dual-wielding" the one blade? Clearly not so why does it magically work like that for hand-crossbows?

Same reason you get a bonus attack with polearm master - you spent a feat for it.

Is the character doing too much damage? No, less than or equal to a dual wielder.

Does the character have too much survivability? No, no more than any other ranged character, and less than many casters.

Does the character have too much utility? No, less than a sorcerer who also does more (and more versatile) damage.

So what in the nine hells is the problem?

[Easy_Lee]

This doesn't even make any sense. Immersion is part of the fun of D&D for what I would guess is virtually everyone (yourself included). You're debating whether or not certain interpretations of a vaguely-worded feat are justified or good for the same, your opinion is not intrinsically better because it hinges on mechanics rather than verisimilitude.

I didn't say "equally" important, I said more important. Show me someone who thinks their own needs are more important than others', and I'll show you the cause of every interpersonal conflict in history, D&D included. If you aren't willing to deal with other players doing things you don't agree with, you aren't going to have a good time at any table.

And for the record, my opinion has nothing to do with mechanics, and everything to do with variety. What's right for person A is not what's right for person B. This is the foundation of tolerance.

[Regulas]

Same reason you get a bonus attack with polearm master - you spent a feat for it.

Is the character doing too much damage? No, less than or equal to a dual wielder.

Does the character have too much survivability? No, no more than any other ranged character, and less than many casters.

Does the character have too much utility? No, less than a sorcerer who also does more (and more versatile) damage.

So what in the nine hells is the problem?

The damage level does not constitute a reason. As a cleric my cantrips deal less damage then a walrocks. Does that mean I should get free damage?

Even besides that, what anoys me most about it is the abuse. This is a perfect example of trying to abuse how the rules work cause you want to do something. They never clarified details about trigger timing and action order, so your are choosing to interpret this in a way that lets you fire a the extra shot with the same crossbow. This is nothing like Polearm master that give you the attack directly in it's RAW but the extra crossbow attack with the same bow only works by reading rules outside the feat in a RAI fashion .

[Regulas]

And for the record, my opinion has nothing to do with mechanics, and everything to do with variety.

Well that explains a lot, if you just outright don't give a crap what the rules say.

Which begs the question as to why you are in this thread at all ever.

[Easy_Lee]

Well that explains a lot, if you just outright don't give a crap what the rules say.

Which begs the question as to why you are in this thread at all ever.

If you won't listen to me, perhaps you will listen to the devs. Back on the very first page of this thread, this link was posted:https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/tag/crossbow/

Jeremy Crawford says the "loaded" bit, as in bonus attack with a loaded crossbow, is flavor text. Mearls believes the text "should" specify a second weapon, implying that it doesn't by RAW. Both suggest that, by the book, firing a single hand crossbow twice, once as an action and once for bonus, is valid.

So the RAW is pretty firmly on my side. Game. Set. Match.

[Regulas]

If you won't listen to me, perhaps you will listen to the devs. Back on the very first page of this thread, this link was posted:https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/tag/crossbow/

Jeremy Crawford says the "loaded" bit, as in bonus attack with a loaded crossbow, is flavor text. Mearls believes the text "should" specify a second weapon, implying that it doesn't by RAW. Both suggest that, by the book, firing a single hand crossbow twice, once as an action and once for bonus, is valid.

So the RAW is pretty firmly on my side. Game. Set. Match.

Clarifying that it should explicitly be two weapons does not mean that the RAW allows it, it's simply a clarification because people like you are claiming otherwise.

This is where all this comes from, every time they don't explicitly put it in black and white you just assume that it all works exactly as bests suits you, even though it's just an assumption.

[Easy_Lee]

Clarifying that it should explicitly be two weapons does not mean that the RAW allows it, it's simply a clarification because people like you are claiming otherwise.

Said another way, one dev thinks it's fine and another doesn't. Now, if one of the devs thinks it's fine, it's pretty firmly in the not-exploit territory as far as I'm concerned. There is nothing in the feat which outright requires two weapons, except dubiously for the word "loaded" which Crawford said to ignore.

If you don't like it, I invite you to run a game and write your opinions on big bold letters on the DM screen. I am a DM, and it's allowed for npcs and pcs alike in my games. But frankly there is no right and wrong when it comes to fantasy. Saying one interpretation is the only interpretation shows arrogance.

[Regulas]

Said another way, one dev thinks it's fine and another doesn't. Now, if one of the devs thinks it's fine, it's pretty firmly in the not-exploit territory as far as I'm concerned. There is nothing in the feat which outright requires two weapons, except for the word "loaded" which Crawford said to ignore.

If you don't like it, I invite you to run a game and write your opinions on big bold letters on the DM screen. I am a DM, snd it's allowed for npcs and pcs alike in my games. But frankly there is no right and wrong when it comes to fantasy. Saying one interpretation is the only interpretation shows arrogance.

{scrubbed}

There is no right and wrong when it comes to fantasy unto itself. There is however a right and wrong when you are deciding to use a specific set of rules. Certainly you can run it however you want in your campaign the point is that that is Homebrew versus Canon. You can play "Hockey" where the puck is a cantaloupe there are three goals each one a tuba carried by a third team, but don't go complaining to the Hockey Hall of fame when they don't want to give you awards.

[EvilAnagram]

Yeah, we can't have any D&D characters performing superhuman feats, can we?

I've banned spellcasting, hit points, multiple attacks, magic items, and saving throws from my own games. It's much more immersive.

My last campaign, 2 characters died from the flu, one got a nasty infection from a house cat, and the rest got gangrene and rotted away forgotten in a swamp before even getting to the goblin lair. Serves them right. They complained it wasn't any fun, but dammit, it was incredibly verisimilitudinous.

It's not that it's superhuman, it's that it's superhuman in such a specific and inconsistent way. "I can move as fast as the Flash," would be fine with me. "I can move as fast as the Flash, but only within the confines of loading crossbows," is ridiculous.

[Demonic Spoon]

I didn't say "equally" important, I said more important. Show me someone who thinks their own needs are more important than others', and I'll show you the cause of every interpersonal conflict in history, D&D included. If you aren't willing to deal with other players doing things you don't agree with, you aren't going to have a good time at any table.

And for the record, my opinion has nothing to do with mechanics, and everything to do with variety. What's right for person A is not what's right for person B. This is the foundation of tolerance.

Are you referring to rules are different tables, or rules at a single table?

No one is or has ever argued that someone else isn't allowed to run the game the way they want to (whether or not they think it's a good idea is another matter). However, you seem to be arguing that players should be allowed to do the things they want to do because what they want for themselves is more important than what other characters want him to do?

[GiantOctopodes]

The whole 1 hand bow making an off-hand never made sense to begin with. Like if you are wielding 1 sword do you normally make a second off-hand attack for "dual-wielding" the one blade? Clearly not so why does it magically work like that for hand-crossbows?

I would like to point out that the feat says absolutely nothing about dual wielding. Ever, in fact, thus why some people don't interpret it as allowing dual wielding at all.

Sources of Bonus Actions that Grant Attacks:
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.

That's the list. Now, everyone who has been arguing that crossbow expert requires a second crossbow has been adding text into the rules, and arguing from the standpoint of rules for a completely different thing (two weapon fighting), arguing from a circular logic perspective (it's like two weapon fighting, so it's like two weapon fighting). Nowhere in the rules for Crossbow expert does it say a second weapon is required whatsoever, no more so than it does for any other source of bonus attacks, other than of course two weapon fighting.

Out of all possible sources of bonus attacks, there is only one (two weapon fighting) which specifies it cannot be with the same weapon, and only one (polearm master) which specifies it *must* be with the same weapon. For everything else, as no limitation is specified, it can be with the same weapon, or a different one, as what you were using for your main attack action, as long as the requirements are met. A Barbarian can "dual wield" Battle Axes while frenzying, attacking with one during his main attack action, then with the other during his bonus action. It's mechanically inferior to using the same weapon for all of them, but it's not against the rules.

People are free to house rule all they want. They are free to interpret the intent of the designers all they want. They are free to call those who stick with the rules as written "munchkins" or "rules lawyers" all they want. I stick by my philosophy that words have meanings, specific meanings, and the only requirement specified in the text of crossbow expert to gain a bonus action attack with a hand crossbow is that you make a weapon attack (not a melee weapon attack, just a weapon attack) with a one handed weapon (not a different one handed weapon, as is specified in two weapon fighting, just a one handed weapon).

That hand crossbow attack can be triggered by a melee attack, by a different hand crossbow, or by its own attacks, per RAW. As long as a weapon attack is made with a one handed weapon, you have satisfied the requirements to gain that bonus action option per the rules. Anything other than that is people choosing to houserule, which is totally fine, but it's not what the rules say.

Edit:

The very fact that the feat even mentions off-hand already by itself is all that should ever have been needed to know that you need 2 weapons. Any other interpretation already requires construing action economy interpretations to achieve.

Except it doesn't. At all. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The words "off-hand" never appear in the text for that feat, whatsoever. I highly recommend anyone arguing about what the feat says takes a moment to go and actually read it again, I think a lot of the issues is because people assume it says things differently than what it actually says.

[Regulas]

Snip.

Technically a strict reading of the raw requires the cross-bow to be loaded ahead of time, which would require two weapons since at the trigger time you just emptied the first.

The designer intent is that you could reload first so it doesn't have to be loaded, but their intent was also that you should be using it as an off-hand attack.

[GiantOctopodes]

Technically a strict reading of the raw requires the cross-bow to be loaded ahead of time.

Absolutely. The hand crossbow must be loaded in order to use the bonus action to attack with it. It must also be in your hand. Please note that it does not say "When you use the attack action to attack with a one handed weapon while holding a loaded hand crossbow, you may use a bonus action to attack with that hand crossbow". Instead, it specifies that attacking with a one handed weapon grants you a bonus action which can be used to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding. Unlike the monk's flurry of blows, which specifies that the bonus action takes place immediately after the attack action, this one does not specify a timing, so you have until the end of the round to use that bonus action, which is *plenty* of time to get that crossbow loaded and in your hand.


Edit:

Technically a strict reading of the raw requires the cross-bow to be loaded ahead of time, which would require two weapons since at the trigger time you just emptied the first.

The designer intent is that you could reload first so it doesn't have to be loaded, but their intent was also that you should be using it as an off-hand attack.

In terms of designer intent, they can intend a lot of things. But neither of the statements in your second sentence matches what they wrote. They can easily fix it, by issuing an errata, but neither the fact that you ignore the loaded quality, so normally you shouldn't have to have it already loaded, nor an "intent that you should be using it as an off-hand attack" matches what was written in the rules.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

It's not that it's superhuman, it's that it's superhuman in such a specific and inconsistent way. "I can move as fast as the Flash," would be fine with me. "I can move as fast as the Flash, but only within the confines of loading crossbows," is ridiculous.

Not really. I can load a gun insanely fast but I can't run a 40 yard dash in under... Well my fastest time was probably around 8 seconds haha...

It's all about training and if this is possible in the real world then why wouldn't it be possible in a fantasy setting?

Having speed and quickness in one task does not automatically give it to you in another task.

[Regulas]

Absolutely. The hand crossbow must be loaded in order to use the bonus action to attack with it. It must also be in your hand. Please note that it does not say "When you use the attack action to attack with a one handed weapon while holding a loaded hand crossbow, you may use a bonus action to attack with that hand crossbow". Instead, it specifies that attacking with a one handed weapon grants you a bonus action which can be used to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding. Unlike the monk's flurry of blows, which specifies that the bonus action takes place immediately after the attack action, this one does not specify a timing, so you have until the end of the round to use that bonus action, which is *plenty* of time to get that crossbow loaded and in your hand.

So can I use that bonus action in a later round then? Like can I make an attack and then next round cast an illusion spell and then draw and bonus attack with the crossbow? Can I take the bonus action before the attack? I mean it says that I cna take bonus actions whenever on my turn and since I am going to be making the attack on that turn.

What about later in the day? Or the next day?

[GiantOctopodes]

So can I use that bonus action in a later round then? Like can I make an attack and then next round cast an illusion spell and then draw and bonus attack with the crossbow?Can I take the bonus action before the attack? I mean it says that I cna take bonus actions whenever on my turn and since I am going to be making the attack on that turn.

What about later in the day? Or the next day?

No, not so much.

"On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first."
"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."
"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack."

You can use the bonus action later *in* the round, though, such as after you used your movement, and as part of your movement, used your object interaction to load the hand crossbow (or for that matter draw a loaded one).

Edit: And I know you're trying to be ridiculous, but I also suspect you're trying to play off of what you perceive as vague wording, so to be clear, it does specify "Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action." You can't take it on a later turn, or later in the day, it must be used on your turn when granted by said class feature, spell, or other ability. Note too that "You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take." So until such time as you had made a weapon attack with a one handed weapon, you don't have a bonus action with which to make the hand crossbow attack, and as such, it can't be done before the attack itself. The rules are actually quite clear on stuff like this when you read them.

[Regulas]

No, not so much.

"On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first."
"You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action."
"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack."

You can use the bonus action later *in* the round, though, such as after you used your movement, and as part of your movement, used your object interaction to load the hand crossbow (or for that matter draw a loaded one).

Neither the rules for Bonus actions nor the feat specify that the trigger which allows you to take that bonus action both have to occur in the same turn though. All it says is that you can choose when during your turn (which doesn't say same turn) to take the action, this just means that it has to be your turn and not someone else's.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Absolutely. The hand crossbow must be loaded in order to use the bonus action to attack with it. It must also be in your hand. Please note that it does not say "When you use the attack action to attack with a one handed weapon while holding a loaded hand crossbow, you may use a bonus action to attack with that hand crossbow". Instead, it specifies that attacking with a one handed weapon grants you a bonus action which can be used to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding. Unlike the monk's flurry of blows, which specifies that the bonus action takes place immediately after the attack action, this one does not specify a timing, so you have until the end of the round to use that bonus action, which is *plenty* of time to get that crossbow loaded and in your hand.

The feat also let's you ignore the loading quality.

Loading Quality: "Because of the time required to laid this weapon, you can fire only one piece of ammunition from it when you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make." -PHB 147

Which that part of the feat doesnt actually do anything for us when using the the attack part of the feat!

Each time you take an action to shoot you are able to load the crossbow once as per the loading quality. Ignoring the loading quality just let's you make more attacks with one action (extra attack).

The feat allows us to make a bonus action attack with a one handed weapon after fireing the hand crossbow. Since you are using a new action you can load said crossbow again (ammunition property) action already for the ability to shoot it. You could use the same hand cross bow with nothing in your second hand if you like because loading the hand crossbow is part of the action to shoot the weapon.

Now why would the feat say loaded crossbow? So rules lawyers don't try to pull "I don't need ammo to do my next attack, it doesn't say it has to be loaded" or whatever.