If I'm reading this correctly, you can dual wield hand crossbows with the sharpshooter feat + crossbow mastery feat, and take the -5 to hit, +10 damage for each crossbow, ja?
A fighter doing this with archery fighting style and 16 dex @ lvl 5 would yield 3 attacks @ +3 to hit, for a total of 3d6+39 damage?
Technically, the rules don't say you can't.
Can you explain how you are able to reload the crossbows though?
The crossbow feat specifically says they ignore the loading quality of hand crossbows. I don't know how you do it, but the feat specifically says you're able to.
Kattahn wrote:
Indeed. Though the "loading" property is gone with CBM, that essentially just speeds up your reloads...it doesn't make them not happen. If I were running the game, I'd not permit dual hand crossbows to be fired 3 times in one round without stowing one using the character's interaction for the turn. (Meaning it is unloaded and stowed the next time the character's initiative comes around.)
Fire mainhand, fire offhand, stow offhand, (reload) fire mainhand.
Why even allow them to take the feat if you're not going to let it do anything?
Kattahn wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
People seem to have a problem with the feat affecting different weapons differently. For further logic of this nature, look up Great Weapon Fighting (significant difference in impact depending on how many and what type damage dice a weapon has), or better still: Polearm Master. PM affects multiple weapons, but not all of them in the same way. There's pretty clear intention within the rules to not always have every feat work precisely the same way with every weapon which has some benefit from the feat.
Crossbow Mastery, for example, doesn't specify that crossbows are the only ranged attack which benefits from the removal of disadvantage in melee. It is, thus, a viable feat for ANYONE who uses ranged attacks of ANY KIND.
Kattahn wrote:
You very clearly desperately want to do this. If your DM wants you to, knock yourself out. Not sure what the issue is.
Well, my question was "is this allowed via RAW". It seems yes. If you all want to ignore RAW, thats fine. Just wanted to make sure i wasn't missing anything.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
Also, does reaching over and pulling the string back with the other hand, while still holding a crossbow, seem that improbable?
I don't see how RAW eliminates the obvious: you need to reload, it just doesn't take you a whole round.
Bows are not a weapon you can load and fire with one hand. You can't just wield a short sword in your offhand because they do not have a reloading property.
Common sense. But hey, again, you seem determined to ignore physics, it's a fantasy game, and all DMs are different. As I see it there's nothing saying that you sporut a third hand, and common sense says you can't reload without one.
Cinematic "crossbow flips" aside, the reality of one shot weapons in such sequences lends itself MUCH more to grabing a new weapon when you expend the old one. (The rogue who carries a half dozen crossbows for example, tossing one aside each time it's expended.)
So... turning my teammate into Puff the Magic Dragon with True Polymorph's okay, but reloading when you've a crossbow in each hand's unreasonable because...?
One uses magic and the other doesn't. I already suggested using magic to accomplish this.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
I've already given you multiple solutions which would allow you to do what you want. Your argument is that without any rationale, you should be able to do it, because you don;t believe in common sense.
That's fine. It has zip to do with imagination though.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
No, you're argument was "It doesn't let you because it's not realistic." You posted as much above.
My argument is fun > realism, I also called you out on the hypocrisy of talking realism in a world with magic. Hell, you're "multiple solutions" were all in the form of nerfs as far as I can see.
Kattahn wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Yunru wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
You also can't will into being a fireball. Or will someone to turn into a dragon. Your "realism" argument is, once again, invalid.
Yunru wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
Like I said, by RAW you can.
You just need to think of a way in which your character can accomplish it.
For example a strong character might be able to use belt hooks on each side to **** a hand crossbow in each hand simultaneously. They could then tuck one under their arm while they draw a bolt and slide it into place on the other then juggle them, draw and reload the first. Juggle, then aim and fire.
Hey presto. You just do that at the speed that the rules say your character gets two shots off.
If you want to compare with fireballs, just tell your DM that your character has a pair of magical crossbows that automatically recock and reload themselves.
Saelorn wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
This was the first thing my DM and I saw when we got our books on the 8th. We've banned it because we believe Sharpshooter was intended to be used with two handed ranged weapons (Heavy/light Crossbows and short/long Bows).
The way it reads now is that you can dual wield hand crossbows and power attack everything. Makes it very OP.
As for crossbow expert i think it was intended to be used with a melee weapon in one and a hand crossbow in the other. We decided that you can dual wield hand crossbows but the Sharpshooter feat does not count for Hand Crossbows.
I don't see why everyone is jumping down this guy's throat. His interpretation makes perfect sense to me.
RAW:
Loading: "Because of the time required to load 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."
Ammunition: "You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack."
Crossbow Expert (Excerpt): "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."
For me, the bolded and underlined bit under Ammunition is the key ruling. If you make an attack, you get the ammo as part of that action. The timing doesn't matter. For all we know, an "attack action" represents not just the 1-2 seconds of firing the crossbow, but also the extra second of loading it. Or that you use an unorthodox load to get the bolts into the crossbow.
RAI:
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of a loading system that allows this. You could have some kind of bolt/hook rig on your hip holsters, or under your armpits. Or hooks on forearm bracers that let you **** back the string and then clip in a fresh bolt.
Of course, the rules might eventually be clarified to exclude all this. But in the rules as they are currently written, and with some totally reasonable high fantasy RAI, you can definitely two-hand your hand bows.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
No, the irony is that you're defending the stance of "the fact that the rules state you can do it quails before my hand-wave tollerance."
The rules say he can do it, thus he can do it. Telling him otherwise, in the Rules Question thread no less varies from misleading to sabotage (not that I'm saying it's the later).
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Crossbow Expert (Excerpt): "When you use the Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."
OK if you really want to go rules lawer the analyss is this
When you use the attack action with a one handed weapon (presumably a one handed crossbow) you can use A bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding"
I simply rule this as singular. A as in one. you can use other bonus attacks to do other things, but under this feat, RAW you get one. If the feat meant you could do it multiplte times, it would read "you can use every (or any) bonus action to attack with a loaded crossbow. It also, RAW, says action not actions-again specifying singular, as in once. Granted this is serious rules lawyering, but as it is written, it is singular.
Of course it's singular, it takes a (1) bonus action to do. That's all it means. It doesn't say "once per encounter", or "cannot use again until a short or long rest".
Therefore it takes a (1) bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow. As many times as you have bonus actions if you want, there's no restrictions on it.
actually yunru, it doesn't say that at all. it says you can do it with a bonus action, singular, if you with to be obnoxiously literal. your whole argument is logically implied. Based on RAW we know we can do it once, we don't know if we can do it multiple times.
The Crossbow Master convention which allows offhand hand crossbow attacks as a bonus action is near enough to identical to the dual wielding text on page 195 of the PHB as to make no difference. The reason the feat is needed in order to dual wield the hand crossbow in the first place is that a hand crossbow is not light.
There's really no doubt as to if you CAN dual wield. The only question is how you intend to keep up the rate of fire. That will vary from "it just works" (the contention put forth by the OP originally) to "I have a complex set of levers, pulleys, and small forest creatures attached to my jacket" ...
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
SteampunkMonk wrote:
SteampunkMonk wrote:
Mrpagoda25 wrote:
OrganicDoom wrote:
I don't think this has been mentioned but this all works while weilding 1 hand crossbow only and can easily leave a hand open. The feat does not specify the original 1 handed weapon cannot be the same as the one used for the bonus action.
Veleria wrote:
But it does need to be loaded. Which begs the question "Do you carry a loaded crossbow and reload after firing, or do you carry an empty crossbow are load it before firing?"
I know Crossbow Expert lets you ignore the loading property so you could load+fire as part of the same action, but in order to carry out the action it needs to have been initially loaded.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Here's another take on this that doesn't involve any special equipment. It's important to support RAW with RAI and I want to give this guy the means to do that. After all, a DM can always just house-rule-override RAW, unless you have some strong RAI backing.
First, take the Attack action in combat. Right hand fires a hand crossbow (Attack action - attack 1). You then quickly reload it with your left hand helping out (you are a quick reloader because you ignore the Loading property, due to your training in the feat). Right hand now fires again (Attack action - attack 2). If you have a third attack, you would just repeat that whole process (Attack action - attack 3+). Note that all this time you still only have 1 crossbow in your right hand and nothing in your left.
Then as a "Free" action, you draw your left hand crossbow:
Other Activity on Your Turn (p 190): "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 do this as PART of the bonus action that you are using to make the attack. So now you take your bonus action, draw the loaded crossbow, and fire it (Bonus action).
At no time does this process force you to reload the crossbows with a weapon in each hand.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
I think there's enough questions about how things are worded that it's a bit more complex than it just working, and that making it more likely to work is going to be accomplished by investing some thought into the how.
The word "loaded" or the fact that there's no technical restriction regarding taking attacks with your offhand...
RAW it maybe works, depending on if you load and then fire or fire and then load...
This particular thing needs errata. I hope it gets it.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
mellored wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Except you're forgetting one vital detail; Sharpshooter's extra damage reduces your chance of hitting by up to 25%. So while the max damage in your example may be the same, the average damage wouldn't be.
Yunru, he's already accounting for the -5 on the d20with the equivalent melee maneuver.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
mellored wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
mellored wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
Good catch, don't have my book with me. thought you were pulling it from the loaded property.
Kattahn wrote:
Nothing changes? If I'm walking around with weapons ready, then im starting with loaded hand crossbows. At that point, at the start of the fight, they're loaded, i can take my bonus action to attack, and as part of that, i reload it.
Kattahn wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Mrpagoda25 wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
mellored wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
mellored wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
If a Fighter can load and fire 4 crossbow bolts in one round (average 1.5 seconds each) I see no reason why this speedy reloader can't also somhow juggle his one off-hand attack to slot a bolt into it. Somehow.
Actually, said fighter could get 8 crossbow attacks in one round even without the (one) offhand attack. That allows only 3/4 of as second to load and fire.
Having a single offhand shot is not unbalanced, it's not any less realistic than one with only a single crossbow, and most importantly it's FUN.
Oh, and by the way, Crossbow Expert doesn't require you to attack with a crossbow in your off hand. The bonus action can be with the same crossbow. The offhand thing is just 'style points'.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
I want to complicate things further by reminding us of one of the most important rules in RAW lawyering:
Specific Beats General (PHB 7): "Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."
I think it is very clear that "Ammunition" (governing the loading of weapons as part of an attack) and "Other Activity on Your Turn" (governing the drawing of weapons as part of an attack) are "general rules". Similarly, it is very clear that "Crossbow Expert" is a specific rule. And per RAW, the specific rules (Crossbow Expert) will always "win" out agains tthe general rules (Ammunition and Other Activity).
So Crossbow Expert specifies that the weapon must be loaded before the attack, and that you must be "holding" the weapon.
That means you cannot use the "Ammunition" rule to load the weapon. That specific condition, being loaded, trumps the general rule that allows Ammunition to reload as part of an attack.
That still leaves us with the issue of "holding" the weapon, but one issue at a time please.
shivafang wrote:
Actually, per the Ammunition, you can't ever attack with an ammunition weapon if it is unloaded. If you have no arrows, you cannot attack with a bow. (At ranged anyway.)
When you attack with a 1 handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand xbow. You can load it during the attack (As per the ammunition rule). There is nothing ambiguous about this. You also get your ability mod to damage, since it doesn't state that you don't get it.
I would love to see some one argue that you can attack with an unloaded ranged weapon. (Bow or xbow.)
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
mellored wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
I might be erring to far on the side of the middle ground, here, but I don't mind the idea of someone using two hand crossbows.
That said, I also choose to believe that since the extra attack is a bonus action, things you can normally do at will to attacks don't apply. So Sharpshooter would give you the -5/+10 power-attack deal to your first attack, but your bonus attack just sort of fires off afterwards; you can't choose to do fancy **** with it. It seems to me like this is a totally separate issue from dual-wielding (as there is no mention of penalties regarding this bonus action whether your primary attack is with a melee or ranged weapon), so it just rolls vanilla attacks no matter what.
Think of it like one of those floating orange Options in Gradius 3. It's an extra floating crossbow that fires off whenever you shoot your first crossbow. Only one can be a power attack, and hand crossbows are d6, so really, we're just talking about two-handed weapons that can power attack (2d6+STR for greatswords, 1d6+1d6 for dual HC, either choice can use a single power attack per attack action NOT bonus action).
The advantage of greatswords is that they can take advantage of cool cleavy things to do their full damage to multiple enemies in a single stroke; the advantage of hand crossbows is that you can spread that damage out over a large number of smaller enemies or focus it. It won't do as much damage as laying about oneself with two-handers, since it doesn't benefit from extra damage due to stat bonuses, but it makes for a flexible source of damage that does not need to be balls-deep in melee combat to be effective, which squishier classes can enjoy without carrying the whole thing straight out the window.
That's my ken on the issue. I don't think you should be able to power-attack with it. I also don't think it's unreasonable to have the disappearance of the 'loading' property mean that it can be assumed to be loaded, free of extra actions, although I do admit that it's very weird to have both 'ignore loading' and 'must be loaded' in the same rule. If you wanted to be a real stickler, you could require a not-too-hard sleight-of-hand DEX check to load both instead of one, with major failures (you'd have to roll like a 4 to **** it up) meaning you don't get an extra crossbow attack that particular round.
I honestly don't care about whether or not the action itself follows; I think the idea's fun and not terribly unreasonable in a world where dragons exist and bipedal, talking hyena bandits are an honest threat to hard-living border folk. Keeping the rules semi-reasonable when folks are trying to min-max the ever-loving piss out of you is important to fun for everyone, but not crushing the fun out of a neat thing that seems kinda possible within the written rules at the same time, is part of why there are human rule arbitrators. I'm pretty sure it's the only reason why human rules arbitrators make D&D so much more fun on paper than it is in its various electronic forms.
My two cents.
By their ruling, you could never make an attack with a Bow either. Since you cannot make an attack action with an ammunition weapon that is not loaded. And if you never get the attack action, you never get to load it (As per the ammunition rules), and thus can never shoot it. This is obvs a poor interpretation however. Since when you take the attack action (Or bonus attack action) you can reload as part of the action.
So. Attack with 1 handed weapon. (Doesn't matter what kind. But for this excersize, we'll say a 1handed xbow.) You load the bow before you shoot. After you shoot, it has no ammo, and thus is unloaded. As a bonus action, you can make an attack with a loaded xbox. Yours is not loaded, so, you take the free action from ammunition to load it,and then fire.
There is no problem here. There is no poor wording. There is no ambiguity. There are only people trying to blur the RAW into something they can argue about.
This is why we can't have nice things.
/thread
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
mellored wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
mellored wrote:
shivafang wrote:
shivafang wrote:
mellored wrote:
shivafang wrote:
That didn't take nearly as long as I thought. Here's my semi-final ruling, barring more information.
Crossbow Expert is constructed like a lot of other feats/featuers. "When/If.... , you may/can ..."
The When/If clause states a prerequisite
The comma denotes a separation
The May/Can clause indicates a result that follows from the prerequisite
I cannot find a feat that has prerequisites/conditions listed AFTER the comma and the "When/If" statement. The only example of this is War Caster, which has a separate condition stated after the first clause. It's a new sentence and it clearly imposes new criteria.
Crossbow Expert does not have that. The conditions/prereqs are stated as part of the When/If clause. Everything else is just incidental and is covered in the rules for Ammunition and Other Activity on Your Turn rules.
So in this RAW ruling, the "loaded" and "holding" clause aren't prereqs to using the feat. They are either flavor descriptions to explain how it works, and/or shorthand for describing how other rules would interact with the feat.
THAT SAID, if someone can find another feat that has a prerequisite tacked on at the end that is not in a different sentence, then that will change things.
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
mellored wrote:
shivafang wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Agreed to both of you. 'loaded' is flavor and not a prerequisite. Even if it was, it would be moot since you can load the weapon during the action (Either the one that triggers the bonus action, or the bonus action itself) AND since once you load an xbow, it can never become 'unloaded' since there are no rules for that, then it's all kinda.... moot.
;) There, think we have this all settled then!
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
I'm just bewildered as to how so many game elements end up being so poorly worded (edition after edition) when WotC has a whole staff of developers and editors, when it clearly only takes days after being published for the player community (and a small part of the whole at that) to find the contradictions and inconsistencies and pick them apart. They don't have even a single "Rules Lawer" type on staff they could hand the game to and say, "Read this, break this, and have your report on my desk by 5 o'clock..."? 
Mad_Jack wrote:
I was referring to being able to write things which can reasonably be read in a non-confusing manner by moderately intelligent people who are proficient in the English language - this feat is not the issue, merely one more straw on the pile. There have been game elements published in books which do absolutely nothing or even actively contradict themselves when read in a "common sense" and "general English" manner, nevermind when parsed literally. There is a long history of game elements referencing things that are either undefined as game terms or insufficiently defined to be meaningful, and game elements having been written and pulished by people with no clear understanding of the other rules they reference.
Also, I've been on the internet for more than twenty years - no one's idea of "common sense" is the same as anyone else's, and assuming that "reasonable people" are going to be involved in any internet discussion is wishful thinking.
Mad_Jack wrote:
Let's assume both crossbows are empty. At worst it's, "I draw a bolt and reload my left hand crossbow as the object interaction part my Attack action." Right hand crossbow is empty, but it doesn't matter, you draw a bolt and fire it for each attack. Your left hand crossbow is "loaded" so you may take the bonus action attack. Both crossbows are now empty and you repeat the process the next round.
If you want realism: You're so practiced that you can grab a hand crossbow bolt between your first two fingers from its case and slot it to the string while you pull it back to reload. You will do this for your object interaction with your right hand and for your Attack action attacks with your left. Or vice versa.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Checking in hours later to confirm that indeed, despite the rules being written in a manner which prevents you from actively using this combination the way the OP would like, it's been rationalized into "but we'll just handwave all that because we want to" ...
All I have to say is: don't scream you want RAW when what you actually want is to be able to do what you want, and don't disparage people for calling the rules into question when they don't make sense...because while it may not make sense that you load ammunition prior to firing, but can't initiate firing unless it's loaded, it also doesn't make any sense that with two full hands and no rationale, you can continue to load willy nilly.
All this boils down to the desire of the player(s) to use two hand crossbows and the willingness to ignore the rules to get to where it can be done. And as I have stated over and over again I have no issue with the mechanics (even if I waver on the offhand ability bonus and will adjudicate as needed if/when I see this in action at the table—which I might given the proclivities of a couple of my players) this allows for. Neither the range nor the number of attacks/damage of Crossbow Master (with or without Sharpshooter) seem to be out of line in any real way.
People saying that you need an explanation for how you reload is no more ignoring the rules than people saying schtick feat works as the rules have actually been written. Neither are supported by RAW. Both make sense.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
shivafang wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
It also doesn't matter because as others have stated multiple times (and only the stubborn refuse to see) it says nothing about when you can load the ammo during the attack.
So start with it loaded, fire the bolt and then, still as part of the attack, reload it.
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Wait, we are still arguing about this? I thought the mechanics were pretty clear when we finished off yesterday. As long as you have ammunition on your person, the weapon is always considered "loaded". And if you use Crossbow Expert, you can draw it and load it as part of the action used to attack with it.
That's the mechanical side. There are still some ambiguities around the word "loaded", as there are often ambiguities in rules lawyering, but this is still the best RAW explanation that's in the thread.
The chief objection to the mechanics that I am seeing is that it makes no sense to be able to load these weapons with no free hands. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with RAW and everything to do with RAI and flavor explanations.
- From an RAW standpoint, if something requires a free hand to do, then the rules specify it. Grapple, for example, requires a free hand. Using the "Ammunition" or "Other Activities on Your Turn" rules do not specify free hands.
- From an RAI standpoint, if we really need an explanation of how this works, there is nothing to suggest that you perform this feat with the bows in both hands. Maybe you fire a bow three times on the right hand, reloading with the left each time, and then holster it. Then you draw with the left hand and fire, reloading as part of the action with the right hand's assistance. This gives the "fluff" explanation for the exceedingly clear RAW mechanical action.
It is totally possible that a future errata of this feat introduces new wording, in which case we might have to revise our ruling. But with it worded as it is, and with all the other rules worded as they are, the RAW works more or less how the OP intends. This is not handwaving and willful ignorance of the rules. This represents an honest effort to figure out how the rules interact and a careful answer that accounts for all of them. Just because we ultimately ended up supporting the OP, who very well might have handwaved to get his idea to work, does not mean that we were also dismissive of rules.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
shivafang wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Ok everyone. Look at it like this:
Start out with dual wielding 2 loaded hand crossbows and you have the Crossbow Master feat
Round 1:
1. Attack with main hand
2. Attack with off-hand
3. Drop off-hand crossbow
Round 2:
1. Attack with main hand
2. Pick up off-hand crossbow
3. Drop main-hand crossbow
4. Attack with off-hand crossbow
Round 3:
1. Attack with off-hand crossbow
2. Pick up main-hand crossbow
3. Drop off-hand crossbow
4. Attack with main-hand crossbow
If you have multiple attacks, use all of them before picking up the other crossbow. Using two hand crossbows is perfectly legit.
Et_tu wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Timborama wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
shivafang wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
shivafang wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
I like how all the people in support of this get confused by all the different rationalizations and turn on each other.
I especially like the fact that there's even been the statement made multiple times that you can attack with just one hand crossbow somehow, in spite of the only method by which a bonus attack can be gained under Crossbow Master being by attacking with a one-handed main hand weapon.
It is clear that this feat needs errata to clean it up, is what is clear.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Timborama wrote:
@mikemearls PHB p165 Crossbow Expert: can one crossbow be used to trigger a bonus attack for itself?
@mikemearls PHB p165 Crossbow Expert: how do you reload with two hand crossbows in your hand?
@mikemearls PHB p165 Crossbow Expert: can you gain bonus ability damage with an offhand hand crossbow?
@mikemearls PHB p165 Crossbow Expert: can you mix dual hand crossbows with Sharpshooter (later in the feats section) for -5/+10 with both?
@mikemearls PHB p165 Crossbow Expert: when will we see official errata for this feat? ;)
No idea if he'll bother to reply, but that series of tweets should cover the sticking points, should it not? (I also sent him a link to this thread.)
Not really. The first isn't a point by RAW, and not a sense issue either. The second is solely a RP issue, the third can already be answered "Yes." The fourth has no reason not to, it's a ranged weapon thus it can apply. The fifth is possibly a point but even then only to make it clearer.
In other words, none of those sticking points are actual sticking points. Except to you.
Clearly you're not reading the same thread I am. The fact that x number of people want it to be one way doesn;t eliminate the y number of people who aren;t reading it the same way.
Nor that x is split enouigh that there's actually many different readings going on.
So 5 is pretty much needed no matter whiere you fall in the scale.
And I want it for everyone. Because as I have said time and time and time again: I don;t have any issue with any mechanical outcome potentially possible after clarification. I am not arguing anything here to make it impossible, possible, better, or worse.
If 5e means RAS starts writing about Drizzit picking up two hand crossbows, more power to thim. ;)
Really? Because I see you trying to argue Dual Crossbows wouldn't work and everyone else saying they will. For five pages.
Yunru wrote:
Ignoring numbers, one side presents a clear, by-the-rules argument, and the other is basically "but I can't make sense of it". Again, I don't see a problem assuming that the by-the-rules side should win out over "but how would you reload it?"
And when I said you Vs. "you" was plural. And the implication there was that, after 5 pages, if over/around three-quarters of the posts are posting legitimite arguments as to why it works, you're probably in the wrong.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Because you want it to work, and that's fine.
I also want people to have the option to do things. But I want to have the wording of the feat actually make it clear that they can so that there is no ambiguity.
As it stands, people are reversing RAW (which is that you load ammunition into your weapon then attack with it...so it's being turned around to attacking then reloading) to account for the requirement to have the hand crossbow they intend to use the bonus action loaded.
Which is wholly understandable, because they want to feat to work as they feel it was intended, but it's not RAW. No matter how many people you get to say it is RAW, the fact remains that the ammunition rules don't support that.
So, again, despite the fact that you want it to work one way, and people have presented a number of issues with the way you (and others, who actually may have a different way they want/see it as working) what we ALL need is for the feat to be actually properly worded so that there's a much higher chance of everyone arriving at the same conclusion.
"As it stands, people are reversing RAW (which is that you load ammunition into your weapon then attack with it...so it's being turned around to attacking then reloading) to account for the requirement to have the hand crossbow they intend to use the bonus action loaded."
Point out to me where it's reversed. Point out where exactly it states there is any order to when you reload, asides from "as part of the attack"?
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
I want to make it clear that the questions I tweeted to MM were taken from what I saw throughout the thread, and aren't based on my personal needs/beliefs. Had I to retweet them I would have specific hand crossbow in the first tweet and noted "hands full" instead of dual hand crossbows.
There's a tendency to believe that people don't want rules to work in a certain way once you start arguing what could be taken as a "nerf" (that was thrown around a lot early on) ... *grin* So I want to state (again) that at my table I will allow Crossbow Expert with two hand crossbows to combine with Sharpshooter, and I will allow both hands to have full ability bonus. The single stipulation I have is that the character must have some method of reloading/swapping for loaded crossbows. (Many of you call that fluff. I play D&D as a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game. Fluf *is* D&D. ;) )
Kattahn wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
We would you, but clearly you're smoking something or just trying to be a troll to think any of the arguments you made actually hold any water. And given you've made said arguments again and again without changing tune across five pages and several days, I'm assuming the latter.
Timborama wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Here is an idea, why dont we all get a drink and chill out a bit.... I have been following this post the whole time and IMO, no answer and its all about a debate who is right and wrong!
RAI all the way here (lets assume level 1 human character)
PHB RULES STATE on TWF: you can attack with both "melee" weapons as long as they have the light feature, BUT it doesnt stop you from holding a long sword(martial) and a short sword(light) and without the duel wielder feat you literally only gonna look fancy as you cannot attack with both weapons
RAW
lets be realistic, FEAT xbow expert says: attack action with light hand weapon (its any weapon with a light feature... (light crossbow, short sword, dagger etc) you can attack with a xbow (bonus) that is loaded AND you are holding it (basically loading feature falls away, hence ammunition loading also falls away IMO) means with the extra attack feature you get 2 attacks. You can hold a Xbow (light) in one hand and ATTACK ACTION AND the feat activates the offhand to make a ranged attack with a light xbow
OPTION 1
again RAW, xbow expert can make an offhand attack (bonus)
the whole argument is about how do we load the xbows.... shaait happens its D&D, get with the picture, nothing is realistic in the game, hence its called a fantasy RPG
so therefore with extra attack at higher levels means 2 main attacks and 1 bonus with a light xbow.... hell give it sharpshooter for +10 dam with a -5 att
OPTION 2 Here is my RAI and i feel this is literally as intended (too many errors in the PHB to go with RAW in this specific situation)
I believe that:
Xbox expert: is intended for a Drow like NPC abilities, Light hand melee weapon in one hand and a xbow light in another.
Sharpshooter: is similar to great weapon master, hence 2 handed weapons ranged apply to this situation
As a D&D DM for 15 years i believe option 2 is the viable option and will enforce that option UNTIL wizards fixes the problem. Why arent they informed of this problem in the first place?
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
Again, everything you've just said doesn't exist. Quote them if you can, because I can't see it.
And no, differing fluff doesn't count, only the cold hard mechanics of the matter.
Yunru wrote:
And by "We" you mean you're split vs common consensus, rational reading of rules and the written word.
Yunru wrote:
Okay: What mechanical issue?
Yunru wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Yunru wrote:
Because the only arguments against that I've seen have revolved around things that aren't there to have a reading of.
Such as how to reload. It doesn't matter, you just do. Everyone (active) bar you agrees with that.
There are no other arguments that I can see.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
Someone should quote the page 4 summary every time he makes a comment until he stops.
But he called me pot! That means I'm honour-bound to post as much as him :P
Plus he's a vocal one. And it's the vocal ones that end up getting stuff changed. I'm worried. Kinda.
That's not the same as having convinced everyone with doubts.
RyndarLocke wrote:
Because you're literally the only one at this point arguing that you can't do it. Or were. Now you're just... arguing?
Maybe I missed something in the last page, but what exactly do people disagree about with the RAW explanation we came up with? If a weapon is always RAW considered loaded (if you have ammo), and you meet the prerequisites of the feat (making the attack action), then you can use the "Other Activities on Your Turn" rule to draw the bow as part of the bonus action. It's not well phrased in the rules, but that's the best way to read them. I would argue that, in the current writing of the rules, it is also the correct way to read them.
The only piece that is iffy is the order of loading as part of Ammunition. I would need to read it again and look at some other ruling examples before weighing in on that. I don't think you could load it, fire it, and reload it as part of the same action. Ammunition doesn't seem to be saying that, from what I remember.
But the rest of it, specifically around "holding" and "loaded", have been addressed.
Yunru wrote:
Yunru wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
RyndarLocke wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
You can have your own opinion. Your opinion can be that the sky is gren, I don't have a problem with that. When you try to say that's what *is*, despite the established rules, I take issue.
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
RyndarLocke wrote:
Yunru wrote:
But that's the point. There *is* no problem in the rules with Crossbow Expert, asides from the "Loaded" requirement being, well, pointless.
And no, not "my opinion" of the rules. The rules, as they are written. In plain, transparent, wording.
Yunru wrote:
MoonKiller wrote:
Because RAW your opinion *is* less valid.
Yunru wrote:
Was gone for a bit, but saw your Tweets to MM. Your first question is wrong. The Crossbow cannot trigger it's own attack with the Crossbow Expert feat. The HAND CROSSBOW can however. If you are going to ask for official clarification, you should at least send in your questions correctly, or you will get incorrect answers.
Danny_Montanny wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Umm, no they're not. Again, you're making statements without backing them up. Stop running your mouth and quote exactly which parts "aren't well put together".
The "Ambiguity" that you're seeing is imaginary.
Yunru wrote:
And yet, despite the fact I "keep badgering" you, I've still yet to see a quote. How odd. Not.
Yunru wrote:
Arguments made? Yes. Arguments backed up? Yes and no. Your arguments specifically? No.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
So what your saying is:
"I have no proof to back up my argument. Now people are asking for proof I'm going to get highly defensive for no logical reason."
I mean, that's the only reason you wouldn't simply *give the proof we've all been asking for*.
Unless, I guess, you count "I feel" as proof, in which case one could argue you provided proof. But then that still doesn't stand up against "the rules say this."
And of course there hasn't been any more discussion on how to adjudicate. "The rules say this, thus it is this." removes the need.
Deal. So, as stands, everyone else has a perfectly worked out RAW, and you are waiting to get told by others (Designers hopefully) that the RAW are actually the RAW.
This was solved.
Your crossbow is effectivly loaded as long as you have ammunition.
mellored wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Neat little loophole there: Rules are offical. Therefore RAW is offical clarification. And since our argument is built on RAW...
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Odd since that "we" wasn't actually changed from when you posted it. So it's not far too broad if it's supporting you?
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
And is a good source for post count! Can't forget that! :P
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
I rule it this way: CBE with 1 hand crossbow..can attack whenever eligible.
CBE with two hand crossbows: 1 attack with primary, 1 attack with bonus action
CBE with regular crossbow, can attack whenever eligible.
CBE does not apply to ranged weapons other than a CB.
Yunru wrote:
I'll have you know I took English!
...
At GCSE.
...
And got a B.
Jbickley00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Arguably a feat called crossbow expert applies only to crossbows. Which is how it plays at my table.
Kattahn wrote:
Cleared up some personal attacks, namecalling.
http://company.wizards.com/policies/web/conduct
Keep it civil.
Jbickley00 wrote:
[quote="Danny_Montanny"]
MoonKiller wrote:
Danny_Montanny wrote:
MoonKiller wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Feats remain optional anyway. The core of the game certainly doesn't require them to function. I like the 5e implementation better than 3.5 at first glance, but I may change my mind in play.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Just stating my position on the discussed issues, I think the only problems now are:
a) the Ammunition property, and when it is applied
b) when a hand crossbow is considered "loaded", if ever, and whether this matters at all.
For my own opinion, Ammunition does not state that the arrow/bolt/slingshot involved is loaded into the weapon and then fired, nor does it say the weapon is fired and then a piece of ammunition is "reloaded". It merely states that when the weapon is fired, one piece of ammunition is expended, (being drawn from a quiver as part of the attack).
Also, as loaded is an undefined word in the rules, it must be interpreted individually by each person reading the rules, (or their DM) which has caused most of the arguments here over this feat.
Also, Yunru, although I personally liked the interpretation given by ktkenshinx last night before I went to sleep then work for 10 hours, I would prefer not to have my lack of posting comments disagreeing with your position be taken as absolute agreement.
To be clear, I would like the bonus action to just happen every round when I attack with my main weapon, whatever that is, and I would like that to be a different weapon from the hand crossbow I use to do the bonus action. But the trigger conditions for the bonus action are unclear (loaded=undefined by rules), and the feat doesn't properly seperate the triggering weapon from the hand crossbow, so it looks like you can just use one weapon. I am still unhappy with this interpretation.
CorwynnMaelstrom, if you aren't going to argue rules on the rules forum, why still argue...
SteampunkMonk wrote:
MoonKiller wrote:
Wow, long thread. It seems there are 2 positions on this topic. I think it comes down to the GM no RAW rule should break a game and if the GM feels this is out of line then it's a no go regardless of RAW.
That being said as a long GM this is my interpretation. First, my common sense states that the ammunition loading as part of an action is designed so someone firing a bow or xbow could fire the weapon and part of their next attack lad and fire again, not fire then reload as part of the same action. Now per RAW you could do this but I look at my common sense and intent.
Second, it as a bonus action you can fire a loaded xbow. So if you fire a crossbow normally it becomes unloaded then with an attack action you can load it and fire again in the same action, but sung the bonus action it is loaded then becomes unloaded and needs to be loaded before being able to use the feat again.
So just my table ruling and interpretation would allow it to be used every other round. I personally don't think the intent was to turn a character into machinegun tommy.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
You see I genuinely don't see how "load then fire" would make sense when "fire then load" wouldn't. It's the same actions in a different order. Assuming that it is possible to carry a loaded crossbow (which it is), why wouldn't you reload it after firing?
Archon007 wrote:
Crossbow expert is very specific. Not just in the name but in the opening line of the description: "Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits...." Thus the benefits apply when using a crossbow and do not apply when using daggers or anything else.
Comparing CBE with say, Alert, is a bit of apples an oranges. Not all feats are generally applicable, though many are. Observant is generally applicable CBE is not. The language in the rules is quite clear unless you want to twist it past breaking.
Jbickley00 wrote:
Also not having disadvantage within 5ft, for example, can simply represent your increased ability at close quarter aiming. Which you may or may not have gotten through practice with a crossbow.
So the question is what rule says you can not fire a hand crossbow from each hand while not loading it because of xyz rules interactions? That would be rule 0 where the DM says NO!
Why?
Actually I'm not 100% wrong. That's how the rule reads. Only the most obnoxious rules lawyer would broaden this interpretation to includ any ranged attacks, even magical ones. It's not fluff , it's context, and context is what we base rulings on.
Via RAW you are 100% objectively wrong. This is the rules forum, where we discuss the rules as written in the book. That's all that counts or matters. Fluff and flavor descriptions have never and will never count as RAW.
You are welcome to house rule it however you want, but new players come here looking for information and rulings for their table. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Jbickley00 wrote:
I may disagree with any number of different things that others (Kattahn, Suzume, Yunru, etc.) have posited in this thread, but we all appear to agree that there's no ambiguity where the removal of disadvantage is concerned. The reason this never came up is it wasn't relevant to the OP, nor is it unclear.
If that's not the intent, it's simply another part of the feat which needs errata. I tend to suspect it's intentional, however. It's certainly not overpowered to be able to sacrifice two ability score points in order to gain the ability to ignore ranged attack disadvantage when in close quarters. +1to hit and +1 damage on every attack (and there's skills and saves as well), or the elimination of CQB disadvantage...pretty difficult to forgo the former just for its consistency, even if the latter will help you more on some rounds.
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
The only question I have about this feat at this time, is whether I can actually use the same Hand Crossbow, and say a Shield to get all the benifits of the second attack.
I do see by the RAW that I can use the same Hand Crossbow, but I have to question if this was intended, or just an oversight, when they clearly meant to make it a duel weild thing?
RyndarLocke wrote:
Mechanically there is no differencee between dual wielding hand crossbows and using the bonus action with the same one. You have the same attack bonus, and the same damage. Fluff it however you like I say. But, RAW, the tiggering hand xbow works for the bonus attack, so you CAN use the same one, but you don't HAVE to.
I'd allow it to work off using a single hand crossbow, simply because realistically, you can shoot more bolts per minute using a single hand crossbow than using two.
I'm not sure that either are fully the intent of the ability, but the RAW seems to be fairly cut and dried.
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Everyone in the forum is trying to spread their interpretation of RAW. None of us are right until we are confirmed right by the devs. (At which point people can feel free to houserule.)
The incessant crying about someone with a differing opinion "deliberately sabotaging RAW" is for three-year-olds. I'm serious: my daughter does this.
I put her in the corner for it. The rest of you are adults and should know better.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
I didn't want to read the entire thread, but is this still mainly one guy vs every one else?
Anyway, I'll add another unnecessary but reasonable option.
Use a sling to hold the hand crossbow loosely while you load the other one, then let the one you loaded down while you reload the other. If you're an adventurer who uses hand crossbows, then you're doing this all the time and have well practiced this method without need for checks.
Something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Barnett-Talon-Crossbow-Sling-Carbon/dp/B006MOBTJ4
Also, you could just stuff one of them in your armpit while you load the other.
IxidorRS wrote:
You could also have it so you have a sort of magazine with a hook on the bottom of the barrel of each hand crossbow. The hook would pull back the string and there'd be a little mechanism that lets the bolt sit into place.
Ok let's not get out of hand here, this is a discussion about game rules. Let's all take that with a grain of salt yes?
As far as the discussion is concerned, it's too bad that there's so many knee jerk reactions when it comes to feats and abilities. The feat states that you ignore the reload property. Meaning you no longer need to do any sort of action to reload the weapon. The feat states that you no longer have disadvantage, so you no longer have it. Common sense is something that the DM can use to justify DM fiat, fine. But it should never be used to screw over or unjustly nerf a player! Wheaton's Law people!
The rules only do what they say they do, nothing more and nothing less. The feat states that you no longer have disadvantage with RANGED ATTACKS. It does not specify a type of weapon, or any other restrictions. This is because this edition has taken many feats and jammed them into one for many cases. So although a character might not want some of the feat bonuses, others might be interesting. You can see this with other feats as well, such as Great Weapon Master where some of the bonuses call out that they work for a specific weapon type, while other bonuses do not. So you can benefit from one or more bonuses while ignoring the others and the feat is still interesting.
When reading rules do not add words, do not stretch meaning and do not assume. Just stick to what the rule actually says. If you want to change things, that's fine, but those are houserules and not everyone will agree with them.
Noctaem wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
Further discussion in this manner will result in administrative action against your account.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
shivafang wrote:
Unfortunately for the POV that you are describing: flavor text, the name of game elements, etc.. Have 0 bearing on RAW or how the rule works. Just because the feat is called Crossbow Expert or just because the written fluff for something is contrary to what the written rule says, does not mean that they have an iota of importance when it comes to what the rules say. It's just the name they chose for the game element/just the fluff they chose to use to describe something. It means nothing. What does mean something is the actual rule. So yes, it's called Crossbow Expert. Yes, most of the bonuses listed within the feat are specifically tailored for crossbows. That means nothing however when it comes to the bonus which reads that you no longer have disadvantage with RANGED ATTACKS. If they wanted to limit you to crossbow they would have had to specifically call out that this was only for crossbows. Why say RANGED ATTACKS instead of Hand Crossbows? Crossbows in general? One handed ranged weapons? There's various ways they could have restricted the feat. However they did not.
Read the feat exactly as it is written and do not add meaning. Just because it's called Crossbow Expert does not mean that the bonuses within only apply to crossbows. Same for every other feat and possibly every other game element within the game.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
shivafang wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
shivafang wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Corwynn never showed anything RAW, he just made statements and essentially said "and yeah it totally says that somewhere in the book so PROOF".
And just to say one more time: titles and fluff text never, ever, ever, have, or will ever, count as RAW.
"Define flavor text, please. Explain, beyond any possible reasonable doubt, how you can be positive that any given word or string of words isn't relevant to a rule."
Look at every feat. Every feat has a bulleted list of effects. Some of these feats have flavor text that preceed these effects. All feats have a title.
When looking at the rules to try to understand them, or for any sort of troubleshooting for any sort of problem, you need to introduce consistency. When you boil down a problem to a consistent set of rules, you can most easily assess the situation.
Every feat has a title. Some feats have flavor text. Every feat has bulleted effects listed. Right away, that rules out flavor text, because the designers took great lengths to provide a consistent format of rules for us to follow. Furthermore, the flavor text for feats does not follow a consistent, concise rules wording, but more of a flavor wording. If you look at the point where the game references actual rules, they go out of their way to say "doing blank specifically with a blank will yield blank effects possibly to blank targets" D&D has handled their rulebooks like this for quite some time. They have fluff/flavor descriptions, and then immediatately follow it with an actual hard rule to dispell the ambiguity. This is why the flavor/fluff has never been a PART of the rules. As for the title, we run into a point again, where we have ambiguous wording followed by specific rulings. The specific rulings clarify exactly what benefits you gain from the ambiguously titled feats.
There are 2 scenarios of interpreting the rules:
Scenario 1: only bulleted feat abilities count, and the fluff and titles do not. This illustrates a consistent game design from the designers, generally removes ambiguity from rules, equalizes all feats by discounting the flavor text that only some have, and provides clear definitions of what the feats actually do(for the most part)
Scenario 2: titles, flavor text, and rules all count...sometimes. Only some things have flavor text, and its only important if the reader thinks its important. The three contradict each other directly(polearm mastery is the title of a feat that talks about reach weapons in flavor text and then provides benefits to quarterstaffs which are neither polearm nor reach weapon). Dungeon delver is called dungeon delver and has flavor text that specifically mentions being effective in dungeons but does not mention dungeons in the bulleted rules. Crossbow expert is called crossbow expert but references general ranged attacks in its rulings.
In scenario 2, the rules are not presented in a consistent way, and are riddled with ambiguity and contradictions. The general idea(as in scenario 1) is to provide consistent, concise rules at their base level, in clear rules terms, so as to limit the need for specific arbitration/interpretation by players.
Again, its how D&D has been written for a long time, and its the generally accepted way of how the rules are to be read. Allowing scenario 2 turns the rulebook into a logistical nightmare that makes almost no sense.
To further clarify, the only actual RAW corwynn posted was that the aumunition property specifically prevented the idea of firing -> loading as part of the attack action, and stated that it only applied to loading -> firing, which, as shown by the RAW wording of the aumunition property, is not at all the case.
All the rest of his arguments were the class "i was proven wrong, so im going to say we just agree to disagree and that no one really made any progress" when in fact, several people got together and went over everything and came to a conclusion.
shivafang wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Kattahn wrote:
Frankly, if you're just going to ignore someone else's well thought out response to your own posts for no reason well there's not much else I can say to you. I've read the thread and this seems to be dragging on with you claiming over and over that this is a divided discussion. It's not, as has been explained above people discussed, explained, reasoned, provided evidence to back up their reasoning and the discussion came to an end with agreement having been reached. Continuing to claim afterward that everyone else is wrong and that there's still division within the discussion isn't good ethiquette. YOU might not agree and that's fine, but don't speak for other people.
As for me I don't have the PHB in front of me to look at the reloading rules specifically, but IIRC the only thing that the reload property states is that the weapon cannot be fired more than once per turn.
shivafang wrote:
As has been pointed out, it's so that even spellcasters can benefit from the feat. I really think that when they condensed many feats into a single one for 5e they did so while purposefully making sure that the various feats could be useful to as many different builds/classes/races as possible. That's why some of the features of a feat are restricted to a specific weapon type for example while other features are not.
I understand that you're unable to reconcile the reality that not everyone is convinced by the arguments you are convinced by. That's been clear for a long time.
I'm not holding out any hope that anyone who isn't already inclined to grasp the reality that English isn't hard science will manage to come around to the reality that it is possible to not agree on what a sentence says. But I feel I wouldn't be true to who I am if I didn't comment on it.
The dogmatic RAW is RAW cheerleading doesn't actually make any sense from any standpoint. D&D is a game where players can have input on situations and the DM can steer things as makes sense for the group. I've played with hundreds of players and seen loads of different rulings on the same parts of the same edition. When I started playing there was no web to surf and forums to stalk. We all had different ways of playing, and when we got together and corssed group lines (like at cons) we just figured it out. (And there were some really, truly odd games as a result.)
At my table, if you'd posed the question, we would have had the details worked out in less than five minutes and you could have John Woo'd your heart out had you desired to. But because people are so attached to taking the words in the book and dividing them into fluff and rules (and never quite agreeing) and doing their level best to ignore common sense (gravity, how many hands you have, what it feels like to toss a greatsword over your shoulder, etc.) whenever possible, you get threads with hundreds of posts.
And no actual consensus, because that's not always possible.
It is my professional opinion as someone who writes for a living and has done so successfully for many years now that the D&D 5e rules aren't as good as they could have been.
Which isn't to say they're not fun, not playable, or anything like that. Just that there are many cases in which clarity is lacking, and it leads to more disagreements than were probably strictly necessary.
Oh, my statement wasn't about the crossbow feat in particular, but just the wording in general throughout the book. Just always need to double check weather a rule says ATTACK or WEAPON.
As an example, the archery fighting style gives +2 to attacks with ranged weaopns, so you can't add the +2 to a throwing weapon(they're classified as melee weapons, even when thrown). However, the duelist fighting style adds +2 to damage when making attacks with melee weapons, but does not specify ranged attacks, so a thrown melee weapon would get the +2 to damage when throwing it.
shivafang wrote:
We're not/weren't attacking you for stating your view. I know I personally was annoyed that you continued to try and argue your view on what's reasonable is more important than RAW, especially on a forum dedicated to dealing with RAW.
EDIT: And much like this thread: You repeatedly argued a point losely by RAW (really losely, but still (compared to not at all in this thread)), and then when someone official chimed in and you stopped talking at everyone, the thread died.
Also I think we've found the source of all those dead horses outside that cave.
Ok then. You're clearly not over it since you keep posting. You've clearly made personal attacks which have been moderated so it's not everyone else. Please stop victimizing yourself over a simple discussion in an online forum. this is not a big deal. If you don't agree that's fine, you've made it clear. No need to keep beating this with a stick.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yunru wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
shivafang wrote:
shivafang wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
I'm still looking for the passage, or for someone to cite the passage, that disputes the so-called consensus. I'd go so far as to say that I desperately want the magical "unloaded" definition to exist somewhere in this book. But because the dissenters are unwilling to provide evidence (and I've really looked through this thread for a passage they are citing), I'll try and do it for them.
Here's my contribution to the other side. I initially believed that the "holding" and "loaded" part just weren't prerequisites to using the feat. After all, they appear after the comma and don't follow the normal "when/if..., you may/can" structure of other feats. But then I found this counterexample in the Fighter class:
Disarming Attack (PHB 74) "When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to disarm the target, forcing it to drop one item of your choice that it’s holding."
As I see it, this is a clear example of a prerequisite condition that exists AFTER the comma. For Disarming Attack to work, the creature must be holding the item that you want it to drop. If it isn't holding it, they couldn't drop it with this class feature. We can apply the same ruling to Crossbow Expert. If the crossbow isn't being held or loaded, then they can't use the bonus action. Even though those two conditions exist after the comma, Disarming Attack suggests that prerequisites can actually exist after that comma.
So let's assume that "holding" and "loaded" are now prerequisites to using the feat. So if the bow isn't considered "held" and "loaded", then Crossbow Expert can't be used.
That focuses us back on the rules for drawing a weapon and loading a weapon, and suggests that we now need to figure out how these prerequisites interact with the Ammunition and Use Object rules described in the PHB. By establishing that these two conditions are prerequisites, I hope that we can focus our discussion around those other rules to see if we can find clarification for them within the PHB, because it is in the definitions for those rules that we will find the answer to our question.
"unloaded" is not a condition defined in the PHB. There's no such thing as an unloaded weapon. The only thing that the reload property on weapons states is that the weapon cannot be fired more than once per turn. And now the thread is being railroaded to a discussion about THP instead of what it was created to discuss. Pretty sad that some have to detract from the subject because they can't provide anymore discussion to it after it has come to a consensus. Oh well.
mellored wrote:
Thank_Dog wrote:
This is a followup from my post above. In summary, that post suggests that the "holding" and "loaded" clause of the feat might actually be prerequisites for its use, even if they come after the comma and don't follow the standard "when/if..., you may/can" structure of other feats and features.
Once we establish that those could be prerequisites, we need to come up with a situation where a hand crossbow is neither loaded nor held. Unfortunately, as we have seen, there is no such thing as a weapon that isn't loaded in the RAW. Although that doesn't make flavor sense, mechanically, it suggests that a weapon is always loaded as long as you have ammunition for it on hand. That means we can't focus in on the "loaded" condition of the weapon, because RAW a weapon appears to always meet that condition.
What about "holding" though? Unlike with loaded, there are actually a number of instances in the book that suggest that a weapon is NOT always held. For example, under the Sacred Weapon class feature for Cleric (PHB 86), it states "If you are no longer holding or carrying this weapon, or if you fall unconscious, this effect ends." We see a number of other examples of this sort of wording, specifically those that distinguish between an item that you are "holding" and one you are "carrying". This is important because it means that a Hand Crossbow is not necessarily being held. It might be carried (one condition) but not held (another condition).
This is progress of a sort. We now know that there are definitely situations where a Hand Crossbow is not considered held. And if it is being carried but not held, then you would not meet the prerequisite to use the Crossbow Expert feat.
That brings us to the million dollar question: If your crossbow is carried, not drawn, can you take the free action to draw it as part of the bonus action where you attack with it? Can you use that free action to fulfill the prerquisite that allows you to use the feat in the first place? If there is an argument for why Crossbow Expert doesn't work in the way many think it does, then it has to be here in the definition of "holding", and this is where both sides should explore. As a reminder, the counterargument cannot hinge around "loaded" because mechanically all the rules point towards a bow always being "loaded". But that is NOT true of the "holding" prerequisite. So we just need to figure out if you can fulfill that prerequisite as part of the action, or if it's a hard prerequisite that needs to be fulfilled before you can even take the bonus action that includes the free drawing action.
I remember a saying that goes something like:
"Mountain Cleave Rule: You can have any sort of fun, including broken, silly fun, so long as I get to have that fun too (e. g., if you can warp reality with your spells, I can cleave mountains with my blade)."
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
mellored wrote:
We probably should coin some of the terminology to use when speaking about some of this stuff. At least then we could all understand each other immediately :p
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Ok but again, there is no such thing within the game as an unloaded ammo using weapon! So it makes no difference at all. The game rules simply assume that weapons are always loaded with available ammo that the creature is carrying for example.
IxidorRS wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Anyone know where to find stats on an Epic Level Troll King ?
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
IxidorRS wrote:
-ktkenshinx- wrote:
I would allow someone to draw their crossbow to fire it after their attack with the Crossbow Mastery feat (as long as they haven't used their Interact with Object. IwO?) Since the feat requires that you use a one-handed weapon to trigger the bonus action I don't see any imbalance there. It's not like they can hit with a Greatsword and then draw their crossbow and fire with it.
I guess they could two-hand a versatile weapon and then draw the crossbow. I don't see that being too out of line given similar feats, though.
Noctaem wrote:
kattahn, your still not a developer and you still do not have a monoply on RAW. My interpretation does not creat any logical inconsistency, i just assume crossbows mean crossbows. IF all RAW was as simple as you suggest, there would be no need for lawyers. Obviously there are differing interpretations here. I disagree with corwynn (about this particular part of the rule - i think we are in agreement on the loaded issue) but i don't think he plays the game wrong, or is spreading lies and misinformation. In situations where reasonable minds differ, its important to give new players and DMs access to all interpretations. The hallmark of this edition is "rulings not rules" so trying to shout to the heavens that you have a monopoly on RAW, or even a consensus, is sort of pointless.
The net impact of this thread has been to confirm that i'll stick to the Basic RAW and not use feats at all. 
Jbickley00 wrote:
Well said Kattahn! I couldn't have posted it better myself.
There is a widespread problem in the rules questions forum with people constantly putting forth houserule material forward as if it was rule content from the PHB. If this forum is going to deal in RAW to answer questions for people, that cannot be allowed to happen. And if it does, it needs to be immediately called out.
Has anyone found that citation I asked for yet?
The one that says this forum is only for RAW?
(I mean, we've already covered the fact that RAW is always interpretation. I just want someone to direct me to the place where WotC has dictated that this forum be only for the discussion of those interpretations.)
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
That's what I thought, as well.
I think as long as everyone is clear on the fact that RAW is always filtered through the individual and RAI is debateable to say the least, and acknowledges that suggested rulings for various situations may work better or worse in organized play (which, still, consist of DMs who have to make rulings) we'll eventually get around to something more or less workable for most questions.
While there's things most people agree on (crossbow expert's ranged disadvantage nulification affecting all ranged attacks—spell or weapon) there's also plenty of places where people don't (hands on weapons and S/M components is a fairly big one) and where the RAW (must have a free hand) conflicts with the intent (give DM the option to be strict if desired) ... and then there's the occasional head-scratcher which comes as clarification from the devs, where most of the players can;t even fathom the "why" of it.
We are all trying to get at what makes sense, and we all bring different perspectives. I think doing what we each can to remember that is probably worthwhile. In the end we're all just trying to have a smooth, fun experience at the table. How we get there is just going to be a little different for each of us.
Um comparing crossbow expert with the other feats is apples to oranges. The RAW for CBE reads differently than the RAW for dungeon delver., whose component paragraphs are very specific, as is pole arm master. If CBE applied beyond crossbows, this application should be noted in the rule text. It's simple and clear to do so. CBE seems tome to be the only feat with this particular construction, and therefor it's an exception rather than the rule.
I simply follow real world rules of statutory construction and of course the English language and logic. Which. Relays on context to interpret and unspecified paragraph. You make the interpretation by assuming the designers meant the feat to have an application beyond the context. The reality is that raw is unclear here and you are offering only your interetation of so etching that to me looks very clear-CBE applies to crossbows. Unless you are a developer capable of giving official rulings, then you are simply offering RAI as well.
and well said corwynn
nacoteam it's not houserule stuff, it's about how to read the words on the page.
Jbickley00 wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Yunru wrote:
shivafang wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Sometimes Apple does my spelling and grammar, damed ipad. And kattahn, that's not what I said at all. I simply pointed out that in every case you mentioned, there was no possible ambiguity in what was written. But in CBE there is an ambiguity.
You have taken the position that sine the rule does not specifically say crossbows only, it means a wider applicability. I take the position that if the rule was intended to apply more widely it would read that way. The RAW can support either inference, they are not clear. If someone can show me another feat in the phb that has this ambiguity, I'd appreciate it.
in both examples you give, the language is crystal clear, the applicability is spelled out entirely. In CBE it is not.
Jbickley00 wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
Holy crap. Has there been a consencus on this yet? Plaguescarred, what do you think?
Edit*
• You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
Is it really so hard to concieve that someone who has been using crossbows as their main weapon for a long time might figure out a way to reload quickly? You could fluff and call it either extreme dexterity ( if average NPC dex is 10, then someone with 20 dex MIGHT be able to pull this off), or maybe a crossbow expert has an implement he designed himself that allows this feat (like an ammobox or something that converts hand crossbows to repeating crossbows).
I like the idea of dual crossbows.
shivafang wrote:
Semicidal wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
He's not even debating intelligently now, he's just continuing to say "nuhuh that's not how it works" for the sake of saying so. There's consensus, we know how this works, forget about him.
Jbickley00 wrote:
Why I necroed: Because people browsing rules and finding threads should be able to have a conclusion. This thread pops up when searching on the matter and it's still a relevant discussion.
I started reading this thread and made it a couple pages in... from there I skipped to the end where the back and forth flaming and repeating arguements seemed to be going on. So I would just like to say my peace on the matter. This is how the feat combination is run at our table, and I will post why.
First RAW:
Crossbow Expert
Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow, you gain the following benefits:
• You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient.
• Being within 5 feet o f a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
• When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.
These are the EXACT words from my copy of the PHB.
You do ignore the loading property of crossbows. Mechanically this means that handcrossbows ARE one handed weapons, and should be treated the same as throwing daggers with all of your attacks. If, at your table, you want to call shooting two handcrossbows BS, then I support you. Keep in mind though that stylistically what could be happening is a Fighter shoots 1 bolt from the first handcrossbow, drops the weapon, grabs a bolt as he shoots the second hand crossbow, and reload, shoot, reload, shoot, reload, shoot, reload grabs the crossbow he picked up and puts a bolt in it... honestly it's fantasy guys. The point is that this should be allowed mechanically, and there are other combinations of feats that can give the same results. (Example: Great Weapon Fighter / Polearm Mastery combo).
Because there is a ranged and melee variation of this action (Attacking as many times as allowed, and making another attack with a bonus action) this should be balanced.
One person posted that it allows you to attack in melee with any ranged weapon. RAW I agree, they say "Ranged Attack" - You win. However RAI would state that you've practiced with a Crossbow and that this feat is intended for Crossbow mechanics. Your Table May Vary... (YTMV?) I would rule that you would need a crossbow to make use of the property. However, I would probably be persuaded to let it slide with a cool character concept.
Also, I'm going to point out. A hand crossbow IS a one handed weapon. You make a attack with it, you are entitled to a bonus attack with a hand crossbow (because you have ammunition it is loaded). You don't need a second hand crossbow to make this feat work. In this case the character has a hand free,
Source: http://www.sageadvice.eu/tag/crossbow/ (Notice depending on who you talk to everyone wins, but a 20th level fighter can make 4 attacks + 1 bonus attack with a single handcrossbow, or two hand crossbows.. either way it's the same output.)
MarshalCross wrote:
I stated that the hand crossbow is a one handed weapon because: When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding.
People are trying to figure out how use their bonus action. I'm telling them they can, but they don't need a second hand crossbow to do so. You attack with a Hand Crossbow (You fulfill the 'attack with a one handed weapon') You can now use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow provided it is loaded. Do you have enough ammunition? If yes, then it is loaded, fire away!
This is all I was trying to point out.
As far as attacking with two hand crossbows, I stated my opinion is based on the table - and gave a couple examples of why you could allow it if a DM was on the fence. (If said DM was leaning towards allowing it)
I completely agree with you Bloodscythe. I'm sorry if my original post wasn't clear. And yes the daggers thing doesn't really make since in retrospect
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Noctaem wrote:
My assumption is always that the weapon is unloaded until the character attacks with it, and then as part of the attack, the weapon is loaded then fired, unless the character explicitly states that they load their weapon.
As far as Crossbow Expert saying "a loaded hand crossbow", I just read that as meaning you have to have ammunition to gain the bonus action. The feat doesn't allow you to attack with a one-handed weapon then make a melee attack with an unloaded hand crossbow as a bonus action. And yes, I agree that the "one-handed weapon" and the hand crossbow can be one and the same.
Hopefully Jeremy sheds some light on these issues soon.
Bloodscythe wrote:
I am impressed with passion everyone seems to have for this feat
I was originally intending to create a fighter with handcrossbow & shield, but from what I have read in this thread the general interpretation would be you couldn't reload the crossbow, would that be a safe interpretation from the previous postings ?
My own thoughts would be you could have the hand crossbow's bolts slotted to the inside of the shield (the bolts are pretty small) and use your shield hand to assist with reloading ... But I am thinking most would disagree with this idea ?
brettlangbdl wrote:
As Macv12 sad: The majority opinion is: "Ask your DM"
brettlangbdl wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
i would allow it, because the DM should say yes.
just not the bonus action attack with a shiled. but that's for balance.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mellored wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
mellored wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
mellored wrote: