TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Is it intentional that the attack and damage bonuses also apply to hand crossbows? I feel like this version might be near necessary for a rogue, since they value attack bonuses so highly.
Crossbow Expert redux
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I'm not sure how to read this, can you let me know your intentions.
PHB said:
It's pretty clear that I can stab with a rapier and then fire a hand crossbow.
If I fire a hand crossbow with by action, with my bonus action may I:
Fire the same hand crossbow again? Does it end up loaded or unloaded?
Fire an offhand hand crossbow? What is the state of loading each hand-crossbow after this?
I'm looking for if you can sustain 2 hand crossbow attacks a round using an action and bonus action, either with one or two hand crossbows.
clearstream
(He, Him)
I believe we can broaden the feat further
Crossbow Expert
When using a crossbow with which you are proficient, you can add half your proficiency bonus again, rounded down, to attack rolls you make with it, and your full proficiency bonus to the damage roll. When you use the Attack action to attack with a weapon, you can use a bonus action to load and attack with a crossbow you are holding. Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on attack rolls you make with hand crossbows.
The arguments I intend to imply with that variant
1) I dislike that the bonuses are attached to specific, similar (but potentially different) crossbows; for me that is not user friendly
2) Do we need to limit the bonus attack to only hand crossbow? What is the impact of broadening it so that a heavy or light crossbow also gets one extra shot?
CapnZapp
Legend
You deserve a proper reply. TwoSix has touched upon this but to explain: I'm not looking at this from the perspective you are.
You have found an archetype for which my feat would be a must have. In my opinion, that does not make it overpowered, unbalanced or otherwise too strong. Why?
Because your archetype doesn't become too strong. (Compared to other builds)
Look at this way: imagine ten different kinds of trees, all different. Wondrous diversity and flexibility.
Now, imagine if some trees are taller than others. Probably still just fine - I can play a slightly shorter tree because it gives me satisfaction, even if another player chooses a slightly taller one.
But now imagine if some trees are twice or even three times as tall as the tree with average height. And imagine if one of the trees is much shorter than this average.
Suddenly tree height becomes a problem, since it is no fun to find out that your favorite build gives you significantly less oomph and spotlight time (mainly talking combat here).
---
As I see it, no character that picks my Crossbow Expert feat will become a tree tall enough to be a problem, since it automatically means you can't use Extra Attack. And the builds that remain are simply not very tall trees, in my opinion. In fact, the Rogue (perhaps the tallest one out of the builds that don't use Extra Attack yet still use weapons) could stand to be a bit taller, in my opinion.
This does not mean I can't see your point: that for a specific build the feat becomes a must-have.
It just means that's not one of my design criteria.
It's just like TwoSix says, game balance is about the extremes. A must-have feat is only a problem (to me) if it makes people not particularly interested in the concept take it anyway, because it enables their tree to grow much taller than most.
---
I hope you now see that I respect and understand your feedback, even if I won't change my feat because of it.
In fact, it's the opposite. What you're telling me is that the feat works just as well as I hoped it would - it makes a short tree grow into a moderately tall one.
Yes, from the POV of that short tree it might come across as a must-have, but it still allows the short tree to be much less short, so hopefully it's not all bad?
What you're telling me is that it would have been better if either the tree wasn't so short in the first place, or if there were more than one way to grow the tree. I can't help you there - I can only say that going from zero ways to grow the tree to "only" one can't be a reason to change or remove the feat, since it has so many other intended usages.
Best regards,
Zapp
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
clearstream
(He, Him)
Okay. I was looking on it as discussion of your version by way of counter-case. I don't have anything else to stay about yours.
CapnZapp
Legend
Short answer: "yes"
Longer answer:
My intent is for the Crossbow Expert to be able to fire one bolt with her action, then one more bolt with her bonus action. Total 2 bolts fired, sustained (=in any round).
If you have found that my phrasing doesn't really support this RAI, I would be much obliged.
So, yes, you can:
Wield a rapier and a hand crossbow. A level 5 fighter would make two rapier attacks and one hand crossbow attack. Each round. This is comparable to two-weapon fighting.
You can wield one hand crossbow. The fighter would make only two hand crossbow attacks, one with your action, a second with your bonus action. The loading of the action attack is taken care of the general rule that you load ammunition as part of your attack; the loading of the bonus action attack is (redundantly, though I know vonklaude has a differing opinion here) taken care of the phrasing of the Crossbow Expert language.
You can wield two hand crossbows. This would leave you with one unloaded hand crossbow after your turn though, since you have no hand free to reload the first one. The bonus attack one is taken care of the phrasing of the feat, but not the attack one. The key is that the feat langauge voids the "hand free" part, as opposed to the "load is free as part of attack" part.
You could go hand crossbow plus shield, but again, after the first round your h-X-bow would be empty. In the second round, you would be limited to firing a single bolt (the bonus action one) since you don't have one hand free to satisfy the requirements on the main attack.
So as you can see, the feat language intentionally allows you to fight with a hand crossbow even though both your hands are busy, but only if you use the hand crossbow in your off hand (=for your bonus action attack). Not coincidentally, this is how the archetype is presented!
CapnZapp
Legend
PHB comparisons:
Fighter 5 with two-weapon fighting fighting style and Dual Wielder
Main hand: rapier, attack action for two attacks, 1d8+5 each.
Off hand: rapier, bonus action for one attack, 1d8+5
Range 5 ft (35 ft with unobstructed movement)
+1 AC
Damage potential: 28 (3d8+15)
Fighter 5 with archery fighting style and Crossbow Expert
Main hand: hand crossbow, attack action for two attacks and bonus action for one more attack, 1d6+5 each.
Off hand: nothing
Range 30 ft (60 ft with unobstructed movement)
No melee disadvantage (doesn't need to leave melee combat to be effective)
+2 to hit
Damage potential: 25 (3d6+15)
With Sharpshooter:
Range 120 ft (150 ft with unobstructed movement)
No melee disadvantage (doesn't need to leave melee combat to be effective)
Damage potential: 65 (3d6+45)
Zapp's Redux II comparisons:
Fighter 5 with Crossbow Expert
Main hand: rapier, attack action for two attacks, 1d8+5 each.
Off hand: hand crossbow, bonus action for one more attack, 1d6+5.
Range 5 ft two attacks 30 ft one attack (35-60 ft with unobstructed movement)
No melee disadvantage (doesn't need to leave melee combat to be effective)
Damage potential: 27 (2d8+1d6+15)
Archery fighting style: +2 on one attack against targets with cover
Duelist fighting style: n/a
I would have chosen something else, such as Defense fighting style. This would match the +1 AC the dual rapier fighter gets.
In the end, you lose one measly point of damage in return for range on your off-hand attack - a great deal in my book. Not to mention how you get to play your cool archetype
In fact, I find the melee range to be a significant drawback, and so I have boosted the style by combining Defensive Duelist with Dual Wielder into a single feat:
This means my dual rapier guy would look like this, and possibly not have two or even one rapiers!
Two rapiers: requires two-weapon fighting fighting style and loses out on the feat's +1 AC
One rapier: requires two-weapon fighting fighting style
Zero rapiers: you can pick defense fighting style for an additional +1 AC. Of course you could skip the feat entirely (since you're no longer using its arguably main benefit: using TWF with non-light weaponry).
Fighter 5 with two-weapon fighting fighting style and Defensive Duelist
Main hand: rapier, attack action for two attacks, 1d8+5 each.
Off hand: rapier, bonus action for one attack, 1d8+5
Range 5 ft (35 ft with unobstructed movement)
"Parry" (reaction to add proficiency to AC)
Damage potential: 28 (3d8+15)
Fighter 5 with two-weapon fighting fighting style and Defensive Duelist
Main hand: rapier, attack action for two attacks, 1d8+5 each.
Off hand: short sword, bonus action for one attack, 1d6+5
Range 5 ft (35 ft with unobstructed movement)
+1 AC
"Parry" (reaction to add proficiency to AC)
Damage potential: 27 (3d8+15)
Fighter 5 with defensive fighting style and Defensive Duelist
Main hand: short sword, attack action for two attacks, 1d6+5 each.
Off hand: short sword, bonus action for one attack, 1d6+5
Range 5 ft (35 ft with unobstructed movement)
+2 AC
"Parry" (reaction to add proficiency to AC)
Damage potential: 25 (3d8+15)
Fighter 5 with two-weapon fighting fighting style and Dual Wielder
Main hand: rapier, attack action for two attacks, 1d8+5 each.
Off hand: rapier, bonus action for one attack, 1d8+5
Range 5 ft (35 ft with unobstructed movement)
+1 AC
Damage potential: 28 (3d8+15)
Fighter 5 with archery fighting style and Crossbow Expert
Main hand: hand crossbow, attack action for two attacks and bonus action for one more attack, 1d6+5 each.
Off hand: nothing
Range 30 ft (60 ft with unobstructed movement)
No melee disadvantage (doesn't need to leave melee combat to be effective)
+2 to hit
Damage potential: 25 (3d6+15)
With Sharpshooter:
Range 120 ft (150 ft with unobstructed movement)
No melee disadvantage (doesn't need to leave melee combat to be effective)
Damage potential: 65 (3d6+45)
Zapp's Redux II comparisons:
Fighter 5 with Crossbow Expert
Main hand: rapier, attack action for two attacks, 1d8+5 each.
Off hand: hand crossbow, bonus action for one more attack, 1d6+5.
Range 5 ft two attacks 30 ft one attack (35-60 ft with unobstructed movement)
No melee disadvantage (doesn't need to leave melee combat to be effective)
Damage potential: 27 (2d8+1d6+15)
Archery fighting style: +2 on one attack against targets with cover
Duelist fighting style: n/a
I would have chosen something else, such as Defense fighting style. This would match the +1 AC the dual rapier fighter gets.
In the end, you lose one measly point of damage in return for range on your off-hand attack - a great deal in my book. Not to mention how you get to play your cool archetype
In fact, I find the melee range to be a significant drawback, and so I have boosted the style by combining Defensive Duelist with Dual Wielder into a single feat:
Note: pay attention to the precise language, it is carefully worded. (If I got it right, at least)
This means my dual rapier guy would look like this, and possibly not have two or even one rapiers!
Two rapiers: requires two-weapon fighting fighting style and loses out on the feat's +1 AC
One rapier: requires two-weapon fighting fighting style
Zero rapiers: you can pick defense fighting style for an additional +1 AC. Of course you could skip the feat entirely (since you're no longer using its arguably main benefit: using TWF with non-light weaponry).
Fighter 5 with two-weapon fighting fighting style and Defensive Duelist
Main hand: rapier, attack action for two attacks, 1d8+5 each.
Off hand: rapier, bonus action for one attack, 1d8+5
Range 5 ft (35 ft with unobstructed movement)
"Parry" (reaction to add proficiency to AC)
Damage potential: 28 (3d8+15)
Fighter 5 with two-weapon fighting fighting style and Defensive Duelist
Main hand: rapier, attack action for two attacks, 1d8+5 each.
Off hand: short sword, bonus action for one attack, 1d6+5
Range 5 ft (35 ft with unobstructed movement)
+1 AC
"Parry" (reaction to add proficiency to AC)
Damage potential: 27 (3d8+15)
Fighter 5 with defensive fighting style and Defensive Duelist
Main hand: short sword, attack action for two attacks, 1d6+5 each.
Off hand: short sword, bonus action for one attack, 1d6+5
Range 5 ft (35 ft with unobstructed movement)
+2 AC
"Parry" (reaction to add proficiency to AC)
Damage potential: 25 (3d8+15)
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
I’ll look at this in more detail later, but in regards to this point...
The game doesn’t have any method to deal with “less” training, or really, shorter training. You still need to be trained to use a crossbow. And it’s also possible for a better trained person to be better at using a crossbow. So I don’t object to the feat at all.
Having said that, I do have a bonus to damage for a heavy crossbow (really an arbalest) but they take longer to load than a crossbow (aka light crossbow). The bonus is the same as a bow that allows your strength bonus, but the Strength isn’t needed since you draw the bow mechanically.
So obviously I don’t object to that either.
