Crossbow Expert redux

[Xeviat]

I'm not sure I like the +5 damage bonus. That feels too big for a feat. Combined with +2 to hit, this is a huge 1st level feat. The Fighter 1 or 2/Rogue X might get too much of a benefit with this.

I do like that it doesn't remove loading. I'm a bit bothered by crossbow design, because crossbows are better than bows until Extra Attack, and that's weird. But, I'm more supportive of a system with mostly single attacks and damage scaling instead of Extra Attack, so I'm in the minority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kobold Stew]

Sure, but I still don't understand how you can use my version for a ranged build to immunize yourself against melee; my main criticism against the original version.

It's not that I am denying what you are saying, I honestly don't see it. Please visualize the case you are concerned about and help me understand.

You presume everyone you are talking with uses your definitions. Case in point, your understanding of "a ranged build" is (to my view) idiosyncratic (and one not relevant to most dungeon crawls). We've been talking about ranged builds, but only in post 33 do you specify that you don't mean "someone who attacks at range", but "someone that attacks at a range of 35' or more" (not direct quotes, obviously).

Reading your most recent posts, a new issue you seem to have is with the loading property of two-handed crossbows, which you are remedying with, among other things, a significant bonus to damage. You say it's not significant, but for classes with a single attack, it is substantial (greater than the bonus clerics get as a class feature at level 8, for example).

I still believe you want the feat to do too much, but your game, your fun.

 

[TwoSix]

Reading your most recent posts, a new issue you seem to have is with the loading property of two-handed crossbows, which you are remedying with, among other things, a significant bonus to damage. You say it's not significant, but for classes with a single attack, it is substantial (greater than the bonus clerics get as a class feature at level 8, for example).

I still believe you want the feat to do too much, but your game, your fun.

I would say, as a general design philosophy, it's OK if a feat is stronger than normal if it's turning a crappy option into a competitive option. It's when the feat is turning an already competitive option into a very strong option (see Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter) that you really need to sit and look at the math and make sure your design goals are being met.

CapnZapp's current version of the feat is strong enough that I would certainly think about it if I was a medium armor cleric or a rogue, and maybe a lore bard. But who else is really going to use it? And even if I was a rogue or a cleric, it's not the obvious default option. Is it worth delaying a Dex bump for a rogue? Or a Wisdom bump for a cleric? The obvious choice for a build centered around this feat is a VHuman Fighter 1/Rogue X, using cunning action to hide. It's certainly a strong build for a rogue, but I'm ok with that. How many crossbow snipers do you see in games right now? I certainly haven't seen any. With this feat, I'd consider it, just like Polearm Master makes me consider a glaive build, and Sentinel makes me consider a tanking build. We need more feats that support archetypes, not less.

 

[CapnZapp]

You presume everyone you are talking with uses your definitions. Case in point, your understanding of "a ranged build" is (to my view) idiosyncratic (and one not relevant to most dungeon crawls). We've been talking about ranged builds, but only in post 33 do you specify that you don't mean "someone who attacks at range", but "someone that attacks at a range of 35' or more" (not direct quotes, obviously).

Reading your most recent posts, a new issue you seem to have is with the loading property of two-handed crossbows, which you are remedying with, among other things, a significant bonus to damage. You say it's not significant, but for classes with a single attack, it is substantial (greater than the bonus clerics get as a class feature at level 8, for example).

I still believe you want the feat to do too much, but your game, your fun.

Please focus on explaining *your* concern about the feat, and I will hopefully be able to respond. ☺

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Kobold Stew]

It's certainly a strong build for a rogue, but I'm ok with that. How many crossbow snipers do you see in games right now? I certainly haven't seen any.

I'm playing one: a Gnome Ranger (UA Beastmaster), currently level 6.

This feat, as written, would be a no-brainer; I'd be foolish not to take it. That suggests to me it's overpowered.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Please focus on explaining *your* concern about the feat, and I will hopefully be able to respond. ☺

Post 12, points 2 and 3. No need to respond.

 

[clearstream]

I'm playing one: a Gnome Ranger (UA Beastmaster), currently level 6.

This feat, as written, would be a no-brainer; I'd be foolish not to take it. That suggests to me it's overpowered.

But shouldn't the feat "Crossbow Expert" be a no-brainer for any character focusing expressly on crossbows? Just as GWM is a no-brainer for anyone focusing on high single-strike damage melee weapons.

 

[Kobold Stew]

It has become clear that my contributions are not being seen as helpful, so this will be my last in this thread.

One can't have it both ways -- the OP believes the current feat is too powerful (in many circumstances). I don't, and my crossbow expert hasn't taken Crossbow Expert. The character would take this. I was asked if I had seen such a character in action, and I responded.

 

[TwoSix]

But shouldn't the feat "Crossbow Expert" be a no-brainer for any character focusing expressly on crossbows? Just as GWM is a no-brainer for anyone focusing on high single-strike damage melee weapons.

I think that's kind of the salient point, right? To my mind, a guy that wants to use crossbows should be rewarded for taking Crossbow Expert. It should be better, for that concept, than taking a +2 ASI. The balancing point is making sure that it isn't so good that people who don't particularly like the concept still gravitate towards it because it's so strong. Like how CE/SS combo with current martial characters, and GWM/SS both steer martials away from sword-and-board and dual-wielding.

 

[clearstream]

It has become clear that my contributions are not being seen as helpful, so this will be my last in this thread.

One can't have it both ways -- the OP believes the current feat is too powerful (in many circumstances). I don't, and my crossbow expert hasn't taken Crossbow Expert. The character would take this. I was asked if I had seen such a character in action, and I responded.

I'm open to the idea that it is still too strong. Another take on it below.

Crossbow Expert (adds expertise to crossbows, and pays off light crossbow with a bonus attack)
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 one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to load and attack with a hand crossbow you are holding. Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on attack rolls you make with hand crossbows.

At 1st through 8th level you are trading AC +1, Initiative +1, Save +1, and several skill/tool adds, for 1 or 2 points of damage and a possible bonus attack with a hand crossbow. (Because you'd get +1 attack / +1 damage with an ASI anyway!)

At 9th to 12th it starts to look equal to the ASI. Until at 17th it is likely better than an ASI. But not by all that much. Where it would shine is in combination with Archery and/or Sharpshooter, or for a character that already has 20 Dexterity.

Balance-wise, I feel this cuts things so fine that it's hard to tell if the ASI or the feat is better. Probably the feat if you will use hand crossbow. Probably the ASI until at least 9th level if not.