They cut "loaded" from the third benefit. Meaning that the crossbow didn't need to be loaded using a character's free interaction in between their attack action and their bonus action.
I hadn't thought about the "cheese" criticism. What I was focused on was simplifying handling it at the table. If it is 5 attacks per 2 turns, then per RAW one must remember which number of attacks on which turns, and also when the sword is available for AoOs and when it isn't. That seemed far too clunky. One could easily write it (as perhaps the original authors intended) so that you get to snap off one shot with your "loaded" hand crossbow and then it is all sword work. That seems rather underwhelming for the price of a feat. How about just writing that into the hand crossbow itself? "Snapshot. When you use the attack action with a weapon in one hand, you can use a bonus action to fire a loaded weapon with snapshot in the other hand." The ammunition rule would then prevent you doing that again until you either had a hand free, or took time out to reload.
Well, I think the main purpose and benefit of Crossbow Expert is so that you can use all of your attacks in a round if you have more than one. For example, if you're a fighter with two or three attacks per round, you can normally still only make one attack with a crossbow. With crossbow expert you can now take your full two or three attacks.
I would agree that you should be able to shoot a loaded hand crossbow as a bonus action with no feat. It's exactly the same as wielding two weapons to me, use a bonus action to shoot the loaded hand crossbow in your off-hand.
As for the opportunity attacks, not to be obvious about it, but you can do it when your sword is in your hand. Again, from my perspective the whole, attack - stow - load - draw thing is something that would be a very bad idea, in real life and my campaign. So I'm not concerned about "fixing" something that I don't think should be happening anyway.
But, in a prior thread we talked about interacting with hands and stuff about just this "problem" and it's not the fault of the feat. It's the "free interaction" with something. My recommendation was simply that if you have already interacted with something in that round, then you can use your bonus action to interact with something else.
Regardless, it's going to involve tracking all of the actions (free, bonus, regular) that you take to pull it off.
Perhaps a better way to put it would be "Most of the rules are focused on combat, so these rules pay attention to that context".
I marked them like that so that it would be clear that they're being balanced differently from the Whole and Half-ASI feats. Notionally, the whole and half ASI feats should all end up being worth an ASI. Whereas the taxed feats can be worth less than an ASI because we're facilitating but not advantaging the thing they unlock. That is in order to reserve that thing for the classes it is core to, like skills for Bards and Rogues, and heavy armour for fighters.
My point was, some of us aren't concerned about "protecting" class abilities. So I don't think they should be taxed. I think they should get the +1 ability score and the feat. So a comment saying something to the effect of:
Some groups prefer that feats don't replicate core class abilities. One option is to not allow these feats at all, but another is to apply a "feat tax" and eliminate the +1 ability increase.
That is, I personally don't want them balanced differently.
That could be better. The idea is to only change things that are badly costed or over/underpowered.
Personally, I think automatic success is overpowered (and kind of against the design/spirit of the rest of the game).
Absolutely. Reducing it to once per turn is huge.
Hadn't caught that it was reduced in usability. Although that doesn't have an impact on anybody that only has one attack/round. Perhaps if it had an additional cost, like consuming your bonus action. It can still be used for an opportunity attack as well.
Those sound like quite good suggestions. Do you think downgrading the cover is right? Or obviating it completely. Crit threshold improvement is in Champion making that path more appealing, so it is risky to put it into a feat and also punishes that archetype for then taking that feat.
Again, I'm not a fan of "automatic" things. Downgrading cover sounds appropriate to me.
As for critical threshold improvement being a Champion thing? For the Champion it applies to every attack they make. For everybody else it would apply to only archery. It does mean that the feat isn't quite as good for the Champion, perhaps, but you still get to reduce cover and use the -5/+10 ability so I'm not sure it's really a big deal. Particularly since adding it is something new.
But, to go a different route you could say that with Sharpshooter, a critical hit does 3x damage instead of 2x. I think that's very appropriate for archery, but it also means that the Champion would be that much better as an archer, especially since they can take the Archery fighting style and have a +2 to hit too. Maybe too good for them.
The original was:
No disadvantage at long range.
Eliminate disadvantages of 3/4 and 1/2 cover
-5/+10 option for every shot.
New version:
Reduce cover by 1 step
-5/+10 once per turn
Increased critical threat range (or damage)
I guess the question is, are the other two benefits worth getting if you're a Champion to start with. And if not that, then what? I'm not sure I like the extra damage thing when it's tied so closely to an ability that only one class has.
I wouldn't mind the reroll 1s and 2s for damage. I think that is reflective of the deadliness of archery, and would benefit everybody.
Or drop the critical threat range and make it a half-ASI feat?
My thinking is that characters can only benefit from half of the feat (as they can't wear heavy and medium armour at the same time). And then Smith's Tools is a very minor benefit - worth less than a third of a feat. The concept is that with your knowledge and tools you customise your armour, which seemed to me to make some sense of sticking HAM and MAM into the same feat. HAM and MAM could be left split up as they are in RAW, but then I would still believe they need +1 stat increase to match the value of a full ASI.
I see what you're saying, although in both cases the 1/2 a feat is used to be a full feat, so you're gaining two feats for the price of one. Both of them are quite good, although it will be campaign dependent as to whether a character changes armor types, it's certainly conceivable they would have medium armor earlier in their career and shift to heavy later on when they can afford it, and not have to worry about having wasted a feat.
Having said that, I don't see any inherent issue in giving the tool proficiency, other than whether it makes sense for every character. I'm not really coming up with a reasonable alternative right now.
It's good having your input into evaluations so for your reference, in RAW an ASI appears to me to be worth -
Strength +1 to save, attack, damage, manoeuvre DCs and athletics; unlocks chainmail, splint and plate; +2’ long jump, +1’ high jump, +15 lbs carrying; unlocks barbarian, fighter and paladin multiclass
Dexterity +1 to save, AC, initiative, attack, damage, manoeuvre DCs, acrobatics, sleight of hand, stealth and thieves’ tools; unlocks fighter, monk, ranger and rogue multiclass
Constitution +1 to save, HP/level, days without food, roll versus thirst, minutes holding breath
Intelligence +1 to save, spell attacks, spell DCs, prepared spells, arcana, gaming, history, investigation, nature and religion; unlocks Wizard multiclass
Wisdom +1 to save, spell attacks, spell DCs, prepared spells, animal handling, insight, medicine, perception and survival; unlocks cleric and druid multiclass
Charisma +1 to save, spell attacks, spell DCs, prepared spells, deception, intimidation, performance and persuasion; unlocks bard, paladin, sorcerer and warlock multiclass
[/QUOTE]
So the Armorer feat we're discussing grants a +1 to AC or an equivalent in damage reduction, so that sounds like it should be a full ASI, especially since it's not limited to just medium or heavy armor at this point. using only half the feat or not, you're still getting gate equivalent of the +1 to AC.