D&D 5E Crossbows and dual-wielding

[pming]

Hiya!

It was a "general you", not you specifically. But seeing as you asked me specifically something...

If you are referring to me, yes I read his post (assuming you talk about post #5 in this thread).

However, I don't see what he nailed at all. First he simply reiterates the rules. But I already know they work in absurd and deeply unsatisfying ways!

Then he embarks down the same road Canuck travels, with visions of picking up and dropping and sheathing weapons in an unholy mess; but let me tell you that for me that is not D&D, that is a hellish nightmare.

So let us talk about something else instead!

Let me ask what you, Paul, think about the rules as written and their consequences (intended or not)?

Then, if you want, I would be happy to hear your opinion on my proposed fixes?

I find the rules under Crossbow Expert perfectly clear. As in there is no other way for me to interpret what it is intending and saying. I don't think there needs to be a "fix" because I don't see it as being broken. However, if I was to have to get more specific for those requireing it, I'd probably just add something under the Equipment section that said "Missile weapons that require Ammunition must have a free hand available in order to reload the ammo into the device".

Would that be helpful? Maybe to some...but to the rest of us, it would be seen as silly. It's like saying "The in order to eat Rations, the person must have a mouth and be capable of swallowing". Everyone knows you need to use your mouth to eat food...just like everyone knows that in order to put a crossbow bolt in a crossbow you need to use your other hand. The Crossobow Feat is just saying that "You're so expert with Crossbows, you can shoot, grab a new bolt, slap it in, and shoot again; you are like a practiced machine of loading precision; you can shoot as many times as you have Actions, that's how fast and precise your shooting and loading technique is". It's a no brainer, really. The fact that some players out there insist that just because "the book doesn't explicitly say..." something gives them the 'right' to ignore common sense and logic in order for them to "win" has always baffled me.

But, in the end, the rules are quite clear on one thing: The DM gets to decide what is or isn't in his game, as well as how those things are used. So I'd suggest asking your DM. However he/she says it is, is the way it is. Is (I just had to say "is" one more time! ). If you are the DM... then stop waffling and make a decision already. Go with that. If it starts to break your game...change it. If not...keep on playing. All I have to say is: In 5e D&D, the 5e DM is the "rule" that fills in all the blanks.

So: Shoot Crossbow = 1 hand. Load crossbow = two hands. Shoot Crossbow as Expert = 1 hand. Load crossbow as Expert = two hands. Shoot Crossbow in One Turn = 1 only. Shoot Crossbow as Expert in One Turn = # of Actions you have. Simple.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[CapnZapp]

I find the rules under Crossbow Expert perfectly clear. As in there is no other way for me to interpret what it is intending and saying. I don't think there needs to be a "fix" because I don't see it as being broken.

That's not my complaint - I have never accused the Crossbow Expert rules text to be unclear. Not very intuitive, yes, but unclear, no. I believe I too fully understand them - and in fact it was this understanding that prompted me to start this very thread!

What I am talking about is how the rules first introduce the Hand Crossbow as a weapon with the properties Loading, "One-Handed" (as it were) and Light...

...and then proceeds to strip away the expectations this gives the reader, one by one:
- Loading is perhaps the only link between the D&D crossbows and reality. It would not have costed the designers one bit to keep Loading and instead add repeating crossbows to the game, gnomish or no.
Moreover, regardless of my personal feelings on loading-free crossbows I dislike how this opens up crossbows as serious weapons for the extra attacking character only to feat-using campaigns. Again, a solution involving equipment would have solved this for everybody.
Thirdly, removing loading is a far weaker prize than you'd intuitively think, after the Ammunition errata keeps you from simply not thinking about loading ever again.
- Two-Handed. You'd think weapons without this property could have been paired up with a rapier, shield or a second crossbow. But then you'd be wrong, and I don't like rules that are counter-intuitive.
- Light. You'd think light weapons could have been used for Two-Weapon Fighting, and again you'd be wrong. This time with no explanation whatsoever!

To add insult to injury, the rules still does not allow many of the fighting configurations people think they do! (Such as the rapier+handcrossbow drow*, or indeed, the dual handcrossbows) The rules shoot down this coolness, and for what? Stopping overly powerful and completely unbalanced cheese? Please!

To be clear, what I am asking you (and everybody else participarting in this thread) is what you think of an alternate reality where light weapons qualify for TWF and where crossbows aren't given peculiar special treatment where they and they alone can be used with BOTH Archery Style AND (the functional equivalence of) Two Weapon Style, and where you as a pure bonus get rules that don't directly countermand the intuitive approach?

Or, at the very least, reply with a credible argument as to why the rules "must" be the way they are currently.

Or, as a constructive minimum: what "fighting configurations" DO you feel would be appropriate for D&D, and what would not be? Let us discuss.

The fact the rules are "simple" (I'm not actually sure I agree, but I am willing to give you that they are least comprehensible once you have achieved a certain system mastery, since this is not the subject I am interested in discussing) does not factor into it.


Best Regards,
Zapp

*) At least not without going through the motions outlined by Jester Canuck in an earlier post (post #18). However, merely imagining something so utterly ridiculous makes me want to puke, so I am simply out of any such discussion.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Yeah, I know. They give me a headache too.

But since one of my players have selected a hand crossbow build, going for the crossbow expert and sharpshooter feats, I really need to sort this out for myself.

I have found several threads, but decided against posting in any of them, since I really am not arguing against anyone in particular.

Let's see if I got the basic facts straight:

1) The first (of many ) elephants in the room: the so-called light crossbow is not actually Light.
2) Regular crossbows (light and heavy) are two-handed while Hand Crossbows are not two-handed and instead Light.
But none of that matters:
3a) the errata on Ammunition says "you must have a free hand to reload", is there any distinction then of a weapon also having the Two-handed property?
You would think it would make regular crossbows impossible to use for serious fighters (since, being two-handed, you wouldn't have the free hand needed to reload them). But then they go ahead and errata Two-handed: "This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it." Beyond the inelegant inexactness this would indicate you could indeed hold it with one hand while the other reloads it!?
3b) the Light property of hand crossbows is also completely inexplicable, since 3b-I) the rules on two-weapon fighting specifically allows only melee light weapons! 3b-II) the crossbow expert feat allows the equivalent of two-weapon fighting for hand crossbows specifically rather than "all light crossbows"!

I can't understand it. It seems as if despite the differences in "looks" and in properties, all crossbows operate identically:
Despite the hand crossbow being light you can't actually dual wield it (rules on two-weapon fighting says "melee")?!
Despite the hand crossbow not being two-handed you can't actually dual wield it?! (You can't reload if you hold two one-handed weapons, but you can if you hold one two-handed weapon)
4) There is a fighting style available to select classes called "Two-Weapon Fighting Style" you would think is aimed for the character that want to dual wield. However, the Crossbow Expert feat provides the same benefit (being able to add your Ability modifier for the bonus attack)! So why would you ever take this fighting style?

Indeed, ranged weapons (meaning crossbows) do the same damage as melee weapons. But you can take the Archery Fighting Style without losing that second attack ability modifier since you get that from Crossbow Expert, effectively letting you "stack" two fighting styles.

But it gets even worse: the one and the same feat also voids the main disadvantage for ranged characters; getting disadvantage once you're swarmed!

Then it feels like a slap in the face when they start their sage advice with

What the hell? If anything, the rules specifically and directly converge on one thing and one thing only: turning the hand crossbow into a semiautomatic weapon!! A 20th level fighter can start a combat firing nine bolts in 6 seconds, and then sustaining a rate of 5 bolts per 6 seconds thereafter!

In the end analysis: what were they thinking?!

It appears that:
* the fact that hand crossbows are light and not two-handed is actively stopped from having any game effect. Indeed, not only do you gain the exact same rate of fire with one crossbow, you are specifically forbidden from using two!
* there is absolutely no upside to melee dual-wielding? Yes, you don't need the crossbow feat, but you do need the two weapon fighting feat. Being able to stack two fighting styles easily outperforms the damage increase.

Please tell me the WotC devs have acknowledged their rules suck balls and that they are actively working to straighten out this complete and utter mess! Please!

Or at least tell me they have explained WHY ranged two-weapon fighting needs to be strictly superior to melee two-weapon fighting? (Keep in mind that I haven't even started on the fact that the perhaps most powerful feature of all in the entire PHB is denied to dual-wielders but not to this ranged build, namely Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter!)

There must be a clear reason or they wouldn't have engineered a ruleset with such counter-intuitive results, where almost every other option is better than two-weapon fighting, right?

Right?

Good analysis. The official rulings on the third feature are just bad. Nerf it such that it only really allows for a first round bonus shot and the feat is still a good feat.

 

[Celtavian]

Rather than answer all the odd questions given at the end of all this you'll just have to do as you like to advise me: make a DM ruling, I'll give my take on how I run it.

I look at Crossbow Expert as a guy that loves crossbows and has learned to use them all well. The needing a free hand to reload it is what I believe is a small token attempt to incorporate verisimilitude. I like a little verisimilitude in my game, so I like that ruling. I look at the feat's interaction with the hand crossbow as providing a sort of fan fire shooting. A crossbow expert is simply the best at using a hand crossbow. He uses one and fires it faster than a non-expert fighter using a hand crossbow. He's always able to get off at least one more attack because of his training.

I don't allow dual wielding of hand crossbows continuously because no hand is free to reload it. I don't like the way that appears in my mind's eye. I don't care if they dual wield an extra hand crossbow, then drop it or place it back on their belt if they want that look initially. It's complete unnecessary to take advantage of the feat.

I don't worry too much about light, heavy, or two-handed designations with ranged weapons. I think everyone has a general idea how the weapons work. So the tags are mostly unnecessary.

Action Surge is not a mechanic that I attempt to think of in a realistic fashion. It's the fighter's non-magical cinematic ability.

5E is one of those games where a DM can decide what level of verisimilitude they want to work in. Seems The Sage has his views which you have included in your original post. Each DM is encouraged to rule based on their views. If a DM wants to look at a hand crossbow being a semi-automatic weapon in the hands of a fighter, I'm quite sure no one will care.

We all know why dual wielding sucks and has since 2E. It was way overpowered in 2nd edition. Everyone took it that wanted power. Now the standing rule amongst game designers at WotC seems to be never make two-weapon fighting very good. We don't want what happened in 2E to happen again. Since that time two-weapon fighting has been inferior to two-hander style and sword and board. It's too bad Mike Mearls and his team couldn't have come up with two-weapon fighting that was balanced against two-hander style or archery. Even Mearls and the design team couldn't manage it. Once again two-weapon fighting will be something only used by those looking to role-play a two-weapon fighter rather than being a truly effective fighting style. Even in 3E/Pathfinder I maybe saw one two-weapon fighter in the entire time I played both games because the feat investment to be just a little behind two-hander style or archery was way too high. Here is yet another edition of D&D where two-weapon fighting is the odd man out as far as fighting style choices. Too bad Mearls and company wouldn't further analyze the fighting style to bring it up to par and make it attractive again.

 

[PnPgamer]

It's a game. Do not try to bring real world logic into it. Please.

 

[Celtavian]

It's a game. Do not try to bring real world logic into it. Please.

I think verisimilitude is important. Not realism, but believability.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I'm on the side of verisimilitude - and I'd argue that Paul Ming's "only one hand needs to fire" is off. A crossbow is a two handed weapon. I'm sure you could fire it one handed but id say there would be disadvantage as it's quite heavy and front-heavy at that, so it'll weave around a bit if you shoot it one handed.

The same way you can shoot a shotgun one handed, but imagine putting a dirty great crosspiece on the end of the barrel, suddenly it needs a balancing hand.

It's not based on anything other than visualising the action. But if there isn't a certain amount of "oh come now" verisimilitude, I personally find my suspension of disbelief broken.

Things like magic don't necessarily have a real world physics to check against, but someone with a crossbow on one hand and a sword in the other managing to fire, slash, fire again? Hmm. Not for me.

I'd allow a shield to be worn on the basis of the shield straps* are shoved up the forearm leaving a palm free to hold the crossbow steady, but not another weapon.

*unless specifically called out by the player I rule that shields have one, usually two straps, and in normal use one strap is positioned so the forearm is through it and the other is held in the hand. If one strap, it is held but can be shoved up the arm if you need to hold something (but would make wielding a weapon almost possible to do effectively due to the embuggerance of the shield). I also tend to the view that shields are generally fairly sizable and not teeny wee buckles unless specifically called out as such.

So sue me.

 

[juggerulez]

Yeah, I know. They give me a headache too.
1) The first (of many ) elephants in the room: the so-called light crossbow is not actually Light.

it's a distinction made between the light crossbow, which is a simple weapon, and the heavy crossbow, which is a martial weapon. The difference between them is just about that (die and range are distinctive of the weapon type, not its name)

2) Regular crossbows (light and heavy) are two-handed while Hand Crossbows are not two-handed and instead Light.

they are flagged as light because they're "small and easy to handle", contradistinction of a light 1 handed weapon

3a) the errata on Ammunition says "you must have a free hand to reload", is there any distinction then of a weapon also having the Two-handed property?

you must operate a 2 handed weapons with two hands, to carry or reloading it, 1 hand will suffice

"This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it." Beyond the inelegant inexactness this would indicate you could indeed hold it with one hand while the other reloads it!?

yes it is precisely so.
In previous editions, heavy crossbows had 1 extra round of loading time because you would have to put them down, take out a loader, cock the string, set the bolt, lock the crossbow again and *then* you would have been ready to shoot again. This was removed because it would have made no sense whatsoever.

3b) the Light property of hand crossbows is also completely inexplicable, since 3b-I) the rules on two-weapon fighting specifically allows only melee light weapons! 3b-II) the crossbow expert feat allows the equivalent of two-weapon fighting for hand crossbows specifically rather than "all light crossbows"!

It has nothing to do with the two weapon fighting style. "light" propriety allows you to use the weapon in TWF if it is a melee weapon. light ranged weapons are simply that: small and easy to handle.

I can't understand it. It seems as if despite the differences in "looks" and in properties, all crossbows operate identically:
Despite the hand crossbow being light you can't actually dual wield it (rules on two-weapon fighting says "melee")?!
Despite the hand crossbow not being two-handed you can't actually dual wield it?! (You can't reload if you hold two one-handed weapons, but you can if you hold one two-handed weapon)

you can use and operate a hand crossbow with 1 hand, however you won't be able to reload it if you have both hands full, exception made by the shields, which are strapped on the forearm and require the "use" of the hand only for providing AC bonus (i.e. in the brief time you are loading, you don't benefit of your Shield AC bonus, thus if someone calls for a ready action against your reload, he could shoot you with increased hit chances).
Mind that this is more of a RAI thing rather than a RAW thing, because the manual suggests you that the shield is carried in one hand, which is arguably not. Shields are carried strapped to the forearm and provide AC while wielded with one hand. The difference is that you don't need to sheathe the shield to do minor actions such as reloading and using an item which is ready to be used (e.g. contained in a bandoleer or a case or around your neck)

4) There is a fighting style available to select classes called "Two-Weapon Fighting Style" you would think is aimed for the character that want to dual wield. However, the Crossbow Expert feat provides the same benefit (being able to add your Ability modifier for the bonus attack)! So why would you ever take this fighting style?

to better yourself at two "melee" weapon fighting. If you are a ranged fighter, you'd best go for archery, which provides you 2 extra damage per shot.

Indeed, ranged weapons (meaning crossbows) do the same damage as melee weapons. But you can take the Archery Fighting Style without losing that second attack ability modifier since you get that from Crossbow Expert, effectively letting you "stack" two fighting styles.

Crossbow expert doesn't equal to two weapon fighting.
1) it removes the loading propriety of a crossbow, meaning you are realistically reloading at the very instant you discharge your weapon
2) you can shot at point blank without penalties
3) you can shoot twice with the same hand crossbow in the same turn, provided you have a free hand or a shield.

As you can see, it is not meant to be used while "dual wielding" crossbows rather than while using a hand xbow and a shield (or a free hand if your DM doesn't allow that RAI).

But it gets even worse: the one and the same feat also voids the main disadvantage for ranged characters; getting disadvantage once you're swarmed!

This disadvantage is such for an untrained person. Properly trained artillery will still be effective in point blank.

Then it feels like a slap in the face when they start their sage advice with

What the hell? If anything, the rules specifically and directly converge on one thing and one thing only: turning the hand crossbow into a semiautomatic weapon!! A 20th level fighter can start a combat firing nine bolts in 6 seconds, and then sustaining a rate of 5 bolts per 6 seconds thereafter!

a level 20 fighter can discharge a weapon 3 times with an action, 3 times with an Action surge, and once with crossbow expert, the second round can use another action surge, thus other extra 7 bolts, and from the 3rd round on, he can only shoot 4 times per round.
but we're speaking about a bloody level 20 fighter, which is recognized as someone who you don't wanna piss off, not even by chance.

a more "down to earth" example is a level 5 fighter. She can discharge her hand crossbow twice per action and once per bonus action. A polearm master fighter can swing his halberd twice per action and once per bonus action (as d4 instead of d10), so we're speaking about a 10 feet long item weighting about 6lbs swung trice per 6 seconds... so? what's the big deal you're seeing here?

In the end analysis: what were they thinking?!

I'd rather ask what are *you* thinking, there

It appears that:
* the fact that hand crossbows are light and not two-handed is actively stopped from having any game effect. Indeed, not only do you gain the exact same rate of fire with one crossbow, you are specifically forbidden from using two!
* there is absolutely no upside to melee dual-wielding? Yes, you don't need the crossbow feat, but you do need the two weapon fighting feat. Being able to stack two fighting styles easily outperforms the damage increase.

wait, wait. you're a bit confused here. Perhaps you're missing the point of the feats. Feats are "an array of perks" that better your performances. You are not compelled to benefit from the whole feat, but you clearly can, if you match all the criteria.
If you normally couldn't shoot twice in a round due the loading propriety, now you can. You wanna shoot during a reaction? now you can. You wanna shoot during a bonus action? you can do that by yourself IF you have a hand crossbow, otherwise you must be entitled of a bonus action by other means, *but now you can* where normally you couldn't.
You wanna increase your AC? hand crossbow and shield are the best way to do so! (if DM accepts RAI)

Please tell me the WotC devs have acknowledged their rules suck balls and that they are actively working to straighten out this complete and utter mess! Please!

the rules are solid, you're seeing them from the wrong perspective.

Or at least tell me they have explained WHY ranged two-weapon fighting needs to be strictly superior to melee two-weapon fighting? (Keep in mind that I haven't even started on the fact that the perhaps most powerful feature of all in the entire PHB is denied to dual-wielders but not to this ranged build, namely Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter!)

Believe me or not, but ranged dual wield is even worse than melee dual wield. Being unable to reload your weapons prevents you do deal damage entirely, at least twf can hit for ridicolous damage :v

TWF is a versatile combat style, which means that it can't compete against specialized fighting styles but can still perform properly whereas other stiles could fall short.
It needs some love, yes, and perhaps it will receive it in an upcoming manual, but this has nothing to do with ranged combat, which is really awesome right now... if you can't see it, i'm sorry for you.

There must be a clear reason or they wouldn't have engineered a ruleset with such counter-intuitive results, where almost every other option is better than two-weapon fighting, right?
Right?

Or perhaps you're failing to see the big picture?

Full plated human fighter with shield and hand crossbow, level 5, 16 DEX, Archery fighting style, Crossbow expert, Sharpshooter. No magic items, no special items.

AC 20, standard attack: +5 hit, 1d6+8, bonus attack: +5 hit, 1d6+8, Power standard attack: +0 hit, 1d6+18, Powered bonus attack: +0 hit, 1d6+18

One standard "full round": (3*3.5 + 24) * (10.5+3+3)/20 = 28.47 mitigated damage
Action Surged "full round": (5*3.5 + 40) * (10.5+3+3)/20 = 47.44 mitigated damage
One Power "full round": (3*3.5 + 54) * (10.5+3+3-5)/20 = 37.09 mitigated damage
Action Surged Power "full round": (5*3.5 + 72) * (10.5+3+3-5)/20 = 51.46 mitigated damage

And these are just the hand crossbow stats and without the crits.
Heavy crossbows ones will be lowered by the lack of a "self proc'ed" bonus action but will be increased by the base die, which is 5.5 rather than 3.5... which ramp up further if you can consistently provide yourself with a bonus action, e.g. flanking in close quarters: since you no longer suffer from DA "by design" (it is not a condition that grants you ADV which counterbalances the DA, you *no longer* have DA from close quarters) you can benefit of ADV while flanking (implying your DM allows optional rules such as flanking).



and YOU still think that ranged combat is less effective than two weapon fighting?

 

[CapnZapp]

Rather than answer all the odd questions given at the end of all this [] I'll give my take on how I run it.

And then I'l thank you for it.

 

[CapnZapp]

My comments added in bold /Zapp
it's a distinction made between the light crossbow, which is a simple weapon, and the heavy crossbow, which is a martial weapon. The difference between them is just about that (die and range are distinctive of the weapon type, not its name)

Yes I know this. It's not that I don't understand it, it is I don't like it. A Light Hammer is "light". A crossbow that isn't "light" shouldn't have been called light. You explaining how it works is not a good excuse, it's actually completely beside the point.

they are flagged as light because they're "small and easy to handle", contradistinction of a light 1 handed weapon

No, the rulebook's actual description of the light property is "Light. A light weapon is small and easy to handle, making it ideal for use when fighting with two weapons."

I think that statement speaks for itself.


you must operate a 2 handed weapons with two hands, to carry or reloading it, 1 hand will suffice

Again, you are responding a bit too literally. By answering like as if I don't understand the rules you come across as completely missing the point. (Not that it is easy to read nuance from internet posts, so that's okay.)



yes it is precisely so.
In previous editions, heavy crossbows had 1 extra round of loading time because you would have to put them down, take out a loader, cock the string, set the bolt, lock the crossbow again and *then* you would have been ready to shoot again. This was removed because it would have made no sense whatsoever.

If you say so

It has nothing to do with the two weapon fighting style. "light" propriety allows you to use the weapon in TWF if it is a melee weapon. light ranged weapons are simply that: small and easy to handle.

You keep saying that as if it could not be any other way.

Do note that while YOU say this, the rules do not.

I guess I have higher aspirations than you - I would have preferred it if there were no exceptions; that all light weapons could be used equally for the TWF rule...


you can use and operate a hand crossbow with 1 hand, however you won't be able to reload it if you have both hands full, exception made by the shields, which are strapped on the forearm and require the "use" of the hand only for providing AC bonus (i.e. in the brief time you are loading, you don't benefit of your Shield AC bonus, thus if someone calls for a ready action against your reload, he could shoot you with increased hit chances).
Mind that this is more of a RAI thing rather than a RAW thing, because the manual suggests you that the shield is carried in one hand, which is arguably not. Shields are carried strapped to the forearm and provide AC while wielded with one hand. The difference is that you don't need to sheathe the shield to do minor actions such as reloading and using an item which is ready to be used (e.g. contained in a bandoleer or a case or around your neck)

Let's just say I find no good reason to be mindbogglingly super-detailed in some cases, and maddeningly inexact in others. Other than that I really don't have anything to say on shields.

to better yourself at two "melee" weapon fighting.

Now you're just pulling my leg.


If you are a ranged fighter, you'd best go for archery, which provides you 2 extra damage per shot.

Again you reply as if we didn't both have a complete understanding of the basics.

Crossbow expert doesn't equal to two weapon fighting.
1) it removes the loading propriety of a crossbow, meaning you are realistically reloading at the very instant you discharge your weapon
2) you can shot at point blank without penalties
3) you can shoot twice with the same hand crossbow in the same turn, provided you have a free hand or a shield.

As you can see, it is not meant to be used while "dual wielding" crossbows rather than while using a hand xbow and a shield (or a free hand if your DM doesn't allow that RAI).

As I see it, the end result is very much the same - just like a TWF:er, you become able to use your bonus action to do one extra attack.

However, you don't need to take the Two Weapon Fighting style; freeing you to instead take Archery and STILL get your ability modifier (Dex) on damage for that extra attack.

In the end analysis: you gain range but give up... nothing.

This disadvantage is such for an untrained person. Properly trained artillery will still be effective in point blank.

What is that supposed to mean? Are you again (over-)explaining or is this an attempt at justifying why?

a level 20 fighter can discharge a weapon 3 times with an action, 3 times with an Action surge, and once with crossbow expert, the second round can use another action surge, thus other extra 7 bolts, and from the 3rd round on, he can only shoot 4 times per round.
but we're speaking about a bloody level 20 fighter, which is recognized as someone who you don't wanna piss off, not even by chance.

a more "down to earth" example is a level 5 fighter. She can discharge her hand crossbow twice per action and once per bonus action. A polearm master fighter can swing his halberd twice per action and once per bonus action (as d4 instead of d10), so we're speaking about a 10 feet long item weighting about 6lbs swung trice per 6 seconds... so? what's the big deal you're seeing here?

In short: Don't say "this doesn't turn the weapon into a semiautomatic!" like Sage did

I'd rather ask what are *you* thinking, there

I don't see any good reason why they had to invent a completely different way to shoot extra crossbow bolts when they could have used the perfectly good rules for two weapon fighting.

Please stop assuming this is a thread on understanding the rules. This is a thread where I posit that the rules are unnecessarily sloppy and counterintuitive. Thank you.

wait, wait. you're a bit confused here. Perhaps you're missing the point of the feats. Feats are "an array of perks" that better your performances. You are not compelled to benefit from the whole feat, but you clearly can, if you match all the criteria.
If you normally couldn't shoot twice in a round due the loading propriety, now you can. You wanna shoot during a reaction? now you can. You wanna shoot during a bonus action? you can do that by yourself IF you have a hand crossbow, otherwise you must be entitled of a bonus action by other means, *but now you can* where normally you couldn't.
You wanna increase your AC? hand crossbow and shield are the best way to do so! (if DM accepts RAI)

I'm just gonna let that bit slide, since you're simply not having the same conversation I'm having. Sorry.

the rules are solid, you're seeing them from the wrong perspective.

O rly?

Believe me or not, but ranged dual wield is even worse than melee dual wield. Being unable to reload your weapons prevents you do deal damage entirely, at least twf can hit for ridicolous damage :v

Sorry, what?

No, really - that's a genuine question. Or rather, yes, obviously ranged dual wield is completely hosed by the rules, so obviously it sucks.

The working alternative to melee dual wielding the rules gives us is the crossbow archer that uses a hand crossbow with the Archery style and Crosbow Expert feat. I say this has several advantages over melee but I can't find any disadvantages.



TWF is a versatile combat style, which means that it can't compete against specialized fighting styles but can still perform properly whereas other stiles could fall short.
It needs some love, yes, and perhaps it will receive it in an upcoming manual, but this has nothing to do with ranged combat, which is really awesome right now... if you can't see it, i'm sorry for you.

Don't be sorry - I have quite obviously failed to make it clear to you that, yes, I do understand the rules, I just don't like how they are constructed.