D&D 5E Does extra-attack work with bows and crossbows?

[turnip_farmer]

These rules have the same specificity. Drawing an arrow is a part of attack (and all object interaction is a part of something, it's not a separate action category), drawing a sword is a part of attack. The rules don't exempt ammunition from object interaction, as it uses the same wording as both of the examples: "part of [X]".

Now, Loading is a stronger argument, though.

If we're nitpicking (and it seems that we are), the wording is not the same.

Drawing ammunition is part of the attack.

Drawing a sword is part of the action you use to Attack.

In the latter case you have your attack, and the object interaction as a separate part of that action

In the former you have the attack, and nothing else, since everything is part of the attack

 

[Mort]

These rules have the same specificity. Drawing an arrow is a part of attack (and all object interaction is a part of something, it's not a separate action category), drawing a sword is a part of attack. The rules don't exempt ammunition from object interaction, as it uses the same wording as both of the examples: "part of [X]".

Now, Loading is a stronger argument, though.

Specifically:

The rules exempt drawing one weapon from object interaction;

The rules exempt ammunition from object interaction.


But regardless, I agree, loading is the stronger argument anyway. If your interpretation were correct, loading would be rendered completely superfluous.

 

[jgsugden]

....
Results:

[*]/ss/ + XE is nerfed from being utterly broken into a ok build

Note that there is a lot of people that disagree with the notion that Sharpshooter + Crossbow Expert is broken. It is a high investment for a quality return, but it does not break the game, as the term broken would indicate. It allows you to provide striker level damage. You can get the lower base damage and range of the hand crossbow (125 is a pain when you're wielding a hand crossbow) with the extra attack, or you can get the higher damage and range with one less attack from the bigger crossbows.

[*]Ranged-oriented characters are not straight up better than mêlée characters, and do less damage to make up for greater survivability and more chances to attack they have

Melee characters, on average, do more damage when they hit, don't face the same 'blocked attack' issues due to total cover and provide strategic limitations on enemy movement. Ranged characters are not straight up better. Each build provides benefits, but each also has limitations.

And all of these make a lot of sense to me. Could we all be playing wrong all these years?

Had people been playing this wrong for all of these years, it would have come up by now with clarification from the game designers.

I've played several ranged weapon PCs in 5E.

Tiefling (Glasya) ranger longbow archer with Divine Soul, Cleric of Order, Assassin and Battlemaster levels (RP based multiclassing - there was a long story there). Sharpshooter was the only feat this PC took. The sorcerer side of things were what made this PC highly effective. This was my favorite archer, as the archery was the 'baseline' of the PC, and there was a lot of utility work the PC provided in addition to that baseline.

Dwarven heavy crossbow fighter/rogue with crossbow expert and sharpshooter. This game featured a lot of long range naval combats. He was effective, but the warlock and their incredibly long range eldritch blasts with push were more effective.

Drow Hand Crossbow PC. This was a campaign that featured a lot of dungeon delves with smaller dungeons. The close quarters felt like they'd serve the Hand Crossbow well, but in the end the PC ended up feeling more like a polearm PC than a ranged PC.

Elven Longbow Fighter (Eldritch Knight) - Maximized Sharpshooter attacks and accuracy. We were making 6 (levels 7 to 10), 8 (levels 11 to 19) and 10 (level 20) attacks per round with action surge thanks to help from a bard and a ring of spell storing at higher levels. This PC had Winged Boots and much of the action was outside, so she was able to avoid attacks. This was my most powerful archer PC relative to the rest of the party, but even then it was not a problem. Damage was her role. She was very efficient at dealing it. Still - not broken as everyone had a blast in that campaign.

 

[Umbran]

This is why Artificers have the Repeating Shot infusion...

(Edit: most of my argument had been presented by other posts I'd not read yet.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

@loverdrive

I see your point. The way it's written, if you're looking at it in this context, is very unclear and would appear to have your interpretation. However, given this hasn't come up at all from the designers, and that multiple attacking ranged NPCs using bows seem designed as intended. I think this is a case where the natural language approach has a hiccup. RAI is very much that you're not using object interaction for ammunition, even though, as written, this is not at all clear.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Did ... did we really think EVERYONE has been doing something this major wrong since 5E came out and it NEVER came up before?

 

[Li Shenron]

These rules have the same specificity.

This is likely what got you confused.

Drawing an ammunition is always interacting with an object

Interacting with an object is not always drawing an ammunition.

Clearly, they don't have the same specificity.

 

[Ancalagon]

And all of these make a lot of sense to me. Could we all be playing wrong all these years?

EDIT: I was wrong, disregard that post!

 

[loverdrive]

@loverdrive

I see your point. The way it's written, if you're looking at it in this context, is very unclear and would appear to have your interpretation. However, given this hasn't come up at all from the designers, and that multiple attacking ranged NPCs using bows seem designed as intended. I think this is a case where the natural language approach has a hiccup. RAI is very much that you're not using object interaction for ammunition, even though, as written, this is not at all clear.

Yeah, I've figured that.

I got a bit hanged up on that, since it elegantly fixes all my issues with ranged weapons, but, no, 3 hand crossbow attacks 1d6+15 Piecing each is the way it supposed to work.

 

[Ancalagon]

Anyway, my second comment on this issue

First I don't agree with your interpretation. However, I feel compelled to note that it is beyond absurd that a bow can draw an arrow for free several times a round but the drawing part of throwing a dagger isn't. It one case, you have long narrow objects with a barb at the end packed together in a tube. In the other, you have them individually packaged and with a handy "grabbing" handle....