Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7228177" data-attributes="member: 6778044">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.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.Personally, I think automatic success is overpowered (and kind of against the design/spirit of the rest of the game).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.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 turnIncreased 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?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 -</blockquote>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.[/QUOTE]

Verification