For hand crossbows and Crossbow expert there's some baggage from making them melee weapons that brings up questions.
This is exactly the kind of thoughtful analysis I want and need
Does that mean they get ability modifier to damage without needing the revised Sharpshooter?
How does the Two-Weapon fighting style fit in?
How does Sharpshooter fit in if either of the other two work?
The way I phrased was kind-of lazy. I looked directly at the two PHB sections I wanted to address, and just went "oh what the hell" and mentioned them. To reach industry-grade rules language, it's likely they need polish.
The intention is essentially that the feat transforms your hand crossbows into shortswords...
...for purposes of ranged attacks in close combat: they aren't ranged, they're melee, so you can shoot without disadvantage
...for purposes of two-weapon fighting: since they're now light melee weapons, two-weapon fighting applies: you can fire your off-hand hand crossbow using a bonus action, exactly like with an off-hand shortsword.
But since hand crossbows still aren't considered melee for any other purpose, they still count as ranged weapons that aren't thrown or finesse for purposes of (not) adding ability bonus to damage.
It is probably better and more clear to simply spell out how they can be used with either section without all the "used as melee weapons" malarkey.
I also need to use language that makes the interaction between Crossbow Expert and Dual Wield clear:
* bullet point 1 can apply (+1 AC when wielding twin hand crossbows). This isn't intentional, but I'm sure as heck not going to destroy the dream...
* bullet point 2 is kind of "does not apply" - there simply aren't any non-light crossbows that are one-handed
* drawing twin hand crossbows is harmless and cool, so why not?
Looking at it, I wonder if taking ability damage and also removing the fighting style might go too far in that some standard archetypes are gimped. A longbow and a longsword (or rapier), each with a fighting style, have the same chance to hit though the longbow can get a reduction from cover that it partially offsets. The longbow does d8, the longsword does d8+STR+2 (dueling style). The longsword also only takes 1 hand, so you could have a shield for +2 AC on top of it.
It also seems to hit characters who want to be able to switch between ranged and melee, by requiring feat focus on the ranged side.
Again, I understand your goals, I'm just wondering if the two rule changes together might multiply.
About the gimped archtypes, could you clarify which archetype got gimped?
Unless you mean the archer archetype...? which would make me even more confused - haven't I been clear that nerfing ranged is one of the main goals here...?
That previously longsword and longbow were "equal" (same d8, STR or DEX to damage, "same" +2 bonus) was a bad thing, and is one of the fundamental things 5e got wrong this Redux sets out to fix.
+2 to hit is MUCH better than +2 to damage by the way, so it wasn't just that the fighting styles were "equal" - Archery was actually straight-off better... even if you
don't take the frikkin 150 ft range into account...!
(If you object you need a feat to avoid disadvantage when in melee, you also need a feat to make two-weapon fighting work; and the very feat that voids the disadvantage gives you frikkin' two-weapon fighting at no extra cost
)
By making the "Archery +2" conditioned on cover, it happens significantly less often. And more importantly and much less obviously, now it only reduces a bad thing rather than being a cornerstone of reaching minmaxing heights...!
You can still gain d8+DEX to longbow, you just need to take a feat (Sharpshooter) to gain it. Otherwise melee is clearly superior damagewise, and you will hopefully choose melee every time except where you can't get it to work (vs flying perhaps), where you need to fall back on your backup weapon: your longbow.
But I probably just misunderstood you somewhere...?
