Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6974116" data-attributes="member: 12731">Edit: removed quoteI honestly think that Prism's pictured character here was what the Crossbow Expert designer had in mind.More specifically: I do not believe the designer intentionally designed the feat to screw over Prism's character here. Remember, the part about weapons with ammunition requiring a hand free is errata (and could well have been written by another designer). I think it is much more likely that this is simply a case of left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.Even more specifically: I think it is a definite possibility that the designer took one too many shortcut in his or her attempt to have the feat cover many use cases. There simply are important checks and balances that simply aren't there but would have been if the feat was slightly more complexly worded. In other words: I am convinced Crossbow Expert, the way it works currently per RAW, is a mistake. So.Edit: I mistakenly attributed the now-removed quoute to one poster when it really was from another. My complete apologies.What I believe is that Guachi did not intend any slight to fall on Prism when he said the feat's meaning was "fairly clear". To me it's fairly clear Prism realizes there is a disconnect between what he (and I) thought the feat enabled, and what the feat (with errata) actually enables.The problem with Prism's take (let's call it "ruling" or "houserule") is that it isn't enough. You can't as your only measure prohibit the bonus attack to come from the same hand crossbow as the main attacks.Why? Because using one and the same hand crossbow is the only way to make that bonus attack consistently throughout a fight. Unlike Prism, I don't consider it reasonable to practically limit the feat to one bonus attack per combat - such a feat is simply not worth the cost IMHO.To fix this mess, you would have to make many changes, and before you do that, you would want to determine what use cases the feat should support, and what benefits you should give to each supported use case. Let me show one approach:---We have the posted pictured cool characters above: two one-handed weapons (one melee, one ranged). Use case A.We have the "a single handcrossbow" case. Use case B.You have another type of crossbow. Use case C.You have another type of ranged weapon altogether (a bow). Use case D.You have two one-handed ranged weapons (two hand crossbows). Use case E.Use case F would, for completeness' sake, be two one-handed melee weapons, but let's scratch that, because that has nothing to do with this feat ;-)---Now, I would want the feat to enable use case A first and foremost. The feat should enable you to use your bonus action to make one ranged shot, in addition to your regular melee attacks. For this to be worth anyone's while, you need to be able to do this every round. For use case A, the bit about not being disadvantaged by melee foes seems perfectly reasonable (since you ARE in melee in the first place).Use case B. For this scenario this feat is completely inappropriate and completely borks the entire fantasy foundation that D&D is built upon. Yes, really. Use case C. While I don't personally feel the need, I can't say I'm overly bothered about allowing people to use a light or heavy crossbow to fire just as many times a bow can. So this is alright, I guess. However, this case should probably not allow fire in melee. (But read on...)Use case D. While I'm not fond of it, I admit that the RAI is probably to allow Legolas style. But since I'm convinced it's overpowered as hell, my concession here and now (for use cases C+D) is that you can stab orcs in the eye with your arrow, but that this counts as a d4 weapon (plus your dexterity). A slight nerf in itself, and you might think "how petty". But a much more important and necessary nerf is that since this stabby-stabby arrow now counts as a melee attack, you can't use it with Sharpshooter!Use case E. I want it to work. I understand if you don't. Either way, I can't say it is likely a concern for the designer, so I'll leave it be for this post.---What do we end up with. Something like this?CROSSBOW EXPERT * You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient. * When you use the Attack action and attack with a onehanded melee weapon, you can use a bonus action to load and attack with a hand crossbow you are holding. Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on this ranged attack roll. * You can use arrows and bolts as finesse melee weapons you are proficient with. They use a d4 for damage. They remain ammunition, which means you draw them as part of an attack, and they are expended as usual(I meant to underline every change from the PHB feat. At least I hope I did)The last third bullet part might need polishing. Let me explain and you can perhaps point out any wobbly language: the intent is for you to be able to freely draw each arrow, stab an orc, and the arrow is then used up. For your next attack you draw and use another arrow, etc (instead of a dagger being used and reused over and over).As you can see, the only scenario where you can shoot freely when you are in melee is that off-hand hand crossbow shot using the bonus action. To my mind this not only enables Prism's pictured character, it basically brings Crossbow Expert back into the light as a perfectly viable feat. Zapp</blockquote>

Verification