Not sure why NHL rules were pulled when i was making a statement on hockey in general just to illustrate the conditional aspect. I could have just said;
In beer pong, if you throw the ball into a cup of the opposing team, it drink. Does it only count once during a game? Or if you do it multiple times, each time count?
Because you made a false claim and hung your argument on it. By the way IIHF rule 78.4 is constructed identically.
If you're going to make a claim about rules, then you should use rules and not your inventions.
You can misstate the rules or phrase them in a way that is different then they are (or would be) written in rulebooks, but that is still and will always be wrong. That is a problem on your end, not the rule's.
I did not invent or missuse any rules, nor did i made a false claim. There's nothing true or false to be verified, i was not even talking about NHL rules! You misunderstood if you think that. I made a general statement I could come with tons of exemples all essentially comming to the same effect, "If you do X, you can do Y" sorta statement.
The problem is on your end getting 1 specific hockey league rules unecessarily to prove an unrelated point i did not make about NHL, following with unfounded accusation. You've been corrected, i hope that clears it up for you on my statement and intentions.
I'm not a programmer or anything, but I can't help but think of the "If/Then" programming uh... rule? Like... "If you press the A button, Then Mario jumps". I think that's why I interpret the Gloomstalker's Dread Ambusher as "If you take the attack action on your first turn of combat, then you may make one additional attack". I do not see any language that states "If you have already taken this additional attack, then you cannot take this attack again." It can be assumed based on the DM's interpretation, but it is not clearly stated as with other similar abilities. We have seen from text from the people who wrote the book that they are aware of the fact that this can be combined with Action Surge... there is more evidence supporting the idea of Dread Ambusher being able to combine with Action Surge than there is evidence against it.
Now, if you want to argue that it's poorly balanced or that it shouldn't work this way, then I think that's totally valid. There's a lot of weird combinations in D&D that ended up way more unbalanced and weird than were necessarily intended, and I think it's fair to say, "Yeah, that's what it says literally in the book, but it shouldn't work that way because it ruins game balance."
Not sure why NHL rules were pulled when i was making a statement on hockey in general just to illustrate the conditional aspect. I could have just said;
In beer pong, if you throw the ball into a cup of the opposing team, it drink. Does it only count once during a game? Or if you do it multiple times, each time count?
Because you made a false claim and hung your argument on it. By the way IIHF rule 78.4 is constructed identically.
If you're going to make a claim about rules, then you should use rules and not your inventions.
You can misstate the rules or phrase them in a way that is different then they are (or would be) written in rulebooks, but that is still and will always be wrong. That is a problem on your end, not the rule's.
I did not invent or missuse any rules, nor did i made a false claim. There's nothing true or false to be verified, i was not even talking about NHL rules! You misunderstood if you think that. I made a general statement I could come with tons of exemples all essentially comming to the same effect, "If you do X, you can do Y" sorta statement.
The problem is on your end getting 1 specific hockey league rules unecessarily to prove an unrelated point i did not make about NHL, following with unfounded accusation. You've been corrected, i hope that clears it up for you on my statement and intentions.
Stop. Just stop. You have repeatedly written your very own text on these forums, and then claimed not to have authored (invented) that text. That is disingenuous and bad faith at best. Or it shows a misunderstanding of authorship.
If you aren't talking about the rules of a specific game, then you're not talking about rules. And if you are making a semantic argument based on rules then the semantics of those rules effing matter, SO THE GAME MATTERS. It is bad form to make an argument based on semantics of rules then cry foul when I point out that you got the semantics wrong. Stop.
Not sure why NHL rules were pulled when i was making a statement on hockey in general just to illustrate the conditional aspect. I could have just said;
In beer pong, if you throw the ball into a cup of the opposing team, it drink. Does it only count once during a game? Or if you do it multiple times, each time count?
Because you made a false claim and hung your argument on it. By the way IIHF rule 78.4 is constructed identically.
If you're going to make a claim about rules, then you should use rules and not your inventions.
You can misstate the rules or phrase them in a way that is different then they are (or would be) written in rulebooks, but that is still and will always be wrong. That is a problem on your end, not the rule's.
I did not invent or missuse any rules, nor did i made a false claim. There's nothing true or false to be verified, i was not even talking about NHL rules! You misunderstood if you think that. I made a general statement I could come with tons of exemples all essentially comming to the same effect, "If you do X, you can do Y" sorta statement.
The problem is on your end getting 1 specific hockey league rules unecessarily to prove an unrelated point i did not make about NHL, following with unfounded accusation. You've been corrected, i hope that clears it up for you on my statement and intentions.
Stop. Just stop. You have repeatedly written your very own text on these forums, and then claimed not to have authored (invented) that text. That is disingenuous and bad faith at best. Or it shows a misunderstanding of authorship.
If you aren't talking about the rules of a specific game, then you're not talking about rules. And if you are making a semantic argument based on rules then the semantics of those rules effing matter, SO THE GAME MATTERS. It is bad form to make an argument based on semantics of rules then cry foul when I point out that you got the semantics wrong. Stop.
Wow please stop you're the one being desingeneous and making strawman on top of that. You pull NHL rules to prove me wrong when i wasn't even talking about NHL rules and when pointed out, now i made an argument on somantics i somehow got wrong??? If you can't address people's actual post, please refrain. If you have something to address on my actual statement about IF please do. But don't make strawman and then accuse others of mistating rules they didn't even discuss in the first place. This is not appreciated.
If/Then rules can be constructed in two ways. Dread Ambusher is constructed such that for each action that the If is true, the then applies. This is entirely due to the construction of the "then" statement in the rule and not generic to If/then rules.
If/Then rules need not be constructed that way. Some if then statements allow one true If statement to apply to multiple results.
"Hockey" doesn't have rules. Various hockey leagues and groups such as the NHL or IIHF will adopt their own rules.
Statements on rules require some genuine attempt to use actual rules.
Oh yeah, and statements that you author are made up by you.
Not sure why NHL rules were pulled when i was making a statement on hockey in general just to illustrate the conditional aspect. I could have just said;
In beer pong, if you throw the ball into a cup of the opposing team, it drink. Does it only count once during a game? Or if you do it multiple times, each time count?
We are discussing wheether "if" means the same as "whenever" as suggested by AntonSirius. For the example of hockey (or beer pong) to be relevent you need to know whether the rules say "if" or "whenever"/"when".
You are ignoring my point. Lets look at Slayer's Prey:
I am not ignoring your point Slayer's Prey like monster player activates on a hit. It is possible to hit more than once without actions surge (I suppose this is not really relevent other than to provide an excurse to WotC for unclear wording in that while they word things carefuly around class abilities with all the hundreds of class and subclass features available when characters multiclass it is much more difficult to ensure the wording is not unambiguous for every single combination)
As I keep saying these features make it very clear they can only be used once per turn, extra attack makes it very clear it can take effect more than once per turn. Dread Ambusher does not use either of these terms and therefore the meaning is unclear. A couple of tweets have been brought up that imply RAI it may be that dread ambusher was intended to astack with action surge (though in areas tweets have contradicted each other) but those tweets have not made it into the SAC and therefore are not part of the rules and therefore RAW we are left with an ambiguity.
If fact you keep ignoreing my point why is it different ot say "if dread ambusher was meant to stack with action surge they would have worded it like extra attack" rather than "if Dread Ambusher was not meant to stack with action surge they would have worded it like Slayer's prey / monster slayer".
No I am not ignoring your point at all. In one of my earlier posts I explicitly gave an example of an ability similar to Dread Ambusher (the Samurai's Rapid Strike) that has additional wording that prevents it from triggering more than once per turn. Then I gave examples of other Ranger abilities that have wording to limit its uses to once per turn. Which is something Dread Ambusher does not have. Therefore I feel my argument of Dread Ambusher being able to be triggered more than once on the first turn is valid RAW.
You have still given no solid evidence to counter my arguments besides random examples of washing cars and hockey?
an ability similar to Dread Ambusher (the Samurai's Rapid Strike) that has additional wording that prevents it from triggering more than once per turn.
The Samurai Rapid Strike is a very good exemple that "If you X, you can Y" has no use limit otherwise additional wording "you can do so no more than once per turn" would be unecessary.
an ability similar to Dread Ambusher (the Samurai's Rapid Strike) that has additional wording that prevents it from triggering more than once per turn.
The Samurai Rapid Strike is a very good exemple that "If you X, you can Y" has no use limit otherwise additional wording "you can do so no more than once per turn" would be unecessary.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is kind of like the concept of "Legal Precedent". Even if a specific law isn't in the books, other, similar laws and legal decisions can be used to clarify these muddy situations.
an ability similar to Dread Ambusher (the Samurai's Rapid Strike) that has additional wording that prevents it from triggering more than once per turn.
The Samurai Rapid Strike is a very good exemple that "If you X, you can Y" has no use limit otherwise additional wording "you can do so no more than once per turn" would be unecessary.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is kind of like the concept of "Legal Precedent". Even if a specific law isn't in the books, other, similar laws and legal decisions can be used to clarify these muddy situations.
Arguing that a Gloomstalker's 3rd-level feature can grant more extra attacks in a turn than a Samurai's 15th-level feature is definitely one way to go about it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm not saying it's balanced or even that it's something DMs should allow in the game... I'm just saying this is the Rules & Mechanics forum, and there's more precedent for the fact that Dread Ambusher can trigger multiple times in a turn if a Ranger manages to make two distinct Attack Actions in that same turn than there is evidence that it absolutely, 100% cannot.
I don't think it was an oversight on the Designer's perspective... I think they thought the fact that it only triggers on one round is balance enough for the ability. I think they were probably wrong about that... two extra attacks that also deal an additional d8 damage is going to unbalance the game. It is way too easy to cheese out the system with this... if you were to focus on, say, the Samurai subclass we discussed and took the Elven Accuracy feat and, God Forbid, the Sharpshooter feat as well, even with mediocre stats you could absolutely demolish almost any challenge, even against High AC enemies in one round, and everyone else in the party will be stuck twiddling their thumbs wishing they had something to do. Now the DM needs to populate every fight with a dozen extra damage sponge enemies just so every combat doesn't end in 1 round.
an ability similar to Dread Ambusher (the Samurai's Rapid Strike) that has additional wording that prevents it from triggering more than once per turn.
The Samurai Rapid Strike is a very good exemple that "If you X, you can Y" has no use limit otherwise additional wording "you can do so no more than once per turn" would be unecessary.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is kind of like the concept of "Legal Precedent". Even if a specific law isn't in the books, other, similar laws and legal decisions can be used to clarify these muddy situations.
Arguing that a Gloomstalker's 3rd-level feature can grant more extra attacks in a turn than a Samurai's 15th-level feature is definitely one way to go about it
Rapid Strike grant can grant more extra attacks in a combat than Dread Ambusher, not being limited to a single turn so level reflects that. But essentially it's about wording alone, not level.
Arguing that a Gloomstalker's 3rd-level feature can grant more extra attacks in a turn than a Samurai's 15th-level feature is definitely one way to go about it
In "a" turn yes. In one turn in one combat per short rest when combined with a limited resource (Action Surge) the level 3 feature can indeed give you one more attack than what the level 15 feature does. Does that really seem so strange or overpowered?
Rapid Strike otoh can potentially give you an extra attack on every turn in every combat during an adventuring day.
If fact you keep ignoreing my point why is it different ot say "if dread ambusher was meant to stack with action surge they would have worded it like extra attack" rather than "if Dread Ambusher was not meant to stack with action surge they would have worded it like Slayer's prey / monster slayer".
But they DID word it like extra attack. Yes they didn't use the exact same wording but they used words with the exact same meaning. And the reason that they used slightly different wording is partly because that WotC decided long ago to use natural language instead of machine code but mainly because of the very simple fact that you cannot use the "whenever" wording on a feature that is restricted to be used only once per combat. "whenever" and "not whenever" are two mutually exclusive concepts and having both on the same feature would be really stupid and confusing and thus they used different words.
And all of that means that the fact that they worded the allowing language a bit differently means a lot less than what the fact that they didn't include any of the restrictive language at all means.
Arguing that a Gloomstalker's 3rd-level feature can grant more extra attacks in a turn than a Samurai's 15th-level feature is definitely one way to go about it
In "a" turn yes. In one turn in one combat per short rest when combined with a limited resource (Action Surge) the level 3 feature can indeed give you one more attack than what the level 15 feature does. Does that really seem so strange or overpowered?
Rapid Strike otoh can potentially give you an extra attack on every turn in every combat during an adventuring day.
Actually we both have the math wrong. Rapid Strike plus Action Surge at 15th level equals a max of seven attacks (3 becoming 4, then another 3)
So to sum up: at seventh level, a multiclass Gloomstalker can make the same number of max attacks on one turn as a 15th-level samurai, but can assure themselves of being able to do it without needing another condition (advantage) to be met first, while also potentially doing an extra 2d8 damage, getting more movement and getting a bonus on initiative rolls as part of the deal
I stand by my characterization of this as absurd, but if it fits your campaign style, more power to you
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Actually we both have the math wrong. Rapid Strike plus Action Surge at 15th level equals a max of seven attacks (3 becoming 4, then another 3)
So to sum up: at seventh level, a multiclass Gloomstalker can make the same number of max attacks on one turn as a 15th-level samurai, but can assure themselves of being able to do it without needing another condition (advantage) to be met first, while also potentially doing an extra 2d8 damage, getting more movement and getting a bonus on initiative rolls as part of the deal
I stand by my characterization of this as absurd, but if it fits your campaign style, more power to you
Nothing in that is a valid argument about the mechanics of the rules and how Dread Ambusher and Action Surge interacts though. If you don't like the power level of the Gloom Stalker then by all means make a houserule to nerf it or stop it from multi-classing.
Actually we both have the math wrong. Rapid Strike plus Action Surge at 15th level equals a max of seven attacks (3 becoming 4, then another 3)
So to sum up: at seventh level, a multiclass Gloomstalker can make the same number of max attacks on one turn as a 15th-level samurai, but can assure themselves of being able to do it without needing another condition (advantage) to be met first, while also potentially doing an extra 2d8 damage, getting more movement and getting a bonus on initiative rolls as part of the deal
I stand by my characterization of this as absurd, but if it fits your campaign style, more power to you
Nothing in that is a valid argument about the mechanics of the rules and how Dread Ambusher and Action Surge interacts though. If you don't like the power level of the Gloom Stalker then by all means make a houserule to nerf it or stop it from multi-classing.
Since I wasn't trying to make such an argument there, maybe we can be done here now?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Multi-Classing is, by definition, and Optional Rule. Hell, Feats are optional rules as well. So in that regard Dread Ambusher is less overly powerful for a third level skill mostly because, unless the DM explicitly allows multiclassing, there's really no way to double up on that additional attack by a pure Ranger.
Did they change the rules for Crossbow Expert? People saying 7 attacks with Action Surge, but it would be 6. A Crossbow is a 2handed weapon, and crossbow expert bonus action attack is for a hand crossbow after you make a ONE handed attack.
That makes sense but this seems all kind of moot. You're way better off using Hunter's Mark as your bonus action and getting the extra d6 on 6 attacks, and getting the 6d10's from crossbow, than getting 7d6's from hand crossbow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I did not invent or missuse any rules, nor did i made a false claim. There's nothing true or false to be verified, i was not even talking about NHL rules! You misunderstood if you think that. I made a general statement I could come with tons of exemples all essentially comming to the same effect, "If you do X, you can do Y" sorta statement.
The problem is on your end getting 1 specific hockey league rules unecessarily to prove an unrelated point i did not make about NHL, following with unfounded accusation. You've been corrected, i hope that clears it up for you on my statement and intentions.
I'm not a programmer or anything, but I can't help but think of the "If/Then" programming uh... rule? Like... "If you press the A button, Then Mario jumps". I think that's why I interpret the Gloomstalker's Dread Ambusher as "If you take the attack action on your first turn of combat, then you may make one additional attack". I do not see any language that states "If you have already taken this additional attack, then you cannot take this attack again." It can be assumed based on the DM's interpretation, but it is not clearly stated as with other similar abilities. We have seen from text from the people who wrote the book that they are aware of the fact that this can be combined with Action Surge... there is more evidence supporting the idea of Dread Ambusher being able to combine with Action Surge than there is evidence against it.
Now, if you want to argue that it's poorly balanced or that it shouldn't work this way, then I think that's totally valid. There's a lot of weird combinations in D&D that ended up way more unbalanced and weird than were necessarily intended, and I think it's fair to say, "Yeah, that's what it says literally in the book, but it shouldn't work that way because it ruins game balance."
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Stop. Just stop. You have repeatedly written your very own text on these forums, and then claimed not to have authored (invented) that text. That is disingenuous and bad faith at best. Or it shows a misunderstanding of authorship.
If you aren't talking about the rules of a specific game, then you're not talking about rules. And if you are making a semantic argument based on rules then the semantics of those rules effing matter, SO THE GAME MATTERS. It is bad form to make an argument based on semantics of rules then cry foul when I point out that you got the semantics wrong. Stop.
Wow please stop you're the one being desingeneous and making strawman on top of that. You pull NHL rules to prove me wrong when i wasn't even talking about NHL rules and when pointed out, now i made an argument on somantics i somehow got wrong??? If you can't address people's actual post, please refrain. If you have something to address on my actual statement about IF please do. But don't make strawman and then accuse others of mistating rules they didn't even discuss in the first place. This is not appreciated.
I have made my point above. Please read it.
To summarize:
No I am not ignoring your point at all. In one of my earlier posts I explicitly gave an example of an ability similar to Dread Ambusher (the Samurai's Rapid Strike) that has additional wording that prevents it from triggering more than once per turn. Then I gave examples of other Ranger abilities that have wording to limit its uses to once per turn. Which is something Dread Ambusher does not have. Therefore I feel my argument of Dread Ambusher being able to be triggered more than once on the first turn is valid RAW.
You have still given no solid evidence to counter my arguments besides random examples of washing cars and hockey?
The Samurai Rapid Strike is a very good exemple that "If you X, you can Y" has no use limit otherwise additional wording "you can do so no more than once per turn" would be unecessary.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is kind of like the concept of "Legal Precedent". Even if a specific law isn't in the books, other, similar laws and legal decisions can be used to clarify these muddy situations.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Arguing that a Gloomstalker's 3rd-level feature can grant more extra attacks in a turn than a Samurai's 15th-level feature is definitely one way to go about it
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm not saying it's balanced or even that it's something DMs should allow in the game... I'm just saying this is the Rules & Mechanics forum, and there's more precedent for the fact that Dread Ambusher can trigger multiple times in a turn if a Ranger manages to make two distinct Attack Actions in that same turn than there is evidence that it absolutely, 100% cannot.
I don't think it was an oversight on the Designer's perspective... I think they thought the fact that it only triggers on one round is balance enough for the ability. I think they were probably wrong about that... two extra attacks that also deal an additional d8 damage is going to unbalance the game. It is way too easy to cheese out the system with this... if you were to focus on, say, the Samurai subclass we discussed and took the Elven Accuracy feat and, God Forbid, the Sharpshooter feat as well, even with mediocre stats you could absolutely demolish almost any challenge, even against High AC enemies in one round, and everyone else in the party will be stuck twiddling their thumbs wishing they had something to do. Now the DM needs to populate every fight with a dozen extra damage sponge enemies just so every combat doesn't end in 1 round.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Rapid Strike grant can grant more extra attacks in a combat than Dread Ambusher, not being limited to a single turn so level reflects that. But essentially it's about wording alone, not level.
In "a" turn yes. In one turn in one combat per short rest when combined with a limited resource (Action Surge) the level 3 feature can indeed give you one more attack than what the level 15 feature does. Does that really seem so strange or overpowered?
Rapid Strike otoh can potentially give you an extra attack on every turn in every combat during an adventuring day.
But they DID word it like extra attack. Yes they didn't use the exact same wording but they used words with the exact same meaning. And the reason that they used slightly different wording is partly because that WotC decided long ago to use natural language instead of machine code but mainly because of the very simple fact that you cannot use the "whenever" wording on a feature that is restricted to be used only once per combat. "whenever" and "not whenever" are two mutually exclusive concepts and having both on the same feature would be really stupid and confusing and thus they used different words.
And all of that means that the fact that they worded the allowing language a bit differently means a lot less than what the fact that they didn't include any of the restrictive language at all means.
Actually we both have the math wrong. Rapid Strike plus Action Surge at 15th level equals a max of seven attacks (3 becoming 4, then another 3)
So to sum up: at seventh level, a multiclass Gloomstalker can make the same number of max attacks on one turn as a 15th-level samurai, but can assure themselves of being able to do it without needing another condition (advantage) to be met first, while also potentially doing an extra 2d8 damage, getting more movement and getting a bonus on initiative rolls as part of the deal
I stand by my characterization of this as absurd, but if it fits your campaign style, more power to you
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Nothing in that is a valid argument about the mechanics of the rules and how Dread Ambusher and Action Surge interacts though. If you don't like the power level of the Gloom Stalker then by all means make a houserule to nerf it or stop it from multi-classing.
Since I wasn't trying to make such an argument there, maybe we can be done here now?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Multi-Classing is, by definition, and Optional Rule. Hell, Feats are optional rules as well. So in that regard Dread Ambusher is less overly powerful for a third level skill mostly because, unless the DM explicitly allows multiclassing, there's really no way to double up on that additional attack by a pure Ranger.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Did they change the rules for Crossbow Expert? People saying 7 attacks with Action Surge, but it would be 6. A Crossbow is a 2handed weapon, and crossbow expert bonus action attack is for a hand crossbow after you make a ONE handed attack.
You can use the same hand crossbow to make all the attacks.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
That makes sense but this seems all kind of moot. You're way better off using Hunter's Mark as your bonus action and getting the extra d6 on 6 attacks, and getting the 6d10's from crossbow, than getting 7d6's from hand crossbow.