I’m trying to understand how many attacks a heavy crossbow user with crossbow expert gets as a martial at 5th level. Do they get the 2nd attack or due to needing to load ammunition just one?

They get a second attack since they can ignore the loading property. And if they are a fighter 11, they get thee attacks, and so on.

They still must abide by the ammunition property -- having sufficient bolts, but they can shoot as many times as they have attacks. 

Quote from Xalthu >>

They get a second attack since they can ignore the loading property. And if they are a fighter 11, they get thee attacks, and so on.

They still must abide by the ammunition property -- having sufficient bolts, but they can shoot as many times as they have attacks. 

 Thank you. I was super not sure.

Yeah the feat's 1st benefit is especially designed to allow Extra Attack.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Yeah the feat's 1st benefit is especially designed to allow Extra Attack.

 Thanks, makes it more powerful yhan I interperted it. 

This is where this feat really annoys me. The balance between realism and fantasy is flat out broken with this.

Heavy crossbows require a tool to reload because they are too powerful to draw by hand, even for the most powerful of soldiers (we're in the region of several hundred pounds to pull back to lock the string). There is no way anyone is firing a crossbow, attaching the winch, winching the string back into place, loading, shouldering and firing accurately again in six seconds on a regular basis (they might fluke it now and again if the tool doesn't involve ropes). Doing that twice after the first shot has gone well beyond the realm of fantasy. I don't care what level you are, without magical assistance, that's just not happening.

Personal choice: I don't allow weapons to ignore the loading property unless an Artificer gets involved.

If you're going to insist on that level of realism, longbows should require 17+ strength score.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

If you're going to insist on that level of realism, longbows should require 17+ strength score.

 And magic spells shouldn't exist

Quote from DrJawaPhD >>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

If you're going to insist on that level of realism, longbows should require 17+ strength score.

 And magic spells shouldn't exist

 And there is no such thing as studded leather armor. And probably a chance of hitting yourself in the head with a (one handed) flail or morning star.

Quote from Foodgeek >>

Quote from DrJawaPhD >>

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

If you're going to insist on that level of realism, longbows should require 17+ strength score.

 And magic spells shouldn't exist

 And there is no such thing as studded leather armor. And probably a chance of hitting yourself in the head with a (one handed) flail or morning star.

 And you are never going to reliably sleep for 8 hours every night. (I know I know, 6 hours) And not to mention being on deaths door and being able to sleep it off.

I would like the rules of the Feat changed. As it is part of it applies to all ranged attacks. If it's for crossbows and it is named crossbow then it should only apply to crossbows.

IIRC, that was a deliberate design choice to insure that the feat wasn't overspecialized the way many 3rd Edition feats were.

I just think it's silly to take CROSSBOW feat to be better at throwing things or using a blowgun or a net.

Quote from Foodgeek >>

And probably a chance of hitting yourself in the head with a (one handed) flail or morning star.

 This already exists on Nat-1's, at least at tables I've played at :)

Sometimes we say you hit yourself, other times an ally, whatever is funnier

Quote from DrJawaPhD >>

Quote from Foodgeek >>

And probably a chance of hitting yourself in the head with a (one handed) flail or morning star.

 This already exists on Nat-1's, at least at tables I've played at :)

Sometimes we say you hit yourself, other times an ally, whatever is funnier

 That's a house rule.  Even as far back as 2nd Edition, the only penalty for rolling a nat 1 was automatic failure, and 5E doesn't even have that rule.

Actually, I think nat 1 is an auto-fail on attack rolls, but only on attack rolls. Yup, it's right there in the PHB

If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC.

I personally never liked removing the loading property of heavy crossbows. Standard crossbows yes but not the heavy ones you need tools to load.

To offset the slow firing rate I would make the range and damage higher. At least equal to a long bow firing twice.

Crossbows should also be easier to learn to use fully than standard bows.

1 extra point of damage over a longbow on average is not worth only ever being able to make a single attack per round.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

1 extra point of damage over a longbow on average is not worth only ever being able to make a single attack per round.

 I recall it being worse before. Meaning the rate was 1/2 vs 2 shots per round.

Regarding learning how to use a bow vs crossbow it doesn't matter at all in D&D. 

Giving heavy crossbows a range and damage boost while preventing them from being used more than once per round regardless of feats would only mean that they became a weapon for rogues and basically no one else.