What are you trying to say? It's in the general list of magic weapons. There is no restriction in the text.
They dont really have a good way of showing it, but the artificer tag is supposed to be what indicates it is made by an artificer.
All of the artificer infusions were made into magic items to make the feature work. They are not magic items in any book. It is kind of like how they made the revenant double-bladed scimitar was made into a magic item to make the revenant blade feat function. These are not indicated by any sourcebook to be magic items that can be found in the world.
Not unless you homebrew a mechanic that would allow the character to somehow reload both, as a bonus action. Maybe they could sacrifice both their bonus and movement to achieve this. You could consider if the character has access to Haste and the feat Crossbow Expert I guess mechanically that could work. It would really be up to the D.M on this one.
Not unless you homebrew a mechanic that would allow the character to somehow reload both, as a bonus action. Maybe they could sacrifice both their bonus and movement to achieve this. You could consider if the character has access to Haste and the feat Crossbow Expert I guess mechanically that could work. It would really be up to the D.M on this one.
[Tooltip Not Found] says you ignore the loading property and it makes its own ammunition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"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?"
Ackchually, the infusion lets you ignore the loading property, but not the ammunition property, AFAICT...
The Crossbow Expert lets you ignore the loading property. The Infusion removes the need for ammunition.
Quoth the [Tooltip Not Found]:
"[...] it ignores the loading property if it has it."
Note the the description does not, in fact, contain any such wording about the ammunition property. Thing is, putting a bolt in is only a small portion of loading a crossbow, hand or otherwise. The main part is cocking it, on which the description is silent. Leading me to believe that it was intended to leave the ammunition property intact.
Yes, I get that. I mostly posted for Sigred who keeps proclaiming there is nothing in the game that would allow you to do it short of homebrew.
1) I've made one post on that subject, and the comment itself was in passing.
2) It's still true. That isn't an official, public item. It's a placeholder for a class ability. Nice try.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
"[...] it ignores the loading property if it has it."
Note the the description does not, in fact, contain any such wording about the ammunition property. Thing is, putting a bolt in is only a small portion of loading a crossbow, hand or otherwise. The main part is cocking it, on which the description is silent. Leading me to believe that it was intended to leave the ammunition property intact.
Repeating Shot Weapon states "The weapon requires no ammunition"
Ammunition Property states "You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)."
The Ammunition Property has no other requirements beyond requiring the ammunition itself.
"[...] it ignores the loading property if it has it."
Note the the description does not, in fact, contain any such wording about the ammunition property. Thing is, putting a bolt in is only a small portion of loading a crossbow, hand or otherwise. The main part is cocking it, on which the description is silent. Leading me to believe that it was intended to leave the ammunition property intact.
"The weapon requires no ammunition"
[Inigo Montoya] You keep using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means. [\IM] (general you in this thread, not you in particular)
I read the same text and I can see why you would think that, but it doesn't say that you can ignore the ammunition property. They do explicitly mention that you can ignore the loading property. So, RAW says the ammunition property remains in place, despite the weapon providing its own ammunition item.
It's perfectly fine to say that is not RAI, but until there is some comment from the designers, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
And my, like, opinion is that the RAW fit with the in-world description, man. Because that sounds like the Ranger's bow in the old D&D cartoon, in that the action of drawing the string back causes the ammunition to appear. YMMV, I guess. If the designers have clarified that RAI is to ignore the ammunition property, I will happily concede that I misjudged their intent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
"[...] it ignores the loading property if it has it."
Note the the description does not, in fact, contain any such wording about the ammunition property. Thing is, putting a bolt in is only a small portion of loading a crossbow, hand or otherwise. The main part is cocking it, on which the description is silent. Leading me to believe that it was intended to leave the ammunition property intact.
"The weapon requires no ammunition"
[Inigo Montoya] You keep using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means. [\IM] (general you in this thread, not you in particular)
I read the same text and I can see why you would think that, but it doesn't say that you can ignore the ammunition property. They do explicitly mention that you can ignore the loading property. So, RAW says the ammunition property remains in place, despite the weapon providing its own ammunition item.
It's perfectly fine to say that is not RAI, but until there is some comment from the designers, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
And my, like, opinion is that the RAW fit with the in-world description, man. Because that sounds like the Ranger's bow in the old D&D cartoon, in that the action of drawing the string back causes the ammunition to appear. YMMV, I guess. If the designers have clarified that RAI is to ignore the ammunition property, I will happily concede that I misjudged their intent.
Donny, you're out of your element.
The Artificer Infusion in question does not remove the Ammunition property for three main reasons:
The infusion explicitly requires that the weapon being infused has the Ammunition property.
The infusion does not prevent the weapon from being manually loaded with physical ammunition.
If the Ammunition property were removed, the weapon could no longer be loaded with things like Ammunition, +1.
It is unnecessary to begin with.
It is readily apparent what the infusion does. It ignores the Loading property. It circumvents the restrictions set by the Ammunition property, but does not change them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
"[...] it ignores the loading property if it has it."
Note the the description does not, in fact, contain any such wording about the ammunition property. Thing is, putting a bolt in is only a small portion of loading a crossbow, hand or otherwise. The main part is cocking it, on which the description is silent. Leading me to believe that it was intended to leave the ammunition property intact.
"The weapon requires no ammunition"
[Inigo Montoya] You keep using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means. [\IM] (general you in this thread, not you in particular)
I read the same text and I can see why you would think that, but it doesn't say that you can ignore the ammunition property. They do explicitly mention that you can ignore the loading property. So, RAW says the ammunition property remains in place, despite the weapon providing its own ammunition item.
It's perfectly fine to say that is not RAI, but until there is some comment from the designers, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
And my, like, opinion is that the RAW fit with the in-world description, man. Because that sounds like the Ranger's bow in the old D&D cartoon, in that the action of drawing the string back causes the ammunition to appear. YMMV, I guess. If the designers have clarified that RAI is to ignore the ammunition property, I will happily concede that I misjudged their intent.
Donny, you're out of your element.
The Artificer Infusion in question does not remove the Ammunition property for three main reasons:
The infusion explicitly requires that the weapon being infused has the Ammunition property.
The infusion does not prevent the weapon from being manually loaded with physical ammunition.
If the Ammunition property were removed, the weapon could no longer be loaded with things like Ammunition, +1.
It is unnecessary to begin with.
It is readily apparent what the infusion does. It ignores the Loading property. It circumvents the restrictions set by the Ammunition property, but does not change them.
This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man.
W.r.t. point 1, I would say that it is not necessary for a weapon to have the property required for applying the infusion, once the infusion is applied. So at the time of infusion, the weapon has the necessary properties, once the infusion is in place, requirements are not checked. With respect to points 1 and 2, note that it doesn't remove any properties, the weapon (not the infusion) ignores one of them.
The crux of our disagreement, however, lies in point three. As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), you assume that the ammunition is the sole component of loading the weapon and that is the full basis for the restriction. But that leaves the question of why they did not say that you can choose to ignore the ammunition property.
I contend that the infusion simply acts as a source of ammunition, just like a quiver, case or other container. Thus, while you don't need to carry the ammunition, you still need to load the weapon. The infusion doesn't say it loads the weapon for you. And as I said before, when loading a crossbow, you don't just need a hand to put in the bolt. [ETA, the same goes for a sling and the bullet, which is another one-handed weapon with the ammunition property] The text does not say that it loads it for you, it does not say that you are allowed to ignore any restriction due to the ammunition property. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Or, the exception proves the rule. Take your pick.
I will grant that the wording "[..] unless you manually load it" introduces some ambiguity, but that is the only thing I see that supports your position. But if you concede that the weapon still has the ammunition property (and the loading property, technically), then the restrictions still apply. Even if the ammunition is supplied by the weapon, as opposed to a quiver.
I will grant that the wording "[..] unless you manually load it" introduces some ambiguity, but that is the only thing I see that supports your position. But if you concede that the weapon still has the ammunition property (and the loading property, technically), then the restrictions still apply. Even if the ammunition is supplied by the weapon, as opposed to a quiver.
I believe the "unless you manually load it" heavily implies that you simply don't need to otherwise. That is there probably so that you can load special ammunition if you want to. Otherwise it could imply that you couldn't do that and it will always use the infusion's ammunition regardless.
Not unless you homebrew a mechanic that would allow the character to somehow reload both, as a bonus action. Maybe they could sacrifice both their bonus and movement to achieve this. You could consider if the character has access to Haste and the feat Crossbow Expert I guess mechanically that could work. It would really be up to the D.M on this one.
repeating shot weapon says you ignore the loading property and it makes its own ammunition.
Well that simplifies things, and I learned of a new item so thank you. I'd still like to try and explore if Haste coupled with Crossbow Expert would be another viable option. Though both of these would still depend on your DM, so having a conversation with them is your best bet.
You guys are arguing about this but the actual answer to the original question is simply no. By that I mean there is no adventures league legal way to dual wield hand crossbows. The only way to do it is using UA material, unofficial Ebberon content, or home brew. That might change when the new Ebberon book comes out but that's the way it is at the moment. Let's see what the book says when this content is official.
I will grant that the wording "[..] unless you manually load it" introduces some ambiguity, but that is the only thing I see that supports your position. But if you concede that the weapon still has the ammunition property (and the loading property, technically), then the restrictions still apply. Even if the ammunition is supplied by the weapon, as opposed to a quiver.
I believe the "unless you manually load it" heavily implies that you simply don't need to otherwise. That is there probably so that you can load special ammunition if you want to. Otherwise it could imply that you couldn't do that and it will always use the infusion's ammunition regardless.
I agree on that the wording implies it, but the rules are not generally based on implications. They state what they do, this is something the designers have stated again and again (just look at most Sage Advice responses).
I would say that, under either interpretation they made a mistake with their wording. Under your interpretation, they failed to follow their own ground-rules about explicit statements w.r.t. the ammunition property and its restrictions, despite following it for the loading property. Not to mention that, in the in-world description, they fail to mention the parts the loading process (cocking a crossbow, gathering the other end of a sling) that you'd still need a free hand for. I say they were a bit careless in wording that clarifying sentence. Help me understand why the former is more plausible than the latter?
BTW, as a DM, I would totally let a player do that, because it changes nothing balance-wise, it doesn't clash with what I run, and if it makes the player happy, I'm happy. But I was arguing from the strict interpretation of the rules (hence the use of ackchually).
The crux of our disagreement, however, lies in point three. As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), you assume that the ammunition is the sole component of loading the weapon and that is the full basis for the restriction. But that leaves the question of why they did not say that you can choose to ignore the ammunition property.
I contend that the infusion simply acts as a source of ammunition, just like a quiver, case or other container. Thus, while you don't need to carry the ammunition, you still need to load the weapon. The infusion doesn't say it loads the weapon for you. And as I said before, when loading a crossbow, you don't just need a hand to put in the bolt. [ETA, the same goes for a sling and the bullet, which is another one-handed weapon with the ammunition property] The text does not say that it loads it for you, it does not say that you are allowed to ignore any restriction due to the ammunition property.
Dude, you are being pedantic. I have not made this assumption in any of my posts, nor has anyone else. The Repeating Shot infusion does say it loads the weapon for you:
Repeating Shot
Item: A simple or martial weapon with the ammunition property (requires attunement)
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it when it’s used to make a ranged attack, and it ignores the loading property if it has it.
The weapon requires no ammunition; it magically produces one piece of ammunition each time you make a ranged attack with it, unless you manually load it. The ammunition produced by the weapon vanishes the instant after the it hits or misses a target.
It ignores Loading... that literally means it is being loaded for you. The ammunition is produced by the weapon each time that you make a ranged attack... that's not a quiver. The Ammunitioncannot be removed from a ranged weapon intended to be used with ammunition, or it ceases to function in more ways than just the ammo itself.
A ranged weapon without Ammunition is a thrown weapon. It is a Javelin; use once & retrieve. Gonna throw your crossbow? Didn't think so.
Without Ammunition, it would also not be possible to retrieve any physical ammunition after battle.
A ranged weapon without Ammunition functions differently when used in a melee attack. A Crossbow, Heavy would normally be treated as an improvised weapon, dealing 1d4 damage, if used in a melee attack. Without that property, suddenly you can smack someone with it for 1d10. That's not gonna happen.
A ranged weapon infused with Repeating Shot produces its own magical ammunition, and loads it for you automatically. This is not difficult
Not unless you homebrew a mechanic that would allow the character to somehow reload both, as a bonus action. Maybe they could sacrifice both their bonus and movement to achieve this. You could consider if the character has access to Haste and the feat Crossbow Expert I guess mechanically that could work. It would really be up to the D.M on this one.
repeating shot weapon says you ignore the loading property and it makes its own ammunition.
Well that simplifies things, and I learned of a new item so thank you. I'd still like to try and explore if Haste coupled with Crossbow Expert would be another viable option. Though both of these would still depend on your DM, so having a conversation with them is your best bet.
This is NOT a new item. This is not an available item at all, really. This is a placeholder to represent a weapon that has been infused by an Artificer's class feature.
You guys are arguing about this but the actual answer to the original question is simply no. By that I mean there is no adventures league legal way to dual wield hand crossbows. The only way to do it is using UA material, unofficial Ebberon content, or home brew. That might change when the new Ebberon book comes out but that's the way it is at the moment. Let's see what the book says when this content is official.
Yes, the question at hand has been resolved for quite awhile now. At the end of the day, hand crossbows are not a melee weapon, and will never be eligible for two-weapon fighting. UA & Eberron content don't change that either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The crux of our disagreement, however, lies in point three. As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), you assume that the ammunition is the sole component of loading the weapon and that is the full basis for the restriction. But that leaves the question of why they did not say that you can choose to ignore the ammunition property.
I contend that the infusion simply acts as a source of ammunition, just like a quiver, case or other container. Thus, while you don't need to carry the ammunition, you still need to load the weapon. The infusion doesn't say it loads the weapon for you. And as I said before, when loading a crossbow, you don't just need a hand to put in the bolt. [ETA, the same goes for a sling and the bullet, which is another one-handed weapon with the ammunition property] The text does not say that it loads it for you, it does not say that you are allowed to ignore any restriction due to the ammunition property.
Dude, you are being pedantic. I have not made this assumption in any of my posts, nor has anyone else. The Repeating Shot infusion does say it loads the weapon for you:
Repeating Shot
Item: A simple or martial weapon with the ammunition property (requires attunement)
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it when it’s used to make a ranged attack, and it ignores the loading property if it has it.
The weapon requires no ammunition; it magically produces one piece of ammunition each time you make a ranged attack with it, unless you manually load it. The ammunition produced by the weapon vanishes the instant after the it hits or misses a target.
It ignores Loading... that literally means it is being loaded for you. The ammunition is produced by the weapon each time that you make a ranged attack... that's not a quiver. The Ammunitioncannot be removed from a ranged weapon intended to be used with ammunition, or it ceases to function in more ways than just the ammo itself.
A ranged weapon without Ammunition is a thrown weapon. It is a Javelin; use once & retrieve. Gonna throw your crossbow? Didn't think so.
Without Ammunition, it would also not be possible to retrieve any physical ammunition after battle.
A ranged weapon without Ammunition functions differently when used in a melee attack. A Crossbow, Heavy would normally be treated as an improvised weapon, dealing 1d4 damage, if used in a melee attack. Without that property, suddenly you can smack someone with it for 1d10. That's not gonna happen.
A ranged weapon infused with Repeating Shot produces its own magical ammunition, and loads it for you automatically. This is not difficult
In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Or, the exception proves the rule. Take your pick.
The evidence is not absent just because you do not understand it. I pick the truth.
Sooo, you're saying that [feat]crossbow expert[/feat] means you don't have to load crossbows anymore? Oh and no one has to load slings and bows. Wait, that would mean that if a DM allows a PC to put a bolt-feeding mechanism on a hand crossbow, twin handcrossbows is a thing!
I'm not saying the infusion should say that it ignores the ammunition property entirely. I'm saying it should have added "You don't need a free hand if the weapon is one-handed." Just like it specifies that the ammunition disappears after the attack.
Have you read the sage advice responses? They often reply with something like "we'd say so if a general rule is changed". The general rule here is: you need a free hand to use a one-handed, ranged weapon with the ammunition property.
Yes I'm being pedantic, I thought my first response in this thread made that clear. Then it was claimed that my pedantic reading was incorrect. Being a pedant, I have a hard time letting that go. 0:)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
They dont really have a good way of showing it, but the artificer tag is supposed to be what indicates it is made by an artificer.
All of the artificer infusions were made into magic items to make the feature work. They are not magic items in any book. It is kind of like how they made the revenant double-bladed scimitar was made into a magic item to make the revenant blade feat function. These are not indicated by any sourcebook to be magic items that can be found in the world.
But still "legal" rather than made up cow pooh by GM homebrew.
"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
"Legal," yes, but only in the context of an artificer infusing your hand crossbow for you, which is the point DxJxC's making.
Yes, I get that. I mostly posted for Sigred who keeps proclaiming there is nothing in the game that would allow you to do it short of homebrew.
"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
Ackchually, the infusion lets you ignore the loading property, but not the ammunition property, AFAICT...
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
The Crossbow Expert lets you ignore the loading property. The Infusion removes the need for ammunition.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Not unless you homebrew a mechanic that would allow the character to somehow reload both, as a bonus action. Maybe they could sacrifice both their bonus and movement to achieve this. You could consider if the character has access to Haste and the feat Crossbow Expert I guess mechanically that could work. It would really be up to the D.M on this one.
[Tooltip Not Found] says you ignore the loading property and it makes its own ammunition.
"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
Quoth the [Tooltip Not Found]:
"[...] it ignores the loading property if it has it."
Note the the description does not, in fact, contain any such wording about the ammunition property. Thing is, putting a bolt in is only a small portion of loading a crossbow, hand or otherwise. The main part is cocking it, on which the description is silent. Leading me to believe that it was intended to leave the ammunition property intact.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
1) I've made one post on that subject, and the comment itself was in passing.
2) It's still true. That isn't an official, public item. It's a placeholder for a class ability. Nice try.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Repeating Shot Weapon states "The weapon requires no ammunition"
Ammunition Property states "You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)."
The Ammunition Property has no other requirements beyond requiring the ammunition itself.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
[Inigo Montoya] You keep using that phrase, I do not think it means what you think it means. [\IM] (general you in this thread, not you in particular)
I read the same text and I can see why you would think that, but it doesn't say that you can ignore the ammunition property. They do explicitly mention that you can ignore the loading property. So, RAW says the ammunition property remains in place, despite the weapon providing its own ammunition item.
It's perfectly fine to say that is not RAI, but until there is some comment from the designers, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
And my, like, opinion is that the RAW fit with the in-world description, man. Because that sounds like the Ranger's bow in the old D&D cartoon, in that the action of drawing the string back causes the ammunition to appear. YMMV, I guess. If the designers have clarified that RAI is to ignore the ammunition property, I will happily concede that I misjudged their intent.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
Donny, you're out of your element.
The Artificer Infusion in question does not remove the Ammunition property for three main reasons:
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man.
W.r.t. point 1, I would say that it is not necessary for a weapon to have the property required for applying the infusion, once the infusion is applied. So at the time of infusion, the weapon has the necessary properties, once the infusion is in place, requirements are not checked. With respect to points 1 and 2, note that it doesn't remove any properties, the weapon (not the infusion) ignores one of them.
The crux of our disagreement, however, lies in point three. As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), you assume that the ammunition is the sole component of loading the weapon and that is the full basis for the restriction. But that leaves the question of why they did not say that you can choose to ignore the ammunition property.
I contend that the infusion simply acts as a source of ammunition, just like a quiver, case or other container. Thus, while you don't need to carry the ammunition, you still need to load the weapon. The infusion doesn't say it loads the weapon for you. And as I said before, when loading a crossbow, you don't just need a hand to put in the bolt. [ETA, the same goes for a sling and the bullet, which is another one-handed weapon with the ammunition property] The text does not say that it loads it for you, it does not say that you are allowed to ignore any restriction due to the ammunition property. In this case absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Or, the exception proves the rule. Take your pick.
I will grant that the wording "[..] unless you manually load it" introduces some ambiguity, but that is the only thing I see that supports your position. But if you concede that the weapon still has the ammunition property (and the loading property, technically), then the restrictions still apply. Even if the ammunition is supplied by the weapon, as opposed to a quiver.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
I believe the "unless you manually load it" heavily implies that you simply don't need to otherwise. That is there probably so that you can load special ammunition if you want to. Otherwise it could imply that you couldn't do that and it will always use the infusion's ammunition regardless.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Well that simplifies things, and I learned of a new item so thank you. I'd still like to try and explore if Haste coupled with Crossbow Expert would be another viable option. Though both of these would still depend on your DM, so having a conversation with them is your best bet.
You guys are arguing about this but the actual answer to the original question is simply no. By that I mean there is no adventures league legal way to dual wield hand crossbows. The only way to do it is using UA material, unofficial Ebberon content, or home brew. That might change when the new Ebberon book comes out but that's the way it is at the moment. Let's see what the book says when this content is official.
I agree on that the wording implies it, but the rules are not generally based on implications. They state what they do, this is something the designers have stated again and again (just look at most Sage Advice responses).
I would say that, under either interpretation they made a mistake with their wording. Under your interpretation, they failed to follow their own ground-rules about explicit statements w.r.t. the ammunition property and its restrictions, despite following it for the loading property. Not to mention that, in the in-world description, they fail to mention the parts the loading process (cocking a crossbow, gathering the other end of a sling) that you'd still need a free hand for. I say they were a bit careless in wording that clarifying sentence. Help me understand why the former is more plausible than the latter?
BTW, as a DM, I would totally let a player do that, because it changes nothing balance-wise, it doesn't clash with what I run, and if it makes the player happy, I'm happy. But I was arguing from the strict interpretation of the rules (hence the use of ackchually).
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
Dude, you are being pedantic. I have not made this assumption in any of my posts, nor has anyone else. The Repeating Shot infusion does say it loads the weapon for you:
It ignores Loading... that literally means it is being loaded for you. The ammunition is produced by the weapon each time that you make a ranged attack... that's not a quiver. The Ammunition cannot be removed from a ranged weapon intended to be used with ammunition, or it ceases to function in more ways than just the ammo itself.
A ranged weapon without Ammunition is a thrown weapon. It is a Javelin; use once & retrieve. Gonna throw your crossbow? Didn't think so.
Without Ammunition, it would also not be possible to retrieve any physical ammunition after battle.
A ranged weapon without Ammunition functions differently when used in a melee attack. A Crossbow, Heavy would normally be treated as an improvised weapon, dealing 1d4 damage, if used in a melee attack. Without that property, suddenly you can smack someone with it for 1d10. That's not gonna happen.
A ranged weapon infused with Repeating Shot produces its own magical ammunition, and loads it for you automatically. This is not difficult
The evidence is not absent just because you do not understand it. I pick the truth.
This is NOT a new item. This is not an available item at all, really. This is a placeholder to represent a weapon that has been infused by an Artificer's class feature.
Yes, the question at hand has been resolved for quite awhile now. At the end of the day, hand crossbows are not a melee weapon, and will never be eligible for two-weapon fighting. UA & Eberron content don't change that either.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Sooo, you're saying that [feat]crossbow expert[/feat] means you don't have to load crossbows anymore? Oh and no one has to load slings and bows. Wait, that would mean that if a DM allows a PC to put a bolt-feeding mechanism on a hand crossbow, twin handcrossbows is a thing!
I'm not saying the infusion should say that it ignores the ammunition property entirely. I'm saying it should have added "You don't need a free hand if the weapon is one-handed." Just like it specifies that the ammunition disappears after the attack.
Have you read the sage advice responses? They often reply with something like "we'd say so if a general rule is changed". The general rule here is: you need a free hand to use a one-handed, ranged weapon with the ammunition property.
Yes I'm being pedantic, I thought my first response in this thread made that clear. Then it was claimed that my pedantic reading was incorrect. Being a pedant, I have a hard time letting that go. 0:)
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution