I'm sorry, I was careless in my wording on that post. I should have said "part of the attack action". The important part is the distinction between "attack" and "attack action".
All of the following applies in either interpretation of the term loading.
If necessary, you can load the weapon as part of the attack action. Loading the weapon requires a free hand. Loading also requires a source of ammunition. Once loaded, you're free to make your attack. And unless the loading property comes into play, you can reload and fire again if you have multiple attacks per attack action.
Eta:
My position is that the necessity of loading the weapon is not necessarily taken care of by producing the ammunition. And unless it is specifically stated otherwise, I hold that that means that it must still be loaded. You just don't have to put in the ammunition in yourself.
I'm sorry, I was careless in my wording on that post. I should have said "part of the attack action". The important part is the distinction between "attack" and "attack action".
All of the following applies in either interpretation of the term loading.
If necessary, you can load the weapon as part of the attack action. Loading the weapon requires a free hand. Loading also requires a source of ammunition. Once loaded, you're free to make your attack. And unless the loading property comes into play, you can reload and fire again if you have multiple attacks per attack action.
Eta:
My position is that the necessity of loading the weapon is not necessarily taken care of by producing the ammunition. And unless it is specifically stated otherwise, I hold that that means that it must still be loaded. You just don't have to put in the ammunition in yourself.
Please defend your bolded position when the infusion text specificallysays “if you do not load ammunition in the weapon...”. That statement and your statement are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true, as you cannot both load and not load the weapon in the same action. And only one of them is published (and it’s not yours)
So let me ask you this, why do you think they wrote
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
as opposed to
"If you don't load the weapon, it loads itself, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
Fewer words, less redundancy. Though in my opinion they have a subtle, but important difference in meaning.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
So let me ask you this, why do you think they wrote
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
as opposed to
"If you don't load the weapon, it loads itself, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
Fewer words, less redundancy. Though in my opinion they have a subtle, but important difference in meaning.
Because the second phrasing suggests that the weapon need still be loaded. Obviously it needn’t, because the infusion text explicitly lets you make an attack without loading the infused weapon.
So let me ask you this, why do you think they wrote
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
as opposed to
"If you don't load the weapon, it loads itself, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
Fewer words, less redundancy. Though in my opinion they have a subtle, but important difference in meaning.
I've read 103 (copied below italics), here are my thoughts/responses (in bold):
We differ, I think, in the interpretation of:
"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)."
I read the main part as clarifying that you don't need an object interaction to draw ammunition from a container. Not that you need to do this, you could be holding arrows/bolts in your hand. Now, the part in parentheses is where things get hairy. Regardless of intent, the use of parentheses here is unfortunate. Because it relegates a restriction, i.e. a rule, to an aside.
The location of the ammo is irrelevant to the mechanic (it's fluff). The parenthetical is the only application of the property that mentions a free hand, specifically to load a one handed weapon. Crossbows (except hand) and Bows are specifically Two-handed weapons. The free hand requirement of ammunition is irrelevant because you are already using the hand as part of firing the weapon. So mentioning bows and any crossbow other than hand is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
But back to my point. I think I interpret "loading" differently. To me, loading, in the context of ranged weapons, means making ready to fire. The most obvious part of that is putting ammunition into the weapon. But it involves more than that for just about any weapon other than bows. A crossbow must be cocked before you can put the munition in. Nowhere does the infusion say it does this for you, it does say it becomes easier (no loading property).
its funny that you mention that loading is more complicated for any weapon other than bows. the complicated nature of the crossbow is summed up not in the ammunition property, but in the loading property (the weapon is too complicated to fire to be able to do so quickly) and bows are the only ranged weapons with the ammunition property that do not have the loading property. That section is completely negated by the infusion, so I'm not sure why your "the weapon is too complicated /difficult to load/fire one handed" argument even applies as the game mechanic meant to signify that difficult (loading) is explicitly negated by the infusion, and your argument is already addressed in the fact that 1) the loading property exists, and 2) it is negated by the infusion.
Now, I definitely see Dave's point. And the presence of parentheses does suggest he may be right. But that would mean taking an extremely narrow interpretation of "loading". And I think the difference between "loading a weapon" and "loading ammunition in the weapon" is significant.
So again, we are back to the two conflicting statements "you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon" and 'if you do not load ammunition in the weapon" which again, are mutually exclusive statements. I'm also not sure why you differentiate between "loading a weapon" and "loading ammunition in the weapon" as the game mechanics do not differentiate the two, except by the loading property, which again is negated by the infusion.
Please also note that the game does not distinguish weapons such as slings, blowguns, and hand crossbows with regards to this infusion as they all are one-handed weapons with the ammunition and loading properties, so you cannot by RAW separate the hand crossbow as "more difficult" because all of them by RAW are equally difficult. There is no cocking a blowgun, no levers to pull back, just literally ammunition to load, so if that is mechanically as difficult as the hand crossbow (remember, this is a game, not a simulation, so real-world differences are not applicable), then your argument about additional steps is moot from a RAW perspective.
So let me ask you this, why do you think they wrote
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
as opposed to
"If you don't load the weapon, it loads itself, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
Fewer words, less redundancy. Though in my opinion they have a subtle, but important difference in meaning.
Yes, they do have a subtle, important difference in meaning--the different meaning in your writing is wrong. It does not say that because that would imply the weapon always loads itself, and that is not what the infusion does.
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon" is a past conditional; an event that has occurred which is informing the present, and the present is "when you make a ranged attack with it." There is no scenario in which you are making a ranged attack with the weapon while still needing to load it. The infused weapon does not create ammunition that you must then load yourself. If you have to manually load the weapon with the magically produced ammunition, then you have loaded ammunition in the weapon, invalidating the entire concept with a causal loop of invalid logic.
When you use the Repeating Shot infusion's specific usage, you are already making an attack with the weapon. You have not loaded ammunition into the weapon, so the weapon produces its own when you make the attack roll. However you want to flavor the description of it happening is irrelevant.
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.
So let me ask you this, why do you think they wrote
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
as opposed to
"If you don't load the weapon, it loads itself, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
Fewer words, less redundancy. Though in my opinion they have a subtle, but important difference in meaning.
Yes, they do have a subtle, important difference in meaning--the different meaning in your writing is wrong. It does not say that because that would imply the weapon always loads itself, and that is not what the infusion does.
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon" is a past conditional; an event that has occurred which is informing the present, and the present is "when you make a ranged attack with it." There is no scenario in which you are making a ranged attack with the weapon while still needing to load it. The infused weapon does not create ammunition that you must then load yourself. If you have to manually load the weapon with the magically produced ammunition, then you have loaded ammunition in the weapon, invalidating the entire concept with a causal loop of invalid logic.
When you use the Repeating Shot infusion's specific usage, you are already making an attack with the weapon. You have not loaded ammunition into the weapon, so the weapon produces its own when you make the attack roll. However you want to flavor the description of it happening is irrelevant.
So visually when using a short/longbow the arrow magically appears notched which is its self-loading principal and when the character makes a ranged attack is when the bowstring is pulled back and fired. Is that the correct way of viewing it or am I oversimplifying it?
So let me ask you this, why do you think they wrote
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
as opposed to
"If you don't load the weapon, it loads itself, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
Fewer words, less redundancy. Though in my opinion they have a subtle, but important difference in meaning.
Yes, they do have a subtle, important difference in meaning--the different meaning in your writing is wrong. It does not say that because that would imply the weapon always loads itself, and that is not what the infusion does.
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon" is a past conditional; an event that has occurred which is informing the present, and the present is "when you make a ranged attack with it." There is no scenario in which you are making a ranged attack with the weapon while still needing to load it. The infused weapon does not create ammunition that you must then load yourself. If you have to manually load the weapon with the magically produced ammunition, then you have loaded ammunition in the weapon, invalidating the entire concept with a causal loop of invalid logic.
When you use the Repeating Shot infusion's specific usage, you are already making an attack with the weapon. You have not loaded ammunition into the weapon, so the weapon produces its own when you make the attack roll. However you want to flavor the description of it happening is irrelevant.
So visually when using a short/longbow the arrow magically appears notched which is its self-loading principal and when the character makes a ranged attack is when the bowstring is pulled back and fired. Is that the correct way of viewing it or am I over simplifying it?
The visual of it is up to you, but the ammunition is produced as you fire, basically. I could see you drawing the bow to fire and the arrow materializing in place once the bow is drawn back, or maybe the arrow expands in place as you draw the bowstring back, either way, that’s how the mechanic works if you don’t put an actual arrow in
So let me ask you this, why do you think they wrote
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
as opposed to
"If you don't load the weapon, it loads itself, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
Fewer words, less redundancy. Though in my opinion they have a subtle, but important difference in meaning.
Yes, they do have a subtle, important difference in meaning--the different meaning in your writing is wrong. It does not say that because that would imply the weapon always loads itself, and that is not what the infusion does.
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon" is a past conditional; an event that has occurred which is informing the present, and the present is "when you make a ranged attack with it." There is no scenario in which you are making a ranged attack with the weapon while still needing to load it. The infused weapon does not create ammunition that you must then load yourself. If you have to manually load the weapon with the magically produced ammunition, then you have loaded ammunition in the weapon, invalidating the entire concept with a causal loop of invalid logic.
When you use the Repeating Shot infusion's specific usage, you are already making an attack with the weapon. You have not loaded ammunition into the weapon, so the weapon produces its own when you make the attack roll. However you want to flavor the description of it happening is irrelevant.
So visually when using a short/longbow the arrow magically appears notched which is its self-loading principal and when the character makes a ranged attack is when the bowstring is pulled back and fired. Is that the correct way of viewing it or am I oversimplifying it?
That's a perfectly reasonable way of visualizing it, yeah.
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.
Jeremy Crawford:It says you need to have a free hand to reload a one-handed weapon. Well, it stands to reason that if you don't need to load ammunition, you don't need that free hand to load the nonexistent ammunition. So the short answer is, you do not need to keep your hand free to load ammunition that you don't have to load. [...] Do whatever you want with that other hand.
That's straight from the main rules guy for the game in an official Q&A session, so it's as clear and definite an answer as you're going to get short of actual rules text."
Jeremy Crawford:It says you need to have a free hand to reload a one-handed weapon. Well, it stands to reason that if you don't need to load ammunition, you don't need that free hand to load the nonexistent ammunition. So the short answer is, you do not need to keep your hand free to load ammunition that you don't have to load. [...] Do whatever you want with that other hand.
That's straight from the main rules guy for the game in an official Q&A session, so it's as clear and definite an answer as you're going to get short of actual rules text."
That's it. Hand-Crossbow and Shield with that infusion is possible. Thread can be locked.
Sadly that is not how this works (even though I agree with that ruling).
Q&As are not official rules unless they are documented as such (like SAC).
And threads don't get locked just because a question is answered.
Per RAW ammunition only requires a free hand to draw and load ammo, though it doesn't clearly say that you don't need a free hand when not doing that. Luckily with the artificer having been reprinted and WotC already including erratas in TCoE, I wouldn't be surprised if repeating shot... is printed entirely unchanged and not addressing this issue at all...
Jeremy Crawford:It says you need to have a free hand to reload a one-handed weapon. Well, it stands to reason that if you don't need to load ammunition, you don't need that free hand to load the nonexistent ammunition. So the short answer is, you do not need to keep your hand free to load ammunition that you don't have to load. [...] Do whatever you want with that other hand.
That's straight from the main rules guy for the game in an official Q&A session, so it's as clear and definite an answer as you're going to get short of actual rules text."
That's it. Hand-Crossbow and Shield with that infusion is possible. Thread can be locked.
Sadly that is not how this works (even though I agree with that ruling).
Q&As are not official rules unless they are documented as such (like SAC).
And threads don't get locked just because a question is answered.
Per RAW ammunition only requires a free hand to draw and load ammo, though it doesn't clearly say that you don't need a free hand when not doing that. Luckily with the artificer having been reprinted and WotC already including erratas in TCoE, I wouldn't be surprised if repeating shot... is printed entirely unchanged and not addressing this issue at all...
It also doesn't say that you do not need to dance the tango with a Tarrasque. If it does not say you do need something, then you do not need that something.
That is an "excellent point," except that it doesn't actually help with the question at hand. Ammunition does, in fact, say you need a free hand (I hope that fact isn't in dispute). The question is whether something else that doesn't on its face negate any part of ammunition but does negate the need to load a weapon negates some part of that weapon property by proxy.
Jeremy Crawford:It says you need to have a free hand to reload a one-handed weapon. Well, it stands to reason that if you don't need to load ammunition, you don't need that free hand to load the nonexistent ammunition. So the short answer is, you do not need to keep your hand free to load ammunition that you don't have to load. [...] Do whatever you want with that other hand.
That's straight from the main rules guy for the game in an official Q&A session, so it's as clear and definite an answer as you're going to get short of actual rules text."
That's it. Hand-Crossbow and Shield with that infusion is possible. Thread can be locked.
Sadly that is not how this works (even though I agree with that ruling).
Q&As are not official rules unless they are documented as such (like SAC).
And threads don't get locked just because a question is answered.
Per RAW ammunition only requires a free hand to draw and load ammo, though it doesn't clearly say that you don't need a free hand when not doing that. Luckily with the artificer having been reprinted and WotC already including erratas in TCoE, I wouldn't be surprised if repeating shot... is printed entirely unchanged and not addressing this issue at all...
It also doesn't say that you do not need to dance the tango with a Tarrasque. If it does not say you do need something, then you do not need that something.
That is an "excellent point," except that it doesn't actually help with the question at hand. Ammunition does, in fact, say you need a free hand (I hope that fact isn't in dispute). The question is whether something else that doesn't on its face negate any part of ammunition but does negate the need to load a weapon negates some part of that weapon property by proxy.
Ammunition says "you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon"
Repeating shot says "If you load no ammunition in the weapon"
You are not loading the weapon, therefore you do not need a free hand. It does NOT say "You need a free hand to be able to use this weapon." You are not loading the weapon. The infusion is loading the weapon. Therefore you do not need a free hand.
That is certainly a position that one could take, but not necessitated by the text. (Which, I think, was DxJxC's point)
You can make the same argument over and over again, but it doesn't change the clarity of the text. The ammunition property is not negated by the infusion, which means that all of the text of the infusion should still apply in a perfect world. In our world, topics covered by the loading and ammunition properties are confounded.
Jeremy Crawford:It says you need to have a free hand to reload a one-handed weapon. Well, it stands to reason that if you don't need to load ammunition, you don't need that free hand to load the nonexistent ammunition. So the short answer is, you do not need to keep your hand free to load ammunition that you don't have to load. [...] Do whatever you want with that other hand.
That's straight from the main rules guy for the game in an official Q&A session, so it's as clear and definite an answer as you're going to get short of actual rules text."
That's it. Hand-Crossbow and Shield with that infusion is possible. Thread can be locked.
Sadly that is not how this works (even though I agree with that ruling).
Q&As are not official rules unless they are documented as such (like SAC).
And threads don't get locked just because a question is answered.
Per RAW ammunition only requires a free hand to draw and load ammo, though it doesn't clearly say that you don't need a free hand when not doing that. Luckily with the artificer having been reprinted and WotC already including erratas in TCoE, I wouldn't be surprised if repeating shot... is printed entirely unchanged and not addressing this issue at all...
It also doesn't say that you do not need to dance the tango with a Tarrasque. If it does not say you do need something, then you do not need that something.
That is an "excellent point," except that it doesn't actually help with the question at hand. Ammunition does, in fact, say you need a free hand (I hope that fact isn't in dispute). The question is whether something else that doesn't on its face negate any part of ammunition but does negate the need to load a weapon negates some part of that weapon property by proxy.
Ammunition says "you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon"
Repeating shot says "If you load no ammunition in the weapon"
You are not loading the weapon, therefore you do not need a free hand. It does NOT say "You need a free hand to be able to use this weapon." You are not loading the weapon. The infusion is loading the weapon. Therefore you do not need a free hand.
That is certainly a position that one could take, but not necessitated by the text. (Which, I think, was DxJxC's point)
The infusion says 'it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it.' Note, 'when you make a ranged attack,' not 'when you load the weapon in preparation of a ranged attack.'
And I'll stress again that the Ammunition property does not say you need a free hand to make an attack with the weapon; it says you need a free hand to load the weapon, not to do anything else with it. Repeating Shot very explicitly allows you to make an attack if you don't load the weapon. So, it seems quite clear that the "you don't need a free hand to fire a repeating shot weapon if firing it in such a way that it generates its own ammunition" interpretation is actually necessitated by the text.
And I'll stress again that the Ammunition property does not say you need a free hand to make an attack with the weapon; it says you need a free hand to load the weapon, not to do anything else with it. Repeating Shot very explicitly allows you to make an attack if you don't load the weapon. So, it seems quite clear that the "you don't need a free hand to fire a repeating shot weapon if firing it in such a way that it generates its own ammunition" interpretation is actually necessitated by the text.
And I'll stress again "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack" is still explicitly part of a property of the weapon which has not been negated by anything. The topics are confounded.
In fact, nothing in the ammunition property is explicitly negated by the infusion, only by proxy.
And I'll stress again that the Ammunition property does not say you need a free hand to make an attack with the weapon; it says you need a free hand to load the weapon, not to do anything else with it. Repeating Shot very explicitly allows you to make an attack if you don't load the weapon. So, it seems quite clear that the "you don't need a free hand to fire a repeating shot weapon if firing it in such a way that it generates its own ammunition" interpretation is actually necessitated by the text.
And I'll stress again "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack" is still explicitly part of a property of the weapon which has not been negated by anything. The topics are confounded.
In fact, nothing in the ammunition property is explicitly negated by the infusion, only by proxy.
The property text doesn't say you need a free hand to draw the ammunition. It says you need a free hand to load the weapon. So sure, you still need to draw some ammunition, you still need to expend some ammunition, you still need to do all the stuff you obviously don't need to do, just because the infusion's text doesn't explicitly say you don't. But the infusion text does explicitly say you don't load the ammunition, which is the only thing the Ammunition property explicitly says you need a free hand for. Common sense can resolve this much more sensibly, but if we're going to get bogged down solely in what's explicit, you still don't need a free hand.
Explicitness has never been a requirement for one rule to supercede another.
It may not be required, but there are certainly relevant examples where it occurs.
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.
And I'll stress again that the Ammunition property does not say you need a free hand to make an attack with the weapon; it says you need a free hand to load the weapon, not to do anything else with it. Repeating Shot very explicitly allows you to make an attack if you don't load the weapon. So, it seems quite clear that the "you don't need a free hand to fire a repeating shot weapon if firing it in such a way that it generates its own ammunition" interpretation is actually necessitated by the text.
And I'll stress again "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack" is still explicitly part of a property of the weapon which has not been negated by anything. The topics are confounded.
In fact, nothing in the ammunition property is explicitly negated by the infusion, only by proxy.
But it explicitly says that you are not drawing anything. IF it did create the ammunition outside of the weapon, i.e. not yet loaded, then it would never do anything because that only happens if you attack without loading the weapon. So according to your interpretation, to use this ability, you try (and fail) to fire the empty weapon, which creates a piece of ammunition somewhere, that you now separately load in and fire again?
We are back to what I have been saying over and over again with respect to 5e. At least a smidgen of common sense and basic logic is assumed.
No, it seems clear that the obvious interpretation is that this infusion wasn't edited. It is nonsensical when read with the weapon properties that it is supposed to interact with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm sorry, I was careless in my wording on that post. I should have said "part of the attack action". The important part is the distinction between "attack" and "attack action".
All of the following applies in either interpretation of the term loading.
If necessary, you can load the weapon as part of the attack action. Loading the weapon requires a free hand. Loading also requires a source of ammunition. Once loaded, you're free to make your attack. And unless the loading property comes into play, you can reload and fire again if you have multiple attacks per attack action.
Eta:
My position is that the necessity of loading the weapon is not necessarily taken care of by producing the ammunition. And unless it is specifically stated otherwise, I hold that that means that it must still be loaded. You just don't have to put in the ammunition in yourself.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
Please defend your bolded position when the infusion text specifically says “if you do not load ammunition in the weapon...”. That statement and your statement are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true, as you cannot both load and not load the weapon in the same action. And only one of them is published (and it’s not yours)
I have defended that, see post #103.
So let me ask you this, why do you think they wrote
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
as opposed to
"If you don't load the weapon, it loads itself, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it."
Fewer words, less redundancy. Though in my opinion they have a subtle, but important difference in meaning.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
Because the second phrasing suggests that the weapon need still be loaded. Obviously it needn’t, because the infusion text explicitly lets you make an attack without loading the infused weapon.
*Shrug* Well, if you're not going to keep up, I'm not going to bother spelling it out again.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
I've read 103 (copied below italics), here are my thoughts/responses (in bold):
We differ, I think, in the interpretation of:
"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)."
I read the main part as clarifying that you don't need an object interaction to draw ammunition from a container. Not that you need to do this, you could be holding arrows/bolts in your hand. Now, the part in parentheses is where things get hairy. Regardless of intent, the use of parentheses here is unfortunate. Because it relegates a restriction, i.e. a rule, to an aside.
The location of the ammo is irrelevant to the mechanic (it's fluff). The parenthetical is the only application of the property that mentions a free hand, specifically to load a one handed weapon. Crossbows (except hand) and Bows are specifically Two-handed weapons. The free hand requirement of ammunition is irrelevant because you are already using the hand as part of firing the weapon. So mentioning bows and any crossbow other than hand is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
But back to my point. I think I interpret "loading" differently. To me, loading, in the context of ranged weapons, means making ready to fire. The most obvious part of that is putting ammunition into the weapon. But it involves more than that for just about any weapon other than bows. A crossbow must be cocked before you can put the munition in. Nowhere does the infusion say it does this for you, it does say it becomes easier (no loading property).
its funny that you mention that loading is more complicated for any weapon other than bows. the complicated nature of the crossbow is summed up not in the ammunition property, but in the loading property (the weapon is too complicated to fire to be able to do so quickly) and bows are the only ranged weapons with the ammunition property that do not have the loading property. That section is completely negated by the infusion, so I'm not sure why your "the weapon is too complicated /difficult to load/fire one handed" argument even applies as the game mechanic meant to signify that difficult (loading) is explicitly negated by the infusion, and your argument is already addressed in the fact that 1) the loading property exists, and 2) it is negated by the infusion.
Now, I definitely see Dave's point. And the presence of parentheses does suggest he may be right. But that would mean taking an extremely narrow interpretation of "loading". And I think the difference between "loading a weapon" and "loading ammunition in the weapon" is significant.
So again, we are back to the two conflicting statements "you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon" and 'if you do not load ammunition in the weapon" which again, are mutually exclusive statements. I'm also not sure why you differentiate between "loading a weapon" and "loading ammunition in the weapon" as the game mechanics do not differentiate the two, except by the loading property, which again is negated by the infusion.
Please also note that the game does not distinguish weapons such as slings, blowguns, and hand crossbows with regards to this infusion as they all are one-handed weapons with the ammunition and loading properties, so you cannot by RAW separate the hand crossbow as "more difficult" because all of them by RAW are equally difficult. There is no cocking a blowgun, no levers to pull back, just literally ammunition to load, so if that is mechanically as difficult as the hand crossbow (remember, this is a game, not a simulation, so real-world differences are not applicable), then your argument about additional steps is moot from a RAW perspective.
Yes, they do have a subtle, important difference in meaning--the different meaning in your writing is wrong. It does not say that because that would imply the weapon always loads itself, and that is not what the infusion does.
"If you load no ammunition in the weapon" is a past conditional; an event that has occurred which is informing the present, and the present is "when you make a ranged attack with it." There is no scenario in which you are making a ranged attack with the weapon while still needing to load it. The infused weapon does not create ammunition that you must then load yourself. If you have to manually load the weapon with the magically produced ammunition, then you have loaded ammunition in the weapon, invalidating the entire concept with a causal loop of invalid logic.
When you use the Repeating Shot infusion's specific usage, you are already making an attack with the weapon. You have not loaded ammunition into the weapon, so the weapon produces its own when you make the attack roll. However you want to flavor the description of it happening is irrelevant.
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.
So visually when using a short/longbow the arrow magically appears notched which is its self-loading principal and when the character makes a ranged attack is when the bowstring is pulled back and fired. Is that the correct way of viewing it or am I oversimplifying it?
The visual of it is up to you, but the ammunition is produced as you fire, basically. I could see you drawing the bow to fire and the arrow materializing in place once the bow is drawn back, or maybe the arrow expands in place as you draw the bowstring back, either way, that’s how the mechanic works if you don’t put an actual arrow in
That's a perfectly reasonable way of visualizing it, yeah.
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.
As this topic is still going around:
"
Happily, this was directly addressed at about 15:00 in the 6/05/2019 Dragon+ Q&A with Jeremy Crawford.
That's straight from the main rules guy for the game in an official Q&A session, so it's as clear and definite an answer as you're going to get short of actual rules text."
https://youtu.be/pw_ZdBUS5vg?t=900
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/150572/does-a-hand-crossbow-with-the-repeating-shot-infusion-still-require-a-free-hand
That's it. Hand-Crossbow and Shield with that infusion is possible. Thread can be locked.
Nugz - Kobold Level 4 Bloodhunter/Order of the Mutant - Out there looking for snacks and evil monsters.
Ultrix Schwarzdorn - Human Level 6 Artificer/Armorer - Retired and works in his new shop.
Quercus Espenkiel - Gnome Level 9 Wizard/Order of Scribes - Turned into a book and sits on a shelf.
Artin - Fairy Level 4 Sorcerer/Wild Magic - Busy with annoying the townsfolk. Again.
Jabor - Fire Genasi - Level 4 Wizard/School of Evocation - The First Flame, The Last Chaos. Probably in jail, again.
Sadly that is not how this works (even though I agree with that ruling).
Q&As are not official rules unless they are documented as such (like SAC).
And threads don't get locked just because a question is answered.
Per RAW ammunition only requires a free hand to draw and load ammo, though it doesn't clearly say that you don't need a free hand when not doing that. Luckily with the artificer having been reprinted and WotC already including erratas in TCoE, I wouldn't be surprised if repeating shot... is printed entirely unchanged and not addressing this issue at all...
That is an "excellent point," except that it doesn't actually help with the question at hand. Ammunition does, in fact, say you need a free hand (I hope that fact isn't in dispute). The question is whether something else that doesn't on its face negate any part of ammunition but does negate the need to load a weapon negates some part of that weapon property by proxy.
That is certainly a position that one could take, but not necessitated by the text. (Which, I think, was DxJxC's point)
You can make the same argument over and over again, but it doesn't change the clarity of the text. The ammunition property is not negated by the infusion, which means that all of the text of the infusion should still apply in a perfect world. In our world, topics covered by the loading and ammunition properties are confounded.
And I'll stress again that the Ammunition property does not say you need a free hand to make an attack with the weapon; it says you need a free hand to load the weapon, not to do anything else with it. Repeating Shot very explicitly allows you to make an attack if you don't load the weapon. So, it seems quite clear that the "you don't need a free hand to fire a repeating shot weapon if firing it in such a way that it generates its own ammunition" interpretation is actually necessitated by the text.
And I'll stress again "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack" is still explicitly part of a property of the weapon which has not been negated by anything. The topics are confounded.
In fact, nothing in the ammunition property is explicitly negated by the infusion, only by proxy.
Explicitness has never been a requirement for one rule to supercede another.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The property text doesn't say you need a free hand to draw the ammunition. It says you need a free hand to load the weapon. So sure, you still need to draw some ammunition, you still need to expend some ammunition, you still need to do all the stuff you obviously don't need to do, just because the infusion's text doesn't explicitly say you don't. But the infusion text does explicitly say you don't load the ammunition, which is the only thing the Ammunition property explicitly says you need a free hand for. Common sense can resolve this much more sensibly, but if we're going to get bogged down solely in what's explicit, you still don't need a free hand.
It may not be required, but there are certainly relevant examples where it occurs.
No, it seems clear that the obvious interpretation is that this infusion wasn't edited. It is nonsensical when read with the weapon properties that it is supposed to interact with.