First of all, is this your opinion, or have you been spending multiple posts defending some hypothetical other persons opinion. Either own it or don't, but If you don't actually hold this opinion then quit playing devils advocate and let someone who actually holds this opinion come in and make their case; all you seem to want is an acknowledgement that other people might disagree, which is not an arguable point, of course others might disagree (they might also be wrong)
Second, if there is a legitimate "other side" which holds this point of view, that point of view entirely contingent on a computer-like slavishness to an interpretation of the language based more on "code" or "legalese" than plain english or even logic,. To refute it, you would want an explicit statement nullifying the 'ammunition' property, but as many others have said, the intent of the infusion is not to nullify the property, but to add an additional option that, by default interpretation of the language (and RAI, per the JC response), would nullify only one portion of the property if chosen. Do you see the disconnect there? Even logically using if then statements, there is not an interpretation that allows for this point of view. Follow this logic starting with first order;
If you fire a weapon with the ammunition property, then you must load it (you can load it either well before using the weapon, or as part of firing it.)
The rule then states the next order of logic, and a second if/then, following from the first:
If you load ammunition into a one handed weapon, then you need a free hand to do the loading.
The infusion gives you an option that overrides the first logical if/then, as you are no longer required to load the weapon ("if you don't load the weapon..."), so the second is never reached. if the second is never reached, then its conclusion (" you need a free hand") is also never reached, and logically no longer applies if the option is pursued. By not fully nullifying the overall ammunition property, you still have the option of following the general rule (which you may want to do to fire poisoned or "+X" magical ammunition), but if you choose not to, then the rest of that portion of the general rule never comes into play.
To say otherwise is to say that the text of the rule by itself (devoid of logic or interpretation) overrides the interpretation and application of the rule. This would be true of computer code or legalese, but the rules were not written that way, so intent and application matter.
First, try to keep it civil. Yes, my point is that other people can disagree. They can even do it without being wrong. They can even apparently manage to be unable to imagine any view but their own being correct.
Second, your whole second point is a slavish computer-like interpretation based on your re-phrasing of rules intoif/then statements, yet your rephrasing is an interpretation of "you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon." It is perfectly valid to interpret that as a requirement for a free hand (you need a free hand) that is merely justified by the text about loading the weapon (to load a one-handed weapon).
But you are right, it is rather ridiculous that I've spent two pages arguing that other people might, without being wrong, disagree with someone else. It is a waste of time that I should really stop doing. This is, after all, the rules and mechanics forum.
I believe what Wolf is attempting to say is that the hue and cry insisting that "this is a plain English rule, it does what any reasonable person would assume it does by reading those words" conflicts with words spoken by many of the exact same people in this thread elsewhere in this particular Rules and Game Mechanics forum, e.g. "A rule does what it says it does, it doesn't do anything else, and assuming a rule does something that it doesn't explicitly say it does because you'd think that's obviously inferred is how you get thrown out of an Adventurer's League game for cheating."
People in this forum live for nitpickery, legalese, and an assumption of "computer-like slavishness" to the letter of the rule. This forum's adherence to "a rule does what it says it does" is legendary. Repeating Shot, as an infusion, says it ignores the loading property of a weapon and it generates magical ammunition if normal ammunition is not used. it does not say it ignores the ammunition property, therefore it does not ignore the ammunition property. The ammunition property states that a free hand is required to load a one-handed weapon with that property, therefore a free hand is required. Neither the ammunition property nor the Repeating Shot infusion say they waive this need for a free hand when using magical just-in-time ammunition, therefore the free-hand requirement is not waived.
Does this make any damn sense? No, of course not. But if this forum is going to state "the rules do what they say they do, if the rule doesn't say it then it doesn't do it, and common sense has no bearing on either of those statements" everywhere else a player tries to do something cool by finding a rules edge case, then that standard has to apply here, too.
Pick your poison, rules lawyers. You don't get to shoot down everybody else's cool stuff using lawyerspeak and codemonkeyism, then reject that same stance when it's your own cool shit on the line.
it does not say it ignores the ammunition property, therefore it does not ignore the ammunition property.
Correct. The weapon still has the ammunition property. The infusion ignores part of that property.
The ammunition property states that a free hand is required to load a one-handed weapon with that property
Correct.
therefore a free hand is required.
If you choose to load the weapon, yes.
Neither the ammunition property nor the Repeating Shot infusion say they waive this need for a free hand when using magical just-in-time ammunition, therefore the free-hand requirement is not waived.
Incorrect. The infusion waives the need to load the weapon.
But if this forum is going to state "the rules do what they say they do, if the rule doesn't say it then it doesn't do it, and common sense has no bearing on either of those statements" everywhere else a player tries to do something cool by finding a rules edge case, then that standard has to apply here, too.
This is a straw man. The reason people say that is because there's a strong tendency for newbies to extrapolate that feature X works a certain way based on some other similar but unrelated feature Y working that way. That's not the same as making the obvious inference that if you no longer need to do X, you also don't need to do X's prerequisites. The ability to make inferences is necessary to parse any rule that's longer than one sentence.
I generally concur. And to be clear, the DM for my artificer has been letting me use Repeating Shot on a DMG blackpowder pistol to turn it into an oddly short-ranged Glock for the last couple of months, never once asking me to take off my shield.
This thread is, to me, more a unique opportunity to demonstrate the deep frustration many players have with anal-retentive rules lawyers to anal-retentive rules lawyers than it is a real argument against Repeating Shot. It's quite amusing to see people continually say "it's a common-sense rule and only an idiot would interpret it otherwise" when common sense is pretty much the first thing thrown out of any other thread in this section of the forums and people here tend to delight in reminding folks that 'common sense' house rules have no proper place in Right And Proper D&D.
The fact that the anal-retentive lawyering is even possible shows how aggravating it can be when someone plays semantics games with a conclusion one finds obvious, especially when the denying of that conclusion seems to do nothing save remove one's ability to have fun. It is something of a self-demonstrating example of why the words "lighten the **** up already, Jenkins" should be more common in a D&D game, perhaps.
Backing away from the language issue, consider it from a task point of view.
How do you use a crossbow? First, pull back the bowstring and lock it into the trigger. Second, take a bolt from storage and place it into the bow. Third, aim and shoot the weapon.
Which of these steps require two hands? I think the answer is steps one and two, regardless of the type of crossbow. For a hand crossbow, step three requires only one hand.
So, which of these steps does the artificer feature eliminate?
As I posted earlier, I think the feature eliminates only step two. I imagine the shooter drawing back the bow and locking it into the trigger mechanism, and then a bolt magically appearing in the weapon.
Backing away from the language issue, consider it from a task point of view.
How do you use a crossbow? First, pull back the bowstring and lock it into the trigger. Second, take a bolt from storage and place it into the bow. Third, aim and shoot the weapon.
Which of these steps require two hands? I think the answer is steps one and two, regardless of the type of crossbow. For a hand crossbow, step three requires only one hand.
So, which of these steps does the artificer feature eliminate?
As I posted earlier, I think the feature eliminates only step two. I imagine the shooter drawing back the bow and locking it into the trigger mechanism, and then a bolt magically appearing in the weapon.
A deft bolter can probably combine steps 1 and 2; drawing the ammunition and pulling back as they load the weapon. But this is all beside the point. The game doesn't care how many steps are required. The ammunition property dictates how the character interacts with the weapon. If drawing and loading ammunition is provided in the attack, and the weapon provides its own ammunition, then you can skip that entirely.
The only time it becomes an issue is when you want to use actual ammunition; specifically magical ammunition.
it does not say it ignores the ammunition property, therefore it does not ignore the ammunition property.
Correct. The weapon still has the ammunition property. The infusion ignores part of that property.
The ammunition property states that a free hand is required to load a one-handed weapon with that property
Correct.
therefore a free hand is required.
If you choose to load the weapon, yes.
Neither the ammunition property nor the Repeating Shot infusion say they waive this need for a free hand when using magical just-in-time ammunition, therefore the free-hand requirement is not waived.
Incorrect. The infusion waives the need to load the weapon.
Incorrect. The infusion says "[i]f you load no ammunition..." which is different from 'if you do not load the weapon...' and certainly means that you still need to follow the same loading process, only using "no ammunition" in place of the ammunition (as certainly as it means whatever else you might say it means, anyway).
Or, does the infusion turn bows into one-handed weapons and negate the two-hand property on them? It definitely doesn't say that it does, but I can infer that the second hand is for drawing and loading the ammunition (which, for a bow, I assert includes drawing the string), none of which is required if I am using the magic ammunition -- just like with a hand crossbow, so I can infer that the second hand is no longer required -- just like a hand crossbow.
Backing away from the language issue, consider it from a task point of view.
[...]
A deft bolter can probably combine steps 1 and 2; drawing the ammunition and pulling back as they load the weapon. But this is all beside the point. [...]
You're saying "I'm so good at doing two things that if I no longer have to do one, that means I automatically don't need to do both." That is, at a minimum, a problematic way of thinking.
Yes, the main thrust of my argument is that the text could be interpreted differently. Why is that important? Because I think it is self-righteous to think that your way is the only way to interpret unclear text. Yurei summed up my position well in one of their statements: If the rules only do what they say, then any consequences of the rules beyond what they actually say are open to interpretation.
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.
Excellent point, sir(?). Exactly my point in fact. I'm glad we agree.
Nothing in the rules says you don't need a free hand with repeating shot, while ammunition explicitly says you do.
Though, I don't agree with it and would never rule this way in my games, there isn't a valid argument against it until the RAW is changed. They could have easily included it in the list of properties repeating shot was affecting (and should have), but didn't.
(And I'm not going to read the 2 new pages of debate that popped up while I was off.)
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.
Excellent point, sir(?). Exactly my point in fact. I'm glad we agree.
Nothing in the rules says you don't need a free hand with repeating shot, while ammunition explicitly says you do.
Though, I don't agree with it and would never rule this way in my games, there isn't a valid argument against it until the RAW is changed. They could have easily included it in the list of properties repeating shot was affecting (and should have), but didn't.
(And I'm not going to read the 2 new pages of debate that popped up while I was off.)
Again, the ammunition property says you need a free to do exactly one thing: load the weapon. The repeating shot infusion says you do not load the weapon. As far as what the rules actually say, that's the beginning and the end of it. No one has raised any point to the contrary that doesn't involve supposition above and beyond the rules themselves.
Again, the ammunition property says you need a free to do exactly one thing: load the weapon. The repeating shot infusion says you do not load the weapon. As far as what the rules actually say, that's the beginning and the end of it. No one has raised any point to the contrary that doesn't involve supposition above and beyond the rules themselves.
Again, this is wrong. The infusion says you load the weapon with no ammo, not that you don't load it. How are these different? If there are other parts to loading the weapon besides shoving ammo at it, then those are still required.
Again, the ammunition property says you need a free to do exactly one thing: load the weapon. The repeating shot infusion says you do not load the weapon. As far as what the rules actually say, that's the beginning and the end of it. No one has raised any point to the contrary that doesn't involve supposition above and beyond the rules themselves.
Again, this is wrong. The infusion says you load the weapon with no ammo, not that you don't load it.
Without introducing nonexistent text, those are logically equivalent statements.
No. One statement says 'if you [take some action] without [some object]'. The other says 'if you don't [take some action that includes an object].' If you can't follow that those are different, I wouldn't trust your interpretation of the rules anyway.
One could conceivably interpret the first statement that they must still do all of the parts of the action loading the weapon — drawing the string, for example — only without the ammunition object.
No. One statement says 'if you [take some action] without [some object]'. The other says 'if you don't [take some action that includes an object].' If you can't follow that those are different, I wouldn't trust your interpretation of the rules anyway.
One could conceivably interpret the first statement that they must still do all of the parts of the action loading the weapon — drawing the string, for example — only without the ammunition object.
That's incorrect. Note that I specified "without introducing nonexistent text." If we accept that the ammunition property allows for loading things other than ammunition (as is required to establish that your general case is applicable), then we do get an ambiguity. But, if we're going to be as obnoxiously legalistic as you want us to be, that isn't the case.
The only thing the rules actually talk about loading is ammunition. There isn't anything aside from ammunition that can be loaded within the framework provided by the Ammunition property. What this means is that "loading no ammunition" is logically equivalent to "loading nothing" (because there is no alternative provided for), which is logically equivalent to "not loading anything" (because that is fundamentally how the English language works). If you can't follow that, blah blah etc. etc.
[EDIT] I must confess to forgetting about your second paragraph, sorry. But, and I really feel like this should speak for itself, if you do all the parts of loading the crossbow except for loading the crossbow, you're not actually loading the crossbow.
But that is negated by not needing two hands anymore. At least that is the logic of negating some parts of the requirements of the ammunition property when they’re “obviously” invalidated by the infusion.
First, try to keep it civil. Yes, my point is that other people can disagree. They can even do it without being wrong. They can even apparently manage to be unable to imagine any view but their own being correct.Second, your whole second point is a slavish computer-like interpretation based on your re-phrasing of rules intoif/then statements, yet your rephrasing is an interpretation of "you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon." It is perfectly valid to interpret that as a requirement for a free hand (you need a free hand) that is merely justified by the text about loading the weapon (to load a one-handed weapon).Butyou are right, it is rather ridiculous that I've spent two pages arguing that other people might, without being wrong, disagree with someone else. It is a waste of time that I should really stop doing. This is, after all, the rules and mechanics forum.I believe what Wolf is attempting to say is that the hue and cry insisting that "this is a plain English rule, it does what any reasonable person would assume it does by reading those words" conflicts with words spoken by many of the exact same people in this thread elsewhere in this particular Rules and Game Mechanics forum, e.g. "A rule does what it says it does, it doesn't do anything else, and assuming a rule does something that it doesn't explicitly say it does because you'd think that's obviously inferred is how you get thrown out of an Adventurer's League game for cheating."
People in this forum live for nitpickery, legalese, and an assumption of "computer-like slavishness" to the letter of the rule. This forum's adherence to "a rule does what it says it does" is legendary. Repeating Shot, as an infusion, says it ignores the loading property of a weapon and it generates magical ammunition if normal ammunition is not used. it does not say it ignores the ammunition property, therefore it does not ignore the ammunition property. The ammunition property states that a free hand is required to load a one-handed weapon with that property, therefore a free hand is required. Neither the ammunition property nor the Repeating Shot infusion say they waive this need for a free hand when using magical just-in-time ammunition, therefore the free-hand requirement is not waived.
Does this make any damn sense? No, of course not. But if this forum is going to state "the rules do what they say they do, if the rule doesn't say it then it doesn't do it, and common sense has no bearing on either of those statements" everywhere else a player tries to do something cool by finding a rules edge case, then that standard has to apply here, too.
Pick your poison, rules lawyers. You don't get to shoot down everybody else's cool stuff using lawyerspeak and codemonkeyism, then reject that same stance when it's your own cool shit on the line.
Please do not contact or message me.
Correct. The weapon still has the ammunition property. The infusion ignores part of that property.
Correct.
If you choose to load the weapon, yes.
Incorrect. The infusion waives the need to load the weapon.
This is a straw man. The reason people say that is because there's a strong tendency for newbies to extrapolate that feature X works a certain way based on some other similar but unrelated feature Y working that way. That's not the same as making the obvious inference that if you no longer need to do X, you also don't need to do X's prerequisites. The ability to make inferences is necessary to parse any rule that's longer than one sentence.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I generally concur. And to be clear, the DM for my artificer has been letting me use Repeating Shot on a DMG blackpowder pistol to turn it into an oddly short-ranged Glock for the last couple of months, never once asking me to take off my shield.
This thread is, to me, more a unique opportunity to demonstrate the deep frustration many players have with anal-retentive rules lawyers to anal-retentive rules lawyers than it is a real argument against Repeating Shot. It's quite amusing to see people continually say "it's a common-sense rule and only an idiot would interpret it otherwise" when common sense is pretty much the first thing thrown out of any other thread in this section of the forums and people here tend to delight in reminding folks that 'common sense' house rules have no proper place in Right And Proper D&D.
The fact that the anal-retentive lawyering is even possible shows how aggravating it can be when someone plays semantics games with a conclusion one finds obvious, especially when the denying of that conclusion seems to do nothing save remove one's ability to have fun. It is something of a self-demonstrating example of why the words "lighten the **** up already, Jenkins" should be more common in a D&D game, perhaps.
Please do not contact or message me.
Backing away from the language issue, consider it from a task point of view.
How do you use a crossbow?
First, pull back the bowstring and lock it into the trigger.
Second, take a bolt from storage and place it into the bow.
Third, aim and shoot the weapon.
Which of these steps require two hands? I think the answer is steps one and two, regardless of the type of crossbow. For a hand crossbow, step three requires only one hand.
So, which of these steps does the artificer feature eliminate?
As I posted earlier, I think the feature eliminates only step two. I imagine the shooter drawing back the bow and locking it into the trigger mechanism, and then a bolt magically appearing in the weapon.
A deft bolter can probably combine steps 1 and 2; drawing the ammunition and pulling back as they load the weapon. But this is all beside the point. The game doesn't care how many steps are required. The ammunition property dictates how the character interacts with the weapon. If drawing and loading ammunition is provided in the attack, and the weapon provides its own ammunition, then you can skip that entirely.
The only time it becomes an issue is when you want to use actual ammunition; specifically magical ammunition.
Incorrect. The infusion says "[i]f you load no ammunition..." which is different from 'if you do not load the weapon...' and certainly means that you still need to follow the same loading process, only using "no ammunition" in place of the ammunition (as certainly as it means whatever else you might say it means, anyway).
Or, does the infusion turn bows into one-handed weapons and negate the two-hand property on them? It definitely doesn't say that it does, but I can infer that the second hand is for drawing and loading the ammunition (which, for a bow, I assert includes drawing the string), none of which is required if I am using the magic ammunition -- just like with a hand crossbow, so I can infer that the second hand is no longer required -- just like a hand crossbow.
You're saying "I'm so good at doing two things that if I no longer have to do one, that means I automatically don't need to do both." That is, at a minimum, a problematic way of thinking.
Yes, the main thrust of my argument is that the text could be interpreted differently. Why is that important? Because I think it is self-righteous to think that your way is the only way to interpret unclear text. Yurei summed up my position well in one of their statements: If the rules only do what they say, then any consequences of the rules beyond what they actually say are open to interpretation.
Excellent point, sir(?). Exactly my point in fact. I'm glad we agree.
Nothing in the rules says you don't need a free hand with repeating shot, while ammunition explicitly says you do.
Though, I don't agree with it and would never rule this way in my games, there isn't a valid argument against it until the RAW is changed. They could have easily included it in the list of properties repeating shot was affecting (and should have), but didn't.
(And I'm not going to read the 2 new pages of debate that popped up while I was off.)
Again, the ammunition property says you need a free to do exactly one thing: load the weapon. The repeating shot infusion says you do not load the weapon. As far as what the rules actually say, that's the beginning and the end of it. No one has raised any point to the contrary that doesn't involve supposition above and beyond the rules themselves.
Again, this is wrong. The infusion says you load the weapon with no ammo, not that you don't load it. How are these different? If there are other parts to loading the weapon besides shoving ammo at it, then those are still required.
Without introducing nonexistent text, those are logically equivalent statements.
No. One statement says 'if you [take some action] without [some object]'. The other says 'if you don't [take some action that includes an object].' If you can't follow that those are different, I wouldn't trust your interpretation of the rules anyway.
One could conceivably interpret the first statement that they must still do all of the parts of the action loading the weapon — drawing the string, for example — only without the ammunition object.
Good. I'm glad we agree. Go read the infusion again.
So then you’d also allow this infusion to negate the 2-h property of bows?
A bow requires two hands to fire whether you nock an arrow or don't.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
A crossbow requires a free hand to load whether you use a bolt or not.
It's what the two-handed property does.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
If only they had clarified this instead of nerfing GFB and BB. Then again WotC isn't known for making smart decisions with/about their products.
That's incorrect. Note that I specified "without introducing nonexistent text." If we accept that the ammunition property allows for loading things other than ammunition (as is required to establish that your general case is applicable), then we do get an ambiguity. But, if we're going to be as obnoxiously legalistic as you want us to be, that isn't the case.
The only thing the rules actually talk about loading is ammunition. There isn't anything aside from ammunition that can be loaded within the framework provided by the Ammunition property. What this means is that "loading no ammunition" is logically equivalent to "loading nothing" (because there is no alternative provided for), which is logically equivalent to "not loading anything" (because that is fundamentally how the English language works). If you can't follow that, blah blah etc. etc.
[EDIT] I must confess to forgetting about your second paragraph, sorry. But, and I really feel like this should speak for itself, if you do all the parts of loading the crossbow except for loading the crossbow, you're not actually loading the crossbow.
But that is negated by not needing two hands anymore. At least that is the logic of negating some parts of the requirements of the ammunition property when they’re “obviously” invalidated by the infusion.