Okay, so the artificer infusion [Tooltip Not Found] lets you ignore the loading property and it magically produces ammunition. Now, lets say you infuse a hand crossbow with this. Does that mean you no longer need a free hand to fire the crossbow (as would be required by the ammunition property)?
I contend that the text of the infusion makes no mention of lifting any restrictions due to the ammunition property. It also makes no mention of the weapon performing any actions involved in loading (cocking the crossbow in this case), besides providing the ammunition. If the intent was to lift that restriction, it would be explicitly mentioned.
The only point I can see in favour of saying that the weapon does load itself fully (i.e. you don't need a free hand), is that the wording on manual loading seems to imply it. I say that is just a carelessly-worded clarification to say that you can still use regular (or indeed, magical) ammunition with the weapon.
I suppose the discussion is futile, as the upcoming Eberron book will hopefully put this to rest. But I'm like a terrier for a discussion like this XD
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
The infusion clearly makes the ammunition property optional. The ammunition property says you need ammo to fire the weapon and a free hand to load that ammo. The infusion says the weapon generates its own ammo when you attack unless you choose to manually load it. That makes an exception to the ammunition property and if you're not loading ammo into the weapon you obviously don't need a free hand.
The name of the infusion and the fact that the weapon ignores the loading property are strong hints that narratively, it causes mechanical ranged weapons like crossbows and firearms to magically reset themselves after each shot.
Thing is, the infusion also works on bows and other weapons which specifically require the other hand. RAW (and this is Rules and Game Mechanics, so RAW is the only thing that matters here), the infusion doesn't eliminate the Ammunition property, it only eliminates the need to carry or supply external ammunition. A DM is free to rule otherwise (and personally I would, within reason), but per what RAW we have, you'd need the open hand to reload the weapon. No repeating pistolbow + shield for you, unless a DM says otherwise.
Thing is, the infusion also works on bows and other weapons which specifically require the other hand.
Yes, and a bow is a two-handed weapon, so it's going to require two hands regardless.
RAW (and this is Rules and Game Mechanics, so RAW is the only thing that matters here), the infusion doesn't eliminate the Ammunition property, it only eliminates the need to carry or supply external ammunition.
Yes, and if you no longer need to supply external ammunition, you don't need a free hand for the ammunition you're no longer supplying.
A DM is free to rule otherwise (and personally I would, within reason), but per what RAW we have, you'd need the open hand to reload the weapon.
You don't need to reload the weapon, since the infusion explicitly says the weapon will produce its own ammo if you don't load it yourself.
The Infusion is odd because it works on ranged weapons of various types. It is my belief that we will see it changed in some way, but right now it works best for firearms (which I am certain is the point). Bows and Crossbows require two hands so the "requires a freehand to load" is kind of irrelevant but Hand Crossbows are where thing begin to break down it seems.
Bows and Crossbows require two hands so the "requires a freehand to load" is kind of irrelevant but Hand Crossbows are where thing begin to break down it seems.
A DM is free to rule otherwise (and personally I would, within reason), but per what RAW we have, you'd need the open hand to reload the weapon.
You don't need to reload the weapon, since the infusion explicitly says the weapon will produce its own ammo if you don't load it yourself.
Except it doesn't say that you don't have to reload explicitly, it is implied by saying that it doesn't provide ammunition if you "manually load it". Which I think is careless wording. Besides, the "it" could also refer to the ammunition.
Regardless, what is your explanation for the lack of explicit statements regarding the ammunition property? Is that an oversight, or do you think they felt it was obvious?
Bows and Crossbows require two hands so the "requires a freehand to load" is kind of irrelevant but Hand Crossbows are where thing begin to break down it seems.
Slings, blowguns and pistols are also one-handed.
To be clear, I am of the opinion that using this infusion eliminates the need for a free hand, the OP is just making an argument that you would need a free hand to cock a hand crossbow and I can understand his point of view. HOWEVER... you have a valid point here. Rules are generally applied in an all or nothing kind of way. The Infusion should work the same for all single handed ranged weapons regardless of real world physics.
Except it doesn't say that you don't have to reload explicitly, it is implied by saying that it doesn't provide ammunition if you "load it manually". Which I think is careless wording.
Regardless, what is your explanation for the lack of explicit statements regarding the ammunition property? Is that an oversight, or do you think they felt it was obvious?
There's a joke about a programmer that's going to the supermarket, and after being told by his wife "Buy a gallon of milk, and if there are eggs, buy a dozen" comes back with 13 gallons. The rules aren't written for that guy.
The Player's Handbook tells you "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins." There's absolutely no need for one rule to explicitly say "this other rule doesn't apply"; it just has to contradict the more general rule. In fact, exceptions will often contradict just part of a more general rule, as is the case here, so a lot of the times "X rule doesn't apply" would be too general.
The infusion clearly contradicts the part of the ammunition property that says you can only fire the weapon if you have ammunition and that you need to expend a piece of ammunition for each shot. It can't just flat-out say "you ignore the ammunition property" because it's designed to still give you the option to use your ammo. If it cancelled out the ammunition property altogether, that prevents you from using your own ammo, and even if you somehow could, it would also mean you no longer need a free hand when loading it manually. Heck, it would arguably make the weapon useless, because if it doesn't have the ammunition property and it doesn't have the thrown property either, how exactly do you make a ranged attack with it?
Simply as a note I've seen made in a few other threads in this section.
This board, Rules and Game Mechanics, is for clarifying RAW. It's about what the rules actually say, not what they should say or what we might want them to say. That's for other forums. The infusion, as it's currently written, states only that the weapon magically creates its own ammunition unless you override that function by manually loading ammo into the weapon. Having just double-checked the wording of the infusion, it doesn't actually modify or otherwise interact with the 'Ammunition' property at all beyond stating that the weapon does not consume ammo/magically produces its own shot. One could argue that clearly means the weapon becomes autoloading and doesn't require any interactions beyond click>boom, but the RAW doesn't actually state that. And any good rules lawyer would argue that if it's not stated, it's not a thing.
It could be interpreted that the weapon only produces its magical shadow-ammo when it's otherwise made ready to fire - cock the crossbow, work the hammer on the firearm, suck wind for a blowgun, do...whatever...for a sling. It could also be interpreted the other way, especially for devices with no clear pre-reload actions such as a sling or blowgun. Per the actual words in the document though, you need the hand to woo-woo with, even if you don't need physical ammo to shove in the doohickus so infused.
Having just double-checked the wording of the infusion, it doesn't actually modify or otherwise interact with the 'Ammunition' property at all beyond stating that the weapon does not consume ammo/magically produces its own shot.
Again: it doesn't have to. It explicitly contradicts aspects of the rule, and that's enough, as explicitly stated in the Player's Handbook introduction section "Specific Beats General." This is RAW. Are you seriously trying to argue that a specific feature that says you don't need ammunition to fire this weapon doesn't interact with a rule that says you need ammunition to fire the weapon?
Bows and Crossbows require two hands so the "requires a freehand to load" is kind of irrelevant but Hand Crossbows are where thing begin to break down it seems.
Slings, blowguns and pistols are also one-handed.
To be clear, I am of the opinion that using this infusion eliminates the need for a free hand, the OP is just making an argument that you would need a free hand to cock a hand crossbow and I can understand his point of view. HOWEVER... you have a valid point here. Rules are generally applied in an all or nothing kind of way. The Infusion should work the same for all single handed ranged weapons regardless of real world physics.
I think my interpretation fits with the necessities of loading slings, pistols, and hand crossbows (admittedly not so much with blowguns, perhaps).
But my argument is that the tekst nowhere mentions lifting any kind of restrictions w.r.t. the ammunition property. The weapon still needs ammunition to fire, you just don't have to provide it. And if you do, it won't jam everything by insisting on adding a second piece of ammunition.
The Player's Handbook tells you "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins." There's absolutely no need for one rule to explicitly say "this other rule doesn't apply"; it just has to contradict the more general rule. In fact, exceptions will often contradict just part of a more general rule, as is the case here, so a lot of the times "X rule doesn't apply" would be too general.
The infusion clearly contradicts the part of the ammunition property that says you can only fire the weapon if you have ammunition and that you need to expend a piece of ammunition for each shot. It can't just flat-out say "you ignore the ammunition property" because it's designed to still give you the option to use your ammo. If it cancelled out the ammunition property altogether, that prevents you from using your own ammo, and even if you somehow could, it would also mean you no longer need a free hand when loading it manually. Heck, it would arguably make the weapon useless, because if it doesn't have the ammunition property and it doesn't have the thrown property either, how exactly do you make a ranged attack with it?
Yes, it does need to say that, otherwise the general rule is still in place. It does not need to state that the ammunition property is ignored entirely, but it does need to state, explicitly, which portions no longer apply. It doesn't do so and until it does, the general rule is in effect.
Also, as I alluded above, the infusion doesn't contradict the ammunition property. It still needs ammunition to fire and the ammunition is still expended. It's just that the weapon can provide it for you, if you attack without putting ammunition in yourself.
By the way, I would totally allow players to use it like you suggest, it doesn't break anything. But people, aside from Yurei, keep insisting my technical, RAW interpretation is wrong, and I won't concede until somebody convinces me otherwise :D
Also, as I alluded above, the infusion doesn't contradict the ammunition property. It still needs ammunition to fire,
Which is why it keeps the ammunition property and just changes how it applies to the weapon.
but the weapon can provide it for you, if you attack without putting ammunition in yourself.
...which directly contradicts all of this:
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).
Because now you don't need to have ammunition to fire the weapon and you're not expending ammunition either.
Seriously, you have to be extremely pedantic to make the case that you still need a free hand, because the whole argument hinges on "Well the rules never explicitly say you need to load a two-handed weapon" even though it's absolutely obvious that the bit about drawing ammunition is talking about loading the weapon, which you no longer need to do.
Having just double-checked the wording of the infusion, it doesn't actually modify or otherwise interact with the 'Ammunition' property at all beyond stating that the weapon does not consume ammo/magically produces its own shot.
Again: it doesn't have to. It explicitly contradicts aspects of the rule, and that's enough, as explicitly stated in the Player's Handbook introduction section "Specific Beats General." This is RAW. Are you seriously trying to argue that a specific feature that says you don't need ammunition to fire this weapon doesn't interact with a rule that says you need ammunition to fire the weapon?
No, I'm saying it doesn't negate the need for ammunition, it negates the need for bringing your own. If it didn't need ammunition to fire, why would it make it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
Also, as I alluded above, the infusion doesn't contradict the ammunition property. It still needs ammunition to fire,
Which is why it keeps the ammunition property and just changes how it applies to the weapon.
but the weapon can provide it for you, if you attack without putting ammunition in yourself.
...which directly contradicts all of this:
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).
Because now you don't need to have ammunition to fire the weapon and you're not expending ammunition either.
Seriously, you have to be extremely pedantic to make the case that you still need a free hand, because the whole argument hinges on "Well the rules never explicitly say you need to load a two-handed weapon" even though it's absolutely obvious that the bit about drawing ammunition is talking about loading the weapon, which you no longer need to do.
Think of it like this, cock the crossbow, cleaned the pistol barrel, grabbed the other end of the sling, and you fire. Normally, that wouldn't do anything, but thanks to artificer know-how, the weapon detects an absence of munition and fixes that for you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
RAW is all about pedantry, which is why I like arguing about it.
But you yourself cited specific beats general. The corollary of that is that an absence of specific does not beat general.
And as I've said before, it doesn't contradict the ammunition property one bit. Otherwise it wouldn't need to make the ammunition for you. That is the then fired and thus expended. That you could never not expend it is irrelevant for the rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
RAW is all about pedantry, which is why I like arguing about it.
RAW is not about pedantry; that presupposes you're expected to be pedantic when reading the rules, which is not true. You're expected to parse them as you would in every day English, using context to inform your interpretation.
The only way to argue you need a free hand is to be deliberately obtuse about what the ammunition property is saying.
Yes, embrace the pedantry, let flow through you and feel the power! (Not making fun of you, just trying to lighten the mood with a joke)
The rules also don't explicitly state that you only need a free hand to grab the ammunition. It doesn't say:
"Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to do this in the case of a one-handed weapon)."
Nor does it say:
"[...] (hence, you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)
It says
"[...] (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)."
I mean, I'm sure I could hold on to a hand crossbow and draw a bolt from a case with the same hand. So I don't need a free hand for that. What I would need the free hand for, is prepping the weapon for making a ranged attack. E.g. grabbing the other end of a sling (and placing a sling bullet in there if my artificer friend is fed up with my pedantry and takes back the infusion in disgust).
Can we at least agree that it is poorly worded?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
No, because the meaning of "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." ought to be plenty clear to anyone that's not trying to be the programmer from the joke.
Seriously, it's giving you an alternative to manually loading the weapon right there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay, so the artificer infusion [Tooltip Not Found] lets you ignore the loading property and it magically produces ammunition. Now, lets say you infuse a hand crossbow with this. Does that mean you no longer need a free hand to fire the crossbow (as would be required by the ammunition property)?
I contend that the text of the infusion makes no mention of lifting any restrictions due to the ammunition property. It also makes no mention of the weapon performing any actions involved in loading (cocking the crossbow in this case), besides providing the ammunition. If the intent was to lift that restriction, it would be explicitly mentioned.
The only point I can see in favour of saying that the weapon does load itself fully (i.e. you don't need a free hand), is that the wording on manual loading seems to imply it. I say that is just a carelessly-worded clarification to say that you can still use regular (or indeed, magical) ammunition with the weapon.
I suppose the discussion is futile, as the upcoming Eberron book will hopefully put this to rest. But I'm like a terrier for a discussion like this XD
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
The infusion clearly makes the ammunition property optional. The ammunition property says you need ammo to fire the weapon and a free hand to load that ammo. The infusion says the weapon generates its own ammo when you attack unless you choose to manually load it. That makes an exception to the ammunition property and if you're not loading ammo into the weapon you obviously don't need a free hand.
The name of the infusion and the fact that the weapon ignores the loading property are strong hints that narratively, it causes mechanical ranged weapons like crossbows and firearms to magically reset themselves after each shot.
Thing is, the infusion also works on bows and other weapons which specifically require the other hand. RAW (and this is Rules and Game Mechanics, so RAW is the only thing that matters here), the infusion doesn't eliminate the Ammunition property, it only eliminates the need to carry or supply external ammunition. A DM is free to rule otherwise (and personally I would, within reason), but per what RAW we have, you'd need the open hand to reload the weapon. No repeating pistolbow + shield for you, unless a DM says otherwise.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
Yes, and a bow is a two-handed weapon, so it's going to require two hands regardless.
Yes, and if you no longer need to supply external ammunition, you don't need a free hand for the ammunition you're no longer supplying.
You don't need to reload the weapon, since the infusion explicitly says the weapon will produce its own ammo if you don't load it yourself.
The Infusion is odd because it works on ranged weapons of various types. It is my belief that we will see it changed in some way, but right now it works best for firearms (which I am certain is the point). Bows and Crossbows require two hands so the "requires a freehand to load" is kind of irrelevant but Hand Crossbows are where thing begin to break down it seems.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Slings, blowguns and pistols are also one-handed.
Except it doesn't say that you don't have to reload explicitly, it is implied by saying that it doesn't provide ammunition if you "manually load it". Which I think is careless wording. Besides, the "it" could also refer to the ammunition.
Regardless, what is your explanation for the lack of explicit statements regarding the ammunition property? Is that an oversight, or do you think they felt it was obvious?
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
To be clear, I am of the opinion that using this infusion eliminates the need for a free hand, the OP is just making an argument that you would need a free hand to cock a hand crossbow and I can understand his point of view. HOWEVER... you have a valid point here. Rules are generally applied in an all or nothing kind of way. The Infusion should work the same for all single handed ranged weapons regardless of real world physics.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
There's a joke about a programmer that's going to the supermarket, and after being told by his wife "Buy a gallon of milk, and if there are eggs, buy a dozen" comes back with 13 gallons. The rules aren't written for that guy.
The Player's Handbook tells you "If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins." There's absolutely no need for one rule to explicitly say "this other rule doesn't apply"; it just has to contradict the more general rule. In fact, exceptions will often contradict just part of a more general rule, as is the case here, so a lot of the times "X rule doesn't apply" would be too general.
The infusion clearly contradicts the part of the ammunition property that says you can only fire the weapon if you have ammunition and that you need to expend a piece of ammunition for each shot. It can't just flat-out say "you ignore the ammunition property" because it's designed to still give you the option to use your ammo. If it cancelled out the ammunition property altogether, that prevents you from using your own ammo, and even if you somehow could, it would also mean you no longer need a free hand when loading it manually. Heck, it would arguably make the weapon useless, because if it doesn't have the ammunition property and it doesn't have the thrown property either, how exactly do you make a ranged attack with it?
Simply as a note I've seen made in a few other threads in this section.
This board, Rules and Game Mechanics, is for clarifying RAW. It's about what the rules actually say, not what they should say or what we might want them to say. That's for other forums. The infusion, as it's currently written, states only that the weapon magically creates its own ammunition unless you override that function by manually loading ammo into the weapon. Having just double-checked the wording of the infusion, it doesn't actually modify or otherwise interact with the 'Ammunition' property at all beyond stating that the weapon does not consume ammo/magically produces its own shot. One could argue that clearly means the weapon becomes autoloading and doesn't require any interactions beyond click>boom, but the RAW doesn't actually state that. And any good rules lawyer would argue that if it's not stated, it's not a thing.
It could be interpreted that the weapon only produces its magical shadow-ammo when it's otherwise made ready to fire - cock the crossbow, work the hammer on the firearm, suck wind for a blowgun, do...whatever...for a sling. It could also be interpreted the other way, especially for devices with no clear pre-reload actions such as a sling or blowgun. Per the actual words in the document though, you need the hand to woo-woo with, even if you don't need physical ammo to shove in the doohickus so infused.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
Again: it doesn't have to. It explicitly contradicts aspects of the rule, and that's enough, as explicitly stated in the Player's Handbook introduction section "Specific Beats General." This is RAW. Are you seriously trying to argue that a specific feature that says you don't need ammunition to fire this weapon doesn't interact with a rule that says you need ammunition to fire the weapon?
I think my interpretation fits with the necessities of loading slings, pistols, and hand crossbows (admittedly not so much with blowguns, perhaps).
But my argument is that the tekst nowhere mentions lifting any kind of restrictions w.r.t. the ammunition property. The weapon still needs ammunition to fire, you just don't have to provide it. And if you do, it won't jam everything by insisting on adding a second piece of ammunition.
Yes, it does need to say that, otherwise the general rule is still in place. It does not need to state that the ammunition property is ignored entirely, but it does need to state, explicitly, which portions no longer apply. It doesn't do so and until it does, the general rule is in effect.
Also, as I alluded above, the infusion doesn't contradict the ammunition property. It still needs ammunition to fire and the ammunition is still expended. It's just that the weapon can provide it for you, if you attack without putting ammunition in yourself.
By the way, I would totally allow players to use it like you suggest, it doesn't break anything. But people, aside from Yurei, keep insisting my technical, RAW interpretation is wrong, and I won't concede until somebody convinces me otherwise :D
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
Which is why it keeps the ammunition property and just changes how it applies to the weapon.
...which directly contradicts all of this:
Because now you don't need to have ammunition to fire the weapon and you're not expending ammunition either.
Seriously, you have to be extremely pedantic to make the case that you still need a free hand, because the whole argument hinges on "Well the rules never explicitly say you need to load a two-handed weapon" even though it's absolutely obvious that the bit about drawing ammunition is talking about loading the weapon, which you no longer need to do.
No, I'm saying it doesn't negate the need for ammunition, it negates the need for bringing your own. If it didn't need ammunition to fire, why would it make it?
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
Which means you don't need a free hand to draw your ammunition and load it into the weapon.
Think of it like this, cock the crossbow, cleaned the pistol barrel, grabbed the other end of the sling, and you fire. Normally, that wouldn't do anything, but thanks to artificer know-how, the weapon detects an absence of munition and fixes that for you.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
RAW is all about pedantry, which is why I like arguing about it.
But you yourself cited specific beats general. The corollary of that is that an absence of specific does not beat general.
And as I've said before, it doesn't contradict the ammunition property one bit. Otherwise it wouldn't need to make the ammunition for you. That is the then fired and thus expended. That you could never not expend it is irrelevant for the rules.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
That'd be relevant if cocking the crossbow was an explicit step the rules ask you to take, but it's not.
RAW is not about pedantry; that presupposes you're expected to be pedantic when reading the rules, which is not true. You're expected to parse them as you would in every day English, using context to inform your interpretation.
The only way to argue you need a free hand is to be deliberately obtuse about what the ammunition property is saying.
Yes, embrace the pedantry, let flow through you and feel the power! (Not making fun of you, just trying to lighten the mood with a joke)
The rules also don't explicitly state that you only need a free hand to grab the ammunition. It doesn't say:
"Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to do this in the case of a one-handed weapon)."
Nor does it say:
"[...] (hence, you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)
It says
"[...] (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)."
I mean, I'm sure I could hold on to a hand crossbow and draw a bolt from a case with the same hand. So I don't need a free hand for that. What I would need the free hand for, is prepping the weapon for making a ranged attack. E.g. grabbing the other end of a sling (and placing a sling bullet in there if my artificer friend is fed up with my pedantry and takes back the infusion in disgust).
Can we at least agree that it is poorly worded?
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
No, because the meaning of "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." ought to be plenty clear to anyone that's not trying to be the programmer from the joke.
Seriously, it's giving you an alternative to manually loading the weapon right there.