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.
No, you're just conflating two unrelated things.
A one-handed ammunition weapon requires a free hand to load and can be fired one-handed.
A two-handed ammunition weapon also requires a free hand to load and requires two hands to fire.
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.
No, you're just conflating two unrelated things.
A one-handed ammunition weapon requires a free hand to load and can be fired one-handed.
A two-handed ammunition weapon also requires a free hand to load and requires two hands to fire.
No one's claiming you can fire a bow one-handed.
This is actually wrong. Two handed weapons don’t need a free hand to load, at least according to the 2-h or ammo properties.
And why does not needing a second hand to draw the string of the bow (which is apparently done by the infusion now) not negate the 2-h property of the bow, again? It is as obvious as your inference that not needing to provide ammunition invalidates the same step in using a crossbow, negating that part of the weapon property.
A crossbow requires a free hand to load whether you use a bolt or not.
If someone else loaded the weapon for you, would you still require a free hand?
If someone else didn’t load it for you, would the string be cocked?
You are the one insisting that cocking the weapon is part of loading rather than a separate action. If they are part of the same action, then you have insisted that they cocked it. If they are separate actions, then since the separate action is not actually mentioned at all under the Ammunition property, merely the need for a free hand to load such a weapon, then it must be covered under 'Loading,' which is specifically and explicitly bypassed by the infusion.
You are simultaneously trying to argue that it is and is not part of loading the weapon.
Again, no. “If you load the weapon with no ammunition” can be interpreted that a crossbow still needs to be cocked. If you cock the crossbow but don’t put a bolt in, then your magic bolt appears. That is perfectly reasonable and not as much of a stretch of the rules as you seem to think, certainly not as much as equating a statement starting “if you load” with one beginning “when you don’t load.”
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.
No, you're just conflating two unrelated things.
A one-handed ammunition weapon requires a free hand to load and can be fired one-handed.
A two-handed ammunition weapon also requires a free hand to load and requires two hands to fire.
No one's claiming you can fire a bow one-handed.
This is actually wrong. Two handed weapons don’t need a free hand to load, at least according to the 2-h or ammo properties.
And why does not needing a second hand to draw the string of the bow (which is apparently done by the infusion now) not negate the 2-h property of the bow, again? It is as obvious as your inference that not needing to provide ammunition invalidates the same step in using a crossbow, negating that part of the weapon property.
The ammunition property explicitly states that loading ammunition is part of the attack. The hand isn't "free" because, if the weapon also has the two-handed property, that hand is part of the attack. So both hands are, explicitly, being used. The hand is only free if the weapon is one-handed, as with the hand crossbow.
The feature only does what it says it does. No more, and no less. The two-handed property isn't ignored, so it remains. Two hands are still needed to fire the weapon. In the case of a longbow, maybe the ammunition only appears as you draw down on the bowstring. That's up to how the artificer chooses to trap the infusion.
A crossbow requires a free hand to load whether you use a bolt or not.
If someone else loaded the weapon for you, would you still require a free hand?
If someone else didn’t load it for you, would the string be cocked?
You are the one insisting that cocking the weapon is part of loading rather than a separate action. If they are part of the same action, then you have insisted that they cocked it. If they are separate actions, then since the separate action is not actually mentioned at all under the Ammunition property, merely the need for a free hand to load such a weapon, then it must be covered under 'Loading,' which is specifically and explicitly bypassed by the infusion.
You are simultaneously trying to argue that it is and is not part of loading the weapon.
Again, no. “If you load the weapon with no ammunition” can be interpreted that a crossbow still needs to be cocked. If you cock the crossbow but don’t put a bolt in, then your magic bolt appears.
Where do the rules talk about cocking crossbows?
That is perfectly reasonable and not as much of a stretch of the rules as you seem to think, certainly not as much as equating a statement starting “if you load” with one beginning “when you don’t load.”
I don't know if you think it's clever to cut out the vital context, but I really feel like you're just being mean at this point? I can demonstrate the equivalence with formal logic if you really want me to.
A crossbow requires a free hand to load whether you use a bolt or not.
If someone else loaded the weapon for you, would you still require a free hand?
If someone else didn’t load it for you, would the string be cocked?
You are the one insisting that cocking the weapon is part of loading rather than a separate action. If they are part of the same action, then you have insisted that they cocked it. If they are separate actions, then since the separate action is not actually mentioned at all under the Ammunition property, merely the need for a free hand to load such a weapon, then it must be covered under 'Loading,' which is specifically and explicitly bypassed by the infusion.
You are simultaneously trying to argue that it is and is not part of loading the weapon.
Again, no. “If you load the weapon with no ammunition” can be interpreted that a crossbow still needs to be cocked. If you cock the crossbow but don’t put a bolt in, then your magic bolt appears.
Where do the rules talk about cocking crossbows?
It is a reasonable interpretation of what loading a weapon would be if you don’t use ammunition, which is exactly what the rules tell you to do.
A crossbow requires a free hand to load whether you use a bolt or not.
If someone else loaded the weapon for you, would you still require a free hand?
If someone else didn’t load it for you, would the string be cocked?
You are the one insisting that cocking the weapon is part of loading rather than a separate action. If they are part of the same action, then you have insisted that they cocked it. If they are separate actions, then since the separate action is not actually mentioned at all under the Ammunition property, merely the need for a free hand to load such a weapon, then it must be covered under 'Loading,' which is specifically and explicitly bypassed by the infusion.
You are simultaneously trying to argue that it is and is not part of loading the weapon.
Again, no. “If you load the weapon with no ammunition” can be interpreted that a crossbow still needs to be cocked. If you cock the crossbow but don’t put a bolt in, then your magic bolt appears.
Where do the rules talk about cocking crossbows?
It is a reasonable interpretation of what loading a weapon would be if you don’t use ammunition, which is exactly what the rules tell you to do.
No, it's not. Are you seriously trying to claim that loading nothing is loading something, and then acting like I'm an idiot for daring to suggest that that's... not true?
No, i’m offering that the rules saying “load without ammunition” might mean something different than “not load” for a weapon where we know that there are other steps to making it ready to fire. Especially considering that the other side has already claimed something along the lines of ‘you must be able to infer some things to understand the rules,’ then, whose to say that your inferences are better than anyone else’s?
No, i’m offering that the rules saying “load without ammunition” might mean something different than “not load” for a weapon where we know that there are other steps to making it ready to fire. Especially considering that the other side has already claimed something along the lines of ‘you must be able to infer some things to understand the rules,’ then, whose to say that your inferences are better than anyone else’s?
The infusion states the weapon produces its own ammunition, not that it's loaded without ammunition. And producing its own ammunition means there's no need to load it with ammunition. That said, a person still can do so if they want to. Especially if magical ammunition is available.
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.
I know this is off-topic, but they didn't actually nerf. GFB and BB. Range of self is distinct from target of self.
In a recent Dragon Talk, Crawford went a step further in saying they had the wrong range. The effect doesn't originate 5, 10, or 20 feet out. It originates from the spellcaster. I'll likely houserule it a bit at my table to work with extra reach without a feat, but that's it.
No, i’m offering that the rules saying “load without ammunition” might mean something different than “not load” for a weapon where we know that there are other steps to making it ready to fire. Especially considering that the other side has already claimed something along the lines of ‘you must be able to infer some things to understand the rules,’ then, whose to say that your inferences are better than anyone else’s?
But it does not say 'Load without ammunition.' It says 'If you load no ammunition.' That is not the same, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
And I see you are again completely ignoring my comment regarding the 'Loading' property. It is not nocking the bolt that slows down the firing.
Look, we (at least I) understand where you're coming from. The argument being made is that there is a logically possible scenario in which "if you load no ammunition" is not intended to mean "no manual loading process required"; the phrase could be interpreted as "entire manual loading process still required, but ammunition will magically materialize when you're done".
The primary interpretation claims there is a relationship between the Repeating Shot infusion and the need for a free hand to manually load/prepare a weapon. [edit] This claim is entirely independent of hands required to hold, aim, and fire the loaded weapon.
The secondary interpretation claims there is not a relationship (arguing the null hypothesis). This is not unusual or illogical, and it's a perfectly normal practice.
Both are logical possibilities, but only one can be factually true. Then we have to compare the outcomes as an inductive argument, and placing the weight of probability with evidence in favor of each claim. Considering everything that has been posted thus far in this thread, I think it's fair to say there is significantly more evidence suggesting that the primary interpretation is the correct one.
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.
Any and all "loading" is abstracted as part of the ammunition property of the weapon; because the rules don't actually address it. Such discussion is to inject a layer of granularity not accounted for. Fine, if you want to, but not something you can reasonably impress upon others. In either case, it only ever comes up during the making of an attack. And if the weapon produces its own ammunition, then the "loading" is taken care of for you by the weapon.
ignores the loading property--which is really just rate of fire, and it will annoy me until WotC publishes errata, 5.5e, 6e, etc--because it says so
does not ignore any other properties, including two-handed and ammunition, because it does not say so
We would need it to say so because those properties are the general rule
produces ammunition for the weapon if you do not load any
We have significant evidence to presume that this also removes the need to actually load the weapon, as in double-action--fully cycling a shot all in one pull--with a chamber that never runs dry
The entire ammunition isn't ignored because the property has multiple relevant interactions attached to it, and this bullet of the Repeating Shot feature is a specific exception to the relevant portion of ammunition
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.
RAW, I'm with the "still requires a free hand" side. Specific overrides general, but there is no rule which specifically says you can ignore that part of the ammunition property. Instead, they specifically call out the parts you can ignore (drawing ammunition and expending it from inventory).
If you start to consider real implications, outside of the strict wording of the rules, this makes even more sense for hand crossbows. If you say that they do not need a free hand, you are basically saying that it magically draws the string back and cocks the weapon. This is not mentioned anywhere in the rules. If the infusion did that, then why would it not do so for a bow, magically drawing the string back and holding it there for you, ammunition in place?
The real implications for slings seem to fit, too. Part of using a sling, AFAIK, is letting go of one end. You then need to collect the free end and hold it correctly again before you can put another piece of ammo in (or have it magically appear by this infusion). I guess you could try to fumble it into place with a single hand, but that would not be the norm.
Blowpipes are the only one I can see where this would be different, but the rules don't always make sense. The rules are precisely what is written.
At a table, I'd personally go with the rule of cool and make it reload and cock itself. It would be much more fun that way. However, that would definitely be a house rule IMHO.
Again, it ignores the loading property... The infusion could pull the string back so that it latches in place
The loading property is not the property which causes it to require a free hand. The ammunition property is, and RAW it does not ignore this property.
Nowhere does it say that you may ignore the ammunition property, nor does it say that it no longer requires a free hand. The parts of the Ammunition property which are not specifically overridden by the infusion must still be active. Specific beats general, but general applies when a specific rule doesn't override it.
Ammunition. 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). At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
Here I have crossed out the parts which are specifically overridden by the infusion: you don't need ammunition available as it creates its own, you don't expend ammo as it creates its own, you don't need to draw ammo as it creates its own. It leaves only one part, which is needing a free hand. It would make no sense at all for them to write in such detail which parts no longer apply if no part did, they could have just said it may ignore the ammunition property.
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.
Looking at the crossbow as the example, it can create a piece of ammo. Great! However, if it creates a piece of ammo on the crossbow before it has been cocked, it will probably fall off. It certainly wouldn't be able to be fired. The rule says nothing about the infusion cocking the weapon, or putting the other end of the sling back in your hand, just that it automatically creates ammo.
Fair enough, I'll agree to disagree. Personally, I would always play it that way anyway, so it really doesn't matter much to me.
I find it pretty ridiculous that they didn't just put "ignore the ammunition property if you do" if they were going to override every part of it, just as they did with the loading property.
Any rule which causes this much argument over its meaning is a badly written rule.
Again, it ignores the loading property... The infusion could pull the string back so that it latches in place
The loading property is not the property which causes it to require a free hand. The ammunition property is, and RAW it does not ignore this property.
Nowhere does it say that you may ignore the ammunition property, nor does it say that it no longer requires a free hand. The parts of the Ammunition property which are not specifically overridden by the infusion must still be active. Specific beats general, but general applies when a specific rule doesn't override it.
Ammunition. 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).At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
Here I have crossed out the parts which are specifically overridden by the infusion: you don't need ammunition available as it creates its own, you don't expend ammo as it creates its own, you don't need to draw ammo as it creates its own. It leaves only one part, which is needing a free hand. It would make no sense at all for them to write in such detail which parts no longer apply if no part did, they could have just said it may ignore the ammunition property.
I'm sorry I have to chime in: the one part you didn't cross out is a parenthetical. Those are used to add additional information or clarify a statement and are tied to that statement (see the definition below, and this exact phrase for an example). you don't get to eliminate the base statement and leave the clarifying info intact.
noun
plural noun: parentheses
a word, clause, or sentence inserted as an explanation or afterthought into a passage that is grammatically complete without it, in writing usually marked off by curved brackets, dashes, or commas.
Either you 1) omit the parenthetical with the base statement, or 2) leave the base statement and the parenthetical. If you admit the base statement is overridden, then you have to exclude the clarifying info as well, as it doesn't stand alone without the base statement by definition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If someone else didn’t load it for you, would the string be cocked?
No, you're just conflating two unrelated things.
A one-handed ammunition weapon requires a free hand to load and can be fired one-handed.
A two-handed ammunition weapon also requires a free hand to load and requires two hands to fire.
No one's claiming you can fire a bow one-handed.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
This is actually wrong. Two handed weapons don’t need a free hand to load, at least according to the 2-h or ammo properties.
And why does not needing a second hand to draw the string of the bow (which is apparently done by the infusion now) not negate the 2-h property of the bow, again? It is as obvious as your inference that not needing to provide ammunition invalidates the same step in using a crossbow, negating that part of the weapon property.
Again, no. “If you load the weapon with no ammunition” can be interpreted that a crossbow still needs to be cocked. If you cock the crossbow but don’t put a bolt in, then your magic bolt appears. That is perfectly reasonable and not as much of a stretch of the rules as you seem to think, certainly not as much as equating a statement starting “if you load” with one beginning “when you don’t load.”
The ammunition property explicitly states that loading ammunition is part of the attack. The hand isn't "free" because, if the weapon also has the two-handed property, that hand is part of the attack. So both hands are, explicitly, being used. The hand is only free if the weapon is one-handed, as with the hand crossbow.
The feature only does what it says it does. No more, and no less. The two-handed property isn't ignored, so it remains. Two hands are still needed to fire the weapon. In the case of a longbow, maybe the ammunition only appears as you draw down on the bowstring. That's up to how the artificer chooses to trap the infusion.
But you're deliberately spouting nonsense. Stop.
Where do the rules talk about cocking crossbows?
I don't know if you think it's clever to cut out the vital context, but I really feel like you're just being mean at this point? I can demonstrate the equivalence with formal logic if you really want me to.
It is a reasonable interpretation of what loading a weapon would be if you don’t use ammunition, which is exactly what the rules tell you to do.
No, it's not. Are you seriously trying to claim that loading nothing is loading something, and then acting like I'm an idiot for daring to suggest that that's... not true?
No, i’m offering that the rules saying “load without ammunition” might mean something different than “not load” for a weapon where we know that there are other steps to making it ready to fire. Especially considering that the other side has already claimed something along the lines of ‘you must be able to infer some things to understand the rules,’ then, whose to say that your inferences are better than anyone else’s?
The infusion states the weapon produces its own ammunition, not that it's loaded without ammunition. And producing its own ammunition means there's no need to load it with ammunition. That said, a person still can do so if they want to. Especially if magical ammunition is available.
What is so hard to grasp about this?
I know this is off-topic, but they didn't actually nerf GFB and BB. Range of self is distinct from target of self.
In a recent Dragon Talk, Crawford went a step further in saying they had the wrong range. The effect doesn't originate 5, 10, or 20 feet out. It originates from the spellcaster. I'll likely houserule it a bit at my table to work with extra reach without a feat, but that's it.
Look, we (at least I) understand where you're coming from. The argument being made is that there is a logically possible scenario in which "if you load no ammunition" is not intended to mean "no manual loading process required"; the phrase could be interpreted as "entire manual loading process still required, but ammunition will magically materialize when you're done".
The primary interpretation claims there is a relationship between the Repeating Shot infusion and the need for a free hand to manually load/prepare a weapon. [edit] This claim is entirely independent of hands required to hold, aim, and fire the loaded weapon.
The secondary interpretation claims there is not a relationship (arguing the null hypothesis). This is not unusual or illogical, and it's a perfectly normal practice.
Both are logical possibilities, but only one can be factually true. Then we have to compare the outcomes as an inductive argument, and placing the weight of probability with evidence in favor of each claim. Considering everything that has been posted thus far in this thread, I think it's fair to say there is significantly more evidence suggesting that the primary interpretation is the correct one.
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.
Any and all "loading" is abstracted as part of the ammunition property of the weapon; because the rules don't actually address it. Such discussion is to inject a layer of granularity not accounted for. Fine, if you want to, but not something you can reasonably impress upon others. In either case, it only ever comes up during the making of an attack. And if the weapon produces its own ammunition, then the "loading" is taken care of for you by the weapon.
Yeah, exactly.
We definitively know Repeating Shot:
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.
RAW, I'm with the "still requires a free hand" side. Specific overrides general, but there is no rule which specifically says you can ignore that part of the ammunition property. Instead, they specifically call out the parts you can ignore (drawing ammunition and expending it from inventory).
If you start to consider real implications, outside of the strict wording of the rules, this makes even more sense for hand crossbows. If you say that they do not need a free hand, you are basically saying that it magically draws the string back and cocks the weapon. This is not mentioned anywhere in the rules. If the infusion did that, then why would it not do so for a bow, magically drawing the string back and holding it there for you, ammunition in place?
The real implications for slings seem to fit, too. Part of using a sling, AFAIK, is letting go of one end. You then need to collect the free end and hold it correctly again before you can put another piece of ammo in (or have it magically appear by this infusion). I guess you could try to fumble it into place with a single hand, but that would not be the norm.
Blowpipes are the only one I can see where this would be different, but the rules don't always make sense. The rules are precisely what is written.
At a table, I'd personally go with the rule of cool and make it reload and cock itself. It would be much more fun that way. However, that would definitely be a house rule IMHO.
The loading property is not the property which causes it to require a free hand. The ammunition property is, and RAW it does not ignore this property.
Nowhere does it say that you may ignore the ammunition property, nor does it say that it no longer requires a free hand. The parts of the Ammunition property which are not specifically overridden by the infusion must still be active. Specific beats general, but general applies when a specific rule doesn't override it.
Here I have crossed out the parts which are specifically overridden by the infusion: you don't need ammunition available as it creates its own, you don't expend ammo as it creates its own, you don't need to draw ammo as it creates its own. It leaves only one part, which is needing a free hand. It would make no sense at all for them to write in such detail which parts no longer apply if no part did, they could have just said it may ignore the ammunition property.
Also:
Looking at the crossbow as the example, it can create a piece of ammo. Great! However, if it creates a piece of ammo on the crossbow before it has been cocked, it will probably fall off. It certainly wouldn't be able to be fired. The rule says nothing about the infusion cocking the weapon, or putting the other end of the sling back in your hand, just that it automatically creates ammo.
Fair enough, I'll agree to disagree. Personally, I would always play it that way anyway, so it really doesn't matter much to me.
I find it pretty ridiculous that they didn't just put "ignore the ammunition property if you do" if they were going to override every part of it, just as they did with the loading property.
Any rule which causes this much argument over its meaning is a badly written rule.
I'm sorry I have to chime in: the one part you didn't cross out is a parenthetical. Those are used to add additional information or clarify a statement and are tied to that statement (see the definition below, and this exact phrase for an example). you don't get to eliminate the base statement and leave the clarifying info intact.
Either you 1) omit the parenthetical with the base statement, or 2) leave the base statement and the parenthetical. If you admit the base statement is overridden, then you have to exclude the clarifying info as well, as it doesn't stand alone without the base statement by definition.