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.
They can't override the ammunition rule because if they did, you would be unable to use any ammunition other than the ammunition provided by the weapon, which is not the intent they wanted. So they wrote it as presenting an alternate option for firing that does override this section of the rule, but you can still follow the rule in full and load traditional (or poisoned, or magical) ammunition to use with the weapon.
you would be unable to use any ammunition other than the ammunition provided by the weapon
So, if they had said:
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. The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target. If you do so, you may ignore the Ammunition property.
How, exactly, would that have stopped you from using other ammunition?
This 11 page thread of arguments, as well as many more spread over the internet, about it would suggest that it would be necessary...
I'm gonna drop it, though, and unsubscribe from this thread. I can't help myself but to argue a point of logic (it gets me into trouble all the time lol), but if I don't see it I'll be able to drop 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)."
"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. 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. The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target."
The mention of the free hand being needed is to load a one-handed weapon, the repeating shot infusion has a specific case given for if you load no ammunition. This is an open-and-shut case irt RAW.
The reason it would not say that it ignores the ammunition trait, is that that would prohibit you from loading your own enhanced ammunition into the weapon.
Repeating Shot (pg. 22). In the second paragraph, the first sentence has been replaced with the following: “If the weapon lacks ammunition, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when the wielder makes a ranged attack with it.”
That should help considerably. Much clearer now and thanks for pointing it out!
Not sure that it helps at all tbh. But as this likely is all we'll get I guess it's up to each DM to figure out for themselves if the crossbow draws and cocks itself on its own or if the wielder needs to be involved.
That should help considerably. Much clearer now and thanks for pointing it out!
Not sure that it helps at all tbh. But as this likely is all we'll get I guess it's up to each DM to figure out for themselves if the crossbow draws and cocks itself on its own or if the wielder needs to be involved.
There were several people making the absolutely buck wild claim that "if you load no ammunition" meant "if you go through the motions of loading, just without ammunition" as opposed to "if you don't load."
There were several people making the absolutely buck wild claim that "if you load no ammunition" meant "if you go through the motions of loading, just without ammunition" as opposed to "if you don't load."
“Buck wild claim?!?” Excuse you. How is that not a completely valid interpretation? It’s as absolutely valid to imagine still having to cock it but not stick a bolt in it as it (like a bolt-action rifle or shotgun), is to imagine that it automatically cocks itself (like a semi-auto). Neither interpretation is any more or less valid than the other.
There were several people making the absolutely buck wild claim that "if you load no ammunition" meant "if you go through the motions of loading, just without ammunition" as opposed to "if you don't load."
“Buck wild claim?!?” Excuse you. How is that not a completely valid interpretation? It’s as absolutely valid to imagine still having to cock it but not stick a bolt in it as it (like a bolt-action rifle or shotgun), is to imagine that it automatically cocks itself (like a semi-auto). Neither interpretation is any more or less valid than the other.
It's not completely valid because in English, "if you load no ammunition" and "if you don't load ammunition" are entirely equivalent expressions unless you are deliberately trying to trick someone by relying on their common sense, like a D&D devil would in writing contracts. It is buck wild to assume that the writers of these rulebooks are D&D devils.
It's definitely valid to imagine what you describe, and my comment doesn't really relate to that image at all. What's not valid is interpreting the grammar in a deliberately malicious way.
“Buck wild claim?!?” Excuse you. How is that not a completely valid interpretation? It’s as absolutely valid to imagine still having to cock it but not stick a bolt in it as it (like a bolt-action rifle or shotgun), is to imagine that it automatically cocks itself (like a semi-auto). Neither interpretation is any more or less valid than the other.
I think it's not a valid interpretation because it relies on inexistant word. Having to Cock is not written in any of the crossbow properties. On the other hand, Loading ammunition is, which you don't need to do with a Repeating Shot.
As explained in Sage Advice;
The latter (ammunition) property requires you to have a bolt to fire from the hand crossbow, and the hand crossbow isn’t going to load itself (unless it’s magical or a gnomish invention). You need to load each bolt into the weapon, and doing so requires a hand.
It's not completely valid because in English, "if you load no ammunition" and "if you don't load ammunition" are entirely equivalent expressions unless you are deliberately trying to trick someone by relying on their common sense, like a D&D devil would in writing contracts. It is buck wild to assume that the writers of these rulebooks are D&D devils.
It's definitely valid to imagine what you describe, and my comment doesn't really relate to that image at all. What's not valid is interpreting the grammar in a deliberately malicious way.
But that is somewhat missing the point of the discussion as it only looks at the ammunition.
The interesting point is if "Loading" only focuses on putting the ammunition in the correct place or if it also includes any handling the weapon needs to be able to fire the ammunition. And, if it don't, when does that handling then take place and what does it require? And that becomes even more interesting with the errata taking out the word "Load" that was in the original text.
But as I said above, it will be up to each DM to decide how much of that handling the weapon does for itself and how much the PC needs to be involved in. It certainly seems thematic that a "Repeating Shot" feature has the crossbow drawing and cocking (and what-else) on its own accord. Just a bit sad that they didn't make it clear that that is what it does.
However it works and who or what does what, repeating shot allows you to shoot by repeat. No requirement is given for you to add in an interact with object action so, in effect, nothing else is needed.
There were several people making the absolutely buck wild claim that "if you load no ammunition" meant "if you go through the motions of loading, just without ammunition" as opposed to "if you don't load."
“Buck wild claim?!?” Excuse you. How is that not a completely valid interpretation? It’s as absolutely valid to imagine still having to cock it but not stick a bolt in it as it (like a bolt-action rifle or shotgun), is to imagine that it automatically cocks itself (like a semi-auto). Neither interpretation is any more or less valid than the other.
It's not completely valid because in English, "if you load no ammunition" and "if you don't load ammunition" are entirely equivalent expressions unless you are deliberately trying to trick someone by relying on their common sense, like a D&D devil would in writing contracts. It is buck wild to assume that the writers of these rulebooks are D&D devils.
It's definitely valid to imagine what you describe, and my comment doesn't really relate to that image at all. What's not valid is interpreting the grammar in a deliberately malicious way.
"Deliberately malicious?!?” Dude (gender neutral form of address), what?!? I don’t even know how to respond to that. I think you’re really taking things a little too personally if you feel either of those interpretations is “deliberately malicious” at all.
ma·li·cious
/məˈliSHəs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.
How can you possibly claim “malicious intent” on someone interpreting something a different way than you do?!? Claiming they “intend to do harm” by reading something different into a rule than you is at best far-fetched, and borderline inflammatory. Seriously, when one of the forum hot-heads is saying they think you might be taking things a step too far, you may want to reconsider things. Just a suggestion.
There were several people making the absolutely buck wild claim that "if you load no ammunition" meant "if you go through the motions of loading, just without ammunition" as opposed to "if you don't load."
“Buck wild claim?!?” Excuse you. How is that not a completely valid interpretation? It’s as absolutely valid to imagine still having to cock it but not stick a bolt in it as it (like a bolt-action rifle or shotgun), is to imagine that it automatically cocks itself (like a semi-auto). Neither interpretation is any more or less valid than the other.
It's not completely valid because in English, "if you load no ammunition" and "if you don't load ammunition" are entirely equivalent expressions unless you are deliberately trying to trick someone by relying on their common sense, like a D&D devil would in writing contracts. It is buck wild to assume that the writers of these rulebooks are D&D devils.
It's definitely valid to imagine what you describe, and my comment doesn't really relate to that image at all. What's not valid is interpreting the grammar in a deliberately malicious way.
"Deliberately malicious?!?” Dude (gender neutral form of address), what?!? I don’t even know how to respond to that. I think you’re really taking things a little too personally if you feel either of those interpretations is “deliberately malicious” at all.
ma·li·cious
/məˈliSHəs/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.
How can you possibly claim “malicious intent” on someone interpreting something a different way than you do?!? Claiming they “intend to do harm” by reading something different into a rule than you is at best far-fetched, and borderline inflammatory. Seriously, when one of the forum hot-heads is saying they think you might be taking things a step too far, you may want to reconsider things. Just a suggestion.
Sposta, we get along, so I promise I'm not taking your interrobangs personally, but also maybe take a step back and think about how you may be misinterpreting what I'm saying.
I'm not accusing anyone who interprets the grammar that way of malice. I'm saying that interpreting it that way ascribes malice to the designers.
I appreciate that since I’ve never heard the term “interrobang” before.
I still can’t agree with use of the term “malice/malicious” at all. To say that the character has to cock the crossbow each shot (like bolt action, or pump action firearm with an infinite magazine), and therefore still requires two-hands is not “malicious.” It’s just a more conservative application. To determine it needs no more than the one hand (like a single action revolver) is just a more liberal application/interpretation of the rule. That’s all.
When one starts applying the concept of “intentional harm” to game design, it skews the conversation. “Less liberal intent” ≠ “intentional harm.” That’s the same mentality that says not having a racial ASI is penalty, “lack of bonus” ≠ “penalty.”
My disagreement lies less with position and more with extremism. When things become a matter of “malice,” then they become debates more of rhetoric than of rules. I personally don’t find either interpretation/application “harmful” at all. I mean, think about it, the Light and Heavy crossbows and the short and long bows are all two-handed anyway, so we’re really only talking about the hand crossbow and the sling…. Who cares?!? Legitimately, who would care enough about those two very specific weapons, to go out of their way to intentionally caveat this one specific option of the entire Infusions class feature… with “an intent to do harm” of all things?!?
Isn’t it far more likely that, if they did intend for the #loadingnotloading to require both hands, they did it to balance how the infusion interacted with those two weapons with how it interacts with all of the two-handed weapons that require both hands by default? Ne?
I appreciate that since I’ve never heard the term “interrobang” before.
It's one of my favorite punctuations, second only to the semicolon.
I still can’t agree with use of the term “malice/malicious” at all. To say that the character has to cock the crossbow each shot (like bolt action, or pump action firearm with an infinite magazine), and therefore still requires two-hands is not “malicious.” It’s just a more conservative application. To determine it needs no more than the one hand (like a single action revolver) is just a more liberal application/interpretation of the rule. That’s all.
When one starts applying the concept of “intentional harm” to game design, it skews the conversation. “Less liberal intent” ≠ “intentional harm.” That’s the same mentality that says not having a racial ASI is penalty, “lack of bonus” ≠ “penalty.”
My disagreement lies less with position and more with extremism. When things become a matter of “malice,” then they become debates more of rhetoric than of rules. I personally don’t find either interpretation/application “harmful” at all. I mean, think about it, the Light and Heavy crossbows and the short and long bows are all two-handed anyway, so we’re really only talking about the hand crossbow and the sling…. Who cares?!? Legitimately, who would care enough about those two very specific weapons, to go out of their way to intentionally caveat this one specific option of the entire Infusions class feature… with “an intent to do harm” of all things?!?
Isn’t it far more likely that, if they did intend for the #loadingnotloading to require both hands, they did it to balance how the infusion interacted with those two weapons with how it interacts with all of the two-handed weapons that require both hands by default? Ne?
Again, I'm not saying that it would be malicious to require a loading action even without ammunition. I'm saying that using the specific phrasing "if you load no ammunition" to mean that you do have to load in contrast to "if you don't load any ammunition" is the kind of "oh, you thought I was using plain English? you goober, I'm a Devil, there are gotchas everywhere!" violation of the way rules ought to be written (i.e. in such a way that the meaning be clear) that would suggest an intent to deceive.
I appreciate that since I’ve never heard the term “interrobang” before.
It's one of my favorite punctuations, second only to the semicolon.
I still can’t agree with use of the term “malice/malicious” at all. To say that the character has to cock the crossbow each shot (like bolt action, or pump action firearm with an infinite magazine), and therefore still requires two-hands is not “malicious.” It’s just a more conservative application. To determine it needs no more than the one hand (like a single action revolver) is just a more liberal application/interpretation of the rule. That’s all.
When one starts applying the concept of “intentional harm” to game design, it skews the conversation. “Less liberal intent” ≠ “intentional harm.” That’s the same mentality that says not having a racial ASI is penalty, “lack of bonus” ≠ “penalty.”
My disagreement lies less with position and more with extremism. When things become a matter of “malice,” then they become debates more of rhetoric than of rules. I personally don’t find either interpretation/application “harmful” at all. I mean, think about it, the Light and Heavy crossbows and the short and long bows are all two-handed anyway, so we’re really only talking about the hand crossbow and the sling…. Who cares?!? Legitimately, who would care enough about those two very specific weapons, to go out of their way to intentionally caveat this one specific option of the entire Infusions class feature… with “an intent to do harm” of all things?!?
Isn’t it far more likely that, if they did intend for the #loadingnotloading to require both hands, they did it to balance how the infusion interacted with those two weapons with how it interacts with all of the two-handed weapons that require both hands by default? Ne?
Again, I'm not saying that it would be malicious to require a loading action even without ammunition. I'm saying that using the specific phrasing "if you load no ammunition" to mean that you do have to load in contrast to "if you don't load any ammunition" is the kind of "oh, you thought I was using plain English? you goober, I'm a Devil, there are gotchas everywhere!" violation of the way rules ought to be written (i.e. in such a way that the meaning be clear) that would suggest an intent to deceive.
That only stands if one assumes the one phrasing to be “plain English” and the other not to be. This is “eats shoots and leaves” all over again, only with deceptive intent being ascribed where there is no evidence of any. For some folks, those two statements are both considered “plain English” and neither is assumed to mean the other. (Maybe it’s just us folks who are cognizant of propositions and dangling participles etc., etc., in our every day speech. Who knows?)
I am only suggesting one consider giving the benefit of the doubt here. It is certainly possible that the alternative meaning was intentional without any intended deception whatsoever. It may just be that the writer of that line thought it would be clear and that it was, in their mind, plain English with that verbiage. And what’s more, possibly even that they used that specific verbiage to clearly make it distinct from the alternative verbiage that you assume to be the correct interpretation rather than the literal one.
To be honest, I think I agree with the literal interpretation that you reject, for the very reason that they could have easily written it the way you interpret it and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I also didn’t think it important enough to debate either because, again, who cares?!? It’s not a big enough thing to warrant being considered at “problem” level. IMO it’s more around “hunh? Yeah whatever” level. What I object to is the supposition of deceit or malice. I doubt there ever being any “gotcha” intent because I don’t think that anyone ever considered it to this extent prior to publication. I doubt it occurred to them to think about it hard enough to plan any “gotchas.”
They can't override the ammunition rule because if they did, you would be unable to use any ammunition other than the ammunition provided by the weapon, which is not the intent they wanted. So they wrote it as presenting an alternate option for firing that does override this section of the rule, but you can still follow the rule in full and load traditional (or poisoned, or magical) ammunition to use with the weapon.
So, if they had said:
How, exactly, would that have stopped you from using other ammunition?
This 11 page thread of arguments, as well as many more spread over the internet, about it would suggest that it would be necessary...
I'm gonna drop it, though, and unsubscribe from this thread. I can't help myself but to argue a point of logic (it gets me into trouble all the time lol), but if I don't see it I'll be able to drop it.
The mention of the free hand being needed is to load a one-handed weapon, the repeating shot infusion has a specific case given for if you load no ammunition. This is an open-and-shut case irt RAW.
The reason it would not say that it ignores the ammunition trait, is that that would prohibit you from loading your own enhanced ammunition into the weapon.
Goes without saying that if you load no ammunition, you don't load any and thus don't require a free hand.
Repeating Shot got an errata today TCE-Errata.pdf (wizards.com)
Not sure that it helps at all tbh. But as this likely is all we'll get I guess it's up to each DM to figure out for themselves if the crossbow draws and cocks itself on its own or if the wielder needs to be involved.
There were several people making the absolutely buck wild claim that "if you load no ammunition" meant "if you go through the motions of loading, just without ammunition" as opposed to "if you don't load."
“Buck wild claim?!?” Excuse you. How is that not a completely valid interpretation? It’s as absolutely valid to imagine still having to cock it but not stick a bolt in it as it (like a bolt-action rifle or shotgun), is to imagine that it automatically cocks itself (like a semi-auto). Neither interpretation is any more or less valid than the other.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's not completely valid because in English, "if you load no ammunition" and "if you don't load ammunition" are entirely equivalent expressions unless you are deliberately trying to trick someone by relying on their common sense, like a D&D devil would in writing contracts. It is buck wild to assume that the writers of these rulebooks are D&D devils.
It's definitely valid to imagine what you describe, and my comment doesn't really relate to that image at all. What's not valid is interpreting the grammar in a deliberately malicious way.
I think it's not a valid interpretation because it relies on inexistant word. Having to Cock is not written in any of the crossbow properties. On the other hand, Loading ammunition is, which you don't need to do with a Repeating Shot.
As explained in Sage Advice;
But that is somewhat missing the point of the discussion as it only looks at the ammunition.
The interesting point is if "Loading" only focuses on putting the ammunition in the correct place or if it also includes any handling the weapon needs to be able to fire the ammunition. And, if it don't, when does that handling then take place and what does it require? And that becomes even more interesting with the errata taking out the word "Load" that was in the original text.
But as I said above, it will be up to each DM to decide how much of that handling the weapon does for itself and how much the PC needs to be involved in. It certainly seems thematic that a "Repeating Shot" feature has the crossbow drawing and cocking (and what-else) on its own accord. Just a bit sad that they didn't make it clear that that is what it does.
However it works and who or what does what, repeating shot allows you to shoot by repeat. No requirement is given for you to add in an interact with object action so, in effect, nothing else is needed.
"Deliberately malicious?!?” Dude (gender neutral form of address), what?!? I don’t even know how to respond to that. I think you’re really taking things a little too personally if you feel either of those interpretations is “deliberately malicious” at all.
How can you possibly claim “malicious intent” on someone interpreting something a different way than you do?!? Claiming they “intend to do harm” by reading something different into a rule than you is at best far-fetched, and borderline inflammatory. Seriously, when one of the forum hot-heads is saying they think you might be taking things a step too far, you may want to reconsider things. Just a suggestion.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Sposta, we get along, so I promise I'm not taking your interrobangs personally, but also maybe take a step back and think about how you may be misinterpreting what I'm saying.
I'm not accusing anyone who interprets the grammar that way of malice. I'm saying that interpreting it that way ascribes malice to the designers.
I appreciate that since I’ve never heard the term “interrobang” before.
I still can’t agree with use of the term “malice/malicious” at all. To say that the character has to cock the crossbow each shot (like bolt action, or pump action firearm with an infinite magazine), and therefore still requires two-hands is not “malicious.” It’s just a more conservative application. To determine it needs no more than the one hand (like a single action revolver) is just a more liberal application/interpretation of the rule. That’s all.
When one starts applying the concept of “intentional harm” to game design, it skews the conversation. “Less liberal intent” ≠ “intentional harm.” That’s the same mentality that says not having a racial ASI is penalty, “lack of bonus” ≠ “penalty.”
My disagreement lies less with position and more with extremism. When things become a matter of “malice,” then they become debates more of rhetoric than of rules. I personally don’t find either interpretation/application “harmful” at all. I mean, think about it, the Light and Heavy crossbows and the short and long bows are all two-handed anyway, so we’re really only talking about the hand crossbow and the sling…. Who cares?!? Legitimately, who would care enough about those two very specific weapons, to go out of their way to intentionally caveat this one specific option of the entire Infusions class feature… with “an intent to do harm” of all things?!?
Isn’t it far more likely that, if they did intend for the #loadingnotloading to require both hands, they did it to balance how the infusion interacted with those two weapons with how it interacts with all of the two-handed weapons that require both hands by default? Ne?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It appears that Kotath, in attempting to argue against me has, as usual completely missed what I was saying and accidentally agreed with me entirely.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's one of my favorite punctuations, second only to the semicolon.
Again, I'm not saying that it would be malicious to require a loading action even without ammunition. I'm saying that using the specific phrasing "if you load no ammunition" to mean that you do have to load in contrast to "if you don't load any ammunition" is the kind of "oh, you thought I was using plain English? you goober, I'm a Devil, there are gotchas everywhere!" violation of the way rules ought to be written (i.e. in such a way that the meaning be clear) that would suggest an intent to deceive.
That only stands if one assumes the one phrasing to be “plain English” and the other not to be. This is “eats shoots and leaves” all over again, only with deceptive intent being ascribed where there is no evidence of any. For some folks, those two statements are both considered “plain English” and neither is assumed to mean the other. (Maybe it’s just us folks who are cognizant of propositions and dangling participles etc., etc., in our every day speech. Who knows?)
I am only suggesting one consider giving the benefit of the doubt here. It is certainly possible that the alternative meaning was intentional without any intended deception whatsoever. It may just be that the writer of that line thought it would be clear and that it was, in their mind, plain English with that verbiage. And what’s more, possibly even that they used that specific verbiage to clearly make it distinct from the alternative verbiage that you assume to be the correct interpretation rather than the literal one.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
To be honest, I think I agree with the literal interpretation that you reject, for the very reason that they could have easily written it the way you interpret it and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I also didn’t think it important enough to debate either because, again, who cares?!? It’s not a big enough thing to warrant being considered at “problem” level. IMO it’s more around “hunh? Yeah whatever” level. What I object to is the supposition of deceit or malice. I doubt there ever being any “gotcha” intent because I don’t think that anyone ever considered it to this extent prior to publication. I doubt it occurred to them to think about it hard enough to plan any “gotchas.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting