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.”
Well, they errataed it to avoid the possibility of the literal interpretation that I reject, so I think I have a bit of a leg to stand on :p Again, and I cannot stress this enough, I have at no point accused anyone of malicious intent. But since the erratum makes it clear that they did not intend it to be read in the way you're suggesting, I think we can definitively rule out any malice on their part.
Well, errata change things, that’s their purpose. And like I said, the entire debate surrounded the most minimal of interactions anyway, so 🤷♂️. Like I said, who cares?
Should you not wish to watch the video: He says the infusion eliminates the need for a free hand, and that they intended the infusion to do exactly that.
Ignoring the ammunition rule, which requires a free hand to get an arrow from the quiver by Magically creating an arrow. How does it draw the bow back, there is no mention of this very important function on how a bow or cross bow operates?
Ignoring the ammunition rule, which requires a free hand to get an arrow from the quiver by Magically creating an arrow. How does it draw the bow back, there is no mention of this very important function on how a bow or cross bow operates?
The hand crossbow? Magically, of course. Magic cranks the lever or pulls the string into place for you. The other bows and crossbows all have the two-handed property, which isn't affected by Repeating Shot, so you'd still be yanking those strings manually, I guess.
Also good to point out that nothing in the rules for these weapons even say that pulling the string back requires a free hand. I can understand the notion, obviously. But we're playing a game with rules and abstractions, not a reality simulator.
Nothing says you need a free hand for the bowstring. It only says you need that free hand to load the ammo. So if you don't load ammo you don't need the free hand.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Even though I personally dislike this argument, I'll say something in support of it. If we accept that the repeating shot infusion removes counteracts the loading property (which it does explicitly) as well as the ammunition property (which it may or may not, depending on how one interprets the fact that it produces its own ammo)...but IF we accept that it does, then we are left with a weapon that does not have the loading, ammunition, or two-handed weapon properties, and we must then be free to fire it one-handed.
I will say, though, that I believe Ravnodaus is referring to the dragon wing bow version of the crossbow, hand rather than the repeating shot infusion, which is what is being discussed in this thread. Repeating shot infusion makes no mention of drawing back the string.
If you were responding to my post, I'll just point out that a hand crossbow never has the two-handed property to begin with. Other than that, you are correct, of course.
Even though I personally dislike this argument, I'll say something in support of it. If we accept that the repeating shot infusion removes the loading property (which it does explicitly) as well as the ammunition property (which it may or may not, depending on how one interprets the fact that it produces its own ammo)...but IF we accept that it does, then we are left with a weapon that does not have the loading, ammunition, or two-handed weapon properties, and we must then be free to fire it one-handed.
I will say, though, that I believe Ravnodaus is referring to the dragon wing bow version of the crossbow, hand rather than the repeating shot infusion, which is what is being discussed in this thread. Repeating shot infusion makes no mention of drawing back the string.
Yes and no. Akiame69 asked about drawing the string back on a repeating shot enhanced bow. But it is also relevant for dragon wing bows.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This whole thread amuses me. All the talk about RAW vs RAI, it's a chuckle. It all comes down to one word. Load.
The Repeating Shot infusion explicitly states you can ignore the Loading property, and the relevant phrase is: "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 property states that: "You can use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a RangedAttack 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)."
So there is the word "Load". Other than the description of getting into a case and pulling a piece of ammunition being part of the process, none of the book entries listed has any description of what to load means. I know what it means but everyone seems to revere RAW as law, and DM interpretation of RAI being the override.
So, if you "load no amunition" you are making a conscious choice to skip the "free hand is needed to load" step in the Ammunition property, then the "it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it." kicks in. RAW you fail to "load" ammo the infusion makes it itself when you make a ranged attack.
I declare a ranged attack, I don't load ammo, Rapid Shot does it on its own, and the ranged attack goes off. End of story. Until the official books add descriptions of the word "load" then it is up to player and DM interpretation, and a DM's final adjudication. So either hope your DM agrees with the player beneficial interpretation, and if they don't, suck it up and find a new shtick or find a new DM.
I'd say that the main problem here is that using the "... it produces it own ... " language was a really stupid choice. If you want the feature to allow for ignoring the Ammunition property then write that, don't go the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" route. I mean they managed to spell it out for the Loading property, why not do it for the Ammunition property too.
I'd say that the main problem here is that using the "... it produces it own ... " language was a really stupid choice. If you want the feature to allow for ignoring the Ammunition property then write that, don't go the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" route. I mean they managed to spell it out for the Loading property, why not do it for the Ammunition property too.
They didn't do that because ammunition is a physical item with value. The weapon isn't firing force damage or something else. It also serves as a consumable material component for spells like conjure barrage, which is one of the Battle Smith Spells.
I'd say that the main problem here is that using the "... it produces it own ... " language was a really stupid choice. If you want the feature to allow for ignoring the Ammunition property then write that, don't go the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" route. I mean they managed to spell it out for the Loading property, why not do it for the Ammunition property too.
They didn't do that because ammunition is a physical item with value. The weapon isn't firing force damage or something else. It also serves as a consumable material component for spells like conjure barrage, which is one of the Battle Smith Spells.
That doesn't follow. They really should have included a clause saying that it ignores the ammunition and loading property. That was their intent. What they wrote effectively gets us to the same conclusion but in a way that can spawn long back and forth posts here debating if it works or not.
If they just said it ignores both properties this wouldn't even be a debate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
They didn't do that because ammunition is a physical item with value. The weapon isn't firing force damage or something else. It also serves as a consumable material component for spells like conjure barrage, which is one of the Battle Smith Spells.
Except that it isn't for these weapons. What they do is "automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition" and that sort of ammunition isn't a limited resource and it cannot be used as a component for a spell.
Best guess is that they wanted the weapons to have to use the Ammunition property when using a piece of actual ammunition but not have to use it when using the special "produce its own" ammunition. Unfortunately they completely failed at making that distinction in a way that makes it work within the rules.
I'd say that the main problem here is that using the "... it produces it own ... " language was a really stupid choice. If you want the feature to allow for ignoring the Ammunition property then write that, don't go the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" route. I mean they managed to spell it out for the Loading property, why not do it for the Ammunition property too.
They didn't do that because ammunition is a physical item with value. The weapon isn't firing force damage or something else. It also serves as a consumable material component for spells like conjure barrage, which is one of the Battle Smith Spells.
That doesn't follow. They really should have included a clause saying that it ignores the ammunition and loading property. That was their intent. What they wrote effectively gets us to the same conclusion but in a way that can spawn long back and forth posts here debating if it works or not.
If they just said it ignores both properties this wouldn't even be a debate.
That doesn't track. If their intent was to ignore both qualities, the infusion would ignore both qualities.
They didn't do that because ammunition is a physical item with value. The weapon isn't firing force damage or something else. It also serves as a consumable material component for spells like conjure barrage, which is one of the Battle Smith Spells.
Except that it isn't for these weapons. What they do is "automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition" and that sort of ammunition isn't a limited resource and it cannot be used as a component for a spell.
Best guess is that they wanted the weapons to have to use the Ammunition property when using a piece of actual ammunition but not have to use it when using the special "produce its own" ammunition. Unfortunately they completely failed at making that distinction in a way that makes it work within the rules.
You didn't have to alter the next like that, and─some personal advice─don't overthink this. Your "best guess" is exactly how it reads. The weapon can magically produce its own ammunition, but it can still accept actual ammunition. Which you need, if you want to use certain spells. Or maybe you get some magical ammunition. You should know any numerical bonuses stack. For example, a +1 longbow and +1 arrow work together for an effective bonus of +2. And the DM could always just whip up a neat bolt of slaying, or something else entirely.
Honestly, I cannot fathom how any of you are confused.
I'd say that the main problem here is that using the "... it produces it own ... " language was a really stupid choice. If you want the feature to allow for ignoring the Ammunition property then write that, don't go the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" route. I mean they managed to spell it out for the Loading property, why not do it for the Ammunition property too.
They didn't do that because ammunition is a physical item with value. The weapon isn't firing force damage or something else. It also serves as a consumable material component for spells like conjure barrage, which is one of the Battle Smith Spells.
That doesn't follow. They really should have included a clause saying that it ignores the ammunition and loading property. That was their intent. What they wrote effectively gets us to the same conclusion but in a way that can spawn long back and forth posts here debating if it works or not.
If they just said it ignores both properties this wouldn't even be a debate.
That doesn't track. If their intent was to ignore both qualities, the infusion would ignore both qualities.
They didn't do that because ammunition is a physical item with value. The weapon isn't firing force damage or something else. It also serves as a consumable material component for spells like conjure barrage, which is one of the Battle Smith Spells.
Except that it isn't for these weapons. What they do is "automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition" and that sort of ammunition isn't a limited resource and it cannot be used as a component for a spell.
Best guess is that they wanted the weapons to have to use the Ammunition property when using a piece of actual ammunition but not have to use it when using the special "produce its own" ammunition. Unfortunately they completely failed at making that distinction in a way that makes it work within the rules.
You didn't have to alter the next like that, and─some personal advice─don't overthink this. Your "best guess" is exactly how it reads. The weapon can magically produce its own ammunition, but it can still accept actual ammunition. Which you need, if you want to use certain spells. Or maybe you get some magical ammunition. You should know any numerical bonuses stack. For example, a +1 longbow and +1 arrow work together for an effective bonus of +2. And the DM could always just whip up a neat bolt of slaying, or something else entirely.
Honestly, I cannot fathom how any of you are confused.
This👆
I’ve played an Artificer who made extensive use of this infusion for a crossbow for actual years IRL. Yes, he most frequently made use of the automatically generated ammo most of the time, but also frequently eschewed that ammo to hand load special ammo that he created for various purposes.
You didn't have to alter the next like that, and─some personal advice─don't overthink this. Your "best guess" is exactly how it reads. The weapon can magically produce its own ammunition, but it can still accept actual ammunition. Which you need, if you want to use certain spells. Or maybe you get some magical ammunition. You should know any numerical bonuses stack. For example, a +1 longbow and +1 arrow work together for an effective bonus of +2. And the DM could always just whip up a neat bolt of slaying, or something else entirely.
Honestly, I cannot fathom how any of you are confused.
I'm not confused at all, I'm just saying that it is poorly written.
They chose to have a descriptive text instead of stating that it (possibly) ignores the ammunition property but for the loading property they instead explicitly state it is ignored. Using two different approaches within the same feature is a crappy idea.
As I posted above it still comes down to what load means. The Loading property covers the readying of the crossbow to shoot. Loading: Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of Ammunition from it when you use an Action, bonus Action, or Reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of ATTACKS you can normally make. That is the readying of the crossbow to shoot a piece of ammunition. That is also what XBow Expert let's you ignore. So for some reason, you have developed the ability for the weapon to be readied to accept a piece of Ammo.
Now, if you have no other means to provide that ammo, other than the bolts in the case at your hip, then yes, you need a free hand (Sorry Hexblades with your magic Hand Crossbow and Rogues who took Moderately Armored). Repeating Shot says if you load no ammo the weapon makes its own. So on my turn I shoot, and because I get to ignore the Loading property my Hand Crossbow is ready to shoot as soon as I put a piece of ammo in it. But I have a shield so I can't, so RS senses there is no bolt in the readied weapon and magically materializes a bolt for me.
The Ammo property is just concerned with getting the ammo in the weapon and has nothing to do with readying the weapon to accept that piece of ammo to shoot. That's the Loading property, which is ignored 2 times by a feat and an infusion.
This will again be up to your DM, but fully 1 handed operation of a Hand Crossbow while holding a shield is legal RAW if you have a weapon with the Repeating Shot infusion. If you want to drop in a +1 bolt, or a dragon slayer bolt, that is another matter entirely and you would need to have a free hand.
You didn't have to alter the next like that, and─some personal advice─don't overthink this. Your "best guess" is exactly how it reads. The weapon can magically produce its own ammunition, but it can still accept actual ammunition. Which you need, if you want to use certain spells. Or maybe you get some magical ammunition. You should know any numerical bonuses stack. For example, a +1 longbow and +1 arrow work together for an effective bonus of +2. And the DM could always just whip up a neat bolt of slaying, or something else entirely.
Honestly, I cannot fathom how any of you are confused.
I'm not confused at all, I'm just saying that it is poorly written.
They chose to have a descriptive text instead of stating that it (possibly) ignores the ammunition property but for the loading property they instead explicitly state it is ignored. Using two different approaches within the same feature is a crappy idea.
It's not poorly written. I said it in the post you quoted, though you excised it, and I'll say it again here.
If the intent was for the infusion to ignore the ammunitionproperty, it would say so. That language is omitted, so that's not the intent. It doesn't do that. There's no hidden rule to suss out. A thing does what it says it does, and that's it.
The infusion ignores the loading property, allowing it to be fired more than once per turn, but not the ammunitionproperty. An infused weapon can create its own ammunition, but it can also accept other ammunition for an additional effect. If you want to use said other ammunition, then you still need a free hand. For example, walloping ammunition is a common magic item and infusion available to all artificers. An artificer could then load their magical ammunition into their crossbow, at their leisure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, they errataed it to avoid the possibility of the literal interpretation that I reject, so I think I have a bit of a leg to stand on :p Again, and I cannot stress this enough, I have at no point accused anyone of malicious intent. But since the erratum makes it clear that they did not intend it to be read in the way you're suggesting, I think we can definitively rule out any malice on their part.
Well, errata change things, that’s their purpose. And like I said, the entire debate surrounded the most minimal of interactions anyway, so 🤷♂️. Like I said, who cares?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If your willing to accept Jeremy Crawford's answer as RAW, he provides it here: https://youtu.be/pw_ZdBUS5vg?t=900
Should you not wish to watch the video: He says the infusion eliminates the need for a free hand, and that they intended the infusion to do exactly that.
Ignoring the ammunition rule, which requires a free hand to get an arrow from the quiver by Magically creating an arrow. How does it draw the bow back, there is no mention of this very important function on how a bow or cross bow operates?
The hand crossbow? Magically, of course. Magic cranks the lever or pulls the string into place for you. The other bows and crossbows all have the two-handed property, which isn't affected by Repeating Shot, so you'd still be yanking those strings manually, I guess.
Also good to point out that nothing in the rules for these weapons even say that pulling the string back requires a free hand. I can understand the notion, obviously. But we're playing a game with rules and abstractions, not a reality simulator.
Nothing says you need a free hand for the bowstring. It only says you need that free hand to load the ammo. So if you don't load ammo you don't need the free hand.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Even though I personally dislike this argument, I'll say something in support of it. If we accept that the repeating shot infusion
removescounteracts the loading property (which it does explicitly) as well as the ammunition property (which it may or may not, depending on how one interprets the fact that it produces its own ammo)...but IF we accept that it does, then we are left with a weapon that does not have the loading, ammunition, or two-handed weapon properties, and we must then be free to fire it one-handed.I will say, though, that I believe Ravnodaus is referring to the dragon wing bow version of the crossbow, hand rather than the repeating shot infusion, which is what is being discussed in this thread. Repeating shot infusion makes no mention of drawing back the string.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The two-handed property doesn't go away unless something says it does. The ammunition property exists independently of it.
If you were responding to my post, I'll just point out that a hand crossbow never has the two-handed property to begin with. Other than that, you are correct, of course.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes and no. Akiame69 asked about drawing the string back on a repeating shot enhanced bow. But it is also relevant for dragon wing bows.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This whole thread amuses me. All the talk about RAW vs RAI, it's a chuckle. It all comes down to one word. Load.
The Repeating Shot infusion explicitly states you can ignore the Loading property, and the relevant phrase is: "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 property states that: "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)."
So there is the word "Load". Other than the description of getting into a case and pulling a piece of ammunition being part of the process, none of the book entries listed has any description of what to load means. I know what it means but everyone seems to revere RAW as law, and DM interpretation of RAI being the override.
So, if you "load no amunition" you are making a conscious choice to skip the "free hand is needed to load" step in the Ammunition property, then the "it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it." kicks in. RAW you fail to "load" ammo the infusion makes it itself when you make a ranged attack.
I declare a ranged attack, I don't load ammo, Rapid Shot does it on its own, and the ranged attack goes off. End of story. Until the official books add descriptions of the word "load" then it is up to player and DM interpretation, and a DM's final adjudication. So either hope your DM agrees with the player beneficial interpretation, and if they don't, suck it up and find a new shtick or find a new DM.
I'd say that the main problem here is that using the "... it produces it own ... " language was a really stupid choice. If you want the feature to allow for ignoring the Ammunition property then write that, don't go the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" route. I mean they managed to spell it out for the Loading property, why not do it for the Ammunition property too.
They didn't do that because ammunition is a physical item with value. The weapon isn't firing force damage or something else. It also serves as a consumable material component for spells like conjure barrage, which is one of the Battle Smith Spells.
That doesn't follow. They really should have included a clause saying that it ignores the ammunition and loading property. That was their intent. What they wrote effectively gets us to the same conclusion but in a way that can spawn long back and forth posts here debating if it works or not.
If they just said it ignores both properties this wouldn't even be a debate.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Except that it isn't for these weapons. What they do is "automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition" and that sort of ammunition isn't a limited resource and it cannot be used as a component for a spell.
Best guess is that they wanted the weapons to have to use the Ammunition property when using a piece of actual ammunition but not have to use it when using the special "produce its own" ammunition. Unfortunately they completely failed at making that distinction in a way that makes it work within the rules.
That doesn't track. If their intent was to ignore both qualities, the infusion would ignore both qualities.
You didn't have to alter the next like that, and─some personal advice─don't overthink this. Your "best guess" is exactly how it reads. The weapon can magically produce its own ammunition, but it can still accept actual ammunition. Which you need, if you want to use certain spells. Or maybe you get some magical ammunition. You should know any numerical bonuses stack. For example, a +1 longbow and +1 arrow work together for an effective bonus of +2. And the DM could always just whip up a neat bolt of slaying, or something else entirely.
Honestly, I cannot fathom how any of you are confused.
This👆
I’ve played an Artificer who made extensive use of this infusion for a crossbow for actual years IRL. Yes, he most frequently made use of the automatically generated ammo most of the time, but also frequently eschewed that ammo to hand load special ammo that he created for various purposes.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm not confused at all, I'm just saying that it is poorly written.
They chose to have a descriptive text instead of stating that it (possibly) ignores the ammunition property but for the loading property they instead explicitly state it is ignored. Using two different approaches within the same feature is a crappy idea.
As I posted above it still comes down to what load means. The Loading property covers the readying of the crossbow to shoot. Loading: Because of the time required to load this weapon, you can fire only one piece of Ammunition from it when you use an Action, bonus Action, or Reaction to fire it, regardless of the number of ATTACKS you can normally make. That is the readying of the crossbow to shoot a piece of ammunition. That is also what XBow Expert let's you ignore. So for some reason, you have developed the ability for the weapon to be readied to accept a piece of Ammo.
Now, if you have no other means to provide that ammo, other than the bolts in the case at your hip, then yes, you need a free hand (Sorry Hexblades with your magic Hand Crossbow and Rogues who took Moderately Armored). Repeating Shot says if you load no ammo the weapon makes its own. So on my turn I shoot, and because I get to ignore the Loading property my Hand Crossbow is ready to shoot as soon as I put a piece of ammo in it. But I have a shield so I can't, so RS senses there is no bolt in the readied weapon and magically materializes a bolt for me.
The Ammo property is just concerned with getting the ammo in the weapon and has nothing to do with readying the weapon to accept that piece of ammo to shoot. That's the Loading property, which is ignored 2 times by a feat and an infusion.
This will again be up to your DM, but fully 1 handed operation of a Hand Crossbow while holding a shield is legal RAW if you have a weapon with the Repeating Shot infusion. If you want to drop in a +1 bolt, or a dragon slayer bolt, that is another matter entirely and you would need to have a free hand.
It's not poorly written. I said it in the post you quoted, though you excised it, and I'll say it again here.
If the intent was for the infusion to ignore the ammunitionproperty, it would say so. That language is omitted, so that's not the intent. It doesn't do that. There's no hidden rule to suss out. A thing does what it says it does, and that's it.
The infusion ignores the loading property, allowing it to be fired more than once per turn, but not the ammunitionproperty. An infused weapon can create its own ammunition, but it can also accept other ammunition for an additional effect. If you want to use said other ammunition, then you still need a free hand. For example, walloping ammunition is a common magic item and infusion available to all artificers. An artificer could then load their magical ammunition into their crossbow, at their leisure.