To be fair, pedantry is half the reason Sage Advice exists.
The rules specifically call out that you need a free hand to make use of a weapon with the ammunition property, regardless of whether that weapon requires both hands to actually fire. This is most prevalent in the case of the hand crossbow, but also applies to the sling, the blowgun, and any of a variety of homebrew pistols. One would argue that it makes little contextual sense for a sling or blowgun to still require a loading hand when affected by the Repeating Shot infusion; one could also argue that it would be weird for a crossbow to not require a loading hand, as crossbows are a case where a two-handed mechanical action is required prior to the weapon being loaded.
Contextual, plain-English interpretations differ by the base weapon being considered, which is not how rules work in D&D. Slings, blowguns, crossbows, pistols, longbows, horsebows, bows-that-shoot-horses, antimatter rifles, portable siege ballistas - all of them have to work exactly the same way when a Repeating Shot infusion is applied to them. Specific Beats General only when the specific is explicitly so. Inferred Specific only beats General at a table where the DM is allowed to say it does. If one tried to play Repeating Shot at an Adventurer's League table where the DM is not permitted to make such a ruling, they would be forced to conclude that the weapon does not allow you to ignore the "requires a free hand" criteria of the Ammunition property, only the "you must possess ammunition" and the "you must expend a piece of ammunition" criteria.
If you look at that sour-faced and think I'm a terrible person, well...now you know why I don't play Adventurer's League. For what it's worth, I hope the wording is cleaned up in Rising from the Last War to make the infusion work the way you're stating it should, because a semi-automatic pistolbow behind a shield - or opposite a scimitar for that awesome Piratical Bowslinger flavor - is just cool. But this is the Rules and Game Mechanics forum. We're not allowed to talk about "cool" in here.
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.
Even when the designers have stated again and again that they will explicitly mention exceptions? As in, if a specific rule changes something that they don't leave that up to implications?
I would say that the only way to argue that you don't need a free hand is by putting words in the mouth of designers.
The reason that they do need to write it as if it was code, is because there needs to be a common understanding. Which means writing things that can be parsed close to mechanically. Prose that requires such exegesis, does make not for good rules. Now, that doesn't mean that you should necessarily parse it this pedantically for your game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
Even when the designers have stated again and again that they will explicitly mention exceptions? As in, if a specific rule changes something that they don't leave that up to implications?
Which part of "...unless you manually load it" do you not consider explicit? They even threw in the word "manually" so you can be extra sure.
Even when the designers have stated again and again that they will explicitly mention exceptions? As in, if a specific rule changes something that they don't leave that up to implications?
Which part of "...unless you manually load it" do you not consider explicit? They even threw in the word "manually" so you can be extra sure.
To me, the "it" could just as well refer to the ammunition, rather than the weapon. As in, it clarifies that if you put in a piece of ammunition yourself it doesn't screw everything up by adding another piece of ammo.
ETA: Now that's an artificer infusion, one where you can choose to engage the auto-fire. But if you forget to turn it off before using your own, bad things happen XD
To me, the "it" could just as well refer to the ammunition, rather than the weapon.
You're talking about the same thing either way; manually putting in a piece of ammunition into the weapon. The infusion gives you an alternative to doing that. But if you choose not to do that, then clearly the bit about needing a free hand to load a one-handed weapon doesn't apply. Q.E.D.
You're talking about the same thing either way; manually putting in a piece of ammunition into the weapon. The infusion gives you an alternative to doing that. But if you choose not to do that, then clearly the bit about needing a free hand to load a one-handed weapon doesn't apply. Q.E.D.
That is not all that was to be shown. You'd still need to demonstrate that inserting ammunition is the only reason that a free hand is normally required or that the weapon not just produces ammunition, but readies the weapon in other ways as well.
People keep bringing up the sling as if only hand crossbows have this readying requirement, but you still need to gather up the end that you let go after your previous attack. Or does the infusion cause the sling to snake up by itself? Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer that version too, but the description makes no mention of the weapon doing anything other than magically producing ammunition.
Besides, surely one can load a one-handed blowpipe without a free hand. I could do so with the pvc ones I had as a child for shooting paper darts. It's patently ridiculous to require a free hand. Except, in order to have consistent parts of a rule system, as explained far better by Yurei than I managed, things need to work consistently. So, designers sacrifice that portion of "common sense" for consistency, while nudging and winking to DMs and pointing to rule 0.
You can argue common sense interpretation. Well, my common sense interpretation of the free hand requirement is that the free hand is involved in more than just placing ammunition in the right spot.
If you say, that is reading too much into the rules, I say fair enough, but so is assuming a restriction is lifted without explicit text saying that restriction is lifted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
My reading is that you still have to cock the weapon. The item magically produces bolts and quarrels and powder+ball, but you have to draw the string or cock the hammer yourself.
But it's your game. If you want the magic to draw the string and cock the hammer (turning a magic hand crossbow into essentially a wand of eldritch blast with infinite charges) then go for it. Nothing's going to break. It does mean someone can use a shield and a hand crossbow, which is, now that I think about it, pretty cool-looking.
The ammunition property only says you need a free hand to load a one handed weapon. (There are no rules as written for "cocking" a weapon.)
The [Tooltip Not Found] specifically says it magically produces ammo when you attack with it. It even says "unless you load it," implying that it does that without being loaded.
So it can attack with out loading it. If you are not loading it, you don't need a free hand.
Unless you are arguing that you first have to use a free hand to load it with nothing?
That is not all that was to be shown. You'd still need to demonstrate that inserting ammunition is the only reason that a free hand is normally required or that the weapon not just produces ammunition, but readies the weapon in other ways as well.
Nope, it's on you to show that the rules require two hands to operate a one-handed ranged weapon that's not coming from the ammunition property. If there is one, show me where it is.
People keep bringing up the sling as if only hand crossbows have this readying requirement, but you still need to gather up the end that you let go after your previous attack. Or does the infusion cause the sling to snake up by itself?
How you want to narrate the result of the infusion's mechanical effects is up to you. A sling is a one-handed weapon and you no longer need to load it.
Besides, surely one can load a one-handed blowpipe without a free hand.
In real life, I'm sure you can manage. The game has no rules for that.
You can argue common sense interpretation. Well, my common sense interpretation of the free hand requirement is that the free hand is involved in more than just placing ammunition in the right spot.
I'm arguing based on a don't-be-deliberately-obtuse, reasonable interpretation of things that are written in the rules. Like I said, the writers assume you're not going to be an insufferable pedant. If they had to dummy-proof every rule in the book the MSRP would go up to $100 and nobody would want to read that. I'm not making a "common sense" argument about how these things ought to work.
I would read the statement “the weapon requires no ammunition...” in the infusion to mean “You can choose to ignore the ammunition property to use magically produced ammunition; but when you do not so choose, the item can be manually loaded as normal.” If that is not what they intend then they should clean up the wording.
And again, I would tend to use the concept that “loading” a weapon requires all the steps needed to make it ready to fire again, not just providing ammunition. If the infusion says the item doesn’t need to be loaded unless I choose to do so, then I assume that means it is made ready to fire unless I choose to do it myself. The one exception to that might be where firing the weapon requires action such as drawing a bow.
These are not well informed semantic readings, but vernacular interpretations. Again, I think that if they want a stricter reading they should make wording adjustments.
Suppose it's also part of how people interpret the rules.
I'm of the school that believes "Always assume the rules are working against you as much as humanly possible." Any RAW rules debate that can go against the player does go against the player, regardless of what common sense might say, because that's the route that ensures you never get thrown out of a game, especially for Adventurer's League. See: the Shield Master kerfuffle and the reversal of Sage Advice's rulings for it. Whenever a rules question has an interpretation that is more restrictive on what you can do, assume that's the correct one.
Other people tell me that's a stupid pessimistic way of going about things. Other people don't have a couple of decades' experience in competitive TCGs and miniatures games with swag on the line where knowing exactly what the rules actually say vs. what people think they say is how you get to the point where tournament judges only come to your table when a rules dispute is called on you as a formality, because they know that you know the rules better than they do.
The "Ammunition" property of a weapon has three distinct restrictions. It states that you must possess ammunition to make an attack with the weapon. Repeating Shot nullifies this restriction. It states that you must expend one piece of ready ammunition to make an attack with the weapon. Repeating Shot nullifies this requirement. It states that you must have a free, empty hand with which to operate the weapon in order to make an attack with it. Repeating Shot does not affect this restriction at all, there is no language in the infusion that speaks to the free-hand requirement.
Whether this physically makes sense in the game world is irrelevant to the wording involved. If this was a competitive gaming tournament with swag and nerd infamy on the line, you can bet your bottom dollar there'd be errata to clarify this, but in the absence of such errata, we can only assume that the rules are going to be as restrictive as possible and work against you to their maximum possible extent. Which means that spare meatpaw is on the bow, not on a shield or a scimitar or anything else you might feel like using.
And again my vernacular reading would say that “does not require ammunition” means that the ammunition property doesn’t apply.
But I would also say that the free hand is required to draw ammo from an ammo quiver, case, or container and load the weapon. Repeating shot nullifies this: it nullifies loading and the requirement to draw ammo.
If the devs meant to say "ignore the Ammunition property", they would've written "Ignore the Ammunition property". The exact same way they said "ignore the Loading property". They specifically did not write that, and instead used a larger number of words to spell out an ability that lifts two but not three of the restrictions of the Ammunition property. I can only imagine this was intentional on their part, ne?
Ok so like I said then they should adjust the wording. “Requires no ammunition” when there is a weapon property called “ammunition” requires more specific text if they don’t want me to just ignore the ammunition property. If they want you to still require a free hand for one-handed weapons then that should be stated too. It is a reasonable requirement because one hand crossbows seem a little too good already.
But a hand that is required to draw ammo and load a weapon is not required when you do not need to draw or load that weapon.
If the devs meant to say "ignore the Ammunition property", they would've written "Ignore the Ammunition property". The exact same way they said "ignore the Loading property". They specifically did not write that, and instead used a larger number of words to spell out an ability that lifts two but not three of the restrictions of the Ammunition property. I can only imagine this was intentional on their part, ne?
No. The only reasonable and textually justified way of interpreting “it magically produces one piece of ammunition each time you make a ranged attack with it, unless you manually load it“ is that it loads itself if you don’t load it. And the ammunition property specifically says WHY you need a free hand: “you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon.”
There’s any number of reasons why they might not want to say “ignores the ammunition property” and they’ve been discussed already. But the way the two clauses above interact with one another is unambiguous.
There are no obscure rules or game mechanics governing the "readying" of a ranged weapon with ammunition for use in combat. It is ALL governed by the specific action(s) being undertaken, and it is exceptionally simple. Every single hypothetical step to "readying" the weapon--drawing string back, locking string in place, loading bolt, etc--is included within the act of making an attack. All of it. Period. This is the baseline standard. Does your crossbow need to be sung to after every shot? Do you need to have a heart-to-heart chat with your sentient weapon before every pull of the trigger? That's fine; it's all covered by the attack. Arguing about rules that do not exist is a waste of time and energy.
The Loading property specifies that--under normal operating conditions--the operation of the weapon is too difficult to accomplish more than once in a single action. Repeating Shot explicitly ignores this property, and reverts back to the baseline standard. This is not hard to grasp.
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.
I guess they should tack on "Ignore the Ammunition Property unless you choose the load the weapon manually." to prevent this kind of debate.
I think they didn't tack on that phrase in order to prevent this kind of debate.
The ammunition tag on a weapon has two parts. First, it requires ammunition; something you need to track in your inventory. Second, it requires two hands. The repeating weapon does not ignore the amunition tag*, it just requires no ammo. So, it only removes the first part of the ammunition property, leaving the second part unchanged.
_____ *Rules in 5E do what they say they do and no more. If the rules writers intended the magic item to ignore the amunition property then they would have said that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To be fair, pedantry is half the reason Sage Advice exists.
The rules specifically call out that you need a free hand to make use of a weapon with the ammunition property, regardless of whether that weapon requires both hands to actually fire. This is most prevalent in the case of the hand crossbow, but also applies to the sling, the blowgun, and any of a variety of homebrew pistols. One would argue that it makes little contextual sense for a sling or blowgun to still require a loading hand when affected by the Repeating Shot infusion; one could also argue that it would be weird for a crossbow to not require a loading hand, as crossbows are a case where a two-handed mechanical action is required prior to the weapon being loaded.
Contextual, plain-English interpretations differ by the base weapon being considered, which is not how rules work in D&D. Slings, blowguns, crossbows, pistols, longbows, horsebows, bows-that-shoot-horses, antimatter rifles, portable siege ballistas - all of them have to work exactly the same way when a Repeating Shot infusion is applied to them. Specific Beats General only when the specific is explicitly so. Inferred Specific only beats General at a table where the DM is allowed to say it does. If one tried to play Repeating Shot at an Adventurer's League table where the DM is not permitted to make such a ruling, they would be forced to conclude that the weapon does not allow you to ignore the "requires a free hand" criteria of the Ammunition property, only the "you must possess ammunition" and the "you must expend a piece of ammunition" criteria.
If you look at that sour-faced and think I'm a terrible person, well...now you know why I don't play Adventurer's League. For what it's worth, I hope the wording is cleaned up in Rising from the Last War to make the infusion work the way you're stating it should, because a semi-automatic pistolbow behind a shield - or opposite a scimitar for that awesome Piratical Bowslinger flavor - is just cool. But this is the Rules and Game Mechanics forum. We're not allowed to talk about "cool" in here.
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!
Even when the designers have stated again and again that they will explicitly mention exceptions? As in, if a specific rule changes something that they don't leave that up to implications?
I would say that the only way to argue that you don't need a free hand is by putting words in the mouth of designers.
The reason that they do need to write it as if it was code, is because there needs to be a common understanding. Which means writing things that can be parsed close to mechanically. Prose that requires such exegesis, does make not for good rules. Now, that doesn't mean that you should necessarily parse it this pedantically for your game.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
Which part of "...unless you manually load it" do you not consider explicit? They even threw in the word "manually" so you can be extra sure.
To me, the "it" could just as well refer to the ammunition, rather than the weapon. As in, it clarifies that if you put in a piece of ammunition yourself it doesn't screw everything up by adding another piece of ammo.
ETA: Now that's an artificer infusion, one where you can choose to engage the auto-fire. But if you forget to turn it off before using your own, bad things happen XD
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
You're talking about the same thing either way; manually putting in a piece of ammunition into the weapon. The infusion gives you an alternative to doing that. But if you choose not to do that, then clearly the bit about needing a free hand to load a one-handed weapon doesn't apply. Q.E.D.
That is not all that was to be shown. You'd still need to demonstrate that inserting ammunition is the only reason that a free hand is normally required or that the weapon not just produces ammunition, but readies the weapon in other ways as well.
People keep bringing up the sling as if only hand crossbows have this readying requirement, but you still need to gather up the end that you let go after your previous attack. Or does the infusion cause the sling to snake up by itself? Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer that version too, but the description makes no mention of the weapon doing anything other than magically producing ammunition.
Besides, surely one can load a one-handed blowpipe without a free hand. I could do so with the pvc ones I had as a child for shooting paper darts. It's patently ridiculous to require a free hand. Except, in order to have consistent parts of a rule system, as explained far better by Yurei than I managed, things need to work consistently. So, designers sacrifice that portion of "common sense" for consistency, while nudging and winking to DMs and pointing to rule 0.
You can argue common sense interpretation. Well, my common sense interpretation of the free hand requirement is that the free hand is involved in more than just placing ammunition in the right spot.
If you say, that is reading too much into the rules, I say fair enough, but so is assuming a restriction is lifted without explicit text saying that restriction is lifted.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
My reading is that you still have to cock the weapon. The item magically produces bolts and quarrels and powder+ball, but you have to draw the string or cock the hammer yourself.
But it's your game. If you want the magic to draw the string and cock the hammer (turning a magic hand crossbow into essentially a wand of eldritch blast with infinite charges) then go for it. Nothing's going to break. It does mean someone can use a shield and a hand crossbow, which is, now that I think about it, pretty cool-looking.
The ammunition property only says you need a free hand to load a one handed weapon. (There are no rules as written for "cocking" a weapon.)
The [Tooltip Not Found] specifically says it magically produces ammo when you attack with it. It even says "unless you load it," implying that it does that without being loaded.
So it can attack with out loading it. If you are not loading it, you don't need a free hand.
Unless you are arguing that you first have to use a free hand to load it with nothing?
Blowguns. What do you do with your other hand if you don't need to load the ammo?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Same with pistols.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Nope, it's on you to show that the rules require two hands to operate a one-handed ranged weapon that's not coming from the ammunition property. If there is one, show me where it is.
How you want to narrate the result of the infusion's mechanical effects is up to you. A sling is a one-handed weapon and you no longer need to load it.
In real life, I'm sure you can manage. The game has no rules for that.
I'm arguing based on a don't-be-deliberately-obtuse, reasonable interpretation of things that are written in the rules. Like I said, the writers assume you're not going to be an insufferable pedant. If they had to dummy-proof every rule in the book the MSRP would go up to $100 and nobody would want to read that. I'm not making a "common sense" argument about how these things ought to work.
I would read the statement “the weapon requires no ammunition...” in the infusion to mean “You can choose to ignore the ammunition property to use magically produced ammunition; but when you do not so choose, the item can be manually loaded as normal.” If that is not what they intend then they should clean up the wording.
And again, I would tend to use the concept that “loading” a weapon requires all the steps needed to make it ready to fire again, not just providing ammunition. If the infusion says the item doesn’t need to be loaded unless I choose to do so, then I assume that means it is made ready to fire unless I choose to do it myself. The one exception to that might be where firing the weapon requires action such as drawing a bow.
These are not well informed semantic readings, but vernacular interpretations. Again, I think that if they want a stricter reading they should make wording adjustments.
I guess they should tack on "Ignore the Ammunition Property unless you choose the load the weapon manually." to prevent this kind of debate.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Suppose it's also part of how people interpret the rules.
I'm of the school that believes "Always assume the rules are working against you as much as humanly possible." Any RAW rules debate that can go against the player does go against the player, regardless of what common sense might say, because that's the route that ensures you never get thrown out of a game, especially for Adventurer's League. See: the Shield Master kerfuffle and the reversal of Sage Advice's rulings for it. Whenever a rules question has an interpretation that is more restrictive on what you can do, assume that's the correct one.
Other people tell me that's a stupid pessimistic way of going about things. Other people don't have a couple of decades' experience in competitive TCGs and miniatures games with swag on the line where knowing exactly what the rules actually say vs. what people think they say is how you get to the point where tournament judges only come to your table when a rules dispute is called on you as a formality, because they know that you know the rules better than they do.
The "Ammunition" property of a weapon has three distinct restrictions. It states that you must possess ammunition to make an attack with the weapon. Repeating Shot nullifies this restriction. It states that you must expend one piece of ready ammunition to make an attack with the weapon. Repeating Shot nullifies this requirement. It states that you must have a free, empty hand with which to operate the weapon in order to make an attack with it. Repeating Shot does not affect this restriction at all, there is no language in the infusion that speaks to the free-hand requirement.
Whether this physically makes sense in the game world is irrelevant to the wording involved. If this was a competitive gaming tournament with swag and nerd infamy on the line, you can bet your bottom dollar there'd be errata to clarify this, but in the absence of such errata, we can only assume that the rules are going to be as restrictive as possible and work against you to their maximum possible extent. Which means that spare meatpaw is on the bow, not on a shield or a scimitar or anything else you might feel like using.
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!
And again my vernacular reading would say that “does not require ammunition” means that the ammunition property doesn’t apply.
But I would also say that the free hand is required to draw ammo from an ammo quiver, case, or container and load the weapon. Repeating shot nullifies this: it nullifies loading and the requirement to draw ammo.
If the devs meant to say "ignore the Ammunition property", they would've written "Ignore the Ammunition property". The exact same way they said "ignore the Loading property". They specifically did not write that, and instead used a larger number of words to spell out an ability that lifts two but not three of the restrictions of the Ammunition property. I can only imagine this was intentional on their part, ne?
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!
Ok so like I said then they should adjust the wording. “Requires no ammunition” when there is a weapon property called “ammunition” requires more specific text if they don’t want me to just ignore the ammunition property. If they want you to still require a free hand for one-handed weapons then that should be stated too. It is a reasonable requirement because one hand crossbows seem a little too good already.
But a hand that is required to draw ammo and load a weapon is not required when you do not need to draw or load that weapon.
No. The only reasonable and textually justified way of interpreting “it magically produces one piece of ammunition each time you make a ranged attack with it, unless you manually load it“ is that it loads itself if you don’t load it. And the ammunition property specifically says WHY you need a free hand: “you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon.”
There’s any number of reasons why they might not want to say “ignores the ammunition property” and they’ve been discussed already. But the way the two clauses above interact with one another is unambiguous.
Let's end this topic right now:
There are no obscure rules or game mechanics governing the "readying" of a ranged weapon with ammunition for use in combat. It is ALL governed by the specific action(s) being undertaken, and it is exceptionally simple. Every single hypothetical step to "readying" the weapon--drawing string back, locking string in place, loading bolt, etc--is included within the act of making an attack. All of it. Period. This is the baseline standard. Does your crossbow need to be sung to after every shot? Do you need to have a heart-to-heart chat with your sentient weapon before every pull of the trigger? That's fine; it's all covered by the attack. Arguing about rules that do not exist is a waste of time and energy.
The Loading property specifies that--under normal operating conditions--the operation of the weapon is too difficult to accomplish more than once in a single action. Repeating Shot explicitly ignores this property, and reverts back to the baseline standard. This is not hard to grasp.
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.
I think they didn't tack on that phrase in order to prevent this kind of debate.
The ammunition tag on a weapon has two parts. First, it requires ammunition; something you need to track in your inventory. Second, it requires two hands. The repeating weapon does not ignore the amunition tag*, it just requires no ammo. So, it only removes the first part of the ammunition property, leaving the second part unchanged.
_____
*Rules in 5E do what they say they do and no more. If the rules writers intended the magic item to ignore the amunition property then they would have said that.