I speculate the reason the infusion doesn't straight up remove the ammunition property (which would make things a lot easier) is because then you wouldn't be able to use the weapon with magical ammunition.
And there's something satisfying that using a +2 bolt in a +1 crossbow for that +3 to hit/damage, I wouldn't want to lose that for the sake of some marginally simpler wording.
I speculate the reason the infusion doesn't straight up remove the ammunition property (which would make things a lot easier) is because then you wouldn't be able to use the weapon with magical ammunition.
And there's something satisfying that using a +2 bolt in a +1 crossbow for that +3 to hit/damage, I wouldn't want to lose that for the sake of some marginally simpler wording.
Yes, but in order for you to load your own ammunition you do have to give up the ability to use the shield.
I think it could just be simply stated as "you can choose to ignore the ammunition property as well, and if you do you gain these benefits at this cost..."
I speculate the reason the infusion doesn't straight up remove the ammunition property (which would make things a lot easier) is because then you wouldn't be able to use the weapon with magical ammunition.
And there's something satisfying that using a +2 bolt in a +1 crossbow for that +3 to hit/damage, I wouldn't want to lose that for the sake of some marginally simpler wording.
Yes, but in order for you to load your own ammunition you do have to give up the ability to use the shield.
I think it could just be simply stated as "you can choose to ignore the ammunition property as well, and if you do you gain these benefits at this cost..."
I think the way it is currently written is more clear than that. The infusion tells you what the infusion does, not how a particular character might choose to utilize it in conjunction with other things. The infusion rules don't care what you may choose to do with your hands, nor does it care about equipment that isn't being infused. Keep it simple.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Rewriting it to explicitly detail interactions with things outside the scope of the infusion itself does not make it more simple than it already is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
You don't have to do that though, you just have to make it clear what it actually does so that those interactions become clear.
If you want to sometimes be able to entirely ignore the ammunition property at the discretion of the user, then just say that. That is essentially what the rule does, but it does it in such a way that doesn't make it clear.
You don't have to do that though, you just have to make it clear what it actually does so that those interactions become clear.
If you want to sometimes be able to entirely ignore the ammunition property at the discretion of the user, then just say that. That is essentially what the rule does, but it does it in such a way that doesn't make it clear.
But it doesn’t “let you ignore the Ammunition property” as you suggest, it simply relieves the PC from their obligation to maintain a free hand to load ammunition conditional to specifically using the Magic ammo created by the infusion.
You don't have to do that though, you just have to make it clear what it actually does so that those interactions become clear.
If you want to sometimes be able to entirely ignore the ammunition property at the discretion of the user, then just say that. That is essentially what the rule does, but it does it in such a way that doesn't make it clear.
But it doesn’t “let you ignore the Ammunition property” as you suggest, it simply relieves the PC from their obligation to maintain a free hand to load ammunition conditional to specifically using the Magic ammo created by the infusion.
No, according to Davedamon, it lets you ignore every part except treating it as an improvised weapon, which is already expected of non-standard use of a weapon.
You don't have to do that though, you just have to make it clear what it actually does so that those interactions become clear.
If you want to sometimes be able to entirely ignore the ammunition property at the discretion of the user, then just say that. That is essentially what the rule does, but it does it in such a way that doesn't make it clear.
But it doesn’t “let you ignore the Ammunition property” as you suggest, it simply relieves the PC from their obligation to maintain a free hand to load ammunition conditional to specifically using the Magic ammo created by the infusion.
No, according to Davedamon, it lets you ignore every part except treating it as an improvised weapon, which is already expected of non-standard use of a weapon.
I think you’re misconstruing his post, he only was talking about the “normal” use of the item, and he later clarified his stance on the use of other real ammunition, which would follow the normal rules for the ammunition property in full
You don't have to do that though, you just have to make it clear what it actually does so that those interactions become clear.
If you want to sometimes be able to entirely ignore the ammunition property at the discretion of the user, then just say that. That is essentially what the rule does, but it does it in such a way that doesn't make it clear.
But it doesn’t “let you ignore the Ammunition property” as you suggest, it simply relieves the PC from their obligation to maintain a free hand to load ammunition conditional to specifically using the Magic ammo created by the infusion.
No, according to Davedamon, it lets you ignore every part except treating it as an improvised weapon, which is already expected of non-standard use of a weapon.
But what if I don’t want to ignore it and specifically wish to load a piece of ammunition?
For example, an 11th level Fighter with 2 Extra Attacks, what if I want to load an Arrow of Slaying or piece of Walloping Ammunition as that second shot in the middle there?
So for the first 2 seconds of my turn it’s ignored, and then the next 2 it isn’t and then in the final 2 seconds it’s ignored again. Right? So how would that be written in clear, concise wording?
You don't have to do that though, you just have to make it clear what it actually does so that those interactions become clear.
If you want to sometimes be able to entirely ignore the ammunition property at the discretion of the user, then just say that. That is essentially what the rule does, but it does it in such a way that doesn't make it clear.
But it doesn’t “let you ignore the Ammunition property” as you suggest, it simply relieves the PC from their obligation to maintain a free hand to load ammunition conditional to specifically using the Magic ammo created by the infusion.
No, according to Davedamon, it lets you ignore every part except treating it as an improvised weapon, which is already expected of non-standard use of a weapon.
I think you’re misconstruing his post, he only was talking about the “normal” use of the item, and he later clarified his stance on the use of other real ammunition, which would follow the normal rules for the ammunition property in full
Choosing to not ignore the ammunition property would mean you would follow the ammunition rules in full too...
What I was trying to highlight/explain/point out is that it gives you a single new option; make a ranged attack without first loading it. This has then a single immediate effect; the weapon creates its own ammunition. Everything else is a property derived from that. I would assume this is an attempt at future proofing, the more clauses and options you introduce can create more conflicts further down the line.
Ultimately, how something should be worded is a very different discussion from how current wording works.
What I was trying to highlight/explain/point out is that it gives you a single new option; make a ranged attack without first loading it. This has then a single immediate effect; the weapon creates its own ammunition. Everything else is a property derived from that. I would assume this is an attempt at future proofing, the more clauses and options you introduce can create more conflicts further down the line.
Ultimately, how something should be worded is a very different discussion from how current wording works.
Exactly. Repeating Shot does not allow anyone to ignore the Ammunition property; it provides a specific usage that does not depend on the Ammunition property.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 Dave’s breakdown of the specific clauses of the Ammunition property is persuasive. It is not that Ammunition says “you need a free hand,” it’s that it says you need a free hand SPECIFICALLY AND ONLY to load the weapon. Since RS tells you it does that for you, creating ammunition “when you make an attack” with an empty chamber, I think it’s pretty safe to read this as eliminating any free hand requirement related to loading/cocking/whatever.
Two handed ranged weapons remain two handed, but one handed ranged weapons can be safely used with a shield or second weapon. Sounds straightforward enough.
Okay first of all, with 4 pages of discussion, I think it's interesting that iconarising thinks there is a consensus.
I completely agree that Dave's reasoning is convincing, not convincing enough for me, but a good point.
The counter argument that is, in my opinion, not adequately adressed is that not only do the words that are chosen matter, the words that are not chosen matter at least as much.
If they wanted to be clear that the ammunition property becomes _optional_, Dave's position if I understand correctly, they could have phrased it "You may ignore the ammunition property of this weapon for any ranged attack made with it. If you do, it will magically create a piece of ammunition to serve as its projectile." or something like that. This way, it is clear that if you want to provide ammunition, you can, while at the same time specifying it's interaction with the ammunition property
But they didn't and the question as to why they didn't is highly relevant, because of the "rules do exactly what they say" design philosophy that they've espoused.
ETA
I'm not on twitter, nor do I care to be. So, if anyone that is would be inclined to poke Crawford about this, please do and let me know. I'll remember you fondly for at least 5 minutes.
Okay first of all, with 4 pages of discussion, I think it's interesting that iconarising thinks there is a consensus.
I completely agree that Dave's reasoning is convincing, not convincing enough for me, but a good point.
The counter argument that is, in my opinion, not adequately adressed is that not only do the words that are chosen matter, the words that are not chosen matter at least as much.
If they wanted to be clear that the ammunition property becomes _optional_, Dave's position if I understand correctly, they could have phrased it "You may ignore the ammunition property of this weapon for any ranged attack made with it. If you do, it will magically create a piece of ammunition to serve as its projectile." or something like that. This way, it is clear that if you want to provide ammunition, you can, while at the same time specifying it's interaction with the ammunition property
But they didn't and the question as to why they didn't is highly relevant, because of the "rules do exactly what they say" design philosophy that they've espoused.
ETA
I'm not on twitter, nor do I care to be. So, if anyone that is would be inclined to poke Crawford about this, please do and let me know. I'll remember you fondly for at least 5 minutes.
Why the callout? The most recent discussion (ie in the last 12 hours, not a year ago) is overwhelmingly in favor of the point of view I espoused, and continues to be so after I made that statement 20 ish posts ago. I’d call that consensus. You are free to disagree with my point of view , and you would be in the minority given the most recent conversation
Why the callout? The most recent discussion (ie in the last 12 hours, not a year ago) is overwhelmingly in favor of the point of view I espoused, and continues to be so after I made that statement 20 ish posts ago. I’d call that consensus. You are free to disagree with my point of view , and you would be in the minority given the most recent conversation
*Shrug* it just struck me as interesting, I'm fascinated with how perspectives differ. I'm sorry if I offended you or anything, wasn't my intention.
I don't see what the timeframe has to do with anything, I don't see a reason to assume that previous contributors have changed their minds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
If they wanted to be clear that the ammunition property becomes _optional_, Dave's position if I understand correctly
Except that's not Dave's position, and he explicitly clarified it as such. Repeating Shot does not allow anyone to ignore the Ammunition property. Repeating Shot only provides a specific usage that does not depend on the Ammunition property.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
That seems like a distinction without a difference to me. If the weapon gains the option to make a ranged attack where the ammunition property does not apply, that is no different than saying you can make a ranged attack that ignores the loading property. I honestly do not see the difference, as it is still a ranged attack with a weapon that has the ammunition property. Nowhere does the infusion say that you have a new use for your attack action or a new way to attack with, or usage for, the weapon. So the idea that it grants a new usage is not supported in the text, either. Neither are you told that it has any effect or interaction with that property whatsoever.
And the designers have reiterated time and again, the rules do what they say they do, no more, no less. I'm not being obtuse here, I haven't seen any reading so far that, IMO, does not read deeper into the rules than what I think is appropriate, based on that design philosophy. That seems to me to be the heart of this issue here.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that DMs shouldn't allow it. If a player in my game wanted to invest into Artificer so they could go hand-crossbows akimbo, I'd say knock yourself out. I'd also mutter to myself that I don't see the appeal, but, hey, as long as they have fun. And I will probably throw in encounter somewhere that'll have an anti-magic field or something, because I'm a bastard that way and think that it builds character if a PC has to do without their schtick at least once in a campaign.
I speculate the reason the infusion doesn't straight up remove the ammunition property (which would make things a lot easier) is because then you wouldn't be able to use the weapon with magical ammunition.
And there's something satisfying that using a +2 bolt in a +1 crossbow for that +3 to hit/damage, I wouldn't want to lose that for the sake of some marginally simpler wording.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Yes, but in order for you to load your own ammunition you do have to give up the ability to use the shield.
I think it could just be simply stated as "you can choose to ignore the ammunition property as well, and if you do you gain these benefits at this cost..."
Well yeah, it makes sense that to use special ammunition you'd need to forgo holding a shield, as you need a free hand to load that special ammo.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
I think the way it is currently written is more clear than that. The infusion tells you what the infusion does, not how a particular character might choose to utilize it in conjunction with other things. The infusion rules don't care what you may choose to do with your hands, nor does it care about equipment that isn't being infused. Keep it simple.
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.
If it were actually simple, then there wouldn't be 4 pages of discussion on it.
Rewriting it to explicitly detail interactions with things outside the scope of the infusion itself does not make it more simple than it already is.
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.
You don't have to do that though, you just have to make it clear what it actually does so that those interactions become clear.
If you want to sometimes be able to entirely ignore the ammunition property at the discretion of the user, then just say that. That is essentially what the rule does, but it does it in such a way that doesn't make it clear.
But it doesn’t “let you ignore the Ammunition property” as you suggest, it simply relieves the PC from their obligation to maintain a free hand to load ammunition conditional to specifically using the Magic ammo created by the infusion.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
No, according to Davedamon, it lets you ignore every part except treating it as an improvised weapon, which is already expected of non-standard use of a weapon.
I think you’re misconstruing his post, he only was talking about the “normal” use of the item, and he later clarified his stance on the use of other real ammunition, which would follow the normal rules for the ammunition property in full
But what if I don’t want to ignore it and specifically wish to load a piece of ammunition?
For example, an 11th level Fighter with 2 Extra Attacks, what if I want to load an Arrow of Slaying or piece of Walloping Ammunition as that second shot in the middle there?
So for the first 2 seconds of my turn it’s ignored, and then the next 2 it isn’t and then in the final 2 seconds it’s ignored again. Right? So how would that be written in clear, concise wording?
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Choosing to not ignore the ammunition property would mean you would follow the ammunition rules in full too...
What I was trying to highlight/explain/point out is that it gives you a single new option; make a ranged attack without first loading it. This has then a single immediate effect; the weapon creates its own ammunition. Everything else is a property derived from that. I would assume this is an attempt at future proofing, the more clauses and options you introduce can create more conflicts further down the line.
Ultimately, how something should be worded is a very different discussion from how current wording works.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Exactly. Repeating Shot does not allow anyone to ignore the Ammunition property; it provides a specific usage that does not depend on the Ammunition property.
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 Dave’s breakdown of the specific clauses of the Ammunition property is persuasive. It is not that Ammunition says “you need a free hand,” it’s that it says you need a free hand SPECIFICALLY AND ONLY to load the weapon. Since RS tells you it does that for you, creating ammunition “when you make an attack” with an empty chamber, I think it’s pretty safe to read this as eliminating any free hand requirement related to loading/cocking/whatever.
Two handed ranged weapons remain two handed, but one handed ranged weapons can be safely used with a shield or second weapon. Sounds straightforward enough.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Okay first of all, with 4 pages of discussion, I think it's interesting that iconarising thinks there is a consensus.
I completely agree that Dave's reasoning is convincing, not convincing enough for me, but a good point.
The counter argument that is, in my opinion, not adequately adressed is that not only do the words that are chosen matter, the words that are not chosen matter at least as much.
If they wanted to be clear that the ammunition property becomes _optional_, Dave's position if I understand correctly, they could have phrased it "You may ignore the ammunition property of this weapon for any ranged attack made with it. If you do, it will magically create a piece of ammunition to serve as its projectile." or something like that. This way, it is clear that if you want to provide ammunition, you can, while at the same time specifying it's interaction with the ammunition property
But they didn't and the question as to why they didn't is highly relevant, because of the "rules do exactly what they say" design philosophy that they've espoused.
ETA
I'm not on twitter, nor do I care to be. So, if anyone that is would be inclined to poke Crawford about this, please do and let me know. I'll remember you fondly for at least 5 minutes.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
Why the callout? The most recent discussion (ie in the last 12 hours, not a year ago) is overwhelmingly in favor of the point of view I espoused, and continues to be so after I made that statement 20 ish posts ago. I’d call that consensus. You are free to disagree with my point of view , and you would be in the minority given the most recent conversation
*Shrug* it just struck me as interesting, I'm fascinated with how perspectives differ. I'm sorry if I offended you or anything, wasn't my intention.
I don't see what the timeframe has to do with anything, I don't see a reason to assume that previous contributors have changed their minds.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
Except that's not Dave's position, and he explicitly clarified it as such. Repeating Shot does not allow anyone to ignore the Ammunition property. Repeating Shot only provides a specific usage that does not depend on the Ammunition property.
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.
That seems like a distinction without a difference to me. If the weapon gains the option to make a ranged attack where the ammunition property does not apply, that is no different than saying you can make a ranged attack that ignores the loading property. I honestly do not see the difference, as it is still a ranged attack with a weapon that has the ammunition property. Nowhere does the infusion say that you have a new use for your attack action or a new way to attack with, or usage for, the weapon. So the idea that it grants a new usage is not supported in the text, either. Neither are you told that it has any effect or interaction with that property whatsoever.
And the designers have reiterated time and again, the rules do what they say they do, no more, no less. I'm not being obtuse here, I haven't seen any reading so far that, IMO, does not read deeper into the rules than what I think is appropriate, based on that design philosophy. That seems to me to be the heart of this issue here.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that DMs shouldn't allow it. If a player in my game wanted to invest into Artificer so they could go hand-crossbows akimbo, I'd say knock yourself out. I'd also mutter to myself that I don't see the appeal, but, hey, as long as they have fun. And I will probably throw in encounter somewhere that'll have an anti-magic field or something, because I'm a bastard that way and think that it builds character if a PC has to do without their schtick at least once in a campaign.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution