Just to summarize, your view is that the rules do what they say they do, no more, and no less.
Repeating Shot
Item: A simple or martial weapon with the ammunition property (requires attunement)
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(1).
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(2). The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target.
Repeating shot tells you to ignore the Loading property
Repeating shot does not tell you to ignore the Ammunition property
Repeating shot tells you how you can use the weapon if you do not load physical ammunition yourself. This is explicitly a "usage".
Wanna try again?
And nobody is able to wield & operate two Crossbow, Hand without having them both infused with Repeating Shot, and that would require two Artificers to pull off--a single Artificer can apply Repeating Shot to no more than one weapon at a time, and they would not be able to manually load the non-infused weapon without a free hand.
This is also aside from the fact that you cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting with non-melee/thrown weapons to begin with.
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.
Just to summarize, your view is that the rules do what they say they do, no more, and no less.
Repeating Shot
Item: A simple or martial weapon with the ammunition property (requires attunement)
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(1).
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(2). The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target.
Repeating shot tells you to ignore the Loading property
Repeating shot does not tell you to ignore the Ammunition property
Repeating shot tells you how you can use the weapon if you do not load physical ammunition yourself. This is explicitly a "usage".
Wanna try again?
And nobody is able to wield & operate two Crossbow, Hand without having them both infused with Repeating Shot, and that would require two Artificers to pull off--a single Artificer can apply Repeating Shot to no more than one weapon at a time, and they would not be able to manually load the non-infused weapon without a free hand.
This is also aside from the fact that you cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting with non-melee/thrown weapons to begin with.
And again, 2 doesn't mention anything about the ammunition property. So you need to apply the rules for that property. The argument that the free hand portion does not apply is inferring an exception, which is a bad way to go with rules.
Note the that the infusion say "load into" and the ammunition property says "you need a free hand to load a one-handed". Now why is that distinction important and not meaningless pedantry? Because loading consists of more than putting ammunition into the weapon. None of which is affected by the infusion aside from making it easier in the case of weapons with the loading property. It does not say it loads the weapon for you.
I had indeed missed that limitation on infusions. Still, I would allow it for all the same reasons. The two-weapon fighting rules are only concerned with making a bonus attack. So they could still wield 2 and there are other ways of getting that bonus attack.
I really, truly detest thread necromancy. This old discussion was dealt with and settled. Ugh.
DaveDamon does make a compelling argument, though. My own DM allows me to utilize the Repeating Shot infusion on the flintlock pistol my Battlesmith looted alongside a shield without penalty, if primarily because unlike crossbows, the act of creating ammunition in place and ready to fire in a DMG black-powder pistol is just about all the operation one needs. The fluff overrides the RAW, as often occurs in our games.
The issue is that this is the Rules and Game mechanics subforum, and as has been pointed out many times to many people, including me, 'fluff' has no place here. Whenever one cries "but that just doesn't make SENSE!", the answer is always "it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be the rules." I would be interested to see what the RAI was in this instance, but one must always assume that RAW is out to ruin one's fun as much as possible. If there is a more negative and restrictive interpretation of a given rule, that interpretation should be viewed as correct. That's always the way of it in a more competitive game in which tournament standings and rankings are considered critical to the game; while 5e is clearly not that sort of game, it's clearly taking many queues from those sorts of games and attempting to implement the same level of mechanical rigorousness.
Many DMs would likely side with Dave and allow this, and frankly if an artificer at a table I was running was being properly inventive and creative - and it wasn't an AL table where you can lose fingers to the RAW Yakuza for making one single "Incorrect" on-the-fly judgment to keep a game going - I would likely allow it myself. I don't know if his interpretation is correct enough to satisfy a tournament judge or the aforementioned finger-chopping folks, but I could see it being correct enough that were this a more formal, judgment-required game, it would likely require a ruling from the developers.
Just to summarize, your view is that the rules do what they say they do, no more, and no less.
Repeating Shot
Item: A simple or martial weapon with the ammunition property (requires attunement)
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(1).
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(2). The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target.
Repeating shot tells you to ignore the Loading property
Repeating shot does not tell you to ignore the Ammunition property
Repeating shot tells you how you can use the weapon if you do not load physical ammunition yourself. This is explicitly a "usage".
Wanna try again?
And nobody is able to wield & operate two Crossbow, Hand without having them both infused with Repeating Shot, and that would require two Artificers to pull off--a single Artificer can apply Repeating Shot to no more than one weapon at a time, and they would not be able to manually load the non-infused weapon without a free hand.
This is also aside from the fact that you cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting with non-melee/thrown weapons to begin with.
And again, 2 doesn't mention anything about the ammunition property. So you need to apply the rules for that property. The argument that the free hand portion does not apply is inferring an exception, which is a bad way to go with rules.
Note the that the infusion say "load into" and the ammunition property says "you need a free hand to load a one-handed". Now why is that distinction important and not meaningless pedantry? Because loading consists of more than putting ammunition into the weapon. None of which is affected by the infusion aside from making it easier in the case of weapons with the loading property. It does not say it loads the weapon for you.
I had indeed missed that limitation on infusions. Still, I would allow it for all the same reasons. The two-weapon fighting rules are only concerned with making a bonus attack. So they could still wield 2 and there are other ways of getting that bonus attack.
What exactly do you think the Repeating Shot infusion does? That's a sincere question. Repeating Shot says the weapon creates its own ammunition, except it can't, because the Ammunition property says you need to provide some. Repeating Shot says what happens if you don't load the weapon yourself, except you have to, because the Ammunition property says so. Repeating Shot says the ammo it creates disappears after a hit, except it can't, because the Ammunition property has its own rules for that.
Seriously, if you can't wrap your head around the idea of a specific rule overriding certain subsections of a property without explicitly ignoring the entire property, the infusion literally does nothing.
What exactly do you think the Repeating Shot infusion does? That's a sincere question. Repeating Shot says the weapon creates its own ammunition, except it can't, because the Ammunition property says you need to provide some. Repeating Shot says what happens if you don't load the weapon yourself, except you have to, because the Ammunition property says so. Repeating Shot says the ammo it creates disappears after a hit, except it can't, because the Ammunition property has its own rules for that.
Seriously, if you can't wrap your head around the idea of a specific rule overriding certain subsections of a property without explicitly ignoring the entire property, the infusion literally does nothing.
This is actually a nuanced question that requires more thought than even you seem to be giving it, Saga. The ammunition property lists out several requirements for using a weapon with that property. It is a legitimate question as to whether those requirements are due to how you use the item or requirements that simply must be met due to the weapon having that property. If you believe a requirements exist solely due to the property and not how you use the weapon, then anything that changes those properties should really tell you how they change those requirements explicitly.
Otherwise, if the things in the weapon properties are just tidbits about how you use weapons and ammunition with the ammunition property that rely on that usage (and not simply the fact that the property says them) then changing the usage does in fact change those tidbits.
That, I think, is the root of this entire discussion. Does a weapon property convey requirements onto using a weapon? Or does it simply give you an idea of how the weapon normally operates? More concretely: Is the requirement for a free hand due to having to load ammunition or simply a requirement of the property?
Edits: fixing tags and cutting some quotes, also some spelling...
Mechanically, what I think it does is negate the loading property and generates ammunition for an attack if you don't provide it. No more, no less
But I assume you mean fluff-wise. What I imagine it doing in the case of a crossbow is aid in cocking the string, i.e. negating the loading property. For example, the infusion could represent some powered apparatus that winches the string back, so you don't need pull out the goats-foot lever. If you're about to attack without a bolt in it, it appears just in time to shoot it, fulfilling the requirement of having a piece of ammunition to fire. How does it know you're attacking and not just dry-firing because you hat your crossbow. Don't know, don't care. The rules don't say you have to have the ammunition before you load the weapon. Just that you need it to attack.
My position is that neither the ammunition property, nor any of its component are negated/overridden. In my current understanding of the arguments from the other side, this is not too controversial. Everything still applies and all requirement must be met. All the infusion says it does on that front, is provide the ammunition. So you can fulfill that specific requirement, even if you're out of ammo.
And I can certainly wrap my head around it that notion. I've wrapped my head around more complex notions as well. All I'm asking you is to show me where it says that it does. Not where you inferred it based on an assumption of what the infusion represents.
Mechanically, what I think it does is negate the loading property and generates ammunition for an attack if you don't provide it. No more, no less
Except it can't do that if, as you say, "neither the ammunition property, nor any of its component are negated/overridden," because that only happens if you don't load ammunition, and the ammunition property says you have to load ammunition.
But I assume you mean fluff-wise. What I imagine it doing in the case of a crossbow is aid in cocking the string, i.e. negating the loading property. For example, the infusion could represent some powered apparatus that winches the string back, so you don't need pull out the goats-foot lever. If you're about to attack without a bolt in it, it appears just in time to shoot it, fulfilling the requirement of having a piece of ammunition to fire. How does it know you're attacking and not just dry-firing because you hat your crossbow. Don't know, don't care. The rules don't say you have to have the ammunition before you load the weapon. Just that you need it to attack.
I do not mean fluff-wise. I don't care about the fluff. That's up the player.
My position is that neither the ammunition property, nor any of its component are negated/overridden. In my current understanding of the arguments from the other side, this is not too controversial. Everything still applies and all requirement must be met. All the infusion says it does on that front, is provide the ammunition. So you can fulfill that specific requirement, even if you're out of ammo.
Again, if everything still applies and all requirements must be met, the infusion doesn't do anything. It can't even do what you say it does.
And I can certainly wrap my head around it that notion. I've wrapped my head around more complex notions as well. All I'm asking you is to show me where it says that it does. Not where you inferred it based on an assumption of what the infusion represents.
I don't care what the infusion "represents." If the ammunition property and all its components apply, you cannot use the weapon without loading ammunition. What the infusion says is "this is what happens if you don't load ammunition." The text of the infusion is fundamentally incompatible with most of the ammunition property. There are only two logically valid conclusions that I see: either the infusion allows you to selectively ignore the parts of the property that no longer apply (or grants you a new use of the weapon that doesn't rely on the ammunition property; I don't think the distinction is relevant, but if someone else does, they can pick whichever they want), or the ammo creation part of the infusion just doesn't function.
What I'd like you to do is show me how you can get to the "If you load no ammunition in the weapon" part of the infusion text without ignoring (one way or another) the "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)" part of the ammunition property text. Not where you inferred it based on an assumption of what the infusion represents.
Question: "As we used to say in older editions, "specific trumps general". The specific case of falling with Feather Fall trumps the general rules for falling." JC: "In D&D, a specific rule always beats a general rule if they disagree with each other. For more information about that principle, take a look at the section "Specific Beats General" in the "Player's Handbook" (p. 7)"
So would the specific description regarding ammunition in Repeating Shot beat the general rule of ammunition found in Players?
Except it can't do that if, as you say, "neither the ammunition property, nor any of its component are negated/overridden," because that only happens if you don't load ammunition, and the ammunition property says you have to load ammunition.
The ammunition property says:
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
The repeating shot infusion says
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 doesn't say you can't attack if you don't first load, just that you must have ammunition to fire from the weapon. The repeating shot infusion says that if you don't load the weapon with ammunition, the weapon produces its own. This satisfies the criteria for the weapon requiring ammuntion.
Later in the ammunition property, it does say you must load ammunition by drawing it from a quiver or case as part of the attack, but this is rendered moot at the repeating shot item can produce it's own ammunition when fired without first being loaded.
Interesting... so WITHOUT repeating shot, you CAN make a ranged attack with a weapon with no ammo, it just doesn’t fire anything. So finger guns, or a blown kiss, you can make an attack roll to see if they ‘hit’ 😘👉
Interesting... so WITHOUT repeating shit, you CAN make a ranged attack with a weapon with no ammo, it just doesn’t fire anything. So finger guns, or a blown kiss, you can make an attack roll to see if they ‘hit’ 😘👉
Interesting... so WITHOUT repeating shit, you CAN make a ranged attack with a weapon with no ammo, it just doesn’t fire anything. So finger guns, or a blown kiss, you can make an attack roll to see if they ‘hit’ 😘👉
Without repeating shot, you still need ammunition to make an attack:
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
Here's the rest of it:
Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
So repeating shot aside, to attack with a ranged weapon you need ammunition for it. When you do attack, you expect that ammunition, drawing, loading and firing it.
Repeating shot removes the need to supply ammunition (and thus draw and load it) because the weapon generates it own.
Interesting... so WITHOUT repeating shit, you CAN make a ranged attack with a weapon with no ammo, it just doesn’t fire anything. So finger guns, or a blown kiss, you can make an attack roll to see if they ‘hit’ 😘👉
Without repeating shot, you still need ammunition to make an attack:
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
Here's the rest of it:
Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
So repeating shot aside, to attack with a ranged weapon you need ammunition for it. When you do attack, you expect that ammunition, drawing, loading and firing it.
Repeating shot removes the need to supply ammunition (and thus draw and load it) because the weapon generates it own.
I would say that if the weapon is not loaded, you would only be simulating an attack rather than actually making one. I doubt there is anything in the rules prohibiting pointing an unloaded crossbow at someone and saying 'thwack.'
There’s not a prohibition, it just wouldn’t be an attack (but a performance, deception or intimidation check? Sure)
Interesting... so WITHOUT repeating shit, you CAN make a ranged attack with a weapon with no ammo, it just doesn’t fire anything. So finger guns, or a blown kiss, you can make an attack roll to see if they ‘hit’ 😘👉
Without repeating shot, you still need ammunition to make an attack:
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
Here's the rest of it:
Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
So repeating shot aside, to attack with a ranged weapon you need ammunition for it. When you do attack, you expect that ammunition, drawing, loading and firing it.
Repeating shot removes the need to supply ammunition (and thus draw and load it) because the weapon generates it own.
I think we are pretty close to each other in the reading, yet far apart in the conclusion.
We differ, I think, in the interpretation of:
"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)."
I read the main part as clarifying that you don't need an object interaction to draw ammunition from a container. Not that you need to do this, you could be holding arrows/bolts in your hand. Now, the part in parentheses is where things get hairy. Regardless of intent, the use of parentheses here is unfortunate. Because it relegates a restriction, i.e. a rule, to an aside.
But back to my point. I think I interpret "loading" differently. To me, loading, in the context of ranged weapons, means making ready to fire. The most obvious part of that is putting ammunition into the weapon. But it involves more than that for just about any weapon other than bows. A crossbow must be cocked before you can put the munition in. Nowhere does the infusion say it does this for you, it does say it becomes easier (no loading property).
Now, I definitely see Dave's point. And the presence of parentheses does suggest he may be right. But that would mean taking an extremely narrow interpretation of "loading". And I think the difference between "loading a weapon" and "loading ammunition in the weapon" is significant.
My interpretation does not mean the infusion doesn't do anything, nor does it contradict anything. And to be fair, neither does Dave's. Which is why I also maintain this is poor writing, which is not to say that the authors are bad writers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
I think you NEED to be able to “make an attack” with an unloaded weapon, in order to land at Repeating SHOT doing what it says it does. Otherwise, “when you make a ranged attack with it” will always be predicated on having loaded ammunition, because Repeating Shot (as others have said) does not give you a new ability to make an attack when you couldn’t already.
Sure if you mount your crossbow in a vise, you wouldn't need a free hand either. And with a handcrossbow, I could certainly imagine someone with the right shield, say kite or heater, being able to do cock and load a crossbow. But we don't distinguish between boss-gripped and strap-gripped shields.
Firearms are explicitly optional in the rules, so I wouldn't assume too much from their case. Even so, the infusion is unclear on how much it helps. Just with the loading? Means you still have to scrape the barrel. Powder at that tech level didn't burn particularly cleanly.
Even if it does that, it doesn't specify how. So it seems reasonable to me that the intent was that the artificer has made some contraption that does all that in one go. And operating that contraption is what requires a free hand now. I'll freely admit this is not a strong point, leaning as it does on the description of the artificer class and some inference on author's intent. But it's just to support that my interpretation isn't, at the very least, waaay out there. As seems to be the impression among some of the people here.
I think you NEED to be able to “make an attack” with an unloaded weapon, in order to land at Repeating SHOT doing what it says it does. Otherwise, “when you make a ranged attack with it” will always be predicated on having loaded ammunition, because Repeating Shot (as others have said) does not give you a new ability to make an attack when you couldn’t already.
I don't think so, otherwise you could never attack, or only attack with a pre-loaded weapon. Remember that drawing the ammunition is part of the attack. So clearly, initiating the attack action does not require a loaded weapon. What is required is that, as part of the attack action, you load the weapon and have ammunition in it. Whether provided by yourself, or produced by the infused weapon. Or at least, that's my reading.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
1) It's called context. Read the artificer. I already conceded that the mechanism argument was by no means solid because of its basis. It was meant to support the other ones, think of it like circumstantial evidence.
2a) No I did not, I'll concede the blowpipe. Do you really feel that invalidates my point? I already said earlier "most other weapons". It would have been even more concise to simply quote me on that. Does it surprise you there are edge cases that are handled poorly?
2b) To take a page from your playbook, you didn't say anything about cleaning the barrel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
So you initiate a ranged attack with a ranged weapon against a target. Then step two is, draw one piece of ammunition with a free hand to load. Repeating shot bypasses that step. Or if you were out of ammo, this is the step your attack would fail, prior to rolling. Step three is, roll the attack and damage? That seems easy enough to arbitrate.
Just to summarize, your view is that the rules do what they say they do, no more, and no less.
Wanna try again?
And nobody is able to wield & operate two Crossbow, Hand without having them both infused with Repeating Shot, and that would require two Artificers to pull off--a single Artificer can apply Repeating Shot to no more than one weapon at a time, and they would not be able to manually load the non-infused weapon without a free hand.
This is also aside from the fact that you cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting with non-melee/thrown weapons to begin with.
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 believe Artificers can infuse multiple items with same infusion, just no more than one infusion per item?
Edit: nope, you’re right, each infusion in only one object, AND each object with only one infusion.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
And again, 2 doesn't mention anything about the ammunition property. So you need to apply the rules for that property. The argument that the free hand portion does not apply is inferring an exception, which is a bad way to go with rules.
Note the that the infusion say "load into" and the ammunition property says "you need a free hand to load a one-handed". Now why is that distinction important and not meaningless pedantry? Because loading consists of more than putting ammunition into the weapon. None of which is affected by the infusion aside from making it easier in the case of weapons with the loading property. It does not say it loads the weapon for you.
I had indeed missed that limitation on infusions. Still, I would allow it for all the same reasons. The two-weapon fighting rules are only concerned with making a bonus attack. So they could still wield 2 and there are other ways of getting that bonus attack.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
Sigh.
I really, truly detest thread necromancy. This old discussion was dealt with and settled. Ugh.
DaveDamon does make a compelling argument, though. My own DM allows me to utilize the Repeating Shot infusion on the flintlock pistol my Battlesmith looted alongside a shield without penalty, if primarily because unlike crossbows, the act of creating ammunition in place and ready to fire in a DMG black-powder pistol is just about all the operation one needs. The fluff overrides the RAW, as often occurs in our games.
The issue is that this is the Rules and Game mechanics subforum, and as has been pointed out many times to many people, including me, 'fluff' has no place here. Whenever one cries "but that just doesn't make SENSE!", the answer is always "it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be the rules." I would be interested to see what the RAI was in this instance, but one must always assume that RAW is out to ruin one's fun as much as possible. If there is a more negative and restrictive interpretation of a given rule, that interpretation should be viewed as correct. That's always the way of it in a more competitive game in which tournament standings and rankings are considered critical to the game; while 5e is clearly not that sort of game, it's clearly taking many queues from those sorts of games and attempting to implement the same level of mechanical rigorousness.
Many DMs would likely side with Dave and allow this, and frankly if an artificer at a table I was running was being properly inventive and creative - and it wasn't an AL table where you can lose fingers to the RAW Yakuza for making one single "Incorrect" on-the-fly judgment to keep a game going - I would likely allow it myself. I don't know if his interpretation is correct enough to satisfy a tournament judge or the aforementioned finger-chopping folks, but I could see it being correct enough that were this a more formal, judgment-required game, it would likely require a ruling from the developers.
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!
What exactly do you think the Repeating Shot infusion does? That's a sincere question. Repeating Shot says the weapon creates its own ammunition, except it can't, because the Ammunition property says you need to provide some. Repeating Shot says what happens if you don't load the weapon yourself, except you have to, because the Ammunition property says so. Repeating Shot says the ammo it creates disappears after a hit, except it can't, because the Ammunition property has its own rules for that.
Seriously, if you can't wrap your head around the idea of a specific rule overriding certain subsections of a property without explicitly ignoring the entire property, the infusion literally does nothing.
This is actually a nuanced question that requires more thought than even you seem to be giving it, Saga. The ammunition property lists out several requirements for using a weapon with that property. It is a legitimate question as to whether those requirements are due to how you use the item or requirements that simply must be met due to the weapon having that property. If you believe a requirements exist solely due to the property and not how you use the weapon, then anything that changes those properties should really tell you how they change those requirements explicitly.
Otherwise, if the things in the weapon properties are just tidbits about how you use weapons and ammunition with the ammunition property that rely on that usage (and not simply the fact that the property says them) then changing the usage does in fact change those tidbits.
That, I think, is the root of this entire discussion. Does a weapon property convey requirements onto using a weapon? Or does it simply give you an idea of how the weapon normally operates? More concretely: Is the requirement for a free hand due to having to load ammunition or simply a requirement of the property?
Edits: fixing tags and cutting some quotes, also some spelling...
Mechanically, what I think it does is negate the loading property and generates ammunition for an attack if you don't provide it. No more, no less
But I assume you mean fluff-wise. What I imagine it doing in the case of a crossbow is aid in cocking the string, i.e. negating the loading property. For example, the infusion could represent some powered apparatus that winches the string back, so you don't need pull out the goats-foot lever. If you're about to attack without a bolt in it, it appears just in time to shoot it, fulfilling the requirement of having a piece of ammunition to fire. How does it know you're attacking and not just dry-firing because you hat your crossbow. Don't know, don't care. The rules don't say you have to have the ammunition before you load the weapon. Just that you need it to attack.
My position is that neither the ammunition property, nor any of its component are negated/overridden. In my current understanding of the arguments from the other side, this is not too controversial. Everything still applies and all requirement must be met. All the infusion says it does on that front, is provide the ammunition. So you can fulfill that specific requirement, even if you're out of ammo.
And I can certainly wrap my head around it that notion. I've wrapped my head around more complex notions as well. All I'm asking you is to show me where it says that it does. Not where you inferred it based on an assumption of what the infusion represents.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
Except it can't do that if, as you say, "neither the ammunition property, nor any of its component are negated/overridden," because that only happens if you don't load ammunition, and the ammunition property says you have to load ammunition.
I do not mean fluff-wise. I don't care about the fluff. That's up the player.
Again, if everything still applies and all requirements must be met, the infusion doesn't do anything. It can't even do what you say it does.
I don't care what the infusion "represents." If the ammunition property and all its components apply, you cannot use the weapon without loading ammunition. What the infusion says is "this is what happens if you don't load ammunition." The text of the infusion is fundamentally incompatible with most of the ammunition property. There are only two logically valid conclusions that I see: either the infusion allows you to selectively ignore the parts of the property that no longer apply (or grants you a new use of the weapon that doesn't rely on the ammunition property; I don't think the distinction is relevant, but if someone else does, they can pick whichever they want), or the ammo creation part of the infusion just doesn't function.
What I'd like you to do is show me how you can get to the "If you load no ammunition in the weapon" part of the infusion text without ignoring (one way or another) the "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)" part of the ammunition property text. Not where you inferred it based on an assumption of what the infusion represents.
I'm sure I'll get dogged pilled for this but I stumbled upon this on Crawford twitter page
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1128448155391905793
Question: "As we used to say in older editions, "specific trumps general". The specific case of falling with Feather Fall trumps the general rules for falling."
JC: "In D&D, a specific rule always beats a general rule if they disagree with each other. For more information about that principle, take a look at the section "Specific Beats General" in the "Player's Handbook" (p. 7)"
So would the specific description regarding ammunition in Repeating Shot beat the general rule of ammunition found in Players?
The ammunition property says:
The repeating shot infusion says
The ammunition property doesn't say you can't attack if you don't first load, just that you must have ammunition to fire from the weapon. The repeating shot infusion says that if you don't load the weapon with ammunition, the weapon produces its own. This satisfies the criteria for the weapon requiring ammuntion.
Later in the ammunition property, it does say you must load ammunition by drawing it from a quiver or case as part of the attack, but this is rendered moot at the repeating shot item can produce it's own ammunition when fired without first being loaded.
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
Interesting... so WITHOUT repeating shot, you CAN make a ranged attack with a weapon with no ammo, it just doesn’t fire anything. So finger guns, or a blown kiss, you can make an attack roll to see if they ‘hit’ 😘👉
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think that is my new favorite technicality.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Without repeating shot, you still need ammunition to make an attack:
Here's the rest of it:
So repeating shot aside, to attack with a ranged weapon you need ammunition for it. When you do attack, you expect that ammunition, drawing, loading and firing it.
Repeating shot removes the need to supply ammunition (and thus draw and load it) because the weapon generates it own.
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
There’s not a prohibition, it just wouldn’t be an attack (but a performance, deception or intimidation check? Sure)
I think we are pretty close to each other in the reading, yet far apart in the conclusion.
We differ, I think, in the interpretation of:
"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)."
I read the main part as clarifying that you don't need an object interaction to draw ammunition from a container. Not that you need to do this, you could be holding arrows/bolts in your hand. Now, the part in parentheses is where things get hairy. Regardless of intent, the use of parentheses here is unfortunate. Because it relegates a restriction, i.e. a rule, to an aside.
But back to my point. I think I interpret "loading" differently. To me, loading, in the context of ranged weapons, means making ready to fire. The most obvious part of that is putting ammunition into the weapon. But it involves more than that for just about any weapon other than bows. A crossbow must be cocked before you can put the munition in. Nowhere does the infusion say it does this for you, it does say it becomes easier (no loading property).
Now, I definitely see Dave's point. And the presence of parentheses does suggest he may be right. But that would mean taking an extremely narrow interpretation of "loading". And I think the difference between "loading a weapon" and "loading ammunition in the weapon" is significant.
My interpretation does not mean the infusion doesn't do anything, nor does it contradict anything. And to be fair, neither does Dave's. Which is why I also maintain this is poor writing, which is not to say that the authors are bad writers.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
I think you NEED to be able to “make an attack” with an unloaded weapon, in order to land at Repeating SHOT doing what it says it does. Otherwise, “when you make a ranged attack with it” will always be predicated on having loaded ammunition, because Repeating Shot (as others have said) does not give you a new ability to make an attack when you couldn’t already.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Sure if you mount your crossbow in a vise, you wouldn't need a free hand either. And with a handcrossbow, I could certainly imagine someone with the right shield, say kite or heater, being able to do cock and load a crossbow. But we don't distinguish between boss-gripped and strap-gripped shields.
Firearms are explicitly optional in the rules, so I wouldn't assume too much from their case. Even so, the infusion is unclear on how much it helps. Just with the loading? Means you still have to scrape the barrel. Powder at that tech level didn't burn particularly cleanly.
Even if it does that, it doesn't specify how. So it seems reasonable to me that the intent was that the artificer has made some contraption that does all that in one go. And operating that contraption is what requires a free hand now. I'll freely admit this is not a strong point, leaning as it does on the description of the artificer class and some inference on author's intent. But it's just to support that my interpretation isn't, at the very least, waaay out there. As seems to be the impression among some of the people here.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
I don't think so, otherwise you could never attack, or only attack with a pre-loaded weapon. Remember that drawing the ammunition is part of the attack. So clearly, initiating the attack action does not require a loaded weapon. What is required is that, as part of the attack action, you load the weapon and have ammunition in it. Whether provided by yourself, or produced by the infused weapon. Or at least, that's my reading.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
1) It's called context. Read the artificer. I already conceded that the mechanism argument was by no means solid because of its basis. It was meant to support the other ones, think of it like circumstantial evidence.
2a) No I did not, I'll concede the blowpipe. Do you really feel that invalidates my point? I already said earlier "most other weapons". It would have been even more concise to simply quote me on that. Does it surprise you there are edge cases that are handled poorly?
2b) To take a page from your playbook, you didn't say anything about cleaning the barrel.
Vote here for an interim solution for homebrew classes:
https://dndbeyond.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360036951934-Homebrew-class-interim-solution
So you initiate a ranged attack with a ranged weapon against a target. Then step two is, draw one piece of ammunition with a free hand to load. Repeating shot bypasses that step. Or if you were out of ammo, this is the step your attack would fail, prior to rolling. Step three is, roll the attack and damage? That seems easy enough to arbitrate.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.