Do you still need a free hand when you use a hand crossbow with repeating shot

[Wasp]

Hi everyone

In this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?633198-How-to-build-a-character-with-a-rapier-and-a-hand-crossbow-gun-in-the-offhand) it was argued that when you use a hand crossbow with the Artificer's Repeating Shot infusion you would still need a free hand.


The rules text for the ammunition property:
You can use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a ranged Attack only if you have Ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you Attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of Ammunition. Drawing the Ammunition from a Quiver, case, or other container is part of the Attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon).



The rules text for Repeating Shot:
This magic weapon grants a + 1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it when it's used to make a ranged attack, and it ignores the loading property if it has it.

If you load no ammunition in the weapon, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when you make a ranged attack with it. The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target.

So what is the correct ruling here?

[Keltest]

Specific trumps general.

The general rule for ammunition weapons is you need a free hand to load it. The specific rule for repeating shot is that it loads itself with its own ammo.

[Wasp]

Lunali argued in that thread that because the repeating shot Infusion does not explicitly state that you don't need a free hand you would still need a free hand and that the ammunition generated by the weapon may be generated in the attacker's hand and not in the weapon (Lunali, sorry if I misrepresented your argument, I don't quite understand it myself)

I couldn't follow their argument there, so I brought the question up in this thread.

[Tanarii]

Reads to me like no, you do not still need a free hand.

The free hand requirement is to load the ammo into the weapon. You specifically are not doing that. It doesn't need to explicitly state you don't need a free hand, since it already states you aren't loading the ammo into the weapon, and the free hand requirement is to load ammo into the weapon.

In other words, "you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon" also means: you don't need a free hand if you don't load a one-handed weapon. It is a reversible statement.

[stoutstien]

I think the reasoning behind not just removing the ammo property is that is what determines having range for that weapon so they had to play with some word juggling to get it to work.

[Keravath]

A DM can run it however they prefer.

As you stated repeating shot 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 created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target."

I'd argue that if the weapon is creating its own ammunition, it would be creating it where the ammunition would be launched from. The weapon does not know where the hand of the operator is located, or even whether it is being held at all. The weapon could be fired, dropped, picked up by someone else and by the rules it would still produce its own ammunition. The common location in any scenario is in the proper location on the weapon.

That's how I would run it and that is how I believe it is meant to be interpreted. It is also consistent with the text.

In addition, the ammunition property states "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)." ... however, for the repeating shot infusion, it does not say the ammunition is created in a container or any other specific location - so from the perspective of the ammunition property, you don't need a free hand, since you don't need to pull the ammunition from a container and place it on the weapon.


However, as pointed out, the text does not say explicitly state where the ammunition is produced and does not explicitly state that the ammunition property does not apply to weapons with the repeating shot infusion. I think it is strongly implied ... and I would interpret it as intended ... but if another DM decided to rule that you still needed a free hand with the repeating shot infusion then I would say it is his game and he can run it as he sees fit.

[Lunali]

First I'd like to say that my reading of it is stupid and I wouldn't force players to follow it if I were DM.

The repeating shot enchantment specifically removes the loading requirement, and allows the weapon to create ammunition for itself. It's entirely reasonable for someone to read that and decide it automatically draws the string and loads itself, but that isn't actually what it says. Since it doesn't specifically override the necessity for a free hand, RAW you still need to have your other hand free. A reasonable way this could happen would be that the weapon still requires you to draw it, but the magic helps you enough that it is no longer awkward to load. Alternatively, you could read it as automatically drawing the string but needing a second hand to properly load the ammunition.

[Vegan Squirrel]

I suppose the RAW is slightly ambiguous, but the RAI is clear. The weapon provides its own ammunition when you don't load it, implying that the weapon magically loads itself. I can't see the need for a free hand here, since you're explicitly not loading the weapon

A more intriguing question is whether the unloaded but self-loading crossbow can be used to make the bonus action attack from Crossbow Expert. There the RAW looks like a no, but I'd definitely allow it anyway.

[Tanarii]

Since it doesn't specifically override the necessity for a free hand, RAW you still need to have your other hand free.
Repeating specifically removes the need to load ammunition. Ammunition specifically requires a free hand to load ammunition. Therefore it removes the need for a free hand to load amunition.

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.

You skip the ammunition loading step entirely (which is the part that requires a free hand), and go straight to making a ranged attack with it, at which point the ammunition is created.

[OrbanSirgen]

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.

If you still need to load the ammo, the weapon wouldn't produce any, because you're loading it...

[Wasp]

Okay, seems this is just a case of wording that maybe isn't 100% clean, but should be close enough to work with most DMs.

[Lunali]

Repeating specifically removes the need to load ammunition. Ammunition specifically requires a free hand to load ammunition. Therefore it removes the need for a free hand to load amunition.

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.

You skip the ammunition loading step entirely (which is the part that requires a free hand), and go straight to making a ranged attack with it, at which point the ammunition is created.

Where does it specifically remove the need to load ammunition? The creation of the ammunition happens at the same point in time when you are allowed to draw a piece of ammunition as part of an attack.

The only things the enchantment specifically removes are the limitations on how often you can fire and the need to carry ammunition. Anything beyond that is the result of applying reason and what the enchantment should do instead of what it actually does.

[Valmark]

Honestly the more I read it the less I see the ambiguity. You must explicitely not load the weapon if you want it to generate its own, so it makes no sense that you still need to load it with a free hand. You mustn't load any ammo if you want the ammo to be created.


Where does it specifically remove the need to load ammunition? The creation of the ammunition happens at the same point in time when you are allowed to draw a piece of ammunition as part of an attack.


Note that this isn't true. The creation has as a condition the not loading of the weapon, so it needs to happen after when you should have loaded it, not after you drew it.

[chainer1216]

Where does it specifically remove the need to load ammunition? The creation of the ammunition happens at the same point in time when you are allowed to draw a piece of ammunition as part of an attack.

The only things the enchantment specifically removes are the limitations on how often you can fire and the need to carry ammunition. Anything beyond that is the result of applying reason and what the enchantment should do instead of what it actually does.

The way you interpret this is ridiculous and not a single person agrees with you

[DwarfFighter]

I've watched like four videos of crossbows and bows on YouTube this last month, and it occurs to me that you need the string to be drawn back between each shot in order to shoot. This seems like something that still requires a free hand while you holds the weapon in the other.

Rules are rules, sure. But sometimes we can close our eyes and imagine how things would play out and see if that answers the question of "will this work?"

[Reynaert]

I've watched like four videos of crossbows and bows on YouTube this last month, and it occurs to me that you need the string to be drawn back between each shot in order to shoot. This seems like something that still requires a free hand while you holds the weapon in the other.

Rules are rules, sure. But sometimes we can close our eyes and imagine how things would play out and see if that answers the question of "will this work?"

Meh. The rules of D&D and how crossbows actually work are miles and miles apart anyway, so this is just a tiny step further.

[chainer1216]

I've watched like four videos of crossbows and bows on YouTube this last month, and it occurs to me that you need the string to be drawn back between each shot in order to shoot. This seems like something that still requires a free hand while you holds the weapon in the other.



You cant place the ammunition correctly without spaning the crossbow, so its implied by the repeating shot ability to do that as well.

[Keltest]

I've watched like four videos of crossbows and bows on YouTube this last month, and it occurs to me that you need the string to be drawn back between each shot in order to shoot. This seems like something that still requires a free hand while you holds the weapon in the other.

Rules are rules, sure. But sometimes we can close our eyes and imagine how things would play out and see if that answers the question of "will this work?"

Normally this would be covered by the Loading property, but the magic explicitly ignores this. Presumably it draws the string as part of creating the ammo.

[Tanarii]

Where does it specifically remove the need to load ammunition?The part where it says the ammo is created when you make the ranged attack if you don't load ammo.

The only way that can happen is if you don't load ammo. If you do load ammo, none is created. You can't load the created ammo, because that would be self contradicting.


I've watched like four videos of crossbows and bows on YouTube this last month, and it occurs to me that you need the string to be drawn back between each shot in order to shoot. This seems like something that still requires a free hand while you holds the weapon in the other.Yup, but rules-wise, that's adding a step. For a crossbow, that's implicitly part of the ammunition property.

In terms of the in-universe scenario, looks like to match the rules, when you pull the trigger on a repeating hand crossbow it draws the string back as it creates the ammo. Because the need for loading ammunition is removed, and thus the need for a free hand to load it is removed.


Meh. The rules of D&D and how crossbows actually work are miles and miles apart anyway, so this is just a tiny step further.Yup. If we were going with realistic crossbows, there wouldn't be a CBE feat and they wouldn't even be shooting once per round. Even bows would probably require standing still with ammo prelaid out somehow to fire more than once a round.

[Lunali]

Normally this would be covered by the Loading property, but the magic explicitly ignores this. Presumably it draws the string as part of creating the ammo.

If the weapon draws the string for you, do you still need two hands to use a bow with the repeating shot infusion?

[OrbanSirgen]

If the weapon draws the string for you, do you still need two hands to use a bow with the repeating shot infusion?

Only for stability and aiming, but not for actually firing it...

[ProsecutorGodot]

If the weapon draws the string for you, do you still need two hands to use a bow with the repeating shot infusion?

Assuming you mean for a hand Crossbow, just for aiming and stability as above.

But if that wasn't shorthand and you do mean a regular old Bow... You do know they don't have the loading property? The mechanic works differently for them from the get go.

Besides, as you say, they're Two-Handed, and so are the Light and Heavy Crossbow. You already use both hands to attack with the weapon, there's no need for a free hand because both are used to operate the weapon. You're conflating two different sets of rules. The rules for needing a free hand to load are specific to the Hand Crossbow, Sling and Blowgun.

Slings are probably the best indication of how this is intended to function. The ammo is only created when used for a ranged attack, so if you attempt to use a Sling that you haven't loaded as an improvised weapon (it must be loaded to deal damage) it won't create ammunition. If the ammo is intended to appear in your hand, why exactly couldn't a person use the Sling as a bludgeoning device afterwards? This says to me that it's intended to create the ammo specifically in the process of attacking.

And a final, most obvious bit, you don't actually load anything. Even if we rule that you need to draw the string back for a hand crossbow, nothing says you need a free hand to draw the string back, only to place a bolt within it.

[Lunali]

But if that wasn't shorthand and you do mean a regular old Bow... You do know they don't have the loading property? The mechanic works differently for them from the get go.

I did, in fact, mean a bow. Why would the infusion draw the string back for one kind of weapon and not the other.

[OrbanSirgen]

I did, in fact, mean a bow. Why would the infusion draw the string back for one kind of weapon and not the other.

Because a crossbow string is pulled back with a winch and not just your hands...

[DwarfFighter]

Because a crossbow string is pulled back with a winch and not just your hands...

My intense studies of crossbows on YouTube qualifies me to to tell you that some crossbows are drawn back with a winch, others by hand. In all cases, at least one hand is required to execute the motions of performing the drawing-back of the string, none of which are used to hold the crossbow proper.

-DF

[Valmark]

I'd like to point out that comparing real life to magical abilities in a fictional setting is kind of pointless.

Even many mundane abilities are far beyond what an IRL human can do.

Regarding bows, those have a different feature that requires two hands (and not for loading!) so they have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[DwarfFighter]

I'd like to point out that comparing real life to magical abilities in a fictional setting is kind of pointless.


But not entirely pointless. There are rules that allow them to work contrary to how we assume they would under "real world", but that doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and declare it impossible to reconcile the two. We get to fill in the gaps, and that's where we weigh our understanding of the real world "rules" of physics vs. the game world rules.

[stoutstien]

But not entirely pointless. There are rules that allow them to work contrary to how we assume they would under "real world", but that doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and declare it impossible to reconcile the two. We get to fill in the gaps, and that's where we weigh our understanding of the real world "rules" of physics vs. the game world rules.

The difference is we have rules to govern how weapon work and trying to add real work logic to them will always cause issues. If a weapon takes two hands to make an attack it has the two handed tag. Not to mention the infusion is magical and magic is how dnd has always explained anything that is counter intuitive.

[Valmark]

But not entirely pointless. There are rules that allow them to work contrary to how we assume they would under "real world", but that doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and declare it impossible to reconcile the two. We get to fill in the gaps, and that's where we weigh our understanding of the real world "rules" of physics vs. the game world rules.

Not the case here though. When the rule tells you that if you don't load the weapon it creates its own ammo to attack knowing how said weapon is loaded has no significance whatsoever because if you were loading it you would not be using that rule.

[RedMage125]

Lunali, as has been pointed out, the created ammunition appears when you "dry fire" the weapon that does not have any ammunition currently loaded in it. Since you chose not to load any ammunition in it, you didn't need a free hand.

To be fair to your point, if an artificer wished to use specific ammunition (say they have some silver crossbow bolts or something), then they WOULD need a free hand to load their repeating crossbow with that ammunition.

That's why it's worded the way it is. So that a free hand is still required to load existing ammunition, but unnecessary if the magical force damage ammunition will suffice.

So to phrase it another way, "IF (and only if) you choose not to load ammunition into the weapon (thus eliminating the need for a free hand), it will create a piece of magical ammunition when you attack with it".


I did, in fact, mean a bow. Why would the infusion draw the string back for one kind of weapon and not the other.

Because crossbows can have the string drawn back in advance and then remain "locked" with no effort or use of hands by the wielder. The string remains drawn back and held by a mechanical element of the weapon itself until the trigger is pulled.

The string if a bow, by contrast, once drawn, requires both hands of the wielder to be engaged. So the magic of the repeating infusion automatically draws back the string and engages the lock, holding the potential energy of the drawn limbs and string until the trigger is pulled, without needing the wielder to use their hands to hold it drawn.

[Lunali]

The difference is we have rules to govern how weapon work and trying to add real work logic to them will always cause issues. If a weapon takes two hands to make an attack it has the two handed tag. Not to mention the infusion is magical and magic is how dnd has always explained anything that is counter intuitive.

So the two handed tag is still valid even though the weapon is capable of drawing its own string and loading its own arrow, but the ammunition tag is not?


I'm not saying it makes a lot of sense. I'm not saying you should play this way. I'm not even saying that this was what they intended. All I'm saying is that with the rules that are in the book, you need a free hand to use a hand crossbow with repeating shot. I file this alongside rules like vampires getting stuck in mist form and lycanthropes making enemies they're fighting immune to all attacks in the lycanthropes' stat block.

[Keltest]

So the two handed tag is still valid even though the weapon is capable of drawing its own string and loading its own arrow, but the ammunition tag is not?


I'm not saying it makes a lot of sense. I'm not saying you should play this way. I'm not even saying that this was what they intended. All I'm saying is that with the rules that are in the book, you need a free hand to use a hand crossbow with repeating shot. I file this alongside rules like vampires getting stuck in mist form and lycanthropes making enemies they're fighting immune to all attacks in the lycanthropes' stat block.

Sure. You need two hands to wield a bow or crossbow, because of how the weapon works. Its just too big to aim with one hand.

As far as the hand crossbow goes, the free hand is specifically needed to load it. With repeating shot, you arent loading it.

[stoutstien]

So the two handed tag is still valid even though the weapon is capable of drawing its own string and loading its own arrow, but the ammunition tag is not?


I'm not saying it makes a lot of sense. I'm not saying you should play this way. I'm not even saying that this was what they intended. All I'm saying is that with the rules that are in the book, you need a free hand to use a hand crossbow with repeating shot. I file this alongside rules like vampires getting stuck in mist form and lycanthropes making enemies they're fighting immune to all attacks in the lycanthropes' stat block.

There is a big difference between RAW being nonsensical, plenty of examples of that, and repeating infusion that is mildly ambiguous but has a verified ruling.

[Valmark]

So the two handed tag is still valid even though the weapon is capable of drawing its own string and loading its own arrow, but the ammunition tag is not?


I'm not saying it makes a lot of sense. I'm not saying you should play this way. I'm not even saying that this was what they intended. All I'm saying is that with the rules that are in the book, you need a free hand to use a hand crossbow with repeating shot. I file this alongside rules like vampires getting stuck in mist form and lycanthropes making enemies they're fighting immune to all attacks in the lycanthropes' stat block.

Given that the two handed tag doesn't have anything to do with reloading? Yes.

And what is being said by most is that you don't, with the rules that are in the book. You literally cannot use a free hand, even if you have it, to reload and still activate the second part of Repeating Shot.

The lycanthropy thing was a good laugh though xD

[Tanarii]

All I'm saying is that with the rules that are in the book, you need a free hand to use a hand crossbow with repeating shot.
And what you're saying is not correct. The rules that have been presented very clearly indicate a free hand is not needed to use a hand crossbow with repeating shot, when put together.

Leaving aside issues of if that makes any sense or not. And leaving aside they could have been written to make it even more clear by adding an explicit line that you don't need a free hand with a repeating crossbow.

[greenstone]

The rules that have been presented very clearly indicate…
No, they don't.

If they were clear then there would not be the many, many threads like this, on this site and others (I've personally posted on this issue at enworld, dndbeyond, and the old dnd forums).

My take on this issue is to begin and end with the fiction.

What is the artificer doing with their bow?
Are they drawing back the string, and having a piece of ammunition magically appear in the weapons? If so, a hand crossbow needs 2 hands to operate.
Are they pointing the weapon and the string magically moves backward and a piece of ammo magically appears? If so, a hand crossbow needs 1 hand to operate.

I would additionally argue that if it is the second, then any bow or crossbow only requires one had. if you are not providing the strength to pull back the string then you don't need a second hand.

Taking it further, why do you need the string at all? If the infusion provides energy to pull back the string then it can provide the energy released, and launch the projectile on its own.

[Tanarii]

No, they don't.

If they were clear then there would not be the many, many threads like this, on this site and others (I've personally posted on this issue at enworld, dndbeyond, and the old dnd forums).
Please don't truncate my sentence like that, it changes the meaning.

[Keltest]

No, they don't.

If they were clear then there would not be the many, many threads like this, on this site and others (I've personally posted on this issue at enworld, dndbeyond, and the old dnd forums).

My take on this issue is to begin and end with the fiction.

What is the artificer doing with their bow?
Are they drawing back the string, and having a piece of ammunition magically appear in the weapons? If so, a hand crossbow needs 2 hands to operate.
Are they pointing the weapon and the string magically moves backward and a piece of ammo magically appears? If so, a hand crossbow needs 1 hand to operate.

I would additionally argue that if it is the second, then any bow or crossbow only requires one had. if you are not providing the strength to pull back the string then you don't need a second hand.

Taking it further, why do you need the string at all? If the infusion provides energy to pull back the string then it can provide the energy released, and launch the projectile on its own.

Crossbows and bows require two hands to aim and operate, not just reload.

And as far as people being confused, that has little to nothing to do with the clarity of the sentence. Communication is a two way street after all, and people need to make an effort to understand things. Responsibility isnt entirely on the person talking.

[Dark.Revenant]

You'd think that you would need a free hand to **** a crossbow, but nowhere in the rules is this actually specified. The extra free hand is to load ammunition into a hand crossbow.

Generally, you've got to fully or mostly **** a crossbow before you load the bolt in, otherwise the mechanism doesn't work or some grievous safety issues arise. The onerousness of doing this is clearly the intent of the Loading property, which Repeating Shot removes. The ammo-loading part (which is the part that actually requires a free hand by RAW) is also replaced by Repeating Shot, implying that the weapon is somehow cocking itself such that a new bolt can be auto-loaded in the first place. Therefore you only need one hand to operate a Repeating Hand Crossbow.

Edit: Why oh why is "cocking a crossbow" a dirty phrase?

[quindraco]

What is the artificer doing with their bow?
Are they drawing back the string, and having a piece of ammunition magically appear in the weapons? If so, a hand crossbow needs 2 hands to operate.


That is exactly what they're doing, but a hand crossbow doesn't need 2 hands to operate. If you want a fluff explanation for this game rule, here you go: all d&d hand crossbows have revolver-style thumb hammers you can use to draw the drawstring back. Returning Weapon lets you ignore Loading, so it makes the hammer easier to press.

[Lord Vukodlak]

You'd think that you would need a free hand for cocking a crossbow, but nowhere in the rules is this actually specified. The extra free hand is to load ammunition into a hand crossbow.

Generally, you must have fully or mostly cocked a crossbow before you load the bolt in, otherwise the mechanism doesn't work or some grievous safety issues arise. The onerousness of doing this is clearly the intent of the Loading property, which Repeating Shot removes. The ammo-loading part (which is the part that actually requires a free hand by RAW) is also replaced by Repeating Shot, implying that the weapon is somehow cocking itself such that a new bolt can be auto-loaded in the first place. Therefore you only need one hand to operate a Repeating Hand Crossbow.

Edit: Why oh why is "cocking a crossbow" a dirty phrase?

Because the first four letters alone are a slang word for penis and often used for the start of an insult. You just have to tweak the post to avoid using the present tense term. Only ing and past tense.

Anyway you’ve got it, the loading property is the extra time it takes to pull the draw string on a crossbow and lock it into place. If there’s no loading property the that is being done for you.

[RedMage125]

Are they pointing the weapon and the string magically moves backward and a piece of ammo magically appears? If so, a hand crossbow needs 1 hand to operate.
*snip*
Taking it further, why do you need the string at all? If the infusion provides energy to pull back the string then it can provide the energy released, and launch the projectile on its own.

It is this one. It removes the Loading property, which is the thing that restricts multiple shots per round with a crossbow. Which means that string magically moves back, bending the limbs of the bow, and settles in the latch held by the trigger.

The reason you still need the string, is you may want to fire specific ammunition from your repeating weapon. Silver bolts, for instance. So all you have to do it load your bolt into your pre-cocked crossbow. In doing this, you WOULD still need a free hand.

HOWEVER, the repeating infusion also lets you do without ammunition, magically creating a bolt for you. It does this "when you make a ranged attack with it". Which means aiming and "dry firing" the weapon. The magical bolt is created as the trigger is pulled. Doing this does NOT require a free hand at any point during the round.