Since y’all are clogging up the threads I want to look into but are clogging em up with these posts. 

ok post away

Usually, when you start a thread you're supposed to sort of expand upon what you wanna talk about.

I mean thunder gauntlets and cantrips, sure, but what about them?

Well the topic was can you use booming blade or green fire blade cantrips with thunder gauntlets even though they don’t specifically state to have a worth or in this case a weapon worth at least 1 SP

folks have flooded other threads and hoping they’ll move here for those conversations 

As always, up to GM discretion, but my vote is that since they are a part of the armor that has a value and become weapons, that those cantrips can be used.

Quote from Docreno >>

Well the topic was can you use booming blade or green fire blade cantrips with thunder gauntlets even though they don’t specifically state to have a worth or in this case a weapon worth at least 1 SP

Thunder Gauntlets are not an item, they are a feature of Arcane Armor that enables you to attack using your armour if at least one of your hands is empty. So the weapon is your armour, and the value should be at least 1 sp for any armour you can normally get; i.e- Plate has a value of 1,500 gp, and the rule explicitly enables you to use your armour's gauntlets as weapons when using the feature, so it satisfies the requirements of Booming Blade, Green-Flame Blade and similar.

There have been a few people on here who advocate that thunder gauntlets are a separate item, but this isn't backed up by the rules; even when an Armorer gains the ability to infuse different parts of their armour, those parts are only treated as separate items for the purposes of applying infusions only.

Quote from Stormknight >>

there is no specific value (and reasonably so) assigned to each Thunder Gauntlet by the class feature.

While this is true, the class feature also does not say anything to so much as imply that the gauntlets are in any way separate to the armour to which they belong, Thunder Gauntlets therefore aren't equipment in their own right; they're a feature of the armour you're wearing. When asked the question "what are you attacking with?" the correct answer is "my armour" as Thunder Gauntlets is just a feature that enables you to do so (and the properties it has as a weapon); and unless your choice of armour is made from air that cannot be sold, it should have a value. 😝

Quote from Stormknight >>

The phrase "counts as a simple melee weapon" has you covered there for how to treat them. Any further extrapolation about whether they are part of the armor or not is irrelevant - the rule has told us to treat them as a simple melee weapon.

A weapon as defined in the rules is something with which you can make weapon attacks; nowhere in the rules or feature does it state that part of the armour being usable as a weapon makes it no longer part of the armour in so far as having a value is concerned.

If the rules were that clear-cut, Haravikk, there wouldn't be eleven hundred thousand million billion trillion posts of people disputing them.

I happen to agree, myself.  It's ridiculous to think that the weaponized fists of a combat-trained warrior with purpose-built magic punchers don't qualify as "weapons worth 1sp", but unfortunately Adventurer's League forces people to capitulate to ridiculous thinking all the time.  If AL wasn't a thing then nobody would dispute this, but AL exists and you and I both know AL loves nothing more than it loves to ruin the dreams of players.

In AL, DMs are not allowed to DM and logic is left at the game store door.  The only thing that matters is "Does a technically valid interpretation of the RAW exist that causes players to lose access to items, abilities, combinations, or possibilities they might otherwise have enjoyed, such that the player's fun is dampened or ideally ruined outright?  No matter how much of a stretch that interpretation is, or how nonsensically cruel it is?  If 'Yes', then that is the AL Correct Interpretation of the rules because Adventurer's League was designed and is maintained by hags who thrive on the tears of broken people."

Quote from Stormknight >>

You are, of course, welcome to run your games however you see fit, I am just helping others who read this thread to understand the rules and how they work. 💗

It's not a matter of "how I see fit" though; I'm not simply choosing a position because I want it to work that way.

A suit of armour has value, the thunder gauntlets feature allows you to attack using that armour by counting it as a weapon, therefore you are attacking with a weapon with value equal to the armour. Nothing in RAW justifies treating it any differently, nor supports that a rule being tied to part of something somehow causes it to become a new and separate item (this would mean inventing a rule that definitely does not exist in RAW).

The exact same principle applies if you take the armour off and swing it at someone as an improvised weapon; it is a melee weapon with value in that case as well. This not only gives it precedent, but it just makes basic logical sense, if I hit you with something I paid 100 gp for, then it's worth 100 gp (unless you want to argue depreciation 😉); is anyone really going to argue that if I only pierce your heart with the tip of a sword then it doesn't have value because I didn't use the whole sword?

It really isn't as open to interpretation in RAW as people keep saying, as aguing that it doesn't work requires inventing steps, while arguing that it does work doesn't. And the weirdest part about the debate around it is that I don't think I've seen a single person argue that it shouldn't work, even people advocating against it usually admit it is pretty clearly rules as intended.

Semantics at play. "Counts as" is most certainly different from "is". 

As you said, they do not become a separate item. They just exist as part of the empowered armor. Because of that, the "armor" does indeed have value, but not as a "weapon". They are not weapons and have no value as weapons.

A similar argument can be made as to why armor does not add a modifier to unarmed strikes. Does it make sense that adding weight would increase the force of a blow? Yes. Is that actually specified anywhere? Not that I am aware of.

Or for Two weapon fighting. "Light" is not given as a property, but it is silly to think you wouldn't be able to. As written though, you are unable to.

At the end of the day, it is a game with set rules and mechanics. Sometimes those conflict with logic. It happens.

Quote from Nikuna297 >>

Semantics at play. "Counts as" is most certainly different from "is".

Booming Blade etc. don't specify "something that is always, and doesn't merely count as, a weapon". If something can be used as, or counts as, a weapon then it's a weapon; nothing in the rules says otherwise. Thanks to the improvised weapon rule, nearly anything your character can hold in their hands becomes a weapon, it doesn't matter that it's only a weapon while you're holding it in that way.

While it might seem silly, if you buy a potted plant for 1 sp and then use it as an improvised weapon then it is absolutely a weapon worth at least 1 sp, and therefore qualifies for Booming Blade and similar; your DM could rule against that on an individual basis, but RAW absolutely supports this.

Thunder Gauntlets causes your armour to become a simple melee weapon when your hands are empty, and has better damage and a bonus feature for good measure, but a similar principle applies. The only difference between "counts as" and "is" a weapon in this case is that your armour is a weapon in addition to still being armour so long as the feature applies.

It's worth remembering also that the issue here actually isn't with thunder gauntlets, but rather with the SCAGtrips which both had their material components and wording errata'd, and this was for two reasons; first is that the way they were worded before, you only needed to have a weapon to cast them, you didn't have to actually use the same weapon to attack with, which led to a couple of weird exploits. Second, the value was added to prevent combining these with Shadow Blade or other similar spell weapons.

Quote from Haravikk >>

Booming Blade etc. don't specify "something that is always, and doesn't merely count as, a weapon". If something can be used as, or counts as, a weapon then it's a weapon; nothing in the rules says otherwise. Thanks to the improvised weapon rule, nearly anything your character can hold in their hands becomes a weapon, it doesn't matter that it's only a weapon while you're holding it in that way.

Worth noting this won't work.  Improvised weapons don't gain the melee or ranged type, and Booming Blade requires a melee weapon.  One exploit you'd introduce by allowing improvised weapons to gain a melee or ranged type is the Dual Wielder feat would work on shields, assuming you assigned melee to shields.  One of the key balancing aspects of the weapons table is that ranged and melee weapons retain their ranged and melee types regardless of how they're used - if you also allow improvised weapons to adopt the type of how they're wielded, a bunch more exploits open up, like suddenly Rogues can sneak attack with a whole bunch more weapons than they used to be able to, including acid and holy water. 

Quote from quindraco >>

Quote from Haravikk >>

Booming Blade etc. don't specify "something that is always, and doesn't merely count as, a weapon". If something can be used as, or counts as, a weapon then it's a weapon; nothing in the rules says otherwise. Thanks to the improvised weapon rule, nearly anything your character can hold in their hands becomes a weapon, it doesn't matter that it's only a weapon while you're holding it in that way.

 

Worth noting this won't work.  Improvised weapons don't gain the melee or ranged type, and Booming Blade requires a melee weapon.  One exploit you'd introduce by allowing improvised weapons to gain a melee or ranged type is the Dual Wielder feat would work on shields, assuming you assigned melee to shields.  One of the key balancing aspects of the weapons table is that ranged and melee weapons retain their ranged and melee types regardless of how they're used - if you also allow improvised weapons to adopt the type of how they're wielded, a bunch more exploits open up, like suddenly Rogues can sneak attack with a whole bunch more weapons than they used to be able to, including acid and holy water. 

 Improvised weapons don't have a melee or ranged type. You simply use them to make a melee or ranged attack. If you [Tooltip Not Found] an acid vial, one of the things you can do is make a ranged attack with an improvised weapon for 2d6 + Dexterity modifier acid damage.

If someone wishes to use a shield as an improvised weapon, that's their prerogative. But, by the same token, they're not using it as a shield. And if they're using the Dual Wielder feat, then they're gimping their damage potential.

Whoops, my mistake! Thanks for clarifying.

But it doesn't change my point; a thunder gauntlets attack is definitely being made with a melee weapon (which is also your armour, which has a value).

 

A suit of armour has value, the thunder gauntlets feature allows you to attack using that armour by counting it as a weapon, therefore you are attacking with a weapon with value equal to the armour. Nothing in RAW justifies treating it any differently, nor supports that a rule being tied to part of something somehow causes it to become a new and separate item (this would mean inventing a rule that definitely does not exist in RAW).

Quote from Nikuna297 >>

Semantics at play. "Counts as" is most certainly different from "is".

Booming Blade etc. don't specify "something that is always, and doesn't merely count as, a weapon". If something can be used as, or counts as, a weapon then it's a weapon; nothing in the rules says otherwise. Thanks to the improvised weapon rule, nearly anything your character can hold in their hands becomes a weapon, it doesn't matter that it's only a weapon while you're holding it in that way.

Thunder Gauntlets causes your armour to become a simple melee weapon when your hands are empty, and has better damage and a bonus feature for good measure, but a similar principle applies. The only difference between "counts as" and "is" a weapon in this case is that your armour is a weapon in addition to still being armour so long as the feature applies. 

Quote from Haravikk >>

But it doesn't change my point; a thunder gauntlets attack is definitely being made with a melee weapon (which is also your armour, which has a value).

 Again, semantics. "Counts as" and "improvised" are different from "are" and "is". You even say that they do not become a separate item, but then say they become weapons. That is not true. They can be used as weapons, but are not weapons. Armor is being used as armor with a way to deal damage.

And the spell does specify. "a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp", not "something that counts as a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp". I am not saying you are wrong in the logic, as written, it is just not there. 

That makes no sense whatsoever.  "Counts as an [X]" means "Treat this as an [X]".  What other point could the phrase "counts as a simple melee weapon" have, other than to tell players to treat it as a simple melee weapon?  And if it's a simple melee weapon, it fulfills the prerequisites for things that require a melee weapon, like Blade cantrips.  Whether it fulfills the cost prereq is the thing everybody gets into boners about, but the idea that the gauntlets don't fulfill the weapon prereq is just right out.  "Counts as" is not functionally different than "Is" for the purposes of reading RAW.  If there were limiters on how or when the gauntlet counts as a simple melee weapon, those limiters would've been spelled out.  Which they were - the hand has to be empty. 

This is similar to the monk's "your damage counts as magical for the purposes of overcoming immunity and resistance to nonmagical damage."  The feature tells you exactly what to do - treat your damage as magical.  You can't say "well your damage only counts as magical, it isn't actually magical, so you can't actually beat resistances or immunities with it."  That is the exact literal opposite of what the feature says, and the exact same thing you're trying to do to the Thunder Gauntlets.

Well, one technical correction, in 5e there is no “magical damage,” only damage from magical attacks/sources, and damage from non-magical attacks/sources. That’s why Ki-Empowered Strikes makes the unarmed strikes count as magical, the actual attack itself, not the damage. But otherwise, yeah. (I mean, if you’re gonna be right, you might as well be all the way right do there’s no wiggle room for your adversary to attempt to use. Right?)