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.
You're inventing a rule here; if something "counts as" a weapon then it is a weapon for all intents and purposes, while also being whatever it was before; that's what "count as" means. If you can use it as a weapon for the purposes of attacking with it, then you can also use it as a weapon for attacking with it via Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade, because for the purposes of both it is a weapon.
There's no rule anywhere that states that an object that only "counts as" a weapon can only be used to attack and cannot be used anywhere else that a weapon is required, so why invent such a condition? The Thunder Gauntlets feature itself doesn't state this either, in fact it very specifically states while your hands are empty your armour's gauntlets count as weapons, regardless of whether you intend to use them or not; having the hands free is the only condition on their use.
I'm also not sure why you think I've contradicted myself? The thunder gauntlets feature doesn't make your armour's gauntlets a separate item to the armour itself; it gives you the ability to use your armour as a weapon to attack with so long as you have a hand free. So long as that condition is met you are wearing a suit of armour that is both armour and a weapon for all rules purposes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
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.
You're inventing a rule here; if something "counts as" a weapon then it is a weapon for all intents and purposes, while also being whatever it was before; that's what "count as" means. If you can use it as a weapon for the purposes of attacking with it, then you can also use it as a weapon for attacking with it via Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade, because for the purposes of both it is a weapon.
There's no rule anywhere that states that an object that only "counts as" a weapon can only be used to attack and cannot be used anywhere else that a weapon is required, so why invent such a condition? The Thunder Gauntlets feature itself doesn't state this either, in fact it very specifically states while your hands are empty your armour's gauntlets count as weapons, regardless of whether you intend to use them or not; having the hands free is the only condition on their use.
I'm also not sure why you think I've contradicted myself? The thunder gauntlets feature doesn't make your armour's gauntlets a separate item to the armour itself; it gives you the ability to use your armour as a weapon to attack with so long as you have a hand free. So long as that condition is met you are wearing a suit of armour that is both armour and a weapon for all rules purposes.
We've said in other threads. Your logic is not wrong. However. That logic requires a chain of details to reach. RaW doesn't actually state that chain and things like AL do not follow out the logic. They just go by what RaW states. Even StormKnight has stated this.
But Agreeing with you does not change the reality of it and i know this has been said in several threads before. Your logic is sound but your argueing RaI over RaW and RaW doesn't care about your logic chain even though it's right and thus things like AL don't either.
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 where I disagree. "treat as" is still different from "is". Gauntlets are gauntlets, and in this instance, they are given a subset of rules in order to deal damage. The "counts as" is there in order to provide the necessary information in how to resolve the attack. Counting as a simple melee weapon, it uses strength for attack and damage, with the additional information that intelligence can be substituted for strength, and as you say, only when the hand is empty.
If it did not specifiy what sort of weapon it was to emulate, what would you do?
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.
You're inventing a rule here; if something "counts as" a weapon then it is a weapon for all intents and purposes, while also being whatever it was before; that's what "count as" means. If you can use it as a weapon for the purposes of attacking with it, then you can also use it as a weapon for attacking with it via Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade, because for the purposes of both it is a weapon.
There's no rule anywhere that states that an object that only "counts as" a weapon can only be used to attack and cannot be used anywhere else that a weapon is required, so why invent such a condition? The Thunder Gauntlets feature itself doesn't state this either, in fact it very specifically states while your hands are empty your armour's gauntlets count as weapons, regardless of whether you intend to use them or not; having the hands free is the only condition on their use.
Apparently we were typing at the same time. My whole argument is, again, semantics, the meaning of the words. They do not state that "they are weapons" but "they count as weapons". A super literal interpretation, and again, not logical.
"The Shortsword counts as a martial melee weapon" is the same sentence as "the Shortsword is a martial melee weapon."
"Your damage counts as magical for overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical damage" is the same sentence as "Your damage is magical for overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical damage."
"Blue counts as a color" is the same sentence as "Blue is a color."
"This argument counts as super inane, pointless, and annoying" is the same sentence as "This argument is super inane, pointless and annoying."
You are inventing a distinction that doesn't exist and claiming that thunder gauntlets simultaneously do and do not count as weapons. You are not making a 'super literal interpretation', even by the standards of Adventurer's League. Even an AL DM would let Thunder Gauntlets work for things like Smite spells, Divine Smite, or any other "requires a melee weapon" ability that doesn't have this dumb 1sp cost bugbear. Because the phrase "counts as a simple melee weapon" means that when a rule references a weapon or weapon rules, THE THUNDER GAUNTLET COUNTS.
You want to argue that any weapon not on the PHB tables isn't valid for Blade cantrips, fine. I think that's an obnoxious argument, but it's the sort of minutiae AL friggin' thrives on. But "The phrase 'counts as' doesn't mean it IS a weapon or works like a weapon, it just counts as a weapon" is too much of a stretch even for AL, man.
Very well. We disagree and that is perfectly fine.
That said, I have absolutely used Booming Blade with Thunder Gauntlets because my GM agreed with logical conclusion that has already been stated that is outside of what is written.
Apparently we were typing at the same time. My whole argument is, again, semantics, the meaning of the words. They do not state that "they are weapons" but "they count as weapons". A super literal interpretation, and again, not logical.
You say that RAW doesn't follow the chain of logic, but here you're inventing an extra step in which "counts as" and "is" mean two completely different and incompatible things despite there being notihng in RAW to suggest that that should be the case. "Semantics" doesn't justify it either.
If something "counts as" a weapon then you can use it anywhere and for any purpose that you would use a weapon, that's what "counts as" means. You don't seem to be arguing that you can't attack with thunder gauntlets at all (seeing as you require a weapon to make a weapon attack), yet somehow you expect it to be unusable to attack using Booming Blade etc., but if the thunder gauntlets feature counts as a weapon for one case, then it must also count as a weapon for the other, as that's what counting as a weapon means.
Again, Booming Blade only lists "a melee weapon", it doesn't say "a melee weapon that must not only count as a melee weapon"; to make that distinction requires adding something that isn't there, so even from a "super literal" standpoint it makes no sense, it requires inventing a difference in meaning between "counts as" and "is" that the rules do not state and semantics don't justify, then apply that distinction in a way the rules don't tell you to.
Even by the "super literal" definition of RAW thunder gauntlets are usable, as being "super literal" about something means taking the simplest possible path with what is written. When the question is "is it a weapon?" then the answer is "yes, the Thunder Gauntlets feature says so". When the question is "what is it's value?" the answer is "the value of the armour" because that's the only value available to use for it (and counting as a weapon doesn't make it not armour), for it not to have a value requires inventing a step, which is neither literal or simple.
I'm aware that Adventurer's League DM's might try to rule differently, but by all accounts I've seen on these forums it doesn't seem like they go by what's in the rules at all, but rather they just use whatever arbitrary nonsense means they don't have to ever check anything. The reality is that some degree of interpretation is always necessary in D&D 5e as nearly nothing in the rules is spelled out as thoroughly as it could be as by design it's a very freeform, DM-guided game. A RAW ruling means taking the shortest path from question to answer with as few extra steps as possible (ideally, none), so only basic logic or the simplest solutions should be necessary.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
If you wish to discuss this further with me specifically, please direct me to a separate thread for that purpose or to a private venue and I will.be happy to continue.
Even by the "super literal" definition of RAW thunder gauntlets are usable, as being "super literal" about something means taking the simplest possible path with what is written. When the question is "is it a weapon?" then the answer is "yes, the Thunder Gauntlets feature says so". When the question is "what is it's value?" the answer is "the value of the armour" because that's the only value available to use for it (and counting as a weapon doesn't make it not armour), for it not to have a value requires inventing a step, which is neither literal or simple.
The simplest Answer to "What is the Value" is not "the value of the Armor" The simplest Answer is "Undefined" because it is undefined. And this is the answer you will get from places like AL because the power that specifies it's ability to be used as a weapon does not define the value of that weapon portion of it or whether it is based off of the whole or part of the armor. The Logic chain comes to the the conclusion of the answer to "Why is it Undefined?" which is what your answering but things like AL and RaW do not bother to answer this follow-up question. they stop at the undefined answer and do not proceed any further. and since it is undefined it does not fit the "at least 'X amount" in price" requirement of the two cantrips.
It is perfectly logical to simply answer the undefined question with "It's part of the armor that has this value". It's entirely reasonable. The issue is that AL and RaW simply do not care.
The simplest Answer to "What is the Value" is not "the value of the Armor" The simplest Answer is "Undefined" because it is undefined.
Except that it isn't undefined, unless you invent a step to make it so.
The only piece of equipment involved in attacking using the Thunder Gauntlets feature is whichever armour you designated as your Arcane Armor; that armour will almost always have a value, and is the only available value for the weapon. There is no such things a Thunder Gauntlets item, because the feature does not create one, it's a feature of the armour, not a new piece of equipment.
All the Thunder Gauntlets feature does it lets you attack with your armour as if it was a weapon; the feature being tied to the gauntlets only matters for the purposes of defining how you attack (must have hands free, use the armour's gauntlets, not the boots or the helmet etc.). Nothing in either the Thunder Gauntlets rule or the general rules state that the gauntlets are suddenly a separate piece of equipment; a DM would have to rule that to be the case, just as they might rule that a longsword without a hilt can't be used as a sword anymore, which likewise isn't in the rules (anything called a longsword in RAW is usable as a longsword).
If you, or AL, or whoever, need to invent a step to rule against the gauntlets having a value, then that is not giving the simplest answer; it is actually a more complex one. If you need the value for a piece of equipment, and a piece of equipment with a value is involved, then you have a value to use, it really doesn't get much simpler than that.
If some power mad AL nutcase demands to know where the value for Thunder Gauntlets is listed in the rulebook you tell them it's an armour feature and slam the rulebook open (ideally on their hands) at page 144 and point at the value of your armour, as that's what you're actually using.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'm going to say that, by RAW, while the gauntlets are part of armor and count as simple melee weapons, they individually lack a value and would not be combinable with the cantrips. The language is nearly identical to spells like shadow blade and the Soulknife's Psychic Blades. And neither of those meet the new requirement for booming blade or green-flame blade.
We wouldn't even be having this conversation if not for the Thunder Gauntlets feature; or the 14th-level Arcane Propulsion Armor infusion, while I'm at it. Otherwise, why not simply rule that any armor which includes gauntlets meets the material component cost by default?
The difference between Shadow Blade or Psychic Knives is that neither of those are extensions of an item that has a defined value. Second-level spell slots do not have a defined monetary value, and class features do not have a defined monetary value. But even Padded Armor more than fulfills the cost component, and the Armorer's Arcane Armor feature specifically states:
"The armor attaches to you and can’t be removed against your will. It also expands to cover your entire body, although you can retract or deploy the helmet as a bonus action."
Ergo, the Arcane Armor is a single piece of gear that covers the entire body, with its gauntlets being part of that single unit. The Thunder Gauntlets subfeature of Armor Model doesn't say "you gain special gauntlets that...", it says "the armor's gauntlets are..." No new item is mentioned, no new item is created - the feature simply extends new properties to the already-existing gauntlets, which are themselves an extension of the already-existing armor. Haravikk is correct - you are punching fools with your armor. You're simply doing so far more effectively than anyone else who straps a breastplate to their monkey paw and tries to use it as a giant robot boxing glove.
The difference between Shadow Blade or Psychic Knives is that neither of those are extensions of an item that has a defined value. Second-level spell slots do not have a defined monetary value, and class features do not have a defined monetary value. But even Padded Armor more than fulfills the cost component, and the Armorer's Arcane Armor feature specifically states:
"The armor attaches to you and can’t be removed against your will. It also expands to cover your entire body, although you can retract or deploy the helmet as a bonus action."
Ergo, the Arcane Armor is a single piece of gear that covers the entire body, with its gauntlets being part of that single unit. The Thunder Gauntlets subfeature of Armor Model doesn't say "you gain special gauntlets that...", it says "the armor's gauntlets are..." No new item is mentioned, no new item is created - the feature simply extends new properties to the already-existing gauntlets, which are themselves an extension of the already-existing armor. Haravikk is correct - you are punching fools with your armor. You're simply doing so far more effectively than anyone else who straps a breastplate to their monkey paw and tries to use it as a giant robot boxing glove.
Except that a new item is created. There's no guarantee your armor came with gauntlets in the first place. Barring the subclass feature, whether they do or don't is purely cosmetic.
It's the feature which guarantees you even have gauntlets in the first place. So everything comes from the feature. The cost, and therefore compatibility, is inferred because of the armor cost, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's RAW; let alone implied.
I understand that the RAW is ambiguous and can be read either way. I just feel like all the people who pull up the Weapons table of the PHB and say "show me here where they list the cost for Thunder Gauntlets" are deliberately missing the point specifically because they're AL DMs and it's their job to hate their players, hate their games, and make their players hate D&D in specific and TTRPGs in general if the AL DM is really good* at his job.
It's no less "implied" that Thunder Gauntlets are a new item with an undefined cost than it is that they are an extension of the armor they're part of. Given both the wording of the Armorer's features and the core identity of the subclass, it's generally a stronger argument that the gauntlets are part of the armor. They're not metaphysical energy temporarily twisted into material form - they're very solid, very real extensions of your solid, real armor.
Only in Adventurer's League, which is a giant exercise in mutual self-flagellation, is this even in question. No DM ever in a home game where they're actually permitted to be a DM will stop an Armorer from using Booming Fistpunch with their armor's signature weapon. The combination is just too thematically perfect, it suits the class down to the toes. Given this, I do have to wonder why people are so massively invested in the idea of ensuring Armorers never get to use their signature weapons. At first I understood that it was a bunch of people protesting the changes to the cantrips in Tasha's Cauldron by trying to inflict their pain on everyone else, but that really doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Why are people so married to the idea of punishing Armorers for using a super cool combination that absolutely fits what the Guardian armor is trying to do?
Why are people so married to the idea of punishing Armorers for using a super cool combination that absolutely fits what the Guardian armor is trying to do?
Has this been the topic of discussion the whole time? I thought it was about the rule interactions of the two?
Why are people so married to the idea of punishing Armorers for using a super cool combination that absolutely fits what the Guardian armor is trying to do?
Has this been the topic of discussion the whole time? I thought it was about the rule interactions of the two?
Why are people so married to the idea of punishing Armorers for using a super cool combination that absolutely fits what the Guardian armor is trying to do?
Has this been the topic of discussion the whole time? I thought it was about the rule interactions of the two?
The rules interactions have already been established and are understood by everyone. The RAW is vague and ambiguous. There is no "Correct" interpretation of RAW, because the rules are not clear-cut enough for there to be one single obviously correct interpretation. As such, people generally argue this case from the standpoint of what they think the RAW should be. People arguing against Booming Blade working are generally doing so from the standpoint of "In Adventurer's League this doesn't work because AL ******* hates you", which is a valid standpoint to take because AL is a literal nightmare realm of masochism and dead, rotting dreams. In home games, the only real argument is "This doesn't work because I-the-DM ******* hate you", which feels a lot less okay?
No DM that promotes creativity and players doing cool, balanced stuff would disallow a Thunder-Punching Guardian-Model Armorer from using Booming Blade on their Thunder Gauntlets. At my table, (and hopefully at the table of all good DMs) Rules as Fun overrules Rules as Written, especially when I think that the Rules as Written is dumb/creates dumb problems.
For example: Armorer Artificers at my table don't have to deal with the Extra Attack vs. Booming Blade dilemma once they get to level 5 or above. I have a strong opinion that WotC messed when making these mechanics, so Armorer Artificers automatically get Extra Attack as Bladesingers do, where they can cast a cantrip with the casting time of one action in place of one of their attacks when they use the Attack action. Does this raise their DPR? Sure it does. However, if WotC felt that it wasn't a problem to give a fullcaster this feature, I don't feel that it's a problem to give a half-caster that's even more starved of cantrips the ability to use the feature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Perhaps, but unless a cost is explicitly given it should not be assumed. A broken chair leg might behave identically to a club when used as an improvised weapon, but that doesn't mean it has the same cost as a club.
I understand that the RAW is ambiguous and can be read either way. I just feel like all the people who pull up the Weapons table of the PHB and say "show me here where they list the cost for Thunder Gauntlets" are deliberately missing the point specifically because they're AL DMs and it's their job to hate their players, hate their games, and make their players hate D&D in specific and TTRPGs in general if the AL DM is really good* at his job.
I'm not talking about AL, and while I don't know what experience you have with it I frankly also don't care. You don't need to take derogatory potshots at something that cannot defend itself. It's not constructive.
The issue is Thunder Gauntlets is a feature. The weapons granted by said feature only conditionally exist and are non-transferable. Similarly, anyone proficient with medium armor can wear spiked armor. But the ability to use it as a weapon is the result of a feature.
It's no less "implied" that Thunder Gauntlets are a new item with an undefined cost than it is that they are an extension of the armor they're part of. Given both the wording of the Armorer's features and the core identity of the subclass, it's generally a stronger argument that the gauntlets are part of the armor. They're not metaphysical energy temporarily twisted into material form - they're very solid, very real extensions of your solid, real armor.
And your point is? Yes, the gauntlets are part of the armor. I haven't once posited otherwise. And armor has a cost. I won't begrudge anyone who decides to allow the synergy. I'd probably even allow it myself; if I had an armorer player ask nicely. (I actually have one now, but he prefers the Infiltrator model.) But RAW, and that's the issue here, it probably doesn't work.
Only in Adventurer's League, which is a giant exercise in mutual self-flagellation, is this even in question. No DM ever in a home game where they're actually permitted to be a DM will stop an Armorer from using Booming Fistpunch with their armor's signature weapon. The combination is just too thematically perfect, it suits the class down to the toes. Given this, I do have to wonder why people are so massively invested in the idea of ensuring Armorers never get to use their signature weapons. At first I understood that it was a bunch of people protesting the changes to the cantrips in Tasha's Cauldron by trying to inflict their pain on everyone else, but that really doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Why are people so married to the idea of punishing Armorers for using a super cool combination that absolutely fits what the Guardian armor is trying to do?
Again with Adventurer's League?
So, here are my thoughts on the subject:
Yes, combining Thunder Gauntlets with booming blade is thematic, evocative, and downright awesome. That said, I don't believe whether something is thematic or not should be the only metric we judge by. Rule of Cool aside, it doesn't mesh, thematically, with green-flame blade. We have to consider this, as well. Do we allow one and not the other? Or do we allow both? Consistency, on the part of the DM, is important.
No one said armorers shouldn't get to use their signature weapons; least of all me. As a matter of fact, they even get Extra Attack at 5th-level. A whole second attack, for conservatively, +7 (1d8 + 3) thunder damage. That's worth more, per hit, than booming blade's +4 (1d8) thunder damage. And it will be through at least through 11th-level. What's more, the weapons afforded by the Thunder Gauntlets feature aren't magical; unlike its "cousin" from Arcane Propulsion Armor. This means they can be given the Enhanced Weapon infusion.
So, at 11th-level, booming blade's +9 (2d8) thunder damage is competing against, well, an average of +11 (1d8 + 5 + 2) thunder damage; if Intelligence is maxed out. Still a solid, thematic choice for War Caster and Opportunity Attacks, but not necessarily great for regular striking. I'd rather save my few cantrips for something else. But, if I'm playing that high, I'd consider it.
And we haven't even begun to add the artificer's slotted spellcasting to the equation.
So, and this is just me ruminating here, but, cool your jets.
But RAW, and that's the issue here, it probably doesn't work.
Even the most strict reading of RAW would say this is slighty ambiguous. I'd say "probably doesn't work" is a vast overstatement.
It's ambiguous in the same way many many common rules are ambiguous. Because they wrote them that way, so that DMs could make rulings (so that DMs would have to make rulings, to learn the trade). Well, that's the generous interpretation; sometimes it's pretty clear they just missed things in the editing.
I think the reason AL keeps coming up is that it (and really only it) has the reputation of "be as strict as logically possible; don't make rulings."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're inventing a rule here; if something "counts as" a weapon then it is a weapon for all intents and purposes, while also being whatever it was before; that's what "count as" means. If you can use it as a weapon for the purposes of attacking with it, then you can also use it as a weapon for attacking with it via Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade, because for the purposes of both it is a weapon.
There's no rule anywhere that states that an object that only "counts as" a weapon can only be used to attack and cannot be used anywhere else that a weapon is required, so why invent such a condition? The Thunder Gauntlets feature itself doesn't state this either, in fact it very specifically states while your hands are empty your armour's gauntlets count as weapons, regardless of whether you intend to use them or not; having the hands free is the only condition on their use.
I'm also not sure why you think I've contradicted myself? The thunder gauntlets feature doesn't make your armour's gauntlets a separate item to the armour itself; it gives you the ability to use your armour as a weapon to attack with so long as you have a hand free. So long as that condition is met you are wearing a suit of armour that is both armour and a weapon for all rules purposes.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
We've said in other threads. Your logic is not wrong. However. That logic requires a chain of details to reach. RaW doesn't actually state that chain and things like AL do not follow out the logic. They just go by what RaW states. Even StormKnight has stated this.
But Agreeing with you does not change the reality of it and i know this has been said in several threads before. Your logic is sound but your argueing RaI over RaW and RaW doesn't care about your logic chain even though it's right and thus things like AL don't either.
This is where I disagree. "treat as" is still different from "is". Gauntlets are gauntlets, and in this instance, they are given a subset of rules in order to deal damage. The "counts as" is there in order to provide the necessary information in how to resolve the attack. Counting as a simple melee weapon, it uses strength for attack and damage, with the additional information that intelligence can be substituted for strength, and as you say, only when the hand is empty.
If it did not specifiy what sort of weapon it was to emulate, what would you do?
Apparently we were typing at the same time. My whole argument is, again, semantics, the meaning of the words. They do not state that "they are weapons" but "they count as weapons". A super literal interpretation, and again, not logical.
"The Shortsword counts as a martial melee weapon" is the same sentence as "the Shortsword is a martial melee weapon."
"Your damage counts as magical for overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical damage" is the same sentence as "Your damage is magical for overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical damage."
"Blue counts as a color" is the same sentence as "Blue is a color."
"This argument counts as super inane, pointless, and annoying" is the same sentence as "This argument is super inane, pointless and annoying."
You are inventing a distinction that doesn't exist and claiming that thunder gauntlets simultaneously do and do not count as weapons. You are not making a 'super literal interpretation', even by the standards of Adventurer's League. Even an AL DM would let Thunder Gauntlets work for things like Smite spells, Divine Smite, or any other "requires a melee weapon" ability that doesn't have this dumb 1sp cost bugbear. Because the phrase "counts as a simple melee weapon" means that when a rule references a weapon or weapon rules, THE THUNDER GAUNTLET COUNTS.
You want to argue that any weapon not on the PHB tables isn't valid for Blade cantrips, fine. I think that's an obnoxious argument, but it's the sort of minutiae AL friggin' thrives on. But "The phrase 'counts as' doesn't mean it IS a weapon or works like a weapon, it just counts as a weapon" is too much of a stretch even for AL, man.
Knock it off.
Please do not contact or message me.
Very well. We disagree and that is perfectly fine.
That said, I have absolutely used Booming Blade with Thunder Gauntlets because my GM agreed with logical conclusion that has already been stated that is outside of what is written.
You say that RAW doesn't follow the chain of logic, but here you're inventing an extra step in which "counts as" and "is" mean two completely different and incompatible things despite there being notihng in RAW to suggest that that should be the case. "Semantics" doesn't justify it either.
If something "counts as" a weapon then you can use it anywhere and for any purpose that you would use a weapon, that's what "counts as" means. You don't seem to be arguing that you can't attack with thunder gauntlets at all (seeing as you require a weapon to make a weapon attack), yet somehow you expect it to be unusable to attack using Booming Blade etc., but if the thunder gauntlets feature counts as a weapon for one case, then it must also count as a weapon for the other, as that's what counting as a weapon means.
Again, Booming Blade only lists "a melee weapon", it doesn't say "a melee weapon that must not only count as a melee weapon"; to make that distinction requires adding something that isn't there, so even from a "super literal" standpoint it makes no sense, it requires inventing a difference in meaning between "counts as" and "is" that the rules do not state and semantics don't justify, then apply that distinction in a way the rules don't tell you to.
Even by the "super literal" definition of RAW thunder gauntlets are usable, as being "super literal" about something means taking the simplest possible path with what is written. When the question is "is it a weapon?" then the answer is "yes, the Thunder Gauntlets feature says so". When the question is "what is it's value?" the answer is "the value of the armour" because that's the only value available to use for it (and counting as a weapon doesn't make it not armour), for it not to have a value requires inventing a step, which is neither literal or simple.
I'm aware that Adventurer's League DM's might try to rule differently, but by all accounts I've seen on these forums it doesn't seem like they go by what's in the rules at all, but rather they just use whatever arbitrary nonsense means they don't have to ever check anything. The reality is that some degree of interpretation is always necessary in D&D 5e as nearly nothing in the rules is spelled out as thoroughly as it could be as by design it's a very freeform, DM-guided game. A RAW ruling means taking the shortest path from question to answer with as few extra steps as possible (ideally, none), so only basic logic or the simplest solutions should be necessary.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It has been requested that I desist.
If you wish to discuss this further with me specifically, please direct me to a separate thread for that purpose or to a private venue and I will.be happy to continue.
The simplest Answer to "What is the Value" is not "the value of the Armor" The simplest Answer is "Undefined" because it is undefined. And this is the answer you will get from places like AL because the power that specifies it's ability to be used as a weapon does not define the value of that weapon portion of it or whether it is based off of the whole or part of the armor. The Logic chain comes to the the conclusion of the answer to "Why is it Undefined?" which is what your answering but things like AL and RaW do not bother to answer this follow-up question. they stop at the undefined answer and do not proceed any further. and since it is undefined it does not fit the "at least 'X amount" in price" requirement of the two cantrips.
It is perfectly logical to simply answer the undefined question with "It's part of the armor that has this value". It's entirely reasonable. The issue is that AL and RaW simply do not care.
Except that it isn't undefined, unless you invent a step to make it so.
The only piece of equipment involved in attacking using the Thunder Gauntlets feature is whichever armour you designated as your Arcane Armor; that armour will almost always have a value, and is the only available value for the weapon. There is no such things a Thunder Gauntlets item, because the feature does not create one, it's a feature of the armour, not a new piece of equipment.
All the Thunder Gauntlets feature does it lets you attack with your armour as if it was a weapon; the feature being tied to the gauntlets only matters for the purposes of defining how you attack (must have hands free, use the armour's gauntlets, not the boots or the helmet etc.). Nothing in either the Thunder Gauntlets rule or the general rules state that the gauntlets are suddenly a separate piece of equipment; a DM would have to rule that to be the case, just as they might rule that a longsword without a hilt can't be used as a sword anymore, which likewise isn't in the rules (anything called a longsword in RAW is usable as a longsword).
If you, or AL, or whoever, need to invent a step to rule against the gauntlets having a value, then that is not giving the simplest answer; it is actually a more complex one. If you need the value for a piece of equipment, and a piece of equipment with a value is involved, then you have a value to use, it really doesn't get much simpler than that.
If some power mad AL nutcase demands to know where the value for Thunder Gauntlets is listed in the rulebook you tell them it's an armour feature and slam the rulebook open (ideally on their hands) at page 144 and point at the value of your armour, as that's what you're actually using.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'm going to say that, by RAW, while the gauntlets are part of armor and count as simple melee weapons, they individually lack a value and would not be combinable with the cantrips. The language is nearly identical to spells like shadow blade and the Soulknife's Psychic Blades. And neither of those meet the new requirement for booming blade or green-flame blade.
We wouldn't even be having this conversation if not for the Thunder Gauntlets feature; or the 14th-level Arcane Propulsion Armor infusion, while I'm at it. Otherwise, why not simply rule that any armor which includes gauntlets meets the material component cost by default?
The difference between Shadow Blade or Psychic Knives is that neither of those are extensions of an item that has a defined value. Second-level spell slots do not have a defined monetary value, and class features do not have a defined monetary value. But even Padded Armor more than fulfills the cost component, and the Armorer's Arcane Armor feature specifically states:
"The armor attaches to you and can’t be removed against your will. It also expands to cover your entire body, although you can retract or deploy the helmet as a bonus action."
Ergo, the Arcane Armor is a single piece of gear that covers the entire body, with its gauntlets being part of that single unit. The Thunder Gauntlets subfeature of Armor Model doesn't say "you gain special gauntlets that...", it says "the armor's gauntlets are..." No new item is mentioned, no new item is created - the feature simply extends new properties to the already-existing gauntlets, which are themselves an extension of the already-existing armor. Haravikk is correct - you are punching fools with your armor. You're simply doing so far more effectively than anyone else who straps a breastplate to their monkey paw and tries to use it as a giant robot boxing glove.
Please do not contact or message me.
Except that a new item is created. There's no guarantee your armor came with gauntlets in the first place. Barring the subclass feature, whether they do or don't is purely cosmetic.
It's the feature which guarantees you even have gauntlets in the first place. So everything comes from the feature. The cost, and therefore compatibility, is inferred because of the armor cost, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's RAW; let alone implied.
The lack of cost is just as "inferred".
I understand that the RAW is ambiguous and can be read either way. I just feel like all the people who pull up the Weapons table of the PHB and say "show me here where they list the cost for Thunder Gauntlets" are deliberately missing the point specifically because they're AL DMs and it's their job to hate their players, hate their games, and make their players hate D&D in specific and TTRPGs in general if the AL DM is really good* at his job.
It's no less "implied" that Thunder Gauntlets are a new item with an undefined cost than it is that they are an extension of the armor they're part of. Given both the wording of the Armorer's features and the core identity of the subclass, it's generally a stronger argument that the gauntlets are part of the armor. They're not metaphysical energy temporarily twisted into material form - they're very solid, very real extensions of your solid, real armor.
Only in Adventurer's League, which is a giant exercise in mutual self-flagellation, is this even in question. No DM ever in a home game where they're actually permitted to be a DM will stop an Armorer from using Booming Fistpunch with their armor's signature weapon. The combination is just too thematically perfect, it suits the class down to the toes. Given this, I do have to wonder why people are so massively invested in the idea of ensuring Armorers never get to use their signature weapons. At first I understood that it was a bunch of people protesting the changes to the cantrips in Tasha's Cauldron by trying to inflict their pain on everyone else, but that really doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Why are people so married to the idea of punishing Armorers for using a super cool combination that absolutely fits what the Guardian armor is trying to do?
Please do not contact or message me.
Has this been the topic of discussion the whole time? I thought it was about the rule interactions of the two?
The twain have a tendency to go hand in hand.
The rules interactions have already been established and are understood by everyone. The RAW is vague and ambiguous. There is no "Correct" interpretation of RAW, because the rules are not clear-cut enough for there to be one single obviously correct interpretation. As such, people generally argue this case from the standpoint of what they think the RAW should be. People arguing against Booming Blade working are generally doing so from the standpoint of "In Adventurer's League this doesn't work because AL ******* hates you", which is a valid standpoint to take because AL is a literal nightmare realm of masochism and dead, rotting dreams. In home games, the only real argument is "This doesn't work because I-the-DM ******* hate you", which feels a lot less okay?
Please do not contact or message me.
No DM that promotes creativity and players doing cool, balanced stuff would disallow a Thunder-Punching Guardian-Model Armorer from using Booming Blade on their Thunder Gauntlets. At my table, (and hopefully at the table of all good DMs) Rules as Fun overrules Rules as Written, especially when I think that the Rules as Written is dumb/creates dumb problems.
For example: Armorer Artificers at my table don't have to deal with the Extra Attack vs. Booming Blade dilemma once they get to level 5 or above. I have a strong opinion that WotC messed when making these mechanics, so Armorer Artificers automatically get Extra Attack as Bladesingers do, where they can cast a cantrip with the casting time of one action in place of one of their attacks when they use the Attack action. Does this raise their DPR? Sure it does. However, if WotC felt that it wasn't a problem to give a fullcaster this feature, I don't feel that it's a problem to give a half-caster that's even more starved of cantrips the ability to use the feature.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Perhaps, but unless a cost is explicitly given it should not be assumed. A broken chair leg might behave identically to a club when used as an improvised weapon, but that doesn't mean it has the same cost as a club.
I'm not talking about AL, and while I don't know what experience you have with it I frankly also don't care. You don't need to take derogatory potshots at something that cannot defend itself. It's not constructive.
The issue is Thunder Gauntlets is a feature. The weapons granted by said feature only conditionally exist and are non-transferable. Similarly, anyone proficient with medium armor can wear spiked armor. But the ability to use it as a weapon is the result of a feature.
And your point is? Yes, the gauntlets are part of the armor. I haven't once posited otherwise. And armor has a cost. I won't begrudge anyone who decides to allow the synergy. I'd probably even allow it myself; if I had an armorer player ask nicely. (I actually have one now, but he prefers the Infiltrator model.) But RAW, and that's the issue here, it probably doesn't work.
Again with Adventurer's League?
So, here are my thoughts on the subject:
So, and this is just me ruminating here, but, cool your jets.
Even the most strict reading of RAW would say this is slighty ambiguous. I'd say "probably doesn't work" is a vast overstatement.
It's ambiguous in the same way many many common rules are ambiguous. Because they wrote them that way, so that DMs could make rulings (so that DMs would have to make rulings, to learn the trade). Well, that's the generous interpretation; sometimes it's pretty clear they just missed things in the editing.
I think the reason AL keeps coming up is that it (and really only it) has the reputation of "be as strict as logically possible; don't make rulings."