Except that a new item is created. There's no guarantee your armor came with gauntlets in the first place.
This isn't correct; there is only one piece of equipment involved, and that's whichever armour you designated as your Arcane Armor. It doesn't matter if that armour didn't come with gauntlets because Arcane Armor extends it to have some if necessary, but nowhere does it state that these are new, separate pieces of equipment, in fact it specifically states that the armour "expands", making it very clear that it is still the same suit of armour. Declaring the gauntlets as new, separate items requires inventing a rule that simply doesn't exist.
If you need the value for a material component (object), and there is only a single piece of equipment (object) involved, then its value is the one that you use; it really cannot get any simpler than this. Inventing rules or extra steps that nothing tells you to in order to make things more complicated just so that they won't work is not following RAW in the slightest; there is no precedent or justification for this.
People keep saying that the rules are vague but they really aren't; the Thunder Gauntlets feautre could maybe say more to avoid the perceived ambiguity but there really isn't any. There are literally no rules anywhere that state that an item being "expanded" causes it to cease being the same, singular, item.
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.
We'll set aside, for the moment, that the 9th-level feature does count the Thunder Gauntlets as a separate piece of equipment; at least with respect to infusions. Please, take a look at a far more thorough post of mine near the bottom of the previous page. It should answer any lingering questions you have about my position.
We'll set aside, for the moment, that the 9th-level feature does count the Thunder Gauntlets as a separate piece of equipment; at least with respect to infusions.
The 9th level feature doesn't change anything; they're only treated as separate items for the purposes of infusing only, that has no bearing on their use as a weapon. It effectively means you can have a single suit of armour with four infusions on it.
Please, take a look at a far more thorough post of mine near the bottom of the previous page. It should answer any lingering questions you have about my position.
I have done, but you don't establish where the rules exists that means you don't use the value for the only piece of equipment involved in the action. The broken chair leg case for example doesn't apply, as a broken chair leg is a separate, new item that your DM has either created for you or allowed you to create, or you're using it as an improvised weapon (in which case that's where the rules come from).
Everything about the Thunder Gauntlets however is defined within its feature, and it's a feature of a suit of armour; whether or not that feature is tied to part of the armour is irrelevant, as there is nothing in the rules, stated or in any kind of precedent that says that attacking with only part of an object means that you aren't still using that object to attack with. If you stab someone with only the point of a sword, you're still using the entire sword in RAW and would roll the same damage etc.
In RAW, any standard armour is defined, with a defined value. The Thunder Gauntlets feature is defined, upgrading your armour so you can attack with it. There is only one object involved, with a rule enabling its use as a weapon, and a defined value in the rulebook; this is the simplest possible reading in RAW, with no extra steps required. Item separation is not something defined in the rules, it requires an additional step with a DM ruling that way, but that's not RAW, that's a house-rule.
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'll set aside, for the moment, that the 9th-level feature does count the Thunder Gauntlets as a separate piece of equipment; at least with respect to infusions.
The 9th level feature doesn't change anything; they're only treated as separate items for the purposes of infusing only, that has no bearing on their use as a weapon. It effectively means you can have a single suit of armour with four infusions on it.
There is that pesky language again...
You know what would solve all this? Some Sage Advice. Until then, it is as sir moderator has laid out.
Meanwhile, even my annoying, inane, etc, argument will not stop people from using the combination, including myself.
We'll set aside, for the moment, that the 9th-level feature does count the Thunder Gauntlets as a separate piece of equipment; at least with respect to infusions.
The 9th level feature doesn't change anything; they're only treated as separate items for the purposes of infusing only, that has no bearing on their use as a weapon. It effectively means you can have a single suit of armour with four infusions on it.
There is that pesky language again...
You know what would solve all this? Some Sage Advice. Until then, it is as sir moderator has laid out.
Meanwhile, even my annoying, inane, etc, argument will not stop people from using the combination, including myself.
Is it really that difficult to agree to disagree?
It really shouldn't be that difficult, no.
And I really don't get what the big deal is. I'm inclined to allow it. The interaction might even be RAI. I just don't think it's RAW. The ability of the simple weapons, granted by Thunder Gauntlets, to meet the material component cost of booming blade and green-flame blade is extrapolated from the armor. It's not explicitly stated, and so is at least inferred. It might even be implied.
But an Occam's razor-sharp reading puts the gauntlets on an identical footing with the spell shadow blade and the Soulknife Rogue's Psychic Blades. That's it. Should the interaction be allowed? I don't see why not; it's less effective than just attacking twice. But that doesn't mean it's RAW. Unintentional interactions happen. It's one of the reasons why Tasha's also includes errata to booming blade and green-flame blade.
To borrow from Jeremy Crawford, the DM determine's the Thunder Gauntlets's value, if any. I don't think it's wrong for a DM to say the gauntlets count because they are part of a suit of armor. But they lack a specific value, so it's the DM's call. And if they say "no", you don't have an item entry, in the PHB or elsewhere, to point to.
If a DM says "no", should the armorer be allowed to replace their Blade cantrip, as the DM has effectively forbidden the armorer from using one of their incredibly limited cantrip choices?
To borrow from Jeremy Crawford, the DM determine's the Thunder Gauntlets's value, if any. I don't think it's wrong for a DM to say the gauntlets count because they are part of a suit of armor. But they lack a specific value, so it's the DM's call. And if they say "no", you don't have an item entry, in the PHB or elsewhere, to point to.
If a DM says "no", should the armorer be allowed to replace their Blade cantrip, as the DM has effectively forbidden the armorer from using one of their incredibly limited cantrip choices?
Short answer is yes. Had to double check, but they can change one on level up. However, my DM allowed the change after a long rest because of the nature of the Artificer's spellcasting (along with the armor model change to specifically use the combination).
We'll set aside, for the moment, that the 9th-level feature does count the Thunder Gauntlets as a separate piece of equipment; at least with respect to infusions.
The 9th level feature doesn't change anything; they're only treated as separate items for the purposes of infusing only, that has no bearing on their use as a weapon. It effectively means you can have a single suit of armour with four infusions on it.
There is that pesky language again...
I'm not sure what the issue is with this? The 9th level Armor Modification rule is very clear that parts of the armour are only considered separate for the purposes of another specific feature (Infuse Item), there is no ambiguity here. Thunder Gauntlets has no such limitation; part of your armour is usable as a weapon in all cases so long as you have at least one hand free.
It's not an issue of the language, the language is actually very clear; you seem to want the gauntlets to only count as weapons in some cases but not others, but you've established nothing that makes this so, as the rule itself certainly doesn't say that, neither do the cantrips. If it's usable as a weapon then it can be used as a weapon in all cases, as no other restrictions apply.
The ability of the simple weapons, granted by Thunder Gauntlets, to meet the material component cost of booming blade and green-flame blade is extrapolated from the armor. It's not explicitly stated, and so is at least inferred. It might even be implied.
Inference or implication don't really apply though; value is determined by an item, and only one item is involved. There is no precedent or rule to make the case that a new item is being created, indeed the Thunder Gauntlets "count[ing] as" a weapon explicitly means they're still what they are normally as well (part of the armour).
But an Occam's razor-sharp reading puts the gauntlets on an identical footing with the spell shadow blade and the Soulknife Rogue's Psychic Blades.
These aren't actually equivalent; Thunder Gauntlets applies properties to an existing item (to "count as" a weapon), whereas Shadow Blade explicitly creates a new weapon. Psychic Blades is a bit more vague as it uses the word "manifest" instead which strictly speaking only means "cause to appear" but it seems intended to mean the same thing, and isn't tied to any existing item anyway.
Shadow Blade is pretty much the primary reason WotC changed the material components of Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade to prevent those from interacting, as it's a created item with no cost that can be associated with it (unless your campaign puts a price on "threads of shadow" 😝), and already grants a healthy amount of improved damage.
That's not what Jeremy Crawford says; the full quote is:
Items in D&D have the value specified for them in the "Equipment" chapter of the Player's Handbook. If an item doesn't appear there or in another rulebook, the DM determines that item's value, if any. #DnDhttps://t.co/KsrskTh5p6
I've bolded the important sticking point here; Thunder Gauntlets are not an item (nor is anyone giving a reason why they should be), the armour they are a feature of however is an item, and unless that armour is custom it will be listed in the equipment section of the Player's Handbook (or any other relevant book). Unless you can cite a concrete reason why the armour cannot be used for the value (despite being the only item involved) then the second part of what he says does not apply. A DM can certainly override it if they wish, but that's by DM ruling, not RAW.
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.
How can you say "That's not what Jeremy Crawford says" when I link to the entire conversation? Not only was the quote you cited included, but your link directs to the wrong location. You're normally one of the most level-headed people I see on here. I've never seen badly-constructed feedback from you before, so what gives?
Let's look at the feature again.
Thunder Gauntlets. Each of the armor's gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren't holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit. A creature hit by the gauntlet has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you until the start of your next turn, as the armor magically emits a distracting pulse when the creature attacks someone else.
"Each of the armor's gauntlets..."
Not the armor, itself, but a component thereof. That component doesn't have a listing in the PHB. I'm not saying that allowing the weapon and cantrips to interact is an invalid interpretation of the rules. I'd allow it, myself, but I also view it as a nerf of both their damage potential and tanking ability. Furthermore, if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying the DM has no choice in the matter.
We'll set aside, for the moment, that the 9th-level feature does count the Thunder Gauntlets as a separate piece of equipment; at least with respect to infusions.
The 9th level feature doesn't change anything; they're only treated as separate items for the purposes of infusing only, that has no bearing on their use as a weapon. It effectively means you can have a single suit of armour with four infusions on it.
There is that pesky language again...
I'm not sure what the issue is with this? The 9th level Armor Modification rule is very clear that parts of the armour are only considered separate for the purposes of another specific feature (Infuse Item), there is no ambiguity here. Thunder Gauntlets has no such limitation; part of your armour is usable as a weapon in all cases so long as you have at least one hand free.
It's not an issue of the language, the language is actually very clear; you seem to want the gauntlets to only count as weapons in some cases but not others, but you've established nothing that makes this so, as the rule itself certainly doesn't say that, neither do the cantrips. If it's usable as a weapon then it can be used as a weapon in all cases, as no other restrictions apply.
Very well. We disagree and that is perfectly fine.
What I will argue, however, is why do you continue? It has been established that no one will bar the use of them together, even the creators of the rules, and if your DM has already agreed to the same thing, why does how it gets there matter anymore?
Or is that the issue? Your DM has disagreed and you were hoping for justification?
And remember, you are arguing with other random yahoos on the internet. Is it really worth your time? You could be instead using it for locking for down your foes with Booming Blade with your Thunder Gauntlets.
Posting time isn't gaming time. Posting time is between games when there's no thunderpunching to do.
The issue, Nikuna, is that folks keep trying to say "well it's not actually RAW and your DM proooooobably shouldn't let you do it, but I'm a magnanimous sort so I'd let you get away with it in my games", which is kind of a self-defeating bullshit statement. What folks like Haravikk and myself are trying to get across is that the argument that it's perfectly RAW and you shouldn't have to have a "magnanimous DM" is just as strong as the arguments against - and in many cases, stronger. Yes, AL swings the other way because as stated, Adventurer's League is at its happiest when it's ruining D&D for everyone at the table, but even in AL the argument is valid. It's simply the case that AL rules against anything even slightly 'vague' because AL hates players, DMs, D&D, FLGSes, and in fact All of Humanity Itself because it desperately wants to be a video game but keeps having to run on mushy meat processors instead of clean, certain silicon.
If you're not striving to emulate a poorly programmed video game in your D&D? Let the player have it. It's just as valid as letting them not have it, and trying to score points by magnanimously allowing players to have something they should've had from the start is disingenuous bullhonkey.
How can you say "That's not what Jeremy Crawford says" when I link to the entire conversation? Not only was the quote you cited included, but your link directs to the wrong location. You're normally one of the most level-headed people I see on here. I've never seen badly-constructed feedback from you before, so what gives?
I copied the tweet as it appeared in the link you gave; any links are from your source, and to the actual original tweet I was quoting so I'm not sure what the issue is here? I really should have said "that's not all Jeremy Crawford said", as that's what I meant, so I'm sorry if that came across as confrontational.
I quoted that tweet because you seemed to be referring only to the second part of it, but the first part clearly states to find the item in the PHB, and the only item involved is the armour so it should be possible to find it there (or in another book if the armour didn't come from the PHB).
The other tweets don't really help with what causes an item to become something new; his answer on the Pact Blade somewhat supports my argument, but I'm not sure it's similar enough to the Thunder Gauntlets feature to say it confirms it.
Let's look at the feature again.
Thunder Gauntlets. Each of the armor's gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren't holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit. A creature hit by the gauntlet has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you until the start of your next turn, as the armor magically emits a distracting pulse when the creature attacks someone else.
"Each of the armor's gauntlets..."
Not the armor, itself, but a component thereof. That component doesn't have a listing in the PHB.
Neither of these things matter in RAW as nowhere do the rules say that an effect being tied to part of an item causes it to become a separate item, what you're describing is an additional step. It's not an illogical one, but it's also not one you're told to make in RAW, it would require a DM ruling that the gauntlets become separate items either so long as they can be used as weapons, or while attacking with them.
The feature in effect says "the gauntlets count as weapons", it doesn't say "the guantlets are weapons separate from your armour" or anything to that effect. The very language "count as" makes clear that they are still part of your armour in addition to being usable as weapons, i.e- they don't become weapons, they are only treated as weapons for rules purposes. What you have is a single suit of armour, i.e- a single item (listed in the PHB or similar), with a special feature tied to part of it.
If the issue here is truly what is RAW, then the rules simply do not tell you to consider the gauntlets to be separate items from the armour to which they belong, so you shouldn't; there is only one defined item present in the situation, and that is the armour, anything else is adding steps or inferring meaning, which means it can't be RAW.
To be clear, I'm not saying that it can't be worded better, and I think everyone agrees it's probably rules as intended to be able to use them (or at least it's certainly not overpowered to do so), but given the rules that we have I just don't see that there is a justification for this added step of the gauntlets becoming separate from the armour.
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.
Does Booming Blade (etc) work with a +1 Longsword?
Magic items don't have an explicit cost --- "[a]s the DM, you determine the value of an individual magic item based on its rarity" --- there are only suggested cost ranges in the dmg. It's simply common sense that any magic item would be worth at least 1 sp, even in a world where no magic items exist in shops...
A pair of gauntlets, part of any set of armor, have value by common sense. This does require a DM ruling (just like magic items), yet it's an obvious and easy ruling.
How can you say "That's not what Jeremy Crawford says" when I link to the entire conversation? Not only was the quote you cited included, but your link directs to the wrong location. You're normally one of the most level-headed people I see on here. I've never seen badly-constructed feedback from you before, so what gives?
Let's look at the feature again.
Thunder Gauntlets. Each of the armor's gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren't holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit. A creature hit by the gauntlet has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you until the start of your next turn, as the armor magically emits a distracting pulse when the creature attacks someone else.
"Each of the armor's gauntlets..."
Not the armor, itself, but a component thereof. That component doesn't have a listing in the PHB. I'm not saying that allowing the weapon and cantrips to interact is an invalid interpretation of the rules. I'd allow it, myself, but I also view it as a nerf of both their damage potential and tanking ability. Furthermore, if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying the DM has no choice in the matter.
And, no, that's just flat wrong.
It is so frustrating to see someone argue that "RAW", the armor now has a separate weapon attached to it that isn't part of the armor, which ironically isn't written anywhere. The same someone who put also puts emphasis on the quote "Each of the armor's gauntlets..." , which, as written, define that the gauntlets are part of the armor.
>"That component doesn't have a listing in the PHB."
Yes, because that's not how armor works in DnD? The armor isn't separated in parts. I'm 99% sure there's not a book in DnD 5e where it's written that purchasable armor, which has a value, can be bought part by part.
Given the chance, I'm sure you'd argue that the Infiltrator Armor now also doesn't protect the user if they put their Lightning Launcher on their chestpiece, since their weaponized chestpiece is now a component of the armor but also not part of the armor, and "That component doesn't have a listing in the PHB.", meaning it has no AC value.
Haravikkhas been explaining it pretty clearly for people who refuse to read the Armorer's text in it's entirety, or invent new rules out of thin air while arguing that what they just made up is whatever they call "RAW".
We'll set aside, for the moment, that the 9th-level feature does count the Thunder Gauntlets as a separate piece of equipment; at least with respect to infusions. Please, take a look at a far more thorough post of mine near the bottom of the previous page. It should answer any lingering questions you have about my position.
This right here just makes it obvious you haven't read the Armorer's features:
"That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor's special weapon."
I can't tell if you're being facetious or sarcastic. There's no need to be rude, so don't be.
I keep the book next to my desk. I've read it cover to cover twice, the second time taking notes, and will reference it again later on.
The weapon is a gauntlet, not a suit of armor, and they're not attacking with the whole suit. They are using two subclass features that, in tandem, modify a suit of armor and grant attacks not normally capable. If an armorer makes a suit out of scale mail, you cannot reasonably point to its entry in the PHB and say the value of the weapon is 50 gold pieces. It's a starting point, but it's not worth the full value of the armor. How much less is it worth? I don't know. No one does, definitively. The actual value of the Thunder Gauntlets is something the DM is going to have to decide themself. In other words, they have to make a judgment call. And I have been saying this all along. And it's okay, because there's some ambiguity here, for the DM to have to make that determination.
As a point of order, I dislike Tasha's on principle because I've found a lot of ambiguities and think it was both poorly written and edited. And there's been no guidance on any of it since launch four months ago. And Candlekeep Mysteries has a similar problem; with a brand new Wereraven stat block that is both distinct from the one in Curse of Strahd and something I cannot purchase alone. I can't even buy the adventure it's from, Book of the Raven, alone. I have to buy the entire tome; unlike with Tales from the Yawning Portal.
But it is what it is.
I, as a DM, have no problem allowing the interaction. Using the cantrips nerfs the armorer's damage potential and tanking ability during their turn; at least from 5th-level onward. And if they really want to invest in War Caster to pull it off as an Opportunity Attack...it's an overused feat, but whatever.
The weapon is a feature that is only possible because of a suit of armor, but the armorer isn't attacking with the armor. There's no clearly expressed monetary cost. If we're just looking at the RAI, then yeah they're probably supposed to work just fine. And that's how I rule it at my table. But RAW? Sorry, but I just don't see it. I'm a pedant like that.
The weapon is a gauntlet, not a suit of armor, and they're not attacking with the whole suit.
Neither of these things matter in RAW, as nothing in the rules tells you to treat it differently; the gauntlets don't exist in isolation, they exist only as part of the armour, counting as weapons doesn't make them no longer armour. If something only counts as something else, then it is also whatever it was before as well, so as strange is it might seem each of the gauntlets is also a suit of armour (specifically, the same one), because they're still a part of it.
In terms of value, to determine the value something has in RAW you use the same basic princple that applies to all other rules; specific overrides general. Since there is no specific value or item in the Thunder Gauntlets feature, the next one in line is Arcane Armor (also nothing), leaving you with the value of the base item (the armour) as the only remaining rule to refer to.
While it's reasonable to assume that part of an object is less valuable than the object itself, and a sensible merchant would care about that, the rules don't care about or even mention it, you just use whatever value you can find for an item involved (and there's only one in this case, the armour). Part of an item being worth less than the whole item may be common sense, but common sense also says that if an item is worth 50 gp, then any significant part of that item must be worth more than 1 sp, so going down that route doesn't change anything.
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.
Sort of feels like people are adding a lot of extra steps to this process by taking a set of rules, intentionally interpreting them in the most obtuse fashion possible, criticizing that same obtuseness before patting themselves on the back and declaring that, in their magnanimity, they'll ignore their own interpretation in games they GM.
Like, you could just skip all that stuff in the middle.
Sort of feels like people are adding a lot of extra steps to this process by taking a set of rules, intentionally interpreting them in the most obtuse fashion possible, criticizing that same obtuseness before patting themselves on the back and declaring that, in their magnanimity, they'll ignore their own interpretation in games they GM.
Like, you could just skip all that stuff in the middle.
I feel attacked by that.
Some Dungeon Masters are going to be like that with the rules. I think that's a point worth acknowledging and a conversation worth having. Because how we personally feel about something doesn't change the rules as written. I hate that the Echo Knight's Manifest Echo allows for vertical movement, essentially creating flight, even if the originating character isn't capable of vertical movement. Having the higher ground is one thing. Just floating there in the air is another.
I mean, Haravikk has basically been arguing with staff on this since post #7. I'm happy that we can have such robust discussions, but this has been going in circles for a week now and is starting to become toxic.
Is it really so hard to just say "This is for the DM to decide"?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This isn't correct; there is only one piece of equipment involved, and that's whichever armour you designated as your Arcane Armor. It doesn't matter if that armour didn't come with gauntlets because Arcane Armor extends it to have some if necessary, but nowhere does it state that these are new, separate pieces of equipment, in fact it specifically states that the armour "expands", making it very clear that it is still the same suit of armour. Declaring the gauntlets as new, separate items requires inventing a rule that simply doesn't exist.
If you need the value for a material component (object), and there is only a single piece of equipment (object) involved, then its value is the one that you use; it really cannot get any simpler than this. Inventing rules or extra steps that nothing tells you to in order to make things more complicated just so that they won't work is not following RAW in the slightest; there is no precedent or justification for this.
People keep saying that the rules are vague but they really aren't; the Thunder Gauntlets feautre could maybe say more to avoid the perceived ambiguity but there really isn't any. There are literally no rules anywhere that state that an item being "expanded" causes it to cease being the same, singular, item.
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'll set aside, for the moment, that the 9th-level feature does count the Thunder Gauntlets as a separate piece of equipment; at least with respect to infusions. Please, take a look at a far more thorough post of mine near the bottom of the previous page. It should answer any lingering questions you have about my position.
The 9th level feature doesn't change anything; they're only treated as separate items for the purposes of infusing only, that has no bearing on their use as a weapon. It effectively means you can have a single suit of armour with four infusions on it.
I have done, but you don't establish where the rules exists that means you don't use the value for the only piece of equipment involved in the action. The broken chair leg case for example doesn't apply, as a broken chair leg is a separate, new item that your DM has either created for you or allowed you to create, or you're using it as an improvised weapon (in which case that's where the rules come from).
Everything about the Thunder Gauntlets however is defined within its feature, and it's a feature of a suit of armour; whether or not that feature is tied to part of the armour is irrelevant, as there is nothing in the rules, stated or in any kind of precedent that says that attacking with only part of an object means that you aren't still using that object to attack with. If you stab someone with only the point of a sword, you're still using the entire sword in RAW and would roll the same damage etc.
In RAW, any standard armour is defined, with a defined value. The Thunder Gauntlets feature is defined, upgrading your armour so you can attack with it. There is only one object involved, with a rule enabling its use as a weapon, and a defined value in the rulebook; this is the simplest possible reading in RAW, with no extra steps required. Item separation is not something defined in the rules, it requires an additional step with a DM ruling that way, but that's not RAW, that's a house-rule.
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.
There is that pesky language again...
You know what would solve all this? Some Sage Advice. Until then, it is as sir moderator has laid out.
Meanwhile, even my annoying, inane, etc, argument will not stop people from using the combination, including myself.
Is it really that difficult to agree to disagree?
It really shouldn't be that difficult, no.
And I really don't get what the big deal is. I'm inclined to allow it. The interaction might even be RAI. I just don't think it's RAW. The ability of the simple weapons, granted by Thunder Gauntlets, to meet the material component cost of booming blade and green-flame blade is extrapolated from the armor. It's not explicitly stated, and so is at least inferred. It might even be implied.
But an Occam's razor-sharp reading puts the gauntlets on an identical footing with the spell shadow blade and the Soulknife Rogue's Psychic Blades. That's it. Should the interaction be allowed? I don't see why not; it's less effective than just attacking twice. But that doesn't mean it's RAW. Unintentional interactions happen. It's one of the reasons why Tasha's also includes errata to booming blade and green-flame blade.
To borrow from Jeremy Crawford, the DM determine's the Thunder Gauntlets's value, if any. I don't think it's wrong for a DM to say the gauntlets count because they are part of a suit of armor. But they lack a specific value, so it's the DM's call. And if they say "no", you don't have an item entry, in the PHB or elsewhere, to point to.
Knock-on query.
If a DM says "no", should the armorer be allowed to replace their Blade cantrip, as the DM has effectively forbidden the armorer from using one of their incredibly limited cantrip choices?
Please do not contact or message me.
Perfect. Thank you for the link.
Short answer is yes. Had to double check, but they can change one on level up. However, my DM allowed the change after a long rest because of the nature of the Artificer's spellcasting (along with the armor model change to specifically use the combination).
I'm not sure what the issue is with this? The 9th level Armor Modification rule is very clear that parts of the armour are only considered separate for the purposes of another specific feature (Infuse Item), there is no ambiguity here. Thunder Gauntlets has no such limitation; part of your armour is usable as a weapon in all cases so long as you have at least one hand free.
It's not an issue of the language, the language is actually very clear; you seem to want the gauntlets to only count as weapons in some cases but not others, but you've established nothing that makes this so, as the rule itself certainly doesn't say that, neither do the cantrips. If it's usable as a weapon then it can be used as a weapon in all cases, as no other restrictions apply.
Inference or implication don't really apply though; value is determined by an item, and only one item is involved. There is no precedent or rule to make the case that a new item is being created, indeed the Thunder Gauntlets "count[ing] as" a weapon explicitly means they're still what they are normally as well (part of the armour).
These aren't actually equivalent; Thunder Gauntlets applies properties to an existing item (to "count as" a weapon), whereas Shadow Blade explicitly creates a new weapon. Psychic Blades is a bit more vague as it uses the word "manifest" instead which strictly speaking only means "cause to appear" but it seems intended to mean the same thing, and isn't tied to any existing item anyway.
Shadow Blade is pretty much the primary reason WotC changed the material components of Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade to prevent those from interacting, as it's a created item with no cost that can be associated with it (unless your campaign puts a price on "threads of shadow" 😝), and already grants a healthy amount of improved damage.
That's not what Jeremy Crawford says; the full quote is:
I've bolded the important sticking point here; Thunder Gauntlets are not an item (nor is anyone giving a reason why they should be), the armour they are a feature of however is an item, and unless that armour is custom it will be listed in the equipment section of the Player's Handbook (or any other relevant book). Unless you can cite a concrete reason why the armour cannot be used for the value (despite being the only item involved) then the second part of what he says does not apply. A DM can certainly override it if they wish, but that's by DM ruling, not RAW.
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.
How can you say "That's not what Jeremy Crawford says" when I link to the entire conversation? Not only was the quote you cited included, but your link directs to the wrong location. You're normally one of the most level-headed people I see on here. I've never seen badly-constructed feedback from you before, so what gives?
Let's look at the feature again.
"Each of the armor's gauntlets..."
Not the armor, itself, but a component thereof. That component doesn't have a listing in the PHB. I'm not saying that allowing the weapon and cantrips to interact is an invalid interpretation of the rules. I'd allow it, myself, but I also view it as a nerf of both their damage potential and tanking ability. Furthermore, if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying the DM has no choice in the matter.
And, no, that's just flat wrong.
What I will argue, however, is why do you continue? It has been established that no one will bar the use of them together, even the creators of the rules, and if your DM has already agreed to the same thing, why does how it gets there matter anymore?
Or is that the issue? Your DM has disagreed and you were hoping for justification?
And remember, you are arguing with other random yahoos on the internet. Is it really worth your time? You could be instead using it for locking for down your foes with Booming Blade with your Thunder Gauntlets.
Posting time isn't gaming time. Posting time is between games when there's no thunderpunching to do.
The issue, Nikuna, is that folks keep trying to say "well it's not actually RAW and your DM proooooobably shouldn't let you do it, but I'm a magnanimous sort so I'd let you get away with it in my games", which is kind of a self-defeating bullshit statement. What folks like Haravikk and myself are trying to get across is that the argument that it's perfectly RAW and you shouldn't have to have a "magnanimous DM" is just as strong as the arguments against - and in many cases, stronger. Yes, AL swings the other way because as stated, Adventurer's League is at its happiest when it's ruining D&D for everyone at the table, but even in AL the argument is valid. It's simply the case that AL rules against anything even slightly 'vague' because AL hates players, DMs, D&D, FLGSes, and in fact All of Humanity Itself because it desperately wants to be a video game but keeps having to run on mushy meat processors instead of clean, certain silicon.
If you're not striving to emulate a poorly programmed video game in your D&D? Let the player have it. It's just as valid as letting them not have it, and trying to score points by magnanimously allowing players to have something they should've had from the start is disingenuous bullhonkey.
Please do not contact or message me.
I copied the tweet as it appeared in the link you gave; any links are from your source, and to the actual original tweet I was quoting so I'm not sure what the issue is here? I really should have said "that's not all Jeremy Crawford said", as that's what I meant, so I'm sorry if that came across as confrontational.
I quoted that tweet because you seemed to be referring only to the second part of it, but the first part clearly states to find the item in the PHB, and the only item involved is the armour so it should be possible to find it there (or in another book if the armour didn't come from the PHB).
The other tweets don't really help with what causes an item to become something new; his answer on the Pact Blade somewhat supports my argument, but I'm not sure it's similar enough to the Thunder Gauntlets feature to say it confirms it.
Neither of these things matter in RAW as nowhere do the rules say that an effect being tied to part of an item causes it to become a separate item, what you're describing is an additional step. It's not an illogical one, but it's also not one you're told to make in RAW, it would require a DM ruling that the gauntlets become separate items either so long as they can be used as weapons, or while attacking with them.
The feature in effect says "the gauntlets count as weapons", it doesn't say "the guantlets are weapons separate from your armour" or anything to that effect. The very language "count as" makes clear that they are still part of your armour in addition to being usable as weapons, i.e- they don't become weapons, they are only treated as weapons for rules purposes. What you have is a single suit of armour, i.e- a single item (listed in the PHB or similar), with a special feature tied to part of it.
If the issue here is truly what is RAW, then the rules simply do not tell you to consider the gauntlets to be separate items from the armour to which they belong, so you shouldn't; there is only one defined item present in the situation, and that is the armour, anything else is adding steps or inferring meaning, which means it can't be RAW.
To be clear, I'm not saying that it can't be worded better, and I think everyone agrees it's probably rules as intended to be able to use them (or at least it's certainly not overpowered to do so), but given the rules that we have I just don't see that there is a justification for this added step of the gauntlets becoming separate from the armour.
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.
Does Booming Blade (etc) work with a +1 Longsword?
Magic items don't have an explicit cost --- "[a]s the DM, you determine the value of an individual magic item based on its rarity" --- there are only suggested cost ranges in the dmg. It's simply common sense that any magic item would be worth at least 1 sp, even in a world where no magic items exist in shops...
A pair of gauntlets, part of any set of armor, have value by common sense. This does require a DM ruling (just like magic items), yet it's an obvious and easy ruling.
How has this argument gone on for three pages?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Heh. It went for much longer in the Official Armorer Thoughts thread.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It is so frustrating to see someone argue that "RAW", the armor now has a separate weapon attached to it that isn't part of the armor, which ironically isn't written anywhere. The same someone who put also puts emphasis on the quote "Each of the armor's gauntlets..." , which, as written, define that the gauntlets are part of the armor.
>"That component doesn't have a listing in the PHB."
Yes, because that's not how armor works in DnD? The armor isn't separated in parts. I'm 99% sure there's not a book in DnD 5e where it's written that purchasable armor, which has a value, can be bought part by part.
Given the chance, I'm sure you'd argue that the Infiltrator Armor now also doesn't protect the user if they put their Lightning Launcher on their chestpiece, since their weaponized chestpiece is now a component of the armor but also not part of the armor, and "That component doesn't have a listing in the PHB.", meaning it has no AC value.
Haravikk has been explaining it pretty clearly for people who refuse to read the Armorer's text in it's entirety, or invent new rules out of thin air while arguing that what they just made up is whatever they call "RAW".
This right here just makes it obvious you haven't read the Armorer's features:
"That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor's special weapon."
RAW = Rules As Written.
I can't tell if you're being facetious or sarcastic. There's no need to be rude, so don't be.
I keep the book next to my desk. I've read it cover to cover twice, the second time taking notes, and will reference it again later on.
The weapon is a gauntlet, not a suit of armor, and they're not attacking with the whole suit. They are using two subclass features that, in tandem, modify a suit of armor and grant attacks not normally capable. If an armorer makes a suit out of scale mail, you cannot reasonably point to its entry in the PHB and say the value of the weapon is 50 gold pieces. It's a starting point, but it's not worth the full value of the armor. How much less is it worth? I don't know. No one does, definitively. The actual value of the Thunder Gauntlets is something the DM is going to have to decide themself. In other words, they have to make a judgment call. And I have been saying this all along. And it's okay, because there's some ambiguity here, for the DM to have to make that determination.
As a point of order, I dislike Tasha's on principle because I've found a lot of ambiguities and think it was both poorly written and edited. And there's been no guidance on any of it since launch four months ago. And Candlekeep Mysteries has a similar problem; with a brand new Wereraven stat block that is both distinct from the one in Curse of Strahd and something I cannot purchase alone. I can't even buy the adventure it's from, Book of the Raven, alone. I have to buy the entire tome; unlike with Tales from the Yawning Portal.
But it is what it is.
I, as a DM, have no problem allowing the interaction. Using the cantrips nerfs the armorer's damage potential and tanking ability during their turn; at least from 5th-level onward. And if they really want to invest in War Caster to pull it off as an Opportunity Attack...it's an overused feat, but whatever.
The weapon is a feature that is only possible because of a suit of armor, but the armorer isn't attacking with the armor. There's no clearly expressed monetary cost. If we're just looking at the RAI, then yeah they're probably supposed to work just fine. And that's how I rule it at my table. But RAW? Sorry, but I just don't see it. I'm a pedant like that.
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.
Sort of feels like people are adding a lot of extra steps to this process by taking a set of rules, intentionally interpreting them in the most obtuse fashion possible, criticizing that same obtuseness before patting themselves on the back and declaring that, in their magnanimity, they'll ignore their own interpretation in games they GM.
Like, you could just skip all that stuff in the middle.
I feel attacked by that.
Some Dungeon Masters are going to be like that with the rules. I think that's a point worth acknowledging and a conversation worth having. Because how we personally feel about something doesn't change the rules as written. I hate that the Echo Knight's Manifest Echo allows for vertical movement, essentially creating flight, even if the originating character isn't capable of vertical movement. Having the higher ground is one thing. Just floating there in the air is another.
I mean, Haravikk has basically been arguing with staff on this since post #7. I'm happy that we can have such robust discussions, but this has been going in circles for a week now and is starting to become toxic.
Is it really so hard to just say "This is for the DM to decide"?