Where did this conclusion that the enemy doesn't know that it's been debuffed by your thunder gauntlets until it attacks somebody else come from? The ability doesn't actually say that. Is it people getting hung up on the words for the timing of the distracting pulse? Is it from some place else? I'm curious about this and it could change what I might say. But I've seen it pop up a couple times now.
It's generally how these abilities work (see the Battlemaster Maneuver Goading Strike, which also doesn't inform the target), but also it's explicitly how Thunder Gauntlets work, due to, yes, the timing on the pulse. To be clear, even without the text of the timing, there would simply be no rule informing the target of the debuff, but then they explicitly add the text, which removes any confusion - the debuff doesn't happen until the target attempts a debuffed attack, so of course they can't know about it before they make such an attack.
The timing of the pulse does not necessarily mean the when. It can simply be the how and it can very logically and easily be read on how it it interferes with the attack over whether or not they are aware it will happen. The Debuffing logically if you read it is caused by the Strike on the enemy by the wording of it "A creature hit by the gauntlet" which is logically and just as easily interpreted as meaning that the hit itself is the debuffing timing and mechanism and that the part about "distracting pulse" being the how that the debuff functions.
Also. There is nothing the explicitly states that they do not know of these debuffs either. But that is part of the problem. It actually doesn't make it clear either way as to when they become aware of it. Not even the part about the distracting pulse actually makes any kind of explicit clarity that makes that exact moment when they become aware of the debuff going on. Which is something that people could game if they want to interpret twists far enough. But it is just as easy to assume in the opposite direction that they would know of the effect and be able to weigh it into their choices from the point of being hit as well.
But it is just as easy to assume in the opposite direction that they would know of the effect and be able to weigh it into their choices from the point of being hit as well.
How would the GM fluff that? "You're hit by the gauntlet, and somehow you just know that if you try to hit anyone else, the gauntlet will emit a distracting pulse of sound at you, causing you to have disadvantage. In your heart of hearts, you suspect you are now a divine oracle." ?
Where did this conclusion that the enemy doesn't know that it's been debuffed by your thunder gauntlets until it attacks somebody else come from? The ability doesn't actually say that. Is it people getting hung up on the words for the timing of the distracting pulse? Is it from some place else? I'm curious about this and it could change what I might say. But I've seen it pop up a couple times now.
It's generally how these abilities work (see the Battlemaster Maneuver Goading Strike, which also doesn't inform the target), but also it's explicitly how Thunder Gauntlets work, due to, yes, the timing on the pulse. To be clear, even without the text of the timing, there would simply be no rule informing the target of the debuff, but then they explicitly add the text, which removes any confusion - the debuff doesn't happen until the target attempts a debuffed attack, so of course they can't know about it before they make such an attack.
The timing of the pulse does not necessarily mean the when. It can simply be the how and it can very logically and easily be read on how it it interferes with the attack over whether or not they are aware it will happen. The Debuffing logically if you read it is caused by the Strike on the enemy by the wording of it "A creature hit by the gauntlet" which is logically and just as easily interpreted as meaning that the hit itself is the debuffing timing and mechanism and that the part about "distracting pulse" being the how that the debuff functions.
Also. There is nothing the explicitly states that they do not know of these debuffs either. But that is part of the problem. It actually doesn't make it clear either way as to when they become aware of it. Not even the part about the distracting pulse actually makes any kind of explicit clarity that makes that exact moment when they become aware of the debuff going on. Which is something that people could game if they want to interpret twists far enough. But it is just as easy to assume in the opposite direction that they would know of the effect and be able to weigh it into their choices from the point of being hit as well.
So, the text actually does explicitly state it:
”the armor magically emits a distracting pulse when the creature attacks someone else.” It says right there that the pulls happens when they attack. That, to me at least, is pretty clear. So, it’s not that the enemy knows it’s debuffed, instead the pulse is more of a distraction if you think about it thematically. An enemy knowing it is debuffed is sort of meta gaming unless the debuff is physical like being blind or a broken limb or something
Where did this conclusion that the enemy doesn't know that it's been debuffed by your thunder gauntlets until it attacks somebody else come from? The ability doesn't actually say that. Is it people getting hung up on the words for the timing of the distracting pulse? Is it from some place else? I'm curious about this and it could change what I might say. But I've seen it pop up a couple times now.
It's generally how these abilities work (see the Battlemaster Maneuver Goading Strike, which also doesn't inform the target), but also it's explicitly how Thunder Gauntlets work, due to, yes, the timing on the pulse. To be clear, even without the text of the timing, there would simply be no rule informing the target of the debuff, but then they explicitly add the text, which removes any confusion - the debuff doesn't happen until the target attempts a debuffed attack, so of course they can't know about it before they make such an attack.
The timing of the pulse does not necessarily mean the when. It can simply be the how and it can very logically and easily be read on how it it interferes with the attack over whether or not they are aware it will happen. The Debuffing logically if you read it is caused by the Strike on the enemy by the wording of it "A creature hit by the gauntlet" which is logically and just as easily interpreted as meaning that the hit itself is the debuffing timing and mechanism and that the part about "distracting pulse" being the how that the debuff functions.
Also. There is nothing the explicitly states that they do not know of these debuffs either. But that is part of the problem. It actually doesn't make it clear either way as to when they become aware of it. Not even the part about the distracting pulse actually makes any kind of explicit clarity that makes that exact moment when they become aware of the debuff going on. Which is something that people could game if they want to interpret twists far enough. But it is just as easy to assume in the opposite direction that they would know of the effect and be able to weigh it into their choices from the point of being hit as well.
So, the text actually does explicitly state it:
”the armor magically emits a distracting pulse when the creature attacks someone else.” It says right there that the pulls happens when they attack. That, to me at least, is pretty clear. So, it’s not that the enemy knows it’s debuffed, instead the pulse is more of a distraction if you think about it thematically. An enemy knowing it is debuffed is sort of meta gaming unless the debuff is physical like being blind or a broken limb or something
That only says when the pulse happens and tells us that the debuff functions through the pulse. That does not in fact tell us when the Debuff is applied as your interpreting. That interpretation is what your adding to it. As I stated. It specifically mentions hitting the target and it does so before the pulse and it does so in a fashion that the hit is required and thus is the logical interpretation of when the debuff is placed. Not when the pulse fires. The pulse firing being how the debuff functions does not explicitly make it the point that the debuff is placed as you claim, only when it comes into full function.
There is a difference in this. Much like there is a difference in the timing with poisons with onset periods such as the midnight tears. You are still poisoned from the time that whatever attack poisoned you. Even if the poison does not actually take effect until after the onset period is over. You are still poisoned well before that.
The Punch is your debuffing point. Even if the Pulse itself is the effect of the actual debuff just as I said.
As for metagaming. This argument is nebulous at best. There is nothing saying that they cannot know about it and there is nothing saying they can. So trying to use the metagaming argument over this is actually a smoke screen. There is going to be some level of metagaming no matter what you do. The interpretations and the shere matter of what your characters do and do not know is in fact partly metagaming itself. Not all metagaming is bad. Some of it is needed. And when there isn't a clear answer there is a level of metagaming involved to decide how something is going to work at your table or with your group.
But it is just as easy to assume in the opposite direction that they would know of the effect and be able to weigh it into their choices from the point of being hit as well.
How would the GM fluff that? "You're hit by the gauntlet, and somehow you just know that if you try to hit anyone else, the gauntlet will emit a distracting pulse of sound at you, causing you to have disadvantage. In your heart of hearts, you suspect you are now a divine oracle." ?
There are all kinds of ways to fluff that. "As the Punch strikes you a slight ringing in your ears starts. It seems to grow a bit when you turn your attention away from the artificer towards his companions."
That's just one example. it doesn't take any divine oracle nonsense that your throwing in. There isn't even a clear cut idea of what the pulse is... By the nature of thunder gauntlet's the best assumption would be that it's somehow sound or vibration based as that's most fitting to thunder. But it's clear at least one other person in this thread already pictures the pulse as a light.
If you wanted to go the light route you could do something like "After you recover from the punch it seems like it's left a few tiny specks of light in your vision. They seem to subtly increase and grow strong when you look towards others..." Just for another example on how it can work for the other.
its really a non issue. the disadvantage rider is a good tool because it throws a wrench in the normal action plan of the target regardless of the DM's decision to apply that information.
lol i'm with Stoutstein. if you apply Thunder Gauntlets you've put yourself in a bit of a win-win situation. if they don't know about the debuff then they can attack somebody else (maybe your barbarian) at disadvantage. Once they attack and get a vague idea what the debuff is, then they attack you instead so they aren't getting affected by the debuff (drawing aggro as a front-line). Either way you make your target have a hard time hitting other members of your party.
also i'm wondering what you plan to do with the capstone "Soul of the Artifice" since you intend to hit lvl 20. this gives you bonus to saving throws based on your attunements. so does that mean you are potentially getting a +9 to saving throws or 6 is the max and you get 3 freebie attunements for when you trigger the secondary effect?
also i'm wondering what you plan to do with the capstone "Soul of the Artifice" since you intend to hit lvl 20. this gives you bonus to saving throws based on your attunements. so does that mean you are potentially getting a +9 to saving throws or 6 is the max and you get 3 freebie attunements for when you trigger the secondary effect?
We hadn't discussed it yet, but I'm hoping he gives me the full +9, but I'd still be happy with +6.
Now a lot of people supported the battle smith here which i think is a great subclass. I figured i'd add my 2 cents to argue the other side.
I'm a big fan of the armorer mainly once you hit lvl 9 to get the +2 infusions. now maybe that does not sound like a lot but especially with your goal to hit lvl 20 with potentially 9 attunement slots (based on your homebrew)... you can get a lot of fun things. Moreover you are planning to frontline and i'd argue as a frontliner you need more resources to maintain both your dmg AND "survivability" vs backliners mostly focusing on dmg. I've done a lot of "fantasy" builds to 20 and almost always found those 2 extra infusions to be incredibly helpful because infusions are essentially another spell list that most others do not have access to (suck it wizards!!! xP)
One of the other fun points i like about armorer is that you will always want 1 hand free at all times to use your weapon. This is important if your DM finds v,s,m spell requirements important. Specifically spells that require a Somatic component w/o the material component (such as Shield). from my understanding of the RAW a spellcasting focus can substitute any Material component and if the spell has a Material and Somatic component you can use said "material" to make the Somatic "hand gestures" (like a wand waved in the air). However this is not true for spells with ONLY a Somatic component which generally requires a free hand. This is where the armorer comes in handy where if you were planning to carry a shield you still have 1 hand free to do all of your somatic components. Everyone else needs to essentially take the "Warcaster" feat in order to bypass this requirement. Or you just don't use a shield and make do with a 2 handed weapon like a Halberd (when casting a spell you can free up one hand to do the somatic component and put your hand right back on your weapon).
There are a few other things the armorer can do that a battle smith can't but i felt like these 2 were the top of my mind (and of course Thunder Guantlets xP). All in all I think both subclasses are fun especially once you reach lvl 20 ("Soul of the Artifice" imo is amazing compared to some other capstones)
One of the other fun points i like about armorer is that you will always want 1 hand free at all times to use your weapon. This is important if your DM finds v,s,m spell requirements important. Specifically spells that require a Somatic component w/o the material component (such as Shield). from my understanding of the RAW a spellcasting focus can substitute any Material component and if the spell has a Material and Somatic component you can use said "material" to make the Somatic "hand gestures" (like a wand waved in the air). However this is not true for spells with ONLY a Somatic component which generally requires a free hand. This is where the armorer comes in handy where if you were planning to carry a shield you still have 1 hand free to do all of your somatic components. Everyone else needs to essentially take the "Warcaster" feat in order to bypass this requirement. Or you just don't use a shield and make do with a 2 handed weapon like a Halberd (when casting a spell you can free up one hand to do the somatic component and put your hand right back on your weapon).
If you are sticking to artificer spells, they all have a material component (i.e. a tool or one of your infusions).
One of the other fun points i like about armorer is that you will always want 1 hand free at all times to use your weapon. This is important if your DM finds v,s,m spell requirements important. Specifically spells that require a Somatic component w/o the material component (such as Shield). from my understanding of the RAW a spellcasting focus can substitute any Material component and if the spell has a Material and Somatic component you can use said "material" to make the Somatic "hand gestures" (like a wand waved in the air). However this is not true for spells with ONLY a Somatic component which generally requires a free hand. This is where the armorer comes in handy where if you were planning to carry a shield you still have 1 hand free to do all of your somatic components. Everyone else needs to essentially take the "Warcaster" feat in order to bypass this requirement. Or you just don't use a shield and make do with a 2 handed weapon like a Halberd (when casting a spell you can free up one hand to do the somatic component and put your hand right back on your weapon).
If you are sticking to artificer spells, they all have a material component (i.e. a tool or one of your infusions).
umm maybe we are misunderstanding each other. but take a spell like Cure Wounds, it requires Verbal and Somatic components. you can't cast it if you are sword and boarding unless you drop one of them and then pick it up. How action economy works in that case will be up to the DM but i think in the RAW to pick up/pull out a weapon takes 1 action.
if you have War Caster feat you can bypass this problem. but in the end it all depends on your DM and how strictly they follow the rules.
One of the other fun points i like about armorer is that you will always want 1 hand free at all times to use your weapon. This is important if your DM finds v,s,m spell requirements important. Specifically spells that require a Somatic component w/o the material component (such as Shield). from my understanding of the RAW a spellcasting focus can substitute any Material component and if the spell has a Material and Somatic component you can use said "material" to make the Somatic "hand gestures" (like a wand waved in the air). However this is not true for spells with ONLY a Somatic component which generally requires a free hand. This is where the armorer comes in handy where if you were planning to carry a shield you still have 1 hand free to do all of your somatic components. Everyone else needs to essentially take the "Warcaster" feat in order to bypass this requirement. Or you just don't use a shield and make do with a 2 handed weapon like a Halberd (when casting a spell you can free up one hand to do the somatic component and put your hand right back on your weapon).
If you are sticking to artificer spells, they all have a material component (i.e. a tool or one of your infusions).
umm maybe we are misunderstanding each other. but take a spell like Cure Wounds, it requires Verbal and Somatic components. you can't cast it if you are sword and boarding unless you drop one of them and then pick it up. How action economy works in that case will be up to the DM but i think in the RAW to pick up/pull out a weapon takes 1 action.
if you have War Caster feat you can bypass this problem. but in the end it all depends on your DM and how strictly they follow the rules.
If you are an artificer, casting an artificer spell, your spell has a material component (that's a special artificer rule). If you are sword-and-boarding, if one (or both!) of your sword or board is an infusion, you can use it as your casting focus. This is similar to having part (only that part!) of the War Caster feat automatically.
Edit: from the artificer rules:
You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an “M” component when you cast it). You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way. See the equipment chapter in the Player’s Handbook for descriptions of these tools.
After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.
One of the other fun points i like about armorer is that you will always want 1 hand free at all times to use your weapon. This is important if your DM finds v,s,m spell requirements important. Specifically spells that require a Somatic component w/o the material component (such as Shield). from my understanding of the RAW a spellcasting focus can substitute any Material component and if the spell has a Material and Somatic component you can use said "material" to make the Somatic "hand gestures" (like a wand waved in the air). However this is not true for spells with ONLY a Somatic component which generally requires a free hand. This is where the armorer comes in handy where if you were planning to carry a shield you still have 1 hand free to do all of your somatic components. Everyone else needs to essentially take the "Warcaster" feat in order to bypass this requirement. Or you just don't use a shield and make do with a 2 handed weapon like a Halberd (when casting a spell you can free up one hand to do the somatic component and put your hand right back on your weapon).
If you are sticking to artificer spells, they all have a material component (i.e. a tool or one of your infusions).
umm maybe we are misunderstanding each other. but take a spell like Cure Wounds, it requires Verbal and Somatic components. you can't cast it if you are sword and boarding unless you drop one of them and then pick it up. How action economy works in that case will be up to the DM but i think in the RAW to pick up/pull out a weapon takes 1 action.
if you have War Caster feat you can bypass this problem. but in the end it all depends on your DM and how strictly they follow the rules.
FYI, the RAW is that picking up/pulling out is an action that you get 1 of for free every turn, so in general it's a nonissue - when sword and boarding, you can drop the sword, cast, and pick it up, and be fine. What Artificers do particularly well is hand crossbow (or pistol, if allowed) and shield: the repeating shot infusion is basically the only way in the game to wear a shield and be allowed to reload a one-handed ammunition weapon.
One of the other fun points i like about armorer is that you will always want 1 hand free at all times to use your weapon. This is important if your DM finds v,s,m spell requirements important. Specifically spells that require a Somatic component w/o the material component (such as Shield). from my understanding of the RAW a spellcasting focus can substitute any Material component and if the spell has a Material and Somatic component you can use said "material" to make the Somatic "hand gestures" (like a wand waved in the air). However this is not true for spells with ONLY a Somatic component which generally requires a free hand. This is where the armorer comes in handy where if you were planning to carry a shield you still have 1 hand free to do all of your somatic components. Everyone else needs to essentially take the "Warcaster" feat in order to bypass this requirement. Or you just don't use a shield and make do with a 2 handed weapon like a Halberd (when casting a spell you can free up one hand to do the somatic component and put your hand right back on your weapon).
If you are sticking to artificer spells, they all have a material component (i.e. a tool or one of your infusions).
umm maybe we are misunderstanding each other. but take a spell like Cure Wounds, it requires Verbal and Somatic components. you can't cast it if you are sword and boarding unless you drop one of them and then pick it up. How action economy works in that case will be up to the DM but i think in the RAW to pick up/pull out a weapon takes 1 action.
if you have War Caster feat you can bypass this problem. but in the end it all depends on your DM and how strictly they follow the rules.
FYI, the RAW is that picking up/pulling out is an action that you get 1 of for free every turn, so in general it's a nonissue - when sword and boarding, you can drop the sword, cast, and pick it up, and be fine. What Artificers do particularly well is hand crossbow (or pistol, if allowed) and shield: the repeating shot infusion is basically the only way in the game to wear a shield and be allowed to reload a one-handed ammunition weapon.
After rereading a bunch of stuff I believe you are right. I think the RAW allows you to drop item, cast a spell, pick up item all in one turn.
But some places i've read then debate if this is RAI mainly with the aspect that War Caster has that "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands". Now there are other aspects to War Caster but this specific point seems almost worthless with the basic rules allowing you to circumvent somatic requirements. So it begs the question if this was there intention?
also i've seen debates on the interpretation of "reaction" specifically for the shield spell. dropping a weapon is suggested to be a "non-action" because it isn't explicitly stated in the rule books anywhere so it is interpreted as such. then you have the 1 free object interaction you get on your turn but "reaction" are considered special actions that operate outside of your turn. This is again where i've seen back and forth on because the rules do not explicitly state so.
Then there is always the final tool that a DM can pull and say "oh you dropped your weapon, roll a d20. Oof the Goblin you were attacking stole your weapon".
I might be misreading all of this so bear with me. I am also trying to understand this.
One of the other fun points i like about armorer is that you will always want 1 hand free at all times to use your weapon. This is important if your DM finds v,s,m spell requirements important. Specifically spells that require a Somatic component w/o the material component (such as Shield). from my understanding of the RAW a spellcasting focus can substitute any Material component and if the spell has a Material and Somatic component you can use said "material" to make the Somatic "hand gestures" (like a wand waved in the air). However this is not true for spells with ONLY a Somatic component which generally requires a free hand. This is where the armorer comes in handy where if you were planning to carry a shield you still have 1 hand free to do all of your somatic components. Everyone else needs to essentially take the "Warcaster" feat in order to bypass this requirement. Or you just don't use a shield and make do with a 2 handed weapon like a Halberd (when casting a spell you can free up one hand to do the somatic component and put your hand right back on your weapon).
If you are sticking to artificer spells, they all have a material component (i.e. a tool or one of your infusions).
umm maybe we are misunderstanding each other. but take a spell like Cure Wounds, it requires Verbal and Somatic components. you can't cast it if you are sword and boarding unless you drop one of them and then pick it up. How action economy works in that case will be up to the DM but i think in the RAW to pick up/pull out a weapon takes 1 action.
if you have War Caster feat you can bypass this problem. but in the end it all depends on your DM and how strictly they follow the rules.
If you are an artificer, casting an artificer spell, your spell has a material component (that's a special artificer rule). If you are sword-and-boarding, if one (or both!) of your sword or board is an infusion, you can use it as your casting focus. This is similar to having part (only that part!) of the War Caster feat automatically.
Edit: from the artificer rules:
You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an “M” component when you cast it). You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way. See the equipment chapter in the Player’s Handbook for descriptions of these tools.
After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.
I'm not sure i read this as all "artificer spells" have material component. I'm reading this similar to a bard where you use a tool as a spellcasting focus (instrument in Bard's case)
Also here they suggest that you cannot cast a somatic non-material component w/o a free hand.
Also here they suggest that you cannot cast a somatic non-material component w/o a free hand.
You need a free hand, but the cleric in question could just drop the mace, cast, and pick it up. Sage Advice is often an odd duck, to be honest, because while it's RAW, it's equal in weight to the PHB, which means when they contradict, it becomes GM fiat which one to follow. That's why the linked entry, which is the only rule anywhere letting a holy symbol mounted on a shield result in a shield which is also a holy symbol, doesn't automatically mean that every PC at every table gets that - the GM has to pick whether to follow Sage Advice or the PHB (in which holy symbols are explicitly listed in the adventuring gear table).
Note that you can, in most campaigns, just buy common magic items, so you can solve this whole problem with a Ruby of the War Mage instead, if you like.
Also, Kenclary is correct. As an Artificer, all of your Artificer spells have an M component added to them, which is satisfied by your focus. As soon as you multiclass, this goes away, but since the multiclass rules for spellcasting are broken and don't work, your GM is 100% going to houserule them to actually work anyway, so if you want to keep needing a focus, I'm sure most any GM would let you.
Also here they suggest that you cannot cast a somatic non-material component w/o a free hand.
You need a free hand, but the cleric in question could just drop the mace, cast, and pick it up. Sage Advice is often an odd duck, to be honest, because while it's RAW, it's equal in weight to the PHB, which means when they contradict, it becomes GM fiat which one to follow. That's why the linked entry, which is the only rule anywhere letting a holy symbol mounted on a shield result in a shield which is also a holy symbol, doesn't automatically mean that every PC at every table gets that - the GM has to pick whether to follow Sage Advice or the PHB (in which holy symbols are explicitly listed in the adventuring gear table).
Note that you can, in most campaigns, just buy common magic items, so you can solve this whole problem with a Ruby of the War Mage instead, if you like.
Also, Kenclary is correct. As an Artificer, all of your Artificer spells have an M component added to them, which is satisfied by your focus. As soon as you multiclass, this goes away, but since the multiclass rules for spellcasting are broken and don't work, your GM is 100% going to houserule them to actually work anyway, so if you want to keep needing a focus, I'm sure most any GM would let you.
ooooooooooo. that is interesting. after rereading the excerpt i see what i missed and agree.
Apologies Kenclary >.<
man so many rules xP
with this in mind than i would say this def leverages battle smith more over armorer. the free hand could come in handy (pulling a potion out?) but super minor in comparison.
its really a non issue. the disadvantage rider is a good tool because it throws a wrench in the normal action plan of the target regardless of the DM's decision to apply that information.
lol i'm with Stoutstein. if you apply Thunder Gauntlets you've put yourself in a bit of a win-win situation. if they don't know about the debuff then they can attack somebody else (maybe your barbarian) at disadvantage. Once they attack and get a vague idea what the debuff is, then they attack you instead so they aren't getting affected by the debuff (drawing aggro as a front-line). Either way you make your target have a hard time hitting other members of your party.
This is ultimately true. The biggest irony to it is that even if they do know they are debuffed. They are still making the same choice. It's only through a powergaming metagaming standpoint of "my actions must always be optimal for what I am trying to do at any moment (Usually Damage)" that means that just because you know that you are debuffed that you absolutely must attack the one that debuffed you. However in practical application there are lots of reasons to attack somebody even if you have a disadvantage debuff in place upon that attack and players make these kinds of choices even with this kind of knowledge every day in all kinds of fights for all kinds of reasons. NPC's are realistically no different.
One of the other fun points i like about armorer is that you will always want 1 hand free at all times to use your weapon. This is important if your DM finds v,s,m spell requirements important. Specifically spells that require a Somatic component w/o the material component (such as Shield). from my understanding of the RAW a spellcasting focus can substitute any Material component and if the spell has a Material and Somatic component you can use said "material" to make the Somatic "hand gestures" (like a wand waved in the air). However this is not true for spells with ONLY a Somatic component which generally requires a free hand. This is where the armorer comes in handy where if you were planning to carry a shield you still have 1 hand free to do all of your somatic components. Everyone else needs to essentially take the "Warcaster" feat in order to bypass this requirement. Or you just don't use a shield and make do with a 2 handed weapon like a Halberd (when casting a spell you can free up one hand to do the somatic component and put your hand right back on your weapon).
If you are sticking to artificer spells, they all have a material component (i.e. a tool or one of your infusions).
umm maybe we are misunderstanding each other. but take a spell like Cure Wounds, it requires Verbal and Somatic components. you can't cast it if you are sword and boarding unless you drop one of them and then pick it up. How action economy works in that case will be up to the DM but i think in the RAW to pick up/pull out a weapon takes 1 action.
if you have War Caster feat you can bypass this problem. but in the end it all depends on your DM and how strictly they follow the rules.
If you are an artificer, casting an artificer spell, your spell has a material component (that's a special artificer rule). If you are sword-and-boarding, if one (or both!) of your sword or board is an infusion, you can use it as your casting focus. This is similar to having part (only that part!) of the War Caster feat automatically.
Edit: from the artificer rules:
You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an “M” component when you cast it). You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way. See the equipment chapter in the Player’s Handbook for descriptions of these tools.
After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.
I'm not sure i read this as all "artificer spells" have material component. I'm reading this similar to a bard where you use a tool as a spellcasting focus (instrument in Bard's case)
Also here they suggest that you cannot cast a somatic non-material component w/o a free hand.
The Artificer is an exception case to the general rules that your pointing out here. and for the exact reasons that Kenlarky pointed out. Their class puts a restriction that even spells such as cure wounds automatically gain a Material Component requirement. It doesn't matter what they cast, Shield, cure wounds, or any other number of things that normally do not have them. Even some of the easy verbal only and their cantrip spells all require a material. That material can either be the material in question for the spell, or what is basically the arcane focus for the Artificer which is their artisans tools or infused items. Without one of these in their hand it does not work no matter what the spell is. Their hands could be completely empty and they still would not be able to cast Shield for example when casters of other types could. For them shield has an M component exception to the normal rules which must be their tools or infused item.
The Ability in question which was posted in this chain is very explicit in it's specific over general nature and differences to normal rules. It outright says that all spells must have these things in order to cast any spells what so ever. This also gives Artificers some unique interactions with items similar to the way that WarCaster does. Their hands can basically count as having a free hand to cast spells as long as they have a required item that matches their forced material component requirements in hand. Whether that it's a smithing hammer or an infused long sword.
It effectively means that unlike every other caster in the game. Artificers do not know how to and thus cannot cast spells without their hands at least partially full with particular kinds of items that focus their magical energies. This is a unique interaction that does not exist basically anywhere else in the game. So it will not just match up to other examples in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The timing of the pulse does not necessarily mean the when. It can simply be the how and it can very logically and easily be read on how it it interferes with the attack over whether or not they are aware it will happen. The Debuffing logically if you read it is caused by the Strike on the enemy by the wording of it "A creature hit by the gauntlet" which is logically and just as easily interpreted as meaning that the hit itself is the debuffing timing and mechanism and that the part about "distracting pulse" being the how that the debuff functions.
Also. There is nothing the explicitly states that they do not know of these debuffs either. But that is part of the problem. It actually doesn't make it clear either way as to when they become aware of it. Not even the part about the distracting pulse actually makes any kind of explicit clarity that makes that exact moment when they become aware of the debuff going on. Which is something that people could game if they want to interpret twists far enough. But it is just as easy to assume in the opposite direction that they would know of the effect and be able to weigh it into their choices from the point of being hit as well.
How would the GM fluff that? "You're hit by the gauntlet, and somehow you just know that if you try to hit anyone else, the gauntlet will emit a distracting pulse of sound at you, causing you to have disadvantage. In your heart of hearts, you suspect you are now a divine oracle." ?
So, the text actually does explicitly state it:
”the armor magically emits a distracting pulse when the creature attacks someone else.” It says right there that the pulls happens when they attack. That, to me at least, is pretty clear. So, it’s not that the enemy knows it’s debuffed, instead the pulse is more of a distraction if you think about it thematically. An enemy knowing it is debuffed is sort of meta gaming unless the debuff is physical like being blind or a broken limb or something
That only says when the pulse happens and tells us that the debuff functions through the pulse. That does not in fact tell us when the Debuff is applied as your interpreting. That interpretation is what your adding to it. As I stated. It specifically mentions hitting the target and it does so before the pulse and it does so in a fashion that the hit is required and thus is the logical interpretation of when the debuff is placed. Not when the pulse fires. The pulse firing being how the debuff functions does not explicitly make it the point that the debuff is placed as you claim, only when it comes into full function.
There is a difference in this. Much like there is a difference in the timing with poisons with onset periods such as the midnight tears. You are still poisoned from the time that whatever attack poisoned you. Even if the poison does not actually take effect until after the onset period is over. You are still poisoned well before that.
The Punch is your debuffing point. Even if the Pulse itself is the effect of the actual debuff just as I said.
As for metagaming. This argument is nebulous at best. There is nothing saying that they cannot know about it and there is nothing saying they can. So trying to use the metagaming argument over this is actually a smoke screen. There is going to be some level of metagaming no matter what you do. The interpretations and the shere matter of what your characters do and do not know is in fact partly metagaming itself. Not all metagaming is bad. Some of it is needed. And when there isn't a clear answer there is a level of metagaming involved to decide how something is going to work at your table or with your group.
There are all kinds of ways to fluff that. "As the Punch strikes you a slight ringing in your ears starts. It seems to grow a bit when you turn your attention away from the artificer towards his companions."
That's just one example. it doesn't take any divine oracle nonsense that your throwing in. There isn't even a clear cut idea of what the pulse is... By the nature of thunder gauntlet's the best assumption would be that it's somehow sound or vibration based as that's most fitting to thunder. But it's clear at least one other person in this thread already pictures the pulse as a light.
If you wanted to go the light route you could do something like "After you recover from the punch it seems like it's left a few tiny specks of light in your vision. They seem to subtly increase and grow strong when you look towards others..." Just for another example on how it can work for the other.
lol i'm with Stoutstein. if you apply Thunder Gauntlets you've put yourself in a bit of a win-win situation. if they don't know about the debuff then they can attack somebody else (maybe your barbarian) at disadvantage. Once they attack and get a vague idea what the debuff is, then they attack you instead so they aren't getting affected by the debuff (drawing aggro as a front-line). Either way you make your target have a hard time hitting other members of your party.
also i'm wondering what you plan to do with the capstone "Soul of the Artifice" since you intend to hit lvl 20. this gives you bonus to saving throws based on your attunements. so does that mean you are potentially getting a +9 to saving throws or 6 is the max and you get 3 freebie attunements for when you trigger the secondary effect?
We hadn't discussed it yet, but I'm hoping he gives me the full +9, but I'd still be happy with +6.
Now a lot of people supported the battle smith here which i think is a great subclass. I figured i'd add my 2 cents to argue the other side.
I'm a big fan of the armorer mainly once you hit lvl 9 to get the +2 infusions. now maybe that does not sound like a lot but especially with your goal to hit lvl 20 with potentially 9 attunement slots (based on your homebrew)... you can get a lot of fun things. Moreover you are planning to frontline and i'd argue as a frontliner you need more resources to maintain both your dmg AND "survivability" vs backliners mostly focusing on dmg. I've done a lot of "fantasy" builds to 20 and almost always found those 2 extra infusions to be incredibly helpful because infusions are essentially another spell list that most others do not have access to (suck it wizards!!! xP)
One of the other fun points i like about armorer is that you will always want 1 hand free at all times to use your weapon. This is important if your DM finds v,s,m spell requirements important. Specifically spells that require a Somatic component w/o the material component (such as Shield). from my understanding of the RAW a spellcasting focus can substitute any Material component and if the spell has a Material and Somatic component you can use said "material" to make the Somatic "hand gestures" (like a wand waved in the air). However this is not true for spells with ONLY a Somatic component which generally requires a free hand. This is where the armorer comes in handy where if you were planning to carry a shield you still have 1 hand free to do all of your somatic components. Everyone else needs to essentially take the "Warcaster" feat in order to bypass this requirement. Or you just don't use a shield and make do with a 2 handed weapon like a Halberd (when casting a spell you can free up one hand to do the somatic component and put your hand right back on your weapon).
There are a few other things the armorer can do that a battle smith can't but i felt like these 2 were the top of my mind (and of course Thunder Guantlets xP). All in all I think both subclasses are fun especially once you reach lvl 20 ("Soul of the Artifice" imo is amazing compared to some other capstones)
that would be awesome if he gives you the +9. a paladin would have nothing on you with saving throws then xP (as an individual character of course)
If you are sticking to artificer spells, they all have a material component (i.e. a tool or one of your infusions).
umm maybe we are misunderstanding each other. but take a spell like Cure Wounds, it requires Verbal and Somatic components. you can't cast it if you are sword and boarding unless you drop one of them and then pick it up. How action economy works in that case will be up to the DM but i think in the RAW to pick up/pull out a weapon takes 1 action.
if you have War Caster feat you can bypass this problem. but in the end it all depends on your DM and how strictly they follow the rules.
If you are an artificer, casting an artificer spell, your spell has a material component (that's a special artificer rule). If you are sword-and-boarding, if one (or both!) of your sword or board is an infusion, you can use it as your casting focus. This is similar to having part (only that part!) of the War Caster feat automatically.
Edit: from the artificer rules:
You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an “M” component when you cast it). You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way. See the equipment chapter in the Player’s Handbook for descriptions of these tools.
After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.
FYI, the RAW is that picking up/pulling out is an action that you get 1 of for free every turn, so in general it's a nonissue - when sword and boarding, you can drop the sword, cast, and pick it up, and be fine. What Artificers do particularly well is hand crossbow (or pistol, if allowed) and shield: the repeating shot infusion is basically the only way in the game to wear a shield and be allowed to reload a one-handed ammunition weapon.
After rereading a bunch of stuff I believe you are right. I think the RAW allows you to drop item, cast a spell, pick up item all in one turn.
But some places i've read then debate if this is RAI mainly with the aspect that War Caster has that "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands". Now there are other aspects to War Caster but this specific point seems almost worthless with the basic rules allowing you to circumvent somatic requirements. So it begs the question if this was there intention?
also i've seen debates on the interpretation of "reaction" specifically for the shield spell. dropping a weapon is suggested to be a "non-action" because it isn't explicitly stated in the rule books anywhere so it is interpreted as such. then you have the 1 free object interaction you get on your turn but "reaction" are considered special actions that operate outside of your turn. This is again where i've seen back and forth on because the rules do not explicitly state so.
Then there is always the final tool that a DM can pull and say "oh you dropped your weapon, roll a d20. Oof the Goblin you were attacking stole your weapon".
I might be misreading all of this so bear with me. I am also trying to understand this.
I'm not sure i read this as all "artificer spells" have material component. I'm reading this similar to a bard where you use a tool as a spellcasting focus (instrument in Bard's case)
Also here they suggest that you cannot cast a somatic non-material component w/o a free hand.
You need a free hand, but the cleric in question could just drop the mace, cast, and pick it up. Sage Advice is often an odd duck, to be honest, because while it's RAW, it's equal in weight to the PHB, which means when they contradict, it becomes GM fiat which one to follow. That's why the linked entry, which is the only rule anywhere letting a holy symbol mounted on a shield result in a shield which is also a holy symbol, doesn't automatically mean that every PC at every table gets that - the GM has to pick whether to follow Sage Advice or the PHB (in which holy symbols are explicitly listed in the adventuring gear table).
Note that you can, in most campaigns, just buy common magic items, so you can solve this whole problem with a Ruby of the War Mage instead, if you like.
Also, Kenclary is correct. As an Artificer, all of your Artificer spells have an M component added to them, which is satisfied by your focus. As soon as you multiclass, this goes away, but since the multiclass rules for spellcasting are broken and don't work, your GM is 100% going to houserule them to actually work anyway, so if you want to keep needing a focus, I'm sure most any GM would let you.
ooooooooooo. that is interesting. after rereading the excerpt i see what i missed and agree.
Apologies Kenclary >.<
man so many rules xP
with this in mind than i would say this def leverages battle smith more over armorer. the free hand could come in handy (pulling a potion out?) but super minor in comparison.
This is ultimately true. The biggest irony to it is that even if they do know they are debuffed. They are still making the same choice. It's only through a powergaming metagaming standpoint of "my actions must always be optimal for what I am trying to do at any moment (Usually Damage)" that means that just because you know that you are debuffed that you absolutely must attack the one that debuffed you. However in practical application there are lots of reasons to attack somebody even if you have a disadvantage debuff in place upon that attack and players make these kinds of choices even with this kind of knowledge every day in all kinds of fights for all kinds of reasons. NPC's are realistically no different.
The Artificer is an exception case to the general rules that your pointing out here. and for the exact reasons that Kenlarky pointed out. Their class puts a restriction that even spells such as cure wounds automatically gain a Material Component requirement. It doesn't matter what they cast, Shield, cure wounds, or any other number of things that normally do not have them. Even some of the easy verbal only and their cantrip spells all require a material. That material can either be the material in question for the spell, or what is basically the arcane focus for the Artificer which is their artisans tools or infused items. Without one of these in their hand it does not work no matter what the spell is. Their hands could be completely empty and they still would not be able to cast Shield for example when casters of other types could. For them shield has an M component exception to the normal rules which must be their tools or infused item.
The Ability in question which was posted in this chain is very explicit in it's specific over general nature and differences to normal rules. It outright says that all spells must have these things in order to cast any spells what so ever. This also gives Artificers some unique interactions with items similar to the way that WarCaster does. Their hands can basically count as having a free hand to cast spells as long as they have a required item that matches their forced material component requirements in hand. Whether that it's a smithing hammer or an infused long sword.
It effectively means that unlike every other caster in the game. Artificers do not know how to and thus cannot cast spells without their hands at least partially full with particular kinds of items that focus their magical energies. This is a unique interaction that does not exist basically anywhere else in the game. So it will not just match up to other examples in the game.