So, my character in a long-running game perished a few days ago. He was an Eldritch Knight, and so when building a new character, I wanted something different.
I settled on Armorer, mainly because the subclass had been super fun when I tested it out back in the old UA days.
I imagined the character as a bounty hunter, who wore a suit of armor and overpowered their bounties through sheer technical superiority. Spells have been reflavored as armor components, and the like. I liked the image of an armored man in a poncho, dual wielding handaxes, so I picked up two of those and snagged the Dual Wielder feat via the Variant Human race.
This is where the question comes in.
I told a friend from outside the group about this new character, when he pointed out that the handaxes were most likely worse than the Thunder Gauntlets or Lightning Launcher of my Arcane Armor.
It was here he raised an interesting question- since the Thunder Gauntlets count as simple melee weapons, and since I took the Dual Wielder feat, shouldn't I be able to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to get an attack on my Bonus Action without adding the attack modifier to my damage?
I really liked this idea, and agreed with the logic, but the DM said he'd like to see another opinion because they were on the fence. Any thoughts?
So, my character in a long-running game perished a few days ago. He was an Eldritch Knight, and so when building a new character, I wanted something different.
I settled on Armorer, mainly because the subclass had been super fun when I tested it out back in the old UA days.
I imagined the character as a bounty hunter, who wore a suit of armor and overpowered their bounties through sheer technical superiority. Spells have been reflavored as armor components, and the like. I liked the image of an armored man in a poncho, dual wielding handaxes, so I picked up two of those and snagged the Dual Wielder feat via the Variant Human race.
This is where the question comes in.
I told a friend from outside the group about this new character, when he pointed out that the handaxes were most likely worse than the Thunder Gauntlets or Lightning Launcher of my Arcane Armor.
It was here he raised an interesting question- since the Thunder Gauntlets count as simple melee weapons, and since I took the Dual Wielder feat, shouldn't I be able to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to get an attack on my Bonus Action without adding the attack modifier to my damage?
I really liked this idea, and agreed with the logic, but the DM said he'd like to see another opinion because they were on the fence. Any thoughts?
Yes, by a strict reading of the RAW, assuming that's what your DM wants - obviously he can go with his gut if he doesn't. What you'll need to do is take your gauntlets off and hold them in your hands, to qualify for the unfortunate wording of the Dual Wielder feat. Due to the very curious wording of Thunder Gauntlets, they remain weapons while they aren't holding anything - not while you're wearing them.Once you're holding the gauntlets, you can club people to death with them using the Dual Wielder feat just fine, and all of your other rules will work, too.
I really liked this idea, and agreed with the logic, but the DM said he'd like to see another opinion because they were on the fence. Any thoughts?
My DM said "yes, but the " taunt" can only affect one target" when I asked the same question (with the addition that "light" is given and the feat is not needed.)
If you're someone who insists on a literal interpretation of every rule, then no, because you're not "holding" the gauntlets.
If you're not, then sure, go for it.
Dual Wielder doesn't even specifically say holding, it says wielding, though for tools and weapons most dictionary definitions say that that means to hold; it's a super wierd wording when two-weapon fighting doesn't use it, but it's also a wording from a time before the Armorer sub-class.
But yeah, super-literal, AL levels of RAW it's a no; whether or not your DM should allow it though will depend on your party, as allowing it enables an Armorer to gain a total of three attacks using Thunder Gauntlets meaning you can inflict disadvantage on up to three targets in a single round, this could be strong compared to a party that's not super well optimised, but in general I don't think it's OP (as best case scenario you're forcing three enemies to attack you, heh).
My DM said "yes, but the " taunt" can only affect one target" when I asked the same question (with the addition that "light" is given and the feat is not needed.)
Surely it should still be able to affect two targets from fifth level (due to Extra Attack), i.e- only the Bonus Action attack ignores the "taunt" effect?
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.
Since you have the Dual Wielder Feat you would be able to dual wield the gauntlets. I'm not even going to get into Harvick's whole rant about how by RaW they don't work unless your holding them and not wearing them... because it's not worth it.
The reality is that your Wielding them whenever your not holding something else. They aren't Light so that's what stops you from dual wielding usually. But the Dual Wielder feat removes the light requirement. thus as long as you have nothing in your hands you are wielding the gauntlets and thanks to the Feat you can now do both of them.
The Taunting Affect also should work on anything that you hit with them. I can understand that was a DM's homebrew to make them work without the feat. But it's not needed when the Feat is already involved as per the Original Post.
Edit: The Only questionable parts of even doing it in most of the arguments are not even about holding the gauntlets or not. It's been mostly over the fact that they are not light. And there is some grey area about whether the fists are ever two weapons. which is very different from some inane argument about what wielding means that the Armorer's feature already addresses.
My DM said "yes, but the " taunt" can only affect one target" when I asked the same question (with the addition that "light" is given and the feat is not needed.)
Surely it should still be able to affect two targets from fifth level (due to Extra Attack), i.e- only the Bonus Action attack ignores the "taunt" effect?
The Taunting Affect also should work on anything that you hit with them. I can understand that was a DM's homebrew to make them work without the feat. But it's not needed when the Feat is already involved as per the Original Post.
You guys are not wrong. At the time, we were not lv5 (so the extra attack part did not even register) and they ruled in favor of following the precedent of other taunt-like abilities being single-target only, and like you said, as a trade-off for not needing the feat.
Alas, I only used the Guardian form for a short period of time despite asking my DM to make the various rulings regarding the shenanigans to be had with the Thunder Gauntlets.
Since you have the Dual Wielder Feat you would be able to dual wield the gauntlets. I'm not even going to get into Harvick's whole rant about how by RaW they don't work unless your holding them and not wearing them... because it's not worth it.
It's not a "rant"; it's literally what the feat says and the words mean. You might want it to say something else, and I would agree with you that that's probably how it's supposed to work (I've literally never argued otherwise), and that Wizards of the Coast very likely just didn't consider that you don't wield gauntlets, you wear them, but none of that changes that that's not what it says. I've already made these points.
If you don't want to argue RAW, then simply don't; don't go flinging personal insults instead or I'll report you for it.
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.
Since you have the Dual Wielder Feat you would be able to dual wield the gauntlets. I'm not even going to get into Harvick's whole rant about how by RaW they don't work unless your holding them and not wearing them... because it's not worth it.
It's not a "rant"; it's literally what the feat says and the words mean. You might want it to say something else, and I would agree with you that that's probably how it's supposed to work (I've literally never argued otherwise), and that Wizards of the Coast very likely just didn't consider that you don't wield gauntlets, you wear them, but none of that changes that that's not what it says. I've already made these points.
If you don't want to argue RAW, then simply don't; don't go flinging personal insults instead or I'll report you for it.
No. Your twisting the words into meaning to make your sarcastic attack about things. But the game actually defines that you are wielding them whenever you are wearing them and not holding onto anything else. Which trumps everything that your claiming language doesn't support. Even if we ignore most of what your saying by trying to take words and twist them into the worst possible light to make your argument.
Also there are plenty of things that are wielded without holding them. Things like Boxing Gloves, Brass Knuckles, and several kinds of real world punch daggers which are real world things your trying to say real world language does not apply to.
I can even back up my words with actual definitions. Which I'll do now.
1. to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
Most other Dictionaries support these two definitions in some form. Some use language that is easier to twist than others. I am aware of this. But when they are they are usually over simplified versions of the second of these definitions and say things like "To Hold and Use." Which I am aware that is what your using to make your arugment from. yet your not really using Gauntlet's effectively if your just holding them in your hand are you? Just like some of the weapons that I mentioned are not necessarily being in a state of standard effective usability if your just holding onto them.
No. Your twisting the words into meaning to make your sarcastic attack about things.
No, I'm not, but thanks for once again making this personal by insisting I'm twisting words or being "sarcastic"; if you can't discuss something without attacking me, then you shouldn't.
But the game actually defines that you are wielding them whenever you are wearing them and not holding onto anything else.
Citation please, because I'm pretty sure the rules do no such thing. Neither the rules for Making an Attack nor Weapons use the world wield, except in reference to proficiency only (but the Thunder Gauntlets feature specifically overrides this regardless).
Also there are plenty of things that are wielded without holding them. Things like Boxing Gloves, Brass Knuckles, and several kinds of real world punch daggers which are real world things your trying to say real world language does not apply to.
Again, citation please. You can absolutely use these but you don't wield either boxing gloves or brass knuckles, you wear them; boxing gloves also aren't a weapon, they're protective gear. Brass knuckles are more of a grey area (as legally they're absolutely classed as offensive weapons) but you're still attacking primarily with your fists, the brass knuckles are both protective and deal additional damage. Only a punch dagger can be clearly classed as wielded, but that's because you're still holding it by a handle, the dagger itself is the weapon.
I can even back up my words with actual definitions. Which I'll do now.
1. to exercise (power, authority, influence, etc.), as in ruling or dominating.
2. to use (a weapon, instrument, etc.) effectively; handle or employ actively.
Most other Dictionaries support these two definitions in some form. Some use language that is easier to twist than others.
It looks like you're only using the Dictionary.com definition (from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary), however several other dictionaries more explicitly agree with the use of holding rather than the more vague handling (which is still arguably to hold in the case of a weapon being used rather than an item being tested for weight, quality etc.).
Other definitions use handle (which is a bit vague, but in weapon terms usually still means to hold rather than simply to manipulate/touch/move), or brandish which is basically useless (because it often means flourish or swing, so are these only wielded while doing those things?) but hold is very commonly used.
There's also the simple fact that the two-weapon fighting rule, that the Dual Wielder feat builds upon, very specifically says you must hold the weapons being used:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.
Which the Dual Wielder feat doesn't actually override, it only adds an exception, not a change in definition:
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
It's not saying "you can wield two one-handed weapons that are not light and still use them for two-weapon fighting" or something similar (such that wield could override held), it is saying that you can use two-weapon fighting (which requires holding the weapons) even when the weapons you're wielding aren't light, i.e- you must be both wielding and holding the weapons to use them as if they were light, as you still need to meet the other requirements for two-weapon fighting.
So it really doesn't matter how you approach it; the two-weapon fighting rule specifically says you must hold the weapons, the Dual Wielder feat doesn't specifically override that, and even if it did enough definitions of wield still state or imply holding the weapons that it wouldn't matter. There's also the fact that whether or not something is held is very important in D&D (as it determines whether certain spell effects and abilities apply to them or not) so it's not something you can simply dismiss in RAW just because that's how you want it it to work.
And ultimately, as I've already said, it's probably not intended to work this way for Thunder Gauntlets, but we're talking about rules that were literally written years before gauntlet weapons existed, so it's probably just an oversight/poor choice of wording either in the original two-weapon fighting and Dual Wielder rules, or the Thunder Gauntlet rules, or both, as the Armorer rules introduce a bunch of other issues by virtue of being too simple and not worderd quite as well as they could have been.
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.
to bear, sustain, or support, as with the hands or arms, or by any other means.
Oxford English Dictionary definition for Hold:
influence, power or control over somebody/something
Cambridge Dictionary definition for Hold:
To support something
Also, the Oxford definition for wield is "to hold and use." Rules as written do not ever state if you are holding or not holding the gauntlets. Rules as implied/intended suggests you would actually be holding them all the time, but you can only wield them as weapons when something else is not being held by them. So yes, you are holding them, and yes you should be able to use two weapon fighting with them if you have the dual wielding feat.
I don’t know about anyone else but thes arguments over personal interpretations of dictionary definitions is getting ridiculous. What they really point out is that, as usual, WOtC is obtuse in its descriptions of RAW allowing DMs multiple possible interpretations. So let’s look RAI - the OP had the dual wielding feat allowing him to use any (non heavy/2handed I believe) weapons they wanted so using both gauntlets in one round as either an action and bonus action or as, starting at L5, the 2 attacks of the attack action should be allowed probably including the taunt. Personally I would rule that starting at L5 you could not make 3 attacks with them but could cast a bonus action cantrip (not that there are many of them). I might ven allow bonus action L1 spells.
I don’t know about anyone else but thes arguments over personal interpretations of dictionary definitions is getting ridiculous. What they really point out is that, as usual, WOtC is obtuse in its descriptions of RAW allowing DMs multiple possible interpretations. So let’s look RAI - the OP had the dual wielding feat allowing him to use any (non heavy/2handed I believe) weapons they wanted so using both gauntlets in one round as either an action and bonus action or as, starting at L5, the 2 attacks of the attack action should be allowed probably including the taunt. Personally I would rule that starting at L5 you could not make 3 attacks with them but could cast a bonus action cantrip (not that there are many of them). I might ven allow bonus action L1 spells.
It looks to me like you've got the two-weapon fighting rules mixed up. You don't get an automatic free attack off with the offhand weapon. You can only make the extra attack on your Bonus Action. Meaning that you would be making three attacks, but would be unable to do anything else during the turn. And it comes at the cost of a valuable feat.
Also, I'm pretty sure that I was right here. The description for the Thunder Gauntlets specifically describes them counting as "simple melee weapons."
These are the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action and Attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a Bonus Action to Attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus Attack, unless that modifier is negative.
And here are the applicable rules for Dual Wielder:
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
I'd say that, based on this, it does work, no homebrew required.
The point I was making was that starting at L 5 you don’t actually need TWF at all since you can make 2 gauntlet attacks with the 2 attacks of your attack action. Then he bonus action is still free and you might be able to sweet talk them into allowing you to cast a bonus action spell or cantrip with it.
The point I was making was that starting at L 5 you don’t actually need TWF at all since you can make 2 gauntlet attacks with the 2 attacks of your attack action. Then he bonus action is still free and you might be able to sweet talk them into allowing you to cast a bonus action spell or cantrip with it.
Not sure why I'd need to sweet talk the DM into letting me cast a spell or cantrip that requires a bonus action as a bonus action, that's just how the rules work.
As for TWF, my playstyle is more to throw up some active buff spells and then move in with melee attacks. Three gauntlet attacks in one round at level 5 with Heat Metal, Blur or something else like that going in the background works better for me.
As for TWF, my playstyle is more to throw up some active buff spells and then move in with melee attacks. Three gauntlet attacks in one round at level 5 with Heat Metal, Blur or something else like that going in the background works better for me.
Heat Metal requires your bonus action to trigger the extra damage each turn, so you wouldn't be able to do three attacks with two-weapon fighting while it's active? It's a very powerful combo even with two basic attacks, or a single attack using Green Flame Blade or such.
You definitely need Dual Wielder for your proposed three attacks though, as the Thunder Gauntlets are not light weapons, so they're ineligible for two-weapon fighting no matter how you interpret the rest of it (held vs. worn etc.).
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.
As for TWF, my playstyle is more to throw up some active buff spells and then move in with melee attacks. Three gauntlet attacks in one round at level 5 with Heat Metal, Blur or something else like that going in the background works better for me.
Heat Metal requires your bonus action to trigger the extra damage each turn, so you wouldn't be able to do three attacks with two-weapon fighting while it's active? It's a very powerful combo even with two basic attacks, or a single attack using Green Flame Blade or such.
You definitely need Dual Wielder for your proposed three attacks though, as the Thunder Gauntlets are not light weapons, so they're ineligible for two-weapon fighting no matter how you interpret the rest of it (held vs. worn etc.).
Ah, you're right. I haven't played this character in a while, so I just looked up and down their spell list for anything concentration that lasted a while to provide an example.
So, my character in a long-running game perished a few days ago. He was an Eldritch Knight, and so when building a new character, I wanted something different.
I settled on Armorer, mainly because the subclass had been super fun when I tested it out back in the old UA days.
I imagined the character as a bounty hunter, who wore a suit of armor and overpowered their bounties through sheer technical superiority. Spells have been reflavored as armor components, and the like. I liked the image of an armored man in a poncho, dual wielding handaxes, so I picked up two of those and snagged the Dual Wielder feat via the Variant Human race.
This is where the question comes in.
I told a friend from outside the group about this new character, when he pointed out that the handaxes were most likely worse than the Thunder Gauntlets or Lightning Launcher of my Arcane Armor.
It was here he raised an interesting question- since the Thunder Gauntlets count as simple melee weapons, and since I took the Dual Wielder feat, shouldn't I be able to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to get an attack on my Bonus Action without adding the attack modifier to my damage?
I really liked this idea, and agreed with the logic, but the DM said he'd like to see another opinion because they were on the fence. Any thoughts?
Yes, by a strict reading of the RAW, assuming that's what your DM wants - obviously he can go with his gut if he doesn't. What you'll need to do is take your gauntlets off and hold them in your hands, to qualify for the unfortunate wording of the Dual Wielder feat. Due to the very curious wording of Thunder Gauntlets, they remain weapons while they aren't holding anything - not while you're wearing them.Once you're holding the gauntlets, you can club people to death with them using the Dual Wielder feat just fine, and all of your other rules will work, too.
Thank you for that hilarious mental image. I barely stifled that laughter.
I have a question. If you're my dm and I want to argue that its a dumb rule and that i should be allowed to attack as a bonus action because if i have the gaunlets on and nothing in my hands i can't attack as a bonus but if I put two short swords in my hand while still wearing my gauntlets increasing the weight i have to control i can now attack as a bonus action? how would you rule it?
While I'm strongly on the opinion you should be able to attack as a bonus acion with dual wielder, I still think that argument isn't very valid. It's the same as with daggers and unarmed strikes. If I don't hold anything in my hands I can't "dual wield" fists as in attack with a bonus action. The second I grab two daggers I'm suddenly fast enough.
That is just the point where the game starts, It's just how the rules work.
So, my character in a long-running game perished a few days ago. He was an Eldritch Knight, and so when building a new character, I wanted something different.
I settled on Armorer, mainly because the subclass had been super fun when I tested it out back in the old UA days.
I imagined the character as a bounty hunter, who wore a suit of armor and overpowered their bounties through sheer technical superiority. Spells have been reflavored as armor components, and the like. I liked the image of an armored man in a poncho, dual wielding handaxes, so I picked up two of those and snagged the Dual Wielder feat via the Variant Human race.
This is where the question comes in.
I told a friend from outside the group about this new character, when he pointed out that the handaxes were most likely worse than the Thunder Gauntlets or Lightning Launcher of my Arcane Armor.
It was here he raised an interesting question- since the Thunder Gauntlets count as simple melee weapons, and since I took the Dual Wielder feat, shouldn't I be able to use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules to get an attack on my Bonus Action without adding the attack modifier to my damage?
I really liked this idea, and agreed with the logic, but the DM said he'd like to see another opinion because they were on the fence. Any thoughts?
There's been a lot of arguing about it.
If you're someone who insists on a literal interpretation of every rule, then no, because you're not "holding" the gauntlets.
If you're not, then sure, go for it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes, by a strict reading of the RAW, assuming that's what your DM wants - obviously he can go with his gut if he doesn't. What you'll need to do is take your gauntlets off and hold them in your hands, to qualify for the unfortunate wording of the Dual Wielder feat. Due to the very curious wording of Thunder Gauntlets, they remain weapons while they aren't holding anything - not while you're wearing them. Once you're holding the gauntlets, you can club people to death with them using the Dual Wielder feat just fine, and all of your other rules will work, too.
My DM said "yes, but the " taunt" can only affect one target" when I asked the same question (with the addition that "light" is given and the feat is not needed.)
Dual Wielder doesn't even specifically say holding, it says wielding, though for tools and weapons most dictionary definitions say that that means to hold; it's a super wierd wording when two-weapon fighting doesn't use it, but it's also a wording from a time before the Armorer sub-class.
But yeah, super-literal, AL levels of RAW it's a no; whether or not your DM should allow it though will depend on your party, as allowing it enables an Armorer to gain a total of three attacks using Thunder Gauntlets meaning you can inflict disadvantage on up to three targets in a single round, this could be strong compared to a party that's not super well optimised, but in general I don't think it's OP (as best case scenario you're forcing three enemies to attack you, heh).
Surely it should still be able to affect two targets from fifth level (due to Extra Attack), i.e- only the Bonus Action attack ignores the "taunt" effect?
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.
Since you have the Dual Wielder Feat you would be able to dual wield the gauntlets. I'm not even going to get into Harvick's whole rant about how by RaW they don't work unless your holding them and not wearing them... because it's not worth it.
The reality is that your Wielding them whenever your not holding something else. They aren't Light so that's what stops you from dual wielding usually. But the Dual Wielder feat removes the light requirement. thus as long as you have nothing in your hands you are wielding the gauntlets and thanks to the Feat you can now do both of them.
The Taunting Affect also should work on anything that you hit with them. I can understand that was a DM's homebrew to make them work without the feat. But it's not needed when the Feat is already involved as per the Original Post.
Edit: The Only questionable parts of even doing it in most of the arguments are not even about holding the gauntlets or not. It's been mostly over the fact that they are not light. And there is some grey area about whether the fists are ever two weapons. which is very different from some inane argument about what wielding means that the Armorer's feature already addresses.
You guys are not wrong. At the time, we were not lv5 (so the extra attack part did not even register) and they ruled in favor of following the precedent of other taunt-like abilities being single-target only, and like you said, as a trade-off for not needing the feat.
Alas, I only used the Guardian form for a short period of time despite asking my DM to make the various rulings regarding the shenanigans to be had with the Thunder Gauntlets.
It's not a "rant"; it's literally what the feat says and the words mean. You might want it to say something else, and I would agree with you that that's probably how it's supposed to work (I've literally never argued otherwise), and that Wizards of the Coast very likely just didn't consider that you don't wield gauntlets, you wear them, but none of that changes that that's not what it says. I've already made these points.
If you don't want to argue RAW, then simply don't; don't go flinging personal insults instead or I'll report you for it.
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.
No. Your twisting the words into meaning to make your sarcastic attack about things. But the game actually defines that you are wielding them whenever you are wearing them and not holding onto anything else. Which trumps everything that your claiming language doesn't support. Even if we ignore most of what your saying by trying to take words and twist them into the worst possible light to make your argument.
Also there are plenty of things that are wielded without holding them. Things like Boxing Gloves, Brass Knuckles, and several kinds of real world punch daggers which are real world things your trying to say real world language does not apply to.
I can even back up my words with actual definitions. Which I'll do now.
Most other Dictionaries support these two definitions in some form. Some use language that is easier to twist than others. I am aware of this. But when they are they are usually over simplified versions of the second of these definitions and say things like "To Hold and Use." Which I am aware that is what your using to make your arugment from. yet your not really using Gauntlet's effectively if your just holding them in your hand are you? Just like some of the weapons that I mentioned are not necessarily being in a state of standard effective usability if your just holding onto them.
I am Argueing RaW.
No, I'm not, but thanks for once again making this personal by insisting I'm twisting words or being "sarcastic"; if you can't discuss something without attacking me, then you shouldn't.
Citation please, because I'm pretty sure the rules do no such thing. Neither the rules for Making an Attack nor Weapons use the world wield, except in reference to proficiency only (but the Thunder Gauntlets feature specifically overrides this regardless).
Again, citation please. You can absolutely use these but you don't wield either boxing gloves or brass knuckles, you wear them; boxing gloves also aren't a weapon, they're protective gear. Brass knuckles are more of a grey area (as legally they're absolutely classed as offensive weapons) but you're still attacking primarily with your fists, the brass knuckles are both protective and deal additional damage. Only a punch dagger can be clearly classed as wielded, but that's because you're still holding it by a handle, the dagger itself is the weapon.
It looks like you're only using the Dictionary.com definition (from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary), however several other dictionaries more explicitly agree with the use of holding rather than the more vague handling (which is still arguably to hold in the case of a weapon being used rather than an item being tested for weight, quality etc.).
Oxford English Dictionary:
Cambridge English Dictionary:
Lexico (Oxford University Press):
Other definitions use handle (which is a bit vague, but in weapon terms usually still means to hold rather than simply to manipulate/touch/move), or brandish which is basically useless (because it often means flourish or swing, so are these only wielded while doing those things?) but hold is very commonly used.
There's also the simple fact that the two-weapon fighting rule, that the Dual Wielder feat builds upon, very specifically says you must hold the weapons being used:
Which the Dual Wielder feat doesn't actually override, it only adds an exception, not a change in definition:
It's not saying "you can wield two one-handed weapons that are not light and still use them for two-weapon fighting" or something similar (such that wield could override held), it is saying that you can use two-weapon fighting (which requires holding the weapons) even when the weapons you're wielding aren't light, i.e- you must be both wielding and holding the weapons to use them as if they were light, as you still need to meet the other requirements for two-weapon fighting.
So it really doesn't matter how you approach it; the two-weapon fighting rule specifically says you must hold the weapons, the Dual Wielder feat doesn't specifically override that, and even if it did enough definitions of wield still state or imply holding the weapons that it wouldn't matter. There's also the fact that whether or not something is held is very important in D&D (as it determines whether certain spell effects and abilities apply to them or not) so it's not something you can simply dismiss in RAW just because that's how you want it it to work.
And ultimately, as I've already said, it's probably not intended to work this way for Thunder Gauntlets, but we're talking about rules that were literally written years before gauntlet weapons existed, so it's probably just an oversight/poor choice of wording either in the original two-weapon fighting and Dual Wielder rules, or the Thunder Gauntlet rules, or both, as the Armorer rules introduce a bunch of other issues by virtue of being too simple and not worderd quite as well as they could have been.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I can argue that you are holding the gauntlets.
Dictionary.com definition for Hold:
to bear, sustain, or support, as with the hands or arms, or by any other means.
Oxford English Dictionary definition for Hold:
influence, power or control over somebody/something
Cambridge Dictionary definition for Hold:
To support something
Also, the Oxford definition for wield is "to hold and use." Rules as written do not ever state if you are holding or not holding the gauntlets. Rules as implied/intended suggests you would actually be holding them all the time, but you can only wield them as weapons when something else is not being held by them. So yes, you are holding them, and yes you should be able to use two weapon fighting with them if you have the dual wielding feat.
I don’t know about anyone else but thes arguments over personal interpretations of dictionary definitions is getting ridiculous. What they really point out is that, as usual, WOtC is obtuse in its descriptions of RAW allowing DMs multiple possible interpretations. So let’s look RAI - the OP had the dual wielding feat allowing him to use any (non heavy/2handed I believe) weapons they wanted so using both gauntlets in one round as either an action and bonus action or as, starting at L5, the 2 attacks of the attack action should be allowed probably including the taunt. Personally I would rule that starting at L5 you could not make 3 attacks with them but could cast a bonus action cantrip (not that there are many of them). I might ven allow bonus action L1 spells.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It looks to me like you've got the two-weapon fighting rules mixed up. You don't get an automatic free attack off with the offhand weapon. You can only make the extra attack on your Bonus Action. Meaning that you would be making three attacks, but would be unable to do anything else during the turn. And it comes at the cost of a valuable feat.
Also, I'm pretty sure that I was right here. The description for the Thunder Gauntlets specifically describes them counting as "simple melee weapons."
These are the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting:
And here are the applicable rules for Dual Wielder:
I'd say that, based on this, it does work, no homebrew required.
The point I was making was that starting at L 5 you don’t actually need TWF at all since you can make 2 gauntlet attacks with the 2 attacks of your attack action. Then he bonus action is still free and you might be able to sweet talk them into allowing you to cast a bonus action spell or cantrip with it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Not sure why I'd need to sweet talk the DM into letting me cast a spell or cantrip that requires a bonus action as a bonus action, that's just how the rules work.
As for TWF, my playstyle is more to throw up some active buff spells and then move in with melee attacks. Three gauntlet attacks in one round at level 5 with Heat Metal, Blur or something else like that going in the background works better for me.
Heat Metal requires your bonus action to trigger the extra damage each turn, so you wouldn't be able to do three attacks with two-weapon fighting while it's active? It's a very powerful combo even with two basic attacks, or a single attack using Green Flame Blade or such.
You definitely need Dual Wielder for your proposed three attacks though, as the Thunder Gauntlets are not light weapons, so they're ineligible for two-weapon fighting no matter how you interpret the rest of it (held vs. worn etc.).
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.
Ah, you're right. I haven't played this character in a while, so I just looked up and down their spell list for anything concentration that lasted a while to provide an example.
My mistake.
Thank you for that hilarious mental image. I barely stifled that laughter.
I have a question. If you're my dm and I want to argue that its a dumb rule and that i should be allowed to attack as a bonus action because if i have the gaunlets on and nothing in my hands i can't attack as a bonus but if I put two short swords in my hand while still wearing my gauntlets increasing the weight i have to control i can now attack as a bonus action? how would you rule it?
While I'm strongly on the opinion you should be able to attack as a bonus acion with dual wielder, I still think that argument isn't very valid. It's the same as with daggers and unarmed strikes. If I don't hold anything in my hands I can't "dual wield" fists as in attack with a bonus action. The second I grab two daggers I'm suddenly fast enough.
That is just the point where the game starts, It's just how the rules work.