There are some epic threads on this, with plenty of disagreement, but the answer is most likely "yes." If you're worried, just get your DM to agree that the gauntlets have a non-zero cost.
Another question about the gauntlets... can they be infused?
At level 9, it appears so: "That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon." I presume the "special weapon" means the Thunder Gauntlets or Lightning Launcher.
I always thought the weapon cost was to prevent people from using Booming Blade with Shadow Blade as attacking with Shadow Blade was supposed to take your full action.
I think it's more to prevent you from summoning a "free" weapon from a component pouch.
If I use Enhanced Defense on my Shield, Mind Sharpener on my Armor, It doesn't give me the option to cast Enhanced Weapon on Gauntlets... I put Winged Boots on my Boots and Helm of Awareness on my Helm... We need Gauntlets in the Other Gear section so we can enhance gauntlets...
Question about the gauntlets: By RAW, can you use them for two weapon fighting? Ie make a Bonus Action attack. If you can't, is there a way to make it possible, like taking the dual wielder feat?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Question about the gauntlets: By RAW, can you use them for two weapon fighting? Ie make a Bonus Action attack. If you can't, is there a way to make it possible, like taking the dual wielder feat?
You need to Dual Wielder feat, since gauntlets lack the 'light' property.
Thunder gauntlets cannot be used for two-weapon fighting, because they are not held. They are worn, because they are part of the armor. This is reinforced by the fact that while you are wearing them, you can hold something else in your gauntleted hands at the cost of not being able to use them for attacking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Thunder gauntlets cannot be used for two-weapon fighting, because they are not held. They are worn, because they are part of the armor. This is reinforced by the fact that while you are wearing them, you can hold something else in your gauntleted hands at the cost of not being able to use them for attacking.
While that's technically true, the same wording of being held is used for spellfocus so even though the Arcane Armor allows you to use your armor as spellfocus it technically doesn't work either so there's prescedence of WotC simply not having put much thought into the wording for the Armorer.
The thing that made me think this as well is the same thing that prompted me to think about two weapon fighting with the gauntlets in the first place - it says:
"Each of your armor's gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon".
That's a very oddly specific way of phrasing it. Normally, you'd say that "The armour's gauntlets" or, if you wish to preclude two weapon fighting, "One of the armour's gauntlets". Instead, it specifies that they individually count as weapons, which strongly suggests that they are intended to at least be able to be used in two weapon fighting.
I'm not sure they were being particularly careful in their phrasing when they were writing this up.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Thunder gauntlets cannot be used for two-weapon fighting, because they are not held. They are worn, because they are part of the armor. This is reinforced by the fact that while you are wearing them, you can hold something else in your gauntleted hands at the cost of not being able to use them for attacking.
Interestingly, I drew the opposite conclusion to you - wielding counts as holding. It's being asked in the context of a shield that gives a bonus to initiative rolls, and the asker is asking if you have to hold the shield or if wielding it counts. I think the answer to that is obvious - wielding must count as holding, it's kind of a pointless magic shield that requires you to hold but not wield it to get its magical benefits. Therefore when Crawford said "holding means holding", he meant that to mean that the meaning is inclusive rather than exclusive.
This comment is directed at Crawford, not you, but this is why I despise pithy answers. They make those agree with the responder (or, at least, those who think they do) feel superior, but they rarely actually delineate anything.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
"Each of your armor's gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon".
Yes, exactly. You attack with them like they are simple melee weapons, even though you are wearing them. (It's not even hard to visualize.)
So of course you can dual wield them. You just need the feat, because they aren't 'light.' Same as any other pair of simple melee weapons without the 'light' property. Why make this complicated?
If I use my thunder gauntlet can I pair it with booming blade cantrip?
There are some epic threads on this, with plenty of disagreement, but the answer is most likely "yes." If you're worried, just get your DM to agree that the gauntlets have a non-zero cost.
Thank you for your reply 🙏 😊
Another question about the gauntlets... can they be infused?
Wizards of the Coast Feedback/Support
https://support.wizards.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
I do not think so
At level 9, it appears so: "That armor now counts as separate items for the purposes of your Infuse Items feature: armor (the chest piece), boots, helmet, and the armor’s special weapon." I presume the "special weapon" means the Thunder Gauntlets or Lightning Launcher.
I think it's more to prevent you from summoning a "free" weapon from a component pouch.
If I use Enhanced Defense on my Shield, Mind Sharpener on my Armor, It doesn't give me the option to cast Enhanced Weapon on Gauntlets... I put Winged Boots on my Boots and Helm of Awareness on my Helm... We need Gauntlets in the Other Gear section so we can enhance gauntlets...
Wolf
Question about the gauntlets: By RAW, can you use them for two weapon fighting? Ie make a Bonus Action attack. If you can't, is there a way to make it possible, like taking the dual wielder feat?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You need to Dual Wielder feat, since gauntlets lack the 'light' property.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThunder gauntlets cannot be used for two-weapon fighting, because they are not held. They are worn, because they are part of the armor. This is reinforced by the fact that while you are wearing them, you can hold something else in your gauntleted hands at the cost of not being able to use them for attacking.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
The thing that made me think this as well is the same thing that prompted me to think about two weapon fighting with the gauntlets in the first place - it says:
"Each of your armor's gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon".
That's a very oddly specific way of phrasing it. Normally, you'd say that "The armour's gauntlets" or, if you wish to preclude two weapon fighting, "One of the armour's gauntlets". Instead, it specifies that they individually count as weapons, which strongly suggests that they are intended to at least be able to be used in two weapon fighting.
I'm not sure they were being particularly careful in their phrasing when they were writing this up.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Interestingly, I drew the opposite conclusion to you - wielding counts as holding. It's being asked in the context of a shield that gives a bonus to initiative rolls, and the asker is asking if you have to hold the shield or if wielding it counts. I think the answer to that is obvious - wielding must count as holding, it's kind of a pointless magic shield that requires you to hold but not wield it to get its magical benefits. Therefore when Crawford said "holding means holding", he meant that to mean that the meaning is inclusive rather than exclusive.
This comment is directed at Crawford, not you, but this is why I despise pithy answers. They make those agree with the responder (or, at least, those who think they do) feel superior, but they rarely actually delineate anything.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yes, exactly. You attack with them like they are simple melee weapons, even though you are wearing them. (It's not even hard to visualize.)
So of course you can dual wield them. You just need the feat, because they aren't 'light.' Same as any other pair of simple melee weapons without the 'light' property. Why make this complicated?