Nobody is making things complicated here, really. The RAW is very clear. The only complication comes from either not understanding how language works or wanting to use them for two weapon fighting and assuming/hoping WotC simply forgot about how they worded their own rules (which doesn't come from nowhere since they apparently did so for the spellcasting focus rule of the Arcane Armor as well).
Yeah, the Armorer rules are a mess just begging for some good errata or sage advice to clear them up; I think the intention is fairly well understood with a lot of it, but the "double punch" is an example that needs an answer.
That said there is plenty of precedent that they're not supposed to work in two-weapon fighting; unarmed strikes don't, nor does any creature with claws etc., we just assume they are using both sets of fists/claws to attack with but mechanically there is no need to (one free hand/paw is enough). And that's just how it's always been in 5th edition, so expecting thunder gauntlets to be different may be wishful thinking, though it would give a clear advantage for no shield vs. shield so I'm personally in favour of two-weapon fighting being allowed but it's a house-rule in that case.
But yeah, in RAW it definitely doesn't work as-is.
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.
You aren't holding your gauntlets, you're wearing them. That's a huge difference. If you were holding them you couldn't hold something else (like a shield or another item for example). The Feat doesn't change anything about that wording either.
"Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon..." -> specific beats general, it's a weapon, you can attack with it. You have two of them, they aren't 'light', so you can dual wield them with the Dual Wielding feat.
"...while you aren’t holding anything in it" -> not a weapon when you're holding a shield or anything else. No conflict with the normal rules.
Still not complicated, still no reason to come up with twisty logic to say this doesn't work. It's almost like they thought of all this, but tried to phrase it as simply as possible (and like everything else in 5e, it's vulnerable to over-thinking, semantic arguments, and rules lawyering, which a DM is fully empowered to shut down as they wish).
Anyone can rules-lawyer about this all day. Doesn't matter. I think it works, I think it's obvious that it works (why else write it that way? "Look, we're gonna forbid this, but figuring that out requires having a semantic argument about whether you're "holding" a gauntlet while wearing it, and we're gonna obfuscate that further with everything else we write...").
Were I the DM, I'd say it works. Were I the player, and the DM said it didn't work, I wouldn't try to out-lawyer them --- if they said "convince me it works" I would.
Everything else is conjecture. The OP has already gotten the answer to their (different) question; no reason to turn this thread into a repeat of the many others that had this exact same endless argument.
If I'm wearing a gauntlet (or a glove, for that matter), and I close my fist, I literally have a grip on the thing. Is that not also "holding"?
Does "counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it" not mean I can attack with it while wearing it? Nothing in the rulebook actually explicitly says I have to "hold" a weapon to use it --- it's just common sense.
Two-weapon fighting says "holding in one hand" and "holding in the other hand" to make sure you're successfully wielding each one-handed, not to suddenly try to define "holding" or "wielding" for just that rule and no other. They are not establishing a technical language, because they didn't want to. They didn't define "holding" or "wielding" in Tasha's, either, for the same reason. They just wrote "Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit" and let the reader figure out that it meant they could use each as a weapon.
See? We can do this all day. It can't end, we can't "prove" either case to each other, because that's what semantic arguments do. We're just wasting data.
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.
That would be a case of a specific rule overriding the general rule. Thunder gauntlets don't say they can be used for two-weapon fighting or have any other text which overrides the general rules of two-weapon fighting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
For RP reasons I am playing a barbarian who is dipping into artificer and I was looking into grabbing Armorer for the boost to my unarmed attacks. As I am reading these and reading the current arguments it seems that the rule regarding gauntlets as weapon only works if you are NOT holding anything in your hands. I'm reading this in the description as "Each" literally implying multiple instances of something (i.e. the gauntlets).
So is it possible that they wrote it that way to state that multiple unarmed attack with the gauntlets, would both have the thunder gauntlet ability, but not actually have any two weapon fighting properties as you can't use thunder gauntlets while holding an item in that hand?
For RP reasons I am playing a barbarian who is dipping into artificer and I was looking into grabbing Armorer for the boost to my unarmed attacks. As I am reading these and reading the current arguments it seems that the rule regarding gauntlets as weapon only works if you are NOT holding anything in your hands. I'm reading this in the description as "Each" literally implying multiple instances of something (i.e. the gauntlets).
So is it possible that they wrote it that way to state that multiple unarmed attack with the gauntlets, would both have the thunder gauntlet ability, but not actually have any two weapon fighting properties as you can't use thunder gauntlets while holding an item in that hand?
The gauntlets are a melee weapon so you actually can't make unarmed strikes with them, unlike a creature with natural weapons such as a Tabaxi (which has claws that can be explicitly used to make unarmed strikes). So if you were to multi-class into Monk for example, any bonus unarmed strikes would need to be made with another body part (feet, head etc.) or only make regular unarmed strikes (1 + STR bludgeoning damage, or Martial Arts etc.).
By default there isn't really any benefit to "each" gauntlet counting as a weapon, since they aren't light so you can't use them with two-weapon fighting as standard, meaning you only need one hand free to make as many attacks with that gauntlet as you could with any other weapon (i.e- two once you get Extra Attack at 5th-level). Since you can use your armour as your arcane focus this means that one free hand plus a shield is a very viable option for a Guardian Armorer.
However, if you get the Dual Wielder feat you can use two non-light weapons via two-weapon fighting so if you have both hands free you could make the bonus off-hand attack. It's worth nothing however that the wording on Dual Wielder is a touch ambiguous and doesn't strictly override other parts of two-weapon fighting for the gauntlets but I doubt many DMs would deny you this ability (since you'd be taking a feat and giving up access to a shield specifically to do 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.
This actually clears up a lot of the conversations I've been reading on this thread. Thank you! I know it will pop on down to the DM's discretion at the end of the day but just having a little bit of understanding and a line of discussion to draw on help immensely.
Question... Let's say i was crazy enough to multiclass into monk. Will thunder gauntlets work with flurry of blows?
No; the gauntlets are simple weapons so you can't make unarmed strikes with them (see above).
I'd ask your DM though; if you're flurrying against a single target it's only an extra 1 or 2 damage per hit on average compared to a Monk's unarmed strikes. The potential exploit is on the debuffing effect as you could potentially apply it to four enemies in a round (five with haste or a reaction attack, or six with both), but that's not necessarily pure gain as the more enemies you debuff, the more enemies are pretty much forced to attack you; having 4-6 enemies focusing attacks against you may be too much even for a guardian armorer to endure for long.
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.
you have to do it manualy becouse it dosent count as a item you cant infuse it normally but it does allow to infuse at lvl 9 but you have to do it manualy
9th level, you can infuse parts of the armor separately, however. on dnd beyond this feature is a bust, as they count as weapons but not a separate Item. What I would recommend is make a placeholder that you can still infuse, but title it as the gauntlet. This way you're still tracking your number of infusions properly and are able to apply the bonuses
yes, but don't use heavy armor or your dm will this your crazy. You can make your gauntlets your designated monk weapon. Would take some finagling for enchantments and things like that but they are still simple weapons.
You shouldn't need to; they're simple weapons with which you are proficient so they already count as Monk weapons.
The earlier question was about whether they could be used to make a Flurry of Blows, which only permits unarmed strikes; Rules As Written that's a no since Thunder Gauntlets are regular weapon attacks rather than unarmed strikes, but some DM's might allow, they just need to know what they're letting themselves in for (more damage unless the player has a lot of Monk levels already, and even more potential targets debuffed with disadvantage to attack anyone but you). This is kind of a mixed bag so not really overpowered (as the more enemies you debuff, the more will be attacking you); it's the kind of thing I'd allow as a DM, but others might not, and Adventurer's League and similar strict groups definitely won't.
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 post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, the Armorer rules are a mess just begging for some good errata or sage advice to clear them up; I think the intention is fairly well understood with a lot of it, but the "double punch" is an example that needs an answer.
That said there is plenty of precedent that they're not supposed to work in two-weapon fighting; unarmed strikes don't, nor does any creature with claws etc., we just assume they are using both sets of fists/claws to attack with but mechanically there is no need to (one free hand/paw is enough). And that's just how it's always been in 5th edition, so expecting thunder gauntlets to be different may be wishful thinking, though it would give a clear advantage for no shield vs. shield so I'm personally in favour of two-weapon fighting being allowed but it's a house-rule in that case.
But yeah, in RAW it definitely doesn't work as-is.
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.
"Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon..." -> specific beats general, it's a weapon, you can attack with it. You have two of them, they aren't 'light', so you can dual wield them with the Dual Wielding feat.
"...while you aren’t holding anything in it" -> not a weapon when you're holding a shield or anything else. No conflict with the normal rules.
Still not complicated, still no reason to come up with twisty logic to say this doesn't work. It's almost like they thought of all this, but tried to phrase it as simply as possible (and like everything else in 5e, it's vulnerable to over-thinking, semantic arguments, and rules lawyering, which a DM is fully empowered to shut down as they wish).
Anyone can rules-lawyer about this all day. Doesn't matter. I think it works, I think it's obvious that it works (why else write it that way? "Look, we're gonna forbid this, but figuring that out requires having a semantic argument about whether you're "holding" a gauntlet while wearing it, and we're gonna obfuscate that further with everything else we write...").
Were I the DM, I'd say it works. Were I the player, and the DM said it didn't work, I wouldn't try to out-lawyer them --- if they said "convince me it works" I would.
Everything else is conjecture. The OP has already gotten the answer to their (different) question; no reason to turn this thread into a repeat of the many others that had this exact same endless argument.
If I'm wearing a gauntlet (or a glove, for that matter), and I close my fist, I literally have a grip on the thing. Is that not also "holding"?
Does "counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it" not mean I can attack with it while wearing it? Nothing in the rulebook actually explicitly says I have to "hold" a weapon to use it --- it's just common sense.
Two-weapon fighting says "holding in one hand" and "holding in the other hand" to make sure you're successfully wielding each one-handed, not to suddenly try to define "holding" or "wielding" for just that rule and no other. They are not establishing a technical language, because they didn't want to. They didn't define "holding" or "wielding" in Tasha's, either, for the same reason. They just wrote "Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit" and let the reader figure out that it meant they could use each as a weapon.
See? We can do this all day. It can't end, we can't "prove" either case to each other, because that's what semantic arguments do. We're just wasting data.
That would be a case of a specific rule overriding the general rule. Thunder gauntlets don't say they can be used for two-weapon fighting or have any other text which overrides the general rules of two-weapon fighting.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
For RP reasons I am playing a barbarian who is dipping into artificer and I was looking into grabbing Armorer for the boost to my unarmed attacks. As I am reading these and reading the current arguments it seems that the rule regarding gauntlets as weapon only works if you are NOT holding anything in your hands. I'm reading this in the description as "Each" literally implying multiple instances of something (i.e. the gauntlets).
So is it possible that they wrote it that way to state that multiple unarmed attack with the gauntlets, would both have the thunder gauntlet ability, but not actually have any two weapon fighting properties as you can't use thunder gauntlets while holding an item in that hand?
The gauntlets are a melee weapon so you actually can't make unarmed strikes with them, unlike a creature with natural weapons such as a Tabaxi (which has claws that can be explicitly used to make unarmed strikes). So if you were to multi-class into Monk for example, any bonus unarmed strikes would need to be made with another body part (feet, head etc.) or only make regular unarmed strikes (1 + STR bludgeoning damage, or Martial Arts etc.).
By default there isn't really any benefit to "each" gauntlet counting as a weapon, since they aren't light so you can't use them with two-weapon fighting as standard, meaning you only need one hand free to make as many attacks with that gauntlet as you could with any other weapon (i.e- two once you get Extra Attack at 5th-level). Since you can use your armour as your arcane focus this means that one free hand plus a shield is a very viable option for a Guardian Armorer.
However, if you get the Dual Wielder feat you can use two non-light weapons via two-weapon fighting so if you have both hands free you could make the bonus off-hand attack. It's worth nothing however that the wording on Dual Wielder is a touch ambiguous and doesn't strictly override other parts of two-weapon fighting for the gauntlets but I doubt many DMs would deny you this ability (since you'd be taking a feat and giving up access to a shield specifically to do 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.
This actually clears up a lot of the conversations I've been reading on this thread. Thank you! I know it will pop on down to the DM's discretion at the end of the day but just having a little bit of understanding and a line of discussion to draw on help immensely.
Question... Let's say i was crazy enough to multiclass into monk. Will thunder gauntlets work with flurry of blows?
No; the gauntlets are simple weapons so you can't make unarmed strikes with them (see above).
I'd ask your DM though; if you're flurrying against a single target it's only an extra 1 or 2 damage per hit on average compared to a Monk's unarmed strikes. The potential exploit is on the debuffing effect as you could potentially apply it to four enemies in a round (five with haste or a reaction attack, or six with both), but that's not necessarily pure gain as the more enemies you debuff, the more enemies are pretty much forced to attack you; having 4-6 enemies focusing attacks against you may be too much even for a guardian armorer to endure for long.
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.
you have to do it manualy becouse it dosent count as a item you cant infuse it normally but it does allow to infuse at lvl 9 but you have to do it manualy
9th level, you can infuse parts of the armor separately, however. on dnd beyond this feature is a bust, as they count as weapons but not a separate Item. What I would recommend is make a placeholder that you can still infuse, but title it as the gauntlet. This way you're still tracking your number of infusions properly and are able to apply the bonuses
you could make them your designated monk weapon.
yes, but don't use heavy armor or your dm will this your crazy. You can make your gauntlets your designated monk weapon. Would take some finagling for enchantments and things like that but they are still simple weapons.
You shouldn't need to; they're simple weapons with which you are proficient so they already count as Monk weapons.
The earlier question was about whether they could be used to make a Flurry of Blows, which only permits unarmed strikes; Rules As Written that's a no since Thunder Gauntlets are regular weapon attacks rather than unarmed strikes, but some DM's might allow, they just need to know what they're letting themselves in for (more damage unless the player has a lot of Monk levels already, and even more potential targets debuffed with disadvantage to attack anyone but you). This is kind of a mixed bag so not really overpowered (as the more enemies you debuff, the more will be attacking you); it's the kind of thing I'd allow as a DM, but others might not, and Adventurer's League and similar strict groups definitely won't.
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.