If I’m not mistaken, any melee weapon can be thrown for d4 damage and a 20/60 range due to the improvised weapon rules… would this allow an Artificer’s Thunder Gauntlets (with returning weapon infusion) to control more area and be a more flexible ranged tank?
’Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.’
Edit: Alternatively, increasing reach in the multiple crazy ways you can do that would also work: Bugbear, Lunging Attack, Large Size etc.
The Returning Weapon infusion only applies to a weapon with the thrown property, which unfortunately doesn't include the Thunder Gauntlets.
The good news is that the 14th-level infusion Arcane Propulsion Armor specifically allows you to launch your gauntlets in the manner you describe, so high-level Armorer can do exactly what you described.
Item: A simple or martial weapon with the thrown property
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and it returns to the wielder’s hand immediately after it is used to make a ranged attack.’
I just saw the ranged attack… that is such a shame, hmm I wonder if there is a way around that with a lower level or more accessible magic item?
Edit: Arcane Propulsion Arm was what I was thinking of but weirdly that is a very rare item!
I would like to add: There is much discussion about whether you can really combine Thunder Gauntlets and Arcane Propulsion Arm (see here and some other places, please don't start again: 'click me I'm a link') - and how and which effect and damage works out, so even with that solution you should speak to your DM to make a ruling before doing something like that.
Also, some DMs might argue as soon as you use a weapon for an attack other than its usual uses (throwing a melee weapon without thrown property, hitting something with your bow etc.) it ceases to have the properties it usualy has (you don't need ammo for hitting things with a longbow - but the damage won't be 1d10 etc.). So even if you throw the thunder gauntlets (without them coming back) the distracting pulse might not work as advertised because instead of hitting somone in the face with an armored and charged up fist you're now just throwing a gauntlet with no "punch" behind it.
Yeah... I do not want to rehash that messy and clustered thread, which mostly just entailed people throwing opinions at each other.
Rather, I actually wanted to look at thrown weapon in itself, whether by Tavern Brawler, Improvised Weapon or even for a very MAD but otherwise RAW and RAI functional multiclass of Armourer Artificer 3 Giant Barbarian 6.
With Giant Barbarian's Elemental Cleaver feature, the Thunder Gauntlets become 1d20 + proficiency + intellegence modifier to hit and then 1d8+5+1d6 acid, cold, fire, thunder, or lightning and gains the thrown property, with a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet. If you throw the weapon, it reappears in your hand the instant after it hits or misses a target.
Or if you wanted to use Strength instead: 1d20 + proficiency + strength modifier to hit, but then an extra two damage from rage through the Giant’s Havoc feature
Yes the above is a very specific example that I think would be very hard to argue against... but I think it goes to show that ranged Thunder Gauntlets are at least possible with some creative thinking.
Crazy Barb Artificer Build:
Using medium armour and shield
Giant Barbarian 1-6 Rage: resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. Again no Heavy Armour Reckless Attack: Adv to attack in melee Multi Attack Crushing Throw: +Rage Damage for Strength thrown weapons Elemental Cleaver: +1d6, choose element, gains 20/60 thrown and returning Fast Movement: +10ft movement not wearing heavy armour
Armourer Artificer 1-3 Utility spells or some you can cast before raging Infusions: +1 AC +1 to hit and damage Thunder Gauntlets. deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit. A creature hit by the gauntlet has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you until the start of your next turn.
Not to rehash another quite anoying thread, but there are some people arguing, that you are not "holding" the gauntlets and therefor dual Wielder wouldn't work with them (I don't think so, but as I said, let's not redo that conversation). If you say that is a valid argument then it would also disallow the elemental Cleaver. I don't think one should be so pedantic in the face of a Giant Barbarian Smartass punching people with what is funcionally rocket-punches, but that's just me.
My point still stands: Ask your DM before going for any shenanigans. They might disagree
The Elemental Cleaver feature allows you to apply the thrown property to "one weapon that you are holding." While the physical gauntlet could function as an improvised weapon if you held it, it doesn't get the Artificer benefits unless it counts as a Thunder Gauntlet, and that's the sticking point.
Under the Armor Model feature, your armor model "gives you special benefits while you wear it." The Thunder Gauntlets form part of that feature, and are therefore arguably a "benefit" in the strictest sense. Similarly, the Thunder Gauntlets feature itself says, "Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it..." My reading of that would be that you need to be wearing the gauntlets for them to function as weapons. If you throw them, you're no longer wearing them. This is borne out by the fact that there's a specific Infusion designed to allow you to throw your Thunder Gauntlets around.
Ultimately, when you reach this level of hair-splitting, it's something to ask the DM to make a ruling on. Fun thought experiment, though.
Thank you both for your input! I personally hate relying on DM fiat (especially in my favour) because it feels like homebrew rather than creative use of my existing features :-(
I do wonder if a lot of these debates are putting empthasis on flavour here though rather than any technical terms or rules that actually carry any mechanical weight. Are wear and wield interchangeable? It appears to me that the difference between wearing and wielding is just a simple semantic reference to the type of item (so literally semantics):
Wearing and Wielding Items Using a magic item’s properties might mean wearing or wielding it. A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held.
In most cases, a magic item that’s meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer. Rare exceptions exist. If the story suggests a good reason for an item to fit only creatures of a certain size or shape, you can rule that it doesn’t adjust. For example, drow-made armor might fit elves only. Dwarves might make items usable only by dwarf-sized and dwarf-shaped folk.
When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs can’t wear boots.
However, in this example because an item of armour becomes a weapon, both could/should apply... But I may be missing a part of the rules that actually stresses the importance of the difference between this vague terms. *shrug
If like me you have ever loostened a shoe or glove to then launch it across a room at someone, I think it feels pretty clear how this combo is intended to function, but yeah perhaps you are right and that this would depend on persuading a DM
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D, Youth Work and the Priesthood sadly do not typically interact... I do what I can!
Thank you both for your input! I personally hate relying on DM fiat (especially in my favour) because it feels like homebrew rather than creative use of my existing features :-(
I do wonder if a lot of these debates are putting empthasis on flavour here though rather than any technical terms or rules that actually carry any mechanical weight. Are wear and wield interchangeable? It appears to me that the difference between wearing and wielding is just a simple semantic reference to the type of item (so literally semantics):
Wearing and Wielding Items Using a magic item’s properties might mean wearing or wielding it. A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held.
In most cases, a magic item that’s meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer. Rare exceptions exist. If the story suggests a good reason for an item to fit only creatures of a certain size or shape, you can rule that it doesn’t adjust. For example, drow-made armor might fit elves only. Dwarves might make items usable only by dwarf-sized and dwarf-shaped folk.
When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs can’t wear boots.
Happy to help.
At the risk of veering too far from the original topic, I don't think wearing and wielding are indistinct terms. You can wield a hammer, but you'd struggle to wear it in any meaningful sense - and even if you plonked it on your head, passers-by would be unlikely to compliment your new hat.
Similarly, commonly understood meaning forms an important part of the mechanics for Wearing and Wielding Items. Per the passage above, "A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held." If a pair of magical boots say you have to wear them to gain their effect, every player at the table understands that they go on your feet.
Again, DM fiat is the deciding factor in these decisions, and honestly, I think creative use of magical items should (mostly) be rewarded. But if you're going to wear a hammer on your head, you're going to have to be prepared to convince other people that it's a hat, you know?
I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the interchangeability of those words, say you wanted to infuse either a shield or a breastplate as an Artificer, it uses both words:
Enhanced Defense
Item: A suit of armor or a shield
A creature gains a +1 bonus to Armor Class while wearing (armor) or wielding (shield) the infused item.
The bonus increases to +2 when you reach 10th level in this class.
Because wear and wield are semantic (the analysis of word meanings and relations between them) simply refer to using the item in the intended way.
To use you straw hammer head argument above, if an infusion allowed you to transform a hammer into a hat that you can also headbang with to inflict damage on your enemies - then the word meanings and relationships between them would be a bit more complex as the hammer remains a weapon that feasibly you could hold but also an item of clothing that you could wear.
Neither wear not wield mean anything though apart from the correct using of the item.
In this case, the gauntlet is both a weapon and an item of clothing - as long as these two concepts can coexist, then so can the semantic labels that refer to the correct use of them.
TLDR:
Wear ≠ Wield
Wear = correct intended use of armour or clothing
Wield = correct intended use of weapon or shield
Wear | Wield = correct intended use of armour | weapon
Wear | Wield = correct intended use of item
Wear = correct intended use of item
Wield = correct intended use of item
And so I wield my gloves with intent to harm flailing with reckless abandon at all within range, because I am scared and these gloves that I wear protect me from the pain of hitting people.
edit: oops your right, we have veered well off topic… any other ways you can think of that might be a little bit less table/DM dependent?
Echo Knight allows for some ‘ranged’ shenanigans as it allows the player character to be essentially in two places at once in order to make melee attacks - which since for the majority of the game the Artificer is going to be limited to two or three attacks means that effectively a Fighter dip could fit the need of having more battlemap presence to control the combat.
Edit: likewise some spells like Zephyr Strike can enable proper presence similar to the effect of growing large and gaining reach like I mentioned earlier in the thread.
Edit 2: Or Horizon Walker’s Distant Strike ability which can add an attack depending on perfect use of a 10ft teleport between each attack.
So I suppose I’m asking, what is the most effective way to make an Artificer tank with greater control of the battlefield with Thunder Gauntlets than Artificer allows by itself (as it seems propulsion shouldn’t work with the gauntlets… but perhaps some sort of thrown attack or multiclass may do)
The whole holding/wielding/wearing falls apart for the Armorer even further when you get to Spellcasting. The Artificer Spellcasting->Tools Required rules state that "You must have a spellcasting focus [...]in handwhen you cast any spell". The Armorer Arcane Armor feature states "You can use the arcane armor as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells."
Per a strict reading of the rules, this would mean that you would have to be holding, not wearing,your Arcane Armor to cast spells.
Clearly this is not RAI, and neither is Thunder Gauntlets being incompatible with TWF+Dual Wielder (or any feature that says "a weapon you are holding").
Respectfully, that's the parent class' Spellcasting feature, which is an entirely separate thing.
The Arcane Armor feature governs the use of armor as a spellcasting focus, and it's fairly direct about the requirements:
You gain the following benefits while wearing this armor:
You can use the arcane armor as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells.
Ergo, wearing the armor allows it to function as an arcane focus. No holding required. Again, this is borne out by other wearable items that function as non-standard foci, like the Hat of Wizardry or Nature's Mantle.
This cloak shifts color and texture to blend with the terrain surrounding you. While wearing the cloak, you can use it as a spellcasting focus for your druid and ranger spells.
This antiquated, cone-shaped hat is adorned with gold crescent moons and stars. While you are wearing it, you gain the following benefits:
You can use the hat as a spellcasting focus for your wizard spells.
Thank you both for your input! I personally hate relying on DM fiat (especially in my favour) because it feels like homebrew rather than creative use of my existing features :-(
The problem with this is that when rules are not clearly, unambiguously defined, "DM fiat" is the only thing left to fall back on.
As an example, I would not permit this interaction. Taking your gauntlet off and throwing it is not using it as a Thunder Gauntlet, it's using it as an improvised weapon. Improvised weapons deal 1d4+STR bludgeoning damage. I find the concept of taking the gauntlet off and throwing it to be similar to unscrewing the pommel of your Flametongue sword, ending someone rightly with it, and still expecting to deal 1d8+STR+2d6 slashing/fire damage. The Thunder Gauntlet is a component of the Armorer's arcane armor; disconnecting it from the armor means it's no longer a Thunder Gauntlet, it's just a big metal glove.
Is that the only way to rule the matter? No. But it's just as supported by RAW as the idea that you can take the gauntlet off and chuck it at somebody to still deal 1d8+INT thunder damage ands Distracting Pulse. You saw the other thread, in which people presumed that they could apply infinite new traits and identities to their Thunder Gauntlets in order to deal infinite damage and infinite secondary effects. The question to ask is "Will this enhance my game?" if the answer is no, disallow it. if the answer is yes, go for it and see what happens. If the answer is Maybe, go for it and see what happens cautiously. And remember that almost every case of "creative use of existing features" is reliant in some way on DM fiat because almost every case of CUoEF requires somebody to read the rules weirdly and attempt to apply them in an unintuitive, non-natural manner. Because the DM is the one in charge of the game they have to decide if that weird reading of the rules is valid for their game.
I feel like flame tongue is a fairly poor parallel, as is taking the pommel off to throw it. A. Because flame tongue specifically has a rule that it is no longer ablaze if you drop it, which if the DM appears to be taking the most critical and harsh interpretation of the rules possible would already invalidate thrown fire damage but also… B. Taking the pommel off to throw it in no way implies the fire damage would apply.
A point of interest for me here is why do you appear to be under the impression that this interaction would not enhance the game? As you have said that your rules interpretations are biased towards disallowing any interaction like this so far.
Even with Giant Barbarian 6, where explicitly the gauntlet could do lightning damage and gains a thrown and returning property. Would it be that you would also require Artificer 6 so that the gauntlets can be treated as their own distinct magical item (rather than just a distinct simple weapon) that when then make this interaction fun and enhancing to the game?
TLDR, I think it is a stretch to say (specifically for the Giant Barbarian interaction) that a weapon gaining the thrown property and then being thrown is weird, unintuitive and non-natural interpretation of the rules as they are currently presented. Nor that this interaction is automatically unfun, unbalanced or detracts from people’s playing experience…
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D, Youth Work and the Priesthood sadly do not typically interact... I do what I can!
Fair enough, I will clarify that I wasn't speaking to the Giant Barbarian bit. In my eyes, someone willing to sacrifice six character levels to a deeply bad and nonsensical multiclass solely for a single ability to fuel a single janky gimmick is not really concerned with the tone or feel of the game in the first place. Which is fine for a one-shot or a short series, but if you're running a campaign that's expected to go for multiple years? Nah.
My concern with enhancing/detracting from the game experience is generally about more than just whether the dopamine hit in the moment is cool. If you allow the interaction once, you generally have to allow it all the time unless you have a good reason why not, and someone constantly taking bits of their armor off to chuck them at the enemy is a level of slapstick that degrades the tone of a more serious-minded game and can detract from the enjoyment of some tables. As a DM I tend to be very concerned with maintaining tone where I can, especially since the nature of D&D means there will be plenty of chuckles and slapstick regardless.
As well, allowing interactions that are automatically superior to ordinary actions available to the player, tends to mean you get nothing but that action. If you can take your gauntlet off and throw it at the enemy to gain all the damage and effects of the Thunder Gauntlet, why would you ever bother wading into melee and punching with it? The ordinary Attack action becomes meaningless, and your character becomes known as the guy who takes his armor off and throws it at the enemy every turn, in every fight. That's not a character I particularly feel like running a game for.
Or, TL;DR for weenies: funny memey interactions like chucking your armor at the enemy is funny. Once. The fifteen hundredth time you do it, eight hundred hours into a game, it's not remotely as cool.
Hahaha, I don’t know what home-brew or source-book you are using that is able to keep a consistently series tone - but I feel like you probably wouldn’t want to include artificer or barbarian characters anyway as they both certainly lean into the wacky very quickly with most class features and sub-class features.
Flavour is free though and if I wanted to control the narrative of someone who wanted to run an artificer only character like this, and say picked up Tavern Brawler to increase the opportunity cost… I would totally either encourage them to or describe it myself as either a. Launching the gauntlets out of the armour or b. Launching taser like aspects from them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D, Youth Work and the Priesthood sadly do not typically interact... I do what I can!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If I’m not mistaken, any melee weapon can be thrown for d4 damage and a 20/60 range due to the improvised weapon rules… would this allow an Artificer’s Thunder Gauntlets (with returning weapon infusion) to control more area and be a more flexible ranged tank?
’Improvised Weapons
Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the GM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.’
Edit: Alternatively, increasing reach in the multiple crazy ways you can do that would also work: Bugbear, Lunging Attack, Large Size etc.
The Returning Weapon infusion only applies to a weapon with the thrown property, which unfortunately doesn't include the Thunder Gauntlets.
The good news is that the 14th-level infusion Arcane Propulsion Armor specifically allows you to launch your gauntlets in the manner you describe, so high-level Armorer can do exactly what you described.
You are right, I totally missed that restriction:
’Returning Weapon
Item: A simple or martial weapon with the thrown property
This magic weapon grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it, and it returns to the wielder’s hand immediately after it is used to make a ranged attack.’
I just saw the ranged attack… that is such a shame, hmm I wonder if there is a way around that with a lower level or more accessible magic item?
Edit: Arcane Propulsion Arm was what I was thinking of but weirdly that is a very rare item!
I would like to add: There is much discussion about whether you can really combine Thunder Gauntlets and Arcane Propulsion Arm (see here and some other places, please don't start again: 'click me I'm a link') - and how and which effect and damage works out, so even with that solution you should speak to your DM to make a ruling before doing something like that.
Also, some DMs might argue as soon as you use a weapon for an attack other than its usual uses (throwing a melee weapon without thrown property, hitting something with your bow etc.) it ceases to have the properties it usualy has (you don't need ammo for hitting things with a longbow - but the damage won't be 1d10 etc.). So even if you throw the thunder gauntlets (without them coming back) the distracting pulse might not work as advertised because instead of hitting somone in the face with an armored and charged up fist you're now just throwing a gauntlet with no "punch" behind it.
Rather, I actually wanted to look at thrown weapon in itself, whether by Tavern Brawler, Improvised Weapon or even for a very MAD but otherwise RAW and RAI functional multiclass of Armourer Artificer 3 Giant Barbarian 6.
With Giant Barbarian's Elemental Cleaver feature, the Thunder Gauntlets become 1d20 + proficiency + intellegence modifier to hit and then 1d8+5+1d6 acid, cold, fire, thunder, or lightning and gains the thrown property, with a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet. If you throw the weapon, it reappears in your hand the instant after it hits or misses a target.
Or if you wanted to use Strength instead: 1d20 + proficiency + strength modifier to hit, but then an extra two damage from rage through the Giant’s Havoc feature
Yes the above is a very specific example that I think would be very hard to argue against... but I think it goes to show that ranged Thunder Gauntlets are at least possible with some creative thinking.
Crazy Barb Artificer Build:
Using medium armour and shield
Giant Barbarian 1-6
Rage: resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. Again no Heavy Armour
Reckless Attack: Adv to attack in melee
Multi Attack
Crushing Throw: +Rage Damage for Strength thrown weapons
Elemental Cleaver: +1d6, choose element, gains 20/60 thrown and returning
Fast Movement: +10ft movement not wearing heavy armour
Armourer Artificer 1-3
Utility spells or some you can cast before raging
Infusions: +1 AC +1 to hit and damage
Thunder Gauntlets. deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit. A creature hit by the gauntlet has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you until the start of your next turn.
Not to rehash another quite anoying thread, but there are some people arguing, that you are not "holding" the gauntlets and therefor dual Wielder wouldn't work with them (I don't think so, but as I said, let's not redo that conversation). If you say that is a valid argument then it would also disallow the elemental Cleaver. I don't think one should be so pedantic in the face of a Giant Barbarian Smartass punching people with what is funcionally rocket-punches, but that's just me.
My point still stands: Ask your DM before going for any shenanigans. They might disagree
Couple of thoughts on this, for what it's worth.
The Elemental Cleaver feature allows you to apply the thrown property to "one weapon that you are holding." While the physical gauntlet could function as an improvised weapon if you held it, it doesn't get the Artificer benefits unless it counts as a Thunder Gauntlet, and that's the sticking point.
Under the Armor Model feature, your armor model "gives you special benefits while you wear it." The Thunder Gauntlets form part of that feature, and are therefore arguably a "benefit" in the strictest sense. Similarly, the Thunder Gauntlets feature itself says, "Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it..." My reading of that would be that you need to be wearing the gauntlets for them to function as weapons. If you throw them, you're no longer wearing them. This is borne out by the fact that there's a specific Infusion designed to allow you to throw your Thunder Gauntlets around.
Ultimately, when you reach this level of hair-splitting, it's something to ask the DM to make a ruling on. Fun thought experiment, though.
we need an art based splatoon style subclass for artificers
im not kidding
call it the ink master, give it dex. and char., and put it in 5.5th edition
Thank you both for your input! I personally hate relying on DM fiat (especially in my favour) because it feels like homebrew rather than creative use of my existing features :-(
I do wonder if a lot of these debates are putting empthasis on flavour here though rather than any technical terms or rules that actually carry any mechanical weight. Are wear and wield interchangeable? It appears to me that the difference between wearing and wielding is just a simple semantic reference to the type of item (so literally semantics):
Wearing and Wielding Items
Using a magic item’s properties might mean wearing or wielding it. A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held.
In most cases, a magic item that’s meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer. Rare exceptions exist. If the story suggests a good reason for an item to fit only creatures of a certain size or shape, you can rule that it doesn’t adjust. For example, drow-made armor might fit elves only. Dwarves might make items usable only by dwarf-sized and dwarf-shaped folk.
When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs can’t wear boots.
However, in this example because an item of armour becomes a weapon, both could/should apply... But I may be missing a part of the rules that actually stresses the importance of the difference between this vague terms. *shrug
If like me you have ever loostened a shoe or glove to then launch it across a room at someone, I think it feels pretty clear how this combo is intended to function, but yeah perhaps you are right and that this would depend on persuading a DM
Happy to help.
At the risk of veering too far from the original topic, I don't think wearing and wielding are indistinct terms. You can wield a hammer, but you'd struggle to wear it in any meaningful sense - and even if you plonked it on your head, passers-by would be unlikely to compliment your new hat.
Similarly, commonly understood meaning forms an important part of the mechanics for Wearing and Wielding Items. Per the passage above, "A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held." If a pair of magical boots say you have to wear them to gain their effect, every player at the table understands that they go on your feet.
Again, DM fiat is the deciding factor in these decisions, and honestly, I think creative use of magical items should (mostly) be rewarded. But if you're going to wear a hammer on your head, you're going to have to be prepared to convince other people that it's a hat, you know?
I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the interchangeability of those words, say you wanted to infuse either a shield or a breastplate as an Artificer, it uses both words:
Enhanced Defense
Item: A suit of armor or a shield
A creature gains a +1 bonus to Armor Class while wearing (armor) or wielding (shield) the infused item.
The bonus increases to +2 when you reach 10th level in this class.
Because wear and wield are semantic (the analysis of word meanings and relations between them) simply refer to using the item in the intended way.
To use you straw hammer head argument above, if an infusion allowed you to transform a hammer into a hat that you can also headbang with to inflict damage on your enemies - then the word meanings and relationships between them would be a bit more complex as the hammer remains a weapon that feasibly you could hold but also an item of clothing that you could wear.
Neither wear not wield mean anything though apart from the correct using of the item.
In this case, the gauntlet is both a weapon and an item of clothing - as long as these two concepts can coexist, then so can the semantic labels that refer to the correct use of them.
TLDR:
Wear ≠ Wield
Wear = correct intended use of armour or clothing
Wield = correct intended use of weapon or shield
Wear | Wield = correct intended use of armour | weapon
Wear | Wield = correct intended use of item
Wear = correct intended use of item
Wield = correct intended use of item
And so I wield my gloves with intent to harm flailing with reckless abandon at all within range, because I am scared and these gloves that I wear protect me from the pain of hitting people.
edit: oops your right, we have veered well off topic… any other ways you can think of that might be a little bit less table/DM dependent?
both armor and items are ,well, items. they are very different tho
armor protects the wearer. items do that and everything else. armor is specific
Echo Knight allows for some ‘ranged’ shenanigans as it allows the player character to be essentially in two places at once in order to make melee attacks - which since for the majority of the game the Artificer is going to be limited to two or three attacks means that effectively a Fighter dip could fit the need of having more battlemap presence to control the combat.
Edit: likewise some spells like Zephyr Strike can enable proper presence similar to the effect of growing large and gaining reach like I mentioned earlier in the thread.
Edit 2: Or Horizon Walker’s Distant Strike ability which can add an attack depending on perfect use of a 10ft teleport between each attack.
So I suppose I’m asking, what is the most effective way to make an Artificer tank with greater control of the battlefield with Thunder Gauntlets than Artificer allows by itself (as it seems propulsion shouldn’t work with the gauntlets… but perhaps some sort of thrown attack or multiclass may do)
Respectfully, that's the parent class' Spellcasting feature, which is an entirely separate thing.
The Arcane Armor feature governs the use of armor as a spellcasting focus, and it's fairly direct about the requirements:
Ergo, wearing the armor allows it to function as an arcane focus. No holding required. Again, this is borne out by other wearable items that function as non-standard foci, like the Hat of Wizardry or Nature's Mantle.
think about that for a sec. an artificer holding like a chestplate in their hand at all times. that's so stupid it's funny.
The problem with this is that when rules are not clearly, unambiguously defined, "DM fiat" is the only thing left to fall back on.
As an example, I would not permit this interaction. Taking your gauntlet off and throwing it is not using it as a Thunder Gauntlet, it's using it as an improvised weapon. Improvised weapons deal 1d4+STR bludgeoning damage. I find the concept of taking the gauntlet off and throwing it to be similar to unscrewing the pommel of your Flametongue sword, ending someone rightly with it, and still expecting to deal 1d8+STR+2d6 slashing/fire damage. The Thunder Gauntlet is a component of the Armorer's arcane armor; disconnecting it from the armor means it's no longer a Thunder Gauntlet, it's just a big metal glove.
Is that the only way to rule the matter? No. But it's just as supported by RAW as the idea that you can take the gauntlet off and chuck it at somebody to still deal 1d8+INT thunder damage ands Distracting Pulse. You saw the other thread, in which people presumed that they could apply infinite new traits and identities to their Thunder Gauntlets in order to deal infinite damage and infinite secondary effects. The question to ask is "Will this enhance my game?" if the answer is no, disallow it. if the answer is yes, go for it and see what happens. If the answer is Maybe, go for it and see what happens cautiously. And remember that almost every case of "creative use of existing features" is reliant in some way on DM fiat because almost every case of CUoEF requires somebody to read the rules weirdly and attempt to apply them in an unintuitive, non-natural manner. Because the DM is the one in charge of the game they have to decide if that weird reading of the rules is valid for their game.
Simply the way D&D 5e works.
Please do not contact or message me.
Thanks for your contribution Yurie. :-)
I feel like flame tongue is a fairly poor parallel, as is taking the pommel off to throw it. A. Because flame tongue specifically has a rule that it is no longer ablaze if you drop it, which if the DM appears to be taking the most critical and harsh interpretation of the rules possible would already invalidate thrown fire damage but also… B. Taking the pommel off to throw it in no way implies the fire damage would apply.
A point of interest for me here is why do you appear to be under the impression that this interaction would not enhance the game? As you have said that your rules interpretations are biased towards disallowing any interaction like this so far.
Even with Giant Barbarian 6, where explicitly the gauntlet could do lightning damage and gains a thrown and returning property. Would it be that you would also require Artificer 6 so that the gauntlets can be treated as their own distinct magical item (rather than just a distinct simple weapon) that when then make this interaction fun and enhancing to the game?
TLDR, I think it is a stretch to say (specifically for the Giant Barbarian interaction) that a weapon gaining the thrown property and then being thrown is weird, unintuitive and non-natural interpretation of the rules as they are currently presented. Nor that this interaction is automatically unfun, unbalanced or detracts from people’s playing experience…
Fair enough, I will clarify that I wasn't speaking to the Giant Barbarian bit. In my eyes, someone willing to sacrifice six character levels to a deeply bad and nonsensical multiclass solely for a single ability to fuel a single janky gimmick is not really concerned with the tone or feel of the game in the first place. Which is fine for a one-shot or a short series, but if you're running a campaign that's expected to go for multiple years? Nah.
My concern with enhancing/detracting from the game experience is generally about more than just whether the dopamine hit in the moment is cool. If you allow the interaction once, you generally have to allow it all the time unless you have a good reason why not, and someone constantly taking bits of their armor off to chuck them at the enemy is a level of slapstick that degrades the tone of a more serious-minded game and can detract from the enjoyment of some tables. As a DM I tend to be very concerned with maintaining tone where I can, especially since the nature of D&D means there will be plenty of chuckles and slapstick regardless.
As well, allowing interactions that are automatically superior to ordinary actions available to the player, tends to mean you get nothing but that action. If you can take your gauntlet off and throw it at the enemy to gain all the damage and effects of the Thunder Gauntlet, why would you ever bother wading into melee and punching with it? The ordinary Attack action becomes meaningless, and your character becomes known as the guy who takes his armor off and throws it at the enemy every turn, in every fight. That's not a character I particularly feel like running a game for.
Or, TL;DR for weenies: funny memey interactions like chucking your armor at the enemy is funny. Once. The fifteen hundredth time you do it, eight hundred hours into a game, it's not remotely as cool.
Please do not contact or message me.
Hahaha, I don’t know what home-brew or source-book you are using that is able to keep a consistently series tone - but I feel like you probably wouldn’t want to include artificer or barbarian characters anyway as they both certainly lean into the wacky very quickly with most class features and sub-class features.
Flavour is free though and if I wanted to control the narrative of someone who wanted to run an artificer only character like this, and say picked up Tavern Brawler to increase the opportunity cost… I would totally either encourage them to or describe it myself as either a. Launching the gauntlets out of the armour or b. Launching taser like aspects from them.