The thunder damage isn't being added to a physical impact, and even the reference art seems to depict a concussive blast.
This is an interesting perception of the art. I think it may be me but I have trouble seeing it this way. To me what it looks like is the Thunder effect going off in response to him punching the enemy That as it connects the Thunder Effect is released and we're seeing the magical augmentation of the sound created from it hitting the enemy and pushing them back a bit from the blow that is combined with him reeling back his other fist like he's going to make another punch as the magic charges up and prepares to amplify the sound for the other fist in boxers 1, 2 combo as if illustrating that he has the extra attack feature.
But it is interesting to see that somebody else sees the art differently and mentions how they view it.
It is worth mentioning, I think, that monks can replace the normal bludgeoning damage of their unarmed strikes with fire damage, so there is precedent. Then again, the same feature which allows this also allows for increasing the range of the attacks. (Never thought that Way of the Four Elements and Fangs of the Fire Snake would rear their heads in this conversation, but here we are.)
There are a couple damage switch ups of this kind of nature. Many of them actually coming out with Tasha's surprisingly. But yes the Four Elements monk can indeed change it's damage to fire and gain an increase of 10 feet in range for all of your attacks for that turn. It is surprisingly cheap at only 1 ki for those basic functions but it also allows for 1 ki to be spent per attack to increase that attacks damage after you know that the attack hits by 1d10. But because it is still completely an unarmed strike despite the changes you can also still stunning strike off of it if you want (this is actually one of the longest distance stunning strikes that monks can achieve surprisingly thanks to the melee requirement) and because it still takes your attack action you can still Flurry of Blows with it if you wish. Now how much of that you can do together is limited by your level both through how much ki you have at your disposal and how much ki the power allows you to spend on it at one time. But it's actually an excellent pairing to the Dexterity Primary monk that most guides lean towards with a lot of synergies to that style of play.
It may be my familiarity both with monks and the various ways that particular power can work that influences the way I see the art. But I am sure it is not helped by the blurryness and questionable shape of many things in the artwork picture other than the two types of armorer Artificer mid battle.
Fateless, you're completely misrepresenting what I said about being able to achieve hits with the same ease as using a dagger as if I impled you can use a hand to straight-up shiv something, and even after clarification, you are focusing in on a misconception that is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I know that poking with a finger isn't going to go the same damage as a knife with the same force applied. I was saying that merely achieving a touch with any variety of intentional strikes, even one as simple as a poke, is as easy to do, if not more so, as getting a solid hit in with a knife, that requires a certain amount of force with the point or edge. My thing about the knife and the hand was that any motion your hand can make while holding a knife, it can make while not holding a knife, and then some, so the idea that the balance of an "unwieldy gauntlet" somehow becomes less unwieldy when holding a dagger is silly, therefore implying the gauntlets aren't these clumsy things people seem to be interpreting them as.
As for the strength thing I keep revisiting, my point is that because of the magical augmentation, it feels weightless TO YOU. I never said it made the armor weigh less, but if it allows you to wear it AS IF it were weightless, then you would be able to move freely in it. To everything else but the wearer, yes, it will have its natural weight, but to the person wearing it, they are not encumbered by it in any way. This would logically extend to the gauntlets, meaning as far as freedom of movement, it would feel like they are bare-handed.
When I jumped in, this discussion was dead, and I established that I was adding my own thoughts to the mix, I wasn't answering the initial topic with a "yes they are light".
My whole participation was "No, they aren't light, but I think there's legitimacy behind interpreting them that way as a DM, and I personally think those reasons are compelling enough that the canon should be revisited."
This isn't an argument about the rules. This is an academic discussion on the literal description of the items and the implications of how they COULD function, and how that supports the possibility that they could be interpreted as light, and therefore usable with two-weapon fighting in the context of DM discretion, with the added opinion that I would personally like to see validation of the ideas and concepts I am presenting.
I have never implied, and in fact I have exhaustively added disclaimer to my opinions, that I think the gauntlets are light. I have admitted MANY times that they are not. I'm talking about what I feel SHOULD BE, not dismissing WHAT IS, so this weird habit of going back to "you're wrong, but you could homebrew it that way" shows that there's a blatant misunderstanding or failure in translation between what I'm saying, and what's being replied.
I already clarified my only point ins saying "magic taser" which has completely been focused way too heavily on and taken way out of context was the implication the the effect happens on touch. It had nothing to do with the damage type. It had nothing to do with the actual nuance of making contact with two prongs. It was a simple thing to be taken at face-value via the sentence that followed it, which was the main statement.
"Magic in D&D works as described in the rules, not however you want it to..." and there is NO DESCRIPTION of how it works. There is only a damage type and the means by which that damage can be achieved. You say things don't work by any means except as-described, and then you immediately made up your own description which is as much an extrapolation as anything I've said, since we're dealing with a rule established by the absence of a rule. I'm saying that if we treat the light property like a Schrödinger's cat since there is neither EXPLICIT confirmation of a statement that it IS or IS NOT light.
And before you say it, I know that officially that means that it IS NOT light. I'm saying that if you are willing to set aside the single idea that it isn't light for the singular reason that it isn't mentioned and are left with only all the other descriptions and the implied physics therein, that purely by the weight an maneuverability, considering the attack itself is magical and could require only touch by the most forgiving interpretation since there is not explicit mention of how the damage occurs, that it would be reasonable to imagine a version of this weapon which can be adequately used to deal damage over the course of an action and bonus action.
To back-track just a tiny bit, the whole "safety feature" idea can be countered with the idea that it's an AT WILL enchantment. There are plenty of magical items that you simply will to work. Assuming this is true for the gauntlets, they don't need a built-in mechanism to be safe, because they would only activate under the 2 conditions of (A)They touch your target and (B) You intend for them to activate at such time as requisite (A) is achieved. It's a magical effect, not a mechanical one, so what is possible is far more lenient than what you describe. What you describe is perfectly reasonable fluff, but that's a self-engineered restriction, not a specified one. Lack of specificity means there's much more room to get creative with reasoning, which is partly what this whole exercise has been based on. A lot of the replies to what I'm saying are using the existing ruling to box in what's possible. I'm saying that while I acknowledge the ruling, the lack of explicit mention as to why such is the case leaves a LOT of room in homebrew to explain why a DM might allow it to function otherwise, and when a homebrew solution seems so reasonable and makes more sense to me than an official ruling, it makes me question the decision for that ruling, and whether the author of that rule would feel inclined to explain their reasoning for an official way to support it, or whether they would agree that perhaps the light property should have been included, and my assumption is that it was intentionally written as not light from a balancing and game design perspective which may have led to a lack of consideration of the things I've mentioned in order to make it work as they wanted it to. That's fine, it's a fantasy game, and the rules are a guideline, nothing more, but I like having these discussions for posterity sake.
Regardless of whatever you think Thunder Gauntlets could or should be, they are not. They are what the feature that describes them says they are: no more and no less. If a weapon lacks a property in its description, then it lacks the property. This is not some case of qui tacet consentit. There is no Schrödinger's weapon here for us to haggle over.
They are not light weapons. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you want to use them with Two-Weapon Fighting, get the requisite feat. If you want to add your Ability modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action attack, find a way to acquire the accompanying fighting style.
Anything beyond that is purely homebrew. And you don't need to litigate that here with meandering thousand-word posts. If you're the DM, just do what you want at your table.
Regardless of whatever you think Thunder Gauntlets could or should be, they are not. They are what the feature that describes them says they are: no more and no less. If a weapon lacks a property in its description, then it lacks the property. This is not some case of qui tacet consentit. There is no Schrödinger's weapon here for us to haggle over.
They are not light weapons. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you want to use them with Two-Weapon Fighting, get the requisite feat. If you want to add your Ability modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action attack, find a way to acquire the accompanying fighting style.
Anything beyond that is purely homebrew. And you don't need to litigate that here with meandering thousand-word posts. If you're the DM, just do what you want at your table.
Weird... you didn't stop me. It's almost like... this is an open forum. Like, I'm discussing opinion after explicitly acknowledging the canon and accepting it... I'm looking for creative discourse on personal interpretations and reasoning.
If you don't like thinking, reading, and playing along, you don't need to be here. You're contributing nothing but being a party-pooper and attempting to end a conversation which is intended to be free-form that several others here are engaging in passionately, even if we are at disagreement. By the nature of debate, I'm calling them out and such, but there's no ill-will in it, that's just how argument goes, and I am appreciative for their participation.
You, however, are the one trying to put nails in non-existent coffins because of some weird need for a resolution. Your blanket reply is disingenuous and unsporting. Why? What's wrong with talking about it? It's just weird to me how almost hostile you are being just for the sake of trying to end a discussion you don't need to be part of.
Regardless of whatever you think Thunder Gauntlets could or should be, they are not. They are what the feature that describes them says they are: no more and no less. If a weapon lacks a property in its description, then it lacks the property. This is not some case of qui tacet consentit. There is no Schrödinger's weapon here for us to haggle over.
They are not light weapons. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you want to use them with Two-Weapon Fighting, get the requisite feat. If you want to add your Ability modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action attack, find a way to acquire the accompanying fighting style.
Anything beyond that is purely homebrew. And you don't need to litigate that here with meandering thousand-word posts. If you're the DM, just do what you want at your table.
Weird... you didn't stop me. It's almost like... this is an open forum. Like, I'm discussing opinion after explicitly acknowledging the canon and accepting it... I'm looking for creative discourse on personal interpretations and reasoning.
If you don't like thinking, reading, and playing along, you don't need to be here. You're contributing nothing but being a party-pooper and attempting to end a conversation which is intended to be free-form that several others here are engaging in passionately, even if we are at disagreement. By the nature of debate, I'm calling them out and such, but there's no ill-will in it, that's just how argument goes, and I am appreciative for their participation.
You, however, are the one trying to put nails in non-existent coffins because of some weird need for a resolution. Your blanket reply is disingenuous and unsporting. Why? What's wrong with talking about it? It's just weird to me how almost hostile you are being just for the sake of trying to end a discussion you don't need to be part of.
You're also arguing, and I quote...
My whole participation was "No, they aren't light, but I think there's legitimacy behind interpreting them that way as a DM, and I personally think those reasons are compelling enough that the canon should be revisited."
So, I hope you'll forgive me for taking your professed acceptance of canon comes across as disingenuous.
If WotC wanted any gauntlets to be light weapons, they'd have done so by now. And they were, once, eight years ago. But they were removed from playtesting six months later; a full year before the PHB was published.
In order to sustain this discussion, you're asking us to reject reality and substitute your own. It's a ludicrous premise. And the point of my previous post can be distilled to the following:
If you think there is a case for a DM to rule that Thunder Gauntlets should be light, that is your prerogative as DM. You can even lobby a DM you play under to rule it as such. But your diatribes, where you meander, argue, and even push for an errata to a book barely three months old, aren't productive.
When I typed, "I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there," it was my attempt to sparing you from what I see as further embarrassment. As others have pointed out, you have not made a compelling, legitimate argument. And regardless of how logically sound you think your position to be, it does not stand up to any scrutiny.
My thing about the knife and the hand was that any motion your hand can make while holding a knife, it can make while not holding a knife, and then some, so the idea that the balance of an "unwieldy gauntlet" somehow becomes less unwieldy when holding a dagger is silly, therefore implying the gauntlets aren't these clumsy things people seem to be interpreting them as.
As for the strength thing I keep revisiting, my point is that because of the magical augmentation, it feels weightless TO YOU. I never said it made the armor weigh less, but if it allows you to wear it AS IF it were weightless, then you would be able to move freely in it. To everything else but the wearer, yes, it will have its natural weight, but to the person wearing it, they are not encumbered by it in any way. This would logically extend to the gauntlets, meaning as far as freedom of movement, it would feel like they are bare-handed.
And before you say it, I know that officially that means that it IS NOT light. I'm saying that if you are willing to set aside the single idea that it isn't light for the singular reason that it isn't mentioned and are left with only all the other descriptions and the implied physics therein, that purely by the weight an maneuverability, considering the attack itself is magical and could require only touch by the most forgiving interpretation since there is not explicit mention of how the damage occurs, that it would be reasonable to imagine a version of this weapon which can be adequately used to deal damage over the course of an action and bonus action.
To back-track just a tiny bit, the whole "safety feature" idea can be countered with the idea that it's an AT WILL enchantment. There are plenty of magical items that you simply will to work.
Moving a knife in a way that makes it do it's function does not have any basis on what our hand is capable of by making the same motion without the knife. This again is a false equivalency. It is entirely irrelevant. I am not misrepresenting this fact. Even though I have edited your words down to get to key portions of your point. no matter how many times you pretend to hold a handle it will in no way do what the knife does. Merely touching something does not cause the same affect. There is no melee weapon that I can think of that functions by merely touching something. And if there is it's probably magic and probably using an extra power or not really a weapon. All weapons need to be swung or Jabbed or if they are ranged need to be thrown or fired. This is a basic function of weapons in the game. This is not something that is being fancifully conjured up and then forced upon the thunder gauntlets for no reason or placed upon them without proof. Merely touching something is actually a requirement that you are placing upon the Thunder Gauntlets instead. The exact wording of thunder gauntlets is...
"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."
This is very straight forward. This does not say that because you can move your hands certain ways with a different classification of item in your hand that your gauntlets should have those classifications. Or that they would have the same effects as when you are using those objects in their intended ways just because you can make those same motions empty handed.
There is only one type of attack that I can think of that is a touch attack. It's a spell attack. Sometimes it is part of casting a spell. Sometimes it is a special effect. But there is nothing about the gauntlet that says or even suggests that it is a spell attack. If it was it would say spell attack and it would say on touching the target like any of those abilities do. So we can actually reasonably rule out the thunder gauntlet working at all in this way because it is not in the direct sentence above. Your attempts to make it work this way do not work. You have given no actual reason why they should work other than irrelevant statements about things like Knives and Tasers and how you move your hands while using them.
Second. you are still incorrect in this. You do not use the armor it as if it is weightless. You use it without it being a burden upon you to use. Nothing about removing the strength requirement says anything about treating it as weightless in any way. You just simply use it as if you were of the physical capability of fully using it without it's bulk obstructing you. this is different from weightless. The Armor is effectively iron man armor or Power Armor from Fallout. It is not in any way weightless. it is simply designed to assist you without hinderance. Your insistence that it is weightless so you must be able to get certain properties from it doesn't work. Even if you did use the armor as if it were weightless. It still would not make your gauntlets have the light weapon property. Your fists do not even have the light weapon property. Not even the Martial arts Master that is the Monk has the light weapon property for their fists despite everything they are capable of. There is no precedence what so ever for giving them this ability.
Thirdly. I left this paragraph by you that I'm responding to mostly intact. But there is no implied physics that support your claim. I actually gave you examples that provide applied physics as to why your way does not work. And I've given you reasoning as to why it is thunder damage and why the thunder damage works and how it works in regards to the Thunder Gauntlets. This does not change if we get into physical sciences about it. It doesn't even change by the basic rules of magic. You know that they aren't so we really should leave it at they aren't because I've explained that none of what your claiming about physics and physical capability applies at least a couple times in different ways. Your efforts to support this and do not work because they are irrelevant in the ways that you are trying to use them.
Finally. Let's discuss your mention here of an AT Will Enchantment because this doesn't go in your favor. There aren't really any magical items that operate this way in 5e. Basically all Magical items work either as a constant effect. Or they work by activating and deactivating the item. while the phrase "at will" has been used to describe items that can be activated and deactivated as many times as you like. These are not actually literally controlled by your will. It's merely a phrase to express that you can use these things as often and/or for as long as you want while active but that they are not constant because they can be deactivated similarly to how you turn them on. All such items Still require you to do something to activate and deactivate them in some way. Whether that's a motion you make with them, A special phrase you say while activating them, Or a combination of these things.
To illustrate my point. This is straight out of the DMG in the magic items section.
ACTIVATING AN ITEM Activating some magic items requires a user to do something special, such as holding the item and uttering a command word. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use the following rules for their activation. If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Item action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item.
The bolded part is important. Because the only items that do not follow this rule under all of those categories when you look through the parts talking about them in the DMG in the same section are constant use items. Things that are either worn in some way or wielded as a weapon to function. And I am aware that you want to make the argument that your talking about the way weapons are wielded because their functions work when the weapon hits the enemy. Here is the problem. Except for exceptional weapons with additional properties that are activated in ways listed in their specific descriptions. All such powers require them to use them as if you would a non-magical version of that weapon to take advantage of it's constant magical effect. This doesn't mean you touch the enemy, it doesn't mean you tap them, or anything else of the sort. It means you punch them, stab them, kick them, slash them, whatever it is you do. But there is a downside to this that technically comes up in the game. If these weapons for some reason hit you while because you punch or stab or kick yourself or whatever. They deliver their magical effect to you too. They do not however do them if you simply touch them. Because that is not their intended use. There is no at will component to them or actually to any magical item that I can think of, and I know a lot and have access to a ton more than I would come up with off the top of my head.
You can use whatever justification you'd like, but the Thunder Gauntlet rules still don't say that they're a light weapon and no amount of arguing about why they should be is going to change that. If you'd like to house rule otherwise, that's fine, but don't treat house rules like they're official.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
You say things don't work by any means except as-described, and then you immediately made up your own description which is as much an extrapolation as anything I've said
Rules are how something works, extrapolating from the rules is perfectly fine as that's how to flavour something while playing it in a rules legal way. If my extrapolation fits the rules, then mine is legitimate, one that doesn't is not. That doesn't mean you can't theme your character's abilities differently, but it means you need to ask your DM for an exception or change to the rules to make it work, or you ask your group to act like it works in a way that it doesn't. In other words, you're either following the rules as provided, or you're not.
Pretty much all roleplaying in D&D is extroplating from the rules; when you whiff a roll for Persuasion you and/or your DM decide how that fits into the narrative, maybe your character delivers a great speech but gets a name wrong, or they appeal to the conscience that isn't there and so-on, that's all about sticking to the rules. It's very different to you turning around and saying "well actually I persuaded them because there's no way my character would mess that up after attending always-pass-speech-checks school as a child". Flavouring that goes against the rules isn't re-interpreting the rules, it's seeking to change them. Again, that can be fine, but homebrew is changing rules, not following them.
since we're dealing with a rule established by the absence of a rule. I'm saying that if we treat the light property like a Schrödinger's cat since there is neither EXPLICIT confirmation of a statement that it IS or IS NOT light.
Something not having a property or rule doesn't mean you get to choose whether it has it or not. If something does not have the light property then IT IS NOT LIGHT, period. And no you can't just suspend that for one singular feature, because then why not others? Shall I just decide my dagger has reach this round because my character's feeling too lazy to get out of their chair?
The absence of a feature is a very strange argument to make, or are you suggesting that in future WotC must mention every possible feature by name in every single rule that they publish, so that it's absolutely explicit that not only are Thunder Gauntlets not light, they're also not two-handed, or firearms, or monster only large weapons, arcane focuses etc. etc.?
To back-track just a tiny bit, the whole "safety feature" idea can be countered with the idea that it's an AT WILL enchantment.
Except that it being an at will enchantment that can trigger arbitrarily isn't really supported by the rules (as it would already be light if it were so easy to do, so either it's not the case, or there is some other limitation), while "safety feature" is a perfectly legitimate way to flavour how the rules actually work, and there are plenty of others as I've said. It doesn't matter if other magic effects can be on contact or at will, if the one you want to be isn't.
I'm saying that while I acknowledge the ruling, the lack of explicit mention as to why such is the case leaves a LOT of room in homebrew to explain why a DM might allow it to function otherwise
That's not how rules work; the rule says what it is says, it doesn't need to explicitly describe how or why it works the way it does in order to do so, that's left up to the player and/or DM if they want to flavour it within the rules that are given.
Homebrew is not re-interpreting the rules, it's changing them or creating additional ones, and it's a perfectly fine and reasonable thing to do, but it's a specific departure from the way the rules actually work as provided. If you change Thunder Gauntlets to light then you're not using Tasha's Cauldron Thunder Gauntlets anymore, you're using custom Thunder Gauntlets. Again, that's fine, but it's a choice, not an interpretation of what's there which says what you want isn't the way it works.
Ultimately when it comes to flavouring your character you have two options; either you flavour within the rules (gauntlets require a punch to activate, are slower and clumsier than a dagger, or don't have enough reach as a held weapon for quick strikes, or however else you want to do it) or you ask your DM to change the rule so you can flavour it differently. There's also the middle option where you flavour something against the rules but use the rules anyway and everyone just acts like it works different, which can also work (though usually when you do this you're giving yourself extra restrictions on how you do something, e.g- your character needs to be drunk to cast magic).
Arguing against how other people interpret the gauntlets to work within the rules though is just pointless, as they're actually trying to use the rules in a way that makes sense to them. You can come up with reasons why you could justify making them function differently until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that that what you'll be describing is a homebrew alternative feature, rather than the rules as given.
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.
So from what I can tell with Duel Wielder you SHOULD be able to make a bonus action attack (all be it without any extra damage since it’s your off hand attack so you’d need the two weapon fighting style as well to get that), but like someone said before it probably just not programmed in. That said you CAN add custom actions with dnd beyond so as long as you don’t cheat while putting in the info it should be fine. On the actions page you should see “manage custom” and there you can make your own action.
If you don’t have two weapon fighter then just make it a GENERAL action and you can select the damage be light and 1d8, and you should also be able to make it a bonus action. Then you just have to make sure the check off “proficient” and “display as attack”
If you DO have two weapon fighter then you can make it a WEAPON action and input all the same info, but then also make the attack an unarmed attack (or natural if you want I don’t think it matters stat wise), and make the stat type either intelligence or strength depending on what you use.
This is what I don't understand about some of this logic
-The text says both gauntlets count as weapons get the int modifier, etc. They way some of you guys are reading the text, there is absolutely no way of ever using the off and gauntlet as a weapon ever.
Does that seem like it's what is intended? If you really think that this is what they wanted when they wrote this I'd love to hear the logic behind that.
This is what I don't understand about some of this logic
-The text says both gauntlets count as weapons get the int modifier, etc. They way some of you guys are reading the text, there is absolutely no way of ever using the off and gauntlet as a weapon ever.
Does that seem like it's what is intended? If you really think that this is what they wanted when they wrote this I'd love to hear the logic behind that.
This is how a lot of similar features such as special claws attacks function, alongside unarmed strikes in general; if they wanted it to function differently they'd have stated so.
The remark about both gauntlets is to clarify that it doesn't matter which hand is free to strike with, this is no different to wielding one single-handed non-light weapon in each hand; you can attack with either hand in such a case, but not use two-weapon fighting.
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 is what I don't understand about some of this logic
-The text says both gauntlets count as weapons get the int modifier, etc. They way some of you guys are reading the text, there is absolutely no way of ever using the off and gauntlet as a weapon ever.
Does that seem like it's what is intended? If you really think that this is what they wanted when they wrote this I'd love to hear the logic behind that.
This is how a lot of similar features such as special claws attacks function, alongside unarmed strikes in general; if they wanted it to function differently they'd have stated so.
The remark about both gauntlets is to clarify that it doesn't matter which hand is free to strike with, this is no different to wielding one single-handed non-light weapon in each hand; you can attack with either hand in such a case, but not use two-weapon fighting.
The distinction of being able to attack with either hand but not both is a distinction without difference in this case. How does this ever come into play in a way that would warrent them putting the 2 gauntlet thing in the game?
The distinction of being able to attack with either hand but not both is a distinction without difference in this case. How does this ever come into play in a way that would warrent them putting the 2 gauntlet thing in the game?
Your average humanoid character has two or more limbs with which to perform unarmed strikes, but they don't get to use two-weapon fighting. This is how all basic unarmed fighting works in 5e, and most special unarmed fighting (claws and such).
The precedent is already there, and as I say, the exact same thing applies to having any two non-light weapons in your hands; the gauntlets feature functions no differently to either of these cases, if they did they'd say so.
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.
The distinction of being able to attack with either hand but not both is a distinction without difference in this case. How does this ever come into play in a way that would warrent them putting the 2 gauntlet thing in the game?
Your average humanoid character has two or more limbs with which to perform unarmed strikes, but they don't get to use two-weapon fighting. This is how all basic unarmed fighting works in 5e, and most special unarmed fighting (claws and such).
The precedent is already there, and as I say, the exact same thing applies to having any two non-light weapons in your hands; the gauntlets feature functions no differently to either of these cases, if they did they'd say so.
Ok but tell me the logic that is going on in your head that has all this make sense.
You are saying the put a weapon in the game, specified damage, modifiers etc. and did all that with the intention that it can never be used? Why? They said each gantlet instead of one gauntlet for a reason right? so in your head why did they do that?
You are saying the put a weapon in the game, specified damage, modifiers etc. and did all that with the intention that it can never be used? Why? They said each gantlet instead of one gauntlet for a reason right? so in your head why did they do that?
You can absolutely use it, using either free hand.
In terms of the logic, it depends upon the weapon; the reason that other non-light weapons can't use two-weapon fighting as standard is because they are not light, which in D&D terms doesn't necessarily just mean weight, but the speed with which you can attack with that weapon. The way the two-weapon fighting mechanic works in 5e supports the idea that a light weapon is one that can be used to make a quick follow-up strike, anything else is either too slow or too heavy for that. A dagger for example is an ideal second weapon because once you're up close you just need to quickly stab with it to get the maximum effect, whereas a longsword requires more effort to swing or thrust with.
For thunder gauntlets specifically it may be a factor of the bulk of armoured gauntlets (limited range of movement) or the way in which the magic operates; if you look at the Armorer artwork you can see a Guardian punching with both hands free, but only one gauntlet activating, implying the magic requires a solid hit to activate. You can theme that however you want, maybe the magic is partly powered by the punching action, or requires the solid hit for safety reasons or whatever, but there's a big difference between a properly executed knock-out punch and a quick short jab (which in sports like boxing is really about distracting your opponent or keeping them on the defensive, rather than dealing actual damage).
And keep in mind; Armorers get a second attack as standard already, and thunder gauntlets impose a penalty onto everything you hit with them, plus you have higher built-in damage than any other unarmed character without a feat (even Monks start out lower, but have an optional bonus attack through Martial Arts).
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 are saying the put a weapon in the game, specified damage, modifiers etc. and did all that with the intention that it can never be used? Why? They said each gantlet instead of one gauntlet for a reason right? so in your head why did they do that?
You can absolutely use it, using either free hand.
In terms of the logic, it depends upon the weapon; the reason that other non-light weapons can't use two-weapon fighting as standard is because they are not light, which in D&D terms doesn't necessarily just mean weight, but the speed with which you can attack with that weapon. The way the two-weapon fighting mechanic works in 5e supports the idea that a light weapon is one that can be used to make a quick follow-up strike, anything else is either too slow or too heavy for that. A dagger for example is an ideal second weapon because once you're up close you just need to quickly stab with it to get the maximum effect, whereas a longsword requires more effort to swing or thrust with.
For thunder gauntlets specifically it may be a factor of the bulk of armoured gauntlets (limited range of movement) or the way in which the magic operates; if you look at the Armorer artwork you can see a Guardian punching with both hands free, but only one gauntlet activating, implying the magic requires a solid hit to activate. You can theme that however you want, maybe the magic is partly powered by the punching action, or requires the solid hit for safety reasons or whatever, but there's a big difference between a properly executed knock-out punch and a quick short jab (which in sports like boxing is really about distracting your opponent or keeping them on the defensive, rather than dealing actual damage).
And keep in mind; Armorers get a second attack as standard already, and thunder gauntlets impose a penalty onto everything you hit with them, plus you have higher built-in damage than any other unarmed character without a feat (even Monks start out lower, but have an optional bonus attack through Martial Arts).
I think you are missing what I'm asking Why did they bother putting in the text saying you have 2 gantlets? From what you are saying its so you can choose to hit with your left or right hand but never both. Why? What purpose does that serve mechanically?
You are saying the put a weapon in the game, specified damage, modifiers etc. and did all that with the intention that it can never be used? Why? They said each gantlet instead of one gauntlet for a reason right? so in your head why did they do that?
You can absolutely use it, using either free hand.
In terms of the logic, it depends upon the weapon; the reason that other non-light weapons can't use two-weapon fighting as standard is because they are not light, which in D&D terms doesn't necessarily just mean weight, but the speed with which you can attack with that weapon. The way the two-weapon fighting mechanic works in 5e supports the idea that a light weapon is one that can be used to make a quick follow-up strike, anything else is either too slow or too heavy for that. A dagger for example is an ideal second weapon because once you're up close you just need to quickly stab with it to get the maximum effect, whereas a longsword requires more effort to swing or thrust with.
For thunder gauntlets specifically it may be a factor of the bulk of armoured gauntlets (limited range of movement) or the way in which the magic operates; if you look at the Armorer artwork you can see a Guardian punching with both hands free, but only one gauntlet activating, implying the magic requires a solid hit to activate. You can theme that however you want, maybe the magic is partly powered by the punching action, or requires the solid hit for safety reasons or whatever, but there's a big difference between a properly executed knock-out punch and a quick short jab (which in sports like boxing is really about distracting your opponent or keeping them on the defensive, rather than dealing actual damage).
And keep in mind; Armorers get a second attack as standard already, and thunder gauntlets impose a penalty onto everything you hit with them, plus you have higher built-in damage than any other unarmed character without a feat (even Monks start out lower, but have an optional bonus attack through Martial Arts).
I think you are missing what I'm asking Why did they bother putting in the text saying you have 2 gantlets? From what you are saying its so you can choose to hit with your left or right hand but never both. Why? What purpose does that serve mechanically?
You actually can hit with both. It's called the Extra Attack feature. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no "off-hand" in 5th edition. If you want to attack with both in a single turn, you can. If you wish to grapple someone, or hold a shield, it doesn't matter which hand you use.
And if you wish to acquire the Dual wielder feat, then you can use both with Two-Weapon Fighting.
I think you are missing what I'm asking Why did they bother putting in the text saying you have 2 gantlets? From what you are saying its so you can choose to hit with your left or right hand but never both. Why? What purpose does that serve mechanically?
Arcane Propulsion Armor (the infusion) has the same text in relevant part, and neither one has text saying you have two gauntlets. Subtly different wording means Arcane Propulsion Armor includes at least two gauntlets while Guardian Armor includes at least one (technically zero, but this argument will cause a rules paradox), and neither one has any upper limit on number of incorporated gauntlets. You'll note if you look there's no actual rule stopping you from mounting gauntlets all over your Defender suit.
If you want to keep down the path of madness, no rule says the thunder gauntlets must be attached to the armor to work. Strictly RAW, however many gauntlets the suit of armor has can be dispensed to, say, the adventuring party, and they can run around punching with them. Once you're level 9, you can infuse all of the gauntlets at once with one weapon infusion.
Oh, and you don't have to wear a gauntlet to attack with it. It becomes a weapon while nothing is held in the gauntlet. In terms of strict RAW, you can hold the gauntlet in your hand and slap people with it, and it'll function just fine, if you want to qualify for, say, Two Weapon Fighting with the Dual Wielder feat, since again, the text of the gauntlets is that the gauntlets have to be empty to be weaponized, not your hands, unlike e.g. Beast Barbarian claws.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are a couple damage switch ups of this kind of nature. Many of them actually coming out with Tasha's surprisingly. But yes the Four Elements monk can indeed change it's damage to fire and gain an increase of 10 feet in range for all of your attacks for that turn. It is surprisingly cheap at only 1 ki for those basic functions but it also allows for 1 ki to be spent per attack to increase that attacks damage after you know that the attack hits by 1d10. But because it is still completely an unarmed strike despite the changes you can also still stunning strike off of it if you want (this is actually one of the longest distance stunning strikes that monks can achieve surprisingly thanks to the melee requirement) and because it still takes your attack action you can still Flurry of Blows with it if you wish. Now how much of that you can do together is limited by your level both through how much ki you have at your disposal and how much ki the power allows you to spend on it at one time. But it's actually an excellent pairing to the Dexterity Primary monk that most guides lean towards with a lot of synergies to that style of play.
It may be my familiarity both with monks and the various ways that particular power can work that influences the way I see the art. But I am sure it is not helped by the blurryness and questionable shape of many things in the artwork picture other than the two types of armorer Artificer mid battle.
Fateless, you're completely misrepresenting what I said about being able to achieve hits with the same ease as using a dagger as if I impled you can use a hand to straight-up shiv something, and even after clarification, you are focusing in on a misconception that is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. I know that poking with a finger isn't going to go the same damage as a knife with the same force applied. I was saying that merely achieving a touch with any variety of intentional strikes, even one as simple as a poke, is as easy to do, if not more so, as getting a solid hit in with a knife, that requires a certain amount of force with the point or edge. My thing about the knife and the hand was that any motion your hand can make while holding a knife, it can make while not holding a knife, and then some, so the idea that the balance of an "unwieldy gauntlet" somehow becomes less unwieldy when holding a dagger is silly, therefore implying the gauntlets aren't these clumsy things people seem to be interpreting them as.
As for the strength thing I keep revisiting, my point is that because of the magical augmentation, it feels weightless TO YOU. I never said it made the armor weigh less, but if it allows you to wear it AS IF it were weightless, then you would be able to move freely in it. To everything else but the wearer, yes, it will have its natural weight, but to the person wearing it, they are not encumbered by it in any way. This would logically extend to the gauntlets, meaning as far as freedom of movement, it would feel like they are bare-handed.
When I jumped in, this discussion was dead, and I established that I was adding my own thoughts to the mix, I wasn't answering the initial topic with a "yes they are light".
My whole participation was "No, they aren't light, but I think there's legitimacy behind interpreting them that way as a DM, and I personally think those reasons are compelling enough that the canon should be revisited."
This isn't an argument about the rules. This is an academic discussion on the literal description of the items and the implications of how they COULD function, and how that supports the possibility that they could be interpreted as light, and therefore usable with two-weapon fighting in the context of DM discretion, with the added opinion that I would personally like to see validation of the ideas and concepts I am presenting.
I have never implied, and in fact I have exhaustively added disclaimer to my opinions, that I think the gauntlets are light. I have admitted MANY times that they are not. I'm talking about what I feel SHOULD BE, not dismissing WHAT IS, so this weird habit of going back to "you're wrong, but you could homebrew it that way" shows that there's a blatant misunderstanding or failure in translation between what I'm saying, and what's being replied.
I already clarified my only point ins saying "magic taser" which has completely been focused way too heavily on and taken way out of context was the implication the the effect happens on touch. It had nothing to do with the damage type. It had nothing to do with the actual nuance of making contact with two prongs. It was a simple thing to be taken at face-value via the sentence that followed it, which was the main statement.
"Magic in D&D works as described in the rules, not however you want it to..." and there is NO DESCRIPTION of how it works. There is only a damage type and the means by which that damage can be achieved. You say things don't work by any means except as-described, and then you immediately made up your own description which is as much an extrapolation as anything I've said, since we're dealing with a rule established by the absence of a rule. I'm saying that if we treat the light property like a Schrödinger's cat since there is neither EXPLICIT confirmation of a statement that it IS or IS NOT light.
And before you say it, I know that officially that means that it IS NOT light. I'm saying that if you are willing to set aside the single idea that it isn't light for the singular reason that it isn't mentioned and are left with only all the other descriptions and the implied physics therein, that purely by the weight an maneuverability, considering the attack itself is magical and could require only touch by the most forgiving interpretation since there is not explicit mention of how the damage occurs, that it would be reasonable to imagine a version of this weapon which can be adequately used to deal damage over the course of an action and bonus action.
To back-track just a tiny bit, the whole "safety feature" idea can be countered with the idea that it's an AT WILL enchantment. There are plenty of magical items that you simply will to work. Assuming this is true for the gauntlets, they don't need a built-in mechanism to be safe, because they would only activate under the 2 conditions of (A)They touch your target and (B) You intend for them to activate at such time as requisite (A) is achieved. It's a magical effect, not a mechanical one, so what is possible is far more lenient than what you describe. What you describe is perfectly reasonable fluff, but that's a self-engineered restriction, not a specified one. Lack of specificity means there's much more room to get creative with reasoning, which is partly what this whole exercise has been based on. A lot of the replies to what I'm saying are using the existing ruling to box in what's possible. I'm saying that while I acknowledge the ruling, the lack of explicit mention as to why such is the case leaves a LOT of room in homebrew to explain why a DM might allow it to function otherwise, and when a homebrew solution seems so reasonable and makes more sense to me than an official ruling, it makes me question the decision for that ruling, and whether the author of that rule would feel inclined to explain their reasoning for an official way to support it, or whether they would agree that perhaps the light property should have been included, and my assumption is that it was intentionally written as not light from a balancing and game design perspective which may have led to a lack of consideration of the things I've mentioned in order to make it work as they wanted it to. That's fine, it's a fantasy game, and the rules are a guideline, nothing more, but I like having these discussions for posterity sake.
The wording on the thunder gauntlets just leaves a few questions they should work on. :)
I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there.
Regardless of whatever you think Thunder Gauntlets could or should be, they are not. They are what the feature that describes them says they are: no more and no less. If a weapon lacks a property in its description, then it lacks the property. This is not some case of qui tacet consentit. There is no Schrödinger's weapon here for us to haggle over.
They are not light weapons. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you want to use them with Two-Weapon Fighting, get the requisite feat. If you want to add your Ability modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action attack, find a way to acquire the accompanying fighting style.
Anything beyond that is purely homebrew. And you don't need to litigate that here with meandering thousand-word posts. If you're the DM, just do what you want at your table.
Weird... you didn't stop me.
It's almost like... this is an open forum.
Like, I'm discussing opinion after explicitly acknowledging the canon and accepting it...
I'm looking for creative discourse on personal interpretations and reasoning.
If you don't like thinking, reading, and playing along, you don't need to be here.
You're contributing nothing but being a party-pooper and attempting to end a conversation which is intended to be free-form that several others here are engaging in passionately, even if we are at disagreement. By the nature of debate, I'm calling them out and such, but there's no ill-will in it, that's just how argument goes, and I am appreciative for their participation.
You, however, are the one trying to put nails in non-existent coffins because of some weird need for a resolution. Your blanket reply is disingenuous and unsporting.
Why? What's wrong with talking about it? It's just weird to me how almost hostile you are being just for the sake of trying to end a discussion you don't need to be part of.
You're also arguing, and I quote...
So, I hope you'll forgive me for taking your professed acceptance of canon comes across as disingenuous.
If WotC wanted any gauntlets to be light weapons, they'd have done so by now. And they were, once, eight years ago. But they were removed from playtesting six months later; a full year before the PHB was published.
In order to sustain this discussion, you're asking us to reject reality and substitute your own. It's a ludicrous premise. And the point of my previous post can be distilled to the following:
If you think there is a case for a DM to rule that Thunder Gauntlets should be light, that is your prerogative as DM. You can even lobby a DM you play under to rule it as such. But your diatribes, where you meander, argue, and even push for an errata to a book barely three months old, aren't productive.
When I typed, "I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there," it was my attempt to sparing you from what I see as further embarrassment. As others have pointed out, you have not made a compelling, legitimate argument. And regardless of how logically sound you think your position to be, it does not stand up to any scrutiny.
Moving a knife in a way that makes it do it's function does not have any basis on what our hand is capable of by making the same motion without the knife. This again is a false equivalency. It is entirely irrelevant. I am not misrepresenting this fact. Even though I have edited your words down to get to key portions of your point. no matter how many times you pretend to hold a handle it will in no way do what the knife does. Merely touching something does not cause the same affect. There is no melee weapon that I can think of that functions by merely touching something. And if there is it's probably magic and probably using an extra power or not really a weapon. All weapons need to be swung or Jabbed or if they are ranged need to be thrown or fired. This is a basic function of weapons in the game. This is not something that is being fancifully conjured up and then forced upon the thunder gauntlets for no reason or placed upon them without proof. Merely touching something is actually a requirement that you are placing upon the Thunder Gauntlets instead. The exact wording of thunder gauntlets is...
"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."
This is very straight forward. This does not say that because you can move your hands certain ways with a different classification of item in your hand that your gauntlets should have those classifications. Or that they would have the same effects as when you are using those objects in their intended ways just because you can make those same motions empty handed.
There is only one type of attack that I can think of that is a touch attack. It's a spell attack. Sometimes it is part of casting a spell. Sometimes it is a special effect. But there is nothing about the gauntlet that says or even suggests that it is a spell attack. If it was it would say spell attack and it would say on touching the target like any of those abilities do. So we can actually reasonably rule out the thunder gauntlet working at all in this way because it is not in the direct sentence above. Your attempts to make it work this way do not work. You have given no actual reason why they should work other than irrelevant statements about things like Knives and Tasers and how you move your hands while using them.
Second. you are still incorrect in this. You do not use the armor it as if it is weightless. You use it without it being a burden upon you to use. Nothing about removing the strength requirement says anything about treating it as weightless in any way. You just simply use it as if you were of the physical capability of fully using it without it's bulk obstructing you. this is different from weightless. The Armor is effectively iron man armor or Power Armor from Fallout. It is not in any way weightless. it is simply designed to assist you without hinderance. Your insistence that it is weightless so you must be able to get certain properties from it doesn't work. Even if you did use the armor as if it were weightless. It still would not make your gauntlets have the light weapon property. Your fists do not even have the light weapon property. Not even the Martial arts Master that is the Monk has the light weapon property for their fists despite everything they are capable of. There is no precedence what so ever for giving them this ability.
Thirdly. I left this paragraph by you that I'm responding to mostly intact. But there is no implied physics that support your claim. I actually gave you examples that provide applied physics as to why your way does not work. And I've given you reasoning as to why it is thunder damage and why the thunder damage works and how it works in regards to the Thunder Gauntlets. This does not change if we get into physical sciences about it. It doesn't even change by the basic rules of magic. You know that they aren't so we really should leave it at they aren't because I've explained that none of what your claiming about physics and physical capability applies at least a couple times in different ways. Your efforts to support this and do not work because they are irrelevant in the ways that you are trying to use them.
Finally. Let's discuss your mention here of an AT Will Enchantment because this doesn't go in your favor. There aren't really any magical items that operate this way in 5e. Basically all Magical items work either as a constant effect. Or they work by activating and deactivating the item. while the phrase "at will" has been used to describe items that can be activated and deactivated as many times as you like. These are not actually literally controlled by your will. It's merely a phrase to express that you can use these things as often and/or for as long as you want while active but that they are not constant because they can be deactivated similarly to how you turn them on. All such items Still require you to do something to activate and deactivate them in some way. Whether that's a motion you make with them, A special phrase you say while activating them, Or a combination of these things.
To illustrate my point. This is straight out of the DMG in the magic items section.
ACTIVATING AN ITEM Activating some magic items requires a user to do something special, such as holding the item and uttering a command word. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use the following rules for their activation. If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Item action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item.
The bolded part is important. Because the only items that do not follow this rule under all of those categories when you look through the parts talking about them in the DMG in the same section are constant use items. Things that are either worn in some way or wielded as a weapon to function. And I am aware that you want to make the argument that your talking about the way weapons are wielded because their functions work when the weapon hits the enemy. Here is the problem. Except for exceptional weapons with additional properties that are activated in ways listed in their specific descriptions. All such powers require them to use them as if you would a non-magical version of that weapon to take advantage of it's constant magical effect. This doesn't mean you touch the enemy, it doesn't mean you tap them, or anything else of the sort. It means you punch them, stab them, kick them, slash them, whatever it is you do. But there is a downside to this that technically comes up in the game. If these weapons for some reason hit you while because you punch or stab or kick yourself or whatever. They deliver their magical effect to you too. They do not however do them if you simply touch them. Because that is not their intended use. There is no at will component to them or actually to any magical item that I can think of, and I know a lot and have access to a ton more than I would come up with off the top of my head.
You can use whatever justification you'd like, but the Thunder Gauntlet rules still don't say that they're a light weapon and no amount of arguing about why they should be is going to change that. If you'd like to house rule otherwise, that's fine, but don't treat house rules like they're official.
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.
It's a simple melee weapon dealing thunder damage. THAT is how it works. That's what rules are for.
Rules are how something works, extrapolating from the rules is perfectly fine as that's how to flavour something while playing it in a rules legal way. If my extrapolation fits the rules, then mine is legitimate, one that doesn't is not. That doesn't mean you can't theme your character's abilities differently, but it means you need to ask your DM for an exception or change to the rules to make it work, or you ask your group to act like it works in a way that it doesn't. In other words, you're either following the rules as provided, or you're not.
Pretty much all roleplaying in D&D is extroplating from the rules; when you whiff a roll for Persuasion you and/or your DM decide how that fits into the narrative, maybe your character delivers a great speech but gets a name wrong, or they appeal to the conscience that isn't there and so-on, that's all about sticking to the rules. It's very different to you turning around and saying "well actually I persuaded them because there's no way my character would mess that up after attending always-pass-speech-checks school as a child". Flavouring that goes against the rules isn't re-interpreting the rules, it's seeking to change them. Again, that can be fine, but homebrew is changing rules, not following them.
Something not having a property or rule doesn't mean you get to choose whether it has it or not. If something does not have the light property then IT IS NOT LIGHT, period. And no you can't just suspend that for one singular feature, because then why not others? Shall I just decide my dagger has reach this round because my character's feeling too lazy to get out of their chair?
The absence of a feature is a very strange argument to make, or are you suggesting that in future WotC must mention every possible feature by name in every single rule that they publish, so that it's absolutely explicit that not only are Thunder Gauntlets not light, they're also not two-handed, or firearms, or monster only large weapons, arcane focuses etc. etc.?
Except that it being an at will enchantment that can trigger arbitrarily isn't really supported by the rules (as it would already be light if it were so easy to do, so either it's not the case, or there is some other limitation), while "safety feature" is a perfectly legitimate way to flavour how the rules actually work, and there are plenty of others as I've said. It doesn't matter if other magic effects can be on contact or at will, if the one you want to be isn't.
That's not how rules work; the rule says what it is says, it doesn't need to explicitly describe how or why it works the way it does in order to do so, that's left up to the player and/or DM if they want to flavour it within the rules that are given.
Homebrew is not re-interpreting the rules, it's changing them or creating additional ones, and it's a perfectly fine and reasonable thing to do, but it's a specific departure from the way the rules actually work as provided. If you change Thunder Gauntlets to light then you're not using Tasha's Cauldron Thunder Gauntlets anymore, you're using custom Thunder Gauntlets. Again, that's fine, but it's a choice, not an interpretation of what's there which says what you want isn't the way it works.
Ultimately when it comes to flavouring your character you have two options; either you flavour within the rules (gauntlets require a punch to activate, are slower and clumsier than a dagger, or don't have enough reach as a held weapon for quick strikes, or however else you want to do it) or you ask your DM to change the rule so you can flavour it differently. There's also the middle option where you flavour something against the rules but use the rules anyway and everyone just acts like it works different, which can also work (though usually when you do this you're giving yourself extra restrictions on how you do something, e.g- your character needs to be drunk to cast magic).
Arguing against how other people interpret the gauntlets to work within the rules though is just pointless, as they're actually trying to use the rules in a way that makes sense to them. You can come up with reasons why you could justify making them function differently until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that that what you'll be describing is a homebrew alternative feature, rather than the rules as given.
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.
Literally tell any sane DM the end.
So from what I can tell with Duel Wielder you SHOULD be able to make a bonus action attack (all be it without any extra damage since it’s your off hand attack so you’d need the two weapon fighting style as well to get that), but like someone said before it probably just not programmed in. That said you CAN add custom actions with dnd beyond so as long as you don’t cheat while putting in the info it should be fine. On the actions page you should see “manage custom” and there you can make your own action.
If you don’t have two weapon fighter then just make it a GENERAL action and you can select the damage be light and 1d8, and you should also be able to make it a bonus action. Then you just have to make sure the check off “proficient” and “display as attack”
If you DO have two weapon fighter then you can make it a WEAPON action and input all the same info, but then also make the attack an unarmed attack (or natural if you want I don’t think it matters stat wise), and make the stat type either intelligence or strength depending on what you use.
This is what I don't understand about some of this logic
-The text says both gauntlets count as weapons get the int modifier, etc.
They way some of you guys are reading the text, there is absolutely no way of ever using the off and gauntlet as a weapon ever.
Does that seem like it's what is intended?
If you really think that this is what they wanted when they wrote this I'd love to hear the logic behind that.
This is how a lot of similar features such as special claws attacks function, alongside unarmed strikes in general; if they wanted it to function differently they'd have stated so.
The remark about both gauntlets is to clarify that it doesn't matter which hand is free to strike with, this is no different to wielding one single-handed non-light weapon in each hand; you can attack with either hand in such a case, but not use two-weapon fighting.
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.
The distinction of being able to attack with either hand but not both is a distinction without difference in this case. How does this ever come into play in a way that would warrent them putting the 2 gauntlet thing in the game?
Your average humanoid character has two or more limbs with which to perform unarmed strikes, but they don't get to use two-weapon fighting. This is how all basic unarmed fighting works in 5e, and most special unarmed fighting (claws and such).
The precedent is already there, and as I say, the exact same thing applies to having any two non-light weapons in your hands; the gauntlets feature functions no differently to either of these cases, if they did they'd say so.
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.
Ok but tell me the logic that is going on in your head that has all this make sense.
You are saying the put a weapon in the game, specified damage, modifiers etc. and did all that with the intention that it can never be used? Why? They said each gantlet instead of one gauntlet for a reason right? so in your head why did they do that?
You can absolutely use it, using either free hand.
In terms of the logic, it depends upon the weapon; the reason that other non-light weapons can't use two-weapon fighting as standard is because they are not light, which in D&D terms doesn't necessarily just mean weight, but the speed with which you can attack with that weapon. The way the two-weapon fighting mechanic works in 5e supports the idea that a light weapon is one that can be used to make a quick follow-up strike, anything else is either too slow or too heavy for that. A dagger for example is an ideal second weapon because once you're up close you just need to quickly stab with it to get the maximum effect, whereas a longsword requires more effort to swing or thrust with.
For thunder gauntlets specifically it may be a factor of the bulk of armoured gauntlets (limited range of movement) or the way in which the magic operates; if you look at the Armorer artwork you can see a Guardian punching with both hands free, but only one gauntlet activating, implying the magic requires a solid hit to activate. You can theme that however you want, maybe the magic is partly powered by the punching action, or requires the solid hit for safety reasons or whatever, but there's a big difference between a properly executed knock-out punch and a quick short jab (which in sports like boxing is really about distracting your opponent or keeping them on the defensive, rather than dealing actual damage).
And keep in mind; Armorers get a second attack as standard already, and thunder gauntlets impose a penalty onto everything you hit with them, plus you have higher built-in damage than any other unarmed character without a feat (even Monks start out lower, but have an optional bonus attack through Martial Arts).
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 think you are missing what I'm asking
Why did they bother putting in the text saying you have 2 gantlets? From what you are saying its so you can choose to hit with your left or right hand but never both. Why? What purpose does that serve mechanically?
You actually can hit with both. It's called the Extra Attack feature. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no "off-hand" in 5th edition. If you want to attack with both in a single turn, you can. If you wish to grapple someone, or hold a shield, it doesn't matter which hand you use.
And if you wish to acquire the Dual wielder feat, then you can use both with Two-Weapon Fighting.
Arcane Propulsion Armor (the infusion) has the same text in relevant part, and neither one has text saying you have two gauntlets. Subtly different wording means Arcane Propulsion Armor includes at least two gauntlets while Guardian Armor includes at least one (technically zero, but this argument will cause a rules paradox), and neither one has any upper limit on number of incorporated gauntlets. You'll note if you look there's no actual rule stopping you from mounting gauntlets all over your Defender suit.
If you want to keep down the path of madness, no rule says the thunder gauntlets must be attached to the armor to work. Strictly RAW, however many gauntlets the suit of armor has can be dispensed to, say, the adventuring party, and they can run around punching with them. Once you're level 9, you can infuse all of the gauntlets at once with one weapon infusion.
Oh, and you don't have to wear a gauntlet to attack with it. It becomes a weapon while nothing is held in the gauntlet. In terms of strict RAW, you can hold the gauntlet in your hand and slap people with it, and it'll function just fine, if you want to qualify for, say, Two Weapon Fighting with the Dual Wielder feat, since again, the text of the gauntlets is that the gauntlets have to be empty to be weaponized, not your hands, unlike e.g. Beast Barbarian claws.