So, without wanting to resurrect the whole Thunder Gauntlet discussion, is the whole argument perhaps a case of confusion as to what RAW actually means? Because like many people have pointed out, the Rules As Written are quite clear about the subject even though it doesn't really make any sense.
If you had actually read the arguments then you would've seen that no, there was RAW disagreement as well. It's far from clear.
I did read them and it seems more that the confusion is about what RAW actually means than there being conflicted texts in the book. But yes, it is quite clear. There is no item called "Thunder Gauntlets" that in the book has a prescribed value. None of the lists of items that can be purchased has that particular item with a value assigned to it, yes? Therefor, the Rules are not Written to include that item in the Rules As Written that has a value.
I mean if you really want to I can repeat everything that's been said the past few pages because you aren't saying anything that's new either...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
The last disagreement seems to be wether the gauntlets are the same thing as the armor and have the value of said armor or wether they are a seperate entity and therefor not on any table in the books.
On which side ever you stand doesn't seem to be an important thing, nobody here seems to believe RAI it should be that it doesn't work.
Yeah for about 90% of the players (not necessarily forum users) the actual RAW doesn't really matter in this case. It's really mostly an argument for sake of having the argument. Hence why I didn't even bother participating in it apart from some one-liners.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
It seems both sides are very confident that RAW is clearly in their favor.. I would say that RAW simply doesn't address the issue. It's probably a case of people disagreeing on what "RAW" actually means... If we just take exactly what the rules say, and nothing more, the question is not answered imo... Since the value of the gauntlets specfically is not addressed. So... some basic logical steps are required.
It would be absurd to say that because the rules only state the value of the armor as a whole, that the gauntlets lack a value... I cannot imagine a campaign where only items specfically defined in the rulebooks exist.. And I don't think I've seen anyone find a place where it says that any item without a defined value, then lacks a value.
It's not that any item not in the books has a value of "0".. they have a value of "?" which may or may not meet the requirements, depenending on the item... Which is why we cannot rely on RAW entirely...
Let's just say a spell required "An object with a value of atleast 1 sp"... Then we find a mystical cube made from mithril... This cube doesn't exist in the books... But based on the nature of the object, I assume noone would claim that it did not meet the requirements.
For the same reason... I believe that the gauntlets obviously meet the requirements for the blade cantrips.
Oh and I may have missed a bit fo the argument... Kinda skimmed a few pages :)
It was nice not having this argument while it lasted.
Okay. I would like to refer people to the RAW, in-the-book background "Far Traveler". In this background, one of the items the background gives is, and I directly quote: "a small piece of jewelry worth 10 gp in the style of your homeland’s craftsmanship". This item is added to the "Other Possessions" section of one's inventory and is definitive, in-the-books proof that items which have a value and which are not listed in the Adventuring Gear section of the PHB can exist. A player can possess a piece of jewelry in the style of their homeland's craftsmanship, with an assigned value of ten gold pieces. Far Traveler is an AL-legal background (since all backgrounds are AL legal backgrounds), which means the existence of non-"Adventuring Gear" items with defined values is also AL legal.
If "a small piece of jewelry worth 10 gp in the style of your homeland’s craftsmanship" can have a value greater than 1sp, so can "an extension of your pricey armor, created through the use of magical engineering." Just let your freakin' players Booming Blade with their freaking gauntlet already. If you don't like it, clobber the artificer until he stops being a problem. You're the DM - if a player wants to volunteer to take all the punchings, give him more punchings THAN HIS BODY HAS ROOM FOR.
So, without wanting to resurrect the whole Thunder Gauntlet discussion, is the whole argument perhaps a case of confusion as to what RAW actually means? Because like many people have pointed out, the Rules As Written are quite clear about the subject even though it doesn't really make any sense.
If you had actually read the arguments then you would've seen that no, there was RAW disagreement as well. It's far from clear.
I did read them and it seems more that the confusion is about what RAW actually means than there being conflicted texts in the book. But yes, it is quite clear. There is no item called "Thunder Gauntlets" that in the book has a prescribed value. None of the lists of items that can be purchased has that particular item with a value assigned to it, yes? Therefor, the Rules are not Written to include that item in the Rules As Written that has a value.
If you actually read the arguments against that, you would see why there is a disagreement on the RAW, not on what RAW means.
The gauntlets are part of the armor. Therefore, they share the cost of the armor, and have a price greater than 1 sp.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The last disagreement seems to be wether the gauntlets are the same thing as the armor and have the value of said armor or wether they are a seperate entity and therefor not on any table in the books.
On which side ever you stand doesn't seem to be an important thing, nobody here seems to believe RAI it should be that it doesn't work.
The problem is that the two arguments are not equal, and not simply opinion:
You have the Arcane Armor feature which adds various bonuses etc. to how you use that armour.
You have the Armor Model feature that adds further bonuses depending upon which model you have.
One part of that feature is Thunder Gauntlets, which specifies you can attack using the armour's gauntlets if your hands are empty.
Gauntlets are part of the armour, you are attacking with the armour, therefore the "weapon" value is the armour value.
Thunder Gauntlets are a separate item:
1-3 are as above. In addition:
Thunder Gauntlets are a weapon.
There is no weapon in the Equipment section called "Thunder Gauntlets"
Thunder Gauntlets have no value.
The problem with this is there is nothing that specifies that Thunder Gauntlets are a separate item to the armour or should in any way be treated as separate from the armour to which they belong, the Thunder Gauntlets feature certainly doesn't. To argue this case requires inventing a step.
Put another way, if someone says "show me where this item is in the book", the obvious response to that is "what item and why?" because the feature doesn't specify an item, and nothing says you must be able to find it in the book under anything other than the item that already exists (the armour).
Ultimately the camp that wants to argue that there is suddenly an item in the game called "Thunder Gauntlets" that has no (defined) value needs to show why this is the case, but that hasn't happened yet.
That's not quite right. The argument against it was that they don't have a defined value, not that they have no value. That's a difference. Though my argument against that one was that RAW doesn't say anywhere that the value has to be defined in an official book so whatever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
Ultimately the camp that wants to argue that there is suddenly an item in the game called "Thunder Gauntlets" that has no (defined) value needs to show why this is the case, but that hasn't happened yet.
It has happened multiple times, but we can repeat it again. Thunder Gauntlets are created when armor, such as leather, is used to create Arcane Armor. Like any other created item which does not have a listing in an equipment table, it has no defined value, and thus does not qualify RAW for use with BB or GFB both of which require a weapon (not armor) with a defined value.
No rule or jump is being made here, you literally, and I'm using the word correctly, have to add a rule to define the value of the Thunder Gauntlet.
This is all really dumb, there is a simple test for this and it is the only one that is going to matter in an AL game. Show me a weapon entry in any allowed rule book named "Gauntlet" or "Thunder Gauntlet" with a value of 1sp or more. You do not get to create rules for AL, thus saying that the value of the armor can sub for this is just wrong. If you don't believe me go sign up for a AL game and give it a shot, see what happens.
It has been stated multiple times, but we can repeat it again. Thunder Gauntlets are created by the Arcane Armor, and there is no language that says that the armor ceases to be a part of the armor, therefore the Thunder Gauntlets are a part of the armor. This makes it so the gauntlets have the same shared price as the armor set they are a part of. Therefore, the gauntlets have a listed price, it just varies from armor to armor.
No jump is made here, literally, I am following the RAW, and am not having to add a defined value to the Thunder Gauntlets, as the gauntlets are a part of the armor that made them. Thus, they have the same total price as the armor.
Furthermore, the Arcane Armor ability never states that when the simple weapons are created, they cease to be a part of the armor. Claiming that Thunder Gauntlets cease to be a part of the armor set that created them because they are a weapon is just as "truthful" as stating that a Tabaxi's claws are not a part of their body, because they are natural weapons. They are unique weapons created by the armor and remain a part of the armor. To claim otherwise is adding a rule that does not exist.
This is all really dumb, the only person it will matter for is at a table where the DM's whole purpose is to take away the fun of the players (i.e. Adventurers' League). Show me a sentence in TCoE that states that a weapon cannot be both a weapon and part of armor at the same time. You do not create rules for AL, thus saying that the value of the gauntlets are not the same as the armor it is a part of is just wrong. If you don't believe me, go sign up for an AL game and give it a shot, using the same arguments I am using, see what happens.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It has been stated multiple times, but we can repeat it again. Thunder Gauntlets are created by the Arcane Armor, and there is no language that says that the armor ceases to be a part of the armor, therefore the Thunder Gauntlets are a part of the armor. This makes it so the gauntlets have the same shared price as the armor set they are a part of. Therefore, the gauntlets have a listed price, it just varies from armor to armor.
No jump is made here, literally, I am following the RAW, and am not having to add a defined value to the Thunder Gauntlets, as the gauntlets are a part of the armor that made them. Thus, they have the same total price as the armor.
Furthermore, the Arcane Armor ability never states that when the simple weapons are created, they cease to be a part of the armor. Claiming that Thunder Gauntlets cease to be a part of the armor set that created them because they are a weapon is just as "truthful" as stating that a Tabaxi's claws are not a part of their body, because they are natural weapons. They are unique weapons created by the armor and remain a part of the armor. To claim otherwise is adding a rule that does not exist.
This is all really dumb, the only person it will matter for is at a table where the DM's whole purpose is to take away the fun of the players (i.e. Adventurers' League). Show me a sentence in TCoE that states that a weapon cannot be both a weapon and part of armor at the same time. You do not create rules for AL, thus saying that the value of the gauntlets are not the same as the armor it is a part of is just wrong. If you don't believe me, go sign up for an AL game and give it a shot, using the same arguments I am using, see what happens.
We didn't say that we didn't agree with this thinking. What we stated is that AL does not think things through this deeply and thus chooses to decide the other way despite what logic may work out as. Because it's layers of things going on they will stop before they get through all the layers and make the statement mentioned in 99.9% of cases.
It's not "logic" or "thinking", it's the RAW. If the DM is using the RAW (as confusing as it may be), Thunder Gauntlets work with Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade. That's what i'm trying to get at. It's legal RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It's not "logic" or "thinking", it's the RAW. If the DM is using the RAW (as confusing as it may be), Thunder Gauntlets work with Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade. That's what i'm trying to get at. It's legal RAW.
It's only legal by RAW because of a string of logical thoughts strung together. The gauntlets being defined from the armor. The Gauntlets being reclassified as a weapon called a Thunder Fist as well as armor. The Spell having a restriction that requires certain defined information about said weapon. This all goes into this one thing and AL does not go this deep. No matter how much you want them to. At your table go ahead and allow these things. However, Don't expect anybody else to allow them just because your willing to go through the entire LOGICAL sequence to reach that end result. They may not be willing to do the same thing. It is that Simple. No matter how much you want to argue it and say there isn't any thought or logic behind it. There is thought and logic behind it and application of the Rule of Specificity through those basic mental tools. The difference is your willingness to apply it and figure out all those steps to apply the needed defined detail and others not be willing to do so.
I mean if in AL the Thunder Gauntlets stop being part of the armor you are also free to infuse them on top of already infusing your armor I guess. AL is dumb and should be left out of discussions that aren't specifically about AL. ^^
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
I agree that the Guardian isn't bad per se, it's just that it doesn't really bring anything worthwhile to the table that the Infilitrator doesn't. If we go by pure AC, they are the same. At higher levels the Guardian is a bit more durable due to more temporary HP but the AC and disadvantage is still the same. And of course, Infilitrators can attack from a distance, lowering the risk of taking damage.
Can't believe I forgot to respond to this earlier!
As I noted the raw AC isn't so simple; sure if they both use heavy armour they'll have the same AC, but if you do that then you're not getting the most out of the Infiltrator armour. Best value for a dedicated Infiltrator will probably be Light Armour as you can have full advantage on stealth, and if you want to sneak (do sleight of hand, pick locks, use acrobatics etc.) and focus on ranged then you'll be going for more of a DEX/INT build versus the dedicated Guardian going for heavy armour + CON/INT.
There's also the difference in what infusions you might take; like you say, an Infiltrator being at range means you shouldn't need high AC as much, so you've less need to infuse your armour for higher AC and can go for something else initially (when you can only do the one armour infusion), and can go for more varied infusions once it opens up, while a Guardian will probably be all about defence. It's all about leaning into the role that each armour model is intended for; if Guardian is what you primarily want to play (rather than something you just bust out when you think you'll need it) then you're choosing to play a tank (or someone that can be one if needed), it's about being attacked so that others aren't. You could absolutely do that as an Infiltrator as well, but you'd be doing it without extra temp HP or the ability to impose disadvantage (and later Scorpion someone over to you for an extra attack).
Also, thinking about it a bit more, the Defensive Field is decent value; not amazing, but it's roughly equivalent to a free first level False Life at 3rd level (two uses at 3 HP each vs. an average of 6.5 HP for a single casting at 1st level). At 10th level you're getting four uses at 10 HP each, so a little less than four free uses of False Life at 2nd level (average 11.5 HP for a 2nd level casting), by 20th level it's six uses at 20 HP each, so similar to False Life at 5th level (average 21.5 HP). So in those terms it's equivalent to getting a free temp HP spell that scales pretty nicely to your own spell progression as a half caster, and as a half caster that's actually good value given your limited spell slots and spell choices. It doesn't sound like a lot of extra HP, but keep in mind that this is on a character that only needs to focus on two abilities (CON/INT) so can have really high HP despite the lower base Hit Dice, and the temp HP scales up pretty quickly, so while 6 total at 3rd level is a bit "meh", at 6th level it's 18 total (equivalent to a +3 in CON, better than the Tough feat) and so-on.
Ultimately the camp that wants to argue that there is suddenly an item in the game called "Thunder Gauntlets" that has no (defined) value needs to show why this is the case, but that hasn't happened yet.
It has happened multiple times, but we can repeat it again. Thunder Gauntlets are created when armor, such as leather, is used to create Arcane Armor. Like any other created item which does not have a listing in an equipment table, it has no defined value, and thus does not qualify RAW for use with BB or GFB both of which require a weapon (not armor) with a defined value.
This doesn't really follow though; the Thunder Gauntlets rule says your gauntlets can be used as a weapon, it doesn't say you gain any. So if this is the sticking point, it's not whether the gauntlets have value, it's whether your armour needs to have gauntlets before you can use it as Guardian armour.
However the Arcane Armour rule itself suggests that it always has gauntlets if you're missing one or both arms, suggesting that no matter what the armour must either already be able to cover your arms and hands, or is able to extend in order to do-so as part of becoming your Arcane Armour. But in this case you're not gaining a new separate item, the existing armour is "growing" to fit, or as part of making it Arcane Armour you're attaching gauntlets onto it, but it's still one single set of armour; no new separate parts are defined or added that justify looking for a new item under equipment.
Again, if the gauntlets were separate it would say so; even when an Armorer gains their 9th level Armor Modifications feature, different parts of the armour onlycount as separate items for the purpose of infusing them.
The other obvious question though is, who wants to use leather armour as a Guardian? Wear heavy armour or go Infiltrator 😝
So, without wanting to resurrect the whole Thunder Gauntlet discussion, is the whole argument perhaps a case of confusion as to what RAW actually means? Because like many people have pointed out, the Rules As Written are quite clear about the subject even though it doesn't really make any sense.
If you had actually read the arguments then you would've seen that no, there was RAW disagreement as well. It's far from clear.
I did read them and it seems more that the confusion is about what RAW actually means than there being conflicted texts in the book. But yes, it is quite clear. There is no item called "Thunder Gauntlets" that in the book has a prescribed value. None of the lists of items that can be purchased has that particular item with a value assigned to it, yes? Therefor, the Rules are not Written to include that item in the Rules As Written that has a value.
If you actually read the arguments against that, you would see why there is a disagreement on the RAW, not on what RAW means.
The gauntlets are part of the armor. Therefore, they share the cost of the armor, and have a price greater than 1 sp.
Except that there isn't a rule in the book where it says that, so no. But again, this has already been settled so no need fo ryou to keep beating that dead horse.
So, without wanting to resurrect the whole Thunder Gauntlet discussion, is the whole argument perhaps a case of confusion as to what RAW actually means? Because like many people have pointed out, the Rules As Written are quite clear about the subject even though it doesn't really make any sense.
If you had actually read the arguments then you would've seen that no, there was RAW disagreement as well. It's far from clear.
I did read them and it seems more that the confusion is about what RAW actually means than there being conflicted texts in the book. But yes, it is quite clear. There is no item called "Thunder Gauntlets" that in the book has a prescribed value. None of the lists of items that can be purchased has that particular item with a value assigned to it, yes? Therefor, the Rules are not Written to include that item in the Rules As Written that has a value.
If you actually read the arguments against that, you would see why there is a disagreement on the RAW, not on what RAW means.
The gauntlets are part of the armor. Therefore, they share the cost of the armor, and have a price greater than 1 sp.
Except that there isn't a rule in the book where it says that, so no. But again, this has already been settled so no need fo ryou to keep beating that dead horse.
There's also no rule in the book that says items can only have a defined value when they are published in an official book. If the DM says it shares the cost of the armor it's part of then it has a defined value per definition of the word.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
So, without wanting to resurrect the whole Thunder Gauntlet discussion, is the whole argument perhaps a case of confusion as to what RAW actually means? Because like many people have pointed out, the Rules As Written are quite clear about the subject even though it doesn't really make any sense.
If you had actually read the arguments then you would've seen that no, there was RAW disagreement as well. It's far from clear.
I did read them and it seems more that the confusion is about what RAW actually means than there being conflicted texts in the book. But yes, it is quite clear. There is no item called "Thunder Gauntlets" that in the book has a prescribed value. None of the lists of items that can be purchased has that particular item with a value assigned to it, yes? Therefor, the Rules are not Written to include that item in the Rules As Written that has a value.
If you actually read the arguments against that, you would see why there is a disagreement on the RAW, not on what RAW means.
The gauntlets are part of the armor. Therefore, they share the cost of the armor, and have a price greater than 1 sp.
Except that there isn't a rule in the book where it says that, so no. But again, this has already been settled so no need for you to keep beating that dead horse.
There's also no rule in the book that says items can only have a defined value when they are published in an official book. If the DM says it shares the cost of the armor it's part of then it has a defined value per definition of the word.
Poor horse. But if it's the DM and not the books that tells you the value, it's not RAW. ;)
So, without wanting to resurrect the whole Thunder Gauntlet discussion, is the whole argument perhaps a case of confusion as to what RAW actually means? Because like many people have pointed out, the Rules As Written are quite clear about the subject even though it doesn't really make any sense.
If you had actually read the arguments then you would've seen that no, there was RAW disagreement as well. It's far from clear.
I did read them and it seems more that the confusion is about what RAW actually means than there being conflicted texts in the book. But yes, it is quite clear. There is no item called "Thunder Gauntlets" that in the book has a prescribed value. None of the lists of items that can be purchased has that particular item with a value assigned to it, yes? Therefor, the Rules are not Written to include that item in the Rules As Written that has a value.
If you actually read the arguments against that, you would see why there is a disagreement on the RAW, not on what RAW means.
The gauntlets are part of the armor. Therefore, they share the cost of the armor, and have a price greater than 1 sp.
Except that there isn't a rule in the book where it says that, so no. But again, this has already been settled so no need for you to keep beating that dead horse.
There's also no rule in the book that says items can only have a defined value when they are published in an official book. If the DM says it shares the cost of the armor it's part of then it has a defined value per definition of the word.
Poor horse. But if it's the DM and not the books that tells you the value, it's not RAW. ;)
Ah but of course it is. It would have a defined value as RAW demands. Nothing more and nothing less. It seems you need to polish your understanding of what RAW means. ;)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
I agree that the Guardian isn't bad per se, it's just that it doesn't really bring anything worthwhile to the table that the Infilitrator doesn't. If we go by pure AC, they are the same. At higher levels the Guardian is a bit more durable due to more temporary HP but the AC and disadvantage is still the same. And of course, Infilitrators can attack from a distance, lowering the risk of taking damage.
Can't believe I forgot to respond to this earlier!
As I noted the raw AC isn't so simple; sure if they both use heavy armour they'll have the same AC,
So it actually is that simple. Which was my point, that I think you missed. So to reiterate. Since there is no difference in what mundane armor can be turned into which arcane armorer, for quite a few levels the Infiltrator armor is actually better than the guardian on the open battlefield.
but if you do that then you're not getting the most out of the Infiltrator armour.
Perhaps, but that wasn't the point. The point was that the infilitrator is a better battlefield option than the guardian, at least for earlier levels. Which is a bit weird.
Best value for a dedicated Infiltrator will probably be Light Armour as you can have full advantage on stealth, and if you want to sneak (do sleight of hand, pick locks, use acrobatics etc.) and focus on ranged then you'll be going for more of a DEX/INT build versus the dedicated Guardian going for heavy armour + CON/INT.
You get the most bang for your buck if you go with medium armour and 14 Dex. That way you can still have very good AC and points better spent on other abilities. You use Int for your attacks and spells anyway.
There's also the difference in what infusions you might take; like you say, an Infiltrator being at range means you shouldn't need high AC as much, so you've less need to infuse your armour for higher AC and can go for something else initially (when you can only do the one armour infusion), and can go for more varied infusions once it opens up, while a Guardian will probably be all about defence.
Haven't said anything about that but you are actually making my argument for me. Since the guardian have to focus on defence, it loses out on battlefield utility which, again, is weird for something that is supposed to be a battlefield armor.
It's all about leaning into the role that each armour model is intended for; if Guardian is what you primarily want to play (rather than something you just bust out when you think you'll need it) then you're choosing to play a tank (or someone that can be one if needed), it's about being attacked so that others aren't. You could absolutely do that as an Infiltrator as well, but you'd be doing it without extra temp HP or the ability to impose disadvantage (and later Scorpion someone over to you for an extra attack).
And again, between levels 3 and 12 the Infiltrator is in some ways more tanky than the guardian. The temporary hit points are to few and and can be used to seldom to make much of a difference (or at least to outweigh the benefits of the infiltrator) up until around level 13. And at level 15 you can impose disdvantage with the infiltrator as well.
Also, thinking about it a bit more, the Defensive Field is decent value; not amazing, but it's roughly equivalent to a free first level False Life at 3rd level (two uses at 3 HP each vs. an average of 4.5 HP for a single casting at 1st level). At 10th level you're getting four uses at 10 HP each, so a little less than four free uses of False Life at 2nd level (average 11.5 HP for a 2nd level casting), by 20th level it's six uses at 20 HP each, so similar to False Life at 5th level (average 21.5 HP). So in those terms it's equivalent to getting a free temp HP spell that scales pretty nicely to your own spell progression as a half caster, and as a half caster that's actually good value given your limited spell slots and spell choices. It doesn't sound like a lot of extra HP, but keep in mind that this is on a character that only needs to focus on two abilities (CON/INT) so can have really high HP despite the lower base Hit Dice, and the temp HP scales up pretty quickly, so while 6 total at 3rd level is a bit "meh", at 6th level it's 18 total (equivalent to a +3 in CON, better than the Tough feat) and so-on.
There really is no need for Artificers (especially not armorers with their two extra infusions) to pump too many points into Con since at level 14 you get Con 19 for free. Sure, it's useful for concentration checks but you have flash of genius for that.
The other obvious question though is, who wants to use leather armour as a Guardian? Wear heavy armour or go Infiltrator 😝
Infiltrators can make really good use of heavy armor as well. :)
I mean if you really want to I can repeat everything that's been said the past few pages because you aren't saying anything that's new either...
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
The last disagreement seems to be wether the gauntlets are the same thing as the armor and have the value of said armor or wether they are a seperate entity and therefor not on any table in the books.
On which side ever you stand doesn't seem to be an important thing, nobody here seems to believe RAI it should be that it doesn't work.
Yeah for about 90% of the players (not necessarily forum users) the actual RAW doesn't really matter in this case. It's really mostly an argument for sake of having the argument. Hence why I didn't even bother participating in it apart from some one-liners.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
It seems both sides are very confident that RAW is clearly in their favor.. I would say that RAW simply doesn't address the issue. It's probably a case of people disagreeing on what "RAW" actually means... If we just take exactly what the rules say, and nothing more, the question is not answered imo... Since the value of the gauntlets specfically is not addressed. So... some basic logical steps are required.
It would be absurd to say that because the rules only state the value of the armor as a whole, that the gauntlets lack a value... I cannot imagine a campaign where only items specfically defined in the rulebooks exist.. And I don't think I've seen anyone find a place where it says that any item without a defined value, then lacks a value.
It's not that any item not in the books has a value of "0".. they have a value of "?" which may or may not meet the requirements, depenending on the item... Which is why we cannot rely on RAW entirely...
Let's just say a spell required "An object with a value of atleast 1 sp"... Then we find a mystical cube made from mithril... This cube doesn't exist in the books... But based on the nature of the object, I assume noone would claim that it did not meet the requirements.
For the same reason... I believe that the gauntlets obviously meet the requirements for the blade cantrips.
Oh and I may have missed a bit fo the argument... Kinda skimmed a few pages :)
*Sigh*
It was nice not having this argument while it lasted.
Okay. I would like to refer people to the RAW, in-the-book background "Far Traveler". In this background, one of the items the background gives is, and I directly quote: "a small piece of jewelry worth 10 gp in the style of your homeland’s craftsmanship". This item is added to the "Other Possessions" section of one's inventory and is definitive, in-the-books proof that items which have a value and which are not listed in the Adventuring Gear section of the PHB can exist. A player can possess a piece of jewelry in the style of their homeland's craftsmanship, with an assigned value of ten gold pieces. Far Traveler is an AL-legal background (since all backgrounds are AL legal backgrounds), which means the existence of non-"Adventuring Gear" items with defined values is also AL legal.
If "a small piece of jewelry worth 10 gp in the style of your homeland’s craftsmanship" can have a value greater than 1sp, so can "an extension of your pricey armor, created through the use of magical engineering." Just let your freakin' players Booming Blade with their freaking gauntlet already. If you don't like it, clobber the artificer until he stops being a problem. You're the DM - if a player wants to volunteer to take all the punchings, give him more punchings THAN HIS BODY HAS ROOM FOR.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
If you actually read the arguments against that, you would see why there is a disagreement on the RAW, not on what RAW means.
The gauntlets are part of the armor. Therefore, they share the cost of the armor, and have a price greater than 1 sp.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The problem is that the two arguments are not equal, and not simply opinion:
Thunder Gauntlets are the armour:
Thunder Gauntlets are a separate item:
1-3 are as above. In addition:
The problem with this is there is nothing that specifies that Thunder Gauntlets are a separate item to the armour or should in any way be treated as separate from the armour to which they belong, the Thunder Gauntlets feature certainly doesn't. To argue this case requires inventing a step.
Put another way, if someone says "show me where this item is in the book", the obvious response to that is "what item and why?" because the feature doesn't specify an item, and nothing says you must be able to find it in the book under anything other than the item that already exists (the armour).
Ultimately the camp that wants to argue that there is suddenly an item in the game called "Thunder Gauntlets" that has no (defined) value needs to show why this is the case, but that hasn't happened yet.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
That's not quite right. The argument against it was that they don't have a defined value, not that they have no value. That's a difference. Though my argument against that one was that RAW doesn't say anywhere that the value has to be defined in an official book so whatever.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
It has happened multiple times, but we can repeat it again. Thunder Gauntlets are created when armor, such as leather, is used to create Arcane Armor. Like any other created item which does not have a listing in an equipment table, it has no defined value, and thus does not qualify RAW for use with BB or GFB both of which require a weapon (not armor) with a defined value.
No rule or jump is being made here, you literally, and I'm using the word correctly, have to add a rule to define the value of the Thunder Gauntlet.
This is all really dumb, there is a simple test for this and it is the only one that is going to matter in an AL game. Show me a weapon entry in any allowed rule book named "Gauntlet" or "Thunder Gauntlet" with a value of 1sp or more. You do not get to create rules for AL, thus saying that the value of the armor can sub for this is just wrong. If you don't believe me go sign up for a AL game and give it a shot, see what happens.
It has been stated multiple times, but we can repeat it again. Thunder Gauntlets are created by the Arcane Armor, and there is no language that says that the armor ceases to be a part of the armor, therefore the Thunder Gauntlets are a part of the armor. This makes it so the gauntlets have the same shared price as the armor set they are a part of. Therefore, the gauntlets have a listed price, it just varies from armor to armor.
No jump is made here, literally, I am following the RAW, and am not having to add a defined value to the Thunder Gauntlets, as the gauntlets are a part of the armor that made them. Thus, they have the same total price as the armor.
Furthermore, the Arcane Armor ability never states that when the simple weapons are created, they cease to be a part of the armor. Claiming that Thunder Gauntlets cease to be a part of the armor set that created them because they are a weapon is just as "truthful" as stating that a Tabaxi's claws are not a part of their body, because they are natural weapons. They are unique weapons created by the armor and remain a part of the armor. To claim otherwise is adding a rule that does not exist.
This is all really dumb, the only person it will matter for is at a table where the DM's whole purpose is to take away the fun of the players (i.e. Adventurers' League). Show me a sentence in TCoE that states that a weapon cannot be both a weapon and part of armor at the same time. You do not create rules for AL, thus saying that the value of the gauntlets are not the same as the armor it is a part of is just wrong. If you don't believe me, go sign up for an AL game and give it a shot, using the same arguments I am using, see what happens.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
We didn't say that we didn't agree with this thinking. What we stated is that AL does not think things through this deeply and thus chooses to decide the other way despite what logic may work out as. Because it's layers of things going on they will stop before they get through all the layers and make the statement mentioned in 99.9% of cases.
It's not "logic" or "thinking", it's the RAW. If the DM is using the RAW (as confusing as it may be), Thunder Gauntlets work with Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade. That's what i'm trying to get at. It's legal RAW.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's only legal by RAW because of a string of logical thoughts strung together. The gauntlets being defined from the armor. The Gauntlets being reclassified as a weapon called a Thunder Fist as well as armor. The Spell having a restriction that requires certain defined information about said weapon. This all goes into this one thing and AL does not go this deep. No matter how much you want them to. At your table go ahead and allow these things. However, Don't expect anybody else to allow them just because your willing to go through the entire LOGICAL sequence to reach that end result. They may not be willing to do the same thing. It is that Simple. No matter how much you want to argue it and say there isn't any thought or logic behind it. There is thought and logic behind it and application of the Rule of Specificity through those basic mental tools. The difference is your willingness to apply it and figure out all those steps to apply the needed defined detail and others not be willing to do so.
I mean if in AL the Thunder Gauntlets stop being part of the armor you are also free to infuse them on top of already infusing your armor I guess. AL is dumb and should be left out of discussions that aren't specifically about AL. ^^
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
Can't believe I forgot to respond to this earlier!
As I noted the raw AC isn't so simple; sure if they both use heavy armour they'll have the same AC, but if you do that then you're not getting the most out of the Infiltrator armour. Best value for a dedicated Infiltrator will probably be Light Armour as you can have full advantage on stealth, and if you want to sneak (do sleight of hand, pick locks, use acrobatics etc.) and focus on ranged then you'll be going for more of a DEX/INT build versus the dedicated Guardian going for heavy armour + CON/INT.
There's also the difference in what infusions you might take; like you say, an Infiltrator being at range means you shouldn't need high AC as much, so you've less need to infuse your armour for higher AC and can go for something else initially (when you can only do the one armour infusion), and can go for more varied infusions once it opens up, while a Guardian will probably be all about defence. It's all about leaning into the role that each armour model is intended for; if Guardian is what you primarily want to play (rather than something you just bust out when you think you'll need it) then you're choosing to play a tank (or someone that can be one if needed), it's about being attacked so that others aren't. You could absolutely do that as an Infiltrator as well, but you'd be doing it without extra temp HP or the ability to impose disadvantage (and later Scorpion someone over to you for an extra attack).
Also, thinking about it a bit more, the Defensive Field is decent value; not amazing, but it's roughly equivalent to a free first level False Life at 3rd level (two uses at 3 HP each vs. an average of 6.5 HP for a single casting at 1st level). At 10th level you're getting four uses at 10 HP each, so a little less than four free uses of False Life at 2nd level (average 11.5 HP for a 2nd level casting), by 20th level it's six uses at 20 HP each, so similar to False Life at 5th level (average 21.5 HP). So in those terms it's equivalent to getting a free temp HP spell that scales pretty nicely to your own spell progression as a half caster, and as a half caster that's actually good value given your limited spell slots and spell choices. It doesn't sound like a lot of extra HP, but keep in mind that this is on a character that only needs to focus on two abilities (CON/INT) so can have really high HP despite the lower base Hit Dice, and the temp HP scales up pretty quickly, so while 6 total at 3rd level is a bit "meh", at 6th level it's 18 total (equivalent to a +3 in CON, better than the Tough feat) and so-on.
This doesn't really follow though; the Thunder Gauntlets rule says your gauntlets can be used as a weapon, it doesn't say you gain any. So if this is the sticking point, it's not whether the gauntlets have value, it's whether your armour needs to have gauntlets before you can use it as Guardian armour.
However the Arcane Armour rule itself suggests that it always has gauntlets if you're missing one or both arms, suggesting that no matter what the armour must either already be able to cover your arms and hands, or is able to extend in order to do-so as part of becoming your Arcane Armour. But in this case you're not gaining a new separate item, the existing armour is "growing" to fit, or as part of making it Arcane Armour you're attaching gauntlets onto it, but it's still one single set of armour; no new separate parts are defined or added that justify looking for a new item under equipment.
Again, if the gauntlets were separate it would say so; even when an Armorer gains their 9th level Armor Modifications feature, different parts of the armour only count as separate items for the purpose of infusing them.
The other obvious question though is, who wants to use leather armour as a Guardian? Wear heavy armour or go Infiltrator 😝
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Except that there isn't a rule in the book where it says that, so no. But again, this has already been settled so no need fo ryou to keep beating that dead horse.
There's also no rule in the book that says items can only have a defined value when they are published in an official book. If the DM says it shares the cost of the armor it's part of then it has a defined value per definition of the word.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
Poor horse. But if it's the DM and not the books that tells you the value, it's not RAW. ;)
Ah but of course it is. It would have a defined value as RAW demands. Nothing more and nothing less. It seems you need to polish your understanding of what RAW means. ;)
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
So it actually is that simple. Which was my point, that I think you missed. So to reiterate. Since there is no difference in what mundane armor can be turned into which arcane armorer, for quite a few levels the Infiltrator armor is actually better than the guardian on the open battlefield.
Perhaps, but that wasn't the point. The point was that the infilitrator is a better battlefield option than the guardian, at least for earlier levels. Which is a bit weird.
You get the most bang for your buck if you go with medium armour and 14 Dex. That way you can still have very good AC and points better spent on other abilities. You use Int for your attacks and spells anyway.
Haven't said anything about that but you are actually making my argument for me. Since the guardian have to focus on defence, it loses out on battlefield utility which, again, is weird for something that is supposed to be a battlefield armor.
And again, between levels 3 and 12 the Infiltrator is in some ways more tanky than the guardian. The temporary hit points are to few and and can be used to seldom to make much of a difference (or at least to outweigh the benefits of the infiltrator) up until around level 13. And at level 15 you can impose disdvantage with the infiltrator as well.
There really is no need for Artificers (especially not armorers with their two extra infusions) to pump too many points into Con since at level 14 you get Con 19 for free. Sure, it's useful for concentration checks but you have flash of genius for that.
Infiltrators can make really good use of heavy armor as well. :)