The issue under contention is that in Adventurer's League - where the DM hates you, the game doesn't want you to play it, and the rules are there specifically to **** you over and rob you of your fun as much and as often as they possibly can - the undefined value of the Thunder Gauntlets means no more Blade cantrips. Remember: in Adventurer's League, if a rule can be interpreted in a way that's unhelpful and problematic for the player, it will be interpreted in a way that is unhelpful and problematic for the player. That's just how AL is, and some players actually still care about AL despite the multitudinous manifest reasons not to.
Adventurer's League while being a vile and almost worthless endeavour is useful in determining the difference between RAW and RAI. As people keep insisting that Thunder Gauntlets can be used with the cantrips RAW, it's important distinction that RAI they probably should, but RAW they cannot. If a player showed up at an AL game and insisted that they could RAW a smackdown by the DM is going to follow. The DM is going to pull out the PHB + whatever other book the player is using, turn to the equipment table and say find me Thunder Gauntlets on this page. It isn't going to be there and thus per RAW the cantrips don't work.
The issue under contention is that in Adventurer's League - where the DM hates you, the game doesn't want you to play it, and the rules are there specifically to **** you over and rob you of your fun as much and as often as they possibly can - the undefined value of the Thunder Gauntlets means no more Blade cantrips. Remember: in Adventurer's League, if a rule can be interpreted in a way that's unhelpful and problematic for the player, it will be interpreted in a way that is unhelpful and problematic for the player. That's just how AL is, and some players actually still care about AL despite the multitudinous manifest reasons not to.
i played in AL a couple of weeks ago and other than terrible ping times on my connection it was all good fun. It seems you have had far more negative experiences, must just have been a negative DM match-up to the way you want to play.
I think any DM who sees that gauntlets are a defined part of a very expensive suit of armor would agree that the gauntlets must therefore have some defined fraction of the monetary value of that armor. So long as the armor description clearly includes gauntlets you should be good - unless they are a terrible DM or you have already got on the wrong side of them somehow and they are reflexively saying no to everything you say.
Not sure why that would matter. Range of the spell is Self and it's a melee attack within 5 feet, which Thunder Gauntlets are a melee attack within 5 feet. That's why I want to know if there is something else I'm missing that makes the Armorer unable to cast Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade with the Gauntlets. I mean other than you losing out on the second attack after you reach fifth level.
"Requires a weapon of 1 sp or greater value," which the Thunder Gauntlets have no value since they are not based on anything in the Equipment tab.
Just buy some gauntlets worth at least 1 sp and use them as your Thunder Gauntlets. It doesn't matter if they're a piece of the armor if you replaced them with something else that counts as a weapon. Then you can GFB/BB with thunder gauntlets. (Bladesinger 6/Armorer 3 multiclasses may become a popular combo in the future.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Could you point me to the page in the any official 5e sourcebook where it lists "Gauntlets" as a buyable item? The basic items in the books are there for a reason, which is to standardize organized play. Here is another fun one that will really make people annoyed: Per RAW the Helm of Awareness currently cannot be infused as it requires a Helm, which does not exist as a buyable item. RAW is really stupid sometimes.
No one here is arguing that Lightning Gauntlets shouldn't work with the cantrips per the Rules as Intended, but they currently do not per Rules as Written no matter how much people rail against that truth. Even bad DMs will just hand wave this away and move along, but AL for the sake of balance doesn't care because it has to be consistent, so it will stick with RAW no matter how inane or stupid they are.
Gauntlet of Ogre Power or any other magical item that are gauntlets would be the place to look. I would look in the Dungeon Master Guide if you're so desperate to find a pair that has a defined value that is greater than 1 sp.
Overall I think it's in an okay place balance-wise; the changes force Guardians to use the Defensive Field a lot more sparingly (save it for boss fights and such) and it still makes a Guardian Armorer very resilient.
Like others though I'm a bit confused by the dropping of Shield; yes you can use it to get a crazy AC, but it burns through the spell slots of a half-caster pretty quickly, and it's easy to take it anyway with a single level dip in Wizard, so removing it from the list doesn't really achieve much.
Personally I think the better change might have been to make Defensive Field a reaction, so you can't use both, this would remove the extra competition on your bonus action but add a contest between it and other reaction abilities (so you have to gauge which is best in the moment).
I'm a bit confused about people thinking that thunder gauntlets don't work with SCAGtrips though; these require a simple melee weapon worth at least 1sp, thunder gauntlets count as simple melee weapons, and there's nothing to suggest that the gauntlets of an expensive suit of armour somehow become worthless to an Armorer. If you paid 1,500gp for full plate then unless the blacksmith specifically threw in the gauntlets "for free" (which is a lie anyway) then the gauntlets have at least 1sp worth of value. If you have a DM that's a prick about it, just weld a silver piece onto each gauntlet.
Put another way; the gauntlets of a suit of armour are worth some portion of the total value of that armour, them becoming simple melee weapons only causes them to be weapons, it doesn't cause their value to disappear.
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.
As written, the spell specifies it requires a weapon with a value of 5 sp. The armorer gauntlets are not a defined weapon with a defined price per the weapons table and as such, would not qualify. Even if you treat the 'weapon' property as transferable based on the fact the armorer feature calls the gauntlets weapons, they themselves do not have a value, only the armor does, defined by the armor tables.
However, for objects that don't have a defined value, the DM is free to set that value and thus determine if it qualifies for spells such as booming and green flame blade. This is supported by a tweet by Jeremy Crawford:
Items in D&D have the value specified for them in the "Equipment" chapter of the Player's Handbook. If an item doesn't appear there or in another rulebook, the DM determines that item's value, if any. #DnD
tl;dr - RAW they're not weapons with a value of 5 sp or more, but the DM (as with all things in the game) can always rule otherwise.
tl;dr - RAW they're not weapons with a value of 5 sp or more, but the DM (as with all things in the game) can always rule otherwise.
See, I don't feel like that follows logically.
Nothing in the Arcane Armour wording suggests that the gauntlets are somehow detached from the armour's value or become valueless; all it specifies is that they gain the status of being simple melee weapons. So if the armour has value, and the gauntlets of that armour become simple melee weapons, then they are simple melee weapons with a value.
But those gauntlets don't cease to be part of the armour they belong to, so their value is that of the armour. It doesn't matter that the armour itself isn't a simple melee weapon, as the more specific rule (Arcane Armor) overrides that.
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.
tl;dr - RAW they're not weapons with a value of 5 sp or more, but the DM (as with all things in the game) can always rule otherwise.
See, I don't feel like that follows logically.
Nothing in the Arcane Armour wording suggests that the gauntlets are somehow detached from the armour's value or become valueless; all it specifies is that they gain the status of being simple melee weapons. So if the armour has value, and the gauntlets of that armour become simple melee weapons, then they are simple melee weapons with a value.
But those gauntlets don't cease to be part of the armour they belong to, so their value is that of the armour. It doesn't matter that the armour itself isn't a simple melee weapon, as the more specific rule (Arcane Armor) overrides that.
Undefined value =/= valueless.
I don't understand why you aren't getting this. They are redefined as Simple melee weapons, but there is no *defined* value (which would have to be assigned by a DM) to the weapons. and in a scenario where strictly RAW must be followed (AL, and I've seen a few homegames too), there must be a *defined* value for them to work with the SCAGtrips. You show me where Thunder Gauntlets have a defined gold value in the Equipment section, and I'll concede.
and as a side note: the rules of the game versus Logic does not always translate. want proof of this? Unarmed strikes are not weapons (as defined in the PHB), but Natural Weapons are weapons... but the player races Natural Weapons are used to make Unarmed Strikes. So which are they? weapons or not weapons? the SAC claims both.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
tl;dr - RAW they're not weapons with a value of 5 sp or more, but the DM (as with all things in the game) can always rule otherwise.
See, I don't feel like that follows logically.
Nothing in the Arcane Armour wording suggests that the gauntlets are somehow detached from the armour's value or become valueless; all it specifies is that they gain the status of being simple melee weapons. So if the armour has value, and the gauntlets of that armour become simple melee weapons, then they are simple melee weapons with a value.
But those gauntlets don't cease to be part of the armour they belong to, so their value is that of the armour. It doesn't matter that the armour itself isn't a simple melee weapon, as the more specific rule (Arcane Armor) overrides that.
Undefined value =/= valueless.
I don't understand why you aren't getting this.
They do have a defined value; the gauntlets are a part of a set of armour which has a value. If you're wearing full plate worth 1,500gp and your gauntlets gain the attribute of being simple weapons then they are simple weapons worth 1,500gp as they are still part of that armour.
Nothing in the Arcane Armour rule specifies that they are suddenly separate to the armour in any way, and if you want to look the item up in equipment, it's right there in the armour section like always. You are going out of your way to remove the value from them using rules that don't exist.
This is what I don't get; there is literally nothing in RAW that suggests that part of an object gaining a feature causes that to become an entirely separate object with no (or undefined) value, so to argue that the gauntlets have no (or undefined) value actually requires you to invent a step.
RAW it's very simple; if you're wearing full plate it's worth 1,500gp (says so right in the equipment section), but normally doesn't count as a weapon. If you're an Armourer and set that armour to Guardian, you can treat the gauntlets as a simple melee weapon if you're not holding anything. That's all the rule says; it doesn't say the gauntlets are no longer part of the armour, or that their value changes, so to look them up in equipment they're still just part of a set of full plate armour, which is worth 1,500gp. Unless I've missed something, nothing in RAW tells you to do otherwise; the general rule is that full plate isn't a weapon, but the specific rules lets you use part of it as one, but does nothing to prevent it from being a full suit of plate armour which 100% in RAW has a value of massively above 1sp.
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.
tl;dr - RAW they're not weapons with a value of 5 sp or more, but the DM (as with all things in the game) can always rule otherwise.
See, I don't feel like that follows logically.
Nothing in the Arcane Armour wording suggests that the gauntlets are somehow detached from the armour's value or become valueless; all it specifies is that they gain the status of being simple melee weapons. So if the armour has value, and the gauntlets of that armour become simple melee weapons, then they are simple melee weapons with a value.
But those gauntlets don't cease to be part of the armour they belong to, so their value is that of the armour. It doesn't matter that the armour itself isn't a simple melee weapon, as the more specific rule (Arcane Armor) overrides that.
Undefined value =/= valueless.
I don't understand why you aren't getting this.
They do have a defined value; the gauntlets are a part of a set of armour which has a value. If you're wearing full plate worth 1,500gp and your gauntlets gain the attribute of being simple weapons then they are simple weapons worth 1,500gp as they are still part of that armour.
Nothing in the Arcane Armour rule specifies that they are suddenly separate to the armour in any way, and if you want to look the item up in equipment, it's right there in the armour section like always. You are going out of your way to remove the value from them using rules that don't exist.
This is what I don't get; there is literally nothing in RAW that suggests that part of an object gaining a feature causes that to become an entirely separate object with no (or undefined) value, so to argue that the gauntlets have no (or undefined) value actually requires you to invent a step.
RAW it's very simple; if you're wearing full plate it's worth 1,500gp (says so right in the equipment section), but normally doesn't count as a weapon. If you're an Armourer and set that armour to Guardian, you can treat the gauntlets as a simple melee weapon if you're not holding anything. That's all the rule says; it doesn't say the gauntlets are no longer part of the armour, or that their value changes, so to look them up in equipment they're still just part of a set of full plate armour, which is worth 1,500gp. Unless I've missed something, nothing in RAW tells you to do otherwise; the general rule is that full plate isn't a weapon, but the specific rules lets you use part of it as one, but does nothing to prevent it from being a full suit of plate armour which 100% in RAW has a value of massively above 1sp.
The part you missed is that the Thunder Gauntlets are now treated as a weapon, which is separate from armor *by definition*. You don't see any weapons in the Armor and Shield section of the Equipment chapter. Just Armor and shield. By becoming Weapons, the gauntlets are no longer armor.
EDIT: Since this is going nowhere, I've tweeted Crawford and we'll see what he says. I've asked *very specifically* strictly RAW only, so we'll see.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
The part you missed is that the Thunder Gauntlets are now treated as a weapon, which is separate from armor *by definition*. You don't see any weapons in the Armor and Shield section of the Equipment chapter. Just Armor and shield. By becoming Weapons, the gauntlets are no longer armor.
I understand the argument, but nothing in RAW states that; Armour Model says that the gauntlets "count as simple melee weapons" not that they become a new type of separate object, cease to be part of the armour, or no longer have a defined value. The only gauntlets that are objects in their own right are magic items, all others are explicitly part of another object (a set of armour).
In the absence of a specific rule you use what you have, which is that the gauntlets are still just a part of a set of armour, and therefore still has that as its value. You could try to argue that the full set of armour still isn't a weapon (only the gauntlets are), but the weapon/armour distinction doesn't change anything, as nothing in RAW says that a weapon can never be armour, or that armour can never be a weapon, or that counting as one or both causes something to become a new item.
The key part about the gauntlets is that the only way to attack with your armour as a simple melee weapon is using your hands while holding nothing; so you can't use Green Flame Blade with the greaves, or the helmet etc.
Where the rules do get strange is that not all armour comes with gauntlets, yet the Armour Model feature seems to assume their existence and gives no indication that your armour gains them if they're missing, presumably because they don't expect you to use it with anything that isn't heavy armour. Even so, Ring Mail and Splint for don't mention gauntlets despite being heavy, of medium armours only Scale Mail mentions gauntlets, and no light armour mentions having them. In these cases you could absolutely argue that the gauntlets must be obtained somehow (or the armour be modified or whatever) to qualify for features that need gauntlets, or that the process of becoming Arcane Armour must create them (though this would be at DM's discretion).
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.
Can't we just stop the argument at "If you rule it STRICTLY AND ONLY RAW it wouldn't work, but every DM should rule it RAI and just allow it because it follows basic reasoning, logic and won't make anything broken."
Can't we just stop the argument at "If you rule it STRICTLY AND ONLY RAW it wouldn't work, but every DM should rule it RAI and just allow it because it follows basic reasoning, logic and won't make anything broken."
You realise you're asking the issue to be settled in favour of only one position, right? Because RAW nothing prevents it from working, that being my entire point; Armour Model allows the armour to function as a simple melee weapon, and the armour costs more than 1sp, so the requirements of Green Flame Blade (a simple melee weapon worth at least 1sp) in RAW are met. RAW says it works, which is why I'm confused why people are arguing otherwise.
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.
People argue otherwise because Adventurer's League is a caustic hellhole of obnoxious and nonsensical arguments where the DM is not allowed to DM. The material component change for Blade cantrips was clearly aimed at eliminating their use with improvised weapons, but because Wizards is bad at their jobs they also caught every other 'Non-Official' weapon in the books with the same change. J-Craw can throw it on the DMs to decide all he likes, but in Wizards' highly touted Official Play League, i.e. "This is literally the only legitimate way of playing D&D and if you think otherwise you're an asstool and we don't want you here go die", the weapon must be from the PHB list of Official Weapons and have a defined value of 1sp or greater.
Any DM worth their salt is going to rule that the Thunder Gauntlets can be used for Blade spells. Just like most DMs can likely be swayed that Shadow Blade works too, though at least there you have a legitimate argument that a 'sword of solidified gloom' does not have the physical presence on the Material Plane to serve as an anchor for a weapon augmentation spell. Nevertheless, much like the Repeating Shot issue, this is a tangled bit of RAW/RAI that's going to sink many an AL character. Though at least in their case, they weren't playing the UA Armorer either way so no tangible loss.
Could you point me to the page in the any official 5e sourcebook where it lists "Gauntlets" as a buyable item? The basic items in the books are there for a reason, which is to standardize organized play. Here is another fun one that will really make people annoyed: Per RAW the Helm of Awareness currently cannot be infused as it requires a Helm, which does not exist as a buyable item. RAW is really stupid sometimes.
No one here is arguing that Lightning Gauntlets shouldn't work with the cantrips per the Rules as Intended, but they currently do not per Rules as Written no matter how much people rail against that truth. Even bad DMs will just hand wave this away and move along, but AL for the sake of balance doesn't care because it has to be consistent, so it will stick with RAW no matter how inane or stupid they are.
Can you point me to the page in any official 5e sourcebook where it lists "Adamantine Ingots" or "Giant Lizards" as a buyable item? The basic items in the books are there for a reason, to provide a simple table of some of the more important items that can be bought. If you assume that the only items that can be bought in D&D 5e are the ones listed in the PHB, you will be left in a game where there are less than 200 mundane items that you can buy.
The objects you can buy in the game aren't limited to the items described in the PHB. You can buy Gauntlets in nearly every D&D game, which means that you can use these cantrips with the gauntlets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The issue under contention is that in Adventurer's League - where the DM hates you, the game doesn't want you to play it, and the rules are there specifically to **** you over and rob you of your fun as much and as often as they possibly can - the undefined value of the Thunder Gauntlets means no more Blade cantrips. Remember: in Adventurer's League, if a rule can be interpreted in a way that's unhelpful and problematic for the player, it will be interpreted in a way that is unhelpful and problematic for the player. That's just how AL is, and some players actually still care about AL despite the multitudinous manifest reasons not to.
Please do not contact or message me.
Adventurer's League while being a vile and almost worthless endeavour is useful in determining the difference between RAW and RAI. As people keep insisting that Thunder Gauntlets can be used with the cantrips RAW, it's important distinction that RAI they probably should, but RAW they cannot. If a player showed up at an AL game and insisted that they could RAW a smackdown by the DM is going to follow. The DM is going to pull out the PHB + whatever other book the player is using, turn to the equipment table and say find me Thunder Gauntlets on this page. It isn't going to be there and thus per RAW the cantrips don't work.
i played in AL a couple of weeks ago and other than terrible ping times on my connection it was all good fun. It seems you have had far more negative experiences, must just have been a negative DM match-up to the way you want to play.
I think any DM who sees that gauntlets are a defined part of a very expensive suit of armor would agree that the gauntlets must therefore have some defined fraction of the monetary value of that armor. So long as the armor description clearly includes gauntlets you should be good - unless they are a terrible DM or you have already got on the wrong side of them somehow and they are reflexively saying no to everything you say.
Just buy some gauntlets worth at least 1 sp and use them as your Thunder Gauntlets. It doesn't matter if they're a piece of the armor if you replaced them with something else that counts as a weapon. Then you can GFB/BB with thunder gauntlets. (Bladesinger 6/Armorer 3 multiclasses may become a popular combo in the future.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Could you point me to the page in the any official 5e sourcebook where it lists "Gauntlets" as a buyable item? The basic items in the books are there for a reason, which is to standardize organized play. Here is another fun one that will really make people annoyed: Per RAW the Helm of Awareness currently cannot be infused as it requires a Helm, which does not exist as a buyable item. RAW is really stupid sometimes.
No one here is arguing that Lightning Gauntlets shouldn't work with the cantrips per the Rules as Intended, but they currently do not per Rules as Written no matter how much people rail against that truth. Even bad DMs will just hand wave this away and move along, but AL for the sake of balance doesn't care because it has to be consistent, so it will stick with RAW no matter how inane or stupid they are.
Gauntlet of Ogre Power or any other magical item that are gauntlets would be the place to look. I would look in the Dungeon Master Guide if you're so desperate to find a pair that has a defined value that is greater than 1 sp.
Overall I think it's in an okay place balance-wise; the changes force Guardians to use the Defensive Field a lot more sparingly (save it for boss fights and such) and it still makes a Guardian Armorer very resilient.
Like others though I'm a bit confused by the dropping of Shield; yes you can use it to get a crazy AC, but it burns through the spell slots of a half-caster pretty quickly, and it's easy to take it anyway with a single level dip in Wizard, so removing it from the list doesn't really achieve much.
Personally I think the better change might have been to make Defensive Field a reaction, so you can't use both, this would remove the extra competition on your bonus action but add a contest between it and other reaction abilities (so you have to gauge which is best in the moment).
I'm a bit confused about people thinking that thunder gauntlets don't work with SCAGtrips though; these require a simple melee weapon worth at least 1sp, thunder gauntlets count as simple melee weapons, and there's nothing to suggest that the gauntlets of an expensive suit of armour somehow become worthless to an Armorer. If you paid 1,500gp for full plate then unless the blacksmith specifically threw in the gauntlets "for free" (which is a lie anyway) then the gauntlets have at least 1sp worth of value. If you have a DM that's a prick about it, just weld a silver piece onto each gauntlet.
Put another way; the gauntlets of a suit of armour are worth some portion of the total value of that armour, them becoming simple melee weapons only causes them to be weapons, it doesn't cause their value to disappear.
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.
As written, the spell specifies it requires a weapon with a value of 5 sp. The armorer gauntlets are not a defined weapon with a defined price per the weapons table and as such, would not qualify. Even if you treat the 'weapon' property as transferable based on the fact the armorer feature calls the gauntlets weapons, they themselves do not have a value, only the armor does, defined by the armor tables.
However, for objects that don't have a defined value, the DM is free to set that value and thus determine if it qualifies for spells such as booming and green flame blade. This is supported by a tweet by Jeremy Crawford:
tl;dr - RAW they're not weapons with a value of 5 sp or more, but the DM (as with all things in the game) can always rule otherwise.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
See, I don't feel like that follows logically.
Nothing in the Arcane Armour wording suggests that the gauntlets are somehow detached from the armour's value or become valueless; all it specifies is that they gain the status of being simple melee weapons. So if the armour has value, and the gauntlets of that armour become simple melee weapons, then they are simple melee weapons with a value.
But those gauntlets don't cease to be part of the armour they belong to, so their value is that of the armour. It doesn't matter that the armour itself isn't a simple melee weapon, as the more specific rule (Arcane Armor) overrides that.
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.
Undefined value =/= valueless.
I don't understand why you aren't getting this. They are redefined as Simple melee weapons, but there is no *defined* value (which would have to be assigned by a DM) to the weapons. and in a scenario where strictly RAW must be followed (AL, and I've seen a few homegames too), there must be a *defined* value for them to work with the SCAGtrips. You show me where Thunder Gauntlets have a defined gold value in the Equipment section, and I'll concede.
and as a side note: the rules of the game versus Logic does not always translate. want proof of this? Unarmed strikes are not weapons (as defined in the PHB), but Natural Weapons are weapons... but the player races Natural Weapons are used to make Unarmed Strikes. So which are they? weapons or not weapons? the SAC claims both.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
They do have a defined value; the gauntlets are a part of a set of armour which has a value. If you're wearing full plate worth 1,500gp and your gauntlets gain the attribute of being simple weapons then they are simple weapons worth 1,500gp as they are still part of that armour.
Nothing in the Arcane Armour rule specifies that they are suddenly separate to the armour in any way, and if you want to look the item up in equipment, it's right there in the armour section like always. You are going out of your way to remove the value from them using rules that don't exist.
This is what I don't get; there is literally nothing in RAW that suggests that part of an object gaining a feature causes that to become an entirely separate object with no (or undefined) value, so to argue that the gauntlets have no (or undefined) value actually requires you to invent a step.
RAW it's very simple; if you're wearing full plate it's worth 1,500gp (says so right in the equipment section), but normally doesn't count as a weapon. If you're an Armourer and set that armour to Guardian, you can treat the gauntlets as a simple melee weapon if you're not holding anything. That's all the rule says; it doesn't say the gauntlets are no longer part of the armour, or that their value changes, so to look them up in equipment they're still just part of a set of full plate armour, which is worth 1,500gp. Unless I've missed something, nothing in RAW tells you to do otherwise; the general rule is that full plate isn't a weapon, but the specific rules lets you use part of it as one, but does nothing to prevent it from being a full suit of plate armour which 100% in RAW has a value of massively above 1sp.
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 part you missed is that the Thunder Gauntlets are now treated as a weapon, which is separate from armor *by definition*. You don't see any weapons in the Armor and Shield section of the Equipment chapter. Just Armor and shield. By becoming Weapons, the gauntlets are no longer armor.
EDIT: Since this is going nowhere, I've tweeted Crawford and we'll see what he says. I've asked *very specifically* strictly RAW only, so we'll see.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I understand the argument, but nothing in RAW states that; Armour Model says that the gauntlets "count as simple melee weapons" not that they become a new type of separate object, cease to be part of the armour, or no longer have a defined value. The only gauntlets that are objects in their own right are magic items, all others are explicitly part of another object (a set of armour).
In the absence of a specific rule you use what you have, which is that the gauntlets are still just a part of a set of armour, and therefore still has that as its value. You could try to argue that the full set of armour still isn't a weapon (only the gauntlets are), but the weapon/armour distinction doesn't change anything, as nothing in RAW says that a weapon can never be armour, or that armour can never be a weapon, or that counting as one or both causes something to become a new item.
The key part about the gauntlets is that the only way to attack with your armour as a simple melee weapon is using your hands while holding nothing; so you can't use Green Flame Blade with the greaves, or the helmet etc.
Where the rules do get strange is that not all armour comes with gauntlets, yet the Armour Model feature seems to assume their existence and gives no indication that your armour gains them if they're missing, presumably because they don't expect you to use it with anything that isn't heavy armour. Even so, Ring Mail and Splint for don't mention gauntlets despite being heavy, of medium armours only Scale Mail mentions gauntlets, and no light armour mentions having them. In these cases you could absolutely argue that the gauntlets must be obtained somehow (or the armour be modified or whatever) to qualify for features that need gauntlets, or that the process of becoming Arcane Armour must create them (though this would be at DM's discretion).
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.
Can't we just stop the argument at "If you rule it STRICTLY AND ONLY RAW it wouldn't work, but every DM should rule it RAI and just allow it because it follows basic reasoning, logic and won't make anything broken."
You realise you're asking the issue to be settled in favour of only one position, right? Because RAW nothing prevents it from working, that being my entire point; Armour Model allows the armour to function as a simple melee weapon, and the armour costs more than 1sp, so the requirements of Green Flame Blade (a simple melee weapon worth at least 1sp) in RAW are met. RAW says it works, which is why I'm confused why people are arguing otherwise.
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.
People argue otherwise because Adventurer's League is a caustic hellhole of obnoxious and nonsensical arguments where the DM is not allowed to DM. The material component change for Blade cantrips was clearly aimed at eliminating their use with improvised weapons, but because Wizards is bad at their jobs they also caught every other 'Non-Official' weapon in the books with the same change. J-Craw can throw it on the DMs to decide all he likes, but in Wizards' highly touted Official Play League, i.e. "This is literally the only legitimate way of playing D&D and if you think otherwise you're an asstool and we don't want you here go die", the weapon must be from the PHB list of Official Weapons and have a defined value of 1sp or greater.
Any DM worth their salt is going to rule that the Thunder Gauntlets can be used for Blade spells. Just like most DMs can likely be swayed that Shadow Blade works too, though at least there you have a legitimate argument that a 'sword of solidified gloom' does not have the physical presence on the Material Plane to serve as an anchor for a weapon augmentation spell. Nevertheless, much like the Repeating Shot issue, this is a tangled bit of RAW/RAI that's going to sink many an AL character. Though at least in their case, they weren't playing the UA Armorer either way so no tangible loss.
Please do not contact or message me.
Can you point me to the page in any official 5e sourcebook where it lists "Adamantine Ingots" or "Giant Lizards" as a buyable item? The basic items in the books are there for a reason, to provide a simple table of some of the more important items that can be bought. If you assume that the only items that can be bought in D&D 5e are the ones listed in the PHB, you will be left in a game where there are less than 200 mundane items that you can buy.
The objects you can buy in the game aren't limited to the items described in the PHB. You can buy Gauntlets in nearly every D&D game, which means that you can use these cantrips with the gauntlets.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms