So the armorer is official now, and WotC did change a few things from the UA version. What do you all think about the changes as well as the armorer's final form?
Personally, I miss the shield spell, and I am a little confused as too why it was dropped for thunderwave of all things. I can understand replacing magic missile with thunderwave but not shield. Maybe if it was replaced with another defensive spell like protection from evil and good, then it would not seem as odd. I actually have permission my DM to keep shield on my armorer's spell list (my armorer is my party's only tank), but I think I will play it as written for the time being just to see if I am overlooking something.
I like the clarification on how the arcane armor (formerly power armor) works, but I don't think WotC have really thought through the implications of removing the heavy armor requirement from a feature that describes how armor expands to cover your entire body. I would have limited it to medium or heavy armor especially since I don't see what good smith's tools will be in modifying leather.
The limited use of the guardian's defensive field is a little disappointing, but I can understand the decision. At 3rd level, it still gives you the same average working hit points as a barbarian, and it only increases from there. At least I don't have to expend another resource to make it work like a spell slot or something. However, I don't really understand why they removed the ability to wear infiltrator armor under regular clothes. Perhaps there is some kind of rules breaking-combo that it allowed like potentially getting advantage of stealth checks while wearing skintight plate armor. Anyway, I liked the aesthetic more than the mechanics and will miss it.
I also think that the wording for armor modifications is a lot clearer though not exactly crystal. The continued inclusion of boots as part of the armor still puzzles me since wearing boots and a full set of armor at the same time has never been an issue in any game I have heard of.
Overall, I am pleased with the subclass and will continue to play one. I just wish we could get an explanation for some of the design choices.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Bark side up, bark side down, it really, truly does not matter.
The Armorer is now a flavor subclass. Play it if you want to play Ironman, don't play it because it's powerful or does something particularly well. Removing Shield, nerfing Defensive Field, and not fixing the conflict with magical armor and infusions put it at Alchemist levels of power. Oh and as an added bonus, they made Thunder Gauntlets not work with Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade anymore per RAW. Yay!
If you have an Armorer already made, talk to your DM and make sure you can continue using the archived version and not the Tasha's travesty.
An interesting stance to take, and perhaps one that points to the reason behind many of the changes.
In most media, the Infiltrator variation of the Armorer was most often entirely ignored. People spoke as if the Guardian Armorer was the only Armorer; all build theorycrafting was done with the Guardian, and under the assumption that the Guardian was what everyone was using at all times. The Guardian was the only Armorer anyone ever saw. Come Tasha's Cauldron, the Guardian sees significant reductions in effectiveness while the forgotten Infiltrator model of the Armorer sees significant improvements. Being able to turn medium or even light armor into one's 'Arcane Armor' (power armor from here out because mleghm) is a huge boon to the class. Permanent, always-on Stealth advantage is pretty fantastic, and the lightning launcher was heavily improved. A high-level Infiltrator armorer can deal 4d6+10 lightning damage per round, in addition to Radiant or Enhanced weapon bonuses, its ever-so-slightly lower armor class from medium armor is offset by imposing constant disadvantage on its target's attacks against it, and it can nullify invisibility or attempts to hide or flee.
The Infiltrator is fantastic. The Guardian is significantly less powerful than it was before. I have to wonder if this is due to the sharp over-focus on the Guardian armor during the UA testing cycle and players completely ignoring the Infiltrator in favor of the Guardian.
The Guardian/Infiltrator featureset is not mutually exclusive, they could and still can shift between the two. I can personally say that in nine months of playing an Armorer, I have never once seen a good opportunity to shift to Infiltrator as it offered nothing that another party member could not do much better. Armorer got seriously nerfed, to the point that half the subclass is flat worse than the Battlesmith at tanking much less any of the other tanking subclasses in the game.
The problem with the UA Infiltrator was that it is just an underpowered Warlock with a high AC. With Tasha's it can get advantage of stealth checks if they are not wearing heavy armor, but can no longer wear armor under their clothing which kinda makes infiltrating hard. The other changes are pretty much quality of life improvements, and it's still a bad Warlock in the Damage per Action category.
The reason the Guardian form got the most attention in the UA is that it did something no other class could really do and that was be a caster tank. Not a gish like the Spellsword or Battlesmith, but a literal tank to the point of being almost one-dimensional. My thoughts are that they saw that it was fairly easy to get armor class up to 25 using Shield at level 3 and that caused them to remove the spell, likely citing balance. The problem is that it doesn't scale much beyond that point since they limit infusions to non-magical armor, which limits the most potent subclass feature. The idea that they would nerf something because it was popular or got a lot of attention makes no sense whatsoever, otherwise we would have seen nerfs to Paladin by now.
Oh and as an added bonus, they made Thunder Gauntlets not work with Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade anymore per RAW. Yay!
Sorry I might be missing something, why won't the thunder gauntlets work Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade any longer? It states that they count as simple weapons in the ability and as they are part of an armor, pretty sure they cost more than a silver piece.
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!"
Who says they have no value? Thunder Gauntlets are part of an Armor set, the armor has value and they're are counted as a weapon because of the Thunder Gauntlet feature. So it seems like they qualify to me.
Who says they have no value? Thunder Gauntlets are part of an Armor set, the armor has value and they're are counted as a weapon because of the Thunder Gauntlet feature. So it seems like they qualify to me.
RAW, they are a part of the armor, but have an undefined value in and of themselves unlike, say, an integrated Longsword (which has defined value per the PHB). Soulknife psychic blades, Shadow Blade spell, and other such things also have no value due to being wholesale new weapons that do not exist on their own.
That *said*, it is up to the DM to define a value for these weapons, and I personally agree with you: Because they cannot exist without armor (which has a defined value), they work. but strictly RAW, they do not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!"
Who says they have no value? Thunder Gauntlets are part of an Armor set, the armor has value and they're are counted as a weapon because of the Thunder Gauntlet feature. So it seems like they qualify to me.
RAW, they are a part of the armor, but have an undefined value in and of themselves unlike, say, an integrated Longsword (which has defined value per the PHB). Soulknife psychic blades, Shadow Blade spell, and other such things also have no value due to being wholesale new weapons that do not exist on their own.
That *said*, it is up to the DM to define a value for these weapons, and I personally agree with you: Because they cannot exist without armor (which has a defined value), they work. but strictly RAW, they do not.
Soul knives, shadow blades, and flame blades don't qualify because they are created out of pure magic (and/or psionic energy) and therefore have no monetary value. Claws, teeth, and unarmed strikes also don't qualify since none of those are melee weapons. You make melee weapon attacks with them, but they are not melee weapons, and I am not even going to start discussing the monetary value of body parts. However, the armor you build your arcane armor from grants each gauntlet a value of at least 1 sp since the cheapest armor in the game costs 5 gp, and being part of your arcane armor in the guardian configuration makes them simple melee weapons.
In other words, the armor meets the cost requirement, and the feature meets the weapon requirement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Bark side up, bark side down, it really, truly does not matter.
Who says they have no value? Thunder Gauntlets are part of an Armor set, the armor has value and they're are counted as a weapon because of the Thunder Gauntlet feature. So it seems like they qualify to me.
RAW, they are a part of the armor, but have an undefined value in and of themselves unlike, say, an integrated Longsword (which has defined value per the PHB). Soulknife psychic blades, Shadow Blade spell, and other such things also have no value due to being wholesale new weapons that do not exist on their own.
That *said*, it is up to the DM to define a value for these weapons, and I personally agree with you: Because they cannot exist without armor (which has a defined value), they work. but strictly RAW, they do not.
Soul knives, shadow blades, and flame blades don't qualify because they are created out of pure magic (and/or psionic energy) and therefore have no monetary value. Claws, teeth, and unarmed strikes also don't qualify since none of those are melee weapons. You make melee weapon attacks with them, but they are not melee weapons, and I am not even going to start discussing the monetary value of body parts. However, the armor you build your arcane armor from grants each gauntlet a value of at least 1 sp since the cheapest armor in the game costs 5 gp, and being part of your arcane armor in the guardian configuration makes them simple melee weapons.
In other words, the armor meets the cost requirement, and the feature meets the weapon requirement.
Show me where the monetary value of any of the armorer weapons is written RAW. I agree with you that *logically* yes, they meet. But strictly RAW, they are undefined in value.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!"
Who says they have no value? Thunder Gauntlets are part of an Armor set, the armor has value and they're are counted as a weapon because of the Thunder Gauntlet feature. So it seems like they qualify to me.
RAW, they are a part of the armor, but have an undefined value in and of themselves unlike, say, an integrated Longsword (which has defined value per the PHB). Soulknife psychic blades, Shadow Blade spell, and other such things also have no value due to being wholesale new weapons that do not exist on their own.
That *said*, it is up to the DM to define a value for these weapons, and I personally agree with you: Because they cannot exist without armor (which has a defined value), they work. but strictly RAW, they do not.
Soul knives, shadow blades, and flame blades don't qualify because they are created out of pure magic (and/or psionic energy) and therefore have no monetary value. Claws, teeth, and unarmed strikes also don't qualify since none of those are melee weapons. You make melee weapon attacks with them, but they are not melee weapons, and I am not even going to start discussing the monetary value of body parts. However, the armor you build your arcane armor from grants each gauntlet a value of at least 1 sp since the cheapest armor in the game costs 5 gp, and being part of your arcane armor in the guardian configuration makes them simple melee weapons.
In other words, the armor meets the cost requirement, and the feature meets the weapon requirement.
The question you have to ask is this, "Does it work in Adventurer's League?" Which, granted is not something most players deal with, but the only reason that AL works is strict adherence to RAW. Per RAW Thunder Gauntlets cannot be used with Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade as it has no defined value as a weapon. I fully expect every reasonable DM to house rule this as nonsense, but that isn't the question at hand here. It is almost assuredly that the Armorer is just the victim of unintended consequences of WotC nerfing Soulknives, Monks, and Warlocks, but RAW stand until we get errata.
Who says they have no value? Thunder Gauntlets are part of an Armor set, the armor has value and they're are counted as a weapon because of the Thunder Gauntlet feature. So it seems like they qualify to me.
RAW, they are a part of the armor, but have an undefined value in and of themselves unlike, say, an integrated Longsword (which has defined value per the PHB). Soulknife psychic blades, Shadow Blade spell, and other such things also have no value due to being wholesale new weapons that do not exist on their own.
That *said*, it is up to the DM to define a value for these weapons, and I personally agree with you: Because they cannot exist without armor (which has a defined value), they work. but strictly RAW, they do not.
Soul knives, shadow blades, and flame blades don't qualify because they are created out of pure magic (and/or psionic energy) and therefore have no monetary value. Claws, teeth, and unarmed strikes also don't qualify since none of those are melee weapons. You make melee weapon attacks with them, but they are not melee weapons, and I am not even going to start discussing the monetary value of body parts. However, the armor you build your arcane armor from grants each gauntlet a value of at least 1 sp since the cheapest armor in the game costs 5 gp, and being part of your arcane armor in the guardian configuration makes them simple melee weapons.
In other words, the armor meets the cost requirement, and the feature meets the weapon requirement.
Show me where the monetary value of any of the armorer weapons is written RAW. I agree with you that *logically* yes, they meet. But strictly RAW, they are undefined in value.
Pg. 145 in the PHB, Chapter 5: Equipment, Section: Armor and Shields
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Bark side up, bark side down, it really, truly does not matter.
Who says they have no value? Thunder Gauntlets are part of an Armor set, the armor has value and they're are counted as a weapon because of the Thunder Gauntlet feature. So it seems like they qualify to me.
RAW, they are a part of the armor, but have an undefined value in and of themselves unlike, say, an integrated Longsword (which has defined value per the PHB). Soulknife psychic blades, Shadow Blade spell, and other such things also have no value due to being wholesale new weapons that do not exist on their own.
That *said*, it is up to the DM to define a value for these weapons, and I personally agree with you: Because they cannot exist without armor (which has a defined value), they work. but strictly RAW, they do not.
Soul knives, shadow blades, and flame blades don't qualify because they are created out of pure magic (and/or psionic energy) and therefore have no monetary value. Claws, teeth, and unarmed strikes also don't qualify since none of those are melee weapons. You make melee weapon attacks with them, but they are not melee weapons, and I am not even going to start discussing the monetary value of body parts. However, the armor you build your arcane armor from grants each gauntlet a value of at least 1 sp since the cheapest armor in the game costs 5 gp, and being part of your arcane armor in the guardian configuration makes them simple melee weapons.
In other words, the armor meets the cost requirement, and the feature meets the weapon requirement.
Show me where the monetary value of any of the armorer weapons is written RAW. I agree with you that *logically* yes, they meet. But strictly RAW, they are undefined in value.
Pg. 145 in the PHB, Chapter 5: Equipment, Section: Armor and Shields
has no bearing on the weapons of the Armorer. show me where the Armorer's weapons have a defined monetary value.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!"
Who says they have no value? Thunder Gauntlets are part of an Armor set, the armor has value and they're are counted as a weapon because of the Thunder Gauntlet feature. So it seems like they qualify to me.
RAW, they are a part of the armor, but have an undefined value in and of themselves unlike, say, an integrated Longsword (which has defined value per the PHB). Soulknife psychic blades, Shadow Blade spell, and other such things also have no value due to being wholesale new weapons that do not exist on their own.
That *said*, it is up to the DM to define a value for these weapons, and I personally agree with you: Because they cannot exist without armor (which has a defined value), they work. but strictly RAW, they do not.
Soul knives, shadow blades, and flame blades don't qualify because they are created out of pure magic (and/or psionic energy) and therefore have no monetary value. Claws, teeth, and unarmed strikes also don't qualify since none of those are melee weapons. You make melee weapon attacks with them, but they are not melee weapons, and I am not even going to start discussing the monetary value of body parts. However, the armor you build your arcane armor from grants each gauntlet a value of at least 1 sp since the cheapest armor in the game costs 5 gp, and being part of your arcane armor in the guardian configuration makes them simple melee weapons.
In other words, the armor meets the cost requirement, and the feature meets the weapon requirement.
Show me where the monetary value of any of the armorer weapons is written RAW. I agree with you that *logically* yes, they meet. But strictly RAW, they are undefined in value.
Pg. 145 in the PHB, Chapter 5: Equipment, Section: Armor and Shields
has no bearing on the weapons of the Armorer. show me where the Armorer's weapons have a defined monetary value.
If you actually believe they have no monetary value then please show me where I can get a few dozen for free. It won't be free you say? Then they have monetary value. You don't need it written down in a book to say that a specific gauntlet costs x amount. You don't even need to use any of the equipment that's written down in any of the books at all in the first place.
No monetary value is not the same as an *undefined* monetary value. Booming Blade requires a weapon with a *defined* value of 1 sp or more, and seeing as how the Thunder Gauntlets have an *un*defined value, Strictly Rules As They Are Written (which matters for Adventurer's League), they cannot be used for Booming Blade due to their lack of defined 1 sp or greater value.
This was stated by Azhri as well, but you conveniently ignored them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 don't remember seeing the word "defined" anywhere. Thunder Gauntlets meet the criteria to use Booming and Green Flame Blade, whether you allow it or not is up to you. Going based on Jeremy Crawford, he'd allow it along with allowing the spells to be used with Shadow Blade too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So the armorer is official now, and WotC did change a few things from the UA version. What do you all think about the changes as well as the armorer's final form?
Personally, I miss the shield spell, and I am a little confused as too why it was dropped for thunderwave of all things. I can understand replacing magic missile with thunderwave but not shield. Maybe if it was replaced with another defensive spell like protection from evil and good, then it would not seem as odd. I actually have permission my DM to keep shield on my armorer's spell list (my armorer is my party's only tank), but I think I will play it as written for the time being just to see if I am overlooking something.
I like the clarification on how the arcane armor (formerly power armor) works, but I don't think WotC have really thought through the implications of removing the heavy armor requirement from a feature that describes how armor expands to cover your entire body. I would have limited it to medium or heavy armor especially since I don't see what good smith's tools will be in modifying leather.
The limited use of the guardian's defensive field is a little disappointing, but I can understand the decision. At 3rd level, it still gives you the same average working hit points as a barbarian, and it only increases from there. At least I don't have to expend another resource to make it work like a spell slot or something. However, I don't really understand why they removed the ability to wear infiltrator armor under regular clothes. Perhaps there is some kind of rules breaking-combo that it allowed like potentially getting advantage of stealth checks while wearing skintight plate armor. Anyway, I liked the aesthetic more than the mechanics and will miss it.
I also think that the wording for armor modifications is a lot clearer though not exactly crystal. The continued inclusion of boots as part of the armor still puzzles me since wearing boots and a full set of armor at the same time has never been an issue in any game I have heard of.
Overall, I am pleased with the subclass and will continue to play one. I just wish we could get an explanation for some of the design choices.
Bark side up, bark side down, it really, truly does not matter.
The Armorer is now a flavor subclass. Play it if you want to play Ironman, don't play it because it's powerful or does something particularly well. Removing Shield, nerfing Defensive Field, and not fixing the conflict with magical armor and infusions put it at Alchemist levels of power. Oh and as an added bonus, they made Thunder Gauntlets not work with Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade anymore per RAW. Yay!
If you have an Armorer already made, talk to your DM and make sure you can continue using the archived version and not the Tasha's travesty.
An interesting stance to take, and perhaps one that points to the reason behind many of the changes.
In most media, the Infiltrator variation of the Armorer was most often entirely ignored. People spoke as if the Guardian Armorer was the only Armorer; all build theorycrafting was done with the Guardian, and under the assumption that the Guardian was what everyone was using at all times. The Guardian was the only Armorer anyone ever saw. Come Tasha's Cauldron, the Guardian sees significant reductions in effectiveness while the forgotten Infiltrator model of the Armorer sees significant improvements. Being able to turn medium or even light armor into one's 'Arcane Armor' (power armor from here out because mleghm) is a huge boon to the class. Permanent, always-on Stealth advantage is pretty fantastic, and the lightning launcher was heavily improved. A high-level Infiltrator armorer can deal 4d6+10 lightning damage per round, in addition to Radiant or Enhanced weapon bonuses, its ever-so-slightly lower armor class from medium armor is offset by imposing constant disadvantage on its target's attacks against it, and it can nullify invisibility or attempts to hide or flee.
The Infiltrator is fantastic. The Guardian is significantly less powerful than it was before. I have to wonder if this is due to the sharp over-focus on the Guardian armor during the UA testing cycle and players completely ignoring the Infiltrator in favor of the Guardian.
Please do not contact or message me.
The Guardian/Infiltrator featureset is not mutually exclusive, they could and still can shift between the two. I can personally say that in nine months of playing an Armorer, I have never once seen a good opportunity to shift to Infiltrator as it offered nothing that another party member could not do much better. Armorer got seriously nerfed, to the point that half the subclass is flat worse than the Battlesmith at tanking much less any of the other tanking subclasses in the game.
The problem with the UA Infiltrator was that it is just an underpowered Warlock with a high AC. With Tasha's it can get advantage of stealth checks if they are not wearing heavy armor, but can no longer wear armor under their clothing which kinda makes infiltrating hard. The other changes are pretty much quality of life improvements, and it's still a bad Warlock in the Damage per Action category.
The reason the Guardian form got the most attention in the UA is that it did something no other class could really do and that was be a caster tank. Not a gish like the Spellsword or Battlesmith, but a literal tank to the point of being almost one-dimensional. My thoughts are that they saw that it was fairly easy to get armor class up to 25 using Shield at level 3 and that caused them to remove the spell, likely citing balance. The problem is that it doesn't scale much beyond that point since they limit infusions to non-magical armor, which limits the most potent subclass feature. The idea that they would nerf something because it was popular or got a lot of attention makes no sense whatsoever, otherwise we would have seen nerfs to Paladin by now.
Sorry I might be missing something, why won't the thunder gauntlets work Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade any longer? It states that they count as simple weapons in the ability and as they are part of an armor, pretty sure they cost more than a silver piece.
I wonder if it was the new range of those cantrips
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.
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!"
Who says they have no value? Thunder Gauntlets are part of an Armor set, the armor has value and they're are counted as a weapon because of the Thunder Gauntlet feature. So it seems like they qualify to me.
RAW, they are a part of the armor, but have an undefined value in and of themselves unlike, say, an integrated Longsword (which has defined value per the PHB). Soulknife psychic blades, Shadow Blade spell, and other such things also have no value due to being wholesale new weapons that do not exist on their own.
That *said*, it is up to the DM to define a value for these weapons, and I personally agree with you: Because they cannot exist without armor (which has a defined value), they work. but strictly RAW, they do not.
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!"
Soul knives, shadow blades, and flame blades don't qualify because they are created out of pure magic (and/or psionic energy) and therefore have no monetary value. Claws, teeth, and unarmed strikes also don't qualify since none of those are melee weapons. You make melee weapon attacks with them, but they are not melee weapons, and I am not even going to start discussing the monetary value of body parts. However, the armor you build your arcane armor from grants each gauntlet a value of at least 1 sp since the cheapest armor in the game costs 5 gp, and being part of your arcane armor in the guardian configuration makes them simple melee weapons.
In other words, the armor meets the cost requirement, and the feature meets the weapon requirement.
Bark side up, bark side down, it really, truly does not matter.
Show me where the monetary value of any of the armorer weapons is written RAW. I agree with you that *logically* yes, they meet. But strictly RAW, they are undefined in value.
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!"
The question you have to ask is this, "Does it work in Adventurer's League?" Which, granted is not something most players deal with, but the only reason that AL works is strict adherence to RAW. Per RAW Thunder Gauntlets cannot be used with Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade as it has no defined value as a weapon. I fully expect every reasonable DM to house rule this as nonsense, but that isn't the question at hand here. It is almost assuredly that the Armorer is just the victim of unintended consequences of WotC nerfing Soulknives, Monks, and Warlocks, but RAW stand until we get errata.
Pg. 145 in the PHB, Chapter 5: Equipment, Section: Armor and Shields
Bark side up, bark side down, it really, truly does not matter.
has no bearing on the weapons of the Armorer. show me where the Armorer's weapons have a defined monetary value.
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!"
Are you saying that gauntlet's have no value?
We know they have value because their part of Plate Armor that has a cost of 1800 gp. So the gauntlets definitely have value.
And they are considered weapons based on the Artificer ability. So thus they work for those cantrips
No monetary value is not the same as an *undefined* monetary value. Booming Blade requires a weapon with a *defined* value of 1 sp or more, and seeing as how the Thunder Gauntlets have an *un*defined value, Strictly Rules As They Are Written (which matters for Adventurer's League), they cannot be used for Booming Blade due to their lack of defined 1 sp or greater value.
This was stated by Azhri as well, but you conveniently ignored them.
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 don't remember seeing the word "defined" anywhere. Thunder Gauntlets meet the criteria to use Booming and Green Flame Blade, whether you allow it or not is up to you. Going based on Jeremy Crawford, he'd allow it along with allowing the spells to be used with Shadow Blade too.