So, who likes Demon Armor? I do. But, quick question about it's unarmed strike properties. Does it deal 1d8 pus strength or 1d8 plus dexterity? if you are proficient with Heavy armor, are you proficient with the unarmed strikes it gives?
On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
So, to answer your questions:
It deals 1d8 + strength bonus +1. If your character has a racial or class feature that allows it to use dexterity for unarmed attacks instead (like monk) then they can still do so. The attacks behave as per standard unarmed attacks. just with more damage.
You don't need to be proficient with heavy armor - all characters are proficient with unarmed strikes.
Wow. that was fast. Thank you! I have a 16 fighter 4 warlock and I was worried when I couldn't hit anything if I was doing it wrong. I was! thanks again.
Gonna pop in to say that, while I generally agree with Storm, there's a chance that it's technically a little more complicated than that.
The armor specifically "turn[s] unarmed strikes with your hands into magic weapons..." To my eye, that sentence isn't quite written correctly no matter what you think its trying to say An "unarmed strike" is a type of attack, a "magic weapon" is an object, you can't turn an attack into an object... so is it saying that the hands have been turned into magic weapons? Or that the attack has been turned into an attack with a magic weapon (for the purpose of overcoming damage resistance)? Unarmed strikes already count as weapon attacks... I think that there's a good argument to be made that this sentence is really trying to say "clawed gauntlets turn your hands into magic weapons...". The complication there is... if attacks with your hands are now "clawed gauntlet attacks" and not "unarmed strikes", its a little less open and shut that you have proficiency with them, since the armor doesn't identify whether they count as martial or simple weapons. And if you just say "they use unarmed strike proficiency," well, then we're back to questioning whether they really count as "weapons"...
If the armor does turn hands into weapons instead of just enhancing unarmed strikes, then ReptileBounty would be correct, you could use two weapon fighting to make both a regular attack action with those magic weapon hands and also a bonus off-hand attack, as well as benefiting from fighting styles and feats that provide benefits for wielding a weapon in your off hand.
If the armor does turn hands into weapons instead of just enhancing unarmed strikes, then ReptileBounty would be correct, you could use two weapon fighting to make both a regular attack action with those magic weapon hands and also a bonus off-hand attack, as well as benefiting from fighting styles and feats that provide benefits for wielding a weapon in your off hand.
I think everything before this bit was overthinking the matter.
“While wearing this armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC, and you can understand and speak Abyssal. In addition, the armor's clawed gauntlets turn unarmed strikes with your hands into magic weapons that deal slashing damage, with a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls and a damage die of 1d8.
Curse.
Once you don this cursed armor, you can't doff it unless you are targeted by the remove curse spell or similar magic. While wearing the armor, you have disadvantage on attack rolls against demons and on saving throws against their spells and special abilities.
The wearer has disadvantage on Stealth (Dexterity) checks.
If the wearer has a Strength score lower than 15, their speed is reduced by 10 feet.”
I think it’s pretty clear that you could attack with a longsword in one hand, then rake the claws as an off hand action, following all normal conditions for your character’s off hand strikes. I think you could even swing a greataxe with both hands for an attack and let go with one hand to backhand with a gauntlet for your off hand strike. DM call. Of course, I think the rules allow for everyone—even level 1 characters without TWF to do that anytime, even with bare knuckles. It would just be using your bonus action to deal exactly 1 damage(since you can’t add STR mod to off-hand attacks, and unarmed strikes are STR mod+1 damage) Maybe I’m wrong on that last point, but it’s how I’d rule it in my games.
Just to clear things up a little - the rulesdo not permit unarmed attacks to be used with Two Weapon Fighting.
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.
As for the Demon Armor - I agree that the wording could certainly be more clear!
The wording of Two Weapon Fighting is very specific though - it requires "a light melee weapon" which the claw attack is not. Even if we add the Dual Wielder feat, that then specifies
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
This means that you can only use "one-handed melee weapons" - again whilst the demon armor states, "turn unarmed strikes with your hands into magic weapons," it doesn't state that they are one-handed melee weapons, so they still don't count as far as I can interpret that.
edit: It's also worth saying that if a DM decides that it would be cool to allow a player in their game to use the gauntlet attacks from this armor to make two-weapon attacks, then that's also perfectly ok. One of the awesome things about D&D is that we can all play it the way we want. :)
So, what’s the reasoning behind that? “We can’t have players punching things with their bonus action. That 1 damage is OP. We should make them wield a handaxe and limit them to 1d6 damage instead.” I argue that there is no lighter weapon than a fist— which are every bit as limited to melee(base to base combat) as any other light melee weapon. The reason fists aren’t listed on the weapons tables is because you can’t go out and buy a new or upgraded fist. But everyone wields their light fists as melee weapons every time they take unarmed strike. That’s why unarmed strikes deal bludgeoning damage instead of psychic damage. (Though, that would be interesting. “I want to use my unarmed strike to flip this guy off and deal 1+ my CHA mod. psychic damage.”)
I’ve sufficiently vented on the issue now. I won’t argue it any further. If you want to get a final word on the matter, go ahead. I won’t cause trouble over it.
I recall Mike Mearls tweeting about why they made it like this - it was due to behaviour that developed during playtest of 5th edition with players fighting with sword & shield.
The way it went, the player would attack with their sword, then use their free action to sheath the sword and make a two-weapon-fighting attack with their fist, using their bonus action. Next round, they would draw the weapon as their free action and the cycle repeated.
I'm not saying that the current rules are an ideal solution and I am an advocate of DMs allowing players to do things that are fun, if they are sensible and balanced, regardless of what the rules say.
Anyways, I don't have any issues with needing to get the last word on something - that implies an argument, whereas this is a discussion where questions have been asked and I have explained as best I can how I believe the rules work. :)
For any further insight into why the rules are the way they are, I suggest contacting the game designers on twitter.
Just to clear things up a little - the rulesdo not permit unarmed attacks to be used with Two Weapon Fighting.
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.
As for the Demon Armor - I agree that the wording could certainly be more clear!
The wording of Two Weapon Fighting is very specific though - it requires "a light melee weapon" which the claw attack is not. Even if we add the Dual Wielder feat, that then specifies
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
This means that you can only use "one-handed melee weapons" - again whilst the demon armor states, "turn unarmed strikes with your hands into magic weapons," it doesn't state that they are one-handed melee weapons, so they still don't count as far as I can interpret that.
edit: It's also worth saying that if a DM decides that it would be cool to allow a player in their game to use the gauntlet attacks from this armor to make two-weapon attacks, then that's also perfectly ok. One of the awesome things about D&D is that we can all play it the way we want. :)
Good catch Storm, I don't think I've ever actually played a two-weapon fighting character, so I always forget the light weapon restriction! It would certainly make sense that a clawed gauntlet is one handed and light... but the more unstated rules we have to fill in around the edges, the less reasonable the argument becomes that the armor is really intended to operate as arming you with weapons instead of simply buffing your unarmed strike.
So, who likes Demon Armor? I do. But, quick question about it's unarmed strike properties. Does it deal 1d8 pus strength or 1d8 plus dexterity? if you are proficient with Heavy armor, are you proficient with the unarmed strikes it gives?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersThe bonus damage to unarmed attacks granted by demon armor obey the standard rules for unarmed attacks.
So, to answer your questions:
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Wow. that was fast. Thank you! I have a 16 fighter 4 warlock and I was worried when I couldn't hit anything if I was doing it wrong. I was! thanks again.
Just to ask, would you be able to attack with them as a bonus action then?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersOnly if you have an ability that lets you make an unarmed attack as a bonus action (pretty much just Monks I think).
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
OK, thanks
Gonna pop in to say that, while I generally agree with Storm, there's a chance that it's technically a little more complicated than that.
The armor specifically "turn[s] unarmed strikes with your hands into magic weapons..." To my eye, that sentence isn't quite written correctly no matter what you think its trying to say An "unarmed strike" is a type of attack, a "magic weapon" is an object, you can't turn an attack into an object... so is it saying that the hands have been turned into magic weapons? Or that the attack has been turned into an attack with a magic weapon (for the purpose of overcoming damage resistance)? Unarmed strikes already count as weapon attacks... I think that there's a good argument to be made that this sentence is really trying to say "clawed gauntlets turn your hands into magic weapons...". The complication there is... if attacks with your hands are now "clawed gauntlet attacks" and not "unarmed strikes", its a little less open and shut that you have proficiency with them, since the armor doesn't identify whether they count as martial or simple weapons. And if you just say "they use unarmed strike proficiency," well, then we're back to questioning whether they really count as "weapons"...
If the armor does turn hands into weapons instead of just enhancing unarmed strikes, then ReptileBounty would be correct, you could use two weapon fighting to make both a regular attack action with those magic weapon hands and also a bonus off-hand attack, as well as benefiting from fighting styles and feats that provide benefits for wielding a weapon in your off hand.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think everything before this bit was overthinking the matter.
“While wearing this armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC, and you can understand and speak Abyssal. In addition, the armor's clawed gauntlets turn unarmed strikes with your hands into magic weapons that deal slashing damage, with a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls and a damage die of 1d8.
Once you don this cursed armor, you can't doff it unless you are targeted by the remove curse spell or similar magic. While wearing the armor, you have disadvantage on attack rolls against demons and on saving throws against their spells and special abilities.
The wearer has disadvantage on Stealth (Dexterity) checks.
If the wearer has a Strength score lower than 15, their speed is reduced by 10 feet.”
I think it’s pretty clear that you could attack with a longsword in one hand, then rake the claws as an off hand action, following all normal conditions for your character’s off hand strikes. I think you could even swing a greataxe with both hands for an attack and let go with one hand to backhand with a gauntlet for your off hand strike. DM call. Of course, I think the rules allow for everyone—even level 1 characters without TWF to do that anytime, even with bare knuckles. It would just be using your bonus action to deal exactly 1 damage(since you can’t add STR mod to off-hand attacks, and unarmed strikes are STR mod+1 damage) Maybe I’m wrong on that last point, but it’s how I’d rule it in my games.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersJust to clear things up a little - the rules do not permit unarmed attacks to be used with Two Weapon Fighting.
As for the Demon Armor - I agree that the wording could certainly be more clear!
The wording of Two Weapon Fighting is very specific though - it requires "a light melee weapon" which the claw attack is not. Even if we add the Dual Wielder feat, that then specifies
This means that you can only use "one-handed melee weapons" - again whilst the demon armor states, "turn unarmed strikes with your hands into magic weapons," it doesn't state that they are one-handed melee weapons, so they still don't count as far as I can interpret that.
edit: It's also worth saying that if a DM decides that it would be cool to allow a player in their game to use the gauntlet attacks from this armor to make two-weapon attacks, then that's also perfectly ok. One of the awesome things about D&D is that we can all play it the way we want. :)
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
So, what’s the reasoning behind that? “We can’t have players punching things with their bonus action. That 1 damage is OP. We should make them wield a handaxe and limit them to 1d6 damage instead.” I argue that there is no lighter weapon than a fist— which are every bit as limited to melee(base to base combat) as any other light melee weapon. The reason fists aren’t listed on the weapons tables is because you can’t go out and buy a new or upgraded fist. But everyone wields their light fists as melee weapons every time they take unarmed strike. That’s why unarmed strikes deal bludgeoning damage instead of psychic damage. (Though, that would be interesting. “I want to use my unarmed strike to flip this guy off and deal 1+ my CHA mod. psychic damage.”)
I’ve sufficiently vented on the issue now. I won’t argue it any further. If you want to get a final word on the matter, go ahead. I won’t cause trouble over it.
off topic: Who would allow that 1+ CHA Modifier unarmed strike? I would. : )
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI recall Mike Mearls tweeting about why they made it like this - it was due to behaviour that developed during playtest of 5th edition with players fighting with sword & shield.
The way it went, the player would attack with their sword, then use their free action to sheath the sword and make a two-weapon-fighting attack with their fist, using their bonus action. Next round, they would draw the weapon as their free action and the cycle repeated.
I'm not saying that the current rules are an ideal solution and I am an advocate of DMs allowing players to do things that are fun, if they are sensible and balanced, regardless of what the rules say.
Anyways, I don't have any issues with needing to get the last word on something - that implies an argument, whereas this is a discussion where questions have been asked and I have explained as best I can how I believe the rules work. :)
For any further insight into why the rules are the way they are, I suggest contacting the game designers on twitter.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Good catch Storm, I don't think I've ever actually played a two-weapon fighting character, so I always forget the light weapon restriction! It would certainly make sense that a clawed gauntlet is one handed and light... but the more unstated rules we have to fill in around the edges, the less reasonable the argument becomes that the armor is really intended to operate as arming you with weapons instead of simply buffing your unarmed strike.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.