Thunder Gauntlets. Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit. A creature hit by the gauntlet has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you until the start of your next turn, as the armor magically emits a distracting pulse when the creature attacks someone else.
does this work with two weapon fighting? no not yet but! at 1st or 4th level we get dual wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand. You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light. You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one. boom you get a +1 to AC and two weapon fighting making three attacks in one turn
The debate comes around "wielding". Some think that since you're not holding a weapon (you're wearing armour), it doesn't count as "wielding". Others disagree.
It really comes down to your DM. It's how they interpret it that matters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
One does have to wonder how it's possible to attack with a weapon in a way that doesn't involve wielding it. But that's one of the issues with 5E's occasionally sloppy rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Personally, I'd agree, the text says they each become a simple weapon, so that is enough for me (with the caveat of needing that feat, since they're not Light). It's the DM's opinion that matters though (and, so far as I'm aware, IANYDM). I've seen these discussions get heated too.
But then, I'm of the opinion that two weapon fighting needs rewriting anyway. It makes my head spin that I can't punch you twice but put a dagger in each hand and all of a sudden I can do virtually the same motion twice. Shrugs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Personally, I'd agree, the text says they each become a simple weapon, so that is enough for me (with the caveat of needing that feat, since they're not Light). It's the DM's opinion that matters though (and, so far as I'm aware, IANYDM). I've seen these discussions get heated too.
But then, I'm of the opinion that two weapon fighting needs rewriting anyway. It makes my head spin that I can't punch you twice but put a dagger in each hand and all of a sudden I can do virtually the same motion twice. Shrugs.
yea this seems to fall under the same bad rules writing as not being able to make an unarmed strike as a bonus action
I mean, the unarmed stuff is mostly to help define Monk’s niche, and the general exclusion is not seriously hurting anything. If you want punching people in the face to be your main thing, there’s a class for that. Otherwise, this is one of those times where the rules just don’t accommodate certain specific images of a fighting style.
Classes should be created by giving them features that make them better at something, not by creating nonsensical exclusions to non-members of that class. Not that the argument holds water - the Monk class is not intended to be the sole occupant of the "unarmed combatant" niche to begin with, or there wouldn't be features for other classes to make them viable unarmed combatants (and yes, such builds are hurt by this).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's not like allowing an unarmed punch as a bonus action (for characters who can't already do something similar) would be a balance issue, or even particularly useful; without special abilities that boost unarmed attacks, punching is quite bad. Grappling or shoving would be more of an issue, though again, both of those are pretty marginal without extra abilities to boost them.
I'd be totally fine with Dual Wielder working with the gauntlets. Our table is pretty lenient with weapons benefiting from that feat in general (we allow it to work with Beast Barbarian claws for example.)
It's not like allowing an unarmed punch as a bonus action (for characters who can't already do something similar) would be a balance issue, or even particularly useful; without special abilities that boost unarmed attacks, punching is quite bad. Grappling or shoving would be more of an issue, though again, both of those are pretty marginal without extra abilities to boost them.
This one I'd be more hesitant about though. For me, at-will BA unarmed strikes should be a Monk thing. Even if they're far less effective for other classes, as noted just granting the capability gives those classes options (like BA grappling) that should be in the monk's wheelhouse.
I'd be totally fine with Dual Wielder working with the gauntlets. Our table is pretty lenient with weapons benefiting from that feat in general (we allow it to work with Beast Barbarian claws for example.)
It's not like allowing an unarmed punch as a bonus action (for characters who can't already do something similar) would be a balance issue, or even particularly useful; without special abilities that boost unarmed attacks, punching is quite bad. Grappling or shoving would be more of an issue, though again, both of those are pretty marginal without extra abilities to boost them.
This one I'd be more hesitant about though. For me, at-will BA unarmed strikes should be a Monk thing. Even if they're far less effective for other classes, as noted just granting the capability gives those classes options (like BA grappling) that should be in the monk's wheelhouse.
i wouldnt see a problem with a player using a BA unarmed strike as long as thats all it can do just for damage players would get more to do early game at least
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
artificer armorer
Thunder Gauntlets. Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it, and it deals 1d8 thunder damage on a hit. A creature hit by the gauntlet has disadvantage on attack rolls against targets other than you until the start of your next turn, as the armor magically emits a distracting pulse when the creature attacks someone else.
does this work with two weapon fighting? no not yet
but!
at 1st or 4th level we get
dual wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
boom you get a +1 to AC and two weapon fighting making three attacks in one turn
i dont think im missing anything on this am i?
The debate comes around "wielding". Some think that since you're not holding a weapon (you're wearing armour), it doesn't count as "wielding". Others disagree.
It really comes down to your DM. It's how they interpret it that matters.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
thats fair tho id have to argue and say because it becomes a simple melee weapon that counts as wielding
One does have to wonder how it's possible to attack with a weapon in a way that doesn't involve wielding it. But that's one of the issues with 5E's occasionally sloppy rules.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Personally, I'd agree, the text says they each become a simple weapon, so that is enough for me (with the caveat of needing that feat, since they're not Light). It's the DM's opinion that matters though (and, so far as I'm aware, IANYDM). I've seen these discussions get heated too.
But then, I'm of the opinion that two weapon fighting needs rewriting anyway. It makes my head spin that I can't punch you twice but put a dagger in each hand and all of a sudden I can do virtually the same motion twice. Shrugs.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
yea this seems to fall under the same bad rules writing as not being able to make an unarmed strike as a bonus action
I mean, the unarmed stuff is mostly to help define Monk’s niche, and the general exclusion is not seriously hurting anything. If you want punching people in the face to be your main thing, there’s a class for that. Otherwise, this is one of those times where the rules just don’t accommodate certain specific images of a fighting style.
Classes should be created by giving them features that make them better at something, not by creating nonsensical exclusions to non-members of that class. Not that the argument holds water - the Monk class is not intended to be the sole occupant of the "unarmed combatant" niche to begin with, or there wouldn't be features for other classes to make them viable unarmed combatants (and yes, such builds are hurt by this).
Although, this is going way off topic now.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's not like allowing an unarmed punch as a bonus action (for characters who can't already do something similar) would be a balance issue, or even particularly useful; without special abilities that boost unarmed attacks, punching is quite bad. Grappling or shoving would be more of an issue, though again, both of those are pretty marginal without extra abilities to boost them.
I'd be totally fine with Dual Wielder working with the gauntlets. Our table is pretty lenient with weapons benefiting from that feat in general (we allow it to work with Beast Barbarian claws for example.)
This one I'd be more hesitant about though. For me, at-will BA unarmed strikes should be a Monk thing. Even if they're far less effective for other classes, as noted just granting the capability gives those classes options (like BA grappling) that should be in the monk's wheelhouse.
i wouldnt see a problem with a player using a BA unarmed strike as long as thats all it can do just for damage players would get more to do early game at least