Now that it is out, the armorer has conflicting language in terms of pluralizations they didn’t fix since UA. I would like to hear some thoughts
- do the armorer’s gauntlets count as 2 simple weapons or 1? There are singular vs plural conflicts within the below sentence, ie ‘’each’’ vs ‘’it’’
‘’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.’’
- they are not light, but with the dual Wielder feat, could you attack with the offhand gauntlet as a bonus? The thunder gauntlets section is pluralized but earlier and later sections, the ‘’weapon’’ is singular. Follow up: do you use int since it’s a thunder guantlet?
- can they be Both inchanted since they each count as simple weapons(Plural)? I would think it would take 2 enchantments but yes. I realize the later ability makes it possible to separate the items, but it seems like that is for the purpose of multiple different enchantments on pieces of the armor that are not weapons (boots, helmet, chest)
followup observation: every single edition of d20 since 3.0 had an armor’s gauntlet be ’light’’ or off hand. Now I understand if the rational is that this mega armor is heavier with the magic, but I wonder if it was intentional or an oversight. Too bad you can’t us mithril....
1) If both hands are empty, you are considered to have two separate Thunder Gauntlets. Since they are neither Natural Weapons, nor Unarmed Strikes, you would be considered to be "wielding" them, so Dual Wielder should apply.
2) Yes, you may apply either Int or Str/Dex as appropriate.
3) The Artificer's 9th level ability explicitly mentions the armor's "special weapon" as a sub-slot of the armor itself. You should be able to enchant them separately as weapons once you hit 9th level, but not before. (It technically refers to it in the singular, but the overt phrasing of the core ability should supersede this.)
Now that it is out, the armorer has conflicting language in terms of pluralizations they didn’t fix since UA. I would like to hear some thoughts
- do the armorer’s gauntlets count as 2 simple weapons or 1? There are singular vs plural conflicts within the below sentence, ie ‘’each’’ vs ‘’it’’
- they are not light, but with the dual Wielder feat, could you attack with the offhand gauntlet as a bonus? The thunder gauntlets section is pluralized but earlier and later sections, the ‘’weapon’’ is singular. Follow up: do you use int since it’s a thunder guantlet?
- can they be Both inchanted since they each count as simple weapons(Plural)? I would think it would take 2 enchantments but yes. I realize the later ability makes it possible to separate the items, but it seems like that is for the purpose of multiple different enchantments on pieces of the armor that are not weapons (boots, helmet, chest)
followup observation: every single edition of d20 since 3.0 had an armor’s gauntlet be ’light’’ or off hand. Now I understand if the rational is that this mega armor is heavier with the magic, but I wonder if it was intentional or an oversight. Too bad you can’t us mithril....
1) If both hands are empty, you are considered to have two separate Thunder Gauntlets. Since they are neither Natural Weapons, nor Unarmed Strikes, you would be considered to be "wielding" them, so Dual Wielder should apply.
2) Yes, you may apply either Int or Str/Dex as appropriate.
3) The Artificer's 9th level ability explicitly mentions the armor's "special weapon" as a sub-slot of the armor itself. You should be able to enchant them separately as weapons once you hit 9th level, but not before. (It technically refers to it in the singular, but the overt phrasing of the core ability should supersede this.)
I would say yes, each gauntlet counts as a separate weapon for two weapon fighting.
I would say that the wording of armor modifications (which you do need to infuse them) means the gauntlets share an infusion.