So, for the Armorer Artificer, it's Thunder Gauntlets count as melee weapons. If you took Dual Weilding feat, you could use your two-handed attack(s) with a versatile weapon, then a bonus action attack with your Thunder Gauntlets, yes? You are always "holding" them. As for the versatile weapon, the Two-Weapon Fighting rule says:
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand..."
It doesn't say holding in "only one hand", specifically. You could argue that reading it "in at least one hand" is equally valid?
Let me know how you'd rule this as a DM, since I know it's a little questionable?
Thunder gauntlets are not light, so without the Dual Wielder feat, the question is moot.
The intent of the rule is very clearly that there is no overlap between “one hand” and “two hands,” but I do think there’s an obnoxiously legalistic case to be made to the contrary. It’s not one I would hear at my table, but it’s one I might make on these forums if I wanted people to hate me.
The additional issue with your idea is that, contrary to your assertion, you’re not holding thunder gauntlets. You’re wearing them. Given that you can absolutely still hold a weapon in your thunder gauntleted hand, I think this distinction is very relevant.
I would allow it if you actually were holding a thunder gauntlet, but since you then would not be wearing it, you wouldn’t gain any of its benefits. It would be an improvised weapon that deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage and with which you’re not proficient unless you have the Tavern Brawler feat.
I don't think the word "holding", "wearing", or "wielding" make a difference here. Otherwise shield proficiency doesn't mean a damn thing lol.
I would say if have duel wielder feat, you can use bonus action to make a thunder gauntlet attack. Need the two weapon fighting style to add stat damage though.
I don't think the word "holding", "wearing", or "wielding" make a difference here. Otherwise shield proficiency doesn't mean a damn thing lol.
I would say if have duel wielder feat, you can use bonus action to make a thunder gauntlet attack. Need the two weapon fighting style to add stat damage though.
You may not think different words that mean different things make a difference, but the rules do. I have no idea what shield proficiency has to do with anything.
I don't think the word "holding", "wearing", or "wielding" make a difference here. Otherwise shield proficiency doesn't mean a damn thing lol.
I would say if have duel wielder feat, you can use bonus action to make a thunder gauntlet attack. Need the two weapon fighting style to add stat damage though.
You may not think different words that mean different things make a difference, but the rules do. I have no idea what shield proficiency has to do with anything.
Please look up shield proficiency. And tell me how it applies do to the wording used lol.
"Armor Proficiency: Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a Shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast Spells."
Thankfully it says penalty for WEARING armor lacking proficiency, but no penalties for WIELDING a shield. Heck doesn't even mention what happens when lack shield proficiency.
Or you are in the camp that "wearing, holding, and wielding" don't make a difference.....
Whatever point you think you’re making, you’re going to have to make it much more clearly. I don’t see how this has anything at all to do with two weapon fighting.
My point is the word "holding" I don't think should disqualify the thunder gauntlets from being used with two weapon fighting as long as have duel wielder feat.
But that is how I would rule it. Not being held up on a word or two, otherwise other rules start to fail miserably.
Sorry Joe, for all intents and purposes, benefiting from a standard shield counts as armor, as also pointed in out in the monk's and barbarian's unarmored defense.. and how the tortle CANNOT wear armor EXCEPT a shield (how it had to specify that all armor EXCEPT a shield cannot be benefited from) so if you do not have proficiency with a shield, then the same negatives apply as not having proficiency in armor.
Sorry Joe, for all intents and purposes, benefiting from a standard shield counts as armor, as also pointed in out in the monk's and barbarian's unarmored defense.. and how the tortle CANNOT wear armor EXCEPT a shield (how it had to specify that all armor EXCEPT a shield cannot be benefited from) so if you do not have proficiency with a shield, then the same negatives apply as not having proficiency in armor.
Noxx89 I agree with you. Being proficient in shields should be required for proper use and not have the negatives. By the wording though, it does not. Since every time shields have mattered they had to specify it, like you said with your examples, yet they did not do so with Armor proficiency. Again they say:
"Armor Proficiency: Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a Shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast Spells."
Nothing about Wielding a shield, in facts says anyone can strap a shield to an arm, only don't wear armor you don't know how to. Hence I am of the camp that says that don't have to follow every single word of the book. So in my view you can wield a shield with Mage Armor on (say's can't wear armor and doesn't specify shields at all) and can Duel Wield 2 Thunder Gauntlets even though the word "holding" is in there for two weapon fighting and "wielding" in the Dual Wielding feat.
To be fair I think it was just lazy writing, or not proofread, that things were forgotten so.
But if I am wrong and it says the actual word Shield in an update to armor proficiency and not what I have listed above I would be happy to read it. :)
I dont know if it was in the books, an errata or just a sageadvice tweet but you MUST be wielding a shield -- strapped on the arm -- in order to benefit from it and all of its effect, including AC bonus. Leaving it on your back, strapping it on your face or anything in between does nothing. So the proper way to use - and benefit from - a shield is specified.
I dont know if it was in the books, an errata or just a sageadvice tweet but you MUST be wielding a shield -- strapped on the arm -- in order to benefit from it and all of its effect, including AC bonus. Leaving it on your back, strapping it on your face or anything in between does nothing. So the proper way to use - and benefit from - a shield is specified.
Oh I agree that is the proper way to wield a shield. And I couldn't see the shield being used otherwise to proper effect. Again my point is certain wording shouldn't stop a player from doing things by being too specific. Hence the allowing of two weapon fighting with Thunder Gauntlets as long as have Duel Wielder feat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, for the Armorer Artificer, it's Thunder Gauntlets count as melee weapons. If you took Dual Weilding feat, you could use your two-handed attack(s) with a versatile weapon, then a bonus action attack with your Thunder Gauntlets, yes? You are always "holding" them. As for the versatile weapon, the Two-Weapon Fighting rule says:
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand..."
It doesn't say holding in "only one hand", specifically. You could argue that reading it "in at least one hand" is equally valid?
Let me know how you'd rule this as a DM, since I know it's a little questionable?
Thunder gauntlets are not light, so without the Dual Wielder feat, the question is moot.
The intent of the rule is very clearly that there is no overlap between “one hand” and “two hands,” but I do think there’s an obnoxiously legalistic case to be made to the contrary. It’s not one I would hear at my table, but it’s one I might make on these forums if I wanted people to hate me.
The additional issue with your idea is that, contrary to your assertion, you’re not holding thunder gauntlets. You’re wearing them. Given that you can absolutely still hold a weapon in your thunder gauntleted hand, I think this distinction is very relevant.
I would allow it if you actually were holding a thunder gauntlet, but since you then would not be wearing it, you wouldn’t gain any of its benefits. It would be an improvised weapon that deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage and with which you’re not proficient unless you have the Tavern Brawler feat.
I don't think the word "holding", "wearing", or "wielding" make a difference here. Otherwise shield proficiency doesn't mean a damn thing lol.
I would say if have duel wielder feat, you can use bonus action to make a thunder gauntlet attack. Need the two weapon fighting style to add stat damage though.
You may not think different words that mean different things make a difference, but the rules do. I have no idea what shield proficiency has to do with anything.
Please look up shield proficiency. And tell me how it applies do to the wording used lol.
"Armor Proficiency: Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a Shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast Spells."
Thankfully it says penalty for WEARING armor lacking proficiency, but no penalties for WIELDING a shield. Heck doesn't even mention what happens when lack shield proficiency.
Or you are in the camp that "wearing, holding, and wielding" don't make a difference.....
Whatever point you think you’re making, you’re going to have to make it much more clearly. I don’t see how this has anything at all to do with two weapon fighting.
My point is the word "holding" I don't think should disqualify the thunder gauntlets from being used with two weapon fighting as long as have duel wielder feat.
But that is how I would rule it. Not being held up on a word or two, otherwise other rules start to fail miserably.
Sorry Joe, for all intents and purposes, benefiting from a standard shield counts as armor, as also pointed in out in the monk's and barbarian's unarmored defense.. and how the tortle CANNOT wear armor EXCEPT a shield (how it had to specify that all armor EXCEPT a shield cannot be benefited from) so if you do not have proficiency with a shield, then the same negatives apply as not having proficiency in armor.
Noxx89 I agree with you. Being proficient in shields should be required for proper use and not have the negatives. By the wording though, it does not. Since every time shields have mattered they had to specify it, like you said with your examples, yet they did not do so with Armor proficiency. Again they say:
"Armor Proficiency: Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a Shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast Spells."
Nothing about Wielding a shield, in facts says anyone can strap a shield to an arm, only don't wear armor you don't know how to. Hence I am of the camp that says that don't have to follow every single word of the book. So in my view you can wield a shield with Mage Armor on (say's can't wear armor and doesn't specify shields at all) and can Duel Wield 2 Thunder Gauntlets even though the word "holding" is in there for two weapon fighting and "wielding" in the Dual Wielding feat.
To be fair I think it was just lazy writing, or not proofread, that things were forgotten so.
But if I am wrong and it says the actual word Shield in an update to armor proficiency and not what I have listed above I would be happy to read it. :)
I dont know if it was in the books, an errata or just a sageadvice tweet but you MUST be wielding a shield -- strapped on the arm -- in order to benefit from it and all of its effect, including AC bonus. Leaving it on your back, strapping it on your face or anything in between does nothing. So the proper way to use - and benefit from - a shield is specified.
Oh I agree that is the proper way to wield a shield. And I couldn't see the shield being used otherwise to proper effect. Again my point is certain wording shouldn't stop a player from doing things by being too specific. Hence the allowing of two weapon fighting with Thunder Gauntlets as long as have Duel Wielder feat.