Armorer Artificer UA Thunder Guantlets

[Ooze]

So i'm creating an Armorer Artificer for a Descent into Avernus campaign after a TPK we suffered.. And i'm really interested in whether or not the Thunder Gauntlets are considered 2 weapons or 1 for the Dual Wielding feat.
Now from my interpretation it should work but i would like to be doubly sure before i bring it to the table.

[JackPhoenix]

Your armored fists each count as a simple melee weapon

As they aren't light, you'll need the feat to use them in TWF. Now, the more interesting question is: does that mean your hands are full when you're using that option, or not?

[ZerohFG]

I would say one based off of how monk is treated with their unarmed attacks, but final say always goes to your DM of course. (so try to get 2 :D )

That said, the bonus action unarmed attack if they don't use fob is a better version of dual attack (modifier allowed)

[JackPhoenix]

I would say one based off of how monk is treated with their unarmed attacks, but final say always goes to your DM of course. (so try to get 2 :D )

That said, the bonus action unarmed attack if they don't use fob is a better version of dual attack (modifier allowed)

It's not unarmed strike, and it explicitly says each of your fists counts as simple weapon.

[Damon_Tor]

So i'm creating an Armorer Artificer for a Descent into Avernus campaign after a TPK we suffered.. And i'm really interested in whether or not the Thunder Gauntlets are considered 2 weapons or 1 for the Dual Wielding feat.
Now from my interpretation it should work but i would like to be doubly sure before i bring it to the table.

Yes, it says "each" which means two weapons. Hell, even a one-handed person would have two because of the armor's ability to replicate limbs.

[Damon_Tor]

As they aren't light, you'll need the feat to use them in TWF. Now, the more interesting question is: does that mean your hands are full when you're using that option, or not?

I would say your hands are not full when you use them as a weapon. But IMO specifying "fist" means you cannot be holding an object and still use your hand in this way. A fist is generally defined as the hand closed with the fingers doubled against the palm, something which probably excludes holding anything of significant volume.

[ZerohFG]

It's not unarmed strike, and it explicitly says each of your fists counts as simple weapon.

@JeremyECrawford says "Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks."

We can get go back and forth on this like smiting with a fist attack too. The break down is is they are 2 or 1 weapon, and then if they are 2 should they get modifier damage on them or not. 2 fists should be treated as 2 weapons, and twf should apply. I use monk as the example because it is the most approximate class to decide from on how fist weapons are treated mechanically.

[JackPhoenix]

@JeremyECrawford says "Unarmed strikes have always been weapon attacks."

Which is entirely irrelevant, as weapon attack is not the same thing as a weapon. You can make weapon attacks without actually using a weapon... unarmed strike... and you can use a weapons without making a weapon attack (Magic Stone shot from a sling is a spell attack with a weapon).


We can get go back and forth on this like smiting with a fist attack too. The break down is is they are 2 or 1 weapon, and then if they are 2 should they get modifier damage on them or not. 2 fists should be treated as 2 weapons, and twf should apply. I use monk as the example because it is the most approximate class to decide from on how fist weapons are treated mechanically.

I mean, we *can* go back and forth on this, but the rules are clear: They are two weapons, they get Str modifier to attack and damage (as they are used to make melee weapon attacks, and don't have finesse quality or any other special rule saying otherwise), they work with TWF (they lack light quality, so you need Dual Wielder to use them in TWF, though), and monk is a completely useless example, as they don't use any "fist weapons", mostly because there has been no "fist weapons" until this UA.

[Yakk]

If you replace the **exact** phrase "weapon attack" with "basic attack" in 5e the confusion between "attack with a weapon" and "weapon attack" goes away.

This is a serious flaw in the 5e rules, where they claim to be using plain english, then they invent technical terms that don't mean what the plain english says, and don't bother **telling the reader** they are a technical term.

But that is what they thought the anti-4e crowd wanted (and 5e is a response to 4e criticisms). So we get that crappy wording along with the good stuff.

A melee weapon attack is any non-spell attack that is melee. A ranged weapon attack is any non-spell attack that is ranged. You can make a melee weapon attack unarmed, with a melee weapon, or with a natural weapon.

The fists are simple melee weapons. They use the melee wespon rules, not the unarmed attack rules (which are similar, in that they both can be used to make melee attacks).

This is ridiculous, but it is what the 5e rules say.

[ImproperJustice]

I dunno, armorers should be cool and have different enhancements on each fist, and be able to make an attack with each fist if they jump through the right hoops to make it happen.

I don’t think they threaten the Monk too much by doing so.

[AvvyR]

I dunno, armorers should be cool and have different enhancements on each fist, and be able to make an attack with each fist if they jump through the right hoops to make it happen.

I don’t think they threaten the Monk too much by doing so.

This is pretty much how it works. The ability does say your gauntlets each count as a simple melee weapon, so the TWF feat would allow you to attack with both (you still need TWF style to add your STR or INT mod to the offhand attack). Additionally, since each is its own weapon, they are both valid targets for weapon infusions, and you could put a different one on each.

The real question is if they count as nonmagical for the use of infusions and weapon-enchanting spells that require it. I lean toward no.

[Galithar]

The real question is if they count as nonmagical for the use of infusions and weapon-enchanting spells that require it. I lean toward no.

The level 9 Armorer ability specifically says that one of the infusable parts of the armor is "weapon". Left singular. I believe that RAW this means that they can't be infused until that point, and that they take a single infusion that effects both fists. I'm interested in hearing others interpretations though as I'm currently playing a level 5 Armorer!

[AvvyR]

The level 9 Armorer ability specifically says that one of the infusable parts of the armor is "weapon". Left singular. I believe that RAW this means that they can't be infused until that point, and that they take a single infusion that effects both fists. I'm interested in hearing others interpretations though as I'm currently playing a level 5 Armorer!

I tend to agree with most of the people in the Subclasses 3 thread that the lv9 feature is the extra two infusions and the 'breaking up the armor' bit is just for clarity. A DM would be a real jerk to not allow you to infuse both your armor and your boots without the feature. Therefore, I wouldn't take its wording as a backhanded implication about how the armor weapons count for infusions. Particularly when it's semantic "weapon" versus "weapon(s)" (since one armor type gives one, and the other gives two.)

However, checking back, there don't appear to be any infusions that require a nonmagical weapon, so my question is really about whether you can cast Magic Weapon or Elemental Weapon on your special weapons.

[Galithar]

I tend to agree with most of the people in the Subclasses 3 thread that the lv9 feature is the extra two infusions and the 'breaking up the armor' bit is just for clarity. A DM would be a real jerk to not allow you to infuse both your armor and your boots without the feature. Therefore, I wouldn't take its wording as a backhanded implication about how the armor weapons count for infusions. Particularly when it's semantic "weapon" versus "weapon(s)" (since one armor type gives one, and the other gives two.)

However, checking back, there don't appear to be any infusions that require a nonmagical weapon, so my question is really about whether you can cast Magic Weapon or Elemental Weapon on your special weapons.

All infusions require being placed on non-magical items. It's in the initial description of the ability to infuse rather than in each individual infusion.

I think you, and others, make a good case for intent, and I agree that a reasonable DM is going to allow infusing boots separate from the armor. The RAW seems to say differently. Also the RAW description of Armor doesn't include boots. You simply need to say your boots are a separate piece of gear from your armor. The. RAW you infuse them as a separate item. What the level 9 ability opens up in my eyes is them being included in the "cannot be removed against your will" clause, as well as things like the Infiltrator "weight is negligible". While in many/most (if not all) these things are ribbons that will never actually change anything, I still see that as how the rules are written.

Your Power Armor weapons are explicitly part of your Armor, and even though they are treated as weapons I don't think that RAW they become weapons for the purpose of infusions until level 9. I'll have to go reread everything when I have more time, as there may be something I am missing that you caught.

Tl;Dr I agree with you on RAI, but still think the RAW say something different. As I player of an Armorer I'm okay with either ruling.

[AvvyR]

All infusions require being placed on non-magical items. It's in the initial description of the ability to infuse rather than in each individual infusion.

Where?

Edit: Nevermind, I found it.

The Lv9 feature specifying that the weapon is a valid target for infusions therefore indicates that the weapon is not a magic item. It should therefore be a valid target for the spells. The NEW question becomes can the same weapon bear both an infusion and a spell? Infusions don't seem to actually make the item into a magic item, they just have the limitation of no more than one infusion. The spell, however states an object affected becomes a magic weapon while under the spell.

[Galithar]

Where?

Edit: Nevermind, I found it.

The Lv9 feature specifying that the weapon is a valid target for infusions therefore indicates that the weapon is not a magic item. It should therefore be a valid target for the spells. The NEW question becomes can the same weapon bear both an infusion and a spell? Infusions don't seem to actually make the item into a magic item, they just have the limitation of no more than one infusion. The spell, however states an object affected becomes a magic weapon while under the spell.

I think that's going to fall under a DM ruling. I don't think there is enough in the written rules to definitely prove one way or the other.

[Ooze]

Well you guys have definitely given me a lot to think about! Appreciate the responses Thanks!