Curiosity: Would you allow it (not RAW at all)

[nickl_2000]

Would you allow a non-dwarf PC to use and attune to a Dwarven Thrower if they were attuned to a Belt of Dwarvenkind?

Sure, it's not RAW at all, but as long as you had both, would you allow it?

[MaxWilson]

Would you allow a non-dwarf PC to use and attune to a Dwarven Thrower if they were attuned to a Belt of Dwarvenkind?

Sure, it's not RAW at all, but as long as you had both, would you allow it?

Hmmm. Sure.

[stoutstien]

Would you allow a non-dwarf PC to use and attune to a Dwarven Thrower if they were attuned to a Belt of Dwarvenkind?

Sure, it's not RAW at all, but as long as you had both, would you allow it?
Why not? Rename it the halflings flinger or elfputt and call it good.

[Hellpyre]

Certainly, but if they lost attunment to the belt the hammer would no longer function for them.

[Sigreid]

I could see allowing that to fly. I could also see some (not all) dwarves thinking that it's a travesty that a non-dwarf has it and doing everything in their power to get it into "proper" hands, including theft, begging, social pressure, etc. All the rotting kinds of things entitled people do to try to get what they want.

[da newt]

"All the rotting kinds of things entitled people do to try to get what they want." - the word entitled is completely redundant in this sentence.

[Sigreid]

"All the rotting kinds of things entitled people do to try to get what they want." - the word entitled is completely redundant in this sentence.

Nah, you can be rotten without being entitled. :smallbiggrin:

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Yes. Of course.

Why would I give that kind of item to my players and then arbitrarily limit who can use it? It would make no sense.

[Asisreo1]

Would you allow a non-dwarf PC to use and attune to a Dwarven Thrower if they were attuned to a Belt of Dwarvenkind?

Sure, it's not RAW at all, but as long as you had both, would you allow it?
100% absolutely. Seems like it would be hilarious as well with their transformations. As a DM, I highly approve.

[Houster]

Would you allow a non-dwarf PC to use and attune to a Dwarven Thrower if they were attuned to a Belt of Dwarvenkind?

Sure, it's not RAW at all, but as long as you had both, would you allow it?

Matt mercer allows this for grog(travis) in CR campaign 1.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Yes, mainly because if these both showed up in my campaign I've already planned for that to happen.

[Kane0]

Yeah I would. The belt basically makes you a Dwarf and the Hammer needs a Dwarf to attune to.

[stoutstien]

Yeah I would. The belt basically makes you a Dwarf and the Hammer needs a Dwarf to attune to.
Or thieves and artificers of certain levels.

[Zhorn]

Allowing this to work is the more fun solution than disallowing it; that's all the justification I need to get my approval.

[elyktsorb]

Or thieves and artificers of certain levels.

This is specifically the only reason I wouldn't allow it. Cause you know, kind of sucks to have that whole 'use any item' ability if your dm is just going handwave it for other people. (hell that ability is like one of the big reasons to even take the theif subclass)

But you know, if there were no creatures able to use it in the party I probably wouldn't give them something they couldn't use.

[Cicciograna]

This is specifically the only reason I wouldn't allow it. Cause you know, kind of sucks to have that whole 'use any item' ability if your dm is just going handwave it for other people. (hell that ability is like one of the big reasons to even take the theif subclass)

But you know, if there were no creatures able to use it in the party I probably wouldn't give them something they couldn't use.

Well, it's not exactly handwaved: they can still use the hammer without the belt, while every non-dwarf would still need an additional rare item to use it, burning an additional attunement slot to it.

[elyktsorb]

Well, it's not exactly handwaved: they can still use the hammer without the belt, while every non-dwarf would still need an additional rare item to use it, burning an additional attunement slot to it.

I mean the hammer is a really good weapon. If it's something you wanted as a character, chances are you would purposely make your character a dwarf (or one of the mentioned classes that can use whatever weapons they want) the handicap of having to wear a belt that gives you darkvision, resistance to poison, and a +2 to constitution isn't exactly a bad thing.

My point being, if your in a situation where you have to wear a belt of dwarven kind to use the dwarven thrower, I'm not sure you'd mind all that much.

Though I feel I should mention the situation where that would even step on people's toes would be impossible for the most part, unless the DM manufactured it themself.

[GooeyChewie]

Would you allow a non-dwarf PC to use and attune to a Dwarven Thrower if they were attuned to a Belt of Dwarvenkind?

Sure, it's not RAW at all, but as long as you had both, would you allow it?

If I'm the DM, I probably wouldn't put both of those in the campaign unless I intended intended to make that exception.

[Cicciograna]

I mean the hammer is a really good weapon. If it's something you wanted as a character, chances are you would purposely make your character a dwarf (or one of the mentioned classes that can use whatever weapons they want) the handicap of having to wear a belt that gives you darkvision, resistance to poison, and a +2 to constitution isn't exactly a bad thing.

My point being, if your in a situation where you have to wear a belt of dwarven kind to use the dwarven thrower, I'm not sure you'd mind all that much.

Though I feel I should mention the situation where that would even step on people's toes would be impossible for the most part, unless the DM manufactured it themself.

I see what you are saying, and it makes sense to me, but it's not so much the issue of having to wear the belt, insomuch the fact that you have to attune to the belt (in addition to the regular attunement to the hammer). The number of attunement slots is a very limited quantity, after all.

[nickl_2000]

Or thieves and artificers of certain levels.


This is specifically the only reason I wouldn't allow it. Cause you know, kind of sucks to have that whole 'use any item' ability if your dm is just going handwave it for other people. (hell that ability is like one of the big reasons to even take the theif subclass)

But you know, if there were no creatures able to use it in the party I probably wouldn't give them something they couldn't use.

I could see the argument that it shouldn't be allowed when you have a battlesmith or UA armorer artificer running around in the party. I don't know why it would matter to nearly all thief rogues though, seeing as they don't usually focus on strength and they would need a feat/multiclassing to be proficient in the weapon anyways.

I was merely curious how others would see it.

[Avonar]

I've always considered the fact that the Hammer of Thunderbolts is unique in its "Item Set" like design is a missed opportunity, things like that are really cool. So I would totally allow this, yes.