6
\$\begingroup\$

This is very related to this question: Artificer Armorer Guardian attack and cantrips like Booming blade

This is to talk about the new rules introduced in TCoE with respect to Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade now needing "a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp" as the material cost (whereas before TCoE I believe it only needed a melee weapon)

Specifically, when taking the Armorer subclass for an Artificer can you use the cantrips Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade with the Thunder Gauntlets provided by the Guardian Armor Model?

This is intended to talk about whether or not properties of the "base armor" used for the Arcane Armor be transferred over to the extended parts of it (gauntlets, boots, helmet). There is a thread that talks about the magical properties of the "base armor" and whether or not that is transferred to other parts as well.

So the way I see it there are 2 interpretations:

  1. Properties of the base armor transfer over - Therefore your Thunder Gauntlets will have an associated cost related to your base armor and be able to use the cantrips Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. However when using magical armor for your Arcane Armor you will not be able to infuse the "extremities" because the magical property was also transferred over.

  2. Properties of the base armor are not transferred over - From a game mechanics perspective Thunder Gauntlets are considered separate items from the Arcane Armor and since no such item exists in the PHB the cost is undefined therefore unsuitable for the cantrips Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. This does mean that while using magical armor as the Arcane armor the magical properties are not transferred over and the extremities are considered mundane objects with respect to infusions.

All in all, which interpretation is correct or is there another interpretation?

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov I'm voting to reopen on this. Although the querent indicates they are trying to reopen that topic, the question they are asking is not the same as the question they linked. The cited duplicate asks whether one can use Thunder Gauntlets to meet the requirements of cantrips like Booming Blade, which at the time simply required a melee weapon attack thereby allowing a potential stacking of effects. This question, however, hinges on whether the gauntlets themselves have a cost that is capable of meeting the criteria for the revised Booming Blade. \$\endgroup\$ – Pyrotechnical Jun 8 at 17:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Pyrotechnical That makes it a duplicate question. "Can it be used with [Spell}?" and "Can it be used with [Revised version of Spell]?" are the same question, and new answers should be in the same place as the out-of-date answers. \$\endgroup\$ – RevanantBacon Jun 8 at 17:49
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @RevanantBacon this may require a meta discussion to fully resolve, but in addition to the issues I cite above, Aquifn's initial question is based upon UA that has since been brought into a released book with different names (i.e. Armorer -> Guardian). IMO, we should not edit Aquifn's question as it relates to information that's accurate at the time and creates the potential to invalidate existing answers. It is probably appropriate to provide updated answers to Aquifn's question via frame challenge answers to the initial question of whether the effects can be stacked. \$\endgroup\$ – Pyrotechnical Jun 8 at 18:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Pyrotechnical I'm not saying the question should get edited, I'm saying it needs to be bountied for "Answers are out-of-date, please add updated answers." \$\endgroup\$ – RevanantBacon Jun 8 at 18:06
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @RevanantBacon that's perfectly fine if you want to do that, but be cognizant that Aquifn asked whether their proposed combo was legal and stackable based upon UA on something called 'Armorer' available to them when they posted. This question is about something called 'Guardian' having gauntlets being considered sufficiently valuable to be utilized with the Booming Blade cantrip. \$\endgroup\$ – Pyrotechnical Jun 8 at 18:12
9
\$\begingroup\$

There should be no problem with using these spells in combination with an Artificer's Thunder Gauntlets.

The gauntlets count as weapons for the Artificer, and it should be obvious that a pair of armored gauntlets is worth some amount of money, whatever that amount is, so it ought to meet the requirement even if we don't know what the actual value is.

The purpose of adding the 1 silver piece cost to the weapon component of booming blade and greenflame blade was to fix a weird exploit related to component pouches, according to a tweet by Jeremy Crawford:

What is the intention between Booming/Green-flame blades requiring a weapon with a value of at least 1sp, when no weapon (in PHB at least) has a value below 1sp?

If a D&D spell’s material component lacks a monetary value and isn’t consumed, you don’t need that component; you could substitute a component pouch, for instance.

Booming/Green-Flame Blade need a weapon with a monetary value because they require an actual weapon.

A component pouch "hold[s] all the material components and other special items you need to cast your spells, except for those components that have a specific cost." Since booming blade and greenflame blade had "a melee weapon" listed as a material component, but didn't list a specific cost, in theory this allowed a caster to just produce a melee weapon out of their component pouch in order to cast the spell, which then I suppose just vanishes back into the ether (or worse, just hangs around, existing). There are similar issues with using a spellcasting focus in lieu of a material component.

This is all absurd and obviously not the intent of the spell, but to fix the exploit, the devs added an explicit cost to the weapon material component, which happens to be equal to the cost of the cheapest melee weapon in the PHB.

In theory this does exclude weapons that do not have an explicit value, but since that wasn't the purpose or intent behind the update, it really shouldn't be a limitation on the players. As long as you have an actual object that counts as a weapon, you should be able to use it to cast these spells.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The whole "weapon must have cost" really pissed off the people that combo'ed these cantrips with magically created weapons like shadow blades and spiritual weapons have no "cost". \$\endgroup\$ – MivaScott Jun 8 at 19:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Can you provide some citations regarding the 'weird exploit' you mentioned? I'm sure some tables got munchkiny like you suggest, but is there anything written by WotC or others to support that? \$\endgroup\$ – Pyrotechnical Jun 8 at 19:47
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ This answer is making claims as to designer intent, which we usually want to try to avoid without direct citations. Can you actually back up these claims with direct quotes from the developers that state that this was the intent behind the change? \$\endgroup\$ – RevanantBacon Jun 9 at 4:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @RevanantBacon ,and Pyrotechnical, would having those quotes improve the answer? To me, they wouldn’t serve a purpose. The answer is in the first two paragraphs;the rest is just rambling. Whether the stated reason is accurate or not the answer is the same \$\endgroup\$ – MivaScott Jun 9 at 6:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ I added a link to the tweet where JCrawford specifically explains the reason for the silver piece component cost. \$\endgroup\$ – Darth Pseudonym Jun 9 at 13:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.