Can an Armorer Artificer wearing Guardian-model Arcane Armor cast a somatic spell without holding tools or having the Warcaster feat?

The Guardian model described in the Arcane Armor feature of the Armorer Artificer includes "Thunder Gauntlets":

Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it…

If the Artificer holds tools for a material component of a spell, the description above doesn’t apply. However, if the armor itself is used as the focus (assuming it’s an Infused Item), the Artificer is effectively holding a weapon in each hand.

To deal with this, must the Artificer have taken the Warcaster feat (to allow performing the somatic component of a spell while holding a weapon)? Or can the Thunder Gauntlets be considered "sheathed" when not attacking with them?

(Note: All Artificer spellcasting requires a material component, so performing a somatic-only spell is not an concern.)

Does putting an Air Elemental in a Bag of Holding create an air supply?

Elementals don’t need to breathe, eat, or sleep, thanks to their Elemental Nature (MM p. 123). This means that one could survive indefinitely in a Bag of Holding.

An Air Elemental using its Air Form ability could enter a creature’s space and stop there, effectively engulfing a PC in air. While the statblock does not clarify if this is breathable air or not, there is also no such thing as "breathable air" in 5e; things that you could breathe that are not air tend to be Poisons or specific gasses, not "air." The convention, then, would be to assume that the "air" in an Air Elemental was breathable. In addition, the statblock of the Air Elemental does NOT say that the creature sharing the space of the elemental is unable to breathe or begins to suffocate, implying that the creature inside the elemental is fully capable of breathing normally.

Could you, therefore, put a party member and a friendly elemental into a Bag of Holding (assuming that there is enough rations in the bag of holding to tend to the character’s biological needs) and expect them to survive indefinitely?

When a ysoki is holding items in his cheek pouches, can others tell if they have something in there?

The rules on ysoki cheek pouches are rather vague on whether objects held inside them are actually concealed. It seems possible that someone else would be able to determine that the ysoki was concealing something either by visible bulge or by the impact the object has on the ysoki’s speech. Is there any published Starfinder source that addresses this question? If not, is there anything about rodent biology that suggests a good ruling?

would Sacred Flame hurt a person the target is holding as hostage/human shield?

An enemy had grabbed a friendly NPC and was using him as a hostage and standing behind him as cover. The (new) DM seemed to be implying that the archers in our party would risk shooting the friendly. I thought sacred flame would be good because it can target creatures in cover and seems to go through environment without damaging anything else. So we reasoned sacrad flame would just fry the enemy and leave our friendly unharmed. Thoughts?

What would happen if you opened a Bag of Holding underwater?

I’m in a naval campaign where some of the game could take place underwater, and I could reasonably acquire a Bag of Holding soon, so it would be nice to know before I try to grab an item underwater and jettison all of my gear into the Astral plane. Would it fill with water until the bag was filled to capacity and scatter all the contents inside as well?

Also assuming you didn’t break the Bag of Holding by overfilling it to capacity, would putting water inside it get other objects inside wet, potentially ruining them?

Does holding an action change your order in inititiative? [closed]

I play in a group that has different levels of d&d experience from first time players to those that have been playing since the inception of d&d. When we are in a combat setting, if a player holds their action in combat, they are told their initiative changes to 0 and they now go last in initiative order for the remainder of combat. Is this correct or is this a rule from a different edition?

Are you still two-weapon fighting if you’ve thrown one of your two weapons and are no longer holding it?

In this question we see that two-weapon fighting with darts is not possible because they are not melee weapons. Let’s replace the darts in that scenario with daggers, which are valid light melee weapons for two-weapon fighting, and also have the thrown property.

Two-weapon fighting says:

Two-Weapon Fighting.

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

Consider this scenario:

Bob the rogue has two daggers drawn and ready to go. He throws his first dagger as his attack action, satisfying the condition of "when you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand."

At this point, he is no longer holding this weapon in hand because he has thrown it. He is now holding only one dagger, in his other hand. In this case, the condition above has been met, but does he get to use the bonus action to attack with a "different light melee weapon [held in his] other hand" even though he is now wielding only a single weapon?

In other words, is the bonus attack granted at the moment the first attack made, as long as you meet that first condition of "attack[ing] with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand," regardless of how many weapons you end up holding after the first attack?