Do the Gauntlets of Blazing Fury make Improvised Weapons magical?

The Gauntlets of Blazing Fury, a magic item in a D&D 5th Edition adventure, have the following property amongst others:

While you wear both of these steel gauntlets, any non-magical weapon you grasp with either gauntlet is treated as a magic weapon.

Would those Gauntlets make Improvised Weapons be treated as magical?

Reminder on Improvised Weapons rules:

Sometimes characters don’t have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.

Why aren’t other weapons tagged as light?

I was going through the weapon options and I realized something, the scimitar is 3lbs and considered light. However, the flail, rapier, war pick, warhammer, whip, longsword, spear and javelin are all 2 or 3 pounds each. In weight, these match the other light weapons. Is there a mechanical reason these are not considered light? I do understand the reality of trying to wield some of these because I have some of them, but I also know that this is a fantasy game.

Can weapons get better?

I’m currently running my first D&D 5e campaign. Everybody at the table is new to the game as well, so nobody can really answer the question. While preparing for the game I was reading through the weapons section and came across the list of weapons in the PHB which state the damage for each weapon. A question came to my mind:

Let’s say I have a barbarian in my group wielding a greateaxe with 1d12 + Str mod damage when starting the campaign. During the campaign he (or she) come across an old and legendary forge and a smith who offers to strengthen the greataxe due to the enormous deeds the group has done. The smith takes the greataxe and imbues it with obsidian shards (or whatever): does the weapon then get better stats?

As far as I understand it would probably be up to me (the DM) to decide on that, so I could simply rule that because of the treatment the weapon got when it was created it deals 2d8 + Str mod damage from that point on.

If I rule this way, how can I be sure that the weapon doesn’t get overpowered in comparison to the weapons enemies have?. Same thing holds for looted items.

Let’s again say we have the barbarian with his 1d12 greataxe but he finds another, way more beautifully built one than his own. The weapon looks as if the metal was really well crafted (etc. etc.) so the weapon is really a better crafted version of the greataxe that he has.

According to the rules this would still be a 1d12 weapon, but for me that would have some strange taste to it.

  • They could start asking themselves, why they should loot any found weapon if it doesn’t benefit them at all.

    I know that they could have magical effects to them (as stated in the Magical Item sections in the DMG) but that’s not the situation I’m talking about. I’m talking about the same (or equal, I mean a really well crafted sword could still be better than a badly crafted greataxe) weapon (non-magical), just a way “cooler” one.

Does a Barbarian in rage get advantage on attacks with melee weapons [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:

  • Is an attack a check, or only similar to a check? 6 answers

The Barbarian rage ability in 5e says that the character gets advantage on all strength checks. Does this mean that a Barbarian in rage gets advantage on melee attack rolls and melee thrown ranged rolls?

Could a Monk holding two weapons still allow for the bonus Unarmed action?

If a Monk was to hold two weapons with the light property (specifically in this instance two Sickles), but only attack with the primary hand, would they still be able to use a kick to perform an unarmed attack? The PHB, specifically one of the erratas, notes that:

Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an Unarmed Strike: A punch, kick, headbutt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient in Unarmed Strikes.

To me, this seems like a cut and dry case; unarmed strikes are NOT weapons, and instead of attacking with an offhand, a Monk could use their Martial Arts to perform an Unarmed Strike instead with a kick, headbutt, knee, etc., as referenced here in the PHB:

When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn.

Likewise, when the character reached level 2 and was able to use Flurry, would they be able to opt to use Flurry INSTEAD of the offhand?

What are the effects of having unarmed strikes count as weapons?

Unarmed strikes already count as “attacks”, “melee attacks”, and even “melee weapon attacks” as the Sage Advice Compendium, version 2.3, states this on page 11:

For example, an unarmed strike counts as a melee weapon attack, even though the attacker’s body isn’t considered a weapon…

I was wondering if there are unforeseen consequences of letting unarmed strikes simply count as weapons in general.