It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yeah: How many warforged are in the Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica lore?
Trying to base any rules deductions between the interactions of two different creatures from two entirely different settings is problematic at best.
Especially when that creature description even says in black and white. That their armor may vary.
This line of discussion would be better suited for the Story & Lore forum. We can’t have a productive discourse if everyone has to spend every other post reminding you that we’re talking about rules. Go with a warforged knight instead, I don’t care. You’re not really here in good faith anyway.
Why not try to look at any of the warforged statblocks? Idk maybe thats the place to look for what were talking about instead of a statblock that was written before warforged were even published.
You know. The warforged soldier. The thing were talking about. Warforged.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This is explicitly a DM issue as NPC warforged have "natural armor" in their stat block. Players cannot cast heat metal on a standard NPC Warforged. But you as the DM may be able to cast heat metal on an PC.
This is the comment we're still talking about. He said NPC warforged have natural armor. And, they do.
It is right there in their statblock. Natural armor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Let me open by saying I completely understand where Ravnodaus is coming from with the idea "incorporate" may mean the armor is no longer an object as it is now part of the warforged/a creature, and therefore, is now a creature. Not that weird considering warforged manufactured, right? However, as the OP Title suggests, it can have major gameplay implications - so... what do the rules say? Which is of course what we're actually debating - I just wanted to acknowledge that what Ravnodaus is saying makes sense, rationally, and you could easily argue RAI gives several scenarios as others have suggested but that defeats the purpose of the conversation in my mind.
The main question we're attempting to answer then is simply, "What does incorporate mean in D&D?"
First of all, "incorporate" is not explicitly defined within the rules - it's used conversationally, as a matter of course, seemingly leaving a dictionary to be our best guide for how to interpret. However, this lack of internal definition does not mean the word isn't used with intention and specificity. One of the coolest things about DnD Beyond is the ability to 'Search' keywords. I invite anyone reading this to simply search the word "incorporate" at the top of this page and you'll see, within the licensed content you may view, "incorporate" is used regularly in the rules to designate aesthetic or storyline elements which may have major implications for how the DM determines various conditions and dynamics, like what races a cult may have, how something is decorated, the alignment of some organization, etc. This has a major impact on the campaign overall but otherwise, never has any direct impact on gameplay mechanics, such as what something is considered. For example, ignoring any other potential factors, an Orc incorporated into a Cult does not cease to be an Orc even though they are also now a Cultist. Some "Orc-Bane" dagger should be just as good at sticking Orcs before or after they've joined the cult - no impact on gameplay, just story.
That said, there is one major exception to having no direct impact on 'roll the dice' gameplay mechanics, and it is Integrated Protection and its use of the word "incorporate" - What gameplay mechanics would be affected by the object's aesthetics? Identifying the armor a warforged is wearing/has incorporated into their body. Without this stipulation, you would/could automatically fail any Perception Check to identify the warforged's equipment (plus a whole slew of hidden benefits ranging from Heat Metal Immunity to ignoring armor carry weight and even whether or not you would have disadvantage on stealth in heavy w/o some other feat).
You will see no example of the "incorporate" within the rules where its previous qualities 'cease to be' but rather, the opposite - where the incorporated object/creature/facture adopts characteristics from the corporation and vice versa. If there is a conflict, generally speaking, it's explicitly listed - hypothetical example, "An Orc joins a lawful-good Cult to atone for their previous chaotic-evil lifestyle - Perhaps the Orc finds peace, no easy task for a classic, bone-chewing Orc but the Cult finds new zeal and passion, inspired by the Orcs battle-honed spirit. The adopt qualities from one another, and perhaps it changes the direction of the story, but that's it. Outside of informing various Perception/Investigation/Knowledge checks, it has no direct impact on gameplay or other mechanics listed in the rules. That Orc may still be Aggressive in combat if their beloved Cult was threatened.
I once had a very similar thread to this where I made similar arguments regarding "as if it were" in the rules, except I never argued my interpretation is actually correct or that's how the rule should be interpreted. Rather, I was interested in where the clarifying language from other rules that confirm I was wrong RAW, not RAI. More to the point, they seem to use the language "as if it were" to designate when a particular entity (creature, object, etc) behaves like, or "as if it were," a different entity. So, if it was as Ravnodaus and others have said and the armor ceases to be an object, Integrated Protection would have almost certainly included a phrase along the lines of "while incorporated into your body, armor functions as if it were part of your body."
Removing the limb did no damage. The damage of the attack is determined before you even roll to see if the limb comes off. Nothing you've said changes that. The whole tangent is a red herring anyway. A piece of someone being removed isn't something that causes damage. There is no rule saying it. So it isn't. The whole "taking it off doesn't hurt them so it isn't part of them" has no legs to stand on. (pun intended) Rolling 24 damage on your attack with a sword of sharpness and then also rolling a 20 and lopping off a dude's leg doesn't cause extra damage to him either. Even if he was a goliath standing next to an interception fighter buddy, and takes 0 damage from the crit, the rolled 20 means the arm comes off all the same. The armor is part of the warforged, integrated. Incorporated. Your reasoning here is well addressed, and is debunked.
I saw this bit in earlier in the thread and found the verbiage very interesting (as well as the points made by all) - I agree with your interpretation here although I believe we're splitting hairs unnecessarily here and this largely distracts from the main argument as the situation doesn't speak to whether 'incorporates' means something becomes something else - in this case, an object, armor, becomes a creature/part of a creature (like their hand say, right).
I found the "what about slash immune monsters " point very intriguing - unusual case, but again, I agree w/ your break down, particularly because under 'Damage Resistance and Vulnerability' in the PHB: Combat - it explicitly states Damage Resistance and Vulnerability are applied to damage rolls last, thus creating the possibility for a slash immune creature to still lose a limb under these incredibly rare circumstances. We could easily imagine some slash immune stone creature, regardless of anything else, having its limb cleaved off and outside of no longer having the function of that limb, being completely unaffected - it might not have even experienced any pain or experience pain at all. Which means actual damage/HP deductions would damage it in a way which makes erything no longer function, whether severed or not (y'know, dead! Inanimate! 😀).
Ignoring is correct here. You're trying to invent a new rule about how much damage something takes for part of it being removed. No such rules exist.
The advantage of literally following the rules? I mean. Self explanatory really. You have found yourself on a curious sub-forum if this isn't something you care about.
Of course. That's what it does. Black and white. Limb; on then off.
Nothing says the armor stays intact. It just says it stays on them. If you cut their limb off that whole limb comes off, whatever armor is on it included. For the purposes of the now 3 limb'd warforged he still is treated as fully armored, though. You don't go start removing AC or whatever other nonsense. Not unless you're planning on homebrewing some stuff here. As far as the rules are concerned: A creature who gets their limb removed still is wearing their armor.
I agree 100% - I have made other threads with the sole purpose of seeking "absurd" situations some here may remember me from because I believe situations in which RAW are unclear are actually very rare, however, the clarifying rule(s) may be buried. I found arguing interpretation is often a fruitless endeavor full of moot points so focusing on RAW language can limit some/most argument both in threads as well as across a table during a game.
In my experience, it seems like it is mostly magic items/spells. For example, some of the stipulations of the Spell 'Demiplane' - what do they mean by "if you know the nature and contents created by... another creature" thus hacking into their demiplane? How specific? Is the rooms inventory a sort of combination lock? Would not knowing what's written in a secret message on a page in that room block your entry? What does nature even mean? The comments section of that spell here in DnD Beyond take the interpretation some wild places up to and including timeless planes for study and training and being able to summon a room with any magic item and only that magic item given the nature of the multiverse - but I digress, that spell can be debated on that page another time! lol
Integrated Protection. Your body has built-in defensive layers, which can be enhanced with armor:
You gain a +1 bonus to Armor Class.
You can don only armor with which you have proficiency. To don armor other than a shield, you must incorporate it into your body over the course of 1 hour, during which you remain in contact with the armor. To doff armor, you must spend 1 hour removing it. You can rest while donning or doffing armor in this way.
While you live, the armor incorporated into your body can’t be removed against your will.
Specificity. The only things specified by Intergrated Protection is the AC bonus (no arguments there); donning/doffing takes an 1hr of contact with the armor; donned armor cannot be removed against your will. That's it. Many imagine "incorporate" is an additional level of specificity, but it just isn't - simply use DnD Beyond's search tool to examine how/when "incorporate" is used and it's effectively only used to describe aesthetic elements, not gameplay (or talks about the characteristics of organizations/cultural elements, again storyline/aesthetics vs RAW game mechanics).
There is zero specificity that would dictate spells like Heat Metal or anything similar cannot be applied to the armor and should work normally. I interpret the idea to be that, visually, they don't wear armor like most races nor is it literally part of their body like a turtle, but rather it fuses to the Warforged so they wouldn't need buckles, straps, or even a "good fit" to secure the armor to themselves. Perhaps they can adjust their proportions so that any suit of armor in their size fits like a glove? Perhaps rivets secure the armor? Perhaps wire bundles weave thru the armor? Maybe arcane energies (like refrigerator magnets) hold the armor in place? Maybe Chia plants spring up or slime oozes out and adheres to the armor?
You're welcome to flavor text any description you like to explain the process, but because the armor is incorporated into their body it is part of them. That's what bullet point 3, specifically, tells us. "the armor incorporated into your body" You'll note it doesn't even suggest what you're claiming, had it, it would have said "the armor incorporated intoadhered ontoyour body."
I believe we're actually very close to being on the same page here with the main exception being whether or not "incorporates" means the armor is no longer an object, but rather a creature. Bullets 2 & 3 only say, "incorporate(d) into your body" but leave out actual confirmation as to whether that means the incorporated object (armor) is no longer an object. And actually, the reason I had mentioned the fact it's just for flavor is that's all a character claiming an earring is part of their body would be, or a warforged claiming their armor is now part of them.
They even have prosthetics and rules for them, in the game already (and actually, they match Medicare Guidelines quite nicely and mesh well with contemporary 'real-life' views regarding prosthetics). Eberron (and other adventures) didn't just introduce warforged, but prosthetics too! It's an actual Magic Item with completely different rules to acknowledge it functioning "identically to the part it replaces." There is no "incorporates" language or anything like it. The closest thing we see is the fact it can't be removed against your will. That's the language of becoming a body part. Given they only replace a lost limb and cannot add extra limbs, no reason you can't allow your characters to begin campaigns w/ them in spite of their value as selling
Living Steel and Stone
Warforged are formed from a blend of organic and inorganic materials. Root-like cords infused with alchemical fluids serve as their muscles, wrapped around a framework of steel, darkwood, or stone. Armored plates form a protective outer shell and reinforce joints. Warforged share a common facial design, with a hinged jaw and crystal eyes embedded beneath a reinforced brow ridge. Beyond these common elements of warforged design, the precise materials and build of a warforged vary based on the purpose for which it was designed.
Although they were manufactured, warforged are living humanoids. Resting, healing magic, and the Medicine skill all provide the same benefits to warforged that they do to other humanoids.
Constructed Resilience. You were created to have remarkable fortitude, represented by the following benefits:
You have advantage on saving throws against being poisoned, and you have resistance to poison damage.
You don’t need to eat, drink, or breathe.
You are immune to disease.
You don’t need to sleep, and magic can’t put you to sleep.
Sentry’s Rest. When you take a long rest, you must spend at least six hours in an inactive, motionless state, rather than sleeping. In this state, you appear inert, but it doesn’t render you unconscious, and you can see and hear as normal.
Integrated Protection. Your body has built-in defensive layers, which can be enhanced with armor:
You gain a +1 bonus to Armor Class.
You can don only armor with which you have proficiency. To don armor other than a shield, you must incorporate it into your body over the course of 1 hour, during which you remain in contact with the armor. To doff armor, you must spend 1 hour removing it. You can rest while donning or doffing armor in this way.
While you live, the armor incorporated into your body can’t be removed against your will.
Specialized Design. You gain one skill proficiency and one tool proficiency of your choice.
Languages. You can speak, read, and write Common and one other language of your choice.
So again, all integrated protection does is add +1 to AC outright and changes donning/doffing to 1hr, after which, it can only be removed by you. Also, you cannot wear armor which you are not proficient at all. No more. No less.
Quite a bit more, actually. Otherwise they would have phrased it exactly like you just did since that is so much shorter. Printed page space isn't something they waste for no reason.
This is true! However, not for the reason you are stating. So, building on the previous statements above, the reason they include "incorporates" is so the armor can still be identified by a successful Perception Checks. You would need something like 'Disguise Self' or similar in order to mask the fact you have a certain type of armor on even as a warforged, otherwise, all warforged in armor but no clothing would appear 'naked' - maybe we can assume they're all nudists and everyone accepts that, but that seems a bit... rigid? har har har
Perception Checks aren't typically used to confirm the authenticity of an actual magic item - perhaps with an iconic legendary item particularly in the hands of an equally iconic character who may or may not be an illusion (often resolved by Perception Checks). Or more commonly, if someone's uniform is correct and what it signifies, if you see a coat which matches that of an intruder you witnessed, and those types of 'identifying' Perception Checks. Kind of goes without saying, but there are of course things like the Spell 'Identify' - which typically require special conditions like contact and are therefore difficult to achieve in hostile environments/on hostile targets - for identifying specific 'known' items be it a magic item, perhaps the dagger used in a specific murder. These spells and abilities need to and should function on a warforged's armor, incorporated or not, in order to maintain game balance.
Therefore, warforged are somewhat inherently more vulnerable to spells like Heat Metal, which makes sense - bear in mind, they are not outright more vulnerable as they can't be targeted by the spell as potentially "manufactured metal objects... such as a metal weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor" unless of course those objects are actually incorporated into your body - then you could be (metal weapon = an attuned warforged wristblade or similar item)!
Nope, none of this is correct. The armor has been incorporated into their body and isn't a valid target for spells like Heat Metal.
Here's the thing is there is nothing says "incorporated into their body" actually means "isn't a valid target for spells, like Heat Metal" besides you. Even explanations from the authors never say this is mechanically how the game functions. It's largely only a RAI help by some with no real literature to back it up. If I'm wrong, show me. I don't want some hypothetical thought piece as I can easily say the exact opposite and be just as valid. For example, "Nope, none of that is correct. The armor has been incorporated into their body and therefore makes their body targetable for spells like Heat Metal, since their body includes an non-living, manufactured object made of metal - effectively, this is no different than any other humanoid." And now we're stuck arguing perspective instead of rules - you've already admitted several times over the rules are intentionally specific, so it honestly doesn't make sense to me why you're inferring capabilities and immunities that aren't explicitly listed anywhere in the rules.
Like you just stone cold told me I was wrong because you say so basically. That's fine, but no one is going to vacate their position based on that rationale.
Anyhow, we'll circle back around to this at the end, because you shoot yourself in the foot later.
The armblade is an interesting object. It isn't incorporated into the warforged, instead, it is "attached to" them. So spells like Heat Metal could target it just fine... except when it is put away. Because then it "retract"s "into your forearm". And, heat metal requires being able to see the target object.
100% agreed - on the other hand (hehe), this is another example of why they use "incorporate" instead of say "attach" or whatever with Intergrated Protection (can we call it IP from now on? lol). Incorporate does not inherently imply "hidden within" or anything of the sort, so we should assume a warforged's armor is visible under otherwise "normal" conditions (normal light, no active spells or items, etc). Otherwise, like I said before, there are countless hidden advantages to IP, such as no one knowing whether you have armor or not, whether its light, medium, heavy, or what specific type of armor it is.
More importantly, it never says, a warforged does not "wear" armor by incorporating it into their body. This seems like a relatively common assumption/misconception which is made without truly considering the language presented throughout the published rules.
Oh they're still wearing armor alright. That armor is, however, no longer an object and is instead part of a creature.
So, what exactly are they wearing for armor now? Their body? Does that mean they can wear multiple suits of armor since as soon as they don a suit of armor, it's no longer an object but rather their body which is the armor they are also wearing? Does this mean they no longer have disadvantage on stealth in plate since its now a creature? Does the weight of the armor no longer apply since its now just your body weight which isn't factored into inventory? You've shot yourself in the foot as they very clearly state warforged are considered humanoid except where specified and so parts of their body don't cause things like 'heavy armor stealth disadvantage' or carry weight. More to the point, you can only wear objects, not bodies. Most of your points elsewhere would support this logic (such as whether Sword of Sharpness lops limbs and what that means for armor).
However, if we accept that 'incorporate' means the same thing for warforged IP as it does everything else which includes the word, then it is merely an aesthetic storyline element which does not impede even Perception Checks, much less nullify spells that target armor or penalties from the armor (such as weight, stealth disadvantage, strength requirements, etc). A better way to think of it, if I do say so myself, is the 'incorporated' items effectively become one or merge in concept but otherwise behave no differently (except when and where explicitly specified besides such as IP's don/doff time and being unable to directly remove incorporated armor from an unwilling, living warforged.
Like it's a cool idea that warforged are basically not just wearing the hulls/skins of other machines like some primal barbarian but also fusing to them in some sort of techno-necromancy/druidism (a true nightmare for actual druids I would think) like the Borg or something but otherwise, I don't think 'incorporate' is supposed to give warforged like, a half dozen hidden feats (all of which are quite powerful and game-breaking) without confirming it directly in anyway PLUS giving the other benefits they explicitly say warforged receive.
While you live, the armor incorporated into your body can’t be removed against your will.
^it is incorporated into their body. It cannot be removed.
Thats even more intrinsically part of them than some people's limbs. Because the armor can't even be lopped off by a sword of sharpness but people's hands can.
Also, ^ these ^ types of arguments made throughout this thread by many hold no bearing on RAW since its all interpretation. to address this example here directly and illustrate how while it's a thoughtful perspective, it just has no impact. It is actually easier to force or strongly encourage someone to remove their armor, RAW, than it is to remove a limb against their will while still alive in D&D - thus, armor would not be more intrinsically part of anyone than anyone else's limbs unless the story or character was simply claiming that, in character... Even a warforged is likely to experience something that makes them remove their armor, be it mind control, so satisfy some negotiation or agreement, or similar than they are to experience something taking a limb. Again, I can just say the opposite and it's just as valid - possibly more so if I give examples and you did not. Hence why debate over interpretation should be avoided whereas sharing interpretation (like we are, wink-wink) can be fun and informative whether you agree or not!
And as far as NPC warforged go: if it says Natural Armor - they aren't wearing any otherwise, they're wearing what's listed - some NPC stat blocks say Natural Armor and then elsewhere, say in an adventure/campaign, state what types of armor they might wear which of course would be up the DM and how they would like to run the encounter.
Either way, they don't have Intergrated Protection so it's a non-point as far as PC warforged are concerned
Idk. It feels like this topic shouldn't even be a debate. The words they use have specific meaning. And even if they dont follow up to redefine them again, that just means we use their normal definitions.
Into. This shouldn't be controversial. But. It means...
expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something becomes enclosed or surrounded by something else.
And incorporated means
take in or contain (something) as part of a whole; include.
So at a basic language level. The rule is telling us that the armor is taken into the warforged and becomes part of them.
Not attached. Not onto.
But, incorporated. Into.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Everyone understands you view "incorporates (into)" as an object because its integrated/incorporated/part of their body (which they also wear). Is the object also part of this creature now? Yes. But it's still a manufactured object, similar to the manufactured warforged. The only difference, objects are not a living humanoid. So warforged and armor do blend together/become one. But that certainly doesn't stop the armor from being an object and/or a distinct item readily apparent without disguise to anyone who cares to look. Especially considering warforged already blur the line between life-form and object anyhow.
And we all see "into" as well, but thats like the letter U after a letter Q. It's a part of the word almost as much as the definition. Which is why "incorporate" and "into" have similar definitions - incorporate can mean "to go into a corporation" and corporation can simply mean "of, relating to, or formed into a unified body of individuals" - so you actually have to "incorporate" into something - the english language doesn't support onto, around, or anything of the sort and then you become one of many individuals in a singular group - not it has its properties stripped of it (or should I say, cherry picked).
That's all it says. It no longer being an object you are wearing is never addressed. The definitions of the words do not address this gameplay mechanic either. For clarification, seek other rules which use the same language (you can use the search bar at the top of the page). If "incorporate" meant you cease to be what you were and become something else, then Goblins incorporated into a Cult are no longer 'Goblins' per se - even if its a player character.
Again, just search "incorporate" right here in DnD Beyond's search bar and look at the rules that come up. Never once does it stop something from being what it was even though that item is now wholly part of that other thing.
You can deflect, reiterate, and make your own interpretations as much as you'd like, but that's still no published rule confirming your claim. Also, my previous points stand unaddressed.
Idk. It feels like this topic shouldn't even be a debate. The words they use have specific meaning. And even if they dont follow up to redefine them again, that just means we use their normal definitions.
Into. This shouldn't be controversial. But. It means...
expressing movement or action with the result that someone or something becomes enclosed or surrounded by something else.
And incorporated means
take in or contain (something) as part of a whole; include.
So at a basic language level. The rule is telling us that the armor is taken into the warforged and becomes part of them.
Not attached. Not onto.
But, incorporated. Into.
And to revisit another aspect of a previous point, clever introduction of "into" to the same argument. Yes. It does say that. What it does not say is, "the armor no longer counts as an object," becomes invisible or indistinguishable, or really, has any property change. What you're saying isn't written anywhere in the rules. Its only your interpretation. RAI. Homebrew. Absolutely nothing says "incorporates into" means an object would stop being an object. Only that the armor (which is an object) "incorporates into you" (a creature). Not becomes you. Not functions as if a part of you. Not transforms into you, like any other case where you treat something different than what it actually is.
So again, none of that means that in Dungeons and Dragons, objects are no longer objects when incorporated into something else.
And here's the thing, no one is actually debating the fact the armor is part of them. They're just pointing out that doesn't stop the armor from also being an object while a part of your body. It just doesn't. Rephrase all you want. Introduce thought experiments. Those are not published rules and anyone can disagree with them along any other RAI. As I've mentioned, debate over interpretation is fruitless. All we can objectively discuss, in a table-top game which features magic, are published rules. Otherwise, we're simply sharing ideas. I've even acknowledged that yours are great ideas and considerations. That said, what's one of the main points to the rules (this is actually RAW, lol)? To provide balanced gameplay. Quite simply, if Intergrated Protection functioned the way you say, which has no published support (if anything, the latter), then it would nullify a significant list of balancing rules. Heat Metal is just a fun example.
But what about things like armor weight, stealth disadvantage, whether you have to touch something to activate it, whether you can identify it, and so on? It just doesn't function that way unless you want warforged PCs to behave like they have several extra levels throughout the game as more powerful/advanced spells and equipment having the same effect, but more severe as fundamental rules are simply nullified by "incorporated into"
Like, does a warforged barbarian in plate also count as unarmored then? He's not in plate anymore - he IS plate!
Part of a creature is... part of a creature. I'm not inventing anything. This is tautological.
If you're arguing part of the warforged is somehow an object, that needs some rules backing it. Creatures are creatures.
Even that is moot if you just consider that you can't target it even if it were an object, it is in the warforged.
It is generally a bad idea to try to find a way to target a creature with a spell that is designed and states it targets only objects. It goes against RAI on a fundamental level. Creatures are creatures. Objects are objects.
You can't target a creature with a spell that targets objects. Just as you can't target objects with spells that target creatures.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Only that the armor (which is an object) "incorporates into you" (a creature). Not becomes you. Not functions as if a part of you. Not transforms into you, like any other case where you treat something different than what it actually is.
Incorporate into you does mean is becomes part of you. Thats... what those words means.
It does become part of you.
It does function as part of you.
It does transform into part of you.
Why?
Because it was incorporated into you. And, thats what "incorporated into" means.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Only that the armor (which is an object) "incorporates into you" (a creature). Not becomes you. Not functions as if a part of you. Not transforms into you, like any other case where you treat something different than what it actually is.
Incorporate into you does mean is becomes part of you. Thats... what those words means.
It does become part of you.
It does function as part of you.
It does transform into part of you.
Why?
Because it was incorporated into you. And, thats what "incorporated into" means.
So, since it is now part of you and no longer an object or separate in any way, how do you remove it? You have just insisted that there is no discrete thing to be removed. As someone else pointed out, if it is part of you and not still armour, then shouldn't you be able to just keep adding layers as much as you want? If not, why not?
To doff armor, you must spend 1 hour removing it. You can rest while donning or doffing armor in this way.
While you live, the armor incorporated into your body can’t be removed against your will.
But your analysis is still focusing on single words. Yes it says 'incorporate' but it also says 'don' and 'doff,' which mean 'to put on' and 'to take off' respectively. It is still on the surface. And since it does not say its properties do not change, whether it is 'incorporated' into you or not, it is still an object, just as, say, a pacemaker would be a foreign object within the body. Now that example is clearly completely within a patient's body, not merely 'donned' or 'doffed' but it is clearly incorporated into the body to the extent that it is literally helping keep the patient's heart beating regularly. And yet, it is still a foreign object.
Fundamentally disagree. A man with a pacemaker is a discrete entity. He is: a man with a pacemaker. The pacemaker is part of him.
Now, IRL, your analogy breaks down. Because people are objects. And, they're made of sub-level objects, to the degree of many orders. A cell, is an object. But is also a creature. Or as least part of one. Irl analogies will of course break down because reality doesn't make the distinction like the D&D ruleset does.
Nothing in the rule says that the armour ceases being an object.
The Integrated Protection feature does. Sure.
Like, okay. You like analogies. He's an analogy. Your character sits down and eats a ration. Where did that ration go? Well, it didnt get disintegrated. It exists. But it stopped being an object, and became part of a creature instead.
If your character drinks a bunch of water, same thing, there is now less object and slightly more creature. Until later of course, when a new object is produced.
Consider it the same thing. Warforged takes the armor, and adds it to their creature-hood in same way as the barbarian adds a ham sandwich to his creature-hood.
The process for getting the armor back is specified, and is far more sanitary than getting the sandwich back. But in both cases an object stopped being an object and became part of a creature.
This is fundamentally how things work just as a matter of necessity. Creatures are made up of the objects which they have consumed, on a very fundamental level.
Some things in the game are so blatantly obvious it doesn't need to be explained. This should be one of them. If an object is incorporated into a creature... it is now just a part of that creature. Since, you know, that's what those words mean.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Part of a creature is... part of a creature. I'm not inventing anything. This is tautological.
Ok, are you honestly using tautological after your previous point was it says, "incorporates into"?? And if I acknowledge your 2nd tautological point, "part of a creature is part of a creature" then I would say it is a general rule which is over-ruled by the specificity of an object becoming part of a creature for Integrated Protection. An object which is part of a creature, is still an object (see how you can just flip RAI).
What you're inventing is the notion the rule is intended to imply armor is no longer classified as an object (even though you acknowledge they still wear armor, thus your point is ultimately, "they're wearing a part of themself so it can't be targeted by Heat Metal" and the like.) It's not difficult to understand. What's giving me trouble is how you're not seeing this would have widespread effects, greatly amplifying this feature, if it worked like you say well beyond whether it can be targeted by a Spell like Heat Metal - none of which is acknowledged and very atypical for rules such as these.
If you're arguing part of the warforged is somehow an object, that needs some rules backing it. Creatures are creatures.
Assuming you mean me, I never posited warforged were until you fabricated armor was not all of a sudden. It doesn't say either way. However, Integrated Protection fits the theme of Sentient Automatons in they are both constructed - warforged a creature, the armor an object, merging as one. If incorporating an object into a creature makes the object a creature. Then you could argue incorporating an object into a creature actually makes the creature an object.
Point is, neither are correct - the armor stays an object, the warforged stays a creature. The incorporation is thematic and covers Perception Checks. There are over a dozen examples of this phrasing in other rules clarifying this very point. Treating the armor as an object in no way invalidates "incorporated into" as the armor must still be detectible by perception checks and the like. We don't assume this benefit. Specific Beats General in the PHB: Introduction clarifies this. Since there is no mention of what armor is considered, the most specific ruling is "still object" - nothing says otherwise.
So, you first - where is the rule that states armor is no longer an object? I've seen your statements you interpret it from "incorporated into" - anything else?
The following confirms or at least acknowledges armor as an object:
the spell Heat Metal
PHB: Equipment (Chapter 5)
PHB: Combat (Chapter 9): Use an Object
DMG: Treasure (Chapter 7)
DMG: Running the Game (Chapter 8): Objects
None of the warforged/Eberron books say armor is no longer an object when incorporated into a warforged.
Even that is moot if you just consider that you can't target it even if it were an object, it is in the warforged.
Again, that doesn't mean it's not an object still.
It is generally a bad idea to try to find a way to target a creature with a spell that is designed and states it targets only objects. It goes against RAI on a fundamental level.
Right - that's likely why I haven't seen anyone try to say that. So far, virtually everyone has said the armor still counts as armor, which is an object. And there's nothing to say otherwise.
Creatures are creatures. Objects are objects.
Exactly - therefore, the armor remains an object. You said it yourself, warforged (creatures) are warforged (creatures) and armors (objects) are armors (objects). Tautalogical much?
You can't target a creature with a spell that targets objects.
Correct - which is why everyone is saying you would be targeting the Object: Armor incorporated into the Warforged.
It is fair to say "this rule is terribly written"; I assume that it retains its object properties because doing otherwise has all kinds of bad side effects, because you have to define which object properties it still has.
Only that the armor (which is an object) "incorporates into you" (a creature). Not becomes you. Not functions as if a part of you. Not transforms into you, like any other case where you treat something different than what it actually is.
Incorporate into you does mean is becomes part of you. Thats... what those words means.
It does become part of you.
It does function as part of you.
It does transform into part of you.
Why?
Because it was incorporated into you. And, thats what "incorporated into" means.
So, since it is now part of you and no longer an object or separate in any way, how do you remove it? You have just insisted that there is no discrete thing to be removed. As someone else pointed out, if it is part of you and not still armour, then shouldn't you be able to just keep adding layers as much as you want? If not, why not?
To doff armor, you must spend 1 hour removing it. You can rest while donning or doffing armor in this way.
But armor is an object. You have no armor to spend 1 hour removing it. You said it yourself - it becomes the Warforged.
While you live, the armor incorporated into your body can’t be removed against your will.
But, like you say, if its your body, you can wear armor on your body. So you could layer up armor since each one becomes your body that you're wearing, not the Object: Armor.
But your analysis is still focusing on single words. Yes it says 'incorporate' but it also says 'don' and 'doff,' which mean 'to put on' and 'to take off' respectively. It is still on the surface. And since it does not say its properties do not change, whether it is 'incorporated' into you or not, it is still an object, just as, say, a pacemaker would be a foreign object within the body. Now that example is clearly completely within a patient's body, not merely 'donned' or 'doffed' but it is clearly incorporated into the body to the extent that it is literally helping keep the patient's heart beating regularly. And yet, it is still a foreign object.
Fundamentally disagree. A man with a pacemaker is a discrete entity. He is: a man with a pacemaker. The pacemaker is part of him.
But that pacemake is still a discrete object within the man supplied through a Durable Medical Equipment Supplier. It is both part of him and an object which can be targeted by saaay, microwaves in the 80s-90s.
Now, IRL, your analogy breaks down. Because people are objects. And, they're made of sub-level objects, to the degree of many orders. A cell, is an object. But is also a creature. Or as least part of one. Irl analogies will of course break down because reality doesn't make the distinction like the D&D ruleset does.
Kotath doesn't introduce the notion people are objects, you do; and the analogy does not break down because it's not a metaphor but a direct, apples-to-apples comparison. You are incorporating an object into a creature. They are one body but two distinct things. You even agree by calling a pacemaker a discrete object yourself that becomes part of the man before suddenly stating their analogy breaks down. It didn't. You actually make the same point before trying to say they don't have one. It's right there.
Nothing in the rule says that the armour ceases being an object.
The Integrated Protection feature does. Sure.
It literally doesn't though. It says "incorporate into" which says literally no where "in D&D, this means armor is no longer considered an object, but whatever it was incorporated into"
Like, okay. You like analogies. He's an analogy. Your character sits down and eats a ration. Where did that ration go? Well, it didnt get disintegrated. It exists. But it stopped being an object, and became part of a creature instead.
But there's a rule for that in D&D already - you consume the food and delete it from your inventory. So are you saying that warforged are armor eaters? I'm confused now. This kind of goes hand in hand with the previous point "layering armor" point. In your analogy, you could keep eating rations immediately after the first, incorporating them all! It wasn't until Custard Damage was added as a 14th damage type in The Wild Beyond the Witchlight that a limit to such a thing had been published.
If your character drinks a bunch of water, same thing, there is now less object and slightly more creature. Until later of course, when a new object is produced.
So warforged can just keep adding layers of armor - got it. No different than guzzling a few canteens of water!
Consider it the same thing. Warforged takes the armor, and adds it to their creature-hood in same way as the barbarian adds a ham sandwich to his creature-hood.
All humanoids can do this this ham sandwichness - even warforged if they so choose. Thus, they shouldn't be targetable by spells which target creatures. As you said, you are what you eat! All PCs are food/rations then. How do they walk? How do they take attack actions in combat? What's their initiative?
(jk - your analogy isn't applicable because it's a completely different notion completely covered by the rules - PHB: Chap 8 - Adventuring: Food and Water. Funny - those rules don't look anything like Integrated Protection)
The process for getting the armor back is specified, and is far more sanitary than getting the sandwich back. But in both cases an object stopped being an object and became part of a creature.
But warforged can only doff armor, which is an object. And since, if we assume you've got it right, objects incorporated into creatures aren't objects anymore, they're certainly not Armor, a specialized type of object. I mean sure, we assume eaters are pooers, but again, according to your interpretation, this is the biggest difference between other humanoids eating and drinking and warforged layering armor.
This is fundamentally how things work just as a matter of necessity. Creatures are made up of the objects which they have consumed, on a very fundamental level.
Ah - I see, so fundamentally, we are what we eat and in no way is that a gross oversimplification. Got it. That's why the armor isn't an object. I get it. Where is that in the rules?
Some things in the game are so blatantly obvious it doesn't need to be explained. This should be one of them. If an object is incorporated into a creature... it is now just a part of that creature. Since, you know, that's what those words mean.
It should be blatantly obvious that warforged who incorporate armor into the body is some made up mechanic by a game publisher who made rules for exactly this kind of entirely made up thing, for the soul purpose of not overpowering specific types of characters over others. It's called gameplay balance.
If armor isn't an object and doesn't follow the rest of the rules outlined by armor not specifically mentioned by Integrated Protection as you say, then warforged are super broken capable of consuming endless suits of armor and permanently gaining their benefits while ignoring their penalties.
Yes, yes, it makes perfect sense that its now part of the warforged's body for lore. However, it makes zero sense to ignore armor as an object while on a warforged. Like you say, just because it's part of their body and can't be removed unwillfully, doesn't mean that the object, as part of a manufactured/constructed humanoid, is no longer an object like I am. It breaks the rules of the game. Furthermore, they are very careful to phrase what a warforged is so that they themselves can't be targeted by Heat Metal in a reversal of what you're positing with Integrated Armor. Running strictly off your RAI here vs RAW presented in response, one could say that fundamentally, a warforged, or any humanoid/creature for that matter, is an object and therefore targetable. It doesn't say they're not objects either. Shoot - the rules don't say a lot of things. Doesn't mean they are allowed by the rules which are written.
It is fair to say "this rule is terribly written"; I assume that it retains its object properties because doing otherwise has all kinds of bad side effects, because you have to define which object properties it still has.
I would have to say that's completely fair given this thread, lol - and exactly! If it didn't retain the object properties SO MANY THINGS wouldn't work right bahaha (and warforged would easily be the strongest race in the game)
and I can't talk smack about what anyone is saying because I thought about it for a long time myself and looked at a lot of different rules (warforged are me fav) to justify to myself that I shouldn't assume warforged have all this secret game-breaking feats inferred thru Intergrated Protection. That said, I think they use incorporate so players/DMs can be flexible w/ their narrative regarding them while being able to apply the rest of the rules neatly. Not being an object seems simple but actually messes with a lot of other "what if" scenarios, imo.
I feel like this is a pretty simple one. Armor can be removed using a special feature while parts of the warforged cannot be removed using this feature. Therefore the armor remains an item, is distinct within the warforged, and does not qualify as a part of the creature. It can be targeted by the heat metal spell.
Lots of stuff that isn't relevant posted, so I'll stick to what is:
When they integrate the armor, it becomes part of them, thus, part of a creature. It cannot be an object anymore, as it has become part of a creature. DnD teats these two things differently, it really is one or the other.
It is still armor, though, which is donned. IDK why people say that's not the case if it becomes part of them. These are not mutually exclusive.
It doesn't lose "object properties" whatever that means. it just isn't an object and is instead part of the warforged. They have become one thing, and that thing is a creature. The warforged isn't an object.
Maybe people are lacking the lore of warforged and are having a hard time understanding how the armor becomes part of them? Let's take a trip through the fluff and we can better understand, maybe, what's going on here.
Warforged are formed from a blend of organic and inorganic materials. Root-like cords infused with alchemical fluids serve as their muscles, wrapped around a framework of steel, darkwood, or stone. Armored plates form a protective outer shell and reinforce joints.
Warforged have an outer shell. Outer shell. Of armored plates. Remember these words for later. Outer, shell.
Although they were manufactured, warforged are living humanoids.
They're very much alive, and are NOT objects. Regardless of what they're made of. They're creatures. Humanoids, even.
Your body has built-in defensive layers, which can be enhanced with armor.
Defensive. Layers.
Like, an onion. They have layers of materials which protect them. Remember from earlier? Protective outer shell? Ok. Remember it, it is important.
These defensive layers can be enhanced. Dope. What enhances these layers? Armor does.
To don armor other than a shield, you must incorporate it into your body over the course of 1 hour, during which you remain in contact with the armor.
To wear armor, the warforged must take it and make it part of them, incorporate it into them. this is very literal. They have layers, and an outer shell. The armor, goes, into them. This isn't a metaphor, this isn't an analogy. It isn't a fluke of English that they used the word "into". They chose to use the word "incorporate" for a very specific reason: Literally, the armor goes into them, between the outer shell and the other protective layers.
It has gone into them. It has been integrated into their protective layers. They have incorporated it into them.
It is very literally in them. It says so literally. You're just not seeing it literally because normal people wear armor on the outside. Warforged don't. In-fact... they can't. Instead, they incorporate into them.
While you live, the armor incorporated into your body can’t be removed against your will.
Why can't it be removed? Why does it take an hour to put on?
Have you not pondered what is going on with them while they do this? They're very literally absorbing the armor into their bodies. It is being worn between their protective layers. It can't be targeted, even if it was an object. It is inside them. Surrounded by a protective outer shell. And it isn't an object because it is very literally part of a creature now.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This is explicitly a DM issue as NPC warforged have "natural armor" in their stat block. Players cannot cast heat metal on a standard NPC Warforged. But you as the DM may be able to cast heat metal on an NPC.
That's not at all true. A warforged soldier doesn't have natural armor; it has chainmail.
Per the text of the soldier:
Still have questions?
Yeah: How many warforged are in the Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica lore?
Trying to base any rules deductions between the interactions of two different creatures from two entirely different settings is problematic at best.
Especially when that creature description even says in black and white: That their armor may vary.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This line of discussion would be better suited for the Story & Lore forum. We can’t have a productive discourse if everyone has to spend every other post reminding you that we’re talking about rules. Go with a warforged knight instead, I don’t care. You’re not really here in good faith anyway.
Why not try to look at any of the warforged statblocks? Idk maybe thats the place to look for what were talking about instead of a statblock that was written before warforged were even published.
Try this one?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/546111-warforged-soldier
You know. The warforged soldier. The thing were talking about. Warforged.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This is the comment we're still talking about. He said NPC warforged have natural armor. And, they do.
Idk if you looked but the link, again, for your convenience: https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/546111-warforged-soldier
It is right there in their statblock. Natural armor.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That said, there is one major exception to having no direct impact on 'roll the dice' gameplay mechanics, and it is Integrated Protection and its use of the word "incorporate" - What gameplay mechanics would be affected by the object's aesthetics? Identifying the armor a warforged is wearing/has incorporated into their body. Without this stipulation, you would/could automatically fail any Perception Check to identify the warforged's equipment (plus a whole slew of hidden benefits ranging from Heat Metal Immunity to ignoring armor carry weight and even whether or not you would have disadvantage on stealth in heavy w/o some other feat).I once had a very similar thread to this where I made similar arguments regarding "as if it were" in the rules, except I never argued my interpretation is actually correct or that's how the rule should be interpreted. Rather, I was interested in where the clarifying language from other rules that confirm I was wrong RAW, not RAI. More to the point, they seem to use the language "as if it were" to designate when a particular entity (creature, object, etc) behaves like, or "as if it were," a different entity. So, if it was as Ravnodaus and others have said and the armor ceases to be an object, Integrated Protection would have almost certainly included a phrase along the lines of "while incorporated into your body, armor functions as if it were part of your body."Ignoring is correct here. You're trying to invent a new rule about how much damage something takes for part of it being removed. No such rules exist.
The advantage of literally following the rules? I mean. Self explanatory really. You have found yourself on a curious sub-forum if this isn't something you care about.
Of course. That's what it does. Black and white. Limb; on then off.
Nothing says the armor stays intact. It just says it stays on them. If you cut their limb off that whole limb comes off, whatever armor is on it included.
For the purposes of the now 3 limb'd warforged he still is treated as fully armored, though. You don't go start removing AC or whatever other nonsense. Not unless you're planning on homebrewing some stuff here.
As far as the rules are concerned: A creature who gets their limb removed still is wearing their armor.
I agree 100% - I have made other threads with the sole purpose of seeking "absurd" situations some here may remember me from because I believe situations in which RAW are unclear are actually very rare, however, the clarifying rule(s) may be buried. I found arguing interpretation is often a fruitless endeavor full of moot points so focusing on RAW language can limit some/most argument both in threads as well as across a table during a game.In my experience, it seems like it is mostly magic items/spells. For example, some of the stipulations of the Spell 'Demiplane' - what do they mean by "if you know the nature and contents created by... another creature" thus hacking into their demiplane? How specific? Is the rooms inventory a sort of combination lock? Would not knowing what's written in a secret message on a page in that room block your entry? What does nature even mean? The comments section of that spell here in DnD Beyond take the interpretation some wild places up to and including timeless planes for study and training and being able to summon a room with any magic item and only that magic item given the nature of the multiverse - but I digress, that spell can be debated on that page another time! lolQuite a bit more, actually. Otherwise they would have phrased it exactly like you just did since that is so much shorter. Printed page space isn't something they waste for no reason.
This is true! However, not for the reason you are stating. So, building on the previous statements above, the reason they include "incorporates" is so the armor can still be identified by a successful Perception Checks. You would need something like 'Disguise Self' or similar in order to mask the fact you have a certain type of armor on even as a warforged, otherwise, all warforged in armor but no clothing would appear 'naked' - maybe we can assume they're all nudists and everyone accepts that, but that seems a bit... rigid? har har har
Perception Checks aren't typically used to confirm the authenticity of an actual magic item - perhaps with an iconic legendary item particularly in the hands of an equally iconic character who may or may not be an illusion (often resolved by Perception Checks). Or more commonly, if someone's uniform is correct and what it signifies, if you see a coat which matches that of an intruder you witnessed, and those types of 'identifying' Perception Checks. Kind of goes without saying, but there are of course things like the Spell 'Identify' - which typically require special conditions like contact and are therefore difficult to achieve in hostile environments/on hostile targets - for identifying specific 'known' items be it a magic item, perhaps the dagger used in a specific murder. These spells and abilities need to and should function on a warforged's armor, incorporated or not, in order to maintain game balance.
Nope, none of this is correct. The armor has been incorporated into their body and isn't a valid target for spells like Heat Metal.
Here's the thing is there is nothing says "incorporated into their body" actually means "isn't a valid target for spells, like Heat Metal" besides you. Even explanations from the authors never say this is mechanically how the game functions. It's largely only a RAI help by some with no real literature to back it up. If I'm wrong, show me. I don't want some hypothetical thought piece as I can easily say the exact opposite and be just as valid. For example, "Nope, none of that is correct. The armor has been incorporated into their body and therefore makes their body targetable for spells like Heat Metal, since their body includes an non-living, manufactured object made of metal - effectively, this is no different than any other humanoid." And now we're stuck arguing perspective instead of rules - you've already admitted several times over the rules are intentionally specific, so it honestly doesn't make sense to me why you're inferring capabilities and immunities that aren't explicitly listed anywhere in the rules.
Like you just stone cold told me I was wrong because you say so basically. That's fine, but no one is going to vacate their position based on that rationale.
Anyhow, we'll circle back around to this at the end, because you shoot yourself in the foot later.
100% agreed - on the other hand (hehe), this is another example of why they use "incorporate" instead of say "attach" or whatever with Intergrated Protection (can we call it IP from now on? lol). Incorporate does not inherently imply "hidden within" or anything of the sort, so we should assume a warforged's armor is visible under otherwise "normal" conditions (normal light, no active spells or items, etc). Otherwise, like I said before, there are countless hidden advantages to IP, such as no one knowing whether you have armor or not, whether its light, medium, heavy, or what specific type of armor it is.
Oh they're still wearing armor alright. That armor is, however, no longer an object and is instead part of a creature.
So, what exactly are they wearing for armor now? Their body? Does that mean they can wear multiple suits of armor since as soon as they don a suit of armor, it's no longer an object but rather their body which is the armor they are also wearing? Does this mean they no longer have disadvantage on stealth in plate since its now a creature? Does the weight of the armor no longer apply since its now just your body weight which isn't factored into inventory? You've shot yourself in the foot as they very clearly state warforged are considered humanoid except where specified and so parts of their body don't cause things like 'heavy armor stealth disadvantage' or carry weight. More to the point, you can only wear objects, not bodies. Most of your points elsewhere would support this logic (such as whether Sword of Sharpness lops limbs and what that means for armor).
However, if we accept that 'incorporate' means the same thing for warforged IP as it does everything else which includes the word, then it is merely an aesthetic storyline element which does not impede even Perception Checks, much less nullify spells that target armor or penalties from the armor (such as weight, stealth disadvantage, strength requirements, etc). A better way to think of it, if I do say so myself, is the 'incorporated' items effectively become one or merge in concept but otherwise behave no differently (except when and where explicitly specified besides such as IP's don/doff time and being unable to directly remove incorporated armor from an unwilling, living warforged.
Like it's a cool idea that warforged are basically not just wearing the hulls/skins of other machines like some primal barbarian but also fusing to them in some sort of techno-necromancy/druidism (a true nightmare for actual druids I would think) like the Borg or something but otherwise, I don't think 'incorporate' is supposed to give warforged like, a half dozen hidden feats (all of which are quite powerful and game-breaking) without confirming it directly in anyway PLUS giving the other benefits they explicitly say warforged receive.
Also, ^ these ^ types of arguments made throughout this thread by many hold no bearing on RAW since its all interpretation.
to address this example here directly and illustrate how while it's a thoughtful perspective, it just has no impact. It is actually easier to force or strongly encourage someone to remove their armor, RAW, than it is to remove a limb against their will while still alive in D&D - thus, armor would not be more intrinsically part of anyone than anyone else's limbs unless the story or character was simply claiming that, in character... Even a warforged is likely to experience something that makes them remove their armor, be it mind control, so satisfy some negotiation or agreement, or similar than they are to experience something taking a limb. Again, I can just say the opposite and it's just as valid - possibly more so if I give examples and you did not. Hence why debate over interpretation should be avoided whereas sharing interpretation (like we are, wink-wink) can be fun and informative whether you agree or not!
And as far as NPC warforged go:
if it says Natural Armor - they aren't wearing any
otherwise, they're wearing what's listed - some NPC stat blocks say Natural Armor and then elsewhere, say in an adventure/campaign, state what types of armor they might wear which of course would be up the DM and how they would like to run the encounter.
Either way, they don't have Intergrated Protection so it's a non-point as far as PC warforged are concerned
Incorporate. Into.
I think many are skipping over the word "into?"
Idk. It feels like this topic shouldn't even be a debate. The words they use have specific meaning. And even if they dont follow up to redefine them again, that just means we use their normal definitions.
Into. This shouldn't be controversial. But. It means...
And incorporated means
So at a basic language level. The rule is telling us that the armor is taken into the warforged and becomes part of them.
Not attached. Not onto.
But, incorporated. Into.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's all it says. It no longer being an object you are wearing is never addressed. The definitions of the words do not address this gameplay mechanic either. For clarification, seek other rules which use the same language (you can use the search bar at the top of the page). If "incorporate" meant you cease to be what you were and become something else, then Goblins incorporated into a Cult are no longer 'Goblins' per se - even if its a player character.
And to revisit another aspect of a previous point, clever introduction of "into" to the same argument. Yes. It does say that. What it does not say is, "the armor no longer counts as an object," becomes invisible or indistinguishable, or really, has any property change. What you're saying isn't written anywhere in the rules. Its only your interpretation. RAI. Homebrew. Absolutely nothing says "incorporates into" means an object would stop being an object. Only that the armor (which is an object) "incorporates into you" (a creature). Not becomes you. Not functions as if a part of you. Not transforms into you, like any other case where you treat something different than what it actually is.
So again, none of that means that in Dungeons and Dragons, objects are no longer objects when incorporated into something else.
And here's the thing, no one is actually debating the fact the armor is part of them. They're just pointing out that doesn't stop the armor from also being an object while a part of your body. It just doesn't. Rephrase all you want. Introduce thought experiments. Those are not published rules and anyone can disagree with them along any other RAI. As I've mentioned, debate over interpretation is fruitless. All we can objectively discuss, in a table-top game which features magic, are published rules. Otherwise, we're simply sharing ideas. I've even acknowledged that yours are great ideas and considerations. That said, what's one of the main points to the rules (this is actually RAW, lol)? To provide balanced gameplay. Quite simply, if Intergrated Protection functioned the way you say, which has no published support (if anything, the latter), then it would nullify a significant list of balancing rules. Heat Metal is just a fun example.
But what about things like armor weight, stealth disadvantage, whether you have to touch something to activate it, whether you can identify it, and so on? It just doesn't function that way unless you want warforged PCs to behave like they have several extra levels throughout the game as more powerful/advanced spells and equipment having the same effect, but more severe as fundamental rules are simply nullified by "incorporated into"
Like, does a warforged barbarian in plate also count as unarmored then? He's not in plate anymore - he IS plate!
To put simply: "incorporates into" does not mean "collect the AC bonus and ignore the rest"
Part of a creature is... part of a creature. I'm not inventing anything. This is tautological.
If you're arguing part of the warforged is somehow an object, that needs some rules backing it. Creatures are creatures.
Even that is moot if you just consider that you can't target it even if it were an object, it is in the warforged.
It is generally a bad idea to try to find a way to target a creature with a spell that is designed and states it targets only objects. It goes against RAI on a fundamental level. Creatures are creatures. Objects are objects.
You can't target a creature with a spell that targets objects. Just as you can't target objects with spells that target creatures.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Incorporate into you does mean is becomes part of you. Thats... what those words means.
It does become part of you.
It does function as part of you.
It does transform into part of you.
Why?
Because it was incorporated into you. And, thats what "incorporated into" means.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To doff armor, you must spend 1 hour removing it. You can rest while donning or doffing armor in this way.
While you live, the armor incorporated into your body can’t be removed against your will.
Fundamentally disagree. A man with a pacemaker is a discrete entity. He is: a man with a pacemaker. The pacemaker is part of him.
Now, IRL, your analogy breaks down. Because people are objects. And, they're made of sub-level objects, to the degree of many orders. A cell, is an object. But is also a creature. Or as least part of one. Irl analogies will of course break down because reality doesn't make the distinction like the D&D ruleset does.
The Integrated Protection feature does. Sure.
Like, okay. You like analogies. He's an analogy. Your character sits down and eats a ration. Where did that ration go? Well, it didnt get disintegrated. It exists. But it stopped being an object, and became part of a creature instead.
If your character drinks a bunch of water, same thing, there is now less object and slightly more creature. Until later of course, when a new object is produced.
Consider it the same thing. Warforged takes the armor, and adds it to their creature-hood in same way as the barbarian adds a ham sandwich to his creature-hood.
The process for getting the armor back is specified, and is far more sanitary than getting the sandwich back. But in both cases an object stopped being an object and became part of a creature.
This is fundamentally how things work just as a matter of necessity. Creatures are made up of the objects which they have consumed, on a very fundamental level.
Some things in the game are so blatantly obvious it doesn't need to be explained. This should be one of them. If an object is incorporated into a creature... it is now just a part of that creature. Since, you know, that's what those words mean.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Ok, are you honestly using tautological after your previous point was it says, "incorporates into"?? And if I acknowledge your 2nd tautological point, "part of a creature is part of a creature" then I would say it is a general rule which is over-ruled by the specificity of an object becoming part of a creature for Integrated Protection. An object which is part of a creature, is still an object (see how you can just flip RAI).
What you're inventing is the notion the rule is intended to imply armor is no longer classified as an object (even though you acknowledge they still wear armor, thus your point is ultimately, "they're wearing a part of themself so it can't be targeted by Heat Metal" and the like.) It's not difficult to understand. What's giving me trouble is how you're not seeing this would have widespread effects, greatly amplifying this feature, if it worked like you say well beyond whether it can be targeted by a Spell like Heat Metal - none of which is acknowledged and very atypical for rules such as these.
Assuming you mean me, I never posited warforged were until you fabricated armor was not all of a sudden. It doesn't say either way. However, Integrated Protection fits the theme of Sentient Automatons in they are both constructed - warforged a creature, the armor an object, merging as one. If incorporating an object into a creature makes the object a creature. Then you could argue incorporating an object into a creature actually makes the creature an object.
Point is, neither are correct - the armor stays an object, the warforged stays a creature. The incorporation is thematic and covers Perception Checks. There are over a dozen examples of this phrasing in other rules clarifying this very point. Treating the armor as an object in no way invalidates "incorporated into" as the armor must still be detectible by perception checks and the like. We don't assume this benefit. Specific Beats General in the PHB: Introduction clarifies this. Since there is no mention of what armor is considered, the most specific ruling is "still object" - nothing says otherwise.
So, you first - where is the rule that states armor is no longer an object? I've seen your statements you interpret it from "incorporated into" - anything else?
The following confirms or at least acknowledges armor as an object:
None of the warforged/Eberron books say armor is no longer an object when incorporated into a warforged.
Again, that doesn't mean it's not an object still.
Right - that's likely why I haven't seen anyone try to say that. So far, virtually everyone has said the armor still counts as armor, which is an object. And there's nothing to say otherwise.
Exactly - therefore, the armor remains an object. You said it yourself, warforged (creatures) are warforged (creatures) and armors (objects) are armors (objects). Tautalogical much?
Correct - which is why everyone is saying you would be targeting the Object: Armor incorporated into the Warforged.
It is fair to say "this rule is terribly written"; I assume that it retains its object properties because doing otherwise has all kinds of bad side effects, because you have to define which object properties it still has.
But armor is an object. You have no armor to spend 1 hour removing it. You said it yourself - it becomes the Warforged.
But, like you say, if its your body, you can wear armor on your body. So you could layer up armor since each one becomes your body that you're wearing, not the Object: Armor.
But that pacemake is still a discrete object within the man supplied through a Durable Medical Equipment Supplier. It is both part of him and an object which can be targeted by saaay, microwaves in the 80s-90s.
Kotath doesn't introduce the notion people are objects, you do; and the analogy does not break down because it's not a metaphor but a direct, apples-to-apples comparison. You are incorporating an object into a creature. They are one body but two distinct things. You even agree by calling a pacemaker a discrete object yourself that becomes part of the man before suddenly stating their analogy breaks down. It didn't. You actually make the same point before trying to say they don't have one. It's right there.
It literally doesn't though. It says "incorporate into" which says literally no where "in D&D, this means armor is no longer considered an object, but whatever it was incorporated into"
But there's a rule for that in D&D already - you consume the food and delete it from your inventory. So are you saying that warforged are armor eaters? I'm confused now. This kind of goes hand in hand with the previous point "layering armor" point. In your analogy, you could keep eating rations immediately after the first, incorporating them all! It wasn't until Custard Damage was added as a 14th damage type in The Wild Beyond the Witchlight that a limit to such a thing had been published.
So warforged can just keep adding layers of armor - got it. No different than guzzling a few canteens of water!
All humanoids can do this this ham sandwichness - even warforged if they so choose. Thus, they shouldn't be targetable by spells which target creatures. As you said, you are what you eat! All PCs are food/rations then. How do they walk? How do they take attack actions in combat? What's their initiative?
(jk - your analogy isn't applicable because it's a completely different notion completely covered by the rules - PHB: Chap 8 - Adventuring: Food and Water. Funny - those rules don't look anything like Integrated Protection)
But warforged can only doff armor, which is an object. And since, if we assume you've got it right, objects incorporated into creatures aren't objects anymore, they're certainly not Armor, a specialized type of object. I mean sure, we assume eaters are pooers, but again, according to your interpretation, this is the biggest difference between other humanoids eating and drinking and warforged layering armor.
Ah - I see, so fundamentally, we are what we eat and in no way is that a gross oversimplification. Got it. That's why the armor isn't an object. I get it. Where is that in the rules?
It should be blatantly obvious that warforged who incorporate armor into the body is some made up mechanic by a game publisher who made rules for exactly this kind of entirely made up thing, for the soul purpose of not overpowering specific types of characters over others. It's called gameplay balance.
If armor isn't an object and doesn't follow the rest of the rules outlined by armor not specifically mentioned by Integrated Protection as you say, then warforged are super broken capable of consuming endless suits of armor and permanently gaining their benefits while ignoring their penalties.
Yes, yes, it makes perfect sense that its now part of the warforged's body for lore. However, it makes zero sense to ignore armor as an object while on a warforged. Like you say, just because it's part of their body and can't be removed unwillfully, doesn't mean that the object, as part of a manufactured/constructed humanoid, is no longer an object like I am. It breaks the rules of the game. Furthermore, they are very careful to phrase what a warforged is so that they themselves can't be targeted by Heat Metal in a reversal of what you're positing with Integrated Armor. Running strictly off your RAI here vs RAW presented in response, one could say that fundamentally, a warforged, or any humanoid/creature for that matter, is an object and therefore targetable. It doesn't say they're not objects either. Shoot - the rules don't say a lot of things. Doesn't mean they are allowed by the rules which are written.
I would have to say that's completely fair given this thread, lol - and exactly! If it didn't retain the object properties SO MANY THINGS wouldn't work right bahaha (and warforged would easily be the strongest race in the game)
and I can't talk smack about what anyone is saying because I thought about it for a long time myself and looked at a lot of different rules (warforged are me fav) to justify to myself that I shouldn't assume warforged have all this secret game-breaking feats inferred thru Intergrated Protection. That said, I think they use incorporate so players/DMs can be flexible w/ their narrative regarding them while being able to apply the rest of the rules neatly. Not being an object seems simple but actually messes with a lot of other "what if" scenarios, imo.
I feel like this is a pretty simple one. Armor can be removed using a special feature while parts of the warforged cannot be removed using this feature. Therefore the armor remains an item, is distinct within the warforged, and does not qualify as a part of the creature. It can be targeted by the heat metal spell.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Lots of stuff that isn't relevant posted, so I'll stick to what is:
Maybe people are lacking the lore of warforged and are having a hard time understanding how the armor becomes part of them? Let's take a trip through the fluff and we can better understand, maybe, what's going on here.
Warforged have an outer shell. Outer shell. Of armored plates. Remember these words for later. Outer, shell.
They're very much alive, and are NOT objects. Regardless of what they're made of. They're creatures. Humanoids, even.
Defensive. Layers.
Like, an onion. They have layers of materials which protect them. Remember from earlier? Protective outer shell? Ok. Remember it, it is important.
These defensive layers can be enhanced. Dope. What enhances these layers? Armor does.
To wear armor, the warforged must take it and make it part of them, incorporate it into them. this is very literal. They have layers, and an outer shell. The armor, goes, into them. This isn't a metaphor, this isn't an analogy. It isn't a fluke of English that they used the word "into". They chose to use the word "incorporate" for a very specific reason: Literally, the armor goes into them, between the outer shell and the other protective layers.
It has gone into them. It has been integrated into their protective layers. They have incorporated it into them.
It is very literally in them. It says so literally. You're just not seeing it literally because normal people wear armor on the outside. Warforged don't. In-fact... they can't. Instead, they incorporate into them.
Why can't it be removed? Why does it take an hour to put on?
Have you not pondered what is going on with them while they do this? They're very literally absorbing the armor into their bodies. It is being worn between their protective layers. It can't be targeted, even if it was an object. It is inside them. Surrounded by a protective outer shell. And it isn't an object because it is very literally part of a creature now.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/546111-warforged-soldier
A Warforged Soldier has natural armor. A Soldier that has been race changed to Warforged may or may not.