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.
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.
A Warforged Soldier has natural armor. A Soldier that has been race changed to Warforged may or may not.
Yep, that’s exactly my point.
This is supporting evidence that warforged armor is made part of themselves. Normal PCs list the armor they're wearing. Warforged specific NPCs don't, instead listing natural armor. Well, and also a shield. Why? Because they integrate their armor into themselves but don't integrate shields.
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 NPC.
That's not at all true. A warforged soldier doesn't have natural armor; it has chainmail.
The armor is inside the warforged. Under their outer shell of protective plates.
They're wearing it, inside themselves.
I know thats weird because most people aren't living constructs that have several protective layers. Most people dont wear armor under what is essentially their skin. Warforged do.
It isn't bolted on. Or glued on. It isn't attached onto anything. It is integrated. Into.
It enhances their protective layers, under the armored outer shell. This outer shell is why they have that +1 AC regardless of armor underneath it or not.
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.
It enhances their protective layers, under the armored outer shell. This outer shell is why they have that +1 AC regardless of armor underneath it or not.
If that was the case, the Integrated Protection trait would have a feature such as "The warforged has natural AC equal to whatever the integrated armor would provide". It does not, so if integrated armor does not count as a worn object, it wouldn't provide any protection at all.
long story short, you go to say the enhanced layers are on the outside and then later say they are inside. This is the type of cognitive dissonance believing "incorporates into" means the armor is no longer an object causes. If you drop that consideration interpretation, RAW apply evenly across the boards - no wild and out RAI anyone can generate endlessly as you and others responding to you have thoroughly illustrated.
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.
1st bullet - yes, it does become a part of them but in the same way a tomato added to a tossed salad becomes part of the salad but is still a freaking tomato which can easily be targeted by a fork within the salad. I can shake it all up so its buried and still easily nab the tomato - it's easier to do if the tomato has been scattered throughout the salad. Your definition, that since it's part of a creature, it can't be an object, which have different rules not only highlights the counter-points people have made, but also conflicts with your 2nd bullet. 2nd bullet - if it's still armor, then it's still an object since that's what armor is - whether or not it's part of a warforged constructed humanoid (who only have this ability because they are manufactured! And easily argued, for lore, they are living, sentient objects - artifacts even, however PC rules clarify that for gameplay, they're just another flavor of humanoid) 3rd bullet - doesn't even make sense, which you even point out yourself: "It doesn't lose 'object properties' whatever that means." You make a point you admit you don't understand. Furthermore, this bullet also conflicts with itself and the previous bullets. If it isn't an object, then like you say, the rules for objects no longer apply - hence why Heat Metal wouldn't apply. But if it's now a creature, it can't be armor, since creatures cannot be donned/worn as armor. The closest you get is Sentient Artifact Armor, which:
Is still an object
There are so many other considerations beyond these if it's the way you say:
does heavy armor cause disadvantage
is armor weight a factor in carrying weight
do low-str warforged receive movement penalties
can you wear more than one armor
does touching, seeing, hearing, etc you count as touching, seeing, hearing your incorporated armor (in which case, Heat Metal still applies even under your interpretation)
can one perceive if warforged are wearing armor at all
can one determine what kind of armor they are wearing
are they considered naked if only wearing armor (and apparently their sexless (not genderless), constructed nature just makes it so no one cares, like R2-D2 or C-3PO)
countless other spells/item abilities (like cast-off armor - you can't "cast off" your body parts, right?)
and many, many, many others
Thus, as much as you argue your point, it's extremely unlikely Integrated Protection's "incorporates into" language infers all these unwritten rules
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.
OUTER SHELL - that means outside
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.
Yup, no one is arguing any different.
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.
Yup - outer shell, got it.
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.
"fluke of English that they used the word 'into'" is a tautological point covered previously - "incorporates into" is simply proper English. And I believe you introduced metaphors/analogies first. They did choose the word incorporate for a very specific reason which can be seen throughout the rules, regardless of any refusal to acknowledge. An Orc incorporated into a Cult does not stop being an Orc Humanoid. They become an Orc Humanoid Cultist and the Cult now incorporates Orc Humanoids. Warforged incorporate armor into them, thus including an object in their person (something you've also acknowledged before - that objects can still be objects even though we consider them part of the person).
now as for the armor now specifically "sandwiched" in between the outer shell and other protective layers: you fabricated that. You dug into the language yourself, and nowhere does it say it's now between the outer shell and other protective layers. In fact, you actually said the outer shell is the protective layers, like an onion. Therefore, the armor is merely part of the readily visible Outer Shell, by your own definition.
It has gone into them. It has been integrated into their protective layers. They have incorporated it into them.
Which are all on the outside of the warforged body. You just said so.
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.
It actually doesn't "literally" say "in them" - if it literally did, you would see that exact phrase. Which we don't. At all. And again, including "into" behind "incorporates" is like including the letter U after the letter Q in an English word. It's literally literacy. Key word being literate.
Why can't it be removed? Why does it take an hour to put on?
Why is grass green? Why do we use D20s? Why do we anything? This has nothing to do with the mechanics outside of gameplay balance and narrative to create an immersive, believable experience. You can't believe incorporates into allows for the armor/object to still be targetable, fine. That's ok as far as Homebrew, RAI, non-league play, etc goes. Your game, your rules. However, there is nothing in Wizards of the Coast's published rules which dictate your interpretation is reasonable, much less the intention behind the rule.
You keep posting the same points, flexing the interpretation further and further which only builds resistance to those same points.
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.
The rules literally say nothing about absorbing the armor. It literally says nothing about the object no longer being an object. If it doesn't say it, than it's not more specific than the general rules, which does allow for far more balanced gameplay. And again, the Armor becomes part of the Protective outer shell.
It very literally does not say it is no longer an object, thus, it still is. The protective outer layers are what receive the armor. You said so before. Unless you're saying I surround myself and therefore, I am plainly visible to anyone outside me. Which still means the armor would be visibly targetable.
I mean, logically, how do you claim an armor bonus if its outside your body? The whole point is to be between your body and the strike and we already know PC warforged have a natural armor of AC 11 + Dex modifier (which is their ability to dodge or deflect a blow), therefore, the higher AC logically applies to the exterior of the outer protective shell, otherwise it couldn't do its job. The only remaining argument you would be to declare that all warforged have a skin, but again, that's your own interpretation, not RAW given it says that literally no where in the rules.
NPC stat blocks have literally nothing to do with PC stat blocks. NPC warforged don't have intergrated protection so they have no bearing on the conversation whatsoever. The only similarity, beyond lore, is exclusively in the name.
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.
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.
A Warforged Soldier has natural armor. A Soldier that has been race changed to Warforged may or may not.
Yep, that’s exactly my point.
This is supporting evidence that warforged armor is made part of themselves. Normal PCs list the armor they're wearing. Warforged specific NPCs don't, instead listing natural armor. Well, and also a shield. Why? Because they integrate their armor into themselves but don't integrate shields.
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.
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.
The armor is inside the warforged. Under their outer shell of protective plates.
They're wearing it, inside themselves.
I know thats weird because most people aren't living constructs that have several protective layers. Most people dont wear armor under what is essentially their skin. Warforged do.
It isn't bolted on. Or glued on. It isn't attached onto anything. It is integrated. Into.
It enhances their protective layers, under the armored outer shell. This outer shell is why they have that +1 AC regardless of armor underneath it or not.
You keep stating "incorporates into" means specifically your interpretation and no one else's. RAW state absolutely nothing about whether that suggests that means they're wearing something on the inside of themselves (which actually, "wearing" something means its on the exterior of your body - just saying)
Again, you are free to interpret this however you want, but rules being rules, there's nothing that says the armor is now invisible and inside your body. There's absolutely nothing to suggest it is indistinguishable from the rest of your character actually. Given where else we see "incorporates into" in other Rules, the intended meaning is its aesthetically part of their body and cannot be disguised within it. So actually, the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Again, I urge you to search "incorporate" into the DnD Beyond search function. You'll see the rule simply does not function the way you say it does. There's over a dozen examples.
It enhances their protective layers, under the armored outer shell. This outer shell is why they have that +1 AC regardless of armor underneath it or not.
If that was the case, the Integrated Protection trait would have a feature such as "The warforged has natural AC equal to whatever the integrated armor would provide". It does not, so if integrated armor does not count as a worn object, it wouldn't provide any protection at all.
I mean, technically it's AC 11 + Dex since all humanoids get 10AC + Dex Mod. PCs have that in place of Natural Armor
It enhances their protective layers, under the armored outer shell. This outer shell is why they have that +1 AC regardless of armor underneath it or not.
If that was the case, the Integrated Protection trait would have a feature such as "The warforged has natural AC equal to whatever the integrated armor would provide". It does not, so if integrated armor does not count as a worn object, it wouldn't provide any protection at all.
I mean, technically it's AC 11 + Dex since all humanoids get 10AC + Dex Mod. PCs have that in place of Natural Armor
No. Even this is wrong.
Warforged AC is 10 + Dex +1. Unless they incorporate armor into their body. Then it takes the armor calculation instead, but +1.
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.
Outer shell. Protective layers. A warforged has both these things. They wear armor in the layers. Under the outer shell.
I guess a good way to think of it is that the armored shell is like armor... For their armor.
It is alive because they're alive, but it isnt like, a weak spot, not really a part of them that take the real damage, you know, narratively.
Rules wise, is pretry clear that the armor is inside them. It very litterally describes this. They incorporate the armor into themselves.
We went through the fluff text. And while you can disagree with me all you like, that is text straight from the books. Idk if there is much to gain by disagreeing with it.
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.
Warforged AC is 10 + Dex +1. Unless they incorporate armor into their body. Then it takes the armor calculation instead, but +1.
Warforged AC is 10 + Dex + 1 unless they wear armor (or have AC from some other source, such as Unarmored Defense or Mage Armor). They have no feature that permits them to benefit from armor without wearing it.
It enhances their protective layers, under the armored outer shell. This outer shell is why they have that +1 AC regardless of armor underneath it or not.
If that was the case, the Integrated Protection trait would have a feature such as "The warforged has natural AC equal to whatever the integrated armor would provide". It does not, so if integrated armor does not count as a worn object, it wouldn't provide any protection at all.
I mean, technically it's AC 11 + Dex since all humanoids get 10AC + Dex Mod. PCs have that in place of Natural Armor
No. Even this is wrong.
Warforged AC is 10 + Dex +1. Unless they incorporate armor into their body. Then it takes the armor calculation instead, but +1.
Ok so mathematically, its a base of AC 11 + Dex Mod. Conceptually, that's in place of something like "natural armor" whereas most PCs have a natural AC 10 + Dex Mod - thus, I'm not wrong and you prove as much. Thanks.
Outer shell. Protective layers. A warforged has both these things. They wear armor in the layers. Under the outer shell.
I guess a good way to think of it is that the armored shell is like armor... For their armor.
It is alive because they're alive, but it isnt like, a weak spot, not really a part of them that take the real damage, you know, narratively.
Rules wise, is pretry clear that the armor is inside them. It very litterally describes this. They incorporate the armor into themselves.
We went through the fluff text. And while you can disagree with me all you like, that is text straight from the books. Idk if there is much to gain by disagreeing with it.
Actually, according to your own words, the protective and outer shells are one in the same.
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.
We went through the fluff text. And while you can disagree with me all you like, that is text straight from the books. Idk if there is much to gain by disagreeing with it.
What you're leaving out is where it says it is no longer an object through incorporation. So right back at ya
What you're leaving out is where it says it is no longer an object through incorporation. So right back at ya
I'm not expecting to change any minds here, but I think it all comes down to what folks feel is an object vs part of a creature.
Are piercings objects, or are they part of a creature? If a creature swallows a coin, is the coin in their gut an object, or part of the creature? If a creature has a prosthetic limb, is that limb an object or part of the creature?
How you answer those questions is likely how you would answer the incorporating armor question.
Ok so mathematically, its a base of AC 11 + Dex Mod. Conceptually, that's in place of something like "natural armor" whereas most PCs have a natural AC 10 + Dex Mod - thus, I'm not wrong and you prove as much. Thanks.
Their AC Calc remains 10 + dex Mod. They just add another +1 to the total. Their calc isn't 11 + dex mod. It is 10 + dex +1. This isn't pedantic, either. You can only have one base armor calc, even if you have multiple sources of AC. the 10 + dex is a base armor. The +1 is an AC bonus. It isn't part of the base AC calc.
Outer shell. Protective layers. A warforged has both these things. They wear armor in the layers. Under the outer shell.
I guess a good way to think of it is that the armored shell is like armor... For their armor.
It is alive because they're alive, but it isn't like, a weak spot, not really a part of them that take the real damage, you know, narratively.
Rules wise, is pretty clear that the armor is inside them. It very literally describes this. They incorporate the armor into themselves.
Actually, according to your own words, the protective and outer shells are one in the same.
I said no such thing. I likened them to onions, they have many layers. One of them is obviously the outermost layer, that one is the outer shell. I'm not claiming this based on any authority in myself. I am just quoting the warforged race text. It's right there in the books. And they tell us a lot about warforged construction.
Don't take it from me, take it from actual quotes:
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.
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.
Your body has built-in defensive layers, which can be enhanced with armor
To don armor other than a shield, you must incorporate it into your body
While you live, the armor incorporated into your body can’t be removed against your will.
The more a warforged develops its individuality, the more likely it is to modify its body, seeking out an artificer to customize the look of its face, limbs, and plating.
That's a lot we know about them. From the fact their armor goes into them, to the fact they have discrete layers, and an outer shell. We know the material differ but that those layers: shell, cord muscles, frame, etc are all common elements. All the answers to you, and other's questions are answered here.
We even know that warforged can modify themselves. Very literally. Changing face, limbs, and plating.
They're living constructs. Machines which live. If you change out part of them for another, that new part becomes part of them. This is on the nature of identity. The rules tell us they can and do customize themselves. So we already know how the game treats modifications, that's them now. Incorporating armor into their body i the same thing. it is now part of them. mechanically that's why you cannot remove it until they die. It is part of a creature... up until it isn't a creature anymore.
Creatures become objects when they die, after all. This notion of creature to object and/or object to creature changes isn't foreign to the game.
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.
What you're leaving out is where it says it is no longer an object through incorporation. So right back at ya
I'm not expecting to change any minds here, but I think it all comes down to what folks feel is an object vs part of a creature.
Are piercings objects, or are they part of a creature? If a creature swallows a coin, is the coin in their gut an object, or part of the creature? If a creature has a prosthetic limb, is that limb an object or part of the creature?
How you answer those questions is likely how you would answer the incorporating armor question.
Exactly - it's all interpretation (RAI). RAW otherwise do not dictate any situation where Heat Metal isn't applicable to a warforged's armor. We could read into it and determine it implies something like "incorporated armor is no longer a visible object like it otherwise would be, as illustrated in Heat Metal. One of my points has been, however, once we make this assumption, it opens the door to many, many, many other rules and how they may apply to specifically a warforged's incorporated/worn armor.
My main point to Rav has been interpretation can typically always be countered by an opposite interpretation, hence the need for objective source material, aka RAW. In this case, we would have to assume there is an unwritten rule, "incorporated armor is both no longer an object or visible". Therefore, not RAW
Ok so mathematically, its a base of AC 11 + Dex Mod. Conceptually, that's in place of something like "natural armor" whereas most PCs have a natural AC 10 + Dex Mod - thus, I'm not wrong and you prove as much. Thanks.
Their AC Calc remains 10 + dex Mod. They just add another +1 to the total. Their calc isn't 11 + dex mod. It is 10 + dex +1. This isn't pedantic, either. You can only have one base armor calc, even if you have multiple sources of AC. the 10 + dex is a base armor. The +1 is an AC bonus. It isn't part of the base AC calc.
Yes, therefore an unarmored warforged has an AC of 11 + Dex Mod. Taking my point and reiterating with how I came to my conclusion doesn't nullify my point, it reinforces it. Thank you.
Outer shell. Protective layers. A warforged has both these things. They wear armor in the layers. Under the outer shell.
I guess a good way to think of it is that the armored shell is like armor... For their armor.
It is alive because they're alive, but it isn't like, a weak spot, not really a part of them that take the real damage, you know, narratively.
Rules wise, is pretty clear that the armor is inside them. It very literally describes this. They incorporate the armor into themselves.
Actually, according to your own words, the protective and outer shells are one in the same.
I said no such thing. I likened them to onions, they have many layers. One of them is obviously the outermost layer, that one is the outer shell. I'm not claiming this based on any authority in myself. I am just quoting the warforged race text. It's right there in the books. And they tell us a lot about warforged construction.
Don't take it from me, take it from actual quotes:
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.
Outer protective shell - you said that's where the armor incorporates into except at times you try to make the outer protective shell sound like two separate things - an outer shell and a protective layer. I even quoted you on this and made a point of it. I went on to explain that armor has to be in between one's body and the strike in order to prevent damage, especially given damage (except Poison, naturally) applies to warforged ordinarily - Either way, we both describe a situation where the armor would be a visible object targetable by a spell like Heat Metal. You can say the opposite, 100% but the rules themselves don't say that. There is no rule or definition that says "incorporated armor is no longer an object (or even visible)" therefore, that interpretation just isn't RAW. Its RAI given that's exactly what Rules as Interpreted mean. How you interpretated the rules. Rules as written means the rule has to be literally written.
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.
Your body has built-in defensive layers, which can be enhanced with armor
Yep - the aforementioned "Armored plates form a protective outer shell and reinforce joints."
You would need layers, no different than plate armor, to cover and reinforce joints, therefore - regardless of where you hit the warforged, or whether they are wearing armor which they absolutely can enhance by wearing armor, they are outright tougher than your average PC. Also, this eliminates any confusion as to whether warforged would be considered as already wearing armor given their innate +1. Now there is no arguing they may don armor and collect its benefits, further clarified by rules which explain how those function in game and in story.
To don armor other than a shield, you must incorporate it into your body
While you live, the armor incorporated into your body can’t be removed against your will.
The more a warforged develops its individuality, the more likely it is to modify its body, seeking out an artificer to customize the look of its face, limbs, and plating.
So beyond Magic Items like Armblades, Wand Sheaths, and Docents which require attunement by a warforged or other mods, including Prosthetic Limbs, Ersatz Eye, or Ventilating lungs (which would be 100% redundant on a warforged but for sake of "body replacement/becoming a body part" example) available to any qualifying humanoid/creature, warforged can also seek out artificers who can provide aesthetic modifications, such as a clockwork face for a full range of common facial expressions or perhaps simply a menacing orc mask or limbs which appear quite realistic (ooo la la~ specialized design, anyone?)
Also, whether or not these items can be seen will have more to do with: A - Worn clothing - which like most humanoids, is the number one way to hide worn objects B - DM discretion
Virtually/Possibly all of them fail to mention whether these objects are inherently hidden - thus, it should not be assumed. Remember: You can always ask your DM what an item is made of for the purposes of spell/game features. Nothing says your Armblade couldn't be made of stone with, at most, notes to DMs as far as likelihoods and considerations when it comes to determining these types of qualities.
That's a lot we know about them. From the fact their armor goes into them, to the fact they have discrete layers, and an outer shell. We know the material differ but that those layers: shell, cord muscles, frame, etc are all common elements.
It never says discrete layers. Plus, discrete or not, the outer shell is the protective layer. The protective layer, which you yourself said accepts the armor, is the outer shell. Even if you want to assume parts of the armor go inside to enhance the defenses of the muscle cords, frames, etc - you still would have parts of the armor going to the visible outer protective shell, yes?
And what any particular warforged is made of doesn't matter provided it doesn't break the immersion for your party when you go to put rules into effect (so varies). It actually doesn't say the materials are all common elements. For the purposes of your character - you could have some kind of "unobtainium" within your warforged's alleged make-up. If it doesn't have your table rolling their eyes more than dice, who cares? It's purely descriptive and in no way, shape, or form has anything to do with whether incorporated armor is still an object or not (or visible - as you keep alluding to without saying the armor is therefore effectively invisible on a warforged)
And that still doesn't stop armor from being an object no differently than a Prosthetic Limb which actually replaces a body part, no attunement required, is still a Magic Object which is readily visible (nothing about Prosthetic Limb says whether or not it "blends in", thus allowing DM/player to decide and anyone who cares to look can do a Perception Check - even if it looks like an artificial limb, do you know it's actually an artificial limb which replaces a part of their body or merely an illusion?)
All the answers to you, and other's questions are answered here.
No, it does not. You have not acknowledged the vast majority of the points/questions people have made/asked against your interpretation (which again, is perfectly acceptable as an interpretation, but is in no way written within the rules - that is, "incorporated armor on/in a warforged is no longer an object") even when you quote them.
Now, you didn't quote these but here are some of my questions for various scenarios under your interpretation again if you care to address them:
does heavy armor cause disadvantage
is armor weight a factor in carrying weight
do low-str warforged receive movement penalties
can you wear more than one armor
does touching, seeing, hearing, etc you count as touching, seeing, hearing your incorporated armor (in which case, Heat Metal still applies even under your interpretation)
can one perceive if warforged are wearing armor at all
can one determine what kind of armor they are wearing
are they considered naked if only wearing armor (and apparently their sexless (not genderless), constructed nature just makes it so no one cares, like R2-D2 or C-3PO)
countless other spells/item abilities (like cast-off armor - you can't "cast off" your body parts, right?)
and many, many, many others
We even know that warforged can modify themselves. Very literally. Changing face, limbs, and plating.
Yup. In a world of magic, they're not the only ones - take a look at shapeshifters and how they can actually change the appearance of their body on a whim, but I digress. This still doesn't mean that donned armor (which of course was incorporated into the warforged) is no longer an object or hidden. Also, the plating has thus far, only been said to appear on the outside. Could it exist elsewhere? Sure - but that's interpretation, not written.
They're living constructs. Machines which live.
Well, specifically, they're manufactured. As others have already pointed out "Constructs" are a specific classification of creature which, admittedly, are very similar to warforged manufactured humanoids. Like Humans (Humanoid) to Gorillas (Beast) or Bear (Beast) to Owlbear (Monstrosity). I hate to split hairs, but they actually never use that verbiage describing PC warforged (Constructed Resilience is as good as it gets) to eliminate any confusion, and more to my point, I'd like to eliminate any confusion regarding the argument that warforged are anything but a humanoid creature. No one is saying otherwise. We get it. That doesn't mean an object which becomes a part of their body is no longer them under some philosophical interpretation. At that point, you're interpreting the rules so liberally/widely, they lose meaning and value (see previously mentioned unanswered scenarios)
If you change out part of them for another, that new part becomes part of them.
But an arm/limb is still an arm/limb even though it's part of a body/creature (or not!). An object (pacemaker, Ersatz Eye, Docent) is still an object. Armor/Object is still Armor/Object. An Orc Cultist/Humanoid is still an Orc Cultist Humanoid. Forgive the tautological arguments, but that's what it is unless a rule says otherwise. In this case, nothing says Incorporated Armor is no longer an Object after becoming part of a creature. In fact, that would be extremely unusual given the rest of the examples, both real world and specifically D&D presented.
...Hence why definition is important. Now, I understand you've provided carefully selected and incomplete definitions from the dictionary to illustrate some of your examples. That's fair, but since it's not WotC/D&D definitions, it's merely one interpretation among as many as there are dimensions in the multiverse.
The rules tell us they can and do customize themselves. So we already know how the game treats modifications, that's them now.
Yes and no, for the sake of storytelling, you may say "that's them now" - however, there are zero rules which say their customizations are no longer objects once incorporated into, attached to, replace, and so on are no longer objects. We have several different examples of similar actions - none of them say the object is no longer an object. None. That means its unwritten and therefore, not RAW by definition. Explain all you want - your colorful examples are great suggestions for storyline elements which people would be foolish not to employ, however, until you post a rule that says "objects incorporated into a creature are no longer considered objects but rather a creature (by extension)" then it just doesn't say that.
Incorporating armor into their body i the same thing. it is now part of them.
Sure, but again, that doesn't mean the Object and Creature aren't two separate entities within the same body. In other words, that doesn't mean an incorporated object is no longer an object for the purpose of D&D rules, unless of course it says it does, which it doesn't to the best of my knowledge.
mechanically that's why you cannot remove it until they die. It is part of a creature... up until it isn't a creature anymore.
Funny, when they die, all the objects become as easy to separate from the warforged as any other humanoid. What I mean to say is regardless of how the warforged incorporated the armor, it can simply be removed intact once its life has left its manufactured body. Sure, the DM could rule otherwise, but there's no rule that says to or even suggests this, therefore: Homebrew. They could have you dig through the warforged, dissecting it, pulling it out bit by bit until they had a pile of scrap metal, but again - that would have to be something the DM added themselves and unlikely to appear in League Play given the inherent complications.
Creatures become objects when they die, after all. This notion of creature to object and/or object to creature changes isn't foreign to the game.
But the object is still a creature, as indicated in specific spell language like, "Revivify" and "Resurrection" which state, "touch a creature which has died" and "touch a dead creature" respectively. So, warforged creatures' bodies are still creatures even though they are also an object. I guess creatures can be objects after all, since Improvised Weapons clearly state, "An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as... a dead goblin" who, being a dead creature (goblin) is also eligible to be resurrected - possibly after just being used as an improvised weapon! So, while this notion of creature to object and/or object to creature changes isn't foreign to the game, the fact it's not explicitly written would be (that is to say, the change from one classification to another and relevant conditions would be listed).
Plus, a body is still an object even when it belongs to a living creature as far lifting, dragging, pulling goes (or which containers it might fit in for that matter) thus giving credit to what you say that fundamentally, creatures are still objects. Yes. Of course. But Specific Beats General and creatures are highly specialized objects. You'll notice, most items/spells which are to only apply to creatures explicitly say "creature" (possibly w/ some adjectives) whereas most spells which can target an object, also regularly apply to creatures. This notion is not obvious as they usually give two sets of rules, since objects typically don't fight back or what have you, or simply mention both for clarification ("object or creature").
Take "Animate Object" for example. It says, "target animates and becomes a creature under your control until the spell ends or until reduced to 0 hit points" and later "When the animated object drops to 0 hit points, it reverts to its original object form, and any remaining damage carries over to its original object form" complete with stat block, descriptions, and even how to determine movement/limbs (in no conservative/limited way). Point is, it tells us exactly when and how to treat it differently. We have that w/ Intergrated Protection too and it does not say the Armor ceases to be a targetable Object.
Therefore, take Heat Metal:
Choose a manufactured metal object, such as a metal weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor, that you can see within range. You cause the object to glow red-hot. Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast the spell. Until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action on each of your subsequent turns to cause this damage again.
If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes the damage from it, the creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or drop the object if it can. If it doesn't drop the object, it has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the start of your next turn.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 2nd.
And we could reverse your interpretation and say the warforged itself could be targeted as a "manufactured object" - if your body is being carried by a member of your party, they could target you, heat any metal in you, and potentially force the party member to drop you. Even human blood has iron incorporated into it, so you could simply heat that, if you can see it. You said yourself that creatures could be objects - armor becomes body; creatures' body is an object if dead; you said a pacemaker, while an object, can become part of the creature, and thus a creature itself so, a creature is an object; you even said objects, while not creatures, can become creatures and vice versa; you posted a wiki page about the concept of identity)
We can go back and forth on considerations and interpretations virtually endlessly but injecting various "what if" or "imagine this" scenarios ultimately don't change what is or isn't published. RAW - the armor is still an object and could be visibly perceived by anyone who cared to look (Perception Check). RAI - maybe its hidden neatly inside the warforged and thus, not targetable even if it were still an object. Maybe not - House Rules/Homebrew/DM Discretion.
Beyond all that, Humanoid/Creature/Object don't even have D&D definitions/rules, thus the only function as the way they are listed in the Rules leaving creating rules out of assumed interpretations as a slippery slope which opens the door to nullifying MANY rules well beyond the examples here thus far. This has been illustrated by many with most the arguments made against interpreting "incorporates into" as "armor no longer object but creature" left unaddressed, therefore they stand.
In short, RAW doesn't say "incorporates into" means the armor is no longer an object and as demonstrated, most your arguments can easily be applied to reinforce this notion even if their intent is to dismiss it. That is, by definition, RAI/Homebrew/House Rules since it's literally left unwritten. Like, if you can't 'copy and paste' language directly from a published rulebook which makes your claim, it literally cannot be RAW. It's that simple.
That means the only thing you may be wrong about is claims that it does explicitly say this without producing actual language which confirms as much, otherwise, your interpretations are entirely valid, for what it's worth.
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 post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yep, that’s exactly my point.
This is supporting evidence that warforged armor is made part of themselves. Normal PCs list the armor they're wearing. Warforged specific NPCs don't, instead listing natural armor. Well, and also a shield. Why? Because they integrate their armor into themselves but don't integrate shields.
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.
Whether or not a Solider that has been race changed to Warforged has chain or natural armor depends on if you use their racial feature IP or not.
Not "attached onto" the warforged.
"Integrated into" the warforged.
The armor is inside the warforged. Under their outer shell of protective plates.
They're wearing it, inside themselves.
I know thats weird because most people aren't living constructs that have several protective layers. Most people dont wear armor under what is essentially their skin. Warforged do.
It isn't bolted on. Or glued on. It isn't attached onto anything. It is integrated. Into.
It enhances their protective layers, under the armored outer shell. This outer shell is why they have that +1 AC regardless of armor underneath it or not.
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.
If that was the case, the Integrated Protection trait would have a feature such as "The warforged has natural AC equal to whatever the integrated armor would provide". It does not, so if integrated armor does not count as a worn object, it wouldn't provide any protection at all.
1st bullet - yes, it does become a part of them but in the same way a tomato added to a tossed salad becomes part of the salad but is still a freaking tomato which can easily be targeted by a fork within the salad. I can shake it all up so its buried and still easily nab the tomato - it's easier to do if the tomato has been scattered throughout the salad. Your definition, that since it's part of a creature, it can't be an object, which have different rules not only highlights the counter-points people have made, but also conflicts with your 2nd bullet.
2nd bullet - if it's still armor, then it's still an object since that's what armor is - whether or not it's part of a warforged constructed humanoid (who only have this ability because they are manufactured! And easily argued, for lore, they are living, sentient objects - artifacts even, however PC rules clarify that for gameplay, they're just another flavor of humanoid)
3rd bullet - doesn't even make sense, which you even point out yourself: "It doesn't lose 'object properties' whatever that means." You make a point you admit you don't understand. Furthermore, this bullet also conflicts with itself and the previous bullets. If it isn't an object, then like you say, the rules for objects no longer apply - hence why Heat Metal wouldn't apply. But if it's now a creature, it can't be armor, since creatures cannot be donned/worn as armor. The closest you get is Sentient Artifact Armor, which:
Is still an object
There are so many other considerations beyond these if it's the way you say:
Thus, as much as you argue your point, it's extremely unlikely Integrated Protection's "incorporates into" language infers all these unwritten rules
OUTER SHELL - that means outside
Yup, no one is arguing any different.
Yup - outer shell, got it.
"fluke of English that they used the word 'into'" is a tautological point covered previously - "incorporates into" is simply proper English. And I believe you introduced metaphors/analogies first. They did choose the word incorporate for a very specific reason which can be seen throughout the rules, regardless of any refusal to acknowledge. An Orc incorporated into a Cult does not stop being an Orc Humanoid. They become an Orc Humanoid Cultist and the Cult now incorporates Orc Humanoids. Warforged incorporate armor into them, thus including an object in their person (something you've also acknowledged before - that objects can still be objects even though we consider them part of the person).
now as for the armor now specifically "sandwiched" in between the outer shell and other protective layers: you fabricated that. You dug into the language yourself, and nowhere does it say it's now between the outer shell and other protective layers. In fact, you actually said the outer shell is the protective layers, like an onion. Therefore, the armor is merely part of the readily visible Outer Shell, by your own definition.
Which are all on the outside of the warforged body. You just said so.
It actually doesn't "literally" say "in them" - if it literally did, you would see that exact phrase. Which we don't. At all. And again, including "into" behind "incorporates" is like including the letter U after the letter Q in an English word. It's literally literacy. Key word being literate.
Why is grass green? Why do we use D20s? Why do we anything? This has nothing to do with the mechanics outside of gameplay balance and narrative to create an immersive, believable experience. You can't believe incorporates into allows for the armor/object to still be targetable, fine. That's ok as far as Homebrew, RAI, non-league play, etc goes. Your game, your rules. However, there is nothing in Wizards of the Coast's published rules which dictate your interpretation is reasonable, much less the intention behind the rule.
You keep posting the same points, flexing the interpretation further and further which only builds resistance to those same points.
The rules literally say nothing about absorbing the armor. It literally says nothing about the object no longer being an object. If it doesn't say it, than it's not more specific than the general rules, which does allow for far more balanced gameplay. And again, the Armor becomes part of the Protective outer shell.
It very literally does not say it is no longer an object, thus, it still is. The protective outer layers are what receive the armor. You said so before. Unless you're saying I surround myself and therefore, I am plainly visible to anyone outside me. Which still means the armor would be visibly targetable.
I mean, logically, how do you claim an armor bonus if its outside your body? The whole point is to be between your body and the strike and we already know PC warforged have a natural armor of AC 11 + Dex modifier (which is their ability to dodge or deflect a blow), therefore, the higher AC logically applies to the exterior of the outer protective shell, otherwise it couldn't do its job. The only remaining argument you would be to declare that all warforged have a skin, but again, that's your own interpretation, not RAW given it says that literally no where in the rules.
You keep stating "incorporates into" means specifically your interpretation and no one else's. RAW state absolutely nothing about whether that suggests that means they're wearing something on the inside of themselves (which actually, "wearing" something means its on the exterior of your body - just saying)
Again, you are free to interpret this however you want, but rules being rules, there's nothing that says the armor is now invisible and inside your body. There's absolutely nothing to suggest it is indistinguishable from the rest of your character actually. Given where else we see "incorporates into" in other Rules, the intended meaning is its aesthetically part of their body and cannot be disguised within it. So actually, the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Again, I urge you to search "incorporate" into the DnD Beyond search function. You'll see the rule simply does not function the way you say it does. There's over a dozen examples.
I mean, technically it's AC 11 + Dex since all humanoids get 10AC + Dex Mod. PCs have that in place of Natural Armor
No. Even this is wrong.
Warforged AC is 10 + Dex +1. Unless they incorporate armor into their body. Then it takes the armor calculation instead, but +1.
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.
Outer shell. Protective layers. A warforged has both these things. They wear armor in the layers. Under the outer shell.
I guess a good way to think of it is that the armored shell is like armor... For their armor.
It is alive because they're alive, but it isnt like, a weak spot, not really a part of them that take the real damage, you know, narratively.
Rules wise, is pretry clear that the armor is inside them. It very litterally describes this. They incorporate the armor into themselves.
We went through the fluff text. And while you can disagree with me all you like, that is text straight from the books. Idk if there is much to gain by disagreeing with it.
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.
Warforged AC is 10 + Dex + 1 unless they wear armor (or have AC from some other source, such as Unarmored Defense or Mage Armor). They have no feature that permits them to benefit from armor without wearing it.
Ok so mathematically, its a base of AC 11 + Dex Mod. Conceptually, that's in place of something like "natural armor" whereas most PCs have a natural AC 10 + Dex Mod - thus, I'm not wrong and you prove as much. Thanks.
Actually, according to your own words, the protective and outer shells are one in the same.
What you're leaving out is where it says it is no longer an object through incorporation. So right back at ya
I'm not expecting to change any minds here, but I think it all comes down to what folks feel is an object vs part of a creature.
Are piercings objects, or are they part of a creature?
If a creature swallows a coin, is the coin in their gut an object, or part of the creature?
If a creature has a prosthetic limb, is that limb an object or part of the creature?
How you answer those questions is likely how you would answer the incorporating armor question.
Their AC Calc remains 10 + dex Mod. They just add another +1 to the total. Their calc isn't 11 + dex mod. It is 10 + dex +1. This isn't pedantic, either. You can only have one base armor calc, even if you have multiple sources of AC. the 10 + dex is a base armor. The +1 is an AC bonus. It isn't part of the base AC calc.
I said no such thing. I likened them to onions, they have many layers. One of them is obviously the outermost layer, that one is the outer shell. I'm not claiming this based on any authority in myself. I am just quoting the warforged race text. It's right there in the books. And they tell us a lot about warforged construction.
Don't take it from me, take it from actual quotes:
That's a lot we know about them. From the fact their armor goes into them, to the fact they have discrete layers, and an outer shell. We know the material differ but that those layers: shell, cord muscles, frame, etc are all common elements. All the answers to you, and other's questions are answered here.
We even know that warforged can modify themselves. Very literally. Changing face, limbs, and plating.
They're living constructs. Machines which live. If you change out part of them for another, that new part becomes part of them. This is on the nature of identity. The rules tell us they can and do customize themselves. So we already know how the game treats modifications, that's them now. Incorporating armor into their body i the same thing. it is now part of them. mechanically that's why you cannot remove it until they die. It is part of a creature... up until it isn't a creature anymore.
Creatures become objects when they die, after all. This notion of creature to object and/or object to creature changes isn't foreign to the game.
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.
Exactly - it's all interpretation (RAI). RAW otherwise do not dictate any situation where Heat Metal isn't applicable to a warforged's armor. We could read into it and determine it implies something like "incorporated armor is no longer a visible object like it otherwise would be, as illustrated in Heat Metal. One of my points has been, however, once we make this assumption, it opens the door to many, many, many other rules and how they may apply to specifically a warforged's incorporated/worn armor.
My main point to Rav has been interpretation can typically always be countered by an opposite interpretation, hence the need for objective source material, aka RAW. In this case, we would have to assume there is an unwritten rule, "incorporated armor is both no longer an object or visible". Therefore, not RAW
I completely agree with you :D
Yes, therefore an unarmored warforged has an AC of 11 + Dex Mod. Taking my point and reiterating with how I came to my conclusion doesn't nullify my point, it reinforces it. Thank you.
Outer protective shell - you said that's where the armor incorporates into except at times you try to make the outer protective shell sound like two separate things - an outer shell and a protective layer. I even quoted you on this and made a point of it. I went on to explain that armor has to be in between one's body and the strike in order to prevent damage, especially given damage (except Poison, naturally) applies to warforged ordinarily - Either way, we both describe a situation where the armor would be a visible object targetable by a spell like Heat Metal. You can say the opposite, 100% but the rules themselves don't say that. There is no rule or definition that says "incorporated armor is no longer an object (or even visible)" therefore, that interpretation just isn't RAW. Its RAI given that's exactly what Rules as Interpreted mean. How you interpretated the rules. Rules as written means the rule has to be literally written.
Yep - the aforementioned "Armored plates form a protective outer shell and reinforce joints."
You would need layers, no different than plate armor, to cover and reinforce joints, therefore - regardless of where you hit the warforged, or whether they are wearing armor which they absolutely can enhance by wearing armor, they are outright tougher than your average PC. Also, this eliminates any confusion as to whether warforged would be considered as already wearing armor given their innate +1. Now there is no arguing they may don armor and collect its benefits, further clarified by rules which explain how those function in game and in story.
So beyond Magic Items like Armblades, Wand Sheaths, and Docents which require attunement by a warforged or other mods, including Prosthetic Limbs, Ersatz Eye, or Ventilating lungs (which would be 100% redundant on a warforged but for sake of "body replacement/becoming a body part" example) available to any qualifying humanoid/creature, warforged can also seek out artificers who can provide aesthetic modifications, such as a clockwork face for a full range of common facial expressions or perhaps simply a menacing orc mask or limbs which appear quite realistic (ooo la la~ specialized design, anyone?)
Also, whether or not these items can be seen will have more to do with:
A - Worn clothing - which like most humanoids, is the number one way to hide worn objects
B - DM discretion
Virtually/Possibly all of them fail to mention whether these objects are inherently hidden - thus, it should not be assumed. Remember: You can always ask your DM what an item is made of for the purposes of spell/game features. Nothing says your Armblade couldn't be made of stone with, at most, notes to DMs as far as likelihoods and considerations when it comes to determining these types of qualities.
It never says discrete layers. Plus, discrete or not, the outer shell is the protective layer. The protective layer, which you yourself said accepts the armor, is the outer shell. Even if you want to assume parts of the armor go inside to enhance the defenses of the muscle cords, frames, etc - you still would have parts of the armor going to the visible outer protective shell, yes?
And what any particular warforged is made of doesn't matter provided it doesn't break the immersion for your party when you go to put rules into effect (so varies). It actually doesn't say the materials are all common elements. For the purposes of your character - you could have some kind of "unobtainium" within your warforged's alleged make-up. If it doesn't have your table rolling their eyes more than dice, who cares? It's purely descriptive and in no way, shape, or form has anything to do with whether incorporated armor is still an object or not (or visible - as you keep alluding to without saying the armor is therefore effectively invisible on a warforged)
And that still doesn't stop armor from being an object no differently than a Prosthetic Limb which actually replaces a body part, no attunement required, is still a Magic Object which is readily visible (nothing about Prosthetic Limb says whether or not it "blends in", thus allowing DM/player to decide and anyone who cares to look can do a Perception Check - even if it looks like an artificial limb, do you know it's actually an artificial limb which replaces a part of their body or merely an illusion?)
No, it does not. You have not acknowledged the vast majority of the points/questions people have made/asked against your interpretation (which again, is perfectly acceptable as an interpretation, but is in no way written within the rules - that is, "incorporated armor on/in a warforged is no longer an object") even when you quote them.
Now, you didn't quote these but here are some of my questions for various scenarios under your interpretation again if you care to address them:
Yup. In a world of magic, they're not the only ones - take a look at shapeshifters and how they can actually change the appearance of their body on a whim, but I digress. This still doesn't mean that donned armor (which of course was incorporated into the warforged) is no longer an object or hidden. Also, the plating has thus far, only been said to appear on the outside. Could it exist elsewhere? Sure - but that's interpretation, not written.
Well, specifically, they're manufactured. As others have already pointed out "Constructs" are a specific classification of creature which, admittedly, are very similar to warforged manufactured humanoids. Like Humans (Humanoid) to Gorillas (Beast) or Bear (Beast) to Owlbear (Monstrosity). I hate to split hairs, but they actually never use that verbiage describing PC warforged (Constructed Resilience is as good as it gets) to eliminate any confusion, and more to my point, I'd like to eliminate any confusion regarding the argument that warforged are anything but a humanoid creature. No one is saying otherwise. We get it. That doesn't mean an object which becomes a part of their body is no longer them under some philosophical interpretation. At that point, you're interpreting the rules so liberally/widely, they lose meaning and value (see previously mentioned unanswered scenarios)
But an arm/limb is still an arm/limb even though it's part of a body/creature (or not!). An object (pacemaker, Ersatz Eye, Docent) is still an object. Armor/Object is still Armor/Object. An Orc Cultist/Humanoid is still an Orc Cultist Humanoid. Forgive the tautological arguments, but that's what it is unless a rule says otherwise. In this case, nothing says Incorporated Armor is no longer an Object after becoming part of a creature. In fact, that would be extremely unusual given the rest of the examples, both real world and specifically D&D presented.
...Hence why definition is important. Now, I understand you've provided carefully selected and incomplete definitions from the dictionary to illustrate some of your examples. That's fair, but since it's not WotC/D&D definitions, it's merely one interpretation among as many as there are dimensions in the multiverse.
Yes and no, for the sake of storytelling, you may say "that's them now" - however, there are zero rules which say their customizations are no longer objects once incorporated into, attached to, replace, and so on are no longer objects. We have several different examples of similar actions - none of them say the object is no longer an object. None. That means its unwritten and therefore, not RAW by definition. Explain all you want - your colorful examples are great suggestions for storyline elements which people would be foolish not to employ, however, until you post a rule that says "objects incorporated into a creature are no longer considered objects but rather a creature (by extension)" then it just doesn't say that.
Sure, but again, that doesn't mean the Object and Creature aren't two separate entities within the same body. In other words, that doesn't mean an incorporated object is no longer an object for the purpose of D&D rules, unless of course it says it does, which it doesn't to the best of my knowledge.
Funny, when they die, all the objects become as easy to separate from the warforged as any other humanoid. What I mean to say is regardless of how the warforged incorporated the armor, it can simply be removed intact once its life has left its manufactured body. Sure, the DM could rule otherwise, but there's no rule that says to or even suggests this, therefore: Homebrew. They could have you dig through the warforged, dissecting it, pulling it out bit by bit until they had a pile of scrap metal, but again - that would have to be something the DM added themselves and unlikely to appear in League Play given the inherent complications.
But the object is still a creature, as indicated in specific spell language like, "Revivify" and "Resurrection" which state, "touch a creature which has died" and "touch a dead creature" respectively. So, warforged creatures' bodies are still creatures even though they are also an object. I guess creatures can be objects after all, since Improvised Weapons clearly state, "An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as... a dead goblin" who, being a dead creature (goblin) is also eligible to be resurrected - possibly after just being used as an improvised weapon! So, while this notion of creature to object and/or object to creature changes isn't foreign to the game, the fact it's not explicitly written would be (that is to say, the change from one classification to another and relevant conditions would be listed).
Plus, a body is still an object even when it belongs to a living creature as far lifting, dragging, pulling goes (or which containers it might fit in for that matter) thus giving credit to what you say that fundamentally, creatures are still objects. Yes. Of course. But Specific Beats General and creatures are highly specialized objects. You'll notice, most items/spells which are to only apply to creatures explicitly say "creature" (possibly w/ some adjectives) whereas most spells which can target an object, also regularly apply to creatures. This notion is not obvious as they usually give two sets of rules, since objects typically don't fight back or what have you, or simply mention both for clarification ("object or creature").
Take "Animate Object" for example. It says, "target animates and becomes a creature under your control until the spell ends or until reduced to 0 hit points" and later "When the animated object drops to 0 hit points, it reverts to its original object form, and any remaining damage carries over to its original object form" complete with stat block, descriptions, and even how to determine movement/limbs (in no conservative/limited way). Point is, it tells us exactly when and how to treat it differently. We have that w/ Intergrated Protection too and it does not say the Armor ceases to be a targetable Object.
Therefore, take Heat Metal:
And we could reverse your interpretation and say the warforged itself could be targeted as a "manufactured object" - if your body is being carried by a member of your party, they could target you, heat any metal in you, and potentially force the party member to drop you. Even human blood has iron incorporated into it, so you could simply heat that, if you can see it. You said yourself that creatures could be objects - armor becomes body; creatures' body is an object if dead; you said a pacemaker, while an object, can become part of the creature, and thus a creature itself so, a creature is an object; you even said objects, while not creatures, can become creatures and vice versa; you posted a wiki page about the concept of identity)
We can go back and forth on considerations and interpretations virtually endlessly but injecting various "what if" or "imagine this" scenarios ultimately don't change what is or isn't published.
RAW - the armor is still an object and could be visibly perceived by anyone who cared to look (Perception Check).
RAI - maybe its hidden neatly inside the warforged and thus, not targetable even if it were still an object. Maybe not - House Rules/Homebrew/DM Discretion.
Beyond all that, Humanoid/Creature/Object don't even have D&D definitions/rules, thus the only function as the way they are listed in the Rules leaving creating rules out of assumed interpretations as a slippery slope which opens the door to nullifying MANY rules well beyond the examples here thus far. This has been illustrated by many with most the arguments made against interpreting "incorporates into" as "armor no longer object but creature" left unaddressed, therefore they stand.
In short, RAW doesn't say "incorporates into" means the armor is no longer an object and as demonstrated, most your arguments can easily be applied to reinforce this notion even if their intent is to dismiss it. That is, by definition, RAI/Homebrew/House Rules since it's literally left unwritten. Like, if you can't 'copy and paste' language directly from a published rulebook which makes your claim, it literally cannot be RAW. It's that simple.
That means the only thing you may be wrong about is claims that it does explicitly say this without producing actual language which confirms as much, otherwise, your interpretations are entirely valid, for what it's worth.
You can't see into a creature. That is where the warforged's armor is.
You'd need some sort of special feature or ability to see inside of them.
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.