You can't see into a creature. That is where the warforged's armor is.
No it isn't. It's no different from an armorer artificer's arcane armor, it's just attached in a way that's not convenient to remove without permission.
Again, you rely on 'into,' ignoring 'don' and 'doff.'
I'm not ignoring that. I already address that a while back. But. The TLDR of it was that the armor is worn between their "protective outer plating". And their "defensive layers which are enhanced by armor".
They absolutely put the armor on and take it off. They just put in on and take it off of their internal layers.
Again, the feature even says thats what it is doing. Enhancing their defensive layers with armor. Those layer are inside them. Thats why they're called layers.
The protective shell is outside the armor. Because. Its an "outer" shell.
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.
Again, you rely on 'into,' ignoring 'don' and 'doff.'
I'm not ignoring that. I already address that a while back. But. The TLDR of it was that the armor is worn between their "protective outer plating". And their "defensive layers which are enhanced by armor".
They absolutely put the armor on and take it off. They just put in on and take it off of their internal layers.
You yourself have cherry picked that language to say the armor is part of the outer protective shell, thus creating defensive layers. It says literally nowhere (again) the armor becomes a new layer which is no longer visible from the outside. You've now already warped your interpretation to include the armor is effectively invisible plus is no longer an object in order to nullify effects like Heat Metal. Again, cool interpretation. Do you have any written rules? These would be things which are published by Wizards of the Coast regarding rules for Dungeons and Dragons?
Again, the feature even says thats what it is doing. Enhancing their defensive layers with armor. Those layer are inside them. Thats why they're called layers.
How does armor on the inside protect you from blows from the outside? And given the warforged body includes an outer protective shell, why would we assume that's not a part which also features the armor (which, yknow, provides an outer protective shell?) Even if we ignore the fact "incorporates into" is just proper English and assume it means what you say, it wouldn't change the rules as written since there's nothing written about that. Surely, you're not suggesting a tattoo** incorporated into someone's skin is no longer visible so why would you suggest the armor is no longer part of the outer protective shell, having been incorporated into it? You've made this point elsewhere and frankly, just keep reiterating the same point while evading addressing anyone else's. We go from whether it's an object to whether its visible and back again, with no actual rules stating it functions the way you are suggesting. This straight up violates Specific Beats General as there are rules which explain exactly what we are to do that suddenly don't apply due to this interpretation... Hence why it's RAI/Homebrew/House Rules.
The protective shell is outside the armor. Because. Its an "outer" shell.
Which is still part of the body the armor incorporated into, no different than a piercing or tattoo, thus still visible and targetable as an object (no differently than a metal piece of jewelry which is plainly visible).
**Not to be confused w/ Magic Tattoos which explicitly describes where and how the tattoo is applied. Thus, illustrating how rules appear when you have something actually changing and being applied to a specific location which may impact gameplay. Intergrated Protection's "incorporates into" does not elaborate to confer the benefits you are claiming it does (therefore, not RAW). Furthermore, Magic Tattoos remain a Magic Object whether ink, pen, or the tattoo itself. Whether magic or not, tattoos are said to be "on the skin" as far as proper English goes, even if they are actually inside the skin itself. Beyond that, according to your interpretation, warforged could not have Magic Tattoos given they have no skin, just an outer protective shell as part of their layered defenses.
Again, you rely on 'into,' ignoring 'don' and 'doff.'
I'm not ignoring that. I already address that a while back. But. The TLDR of it was that the armor is worn between their "protective outer plating". And their "defensive layers which are enhanced by armor".
They absolutely put the armor on and take it off. They just put in on and take it off of their internal layers.
Again, the feature even says thats what it is doing. Enhancing their defensive layers with armor. Those layer are inside them. Thats why they're called layers.
The protective shell is outside the armor. Because. Its an "outer" shell.
That is your assumption, rather than essentially fastened down over top, which makes far more sense. Putting things on or off internal layers is twisting the definitions of 'on' and 'off'
Being layers does not mean the last layer added goes underneath the earlier layers. That would make no sense. And claiming otherwise is just rationalization for your own interpretation.
It isn't my assumption. The Interated Protection rules tell you that you integrate the armor into your warforged. So. Its in him. It says as much.
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.
Again, you rely on 'into,' ignoring 'don' and 'doff.'
I'm not ignoring that. I already address that a while back. But. The TLDR of it was that the armor is worn between their "protective outer plating". And their "defensive layers which are enhanced by armor".
They absolutely put the armor on and take it off. They just put in on and take it off of their internal layers.
You yourself have cherry picked that language to say the armor is part of the outer protective shell, thus creating defensive layers.
I would genuinely appreciate if you stop saying Ive said stuff which I haven't said. Thank you.
It says literally nowhere (again) the armor becomes a new layer which is no longer visible from the outside. You've now already warped your interpretation to include the armor is effectively invisible plus is no longer an object in order to nullify effects like Heat Metal. Again, cool interpretation. Do you have any written rules? These would be things which are published by Wizards of the Coast regarding rules for Dungeons and Dragons?
I've quoted them already. Warforged have defensive layers. And they have a protective outer shell overtop those layers. And their armor enhances their defensive layers. And they intergrate their armor into themself.
All of that is direct from the book. They put armor into themselves, and it enhances their defensive layers. Overtop which remains an outer shell.
It literally says they integrate it into themselves. Literally. Take it literal.
Again, the feature even says thats what it is doing. Enhancing their defensive layers with armor. Those layer are inside them. Thats why they're called layers.
How does armor on the inside protect you from blows from the outside? And given the warforged body includes an outer protective shell, why would we assume that's not a part which also features the armor (which, yknow, provides an outer protective shell?) Even if we ignore the fact "incorporates into" is just proper English and assume it means what you say, it wouldn't change the rules as written since there's nothing written about that. Surely, you're not suggesting a tattoo** incorporated into someone's skin is no longer visible so why would you suggest the armor is no longer part of the outer protective shell, having been incorporated into it? You've made this point elsewhere and frankly, just keep reiterating the same point while evading addressing anyone else's. We go from whether it's an object to whether its visible and back again, with no actual rules stating it functions the way you are suggesting. This straight up violates Specific Beats General as there are rules which explain exactly what we are to do that suddenly don't apply due to this interpretation... Hence why it's RAI/Homebrew/House Rules.
It is both inside them, and part of them. I'm not going back and forth. It is both. You take issue with one, we talk about that. You switch to taking issue with the other, we talk about that. But it remains both inside and part of them.
The protective shell is outside the armor. Because. Its an "outer" shell.
Which is still part of the body the armor incorporated into, no different than a piercing or tattoo, thus still visible and targetable as an object (no differently than a metal piece of jewelry which is plainly visible).
**Not to be confused w/ Magic Tattoos which explicitly describes where and how the tattoo is applied. Thus, illustrating how rules appear when you have something actually changing and being applied to a specific location which may impact gameplay. Intergrated Protection's "incorporates into" does not elaborate to confer the benefits you are claiming it does (therefore, not RAW). Furthermore, Magic Tattoos remain a Magic Object whether ink, pen, or the tattoo itself. Whether magic or not, tattoos are said to be "on the skin" as far as proper English goes, even if they are actually inside the skin itself. Beyond that, according to your interpretation, warforged could not have Magic Tattoos given they have no skin, just an outer protective shell as part of their layered defenses.
You're uh, answering your own questions here. Magic tattoos are on top of the skin. They say they are. Of course you can see them.
An analogy would be if you wore your armor under your skin, the human equivalent to an outer shell. The armor then enhances where your defensive fatty layer is, where it integrated into.
That's a pretty big difference from magic ink that sits on your skin, as far as visibility go.
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.
Again, you rely on 'into,' ignoring 'don' and 'doff.'
I'm not ignoring that. I already address that a while back. But. The TLDR of it was that the armor is worn between their "protective outer plating". And their "defensive layers which are enhanced by armor".
They absolutely put the armor on and take it off. They just put in on and take it off of their internal layers.
You yourself have cherry picked that language to say the armor is part of the outer protective shell, thus creating defensive layers.
I would genuinely appreciate if you stop saying Ive said stuff which I haven't said. Thank you.
Well first and foremost, if you addressed the points people made instead of explaining why the interpretation you had already explained makes more sense to you, we might not have to assume what you're meaning. Yes, you quote people, but you bypass most points made and selectively apply their own words back to them. That's all anyone has to do (hint hint) when discussing the validity of one's interpretation over another and therefore, why such arguments are moot. No one is arguing warforged do not, in some way, become one with their armor. The argument is whether you interpret that to mean if a their donned/incorporated armor is still visible and/or an object and then whether or not certain spells, conditions, abilities apply or not. If you don't have a more specific rule, its equal in merit.
And honestly, I know I've quoted you previously on these claims. This is one of the issues with interpretation is things get lost in translation as we're trying to find what each of us has said and when now instead of looking at addition rules which reinforce your interpretation. Either way, I've seen you refer to the "incorporating armor into" in both bullets just below. Both as separate items and then treat as the same item elsewhere depending on the point you were trying to make. I simply can't reference it all.
Armored plates form a protective outer shell and reinforce joints.
Your body has built-in defensive layers, which can be enhanced with armor
Just to reiterate, I have seen comments in which you say the armor goes:
into the protective outer shell (when it ceases to be an object and becomes their body)
into the defensive layers (sometimes outside, sometimes inside, usually both as a kind of "onion")
neither ("in between")
both (referring to their protective out shell as a defensive layer for at least 2 layers)
all of the above (their body/being, both with a number of illustrations and simply focusing on the "incorporates into" language as being RAW for the rest of the interpretations you present)
I'm honestly just trying to understand the actual language you believe supports your interpretation beyond the rules which have been repeated throughout. RAW affects league play at hobby centers. You've done the same to me, such as whether I was trying to say creatures are objects - which I never did. I've only entertained the notion to present the opposite interpretation which is why additional published can be valuable to your case. And again, no reason you can't play that way - there's just many other considerations you may need to address throughout the game (I've also posted those a few times before too, so I suppose I'll let them stand as unaddressed).
It says literally nowhere (again) the armor becomes a new layer which is no longer visible from the outside. You've now already warped your interpretation to include the armor is effectively invisible plus is no longer an object in order to nullify effects like Heat Metal. Again, cool interpretation. Do you have any written rules? These would be things which are published by Wizards of the Coast regarding rules for Dungeons and Dragons?
I've quoted them already. Warforged have defensive layers. And they have a protective outer shell overtop those layers. And their armor enhances their defensive layers. And they intergrate their armor into themself.
Yeah, none of that says "armor donned by warforged is effectively invisible and cannot be targeted as an object" or "armor is no longer an object but rather the warforged itself and should be treated as a living creature, limb, or internal organ"
Most of what you're quoting is purely narrative, a point you've made to me about the very same things. This is why you need an actual bullet point of feature which describes the nullifications to other more specific rules.
Your interpretation illustrates the generality, not the specificity of the Integrated Protection rule which stands to reason, therefore it would have minimal impact on other more specific rules, such as the very specific (even giving examples, Heat Metal).
All of that is direct from the book. They put armor into themselves, and it enhances their defensive layers. Overtop which remains an outer shell.
Their protective outer shell is by definition part of their defensive layers. I've quoted this previously.
And they "incorporate" armor - which is a searchable term which establishes in other rules the incorporated object does not cease to be what it is before its incorporation. As I mentioned before, this word choice is intentional as it may also convey, as I demonstrated, pertinent information regarding Perception Checks and the storyline/narrative - which is no more valid than your interpretation, it simply seems to fall in line with all the other rules, far more neatly, without any need for assumptions or debate. This in turn speaks to game balance, in which there aren't hidden abilities that may leave some players feeling cheated or underwhelmed by their own non-warforged characters (again, your interpretation goes well beyond whether Heat Metal has an effect) with others bored or frustrated by the lack of challenge equitable CR encounters suggest.
Once again, I've posted a short list of several considerations which may come up quickly with any warforged character in a couple of my comments which have yet to be addressed.
It literally says they integrate it into themselves. Literally. Take it literal.
Well literally is root word 'literate' meaning "written" so while we all tend to agree the armor becomes 'literally incorporated into the warforged' via the Integrated Protection feature, it literally does not say anything else about the rule. Therefore, there is no specificity that would dictate that also means the armor is no longer an object and is hidden within/among the warforged body. By the way, you through your warforged in regular ole travelers' clothes, and poof - you have the exact same effect you claim, with rules in several books to help guide you and your friends thru these types of decisions.
Again, the feature even says thats what it is doing. Enhancing their defensive layers with armor. Those layer are inside them. Thats why they're called layers.
How does armor on the inside protect you from blows from the outside? And given the warforged body includes an outer protective shell, why would we assume that's not a part which also features the armor (which, yknow, provides an outer protective shell?) Even if we ignore the fact "incorporates into" is just proper English and assume it means what you say, it wouldn't change the rules as written since there's nothing written about that. Surely, you're not suggesting a tattoo** incorporated into someone's skin is no longer visible so why would you suggest the armor is no longer part of the outer protective shell, having been incorporated into it? You've made this point elsewhere and frankly, just keep reiterating the same point while evading addressing anyone else's. We go from whether it's an object to whether its visible and back again, with no actual rules stating it functions the way you are suggesting. This straight up violates Specific Beats General as there are rules which explain exactly what we are to do that suddenly don't apply due to this interpretation... Hence why it's RAI/Homebrew/House Rules.
It is both inside them, and part of them. I'm not going back and forth. It is both. You take issue with one, we talk about that. You switch to taking issue with the other, we talk about that. But it remains both inside and part of them.
Notice you don't acknowledge how it has to be outside of their body to help protect against damage. And I'm actually just taking your points, one at a time, and addressing them. Therefore, illustrating what I was saying previously about you switching your points to fit the narrative of that post. At most, I've only ran with your logic. You may check again if you wish.
The point I've made, repeatedly now, while addressing each of your new claims, while providing additional rules from published material, is the rules don't say anything about how the armor functions, as far as table-top dice-rolling mechanics are concerned, beyond requiring an 1hr to don/doff (no help), the armor can't be removed unwillfully unless the warforged is dead if donned, they get an extra AC over most everyone else. Incorporates could mean what you say. It could mean what I say. My interpretation doesn't change any written rules with unwritten assumptions though.
The protective shell is outside the armor. Because. Its an "outer" shell.
Which is still part of the body the armor incorporated into, no different than a piercing or tattoo, thus still visible and targetable as an object (no differently than a metal piece of jewelry which is plainly visible).
**Not to be confused w/ Magic Tattoos which explicitly describes where and how the tattoo is applied. Thus, illustrating how rules appear when you have something actually changing and being applied to a specific location which may impact gameplay. Intergrated Protection's "incorporates into" does not elaborate to confer the benefits you are claiming it does (therefore, not RAW). Furthermore, Magic Tattoos remain a Magic Object whether ink, pen, or the tattoo itself. Whether magic or not, tattoos are said to be "on the skin" as far as proper English goes, even if they are actually inside the skin itself. Beyond that, according to your interpretation, warforged could not have Magic Tattoos given they have no skin, just an outer protective shell as part of their layered defenses.
You're uh, answering your own questions here. Magic tattoos are on top of the skin. They say they are. Of course you can see them.
So, you didn't read what I actually said as I make that point myself. At this point I'd like to point out you don't exactly measure up to your own standards/expectations like saying I said something I didn't . Anyhow, it says Magic Tattoos are on top of the skin - my point is it says exactly where something is located if they mean for it to occupy a specific location. And beyond that, how proper English has you saying things because that's the language. Like an actual tattoo, which characters may have is in the skin but said to be on it. Likewise, "incorporates into" doesn't necessarily mean completely hidden from view, inherently, as you've tried to say.
Just to reiterate, it still gives specific language overriding other general rules. Your interpretation does not. If it were as you say, we would expect to see more language like we see in Prosthetic Limb or Magic Tattoos (a point you've yet to address even though this isn't the first time I've made it as your quoting me proves.
An analogy would be if you wore your armor under your skin, the human equivalent to an outer shell. The armor then enhances where your defensive fatty layer is, where it integrated into.
That is all assumption. There is no written rule that says due to this line of reasoning, the armor is no longer an object and is basically invisible. Again, you interpretation is, by definition, Rules as Interpreted being they rely on a single interpretation of a single phrase. Rules as written would specify if the rule was to override any other general game condition or less specific effects. That's Specific Beats General in the Introduction of the PHB.
I totally get you're saying, "incorporates into" means it's no longer an object and/or no longer visible/distinguishable. However, anywhere else we see this verbiage, they don't mean "100% combined like an alloy" version of the definition, and it truly operates as a sort of membership. Given warforged are manufactured, it's not exactly a reach to see armor as gaining membership into their body - yknow, like a "body member" (as in a limb or organ ooor say the member of a cult or faction). Again, just because its incorporated doesn't necessarily mean it can't be seen or is entirely buried within the body of the warforged. It just doesn't. You absolutely can say it does for narrative just as easily as you can say it doesn't. Neither case overrides other more specific rules though. That is literally, as in written, RAW.
That's a pretty big difference from magic ink that sits on your skin, as far as visibility go.
Of course there's a big difference. I imagine that is exactly why they specified what and where w/ Magic Tattoo. Meanwhile, here we are. Having yet to see a rule that specifies "incorporates" means the armor is hidden and/or not an object as well as whether any of the parts its incorporated to are on the outside surface of the body, which is both the body and visible for Intergrated Protection. It just doesn't say anywhere that is the case. All you've posted that's actually written in the rules, beyond things most everyone has agreed with outside of wording, is "incorporates into" with the rest of your explanations being, again - by definition, Rules as Interpreted Reposting the Race Features with more explanation is simply your interpretation of singular rules. The vast majority of it is quite simply, not a published rule.
Meanwhile, we have language and your previous agreement that warforge still "wear" the armor, which is incorporated into them, thus Heat Metal's extremely high degree of specificity puts metal armor squarely within. Specific Beats General - no Webster's Dictionary necessary or "in essence" explanations. I've already illustrated before that some of your arguments just as easily declare creatures as objects and vice versa meaning even under some of your comments, there's no reason Heat Metal wouldn't apply to warforged too. It says outright "manufactured objects" which as you've said before, a body can be an object (you've made this point in a variety of ways as well). Again, you admit this outright just earlier.
You have "Incorporates Into" then "???" then "is an invisible part of their body which can't be targeted by spells which require sight or target an object, like Heat Metal"
That is a HUGEjump with no published rules to support it beyond apparently "incorporates into" "has outer protective shell" and "has defensive layers" which just straight up don't say anything about the rules you say they do. If they did, the rules would be there, and you wouldn't have to try to explain what "incorporates into" 2 dozen unpublished ways (which every explanation that doesn't include additional published verbiage simply reinforces the idea it's RAI. RAW leave Heat Metal on Warforged incorporated/donned armor completely intact. It would require more specific language in Integrated Protection than what's presented in the spell Heat Metal for RAW to suggest otherwise with specific usage of keywords which correlate to other rules in the game.
Video games are basically programmed the same way - if not, the game will crash when it experiences a conflict in its language (which, hey! one advantage to table-top games over video - the DM can fudge the conflict with the authority and capability to make decisions!! Take that AI and warforged! (jk - warforged are me fav to play)) or the condition which is specified continues given there was nothing to override it from the other condition... Like Integrated Protection - if you don't define that it's no longer the object armor and/or invisible/indistinguishable, then it needs to be treated as the visible/distinguishable object that is armor except where specifically notated (and "incorporates into" is not a defined action or anything of the sort which provides this specificity)
To not misconstrue anything and oversimplify my point, it doesn't matter how many times you explain what "incorporates into" means to you, it's still RAI, your interpretation by definition. RAW do not mention your interpretation and therefore the published rules about these items (armor/warforged) only do what they explicitly say, up to and including DM discretion/implementation.
I honestly really enjoy your considerations, visuals, and many/most of your interpretations of the rules. But there's quite simply nothing which says it is the way you say it is. The entire thread is evidence as people debate the meaning of a single phrase. Use other rules to clarify/specify up to and including dictionary definitions for RAW.
But I think the intent is pretty obvious - - All official NPC stat blocks for warforged creatures have natural armor - NPC warforged cannot be targeted by heat metal regardless of what 'incorporated' armor they use to get their AC higher
If the game is written so that players cannot cast heat metal on warforged NPCs wearing armor, I think it's a pretty obvious indicator that DMs also should not be casting heat metal on the PCs.
But as Keith Baker is fond of saying, "It's your Eberron" so light 'em up if you got 'em!
To throw another wrinkle at this. There is another example of "into" in the rules - Wild Shape. If a druid were to have a metal object on them and shape shifted, taking the metal object "into" their new shape. Would that object still be targetable by heat metal?
It isn't my assumption. The Interated Protection rules tell you that you integrate the armor into your warforged. So. Its in him. It says as much.
Fusing something into the surface of an object is in fact integrating it.
Not into them, though. That is onto them.
Guys, seriously. It says "into". You cannot ignore that it goes into them.
Well, I mean, you can. You can do whatever you like. But not if we're talking RAW.
"into your body"
into
your
body
The armor is in the warforged. RAW.
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.
I missed this earlier. Warforged cannot wear armor normally. It must be integrated.
"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."
They can't wear it normally.
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.
I missed this earlier. Warforged cannot wear armor normally. It must be integrated.
"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."
They can't wear it normally.
They also cannot benefit from it without wearing, which either means they cannot benefit from armor at all, or integrated armor is considered worn and follows all of the rules for worn armor.
But I think the intent is pretty obvious - - All official NPC stat blocks for warforged creatures have natural armor - NPC warforged cannot be targeted by heat metal regardless of what 'incorporated' armor they use to get their AC higher
Agreed, to RAI.
As for obvious intent, official NPC stat blocks don't dictate PC rules as PC rules of course have far more depth and complexity to them. The natural armor doesn't suggest as much as you imply. And you can't target NPC warforged because they don't have armor. The soldiers have shields but otherwise, you can't target NPC/PC warforged RAW. I've only suggested as much regarding the interpretation "the armor is no longer an object due" and similar claims merely due to the "incorporated into" language - if that's true, then the opposite claim can be made given both are RAI.
Also, we could assume NPC warforged have integrated protection from a story telling perspective, but they actually don't have the rule, so they aren't so great for comparing.
As far as an analog to compare, per MM:
Armor Class
A monster that wears armor or carries a shield has an Armor Class (AC) that takes its armor, shield, and Dexterity into account. Otherwise, a monster’s AC is based on its Dexterity modifier and natural armor, if any. If a monster has natural armor, wears armor, or carries a shield, this is noted in parentheses after its AC value.
If you examine creature stat blocks as well as the descriptions, it will outright say whether or not they have things like armor/shields plus weapons/attacks/etc. If it doesn't say in the stat block or give options for the DM to employ in the description, they don't have those things (potentially NPC warforged and armor in this case).
Beyond that, you'll notice Natural Armor is simply AC which has additional points beyond base AC 10 + Dex Mod. It doesn't have to be actual armor which grants this as all sorts of creatures have it. Also, it's typically for NPCs w/ the exception of wild shifting/polymorphing and confers nothing beyond AC 10 + Dex Mod + Natural Armor bonus. If the NPC is wearing armor which factors into that AC, it will be listed next to the state block. If it were given the option to wear armor/wear different armor, then that armor bonus applies in place of the creatures' stat block AC. If that armor is metal, it can be targeted by Heat Metal. NPC warforged soldiers have a shield by default but otherwise, you wouldn't target a warforged with Heat Metal unless you're making unwritten assumptions about how things are classified
If the game is written so that players cannot cast heat metal on warforged NPCs wearing armor, I think it's a pretty obvious indicator that DMs also should not be casting heat metal on the PCs.
You should have ample opportunity to cast Heat Metal on the 1 warforged NPC it applies to. Also, you know their AC is either 17 (shield doffed) or 19 (shield donned) whereas PC warforged may have a wide variety of ACs since they have the option to wear armor, RAW (and again, nothing stopping a DM from adding armor to warforged soldiers, but then you can just as easily apply heat metal directly to the armor which has no Integrated Protection rule (again, unless the DM gives it to them) as they potentially could you.
Again, I've only offered warforged as a targetable object for say Heat Metal due to the interpretation "incorporates into" means it can't because it actually opens the door to can just as readily. Interpretation goes both ways.
But as Keith Baker is fond of saying, "It's your Eberron" so light 'em up if you got 'em!
To throw another wrinkle at this. There is another example of "into" in the rules - Wild Shape. If a druid were to have a metal object on them and shape shifted, taking the metal object "into" their new shape. Would that object still be targetable by heat metal?
Interestingly enough, you don't incorporate into an animal, you transform into one, highlighting another example for when something changes, and it looks nothing like other interpretations of "incorporates into" made in this thread. Even more interesting, it says whether it can:
You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape and size. Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can’t wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.
Even more interesting, it says "equipment merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form" which again, is a stark difference from Integrated Protection. And to answer your question, nope - you could not given merged equipment has no effect until you leave the form. Worn or dropped, clearly up viable targets, within reason (which any self-respecting Druid outright deserves for carrying, lol).
The most interesting, if you search "merge' in DnD Beyond's in the internal search engine up top there, you'll see examples of when "merge" is used, and that clearly illustrates situations where things truly become a singular entity with no distinction. Previous rules end. New ones begin. I half wonder if you led us there with a treat trail you clever devil
It isn't my assumption. The Interated Protection rules tell you that you integrate the armor into your warforged. So. Its in him. It says as much.
Fusing something into the surface of an object is in fact integrating it.
Not into them, though. That is onto them.
Fuse can be into. It's has shockingly similar definitions to "incorporates" but actually fits your interpretation better given it deals with materials (vs incorporates' members)
Guys, seriously. It says "into". You cannot ignore that it goes into them.
"Incorporates into" is literally just proper English. You cannot ignore that doesn't mean it's hidden entirely inside of them or anything of the sort, for that matter. When you get hired by an employer, you are incorporated into that employer. That doesn't make you the employer or stop you from being a human (a fact employers oft like to ignore and/or ignoring any kind of labor force oppression lmao).
This in no way, considering RAW, confirmation the armor is fully inside the warforged, that the armor is no longer an object for targeting, that the armor is no longer visible for the purposes of targeting. 100% good to go, RAI - otherwise, it's quite literally not a written function. It says "into" - "into" does not say "armor is no longer visible or an object, being entirely inside the body of the warforged". You stab a sword "into" something - that doesn't mean isn't inherently entirely in them, now invisible inside their body. Just a piece of it. Therefore incorporating "into" doesn't necessarily mean the armor is completely/entirely internal. In fact, it doesn't stand to reason it would function, unless "in" an external layer and thus visible.
The language may be no different here, but it just doesn't say, so we default to other rules which are in place, RAW.
Well, I mean, you can. You can do whatever you like. But not if we're talking RAW.
RAW would be a rule that says "the armor is indistinguishable from the rest of the warforged" or "the armor is no longer considered an object" so quite the opposite. We have the published rules. You're posited "incorporates into" automatically conveys that. That is, by definition, an interpretation and is in no way "written".
"into your body"
into
your
body
The armor is in the warforged. RAW.
Yes, we can all read the rule we've all shared. You'll notice it still doesn't say, "entirely within the warforged and thus not visible or even an object anymore"
Regardless of how many times you repeat the same language, new language will not appear. If it meant what you say it does, look at the rules which wouldn't work anymore:
Oath of Devotion
The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order. Sometimes called cavaliers, white knights, or holy warriors, these paladins meet the ideal of the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in pursuit of justice and the greater good. They hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct, and some, for better or worse, hold the rest of the world to the same standards. Many who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law and good and use their gods’ tenets as the measure of their devotion. They hold angels—the perfect servants of good—as their ideals, and incorporate images of angelic wings into their helmets or coats of arms.
That doesn't mean the angelic wings are helmets or coats of arms (which are literally pictures) or that the helmets or coats are wings or that the angelic wings are no longer distinguishable from the helmet. Quite the opposite in that it means their helmets and coats of arms feature images of angelic wings and are therefore more distinct
Mongrelfolk
Mongrelfolk are humanoids that have undergone, or whose ancestors underwent, horrific magical transformations, to the extent that they retain only a fraction of their original being. Their humanoid bodies incorporate the features of various beasts. For example, one mongrelfolk might have the basic body shape of a dwarf with a head that combines the features of a cat and a lizard, one arm that ends in a crab’s pincer, and one leg that ends in a cloven hoof. Another might have the skin and horns of a cow, the eyes of a spider, frog’s legs, and a scaly lizard’s tail. Each mongrelfolk’s mad combination of humanoid and animal forms results in it having a slow, awkward gait.
All the parts distinct pieces of a whole. Here we see we don't necessarily need "into" but if we used a preposition, it would have to be "into" given its roots which basically mean "add into a body" or "form into a body". Either way, a scaly lizard's tail is still a scaly lizard tail as well as a part of the Mongrelfolk. It's a limb on a creature. Not a limb, therefore a creature, on a creature.
Dragonflesh Grafters
Dragonflesh grafters practice forbidden rituals and risky experiments on themselves, modifying their bodies and minds to emulate the dragons they revere. They collect dragon parts—scales, teeth, skin, flesh, wings, and bones—that they scavenge from around dragon lairs, take from dragon corpses, or buy from merchants and adventurers. They stitch on, implant, or ingest these dragon parts, attempting to incorporate them into their own bodies and absorb the latent magic that lingers in a draconic corpse.
Here we have "incorporate" implying merely being stitched on. How about that. Makes no difference whether it's an attempt or not. That's what other rules are for.
Oxen
Oxen are domesticated cattle bred for milk and meat production and for hauling. Many cultures incorporate the ox into their labor and diets.
Oxen are incorporated into the labor and diets - this doesn't stop the oxen from being beasts/creatures.
Barbarian
The Path of the Battlerager is a great fit for a warforged barbarian trained for close quarters battle and with a chassis modified to incorporate spikes, blades, and other weapons. These warforged made ideal shock troops during the Last War. The few that survive have little choice but to continue martial pursuits, as their frames are suited for little else.
Barbarian
The Path of the Battlerager is somewhat difficult to incorporate into a setting because of its idiosyncratic nature. It provides a good match for pit fighters, berserkers, and gladiators. Its reliance on armor provides a good cultural touchstone for dwarf characters, as befits its role in the Realms. Alternatively, you could use the battlerager as the basis for a militant religious order in your world, especially one focused on cruelty or fury.
No preposition, no "into" with the first "incorporates" Barb reference but either way, incorporates conveys no inherent, unwritten rules due to incorporating spikes, blades, and other weapons into their modified chassis. I mean, the few that survived which were outfit this way are suited for little else even. But no actual rule, unless it functions the way you say. Then who knows - work it out w/ your DM.
The 2nd reference says they can be difficult to add to a setting. That means they definitely stay what they are ("idiosyncratic nature") even when it is difficult.
Interesting Things About the [Mror] Holds
The Mror Holds have deep reserves of gold, silver, and other rare and precious metals, along with iron and other ores.
The Ironroot Mountains have long been home to the Jhorash’tar, a clan of orcs. The Jhorash’tar have been slowly driven into the least hospitable regions of the mountains. A few of the clans are seeking to incorporate the Jhorash’tar into Mror society, while others wish to drive them out once and for all.
There used to be a thirteenth royal clan. Four hundred year ago, the dwarves of Noldrunhold were wiped out; no one knows if this was the work of the Jhorash’tar, a rival clan, or some force from below the mountains. Other clans have tried to claim the Noldrun lands, but this has always met with disaster.
Here we could use the would "include" in place of "incorporate" - the Jhorash'tar may keep their cultural identity within Mror society.
There has to be a couple dozen "incorporates" references and in no case does an item of interest lose characteristics. If anything, they gain them. Thus, the standard RAW would apply to warforged of +1 to AC, can't be removed unless willing or dead if incorporated, and takes 1hr to don or doff. That's all that is specifically listed so other rules which have greater specificity would apply if you're actually applying RAW. Again, hanging your argument on the interpretation of a single word/phrase is, by definition, interpretation. Not to be tautological but unless the rule states the rule, it's not the rule.
In short, "incorporates" only conveys aesthetic and storyline elements, not table-top/dice-rolling gameplay mechanics and would not convey any assumed/unwritten conditions/abilities/circumstances, beyond Perception/Knowledge checks and the information they may reveal, which is typically aesthetic/storyline in nature and may help you make a decision in regard to which action you would like to take against your perceived target.
I would genuinely appreciate if you stop saying Ive said stuff which I haven't said. Thank you.
Well first and foremost, if you addressed the points people made instead of explaining why the interpretation you had already explained makes more sense to you, we might not have to assume what you're meaning. Yes, you quote people, but you bypass most points made and selectively apply their own words back to them. That's all anyone has to do (hint hint) when discussing the validity of one's interpretation over another and therefore, why such arguments are moot. No one is arguing warforged do not, in some way, become one with their armor. The argument is whether you interpret that to mean if a their donned/incorporated armor is still visible and/or an object and then whether or not certain spells, conditions, abilities apply or not. If you don't have a more specific rule, its equal in merit.
If something is part of a creature, it is a creature. That's all there is to it. There is nothing else to go over.
If a severed hand (and object) is reattached through magic, it stops being an object. Why? Because it is part of a creature. Creatures are creatures. Objects are objects.
That's it. It is this simple. There is nothing to "address" or points to go over.
And honestly, I know I've quoted you previously on these claims. This is one of the issues with interpretation is things get lost in translation as we're trying to find what each of us has said and when now instead of looking at addition rules which reinforce your interpretation. Either way, I've seen you refer to the "incorporating armor into" in both bullets just below. Both as separate items and then treat as the same item elsewhere depending on the point you were trying to make. I simply can't reference it all.
No. You haven't seen me make those statements. You're mistaken.
Armored plates form a protective outer shell and reinforce joints.
Your body has built-in defensive layers, which can be enhanced with armor
Just to reiterate, I have seen comments in which you say the armor goes:
into the protective outer shell (when it ceases to be an object and becomes their body)
into the defensive layers (sometimes outside, sometimes inside, usually both as a kind of "onion")
neither ("in between")
both (referring to their protective out shell as a defensive layer for at least 2 layers)
all of the above (their body/being, both with a number of illustrations and simply focusing on the "incorporates into" language as being RAW for the rest of the interpretations you present)
No. You haven't seen the ones struck out. You are mistaken.
I'm honestly just trying to understand the actual language you believe supports your interpretation beyond the rules which have been repeated throughout. RAW affects league play at hobby centers. You've done the same to me, such as whether I was trying to say creatures are objects - which I never did. I've only entertained the notion to present the opposite interpretation which is why additional published can be valuable to your case. And again, no reason you can't play that way - there's just many other considerations you may need to address throughout the game (I've also posted those a few times before too, so I suppose I'll let them stand as unaddressed).
Everything numbered below is a direct quote.
Here are the parts:
Root-like cords infused with alchemical fluids serve as their muscles, wrapped around a framework of steel, darkwood, or stone.
Your body has built-in defensive layers, which can be enhanced with armor
Armored plates form a protective outer shell and reinforce joints.
So: Frame>>Root-like cords>>defensive layers(enhanced by armor)>>armor plated outer shell.
Other things we know:
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.
Warforged are formed from a blend of organic and inorganic materials.
Although they were manufactured, warforged are living humanoids.
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, they're alive. They can be modified. They're made of both organic and inorganic parts. And the armor they wear is integrated into their body.
And they "incorporate" armor - which is a searchable term which establishes in other rules the incorporated object does not cease to be what it is before its incorporation. As I mentioned before, this word choice is intentional as it may also convey, as I demonstrated, pertinent information regarding Perception Checks and the storyline/narrative - which is no more valid than your interpretation, it simply seems to fall in line with all the other rules, far more neatly, without any need for assumptions or debate. This in turn speaks to game balance, in which there aren't hidden abilities that may leave some players feeling cheated or underwhelmed by their own non-warforged characters (again, your interpretation goes well beyond whether Heat Metal has an effect) with others bored or frustrated by the lack of challenge equitable CR encounters suggest.
Once again, I've posted a short list of several considerations which may come up quickly with any warforged character in a couple of my comments which have yet to be addressed.
You've said this before and TBH I totally ignored it. But feel you should at least have some acknowledgement that I read it, because you keep bringing it up seeming to want it addressed. I'm just not sure how this is relevant to the topic, is all. I can understand discussing game balance as a consideration for like DM Tips or in the Homebrew subforum, and you'd probably be surprised by my opinion in a topic on those other forums, where the context is more how should a game play and what is a good game. What I discuss on this forum has zero bearing on how I'd prefer to run a game. We're talking about the rules themself, in an objective way. What do the words on the pages say and what do those words mean in context. But the relative power of something doesn't really have any bearing on what the rule says. So I tend to just not respond to these types of points here.
It literally says they integrate it into themselves. Literally. Take it literal.
Well literally is root word 'literate' meaning "written" so while we all tend to agree the armor becomes 'literally incorporated into the warforged' via the Integrated Protection feature, it literally does not say anything else about the rule. Therefore, there is no specificity that would dictate that also means the armor is no longer an object and is hidden within/among the warforged body. By the way, you through your warforged in regular ole travelers' clothes, and poof - you have the exact same effect you claim, with rules in several books to help guide you and your friends thru these types of decisions.
A severed hand is an object. Right?
You use magic to attach that hand back onto a creature. Is the hand an object still or no?
I am curious what your answer is. The only answer I see that makes sense with how the game treats objects and creatures is: No, it stops being an object when it becomes part of the creature.
Otherwise you could target creatures with spells/effects that target objects.
Again, the feature even says thats what it is doing. Enhancing their defensive layers with armor. Those layer are inside them. Thats why they're called layers.
How does armor on the inside protect you from blows from the outside? And given the warforged body includes an outer protective shell, why would we assume that's not a part which also features the armor (which, yknow, provides an outer protective shell?) Even if we ignore the fact "incorporates into" is just proper English and assume it means what you say, it wouldn't change the rules as written since there's nothing written about that. Surely, you're not suggesting a tattoo** incorporated into someone's skin is no longer visible so why would you suggest the armor is no longer part of the outer protective shell, having been incorporated into it? You've made this point elsewhere and frankly, just keep reiterating the same point while evading addressing anyone else's. We go from whether it's an object to whether its visible and back again, with no actual rules stating it functions the way you are suggesting. This straight up violates Specific Beats General as there are rules which explain exactly what we are to do that suddenly don't apply due to this interpretation... Hence why it's RAI/Homebrew/House Rules.
It is both inside them, and part of them. I'm not going back and forth. It is both. You take issue with one, we talk about that. You switch to taking issue with the other, we talk about that. But it remains both inside and part of them.
Notice you don't acknowledge how it has to be outside of their body to help protect against damage. And I'm actually just taking your points, one at a time, and addressing them. Therefore, illustrating what I was saying previously about you switching your points to fit the narrative of that post. At most, I've only ran with your logic. You may check again if you wish.
The point I've made, repeatedly now, while addressing each of your new claims, while providing additional rules from published material, is the rules don't say anything about how the armor functions, as far as table-top dice-rolling mechanics are concerned, beyond requiring an 1hr to don/doff (no help), the armor can't be removed unwillfully unless the warforged is dead if donned, they get an extra AC over most everyone else. Incorporates could mean what you say. It could mean what I say. My interpretation doesn't change any written rules with unwritten assumptions though.
This is a conceptual objection. Which, isn't really a rules objection, so again I was ignoring it, but I'll address it anyway now.
Why would it need to be outside the armored shell to protect against damage? It just needs to be outside the meaty bits: "Root-like cords infused with alchemical fluids serve as their muscles, wrapped around a framework of steel, darkwood, or stone."
An analogy would be like if went all cyborg and put a fine metal mesh impenetrable layer under your skin and over your fatty tissue, overtop your muscles and organs and bones. Would this armor protect you? Yeah! It would totally protect you. Your skin might get scratched or cut or bruised, but all your veins, organs, and soft critical parts are safe and protected really well.
There is no conceptual problem with my take. The layers their armor enhances protect their more fragile inner bits. That's why they're referred to as "defensive layers". Armor goes with the defensive layers. To defend.
Anyhow, it says Magic Tattoos are on top of the skin - my point is it says exactly where something is located if they mean for it to occupy a specific location. And beyond that, how proper English has you saying things because that's the language. Like an actual tattoo, which characters may have is in the skin but said to be on it. Likewise, "incorporates into" doesn't necessarily mean completely hidden from view, inherently, as you've tried to say.
Just to reiterate, it still gives specific language overriding other general rules. Your interpretation does not. If it were as you say, we would expect to see more language like we see in Prosthetic Limb or Magic Tattoos (a point you've yet to address even though this isn't the first time I've made it as your quoting me proves.
No.
They have the ability to pick the words they print. They chose to say the ink is on the skin. They chose to use the word integrate, incorporate, and into. They didn't have to. If they wanted the armor on top of the warforged they could easily have said that. "Adhere onto" would be exactly what you're looking for it to have said.
They chose "Incorporate into". Whether we wish it had said something else, it doesn't. that's the cold hard fact, it says incorporate into. Those words have meaning.
They mean the armor is now part of the warforged's body, and inside it. That's just what those words mean. the words the authors chose to write. Out of all the possible ways to describe this, they chose incorporate, and into.
An analogy would be if you wore your armor under your skin, the human equivalent to an outer shell. The armor then enhances where your defensive fatty layer is, where it integrated into.
That is all assumption. There is no written rule that says due to this line of reasoning, the armor is no longer an object and is basically invisible. Again, you interpretation is, by definition, Rules as Interpreted being they rely on a single interpretation of a single phrase. Rules as written would specify if the rule was to override any other general game condition or less specific effects. That's Specific Beats General in the Introduction of the PHB.
I totally get you're saying, "incorporates into" means it's no longer an object and/or no longer visible/distinguishable. However, anywhere else we see this verbiage, they don't mean "100% combined like an alloy" version of the definition, and it truly operates as a sort of membership. Given warforged are manufactured, it's not exactly a reach to see armor as gaining membership into their body - yknow, like a "body member" (as in a limb or organ ooor say the member of a cult or faction). Again, just because its incorporated doesn't necessarily mean it can't be seen or is entirely buried within the body of the warforged. It just doesn't. You absolutely can say it does for narrative just as easily as you can say it doesn't. Neither case overrides other more specific rules though. That is literally, as in written, RAW.
What you're responding to here is an analogy. I say as much. It is to help understand or communicate a concept. I'm not claiming those two sentences are rules. Just an analogy. I preface them so that is clear.
Warforged are already an incorporation of many materials. Some organic, some not. But even their non-organic parts aren't objects. As they are part of a creature, they are a creature.
Warforged are formed from a blend of organic and inorganic materials.
Although they were manufactured, warforged are living humanoids.
That's a pretty big difference from magic ink that sits on your skin, as far as visibility go.
Of course there's a big difference. I imagine that is exactly why they specified what and where w/ Magic Tattoo. Meanwhile, here we are. Having yet to see a rule that specifies "incorporates" means the armor is hidden and/or not an object as well as whether any of the parts its incorporated to are on the outside surface of the body, which is both the body and visible for Intergrated Protection. It just doesn't say anywhere that is the case. All you've posted that's actually written in the rules, beyond things most everyone has agreed with outside of wording, is "incorporates into" with the rest of your explanations being, again - by definition, Rules as Interpreted Reposting the Race Features with more explanation is simply your interpretation of singular rules. The vast majority of it is quite simply, not a published rule.
You're asking for a rule to tell you what this rule tells you. The armor is incorporated into their body. That is the rule.
Meanwhile, we have language and your previous agreement that warforge still "wear" the armor, which is incorporated into them, thus Heat Metal's extremely high degree of specificity puts metal armor squarely within. Specific Beats General - no Webster's Dictionary necessary or "in essence" explanations. I've already illustrated before that some of your arguments just as easily declare creatures as objects and vice versa meaning even under some of your comments, there's no reason Heat Metal wouldn't apply to warforged too. It says outright "manufactured objects" which as you've said before, a body can be an object (you've made this point in a variety of ways as well). Again, you admit this outright just earlier.
Heat metal only targets objects, not creatures. Regardless of how much manufactured metal is in the creature, it isn't a valid target.
Bodies are only objects if the creature died, and stopped being a creature. Creatures aren't objects. No part of a creature is an object.
You have "Incorporates Into" then "???" then "is an invisible part of their body which can't be targeted by spells which require sight or target an object, like Heat Metal"
The ??? is: the definition of the words.
Incorporate: take in or contain (something) aspart of a whole; include.
Into: expressingmovement or action with the result that someone or something becomes enclosed or surrounded by something else.
Very literally, just the definitions of these words. IDK how this is even a question TBH. Its such a bizarre thing to see the definition of these words and then have to try to prove to people on a forum that the words actually do mean what they very literally mean.
The armor istaken in, contained, becomes part of the body of the warforged, by way ofbeing enclosed by the warforged.
Color coded from definitions to aid in following.
The words. Incorporate it into your body. Very literally mean: That the armor is inside the warforged and is part of him.
That is a HUGEjump with no published rules to support it beyond apparently "incorporates into" "has outer protective shell" and "has defensive layers" which just straight up don't say anything about the rules you say they do.
No jump. Just is what those words mean.
If they did, the rules would be there, and you wouldn't have to try to explain what "incorporates into" 2 dozen unpublished ways (which every explanation that doesn't include additional published verbiage simply reinforces the idea it's RAI.
Very literally what those words mean. The rules are that the armor is incorporated into the warforged's body. IDK what else it needs to saw after saying that. It's already told us the armor is inside them and part of them. No where else do rules have to repeat themselves over and over to be valid. They only need to say it once.
"Incorporate it into your body"
Incorporate: Make one with by bringing in.
It: The Armor.
Into: To go inside of.
Your Body: The warforged.
RAW leave Heat Metal on Warforged incorporated/donned armor completely intact. It would require more specific language in Integrated Protection than what's presented in the spell Heat Metal for RAW to suggest otherwise with specific usage of keywords which correlate to other rules in the game.
By the rules that are written, the armor is part of the warforged, thus a creature. And is inside of the warforged, thus you can't see it. That is what the rule which are written have to say about Integrated Protection.
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.
By the rules that are written, the armor is part of the warforged, thus a creature. And is inside of the warforged, thus you can't see it. That is what the rule which are written have to say about Integrated Protection.
That bolded phase is most definitely not in the rule. You are reading that into the rule and insisting that your interpretation proves you correct, circular logic.
Yes. It absolutely is the rule. "incorporate it into your body"
Whether the armour is literally part of the warforged or is a foreign object incorporated into their body, just as would, say, a piercing, be is unclear. Your interpretation there has merit but is not the only valid interpretation that fits the description.
The warforged text answers this, too.
"Warforged are formed from a blend of organic and inorganic materials."
"Although they were manufactured, warforged are living humanoids."
Even the parts of them that are inorganic. Even the parts that are manufactured... are a living humanoid.
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.
By the rules that are written, the armor is part of the warforged, thus a creature. And is inside of the warforged, thus you can't see it. That is what the rule which are written have to say about Integrated Protection.
That bolded phase is most definitely not in the rule. You are reading that into the rule and insisting that your interpretation proves you correct, circular logic.
Yes. It absolutely is the rule. "incorporate it into your body"
Whether the armour is literally part of the warforged or is a foreign object incorporated into their body, just as would, say, a piercing, be is unclear. Your interpretation there has merit but is not the only valid interpretation that fits the description.
The warforged text answers this, too.
"Warforged are formed from a blend of organic and inorganic materials."
"Although they were manufactured, warforged are living humanoids."
Even the parts of them that are inorganic. Even the parts that are manufactured... are a living humanoid.
'Into your body' but not 'into your body, under the surface layers.' If you hit someone with an arrow, the arrow enters their body, but not the entirety of the arrow. Most of it is still visible, even though is also sticking out of their body, i.e. also in their body.
You cannot see part of the arrow that went into their body.
The warforged incorporates the armor into their body. It doesn't say they incorporate only part of it into their body.
So the part of the armor that went into their body, ie all of it, cannot be seen. Exactly as the part of the arrow that goes into someone also cannot be seen.
And, as has been said, the second bit there is your interpretation based on flavour text and a very precise interpretation of 'incorporated.'
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 isn't RAW (RAW is pretty sloppy so what it means is obscure, but you're assigning meaning to common phrases that they don't possess).
As far as RAI, we actually have word from Keith Baker:
When a warforged goes through this hour-long process, they are literally peeling off their outer plating, disassembling the new armor and fusing it to their body, piece by piece. It’s like a human peeling off their skin and gluing new skin on.
So, yes, it's on the outside, equivalent to skin. And later
A warforged is considered to be wearing whatever armor it currently has attached for all mechanical purposes: feats, spells, class features. If the warforged has metal armor attached, it’s vulnerable to heat metal.
No it isn't. It's no different from an armorer artificer's arcane armor, it's just attached in a way that's not convenient to remove without permission.
I'm not ignoring that. I already address that a while back. But. The TLDR of it was that the armor is worn between their "protective outer plating". And their "defensive layers which are enhanced by armor".
They absolutely put the armor on and take it off. They just put in on and take it off of their internal layers.
Again, the feature even says thats what it is doing. Enhancing their defensive layers with armor. Those layer are inside them. Thats why they're called layers.
The protective shell is outside the armor. Because. Its an "outer" shell.
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.
You yourself have cherry picked that language to say the armor is part of the outer protective shell, thus creating defensive layers. It says literally nowhere (again) the armor becomes a new layer which is no longer visible from the outside. You've now already warped your interpretation to include the armor is effectively invisible plus is no longer an object in order to nullify effects like Heat Metal. Again, cool interpretation. Do you have any written rules? These would be things which are published by Wizards of the Coast regarding rules for Dungeons and Dragons?
How does armor on the inside protect you from blows from the outside? And given the warforged body includes an outer protective shell, why would we assume that's not a part which also features the armor (which, yknow, provides an outer protective shell?) Even if we ignore the fact "incorporates into" is just proper English and assume it means what you say, it wouldn't change the rules as written since there's nothing written about that. Surely, you're not suggesting a tattoo** incorporated into someone's skin is no longer visible so why would you suggest the armor is no longer part of the outer protective shell, having been incorporated into it? You've made this point elsewhere and frankly, just keep reiterating the same point while evading addressing anyone else's. We go from whether it's an object to whether its visible and back again, with no actual rules stating it functions the way you are suggesting. This straight up violates Specific Beats General as there are rules which explain exactly what we are to do that suddenly don't apply due to this interpretation... Hence why it's RAI/Homebrew/House Rules.
Which is still part of the body the armor incorporated into, no different than a piercing or tattoo, thus still visible and targetable as an object (no differently than a metal piece of jewelry which is plainly visible).
**Not to be confused w/ Magic Tattoos which explicitly describes where and how the tattoo is applied. Thus, illustrating how rules appear when you have something actually changing and being applied to a specific location which may impact gameplay. Intergrated Protection's "incorporates into" does not elaborate to confer the benefits you are claiming it does (therefore, not RAW). Furthermore, Magic Tattoos remain a Magic Object whether ink, pen, or the tattoo itself. Whether magic or not, tattoos are said to be "on the skin" as far as proper English goes, even if they are actually inside the skin itself. Beyond that, according to your interpretation, warforged could not have Magic Tattoos given they have no skin, just an outer protective shell as part of their layered defenses.
It isn't my assumption. The Interated Protection rules tell you that you integrate the armor into your warforged. So. Its in him. It says as much.
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.
I would genuinely appreciate if you stop saying Ive said stuff which I haven't said. Thank you.
I've quoted them already. Warforged have defensive layers. And they have a protective outer shell overtop those layers. And their armor enhances their defensive layers. And they intergrate their armor into themself.
All of that is direct from the book. They put armor into themselves, and it enhances their defensive layers. Overtop which remains an outer shell.
It literally says they integrate it into themselves. Literally. Take it literal.
It is both inside them, and part of them. I'm not going back and forth. It is both. You take issue with one, we talk about that. You switch to taking issue with the other, we talk about that. But it remains both inside and part of them.
You're uh, answering your own questions here. Magic tattoos are on top of the skin. They say they are. Of course you can see them.
An analogy would be if you wore your armor under your skin, the human equivalent to an outer shell. The armor then enhances where your defensive fatty layer is, where it integrated into.
That's a pretty big difference from magic ink that sits on your skin, as far as visibility go.
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.
Fusing something into the surface of an object is in fact integrating it.
Well first and foremost, if you addressed the points people made instead of explaining why the interpretation you had already explained makes more sense to you, we might not have to assume what you're meaning. Yes, you quote people, but you bypass most points made and selectively apply their own words back to them. That's all anyone has to do (hint hint) when discussing the validity of one's interpretation over another and therefore, why such arguments are moot. No one is arguing warforged do not, in some way, become one with their armor. The argument is whether you interpret that to mean if a their donned/incorporated armor is still visible and/or an object and then whether or not certain spells, conditions, abilities apply or not. If you don't have a more specific rule, its equal in merit.
And honestly, I know I've quoted you previously on these claims. This is one of the issues with interpretation is things get lost in translation as we're trying to find what each of us has said and when now instead of looking at addition rules which reinforce your interpretation. Either way, I've seen you refer to the "incorporating armor into" in both bullets just below. Both as separate items and then treat as the same item elsewhere depending on the point you were trying to make. I simply can't reference it all.
Just to reiterate, I have seen comments in which you say the armor goes:
I'm honestly just trying to understand the actual language you believe supports your interpretation beyond the rules which have been repeated throughout. RAW affects league play at hobby centers. You've done the same to me, such as whether I was trying to say creatures are objects - which I never did. I've only entertained the notion to present the opposite interpretation which is why additional published can be valuable to your case. And again, no reason you can't play that way - there's just many other considerations you may need to address throughout the game (I've also posted those a few times before too, so I suppose I'll let them stand as unaddressed).
Yeah, none of that says "armor donned by warforged is effectively invisible and cannot be targeted as an object" or "armor is no longer an object but rather the warforged itself and should be treated as a living creature, limb, or internal organ"
Most of what you're quoting is purely narrative, a point you've made to me about the very same things. This is why you need an actual bullet point of feature which describes the nullifications to other more specific rules.
Your interpretation illustrates the generality, not the specificity of the Integrated Protection rule which stands to reason, therefore it would have minimal impact on other more specific rules, such as the very specific (even giving examples, Heat Metal).
Their protective outer shell is by definition part of their defensive layers. I've quoted this previously.
And they "incorporate" armor - which is a searchable term which establishes in other rules the incorporated object does not cease to be what it is before its incorporation. As I mentioned before, this word choice is intentional as it may also convey, as I demonstrated, pertinent information regarding Perception Checks and the storyline/narrative - which is no more valid than your interpretation, it simply seems to fall in line with all the other rules, far more neatly, without any need for assumptions or debate. This in turn speaks to game balance, in which there aren't hidden abilities that may leave some players feeling cheated or underwhelmed by their own non-warforged characters (again, your interpretation goes well beyond whether Heat Metal has an effect) with others bored or frustrated by the lack of challenge equitable CR encounters suggest.
Once again, I've posted a short list of several considerations which may come up quickly with any warforged character in a couple of my comments which have yet to be addressed.
Well literally is root word 'literate' meaning "written" so while we all tend to agree the armor becomes 'literally incorporated into the warforged' via the Integrated Protection feature, it literally does not say anything else about the rule. Therefore, there is no specificity that would dictate that also means the armor is no longer an object and is hidden within/among the warforged body. By the way, you through your warforged in regular ole travelers' clothes, and poof - you have the exact same effect you claim, with rules in several books to help guide you and your friends thru these types of decisions.
Notice you don't acknowledge how it has to be outside of their body to help protect against damage. And I'm actually just taking your points, one at a time, and addressing them. Therefore, illustrating what I was saying previously about you switching your points to fit the narrative of that post. At most, I've only ran with your logic. You may check again if you wish.
The point I've made, repeatedly now, while addressing each of your new claims, while providing additional rules from published material, is the rules don't say anything about how the armor functions, as far as table-top dice-rolling mechanics are concerned, beyond requiring an 1hr to don/doff (no help), the armor can't be removed unwillfully unless the warforged is dead if donned, they get an extra AC over most everyone else. Incorporates could mean what you say. It could mean what I say. My interpretation doesn't change any written rules with unwritten assumptions though.
So, you didn't read what I actually said as I make that point myself. At this point I'd like to point out you don't exactly measure up to your own standards/expectations like saying I said something I didn't . Anyhow, it says Magic Tattoos are on top of the skin - my point is it says exactly where something is located if they mean for it to occupy a specific location. And beyond that, how proper English has you saying things because that's the language. Like an actual tattoo, which characters may have is in the skin but said to be on it. Likewise, "incorporates into" doesn't necessarily mean completely hidden from view, inherently, as you've tried to say.
Just to reiterate, it still gives specific language overriding other general rules. Your interpretation does not. If it were as you say, we would expect to see more language like we see in Prosthetic Limb or Magic Tattoos (a point you've yet to address even though this isn't the first time I've made it as your quoting me proves.
That is all assumption. There is no written rule that says due to this line of reasoning, the armor is no longer an object and is basically invisible. Again, you interpretation is, by definition, Rules as Interpreted being they rely on a single interpretation of a single phrase. Rules as written would specify if the rule was to override any other general game condition or less specific effects. That's Specific Beats General in the Introduction of the PHB.
I totally get you're saying, "incorporates into" means it's no longer an object and/or no longer visible/distinguishable. However, anywhere else we see this verbiage, they don't mean "100% combined like an alloy" version of the definition, and it truly operates as a sort of membership. Given warforged are manufactured, it's not exactly a reach to see armor as gaining membership into their body - yknow, like a "body member" (as in a limb or organ ooor say the member of a cult or faction). Again, just because its incorporated doesn't necessarily mean it can't be seen or is entirely buried within the body of the warforged. It just doesn't. You absolutely can say it does for narrative just as easily as you can say it doesn't. Neither case overrides other more specific rules though. That is literally, as in written, RAW.
Of course there's a big difference. I imagine that is exactly why they specified what and where w/ Magic Tattoo. Meanwhile, here we are. Having yet to see a rule that specifies "incorporates" means the armor is hidden and/or not an object as well as whether any of the parts its incorporated to are on the outside surface of the body, which is both the body and visible for Intergrated Protection. It just doesn't say anywhere that is the case. All you've posted that's actually written in the rules, beyond things most everyone has agreed with outside of wording, is "incorporates into" with the rest of your explanations being, again - by definition, Rules as Interpreted Reposting the Race Features with more explanation is simply your interpretation of singular rules. The vast majority of it is quite simply, not a published rule.
Meanwhile, we have language and your previous agreement that warforge still "wear" the armor, which is incorporated into them, thus Heat Metal's extremely high degree of specificity puts metal armor squarely within. Specific Beats General - no Webster's Dictionary necessary or "in essence" explanations. I've already illustrated before that some of your arguments just as easily declare creatures as objects and vice versa meaning even under some of your comments, there's no reason Heat Metal wouldn't apply to warforged too. It says outright "manufactured objects" which as you've said before, a body can be an object (you've made this point in a variety of ways as well). Again, you admit this outright just earlier.
You have "Incorporates Into" then "???" then "is an invisible part of their body which can't be targeted by spells which require sight or target an object, like Heat Metal"
That is a HUGE jump with no published rules to support it beyond apparently "incorporates into" "has outer protective shell" and "has defensive layers" which just straight up don't say anything about the rules you say they do. If they did, the rules would be there, and you wouldn't have to try to explain what "incorporates into" 2 dozen unpublished ways (which every explanation that doesn't include additional published verbiage simply reinforces the idea it's RAI. RAW leave Heat Metal on Warforged incorporated/donned armor completely intact. It would require more specific language in Integrated Protection than what's presented in the spell Heat Metal for RAW to suggest otherwise with specific usage of keywords which correlate to other rules in the game.
Video games are basically programmed the same way - if not, the game will crash when it experiences a conflict in its language (which, hey! one advantage to table-top games over video - the DM can fudge the conflict with the authority and capability to make decisions!! Take that AI and warforged! (jk - warforged are me fav to play)) or the condition which is specified continues given there was nothing to override it from the other condition... Like Integrated Protection - if you don't define that it's no longer the object armor and/or invisible/indistinguishable, then it needs to be treated as the visible/distinguishable object that is armor except where specifically notated (and "incorporates into" is not a defined action or anything of the sort which provides this specificity)
To not misconstrue anything and oversimplify my point, it doesn't matter how many times you explain what "incorporates into" means to you, it's still RAI, your interpretation by definition. RAW do not mention your interpretation and therefore the published rules about these items (armor/warforged) only do what they explicitly say, up to and including DM discretion/implementation.
I honestly really enjoy your considerations, visuals, and many/most of your interpretations of the rules. But there's quite simply nothing which says it is the way you say it is. The entire thread is evidence as people debate the meaning of a single phrase. Use other rules to clarify/specify up to and including dictionary definitions for RAW.
I'd agree that this is a RAI situation.
But I think the intent is pretty obvious -
- All official NPC stat blocks for warforged creatures have natural armor
- NPC warforged cannot be targeted by heat metal regardless of what 'incorporated' armor they use to get their AC higher
If the game is written so that players cannot cast heat metal on warforged NPCs wearing armor, I think it's a pretty obvious indicator that DMs also should not be casting heat metal on the PCs.
But as Keith Baker is fond of saying, "It's your Eberron" so light 'em up if you got 'em!
To throw another wrinkle at this. There is another example of "into" in the rules - Wild Shape. If a druid were to have a metal object on them and shape shifted, taking the metal object "into" their new shape. Would that object still be targetable by heat metal?
Not into them, though. That is onto them.
Guys, seriously. It says "into". You cannot ignore that it goes into them.
Well, I mean, you can. You can do whatever you like. But not if we're talking RAW.
"into your body"
The armor is in the warforged. RAW.
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.
I missed this earlier. Warforged cannot wear armor normally. It must be integrated.
"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."
They can't wear it normally.
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 not a distinction that English actually makes.
They also cannot benefit from it without wearing, which either means they cannot benefit from armor at all, or integrated armor is considered worn and follows all of the rules for worn armor.
Agreed, to RAI.
As for obvious intent, official NPC stat blocks don't dictate PC rules as PC rules of course have far more depth and complexity to them. The natural armor doesn't suggest as much as you imply. And you can't target NPC warforged because they don't have armor. The soldiers have shields but otherwise, you can't target NPC/PC warforged RAW. I've only suggested as much regarding the interpretation "the armor is no longer an object due" and similar claims merely due to the "incorporated into" language - if that's true, then the opposite claim can be made given both are RAI.
Also, we could assume NPC warforged have integrated protection from a story telling perspective, but they actually don't have the rule, so they aren't so great for comparing.
As far as an analog to compare, per MM:
If you examine creature stat blocks as well as the descriptions, it will outright say whether or not they have things like armor/shields plus weapons/attacks/etc. If it doesn't say in the stat block or give options for the DM to employ in the description, they don't have those things (potentially NPC warforged and armor in this case).
Beyond that, you'll notice Natural Armor is simply AC which has additional points beyond base AC 10 + Dex Mod. It doesn't have to be actual armor which grants this as all sorts of creatures have it. Also, it's typically for NPCs w/ the exception of wild shifting/polymorphing and confers nothing beyond AC 10 + Dex Mod + Natural Armor bonus. If the NPC is wearing armor which factors into that AC, it will be listed next to the state block. If it were given the option to wear armor/wear different armor, then that armor bonus applies in place of the creatures' stat block AC. If that armor is metal, it can be targeted by Heat Metal. NPC warforged soldiers have a shield by default but otherwise, you wouldn't target a warforged with Heat Metal unless you're making unwritten assumptions about how things are classified
You should have ample opportunity to cast Heat Metal on the 1 warforged NPC it applies to. Also, you know their AC is either 17 (shield doffed) or 19 (shield donned) whereas PC warforged may have a wide variety of ACs since they have the option to wear armor, RAW (and again, nothing stopping a DM from adding armor to warforged soldiers, but then you can just as easily apply heat metal directly to the armor which has no Integrated Protection rule (again, unless the DM gives it to them) as they potentially could you.
Again, I've only offered warforged as a targetable object for say Heat Metal due to the interpretation "incorporates into" means it can't because it actually opens the door to can just as readily. Interpretation goes both ways.
Exaaactly
Interestingly enough, you don't incorporate into an animal, you transform into one, highlighting another example for when something changes, and it looks nothing like other interpretations of "incorporates into" made in this thread. Even more interesting, it says whether it can:
Even more interesting, it says "equipment merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form" which again, is a stark difference from Integrated Protection. And to answer your question, nope - you could not given merged equipment has no effect until you leave the form. Worn or dropped, clearly up viable targets, within reason (which any self-respecting Druid outright deserves for carrying, lol).
The most interesting, if you search "merge' in DnD Beyond's in the internal search engine up top there, you'll see examples of when "merge" is used, and that clearly illustrates situations where things truly become a singular entity with no distinction. Previous rules end. New ones begin. I half wonder if you led us there with a treat trail you clever devil
Fuse can be into. It's has shockingly similar definitions to "incorporates" but actually fits your interpretation better given it deals with materials (vs incorporates' members)
"Incorporates into" is literally just proper English. You cannot ignore that doesn't mean it's hidden entirely inside of them or anything of the sort, for that matter. When you get hired by an employer, you are incorporated into that employer. That doesn't make you the employer or stop you from being a human (a fact employers oft like to ignore and/or ignoring any kind of labor force oppression lmao).
This in no way, considering RAW, confirmation the armor is fully inside the warforged, that the armor is no longer an object for targeting, that the armor is no longer visible for the purposes of targeting. 100% good to go, RAI - otherwise, it's quite literally not a written function. It says "into" - "into" does not say "armor is no longer visible or an object, being entirely inside the body of the warforged". You stab a sword "into" something - that doesn't mean isn't inherently entirely in them, now invisible inside their body. Just a piece of it. Therefore incorporating "into" doesn't necessarily mean the armor is completely/entirely internal. In fact, it doesn't stand to reason it would function, unless "in" an external layer and thus visible.
The language may be no different here, but it just doesn't say, so we default to other rules which are in place, RAW.
RAW would be a rule that says "the armor is indistinguishable from the rest of the warforged" or "the armor is no longer considered an object" so quite the opposite. We have the published rules. You're posited "incorporates into" automatically conveys that. That is, by definition, an interpretation and is in no way "written".
Yes, we can all read the rule we've all shared. You'll notice it still doesn't say, "entirely within the warforged and thus not visible or even an object anymore"
Regardless of how many times you repeat the same language, new language will not appear. If it meant what you say it does, look at the rules which wouldn't work anymore:
That doesn't mean the angelic wings are helmets or coats of arms (which are literally pictures) or that the helmets or coats are wings or that the angelic wings are no longer distinguishable from the helmet. Quite the opposite in that it means their helmets and coats of arms feature images of angelic wings and are therefore more distinct
All the parts distinct pieces of a whole. Here we see we don't necessarily need "into" but if we used a preposition, it would have to be "into" given its roots which basically mean "add into a body" or "form into a body". Either way, a scaly lizard's tail is still a scaly lizard tail as well as a part of the Mongrelfolk. It's a limb on a creature. Not a limb, therefore a creature, on a creature.
Here we have "incorporate" implying merely being stitched on. How about that. Makes no difference whether it's an attempt or not. That's what other rules are for.
Oxen are incorporated into the labor and diets - this doesn't stop the oxen from being beasts/creatures.
No preposition, no "into" with the first "incorporates" Barb reference but either way, incorporates conveys no inherent, unwritten rules due to incorporating spikes, blades, and other weapons into their modified chassis. I mean, the few that survived which were outfit this way are suited for little else even. But no actual rule, unless it functions the way you say. Then who knows - work it out w/ your DM.
The 2nd reference says they can be difficult to add to a setting. That means they definitely stay what they are ("idiosyncratic nature") even when it is difficult.
Here we could use the would "include" in place of "incorporate" - the Jhorash'tar may keep their cultural identity within Mror society.
There has to be a couple dozen "incorporates" references and in no case does an item of interest lose characteristics. If anything, they gain them. Thus, the standard RAW would apply to warforged of +1 to AC, can't be removed unless willing or dead if incorporated, and takes 1hr to don or doff. That's all that is specifically listed so other rules which have greater specificity would apply if you're actually applying RAW. Again, hanging your argument on the interpretation of a single word/phrase is, by definition, interpretation. Not to be tautological but unless the rule states the rule, it's not the rule.
In short, "incorporates" only conveys aesthetic and storyline elements, not table-top/dice-rolling gameplay mechanics and would not convey any assumed/unwritten conditions/abilities/circumstances, beyond Perception/Knowledge checks and the information they may reveal, which is typically aesthetic/storyline in nature and may help you make a decision in regard to which action you would like to take against your perceived target.
If something is part of a creature, it is a creature. That's all there is to it. There is nothing else to go over.
If a severed hand (and object) is reattached through magic, it stops being an object. Why? Because it is part of a creature. Creatures are creatures. Objects are objects.
That's it. It is this simple. There is nothing to "address" or points to go over.
No. You haven't seen me make those statements. You're mistaken.
No. You haven't seen the ones struck out. You are mistaken.
Everything numbered below is a direct quote.
Here are the parts:
So: Frame>>Root-like cords>>defensive layers(enhanced by armor)>>armor plated outer shell.
Other things we know:
So, they're alive. They can be modified. They're made of both organic and inorganic parts. And the armor they wear is integrated into their body.
You've said this before and TBH I totally ignored it. But feel you should at least have some acknowledgement that I read it, because you keep bringing it up seeming to want it addressed. I'm just not sure how this is relevant to the topic, is all. I can understand discussing game balance as a consideration for like DM Tips or in the Homebrew subforum, and you'd probably be surprised by my opinion in a topic on those other forums, where the context is more how should a game play and what is a good game. What I discuss on this forum has zero bearing on how I'd prefer to run a game. We're talking about the rules themself, in an objective way. What do the words on the pages say and what do those words mean in context. But the relative power of something doesn't really have any bearing on what the rule says. So I tend to just not respond to these types of points here.
A severed hand is an object. Right?
You use magic to attach that hand back onto a creature. Is the hand an object still or no?
I am curious what your answer is. The only answer I see that makes sense with how the game treats objects and creatures is: No, it stops being an object when it becomes part of the creature.
Otherwise you could target creatures with spells/effects that target objects.
This is a conceptual objection. Which, isn't really a rules objection, so again I was ignoring it, but I'll address it anyway now.
Why would it need to be outside the armored shell to protect against damage? It just needs to be outside the meaty bits: "Root-like cords infused with alchemical fluids serve as their muscles, wrapped around a framework of steel, darkwood, or stone."
An analogy would be like if went all cyborg and put a fine metal mesh impenetrable layer under your skin and over your fatty tissue, overtop your muscles and organs and bones. Would this armor protect you? Yeah! It would totally protect you. Your skin might get scratched or cut or bruised, but all your veins, organs, and soft critical parts are safe and protected really well.
There is no conceptual problem with my take. The layers their armor enhances protect their more fragile inner bits. That's why they're referred to as "defensive layers". Armor goes with the defensive layers. To defend.
No.
They have the ability to pick the words they print. They chose to say the ink is on the skin. They chose to use the word integrate, incorporate, and into. They didn't have to. If they wanted the armor on top of the warforged they could easily have said that. "Adhere onto" would be exactly what you're looking for it to have said.
They chose "Incorporate into". Whether we wish it had said something else, it doesn't. that's the cold hard fact, it says incorporate into. Those words have meaning.
They mean the armor is now part of the warforged's body, and inside it. That's just what those words mean. the words the authors chose to write. Out of all the possible ways to describe this, they chose incorporate, and into.
What you're responding to here is an analogy. I say as much. It is to help understand or communicate a concept. I'm not claiming those two sentences are rules. Just an analogy. I preface them so that is clear.
Warforged are already an incorporation of many materials. Some organic, some not. But even their non-organic parts aren't objects. As they are part of a creature, they are a creature.
You're asking for a rule to tell you what this rule tells you. The armor is incorporated into their body. That is the rule.
Heat metal only targets objects, not creatures. Regardless of how much manufactured metal is in the creature, it isn't a valid target.
Bodies are only objects if the creature died, and stopped being a creature. Creatures aren't objects. No part of a creature is an object.
The ??? is: the definition of the words.
Very literally, just the definitions of these words. IDK how this is even a question TBH. Its such a bizarre thing to see the definition of these words and then have to try to prove to people on a forum that the words actually do mean what they very literally mean.
Color coded from definitions to aid in following.
The words. Incorporate it into your body. Very literally mean: That the armor is inside the warforged and is part of him.
No jump. Just is what those words mean.
Very literally what those words mean. The rules are that the armor is incorporated into the warforged's body. IDK what else it needs to saw after saying that. It's already told us the armor is inside them and part of them. No where else do rules have to repeat themselves over and over to be valid. They only need to say it once.
"Incorporate it into your body"
By the rules that are written, the armor is part of the warforged, thus a creature. And is inside of the warforged, thus you can't see it. That is what the rule which are written have to say about Integrated Protection.
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.
Yes. It absolutely is the rule. "incorporate it into your body"
The warforged text answers this, too.
"Warforged are formed from a blend of organic and inorganic materials."
"Although they were manufactured, warforged are living humanoids."
Even the parts of them that are inorganic. Even the parts that are manufactured... are a living humanoid.
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.
You cannot see part of the arrow that went into their body.
The warforged incorporates the armor into their body. It doesn't say they incorporate only part of it into their body.
So the part of the armor that went into their body, ie all of it, cannot be seen. Exactly as the part of the arrow that goes into someone also cannot be seen.
Yes. It is the RAW backed up by the RAI.
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.
It isn't RAW (RAW is pretty sloppy so what it means is obscure, but you're assigning meaning to common phrases that they don't possess).
As far as RAI, we actually have word from Keith Baker:
So, yes, it's on the outside, equivalent to skin. And later
So there you have it: RAI.