I'd say likely yes, they are. And you do realize that you seem to be saying that using a level 7 spell to repair a non-magical suit of armour that is still intact enough to be functional without the repairs would be somehow unbalanced.
Using a spell intended to repair CREATURES, to instead repair an OBJECT, is what would be unbalanced, IMO; it would give Warforged an entirely new (and potentially very useful) application for a spell, that no other race has.
I'd say likely yes, they are. And you do realize that you seem to be saying that using a level 7 spell to repair a non-magical suit of armour that is still intact enough to be functional without the repairs would be somehow unbalanced.
Using a spell intended to repair CREATURES, to instead repair an OBJECT, is what would be unbalanced, IMO; it would give Warforged an entirely new (and potentially very useful) application for a spell, that no other race has.
Just like immunity to Heat Metal while using a metal armor for protection.
Now I'm going to change sides. The armor DOES become part of the living creature, and no longer an object. You have a really, really nice armor before you incorporate it. Armor of Invulnerability.
Everything is GREAT until you incorporate it into your body, all it's benefits are magical and are tied to the object that no longer exists separately. Sadly, the text states:
You have resistance to nonmagical damage while you wear this armor. Additionally, you can use an action to make yourself immune to nonmagical damage for 10 minutes or until you are no longer wearing the armor.
By the way going back to an earlier comment involving a couple items such as the Docent, I found an old Jeremy Crawford tweet on sentient items saying that they are not creatures because they have no creature type. I tweeted asking why they would not be considered constructs and got a reply that they are not considered to have a creature type because they are not creatures.
Perfect example of circular logic....
Nothing circular there. The first query is "are they creatures?" "No, they don't have a creature type". The second query is "are they constructs". "No, they don't have a creature type".
Wait, so are you arguing because you want to be right or thinking about the text? He is showing a user how to use the rules to figure out if anything is a creature. You now have the tools to go to see if your sword or abacus is a creature. That is what the tweet is about. How you interpret it is only your problem, not ours.
Why A? Because B, so why B? Because A. And the second answer was 'No, because they are not creatures.' It was not 'No, because they have no creature type.' A creature type defines what kind of creature a creature is.
In the end the answer I got was simply 'Because.' In other words, there is no reason. It simply is arbitrarily so.
The question that was not answered was "Why aren't they constructs". And the answer to that is "because they didn't choose to do it that way".
The subsequent reply to asking why they would not be considered constructs, is "They aren't a creature so have no creature type. They're sentient objects."
That's just not answering the question, possibly due to misunderstanding what was being asked. They weren't answering why it wasn't a construct, they were answering whether it was a construct.
Yeah, the rules are the way they are for any number of reasons. Sometimes, that reason is to try to handle a situation reasonably. Sometimes, it’s for logical consistency with other rules. Sometimes it’s for balance. Sometimes it’s for simplicity. Sometimes it just is because it is.
Refusing to acknowledge a rule/underlying assumption (objects aren’t creatures) because it doesn’t have ONE of those justifications (“but in real life, it’s not that simple...”) while excluding all others (creatures all have creature types and objects don’t and shouldn’t; treating objects as creatures has unintended consequences on balance of abilities; it’s just simpler to draw a bright line and not write 1000 words on the subtle gradient of living vs. magically animated vs. inanimate matter; or whatever else went into the rule design) isn’t good faith rule interpretation, it’s stubborn clinging to an alternate houserule which no one is stopping YOUR table from using, but which is clearly not presented in the text.
I’m gonna jump in a year + later and say you’re playing a game where magic armor shrinks or enlarges to fit correctly to the wearer, arguing about the feasibility of a humanoid arcane metal construct incorporating armor into their body. As DM I will always say any armor a warforged has integrated is no longer a target for spells like heat metal. If they could wear armor then they would just wear it, not bolt it to their bodies or anything rudimentary like that. They’d be unable to bolt it to themselves without bolts to do it with and nowhere in the description of integrating armor does it say you need bolts and a hammer to integrate armor as a warforged. They absorb it through arcane means, melding it with the armor of their bodies completely eliminating an distinction between warforged and armor.
Well, the shrinking or adjust is actual guidance in the DMG, but it’s not concrete one way or the other.
WEARING AND WIELDING ITEMS Using a magic item's properties might mean wearing or wielding it. A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held in hand. In most cases, a magic item that's meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer. Rare exceptions exist. If the story suggests a good reason for an item to fit only creatures of a certain size or shape, you can rule that it doesn't adjust. For example, armor made by the drow might fit elves only. Dwarves might make items usable only by dwarf-sized and dwarf-shaped characters. When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs can't wear boots.
I don't see low level fire damage doing much other than heat the metal of their body, but the structural integrity should be fine, ie. they shouldn't take damage.
Heat Metal causes damage because flesh don't like hot metal, but if you don't have flesh, you probably won't be affected much unless the temperature is high enough to cause structural damage (melting, stress cracks etc).
I don't see low level fire damage doing much other than heat the metal of their body, but the structural integrity should be fine, ie. they shouldn't take damage.
Heat Metal causes damage because flesh don't like hot metal, but if you don't have flesh, you probably won't be affected much unless the temperature is high enough to cause structural damage (melting, stress cracks etc).
This is great rationale, but not really supported by rules. The rules don't really care that a warforged is made of metal; they have hit points and take fire damage as normal. If they were not meant to, they'd have a racial trait that tells you that it works differently for them.
I don't see low level fire damage doing much other than heat the metal of their body, but the structural integrity should be fine, ie. they shouldn't take damage.
Heat Metal causes damage because flesh don't like hot metal, but if you don't have flesh, you probably won't be affected much unless the temperature is high enough to cause structural damage (melting, stress cracks etc).
No, warforged are not made from metal throughout. A warforged's "flesh" is a woody substance, they have some bloodlike liquid running through what pass for veins. A warforged who hasn't incorporated armor into their body (a "naked" warforged) has no metal at all and would look like some kind of wood golem.
I don't see low level fire damage doing much other than heat the metal of their body, but the structural integrity should be fine, ie. they shouldn't take damage.
Heat Metal causes damage because flesh don't like hot metal, but if you don't have flesh, you probably won't be affected much unless the temperature is high enough to cause structural damage (melting, stress cracks etc).
No, warforged are not made from metal throughout. A warforged's "flesh" is a woody substance, they have some bloodlike liquid running through what pass for veins. A warforged who hasn't incorporated armor into their body (a "naked" warforged) has no metal at all and would look like some kind of wood golem.
From the warforged race page, a naked warforged can still be made of metal, and warforged does not have to be made from wood at all. Cords are said to be root-like, so it does not have to be actual roots.
"Warforged are formed from a blend of organic and inorganic materials. Root-like cords infused with alchemical fluids serve as their muscles, wrapped around a framework of steel, darkwood, or stone. Armored plates form a protective outer shell and reinforce joints. Warforged share a common facial design, with a hinged jaw and crystal eyes embedded beneath a reinforced brow ridge. Beyond these common elements of warforged design, the precise materials and build of a warforged vary based on the purpose for which it was designed."
But anyway, none of that affects how the warforged takes fire damage or responds to head metal. You’ll notice in the racial traits that warforged have some damage resistances and condition immunities. Fire/heat metal are not among them.
You still can’t directly target the warforged with the spell (I wouldn’t call a warforged a manufactured metal object) but items that they wear or hold are still fair game.
heat metal does not work on warforged, because warforged are creatures, not objects
The problem with a strict RAW reading like this (which I agree, is correct - the spell explicitly states it only targets objects) is that it means the spell can't target magically animated objects, like Animated Armor, Flying Swords, or things brought to life by the Animate Object spell, which is counter-intuitive. I think it makes more sense to allow Heat Metal to target things which are magically animated objects, but not warforged, which will mean the GM has to arbitrarily... arbitrate what creatures the spell works on.
heat metal does not work on warforged, because warforged are creatures, not objects
The problem with a strict RAW reading like this (which I agree, is correct - the spell explicitly states it only targets objects) is that it means the spell can't target magically animated objects, like Animated Armor, Flying Swords, or things brought to life by the Animate Object spell, which is counter-intuitive. I think it makes more sense to allow Heat Metal to target things which are magically animated objects, but not warforged, which will mean the GM has to arbitrarily... arbitrate what creatures the spell works on.
Animated Objects turns objects into creatures, as stated in the spell.
"Objects come to life at your command. Choose up to ten nonmagical objects within range that are not being worn or carried. Medium targets count as two objects, Large targets count as four objects, Huge targets count as eight objects. You can't animate any object larger than Huge. Each target animates and becomes a creature under your control until the spell ends or until reduced to 0 hit points."
heat metal does not work on warforged, because warforged are creatures, not objects
The problem with a strict RAW reading like this (which I agree, is correct - the spell explicitly states it only targets objects) is that it means the spell can't target magically animated objects, like Animated Armor, Flying Swords, or things brought to life by the Animate Object spell, which is counter-intuitive. I think it makes more sense to allow Heat Metal to target things which are magically animated objects, but not warforged, which will mean the GM has to arbitrarily... arbitrate what creatures the spell works on.
Animated Objects turns objects into creatures, as stated in the spell.
"Objects come to life at your command. Choose up to ten nonmagical objects within range that are not being worn or carried. Medium targets count as two objects, Large targets count as four objects, Huge targets count as eight objects. You can't animate any object larger than Huge. Each target animates and becomes a creature under your control until the spell ends or until reduced to 0 hit points."
Yes, that... that was my point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Using a spell intended to repair CREATURES, to instead repair an OBJECT, is what would be unbalanced, IMO; it would give Warforged an entirely new (and potentially very useful) application for a spell, that no other race has.
Just like immunity to Heat Metal while using a metal armor for protection.
Now I'm going to change sides. The armor DOES become part of the living creature, and no longer an object. You have a really, really nice armor before you incorporate it. Armor of Invulnerability.
Everything is GREAT until you incorporate it into your body, all it's benefits are magical and are tied to the object that no longer exists separately. Sadly, the text states:
You have resistance to nonmagical damage while you wear this armor. Additionally, you can use an action to make yourself immune to nonmagical damage for 10 minutes or until you are no longer wearing the armor.
Nothing circular there. The first query is "are they creatures?" "No, they don't have a creature type". The second query is "are they constructs". "No, they don't have a creature type".
You are confusing "because" with "how you can tell." Jeremy never says sentient items are not creatures because they don't have creature types.
Wait, so are you arguing because you want to be right or thinking about the text? He is showing a user how to use the rules to figure out if anything is a creature. You now have the tools to go to see if your sword or abacus is a creature. That is what the tweet is about. How you interpret it is only your problem, not ours.
The question that was not answered was "Why aren't they constructs". And the answer to that is "because they didn't choose to do it that way".
That's just not answering the question, possibly due to misunderstanding what was being asked. They weren't answering why it wasn't a construct, they were answering whether it was a construct.
Yeah, the rules are the way they are for any number of reasons. Sometimes, that reason is to try to handle a situation reasonably. Sometimes, it’s for logical consistency with other rules. Sometimes it’s for balance. Sometimes it’s for simplicity. Sometimes it just is because it is.
Refusing to acknowledge a rule/underlying assumption (objects aren’t creatures) because it doesn’t have ONE of those justifications (“but in real life, it’s not that simple...”) while excluding all others (creatures all have creature types and objects don’t and shouldn’t; treating objects as creatures has unintended consequences on balance of abilities; it’s just simpler to draw a bright line and not write 1000 words on the subtle gradient of living vs. magically animated vs. inanimate matter; or whatever else went into the rule design) isn’t good faith rule interpretation, it’s stubborn clinging to an alternate houserule which no one is stopping YOUR table from using, but which is clearly not presented in the text.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's never circular. It just ends at "Because that's the way we did it".
I’m gonna jump in a year + later and say you’re playing a game where magic armor shrinks or enlarges to fit correctly to the wearer, arguing about the feasibility of a humanoid arcane metal construct incorporating armor into their body. As DM I will always say any armor a warforged has integrated is no longer a target for spells like heat metal. If they could wear armor then they would just wear it, not bolt it to their bodies or anything rudimentary like that. They’d be unable to bolt it to themselves without bolts to do it with and nowhere in the description of integrating armor does it say you need bolts and a hammer to integrate armor as a warforged. They absorb it through arcane means, melding it with the armor of their bodies completely eliminating an distinction between warforged and armor.
Well, the shrinking or adjust is actual guidance in the DMG, but it’s not concrete one way or the other.
WEARING AND WIELDING ITEMS
Using a magic item's properties might mean wearing or wielding it. A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet, gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held in hand.
In most cases, a magic item that's meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer.
Rare exceptions exist. If the story suggests a good reason for an item to fit only creatures of a certain size or shape, you can rule that it doesn't adjust. For example, armor made by the drow might fit elves only.
Dwarves might make items usable only by dwarf-sized and dwarf-shaped characters.
When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs can't wear boots.
A warforged is made from metal throughout right?
I don't see low level fire damage doing much other than heat the metal of their body, but the structural integrity should be fine, ie. they shouldn't take damage.
Heat Metal causes damage because flesh don't like hot metal, but if you don't have flesh, you probably won't be affected much unless the temperature is high enough to cause structural damage (melting, stress cracks etc).
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
This is great rationale, but not really supported by rules. The rules don't really care that a warforged is made of metal; they have hit points and take fire damage as normal. If they were not meant to, they'd have a racial trait that tells you that it works differently for them.
No, warforged are not made from metal throughout. A warforged's "flesh" is a woody substance, they have some bloodlike liquid running through what pass for veins. A warforged who hasn't incorporated armor into their body (a "naked" warforged) has no metal at all and would look like some kind of wood golem.
From the warforged race page, a naked warforged can still be made of metal, and warforged does not have to be made from wood at all. Cords are said to be root-like, so it does not have to be actual roots.
"Warforged are formed from a blend of organic and inorganic materials. Root-like cords infused with alchemical fluids serve as their muscles, wrapped around a framework of steel, darkwood, or stone. Armored plates form a protective outer shell and reinforce joints. Warforged share a common facial design, with a hinged jaw and crystal eyes embedded beneath a reinforced brow ridge. Beyond these common elements of warforged design, the precise materials and build of a warforged vary based on the purpose for which it was designed."
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
But anyway, none of that affects how the warforged takes fire damage or responds to head metal. You’ll notice in the racial traits that warforged have some damage resistances and condition immunities. Fire/heat metal are not among them.
You still can’t directly target the warforged with the spell (I wouldn’t call a warforged a manufactured metal object) but items that they wear or hold are still fair game.
heat metal does not work on warforged, because warforged are creatures, not objects
The problem with a strict RAW reading like this (which I agree, is correct - the spell explicitly states it only targets objects) is that it means the spell can't target magically animated objects, like Animated Armor, Flying Swords, or things brought to life by the Animate Object spell, which is counter-intuitive. I think it makes more sense to allow Heat Metal to target things which are magically animated objects, but not warforged, which will mean the GM has to arbitrarily... arbitrate what creatures the spell works on.
Animated Objects turns objects into creatures, as stated in the spell.
"Objects come to life at your command. Choose up to ten nonmagical objects within range that are not being worn or carried. Medium targets count as two objects, Large targets count as four objects, Huge targets count as eight objects. You can't animate any object larger than Huge. Each target animates and becomes a creature under your control until the spell ends or until reduced to 0 hit points."
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Yes, that... that was my point.