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).
I didn't assign the meaning to the words incorporate or into. They're like, just English words. Their meaning is defined.
I'm reading them. And taking them literally. They're literal. What it is describing should be taken literally.
Incorporate into. Taken literally, means something to the effect of: make part of through encasing.
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.
This is exactly what I've described here. Thanks for showing that the author agrees with me. Or, rather, that my understanding is in agreement with his.
The armor goes between his inner layers and the outer shell. Very literally.
I like how he used the term very literally too.
Because it does, very literally go inside them.
The warforged takes off outer shell. Puts armor on. Puts back on outer shell.
Armor is now between outer shell and the rest of the warforged. Very literally inside them.
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.
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.
There is no rule on this. And you've admitted elsewhere, part of a creature can still be an object. Thing is, when you admit this stuff, you usually follow it up with some interpretation as to why you still don't think it applies.
#144
This may sound silly but hypothetically, how would you treat a target with a lot of peircings? Is an earring when pierced into you now part of you? What about something implanted? Is that part of you, or an object?
I know some people who'd mightily offended if you ponted at parts of their body and called them objects.
The conundrum were dealing with here is that of identity. And for me the answer is simple. If the item has become part of you, it is part of you. Thus, part of a creature, in dnd terms, and not an object.
Now, should it be removed from the creature, then it become an object again. Much like if you removed basically any other part of the creature. A severed hand isn't a creature, after all.
Warforged integrate armor into themselves. That means the armor become part of them. Thus isnt an object anymore and is now part of a creature. If you removed it from them, it'd become an object again.
This isn't nearly as complex as some people here seem to want it to be.
Pointing at an object someone has incorporated into their body "an object" may very well offend them. However, that's their story. An earring would be targetable by Heat Metal. You've just compared the warforged's incorporated armor to an earring. RAW would dictate its clearly targetable provided you have view of their ear and therefore the armor would.
#162 (bottom)
Oh they're still wearing armor alright. That armor is, however, no longer an object and is instead part of a creature.
But armor, RAW, is an object. RAW, you can't wear a body or part of a creature to collect AC. Basically anywhere you say, "Armor is part of a creature" (which is frequent) is RAI, not RAW. "Incorporates into" doesn't have a dictionary definition or additional rule that states the rule you've invented here which conflicts with your own statements (probably why you keep thinking I'm mistaken - you often defeat your own point likely because it seems you're mostly just arguing the value of your opinion over others and therefore aren't examining your own points like you do others.
There are several others, you usually just tack "but the armor is now part of their body, and therefore a creature" which is literally nowhere in the rules or a dictionary. RAI. For example, re-examine your #225 - not only to you admit you would need a special feature to see inside of them without realizing there is no clear verbiage stating the armor inside them in a manner which requires additional special rules. Incorporates into confers no ability to hide the armor or change what it is beyond adding it to their body. More on this below - I'm merely responding to your points and most my responses need to be taken in their entirety (again, like I've said before, mostly because I have to go all over the place to respond to your interpretations with no published rule beyond a few descriptors and couple bullet points which outright lack your language.
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.
You've made this point before. If objects are objects and creatures are creatures, then warforged are warforged and armor is armor... See my previous point how you don't seem to be examining your own points as severely as others. Once again, "incorporates into" conveys no loss of identity (you actually linked a wiki page about a thought experiment regarding a ship #214), can be integrated as part of something while maintaining your identity, and "into" is merely proper English if you use a preposition w/ incorporates - it has to be into. It's just proper English. Not RAW: Armor is no longer an object or visible. That is a singular interpretation, with no additional published rules, among many which have been illustrated with published rules. It doesn't stand. The word you're looking for is "merge" - when you see "merge" in D&D rules (search it yourself), you'll see language common to "incorporating" things in the manner which you speak whereas, as demonstrated in my previous post which you completely disregard in your reply, "incorporates" actually seems to mean the way I'm interpreting (aesthetics/storyline/setting/perception & knowledge checks)
And guess what? There are rules for "part of a creature"! Be it Mongrelfolk or prosthetics; augmented limbs or cosmetic features; modifications, shapeshifting, etc - ALL of it has rules well beyond anything you suggest regarding Integrated Protection - we've already discussed it, forgive me if I don't tag a comment for example but rather repost just a few of many many examples of what it looks like when what you're suggesting is the case:
Prosthetic Limb
This item replaces a lost limb—a hand, an arm, a foot, a leg, or a similar body part. While the prosthetic is attached, it functions identically to the part it replaces. You can detach or reattach it as an action, and it can’t be removed against your will. It detaches if you die.
*still an object too. We don't see any of this in Incorporated Protection
Ersatz Eye
This artificial eye replaces a real one that was lost or removed. While the ersatz eye is embedded in your eye socket, it can’t be removed by anyone other than you, and you can see through the tiny orb as though it were a normal eye.
*still an object too. We don't see any of this in Incorporated Protection
Wild Shape
Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before. You can use this feature twice. You regain expended uses when you finish a short or long rest.
Your druid level determines the beasts you can transform into, as shown in the Beast Shapes table. At 2nd level, for example, you can transform into any beast that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower that doesn’t have a flying or swimming speed.
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.
This illustrates the equipment stays equipment even though it straight up magically merged with the form, nullifies any effects of the equipment (warforged still get AC), and doesn't even acknowledge whether merged equipment can be removed against your will or not because it's one with the new form and can't be any more readily than removing a limb, as you've said of incorporate, previously regarding Sword of Sharpness. Intergrated Protection has none of this and if you argue that "incorporates into" maintains the AC bonus from armor than you are admitting it is still an incorporated object. And you can absolutely incorporate something into the surface/exterior of something else, like lighting on the front of the building. According to your description, armor capable of shedding light wouldn't function on a warforged even though there is nothing written in the published rules dictating as much. Since I'm unaware of any worn armor that does this, we could apply the example to the "who cares, at least its magic" Armor of Gleaming or Smoldering Armor. Basically, those wouldn't function, correct? Well, if those don't function, how can magic armor convey the effects to the outer protective shell as part of its integrated defensive layers?
Basically, it just doesn't work the way you claim and merely acknowledges the armor is still viable as an object/worn armor as well as perceivable succeeding on the appropriate check. Literally the opposite of what you're saying. My interpretation keeps other actually written rules intact, whereas yours creates unwritten stipulations which are by definition, RAI.
That's it. It is this simple. There is nothing to "address" or points to go over.
Exactly - that's all you have. Your interpretation of the phrase "incorporates into" - which you reiterate again later. Hence why its RAI.
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.
as early as #225 (this page) you say:
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".
which alone sounds like Protective Outer Plating is a Defensive Layer which is Enhanced by Armor. I know you have a bunch of bullet points and thus try to make it sound like Outer Protective Plating/Shell is a separate layer from their Defensive Layers (and reinforced joints - which all you have to do is look at plate to see layers of plates are the most effective way to reinforce a joint) so you can claim the unwritten speculation the armor is sandwiched between those two things (all of which are "layers" so one thing - you see, the Protective Outer Shell is incorporated into their Defensive Layers, otherwise, what does armor do again?) and entirely inside the warforged but still claiming external bonuses without applying external penalties.
And then examining the comments you must have been referencing, we see you outright confirm these two bullets as one thing:
#194 - you say:
Warforged are formed from a blend of organic and inorganic materials. Root-like cords infused with alchemical fluids serve as their muscles, wrapped around a framework of steel, darkwood, or stone. Armored plates form a protective outer shell and reinforce joints.
Warforged have an outer shell. Outer shell. Of armored plates. Remember these words for later. Outer, shell.
Your body has built-in defensive layers, which can be enhanced with armor.
Defensive. Layers.
Like, an onion. They have layers of materials which protect them. Remember from earlier? Protective outer shell? Ok. Remember it, it is important.
These defensive layers can be enhanced. Dope. What enhances these layers? Armor does.
So I guess you are mistaken about the points you've posted. You just said they were one in the same. Go check yourself
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.
In #194, you confirm "Outer Protective Shell" and both. Once we add other comments you've made (which I've referenced here, like regarding ear piercings), you've also claimed all of the above. Again. You are mistaken. I've quoted you several times and yet here you are, gaslighting me in the face of your own record.
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.
That part is. The rest is not.
So: Frame>>Root-like cords>>defensive layers(enhanced by armor)>>armor plated outer shell.
No since outer protective shell can/is be a defensive layer. There is no RAW stating your flow chart, therefore it could also be Frame>Root-Like Cords>Defensive Layers, including Outer Protective Shell, enhanced by armor. You posted yourself the Outer Protective Shell and Defensive Layers are two separate bullet points from two separate blocks of descriptions/rules, thus there is actually nothing confirming your dictation. You even call the Outer Shell "armor plated" here - where's the armor plating coming from? Is it not enhanced by armor too? Could be the +1AC but there's nothing to say it isn't receiving the additional incorporated armor into itself as well, right there on the outside, like a brush guard incorporated into the front end of an ORV in reality. There's nothing written one way or the other, so more specific rules would still apply, RAW.
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.
Yes, what I don't understand is how you fail to notice it still hasn't said, "armor is not visible/targetable" or "the armor is completely within the warforged" or "the armor is no longer an object" like you see in Daylight, Light, Forcecage, Beads of Force, Total Cover, and so on when searching the term "completely" or Silence, Dark Star, or Heavily Obscured when we search "entirely" in DnD Beyond (as for the "armor no longer an object" examples, I've given those in this response already).
If incorporated into conveyed Total Cover or could Heavily Obscure an object, it would be simple to include, but it doesn't. So RAW = it doesn't have those qualities because it didn't list them.
Like, you keep re-using what you have, making the same points. What you're saying is in the game just isn't actually in the game. It's simply your interpretation, or RAI by def.
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.
Actually, that's how debate works and if you ignore a point, especially intentionally, you cede the point.
You are not actually talking about the rules in an objective way here. You are claiming your interpretation is present in the rules and regularly fail to do so regardless of how many times you echo
incorporates into
outer protective shell
defensive layers
None of those things actually say "armor is no longer an object" or "no longer visible" - it just doesn't regardless of how much you insist it does. If it's not a written rule but rather your personal explanation, then it's by definition, RAI. That's all you have. The same points and your explanation. If you posted something like "PHB: Adventuring - Incorporate Into means an item is no longer what it was and becomes a new thing" or whatever, then ok. That would be RAW. It's written. I can search it on this website instead of having to try to imagine what you're imagining. However, it doesn't. Actually, all we have are other rules where an item keeps its identity while joining a larger whole. Like throughout the rules, anytime incorporates comes up, it can mean that without breaking any rules without any indication it drops its former agency save you (and some others - I looked hard for language which would support this gameplay, RAW, well over a year ago and couldn't come up with anything more than you did and had to reluctantly conclude IP is not as strong as one could imagine it being) and its usage within Integrated Protection.
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?
A severed hand is a severed hand. Depending on the context, and more importantly, whether there are specific rules in play, therefore, it could also be something else. It could be animated into a creature via a number of rules. It could simply be a trinket. It could be a piece of a more elaborate presentation (like a severed hand on an amulet/maybe as an amulet itself). It could certainly be an object/item a character picks up. It could be a limb. There's no definition. A severed hand is a hand which is assumed to have been separated from a body. You could consider the hand itself a body if that's all that remains. And for purposes of picking up, the hand could be living/animate/creature and still be picked up and placed in a bag.
You use magic to attach that hand back onto a creature. Is the hand an object still or no?
The hand is still a hand. It depends on the context and rules in play. Using the extremely limited language to try to imagine the conclusion you want me to draw, I'm assuming the hand is always a hand. Are there some rules in play? I'm only aware of a limb needing to be re-attached due to Sword of Sharpness or if using the DMG Injuries: Lingering injuries table. In either case, a hand/limb is never defined, and therefore would be up to the DM for the purposes of what that hand it. What it does do is explain what it means to lose the limb.
If an object, when severed, does it rot? What does it weigh? What's it's nature? DM discretion (object or part of a dead creature) and therefore, we are well in the realm of RAI and far from RAW already.
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.
My answer then is this, when in doubt - Specific Beats General and the written rule applies. Armor is only ever defined as an object and is never specified as anything else when donning/incorporating. Period. Therefore, the armor, regardless of whether part of a warforged or not, is an object. A severed hand is a severed hand. Dead Creatures/Parts of Creatures can be used as an Object as described by "Improvised Weapons". If anything, the limb is part of a dead creature. Living and dead creatures can be picked up, carried, and even stored, no differently than any other object. I've discussed this before.
Otherwise you could target creatures with spells/effects that target objects.
Potentially, but they typically define what they can target to avoid this kind of confusion.
Intergrated Protection says absolutely nothing about the actual visibility of the item. Everything you claim is inferred from limited application from the dictionary and giving weight to an automatic preposition as if it defines gameplay in a discrete manner.
And then Heat Metal which very clearly defines its parameters:
Heat Metal
Choose a manufactured metal object, such as a metal weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor, that you can see within range. You cause the object to glow red-hot. Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast the spell. Until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action on each of your subsequent turns to cause this damage again.
If a creature is holding or wearing the object and takes the damage from it, the creature must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or drop the object if it can. If it doesn't drop the object, it has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until the start of your next turn.
It is quite simply, more specific than what is printed for Integrated Protection. Period. Therefore, Heat Metal "beats" Intergrated Protection, by definition/RAW.
But it doesn't end there, we also have things like Animate Object vs Animate Dead - there's nothing stopping you from applying Animate Objects to a dead creature/body or even parts and pieces of a dead creature (maybe the creature itself isn't, but the severed limbs likely would be, RAI) to simulate Animate Dead, but you wouldn't get the Zombie/Skeleton stat blocks of course - you would have the Animate Objects stat block. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to imply Animate Dead functions on severed limbs/heads even if it could animate a corpse missing some limbs/potentially even a head (which there isn't an applicable rule for, but you could infer some 'Lingering Injuries' pretty easily, RAI):
Animate Objects
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.
As a bonus action, you can mentally command any creature you made with this spell if the creature is within 500 feet of you (if you control multiple creatures, you can command any or all of them at the same time, issuing the same command to each one). You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn, or you can issue a general command, such as to guard a particular chamber or corridor. If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures. Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete.
Animate Dead
This spell creates an undead servant. Choose a pile of bones or a corpse of a Medium or Small humanoid within range. Your spell imbues the target with a foul mimicry of life, raising it as an undead creature. The target becomes a skeleton if you chose bones or a zombie if you chose a corpse (the GM has the creature's game statistics).
On each of your turns, you can use a bonus action to mentally command any creature you made with this spell if the creature is within 60 feet of you (if you control multiple creatures, you can command any or all of them at the same time, issuing the same command to each one). You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn, or you can issue a general command, such as to guard a particular chamber or corridor. If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures. Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete.
The creature is under your control for 24 hours, after which it stops obeying any command you've given it. To maintain control of the creature for another 24 hours, you must cast this spell on the creature again before the current 24-hour period ends. This use of the spell reasserts your control over up to four creatures you have animated with this spell, rather than animating a new one.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you animate or reassert control over two additional undead creatures for each slot level above 3rd. Each of the creatures must come from a different corpse or pile of bones.
essentially, there is no verbiage that states whether a corpse is an object, but given a corpse turns to a complete zombie, who may be missing limbs, under Animate Dead, it must mean the torso in particular, RAI.
Even Immovable object specifies parameters which make it so even if you chose to interpret creatures as a type of object, you wouldn't really be able to use it on them:
Immovable Object
You touch an object that weighs no more than 10 pounds and cause it to become magically fixed in place. You and the creatures you designate when you cast this spell can move the object normally. You can also set a password that, when spoken within 5 feet of the object, suppresses this spell for 1 minute.
If the object is fixed in the air, it can hold up to 4,000 pounds of weight. More weight causes the object to fall. Otherwise, a creature can use an action to make a Strength check against your spell save DC. On a success, the creature can move the object up to 10 feet.
At Higher Levels. If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th or 5th level, the DC to move the object increases by 5, it can carry up to 8,000 pounds of weight, and the duration increases to 24 hours. If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 6th level or higher, the DC to move the object increases by 10, it can carry up to 20,000 pounds of weight, and the effect is permanent until dispelled.
can't weigh more than 10lbs, has verbal components including setting a password which a conscious creature could speak (even if applied to an actual object, like manacles),
To end this portion of the discussion, I'm not suggesting creatures=objects. Rather, the rules carry great specificity, nearly top-to-bottom, as to what you could functionally interpret vs what has been written and published as the actual function. In short, everything could be an object, but a creature (living, dead, undead) has a stat block, RAW. If it only says "object" than the target cannot have a stat block. If it says target creature, then the target not only has to carry the creature label (or a sub-label which infers creature status, such as humanoid, beast, construct, etc) in its rules, but will have a stat block. This is upheld throughout the rules, without exception. Therefore, labeling is everything.
This includes vehicles, which may certainly be either a creature or a specific type of object addressed by a variety of rules as and how pertinent to the rules/conditions present - a vehicle is clearly an object but the fact it's a vehicle means you apple a more specific set of criteria to it, as confirmed by the few RAW rules regarding Objects in general from DMG: Chapter 8 - Running the Game: Equipment:
Objects
When characters need to saw through ropes, shatter a window, or smash a vampire’s coffin, the only hard and fast rule is this: given enough time and the right tools, characters can destroy any destructible object. Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object. Can a fighter cut through a section of a stone wall with a sword? No, the sword is likely to break before the wall does.
For the purpose of these rules [presented in this section of the DMG and therefore the included damage tables and what not], an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.
which doesn't just confirm buildings and vehicles are comprised of many other objects but specifies when you don't treat them as ordinary objects (in this case, when you're trying to damage an object. Others might be when you actually go to ride a vehicle vs target a vehicle with a spell, such as Heat Metal - in which case, you can't target an entire metal building/vehicle with one cast of Heat Metal which is also clear within the confines of the Heat Metal spell itself.
Moral of the story: It's all written down and published for us - some examples may not apply directly to the discussion regarding "Integrated Protection's incorporates into" language except apparently the need to explain RAW vs RAI. Rules as Written means what's actually written. The actual words and how they fit with other written rules and their phrasing. Rules as Intended is just what you believe the intention is and therefore, interpretation. If you believe the rules here intended to overturn dozens of written rules without specifying, then ok, but that's, just like, your interpretation, man.
RAW=Published rules, as written. RAI=Personal interpretation of the intention behind the rule (you think IP was intended to mean the armor is inside/invisible/not an object - folks who disagree with you simply don't believe this is the intention)
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.
Yes.
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.
You're right. They do have the choice to Publish within the parameters of the English Language or not. They chose to.
And you're right, they intentionally chose the words integrated/incorporated (notice they don't say integrate twice) as well as into, mostly due to their choice to publish Proper English.
I doubt you've tried this suggestion I've made a few times already, but try searching those words right here on DnD Beyond to see what comes up within your licensed products. You'll see both integrate and incorporate are used similarly elsewhere.
Integrate (into) is used to phrase adding something to another thing but never infers a loss of identity or characteristics (see the following and forgive the Copy/Pasted formatting, Appendix: Class Options in Other Worlds, SWORD COAST ADVENTURER’S GUIDE; Puzzle Elements, TASHA’S CAULDRON OF EVERYTHING; Gnomes of the Five Nations, EBERRON: RISING FROM THE LAST WAR --- or simply search "integrate" here on DnD Beyond)
Incorporate (into) (see previous examples made --- or simply search "incorporate" here on DnD Beyond)
Searching for "Merge" would give you examples of what you speak of, yet we don't see that w/ Integrated Protection.
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.
Yes, they do, see above for examples beyond your own as to what they could mean.
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.
Welp, given it only says incorporates into is not enough to confer all those other bonuses and nullify various penalties, I suppose the authors didn't intend for it to function that way given they do everywhere else.
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.
Ok, thank you for confirming your explanations are just to communicate your concept, not RAW. Nothing more. That's what I had gathered in the first place so I appreciate you saying so. This is also true for virtually all of your points.
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.
Notice, there are no descriptions of gameplay mechanics, nor keywords we can look up to infer more. So it doesn't matter. This isn't the same as writing out the rules you are claiming. You keep referencing the same lines. They still only say what they say, not everything you add to it. It's as simple as that. You wish it said what you're saying. Nothing more.
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.
Right, and that in no way confers that means its indistinguishable/invisible, can't be targeted as an object, isn't even an object anymore, is still being worn even though it's stored inside them, and so on. Therefore, the rule is the armor is incorporated into their body, thus allowing for story elements and perception checks as well as every other more specific rule which may apply simultaneously as Intergrated Protection features/effects. And guess what - that isn't actually a change from the rules! It simply allows existing rules to operate without conflict or unwritten assumption!
You have an inherent +1AC bonus, only you can incorporate the armor into yourself, using proper English, or remove it, each of which takes an hour unless you're dead (or otherwise convinced to willfully remove the armor, like by "Suggestion" or some form of Charm/Mind Control). That's it. Incorporate into can merely mean, well within the definition of the word, it's still otherwise visible and identifiable even though it is part of the warforged, exactly like we see in other uses of incorporates (into) within D&D and easily search on DnD Beyond.
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.
Right, see you say that now, but "incorporating" your "interpretation" for the "intention" behind the "rules" - we are well on our way to that very logic since we're overriding very specific rules with extremely general clips and phrases. If we so widely apply your notion of "incorporates into" - why not other phrases and words (you've suggested this elsewhere, as I've sourced, such as what actually constitutes an object).
If armor is incorporated into a manufactured creature becoming part of its body and no longer an object without the rules actually saying that, why not state the creature is also an object then and still targetable by the same spell. I'm not saying in general, but within the bounds of Intergrated Protection and your interpretation of the phrases "incorporates into"
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.
A living creature being carried follows the rules of a carried object. It can still be picked up and carried around no differently than a severed limb. But it is still a living creature. Therefore, we can take your logic and claim the armor, an object, is still an object, and therefore, whether incorporated into the warforged or not, the armor is still targetable exactly like the spell's description says. Whether the creature can be targeted or not will be clearly listed within the rules, like we see w/ Heat Metal. Integrated Protection and your dictionary definitions of Incorporates Into doesn't override this. You say so yourself, you just refuse to apply your logic to your own arguments. It's that simple.
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.
One, that still doesn't say, "completed engulfed by/hidden within/invisible or anything like it"
Plus the rest of the definitions which don't clarify like you state, even if you carefully select the appropriate terms - there are plenty of equal matches and equal misfits:
Incorporate
Dictionary.com:
verb (used with object)
to form into a legal corporation.
to put or introduce into a body or mass as an integral part or parts:
to incorporate revisions into a text.
verb (used without object)
to form a legal corporation.
to unite or combine so as to form one body.
adjective
legally incorporated, as a company.
combined into one body, mass, or substance.
Archaic: embodied.
Merriam-Webster.com:
transitive verb
1a: to unite or work into something already existent so as to form an indistinguishable whole
b: to blend or combine thoroughly
2a: to form into a legal corporation
b: to admit to membership in a corporate body
3: to give material form to: EMBODY
intransitive verb
1: to unite in or as one body
2: to form or become a corporation
From its roots, incorporate means basically "add into a body" or "form into a body". So, for example, a chef might decide to incorporate a couple of new ingredients into an old recipe, and then might incorporate that new item into the restaurant's dinner menu. The restaurant itself was probably incorporated at the beginning, and so is now a corporation—that is, a "body" that's legally allowed to act like a single person in certain ways, even if it may have many individual employees. As you can see, the two meanings turn out to be fairly different.
Corporation
Dictionary.com:
noun
an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.
Corporation, the group of principal officials of a borough or other municipal division in England.
any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.
Merriam-Webster.com:
noun
1a: a group of merchants or traders united in a trade guild (see GUILD sense 1)
b: the municipal authorities of a town or city
2: a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession
3: an association of employers and employees in a basic industry or of members of a profession organized as an organ of political representation in a corporative state
Body
Dictionary.com:
Merriam-Webster.com:
noun
1
a: the main part of a plant or animal body especially as distinguished from limbs and head : TRUNK
held her arms close to her body
a bird with a yellow body and head and black markings on its wings
b: the main, central, or principal part: such as
(1)architecture : the nave of a church
(2): the bed or box of a vehicle on or in which the load is placed
(3): the enclosed or partly enclosed part of an automobile, the truck's body, hood, and fenders
2
a: the organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead
She has a muscular body.
body parts
normal body temperature
: such as
(1): the material part or nature of a human being - when the soul leaves the body
(2): a dead organism : CORPSE - The body was shipped home for burial.
b: a human being : PERSON
What's a body to do?
3
a: a mass of matter distinct from other masses
a body of water
the movements of celestial bodies
b: something that embodies or gives concrete reality to a thing
his intuitions of the future may still give body to a better world
also : a sensible object in physical space
c: AGGREGATE, QUANTITY
a: body of evidence
4
a clothing: the part of a garment covering the trunk or torso
the body of a wet suit
b: the main part of a literary or journalistic work : TEXT
The body of the article is devoted to an analysis of the problem.
c: the sound box or pipe of a musical instrument
5
a: group of persons or things: such as
a: a fighting unit : FORCE
a body of cavalry
b: a group of individuals organized for some purpose
a legislative body
the university's student body
6
a: fullness and richness of flavor (as of wine)
a wine with full body
b: VISCOSITY, CONSISTENCY —used especially of oils and grease:
c: denseness, fullness, or firmness of texture
Her hair lacks body and shine.
d: music : fullness or resonance (see RESONANCE sense 2) of a musical tone
Dictionary.com
noun
the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead.
a corpse; carcass.
the trunk or main mass of a thing:
the body of a tree.
Anatomy, Zoology. the physical structure of a human being or animal, not including the head, limbs, and tail; trunk; torso.
Architecture. the principal mass of a building.
the section of a vehicle, usually in the shape of a box, cylindrical container, or platform, in or on which passengers or the load is carried.
Nautical. the hull of a ship.
Aeronautics. the fuselage of a plane.
Printing. the shank of a type, supporting the face.
Geometry. a figure having the three dimensions of length, breadth, and thickness; a solid.
Physics. a mass, especially one considered as a whole.
the major portion of an army, population, etc.: The body of the American people favors the president's policy.
the principal part of a speech or document, minus introduction, conclusion, indexes, etc.
a person: She's a quiet sort of body.
Law. the physical person of an individual.
a collective group: student body; corporate body.
Astronomy. an object in space, as a planet or star.
a separate physical mass or quantity, especially as distinguished from other masses or quantities.
consistency or density; richness; substance: This wine has good body. Wool has more body than rayon.
the part of a dress that covers the trunk or the part of the trunk above the waist.
Ceramics. the basic material of which a ceramic article is made.
We see why you may believe the intention of the "incorporates into their body" could mean one with their body. However, there's plenty of definitions which allow for the incorporated object to maintain its identity as part of the greater whole. It doesn't even suggest that the armor is definitely inside them and invisible including definitions of the body. Just the armor may not go into their limbs if we want to split hairs w/ "incorporates into" as you have.
Into: expressingmovement or action with the result that someone or something becomes enclosed or surrounded by something else.
"Into" is a preposition, meaning it hinges on other word usage such as incorporate/intergrate and will always follow those types of words in the English langue, also includes:
Merriam-Webster.com:
into
preposition
1—used as a function word to indicate entry, introduction, insertion, superposition, or inclusion
came into the house
enter into an alliance
2: in the direction of
looking into the sun
3: to a position of contact with : AGAINST
ran into a wall
4
a: to the state, condition, or form of
got into trouble
b: to the occupation, action, or possession of
go into farming
c: involved with or interested in
into sports
not into her music
5—used as a function word to indicate a period of time or an extent of space part of which is passed or occupied
far into the night
6—used as a function word to indicate the dividend in division
dividing 3 into 6 gives 2
Dictionary.com
into preposition
to the inside of; in toward: He walked into the room. The train chugged into the station.
toward or in the direction of: going into town.
to a point of contact with; against: backed into a parked car.
(used to indicate insertion or immersion in): plugged into the socket.
(used to indicate entry, inclusion, or introduction in a place or condition): received into the church.
to the state, condition, or form assumed or brought about: went into shock; lapsed into disrepair; translated into another language.
to the occupation, action, possession, circumstance, or acceptance of: went into banking; coerced into complying.
(used to indicate a continuing extent in time or space): lasted into the night; far into the distance.
(used to indicate the number to be divided by another number): 2 into 20 equals 10.
Informal. interested or absorbed in, especially obsessively: She's into yoga and gardening.
Slang. in debt to: I'm into him for ten dollars.
Which is also a far wider definition than you suggest, even when looking for pertinent definitions - none of which suggest the armor would behave as you have (hidden/no longer object)
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.
It is bizarre to keep focusing on very narrow interpretations of some words in order to justify a very wide interpretation elsewhere. None of that actually says thearmorishiddenor no longeranobject. The fact you had to change the words in order to explain your intention proves it's not RAW. Flip it all you want; it doesn't state the rules you do. It just doesn't. You are proving why we don't make unwritten assumptions.
Literally nowhere does it say the armor can't be distinguished and is entirely hidden inside the warforged and in no way present on the surface even though the FULL definitions of the words you rest on says it easily could. It's not RAW no matter how many times you echo it. The fact you need to echo the same point establishes you need additional rules. You have one interpretation, I have another. All within reason based on your unwritten assumptions. I can use your logic to undo your point just as easily as you try to use it to make it (which is why again, I must suggest you review your own statements under the same criteria you review others and you should see that you could easily argue yourself, flipping the points on yourself just the same as you attempt with others.
Color coded from definitions to aid in following.
Yea, it's not complicated.
The words. Incorporate it into your body. Very literally mean: That the armor is inside the warforged and is part of him.
one among many.It could just as easily be a part on the outside after incorporating the armor into itself - having to explain prepositions and how words have more than one definition, most of which fall well outside of the specificity required to override other actually published rules which are very specific. And frankly, you meaning is so literal, it's no longer applicable. You can't wear a body part as armor. So, if you're saying the armor is now a body part, it can't be armor too. You can't wear body parts as armor. So you literally DQ your own logic if you simply apply it evenly to your points.
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.
Debunked. You chose very selectively to justify your own interpretation. There is no language regarding the rules you state are affected. Therefore, the affected rules are more specific and beat your generalization.
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.
I don't even think you know what literally means at this point. Those words also mean other things, have other literal, as in written, definitions, which justify my interpretation as equally as yours. Hence why it's nowhere near the golden bullet you seem to think it is. And you're right - it does only need to say it once and since it doesn't, you're just flat out wrong here. It doesn't say what you say. It says one thing and you say another. Literally meaning you could just copy and paste the statement from the rules, and it would say what you concocted yourself. And it doesn't.
My interpretation on the other hand conflicts with no rules. You've yet to produce a single one or respond to points about how there are far more conflicts beyond just Heat Metal that you have yet to address, thus ceding the points so far.
"Incorporate it into your body"
Incorporate: Make one with by bringing in.
It: The Armor.
Into: To go inside of.
Your Body: The warforged.
See above (given we've addressed this a few times and how that's just one way to interpret the phrase you ride or die on.
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.
RAW never once say, "the armor is part of the warforged, thus a creature" - in fact, that's the argument you have yet to address is where this actually exists in the rules. You keep explaining the exact same point over and over as if it changes anything and it just doesn't, no differently than no matter how much you say IP grants extra unwritten benefits, like nullifying a spell which is very specific about targeting your worn armor (which you said yourself warforged still wear their armor banking heavy on the unwritten notion "incorporates into" means "hidden" when they just as easily could have said that without wasting any ink/space).
The dozens of unaddressed points addressed to you as well as your own logic debunking most your own arguments before even considering others debunking most your claims on their own without addressing most of those points; dozens of rules suggesting your interpretation is not the intention of the rule in face of your singular page of information which is very general regardless of how narrow your view of the word choice is without a single rule indicating a similar situation from you (maybe some real life examples at most, which is RAI); and basically just making up/editting rules - I think it's safe to say at this point I am thoroughly positive you are wrong here...
...You are free of course to disagree and continue our RAI discussion regarding how we believe warforged should be (again, since you've been unable to produce anything which confirms your interpretation is RAW besides 3 bullet points introduced on the first page of the thread and singular unsourced definitions for words known and shown to have multiple definitions - thus we can't see what you ignored to make your point; invalidating it entirely)
I think it is worth posting his full quote on the published version of their Integrated Protection feature.
Let's read what the author says:
This all led to the current approach. In Rising From The Last War, a warforged has “defensive layers that can be enhanced with armor.” A warforged has an innate +1 bonus to Armor Class, and can don or remove armor. It’s noted that to don armor, you must “incorporate it into your body,” a process that takes an hour. Once you do this, it cannot be removed against your will.
Some people feel that this undermines the idea of warforged. But this is a matter of perception. Don’t think of it as warforged WEARING armor as other characters do. You don’t just wear armor; you incorporate it into your body. 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. A critical point for me is that this isn’t easy or comfortable, and it’s not something many warforged ever do. MOST warforged live their entire lives using the armor they were first forged with, because it’s not EQUIPMENT for them, it’s their body. However, if there is a need, they are CAPABLE of going through this extreme process of body modification, removing their plating and incorporating new armor.
Ultimately, this approach to armor is cleaner from the perspective of both interaction with other rules elements and long-term character balance. It doesn’t change the IDEA that warforged have a different relationship to their armor than other creatures do. Don’t think of it as “wearing armor”; think of it as modifying your body. It’s also up to you to decide what this looks like. You are incorporating the armor into your body, not wearing it. You don’t look like a person in armor; you look like a warforged.
He stresses that the armor is not worn like normal people wear armor, instead that it goes into them, becomes part of them, and it very literally is your body now. And you don't look like someone wearing armor. You still look like a warforged.
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.
First of all, nothing about that says the armor is inside. The warforged replaces its skin with a suit of armor. Which means the armor is on the outside, because that's where skin is.
Also, continue reading down into the comment section, where he directly answers how integrated armor interacts with heat metal (and any other spell that might target objects).
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.
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.
This has no bearing on the rules. This is just some description you wrote. Again, it's literally proper English to say "into" if you use a preposition. Incorporates already features the language of "into" in all its definitions. It's a moot point and again, has no bearing. And that doesn't change the fact that an arrow sticking out of your body is still in your body and therefore, simply using the word "into" doesn't prove any actual location. You've completely missed the point.
And, as has been said, the second bit there is your interpretation based on flavour text and a very precise interpretation of 'incorporated.'
Yes. It is the RAW backed up by the RAI.
No its not RAW. RAW is "incorporates into" - everything else you add to that is RAI. Homebrew. House-Rules. You are the author of that rule, not WotC
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).
I didnt assign the meaning to the words incorporate or into. They're like, just English words. Their meaning is defined.
Like prepositional use of "into" right? That has to be included since it's English words. And you are assigning rules to their definitions since the definitions don't actually address the points you're making. It's a long line of thought, each step dependent on the previous and each adding countless considerations you refuse to acknowledge.
I'm reading them. And taking them litterally. They're literal. What it is describing should be takem literally.
You are literally not since you keep adding to it. That literally changes the literal meaning. If they meant it as you say, it would say. We're not even close to a literal interpretation of published rules from you. You make it as though you are some arbiter of D&D rules and the English Language dictating what applies and doesn't, usually while undermining your own points (and you're clearly 100% unaware of it)
Incorporate into. Taken literally, means something to the effect of: make part of through encasing.
You can't say "literally" and "to the effect of" - that's "literally" an oxymoron.
verbatim. exact. free from embellishment. pertaining to literacy/written word.
beyond that, it's only one of the meanings associated with Incorporates (into)
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.
This is exactly what I've described here. Thanks for showing that the author agrees with me. Or, rather, that my understanding is in agreement with his.
The armor goes between his inner layers and the outer shell. Very literally.
Very literally doesn't say that. They never say anything about inner layers and outer shell. That's you. Not Keith Baker and that's gaslighting.
I like how he used the term very litterally too.
Right, by saying they remove the old shell and install a new one. It would be as if a creature removed their skin and put a new skin on? Notice he doesn't say -anything- about the outer shell being some container or even going back on. Very literal indeed.
Because it does, very literally go inside them.
No see, he said the outside. Likened it to skin (which would have to be under the armor to be protected). He literally said outside.
Takes off outer shell. Puts armor on. Puts back on outer shell.
No, just says takes off outer shell, "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." and none of the following commentary truly acknowledges whether we should assume its "hidden" just because it's joined with the warforged and to eliminate any confusion regarding non-warforged being confused about how warforged look. He's actually only "literally" addressing the act of donning/doffing and how a warforged may view the process and their armor. That's it. No errata or mechanical clarifications. He's addressing people like you as much as people by saying, "this is a special process which has cultural significance to the warforged and shouldn't be shrugged at" and previous to that point, speaks to Warforged once being armor and now evolving to this new approach:
Integrated Protection
When the warforged were released in the original Eberron Campaign Setting, one of their defining features was that they didn’t wear armor; they WERE armor. In that early edition a warforged character used a feat to set their armor class, and once set, they had it for the rest of their life. This added a unique flavor to the race, though it did require a character to burn a feat. In the earliest draft of the WGtE, we mimicked this original model by tying armor type to subrace. The juggernaut subrace had the equivalent of heavy armor, the skirmisher was medium, and the envoy was light. This mirrored that original design; you made a choice at first level and that defined your armor moving forward. But it clashed with the inherent flexibility that’s a pillar of Fifth Edition. So it was shifted shortly before release to a model that allowed a warforged to transform their integrated protection—a bit of an odd idea, but the original warforged juggernaut prestige class had introduced the idea that warforged could evolve their bodies, so it wasn’t without precedent.
While this approach added flexibility, it raised a lot of questions and corner cases. Did Integrated Protection count as wearing armor for purposes of feat prerequisites? How did it interact with class features, such as Fighting Styles? Could it be targeted by heat metal (which was a threat to warforged in 3.5!). Likewise, because warforged couldn’t acquire new armor, we tried out a mechanic that let them add their proficiency bonus to their armor class, essentially self-enchanting as they gained levels. This was INTERESTING, but there were many concerns about its impact on game balance.
This all led to the current approach. In Rising From The Last War, a warforged has “defensive layers that can be enhanced with armor.” A warforged has an innate +1 bonus to Armor Class, and can don or remove armor. It’s noted that to don armor, you must “incorporate it into your body,” a process that takes an hour. Once you do this, it cannot be removed against your will.
As I said - no more, no less than "A warforged has an innate +1 bonus to Armor Class, and can don or remove armor. It’s noted that to don armor, you must “incorporate it into your body,” a process that takes an hour. Once you do this, it cannot be removed against your will."
Armor is now between outer shell and the rest of the warforged. Very literally.
You're literally making all this up since none of what you say is actually in the published rules. You even try to claim the outer protective shell comes off and goes back on even though no one has said that. HOMEBREW!
As for RAI, again, facts not in evidence. You need a Dev quote to show RAI, not merely your own assumptions.
We actually have a dev quote (Keith Baker qualifies), but it disagrees with him about everything so he's misreading it.
Instead of talking about me. Talk about the topic. It'll go a long way to fostering a welcoming, respectful, and constructive community here on the forums.
First of all, nothing about that says the armor is inside. The warforged replaces its skin with a suit of armor. Which means the armor is on the outside, because that's where skin is.
Really do read the quote right above your comment. It answers all your questions.
Skin is, btw, part of a creature.
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.
I think it is worth posting his full quote on the published version of their Integrated Protection feature.
Let's read what the author says:
This all led to the current approach. In Rising From The Last War, a warforged has “defensive layers that can be enhanced with armor.” A warforged has an innate +1 bonus to Armor Class, and can don or remove armor. It’s noted that to don armor, you must “incorporate it into your body,” a process that takes an hour. Once you do this, it cannot be removed against your will.
Some people feel that this undermines the idea of warforged. But this is a matter of perception. Don’t think of it as warforged WEARING armor as other characters do. You don’t just wear armor; you incorporate it into your body. 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. A critical point for me is that this isn’t easy or comfortable, and it’s not something many warforged ever do. MOST warforged live their entire lives using the armor they were first forged with, because it’s not EQUIPMENT for them, it’s their body. However, if there is a need, they are CAPABLE of going through this extreme process of body modification, removing their plating and incorporating new armor.
Ultimately, this approach to armor is cleaner from the perspective of both interaction with other rules elements and long-term character balance. It doesn’t change the IDEA that warforged have a different relationship to their armor than other creatures do. Don’t think of it as “wearing armor”; think of it as modifying your body. It’s also up to you to decide what this looks like. You are incorporating the armor into your body, not wearing it. You don’t look like a person in armor; you look like a warforged.
He stresses that the armor is not worn like normal people wear armor, instead that it goes into them, becomes part of them, and it very literally is your body now. And you don't look like someone wearing armor. You still look like a warforged.
Idk what else to say. Straight from the author.
Why would you reference a blog where the author outright states that warforged are still subject to Heat Metal and that mechanically, armor is no different on a warforged than on any other creature save for the time taken to put on or take off?
Why would you reference a blog where the author outright states that warforged are still subject to Heat Metal and that mechanically, armor is no different on a warforged than on any other creature save for the time taken to put on or take off?
It's also not like Rav to post blog entries in favour of his argument in the RAW section of the forums.
It is entirely a DM call as to whether "armor incorporated into your body" means that the armor is still visible or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I didn't assign the meaning to the words incorporate or into. They're like, just English words. Their meaning is defined.
I'm reading them. And taking them literally. They're literal. What it is describing should be taken literally.
Incorporate into. Taken literally, means something to the effect of: make part of through encasing.
This is exactly what I've described here. Thanks for showing that the author agrees with me. Or, rather, that my understanding is in agreement with his.
The armor goes between his inner layers and the outer shell. Very literally.
I like how he used the term very literally too.
Because it does, very literally go inside them.
The warforged takes off outer shell. Puts armor on. Puts back on outer shell.
Armor is now between outer shell and the rest of the warforged. Very literally inside them.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There is no rule on this. And you've admitted elsewhere, part of a creature can still be an object. Thing is, when you admit this stuff, you usually follow it up with some interpretation as to why you still don't think it applies.
Pointing at an object someone has incorporated into their body "an object" may very well offend them. However, that's their story. An earring would be targetable by Heat Metal. You've just compared the warforged's incorporated armor to an earring. RAW would dictate its clearly targetable provided you have view of their ear and therefore the armor would.
But armor, RAW, is an object. RAW, you can't wear a body or part of a creature to collect AC. Basically anywhere you say, "Armor is part of a creature" (which is frequent) is RAI, not RAW. "Incorporates into" doesn't have a dictionary definition or additional rule that states the rule you've invented here which conflicts with your own statements (probably why you keep thinking I'm mistaken - you often defeat your own point likely because it seems you're mostly just arguing the value of your opinion over others and therefore aren't examining your own points like you do others.
There are several others, you usually just tack "but the armor is now part of their body, and therefore a creature" which is literally nowhere in the rules or a dictionary. RAI. For example, re-examine your #225 - not only to you admit you would need a special feature to see inside of them without realizing there is no clear verbiage stating the armor inside them in a manner which requires additional special rules. Incorporates into confers no ability to hide the armor or change what it is beyond adding it to their body. More on this below - I'm merely responding to your points and most my responses need to be taken in their entirety (again, like I've said before, mostly because I have to go all over the place to respond to your interpretations with no published rule beyond a few descriptors and couple bullet points which outright lack your language.
You've made this point before. If objects are objects and creatures are creatures, then warforged are warforged and armor is armor... See my previous point how you don't seem to be examining your own points as severely as others. Once again, "incorporates into" conveys no loss of identity (you actually linked a wiki page about a thought experiment regarding a ship #214), can be integrated as part of something while maintaining your identity, and "into" is merely proper English if you use a preposition w/ incorporates - it has to be into. It's just proper English. Not RAW: Armor is no longer an object or visible. That is a singular interpretation, with no additional published rules, among many which have been illustrated with published rules. It doesn't stand. The word you're looking for is "merge" - when you see "merge" in D&D rules (search it yourself), you'll see language common to "incorporating" things in the manner which you speak whereas, as demonstrated in my previous post which you completely disregard in your reply, "incorporates" actually seems to mean the way I'm interpreting (aesthetics/storyline/setting/perception & knowledge checks)
And guess what? There are rules for "part of a creature"! Be it Mongrelfolk or prosthetics; augmented limbs or cosmetic features; modifications, shapeshifting, etc - ALL of it has rules well beyond anything you suggest regarding Integrated Protection - we've already discussed it, forgive me if I don't tag a comment for example but rather repost just a few of many many examples of what it looks like when what you're suggesting is the case:
*still an object too. We don't see any of this in Incorporated Protection
*still an object too. We don't see any of this in Incorporated Protection
This illustrates the equipment stays equipment even though it straight up magically merged with the form, nullifies any effects of the equipment (warforged still get AC), and doesn't even acknowledge whether merged equipment can be removed against your will or not because it's one with the new form and can't be any more readily than removing a limb, as you've said of incorporate, previously regarding Sword of Sharpness. Intergrated Protection has none of this and if you argue that "incorporates into" maintains the AC bonus from armor than you are admitting it is still an incorporated object. And you can absolutely incorporate something into the surface/exterior of something else, like lighting on the front of the building. According to your description, armor capable of shedding light wouldn't function on a warforged even though there is nothing written in the published rules dictating as much. Since I'm unaware of any worn armor that does this, we could apply the example to the "who cares, at least its magic" Armor of Gleaming or Smoldering Armor. Basically, those wouldn't function, correct? Well, if those don't function, how can magic armor convey the effects to the outer protective shell as part of its integrated defensive layers?
Basically, it just doesn't work the way you claim and merely acknowledges the armor is still viable as an object/worn armor as well as perceivable succeeding on the appropriate check. Literally the opposite of what you're saying. My interpretation keeps other actually written rules intact, whereas yours creates unwritten stipulations which are by definition, RAI.
Exactly - that's all you have. Your interpretation of the phrase "incorporates into" - which you reiterate again later. Hence why its RAI.
as early as #225 (this page) you say:
which alone sounds like Protective Outer Plating is a Defensive Layer which is Enhanced by Armor. I know you have a bunch of bullet points and thus try to make it sound like Outer Protective Plating/Shell is a separate layer from their Defensive Layers (and reinforced joints - which all you have to do is look at plate to see layers of plates are the most effective way to reinforce a joint) so you can claim the unwritten speculation the armor is sandwiched between those two things (all of which are "layers" so one thing - you see, the Protective Outer Shell is incorporated into their Defensive Layers, otherwise, what does armor do again?) and entirely inside the warforged but still claiming external bonuses without applying external penalties.
And then examining the comments you must have been referencing, we see you outright confirm these two bullets as one thing:
So I guess you are mistaken about the points you've posted. You just said they were one in the same. Go check yourself
In #194, you confirm "Outer Protective Shell" and both. Once we add other comments you've made (which I've referenced here, like regarding ear piercings), you've also claimed all of the above. Again. You are mistaken. I've quoted you several times and yet here you are, gaslighting me in the face of your own record.
That part is. The rest is not.
No since outer protective shell can/is be a defensive layer. There is no RAW stating your flow chart, therefore it could also be Frame>Root-Like Cords>Defensive Layers, including Outer Protective Shell, enhanced by armor. You posted yourself the Outer Protective Shell and Defensive Layers are two separate bullet points from two separate blocks of descriptions/rules, thus there is actually nothing confirming your dictation. You even call the Outer Shell "armor plated" here - where's the armor plating coming from? Is it not enhanced by armor too? Could be the +1AC but there's nothing to say it isn't receiving the additional incorporated armor into itself as well, right there on the outside, like a brush guard incorporated into the front end of an ORV in reality. There's nothing written one way or the other, so more specific rules would still apply, RAW.
Yes, what I don't understand is how you fail to notice it still hasn't said, "armor is not visible/targetable" or "the armor is completely within the warforged" or "the armor is no longer an object" like you see in Daylight, Light, Forcecage, Beads of Force, Total Cover, and so on when searching the term "completely" or Silence, Dark Star, or Heavily Obscured when we search "entirely" in DnD Beyond (as for the "armor no longer an object" examples, I've given those in this response already).
If incorporated into conveyed Total Cover or could Heavily Obscure an object, it would be simple to include, but it doesn't. So RAW = it doesn't have those qualities because it didn't list them.
Like, you keep re-using what you have, making the same points. What you're saying is in the game just isn't actually in the game. It's simply your interpretation, or RAI by def.
Actually, that's how debate works and if you ignore a point, especially intentionally, you cede the point.
You are not actually talking about the rules in an objective way here. You are claiming your interpretation is present in the rules and regularly fail to do so regardless of how many times you echo
None of those things actually say "armor is no longer an object" or "no longer visible" - it just doesn't regardless of how much you insist it does. If it's not a written rule but rather your personal explanation, then it's by definition, RAI. That's all you have. The same points and your explanation. If you posted something like "PHB: Adventuring - Incorporate Into means an item is no longer what it was and becomes a new thing" or whatever, then ok. That would be RAW. It's written. I can search it on this website instead of having to try to imagine what you're imagining. However, it doesn't. Actually, all we have are other rules where an item keeps its identity while joining a larger whole. Like throughout the rules, anytime incorporates comes up, it can mean that without breaking any rules without any indication it drops its former agency save you (and some others - I looked hard for language which would support this gameplay, RAW, well over a year ago and couldn't come up with anything more than you did and had to reluctantly conclude IP is not as strong as one could imagine it being) and its usage within Integrated Protection.
A severed hand is a severed hand. Depending on the context, and more importantly, whether there are specific rules in play, therefore, it could also be something else. It could be animated into a creature via a number of rules. It could simply be a trinket. It could be a piece of a more elaborate presentation (like a severed hand on an amulet/maybe as an amulet itself). It could certainly be an object/item a character picks up. It could be a limb. There's no definition. A severed hand is a hand which is assumed to have been separated from a body. You could consider the hand itself a body if that's all that remains. And for purposes of picking up, the hand could be living/animate/creature and still be picked up and placed in a bag.
The hand is still a hand. It depends on the context and rules in play. Using the extremely limited language to try to imagine the conclusion you want me to draw, I'm assuming the hand is always a hand. Are there some rules in play? I'm only aware of a limb needing to be re-attached due to Sword of Sharpness or if using the DMG Injuries: Lingering injuries table. In either case, a hand/limb is never defined, and therefore would be up to the DM for the purposes of what that hand it. What it does do is explain what it means to lose the limb.
If an object, when severed, does it rot? What does it weigh? What's it's nature? DM discretion (object or part of a dead creature) and therefore, we are well in the realm of RAI and far from RAW already.
My answer then is this, when in doubt - Specific Beats General and the written rule applies. Armor is only ever defined as an object and is never specified as anything else when donning/incorporating. Period. Therefore, the armor, regardless of whether part of a warforged or not, is an object. A severed hand is a severed hand. Dead Creatures/Parts of Creatures can be used as an Object as described by "Improvised Weapons". If anything, the limb is part of a dead creature. Living and dead creatures can be picked up, carried, and even stored, no differently than any other object. I've discussed this before.
Potentially, but they typically define what they can target to avoid this kind of confusion.
Intergrated Protection says absolutely nothing about the actual visibility of the item. Everything you claim is inferred from limited application from the dictionary and giving weight to an automatic preposition as if it defines gameplay in a discrete manner.
And then Heat Metal which very clearly defines its parameters:
It is quite simply, more specific than what is printed for Integrated Protection. Period. Therefore, Heat Metal "beats" Intergrated Protection, by definition/RAW.
But it doesn't end there, we also have things like Animate Object vs Animate Dead - there's nothing stopping you from applying Animate Objects to a dead creature/body or even parts and pieces of a dead creature (maybe the creature itself isn't, but the severed limbs likely would be, RAI) to simulate Animate Dead, but you wouldn't get the Zombie/Skeleton stat blocks of course - you would have the Animate Objects stat block. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to imply Animate Dead functions on severed limbs/heads even if it could animate a corpse missing some limbs/potentially even a head (which there isn't an applicable rule for, but you could infer some 'Lingering Injuries' pretty easily, RAI):
essentially, there is no verbiage that states whether a corpse is an object, but given a corpse turns to a complete zombie, who may be missing limbs, under Animate Dead, it must mean the torso in particular, RAI.
Even Immovable object specifies parameters which make it so even if you chose to interpret creatures as a type of object, you wouldn't really be able to use it on them:
can't weigh more than 10lbs, has verbal components including setting a password which a conscious creature could speak (even if applied to an actual object, like manacles),
To end this portion of the discussion, I'm not suggesting creatures=objects. Rather, the rules carry great specificity, nearly top-to-bottom, as to what you could functionally interpret vs what has been written and published as the actual function. In short, everything could be an object, but a creature (living, dead, undead) has a stat block, RAW. If it only says "object" than the target cannot have a stat block. If it says target creature, then the target not only has to carry the creature label (or a sub-label which infers creature status, such as humanoid, beast, construct, etc) in its rules, but will have a stat block. This is upheld throughout the rules, without exception. Therefore, labeling is everything.
This includes vehicles, which may certainly be either a creature or a specific type of object addressed by a variety of rules as and how pertinent to the rules/conditions present - a vehicle is clearly an object but the fact it's a vehicle means you apple a more specific set of criteria to it, as confirmed by the few RAW rules regarding Objects in general from DMG: Chapter 8 - Running the Game: Equipment:
which doesn't just confirm buildings and vehicles are comprised of many other objects but specifies when you don't treat them as ordinary objects (in this case, when you're trying to damage an object. Others might be when you actually go to ride a vehicle vs target a vehicle with a spell, such as Heat Metal - in which case, you can't target an entire metal building/vehicle with one cast of Heat Metal which is also clear within the confines of the Heat Metal spell itself.
Moral of the story: It's all written down and published for us - some examples may not apply directly to the discussion regarding "Integrated Protection's incorporates into" language except apparently the need to explain RAW vs RAI. Rules as Written means what's actually written. The actual words and how they fit with other written rules and their phrasing. Rules as Intended is just what you believe the intention is and therefore, interpretation. If you believe the rules here intended to overturn dozens of written rules without specifying, then ok, but that's, just like, your interpretation, man.
RAW=Published rules, as written.
RAI=Personal interpretation of the intention behind the rule (you think IP was intended to mean the armor is inside/invisible/not an object - folks who disagree with you simply don't believe this is the intention)
Yes.
You're right. They do have the choice to Publish within the parameters of the English Language or not. They chose to.
And you're right, they intentionally chose the words integrated/incorporated (notice they don't say integrate twice) as well as into, mostly due to their choice to publish Proper English.
I doubt you've tried this suggestion I've made a few times already, but try searching those words right here on DnD Beyond to see what comes up within your licensed products. You'll see both integrate and incorporate are used similarly elsewhere.
Integrate (into) is used to phrase adding something to another thing but never infers a loss of identity or characteristics
(see the following and forgive the Copy/Pasted formatting, Appendix: Class Options in Other Worlds, SWORD COAST ADVENTURER’S GUIDE; Puzzle Elements, TASHA’S CAULDRON OF EVERYTHING; Gnomes of the Five Nations, EBERRON: RISING FROM THE LAST WAR --- or simply search "integrate" here on DnD Beyond)
Incorporate (into)
(see previous examples made --- or simply search "incorporate" here on DnD Beyond)
Searching for "Merge" would give you examples of what you speak of, yet we don't see that w/ Integrated Protection.
Yes, they do, see above for examples beyond your own as to what they could mean.
Welp, given it only says incorporates into is not enough to confer all those other bonuses and nullify various penalties, I suppose the authors didn't intend for it to function that way given they do everywhere else.
Ok, thank you for confirming your explanations are just to communicate your concept, not RAW. Nothing more. That's what I had gathered in the first place so I appreciate you saying so. This is also true for virtually all of your points.
Notice, there are no descriptions of gameplay mechanics, nor keywords we can look up to infer more. So it doesn't matter. This isn't the same as writing out the rules you are claiming. You keep referencing the same lines. They still only say what they say, not everything you add to it. It's as simple as that. You wish it said what you're saying. Nothing more.
Right, and that in no way confers that means its indistinguishable/invisible, can't be targeted as an object, isn't even an object anymore, is still being worn even though it's stored inside them, and so on. Therefore, the rule is the armor is incorporated into their body, thus allowing for story elements and perception checks as well as every other more specific rule which may apply simultaneously as Intergrated Protection features/effects. And guess what - that isn't actually a change from the rules! It simply allows existing rules to operate without conflict or unwritten assumption!
You have an inherent +1AC bonus, only you can incorporate the armor into yourself, using proper English, or remove it, each of which takes an hour unless you're dead (or otherwise convinced to willfully remove the armor, like by "Suggestion" or some form of Charm/Mind Control). That's it. Incorporate into can merely mean, well within the definition of the word, it's still otherwise visible and identifiable even though it is part of the warforged, exactly like we see in other uses of incorporates (into) within D&D and easily search on DnD Beyond.
Right, see you say that now, but "incorporating" your "interpretation" for the "intention" behind the "rules" - we are well on our way to that very logic since we're overriding very specific rules with extremely general clips and phrases. If we so widely apply your notion of "incorporates into" - why not other phrases and words (you've suggested this elsewhere, as I've sourced, such as what actually constitutes an object).
If armor is incorporated into a manufactured creature becoming part of its body and no longer an object without the rules actually saying that, why not state the creature is also an object then and still targetable by the same spell. I'm not saying in general, but within the bounds of Intergrated Protection and your interpretation of the phrases "incorporates into"
A living creature being carried follows the rules of a carried object. It can still be picked up and carried around no differently than a severed limb. But it is still a living creature. Therefore, we can take your logic and claim the armor, an object, is still an object, and therefore, whether incorporated into the warforged or not, the armor is still targetable exactly like the spell's description says. Whether the creature can be targeted or not will be clearly listed within the rules, like we see w/ Heat Metal. Integrated Protection and your dictionary definitions of Incorporates Into doesn't override this. You say so yourself, you just refuse to apply your logic to your own arguments. It's that simple.
One, that still doesn't say, "completed engulfed by/hidden within/invisible or anything like it"
Plus the rest of the definitions which don't clarify like you state, even if you carefully select the appropriate terms - there are plenty of equal matches and equal misfits:
We see why you may believe the intention of the "incorporates into their body" could mean one with their body. However, there's plenty of definitions which allow for the incorporated object to maintain its identity as part of the greater whole. It doesn't even suggest that the armor is definitely inside them and invisible including definitions of the body. Just the armor may not go into their limbs if we want to split hairs w/ "incorporates into" as you have.
"Into" is a preposition, meaning it hinges on other word usage such as incorporate/intergrate and will always follow those types of words in the English langue, also includes:
Which is also a far wider definition than you suggest, even when looking for pertinent definitions - none of which suggest the armor would behave as you have (hidden/no longer object)
It is bizarre to keep focusing on very narrow interpretations of some words in order to justify a very wide interpretation elsewhere. None of that actually says the armor is hidden or no longer an object. The fact you had to change the words in order to explain your intention proves it's not RAW. Flip it all you want; it doesn't state the rules you do. It just doesn't. You are proving why we don't make unwritten assumptions.
Literally nowhere does it say the armor can't be distinguished and is entirely hidden inside the warforged and in no way present on the surface even though the FULL definitions of the words you rest on says it easily could. It's not RAW no matter how many times you echo it. The fact you need to echo the same point establishes you need additional rules. You have one interpretation, I have another. All within reason based on your unwritten assumptions. I can use your logic to undo your point just as easily as you try to use it to make it (which is why again, I must suggest you review your own statements under the same criteria you review others and you should see that you could easily argue yourself, flipping the points on yourself just the same as you attempt with others.
Yea, it's not complicated.
one among many. It could just as easily be a part on the outside after incorporating the armor into itself - having to explain prepositions and how words have more than one definition, most of which fall well outside of the specificity required to override other actually published rules which are very specific. And frankly, you meaning is so literal, it's no longer applicable. You can't wear a body part as armor. So, if you're saying the armor is now a body part, it can't be armor too. You can't wear body parts as armor. So you literally DQ your own logic if you simply apply it evenly to your points.
Debunked. You chose very selectively to justify your own interpretation. There is no language regarding the rules you state are affected. Therefore, the affected rules are more specific and beat your generalization.
I don't even think you know what literally means at this point. Those words also mean other things, have other literal, as in written, definitions, which justify my interpretation as equally as yours. Hence why it's nowhere near the golden bullet you seem to think it is. And you're right - it does only need to say it once and since it doesn't, you're just flat out wrong here. It doesn't say what you say. It says one thing and you say another. Literally meaning you could just copy and paste the statement from the rules, and it would say what you concocted yourself. And it doesn't.
My interpretation on the other hand conflicts with no rules. You've yet to produce a single one or respond to points about how there are far more conflicts beyond just Heat Metal that you have yet to address, thus ceding the points so far.
See above (given we've addressed this a few times and how that's just one way to interpret the phrase you ride or die on.
RAW never once say, "the armor is part of the warforged, thus a creature" - in fact, that's the argument you have yet to address is where this actually exists in the rules. You keep explaining the exact same point over and over as if it changes anything and it just doesn't, no differently than no matter how much you say IP grants extra unwritten benefits, like nullifying a spell which is very specific about targeting your worn armor (which you said yourself warforged still wear their armor banking heavy on the unwritten notion "incorporates into" means "hidden" when they just as easily could have said that without wasting any ink/space).
The dozens of unaddressed points addressed to you as well as your own logic debunking most your own arguments before even considering others debunking most your claims on their own without addressing most of those points; dozens of rules suggesting your interpretation is not the intention of the rule in face of your singular page of information which is very general regardless of how narrow your view of the word choice is without a single rule indicating a similar situation from you (maybe some real life examples at most, which is RAI); and basically just making up/editting rules - I think it's safe to say at this point I am thoroughly positive you are wrong here...
...You are free of course to disagree and continue our RAI discussion regarding how we believe warforged should be (again, since you've been unable to produce anything which confirms your interpretation is RAW besides 3 bullet points introduced on the first page of the thread and singular unsourced definitions for words known and shown to have multiple definitions - thus we can't see what you ignored to make your point; invalidating it entirely)
I think it is worth posting his full quote on the published version of their Integrated Protection feature.
Let's read what the author says:
He stresses that the armor is not worn like normal people wear armor, instead that it goes into them, becomes part of them, and it very literally is your body now. And you don't look like someone wearing armor. You still look like a warforged.
Idk what else to say. Straight from the author.
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.
We actually have a dev quote (Keith Baker qualifies), but it disagrees with him about everything so he's misreading it.
First of all, nothing about that says the armor is inside. The warforged replaces its skin with a suit of armor. Which means the armor is on the outside, because that's where skin is.
Also, continue reading down into the comment section, where he directly answers how integrated armor interacts with heat metal (and any other spell that might target objects).
no it doesn't
This has no bearing on the rules. This is just some description you wrote. Again, it's literally proper English to say "into" if you use a preposition. Incorporates already features the language of "into" in all its definitions. It's a moot point and again, has no bearing. And that doesn't change the fact that an arrow sticking out of your body is still in your body and therefore, simply using the word "into" doesn't prove any actual location. You've completely missed the point.
No its not RAW. RAW is "incorporates into" - everything else you add to that is RAI. Homebrew. House-Rules. You are the author of that rule, not WotC
Like prepositional use of "into" right? That has to be included since it's English words. And you are assigning rules to their definitions since the definitions don't actually address the points you're making. It's a long line of thought, each step dependent on the previous and each adding countless considerations you refuse to acknowledge.
You are literally not since you keep adding to it. That literally changes the literal meaning. If they meant it as you say, it would say. We're not even close to a literal interpretation of published rules from you. You make it as though you are some arbiter of D&D rules and the English Language dictating what applies and doesn't, usually while undermining your own points (and you're clearly 100% unaware of it)
You can't say "literally" and "to the effect of" - that's "literally" an oxymoron.
verbatim. exact. free from embellishment. pertaining to literacy/written word.
beyond that, it's only one of the meanings associated with Incorporates (into)
Very literally doesn't say that. They never say anything about inner layers and outer shell. That's you. Not Keith Baker and that's gaslighting.
Right, by saying they remove the old shell and install a new one. It would be as if a creature removed their skin and put a new skin on? Notice he doesn't say -anything- about the outer shell being some container or even going back on. Very literal indeed.
No see, he said the outside. Likened it to skin (which would have to be under the armor to be protected). He literally said outside.
No, just says takes off outer shell, "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." and none of the following commentary truly acknowledges whether we should assume its "hidden" just because it's joined with the warforged and to eliminate any confusion regarding non-warforged being confused about how warforged look. He's actually only "literally" addressing the act of donning/doffing and how a warforged may view the process and their armor. That's it. No errata or mechanical clarifications. He's addressing people like you as much as people by saying, "this is a special process which has cultural significance to the warforged and shouldn't be shrugged at" and previous to that point, speaks to Warforged once being armor and now evolving to this new approach:
As I said - no more, no less than "A warforged has an innate +1 bonus to Armor Class, and can don or remove armor. It’s noted that to don armor, you must “incorporate it into your body,” a process that takes an hour. Once you do this, it cannot be removed against your will."
You're literally making all this up since none of what you say is actually in the published rules. You even try to claim the outer protective shell comes off and goes back on even though no one has said that. HOMEBREW!
Instead of talking about me. Talk about the topic. It'll go a long way to fostering a welcoming, respectful, and constructive community here on the forums.
Really do read the quote right above your comment. It answers all your questions.
Skin is, btw, part of a creature.
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.
Why would you reference a blog where the author outright states that warforged are still subject to Heat Metal and that mechanically, armor is no different on a warforged than on any other creature save for the time taken to put on or take off?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
It's also not like Rav to post blog entries in favour of his argument in the RAW section of the forums.
It is entirely a DM call as to whether "armor incorporated into your body" means that the armor is still visible or not.