“Incorporated” is also not a game term that is made distinct from “mixed” as in when eggs are incorporated into a cake batter, either. That is exactly why I said that it was a nuance that needs consideration. You may reasonably interpret it either way, and the rules provide no guidance. I’m not really sure what the correct answer is, but your argumentative tone makes me lean toward the opposite interpretation.
Is a metal replacement hip an incorporated part of a human creature or a distinct object? Both? Is a finger an object or part of a creature? If my finger counts as part of me as a creature, why shouldn’t integrated parts of a warforged count as parts of that creature?
I like the thought about the hip and the finger. One step further, Luke Skywalker's hand: targetable or no (let's assume that the material would be normally for the sake of the discussion). I do think the difference between Heat Metal and something like Burning Hands is notable and likely leads to warforged incorporated armor being targetable (same with Shocking Grasp), though I don't think I'd let it work against non-metal incorporated armor. I wouldn't argue the point heavily with a DM that ruled otherwise, particularly if they gave a good reason for it in their campaign setting.
There's no such thing as a Warforged +1. A warforged's AC calculation is 10+Dex+1. A warforged does not potentially provide disadvantage on stealth checks. The weight of a warforged's body does not count towards its own carrying capacity. A warforged does not have (or lack) proficiency in its own body.
If you incorporate +1 Plate Mail into a warforged, it's still +1 Plate Mail. It has an item entry, it isn't suddenly a new racial feature of the character providing them an AC of 18+1+1. It counts as heavy armor, and gives them disadvantage on stealth checks. It has an enhancement bonus. You count the armor's weight against their encumbrance. The warforged has proficiency in the armor. The armor doesn't have hit points, or proficiencies, or attributes, because it's armor, and armor is not a creature it's a type of object. It's written on your character sheet under "equipment."
In every possible respect which is measured by the 5e game system, the +1 Plate Mail is the same object that it was before being worn/incorporated. The things that it does to the Warforged (change their armor class, change their encumbrance, change their stealth checks, interact with their class and feat features) are the same things that it would do for any other character wearing it. The Plate Mail stops doing none of these object-y things, and starts doing no creature-y things. The roleplaying details of whether the armor is cosmetically on the outside of the warforged or the inside or any mixed up in between is irrelevant for the game-system question of "is x an object, or is x a creature?": armor is a type of object. It is still armor.
D&D doesn't task us with asking these metaphysical questions about the meaning of personhood or how many parts of Bob you can cut off before Bob stops being Bob. Creatures are creatures, and objects are objects, even when those creatures are made up of the sorts of materials that we normally make objects out of, and even when those objects happen to be inside of a creature. They're different, because they do different things in the rules, and the rules use them for different things. Absent rule text which invites you to "stop treating this as an object, start treating it as a part of the creature", there is zero reason to take the initiative to do so, because it solves no problems and creates a near limitless amount of new ones.
There's no such thing as a Warforged +1. A warforged's AC calculation is 10+Dex+1.
The only part that I disagree with is the quoted section. While a warforged without armor would indeed have an AC calculation of 10+dex+1, that is not because of the racial ability. Everyone has 10+dex as their default base calculation. The first bullet of integrated armor says:You gain a +1 bonus to Armor Class. Therefore, it is a +1, just like defensive fighting style. Interesting difference is that the +1 could interact with either version of unarmored defense, unlike defensive fighting style.
As to the OP, heat metal would be able to target the armor RAW, just as you and Stormknight mentioned, because nothing about Integrated Protection says otherwise.
The DM, as always, is free to rule otherwise. I would probably have a side discussion with the DM if they did to establish RAW and ask for the explanation otherwise, but I wouldn't fight it too hard.
I'm going to go ahead and say it. Heat Metal says that you can target any "manufactured metal object" and I think warforged just in general qualify as that. They are more or less manmade metal objects with a soul and personality. I don't think it matters if the armor is inside of them or not, because the spell should be able to target the warforged directly. I guess that gets into the question of what counts as an object. Would an Iron Golem be a suitable candidate for Heat Metal?
Player races are creatures. Creatures are not objects. There unfortunately is no official 5E Glossary to point to for this premise, but it is clear from both the plain meaning of these words, the context of the totality of spells and rules that refer to creatures and/or objects, and that there are no examples of any rule or ability referring to a creature as an object.
There's no such thing as a Warforged +1. A warforged's AC calculation is 10+Dex+1.
The only part that I disagree with is the quoted section. While a warforged without armor would indeed have an AC calculation of 10+dex+1, that is not because of the racial ability. Everyone has 10+dex as their default base calculation. The first bullet of integrated armor says:You gain a +1 bonus to Armor Class. Therefore, it is a +1, just like defensive fighting style. Interesting difference is that the +1 could interact with either version of unarmored defense, unlike defensive fighting style.
As to the OP, heat metal would be able to target the armor RAW, just as you and Stormknight mentioned, because nothing about Integrated Protection says otherwise.
The DM, as always, is free to rule otherwise. I would probably have a side discussion with the DM if they did to establish RAW and ask for the explanation otherwise, but I wouldn't fight it too hard.
So, does this mean Warforged fighters can still use the Defense fighting style?
Came shopping for rules on Warforged Incorporated Armor and Disadvantage to Stealth imposed by Heavy Armor and seeing that no one had a rule to quote apparently reminded me there's a rule to quote.
The RAW states per Xanathar's Guide to Everything, page 5, Exceptions Supersede General Rules: General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee weapon attacks use Strength and ranged weapon attacks use Dexterity. That's a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn't explicitly say otherwise. The game also includes elements - class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like - that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee weapon attacks using you Charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule.
Add to that the Beyond D&D statement of what the essence of rules are (basically, the rules exist more to tell you what you can do and how. If one were to write the rules of everything you can't do or doesn't apply, things would get silly).
So, in my case, there's no exception anywhere that state's "incorporating the armor" instead of "wearing/equipping/donning & doffing" every other race uses that it negates any other rule besides how long it takes to put on or take off, whether you can rest while you do it, and under what conditions it can be removed against your will.
Das it. So in a RAW campaign, you should really allow a Warforged's armor to be targeted by whatever except an effect that would remove the armor. Just like I don't get to have super sneaky, dreadnought warforged, RAW, simply by tossing it in Full Plate with a high Dex.
Kieth Baker, the creator of Eberron, from WOTC has answered this for us.
”Could it be targeted by heat metal (which was a threat to warforged in 3.5!).”
”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.”
”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.”
from this I would safely say that warforged armor cannot be attacked by heat metal as you have to “peel off skin” to wear it, meaning you would not be able to see it. No DM rules about bolting armor on or other rules need to be created as it’s already told to us through sage advice.
Wolf, I'm not saying that either take is more reasonable, just that nothing in the rules indicate that there was any new rule that warforged armor stop counting as an object. The only game effect described (to my knowledge, don't have the new book yet) is an increased amount of time to remove the armor. DMs can house rule additional effects, but it is not that Heat Metal has been left with an ambiguous application to Warforged armor, but rather that Heat Metal very clearly effects Warforged armor unless DMs care to create additional rules.
“Incorporated” is also not a game term that is made distinct from “mixed” as in when eggs are incorporated into a cake batter, either. That is exactly why I said that it was a nuance that needs consideration. You may reasonably interpret it either way, and the rules provide no guidance. I’m not really sure what the correct answer is, but your argumentative tone makes me lean toward the opposite interpretation.
Is a metal replacement hip an incorporated part of a human creature or a distinct object? Both? Is a finger an object or part of a creature? If my finger counts as part of me as a creature, why shouldn’t integrated parts of a warforged count as parts of that creature?
With the “internal” version of integration, are you saying the war forged is physically expanding itself to surround the armor? Armor is typically bigger than the creature wearing it, so you are saying that the physical body of the war forged is expanding past the dimension of the armor...I don’t buy that
“Incorporated” is also not a game term that is made distinct from “mixed” as in when eggs are incorporated into a cake batter, either. That is exactly why I said that it was a nuance that needs consideration. You may reasonably interpret it either way, and the rules provide no guidance. I’m not really sure what the correct answer is, but your argumentative tone makes me lean toward the opposite interpretation.
Is a metal replacement hip an incorporated part of a human creature or a distinct object? Both? Is a finger an object or part of a creature? If my finger counts as part of me as a creature, why shouldn’t integrated parts of a warforged count as parts of that creature?
the D&D rules are designed to be simple to read, which paradoxically can sometimes cause confusion as they don't cover edge cases and details.
The golden rule is, "If it is a rule, the rulebook will tell you so" - this means that the rules don't infer meaning, so if the designers wanted warforged armor to be immune to any spells or effects, they would have added a line to the rules that specifically says so.
This seems pretty simple though - the rules for the warforged say nothing about their armor becoming immune to any effects, therefore it isn't.
That may seem pretty harsh on a warforged character in chainmail that has been affected by the heat metal however it's pretty brutal for any character, as the rules for getting into and out of armor state that it takes 5 minutes of time to remove heavy armor and 1 minute for light/medium armor. With the duration of heat metal only being 1 minute anyway, taking off armor isn't a defense against the spell anyway!
Warforged: "You can don only armor with which you have proficiency. To don armor, you must incorporate it into your body over the course of 1 hour, during which you remain in contact with the armor. To doff armor, you must spend 1 hour removing it. You can rest while donning or doffing armor in this way."
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."
I think your position is arguable based on RAW.
Warforged "incorporate the armor into their body". Heat metal REQUIRES that the caster SEE the suit of metal armor. If the armor is "incorporated" then there it would be a DM call as to whether the armor is visible at all. It could easily be incorporated into the structure of the warforged and not be visible.
"Incorporate - take in or contain (something) as part of a whole; include."
The definition of incorporate is to include or contain as part of a whole. As such, it is pretty easy to interpret the warforged abiltiy as one which puts the armor INTO the structure of the warforged and it is not visible. One would think that if it was visible, then the warforged would just WEAR the armor. Mechanically you get the same effect except it takes a lot less time to put on or off and someone else can remove it.
Anyway, the bottom line would be to talk to your DM since RAW can easily be read in such a way that the warforged incorporating metal armor would not be vulnerable to heat metal.
not necessarily. Think of the armor as being bolted on to the warforged. It’s incorporated into his overall design now, but isn’t inside him. It is on the outside, but he isnt wearing it.
Sure. However, that is exactly why this is a DM decision and not something that is clearly spelled out in the rules. "Incorporated" could mean internally installed which is how I interpret it while you prefer to think of it as bolted on the outside. Personally, I don't see why a creature with two arms and legs who could presumably WEAR properly adjusted armor (if the rules didn't explicitly state otherwise) would instead choose to bolt it on the outside rather than incorporate it directly into its structure using the armor for reinforcement at critical locations for example.
the D&D rules are designed to be simple to read, which paradoxically can sometimes cause confusion as they don't cover edge cases and details.
The golden rule is, "If it is a rule, the rulebook will tell you so" - this means that the rules don't infer meaning, so if the designers wanted warforged armor to be immune to any spells or effects, they would have added a line to the rules that specifically says so.
This seems pretty simple though - the rules for the warforged say nothing about their armor becoming immune to any effects, therefore it isn't.
That may seem pretty harsh on a warforged character in chainmail that has been affected by the heat metal however it's pretty brutal for any character, as the rules for getting into and out of armor state that it takes 5 minutes of time to remove heavy armor and 1 minute for light/medium armor. With the duration of heat metal only being 1 minute anyway, taking off armor isn't a defense against the spell anyway!
Warforged: "You can don only armor with which you have proficiency. To don armor, you must incorporate it into your body over the course of 1 hour, during which you remain in contact with the armor. To doff armor, you must spend 1 hour removing it. You can rest while donning or doffing armor in this way."
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."
I think your position is arguable based on RAW.
Warforged "incorporate the armor into their body". Heat metal REQUIRES that the caster SEE the suit of metal armor. If the armor is "incorporated" then there it would be a DM call as to whether the armor is visible at all. It could easily be incorporated into the structure of the warforged and not be visible.
"Incorporate - take in or contain (something) as part of a whole; include."
The definition of incorporate is to include or contain as part of a whole. As such, it is pretty easy to interpret the warforged abiltiy as one which puts the armor INTO the structure of the warforged and it is not visible. One would think that if it was visible, then the warforged would just WEAR the armor. Mechanically you get the same effect except it takes a lot less time to put on or off and someone else can remove it.
Anyway, the bottom line would be to talk to your DM since RAW can easily be read in such a way that the warforged incorporating metal armor would not be vulnerable to heat metal.
not necessarily. Think of the armor as being bolted on to the warforged. It’s incorporated into his overall design now, but isn’t inside him. It is on the outside, but he isnt wearing it.
The best defense against Heat Metal has always been "hit the caster until he stops moving", which incidentally breaks his concentration. Preferably by your companions, since you'll be having disadvantage... >.>
The proper answer is, GRAPPLE the caster. Let them suffer the effects of contact with your superheated armor, right along with you! :D
“To don armor, you must incorporate it into your body over the course of 1 hour, during which you remain in contact with the armor.“
The key word here is INTO for the above phrase. It’s in your body, not on your body.
the DM can make all sorts of decisions, but being able to have line of sight for a spell requiring sight of the manufactured metal object that is within a player characters body seems dubious at best.
i say this as a player currently playing a warforged who has run into and been targeted by the heat metal spell and rust monsters more in my present campaign than it feels I have in all my other games combined.
The key word here is INTO for the above phrase. It’s in your body, not on your body.
... in which case, it provides zero protection. Congratilations, you've rules-lawyered yourself into an AC of 10.
Seriously, if the armor isn't on the outside of the body; if it's so far INSIDE the body that it can't be seen and targeted .... then it's also not stopping swords, axes, maces, or spells from damaging the body.
Well, even if you ruled it incorrectly like you’re saying, it would be 11 AC, as one of the bulleted features gives a +1 to AC.
That being said, since your attempting to site RAW, where does it say you can’t benefit from an armor if it’s covered by material?
seems like you guys are being very particular about what this racial feature is capable of doing, especially considering a cloak would also break line of sight of worn armor.
The key word here is INTO for the above phrase. It’s in your body, not on your body.
... in which case, it provides zero protection. Congratilations, you've rules-lawyered yourself into an AC of 10.
Seriously, if the armor isn't on the outside of the body; if it's so far INSIDE the body that it can't be seen and targeted .... then it's also not stopping swords, axes, maces, or spells from damaging the body.
So all the races with natural armour, including most monsters all really only have AC 10? Interesting, if true.....
Don't be disingenuous.
Natural armor is generally described as being the result of thick fur, heavy scales, or tough hide - all parts of the creature on the outside of it's body. All parts of the creature which you can see plainly and clearly.
Well, if you can see the chainmail that Warforged has put on, and you are within range .... you can target that armor with Heat Metal.
That being said, since your attempting to site RAW, where does it say you can’t benefit from an armor if it’s covered by material?
Irrelevant. What was suggested, wouldn't be "covering it with material", it would be covering it with the very thing it is supposed to protect by covering it."
Armor goes on the outside of whatever it protects. That is an elementary principle.
seems like you guys are being very particular about what this racial feature is capable of doing, especially considering a cloak would also break line of sight of worn armor.
Actually, a cloak might work - if it was large enough to completely cover every inch, head to toe, and the person wearing it stoodvery still.
But, when a Warforged dons a suit of armor, it puts that armor on their outside. Not inside their body.
If you took a suit of chain mail, IRL, and surgically implanted it inside your body .... it wouldn't protect you at all. Why does anyone think it would be any different for Warforged?
The key word here is INTO for the above phrase. It’s in your body, not on your body.
... in which case, it provides zero protection. Congratilations, you've rules-lawyered yourself into an AC of 10.
Seriously, if the armor isn't on the outside of the body; if it's so far INSIDE the body that it can't be seen and targeted .... then it's also not stopping swords, axes, maces, or spells from damaging the body.
I'm going to assume you are being snarky and not serious, in which case I am laughing with you and not at you.
The person who created the feature, who wrote the rules of it, designed the setting, has literally and specifically answered what was meant by "incorporated". An explanation that fits RAW, explains RAI and concluded that as per both Heat Metal would not work on Warforged.
Yet people just ignore this and carry on trying to jerryrig rules with made-up definitions (to clarify : armour works whether worn on or in body, there's nothing in rules saying otherwise). I can't tell if people are just being blindly stubborn or are arguing purely for the sake of arguing.
It is not a matter of being able to see it. It has to be an object. When it is incorporated into a creature, it ceases being an object and becomes a part of that creature. It is not merely held or worn, but literally part of them until uninstalled. Constructs are artificial creatures. They are built. Every part of them started out as an object. However once assembled and activated, they are creatures.
An Armblade is always an object - whether it is incorporated into it's user or not.
Same for a Docent.
And for any of the "symbiont" category of magic items - such as the Living Gloves.
Why should armor be any different? Especially, nonmagic armor?
It is not a matter of being able to see it. It has to be an object. When it is incorporated into a creature, it ceases being an object and becomes a part of that creature. It is not merely held or worn, but literally part of them until uninstalled. Constructs are artificial creatures. They are built. Every part of them started out as an object. However once assembled and activated, they are creatures.
An Armblade is always an object - whether it is incorporated into it's user or not.
Same for a Docent.
And for any of the "symbiont" category of magic items - such as the Living Gloves.
Why should armor be any different? Especially, nonmagic armor?
Please describe why you think this...I can’t find the specific rule and the description of attunement is very similar to the RAI from the Eberron designer
The spell targets armor that you can see. Armor is armor is armor. Warforged's racials don't tell you that armor stops being armor. There is no slippery slope of "once something is in your body it's your body not an item," the arrow sticking out of your stomach remains an arrow, the key you swallowed is still a key. There is no system in 5E which suggests that an item stops being an item, short of like.... consuming food or potions? If Warforged were consuming armor to enhance themselves, maybe you'd have something there, but.... just no, it's just overcomplicated nonsense and not worth engaging to disprove, because the rules don't dedicate space to telling you that they don't do things that aren't even remotely contemplated.
If you want to take the "incorporates into means the armor is under the warforged's skin, and no longer visible" route... i mean ok, if that is the case, then yes, the armor could no longer be targeted. Whether that's how it works though is going to be up to your DM, that isn't how I would visualize it, or how Warforged art has appeared in publications, but ok.
End of story. Just ask your DM, "can the armor still be seen after it's incorporated?" If yes, Heat Metal. If no, no.
I like the thought about the hip and the finger. One step further, Luke Skywalker's hand: targetable or no (let's assume that the material would be normally for the sake of the discussion). I do think the difference between Heat Metal and something like Burning Hands is notable and likely leads to warforged incorporated armor being targetable (same with Shocking Grasp), though I don't think I'd let it work against non-metal incorporated armor. I wouldn't argue the point heavily with a DM that ruled otherwise, particularly if they gave a good reason for it in their campaign setting.
There's no such thing as a Warforged +1. A warforged's AC calculation is 10+Dex+1. A warforged does not potentially provide disadvantage on stealth checks. The weight of a warforged's body does not count towards its own carrying capacity. A warforged does not have (or lack) proficiency in its own body.
If you incorporate +1 Plate Mail into a warforged, it's still +1 Plate Mail. It has an item entry, it isn't suddenly a new racial feature of the character providing them an AC of 18+1+1. It counts as heavy armor, and gives them disadvantage on stealth checks. It has an enhancement bonus. You count the armor's weight against their encumbrance. The warforged has proficiency in the armor. The armor doesn't have hit points, or proficiencies, or attributes, because it's armor, and armor is not a creature it's a type of object. It's written on your character sheet under "equipment."
In every possible respect which is measured by the 5e game system, the +1 Plate Mail is the same object that it was before being worn/incorporated. The things that it does to the Warforged (change their armor class, change their encumbrance, change their stealth checks, interact with their class and feat features) are the same things that it would do for any other character wearing it. The Plate Mail stops doing none of these object-y things, and starts doing no creature-y things. The roleplaying details of whether the armor is cosmetically on the outside of the warforged or the inside or any mixed up in between is irrelevant for the game-system question of "is x an object, or is x a creature?": armor is a type of object. It is still armor.
D&D doesn't task us with asking these metaphysical questions about the meaning of personhood or how many parts of Bob you can cut off before Bob stops being Bob. Creatures are creatures, and objects are objects, even when those creatures are made up of the sorts of materials that we normally make objects out of, and even when those objects happen to be inside of a creature. They're different, because they do different things in the rules, and the rules use them for different things. Absent rule text which invites you to "stop treating this as an object, start treating it as a part of the creature", there is zero reason to take the initiative to do so, because it solves no problems and creates a near limitless amount of new ones.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The only part that I disagree with is the quoted section. While a warforged without armor would indeed have an AC calculation of 10+dex+1, that is not because of the racial ability. Everyone has 10+dex as their default base calculation. The first bullet of integrated armor says:You gain a +1 bonus to Armor Class. Therefore, it is a +1, just like defensive fighting style. Interesting difference is that the +1 could interact with either version of unarmored defense, unlike defensive fighting style.
As to the OP, heat metal would be able to target the armor RAW, just as you and Stormknight mentioned, because nothing about Integrated Protection says otherwise.
The DM, as always, is free to rule otherwise. I would probably have a side discussion with the DM if they did to establish RAW and ask for the explanation otherwise, but I wouldn't fight it too hard.
I'm going to go ahead and say it. Heat Metal says that you can target any "manufactured metal object" and I think warforged just in general qualify as that. They are more or less manmade metal objects with a soul and personality. I don't think it matters if the armor is inside of them or not, because the spell should be able to target the warforged directly. I guess that gets into the question of what counts as an object. Would an Iron Golem be a suitable candidate for Heat Metal?
Player races are creatures. Creatures are not objects. There unfortunately is no official 5E Glossary to point to for this premise, but it is clear from both the plain meaning of these words, the context of the totality of spells and rules that refer to creatures and/or objects, and that there are no examples of any rule or ability referring to a creature as an object.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So, does this mean Warforged fighters can still use the Defense fighting style?
If you want sugar coating, go buy a dessert....
If they wear armor, of course?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Came shopping for rules on Warforged Incorporated Armor and Disadvantage to Stealth imposed by Heavy Armor and seeing that no one had a rule to quote apparently reminded me there's a rule to quote.
The RAW states per Xanathar's Guide to Everything, page 5, Exceptions Supersede General Rules: General rules govern each part of the game. For example, the combat rules tell you that melee weapon attacks use Strength and ranged weapon attacks use Dexterity. That's a general rule, and a general rule is in effect as long as something in the game doesn't explicitly say otherwise. The game also includes elements - class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like - that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins. For example, if a feature says you can make melee weapon attacks using you Charisma, you can do so, even though that statement disagrees with the general rule.
Add to that the Beyond D&D statement of what the essence of rules are (basically, the rules exist more to tell you what you can do and how. If one were to write the rules of everything you can't do or doesn't apply, things would get silly).
So, in my case, there's no exception anywhere that state's "incorporating the armor" instead of "wearing/equipping/donning & doffing" every other race uses that it negates any other rule besides how long it takes to put on or take off, whether you can rest while you do it, and under what conditions it can be removed against your will.
Das it. So in a RAW campaign, you should really allow a Warforged's armor to be targeted by whatever except an effect that would remove the armor. Just like I don't get to have super sneaky, dreadnought warforged, RAW, simply by tossing it in Full Plate with a high Dex.
Kieth Baker, the creator of Eberron, from WOTC has answered this for us.
”Could it be targeted by heat metal (which was a threat to warforged in 3.5!).”
”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.”
”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.”
from this I would safely say that warforged armor cannot be attacked by heat metal as you have to “peel off skin” to wear it, meaning you would not be able to see it. No DM rules about bolting armor on or other rules need to be created as it’s already told to us through sage advice.
Source: http://keith-baker.com/rising-from-the-last-war-the-warforged/
The proper answer is, GRAPPLE the caster. Let them suffer the effects of contact with your superheated armor, right along with you! :D
“To don armor, you must incorporate it into your body over the course of 1 hour, during which you remain in contact with the armor.“
The key word here is INTO for the above phrase. It’s in your body, not on your body.
the DM can make all sorts of decisions, but being able to have line of sight for a spell requiring sight of the manufactured metal object that is within a player characters body seems dubious at best.
i say this as a player currently playing a warforged who has run into and been targeted by the heat metal spell and rust monsters more in my present campaign than it feels I have in all my other games combined.
... in which case, it provides zero protection. Congratilations, you've rules-lawyered yourself into an AC of 10.
Seriously, if the armor isn't on the outside of the body; if it's so far INSIDE the body that it can't be seen and targeted .... then it's also not stopping swords, axes, maces, or spells from damaging the body.
Well, even if you ruled it incorrectly like you’re saying, it would be 11 AC, as one of the bulleted features gives a +1 to AC.
That being said, since your attempting to site RAW, where does it say you can’t benefit from an armor if it’s covered by material?
seems like you guys are being very particular about what this racial feature is capable of doing, especially considering a cloak would also break line of sight of worn armor.
Don't be disingenuous.
Natural armor is generally described as being the result of thick fur, heavy scales, or tough hide - all parts of the creature on the outside of it's body. All parts of the creature which you can see plainly and clearly.
Well, if you can see the chainmail that Warforged has put on, and you are within range .... you can target that armor with Heat Metal.
Irrelevant. What was suggested, wouldn't be "covering it with material", it would be covering it with the very thing it is supposed to protect by covering it."
Armor goes on the outside of whatever it protects. That is an elementary principle.
Actually, a cloak might work - if it was large enough to completely cover every inch, head to toe, and the person wearing it stood very still.
But, when a Warforged dons a suit of armor, it puts that armor on their outside. Not inside their body.
If you took a suit of chain mail, IRL, and surgically implanted it inside your body .... it wouldn't protect you at all. Why does anyone think it would be any different for Warforged?
I'm going to assume you are being snarky and not serious, in which case I am laughing with you and not at you.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The person who created the feature, who wrote the rules of it, designed the setting, has literally and specifically answered what was meant by "incorporated". An explanation that fits RAW, explains RAI and concluded that as per both Heat Metal would not work on Warforged.
Yet people just ignore this and carry on trying to jerryrig rules with made-up definitions (to clarify : armour works whether worn on or in body, there's nothing in rules saying otherwise). I can't tell if people are just being blindly stubborn or are arguing purely for the sake of arguing.
You peeps make me laugh, gotta say.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
An Armblade is always an object - whether it is incorporated into it's user or not.
Same for a Docent.
And for any of the "symbiont" category of magic items - such as the Living Gloves.
Why should armor be any different? Especially, nonmagic armor?
Please describe why you think this...I can’t find the specific rule and the description of attunement is very similar to the RAI from the Eberron designer
The spell targets armor that you can see. Armor is armor is armor. Warforged's racials don't tell you that armor stops being armor. There is no slippery slope of "once something is in your body it's your body not an item," the arrow sticking out of your stomach remains an arrow, the key you swallowed is still a key. There is no system in 5E which suggests that an item stops being an item, short of like.... consuming food or potions? If Warforged were consuming armor to enhance themselves, maybe you'd have something there, but.... just no, it's just overcomplicated nonsense and not worth engaging to disprove, because the rules don't dedicate space to telling you that they don't do things that aren't even remotely contemplated.
If you want to take the "incorporates into means the armor is under the warforged's skin, and no longer visible" route... i mean ok, if that is the case, then yes, the armor could no longer be targeted. Whether that's how it works though is going to be up to your DM, that isn't how I would visualize it, or how Warforged art has appeared in publications, but ok.
End of story. Just ask your DM, "can the armor still be seen after it's incorporated?" If yes, Heat Metal. If no, no.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.