Being able to see it is essential, because Heat Metal targets "armor, that you can see." If you're looking for a way to make any given suit of armor un-targetable, that right there is your one and only way to do it.
Warforged are not constructs, they are humanoids. This is true not only for the PC race, but for NPC warforged too (Warforged Soldier is a humanoid, while the larger and barely-sentient Warforged Titan and Warforged Colossus are true constructs). A warforged is a humanoid made of wood and metal, and every part of the warforged's body is a humanoid. Bolting other metal onto them, or sticking metal into them, even in a way that their body is shaped to accomodate, does not make that metal an extension of their body.
There is no exception. Items are items. Creatures are creatures. Putting them into a blender results in blended up creature mixed with blended up item, not just a creature. It doesn't matter what makes sense, or what metaphysical questions you want to ask about the meaning of a man and what part of the body the soul resides in.... creatures are creatures. items are items. wearing/wielding/incorporating an item doesn't make it stop being an item.
I think I've come around on this and prettymuch agree with Chicken_Champ (though maybe for different reasons). I think Heat Metal probably works on warforged just like it does on all the other PCs: You can't target them, but you can target their armor if it is visible.
I'm making the distinction because you seemed to think it was important enough to mention Warforged as being constructs, which is wrong. I agree that Constructs are no more vulnerable to Heat Metal than Humanoids are.
The distinction between a living body and an unliving object is not semantics, it is rules. Creatures are creatures. I am sorry that this system is not satisfying to you, I can certainly understand why houseruling Heat Metal to be able to target "metal objects or creatures" instead of "a manufactured metal object" could be logical or fun for your table, or houseruling Warforged to say that the Tools and Armor they incorporate become part of their living body and not an object. But it just isn't how the spell works as written, end of story.
Just want to point out that warforged don't have to be metal at all. They can be wood or stone and a player is well within their rights to say that their armor is incorporated beneath their wooden or stone "skin" and cannot be seen unless this outer shell is damaged.
I dunno, the designer has spoken here. When the RAW is unclear but the RAI is and that RAI doesn't directly contradict the RAW (because this racial trait is a specific rule overriding the general) then I'm going to go with the RAI every time.
I have not cited anything that says that an object is not a creature, other than that throughout the entirety of the rule system matter is referred to as either "objects" or "creatures". You have not cited anything that says that Fire Bolt can't be used to teleport. You have not cited anything that says a 1st level character saying "Abra Cadabra" can't gain 100 strength. You have not cited anything that says that Warforged don't melt in the sun like giant chocolate bunnies. You have not cited anything that says that balls roll downhill.
Neither of us can cite these things, because there is no appendix which provides the Big Book of Things That Are Trivially True in D&D 5th Edition. You can do the things that the rules provide, in the ways that they provide. Anything beyond that is houserules and DM fiat, which is fine and good, the rules are not intended to be a complete simulation of fantasy life that anticipates each and every possible situation or interaction. But you are taking two well-defined rules within this system (creatures wear armor; Heat Metal targets armor) and positing that not only can you imagine a novel way that they interact mechanically for Warforged, but that in fact this interaction you imagine is required by the text of the rules as necessary, despite there being no written text that supports your position explicitly.
Your rule interpretation is fine. But it is not the rules that are written.
However I have pointed out that a limb removed from a body (through surgery, being literally torn off, however) ceases to be part of a creature and becomes an object, just as a corpse is an object and no longer a creature. And when building a construct, objects are assembled and then when the assembly is complete, put through a process that converts them from an inanimate composite statue (still an object) into a finished construct (a creature).
Those are all facts.
I am not claiming that the armor is simultaneously an object and a creature, but rather while integrated, it ceases to be an object and is part of a creature, just as if through an appropriate healing spell, if a severed limb is reattached, it once again changes from being an object to being part of a creature.
If they had intended for Warforged to simply wear armour, they could simply wear armour. Why would it take an extra hour just to toss on a chain jerkin? Why would it provide no protection if they simply wear it conventionally? Also, based on how people have interpreted other absolute statements, that the armour cannot be removed against the Warforged's will while they live implies that the armor is immune to rust monsters and being separately targeted by a disintegrate spell. That would fit with it being part of the Warforged rather than still an object.
I have to say, I always interpreted it the same way as this. People kept telling me I was wrong too, but I agree with you on this one. I treat Prosthetic and Symbiotic Magic Items the same way.
I mean, technically every living multicellular organism has a multitude of tiny single celled organisms living all over and inside of us all the time. If we didn’t, we would not be able to digest food, combat diseases, and many other things as well. Is it possible to target the bacteria in/on a person since they are technically a different “creature?” Of course not, because they are a part of that person. A symbiotic Magic Item becomes a part of that person. A prosthetic would only count as an “object” while detached, and then becomes part of the creature while attached.
I look at Integrated Armor as the same sort of “becoming part of that creature” functionality. Kind of like how a Borg’s personal shield is part of them.
not only can you imagine a novel way that they interact mechanically for Warforged, but that in fact this interaction you imagine is required by the text of the rules as necessary, despite there being no written text that supports your position explicitly.
First of all, a designer imagined it that way. Which is kind of how all the rules in the game were made up in the first place. The written text that supports it is the text the designer wrote clarifying what they meant. I was simply sketching out one of the ways this interpretation does not need to break RAW to work.
Secondly, I'll allow this is a messy, badly written feature. It mixes description and mechanics instead of explicitly stating the mechanics. In those cases you can either 1) rule differently based on the description given, 2) you can rule based on the most generous terms allowed by possible descriptions, or 3) you can rule based on the least generous terms allowed by possible descriptions (basically that the descriptions don't matter and that part of the racial trait is a straight liability rather than a benefit).
I dunno, I feel like cyber said it best so I'll leave it at that.
Except Warforged do wear armor. A Warforged that has "incorporated" armor is wearing armor, for the purpose of Monk, Barbarian, spellcasting, reducing speed.... Incorporating this armor is still called "don" and taking off "doff," precisely the same term that is used in the PHB for everyone else. In every other manner where armor has a rule signifigance, a Warforged's armor is treated in precisely the same fashion as everyone else's.
I'm honestly uninterested in what the author wanted to write, or had in mind before it was edited by the rest of their team. Warforged don armor just like everyone else, and no game term has been defined which operates to transform armor into the Warforged or in any other way suppress its object-ness. A single throwaway use of the word "incorporated" is not enough to overcome the inertia that an object is an object.
If the author's intent was frustrated and the rule needs to be rewritten to accomplish that, fine, issue an errata. Until then, a Warforged's incorporated armor remains armor.
Of course the incorporated Armor is still armor, it just also happens to be armor that is physically incorporated into the Warforged’s body, so it happens to be part is a creature at the same time. Much like a pacemaker is a small electronic device, but once implanted, also become part of the patient.
Look at Prosthetic Limb, it is still a mechanical limb, but it is also part of the creature. Look at Dyrrn’s Tentacle Whip, it is still a Whip, it has to be a equipped, it also becomes part of the creature.
If it's still armor, then it is still "a suit of heavy or medium metal armor, that you can see within range," and you're back in the camp that Heat Metal targets it normally (unless it's wholly hidden under the Warforged's skin, somehow, which the text and art doesn't mention at all but which a DM is free to decide in their game). You can't have it both ways.
If it's still armor, then it is still "a suit of heavy or medium metal armor, that you can see within range," and you're back in the camp that Heat Metal targets it normally (unless it's wholly hidden under the Warforged's skin, somehow, which the text and art doesn't mention at all but which a DM is free to decide in their game). You can't have it both ways.
When I get a tattoo, the image is still made of ink, but it is also part of my skin. It is clearly visible as long as that part of my body is uncovered. If you look up the word Tattoo in the dictionary, it has two forms, verb and noun. Since we are discussing the tattoo itself, not the act of tattooing, we’ll stick to the noun part.
A noun must be a person, place, or thing. A tattoo isn’t a person, nor is it a place, so it must be a “thing” by default. In D&D parlance, “things” are “objects.” So a tattoo would classify as an “Object” in D&D.
Can a spell that targets an object target the tattoo on their arm...? Of course not because it is “Integrated” into part of a creature’s body.
In one sentence, can you summarize what anything you just wrote has to do with Heat Metal? Are you saying that... armor is a verb... and... ???
If there was a spell called "Heat Tattoo" that targeted "a tattoo that you can see within range," then yeah, it would target it. WTF are you even talking about?
What, exactly, is the difference between skin and armour sufficiently integrated with the flesh underneath it, other than semantics? The warforged is made out of wood and metal, but additional metal added to it is, you insist, different. How and why, exactly?
Look at it this way: let's say that a Warforged Cleric finds a suit of Plate Armor, that a Rust Monster was int he process of feeding on. The armor is intact enough to be functional, but has taken serious damage: it's missing one arm, and one leg.
The Warforged Cleric spends an hour integrating this damaged armor into their undamaged body .... and then casts Regenerate.
Yes, I understand the counter argument that boils down to "one meaning of incorporated is 'made a part of,' meaning the armor is 'made a part of' the warforged, and because the warforged is a creature and not an object, then the armor is no longer a manufactured metal object, and thus can't be targeted." Yes, I understand that interpretation. But it isn't the only interpretation, nor the simplest one, and thus I'm not prepared to accept that it's "RAW" absent other textual support within the rule system. It's "fine," it's a valid way to play it, makes a certain sort of in-game logic... but it's a pretty radical function, one wholly unlike anything else currently written into 5E, and I think you're massively overstepping by telling other people they're wrong for not seeing it as required in the rules.
Tortles can't wear armor normally either (or even at all), in exchange for some other armor-related benefits (they have a flat 17 AC that they can't be unequipped from, they can retreat into the shell for even more). Is it "logical" that a tortle that also bolted on sheet metal to build up another layer of armor and protection above their shell, and extending down their exposed arms, legs, and head, might be treated as having regular Plate Armor protection, AC 18? Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense, great houserule! But it isn't RAW.
That's the situation we're in here, with some players with a unique (fun, good even!) houserule about Warforged armor becoming a part of their living body, who are then taking things "too far" by insisting that everyone else is wrong for not accepting their houserule.
In one sentence, can you summarize what anything you just wrote has to do with Heat Metal? Are you saying that... armor is a verb... and... ???
If there was a spell called "Heat Tattoo" that targeted "a tattoo that you can see within range," then yeah, it would target it. WTF are you even talking about?
It has nothing to do specifically with Heat Metal. What it has to do with is providing an example of something that can be Incorporated into a living creature and then becomes part of that creature, as in no longer separate from. And if ink can be “integrated” into a living creature, why not something else?
But if you absolutely need me to make some sort of direct correlation between Tattoos and Heat Metal, then I will. Did you know that originally, all tattoo ink was made from metallic compounds?
Not even a little bit. A tattoo isn't a piece of equipment in 5E, there are no times provided to don and doff it, wearing one doesn't impact whether one is considered to be "wearing armor" for certain spell features, one does not have proficiency in learning how to effectively wear a tattoo, and its unlikely that one would ever refer to a tattoo (even one with metal ink) as a "manufactured metal object." It's pigment trapped in flesh, and such a poor analogue to what we're talking about, that it's more distracting than helpful.
The only point in drawing lines between where a body stops and equipment begins is when there's a rule/spell/ability that makes that a distinction with a difference. "Is your hair a creature or an object? What if it's fallen out but just being held in place on your head by your other hair? What if it's a wig? What if it's a wig that you've glued on" is a stupid question to argue about, much less for 5E to waste any space describing, because there's no rule out there where it matters. If it did matter, if you could protect yourself from a very common second level spell by surgically attaching a wig instead of growing real hair.... there would be space dedicated to explaining that boundary between living hair growing vs. dead hair attached to your body vs unattached hair worn as a loose wig. Those rules would probably be in the Heat Hair spell itself, but if they weren't, they certainly would show up in the Wigforged race that has special features about attaching wigs in a way where they can't be removed.
Nobody wrote anything like that. There's no space devoted to distinguishing Heat Metal versus armor, surgically implanted armor, or armor incorporated into a creature's body. It just targets armor. And as you've agreed, armor is armor.
I suppose the question is whether a suit of armor remains a separate manufactured metal object or if it becomes an integral aspect of the warforged creature.
I would disagree that it's circular logic. From a rules perspective, the game does not see them as creatures mechanically because they lack a creature type. From a design perspective, they have not been given a creature type because they are not designed to be creatures.
They are not designed to be creatures (RAI) >> Therefore they have not been given a creature type >> Therefore the game does not see them as creatures. (RAW)
It only seems like circular logic if you assume that RAI and RAW are always perfectly in sync.
In one sentence, can you summarize what anything you just wrote has to do with Heat Metal? Are you saying that... armor is a verb... and... ???
If there was a spell called "Heat Tattoo" that targeted "a tattoo that you can see within range," then yeah, it would target it. WTF are you even talking about?
Dude, you really blew it here...
Laser tattoo removal actually targets your tattoo as a separate object, and if you are lucky, your skin looks nice.
If you are unlucky, it burns the **** out of you and you get:
Being able to see it is essential, because Heat Metal targets "armor, that you can see." If you're looking for a way to make any given suit of armor un-targetable, that right there is your one and only way to do it.
Warforged are not constructs, they are humanoids. This is true not only for the PC race, but for NPC warforged too (Warforged Soldier is a humanoid, while the larger and barely-sentient Warforged Titan and Warforged Colossus are true constructs). A warforged is a humanoid made of wood and metal, and every part of the warforged's body is a humanoid. Bolting other metal onto them, or sticking metal into them, even in a way that their body is shaped to accomodate, does not make that metal an extension of their body.
There is no exception. Items are items. Creatures are creatures. Putting them into a blender results in blended up creature mixed with blended up item, not just a creature. It doesn't matter what makes sense, or what metaphysical questions you want to ask about the meaning of a man and what part of the body the soul resides in.... creatures are creatures. items are items. wearing/wielding/incorporating an item doesn't make it stop being an item.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think I've come around on this and prettymuch agree with Chicken_Champ (though maybe for different reasons). I think Heat Metal probably works on warforged just like it does on all the other PCs: You can't target them, but you can target their armor if it is visible.
I'm making the distinction because you seemed to think it was important enough to mention Warforged as being constructs, which is wrong. I agree that Constructs are no more vulnerable to Heat Metal than Humanoids are.
The distinction between a living body and an unliving object is not semantics, it is rules. Creatures are creatures. I am sorry that this system is not satisfying to you, I can certainly understand why houseruling Heat Metal to be able to target "metal objects or creatures" instead of "a manufactured metal object" could be logical or fun for your table, or houseruling Warforged to say that the Tools and Armor they incorporate become part of their living body and not an object. But it just isn't how the spell works as written, end of story.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Just want to point out that warforged don't have to be metal at all. They can be wood or stone and a player is well within their rights to say that their armor is incorporated beneath their wooden or stone "skin" and cannot be seen unless this outer shell is damaged.
I dunno, the designer has spoken here. When the RAW is unclear but the RAI is and that RAI doesn't directly contradict the RAW (because this racial trait is a specific rule overriding the general) then I'm going to go with the RAI every time.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I have not cited anything that says that an object is not a creature, other than that throughout the entirety of the rule system matter is referred to as either "objects" or "creatures". You have not cited anything that says that Fire Bolt can't be used to teleport. You have not cited anything that says a 1st level character saying "Abra Cadabra" can't gain 100 strength. You have not cited anything that says that Warforged don't melt in the sun like giant chocolate bunnies. You have not cited anything that says that balls roll downhill.
Neither of us can cite these things, because there is no appendix which provides the Big Book of Things That Are Trivially True in D&D 5th Edition. You can do the things that the rules provide, in the ways that they provide. Anything beyond that is houserules and DM fiat, which is fine and good, the rules are not intended to be a complete simulation of fantasy life that anticipates each and every possible situation or interaction. But you are taking two well-defined rules within this system (creatures wear armor; Heat Metal targets armor) and positing that not only can you imagine a novel way that they interact mechanically for Warforged, but that in fact this interaction you imagine is required by the text of the rules as necessary, despite there being no written text that supports your position explicitly.
Your rule interpretation is fine. But it is not the rules that are written.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I have to say, I always interpreted it the same way as this. People kept telling me I was wrong too, but I agree with you on this one. I treat Prosthetic and Symbiotic Magic Items the same way.
I mean, technically every living multicellular organism has a multitude of tiny single celled organisms living all over and inside of us all the time. If we didn’t, we would not be able to digest food, combat diseases, and many other things as well. Is it possible to target the bacteria in/on a person since they are technically a different “creature?” Of course not, because they are a part of that person. A symbiotic Magic Item becomes a part of that person. A prosthetic would only count as an “object” while detached, and then becomes part of the creature while attached.
I look at Integrated Armor as the same sort of “becoming part of that creature” functionality. Kind of like how a Borg’s personal shield is part of them.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
First of all, a designer imagined it that way. Which is kind of how all the rules in the game were made up in the first place. The written text that supports it is the text the designer wrote clarifying what they meant. I was simply sketching out one of the ways this interpretation does not need to break RAW to work.
Secondly, I'll allow this is a messy, badly written feature. It mixes description and mechanics instead of explicitly stating the mechanics. In those cases you can either 1) rule differently based on the description given, 2) you can rule based on the most generous terms allowed by possible descriptions, or 3) you can rule based on the least generous terms allowed by possible descriptions (basically that the descriptions don't matter and that part of the racial trait is a straight liability rather than a benefit).
I dunno, I feel like cyber said it best so I'll leave it at that.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Except Warforged do wear armor. A Warforged that has "incorporated" armor is wearing armor, for the purpose of Monk, Barbarian, spellcasting, reducing speed.... Incorporating this armor is still called "don" and taking off "doff," precisely the same term that is used in the PHB for everyone else. In every other manner where armor has a rule signifigance, a Warforged's armor is treated in precisely the same fashion as everyone else's.
I'm honestly uninterested in what the author wanted to write, or had in mind before it was edited by the rest of their team. Warforged don armor just like everyone else, and no game term has been defined which operates to transform armor into the Warforged or in any other way suppress its object-ness. A single throwaway use of the word "incorporated" is not enough to overcome the inertia that an object is an object.
If the author's intent was frustrated and the rule needs to be rewritten to accomplish that, fine, issue an errata. Until then, a Warforged's incorporated armor remains armor.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Of course the incorporated Armor is still armor, it just also happens to be armor that is physically incorporated into the Warforged’s body, so it happens to be part is a creature at the same time. Much like a pacemaker is a small electronic device, but once implanted, also become part of the patient.
Look at Prosthetic Limb, it is still a mechanical limb, but it is also part of the creature. Look at Dyrrn’s Tentacle Whip, it is still a Whip, it has to be a equipped, it also becomes part of the creature.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
If it's still armor, then it is still "a suit of heavy or medium metal armor, that you can see within range," and you're back in the camp that Heat Metal targets it normally (unless it's wholly hidden under the Warforged's skin, somehow, which the text and art doesn't mention at all but which a DM is free to decide in their game). You can't have it both ways.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't need to explain or justify anything, the rule is what it is. But if you want a justification, the trait has benefits and drawbacks.
Pro:
Con:
That's it. That's the whole ability. Nothing about that requires that there be even more unwritten pro's.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
When I get a tattoo, the image is still made of ink, but it is also part of my skin. It is clearly visible as long as that part of my body is uncovered. If you look up the word Tattoo in the dictionary, it has two forms, verb and noun. Since we are discussing the tattoo itself, not the act of tattooing, we’ll stick to the noun part.
A noun must be a person, place, or thing. A tattoo isn’t a person, nor is it a place, so it must be a “thing” by default. In D&D parlance, “things” are “objects.” So a tattoo would classify as an “Object” in D&D.
Can a spell that targets an object target the tattoo on their arm...? Of course not because it is “Integrated” into part of a creature’s body.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
In one sentence, can you summarize what anything you just wrote has to do with Heat Metal? Are you saying that... armor is a verb... and... ???
If there was a spell called "Heat Tattoo" that targeted "a tattoo that you can see within range," then yeah, it would target it. WTF are you even talking about?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Look at it this way: let's say that a Warforged Cleric finds a suit of Plate Armor, that a Rust Monster was int he process of feeding on. The armor is intact enough to be functional, but has taken serious damage: it's missing one arm, and one leg.
The Warforged Cleric spends an hour integrating this damaged armor into their undamaged body .... and then casts Regenerate.
Are the missing parts of the armor regrown?
...
Think about that. Take your time.
Yes, I understand the counter argument that boils down to "one meaning of incorporated is 'made a part of,' meaning the armor is 'made a part of' the warforged, and because the warforged is a creature and not an object, then the armor is no longer a manufactured metal object, and thus can't be targeted." Yes, I understand that interpretation. But it isn't the only interpretation, nor the simplest one, and thus I'm not prepared to accept that it's "RAW" absent other textual support within the rule system. It's "fine," it's a valid way to play it, makes a certain sort of in-game logic... but it's a pretty radical function, one wholly unlike anything else currently written into 5E, and I think you're massively overstepping by telling other people they're wrong for not seeing it as required in the rules.
Tortles can't wear armor normally either (or even at all), in exchange for some other armor-related benefits (they have a flat 17 AC that they can't be unequipped from, they can retreat into the shell for even more). Is it "logical" that a tortle that also bolted on sheet metal to build up another layer of armor and protection above their shell, and extending down their exposed arms, legs, and head, might be treated as having regular Plate Armor protection, AC 18? Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense, great houserule! But it isn't RAW.
That's the situation we're in here, with some players with a unique (fun, good even!) houserule about Warforged armor becoming a part of their living body, who are then taking things "too far" by insisting that everyone else is wrong for not accepting their houserule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It has nothing to do specifically with Heat Metal. What it has to do with is providing an example of something that can be Incorporated into a living creature and then becomes part of that creature, as in no longer separate from. And if ink can be “integrated” into a living creature, why not something else?
But if you absolutely need me to make some sort of direct correlation between Tattoos and Heat Metal, then I will. Did you know that originally, all tattoo ink was made from metallic compounds?
https://www.quora.com/Can-I-get-a-metallic-looking-tattoo-Does-gold-ink-exist?top_ans=55437503
Was that clear enough for you?
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Not even a little bit. A tattoo isn't a piece of equipment in 5E, there are no times provided to don and doff it, wearing one doesn't impact whether one is considered to be "wearing armor" for certain spell features, one does not have proficiency in learning how to effectively wear a tattoo, and its unlikely that one would ever refer to a tattoo (even one with metal ink) as a "manufactured metal object." It's pigment trapped in flesh, and such a poor analogue to what we're talking about, that it's more distracting than helpful.
The only point in drawing lines between where a body stops and equipment begins is when there's a rule/spell/ability that makes that a distinction with a difference. "Is your hair a creature or an object? What if it's fallen out but just being held in place on your head by your other hair? What if it's a wig? What if it's a wig that you've glued on" is a stupid question to argue about, much less for 5E to waste any space describing, because there's no rule out there where it matters. If it did matter, if you could protect yourself from a very common second level spell by surgically attaching a wig instead of growing real hair.... there would be space dedicated to explaining that boundary between living hair growing vs. dead hair attached to your body vs unattached hair worn as a loose wig. Those rules would probably be in the Heat Hair spell itself, but if they weren't, they certainly would show up in the Wigforged race that has special features about attaching wigs in a way where they can't be removed.
Nobody wrote anything like that. There's no space devoted to distinguishing Heat Metal versus armor, surgically implanted armor, or armor incorporated into a creature's body. It just targets armor. And as you've agreed, armor is armor.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I suppose the question is whether a suit of armor remains a separate manufactured metal object or if it becomes an integral aspect of the warforged creature.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I would disagree that it's circular logic. From a rules perspective, the game does not see them as creatures mechanically because they lack a creature type. From a design perspective, they have not been given a creature type because they are not designed to be creatures.
They are not designed to be creatures (RAI) >> Therefore they have not been given a creature type >> Therefore the game does not see them as creatures. (RAW)
It only seems like circular logic if you assume that RAI and RAW are always perfectly in sync.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Dude, you really blew it here...
Laser tattoo removal actually targets your tattoo as a separate object, and if you are lucky, your skin looks nice.
If you are unlucky, it burns the **** out of you and you get:
That sounds a lot like Heat Metal, lol.