Armour and Warforged

[Jesterface]

This probably is the easiest question to answer, ever, but for some reason I can't come to a conclusion on it.

If a Warforged has its basic composite plating, would it be able to wear a suit of armour over this (obviously not stacking the bonuses granted)? Would there need to be any alterations to the armour, such as increased donning time, or could this be a purely flavourful aspect? I'm guessing robes(and other Body slot items) would be subject to this rule too.

[Red Fel]

This probably is the easiest question to answer, ever, but for some reason I can't come to a conclusion on it.

If a Warforged has its basic composite plating, would it be able to wear a suit of armour over this (obviously not stacking the bonuses granted)? Would there need to be any alterations to the armour, such as increased donning time, or could this be a purely flavourful aspect? I'm guessing robes(and other Body slot items) would be subject to this rule too.

No. A Warforged with Composite Plating, or any of the Body feats (other than Unarmored Body) cannot wear armor or magic robes. As described in the racial entry:

This composite plating occupies the same space on the body as a suit of armor or a robe, and thus a warforged cannot wear armor or magic robes.
It's not just a question of tailoring, or of bonuses not stacking; it can't be done.

[Jesterface]

Wow, how'd I miss that one? Thanks!

[Starmage21]

No. A Warforged with Composite Plating, or any of the Body feats (other than Unarmored Body) cannot wear armor or magic robes. As described in the racial entry:

It's not just a question of tailoring, or of bonuses not stacking; it can't be done.

I think the RAI on that one was referring to bonus stacking. There is no logical reason a warforged couldnt strap on some armor overtop their basic plating. Even the explicit RAW seems to imply that it was referring to magic item slots.

[torrasque666]

For flavorful purposes, I don't see why not. Just has to be a size larger armor as he won't fit into Medium ones.

[RedMage125]

There's always the Unarmored Body feat...

[torrasque666]

You shouldn't have to be subject to a feat tax for flavor though.

[Red Fel]

You shouldn't have to be subject to a feat tax for flavor though.

You already have flavor if you're playing a Warforged. Flavor and a bunch of pretty impressive mechanical (no pun intended) advantages.

Want the armor too? That costs extra.

[Chester]

Keep in mind that the Warforged plating can be enchanted as armor can.

If you're not going for Warforged Juggernaut, Mithral Body (level 1 feat). Enchant it later.

[Andezzar]

Keep in mind that the Warforged plating can be enchanted as armor can.Or not. the rules never say that the plating is considered masterwork...

[Chester]

Or not. the rules never say that the plating is considered masterwork...

"Warforged can be enchanted just as armor can be." Eberron Campaign Setting, page 23. (Check the bottom of the right-hand column.)

[Andezzar]

Not all armors can be enchanted. Only masterwork armors can be enchanted. So anything that is not masterwork cannot be enchanted if it "can be enchanted just as armor can be". Warforged Plating is not masterwork.

I know the intention of the rule is to allow the enchanting of the plating but the rules say otherwise.

[Chester]

Armor can only be enchanted if it is masterwork. So anything that is not masterwork cannot be enchanted if it "can be enchanted just as armor can be". Warforged Plating is not masterwork.

I know the intention of the rule is to allow the enchanting of the plating but the rules say otherwise.

OK, great, thanks. Semantics.

OP: Go by what it says in the Eberron book. Implication: You can enchant the Warforged.

[Red Fel]

Not all armors can be enchanted. Only masterwork armors can be enchanted. So anything that is not masterwork cannot be enchanted if it "can be enchanted just as armor can be". Warforged Plating is not masterwork.

I know the intention of the rule is to allow the enchanting of the plating but the rules say otherwise.

Regardless of whether plating is masterwork or not, it can explicitly be enchanted. So either it is automatically masterwork, and therefore can be enchanted, or it is not masterwork, but can nonetheless be enchanted because of a specific exception to a general rule. Specific trumps general, and the specific texts makes an exception, allowing composite plating to be enchanted.

[Andezzar]

You misunderstand the rule as written.
Warforged can be enchanted just as armor can be.This means that the warforged can be enchanted using the same rules as those for armor. Those rules say that armor can only be enchanted if it is masterwork. Since Warforged are not masterwork, they cannot be enchanted just as non-masterwork armor cannot be enchanted.

To actually allow enchantment the rule would have to read "Warforged can be enchanted just as masterwork armor can be." or " For the purpose of enchanting, warforged are considered masterwork armor."

[torrasque666]

I believe that implies that Warforged Plating is considered Masterwork.

[Andezzar]

I believe that implies that Warforged Plating is considered Masterwork.the rules never actually say it.

[torrasque666]

However, if it wasn't considered masterwork, would it bother mentioning it at all? Likely not.

[Red Fel]

However, if it wasn't considered masterwork, would it bother mentioning it at all? Likely not.

Whether it is or isn't masterwork is mostly irrelevant, for two big reasons: Masterwork armor reduces ACP. This is a non-issue, because whether all Composite Plating is masterwork or non-masterwork, there is only one ACP listed for any particular plating type; if you have that type, you have that ACP. Calling Composite Plating masterwork or non-masterwork is irrelevant, because that ACP will not be adjusted. Masterwork armor costs extra. This is also a non-issue, because you aren't buying your Composite Plating; it's there by default. Calling it masterwork or non-masterwork is irrelevant, because there's no price to change.
Now, Andezzar makes the argument with regard to the language: He contends that "can be enchanted just as armor can be" means "can be enchanted just as armor can be, but is subject to the same limitations and restrictions thereupon." Or rather, that by failing to say "can be enchanted just as masterwork armor can be" or "can be enchanted just as armor can be, but without restrictions based upon quality," the rules somehow exclude enchanting Composite Plating.

I believe that this is creating unnecessary ambiguity. The language, both in intent and in effect, is plain: Composite Plating can be enchanted. That's the focus of the phrase cited. The rest is clarification ("just as armor can be"). Okay, so we know it can't be enhanced with, say, Vorpal. To emphasize the "just as armor can be" instead of the "can be enchanted" is to look at the sentence, effectively and literally, backwards.

The plain language allows enchantment. Masterwork quality is irrelevant.

[Kantolin]

Can't anyone wear two sets of armour? Like, I thought you totally /could/, it's just that you only get the benefits of one of them. But /couldn't/ you wear padded armour (or one of the various silkweave style armours) under your full plate and just be wearing full plate mechanically?

(Likewise to dual wielding shields)

[torrasque666]

Technically? Yes. But it would be up to the DM if he wanted it to work in any way other than aesthetically. I had a DM who let me stack shield bonuses. I then got two more arms and had an AC in the high 60s as he had also houseruled on the feat Shield Mastery(or something like that) so that is made Light Shields +3, Heavy +6, and Tower +10. I was so glad I had that Jaws of Death feat, let me attack even while being a frigging wall. Got an item of expansion to make me large, and most fights were "BLOCK THE TUNNEL!" and then the enemy would have to slip past me while getting blasted by spells. Couldn't make a reflex save for my life though.

[Chester]

Perhaps this clears up the OP's question (emphasis mine):

"This composite plating occupies the same space on the body as a suit of armor or a robe, and thus a warforged cannot wear armor or magic robes." Eberron Campaign Setting (p. 23)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Do note that WotC doesn't know how to edit books. You actually can't go by strict RAW or else the universe implodes and people are healed by drowning.

Sure let's keep those rules in there.

[Kantolin]

But it would be up to the DM if he wanted it to work in any way other than aesthetically.

Oh, I also figured it just plain /wouldn't/ do anything mechanically - like... I suppose a DM could call that it does, but my assumption was that it wouldn't.

From a most obvious perspective, like bonii don't stack, so two different Armour bonuses to AC wouldn't stack (You can achieve similar nonstackingness via incarnum). Hence mage armour & regular armour don't stack.

From a somewhat less obvious perspective, I'm... actually less certain about miscellaneous bonii (So if you have +1 Freedom armour and +1 Death ward armour, would you in fact have freedom and death ward?). I mean RAI is obviously 'no you get only the outer one', but I'm actually a little less certain about that mechanically.

[torrasque666]

Do note that WotC doesn't know how to edit books. You actually can't go by strict RAW or else the universe implodes and people are healed by drowning.

Sure let's keep those rules in there.

Wait, healed by drowning? How!???

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Wait, healed by drowning? How!???

Well if I'm at -8 HP, shove my head underwater and this happens.

"Drowning
Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1. See also: Swim skill description.
When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.
It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain."

Take my head out and I'm at -1...

*edit* I'm unconscious and can't hold my breath or I'll choose not to.

[Kantolin]

To be similarly pedantic, however, I don't believe anything states that drowning can be /stopped/. Once you fail that constitution check to hold your breath, you go to 0, then to -1, then you die.

Even if someone pulls your head out at the 0 step.

(This is similarly silly)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

To be similarly pedantic, however, I don't believe anything states that drowning can be /stopped/. Once you fail that constitution check to hold your breath, you go to 0, then to -1, then you die.

Even if someone pulls your head out at the 0 step.

(This is similarly silly)

Well if we are using that, nothing says you stop burning after taking fire damage from a fireball spell...

Stop the cause and you stop the effect. It just so happens that drowning's effect changes your HP (like healing spells). So you would heal but stop drowning when taking someone out of the water or silt or sand or whatever.

[Knaight]

Well if we are using that, nothing says you stop burning after taking fire damage from a fireball spell...

Stop the cause and you stop the effect. It just so happens that drowning's effect changes your HP (like healing spells). So you would heal but stop drowning when taking someone out of the water or silt or sand or whatever.

Nothing says you actually start burning either. You take the damage once, it's pretty straightforward by RAW. Meanwhile, RAW does, strictly speaking, have drowning as a continual effect when leaving water. It also does, strictly speaking, leave some ambiguity with Warforged armor regarding masterwork status.

With that said - while RAI can be a bit murky sometimes, those two are really, really obvious. Yes, drowning stops when you can breathe again. Yes, the armor is enchantable.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Nothing says you actually start burning either. You take the damage once, it's pretty straightforward by RAW. Meanwhile, RAW does, strictly speaking, have drowning as a continual effect when leaving water. It also does, strictly speaking, leave some ambiguity with Warforged armor regarding masterwork status.

With that said - while RAI can be a bit murky sometimes, those two are really, really obvious. Yes, drowning stops when you can breathe again. Yes, the armor is enchantable.

Oh yeah completely agree, however there is usually a "but it doesn't say..." Attitude that really can be applied to everything and make things get screwy.

[Ferronach]

I am a big fan of Warforged characters so I hope that I can help the OP out here.

In the Eberron books, they introduce items called "Warforged components"
They are items that embed in or attach to the warforged and do various magical things. There is no reason one couldn't increase the AC bonus of your plating.

Many DMs rule that a Warforged can augment their body by fusing additional metal plates to their bodies once they have been shaped and enchanted by a blacksmith/mage etc.

[Gildedragon]

I actually generally allow the outright purchase of warforged feats, and have been meaning to expand the body materials and traceries available.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I actually generally allow the outright purchase of warforged feats, and have been meaning to expand the body materials and traceries available.

There is a dwarf PrC that turns them self into a half dwarf half robot... As I recall fluff is à+ but not that great of a prc.

But if a character wanted to make a cyborg I would be cool with them taking Warforged feats. There are a few nifty ones.

[Ferronach]

I actually generally allow the outright purchase of warforged feats, and have been meaning to expand the body materials and traceries available.

My Dms and I always assume that a warforged can take a free body feat at first level. We argue that this is because that warforged was/is built for a purpose and its body should reflect that.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

My Dms and I always assume that a warforged can take a free body feat at first level. We argue that this is because that warforged was/is built for a purpose and its body should reflect that.

Well, that is like saying my human should have endurance, weapon focus, and power attack for free at first level.

Because he was born that way.

Which won't fly :p

Not that I disagree with that houserule, I would use it but the thinking behind it is a little odd with how the feat system in 3.5 works.

[Knaight]

Well, that is like saying my human should have endurance, weapon focus, and power attack for free at first level.

Because he was born that way.

The warforged feats are often literal body composition. It's more like a human starting with a feat that says they have an unusually large frame at the skeletal level (they're tall, they're bulky, they have high density larger bones, etc). Sure, from a balance perspective it might be iffy. From a setting perspective, them picking that up later is just weird.

[Andezzar]

The warforged feats are often literal body composition. It's more like a human starting with a feat that says they have an unusually large frame at the skeletal level (they're tall, they're bulky, they have high density larger bones, etc). Sure, from a balance perspective it might be iffy. From a setting perspective, them picking that up later is just weird.They are not picked up later. All the feats that modify the plating of the warforged may only be taken at level 1.

I see no problem balance wise to let the warforged player choose his characters plating (or lack thereof). All those feats give one sort of plating but remove the default one.

[Applejaxc]

The entire purpose of the no armor feat is to be able to wear armor/robes and qualify for Druid/"Don't wear metal" class requirements.

Warforged Druid = awesome

[Andezzar]

The entire purpose of the no armor feat is to be able to wear armor/robes and qualify for Druid/"Don't wear metal" class requirements.You could also take that feat to be able to wear different suits of armor. While the equivalent of leather armor is nice, maybe you want a mithral chainshirt.

[Red Fel]

The entire purpose of the no armor feat is to be able to wear armor/robes and qualify for Druid/"Don't wear metal" class requirements.

Warforged Druid = awesome

There is also a feat (Ironwood Body, if memory serves) that replaces Composite Plating with a Druid-friendly wood version which grants DR. In my mind, superior to Unarmored Body for a Druid, since finding capable wooden or hide armor is a bit of a pain (absent the Magic-Mart).

The big bonus of Unarmored Body is being able to use regular armor/robes, and not automatically taking an ACP or ASF simply by merit of being plated, while still otherwise retaining the various Warforged traits (slam attack, construct immunities, etc.).

[Captnq]

Well if we are using that, nothing says you stop burning after taking fire damage from a fireball spell...


Nothing says you actually start burning either.

The rules on burning are quite clear.
Instantaneous fire effects cannot set you on fire. PERIOD.
Fire effects that are listed as able to cause fire have a DEFAULT of make a reflex save of take 1d6 right away. Roll Reflex every round at DC 15 to put yourself out. Taking an action to put yourself out gives you a +4 to the roll.

For example, I take a sprayer full of oil. I spray. Now, most people think the 10' line automatically hits, which it does. But if I have say, a torch or something burning in front of the sprayer, or I'm using the fire devotion feat to set myself on fire, the oil forms a burning line, but the target does not take damage from burning oil, in such a fashion. He takes damage from catching on fire.

Now, pouring oil on the ground and setting it on fire causes 1d3 damage to anyone who enters the square, no save. But then you get to make a reflex save and might catch on fire on top of that.

Ironically, If you had a longsword with an oil sprayer and were using fire devotion to hit someone, the target gets to make two saving throws vrs fire. The DC 15 from the oil which does 1d6, then the DC 10 + 1/2 your level + charisma bonus for only 1d4 damage. Then you would be doubly on fire, but the second fire only burns 1d4 damage, and at low levels, your DC can be way below the standard 15. (Say you took charisma as a dump stat, for example. 4th level guy might have a DC of 12.) But hey, that's how the burning works.

Of course you cast raging flame and then you double the damage. Good times... good times...

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The rules on burning are quite clear.
Instantaneous fire effects cannot set you on fire. PERIOD.
Fire effects that are listed as able to cause fire have a DEFAULT of make a reflex save of take 1d6 right away. Roll Reflex every round at DC 15 to put yourself out. Taking an action to put yourself out gives you a +4 to the roll.

For example, I take a sprayer full of oil. I spray. Now, most people think the 10' line automatically hits, which it does. But if I have say, a torch or something burning in front of the sprayer, or I'm using the fire devotion feat to set myself on fire, the oil forms a burning line, but the target does not take damage from burning oil, in such a fashion. He takes damage from catching on fire.

Now, pouring oil on the ground and setting it on fire causes 1d3 damage to anyone who enters the square, no save. But then you get to make a reflex save and might catch on fire on top of that.

Ironically, If you had a longsword with an oil sprayer and were using fire devotion to hit someone, the target gets to make two saving throws vrs fire. The DC 15 from the oil which does 1d6, then the DC 10 + 1/2 your level + charisma bonus for only 1d4 damage. Then you would be doubly on fire, but the second fire only burns 1d4 damage, and at low levels, your DC can be way below the standard 15. (Say you took charisma as a dump stat, for example. 4th level guy might have a DC of 12.) But hey, that's how the burning works.

Of course you cast raging flame and then you double the damage. Good times... good times...

I was referring to how people use negatives to prove a point. I wasn't saying I thought that fireball should keep damaging someone.

Many people say stuff like "This is proven because it doesn't say X"

When people should use "This is proven because it says Y"

The example used (I've heard argued in a game) was not an opinion of mine. The player said that since the spell (fire spell, but i dont think it was fireball) doesn't say that people don't catch on fire then they must catch on fire because that is how fire works.

Obviously there was a few things wrong with that line of thinking.

[LordErebus12]

I was referring to how people use negatives to prove a point. I wasn't saying I thought that fireball should keep damaging someone.

Many people say stuff like "This is proven because it doesn't say X"

When people should use "This is proven because it says Y"

The example used (I've heard argued in a game) was not an opinion of mine. The player said that since the spell (fire spell, but i dont think it was fireball) doesn't say that people don't catch on fire then they must catch on fire because that is how fire works.

Obviously there was a few things wrong with that line of thinking.

I use the rules in the newest printed book first over older prints.

Fireball, as per your example, has this little entry on page 29 of Stormwrack.

"Fireball: The fireball can start a fire."

When a fireball is used to attack ships, it sets fire to the ship (and therefore we can assume it can set fires), as per stormwrack being newer than player's handbook.

[Starmage21]

I use the rules in the newest printed book first over older prints.

Fireball, as per your example, has this little entry on page 29 of Stormwrack.

"Fireball: The fireball can start a fire."

When a fireball is used to attack ships, it sets fire to the ship (and therefore we can assume it can set fires), as per stormwrack being newer than player's handbook.

The fireball starts fires by default. It is in the spell description.



A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.

You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.