Impacts of Warforged's Integrated Protection

[RickAllison]

This is definitely a theory-crafting scenario.


Integrated Protection. Your body has builtin defensive layers, which determine your armor
class. You gain no benefit from wearing armor, but if you are using a shield, you apply its bonus as normal.
You can alter your body to enter different defensive modes; each time you finish a long rest, choose one mode to adopt from the Integrated Protection table, provided you meet the mode’s prerequisite.



Mode
Prerequisite
Effect


Darkwood core (unarmored)
None
11 + your Dexterity modifier (add proficiency bonus if proficient in light armor)


Composite plating (armor)
Medium armor proficiency
13 + your Dexterity modifier (maximum of 2) + your proficiency bonus.


Heavy plating (armor)
Heavy armor proficiency
16 + your proficiency bonus; disadvantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks.




The Warforged's Integrated Protection feature counts the character as being armored for the composite or heavy options, but Word of God has clarified that they do not in their current form (which was carried over to at least v2 of Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron) count specifically as being medium or heavy armor. Notable effects of this include Warforged Barbarians and Bladesingers being able to Rage or activate Bladesong while dumping Dexterity, so long as they get proficiency somewhere.

Another notable effect of this is that while you need the proficiency to set up the armor type, you don't need it to use it once you're in play. The question is whether there is a way to get that proficiency without investing in a class or feat. The most direct one I can think of is Tenser's Transformation. Leave your strenuous activity time for the end of a long rest, cast Tenser's Transformation, and you now have medium and heavy armor proficiency just in time to change Integrated Protection. Naturally, no sane DM would ever allow this, but it is an interesting theory.

The final one I can think of is that you can have light armor without actually being considered armored. This could let you use monk features while having low Wisdom, but that still seems bad. I like the idea of this, but I'm not sure whether it can be leveraged into something useful.

Any other impacts you all can think of? And again, I realize that several of these options would result in being thwacked but where is the fun if you can't think of the ramifications of of the game?

[Blood of Gaea]

Various races give proficiency in armor. Githyanki and Mountain Dwarves give light and medium armor, Hobgoblins gives light.

Githzerai are interesting, they give +1 AC so long as you aren't wearing medium or heavy armor or a shield. If you grabbed heavy armor from somewhere, you coud make a pretty decent Shillelagh Druid or Cleric.

But honestly, I think the classic Champion 3/Barbarian X does really well with this.

[RickAllison]

Various races give proficiency in armor. Githyanki and Mountain Dwarves give light and medium armor, Hobgoblins gives light.

Githzerai are interesting, they give +1 AC so long as you aren't wearing medium or heavy armor or a shield. If you grabbed heavy armor from somewhere, you coud make a pretty decent Shillelagh Druid or Cleric.

But honestly, I think the classic Champion 3/Barbarian X does really well with this.

Races giving armor proficiency really don't help here (since this is a racial feature as well). The druid is a good point though, Worst case, they already have medium armor proficiency already that you can now leverage into really good armor. They are normally limited to the really cheap armor with no metal which isn't much better than the light stuff, but this would let a a Druid have a medium armor option that scales perfectly fine with the best of them.

[Tetrasodium]

This is definitely a theory-crafting scenario.



The Warforged's Integrated Protection feature counts the character as being armored for the composite or heavy options, but Word of God has clarified that they do not in their current form (which was carried over to at least v2 of Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron) count specifically as being medium or heavy armor. Notable effects of this include Warforged Barbarians and Bladesingers being able to Rage or activate Bladesong while dumping Dexterity, so long as they get proficiency somewhere.

Another notable effect of this is that while you need the proficiency to set up the armor type, you don't need it to use it once you're in play. The question is whether there is a way to get that proficiency without investing in a class or feat. The most direct one I can think of is Tenser's Transformation. Leave your strenuous activity time for the end of a long rest, cast Tenser's Transformation, and you now have medium and heavy armor proficiency just in time to change Integrated Protection. Naturally, no sane DM would ever allow this, but it is an interesting theory.

The final one I can think of is that you can have light armor without actually being considered armored. This could let you use monk features while having low Wisdom, but that still seems bad. I like the idea of this, but I'm not sure whether it can be leveraged into something useful.

Any other impacts you all can think of? And again, I realize that several of these options would result in being thwacked but where is the fun if you can't think of the ramifications of of the game?
certain polymorph options will give implied proficiency because things (ie a knight from MM347 & lots of other humanoid type baddies) simply because they are wearing various types of armor, but they don't explicitly get proficiency and more importantly you'd lose your integrated protection ability because "The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of its new form, and it can’t speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech. The target’s gear melds into the new form. The creature can’t activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.". Tensers transformation is a 6th level spell that grants "You have proficiency with all armor, shields, simple weapons, and martial weapons." (among other things)... however with a mere 10 minute duration, even extended with metamagic it's not long enough to "finish a long rest"


Here's the rest of the text for integrated protection

Integrated Protection. Your body has builtin defensive layers, which determine your armor class. You gain no benefit from wearing armor, but if you are using a shield, you apply its bonus as normal.
You can alter your body to enter different defensive modes; each time you finish a long rest, choose one mode to adopt from the Integrated Protection table, provided you meet the mode’s prerequisite.
You either need to pick a different race, get it from multclassing, or take the feat until wotc does something like give warlocks a pact armor feature/invocation & being for warlocks I'd expect such a thing to fo into print as broken as possible.

[Tetrasodium]

This is definitely a theory-crafting scenario.



The Warforged's Integrated Protection feature counts the character as being armored for the composite or heavy options, but Word of God has clarified that they do not in their current form (which was carried over to at least v2 of Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron) count specifically as being medium or heavy armor. Notable effects of this include Warforged Barbarians and Bladesingers being able to Rage or activate Bladesong while dumping Dexterity, so long as they get proficiency somewhere.

Another notable effect of this is that while you need the proficiency to set up the armor type, you don't need it to use it once you're in play. The question is whether there is a way to get that proficiency without investing in a class or feat. The most direct one I can think of is Tenser's Transformation. Leave your strenuous activity time for the end of a long rest, cast Tenser's Transformation, and you now have medium and heavy armor proficiency just in time to change Integrated Protection. Naturally, no sane DM would ever allow this, but it is an interesting theory.

The final one I can think of is that you can have light armor without actually being considered armored. This could let you use monk features while having low Wisdom, but that still seems bad. I like the idea of this, but I'm not sure whether it can be leveraged into something useful.

Any other impacts you all can think of? And again, I realize that several of these options would result in being thwacked but where is the fun if you can't think of the ramifications of of the game?
certain polymorph options will give implied proficiency because things (ie a knight from MM347 & lots of other humanoid type baddies) simply because they are wearing various types of armor, but they don't explicitly get proficiency and more importantly you'd lose your integrated protection ability because "The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of its new form, and it can’t speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech. The target’s gear melds into the new form. The creature can’t activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.". Tensers transformation is a 6th level spell that grants "You have proficiency with all armor, shields, simple weapons, and martial weapons." (among other things)... however with a mere 10 minute duration, even extended with metamagic it's not long enough to "finish a long rest"


Here's the rest of the text for integrated protection

Integrated Protection. Your body has builtin defensive layers, which determine your armor class. You gain no benefit from wearing armor, but if you are using a shield, you apply its bonus as normal.
You can alter your body to enter different defensive modes; each time you finish a long rest, choose one mode to adopt from the Integrated Protection table, provided you meet the mode’s prerequisite.
You either need to pick a different race, get it from multclassing, or take the feat until wotc does something like give warlocks a pact armor feature/invocation & being for warlocks I'd expect such a thing to fo into print as broken as possible. The last costly options are either start level 1 fighter or something (this dramatically affects allowed skill choices), or instead take a level of life/war/forge cleric that gets heavy armor proficiency as a bonus from their domain choice.

[Blood of Gaea]

Races giving armor proficiency really don't help here (since this is a racial feature as well). The druid is a good point though, Worst case, they already have medium armor proficiency already that you can now leverage into really good armor. They are normally limited to the really cheap armor with no metal which isn't much better than the light stuff, but this would let a a Druid have a medium armor option that scales perfectly fine with the best of them.
You're completely right there, I just came out of a Discord conversation where someone was discussing the idea of mixed racial abilities for a campaign of theirs and I mixed the two trains of thought.

[Wildarm]

The Warforged's Integrated Protection feature counts the character as being armored for the composite or heavy options, but Word of God has clarified that they do not in their current form (which was carried over to at least v2 of Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron) count specifically as being medium or heavy armor. Notable effects of this include Warforged Barbarians and Bladesingers being able to Rage or activate Bladesong while dumping Dexterity, so long as they get proficiency somewhere.

The final one I can think of is that you can have light armor without actually being considered armored. This could let you use monk features while having low Wisdom, but that still seems bad. I like the idea of this, but I'm not sure whether it can be leveraged into something useful.


I don't think you'll get a DM to go along with that interpretation of how the integrated armor is supposed to work. Assuming medium armor plating is medium armor and heavy armor plating is heavy armor, here's my take on warforged for each class

Rogues - You basically start with +1 Studded Leather that gets better every 5 levels. Solid especially if you can grab shield proficiency.
Barbarians/Ranger/Clerics(Medium Armor) - You still can only wear medium armor which means you can't dump dex. You effectively get medium magic armor equivalent each tier. OK but probably not noticeable in a high magic campaign.
Fighters/Paladins/Clerics(Heavy Armor) - Free Plate at level 1. Free magic plate at higher tiers. Solid.
Monks - You could dump Wis and still have good AC. Not recommended as Stunning Fist is your bread and butter at higher levels.
Wizards/Sorcerer - Assuming you can snag light armor proficiency, it's like mage armor but improves a bit at each tier.
Druids - Nothing special here. Scaling medium armor which hopefully can work with druid metal restrictions. Potentially works in wildshape which is huge but YMMV with the DM.

Special subclasses of note:

Bladesinger could get a crazy high AC. YMMV as your DM has to give a warforged permission to take that subclass.

Bear Barbarian - Can technically gain rage damage reduction while wearing heavy armor. You still lose all your other rage features. JC has tweeted that he doesn't agree with this logic so again YMMV with your DM.

One thing you did not mention in your original post is that the heavy armor plating does NOT have a strength requirement. This can lead to some great flexible builds:

Fighter 1/Abjurer X - Solid scaling AC and Con Prof and Arcane Ward.
Tempest Cleric 2/Evoker X - Solid scaling AC and several ways to maximize damage.
Fighter 1/Battlesmith X - Very strong front liner support team with your iron guardian
Forge Cleric 1/Sentinel Rogue X - Durable front line Rogue who is dangerous to ignore. Decent Wisdom, Guidance and integrated tools makes you a very good skill monkey as well.

[Tetrasodium]

I don't think you'll get a DM to go along with that interpretation of how the integrated armor is supposed to work. Assuming medium armor plating is medium armor and heavy armor plating is heavy armor, here's my take on warforged for each class

Rogues - You basically start with +1 Studded Leather that gets better every 5 levels. Solid especially if you can grab shield proficiency.
Barbarians/Ranger/Clerics(Medium Armor) - You still can only wear medium armor which means you can't dump dex. You effectively get medium magic armor equivalent each tier. OK but probably not noticeable in a high magic campaign.
Fighters/Paladins/Clerics(Heavy Armor) - Free Plate at level 1. Free magic plate at higher tiers. Solid.
Monks - You could dump Wis and still have good AC. Not recommended as Stunning Fist is your bread and butter at higher levels.
Wizards/Sorcerer - Assuming you can snag light armor proficiency, it's like mage armor but improves a bit at each tier.
Druids - Nothing special here. Scaling medium armor which hopefully can work with druid metal restrictions. Potentially works in wildshape which is huge but YMMV with the DM.

Special subclasses of note:

Bladesinger could get a crazy high AC. YMMV as your DM has to give a warforged permission to take that subclass.

Bear Barbarian - Can technically gain rage damage reduction while wearing heavy armor. You still lose all your other rage features. JC has tweeted that he doesn't agree with this logic so again YMMV with your DM.

One thing you did not mention in your original post is that the heavy armor plating does NOT have a strength requirement. This can lead to some great flexible builds:

Fighter 1/Abjurer X - Solid scaling AC and Con Prof and Arcane Ward.
Tempest Cleric 2/Evoker X - Solid scaling AC and several ways to maximize damage.
Fighter 1/Battlesmith X - Very strong front liner support team with your iron guardian
Forge Cleric 1/Sentinel Rogue X - Durable front line Rogue who is dangerous to ignore. Decent Wisdom, Guidance and integrated tools makes you a very good skill monkey as well.

It sounds a lot like you are trying to root your argument in RAW while ignoring that you need to insert "you are considered to be wearing armor" into rules that do not include those words.. {Scrubbed} Per JC in the {Scrubbed} the druid/wildshape podcast (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/chris-avellone-and-philip-daigle-planescape-torment-enhanced-edition)... ~1640:"we state in the wildshape rule that this transformation is magical", 20:20:"There's another bit of wildshape that generates a lot of questions, & that is.. we state, that while in wildshape you retain access to your class, your race, and any other source. and you can use them if the new form is capable of doing so. when we say any other source, this also includes stuff like feats. You have access to alk of these things as long as you are physically capable of using them. Now this is very open ended & we were very purposeful in leaving this open ended because there are so may different animals you can turn into , feats, features, racial traits. If we got too specific, we would then wind up being far more restrictive than we intended. Really the message I want to give out to our listeners is that this ruling is written in the spirit of permissiveness, we actually want you to be able to use as many of your of class features, racial traits, feats, etcetera as possible but within a sort of limit based more on narrative than game balance. think about what is your person physically capable of doing, if it's a feature that obviously requires the kind of manual dexterity that needs humanlike hands, your not going to be able to do it in your beast form. If a feature specifically refers to a kind of anatomy that you lack.. hypothetical, lets say you have a racial trait that refers to your wings say an aarakokra & you transform into something that lacks those wings... well you don't have access to that racial trait. Those aren't the combinations that people usually have questions about. They usually have questions about things like... one that comes up a lot is 'im a dragonborn, I transform into a beast, do I get to use my breath weapon?'. Well again, this rule is written in an attitude of permissiveness and also as a DM my attutude is very permissive. The dragonborn racial trait, all it says is you exhale this breath weapon. You don't talk about it tied to a particular organ in your body">"alright basically any creature that has lungs or the ability to exhale something would you say?">I would even be more permissive than that. That as long as the creature has a mouth like orifice I would be fine with the dragonborn using their reath weapon"

The warforged are not constructs. In 3.5 they were living constructs & that plating was magically part of their body.In 5e warforged are even less construct and heal/recover exactly as every other living creature does. Every beast form has a body, going by that dragonborn example from JC it continues to work after that magical transformation. Rust monster Antenna has no effect on magic armor or warforged plating in 5e. The gruamane in Kendal Santor's treatise on the Mournland has a mana drain ability that hurts warforged like rustmonsters in 3.5 did. The difference is that the 3.5 rust monster affected magical armor after a failed dex save while in 5e it just has no effect on magical armor.


back to the podcast: 26:35"another class feature that comes up a lot is people wonder does my druid benefit from this while in beast form which barbarian & monk both have[expand on those features & how various archtypes/ua/etc get similar too] people will wonder does this work while in beast form & it gets even trickier because some of the beasts you turn into have natural armor. does that count as armor?. Ok so there's several things here for me to unpack. First, those rules refer to wearing armor. You don't wear natual armor. So anything in the game that says when you're wearing armor that this thing doesn't work, that never applies to natual armor. That's your skin scales or whatever that's providing your natural armor. Your not wearing it, it's you. That restriction against wearing armor is the artificialness of being a humanoid softskin having to wear strapped on armor. exactly, a natural beast does't have any of those limitations. So right away the natural armor is not shutting off something like the UAD; however this goes back to the rule that different armor class calculations don't stack. You never use them all at the same time "

{Scrubbed}

[Wildarm]

It sounds a lot like you are trying to root your argument in RAW while ignoring that you need to insert "you are considered to be wearing armor" into rules that do not include those words.. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}.

Wow... Harsh. I didn't realize the DM no longer has a role in interpreting the rules at his table. I did mention specifically that this is how I handle it. YMMV. :)

[Tetrasodium]

Wow... Harsh. I didn't realize the DM no longer has a role in interpreting the rules at his table. I did mention specifically that this is how I handle it. YMMV. :)

Not harsh at all, just well deserved honesty {Scrubbed}

I don't think you'll get a DM to go along with that interpretation of how the integrated armor is supposed to work. Assuming medium armor plating is medium armor and heavy armor plating is heavy armor, here's my take on warforged for each class

{Scrubbed}

It's a huge difference.

[Dualswinger]

Without going too much into detail:

Redemption Paladin 4 (Though honestly the Oath doesn't really matter)

Bladesinger Wizard 8

Kensei Monk 4

Lore Bard 4

This collection of classes can give us up to 42 AC with spell shenanigans (though from official sources you'd never need more than 39). Even without, it gives us a resting ac of 25 with no resources expended. Plus you have the Bard's Jack of All Trades to help you use your higher slots for counterspelling.

[Rukelnikov]

snip

Warforged's Integrated Protection, "Your body has built-in protective layers", is not that different from Lizardfolk's Natural Armor, "You have tough, scaly skin", JC has twitted:

Q: "so does the lizardfolk natural armour need the wild shape to have scales?"

A: "The lizardfolk's Natural Armor specifies anatomy: tough, scaly skin. It doesn't apply if you're wearing a beast's skin in Wild Shape" - JC

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/12/25/do-draconic-ancestry-and-fey-ancestry-stay-in-wild-shape/

So, RAI at least, I'd say it doesn't work.

[Tetrasodium]

Warforged's Integrated Protection, "Your body has built-in protective layers", is not that different from Lizardfolk's Natural Armor, "You have tough, scaly skin", JC has twitted:

Q: "so does the lizardfolk natural armour need the wild shape to have scales?"

A: "The lizardfolk's Natural Armor specifies anatomy: tough, scaly skin. It doesn't apply if you're wearing a beast's skin in Wild Shape" - JC

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/12/25/do-draconic-ancestry-and-fey-ancestry-stay-in-wild-shape/

So, RAI at least, I'd say it doesn't work.

That's another problem. WotC has a bizarre tendency to ignore the rules when making rulings with druid wildshape. For example this one (https://twitter.com/DnD_AdvLeague/status/845332247603482624) where rather than let druids finding wearable(whatever restrictions you do or don't put on armor for druid players) magic barding and have it resize to fit whatever wildshape form they take... they instead declare that barding is different from armor in that regard & inadvertently simultaneously exempt barding from "will not wear metal armor[because it goes against Mielikki's code in FR]"

"Your body", not your skin, not your scales, every wildshape form has a "body". A dwarf is still resistant to poison, a tiefling is still resistant to fire, a goliath still can use their DR thing, a halforc still gets extra damage on crits & has that drop to 1hp thing because those are all racial traits. All of those happen because "You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so." The thing that warforged need to have for those. magical protective layers to affect the wildshape form is a "body" There is also evidence of those protective layers being able to "magically adjust themselves to the wearer. " with warforged literally growing blades from it among other things.

[Greywander]

Githzerai are interesting, they give +1 AC so long as you aren't wearing medium or heavy armor or a shield. If you grabbed heavy armor from somewhere, you coud make a pretty decent Shillelagh Druid or Cleric.
Source on this? I checked MToF and it said nothing about gith getting any kind of AC bonus. Are you perhaps thinking of the simic hybrid with the carapace trait?

[Blood of Gaea]

Source on this? I checked MToF and it said nothing about gith getting any kind of AC bonus. Are you perhaps thinking of the simic hybrid with the carapace trait?
It's in an UA. (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-Eladrin-Gith.pdf)

[jdizzlean]

The Mod Life Crisis: Kindly stay on topic without attacking each other. Discussions of RAW/RAI should stay w/ just the facts or your opinion, but everyone's opinion is valid here.

[CorporateSlave]

I always thought the whole way Warforged Integrated Protection was written was sloppy...they call it Heavy Plating, reference that it is (armor), then say you need Heavy Armor Proficiency...but somehow it isn't Heavy Armor?

Why not just leave out the (armor) qualifier in the description? Seems like that would have alleviated a lot of confusion; Ok, it is Heavy Plating, and you need Heavy Armor Proficiency to be able use it, but it is Integrated Protection, not Armor. Did they put the (armor) just to make it clear it can't work with certain "unarmored" class features? Eeesh, just write that out (i.e. "Warforged Integrated Protection levels that include Plating prohibits the use of any class features or abilities that require the creature to be "unarmored."), rather than calling it (armor) then saying "It's not armor! We mean it IS armor! But just sometimes! I'm sorry you'll just have to figure out when!"

[JackPhoenix]

I always thought the whole way Warforged Integrated Protection was written was sloppy...they call it Heavy Plating, reference that it is (armor), then say you need Heavy Armor Proficiency...but somehow it isn't Heavy Armor?

Why not just leave out the (armor) qualifier in the description? Seems like that would have alleviated a lot of confusion; Ok, it is Heavy Plating, and you need Heavy Armor Proficiency to be able use it, but it is Integrated Protection, not Armor. Did they put the (armor) just to make it clear it can't work with certain "unarmored" class features? Eeesh, just write that out (i.e. "Warforged Integrated Protection levels that include Plating prohibits the use of any class features or abilities that require the creature to be "unarmored."), rather than calling it (armor) then saying "It's not armor! We mean it IS armor! But just sometimes! I'm sorry you'll just have to figure out when!"

Yeah, people would think it's UA-level material or something.... oh, wait....

[Tetrasodium]

I always thought the whole way Warforged Integrated Protection was written was sloppy...they call it Heavy Plating, reference that it is (armor), then say you need Heavy Armor Proficiency...but somehow it isn't Heavy Armor?

Why not just leave out the (armor) qualifier in the description? Seems like that would have alleviated a lot of confusion; Ok, it is Heavy Plating, and you need Heavy Armor Proficiency to be able use it, but it is Integrated Protection, not Armor. Did they put the (armor) just to make it clear it can't work with certain "unarmored" class features? Eeesh, just write that out (i.e. "Warforged Integrated Protection levels that include Plating prohibits the use of any class features or abilities that require the creature to be "unarmored."), rather than calling it (armor) then saying "It's not armor! We mean it IS armor! But just sometimes! I'm sorry you'll just have to figure out when!"

Back in 3.5 it was cleaner on the armor front but there were a ton of things that came from the other racial traits that made it stand out as something very much not meat based but still not clearly just a construct. The body/bodyfeats were "cleaner" because 3.5 had a lot more tied to creature type and it still had things like Arcane spell failure chance/Armor Check Penalties. dding further evidence to the integrated protection being magical, at one point o the composite plating section it said "This plating is not natural armor and does not stack with other effects that give an armor bonus (other than natural armor)".

WotC made a decision in 5e to deemphasize creature types (that part is neither good nor bad), then on MM6 write this sentence in the top right. "The game includes the following monster types, which have no rules of their own." That choice along with system differences make it difficult to preserve that original "clearly not meat and not quite construct either" in any way other than having the integrated protection reside in the current state of not being considered wearing armor. the types of plating in 3.5 were determined by your choice to spend your level 1 feat on a body feat or not, 5e doesn't have those now though so another method needs to be used. Given 5e's mechanics, armor proficiency is about the only way that does not fling them out of that murky space of a living construct.

[RickAllison]

Yeah, people would think it's UA-level material or something.... oh, wait....

It's a little more than UA-level at this point. The book isn't in final release, but that is the version they have as of v2 of WGtE.

[JackPhoenix]

It's a little more than UA-level at this point. The book isn't in final release, but that is the version they have as of v2 of WGtE.

Well, the fluff stuff isn't UA-level. The mechanics, though... the version number doesn't change much, as there was little change in mechanics, it was mostly editing (I actually got through the trouble of creating a changelog (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23709433&postcount=2)). And there were UAs with multiple progressive versions, Artificer had most of them. There was also older UA version of Eberron races, including warforged.

And we were promised to get final version when E:RftLW comes out.... we'll see how different that will be from the current depiction.

[Petrocorus]

I personally consider that warforgeds using composite or heavy plating are using armors.
- It is implied with the"(armor)" and "(unarmored)" in the mode column.
- It makes sense to me.
- Otherwise it would create a significant number of rules issues, like the Barbarian or Bladesinger in heavy armor or the Fighter not able of using the Defence FS and the Forge Cleric forgoing his subclass features.

The Warforged plating rules do avoid the Strength requirement though. And it doesn't look at all like a mistake.

This open a lot of possibilities. Not only it is very good for the heavy armor cleric that doesn't need 15 Str anymore but as others have pointed out, it allows a whole new set of MC combos. Notably with multiclassed arcana caster.

I believe this feature scale a bit too well anyway. At any given level, the Warforged will have 1 or 2 point of AC more than any member of another race with the same build and level-appropriate magic armor. That is significant.
That would be fine if this was the only feature of the race, but it also get Warforged Resilience and subrace feature, some of them are really good.

[Khrysaes]

I personally consider that warforgeds using composite or heavy plating are using armors.
- It is implied with the"(armor)" and "(unarmored)" in the mode column.
- It makes sense to me.
- Otherwise it would create a significant number of rules issues, like the Barbarian or Bladesinger in heavy armor or the Fighter not able of using the Defence FS and the Forge Cleric forgoing his subclass features.

The Warforged plating rules do avoid the Strength requirement though. And it doesn't look at all like a mistake.

This open a lot of possibilities. Not only it is very good for the heavy armor cleric that doesn't need 15 Str anymore but as others have pointed out, it allows a whole new set of MC combos. Notably with multiclassed arcana caster.

I believe this feature scale a bit too well anyway. At any given level, the Warforged will have 1 or 2 point of AC more than any member of another race with the same build and level-appropriate magic armor. That is significant.
That would be fine if this was the only feature of the race, but it also get Warforged Resilience and subrace feature, some of them are really good.

The key difference is the proficiency bonus. At max dex, the ac of any plating at 1st level is 18, 17, 18, with composite being the worst. At 20th level that is 22, 21, 22, which is comparable to a 20th level barbarian.

This is intended to have it scale with magic armor as plating by raw cant be enchanted like a plate +3, which would give 21 armor. The problem is that the warforged doesnt have to pay or find it, it grows with them.

I just started my level 5 warforged artificer, and assuming i can infuse my plating, i have 22 ac as at level 5 and 13 + 2dex + 3prof +3 from infused shield +1 from infused plating.

This increases by 5 more for free with prof and infusions as i level.

I brought this up in my own thread when i learned plating doesnt count as armor on dndbeyond. The conclusion i got was the party should decide if jit is or isnt no in between or exceptions. As warforged cant wear armor, but requires proficiency with it for plating. We determined it was. Darkwood is unarmored if you arent proficient in light.

[Tetrasodium]

I personally consider that warforgeds using composite or heavy plating are using armors.
- It is implied with the"(armor)" and "(unarmored)" in the mode column.
- It makes sense to me.
- Otherwise it would create a significant number of rules issues, like the Barbarian or Bladesinger in heavy armor or the Fighter not able of using the Defence FS and the Forge Cleric forgoing his subclass features.

The Warforged plating rules do avoid the Strength requirement though. And it doesn't look at all like a mistake.

This open a lot of possibilities. Not only it is very good for the heavy armor cleric that doesn't need 15 Str anymore but as others have pointed out, it allows a whole new set of MC combos. Notably with multiclassed arcana caster.

I believe this feature scale a bit too well anyway. At any given level, the Warforged will have 1 or 2 point of AC more than any member of another race with the same build and level-appropriate magic armor. That is significant.
That would be fine if this was the only feature of the race, but it also get Warforged Resilience and subrace feature, some of them are really good.

They are only "rules issues" if you consider warforged as bin the same as every flesh & blood meat based race. As a living construct, they are not just like everyone else, the fact that there are things they can & can not do that weak flesh based races can is a big part of their struggle in the setting they come from.

You can consider that houserule interpretation, but the rules do not support it and more importantly it does a disservice to the lore in making the living construct warforged more like a flesh & blood humanoid rather than something that straddles the line between construct & creature. When you need to add words and say things like "it's implied" & you are arguing against the plain wording of the ability to add "you are consudered to be wearing armor" to your interpretation.. it's a rewriting or reimagining of the rules. You identified a few examples of how they straddle that line, the solution is to embrace the fact that they do so rather than force them to clearly exist on one side.

Back in 3.5 there were PrC's that would allow a warforged to embrace one side or the other (reforged for lliving, juggernaught & others for construct). Your reimagined version of the rules flatly robs reforged of much of its uniqueness by flinging base warforged clearly into the same box as flesh & blood humanoids.

[JackPhoenix]

They are only "rules issues" if you consider warforged as bin the same as every flesh & blood meat based race. As a living construct, they are not just like everyone else, the fact that there are things they can & can not do that weak flesh based races can is a big part of their struggle in the setting they come from.

Which is, in fact, irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is about mechanical balance, and not fluff. The last incarnation of warforged is already humanoid "just like everyone else" instead of being a construct for the same reason.

He's also (half)right: composite or heavy plating is considered armor for the purpose of abilities that care about that (unarmored defense, pretty much). They are not considered wearing specific class of armor, though, so Integrated Protection does not interfere with Rage, or Bladesong (not that it matters, as WF can't be Bladesinger anyway), nor does it benefit from Defense FS or Soul of the Forge.

Really, the ability is just awkwardly written. Let WF pick one of the options at character creation (just like the feats back in 3.5) and stick with that, counting it as natural armor that prevent you from wearing actual armor (like with tortles). That way, WF may have AC advantage at low levels, but won't scale later. If you're really worried about non-WF getting +X armor, create WF-only magic item that give +X to AC, at the same rarity as equivalent magic armor. It's both simpler, more balanced and closer to 3.5 rules.

[Khrysaes]

I would see this as the best optiin to balance it. Give them innate 10 unarmored, 12 +dex light armored, 14+ dex max 2 medium armored, and 18 ac heavy armored but imposing disadvantage on stealth as an optin 1st level. Then give them docents that arent sentient as the armor option with same rarity. The docents could also affect materials, i.e. mithral removes disadvantage, addy makes you immune to crits, +1 gives a +1 ac, or maybe other magical effects. Proficiency effects as normal, no str requirments, feats effect as normal

There, exactly balanced with other races.

Also of note, barding. If you can make armor for a bear or egasi why not a warforged? They can even be used as mounts by small races. Judt like every other medium race

[Tetrasodium]

Which is, in fact, irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is about mechanical balance, and not fluff. The last incarnation of warforged is already humanoid "just like everyone else" instead of being a construct for the same reason.

He's also (half)right: composite or heavy plating is considered armor for the purpose of abilities that care about that (unarmored defense, pretty much). They are not considered wearing specific class of armor, though, so Integrated Protection does not interfere with Rage, or Bladesong (not that it matters, as WF can't be Bladesinger anyway), nor does it benefit from Defense FS or Soul of the Forge.

Really, the ability is just awkwardly written. Let WF pick one of the options at character creation (just like the feats back in 3.5) and stick with that, counting it as natural armor that prevent you from wearing actual armor (like with tortles). That way, WF may have AC advantage at low levels, but won't scale later. If you're really worried about non-WF getting +X armor, create WF-only magic item that give +X to AC, at the same rarity as equivalent magic armor. It's both simpler, more balanced and closer to 3.5 rules.

If only WotC had some way to predict that warforge existed as a race somewhere between construct & flesh and blood creature where they could have given more thought to the differences between humanoids & constructs back 5+ years ago when wotc was making 5e. Since they did not, that leaves the not good for medium/heavy armor mastery forge cleric etc but good for rage & monk stuff remains the dividing line that clearly works within 5e's ruleset

With that said however, no it's not about balance at all. I've been running a game where I have players both warforge & flesh with a warforged barbarian & monk both using their integrated defense without issue since wayfinders came out. Earlier in the thread someone pointed out a build capable of breaking past 40ac using any race (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/67197/what-is-the-highest-possible-ac). In that light, what exactly is the "mechanical balance" issue that requires warforge to function like flesh based races when it comes to their magical integrated protection & armor/barding? Ne specific and spell out why it is a problem

[stoutstien]

Intergrated protection could have just been a flat +1 AC. Simple. Effective. The rest of the race/subrace could stay the same

[JackPhoenix]

If only WotC had some way to predict that warforge existed as a race somewhere between construct & flesh and blood creature where they could have given more thought to the differences between humanoids & constructs back 5+ years ago when wotc was making 5e. Since they did not, that leaves the not good for medium/heavy armor mastery forge cleric etc but good for rage & monk stuff remains the dividing line that clearly works within 5e's ruleset

I see both humanoid with construct-like racial trait (the current version) and construct with "living construct" trait as viable options, and while the later is closer to the original WF, the first propably work better for developers, as it lessens the possible unintended interactions. GGtR already opened door for non-humanoid PC races, and also modular approach to racial traits (with Simic hybrid's mutations). We'll see how WotC reacts to feedback they've got from the UA.


Intergrated protection could have just been a flat +1 AC. Simple. Effective. The rest of the race/subrace could stay the same

That was the original version, from 2015, or whenever the first Eberron UA was released. Problem with that is that WF would have to wear normal armor like everyone else... that doesn't fit them at all... their plating is part of their body.

[AdAstra]

I've suggested this in a previous thread, but a fine solution is just making superior warforged plating something you can purchase like other armor, with mundane and magical versions. You can factor in the superior AC and lower versatility into these plating options, giving the actual Warforged race more room for features and making them scale equivalently (though not at the same rate, what with the higher AC) with other members of the party, rather than having one scale off of purchase/looting of magic armor and the other scale off of proficiency.

[Greywander]

I'm a little unclear about a few things regarding this feature, as I feel like I've seen people saying certain other features don't work, or that it both does and doesn't count as armor.

As far as I can interpret it, the darkwood core doesn't count as wearing armor, and thus would work for things like Unarmored Movement (making warforged good low-WIS, high AC monks). Composite and heavy plating count as armor, and thus would count for the Defense fighting style, correct? (But the darkwood core would not?) But I've also heard people say they don't count as medium or heavy armor, which I assume means Medium/Heavy Armor Master don't do anything. I'm skeptical on this, as these both require that armor proficiency, so it seems implied that they are that type of armor.

I know each table is different, but I tend to err on the side of permissiveness. If it's unclear, I don't really see a reason not to allow composite/heavy plating to work with Medium/Heavy Armor Master. It's not going to break the game.

I'm curious to see what may change once warforged are "officially" released (my understanding is that WGtE is only semi-official, a step up from UA but a step down from physically published books). I'm pretty happy with them as they are. They're a strong option, to be sure, but not to the point where you'd never play anything else.

[Yunru]

I believe this feature scale a bit too well anyway. At any given level, the Warforged will have 1 or 2 point of AC more than any member of another race with the same build and level-appropriate magic armor. That is significant.
That would be fine if this was the only feature of the race, but it also get Warforged Resilience and subrace feature, some of them are really good.

Don't forget the setting it's released in. While it may have higher AC that unenchanted gear, the other party members will have +1/+2/+3 armour.

For a lower magic setting, like the default one, half the proficiency bonus, rounding down.

[JackPhoenix]

Don't forget the setting it's released in. While it may have higher AC that unenchanted gear, the other party members will have +1/+2/+3 armour.

For a lower magic setting, like the default one, half the proficiency bonus, rounding down.

See my sig. Eberron is *not* high magic setting. While weak, utility magic is omnipresent, legendary stuff is extremely rare. Other party members may be loaded with low level wands, scrolls and potions, and stuff like self-cleaning clothes, but it's very unlikely they ever see +3 armor.

[Rukelnikov]

See my sig. Eberron is *not* high magic setting. While weak, utility magic is omnipresent, legendary stuff is extremely rare. Other party members may be loaded with low level wands, scrolls and potions, and stuff like self-cleaning clothes, but it's very unlikely they ever see +3 armor.

So, in your opinion, what would be a high magic setting? FR?

[stoutstien]

That was the original version, from 2015, or whenever the first Eberron UA was released. Problem with that is that WF would have to wear normal armor like everyone else... that doesn't fit them at all... their plating is part of their body.
True but it wouldn't be hard to have a line of text that allow the WF to install a suit of armor vs don/doff.
Allows them to sleep in it and maybe negate the weight of it as well.

[JackPhoenix]

So, in your opinion, what would be a high magic setting? FR?

Planescape. Spelljammer, I guess? Don't know much about that one. Warcraft (which was actually D&D setting in 3e).

FR is a mess. There are places that certainly are high magic, but it varies wildly. However, both average and maximum power level of its inhabitants is much higher than in Eberron.

[Khrysaes]

I'm a little unclear about a few things regarding this feature, as I feel like I've seen people saying certain other features don't work, or that it both does and doesn't count as armor.

As far as I can interpret it, the darkwood core doesn't count as wearing armor, and thus would work for things like Unarmored Movement (making warforged good low-WIS, high AC monks). Composite and heavy plating count as armor, and thus would count for the Defense fighting style, correct? (But the darkwood core would not?) But I've also heard people say they don't count as medium or heavy armor, which I assume means Medium/Heavy Armor Master don't do anything. I'm skeptical on this, as these both require that armor proficiency, so it seems implied that they are that type of armor.

I know each table is different, but I tend to err on the side of permissiveness. If it's unclear, I don't really see a reason not to allow composite/heavy plating to work with Medium/Heavy Armor Master. It's not going to break the game.

I'm curious to see what may change once warforged are "officially" released (my understanding is that WGtE is only semi-official, a step up from UA but a step down from physically published books). I'm pretty happy with them as they are. They're a strong option, to be sure, but not to the point where you'd never play anything else.

I can not answer this with specific backing examples, but based on the way it is worded, and my own experience with DND Beyond(which is not necesarily a valid source) the integrated protection, regardless of plating, does not count as wearing armor. Which descriptively makes sense as it is integrated with their body. They aren't wearing armor, they are armor.

Therefore, integrated protection should work with a monk's and a barbarian's benefits that require no or limited armor. While the Unarmored defense would not work, it would be one or the other, but a monk is required to not be wearing armor in order to get the benefits of the Martial Arts feature. A Barbarian has to be in medium armor or less to rage.

Simultaneously, Integrated protection, at least on DND Beyond does not gain any benefit from features that require armor such as Defense fighting style, Forge cleric's +1 bonus to armor at level 1 and an additional +1 at level 6, the medium armor mastery and heavy armor mastery feats. This aspect supports the conjecture that Integrated Plating is not armor.

Therefore, a 1 fighter/x monk or x barbarian should be able to use heavy plating of integrated plating and still benefit from their class features, i.e. martial arts or rage, as to equip the heavy plating requires heavy armor proficiency.

However, and this is the part I am unsure of, I think there is a Jeremy Crawford tweet that says that while using composite plating or heavy plating the character would be inelligible to benefit from the Monk's martial arts feature. And this is supported by the requirement for proficiency in order to equip. This may apply to barbarian and other similar features as well.

So Integrated plating counts as both Armor for the purpose of not being able to be used by a monk and retain their benefits, and not armor for the purpose of features that require armor like the defensive fighting style.


Additionally, Wild Shape throws a wrench into this controversy by saying

"You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so. However, you can’t use any of your special senses, such as darkvision, unless your new form also has that sense."

Normally, should the player be a non warforged, they would wear armor and the armor would be absorbed into the new form.

However, you retain the benefit of any feature from your race if th new form is physically capable of doing so so long as it is not a special sense, AND the Integrated plating is not a special sense AND it is described as "Your body has built-in defensive layers, which determine your armor class."

Therefore, because the new form is using "your body" AND the warforged are using a feature from their race that uses "your body" to determine armor class it is a feature that the new form is capable of using and thus should be retained in a wild shaped form. Also because it is "YOUR BODY" even if it is composed of metal, you are not wearing metal armor you do not violate the taboo for the druid class regardless of plating.

[Petrocorus]

Don't forget the setting it's released in. While it may have higher AC that unenchanted gear, the other party members will have +1/+2/+3 armour.

For a lower magic setting, like the default one, half the proficiency bonus, rounding down.

I did account for magic armour. I may be a little wrong about heavy plating, but not for darkwood core or composite plating. All other things being equals, a WF will have 1 or 2 point of AC more than someone with a level-appropriate magic armor of equivalent type.

For instance, at level 5:
-The rogue with +1 studded leather and 18 Dex -> AC 17
WF rogue with darkwood core and 18 Dex -> AC = 11+3 (prof) +4 (Dex) =18
-Medium armor Cleric with +1 breastplate and 14+ Dex -> AC 17 (not counting shield)
WF Cleric without heavy armour proficiency -> AC 13 +3 (prof) +2 (dex) = 18 (not counting shield)

And that's assuming you do get a +1 armor at level 5, which is not that sure if you follow the guideline of the DMG or look the official campaigns like LMoP or ToB.

And for the records, about whether or not this is considered as armor, i did say i "personally consider" as being armor, not that it was RAW, because it makes sense "to me". It was a subjective opinion.


I can not answer......... is supported by the requirement for proficiency in order to equip. This may apply to barbarian and other similar features as well.

So Integrated plating counts as both Armor for the purpose of not being able to be used by a monk and retain their benefits, and not armor for the purpose of features that require armor like the defensive fighting style.

This is why i believe this rules needs better writing. And why it makes sense to me to consider that as wearing armor.

A WF with heavy plating is not actually wearing an armor, but his "skin" is as resilient as an heavy armor and more or less as bulky if we look at the art of the 3.5 WF.
It is weird to me that said WF can be as swift and agile as an unarmored human guy, while at the same time, cannot use fighting technique or magical power that rely on having a resilient metallic armor.
It may be RAW, but it doesn't look logical to me.

And if we want to justify this by the fluff, why not. I could understand that WF plating is very different of an armor and more integrated to the body. OK. But how do you justify fluff-wise the fact that WF can change their plating every day? What size is a heavy plating? Because most of the art dates back from 3.5 were normal WF had a +2 bonus to AC IIRC.

[Khrysaes]

...

This is why i believe this rules needs better writing. And why it makes sense to me to consider that as wearing armor.

A WF with heavy plating is not actually wearing an armor, but his "skin" is as resilient as an heavy armor and more or less as bulky if we look at the art of the 3.5 WF.
It is weird to me that said WF can be as swift and agile as an unarmored human guy, while at the same time, cannot use fighting technique or magical power that rely on having a resilient metallic armor.
It may be RAW, but it doesn't look logical to me.

And if we want to justify this by the fluff, why not. I could understand that WF plating is very different of an armor and more integrated to the body. OK. But how do you justify fluff-wise the fact that WF can change their plating every day? What size is a heavy plating? Because most of the art dates back from 3.5 were normal WF had a +2 bonus to AC IIRC.

To be fair, it is just my understanding of what JC wrote. I havent seen what he wrote, and if that is what he wrote it doesnt really matter because he has contradicted himself several times on several subjects, and I usually just ignore him. By RAW it works with monk or barbarian and heavy plating. I personally dont think it should, they should be limited to darkwood for monk and composite for barb, and the magic and effects like defensive style should work.

The one exception is darkwood. Darkwood counts as unarmored, and you add your Prof bonus ONLY if you are proficient in light armor. So this itself needs a separate ruling, is a monk NOT allowed to add prof? If you do add prof does defensive work? These would need to be established.

In 3.5 the armor type you had was decided at first level and NEVER changed. The feat that changed the initial composite plating (light armor i believe) to adamantine, mythril, or unarmored were limited to first level characters. And this makes sense to me mechanically and contextually to me. Warforged are built. Their body is formed so they can perform a specific function better. So while as players we design our warforged their intended function should be kept in mind. Each feat gave them a different armor bonus. Unarmored feat would be able to wear armor like a human I think.

The publication of the Eberron material to print is next month I believe. So we will have to see what changes and how. I personally agree with you that it does not make sense to be able to change your character's armor each day. I also agree with you that heavy plating would be as hard to move in as plate mail. Why should they be able to move as gracefully as an unarmored human that trained for years to do that?

[Rukelnikov]

Planescape. Spelljammer, I guess? Don't know much about that one. Warcraft (which was actually D&D setting in 3e).

FR is a mess. There are places that certainly are high magic, but it varies wildly. However, both average and maximum power level of its inhabitants is much higher than in Eberron.

Ok, yeah i always had the same impression regarding FR magic compared to Eb. Spelljammer can't talk about, never even read a single manual. Planescape though... Its... strange, I mean, the "average" power, as you call it, is definitely higher, since "commoners" aren't really that common most of the time, but that is from a personal power point of view, I haven't read that much, but don't remember empires comparable magic-wise to Aryvaandar or Netheril.

Funny that you mention WC, I knew it had a 3e version just never considered it as a "dnd setting", but since we are there, I assume Diablo would also be a pretty high magic setting then.

Anyway, this is pretty much completely OT, thx for the answer!

[Petrocorus]

To be fair, it is just my understanding of what JC wrote. I havent seen what he wrote, and if that is what he wrote it doesnt really matter because he has contradicted himself several times on several subjects, and I usually just ignore him.

I was not referring to his quote, i haven't read it. I also tend to take Sage Advice with a big grain of salt.



By RAW it works with monk or barbarian and heavy plating. I personally dont think it should, they should be limited to darkwood for monk and composite for barb, and the magic and effects like defensive style should work.
Exactly what i mean.



The one exception is darkwood. Darkwood counts as unarmored, and you add your Prof bonus ONLY if you are proficient in light armor. So this itself needs a separate ruling, is a monk NOT allowed to add prof? If you do add prof does defensive work? These would need to be established.
True

In 3.5 the armor t.......feat would be able to wear armor like a human I think.
3.5 was much more consistent and made more sense on this things. They had the base armor bonus of +2, same as leather armor, could be enchanted like an armor and the plating explicitly occupied the same space as armor. Unarmored WF could wear armors.

Now, in 5E, a feat would be too high a cost, and you normally don't have a feat at first level. But it would make sense for the WF to chose his plating at creation and never change without a lot of work with a skilled craftman.



The publication of the Eberron material to print is next month I believe. So we will have to see what changes and how. I personally agree with you that it does not make sense to be able to change your character's armor each day.

Yeah, i don't think this daily change is a big issue balance-wise, but it just seems weird. This is true for the integrated tool too.
People have pointed out the WF feels like they are transformers now.



I also agree with you that heavy plating would be as hard to move in as plate mail. Why should they be able to move as gracefully as an unarmored human that trained for years to do that?
Indeed.

[CorporateSlave]

...just a thought as someone who has played in a couple of campaigns in home-brew worlds which include Warforged (and in which integrated protection is treated just as the level of armor it implies), I've noticed that the debates about balance and scaling in this thread (and frankly on this forum in general fairly often) tend to do a pretty decent job of making "apples to apples" comparisons when looking at balance (i.e. AC granted by integrated protection vs normal armor, advantages and disadvantages of one or the other, etc).

However.

"Apples to apples" isn't necessarily a complete comparison if you're dealing with a fruit salad. In an RPG, race isn't necessarily just a collection of abilities and + stats when it comes to game time! Maybe Warforged have some great advantages, their resilience and integrated protection, but what about potential in game disadvantages? Sure they don't need food or sleep, but what if they are viewed with such suspicion that no local innkeeper will allow them on the premises? The party then has to choose between sleeping in the streets, or separating from each other. Maybe a wizard group wants to steal and reverse-engineer the "construct." There could be costs to being a Warforged that can bring some element of balance to the race even if their abilities seem at first to be OP or unbalanced when viewed in a white room comparison situation.

Frankly, I've always felt many of the "rare" races tend to get away with this a lot in some campaigns when used to optimize abilities and/or damage - dragon born, tiefling, etc. They get all the pluses in all the right places, and rarely or never suffer any consequences to "in game racism" that their very race descriptions state are a big deal! Anyway, just a thought.

[Khrysaes]

...just a thought as someone who has played in a couple of campaigns in home-brew worlds which include Warforged (and in which integrated protection is treated just as the level of armor it implies), I've noticed that the debates about balance and scaling in this thread (and frankly on this forum in general fairly often) tend to do a pretty decent job of making "apples to apples" comparisons when looking at balance (i.e. AC granted by integrated protection vs normal armor, advantages and disadvantages of one or the other, etc).

However.

"Apples to apples" isn't necessarily a complete comparison if you're dealing with a fruit salad. In an RPG, race isn't necessarily just a collection of abilities and + stats when it comes to game time! Maybe Warforged have some great advantages, their resilience and integrated protection, but what about potential in game disadvantages? Sure they don't need food or sleep, but what if they are viewed with such suspicion that no local innkeeper will allow them on the premises? The party then has to choose between sleeping in the streets, or separating from each other. Maybe a wizard group wants to steal and reverse-engineer the "construct." There could be costs to being a Warforged that can bring some element of balance to the race even if their abilities seem at first to be OP or unbalanced when viewed in a white room comparison situation.

Frankly, I've always felt many of the "rare" races tend to get away with this a lot in some campaigns when used to optimize abilities and/or damage - dragon born, tiefling, etc. They get all the pluses in all the right places, and rarely or never suffer any consequences to "in game racism" that their very race descriptions state are a big deal! Anyway, just a thought.

Except, as mentioned earlier, this was a discussion on the mechanical aspects of the race, not the fluff, which is all of what you just stated.

Hey, perhaps in someone elses world, warforged are common place and humans are the rarity.

My point in this post is that yes, in some worlds some races will have social advantages or disadvantages, however the cultures of the worlds are MUCH more subjective and should not be factored into mechanical balance.

[CorporateSlave]

Except, as mentioned earlier, this was a discussion on the mechanical aspects of the race, not the fluff, which is all of what you just stated.

Hey, perhaps in someone elses world, warforged are common place and humans are the rarity.

My point in this post is that yes, in some worlds some races will have social advantages or disadvantages, however the cultures of the worlds are MUCH more subjective and should not be factored into mechanical balance.

Indeed, the very title of the thread starts with the word "Optimization," which is why I chose the words "just a thought" rather than "here's proof I'm right."

Although frankly as a DM, my players leave the game world fluff implications of their optimization choices out of their consideration at their own peril...or to put it another way, in my campaigns optimization isn't necessarily just mechanical. I get that the game designers probably shouldn't factor any fluff into mechanical balance, but in an individual campaign, as long as it is made amply clear to the players in a Session 0 I don't see the issue.

[Tetrasodium]

Don't forget the setting it's released in. While it may have higher AC that unenchanted gear, the other party members will have +1/+2/+3 armour.

For a lower magic setting, like the default one, half the proficiency bonus, rounding down.

While they could, eberron is wide magic rather than high magic. At my table masterwork armor (among many other things) is no attune nonmagical & allows +1/3 proficiency bonus to ac, players have potion flasks that give 2hd+2, must of the table has picked up catrips from items or their background, & there are tons of single use trinkets with spells bound to them like the one charge feather tokens sold in sharn. Instead of ball bearings, my players activate a grease trinket or something. Being only level 3 right now they don't have any, but in previous campaigns they regularly found or bought trinkets with first to third level spells bound to them. Despite all of that, I almost never give boring +N equipment.

[Greywander]

So Integrated plating counts as both Armor for the purpose of not being able to be used by a monk and retain their benefits, and not armor for the purpose of features that require armor like the defensive fighting style.
This makes no sense. The exact wording of the Defense fighting style is, "While you are wearing armor..." while the wording of Martial Arts is, "While you aren't wearing armor." It's literally "If X" and "If not X", so it makes no sense that Integrated Protection could somehow fail to qualify for either one. The simplest solution is that Integrated Protection either does, or does not, count as wearing armor. If it does not count as wearing armor, then I don't benefit from the Defense fighting style, but I can also use Martial Arts/Unarmored Movement with heavy plating. If it does count as wearing armor, then I do benefit from the Defense fighting style, but can't use it with Martial Arts.

Honestly, if we're going to start making up arbitrary rules over what does and doesn't work with Integrated Protection, it actually makes more sense to me for them to get all the benefits of wearing armor (it provides the same level of protection) but with none of the penalties (because it's part of their own body). Thus, you could have e.g. a warforged monk who counts as unarmored but can simultaneously benefit from Heavy Armor Master and Defense style with heavy plating. As written, however, no special exceptions currently exist, so it really should either count or not count as armor. Pick one and be consistent.


Additionally, Wild Shape throws a wrench into this controversy
Yeah, I really don't know what I'd do with Wild Shape. I'd probably rule that your new form is not "physically capable of" using Integrated Protection. I might allow the warforged druid to turn into a warforged animal (i.e. an animal of a similar constructed nature), allowing them to benefit from all the warforged traits at the cost of obviously not being a natural animal.

[JackPhoenix]

If it does count as wearing armor, then I do benefit from the Defense fighting style, but can't use it with Martial Arts.

Glad to see you've used that wording. Integrated Protection explicitly say "You gain no benefit from wearing armor", so it could count as worn armor for any penalties without giving you any... well, benefits.

[Khrysaes]

This makes no sense. The exact wording of the Defense fighting style is, "While you are wearing armor..." while the wording of Martial Arts is, "While you aren't wearing armor." It's literally "If X" and "If not X", so it makes no sense that Integrated Protection could somehow fail to qualify for either one. The simplest solution is that Integrated Protection either does, or does not, count as wearing armor. If it does not count as wearing armor, then I don't benefit from the Defense fighting style, but I can also use Martial Arts/Unarmored Movement with heavy plating. If it does count as wearing armor, then I do benefit from the Defense fighting style, but can't use it with Martial Arts.


I did say that this understanding was based on heresay of the Jeremy Crawford tweet. What he says is not the wording in the book.

The wording in the books supports what you said. Integrated plating is a part of the body. Defense fighting style requires wearing armor, and monk martial arts says to not wear armor. This was the majority of my post that you quoted, seemingly one specific part, out of context, for the purpose of arguing, dismissing that the rest of the post before that agrees with your argument.

That being said, I agree that the table should rule if it does or does not. Which I think I said in my following post. It shouldn't be a nebulous neither. I think I also mentioned that Darkwood core throws a bit of confusion into it as to get the proficiency to AC bonus requires Light Armor Proficiency. Therefore, is it unarmored if you get the proficiency bonus or only if it isn't applied? Notably, monks are not proficient in light armor, therefore I am inclined to say that if you add the proficiency bonus because you are, then it is not unarmored.

However, as stated by JackPhoenix, Integrated Plating does say you gain no benefit from wearing armor AND that integrated plating is "your body" and therefore should not benefit from defense fighting style or forge cleric by RAW. Further supporting our agreed upon reading of the rules.



Honestly, if we're going to start making up arbitrary rules over what does and doesn't work with Integrated Protection, it actually makes more sense to me for them to get all the benefits of wearing armor (it provides the same level of protection) but with none of the penalties (because it's part of their own body). Thus, you could have e.g. a warforged monk who counts as unarmored but can simultaneously benefit from Heavy Armor Master and Defense style with heavy plating. As written, however, no special exceptions currently exist, so it really should either count or not count as armor. Pick one and be consistent.

A monk with defense fighting style, forge cleric, and martial arts would be too much. It should be one or the other, not both or neither.



Yeah, I really don't know what I'd do with Wild Shape. I'd probably rule that your new form is not "physically capable of" using Integrated Protection. I might allow the warforged druid to turn into a warforged animal (i.e. an animal of a similar constructed nature), allowing them to benefit from all the warforged traits at the cost of obviously not being a natural animal.

Transformers Robots in disguise. Maximals and Predecons.

[Greywander]

Glad to see you've used that wording. Integrated Protection explicitly say "You gain no benefit from wearing armor", so it could count as worn armor for any penalties without giving you any... well, benefits.
Huh, that... actually makes sense, in a weird sort of way. I mean, I don't agree with that interpretation, but I could see using that phrasing as justification for that position. My own interpretation is that it means you just don't get any benefit from putting on a suit of armor; it has no bearing on how your plating interacts with things like the Defense fighting style. When using the plating, you're not actually wearing armor, but it seems at the very least implied that you count as if you were wearing armor, due to the darkwood core being specifically labeled as "unarmored", while the composite and heavy plating are labeled as "armor".

I guess I just don't see the reason to make it so complicated. The simplest way of handling this is to say that composite and heavy plating count as "wearing armor" for any feature that is affected by such, while the darkwood core does not. The "you don't benefit from wearing armor" clause only refers to suits of armor, not your plating. This seems to me the most straightforward way of handling it.


Jeremy Crawford
I don't want to pick on him too hard, but he's made rulings that contradict RAW, and in some cases has later backtracked after making a post, sometimes more than once (see Shield Master bonus action shove). Sage Advice should be treated as just that: advice. And it seems more often than not I'm not inclined to take it. I'm sure he's doing his best, and that it can't be too easy for him. He probably has enough people yelling at him about how he's wrong on this, that, or the other rule.


This was the majority of my post that you quoted, seemingly one specific part, out of context, for the purpose of arguing, dismissing that the rest of the post before that agrees with your argument.
Ah, sorry if it seemed I was being argumentative or dismissive of the rest of your post. I know I have a tendency toward being verbose, so I try to trim quotes down to the most relevant parts to what I'm replying to so as to not take up so much space with my reply. I know you were mostly agreeing with what I was saying, I was just frustrated by the apparent ambiguity of that specific interpretation. It sounds like you are, too. I didn't even realize there was any kind of controversy around this topic, I just assumed that using composite or heavy plating counted as armored, period. Seems it isn't quite as straightforward as I thought.


That being said, I agree that the table should rule if it does or does not. Which I think I said in my following post. It shouldn't be a nebulous neither. I think I also mentioned that Darkwood core throws a bit of confusion into it as to get the proficiency to AC bonus requires Light Armor Proficiency. Therefore, is it unarmored if you get the proficiency bonus or only if it isn't applied? Notably, monks are not proficient in light armor, therefore I am inclined to say that if you add the proficiency bonus because you are, then it is not unarmored.
Yeah, if someone is interested in playing a warforged, they should talk to their DM to find out how their DM is going to handle this question. This isn't the kind of thing you want to find out in the middle of a session.

As for the darkwood core, the simplest answer is that it always counts as unarmored, even if you have light armor proficiency (as it is labeled as "unarmored" on the table). This makes it an interesting option for a low-WIS monk, though you'll probably have to multiclass to get the light armor proficiency (though if you're doing a low-WIS monk, it might be because you were already doing a multiclass build). The darkwood core essentially acts as a form of Unarmored Defense, though an especially strong one. This does mean, however, that DEX builds on classes that get fighting styles won't be able to benefit from the Defense style, even if composite or heavy plating would.


However, as stated by JackPhoenix, Integrated Plating does say you gain no benefit from wearing armor AND that integrated plating is "your body" and therefore should not benefit from defense fighting style or forge cleric by RAW. Further supporting our agreed upon reading of the rules.
It's possible this was the intention, but I just don't like this inconsistency. My feeling is that it should either count as armor, in which case you would benefit from things like the Defense style and Forge cleric bonus, or it doesn't count as armor, letting you monk it up with heavy plating. What I don't like is that it counts as armor for some things, but not others, and in such a way that is entirely negative to the player. The only apparent redeeming quality is using heavy plating on a barbarian.


A monk with defense fighting style, forge cleric, and martial arts would be too much. It should be one or the other, not both or neither.
Sounds like we're in agreement here. I do think it should be one or the other. The point I was trying to make was that between both or neither, the "both" option makes more sense to me than the "neither" option. It just seems like there's almost a kneejerk reaction to take away player options whenever there's a balance concern. Nerfs are almost never fun for players, except in the most egregious cases where even the players can agree that a nerf is needed.

I think one good way of evaluating if something is over/underpowered is to look and see if people are always or never picking it. Even if it gets taken a lot, as long as people still pick other options sometimes, it's not too strong. Even if it doesn't get taken as often, as long as people still pick it sometimes, it's not too weak. This doesn't mean a small tweak might not be appreciated, just don't go overboard.


Transformers Robots in disguise. Maximals and Predecons.
I've mentioned this on the forum before, but the envoy can choose any tool for their integrated tool. Vehicles are listed under the tool proficiencies. Transform and roll out.

Not sure how I'd actually implement that, though. Maybe they would need to actually get a vehicle, and could then integrate that vehicle during a rest. This would let them upgrade to better vehicles as they become available (size, tho'... some of those boats are a lot bigger than you are). Alternatively, just let them transform into a motorcycle or motorboat, depending on which vehicle proficiency they got.

[Khrysaes]

I don't want to pick on him too hard, but he's made rulings that contradict RAW, and in some cases has later backtracked after making a post, sometimes more than once (see Shield Master bonus action shove). Sage Advice should be treated as just that: advice. And it seems more often than not I'm not inclined to take it. I'm sure he's doing his best, and that it can't be too easy for him. He probably has enough people yelling at him about how he's wrong on this, that, or the other rule.

If you feel I am picking on him, that wasn't my intention. I am just rather dismissive of things he says.



Ah, sorry if it seemed I was being argumentative or dismissive of the rest of your post. I know I have a tendency toward being verbose, so I try to trim quotes down to the most relevant parts to what I'm replying to so as to not take up so much space with my reply. I know you were mostly agreeing with what I was saying, I was just frustrated by the apparent ambiguity of that specific interpretation. It sounds like you are, too. I didn't even realize there was any kind of controversy around this topic, I just assumed that using composite or heavy plating counted as armored, period. Seems it isn't quite as straightforward as I thought.

Ahh, I understand. It did seem argumentative, and I am sorry if my own response seemed harsh. I do understand snipping things though. That said, I think the controversy only comes from Jeremy Crawford.



It's possible this was the intention, but I just don't like this inconsistency. My feeling is that it should either count as armor, in which case you would benefit from things like the Defense style and Forge cleric bonus, or it doesn't count as armor, letting you monk it up with heavy plating. What I don't like is that it counts as armor for some things, but not others, and in such a way that is entirely negative to the player. The only apparent redeeming quality is using heavy plating on a barbarian.


Well, without asking for the intention and being dismissive of Jeremy Crawford, what we have is RAW. RAW to me doesn't seem controversial, and at least as I have read it and we seem to agree, it doesn't count as armor.
Warforged: "Your body... determine your armor class" "You gain no benefit from wearing armor"
Monk: "while... you aren’t wearing armor"
Barbarian: "if you aren’t wearing heavy armor"

Please note that while Warforged says "You gain no benefit from wearing armor" it doesn't say you can't wear armor.
Defensive style/forge cleric just says "while wearing [heavy] armor, you gain a +1 bonus AC."
These just boost AC while wearing armor, while you may get no benefit from the armor the wording as it is would mean that since these are class features, not armor, you could benefit from them. Note this applies to forge cleric 6th, not 1st, as 1st specifies that the armor becomes a +1 magic item, which you gain no benefit from.



I've mentioned this on the forum before, but the envoy can choose any tool for their integrated tool. Vehicles are listed under the tool proficiencies. Transform and roll out.

Not sure how I'd actually implement that, though. Maybe they would need to actually get a vehicle, and could then integrate that vehicle during a rest. This would let them upgrade to better vehicles as they become available (size, tho'... some of those boats are a lot bigger than you are). Alternatively, just let them transform into a motorcycle or motorboat, depending on which vehicle proficiency they got.

I had never thought of this, and that is hilarious. I could see a Warforged paladin turning into a cart and having their steed pull them.

[Tetrasodium]

Glad to see you've used that wording. Integrated Protection explicitly say "You gain no benefit from wearing armor", so it could count as worn armor for any penalties without giving you any... well, benefits.

"wearing armor" is a condition like, "encumbered", "in cover", etc not a "benefit". It's one hell of a stretch to think that your body being made from something counts as wearing something & is not supported by RAW. Not wearing armor is the default unless you are wearing armor.
Back in 3.5 it even said you could not wear armor. Having a body that is armor is not the same as wearing it. Sorry to say but you are still wrong.

[MaxWilson]

I don't want to pick on him too hard, but he's made rulings that contradict RAW, and in some cases has later backtracked after making a post, sometimes more than once (see Shield Master bonus action shove). Sage Advice should be treated as just that: advice. And it seems more often than not I'm not inclined to take it. I'm sure he's doing his best, and that it can't be too easy for him. He probably has enough people yelling at him about how he's wrong on this, that, or the other rule.

Note that Sage Advice and Crawford Tweets are not the same thing, anyway. There's a reason WotC has deemphasized Jeremy's Twitter account, and now tells you to think of those tweets as a "preview" of what might someday appear in Sage Advice, after they've given some actual thought to it. Twitter is a horrible, horrible medium for rules discussions/clarifications.

And I agree with you that even Sage Advice is just that: advice. Especially when Sage Advice conflicts with the Rules As Written, you should feel 100% free to ignore it and do your own thing.

[JackPhoenix]

"wearing armor" is a condition like, "encumbered", "in cover", etc not a "benefit". It's one hell of a stretch to think that your body being made from something counts as wearing something & is not supported by RAW. Not wearing armor is the default unless you are wearing armor.
Back in 3.5 it even said you could not wear armor. Having a body that is armor is not the same as wearing it. Sorry to say but you are still wrong.

Nobody said wearing armor is a benefit in itself. It's a hindrance. Other things (like Defense FS, Forge domain and other) give you benefits for wearing armor.

Composite and heavy plating counting as worn armor is not RAW, but only because Integrated Protection is badly written and it doesn't explain what it means. It definitely counts as worn armor by RAI.

Keith Baker (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/10/15/was-it-intentional-for-the-the-defense-fighting-style-to-not-work-with-the-warforged/) and Mike Mearls (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/10/03/how-would-warforged-integrated-protection-interact-with-the-defense-fighting-style/) agree on that, and they both claim Defense FS should work with it.... however, by RAW, it does not.

[Tetrasodium]

Nobody said wearing armor is a benefit in itself. It's a hindrance. Other things (like Defense FS, Forge domain and other) give you benefits for wearing armor.

Composite and heavy plating counting as worn armor is not RAW, but only because Integrated Protection is badly written and it doesn't explain what it means. It definitely counts as worn armor by RAI.
[/quote]
Indeed, you further demonstrate why your interpretation is screwy & finally admit it outright. They could have written "you are not considered to be wearing armor" for reduced ambiguity, but they did not because it probably seemed obvious that your body being armor is not the same as wearing it. This whole ridiculous back & forth is the direct result of JC making a rules call without consulting (or just ignoring) the rules & what they actually say. Going from the grey box at the top left of page2 on the aberrant sorc UA they learned their lesson. Also I can't help but notice that you flatly abandoned your "mechanical balance" strawman when challenged for specifics (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24150646&postcount=27)



Keith Baker (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/10/15/was-it-intentional-for-the-the-defense-fighting-style-to-not-work-with-the-warforged/) and Mike Mearls (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/10/03/how-would-warforged-integrated-protection-interact-with-the-defense-fighting-style/) agree on that, and they both claim Defense FS should work with it.... however, by RAW, it does not.

lots a things should work but don't, for example the grappled condition(phb290) & mounted combat without mounted combatant feat or something by RAW don't really fit well in some ways. Alternately you could say that on top of the RAW conflict between composite/heavy plating & defensive style there is also the fact that because warforge have a body that is armor rather than wearing some crafted suit of armor that the techniques and training that goes with defensive style simply can not apply.

[JackPhoenix]

Indeed, you further demonstrate why your interpretation is screwy & finally admit it outright.

It's not "my interpretation". The rule is unclear what the (armor) after composite and heavy plating mean, but as both Keith and MM noted, the intention is that the WF should be considered wearing armor when using either option. At the same time, the actual rule says that you gain no benefits from wearing armor.


They could have written "you are not considered to be wearing armor" for reduced ambiguity, but they did not because it probably seemed obvious that your body being armor is not the same as wearing it.

They could have. They did not, because that would be against what they intended. They SHOULD have written "you are considered wearing armor", which is the intent, but the RAW does not make that clear. Not that it would have sufficed, because there's still the "you gain no benefit from wearing armor", which ALSO requires clarification to make the whole feature work as the creators intended.


This whole ridiculous back & forth is the direct result of JC making a rules call without consulting (or just ignoring) the rules & what they actually say.

No, it is the result of the rules being badly written. Consulting the rules wouldn't help when part of the rules is missing.


Also I can't help but notice that you flatly abandoned your "mechanical balance" strawman when challenged for specifics (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24150646&postcount=27)

You want specifics? To match the AC a warforged gets just for being warforged, other characters need specific legendary magic items *and* feat/fighting style/ASI investment. Why is that a problem from balance perspective should be obvious.


lots a things should work but don't, for example the grappled condition(phb290) & mounted combat without mounted combatant feat or something by RAW don't really fit well in some ways.

There's a difference between not liking rule, and the rule not working in the first place.

[Khrysaes]

It's not "my interpretation". The rule is unclear what the (armor) after composite and heavy plating mean, but as both Keith and MM noted, the intention is that the WF should be considered wearing armor when using either option. At the same time, the actual rule says that "you gain no benefits from wearing armor."

So while i agree that the (unarmored) and (armor) after the plating are unclear. The rest of the wording for the feature is quite clear.

"Your body has built-in defensive layers, which determine your armor class."
Okay, the defensive layers of integrated protection count as your body, therefore NOT armor.

"You gain no benefit from wearing armor,"
You do not gain a benefit from wearing armor. But this aspect doesn't prevent you from doing so.

[Tetrasodium]

It's not "my interpretation". {scrubbed}

You want specifics? To match the AC a warforged gets just for being warforged, other characters need specific legendary magic items *and* feat/fighting style/ASI investment. Why is that a problem from balance perspective should be obvious.


It's good that you finally admit a "mechanical balance concern". Someone posted a build earlier in the thread that breaks past forty AC without needing to be warforged The AC of a warforge is not a "balance" problem. Every tuesday I GM for a table wuth a warforge monk & warforge barbarian as part of the groupusing integrated plating & have since wgte without issue.

You seem to be of the belief that no race can be better in one area than another race. What " specific legendary magic items *and* feat/fighting style/ASI investment" does a warforge need to equal variant human's free feat a variant human will always be ahead of warforge in the feat acquisition department. What about a tiefling, they get a free resistance & a cantrip without needing to use an attunement slot or class feature, a tiefling will always be ahead of warforge even if the warforge somehow gains a resistance from somewhere because the tiefling didn't need a class feature/attuned item/etc. How about a halfling?... what " specific legendary magic items *and* feat/fighting style/ASI investment" does a warforge need to acquire in order to get those free rerolls? So on and so forth. warforge shine i the AC department and can do things that non-warforge can not such as rage/use monk stuff without needing to rely on UAD just like all of those other races have things they can do without needing to rely on other sources beyond their race.




There's a difference between not liking rule, and the rule not working in the first place.

Indeed! "There's a difference between not liking rule, and the rule not working in the first place".... it works fine, you don't like how it works and have chosen to pretend that your houserule is the rule while defending your houserule as the rule here on the internet as if it were more than just a houserule.

[Petrocorus]

You seem to be of the belief that no race can be better in one area than another race. What " specific legendary magic items *and* feat/fighting style/ASI investment" does a warforge need to equal variant human's free feat a variant human will always be ahead of warforge in the feat acquisition department.

In this particular case, you also are using a specific to prove a general.
Everybody knows Vuman and their bonus feat are too good. Vuman have only this and a bonus skill, and a +2 total ability bonus and yet they're one of the best or the best race for almost any build. Because of the bonus feat.
It is not a good comparison.



What about a tiefling, they get a free resistance & a
cantrip without needing to use an attunement slot or class feature, a tiefling will always be ahead of warforge even if the warforge somehow gains a resistance from somewhere because the tiefling didn't need a class feature/attuned item/etc. How about a halfling?... what " specific legendary magic items *and* feat/fighting style/ASI investment" does a warforge need to acquire in order to get those free rerolls? So on and so forth. warforge shine i the AC department and can do things that non-warforge can not such as rage/use monk stuff without needing to rely on UAD just like all of those other races have things they can do without needing to rely on other sources beyond their race.

You're comparing an AC bonus with a fire resistance or a free reroll?
The fire resistance comes up once in a while, and even when it comes up, it's not breaking anything. It's a ribbon in many campaigns.
And the free reroll comes up once in every 20 rolls.

The WF's AC bonus comes up in every single round of every single fight.
And WF have a lot of other features.

If we look at the Envoy WF (because it's the best subrace for most build), in total, they get:
- a better AC than other races, for free, without a Strength requirement (aka drwarven speed). No other race has such a bonus to AC.
For a composite plating, it's basically the equivalent of Medium Armor Master in term of AC, so half a feat.
- Dwarven resilience
- air genasi unlimited breath-holding (sorta)
- elf's immunity to sleep
No eat and drink, that's a ribbon in most cases, but combined with the immunity to sleep, that's a free warlock invocation.
- immunity to diseases. Without exception for magical ones.
- ability to hear and see while long-resting.
- Integrated tool + specialized design that combined are almost as good as a feat (prodigy).
- +3 total ability bonus that can fit almost any build.

They do get a lot in addition of their AC bonus.

And the specific build you posted is just that, specific. For most build, they will have a better AC than their counterpart of other races, even more so in low-magic campaign.

[Tetrasodium]

In this particular case, you also are using a specific to prove a general.
Everybody knows Vuman and their bonus feat are too good. Vuman have only this and a bonus skill, and a +2 total ability bonus and yet they're one of the best or the best race for almost any build. Because of the bonus feat.
It is not a good comparison.


You're comparing an AC bonus with a fire resistance or a free reroll?
The fire resistance comes up once in a while, and even when it comes up, it's not breaking anything. It's a ribbon in many campaigns.
And the free reroll comes up once in every 20 rolls.

The WF's AC bonus comes up in every single round of every single fight.
And WF have a lot of other features.

If we look at the Envoy WF (because it's the best subrace for most build), in total, they get:
- a better AC than other races, for free, without a Strength requirement (aka drwarven speed). No other race has such a bonus to AC.
For a composite plating, it's basically the equivalent of Medium Armor Master in term of AC, so half a feat.
- Dwarven resilience
- air genasi unlimited breath-holding (sorta)
- elf's immunity to sleep
No eat and drink, that's a ribbon in most cases, but combined with the immunity to sleep, that's a free warlock invocation.
- immunity to diseases. Without exception for magical ones.
- ability to hear and see while long-resting.
- Integrated tool + specialized design that combined are almost as good as a feat (prodigy).
- +3 total ability bonus that can fit almost any build.

They do get a lot in addition of their AC bonus.

And the specific build you posted is just that, specific. For most build, they will have a better AC than their counterpart of other races, even more so in low-magic campaign.
That specific build is relevant because it completely demolishes any hope of pretending that warforge AC is a balance issue. Also don't pretend that PC's getting hit by fire damage is some unusual edge case given the umber of fire damage spells in the game. A vadalis human can sub monstrosities for beasts in any spell that involves beasts along with a whole bunch of other things, a warforge can not & gets different things. On the "so half a feat", high elves get a cantrip, weapon proficiencies (good ones), & other stuff so also easily "half a feat". You can pick & choose races to compare that make for better or worse comparisons for one argument or another; but the unquestionable fact remains that different races excel in different areas that other races can not hope to math without "specific legendary magic items *and* feat/fighting style/ASI investment." as jackphoenix put it. The mere fact that race A is better than race B in a given area is by design rather than a mechanical balance problem. Ad he put it "There's a difference between not liking rule, and the rule not working in the first place." the rule works fine as is.

[JackPhoenix]

It's good that you finally admit a "mechanical balance concern".

In case you've missed it, this was pointed out (and not just by me) ever since the WF was released.


Someone posted a build earlier in the thread that breaks past forty AC without needing to be warforged The AC of a warforge is not a "balance" problem. Every tuesday I GM for a table wuth a warforge monk & warforge barbarian as part of the groupusing integrated plating & have since wgte without issue.

There's a difference between theoretical optimization to achieve certain goal (whether that's highest possible AC, movement speed, DPR or whatever) and what you may see at actual table.

In addition, with some slight changes (using different feat and different legendary item) to the presented build, Warforged can achieve AC 51. While still using less resources (one less rare item, lower ability score requirement, no need for defense FS) just for the AC, meaning WF could have better AC and better offense.


What " specific legendary magic items *and* feat/fighting style/ASI investment" does a warforge need to equal variant human's free feat a variant human will always be ahead of warforge in the feat acquisition department.

None. 1 feat is equal to one ASI. You can get one ASI equivalent with one of the stat tomes. Which are very rare, not legendary. And (for a warforged with theoretically unlimited lifespan) re-usable.


What about a tiefling, they get a free resistance & a cantrip without needing to use an attunement slot or class feature, a tiefling will always be ahead of warforge even if the warforge somehow gains a resistance from somewhere because the tiefling didn't need a class feature/attuned item/etc.

You do realize warforged also have "free resistance" as a racial trait, right?


How about a halfling?... what " specific legendary magic items *and* feat/fighting style/ASI investment" does a warforge need to acquire in order to get those free rerolls?

Well, you've finally found something WF can't do. Congratulations. Now compare halfling racial traits beyond Lucky, and warforged racial traits beyond Integrated Protection. It's easy to see who's got the better deal.


Indeed! "There's a difference between not liking rule, and the rule not working in the first place".... it works fine, you don't like how it works and have chosen to pretend that your houserule is the rule while defending your houserule as the rule here on the internet as if it were more than just a houserule.

I haven't mentioned any houserule anywhere. And no, Integrated Protection does *not* work as intended by its creators' admittance.

[Tetrasodium]

In case you've missed it, this was pointed out (and not just by me) ever since the WF was released.



There's a difference between theoretical optimization to achieve certain goal (whether that's highest possible AC, movement speed, DPR or whatever) and what you may see at actual table.

In addition, with some slight changes (using different feat and different legendary item) to the presented build, Warforged can achieve AC 51. While still using less resources (one less rare item, lower ability score requirement, no need for defense FS) just for the AC, meaning WF could have better AC and better offense.



None. 1 feat is equal to one ASI. You can get one ASI equivalent with one of the stat tomes. Which are very rare, not legendary. And (for a warforged with theoretically unlimited lifespan) re-usable.



You do realize warforged also have "free resistance" as a racial trait, right?



Well, you've finally found something WF can't do. Congratulations. Now compare halfling racial traits beyond Lucky, and warforged racial traits beyond Integrated Protection. It's easy to see who's got the better deal.



I haven't mentioned any houserule anywhere. And no, Integrated Protection does *not* work as intended by its creators' admittance.

If you think poison resist is even in the same zip code of value as fire resist you've just {Scrubbed}. Yiu certainly didn't do your credibility any favor by talking about warforged unknown. lifespans as if player - character- lifespan was at all relevant to acquisition of "phat lewt" like tomes at most tables.

Also don't backtrack away from your house rule. More than once in this thread you have admitted bluntly that the rules as written do not support your bad interpretation of the rules. Creating a rules exception or changing the rules to fit your personal desires like you have been doing is literally what a house rule is... You just don't like having it pointed out that you are doing so. The rule works fine. The ac is not an objective balance problen no matter what your subjective gut feeling says. Just accept for once that once again you are wrong & in this case it's unquestionably a position in contradiction to RAW rather than just a lore disagreement.

[JackPhoenix]

Also don't backtrack away from your house rule. More than once in this thread you have admitted bluntly that the rules as written do not support your bad interpretation of the rules. Creating a rules exception or changing the rules to fit your personal desires like you have been doing is literally what a house rule is... You just don't like having it pointed out that you are doing so. The rule works fine. The ac is not an objective balance problen no matter what your subjective gut feeling says. Just accept for once that once again you are wrong & in this case it's unquestionably a position in contradiction to RAW rather than just a lore disagreement.

I don't backtrack from my houserules. I can't, because I haven't mentioned any houserules anywhere. There's no "my interpretation of rules", bad or otherwise. You can't make the same claim, though.

The rule, as writen, is unclear in what part of it means. Fortunately, the creators of said rule were kind enough to explain how it is *intended* to work. That explanation doesn't contradict or change the rule in question, only serves to make clear what (unarmored) and (armor) part, which is already in the rule, means, as the rule itself, due to bad writting, does not do that. Both the RAI and your interpretation make the AC problem worse, by the way. However, the same written rule contains part that prevent the warforged from taking advantage of the rule as intended even when using it as explained by the creators of said rules.

If RAW is unclear, and then contradicts provided RAI, the rule does not "work fine".

And you got the last part wrong: AC *is* objective balance problem. It's your vague anecdotal evidence that's subjective.

[Tetrasodium]

I don't backtrack from my houserules. I can't, because I haven't mentioned any houserules anywhere. There's no "my interpretation of rules", bad or otherwise. You can't make the same claim, though.

ahem (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24154544&postcount=53)"Composite and heavy plating counting as worn armor is not RAW". You unquestionably admitted that it does not count as being considered wearing armor {Scrubbed} & now deny that the rules don't support your houserule.


The rule, as writen, is unclear in what part of it means. Fortunately, the creators of said rule were kind enough to explain how it is *intended* to work. That explanation doesn't contradict or change the rule in question, only serves to make clear what (unarmored) and (armor) part, which is already in the rule, means, as the rule itself, due to bad writting, does not do that. Both the RAI and your interpretation make the AC problem worse, by the way. However, the same written rule contains part that prevent the warforged from taking advantage of the rule as intended even when using it as explained by the creators of said rules.

If RAW is unclear, and then contradicts provided RAI, the rule does not "work fine".

And you got the last part wrong: AC *is* objective balance problem. It's your vague anecdotal evidence that's subjective.

The rule as written is completely clear. It does not state you are considered to be wearing armor & thus are not. It also does not say that it changes your size & thus does not. It also does not say that it grants a fly speed or damage reduction & this does not. The only reason you claim it to be "unclear" is that it does not support what you want it to support It does not need to specify that having a body that is armor does not need to say "you are not considered to be wearing armor" for the same reason as these:

phb102 "Additionally, parts of your skin are covered by a thin sheen of dragon-like scales. When you aren’t wearing armor, your AC equals 13 + your Dexterity modifier."

vgtm 113 "Natural Armor. You have tough, scaly skin. When you aren't wearing armor, your AC is 13 + your Dexterity modifier. You can use your natural armor to determine your AC if the armor you wear would leave you with a lower AC. A shield's benefits apply as normal while you use your natural armor. "
Tortle package pg4: "Natural Armor: Due to your shell and the shape if your body you are ill-suited to wearing armor. Your shell provides ample protection however; it gives you a base ax of 17 (your dexterity modifier doesn't affect this number). You gain no benefit from wearing armor, but if you are using a shield you can apply the shield's bonus"

Interestingly enough, your desperately clutched straw of JC supports the rules as written there too The Defense fighting style requires you to be wearing armor. Having natural armor doesn't count as wearing armor. #DnD (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/909567326873194497?lang=en). Whatever it is about eberron, JC ignores both RAW and his prior rulings to reinterpret something wildly different & unsupported, see that tweet or his broad as possible "mouth like orifice" away from "body" to the narrow as possible interpretation of the plates themselves.

There is zero confusion to any of those, yet you claim to be "confused" and that integrated protection is so unclear it needs to be interpreted differently.

Claiming that having higher AC is a balance roblem in itself is not the same as showing that there is a problem. The difference from standing AC of high 20's/mid 30's that can be pushed past 40 is not especially different if it adds a point or two, you have to show the actual problem because both of those characters are only getting hit on a failed save or a nat20. It's not even a novel problem that is hard to solve, here's (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/93567/how-does-a-dm-deal-with-a-pc-with-an-abnormally-high-armor-class) a simple guidepost for you. Since high AC is not a "mechanical balance" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?597782-Impacts-of-Warforged-s-Integrated-Protection&p=24150369#post24150369) problem as you put it, what is the "mechanical balance" problem other than {Scrubbed} toclaim his houserule is the rule"

[Greywander]

I've honestly lost track of the thread at this point, and I'm not completely sure who is arguing for what position. I think y'all might be complicating this more than it needs to be. Is the feature a bit unclear in how it's written? Sure. Can we use what is written to try to interpret the feature in the most sensible way? I think we can.


The "(unarmored)" next to darkwood core most likely means that the darkwood core acts like any other type of Unarmored Defense.
The "(armor)" next to composite and heavy plating most likely means that either of the plating options counts as if you were wearing armor. Although it's not made explicit, I can't think of what else that tag could possibly mean, so this is the simplest interpretation.
It's not clear if composite and heavy plating count as medium and heavy armor, respectively, or if they just count as "armor" without a specific type. There's enough ambiguity that this should be considered DM dependent.
The "You gain no benefit from wearing armor" most likely refers to putting on a suit of armor. I don't think it applies to Integrated Protection in any way, as you aren't actually wearing armor, even if the two plating options count as wearing armor.

From these inferences, we can conclude the following rules interactions:

Darkwood core works with things that require you to be unarmored, such as monk abilities. Composite and heavy plating do not.
Composite and heavy plating work with things that require you to be armored, such as the Defense fighting style. Darkwood core does not.
Composite plating, at least, works with barbarian rage. Whether heavy plating works or not depends on if it counts as heavy armor or just "armor".
Whether heavy plating works with Soul of the Forge depends on if it counts as heavy armor or just "armor".
Whether Medium/Heavy Armor Master work depends on if composite and heavy plating count as medium and heavy armor, or just "armor".

You might disagree with this interpretation, but will have to assert that this is *a* reasonable interpretation. You can argue that there's another reasonable interpretation, but I don't think anyone can make a strong argument that my interpretation is not reasonable (you're welcome to try, though, I could always be wrong). You could also argue that you just don't like the ability as written, and would houserule it, but that's another issue entirely.

As for the question of whether composite and heavy plating count as medium and heavy armor, for myself I'd probably let the players choose. You can use heavy plating with Rage or Heavy Armor Master/Soul of the Forge, but not both. Either it does, or does not, count as heavy armor. You can use composite plating with Bladesong or Medium Armor Master, but not both. And so on.

[RickAllison]

At some point, I began to regret making this thread :smallbiggrin:.

[stoutstien]

At some point, I began to regret making this thread :smallbiggrin:.

Eh, until we get the book in print (and probably an ettra by the 2nd print) there will be little closure.

The whole "neutral" setting is kinda biting them in the rear with the introduction of new books.
I'm on the pre order list and I already have about a dozen and a half peps wanting me to verify the printed rules for warforged alone for when the play AL. The AC bonus is almost to good to pass up alone and if they don't clean up the language with how it interacts with different features this is going to become the new one hand PAM.

[Tetrasodium]

I've honestly lost track of the thread at this point, and I'm not completely sure who is arguing for what position. I think y'all might be complicating this more than it needs to be. Is the feature a bit unclear in how it's written? Sure. Can we use what is written to try to interpret the feature in the most sensible way? I think we can.


The "(unarmored)" next to darkwood core most likely means that the darkwood core acts like any other type of Unarmored Defense.
The "(armor)" next to composite and heavy plating most likely means that either of the plating options counts as if you were wearing armor. Although it's not made explicit, I can't think of what else that tag could possibly mean, so this is the simplest interpretation.
It's not clear if composite and heavy plating count as medium and heavy armor, respectively, or if they just count as "armor" without a specific type. There's enough ambiguity that this should be considered DM dependent.
The "You gain no benefit from wearing armor" most likely refers to putting on a suit of armor. I don't think it applies to Integrated Protection in any way, as you aren't actually wearing armor, even if the two plating options count as wearing armor.

From these inferences, we can conclude the following rules interactions:

Darkwood core works with things that require you to be unarmored, such as monk abilities. Composite and heavy plating do not.
Composite and heavy plating work with things that require you to be armored, such as the Defense fighting style. Darkwood core does not.
Composite plating, at least, works with barbarian rage. Whether heavy plating works or not depends on if it counts as heavy armor or just "armor".
Whether heavy plating works with Soul of the Forge depends on if it counts as heavy armor or just "armor".
Whether Medium/Heavy Armor Master work depends on if composite and heavy plating count as medium and heavy armor, or just "armor".

You might disagree with this interpretation, but will have to assert that this is *a* reasonable interpretation. You can argue that there's another reasonable interpretation, but I don't think anyone can make a strong argument that my interpretation is not reasonable (you're welcome to try, though, I could always be wrong). You could also argue that you just don't like the ability as written, and would houserule it, but that's another issue entirely.

As for the question of whether composite and heavy plating count as medium and heavy armor, for myself I'd probably let the players choose. You can use heavy plating with Rage or Heavy Armor Master/Soul of the Forge, but not both. Either it does, or does not, count as heavy armor. You can use composite plating with Bladesong or Medium Armor Master, but not both. And so on.

I disagree. There is no reason to assume that the "armor" notemeans "You are considered to be wearing armor". You can Enchant armor regardless of wearing it. Back in 3.5 warforged body feats body could be enchanted through various means. The big problem with that being " *a* reasonable interpretation" is that both JC & if I'm notmistaken everyone pushing it in this thread until now have been presenting it as the correct & only interpretation even while in some cases flatly admitting that RAW does not support it. JC ruled on the Tortle (linked earlier) & being considered to be wearing armor or not using RAW, but for whatever reason decided to fire off a houserule not based on the actual rules when he commented in an unofficial capacity about warforge.

[JackPhoenix]

ahem (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24154544&postcount=53)"Composite and heavy plating counting as worn armor is not RAW". You unquestionably admitted that it does not count as being considered wearing armor {Scrubbed} & now deny that the rules don't support your houserule.

Rules don't support my houserule, because I have no houserule on that. They can't support something that doesn't exist.


The rule as written is completely clear. It does not state you are considered to be wearing armor & thus are not.

Yes. The (armor) part of the rules makes everything completely clear. That's why the creators of the rule had to mention...repeatedly... what it is supposed to mean, and that the intention is that warforged using composite or heavy plating should be considered wearing armor, and that not making that clear is a mistake in how the rules are written.


Interestingly enough, your desperately clutched straw of JC supports the rules as written there too The Defense fighting style requires you to be wearing armor. Having natural armor doesn't count as wearing armor. #DnD (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/909567326873194497?lang=en). Whatever it is about eberron, JC ignores both RAW and his prior rulings to reinterpret something wildly different & unsupported, see that tweet or his broad as possible "mouth like orifice" away from "body" to the narrow as possible interpretation of the plates themselves.

Great. Now find me any mention of natural armor anywhere in the warforged racial entry. Take your time, I'll wait.


There is zero confusion to any of those, yet you claim to be "confused" and that integrated protection is so unclear it needs to be interpreted differently.

First, stop putting words into my mouth (ugh.... into my posts?). I never claimed to be "confused". And yes, considering the lengths you go to defend your (proven wrong by the designers' words) interpretation, Integrated Protection is unclear, and needs to be worded (not just interpreted) differently. Which the creators themselves admitted.


Claiming that having higher AC is a balance roblem in itself is not the same as showing that there is a problem. The difference from standing AC of high 20's/mid 30's that can be pushed past 40 is not especially different if it adds a point or two, you have to show the actual problem because both of those characters are only getting hit on a failed save or a nat20. It's not even a novel problem that is hard to solve, here's (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/93567/how-does-a-dm-deal-with-a-pc-with-an-abnormally-high-armor-class) a simple guidepost for you. Since high AC is not a "mechanical balance" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?597782-Impacts-of-Warforged-s-Integrated-Protection&p=24150369#post24150369) problem as you put it, what is the "mechanical balance" problem other than {Scrubbed} toclaim his houserule is the rule"

High AC *is* mechanical balance problem. You claiming it isn't doesn't change facts. Bounded accuracy is one of the core concepts of 5e mechanics, and Integrated Protection breaks it. So do certain magic items, as access to their bonuses isn't part of the base math like it was in previous editions, but those are optional and no character is guaranteed to have access to specific ones. In comparison, every single warforged has access to Integrated Protection.


The "(unarmored)" next to darkwood core most likely means that the darkwood core acts like any other type of Unarmored Defense.
The "(armor)" next to composite and heavy plating most likely means that either of the plating options counts as if you were wearing armor. Although it's not made explicit, I can't think of what else that tag could possibly mean, so this is the simplest interpretation.

That's what the designers intended (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/10/15/was-it-intentional-for-the-the-defense-fighting-style-to-not-work-with-the-warforged/), as it's been already mentioned (and ignored by Tetrasodium) in this thread.


From these inferences, we can conclude the following rules interactions:

Darkwood core works with things that require you to be unarmored, such as monk abilities. Composite and heavy plating do not.
Composite and heavy plating work with things that require you to be armored, such as the Defense fighting style. Darkwood core does not.


That is the intent, yes. However, as written (and already mentioned), the bolded part is false by RAW. +1 from Defense FS is a benefit of wearing armor, which warforged can't gain. It's been aknowledged by one of the designer as example of things that should be worded better (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/10/03/how-would-warforged-integrated-protection-interact-with-the-defense-fighting-style/).



Composite plating, at least, works with barbarian rage. Whether heavy plating works or not depends on if it counts as heavy armor or just "armor".
Whether heavy plating works with Soul of the Forge depends on if it counts as heavy armor or just "armor".
Whether Medium/Heavy Armor Master work depends on if composite and heavy plating count as medium and heavy armor, or just "armor".


We have this post (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2019/04/05/does-the-blessing-of-the-forge-ability-by-a-forge-cleric-affect-the-integrated-protection-of-a-warforged/) from one of the designers that explains that. It does count as armor, but not as heavy armor (by RAI, if not clearly by RAW), at least for now. The same post also gives some insight on why is proficiency bonus part of the armor calculation, though I personally disagree with the reasoning and solution.


I disagree. There is no reason to assume that the "armor" notemeans "You are considered to be wearing armor". You can Enchant armor regardless of wearing it. Back in 3.5 warforged body feats body could be enchanted through various means. The big problem with that being " *a* reasonable interpretation" is that both JC & if I'm notmistaken everyone pushing it in this thread until now have been presenting it as the correct & only interpretation even while in some cases flatly admitting that RAW does not support it. JC ruled on the Tortle (linked earlier) & being considered to be wearing armor or not using RAW, but for whatever reason decided to fire off a houserule not based on the actual rules when he commented in an unofficial capacity about warforge.

You mean beside the creators making that abundandly clear? You may also note that none of the tweets (other than the one you've linked, and which has nothing to do with warforged) originates with JC. In other words, you *are* mistaken, and it's not really up to interpretation, it's the matter of badly worded RAW not being in alignment with the RAI. You know, the stuff errata is for, and that will likely be changed when the final version is released.

[Greywander]

Let me proceed this by saying I've skimmed parts of the thread, so you might have addressed some of these points already elsewhere in the thread. I'm just replying based off of the post itself.


I disagree. There is no reason to assume that the "armor" notemeans "You are considered to be wearing armor".
I disagree. There's abundant reason to assume that. There may also be reasons to challenge that assumption, but the assumption itself does have a logical basis. If you're going to challenge that assumption, then you need to provide an alternative. You can't just pretend that part of the feature doesn't exist.


Back in 3.5
This isn't 3.5, though. It doesn't matter what you could or couldn't do back then, what matters is what you can do in 5e. I haven't heard anything about enchanting armor in 5e (except things like Blessing of the Forge or artificer infusions). There are magic armors, but those are already magic, they're not enchanted by players unless crafted from scratch. This could change in the future, but that has no bearing on how we should interpret rules that have already been released.


Tortle
The tortle's natural armor says nothing about whether it counts as armor or not.

The warforged's Integrated Protection does, specifically next to composite and heavy plating, where it says "(armor)". This is specifically contrasted with the darkwood core, which says "(unarmored)".

Either way, these two features are not the same. Just because they share some similarities doesn't mean they work the same way. One aspect that makes the two really stand out is that tortles don't have have a choice, so either their natural armor has to count as unarmored, or they simply can't be good at monking. Warforged has a choice, one of which specifically says that it is unarmored.


The big problem with that being " *a* reasonable interpretation" is that both JC & if I'm notmistaken everyone pushing it in this thread until now have been presenting it as the correct & only interpretation even while in some cases flatly admitting that RAW does not support it.
Well, I can't speak for the rest of the thread, but I find my interpretation to be simple and straightforward. I haven't heard a better interpretation yet, but I have only skimmed a lot of the thread.

It's fine to have your own opinion, but opinions make for poor arguments. To be honest, I'm still not exactly sure what point you're even trying to argue. That a heavy plated warforged counts as unarmored?


+1 from Defense FS is a benefit of wearing armor, which warforged can't gain.
I suppose that's one way to interpret it, but that seems overly obtuse. The benefit of wearing armor is the AC of the armor itself (along with any magical properties of that armor).

If you extend the interpretation further than just the suits of armor themselves, then it risks negating composite and heavy plating, since they count as "wearing armor", and therefore cannot benefit from them. Basically, if composite/heavy plating would trigger the Defense style, but you're not allowed to benefit from it, then you're not allowed to benefit from composite/heavy plating, either.

The "benefits of wearing armor" can't be gained by wearing actual armor. Using composite or heavy plating bypasses this, allowing you to gain the "benefits of wearing armor", but without actually wearing any armor. Thus, you would qualify for the Defense style, since you count as wearing armor, but aren't actually wearing armor.

You're probably right that it's something they need to reword slightly so it's a bit clearer. Personally, I think it's a bit silly, and don't see why warforged shouldn't be allowed to wear armor if they really want to (in most cases the AC will be inferior, but for some types of magical armor it might be useful).


We have this post (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2019/04/05/does-the-blessing-of-the-forge-ability-by-a-forge-cleric-affect-the-integrated-protection-of-a-warforged/) from one of the designers that explains that. It does count as armor, but not as heavy armor (by RAI, if not clearly by RAW), at least for now.
Yeah, reading the feature seems to imply it, but doesn't outright say it. Seems as if it might be RAI, but isn't RAW. Again, better wording will hopefully clarify this. I can see it going either way.

[Tetrasodium]

Let me proceed this by saying I've skimmed parts of the thread, so you might have addressed some of these points already elsewhere in the thread. I'm just replying based off of the post itself.


I disagree. There's abundant reason to assume that. There may also be reasons to challenge that assumption, but the assumption itself does have a logical basis. If you're going to challenge that assumption, then you need to provide an alternative. You can't just pretend that part of the feature doesn't exist.


This isn't 3.5, though. It doesn't matter what you could or couldn't do back then, what matters is what you can do in 5e. I haven't heard anything about enchanting armor in 5e (except things like Blessing of the Forge or artificer infusions). There are magic armors, but those are already magic, they're not enchanted by players unless crafted from scratch. This could change in the future, but that has no bearing on how we should interpret rules that have already been released.


The tortle's natural armor says nothing about whether it counts as armor or not.

The warforged's Integrated Protection does, specifically next to composite and heavy plating, where it says "(armor)". This is specifically contrasted with the darkwood core, which says "(unarmored)".

Either way, these two features are not the same. Just because they share some similarities doesn't mean they work the same way. One aspect that makes the two really stand out is that tortles don't have have a choice, so either their natural armor has to count as unarmored, or they simply can't be good at monking. Warforged has a choice, one of which specifically says that it is unarmored.


Well, I can't speak for the rest of the thread, but I find my interpretation to be simple and straightforward. I haven't heard a better interpretation yet, but I have only skimmed a lot of the thread.

It's fine to have your own opinion, but opinions make for poor arguments. To be honest, I'm still not exactly sure what point you're even trying to argue. That a heavy plated warforged counts as unarmored?


I suppose that's one way to interpret it, but that seems overly obtuse. The benefit of wearing armor is the AC of the armor itself (along with any magical properties of that armor).

If you extend the interpretation further than just the suits of armor themselves, then it risks negating composite and heavy plating, since they count as "wearing armor", and therefore cannot benefit from them. Basically, if composite/heavy plating would trigger the Defense style, but you're not allowed to benefit from it, then you're not allowed to benefit from composite/heavy plating, either.

The "benefits of wearing armor" can't be gained by wearing actual armor. Using composite or heavy plating bypasses this, allowing you to gain the "benefits of wearing armor", but without actually wearing any armor. Thus, you would qualify for the Defense style, since you count as wearing armor, but aren't actually wearing armor.

You're probably right that it's something they need to reword slightly so it's a bit clearer. Personally, I think it's a bit silly, and don't see why warforged shouldn't be allowed to wear armor if they really want to (in most cases the AC will be inferior, but for some types of magical armor it might be useful).


Yeah, reading the feature seems to imply it, but doesn't outright say it. Seems as if it might be RAI, but isn't RAW. Again, better wording will hopefully clarify this. I can see it going either way.


This isn't 3.5, though. It doesn't matter what you could or couldn't do back then, what matters is what you can do in 5e. I haven't heard anything about enchanting armor in 5e (except things like Blessing of the Forge or artificer infusions). There are magic armors, but those are already magic, they're not enchanted by players unless crafted from scratch. This could change in the future, but that has no bearing on how we should interpret rules that have already been released. There are two points to address here, I'll address them separately.

While this is not 3.5, your statement highlights one of the biggest differences between eberron & FR & that difference makes many of those references absolutely relevant. While FR undergoes regular cataclysmic events intended to bring FR into alignment with the rules of a given version of d&d, eberron does not. eberron incorporates the mechanical changes and tries to find a way to justify that it was always the case, dragonborn replacing some of the lizardmen in qbarra during 4e because dragonborn became a core race are an example of doing this without importing conflicting lore like someone went mad & did during 4e with tieflings/asmodious/bator. Because of that extremely important point that 3.5 eberron references are often both relevant & important. 4e references are rarely relevant because the mechanics of 5e are just too different. Even if you don't believe or agree with me on that explanation, there is the fact that a big part of WotC ignoring eberron so hard during 5e after the very first 5e UA being some (terrible) implementations of eberron stuff was because that lore presented in the 15ish eberron sourcebooks was still valid even if the mechanics were less so.
Your second point is on the lack of mechanics for enchanting equipment in 5e. There are, just not well defined ones from wotc, both the dmg & xge talk about schemas and there are multiple community created implimentations of crafting/enchanting with some of them even being eberron specific & on the dmsguild. Also in one of the rise preview/loredump videos there is mention of rules for crafting
The tortle's natural armor says nothing about whether it counts as armor or not. I actually addressed this earlier The Defense fighting style requires you to be wearing armor. Having natural armor doesn't count as wearing armor. #DnD (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/909567326873194497?lang=en) "Natural Armor" is the name of the tortle's protective shell sourced AC calculation rather than a generic 3.5 style natural armor type of ac. It does not count as wearing armor. Neither does lizardfolk scales, monk/barbarian UAD, or some sorcerer archtype class abilities.
The warforged's Integrated Protection does, specifically next to composite and heavy plating, where it says "(armor)". This is specifically contrasted with the darkwood core, which says "(unarmored)". Armor can be enchanted & back in 3.5 WF body feats could be enchanted like armor but skin/scales/etc could not outside of very specific things like certain tattoos & such. The Spellcarved soldier was a warforge only PrC specifically built around doing so in fact. Given the existence of rules for enchanting equipment & crafting enchanted equipment that distinction between armor & not armor is meaningful. This is a clear & unquestionable example of a significant difference between tortle shell & the warforge body integrated protection racial ability as even during 3.5 I don't believe that it was generally possible for races with natural armor to enchant their shell/scales/etc
I'm still not exactly sure what point you're even trying to argue. That a heavy plated warforged counts as unarmored? I've been more than clear about this and even cited sources like JC in the druid podcast & the aberrent sorc/warlock UA "When the game gives you more than one way to calculate your Armor Class, you can use only one of them. You choose the one to use. For example, if you have the Aberrant Mind’s Warped Being feature and the monk’s Unarmored Defense feature, you don’t mix them together. Instead, choose which one determines your AC. " That in itself eliminates balance concerns since UAD & things like the sorcerer AC calculation do not stack with integrated protection. Warforge are living constructs that straddle a line between both living Flesh-n-Blood creatures& construct, there has always been things that they could & could not do that both constructs & living creatures could/could not do because they sit in that murky not quite either grey area. having a body that is armor is not the same as wearing armor as wotc has previously confirmed both with regards to multiclass wildshaped druids with form sourced natural armor & the tweet up there about tortles from JC. No form of the warforge integrated protection racial ability counts as wearing armor & that distinction is important since many abilities will work or not depending on if you are wearing armor or not. Since the integrated protection racial ability does not count as wearing armor it can't count as wearing a specific type of armor for things like medium/heavy armor master & the like. Yes a barbarian can rage & a monk can monk as a warforge using heavy plating because their body being (magic) armor is not the same as wearing armor. A warforge hoping to benefit from forge cleric, defensive fighting style, medium/heavy armor master & probably others can not because all of those require you to be wearing armor rather than simply having an AC.

It may seem paradoxical, but this avoids the most possible punpun type unexpected combo snenanagin type problems down the line once warforge have more feats & class abilities that modify how their integrated protection works (currently both mormisc & faithful of eberron have things in that category & given past editions there is every reason to expect more will be brought forward over time). This is the case because you can never combine things intended to modify armor with any version of integrated protection that may or may not be altered by feats & class abilities your breakdown of the infinite loop problems caused by some of another poster's homebrew interpretation of counting the warforge body as worn armor is further evidence why it should be the case where integrated protection is not armor.
4
[/list]