| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| jago66807-24-07, 10:36 PM | Sorry if I got the incorrect forum. Warforged take damage from a rust monster. So what if you put the Blueshine enchant into a Warforged? Pg 9 Magic Item Compendium if you want to take a look. Makes any armor you put it on immune to acid and rusting effects. Would this make a Warforged immune to a rust monster attack? Would it make them immune to acid? |
| Revvecor07-25-07, 02:52 AM | I would say no, merely because my understanding of warforged is that there entire body's are a compilation of wood and metal. So enchanting the armor will only protect the armor not the metal parts of the warforged body. I could be wrong. |
| ShadowChemosh07-25-07, 02:59 AM | I agree with Revvecor, but would say its for the opposite reason. Blueshine can only be applied to metal armor so the metal part of the warforged would be protected but the wood and other organic parts would not be. So for the same reason a fleshy wearing Full Plate with Blueshine would not be immune to Acid damage neither would a warforged. On the other side I can't see any rule reason why the warforged is not immune to rust attacks if it has Blueshine. Why this is handy I don't see it being very powerful as how often does a party fight a rust monster anyways? The other fun thing is this Blueshine should also make a warforged immune to Rust Cubes from Complete Scoundrel. |
| jago66807-25-07, 03:16 AM | Well reason why I asked, is blueshine is what 1500/2000 gp? So it isn't that big of a cost to remove a weakness. |
| Zookeeper07-25-07, 05:48 PM | I think I would go the other way. The plating on a WF according to descriptions is Armor. The plating takes up the armor slot so a WF can not wear armor or magic robes. The plating also gives a the WF an armor bonus, armor check penalities, etc. So, I would have to say Blueshine would work the same on WF as any other metalic armor. Eddited to add: Mind you that any effects from acid (as ex.) that get to the non-protected parts, would still effect the same as hitting a fleshy in the face with it. |
| LoneStranger07-25-07, 07:15 PM | It would be nice to get some protection from acid, my Warforged character gets hit by acid attacks once a month it seems. So even if it just reduces the acid damage on a warforged I'll take that. Any ideas? Anyone? |
| Edymnion07-25-07, 07:19 PM | Sorry if I got the incorrect forum. Warforged take damage from a rust monster. So what if you put the Blueshine enchant into a Warforged? Pg 9 Magic Item Compendium if you want to take a look. Makes any armor you put it on immune to acid and rusting effects. Would this make a Warforged immune to a rust monster attack? Would it make them immune to acid?Blueshine specifically says it offers the immunities and protection to the armor ONLY. As in, it specifically says that the immunity to acid and rust does *NOT* extend to the character. Nowhere does it say that a WF is any differant from anyone else in this reguard, so they aren't. Blueshine is virtually worthless to a WF. |
| Kinger07-25-07, 07:19 PM | Well, from a purely literal standpoint, Blueshine would do nothing for a Warforged. Composite Plating isn't armor. Hmm. Edy beat me to it. Having said that, I don't think it unreasonable to houserule a Warforged with the Blueshine enhancement immunity to damage from Rusting effects. Immunity to Acid, though? No, that's equivalent to a much, much more expensive enhancement. |
| jago66807-25-07, 09:28 PM | So it no go on acid, but the immunity to rust seems okay then? |
| Kinger07-25-07, 10:54 PM | So it no go on acid, but the immunity to rust seems okay then? As a houserule to fill in a justified oversight? Sure. Just remember that that's what it is. |
| Zookeeper07-26-07, 01:59 AM | Blueshine specifically says it offers the immunities and protection to the armor ONLY. As in, it specifically says that the immunity to acid and rust does *NOT* extend to the character. Nowhere does it say that a WF is any differant from anyone else in this reguard, so they aren't. Blueshine is virtually worthless to a WF. No - a WF is no different, but It DOES say in the traits of a WF Composite Plating: 1) Occupies the same space as armor 2) Provides a +2 Armor Bonus 3) Is not a natural Armor and does not stack with other armor bonuses (except Natural Armor) 4) Can be enchanted just as armor and have magical enhancements (Armor abilities) added. Spells that target armor like magic vestment work with the plateing. 5) provides a 5% spell failure chance (Any class ability that allows a WF to ignore the arcane spell failure for lt armor lets him ignore this also) 6) provides him with armor check penalities for skill and other checks. Although it does not specifically come out and say it is armor, it sure has all the benifits and penalities that armor has. Now I am not saying it (Blueshine) extends to the character, as my previous post stated if the acid hits, or runs into a joint of the plating it would still do damage. Only the outer composite plating is protected from acid and rust. An acid orb hits him in the chest plate - no damage Acid rain start pouring on him or he is dropped in a vat of acid - full damage. The same basic principle of Blueshine for a human wearing full plate. (And thats because a WF is no different from any other character.) |
| ShadowChemosh07-26-07, 12:50 PM | .... An acid orb hits him in the chest plate - no damage Acid rain start pouring on him or he is dropped in a vat of acid - full damage. The same basic principle of Blueshine for a human wearing full plate. (And thats because a WF is no different from any other character.) So a human in Full Plate with Blueshine your going to give immunity to acid spells? Thats a very powerful ability for a whole 2,000gp. It also does not fit with the ability. 30 Acid Resistance is 66,000gp, but for 2,000gp I get immunity instead? A human or warforged with this ability does not have to worry about their armor or composite plating being destroyed by acid, but they themselves will take full damage from any type of acid damage. Regardless if its from a pool of acid or a zero level cantrip. This ability would prevent a rust monster from doing damage to the warforged just like it prevents a human in full plate from having to worry about his armor being eaten. This is great ability vs a rust monster, but most of the time it will have zero affect for the character. This is a minor 2,000gp ability and it does very little to help out which is why it gives 3 different abilities. The armor is immune to acid, rust, and gives a whole +2 to hide. Overall it would be worth getting as its only 2,000gp and does not effect the total enhancement level of the armor. |
| Kinger07-26-07, 05:47 PM | Although it does not specifically come out and say it is armor... And there it is. If it doesn't say so, it isn't. If composite plating was armor, rather than a racial trait that mimics armor, it would be an item, not a racial trait. Composite Plating has no hardness, no hitpoints. It cannot be damaged any more than a Dwarf's Darkvision or Elf's proficiency with Longswords. Therefore, anything that prevents damage to the armor is in fact useless on Composite Plating, by the rules. |
| jago66807-26-07, 05:55 PM | And there it is. If it doesn't say so, it isn't. If composite plating was armor, rather than a racial trait that mimics armor, it would be an item, not a racial trait. Composite Plating has no hardness, no hitpoints. It cannot be damaged any more than a Dwarf's Darkvision or Elf's proficiency with Longswords. Therefore, anything that prevents damage to the armor is in fact useless on Composite Plating, by the rules. Then how come it can be enchanted? |
| Kinger07-26-07, 05:59 PM | Uh, because it SAYS it can? |
| Edymnion07-26-07, 06:12 PM | This ability would prevent a rust monster from doing damage to the warforged just like it prevents a human in full plate from having to worry about his armor being eaten. This is great ability vs a rust monster, but most of the time it will have zero affect for the character.It wouldn't even help protect a WF from a Rust Monster, as the metal in their bodies are not limited to just their armor. Unarmored Body or Ironwood Body both lack the big metal plates, but you can still hurt them with rust attacks. It has nothing to do with composite plating. It is a racial weakness, they take damage from rusting spells and effects. It is not a property of their composite plating, and nothing you can do to the composite plating (that does not also affect the character as a whole) can remove that racial weakness. If you want immunity to rusting or acid, you have to pay for it at the same price a human would have to pay for it. |
| jago66807-26-07, 07:05 PM | Then I'll pay the 2,000 gp that a human would for the same protection. A rust attack would have to get through the outter plating to rust any internal metal. Therefore if it can't get past that plating then it can't rust the insides. |
| Dragom07-26-07, 07:17 PM | And in the end, ask your DM to see if it works in his world. |
| Kinger07-26-07, 07:22 PM | And in the end, ask your DM to see if it works in his world. Ding! We have a winner! |
| Edymnion07-26-07, 08:43 PM | Then I'll pay the 2,000 gp that a human would for the same protection. A rust attack would have to get through the outter plating to rust any internal metal. Therefore if it can't get past that plating then it can't rust the insides.Touch attacks don't have to get through your armor to deal damage, touching the armor or shield is just fine. Anyway, like was said, energy resistance 30 is 66k gp, but I don't know what full immunity is worth. Nothing in the racial entries for the standard races say they are immune to rust magic, just that there aren't any current rust based spells that deal hp damage to living beings. So, lets make up a spell that "rusts" your blood. Its a touch attack. Anybody want to take a shot at pricing up "Immunity to Damage Type X" items? |
| Dragom07-26-07, 09:02 PM | Armor of the Gong, Immunity to Bludgeoning 2000gp? |
| Zookeeper07-26-07, 10:15 PM | So a human in Full Plate with Blueshine your going to give immunity to acid spells? Thats a very powerful ability for a whole 2,000gp. It also does not fit with the ability. 30 Acid Resistance is 66,000gp, but for 2,000gp I get immunity instead? I did not say anything of the sort, what I said was if the acid orb hit the armor, no damage - the armor is immune not the human wearing it. It wouldn't even help protect a WF from a Rust Monster, as the metal in their bodies are not limited to just their armor. Unarmored Body or Ironwood Body both lack the big metal plates, but you can still hurt them with rust attacks. You are correct, but once again all I said was the plateing is immune, not the WF inside. If the WF was hit in between the plates he would still take the damage. And there it is. If it doesn't say so, it isn't. If composite plating was armor, rather than a racial trait that mimics armor, it would be an item, not a racial trait. I do not believe that, I believe it is armor that is only available to WF. A human could not wear this plateing because it is part of the WF body and if it is removed from a WF it quickly decays and pits becoming worthless. (I remember reading this, I cant remember where) If a human was created in a forge and walked out wearing what we all know as full plate armor, but they named it bubble gum. What would the difference be?? After all a rose by any other name is still a rose. And all I mean by that is if you compare armor to the plateing it is all the same. The same bonuses and penalities, enhancements and enchantments, ACP, Spell Failure, Max DEX bonus, etc. It sounds like everyone is looking at the name and saying armor is apples and plateing is oranges. Look at what each does, it is so closely related it could almost be twins (lol). Armor and the plateing is what it is - a protective outer shell. Composite Plating has no hardness, no hitpoints. It cannot be damaged any more than a Dwarf's Darkvision or Elf's proficiency with Longswords. Your wrong about this, thus the invention of the WF repair kit, that allows a WF to repair damage done to its plateing just as a human car repair full plate or leather. Just because the plateing does not fall apart after taking X amount of damage, does not mean that it cannot be damaged. If it could not be damaged then the AC for the plateing would be an armor bonus of +123424537683669365967734679678439658737 5693476 (or immune to damage from all sources) (Just hit a bunch of numbers) |
| Kinger07-26-07, 11:03 PM | I do not believe that, I believe it is armor that is only available to WF. A human could not wear this plateing because it is part of the WF body and if it is removed from a WF it quickly decays and pits becoming worthless. (I remember reading this, I cant remember where) You can believe what you like. More power to you. But, belief doesn't always mesh with reality. The rules don't say it's armor, the rules say it's a racial trait, just like Darkvision, Natural Armor, or Dancing Lights 1/day. A Human couldn't wear the plating because it isn't armor. The reason people don't go stripping warforged to make armor out of them (or at least the mithral and adamantine they contain) is, as you said, because warforged body parts decay rapidly, as mentioned in a Warforged Dragonshard article. Your wrong about this, thus the invention of the WF repair kit, that allows a WF to repair damage done to its plateing just as a human car repair full plate or leather. Just because the plateing does not fall apart after taking X amount of damage, does not mean that it cannot be damaged. If it could not be damaged then the AC for the plateing would be an armor bonus of +123424537683669365967734679678439658737 5693476 (or immune to damage from all sources) (Just hit a bunch of numbers) So... A Warforged who takes Unarmored Body cannot be repaired, then? The repair kit grants a bonus to the skill checks necessary to restore hitpoint damage to THE WARFORGED. The warforged is the one that's damaged, not the plating. The plating cannot BE damaged, any more than there are rules for damaging a human's skin without dealing hp damage. A rose by any other name may still be a rose, but unless the rules SAY it's a rose to begin with it isn't a rose no matter what you call it. Does the racial trait Composite Plating say it is an item? No. It lists quite specifically what the trait gives the warforged. A free item isn't mentioned. An armor bonus, arcane spell failure, and the lack of an Armor/Robe slot are. That is all. Here's a question for you: Supposing, as you say, Composite Plating IS armor, what class of armor is it? Light? Medium? Heavy? Would a Warforged Monk be incapable of using most of his class abilities simply because he's a Warforged? These questions have been answered, and the answers are what we describe. Must we dig up the relevant sections in the FAQ/Ask Hellcow/wherever, or will you just take our collective words on it? |
| jago66807-26-07, 11:14 PM | It says it the basic plating works similar to light armor and that a warforged can be enchanted just like any other armor. The adamantine body feat says it makes the character count as wearing heavy armor. The mithril body says it counts as light armor. So the enchant will stick. There is no question about that, the only question is what if any benefits the warforged gains from the blueshine enchant. I believe it would make the plating immune to rust and acid. Now acid being a liquid would seap around the plating so I'm fine with it not granting the character acid immunity. (btw a ring that gives immunity to one elemental damage is 240k gp) However I don't see how touching the plating which is immune to being rusted can somehow rust what is under it. |
| Zookeeper07-27-07, 12:51 AM | The rules don't say it's armor, the rules say it's a racial trait OK - I admit some bad examples there, but you seem to miss the point. Compare Armor (functionality, bonuses, penalities, etc) to the plateing, it is all the same. Hell, even a basic definition of both is close, "A protective outer covering" A rose by any other name may still be a rose, but unless the rules SAY it's a rose to begin with it isn't a rose no matter what you call it. Does the racial trait Composite Plating say it is an item? No. It lists quite specifically what the trait gives the warforged. A free item isn't mentioned. An armor bonus, arcane spell failure, and the lack of an Armor/Robe slot are. That is all. No - it also mentions it can be enhanced or enchanted as armor using the craft magic arms and armor feat (but its not armor so you should not need the feat), it can also be targeted by spells that target armor (but its not armor so those spells should not effect it), it provides light fortification (which is an armor ability). And although it is not mentioned in the "Trait Description" it is also optional (No body feat) just like armor. Here's a question for you: Supposing, as you say, Composite Plating IS armor, what class of armor is it? Light? Medium? Heavy? Would a Warforged Monk be incapable of using most of his class abilities simply because he's a Warforged? The basic plateing is considered light armor, adamantine body is heavy. And yes a WF monk with the plateing is considered to be wearing light armor. And here is another nifty little fact - there is a feat listed in Races of Eberron called "Unarmored Body" which is a WF feat and the description reads as "your body is created without the normal layer of armor tradeing off physical strength for magical potential." These questions have been answered, and the answers are what we describe. Must we dig up the relevant sections in the FAQ/Ask Hellcow/wherever, or will you just take our collective words on it? No you don't have to dig them up, simply tell me where I can find the answer that states composite plateing is not armor, according to the feat I just listed above it is armor. |
| Kinger07-27-07, 07:27 PM | Ask, and ye shall eventually receive. Directly from the latest Official FAQ, downloadable from this very site under Game Rules on the main page: "Is a warforged considered to be wearing armor for the purpose of using special abilities, such as a monk’s fast movement? The composite plating of a typical warforged doesn’t count as armor. Certain warforged feats, such as Adamantine Body (EBERRON Campaign Setting, page 50) specifically state that the character is considered to be wearing armor, and thus would limit use of such abilities." The composite plating of a typical warforged doesn't count as armor. So... are you saying it's armor that doesn't count as armor? The response regarding composite plating altered by a body feat may be misleading. It says "the character is considered to be wearing armor." You may use this as evidence on your part, but I believe this simply to be a poor choice of words on the part of the answerer. A better way of saying it would be "the character is considered to be wearing armor for the purposes of class abilities," which is what is said in the feats in question. Obviously that, however, is just repeating the feats in question. Who wants to read that in an FAQ? Compare Armor (functionality, bonuses, penalities, etc) to the plateing, it is all the same. Hell, even a basic definition of both is close, "A protective outer covering" That's kinda the idea. It is a new game mechanic developed specifically for the warforged race. Composite Plating is another way of differentiating Warforged from other races: a racial trait that behaves in many ways like armor, but is not. Are you denying it's a racial trait? And here is another nifty little fact - there is a feat listed in Races of Eberron called "Unarmored Body" which is a WF feat and the description reads as "your body is created without the normal layer of armor tradeing off physical strength for magical potential." So, is Natural Armor considered an item? Are Bracers of Armor considered armor, meaning a Monk in Bracers of Armor is screwed out of many class abilities? There's only so many ways in the English language to convey the idea of a protective layer. Saying "your body is created without the normal layer of protection" sounds like your warforged has moved beyond diapers and is ready for big-boy pants. Going by a similar interpretation of the feat a Warforged with Unarmored Body should have a strength penalty in comparison to normal Warforged, since it says "trading off physical strength for magical potential." Besides, you're basing your interpretation off of secondary material: a feat in a different sourcebook entirely. Ideally, all the information you should need to make your conclusion should be in the original subject (the warforged racial entry, specifically the part on Composite Plating), and anything referenced by the subject. Things that reference the subject itself don't hold up as well. If you'd like to find past discussions on this matter, I believe the Search functionality of the forums is working again. Give 'er a go, you might find what you're looking for. |
| Zookeeper07-27-07, 09:55 PM | Ask, and ye shall eventually receive. Directly from the latest Official FAQ, downloadable from this very site under Game Rules on the main page: "Is a warforged considered to be wearing armor for the purpose of using special abilities, such as a monk’s fast movement? The composite plating of a typical warforged doesn’t count as armor. Certain warforged feats, such as Adamantine Body (EBERRON Campaign Setting, page 50) specifically state that the character is considered to be wearing armor, and thus would limit use of such abilities." Thank You - but you could have just said here it is. The response regarding composite plating altered by a body feat may be misleading. It says "the character is considered to be wearing armor." You may use this as evidence on your part, but I believe this simply to be a poor choice of words on the part of the answerer. A better way of saying it would be "the character is considered to be wearing armor for the purposes of class abilities," which is what is said in the feats in question. Obviously that, however, is just repeating the feats in question. Who wants to read that in an FAQ? I was never talking about any body feat except the Unarmored Body. (Sorry - Should say I never interpruted any body feat into the discussion) That's kinda the idea. It is a new game mechanic developed specifically for the warforged race. Composite Plating is another way of differentiating Warforged from other races: a racial trait that behaves in many ways like armor, but is not. Are you denying it's a racial trait? So, is Natural Armor considered an item? Are Bracers of Armor considered armor, meaning a Monk in Bracers of Armor is screwed out of many class abilities? There's only so many ways in the English language to convey the idea of a protective layer. Saying "your body is created without the normal layer of protection" sounds like your warforged has moved beyond diapers and is ready for big-boy pants. Going by a similar interpretation of the feat a Warforged with Unarmored Body should have a strength penalty in comparison to normal Warforged, since it says "trading off physical strength for magical potential." No- it is a trait, my whole question was is it armor. And the second part is your giving up defensive physical strength. The feat quite clearly states (a little later in the description) your giving up the +2 AC Bonus, Fortification, etc. Besides, you're basing your interpretation off of secondary material: a feat in a different sourcebook entirely. Ideally, all the information you should need to make your conclusion should be in the original subject (the warforged racial entry, specifically the part on Composite Plating), and anything referenced by the subject. Things that reference the subject itself don't hold up as well. No true - Everything I have quoted has been from the latest known (at least to me) information reguarding the WF. That is the Races of Eberron sourcebook. As far as I know and understand, the newest sources take precidence over older sources with the same material. |
| wizardguy200307-28-07, 01:51 AM | Ask, and ye shall eventually receive. Directly from the latest Official FAQ, downloadable from this very site under Game Rules on the main page: "Is a warforged considered to be wearing armor for the purpose of using special abilities, such as a monk’s fast movement? The composite plating of a typical warforged doesn’t count as armor. Certain warforged feats, such as Adamantine Body (EBERRON Campaign Setting, page 50) specifically state that the character is considered to be wearing armor, and thus would limit use of such abilities." I don't think this really helps to settle this question, as it apparently should. The answer of "the plating of a typical warforged doesn't count as armor" doesn't make it any less confusing that to all purposes it functions just like armor. At the end of the day, saying the typical plating doesn't affect abilities just means that it's what the race is born with so there is no functional penalty when it comes to freedom of movement. Personally, if they didn't want to consider it armor, they should of said it was natural armor, and took out the whole can be enchanted part, treating it as they do every other race with natural armor. You wear armor, you lose the benefit of your natural armor. Then keep armor feats a warforged can get special by sticking with the can't be damaged like normal armor can and can be enchanted aspects, making it still worth the purchase of the feat. |
| Kinger07-28-07, 01:54 AM | Thank You - but you could have just said here it is. Actually, it was easy to just copy-paste it. I suppose I could have said "check the FAQ," but that would just sound terse. No- it is a trait, my whole question was is it armor. And the second part is your giving up defensive physical strength. The feat quite clearly states (a little later in the description) your giving up the +2 AC Bonus, Fortification, etc. So, it's a trait, you say. Traits aren't items, but I'm sure simply stating that won't convince you. ;) I'd argue your points further, but I do not have access to my books at the moment. I will leave you with this, though, to ponder: Neither Composite Plating nor Unarmored Body "clearly state" you get or lose an item. They list qualities the warforged gains or loses. Meanwhile, the Daelkyr Half-Blood clearly states "You get a symbiont from this list." Why wouldn't they just do the same with Warforged? Say Composite Plating: You get a free set of Composite Plating (see page XX), and put Composite Plating in the Item section? Just a thought. |
| Kinger07-28-07, 02:16 AM | I don't think this really helps to settle this question, as it apparently should. The answer of "the plating of a typical warforged doesn't count as armor" doesn't make it any less confusing that to all purposes it functions just like armor. At the end of the day, saying the typical plating doesn't affect abilities just means that it's what the race is born with so there is no functional penalty when it comes to freedom of movement. Personally, if they didn't want to consider it armor, they should of said it was natural armor, and took out the whole can be enchanted part, treating it as they do every other race with natural armor. You wear armor, you lose the benefit of your natural armor. Then keep armor feats a warforged can get special by sticking with the can't be damaged like normal armor can and can be enchanted aspects, making it still worth the purchase of the feat. It doesn't settle the main question (Composite Plating: item or not?) to a satisfactory degree, granted. It DOES however disprove a previous claim regarding Composite Plating interacting with class abilities and the like (Composite Plating doesn't count as wearing light armor). Composite Plating does not function in all ways like armor. It does in many ways, I won't deny that, but not in all. It cannot be removed. It cannot be designated Light/Medium/Heavy. It has no price associated, not even -. It has no weight listed, nor specific materials. Since it has no specific materials it has no hardness or hitpoints (generated by multiplying hardness by Armor bonus). And regarding Natural Armor, if a Lizardfolk puts on armor, his Natural Armor bonus to AC remains. One does not overlap the other, since different bonus types stack. I'd give a reference to this, but as I wrote above I am currently without my books. I'm sure somewhere there's a list of what applies to AC (a character sheet, even). Off the top of my head, AC = 10 + Dex Bonus + Armor Bonus + Natural Armor Bonus + Deflection Bonus + assorted other bonuses like Cover, Profane, Luck, Dodge, Haste, etc. |
| wizardguy200307-28-07, 02:32 AM | IAnd regarding Natural Armor, if a Lizardfolk puts on armor, his Natural Armor bonus to AC remains. Your absolutely right, in my haste to post I forgot the word "don't", as I was trying to site that as a benefit of it being treated like Natural Armor. I still believe it bears much more similarities to armor than not and making it natural armor would of solved some of this confusion. |
| Zookeeper07-28-07, 11:31 AM | It doesn't settle the main question (Composite Plating: item or not?) to a satisfactory degree, granted. It DOES however disprove a previous claim regarding Composite Plating interacting with class abilities and the like (Composite Plating doesn't count as wearing light armor). There was never a question about it being an item. The question was (is) is it armor. I know it is not an item. The fact that it does not interfere with abilities (or at least the normal composite plateing) could be another racial ability, like some classes disreguard the spell failure for light armor. Composite Plating does not function in all ways like armor. It does in many ways, I won't deny that, but not in all. It cannot be removed. It cannot be designated Light/Medium/Heavy. It has no price associated, not even -. It has no weight listed, nor specific materials. Since it has no specific materials it has no hardness or hitpoints (generated by multiplying hardness by Armor bonus). Just because it can not be removed, does not mean that it is not armor, and price does not mean a thing (look at the weapons like Club, Quarterstaff - they are items have hardness and HP - but cost nothing). What do you mean by it has no specific materials? Apparently armor has no specific material requirements - there are things like Wicker, Leather, Darkleaf, Wood, Stone, Mithreal, Cord, etc. So What does what it is made of have anything to do with weather it is armor or not? By the way - no where that I read does it say the plateing can not be damaged as normal armor. |
| Kinger07-28-07, 12:51 PM | Your absolutely right, in my haste to post I forgot the word "don't", as I was trying to site that as a benefit of it being treated like Natural Armor. I still believe it bears much more similarities to armor than not and making it natural armor would of solved some of this confusion. Heh, I hate when that happens. :) Making it Natural Armor would have made things potentially less confusing, yes, but then there'd still be the "Why can't I wear armor, then?" problem. And, if they COULD wear Armor, then they definately deserve a level adjustment. And now to Zookeeper... There was never a question about it being an item. The question was (is) is it armor. I know it is not an item. The fact that it does not interfere with abilities (or at least the normal composite plateing) could be another racial ability, like some classes disreguard the spell failure for light armor. Okay, sorry, wait. The question IS about it being an item. Or, at least, an object (which really are the same thing). Armor is an item/object. You can't have Armor that isn't an item/object. Equipment are items/objects. There is a fundamental difference from a game-mechanics perspective between Armor (the item that can be worn) and an Armor bonus (the number added to one's AC and flat-footed AC). The former provides the latter, but the latter is not necessarily provided by the former. Which point are you arguing? That Composite Plating is a piece of armor (an item), or that it provides an Armor bonus to AC? If the latter, I completely agree that Composite Plating provides and Armor bonus to AC. That's exactly what it says. Just because it can not be removed, does not mean that it is not armor, and price does not mean a thing (look at the weapons like Club, Quarterstaff - they are items have hardness and HP - but cost nothing). What do you mean by it has no specific materials? Apparently armor has no specific material requirements - there are things like Wicker, Leather, Darkleaf, Wood, Stone, Mithreal, Cord, etc. So What does what it is made of have anything to do with weather it is armor or not? If it cannot be removed, it isn't an item (ergo, not a piece of armor). Having a price of - (ie: free) is still having a price. There's a difference between having no price and being priced - (similar to having 0 hp and having no hp at all). Those properties were mentioned just to point out that Composite Plating doesn't behave EXACTLY like armor. And of course "Armor" itself isn't made of a single catch-all material. But all the materials you list should have Hardness and Hp-per-inch listed somewhere. My point is that each of those pieces of armor specifically mentions the material it's classified as. "Darkleaf" armor is made of Darkleaf. What's Composite Plating made of? By the way - no where that I read does it say the plateing can not be damaged as normal armor. Nowhere do I read that it can. AND nowhere do I read that Warforged can't burp fire as a breath weapon, shoot lasers from their toes, and walk on water. Hmm. Nor does it say anywhere in the rules that a dog can't play basketball, but I'm still not letting Air Bud on my team. When it comes to defining the rules with which a game is played, generally you don't list every possible thing that can't be done. It's best to just mention what can. IF composite plating could be damaged specifically, I would think that would be mentioned (along with how much damage it could take, and its hardness). |
| Zookeeper07-28-07, 09:05 PM | Which point are you arguing? That Composite Plating is a piece of armor (an item), or that it provides an Armor bonus to AC? If the latter, I completely agree that Composite Plating provides and Armor bonus to AC. That's exactly what it says. Both; It does provide an AC bonus - The question is weather the plateing is armor. If it cannot be removed, it isn't an item (ergo, not a piece of armor). Having a price of - (ie: free) is still having a price. There's a difference between having no price and being priced - (similar to having 0 hp and having no hp at all). Those properties were mentioned just to point out that Composite Plating doesn't behave EXACTLY like armor. That should not matter in the slightest, but a WF itself is a magical item. With that being said, anything attached / embedded to a WF is also an item. Just because it can not be removed does not eliminate it from being armor. The WF is designed with it attached. There are also several items that can be attached to a WF and once attached can not be removed. (I should say embedded components such as Disk of Energy Resistance) which does state it can not be damaged. In fact all embedded components can not be specifically targeted or damaged. And of course "Armor" itself isn't made of a single catch-all material. But all the materials you list should have Hardness and Hp-per-inch listed somewhere. My point is that each of those pieces of armor specifically mentions the material it's classified as. "Darkleaf" armor is made of Darkleaf. What's Composite Plating made of? I seem to remember reading that the plateing is plain steel, but I could be wrong on that. But, even if I am wrong, what does that have to do with weather it is armor? Weather it is steel, leather, darklaef, ironwood, or bubblegum - these are just ways to seperate the armor. If all those different armors had no distinction the question, why does player 1 have an ac bonus of +8 and player 2 have an ac bonus of +1 because they both have armor (although we know it is different types, the point is that these are just names to seperate them). This could be a different name: Composite Plateing AC bonus +2 etc. IF composite plating could be damaged specifically, I would think that would be mentioned (along with how much damage it could take, and its hardness). Okay, good point here, but if the composite plateing can not be damaged how do you damage the WF character then with your sword? Your swing hit the plateing and what? Must have done something (damage) to the plateing to actually hit the WF character for a HP loss. As for how much damage and hardness - that may be left out because unlike leather, or full plate, which becomes useless and falls apart when enough damage is done to it, the composite plateing does not fall apart, it remains on the WF in the exact spot that it began in. Even if there is a whole in it the size of a dump truck. Not to mention the fact, if it is considered an embedded object it can not specifically be targeted and damaged (although I do not think that.) After all this discussion, it still remains unclear as to weather the Composite Plateing (although a racial trait - which basically means they are born with it, and definately not an item by standard definition) is actually armor or not. Even the info you quoted from the SRD states "It doesn't count as armor", not that it is not armor. I do know that it states you are not considered to be wearing armor, but others (although mainly classes) state that when in light armor. |
| Kinger07-29-07, 02:58 AM | Both; It does provide an AC bonus - The question is weather the plateing is armor. Okay, the latter point (Armor bonus to AC)? I have absolutely no arguments with that whatsoever. Just in case there was any doubt. Now, as for the rest... That should not matter in the slightest, but a WF itself is a magical item. With that being said, anything attached / embedded to a WF is also an item. Okay, hold it right there. A Warforged is NOT a magic item, from the perspective of the rules. The non-rules fluff describe warforged as being made through a magical process, yes, but they are NOT items in a game-mechanical sense. Warforged possess a Wisdom and Charisma score, and ther thus Creatures, just like Golems, Humans, Zombies, Animated Objects, and the Tarrasque. Just because it can not be removed does not eliminate it from being armor. The WF is designed with it attached. There are also several items that can be attached to a WF and once attached can not be removed. (I should say embedded components such as Disk of Energy Resistance) which does state it can not be damaged. In fact all embedded components can not be specifically targeted or damaged. Ah, but they CAN be removed. The Warforged can choose to take them off. Yes, you can't remove one if the warforged wants to keep it on, but they are seperate and distinct gameplay elements. Can a Warforged choose to just take off his Composite Plating? Not without the feat Unarmored Body or a Reforged class ability, and the former implies you never had it to begin with, and the latter is a neato class ability to achieve something not otherwise possible (just like Uncanny Dodge lets you keep your Dex bonus to AC if flat-footed). I seem to remember reading that the plateing is plain steel, but I could be wrong on that. But, even if I am wrong, what does that have to do with weather it is armor? Weather it is steel, leather, darklaef, ironwood, or bubblegum - these are just ways to seperate the armor. If all those different armors had no distinction the question, why does player 1 have an ac bonus of +8 and player 2 have an ac bonus of +1 because they both have armor (although we know it is different types, the point is that these are just names to seperate them). This could be a different name: Composite Plateing AC bonus +2 etc. If it has a specified material, its gameplay statistics can be determined. Steel has a particular hardness and hp/inch, as does any other material, for example. If you know the particular material the item is classified as, you can determine most statistics you need. I'm just saying that Armor (the item) has a material as part of its gameplay mechanics. Always. If it has no material, or no weight, or classification of light/medium/heavy, it isn't armor, it's something else. In this case, a racial trait that mimics armor in many ways. It isn't just names of armor that seperates them, really. It's the stats associated with those names. Padded Armor gives a +1 Armor bonus to AC because that's what it's entry says, and based on its description (I believe it specifically says it's made of cloth) one can determine its hardness and hp. Okay, good point here, but if the composite plateing can not be damaged how do you damage the WF character then with your sword? Your swing hit the plateing and what? Must have done something (damage) to the plateing to actually hit the WF character for a HP loss. Does a human's armor get damaged when he gets hit in combat? Not by the rules. You damage the Warforged with an attack like you damage anything else: you surpass its AC with your attack roll without rolling a 1 and surpass any applicable damage reduction or energy resistance it has with your damage roll. That may not sound realistic, but hey, it's not real. As for how much damage and hardness - that may be left out because unlike leather, or full plate, which becomes useless and falls apart when enough damage is done to it, the composite plateing does not fall apart, it remains on the WF in the exact spot that it began in. Even if there is a whole in it the size of a dump truck. Not to mention the fact, if it is considered an embedded object it can not specifically be targeted and damaged (although I do not think that.) I'm confused. What point are you trying to make here? Composite Plating is an invincible item because the rules don't give it hitpoints? Composite Plating is NOT an item? That a Warforged can have its Composite Plating damaged to a state which it no longer provides its benefits, but can be repaired in some manner so that it does? That a Warforged's Composite Plating CANNOT be damaged (as in cannot have its hitpoints reduced, and any "damage" dealt to it is purely a fluff/flavor thing with no game-mechanical effect whatsoever)? After all this discussion, it still remains unclear as to weather the Composite Plateing (although a racial trait - which basically means they are born with it, and definately not an item by standard definition) is actually armor or not. Even the info you quoted from the SRD states "It doesn't count as armor", not that it is not armor. I do know that it states you are not considered to be wearing armor, but others (although mainly classes) state that when in light armor. There we go again. "It doesn't say it isn't." :) It's not unclear at all. You say it yourself: Definately not an item by standard definition. The standard definition is all we have, there aren't any more. Based on that, Composite Plating is not a piece of Armor, because a piece of Armor is an Item/Object (words interchangeable, though Item generally refers to an Object that can be interacted with by a character in game-space). I believe I am right in saying our disagreement boils down mainly to one specific point: Armor is/isn't an object. Yes? If Armor IS ALWAYS an object, I'm correct. If Armor IS NOT ALWAYS an object, I'm not. That about it? I'm pretty confident that it isn't said specifically anywhere that "Suits of armor are objects." I feel that such a statement is unnecessary because until the Warforged, there hasn't really been any need to argue that point. |
| ZappoHisbane07-29-07, 02:28 PM | That should not matter in the slightest, but a WF itself is a magical item. Really? Cool! What's your WF character's break DC then? :D |
| Kinger07-29-07, 04:24 PM | I've had a bit more time to think on this. Why are we arguing again? Do you believe this "protect armor from acid and rust" armor enhancement would make the warforged immune to rust and acid, or just its composite plating? If the latter, what gameplay effect does this have at all? We've bickered so long I can't recall the original disagreement, and wouldn'tchaknowit, I'm too lazy to go back and check. :) |
| Zookeeper07-29-07, 06:02 PM | Okay, hold it right there. A Warforged is NOT a magic item, from the perspective of the rules. The non-rules fluff describe warforged as being made through a magical process, yes, but they are NOT items in a game-mechanical sense. Warforged possess a Wisdom and Charisma score, and ther thus Creatures, just like Golems, Humans, Zombies, Animated Objects, and the Tarrasque. OK - Shifting sources for a moment - ECS pg 267 "The WF are living constructs, creations of magic not entirely dissimilar to magic items themselves. A WF character can incorporate special magic items - from weapons and armor to rings and rods - called components." That is the important section, but it also states a WF can incorporate armor. Could this be the plateing?? If it has a specified material, its gameplay statistics can be determined. Steel has a particular hardness and hp/inch, as does any other material, for example. If you know the particular material the item is classified as, you can determine most statistics you need. Yes - true, but with the plateing being part of a living magic item, maybe there is no way to determine the stats. It isn't just names of armor that seperates them, really. It's the stats associated with those names. Padded Armor gives a +1 Armor bonus to AC because that's what it's entry says, and based on its description (I believe it specifically says it's made of cloth) one can determine its hardness and hp. The stats are different, but if you did not know the name of the armor, and two players had different stats with an item called "Armor" (notice no distinction as type) it would cuase confussion, thus they added names like padded or leather. Does a human's armor get damaged when he gets hit in combat? Not by the rules. Then why do we need the stats at all, thats because the armor can be damaged. I'm confused. What point are you trying to make here? Composite Plating is an invincible item because the rules don't give it hitpoints? Composite Plating is NOT an item? That a Warforged can have its Composite Plating damaged to a state which it no longer provides its benefits, but can be repaired in some manner so that it does? That a Warforged's Composite Plating CANNOT be damaged (as in cannot have its hitpoints reduced, and any "damage" dealt to it is purely a fluff/flavor thing with no game-mechanical effect whatsoever)? The point here is that the plateing can take damage, but does not fall apart like normal armor - it remains on the WF body. And according to the section regaurding WF components - no component can be singled out and damaged specifically - but it recieves damage as the WF recieves damage. The only difference is they can not be destroyed without destroying the WF itself. I believe this applies to the plateing as well. It's not unclear at all. You say it yourself: Definately not an item by standard definition. The standard definition is all we have, there aren't any more. Based on that, Composite Plating is not a piece of Armor, because a piece of Armor is an Item/Object (words interchangeable, though Item generally refers to an Object that can be interacted with by a character in game-space). Ok - this may be a bad example, and i'm not trying to imply anything or offend anyone. You are born with two arms, you probably would not go buy a prostetic arm if you already have arms. Same could be said about the plateing - If a WF has (is born with) plateing/armor why would he need to buy an item he already has. I believe I am right in saying our disagreement boils down mainly to one specific point: Armor is/isn't an object. Yes? No - I know armor is an item, our discussion is weather the plateing is armor (although it is not an item by standard definition) it could still be armor. You keep saying that our discussion is weather armor is an item or not, but our discussion is weather plateing is armor. I'm pretty confident that it isn't said specifically anywhere that "Suits of armor are objects." I feel that such a statement is unnecessary because until the Warforged, there hasn't really been any need to argue that point. Suits of armor are objects, and a WF could be born / created with a special suit of armor that is not removable. |
| ZappoHisbane07-29-07, 07:15 PM | Then why do we need the stats at all, thats because the armor can be damaged. Yes, but generally you cannot deal damage to armor that is being worn by a character. Certain magic effects (like a Rust Monster, or Rusting Grasp) can affect armor being worn, but as usual the saving throws or AC of the wearer apply rather than those of the item itself. Note that those two examples also do not deal damage to the armor's HP, instead they degrade it to the point of uselessness. I can't think of any spells or whatnot that deal damage directly to armor that is being worn off the top of my head. Unattended armor needs to have stats in case an enterprising character breaks into the badguy's dressing room I suppose. Most materials are presented with Hardness and HP/Inch, but armor has to be treated a little different since you'll never find full plate that's an inch thick. A Warforged (and please, let's just stick to the base versions for now, not modified by various Warforged Feats or PrC's) is armored, referred to in the rules as composite plating. However that armor is not an object attended or otherwise and thus cannot be specifically targeted, going by the RAW. The exceptions to those RAW (Rust Monsters or Rusting Grasp) are already covered, and they deal damage to the Warforged as a whole. So the real problem that needs to be hammered out is what benefit a warforged gains from a magical effect that protects armor ALONE. My gut feeling says none whatsoever. It's impossible to target the plating/armor without targeting the warforged as a whole. |
| Zookeeper07-30-07, 12:05 AM | Yes, but generally you cannot deal damage to armor that is being worn by a character. Certain magic effects (like a Rust Monster, or Rusting Grasp) can affect armor being worn, but as usual the saving throws or AC of the wearer apply rather than those of the item itself. Note that those two examples also do not deal damage to the armor's HP, instead they degrade it to the point of uselessness. I can't think of any spells or whatnot that deal damage directly to armor that is being worn off the top of my head. Almost anything with acid will damage armor. But, as pointed out previously, since acid is liquid and will run and seep into the joints of the armor and whatnot, what good would the Blueshine do for that character since it does not effect the character and acid will still damage him/her. A Warforged (and please, let's just stick to the base versions for now, not modified by various Warforged Feats or PrC's) is armored, referred to in the rules as composite plating. However that armor is not an object attended or otherwise and thus cannot be specifically targeted, going by the RAW. The exceptions to those RAW (Rust Monsters or Rusting Grasp) are already covered, and they deal damage to the Warforged as a whole. As stated in my previous post quoteing ECS "The WF are living constructs, creations of magic not entirely dissimilar to magic items themselves..." Which to me sounds like an item / object. And since part of the WF is the plateing it too should be considered an item / object. (Or at least a part of one). And since the discussion is to try to find proof one way or the other to weather the plateing is armor or not, and therefore deciding weather Blueshine (an Armor Ability which can be added to the plateing by RAW) actually has any effect. There is nothing I am aware of that states either way if the plateing is or is not armor, the closest thing is that the plateing don't count as armor for abilities such as the monks. By the reasoning you state earlier, you can not damage unattended armor anyway except by rust what good would this ability do for a human. OK - the armor is immune to rust and acid, but the person wearing the armor is not and would take damage from the acid seepage or whatever. Now the WF, if the plateing is armor, would have the same benifits, the plateing would be immune to rust (possible added benifit might be totally immune because if you can not rust the outside how would the inside be effected, but that is a different can of worms) and the plateing would be immune to acid, but once again the WF would take damage from the seepage. So the real problem that needs to be hammered out is what benefit a warforged gains from a magical effect that protects armor ALONE. My gut feeling says none whatsoever. It's impossible to target the plating/armor without targeting the warforged as a whole. That also goes for the human wearing armor, see above. |
| Zookeeper07-30-07, 12:04 PM | By the reasoning you state earlier, you can not damage unattended armor anyway except by rust what good would this ability do for a human. OK - the armor is immune to rust and acid, but the person wearing the armor is not and would take damage from the acid seepage or whatever. Now the WF, if the plateing is armor, would have the same benifits, the plateing would be immune to rust (possible added benifit might be totally immune because if you can not rust the outside how would the inside be effected, but that is a different can of worms) and the plateing would be immune to acid, but once again the WF would take damage from the seepage. Quoteing myself to make a further point. These statements also seem to fall in line with other feats and abilities. Ex. A Human is not immune to fire, but can take a feat (Energy Immunity) to become immune to it. A Human is not immune to Death Effects, but a Death Ward Armor Ability allows them to ignore it (at least once per day). In other words, feats and abilities allow characters to improve themselves. I see no difference between a human or WF trying to improve himself. |
| Kinger07-30-07, 07:24 PM | I give up. You think you're right, I think I'm right, and there's nothing either of us has said that seems to have altered opinions. You deny the fundamental crux of my argument without providing much in the way of concrete evidence to support the denial. Again, I give up. Have at it, the rest of you. I'm out of here. |
| Zookeeper07-30-07, 08:04 PM | I give up. You think you're right, I think I'm right, and there's nothing either of us has said that seems to have altered opinions. You deny the fundamental crux of my argument without providing much in the way of concrete evidence to support the denial. Again, I give up. Have at it, the rest of you. I'm out of here. Sorry to drag you into this again, but the only thing you keep saying is that the composite plateing is not an item. In a previous post where I quoted something from ECS about the WF being "creation of magic, not entirely dissimilar to a magic item itself" seems to show the WF is a magic item (that includes the plateing), and therefore the plateing would also be a magic item. (Note ITEM) This quote from ECS seems to be the only indication that it is an item. There is no indication either way weather the plateing is armor or not (at least none I know of). And just to toss this out according to the rules armor is always an item, but there are always exceptions to every rule. Ex. A Human is not immune to fire, but can take a feat (Energy Immunity) to become immune to it. A Human is not immune to Death Effects, but a Death Ward Armor Ability allows them to ignore it (at least once per day). In other words, feats and abilities allow characters to improve themselves. Forgetting the plateing for a moment; is there anything wrong with the above statements. If not what is the difference between a WF improving himself and a human improving himself? |
| Kinger07-30-07, 11:04 PM | I'm such a sucker. Last post, promise. Sorry to drag you into this again, but the only thing you keep saying is that the composite plateing is not an item. In a previous post where I quoted something from ECS about the WF being "creation of magic, not entirely dissimilar to a magic item itself" seems to show the WF is a magic item (that includes the plateing), and therefore the plateing would also be a magic item. (Note ITEM) Look, Warforged are not Magic Items. They are Creatures. Creatures are not Items. Items are Objects. Objects do not have Wisdom and Charisma scores. Warforged have Wisdom and Charisma scores. Therefore, Warforged are not Objects. Therefore, Warforged cannot be Items, magic or otherwise. Is that logic comprehendable? The one monkey-wrench in that logic is Intelligent Items, which, despite the name, are not items/objects. I believe rules refer to them as Constructs, and they simply lack any physical ability scores. An Item or Object has a very specific definition in D&D, and is meant to refer to "things" not intrinsicly part of a creature. A sword, a suit of platemail, a tree, a blade of grass, a flagon of ail, a stool, a campfire, a wand of Cure Light Wounds. A Dwarf's eyes aren't items until they're no longer in the dwarf. Your quote is "not entirely dissimilar to magic items," not "are magic items." "Not entirely dissimilar" does not mean "entirely similar," it means "not without similarities" or, stripping away the double-negative, "has similarities." A basketball and an orange have similarities. Both are round and the same colour... Does that mean basketballs are fruit? This quote from ECS seems to be the only indication that it is an item. There is no indication either way weather the plateing is armor or not (at least none I know of). And just to toss this out according to the rules armor is always an item, but there are always exceptions to every rule. Of course there are exceptions. However, those exceptions are NOTED somewhere. A Rogue does not take damage from a fireball on a successful save not because we assume Rogues are dexterous and thus can avoid it, but because they are specifically stated to gain Evasion at level 2. Forgetting the plateing for a moment; is there anything wrong with the above statements. If not what is the difference between a WF improving himself and a human improving himself? Aside from the fact that I'd never allow a feat Energy Immunity, no, there is nothing inherently wrong with the ability for humans, warforged, or what-have-you to improve themselves. There may be different rules to be followed to allow either case. A Human, for example, cannot have his composite plating enchanted as if it were armor, because humans don't have composite plating to enchant. Warforged do. Different rules. Exceptions that are noted. There. Any more flawed logic will no longer be commented on. Unless I feel like it. I'm weak, that way. |
| keropie07-31-07, 12:04 AM | So, yeah, Kinger pretty much has it here (as well as others). Warforged are creatures. They have some stats, feats, abilities, etc., and they may own/possess items, but their stats, feats, abilities, etc. are not items. Their plating (composite, mithral, what-have-you) is a feat, not an item. It can be enchanted as though it were armor only because the ECS says so. So, sure, you can give it the blue shine enchantment. Thereafter, the armor will not receive damage from acid (or whatever it is that the enchantment does), but that has NO bearing on the warforged himself. At least not by RAW. So, this seems crazy, huh? I mean, this suit of armor covers the 'forged, it's impermeable to acid, so how does the forge get hit? Well, two things immediately occur to me: 1) The plating DOES NOT cover the 'forged. It has joints, which it turns out is a good thing. After all, he'd probably like to move sometime. I think it will be a great boon to his adventuring career. So where ever there are joints, some acid slips though and the poor lil 'forged says 'ouch!' 2) It doesn't have to make sense. It's not only a game, it's a game based on things that DO NOT EXIST. Take, for instance, our earlier mentioned rogue with Evasion. He walks down a dungeon corriodor in front of his party. He's scouting; that's his job. Behind him by 15' is the paladin, a cleric, and a wizard (yay, stereotypical party!). Suddenly, he sees a dark sorceror ahead, who waves his hand a little glowing bead flies at the rogue sighs. This is probably going to hurt. So our rogue, being the clever guy he is, ducks. After all, he's in a 5 foot wide corridor, there's not a lot of left or right to choose from, and he's not much of a jumper. Shockingly, the fireball goes boom halfway between him and the paladin, and everyone gets covered in flame. The whole corridor is full of it. It's EVERYWHERE. Somehow, it doesn't seem to hurt. At all. Maybe it was an illusion? Then way is the party wizard's skeleton still smoldering, the paladin gasping for breath, and the cleric trying to put his beard out? Because the rogue's player made his saving through, and evaded the fireball. Impossibly. Cause that's RAW sometimes. So give up on the logic side. If the 'forged somehow modifies his plating to cover his entire 5' space completely, puts blueshine on it, and a rust monster smacks him, he gets hurt. Sure, I have no idea how the rust monster did it, but he did. That's life. |
| Zookeeper07-31-07, 12:27 AM | An Item or Object has a very specific definition in D&D, and is meant to refer to "things" not intrinsicly part of a creature. A sword, a suit of platemail, a tree, a blade of grass, a flagon of ail, a stool, a campfire, a wand of Cure Light Wounds. A Dwarf's eyes aren't items until they're no longer in the dwarf. A construct is (according to definition) an created animated object or artificially created creature. (although it has no CON score) A WF (according to ECS pg 23) is "a construct with the living construct subtype." (The subtype gives a WF the CON score) Still sounds like an object, to me. Your quote is "not entirely dissimilar to magic items," not "are magic items." "Not entirely dissimilar" does not mean "entirely similar," it means "not without similarities" or, stripping away the double-negative, "has similarities." A basketball and an orange have similarities. Both are round and the same colour... Does that mean basketballs are fruit? I have to give you that one. But, I still stick to the point there is nothing saying either way if the plateing is or is not armor. As I stated (although a bit differently) the Plateing could be an exception to the rule, that is not noted becuase something like this Blueshine was not around at that time. And the other armor abilities do not have this much impact on a WF. Aside from the fact that I'd never allow a feat Energy Immunity, no, there is nothing inherently wrong with the ability for humans, warforged, or what-have-you to improve themselves. There may be different rules to be followed to allow either case. A Human, for example, cannot have his composite plating enchanted as if it were armor, because humans don't have composite plating to enchant. Warforged do. Different rules. Exceptions that are noted. Thats correct, there are different rules. A human can drop off his armor and come back later for the finished product. A WF must remain there the entire time. I'm not argueing there are different rules for improvement, I'm argueing weather the plateing is armor or not. If it is an exception to the Armor rule, it is currently not noted anywhere I am aware of. If you do not respond to this, let me say it has been a pleasure discussing this with you. And I hope someone else can tell me or show me proof on either side of this discussion. |
| Zookeeper07-31-07, 12:51 AM | So, yeah, Kinger pretty much has it here (as well as others). Warforged are creatures. They have some stats, feats, abilities, etc., and they may own/possess items, but their stats, feats, abilities, etc. are not items. Incorrect - A WF is a construct - a Construct is an object. It's type is construct, subtype living construct. |
| Ryoden_Anariavas07-31-07, 11:59 AM | The reason that the "Blueshine" armor ability exists is so your Armor does not get destroyed by the effects of some creatures (Ozes, Rust Monsters) and some spells (corosive grasp, rust ray). I would therefore say that the "Blueshine" ability can only protect the warforge from damaging or deystroying of its composit plating. However there are no rules for damaging or deystroying said composit plating so no real benefit from the "Blueshine" As a side note the fact that there are no ways to destroy the plating means that the warforged can stay and :fight!: fight the oze and or rust monster unlike his palidin buddy who's running:gah: for the wizard to take the front line :mage: |
| Zookeeper07-31-07, 01:04 PM | The reason that the "Blueshine" armor ability exists is so your Armor does not get destroyed by the effects of some creatures (Ozes, Rust Monsters) and some spells (corosive grasp, rust ray). I would therefore say that the "Blueshine" ability can only protect the warforge from damaging or deystroying of its composit plating. However there are no rules for damaging or deystroying said composit plating so no real benefit from the "Blueshine" As a side note the fact that there are no ways to destroy the plating means that the warforged can stay and :fight!: fight the oze and or rust monster unlike his palidin buddy who's running:gah: for the wizard to take the front line :mage: That is the decsription of Blueshine. But, the non-WF character standing there fighting the ooze with this armor ability would still take damage from the acid seepage through the joints or whathaveyou. The same applies to the WF. But, unfortunately these opinions, both yours and mine, still does not prove the plateing as being or not being armor. Someone once said "if it looks like (something), and acts like (the same something), then it is probably (the same something)." But this still does not confirm anything. |
| Ryoden_Anariavas07-31-07, 01:43 PM | That is the decsription of Blueshine. But, the non-WF character standing there fighting the ooze with this armor ability would still take damage from the acid seepage through the joints or whathaveyou. Well of course. If the Pally had Blueshine armor he wouldn't need to hide behind the wizard The same applies to the WF. But, unfortunately these opinions, both yours and mine, still does not prove the plateing as being or not being armor. Someone once said "if it looks like (something), and acts like (the same something), then it is probably (the same something)." But this still does not confirm anything. I suppose I diddn't comment on the debate because I can't see how it matters to the story or the mechanics. |
| Kinger07-31-07, 06:01 PM | Incorrect - A WF is a construct - a Construct is an object. It's type is construct, subtype living construct. And this is why I gave up arguing. Not because you're right, oh no, but because you're wrong and refuse to see that possibility. There, I said it outright. You're wrong. Look again at what I said. Nothing about Constitution in there. Constructs, I say again, are CREATURES. There is a line in the Construct Type description that mentions, specifically, that a Construct is immune to all spells that require fortitude saves unless they also target objects, but that's not because they're objects. That's because THERE'S A LINE IN THE CONSTRUCT TYPE DESCRIPTION THAT SAYS SO. Undead have the same trait. This is because Undead and Constructs lack Constitution scores (unless, gasp, there's an exception, as mentioned in the warforged entry). Without a Con score, a creature is not "living." This does not mean it's no longer a creature. I'll get out my PHB if I have to. Page 306, under the definition of creature: "A living or otherwise active being, not an object." Is a golem active? Yup. How else would you describe it? Under the definition of creature type: "One of several broad categories of creatures. The creature types are aberration, animal, construct, dragon, elemental, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, outsider, plant, undead, and vermin." Italic emphasis there is mine. Hmm, guess constructs are creatures... But just to reinforce it... In the MM, page 307, under the definition of Construct Type: "A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature." Again, emphasis mine. And before you say "Look! Object!" I point out the word "Animated" in front of it. An animated object is an object that became "active," and thus ceased to be an object at all because it became a creature. Looking to the Animated Object entry, page 13, it says: "They owe their existence as creatures to spells such as Animate Objects or similar supernatural abilities." Again in the MM, page 312, under Nonabilities: "Wisdom: Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score. Charisma: Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score." Do I need to recap that for you, or do you see? None of my arguments are of the "it makes sense that..." variety. They are all "this is what the rules say." Is that not what is under discussion? And, one final note. While it may be true in reality that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's likely a duck, this isn't the case in D&D, or indeed in any constructed, arbitrary system of rules. In such instances, if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, it doesn't matter. It's only a duck if the rules SAY it's a duck. It could look like a goose, walk like an ocelot, and quack like a nuclear bomb and it'd still be a duck if the rules for it say so. |
| wizardguy200307-31-07, 11:50 PM | As I have been reading these posts, the thought did occur to me that everyone has a valid point. The truth of the matter is that a warforged themselves seems to be an paradox. It is at the same time an an object and a race. It is by definition a construct and also alive because of the living construct subtype. So your all right. The problem is, there are no rules in place for damaging a warforged plating, it's just considered part of the body like a second skin, or first depending on your point of view (I say second since those who take the Unarmored feat would now be like skinless zombie things in my mind..ewww). The blue shine question does raise a point, as pointed out earlier other races can cast resist energy, or have it on them, and be protected from potentially fatal damage, but a warforged is ***t out of luck when it comes to rust damage. I would propose treating blueshine as you would a artificer infusion, allow it to protect the warforged, but for a limited duration. Course, then the cost of blueshine becomes a little unreasonable, but hey maybe they get a discount because of it? :) |
| Zookeeper08-01-07, 03:47 AM | And this is why I gave up arguing. Not because you're right, oh no, but because you're wrong and refuse to see that possibility. I will admit I may be wrong, but I do not think I am at this point. Constructs, I say again, are CREATURES. There is a line in the Construct Type description that mentions, specifically, that a Construct is immune to all spells that require fortitude saves unless they also target objects, but that's not because they're objects. That's because THERE'S A LINE IN THE CONSTRUCT TYPE DESCRIPTION THAT SAYS SO. Undead have the same trait. This is because Undead and Constructs lack Constitution scores (unless, gasp, there's an exception, as mentioned in the warforged entry). Without a Con score, a creature is not "living." This does not mean it's no longer a creature. Right, a construct has no CON score and is not living. Therefore a WF (also type CONSTRUCT) is not living. Another possible way to look at it (although not a fact) is that a WF could have been a regular suit of armor, some other materials added to the inside, gotten animated, and given the living construct subtype. When you ADD the subtype is when a WF gains the CON score, sentience, free will, etc. By the way, It might also say that line about the fort save "unless it also effects objects" because it might be an object. Page 306, under the definition of creature: "A living or otherwise active being, not an object." Is a golem active? Yup. How else would you describe it? Yes a golem is active, but not living, and RAW says its a creature, as you point out later. But, the golem is made from objects, Stone, Iron, Rubies, etc. They all start out as objects and become animated objects. No arguements on the fact they are active. Under the definition of creature type: "One of several broad categories of creatures. The creature types are aberration, animal, construct, dragon, elemental, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, outsider, plant, undead, and vermin." Italic emphasis there is mine. Hmm, guess constructs are creatures... But just to reinforce it... In the MM, page 307, under the definition of Construct Type: "A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature." Anything the players can fight, and fights back needs a type. The reason it says creature type (IMO) is just to define what type is. If you check, you will find on pages 3 and 4, a list of "Monsters by Type and Subtype" (Note it is not creature type here) A sword is an object. An ability for the sword is dancing. You release this sword and it attacks on its own. Because it is now an animated object (attacks as an animated object attacks according to the animated object combat section), it must be a construct and therefore a creature. I DON'T THINK SO I believe the writers had some other definition in mind for "Active Being". Again, emphasis mine. And before you say "Look! Object!" I point out the word "Animated" in front of it. An animated object is an object that became "active," and thus ceased to be an object at all because it became a creature. Looking to the Animated Object entry, page 13, it says: "They owe their existence as creatures to spells such as Animate Objects or similar supernatural abilities." Once again how about the GP, casting Animate Object on it makes it a creature or a construct. I DONT THINK SO but, Possible, it is extremely difficult to accept, especially with the short duration of 1 rnd/lvl. And before you toss out that it can be made perm, I know that, and at that point I might accept it. Although I still think the writers intended creatures to be living, and maybe include undead in there (because they were alive, died, and are reanimated). JMHO. Again in the MM, page 312, under Nonabilities: "Wisdom: Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score. Charisma: Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score." Good points. Only question here is in the combat description of the Animated Object. "Animated Objects fight only as directed by the animator. They follow orders without question to the best of thier abilities." That does not sound like they realize thier enviroment at all. That does not even sound like they have any mental capabilities at all. That is an object that was given semblence of life to do a job. After a time they become full fledged objects again losing the semblence of life. But, I can not argue that the quotes above are not correct. They are all "this is what the rules say." Is that not what is under discussion? Yes and No. These are what the rules say about this stuff. The discussion is still weather the composite plateing on a WF is an exception to the armor rules. |
| Zookeeper08-01-07, 03:54 AM | As I have been reading these posts, the thought did occur to me that everyone has a valid point. The truth of the matter is that a warforged themselves seems to be an paradox. It is at the same time an an object and a race. It is by definition a construct and also alive because of the living construct subtype. So your all right. The problem is, there are no rules in place for damaging a warforged plating, it's just considered part of the body like a second skin, or first depending on your point of view (I say second since those who take the Unarmored feat would now be like skinless zombie things in my mind..ewww). The blue shine question does raise a point, as pointed out earlier other races can cast resist energy, or have it on them, and be protected from potentially fatal damage, but a warforged is ***t out of luck when it comes to rust damage. I would propose treating blueshine as you would a artificer infusion, allow it to protect the warforged, but for a limited duration. Course, then the cost of blueshine becomes a little unreasonable, but hey maybe they get a discount because of it? :) That seems like it would be a good house rule. I am still trying to find out about the plateing being an exception to the current rules about armor. Until I/We can find out a definite answer of this subject I would probably house rule it that way. |
| Zookeeper08-01-07, 04:03 AM | Well of course. If the Pally had Blueshine armor he wouldn't need to hide behind the wizard. According to the RAW he would probably still hide. Blueshine only protects the armor, so the acid seepage into the armor would still cause damage to the poor pally. |
| Ryoden_Anariavas08-01-07, 08:47 AM | According to the RAW he would probably still hide. Blueshine only protects the armor, so the acid seepage into the armor would still cause damage to the poor pally. I meant that if the Pally had blueshine he wouldnt need to worry about having great uncle horace's armor melted and he would be able to take the damage like his WF buddy |
| Zookeeper08-01-07, 01:50 PM | I meant that if the Pally had blueshine he wouldnt need to worry about having great uncle horace's armor melted and he would be able to take the damage like his WF buddy Sorry for the mis-interpratation. |
| Kinger08-01-07, 06:30 PM | Actual rules citations seem to have no influence on this discussion of rules. Nonliving does not mean noncreature. What you think the designers intended is irrelevant. What is written is. The actual composition of a creature is also irrelevant. A human is bone, flesh, water, hair, whatever, all combined into one thing. The fact that this material is largely grown rather than found on the ground is irrelevant. It's still just "stuff". Can you sunder a human's femur? No. It is an intrinsic part of the Human, not a seperate "thing" from a rules perspective. A Warforged's Composite Plating is part of its anatomy, not a seperate object. It is, I repeat again, a racial trait. By the way, It might also say that line about the fort save "unless it also effects objects" because it might be an object. Okay, look, you're making an interpretation about the fundamental classification of an entity from a rules perspective (object? creature? spell effect? etc) based on what you believe its trait based on creature type MIGHT be saying in a round-about way. Am I incorrect? A straightforward way that would eliminate any confusion would be to say simply, up front, that Constructs are Objects, not Creatures. It does not do this. In fact, it says the opposite. A lot of these arguments I'm just not going to bother with. The title of a list neglects to use the word "Creature"? Please. A sword is an object. An ability for the sword is dancing. You release this sword and it attacks on its own. Because it is now an animated object (attacks as an animated object attacks according to the animated object combat section), it must be a construct and therefore a creature. I DON'T THINK SO I have the entry for the Dancing weapon property in front of me right now. Here, I'll post it, directly from the 3.5 SRD: Dancing: As a standard action, a dancing weapon can be loosed to attack on its own. It fights for 4 rounds using the base attack bonus of the one who loosed it and then drops. While dancing, it cannot make attacks of opportunity, and the person who activated it is not considered armed with the weapon. In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all maneuvers and effects that target items. While dancing, it takes up the same space as the activating character and can attack adjacent foes (weapons with reach can attack opponents up to 10 feet away). The dancing weapon accompanies the person who activated it everywhere, whether she moves by physical or magical means. If the wielder who loosed it has an unoccupied hand, she can grasp it while it is attacking on its own as a free action; when so retrieved the weapon can’t dance (attack on its own) again for 4 rounds. See any mention of Animated Objects (note the capitals) in there? I sure don't. Just sounds like a weapon you wield without using your hands (hark! a noted exception to some rules!). Good points. Only question here is in the combat description of the Animated Object. "Animated Objects fight only as directed by the animator. They follow orders without question to the best of thier abilities." That does not sound like they realize thier enviroment at all. That does not even sound like they have any mental capabilities at all. That is an object that was given semblence of life to do a job. After a time they become full fledged objects again losing the semblence of life. But, I can not argue that the quotes above are not correct. "Mental Capabilities?" You mean, like Mental Attributes, or at least what such abstract values represent? 'Cause looking at the Animated Objects monster entry, I see that they indeed possess Wisdom and Charisma scores. Ergo, Creatures. The fact that the scores are both 1 infers their awareness of their surroundings and their ability to differentiate between themselves and others is very limited, yes, but it's there. The lack of an intelligence score means they have no thoughts or memories, only base instincts or inherent instructions (ie: Smash what that guy says). Ants have no intelligence scores either. Nor do oozes. Nor do zombies. Yes and No. These are what the rules say about this stuff. The discussion is still weather the composite plateing on a WF is an exception to the armor rules. They ARE. Ordinairily, a creature cannot have magical Armor Enhancements just magicked into them. Warforged, in particular, can, despite not having Armor on in the first place. Rather, they have a racial trait that behaves much like armor that can. Just in case anyone is interested to know my response to the initial question (essentially "What good would Blueshine do a Warforged?") without scrolling back through this debate, I'll repeat it: Blueshine prevents acid and rust damage to the enchanted armor. A Warforged's Composite Plating is not armor. Therefore, the enchantment would prevent acid and rust damage to something that isn't there, making it effectively useless. I offer a houserule that Blueshine provides immunity to Rust effects to the Warforged, but not the acid immunity, simply out of balance concerns. I point out that Blueshine grants only the armor immunity to Acid damage, not the wearer. The Fighter in Blueshined Fullplate still takes all that damage from Acid Arrow, Acid Fog, Black Dragon breathweapons, pools of acid, etc. His armor, however, would be unscathed. This is not normally a concern anyway, save for things like the aforementioned pools of acid or 1's rolled on reflex saves. Now you can fish out your friend's armor if he decides to go for a dissolving swim. |
| Zookeeper08-01-07, 08:45 PM | Okay, look, you're making an interpretation about the fundamental classification of an entity from a rules perspective (object? creature? spell effect? etc) based on what you believe its trait based on creature type MIGHT be saying in a round-about way. Am I incorrect? A straightforward way that would eliminate any confusion would be to say simply, up front, that Constructs are Objects, not Creatures. It does not do this. In fact, it says the opposite. I am making an interpretation about the rule that is written. It states "Immune to all affects that require a Fort save unless it also targets objects." As you point out the rules as written state "ALSO TARGETS OBJECTS". Yes that is a racial triat as the undead. Both of those could be read as Undead and Constructs are objects because of the "TARGETS OBJECTS" line. Horrid Wilting - Fort save - Constructs and undead are immune - because it does not target objects. Ohh - wait a sec. The target is living creature - OK that might be reasonable then. Implosion - Fort Save - Constructs and undead are immune - because it does not target objects. And this one targets creatures (does not say living creatures). Disintergrate - Fort Save - Constructs and Undead not immune because it targets OBJECTS. Do you see how the "Targets OBJECTS" line can state Constructs and Undead are OBJECTS. And granted it is an interpretation. But since the descriptions for constructs and Undead do not state they are objects everyone assumes they are creatures, but it also does not state they are creatures either - so this is a logical interpretation of the WRITTEN rule to say they are objects. And before anyone goes on about Creatures are ... please finish reading the entire post. Thanks I have the entry for the Dancing weapon property in front of me right now. Here, I'll post it, directly from the 3.5 SRD: Dancing: As a standard action, a dancing weapon can be loosed to attack on its own. It fights for 4 rounds using the base attack bonus of the one who loosed it and then drops. While dancing, it cannot make attacks of opportunity, and the person who activated it is not considered armed with the weapon. In all other respects, it is considered wielded or attended by the creature for all maneuvers and effects that target items. While dancing, it takes up the same space as the activating character and can attack adjacent foes (weapons with reach can attack opponents up to 10 feet away). The dancing weapon accompanies the person who activated it everywhere, whether she moves by physical or magical means. If the wielder who loosed it has an unoccupied hand, she can grasp it while it is attacking on its own as a free action; when so retrieved the weapon can’t dance (attack on its own) again for 4 rounds. According to the rules you previously posted: Page 306, under the definition of creature: "A living or otherwise active being, not an object." In the MM, page 307, under the definition of Construct Type: "A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature." That dancing sword is active. It attacks on its own (attacking adjacent foes), moves with the person that loosed it. Must be a creature "an active being". It is also artifically created (previous line) creature. It is therefore a Construct. See any mention of Animated Objects (note the capitals) in there? I sure don't. Just sounds like a weapon you wield without using your hands (hark! a noted exception to some rules!). I used animated object when I meant active. They ARE. Ordinairily, a creature cannot have magical Armor Enhancements just magicked into them. Warforged, in particular, can, despite not having Armor on in the first place. Rather, they have a racial trait that behaves much like armor that can. OK - the WF itself is an exception to the rule reguarding enhancements. Is the composite plateing an exception to the established "AROMR IS" rules, that is what I'm trying to find out. I offer a houserule that Blueshine provides immunity to Rust effects to the Warforged, but not the acid immunity, simply out of balance concerns. House rules are acceptable for current play. Dropping all the is it creature or object stuff. I would like to find out a definitive answer to "Is the WF composite plateing an exception to the currently established definition (rules) of what armor is?" Meaning, just because it is part of the WF (racial trait), it is not an object, it has no hardness or HP, etc. Is it a special armor useable only by the WF race? (Notice ARMOR) |
| Kaladon777908-09-07, 09:05 AM | I would say yes, it will make a warforged immune to Rusting from a rust monster becouse you can take a feat that removes your composite plating, so for all purposes your Plating is outside and when enhanced it is treated just as armor is. Now for the Acid, you would still take the full damage becouse its not a resistance to acid like the armor enchancement Resistance to Acid 5-20, I've never seen the ability but it sounds like it just protections your armor from acid eating away at it or destroying it. |
| OctaviusIII08-09-07, 11:02 AM | Dropping all the is it creature or object stuff. I would like to find out a definitive answer to "Is the WF composite plateing an exception to the currently established definition (rules) of what armor is?" Meaning, just because it is part of the WF (racial trait), it is not an object, it has no hardness or HP, etc. Is it a special armor useable only by the WF race? (Notice ARMOR) (For the record, I've avoided most of the above debate.) Let's say you wanted to attack the HP of Composite Plating - you would make a sunder attack, yes? This is akin to making a sunder attack against skin. I think it would be a fair DM ruling to say that whatever damage is done to the skin would be dealt directly to the creature, and that any serious effects (getting at the innards) are abstracted by the HP and crit system. The same holds true for WF and composite plating. Now, if you like, you can consider plating special WF-only armor, but keep in mind that it functions like skin, and there is a feat that reduces it down to the effectiveness of skin (thus allowing WF to wear armor and cloaks and the like). I don't see any issues with that, although in DnD board debates, inevitably someone will. |
| Zookeeper08-09-07, 01:48 PM | (For the record, I've avoided most of the above debate.) Let's say you wanted to attack the HP of Composite Plating - you would make a sunder attack, yes? This is akin to making a sunder attack against skin. I think it would be a fair DM ruling to say that whatever damage is done to the skin would be dealt directly to the creature, and that any serious effects (getting at the innards) are abstracted by the HP and crit system. The same holds true for WF and composite plating. No. And skin is also considered armor (albeit very weak and soft). "You can not sunder armor worn by another character." Pg 158 PHB. Now, if you like, you can consider plating special WF-only armor, but keep in mind that it functions like skin, and there is a feat that reduces it down to the effectiveness of skin (thus allowing WF to wear armor and cloaks and the like). I don't see any issues with that, although in DnD board debates, inevitably someone will. I don't actually want to "consider" it anything, I am looking for something (official if possible) to say "IT IS" or "IT IS NOT". I, myself am leaning toward "IT IS" because of the unarmored body feat. That feat gives you options of using the plateing or not, wearing other armor or not, various classes that do not allow armor. The plateing itself bestows upon the character all the bonuses and/or penalties of armor. Is plateing a racial trait - Yes Is it an object (like Armor) - Not by definition Is it protection (like armor) - Yes Armor Bonuses - Yes Armor Penalties - Yes Can it be enhanced / enchanted (like armor) - Yes Is it actually Armor - unknown - still under conjecture. |
| Kaladon777908-10-07, 08:52 AM | Is plateing a racial trait - Yes Is it an object (like Armor) - Not by definition Is it protection (like armor) - Yes Armor Bonuses - Yes Armor Penalties - Yes Can it be enhanced / enchanted (like armor) - Yes Is it actually Armor - unknown - still under conjecture. Treat it like armor man, for most purposes it is treated like armor, One other thing "Armor Penalties - No" these aren't armor check penalties, there a special penalty. |
| Zookeeper08-10-07, 11:37 PM | Treat it like armor man, for most purposes it is treated like armor, One other thing "Armor Penalties - No" these aren't armor check penalties, there a special penalty. I will treat as armor, but am still looking for something to say Yes or No. And Plateing gives you Arcane Spell Failure as do other body feats. Other body feats gives you penalties on all skills that ACP apply to. (I never used ACP, just the words armor penalties - meaning the same type of penalties that armor provides all characters - including Max Dex) Therefore: Armor Penalties - Yes |
| deathbane08-11-07, 06:40 AM | I have not read every post, but if you want protection from rust then get the gaunlets of rust(DMG 257). "......It also completely protects the wearer and her gear from rust(magical and otherwise)....... |
| Edymnion09-18-07, 07:09 PM | Other body feats gives you penalties on all skills that ACP apply to. (I never used ACP, just the words armor penalties - meaning the same type of penalties that armor provides all characters - including Max Dex) Therefore: Armor Penalties - YesTherefore no, because ACP gets applied to things like your attack rolls if you are not proficient in said armor. Composite Plating goes out of it's way to avoid calling it ACP. A warforged wizard with adamantine body would *NOT* have a penalty to his attack rolls, because he has an ACP of 0. The feat gives penalties that resemble ACP, but are not ACP. Its an important distinction. |
| Cifer09-25-07, 10:22 PM | There's not much to be added to Edy and Kinger - if the designers had meant to say that constructs are objects, why didn't they just say so? All that writing of wis/cha-nonabilities only to forget the single line "By the way, constructs are considered to be objects too"? Regarding the plating = armor issue, the duck comment shows the problem precisely: D&D has an arbitrary set of rules. If a problem can't be directly deduced from real life (when was the last time you rust-proofed a magical construct?), one should keep to the existing rules, meaning that when the plating is in length described to be having traits of armor while just saying it is armor would have been so much quicker and more simple one cannot assume it to be armor. And skin is also considered armor (albeit very weak and soft). Ah. So can I enchant it? If I can't, where is this exception to the normal armor rules noted? Sorry, but you're truly grasping at straws here. Saying that Blueshine does anything for a warforged beside providing the +2 hiding bonus is a houserule. |
| 3n7r0py03-08-08, 10:31 PM | Eberron Campaign Setting page 23 Warforged can be enchanted just as armor can be. Magic Item Compendium page 9 Blueshine is an armor property. Thus, a warforged, being able to be enchanted as armor can be, can be enchanted with anything that is an armor property. |