Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spatula" data-source="post: 1889774" data-attributes="member: 2198">Well, not by the rules as written.(a) Warforged w/ Adamantine Body aren't actually wearing heavy armor.  They're considered to be wearing heavy armor, which may impact their class abilities (a warforged barbarian wouldn't get the increased movement, for example).  This isn't obvious to some (the phrase, "considered to be wearing heavy armor," could be interpreted a few different ways), but has since been clarified by the designers.(b) Armor proficiency does not remove armor check penalties to skills.  It removes the armor check penalty to attack rolls only.  A warforged barbarian with Adamantine Body suffers a -5 penalty to Balance, Climb, Jump, etc. checks, regardless of the proficiency issue.(c) Armor check penalties don't apply to Ride.  The mount is doing most of the movement, not the rider.(d) The penalty is -5, not -4.But the feat can only be used with the warforged's body in this case.  It's not the same as Heavy Armor proficiency for a humanoid, which allows said humanoid to wear any heavy armor it finds without suffering attack penalties.  All it allows (by your interpretation of the rules) is for the warforged to use its own body, since warforged can't actually wear armor.And of the classes that don't start with Heavy Armor prof, every single one is impacted negatively by the wearing of such.  So, the warforged is only penalizing itself in those cases by taking the Adamantine Body feat.  Requiring another feat on top of that to avoid a hefty attack penalty is adding insult to injury.The warforged is already a collection of special rule headaches.  They're constructs, BUT... (long list of exceptions to the construct type follows).</blockquote>

Verification