Does the now updated Integrated Protection feature of the Warforged mean they are counted as “wearing” armor?

The new and updated Warforged’s Integrated Protection feature, detailed in Ebberon Rising from the Last War, now states:

Integrated Protection

Your body has built-in defensive layers, which can be enhanced with armor.

[…]

  • You can don only armor with which you have proficiency. To don armor […]. To doff armor […]. You can rest while donning or doffing armor in this way.
  • While you live, your armor can’t be removed from your body against your will.

With this revised wording, does the warforged now count as wearing armor?

This is important in the context of how something like integrating a set of Plate Mail would interact with Monk features like Martial Arts.

Can an Armorer Artificer wearing Guardian-model Arcane Armor cast a somatic spell without holding tools or having the Warcaster feat?

The Guardian model described in the Arcane Armor feature of the Armorer Artificer includes "Thunder Gauntlets":

Each of the armor’s gauntlets counts as a simple melee weapon while you aren’t holding anything in it…

If the Artificer holds tools for a material component of a spell, the description above doesn’t apply. However, if the armor itself is used as the focus (assuming it’s an Infused Item), the Artificer is effectively holding a weapon in each hand.

To deal with this, must the Artificer have taken the Warcaster feat (to allow performing the somatic component of a spell while holding a weapon)? Or can the Thunder Gauntlets be considered "sheathed" when not attacking with them?

(Note: All Artificer spellcasting requires a material component, so performing a somatic-only spell is not an concern.)

What happens when I’m invisible and something I’m wearing has Light cast on it?

The bard in my group cast the light spell on an amulet he was wearing. Then after triggering a trap, he cast invisibility on himself.

What happens in this situation? The amulet is now invisible but does it stop emitting light because of this? Or is the amulet invisible but the light it emits still visible?

Has anyone got a decent ruling on what should happen in this situation?

Do you need a free hand for your holy symbol if you’re wearing it visibly?

I’ve been creating a Paladin who uses the Defense fighting style while wielding two weapons (instead of the more common Dueling style with weapon and shield). However, I was worried that spell components would make this too difficult because the character wouldn’t be able to use a shield emblazoned with a holy symbol as their spellcasting focus. However, I reread the section on holy symbols and it says the following:

A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield. [PHB pg. 151, emphasis added]

By my reading of this, even absent a shield, the caster does NOT need a free hand for their focus. Simply wearing it on a chain outside their armor or clothing (or even affixing it to the outside of their armor) would be sufficient.

This surprised me, so I double-checked the material components section:

Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell… A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components. [PHB pg. 203]

At first glance, its seems that the statements "A character can use… a spellcasting focus… in place of the components specified for a spell" and "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components" would logically mean that a spellcaster must have a hand free to use a spellcasting focus.

However, is this a case of "specific beats general"? Using an arcane focus requires a free hand because it follows the general rule from pg. 203, but a holy symbol doesn’t as long as it’s visibly worn as written in the more specific rule on pg. 151?

(Related: Do these spellcasting foci from Xanathar’s Guide to Everything have to be held in a hand?)

Artificer Armorer (UA) Dual Wield Feat while wearing a Shield

I have made a PC (5e) Artificer’s Armorer subclass from UA that has the Dual Wielder (DW) feat. What happens when the PC is in the guardian mode and equips a shield?

Two-Weapon Fighting:

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

Dual Wielder Feat:

You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand. You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light. You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one

  1. Your gauntlets are weapons that due to the DW feat can be used for an off-hand bonus action attack. If you equip a shield, are you still qualified to perform this bonus action off-hand attack, as your offhand is both a weapon and a shield?

  2. You qualify for the +1AC, as you are wielding 2 separate weapons. Is the +1AC from the DW feat still applicable when you equip a shield?

[ Other – Society & Culture ] Open Question : Why are people wearing facemasks in their vehicles while driving alone?

They’re already isolated from other people. Do they think Coronavirus is going to fly through the air, penetrate their vehicle and infect them?   I already realize that many brainwashed people are going to rationalize this and try to make it make sense although it makes no sense not is it logical to the quarantine. If you’re already isolated in a vehicle ALONE a mask makes no sense.  I stand corrected that there are some valid reasons. I was referring to the mindless media drones that think and do whatever the media tells them to. There are a few idiots that answered here that took my comments personally and they are the kind that fit the media drone profile who are just tailoring their answer to my question and others rational answers to make it appear they have have a valid reasos The ones that took my comments are the ones I was targeting with my brainwashing comments because the guilt always react that way because they know who they are.