Just contemplating here... On a lazy sunday...
UM has rules for modifying constructs with armor-enhancements and adding (magic) manufactured weapons to a construct. These are clearly an inherent part of the modified construct.
Is there anything preventing eg. an iron golem for picking up an appropriately sized(prefered) manufactured greatsword and exchanging its slam attacks with 4 iterative attacks with the weapon? I realize there's the -4 non-proficiency penalty, but that's mostly irrelevant.
After a bit of research; the terra-cotta soldier uses manufactured weapons, but is special in that it has an inteligence score. Another is the graven guardian, which seems fairly normal.
Another item is armor - mundane or magic - to be worn, there is still the non-proficiency causing ACP to apply to attacks, but this can be partially mitigated by materials and other stuff.
Question (1): Is there anything preventing are construct with "arms/hands" from wielding manufactured weapons?
Question (2): Is there anything preventing a crafter from having a blacksmith whipping up a set of mithral full plate armor for her shiny new alchemical golem?
Question (3); How about them shields?
(Maybe these go too much against the idea of the modifications from UM.)
and related(sort of)...
Question (4): Do constructs have item slots? (I figure the PC ones in ARG do, but how about "monsters"?)
Question (5): Can a mindless construct activate a magic item? Can it be ordered to (try to) activate one? (given of course that it can speak a command word, or do whatever is required to activate the thing)
Question (6): Is anyone else picturing an adamantine golem sitting around, tossing cards from a Deck of Many Things at a hat?
Within the construct block it says somewhere that constructs are considered proficient with any weapons that they are written to have in their entry, such as a Terra-Cotta Archer being proficient with Longbows.
1: Nothing really on this one, but if you build the construct with the greatswords as part of the creation cost of the golem, then the golem is considered proficient with the use of greatswords.
2: Not specifically, though since the construct's body can be enchanted as a suit of armor anyway, I'm not sure what you'd get out of giving the construct armor anyway.
3: I see no problem with this one, since a shield can be used to shield bash, let your constructs use a shield all they like, just craft a construct with a shield built into it as part of it's crafting costs.
4: Not specifically a yes or no question, I've never seen a construct wearing an amulet of mighty striking or a ring of protection, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't. I'd let if fly as a GM, but that's just me.
5: Could it activate a magic item if the construct was mindless? Maybe. Could it do so if order to do so? Definitely, though it might do so at it's own UMD modifiers in that case.
6: Not me specifically, unless that construct was actually a Warforged, Awakened construct, or was built as a sentient golem.
Not specifically, though since the construct's body can be enchanted as a suit of armor anyway, I'm not sure what you'd get out of giving the construct armor anyway.
Armor bonus to AC.
I thought about that too, enchanting the body, and the warforged's armor slot being occupied - but I would let 1-5 fly in my games(6 was me thinking it was funny waiting to be attacked by something from the deck). I was just looking for thoughts and if the collective might of these boards could quote or link me to any rules or examples of these subjects that I might have missed.
It would raise the AC higher than what is intended and of course, they are not proficient with armor thus they would suffer the ACP on attack rolls.
- Gauss
It would raise the AC higher than what is intended and of course, they are not proficient with armor thus they would suffer the ACP on attack rolls.
- Gauss
This is true Gauss, though if the crafter built the armor into the construct as part of creating it, the construct would be proficient with the armor that it was created with. That aside, I would certainly allow the armor bonus to work (good catch there Duckie, I forgot that constructs gain a NAT armor bonus, rather than an armor bonus) when a construct wears it. In my games, I'd just ask that you factor in the price of the armor/weapon/shield that you want your construct to wear when crafting it, and it should be fine when wearing it.
Edit: I remember THAT the constructs are considered proficient with any weapons, armors, and shields that they're given in their bestiary entries, but I don't remember where in the bestiary this was written, or if this was simply a 3.5 rule that may or may not have been transferred oven into Pathfinder. If someone could find the rule and the page it was one, I'd certainly be much obliged to ya'll!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but creating a construct wearing armor does not give them proficiency in that armor. This is stated on Bestiary p307 in the construct section.
• Proficient with its natural weapons only, unless generally humanoid in form, in which case proficient with any weapon mentioned in its entry.
• Proficient with no armor.
Even if you build armor into the construct it is treated as a Natural Armor bonus. For an example of this look at an Iron Golem.
An iron golem has a humanoid body made from iron. It can be sculpted into any shape its creator desires, but it almost always displays armor of some sort, from simple and utilitarian to ceremonial and ornate.
AC 28, touch 8, flat-footed 28 (–1 Dex, +20 natural, –1 size)
So, you either have it built into the Golem at which point it is a Natural Armor bonus or you have the construct wearing it at which point it is an Armor bonus and the construct suffers non-proficiency penalties.
- Gauss
Okay, thanks for that Gauss! Gotta put a sticky note on that page of the bestiary now. So to answer your question on the construct wearing armor to gain an Armor Bonus Duckie, your construct would have to take the feat Armor Proficiency (enter light, medium, or heavy here) in order to be considered proficient with said armors.
Yup, and unfortunately, *most* constructs do not have feats since they do not have intelligence scores.
Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. However, most constructs are mindless and gain no skill points or feats. Constructs do not have any class skills, regardless of their Intelligence scores.
- Gauss
Yeah, feats don't come easy to constructs(bioconstruct modification:brain - grants feats and skills in spite of no int, UM) and terra-cotta soldier has int 1, and customizable feats.
And a homunculus has int 10 and a feat: "Look at him in his cute little armour." it also grants familiar protection giving it a tiny full plate and having it clanking around as it gets you your book.
Hmm... do any wizards put armor on their familiar? it would make sense, even without proficiency.
Wizards put Mage Armor on their familiar. Does not have the pesky 1/2 armor bonus penalty. :)
- Gauss
1/2 armor bonus penalty? what is this?
Tiny or smaller*
*Divide armor bonus by 2.
Put armor on a tiny or smaller creature and it gets only half the bonus. Just one more reason for a Halfling (or other small PC) to never have Reduce Person cast upon them.
- Gauss
Well, that's just stupid(completely objectively speaking, of course), I'm house-ruling that out right now...
That is your option but it does explain why people are not trying to put armor on their tiny sized familiars.
Mage Armor is more effective since it does not have the divide by 2 clause.
- Gauss
Addressing the magic item slots for constructs question, I've actually been thinking about this as a GM since I have a guy making a stone Shield Guardian. I'm leaning toward not allowing slots. The reasons are, Golems are mindless so they can exert the Will to activate an item and items are made to protect serve people not objects. If you put a ring of protection on a statue or a bracer on the arm of a chair, it wouldn't protect it because it's only a thing. That's how I see the rules for Golems. As for weapons and armor, those will work because they are physical things that the golem can actively use. They wouldn't be proficient, but they can use them. If you put magic full plate on a statue, you would have a hard time breaking it and if a vorpal sword was made as part of a trap, a natural 20 could totally chop your head off.
These are my views. If someone reads this, I'd like to discuss this more because I'm open to others interpretation.
In regard to magic items used by constructs, my GM had ruled that golems cannot use or be affected by magic items that allow spell resistance. It is stated under most golems that they are "immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance," so putting, say, a Belt of Giant Strength on a golem would not work, as it is using the Bull's Strength spell as a crafting requirement which allows spell resistance. So with this in mind, a homunculus could wear magic items easily, but a flesh golem would be extremely limited.
As for activating magic items, any that can't speak probably would be unable to activate items requiring a command word, but other methods for activation would most likely work.
Golems are mindless so they can exert the Will to activate an item
In response to this, it could maybe be argued that the bioconstruct modification of a brain could allow it to exert the "will" to activate an item. Also, despite being mindless, they still do have a wisdom score and can make Will saves, so supposedly they do have "will"
items are made to protect serve people not objects.
For all mechanical purposes constructs are creatures, not objects. i see what you mean for it making sense that a magical ring wouldn't work on a stone statue with fingers, but since constructs are creatures for purposes of spells and things (how lame would it be if you had to treat constructs as part of your carried weight for teleportation purposes, rather than just a willing creature).