Clockwork Key and "Directly Threaten"


Rules Questions


The Clockwork Key from Faiths of Balance states:

Description wrote:
Constructs avoid attacking the bearer of the clockwork key, directing their attacks toward other targets if possible, unless they are directly threatened by the bearer or are ordered by their creator to attack

What does "directly threatened" mean? Is that in my threatened reach of the weapon I am holding, or is more up to the GM's discretion?

What if I am attacking another enemy, who is an ally of the construct in the room? Is that directly threatening it, or indirectly? If a room was full of 50 constructs, could I take them out one by one because none would attack me unless attacked? If attacking the enemy's allies count as directly threatening, then what is the point of the Clockwork Key?

Thanks for your help!


Being inside a threatened reach does not mean they are being threatened. If that were the case, anybody that walked past a monk would be threatened by them.

Directly threatened. That means individually, as in not attacking your allies. Yes you could fight them 1 by 1 until you slowly get through all 50 of them.


Keep in mind that the other 49 constructs would be attacking your allies during that time.

If you're alone, I would say they'd all gang up on you. Especially if you're invading a site they're suppose to defend. The items says the "avoid attack you, if possible," not that they cannot/will not attack.

Basically, the constructs kind of like you and would rather attack other people, if they can (unless you're attacking them directly).

That's more than enough usefulness for a 500gp item.


For 500gp each you can equip the whole party with them and systematically take down each construct 1 by 1 :D


I'd still run it as "prefers not to attack key bearers." If everyone has one, they constructs would shrug and start beating on people. They'd even feel bad about, if they had emotions. =P


Except that's not what the description says.

Quote:
Constructs avoid attacking the bearer of the clockwork key, directing their attacks toward other targets if possible, unless they are directly threatened by the bearer or are ordered by their creator to attack

Constructs avoid attacking the bearer of the clockwork key unless they are directly threatened by the bearer or are ordered by their creator to attack. They will direct their attacks towards other targets is possible, meaning that if they are under attack by multiple people and one of them is wearing the item, they will still try to avoid attacking the wearer.

So is everybody had one and they walked into a room with 50 constructs, they could systematically kill them one by one. It would attack somebody since it's being directly attacked, but the rest of the constructs would just sit idly by until attacked. So your basic conclusion is correct :D


I think the important point here is "if possible" (which you left out in your last post). Basically, the construct puts the key bearer as the lowest priority target, but still a target. Unless, of course, they're attacking the construct or threatening it some other way, then the key bearer is fair game. Especially if they're the most dangerous attacker.

Price is a good way to gauge an items intended effectiveness. A 500gp key is a lot cheaper than command rods or dampening rings that allow you to control/disable constructs, so it's obviously a lot less powerful than that.

This item is intended to allow one to slip by constructs while distracted, not systematically dismantle an army while the others watch helplessly. It wouldn't even let you beat on a golem with impunity while it fights your friends.

Note the theme of the source book.

In any case, I told you how I'd run it. Doesn't really matter beyond that.


To answer the OP: I'd define "directly threaten" as attacking the creature directly in any way, with the caveats discussed above about the construct's behavior. Just standing near enough without attacking shouldn't count, so you could stand up there and heal your buddies as they fight without trouble. I wouldln't even have it take AoOs against you for spellcasting until you attacked it yourself.


I did not miss the if possible. It's right there in the quote, and then repeated again in my analysis. I'm not sure if I could make it any more clear.

It only puts the key bearer as the lowest priority target if it is being directly threatened by the key bearer as well as others. Otherwise it will completely ignore them. Their level of dangerous is completely irrelevant, partly because of the item but also because constructs have no int score.

Controlling and disabling constructs is far more powerful than simply being ignored by one. As such the price difference is reasonable. Not that the price has anything to do with the function.

In any case, I told you how RAW works. Doesn't really matter beyond that.


It's in your analysis, but out of order.

In any case, congrats on winning "RAW." Good luck getting a GM to agree, though.

I'm out.


Does it...does it matter what order it's in? At all? Besides, your claim was that I completely missed it, which I did not. In fact I heavily take it into consideration.

Yes, I will need all the luck I can get convincing a GM to agree that an item does what it says it does. That's going to be terribly hard.


Thanks! I'm playing in an Iron Gods AP and we just got 900 gp each to spend. My character even worships Abadar, so this items seemed perfect.

But it sounds like I'll have to ask my GM what his interpretation on it is. He usually sides with the players' wishes (provided they aren't unreasonable) in gray areas like this, but it sounds like it would slow down a lot of fights as I remind our GM that no, that robot wouldn't attack me first. He and the party would probably get frustrated after a while, and we don't play often enough for this to become secondhand.

After all, our GM prepping for each session way more than us players are, and tacking an additional responsibility for him to remember for a lot of our combats isn't worth it, from a real-life perspective. Metagaming doesn't have to always be disruptive.

Now, equipping everyone in our party with one? That's an idea...

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

Except that's not what the description says.

Quote:
Constructs avoid attacking the bearer of the clockwork key, directing their attacks toward other targets if possible, unless they are directly threatened by the bearer or are ordered by their creator to attack

Constructs avoid attacking the bearer of the clockwork key unless they are directly threatened by the bearer or are ordered by their creator to attack. They will direct their attacks towards other targets is possible, meaning that if they are under attack by multiple people and one of them is wearing the item, they will still try to avoid attacking the wearer.

So is everybody had one and they walked into a room with 50 constructs, they could systematically kill them one by one. It would attack somebody since it's being directly attacked, but the rest of the constructs would just sit idly by until attacked. So your basic conclusion is correct :D

You totally omitted the line

Clockwork Key wrote:
If there are no targets other than a clockwork key’s bearer, a construct will act and attack as normal.

If the whole party has them, constructs act normal.


True. So it would be better to have one party member without a key taking all of the attacks or a summoned creature we send to the front lines.


Targets other than the bearer. They must be considered a threat first in order to be a target. If the party does not threaten them, they will ignore the party. Once the party threatens them (and assuming they all have a key), the construct will act as normal.

And yes, summoned monsters will work very nicely with this. Just use a 2nd or 3rd level spell to summon from the lv 1 list so there are a bunch of them, and watch as the construct never hits a party member.

Or, just walk past them and ignore them. If you don't threaten them, they will ignore you.

Dark Archive

That is not how that reads at all. If the constructs are programmed to attack anything that enters the room, everyone in the room is a target whether or not they have a key.

The key only acts to deprioritize characters wearing them. If everyone wears them, everyone has the same priority. It does not mean they just ignore the party.

Avoiding directly attacking a character does not mean being prevented from attacking a character.


Yes, if programmed to attack anything that enters the room, then your claim is true, because they automatically consider all creatures that enter the room a target. As poor minion managing goes that's pretty bad, but it would work.

Dark Archive

If they weren't, then they'd ignore you anyway. You wouldn't need the key.


...ok, I guess it's not possible to give a construct any order other than "Attack whoever enters this room".

But I digress. Beyond the terribly programmed minions, the OP has been answered.

Dark Archive

Can you construct an example where the PCs are not automatically targets and yet the key is necessary?

Besides, "attack anyone without a key."

It's a tautology. If they would attack, they will attack the PCs. If the constructs wouldn't attack the PCs, then they won't. The key is useless for bypassing encounters.


Alright, that makes sense. I concede to your reasoning. I think the item should be more clearly worded though.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Clockwork Key and "Directly Threaten" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions