Constructs are expensive. It doesn't matter what book/supplement used. Using the pathfinder rule set my DM is starting a campaign where we are members of a mercenary group helping defend a legion fort in the border lands.
So without thinking much about it I asked the DM if I could play a wizard who focused on "technomagic." I took the universal school and created my character.
The DM said that I'd be the pioneer of technomagic. I was stoked.
It's cool that my character "invented firearms." It is always awesome to be the first at something. I also get 1st crack at "steam armor'ish stuff."
My DM asked me if I would be building "iron solders" durring the game. I said sure, but what I should have said was "the rules at present regardless of supplement/book make it so that hiring an npc and equiping it are always easier/better than building a construct."
So here kills my fun. Even using the effigy rules from wotc 3.5 complete arcane makes constructs expensive, and fleshy bits are able to take on the effigy and expect to win with less money involved.
My DM and I were expecting a technomagic terminator, what I come up with isn't worth the gold to even consider putting it on the battlefield. Am I missing something?
It isn't about realism, its that constructs for player characters suck. By the time you can build one, why would you want to, the game has better stuff to buy, it is a sub-par option.
My issue is the DM really latched onto the concept, but likes things by the book.
Anyone else have experience with this concept? How was it handled? Anyone know if pathfinder is going to do its own rules for constructs?
|
You could give this a shot:
There are a wealth of construct type monsters out there in all the MMs and third party stuff. Some are low cr, some are high.
Instead of spending the feat on craft golem, spend some feats on improved familiar (homuculi / construct), leadership and something like 'improved cohort' (like what paladins do to get a dragon mount).
Have your cohort be a higher cr construct, have your lower level followers be low cr construct type steam soldiers (warforged) etc..
That could work for just my character, and I don't have a problem with it but it doesn't address why I can't have the lord buy a iron soldier from me, as it would be far too expensive in game terms for its advantages.
I look at it as a meat vs metal type thing. The iron solder should fair better than a conscript soldier. but gp vs gp it is always better to conscript soldiers and outfit them.
For my character the familiar and improved familiar/leadership type thing works and it was an awesome suggestion that I can't believe that I didn't think of.
I'm not sure how to work out that I can't provide some to bolster the legion stationed at the fort but for my personal use it does solve a big problem.
Are constructs just not a feasible concept without DM fiat?
Looking at the numbers is kind of grim gp wise.
That could work for just my character, and I don't have a problem with it but it doesn't address why I can't have the lord buy a iron soldier from me, as it would be far too expensive in game terms for its advantages.
I look at it as a meat vs metal type thing. The iron solder should fair better than a conscript soldier. but gp vs gp it is always better to conscript soldiers and outfit them.
For my character the familiar and improved familiar/leadership type thing works and it was an awesome suggestion that I can't believe that I didn't think of.
I'm not sure how to work out that I can't provide some to bolster the legion stationed at the fort but for my personal use it does solve a big problem.
Are constructs just not a feasible concept without DM fiat?
Looking at the numbers is kind of grim gp wise.
Well, Constructs have a lot of immunities, so it's natural for them to be expensive; they are basically like Undead (no Mind-Affecting, no Poison, no Disease, no sleep, no food, no water, 24/7 operative... at least now both of them are Sneakable and Crittable), plus they do not have to fear Positive Energy at all (and often have a lot of other immunities as well).
As a GM fiat, I would suggest both you and your GM to take a look at the Eberron Campaign Setting, with the introduction of the Warforged (Living Constructs) and their mass-production thanks to the Forges. The campaign does not mention their cost, but it would be WAY less than a 'full-construct': they have less immunities and, most important thing, start with only 1 HD (and then can level up like normal characters). They are basically 'synthetic characters', not 'golems'.
Even without access to the ECS, the Warforged (and some less common cousins) are present in the MM3.
Ah, and the main reason House Cannith made the Warforged during the Last War in Eberron was specifically the expensive cost of common golems, so as you can see you are not alone...
Just my 2c.
Using animate objects run through permenancy is probably the cheapest way per RAW per soldier. That produces 7 medium construct soldiers, or any combination up to 14HD, but requires a minimum caster level of 14th, and two spells, one of which isn't a wizard spell. That runs 15,000 gp per 14 HD, I believe, plus the cost of whatever objects are used to make them. I believe one of the Tome of Horrors has a Clockwork Soldier creature, which includes fast healing, which I used as pawns of a formian invasion in an adventure I ran, which I would consider a superior option to the animated object soldier. However, there are no rules for the creation of such soldiers by PCs.
You might have to cook up your own mechanical soldier, though, and figure out ad hoc pricing to make it work. Something between a homunculi and a flesh golem seems to be what you are looking for, as the flesh golem at 1,600 gp per HD base is more expensive than the 1072 gp per HD required for the animated item army, and in many ways vastly superior. I take it you are looking for something to bridge this gap, and the Homunculus, at 720 gp per base HD + 2000 gp for each additional, isn't it.
So, let's look at the Construct type. 4 HD, 42 HP, would give us a BAB of 3. 12 Str, 10 Dex, - Con, - Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha. Medium size, does 1d6+1 Slashing damage, has no DR, Fast Healing 2, and AC 17 if equipped with shield. Cost it maybe at 1200 gp per HD, so 4,800 gp. Now, no 1st level Warrior with a shortsword, leather armor, and shield is ever going to be as good as this mechanical soldier, and while strictly speaking may be cheaper, would not be better. Repairs are easy on damaged units, requiring only that you put them back into positive hitpoints, at which point they can repair themselves back to full. Price point wise, they are about where a magic sword and a suit of magic armor are, so that seems about right, ballpark wise. I'd put it at CR 2, maybe 3.
I would use either Warforged, ironborn (Book of Iron Might; Malhavoc Press) or gearforged (Zobeck Gazetteer; Paizo store, from Open Design Press LLC). Since these are races, you just need a creation price. I would figure the cost like a mercenary hireling bought outright. Since you are getting the use of the construct (barring destruction) for a length of time, what's a price? I think 20 years worth of wages. I don't have my books in front of me to go through though.
From a game mechanic POV, a construct cohort makes sense.
From a RP POV, I as a DM would still ask you where your construct came from.
It's one thing for Tonto to walk up to the Lone Ranger one day and say "Me ride with you, Kemosabe", but it's much more awkward to explain a golem walking up and joining you out of the blue.
Heh, maybe your DM could arrange an adventure in a golem factory, some kind of mad machinists's laboratory, right after you take the Leadership feat. You could pick and choose from half-finshed golems, golems that are on guard duty (may have to subdue them first, if you can subdue a golem), etc.
As for building a golem, I'm not sure they're prohibitively costly. Has anyone tested this in the arena?
Spend X gold making a golem, then X gold hiring and outfitting a mercenary (normal gear, not golem-killing gear) and then throw them into an arena and see who gives the biggest crunch for the buck.
I can't say I know who would win.
But if you give this the old arena test, you and your DM, then maybe you can prove that you're right and get him to cut you some slack in the construction costs.
But, part of the cost has to be compared against lifetime costs.
If you own a castle, and you hire a guard, or a group of guards, then you need living space for them - that has to be built. You need food for them. Gold to pay their salaries year after year after year. They will grow old and have to be replaced. They will have medical needs. They might be disloyal, even spying on you or taking bribes to let spies, assassins, and thieves sneak about your castle. They might be dominated and forced to fight against you. They could be bitten by vampires or werewolves or turned against you in many other ways. In a battle, they might run away, or even turn against you.
There are lots of additional expenses and lots of additional risks involved with living soldiers that you won't have to worry about with golems.
So, given all that, it might be justifyable to pay extra for golem soldiers.
The real question is, how much extra?
Many of these are great ideas. I was thinking of ironborn and warforged as a alternative to creating the constructs on paper.
I even looked into iron kingdoms liber mechanika (I ran an IK game once and found the book in my shelf) at the servitors (which aren't a good replacement for soldiers either). Labor/War jacks out of the same book could be awesome, if the cortex's weren't so expensive.
I understand that constructs are expensive for PC's to make so they don't flood the party with combat servants. It is a balance perspective.
I like the idea of statting out a 1st lvl ironborn or warforged and just tacking on a GP price. I might see if my DM will go with that.
As far as the campaign story goes my DM again threw me an awesome and said I'd be the 1st to do constructs that weren't golems. I'm thinking my DM is an awesome dude, and as long as my character doesn't "profit" from the ad hoc ruling on some stuff might be able to fill in his story points without fuss. I'm going to check the pricing on ironborn here shortly and see whats up with that.
Thanks for the posts, and if possible keep them coming, any ideas are awesome.
Ironborn for my character is good, not so good for "mass production" as one person can only ever create one.
I might stat up using the elite npc array a warforged and see if my DM and I can come to a meeting of the minds.
There's also the "clockwork" template in on of the Tome of Horrors, I believe. It's almost the same as the "effigy" template from Complete Arcane.
If you want to have your character making free-willed constructs, you should probably have him either take the leadership feat, or else simply roleplay the whole situation. Geppeto may have built Pinochio, but he obviously didn't take the leadership feat to command his ever move. It was done via roleplay instead.
I understand that constructs are expensive for PC's to make so they don't flood the party with combat servants. It is a balance perspective.
This is pretty much it, right on the nose. Constructs aren't NPCs, typically, and therefore, unlike undead, which are subject to a control limit, and cheap, have to be limited in some other fashion. The key mechanism, and only mechanism limiting the number of constructs a player or NPC can use was XP and gold in 3.5. Now, in 3.PF, it is only gold that limits the total number of constructs a character can control, pending release of the Bestiary, which may show us something different. Therefore, with infinite time, and access to dedicated crafters, an infinite army of constructs can be created. This is part of why I set up the formian invasion force to use constructs heavily.
Particularly with the new magic item creation rules, which can allow characters to use a skill check to bypass spell requirements, a flesh golem can be created now without having to actually be able to cast all the spells required for the golem's creation. Get your skill modifiers high enough in Healing, or Craft:Leatherworking, and per the rules at the end of the Beta, it is possible to attempt to create a Flesh Golem at level 8.
Making a construct which is an NPC is much easier, as control of NPCs, whether through Diplomacy, Leadership, or Handle Animal, is limited by DM fiat. Creating a mechanism which allows for the creation of free willed Constructs, or constructs independant of character control, might be ideal. For example, have your character make as a cohort a "Forge Engine" which creates independant clockwork soldiers, via some finite, regulated process. The "Forge Engine" commands the clockwork soldiers, but the Forge Engine is an independant NPC, which is subject to ultimate DM fiat. Plot ensues, and it allows the DM to explore a number of interesting themes.
There's also the "clockwork" template in on of the Tome of Horrors, I believe. It's almost the same as the "effigy" template from Complete Arcane.
If you want to have your character making free-willed constructs, you should probably have him either take the leadership feat, or else simply roleplay the whole situation. Geppeto may have built Pinochio, but he obviously didn't take the leadership feat to command his ever move. It was done via roleplay instead.
Am I the only GM who doesn't let PCs who take Leadership run their cohorts? It seems many people do it the other way, and I, for one, think that is open to abuse. I also don't let my PCs play charmed or even dominated critters, or even summons, called critters or animal companions. The PC can certainly ask the animal, elemental, outsider, charm victim or cohort to do something, but I feel the game loses something if they act like commanded undead or constructs in response.
Am I the only GM who doesn't let PCs who take Leadership run their cohorts? It seems many people do it the other way, and I, for one, think that is open to abuse. I also don't let my PCs play charmed or even dominated critters, or even summons, called critters or animal companions. The PC can certainly ask the animal, elemental, outsider, charm victim or cohort to do something, but I feel the game loses something if they act like commanded undead or constructs in response.There's also the "clockwork" template in on of the Tome of Horrors, I believe. It's almost the same as the "effigy" template from Complete Arcane.
If you want to have your character making free-willed constructs, you should probably have him either take the leadership feat, or else simply roleplay the whole situation. Geppeto may have built Pinochio, but he obviously didn't take the leadership feat to command his ever move. It was done via roleplay instead.
I go the other way.
My players are there with me to play a game, but also to tell a story. A collaborative story that we all want to enjoy.
I unload some of the mundane aspects of DMing off to the players, but I also reserve the right to veto.
So, the druid summons a bear and sends it into battle. I let another player, maybe the wizard, play that bear. So, on the druid's turn. I have two players making independent actions.
Benefit: The whole "gosh, the druid gets 2 turns for every one of ours!" complaint evaporates. The druid player only gets one action, and another player gets something to do at the same time. It increases player involvement in the round-by-round battles, rather than decreasing it.
Benefit: the druid player has to communicate what he wants with the player controlling his summoned bear. I try to limit that communication to a few words, reasonable in a brief melee round. And the players, who want this story to be fun for all, get into the spirit and have the bear do bear-ish things, not always moving to the optimal flanking square, not always attacking the right enemy, but generally being useful and helpful in a bear-ish way (so as not to invalidate the usefulness of the summon spell).
Benefit: I as the DM can focus more time on the enemies and spend less time dealing with player NPCs, summons, cohorts, constructs, etc.
Same with animal companions (though I allow the owning player more leeway in communicating with an AC), NPCs, hirelings, etc.
The players enjoy it. They almost never abuse it. And I have veto power if needed, though I almost never actually need it anymore.
I have a personal dislike for phrases like "let the PCs..."
To me, that sounds a little too much like "I'm the boss, you do what I say".
I don't see my gaming sessions as me being the boss or as the players submitting to my will. I don't "let them" do anything, or refuse to "let them" do anything.
We're all equals, all players of the same game, all in it to have fun, enjoy the game, and share a collaborative story.
Just because one of us has a different role to play in creating/exposing that story to the rest of them, doesn't mean that one is in charge or in any position to "let them" do anything.
At least that's how I see it.
Is that open to abuse, as you suggest? Well, yeah, I guess it could be, but what's the point of abuse in a game that nobody wins? If we were playing Monopoly, I would watch the banker to make sure he doesn't "accidentally" mix his own funds with the bank's - that's open to abuse, and people who play Monopoly want to win, so a player might abuse his position as banker.
But this is D&D. Nobody wins. We all have fun, face artificial challenges, solve puzzles, and share a story. There's no motivatin to abuse anything when there is no winner and therefore no status, real or perceived, to be gained by winning.
Maybe I would feel differently if my players were abusing the situation, but they don't, so I don't.
I go the other way.My players are there with me to play a game, but also to tell a story. A collaborative story that we all want to enjoy.
I unload some of the mundane aspects of DMing off to the players, but I also reserve the right to veto.
So, the druid summons a bear and sends it into battle. I let another player, maybe the wizard, play that bear. So, on the druid's turn. I have two players making independent actions.
See, that works, and is a valid 3rd way solution. Personally, I enjoy, and my players enjoy, having NPCs, even player associated NPCs, act like other characters in the story. I do not deny my players the oportunity to create plot, but as the GM, I do consider it my responsibility to the players to provide plot elements which they can react to. In general, I have found that players can have more fun this way, since plot can be generated by *any* NPC. I certainly agree, however, that it makes GMing harder, but I consider it part of the fun.
I have a personal dislike for phrases like "let the PCs..."To me, that sounds a little too much like "I'm the boss, you do what I say".
I certainly didn't intend it that way. This does risk drifting off into a "right way to play" exploration, though, and I don't really want to argue about that. Personally, I like having multiple angles to approach exploring the metaplot of the campaign to the players, whether it's an intelligent magic spear that can only communicate with empathy, a summoned elemental that has some small insight into what's happening, or something enigmatic said by someone that the party telepath dominated, or the reaction of an animal companion or summoned animal to an unusual smell that none of the PCs could ever notice.