Can mindless creatures such as zombies and golems wield weapons? This is NOT a question about proficiency, but a question of whether they would be able to use them AT ALL.
My friend Zurai says they can't. That mindless creatures have no initiative of their own and do not have the knowledge necessary to pick up and swing a sword or to fire an arrow from a bow.
I say they can, albeit at steep penalties due to non-proficiency (since mindless creatures generally cannot get the proficiency feats). Though I agree with Zurai that mindless creatures generally have no initiative, I believe it a simple matter for the creatures' controller to order them to pick up weapons and swing them at the enemy. In short, I believe the ability to wield a weapon is within reach for anything that both counts as a creature and that has a limb capable of holding a weapon.
Does anyone here know of any rules supporting either view? Perhaps you would like to add your own thoughts to the debate?
Can mindless creatures such as zombies and golems wield weapons? This is NOT a question about proficiency, but a question of whether they would be able to use them AT ALL.
My friend Zurai says they can't. That mindless creatures have no initiative of their own and do not have the knowledge necessary to pick up and swing a sword or to fire an arrow from a bow.
I say they can, albeit at steep penalties due to non-proficiency (since mindless creatures generally cannot get the proficiency feats). Though I agree with Zurai that mindless creatures generally have no initiative, I believe it a simple matter for the creatures' controller to order them to pick up weapons and swing them at the enemy. In short, I believe the ability to wield a weapon is within reach for anything that both counts as a creature and that has a limb capable of wielding one.
Does anyone here know of any rules supporting either view? Perhaps you would like to add your own thoughts to the debate?
I'd throw in with the "no" crowd. Not even because of proficiency, but because using an object to attack with is essentially using a tool. That requires either a moderate intelligence to do of one's own initiative, or at the very least a basic intelligence to learn such an action.
Golems are a bit different because they can be created with certain abilities such as the ability to use weapons, or they can be made with weapons as part of their form. They are mindless, but their creators certainly aren't and can program them however they desire.
A mindless undead may be ordered to pick up a weapon and then ordered to swing it at someone, but if it's "programmed" to use the weapon I think we're talking necromancy of a higher order than Zombie.
I would say it depends on the creature you want to wield a weapons.
My opinions on a few of the mindless creatures.
Skeletons: Definitely, even their stat block in the Bestiary has them wielding a [broken] weapon.
Zombies: I would be willing to allow based upon the skeletons (but part of me would rather not give this to them freely just so the two mindless undead are kept slightly different.
I would try to explain this by using the same reason that they both commonly have the evil alignment despite being mindless. That the magic itself imbues them with darkness that drives their actions in an evil direction and grants them the ability to wield weapons that they hold.
Golems: I wouldn't say that they could just pick up a weapon and use it, but they should be able to use a pair of swords or a bow if they are built to.
Black Pudding: No, I don't really see a black pudding using a stone spear in combat anytime soon.
Can mindless creatures such as zombies and golems wield weapons? This is NOT a question about proficiency, but a question of whether they would be able to use them AT ALL.
My friend Zurai says they can't. That mindless creatures have no initiative of their own and do not have the knowledge necessary to pick up and swing a sword or to fire an arrow from a bow.
I say they can, albeit at steep penalties due to non-proficiency (since mindless creatures generally cannot get the proficiency feats). Though I agree with Zurai that mindless creatures generally have no initiative, I believe it a simple matter for the creatures' controller to order them to pick up weapons and swing them at the enemy. In short, I believe the ability to wield a weapon is within reach for anything that both counts as a creature and that has a limb capable of holding a weapon.
Does anyone here know of any rules supporting either view? Perhaps you would like to add your own thoughts to the debate?
Well, per the PF Bestiary, page 250:
"Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor."
Apparently mindless creatures can, but only certain ones for specific reasons. The Iron Golem, which are mindless automatons, (page 162) apparently can as well, although they rarely do so:
"Iron golems sometimes carry a weapon in one hand,though they rarely use these, relying instead on their slam attacks."
It seems they have to have had a special quality imparted to do so ("evil cunning" in the case of the skeleton). That quality might be defined as such (to make it easier) and stated in their entry in future to make it clear. As apparently this is a quality only some mindless creatures have.
|
If you want rules examples, look no further than the basic skeleton with its broken scimitar. I doubt the mindless creatures would specifically pick up weapons and use them, but maybe they use them for some other reason. Maybe a construct was built with one, maybe an undead was made off of a guy that always used a weapon and some bit of that 'leaked' into it, maybe his body was still holding the weapon, who knows?
I would agree that they wouldn't go to pick up their weapon if they got disarmed or grab some other weapon, but if they already have one? Sure.
Well, per the PF Bestiary, page 250:
"Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor."
Said "cunning" doesn't necessarily allow them to wield weapons, but allows them to remain proficient in them despite being mindless. Zurai quoted that same text earlier, citing it as a rule proving that mindless creatures couldn't wield weapons (the supposed fact that skeletons are an exception prove it, he said).
I disagree. I submit to you all that the only exception that is being made is that they are proficient in the weapons despite being mindless.
Also, thank you for pointing out that golems can "rarely use weapons." I had not seen that.
Ask the Marines BAH-BOOM!
|
By looking at the Creature Type descriptions, you can get an idea of which can and cannot use manufactured weapons.
Constructs are natural weapons only, unless generally humanoid and the weapons or armour are mentioned in its entry.
Oozes are natural weapons only.
Plants are natural weapons only.
Undead are proficient with simple weapons and any weapons and armour mentioned in their entry.
Vermin are natural weapons only.
I think you should be able to tell a zombie to throw a chair at a PC, say, or even chop at something (or someone) with an axe. As you note, without proficiency it would probably work poorly.
|
|
FWIW, in RotRL there is a scythe-weilding flesh golem. Paizo seems to think at least some golems besides Iron Golems can use weapons.
He's got the weapon described in his stat block, right? :)
Also, non-proficient only means taking a -4 to hit using the weapon. Of course, you still need a limb capable of wielding the weapon.
I think you should be able to tell a zombie to throw a chair at a PC, say, or even chop at something (or someone) with an axe. As you note, without proficiency it would probably work poorly.
Tell them to, sure, since they obey commands. Picking it up of their own volition, no.
FWIW, in RotRL there is a scythe-weilding flesh golem. Paizo seems to think at least some golems besides Iron Golems can use weapons.He's got the weapon described in his stat block, right? :)
Also, non-proficient only means taking a -4 to hit using the weapon. Of course, you still need a limb capable of wielding the weapon.
Does RotRL say anything about that golem being an exception to the rules? Or about it being proficient (if indeed it was)?
This might give us some insight into the intent of the rules as written and even let us know whether simply "writing the weapon into the statblock on your character sheet" is enough to avoid the -4 penalty (though I personally doubt that was the intent).
Does RotRL say anything about that golem being an exception to the rules? Or about it being proficient (if indeed it was)?This might give us some insight into the intent of the rules as written and even let us know whether simply "writing the weapon into the statblock on your character sheet" is enough to avoid the -4 penalty (though I personally doubt that was the intent).
I think, from the standpoint of a weapon listed on a monster's stat block, the DM should be able to assume the monster knows how to use whatever it is armed with unless it specifically states differently. With respect to the scythe-wielding flesh golem, my presumption as DM is that it was designed to wield that scythe by its maker. It's a function of encounter design - creatures are assumed to be designed to effectively use the equipment they're given.
That's a far cry from writing a weapon onto a character sheet. Character advancement rules govern that situation, not monster stat block designing rules.
That specific golem is intelligent. It's a Lifespark Flesh Golem, not a standard one.
|
I say its over-thinking it worrying about how to build a construct or other creature such that it can use a sword or club. If I, as the GM, want my clay golem to pick up a table and bash the PC's I'll just have him do it and rule on how to work it at the table. If I want the zombie horde to be carrying wicked daggers... they just are. I'll worry about the details at the table. Likely I'd just give them a non-proficiency penalty and move on.
|
There's also the 'Elven Flesh Golem', in Second Darkeness with four arms wielding and firing two longbows per round.
It follows the regular stats for a Flesh Golem, save that it uses this ranged attack in favour of a slam.
EDIT: @d20pfsrd
A Non-Proficiency penalty would not be appropriate for the daggers, because they are indeed proficient with simple weapons.
Even Animated Objects are controlled by the caster, so could swing a weapon if the caster desired.
They could swing it, yes, but would they actually use it as a weapon? No.
The question came about because of someone building a Shield Guardian and wanting to ply it with weapons to make it even more obscenely overpowered.
EDIT:
I do not recall the lifespark template giving any weapon proficiencies, and the golem did not have it listed as a feat, though. Intelligent or no.
This isn't what's being discussed. No one's arguing about proficiency at all. Regardless, he DID take it as a feat. Page 50.
Even Animated Objects are controlled by the caster, so could swing a weapon if the caster desired.They could swing it, yes, but would they actually use it as a weapon? No.
I'm not sure what distinction you're making between a (non-proficient) creature swinging a club (say) and using a club as a weapon.
I'm not sure what distinction you're making between a (non-proficient) creature swinging a club (say) and using a club as a weapon.
None in that example, really, because I argue that it's at best an improvised weapon, which is pretty much what you get with a non-proficient club. The original question, however, was a greatsword and a longbow.
The question came about because of someone building a Shield Guardian and wanting to ply it with weapons to make it even more obscenely overpowered.
It is hardly overpowered, much less "obscenely overpowered." Compared to a lot of the CR 15 encounters the wizard could potentially face, the golem might survive to be useful in 2 or 3 encounters. Considering it took well over half the wizards starting funds, that might not even be considered by many to even be a worthwhile investment.
Normally a mindless creature cannot wield weapons. Only if it's "programmed" to be able to do this can it wield weapons. Skeletons are a great example of a mindless creature that can wield weapons.
So what would happen if you ordered a zombie to throw a chair at someone? Nothing?
(I agree that operating a longbow is beyond the capability of a golem: it falls under the heading of "complex tactics", IMO.)
Normally a mindless creature cannot wield weapons. Only if it's "programmed" to be able to do this can it wield weapons. Skeletons are a great example of a mindless creature that can wield weapons.
Are you referring to proficiency? Or are you saying that mindless creatures (who are not programmed) are wholly unable to wield a weapon at all?
If it is the latter, how does one go about programming a mindless creature to wield weapons? Say, I am a PC wizard making a golem (with GM's permission). How do I program it? Do I just assume I did it as part of the creation process? Is a mindless creature so programmed treated as proficient in the weapon or weapons? Does this effect the creation cost and or the CR of the golem?
Well considering that skeletons have been using weapons this whole time I would say yes. Look if you are running a game anything is possible... if you want your zombies to shoot fire out of their eyes it can happen, just adjust for difficulty.
I think the issue is one of adaptation. Without intelligence they can't ever do more than they could at their creation. There are no mental faculties to build upon - only what their creator left there.
Sigurd