Goblin Squad Member
|
Wrong setting. Am 100% certain that will not happen.
Agreed, TBH I absolutely dislike them, but my dislikes asside it is about settings. I dislike gunslingers, but I would be less opposed to them being added because at least they are in the right setting (admitted way too far from their expected teritory to be in high quanities.
I personally wouldn't want playable Numerian clockworks, either, but that's me.
Intellectual property aside, warforged are one of those races that a few people would love but would break the game aesthetically for many others. I would love to see Paizo's take on a golem race, but rock constructs held together with glowing magical energy would look about a billion times more appropriate for the setting.
Wouldn't golem characters also be subject to certain spells that destroy constructs? At least with meat bags, you have to work at it a bit, not just wave your arms around and yell at them. I don't think allowing construct characters to be a very good idea anyway, as they wouldn't follow the same rules as the actual constructs in the game. It's like allowing a player to build a character up using certain monster rules in a game that I won't mention, such that they are all munchkined up right off the bat. How is that fun OR challenging? And in an MMO, it can be confusing too.
By way of example, most constructs are mindless, preventing a host of spells from working automatically, not to mention most can't be killed due to beheading, bleeding, poison, fire, and other actions. This is not the sort of thing I'd want in a tabletop game let alone an RPG. As an NPC one off sure, but something that occurs with alarming regularity? ; (and it would, munchkins would be all over something that has immunities and such at creation), no way. Go play the Munchkin RPG for that particular brand of 'game'.
There is no challenge in playing a tank that actually behaves like one, and then the developers would have to design a tank killer class too for PvP balance. It's difficult enough trying to design PvP in a game without accounting for ridiculous requests for munchkinism.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wouldn't golem characters also be subject to certain spells that destroy constructs? At least with meat bags, you have to work at it a bit, not just wave your arms around and yell at them. I don't think allowing construct characters to be a very good idea anyway, as they wouldn't follow the same rules as the actual constructs in the game. It's like allowing a player to build a character up using certain monster rules in a game that I won't mention, such that they are all munchkined up right off the bat. How is that fun OR challenging? And in an MMO, it can be confusing too.
By way of example, most constructs are mindless, preventing a host of spells from working automatically, not to mention most can't be killed due to beheading, bleeding, poison, fire, and other actions. This is not the sort of thing I'd want in a tabletop game let alone an RPG. As an NPC one off sure, but something that occurs with alarming regularity? ; (and it would, munchkins would be all over something that has immunities and such at creation), no way. Go play the Munchkin RPG for that particular brand of 'game'.
There is no challenge in playing a tank that actually behaves like one, and then the developers would have to design a tank killer class too for PvP balance. It's difficult enough trying to design PvP in a game without accounting for ridiculous requests for munchkinism.
All the points you make strongly suggest you are not familiar with what a living construct actually is. You got construct down alright though ;)
Have a look here if you're actually curious: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_liv ingconstructsubtype&alpha
All the points you make strongly suggest you are not familiar with what a living construct actually is. You got construct down alright though ;)Have a look here if you're actually curious: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_liv ingconstructsubtype&alpha
Actually I have played DDO online and know what they classify as a living construct. The problem is that the phrase 'living construct' is an oxymoron. I understand why WoTC did what they did, but don't at all agree with it (or their latest vision of the DnD brand). If players are willing to accept a semblance of a construct that makes zero sense in terms of the effective way that potions and food work for living beings (by combining with their body: part of the charm I think is that they can't die, just be shutdown like a robot <facepalm>), why bother with that particular set of clothing for a puppet? Why not something a bit more in line with the actual worldview that doesn't involve turning monsters into playable classes, so there is a clear line dividing monsters and players?
Why do some people seriously wish to play what is effectively an animated (or haunted) suit of armor? You can grant those same abilities to something that is not a construct, effectively using the GM rule that 'what I say goes'. Or more to the point, create a more normal humanoid, and wear armor and other items that does the exact same thing. Only you could lose that. But at least that makes more sense than a race of artificial lifeforms that can't procreate, but still somehow manage to spring up all the time as 'new' life. Even in a fantasy setting, that stretches credulity past the breaking point for me. But then, WoTC has no more credibility with me than a window cleaner would for fixing my cars engine, they've so dumbed down DnD that you can't lose no matter how stupid you play it.
|
The old style explaination is that this is how "good" wizards acheived immortality. They would make a construct with a gem inside it and use a variation of the magic jar(I think this is the spell) spell to hold their spirit. Of course that version had a host of dis-advantages that would go unnoticed on an mmo but this version at least seems plausible and appropriate. and rare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually I have played DDO online and know what they classify as a living construct. The problem is that the phrase 'living construct' is an oxymoron. I understand why WoTC did what they did, but don't at all agree with it (or their latest vision of the DnD brand). If players are willing to accept a semblance of a construct that makes zero sense in terms of the effective way that potions and food work for living beings (by combining with their body: part of the charm I think is that they can't die, just be shutdown like a robot <facepalm>), why bother with that particular set of clothing for a puppet? Why not something a bit more in line with the actual worldview that doesn't involve turning monsters into playable classes, so there is a clear line dividing monsters and players?
1)Potions do not "combine" with the body. These are not chemicals your character is drinking, but a magically enchanted liquid. Drinking it is the spell trigger to release the enchantment placed on said liquid.
2)Warforged do in fact die. Perhaps you are thinking of the incapacitated state? The same state fleshlings go into at the exact same number of hp? Either way, another point that suggest your lack of familiarity with living constructs.
3) Your point on food: warforged do not eat. Do not confuse Turbine's house rules put in solely to speed up warforged healing in taverns with WoTC rules. Another point that suggest your lack of familiarity with living constructs.
Why do some people seriously wish to play what is effectively an animated (or haunted) suit of armor? You can grant those same abilities to something that is not a construct, effectively using the GM rule that 'what I say goes'. Or more to the point, create a more normal humanoid, and wear armor and other items that does the exact same thing. Only you could lose that. But at least that makes more sense than a race of artificial lifeforms that can't procreate, but still somehow manage to spring up all the time as 'new' life. Even in a fantasy setting, that stretches credulity past the breaking point for me. But then, WoTC has no more credibility with me than a window cleaner would for fixing my cars engine, they've so dumbed down DnD that you can't lose no matter how stupid you play it.
4) So if Paizo let's your human wear a hat with pointy ears, that's as good as letting you play an elf? I get it, warforged isn't your cup of tea, but the fact you can't see how a race made by humans, for humans, taught by humans, etc. can't be anything other than a hostile monster...
5) Your comment about "can't procreate, but still somehow manage to spring up all the time as 'new' life", well that comment again...you guessed it: suggests you're unfamiliar with the topic you're so hotly debating. As the name implies, living constructs are constructed. Humans are constructed one cell at a time; warforged are constructed in larger parts in creation forges.
And the rest is all just ranting based on a view so obviously full of misconceptions and misunderstandings. There's really nothing to discuss until you edumacate yourself, son.
It's really a moot point though, as warforged are IP of WoTC. So it's not going to happen anyways.
Good. WoTC can keep their crazy ideas all they like. I want them nowhere near this game or MMO. Neverwinter was a JOKE by DnD standards IMO. They couldn't even implement their OWN rules properly, let alone the ones already in existence. I tried that game to play it 'realistic', and the NPC's didn't follow the same ruleset at all. I could fry my players with aoe spells, and they could ignore their own.