Construct Armor is exactly what it sounds like: a construct that has be modified to be worn as armor. Unfortunately, the rules governing them are rather problematic.
First, the armor can only be worn by the creator. Thus, it can only be worn by casters with the 3 feats needed to craft constructs.
Second, It has arcane spell failure of 25 percent. Thus, even arcane casters with the Arcane Armor Mastery feat have a 5 percent chance of spell failure.
Third, it can only be worn by someone of the same size and there are not many small and medium sized constructs. Plus, small characters would automatically have weaker armor due to construct hp being linked to size.
Fourth, many constructs require spells that are only divine or only arcane. Plus, making the construct requires animate object, which wizards and sorcerers do not get.
Is there any way to make Construct Armor viable without resorting to houserules?
im not familiar with the rules surrounding the creation of constructs. but do you actually need to be able to cast the spells yourself to be the creator? or can you hire someone else to do that.
Construct Armor is exactly what it sounds like: a construct that has be modified to be worn as armor. Unfortunately, the rules governing them are rather problematic.
First, the armor can only be worn by the creator. Thus, it can only be worn by casters with the 3 feats needed to craft constructs.
Don't see the problem here.
Quote:
Second, It has arcane spell failure of 25 percent. Thus, even arcane casters with the Arcane Armor Mastery feat have a 5 percent chance of spell failure.
Still Spell.
Quote:
Third, it can only be worn by someone of the same size and there are not many small and medium sized constructs. Plus, small characters would automatically have weaker armor due to construct hp being linked to size.
On this one I just have to shrug my shoulders and go "meh." Choices are probably sub-optimal by design. As for the Small versus Medium thing... that is a downside of playing a small character, it is a trade-off for the many, many benefits that come along with it.
Quote:
Fourth, many constructs require spells that are only divine or only arcane. Plus, making the construct requires animate object, which wizards and sorcerers do not get.
im not familiar with the rules surrounding the creation of constructs. but do you actually need to be able to cast the spells yourself to be the creator? or can you hire someone else to do that.
Didn't think of that but I think it works. I would have to go over the crafting rules again to make sure.
Robb Smith wrote:
OldManAlexi wrote:
Construct Armor is exactly what it sounds like: a construct that has be modified to be worn as armor. Unfortunately, the rules governing them are rather problematic.
First, the armor can only be worn by the creator. Thus, it can only be worn by casters with the 3 feats needed to craft constructs.
Don't see the problem here.
Well, fighters and barbarians were probably salivating at it before they saw the part about only the creator being able to wear it.
Plus, some people wouldn't want to take 3 feats for one magic item. They have other uses but some people would consider it a down side. Still, I'll admit that part is workable.
Robb Smith wrote:
OldManAlexi wrote:
Second, It has arcane spell failure of 25 percent. Thus, even arcane casters with the Arcane Armor Mastery feat have a 5 percent chance of spell failure.
Still Spell.
That makes all your spells one spell level higher. This would make it impossible for a caster to cast a spell of his highest spell level. Oh, and that's another feat some people will grumble about needing to learn to make it viable.
Robb Smith wrote:
OldManAlexi wrote:
Third, it can only be worn by someone of the same size and there are not many small and medium sized constructs. Plus, small characters would automatically have weaker armor due to construct hp being linked to size.
On this one I just have to shrug my shoulders and go "meh." Choices are probably sub-optimal by design. As for the Small versus Medium thing... that is a downside of playing a small character, it is a trade-off for the many, many benefits that come along with it.
Actually, it's more of the fact that constructs were designed before they thought up the idea of construct armor.
Robb Smith wrote:
OldManAlexi wrote:
Fourth, many constructs require spells that are only divine or only arcane. Plus, making the construct requires animate object, which wizards and sorcerers do not get.
UMD, or just take the +5 to DC.
Yeah, that's workable but it means you need more skill ranks and thus, a higher level to craft it.
1) It's awesome sauce for divine casters
2) A non-caster could get a set they could use through co-operative crafting (multiple crafters can co-operate to fulfill all the per-requisites for a given item). Or through the master craftsman feat.
Well, fighters and barbarians were probably salivating at it before they saw the part about only the creator being able to wear it.
Plus, some people wouldn't want to take 3 feats for one magic item. They have other uses but some people would consider it a down side. Still, I'll admit that part is workable.
Well, to be blunt, the answer to that is "It's not meant for you."
As for the feats required - One of them is a feat that any spellcaster worth their salt takes, period, no debate. There is also the Wizard Golem Creation discovery as an alternative.
OldManAlexi wrote:
That makes all your spells one spell level higher. This would make it impossible for a caster to cast a spell of his highest spell level. Oh, and that's another feat some people will grumble about needing to learn to make it viable.
My response to this statement if someone actually brought this up to me would be "Sorry you don't get to walk around in a suit of golem armor and still get to cast spells at maximum ability." I am laboring under the impression you wanted to make this viable, not that you wanted to make it a choice superior to all others.
OldManAlexi wrote:
Actually, it's more of the fact that constructs were designed before they thought up the idea of construct armor.
It is whatever you make of it. Really, it's a choice designed for a BBEG in my eyes.
My response to this statement if someone actually brought this up to me would be "Sorry you don't get to walk around in a suit of golem armor and still get to cast spells at maximum ability." I am laboring under the impression you wanted to make this viable, not that you wanted to make it a choice superior to all others.
I was really only thinking about the construct armor protecting the caster from the close combat types. Even if you make golem armor, a smart spell caster can get around it. I'm not sure if this is official but I can track it down if you want. Basically, the construct armor only works on things that require an attack roll. Fireball or anything else that requires a reflex save damages the construct armor and then bypasses it to also damage the wearer. Things that require a fortitude or will save can ignore the construct armor entirely. Considering the fact that a smart caster should diversify to be able to attack the weak point in the enemy's defenses, golem armor shouldn't slow down a caster. Well, unless the DM is cruel enough to not allow a knowledge check to discover that weak point.
Third, it can only be worn by someone of the same size and there are not many small and medium sized constructs.
This is probably the biggest problem with it, IMO. The idea of a wizard wearing an iron golem as armor is totally bad-ass, but this puts the kibosh on that.
OldManAlexi wrote:
Is there any way to make Construct Armor viable without resorting to houserules?
It could still be kind of neat using animated objects (created using the construction rules in Ultimate Magic).
Note that ignoring the spell prerequisite just adds +5 to the crafting DC.
Basically, the construct armor only works on things that require an attack roll. Fireball or anything else that requires a reflex save damages the construct armor and then bypasses it to also damage the wearer. Things that require a fortitude or will save can ignore the construct armor entirely.
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but where are you getting this from? The wording I see is that "any attacks directed at the wearer first target the construct". Wouldn't that mean that the wearer is effectively immune to many Fort/Will save spells until the armor is destroyed?
Basically, the construct armor only works on things that require an attack roll. Fireball or anything else that requires a reflex save damages the construct armor and then bypasses it to also damage the wearer. Things that require a fortitude or will save can ignore the construct armor entirely.
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but where are you getting this from? The wording I see is that "any attacks directed at the wearer first target the construct". Wouldn't that mean that the wearer is effectively immune to many Fort/Will save spells until the armor is destroyed?
Found the thread where the FAQ is quoted.
FAQ Quote:
Construct Armor (page 114): How do attacks target the construct armor? Do I gain its resistances, immunities, and other defenses? What are the "benefits" and "hindrances" mentioned in this section? Does wearing it affect your speed?
The construct armor is treated as breastplate for the purpose of AC. If something targets you, it must first hit your AC. If it hits you, the attack has to get through the construct's DR or hardness and its hit points. In effect, the construct armor acts much like a pool of temporary hit points: you don't take any damage from attacks that target your AC until the construct is destroyed.
Attacks that bypass your AC bypass this protection and affects you normally (this includes most area effects). If the construct is resistant or immune to a particular attack, the attack bypasses this protection and affects you normally. Basically, the construct armor is good at mitigating damage from melee and ranged attacks, but doesn't protect you like you were the actual construct.
For example, a wood golem is immune to and healed by cold; if you're wearing wood golem armor, hitting you with a ray of frost doesn't harm the armor, heals the armor if the attack deals at least 3 points of cold damage, and deals 1d3 points of cold damage to you. Fortunately, you don't gain the construct's weaknesses; just because a wood golem has vulnerability to fire doesn't mean you take 150% fire damage when wearing wood golem armor.
The "benefits" in this section refer to the construct armor counting as breastplate and to its hit point buffer against melee and ranged attacks. The "penalties" in this section refer to the construct armor counting as breastplate.
Because the "counts as breastplate" section doesn't say it affects your speed (presumably because the construct is partially animate and able to help you move), it does not affect your speed.
Update: Page 114—In the Construct Armor modification, in the first paragraph, in the second sentence, change “first target the construct” to “damage the construct.” In the third sentence, change “regains all the hindrances” to “retains all the hindrances.”
Right, I have an option. Animate a mithral suit of armor. It will be your size, so you won't have to worry about size requirements. The mithral will bring the arcane spell failure chance down to 15 percent, which can be mitigated with feats. The mithral increases the hardness to 15. The hitpoints... if this goes high level, you might want to take the crafting DC penalty to increase the size to large but still, you won't be as squishy if you get charged. It should give you at least one round to cast a spell on your attacker before the armor fails, more if you're lower level. You won't get the magic immunity of a golem but most spells would ignore the armor anyway. The only reason a golem could be useful is if you were a level 20 sorcerer who could stand in the middle of an AOE spell that you are immune to and your golem heals from. Large size animated mithral armor would cost 10,000 for the animation, 4,000 for the mithral, and a couple hundred from the base armor (DM choice of what to count it as).
Overall, this seems like a viable option. Any opinions on whether it would be worth it?
Alternatively, if you're really attached to the idea of golem armor, one of the magic tattoos from Inner Sea Magic gives you a free Still Spell once per day. A couple of these would help with the arcane spell failure. Still, I would go with the weaker but more reliable choice.
Cooperative crafting is a viable option to allow a character to be considered a "creator" or a given suit of construct armor without even needing a single feat (or even meeting spell requirements, for that matter), though finding someone to work that out with could still be a quest in itself, and you would still need to have something to offer the crafting process (skill checks, spellcasting, etc.).
Mithral armor would certainly be one of the best options available to an arcane caster trying to use construct armor, but also cosider using a simple 3PP solution, the twilight armor special ability from the Magic Item Compendium. Reduces arcane spell failure by 10% in and of itself with no feat tax (though it does make your construct sparkle like the night sky, might want to look into that). I think there might also be a spell that temporarily reduces ASF as well, but I'm not too sure on that one.
The last issue I seem to recall was one concerning the size of your construct. Personally, I'd house rule that as long as the construct is at least the same size as the character wearing it, it shouldn't mater, at least not until the construct is disabled, at which point the character might be stuck (hehe). But if we are really trying to avoid house ruling here, just beef him up with more HD. A construct is primarily priced based on CR, which increases at a rate of 3/4 HD (plus extras) if I recall correctly, so adding a few HD shouldn't increase the cost too dramatically. Besides, the bonus HP by size doesn't scale for any of the constructs, so it's not like you won't be able to "catch up" HP-wise.
Cooperative crafting is a good point. Give your fighter points in Craft(armor) and he'll be able to be one of the armor's creators.
You should note that you can only increase a construct's HD by 50 percent. Depending on the construct, this limit can render certain constructs obsolete at later levels. Add in the fact that only the creator can wear it and you can't even sell it.
