Different origins and all, but looking at the pics (from Distant Worlds and Inner Sea Bestiary), they both kinda look like robots. Is one supposed to be more advanced than the other? Is there something else I'm missing that sets them apart from each other?
Thanks in advance.
I don't know about rules-wise (I don't have Distant Worlds or the Inner Sea Beastiary), however it's worth noting that the Aballonian constructs are magical constructs at their most basic that look like they're made of machinery, while, the Numerian robots are constructs that have the Robot subtype. That said, the robot subtype can be applied to the Aballonian constructs, should you desire.
It's worth noting that some other constructs, even magic ones, still look like robots (at least to my sensibilities), like the Aluum.
@Tacticslion: Hmmm, Aluum look more magipunk than true robots to me.So Aballonians are magic, and Robot subtypes are physical?
@LazarX: I've heard of both, but not overly familiar - One is mechanical and one is metaphysical?
@lazarX: Ah, that makes a lot of sense. thanks.
EDIT: whoa, hey, ninja'd! :)
Indeed!
And LazarX is pretty much correct.
Basically, anything that has the construct type is considered magical in nature and is purely animated by magical energy/forces (or rather by elemental ones, according to old lore, or the spirits of dead slaves in the case of Aluum), regardless of what it looks like, unless...
... it has the Clockwork subtype, in which case it's a fusion of magic and technology, or...
... it has the Robot subtype, in which case it is "purely" mechanical (although the actual scientific theories behind such creatures, as with most all of pathfinder, are dubious at best).
One final way of looking at constructs, including those with various subtypes, is simply by looking at them as they are: a type of creature.
While topically elves and humans look similar to being nearly identical in many respects, their relatively subtle differences (ears, eyes, height/weight ratios, etc) mean a great deal to them, and differentiate them as completely different species altogether ().
Same thing with constructs. While they might both look slightly similar - or even very similar in some ways - those subtle differences hide a great deal of importance underneath.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Don't forget Clarke's law still applies.
The players may know an ED 209 from Modular Man from the Golem of Prauge*, the characters won't most likely.
One of the subplots I was using was the French Papal hostage period and I tossed in a ghetto of Jews, stolen from Prauge. The Golem in this case had been ‘infused’ by the Dark Powers and was killing the Musketeers of the Cardinal (Not the Papal guard, which was a clue they missed in who the real Nascent Darklord was). Well the party was disguised in Musketeer uniforms and get bushwhacked by the Golem. The resident Knight of Solamnia’s player gets the brilliant idea to metagame.
“I erase the E from its forehead!”
“Sure, now explain to me a) how your character can read Hebrew, b) Know Kabalistic rituals, and c) knows which rune to remove.”
Fortunately one of the other players figured out they were attacking tunics, not the PCs
|
Can't help but think that Aballonians are meant to be robotic, but simply weren't assigned the subtype for whatever reason. (the subtype was relatively new and hadn't seen any use outside its debut at the time)
That's what I'm probably going to make them when I run Distant Worlds stuff. They just feel like they should be robots.
Makes sense to me!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason the Aballonians don't have the robot subtype is that, at the time it was written, the robot subtype had only shown up in a sidebar in Dungeons of Golarion, and I simply wasn't aware of it. If I were writing it now, I'd certainly have made them robots!
Regardless, it's easy enough to assign them robot traits, if you're interested.
Really good to know! Thanks!