Alright. So, I've been looking into this. I'm hoping to make a wizard that'll earn "Craft Construct" by level 5, And since it's going to be a couple of levels before I can even make a homunculus, I might as well see what I can do with Animated Objects.
Specifically, animated objects modified with weapons.
All the following relates to Animated Objects made using the Craft Construct feat.
So let the questions begin:
1) Is there any difference between crafting an animated object using the feat, as opposed to using the spell 'Animate Objects'?
2) Can an animated object be subject to a Weapon Modification, even if that modification would normally change the size of that animated object?
( For example; Outfitting a Tiny animated object with a medium creature's Greatsword, or a Small animated object with a similarly sized Great Axe)
Bonus: Would it suffer for wielding a weapon not built for its size category?
3) Does a weapon's reach apply? crit range? All questions found Here and Here ... (I'm actually unsure if that was, or if there is, a truly 'official' response... )
Edit: Also other things like range, ammunition consumption and reloading, damage type, and possible combat maneuvers...
If I had to throw in my two cents... I'd hypothesize that an animated object needs to have the appropriately spent construction points to gain any benefits of a weapon other than pure and simple Damage modification. This includes range, reach, crit multiplier, and damage type. Furthermore, an animated object created using the Craft Construct feat can be carried or worn, since it's not actually a spell effect. But I'm left in the gray as to whether or not a Small chair can have a Large Greataxe grafted onto it...
1) Craft Construct creates permanent animated objects not susceptible to dispelling and antimagic.
2) Firstly I am not sure if animated objects can be classified as "standard" constructs. But lets assume they can be. The rules don't specifically state weapon sizes allowed for a construct but I would assume the default ruling on weapon sizes persist i.e. small construct can only wield small weapons at no penalty. Also remember that a weapon modification only changes the damage dealt by the constructs attacks. As a side note performing a weapon modification also requires the Craft Magical Arms and Armor feat.
3) Is reach and crit range the same as weapon damage? No. But, as GM, I would allow the crit range, because it makes sense. Reach? maybe.
Clarify these points with your GM.
Thank you for the response ^_^ However, I think the point of the second question may have been lost.
A Small animated object is to be modified. It's to be modified with a Greatsword fit for a Medium creature. This modification is literally attached to the object. Therefore, the animated object is now Medium, no?
... Is it possible then to have a Small animated object that's actually Medium sized?
The penalty is good to note. However, if the modification only applies to damage dealt, then maybe the object's attack rolls remain unchanged. Even if the penalty were applied... Can you still have a medium-sized small animated object?
Edit: If an animated object's weapon Doesn't contribute to its actual size... Can it be targeted or sundered, without harm to the animated object it's attached to?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, its debatable whether animated objects can be modified at all as they might not be considered "standard" constructs. But for the sake of argument let's assume they can be.
Firstly adding a weapon to a creature does not increase that creatures size. So a small animated object with greatswords grafted to it would still be a small animated object.
As GM I would not allow grafting of oversized weapons onto animated objects. The weapon must be correctly sized. If I did allow it, it would still incur the penalties to attack with it, regardless of apparent construct weapon modification rules (this is call GM fiat). As I mentioned in the earlier post, this is all subject to GM approval. Check with your GM.
As for sundering and attacking a weapon mod, sure, why not. But it won't hurt the animated object.
The only thing I see that might be described as a 'non-standard' construct is a variant of a construct or golem, or possibly one that's not made using the craft construct feat... but even that's debatable. Without any written definition, it's open to interpretation. I'd say the assumption an animated object is a 'standard' construct is only just.
No, a creature Wielding a weapon would definitely not be of an increased size. However that's not the case; The description explicitly states that it's a 'structural change'; The weapon, previously an independent object, is now literally a part of the animated object. It's being moved by the same forces. I'd say the wording more-than-justifies it being interpreted as a physical extension of one object, and therefore an increase in its size.
To suggest otherwise would say that the weapon portion of the animated object can be sundered. But Constructs can't be sundered, and this is a part of the construct's structure...
Or, finally, It ALL works out; It's simply a weapon being used by the object. Then what Wouldn't work out, and why does the "Structural changes alter the construct's damage only" sentence even exist?
...Which is why I find it a bit of a dilemma. Having the construct's size actually increase can easily be exploited; Even though stats likely wouldn't change, it'd essentially mean an animated object can be modified with any weapon it can possibly carry. It grows to meet the size required to wield the weapon.
Alternatively, having it not increase in size, but not able to be sundered, doesn't make sense.
...Which leaves us with the third option. A phrase in the PRD then doesn't seem to apply, and the construct is instead essentially "wielding" a weapon, aside from its typical slam attack. Then we can attach crossbows to anything, and forego the CP cost for ranged attacks entirely. Same with any type of damage we want the animated object to have. There should be absolutely no reason why Every Single small/medium animated object in existence doesn't have a heavy crossbow and a greatsword.
Bring on your army of chair-swords.
RAW: Nowhere in the rules does it say the size increases when grafting on new weaponry. In fact the only thing it says is that the damage increases. Which as you have pointed out is already quite exploitable. (I graft on a huge greatsword on my tiny cheese-grater...go cheese-grater go!) GM: Which is why I suggested limiting it to correctly sized weapons.
RAW: I don't think the weapon can be sundered since it is a structural change. GM: But I would still allow it and handle it as a normal weapon sunder attempt. (I keep forgetting this is the rules forum.)
How about this spanner in the works: The animated object is itself a weapon. Would a animated greatsword do damage as a greatsword or as an animated object of it size. I must admit it is quite tempting to have all your weapons be animated objects hopping around defending their master.
It would have a slam attack. A greatsword that essentially slaps people. Hilarious, but by RAW, accurate.
Sadly, the same applies to an animated large siege engine, unless the CP is payed for different.
Edit: though... somehow, it seems I may be wrong, looking at the Headsman's scythe.
Anything else?
@blackbloodtroll
...by my personal interpretation of the RAW, Yes, if it's made using the Craft Construct feat, but no if it's animated via the spell. However, its own attacks would still rely on its own attack rolls... and since it's a creature, there would likely be grappling issues involved, both for yourself and the creature (unless you were able to grab/draw it and let it go on your same turn). It wouldn't be able to be sundered, but it would be targeted normally via attacks. And since its AC and hardness are minimal, it would likely be destroyed early unless CP is spent to improve it. Thankfully, though, it wouldn't break until it reaches 0 HP. It would, however, be utterly destroyed when it does.
The question I have is;
Would the animated Greatsword's attack be nothing but a slam attack, unless CP is used to make it otherwise? And secondly... Would you need to attach a Greatsword to a Greatsword, in order for it to do the damage of a Greatsword through its own attacks? If so, would it still count as a Greatsword for wielding purposes?
Would the animated Greatsword's attack be nothing but a slam attack, unless CP is used to make it otherwise?
Looks like you would still have to use the CP.
And secondly... Would you need to attach a Greatsword to a Greatsword, in order for it to do the damage of a Greatsword through its own attacks?
Looks that way. Though it does lead to the fun conclusion that it is not proficient at wielding itself until you weld a greatsword to the greatsword.
If so, would it still count as a Greatsword for wielding purposes?
If you can command it to stop moving, you can wield any animated object as if it weren't animated. Though could be an interesting trick: give an opponent a "off" animated object weapon and then switch it on.
Another thought: Animated cart. Horses have just become obsolete.
If you can command it to stop moving, you can wield any animated object as if it weren't animated. Though could be an interesting trick: give an opponent a "off" animated object weapon and then switch it on.Another thought: Animated cart. Horses have just become obsolete.
What's crazy, though, is that Blackbloodtroll has a point. Once it's been 'crafted' using Craft Construct, It's a construct. You'd need to give a boat a swim speed. You'd need to give the cart faster movement. Metal and stone gain the softness of wood, and it frankly doesn't matter what it was beforehand. Wielding an Animated Greatsword would be like wielding a medium creature.
...That can't be right, can it?
...Gah... this is breaking my mind.
Looking at the Headsman's scythe is even more of a joke. The CP used for it was to give it metal hardness... it's an animated weapon... but it somehow still has both the damage And the crit multiplier of a scythe? The game seems to be breaking its own rules.
...I'm starting to lean towards the "Structural changes alter the construct's damage only" statement being false.