I've been in a debate with my GM about whether or not my animated wagon that can fly at a speed of 70 feet is capable of 'running' indefinitely at a speed of 280 feet.
Everything I can find on the subject, every forum debate, seems to be in my favour.
Yes, magically flying things are capable of running: Link
Yes, things without a constitution score can run indefinitely: Link
Even the D20SRD supports this: Link
He has so far (he hasn't seen the D20SRD information yet) ruled against me, saying that the answers to the question are not from Paizo.
He has yet to invoke Rule 0 and I think he wants to try to find a way to stop me from having a 30mph flying machine without doing so. But, nothing seems to be logically on his side here.
A ruling from Paizo should be made on this and I find it strange that they haven't provided rules for things without constitution scores running. Short of that, does anyone else have anything to say on the matter?
I agree that it seems likely that constructs/undead should be able to run without fatigue indefinitely.
However, your GM seems set against the idea, and unless this is incredibly important I wouldn't press the issue.
It actually is as the landmass is vast and creatures have caused the party to move all over the place in short periods of time. Magic only goes up to spell level 6, so no one has access to teleport. I want a base of operations and I won't have regular access to it without a fast vehicle.
It actually is as the landmass is vast and creatures have caused the party to move all over the place in short periods of time. Magic only goes up to spell level 6, so no one has access to teleport. I want a base of operations and I won't have regular access to it without a fast vehicle.
Seems like he probably doesn't want to allow that. You should ask him outside of the game if he wants to keep you on the run and without a "base". If that's his goal no amount of arguing with him about the correctness of the rules is going to change his mind.
Seems like he probably doesn't want to allow that. You should ask him outside of the game if he wants to keep you on the run and without a "base". If that's his goal no amount of arguing with him about the correctness of the rules is going to change his mind.
Naw, he's just a RAW fascist. It's rare that he goes outside of RAW, even for rules as intended. In the case of intentions, if it helps the player, he'll often disallow it and then enforce rules as intended if it inhibits the player.
So even though constructs and undead are tireless and it seems to be intended that they can run indefinitely, with no specific rule saying they can, he's against it.
Thus, a paizo ruling is necessary unless someone can figure out something more concrete.
Seems like he probably doesn't want to allow that. You should ask him outside of the game if he wants to keep you on the run and without a "base". If that's his goal no amount of arguing with him about the correctness of the rules is going to change his mind.
Naw, he's just a RAW fascist. It's rare that he goes outside of RAW, even for rules as intended. In the case of intentions, if it helps the player, he'll often disallow it and then enforce rules as intended if it inhibits the player.
So even though constructs and undead are tireless and it seems to be intended that they can run indefinitely, with no specific rule saying they can, he's against it.
Thus, a paizo ruling is necessary unless someone can figure out something more concrete.
Well, I can tell you it's very implausible that someone from the Paizo Development team will take the time to grace you with their words and say that what you are attempting to do works.
They prefer to leave some things to the volition of the GM, and usually only get involved when something is a major issue that many people are asking about.
I just find it strange that Paizo has never published anything in regards to running and no constitution score. As far as I can tell, every other incarnation of D20 strictly says they run indefinitely. Why didn't Paizo do the same?
Quick note, your link to the D20 PRD is not Paizo material, it's 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons. If you look at Paizo's rendition of constitution here, you'll notice they don't include this.
Also, have you looked at "Overland Travel?" It might have just what you're looking for.
I'll do some digging around and post if I find anything for future readers who may come across this thread with the same questions.
Quick note, your link to the D20 PRD is not Paizo material, it's 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons. If you look at Paizo's rendition of constitution here, you'll notice they don't include this.
It was already recognized that this is not Paizo material. If it were, there would be no question regarding this rule.
At the very least, you should be able to get your wagon to hustle if he won't allow the running. Link
Every 10ft movement speed adds 2 miles per hour, so 70ft movement speed comes out to be 14 miles per hour.
14x24 comes out to be 336 miles covered in a day, seeing as how it doesn't need to eat, drink, or sleep. Meanwhile, you can do all 3 while riding in it.
[sarcasm]Now, of course, watch out, it'll take a lot of non-lethal damage and suffer fatigue and exhaustion from the forced march. You might knock it unconscious or kill it by over-exhausting it.[/sarcasm]
It's already agreed that it can hustle indefinitely.
My GM has finally gone Rule 0 unless Paizo itself posts differently.
So I'm not sure how, but an average Joe can have greater stamina than a golem.
Good job, Paizo.
My GM has finally gone Rule 0 unless Paizo itself posts differently.
So I'm not sure how, but an average Joe can have greater stamina than a golem.
Good job, Paizo.
Don't blame Paizo for your poor choice in game mastering.
My GM has finally gone Rule 0 unless Paizo itself posts differently.
So I'm not sure how, but an average Joe can have greater stamina than a golem.
Good job, Paizo.
"My GM houseruled something."
"Damn you developers who had nothing to do with my GM houseruling something!"
*Shakes fist heavenward*
Don't blame Paizo for your poor choice in game mastering.My GM has finally gone Rule 0 unless Paizo itself posts differently.
So I'm not sure how, but an average Joe can have greater stamina than a golem.
Good job, Paizo.
Well technically speaking, the GM is correct. There is no mechanic for a construct to run indefinitely and the way everyone is interpreting on the forum is a house rule. It's a house rule I agree with but a house rule none-the-less.
My GM has finally gone Rule 0 unless Paizo itself posts differently.
So I'm not sure how, but an average Joe can have greater stamina than a golem.
Good job, Paizo.
"My GM houseruled something."
"Damn you developers who had nothing to do with my GM houseruling something!"
*Shakes fist heavenward*
The developers had nothing to do with other players house ruling that constructs can run indefinitely, either. RAW, a construct cannot run indefinitely, there is no mechanic for it. So it isn't my GM doing the house ruling.
And now that he's finally read this thread he's changed his mind. Oh the irony.
Well technically speaking, the GM is correct. There is no mechanic for a construct to run indefinitely and the way everyone is interpreting on the forum is a house rule. It's a house rule I agree with but a house rule none-the-less.Don't blame Paizo for your poor choice in game mastering.My GM has finally gone Rule 0 unless Paizo itself posts differently.
So I'm not sure how, but an average Joe can have greater stamina than a golem.
Good job, Paizo.
"It is not explicitly stated" does not mean it isn't RAW that it works.
Fact: Anything with a move speed can Run with whatever move speed it has.
Fact: The only downsides to Running for extended periods are Fatigue, Exhaustion, and Nonlethal damage.
Fact: Constructs are immune to all of these.
Conclusion: Constructs can Run indefinitely because it has a move speed (and so can run) and is immune to all of the downsides of Running for extended periods.
That is not a houserule, it is merely understanding how different rules interact.
|
Well technically speaking, the GM is correct. There is no mechanic for a construct to run indefinitely and the way everyone is interpreting on the forum is a house rule. It's a house rule I agree with but a house rule none-the-less.Don't blame Paizo for your poor choice in game mastering.My GM has finally gone Rule 0 unless Paizo itself posts differently.
So I'm not sure how, but an average Joe can have greater stamina than a golem.
Good job, Paizo.
"It is not explicitly stated" does not mean it isn't RAW that it works.
Fact: Anything with a move speed can Run with whatever move speed it has.
Fact: The only downsides to Running for extended periods are Fatigue, Exhaustion, and Nonlethal damage.
Fact: Constructs are immune to all of these.
Conclusion: Constructs can Run indefinitely because it has a move speed (and so can run) and is immune to all of the downsides of Running for extended periods.
That is not a houserule, it is merely understanding how different rules interact.
Ninja'd!
TLDR: things follow the general rules unless there is a written exception, anything with a speed can run in that movement mode, running must be done in a straight line, running creatures must make rolls or suffer fatigue/exhaustion/non-lethal.
So the golem must obey all these rules, unless it has written exceptions.
Creatures without a Con score don't have to make Con checks or Fort saves unless the effect affects objects, and they aren't subject to fatigue, exhaustion or non-lethal damage.
The RAW consequence of all this is that constructs can run all day every day and never get tired; they can run forever. They don't need a written rule to let them do what the rules already let them do.
Hey, thanks for for providing that series of steps for the first time as far as I can see. It was really helpful for you to do that after we ran through everything else and came to a conclusion based on evidence available.
Hard to tell through a text medium, but that seems like some unnecessary snarky sarcasm there.
Your post in which you said
And now that he's finally read this thread he's changed his mind. Oh the irony.
is only 5 minutes apart from his, which could have taken him 10-15 minutes to type.
He may not have seen what you posted and been unable to delete whatever he was in the middle of because of that.
Hard to tell through a text medium, but that seems like some unnecessary snarky sarcasm there.
Your post in which you said
And now that he's finally read this thread he's changed his mind. Oh the irony.is only 5 minutes apart from his, which could have taken him 10-15 minutes to type.
He may not have seen what you posted and been unable to delete whatever he was in the middle of because of that.
Mostly due to the fact that the series of steps was posted nowhere that I could find until now. Those do actually provide clear evidence that a construct can run indefinitely. However, he decided to post this AFTER he decided to be snarky about my GM without posting any evidence to say the GM was wrong.
So yes, the sarcasm was necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He was being snarky because you were unnecessarily blaming Paizo for your problems.
And again, he may not have posted had he seen where you posted that your GM said he'd allow it.
So no, the sarcasm wasn't necessary, you're just trying to justify your own wrong-doing.
He was being snarky because you were unnecessarily blaming Paizo for your problems.
And again, he may not have posted had he seen where you posted that your GM said he'd allow it.
So no, the sarcasm wasn't necessary, you're just trying to justify your own wrong-doing.
Saying "Good job, Paizo." does not warrant his response, especially when posters above that noted that this has been an ongoing issue. *This was from a different, linked conversation.
So I did nothing wrong, or at least I did nothing wrong first.
So again, my sarcasm was warranted. You can be wrong all you want.
He was being snarky because you were unnecessarily blaming Paizo for your problems.
And again, he may not have posted had he seen where you posted that your GM said he'd allow it.
So no, the sarcasm wasn't necessary, you're just trying to justify your own wrong-doing.
Saying "Good job, Paizo." does not warrant his response,
especially when posters above that noted that this has been an ongoing issue.*This was from a different, linked conversation.So I did nothing wrong, or at least I did nothing wrong first.
So again, my sarcasm was warranted. You can be wrong all you want.
You're veering into most important rule territory. Asked and answered. Have a good game. : )