One of the players in my Iron Gods campaign asked me how I would adjudicate the spell warp metal when it came to robots.
I am happy with my ruling and content to run with it, but I wanted to subject it to the scrutiny of other players before I charged in.
First, warp metal is a 4th level spell. That means it's the same level as, say phantasmal killer. Using that as a my guide, I decided there are five possible outcomes.
- Successful Will save: Nothing happens.
- Failed Will save, successful Fortitude save: The robot is affected, but the spell doesn't do enough damage to destroy it. The player can select a dirty trick outcome applicable to a robot. The outcome is permanent; this seems powerful, and I wouldn't want it in print, but since 99.9% of the time the PCs are going to be exploding whatever they're using this spell on, it won't actually mean much for gameplay besides a useful debuff.
- Since this spell allows repeated castings, the caster can stack the dirty trick debuff. When a fourth such debuff is applied (arbitrary number), the robot is killed.
- Failed Will save, failed Fortitude save: the robot is deformed past the point of functioning and is "dead."
Can I get some feedback on this adjudication?
Also, how would you guys handle the spell being cast on someone wearing a suit of plate mail? Would it be appropriate to lower the affected character's AC and deal damage? Thanks so much.
Oh, and in an effort to hedge possible rules nitpicking, I am aware that the spell stipulates that it affects objects and that robots are, from a rules standpoint, creatures. To that objection, I urge you to check out the stats for many of the higher CR robots in Pathfinder (e.g. the myrmidon robot, CR 11); they all have hardness, a trait usually reserved for objects. When it comes to robots, the rules seem to deliberately treat them as objects and creatures, so I believe-- and will act accordingly in my game-- that spells like warp metal do apply to them.
The spell doesn't work.
The target of warp metal is " 1 Small wooden object/level, all within a 20-ft. radius; see text" (which is partially in error anyways because it should say metal not wooden). However, assuming they meant 1 small metal object/level means you still can't target a construct. Constructs are creatures, not objects.
In the case of someone wearing metal armor, it deals no damage to the wearer. Warped armor in the worst case should have the armor operate as destroyed...but that's probably not what happens. I might decrease the AC by 4 and increase the armor check penalty by the same (based on what it does to melee weapons).
Do remember that worn/held items get to use their wielder's saving throws, or if they are a magical item their own if they are better.
Magical Items: Magic items always get saving throws. A magic item's Fortitude, Reflex, and Will save bonuses are equal to 2 + half its caster level. An attended magic item either makes saving throws as its owner or uses its own saving throw bonus, whichever is better.
Claxon,
Please see my note at the end. The designers use hardness rules, normally reserved for objects, as a matter of course for damage reduction. I don't think your hard line in the sand re: this spell's effect on constructs/robots is in line with ostensible designer intent.
Just because constructs have hardness like an object does not mean they are objects. I'm sorry I just simply don't agree with your nitpick.
By counting them as objects your create problems that don't exist, like "how does warp metal affect them?"
Besides hardness is basically just DR, that also works against energy attacks. It's to compensate for the relatively low hp that constructs have in comparison to other monsters. For example, the myrmidon you linked has 112 hp. The average hp for a CR 11 creature is 147. The myrmidon has about 3/4 the hp of an average CR 11 creature. Hardness is added because constructs don't get a con modifier to hp.
Besides, there are a whole array of spells designed to deal with construct specifically such as Disable Construct. No need to let a different spell do things other spells do.
Take for example the Destroy Robot spell. It's not even constructs, it's specifically Robots (a construct subtype).
It's a 5th level spell that deals damage, but probably not enough to actually destroy a robot unless it's already taken damage.
You can't use Phantasmal Killer as a comparison point because creatures like Constructs are supposed to be immune to those kind of effects. It's why you need a Destroy Robot which is one level higher, to do something even remotely similar. Even then Phantasmal Killer outright kills if you fail the saves, whereas Destroy Robot only deals damage.
Not all creature types are equal nor are the supposed to be.
If you want a good alternative tell your player to prepare/learn Rebuke Technology which is also a 4th level spell that shuts down the robot leaving it a non-threat which you can then easily destroy.
Claxon,
Please see my note at the end. The designers use hardness rules, normally reserved for objects, as a matter of course for damage reduction. I don't think your hard line in the sand re: this spell's effect on constructs/robots is in line with ostensible designer intent.
Robots have hardness specifically because the designers wanted them to have hardness and be tougher than constructs that simply rely on damage reduction. NOT because they view robots as object-like. it's been specifically established that robots are creatures and with their hardness they are not to be treated as objects such as when it comes to ranged attacks and energy damage doing half damage against object hardness.
Agree 100% with Claxon, robots/constructs are not objects for any purposes. They are immune to this spell.
Robots have hardness specifically because the designers wanted them to have hardness and be tougher than constructs that simply rely on damage reduction. NOT because they view robots as object-like. it's been specifically established that robots are creatures and with their hardness they are not to be treated as objects such as when it comes to ranged attacks and energy damage doing half damage against object hardness.Claxon,
Please see my note at the end. The designers use hardness rules, normally reserved for objects, as a matter of course for damage reduction. I don't think your hard line in the sand re: this spell's effect on constructs/robots is in line with ostensible designer intent.
Indeed. Whereas against objects energy damage would be halved and then hardness reduces the damage further, with robots you just subtract the hardness from the energy damage rather halving the energy damage first.
This is the advice forum rather than the rules forum. If impureascetic wants to create a house rule that Warp Metal affects robots, because it will amuse a player and is not implausible, I am fine with that.
And I think that having Warp Metal perform a dirty trick maneuver is ingenious.
Robots have hardness specifically because the designers wanted them to have hardness and be tougher than constructs that simply rely on damage reduction. NOT because they view robots as object-like. it's been specifically established that robots are creatures and with their hardness they are not to be treated as objects such as when it comes to ranged attacks and energy damage doing half damage against object hardness.
Yet the theme of the abilities given to robots, such as hardness, integrated weaponry, and combined arms, is that they are manufactured out of metal with integrated technological features. It is plausible (as a house rule) for Warp Metal to affect manufactured metal creatures, even if they do not count as objects.
- Successful Will save: Nothing happens.
- Failed Will save, successful Fortitude save: The robot is affected, but the spell doesn't do enough damage to destroy it. The player can select a dirty trick outcome applicable to a robot. The outcome is permanent; this seems powerful, and I wouldn't want it in print, but since 99.9% of the time the PCs are going to be exploding whatever they're using this spell on, it won't actually mean much for gameplay besides a useful debuff.
- Since this spell allows repeated castings, the caster can stack the dirty trick debuff. When a fourth such debuff is applied (arbitrary number), the robot is killed.
- Failed Will save, failed Fortitude save: the robot is deformed past the point of functioning and is "dead."
Can I get some feedback on this adjudication?
The third bullet point, about repeated castings, is cumbersome. Tracking whether a robot has been hit by four Warp Metal spells or only three is an extra task during combat that usually won't matter. And the line in in the spell itself about repeated castings, "You can combine multiple consecutive castings of warp metal to warp (or unwarp) an object that is too large for you to warp with a single casting," is designed for dealing with extremely large objects that would not be affected by a single casting.
In addition, comparing Warp Metal on robots to Phantasmal Killer neglects that Warp Metal still can fulfill its original purpose of opening doors and crippling weapons. In Pathfinder, versatile spells are weaker than single-purpose spells. I don't think that Warp Metal should be able to destroy robots. Though Warp Metal can render a ranged weapon or vehicle useless, it does not destroy them, and they can be restored with Warp Metal cast to repair. Why would robots be more vulnerable than objects?
Keep it simple: Warp Metal is opposed by the robot's Will save and a successful warping imposes a selected permanent Dirty Trick condition: blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened.
Mathmuse,
Thanks for liking my idea! As far as tracking separate uses, we play in Fantasy Grounds, so it's trivial to add the debuffs. I see what you mean, though, that the intent behind consecutive uses isn't to warp an object different but to warp a single object at all. That's a useful distinction. Thanks.