Impossible Bloodline and Wyrwood


Rules Questions


So I am building a new Wyrwood for the new semester and I spotted the Impossible Bloodline. My question is this does the arcana effect the player when they chose to let it? So for example would a Wyrwood with the blood line be capable of being resurrected or would that only work if the person casting the resurrection had the arcana. This goes for healing and what not as well. Does the Bloodline make it so that the players as a construct is now always going to suffer the effects or only when they chose to be or only to their own spells. This is a nitch question so I'm not expecting much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The bloodline arcana changes how your spells work on constructs, not how spells work on you.

If you cast the cure spell on yourself, your treated as alive because your spells treat constructs as alive. You cannot choose to make them not, and the ability has no effect upon the spells of others, even if they target you.

Only your own spells, and it is not optional.


Bloodline wrote:
Each sorcerer has a source of magic somewhere in her heritage that grants her spells, bonus feats, an additional class skill, and other special abilities. This source can represent a blood relation or an extreme event involving a creature somewhere in the family's past.

I know that there is no text that states you must have parents to be a Sorcerer, but it is the flavour of the class. Can I ask how your Constructs over come this story wise?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Craft Construct is on the Impossible Bloodline bonus feat list. 20th level ability turns you into a clockwork machine or a sentient fleshbag of galaxies. Or straw...

I feel like "having this bloodline is not logically possible" is all the justification one needs to HAVE said bloodline.


Dr Styx wrote:
I know that there is no text that states you must have parents to be a Sorcerer, but it is the flavour of the class.

If that was true, then there would be NO sorcerers as you'd have to have a sorcerer BEFORE your child could be one. So the flavor means SOMEONE has to spontaneously gain a sorcerer bloodline for it to be possible to be passed down hereditarily. It's basic chicken and egg stuff.


Think you misread that, graystone.

He said 'have parents to be a sorcerer', not, "all sorcerers have to have parents who are sorcerers".


toastedamphibian wrote:

Think you misread that, graystone.

He said 'have parents to be a sorcerer', not, "all sorcerers have to have parents who are sorcerers".

Nope, I read it right. If it MUST be based on hereditary, then how do we get the original? Someone had to have had that thematic link in their family BEFORE they can be a sorcerer, or you have to have an egg before you can have a chicken. Any explanation that works for that first sorcerer in the hereditary line works for the construct. Having an "extreme event involving a creature" or "blood relation" in the form of a material component.

PS: There are several ways to 'not have a parent' and be a sorcerer. Reincarnation, Wyrwood, android and Shabti are some examples and IMO are perfect candidates for the fluff "extreme event involving a creature". The unusual method of their souls meeting different bodies opens up possibilities for all kinds of weird energies to enter the mix.

Shadow Lodge

Going with the "heritage" background, someone in your family has to have had a thematic link to the sorcerer bloodline, but that doesn't mean that the person with the original link manifested a sorcerous bloodline. If your grandfather sold the soul of their firstborn's firstborn to a Devil, then that could give the grandson an Infernal bloodline even if the grandfather and indeed the father are untouched. If great-grandmother was a half-dragon, well, the sorcery genes could skip a few generations.

As for sorcerers without parents, I seem to remember there being a thread around here a while back brainstorming sorcerer backstories that sometimes included gaining a bloodline directly from some sort of personal contact with powerful magic - one of which maybe involved a dwarf gaining an earthen bloodline in a mining accident? Can't seem to find it, though.


graystone wrote:
Nope, I read it right. If it MUST be based on hereditary, then how do we get the original?

Someone had sex. With a fey, a vampire, a lich, a tifeling...

Quote:
Someone had to have had that thematic link in their family BEFORE they can be a sorcerer, or you have to have an egg before you can have a chicken.

In addition to not really making sense: the egg came first. By hundreds of millions of years.

Quote:
Any explanation that works for that first sorcerer in the hereditary line works for the construct.

"My great great great grandfather on my mothers side was an orc!"

"What are you talking about, I grew you in a vat last week?"

Quote:
PS: There are several ways to 'not have a parent' and be a sorcerer. Reincarnation, Wyrwood,

Yeah. This thread is about a Wyrwood sorcerer. Stryx asked how one narratively justifies a bloodline without parents. You responded, apparently, that Sorcerers needing parents was somehow a logical paradox.

...

It seems rational for me to assume confusion on your part.

Regardless, we are in agreement that it is possible.


toastedamphibian wrote:
Someone had sex. With a fey, a vampire, a lich, a tifeling...

So someone had sex with an impossible? ;)

My point was why can't THAT FIRST creature be a sorcerer? Why can't it be YOU that starts everything: that's my point about heritage.

toastedamphibian wrote:
In addition to not really making sense: the egg came first. By hundreds of millions of years.

Yes, and why can't the character be that 'egg' and instead has to be forced to be the chicken?

toastedamphibian wrote:


"My great great great grandfather on my mothers side was an orc!"
"What are you talking about, I grew you in a vat last week?"

Note I said the 1st! That one that started that line: so it's totally impossible for it to be "My great great great grandfather on my mothers side was an orc" but "I just had sex with an orc". If it can work for that progenitor, it can work for that construct. Whatever allowed the line to take the bloodline can allow the construct to.

toastedamphibian wrote:
Yeah. This thread is about a Wyrwood sorcerer. Stryx asked how one narratively justifies a bloodline without parents. You responded, apparently, that Sorcerers needing parents was somehow a logical paradox.

Yes, I think it's a paradox that NO creature could ever qualify to be a sorcerer but ONLY their offspring. If the event was significant for someone generations removed to gain magic it seems that the creature initially involved could be affected too.

toastedamphibian wrote:

It seems rational for me to assume confusion on your part.

Regardless, we are in agreement that it is possible.

I'm not getting the confusion personally. It just seems paradoxical to exclude the progenitor from the equation and require only offspring to be thematically correct. I'm glad we agree somewhat but I'm unsure what you did disagree with.


My god what have I done with this question....


Alchemist 23 wrote:
My god what have I done with this question....

Hmm? Oh nothing to be upset about, this is business as usual. If you had any further questions, feel free to ask.

graystone wrote:
If that was true, then there would be NO sorcerers as you'd have to have a sorcerer BEFORE your child could be one.

This. This is weird. Noone implied before this that a sorcerer had to have a parent that was a sorcerer, so your statement as formed makes no sense unless your under the impression that someone did. As far as I can tell.

The FIRST sorcerer in the line could easily be the 5th generation descendant of a half-dragon or whatever. None of your predecessors needed to have magic power, just a bit of odd blood. Or a strange event happened to you, or them.

Just a very odd statement.


toastedamphibian wrote:
Noone implied before this that a sorcerer had to have a parent that was a sorcerer, so your statement as formed makes no sense unless your under the impression that someone did. As far as I can tell.

Let's not keep going around on this.

The point that should have been made was:
"This source can represent a blood relation or an extreme event involving a creature somewhere in the family's past."
Can, not must.
It presumably could also represent something that happened directly to the sorcerer (or wyrwood equivalent).


Matthew Downie wrote:


It presumably could also represent something that happened directly to the sorcerer (or wyrwood equivalent).

Definitely.


toastedamphibian wrote:
graystone wrote:
If that was true, then there would be NO sorcerers as you'd have to have a sorcerer BEFORE your child could be one.

This. This is weird. Noone implied before this that a sorcerer had to have a parent that was a sorcerer, so your statement as formed makes no sense unless your under the impression that someone did. As far as I can tell.

The FIRST sorcerer in the line could easily be the 5th generation descendant of a half-dragon or whatever. None of your predecessors needed to have magic power, just a bit of odd blood. Or a strange event happened to you, or them.

Just a very odd statement.

The implication from Dr Styx was that it HAD to be hereditary. I was a bit vague in that quote but I meant that YOU had to qualify to be a sorcerer before you can pass that on to an offspring. It's said in the line directly after what you quoted. "So the flavor means SOMEONE has to spontaneously gain a sorcerer bloodline for it to be possible to be passed down hereditarily." I guess I should have added 'gained the possibility for a sorcerer bloodline' to be super clear in hindsight.

Alchemist 23 wrote:
My god what have I done with this question....

Sorry, my fault. I guess I worded my post badly and now we're arguing over semantics. I agree with toastedamphibian's reply in the 2nd post of this thread, so I hope you got the answer you wanted. If you have any further questions feel free to ask.

Sovereign Court

Heritage is more than biological. Wyrwoods are constructed, but magically, not mechanically. A Wyrwood created by (or whose ancestors were created by) a dragon could definitely lay claim to a Draconic bloodline, and Wyrwoods from Jalmeray could absolutely have Impossible heritage. You don't need blood to have a bloodline.

Scarab Sages

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

No one knows what it takes to create a Wyrwood.
At a guess, each wizard had their own ritual.
One's ritual could have involved using his own blood.
Even though a wizard, she/he could have had a dormant Impossible bloodline.
This would have then been passed down to any Wyrwood that was created.
If they Wyrwood then used the same ritual its decendants blood/sap? would also contain the Impossible bloodline and thus theoretically one day manifest.


Alchemist 23 wrote:
My god what have I done with this question....

It was not your question that kicked off the downward spiral.

It was my attempt at understanding another of your attempts at bypassing the downside of playing a Construct.

To witch Charles Schulz was able to answer with a straight face.

Charles Scholz wrote:

No one knows what it takes to create a Wyrwood.

At a guess, each wizard had their own ritual.
One's ritual could have involved using his own blood.
Even though a wizard, she/he could have had a dormant Impossible bloodline.
This would have then been passed down to any Wyrwood that was created.
If they Wyrwood then used the same ritual its decendants blood/sap? would also contain the Impossible bloodline and thus theoretically one day manifest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dr Styx wrote:
Alchemist 23 wrote:
My god what have I done with this question....

It was not your question that kicked off the downward spiral.

It was my attempt at understanding another of your attempts at bypassing the downside of playing a Construct.

To witch Charles Schulz was able to answer with a straight face.

Charles Scholz wrote:

No one knows what it takes to create a Wyrwood.

At a guess, each wizard had their own ritual.
One's ritual could have involved using his own blood.
Even though a wizard, she/he could have had a dormant Impossible bloodline.
This would have then been passed down to any Wyrwood that was created.
If they Wyrwood then used the same ritual its decendants blood/sap? would also contain the Impossible bloodline and thus theoretically one day manifest.

Another of my attempts? That seems unnecessarily insulting considering that don't really remember asking about anything like this before. All I ever try to do on these forms is understand the poorly constructed rules of this game. And yes when you are constantly having to switch between logic, RAW, and RAI yes the rules are poorly written. I love this game to death but the conflict of society play and normal makes for far too many contradictions for my liking.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In this case the issue is that the rules assume that player characters will be humanoid, which occasionally causes interpretative difficulties for non-humanoid characters.

Dr Styx wrote:

It was not your question that kicked off the downward spiral.

It was my attempt at understanding another of your attempts at bypassing the downside of playing a Construct.

To witch Charles Schulz was able to answer with a straight face.

As far as I know, there is no indication that disqualification from the sorcerer class is a downside of playing a Construct - RAW or RAI.

And several people on the thread gave a "straight answer" by explaining that someone's heritage isn't necessarily limited to their biological ancestry before Charles Scholz suggested that even if you decided that a sorcerer needed a literal bloodline, the Wyrwood could still qualify.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"All wyrwoods know how to create more of their kind, and they keep the details of their construction process secret from other creatures to make sure their race is never again enslaved."

Once you know how to make something you can modify the creation process. This can mean adding wafers to banana pudding or using dragon bones for the chasis of a new Wyrwood.


There have been several good justifications, but I'll also point out that the existence of a Sorcerer flavored class bonus for Wyrwoods certainly means that Wyrwood Sorcerers are a thing.

Shadow Lodge

Now if only it wasn't a third party favored class bonus people might not disregard it immediately without even caring to look at ot think about it again.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Now if only it wasn't a third party favored class bonus people might not disregard it immediately without even caring to look at ot think about it again.

Your right. Didn't even notice that.

Shadow Lodge

The worst part is it's really cool, but HP is so very, very important for Whrwood :(


Alchemist 23 wrote:
Another of my attempts? That seems unnecessarily insulting considering that don't really remember asking about anything like this before.

First I would like to apologize to you. It was never my intention to insult you.

It was my intention to make you look at a Construct not as a normal PC race.
But as a unique Magical Being, that should not be played the same way.

Alchemist 23 wrote:
So for example would a Wyrwood with the blood line be capable of being resurrected...?

I’m just still trying to understand why this is an issue. As a Wyrwood has no Soul (nor would it want one). There are less powerful spells out there that can bring back constructs, after they are destroyed (not killed).

Yes the Impossible Bloodline lets you cast spells on constructs that are normally immune to them. I would think a GM would still see that there is nothing for the spell to work on.

Healing spells, we can see as they take damage that can be repaired.
Mind Affecting spells, we can see as they are programmed with behaviour that can be changed.

Dragonborn3 wrote:
Now if only it wasn't a third party favored class bonus people might not disregard it immediately without even caring to look at ot think about it again.

I was unaware of this as well. As I said, to me, it seems to go against the flavour of this Race. But as Weirdo said, lots have shown me there are many ways that this can happen.


Dr Styx wrote:


Alchemist 23 wrote:
So for example would a Wyrwood with the blood line be capable of being resurrected...?
I’m just still trying to understand why this is an issue. As a Wyrwood has no Soul (nor would it want one). There are less powerful spells out there that can bring back constructs, after they are destroyed (not killed).

There are? Could you link them? I went looking after reading this, and only thing I found was Memory of Function from the technology guide, and it is 7th level with a 10k gold material component.

Make Whole can fix destroyed Objects, but Constructs are Creatures.


toastedamphibian wrote:
Make Whole can fix destroyed Objects, but Constructs are Creatures.

Why would you say that?

Make Whole Target wrote:
one object up to 10 cu. ft./level or one construct creature of any size


toastedamphibian wrote:
Dr Styx wrote:


Alchemist 23 wrote:
So for example would a Wyrwood with the blood line be capable of being resurrected...?
I’m just still trying to understand why this is an issue. As a Wyrwood has no Soul (nor would it want one). There are less powerful spells out there that can bring back constructs, after they are destroyed (not killed).

There are? Could you link them? I went looking after reading this, and only thing I found was Memory of Function from the technology guide, and it is 7th level with a 10k gold material component.

Make Whole can fix destroyed Objects, but Constructs are Creatures.

Yep, it's the same level as Resurrection, with the same cost but requires a whole body [no significant portion may be destroyed] while while resurrection only needs a small portion. An actual destroyed construct is out of luck while a disintegrated living creature is fine with Resurrection.

As for as a lower spell, there is reboot but it only bring the construct back for 1rd/level.


Dr Styx wrote:
toastedamphibian wrote:
Make Whole can fix destroyed Objects, but Constructs are Creatures.

Why would you say that?

Make Whole Target wrote:
one object up to 10 cu. ft./level or one construct creature of any size

Make whole does 2 things:

#1 "This spell functions as mending, except that it repairs 1d6 points of damage per level when cast on a construct creature (maximum 5d6)."

#2 "Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item."

Make whole can repair objects and constructs. However, the spell NEVER says it can 'fix destroyed constructs'. Mending doesn't affect constructs at all.


Dr Styx wrote:
Alchemist 23 wrote:
Another of my attempts? That seems unnecessarily insulting considering that don't really remember asking about anything like this before.

First I would like to apologize to you. It was never my intention to insult you.

It was my intention to make you look at a Construct not as a normal PC race.
But as a unique Magical Being, that should not be played the same way.

Alchemist 23 wrote:
So for example would a Wyrwood with the blood line be capable of being resurrected...?

I’m just still trying to understand why this is an issue. As a Wyrwood has no Soul (nor would it want one). There are less powerful spells out there that can bring back constructs, after they are destroyed (not killed).

Yes the Impossible Bloodline lets you cast spells on constructs that are normally immune to them. I would think a GM would still see that there is nothing for the spell to work on.

Healing spells, we can see as they take damage that can be repaired.
Mind Affecting spells, we can see as they are programmed with behaviour that can be changed.

Dragonborn3 wrote:
Now if only it wasn't a third party favored class bonus people might not disregard it immediately without even caring to look at ot think about it again.
I was unaware of this as well. As I said, to me, it seems to go against the flavour of this Race. But as Weirdo said, lots have shown me there are many ways that this can happen.

It is worth noting that Raise Dead, Resurrection, and True Resurrection are Conjuration (Healing). Of course, if you're at the level for Resurrection, just use Memory of Function since its the latter's express purpose.


graystone wrote:
Make whole can repair objects and constructs. However, the spell NEVER says it can 'fix destroyed constructs'. Mending doesn't affect constructs at all.
Craft Construct Prerequisites wrote:
Caster level 5th, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Wondrous Item.

A Construct is a Magic Item as per its Feat Chain.

Make Whole wrote:
Make Whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item.

Before the Technology Guide came out (over 5 years), so before Memory of Function, Make Whole was how Destroyed Constructs were Repaired.

Now you have to be of sufficiently high level to cast Make Whole to do this. All Constructs other than the Wyrwood have a CL. It should be easy for a GM to set a CL for one depending on it CR.


Yeah, no. By that logic, oozes are woundrous items. And potions.

It also means both can be suppressed by dispel magic and cease to function in an anti-magic zone.

All categorically wrong. They are creatures, not items.


Dr Styx wrote:
Construct is a Magic Item as per its Feat Chain.

By that theory, every construct can be either used as a weapon or worn as armor... :P

Make Whole wrote:
Make Whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item.
Dr Styx wrote:
Before the Technology Guide came out (over 5 years), so before Memory of Function, Make Whole was how Destroyed Constructs were Repaired.

Not by the official rules. Maybe by your house rules. Make whole is unable to fix destroyed creatures.

Dr Styx wrote:
Now you have to be of sufficiently high level to cast Make Whole to do this. All Constructs other than the Wyrwood have a CL. It should be easy for a GM to set a CL for one depending on it CR.

CL is meaningless to the debate as that section is specifically about magic items and not creatures. A CL of 1 and 20 are equally as useless in bringing back a construct with make whole.

PS: And as toastedamphibian points out, if we use your logic you can drink an ooze as a standard action since it requires brew potion to use Craft Ooze...


toastedamphibian wrote:

Yeah, no. By that logic, oozes are woundrous items. And potions.

It also means both can be suppressed by dispel magic and cease to function in an anti-magic zone.

All categorically wrong. They are creatures, not items.

Um...

Craft Ooze wrote:
Benefit: You can create living oozes as though they were magical items


And? "...create ... as though they were" not "they are".


graystone wrote:
PS: And as toastedamphibian points out, if we use your logic you can drink an ooze as a standard action since it requires brew potion to use Craft Ooze...

I have to say, this sounds like it'd probably be equivalent to drinking acid, well, depending on the ooze! It is suggested you use a nice Protection from Energy spell first!

On a serious note, pre-requisites do not mean acting as. For example, Improved Overrun uses Power Attack as it's pre-req. At no point are you required to use PA when overruning, nor do you get the bonus to the overrun, unless you also take the negative to hit from actually using PA. Furthermore, nothing in the Construct entry says it is counted as a magical item for the purpose of spells, making that null. You get what you get, nothing more. Nothing less. Feel free to houserule it though, but no, Make Whole does not allow you to "Resurrect" a construct. I'd allow it to repair a broken one to be back together, but it wouldn't make it alive, nor would I let it restore the same personality.

The closest thing to calling it an item is the flavor text saying "A construct is an animated object..." though it doesn't call them magical items. Furthermore, detecting magic doesn't indicate a construct anymore than detecting magic a magical beast, and they have magic in their name!


Dr Styx: So... Where does it say you can repair one 'as though they were magical items'? It's the SAME thing with the construct.

Construct notes that constructs can be repaired through the use of the Craft Construct feat and healed through spells such as make whole. There is NO mention of destroyed constructs being affected. Using make whole on a constructs does exactly what it says: it heals it. And that does the same thing it would do if you heal a dead 'living' creature: not a darn thing as you need something MORE to revive a creature then just healing.


I think this all proves we need a splat book for either Wyrwood or construct making as a whole. Before anyone links it the Construct Builder's Guidebook is just construct bestiary and will have little to no player use according to the author.


Blood of the Bloodless?


toastedamphibian wrote:
Blood of the Bloodless?

Clockwork codex! Construct compendium? Blood, sweat and gears...

Alchemist 23 wrote:
Before anyone links it the Construct Builder's Guidebook is just construct bestiary and will have little to no player use according to the author.

Yes, it saddened me to hear the contents. It sounds like it'll be a pass for me. :(


They seem to like 'Blood of the X', beast, moon, coven...


Yet another thread where Magic Items are considered both, but for some reason seeing it the other way surprises people.


Dr Styx wrote:
Yet another thread where Magic Items are considered both, but for some reason seeing it the other way surprises people.

Nothing stops something from falling under multiple categories: it just NEEDS to be spelled out. In the links case, it clearly and succinctly states "Treat them as constructs" and "can actually be considered creatures" [where the 'can' allows treating them as objects if you wish].

That's a VERY clear and distinct difference from this thread where there isn't even an inference that constructs are objects: constructs are never objects while alive and feat prerequisites have NO bearing on the function of the feat.


graystone wrote:
That's a VERY clear and distinct difference from this thread where there isn't even an inference that constructs are objects: constructs are never objects while alive and feat prerequisites have NO bearing on the function of the feat.

????????

Magic Items (can be) Constructs
Constructs (can’t be) Magic Items

????????


Dr Styx wrote:
graystone wrote:
That's a VERY clear and distinct difference from this thread where there isn't even an inference that constructs are objects: constructs are never objects while alive and feat prerequisites have NO bearing on the function of the feat.

????????

Magic Item (can be) Construct
Construct (can’t be) Magic Item

????????

A square is a rectangle

A rectangle isn't by default a square

A dog can be brown
Brown isn't the required color for dogs

This is basic logic here. Object/item and creature is generally a binary situation. "Creature: A creature is an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters." Objects/items are the passive parts of the story/world. You generally aren't both an active AND passive "participant in the story or world." Constructs aren't items by definition but creatures [active]. The intelligent magic item has the option of being an active participant because of that intelligence, hence the exception.

Shadow Lodge

Alchemist 23 wrote:
Dr Styx wrote:
Alchemist 23 wrote:
My god what have I done with this question....

It was not your question that kicked off the downward spiral.

It was my attempt at understanding another of your attempts at bypassing the downside of playing a Construct.

To witch Charles Schulz was able to answer with a straight face.

Charles Scholz wrote:

No one knows what it takes to create a Wyrwood.

At a guess, each wizard had their own ritual.
One's ritual could have involved using his own blood.
Even though a wizard, she/he could have had a dormant Impossible bloodline.
This would have then been passed down to any Wyrwood that was created.
If they Wyrwood then used the same ritual its decendants blood/sap? would also contain the Impossible bloodline and thus theoretically one day manifest.
Another of my attempts? That seems unnecessarily insulting considering that don't really remember asking about anything like this before. All I ever try to do on these forms is understand the poorly constructed rules of this game. And yes when you are constantly having to switch between logic, RAW, and RAI yes the rules are poorly written. I love this game to death but the conflict of society play and normal makes for far too many contradictions for my liking.

Wait. Society play? Do you have the other Ioun Heart boon? We should talk. Send me a message.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Impossible Bloodline and Wyrwood All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions