Type or text?

[Torben Raibeart]

What trumps what, creature type or the text (of a spell, monster entry, whatever)?

I'm asking because I was looking into ways to guard areas with magic when sleeping if one has banned abjuration, and I came across Shadow Guardians in Races of Destiny, which as a shadow illusion is perfect for my shadow-focused illusionist.

Said shortly, it creates a decent amount of constructs (made with shadowstuff I assume) that can patrol or guard an area. But when I looked at the stats of said constructs, I noticed that they didn't make sense. The creatures are marked as being medium constructs, but the stats given does not correspond with what the construct-creature type would give. Its BAB is 1/2 instead of 3/4, it doesn't got the hp bonus/size construct type gives, the saves make no sense whatsoever (not 1/3 as a construct, but not what they would be if some of them were strong saves either, all saves seem to have a base of 1/2 HD before ability-mods). And to top it of, its initiativ is +1, when its dex is 14.

So it would seem like someone made these without looking at what being a construct encompass. But in a case such as this, when the text clearly breaks with what the rules dictate a construct should have, should one rework them into proper constructs (aka give them the right saves, hps, etc.) or does the text trump the "rules" written under the construct type?

[Diarmuid]

The text of the spell trumps what a normal "construct" should get for stats.

[The Trickster]

I was always under the impression that text trumps everything else, although I can't remember where I got that from. I'm not sure if that is an actual rule or not.

Edit: swordsage'd and such.

[Telonius]

Yeah, this is a case of "specific trumps general." A clear, "These are this particular creature's stats, regardless of x," trumps the general, "Constructs have these stats."

Personally I think they just tacked on the Construct type since it's the thing that most closely fit, and as a creature it needs a Type; but it's a special case since it's really an illusion.

[Torben Raibeart]

Even when the text is clearly ignoring basic rules, such as how saves progress or initiativ is calculated? Such as no bonus hp based on size doesn't bother me, after all warforged doesn't get them either, and the initiativ-thing I might let slide as an easy mistake to make, but that they ignore saves and BAB progression... It just seems so weird, like they didn't even bother to take a look at how these things normally work.

[Toliudar]

It could just be bad editing. Although RoD is 3.0, and I don't think constructs got bonus HP in 3.0.

[Torben Raibeart]

RoD is 3.0? What makes you say that? As far as I can see, it was published in December 2004, aka almost one and a half year after 3.5 was first released if wikipedia is to be trusted. Wouldn't that place it firmly as 3.5-material?

[Big Fau]

RoD is 3.0? What makes you say that? As far as I can see, it was published in December 2004, aka almost one and a half year after 3.5 was first released if wikipedia is to be trusted. Wouldn't that place it firmly as 3.5-material?

Yes, it is 3.5. Toliudar is wrong.

[Barsoom]

but that they ignore saves and BAB progression... It just seems so weird, like they didn't even bother to take a look at how these things normally work.While I understand your frustration, they don't need to take a look at how these things normally work. Specific over general. "This construct has stats X" will always trump over "generally, constructs have stats Y".

[Chronos]

I agree that the text must be taken as correct, but this sort of thing is just sloppy. If you want your creature to not fit the standard patterns, fine, but if so, you should give it abilities that account for those differences.