Sacred Guardian + Flying Enhancement?

[unseenmage]

As this question was deemed inappropriate for another thread I bring it to the majority.

Is the Sacred guardian Template (DL:BoK revised) be applied to a weapon which has been enchanted with the +1 Flying weapon enhancement from (MoF140)?

Please discuss, thank you.

[Debihuman]

The Sacred Guardian Template (from Dragonlance: Bestiary of Krynn) is an Acquired Template that can be place on unintelligent Constructs (mindless or with Int no higher than 2). A weapon is not a Construct.

So to answer your question: No.

Debby

[unseenmage]

The Sacred Guardian Template (from Dragonlance: Bestiary of Krynn is an Acquired Template that can be place on unintelligent Constructs (mindless or with Int no higher than 2). A weapon is not a Construct.

So to answer your question: No.

Debby

Flying: A flying weapon can fly at speed 30 feet and is treated as an animated object with hardness and hit points equal to a typical weapon of its kind. A flying weapon follows orders subject to the limits of its ability (it has no Intelligence) but can be ordered to guard a location just as an animated skeleton can.

[Debihuman]

A weapon is not a creature. An animated object is a construct. So first you have to actually make the weapon a Construct . Again, the answer would be no since it is treated like a animated object but isn't one. It still needs to be made into a Construct before you can add the Template. Since the Flying property doesn't actually turn the weapon into a Construct, you can't apply it. Treating something as X doesn't necessarily make it X.

Debby

[unseenmage]

A weapon is not a creature. An animated object is a construct. So first you have to actually make the weapon a Construct . Again, the answer would be no since it is treated like a animated object but isn't one. It still needs to be made into a Construct before you can add the Template. Since the Flying property doesn't actually turn the weapon into a Construct, you can't apply it. Treating something as X doesn't necessarily make it X.

Debby

Please show me where that is a rule and not your personal interpretation please.

[Urpriest]

If Sacred Guardian is an Acquired template, could you tell us what the conditions are for acquiring it? Many of us don't have access to Dragonlance books.

[Khatoblepas]

I don't think the rules are clear enough to make a judgement, but you could interpret it either way.

However, you'd need to apply the Sacred Guardian template as the weapon is being made, as you can't do it afterward, as the body of the SG needs to be specially made.

... which makes it's status as an acquired template somewhat.... problematic.

It also gains the Augmented subtype, but can only be applied to constructs and doesn't change their type? What?

The rules being mixed here are badly written on their own! Their interactions are even more baffling!

[Fable Wright]

Please show me where that is a rule and not your personal interpretation please.
If there were a rule that clarified this, someone would have pointed it out already. In its absence, there is only personal interpretations of the rules involved. Why is the interpretation of "being treated as an animated object" as a way of describing the sword's combat abilities and nothing else any less valid than the interpretation of the sword becoming an animated object that can be used as a sword? There are no clear rules, and only personal interpretation. There is no RAW answer. Don't be condescending and act like a personal interpretation you don't agree with is invalid.

Really, the only definitively correct answer is "ask your DM." If you are the DM, whichever interpretation you prefer is valid. Otherwise, their interpretation is valid.

[unseenmage]

If there were a rule that clarified this, someone would have pointed it out already. In its absence, there is only personal interpretations of the rules involved. Why is the interpretation of "being treated as an animated object" as a way of describing the sword's combat abilities and nothing else any less valid than the interpretation of the sword becoming an animated object that can be used as a sword? There are no clear rules, and only personal interpretation. There is no RAW answer. Don't be condescending and act like a personal interpretation you don't agree with is invalid.

Really, the only definitively correct answer is "ask your DM." If you are the DM, whichever interpretation you prefer is valid. Otherwise, their interpretation is valid.

My apologies if my question offended you in some way. That was definitely not it's intent.

As a personal favor I would ask that you please not condescend to me. I may merely be a username and a string of words to you. That doesn't mean your assumptions as to the veracity of my inquiry aren't hurtful.

I was hoping that there was a genuine answer to my question. There are people here who know more than I. Who've been around asking questions like mine for longer. People who've seen entire gaming forums come and go before I ever set fingers to keyboard.
I was merely hoping to drink from the fountain of their wisdom; my goal was not to insult or degenerate anyone.

Debihuman's answer was forthright and to the point. It was simply not detailed enough to quell my curiosity on the matter.

I do not apologize for my curiosity, nor for my question. I would only ask forgiveness for any ineptitude I may have exhibited across the internet to someone I have never, nor likely ever will, meet. My bad.
Edit: That bit was unintentionally combative.


I am still curious if a worthwhile discussion could be had into the precedents and/or potential exploitability of the application of the Sacred Guardian template to non-traditional constructs.

[Debihuman]

Try it and see how you like it. You asked if it could be done and I explained as best I could why not. That said, sometimes breaking the rules makes sense.

It's simple to apply the criteria that I use: 1. Is it fun? 2. Does it make adjudication more difficult for the DM? 3. If so, how much so? 4. Do the Players like it? and 5. Do YOU like it. That's it.

If it's not going to be a headache and the player likes it and it doesn't make it harder on the DM -- go for it. You don't need my or anyone else's approval to do this. But don't be coy about it. Don't ask if the rules apply and then get mad when they do because that wasn't what you wanted to hear. That's not fair to those of us trying to help.

Debby

[unseenmage]

Try it and see how you like it. You asked if it could be done and I explained as best I could why not. That said, sometimes breaking the rules makes sense.

It's simple to apply the criteria that I use: 1. Is it fun? 2. Does it make adjudication more difficult for the DM? 3. If so, how much so? 4. Do the Players like it? and 5. Do YOU like it. That's it.

If it's not going to be a headache and the player likes it and it doesn't make it harder on the DM -- go for it. You don't need my or anyone else's approval to do this. But don't be coy about it. Don't ask if the rules apply and then get mad when they do because that wasn't what you wanted to hear. That's not fair to those of us trying to help.

Debby

At no point was I upset is the thing. Until someone accused me of offensive assumption by making offensive assumption of their own.

I agree that the Rule of Cool and Everyone's Fun are paramount to obeying The Rules.
The thing I think you're misunderstanding is that I'm genuinely curious what the rule ramifications are of the idea. I just don't know where to find them or where to start considering them. Thus this thread was born.

I'm just trying to sort out exactly what bits are interpretation and what bits are RAW. Something I thought might be interesting to other folks here as well.

For the record, we probably will go ahead and try it, supposed to game this coming Thursday but it might be a week or two until this particular idea gets implemented.

If anyone's interested (and probably even if they're not :smalltongue: ) I intend to keep The Playground appraised of our variant construct shenanigans. Everything from creative application of templates to Golems as Custom Magic Items are fair game in our current story so it should prove entertaining.

[Vedhin]

Wait, how would a putting the Flying enchantment on a Necklace of Natural Weapons for a Monk's unarmed strikes work? It'd likely be a cheap way to get permanent flight, but you might also get INT -.

[unseenmage]

Wait, how would a putting the Flying enchantment on a Necklace of Natural Weapons for a Monk's unarmed strikes work? It'd likely be a cheap way to get permanent flight, but you might also get INT -.

Well, putting the throwing enhancement on the necklace either allows your natural weapon to be detatched and reattatched harmlessly, or allows you to hurl your entire self through the air while only dealing damage with the natural weapon.

So the Flying enhancement would either allow only your natural weapons to be in flight and count as animated objects, or you would indeed have cheap flight but limited by how simple the instructions have to be for your now Int -- natural weapons.


The thought of throwing Necklaces of Natural Weapons: Flying at animal intelligence enemies with natural weapons so that they fly uselessly off into the air is hilarious to me.