A really WIERD question

[Hangwind]

Okay, a question about Animate Object came up. Since such an object has a natural slam attack, does that mean clothes worn by a person, once animated, can use that attack on their round? Can they move the person on their own?

I babysit my cousin and she wants to play an artificer with permanent animate object on all of her clothing. Is this legal by RAW?

Thank you for your help!

[Grayson01]

Okay, a question about Animate Object came up. Since such an object has a natural slam attack, does that mean clothes worn by a person, once animated, can use that attack on their round? Can they move the person on their own?

I babysit my cousin and she wants to play an artificer with permanent animate object on all of her clothing. Is this legal by RAW?

Thank you for your help!

Just Cause it's cool you should let her do it anyway!

[Hangwind]

Ehh, she plays with us so we use the full ruleset on her too. Besides, it's not like she doesn't do quite well at finding the loop holes all on her own. (The last time we let her play a druid was...interesting, especially since she found the Planar Shepherd PrC)

[Slipperychicken]

Okay, a question about Animate Object came up. Since such an object has a natural slam attack, does that mean clothes worn by a person, once animated, can use that attack on their round? Can they move the person on their own?


Unless they're really baggy, I would probably want a touch attack from the wearer.

Either that, or they're considered to be grappling the wearer, so they don't threaten squares.

If it isn't super overpoweringly strong, I'd allow it for Rule of Cool.

[Hangwind]

Yeah, lets not go with the grappling idea or she's going to make that a combat spell. Your enemy being automatically grappled with a single spell? It'll be the fleshraker thing all over again.

The touch attack? Maybe.

To the second part of my question. Since they have a movement speed, could they move their wearer by carrying them?

[Slipperychicken]

Yeah, lets not go with the grappling idea or she's going to make that a combat spell. Your enemy being automatically grappled with a single spell? It'll be the fleshraker thing all over again.


Actually...


You imbue inanimate objects with mobility and a semblance of life. Each such animated object then immediately attacks whomever or whatever you initially designate.

An animated object can be of any nonmagical material. You may animate one Small or smaller object or an equivalent number of larger objects per caster level. A Medium object counts as two Small or smaller objects, a Large object as four, a Huge object as eight, a Gargantuan object as sixteen, and a Colossal object as thirty-two. You can change the designated target or targets as a move action, as if directing an active spell.

This spell cannot animate objects carried or worn by a creature.

Animate objects can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

[Hangwind]

Huh. I have no idea how I missed that.

[Dayaz]

I guess she could argue about animating them before she put them on, but over all it's really not going to work by RAW or logic...

Wait, this means the kiddo found one of the rare times RAW and logic work together! Tell her she gets +1 internets :3

[Drachasor]

There's no reason she couldn't put it on after. Though I'd suggest a scarf or something.

I'd steal the Pathfinder rules on Animated Objects since it lets you make permanent constructs using the animate object rules.

[eggynack]

There's no reason she couldn't put it on after. Though I'd suggest a scarf or something.
Yeah, that rule makes very little sense. Can you not animate a coat that you're not wearing? Does the spell sense that this item is something traditionally worn? If so, then can you cast animate object on something that isn't traditionally worn, and wear it? So, you can't animate a scarf, but you can animate an arbitrary piece of fabric and wear it like a scarf. Alternatively, does the magic actually break down when you carry or wear the animated object? The spell certainly doesn't say or imply that. The carrying restriction makes even less sense than the wearing restriction, because improvised weapons are very much a thing. I'd just let her animate her clothing. Way less of a headache.

[Slipperychicken]

Yeah, that rule makes very little sense. Can you not animate a coat that you're not wearing? Does the spell sense that this item is something traditionally worn? If so, then can you cast animate object on something that isn't traditionally worn, and wear it? So, you can't animate a scarf, but you can animate an arbitrary piece of fabric and wear it like a scarf. Alternatively, does the magic actually break down when you carry or wear the animated object? The spell certainly doesn't say or imply that. The carrying restriction makes even less sense than the wearing restriction, because improvised weapons are very much a thing. I'd just let her animate her clothing. Way less of a headache.

I would interpret it to mean, for balance purposes, that the spell can't target an object which is carried or worn at the time of casting. So a caster who wants to animate his own clothes can simply remove them, cast the spell, and put them back on.

An animated piece of clothing would (in my opinion) get the "blind" and "constrict" special abilities, as per animated objects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm). I would rule that if one puts on an animated piece of clothing, then it would get a +4 Circumstance bonus to grapple checks made against the wearer, and wouldn't take an AoO for grapple checks to constrict the wearer. Obviously, a sock, shoe, undergarment, or a pair of pants couldn't blind the wearer while worn as such (a shirt, scarf, or hat would certainly get to blind, however).


Blind (Ex)
A sheetlike animated object such as a carpet or tapestry can grapple an opponent up to three sizes larger than itself. The object makes a normal grapple check. If it wins, it wraps itself around the opponent’s head, causing that creature to be blinded until removed.

Constrict (Ex)
A flexible animated object such as a rope, vine, or rug deals damage equal to its slam damage value plus 1½ times its Strength bonus with a successful grapple check against a creature up to one size larger than itself.

An object of at least Large size can make constriction attacks against multiple creatures at once, if they all are at least two sizes smaller than the object and can fit under it.

Just hope the caster doesn't permanency/persist Animate Objects on your underwear supply. That could be quite painful :smalleek:

[Hamste]

I think the point of that portion of the spell is so you don't animate the opponent's spell component pouch, holy symbol or weapon (probably just about anything else) and have it start making opposed grapple checks to escape or random attacks on the wearer. It would also stop the whole animating opponent's clothes to grapple the opponent which would otherwise probably be allowed (can't remember off hand if grapples are attacks or not but I assume they are) . If the opponent puts the cloths on afterwards it is just their own fault (or your genius)

[Slipperychicken]

If the opponent puts the cloths on afterwards it is just their own fault (or your genius)

This is my thinking too. If you can trick someone into wearing a sabotaged piece of clothing (especially if you spend 3000xp to animate it), you've earned those grapple checks.

[ryu]

I would interpret it to mean, for balance purposes, that the spell can't target an object which is carried or worn at the time of casting. So a caster who wants to animate his own clothes can simply remove them, cast the spell, and put them back on.

An animated piece of clothing would (in my opinion) get the "blind" and "constrict" special abilities, as per animated objects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm). I would rule that if one puts on an animated piece of clothing, then it would get a +4 Circumstance bonus to grapple checks made against the wearer, and wouldn't take an AoO for grapple checks to constrict the wearer. Obviously, a sock, shoe, undergarment, or a pair of pants couldn't blind the wearer while worn as such (a shirt, scarf, or hat would certainly get to blind, however).



Just hope the caster doesn't permanency/persist Animate Objects on your underwear supply. That could be quite painful :smalleek:

I know what I'm doing next April Fool's Day.:smallamused:

[eggynack]

I would interpret it to mean, for balance purposes, that the spell can't target an object which is carried or worn at the time of casting. So a caster who wants to animate his own clothes can simply remove them, cast the spell, and put them back on.

Yeah, that's approximately the interpretation I was figuring towards the end. The alternate interpretation is just too weird, and I didn't even get into the idea of caster intent with regards to the item in question. "Well, I didn't think I'd want to wear the animated coat when I animated it, but it got really chilly just now." "What? But you cast a spell to make it colder." "Perhaps the spell I cast made cold exist, but that was not the only impact of the spell." And on and on. Finally, @ Hamste: Yeah, that seems like reasonable reasoning as to the reason for those reasonable words. So, I guess the OP's cousin's plan works. Huzzah.

[Urpriest]

RAW, the clothing still needs space to fight effectively. Animated Clothing on your body would basically be grappling you, it wouldn't have enough room to fight others.

[MonochromeTiger]

This is my thinking too. If you can trick someone into wearing a sabotaged piece of clothing (especially if you spend 3000xp to animate it), you've earned those grapple checks.

it's not your fault they aren't paranoid enough to check the things going around their more sensitive places with detect magic before putting them on....it is your fault that you trained your tiny cloth assassins to remain perfectly still until worn though.

[Slipperychicken]

it is your fault that you trained your tiny cloth assassins to remain perfectly still until worn though.

They're constructs, they not only can't be trained (Mindless ftw), but don't need to be. Just command them not to do anything, then once worn command them to attack/blind/impede/nut-crush the wearer as desired.

[ryu]

They're constructs, they not only can't be trained (Mindless ftw), but don't need to be. Just command them not to do anything, then once worn command them to attack/blind/nut-crush the wearer as desired.

Can you give commands with contingencies implanted in them though? For example: Do not move until worn. When worn constrict that SOB for all you're worth!

[MonochromeTiger]

Can you give commands with contingencies implanted in them though? For example: Do not move until worn. When worn constrict that SOB for all you're worth!

..I feel twinges of unintentional sympathy for the particular targets of that order already..

[Slipperychicken]

Can you give commands with contingencies implanted in them though? For example: Do not move until worn. When worn constrict that SOB for all you're worth!

I'd treat it like orders given to undead. They can have orders like "attack anyone who enters the room except me", so "attack the next person who wears you" seems like a valid command to me. If you animate an entire set of clothing, you'd probably want to word it so that they wait until they're all worn, or else the victim will only need to deal with one at a time.

[Phelix-Mu]

But why don't we animate a bunch of threads, then weave them into a piece of clothing. They all grapple the target at the same time, for hundreds of grapple checks v the wearer. Epic win!

[MonochromeTiger]

But why don't we animate a bunch of threads, then weave them into a piece of clothing. They all grapple the target at the same time, for hundreds of grapple checks v the wearer. Epic win!

in the distant horror of the future battles between nations are decided using specially made construct combatants.. these astounding devices vie for the success of their land of origin a number of grueling gladiatorial games. these delicate dervishes, threadbare titans, unmentionable underdogs, all use the highly sought after "high threadcount" to their advantage in... the underwear wars *thunder* coming to theaters summer 2014.

[ryu]

But why don't we animate a bunch of threads, then weave them into a piece of clothing. They all grapple the target at the same time, for hundreds of grapple checks v the wearer. Epic win!

Do nat twenties auto-succeed in grapples or are they an exception like skills? If they do can I disguise the entire thing to fit with someone's wardrobe using magic without targeting the threads again? If so I'mma create the worlds greatest, and most horrifying undergarment assassin.

[Drachasor]

RAW, the clothing still needs space to fight effectively. Animated Clothing on your body would basically be grappling you, it wouldn't have enough room to fight others.

RAW allows tiny and smaller creatures to be in the same square as a larger one without penalties.

If you use the PF animated object rules (which are cooler), you can increase their reach by +5 feet. This would let your scarves and whatnot attack people from your square.

[Curmudgeon]

I guess she could argue about animating them before she put them on, but ...

There's no reason she couldn't put it on after.
There is a reason why not: the rules expressly prevent creatures from sharing space unless they're at least 3 sizes different (or if one of them is a mount). Animated objects are creatures, after all. A coat isn't going to be more than one size smaller than the creature who can wear it.
Ending Your Movement

You can’t end your movement in the same square as another creature unless it is helpless.
Square Occupied by Creature Three Sizes Larger or Smaller

Any creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories larger than it is.

A big creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories smaller than it is.

[Drachasor]

There is a reason why not: the rules expressly prevent creatures from sharing space unless they're at least 3 sizes different (or if one of them is a mount). Animated objects are creatures, after all. A coat isn't going to be more than one size smaller than the creature who can wear it.

Coats are a bit arguable, since they can get crumpled up.

That said, you just wear a coat that has multiple animated objects on it. Done.

Or just say the coat is Riding you, that works and makes sense.

[geekintheground]

even if youre using a trenchcoat as tall as you are, i dont think theres enough substance to be treated as even a small creature though...

[Twilightwyrm]

There is a reason why not: the rules expressly prevent creatures from sharing space unless they're at least 3 sizes different (or if one of them is a mount). Animated objects are creatures, after all. A coat isn't going to be more than one size smaller than the creature who can wear it.

This might be an overly technical definition, but technically the animates clothing did not "end" its movement in the character's square, as it never moved in the first place. More to the point however, I think the rules were move likely meant to express fighting creatures of said sizes. The fact that a scarf is animates does not mean is ceases to be a scarf, and since a scarf clearly CAN share a space with a creature (non-animated scarves do it all the time), I'm thinking perhaps that particular ruling doesn't apply. (If you want precedent, see a person riding a horse. The person is typically medium size, meaning under this normal ruling they would not be able to ride the horse (large size) because they can't end their movement in its square. Yet, mounted combat exists, and has detailed rules for creatures doing exactly what this person is proposing. So if it helps, think of the animated shirt as "riding" the person)

[Curmudgeon]

If the animated object is "riding" a creature, that's going to be a pain in the RAW for the mount.
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it.

[ryu]

If the animated object is "riding" a creature, that's going to be a pain in the RAW for the mount.

Have in a constant state of readied action attacks. Against what? The mouse inside the bag hidden in your shirt escaping. You want RAW silly? We'll show some RAW silly retaliation.

[Slipperychicken]

You want RAW silly? We'll show some RAW silly retaliation.

Curmudgeon just gives us RAW a lot (or at least something very close to RAW), and that's useful because it helps us understand this game we play. Just remember that if you feel like RAW is not suitable for your group's play, you can houserule it. Although one should be wary of houserules, it's okay to make them when a) you understand how the system is supposed to work and why, and b) when you feel the houserule would improve your game.

[Drachasor]

Here we are, Rules of the Game going over the DMG rules on intelligent mounts (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050222a):


Intelligent Mounts

According to the Dungeon Master's Guide, a mount with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher acts like an NPC ally rather than a mount. Riding such an ally works much like riding an aggressive mount in battle (see Part Two), except that you don't have to make a Ride check to act while riding. (If your mount carries you willingly, the ride is smooth enough so your actions aren't restricted.) You also cannot make a Ride check to control the mount's actions, but you can make a Diplomacy (or possibly a Wild Empathy) check to get the mount to accept your direction. If you do, your mount acts just like a mount trained for combat riding.

Even if you cannot (or do not choose to) direct your mount's actions, you still can ride along, making your own initiative roll and possibly delaying until after your mount acts, as noted in Part Two.

Riding as a Passenger

You're riding on a mount or a vehicle as a passenger if you're aboard but someone else is controlling the mount or vehicle. This also works just like riding an intelligent mount, except that you don't have the option of taking control of the mount. (If you did, you wouldn't be a mere passenger.

Interestingly, there are no rules on "unintelligent" riders. : )

[ryu]

Curmudgeon just gives us RAW a lot (or at least something very close to RAW), and that's useful because it helps us understand this game we play. Just remember that if you feel like RAW is not suitable for your group's play, you can houserule it. Although one should be wary of houserules, it's okay to make them when a) you understand how the system is supposed to work and why, and b) when you feel the houserule would improve your game.

Who said anything about houserules or finding RAW unsuitable? There have been two methods shown so far of making this work by the book and one of them isn't even shenanigans.

[Hangwind]

So, the general consensus is that the clothing will be riding her? That's... kind of awesome actually.

This:

This spell cannot animate objects carried or worn by a creature.

makes no sense to me. Everything, up to and including walls of buildings has gotten stolen and carried by players at a game I was in before. (The wall actually made a fairly decent shield for my buddy's giant.)

Unless you're talking about an actual CASTLE, a player has jacked it before. So really, I have to imagine it means worn or carried at that time. Otherwise this just went from Animate Object to Animate Landmark.

[ShurikVch]

Spell Animate Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateObjects.htm) is really really poorly written and seriously need an update.
The fact is: because Animated Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) is a creature, and not a template, make weird situations.
For example Animated Ice Sculpture not melting in hot environment, because creature properties don't have line "melting in the warm", and actually endure hot environment better than living creatures due "Con -"
Animated Pillar of Salt can live underwater, because creature statistics don't say "dissolve in water", and constructs don't need to breath

Also, coat "riding" a wearer is just plain brilliant! :smallsmile: Time ago I attempted to make a Cave Troll Archmage, and one of ideas was "Wear a Cloaker Archmage as cloak". Awakened Animated Coat Archmage is so much better! :smallsmile: A little problem of "LA -" probably can be fixed, say, via Tauric template...

[Hangwind]

Awakened Animated Coat Archmage is so much better! :smallsmile: A little problem of "LA -" probably can be fixed, say, via Tauric template...

Awakened? Do you really want to risk your coat getting mad at you and (floating? the spell isn't very specific on the exact mode of movement if the object doesn't have legs) away?

[ShurikVch]

Awakened? Do you really want to risk your coat getting mad at you and (floating? the spell isn't very specific on the exact mode of movement if the object doesn't have legs) away?
Good point! :smallsmile:
In this case, Maximized Minor Servitor. Cheaper and completely loyal... :smallcool: