Can mindless constructs advance in hd?

[RoboEmperor]

Is there a rule saying they can or cannot advance?

Thinking of building a construct, then advancing its hd as my PC gets richer and richer.

For the longest time I thought it was a house rule that you can change the hd of a construct after they are built, but it has come to my attention that by RAW, all monsters can advance, and there is no rules saying you can't advance a construct's hd through craft construct, or by having the construct gain experience.

[Psyren]

Define "you." There are rules for the DM to advance monsters, yes.

[InterstellarPro]

Is there a rule saying they can or cannot advance?

Thinking of building a construct, then advancing its hd as my PC gets richer and richer.

For the longest time I thought it was a house rule that you can change the hd of a construct after they are built, but it has come to my attention that by RAW, all monsters can advance, and there is no rules saying you can't advance a construct's hd through craft construct, or by having the construct gain experience.

Talk to your DM, of course. What may work, go by the magic item improvement rules (where you look at the cost of the advanced construct, subtract the cost of your current construct, and then pay only the difference in crafting costs).

Some DMs may decide to charge a "premium" for having to undo some progress in the wrong direction. My DM would say to go from a +x to a +y magic item, you would sell the enchantment back at half cost, then enchant from there. So, to go from a +3 to a +5 weapon, your +3 enhancement cost 18k gp. You could sell that enhancement back for 9k gp (the recouped magical components used to forge it), then enhance it to +5 for 50k gp for a difference of 41k gp. The only thing we did not have to pay over again was the price of the original masterwork weapon.

[Darrin]

In most cases, no, a construct's HD is set when it's "created". Monster entries that list advancement falls under the purview of the DM, and mostly it's just a reminder that the DM doesn't have to follow "the book" and can advance monsters to make sure the party is being properly challenged. As far as I know, there's no mechanic for a PC to permanently increase a construct's HD, other than maybe going off the rails with wish, polymorph any object, or awaken shenanigans.

The only mechanic I can think of where a non-player creature could earn XP would be as a cohort with the Leadership feat, but a mindless construct would likely not be allowed as a cohort. There's no explicit rule that a cohort has to be sentient, but the cohort isn't something the PC has direct control over. The PC can attempt to "attract" a particular cohort, but it's up to the DM to decide whether a cohort is appropriate and what sort of abilities/equipment it should have. Presumably the cohort having sentience and the ability to consent to the cohort relationship should be a requirement.

There are examples of adding HD to a construct, notably the homunculi in Magic of Eberron can have additional HD at the cost of 2000 GP per +1 HD, but that's still only available at *creation*. There is no mention in the text of being able to add HD after the homunculus has been created.

The other option would be to treat the construct as creating a magic item with a cost of X. After adventuring for a while, you decide you want a stronger construct, and calculate the cost as if creating a completely new magic item with a cost of Y. To "upgrade" the first construct to the second, you'd pay Y - X = Z. However, creating magic items is subject to DM approval, so the DM may add requirements or decide to change the guidelines.

[RoboEmperor]

Talk to your DM, of course. What may work, go by the magic item improvement rules (where you look at the cost of the advanced construct, subtract the cost of your current construct, and then pay only the difference in crafting costs).

Some DMs may decide to charge a "premium" for having to undo some progress in the wrong direction. My DM would say to go from a +x to a +y magic item, you would sell the enchantment back at half cost, then enchant from there. So, to go from a +3 to a +5 weapon, your +3 enhancement cost 18k gp. You could sell that enhancement back for 9k gp (the recouped magical components used to forge it), then enhance it to +5 for 50k gp for a difference of 41k gp. The only thing we did not have to pay over again was the price of the original masterwork weapon.

Interesting, I will re-read all the magic item improvement rules. Crafting golems is in all ways identical to creating a magic item except where noted.

"Creating a golem is essentially similar to creating any sort of magic item."

So if you can improve magic items, you can improve golems.

[Zanos]

all monsters can advance
Sauce?

And as far as I know 3.5 doesn't have any rules for adding HD to constructs in general, only for specific ones like the homunculus mentioned above.


there is no rules saying you can't advance a construct's hd through craft construct
Rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do. The books would be much, much thicker if they worked on a blacklist.


or by having the construct gain experience
Experience for NPCs is under the sole purview of the DM, as far as I know. I wouldn't think that mindless creatures would gain XP, but I'll wait on the source for your first claim there.

[Psyren]

Interesting, I will re-read all the magic item improvement rules. Crafting golems is in all ways identical to creating a magic item except where noted.

"Creating a golem is essentially similar to creating any sort of magic item."

So if you can improve magic items, you can improve golems.

"Essentially similar" is not "identical." The devil is in the details as they say. Your DM still needs to define how to achieve any improvements you want to make.

[RoboEmperor]

I'm working strictly by RAW, no DM leniency. You're probably right, but that doesn't meant I can't try to rule lawyer for fun.

[Rijan_Sai]

There are examples of adding HD to a construct, notably the homunculi in Magic of Eberron can have additional HD at the cost of 2000 GP per +1 HD, but that's still only available at *creation*. There is no mention in the text of being able to add HD after the homunculus has been created.

While everything else is true, the Artificer Craft Homunculus class feature does say:

An artificer can also upgrade an existing homunculus that he owns, adding 1 Hit Die at a cost of [REDACTED].

Though that is the only place I know of that does have rules for upgrading a (non-living) construct. (Also, a standard MM homunculus has Int 10, and so isn't mindless to begin with!)

[Darrin]

While everything else is true, the Artificer Craft Homunculus class feature does say:


Good catch! Thank you, I was just looking at the monster entries. I should have checked more thoroughly.



Though that is the only place I know of that does have rules for upgrading a (non-living) construct. (Also, a standard MM homunculus has Int 10, and so isn't mindless to begin with!)

I should have mentioned that as well. Also, intelligent creatures gain skill points and feats as they increase their HD. Mindless creatures, even if you do find a way to increase their HD, don't gain skill points or feats related to HD.

[ShurikVch]

Is there a rule saying they can or cannot advance?

Thinking of building a construct, then advancing its hd as my PC gets richer and richer.Well, you can cast Greater Humanoid Essence on your Construct, then allow Werewolf to bit it...


https://image.ibb.co/mgp7qw/ironangelcyberwerewolf.jpg

[gkathellar]

This is one of those things that the rules simply don't address. There are rules for advancing constructs, but there are no rules for how a construct would advance or be advanced.

[RoboEmperor]

I think I've done enough research.

Adding New Abilities

A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. The cost to do this is the same as if the item was not magical. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 sword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

This rule is fully generic. It applies to all magic items, not just magic weapons and armor.


Construction

The cost to create given for each golem includes the cost of the physical body and all the materials and spell components that are consumed or become a permanent part of the golem. Creating a golem is essentially similar to creating any sort of magic item. However, a golem’s body includes costly material components that may require some extra preparation. The golem’s creator can assemble the body or hire someone else to do the job. The builder must have the appropriate skill, which varies with the golem variety.

Completing the golem’s creation drains the appropriate XP from the creator and requires casting any spells on the final day.

The creator must cast the spells personally, but they can come from outside sources, such as scrolls.

The characteristics of a golem that come from its nature as a magic item (caster level, prerequisite feats and spells, market price, cost to create) are given in summary form at the end of each golem’s description.

Note: The market price of an advanced golem (a golem with more Hit Dice than the typical golem described in each entry) is increased by 5,000 gp for each additional Hit Die, and increased by an additional 50,000 gp if the golem’s size increases. The XP cost for creating an advanced golem is equal to 1/25 the advanced golem’s market price minus the cost of the special materials required.

So I have a RAW quote saying golems ARE magic items (It's right there, underlined, golems ARE MAGIC ITEMS), and a RAW quote saying all magic items can be improved.

QED You can advance a golem's hd after it is built by following the magic item improvement cost. Total cost to create the advanced golem - current cost to create golem.

NOW I don't know about other non-golem constructs. So unless I can find a rule saying constructs are magic items, then I guess you can only improve golems.

Mission Accomplished.

[Zanos]

But there's no costs for advanced golems...?

[RoboEmperor]

But there's no costs for advanced golems...?

Seriously?


Construction

The cost to create given for each golem includes the cost of the physical body and all the materials and spell components that are consumed or become a permanent part of the golem. Creating a golem is essentially similar to creating any sort of magic item. However, a golem’s body includes costly material components that may require some extra preparation. The golem’s creator can assemble the body or hire someone else to do the job. The builder must have the appropriate skill, which varies with the golem variety.

Completing the golem’s creation drains the appropriate XP from the creator and requires casting any spells on the final day.

The creator must cast the spells personally, but they can come from outside sources, such as scrolls.

The characteristics of a golem that come from its nature as a magic item (caster level, prerequisite feats and spells, market price, cost to create) are given in summary form at the end of each golem’s description.

Note: The market price of an advanced golem (a golem with more Hit Dice than the typical golem described in each entry) is increased by 5,000 gp for each additional Hit Die, and increased by an additional 50,000 gp if the golem’s size increases. The XP cost for creating an advanced golem is equal to 1/25 the advanced golem’s market price minus the cost of the special materials required.

[Zanos]

Carry on then.

Not sure why you were talking about some RAW all monsters can advance thing in the first post.

[Psyren]

I think I've done enough research.


This rule is fully generic. It applies to all magic items, not just magic weapons and armor.



So I have a RAW quote saying golems ARE magic items (It's right there, underlined, golems ARE MAGIC ITEMS), and a RAW quote saying all magic items can be improved.

Hit Dice are not "new magical abilities."

[RoboEmperor]

Carry on then.

Not sure why you were talking about some RAW all monsters can advance thing in the first post.

I thought mindless constructs can't advance because I couldn't find a rule that said they could. But "if all monsters can advance" is a law, then that means existing mindless constructs can advance too. So I was looking for ways they can, which was XP or improvement via crafting. As everyone pointed out NPCs receiving XP and mindless creatures receiving XP is dubious, but I'm solidly convinced now that by RAW constructs can advance by having someone craft more hd into them, or at least Golems can.


Hit Dice are not "new magical abilities."

You seem to be very against this for some reason. No one uses constructs, pouring wealth into improving a construct is far from the most optimal use of wealth, so your reasons elude me.

In anycase to address your argument, increased hit die results in increased attack bonus, increased Su ability DC, and all the other stuff that comes with increased hit die. So unless you say improving a +1 longsword to a +2 longsword is "not new magical abilities" I believe you are wrong, because increased hit die improves attack bonus in addition to a plethora of other stuff.

[Zanos]

I thought mindless constructs can't advance because I couldn't find a rule that said they could. But "if all monsters can advance" is a law, then that means existing mindless constructs can advance too. So I was looking for ways they can, which was XP or improvement via crafting. As everyone pointed out NPCs receiving XP and mindless creatures receiving XP is dubious, but I'm solidly convinced now that by RAW constructs can advance by having someone craft more hd into them, or at least Golems can.
Constructs have advancement entries in their monster stat blocks. At least, golems do.

[RoboEmperor]

Constructs have advancement entries in their monster stat blocks. At least, golems do.

I believed that you could build a 14hd stone golem, 22hd stone golem, or a 30hd stone golem, but once you built this "advanced" golem, that was the end of the line. You can't upgrade a 14hd stone golem into a 15hd stone golem. So I thought that's what that advancement entry meant. How big of a golem you could build, not whether a golem could be upgraded or not. So I thought yes to build bigger golems from scratch, no to upgrading existing golems.

But since all monsters can advance in hd or level after they are born/created/constructed, it put me on this path to see how constructs you built could become stronger, so perhaps maybe a golem master artificer is actually a viable build that doesn't require house ruling.

[Psyren]

You seem to be very against this for some reason. No one uses constructs, pouring wealth into improving a construct is far from the most optimal use of wealth, so your reasons elude me.

I'm not against it at all. In fact, advancing monsters is a time-honored GM tradition.



In anycase to address your argument, increased hit die results in increased attack bonus, increased Su ability DC, and all the other stuff that comes with increased hit die. So unless you say improving a +1 longsword to a +2 longsword is "not new magical abilities" I believe you are wrong, because increased hit die improves attack bonus in addition to a plethora of other stuff.

All monsters get that stuff from increased HD, they are not qualities of improving magic items and constructs.

[RoboEmperor]

All monsters get that stuff from increased HD, they are not qualities of improving magic items and constructs.

Your point? I improve my construct magic item by increasing its hd. I improve my longsword magic item by increasing its enhancement bonus.

Tell me where this list of "qualities of improving magic items and constructs" are, and how hd is not listed in it. Tell me where the rules say you can improve magic items except their hd. That general quote I quoted is very unspecific to include wondrous items into its clause and as a result includes constructs so I doubt you will find such a list.

[Psyren]

Tell me where this list of "qualities of improving magic items and constructs" are, and how hd is not listed in it. Tell me where the rules say you can improve magic items except their hd. That general quote I quoted is very unspecific to include wondrous items into its clause and as a result includes constructs so I doubt you will find such a list.

"The rules don't say I can't" is not a valid defense. The example you used was a +1 sword becoming +2, right? That is found here,
under magic weapons. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm) I don't see hit dice on that list, nor anywhere else in that section.

[RoboEmperor]

"The rules don't say I can't" is not a valid defense. The example you used was a +1 sword becoming +2, right? That is found here,
under magic weapons. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm) I don't see hit dice on that list, nor anywhere else in that section.


Adding New Abilities

A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. The cost to do this is the same as if the item was not magical. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 sword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

Improvement of magic items is not restricted to weapons. It is also not restricted to rings. This rule applies to every magic item in the game, be it weapon, armor, wondrous, rings, rods, etc.

And now I believe Construct are included too.

The rules say I can improve magic items, and the rules say golems are magic items, therefore the rules say I can improve golems.

For magic weapons you use the weapon properties list, and additional properties from other books. For wondrous items there is no set table, but you use every wondrous item in existence including other books. Using this logic for constructs you use their advancement table.

There is no rule saying I can improve only magic items that are not creatures. There is no rule excluding golems. If you improve rings you use existing rings. if you improve stone golems you use existing stone golems (a.k.a. advancment table). Mixing constructs questionable but hd advancement is not.

[Psyren]

Improvement of magic items is not restricted to weapons. It is also not restricted to rings. This rule applies to every magic item in the game, be it weapon, armor, wondrous, rings, rods, etc.
...
The rules say I can improve magic items, and the rules say golems are magic items, therefore the rules say I can improve golems.


I agree that it applies to every magic item. It's your expansion of the definition of "new magical abilities" to include "hit dice" that I'm disputing. Hit dice are neither of those things.

[gkathellar]

OP, I think the point is that while you're making a perfectly reasonable inference, it is still an inference. There's no actual clearly established RAW equivalency between HD and magic item bonuses.

But, again, the way of managing it that you've put forth is clever and fits well with the established rules. Good job!

[RoboEmperor]

I agree that it applies to every magic item. It's your expansion of the definition of "new magical abilities" to include "hit dice" that I'm disputing. Hit dice are neither of those things.

Alright, then what are you saying you can improve on a construct? Are you saying you can enchant wondrous items that take up a body slot into a construct permanently? Or permanently upgrade a golems slam attack with flaming/freezing/shocking? While this is an amusing thought, I think this is pushing it even further than mere increase in hd.

My argument is
1. there is no set table or list of "magical abilities" for magic items except armor and weapons.
2. As a result you have to create your own list based on existing magical items.
3. There is no "magical abilities" table for constructs, so you make your own. Increasing hd is probably the safest choice as opposed to mixing other construct's Ex and Su abilities into one,

and...
1. Strengthening an existing property is "new magical abilities". +1 longsword to +2 longsword proves that.
2. Therefore increasing hd is also giving it "new magical abilities"

and...
1. Golems are completely magical. 100%. Without magic they are just piece of a material. A clay golem's body is just a lump of clay, it's magic that brings it to life.
2. Hd and everything on a golem is derived from magic. How well it dodges attacks and everything else hd represents.
3. Strengthening AC or HD should be identical in concept, you are improving the magic of the creature so it can take more punishment and hit harder.
4. So essentially, magic moves the construct body, stronger magic means it hits harder and takes more punishment.

and...
How would you create a table for "new magical abilities" for a construct?

[Psyren]

Alright, then what are you saying you can improve on a construct? Are you saying you can enchant wondrous items that take up a body slot into a construct permanently? Or permanently upgrade a golems slam attack with flaming/freezing/shocking? While this is an amusing thought, I think this is pushing it even further than mere increase in hd.

Nah, I'd say a golem with an extra 1d6 cold damage on its slam wouldn't hold a candle to one with 10 extra HD.


How would you create a table for "new magical abilities" for a construct?

If you're asking me what I would personally do - the simple answer is that I wouldn't. No standardized table of abilities and prices can truly encompass what effect any given modification will truly have on every construct's CR. I would instead evaluate the end result against similar items/creatures that already exist and price it that way, and the final result would depend on the specific modifications being made. It's even possible that the same ability might be priced differently when added to two different constructs, simply because it affects them differently. And lest you accuse me of caprice, the GMG actually advises you to do this:



Pricing a magic item is more art than science. Guidance on item pricing is given in Table 15–29 on page 550 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, but a trip through the magic item section shows the formulas are often not applied exactly. An example is the ring of invisibility, with a calculated price of 10,800 gp, but a book value of 20,000 gp. This is because the at-will nature of the ring offsets the biggest drawback of invisibility, namely that it ends after attacking. When pricing new magic items, watch out for any item that counteracts a basic weakness of an ability, class, or spell.

The best test for item pricing is to compare it to “must have” items in the game, like weapons, armor, and stat-boosting gear. Also compare it to other items that share the same slot, and items with similar powers. As a rule of thumb, if you’d take the item in a heartbeat over a more expensive standard item, it is probably too cheap. And if you’d never consider taking a 10,000 gp ring over a belt of physical might +2 or even a +2 battleaxe, it might just be overpriced. However, it is safer to price items too high rather than too low. After all, the PC gets a new, custom magic item out of the arrangement, and that’s worth paying a bit extra.

That's the main rule that I would follow in this and every other "custom item" instance.

[ShurikVch]

improving a +1 longsword to a +2 longswordThere's a problem: regardless of "+number", sword stays a same sword (magic and monetary cost aside)
Constucts, on the other hand, may get bigger from those extra HD
Let's take the Adamantine Golem (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/golem.htm) (for extreme example)
It have 54 HD, and bumping it up to 83 HD will make it x2 bigger and x8 heavier
Upgrading it to 83 HD will cost (29 x 5000)+50000=195000 gp
But body of Adamantine Golem weighs 32000 lbs. of adamantine, and adamantine cost 100 gp/pound
Thus, for increasing it's size we will need 32000x7=224000 lbs. of adamantine, which will cost 22400000 gp
It's far more expensive than 195000; so, from where all that extra adamantine would come?

[RoboEmperor]

There's a problem: regardless of "+number", sword stays a same sword (magic and monetary cost aside)
Constucts, on the other hand, may get bigger from those extra HD
Let's take the Adamantine Golem (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/monsters/golem.htm) (for extreme example)
It have 54 HD, and bumping it up to 83 HD will make it x2 bigger and x8 heavier
Upgrading it to 83 HD will cost (29 x 5000)+50000=195000 gp
But body of Adamantine Golem weighs 32000 lbs. of adamantine, and adamantine cost 100 gp/pound
Thus, for increasing it's size we will need 32000x7=224000 lbs. of adamantine, which will cost 22400000 gp
It's far more expensive than 195000; so, from where all that extra adamantine would come?

What you are talking about is fluff. Rules are clear, if a golem advances in size you pay an additional 50,000gp. So in your example you need to add 50,000gp to make it 245,000gp. Perhaps the adamantine golem is hollow, or perhaps he's not 100% adamantine, or perhaps stronger magic enchantments made him tougher, or perhaps magic made him bigger, or perhaps he just got 50,000gp + 5,000gp worth of adamantine added.

I don't understand what is the point you are trying to make. Making a 83hd adamantine golem from scratch costs exactly the same as a 54hd adamantine golem that has been upgraded to 83hd.

[ShurikVch]

I don't understand what is the point you are trying to make. Making a 83hd adamantine golem from scratch costs exactly the same as a 54hd adamantine golem that has been upgraded to 83hd.I pointed a problem: upgrading a Golem required great amount of rare and expensive material; thus either your pricing doesnt work for Golems, or you somehow getting free adamantine in bulk
When you make it from scratch, Golem's body is made from iron and transmuted into adamantine
If you would be able to produce almost 22,5 millions of gp with a single cast of spell, then you will win the D&D

[EldritchWeaver]

Hit Dice are not "new magical abilities."


Note: The market price of an advanced golem (a golem with more Hit Dice than the typical golem described in each entry) is increased by 5,000 gp for each additional Hit Die, and increased by an additional 50,000 gp if the golem’s size increases. The XP cost for creating an advanced golem is equal to 1/25 the advanced golem’s market price minus the cost of the special materials required.

The rules state what advancing hit dice costs. So it doesn't matter if they aren't "new magical abilities".

[Telonius]

I'm imagining what would happen if I tried to add an HD to my Circlet of Persuasion... hey! I know, add an HD to a Sizing weapon, activate it, and have it immediately appreciate 50,000gp in value! Seems totally legit.

[RoboEmperor]

I'm imagining what would happen if I tried to add an HD to my Circlet of Persuasion... hey! I know, add an HD to a Sizing weapon, activate it, and have it immediately appreciate 50,000gp in value! Seems totally legit.

That's like saying you can add vorpal to your circlet of persuasion.

[magicalmagicman]

This thread is absolutely bizarre.

How is buying a 30hd golem different from buying a 15hd golem and upgrading it to 30hd later? Both cost exactly the same yet some people here think it's absolutely broken and shouldn't be allowed.

We have someone saying improving magical items is not giving it new magical abilities so it's illegal and since none of the non-creature magic items have any hd, hd is not a unique magical trait of constructs.

I MEAN SERIOUSLY, IF HD IS NOT A MAGICAL TRAIT THEN HOW THE HELL ARE WE ABLE TO CREATE A CONSTRUCT IN THE FIRST PLACE? If everything we added to a mundane longsword is magical, then everything we add to a lump of clay so that it comes alive is magical and is a magical ability, hd included.

Then we have someone saying an upgraded adamantine golem is cheaper than buying an adamantine golem of the same hd and saying it's an exploit which is why constructs should not be upgraded, and then we have someone making sarcastic remarks completely ignoring magic item classification just to belittle the OP's point.

Yes, the rules don't spell it out, and yes a DM hell bent against this is gonna stop it, but I think that the OP proved that without any doubt that any DM who plays strictly by RAW should allow this because it's completely permittable within the written rules, it doesn't do anything to break the game (in fact it enables new playstyles), and the naysayers of this thread doesn't even read the quotes the OP quoted before saying anything.

I mean seriously, we have people saying because a magical trait is not listed in the magical weapons trait table it's not a magical ability. Then how do wondrous items exist? And again, how can constructs exist in the first place and be considered a magical item if hd isn't a magical property? If you can't improve hd, then you can't add hd, and if you can't add hd then you can't make a construct. Clay golem - lump of clay = magical properties/qualities/traits of that magic item called the clay golem, all of which can be improved.

I think this discussion is finished.

[RoboEmperor]

I think that's a good observation.

+2 Longsword - Masterwork Longsword = +2 magic enhancement which can be improved.
Clay Golem - Lump of Clay and enchantment oils = magical stuff which can be improved like HD since every stat on the creature is tied to their hd.

When you're upgrading a +1 longsword to a +2 longsword, you're just actually stacking two +1 enchantments, so there is no reason you can't add 1 more hd to the creature. This all fits perfectly in magic item creation rules. So it's not even "improving" its adding new magic.

[Psyren]

The rules state what advancing hit dice costs. So it doesn't matter if they aren't "new magical abilities".

It states that for golems, yes. The thread is about constructs in general, is it not?

[RoboEmperor]

It states that for golems, yes. The thread is about constructs in general, is it not?

Hah! So you at least concede that Golems are upgrade-able yes?

[Telonius]

That's like saying you can add vorpal to your circlet of persuasion.

Why can't it? It's a magical improvement, right?

[RoboEmperor]

Why can't it? It's a magical improvement, right?

Alright. You're intentionally being ******ed. I had a good deal of respect for you but I guess that's out the window now. I'm all for using sarcasm to make a point but this way too ******ed.

I mean for the entire thread I've been saying each class of magic items has there own unique properties and you have to make your own list for each of them because none is given except for armor and weapons, and here you are ignoring all that just to be sarcastic and ******ed.

I disagree with Psyren but he gave his reasons and I understand them and I respect them despite disagreeing with them but... w.e

[Psyren]

Hah! So you at least concede that Golems are upgrade-able yes?

I never said they weren't? :smallconfused:

I said there are guidelines to follow when doing so, not that it was impossible.

[Calthropstu]

There is precedent.
In neverwinter nights, there's a golem in one of the premium modules who recieves upgrades from a gnomish inventer. There is also raw ways to improve golems via equipment.
Also, if you can build or repair a construct, I see no reason you have to stick with repair and can't improve. Increasing AC, adding layers to increase hp or adding new materials to increase dr...
Also, there is templates to consider. You could, for example, try to create an advanced golem. You could simply increase its size category. There's no reason you can't build a draconic flesh golem.
It requires some work and gm approval, but with gm approval you can also create a half dragon, half celestial, half fiend, half golem iron golem ghost... so eh?

[Quertus]

Cost and game balance wise, it seems fine - and in keeping with the 3.x mindset - to upgrade for the price difference if there is an established cost. And, if there is not a cost, that's a bug - how are you supposed to build one of there is no cost?

However, from a fluff perspective, what if the original elemental spirit is not powerful enough, and you need to summon a whole new spirit to animate the new, larger body?

So, while I am personally fine with it in general, I may reject it on certain custom worlds where I know that the underlying magical principles won't support such a simple transition.


I pointed a problem: upgrading a Golem required great amount of rare and expensive material; thus either your pricing doesnt work for Golems, or you somehow getting free adamantine in bulk
When you make it from scratch, Golem's body is made from iron and transmuted into adamantine
If you would be able to produce almost 22,5 millions of gp with a single cast of spell, then you will win the D&D

Keep in mind that you can create the golem while cloth for that price, no upgrading required.

Also, keep in mind that different "grades" of adamantium have different values - look at the cost of ship-grade adamantium plating, for example. Why, you could get rich just buying adamantium armor for your ship, and selling it back! Yeah, no.

[PrismCat21]

What some people seem to be forgetting, is that the OP wants to improve a Construct as their Player Character levels. They are seeking a RAW way to do it, not a way that could be reasonablly allowed.

The OP wants to improve their Construct by increasing Hit Dice and treating it like improving a magical item.
I know of no RAW way to do this.

The way they are trying to justify it is by, repeatively, claiming that 'nothing says they can't'. The OP has yet to find a source that supports them adding HD to a Construct using magic item improvement rules/guidelines.

The closest they have found, however, concerns Golems only.

Creating a golem is essentially similar to creating any sort of magic item.
The OP is using this as their new basis to justify their actions.
Look at the bolded part. "Similar" to creating magic items. Not the same as creating magic items.

It's certainly reasonable to allow HD improvements. Doing so in this manner is not RAW for a PC.
Best case scenario, they are limited to Golems, which the OP at least admits to. But how do you improve its HD by RAW?

It seems to me that the OP is purposefully ignoring and deflecting everything that doesn't support their position. Attacking other posters, ignoring valid points and questions, claiming they mean things that were never said... I believe they just want validation when they know it doesn't really work.

[ShurikVch]

Also, keep in mind that different "grades" of adamantium have different values - look at the cost of ship-grade adamantium plating, for example.Where's it?

[RoboEmperor]

The OP is using this as their new basis to justify their actions.
Look at the bolded part. "Similar" to creating magic items. Not the same as creating magic items.

It's certainly reasonable to allow HD improvements. Doing so in this manner is not RAW for a PC.
Best case scenario, they are limited to Golems, which the OP at least admits to. But how do you improve its HD by RAW?

It seems to me that the OP is purposefully ignoring and deflecting everything that doesn't support their position. Attacking other posters, ignoring valid points and questions, claiming they mean things that were never said... I believe they just want validation when they know it doesn't really work.

You are incorrect. I don't understand why people won't read the bolded parts of my quotes. Seriously how hard is it to read the bolded parts of a quote? This is like the tenth time I am repeating myself, and my last.


The characteristics of a golem that come from its nature as a magic item (caster level, prerequisite feats and spells, market price, cost to create) are given in summary form at the end of each golem’s description.

Golems are not "similar" to magic items. They are magic items, it's right there, underlined, again, and Psyren changed his arguments afterwards regarding this issue after I quoted this yet you are quoting his outdated argument. So my theory is you just skimmed over Psyren's posts, just the first few and ignored the rest of the thread for reasons unknown.

Secondly


Adding New Abilities

A creator can add new magical abilities to a magic item with no restrictions. The cost to do this is the same as if the item was not magical. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 sword.

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

So this quote clearly shows that you can improve existing magic items, and since golems are magic items you can improve them.

Now what Psyren and I are disagreeing is whether HD is a "new magical ability" for constructs and whether it is improvable. I gave the argument saying that each class of magic item has their own lists and you create the lists based on existing magic items for that class and for constructs hd is on that list, but as EldritchWeaver said


The rules state what advancing hit dice costs. So it doesn't matter if they aren't "new magical abilities".

meaning I don't even need to argue whether hd is a "new magical ability" for golems as they were my main goal. I have less interest in other constructs.

As I said before this is only a sure thing for golems and not all constructs and I misunderstood Psyren's language and thought he was talking about golems, not non-golem constructs. If you bothered to read the thread you'd notice I stopped arguing with him when it no longer concerned golems and after he stopped disputing whether golems' hd can be advanced or not (or when I finally understood he stopped talking about golems). I'm repeating to be clear, I have little interest in whether other constructs can advance in hd or not by RAW so I stopped arguing whether hd is a magical ability or not for the class of magical items known as golems when Psyren said he wasn't talking about golems but other mindless constructs because Psyren was the only one who claimed it wasn't and wasn't making incorrect sarcastic quips that clearly showed he did not read more than 1/3 of the thread.

How am I "ignoring and deflecting everything" when the biggest naysayer agreed with EldritchWeaver that you can upgrade a golem's hd? Which is literally the only thing I've been arguing this entire thread. How am I "ignoring and deflecting everything" when the naysayer agreed with me? In fact I don't think Psyren was even a naysayer seeing how he was talking about nongolems the whole time.

The only person I "attacked" (if you can even call it that) in this thread is mr.sarcastic who hasn't bothered to read the thread or the TWO points I've been repeating ten times, just like you. I guess you're gonna call this me attacking you too for pointing this out? I've been saying each class of magic item has its own list of magical abilities, so how is sarcastically cross classing vorpal to a circlet of persuasion even remotely relevant to the argument at hand? It shows he doesn't even know what we are debating about and engages in troll like behavior acting condescendingly and contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion, but I guess someone who didn't read the thread would think his quips are actually relevant and good because he/she also has absolutely no idea what we are debating about and anyone who gets angry at that is "ignoring and deflecting everything" >.>

Whatever I'm done with this thread. Only a few people here read the thread and made actual contributions to the discussion and I got what I wanted from the naysayers too. I mean seriously, how hard is it to read the bolded underlined parts of quotes that have been re-quoted again and again through out this 2 page thread? I've been repeating these TWO quotes over and over as my basis, and you claim that my basis is only one? And on an outdated quote? Which is actually right above the real quote I was using in the same section meaning you haven't even bothered to read anything other than Psyren's quotes?

This came out a little more hostile than i intended so I apologize for that. Writing is not one of my best skills, but my point is valid. If you don't take the effort to read even a 1/3 of the thread you really shouldn't be commenting because otherwise what you post is incorrect and confuses or hinders other people's ability to add to the discussion.

Also i have not once made the claim "It doesn't say I can't so I can". Not once. Those who claim i did vastly misunderstood my arguments, just like you have, and I have been lacking in motivation to correct them seeing how my previous attempts to clarify resulted in no success. This is a good example of how it happens, the claimer did not read any of my posts I have been repeating over and over, did not read the same bolded and underlined quotes that have been repeated throughout this thread over and over again, and spouts an opinion. Seeing how these people don't read I highly doubt further repetitions will help them understand my point of view.

edit: Rules say I can improve magic items, and they also say golems are magic items, but they do NOT say how you can improve golems. So being creatures I believed golems can improve in hd. How the **** is this argument "It doesn't say I can't so I can?" No the argument is "It says I can improve but it doesn't say what I can improve so I think we need to use logic to figure out what I can improve"

Anyways I am done with this thread. i will not be responding to it unless someone points out something huge that either destroys my arguments or proves my arguments. My time is too precious to spend on repeating the same thing over and over again to people who don't read.

[gogogome]

You are incorrect. I don't understand why people won't read the bolded parts of my quotes. Seriously how hard is it to read the bolded parts of a quote? This is like the tenth time I am repeating myself, and my last.

You exaggerate. You only posted your quote 3 times including your last post, and one of them wasn't even bolded.


If you don't take the effort to read even a 1/3 of the thread you really shouldn't be commenting because otherwise what you post is incorrect and confuses or hinders other people's ability to add to the discussion.

Lets see...


What some people seem to be forgetting, is that the OP wants to improve a Construct as their Player Character levels. They are seeking a RAW way to do it, not a way that could be reasonablly allowed.

The OP wants to improve their Construct by increasing Hit Dice and treating it like improving a magical item.
I know of no RAW way to do this.

The way they are trying to justify it is by, repeatively, claiming that 'nothing says they can't'. The OP has yet to find a source that supports them adding HD to a Construct using magic item improvement rules/guidelines.

The closest they have found, however, concerns Golems only.

The OP is using this as their new basis to justify their actions.
Look at the bolded part. "Similar" to creating magic items. Not the same as creating magic items.

It's certainly reasonable to allow HD improvements. Doing so in this manner is not RAW for a PC.
Best case scenario, they are limited to Golems, which the OP at least admits to. But how do you improve its HD by RAW?

It seems to me that the OP is purposefully ignoring and deflecting everything that doesn't support their position. Attacking other posters, ignoring valid points and questions, claiming they mean things that were never said... I believe they just want validation when they know it doesn't really work.

Ok so, you are post #44, which means there are 43 posts before yours.

Post #13 is when the OP started using the quote where it directly says golems are magic items. Not similar.

Post #17 is when Psyren started the argument that HD is not a magical ability, and that pretty much was the entire thread from then on, whether hd is a magical ability for constructs and therefore improvable or not.

Seeing how PrismCat21's post didn't include the quote you guys were using from post #13-43, or the hd argument, he read... 12/43 = 27.9% of the thread, which is less than 1/3 so I guess you're right about him not reading even 1/3 of the thread. But arguably, seeing how it's post #7 where Psyren made the "similar is not identical" argument, one could argue he only read up to post #7 in which case he read 6/43 = 14% of the thread.

But looking at post #23's "The rules don't say I can't" quote from Psyren, I guess he selectively read a few posts here and there.


making incorrect sarcastic quips that clearly showed he did not read more than 1/3 of the thread.

Post #24 is when you start talking about magical item class... so i guess Telonius read 23/43 = 53.5% of the thread before throwing "sarcastic quips" so you're wrong here.

I don't know why I'm doing this. I'm a bit drunk right now.

My 2 cents on the subject matter, I think the OP proved without a doubt that Golems can be improved after they are built by RAW, but not other constructs. Every construct is different so it is foolish to assume they are the same and golems. Whether or not hd is a "magical ability" does not matter since only Golems are magic items, not other constructs, and as EldritchWeaver pointed out a golem's hd advancement price is spelled out so they are improvable pure and simple. Other constructs on the other hand are creatures not magic items so this discussion is meaningless to them.

As for the Adamantine Golem increasing in value way more than its +50,000gp size increase cost, note that golems aren't solid, they're usually hollow, at least the metal ones, so I think the math you did is wrong. And there aren't any rules for the difference between a hollow adamantine golem or a solid adamantine golem. I think WotC just hand waved all that away just like how they hand waved away all the magic item creation materials.

My criticism for the someonenoone11 is to be a bit more clear that you were talking about golems and not constructs in general. I think that's what caused the confusion in this thread. Make the thread title about golems or something.

My criticism for Telonius is to at least read all the arguments at hand before utilizing sarcasm because I do agree with the OP that your "sarcastic quips" were wrong. someonenoone11 was arguing just like how vorpal is weapon exclusive, hd is golem exclusive, and you saying adding hd or vorpal to a wondrous item... I don't even know what you were trying to say. Hd on a wondrous item is ludicrous? Yeah it is but that's not what they were discussing.

My criticism for PrismCat21 is to read the thread before you start hurling insults at other people. I think in your selective reading you mixed up magicalmagicman's post as the someonenoone11, though I guess you did rouse someonenoone11 to be more clear, but saying the "outdated quote" as the OP's basis is just hilarious especially since 6 posts down was the quote that said golems were magic items, not similar to.

Iunno why I'm giving out criticisms. I'm a bit drunk right now and this **** is hilarious. "validation when they know it doesn't really work" without knowing what they were talking about. Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".

[Psyren]

My criticism for the someonenoone11 is to be a bit more clear that you were talking about golems and not constructs in general. I think that's what caused the confusion in this thread. Make the thread title about golems or something.

This is probably my main point.


Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".

I think I'll sig this.