PDA

View Full Version : Warforged and Alter Self



Benejeseret
2007-09-05, 11:58 AM
With alter self, would it be correct that warforged assume the form of other constructs up to 5Hd?

On the list is large animated object, warforged charger, wood golemn, Dread Guardian, and many lesser ones.

Zim
2007-09-05, 12:02 PM
Calzone Golem from Somthing's Cooking? Fire damage from hot cheese! (no really)

Iron Defender (the robot dog from ECS)
Iron Cobra (not sure about HD though)
Effigy creature (not sure it that's legal since it's a template)

UserClone
2007-09-05, 12:04 PM
I thought they were Humanoids with the Living Construct subtype? Or are they Constructs with the LC subtype?

Zim
2007-09-05, 12:15 PM
The latter, IIRC.

UserClone
2007-09-05, 12:17 PM
IMO, anything with the construct type should automatically have a LA, even with the nerfing, for just this type of reason.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-09-05, 12:25 PM
IMO, anything with the construct type should automatically have a LA, even with the nerfing, for just this type of reason.

I think creators just sometimes assume everyone that uses what they make won't do so with enough cheese to fill the grand canyon. A foolish presumption, yes, but it makes it nice for those of us who don't want to take over the world at level 3.

UserClone
2007-09-05, 12:33 PM
Thus, Rule 0.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-09-05, 12:42 PM
Gets better. Polymorph for Iron Golem stats.

UserClone
2007-09-05, 12:58 PM
Erm...Couldn't a human wizard do that, too?

Benejeseret
2007-09-05, 01:54 PM
Well, being limited to 5HD means the spell is quite limited. The Caster does not gain extraordinary abilities of the thing he takes on and keeps his type/subtype (meaning no immune to crits).

I am thinking of one neat use in partucular. A warforged thief/wizard type using this to become a large animated bedsheet. Waits for the mark to get comfortable in bed...and the coup de grace.

Or grappling the creature (causing blindness) and then wildly beating the poor thing into sneak attack submission.

Can animated objects be weapons? How do you work out size (because a sword held by a medium creature is not really a medium thing itself). Some self loading siege equipment would be a nice twist as well.

Party needs a ladder....hey I'm a ladder. Part needs a cart, rope, large piece of self reloading siege equipment....hey I'm that too.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-09-05, 04:20 PM
Erm...Couldn't a human wizard do that, too?

Nope. read up the Spell Description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/polymorph.htm).


This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. The assumed form canít have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subjectís HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level. You canít cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine, nor can you cause a subject to assume an incorporeal or gaseous form. The subjectís creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form.

Notice how Construct isn't in the list, but if the base type IS a Construct, then it can turn into ANY construct. Like an Iron Golem.

TSGames
2007-09-05, 04:24 PM
With alter self, would it be correct that warforged assume the form of other constructs up to 5Hd?

On the list is large animated object, warforged charger, wood golemn, Dread Guardian, and many lesser ones.
Yes, you are quite right to assume that. It is very powerful and very fun. Also, it can be used for stealth very effectively.

Iku Rex
2007-09-05, 05:11 PM
Notice how Construct isn't in the list, but if the base type IS a Construct, then it can turn into ANY construct. Like an Iron Golem.Notice how the spell description prevents you from changing into a creature with more than 15HD. Iron golems have 18HD. :smallwink:

As for the OP, alter self isn't that great for constructs. I believe the automatons from MM2 are among the better forms, but the lack of hands hurts for a spellcaster.

TSGames
2007-09-05, 05:25 PM
As for the OP, alter self isn't that great for constructs. I believe the automatons from MM2 are among the better forms, but the lack of hands hurts for a spellcaster.

If by "isn't that great" you mean "is freaking amazing" then you are correct, sir. One spell and you are Optimus Freakin' Prime. In addition, you can turn into about anything the party needs, from a big rock, to a rope, to a wagon, to any number of other things. You have almost unstoppable stealth capabilities, and you can obtain any movement form you want. This spell is amazing for constructs, and everyone else, ever. I rest my case. (http://http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=2489422)

Optimus Prime.

Iku Rex
2007-09-05, 05:42 PM
If by "isn't that great" you mean "is freaking amazing" then you are correct, sir. One spell and you are Optimus Freakin' Prime. In addition, you can turn into about anything the party needs, from a big rock, to a rope, to a wagon, to any number of other things. You have almost unstoppable stealth capabilities, and you can obtain any movement form you want. This spell is amazing for constructs, and everyone else, ever. I rest my case. (http://http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=2489422)"Oh look it's a big rock, I can't wait to tell my friends; they don't have a rock this big."

I'm not sure how you "rest your case" based on a link to a post that doesn't contain a single construct form. :smallconfused:
( http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=2489422 )

What is the construct form for "unstoppable stealth capabilities", and why is it better than the best humanoid form? What are the construct forms for "any movement form you want"?

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-09-05, 05:56 PM
Notice how the spell description prevents you from changing into a creature with more than 15HD. Iron golems have 18HD. :smallwink:

As for the OP, alter self isn't that great for constructs. I believe the automatons from MM2 are among the better forms, but the lack of hands hurts for a spellcaster.

Clay Golem. 11 HD. Cursed Wound. +14 natural armor. Have a nice day. Too bad you don't get his immunity to almost all forms of magic or the haste. Or the DR 10/Adamantine *AND* Bludgeoning. The Str of 25 is nice, though.

Stone Golem, at 14 HD comes in just under the mark. +18 natural armor. Too bad you don't get the Slow every two rounds or the immunity to magic. Strength of 29 is pretty nice, though.

As for unstoppable stealth abilities, you can turn into an Animated Object, which can literally be ANYTHING. You can turn into an animated pillow and smother someone in their sleep, or listen to... ahem... pillow talk. With no one the wiser.

Iku Rex
2007-09-05, 06:06 PM
Clay Golem. 11 HD. Cursed Wound. +14 natural armor. Have a nice day. Too bad you don't get his immunity to almost all forms of magic or the haste. Or the DR 10/Adamantine *AND* Bludgeoning. The Str of 25 is nice, though.

Stone Golem, at 14 HD comes in just under the mark. +18 natural armor. Too bad you don't get the Slow every two rounds or the immunity to magic. Strength of 29 is pretty nice, though.You forgot to mention the clay golem's berserk ability... Do you want that as well?

The stone golem is a good polymorph form, certainly, but not that great compared to a war troll (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20040815b&page=6).

Benejeseret
2007-09-05, 06:13 PM
Ya, the stealth is exactly what I am going for.

I am wanting to play a warforged rogue/avenger (like an assassin but not evil but gets alter self as a intelligence base spellcasting). I was going to try it in a PbP game here...but I am really liking the feel to it and might try to find a game group on campus and put it through some real testing.

Hehe...even as a BBEG it could be great. I'm thinking super-mimic.

Party finds a chest....the chest eats the rogue by sneak attack slamming closed on his neck or hands.

Then it flees in a small rope form through a hole. Every time the party then visits a tavern.....whoops, the chair moved as you tried to sit down, and now its sneak attacking your prone, drunk self.

By the end the party will have developed severe psychosis about objects, any object.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-09-05, 06:15 PM
You forgot to mention the clay golem's berserk ability... Do you want that as well?

The stone golem is a good polymorph form, certainly, but not that great compared to a war troll (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20040815b&page=6).

If you get a Berzerk, just drop the Polymorph and he snaps out of it since he no longer has that ability.

Stone Golem has more natural armor than the war troll, although doesn't have the obnoxious stun ability.

If you have something that has a lot of healing, use Clay Golem to nerf them.

NullAshton
2007-09-05, 06:26 PM
If you get a Berzerk, just drop the Polymorph and he snaps out of it since he no longer has that ability.

Stone Golem has more natural armor than the war troll, although doesn't have the obnoxious stun ability.

If you have something that has a lot of healing, use Clay Golem to nerf them.

Doesn't work, actually. You attack everything nearby and go on a rampage, and dispelling polymorph sadly does not constitute 'attacking' enemies. If that happens... basically your allies are either screwed, or has to kill you. Have fun with that.

TSGames
2007-09-05, 06:44 PM
"Oh look it's a big rock, I can't wait to tell my friends; they don't have a rock this big."

I'm not sure how you "rest your case" based on a link to a post that doesn't contain a single construct form. :smallconfused:
( http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=2489422 )

What is the construct form for "unstoppable stealth capabilities", and why is it better than the best humanoid form? What are the construct forms for "any movement form you want"?

You didn't read the thread. The OP left them out of the table. On pages 2 and 3 there is a limited discussion of the possibilities, but even those options prove to be nearly unparalleled choices for the spell.

Now let's go down the list.

1)Stealth capabilities. You can turn into any object. Period. [Scrubbed] Not to mention, combining it with spells like "shrink item" or just using it to turn into a full construct are inherently useful in and of themselves. I've never said that it's better than any humanoid form, I did say that the spell is amazing no matter what type of creature attempts to use it, and it happens to be very good for constructs.

2)Any movement form. It's called an astral construct. If that's not good enough for you(and the astral construct is very good), there's always the gargoyle for flying, see the aforementioned thread for the rest outside of astral construct.

***********
Astral construct is amazing for versatility. Also, if you notice the abilities it has are based on level and not HD, so turining into one can grant you the abilities from Menu C. This, in and of itself, makes the spell amazing: you can gain the spring attack feat for free, without meeting prerequisites. You can whirlwind attack, any number of useful abilities. Astral constructs make alter self quite powerful for warforged.
***********

Other than that, combine it with any number of useful strategies. As per my example, which the previously quoted poster was so quick to mock, you can jump or fly over your opponents, turn into a heavy rock and deal massive damage to them. You can turn into a ladder, a rope, a wagon, any object within one size category of you. Make an item that allows you to use this spell, it's cheap, in fact 3,600 for a ring that allows you to use 5/day, for 10 minutes each use. This ads versatility to the party that only a mage could previously provide.

Combine this with other spells for cheese only fitting for the polymorph subschool. Shrink item, in particular, would allow you to transform into a creaure of any size, large or smaller, when combined with alter self. You can now turn into anything large or smaller that you can imagine. Need to assassinate someone? Just have your warforged turn into something, a gold piece, a piece of paper, a chair, and kill them in the surprise round. This combination allows you to do whatever you want, use your imagination. Got a Warforged Juggernaut when the party needs to stealth? Not a problem, shrink item and alter self, and you can comfortably fit in the rogues pocket, glove of storing, heck, you could even be his glove.

Alter self's strength is that you get many spells for the price of one, it's versatility, and you will not find greater versatility than alter self or its stronger cousins.

This spell is good no matter what, or who uses it. You might as well be saying that Divine Metamagic isn't all that great.


Item was 5/day use, not 3/day

Chronos
2007-09-05, 07:41 PM
I don't think you can combine it with Shrink Item, since that only works on nonmagical items. Though that still leaves you with plenty of options.

TSGames
2007-09-05, 08:35 PM
I don't think you can combine it with Shrink Item, since that only works on nonmagical items. Though that still leaves you with plenty of options.
Depends on if you consider warforged magical items or not. Their construction process is magical, but just reading over the racial traits in the Eberron Campaign Setting, I don't see anything indicating that they are magical. I think this would be rule 0 territory.

Tobrecan
2007-09-05, 08:47 PM
Depends on if you consider warforged magical items or not. Their construction process is magical, but just reading over the racial traits in the Eberron Campaign Setting, I don't see anything indicating that they are magical. I think this would be rule 0 territory.

Actually, magical is not the important term, the spell only works on objects. A warforged, regardless of what form it may be in, is not an object so the shrink item will not work.

TSGames
2007-09-05, 08:54 PM
Actually, magical is not the important term, the spell only works on objects. A warforged, regardless of what form it may be in, is not an object so the shrink item will not work.

No...

A warforged is a construct.


A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-09-05, 09:10 PM
Doesn't work, actually. You attack everything nearby and go on a rampage, and dispelling polymorph sadly does not constitute 'attacking' enemies. If that happens... basically your allies are either screwed, or has to kill you. Have fun with that.

However, if you no longer have the Berzerk ability, you no longer go berzerk. So since you're not stupid enough to cast it on yourself (and Polymorph has a range of Touch, not Personal, so you can actually do this on your tank Warforged to make him an even nastier tank) you can simply will the spell to expire (or Dispel it if necessary) to knock him out.

Curmudgeon
2007-09-06, 07:41 AM
A warforged is a construct.

A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature. A warforged is a living construct, not an animated object. Thus spells that only target objects, rather than also specifically allowing constructs as targets, generally won't work on warforged.

From Eberron Campaign Setting, page 23:
Spells such as stone to flesh, stone shape, warp wood, and wood shape affect objects only, and thus cannot be used on the stone and wood parts of a warforged.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-06, 08:53 AM
I just checked the RAW thread. Warforged are type Construct/subtype Living Construct.

So start with your various magical boosts/temporary modifiers, If that doesn't answer the question, refer to your skills/class abilities. If that doesn't answer the question check Warforged specifically. If it STILL isn't answered refer to Living Construct. If that doesn't answer the question, check Construct. And finally go to the default for the universe.



Notice how Construct isn't in the list, but if the base type IS a Construct, then it can turn into ANY construct. Like an Iron Golem.

Except for...


This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature.

So a warforged could alter itself into another living construct, but not a non-living construct.
Additionally...


The assumed form canít have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subjectís HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level.

The HD limitation can be prohibitive with powerful constructs.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-06, 09:33 AM
IMO, anything with the construct type should automatically have a LA, even with the nerfing, for just this type of reason.
I rather think the fault lies in alter self here rather than any particular creature type. After all, not every construct is going to have access to alter self. Shouldn't be punishing the ones that don't on account of the ones that do have it. I'm sure WotC would place the blame on the spell, too, given they no longer polymorph, alter self or shapechange and eve give a quasi-official recommendation that players drop those spells from their games.

Oh, and good catch about the living creature thing, Citizen Joe. Though it comes from the polymorph spell, and your quote box attributes it to alter self. Alter self does not have the "living" qualifier. It simply has to be another creature of the same type, living or otherwise. So it works just fine with Constructs, Undead, and Deathless.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-06, 10:00 AM
oops... I was just grabbing stuff off previous posts... but here's the real limit:



You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form. The new form must be within one size category of your normal size. The maximum HD of an assumed form is equal to your caster level, to a maximum of 5 HD at 5th level.

Thus no changing into superpowered constructs.

The weird part is going from say an unarmoured warforged to one with adamantine body. The question becomes is the body type equivalent to a minor change.


You can freely designate the new formís minor physical qualities (such as hair color, hair texture, and skin color) within the normal ranges for a creature of that kind.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-06, 10:16 AM
The weird part is going from say an unarmoured warforged to one with adamantine body. The question becomes is the body type equivalent to a minor change.
"Minor change" should be understood to refer to items that have no in-game effects. Adamantine Body and its siblings are feats that grant in-game benefits. For the sake of flavor, you may allow a warforged to alter self into another warforged with the feat, but it should not grant the benefits of the feat. Alter self does not grant non-bonus feats.

TSGames
2007-09-06, 11:57 AM
"Minor change" should be understood to refer to items that have no in-game effects. Adamantine Body and its siblings are feats that grant in-game benefits. For the sake of flavor, you may allow a warforged to alter self into another warforged with the feat, but it should not grant the benefits of the feat. Alter self does not grant feats.

I agree with what you said, but not the reason why:


You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind. Physical qualities include natural size, mundane movement capabilities (such as burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming, and flight with wings, to a maximum speed of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for nonflying movement), natural armor bonus, natural weapons (such as claws, bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities (presence or absence of wings, number of extremities, and so forth). A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal.

emphasis added

Also, on that note:


A warforged is a living construct, not an animated object. Thus spells that only target objects, rather than also specifically allowing constructs as targets, generally won't work on warforged.

This is easily circumvented. Use alter self first, to turn into a large version of the item you want. Then use shrink person. There is no changing of types or subtypes, but you have changed into a construct that is an "animated object" which makes you eligible for the shrink item spell. I agree that you can't use shrink item first, but nothing is stopping you from using it after alter self.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-06, 12:30 PM
This is easily circumvented. Use alter self first, to turn into a large version of the item you want. Then use shrink person. There is no changing of types or subtypes, but you have changed into a construct that is an "animated object" which makes you eligible for the shrink item spell. I agree that you can't use shrink item first, but nothing is stopping you from using it after alter self.
Umm... ok... lets run this through

Waforged (medium construct/living construct) + Alter Self = Animated Object (small/Medium/large construct [1/2/4 HD]) = semi legit if


You assume the form of a creature of the same type as your normal form. The new form must be within one size category of your normal size. The maximum HD of an assumed form is equal to your caster level, to a maximum of 5 HD at 5th level.

I don't know if animated objects count as creatures...

However...
Animated Object (Construct) + Reduce Person = violation


This spell causes instant diminution of a humanoid creature


And
Animated Object (Construct) + Shrink Item = violation


You are able to shrink one nonmagical item

TSGames
2007-09-06, 01:03 PM
Umm... ok... lets run this through

Waforged (medium construct/living construct) + Alter Self = Animated Object (small/Medium/large construct [1/2/4 HD]) = semi legit if

I don't know if animated objects count as creatures...

They are in the Monster Manual, they are creatures, it's perfectly legitimate, in fact, their entry calls them "creatures."


However...
Animated Object (Construct) + Reduce Person = violation

You don't need reduce person, you have alter self. Besides, reduce person is for people, which warforged certainly are not.


And
Animated Object (Construct) + Shrink Item = violation

After reading the Monster Manual, there is nothing in the description of animated objects denoting them as magical. They were created through magical or supernatural means, but that does not mean they are magical. Even grease is not magical after it's been created.

In addition to this, although it would not be quite as effective, you could always transform into a regular non-animated object and then be shrunk. This would still allow most of the benefits, but you would loose some mobility without the casting of another spell, such as fly. Also, just because an object has a spell cast on it, or is under the effect of a spell, does not mean it's magical. Otherwise, every time I cast light or presdigitation on a rock it would suddenly be magical.

As I said earlier, it's quite easy to circumvent.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-06, 01:11 PM
Alter Self turns you into a creature
Shrink item shrinks objects.

Pick one, they are mutually exclusive.

Indon
2007-09-06, 01:16 PM
After reading the Monster Manual, there is nothing in the description of animated objects denoting them as magical. They were created through magical or supernatural means, but that does not mean they are magical. Even grease is not magical after it's been created.


An animated object entering an Anti-Magic Field ceases to be animated, as it is being animated by a spell or spell-like effect.

Anti-Magic field supresses it, it's magical.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-06, 01:31 PM
After reading the Monster Manual, there is nothing in the description of animated objects denoting them as magical. They were created through magical or supernatural means, but that does not mean they are magical. Even grease is not magical after it's been created.
You are either a creature or an object. Not both at the same time.

While affected by an animate objects spell or any other effect that creates animated objects, an object loses its status as an object and becomes a creature.


Animated objects come in all sizes, shapes, and colors. They owe their existence as creatures to spells such as animate objects or similar supernatural abilities.

creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms "creature" and "character" are sometimes used interchangeably.
(emphasis mine)


In addition to this, although it would not be quite as effective, you could always transform into a regular non-animated object and then be shrunk. This would still allow most of the benefits, but you would loose some mobility without the casting of another spell, such as fly.
Construct is a Creature type. It only applies to Creatures. Objects, which are not Creatures, are therefore not Constructs. Alter self only lets you transform into Creatures of your own type.

You would require a spell capabale of transforming you into an Object, such as polymorph any object in order to transform yourself into an object. However, the wording of the spell does not indicate if its powers would turn you into an actual Object or if you would still be technically considered a Creature.

TSGames
2007-09-06, 01:53 PM
Alter Self turns you into a creature
Shrink item shrinks objects.

Pick one, they are mutually exclusive.

They are not. Construct is a creature type which includes objects.



Construct is a Creature type. It only applies to Creatures. Objects, which are not Creatures, are therefore not Constructs. Alter self only lets you transform into Creatures of your own type.
I don't think you read your quote thoroughly.



creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms "creature" and "character" are sometimes used interchangeably.

emphasis adjusted

Creature can also refer to a character. You can be both an object and a character at once.

Shrink Item affects one non-magical object touched. That's it. Turn into an object(a rock, a ladder, it doesn't matter). Then have this cast on you. By RAW it is perfectly legal. For anything fancier the only room for debate is if you consider an animated object to be magical or not.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-06, 02:37 PM
Creature can also refer to a character. You can be both an object and a character at once.
They are sometimes used interchangeably. The one time they cannot be used interchangeably is in the rare case when a character is an object. This usually only happens when the character is dead*. The important part of the definition is "creature:...not an object."

When it says, creature and character are sometimes used interchangeably, it refers to a simple use convention, not definition. In other words, that line is simply there to prevent a rules lawyer from saying something like, "That spell says it affects characters! The sheep I am using to lure the monster out are not characters; they're simply creatures. Therefore, the sheep are immune to the spell!"

Oh, also:


character: A fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting. The words "character" and "creature" are often used synonymously within these rules, since almost any creature could be a character within the game, and every character is a creature (as opposed to an object).

[hr] * Or maybe not even then. It is the character's body that is the object in that case, and there can oftentimes be a distinction between a character and his or her body.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-06, 03:28 PM
Leaving out the Shrink Object semantics, you're still a freakin' Transformer. Only you turn into a Large Animated horse cart instead of a semi.

Awesome.

TSGames
2007-09-06, 04:15 PM
Shhalahr Windrider, I would give you the debate, but it doesn't make sense that an "animated object" is not an object. What you are claiming is wrong via RAW. There is nothing stopping you from turning into an animated object and then using shrink item.

In fact, here's the proof:


Animated objects come in all sizes, shapes and colors. They owe their existence as creatures to spells such as animate objects or similar supernatural abilities.

So then, let's look at the spell that creates them:


Level: Brd 6, Chaos 6, Clr 6
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets: One Small object per caster level; see text
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

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

I chose not to add emphasis to either quote, so you may have missed it. Did you notice that you are imbuing an object with a semblance of life? Or that there is no mention within that entire spell of the object no longer being an object?

Summary:
1)This discussion has shown that by RAW an animated object is both an object and a construct and therefore also a creature.
2)Animated objects are not magical objects.
3)Because animated objects are constructs, a warforged can transform into them via use of the spell "alter self"
4)Thusly, through use of the spell "alter self" a warforged can obtain the status of "object" by transforming into an animated object.
5)Therefore, a warforged can then become a valid target for the spell "shrink item" by becoming a nonmagical object through use of the spell "alter self" to transform into an animated object.

That's it. That's all that has been proven, and all that needs to be proven, if you want to discuss this further, start a thread about it(we've derailed this one too much already), and tell me which of those points you disagree with. I eagerly await your response.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-06, 04:50 PM
And animate dead makes a dead creature undead. It is no longer dead, but undead. Those are two very different states.

In the same way as animate objects turns an object into a creature. Of course it gives objects the semblance of life, but in the process, they lose their status as objects and become creatures for the duration of the spell. An animated object only remains an object in a colloquial sense. Where the rules are concerned, it is now a creature.

As to no references to losing status as an object, note how after granting the object "semblance of life", the spell description only ever refers to it as an animated object, which indicates it has become the creature from the Monster Manual with all the properties thereof. Given that there is a huge distinction between "Creature" and "Object" within the rules, wouldn't the creature entry for "Animated Object" explicitly state if it was to be considered as both? It's an awfully huge exception to the normal rule, after all.

Iku Rex
2007-09-06, 05:16 PM
You didn't read the thread. The OP left them out of the table. On pages 2 and 3 there is a limited discussion of the possibilities, but even those options prove to be nearly unparalleled choices for the spell.I didn't read the entire 7-page thread because you linked to a single post (or at least you tried to). For some reason i assumed you wanted me to read the post you linked to.


1)Stealth capabilities. You can turn into any object. Period. You're wrong. You can take the form of certain objects of a certain size based on the animated object creature. You won't have the hardness (Ex) ability and you still have a Con, so you'll most likely be soft and warm compared to real objects. If anyone gets suspicious they get to make a spot check vs. your unknown disguise check. Risky.


If I have to explain why that provides you with incredible stealth abilities, then I doubt you can even read.Standing around for half an hour locked in as a large soft and warm object is not my idea of unstoppable stealth. You have to get into position. You have to get out when the spell duration runs out. What do you do if you're discovered? And most importantly, how often does it actually prove useful in a real game? Potentially useful; yes. Unstoppable stealth; no.


Not to mention, combining it with spells like "shrink item" or just using it to turn into a full construct are inherently useful in and of themselves. As others have proven to you, shrink item doesn't work on constructs. And since your type and subtype remains the same I don't understand what you mean by "full construct".


I've never said that it's better than any humanoid form, I did say that the spell is amazing no matter what type of creature attempts to use it, and it happens to be very good for constructs.I said the spell wasn't that great for constructs [compared to for humanoids]. You said that it was "freaking amazing". I assumed you meant "compared to humanoids", since the supposed brokenness of constructs using alter self had been a topic earlier in the thread.


2)Any movement form. It's called an astral construct. If that's not good enough for you(and the astral construct is very good), there's always the gargoyle for flying, see the aforementioned thread for the rest outside of astral construct.Astral construct might get you flight or swim speed if the DM allows you to change into a psionic power effect. There are humanoid forms that allow that too.

Gargoyles aren't constructs.



***********
Astral construct is amazing for versatility. Also, if you notice the abilities it has are based on level and not HD, so turining into one can grant you the abilities from Menu C. This, in and of itself, makes the spell amazing: you can gain the spring attack feat for free, without meeting prerequisites. You can whirlwind attack, any number of useful abilities. Astral constructs make alter self quite powerful for warforged.
***********What makes you think you can choose abilities based on your level? Each form spells out what you get in the "Special Qualities" entry. And most of the abilities are (Ex). You don't get those unless, arguably, they're movement modes (since that's explicitly allowed by the spell).


Other than that, combine it with any number of useful strategies. As per my example, which the previously quoted poster was so quick to mock, you can jump or fly over your opponents, turn into a heavy rock and deal massive damage to them. You can turn into a ladder, a rope, a wagon, any object within one size category of you. Can astral constructs speak? I doubt it. So you can't dismiss the spell or cast a new one without metamagic. Even if the DM allowed it, dismissing a spell is a standard action. So, you'd basically be able to fall down on an enemy. If the DM allows you to use the falling object rules to damage an enemy you might do some damage, but that's an exploit any heavy PC could use.


Make an item that allows you to use this spell, it's cheap, in fact 3,600 for a ring that allows you to use 5/day, for 10 minutes each use. This ads versatility to the party that only a mage could previously provide.That's obviously the wrong price for that item. Read the item creation guidelines in the DMG (page 282). You need more than the table for estimating magic item cost to find the appropriate price for a custom item. (Also, you can't make an item using a 2nd level spell at caster level 1.)

TSGames
2007-09-06, 07:33 PM
And animate dead makes a dead creature undead. It is no longer dead, but undead. Those are two very different states.

In the same way as animate objects turns an object into a creature. Of course it gives objects the semblance of life, but in the process, they lose their status as objects and become creatures for the duration of the spell. An animated object only remains an object in a colloquial sense. Where the rules are concerned, it is now a creature.

As to no references to losing status as an object, note how after granting the object "semblance of life", the spell description only ever refers to it as an animated object, which indicates it has become the creature from the Monster Manual with all the properties thereof. Given that there is a huge distinction between "Creature" and "Object" within the rules, wouldn't the creature entry for "Animated Object" explicitly state if it was to be considered as both? It's an awfully huge exception to the normal rule, after all.

None of this is supported by RAW. The animate dead spell specifically states that you turn the corpse undead. The animate objects spell does not say that.

This is D&D. You can infer and misinterpret all you want want. You can say that E=MC^2, and that this has tremendous philosophical impacts on your every day life, but that doesn't help anything. Take your interpretations to a debate where they matter.

And Rex, you'll be seated in this debate when you actually bring something to the table.

Collin152
2007-09-06, 08:48 PM
None of this is supported by RAW. The animate dead spell specifically states that you turn the corpse undead. The animate objects spell does not say that.

This is D&D. You can infer and misinterpret all you want want. You can say that E=MC^2, and that this has tremendous philosophical impacts on your every day life, but that doesn't help anything. Take your interpretations to a debate where they matter.

And Rex, you'll be seated in this debate when you actually bring something to the table.

Alright, I've heard enough, so sit down and be quiet; objects have no wisdom or charisma, creatures do. If it has either, it is a creature. If it has neither, it is an object. Look up the stats for animated object. Now, please quit using bold and underline so much.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-06, 09:46 PM
Yeah... I declare trolling and ask that this thread be locked.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-06, 10:04 PM
You kinda have to notify the moderators if you want to do that...there's a "Notify" icon under everyone's avatar.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-06, 10:11 PM
None of this is supported by RAW.
Where in RAW does it ever provide the case that something can be both an object and a creature at the same time. Such a status violates the very much RAW definition of "Creature,". As such, the rules must provide a very clear exception to allow such a situation. Without an exception, when you become one, you cannot be the other.

I have provided all the RAW that backs that up in my previous posts, thank you very much.


The animate dead spell specifically states that you turn the corpse undead. The animate objects spell does not say that.
So you're saying animate objects doesn't create Animated Objects? It just vaguely "grants objects the semblance of life?" After all, the spell doesn't say the object turns into an Animated Object. And remember, the PHB, not the Monster Manual is the primary source for the spell!

TSGames
2007-09-07, 12:55 AM
Where in RAW does it ever provide the case that something can be both an object and a creature at the same time. Such a status violates the very much RAW definition of "Creature,". As such, the rules must provide a very clear exception to allow such a situation. Without an exception, when you become one, you cannot be the other.

In D&D(like a certain card game product of WotC), there are exceptions to every rule. A spell or ability does exactly what it says. That is RAW. The individual spell description trumps generalizations.


So you're saying animate objects doesn't create Animated Objects? It just vaguely "grants objects the semblance of life?" After all, the spell doesn't say the object turns into an Animated Object. And remember, the PHB, not the Monster Manual is the primary source for the spell!

For one, don't put words in my mouth. For two, it says in the spell:
You imbue inanimate objects with mobility and a semblance of life. Each such animated object...

I've heard of people munchkining to gain power, but never to loose it. The wording does clearly indicate that you are creating an animated object, and it refers to these animated objects as objects several times throughout. In addition, the Monster Manual holds that they are creatures. These facts contradict the sources you have provided. When contradictions are found there are two ways to resolve them. Firstly, the later material trumps the older material, which doesn't apply since this between two core books and not supplements. The second way to resolve conflicts is that specifics always trump generalizations i.e. spell description trump what appears in a table, ability use rules may trump already established rules about their uses, etc. This is the case here. The spell makes animated objects. The spell calls them objects and their monster entry refers to them as creatures, they are both at the same time.

There's no point in arguing anymore. [Scrubbed] This argument is over, you may as well argue that Raiment aren't undead, or that flesh to stone can work on warforged.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-07, 07:49 AM
In D&D(like a certain card game product of WotC), there are exceptions to every rule. A spell or ability does exactly what it says. That is RAW. The individual spell description trumps generalizations.
Once again: Point out to me where the RAW says this exception actually exists. You admit animate objects actually turns objects into Animated Objects, which are a type of Creature, not, despite the creature's name, a type of Object. You cannot declare there is an exception to a rule without the exception being explicitly written out. Otherwise, you can just declare anything you want to be an exception and the rules don't mean a thing.

The spell says it turns objects into Animated Objects. Never once does either the spell description nor the monster entry refer to an Animated Object as simply an Object. However, the monster entry clearly refers to them as Creatures.

In short, RAW is "Rules as Written." For an exception to the rules to be RAW, it has to be Written.

TSGames
2007-09-07, 08:47 AM
Once again: Point out to me where the RAW says this exception actually exists. You admit animate objects actually turns objects into Animated Objects, which are a type of Creature, not, despite the creature's name, a type of Object. You cannot declare there is an exception to a rule without the exception being explicitly written out. Otherwise, you can just declare anything you want to be an exception and the rules don't mean a thing.

The spell says it turns objects into Animated Objects. Never once does either the spell description nor the monster entry refer to an Animated Object as simply an Object. However, the monster entry clearly refers to them as Creatures.

In short, RAW is "Rules as Written." For an exception to the rules to be RAW, it has to be Written.
Here is the spell:


Animate Objects
Transmutation
Level: Brd 6, Chaos 6, Clr 6
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets: One Small object per caster level; see text
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

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.

Please, show me in the RAW why you think this turns it into a creature other than your assumptions and guesswork about the spell referring to it as an animated object.

There is a fairly popular saying on these boards, "The rules don't say you can't shoot lightning out of your arse." And while I'm not too fond of this saying, it points out that you can only do what the rules say. A spell does exactly what it states. Period. If it does not state that target looses its status as an object, then the target does not. Once again, that is Rules as Written.

Funkyodor
2007-09-07, 08:57 AM
I think the biggest contention is if an Alter Self'ed Warforged turned into an Animated Object can have a Shrink Item spell cast on him/her/it. Biggest problem comes from Detect Magic. An item (or object, if you will) is considered magical if it has a Magical Aura. Detect Magic says that since he/she/it has a functioning spell (Alter Self), then he/she/it is magical, and hence is a Magical Animated Object. This is the case even though the Monster Manual description does not specify that objects animated through magical means are magical objects.

So in this specific case, the Alter Self'ed Animated Object Warforged can not have Shrink Item cast on him because he/she/it is a magical object (Alter Self). If (I don't know how) you had a naturally animated object, then you probably could turn the walking table into a foot stool.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-07, 09:10 AM
Please, show me in the RAW why you think this turns it into a creature...
The same place it says the affected Object turns into an Animated Object.

1.) Animate objects turns an Object into an Animated Object (source: animate objects spell description and Animated Object monster entry)
2.) Animated Objects are Creatures. (source: Animated Object monster entry)
3.) Therefore, animate objects transforms an Object into a Creature. QED

Golthur
2007-09-07, 09:38 AM
The same place it says the affected Object turns into an Animated Object.

1.) Animate objects turns an Object into an Animated Object
2.) Animated Objects are Creatures.
3.) Therefore, animate objects transforms an Object into a Creature. QED

Nice use of modus ponens there :biggrin:

But, yes, I agree. Object and creature are two mutually exclusive classes. The spell explicitly transforms an ordinary nonmagical object into an "animated object" construct, which is a creature and is thus no longer bound by the rules of ordinary objects.

So, no shrink item after using alter self. Nonetheless, the ability to turn into any animated object makes any warforged wizard the frackin' Batman, that's for sure. Best use of alter self by far.

Starbuck_II
2007-09-07, 09:51 AM
Warforged could turn into a Large tree too: An animated tree, but nonetheless.

Remember plants in D&D are not creatures: monsterous plants are plant type, but flowers, trees, etc are really objects.

TSGames
2007-09-07, 10:02 AM
Nonetheless, the ability to turn into any animated object makes any warforged wizard the frackin' Batman, that's for sure. Best use of alter self by far.

I think you mean Optimus Prime :)

Anyway, I tire of this debate. Once a debate goes on long enough it always comes down to one side declaring that 2+2=fish, and one side saying that 2+2=4. I know which side I'm on. I've made my case. The Monster Manual references the spell "Animate Objects" which does not state that object status is lost. To put it in your form:

1.) Animate objects in the Monster Manual reference the "animate objects spell for their creation.
2.)The animate objects spell targets objects and doesn't state that object status is lost.
3.)Therefore, animated objects are creatures and objects.

Specifics always trump generalizations in the Rules As Written. You can reject this, I choose not to. This debate is over.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-07, 10:14 AM
Personally, I don't think animated objects are creatures, I think they are objects with a spell effect on them. This means you can't alter self into them, which is the easiest solution.

However, one way or the other you have to decide if an animated object is a creature or not.

If it is a creature, then you can't shrink item on it.
If it is an object, you can't alter self into it.

In theory, that should end this argument.

BAH... ninja'd
OK so you are saying something can be and object and a creature at the same time... to which I retort with


A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms "creature" and "character" are sometimes used interchangeably.

Golthur
2007-09-07, 10:19 AM
I think you mean Optimus Prime :)
True, true :smile:

It's still bloody awesome. Since I'm DM (and, sadly, only DMing right now) I might use something like this for a BBEG, that's for sure. Of course, my campaign setting right now has no warforged, but everything's doable when you're the DM. :wink:


3.)Therefore, animated objects are creatures and objects.

This is the key point of contention, I think.

You believe objects and creatures are not mutually exclusive categories, so something can be both object and creature at the same time. Shhalahr (and I) believe that object and creature are mutually exclusive, and so, by becoming a creature, the animated object stops being (rules-wise) an object for the duration of the spell's effect.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-07, 10:23 AM
Nice use of modus ponens there :biggrin:
Thank you! I'm quite proud of it myself. :smallwink:

Here's another one (though I belive it's more of a Tollens than a Ponens):

1.) Animated Objects are Creatures. (source: the above)
2.) Creatures are not Objects. (source: definition of "Creature")
3.) Therefore Animated Objects are not Objects. QED

Citizen Joe
2007-09-07, 10:37 AM
The same place it says the affected Object turns into an Animated Object.

1.) Animate objects turns an Object into an Animated Object
2.) Animated Objects are Creatures.
3.) Therefore, animate objects transforms an Object into a Creature. QED
I deny assumption #2 on the grounds that Animated objects are actually spell effects that simulate creature status. This side steps the Alter Self part of the formula by not allowing transformation into the now non-creature animated object.

EDIT: Bah. It says that they are creatures in the monster description.

Golthur
2007-09-07, 10:44 AM
I deny assumption #2 on the grounds that Animated objects are actually spell effects that simulate creature status. This side steps the Alter Self part of the formula by not allowing transformation into the now non-creature animated object.

Either way, a warforged then can't alter self then shrink item on themselves.

For your way, it's because they can't do the alter self part in the first place. It's a fair enough ruling, I think. Not the one I'd make, personally, but certainly reasonable.

All of this debate, though, has put a thought in my head to debate, although I know the RAW answer. The question though, is this:

Should constructs be objects? RAW, of course, they're creatures, but even warforged have numerous specialized rules where they're treated not entirely like creatures, and not entirely like objects (e.g. cure spells vs. repair, etc.). Presumably, the hybrid rules are because they are living constructs - a cure spell wouldn't work at all on an iron golem.

Hmm. :confused:

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-09-07, 11:03 AM
EDIT: Bah. It says that they are creatures in the monster description.
Indeed.

Probably should go back and edit in some source quotes similar to the ones I put in the following argument.


Should constructs be objects? RAW, of course, they're creatures, but even warforged have numerous specialized rules where they're treated not entirely like creatures, and not entirely like objects (e.g. cure spells vs. repair, etc.). Presumably, the hybrid rules are because they are living constructs - a cure spell wouldn't work at all on an iron golem.
But golems, and all other Constructs are creatures, too. Constructs being unaffected by healing spells spells is an explicit RAW exception to the normal rules that healing spells target Creatures.

Also note that repair spells only target "Construct touched". They do not repair Objects. You need something along the lines of mending for repairing Objects.

The hybrid rules for warforged don't make them a hybrid Creature/Object. It makes them hybrid Construct/Humanoid (or similar Living Creature).

Collin152
2007-09-07, 04:59 PM
I think you mean Optimus Prime :)

Anyway, I tire of this debate. Once a debate goes on long enough it always comes down to one side declaring that 2+2=fish, and one side saying that 2+2=4. I know which side I'm on. I've made my case. The Monster Manual references the spell "Animate Objects" which does not state that object status is lost. To put it in your form:

1.) Animate objects in the Monster Manual reference the "animate objects spell for their creation.
2.)The animate objects spell targets objects and doesn't state that object status is lost.
3.)Therefore, animated objects are creatures and objects.

Specifics always trump generalizations in the Rules As Written. You can reject this, I choose not to. This debate is over.

Damn, do I hate being ignored. I shall make this quite clear:
Wisdom and Charisma= Creature
No Wisdom or Charisma= Object
Mutually Exclusive!

Starbuck_II
2007-09-07, 05:42 PM
Personally, I don't think animated objects are creatures, I think they are objects with a spell effect on them. This means you can't alter self into them, which is the easiest solution.

However, one way or the other you have to decide if an animated object is a creature or not.

If it is a creature, then you can't shrink item on it.
If it is an object, you can't alter self into it.

In theory, that should end this argument.

BAH... ninja'd
OK so you are saying something can be and object and a creature at the same time... to which I retort with
Plants are alive and objects in the Monster Manual.

But yeah, they aren't creatures...in the Monster manual...

Fax Celestis
2007-09-07, 05:43 PM
Plants are alive and objects in the Monster Manual.

But yeah, they aren't creatures...in the Monster manual...

Creatures of the plant type are still creatures. However, without creature-like features--such as a full range of motion--they are merely plants and are therefore objects.

BCOVertigo
2007-09-07, 06:48 PM
Creatures of the plant type are still creatures. However, without creature-like features--such as a full range of motion--they are merely plants and are therefore objects.

I agree but not for that reason as it has no raw support. What does however is the previously voiced fact that if the thing in question has a wisdom score(can recognize other things) and has a charisma score(can recognize itself) it is a creature.

Regardless of mobility or anything else, this is what defines a creature. Per the plant type entry in the back of the MM.

Also before anything stupid happens, having a 0 wisdom is not the same as a - wisdom, as long as it's a number it's a creature.

DArva
2007-09-08, 03:01 PM
Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise.

Emphasis added. CAN actually be considered, not must. Intelligent items have a wis score, and are considered objects and *can* be considered creatures when necessary. RAW

Note, throughout the entry, intelligent weapons are referred to as items, which are objects.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-08, 03:41 PM
You know what DND needs? A soviet logical fallacy beast. That would solve all these problems. When you try to break the game with these logical fallacies, your character's head explodes and a burly russian appears and says "In Soviet Russia, Game break YOU!"