Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lyrandar 04-24-07, 05:05 AM	Could someone direct me to any discussions or posts on some solutions to the 10th Level class feature of becoming a Living Construct. I'm considering making a House Cannith Artificer Renegade Mastermaker and my thoughts are that on reading material in the Dragonmarked book that the dragonmark would remain after they become a living construct. Also I think that the -2 CHA -2 WIS and +2 Con racial ability modifiers should not be applied to the new form of the character and that the human extra skill points should still be retained by the character. Apart form that everything else of the living construct type should be applied. I wont bother giving reasons as I'm sure you could come up with your own reasoning as to why and why not what aspects should be included. First time post so please excuse its haphazard appearance. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Captain_Kobold 04-24-07, 06:38 AM	The stat changes etc are not part of being a Living Construct. They are part of the Warforged race. The 10th level Renegade Mastermaker ability gives you the Living Construct 'template' and type, not all of the Warforged racial traits. You get to keep all your original racial traits that are not specifically affected by being a Living construct (such as an Elf's reduced sleep requirment would be for example.)
Kid SixXx 04-24-07, 09:52 AM	If you're most concerned about your dragonmark pre-req, most reasonable DM's would allow you to keep using your dragonmark after you reach the last level of progression. The PrC is pretty strange in that the pre-req for entering the PrC might be lost by the last level of progression, which would in-turn cause you not to qualify for the PrC anymore & that is pretty illogical. You could wind up losing up to three feat slots if you decided to max out the Mark of Making. RAW about pre-reqs notwithstanding, your DM shouldn't penalize you. What would be the fun in taking the PrC if three of your feat slots went pfft? Since I am a fan of cyborg-ish concepts, I don't think I'd take the PrC to the final level of progression myself.
Cifer 04-24-07, 12:20 PM	RAW about pre-reqs notwithstanding, your DM shouldn't penalize you. What would be the fun in taking the PrC if three of your feat slots went pfft? Don't you know well in advance what happens when you take the class? I don't know about you, but I usually read through the entire class. RAW, the feat is lost. However, Wizards has back-pedalled in that regard and officially declared that the character gets to keep the Dmarks. Erandis is still out of luck, though...
Kid SixXx 04-24-07, 01:02 PM	Don't you know well in advance what happens when you take the class? I don't know about you, but I usually read through the entire class. Wasn't speaking for myself, but for players that may get wrapped up in the kewl of something new. Not everyone dwells on character builds all the way out to 20th, but perhaps they should. RAW, the feat is lost. However, Wizards has back-pedalled in that regard and officially declared that the character gets to keep the Dmarks. A thoughtful thing to do for the time being that will probably open up a can of worms later on. Still, creating a PrC that you no longer qualify for when you complete it speaks of being broken anyway, unless the assumption is that the pre-req of the dragonmark doesn't speak to whether or not the mark has to actually function in order for someone at the 10th level of RM progression to retain his status.
Cifer 04-24-07, 03:45 PM	Still, creating a PrC that you no longer qualify for when you complete it speaks of being broken anyway, unless the assumption is that the pre-req of the dragonmark doesn't speak to whether or not the mark has to actually function in order for someone at the 10th level of RM progression to retain his status. You might want to re-read that. There is no dragonmark required for the class. Further, there are a lot of classes you don't qualify for anymore after taking them - Dragon disciple changes you into a dragon, Ur-priest gives you divine spellcasting and so on. A thoughtful thing to do for the time being that will probably open up a can of worms later on. Oh, don't worry: The can has already been thoughtfully opened by a certain poster in the forum. His name begins with an E. Guess who it is.
Kid SixXx 04-24-07, 05:31 PM	You might want to re-read that. There is no dragonmark required for the class. Further, there are a lot of classes you don't qualify for anymore after taking them - Dragon disciple changes you into a dragon, Ur-priest gives you divine spellcasting and so on. Gah. I'm still thinking of the old RM article on the website & not the re-write in MoF. I've run / am running 4 Eberron campaigns in my career that lasted up to mid teens & no one to date has asked me about being an RM, so my experiences with the PrC have been limited.
gelalshawr 04-24-07, 06:17 PM	Gah. I'm still thinking of the old RM article on the website & not the re-write in MoF. I've run / am running 4 Eberron campaigns in my career that lasted up to mid teens & no one to date has asked me about being an RM, so my experiences with the PrC have been limited. Must... fight... urge... to... make fun... of... harmless... typo.... :headexplo (seriously, I so wanted to act all shocked that Renegade Mastermakers were in the Magic of Faerun book, but I took my meds, so I'm good now)
PiccaloJr 04-24-07, 06:25 PM	I do have a questoin with Renegade Mastermaker. How does this PrC work in conjuction with the Construct Grafts in FoE?
Kid SixXx 04-24-07, 08:12 PM	Must... fight... urge... to... make fun... of... harmless... typo.... :headexplo (seriously, I so wanted to act all shocked that Renegade Mastermakers were in the Magic of Faerun book, but I took my meds, so I'm good now) Oh jeez, what a tough crowd this town has. The F key is right above and to the left of the E key, you know. Friggin' typos carry death sentences around here.
gelalshawr 04-24-07, 08:34 PM	Oh jeez, what a tough crowd this town has. The F key is right above and to the left of the E key, you know. Friggin' typos carry death sentences around here. yeah I know, that's why i didn't do it, besides, where's the fun in acting like all the morons that would go off on a typo, none of them would understand it anyway.
Creature_Mastermind 04-24-07, 08:57 PM	Oh, don't worry: The can has already been thoughtfully opened by a certain poster in the forum. His name begins with an E. Guess who it is. Hmmmmmmmmm... Edyminion maybe???
Captain_Kobold 04-25-07, 08:44 AM	Don't you retain the use of your Dragonmark even if you have been reincarnated into a different race? Perhaps just treat it as something similar, and retain all of the feats at full effect.
Cifer 04-25-07, 09:29 AM	Creature, I hereby award you one :cookie: Don't you retain the use of your Dragonmark even if you have been reincarnated into a different race? And here we've got the next can. Boy, the fishes are getting lucky with this thread... Perhaps just treat it as something similar, and retain all of the feats at full effect. The problem with this is there's obviously a limit to how much you can distort yourself and still retain the mark. Becoming undead is beyond that limit (*) and in my opinion, becoming a construct, even a "living" one, is not much less an alienation from your human self than that. (*) Ok, I expect any week now for one of the Wizards to come out and say that a Dread Necromancer gets to keep his functional mark when becoming a lich. I mean, it's not as though a major plot point in Eberron depended on an undead creature not having access to their dragonmark...
gelalshawr 04-25-07, 01:52 PM	Don't you retain the use of your Dragonmark even if you have been reincarnated into a different race? Perhaps just treat it as something similar, and retain all of the feats at full effect. Is there any RAW that supports that? The Reincarnate spell says you keep your feats, but that was written before they started making racial feats, is there any errata on that? I would assume it would be more like the process of becoming a Child of Bahamut, you lose any feats you no longer qualify for, and are able to rechoose new feats. Bt that's just me.
gelalshawr 04-25-07, 01:54 PM	The problem with this is there's obviously a limit to how much you can distort yourself and still retain the mark. Becoming undead is beyond that limit (*) and in my opinion, becoming a construct, even a "living" one, is not much less an alienation from your human self than that. What about outsiders, Does a house Medani Monk lose her dragonmarks when she hits 20th level?
Cifer 04-25-07, 02:05 PM	Is there any RAW that supports that? Sadly, there is. AFAIK it's in the same source that says RMMs keep their mark. Reincarnated character keep it, though they can't pass it on to their progeny. What about outsiders, Does a house Medani Monk lose her dragonmarks when she hits 20th level? I'm afraid there's no direct mentioning of that. However, I'd see the ascension of the monk as a lot more spiritual and "natural" than the constructification of the RMM. I know that's not exactly a scientific term, but the Perfect Self ability seems to be the revelation of a potential that always was inside the monk while the RMM and Dread Necro use forceful methods to alter themselves. Ok, I suppose "gut feeling" is the best way to describe it, although it would be interesting if monks could indeed transcend the prophecy and stop being affected by it.
Grynn 04-25-07, 03:54 PM	Renegade mastermakers are living constructs, but liches, including Lady Vol and high enough level dread necromancers, are undead, and by definition, not alive. That's how I'd draw the line, anyway.
Kid SixXx 04-25-07, 06:12 PM	Renegade mastermakers are living constructs. Why should living constructs be an exception? If they were, Warforged would be on the table in the ECS that spells out which races are elligible for which dragonmarks, but they are not. What about monks of any race that are considered to be outsiders at 20th level? Hence the Reincarnation loophole-ish rule to cover the crazy type & race changes that come with some class's progressions. Losing access to a feat sucks & some DM's can be as adamant about enforcing the Pre-Req rule as South Carolina cops are about enforcing a speed limit. Sometimes players can be overcome by the kewlness & need to be saved from themselves, less sadistic DM's prey on their shortsightedness.
Grynn 04-25-07, 07:09 PM	Why should living constructs be an exception? If they were, Warforged would be on the table in the ECS that spells out which races are elligible for which dragonmarks, but they are not.I was just trying to give one possible explanation for the rule: the one that makes the most sense to me. There is a ruling that says a dragonmarked character who is reincarnated or becomes a living construct through the class ability of the renegade mastermaker prestige class can continue to use the dragonmark's power, and there is material that says Lady Vol lost the use of her dragonmark when she became a lich. I observed that in both cases where the character retained the use of his dragonmark the character's new form was still a living one. At the same time, I observed that the only example I know of a character losing the use of her dragonmark, that character lost the dragonmark's power at the same time she stopped being alive. So I made the generalization that the difference lies in the difference between alive and not alive. According to the rules of inductive reasoning, this is a good generalization, and will remain so until an observation refutes it. If Wizards of the Coast publishes material in which a character with a dragonmark loses its use after transforming into another living creature, or in which a dragonmarked character maintains its use after transforming into a nonliving creature, then my generalization will be proven false, and I will be forced to revise or abandon my generalization. (There could easily already be published material that disproves my generalization. For instance: I don't know how dragonmarks interact with effects that temporarily change the creatures form, in part because WotC keeps monkeying with polymorph, and effects based on it.)
Kid SixXx 04-25-07, 08:42 PM	I was just trying to give one possible explanation for the rule: the one that makes the most sense to me. There is a ruling that says a dragonmarked character who is reincarnated or becomes a living construct through the class ability of the renegade mastermaker prestige class can continue to use the dragonmark's power, and there is material that says Lady Vol lost the use of her dragonmark when she became a lich. I observed that in both cases where the character retained the use of his dragonmark the character's new form was still a living one. At the same time, I observed that the only example I know of a character losing the use of her dragonmark, that character lost the dragonmark's power at the same time she stopped being alive. So I made the generalization that the difference lies in the difference between alive and not alive. According to the rules of inductive reasoning, this is a good generalization, and will remain so until an observation refutes it. If Wizards of the Coast publishes material in which a character with a dragonmark loses its use after transforming into another living creature, or in which a dragonmarked character maintains its use after transforming into a nonliving creature, then my generalization will be proven false, and I will be forced to revise or abandon my generalization. (There could easily already be published material that disproves my generalization. For instance: I don't know how dragonmarks interact with effects that temporarily change the creatures form, in part because WotC keeps monkeying with polymorph, and effects based on it.) Oh, I'm not saying that your logic is, well, perfectly logical. It's just that the RAW doesn't always reflect that logic & there are some DM's that pursue such shortcomings in logic with malicious glee. As a DM, I can say that things are hard enough on my players as they try to be resourceful in the face of me trying to challenge and kill them over the course of attempting to have a little fun on a Saturday night. Ruleslawyering sometimes makes a bad situation worse, expecially when a DM is intent on manufacturing a way to deliberately screw players over. If they die, then they die: after all it's just a game. Enforcing rules to make things artificially difficult is not a cool way to do business.
RogueElement 04-25-07, 08:51 PM	Oh, I'm not saying that your logic is, well, perfectly logical. It's just that the RAW doesn't always reflect that logic & there are some DM's that pursue such shortcomings in logic with malicious glee. As a DM, I can say that things are hard enough on my players as they try to be resourceful in the face of me trying to challenge and kill them over the course of attempting to have a little fun on a Saturday night. Ruleslawyering sometimes makes a bad situation worse, expecially when a DM is intent on manufacturing a way to deliberately screw players over. If they die, then they die: after all it's just a game. Enforcing rules to make things artificially difficult is not a cool way to do business. I wish there were more DMs like you! I once had a DM tell me that I couldn't take Quick Draw for my wand because the description of the feat only mentions weapons. I'd rather have a DM kill me for doing something stupid (like blindly walking through a door or going to sleep without posting guards) than limit my character concept over pidley nonsense.
Kid SixXx 04-25-07, 08:58 PM	I wish there were more DMs like you! I once had a DM tell me that I couldn't take Quick Draw for my wand because the description of the feat only mentions weapons. I'd rather have a DM kill me for doing something stupid (like blindly walking through a door or going to sleep without posting guards) than limit my character concept over pidley nonsense. There are such things as wand quivers and house-ruled creations such as wand bandoliers. Why didn't he let you take Quick Draw?
Grynn 04-26-07, 12:22 AM	As a DM, I can say that things are hard enough on my players as they try to be resourceful in the face of me trying to challenge and kill them over the course of attempting to have a little fun on a Saturday night. Ruleslawyering sometimes makes a bad situation worse, expecially when a DM is intent on manufacturing a way to deliberately screw players over. If they die, then they die: after all it's just a game. Enforcing rules to make things artificially difficult is not a cool way to do business.Maybe I've just always had good DMs, at least as far as rules-lawyering is concerned. My first DM said, "The rules are just there to make my job quicker and easier. If you want to do something not covered in the rules, and it sounds reasonable and fun, I'll make a ruling. We'll fine tune it later." Later in that session our rogue heard creatures waiting behind a door, so he quietly took off the hinges. My barbarian bull rushed the door into the opposite wall, smashing the hobgoblin caught in between. He didn't get up after that. Ah, yes, Mongo, the legendary Orc barbarian. Later in that campaign he beat one Duergar to death with the heavily armored corpse of another Duergar. A strength of 22 will do that for you.