Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tlarham 10-04-07, 05:23 PM	I've searched for this topic, but found squat, so here she blows... I just know this is going to become a debate at my table next week: If my BBEG casts antilife shell, I think that would hedge out the Warforged fighter along with the rest of the party. The spell description specifically states that constructs are immune, but the very nature of the spell seems to target "living creatures." I'm basing my decision on the ECS that says that Warforged are also susceptible to spells that effect "living creatures." Am I in the right (beyond rule #0)? -- Tallon
Revvecor 10-04-07, 05:28 PM	I would say that warforged would be effected.
larry_the_titan 10-04-07, 06:04 PM	Well here is the funny thing, it doesn't target living creature it only effect specific creature types. Since the spell list the creature types that it works on and Warforged are Constructs which it specifically doesn't work, it won't work. At least by RAW.
Salla 10-04-07, 06:23 PM	I would say you are correct. The probability of a PC construct wasn't really considered until Eberron, and Warforged are definitely living creatures.
Cifer 10-04-07, 06:28 PM	I would say you are correct. The probability of a PC construct wasn't really considered until Eberron, and Warforged are definitely living creatures. I'm not quite sure about it. After all, the spell explicitly doesn't work against outsiders and elementals, both of which are usually considered 'living' for other spell effects too. Anyway, your BBEG seems to be a cleric or a druid. They should be able to handle a few rounds of melee with a fighter.
Artector 10-04-07, 10:17 PM	I'd rule that the warforged is unaffected.
Revvecor 10-04-07, 10:35 PM	The reason I said that the Antilife Shell would effect warforged comes from my interpretation of the spells description (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antilifeShell.htm). My understanding of the spell is that the creatures that if has no effect on; do not have a separate soul from their body. This means that when they die their soul ceases to exist. I believe that warforged creatures have a soul that is separate from their body, this puts them in the category of creatures effected.
larry_the_titan 10-05-07, 06:45 AM	It doesn't matter what your logic or your gut tells you. RAW states that it doesn't work on Warforged. Which means if you play it how you plan to and force it on your players it is nothing but a house rule. Read some of the immunities of a Warforged and you might understand why they aren't humanoids.
Shady314 10-05-07, 07:01 AM	By the RAW it won't work on the Warforged. It's a tough cal if you should houserule it. It could open up a can of worms and annoy players wondering what spell will next suddenly affect the warforged that shouldn't. I think immunity to some spells is part of the awesomeness of warforged and come on the player is a FIGHTER. The fighter could always use a little love. It's pretty rare when the fighter can laugh in the face of a high level spell.
Gurv 10-05-07, 07:46 AM	Just so that we have something to look at as we debate: Antilife Shell Abjuration Level: Animal 6, Clr 6, Drd 6 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 round Range: 10 ft. Area: 10-ft.-radius emanation, centered on you Duration: 10 min./level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes You bring into being a mobile, hemispherical energy field that prevents the entrance of most types of living creatures. The effect hedges out animals, aberrations, dragons, fey, giants, humanoids, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, oozes, plants, and vermin, but not constructs, elementals, outsiders, or undead. This spell may be used only defensively, not aggressively. Forcing an abjuration barrier against creatures that the spell keeps at bay collapses the barrier. By the rules, it is very clear that this spell should not affect warforged. The spell states that it keeps out "most living creatures", and then goes out of its way to define which creature types are affected and which are not. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead are not affected. Your player is going to be righteously upset that this affects his character.
tlarham 10-05-07, 04:07 PM	I'm not opposed to making the Warforged immune, it just wasn't my first gut reaction -- that's why I asked. :) Just for giggles, I submitted it to Ask Wizards. Honestly, I'm more surprised that it's never come up on the boards before (that I could find). Thanks for all the responses! -- Tallon
Demon_Paladin 10-05-07, 04:37 PM	I don't think antilife shell should affectthe 'Forged. A side note I feel I should point out is the spells duration. How long is the fighter going to last going Mano a roboto with an at least 11th level cleric or druid? He's going to have no support for quite awhile. He better fight smart.
Alex_ 10-05-07, 06:28 PM	" As Living Constructs, Warforged can be affected by spells that target living creatures as well as those that target constructs." Several other spells don't usually effect Constructs either- like any spell whose target is "Living Creature". Living Creatures in the SRD are described as "all creatures other than constructs and undead". The Warforged's Living Construct subtype, however, makes it the exception. It can be affected by spells that can only target or affect living creatures, but would usually be useless against many other Constructs. Spells like Blinding/Deafness, Charm spells, Doom, and Hold spells. In addition, they're vulnerable to spells that affect Constructs. RAW, Anti-Life Shell would work on Warforged, Warforged Chargers, Warforged Scouts, and other Constructs with the Living Construct subtype. Another question though, how would the spell affect Deathless? Just left up to me as a DM, I would still rule that Warforged are effected. To keep things balanced, and also to differentiate Warforged from other Constructs, I only give them the immunities listed in the ECS. Anything else that effects Living or Constructs affects them unless covered by a previously described immunity.
tlarham 10-05-07, 10:33 PM	" As Living Constructs, Warforged can be affected by spells that target living creatures as well as those that target constructs." **snip** RAW, Anti-Life Shell would work on Warforged, Warforged Chargers, Warforged Scouts, and other Constructs with the Living Construct subtype. Another question though, how would the spell affect Deathless? That's exactly where I was coming from with my first opinion...based on that exact line from the CS. -- Tallon
Shady314 10-06-07, 08:49 AM	" As Living Constructs, Warforged can be affected by spells that target living creatures as well as those that target constructs." I bolded an important part for you. It is NOT saying EVERY spell that affects a living creature can work on warforged as well as spells that work on constructs. Several other spells don't usually effect Constructs either- like any spell whose target is "Living Creature". Living Creatures in the SRD are described as "all creatures other than constructs and undead". Except that Antilife shell says specifically what "living" is. The Warforged's Living Construct subtype, however, makes it the exception. It can be affected by spells that can only target or affect living creatures, but would usually be useless against many other Constructs. Spells like Blinding/Deafness, Charm spells, Doom, and Hold spells. In addition, they're vulnerable to spells that affect Constructs. There you are also wrong. For example we already know Charm person does NOT work. You need charm monster. RAW, Anti-Life Shell would work on Warforged, Warforged Chargers, Warforged Scouts, and other Constructs with the Living Construct subtype. Another question though, how would the spell affect Deathless? By RAW it would not as plenty of other posters have already pointed out. This has been brought up with other spells like Charm person. Just left up to me as a DM, I would still rule that Warforged are effected. To keep things balanced, It doesn't balance anything. Part of being a living construct is immunity to certain spells. Should elves be vulnerable to sleep for "balance?" and also to differentiate Warforged from other Constructs, I only give them the immunities listed in the ECS. Anything else that effects Living or Constructs affects them unless covered by a previously described immunity. They're differentiated from constructs in plenty of other ways. I don't think anyone's going to confuse a warforged with a golem because they're immune to antilife shell.
larry_the_titan 10-06-07, 11:59 AM	" As Living Constructs, Warforged can be affected by spells that target living creatures as well as those that target constructs." Several other spells don't usually effect Constructs either- like any spell whose target is "Living Creature". Living Creatures in the SRD are described as "all creatures other than constructs and undead". The Warforged's Living Construct subtype, however, makes it the exception. It can be affected by spells that can only target or affect living creatures, but would usually be useless against many other Constructs. Spells like Blinding/Deafness, Charm spells, Doom, and Hold spells. In addition, they're vulnerable to spells that affect Constructs. RAW, Anti-Life Shell would work on Warforged, Warforged Chargers, Warforged Scouts, and other Constructs with the Living Construct subtype. Another question though, how would the spell affect Deathless? Just left up to me as a DM, I would still rule that Warforged are effected. To keep things balanced, and also to differentiate Warforged from other Constructs, I only give them the immunities listed in the ECS. Anything else that effects Living or Constructs affects them unless covered by a previously described immunity. I love how people take this ruling to far. Read to spell again and tell me where it targets living creatures as a whole because last time I checked it states the types it effects and the ones it doesn't. Warforged are Construct which it states it doesn't target.
Just_some_Evil_Wizard 10-06-07, 04:16 PM	As a DM, I would have the spell affect Warforged, but inform the WF's player early enough to plan accordingly. RAW? Maybe, maybe not. But Warforged are already very, very powerful - personally, I would have put them at LA+2 or even more. When there is an more or less open question, I'd vote in favor of balance, not Warforged.
Cifer 10-06-07, 04:30 PM	But Warforged are already very, very powerful - personally, I would have put them at LA+2 or even more. Please explain, taking into account their two negative ability modifiers, healing problems, vulnerabilities to artificers and social stigmata.
Alex_ 10-06-07, 05:49 PM	I love how people take this ruling to far. Read to spell again and tell me where it targets living creatures as a whole because last time I checked it states the types it effects and the ones it doesn't. Warforged are Construct which it states it doesn't target. And if a Warforged Construct type overrides their Living Construct subtype, then they're also immune to Blinding/Deafness, all Charm and Hold spells, Doom, amongst others, because those spells don't effect Constructs either. The spell was obviously written before the creation of the Living Construct subtype, which is made even more evident by the fact that it leaves out the Undying type.
Alex_ 10-06-07, 05:53 PM	" As Living Constructs, Warforged can be affected by spells that target living creatures as well as those that target constructs." I bolded an important part for you. It is NOT saying EVERY spell that affects a living creature can work on warforged as well as spells that work on constructs. Neither is it saying "some", "none" or anything similar. The rest of the Warforged's traits help us understand what kinds of spells can work on it. This part tells us that if the spell doesn't fall under a Warforged's under immunities, and effects livig things, the Warforged can be affected by it. Except that Antilife shell says specifically what "living" is. Only in regards to creatures in the SRD. It wasn't written to take into account the Living Construct subtype... or Deathless types. The Warforged's Living Construct subtype, however, makes it the exception. It can be affected by spells that can only target or affect living creatures, but would usually be useless against many other Constructs. Spells like Blinding/Deafness, Charm spells, Doom, and Hold spells. In addition, they're vulnerable to spells that affect Constructs. There you are also wrong. For example we already know Charm person does NOT work. You need charm monster. I didn't say Charm Person. I said Charm spells. Charm Person can only target Humanoids, and a Warforged is a Construct. However, Charm Monster can only target Living Creatures, and if you rule that a Warforged's Construct type overrides its Living Construct subtype, then it'd be immune to that too. There is no Charm Construct spell, and thus, Warforged are immune to Charm spells (amongst others)... unless their Living Construct subtype makes them an exception. RAW, Anti-Life Shell would work on Warforged, Warforged Chargers, Warforged Scouts, and other Constructs with the Living Construct subtype. Another question though, how would the spell affect Deathless? By RAW it would not as plenty of other posters have already pointed out. This has been brought up with other spells like Charm person. RAW, Living Constructs would be immune to all Charm spells. Plenty of other posters have overlooked the fact that Constructs are not classified as Living Creatures by RAW. Not just in this spell description, but under the Magic Overview rules describing targets for spells. Also, nobody in the thread has addressed how Anti-Life Shell would deal with the Deathless type. Just left up to me as a DM, I would still rule that Warforged are effected. To keep things balanced, It doesn't balance anything. Part of being a living construct is immunity to certain spells. Should elves be vulnerable to sleep for "balance?" I would say no, as their immunity to Sleep, when combined with their other traits, is not unbalancing. However, ruling that Warforged, as Constructs, would be immune to any negative spell that normally only targets Living Creatures (which Constructs are not) while giving them full benefits of all positive spells that can only target Living Creatures is unbalanced. They become immune to the spells I lsited above (amongst others), and those are very capable and not too uncommon spells. and also to differentiate Warforged from other Constructs, I only give them the immunities listed in the ECS. Anything else that effects Living or Constructs affects them unless covered by a previously described immunity. They're differentiated from constructs in plenty of other ways. I don't think anyone's going to confuse a warforged with a golem because they're immune to antilife shell. I didn't say people confused Warforged with Golems. I say I try to differentiate Warforged from other constructs, which is something lots of people don't seem to do considering there are several threads in the Eberron boards that ask, "Are Warforged immune to XYZ?" often with with conclusion that since a Warforged is a Construct, it should function like one. I've seen rulings like Warforged and non-lethal damage, Warfarged degrading after death, and vulnerability to Mindlfayer and Vampire sucking things out of them criticized since they make Warforged less like normal constructs.
xenosauridae 10-06-07, 08:33 PM	If I were DMing, I'd take the opportunity to do something exotic and insane. Let the Warforged body enter while it's soul is left outside the barrier. How often do you get to create a Warforged ghost?
tlarham 10-06-07, 10:30 PM	If I were DMing, I'd take the opportunity to do something exotic and insane. Let the Warforged body enter while it's soul is left outside the barrier. How often do you get to create a Warforged ghost? That's great... :evillaugh I think I'll incorporate that somehow -- if nothing else than a vision of what his "soul" looks like. There are decent arguments both ways...but at this point I've decided that it won't affect the 'forged for a few reasons. Sblocked for RHoD spoilers 1. The spell will block out the other melee characters (a githrazai monk and an elf duskblade), AND 2. The setting of the encounter makes the casters useless (it's the Azarr Kul fight in RHoD -- silenced area, though the Duskblade has sudden silent to get off one spell) 3. The primary caster (gnome Archivist/Wizard/MysThg) is almost dead from Wyvern poison, so he's playing support from below the encounter room. So...I've decided to favor the PC's. Their half-dead and still sluggin' it out -- and more than deserving of a "break" as it were. After all...I want them to win -- I just want them to earn it. ;) More Spoilers I just hope they're smart enough to run when the aspect shows up. :eek: -- Tallon
Shady314 10-07-07, 04:13 AM	Neither is it saying "some", "none" or anything similar. The rest of the Warforged's traits help us understand what kinds of spells can work on it. This part tells us that if the spell doesn't fall under a Warforged's under immunities, and effects livig things, the Warforged can be affected by it. Only in regards to creatures in the SRD. It wasn't written to take into account the Living Construct subtype... or Deathless types. I didn't say Charm Person. I said Charm spells. Charm Person can only target Humanoids, and a Warforged is a Construct. However, Charm Monster can only target Living Creatures, and if you rule that a Warforged's Construct type overrides its Living Construct subtype, then it'd be immune to that too. There is no Charm Construct spell, and thus, Warforged are immune to Charm spells (amongst others)... unless their Living Construct subtype makes them an exception. RAW, Living Constructs would be immune to all Charm spells. Plenty of other posters have overlooked the fact that Constructs are not classified as Living Creatures by RAW. Not just in this spell description, but under the Magic Overview rules describing targets for spells. Also, nobody in the thread has addressed how Anti-Life Shell would deal with the Deathless type. I would say no, as their immunity to Sleep, when combined with their other traits, is not unbalancing. However, ruling that Warforged, as Constructs, would be immune to any negative spell that normally only targets Living Creatures (which Constructs are not) while giving them full benefits of all positive spells that can only target Living Creatures is unbalanced. They become immune to the spells I lsited above (amongst others), and those are very capable and not too uncommon spells. I didn't say people confused Warforged with Golems. I say I try to differentiate Warforged from other constructs, which is something lots of people don't seem to do considering there are several threads in the Eberron boards that ask, "Are Warforged immune to XYZ?" often with with conclusion that since a Warforged is a Construct, it should function like one. I've seen rulings like Warforged and non-lethal damage, Warfarged degrading after death, and vulnerability to Mindlfayer and Vampire sucking things out of them criticized since they make Warforged less like normal constructs. No. And the board has backed me up on it. You're not a lone genius fighting all us ignorant posters. You're just wrong. I won't waste any more time defending the correct position since the OP has decided and the topic is over.
Alex_ 10-07-07, 09:46 AM	No. And the board has backed me up on it. You're not a lone genius fighting all us ignorant posters. I won't waste any more time defending the correct position since the OP has decided and the topic is over. First off, I'm no genius. Second of all, I'm not alone. tlarham, Revvecor, and Salla -1/3 the posters in this thread- came to the same conclusion I did before I posted. I'm not fighting "all you ignorant posters", I'm providing information and rulings that have so far not been mentioned in this thread that would suggest that Warforged would be affected by Anti-life Shell, lending more evidence and justification to those who had already decided on it. Your position is not correct. If it were, then perhaps you could stick to an impersonal examination of the rules and facts, and not imply that I think I'm a genius fighting the ignorant majority (I most definitely am not) in an effort to discredit me. I'm not out to personally insult/show up/embarass you or anyone else on these boards. See my signature.
Shady314 10-07-07, 10:21 AM	First off, I'm no genius. Exactly. Because you are wrong. It's ok. It happens. tlarham did not come to the same conclusion you did so re-do your math. He was unsure and eventually decided it would not effect the warforged for whatever reason. Your argument is nonsensical which makes it hard to respond to. Furthermore you have provided no RULINGS. I have no idea what you are talking about with that. Stop wasting everyone's time with your misinformation.
Just_some_Evil_Wizard 10-07-07, 10:25 AM	Please explain, taking into account their two negative ability modifiers, healing problems, vulnerabilities to artificers and social stigmata. Ability modifiers? Con > Wis + Cha for fighters, which is their favored class. Healing problem? They don't heal naturally, but can use Craft to repair themselves while others sleep. Vulnerability to artificiers? Immunity to poison, disease, level drain, fatigue - and a large number of spells (possibly including antilife shell). From a mechanical standpoint, I'd take vulnerability to Rusting Grasp and a handful of other spells anyday. Look at the MM and tell me how many creatures are more dangerous for a warforged than for a human. Social Stigmata? Didn't notice that was factor with tiefling or drow. And those are not just regarded as "some lower form of life" as warforged are, but more along the lines of "evil creatures to be slain on sight". A PC not in need of food, sleep or rest is something very powerful. Anybody ever play Cyberpunk and NOT buy a sleep inducer without regretting it?
Alex_ 10-07-07, 01:07 PM	tlarham did not come to the same conclusion you did so re-do your math. He was unsure and eventually decided it would not effect the warforged for whatever reason. At first he (or she) had already determined it would effect Warforged RAW, and sought second opinions. They decided that in this particular situation, it would not to in order to give the PCs a break. Your argument is nonsensical which makes it hard to respond to. I apologize then. I'll try to explain it better. It is suggested that as Constructs, Warforged are immune to Anti-life Shell, which states Constructs are not effected. Their Living construct subtype does not make them count as Living Creatures when a spell is specified that it doesn't work against Constructs. According to the SRD, There are other spells that can only target or effect Living Creatures. Many spells affect “living creatures,” which means all creatures other than constructs and undead. Creatures in the spell’s area that are not of the appropriate type do not count against the creatures affected. (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/magicOverview.html) (links to the SRD page concerning it). If some decide that a Warforged being a Construct makes it immune to spells that are described as not working on Constructs, then spells that target Living Creatures cannot effect it. Examples of spells that would not effect Warforged under this ruling would be... Aid, Atonement, Bark Skin, Binding, Blindness/Deafness, Cause Fear, Charm Monster, Command, Confusion, Daze Monster, Death Knell, Death Ward, Doom, Dream, Eyebite, Finger of Death, Hypnotism, Insanity, Irresistible Dance, Lullaby, Magic Fang, Modify Memory, Nightmare, Phantasmal Killer, Power Word Kill, Rage, Regenerate, Scare, Slay Living, Status, Suggestion, Touch of Idiocy, and Vampiric Touch- and that's just out of the PHB. I'm sure I missed many as well. All of these spells can only target Living Creatures, "which means all creatures other than constructs and undead" (right out of the SRD link from above). Some would say that Warforged as Constructs, are immune to all those spells. I say that since they have the Living Construct subtype, Warforged are actually vulnerable to all those spells. "As Living Constructs, Warforged can be affected by spells that target living creatures as well as those that target constructs," (from the ECS regarding Warforged). The reason the text for Anti-Life shell doesn't mention the Living Construct subtype as an exception is because the people who wrote it didn't know someone was going to make something like the Living Construct subtype. No spell or rule prior to Eberron was written stating that the Living Construct subtype was an exception. The Living Construct description in the ECS and MIII making them vulnerable to spells that target Living Creatures makes them retroactively vulnerable to all such spells, and vulnerable to future spells that fail to take them into account. Furthermore you have provided no RULINGS. I have no idea what you are talking about with that. Stop wasting everyone's time with your misinformation. I quoted the SRD and the ECS. I just realized that I didn't mention where I was getting those quotes from though. My apologies. I believe I've corrected it.
tlarham 10-07-07, 07:49 PM	At first he (or she) had already determined it would effect Warforged RAW, and sought second opinions. They decided that in this particular situation, it would not to in order to give the PCs a break. The reason I had decided that the spell would affect Warforged is because the spell obviously excludes constructs because they are not "alive." They are animated objects without a CON, and therefor immune to a "life" barrier. A Warforged is alive, and so I thought that they too would be held at bay by the effects of the spell. I still generally feel this way. So...I was using the reason for Constructs to be excluded in the original spell to form (what I thought was) a logical decision. Call me a sap, I'm going to give my PC's a break. The encounter would be near-impossible and very frustrating without some kind of edge. However, the spell was written prior to a Living Construct type, so there is really no way of knowing for sure without an official ruling from Wizards...which I doubt will happen (still have not heard back). I can see them ruling both ways, and each with good reason. Perhaps a WF should get some kind of save to ignore the barrier...who knows; I'm not a rule-wiz or a game designer. Even more important... "He (or she)"...:thinks:...He. ;) Slightly less important... Is all the venom really necessary? :pint: -- Tallon (Who wasn't smart enough to pick a username beyond "first initial" + "last name")
larry_the_titan 10-07-07, 08:56 PM	@Alex, you don't seem to read the spell as written. You keep seeing the spell as you see it working. If you had read the spell as written you would notice that the spell doesn't effect all living creatures but only effect most "living creatures". It does in fact list the construct type as unaffected along with 2 other kinds of living creatures, Elemental and Outsiders. If you take a second and think about it maybe you would understand. And for future note: RAW>RAI Meaning Rules As Written is greater then Rules As Intended.
Alex_ 10-08-07, 05:22 PM	@Alex, you don't seem to read the spell as written. You keep seeing the spell as you see it working. If you had read the spell as written you would notice that the spell doesn't effect all living creatures but only effect most "living creatures". It does in fact list the construct type as unaffected along with 2 other kinds of living creatures, Elemental and Outsiders. If you take a second and think about it maybe you would understand. I am reading the spell description. Living Construct rules apply retroactively. And for future note: RAW>RAI Meaning Rules As Written is greater then Rules As Intended. The Living Construct subtypes makes creatures possessing it vulnerable to spells that effect living creatures, even if that spell normally doesn't work on Constructs. This isn't RAW vs RAI. This is a case of the Living Construct Subtype making Constructs vulnerable to situations where Constructs are normally immune. This is a case of new rules retroactively overriding older ones, and new RAW > old RAW.
larry_the_titan 10-08-07, 07:40 PM	This isn't RAW vs RAI. This is a case of the Living Construct Subtype making Constructs vulnerable to situations where Constructs are normally immune. This is a case of new rules retroactively overriding older ones, and new RAW > old RAW. You need to think again there has been no changes to the rules stating the spell works on living constructs so until that happens it is still part of the current RAW. Maybe it is something you can look forward to in 4th Ed.
Alex_ 10-08-07, 08:46 PM	You need to think again there has been no changes to the rules stating the spell works on living constructs so until that happens it is still part of the current RAW. The description of the Living Construct traits is the change in the rules that determines how all spells that target Living Things effect Constructs with the Living Construct subtype. In the ECS, RoE, and MMIII it says, "Living Constructs can be affected by spells that target Living Creatures, as well as those that target Constructs." It uses Harm and Cure as examples. That's the rule that goes back and says that all the spells that say they affect Living Creatures, but not Constructs still work on those Constructs with the Living Construct subtype. They aren't going to go back and rewrite the the rules for each and every spell and ability they ever wrote concerning Living Creatures and/or Constructs and specifically note the Living Construct subtype. They're not going to do it for the majority of future material either. It's just like to how the Living Construct subtype is vulnerable to Critical Hits, or Sneak Attack-like abilities even though in their descriptions, these abilities specifically state that they do not work against Constructs. They aren't going to go back and rewrite Sneak Attack, Skirmish, Sudden Strike, Insightful Strike, etc to say that Living Constructs are the exception to the ability not affecting Constructs. Future abilities won't mention Living Constructs specifically either. The Living Construct traits will simply overrule them. Maybe it is something you can look forward to in 4th Ed. I don't think they will, not they need to.
Cifer 10-09-07, 11:58 AM	Ability modifiers? Con > Wis + Cha for fighters, which is their favored class. Sure. As long as your game is Hack&Slash, that is. And as long as you don't ever need to make spot checks or Will saves. Healing problem? They don't heal naturally, but can use Craft to repair themselves while others sleep. I was referring more to the point of them being unable to be effectively healed by clerics. I wouldn't want to get a wizard to go to the frontline to heal his WF buddy and artificers usually have even less infusions free for healing. Vulnerability to artificiers? Immunity to poison, disease, level drain, fatigue - and a large number of spells (possibly including antilife shell). From a mechanical standpoint, I'd take vulnerability to Rusting Grasp and a handful of other spells anyday. Look at the MM and tell me how many creatures are more dangerous for a warforged than for a human. All the creatures you'd fight much better if you had one extra skill or an extra feat. Social Stigmata? Didn't notice that was factor with tiefling or drow. And those are not just regarded as "some lower form of life" as warforged are, but more along the lines of "evil creatures to be slain on sight". With tieflings, that already depends on your campaign - quite often, they're just distrusted. Further, there's debate about whether both Tieflings and Aasimar aren't over-LAed. Drow too are almost playable only when you're using LA-buyoff. A PC not in need of food, sleep or rest is something very powerful. Anybody ever play Cyberpunk and NOT buy a sleep inducer without regretting it? It's also something that you can very nearly reproduce by buying a Ring of Sustenance for 2500 gp - or even better: Enchanting one of your preexisting rings up to a Sustenance.
stone_dog 10-10-07, 10:28 PM	I'm throwing my vote in with "Warforged are immune." They are primarily constructs, even though they have living components. If the spell affected all kinds of living creatures then warforged would be affected like anything else, but it doesn't. Just MOST kinds. Constructs excluded. To my reading Native Outsiders are immune as well, as are 20th level monks. There is just enough unworldly or unnatural stuff about these creatures that makes the shell permeable to them.
Tordak 10-11-07, 09:09 AM	@Alex, you don't seem to read the spell as written. You keep seeing the spell as you see it working. If you had read the spell as written you would notice that the spell doesn't effect all living creatures but only effect most "living creatures". It does in fact list the construct type as unaffected along with 2 other kinds of living creatures, Elemental and Outsiders. If you take a second and think about it maybe you would understand. And for future note: RAW>RAI Meaning Rules As Written is greater then Rules As Intended. It might seem like a hard comment but I must totally side with Larry the titan. Warforged are constructs with the living construct subtype. The spell states the type of creatures affected and does not state that it targets 'living creature', altough the name of the spell might have implied that and the creatures affected are actually living. Has for critical hits and sneak attacks and non-lethal and others, it is specified in the warforged description that they are affected. Like with most rules, the construct shouldn't be affected by the spell unless otherwise specified in it's description (spell or creature description). The only thing that can save a DM here is the fact that Warforged are affected by an open category of spell that affect living creature, and that it is up to the DM to determine which spell affect the warforged and which doesn't. IMHO according to a strict reading of the rules the warforged would not be affected, but given the latitude granted to DM in the warforged description you could choose to affect them as a house rule. AntilifeShell predates the living construct and I guess they didn't want to have to go over every single spell again when they came up with this new concept. Make sure your players know about this ahead of time to avoid arguements at the game session. I think both ruling are valid. I really like the idea of xenosauridae about separating the living and unliving part of warforged, it makes for a pretty cool interpretation of the whole warforged concept. Some might say it's not the way it is but then again it's was never really specified clearly how this whole 'living' concept was, and coming up with this interpretation is quite imaginative. Even if you only meant it as a joke. It's unfortunate, but DMs have the final word, so DM>RAW (altough any good DM would be well advise to follow sensible rules and not make too many illegitimate changes to the rules mid-game if they want to keep the game interesting and their players).
Tordak 10-11-07, 09:10 AM	I'm throwing my vote in with "Warforged are immune." To my reading Native Outsiders are immune as well, as are 20th level monks. There is just enough unworldly or unnatural stuff about these creatures that makes the shell permeable to them. Perfect exemple
Alex_ 10-11-07, 08:11 PM	It might seem like a hard comment but I must totally side with Larry the titan. Warforged are constructs with the living construct subtype. The spell states the type of creatures affected and does not state that it targets 'living creature', altough the name of the spell might have implied that and the creatures affected are actually living. Has for critical hits and sneak attacks and non-lethal and others, it is specified in the warforged description that they are affected... I didn't only mention Sneak Attacks. For instance, Skirmish specifically states that Constructs are immune to the extra damage, but the Living Construct subtype does not specifically state that they're vulnerable to Skirmish. Rules are not written to specifically take into account the Living Construct Subtype and the Living Construct subtype can't possibly make specific mention of every ability or spell it's immune/vulnerable to. Living Constructs are simply the exception to the rule: susceptible to abilities that would normally affect constructs and those that affect Living Creatures (more specifically Humans), even when the other type would normally be immune. The rules for Living Constructs state this. To go back and demand that every spell/ability specifically call out the Living Construct as an exception or that the Living Construct subtype specifically calls out the ability as an exception is futile. It hasn't happened, it isn't happening, and it's not going to happen. "The rules don't explicitly state this interpretation of the rules is not correct (and never will), therefore it is correct- over more balanced and logically consistent interpretations." I just don't understand it... :confused:
larry_the_titan 10-12-07, 07:05 AM	You Realize that even with all of the immunities that Warforged have that most of the time it doesn't help them in a standard monster on monster battle. And Anti Life Shell last at least 130 minutes (thats 1300s rounds of combat) with a base casting and effectively turns the battle into a ranged combat when dealing with that person. A couple of Fireballs or call lightnings would of finished him before he could do anything meaningful. Just because Warforged are immune doesn't mean its wise for them to go toe to toe with a Cleric either. Warforged are still fully effected by harm spells even though they only take half healing from standard healing spells. Oh and with out the Precise Shot feat his buddies will find them selves firing into melee. So all this running into melee may not help the party at all. I kinda want to know how the battle turned out.
Tordak 10-12-07, 09:15 AM	For skirmish attack, you’re right it doesn’t say anything about it in the description of the waforged (or living construct for that matter). In the description of the skirmish attack, there is a paragraph that explains what kind of creatures are not affected by the attack. I’ll let you go ahead and read it (takes too much room here). Looks familiar? Of course it does, because it is exactly the same paragraph that describes the creatures not affected by sneak attack in the rogue description, down to the punctuation (those lasy bum probably copy-paste the whole thing). It’s now not a very big gap to fill to say warforged are also affected by skirmish, much less a gap then saying antilife shell affects all living creature because the description and/or name would lead you to think so. I would certainly agree with it, it is certainly consistent. But if a DM would come up with something along the lines ‘Sneak attack relies on the inability of the target to defend itself adequately and on striking vital spots, while skirmish relies on the mobility of the attacker and is ability to catch an opponent off balance, therefore the attack is different and does not affect warforged’, I would agree with him (I’m convinced that the player would also since it favors them). There are no official rules saying it’s the same ability (as far as I know), there are even feats that would require one of the 2 ability and having the other one those not qualify you for that particular feat. Would that be wrong? Certainly not! Even if it looks inconsistent to you, it makes perfect sense to someone else. There is some inconsistent stuff in the rules, here’s an example. Dragon Shamans (PHII) are spiritual guides in their tribe and as such should be extremely knowledgeable, at the very least when it comes to dragons. The knowledge skill used to check in-game knowledge of dragon is knowledge (arcane), yet on their class skill list they only have knowledge (nature). They could tell you all about the digesting habits of a feys of the mating habits of treants, but they’d be hard press to tell you a green dragon’s breath weapon is acid! Did I miss something? It would sure look inconsistent to me, and any good DM would want to change the class skill. But then again what was the idea behind it? Was it a mistake, or was the intention really for the dragon shaman to be good with nature? After all, most are part of barbarian tribes according to their description (in Eberron it is case). So a DM who would stick with this would not be wrong either. You can try to figure out their intention based on your knowledge of the game, I’m sure you’re pretty smart, and had you had a chance to ask the creator they would have probably proven you right. But if it’s only a guess or if you fill the blank yourself, then it’s your intention not theirs. Inconsistency calls for judgement from the DM (and the players too), but when you’re not sure you sticking with the RAW is a pretty damn smart thing. That is why I said (if you read the whole thing) that it is up to the DM to rule in such case. That is also why I said DM>RAW but didn’t say anything about RAI; you can guess the intention, and you can rule according to that, but you must assume it is your decision and not the only truth. There is no consistency (or logic) at stake with the living construct vs construct vis-ŕ-vis antilife shell, one judgement appeals to the interpretation that constructs are unaffected by the spell according to the rules (and warforged are construct), the other one appeals to the interpretation that living creatures are affected by Antilife shell (once again, it is not what is written). As for going over all the rules, as I also said, that is why they came up with the whole up to the DM (do I write this to much?). The whole point still holds : warforged is not affected according to the rules. However consistent it is, antilife shell affecting anything living is still an interpretation (which could be absolutely correct). And as the Larry pointed out, the immunity to that one particular spell will not mean victory for the players just yet. Also, concerning skirmish and sneak attack, I recall seeing a sage advice on the topic saying it should affect the same kind of creature (I think it was precisely because of the living construct), but that in the end it was still up to the DM(sorry I said it again). Once again, it is certainly 'balanced and logically consistent' to think so.
Cifer 10-14-07, 10:35 AM	@Tordak Please, please use paragraphs. The brick wall of text is really hard on the reader's eyes. Skirmish and Sudden Strike have been clarified that they are basically bound by the same things as Sneak attack, affected by the same feats and so on.
Tordak 10-14-07, 04:37 PM	Sure thing, sorry about that :)
tlarham 10-14-07, 05:06 PM	I kinda want to know how the battle turned out. The fight was last night, and all PC's survived -- barely. The party used a combo of levitates and fly spells to go up the shaft -- before the gith monk ascended, a silence spell was cast on him. As soon as Azarr Kul saw them coming, he sent his minions to run defense while he cast anti-life shell, haste, bull's strength, and righteous might. The PC's never got near him until he was buffed. The monk's silence reached him through the antilife shell, but he saved against the affects. Then he waded into Melee, and starting smacking PC's left and right. They couldn't really touch him (AC >30), so the flying duskblade elf would fly down the shaft, cast true-strike, and then fly up again and shoot poisoned arrows at him. The caster was so hurt he stayed invisible w/ healing support while Kul was laying into them with his Chromatic Rod. Then the forged decided to sunder his shield, and did so easily (adamantine greatsword). At that point the figured they were toast, so the monk threw a chaositech (it's my 3rd party addition to the campaign) bomb/splash weapon. Touch attack. Rolls.....nat 20. Rolls again.....nat 20 Rolls again.....confirms. All jaws drop. We use auto-kill rules. Kul saved, but the attack dropped him to -6 HPs. Coup de grace, and Kul falls into Kyber. There was a serious debate about the ability to critical with a splash weapon (that how the bombs function), but we could not find a rule that said they don't. Another round, and a PC would have died. So they ran -- happy to have won, but still shaken. The forged did wander through the shell afterwards while "looting." His soul stayed behind, and he was able to look upon it. It was a resplendent figure made of white light traced with dragonmark-like patterns of color that centered in the middle of his chest. It was a very religious experience for the character. I'll post a link to the In-character journal that the caster keep when he finishes. -- Tallon
Demon_Paladin 10-14-07, 08:53 PM	The fight was last night, and all PC's survived -- barely. -snip- so the monk threw a chaositech (it's my 3rd party addition to the campaign) bomb/splash weapon. Touch attack. Rolls.....nat 20. Rolls again.....nat 20 Rolls again.....confirms. All jaws drop. We use auto-kill rules. Kul saved, but the attack dropped him to -6 HPs. Coup de grace, and Kul falls into Kyber. There was a serious debate about the ability to critical with a splash weapon (that how the bombs function), but we could not find a rule that said they don't. Another round, and a PC would have died. So they ran -- happy to have won, but still shaken. The forged did wander through the shell afterwards while "looting." His soul stayed behind, and he was able to look upon it. It was a resplendent figure made of white light traced with dragonmark-like patterns of color that centered in the middle of his chest. It was a very religious experience for the character. -- Tallon Now that's what Eberron is all about! That was a great way to handle the dilemma, I think.
larry_the_titan 10-15-07, 06:33 AM	Glad to hear they made it out and you made the fight memorial.
xenosauridae 10-15-07, 09:48 PM	:D That's pretty cool. Also, a possible motivator for taking some Cleric levels!