I'm filling up my binder with one warforged PC of each class. I haven't built a bard yet since they are a week away from legal, but otherwise they are all built save one.
I'd like to build a Beastmaster ranger. However, I'd really like to have a living construct beast companion. Even if it didn't take on the "construct" type and retained every single attribute of the original beast, yet was obviously (roleplaying-wise) another construct.
The question I have is, is this re-elementing pretty much the same as the hypothetical warforged/orc in the other thread? I am of the "bad idea, don't do it in a Living game" opinion for that other thread, and if other people think that this particular re-elementing is similar in nature, then I'd forget about it, build a two-blade ranger, and leave the construct beast for a home game.
How about this one. I am only playing Warforged PCs, even in classes that aren't good for warforged (I have a level 5 orb wizard for instance - two non-bonus stats to keep high, no particular synergies to speak of). So far I have played six of these PCs at least once.
I'm filling up my binder with one warforged PC of each class. I haven't built a bard yet since they are a week away from legal, but otherwise they are all built save one.
I'd like to build a Beastmaster ranger. However, I'd really like to have a living construct beast companion. Even if it didn't take on the "construct" type and retained every single attribute of the original beast, yet was obviously (roleplaying-wise) another construct.
The question I have is, is this re-elementing pretty much the same as the hypothetical warforged/orc in the other thread? I am of the "bad idea, don't do it in a Living game" opinion for that other thread, and if other people think that this particular re-elementing is similar in nature, then I'd forget about it, build a two-blade ranger, and leave the construct beast for a home game.
Well, from a quick perusal of the Beast Master class feature:
You gain a beast companion from one of these categories. . .
. . . These categories do not describe specific animals, but rather groups of similarly themed creatures. . .
. . .You decide the creature's relevant details - its species, physical details, and so forth.
So, it sounds to me like the rules, by design, are "pick a mechanic, flavor it yourself".
To that end, I wouldn't see anything wrong (personally) with a Warforged Beast Master who has an Iron Defender (Wolf) as his pet (as an example).
I'd try not to go too crazy, mind. A 'forged Beast Master with a Borg Cube (Spider) may be pushing it.
Just one opinion, anyhow.
1) I have a pretty strong personality, and could "convince" almost any local DM that this would be a perfectly fine thing to do, whatever to consensus here.
2) Rules-wise, would I be justified in then claiming my "construct" companion didn't need to eat, drink, or breathe? I think that that is taking it a step or two too far, lol. (I suppose I could easily RP the construct having an "air intake" that needed just as much access to breatheable air as a flesh-based companion, and it could need to be "refueled" with organic materials.)
I guess my main things are these:
1) I have a pretty strong personality, and could "convince" almost any local DM that this would be a perfectly fine thing to do, whatever to consensus here.
2) Rules-wise, would I be justified in then claiming my "construct" companion didn't need to eat, drink, or breathe? I think that that is taking it a step or two too far, lol. (I suppose I could easily RP the construct having an "air intake" that needed just as much access to breatheable air as a flesh-based companion, and it could need to be "refueled" with organic materials.)
Well the warforged have the whole no eating/drinking/sleeping/breathing thing, but the writeup specifically says that it doesn't render them immune to any effect. IMO, that means that most of the living construct stuff is pretty much fluff anyway, other than the no sleeping and the +2 to ongoing damage saves (and attaching/embedding components and what not)
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anything in the beast companion feature that requires your companion to sleep, eat, drink, or breathe either. Again, this is fluff. So if you want to flavor your companion as an Iron Defender wolf that doesn't eat, drink or breathe and stays up on watch all night, I see nothing that prevents this. Your companion just wouldn't be immune to any effects from this (like a warforged). You can't actually claim that your companion is a living construct, but companions are like them in many ways already.
Enjoy!
Hell, I play a "Dwarforged"... a dwarven construct built by dwarves for protection. I don't pretend to be a dwarf - I play a warforged with some dwarven flavoring. I see no reason why you couldn't have a Wolf, per se, with warforged flavoring.
that it doesn't render them immune to any effect.
Well, to be specific it says that they aren't immune to any combat effect (ie. poisoned gas attacks or the like). I would judge them to be immune to non-combat effects such as starvation and drowning...
Well, to be specific it says that they aren't immune to any combat effect (ie. poisoned gas attacks or the like). I would judge them to be immune to non-combat effects such as starvation and drowning...
I think that's a fairly obtuse interpretation though. Specifically because that would mean that warforged can only starve or drown when they roll initiative :P
I don't think you can do this with your pet, but again as I've said before it doesn't matter because pets are so ill-defined to begin with. ANY pet can go it's entire life without eating, drinking, breathing, or sleeping, simply because the rules don't say they need to, and when a pet dies, you can get it back 4 hours later. If you want a golem-dog, go ahead, just be aware that you gain 0 mechanical advantages with it over another ranger's normal wolf or hyena or whatever.
you let rangers turn their animal companions into mechanical constucts then theres no reason not to allow me to buy a warforged riding horse for 75 gold
which would be cool...
I could mount a shoulder crossbow on it like a turret and i could send it in to scout for traps, itd even have glowing eyes... I could even combine it with an ornithopter and have a flying mount.. now we are talkin...
Once you go outside the rules where do you stop if the ranger can take a warforged pet can he take a gnome animal companion, at least thats a living breathing mammal.. how bout a miniature tyrannasurus with hyena stats, or an undead insubstantial miniature warforged ghost ogre.. i mean it would appear as an undead insubstantial miniature warforged ghost ogre but it would use seagull stats ..
You get what the rules say you get..
I dont have a copy of the rules in front of me but to me you play by the rules.
You get what the rules say you get..
I quoted the relevant parts of the rules in my post.
In a nutshell the rules say you get a "type" of pet (and the rules later define the mechanics of those types). It also says you get to set the specifics.
The example given is that if you choose "lizard" as your pet type, and play a ranger from the swamps your "lizard" might well be an Alligator.
Meanwhile, since we can set the details ourselves, I could play the same Lizard-Lovin' Ranger, and have a Komodo Dragon, or even an over-sized Chameleon. So, there's nothing wrong with saying it's a living contsruct lizard, made of plants, stone, and metal.
So long as I abide by the mechanics of the "lizard" type. No, I couldn't attach a shoulder-bow (unless the "lizard" descriptor says otherwise) and in truth, the "type" wouldn't even change from beast to Living Construct. But the flavor is left deliberately open.
Specifically because that would mean that warforged can only starve or drown when they roll initiative
Just because it happens during combat doesn't mean it's a combat effect. The only reason they put that "no immunity to combat effects" disclaimer in there is so that people couldn't say "I don't breathe, so your poison gas attack can't hurt me." Same way that skeletons don't breathe or eat (and obviously could never drown or starve, either in or out of combat), but could still be damaged by a poison gas ability (say, Stinking Cloud) cast by PCs.
The main reason I've been hesitant is just this one though. I'd imagine that if I actually went through with this I'd reflavour my beast to be mechanical, but would require breathing, eating, sleeping, etc.
The main reason I've been hesitant is just this one though. I'd imagine that if I actually went through with this I'd reflavour my beast to be mechanical, but would require breathing, eating, sleeping, etc.
Except there's nothing that says that pets need to do any of those things. They are mechanically similar to weapons. That's why there's a 4-hour ritual to get your dog back if fluffy walks into a punji pit and dies. That's why each has a set AC, HP, Attack, and Damage entry. A pet's game statistics are based solely on its creature category and level. The relevant text also mentions that your pet is considered a creature and an ally and can be affected by powers. Nowhere in Martial Power does it say that your beast companion needs to eat, drink, sleep, or breathe (Though most players might flavor their pet to do so.)
Nowhere in Martial Power does it say that your beast companion needs to eat, drink, sleep, or breathe (Though most players might flavor their pet to do so.)
Except it specifically states that Warforged don't need to do those things and doesn't do that for pets...
I think this is perfectly acceptable, as it is clear it is a companion critter, follows the rules for a companion critter, everyone knows it is a companion critter, and YOU aren't forcing other PCs to accept that it is a living construct.
This seems well within the intent of the stated flavouring of the animal to your own tastes. As long as you don't try to get any mechanical benefit out of it, or use one companion animal's stats for another (wolf stats for your robot crocodile).
Furthermore, any game mechanic that affects it as a beast, or any NPC predilection towards beasts, would apply. You also expose yourself to technology bias
The most important thing to realise with this is that you shouldn't force the re-element on other players. This is far more passive than using one race's stats for another race, so I don't deem it aggressive and personally wouldn't have a problem with it.
It also is NOT using flavour to justify using better stats on one race, or circumvent a rewards card.
I view this as falling within the intent of re-flavouring for flavour purposes. Just let everyone at the table know that it is a companion animal that is flavoured as such, and I don't foresee a problem.
Remember that companion critters follow their own rules. Just like PCs follow their own rules and monsters follow their own rules. Your animal is a beast companion following the "Wolf" statistics.
Because the beast companion mechanics give you permission to flavor the look and style of your companion however you like, I would think that your reflavoring is legal right there.
You just have to make sure that you don't overreach any other abilities. Like, for example, the Living Construct type. Your mecha-dog isn't a living construct any more than it's a Wolf from the Monster Manual. Even if a ranger's beast is a straight up Timber Wolf, it's not the same (mechanically) as the animal in the Monster Manual.
A Beast is a horse of a different color.
Another thought: Maybe you could flavor it as a cyborg. Your beastmaster found a wounded wolf and 'fixed' him. Thus, you can explain in character why the critter doesn't have the Living Construct type.
You seem to be on-board with not giving it extra mechanical changes, so you should be okay.
Game on!
Perhaps that's not mobile enough. Maybe a Hamster in a Ball. Hmmmm.
Remember that companion critters follow their own rules. Just like PCs follow their own rules and monsters follow their own rules. Your animal is a beast companion following the "Wolf" statistics.
I see that in Martial Power there is a feat for Eladrin rangers that makes your companion Fey and lets it Fey Step with you. I wonder if they'll include a feat in Eberron Players Guide that lets a Warforged ranger have a Living Soncstruct companion, and share the Warforged Resolve power.
Now, warforged, on the other hand, I dislike in general, but the rules say I have to live with them and any other bizarre menagerie or robot race that they decide to put in Dragon.