Does anyone else hate this item as much as I do?
Warforged on their own are fairly balanced, maybe a little high on the power curve but still fairly balanced.
Reparation Apparatus just seems to completely break the game. I took part in two 7-10 mods yesterday both with warforged with these gloves. One was a fighter with Crushing Surge and the other was a barbarian with Recuperating Strike. Gaining 2d6+4 temps on an at-will is just silly, even in 7-10 mods.
It is demoralizing to the point that I just don't want to play my orc fighter anymore. He prided himself on being one of the toughest fighter around but playing with characters with the apparatus just makes me wonder why I bother.
Hopefully when the Eberron book comes out, the bonus will be changed to an "Encounter" power from a property to bring it more in balance with the intent of the item . . .
No, the intent of the power was whenever you gained hitpoints temp or otherwise was that you got more. The only way to balance it would be remove the temp thing.
The item is balanced the thing is, its not balanced if you want a character that isnt a BR or warforged and wants to be the tank of the tanks. Its debateably broken on BR but only with an interpetation not supported by RAW (You gain the HP on the temps when hit, which isnt a power so you dont)
Does anyone else hate this item as much as I do?
Warforged on their own are fairly balanced, maybe a little high on the power curve but still fairly balanced.
Reparation Apparatus just seems to completely break the game. I took part in two 7-10 mods yesterday both with warforged with these gloves. One was a fighter with Crushing Surge and the other was a barbarian with Recuperating Strike. Gaining 2d6+4 temps on an at-will is just silly, even in 7-10 mods.
It is demoralizing to the point that I just don't want to play my orc fighter anymore. He prided himself on being one of the toughest fighter around but playing with characters with the apparatus just makes me wonder why I bother.
The reparation apparatus is not going to be altered or changed in the future. The only thing to do is make your own Warforged with a reparation apparatus. Maybe a warlord would be a nice synergy with the barbarian and fighter.
Where did hear that the Apparatus will never be fixed?
At level 11 he will be +15 to hit, doing 1d10+20+2d6 curse, plus Righteous Brand +5 bonus to attacks, whilst he sacrifices 3 temps...
With the Rod of the infernal and reparation apparatus, he sits on an average of 19 temps... Being infernal pact and adventuring with other Warforged PCs (clerics/artificers/Warlords/Paladin) also with the gloves, it gets a BIT silly...
They are completely unbalanced, but I ascribe to the 'if you can't beat em' view...
This would mean that the Reparation Apparatus does not affect Warforged at all.
People taking advantage of poor wording and choices in the first fully published online Dragon issue can feel free to now try to defend their choice, but I don't really care. Any table I sit at or DM at won't have a warforged taking advantage of this.
I expect the CCG 1.38 to clear up any confusion regarding this issue.
Any table I sit at or DM at won't have a warforged taking advantage of this.
Then you are breaking the rules and cheating your player(s) based on something that is, at this point, just opinion.
Until they errata the apparatus or change the warforged and do so in an official RPGA rules document, these characters are legal. The compendium is not a legal source, the character builder is not a legal source, so as it stands, the Dragon article is the only legal source.
At worst, I expect it to be "fixed" by the time the Eberron book is released. If they don't allow the Eberron book to be an open source, then they should at least have the CCG note that warforged should use the rules from the new Eberron version.
At best, next time the CCG is updated, they might already have something in there fixing this. There sure has been enough complaining about it to merit it.
Until it is fixed, though, you'd be in the wrong.
Until it is fixed, though, you'd be in the wrong.
Powers typically don't affect you unless they say they can affect you. It doesn't - there's plenty of room to rule against the apparatus on that basis.
Powers typically don't affect you unless they say they can affect you. It doesn't - there's plenty of room to rule against the apparatus on that basis.
I'm sorry, I don't understand where this logic comes from. Can you please elucidate? I don't see any grey areas with regard to Warforged PCs and the Reparation Apparatus.
I'm sorry, I don't understand where this logic comes from. Can you please elucidate? I don't see any grey areas with regard to Warforged PCs and the Reparation Apparatus.
Similar to powers that affect allies, but not you and allies. Just replace allies with 'that creature'. It doesn't say it affects you or that creature. It says that creature. It is pretty odd to think that when someone says 'that creature', they're including the possibility of you in it. Yes, the current method of thought is a good way of looking at it if you're playing by 3.5 rules, but that's not generally how 4e works...
Similar to powers that affect allies, but not you and allies. Just replace allies with 'that creature'. It doesn't say it affects you or that creature. It says that creature. It is pretty odd to think that when someone says 'that creature', they're including the possibility of you in it.
Well, 'that creature' could mean any creature that is targeted by the power. If "you" are the target of the power, then you are considered to be 'that creature.'
It is pretty odd to think that just because the target is you rather than another creature, the term 'that creature' doesn't apply.
That's a major stretch just to prevent someone from using a magic item, even by my standards (and I am one of the DMs that prevents the Rod of Corruption/Rod of Reaving combo at my tables).
It is pretty odd to think that just because the target is you rather than another creature, the term 'that creature' doesn't apply.
It is strange to think just because the power says it affects your allies that it doesn't affect you. That's how 4e works - if something can affect you, it specifically states that it can.
It doesn't, therefore a perfectly valid ruling is that it can't.
Then you are breaking the rules and cheating your player(s) based on something that is, at this point, just opinion.
Until it is fixed, though, you'd be in the wrong.
The only cheating that would be going on would be the player using the item cheating the table out of a more challenging encounter. As a previous poster pointed out, it appears that you can't target yourself with them.
It is strange to think just because the power says it affects your allies that it doesn't affect you. That's how 4e works - if something can affect you, it specifically states that it can.
It doesn't, therefore a perfectly valid ruling is that it can't.
A power that specifically targets an "ally" can target an ally but cannot target you or a creature that is not considered an ally.
A power that specifically targets "you" can target you but cannot target an ally or a creature that is not you.
A power that specifically targets "a creature" can target any creature... you, an ally, or a monster.
I don't see what's so complicated about this.
I get a few dirty looks due to my Warforged Warlock/Cleric with a +3 Bloodclaw weapon... (currently 9th level)
At level 11 he will be +15 to hit, doing 1d10+20+2d6 curse, plus Righteous Brand +5 bonus to attacks, whilst he sacrifices 3 temps...
With the Rod of the infernal and reparation apparatus, he sits on an average of 19 temps... Being infernal pact and adventuring with other Warforged PCs (clerics/artificers/Warlords/Paladin) also with the gloves, it gets a BIT silly...
They are completely unbalanced, but I ascribe to the 'if you can't beat em' view...
You are aware of the pact hammer fix aren't you?
No more double curse damage.
I get a few dirty looks due to my Warforged Warlock/Cleric with a +3 Bloodclaw weapon... (currently 9th level)
At level 11 he will be +15 to hit, doing 1d10+20+2d6 curse, plus Righteous Brand +5 bonus to attacks, whilst he sacrifices 3 temps...
With the Rod of the infernal and reparation apparatus, he sits on an average of 19 temps... Being infernal pact and adventuring with other Warforged PCs (clerics/artificers/Warlords/Paladin) also with the gloves, it gets a BIT silly...
They are completely unbalanced, but I ascribe to the 'if you can't beat em' view...
I don't actually want to know what adventure it is in, but I am curious. There is a +3 Bloodclaw weapon as a bundle choice on a current adventure? A "yes" will make me slightly nauseous. A "no" will have me wondering how you got a +3 Bloodclaw weapon.
-SYB
I don't actually want to know what adventure it is in, but I am curious. There is a +3 Bloodclaw weapon as a bundle choice on a current adventure? A "yes" will make me slightly nauseous. A "no" will have me wondering how you got a +3 Bloodclaw weapon.
-SYB
Think of it this way... if he has a +3 Blooodclaw weapon and it isn't available in an adventure, then he's cheating. Judging by Metz' reputation, I don't think he's a cheater.
You are aware of the pact hammer fix aren't you?
No more double curse damage.
He isn't using a Pact Hammer. he said at level 11... Warlock curse damage increases to 2d6 in Paragon Tier. :D
He isn't using a Pact Hammer. he said at level 11... Warlock curse damage increases to 2d6 in Paragon Tier. :D
You win this round...
The reparation apparatus is not going to be altered or changed in the future.
I wouldn't say that. It appeared in a playtest article, so by all means, if folks think something is wrong with it... write the feedback address in the article and give feedback on it. It is likely to appear int he Eberron Player's Guide. So we could very well see changes to it.
If it were just a Dragon item (from Bazaar of the Bizaar for example), then yes, it likely would never be changed. (although you may see changes to it int he compendium which is not an official rules source for LFR).
Then again, we may see an alternate Artificer build that is essentially a pet class option that has a construct "pet."
I don't actually want to know what adventure it is in, but I am curious. There is a +3 Bloodclaw weapon as a bundle choice on a current adventure? A "yes" will make me slightly nauseous. A "no" will have me wondering how you got a +3 Bloodclaw weapon.
-SYB
Yes, there is a +3 Bloodclaw weapon out there available as a treasure bundle.
Re: Dragon 9
Thats true, the Playtest articles have been updated and managed well. I of course don't know what WoTC will do.
I have decided to address the problem myself by making a warforged fighter. Of course, as soon as I reach level 6 and purchase the RA, it will be beaten mightily with the nerf stick.
Yes, there is a +3 Bloodclaw weapon out there available as a treasure bundle.
Bad writer. No donut. And, come to think of it... Bad editor. No donut.
-SYB
I don't actually want to know what adventure it is in, but I am curious. There is a +3 Bloodclaw weapon as a bundle choice on a current adventure? A "yes" will make me slightly nauseous. A "no" will have me wondering how you got a +3 Bloodclaw weapon.
I can confirm that there is indeed a +3 bloodclaw weapon in one of the adventures. And as much as I hate to admit it, it's even thematically appropriate.
I can confirm that there is indeed a +3 bloodclaw weapon in one of the adventures. And as much as I hate to admit it, it's even thematically appropriate.
This is an example of my biggest frustration with LFR thus far...
Of all of the 7-10 adventures, there will likely be three different +3 weapons - a +3 bloodclaw, a +3 basic, and maybe a +3 something else. This means that every single PC will more or less have the same item. I don't even want a Bloodclaw weapon but I will likely end up taking it when I see it due to lack of a different +3 weapon.
This was the case with the 1-4 adventures and the 4-7 adventures (examples: +2 vicious weapon, +2 dwarven armor, +2 veteran's armor).
We need a better way to create variety so that PCs come to the table with new and interesting magic weapons/implements/armor/neck slots.
We need a better way to create variety so that PCs come to the table with new and interesting magic weapons/implements/armor/neck slots.
This is something that has come up a bunch and really needs to be addressed by the RPGA. The really easy way to do it would be for the RPGA to keep a list of all awarded items. Then it would be simple to say that any given item can only show up in a module once every 6 or 8 or 12 months.
This is something that has come up a bunch and really needs to be addressed by the RPGA. The really easy way to do it would be for the RPGA to keep a list of all awarded items. Then it would be simple to say that any given item can only show up in a module once every 6 or 8 or 12 months.
Alternately, they could give of choice of any weapon of level X or lower for y weapon group or something like that. People are already using spoiler groups and replaying to get the items they want for the characters they want. If people can just pick what they want to begin with, that frees them up to just play the adventures and not worry about what they'll find.
We need a better way to create variety so that PCs come to the table with new and interesting magic weapons/implements/armor/neck slots.
I agree, but at the same time I think it wouldn't work. Much like power selection, item selection often does boil down to two key factors:
1. Availability.
2. What is better.
If availability were changed such that instead of "+2 Dwarven Armor" it were "Level 7 or lower chain, scale, plate" (I think +2 Dwarven is level 7 and I know it is restricted to chain, scale, and plate). All it really means is that people that arrive on that bundle will grab whatever the best level 7 armor is for them.
Worse, some items are better than higher level items of the same enhancement tier. My classic example is the Staff of Ruin (AV, level 3+) vs the Staff of Elemental Prowess (AV, level 9+).
A +2 Staff of Ruin is level 8 and it has a property of giving an item bonus equal to the enhancement bonus to damage rolls with (any) powers you use the staff as an implement for. Critical is 1d10 per plus.
A +2 Staff of Elemental Prowess gives a +1 item bonus to damage rolls with elemental damage types (this scales by tier, instead of by enhancement). This staff has a daily item power, but it isn't all that hot (it is a daily power, as an encounter power I could justify this as a good alternative). Critical is 1d6 per plus. To reiterate: the property only applies to 4 types of damage (the elementals).
But back to the topic, the Apparatus is a GREAT item for Warforged that are going to be generating a lot of temp hp from powers or using healing powers. But that carries an opportunity cost.
1. You have to buy the item (you aren't likely to see any Dragon article items as bundles). That is 1,800 gp. FYI: a PC could have instead bought Iron Armbands of Power.
2. It uses your hand slot. Your Orc can potentially take the Dwarven Thrower gloves that allow you to throw your melee weapon as a heavy thrown weapon (fyi: it doesn't list a range, so if you have line of effect, you have range) once per encounter. Or you could eventually take Giant's Gloves and throw enemies around! Who are you going to remember weeks later: the WF temp HP factory that stalled enemies, or the Orc that grabs enemies and throws them at other enemies?
This is something that has come up a bunch and really needs to be addressed by the RPGA. The really easy way to do it would be for the RPGA to keep a list of all awarded items. Then it would be simple to say that any given item can only show up in a module once every 6 or 8 or 12 months.
I would love to start seeing rewards such as "any level 12 weapon or implement." This may be perceived as "too good of a reward" by the administration though, I'm not sure.
1. You have to buy the item (you aren't likely to see any Dragon article items as bundles). That is 1,800 gp. FYI: a PC could have instead bought Iron Armbands of Power.
2. It uses your hand slot. Your Orc can potentially take the Dwarven Thrower gloves that allow you to throw your melee weapon as a heavy thrown weapon (fyi: it doesn't list a range, so if you have line of effect, you have range) once per encounter. Or you could eventually take Giant's Gloves and throw enemies around! Who are you going to remember weeks later: the WF temp HP factory that stalled enemies, or the Orc that grabs enemies and throws them at other enemies?
The first part is definitely false. The last mod I ran had a dragon magazine item available as a reward.
As for the second part you should never compare hard and fast mechanical superiority to good flavor. The apparatus is amazing. It makes a resilient character nearly unstoppable. The gloves are mostly a flavor thing.
Think of it this way... if he has a +3 Blooodclaw weapon and it isn't available in an adventure, then he's cheating. Judging by Metz' reputation, I don't think he's a cheater.
Yay a reputation that leads to a positive conclusion! normally I just get 'really grumpy considering he is only 22' as the impression :D
As already stated, it is available in a current module that is legal for LFR play. Won't say which one though. I will say it was well written and has one of the best skill challenges I've ever seen... :P
A power that specifically targets "a creature" can target any creature... you, an ally, or a monster.
I don't see what's so complicated about this.
"I'm that person."
When people mean what you mean, they don't use 'that creature' because 'that' implies an amount of distance from the original person. And when it does refer to the original person, there's usually some sort of surprise element involved.
It is still extremely powerful if not broken per my ruling - the warforged just hands it to the party leader and still gets most of the benefit that they get. They just can't temp hit point all day long by themselves.
And I really don't see a problem with that.
If you have a valid argument against this, feel free to let me know as my primary character is a warforged and has a pair of these. However, from what I see, this has now been effectively "fixed."
The compendium lists the updated Warforged for the monster Manual, not Dragon Magazine.
Not so. The compendium entry for warforged says "first published in Dragon 364." The write-up is the Dragon version, the racial Warforged Resolve is the Dragon version. Compare the compendium version to both the Dragon version and the MM version and you'll see that the compendium shows the Dragon version.
I think if you do claim that they're different then you're going to invite rules lawyering at your table.
Its the same kettle of fish as the Dhampyr prerequisite. We really need to know if Warforged qualify as Living or if they qualify as constructs or if the qualify as both or neither. Does Living Construct mean they're both living and a construct or does it put them in their own special category?
Construct and living construct are two different keywords, so I don't see any problem claiming that a PC living construct is different from, say, a golem.
People have used the same logic to disqualify Warforged from taking the Dhampyr feat. IMO to use the argument both times is wrong and starts to sound like the person has a vendetta against Warforged. However I certainly am fine with people using the argument one of the times. The question is, which time?
The compendium still has the Living Construct property and I don't know if "Construct" versus "Living Construct" are truly different properties for the purpose of targets. Given that Warforged and Artificers are both Eberron-related, it seems like there is meant to be synergy between the two, which would mean artificer items/powers do in fact work on Warforged.
Except we do know two specific things:
They deleted the text describing Warforged as having the construct keyword.
They deleted the ability for Warforged to use embedded/attached components.
Assuming the deletion was deliberate, there shouldn't be a question. They felt it was necessary before to say that you had the keyword. They've done that for other races(Eladrin, Elves).
Which leaves the other possibility, which is that it was a mistake. They should have really attached a note to make it clear what was intended by the deletion to avoid that possibility.
Ferol, you fixed the reparation issue in short order.
Wow, I'm amazing.
I'd like to take this time to thank all the little people.
Except we do know two specific things:
They deleted the text describing Warforged as having the construct keyword.
They deleted the ability for Warforged to use embedded/attached components.
Assuming the deletion was deliberate, there shouldn't be a question.
As I mentioned in the other thread, the known issues for the latest version of the Character Builder mentions that warforged components are not supported by the program at this time. Not that they no longer exist, but that they don't work right now. I know that this is in no way official rules documentation, but it does suggest that the deleting of components from the warforged writeup might not have been deliberate, and thus it is hard to infer accurately the intent regarding the Construct keyword. (Who knows when the known issues were actually written up, but the software was released inside the last few days).
Frankly, if the change was deliberately made to cut off this one cheesehole, it would have been a LOT easier to update the Reparation Apparatus in the compendium than to delete bits from the Warforged in the compendium and hope people notice.
Think of it this way... if he has a +3 Blooodclaw weapon and it isn't available in an adventure, then he's cheating. Judging by Metz' reputation, I don't think he's a cheater.
It's also assuming that the character he referenced was intended for LFR play. People still participate in non-RPGA games...or so I've heard.
Construct and living construct are two different keywords, so I don't see any problem claiming that a PC living construct is different from, say, a golem.
What I find interesting is that only the PC Warforged have the Living Construct Keyword now. The Monster Warforged are simply listed as Construct in the Compendium.
But for the argument at hand. Living Construct and Construct are two separate and unique Keywords. So when the apparatus states that it adds the hit points to a Construct that is what it means. Living is not a separate Keyword in and of itself so you can not argue that a Living Construct is the same as a Construct. They are two totally different beasts so to say.
I feel sorry for all of those Warforged Battleragers out there that leveled up and purchased the apparatus. At least it will sell for 360 gold pieces.
People have used the same logic to disqualify Warforged from taking the Dhampyr feat. IMO to use the argument both times is wrong and starts to sound like the person has a vendetta against Warforged. However I certainly am fine with people using the argument one of the times. The question is, which time?
Um, why am I being quoted here? My logic is that a warforged is a living construct and that a golem is simply a construct. They are two different keywords and therefore two different things. This in no way can be used to argue that a warforged, again a living construct and therefore a living, humanoid creature, cannot take the Dhampyr feat. I think they can. Please don't quote me unless you're going to do so accurately.
What I find interesting is that only the PC Warforged have the Living Construct Keyword now. The Monster Warforged are simply listed as Construct in the Compendium.
But for the argument at hand. Living Construct and Construct are two separate and unique Keywords. So when the apparatus states that it adds the hit points to a Construct that is what it means. Living is not a separate Keyword in and of itself so you can not argue that a Living Construct is the same as a Construct. They are two totally different beasts so to say.
I feel sorry for all of those Warforged Battleragers out there that leveled up and purchased the apparatus. At least it will sell for 360 gold pieces.
Again, why am I quoted? . I said they are two different things. I believe the apparatus no longer works on warforged. Quote the other guy that you are actually debating, not the guy that agrees with you.
Again, why am I quoted? . I said they are two different things. I believe the apparatus no longer works on warforged. Quote the other guy that you are actually debating, not the guy that agrees with you.
Are you not allowed to quote when replying in affirmation to anothers post?
But for the argument at hand. Living Construct and Construct are two separate and unique Keywords. So when the apparatus states that it adds the hit points to a Construct that is what it means. Living is not a separate Keyword in and of itself so you can not argue that a Living Construct is the same as a Construct. They are two totally different beasts so to say.
... it made it seem as if you had mistaken what I said, when instead you were just continuing your argument against someone else. I'm not used to people agreeing with me on message boards.
I'm not used to people agreeing with me on message boards.
I know for a fact that that is a lie.
:D
Um, why am I being quoted here? My logic is that a warforged is a living construct and that a golem is simply a construct. They are two different keywords and therefore two different things.
Because people are using similar logic as yours to say Warforged can't take the Dhampyr feat. I wasn't saying you're extending your argument to that, I'm simply saying other people are (hence why I never said you have a vendetta against Warforged, but instead said the person ;)).
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
This in no way can be used to argue that a warforged, again a living construct and therefore a living, humanoid creature, cannot take the Dhampyr feat. I think they can.
Well unfortunately many people (including many DMs) don't agree with you and so we're in for arguments and inconsistent rulings everytime a player comes in with Reparation Apparatus or a Dhampyr Warforged.
I personally will be avoiding Reparation Apparatus and Dhampyr Warforged until we get a definitive ruling on both (not that I want to play a Dhampyr Warforged).
I would love to start seeing rewards such as "any level 12 weapon or implement." This may be perceived as "too good of a reward" by the administration though, I'm not sure.
Some of the Adapteds have options of "any item in the PHB of your level or less." So far, they've all been limited to the PHB, but it's not too unreasonable to see them include other sources. Of course, limiting the items to your level does make them less "powerful" that bundle slots that are up to +4 over your level, but you get a much wider selection of items to choose from.
Some of the Adapteds have options of "any item in the PHB of your level or less." So far, they've all been limited to the PHB, but it's not too unreasonable to see them include other sources. Of course, limiting the items to your level does make them less "powerful" that bundle slots that are up to +4 over your level, but you get a much wider selection of items to choose from.
There's a slight difference between "any weapon or implement equal of your level or less" and "any level 12 weapon or implement" in a 7-10 module
Because people are using similar logic as yours to say Warforged can't take the Dhampyr feat. I wasn't saying you're extending your argument to that, I'm simply saying other people are (hence why I never said you have a vendetta against Warforged, but instead said the person ;)).
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Well unfortunately many people (including many DMs) don't agree with you and so we're in for arguments and inconsistent rulings everytime a player comes in with Reparation Apparatus or a Dhampyr Warforged.
I personally will be avoiding Reparation Apparatus and Dhampyr Warforged until we get a definitive ruling on both (not that I want to play a Dhampyr Warforged).
I don't see where the argument comes from, aside from prejudiced opinion. They aren't using the same argument. My argument is A is A and B is B. A (warforged/living construct) is not affected by something designed for B (construct.) The Dhampyr requirement is "living humanoid creature". Unfortunately, this isn't all rule specific text.
So, let's break it down. ABC, living (A), humanoid (B), creature (c).
Creature (C) is simply ...
“Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you.
Humanoid (B) is a creature type ...
Humanoid [Type]: Humanoid monsters are usually bipedal,
but some have monstrous or animalistic characteristics,
such as the squidlike head of a mind flayer or the serpentine
body of a yuan-ti abomination.
Living (A) is not a keyword or creature type. Normally, you would just have to make logical assumptions. "Yes, a human is a living creature." Warforged would be questionable, however, the keyword "living construct" blatantly states ...
A living construct is considered a living creature ...
I really don't see any argument against warforged dhampyr having any grounds to stand on other than, "I don't like it." It's a living (A), humanoid (B), creature (C). ABC = ABC. The rules support it.
Most arguments are simple opinion, based on someone's interpretation of the lore. But, the lore can even support it, as the Dhampyr lore says the creature doesn't have to be the physical offspring of a vampire and a mortal, that it could happen when a pregnant woman is bitten by a vampire. Even though the child is already created, it is still in the formative process and can be "tainted" by the vampiric blood. So, a warforged, still in the creation process, perhaps still in the forge, could be "tainted" in a similar manner. Is it a stretch? Perhaps. But it's a stretch to provide in game backstory to support something that is perfectly rules legal, so it's one I'd be willing to accept. At least that player would be trying.
Because, frankly, the player can just say, "I took it because its legal. I don't care if you don't like it and I don't have a backstory. I'm just a warforged dhampyr. Let's roll some dice."
Living (A) is not a keyword or creature type. Normally, you would just have to make logical assumptions.
Actually, living or not is based solely off keyword. Keyword definitions specifically mention if it is not living (which right now, IIRC, only include Constructs and Undead).
Again, we have to make the logical assumption that a human (halfling, elf, etc) is a living creature. I don't think it's an assumption that is hard to agree with.
Although after several years of doing this product, they should know better.
Theziner
Just in case anyone is reading this thread, but not reading the other one in the main forum, warforged are still considered constructs. If this changes, and no one beats me to it (yeah, right), I'll update this thread, too.
Until we have an official ruling to the contrary tables in my area are going with the RAW which is Warforged are not constructs.
Merl's comment didn't seem too affirmative. I have a feeling he didn't even really know what was being asked of him.
Until we have an official ruling to the contrary tables in my area are going with the RAW which is Warforged are not constructs.
Odd. Please explain to me how a construct is not a construct?
On a side note, please consider how incomplete the Compendium is in certain ways:
Living Construct: As a living construct, you have the following traits.
✦ You gain a +2 bonus to saving throws against ongoing damage.
✦ You can use attached components and embedded
components made for warforged (see Equipment, page 33).
✦ You don’t need to eat, drink, or breathe, but this doesn’t render you immune to any combat effect.
✦ Rather than sleep, warforged spend 4 hours refraining from any strenuous activity. You need to spend 4 hours in this state to gain the same benefits other races gain from taking a 6-hour extended rest. While resting in this low-exertion
state, you are fully aware of your surroundings
and notice approaching enemies and other events as normal.
✦ When reduced to 0 hit points, you are less likely to die. When you make a death saving throw, you can take the better of your die roll or 10. You still die at the normal negative hit point total.
Living Construct: A living construct is considered a living creature that does not need to eat, drink, or breathe. However, this does not render the creature immune to any effect. A living construct needs only 4 hours to benefit from extended rest, and it gains a +2 bonus to saving throws against ongoing damage. When a living construct rolls a death save, it takes the better of its die roll or 10 as the result.
Also note, in the current Compendium article, the following statement:
Play a Warforged if you want...
to be strong, tough, and built for battle.
to play a nonliving hero with a magical origin.
to be a great defender, particularly a fighter.
Living Constructs are, according to this quote from the very same section, nonliving. Constructs are, in general, nonliving.
If'n they aren't nonliving for the purposes of being constructs, why does it still say nonliving?
Odd. Please explain to me how a construct is not a construct?
On a side note, please consider how incomplete the Compendium is in certain ways:
Also note, in the current Compendium article, the following statement:
Living Constructs are, according to this quote from the very same section, nonliving. Constructs are, in general, nonliving.
If'n they aren't nonliving for the purposes of being constructs, why does it still say nonliving?
I don't see that as incomplete. I see it as removed content.
Quoting flavor text isn't a very compelling argument.
If they made an error, they need to put that "living construct is considered a construct" entry back into the compendium entry asap. Being inanimate does not really convince me as well, because traps are also inanimate and they do not count as constructs.
I'll quote myself here, if it isn't too gauche to do so.
Sooooo. . . for what it's worth, and to further cloud the issue. . .
I was lucky enough to get into a disucssion on rules interpretations and discussions with Chris Tulach and Chris Sims. As part of the discussion I re-visited this issue with them.
Chris Sims agrees that "Living Construct" is a wholly unique keyword that isn't to be broken down into two separate words ("Living, Construct"). As such, he agrees that unless/until the definitions of Living Construct includes wording to make them constructs in regards to powers/effects they don't get those powers/effects. (IE - no reparation apparatus).
Chris Tulach mentioned that he and Mike Mearls re-discussed the issue with the rules in front of them the night before, and they both agreed (when looking at the rules more closely) that a Living Construct is, indeed, a separate entity as well.
In short? Mike wasn't fully prepared to answer the question when I "sprung" it on him - and now appears to be reconsidering his opinion.
At this point it looks like the general (and yes, still unofficial) consensus is that Reparition Apparatus (and other "Construct" related effects) do nothing to a Warforged.
My apologies for further muddying the waters, but hopefully the (now) unanimous opinion of 3 Rules Update Team members will help further sway opinions.
(and better still, here's hoping the Rules Update team includes language to fully silence the issue - IE "living constructs are not considered constructs, blah blah blah." I suspect, however, they may not as Chris Sims, at least, seems to be of the opinion that people shouldn't look for rules/interpratations that aren't there. IE - if it doesn't define you as a construct, you shouldn't assume you're a construct.)