1. Published in compiled Dragon == legal
2. Use most recent rules source for item/power, which would be Dragon 365 in this case.
It seems, however, that there might be an exception to playtest items or powers that I'm missing. Can anyone shed some insight or clarification? Thanks.
That might tell us the answer.
Here's a mind bender become a Revenant Warforged Artificer then take the feat that allows your charactor to become no longer LIVING. That's step 1 but you can still take the Warforged racial power and Warforged feats. Wait it get's better Step 2 at Paragon take Self Forged this allows you to become part machine at 11 and at 16 the PC gets More Metal Than Flesh which allows the PC to use any WARFORGED COMPONENTS. Doesn't that make the pc a CONSTRUCT it's not alive, it's mostly machine, and wouldn't it be friggin sick.
If The Reparation Apparatus is not listed in the EPHB then it must be removed from your charactor and you may choose a new item to fill that slot. If they removed a power your charactor possesses then you may take an immediate free retrain for your charactor and take another legal power. As the Eberron Player's Handbook is now the most recent source which if true really sucks.
Here's a mind bender become a Revenant Warforged Artificer then take the feat that allows your charactor to become no longer LIVING. That's right YOU LOSE THE LIVING KEYWORD not only that but you can take the Warforged racial power and Warforged feats. Wait it get's better at Paragon you can take Self Forged this allows you to become part machine at 11 and at 16 the PC gets More Metal Than Flesh which allows the PC to use any WARFORGED COMPONENTS. Doesn't that make the pc a CONSTRUCT it's not alive, it's mostly machine, and wouldn't it be friggin sick.
You don't have the construct keyword, so you're just undead.
If The Reparation Apparatus is not listed in the EPHB then it must be removed from your charactor and you may choose a new item to fill that slot. If they removed a power your charactor possesses then you may take an immediate free retrain for your charactor and take another legal power. As the Eberron Player's Handbook is now the most recent source which if true really sucks.
Here's a mind bender become a Revenant Warforged Artificer then take the feat that allows your charactor to become no longer LIVING. That's step 1 but you can still take the Warforged racial power and Warforged feats. Wait it get's better Step 2 at Paragon take Self Forged this allows you to become part machine at 11 and at 16 the PC gets More Metal Than Flesh which allows the PC to use any WARFORGED COMPONENTS. Doesn't that make the pc a CONSTRUCT it's not alive, it's mostly machine, and wouldn't it be friggin sick.
You also can't take self-forged because as a Revenant warforged you have the race "warforged" for all feats and paragon path requirements, and self forged is only open to non-warforged.
The Apparatus doesnt do ya much good unless you are crafting constructs or are a summoning Artificer. It wont work on Warforged since Construct and Living Construct are not one in the same.
This is true in the same sense that a Humanoid and a Shadow Humanoid are not one and the same. By which I mean that it is as true as it is irrelevant.
Warforged have the "Living Construct" racial trait which, among other things, makes them Living Constructs. The definition of a Living Construct is (from MM2) "unlike other constructs, living constructs are living creatures."
Living constructs are clearly constructs, just a different kind of construct that, "unlike other constructs", are also counted as living creatures.
Now, you might mean that warforged don't have the Construct keyword, which is at least arguable but also irrelevant, as the reparation apparatus says nothing about having the construct keyword, merely that the item is being used on a construct.
Personally, I was hoping to have this cleared up, either in the warforged description or reparation apparatus description, so that the item became useless to warforged. Either deliberately or through incompetence, however, this did not happen, and I would see any attempt to deny warforged use of a reparation apparatus as being purely an attempt to twist the rules to accomplish a desirable end, in violation of the newly-stated principle in the CCG that DMs are not allowed to change the rules or specify which rules elements they'll allow in the game.
I'm holding out hope for AV2, since that would be the most likely place to put Eberron-flavored items. If we're lucky, they'll fix the item there.
If The Reparation Apparatus is not listed in the EPHB then it must be removed from your charactor and you may choose a new item to fill that slot. If they removed a power your charactor possesses then you may take an immediate free retrain for your charactor and take another legal power.
I suppose if you're going to be wrong, you might as well be confidently wrong.
If something (a magic item, a power) is changed in a later publication, the version in the later publication controls. If something is merely omitted, however, it still remains published in the earlier player resource and you continue using that.
Is this good for the campaign? No, indubitably not. Dragon Magazine articles are often first drafts of ideas, and some initial ideas don't pan out. The ones that didn't work are usually the ones most likely to never be heard from again, which makes the finished works stronger, but leaves poorly-designed rules clinging to the campaign like barnacles.
There is not a shred of support in the rules, absolutely none, for your assertion. If your artificer has a power that is changed, you use the new power; if your artificer has a power that appeared in Dragon Magazine and has never appeared since, then until the Dragon Magazine article is retroactively declared void, you use the Dragon Magazine article as a player resource.
The EPG's listing of Living Construct(which is the newest rules source, by the way) does not reference constructs the way the MM2 does.
The Eladrin and Elf entries don't reference fey like the MM does either. The Revenant write up doesn't include the same info that the Undead keyword has in the MM either. And as a matter of fact, the Living Construct entry in the Warforged write up just includes what is in the Construct keyword entry and the Living Construct entry. That would be because they are constructs - who don't need to eat, breathe or sleep - and they are living creatures, unlike other constructs.
This is because in the racial write up these are not a listing of Keywords for the race, rather they are racial properties. This doesn't keep a Warforged from abiding by the Living Construct keyword since, from a quick look at the MM, they are Medium natural Humanoids (Living Construct). What is a Livign Construct? Something that doesn't need to eat, breathe, or sleep (construct), but is living (unlike other constructs, a la Livign Construct).
The Eladrin and Elf entries don't reference fey like the MM does either. The Revenant write up doesn't include the same info that the Undead keyword has in the MM either. And as a matter of fact, the Living Construct entry in the Warforged write up just includes what is in the Construct keyword entry and the Living Construct entry. That would be because they are constructs - who don't need to eat, breathe or sleep - and they are living creatures, unlike other constructs.
This is because in the racial write up these are not a listing of Keywords for the race, rather they are racial properties. This doesn't keep a Warforged from abiding by the Living Construct keyword since, from a quick look at the MM, they are Medium natural Humanoids (Living Construct). What is a Livign Construct? Something that doesn't need to eat, breathe, or sleep (construct), but is living (unlike other constructs, a la Livign Construct).
Eladrin/Elves say "You are treated as having the Fey Origin for the purposes of effects", whereas Warforged...says nothing of the sort.
Doesn't matter. They're still living constructs. They follow the keyword rules for living constructs which references constructs. Previously Construct and Living Construct had their own seperate set of definitions, so you could point to them and say "Those are two totally different things." They changed them. Now Living construct says "Unlike other constructs,..." which means they clearly are constructs.
Construct and Living Construct are both separate Keywords. Unique and not the same.
KEYWORDS
Some monsters have keywords that further define them. These keywords represent groups of monsters, such as angel, demon, devil, dragon, and undead. See the glossary for definitions of a monster's keywords.
This is true in the same sense that a Humanoid and a Shadow Humanoid are not one and the same. By which I mean that it is as true as it is irrelevant.
Warforged have the "Living Construct" racial trait which, among other things, makes them Living Constructs. The definition of a Living Construct is (from MM2) "unlike other constructs, living constructs are living creatures."
Living constructs are clearly constructs, just a different kind of construct that, "unlike other constructs", are also counted as living creatures.
Now, you might mean that warforged don't have the Construct keyword, which is at least arguable but also irrelevant, as the reparation apparatus says nothing about having the construct keyword, merely that the item is being used on a construct.
Personally, I was hoping to have this cleared up, either in the warforged description or reparation apparatus description, so that the item became useless to warforged. Either deliberately or through incompetence, however, this did not happen, and I would see any attempt to deny warforged use of a reparation apparatus as being purely an attempt to twist the rules to accomplish a desirable end, in violation of the newly-stated principle in the CCG that DMs are not allowed to change the rules or specify which rules elements they'll allow in the game.
I'm holding out hope for AV2, since that would be the most likely place to put Eberron-flavored items. If we're lucky, they'll fix the item there.
I suppose if you're going to be wrong, you might as well be confidently wrong.
If something (a magic item, a power) is changed in a later publication, the version in the later publication controls. If something is merely omitted, however, it still remains published in the earlier player resource and you continue using that.
Is this good for the campaign? No, indubitably not. Dragon Magazine articles are often first drafts of ideas, and some initial ideas don't pan out. The ones that didn't work are usually the ones most likely to never be heard from again, which makes the finished works stronger, but leaves poorly-designed rules clinging to the campaign like barnacles.
There is not a shred of support in the rules, absolutely none, for your assertion. If your artificer has a power that is changed, you use the new power; if your artificer has a power that appeared in Dragon Magazine and has never appeared since, then until the Dragon Magazine article is retroactively declared void, you use the Dragon Magazine article as a player resource.
I simply took the position we're supposed to use the most up to date sources with regards to rules, power, feats, and items the Ebrron Guide is now the most up to date source. When an item or article is omitted from the published issue of Dragon we're not allowed to use it even though the item or article is still in the archive. This is how I reached my conclusion so it's a perfectly understandable and reasonable conclusion that an item, power, feat, or rule, that is omitted in a finalized plublication should be off limits to players.
I simply took the position we're supposed to use the most up to date sources with regards to rules, power, feats, and items the Ebrron Guide is now the most up to date source. When an item or article is omitted from the published issue of Dragon we're not allowed to use it even though the item or article is still in the archive. This is how I reached my conclusion so it's a perfectly understandable and reasonable conclusion that an item, power, feat, or rule, that is omitted in a finalized plublication should be off limits to players.
Do you have a specific reference to items or powers that were not reprinted becoming illegal options, or is this a chain-of-logic conclusion? I've looked in the CCG, and I only see references regarding powers and features *changing*, not powers and/or items being removed or omitted.
Actually, warforged are living constructs, but unlike with changelings (shapechangers), gnomes (fey) or eladrin (fey) there is NO reference to it being a type for certain effects. I don't think the apparatus works anymore...
This +1
A Construct and a Living Construct while similar are not the same and are not effected by effects that would only effect one or the other.
Do you have a specific reference to items or powers that were not reprinted becoming illegal options, or is this a chain-of-logic conclusion? I've looked in the CCG, and I only see references regarding powers and features *changing*, not powers and/or items being removed or omitted.
When a rule is updated, use the newest version. Keep
an eye out for rules updates, particularly Dragon Magazine
options that later appear in a rulebook. Make sure that
you’re using the most current version of the rule. This is
especially important if you use a playtest class from
Dragon Magazine.
Dragon Magazine: Content appearing in Dragon Magazine
that is player resource-friendly (full racial write-ups, classes,
paragon paths, epic destinies, powers, feats, magic items,
rituals/formulas, and backgrounds) is available for access if
present in the compiled issue and when the compiled issue
is available for download (typically at the end of the current
month). Content from individual articles is not available for
access upon the date of the article’s publication, as the
compiled issue may make final modifications to the rules in
the article. Exceptions to access will be noted in the rules
content’s article.
Playtest Classes: Occasionally, D&D Insider subscribers
to Dragon Magazine may have playable “playtest” classes
available to them months before they actually see print.
These classes are usable when the compiled monthly issue is
available, but keep in mind that some features and powers of
the class may change when the final version of the class is
published. If the class isn’t presented in a playable state
when the compiled monthly issue is released, it is not legal
for RPGA play.
So my thinking is this cuts both ways if the final version of the update doesn't have the power or the item it's no longer a valid choice because it supersedes the issue with the playtest.
This +1
A Construct and a Living Construct while similar are not the same and are not effected by effects that would only effect one or the other.
The only difference between them now is that a Living Construct is affected by anything that affects a living creature. The updated Keyword information is obvious that they are constructs. Again, the whole "Unlike other constructs..." line. In it's own keyword definition it is referring to them as constructs.
The only difference between them now is that a Living Construct is affected by anything that affects a living creature. The updated Keyword information is obvious that they are constructs. Again, the whole "Unlike other constructs..." line. In it's own keyword definition it is referring to them as constructs.
Unfortunately that is not how keywords work. If they wanted a Living Construct to be affected by the same powers/items that a Construct is they would have stated so. i.e all the Fey (Drow, Eladrin, Elf, Gnome) and the soon to be finalized treated as unded, Revenant.
And again, the Living Construct racial feature that the Warforged have is not the same as the Living Construct keyword in MM2, and EPG is newer.
I dont own the EPG and never will. I despise Eberron. So perhaps you can post the relevant text from the EPG.
I dont own the EPG and never will. I despise Eberron. So perhaps you can post the relevant text from the EPG.
Living Construct: You are a living construct. You do not need to eat, drink, breathe, or sleep. You never make Endurance checks to resist the effect of starvation, thirst or suffocation. All other conditions and effects affect you normally.
Hope that clarifies it, but I, personally, doubt it.
When a rule is updated, use the newest version. Keep an eye out for rules updates, particularly Dragon Magazine options that later appear in a rulebook. Make sure thatyou’re using the most current version of the rule. This is especially important if you use a playtest class from Dragon Magazine.
The problem is that you are assuming the rule applies to the contents of the entire article as a whole, that it either is all in or all out.
While not an unreasonable assumption, the rules don't actually say that.
By the strict reading of what IS written, however, it can be argued that each power and feat and class from an article is a discrete and separate rules option. Given that stance, if a power from Dragon isn't reprinted in the later book, it could be considered to still be kosher for LFR, as it technically didn't change, it just wasn't addressed at all.
Some clarification from the powers that be would be helpful.
-karma
The problem is that you are assuming the rule applies to the contents of the entire article as a whole, that it either is all in or all out.
While not an unreasonable assumption, the rules don't actually say that.
By the strict reading of what IS written, however, it can be argued that each power and feat and class from an article is a discrete and separate rules option. Given that stance, if a power from Dragon isn't reprinted in the later book, it could be considered to still be kosher for LFR, as it technically didn't change, it just wasn't addressed at all.
Some clarification from the powers that be would be helpful.
-karma
Going back to the original topic (since it wasn't about the Living Construct keyword), This.
So I will humbly relent my position.
The rep app is dead. Long live the rep app.
Well, I wrote CS and they escalated it and deliberated and came back sayign that despite the new wording in the MM2 that implies that they are affected, the two keywords are seperate and Living Constructs are not affected by anything that affects Constructs.
So I will humbly relent my position.
The rep app is dead. Long live the rep app.
That's cool, at least it's some sort of answer from a now "official" rules source lol
Well, I wrote CS and they escalated it and deliberated and came back sayign that despite the new wording in the MM2 that implies that they are affected, the two keywords are seperate and Living Constructs are not affected by anything that affects Constructs.
I like the end result, but to get there, I'd really rather they use errata than hand-wave it.
The problem is that neither the race nor the item reference keywords, so saying the keywords differ doesn't really do much.
Living Construct racial trait for warforged: "You are a living construct."
Reparation Apparatus property: "When you use a healing power on a construct, that creature regains an additional 2d6 hit points."
Nothing about keywords there. It doesn't say "You have the 'living construct' keyword" or "When you use a healing power on a creature with the construct keyword..."
So, just for fun, let's compare:
Undead racial trait for revenants: "You are also considered a living creature." (Oddly enough, the only race specifically described as such.)
Lots and lots of powers: "Target: One creature"
If powers that work on a construct don't work on a living construct, one must assume that powers that work on a creature don't work on a living creature
I'll be curious to see if those items remain in the Compendium after the EPG update.
That might tell us the answer.
So players can still keep using the items from the article until the compendium comes out?
I was glad to see the Canith Goggles didnt get printed, I thought that ment they were gone from the game.
So players can still keep using the items from the article until the compendium comes out?
I was glad to see the Canith Goggles didnt get printed, I thought that ment they were gone from the game.
Keeping in mind that I'm nobody official - I was hoping that a Compendium update would tell us if they are officially dead or not.
If they disappear from the Compendium I'd say that's pretty definitive - as it's effectively an update to a legal rules source nullifying the item in question (this would also be the case if the description in the Compendium is edited to read something like "this is no longer a valid rules item".
If they remain in the Compendium (unchanged) then they still (arguably) appear in a player resource (from their first printing) and would (in my humble opinion) remain legal as they're still verifiable in a rules source.
Let me stress it again - VCL or not, I'm nobody official for rulings or campaign decisions. This is just my (personal) interpretation of the possible options.
I have put in a request on the CCG 2.0 thread that this be explicitly detailed in the section addressing playtests, and that information be provided as to what those of us who own Cannith Goggles and Reparation Apparati are supposed to do with our items that have not just been changed, but have been wiped out of existence. I argued against the full-price Veteran's Armor refund, but I feel that in the event of items that have been removed entirely rather than merely altered, a full gp refund would be appropriate.
So I'd say you still have the money that you thought you'd spent!
Saying that they don't exist any more is the most sensible situation, I think - and I'd solve it in future by putting an 'expiry date' on playtest articles so it's clear that if you use something from it, it's only valid after the date if you can point to the official printing as your source.
I spoke with Chris Tulach about this at Origins last weekend and was informed that rules items that are printed in a playtest Dragon Magazine article and are not reprinted in the subsequent book (including, in this case, both Artificer powers and items such as Cannith Goggles and Reparation Apparatus) are not legal for RPGA play.
I have put in a request on the CCG 2.0 thread that this be explicitly detailed in the section addressing playtests, and that information be provided as to what those of us who own Cannith Goggles and Reparation Apparati are supposed to do with our items that have not just been changed, but have been wiped out of existence. I argued against the full-price Veteran's Armor refund, but I feel that in the event of items that have been removed entirely rather than merely altered, a full gp refund would be appropriate.
And it counts at the buzzer not only was my assumption correct but it's an official ruling now.
And it counts at the buzzer not only was my assumption correct but it's an official ruling now.
So hearsay about something someone else heard at a convention is official now?
-karma
So hearsay about something someone else heard at a convention is official now?
-karma
Normally I'd say no but JohnduBois has a solid reputation and it would be really dumb for him to say "I talked to blah blah blah" without actually having done it. Plus he listed an official source I.E. Chris who not only works for Wotc but has input into campaign developement. It would also be different if he said "I talked to some guy" then it would definitely be hearsay. But that's not what happened he talked to a well known source for his information and then reported that information. Hearsay literally means information gathered by the first person from a second person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. Chis Tulac has that direct experience with regards to Dragon, 4th Edition, and Wotc as a whole.
Normally I'd say no but JohnduBois has a solid reputation and it would be really dumb for him to say "I talked to blah blah blah" without actually having done it.
I don't think that's really the point. At the moment there is more 'official' information and updates coming from twitter and 'something I heard at a convention' than there is coming from the RPGA site or even the official forums.
It's a really sad state of affairs.
I don't think that's really the point. At the moment there is more 'official' information and updates coming from twitter and 'something I heard at a convention' than there is coming from the RPGA site or even the official forums.
It's a really sad state of affairs.
Come on, grumpy ol' Telvin3d!
There are a few Tweets and they tend to be for minor things.
No Tweet or one-on-one conversation is official, it just indicates something that will likely become official, since it came from Tulach.
If you did join the Tweets for Tulach, you would get more comments about his workout music than anything else.
Relax and be sure that anything worth repeating will show up here.
In this particular case, they all just got back from Origins on Sunday, so they probably aren't going to be all over the boards so much.
In this particular case, they all just got back from Origins on Sunday, so they probably aren't going to be all over the boards so much.
And Chris didn't even fly back until Monday for that matter.
Tweets and other channels of communication (including face-to-face at a convention) are great sources for quick questions, but because they aren't verifiable, no, they shouldn't be treated as 100% official gospel.
However, Alphastream hits it on the head that, if you trust the source of the word of mouth (I'd hope, for example, you'd trust me) then you can be assured that what's being quoted is, at the very least, official intention.
In other news - as of dinner with Chris and the Sheawns I'm hearing some REALLY exciting things (rumors I won't be repeating here, sorry) about the upcoming website redesign - and I suspect/hope they'll help with some of the communications issues we've seen to date.
At the very least the changes I'm hearing (and further speculating) about will be well poised for that kind of increased communication.
Normally I'd say no but JohnduBois has a solid reputation and it would be really dumb for him to say "I talked to blah blah blah" without actually having done it. Plus he listed an official source I.E. Chris who not only works for Wotc but has input into campaign developement. It would also be different if he said "I talked to some guy" then it would definitely be hearsay. But that's not what happened he talked to a well known source for his information and then reported that information. Hearsay literally means information gathered by the first person from a second person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. Chis Tulac has that direct experience with regards to Dragon, 4th Edition, and Wotc as a whole.
I may need to report this post, as it ruins my reputation for disreputability by claiming that I have a solid reputation :P