Talk:Clockwork (3.5e Subtype)

Redundant Subtypes

There are a lot of redundant subtypes. Bots, clockwork and construct could all be one subtype. There are there slight differences, sure, but three different subtypes of mostly the same thing is distracting. Suggesting to merge all the robot subtypes into one. Especially, since two of the authors have collaborated on other stuff before, finding a happy medium should be easier.--Franken Kesey 17:16, 27 April 2019 (MDT)

Construct's not a subtype (unless you're referring to that oddity I saw floating around the wiki a long time ago, not that it should be a subtype IMHO). However I'd make a case that Bot and Clockwork are separate. While they look similar with their portfolio business, since it was a prototype programming feature, the big draw of clockwork is describing a physical aspect of the creature: That they are made of complex parts and thus are subject to crits.

I suppose one can argue that doesn't deserve a subtype though. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2019 (MDT)

Was referring to the Construct (3.5e Subtype). A subtype which is not much different than construct, and really should not be a subtype. It is just an augmented type. And not any different than a standard construct.

With regards to bot vs. clockwork: Both have complex parts, but you are right the current bot is not subject to critical hits. An oversight which can be fixed. Are there any other mechanical differences between the two?

If the two were merged, would give credit to both parties involved. In reality, you authored much of the bot article as well. Just trying to group and reduce redundancy.--Franken Kesey 17:45, 27 April 2019 (MDT)