Talk:Construct Subtypes (3.5e Variant Rule)

Cybernetic Subtype

The name here really bugs me, as it seems a rather large anachronism. Might "Fleshcrafted" or "Alchemic" or "Organic" be better? - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually suggested cybernetic because all it actually means is some form of control (be it biological, mechanical, etc) -- hence the critical hit vulnerability. Only in the sense of the word made popular by cyberpunk has it become an anachronism -- unfortunately, that seems to be the definition everybody knows nowadays. Surgo 17:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I get the control thing and I mostly consider Frankenstein's monster a cybernetic construct. But as you've said the word has lots of futuristic baggage and no one remembers the greek root of it, and it seems out of place here. You might have a particular character discuss their reanimation work as cybernetics, but naming the entire subtype after it just seems like asking for people to feel weird about it. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I always forget what "cybernetic" technically means, and I've even studied Greek. Maybe "structured" or "systemic" or something would capture enough of the sense you want for more readers. --DanielDraco 18:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You already know this, but I agree with Tarkis as I am a supporter of organic. To me, hearing organic makes me think of fleshy meat things (which they are), and as virtue of being fleshy meats also possessing vitals (thus, the critical hits). The rare off-case of some kind of ooze-golem is too rare and far between to be a concern to me. Consider this a +1 support for organic. -- Eiji-kun 21:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

But nothing requires it to be biological in any manner. It could be clockwork. All it means is that it has some sort of physical systems necessary for function. So basically it's for constructs that are less golem, more robot. Which, honestly, seems a little at odds with its effects, but that's what the fluff and the name indicate. --DanielDraco 03:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem here. I swore you had Mechanical as crit-vulnerable too. IMO, I totally see it as such, or at least just crit-resistant (25% fort default?). That way you could have crit-vulnerable clockwork beings as well as organic constructs, without bringing up the image of cyborgs rather than puppets of meat and bone. -- Eiji-kun 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

In conjunction with Mechanical, it accounts for robots and living constructs. At least, that's what the intent is. - TG Cid 04:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

DD - Mechanical covers clockwork better than this does. And I see no reason why Mechanical can't have crit susceptibility as well.

Cid - It would be really nice if there was just 1 subtype that accounted for robots, not two. The differences between them and normal constructs are not so large or the groupings to varied as to need more than that. And needing 3 for living construct is just crazy, though I could see 2 there I guess if you wanted some to be "alive" and others to just be "mobile" while being made of whatever. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 05:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sapient Subtype

Isn't this a better place to include the resurrection benefit? I'd rather be able to raise a sentient rock construct from the dead than a mindless flesh golem. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 17:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In defense of my almost complete lack of originality, this is almost a complete rip from the Unliving and Dark Minded subtypes from the Tome of Necromancy. Their reasons for putting being raised under Unliving would probably also be mine for Cybernetic.

That said, it is partially a leftover of the old Cyborg subtype that was supposed to be much more focused on once being alive. So I would be open to the change if we don't have any objections from those more knowledgeably about ToN and their way of doing things in case those should still have any bearing on this. - TG Cid 17:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Upon review of the ToN subtypes, it occurred to me that there is in fact no resurrection clause there (I suppose because them being raised restores them to being alive). So I went ahead and made that change. - TG Cid 18:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)