Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Frostgrave => Topic started by: Timeshadow on 12 February 2016, 12:59:56 AM
-
So there have been some questions about constructs on the rules forum and some people were asking for some love for constructs. I think they are ok but I do agree that regular 80/100gc soldiers are better in almost any situation. I do find this balanced with the fact that they are effectively free soldiers. So what do you think? Honestly I'd be all for paying for upgrades to constructs that would make them a little better (such as the ones available in the golem mini campaigne).
Should constructs get an item slot? (currently they do not have one)
Should constructs get weapon options?
Should constructs get a ranged option?
Should constructs get some additional spell resistance or immunities?
Discuss...
-
I use them a lot with my Enchanter but they are a bit limited. I use my Large Construct to hold treasure mid field only because he can't be wounded.
I think they are lacking in a couple spots, super slow and lower fight. So if there was a way to change some of that or really improve other aspects. Being able to add 2 handed weapons is cool. I think there are a lot of stuff in the Golem Supplement that can help this.
I think they should have one special rule that you pick from a list when you summon one. Or maybe a system like the Captain tricks of the trade, a one time use ability.
-
Voted "Good as is" because, like everything else in FG, they have their use if used correctly.
I wouldn't be adverse to them getting access to the upgrades from the "Golem" campaign though.
-
It's hard to justify taking the animate construct spell when every other enchantment spell (other than control construct) is so much better. I like the idea of constructs though.
-
I would also venture to suggest lifting the restriction of casting embed enchantment on constructs that have been enhanced using "Book of the construct" to be able to permanently gain +1 fight.
To do this you would need 1-Create construct.
2-Book of the construct
3-Enchant weapon
4-Embed enchantment
That's 3 spells and an expensive magic item to get a large construct with stats comparable to a knight with 2 more health and one less move. Yes with another magic item(Oil of the construct) you could give him equal move and if you can get the "Script of the golem" you can get 2 more hp that's a total expense of 550gc and all three of your starting spell slots and an item you can only get in a senerio if you win. That's a pretty tall order and even if I did get all the ingredients necessary to do this I wouldn't make more than 2 of them as other things like speed and ranged capability are needed more than raw power. For total 600gc I can get a Knight and give him a +2 fight sword and I don't need to waist any spell slots. Yes the knight won't have as many hp but he will not be large and will have 2 more fight which is much more useful in most cases.
And this is leaving small and medium constructs out of the equation as regular soldiers will definitely be better then them all of the time saving very specific circumstances.
With all this said constructs are decent as is and some people will play them just for the flavor but they will never be great. I would like to see a few more construct specific items to allow for some more interesting options.
-
If I were making changes to construct...
Construct: A construct automatically passes all Will rolls it is required to make, except those for Control Construct. It is immune to Steal Health, Strike Dead, Possess, Heal and Restore Life. A construct has natural weapons. It may not carry magic items, except those specifically designed for constructs. Constructs may carry treasure.
And while we are changing things:
Natural weapons: This model in never considered unarmed. It may not be the target of Enchant Weapon spells.
Large: This model has -2 Fight against ranged attacks. It gains a +1 damage bonus against models that are not large. A large model does not have its movement when carrying treasure.
-
If I were making changes to construct...
Construct: A construct automatically passes all Will rolls it is required to make, except those for Control Construct. It is immune to Steal Health, Strike Dead, Possess, Heal and Restore Life. A construct has natural weapons. It may not carry magic items, except those specifically designed for constructs. Constructs may carry treasure.
And while we are changing things:
Natural weapons: This model in never considered unarmed. It may not be the target of Enchant Weapon spells.
Large: This model has -2 Fight against ranged attacks. It gains a +1 damage bonus against models that are not large. A large model does not have its movement when carrying treasure.
Umm giving it immunity to those spells is redundant if it auto passes any will roll (just saying). I like where you are going but I think it's a bit much with being immune to will save based magic. I'd drop the auto pass will and keep the immunity to the listed spells. this allows a construct to be transposed or blinded but not struck dead, healed or life leached.
-
Umm giving it immunity to those spells is redundant if it auto passes any will roll (just saying). I like where you are going but I think it's a bit much with being immune to will save based magic. I'd drop the auto pass will and keep the immunity to the listed spells. this allows a construct to be transposed or blinded but not struck dead, healed or life leached.
Yeah that's what we get for typing on 4 hours sleep. And I forgot about transpose, but I don't know how to handle that one. I don't think it's too much, given how slow they are in the first place and not being able to carry items. But I may be wrong. Maybe if you were limited to one construct per spellcaster?
To elaborate: Without the immuity to will-based spells, it is only immune to two, short-ranged offensive spells, one if which is REALLY hard to cast. The other 4 spells it would be immune to are all beneficial, one of which is the best buff spell in the game.
-
I like the mods to natural weapons and large (which would also effect large demons, animals and other monsters), and I do think they should be immune to any "control" other than control construct (otherwise why have the spell) and health effecting spells(including Strike dead) shouldn't effect them ether other than that they should be normal.
PS I like how the poll is going it seems currently everyone likes constructs but the majority would like to see them a bit better. Noone thinks they are overpowered as is.
-
Feel they are good as is. They can carry treasure off table.
-
I like the idea of changing some rules to being large, currently it is only a negative effect.
Not encumbered and more damage to smaller sized models seems really good. That would help with the slower movement and make up a bit for a lower fight.
-
Feel they are good as is. They can carry treasure off table.
But so can a 20gc thief or thug.
Which is better
Thief/Thug vs Small Construct
Infantryman/Man at arms vs Medium construct
Barbarian/Templar/Knight vs Large Construct
Yes you pay gold for the soldiers but you give up a spell slot for animate construct. How much is an initial spell slot worth to someone who really wants to use constructs? Both take up a soldier slot in your army so there is no real advantage to having constructs vs soldiers unless you are very gold poor and even then a 20-50gc soldier is 9 times out of 10 better than a construct.
I am not saying constructs are too weak but their currently (other than style which in my books is a major factor) is no real reason to take constructs over regular soldiers.
-
@Timeshadow I see your point and concede. Yet for the fantasy and RPG bit it is a non eating low maintenance fellow who only needs a corner to stand in at night. Never runs or sleeps.... Just playing now.... I see they could be improved.
-
Yup I agree Cpl Chaos, but I'm currently in an RPG where there is a player who is using a warforged (Humanoid intelligent construct) who never eats or sleeps but he is the worst guard ever...he wouldn't notice the sun rising until someone pointed it out to him and slightly on topic he has a terrible will save and is constantly being controlled by our enemies.
I am really looking for more serous discussion on the topic and enjoy a good conversation/debate.
-
Is there a reason constructs should be more useful than undead or animal companions?
I would argue that if you wanted to make them more usefull, create scenerios where they are usefull or let their cool factor be part of why you take them. Frostgrave is brilliant because there are so few elements that are overpowered.
-
Is there a reason constructs should be more useful than undead or animal companions?
I would argue that if you wanted to make them more usefull, create scenerios where they are usefull or let their cool factor be part of why you take them. Frostgrave is brilliant because there are so few elements that are overpowered.
Undead aka Zombies are super good, They don't take a soldier slot, and you can re summon them after they leave with treasure or are killed and the diff is super easy they are a go to spell right up there with Leap and Heal. Not comparable to regular minions as they don't take a slot they are free extras. Campaign spell lets you have a skeleton but it's a toss up whether it's better or not.
Animal companion gives you a free 100gc equivalent Bear that is mobile cover and a +4 fight with a good Will save. It also gives options for other ok animals as well though it does take a soldier slot it's free and you can use it as a stopgap for lean times without loosing much power. Comparable and better than many soldiers and a great stopgap. Easy to cast as well.
Summon demon Gives a powerful and disposable minion that can carry treasure and doesn't count toward your soldiers, add to this demon in a bottle for even more fun. Drawback is that it's control can be dispelled and there is a chance if summoned in game that you could roll a 1 and have it attacking you. Not comparable to regular minions as per Raise Zombie.
Create Construct Give you a weaker slower minion that can never shoot and has a weaker fight than any other equivalent summoned creature. With 550gc of campaign specific upgrades they are on par with regular minions (without magic item) but only just. An 80-100gc minion with 450gc worth of magic item will 9 times out of 10 be much better than a construct. They are free so can be used as a stop-gap for lean times but even a 20gc thief/thug is most times going to be a better investment.
-
Is there a reason constructs should be more useful than undead or animal companions?
I would argue that if you wanted to make them more usefull, create scenerios where they are usefull or let their cool factor be part of why you take them. Frostgrave is brilliant because there are so few elements that are overpowered.
No there isnt. I would argue that undead should get some of the same immunities and have options for better undead to be raised. I just haven't thought about undead as much as constructs.
I also don't think animal companions should count toward warband limit but limit one per warband. However snow leopards and bears are pretty awesome. Wolves could use some love comparatively. Once again, haven't given it much thought.
Summon demon is fine as is. Demons are pretty great on their own and take no slots.
It's more about providing value for a spell slot competing with awesome buffs and face blasters.
-
Undead aka Zombies are super good, They don't take a soldier slot, and you can re summon them after they leave with treasure
I thought Joe had said you couldn't raise another zombie if it left with treasure, as it was still under your control till the post-game?
-
I thought Joe had said you couldn't raise another zombie if it left with treasure, as it was still under your control till the post-game?
Not that I am aware of but if that's the case it takes away a big bonus for zombies and I'm guessing for summon demon as well.
-
Constructs captured my imagination, but I too can't think of a good reason to use them.
I would like a little rules-supplement to allow some more sandbox options with these. Scrap the large-medium-small system and make some other rules about construction.
Maybe a simple points allocation system? points can be spent on movement, fight, and health? Bigger has more points, but normal downside of "large".
-
Constructs captured my imagination, but I too can't think of a good reason to use them.
I would like a little rules-supplement to allow some more sandbox options with these. Scrap the large-medium-small system and make some other rules about construction.
Maybe a simple points allocation system? points can be spent on movement, fight, and health? Bigger has more points, but normal downside of "large".
As much as this might be cool it would complicate things unnecessarily and in frostgrave I have come to respect it's simplicity. I think just a couple of tweeks to existing magic items and spells is all they need. According to the poll numbers noone thinks they are over powered or useless which speeks to them being nearly perfect the way they are over half think that they could use a few tweeks to make them a touch better and we have seen a good number of options to do just that. I'd like to see expansions for each school of magic say giving them all 4 additional "advanced" spells that you can only get from treasures (why are we in frostgrave except to recover lost magic right) and within those spells should be at least two spells to make constructs better.
-
The concept of constructs is great, but they suffer from several cons: 1) taking a soldier slot, 2) medium and large constructs have litle bit meh stats when compared to demons, particularly the movement, 3) out of game only.
I love the fact Frostgrave rules are simple, and would like to change the constructs in the same spirit. What about constructs not taking a soldier slot (with a maximum of one per warband)? They are after all machines and lack the need for food etc. I would say this could make them much more useful without any complications. What is your opinion about such house rule?
-
I would be fine with that and it would take care of most issues with them but in turn would give people another set of boots on the floor which I think would be bad. I honestly think Warbands are the perfect size right now and any more additions would begin to bog down the game. I might suggest having them take the slot but still being one per warband (like animal companions) with a small stat-line boost or some additional options/skills or resistances to make up for it.
-
I am not sitting at home with my rulebook but from my side I see the following issued with constructs (which can be mostly resolved with the Golem Campaign supplement).
1/ golems just can't get better from baseline stats. Almost every other soldier can get encahnt weapon and enchant armour for plus stats. Personally I don't see any issue with constructs (or summoned zombies, demons or animals for that matter for balance) getting enchant wepaon or enchant armour cast on them. Somehow someone is telling me that an enchant weapon can be cast on a sword, axe, arrow or club, but can't be cast on a golems inanimate rock hand? For that matter how hard is it to strap a set of spikes to summoned animal or zombie?
2/ (I may be wrong on this) From memory it is an out of game spell not an in game spell. This severely weakens the spell for a soldier that is not equivalent to any of the other summon soldier type spells. If a necromancer can magically make a zombie rise from the ground and a witch can summon a vicious animal frmo nowhere, then an enchanter can cobble together a golem from rocks he finds in the ruins. I have left summon demon out of this one becuase they actually appear from nowhere, but the same argument could be made that they need prep to summon.
3/ for the large constructs (and all other large creatures) there needs to be some advantage to being large. I like the suggestion that they do not halve movement when carrying treasure. MAybe as an alternative they should modify damage in the same way as double handed weapons and add +2 to damage. After all larger than a human and one hand for them would/could eqaul 2 hands for a human.
-
I agree with the 'large needs a bonus' to balance it out. Large currently means slow and easy to hit...But no advantages, no balance. If he could hit hard, then there is a trade off. I love the idea of large things not halving movement with treasure. Perhaps not applying the 'wounded' status too, to represent robustness? Yes it may get damaged, but it doesn't feel pain and is tougher than a zombie?
I think at least the treasure rule will become a house rule here.
-
I agree that simplicity is the priority.
Also, changing movement rules would be nice, but not enough to make medium and large worthwhile.
Large needs a bonus across the game. There is nothing good about being big.
-
I also like the 'not slowed by treasure if large' idea!
-
A few Ideas to improve constructs but not overpower
1: Large as discussed prev needs some benefit so I'd suggest giving no encumbrance penalty wile carrying treasure ie no -1 Fight and full movement.
2: As magically animated servants I think constructs should benefit from Enchant weapon and enchant armor spells and the "Book of the construct" should allow them to be embedded. (Both of them at the same time even)
3: All the items from the hunt for the golem mini campaine should be available to buy if not to begin with then right after the Golem campaigne is run.
Even with all these bonuses I very much doute that many ppl would switch more than one or two soldiers for constructs which I think is just perfect for balance.
-
I just wish they were considered armed.
-
I just wish they were considered armed.
I have never thought of them as weaponless! Blimey that would downgrade them...
-
I am part of the improve large creature camp- it would be the easiest to implement.
Not slowed by terrain, hits medium creatures harder and ability to carry treasure-
-
I have never thought of them as weaponless! Blimey that would downgrade them...
Agreed. I was under the impression the "unarmed" rule was for models that lose their weapons during a game (or are listed as unarmed), not for any model that didn't start with a weapon. That would make warhounds useless.
-
From the Errata:
Weapons – For game purposes, animals, undead, demons, and constructs are NOT assumed to be carrying weapons, and thus spells that target weapons cannot be used on them.
Have I been interrupting this wrong? If they aren't assumed to be carrying weapons aren't they unarmed combatants?
-
I'd assume what is meant is that they do not suffer a penalty for being unarmed as they have natural weapons and that the bit about spells is saying you can't disarm a golems fists/warhounds teeth.
-
I'd assume what is meant is that they do not suffer a penalty for being unarmed as they have natural weapons and that the bit about spells is saying you can't disarm a golems fists/warhounds teeth.
I like the sound of that better! I thought they were considered unarmed for about a week now, after reading that in the errata.
-
The unarmed rules does say a model that "loses" it's weapons, not one that starts without one.
-
The unarmed rules does say a model that "loses" it's weapons, not one that starts without one.
Another valid point. Thanks guys!
With that all being straightened out. I'll say that I feel that they are good as is. Of course, I would love to see more options in the future!
-
I personally believe Constructs could use some sort of boost, however I think it is redundant to make it simply an improvement in stats. If you look around my thread: "Frostgrave Ideas", I present a lot of ways I think Constructs could be improved upon.
In general, I think Constructs should be configurable, with fluid stats, and weird, specific abilities. When an artificer or a battle engineer in the fantasy universe creates an automaton or a construct, it generally is for a very specific purpose, and has very specific functions. You could create a variety of interesting constructs by embedding spells, potions, magic items, or even altering (not upping, altering) their stats (like lowering a large constructs health to improve it's speed) and so forth.
I don't think constructs should be based on power, but utility.
Thank you,
Like Clockwork
-
Just to clear things up, any creature that starts without a weapon, including demons, undead, constructs, warhounds, etc. is never considered unarmed. This is an advantage as it means they are immune to the Decay spell.
-
So since their weapons are Fangs (and a bad attitude) ... my Warhounds are immune from Tooth Decay? Sweet!
Well ... maybe not sweets ... that would surely lead to tooth decay. Not heavy brushers my Warhounds. lol
-
And also a disadvantage since you can't enchant their fists, teeth etc.