Hilarious things you've found in RAW?

[redking]

I might as well throw this in here since it is supposedly RAW according to an expert on RAW.

Summary: The Merchant Prince PrC gets a 10% discount on magical item crafting for each level, reaching 50% at 5th level, so long as your magical item crafting takes place in the context of running a business.

[sreservoir]

I feel like once you're stretching this hard to construct a contrived object to apply two sets of rules that don't otherwise interact, it's not really a "hilarious thing you've found", you just had to make it and I'm not sure it's even that funny.

[Promethean]

I feel like once you're stretching this hard to construct a contrived object to apply two sets of rules that don't otherwise interact, it's not really a "hilarious thing you've found", you just had to make it and I'm not sure it's even that funny.

I find Locate City Nuke to be hilarious as well. I imagine many people find several of the famous builds that use content from multiple books funny as well.

I'd hardly call using a +1 enhancement, a spell, and a feat or a +1 enhancement and 2 feats to get a funny outcome "stretching" anything in comparison.

[InvisibleBison]

I'd hardly call using a +1 enhancement, a spell, and a feat or a +1 enhancement and 2 feats to get a funny outcome "stretching" anything in comparison.

The stretch isn't what you're using, but how you're using it.

[Promethean]

The stretch isn't what you're using, but how you're using it.

Could you please explain where the "stretch" is?

I don't see it.

[InvisibleBison]

Could you please explain where the "stretch" is?

I don't see it.

The stretch is when you claim that an object that vaguely resembles a human is humanoid. It's not inarguably incorrect, like if you tried to describe a cube as being spherical, but no one who wasn't trying to find a reason why this combo should work would say it's the best or most fitting way to interpret the rules.

[Morphic tide]

The stretch is when you claim that an object that vaguely resembles a human is humanoid. It's not inarguably incorrect, like if you tried to describe a cube as being spherical, but no one who wasn't trying to find a reason why this combo should work would say it's the best or most fitting way to interpret the rules.

In the SRD, there are rather few Constructs. Golems have Magic Immunity, Inevitables and Homunculi are already intelligent, and Retrievers are insectile. The only possible SRD example targets for Awaken Construct are the Shield Guardian and the Psion-killer. Those are the benchmark for "humanoid", any stricter definition results in the spell having literally nothing to use it on in the Core+1 use-case things are expected to operate in.

[InvisibleBison]

In the SRD, there are rather few Constructs. Golems have Magic Immunity, Inevitables and Homunculi are already intelligent, and Retrievers are insectile. The only possible SRD example targets for Awaken Construct are the Shield Guardian and the Psion-killer. Those are the benchmark for "humanoid", any stricter definition results in the spell having literally nothing to use it on in the Core+1 use-case things are expected to operate in.

And if those are the benchmark, then this is clearly not humanoid, which is what I've been saying all along.

[Promethean]

And if those are the benchmark, then this is clearly not humanoid, which is what I've been saying all along.

Technically it wouldn't qualify by RAW as the SRD definition of humanoid is:

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a humanlike torso, arms, and a head.

So your picture without legs or a humanoid torso can't fit the bill.

Other options in this thread Would, like so:

So, to give a specific example, would this qualify as a "humanoid sword"?


It has a "head" area (eyes could be added to the bottom of the blade, if necessary), along with two arms and two legs. It can also be held and used as a sword.

And as a bonus visualization of what the weapon graft combo might look like:

Spoiler

Show

[Thurbane]

I feel like once you're stretching this hard to construct a contrived object to apply two sets of rules that don't otherwise interact, it's not really a "hilarious thing you've found", you just had to make it and I'm not sure it's even that funny.

I'm inclined to agree.

I mean for the "rule of cool" I might allow it in a game I was DMing, but it feels to me like jumping though hoops to make things interact, rather than something that is innately funny by RAW,

[InvisibleBison]

Technically it wouldn't qualify by RAW as the SRD definition of humanoid is:



So your picture without legs or a humanoid torso can't fit the bill.

Yes, exactly. That's what I've been saying this whole time. A sword made to look like a human does not have a humanoid form, and thus is not a valid target for awaken construct.

[Promethean]

Yes, exactly. That's what I've been saying this whole time. A sword made to look like a human does not have a humanoid form, and thus is not a valid target for awaken construct.

Except it can.

You're building a strawman argument by trying to say it's impossible for a sword to have humanoid form just because one example picture you gave doesn't qualify. That's like saying all humanoids must be evil because you have one example of an evil humanoid.

[InvisibleBison]

Except it can.

You're building a strawman argument by trying to say it's impossible for a sword to have humanoid form just because one example picture you gave doesn't qualify. That's like saying all humanoids must be evil because you have one example of an evil humanoid.

Okay, it's clear that you and I fundamentally disagree about what the rules are and how they should be interpreted, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation.

[loky1109]

Yes, exactly. That's what I've been saying this whole time. A sword made to look like a human does not have a humanoid form, and thus is not a valid target for awaken construct.

Sorry. What is "humanoid form" in this case? I always thought "humanoid form" and "look like a human[oid]" are synonyms. If something that "looks like a humanoid" doesn't have "humanoid form", what has?

You're building a strawman argument by trying to say it's impossible for a sword to have humanoid form just because one example picture you gave doesn't qualify.

I don't agree even this sword/dagger doesn't qualify. It has enough humanoid form in my book.

[Tzardok]

In the SRD, there are rather few Constructs. Golems have Magic Immunity, Inevitables and Homunculi are already intelligent, and Retrievers are insectile. The only possible SRD example targets for Awaken Construct are the Shield Guardian and the Psion-killer. Those are the benchmark for "humanoid", any stricter definition results in the spell having literally nothing to use it on in the Core+1 use-case things are expected to operate in.

Sign of a badly written spell: it can't affect what it was meant to (in this case golems).

[Inevitability]

In the SRD, there are rather few Constructs. Golems have Magic Immunity, Inevitables and Homunculi are already intelligent, and Retrievers are insectile. The only possible SRD example targets for Awaken Construct are the Shield Guardian and the Psion-killer. Those are the benchmark for "humanoid", any stricter definition results in the spell having literally nothing to use it on in the Core+1 use-case things are expected to operate in.

You can suppress Magic Immunity with the right spell in many cases, not?

[noob]

Sign of a badly written spell: it can't affect what it was meant to (in this case golems).

You can cast the spell on stone golems since you can make them drop magic immunity with stone to flesh.
Just get another guy to cast stone to flesh on the last round.

[InvisibleBison]

Sorry. What is "humanoid form" in this case? I always thought "humanoid form" and "look like a human[oid]" are synonyms. If something that "looks like a humanoid" doesn't have "humanoid form", what has?

A thing having a humanoid form means that its shape is the same as the shape of a humanoid. It's perfectly possible for something to look like a humanoid without having a humanoid form. Consider a chair, with its legs carved to look like human arms and legs, its seat to look like a torso, and its back to look like a head. It looks like a humanoid, but it doesn't have a humanoid form.

[Promethean]

A thing having a humanoid form means that its shape is the same as the shape of a humanoid. It's perfectly possible for something to look like a humanoid without having a humanoid form. Consider a chair, with its legs carved to look like human arms and legs, its seat to look like a torso, and its back to look like a head. It looks like a humanoid, but it doesn't have a humanoid form.

If your definition of humanoid form is separate from "looking humanoid" and we've established the SRD definition of humanoids is "two arms, two legs, and a head OR two arms, a humanoid torso, and a head", then what was your disagreement before?

Multiple people were pointing out that you could give a humanoid form to a sword rather easily, but you seemed to disagree.

[loky1109]

A thing having a humanoid form means that its shape is the same as the shape of a humanoid.

For me this has the same shape as the shape of humanoid. And it isn't best option that could be made.

Consider a chair, with its legs carved to look like human arms and legs, its seat to look like a torso, and its back to look like a head. It looks like a humanoid, but it doesn't have a humanoid form.

It doesn't.
But I agree, for example picture of a humanoid looks like a humanoid, but it doesn't have a humanoid form. Your example doesn't work, but your general idea looks workable.

But I can't agree with the stance that sword can't have humanoid shape. Anything can. Sword, axe, chair, house, castle, flower, anything.

[Darg]

I think there is a difference from the mind seeing a pattern and interpreting it as having human features, vs actually having facsimiles of those features.. Just Google "human face hill" or "human face mountain" and look at all of pictures that "appear" to have human features but actually do not.

I don't think the sword picture would work because it is still shaped like a sword. That is where you should draw the line. It's not that something appears to be more than one thing, it's that it can easily identified as something it is shaped as. A human shaped statue with a sword hand is easily identified as a human shaped statue with a sword for a hand. A sword with forks coming out can hardly be called humanoid shaped. To do so, one would have to identify a blade as a head, the handle as a torso, and forks as arms and legs.

[Promethean]

I mean, this is all moot anyway.

There are other ways to give items an intelligence score such as the item familiar feat, legacy abilities, the wish spell, and just straight up forking over the cash to enhance an item with intelligence using the crafting rules.

[loky1109]

Even if I agree with you about swords... Well, there are numbers of weapons. For example humanoid shaped mace, why not?
Example: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c9/39/24/c...-indonesia.jpg
It isn't photorealistic, yes, but I see no obstacles to make photorealistic human-mace in the similar manner.

[Darg]

Even if I agree with you about swords... Well, there are numbers of weapons. For example humanoid shaped mace, why not?
Example: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c9/39/24/c...-indonesia.jpg
It isn't photorealistic, yes, but I see no obstacles to make photorealistic human-mace in the similar manner.

That isn't shaped like a human, it's shaped to resemble a human. The two are completely different in concept. Humanoid as a prerequisite provides much greater flexibility, but it must still have arms, head, and torso. The mace shown functionally has only one conceptually. And were the arms to be crafted outward to create actual arms, could it realistically be called a functional weapon instead of a decorative piece made to resemble a weapon? A functional weapon is designed to be durable. Making such weak points on purpose to better resemble a humanoid makes it hard to argue that the function is to be a weapon. Improvised weapons cover the catch-all weapons category. What should really be asked, is a table used as a club a club or a table? What would you have to do to make the table a club instead of an improvised club?

[Metastachydium]

But I can't agree with the stance that sword can't have humanoid shape. Anything can. Sword, axe, chair, house, castle, flower, anything.

You're goddamn right!

I think there is a difference from the mind seeing a pattern and interpreting it as having human features, vs actually having facsimiles of those features.. Just Google "human face hill" or "human face mountain" and look at all of pictures that "appear" to have human features but actually do not.

I don't think the sword picture would work because it is still shaped like a sword. That is where you should draw the line. It's not that something appears to be more than one thing, it's that it can easily identified as something it is shaped as. A human shaped statue with a sword hand is easily identified as a human shaped statue with a sword for a hand. A sword with forks coming out can hardly be called humanoid shaped. To do so, one would have to identify a blade as a head, the handle as a torso, and forks as arms and legs.

You're confusing human (the real life species) with Humanoid (a creature type with a specific sort of body plan in D&D). Like I said, a Phaerlock is really just a Dromaeasaurid with four eyes and long, weird, clawed fingers. It's also a Humanoid, shaped like a humanoid. A creature that looks like a sword with a thick ricasso (torso), adjustable crossguards (arms) a narrow, short hilt (neck) and a pommel shaped like a bear's head (head) fits the definition of Humanoid provided by the rules, regardless whether you can also recognize it as sword-shaped.

[Darg]

You're goddamn right!



You're confusing human (the real life species) with Humanoid (a creature type with a specific sort of body plan in D&D). Like I said, a Phaerlock is really just a Dromaeasaurid with four eyes and long, weird, clawed fingers. It's also a Humanoid, shaped like a humanoid. A creature that looks like a sword with a thick ricasso (torso), adjustable crossguards (arms) a narrow, short hilt (neck) and a pommel shaped like a bear's head (head) fits the definition of Humanoid provided by the rules, regardless whether you can also recognize it as sword-shaped.

The fact that these parts are still not a torso, not arms, not a head proves my point. The human brain is designed to see patterns. To me it doesn't look humanoid shaped. It doesnt go far enough. Regardless, no one familiar with actual weapons would say that it was designed to be a functional weapon. There in lies the problem. A regular person off the street would call it art or dysfunctional, not a real weapon. I have to ask, do you think that a cardboard cut out of a person is human shaped? I sure don't.

[Promethean]

The fact that these parts are still not a torso, not arms, not a head proves my point. The human brain is designed to see patterns. To me it doesn't look humanoid shaped. It doesnt go far enough. Regardless, no one familiar with actual weapons would say that it was designed to be a functional weapon. There in lies the problem. A regular person off the street would call it art or dysfunctional, not a real weapon. I have to ask, do you think that a cardboard cut out of a person is human shaped? I sure don't.

Have you seen the art for D&D weapons, or even fantasy weapons in general? Whether or not a weapon would be practical in real life has Absolutely Zero bearing on if it's an effective fantasy weapon. Functional weapons can see the door, we're in fantasy land now boy.

Joking aside, you literally just have to stick a torso with arms and a head on the pommel of whatever weapon and it would count easily under the SRD definition of humanoid. The appendages don't even need to be mobile without magical assistance, golems sure aren't.

Edit: Also, why is everyone so obsessed with the Awaken construct spell. It's entirely tangential to the function of the "I put weapons in your weapons" build that started all this. There are So many ways to make unintelligent construct into INT 3+ constructs that arguing about this is literally pointless.

[Telok]

. I have to ask, do you think that a cardboard cut out of a person is human shaped? I sure don't.

Well now that's an interesting question. Take a humanoid robot. Right shape, moves around, waves arms, turns head. Start building thinner and thinner ones until it's the same thickness as a cardboard cut out. Is is still humanoid? Two arms, two legs, head, walks, waves, just happens to be the thickness of the cardboard cut out. Humanoid?

Take a skeleton of a person, like a doctor's office display one. Humanoid? Make it out of a single piece of metal instead of bones, now it's immobile, still humanoid? Put in hinges instead of being solid, humanoid? Flatten the metal "bones" until they're sword sharp on the edges, humanoid? Remove the hinges so it's a single piece of metal, just thin and sharp all over, humanoid?

Where does it start? Where does it stop? I can't tell.

[Metastachydium]

The fact that these parts are still not a torso, not arms, not a head proves my point. The human brain is designed to see patterns. To me it doesn't look humanoid shaped. It doesnt go far enough. Regardless, no one familiar with actual weapons would say that it was designed to be a functional weapon. There in lies the problem. A regular person off the street would call it art or dysfunctional, not a real weapon. I have to ask, do you think that a cardboard cut out of a person is human shaped? I sure don't.

But we're not talking about cardboard cuts. The pommel's head-shaped, all 3D. The crossguard is shaped like arms, all 3D. The ricasso is thick. The only flat thing is the blade itself, but it doesn't matter. We have arms, a head and a torso – and that's all the rules require.

How your human brain works is equally irrelevant. Golems are routinely treated as humanoid-shaped, but if you look at the art of, say, the iron golem (one of the two that have official art in the MM), it's really an incomplete, dysfunctional set of armour with a disproportionately small helmet, comically overlarge pauldrons and elephantine leg pieces and a stupidly narrow chestpiece with steel bars behind it. That's nothing like a human. A Phaerlock (Humanoid!) or Crucian (Humanoid!) is nothing like a human either, albeit they are at least organic. Your gut-based definition is so unneccessarily narrow that it's ultimately all but useless.

[loky1109]

The fact that these parts are still not a torso, not arms, not a head proves my point.

Nothing are not a torso, not arms, not a head except a torso, arms, and a head, so this spell just doesn't work because constructs don't have all this parts, only parts that looks like.