Farewell, Reparation Apparatus

126 posts / 0 new
Last post
My primary character in LFR is a warforged and has been taking advantage of the "broketastic" nature of the Reparation Appratus for a few levels now. It looks like that time has come to an end. I figured this should be posted for all the rest of the players who are using them and for all the DM's who've groaned at them.

Per the new CCG1.8, the Rules Updates and Rules Compendium are valid resources for RPGA play. (The updates become valid on the 4th Tuesday or something to that effect. The compendium seems to be valid the moment it is updated.) The current version of the warforged in the Compendium no longer has this line:

Construct: You have the construct keyword, so you are considered to be a construct for effects that relate to that keyword.

This was the text giving them the construct keyword. The compendium now only lists them as "living constructs" which is a separate keyword. This is the current, and therefore, most legal version of the warforged for use in LFR. Since they no longer have the construct keyword, they no longer benefit from reparation apparatus.

If you have a valid argument against this, feel free to let me know as I've enjoyed being extra hard to kill. However, I also promised my gaming group that the moment they were given proper errata, I would follow it.

Farewell, reparation apparatus. It's been fun.
I was clearly wrong.
Why don't you actually read what the compendium updated before jumping the gun?

The compendium lists the Warforged for the Monster Manual, not Dragon Magazine. The original Monster Manual Warforged did NOT have the construct Keyword, so the compendium did NOT update it at all.

It clearly isn't the MM version - the Dragon version has intimidate as does the Compendium. MM does not. However, the Compendium version is missing the construct keyword part and the attached components.
If you read the warforged entry in the Compendium, it is the Dragon version. The write-up is there, the racial power is there (the Dragon version, not the MM version), the Intimidate skill bonus is there. It also states the source as Dragon 364.

Do they state somewhere what has been updated in the Compendium? Sure, on the Updates section of the products page, they give the updates for the published books. They state that those updates will be included in the compendium, but as far as I can see it doesn't mean that the compendium will not include other updates.

It has been stated that Dragon will never receive official errata once it has been compiled. (Of course, they went back on this when they screwed up the Bard's healing power.) So, which is considered legal? Is the version in the Compendium current? How can we tell, since no date of update is listed?

Sure, the updates in the compendium are legal and binding, but we aren't using those stats.

That seems contradictory. If the compendium stated it was only updating the Monster Manual version, I would agree with you. But it doesn't.

At this point, perhaps, we need the opinion of an official LFR rep.
Very well, an official response is required. At the moment it is unclear if they are updating one or the other.

Apologies for coming across as so brusque, I was merely stating that there was more to it than what met the eye.

As it stands (by RAW), Dragon Magazine Warforged are legal, Compendium ones aren't.
No official response needed. The new CCG states: "The online Rules Compendium is considered an official rules source for RPGA play."

So the Compendium Warforged are very legal. So then the question is which came first? The compiled issue version or the Compendium version? Most likely the Dragon version came first, whcih would mean the compendium version is the most up to date rules source.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
As it stands (by RAW), Dragon Magazine Warforged are legal, Compendium ones aren't.

From my view, both are legal by RAW. The Dragon article became legal the moment the full compilation was published. The Compendium version just became legal with the release of CCG 1.8. The problem is that we have no clear guidelines as to which to use in preference over the other.

I'm actually hoping you are right, because I've been having a blast with it.
Preference is mandated by the CCG: "When a rule is updated, use the newest version." (page 3)
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
Dragon9, I'm pretty sure you are right. I'd just like a authoritative response to prevent future table arguments. Do we assume whatever version is in the Compendium is the newest?
So then the question is which came first? The compiled issue version or the Compendium version? Most likely the Dragon version came first, which would mean the compendium version is the most up to date rules source.

Since the CCG calls out rules changes as effective as of the 4th Tuesday of each month, I would tend to think that the Rules Compendium trumps almost everything--essentially, think of it as a new issue being put out each month, replacing the previous month's issue and everything else older than it.

I am curious (since I have little to no interest in a D&D Insider subscription) as to the format of the Rules Compendium. How is the information presented? By which I mean, is the information about, say, the Minotaur race sourced to Dragon Magazine, with a separate article about the Minotaur from the Monster Manual, or is it just one article with the latest information, regardless of where it came from?

-- Brian Gibbons.
I am curious (since I have little to no interest in a D&D Insider subscription) as to the format of the Rules Compendium. How is the information presented? By which I mean, is the information about, say, the Minotaur race sourced to Dragon Magazine, with a separate article about the Minotaur from the Monster Manual, or is it just one article with the latest information, regardless of where it came from?

-- Brian Gibbons.

There aren't separate articles. From the Monster Manual, the compendium only gives the 3 minotaur monster stat blocks (plus Goristro), and a couple monster stat blocks from Dragon articles. For a PC race, it only gives the Dragon version. This is the official version now (the other was really only given for making up monsters with the caveat that a DM could allow a PC to use them in a home game.) Home games can still use them, of course.
Well It would be good to have some sort of updating mechanism for Dragon Magazine.

I actually hope you ARE right, as warforged are far too good a race, and it might encourage some folk to play something else (my Warforged is my 8th character, and is really only an experiment in breaking the 'role' paradigm)

Having said that, if the Compendium is to become the binding rules source, it seems innapropriate that one has to pay monthly to use it... I am happy to purchase books, but I am not playing WoW, and refuse to 'pay as you play' for my LG replacement.

Hence I want an official response. I am not so fussed over the warforged as I am fussed over whether or not it is a binding over-ride on dragon magazine. (Which may be a BIG help with some of the stuff out there - Phantom Chasm anyone?)

Btw, argument wise, the Reparation Apparatus might still work:

From Dragon Magazine 365

Reparation Apparatus
This gauntlet-like contraption enhances your ability (to) repair constructs.

Level: 6
Price: 1800 gp
Item Slot: Hands

Property: When you use a healing power on a construct, that creature regains an additional 2d6 hit points. When you use a power to grant temporary hit points to a construct, that creature gains an additional 2d6 temporary hit points.

This begs the question - what the *expletive deleted* is a Living Construct? and does it qualify? Did the Compendium address that?
Having said that, if the Compendium is to become the binding rules source, it seems innapropriate that one has to pay monthly to use it... I am happy to purchase books, but I am not playing WoW, and refuse to 'pay as you play' for my LG replacement.

I'd just note here - the only reason you should be paying to check the Compendium, at least in theory, is if you used some non-book content - the books get updated for free.

But yes, given that they also deleted components(both embedded and attached), I'd like a note saying, "This was deliberate and here's why." - The why should be pretty simple - 4 rod wielding warlocks and characters with the ability to survive almost anything...

This begs the question - what the *expletive deleted* is a Living Construct? and does it qualify? Did the Compendium address that?

Living Construct is merely the set of specials in the Dragon magazine. The no need to breathe, etc...
I'd just note here - the only reason you should be paying to check the Compendium, at least in theory, is if you used some non-book content - the books get updated for free.

But yes, given that they also deleted components(both embedded and attached), I'd like a note saying, "This was deliberate and here's why." - The why should be pretty simple - 4 rod wielding warlocks and characters with the ability to survive almost anything...

I really don't like the idea of carte-blanche non-book access anyways, so it's just another irritant to me.

As to the purpose of changes, to indicate it wasn't erroneous data entry, I totally agree.

As to the 'Living Construct' issue, perhaps, but I just don't like the way it's been updated, it's unclear whether it was deliberate, binding over Dragon, or so on. At present, compiled articles in Dragon are legal, not compendium versions of the race, regardless of original sourcing - That's what intrinsically bugs me.
Well It would be good to have some sort of updating mechanism for Dragon Magazine.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Having said that, if the Compendium is to become the binding rules source, it seems innapropriate that one has to pay monthly to use it... I am happy to purchase books, but I am not playing WoW, and refuse to 'pay as you play' for my LG replacement.

Again, I agree, but to an extent. All of the published books will have Updates released that you can access freely. These updates will be reflected in the compendium. The Dragon/Dungeon articles don't get updates, but since the material from already restricted in that it must be purchased separately, then it doesn't bother me that the updates for it are similar (and you can get both as part of the same DDI package.) It also appears that they will release a yearly compilation of Dragon articles as a book. If that book has updates, I'm pretty sure they'll provide them free of charge just like the other published books.

This begs the question - what the *expletive deleted* is a Living Construct? and does it qualify? Did the Compendium address that?

Unfortunately, the keywords only seem to be in the Monster Manual, at the back. As far as I can tell, it's only purpose it to make the warforged different as they are the only creatures with this keyword. It states:

Living Construct [Keyword]: A living construct is considered
a living creature that does not need to eat, drink, or breathe.
However, this does not render the creature immune to any
effect. A living construct needs only 4 hours to benefit from
extended rest, and it gains a +2 bonus to saving throws
against ongoing damage. When a living construct rolls a
death save, it takes the better of its die roll or 10 as the
result.

quick question about the rules compendium, does that translate to items.

For example, is Feytouched armor, from manual of the planes, currently LFR lega because it appears in the compendium.
Blah blah blah
Looks like someone beat me to it.

On another note ...

But yes, given that they also deleted components(both embedded and attached), I'd like a note saying, "This was deliberate and here's why." - The why should be pretty simple - 4 rod wielding warlocks and characters with the ability to survive almost anything...

I don't believe they deleted this material. The compendium only updated the race write-up, not the entire article. The warforged race has an entry, the paragon paths have entries, and the feats and magic items have separate entries. The rules regarding attached and embedded components don't really have a place to be included in the compendium.

Also note that they have left in component weapons, such as the Warsoul Weapon and Armbow, as well as items like the Delver's Light.

As far as the 4 rod wielding warlock, I think that's just always been a case of literal intepretation for optimization. The article only states "Rods and wands can be embedded and hidden in your arm and still function, leaving your hands free for other tasks." Some have taken this to mean you can have two rods embedded and another two in hand. I think it just means you can have two rods embedded and still do other things, like when a light shield takes up a hand so that you can't use a weapon, but still allows you to hold items or use the hand for other tasks. That's just my take, though.
The rules regarding attached and embedded components don't really have a place to be included in the compendium.

They used to be in the definition of the benefits granted by being a Living Construct in the racial traits section. They're not there any longer...

It may be that they're going to make specific magic items that can be embedded and not make it any item period. So the items you're talking about are exceptions that allow attaching/embedding.
quick question about the rules compendium, does that translate to items.

For example, is Feytouched armor, from manual of the planes, currently LFR lega because it appears in the compendium.

I'm no authority, but if the compendium contains a different version of an item that is already legal, then you should use the updated version. (ie. veteran's armor)

If the player resources don't list the item as useable, such as the Feytouched armor example only being in the MotP, which is only valid for paragon paths and not equipment, then I don't believe you could buy it. I think the compendium is there to give you the most current version of something, not allow access to otherwise restricted items.
They used to be in the definition of the benefits granted by being a Living Construct in the racial traits section. They're not there any longer...

It may be that they're going to make specific magic items that can be embedded and not make it any item period. So the items you're talking about are exceptions that allow attaching/embedding.

I see what you're looking at now. The living construct section used to be more detailed and included a part about being able to use components. That part isn't there anymore. I was referring to the entire component section in the Equipment part of the article, which wouldn't have been included in the racial write-up.

Another example of something not being thought all the way through before changes were made. This is yet another thing they need to clarify.
I know that in the list of known issues for the full version of the character builder, there is mention of the Character Builder "not supporting warforged components". Not that componenets no longer exist, but rather that the current program doesn't support them (hinting that they might support them in the future).
I am curious (since I have little to no interest in a D&D Insider subscription) as to the format of the Rules Compendium.

EDIT: Never mind... i was wrong... you still have to log in.

quick question about the rules compendium, does that translate to items.

For example, is Feytouched armor, from manual of the planes, currently LFR legal because it appears in the compendium.

No. The Compendium is a legal rules source. Not a player resource. It's an important distinction. The item still has to be legal for use according to the Player Resource list in the CCG. However, should it become legal in the future, the Compendium would be the place to go for any updated rules on it.

Well It would be good to have some sort of updating mechanism for Dragon Magazine.

We can always wish...

Hence I want an official response. I am not so fussed over the warforged as I am fussed over whether or not it is a binding over-ride on dragon magazine. (Which may be a BIG help with some of the stuff out there - Phantom Chasm anyone?)

Phantom Chasm is exactly the same in the Compendium as it is in Dragon. if the Compendium is the most up to date rules source, then yes, it would override Dragon since we are supposed to use the most up to date rule.

This begs the question - what the *expletive deleted* is a Living Construct? and does it qualify? Did the Compendium address that?

The Compendium doesn't have keywords in it. Personally, I don't see why it wouldn't work. A Living Construct is still a Construct. The difference is it's alive and doesn't have the construct immunities. Although I can see the argument against it by sayign it's two different keywords so they are treated separately.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
No. The Compendium is a legal rules source. Not a player resource. It's an important distinction. The item still has to be legal for use according to the Player Resource list in the CCG. However, should it become legal in the future, the Compendium would be the place to go for any updated rules on it.

I agree that this was probably the intent, but it's a pretty problematic distinction.

Rules Compendium is clearly listed as resource to be used by players. If they change, say, something about the way an Acrobatics skill check works, it doesn't matter if part of the material comes from the PH and part comes from a Dungeon Magazine article or just the fertile imagination of a member of R&D that isn't ever published anywhere else. If they add a rule to the game through the Rules Compendium, we are supposed to use that rule for RPGA events.

To take a more concrete example, the rules in Manual of the Planes about how the Arcane Lock and Knock rituals work in connection with portals are not allowed content; however, if they were to appear in the Rules Compendium, I would be hard-pressed to argue that we can ignore them because of their original source.

The PHB2 is an official source on its own; it doesn't matter if the material originally appeared on WOTC's website, which isn't allowed content.

The Rules Compendium is an official rules source on its own; it doesn't matter where the rules originally appeared.

The only way to disallow content from the Rules Compendium is to say that the content shouldn't be considered "rules" and therefore off-limits.

This is, however, problematic. If the description and abilities of a class or race are not "rules", then it's tough to argue that we can use, say, the latest version of warforged or bard as listed in the Rules Compendium; if they are "rules", then I don't see any justification for limiting their use based on where the materials originated.

In other words, as the CCG is written, I see the Rules Compendium as being all or nothing.

What it sounds like is that you believe the rule should have been "When material that is already allowed content from an approved player resource is changed in the Rules Compendium, the content in the Rules Compendium should be considered the latest version of the rules and used instead."

That's probably a better rule; it's certainly a clearer one; it's quite possible what was intended. It is, however, not the rule that was given to us, and as version after version of the CCG gives us vague imprecise rules, at some point, I have to start believing that this is deliberate on the part of the author, and that they're quite fine with the expansive readings that result.

-- Brian Gibbons.
Rules Compendium is clearly listed as resource to be used by players.

They have a list of products that have player resources. The Compendium is not part of that list, it is part of the Rules Updates section. What used to be called Errata is now called Updates in 4e.

i.e. the Compendium is a legal source of what in 3.5 we'd call errata...
I agree that this was probably the intent, but it's a pretty problematic distinction.

Rules Compendium is clearly listed as resource to be used by players. If they change, say, something about the way an Acrobatics skill check works, it doesn't matter if part of the material comes from the PH and part comes from a Dungeon Magazine article or just the fertile imagination of a member of R&D that isn't ever published anywhere else. If they add a rule to the game through the Rules Compendium, we are supposed to use that rule for RPGA events.

again, the CCG never calls it a "Player Resource." It says it is a legal rules source. Errata is also a legal rules source. Apples and oranges. Your example about Acrobatics is nto problematic because the skill is in the PHB which is a legal Player Resource.

To take a more concrete example, the rules in Manual of the Planes about how the Arcane Lock and Knock rituals work in connection with portals are not allowed content;

Poor example because the wording of both rituals wasn't changed. Knock even has a line about it affecting Arcane Locked portals in the PHB write up. Arcane Lock is usable on any means of ingress, which includes portals without any extra ruleas added to it.

The PHB2 is an official source on its own; it doesn't matter if the material originally appeared on WOTC's website, which isn't allowed content.

It does matter. Web content, regardless of it's future destination is not legal for player use. Before the FRPG was released they were releasing sneak peeks on the D&D site. The legality of the material was given a firm negative by the campaign leadership. It wasn't usable until the book was published (except for the material released in the LFR FRPG preview document). The fact that it's a new month with material from a different book doesn't change that.

The PHB2 itself is a legal source. The web is not. There is no ambiguity there. Even if you were to treat it as applicable, PHB2 content is not legal for use until 3/17/09 which makes the point moot.

The Rules Compendium is an official rules source on its own; it doesn't matter where the rules originally appeared.

Correct. Rules source. Not player resource. The same way that the Character Builder is not a Player Resource. It has rules for the Magic Weapon At-Will for artificers, but it isn't legal for RPGA play because the builder is not a player resource.

The only way to disallow content from the Rules Compendium is to say that the content shouldn't be considered "rules" and therefore off-limits.

Incorrect. As previously stated.

This is, however, problematic. If the description and abilities of a class or race are not "rules", then it's tough to argue that we can use, say, the latest version of warforged or bard as listed in the Rules Compendium; if they are "rules", then I don't see any justification for limiting their use based on where the materials originated.

The race/class/item has to be released in a legal player resource. Once it has, then you use any furute rules updates for it.

What it sounds like is that you believe the rule should have been "When material that is already allowed content from an approved player resource is changed in the Rules Compendium, the content in the Rules Compendium should be considered the latest version of the rules and used instead."

Yes, this is how it works. The CCG tells us to use the most up to date rules for anything we are using.

That's probably a better rule; it's certainly a clearer one; it's quite possible what was intended. It is, however, not the rule that was given to us, and as version after version of the CCG gives us vague imprecise rules, at some point, I have to start believing that this is deliberate on the part of the author, and that they're quite fine with the expansive readings that result.

I don't know much clearer they can be. They give a list of Player Resources that we can select our various character options from. Then they tell us to use the most up to date rule. Rules updates happen in the errata and in the rules compendium. I fail to see how this is so difficult to understand.

Perhaps the confusion stems from: Player Resources are rules sources, but not all rules sources are Player Resources.

Or maybe I'm just blessed with a superior intellect. :D (just kidding! geez...)
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
As written I think it does mean the compendium version for almost everything should be used.

Which unfortunately means a host of things as the compendium is full of "errors"

http://ww2.wizards.com/dnd/insider/item.aspx?id=1909&searchterm
Star of Corellon doesn't require the worship of Corellon

etc.

Also it's too bad that only monster write ups include keywords such as humanoid meaning no PCs can take Dhampyr. (Not that the PBH is any different then the Compendium here)
As written I think it does mean the compendium version for almost everything should be used.

Which unfortunately means a host of things as the compendium is full of "errors"

Write WotC and point the error out to them.

Also it's too bad that only monster write ups include keywords such as humanoid meaning no PCs can take Dhampyr. (Not that the PBH is any different then the Compendium here)

Taking this stance is near sighted at best. It's kind of absurd to suggest that if a human NPC and a PC were standing side by side that the NPC would be a Medium Natural Humanoid that's alive and the PC isn't.
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e? Check out the 4e Conversion Wiki. 1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
No Farewell's needed.

If the compendium wants to change something, it can note any change like errata does and date them.

If not it is a tool you can pay for, which gives a summary of all the content, but clearly does not restate all of the content.


There is no way currently to use the compendium as a means to tell when something was changed or which change came first or if anything was changed or just partially reprinted.

After all it would be really dumb of WOTC to give any subscriber free copies of all books in complete form.

If they did that people would never buy anymore books.

The idea of teling people to update the compendium if the company made a mistake is rediculous. None of us work for WOTC and it is not our job to make sure their rules excerpts are not taken out of context. Nor could we know if they were simply refusing to print out entire articles.

I think it was very foolish of LFR to use the Compendium as a rules source, but I guess they realize that most people were not paying the monthly fee to download a magazine, when it used to be mailed.

Do I personally think the Apparatus is broken, of course.

I think there should be errata to Dragon and Dungeon magazine and it should be posted and dated in the errata section.

That would stop all these debates in their tracks.
I agree the changes to dragon and dungeon content should be issued as errata but they are not going to do that. WotC historically hates issuing errata.

The Rules Compendium is the only place they will issue updates for that content. As such it was necessary to allow the Rules Compendium as a rules source for LFR regardless of if you like it or not.

The Rules Compendium is a rules source as of 1.8. What does that mean to you?
I agree the changes to dragon and dungeon content should be issued as errata but they are not going to do that. WotC historically hates issuing errata.

The Rules Compendium is the only place they will issue updates for that content. As such it was necessary to allow the Rules Compendium as a rules source for LFR regardless of if you like it or not.

The Rules Compendium is a rules source as of 1.8. What does that mean to you?

I raised this issue (and suggesting versioning or time stamping updates in the Compendium) and I've been told that the schedule for Rules Updats has been changed/refreshed and it should become (essentially) a non-issue.

If I were to read between the lines and try to make a semi-logical conclusion based on that, I'd presume that means we could look forward to rules updates more-or-less coinciding with Compendium Updates (on the 4th Thuesday of every month).
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

Wolfstar,

Can you look into this specific issue? It's commonly known as one of the most broken items in game. The main argument right now seems to be, "Is the warforged as written in the compendium the most current, and therefore, the legal version that should be used in RPGA?"

If it is, they are no longer constructs and the Reparation Apparatus no longer functions on them. If it isn't, we still use the Dragon version, they are still constructs, and they can still currently abuse this item.

Any help or insight would be appreciated.

Thanks!
Wolfstar,

Can you look into this specific issue? It's commonly known as one of the most broken items in game. The main argument right now seems to be, "Is the warforged as written in the compendium the most current, and therefore, the legal version that should be used in RPGA?"

If it is, they are no longer constructs and the Reparation Apparatus no longer functions on them. If it isn't, we still use the Dragon version, they are still constructs, and they can still currently abuse this item.

Any help or insight would be appreciated.

Thanks!

I've only been skimming the thread (in-depth rules discussions tend to make my head swim), so let me see if I can sum up the issue correctly before I assault Chris Tulach or Mike Mearls or one of the other guys here at the show.

Reparation Apparatus (from Dragon #365) adds 2d6 healing or temp HPs when healing/temping is done with another power to a construct.

Warforged, when introduced in Dragon #364 (for players) had both keyword "Construct" as well as "Living Construct". This clearly meant that they could be affected by the Reparation Apparatus.

In the Compendium (and by proxy, the Character Builder) the Warforged have "lost" the Construct keyword, while retaining Living Construct, which is leading to debate about whether the item can still be used.

The confusion stems from the following two concerns:
1) There's no date/version in the Compendium entry, so it isn't clear if the change is the result of a revision, or simple human error in creating the entry. The lack of a supporting Rules Update further muddies the water.

2) There is a question as to whether a Living Construct is or isn't still a "Construct" for purposes of construct effects/powers/etc.

Does that sum it up well?

Assuming I'm on the right track, I'll toss in my two cents (though I'll still ask the guys here at the show).

1) As of the CCG 1.8, the Compendium is an official rules source. While versions or time stamps would be useful, the flexible nature of the Compendium means it should always be the most up-to-date rules source. No, that isn't spelled out in black and white, no it doesn't account for human error, yes it is rather "assumed" and therefore not foolproof.

However, in my opinion that would make the Compendium the more up-to-date resource by default, and therefore the version we should be using. That would mean no "Construct" keyword.

2) Living Construct is defined in the write-up following that keyword. The included definintions do not say that effects/powers/etc related to constructs have any special effects on Living Constructs.

Previously the Construct keyword DID grant those effects - much as the "Fey" keyword will (from what I've seen here at the show) mean that powers that affect Fey creatures will apply to gnomes.

Without that keyword, I'd think the Reparation Apparatus no longer functions.

Again - that's just my 5-minute take on the issue. I'll try to get into someone official's head for more details.
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

I posed the question to Mike Mearls just now.

His answer?

"I believe that still works. I think the reason that Construct was removed was because it's redundant with Living Construct"

He clarified that that's unofficial - so it wouldn't hurt to contact Customer Service requesting official clarification (http://wizards.custhelp.com).

However, for people looking for a "supporting document" - there you go.
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

Waaait a minute... customer service for official clarification? Personally, I'll accept the word of the lead developer for D&D, whether he says it's official or not, though I would like to see supporting documentation for his answer (like, by defining what "living construct" means, or putting the construct keyword back on).
Waaait a minute... customer service for official clarification? Personally, I'll accept the word of the lead developer for D&D, whether he says it's official or not, though I would like to see supporting documentation for his answer (like, by defining what "living construct" means, or putting the construct keyword back on).

not for clarification - to suggest they clarify the issue with a rules update.

Personally, I'd suggest adding a line akin to:
Special: You are considered a construct for the purpose of effects that relate to constructs.

Just to make it above/beyond debate.

Alternately something like:

Note: You are not considered a construct for the purpose of effects that relate to constructs

Either option would clarify the "gray area"
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

I posed the question to Mike Mearls just now.

His answer?

"I believe that still works. I think the reason that Construct was removed was because it's redundant with Living Construct"

Did you ask him about the issues with it? They may have fixed it due to the in-play issues without necessarily getting him fully involved with it - witness the Stealth errata issue, where he made some comments completely opposite of the eventual errata.
I posed the question to Mike Mearls just now.

His answer?

"I believe that still works. I think the reason that Construct was removed was because it's redundant with Living Construct"

He clarified that that's unofficial - so it wouldn't hurt to contact Customer Service requesting official clarification (http://wizards.custhelp.com).

However, for people looking for a "supporting document" - there you go.

Hopefully, an update will be issued soon. In the meantime, this is good enough for me!
Dave Kay LFR Writing Director Retiree dkay807 [at] yahoo [dot] com
Did you ask him about the issues with it? They may have fixed it due to the in-play issues without necessarily getting him fully involved with it - witness the Stealth errata issue, where he made some comments completely opposite of the eventual errata.

I asked him based on the synopsis I provided above because it is/was my understanding of the heart of the issue at the time I bumped into him. As I said, I've only skimmed the issue, so my apologies if I didn't get all the detail into the question.
WolfStar76 Community Advocate (SVCL) for D&D Organized Play, Avalon Hill, and the DCI/WPN LFR Community Manager DDi Guide

Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Calorie Counter

Per the new CCG1.8, the Rules Updates and Rules Compendium are valid resources for RPGA play.

In practice, using the Rules Compendium makes no sense. It's full of errors and it even contradicts itself in several places. So no, you can't really use the Rules Compendium as is.
if it's a redundancy, then living construct need to specifically say "counts as construct for abilities and effects", because otherwise it does not. There are no sub-subtypes anymore, you are or you are not.
I really don't see what makes a "Living Construct" not a construct. The power doesn't say "a creature with the construct keyword" it says simply "a construct."

There's no reason to say, "living constructs count as constructs" because if we look at the noun involved here, it is still "constructs." It's like saying "these red apples are apples."

If the Reparation Apparatus said specifically that it applies to creatures with the "construct" keyword, then I would also agree that it would not work.

If you think it's broken, then don't allow it in your home play. You can change whatever you want there. If some guy is using it and sucking the fun and challenge out of the table, people will get sick and won't want to play with him.

It's not the warforged that needs modification/clarification. It's the item.
Sign In to post comments