Updates to Warforged Components

42 posts / 0 new
Last post
The new Eberron PG has updated how Warforged components work. There are no longer two classifications like before (Component and Embedded). They all fall under just Component now, except that embedded items can be retracted and stored. (could be a cool visual for a shield if it was allowed to be embedded)

The big change is that all component items (embedded or not) take up an item slot. (except for holy symbols) Embedded implements function just like embedded weapons. IOW, they are stored while retracted and you can't use it while it's embedded until you use a minor action to draw it. So no more 20 embedded rods that all give their properties to the warforged. This also means no more Orbs in the chest. Only a Holy symbol need not be embedded in the arm or hand.

I thought I'd give a heads up since I know the embedded implement debate was a hot topic on these boards.
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
Any news on the construct vs. living construct rubbish, and hence whether or not they can still use reparation apparatus?
They are only listed as a Living Construct. No more mention of Construct in their racial entry.

EDIT: interestingly enough, the whole take better of your roll or 10 is no longer listed under the Living Construct entry, rather it's listed under Warforged Resilience alogn with the bonus vs. ongoing damage. I checked the MM2 glossary and that has been removed from the Living Construct entry there as well.

However, the new definition for Living Construct simply says:

[indent]Unlike other constructs, living constructs are living creatures.[/indent]

So the new definition of it seems to indicate they are Constructs (i.e. anything that affects a construct affects a living construct) the only difference being that a living construct is a living being ('natch).

They seem to have fiddled around with the whole Living Construct keyword.
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
(could be a cool visual for a shield if it was allowed to be embedded)

Picture the climactic fight from Iron Man, after Tony Stark loses his helmet -- at one point he throws his arm up to block bullets being fired at him, and extra panels spring out of his gauntlets to provide cover...

The big change is that all component items (embedded or not) take up an item slot.

HALLELUJAH!!!!
However, the new definition for Living Construct simply says:

[indent]Unlike other constructs, living constructs are living creatures.[/indent]

So the new definition of it seems to indicate they are Constructs (i.e. anything that affects a construct affects a living construct) the only difference being that a living construct is a living being ('natch).

They seem to have fiddled around with the whole Living Construct keyword.

Does Construct = Living Construct? The answer is no, so a reparation apparatus shouldn't work on a warforged when the new rules come online.
Does Construct = Living Construct? The answer is no, so a reparation apparatus shouldn't work on a warforged when the new rules come online.

I disagree. When it says "Unlike other constructs, living constructs are living creatures" it very strongly implies a living construct is a construct, the only difference being that it's a living creature as opposed to not living.

I dislike Rep. App . cheese as much as the next person, but I can see no reason to disallow it now. Previously the two Keywords had their own set of properties to them. Now Livign Construct is just one sentence referencing other constructs. Denying it now is based on a pretty flimsy stance.
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
I disagree. When it says "Unlike other constructs, living constructs are living creatures" it very strongly implies a living construct is a construct, the only difference being that it's a living creature as opposed to not living.

I'm looking forward to reading the book, but I'd have to agree. Unless there's other limiting language somewhere, "unlike other constructs" is clearly saying that living constructs are constructs, just a different kind of construct.

To me, this language seems to make it even clearer than warforged count as constructs.

Did reparation apparatus itself make it into the book? That and cannith goggles needed some revision from the Dragon magazine article, and one might hope they addressed the problem on the magic item side, if not on the racial side.
Did reparation apparatus itself make it into the book? That and cannith goggles needed some revision from the Dragon magazine article, and one might hope they addressed the problem on the magic item side, if not on the racial side.

No. Surprisingly, there are no Wondrous Items at all in the book. The only magic item categories are: Holy Symbols, Rods, Staffs, Wands, Totems, Warforged Components, and Dragonshard Augments.
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
I disagree. When it says "Unlike other constructs, living constructs are living creatures" it very strongly implies a living construct is a construct, the only difference being that it's a living creature as opposed to not living.

I dislike Rep. App . cheese as much as the next person, but I can see no reason to disallow it now. Previously the two Keywords had their own set of properties to them. Now Livign Construct is just one sentence referencing other constructs. Denying it now is based on a pretty flimsy stance.

Don't like cheese huh wait till people try making Revenant Warforged with the feat that them NO LONGER LIVING BEINGS then they'll be straight up constructs. Which brings up a good question what would happen if a Revenant Warforged did take that feat. Because I can see a whole can of worms being open the PC would still be able to take any Warforged component and because they're no longer living they can take any item previously restricted to them as Living Constructs. Plus they'll be treated as undead as per the Revenant class feature it almost makes me want to go build one right now just to watch my DM's head explode.
Make it a worshiper of Kelemvor and then you will have the pleasure of watching it implode and create a black hole. Exploding is so yesterday... ;)
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
Don't like cheese huh wait till people try making Revenant Warforged with the feat that them NO LONGER LIVING BEINGS then they'll be straight up constructs. Which brings up a good question what would happen if a Revenant Warforged did take that feat. Because I can see a whole can of worms being open the PC would still be able to take any Warforged component and because they're no longer living they can take any item previously restricted to them as Living Constructs. Plus they'll be treated as undead as per the Revenant class feature it almost makes me want to go build one right now just to watch my DM's head explode.

a revenant taking warforged as its "former" race would not get any additional benefit from taking that feat. choosing warforged for that option does not give them any benefit except for being able to take feats, pps, etc. that require warforged as a prereq.

to be clear: you cannot play an undead construct in lfr. at least, not yet. give it another year or so.

but, to steer it back on track:

i haven't had a chance to look at the epg yet, but i'm very happy to hear that they've clarified and streamlined the component rules.

i wonder if i could find a way to make an ornithopter into a component...
a revenant taking warforged as its "former" race would not get any additional benefit from taking that feat. choosing warforged for that option does not give them any benefit except for being able to take feats, pps, etc. that require warforged as a prereq.

to be clear: you cannot play an undead construct in lfr. at least, not yet. give it another year or so.

but, to steer it back on track:

i haven't had a chance to look at the epg yet, but i'm very happy to hear that they've clarified and streamlined the component rules.

i wonder if i could find a way to make an ornithopter into a component...

but that's just it revenant are not undead theyre only treated as undead for powers and effects and the feat simply states you are no longer living.
Make it a worshiper of Kelemvor and then you will have the pleasure of watching it implode and create a black hole. Exploding is so yesterday... ;)

There is also nothing to stop me from make him a Damphyr either
Warforged Damphyr Revenant Cleric of Kelemvor :evillaugh
but that's just it revenant are not undead theyre only treated as undead for powers and effects and the feat simply states you are no longer living.

right, but choosing warforged as your "former" race doesn't give you the living construct keyword, the ability to use components, or any of the other racial features of being a warforged, just they ability to take the feats and pps.

a warforged revenant with the feat in question (i don't remember the name of the feat off the top of my hear) is no different than a human revenant with that feat.
There is also nothing to stop me from make him a Damphyr either
Warforged Damphyr Revenant Cleric of Kelemvor :evillaugh

taking the feat that makes him no longer a living creature would disqualify him from taking the dhampyr bloodline... this route has been discussed on the ever-growing revenant/ is lfr losing it's setting feel thread, and i think it's a wonderful way to illustrate absurdity and ruffle some feathers.
taking the feat that makes him no longer a living creature would disqualify him from taking the dhampyr bloodline... this route has been discussed on the ever-growing revenant/ is lfr losing it's setting feel thread, and i think it's a wonderful way to illustrate absurdity and ruffle some feathers.

But if you take the Vampire Heritage feat first...
But if you take the Vampire Heritage feat first...

it would, as far as i know, make you no longer eligible to use the feat. i would guess that no longer qualifying for feats doesn't happen as often in 4E as it could in 3.5... i don't have the books on me, but i'm betting it works the same way...

but, perhaps this part of the discussion should be moved to one of the revenant threads...
Don't like cheese huh wait till people try making Revenant Warforged with the feat that them NO LONGER LIVING BEINGS then they'll be straight up constructs.

Y'know I was pretty strongly against the idea of a Revenant Warforged. However that would actually make quite a bit of sense. I'm not sure if it would in LFR (can you have a revanant that looks like a golem in LFR?), I'd definitely use it in a home campaign.
Y'know I was pretty strongly against the idea of a Revenant Warforged. However that would actually make quite a bit of sense. I'm not sure if it would in LFR (can you have a revanant that looks like a golem in LFR?), I'd definitely use it in a home campaign.

in a home campaign, you could certainly have a revenant look like whatever you'd like it to (there's even a small section about changing the appearance of revenants for home games in the article). however, a revenant's former race doesn't actually affect what the revenant looks like in its current incarnation as far as lfr is concerned. revenants have a racial appearance as distinct as any other race in the game, regardless of what they used to be.

i really do like the idea of having a warforged come back as a revenant, as far as story is concerned... i think it could make for a very interesting character to play.
No. Surprisingly, there are no Wondrous Items at all in the book. The only magic item categories are: Holy Symbols, Rods, Staffs, Wands, Totems, Warforged Components, and Dragonshard Augments.

So given that they're in a compiled issue of dragon, they're legal forever now, unless they make it into AV2 in modified form, I suppose.

Nice to know that despite pages of argument here, they neglected to rule unequivocally one way or the other, or fix the broken bit of equipment that causes the debate.
Hmm so maybe I won't sell my Reparation Apparatus now =P. I guess one more mod till I can buy my iron armbands.
Blah blah blah
So given that they're in a compiled issue of dragon, they're legal forever now, unless they make it into AV2 in modified form, I suppose.

I'm hoping either AV2 or the Dragon Annual will see a retool of those. *keeping fingers crossed*
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
Might be in the campaign setting if they put items in there.
Not sure why they would. I guess we'll find out next month. :P
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
However, the new definition for Living Construct simply says:

[indent]Unlike other constructs, living constructs are living creatures.[/indent]

So the new definition of it seems to indicate they are Constructs (i.e. anything that affects a construct affects a living construct) the only difference being that a living construct is a living being ('natch).

They seem to have fiddled around with the whole Living Construct keyword.

That is the deffinition of Living Construct in the MM2 but in EPG it states.
Living Construct: You are a living construct. You do not need to eat, drink, breathe, or sleep. You never make Endurance checks to resist the effect of starvation, thirst, or Suffocation. All othe conditions and effects affect you normally.

Now should we use this definition or both definitions
What you're missing is that the LC info in the racial write up is including the stuff in Construct (i.e. the stuff about not needing to eat, breathe or sleep). Why? because they are a construct, the only difference being that they are living creatures.
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
Did anyone other than me notice that attaching or removing a component "is a minor action and takes five minutes"?
[INDENT]The big change is that all component items (embedded or not) take up an item slot. (except for holy symbols) Embedded implements function just like embedded weapons. IOW, they are stored while retracted and you can't use it while it's embedded until you use a minor action to draw it.[/INDENT]

So what happens to characters whose concept was relying on this? As far as I can see there is no rebuild option available for playtest races that get seriously modified, as there is for classes. My multiclass feat and half my equipment have instantly become useless by this change. Do I have to retire my warforged, or can I rebuild his feats and get a full refund on my embedded items?
[INDENT]The big change is that all component items (embedded or not) take up an item slot. (except for holy symbols) Embedded implements function just like embedded weapons. IOW, they are stored while retracted and you can't use it while it's embedded until you use a minor action to draw it.[/INDENT]

So what happens to characters whose concept was relying on this? As far as I can see there is no rebuild option available for playtest races that get seriously modified, as there is for classes. My multiclass feat and half my equipment have instantly become useless by this change. Do I have to retire my warforged, or can I rebuild his feats and get a full refund on my embedded items?

Warforged weren't even playtest races. They had a fully fledged writeup, much like the minotaur.
[INDENT]The big change is that all component items (embedded or not) take up an item slot. (except for holy symbols) Embedded implements function just like embedded weapons. IOW, they are stored while retracted and you can't use it while it's embedded until you use a minor action to draw it.[/INDENT]

So what happens to characters whose concept was relying on this? As far as I can see there is no rebuild option available for playtest races that get seriously modified, as there is for classes. My multiclass feat and half my equipment have instantly become useless by this change. Do I have to retire my warforged, or can I rebuild his feats and get a full refund on my embedded items?

It wasn't a playtest race. It was a full fledged write up and the rules changed. As it stands you can:

  • Use the normal retraining rules to swap one allowable option out when you level up
  • Sell off items for gold
  • Continue as-is knowing that things don't work the same way


The component/embedded item rules were wonky and overpowered when they were first released. I would have counseled anyone not to base their whole character concept around any rule that seemed too good to be true. That being said, your character concept isn't dead, it just works different. Unless your concept was "Uber-powered Forgelock with 20 embedded rods that does mass amounts of badness every turn" and not "warforged with embedded items that has the right tool 'up his sleeve' for any situation."
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
That being said, your character concept isn't dead, it just works different. Unless your concept was "Uber-powered Forgelock with 20 embedded rods that does mass amounts of badness every turn" and not "warforged with embedded items that has the right tool 'up his sleeve' for any situation."

How about Paladin with Warlock multiclassing? Having to spend two minor actions to switch between weapon and implement makes the warlock powers pretty much useless. Not using a shield to free up a hand makes him an even worse defender than he is now.

Well, I guess that's what I get for building something non-standard. As for not using things that are too good to be true, that's why I didn't get a reparation apparatus...
The new rules state that a component heavy shield allows you to hold things in your hand. So you can get the benefits of a shield and hold your rod in your off hand (man that sounds bad... could they have called it something other than Rod?)

EDIT: You just can't embed shields.
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
The new rules state that a component heavy shield allows you to hold things in your hand. So you can get the benefits of a shield and hold your rod in your off hand

That might help, but does it state you can actually wield it as well? The old rules also allowed you to hold things in your attached shield's hand, but specifically disallowed wielding something with it.

Anyway, I'll wait and see when I get to read the rules for myself, to see what I'll do with the character. I'll make a new one and play low-level only for a while longer.

(man that sounds bad... could they have called it something other than Rod?)

Well, I use a magic wand, but that doesn't sound all that much better...
Concidering the interaction between the warlock at-will power, the paladin challenge and a particular feat from Dragon, I somehow don't feel that much pitty for this build. I know many non-warforged paladin warlocks who are still highly effective (even without a rod or wand readily available). After all, 1 minor action to put weapon away, take Quick Draw feat to get wand ready for free and then put rod away. If AoO is triggered, you can draw weapon during the opportunity attack (unless I am misremembering Quick Draw).
So you can get the benefits of a shield and hold your rod in your off hand (man that sounds bad... could they have called it something other than Rod?)

yeah... when i was running my game night last night, i found myself saying, "the goblin hexer pulls out and waves his little goblin rod at you." i didn't realize until i was saying it just how dirty 4E could be...

EDIT: Now that i think about it, changing the word 'rod' to the more generic 'implement' doesn't even make it any better...
Concidering the interaction between the warlock at-will power, the paladin challenge and a particular feat from Dragon, I somehow don't feel that much pitty for this build.

Aparently I really suck at using powerful combo's, and have managed to build the worlds only non-overpowered warforged character.

Anyway, with all the negative responses and whining about 'robots' I've encountered with this character, it's probably better to just retire it, and go play some regular fantasy stereotype.
Aparently I really suck at using powerful combo's, and have managed to build the worlds only non-overpowered warforged character.

Warforged were not overpowered persee. There are a couple of things that can easily make them so, but I blame those items more then the race. The old embedded item rules were one of these. Your build gave your character the Quick Draw feat for free, which is obviously not game breaking, although, still rather good. It were the four implement wielding characters that theoretically* break the game...

* Never came across such a character in LFR, so I cannot speak from personal experience how bad such a build is.

Anyway, with all the negative responses and whining about 'robots' I've encountered with this character, it's probably better to just retire it, and go play some regular fantasy stereotype.

If you are not happy with your build, don't play it, but please, do not let whining people be the cause. Warforged are really not that odd in FR or any typical fantasy for that matter as long as you downplay the steampunk/artificer background of Eberron.
How about Paladin with Warlock multiclassing? Having to spend two minor actions to switch between weapon and implement makes the warlock powers pretty much useless. Not using a shield to free up a hand makes him an even worse defender than he is now.

Spend a feat to get a Disembodied Hand familiar, which lets you switch out items as a free action. (If you're a paladin of Torm or Kelemvor, it can even look like your deity's holy symbol.)
If you are not happy with your build, don't play it, but please, do not let whining people be the cause. Warforged are really not that odd in FR or any typical fantasy for that matter as long as you downplay the steampunk/artificer background of Eberron.

I've ran into three warforged PCs: one was playing Iron Man, the second was playing a Transformer, the third was playing a Star Wars droid.

Yes, it's quite possible for a warforged PC to fit perfectly within the Realms; it's just that most players of warforged don't seem to want to--if you want to play a fantasy race in a fantasy setting, you have many options; if you want to play the race with the potential for SFish flavor, odds are it's because you like the SFish flavor.

It's entirely possible that the original poster is the exception, but I can't blame people for being leery of the race if their only experiences with it are flavor-destroying.
Yes, it's quite possible for a warforged PC to fit perfectly within the Realms; it's just that most players of warforged don't seem to want to--if you want to play a fantasy race in a fantasy setting, you have many options; if you want to play the race with the potential for SFish flavor, odds are it's because you like the SFish flavor.

It's entirely possible that the original poster is the exception, but I can't blame people for being leery of the race if their only experiences with it are flavor-destroying.

There is a difference between being leery about particular builds, and whining about the existence of a particular race. I have met among other silly stuff Britney Spears and a smurf in the campaign. The fact that those PCs are bad for my style of gaming has nothing to do with them being human and gnome ;)
If you are not happy with your build, don't play it, but please, do not let whining people be the cause. Warforged are really not that odd in FR or any typical fantasy for that matter as long as you downplay the steampunk/artificer background of Eberron.

If you like warforged, look to me as an example. I exclusively play warforged PCs, and have built 19, of which 11 have seen action at least once*. Since I play so much more than anyone else in my area, warforged are so ubiquitious around these parts that they don't even get a raised eyebrow anymore.


*Between the three of them who are level 6 or higher, they own exactly one Reparation Apparatus, and none of them take advantage of multiple implements.
I'm scratching my head and wondering what to do about my Warforged Warlock that uses a Mordenkrad. I guess I could take the disembodied hand familiar to get around this problem as I didn't use more than one implement to begin with. What frustrates me is that I'm stuck for an entire level using my minor actions not for cursing, not for using warforged resolve or other temp hp powers like I should, but taking out and putting away my stupid rod.

I feel we should at least get a retrain. It mostly affects the gish type character out there, but from what I've seen there are plenty of us out there.

Theziner