Adjucating Constructs...

[Simon_the_Red]

I have a few questions regarding constructs.  I think summoning demons or other types of nasties into an ectoplasmic form has been expounded upon here on the forums, but what about the other kinds?

Namely, Things such as Wardhounds us an AI imprint of a wizard's mind, which seems to bypass many of the drawbacks of having to deal with the inherent dangers of binding a being into a form.  How is this adjucated?  Is this a harder thing to do?  How many shifts would this take to pull off?  Is this part of building a construct phase so you would you have to split your shift between the body and the "mind"?  Would you skip the summoning and binding phases?

Another question:  The books seem to indicate that you can put your consciousness into a construct but that it would be cost prohibitive... how much would it cost? and would you need a co-pilot to control your new "vehicle" or it something your could learn to do?

[Deadmanwalking]

No official rules, but actually creating creatures from scratch strikes me as a long, involved, and delicate process. More a matter for years of work during downtime than simple Thaumaturgy during play. And if it's smart enough to qualify as sentient, it's also smart enough to be your kid, from a moral perspective, which is just plain fun, IMO.

Others might just handle it with the same rules as Summoning and Binding, but that strikes me as a lot less fun.

[Simon_the_Red]

Hmm fair enough, so I think we will relegate the True Golems (AI + native materials) to some sort of enchanted device and not for on-the-fly creation.

Any thoughts on what it would take to pull off the Consciousness+ ecto-suit variety if you wanted to take an ectoplasmic construct for a ride? 

[Deadmanwalking]

That should be easy enough. I'd say to use the Thaumaturgical Shapeshifting rules (see YS p. 283).

It's not mechanically much different from turning yourself into a golem temporarily, after all, the fact that your real body is elsewhere is about equally advantage and disadvantage, IMO.

[EldritchFire]

Personally, for a construct, I'd just treat them as a collection of enchanted items. Each item slot you give to your construct allows to do one thing.

For example, if you wanted to create a magical watchdog I'd do it thusly, assuming a Lore of 4:

1 item for movement (say, a 3-shift manoeuvre for movement, since it's fast!)
1 item for attacking (nasty dog-teeth, weapon:3, usable 3 times per session; 2 slots)
1 item for detection (a 5-shift manoeuvre, usable 3 times per session; 2 slots)

So 5 slots gives you a nice attack dog!

Just my 2 cents.

-EF

[GruffAndTumble]

Hmm. Interesting idea, EldritchFire. My inclination in using such a rule would be to dig into the original preorder PDF of the books where Enchanted Items could be listed as "always on" for half effect, and do something similar. For a normal Enchanted item, the revised version works better and more clearly, but I think a construct grounding a self-perpetuating spell of animation would work well for that.

[Wyrdrune]

i am with deadmanwalking here.

i played around with a few ideas in my head as our wizard character was thinking about a construct to guard his laboratory/office... we got around 36 shifts for nice little animated dragon statue, which is about as intelligent as a good guard dog.

we felt that an good approach as the 36 shifts represented the tedious work in sculpting the body and necessary arcane markings, spells, whatever. as GM i allowed for the construction process that he did not have to do all work at once and can make breaks - so he did around 5 during the first adventure, and 2 in the next, and now he is looking for a real dragon toenail to bring it alive when he is finished :-)