Do constructs follow the "Damage to Objects" rules?

[Nareau]

It looks like they don't.
I'm looking at the PHB, page 135. The Immunities are the same for constructs. But the Ranged Weapon Damage and Energy Attacks don't appear to carry over. There are others, but they don't seem to be as combat-important as these.

Anyone house-rule this? Does anyone have an explanation as to why these rules don't apply to constructs? Does an object lose some of these benefits when it's Animated (say, by the Clr 6 spell Animate Objects)?

 

[kreynolds]

Constructs and animated objects are not treated as objects. In fact, animated objects are constructs. So no, they don't follow the same rules for damaging objects.

 

[hong]

Anyone house-rule this? Does anyone have an explanation as to why these rules don't apply to constructs?

It's magic.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Do constructs follow the "Damage to Objects" rules?

It's magic.

LOL Simple yet eloquent. I love it.

 

[Nareau]

I'll clarify my question for Hong's benefit

Does anyone have a thoughtful, useful, or vaguely interesting explanation for this?

I must say, I do appreciate that you didn't just post patently false information this time.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: I'll clarify my question for Hong's benefit

I must say, I do appreciate that you didn't just post patently false information this time.

Huh?

 

[kreynolds]

Re: I'll clarify my question for Hong's benefit

Does anyone have a thoughtful, useful, or vaguely interesting explanation for this?

I must say, I do appreciate that you didn't just post patently false information this time.

Oh. I see. Well don't get ticked off when you find out I'm right.

 

[Nareau]

Sorry kreynolds

I wasn't flaming you. I was flaming Hong. He's tried to answer questions of mine in the past without even glancing at the rules. He's said things that are unquestionably wrong. It's irritating when someone doesn't know what they're talking about, yet feels the need to speak up anyways.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[hong]

Re: Sorry kreynolds

I wasn't flaming you. I was flaming Hong. He's tried to answer questions of mine in the past without even glancing at the rules. He's said things that are unquestionably wrong. It's irritating when someone doesn't know what they're talking about, yet feels the need to speak up anyways.

You make this sound like it's a negative thing.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Sorry kreynolds

I wasn't flaming you. I was flaming Hong. He's tried to answer questions of mine in the past without even glancing at the rules. He's said things that are unquestionably wrong. It's irritating when someone doesn't know what they're talking about, yet feels the need to speak up anyways.

Sorry for the confusion.

Gotcha. I wasn't ticked or anything, hence the smiley. I thought Hong was trying to be funny, then realized he didn't leave a smiley with that. But in Hong's defence, read some of the threads I've participated on. You think Hong quotes wrong information? And Hong isn't always wrong either. But you haven't seen the mistakes I've made. Pretty embarrasing.