Knight from THE Deck

[dvvega]

Since DnD3e is very specific about use of terms and types, like construct, I would still say the fighter is a construct. And there is nothing that states a construct cannot have feats. Golems have feats (and they're made by someone).

The Shield Guardian is a perfect example as well. It has a lot of powers, and it's a construct.

 

[Voadam]

Constructs do not have skills or feats.

Here is a quote from the srd creature overview look at the last bit:

Construct

Construct: A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature. Constructs usually have no Intelligence scores and never have Constitution scores. A construct is immune to mind-influencing effects and to poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, and necromantic effects.

Constructs cannot heal damage on their own, though they can be healed. Constructs can be repaired in the same way an object can. A construct with the
regeneration and fast healing special qualities still benefits from those qualities.

A construct is not subject to critical hits, subdual damage, ability damage, ability drain, or energy drain. It is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects). A construct is not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed. Since it was never alive, a construct cannot be raised or resurrected.

Unless noted otherwise, constructs have darkvision with a range of 60 feet.

Hit Die: d10
Attack Bonus: Total HDx3/4 (as cleric)
Good Saving Throws: -
Skill Points: -
Feats: -

* * *

Also under the skill section of the creature overview constructs don't have any starting skills or gain skill points with advancement.

Doublecheck all the golems in the MM/srd and the shield guardian, they don't even have an entry for feats or skills in the srd.

I know many 3rd company products have constructs that don't follow all of the rules for constructs but the rules are there.

 

[sotmh]

Last time our party encountered a Deck of Many Things the group's CN Wizard started a game of poker with it. The Rogue unfortunately, lost the hand by ending up in the Tomb of Horrors. Ironically, the Wizard ended up doing quite well, gaining the xp and stat bonus. Great fun all around (except for the thief).

sotmh

 

[Artoomis]

Clearly the Knight cannot be a Construct in the strict rules sense of the word. For you CANNOT be a 4th level fighter AND be a Construct - they are incompatable by definition.

I'd say the Knight is a Magical Construct in a more generic sense of the word.

He would not:

be "immune to mind-influencing effects and to poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, and necromantic effects,"

be "repaired in the same way an object can,"

immune "to critical hits, subdual damage, ability damage, ability drain, or energy drain,"

"have darkvision with a range of 60 feet" (unless a dwarf, I suppose),

have an attack bonus as a cleric,

etc.

Keep it simple. He is a 4th level fighter with skills and feats, but no history. He knows how to fight and is loyal, but knows little else beyond very general knowledge - like literacy in the local language. he should have no knowledge of any locations, politics, etc.

It is a good thing he knows his purpose, or he'd be pretty messed up. Treat him like someone with amnesia, and I think you've got the right idea.

 

[dvvega]

The reason I believe it to be a construct is:

From SRD (emphasis mine)
Knight: The fighter appears out of nowhere and serves loyally until death. He or she is a magic construct (not a real person) but appears to be of the same race (or kind) and gender as the character. He or she is equipped with the starting fighter package.

In addition it is only equipped with the starting fighter package, it says nothing of the skills or feats of that package, just the equipment.

I think the 4th level fighter part is simply to set it's BAB, AC, saves, and damage capability.

Thus it wouldn't be against the "constructs have no feats or skills" definition either.

It get's the starting package of armour and weapon, and that's all it does. It fights, has no skills or feats. It's just a human-sized (or whatever size the deck drawer is) construct.

 

[Caliban]

Clearly the Knight cannot be a Construct in the strict rules sense of the word. For you CANNOT be a 4th level fighter AND be a Construct - they are incompatable by definition.

I disagree with that. I don' t believe they are incompatible by definition. Normally constructs have no feats because they aren't intelligent and they don't have class levels.

Constructs aren't defined as having no intelligence, they are defined as usually having no intelligence, which indicates that some constructs can be intelligent. (Example: homunculus)

If you have an intelligent construct, it could theoretically gain class levels and feats; just as an awakened animal can theoretically gain class levels and feats.

They gain the feats from their class levels, not from being constructs.

As for the Knight from the Deck, I have no clue. I can see it as being read either way: You get robot-like construct "programmed" with all the skills and feats of a 4th level fighter; or you get a normal, living 4th level fighter with no past. They really should have stated it more clearly.

 

[Voadam]

Homunculus

Homunculi while having a base Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 7 still have no skills or feats. When they advance, as a construct using EHD, they gain no skills or feats. However, I think the point is a good one that an intelliegent construct could probably advance as a class and then gain skills and feats.

There are existing non core d20 rules for PC constructs in Dragonstar, Mythic Races and Mystic Warriors.

My argument for the knight is just based on the phrase "magic" construct, which I think works better as a conjuration creation effect than as a monster type "construct".

 

[Artoomis]

An interesting argument, Caliban. I see your point.

Makes for one heck of a powerful fighter, doesn't it? Well, it is from THE Deck, after all.

By strict language, it should have all the benefits of being a construct. Whether it should have skills or feats depends on how you view such things.

The argument here is quite similar to the question of whether a paladin's mount gets skills and feats. (I already know your answer, Caliban)

The Mount is a Magical Beast, but no mention is made of skill or fetas so they don't get them. Or the Mount is magical beast, and Magical Beasts get skills and feats, so they get them. Take your pick.

The Deck says the the fighter is a Magical Construct that comes with basic equipment, nothing about skills or feats, so they don;'t get them. Or, a 4th level fighter gets skills and feats so they get them. Take your pick.

My vote is for giving them the skills and feats, because that's what a fourth level fighter gets for being a fourth level fighter.

 

[Caliban]

Re: Homunculus

Homunculi while having a base Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 7 still have no skills or feats. When they advance, as a construct using EHD, they gain no skills or feats. However, I think the point is a good one that an intelliegent construct could probably advance as a class and then gain skills and feats.

Exactly. It might be that the Knight from the Deck is just a leveled Construct. (Assuming that a 1HD construct that gains class levels has it's initial HD subsumed into the class level HD, the way a 1HD humanoid is. A big assumption, but otherwise you are assuming that the Knight has an extra HD or two, which the description doesn't mention.)

There are existing non core d20 rules for PC constructs in Dragonstar, Mythic Races and Mystic Warriors.

My argument for the knight is just based on the phrase "magic" construct, which I think works better as a conjuration creation effect than as a monster type "construct".

And this might be the case.

Like I said, I honestly don't think they gave enough information in the description of the Knight card. And whose to say that it doesn't work different ways for different Decks?

It's a minor artifact and probably works slightly differently in each world it turns up in.

 

[Artoomis]

Re: Re: Homunculus

Like I said, I honestly don't think they gave enough information in the description of the Knight card. And whose to say that it doesn't work different ways for different Decks?

It's a minor artifact and probably works slightly differently in each world it turns up in.

Best point made so far, I think.

So, as for DM guidance, do what you want. It's an artifact.