Run Golem Run

[moritheil]

Apparently 3.5 golems can run, a detail that escaped me until now. In fact, apparently all 3.5 constructs can run. Is this wrong? I had a player who ordered a construct to run, and I was flummoxed when no 3.5 source I looked at stated that it could not run. :\

 

[Jack Simth]

As far as I'm aware, nothing restricts them from doing so.... and, being able to ignore fatigue effects, they can do so forever. Constructs, while not necessarily fast per say, can go surprising distances in fairly short periods of time (as can undead, for the same reasons)

 

[moritheil]

As far as I'm aware, nothing restricts them from doing so.... and, being able to ignore fatigue effects, they can do so forever. Constructs, while not necessarily fast per say, can go surprising distances in fairly short periods of time (as can undead, for the same reasons)

Yeah; it seems kind of odd to think of "the lumbering stone golem" as being really fast, but under 3.5, I guess that's right. For some reason, the undead forced march doesn't seem so hard to swallow.

 

[Jack Simth]

Yeah; it seems kind of odd to think of "the lumbering stone golem" as being really fast, but under 3.5, I guess that's right. For some reason, the undead forced march doesn't seem so hard to swallow.

He's not so much really fast as he can keep it up forever - that move of 20, even at a run, only gets him 80 feet per round (8 miles per hour). Over the course of 10 rounds, the 30 move ranger can outpace him easily. It's over longer periods that things get icky - the ranger can hustle for an hour with no problems .... but that only gets him 60 feet per round (6 miles per hour); a chasing stone golem running will catch up to a hustling ranger at the rate of 2 miles per hour. The Golem, though, really shines at travel times measured in days; the golem need not sleep, and can run at his 8 mile per hour pace for 24 hours every day with no drawbacks (other than AoO's, of course....) that's 192 miles per day. The ranger going for a no-drawbacks travel must walk at 3 miles per hour for only 8 hours - 24 miles per day. If the ranger can deal with the fort saves of a forced march, and go all night and all day at a walk, he can triple that, for 72 miles/day. If the ranger can really make the fort saves, he can hustle for 24 hours, and make 144 miles per day. Of course, at the end of such a day, the ranger's in pretty bad shape, while the golem is still as fresh as when it started.

A skeleton with a move of 30, on the other hand, at a run, makes 12 miles per hour, or 288 miles per day, with the same lack of drawbacks that the golem has.

A skeleton light horse, with a move of 50, at a run, makes 20 miles per hour, or 480 miles per day, with the same lack of drawbacks....

 

[Hypersmurf]

Apparently 3.5 golems can run, a detail that escaped me until now. In fact, apparently all 3.5 constructs can run. Is this wrong? I had a player who ordered a construct to run, and I was flummoxed when no 3.5 source I looked at stated that it could not run. :\

In an RotG article, Skip Williams wrote that "creatures with no Constitution score cannot run".

It was pointed out to him that it actually specifically states in 3.5 that creatures with no Constitution score can run indefinitely, and he changed the article to correct the error.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

In an RotG article, Skip Williams wrote that "creatures with no Constitution score cannot run".

It was pointed out to him that it actually specifically states in 3.5 that creatures with no Constitution score can run indefinitely, and he changed the article to correct the error.

-Hyp.

Ah. That's one possible source of confusion for me. Another is that apparently in 3.0, golems specifically could not run. That was the explanation we came up with.

 

[RigaMortus2]

In an RotG article, Skip Williams wrote that "creatures with no Constitution score cannot run".

It was pointed out to him that it actually specifically states in 3.5 that creatures with no Constitution score can run indefinitely, and he changed the article to correct the error.

-Hyp.

The Sage is never wrong! It even says so in the FAQ, or was it the errata? Then again, is there a difference? Anyway... How dare you spread these false rumors!!!

 

[moritheil]

The Sage is never wrong! It even says so in the FAQ, or was it the errata? Then again, is there a difference? Anyway... How dare you spread these false rumors!!!

Indeed. I'm continually tempted to compare the concept of the designers being 100% infalliable to the concept of the pope's complete infalliability, but I hold back for fear of offending Catholics. Nevertheless I will note that there is a certain religious fervor common to both.