Why are Warforged so bad?

[Numion]

Wow. I never realized that poison is such an important part of some people campaigns .. whole campaigns centered around poison

Just wow.

For whats it worth, I do use poison in my campaigns, but no plot hinges on it. Clerics are immune to it anyway past certain level.

 

[Klaus]

I answered the "how much would adamantine sell for" in another thread. The short answer would be "not much, actually".

 

[Belen]

Wow. I never realized that poison is such an important part of some people campaigns .. whole campaigns centered around poison

Just wow.

For whats it worth, I do use poison in my campaigns, but no plot hinges on it. Clerics are immune to it anyway past certain level.

Really? Where does it say that clerics are immune to poison? I thought they had to have the spell selected for the day in order to cast it. IMO, very few clerics ever keep that spell memorized. Instead, they wait for the next day in order to relieve the effects of poison.

I have never seen a player keep delay poison, neutralize poison, remove curse etc in their spell lists, just in case.

 

[Storm Raven]

I have never seen a player keep delay poison, neutralize poison, remove curse etc in their spell lists, just in case.

The ironic thing is the more often you use poison as a plot point in a game, the less effective it is. If you use it all the time, the party casters who are able to, stock up on anti-poison magic, and nullify the threat easily. If you use poison very rarely, then they don't, so it is more dangerous when it does pop up. DMs worried about the warforged spoiling poison based plots are probably using posion way too much.

 

[ARandomGod]

For a fighter, I think its worth a feat. What if you count in the light fortification that doesn't count toward armor maximum bonuses? I'm wondering if you offered a feat at 1st level equivalent to Adamantine Body (+8 AC DR 2/adamantine, +1 max Dex, -ACP +ASF) for anyone who wanted to take it, would your players do so? Fighter PCs?

I think it depends a lot on whether or not we were planning on getting above level six or so.

Don't forget, on the side of 'this is pretty good' the warforged ability to sleep in said armor. Well, or to never sleep and so make that particular point moot. Nobody in my campaigns has ever bothered to get light fortification... I did see someone get full fortification once, for a specific adventure. Overall players in my game wouldn't take the feat. But I can see games where people would.

Humans have +1 feat and one extra skill that they can max. At high levels, that isn't much. Usually what its good for is taking PrCs early or qualifying for chains early, but at higher levels, you're going to have those anyway. So, who's ahead here? The guy who is immune to poison, disease, and negative levels, etc, or the guy who has an extra feat and skill? I don't know about you, but poison, disease, and negative levels come up a lot at high levels in my games.

See, another difference in philosophy. I think that the human xtra feat is great all the way through, as is that extra skill... if you're playing a character who cares about skills at all (If nothing else, that's two points of intelligence you don't have to buy to meet what you want). You're right, noncasters in my games don't really notice poison by mid levels. Just casters and the occasional full rogue might care. Disease almost never comes up, whether I'm GMing or someone else is, or we're running a module. It's pretty awesome against mummys, but... Negative levels, that happens more frequently, and is indeed a pain. So does nausea, paralysis, etcetra. (Which they're also immune to).

IMO what they should have done instead of make the armor feats is to just make it so that warforged have to spend extra for armor to have it attached to them and pay something to have it removed.

Here we totally agree. Although apparently because you think the feat is too good and I think that it's a specific cost that the game designers built in. Of course, since I think that it's a liability, I'd say that change would boost the overall power of the warforged.

I answered the "how much would adamantine sell for" in another thread. The short answer would be "not much, actually".

I think I started that thread. New thread for a tangential topic, get more and better responses. I haven't really looked yet today to see what people are thinking. Overall, however, I think that it really *should* sell for around what you could get if you'd conquered a person wearing actual armor. Heck, at low levels characters are bringing back normal leather armor... they defeat a guy wearing what's nearly adamantine full plate and they can't even recover the amount of a MW medium armor? Still, it'll be interesting to see what everyone else thinks.

Edit: I completely agree that the author didn't intend for the feat to be sellable. But you KNOW that it is, somehow.

 

[Belen]

The ironic thing is the more often you use poison as a plot point in a game, the less effective it is. If you use it all the time, the party casters who are able to, stock up on anti-poison magic, and nullify the threat easily. If you use poison very rarely, then they don't, so it is more dangerous when it does pop up. DMs worried about the warforged spoiling poison based plots are probably using posion way too much.

Not at all. I think the point is that Warforge nullify poison period and at low levels where poison is most effective. Then they also nullify a whole range of other aspects of the game.

The arguments I have seen in favor of the warforged revolve around his lack of good healing, which is a weak argument. PCs expect to be in combat and know they will need healing. I doubt someone would play a warforged in a game without a cleric or artificer. All the "he doesn't heal normally" comments are missing the issue. Combat is a part of the game. I have not yet met a player who will not make sure that they have access to some type of healing. Poison, disease etc are usually great to enhance the plot of a game because they are not standard, so the warforged directly and negatively impact a GM via railroading.

 

[Numion]

Really? Where does it say that clerics are immune to poison? I thought they had to have the spell selected for the day in order to cast it. IMO, very few clerics ever keep that spell memorized. Instead, they wait for the next day in order to relieve the effects of poison.

I have never seen a player keep delay poison, neutralize poison, remove curse etc in their spell lists, just in case.

Well, I've DMed my share of clerics (campaigns from 1st to 12th, 16th and 20+ levels), and in my experience all clerics pack delay poison. Since it lasts for hour / level, its always on when they delve in to dungeon or other situations where they usually face poison. Neutralize poison is rarely prepared, but missing the saves back at the campsite is not a big deal, ever since somebody got the bright idea of packing a wand of lesser restoration.

This has effectively lead to clerics being immune to poison. At least in my 60+ levels I've never seen a cleric succumb to poison at a critical moment. YMMV.

At least I don't recall running an adventure where significant portion of it required PCs being susceptible to poison. And if there had been such, well, it's all the more reason for the cleric to pack even more delay poisons.

 

[Storm Raven]

The arguments I have seen in favor of the warforged revolve around his lack of good healing, which is a weak argument. PCs expect to be in combat and know they will need healing. I doubt someone would play a warforged in a game without a cleric or artificer. All the "he doesn't heal normally" comments are missing the issue. Combat is a part of the game. I have not yet met a player who will not make sure that they have access to some type of healing.

And for a warforged, that magical healing is more speacialized and usually less effective than the healing available to other characters. They benefit from cure spells and magical items at half the rate other characters do, eating up resources out of proportion to the norm. The repair spells are useless to anyone else, and are arcane spells to boot, using up spell slots probably better used for offensive punch. They don't just have the "no natural healing" limitation, they also have the "harder to magically heal" problem as well.

Poison, disease etc are usually great to enhance the plot of a game because they are not standard, so the warforged directly and negatively impact a GM via railroading.

So, elves negatively impact that GM via railroading because they are immune to sleep and ghoul paralysis? I don't buy it. Disease and poison are generally a minor part of most low-level games, a minor nuisance at best, and if the best you can come up with is poison and disease, you're being too limited. Hitting melee types of any race with Fortitude saves (like saves against poison or disease) is usually not worth much of your time. Will saves are the way to challenge most warforged (actually most combat types in general), and they are generally as vulnerable to those as anyone else.

 

[Numion]

Poison, disease etc are usually great to enhance the plot of a game because they are not standard, so the warforged directly and negatively impact a GM via railroading.

I've yet to seen an adventure where PCs should be susceptible to poison for the plot to work. And I've got a stack of pre-fab adventures and Dungeon magazines. So how big a deal can it be?

Disease is a more important thing, because a DM could easily railroad PCs clear of some area by saying there's plague there, but aren't Paladins already immune?

 

[Numion]

So, elves negatively impact that GM via railroading because they are immune to sleep and ghoul paralysis? I don't buy it. Disease and poison are generally a minor part of most low-level games, a minor nuisance at best, and if the best you can come up with is poison and disease, you're being too limited. Hitting melee types of any race with Fortitude saves (like saves against poison or disease) is usually not worth much of your time. Will saves are the way to challenge most warforged (actually most combat types in general), and they are generally as vulnerable to those as anyone else.

Exactly. I'm not saying that the immunities are a non-issue either, but they are minor factors in my games, and I just have hard time imagining a D&D game where friggin' POISON, DISEASE and STARVATION are the defining elements .. YMMV, of course :\

Of the around 100 PCs I've witnessed in my 3e career I'd say maybe 2 died of poison (I remember on was a barbarian dwarf who 'cant fail a fort save'), maybe 30+ on instakill spells and 60+ on HP depletion and some change on other possible ways. Zero starved to death, zero died of disease.