Golem or not

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Say I want to re-create all the standard golems in the PHB but as tiny
creatures, creatures that would be used by various wizards, clerics,
etc as mini-workers, or guardians inside very small places. Do you
think it would just be best to start from the bottom up (meaning have
an idea of what I want but just create the Tiny golems) or would
scaling down a standard golem net better results?

I started this post on the 15th of April but decided to hold off
on posting while I figured out some other things that were concerning
me about my campaign ambitions.

Oh well, I'll leave this post as it is now. Looking forward to seeing
what others have to say. This is on my short list of things to do
so when I get them out of the way, I'll be happy to post
the results.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Decaying Atheist wrote:
> Say I want to re-create all the standard golems in the PHB but as
tiny
> creatures, creatures that would be used by various wizards, clerics,
> etc as mini-workers, or guardians inside very small places. Do you
> think it would just be best to start from the bottom up (meaning have
> an idea of what I want but just create the Tiny golems) or would
> scaling down a standard golem net better results?

Why not start with Animated Object, Tiny from the Monster Manual?

It's a construct, and a golem is a construct.

You could add a few hit dice (up to 6 and still be tiny) add
immunity to magic, and off you go.

I love the idea!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Decaying Atheist wrote:

> Say I want to re-create all the standard golems in the PHB
> but as tiny creatures, creatures that would be used by
> various wizards, clerics, etc as mini-workers, or guardians
> inside very small places.


I'd be tempted to write them up as homunculi. The "Arcana Creatures"
section of the MSRD has a number of them statted out, which you might
find useful as inspiration.

I seem to recall that the Eberron book takes a similar approach.



Cheers,
Roger Carbol

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Decaying Atheist wrote:
> Say I want to re-create all the standard golems in the PHB but as tiny
> creatures, creatures that would be used by various wizards, clerics,
> etc as mini-workers, or guardians inside very small places. Do you
> think it would just be best to start from the bottom up (meaning have
> an idea of what I want but just create the Tiny golems) or would
> scaling down a standard golem net better results?

I think you'd get better results if you started from the bottom up.

And, honestly, I mean that in general, not just this specifically.
Generally trying to take a good concept and bend an existing one around it
doesn't yield good results in my experience.

Starting from scratch usually gets you closer to what you want, despite
often not being correct out of the starting gate.

By the way, I agree this sounds like a good idea. The only risk you're
going to have is if they end up looking more like some kind of worker droid
from Star Wars than something appropriate in a fantasy campaign. (Unless
that's what you're going for, of course.)

--
Reginald Blue
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my
telephone."
- Bjarne Stroustrup (originator of C++) [quoted at the 2003
International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Reginald Blue" <Reginald_Blue@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d55eim$ns$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com...
> Decaying Atheist wrote:
>> Say I want to re-create all the standard golems in the PHB but as
>> tiny
>> creatures, creatures that would be used by various wizards,
>> clerics,
>> etc as mini-workers, or guardians inside very small places. Do you
>> think it would just be best to start from the bottom up (meaning
>> have
>> an idea of what I want but just create the Tiny golems) or would
>> scaling down a standard golem net better results?
>
> I think you'd get better results if you started from the bottom up.
>
> And, honestly, I mean that in general, not just this specifically.
> Generally trying to take a good concept and bend an existing one
> around it
> doesn't yield good results in my experience.
>
> Starting from scratch usually gets you closer to what you want,
> despite
> often not being correct out of the starting gate.
>
> By the way, I agree this sounds like a good idea. The only risk
> you're
> going to have is if they end up looking more like some kind of
> worker droid
> from Star Wars than something appropriate in a fantasy campaign.
> (Unless
> that's what you're going for, of course.)

Well I've always seen Wizards as being less inclinced to do the
physical work needed
to maintain their living spaces. Perhaps they would create this things
to do
their work, in much the same way as we create time saving devices now.

I would like to avoid the worker driod issues, because I still want
the fantasy feeling
but a tiny golem hides patiently in a chest guarding some important
bauble might
be good for an encounter or two. Of coure if I do end up creating
these,
I would also have to allow my PCs the option of making them if they
can
gather the right materials find the proper spells, etc.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Decaying Atheist wrote:
> "Reginald Blue" <Reginald_Blue@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d55eim$ns$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com...
>> By the way, I agree this sounds like a good idea. The only risk
>> you're
>> going to have is if they end up looking more like some kind of
>> worker droid
>> from Star Wars than something appropriate in a fantasy campaign.
>> (Unless
>> that's what you're going for, of course.)
>
> Well I've always seen Wizards as being less inclinced to do the
> physical work needed
> to maintain their living spaces. Perhaps they would create this things
> to do
> their work, in much the same way as we create time saving devices now.

I'm reminded of something I saw (or read, not sure) a while ago. It
discussed that it's highly likely that one of the ancient greeks
(Archimedes?) actually managed to construct steam powered devices, not
unlike the steam power that existed in the mid 1800's.

Apparently, the reason that it didn't catch on was because no one would
choose to use it when it was so easy with the current method. (i.e. the
slaves they employed.)

I have no idea if it's true, but it does make some degree of sense. I
wonder if the same wouldn't apply here... as in "that's why we have wizards
apprentices".

To great extent, this would be a campaign issue.

> I would like to avoid the worker driod issues, because I still want
> the fantasy feeling
> but a tiny golem hides patiently in a chest guarding some important
> bauble might
> be good for an encounter or two.

Yes, there's definitely room for more nasty ways to guard chests.
Gotta keep those thieves on their toes!

> Of coure if I do end up creating
> these,
> I would also have to allow my PCs the option of making them if they
> can
> gather the right materials find the proper spells, etc.

Sounds quite reasonable to me.

--
Reginald Blue
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my
telephone."
- Bjarne Stroustrup (originator of C++) [quoted at the 2003
International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <d564j9$9at$1@trsvr.tr.unisys.com>,
Reginald Blue <Reginald_Blue@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm reminded of something I saw (or read, not sure) a while ago. It
>discussed that it's highly likely that one of the ancient greeks
>(Archimedes?) actually managed to construct steam powered devices, not
>unlike the steam power that existed in the mid 1800's.

You may be thinking of Hero's steam engine -- much smaller than Watt's, about
the size of two soup bowls together.

>Apparently, the reason that it didn't catch on was because no one would
>choose to use it when it was so easy with the current method. (i.e. the
>slaves they employed.)

Greek natural philosophers generally focused on abstract thinking; they appear
to have had a cultural bias against practical or experimental work. Perhaps
it did have something to do with slaves.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Reginald Blue wrote:
> I'm reminded of something I saw (or read, not sure) a while ago. It
> discussed that it's highly likely that one of the ancient greeks
> (Archimedes?) actually managed to construct steam powered devices,
not
> unlike the steam power that existed in the mid 1800's.
>
> Apparently, the reason that it didn't catch on was because no one
would
> choose to use it when it was so easy with the current method. (i.e.
the
> slaves they employed.)
>
> I have no idea if it's true, but it does make some degree of sense.
I
> wonder if the same wouldn't apply here... as in "that's why we have
wizards
> apprentices".

Wizards often fall prey to obsessions - a Wizard who
started specializing in constructs might eventually
decide that his creations are more perfect for his
purposes than any apprentice could be, and might end
up creating them for purposes that any sane person
would just use a servant or even a domesticated
animal for.

"Yes, it's a clockwork cow. I don't really want
to know where its milk is coming from."

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

You might want to take a look at the effigies in Complete Arcane and
the Prestige Class that goes along with them. Even if it doesn't give
exactly what you want it can help inspire. In the effigy description
is a template to apply to a creature to make it an effigy.

Gerald Katz