5
\$\begingroup\$

Assume that some plausible construct is pretending to be a regular stone statue.
Is there a way for a group of PCs to detect that such a statue is in fact a construct?
Without attacking or otherwise provoking it.
Bonus points if it works against any construct, from a distance, is usable from stealth and/or if it is not stopped by a golem's magic immunity.

I have not found any good way to do it. As a mindless creature with a construct's immunities, it does not flinch no matter what the PCs do to- or near it, and it is immune to most things that affect creatures but not objects.
As a creature, it does not register under Detect Magic. Even if you were to make the case that a craftable constructs is also magic item, assume that the GM has already ruled against Detect Magic working.
Destroying the statue does not count as detecting the construct.

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4
\$\begingroup\$

Yes

but it requires creativity and depends on how your GM/group handles how spells/abilities work.

For example, any spell or ability that works on creatures but not on objects [or vice versa] can be used to identify a construct creature. If you try to cast Light cantrips on every statue in the room, then the spells make each statue glow, but a construct wouldn't glow because the spell doesn't work: "Target object touched".

Since this method requires lots of spells, it's best used with cantrips/orisons/knacks or other unlimited use abilities. Non-offensive cantrip options are Guidance, Resistance, Root, Vigor, and Virtue, though these are touch spells as well.

Useful non-spell abilities can also be found among a Witch's hexes or a Kineticist's wild talents, for example, since those usually have unlimited uses per day, e.g. Scar or Foxfire. Hexes and wild talents are usually ranged and supernatural abilities, allowing them to ignore a golem's magic immunity.

Whether using any such spell or ability provokes the construct depends on your GM.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ I wouldn't call abusing spell rules for the tabletop to be creative, but I suppose it could be. I agree that this is highly table-dependent (the tables I've played at have almost unanimously ruled against this because it breaks the narrative and highly meta-reliant. It's worth noting but I'm not confident it's the best answer. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ifusaso
    Nov 13, 2021 at 14:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ A bit game:y, but technically correct. The best kind... \$\endgroup\$
    – Synapse
    Nov 13, 2021 at 14:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ This is an extreme RAW reading of the rules to claim that a light spell only works on objects thus not on creatures. However, we can are this precise, then why not out another one: "A construct is an animated object" therefore, does that not mean that RAW constructs would light up as well? \$\endgroup\$
    – VLAZ
    Nov 16, 2021 at 11:23
4
\$\begingroup\$

Perception check(s) vs Stealth

If a construct is attempting to hide in plain sight or imitate a statue, the GM should have it roll Stealth (how gargoyles' and other creatures' Freeze ability to remain undetected functions) or possibly something like Disguise; if they have a construct that typically does this, they may need to adjust the modifier on those skills or add the Freeze UMA to accommodate.

The party, assuming they are not too distracted, should then get one free automatic Perception check (and possibly additional ones if the players are requesting it, spending Move actions). This is how Paizo writers have handled it in AP's*.

Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.

*I don't recall a specific example but will edit one in if I can find it.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ This sounds like my preferred solution among the ones presented. \$\endgroup\$
    – Synapse
    Nov 13, 2021 at 14:53
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Synapse If you wish, you are able to change your "correct" answer designation. It just brings this one to the top. You can also leave Teaitetos' answer checked, and mine will be around for people to see/compare. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ifusaso
    Nov 13, 2021 at 17:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ Picking the Accepted answer was hard. Your answer is the better solution to the problem in my opinion, but I think Theaitetos has the better answer to the question, so that won out. Hope it makes sense. I'd love for all three current answers to stay around as they are all useful. \$\endgroup\$
    – Synapse
    Nov 13, 2021 at 18:32
2
\$\begingroup\$

Knowledge(Arcana) should do the trick. One of the uses is Monster Lore:

You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities.

Check: In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster’s CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster’s CR or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

Along with the following table:

Creature Type Field of Study
Constructs, dragons, magical beasts Arcana
Aberrations, oozes Dungeoneering
Humanoids Local
Animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin Nature
Outsiders Planes
Undead Religion
Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I did consider this, but it then begs the question, can you use knowledge(Arcana) to do Monster Lore on something that you do not (yet) know is a creature? And speaking in-universe. If you take a Caryatid Column for example, it could look like just about any creature, it does not make sense to me that you could identify it before it starts moving around, unless you already have some extra information about the statue. \$\endgroup\$
    – Synapse
    Nov 12, 2021 at 23:05
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I feel like recalling information about something is different from recognizing if an object is actually that thing. It might be a valid response roll the GM gives you, but I don't think it's a reliable true-to-rules nor true-to-narrative solution. Especially because frequently, especially with constructs, two of the same creature may not even look alike. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ifusaso
    Nov 13, 2021 at 0:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you know the thing and some weaknesses and strengths about it, that would also help a lot with figuring out if it's the real thing or just a statue. RAW, it automatically bypasses it, since it says "Identify Monsters". But if the GM wants the monster to disguise as a statue, they could have the construct roll a Disguise check, which as a rule would be opposed by perception. \$\endgroup\$
    – Gloweye
    Nov 13, 2021 at 8:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think having them roll stealth (like gargoyles do) or disguise against the party's efforts to search the room is a better answer than having your players running around trying to roll Arcana every time you say there is a statue anywhere ever. But a lot of constructs won't have those, so I'm not sure that's the best solution either \$\endgroup\$
    – Ifusaso
    Nov 13, 2021 at 14:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ That's probably what I'd do as DM, but I'm not sure that's actually in the rules. So I kept with what I know is in there. \$\endgroup\$
    – Gloweye
    Nov 13, 2021 at 14:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .