6
\$\begingroup\$

I am looking for a creature of the type Construct that is explicitly capable of being ridden. A construct that is big and strong enough to carry another creature is not sufficient, I want something that is clearly suitable as a mount, the way a horse or griffon is.

Does such a creature exist, and if so, where?

The only candidates I have found (and rejected) are:

  • The Warforged Charger from Monster Manual 3, which is a quadruped, but has no rules for being ridden.
  • Various Figurines of Wondrous Power, which create real living creatures, even if they look weird and are statues most of the time.
\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

9
\$\begingroup\$

Riding Constructs

These constructs list details indicating they are supposed to be ridden.

  • The brass steed (Heroes of Battle 153-4) is in a section entitled Battlefield Steeds, and its description includes its carrying capacity as do many mounts.
  • The clockwork pony and clockwork stallion (Monster Manual 4 32-3) each have the special ability rider response, making them easier to use as mounts.
  • The equine golem (Arms and Equipment Guide 87-8) has as part of its description information about the negative impact of riding the creature for long stretches.

Further, either of the following templates when applied to a creature give that creature the type construct.

  • Apply the template effigy (Complete Arcane 151-3) to any corporeal aberration, animal, dragon, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, or vermin also capable of explicitly being used as a mount.
  • Apply the template elder eidolon (Lords of Madness 149-8) to any aberration, animal, dragon, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, plant, or vermin also capable of explicitly being used as a mount.
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ +1 but u might want to annotate that the "Arms & Equipment Guide" is 3.0 since some people don't allow 3.0 with 3.5 even though they are very close \$\endgroup\$
    – Ben-Jamin
    Commented Feb 4, 2015 at 23:43
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Ben-Jamin: That's a moderately common houserule, I guess, but 3.0 material that hasn't been obsoleted by 3.5 material is still explicitly valid by RAW, so there's that. \$\endgroup\$
    – user17995
    Commented Feb 5, 2015 at 0:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ Oh, I use it & a bit of other 3.0 materialjust saying I thought it would be a helpful notation. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ben-Jamin
    Commented Feb 5, 2015 at 2:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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