Talk:Bot (3.5e Subtype)

Ratings

	Qwertyu63 favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	Very nice for games that want a kind of steam-punk feel. I like it.

What is still missing from this article

Answer - a cursory scan showed me that there are descriptions missing from the tables and the attack modes. I'm not sure what else is absent. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 23:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers Remarks

I love the concept and execution, though I have only two questions: how does one create a bot and how can you write new programs? Once answered, this will be a great template, as opposed to the good template it is.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 22:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Help Requested. Sending Eijis.

Hmm, this will be a complex nut to crack. I get the basics, but there is a lot here that is going to need looking into. While I process what is before me (likely over the next week or so), I would not mind crowdsourcing this to help fulfill the request asked on the Vehicle talk page. And if Franken happens to run by, a more in depth explanation on what he's looking to be added (if any). Besides additions, I should be able to compress this. I just don't know what shouldn't be touched and what could be clipped. I'm looking into giving guidelines of commands rather than actual command lists. Most should be able to figure out "FIRE_MISSILE" or some variation thereof. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Beginning work. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

So, a huge alteration has occurred. I tried to keep the spirit of the article, though the letters have altered violently. I'll now explain the changes.

First, it occurred to me that rather than a long list of command X and program Y, we had something that was of direct relation: Handle Animal. So I reformatted it like that, with a focus on laws denying actions or identifying things as "groups" rather than individual objects.

Features was technically wrong (that's for stuff like what HD and what skills it has), and it didn't seem to change things from Construct or Aberration. It was moved to traits.

I kept the mostly-construct traits, and then altered how programming was done. I may need to alter the Program skill page a little to fit the new terms, but I feel it is better. Like handle animal, the animal knows a trick or it doesn't. You can push it by assuming direct control, but it is much easier to have it do something it already knows. I pulled the number of "tricks" out of my ass, but that's just the default with a caveat that the monster entry specifies, which lets people break the rules there and shouldn't affect pre-existing material.

I need to see how this effects the Bot subtype creatures already. Fortunately there are only four, and it looks like they repeat a lot of what they already had. With the "specific trumps general", things should be fine.

I'd like some input on it's new direction. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

In a game already suffering from excessive subtypes, I would scrap this article, use the Construct Subtypes (3.5e Variant Rule) instead, and put the bit about programming in a new variant rule "programming mindless constructs" that works for all mindless constructs and uses a commonly available skill, so it's compatible with low-tech campaigns too.--Fluffykittens (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I promised I'd reform it, not delete it. It's probably a bit redundant but I see some use in it. For example, I have a plan for an autonomous construction robot which can use this.

It's also not unlike the Clockwork thing I made, with Portfolio's in place of programs. I may end up fusing the two if this ends up going well, I was never to keen on how Clockwork went through. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Monster listing.

For some reason the Jupiter is not showing up on the list. What gives? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That article isn't generating semantic properties because... I don't know. When those are generating properly, it should show in the list. Unless something else is wrong. Will investigate. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 01:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy

Bot traits, as far as i can tell it just copy paste of the construct traits, no? --Leziad (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but is has a purpose. Though I haven't made any, you can have organic (aberration) bots, and they get constructy traits as a result. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of redundant subtypes. Bots, clockwork and construct could all be one subtype. There are there slight differences, sure, but three different subtypes of mostly the same thing is distracting. Suggesting to merge all the robot subtypes into one. Especially, since two of the authors have collaborated on other stuff before, finding a happy medium should be easier.--Franken Kesey 17:16, 27 April 2019 (MDT)

yes, there are many redundant subtypes. But that isn’t really a problem. The srd has the elf, orc, and goblin subtypes. None of which add anything. Subtypes are not just mechanical though, they also just denote creature groups. There are spells that affect bots specifically on the wiki. Also trying to force people to combine their work leaves a bad taste in my mouth. After all most homebrew is redundant. If one person makes a robot does that mean no one else can make a robot. Different things work for different folks. Suggest improvements not condensing. If you want a condensed version make it yourself or work with someone to get it made.

that said the type system as a category system sucks. Most category systems in 3.5 suck. Flesh golems could be undead or constructs. It’s more apparent with magic since they couldn’t decide wether they wanted spell schools to be sorted by how the spell works or by effect or theme. Grog toad (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2019 (MDT)

Salvage

I've begun the salvage operation. This one is pretty safe considering I'm a co-author, but in case it needs to be said I am also officially adopting this page. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2019 (MDT)