Posts
In another thread (relating more specifically to whether a golem can volunteer to drop its immunity) the following point was made:
The main issue is the fact that the golems don't have spell resistance, they have complete immunity to magic that allows spell resistance (except for a few specific cases for each golem which are detailed out in that golem's description).
(bolding mine)
This brings up something that has bothered me for some time.
I'll be using the flesh golem for the example, since this is the weakest of the core 4, probably encountered earlier and more often, and has been in the game since 1E onwards (not to mention being an iconic staple of horror fiction for centuries).The fire/cold/electric spells have never really been listed as an exception to the spell immunity. Rather, a more vague phrasing suggests that certain effects are 'in addition', a phrasing which doesn't imply any sort of bypassing of the normal situation of immunity.
So, are all fire/cold/electric spells an exception to the blanket rule of 'if it allows SR, the golem is immune'?
The reason I ask, is that in 3.5, the SRD text was worded as follows:
A flesh golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.
A magical attack that deals cold or fire damage slows a flesh golem (as the slow spell) for 2d6 rounds, with no saving throw.
A magical attack that deals electricity damage breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point of damage for every 3 points of damage the attack would otherwise deal. If the amount of healing would cause the golem to exceed its full normal hit points, it gains any excess as temporary hit points. For example, a flesh golem hit by a lightning bolt heals 3 points of damage if the attack would have dealt 11 points of damage. A flesh golem golem gets no saving throw against attacks that deal electricity damage.
The problem for me comes with the specific phrase 'in addition'.
I have long suspected that what was really meant (and what should have been stated) was 'The exception to this rule are magical attacks that deal cold or fire damage, which, in addition to their normal effect, slow a flesh golem (as the slow spell) for 2d6 rounds, with no saving throw.'(and a similar amendment is required to the text for electric spells)
Otherwise, the phrase 'in addition' simply means 'IF you can find some way round the immunity, to deal energy damage, THEN the following additional effects apply'.
The reason I suspect there was always a bad wording, is because otherwise, there's nothing that can deal magical fire/cold/elecricity damage, except weapon enhancements.
It also doesn't follow how one can affect the golem with electricity, since virtually all such spells (including the specific example of lightning bolt) would be ignored, leaving an allied caster to run behind it and jab it with a shock blade, if he wanted to heal it.
The fact that the 3.5 SRD specifically mentioned Lightning Bolt gave weight to the proposal that there was a sentence missing in the spell immunity ability, otherwise, why use that specifically-SR-vulnerable spell as an example?
But, in the PF srd, the specific reference to lightning bolt has been removed, and replaced with a more general reference to 'spells that deal electricity damage'.
Is this deliberate? IE, did someone spot that LB was an ineffectual spell, and had been a typo for the last 10 years?
That the only way to affect a flesh golem with an energy rider effect, one has to strike it with an energy weapon?
(Yes, I'm still ignoring the orb spells....)
Or is the intention, that all fire/cold/electrical spells actually bypass the golem's spell immunity, then, in addition,deal additional or alternate effects?
Has that been the case for the last 35 years?
And if so, please can that be erattaed?