If I may chime in here (please keep an open mind)...
Under the Dungeon Building section (page 411), under 'magically treated walls' walls and so forth (which would NOT normally get a save versus say a "Stone Shape" spell), the description of this 'magically treated walls' states the following...
"These walls are stronger than average, with a greater hardness, more hit points and a higher break DC. Magic can usually double the hardness and hit points of a wall and add up to 20 to the break DC. A magically treated wall also gains a saving throw against spells that could affect it, with a save bonus equalling + 1/2 caster level of the magic reinforcing the wall. Creating a magic wall requires a Craft Wondrous Item feat and the expenditure of 1'500 GP for each 10 x 10ft wall section."
Now if you apply this concept to a Stone Golem, it should count as 'Magically Treated' for the purposes of spells which affect it in this way, and recieve (in this case, a Fortitude Save at least) against the effect.
Since a 'Golem' is incredibly more difficult to create and is essentialy similar to a magically reinforced stone wall, both should have some protection (but not immunity) to spells like Stone Shape like the magically treated walls enjoy. I'd say give the Golem a saving throw in this case, spells that directly affect the Golem without a save in a special manner are mentioned in the Golem entry specifically, anything else should allow a saving throw under this 'magically treated' type mechanic.
I know this is more or less an abstraction of a rule to do with a seperate mechanic, but I see there is a comparison here to be made with some valid points I feel.
Just a thought...
@Princess Of Canada
I think that is some creative reinterpretation of the problem, and (I feel) emphasizes the intentions behind spells and magical objects.
Personally I would go with the inhibiting aspect of the spell vs Golems (meaning I am in the camp that says by RAW there should be no interaction with Stone Shape and a Stone Golem - but its such a clever application that it should be rewarded). I'd say Held for 1d4-1 or Slowed for 1d6 rounds is appropriate. Possibly (in case of abuse) a stone golem could only be affected by this once a day.
constructs are a bit of an odd occurence in the game, but overall, i think i'm in the camp of "animated object" = "object...that is animated", and for a few reasons
if you take a look at (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/creatureTypes.html#construct) under the "construct" section you will see on the 12th bullet point down something very interesting:
"Immunity to any affect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless"
this entry in the "construct" field seems to set a precedence that seems to dictate that, yes indeed, constructs are affected by spells that affect objects.
Conversely, in the same entry on (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/creatureTypes.html#construct), on the entry listed "Traits" (just under the 4th bullet point), there is another listing that gives creedence to what others are saying in respect to constructs being creatures:
"Traits: a construct possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry)"
This entry seems to also lead us to believe constructs are indeed creatures.
with both entries, i would be perfectly fine with allowing a construct to be the target of a spell that would normally affect only an object, especially when you look at the stone golem's entry specifically the two spells listed under the "immunity to magic" section of the Stone Golem's entry (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/golem.html#golem-stone):
spell 1: Transmute Rock to Mud (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/transmuteRockToMud.html#transmut e-rock-to-mud)
looking at this spells first line you will see something very odd, especially considering the target being a worked stone golem.
"This spell turns natural, uncut, or unworked rock of any sort into an equal volume of mud."
odd, being that the Stone Golem is a worked stone figure as described in its monster entry:
"Construction: A stone golem's body is chisled from a signle block of hard stone, such as granite, weighing at least 3,000 pounds."
odd that a spell targeting an unworked ~object~ could target a ~worked creature~ even considering the precedence set earlier that a construct does indeed receive affect from spells targeting object, but thats ok, its an extra spell vs the golem.
for further example, the 2nd spell listed under the stone golem entry helps even further:
spell 2: Stone to Flesh (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/stoneToFlesh.html#stone-to-flesh )
this one is a bit odder still as the target of this spell is "one petrified creature or a cylinder of stone from 1ft to 3ft in diameter and up to 10 ft long"
again with this spell descritpion we see a spell that specifically is targeting the stone golem as an object (the golem is NOT a petrified creature, of course) again, aiding in the "animated object" = "object...that is animated" argument.
it must also be noted, though, that neither of those spells given specifically in the entry affect the golem as described in the spell itself.
thusly, i think i would rule in my game (i'm not saying you should in yours, but this is what i would do) that the stone shape spell does indeed shape the golem into an object of the caster's choosing, but i would say the golem could "reform" himself after say 1d6+1~ish rounds and make that a full round action each round to do so. something to that affect would preserve the encounter as there would still be a lot of danger if the golem was not killed in the time it took it to reform, but would still allow the caster to have a moment to shine.
|
In older editions this wouldn't have worked. Golems were immune to spells unless specifically listed as vulnerable. Although we've gone rule crazy in later editions, the spirit of what golems were supposed to do remains that spells don't work on them. When in doubt, I'd go with spirit of the original creature rather than rules lawyering over the meaning and intent.
In older editions this wouldn't have worked. Golems were immune to spells unless specifically listed as vulnerable. Although we've gone rule crazy in later editions, the spirit of what golems were supposed to do remains that spells don't work on them. When in doubt, I'd go with spirit of the original creature rather than rules lawyering over the meaning and intent.
changed wording somewhat in PF and i dont like it... golems are SUPPOSE to be immune to any and all spells unless other wise stated. Keep and go by this rule, if not listed as effected by the spell then it should fizzle. When ever a player tries to cheese a fight like this best to just say " no " and be done with it.
changed wording somewhat in PF and i dont like it... golems are SUPPOSE to be immune to any and all spells unless other wise stated. Keep and go by this rule, if not listed as effected by the spell then it should fizzle. When ever a player tries to cheese a fight like this best to just say " no " and be done with it.In older editions this wouldn't have worked. Golems were immune to spells unless specifically listed as vulnerable. Although we've gone rule crazy in later editions, the spirit of what golems were supposed to do remains that spells don't work on them. When in doubt, I'd go with spirit of the original creature rather than rules lawyering over the meaning and intent.
I love these threads where players try to use spells that are obvious solutions to certain problems and everyone gets their panties in a twist trying to house rule that they can't possibly do it because god forbid intelligent players play intelligently.
Another thing to consider, and this may not be considered a cut and dried solution, but the spell only affects 10 cu ft, + 1 cu ft./level.
at level 11, thats 21 cubic feet. Note that this is NOT 21 10 foot cubes, but less than one 10 foot cube. At 9 foot tall, that leaves at best a 1 x 2.33 x 9 volume of stone that can be affected by this spell.The volume of the Golem would be up to a DM's decision, but a 9' humanoid shaped block of stone takes up a bit more than 21 cubic feet of material in my book.
Lets also look at the Hold Person and Hold monster spells. They provide an interesting granularity of definition, a very specific difference between Persons and Monsters, surely both Creatures. Then lets look again at constructs / animated objects and plain objects, and the specificity of the spell description's Target of Stone or Stone Object.
In light of this thread, I know I would rule that the spell would not work on the golem, but at the time, depending on time constraints, I may have ruled otherwise and later, after the session, rethought the ruling.
This, 21 cubic feet is actually rather small. A 3x3x3 foot box is 27 cubic feet. Not sure what to equate this to, but it's a lot smaller than a full stone golem I suspect.
I'd say you could turn one arm or leg, or maybe it's torso into whatever shape you want, but that'd be about it. It'd take some negatives to to hit and movement or maybe AC, but wouldn't be outright disabled.
Another thing to consider, and this may not be considered a cut and dried solution, but the spell only affects 10 cu ft, + 1 cu ft./level.
at level 11, thats 21 cubic feet. Note that this is NOT 21 10 foot cubes, but less than one 10 foot cube. At 9 foot tall, that leaves at best a 1 x 2.33 x 9 volume of stone that can be affected by this spell.The volume of the Golem would be up to a DM's decision, but a 9' humanoid shaped block of stone takes up a bit more than 21 cubic feet of material in my book.
Lets also look at the Hold Person and Hold monster spells. They provide an interesting granularity of definition, a very specific difference between Persons and Monsters, surely both Creatures. Then lets look again at constructs / animated objects and plain objects, and the specificity of the spell description's Target of Stone or Stone Object.
In light of this thread, I know I would rule that the spell would not work on the golem, but at the time, depending on time constraints, I may have ruled otherwise and later, after the session, rethought the ruling.
This, 21 cubic feet is actually rather small. A 3x3x3 foot box is 27 cubic feet. Not sure what to equate this to, but it's a lot smaller than a full stone golem I suspect.
I'd say you could turn one arm or leg, or maybe it's torso into whatever shape you want, but that'd be about it. It'd take some negatives to to hit and movement or maybe AC, but wouldn't be outright disabled.
THESE are relevant points. Whining that "omg, some one used an object targeting spell on a construct, get me my house rule book so I can make an argument why you can't do that and defeat my encounters through ingenuity" is not.
I might allow the spell to affect the stone golem in some way in my game, though I read the rules an *not* allowing that to happen because it targets objects and the stone golem is a creature. It adds to the fun of the encounter and rewards creativity. I would not, however, allow it to be an instakill, merely provide an advantage of some kind to the PCs. Maybe the creature is slowed or something.
BUT, Cartigan, I think you've got your statement backwards. Ruling that the spell affects this creature in any way would be pulling out your house rule book...seeing as how the RAW does not support this. The semantic and word order discussion on the previous page was pointless. The spell affects objects and stone golems are not objects.
M
I might allow the spell to affect the stone golem in some way in my game, though I read the rules an *not* allowing that to happen because it targets objects and the stone golem is a creature. It adds to the fun of the encounter and rewards creativity. I would not, however, allow it to be an instakill, merely provide an advantage of some kind to the PCs. Maybe the creature is slowed or something.
BUT, Cartigan, I think you've got your statement backwards. Ruling that the spell affects this creature in any way would be pulling out your house rule book...seeing as how the RAW does not support this. The semantic and word order discussion on the previous page was pointless. The spell affects objects and stone golems are not objects.
M
The upper majority of constructs are objects and while the game obviously does not provide an exhaustive list of spells that effect constructs, all the ones pointed out as necessary for constructs target objects. An animated object is, by any other named, an object which is animated. And by definition.
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Constructs are not objects. They're not alive, and many of them are nonintelligent, but they have stat blocks. And that means that they're creatures, not objects. So technically, stone shape wouldn't work on a stone golem, since it's not an object (which includes being mere stone).
THESE are relevant points. Whining that "omg, some one used an object targeting spell on a construct, get me my house rule book so I can make an argument why you can't do that and defeat my encounters through ingenuity" is not.
That depends. Did you play AD&D before 3.5? If so, you'll see that a change in the wording for the golem's spell immunity (even between 3.0 and 3.5) made a previously impossible tactic work (potentially) exceptionally well. I'd be willing to bet that was not the intention of the designers.
I suspect the designers in 3.5 attempted to make the golems susceptible to conjuration damage and possibly tighten up the description to be a more general rule without realizing all of the downstream effects of their wording. And that, I think, is worth some concern.
That depends. Did you play AD&D before 3.5?
THESE are relevant points. Whining that "omg, some one used an object targeting spell on a construct, get me my house rule book so I can make an argument why you can't do that and defeat my encounters through ingenuity" is not.
Not strictly, no. And I don't really intend to hunt down pre-3.x construct rules.
From D20PFSRD - Golem:
Golems are magically created automatons of great power. They stand apart from other constructs in the nature of their animating force—golems are granted their magical life via an elemental spirit, typically that of an earth elemental.
Not only are golems objects AND creatures now, they're also LIVING creatures, which may open up a whole other avenue of attack. See, it says they are granted magical 'life'. Right?
Edit: Damn, JJ snuck in before I could have my fun. ;-(
I use "ridiculous creature destruction" to destroy all golems for being too many things at once -_-