It just came up in our most recent game, the party of 11th level heroes were intruding in a chamber guarded by a stone golem... a few rounds into the fight, the party cleric succeeded in a touch attack with a magic staff that carried Stone Shape in it, and presto-chango, an animated magical guardian becomes a simple block of unmoving basalt. Based on the rules as I read them, I had to let it go that way.... the Stone Shape spell lists that it affects 10 cubic feet +1 cu ft/caster level, and the spell has no Saving Throw and no Spell Resistance. And in the PF Bestiary, it specifically says that stone golems are affected normally by spells that do not allow Saves and are not affected by Spell Resistance. I could have ruled that the spell seems to be outrageously overpowered vs. this particular monster, but as written, the player had a point and the rules seem to defend that point. So, is Stone Shape just an oversight by the designers of the stone golem, or does it really translate into a monster killer vs. animated stone creatures?
It just came up in our most recent game, the party of 11th level heroes were intruding in a chamber guarded by a stone golem... a few rounds into the fight, the party cleric succeeded in a touch attack with a magic staff that carried Stone Shape in it, and presto-chango, an animated magical guardian becomes a simple block of unmoving basalt. Based on the rules as I read them, I had to let it go that way.... the Stone Shape spell lists that it affects 10 cubic feet +1 cu ft/caster level, and the spell has no Saving Throw and no Spell Resistance. And in the PF Bestiary, it specifically says that stone golems are affected normally by spells that do not allow Saves and are not affected by Spell Resistance. I could have ruled that the spell seems to be outrageously overpowered vs. this particular monster, but as written, the player had a point and the rules seem to defend that point. So, is Stone Shape just an oversight by the designers of the stone golem, or does it really translate into a monster killer vs. animated stone creatures?
Stone Shape
School transmutation [earth]; Level cleric 3, druid 3, sorcerer/wizard 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (soft clay)
Range touch
Target stone or stone object touched, up to 10 cu. ft. + 1 cu. ft./level
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You can form an existing piece of stone into any shape that suits your purpose. While it's possible to make crude coffers, doors, and so forth with stone shape, fine detail isn't possible. There is a 30% chance that any shape including moving parts simply doesn't work.
Notice the target is stone or stone object vs a spell like hold person which has a target of creature. A stone golem is a creature made of stone, so it does not qualify as a valid target. The spell description implies it only works on pieces of inanimate stone.
Notice the target is stone or stone object vs a spell like hold person which has a target of creature. A stone golem is a creature made of stone, so it does not qualify as a valid target. The spell description implies it only works on pieces of inanimate stone.
Unfortunately, it doesn't imply any such thing, or at least not very clearly. The spell description simply states that it "forms an existing piece of stone into any shape that suits [the caster's] purpose." Although I feel that the spell SHOULD be limited from affecting any magically animated or sentient stone, my point of contention is that spell does NOT say that, nor imply it. And the description of a stone golem's defenses specifically exclude it from being immune to spells that do not allow saves or spell resistance.
from magic chapter, aiming a spell:
"Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself.
The spell does not need to say this, it's a general rule.
In Charender's spoiler it states that there is a 30% chance that a shape simply doesn't work. Have the GM roll the percentile die for a save. Too simple?
This same problem can happen to nearly the whole golem family. Flesh to stone, stone to mud, among others.
Stone Giants are not MADE of stone
******************
PRDThis giant has chiseled, muscular features and a flat, forward-sloping head, looking almost as if it were carved of stone.
Stone Giant CR 8
N Large humanoid (giant)
They aren't talking about giants, they're talking about golems.
from magic chapter, aiming a spell:
"Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself.
The spell does not need to say this, it's a general rule.
+1
Warp wood and wood shape on wood golems, metal to wood for iron golems, and flesh to stone for flesh golem.
+1from magic chapter, aiming a spell:
"Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself.
The spell does not need to say this, it's a general rule.
indeed, a stone golem is a creature, and thus is not a valid target for a stone shape spell, which targets objects.
A Stone Golem's type is "construct" and, from the Bestiary part of the PRD, "a construct is an animated object." The spell's target can be a "stone object."
Therefore, I think the spell is valid. As said earlier, it's such a niche that I'd allow it, considering it a clever use of the party's resources - after all, what are the chances that someone meeting a Stone Golem has access to Stone Shape?
Well... the spell itself says "no save, no SR"
Or if the situation really irks you, you can just imagine that the golem morphed into a cube could still be able to move its limbs. The round after transforming the golem into said cube, the cleric could be surprised to see parts of the cube pivoting (Rubik's cube, anyone?) and striking the people adjacent to it. Its movements would be awkward and its mobility greatly reduced, but the golem would still be able to act.
If you apply what I just said, you could tell your cleric that morphing the golem into a non-moving cube instead would be more difficult because he'd have to embed the golem's limbs into each other (much like picturing a 3D puzzle in his mind). Then, you'd apply the 30% rule from the spell.
Player spellcasting characters have learned their spells to be able to cast them (or identified their magic items to use them). I think they should know how they act. If you're a DM who'd want that particular spell to fail against that particular object (yes, I insist), I think you should tell your cleric before he actually tries. Or accept it once and tell him why you'd reject its future uses.
|
+1from magic chapter, aiming a spell:
"Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself.
The spell does not need to say this, it's a general rule.
+2. Regardless of constructs being decsribed as "animated objects", this piece of flavor text does not change the fact that constructs are creatures. If Stone Shape was meant to affect creatures, it'd include them as targets (for example, the way 'Shatter' does).
"creatures or objects" doesn't mean "either creatures or objects but not both"
I stand by my reasoning (construct = animated object = object = valid target) - if all the RAW was "fluff text", we'd play something else entirely
On the other end of the spectrum, Gargoyles, which seem to be made of stone, are Monstrous Humanoid and thus not affected by Stone Shape.
"creatures or objects" doesn't mean "either creatures or objects but not both"
I stand by my reasoning (construct = animated object = object = valid target) - if all the RAW was "fluff text", we'd play something else entirely
On the other end of the spectrum, Gargoyles, which seem to be made of stone, are Monstrous Humanoid and thus not affected by Stone Shape.
Sorry but no. You're quoting only the part that better suits your opinion, discarding the "animate" part. If you look at the full sentence:
"A construct is an Animated Object or artificially created creature."
Stone golems fit the second category. The same with clay golem, flesh golem homunculus, ice golem, iron cobra, iron golem, wood golem and retriever.
Animated object is a very specific category of creature.
BTW, all creature types are just that; creature(not objects) types.
And as Mnemaxa says, golems also have specific immunity to magic. The only spells that can affect them are specified in their individual description.
I'm with him on calling DM-fiat the first time. To reward clever thinking and ingenuity if the PC's are desperate and fits the story, but then it's back to the rules.
A construct is an animated object or artificially created creature, says the PRD. Animated object (as per spell) is its own category, so a Golem would count as a creature. Stone shape works on stone or stone objects, not creatures, so it would not work on a golem. It might work on an animated object, though, as this stays an object. Doing some damage to the golem (with a save on his part) might be ok, but not an easy golem killer.
If you would cast stone to flesh on the golem, followed by stone shape, then I would allow this to work, as stone to flesh negates the immunity to magic.
Stefan
EDIT: ninja´ed by nidho.
"creatures or objects" doesn't mean "either creatures or objects but not both"
This is absolutely true BTW, "OR" can imply both inclusive or exclusive disjunction.
But bear in mind that altough in a general sense a construct could be considered an object and a creature at the same time, in the context of the rules object and creature are mutually exclusive.
Creatures must have wisdom(to perceive the world) and charisma(to exert himself on the world) scores as opposed to objects that don't have them.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
I'm in the "creature != object" camp on this one and would only allow those specific spells listed in the statblock to affect the golem. I'd definitely let him mess up the golem after a Stone to Flesh though.
It's a hard situation to get into and worth rewarding - I'd give him 5d10 damage, and let him choose how he affects the golem - for example halving its movement speed, its damage or its attack modifier.
I remember the arguments I had when my players used Stonebreaker acid on a Stone Golem, so I sympathize!
Another way to look at this sitatuion is what happens after the stone shape occurs?
Let's say that the spell works and you turn said creature into a solid block.
Isn't it the magic that created it what gives it life? Not just really carving in the stone to make it move.
I would rule it that it works and the golem is out of commision as it attempts to reform itself. Treat as stunned for 1d4 rounds.
In those rounds it is busting back out of its block form and into it's normal form.
As for an animated object now you would have a cube that bounces around and slams into you. You just changed the shape of the creature and not its effectiveness.
Let's say that the DM rules for it to work... great work cleric you now have Stone-Cube Golem... or That little jumping block thing from Mario Brothers...
The stone shape does not negate the magical energies making the golem animate in the first place. So the golem now has the same stat block but new attacks.
I would say it gets a slam attack w/ instant grapple/knockdown (since I view it as a bouncing cube of death). Next round grapple check for max slam damage as the golem grinds the trapped pc into a fine paste...
At least that's they way I'd handle it, but I'm a mean evil DM.
"creatures or objects" doesn't mean "either creatures or objects but not both"
I stand by my reasoning (construct = animated object = object = valid target)
Sorry but no. You're quoting only the part that better suits your opinion, discarding the "animate" part. If you look at the full sentence:
"A construct is an Animated Object or artificially created creature."
Everyone is entitled his own opinion.
Everyone is entitled his own interpretation of the rules.Now, I thank you for the bolded part, because it makes me appear as a buffoon. I could return the compliment, too, because you put the uppercase on "animated object". Thanks to your link, I had the pleasure to find that, indeed, Animated Object was a creature entry on its own. However, for me, a Stone Golem is a "construct", which equate "X or Y" (meaning either X or Y or both), X being an "animated object". Without link or capitals in the PRD, that means it's an object which happens to be animated. And it happens to be made of stone, too. As a DM, I'll apply what I think is RAW: Stone Shape works against Stone Golems. I'll also put other types of golems in my adventures, you know, for the variety. But every DM (and player) can have its own opinion, discuss them, and act on them.
Everyone here speaks English to the best of his ability.
Everyone here interprets the word "or" as they are used to.
Now, I'm not going to comment further in this thread because my opinion doesn't seem to be that well received (and sorry for this rant).
This definitely should not work - spells without saves or SR are spells that don't target creatures, generally. Stone Shape affects stone objects (or part of a whole mountain/world beneath), and stone golems are not objects.
After all, what are the chances that someone meeting a Stone Golem has access to Stone Shape?
If you have an Earth Domain cleric in your group? Well over 50%. And I have one in *both* my AP groups (completely independent choices too).
A construct is an animated object or artificially created creature, says the PRD.
This.
The construct entry refers to the creature 'animated object', which is a creature that happens to have the word 'object in it's name. An animated object is no more an object than a giant spider is a giant.
Targeted spells affect objects, creatures, or both, as specified in the spell descriptions - and stone shape clearly affects stone and stone objects. Creatures are omitted from the line. No interpretation or speculation required.
If you wanted to make an exception here because it is a niche use of the spell, the spell description clearly states that against objects with moving parts, there is a flat 30% that the spell simply fails.
Stone Shape doesn't target a creature. Even if a stone golem is made of stone, it's still a creature. A spell doesn't affect a creature unless it says it affects a creature.
A Stone Golem's type is "construct" and, from the Bestiary part of the PRD, "a construct is an animated object." The spell's target can be a "stone object."
An animated object (as written in the PRD) is a creature of the construct type. Also,
Animated Objects: Animated objects count as creatures for purposes of determining their Armor Class (do not treat them as inanimate objects).
So, we do not treat animated objects as inanimate objects. They're not the same thing.
"creatures or objects" doesn't mean "either creatures or objects but not both"
I stand by my reasoning (construct = animated object = object = valid target)
Sorry but no. You're quoting only the part that better suits your opinion, discarding the "animate" part. If you look at the full sentence:
"A construct is an Animated Object or artificially created creature."
Everyone is entitled his own opinion.
Everyone is entitled his own interpretation of the rules.Now, I thank you for the bolded part, because it makes me appear as a buffoon. I could return the compliment, too, because you put the uppercase on "animated object". Thanks to your link, I had the pleasure to find that, indeed, Animated Object was a creature entry on its own. However, for me, a Stone Golem is a "construct", which equate "X or Y" (meaning either X or Y or both), X being an "animated object". Without link or capitals in the PRD, that means it's an object which happens to be animated. And it happens to be made of stone, too. As a DM, I'll apply what I think is RAW: Stone Shape works against Stone Golems. I'll also put other types of golems in my adventures, you know, for the variety. But every DM (and player) can have its own opinion, discuss them, and act on them.
Everyone here speaks English to the best of his ability.
Everyone here interprets the word "or" as they are used to.Now, I'm not going to comment further in this thread because my opinion doesn't seem to be that well received (and sorry for this rant).
I did not meant my post to be a personal attack but to point out what I considered a partial truth and thus a flawed argument.
I also added another post adressing why I thought your inclusive interpretation of the word "or" was not adequate for the issue in the context of PF rules.I think several posters, have shown simpathy to your interpretation and rulings to implementate it, even if the consensus is that RAW should forbid it.
You don't have to apologize for having a different opinion, but it's not "everything goes" either.
Still, if you feel denigrated by my statements or my use of the english language I sincerely apologize.
"creatures or objects" doesn't mean "either creatures or objects but not both"This is absolutely true BTW, "OR" can imply both inclusive or exclusive disjunction.
But bear in mind that altough in a general sense a construct could be considered an object and a creature at the same time, in the context of the rules object and creature are mutually exclusive.
Creatures must have wisdom(to perceive the world) and charisma(to exert himself on the world) scores as opposed to objects that don't have them.
I think the clincher here is the Wisdom/Charisma rule, when defining what is an object, vs what is a creature. You could make the argument that all creatures are objects without this, and that would break spellcasting entirely
|
Everyone is entitled his own opinion.
Everyone is entitled his own interpretation of the rules.
Yeah, but sometimes the rules don't leave any room for interpretation. Especially when you're looking at it from multiple angles. No amount of opinion can change that, especially when you factor in the 'Animated Object = Creature' fact, and the 'Golems have spell Immunity thus rendering Stone Shape useless even *if* you could use it' fact. You can houserule it to suit your tastes and your games, but that won't change any of the facts.
I'm with the OP, myself, let it work once for the sake of moving the game along, then investigate the issue further when we're not busy running/playing an adventure.
I think the clincher here is the Wisdom/Charisma rule, when defining what is an object, vs what is a creature. You could make the argument that all creatures are objects without this, and that would break spellcasting entirely
Spellcasting doesn't really need any more "oomph" than it has right now, I'd say.
|
|
I think the target argument needs some consideration of their implications. Suddenly there are a slew of additional spells that Constructs are immune to.
Well, for one thing - all of these shaping spells assume that whatever you're shaping is sitting perfectly still and allowing you to shape it, as opposed to desperately trying to bludgeon you unto death.
In all honesty, we're looking at a set of utility spells designed to let you make furniture or escape being caved-in/prison. Trying to turn it into a combat-applicable spell changes the dynamic and requires the spells be a bit more detailed than "you can make doors and chairs and windowpanes."
I see two approaches:
1. The golem would have the 30% spell failure
2. The basalt cube (or whatever new shape) would still be a golem... and just because it's a cube doesn't mean it can't roll like a dice. (keeping a slam attack and as opposed to having attacks from the arms.)
Since the spell doesn't do damage I'd have suggested to the player to describe the golem's new shape with a suggestion that they focus on immoblizing it.. I don't think I'd let a spell like that kill the golem though. (But if it was immobilized and dealt with than they'd get the xp for it too.)
A wood golem is slowed for about 2d6 rounds after a warp wood/wood shape is applied to it.
I suppose the stone golem is just missing something akin to this vulnerability. I would give an effect similar to that to the golem in this situation.
Destroying the golem via one spell is destroying an encounter that could've been fun.. while giving a weakening effect to a golem via one spell rewards creativity.
This looks like a good candidate for an errata/FAQ.
As GM, I'd most likely make a ruling that makes sense to the situation overall. Situations like this arise at times when rules are this complex and you can't expect the rules to have a addressed every possible interaction of said rules. A CR 11 creature having completely no defense against a 3rd level spell is one thing, but having that spell also neutralize it on top of that is a bit overpowered. At the same time, I would not want to steal the players' thunder and diminish their creativity. I'd probably rule that casting the spell on enchanted stone suppresses its normal form for 1d4 rounds (much like casting a dispel magic on a permanent magical item). After that time, stone that has been enchanted in some way would revert to its original form. This IMO keeps the spell from being overpowered and at the same time not completely useless. After all, a spell called stone shape should have some effect on a creature called a stone golem, it just shouldn't auto-beat it, unless it were high level (like 5+).
As others have stated, if I thought about it at the time, I would have ruled that the stone shape spell works on the golem for a round or two (golem losing a full round of actions) while it reforms itself, but otherwise not harmed by the spell.
Alternatively you could say the spell washes over the golem without effect, but where's the fun in that? /salute!
This looks like a good candidate for an errata/FAQ.
As GM, I'd most likely make a ruling that makes sense to the situation overall. Situations like this arise at times when rules are this complex and you can't expect the rules to have a addressed every possible interaction of said rules. A CR 11 creature having completely no defense against a 3rd level spell is one thing, but having that spell also neutralize it on top of that is a bit overpowered. At the same time, I would not want to steal the players' thunder and diminish their creativity. I'd probably rule that casting the spell on enchanted stone suppresses its normal form for 1d4 rounds (much like casting a dispel magic on a permanent magical item). After that time, stone that has been enchanted in some way would revert to its original form. This IMO keeps the spell from being overpowered and at the same time not completely useless. After all, a spell called stone shape should have some effect on a creature called a stone golem, it just shouldn't auto-beat it, unless it were high level (like 5+).
I like this solution.
If it says creature in the spell description and the argument is that a construct isn't a creature you have to ask yourself what the designers intended. Did they intend for this spell to wipe out a big pricey guardian? I'm thinking they didn't. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem quite right. Seems like an exploited loophole with the potential to make stone golems obsolete by choosing a single spell at a certain level, a level lower than what one would expect for such an instantaneous shut-down.
Maveric28 just uncovered something here. For me, it's the need to add the words OR CONSTRUCT to the stone shape spell.
But then this is your game, guys. Play it any way ya wanna and have fun.
I see two approaches:
1. The golem would have the 30% spell failure
That's another question of mine. Should the "There is a 30% chance that any shape including moving parts simply doesn't work" be interpreted as
1) The spell has a 30% spell failure
or
2) The spell works but the moving part does not work 30% of the times
or
3) The spell works but there's a 30% chance that any moving parts will be 'fused' together and refuse to move as intended.
I always interpreted as 3), but I might be wrong.
As for the OP, I'm also in the camp of those who'd consider the golem as a creature, thus not being an illegible target for Stone Shape (which by the was is a favorite spell of one of my players, who has used it with great effectiveness in many, many situations. Stone Shape is often prepared in my group.)
That being said, I like to encourage imaginative use of spells in my group, so I would have probably allowed the spell to affect the golem in some ways (Stone Shape does not allow save nor SR after all, and a golem isn't that far from being an object). A slow or paralysis effect would have been my ruling... probably.
I know that if my player would have been in the same situation, she would have attempted to affect the immediate environment of the golem (assuming its made of stone) to result in a temporary (effective) slow or paralysis effect for the golem...
|
Well, for one thing - all of these shaping spells assume that whatever you're shaping is sitting perfectly still and allowing you to shape it, as opposed to desperately trying to bludgeon you unto death.
In a way this has been taken care of in the spell description. It hasn't been mentioned that this spell is not a guarantee. it is a ranged touch attack (which can be difficult to hit that moving target). Yes I realize that your to-hits on ranged touch attacks are usually pretty good, but they're certainly not 100%.
I'm personally on the side of the argument that it's still just a piece of magically altered stone, not a true creature and thus would be hit by the spell. On the other hand, I also believe that PCs that think creatively with utilitarian spells should be rewarded for out-of-the-box thinking. Giving them a bone like this 1) really can make for an exciting event in an adventure and 2) lets your PCs know that it's not always about who swings the hardest.
I vote to give the PCs the pretty cool idea of stone-shaping the golem.
|
|
"creatures or objects" doesn't mean "either creatures or objects but not both"
I stand by my reasoning (construct = animated object = object = valid target)
Sorry but no. You're quoting only the part that better suits your opinion, discarding the "animate" part. If you look at the full sentence:
"A construct is an Animated Object or artificially created creature."
Everyone is entitled his own opinion.
Everyone is entitled his own interpretation of the rules.Now, I thank you for the bolded part, because it makes me appear as a buffoon. I could return the compliment, too, because you put the uppercase on "animated object". Thanks to your link, I had the pleasure to find that, indeed, Animated Object was a creature entry on its own. However, for me, a Stone Golem is a "construct", which equate "X or Y" (meaning either X or Y or both), X being an "animated object". Without link or capitals in the PRD, that means it's an object which happens to be animated. And it happens to be made of stone, too. As a DM, I'll apply what I think is RAW: Stone Shape works against Stone Golems. I'll also put other types of golems in my adventures, you know, for the variety. But every DM (and player) can have its own opinion, discuss them, and act on them.
Everyone here speaks English to the best of his ability.
Everyone here interprets the word "or" as they are used to.Now, I'm not going to comment further in this thread because my opinion doesn't seem to be that well received (and sorry for this rant).
Look, this is not an opinion; it's the definition as per RAW. You may houserule any way you want it, but RAW is how the rules are written. Now, constructs are EITHER animated objects OR creatures; the definition is clear that if it doesn't fit the latter category, then it's an animated object. Stone golem is clearly a creature, right? It's not a question of "choose whichever is more beneficial to the PCs".
And don't start pulling the "definition card" into this; it's a fruitless approach as everyone is quoting their favorite web dictionaries and Wikipedia to ad nauseaum. Likewise with "are you a native speaker?" type of comments (I find them insulting).
Look, this is not an opinion; it's the definition as per RAW. You may houserule any way you want it, but RAW is how the rules are written. Now, constructs are EITHER animated objects OR creatures; the definition is clear that if it doesn't fit the latter category, then it's an animated object. Stone golem is clearly a...Um, animated objects ARE constructs. It says so in their stat block. I can't see how you're going to draw a line between the two RAW.
There IS no RAW definition for "creature", except that:
"Each creature has one type, which broadly defines its abilities. Some creatures also have one or more subtypes. A creature cannot violate the rules of its subtype without a special ability or quality to explain the difference—templates can often change a creature's type drastically."
Construct is a subtype of creature. ALL constructs are, therefore, creatures. Animated objects are constructs RAW. ALL animated objects are therefore creatures (logic: transitive property).
I don't understand what your argument is within this context. It's not like the spell says "Target: One unattended object". It says "Target stone or stone object touched, up to 10 cu. ft. + 1 cu. ft./level". If it were the former, it would obviously not affect an animated object OR construct. The latter is up for debate.
I just wrote a post regarding the logic of this (but deleted it), but yes I agree with the last paragraph here. It's not an issue of can it target a creature or animated object because the target choices are: stone or stone object touched, the former of which a stone golem is made up of.
|
|
Look, this is not an opinion; it's the definition as per RAW. You may houserule any way you want it, but RAW is how the rules are written. Now, constructs are EITHER animated objects OR creatures; the definition is clear that if it doesn't fit the latter category, then it's an animated object. Stone golem is clearly a...Um, animated objects ARE constructs. It says so in their stat block. I can't see how you're going to draw a line between the two RAW.
There IS no RAW definition for "creature", except that:
"Each creature has one type, which broadly defines its abilities. Some creatures also have one or more subtypes. A creature cannot violate the rules of its subtype without a special ability or quality to explain the difference—templates can often change a creature's type drastically."
Construct is a subtype of creature. ALL constructs are, therefore, creatures. Animated objects are constructs RAW. ALL animated objects are therefore creatures (logic: transitive property).
I don't understand what your argument is within this context. It's not like the spell says "Target: One unattended object". It says "Target stone or stone object touched, up to 10 cu. ft. + 1 cu. ft./level". If it were the former, it would obviously not affect an animated object OR construct. The latter is up for debate.
Yes, you're correct; animated objects are indeed creatures. Yet I never said they aren't constructs. However, constructs are described as being "animated objects or creatures", and it seems some people cling to the first half of that sentence i.e. ruling that golems are animated objects, too. Ergo, if a spell targets an object, it should target a golem, too. However, I don't think it's what RAW says. This is how I read it (and to me it's pretty clear): "constructs are either permanently or temporarily animated objects -- as per 'Animate Object' and similar spells or Craft Construct feat -- or magically crafted automatons, such as golems powered by elemental spirits" (although I have to say PF RPG has mixed this up a bit from 3E with Construct Points; e.g. the difference between an animated stone statue and a stone golem becomes hazier, at least in the mind of players).
As for the spell itself, I think "object" in this case means "unattended/inanimate object that is not an actual creature/monster or a part of it". Besides, if it *did* affect animated objects/constucts, would it not say so?
I see this debate being in the same category as "Why can't I use 'Shatter' on the Lich's skull to insta-kill it?" or "You can't use Stealth to hide from anybody as long as there is a single being around that *might* be potentially observing you".
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.