|
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?
I don't see the issue. Normally, LB wouldn't effect the golem (immunity). If the flesh golem is hit by a LB spell, he is instead HEALED, rather than damaged. You CANNOT damage a flesh golem with an electricity spell.
re:weapon damage- I'd prolly rule that the weapon die and any bonuses to damage from STR etc would apply, but then extra dice of damage form Shock or such would actually HEAL the creature,since the base spell for those effects is shocking grasp.
re: Fire and ice spells- no, they do not do damage AND have a separate effect, they just have the special effect in place of normal damage.
Casters should not fight golems with damage spells.
I'm going to agree with Ender_rpm. Lighting bolt or shocking grasp or whatever electric spell you want does no damage (either by immunity due to SR or by the special resistance) and then it gains 1 hit point for every 3 that would have been dealt. It doesn't actually have to deal damage, it just has to (essentially) have damage dice to roll. The wording is "magical attack that deals electricity damage breaks any slow effect..." not "magical attack that deals electricity damage to the golem breaks any slow effect...". This is a key distinction that applies to the fire/cold damage spells too. They just have to normally deal damage to initiate the effect.
I see what you're saying, but it's a non-issue. The spell/spell-like ability's effect doesn't happen against an immune target. However, due to the exceptions after the "in addition" text, the golem is subject to effects stated in the description. Those effects are not actually caused by the spell itself -- but by virtue of the conditions stated.
For instance, fireball itself doesn't slow a flesh golem for 2d6 rounds with no saving throw. The golem is immune to fireball because fireball is subject to spell resistance. However, fireball is a spell with the fire descriptor. Because of that, there is an effect that happens when a flesh golem is subject to a fireball. The actual spell has no effect; the conditions (subject to a fire spell) have an effect.
Let's say that a flesh golem is subject to a fireball -- but has fire resistance 20. He takes no damage because the spell never goes off -- he is immune to it. He is still slowed for 2d6 rounds because he was hit by a fire attack.
Now, if the flesh golem were immune to fire damage, that's a different story:
In this case, he isn't subject to "secondary effects that are triggered" from the fireball spell -- meaning he wouldn't be slowed for 2d6 rounds.
But the number of fire immune flesh golems is relatively rare. . .
|
|
I don't see the issue. Normally, LB wouldn't effect the golem (immunity). If the flesh golem is hit by a LB spell, he is instead HEALED, rather than damaged. You CANNOT damage a flesh golem with an electricity spell.
re: Fire and ice spells- no, they do not do damage AND have a separate effect, they just have the special effect in place of normal damage.
I'm totally OK with your ruling above, re electricity not causing damage. It would be pointless having a healing effect and a damage effect taking place simultaneously.
I'm also willing to go along with any DM who rules your way on fire & cold. And I'm happy to run it that way myself, in the absence of any official word on the issue. And I believe many DMs do run it that way.
My problem is that the writing is sloppy, and has been that way for years, being carried forward from 3.5, and that every DM is being forced to houserule. They may all(?) houserule the same way, but my objection is that they are being expected to houserule at all.
IE I am totally happy for the golem to be affected this way, but want the rules rewritten, so they explicitly say what they mean, and mean what they say, with no possibility of being interpreted differently.
My objection is not with the end results, but the means taken to reach that end.
There are easier, shorter, and clearer ways to write the ability, than the one the writers chose in 2000, and chose to carry forward, almost word-for-word, in 2009.
The problems I have with the text are as follows:
Spell immunity negates any energy spell, with a targetted or area effect.
It's as if the spell never happened, within the vicinity of the golem (for argument's sake, let's imagine an inch-thick bubble of anti-magic projecting around its body).
Therefore, when the golem is in the path of a targetted or AoE spell, it is a perfectly valid view that there is no spell getting through to affect the golem, that can be be altered/increased to a slow/counter-slow/healing effect.
As written, only hitting it with an energy weapon can breach the spell immunity, therefore only those attacks can cause slow/anti-slow/healing effects.
This is the crux of the question. As written, the text raises more questions than it answers. Namely:
Do energy spells susceptible to SR do anything at all? Or fizzle before reaching the golem?
Are all fire and cold damage spells assumed to be an exception to the rule, and bypass the golem's spell immunity? If so, they do actually reach the golem.
If fire and cold damage spells bypass spell immunity, and reach the golem, do they deal damage AND slow the golem, OR is all the energy dissipated and transformed into the slow effect?
Or are the rider effects only assumed to apply in the case of energy damage that ignores SR? (such as a flaming sword)
If a flaming sword bypasses SR, does it do normal damage, or normal + fire damage? It simply isn't clear if the rider effect is AND, or OR.
When you have a long-running group, you instinctively develop a style based on common consensus, but the nightmare situation is to be at a Con, or to bring in a new player, who challenges the group's comfortable assumptions with what are perfectly reasonable questions.
Player: "Why should my pet golem be slowed by a cone of cold? The ice never reaches him, so cannot sap his strength!"
DM: Err,... well, you'll have to take my word for it.
Or,
Player: "How can the necromancer be buffing his golem? The lightning fizzles out before reaching it, so how can it be recharging?"
DM: "Err,... it just does, OK?"
Player: "You're just making this up as you go along. I think you're cheating because we're beating your NPCs."
If it seems as though I'm being pedantic, it's simply because I had an idea for an encounter that would be brutally punishing, and would prefer to have concrete rules on my side, to avoid face-offs like the above, by having something to point to, other than my own gut feeling.
|
|
Immunity (Ex or Su) A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect.
Good catch on the immunity to secondary effects.
I'd have to rule that applies to beneficial secondary effects, too.My initial plan was to explicitly state that fire/cold/electric spells ignored their spell immunity, then give a flesh golem energy immunities, but that would negate the slow/anti-slow/healing tactics.
Maybe they could have Fire/Cold/Electrical Resistance 50, or some other unlikely amount?
That way, the spells get through, damage is rolled, damage almost always ignored, but the rider effects still kick in (just checked PFSRD, no mention of ignoring secondary effects if damage reduced beyond 0).
This would make them immune to most naturally occurring fire/cold/electric sources, and the low amounts dealt by flametongues and suchlike, but it would still be a valuable weapon, due to the bonus slowing effect. Unfeasible amounts of fire and cold would still hurt them, and so would an ally attacking them recklessly with high caster-level electricity spells (effectively 'overloading' their batteries)?
That being said and back in 3.5 when Breath Weapons were not innately magical for Dragons (being an (Ex) ability back then for most of them), WoTC ruled that the energy damage from natural sources bypassed a Golems immunity including the damage dealt by a Dragons Breathweapon.
Back then it had much to do with what allowed Spell Resistance first, and then did it deal that type of energy damage?, if it did allow SR then the healing effect applies. If it didnt allow SR then the healing effect/slowing effect and so on was ignored and dealt damage normally
Since Breath Weapons are now (Su) effects this no longer stands, since its a Supernatural effect...or as one of my players argued, should it?
Breath Weapons do not allow Spell Resistance, and even in 3.X golems took full damage from effects that did not allow SR. Even now the wording is the same, mostly anyway, now they quantify (such as in the Flesh Golem example) all electricity damage together for game balance purposes.
But since spells that allow SR dont deal damage, the few that didnt allow SR damaged them just fine before (that is....the rare few that dont allow SR) by WoTC's ruling back then, with the clarification on the damage type a Blue Dragons breath weapon would heal a Flesh Golem (which logically it should).
But other "No Spell Resistance" spells would certainly affect the Golem, as long as they did not deal the types of damage for the Golem that trigger 'special effects' such as to slow them, etc.
But in general, a Flesh Golem is immune to any source of electricty damage by the new rules but has a different effect applied instead, it works the same way as it did before but the difference is the ability is a little bit worded better...but still confusing I agree.
I'm with Mauril. A flesh golem takes no damage from a fireball (since it's immune to spells), and in addition it is slowed by a fireball (since fireball is a magical attack that deals fire damage).
Personally, I'd like to see golems have a hardness score, similar to animated objects. Then you wouldn't end up with strange situations like an iron golem that's burned to death by hitting it with alchemist's fire (even though magical fire would heal it, and an ordinary iron statue would be immune to such puny amounts of fire damage).
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Golems' immunity to magic ONLY extends to effects that normally allow SR checks. A good way to think of this is that if an effect hits a golem and has to roll an SR check, you just assume that the SR check fails to penetrate the golem's SR. Every golem has a few spells that affect it in unusual ways, and these exceptions automaticlly get through this phantom SR but have different effects than normal.
Effects that don't get blocked by SR, such as acid arrow, a dragon's breath weapon, or the fire on a flaming sword hurt the golem normally unless it ALSO happens to have resistance or immunity to that teffect (as in the case of the ice golem, which is immune to all cold effects).
For something like a flesh golem, it says ANY magical attack that deals cold, fire, or electricity damage affects the golem in a specific way that's different than the attack's normal (usually damage causing) effect. This applies to ANY magical attack, not just those that have to penetrate SR.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Mauril. A flesh golem takes no damage from a fireball (since it's immune to spells), and in addition it is slowed by a fireball (since fireball is a magical attack that deals fire damage).
Personally, I'd like to see golems have a hardness score, similar to animated objects. Then you wouldn't end up with strange situations like an iron golem that's burned to death by hitting it with alchemist's fire (even though magical fire would heal it, and an ordinary iron statue would be immune to such puny amounts of fire damage).
True... but common sense should step in here and say that alchemist's fire should be treated the same way as magical fire. It's a case where there's a slight flaw in the wording of the rules text that shouldn't be abused by the GM to create a silly situation... such as an iron golem being burned to death by a tiny vial of what's essentially burning gasoline.
Personally, I'd like to see golems have a hardness score, similar to animated objects. Then you wouldn't end up with strange situations like an iron golem that's burned to death by hitting it with alchemist's fire (even though magical fire would heal it, and an ordinary iron statue would be immune to such puny amounts of fire damage).True... but common sense should step in here and say that alchemist's fire should be treated the same way as magical fire. It's a case where there's a slight flaw in the wording of the rules text that shouldn't be abused by the GM to create a silly situation... such as an iron golem being burned to death by a tiny vial of what's essentially burning gasoline.
My point is that there's an existing mechanic that covers it pretty well (hardness), so why not use that instead of "DR X/adamantine + common sense"?
|
|
For something like a flesh golem, it says ANY magical attack that deals cold, fire, or electricity damage affects the golem in a specific way that's different than the attack's normal (usually damage causing) effect. This applies to ANY magical attack, not just those that have to penetrate SR.
So do you run it that, in the case of a flaming weapon, a successful hit would deal normal weapon damage, then:-
a) the fire damage would breach the golems spell immunity, BUT be transformed into a slow effect, INSTEAD of the extra damage?
b) the fire damage would breach the golems spell immunity, AND be inflict a slow effect, AS WELL as the extra damage?
That's one of the parts that's not clear, given the use of the words
'in addition, certain spells and effects function differently',
rather than
'certain spells and effects have an additional effect',
which aren't quite the same thing.
Thanks to everyone for contributing, so far.
My aim is not to nerf or power up golems, but simply to settle on a rewritten ability, that explicitly sets out what people are already doing by their gut.
It wouldn't be an issue, if it hadn't derailed a 3.0 session several years ago, for these very reasons.
True... but common sense should step in here and say that alchemist's fire should be treated the same way as magical fire. It's a case where there's a slight flaw in the wording of the rules text that shouldn't be abused by the GM to create a silly situation... such as an iron golem being burned to death by a tiny vial of what's essentially burning gasoline.I'm with Mauril. A flesh golem takes no damage from a fireball (since it's immune to spells), and in addition it is slowed by a fireball (since fireball is a magical attack that deals fire damage).
Personally, I'd like to see golems have a hardness score, similar to animated objects. Then you wouldn't end up with strange situations like an iron golem that's burned to death by hitting it with alchemist's fire (even though magical fire would heal it, and an ordinary iron statue would be immune to such puny amounts of fire damage).
I took it as magic is automatically blocked, not elemental attacks. If all elemental attacks are to be block then the monsters should be errated.