Can a Targeted Mage's Disjunction affect a golem?
I would think that you can disjoin a golem, given that golems aren't as powerful as artifacts and mage's disjunction can affect artifacts, and it doesn't allow spell resistance, so Golems shouldn't be immune to it, right?
Yes, it can.
A golem's spell immunity only functions against spells that allow spell resistance. They basically have infinite spell resistance. Their spell immunity is ineffective against spells that don't allow spell resistance, like Mage's Disjunction.
Golems are creatures, not objects. Even the most powerful artifact is still an object.
Golems are not subject to the same rules that magic items are because they are creatures.
Umbral is correct.
edit: Creatures can not be objects. They have completely different rules.
I figure Foz will come back. Before I post any evidence I will state that PF came from 3.5, and is backwards compatible with it. That means it uses the same rules unless otherwise stated. Below you have designers give clarifications on rules, and how they were meant to be played.
The warlock’s eldritch blast description states that it
causes half damage to objects. Can a wielded weapon or
worn armor be the target of an eldritch blast? Does an
eldritch blast cause half damage to constructs?The eldritch blast can target an object, including a wielded
weapon or suit of armor. A construct is a creature, not an
object, and thus suffers normal damage from the eldritch blast.
Doesn't this look familiar?
Would Mordenkainen’s disjunction affect an intelligent
magic item?...............Golems are not magic items, and Mordenkainen’s disjunction affects only “magical effects and magic items.”
Note that in 3.5 Animated Objects also had hardness, and that did not change the designer's ruling.
Golems are creatures, not objects. They cannot be targeted by dispel, magic, mage's disjunction, or similar magic in the hopes of disabling them.
This is also true about animated objects created by Craft Construct (but not true for those created by the animated object spell).
Fozbek and FallingIcicle are wrong I'm afraid.
Actually, I'm not wrong. I was correcting Umbral Reaver's and Concerro's incorrect statements. I never said that mage's disjunction would work on golems. Golems aren't animated objects, and those are the only creatures that are specifically called out as objects; disjunction would work on animated objects, but there's no way to tell for sure one way or the other by RAW whether they would work on golems.
I provided reasons why it might. I never made a statement that it does or should.
Fair enough.
Actually, I'm not wrong. I was correcting Umbral Reaver's and Concerro's incorrect statements. I never said that mage's disjunction would work on golems. Golems aren't animated objects, and those are the only creatures that are specifically called out as objects; disjunction would work on animated objects, but there's no way to tell for sure one way or the other by RAW whether they would work on golems.
I provided reasons why it might. I never made a statement that it does or should.
You can't go backtracking when your post is immortalized online.
Golems are creatures, not objects. Even the most powerful artifact is still an object.
.....In addition, ...There's also nothing that says a creature can't be an object. Golems are created using an Item Creation feat, Craft Construct. As in, the feat has the parenthetical type, "Item Creation", the same as Craft Wondrous Items and so on.
How were you not insinuating a Golem could be an object?, and Animated Object despite the name are not objects anymore. They are creatures.
An object becoming a creature is not the same as an object being a creature. Once is a statement of transformation. The other is a statement of dual being.They need to reinstate the line that a wisdom of 1 makes something into a creature.