| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Does the fact that the spell description of Apparent Master specifically calls out golems as being examples of the types of creatures this spell might affect implicitly mean that Golems' magic immunity wouldn't apply if the spell were used against them?
Also, when it says 'The spell enables you to control the construct completely, with the sole exception that commands directly resulting in damage break the spell', does that mean directing the golem into combat (which would certainly result in damage, though to be fair that's the sole purpose most golems were made) or does it simply mean telling to jump into a lava pit or off of a cliff, etc.?
I would consider 'directly resulting in damage' meaning the golem damages itself (as with your lava/cliff examples), as opposed to being attacked by creatures (which is indirectly damaging).
To the first point ... I don't know. It's an enchantment, and it allows spell resistance, so it definitely shouldn't.
To the first point ... I don't know. It's an enchantment, and it allows spell resistance, so it definitely shouldn't.
That would be my default position, except for the fact that 1) Golems are far and away the most likely creature this spell would be intended for and 2) it specifically says 'golems' in its description. Are there golems that aren't immune to magic?
There certainly could be, if the GM made some.
I think this is just a screwed-up spell. Change the school, and remove SR, then it can actually and clearly function as intended.
Compare/Contrast 'Control Construct':
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/c/control-construct
It's an odd spell that appears in a 3.5 module, and as far as I can tell nowhere else. So the fact that the spell doesn't actually work as written against golems doesn't surprise me. I don't have the module, but perhaps it included a rare golem without Immunity to Magic?
|
It's an odd spell that appears in a 3.5 module, and as far as I can tell nowhere else. So the fact that the spell doesn't actually work as written against golems doesn't surprise me. I don't have the module, but perhaps it included a rare golem without Immunity to Magic?
I checked with someone I know who has the module and there is no "Golem" in it. There are a variety of constructs, but none appear to have the Immunity to Magic ability, so the spell would work on them. So I don't think the module really answers the question one way or the other.
It's an odd spell that appears in a 3.5 module, and as far as I can tell nowhere else. So the fact that the spell doesn't actually work as written against golems doesn't surprise me. I don't have the module, but perhaps it included a rare golem without Immunity to Magic?I checked with someone I know who has the module and there is no "Golem" in it. There are a variety of constructs, but none appear to have the Immunity to Magic ability, so the spell would work on them. So I don't think the module really answers the question one way or the other.
Generally speaking its accepted that specific rules overrule generic rules, and this line seems to do just that...
The spell only affects mindless constructs that are attuned to the commands of a master, such as animated objects, golems, retrievers, and shield guardians.
...so that's the way I think I have to go. It' be nice to get an official ruling though.