Sorcerer - Impossible Bloodline and spell effects on constructs

[K-Rod]

Hello everyone, I wanted to get a second opinion on what a sorcerer with the impossible bloodline is able to affect on constructs. The impossible bloodline states the following:

*******

Constructs are susceptible to your enchantment (compulsion) spells as if they were not mind-affecting.

Constructs are treated as living creatures for the purposes of determining which spells affect them.

*********

From the above, I understand that a sorcerer can target a construct with any spell that normally refers to a living creature in the "target" section or in the body of the description. Furthermore, it removes the constructs immunity to enchantment (compulsion) in regards to mind-affecting spells, which means it would bypass that specific immunity only.

Another person believes that the second line references that all spells should work and that the construct become a living being, for the purpose of the spell, which means that it loses all immunities as per it's construct type for any spell cast by the sorcerer with the impossible bloodline. So, therefore, the construct would lose it's immunity to all death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects), necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). Constructs would be subject to nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain. Constructs would be at risk of death from massive damage.

Which understanding is correct? If we went with the broader idea that all immunities are bypassed by the impossible bloodline, will this cause balance issues? In a more specific example, would spells, such as ray of exhaustion (which is a necromancy effect that causes exhaustion/fatigue) or Stinking Cloud (which causes nausea and poison effects) work on a construct if cast by a sorcerer with the impossible bloodline?

Thanks

[Saldiven]

Well, the second sentence says they are "treated as living." It doesn't say they "become living." So, the assertion that they "become living" or somehow change what they actually are is clearly not supported by the rules. There is nothing to indicate that the construct would lose anything other than what is specifically mentioned (immunity to Compulsion spells).

If the second interpretation were correct, there would be no need for the first sentence of the rule, now would there?

[The Sideromancer]

Saldiven wrote:

Well, the second sentence says they are "treated as living." It doesn't say they "become living." So, the assertion that they "become living" or somehow change what they actually are is clearly not supported by the rules. There is nothing to indicate that the construct would lose anything other than what is specifically mentioned (immunity to Compulsion spells).

If the second interpretation were correct, there would be no need for the first sentence of the rule, now would there?

The first sentence is needed because not all living creatures have an Int score, so treating a construct as living would not remove its immunity to compulsions.

[Murdock Mudeater]

My understanding is that that both lines are true in relation to spell targeting paramiters, and don't affect other aspects of the creature. So a Cleric 1/Sorcerer 1 with the impossible bloodline could use Cure Light Wounds on a Construct, since the target is a living creature. That said, if the spell is cast on a golem with spell immunity, the spell immunity would still prevent the cure light wounds since cure light wounds allows SR.