Monster Vulnerabilities

[orphias]

Anyone else not a fan of how the monster vulnerabilities seem to work?
For example, a clay golem has the following descricption.

Harmed by Cold and Water: Any cold or water magic that targets the golem causes it to take 5d12 damage instead of the usual effect. If the clay golem starts its turn in the area of cold or water magic, it takes 3d6 damage.

So, a caster hits the golem with a ray of frost for 4 dmg and instead it take 5d12? Or perhaps it takes 15d6 dmg from a cone of cold, but instead it takes 5d12.

Seems funky?

Why not just say takes double damage; or even better maybe using their new critical system, a save is a fail, and a fail is a critical fail? That would make even more sense using their new rules system. Probably how I will end up playing it myself.

[Shaheer-El-Khatib]

Or just add some dice damage.

I agree Paizo need to handle that better

[DerNils]

Didn't even see these yet. I much prefer the simple Resistance/Weakness Substract/Add fixed amount of damage as done for Zombies with positive energy.

[Thebazilly]

Golems are a unique case, since they interact differently with magic than most other creatures. The vulnerability rules you're referencing are a subset of their immunity to magic. It makes sense that it would produce unique and bizarre effects, since golems have unique and bizarre reactions to different types of magic.

Most monster weaknesses are much simpler: fire 8 or silver 5 and so on, which adds the fixed number of damage when they are damaged by that type.

[vestris]

Normal vulnerabilities are just +x to damage. There are some cornercases with elementals and golems and additional rulings like if you throw water on a fire elemental it deals x points of damage and so forth.