Alchemical Golem Leaked


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Logan Bonner posted on his twitter Alchemical Golem bestiary entry if anyone is interested.

As a bonus there is a stat block of Flesh Golem and a bit of text about Clay Golem.

Page 1 Page 2

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber

I am looking forward to GMing for that golem.... that is hilarity.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Still as hilariously awesome as ever.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like how small the creature block is and it looks so easy to run the encounter.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Kyrone wrote:
I like how small the creature block is and it looks so easy to run the encounter.

My thoughts as well. Not to mention the options are very flavorful.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Love it. I converted one of these to the playtest rules a while back. This looks significantly cooler than that effort, Also nice to know Shatter is back in the game.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyrone wrote:
I like how small the creature block is and it looks so easy to run the encounter.

And even that's actually more complicated than the flesh golem right before it. Really looking forward to running combats this edition.

I also like the sidebar about salvaging its components. Crafting and scavenging stuff like that always shows up in my games, because I love them, but it's always nice to see more of that in the actual rules.

Cheers!
Landon

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The thread title made me think 'ugh, I hope someone cleans up that alchemical mess!'

It does look simple to run, but also a lot of interesting bits. I play 5E ATM, which is great fro speed and simplicity behind the DMs screen, but a lot of monsters lack any individuality/interesting stuff to do. It's a balance that is hard to get. 4E was great for that, at least, and it looks like PF2 has picked some of the goodness from there


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if Jason Buhlman is joking or not but it looks like he's giving him heck on twitter for posting it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ograx wrote:
I don't know if Jason Buhlman is joking or not but it looks like he's giving him heck on twitter for posting it.

He actually said he was joking: https://twitter.com/jasonbulmahn/status/1139678230896508928?s=21


9 people marked this as a favorite.

This monster's abilities are so simple yet distinct that other than the specific attack/save numbers you can probably run it from memory. A clear example of how monster design has improved with the PF2 philosophy.


So it says “immunities ... magic” and then golem antimagic tells you what fire or lightning does - but I’m not clear on if this means non elemental magic affects them normally, or not at all (like previous editions)?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
mcintma wrote:

So it says “immunities ... magic” and then golem antimagic tells you what fire or lightning does - but I’m not clear on if this means non elemental magic affects them normally, or not at all (like previous editions)?

They are immune to magic except for those specific effects - most likely, the 'Golem Antimagic' ability is fully defined at the beginning of the golem section of the book, rather than being reprinted in full in each statblock.

We've already seen a similar thing with ex. dragon stats, where older dragons reference the abilities of younger dragons and then just list what is different about their own version.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Fixed.

Imgur Inc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davido1000 wrote:

Fixed.

Imgur Inc.

It looks so...annoyed.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

One thing I noticed: in the ranged attack line, the generate bomb action.

As GM, in the heat of battle, I have to remember that the golem needs to take an action to generate a bomb before it can throw said bomb (another action).

So I can't attack: Syringe, Syringe, throw bomb?

Or can I?

Generate Bomb wrote:
[A] (manipulate) The golem fills an empty vial from one of its alchemical chambers to create a bomb and then makes a bomb Strike. ...

Is that a combined action?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, that is a single action that includes a Strike.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I hope I'm the only one a tad confused by how that is written.

Ranged [A] bomb +20 (magical, thrown 20 feet), Damage see Generate Bomb
...
Generate Bomb [A] (manipulate) ...

For someone reading quickly, that looks like it's an action to generate the bomb, then another action to throw it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:
I hope I'm the only one a tad confused by how that is written.

It's similar to how the PF1 alchemist is "Drawing the components of, creating, and throwing a bomb" in a single action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Image 1 wrote:

Alchemical Golem; Creature 9

Perception +15
Athletics +22
Str +6 ... Wis +0

...the Paranoid Simulationist inside my psyche is greatly relieved that the Alchemical Golem isn't a humanoid (and therefore, potentially playable).

What's with that irregular +7 in the Athletics? I wouldn't have complained if it was a +6 (probably Master, like Perception) or +8... And the Perception bonus (and its syringes' STR damage bonus of +6) seems to have absolutely no errors, by the way...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Image 1 wrote:

Alchemical Golem; Creature 9

Perception +15
Athletics +22
Str +6 ... Wis +0

...the Paranoid Simulationist inside my psyche is greatly relieved that the Alchemical Golem isn't a humanoid (and therefore, potentially playable).

What's with that irregular +7 in the Athletics? I wouldn't have complained if it was a +6 (probably Master, like Perception) or +8... And the Perception bonus (and its syringes' STR damage bonus of +6) seems to have absolutely no errors, by the way...

Maybe its crafted body is of expert quality and gives itself a +1 item bonus to Athletics. The eyes are clearly organic and therefore have no such bonus.

EDIT: No seriously, I wouldn't find it strange if the monster creation rules said something like "At level 9, some monsters can be expected to have an expert tool for the skill they focus in". And later a master tool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:

Maybe its crafted body is of expert quality and gives itself a +1 item bonus to Athletics. The eyes are clearly organic and therefore have no such bonus.

EDIT: No seriously, I wouldn't find it strange if the monster creation rules said something like "At level 9, some monsters can be expected to have an expert tool for the skill they focus in". And later a master tool.

Oh, Item Bonuses. Yeah, I didn't factor in the possibility. Thanks for the good insight!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Maybe its just me but im still a little put off by the saving throws being that high, wouldnt a wizards dc for spells be roughly 23 at level 7. giving the flesh golem more than a 50% chance to pass even on his weakest save.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Or more appropriately, GMs can tweak numbers up and down when making a monster, allowing some leeway in the numbers.
The justification is unnecessary. It has +22 because that helps make it more challenging. No need to add constraints.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davido1000 wrote:
Maybe its just me but im still a little put off by the saving throws being that high, wouldnt a wizards dc for spells be roughly 23 at level 7.giving the flesh golem more than a 50% chance to pass even on his weakest save.

The golem is lv9, so yeah, its saves are good against a lv7 effect. At level 9, a Wizard should be around DC 27.

That said, the golem is immune to magic, so these saves are against physical effects, such as stunning or tripping. And we’re talking about a golem. I’m ok with it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ediwir wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Maybe its just me but im still a little put off by the saving throws being that high, wouldnt a wizards dc for spells be roughly 23 at level 7.giving the flesh golem more than a 50% chance to pass even on his weakest save.

The golem is lv9, so yeah, its saves are good against a lv7 effect. At level 9, a Wizard should be around DC 27.

That said, the golem is immune to magic, so these saves are against physical effects, such as stunning or tripping. And we’re talking about a golem. I’m ok with it.

You make a very good point about golems being inherently antimagic, i was just Nam flashbacks of the playtests numbers. im not sure ive done math incorrectly for lvl 7 wizard dc, 10 + prof (7) + int (5) and this is against the cr7 flesh golem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do like the fact that when you defeat it you can harvest alchemical items from the remains.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davido1000 wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Maybe its just me but im still a little put off by the saving throws being that high, wouldnt a wizards dc for spells be roughly 23 at level 7.giving the flesh golem more than a 50% chance to pass even on his weakest save.

The golem is lv9, so yeah, its saves are good against a lv7 effect. At level 9, a Wizard should be around DC 27.

That said, the golem is immune to magic, so these saves are against physical effects, such as stunning or tripping. And we’re talking about a golem. I’m ok with it.
You make a very good point about golems being inherently antimagic, i was just Nam flashbacks of the playtests numbers. im not sure ive done math incorrectly for lvl 7 wizard dc, 10 + prof (7) + int (5) and this is against the cr7 flesh golem.

Proficiency is entirely reworked, remember. Clerics get expert casting at 7th, so wizards probably do too, and that means level+4. So your DC would be 10 + Prof(11) + Int (4) = 25. So that's a 50/50 shot on its weakest save.

But! That save is reflex, and the only way magic hurts the thing is Fire or Cold, which are almost certainly reflex saves. And assuming Golem Antimagic works the same in the playtest, which very much looks to be the case, than "any fire magic which TARGETS the flesh golem causes it to take 5d8 damage instead of the usual effect." The damage is the same regardless of the golem's saving throw. I might interpret it as unharmed on a critical success, but it only gets that on a natural 20.

So in practice, the golem effectively fails its save 95-100% of the time. :)

That said, there have been other entries from the bestiary you could examine that would have more normal expectations.


Davido1000 wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Maybe its just me but im still a little put off by the saving throws being that high, wouldnt a wizards dc for spells be roughly 23 at level 7.giving the flesh golem more than a 50% chance to pass even on his weakest save.

The golem is lv9, so yeah, its saves are good against a lv7 effect. At level 9, a Wizard should be around DC 27.

That said, the golem is immune to magic, so these saves are against physical effects, such as stunning or tripping. And we’re talking about a golem. I’m ok with it.
You make a very good point about golems being inherently antimagic, i was just Nam flashbacks of the playtests numbers. im not sure ive done math incorrectly for lvl 7 wizard dc, 10 + prof (7) + int (5) and this is against the cr7 flesh golem.

The flesh golem is level 8, so it would be compared to an 8th level wizard's DC 24 (10 Base + 10 Proficiency + 4 Intelligence), giving the golem a 55% chance on its weakest save.

Monsters (at least those we are aware of) do seem to have good odds of success against a same level spellcaster, assuming there aren't any extra DC bonuses in the final version.

Some other comparisons:

Astral Deva, Level 14: High Save +27, Low Save +22, +1 to saves VS magic
Wizard 14: 10 + 18 (Expert Spellcaster) + 6 (Intelligence 22) = DC 34

Grothlut, Level 3: High Save +11, Low Save +5
Wizard 3: 10 + 5 (Trained Spellcaster) + 4 (Intelligence 18) = DC 19

Drider, Level 6: High Save +15, Low Save +13, +1 to saves VS magic
Wizard 6: 10 + 8 (Trained Spellcaster) + 4 (Intelligence 19) = DC 22

Greater Nightmare, Level 11: High Save +25, Low Save +21
Wizard 11: 10 + 15 (Expert Spellcaster) + 5 (Intelligence 20) = DC 30

Lich, Level 12: High Save +23, Low Save +17, +1 to saves VS positive
Wizard 12: 10 + 16 (Expert Spellcaster) + 5 (Intelligence 20) = DC 31


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:

Proficiency is entirely reworked, remember. Clerics get expert casting at 7th, so wizards probably do too, and that means level+4. So your DC would be 10 + Prof(11) + Int (4) = 25. So that's a 50/50 shot on its weakest save.

But! That save is reflex, and the only way magic hurts the thing is Fire or Cold, which are almost certainly reflex saves. And assuming Golem Antimagic works the same in the playtest, which very much looks to be the case, than "any fire magic which TARGETS the flesh golem causes it to take 5d8 damage instead of the usual effect." The damage is the same regardless of the golem's saving throw. I might interpret it as unharmed on a critical success, but it only gets that on a natural 20.

So in practice, the golem effectively fails its save 95-100% of the time. :)

That said, there have been other entries from the bestiary you could examine that would have more normal expectations.

Ahh trained is +2 now, this seems reasonable for what should be a boss monster of that level and looking over others they seem to keep to the same 50% range of appropriate cr.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A quick glance through the bestiary pages reveals that many creatures have bonuses that are indeed proportionately lower than the Flesh Golems. This is not the case for all monsters, however. The common thread I'm seeing between the monsters with very high saving throws is the +1 conditional bonus vs magic. I reckon these are the critters that had spell resistance in PF1, and their higher than average saving throws coupled with that +1 bonus is to make up for losing their spell resistance. Seems like a fair trade, and one that favors the players. I'd much rather resolve it with one roll that gets an effect even on a successful save than have the creature fail the saving throw but I fail to penetrate its spell resistance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I would also note that more spells in P2 tend to have an effect even on a successful save, so having particularly high saves works as a type of SR b/c it allows for a critical success, meaning the spell was fully resisted and has no effect.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Thanks for the math guys, cool to see it laid out like that. :)


A DC 27 at 7th 0r so level is insane.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
A DC 27 at 7th 0r so level is insane.

The much higher numbers generated by (Proficiency = Level + 2/4/6/8) are sure going to take some getting used to


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tqomins wrote:
Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:
A DC 27 at 7th 0r so level is insane.
The much higher numbers generated by (Proficiency = Level + 2/4/6/8) are sure going to take some getting used to

Eh, the values aren't THAT alien. First off, the DC would be 25. A skill you maxed in PF1 would be the proactive equivalent score. (IE, a thing you add to a roll so it isn't increased by 10 like a DC is.) A wizard could have that in Spellcraft easy by 7th. 7 ranks + 3 class skill + 5 Intelligence = +15 before race, traits, feats, or items.

A fighter could hit +15 pretty easy with a weapon, and 25 AC wouldn't be hard either with fairly standard equipment.

The big difference is in PF1 saves and DCs worked off a different fractional math progression than skills and BAB. In PF2, they all use the same progression so skills, to hit, AC, saves, and DCs look much more similar.

If you're coming from 5e, it would be kind of absurd, but 5e's bounded accuracy creates very different stories than Golarion.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I just noticed something hilarious with the Alchemical Golem, because of how proficiecy works, because the higher the level you are compared to the monster the more likely you are to crit with the +10 rule.

However every time they get a critical hit Alchemical Rupture activates and o area damage of 10d6 with DC28 (a DC that casters would get at lvl 12) making them great to fight against at higher levels.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Small quibble - I think DC28 is a 10th level caster.

10 (base) + 10 (level) + 4 (Intelligence) + 4 (expert) = 28.

As mentioned upthread, Clerics get expert at 7th level so it would be odd if Wizards didn't.


Is there a reason why does the Alchemical Golem appears after the Flesh Golem? The Clay Golem appears next in typical alphabetical order.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guessing in Challenge Rating order: Flesh is 8 CR, Alchemical is 9 CR... the playtest has Clay at 10 CR.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well plug him up before all his potions run out!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FowlJ wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Ediwir wrote:
Davido1000 wrote:
Maybe its just me but im still a little put off by the saving throws being that high, wouldnt a wizards dc for spells be roughly 23 at level 7.giving the flesh golem more than a 50% chance to pass even on his weakest save.

The golem is lv9, so yeah, its saves are good against a lv7 effect. At level 9, a Wizard should be around DC 27.

That said, the golem is immune to magic, so these saves are against physical effects, such as stunning or tripping. And we’re talking about a golem. I’m ok with it.
You make a very good point about golems being inherently antimagic, i was just Nam flashbacks of the playtests numbers. im not sure ive done math incorrectly for lvl 7 wizard dc, 10 + prof (7) + int (5) and this is against the cr7 flesh golem.

The flesh golem is level 8, so it would be compared to an 8th level wizard's DC 24 (10 Base + 10 Proficiency + 4 Intelligence), giving the golem a 55% chance on its weakest save.

Actually 8th level DC would most likely be 26 (10 base, 12 proficiency, 4 Int) assuming Wizards now get Expert casting at 7th like the Cloistered Cleric. Which means a 45% chance on its weakest save.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Am surprised targeting the WEAKEST Save is still not like 60%+ to fail. I mean, there's supposed to be room for critically failing them outside of a 20, no?
Are you being rewarded for finding the lowest save or punished for targeting any of the others?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:

Am surprised targeting the WEAKEST Save is still not like 60%+ to fail. I mean, there's supposed to be room for critically failing them outside of a 20, no?

Are you being rewarded for finding the lowest save or punished for targeting any of the others?

In the playtest lowest save usually had a 40-50% chance to pass, with highest saves being 15-20% better. The assumption appears to be that against equal level foes critical fails are only going to happen on a 1 unless you both target the low save and do some debuffs ahead of time.

Against lower level scrubs critical failures will be more plentiful (important for the masses when you Fireball them), but you need to scare/sicken/whatever tough foes if you want to reliably get more than the pity result on a successful save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

As Captain Morgan mentioned above, Golems seem to have above-average saving throws compare to other monsters.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
As Captain Morgan mentioned above, Golems seem to have above-average saving throws compare to other monsters.

Yeah, low Saves on non-Golems seems to average about a 60-65% failure rate from the little we can tell.


And in practice the golem "fails it's save" against spells that actually affect it 95% of the time.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Alchemical Golem Leaked All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.