Golem "magic" immunity vs non-magic elemental effects

[hyphz]

A random bit of confusion that came up last session.

Golems have the statement that they are "immune to all spells and magical effects except for their own", but then each golem type has a list of exceptions based on elements.

The question is how this applies where an elemental effect may occur that is not the result of magic. For example if an iron golem is struck by lightning in a thunderstorm, is it slowed (as per its Golem Antimagic entry) or does it take the damage normally because the lightning is not the result of anything magic? If an adamantine golem walks through a burning forest, is it still damaged by the fire rather than healed, becuase it's just regular fire, not magic?

My assumption so far has been to rule that anti "magic" effects apply to all elemental effects because otherwise it slows the game down significantly with arguments about what a magical effect actually does (ranging from whether a dragon's breath is magical or not to "no see, the Corrosive rune just makes acid appear in the wounds caused by my sword, but once it's appeared it's regular acid..") but at the same time, I'm not sure if this results in Golems being too powerful. In particular alchemical items would be much more effective against Golems if the "it has to be magical" rule is followed.

[Goldryno]

I think the wording in the Golem Antimagic entry points pretty strongly to applying specifically towards magic effects only.

So in the first example yes it would take normal lightning damage and not be slowed (unless the storm was created through any type of magic).

An adamantine golem is actually immune to fire but he would not be getting healed by a natural forest fire.

At my table I would personally shut down most arguments with a statement that states all rune effect are magical and all offensive attacks originating from spells are magical (and if there seems to be exceptions I would address the one offs as they came up). I think if we're being precise we can actually see if a monster's technique is magical or not (for instance a dragons breathe weapon has the arcane trait).

For the last point, that is one of the perks of being an alchemist. I believe by most standards they are still considered underpowered so I wouldn't mind giving them this advantage. Them being better able to take down a golem also seems to fit their theme.

Edit: I would also point to the adamantine golem being healed by fire in their Antimagic entry and also having a listed immunity to fire is a good indication that there is supposed to be a distinction.

[hyphz]

Ok. I think the listed immunity does tie it, but I'm not too keen on this because it requires a bunch of rulings about what is and isn't magic. Is a dragon's breath magical, for example? If Produce Flame is cast on a stick that's thrown into a forest, how long before the forest fire isn't magic?

[First World Bard]

hyphz wrote:

Ok. I think the listed immunity does tie it, but I'm not too keen on this because it requires a bunch of rulings about what is and isn't magic. Is a dragon's breath magical, for example? If Produce Flame is cast on a stick that's thrown into a forest, how long before the forest fire isn't magic?

In the latter case: Produce Flame is an effect without a duration. The spell itself is magical. If you use it to light a stick on fire, you end up with a stick on (nonmagical) fire.

[Goldryno]

For the first point you can look at the monsters attack traits to determine if it is magical. This admittedly could slow things down. For the next one it is GMs discretion. I'd probably rule any secondary flames are normal fire.

Fire is the most likely one to create a secondary non magic effect. Yet no golem is more vulnerable to non magic fire than magical fire. Either non magic fire had the normal effect or hits immunity on golems depending on the type. So it shouldn't be abusable by players