| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would recommend posting this in the "Advice forum", rather than Rules Discussion, as there isn't really a "rule" in question here.
But to address the topic, I would say that Golems don't feel immune to magic, rather they are effected by it differently. With the availability of Cantrips that deal all of the different types of magic, I don't see this as being that big of a deal, and in some cases can even be a buff to that spell.
As for Telekinetic Projectile, this is a bit more ambiguous. Technically, telekinetic projectile is a spell. So it would be subject to the Golem's general immunity to Magic, without interacting with it's "Anti-Magic" unless it is effected by physical damage through that feature. In practice, as a house rule, I would probably allow it to deal it's damage as normal, as the damage is coming from the velocity of the flung object, and not nebulous "magical" energy, then make it subject to the resistance instead. This would also apply to any other forms of physical damage dealt by a spell.
All in all, they seem to make interesting enemies that planning can help with, but is not needed to directly combat them. Even with Resistance 10, at appropriate levels a martial without an adamantine weapon will still be doing damage. Just less.
You also don't need to critically succeed your first recall knowledge check. Leaving aside variation between how kniwledge checks are handled by different GMs (there are already threads for that), it is possible to make follow on checks for more information until you fail, if you only have part of what you need to know.
Either use the easier way and buff your friends (Haste, Heroism etc.) or use indirect spells to damage or hinder them. Though I have to admit that the current spell selection for doing so probably is very high level and very limited. For example a Wall of stone will block a Golem like any other earthbound creature and spells like Earthquake or Disintegrate can still damage it, either by resulting in falling damage or by collapsing some structure on the golem.
Either use the easier way and buff your friends (Haste, Heroism etc.) or use indirect spells to damage or hinder them. Though I have to admit that the current spell selection for doing so probably is very high level and very limited. For example a Wall of stone will block a Golem like any other earthbound creature and spells like Earthquake or Disintegrate can still damage it, either by resulting in falling damage or by collapsing some structure on the golem.
I would argue that, so long as you have the knowledge necessary, damage cantrips are the best option for most casters, since Golem Antimagic reduces the effect of any elemental spell they use otherwise.
At level 10 for a clay golem, your 5d4+stat Ray of Frost becomes a 5d10. Similar interactions for other golem types.
Though slowing the golem with walls and other effects like Earthquade is valid as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IN 2e, it seems really challenging to battle golems. They have DR adamantine, and having many different weapons (cold iron, silver, adamantine, bludgeon, piercing, slashing, nonlethal, etc.) seems discouraged and difficult to do.
In addition, the "immunity to magic" is incredibly more powerful in 2e - as there are no 'no SR conjuration' spells anymore.
How do spellcasters fight golems? none of their spells work, excepting the one unique spell for each golem (which probably requires an exceptional success on a recall knowledge check to learn, which is by no means likely).
I would like to argue the Telekinetic Projectile cantrip is an ideal choice, but it is a spell, and golems are immune to all magic (2e doesn't give us a mechanism to make an obvious exception).
Any thoughts or recommendations?
Trying to avoid playing 2e like 1e, where all characters have a golf bag of weapons and scrolls for every annoying scenario that only has one viable solution.
Golems are very difficult to face because they're basically Anti-Magic Fighters with Barbarian levels of Damage. Spellcasters might as well surrender because they can't realistically face off against it.
Really, your only chance is to have an on-tier Adamantine Weapon in the hands of your strongest front-liner. Buff said frontliner with everything you got and get out of both of their ways. Eventually said frontliner will beat Golem into submission.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making that knowledge check and taking advantage of it is key.
My party went up against a clay golem and got completely clobbered; by itself it forced them to retreat. However, they identified its weakness to Ray of Frost.
Their second encounter with the golem, it had backup and the encounter was still a curbstomp in my party's favor. Slightly better tactics on their part combined with insane Ray of Frost damage basically trivialized it.
Cold is effective vs 4 of the 6 Golems, so always having someone who can do Cold damage is great. Sure it doesn't damage all of them, but Slowed 1 for 2D6 rounds, combined with their relatively low speed, should pretty much neutralize them as threats. The other 2 are slowed by Electricity, and given that Electric Arc is the best Cantrip, every party should have at least one person who can cast it.
Sure, you're gonna have a bad time if you throw Produce Flame at a metal Golem, but other than that, even their Resistance shouldn't be a huge deal.
The lowest level Golem is level 8. Assuming a party encounters it at 6th, their martials are doing somewhere around 22 average damage per blow (this is a fairly conservative number assuming 2D8+4 weapon damage and 9 damage from other sources like Precision, Sneak Attack, Rage, etc...), some less, some a lot more. Resistance 5 still means it's only going to take 8-9 blows to down one, even with sub-optimal builds.
For what it's worth, the lowest level I know of that PCs will encounter a golem at in Paizo published adventures is when they are at level 3. So using only unmodified bestiary golems is no more of a rule for 1st party content than for any home game.
For what it's worth, the lowest level I know of that PCs will encounter a golem at in Paizo published adventures is when they are at level 3. So using only unmodified bestiary golems is no more of a rule for 1st party content than for any home game.
What adventure is that?
** spoiler omitted **
Thanks. Those Golems are substantially weaker than the Bestiary Golems though.
Alchemical weapons are a nice tool to use against golems. If you have an alchemist they can avoid both physical resistance and immunity to magic with their bombs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spellcasters might as well surrender because they can't realistically face off against it.
That really depends on the type of golem and spellcaster, doesn't it?
My primal sorcerer can reliably trigger weakness with cantrips on every type of golem except Alchemical and will often be doing comparable damage to what they'd be doing against a normal enemy when spending spell slots.
You've said that twice but I'm not seeing anything an alchemist can do that's particularly effective against stone golems.
I guess the alchemist could kite one since they're slow, but pretty much anyone who isn't a dwarf and has a decent ranged attack could do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You've said that twice but I'm not seeing anything an alchemist can do that's particularly effective against stone golems.
I guess the alchemist could kite one since they're slow, but pretty much anyone who isn't a dwarf and has a decent ranged attack could do that.
The only way I can see it is if they are incorrectly having the magic effects work for bombs: harmed by cold and water (5d10, 2d8 from areas and persistent damage) instead of normal effect. 5d10 from Frost Vial (Lesser) made with perpetual infusions would be impressive if that actually worked. Using a normal Frost Vial attack would be a lot of nickle and diming it to make it through 175 hp: I think he'd have to back up to the next country to do enough damage to kill one.
The only way I can see it is if they are incorrectly having the magic effects work for bombs: harmed by cold and water (5d10, 2d8 from areas and persistent damage) instead of normal effect. 5d10 from Frost Vial (Lesser) made with perpetual infusions would be impressive if that actually worked. Using a normal Frost Vial attack would be a lot of nickle and diming it to make it through 175 hp: I think he'd have to back up to the next country to do enough damage to kill one.You've said that twice but I'm not seeing anything an alchemist can do that's particularly effective against stone golems.
I guess the alchemist could kite one since they're slow, but pretty much anyone who isn't a dwarf and has a decent ranged attack could do that.
Well, that or inflict some persistent damage and hope the GM has REAL bad rolls for about 3 days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for Telekinetic Projectile, this is a bit more ambiguous. Technically, telekinetic projectile is a spell. So it would be subject to the Golem's general immunity to Magic, without interacting with it's "Anti-Magic" unless it is effected by physical damage through that feature. In practice, as a house rule, I would probably allow it to deal it's damage as normal, as the damage is coming from the velocity of the flung object, and not nebulous "magical" energy, then make it subject to the resistance instead. This would also apply to any other forms of physical damage dealt by a spell.All in all, they seem to make interesting enemies that planning can help with, but is not needed to directly combat them. Even with Resistance 10, at appropriate levels a martial without an adamantine weapon will still be doing damage. Just less.
The problem with Golems and Telekinetic Projectile is that the specific Imunity to Spells is not discussed in the general section on immunity, just in the golem entry itself as Golem Antimagic.
From the general rules on immunites we can see that you can still target a creature than is immune. So really it just swings on whether the GM allows it or not. Ask your GM if a rock fell off a cliff onto a Golem, would the Golem potentially take damage? Does it matter if magic pushed the rock off the cliff? Does it matter if magic hurled the rock? Traditionally in the game that sort of attack was always viewed as indirect and allowed to affect creatures in an antimagic field etc etc. But its a new game and the rules don't specify. Some GMs are going to look tighly at the golem description and say no.
Technically an adamantine rock hurled by Telekinetic Projectile doesn't bypass the resistance. Though it does if it rolls off a cliff.
Because the spell has a clause No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage. This clause is clearly there to stop people trying to throw flaming +1 daggers and asking for more damage, but technically it gets this too.
In games I GM, I will be allowing telekinetically hurled adamantine coins to hurt iron golems. But to each his own.
I'd better go back and update my guide.
Alchemical bombs not triggering golem weakness is... weird. I agree that it's RAW, it's just. Weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemical bombs not triggering golem weakness is... weird. I agree that it's RAW, it's just. Weird.
Not really IMO as they made it specifically non-magical because they wanted to make the alchemist non-magical.
I mean a PF1 iron golem hit with a Bottled lightning isn't slowed and hitting it with Alchemist's fire doesn't heal it. So it doesn't seem odd to me. I mean if you ignored it and allowed non-magic damage of that type to work, then you could heal your iron golem with a campfire... That seems odder IMO. I mean you just drop the floor 1' and fill it with oil and light it up when the golem attacks for free 2d8 healing and damage to those fighting it.
I have errored. I did have the alchy stuff trigger the magic stuff, which was incorrect on my part. I'm ashamed of doing it. My table have had several conversations about alchemy not being magic. So, the alchemist should have died....
Eh, it's not the end of the world. Mistakes happen, especially when dealing with a new mechanic on a monster you hadn't run before or weren't familiar with. My party once had a session where one player couldn't make it in the 11th hour. We decided to hold off on continuing the story, as they were reaching a critical part, so instead I pulled an encounter with a Hydra out of my hat. It was 4 level's above the party so I declared it a "what if" scenario just for fun.
I speed read the rules for the creature and then just plunked it down on the table.
After the fact, I realized that I had been running it's regeneration incorrectly and hadn't been taking advantage of it's multiple reactions.
I noted what I had gotten wrong so that if in the future I run a Hydra, I'll know how to run it "properly". Didn't stop the encounter from being fun for all involved, and the creature was still a hefty challenge, even when I missed the opportunity to regrow a head or two or make an extra AoO here and there.
I have errored. I did have the alchy stuff trigger the magic stuff, which was incorrect on my part. I'm ashamed of doing it. My table have had several conversations about alchemy not being magic. So, the alchemist should have died....
Maybe he would still be alive, because i doubt it he would be one on one with the golem without that extra damage bonus ;)
I have errored. I did have the alchy stuff trigger the magic stuff, which was incorrect on my part. I'm ashamed of doing it. My table have had several conversations about alchemy not being magic. So, the alchemist should have died....Maybe he would still be alive, because i doubt it he would be one on one with the golem without that extra damage bonus ;)
He could 1 on 1 if he's much faster than the golem and has enough space to run for his pitiful damage to kill to: it should only take him a few dozen rounds and using every random item around to toss it's way as there is no way bombs alone would kill it.
Oh, there is also pits. I find pits work well in trapping them.
I have errored. I did have the alchy stuff trigger the magic stuff, which was incorrect on my part. I'm ashamed of doing it. My table have had several conversations about alchemy not being magic. So, the alchemist should have died....Maybe he would still be alive, because i doubt it he would be one on one with the golem without that extra damage bonus ;)
He could 1 on 1 if he's much faster than the golem and has enough space to run for his pitiful damage to kill to: it should only take him a few dozen rounds and using every random item around to toss it's way as there is no way bombs alone would kill it.
Oh, there is also pits. I find pits work well in trapping them.
With the athletics modifiers they tend to have, how do you find pits trapping them, instead of just slowing them down?
With the athletics modifiers they tend to have, how do you find pits trapping them, instead of just slowing them down?I have errored. I did have the alchy stuff trigger the magic stuff, which was incorrect on my part. I'm ashamed of doing it. My table have had several conversations about alchemy not being magic. So, the alchemist should have died....Maybe he would still be alive, because i doubt it he would be one on one with the golem without that extra damage bonus ;)
He could 1 on 1 if he's much faster than the golem and has enough space to run for his pitiful damage to kill to: it should only take him a few dozen rounds and using every random item around to toss it's way as there is no way bombs alone would kill it.
Oh, there is also pits. I find pits work well in trapping them.
Same thing in my mind: I wasn't saying it's the sole solution to a golem but golems tend to have low ref saves and grab edge checks so between falling prone and their speed climbing means most waste a round or two from them. Now if you can team up with a caster with Grease that uses that spell on the top 5' of the pit, forcing ref saves to fall into the pit again can extend that time a minute.
What's wrong with a projectile that's actually physical but thrown by a spell actually hitting and damaging a golem? That seems legit. The projectile itself is not magical, it's just a rock or whatever.
Because the projectile isn't what's dealing the damage, the magic is. That's why none of the traits of the projectile matter, and why it doesn't take any damage.
You could use Telekinetic Projectile to throw the most delicate vase in the world, and not only would it not break, it would deal the exact same damage as if you threw a sling bullet instead.
The object is not doing the damage.
What's wrong with a projectile that's actually physical but thrown by a spell actually hitting and damaging a golem? That seems legit. The projectile itself is not magical, it's just a rock or whatever.Because the projectile isn't what's dealing the damage, the magic is. That's why none of the traits of the projectile matter, and why it doesn't take any damage.
You could use Telekinetic Projectile to throw the most delicate vase in the world, and not only would it not break, it would deal the exact same damage as if you threw a sling bullet instead.
The object is not doing the damage.
Yep, marshmallows are as deadly as an Adamantine Chunk.
Yep, marshmallows are as deadly as an Adamantine Chunk.What's wrong with a projectile that's actually physical but thrown by a spell actually hitting and damaging a golem? That seems legit. The projectile itself is not magical, it's just a rock or whatever.Because the projectile isn't what's dealing the damage, the magic is. That's why none of the traits of the projectile matter, and why it doesn't take any damage.
You could use Telekinetic Projectile to throw the most delicate vase in the world, and not only would it not break, it would deal the exact same damage as if you threw a sling bullet instead.
The object is not doing the damage.
This sort of ruling is getting into the area of the Game that the GM should be controlling not the rulebook. I want my GM and players to be making these sorts of calls and extrapolations, to build the story in their game.
Using marshmellows for telekinetic projectile and insisting they do the same damage is a bridge too far for me. While I can appreciate the humour value and that may be enough for you, I'll be walking away from games like this. There needs to be a certain amount of comon sense and predictability in the game world for the participants to constructively cooperate.
This sort of ruling is getting into the area of the Game that the GM should be controlling not the rulebook. I want my GM and players to be making these sorts of calls and extrapolations, to build the story in their game.
If a GM changed ths on me, I'd consider it a houserule and as such something I sould be told about before joining.
Using marshmellows for telekinetic projectile and insisting they do the same damage is a bridge too far for me.
Why? The spell goes out of it way to make it clear this is how it's meant to work.
"You hurl a loose, unattended object that is within range and that has 1 Bulk or less at the target.": marshmellows are objects under a bulk, check. Also damage isn't based on the object itself past damage type. A pillow, a feather, a mushroom, a pile of dung, ect all work.
"No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage.": So nothing is carried over from the object. The object can be poisonous, razor sharp, jagged, diseased, explosive, ect and it deals the exact same damage so why does it blow your mind if the reverse is true that no mater how soft, malleable, light, small, ect the object is it also deals the same damage.
While I can appreciate the humour value
It wasn't meant in that way AT ALL: I specifically picked the least dangerous object I could think of to make a point that the base object is meaningless.
I'll be walking away from games like this.
If you don't want to follow the rules as presented, I'm not going to stop you.
There needs to be a certain amount of comon sense and predictability in the game world for the participants to constructively cooperate.
I agree so I'm confused why you want to change that to make the object matter that the spell makes it VERY clear it doesn't. It fails the 'common sense' check if I can throw an alchemy fire at a target and it not explode but a marshmallow somehow changes things. I we already agree that the object isn't damaged and it's properties don't matter then how isn't it against predictability to make one object have to use it's properties and not be able to do damage... There is NO lower limit on the size, weight, mass or natural damage causing capacity made on the object needed for the spell.