| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, the golem is immune to the damage.
But:It is substantial enough that it can flank other creatures.Would you be able to flank an ice golem with an illusory creature?
Would the ice golem perceive the magic?
I would say only until the golem interacts with the illusion, either directly by Striking it, or indirectly by being struck by it. The Golum perceives the illusion, but automatically succeeds at it's Perception check or Will save to disbelieve it.
What about Mirror Image? That would make a golem waste attack actions potentially. Or Blur.Again, for me there's a clear line between "is affecting the golem directly" and "is affecting something or someone else"
Mirror image and blur function as-is even if a golem attacks the person benefiting from them for the same reason a character could benefit from true strike even if their target is a golem.
To align that with my phrasing that you questioned: the intended effect of mirror image or blur is to bolster the target, not do anything to the golem, thus the golem's immunity is not relevant.
I just don't think that an Illusory Object is affecting anyone, Golem included, until they go to interact with it.
Because the Grease spells effect is a magical manifestation with a limited duration it can not affect a Golem.
A couple posts up you said a Golem would still have to deal with the difficult terrain created by an Earthquake spell, though.
What about the limited duration, magically created difficult terrain made by an Earthquake and the limited duration, magically created hazard created by Grease are substantially different in your mind that one works and the other doesn't?
Had a player ask me last night if their bludgeoning telekinetic projectile hurt an alchemical golem.
I ruled "no" but said I'd look into it further.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note, Magus are now the gods of golem killing, with Arcane Cascade and runic weapon providing them ways to affect the golem's weakness with every strike.
Assuming you know it's weakness
|
As a side note, Magus are now the gods of golem killing, with Arcane Cascade and runic weapon providing them ways to affect the golem's weakness with every strike.
I'm not sure that qualifies?
Harmed By Any magic of this type that targets the golem causes it to take the listed amount of damage (this damage has no type) instead of the usual effect. If the golem starts its turn in an area of magic of this type or is affected by a persistent effect of the appropriate type, it takes the damage listed in the parenthetical.
I don't think Arcane Cascade or elemental weapon runes really target the golem directly. (Conversely, the golem isn't immune to your weapon just because it's got runes on it.)
But it's damage that has both the magic tag and the appropriate elemental tag and targets the golem directly through an attack roll. It also is an effect.
It really fits all the prerequisite, at this point if you say these don't apply then ray of frost doesn't apply
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it's damage that has both the magic tag and the appropriate elemental tag and targets the golem directly through an attack roll. It also is an effect.
It really fits all the prerequisite, at this point if you say these don't apply then ray of frost doesn't apply
I agree that it should apply, but how runes interact with golem antimagic is a fair counter point, and something which continues to vex me.
Hmmmm... Y'aint wrong....
We should really try to get one of those designer interviews to talk about golems. One other point that I have thought a lot about is what Recall Knowledge gives you on a golem. Golem antimagic is so complicated you could easily break it into four separate checks, and that's no bueno.
The only reason to treat any non-permanent effects of spells differently from each other is prior edition baggage.
I disagree. There are a lot of legitimate questions about versimilitude and how far to take magic immunity that are very relevant here.
And it's kind of obnoxious to try to just handwave everyone off as tired old grognards even when past edition stuff isn't relevant in the first place.
As a side note, Magus are now the gods of golem killing, with Arcane Cascade and runic weapon providing them ways to affect the golem's weakness with every strike.I'm not sure that qualifies?
Harmed By Any magic of this type that targets the golem causes it to take the listed amount of damage (this damage has no type) instead of the usual effect. If the golem starts its turn in an area of magic of this type or is affected by a persistent effect of the appropriate type, it takes the damage listed in the parenthetical.I don't think Arcane Cascade or elemental weapon runes really target the golem directly. (Conversely, the golem isn't immune to your weapon just because it's got runes on it.)
It seems clear to me that the spell in Spellstrike ends up targeting whatever it is aimed at. It does seem that Runes on weapons, and Arcane Cascade don't target, aren't an area of magic, they aren't persistent damage, but they are a persistent effect.
The rules do use the word persistent in a content other than persistent damage.
So I don't think the magus has any additional problems with golems.
More worrying would be immunity to magic. Because that would get both Spellstrike and Arcane Cascasde, even though it doesn't stop strikes from a magical weapon. Fortunately all that exists so far is immunity to spells. Well apart from Antimagic of course.
Another question to ask is : how about critical hits and critical failures ?
If I Crit with ray of frost on a stone golem, do I deal double it's vulnerability damage?
If it critically fails a saving throw (say against personal blizzard ) does it take double damage ?
Technically the effect is replaced by the Harm effect listed on the Golem. So it doesn't matter if the attack or save was a critical success, success, failure, critical failure. As long as it does some damage or has any effect of the appropriate type, then it gets replaced by the Harm effect. I'm not aware of any spell that has an effect on a critical successful save but there might be some out there.
Example Alchemical Golem is Harmed by Sonic
So it would need to roll a save verus Pied Piping as long as it did not critically succeed it would take 2d6 sonic damage. It wouldn't be Fascinated.
But I can see that many GMs might just implement the normal critical success, success, failure, critical failure results on the golem anyway.
Arcane Cascade does add the Arcane trait to your Strikes though, which someone could argue makes them magical abilities and therefore subject to the golem's mechanics.
Not sure I'd run it that way, but the whole concept of "Magical ability" isn't super well defined so I could see people going either way.
Arcane Cascade does add the Arcane trait to your Strikes though, which someone could argue makes them magical abilities and therefore subject to the golem's mechanics.
Not sure I'd run it that way, but the whole concept of "Magical ability" isn't super well defined so I could see people going either way.
The game defines ability as basically anything specific described in the rules. An effect is the result of an ability. Check the CRB glossary for "ability" and "effect".
Magical effects are well defined if very broad. Basically anything with one of a very long list of magical traits, that includes magical tradition or magical school. For both Arcane Cascade and Spellstrike it explicitly says Any Strike that benefits from this damage gains the arcane trait, making it magical and The infusion of spell energy grants your Strike the arcane trait, making it magical
And now I'm going to correct what I say a couple of posts above:
The golem has very specific text it says A golem is immune to spells and magical abilities which technically will stop Arcane Cascade and SpellStrike from having any effect - even just normal weapon damage. Unless they get into the golems exception category by being of the right damage type.
Note that a normal Strike with a magical weapon is not a magical effect. The damage is magical though. Why? The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified.
Further in CRB page 451 this section was silently removed from the CRB 2nd printing without explanation or notice. Presumably because it was wrong. This rule does not exist anymore:
Damage types and Traits
When an attack deals a type of damage, the attack action gains that trait. For example, the Strikes and attack actions you use wielding a sword when its flaming rune is
active gain the fire trait, since the rune gives the weapon the ability to deal fire damage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "ability" in the case of golems should be understood a bit more narrow than that.
ability This is a general term referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules. An ability could come from a number of sources, so “an ability that gives you a bonus to damage rolls” could be a feat, a spell, and so on.
I don't think for example that a sword (magic or not) is an ability, nor is a rune. A Strike might also not be an ability, since it's not really an exception to the basic rules. A specific kind of Strike granted to you by a feat like a monk stance does seem like an ability.
Consider the opposite: what if a magic sword was an ability, then you couldn't damage a golem with it. Which means that most characters after level 2 (+1 rune) are basically unarmed against golems. That's clearly too bad to be true.
At level 3, a monk's unarmed strikes become magical, even without handwraps of mighty fists. Doesn't seem like that should mean they could never damage any golem.
Now, Arcane Cascade is clearly an ability. It isn't itself magical though. It gives the Strike the Arcane trait, and thereby makes it magical. But it doesn't give it other traits. So it can't really trigger any Harmed By. Now, if you think Strikes or maybe modified Strikes are abilities, then suddenly a magus with Arcane Cascade active can't hurt the golem anymore even with the regular part of his strike damage. Doesn't seem reasonable to me, same as for the monk.
Spellstrike itself isn't a magical ability (doesn't have the trait) but it makes the underlying Strike magical. If Strikes (or modified Strikes) are abilities, then this makes it useless against the golem. The spell, of course, is still magical and not going to work on the golem regardless.
I disagree with what you're saying, but let me throw you a few curveballs:
How about a spell that adds elemental damage to each attack, such as draw the lightning? (assuming a golem that has ''harmed by'' lightning)
Or the Bespell weapon feat which states: You siphon the residual energy from the last spell you cast into one weapon you're wielding. (if it channels frost damage following a ray of frost casting agaisnt a golem harmed by ice)
How about a white dragom breathing his frost breath on a clay golem? does it trigger its weakness? Or does it ignore the antimagic altogether despite having the ice and arcane traits.
What about the dragon form spell then?
Or a potion of frost dragon breath?
IMO golems should be immune to all spells, abilities and effects with the magic trait, which includes elemental runes (risking that you have the wrong rune and accidently need to shut it off mid fight) but not striking runes. These traits should then interact with the golem as noted in the antimagic property, meaning a magus with a frost rune, arcane cascade (frost) and channeling a snowball through spell strike would trigger it 3 times (but I could see ruling it as one time).
The literature supports all this, except maybe the striking runes.
Otherwise you kinda start having to rule everything on a case by case.
I think it has to do with the difference between physical and magical damage?
Like golems (and other creatures) have a resistance to something called ''physical''
Damage dealt by weapons, many physical hazards, and a handful of spells is collectively called physical damage. The main types of physical damage are bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing. Bludgeoning damage comes from weapons and hazards that deal blunt-force trauma, like a hit from a club or being dashed against rocks. Piercing damage is dealt from stabs and punctures, whether from a dragon's fangs or the thrust of a spear. Slashing damage is delivered by a cut, be it the swing of the sword or the blow from a scythe blades trap.
Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures have a high resistance to physical attacks that aren't magical (attacks that lack the magical trait). Furthermore, most incorporeal creatures have additional, though lower, resistance to magical physical damage (such as damage dealt from a mace with the magic trait) and most other damage types.
Which is differentiated from
Two special types of energy damage specifically target the living and the undead. Positive damage harms only undead creatures, withering undead bodies and disrupting incorporeal undead. Negative damage saps life, damaging only living creatures.
Powerful and pure magical energy can manifest itself as force damage. Few things can resist this type of damage—not even incorporeal creatures such as ghosts and wraiths.
Therefore I think we can assume that golem anti-magic immunity pertains to ''energy damage'' from effects that have the ''magic'' trait.
This makes sense because they already have a physical damage resistance, and as a rule of thumb you don't apply two resistances to one effect (unless that resistance encompasses all the damages in one effect)
But it is tenuous at best.
|
I'm not sure I can really see a valid case for any effect, attack, spell, or ability that has ANY Magical Trait or source whatsoever that should be bypassed other than the exception that was made for Cold and Water to deal huge amounts of damage, to be healed by Acid effects, and to be Slowed by Earth, and honestly, this relates to every Rune in the book.
Relying on mundane Weapons, Attacks, Conditions, and the like such as an arsenal of Alchemical items and effects that are excepted in the Golem Antimagic rules for each creature really does seem to pretty much be the intended method for dealing with them pretty much universally.
If I had a table that encountered one and had 0 alternative options that are not Magical on some level I'd allow any Magical Weapons to deal damage as though they were NOT Magical (Including any +X bonuses from Potency Runes) so they can at least try to deal their base Weapon Damage plus any non-magical effects that would apply to that, and sure, it's going to be pitiful damage since they have physical damage resistance too but... that's just how it goes.
It doesn't exactly feel very "fair" to be honest but immunity is immunity and without clearer and more detailed descriptions of what that means with regard to the huge variety of attacks that have some magical component to them that is just the way of things. That said, there are dozens of effects all the way down to the Cantrip tier which can simply be spammed to turn this kind of encounter into little more than a bump in the road which suggests to me that the creature really is simply intended, like most other Golems, to be incredibly tough enemies unless you bring the right tools and are prepared to target their weaknesses.
|
|
I think it has to do with the difference between physical and magical damage?
Like golems (and other creatures) have a resistance to something called ''physical''
** spoiler omitted **
Which is differentiated from
** spoiler omitted **...
That doesn't actually prove your point. It says elemental damage is often caused by magic, but the alchemist shows that it's not a fixed rule. Or you know, a volcano; not magical. Burns a golem just fine.
Elemental runes are magic things, yes. But not in a way that striking or potency runes aren't also.
Well that's why I said elemental damage with the "magical" trait.
That way elemental damage without it still goes through.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had a table that encountered one and had 0 alternative options that are not Magical on some level I'd allow any Magical Weapons to deal damage as though they were NOT Magical (Including any +X bonuses from Potency Runes) so they can at least try to deal their base Weapon Damage plus any non-magical effects that would apply to that, and sure, it's going to be pitiful damage since they have physical damage resistance too but... that's just how it goes.
While I get where you're coming from from a RAW standpoint. I really don't see this as a practical interpretation, especially as you get higher and higher in levels and magic weapons become increasingly essential to the game's math.
With a mundane greatsword, a level 20 fighter deals around one damage per round to an adamantine golem, a level-2 enemy that the encounter builder rates a "trivial" threat to a full party... and even a "moderate" threat to just the fighter alone.
I think "ability" in the case of golems should be understood a bit more narrow than that.
ability This is a general term referring to rules that provide an exception to the basic rules. An ability could come from a number of sources, so “an ability that gives you a bonus to damage rolls” could be a feat, a spell, and so on.I don't think for example that a sword (magic or not) is an ability, nor is a rune. A Strike might also not be an ability, since it's not really an exception to the basic rules. A specific kind of Strike granted to you by a feat like a monk stance does seem like an ability.
Consider the opposite: what if a magic sword was an ability, then you couldn't damage a golem with it. Which means that most characters after level 2 (+1 rune) are basically unarmed against golems. That's clearly too bad to be true.
At level 3, a monk's unarmed strikes become magical, even without handwraps of mighty fists. Doesn't seem like that should mean they could never damage any golem.
Now, Arcane Cascade is clearly an ability. It isn't itself magical though. It gives the Strike the Arcane trait, and thereby makes it magical. But it doesn't give it other traits. So it can't really trigger any Harmed By. Now, if you think Strikes or maybe modified Strikes are abilities, then suddenly a magus with Arcane Cascade active can't hurt the golem anymore even with the regular part of his strike damage. Doesn't seem reasonable to me, same as for the monk.
Spellstrike itself isn't a magical ability (doesn't have the trait) but it makes the underlying Strike magical. If Strikes (or modified Strikes) are abilities, then this makes it useless against the golem. The spell, of course, is still magical and not going to work on the golem regardless.
I go with a very broad definition of "ability" and "effect" its basically every specific game element. Anything that is not a general rule. Even Strike. It would create gaps in things like Protection or Anti Magic Field, and other defensive powers if it was not.
A Strike with a magic weapon is not a magical ability even though it does magical damage. The rules for subordinate actions say that.
Yes maybe you could read Mystics Strike for a monk so that they are often useless against a golem. I'm not sure its that clear cut as it seems to be referencing damage in particular there. But they do have a weapon option. A Magus is screwed with Arcane Cascade and SpellStrike. But if they get the right effect they are fine, plus they can just do a normal strike. They do have options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it has to do with the difference between physical and magical damage?
Like golems (and other creatures) have a resistance to something called ''physical''
** spoiler omitted **
Which is differentiated from
** spoiler omitted **...
What's quoted is not a difference between physical and magical damage, but rather between physical damage and energy damage. Even the definition of physical damage mentions it comes from "a handful spells" and energy damage can likewise come from non-magical means as Ascalaphus mentioned. In fact, the rules for physical damage as quoted mention that "Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures have a high resistance to physical attacks that aren't magical (attacks that lack the magical trait)." What would be the point of saying "that aren't magical" if physical was the opposite of magical?
As written, and I believe purposefully, physical damage simply refers to piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning and is used so the rules don't need to say "piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning" over and over again. Magic and mundane means can both deal physical damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a separate note, I think the intention of golems' immunity to "spells and magical abilities other than its own" is to make it immune to spells, and to cover its basis, immune to things that essentially function as spells but aren't technically spells, or, put another way "magical abilities" i.e. abilities that are fundamentally magical in nature. Swinging a weapon is not, imo, an ability that is fundamentally magical, and the runes on the weapon don't change that even if there is some kind of magic involved. Under normal circumstances this would just be my opinion and I would totally understand people disagreeing, but as Squiggit mentioned the math just flat-out doesn't work if we treat the golem as immune to weapon runes, and there's nothing to indicate that it would be immune to some runes but not others, so at the very least I think that kind of has to be the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a separate note, I think the intention of golems' immunity to "spells and magical abilities other than its own" is to make it immune to spells, and to cover its basis, immune to things that essentially function as spells but aren't technically spells, or, put another way "magical abilities" i.e. abilities that are fundamentally magical in nature. Swinging a weapon is not, imo, an ability that is fundamentally magical, and the runes on the weapon don't change that even if there is some kind of magic involved. Under normal circumstances this would just be my opinion and I would totally understand people disagreeing, but as Squiggit mentioned the math just flat-out doesn't work if we treat the golem as immune to weapon runes, and there's nothing to indicate that it would be immune to some runes but not others, so at the very least I think that kind of has to be the case.
I repeat a Strike is not a magical ability. The runes on a weapon make the damage magical, but the Strike is not magical
Isn't that basically what I said?
I think it has to do with the difference between physical and magical damage?
Like golems (and other creatures) have a resistance to something called ''physical''
** spoiler omitted **
Which is differentiated from
** spoiler omitted **...
What's quoted is not a difference between physical and magical damage, but rather between physical damage and energy damage. Even the definition of physical damage mentions it comes from "a handful spells" and energy damage can likewise come from non-magical means as Ascalaphus mentioned. In fact, the rules for physical damage as quoted mention that "Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures have a high resistance to physical attacks that aren't magical (attacks that lack the magical trait)." What would be the point of saying "that aren't magical" if physical was the opposite of magical?
As written, and I believe purposefully, physical damage simply refers to piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning and is used so the rules don't need to say "piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning" over and over again. Magic and mundane means can both deal physical damage.
You're right on all counts.
The difference here is that I was trying to outline that since golems have resistance to physical magical damage, their immunity to magical damage should only apply to non physical (elemental) damage, since these fields do not overlap usually. And to spells and such.
This interpretation (and I did say it was tenuous but at this point I think we all kinds know how it SHOULD work, were just trying to find wording that makes sense for that) makes spells like TKP and weapon storm and such valid against golems (albeit greatly reduced).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TKP I think is quite clear. It's a spell, therefore the antimagic applies.
This goes a bit against the intuition of TKP that it's just magic propelling a rock into the golem's face and that rocks can hurt golems. But it really is just a spell targeting the golem, and it's immune.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swinging a weapon is not, imo, an ability that is fundamentally magical, and the runes on the weapon don't change that even if there is some kind of magic involved.
Pretty much this.
Though it's worth noting I can see why it might be argued for Arcane Cascade to work differently, because it specifically adds the arcane trait to your strikes.
Which is honestly a little weird, nothing else works that way.
|
|
Swinging a weapon is not, imo, an ability that is fundamentally magical, and the runes on the weapon don't change that even if there is some kind of magic involved.Pretty much this.
Though it's worth noting I can see why it might be argued for Arcane Cascade to work differently, because it specifically adds the arcane trait to your strikes.
Which is honestly a little weird, nothing else works that way.
I think it's awkwardly written, not unlike say some of the other sentences in Arcane Cascade (the infamous requirements line).
Any Strike that benefits from this damage gains the arcane trait, making it magical.
I think the point was to make the damage magical, not the Strike. Read extremely literally, it does the opposite.
Well... no. 'Strike ... gains arcane trait', that is very clear. And I just can't read 'it' in 'making it magical' as 'strike'. But even if that were true, that doesn't matter. Strike still has arcane trait, and this still makes it magical (because of general rules for traditions traits) not just its damage.
Any Strike that benefits from this damage gains the arcane trait, making it magical.I think the point was to make the damage magical, not the Strike. Read extremely literally, it does the opposite.
Asc's point is that the stance already has one glaring error in how it is written. (The Requirement should be a trigger. RAW this stance is unusable.) It is not unreasonable to assume there may have been similar erroneous word choices. Like Strike maybe should have been damage.