Clay Golem Immunities ; Magic (see below help) "Golem Antimagic"

[TRDG]

OK a stupid question but if nothing is listed for a type of magic then just does regular damage?

"
Golem Antimagic harmed by cold and water (5d10, 2d6 from areas or persistent damage); healed by acid (area 2d6 HP); slowed by earth"

I get that part and read the full Antimagic section, BUT

What effect does a fireball have on a Clay Golem

Thanks

Tom

[thenobledrake]

fireball has no effect on a clay golem because it, being a golem, is immune to all magic other than things specifically called out as harming, healing, or slowing it.

[Lanathar]

And to clarify - if a water elemental sorcerer used any spell it would do 5d10? Be it a level 1 who scores a lucky hit with “produce water” or level 20 using a heightened hydraulic push and scoring a critical success (22d6) ?

And a “waterball” does 2d6 whether it is the level 3 or level 9 version?

Golems seems to have a lot more vulnerabilities than they used to. And most have them with water from my recollection. Why the water thing ?

[Zapp]

The golem would take the same 5d10 damage from the lowest water cantrip as from the mightiest high-level water spell.

I guess they could have explained it more clearly*, but it's simple: no spell works as normal on a golem unless specifically mentioned.

Golems are either completely immune - no effect at all; or they suffer precisely the specified effect for that type of golem, replacing any regular effect for that spell.

*) the text does say it, but spread out over several paragraphs. It's this instead of that, and that instead of this. What all this amounts to is the above: no spell works as normal (unless explicitly mentioned as such).

[TRDG]

Thanks gang, I usually GM but in this game I am a player (Cult of Cinders) and we are at the Temple.

GM and I disagreed, his take not mentioned so any fire spells work as normal, Mine, only things listed work, otherwise no effect.

Made a hard fight very easy, but it happens from time to time.

Thanks again

Tom

[Taja the Barbarian]

Golem Antimagic (Bestiary pg. 184) wrote:

A golem is immune to spells and magical abilities other than its own, but each type of golem is affected by a few types of magic in special ways. These exceptions are listed in shortened form in the golem’s stat block, with the full rules appearing here. If an entry lists multiple types (such as “cold and water”), either type of spell can affect the golem.

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.
Healed By Any magic of this type that targets the golem makes the golem lose the slowed condition and gain HP equal to half the damage the spell would have dealt. If the golem starts its turn in an area of this type of magic, it gains the HP listed in the parenthetical.
Slowed By Any magic of this type that targets the golem causes it to be slowed 1 for 2d6 rounds instead of the usual effect. If the golem starts its turn in an area of this type of magic, it’s slowed 1 for that round.
Vulnerable To Each golem is vulnerable to one or more specific spells, with the effects described in its stat block.

If the spell you used doesn't fall into one of the specific exceptions listed, it does nothing (to the golem at least).

[Aswaarg]

It´s a silly question but. Is the golem immune to attacks made with magical weapons (weapons with runes)?

Or is immune to the damge frome the striking rune and only a apply the base damage frome the weapon? Does the +1 potency rune apply to the atack against the golem if he is immune?

[thenobledrake]

Aswaarg wrote:

It´s a silly question but. Is the golem immune to attacks made with magical weapons (weapons with runes)?

No.

Aswaarg wrote:

Or is immune to the damge frome the striking rune and only a apply the base damage frome the weapon?

Also no.

Aswaarg wrote:

Does the +1 potency rune apply to the atack against the golem if he is immune?

Yes it does.

While the trait causing magic to affect golems differently is called "Golem Antimagic" and the stat block lists "magic" as an immunity, the text of the feature is specific that it is refering to spells and magical abilities - not to magic of all varieties.

So the only thing that magic weapon users need to be mindful of is that golems usually have Resistance physical X (except adamantine) that will impact damage dealt even by magical weapons.

[TRDG]

OK, the GM and I are still at loggerheads here.

First it was a Fire Wall spell, not a Fireball, sorry.

Next, his take is still nothing listed as immune to fire, so the spell just created fire it walked through so it counts........

I contend it is from a spell so it does fall into the Golem Antimagic.

His example was if someone poured oil in a circle then set it on fire, I can see that but then it is natural fire and would I think do regular damage, but only if created and made naturally, not magic.

Thoughts?

Tom

[Ubertron_X]

Damage or effects do work on Golems for as long as the damage or effect is not caused by magic that is directly targeting or trying to interact with the Golem.

If you cast Earthquake at the ground a Golem will still have to deal with difficult terrain, and check penalities if the ground is shaking, he will have to make reflex saves and possibly take falling damage if there are fissures and he will take bludgeoning damage if a stucture collapses on top of him.

Likewise a Golem will take fire when trying to cross a river of lava (natural cause) but will not take any damage when passing through a Wall of Fire (magical cause), except when this is would be his very weakness.

[Taja the Barbarian]

TRDG wrote:

OK, the GM and I are still at loggerheads here.

First it was a Fire Wall spell, not a Fireball, sorry.

Next, his take is still nothing listed as immune to fire, so the spell just created fire it walked through so it counts........

I contend it is from a spell so it does fall into the Golem Antimagic.

His example was if someone poured oil in a circle then set it on fire, I can see that but then it is natural fire and would I think do regular damage, but only if created and made naturally, not magic.

Thoughts?

Tom

Nope, I gotta disagree with your GM here: Both Fireball and Fire Wall are evocation spells that create fire where there was none before. The fact that the wall hangs around for a minute does not make its flames any less magical (the fact that it could be removed entirely with a subsequent Dispel Magic strongly reinforces its magical nature).

[MaxAstro]

Now if you really want to start a debate, the proper question to ask is "can Telekinetic Projectile harm a golem?"

:P

[KrispyXIV]

MaxAstro wrote:

Now if you really want to start a debate, the proper question to ask is "can Telekinetic Projectile harm a golem?"

:P

I ruled against that, as raw its magic. It felt REALLY bad though. Probably would reverse that.

I ruled in favor of Illusions working though - the spell doesn't directly interact with the golem, and they aren't immune to the traits keywords listed on Illusory Object (ie, golem are explicitly immune to Mental, but illusions are not until they interact with you, like illusory creature). Illusion spells are more like holograms as written than phantasms, except where they are explicitly phantasms.

But if you were gonna go strictly by raw... its magic. Does the golem have perfect True Seeing as well? That seems like a bit much, but...

[Kelseus]

I would say a golem would not have to make a save for any illusion. Once they interact with it, it is "disbelieved" but that doesn't mean that it immediately sees through an illusory wall or can ignore an illusory sound.

[Kennethray]

What about the grease spell. This came up during a pfs game.

[Demonknight]

Kennethray wrote:

What about the grease spell. This came up during a pfs game.

It fails to affect the golem, the area of the Grease spell still is the area of a ative spell that the Golem is immune to.

[Ubertron_X]

Demonknight wrote:

Kennethray wrote:

What about the grease spell. This came up during a pfs game.

It fails to affect the golem, the area of the Grease spell still is the area of a ative spell that the Golem is immune to.

Because the Grease spells effect is a magical manifestation with a limited duration it can not affect a Golem.

In contrast to Grease or Wall of Fire a Wall of Stone spell can and will affect a Golem. This is because the instance a wall of stone has been cast it has become a permanent physical manifestation.

[Prethen]

Spiked pit? Would they just be able to stand on an open space while everyone else might fall in that stand near it?

[Evilgm]

Prethen wrote:

Spiked pit? Would they just be able to stand on an open space while everyone else might fall in that stand near it?

Assuming a PF2 Spiked Pit spell would work similar to the PF1 Spiked Pit spell, then the Golem would be immune- the spell doesn't actually make a pit in the ground, it opens an extra-dimensional space and so is very much a spell effect.

[voideternal]

I guess the root of the weirdness is that in the transition from PF1 to PF2, the concept of spell resistance was removed. Most of the previously SR: no type spells of PF1 are now resisted by golem antimagic. This might feel weird for spells like pits or grease.

That said, the new weaknesses applied from PF2 golem antimagic are battle-defining huge so I'm personally ok with this.

[Aratorin]

Ubertron_X wrote:

Demonknight wrote:

Kennethray wrote:

What about the grease spell. This came up during a pfs game.

It fails to affect the golem, the area of the Grease spell still is the area of a ative spell that the Golem is immune to.

Because the Grease spells effect is a magical manifestation with a limited duration it can not affect a Golem.

In contrast to Grease or Wall of Fire a Wall of Stone spell can and will affect a Golem. This is because the instance a wall of stone has been cast it has become a permanent physical manifestation.

I don't think this is clear by RAW. It's certainly a valid interpretation, but I don't think it's the only valid interpretation. I personally think because Grease affects the environment, not the Golem directly, that the Golem would still have to save.

[Prethen]

If the Golem would have to save for magical Grease...why not a magical pit, too?

[thenobledrake]

The only reason to treat any non-permanent effects of spells differently from each other is prior edition baggage.

The PF2 rules for how golems are, or are not, affected by magic are much simpler and thus easy to remember how to use accurately during play.

[Aratorin]

Prethen wrote:

If the Golem would have to save for magical Grease...why not a magical pit, too?

Yes, it would clearly fall in to a magical pit. It doesn't have flight, and it's not being targeted, or even affected by magic, it's simply being affected by gravity.

[KrispyXIV]

Aratorin wrote:

Prethen wrote:

If the Golem would have to save for magical Grease...why not a magical pit, too?

Yes, it would clearly fall in to a magical pit. It doesn't have flight, and it's not being targeted, or even affected by magic, it's simply being affected by gravity.

While I think that's a valid ruling, I don't think there's a lot of ambiguity in the rules. A magical pit doesn't "work".

If you use something like stone shape to dig an Actual Pit, sure a golem would fall into that. But a extradimensional pit? I assume that reality reappears as it steps there to match the mechanics as it crosses, and then turns back into a magical pit where it isn't.

Now... would it step into the pit? Golems aren't "smart" - most likely it treats the magical pit like any other pit, and walks around if its programming allows it to. Similarly to an illusion, there's no reason to believe that spells that don't actually act "on" them golem cease to function while the golem isn't interacting with them.

It probably would have been nice if there was a trait for spells that used to not be affected by spell resistance to identify spells which magical immunity didn't apply to - or if there were a bit more clarity how far magical immunity extends. I don't think that magical immunity means golems just can't see illusions, but I think that's an argument you could easily make.

[Aratorin]

Would you similarly say that an animal from Summon Animal just magically phases through the Golem and cannot touch it? The animal is part of the effect of a time limited spell after all.

What about the extra damage from an activated Serrating Rune? That is also part of a time limited magical effect.

[Ubertron_X]

The thing is, the only thing we seem to know for sure is that most direct spells are not going to work, which leaves all the indirect stuff open to however small interpretation.

If all magic (i.e. including all indirect type of spells that are not aimed at the Golem per se) that the Golem interacts with is indeed nullified then things like Grease, Wall of Fire or a magical pit will not work as in my opinion there is no difference in between the Golem striding into a greased area or striding into a Wall of Fire. Either he is immune to all magic and those effects simply do not bother him, or he is not immune to this kind of indirect magic and needs to make reflex saves or take fire damage.

Which means that if the intention for Golems is to have absolute immunity to magic the Golem just acts as if the spell was not in effect, which is at least somewhat strange, especially for schools like conjuration that as the name suggests actually conjure temporary but otherwise real stuff.

So for example in case of absolute magical immunity creatures will benefit from concealment versus a Golem if the hide in real mist but not within the area of an Obscuring Mist spell?

[Kasoh]

I never thought I'd miss spell resistance.

[MaxAstro]

My ruling on this has been "a golem cannot be directly affected by a spell, but can suffer indirect effects of a spell". And beyond that just going with what logically makes sense and is most likely to preserve verisimilitude, case by case.

[Corwin Icewolf]

MaxAstro wrote:

My ruling on this has been "a golem cannot be directly affected by a spell, but can suffer indirect effects of a spell". And beyond that just going with what logically makes sense and is most likely to preserve verisimilitude, case by case.

Same, if we ever get pit spells, I'll rule they work as normal on golems, since the idea of a golem standing on nothing because the hole underneath it is magical is flat out ridiculous.

[thenobledrake]

...but it's not standing on nothing, it's standing on the ground because the hole underneath isn't actually a hole.

[Zapp]

Yes, if the hole exists because a magic effect is actively keeping it open that should trigger magic immunity.

If you just go out in your backyard with a shovel, on the other hand...

So it should be easy: does the hole close when the spell ends, yes or no?

If yes, the golem ignores it like it wasn't even there. If no, it falls in (or at least stops to find a way around it, etc).

[Prethen]

The pit was created by magic, but it's still a pit. Anyone around the pit can still fall in. It's not an illusion.

I also wonder about the above question about summoned creatures or otherwise magical creatures having zero affect on it if the ruling is that ALL magic fails on it, direct or indirect. I guess if you have a magic sword, you're out of luck.

I would think that indirect things should be able to affect it, but this deserves a ruling. If even indirect things cannot affect it, then the GM has the ultimate TPK machine at his disposal.

[thenobledrake]

Prethen wrote:

The pit was created by magic, but it's still a pit.

There's two different possibilities here though. One is that magic created a non-magical pit, the other is that the pit is a magical effect and not an actual pit (not an illusion, but still not a genuine article).

One of those possibilities would affect a golem, and the other wouldn't.

Prethen wrote:

I also wonder about the above question about summoned creatures or otherwise magical creatures having zero affect on it if the ruling is that ALL magic fails on it, direct or indirect.

The magic of a summoning spell is bringing the creature to the current location and exerting control over it - but the spells that summon creatures establish they are genuine creatures, not the effects of a spell. They are, to put it back in terms of pits, actual pits dug by a spell.

Prethen wrote:

I guess if you have a magic sword, you're out of luck.

Not even kind of. Golem Antimagic is specifically about spells and magical abilities, which a magic sword is clearly not.

Prethen wrote:

...then the GM has the ultimate TPK machine at his disposal.

It's not worth worrying about what a GM aiming for TPKs can do because once a GM is aiming for a TPK it is a foregone conclusion, that's just how the game works.

And even then, the difference between a GM ruling golem antimagic applies to indirect magic like wall of fire and not just direct magic like fireball is not going to be the deciding factor in whether the golem kills the whole party or is a fair and balanced challenge.

[Megistone]

thenobledrake wrote:

Prethen wrote:

I guess if you have a magic sword, you're out of luck.

Not even kind of. Golem Antimagic is specifically about spells and magical abilities, which a magic sword is clearly not.

What about a normal sword, enchanted with the Magic Weapon spell?

There are many cases that are hard to adjudicate.

[MaxAstro]

I feel like the answer to the "pit" question is the same as the answer to "can a golem walk through an aiudara?"

My gut instinct is to say that yes, obviously golems can travel through portals, so it seems like pit spells should work.

[swoosh]

thenobledrake wrote:

The only reason to treat any non-permanent effects of spells differently from each other is prior edition baggage.

The PF2 rules for how golems are, or are not, affected by magic are much simpler and thus easy to remember how to use accurately during play.

You say that, but two posts later are quibbling over summons and different types of magic pits.

Clearly it's not that simple and clearly you do think certain non-permanent spell effects should be treated differently.

[Prethen]

swoosh wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

The only reason to treat any non-permanent effects of spells differently from each other is prior edition baggage.

The PF2 rules for how golems are, or are not, affected by magic are much simpler and thus easy to remember how to use accurately during play.

You say that, but two posts later are quibbling over summons and different types of magic pits.

Clearly it's not that simple and clearly you do think certain non-permanent spell effects should be treated differently.

Agreed. If for some reason a magically created, but real for the moment, pit doesn't work, then neither should anything else magically created that's non-permanent...like a summoned creature. Also, why would anything that had magical enhancements work on the creature...it's magical after all, right?

[thenobledrake]

Megistone wrote:

What about a normal sword, enchanted with the Magic Weapon spell?

There are many cases that are hard to adjudicate.

I disagree that there are "many" - there appear to me to be very clear lines, and they are easy to remember because it's almost all spells that don't affect golems.

swoosh wrote:

You say that, but two posts later are quibbling over summons and different types of magic pits.

Clearly it's not that simple and clearly you do think certain non-permanent spell effects should be treated differently.

It's not the prior edition bagagge I was talking about that leads me to thinking certain spells are handled differently, though.

I'm not trying to re-create the difference between spells that don't allow spell resistance and those that do, which is what would lead to non-permanent magic pits working on golems.

I'm just applying the fact that magic weapons are exempt since Golem Antimagic does not affect them, with the least amount of exception - so a weapon enhanced with the magic weapon spell would not function differently against a golem than a +1 striking weapon.

Prethen wrote:

...anything else magically created that's non-permanent...like a summoned creature.

Summoned creatures are not created by magic. They are real creatures out there living their lives, and your spell moves them from wherever they were to where you are.

And if summoned creatures can't affect a golem because they are under the effects of a spell (that effect being the summoner controlling their actions to a degree), then no creature under the effects of a spell would be able to, and clearly that's not correct so the only way to be even kind of consistent is? That's right, for summoned creatures to be able to attack golems without golem antimagic factoring in.

Prethen wrote:

Also, why would anything that had magical enhancements work on the creature...it's magical after all, right?

The book already makes it clear that "it's all magic after all" is not the case.

[mrspaghetti]

So I'm going to necro this thread to get opinions on whether Illusory Object would work against a Golem? Or Illusory Creature (at least for flanking, obviously not for attacking)?

I.e., would an Illusory Wall of Stone simply be invisible to a golem? Or would it have to save to disbelieve after interacting with it or using a Seek action, just like everyone else?

[KrispyXIV]

mrspaghetti wrote:

So I'm going to necro this thread to get opinions on whether Illusory Object would work against a Golem? Or Illusory Creature (at least for flanking, obviously not for attacking)?

I.e., would an Illusory Wall of Stone simply be invisible to a golem? Or would it have to save to disbelieve after interacting with it or using a Seek action, just like everyone else?

Its my opinion that it would. The magic/spell is not acting on the Golem in any way, and Illusory Object has none of the traits/tags that a Golem is immune to. The Golem doesn't make it not exist just by being present or anything.

Based on their traits, Illusory Objects are essentially holograms - a Golem wouldn't see through a technology based hologram so this passes a reasonability/smell test as well.

That said, I may allow the Golem to automatically count as passing any saves that it qualified for due to interacting with the illusion, to represent its magic immunity.

Edit: All of the above is opinion. An extremely literal reading of immune to magic would mean illusions don't work, but that literal reading of this ability is extremely problematic in it's own right. As a GM, this falls under my "rule in favor of the players where things become problematic or ambiguous" rule.

[thenobledrake]

I believe Golem Antimagic does provide immunity to being fooled by illusion spells - functionally, I think this would be like automatically disbelieving any illusion for which disbelief is relevant, and obviously not being affected by any illusion that targets the golem unless it's specifically mentioned as being affected by it.

That just leaves illusions which neither target the golem, nor allow disbelief, such as invisibility which I believe function normally since golems don't typically have any sense that can detect invisibility and this kind of effect also falls into similar territory to buff spells which still work on their target even when that target attacks/interacts with a golem.

[mrspaghetti]

thenobledrake wrote:

I believe Golem Antimagic does provide immunity to being fooled by illusion spells - functionally, I think this would be like automatically disbelieving any illusion for which disbelief is relevant, and obviously not being affected by any illusion that targets the golem unless it's specifically mentioned as being affected by it.

That just leaves illusions which neither target the golem, nor allow disbelief, such as invisibility which I believe function normally since golems don't typically have any sense that can detect invisibility and this kind of effect also falls into similar territory to buff spells which still work on their target even when that target attacks/interacts with a golem.

Given the example below from CRB p.298, would an illusory wall not even make PCs on the other side of it hidden or concealed from a golem? And would they need to at least interact with it or use a Seek action to get their auto-save?

Disbelieving Illusions
Sometimes illusions allow an affected creature a chance to disbelieve the spell, which lets the creature effectively ignore the spell if it succeeds at doing so. This usually happens when a creature Seeks or otherwise spends actions to engage with the illusion, comparing the result of its Perception check (or another check or saving throw, at the GM’s discretion) to the caster’s spell DC. Mental illusions typically provide rules in the spell’s description for disbelieving the effect (often allowing the affected creature to attempt a Will save).

If the illusion is visual, and a creature interacts with the illusion in a way that would prove it is not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it. For instance, if a character is pushed through the illusion of a door, they will know that the door is an illusion, but they still can’t see through it. Disbelieving an illusion makes it and those things it blocks seem hazy and indistinct, so even in the case where a visual illusion is disbelieved, it may, at the GM’s discretion, block vision enough to make those on the other side concealed..

[thenobledrake]

mrspaghetti wrote:

Given the example below from CRB p.298, would an illusory wall not even make PCs on the other side of it hidden or concealed from a golem? And would they need to at least interact with it or use a Seek action to get their auto-save?

My interpretation is that, since the intended effect of an illusory wall is to get actions spent toward disbelieving it or worse, being "immune" would necessitate not having to interact or Seek as normal and also not having any chance to fail to disbelieve.

That is the spirit of immunity, though not exactly the letter.

[KrispyXIV]

thenobledrake wrote:

mrspaghetti wrote:

Given the example below from CRB p.298, would an illusory wall not even make PCs on the other side of it hidden or concealed from a golem? And would they need to at least interact with it or use a Seek action to get their auto-save?

My interpretation is that, since the intended effect of an illusory wall is to get actions spent toward disbelieving it or worse, being "immune" would necessitate not having to interact or Seek as normal and also not having any chance to fail to disbelieve.

That is the spirit of immunity, though not exactly the letter.

And see, here, I'd say thats the letter and not the spirit ;)

I don't see any logical reason a Golem's immunity would apply to a magical effect that doesn't interact directly with it in any way. It should have no more ability to 'see' through an illusion than invisibility - in both cases, magic is creating a 'tangible' visual image that is perceptible by anything that 'sees'.

But the letter is its immune to magic, so if you say it works vs. Illusory Object it should also work vs. Invisibility because both are magic.

[Gortle]

I would have the golem react to the illusion, never take any damage from it and automatically disbelive it when he interacted with it.

So the golem is immune but the illusion might distract him.

IMHO blanket immunity to anything can be problematic. Golem magic immunity is powerful enough as it is.

[Franz Lunzer]

Gortle wrote:

I would have the golem react to the illusion, never take any damage from it and automatically disbelive it when he interacted with it.

So the golem is immune but the illusion might distract him.

With that in mind, would the golem also try to walk around a _____ pit-spell (if there was/is going to be one)?

-----------

This pretty much turns into a discussion of: How does a golem perceive the world around him? How does their immunity to magic interact with their senses?

Golems are immune to the mental trait, but not the illusion trait. So a spell like Illusory Creature creates an interesting situation. It's an illusion with the auditory and visual trait, that can deal mental damage.
Obviously, the golem is immune to the damage.
But:

Illusory Creature wrote:

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 illusion as a threat magic?

[thenobledrake]

KrispyXIV wrote:

But the letter is its immune to magic, so if you say it works vs. Illusory Object it should also work vs. Invisibility because both are magic.

I disagree because I see a line between illusory object and invisibility in the same way I see a line between wall of fire and bless.

That line being whether the effect of the spell affects the golem directly, or is indirectly affecting the golem because some other creature under the effect of the spell is directly interacting with the golem.

[Grankless]

Interesting point from The Slithering:

Being vague to avoid spoilers, there is at one point a golem that gets distracted and delayed by a casting of illusory scene that's already on the board.

So it seems that golems are indeed meant to be affected by (non-mental) illusions.

[thenobledrake]

Grankless wrote:

Interesting point from The Slithering:

Being vague to avoid spoilers, there is at one point a golem that gets distracted and delayed by a casting of illusory scene that's already on the board.

So it seems that golems are indeed meant to be affected by (non-mental) illusions.

That's not exactly true, though.

Even if the adventure were written by one of the folks credited with writing the core rulebook, the GM rulings found within it wouldn't be more than just some GM's personal ruling unless said author actually said "yes, that is an official ruling, not just my own take as a GM."